Planning Commission Minutes 03/25/2014 ADOPTED
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 25, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Ferg Jansen, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Simsbury Public Library, Program Room at 725 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, Connecticut. The following members were present: Ron Locandro, Jr., Richard Cortes, Gary Lungarini, William Rice, Alan Needham, and Robert Kulakowski. Also in attendance was Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.
Chairman Jansen thanked both SCTV for filming the proceedings and the Library for the use of their Program Room.
II. SEATING OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Jansen seated Commissioner Cortes for Mark Drake. Commissioner Lungarini declined to participate in discussion and voting because he lives on Newbury Court.
III. DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Discussion on the status of Meadowood
Chairman Jansen recused himself from the Meadowood discussion and Commissioner Rice became Acting Chairman. A quorum of five commissioners was present. Town Staff summarized that recently soil remediation began at Meadowood and due to neighbors' concerns this discussion would bring neighbors up-to-date on the project's status; no vote would be required by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Drake joined the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Meadowood's representative advised that today they completed removal of all materials containing residual pesticides from the site as required by the Settlement Agreement and tomorrow they begin the 2-3 week process of bringing in topsoil to restore the site to its original condition by end/May. Town Staff have been provided: weekly reports stating how much material is left; soil monitoring reports with soil tested below the 2-feet removed, as well as on embankments and at the removal edge; and daily air monitoring reports have also been provided with all indicating non-detect. The Commissioners were provided a copy of the 3/19/14 report confirming this information.
Alan Richards of 3 Newbury Court expressed his expectation that under the Settlement Agreement neighbors would be notified when work began. He related a near collision with a truck and that road cleanup took 7-10 days to begin; in the meantime, his son hit a rock damaging a new snow tire, and they are waiting to hear whether the Town or Griffin Land will remedy that. He asked for improved communication regarding the project plan.
Wendy Richards of 3 Newbury Court felt where the trucks are exiting is the worst location with two bends in the road and an incline. She read from a paper regarding when trucks would be allowed to enter/exit separate from Squadron Line School pickup times: trucks can begin loading at 7 a.m. and must leave the site before 8 a.m., trucks cannot return to reload before 8:45 a.m.; truck traffic ends by 2:15 p.m. allowing the street to be completely cleaned before afternoon pickup begins. Instead she observed a line of trucks waiting to enter the site beginning at 5:45 a.m. Regarding the reasons for choosing that site entrance, she was told it was because of an existing roadbed, that it was the most direct access to the area of soil removal, and provided the shortest distance for trucks to travel to reduce tracking mud and dust onto the road. She disagreed that it is the shortest distance and that the dirt is tracked with trucks continually entering and leaving the site. She indicated the road was not cleaned for 7-10 days until she complained to Town Staff. From her window, it appeared the excavation is moving toward the barn and asked if they could move truck access to that area.
Meadowood's representative indicated there had been public notice of their activities. Regarding the subcontractor trucking company showing up early, they believed they rectified that issue in the first few days; however, the residents present disagreed. They began cleaning the road on day one mid-day and by the 2nd week they began continuous daily sweeping to the present. The road being used is because it is the shortest distance, an anti-tracking pad was already in place, and they could not work eastward toward the barns because they cannot cross the wetlands, even though they have an entrance in that area. The wetlands are in the front and they did not want to put in 1/2 mile of road. Mr. Richards related that he has seen a minimal amount of traffic over the years on that road and if substantial construction will be going in consideration should be given to the road used; the trucks entering the road are moving very slowly, while traffic coming around the bend is moving quickly, and the flagman is on the school side. Mrs. Richards asked that they revisit the access road point due to the neighborhood's safety concerns. Meadowood's representative indicated they are done taking material offsite and will be bringing in topsoil mixed in with organic material. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Richards asked what will happen with soil going in, in relation to dust from wind. Meadowood's representative indicated this completes remediation to finalize all of their sites and is the optimal time to put in their plantings.
Cheryl Coats of 15 Newbury Court asked if they would continue to use the same access road when construction begins. Meadowood's representative responded that would probably not be used to travel to homes being constructed. She indicated the danger is significant when most children on Newbury leave for school on the bus for the middle and high schools between 6:38-7:00 a.m. returning at 2:30 P.M and they must cross the road. Meadowood's representative indicated their trucks (no longer the subcontractor's trucks) would be arriving at the site at about 7:30 p.m. and they would break for the Squadron Lane morning and afternoon pickup times. Regarding the Richards damaged tire claim, the Meadowood representative indicated they should talk with them about it.
Sue Bednarcyk of 121 East Weatogue Street expressed concern about the dust in the area containing serious contaminants and that was the point of protecting the school kids from inhaling any dust. She noted there were piles sitting on the property and it was supposed to be checked to confirm remediation was done correctly. She felt the Town is now liable if something serious happens. She was on the Planning Commission at the time Meadowood was reviewed and felt hugely disappointed by what has happened and that people should be aware of the poisons that were on the site. Meadowood's representative responded that State law requires all trucks carrying dirt on roads to be covered and that there was dirt on the road because material was pushed to the front from the rear of the area and then loaded to keep trucks out of the remediation area because the frost coming out of the ground created mud and they wanted to keep the trucks out of the mud. He said Fuss and O'Neal were onsite daily with four permanent monitors located upwind, downwind, and two on each side providing real time air monitoring reported to the Town daily; their inspector wore a monitor as he moved around the site and found no particulates in the air due to snow cover on the ground minimizing any dust. Regarding the Town's liability, Meadowood's representative reviewed that along with Fuss's review, the Town hired their own engineer to review the reports and sampling done, and combined with DEEP's review, they all concluded this was the only site area requiring remediation and the rest of the area is acceptable per State requirements. The Town was provided a copy for the first phase done two years ago; similarly, the Town would be provided a copy of this report when it is complete as the Town will not allow the project to be developed until this section's remediation is completed. The Town has the option to require additional sampling; weekly reports have been provided to the Town.
An audience member asked if there would be ongoing monitoring after the topsoil and landscaping go in. Meadowood's representative responded that no soil or air monitoring would be required, but there would be monitoring wells with three tests performed once or twice a year for a period of two years. The Commissioners asked about dust control during the construction phase. Meadowood's representative responded that they would abide by State requirements for particulate matter in the air. Regarding future communications, they would be posted on the Town website in the Planning section, although there would not be postings every time the developer works on a new house. Town Staff reviewed that previous notices were posted both on the Town website and in the newspaper and invited residents to contact them with any questions and requests for information.
Ann Weld of 5 Heather Lane asked if the developer would be providing a future report or checklist to the Planning Commission. Town Staff indicated once the remediation is completed in accordance with the Agreement on file, they will keep the Commission and residents informed of completion. The Commissioners added that as long as the developer fulfills the Agreement, and Town Staff is monitoring this work, the Commission has no further recourse. Ms. Weld felt the developer is trying to satisfy concerns and the more information available to residents, the better. The Commissioners reviewed that this probably was the best time of year for this work to be completed, although the necessary entry/exit location was a safety issue. Mrs. Richards did not dispute the development going forward, but remained concerned about the entry/exit safety. The developer confirmed they would continue to have a flag person onsite as they bring in topsoil. A Simscroft representative indicated he keeps in touch weekly with Salters and the Police Department so they kept up-to-date regarding any issues. Mrs. Richards asked if the Town could put up a permanent blind drive sign to warn drivers; Town Staff responded they would follow up on that.
A Griffin Land representative expressed appreciation for resident's concerns and noted that this project between Riverbend and the Town has been going on for about 16 years. There was a Settlement Agreement with approvals on record and available to residents for more than four years that included a comprehensive soil relocation and remediation plan. Part of the plan established a chain of communication with Town Staff's guidance on this portion of the project, including when it would be best to do this work, and the Town then notified residents. There has been good communication between the Town, Riverbend and Griffin Land, but they are willing to look at ways to improve communication provided it is within the negotiated Settlement for this very complex plan.
Chairman Jansen rejoined the meeting.
b. Informal discussion about the Ellsworth property
T.J. Donohue representing for the Ellsworth family appeared informally before the Commission to discuss the Tanager Hill property on East Weatogue Street with the goal of assuring the 75 acres goes to the Simsbury Land Trust (SLT). Their representative summarized that the Ellsworth family has owned Tanager Hill for over 80 years; it contains two homes and vast open space with significant geological features. After many years discussing strategies to conserve the property, a contract was signed in 2012 under which 91 acres would be sold to SLT; as part of the contract the Ellsworth’s would make a significant gift toward the purchase. While the contract had great support among private and public sponsors, last year they were advised a federal party could no longer contribute a significant amount as budgeted and planned. Consequently, they have returned to the Commission to discuss an alternate plan which would provide that the 75 best acres for habitat features, recreation and corridor values would be sold to SLT; and 16 acres would be carved out for development of 3 lots in the most suitable area having low impact features, enhancing surrounding properties, and reducing impacts. This would be accomplished with Town Staff and Commission guidance; specific feedback was requested for: 1) the 3-lot configuration fulfilling all subdivision and re-subdivision requirements for open space for the entire Ellsworth property; 2) the access being in compliance with Town requirements; and 3) the access right-of-way utilizing a more efficient, smaller lane for access to the 3 new building sites on the private road shown on the exhibit provided.
An Ellsworth representative indicated the 75 acres was outlined in green on the plan provided to the Commissioners. The 91-acre property is mostly zoned R-80 with an R-40 strip along East Weatogue Street; the 91 acres was described as about 3200 feet deep and running east from East Weatogue Street at about 1/2 mile deep to the ledge at Pennwood Park; SLT property is located on the north and/or State land that is part of Pennwood, to the east is Pennwood, to the south is Pennwood and private open space and portions of 5 residential properties. The entire frontage on East Weatogue Street would go to SLT and all of Lucy Brook from Pennwood to the Farmington River which accounts for the parcel's shape. Currently, the property is being utilized by the Simsbury boy's track team for practice and it is hoped there will be more uses like that in the future.
The proposed subdivision area would be served by a private road created through a 50-foot access at the cul de sac on Talcott Mountain Road obtained by the Ellsworth’s many years ago; the subdivision would meet all Town requirements, including lot size, developable areas, slope requirements, bulk coverage requirements, and all LID drainage requirements; they would seek one waiver for the private road pavement width to be 18 feet, rather than 26 feet. They would use the private road to develop the required 200-foot frontage; the lots would run from about 4.7 to 5.3 acres. This road system is proposed because their intent would be to develop homes that are lower impact and fit into the setting. The R40/R-80 zone line at the top of the hill at about 350-380 feet from East Weatogue Street would be at about 250 contour; they believed none of the houses on these lots would be visible from surrounding streets and would demonstrate that to the Commission. They met with the Fire Marshall who would require they demonstrate fire vehicles can make the cul de sac turn; for longer driveways to houses the Fire Marshall would like a residential turnaround and that homes have sprinklers and they have agreed to that. The homes would have septic systems and individual wells. Their representative noted that if the property were developed, it would yield 16-17 lots; this plan would develop 3 homes on about 5 acres each with SLT receiving the majority of the land.
The Commissioners were invited to schedule a site walk. Regarding the lots approved for development on a separate Ellsworth-owned property on East Weatogue Street, their representative indicated they would move forward on that property as the market warrants. The 50-foot access was obtained through a land transfer with a property owner to the south and west who wanted to build a tennis court; in return the 50-foot access was transferred to the Ellsworth’s and they also acquired a 10-foot construction easement. They indicated there were no restrictions on the 50-foot access, but since work would need to be done outside of that area, the 10-foot construction easement was also acquired. If the road width waiver for 50 feet is granted, they could preserve more trees in the right-of-way; the Fire Marshall agreed as long as there would be at least 14-feet of clearance; this would also leave woods on both sides of the road and maintain a nice setting. Regarding conversations with existing neighbors, they have spoken with some of the neighbors, and when there is a firmer plan the Ellsworth’s plan to talk to all of the neighbors. They explained that the National Park Service was the federal funding source, but in the last budget all of their acquisition funding was cut and this had been their #2 property for acquisition in the U.S. The Commissioners recalled that their initial approval of the first subdivision was predicated upon a bulk transfer to SLT, even though that was a separate property. Their representative responded that it was planned that at least 45 acres would go to SLT and this plan contains more acreage than that. They indicated this was not their first choice and this is a backup plan; they would like the 75-acre transfer to be culminated by year end, but if they cannot acquire the entire piece, the land must be left in a developable fashion.
The public was invited to comment. It was confirmed that 200-feet frontage is allowed on private roads. Regarding scheduling a site walk, Town Staff suggested waiting until the Application is formally received. Their next steps would involve whether to file a topo to identify any wetlands, and to get FVHD involved. Their goal with this informal discussion was to receive direction from the Commission as the plan is formulated. It was noted that the Ellsworth's have legally signed an amended contract binding them to sell the 75 acres shown on the map to SLT in 2014; but if the Commission felt the 16 acres would be un-subdividable, they would like to know that as soon as possible. An SLT representative expressed disappointment at not receiving the federal grant, and felt this plan would be the best alternative. The Commissioners clarified that if the subdivision for this property moves forward, it would assist the Ellsworth in supplementing SLT's funds to purchase the property. Regarding timing, they would like to be through the process, including public hearings, in October in order to allow sufficient time for closing by year end. If this plan does not go forward in the next couple of months, they indicated they would continue to work on a solution in order to meet their goal of maximizing open space preservation. A neighboring property owner who has been very supportive of the SLT acquisition would like a narrow strip of land to the northwest left as SLT open space allowing them direct access onto SLT property without crossing anyone else's property; there may also need to be private access to back fields for tractors. Town Staff reviewed that pending an application, this plan regarding lot configuration and access requirements appeared to comply with Town regulations.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Town Staff has been going through the budget process with conservative responsible proposals under consideration and focusing on doing a good job providing services to the public. A number of zoning violations and blight issues are being pursued; the Commissioners were invited to receive the Code Enforcement Officer Report; the new Officer has markedly decreased usage of illegal signs. The Economic Development Commission asked that the website become more user friendly and welcomed the Commissioners suggestions. Town Staff would like to have more GIS data readily available, but it is a capital item requiring traction from voters to move forward. The Commissioners also noted there is demand for Class A office space in Town.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 11, 2014
On Line 87, the word "Sunoco" was changed to "gas".
Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to approve the March 11, 2014 minutes, as amended.
Commissioner Rice seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
The Commissioners who attended the Regional Planning Commission meeting reported that about 5-6 towns were represented plus CCROG's staff who would like comments to revise the regional POCD, including data. Because of a lack of comments received to date and in place of the regularly scheduled May meeting, CCROG is holding a special meeting Thursday, April 17th, which the two Commissioners will also attend. The Regional POCD can be found on CCROG's website, or the two Commissioners can provide a hard copy for review. Town Staff reported there would be a 7 p.m. mtg. on 3/31 at the Lyceum, at 227 Lawrence Street in Hartford with CCROG staff to discuss the plan.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Commissioner Rice seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
Mark Drake, Secretary