Planning Commission Minutes 07/09/2013 ADOPTED
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 9, 2013
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Michael E. Paine, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: William Rice, Robert Kulakowski and Mark Drake. Also in attendance was Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.
II. SEATING OF ALTERNATES AS NECESSARY
Chairman Paine seated Commissioner Kulakowski for Ferg Jansen.
III. DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE ACTION
a. CGS 8-3a. referral from Zoning Commission re: Application #13-34 of Brian R. Smith of Robinson & Cole LLP, Agent for Mark Sullivan, Petitioner, for a 6-month Moratorium on farm use, pursuant to Article Seven, Section B.1, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations, and the keeping of horses in residential districts, pursuant to Article Seven, Section B.6, to allow the Commission to consider potential restrictions and standards that would protect adjacent residential properties.
The Applicant's attorney appeared on behalf of Petitioner Mark Sullivan who resides at 52 East Weatogue Street. Application #13-34 proposes the Zoning Commission impose a moratorium for the purposes of preventing the approval of new horse farms in residential zoning districts while potential regulations are being considered by Zoning. The proposed language was summarized that: No application of any kind (including a Certificate of Zoning Compliance or Building Permit) will be accepted, processed, reviewed, approved or otherwise permitted by the Zoning Commission or Zoning Enforcement Officer for a farm for the keeping of horses after the effective date of this amendment (blank for effective date), for a period of six months or until December 17, 2013, whichever date comes later. This would be for no more than 6 months; elsewhere in the State 9 months has been used for moratoria. The purpose is to allow the Zoning Commission adequate time to study potential impacts and concerns. The Applicant has a horse farm next door, but the broader issue is that there is no distinction in Simsbury in the regulations between residential and commercial use. Most towns have distinct regulations between for-profit operations and hobby use.
The Commissioners discussed the current Zoning regulations: 3 acres are required for a property owner to have 2 horses with no need for a permit; 5 acres automatically qualifies as a farm and allows more than 3 horses and such a property in an R-40 zone is assessed as a residential lot, unless special application is made to the assessor. The Applicant's concern is about the lack of definition specifically regarding commercial aspects of a farm for the keeping of horses in a residential area and associated health and safety issues. The Commissioners expressed concern about the effect of a moratorium on existing situations where people are thinking about or about to have horses. It was explained the moratorium would only effect farms of 5 acres or greater by not allowing a horse barn/stable building permit during the 6-month period. The Commissioners discussed the effect on the procedure to bring horses on property as long as they are qualified by acreage under current regulations and the need to not affect property owner’s activities. They agreed on the need for regulations to differentiate between residential and commercial regulations. Regarding the moratorium date, it would be noticed before going into effect; the Applicant would like the date sooner to minimize its effect.
Commissioner Rice made a motion for a positive referral to Application #13-34 for the moratorium with the understanding that it remains as written or at least to the effect it covers only farms as the term is defined pursuant to ARTICLE SEVEN B.6. for the keeping of horses. Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the motion, and it did not pass with Commissioners Rice and Kulakowski in favor and Commissioners Paine and Drake opposed.
After making the motion for Application #13-35, the Commissioners resumed discussing Application #13-34. The Applicant's attorney re-stated that the moratorium maintains the status quo while the regulation is being developed. Anyone building a barn while the moratorium is in effect, who subsequently puts horses in the barn would be in violation and would not have the benefit of being grandfathered. The Commissioners noted that while the moratorium forces getting a regulation in place, they are concerned about owners in process. If someone purchased a property with a barn, they would not be able to put horses in the barn during the moratorium, and the Commissioners saw that as a problem, although it would probably not affect many people. The Applicant's attorney expressed this is not a perfect situation, but it forces the issue that new regulations should be in place and the 6-month moratorium would provide time to do the work. It is not known whether the Applicant's neighbor may be affected.
There was no motion to reconsider.
b. CGS 8-3a. referral from Zoning Commission re: Application #13-35 of Brian R. Smith of Robinson & Cole LLP, Agent for Mark Sullivan, Petitioner, for Amendments to Article Four, Section B, and Article Seven, Section B, and Article Seven, Section C, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to address issues related to commercial horse stables, as distinguished from horses maintained for personal enjoyment, in residential zones.
The Applicant's attorney indicated that currently for 5 acres in Simsbury, an unlimited number of horses are allowed and Application #13-35 provides proposed regulations to better define the distinction between commercial and residential stables. After reviewing Portland and Weston regulations, they proposed the following definitions for Article Seven B.: a stable is any building or enclosed area used for housing, feed or carrying of one or more horses; a commercial stable is where horses are kept for compensation or for use by other than the resident or owner of the property, including but not limited to, the boarding of horses, riding instruction programs, therapeutic riding programs, horse shows, riding competitions, commercial breeding, fundraising or other charitable events, the renting of horses, or the keeping of horses incidental to the operation of a club, association, ranch, non-profit organization, business, or similar establishment, but excluding established schools; and a non-commercial stable is used solely for horses owned by the owner or resident that are used solely for personal use and not for uses listed under "Commercial Stable".
For residential non-commercial stables rather than the current 2 horses for 3 acres, they propose allowing 1 acre for the 1st horse and 1/2 acre for each additional horse, but not more than 3 horses. Additionally, the stable and manure must not create a health hazard, adequate fencing must be installed, certain setbacks are proposed, no external floodlighting is allowed, and no loudspeakers or public address systems disturbing other residents. They proposed new commercial stables (not existing) be prohibited in the R-40 zone, excluding stables at schools; and these uses would be allowed only by special exception in all other residential zones. Similar to other areas of the State, 10 acres would be required for a commercial stable operation; additional requirements would relate to traffic, fire control, buffer areas, etc. The intent of this Application is to carefully define commercial operations, as the current 5 acre threshold provides very little regulation. They believe the moratorium is important to allow adequate time for consideration and input from all interested parties.
The Applicant's attorney believed the proposal is consistent with the POCD. His client lives in the East Weatogue Historic District which is important to the Town's character and recreation. The goals and policies section calls for consensus on essential elements which this process would contribute to. They propose defining the difference between business and non-business use consistent with the POCD and requested the Zoning Commission be so advised. While there is no knowledge of any neighbors plans for a commercial stable operation, the larger issue is to change the Zoning regulations to provide clarity regarding horse farm operations.
Regarding the Commissioners having the opportunity to discuss the Zoning application after the Zoning Commission considers it on 7/15/13, if wording is changed it would likely come back to the Planning Commission. The Applicant's attorney felt that is all the more reason for a moratorium. It was reviewed that Zoning may take action on Monday or may decide to develop their own regulation. The Commissioners expressed concern that putting this regulation in place could force people into a non-conforming situation, as horse owners typically rent out stalls to others. Properties changing ownership in the future would maintain their current status. The Commissioners discussed the specificity that the moratorium is only for the keeping of horses in residential zones, not for other agricultural uses. Bill Selig of 40 Riverside Road in Zone 40 or 80 asked whether this would result in restrictions regarding what he could put on his farm, e.g. a bull-riding ring. A 5-acre agricultural farm can be in a residential zone or elsewhere and excludes fur ranching, pig farms, slaughter houses, and fertilizer manufacturing; regulations permit keeping livestock, and other domestic animals.
The Commissioners discussed the line between residential gentlemen farming and commercial agricultural farming and the need for proper vetting. The Applicant's attorney reiterated this proposal only addresses the issue of horses. The Commissioners discussed the need to provide feedback to the Zoning Commission before their Monday night meeting regarding these two Applications.
Regarding Application #13-35, it was suggested it be addressed in parts, including: being more specific regarding definitions for the regulations, for the other parts specific things the Commission is in favor of or opposed to - whether the special exceptions uses should be in the regulations; 10 acres vs. 5 acres; and the safety items. It was clarified that the proposed language for ARTICLE B.7.b. would reduce the lot size required for 3 horses from the current 3 acres to 2 acres which is a more liberal standard for non-commercial stables. The Commissioners discussed whether the term stable pertains only to horses. They agreed that the proposed language is generally in keeping with the POCD. Regarding Section C. for commercial use, the Commissioners felt it may be too restrictive and too broad preventing an owner from leasing a stall; about 75% of horse owners have additional stalls for lease for economic reasons. If an owner has a ring with some jumps and spotlights to ride in the evening, this proposed regulation may be too restrictive which is not in keeping with the character aspect; although the Commissioners agreed some regulation is needed that allows a limited amount of boarding and riding outside of personal ownership; this proposed regulation forces those boarding someone else's horse into a commercial setup and more latitude may need to be incorporated into the regulation. The Commissioners acknowledged the need to consider abutting landowners and related consequences; the Zoning Commission may decide to direct staff to draft a regulation taking all these aspects into consideration. The Commissioners reiterated while the proposed regulation is in keeping with the POCD, there is a need in SECTION B.7 to change the language to allow some boarding; and in SECTION C.10 commercialization requires further consideration for all parties.
Commissioner Drake made a motion not supporting Item III. b. as written. While it is in keeping with the POCD, the Commission has concerns in B.7 about the commercialization of horses on residential property, in C.10 there are issues with the R-40 zone, outdoor lighting, and special exceptions.
Commissioner Rice seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion of ongoing Town consulting projects
*Village District Study in Weatogue
The June meeting for the Weatogue Village District was held at the Library and was well attended. The final 3rd meeting scheduled for August 8th at 6 p.m. at the Simsbury Library will be on the regulation being developed by the consultant. The Commissioners were invited to attend and can review the material on the Town website.
*Marketing Study - Town wide
The Marketing Study consultant has been contacting business people to define opportunities for smaller manufacturing, retail, recreation, and tourism in Town for incorporation into overall branding of the Town image and to determine the truth of the Town. The SimsburyStrategy.com website is continually updated. The final meeting is projected for August and the Commissioners will be notified of the exact date.
*The Hartford Land Use Study status
Three consultants are under consideration for the Hartford Study with each having provided very good and very different presentations over a 5-hour period. A scoring sheet was sent out to participants to get a good recommendation for a final consultant. The goal is to move forward by the end of September with a lot of preparation activity planned for August. All the consulting firms under consideration perform work nationally.
V. COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Regarding the Big Y, all information has been provided to DOT with imminent permit issuance anticipated. In a July 3rd letter from Big Y, there are some minor easement issues regarding driveway entrances/exits and the Town Attorney is preparing the documents. Construction excavation would likely begin in August.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 11, 2013
The meeting minutes for June 11, 2013, were tabled until the next meeting.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Commissioner Rice seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________