Planning Commission Minutes 09/08/2015

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

REGULAR MEETING

I.          CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Ferg Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Simsbury Town Offices, Main Meeting Room, at 933 Hopmeadow Street.  The following members were also present:  Gary Lungarini, Alan Needham, William Rice, Mark Drake, Robert Kulakowski, and Kevin Prell.  Also in attendance were Michael Glidden, Assistant Director of Planning, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.  Chairman Jansen thanked SCTV and Ken for filming the meeting.

II.        SEATING OF ALTERNATES AS NECESSARY

A quorum was present; no alternates were seated.

III.       DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, INCLUDING:

a.         Referral to the Board of Selectmen on the proposed Affordable Housing Plan

A representative of the Aging and Disability Commission recalled presenting in July a proposal to establish a Town Affordable Housing Plan, which the Town Planner forwarded to the Commission along with additional research regarding other communities' affordable housing plans.  The representative noted that a State statute requires 10% of a town's housing stock to be affordable housing; however, very few towns in the State comply with that standard and in Simsbury would require construction of 800+ affordable housing units, which is currently not feasible.  Therefore, the Aging and Disability Commission representative indicated their goal of developing a policy to increase affordable housing opportunities for seniors and individuals with disabilities because these groups have indicated they wish to remain in Town.  The representative noted East Lyme's affordable housing document provided to the Commission offers very comprehensive guidance for developing an Affordable Housing Plan, which may be less detailed than East Lyme's.

The Commissioners discussed the request for the Board of Selectmen to adopt a policy statement and the purpose of this positive referral.  The representative believed the plan was to forward to the BOS a potential concept to develop an Affordable Housing Plan in greater detail for the Town.  Town Staff added the goal would be why the Town is pursuing developing such a plan.  The Commissioners expressed concern that the 1-page proposed statement was too much of a blank check and wanted more details to be provided; Town Staff confirmed the referral would be to initiate the process of developing a plan and once the policy is developed, it would return to the Commission.  The Commissioners discussed how to word the referral to the BOS.  The representative noted the initial proposal was for the Town to establish an Affordable Housing Plan with future State plan review anticipated.  The Commissioners discussed that the Town would be in a better position with an Affordable Housing Plan in place.  The Commissioners believed that a policy as the forerunner of a plan to be in order and to positively present the Affordable Housing Policy statement provided by the representative with the caveat that an Affordable Housing Plan needs to be developed.

Commissioner Rice made a motion that the Planning Commission return a positive referral on the issue of the Affordable Housing policy statement, as shown in the italics font on the Affordable Housing Plan that was presented to the Commission, with the understanding, should the Board of Selectmen adopt the policy statement, an Affordable Housing Plan will be developed and return to the Planning Commission for approval.

Commissioner Needham seconded the motion, and it did not pass with a vote of 3 in favor and 3 opposed.

The Commissioners in opposition believed the request to be incomplete with more details required; some previous policies passed acted to provide loopholes.  Commissioners in favor of the plan believed this initiates the process and the BOS would subsequently direct that a plan be written and how to make the motion less vague.  The Commissioners in opposition did not believe this referral was necessary for the plan to move ahead; they Commissioners in favor indicated the fact that the motion did not carry does not prevent moving ahead.  The Chairman invited the representative to return to the next meeting with a re-write and the results of the vote will be conveyed to the BOS.

b.         CGS 8-3a referral on Zoning Application #15-24 of Royce Palmer, Owner; Mansour Prime LLC, Applicant; for a Zone Change from R-40 to WHOZ on the property located at 80 Climax Road (Assessor's Map D20, Block 608, Lot 001). Zone R-40.

Application #15-24 was read into the record.

Andrew Quirk of kratzert, jones & associates, inc., a professional engineer, represented the Applicant and recalled they were before the Commission informally in April to discuss this property and their plan for a Workforce Housing Overlay Zone (WHOZ).  Taking Commission feedback from the April meeting into account, the engineer indicated the Applicant submitted a zone change application to the Zoning Commission, which has requested a referral from the Planning Commission.  The engineer noted they propose a WHOZ-SF limited to single family units - of the zone subdistricts to select from; they determined single family to be the most appropriate designation for this property.  The engineer described the 4.4-acre property layout and neighboring properties/drives on the Avon/Simsbury town line.  The engineer indicated their proposal was for 15 New England-style village homes on a 450 linear ft. 26-ft. wide town road with public sewer and water and drainage by an underground onsite detention system with an overflow piped system to Climax Road. 

The engineer outlined his presentation according to the WHOZ regulations:  1) the first step is requesting the WHOZ-SF zone; the subdistrict is limited to single-family homes in harmony with surrounding area single-family homes; 2) density in the WHOZ allows a maximum of 6 units/acre for a total of 26 units and they  propose 3.4 units/acre for a total of 15 total units or half the allowed maximum; 3) following feedback received from the Commission in April, they varied lot dimensions including, doubling side yard setbacks to 15 ft., a 15 ft. front yard, a rear yard doubled to 30 ft., at least 30 ft. between houses, and lot widths were increased from 60 ft. to at least 74 ft. wide; 4) housing affordability requirements set by regulations require that 20% of the dwellings, or 3 homes in this case, are deed restricted to households earning 80% or less of Simsbury area median income - deed restricted homes are expected to sell for about $279K and remaining homes would sell at market; 5) Avon public sewer and water are available and in the plans, as required by the regulations; 6) all homes will have 2-car garages to provide required off-street parking; 7) New England-style building design with specific WHOZ requirements including, side-entry garages to improve the streetscape, along with trees and plantings between the homes for a village character; and 8) all the homes will be at least 1800 sq. ft. with a minimum of 3 bedrooms and 2 baths.  The engineer summarized it would be a single-family smaller subdivision with 3 deed restricted properties going toward increasing Simsbury's affordable housing goal.

The Commissioners discussed the definition of Workforce Housing; the engineer referred to Section 10.N and summarized that it was part of the State's Affordable Housing Act that gives Towns control regarding the character and area harmony of developments; State affordable housing is set at 30% of the development and workforce housing is 20% of the development and controlled by the Town - the income requirements are the same because the Town adopted the State standards; to qualify for an affordable housing deed-restricted property, residents would have to have less than 80% of the area median household income - deed restriction is for a minimum of 30 years from the date of first occupancy and a housing affordability plan is filed with other specifics for rentals; affordable housing represents local control of Affordable Housing.  Regarding other potential WHOZ's in Town, Town Staff indicated it was at the Zoning Commission's discretion and initiated by an application; WHOZ provides the Zoning Commission with controls, e.g. appropriate density of the number of units/acre, whether required public water/sewer are available for the site.  The Commissioners discussed whether the Zoning map indicated locations for the WHOZ; Town Staff noted for example that the Charrette for Town Center would be looked at and whether a development would conflict with those documents, or if an industrial zone should be changed to provide affordable housing, which is partially dependent on market prices at the time; also, the income level of any individual for WHOZ is evaluated for them to qualify.  The engineer noted that development of the subdistricts ties into potential zone change applications, as represented by this Application. 

The Commissioners discussed whether the State statute provides a choice; Town Staff indicated that if an 8-30g application were submitted, the Town would be required to approve it.  The Commissioners noted that subdivision regulations do not apply to workforce housing.  The engineer confirmed that the proposed housing would be owner-occupied.  Town Staff added the Applicant is responsible for the plan which is enforced by the Town which reports annually to the State; rentals would require revising the plan, still meeting income requirements, and other specifics.  The engineer reviewed the State process that the Zoning Commission:  1) undertakes the zone change process for WHOZ with a public hearing, 2) approves a special exception for dimensional standards, and 3) acts on an overall site plan including street trees, drainage, etc.; and then it returns to the Planning Commission for normal subdivision control and approval, although the dimensional standards would already have been established by the Zoning Commission. 

Regarding the number of towns in compliance with the State statute, Town Staff indicated it is a small number with local dynamics determinative, but all towns are subject to 8-30g applications under State statute.  Regarding standards for affordable housing applications and the 10% requirement, Town Staff indicated the Town must have a substantial reason to deny an 8-30g application, which would likely involve costly litigation.  The Commissioners discussed R-40 areas and the POCD goal to protect existing neighborhoods and this proposed development in an R-40 area changing the neighborhood.  Town Staff noted the Commission, in the context of the POCD, is acting in an advisory capacity to the Zoning Commission which will hold a public hearing on the Application on 09/21/2015.  The Commissioners discussed citing the positive/negative effects of the POCD regarding the Application.  The Commissioners noted on the map that this R-40 area is identified as general residential with lower density.  The engineer believed that in looking at the overlay zone that can be implemented throughout the Town and finding an appropriate location with single-family homes identified as the subdistrict, the 4 1/2 acre over-sized lot has been laid out to provide larger 30-ft. rear-yard setbacks to screen/isolate the property from surrounding homes and setting back the streetscape along Climax Road.  The Commissioners added that the POCD goal calls for "maintaining a sense of place" and this would change that; Town Staff clarified sewer service would be provided by Avon.  The Commissioners noted the POCD goal to "maintain and protect the quality of residential neighborhoods", although this development would definitely affect that.   The Chairman also noted on page 118 of the POCD, "How We Want To Grow Housing, emphasizing "market-affordable" housing in new residential developments where the income and sale price restrictions and percentage of affordable units are determined locally rather than by a state or federal program or policy."; on page 121, "Encourage the availability of a range of housing types and densities, 5.  Medium-High Density ... up to 2.9 units/acre" as opposed to 3.4 for this project.  The Commissioners discussed on page 122, "1.  Encourage new residential development to include units for very low, low, and moderate-income families as defined for Simsbury by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, perhaps up to ten percent (10%) of the number of units proposed." and whether that would apply to this proposal.  The Chairman also noted on page 123 of the POCD under, "Objective D:  Encourage the Zoning Commission to adopt regulations to enable housing to meet the needs and preferences of residents of all economic circumstances." 

The Commissioners were concerned about finding the right location/services for WHOZ's and whether they should be spread out or in the Town Center providing walkability.  The Commissioners involved in writing the POCD indicated the intent was for the Town Center with potential spreading to adjacent areas or to upgrade less attractive areas; the intent was for specific areas outside normal residential areas and this project appears too dense for the area, although approval of this Application could protect residents from a future 8-30g application.  The Commissioners noted the Application, as written, states WHOZ and needs to be corrected to apply to single family.  The engineer queried where in Town single-family WHOZ would be appropriate and believed this Application to be for a quality proposal integrating some affordable homes with mostly higher value homes representing value for the area; additionally, WHOZ should be integrated to provide an opportunity for moderate-income housing throughout the Town. 

Town Staff confirmed the potential CL&P development for rentals would have 18 affordable deed-restricted units; Powder Force parcels 5 and 6 did not qualify toward the State statute required 10%.  If this were an affordable housing proposal, the engineer indicated the requirement would be for 30% or 5 units in this plan; Town Staff indicated under 8-30g the Applicant would determine the number of units.  The engineer added that economically going from 20% to 30% could result in the developer putting in more non-deed-restricted homes and increased density - as the number on the market rate house decreases, the density increases and the amount of deed-restricted units increases, which is why the Town reduced it to 20% and put in WHOZ controls.  The engineer asked where a quality development would fit in the Town, as all of these issues would apply to any single-family residential area in the Town.  Town Staff noted, if approved, that the zoning district would be locked in as WHOZ with a special exception approval for this development as a single-family subdistrict; any change would require revision and go through the approval process; the engineer confirmed that it would be single family.  Regarding the percentage of affordable housing 5 years ago, Town Staff believed it was about 3%; for the amount approved and in process of being developed, it was noted there were 18 units approved for the CL&P property; Town Staff noted there were also 18 units approved for Meadowood and there are none for Dorset Crossing.  The Commissioners noted that as housing in Town is approved the number of affordable units required also increases.  The Commissioners discussed that the motion should be made in a positive way.

Chairman Jansen made a motion for positive referral for Application #15-24 to the Zoning Commission citing POCD sections:  emphasizing market affordable housing in new residential developments where the income and sale price restriction and percentage of affordable units are determined locally, rather than by the state or federal program policy; medium to high density, up to 2.9 units per acre, where slopes do not exceed 10% - and we are looking at 3.3 vs. 2.9; encourage new residential development to include units for very low and moderate income families, as defined by Simsbury and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, perhaps for 10% of the units proposed; and encourage the Zoning Commission to adopt regulations to enable housing to meet the needs and preferences of residents of all economic circumstances.

Commissioner Rice seconded the motion, and it did not pass with a vote of 2 in favor and 4 opposed who believed it to be inconsistent with POCD's focus on preserving neighborhoods.

c.         CGS 8-3a referral on Zoning Application #15-27 of Girard Brothers Corporation, Owner; Sunlight Construction, Inc., Applicant; for a Zone Change from I-1 to WHOZ on the property located at 42 and 54 Hoskins Road (Assessor's Map H05, Block 404, Lot 005). Zone I-1.

Application #15-27 was read into the record.

d.         CGS 8-3a referral on Zoning Application #15-31 of Condev Associates, LLC, Owner; Sunlight Construction, Inc., Applicant; for a Zone Change from I-1 to WHOZ on the property located at 22 Hoskins Road (Assessor's Map H05, Block 403, Lot 021). Zone I-1.

Bill Ferrigno, builder and principal of  Sunlight Construction, reviewed that Applications #15-27 and 15-31 were for 2 parcels of  land off Hoskins Road and requested a positive referral to the Zoning Commission for 3 types of housing incorporating WHOZ including, single family detached, patio attached homes, and multi-family for 3 proposed apartment units.  The builder indicated the current zone is I-1 and which is not the best use for this property.  The builder believed their proposal positively reinforces surrounding neighborhood character; on this somewhat isolated property, they propose redeveloping it for 25% residences; they are separated by at least 200 feet of conservation, to the north by Town open space, and to the west by other industrial land at about a 70-foot higher grade.  The builder proposed connecting proposed residences by a walkway to the Rte. 10 commercial corridor, and following discussions with the former Town Planner, secured a right of way for a stone dust or wood chip trail.

Gary Guimond, principal partner and landscape architect with Richter & Cegan, Inc. described the surrounding area in the northern gateway including, the skating center, single family residences, the apartments of Ely Place, additional I-1 land, and their proposed combination of the 2 parcels.  The project layout was described to include gated emergency access from Hoskins Road with a main entrance off Hoskins Road at the Ely intersection with a small boulevard entry to a private road circulating through the site; the builder clarified there would be associations for the property and it would not be a subdivision.  The architect showed  their proposed 24 apartment residences abutting current apartments on Ely Place working toward 12 less high-density patio homes and then 52 single-family homes spread throughout the remainder of the complex.  The architect showed a sidewalk throughout the development leading to Hoskins Road and a connection to the open space parcel for further access to Rte. 10 commercial activities. 

The architect noted this is a fairly isolated industrial property and the POCD encourages residential use along Hoskins to reinforce neighborhood character and they believe this proposal complies with that and is a good intermediary for other potential developments on the industrial land in the northern gateway; the shape of the parcels helps limit unit density on the 28 acres to about 3 units/acre - under WHOZ apartments are allowed up to 20 units/acre and single-family residences at 16 units/acre.  The architect noted that this parcel was identified in the 2009 Incentive Housing Study as a potential WHOZ with the WHOZ adopted by the Town in 2013; the POCD mentions this area as a village district and this could be a hamlet area within the village district; there are clusters of housing with open space maintained by the conservation easement along the base and significant topography dividing the parcels; some areas of open space are combined with LID practices for onsite detention/infiltration; the entire project is in an aquifer protection area and review of infiltration was reviewed and found to be consistent with area requirements; and they believe this project provides a logical transition between existing residential Hoskins neighborhoods towards potential development of this Hoskins land. 

The builder indicated for these 88 units they would integrate 20% or 18 Workforce Housing units utilizing the three types of housing to spread WHOZ units throughout the development; the goal for WHOZ is a family unit with income less than 80% of Simsbury median income - currently about $109K for a limit in the low $80K range with 30% the maximum applied to housing costs including, mortgage, principal and interest, taxes, utilities, and homeowners association fees- the deed restricted housing is for 30 years and they document and report annually to the Town.  Regarding the POCD goal to "encourage the Zoning Commission to minimize negative impacts on residential areas", the builder believed if the property were developed industrially, the noise and lighting and impervious parking lots would significantly affect the nearby residential neighborhoods; the goal to "encourage availability of a range of housing densities" is met by this proposal with just over 3 units/acre; the goal to "encourage diverse housing patterns where public water and sewers are available" are both available in this area, and they plan to bring in natural gas from Rte. 10 also. 

Regarding the housing sizes, the builder indicated they would be 1300-2800 sq. ft. with about 1300-1800 sq. ft. for patio homes; using HUD standards the WHOZ housing pricing would be $279K, which is adjusted annually.  The architect confirmed the Conservation Easement is about 3.28 acres or about 10% of the 28 acres; the builder estimated because of the slope about 4-5 acres cannot be developed.  The builder confirmed there would be no subdivision as this would be an exclusive use area and considered common ground with no fee simple interest; association fees would likely be $100-125/month.  The builder confirmed there would be a pathway to the skating center and potentially to the Big Y, which is planned to be built in front of the skating center.  The builder noted the design would be traditional New England 1 1/2 to 2 story homes.  The builder clarified there are currently 2 parcel owners under the I-1 zone, but they would buy both parcels and blend them together. 

The Commissioners liked this location for development and suggested making it both walkable and bicycle friendly.  The builder recalled similar developments they have done in the past with intergenerational residents developing into an old-style neighborhood; a middle green section would be used for LID with an emergency overflow as a lawn area with some basins also provided.  The Commissioners commented this is the type of application appropriate for WHOZ and further revitalizes the northern gateway area commercially, while keeping existing Hoskins residences separate and having apartments adjacent to existing Ely Place apartments; POCD points were well cited.  

Commissioner Drake made a motion for positive referral to the Zoning Commission for Applications 15-27 and 15-31 for Girard Corporation and Condev, with the conditions that:  Workforce Housing Overlay Zones be integrated into the whole development, including the various types of buildings/structures, and that the Zoning Commission consider a bicycle-friendly path to connect this proposal to the other parts of the area.

Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

e.         CGS 7-159b pre-application review 152 Old Farms Road proposed subdivision (Assessor's Map C07, Block 303, Lot 009B; Assessor's Map C07, Block 303, Lot 001; and Assessor's Map C07, Block 303, Lot 010). Zone R-80.

CGS 7-159b pre-application was read into the record.

Rick Wagner provided background that his family moved to Simsbury in 1952, in 1963 they purchased 6 acres at 152 Old Farms Road and built a unique custom colonial reproduction house, and over the years purchased additional land expanding to 82 acres.  In 2009, in his deceased Father's honor, they donated 62 acres to Simsbury Land Trust to be preserved as open space in perpetuity, now known as Wagner Woods with a unique setting of fields, streams, woods and walkable trails with a great assortment of wildlife.  Over the last 6 years, they have been approached to develop the remaining 20 acres, as long as his Mother finds it to be tasteful, so they have been working with LADA to come up with a plan.  They have consulted with neighbors, which has resulted in an even better plan improving traffic site lines and lot configuration.  His Mother, as former President of the Connecticut Garden Club, likes the plan which retains the country feeling and pond, preserves the custom colonial house, provides unique settings for each lot, respects the view shed and provides public access to Wagner Woods.  Mr. Wagner proposed naming the subdivision street in his Mother's honor as Madeline Way.  He thanked LADA for working with them on about 30 versions of the proposed subdivision.

Terry Hahn, principal and architect for LADA Land Planners, described the 3 parcels of property zoned R-80 on Old Farms Road between Great Pond and Hopbrook and the surrounding area, including a wooded area with clearing for the house, and a rear area with nice views.  The architect noted there are wetlands on the property and they would like preliminary feedback before requesting required Wetlands approvals.  The architect indicated for the 20+ acres they are proposing 7 lots on a  Town road using the existing driveway location up the hill to a cul de sac with all parcels accessible from this Town road, with all parcels meeting bulk requirements for the R-80 zone.  The architect noted the land is gently sloping, with no slopes in excess of 20%; buildable orange-colored areas meet requirements, except for Lot 6 which has a 350 ridge contour where no structure would be built above that ridgeline limit; there would be individual septics; a water line is available, but there would be more than adequate separation distance between wells and septic so it will be decided with Health Department input whether to connect to the water line; they are currently working with the Town Engineer regarding LID - if they go with a conventional storm drainage system, there would be a detention basin and the Town would likely take that part of the property. 

Regarding lot size, the architect responded all lots are in excess of 80,000 sq. ft. with the smallest at 85,000 sq. ft.; house sizes would be about 2500 sq. ft. and 4 bedrooms.  The architect confirmed the existing house would remain with the garage moved closer to the house; there is no open space or conservation easement in this proposal, but there is a nice pond in the area - they would use fee in lieu of open space.  The Commissioners commented the plan appeared to be well thought out with no significant deviations.  The architect noted that the rear lot has a 20-foot right of way which is well contained within its 96,000 sq. ft.; Lot 1A to the north's driveway is off the new road to increase privacy, although it could be accessed from Old Farms Road.  The owner confirmed that the landing strip is in Weicker Woods in the back.  The architect indicated an official application would be submitted to initiate the Town approval process.

IV.       APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 28, 2015

Commissioner Rice made a motion to approve the July 28, 2015 Minutes, as written.

Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the motion, and it was passed with Commissioners Drake, Kulakowski, and Prell abstaining.

V.        ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. 

Commissioner Prell seconded the motion, and it was passed  unanimously.