08/25/2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Subject to Approval

PLANNING COMMISSION-MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, August 25th, 2020
The public hearing was web-based on Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/2574297243
Meeting ID: 257 429 7243

I. CALL TO ORDER - Chairman Rice called the meeting to order at 7:01pm.

1. Pledge of Allegiance

II. ROLL CALL

1. Appointment of Alternatives: Julie Eaton, Sean Glenn-Fernand and Richard Cortes were promoted to full voting members

Present: Michael Glidden, William Rice, Erin Leavitt-Smith, Julie Eaton, Holly Beum, Sean Glenn-Fernand, Richard Cortes

Absent: Craig MacCormac, Alan Needham, David Blume

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the TUESDAY July 28th, 2020 regular meetings

• Due to Mr. Needham’s absence Chairman Rice lead the review of the minutes. Ms. Leavitt-Smith noted that on page 2 line 66 the last name Dykes should be capitalized. Mrs. Eaton stated the last name Lawler is spelled incorrectly on page 2 line 63 and noted that on page 3 line 87 the d is missing from the word land. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated that page 4 line 115 should read the word if instead of the word is before Massacoe. She also stated there should be an additional c in the last name MacCormac on page 5 line 161.

• Ms. Leavitt-Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Beum seconded the motion.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, one abstention Sean Glenn-Fernand (5-0-1).

IV. Commission Workshop

1. Affordable Housing Plan

• Chairman Rice offered to provide the Commission with a detailed page by page review of the corrections on the housing plan as it stands right now. He also asked for the Commission to have a discussion at the end of this meeting about the listening forum on 9/22/20, that is going to be offered to the residents of Simsbury. Ms. Leavitt-Smith reported she feels it would be beneficial to go page by page as she felt Chairman Rice had good points in his corrections. Mrs. Eaton and Mr. Cortes agreed with Ms. Leavitt-Smith. Ms. Eaton stated she didn’t feel like she had more to add than what was added by Chairman Rice. Mr. Glidden shared the document that had the written corrections by Chairman Rice.

Page 1: Cover Page- The following general comments are listed: use full justification for all paragraphs, ensure margins are consistent on a given page and page to page, perform grammar and spell checks and consistent usage of font style and size.

Page 2: Foreword- Chairman Rice asked for more of an explanation to be included in the second paragraph of this page as he feels there is a thought that was never completed. Mr. Glidden stated he will write out the complete Public Act and include it in this paragraph, which will explain that they are required under Public Act 17 170 to do this once every 5 years. Sean Glenn-Fernand informed the Commission that her last name was spelled with a y but it should be a e.

Page 3: What is affordable housing- Chairman Rice stated he understands what Mr. Glidden was trying to explain in the first sentence of this page, trying to explain what makes a home affordable. Chairman Rice read the first sentence out loud; A home is considered to be “affordable” if it cost less than 30% of the income of a household earning 80% or less of the Area Median Income. Mr. Glidden reported that sentence is right form 8-30g so Chairman Rice noted he would not contest it. Ms. Beum asked if Chairman Rice’s correction shown can be added to the sentence to make the sentence read, a home is considered to be affordable, according to CT General Statute 8-30g, if it costs less, because she feels that definition is not understood. She stated that many people think affordable is a lot lower than that. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated maybe it could read, the home is defined as affordable per CT Statute 8-30g. Mr. Cortes suggested they should reverse the sentences and switch sentence one with sentence two as he feels they should lead the paragraph with the Statute and then say what’s affordable. Ms. Beum noted she would still like the first sentence amended even if it is switched to the second sentence. Chairman Rice typed out a sample of the sentence in the chat box the way he thought the Commission members were trying to explain it; CT General Statute 8-30g defines a home as “affordable” if, and then finish with the sentence already written. Ms. Eaton asked if this is all specifically speaking to the word home or should it state house. Chairman Rice stated it can be any type of housing, even an apartment. It was stated by Mr. Glidden that he can switch the word house to residence however, Ms. Beum felt the word residence was very broad. Chairman Rice offered to use the word housing instead of home. Chairman Rice read the second sentence of the first paragraph and mentioned they could use the words, this Statute, instead of spelling out the entire Statue again since it was already defined. Chairman Rice then read the third sentence of the first paragraph out loud and asked if Mr. Glidden had added Simsbury’s percentage data later in the document and he confirmed. Ms. Eaton noted she preferred it generic. Ms. Glenn-Fernand asked if there was a need to continue to put the quotations around affordable after used the first time. The Commission agreed that could be changed. Chairman Rice read the first sentence in the 2nd paragraph and asked for clarification on whether they are referring to the United States or CT HUD. Mr. Glidden responded with United States. He recommended that clarity be added to that sentence and they should put the word United States. He noted he would like to anticipate some of the questions that will be asked at the listening forum and answer them now so that the Commission will be ahead of the game. Chairman Rice rewrote the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph to read, the town of Simsbury follows income level projections for the Hartford/West Hartford metro area instead of what it initially stated which was the town of Simsbury would follow income level. He stated his rationale for the change is that it is an ongoing thing. Ms. Beum asked if it should read, falls under the income level for the Hartford/West Hartford metro area. Ms. Eaton asked if that sentence is even needed as she feels it is a duplication of information. Chairman Rice noted he feels Simsbury needs to be tied in and that sentence does that. Holly stated she thinks it is good to be clear. Ms. Eaton asked if Simsbury follows those projections or are they just part of the AMI. She stated maybe it can be defined as the area of Simsbury is included in the Hartford/West Hartford metro area. Mr. Cortes stated the second sentence should state the calculations below represent 80% and 60% of the AMI. Chairman Rice explained that the table is a pictorial representation of the calculation within the Statute and suggested elimination of the third row. To ensure everyone was clear on the purpose of the table Mr. Glidden explained the table shows the income levels provided by HUD, for the area median income based upon the house size (number of people living int he house). Chairman Rice clarified that this is the maximum a person or family can earn to qualify for either the 80% or 60% of their AMI. Mr. Glidden stated that is true as long as their housing costs doesn’t exceed 30% of their total income. Mr. Glidden explained that he included Simsbury’s median income below the table for reference to give a picture of what the average income is for a household in Simsbury. The Commission recommended that be removed as they don’t feel it fits with the information relayed on this page. Mr. Glidden explained why he included the chart but stated he can move that to another part of the document. Ms. Glenn-Fernand recommended since they are following the percentages and numbers of the Hartford/West Hartford areas then she feels they should add the median income for that area as well. She also asked how many people are living in the home in the median income level provided in this table. Mr. Glidden stated he can try to find out what household size the numbers are based on. Mr. Cortes stated the Hartford/West Hartford metropolitan area is a whole collection of towns, so he wonders if more education needs to be built in to explain what towns are included. Mr. Glidden stated he can add a sentence explaining what areas are comprised in the Hartford/West Hartford area. There was a suggestion to add a map to the document. Mr. Glidden will upload that to the document.

Page 4: This is a continuation of the information on page 3. The first paragraph of this page Chairman Rice recommended they should replace the word residence with housing and take off the quotes around affordable. Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked to change the word makes to the word earning for the sentence that reads, the tables below illustrates what monthly housing costs would be for someone earning 80% and 60% of AMI based on the household size. Ms. Eaton asked to change the tense to say are used to determine whether a residence in Simsbury could qualify as affordable instead of would be used to determine whether a residence in Simsbury could qualify as affordable. Mr. Cortes asked to take the s off the word illustrate in the second paragraph. Mr. Glidden responded by stating he is going to be merging the two tables below into one table anyways.

Page 5: Why is affordable housing important- The Commission felt the first two paragraphs read well and there were no revisions. Mr. Glidden stated that text came from different sections of the POCD. Chairman Rice stated he needed to understand what is trying to be conveyed by adding the 2000 Census data information. Mr. Glidden reported that Is it should’ve read the 2010 Census not 2000. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated it is confusing as this talk about homes valued under $150,000 but according to 8-30g it doesn’t matter what the amount is if the home isn’t deed restricted. She further stated she feels the first bullet point is confusing to people and getting them to understand what affordable is. Ms. Leavitt-Smith explained every house under 150,000 isn’t affordable because it isn’t deed restricted as defined by 8-30g and so it is going to confuse people. Ms. Beum noted she feels in this document they have clarified the difference between what citizens deem affordable versus what is deemed affordable by 8-30g. Ms. Leavitt-Smith disagreed and stated she feels that adding the information from the 2010 Census is confusing and that they should just stay focused on what affordable is. Ms. Leavitt-Smith noted not having a problem with the second bullet point but feels the first bullet point regarding the Census information is what is confusing; 16% of homes in Simsbury were valued under $150,000 in 2000, this figure decreased to 6% based on current figures. Ms. Beum stated she would like to have it in there as it gives a different meaning to affordable. Ms. Leavitt-Smith disagreed as she stated it isn’t affordable because the 16% isn’t deed restricted. Ms. Beum offered that the Commission explain the difference and why they feel strongly that they must go beyond 8-30g because they need to provide housing that most people consider affordable not just what the Statute says is affordable. Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked to go on record that she does not agree with that first bullet point. Ms. Glenn-Fernand noted she feels it leaves out a lot in regard to race and the history of affordable housing in our country and what that has meant for diversity and communities. Ms. Glenn-Fernand reported feeling it is not totally applicable and barely touches the surfaces. Chairman Rice noted he doesn’t think 8-30g has any mention of race or diversity as it is strictly financial. Ms. Glenn-Fernand reported 830-g is oddly specific but not inclusive. Ms. Beum stated she doesn’t think they meant for 830-g to be non-inclusionary. Chairman Rice noted he did not have an issue with adding something about inclusivity but doesn’t think it can be related back to the POCD because he isn’t sure there is anything in the POCD that relates at this time. Ms. Leavitt-Smith read a section from page 12 of the POCD that she felt was applicable. Ms. Eaton reflected stating they started this page on why affordable housing is important and they are very light on why it is important and then they go into what their stock is. She recommended this be discussed at the listening forum that is going to be held by this Commission to the public so they can hear why it is important to them. The Commission agreed. She stated another section can talk about the stock and what the town of Simsbury has. The consensus of the Commission is to remove the first paragraph of this page, expand on the second paragraph and then add information gathered at the listening forum. Mr. Cortes asked what it means to diversify a housing stock and Chairman Rice answered stating it means different types of housing or styles of housing. Mr. Cortes recommended providing a little explanation on this page for that specific sentence because it could be interpreted in different ways by everyone reading it.

Page 6: The law: Affordable Housing Appeals Act: Chairman Rice read the first paragraph outlaid to the Commission. Chairman Rice noted he changed the last sentence of the first paragraph to read, the home’s affordability would be protected for a period of 30 years. Ms. Beum asked if affordable housing requires deed restriction. Mr. Glidden explained there is a point system that contributes to the 10% and the chart below outlines it; such as government assistance, tenant rental assistance, CT Finance Authority, deed restrictions are another way. According to Mr. Glidden, deed restrictions give the highest points for the point system that is going towards the 10%. Chairman Rice proposed that the last sentence in the first paragraph may not even be needed. He stated he doesn’t feel there is a need to talk about income again. Chairman Rice stated the chart on this page makes it obvious to people that some type of Government assistance, rental assistance, CHAFA, deed restrictions all somehow work into the formula to be total assisted units, along with another calculation that turns it into a percent. Ms. Beum asked if this is fully explained on this page then she would ask that the two sentences elsewhere in this document that state that deed restriction is the primary requirement be removed. Chairman Rice asked Mr.Glidden if 8-30g only deal with deed restricted properties. Mr. Glidden stated for approvals yes, if it is a development that is approved based upon 8-30g it has to be a deed restriction however, for a point system counting housing units towards your percent, other numbers are brought in. He stated they have to remember that the title of the Statute is the Affordable Housing Appeals Act so therefore it is specific to applications that are considered appeals to housing regulations in a community for the intent of adding affordable housing units. He added that deed restricted is the primary mode to get those units to be deemed affordable. Mr. Cortes stated there should be a paragraph that better explains this and then they can show the graph that is already there on this page. He continued on to say this could be listed on page four where they talk about what is affordable. Chairman Rice reflected to a part of the Statute that explains affordable housing as assisted housing and set aside developments. Chairman Rice noted they have been really discussing the set aside developments which Mr. Cortes noted to his point it is important to get everyone on the same page so people can understand why some things are counted and some things are not. Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked for a summary of what was just discussed as she is not clear what they wanted to change or add to this page. Mr. Cortes stated they discussed removing the last line in the first paragraph and expanding on page four where they can explain the deed restriction versus the point system. This page has a chart of the affordable housing stock in Simsbury. Ms. Beum noted she feels the paragraph after the table, that explains income restrictions, is a good transition to the next page. She stated she agrees with Chairman Rice’s corrections that she is not sure the Moratorium information that follows is needed on this page. Chairman Rice’ proposed to take out the paragraph below the table. He stated he feels that information is adequately described earlier on in the document. Ms. Beum reflected that she is concerned that people think that the state Statute really addresses affordable housing. Chairman Rice stated there are houses for sale that are sale that are affordably priced but not enough by definition of the state Statute. Mr. Cortes stated they cannot mix the two topics of what is actually affordable and what is affordable by definition of 8-30g. Mr. Cortes reported this plan is intended to teach people that the Statute does not address affordable housing. Ms. Leavitt-Smith acknowledged to Ms. Beum that everyone understands her point and agrees but stated that is why she made her point earlier on around taking out the paragraph about affordable because she does feel it is confusing. She also stated this is two very separate things to Mr. Cortes’ point and that it could get them into trouble. She agreed with Chairman Rice that the paragraph below the table was already stated and she reported feeling that less is more. Ms. Leavitt-Smith also reported agreeing that the last two paragraphs on this page about the Temporary Moratorium should be removed. Chairman Rice noted ultimately this document will be approved by the Board of Selectman, so he feels it would be important to get their input as well. He stated if they have been discussing diversifying housing stock and then making available lower price options independent of 8-30g, then they should probably know that; or if they have a policy that they want to have 20% affordable housing then this Commission should probably know that. Chairman Rice reported he is getting to the end of his attention span and feels the Commission should end the review of the corrections and pick it back up at the next meeting. Mr. Glidden reported there is only one meeting before the scheduled listening forum tentatively scheduled for 9/22/20. He stated it is up to the Commission, but they can pause now before they discuss the goals and review the rest of the document at the 9/8/20 meeting. Chairman Rice noted he would like to do that and at this time move forward with discussing the format of the listening section. Mr. Glidden stated they will pick up where they left off on the 8th and he will do the corrections to the first 6 pages as discussed at this meeting and share them with the Commission before the meeting on the 8th. According to Mr. Glidden there are 5 pages left to review but if the Commission cannot get through them at the next meeting, they can add a special meeting before the listening forum. Chairman Rice asked the Commission if anyone had any idea on how to run the listening forum. Chairman Rice noted that since COVID and social distancing it would have to be a Zoom meeting. Mr. Glidden agreed stating the only option is a Zoom meeting as the Governor still as a cap on indoor events at 25 people. Mr. Glidden stated this forum may draw a large crowd and that it would take managing one person speaking at a time. Mr. Glidden asked if the Commission would like his staff to put together a power point presentation to prompt the speakers. The Commission members agreed. Mr. Cortes stated he feels it would be important to get the documents out to the residents in advance. Chairman Rice asked if the date of the listening forum set in stone. Mr. Glidden stated it wasn’t and it can be changed. He stated it can be pushed off to October if needed. Chairman Rice stated he feels there should be input from the Board of Selectman on how to guide the Commissions process before even having the listening forum. Mr. Glidden asked if the Commission wants any input from the Zoning Commission. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated she had a member of the Zoning Commission contact her and stated they were very appreciative of the listening forum that is going to be offered. Chairman Rice stated he felt the Zoning Commission would be part of the 9/22/20 meeting. He then asked Mr. Glidden if he has any information as to the Board of Selectman’s position on affordable housing. Mr. Glidden stated he does not know and stated he has only told them that this Commission has taken on the Affordable Housing Plan. Mr. Glidden denied having any in depth conversations with the Board of Selectman about the plan. Mr. Glidden stated this Commission can invite both to the listening forum and also possibly put this plan on the two Commission’s agendas as a referral. Chairman Rice asked if they put a draft document out are people going to think that is the final plan. He asked to confirm that the Commission has to put the document out there for the listening forum. Mr. Glidden explained with the current executive orders from the Governor if they have a meeting and the subject is the affordable housing plan and they have an already running document than they have to upload something so the public can access it. Mr. Glidden stated they can just label it as a draft. Chairman Rice stated he has a feeling this subject will strike a nerve with a certain percentage of the residents and that the Commission needs to be as objective as possible because there may be biases the Commission doesn’t even see. Chairman Rice noted they will pick up with the rest of the document on 9/8/20 and at that time they can decide if they will be prepared for the 9/22/20 listening session. Chairman Rice asked if Board of Selectman can be asked if there are any guiding principles, they would like the Commission to know about. Mr. Glidden stated they can reach out to Eric again from the Board of Selectman. Chairman Rice stated he doesn’t want Eric to take over and influence the process. Mr. Glidden stated he could even put together correspondence for a referral for Board of Selectman to ask about guiding principles for the development of this plan. Mr. Glidden stated the Board of Selectman would receive it at their next meeting and they can submit something for consideration to the Commission. Ms. Beum asked if the Board of Selectman know about 8-30g because if they don’t, they will not have the correct information to provide feedback. Mr. Glidden said 3 of the members of the Board of Selectman are familiar with 8-30g and current sit on land use commissions. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated if the Board of Selectman did give recommendations that the Commission couldn’t incorporate they could send correspondence back explaining why the Commission couldn’t take their feedback into consideration, which would be due to 8-30g. Mr. Cortes asked if it would make sense to add a sentence that referenced 8-30g in the letter. Mr. Glidden confirmed he can do that explaining that the plan is being developed pursuant to 8-30j of the Statute and maybe add the language of the public act.

Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden for any correspondence. Mr. Glidden stated there was none.

Ms. Glenn-Fernand informed the Commission this would be her last meeting as she is taking on other things that will no longer permit her to be available for the meetings. She stated she submitted her resignation letter this morning. She thanked the Commission for all she learned.

V. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Leavitt-Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Cortes seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:40pm.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions. (6-0-0)

Respectfully Submitted,

Amanda Werboff
Commission Clerk