11/10/2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Subject to Approval

PLANNING COMMISSION-MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, November 10th, 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 7:00pm.

1. Pledge of Allegiance

II. ROLL CALL

1. Appointment of Alternatives: N/A

Present: Michael Glidden, William Rice, Erin Leavitt-Smith, Julie Eaton, Alan Needham, Holly Beum, Craig MacCormac, David Blume, Richard Cortes

Absent: N/A

• Chairman Rice made a motion to move the approval of the minutes for the October 27th, 2020 meeting to follow the public workshop. Mr. Needham seconded the motion.

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

III. Public Workshop

1. Affordable Housing Plan

• Chairman Rice started by explaining this is a public workshop related to the Affordable Housing Plan that the Simsbury Planning Commission has been drafting. He explained that this listening session is to be able to hear what the members of the public have to say to the Commission. He explained this is intended to give the Commission insight and information that they can use to finalize the Affordable Housing Plan. Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden to present the same power point introductory presentation that was used at the last listening session two weeks ago. Chairman Rice also informed the members of the public who was present that they will be given around 5 minutes each and if more time is needed, they can follow back up at the end, after everyone has spoken. He then went through the list of names in the order that everyone will be speaking.

• Mr. Glidden presented the power point that discusses Simsbury’s Affordable Housing plan. He explained that according to CT General Statutes 8-30j requires that each community develops an affordable housing plan; specifically, how the community will increase the total number of affordable housing units in each town. He stated the plan has to be updated every 5 years. On the next slide, Mr. Glidden presented the second CT General Statute4 8-30g; all communities in CT must have 10% of their total housing stock deemed to be affordable housing. He read the following, communities that fail to provide 10% of their total housing stock as affordable are subject to appeals pursuant to this section. Mr. Glidden then explained what affordable housing in stating from 8-30g perspective there are 3 types that provide points towards the 10%; a deed restricted unit which limits the sale or resale price of the home for a period of 30 years, government assistance such as USDA or CFHA and rental assistance such as Section 8. As explained by Mr. Glidden, when talking 8-30g, affordability means that the total cost of housing does not exceed 30% of the household’s income. Mr. Glidden reported the intent of the statute is to provide affordable housing for people of different economic means. Mr. Glidden reported Simsbury is currently at 4.74% of the required 10%, meaning that in order for Simsbury to get to 10% they would have to add 481 new affordable units or have units that can be considered affordable under 8-30g. Mr. Glidden clarified, there cannot be a single market rate unit approved in order to get to 10%. Mr. Glidden explained that the goal of this plan is to increase the total number of affordable units by 1% over the next 5 years; 90 affordable units in town. Mr. Glidden stated the Commission is seeking input from the public and will see how it can be incorporated into the plans however, wanted to ensure the public is aware that they are bound by statute and have to look at this in the context of statute. Mr. Glidden then read in the emailed comments:

• George Harris: “Dear member of the Simsbury Planning Committee, I write as senior minister of the First Church of Christ in Simsbury and a proud resident of Simsbury to communicate my support for more truly affordable housing in our town. I am not qualified to wade into the technical details of the issue although some of our church members are doing the necessary work to understand all of the policy requirements and implications. Rather, as a minister I write in support of affordable housing as a moral issue. While I have a privilege of serving First Church for the past 5 years, my experience has been serving lower income populations. I have got to know and love many good hardworking people, that because of limitations in poverty are significantly disadvantaged in many ways. Despite stereotypes I found the great majority of these people to be good citizens committed to the better lives for themselves and their children. The biggest determent to a child in school and in life is their zip code. Affordable Housing in Simsbury would change the lives of lower income families who reside here. I also want to speak on behalf of my family who before we moved to Simsbury has lived in a much more economically diverse community. Such diversity leads to richness and vitality to community life that would benefit Simsbury making it a stronger and more attractive community. First Church is a member of the Greater Hartford Interfaith Action Alliance, an organization with over 40 father based communities, we have a core team comprised of 15 members who are committed to advancing affordable housing in Simsbury. We are committed to being partners in your efforts to bring truly affordable housing to Simsbury.”

• Rick Collins: “I want to share my view of what I view on the important next step for the Planning Commission reexamination on access to affordable housing for people interested in moving to our town. Many people suggested that it is important for people to pull themselves by their bootstraps to be successful in our country. Many people spend their professional lives giving people the tools to imp0rove their lives. Simsbury should be a town open to allowing people opportunities to improve themselves and access to affordable housing will make that dream a reality. Our town could be a true example of possibilities for people of all socioeconomical backgrounds to achieve the American dream. Many residents want to make the American dream available. Please consider how Simsbury can be a leader in this issue.”

• Wendy Helmcamp: “I want to acknowledge the effort that has gone into the Affordable Housing Plan being developed by the Commission. My comments are more general than specific. The Simsbury Board of Selectman has declared racism a public health crisis; the essence of this resolution is to advance the racial equality in our town, in part by setting goals and establishing policies that dismantle systematic racism. The resolution can be found on the SPIRIT Counsel page on the town website. My hope is you will read this with a sense and explicit intention to address systematic racism in housing in Simsbury. For instance, given that Simsbury is the majority of white, the goal in the beginning of the plan comes across as if the goal is to keep the town white. While, it is highly subjective language that requires a greater understanding of the message it sends the choices about housing it reinforces. When white people are confronted with the evidence of structural racism a common response is “I don’t care I didn’t create these policies, so I am not to blame”. My intention here is not to blame anyone only to raise awareness because once made aware a new choice emergence and you can do something about it. I do not have specific suggestions for the plan as I am not a housing expert however, I would encourage you to seek out resources such as desegregate CT.”

The following is an overview of the members of the public who spoke live during this ZOOM meeting:

• Kristen Morrow-9 Riley Road Weatogue, CT: “I am a member of the recently formed Simsbury Inclusive Neighborhood Development Coalition. We are made up of members many of whom will speak today of local groups such as Holding the Door Open, Simsbury Diversity and Inclusion Working Group and First Church of Simsbury. We know that children who grow up with ethnic and socioeconomic ability and generational diversity via fellow students, educators, shopkeepers and neighbors grow into adults who see this type of diversity of normal and welcoming. Creating an environment of inclusion fosters diversity not the other way around. Within our group we are exploring various affordable housing options such as the Toronto model is a neighborhood complex of multiunit social economic housing that creates a community feel with condos, townhomes, co-ops, low income and multi-generational housing; a pipeline with different types of housing that creates a strong and more diverse community. I lived in Toronto and for 8 years I lives in a neighborhood that was the first of its kind in Canada, starting in the early 1970s. This model has been replicated throughout Toronto and Canada. It has seen roughly 40 generations of families growing up within its boundaries. It is on 44 acres of previously industrial and underutilized land. It is 70% residential with some shops on the group floor, 18% parks and 12% roads. It is comprised of 30% condos, 30% non-profit co-ops, 27% municipal non-profit non-market rental and 4% ownership townhomes. This means that you have people living there who are professionals, retired, those on disability and those on geared to income rent. I had neighbors who were ethnically diverse and neighbors who were disabled. The neighborhood has 3 schools, a large centrally located park, a theater, a community center, a supermarket and a few restaurants. There is very little crime. I feel this neighborhood is successful because there is a real sense of inclusion across ethnicities, abilities and socioeconomic levels. Inclusion built a sense of responsibility.”

• Kevin Kurian-5 Laurie Joe Way Simsbury, CT: “I am a 19 year old college student who has lived in Simsbury for all of my life. I am joined today by a local organizing group such as Holding the Door open, the Simsbury Diversity and Inclusion Group and Desegregate CT. I am glad that our communities' leaders recognize the affordability crisis. I firmly believe that int his country no one should have to leave their hometown to achieve success. As a result, I believe that no young person who calls Simsbury their home should have to leave in order to achieve the American dream. This goal is not currently a reality among this generation and there is a lot of talk among my generation that Simsbury is not for young people. While I plan on coming home after finishing my education other graduates do not feel the same way. Looking at the housing affordability crisis in our town I do not blame them. Less than 5% of housing stock in Simsbury is affordable according to state data. Recent college graduates simply cannot afford to live in this town. To better meet the goals of 8-30g we should be talking about building 500 until by 2025. I know we can do better, and we can aim higher. There is a camp of 600 square feet on accessory dwelling units, this limits the size of potential apartments. Farmington has a cap of 900 square feet. The affordable housing that we build in our community should be reasonably spacious for future residents. If we want young people to move to this town, we should consider expanding that cap so their apartments can be of a decent and comfortable size. We also have to think about changing our zoning laws so that multifamily properties can be built. I think we have reached a time where we should do more than consider if these developments should be built, we should just go and do it. The benefits of multifamily units are clear and to change the zoning regulations to allow for multifamily units would be beneficial for current and future residents. Simsbury needs to be a multigenerational community. The Simsbury Plan of Conservation and Development calls for the creation of smaller homes that could serve as starter homes for young people along with places for seniors to move. The current affordable housing plan does not address that goal. The plan must propose that they can further resize lots so that seniors and young people can live in comfort and in their community. We have to also start thinking long term. We should develop a housing plan that is greater in length and ambition than 5 years. I really want to stress that the affordability crisis is an existential threat for Simsbury, and I don’t know that this Affordable Housing Plan necessarily treats it as one. Desegregate CT has many proposals for how to incorporate affordable housing in an equitable way. I would be happy to connect any members from the Commission with leaders of the group. Here is the deal, if young people don’t start moving here in 50 years, we will be a shadow of what we are now. We need to diversify the types of housing structures we allow in our community. We are all here as one community and we should all take the next steps together; whether it is making revisions to this current plan or writing a new plan together. There are many community groups that would love to take that next step with you together. Let’s start building more diverse and affordable community for generations to come. Let’s make sure Simsbury is a place where people can find success for them and their families without having to leave. Let’s get to work.”

• Robert Patricelli-77 Hartford Road-Folly Farm: (The Commission was unable to hear Mr. Patricelli at first as his microphone was very muffled and was cutting in and out. He then adjusted his microphone. Therefore, the first part of his presentation was unable to be transcribed). “I was talking about the CRDA’s 20% target for affordable in itches projects. In 777 Main Street Hartford, a huge condo project, has 20% affordable unit. If you look at that building you would think it is an upscale development, people in it don’t know who the 20% people are who are getting subsidies to live in the affordable units. It works. The third point of reference I have is that I own and live on Folly Farm and we provide affordable housing on 180 acres of farmland. Let me give you 3 recommendations; I am not comfortable with the way we are counting affordable units. We have 9 dueling units on Folly farm; two are upscale and 4 are occupied by farm hands and 3 are rental units at $1000.00 a month. They are all 1-4 bedroom apartments. I don’t think they are counted. I think certainly the ones that are occupied by people of color farmhands aren’t counted either. I am over my head on this but maybe we need a better accounting of all of the privately held units in the town to know what the true inventor is. Secondly, I want to urge you to be much more open; our target should be 50% affordable not 10% and counted as the way I described it not limited to units that are described in the statute which seem to be very arbitrary. You ought to be as bold as you can be and pose an aspiration plan to achieve a much bigger number. Third, I would ask you to think hard about a particular initiative for the immigrant communities. CT is a great state for immigrants, and this is what we are going to see more of. It would be very exciting if we could contemplate getting immigrants to Simsbury for our school system and our way of life.”

• Alan Kreczko-5 Spruce Lane: “My wife and I have lived in Simsbury for 15 years with both of our children going to Simsbury High School. We love the community and the people in the community. I retired as General Counsel of The Hartford about 5 years ago. I have devoted much of my retirement time at the Boys and Girls Clubs of Hartford which serves about 1/3 of Hartford’s kids. One of the most ratifying moments of the past 5 years has been the first suburban support group. I am very proud to say that support group is in Simsbury. We approached atop 30 town residents to serve on a committee to help identify new opportunities for Hartford kids. Nearly everybody we asked said yes. The first focus was to help Hartford, but the committee also identified a second goal of enabling multicultural experiences for Simsbury’s youth through joint activities with Hartford’s kids. That second goal recognized that diversity benefits our community. Increasing affordable housing in Simsbury is an important part in increasing multicultural experience and its richness. It will benefit our children who will live and work in a much more diverse American when they finish their schooling here. It will make us a more attractive community to people moving to the area who seek diversity and very importantly it will benefit people of color who have been frozen out of suburban communities by explicit or implicit restrictions. I really appreciate all of the work that goes to the draft plan. I am not an expert, but I would like to offer serval general comments. As a general matter my wife and I strongly endorse enabling more affordable housing in Simsbury. We endorse the objectives of having affordable housing for seniors and first time homebuyers. The plan should include an explicit statement that in additional objective in creating a more diversified an inclusive community. Nearly every major company in the united states, especially those in Hartford, have all issued public statements about the importance of diversity and have all issued programs to promote diversity in their workforce, in their boardroom and among their customers. We in Simsbury should do the same thing. The plan should include an explicit statement that this is one of our objectives. Second, I find the plans goal of 1% increase over 5 years to be under ambitious. We would support a more ambitious goal. While the plan focuses on General Statute 8-39g, I understand that was the task of this committee, we should not be limited in our thinking of the state's definition of affordability. We can meet the state’s requirements and expand opportunity to live here by building a lower income threshold than the floors set in the state statute. We are glad to see the endorsement of accessory apartments and would suggest adding 2 to 4 unit small scale developments that can promote diversity as well.”

• Wendy Mackstutis-16 Hunting Ridge Drive: “I am a new member of the Board of Selectman and am a long time 32 year resident of Simsbury. I understand this has taken a lot of work and the value it holds for our town. First, I want to speak about the outcome from the Board of Selectman’s meeting. The Board did look at the action items and came to consensus on a few items that can be tackled right away. One of them is looking at the policy that would require deed restrictions around tax sales of properties. There was also excitement about pursuing the Small Cities Grant Program that is mentioned. That is what came out of the Board of Selectman meeting. I have some friends and constituents that have made it clear they want to live in a town that welcomes new residents and can keep the current residents here and we hope to be able to embrace people of different ages, races, disabilities and different income levels so that we build a more inclusive and diverse community. I grew up in Bloomfield and went to Bloomfield High School. One of the things I find confusing and it would be nice if the plan could explore of define is the difference between affordable housing as far as 8-30g and what is naturally occurring affordable housing which we seem to have in town; homes that meet the threshold but don’t meet the deed restriction. Which is still a good thing because people can come to town and buy the homes, but it doesn’t qualify. It would be interesting to know how that is defined and where we break that out. There is some benefit to deed restrictions and the 10% and that should be brought up to the people who don’t see it as a benefit; your still building equity and your taxes won’t go up and at the end of it you can pass on this affordable house to someone else because the price will have to stay at a certain level. I was also disappointed in the 1% over 5 years and she hopes this something she can look into. As far as next steps go I assume the Planning Commission is going to move forward on the action items but given the information I am hearing tonight and the amount of detail that may be needed, along with some resources attached to this with the possibility of a subcommittee, this is all something the Commission needs to decided. However, as a member of the Board of Selectman I would be happy and in favor of supporting this kind of effort if it comes to use.”

• Akash Kaza-2 Nutmeg Court Simsbury, CT: “I have lived in town since I was 3 years old. I want to personally talk about my own story. My first real memories were on the second floor of our place on Canal Street, we then moved to a duplex on Hopmeadow. I recall the diversity of our neighborhood with senior citizens, young people and families. Then when I was in elementary school, we moved to a new development on Avery way. Then when I left to college we went right back to the duplex. To me this shows the new track for middle and working class families in Simsbury. People want flexibility in housing like never before. Empty nesters want a place to downsize while staying in their community. Young people want an affordable place where they can start their lives with easy access to entertainment and public transportation. Working families want good public schools that they can send their kids too. Young adults don’t see a path in Simsbury or in CT because the suburbs where they were raised don’t really give a reason to stay. There are some jobs in Hartford or New Haven but unless they live in the cities themselves or in West Hartford there is no appeal. There aren’t many places for us to live and the places that do exit there is little access to good public transportation. It is not designed in a way that is attractive to us. If we make sure there are attractive places for our towns college graduates to stay the likelihood that we stay to build our lives and our families would skyrocket. I am coming back from work in Phoenix. Just about every other place in Phoenix has an accessory dwelling up and it works out really well. We have silly regulations on these units that serve no purpose except to reduce our ability for affordable housing. I like that we are talking about affordable housing, but we need to fix the zoning regulations with accessory dwelling units. We also need more synergy. We need an affordable housing plan that is welcoming to all three demographics that I have talked about. We need to create pipelines that diversify housing so people can stay here all their lives from when they start their careers to well past retirement. This plan does a great job, but we need to be mindful of diversity and need plans that recognize the intersectionality of housing equality. It is not just about socioeconomic status, there are very clear gaps in racial equity. That is something that we need to include in our plan and recognize the need for businesses and amenities in these communities compelling for the people we are trying to attract. We cannot just cut into our public land and carve out forests for housing. That is not necessarily a good idea for our town, and it would put affordable housing in more remote parts of Simsbury. We can absolutely find places by Hopmeadow and by CT Transit lines that are perfect for affordable housing for working families and young people who often get left behind in these decision making processes. The people who say we need to preserve the character of our town are wrong because if it wasn’t for this town’s all too limited cheaper apartments two immigrants from India wouldn’t have found a home here. My family realized the American dream here because there was affordable housing and cheaper apartments in this town so when I see people saying we shouldn’t have affordable housing they are shutting the door on stories like ours. There is so much for this town to gain. Everyone has an opportunity to pursue the American dream. We shouldn’t see this as let’s meet a state mandated benchmark because this is a chance to do the right thing and improve our community at the same time.”

• Danielle Hill-10 Carver Circle: “Since we last spoke, we have developed a coalition based on affordable housing. That is the Simsbury Inclusive Neighborhood Development Coalition. What we are doing so far is brainstorming ideas on how affordable housing can be a real option for the Commission and for the municipal government to put into practice and into place here. Based on the specifics of the plan I feel that the coded language specific to the character of the town needs to be removed. It reads as if we want to keep this as a white upper middle class town. That is the opposite of what we really need to be doing here. I feel that language is off putting for people who would be looking to come into this town. What we need to do is build our character to include people of different races, abilities, cultural backgrounds, etc. I think we can also take advantage of this very exciting time where we are looking at the language and the policies being put forth by our President elect and our Vice President elect and how they are responding to issues around racial justice because that is also a big factor. Being in a town that is over 90% white is problematic. It makes it so that people don’t want to move here who are of color or from different cultural backgrounds. At the same time, we are seeing these public health crises and now the COVID-19 pandemic. That is leading to a lot of job losses, small business to close and people are having a hard time staying afloat. So, if we created substantial affordable housing that would provide opportunity for the people who have lost their jobs due to COVID, the people who have had to close their small business, and the folks who are suffering because there is no control over this right now would be able to support themselves. I think there is a lot of excitement around this and we need to be bold. Another suggestion is that it might be beneficial to hold a meeting with some of the youth in the community and adjoining communities and see what they want for their future in this town. We have a lot to learn from our youth.”

• Mario Chiappetti-2 Spruce Lane Weatogue, CT: “I am speaking tonight as a resident of Simsbury and as a member of the First Church. My family and I have been residents of Simsbury for 20 years. While I know that the main emphasis of the affordable housing plan is to respond to the state statutes, I do believe that the issues we are trying to address, such as housing for seniors and first time homebuyers are issues, we should be reviewing even without the statute in mind. If we limit ourselves to just meeting the affordability requirements of the statute, we will have lost the opportunity to make bigger changes to meet current needs. We need to think more broadly and use this opportunity to devise a plan that encourages the building of affordable housing units in order to create a more diversified and inclusive community in which we can all benefit which includes housing for individuals and families from lower incomes and different backgrounds. We need to think creatively on how housing funding vouchers, subsidies or property tax reform can assist us. As Desegregate CT clearly states on its website; to Desegregate CT we must overhaul our land use laws within the existing state and local framework to be more inclusive by design, we must expand housing diversity, we must increase housing supply and we must increase processes that plot good development. Here are my specific comments and questions; what is the expected date or process for this plan to be completed and approved and what role does the Board of Selectman play and what role would you like them to play once this plan is approved? I understand there is several actions that would require different committees to work together, who would be leading these task forces to closure? I also note that there is a target completion date set from 2022-2024 some of which are high priority, can’t these completion dates be moved up? If Simsbury needs to ensure that 10% of all housing units are deemed affordable per the statute why do we only have a goal of 1%, why can’t we strive for a larger goal? The affordable housing plan calls for accessory dwelling units with a 600 square foot cap on these types of units. Can we have a goal that would increase the size of these units so that they are move livable? The plan also calls for the promotion of starter housing for first time homebuyers or step down housing for seniors. Where would this goal be located within the action items? Will the Planning Commission request that the state not grant the town a moratorium? I realize that we do not have time to answer these questions tonight, but I do hope they are addressed. This is a time to think creatively and boldly as we develop an affordable housing plan, let’s not restrict ourselves to a specific statute. Let’s make Simsbury a model town for CT.”

• Nancy Yannopoulos-3 Woodleigh Place Weatogue, CT: “I am a member of First Church of Christ and serve on the Board of Mission and Outreach. I am also here as a member of the Greater Hartford Action Alliance and the Inclusive Neighborhood Development Coalition. I do strongly support affordable housing in Simsbury so we can attract new residents who can afford to live here, retain current residents and also accommodate for the needs of the elderly and disabled. Our town has amazing things to offer and I believe we need to offer these resources to a diverse and inclusive community. I highly recommend forming a housing needs and planning group that can address the affordable housing plan. They can research actual needs such as rentals versus single family housing, mixed use accessory dwellings, multifamily units and other ways to provide housing as needed. It would be helpful to further define how we do or don’t need the affordable housing goal based on definitions of affordable including deed restrictions. Also, what other government assistance and support is available. This group could receive input from a growing number of energized community groups and use resources from state agencies including housing advocacy groups. The planning group could research actual sites for affordable housing taking into consideration all of our possible resources, our current housing stock, transportation considerations, open space and architectural considerations. This would help achieve concrete positive outcomes, help market our housing offerings to resident of Simsbury and other towns, and entice them to move here, attract new residents to our town through using best practice that makes our town stand out.”

• Shannon Knall-8 Kilbourn Road Simsbury, CT: “I am an advocate for those with Autism and disabilities. I am also a member for the Simsbury Inclusive Advocate Group and serve on the Aging and Disability Commission. Since my song was diagnosed with Autism 19 years ago, I have been advocating for appropriate services, interventions, employment and housing. We have reached critical mass on how he moves forward. Affordable housing looks different for everyone but here is how it looks for us; access to employment opportunity, transportation, access to community services and housing that is affordable through minimum or sub minimum wage. While Simsbury has affordable housing options none of them meet all of these criteria for us. While I support affordable housing criteria completely. The ones that are in place right now are isolating. There is no small wonder that the market is in limited demand. While we allow accessory dwelling units of 600 square feet, they do not capture the needs of the disability community. These units also do not foster longer term independence. Simsbury needs some assistance moving forward. I would like to see a task force that would be comprised of seniors, persons with disabilities and some of the people who have spoken here tonight is on the frontlines of moving this sort of thing forward. I would like the town to entertain the idea of having a consultant who specializes in the development of affordable and inclusive housing. I think we need to take a deep dive into a long term plan that will be sustainable for all of our residents now and in the future. We have the opportunity to be leader in CT and nationally, but we need to get our arms around some board issues. This will not be solved overnight but it seems our current plan is just to say not here or not there, which leaves us in a place of not serving the people we are aiming to serve and makes us look like we are missing the issue as a whole. I certainly know that we are better than that. “

• Chairman Rice thanked all the speakers. He explained the Commission has some discussion to take up. Chairman Rice noted there was one question he wanted to respond to which was when do we plan to issue the Affordable Housing Plan. He explained there isn’t a solid date although the target was the end of the year. He reported it is going a little slower than they originally thought and to consider all of the input tonight is going to take a considerable effort. He was unable to give a direct answer to the question. Chairman Rice asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for the speakers. Ms. Leavitt-Smith noted she took some notes. She asked if the character of the town was put into the Affordable Housing Plan as she doesn’t remember that it was. Chairman Rice reminded her that it was an excerpt from the POCD. Ms. Leavitt-Smith explained that she understands how the portion regarding maintaining the character of the town could seem to be racially basis as some have reported however, it was meant to explain how to keep the town rural and the small town character. She reported she was bothered that it was interpreted that way. She then stated she loved the comments. She gave some feedback to the speakers explaining that the point of the plan is so specific that she is unsure some of the suggestions could be incorporated into the flavor of the plan. She explained she hopes that people understand they may be limited in what they can do due to 8-30j and 8-30g. Chairman Rice explained he doesn’t want to get into all the questions that were posed tonight. He did state he feels a lot of questions were valuable questions and that they have also had some of the same feelings about certain questions that were posed. Mr. Blume chimed in expressing that the frustration felt by the speakers is the same frustration felt by the Commission members and he also feels the Commission does want to be bold as said by the speakers.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the TUESDAY October 27th, 2020 regular meetings

• Mr. Needham lead the minute review. Ms. Leavitt-Smith noted on line 90 Masino was spelled incorrectly. She also stated on line 139 wish should be wished. Line 153 Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated it should be legislators.

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

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

V. REFERRAL FROM THE BOARD OF SELECTMAN

1. Hendricks Lane Road Acceptance

• Mr. Glidden shared a letter from Jeff Shea. The letter explains that Hendricks Lane is requesting acceptance as a public road. Mr. Shea recommended acceptance in the letter with some caveats; a 1 year maintenance bond, submission of an electronic file with roadway and lot geometry and final review and recording of road deeds, utility, draining and sewer easements. Mr. Glidden reported that other than that there are no issues with acceptance of this road as they followed the plans exactly. Chairman Rice expressed some confusion on if Mr. Shea is requesting acceptance or waiting until the three items are satisfied. Mr. Glidden stated he is recommended approval and acceptance of the lane as a town highway, the three items are just back house items. Mr. Needham clarified that any motion made today would not have to have those three items as conditions and Mr. Glidden agreed stating those three items do not have to be included in the motion as a condition. He stated they just wanted to ensure the Commission was aware of where they stand entirely. Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden for the advantage of having the road accepted and who it benefits. Mr. Glidden stated it benefits the residents because right now they do not accept mail, their garbage isn’t picked up from their house and that once it becomes a public road that changes, and the road is plowed in the winter.

• Mr. Needham made a motion for a positive referral regarding the Board of Selectman's referral to them on the Hendricks Lane Road Acceptance. Ms. Leavitt-Smith seconded the motion. Chairman Rice stated he is uncomfortable with the fact that the town engineer, Mr. Shea, in one paragraph recommended approval of the road and then in the following paragraph that the acceptance would be effective upon the three items. Mr. Needham and Mr. Glidden stated that is just business as usual. Chairman Rice asked why the Commission cannot wait until the three items are satisfied. Mr. Glidden stated the Commissions role in this is strictly advisory, meaning they are to look at if the road was built to the plans which it was. He stated the rest of the sis the housekeeping that is dealt with on all approved subdivisions. He reminded Chairman Rice that this is the way it was done with Murphy’s turn as well. Chairman Rice said he isn’t so sure about that. Mr. Blume recommended the motion be amended to include that the approval is upon completion of the three items. Ms. Leavitt-Smith noted that is already what the letter says however, Mr. Blume felt their motion should say the same thing. He stated he knows it is housekeeping, but he thinks it is important housekeeping. Mr. Needham withdrew the motion. Mr. MacCormac made a motion that they pass forward a positive referral of Hendricks Lane Road Acceptance subject to the three conditions outlined in the letter. Mr. Blume seconded the motion.

MOTION: All in favor, 1 opposed Chairman Rice, no abstentions (5-1-0).

Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden for any correspondence or potential applications which Mr. Glidden reported there are none. Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked if there was going to be a discussion on what was discussed tonight. Chairman Rice noted it is not on the agenda. Mr. Needham stated the intent was to have a listening session, which they had, and stated they can review whatever notes they took and can put that on the agenda for next time. Chairman Rice explained a lot was said and he would like to hold off on making comments until he has some time to think. Mr. Needham agreed. Mr. Blume asked if it will be an agenda item on the next meeting and Chairman Rice answered yes. The next meeting will be on 11/24/20. Mr. MacCormac suggested Ms. Leavitt-Smith have the floor to discuss what is on her mind currently if there are items she wants to discuss. She answered stating she is fine with waiting.

VI. ADJOURNMENT Mr. MacCormac made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Needham seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:35pm.

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Amanda Werboff
Commission Clerk