Planning Commission Minutes 01/10/2017

PLANNING COMMISSION

JANUARY 10, 2017

MINUTES FROM REGULAR MEETING

I.             CALL TO ORDER

Chairman William Rice opened the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:04 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices.  Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Bob DeCrescenzo, Town Attorney; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.

1.            Pledge of Allegiance

Chairman Rice led attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.

II.            ROLL CALL

Chairman Rice thanked SCTV for recording this meeting.

Commission members in attendance were:  William Rice, Elizabeth Burt, Holly Beum, Alan Needham, Erin Leavitt-Smith, and Robert Kulakowski.

1.            Appointment of Alternates

Chairman Rice seated Alternate Elizabeth Burt as the 6th voting member for this meeting.

III.           APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the December 13, 2016 Regular Meeting

On line 99, following the word “would”, the word “follow” is inserted.

Chairman Rice made a motion to accept the December 13, 2016 Minutes, as amended.

Commissioner Leavitt-Smith seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

IV.          OLD BUSINESS

1.            Public Hearings

a.            Application #16-02 of Mansour Prime Properties, LLC, Agent; Royce Palmer, Owner; for a 19-lot affordable housing subdivision under CGS 8-30g on the property located at 80 Climax Road (Assessor’s Map D20, Block 608, Lot 001). Zone R-40. [public hearing opened 11/22/2016; 65-day extension granted; public hearing must be closed by 01/10/2017(without additional extensions)]

Chairman Rice noted this is an existing open Public Hearing for Application #16-02, Mansour Properties, LLC, with plan revisions stamped received by the Town today; it was noted that at the last meeting the Intervenors requested adequate time to review the Applicant’s changes, but that is not the case.  Chairman Rice requested the Applicant provide a review of changes to the plans and also provide rebuttals to comments made at the last meeting.

Attorney Lou Wise represented the Applicant indicating they would be responding to the environmental Intervenors presentation from a month ago; first to the presentation of the Intervenors Traffic Consultant, Guy Hesketh; and followed by their Engineer’s review of the minor plan modifications.

Chris Granatini, P.E., of Tighe and Bond, the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer, submitted a supplemental letter dated 01/06/2017 received by the Town today containing additional details about intersection operation pertaining to site lines.   He recalled previously speaking about ASHTO used by many state DOTs to define state roadway design; he quoted from the 2011 version that, “If the available site distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is at least equal to the appropriate stopping site distance [stopping site distance in this context is about safety elements of an intersection] for the major road [Climax Road here] then drivers on Climax Road have sufficient site distance to anticipate and avoid collisions.”  He continued that by providing stopping site distance at this intersection, the intersection would be safe for drivers both on Hendrix Cottage Lane and on Climax Road.  He read further that, “However, in some cases this may require a major road vehicle to stop or slow to accommodate a maneuver by a minor road vehicle.  To enhance traffic operations, intersection site distances that exceed stopping site distances are desirable along a major road.”  He stated there is a balance of stopping site distance, safety, intersection site distance, and efficient roadway operations.  He continued they submitted 4 additional drawings today:  1) P7 presents the intersection site distance from Hendrix Cottage Lane to the low point on Climax Road, which is approximately 350 feet south of the proposed intersection in Avon – this is in response to a point brought up by Mr. Hesketh questioning whether a driver sitting on Hendrix could look to the left and see a driver on Climax in that low point; 2) P8 presents intersection site distance 11 feet offset from the Climax Road edge, so the driver in Hendrix could inch their car up to an 11-foot offset from road edge, which is essentially where the Stop bar is on Hendrix in the proposed design, and from that location in ASHTO it stipulates that essentially in most motor vehicles today the driver sits 8 feet back from the car nose, so an 11-foot offset places the vehicle 3 feet off the edge of Climax still on Hendrix with a driver able to look to the left and meet the intersection site distance requirement based on ASHTO and CTDOT methodology.  Commissioner Beum recalled at the last meeting that it was asked which laws apply to this intersection and believed Attorney Wise responded it would be Town traffic laws; therefore, how does ASHTO apply to Simsbury?  Mr. Granatini responded there are engineering documents providing authority to engineers to use their judgment in designing roads/streets; the Town’s standards indicate intersection site distance is measured 20 feet back from road edge and requires 475 feet in either direction for the Town collector road classification standard, which is determined by average daily traffic volume on the street.  He continued that ASHTO standards stipulate most drivers stop 6.5 feet or less from road edge and no one stops 20 feet back from the road edge and then decides whether or not to go; however, the ASHTO and CTDOT standards use a different methodology looking at how people are driving on the road and their speed, with engineering calculations determining real site distances.  Commissioner Beum asked if ASHTO is the legal standard or are Connecticut Safety Regulations the legal standard?  Attorney Wise answered that if this were a normal subdivision application and not 8-30g, the application would have to meet the Town’s standard, but it is clear that 8-30g supersedes local regulation, so the question for this Commission to consider is whether or not the standards Mr. Granatini is discussing will create a safe intersection as the Commission can only deny this application if some bona fide safety or health issue is found; they will show the Commission that there are other standards that also provide a safe intersection, e.g. Federal and CTDOT standards, and if an intersection complies with state safety standards, although different than Town standards, they would also produce a safe intersection for travelers.  Commissioner Beum allowed she did not know the difference between state road and city road standards.  Attorney Wise indicated the state methodology is more up-to-date and nuanced than Town standards, but the question for the Commission is whether the State standards also produce safe intersections.  Commissioner Beum asked whether that determination could be made by comparing number of deaths per capita for the State vs. for the Town.  Attorney Wise responded that the Commission makes that determination by listening to the traffic experts; if the experts agree that the Federal and State standards create just as safe an intersection as Town standards, then the Commission would have to vote accordingly.  Chairman Rice asked if 8-30g indicates a standard to use.  Attorney Wise answered it did not, and that an 8-30g application can only be denied if the Commission finds bona fide issues implicating public health or safety, whether reviewing drainage, intersection site distances, or any aspect of this development.  Commissioner Burt asked the Town Attorney if 8-30g supersedes all local regulation, including traffic safety regulations.  Attorney DeCrescenzo responded he did not believe the courts have concluded that all regulation is superseded by 8-30g; some courts say those regulations that derive from Title 8 of the General Statutes are what the legislature intended to have supersede, e.g. coverage ratios, side yards, rear yards.  Attorney DeCrescenzo believed it is somewhat an open question whether non-title 8 regulations, under Title 7, and other enabling statutes, regarding health and safety are automatically superseded by 8-30g.  Commissioner Burt asked if the Town permitted the intersection with ASHTO or CTDOT regulations, rather than the Town requirements, and an accident occurred at that intersection, would the people injured or killed at that intersection hold the Town liable and sue the Town for negligence.  Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated that is a complicated question; the liability of towns for accidents on public roads is a very complicated issue; and for purposes of this Public Hearing, he recommended the competing experts be allowed to put in their evidence, have Town Staff react to that, and when the Public Hearing is closed Staff will walk the Commission through the standards that apply to the evidence heard.  As the Town Attorney, he did not want to preclude in his statements any testimony that may come in; he believed the best way to approach an 8-30g application or any application is to allow both sides of the question to have their say, submit their expert testimony, and then the time will come when the Commission has to weigh that testimony, which is when Staff will help guide the Commission by articulating the standards that the courts will apply.  Regarding who is liable for accidents on public roadways, the doctrine of sole proximate cause means that the public entity cannot be held responsible for the negligence of the motorist unless the actions of the municipality were the sole proximate cause of the accident; however, he recommended putting that aside for now and to continue allowing Attorney Wise and his experts to submit whatever testimony they want, and when they are done Staff will advise the Commission on the appropriate standards.  Attorney Wise believed that because Town site line standards are regulations implemented by the Planning Commission as part of subdivision regulations by reference, and subdivision regulations are superseded by 8-30g, that those standards would also be superseded.  Commissioner Needham asked if the measurements from roadway edge were taken from the white line they wanted to paint or from the shoulder.  Mr. Granatini explained that in their initial submission, by painting a white line on Climax Road and using the edge of travel way as the reference point to measure intersection site distance they could meet CTDOT’s requirement of 500 feet looking left; subsequently, the Town Engineer and Public Works Director indicated installation of the white edge line is not desirable; tonight they have shown that even without the white edge line, taking measurements on Hendrix they can provide stopping site distance exceeding minimum requirements on Climax based on travel speeds and provide stopping site distance from the low point as shown in P9 and P10.  He said P9 shows that a vehicle traveling north on Climax Road at 500 feet south of the intersection can see a driver entering/exiting Hendrix Cottage Lane, which exceeds the 345-foot stopping site distance for Climax.  He indicated they looked at whether a vehicle could be seen at the low point as questioned by Hesketh; Mr. Granatini stipulated and testified that P10 shows a driver traveling north on Climax Road will see a vehicle entering Climax from Hendrix at 500 feet to the south and at the low point and all points in between.

Mr. Granatini recalled that in previous testimony the drawings demonstrated they could meet  Town standards and State standards for intersection site distance looking right to the north; and the 4 drawings submitted today demonstrate stopping site distance from the south for the low point that exceeds minimum requirements, and stopping site distance for cars on Climax that exceed intersection site distance; and they go further to say someone on Hendrix trying to exit can inch their car closer to Climax and at an 11-foot offset from the road edge looking left drivers can see 500 feet to the south which provides intersection site distance consistent with pertinent ASHTO site distance pages attached to their letter.  He added that engineers apply their judgment and in his 20 years of experience working with CTDOT they have adjusted the offset point slightly to determine what is safe, and he feels that with an 11-foot offset sitting on Hendrix, the intersection is safe. 

Chairman Rice asked whether notes showing proposed grading on these plans were in the original plans and does that grading allow the site plans to be achieved.  Mr. Granatini responded they have always acknowledged some minor re-grading in the right of way in both Simsbury and Avon at the edge of road area in front of the sight and to the south in Avon to shave a small knob of earth, would have to occur to provide both the intersection and stopping site distances.

Chairman Rice asked Mr. Rabbitt if asking for work to be done in Avon posed any issues.  Mr. Rabbitt responded that if it is in the highway right of way the issue is dealing with a municipality and they would need Avon’s permission to remove trees in the right of way; these plans were received at 1:30 p.m. today and there has not been time to study them.  Mr. Rabbitt asked on P8 if the 11-foot measurement referenced for edge of roadway is for the new established edge of roadway or traditional edge of pavement.  Mr. Granatini responded it is the edge of paved Climax Road at the gutter and the line should stop short of the white stripe.  Commissioner Burt asked about the 12/09/2016 memorandum on traffic impacts and the response to Town comment #1 regarding an easement.  Mr. Granatini responded they do not need an easement for any of these site lines.  Mr. Rabbitt clarified that in order to meet the Town standard of 20 feet back from edge of pavement with site distances, the Applicant would be required to acquire an easement from a southern abutting property owner, but they are not proposing to do that and are using another methodology as a standard as they are explaining tonight. 

Mr. Granatini continued they feel the 11-foot offset is applicable because ASHTO criteria is based on how people currently drive while Town standards date to 1981.  He said 2011 ASHTO “field observations of vehicle stopping positions found that, where needed, drivers will stop with the front of their vehicle 6.5 feet or less from the edge of the major road travel way.  Measurements of passenger cars indicate that the distance from the front of the vehicle to the driver’s eye for the current U.S. passenger car population is nearly always 8 feet or less.”  He said for a driver who stops a car 6.5 feet or less or 3 feet from the edge of Climax, their eye point is 11 feet back from the edge of Climax Road and they can see to the left and achieve their intersection site distance.  He continued that in keeping with current research and policy documents produced by ASHTO which are universally used across the U.S., they feel the intersection is safe based on median stopping site distance and the ability to achieve intersection site distance by inching a little closer to Climax Road without actually entering Climax’s travel way.  Commissioner Needham asked if measurements were different for trucks or school buses.  Mr. Granatini responded that trucks are higher and can see much further at a point further back from the road; in looking at intersection site distance, a car is used as the control criteria.

Mr. Granatini addressed a Town comment regarding clarifying to what extent edge lines would be provided along Climax Road, including south to the Town of Avon.  He answered they had proposed the white edge line from the Avon town line north along Climax to the Bushy Hill intersection; to the south Climax is about 24 feet wide and the 11-foot striped lane would have been consistent with the cross section in Avon with no significant change in the drivers travel way entering Avon from Simsbury.

Another Town comment was that the Simsbury Tree Warden needs to review/approve any tree removal proposed as part of the project.  In meeting with Town Staff, they discussed that would not occur until the appropriate time when they apply for a permit.

The final Town comment was that the Applicant should provide a more detailed plan showing grading to achieve required site lines to the south, which they have done in the plans provided today.

Mr. Granatini concluded that they believed the most appropriate questions raised in the Hesketh report have been responded to with this report.

Andrew Quirk, P.E. of Kratzert, Jones & Associates representing the Applicant responded to Staff and Town Engineer comments in a letter submitted to the Town, which also included their response to Intervenor comments from Ed Lally and George Logan.  First he addressed the Town Engineer's comments, some of which were simply revisions made.  He addressed more significant comments from the Town Engineer regarding the drainage analysis summary and design relative to Town Standards.  Mr. Quirk indicated the stormwater plan was designed in compliance with Town Highway Construction and Design Standards, specifically relating to drainage system discharge in Section 5.2.1.j stating, "Where runoff from the development could adversely affect the environment or cause flood damage, the runoff rate outside of the subdivision during or after development shall not exceed the rate which existed before development.  This may be accomplished by detention basins, retention basins, infiltration basins or other acceptable means.  Final discharge points shall be approved by the Planning Commission.  The final discharge shall be into suitable streams or rivers or into town drains with adequate capacity to carry the additional water."  Mr. Quirk felt they have met each of those criteria, specifically the drainage analysis shows a 9% decrease in post-development flows for a 25-year storm and a 57% decrease for a 100-year storm due to peak attenuation provided by onsite detention basins.  Furthermore, he said flow rates for the project would be less than 1 cu. ft./second, while typically for larger subdivisions it would be multiple cu. feet/second, so these are small flow rates.  Also, he said the watersheds associated with this property make up only about 1% of the overall 75-acre watershed leading to Evans Drive; the point being they are dealing with small flows and a small percentage of the overall watershed and are meeting reductions to pre-development rates.  Mr. Quirk continued during pre-development conditions stormwater runoff follows the a flow path along the gutter line of Climax Road to the existing cross bar under Climax at the low point; the post-development condition follows the same flow path but is piped as requested by the Town Engineer connecting to the Town drainage culvert/system in accordance with Highway Standards.  He said given reduction in peak discharge from the subdivision in connection to the existing Town drainage pattern, no increase in flow rate or impact to private properties is anticipated.

Regarding comments from the Intervenor and Town Engineer about wet bottom basins, Mr. Quirk indicated the storm drainage system collects water from the road system which discharges to Basin #1 and is attenuated with water quality and quantity treatment, and then connects to Basin #2 on the north side for further attenuation onsite in good soils and existing site depression prior to connection and discharge offsite.  Regarding the amount of water retained in the basins and the amount of time water stayed in those basins, Mr. Quirk indicated the basins included a wet bottom area for water quality treatment and to promote infiltration in order to keep as much stormwater onsite as possible, as happens in pre-development conditions and is mimicked in post development conditions.  Mr. Quirk said each basin contains a dry well and would be modified 18 inches for bio-retention soil, which helps water quality treatment and promotes site stormwater retention.  He continued that Basin #1 has a maximum depth to the first outlet of 18 inches of retained stormwater and drains in the 12-49 hour range based on a range for the percolation rate and using the Intervenor's permeability rate, so from 1/2 day to 2 days for the section to completely drain.  He said that is part of the treatment series from Basin #1 to Basin #2; Basin #1 functions more for detention, attenuation of flows, and stormwater treatment; then it is conveyed to Basin #2 with up to 24 inches of stormwater retained in the basin bottom - the rates in Basin #2 are much better for percolation and permeability with drainage ranging from 2-25 hours based on observed permeability rates provided in the Intervenor's soil data; drainage within the 24-hour period provides good water quality treatment and shows the period in which it would drain. 

Mr. Quirk noted concerns about having a single structure to provide both infiltration with the dry well and outlet structure, so they revised the plans to have two separate structures with flow going first to a dry well structure and then any overflow going to the outlet control structure to alleviate bypass concerns. 

Regarding spillway comments, Mr. Quirk indicated it is proper design to provide an emergency spillway if there is clogging/interference with basin function; the spillways are anticipated to be used only in an emergency situation and are not modeled to be used through the 100-year storm; he showed the Commissioners on the design the emergency spillways above proposed catch basins, so if there were a clog and flow came across the emergency spillway it could be collected by a catch basin and redirected because their intent is not to discharge water into the roadway but to provide relief in a clogging situation adjacent to the proposed catch basins.

Mr. Quirk addressed Town Engineer comment #11 for consideration of safety fencing for potentially 3-5 feet of water.  He said now that they have provided the range of time for water retention, if the basins are functioning properly there would be at most 24 inches of water.  However, he said the Applicant is agreeable to installing fencing, which could be determined now or at the time of roadway installation.  Commissioner Burt asked if the basins become clogged who is responsible for cleaning them.  Mr. Quirk responded that as is typical for Town roads, the Town would maintain the roadway and storm drainage system.  Commissioner Burt noted 2, 5 or 10-year storm systems are covered, but what about larger storms and are they considered emergencies.  Mr. Quirk explained they modeled to the 100-year storm and in that event the water doesn't reach the spillways if the basins are performing as modeled; the spillways are set to perform if the basins don't perform as modeled in a true emergency and the spillways are set at an elevation above the 100-year storm event.  Commissioner Beum asked if after development, clear cutting, putting in hard surfaces, and putting in catch basins, whether sheet runoff of water would no longer occur.  Mr. Quirk responded that sheet flow is unconcentrated flow perpendicular to contours in a broad area and will continue in the same pattern at a reduced rate; along Climax Road shallow concentrated flow along the road edge and gutter line is proposed to be piped in the same manner as in the existing condition; so for both directions the same type and same amount of flow that exists today is proposed post-development.  Commissioner Burt asked if that flow amount would increase given there is less permeable surface today.  Mr. Quirk answered the reason for the stormwater management system is to decrease that - the models show 9% decrease in a 25-year storm and 57% decrease in a 100-year storm which is achieved by roof water collection systems directed to groundwater recharge systems owned by private individual homeowners and retained on their lots; and the Town road has the Town drainage system where they have promoted infiltration and attenuated peak flows that would be less than in existing conditions.

Mr. Quirk addressed comment #13 regarding maximum elevation of ground water.  He said they performed additional soil testing provided on sheet G1 of the plans and did not note any seasonal high ground water conditions; also soil data from the Intervenors similarly did not show seasonal high ground water in the area of the detention basins.

Mr. Quirk noted those were the revisions made to the plan regarding the Town Engineer's comments.

Regarding the Intervenors reports, Mr. Quirk addressed both professionals’ comments.  Regarding comment #1 claiming there is no natural concentrated point of discharge for stormwater from the site, he said the model they have developed for sheet flow direction shows when the depression overtopped that there is shallow concentrated flow along Climax Road matching the same type of flow in each direction. 

For comment #2 that the proposed stormwater system does not replicate existing stormwater flow patterns, Mr. Quirk said the proposed stormwater management system is designed to attenuate peak discharge rates to pre-development conditions for each watershed and they have achieved that - the design yields a decrease in flow rates to Climax Road by 9% and 57% for the 25 and 100-year events respectively, and the design sheet flow rates toward Tallwood Drive are reduced by 76% and 77% for the 25 and 100-year events respectively providing reduction in both directions.

Mr. Quirk noted a major Intervenor comment was that the methodology used was inappropriate for determining accurate stormwater runoff for this subdivision.  He said the stormwater methodology developed is in accordance with the Town's Highway Construction and Design Standards, specifically in Regulation 5.2.4.b for Runoff Determination, it says, "For drainage areas of less than 200 acres, it is suggested that the rational method be used in determining runoff." and that is the method they used, which is also the same standard used by the State DOT.  He said the total for both site watersheds is 5.7 acres and within the threshold.  He said the reports submitted for the Application conform to this methodology; the SCSTR55 and computer version TR20 method is recommended in Town standards for drainage areas greater than 200 acres; furthermore, the rational method yields baseline pre-development runoff rates from the site depression conforming to field site observations and expectations, so when a model is developed the first check is whether it seems realistic and represents onsite conditions, e.g. scour and flow, and their model shows in more frequent 2-year storms there is no discharge or overtopping to Climax Road on a frequent basis, and in larger storms where it would overtop and with concentrated flow to Climax Road, their model includes that as well; and their baseline model conditions are representative of field conditions.  He said this is critical in assessing the Intervenor's conclusions based on using the alternative SCS methodology, which is a very good model for assessing soils and how much runoff is taken up by vegetation for larger watersheds; he has used the SCS methodology for larger watersheds of at least 100 acres, and the watershed for this project is 5.7 acres.  He added that the Town standards and CTDOT manual both recommend the rational method for watersheds less than 200 acres; the Town Engineer has done a thorough review several times of their stormwater modeling and has not recommended a different modeling method be used for the basis of analysis; the CTDOT manual indicates the rational method is the most widely used recently.  Mr. Quirk noted his designs in Town which the Engineering Department and Commissions have accepted/approved and have been built and are functioning include the Weatogue Dunkin Donuts and Hilducrest subdivision.  He said the Intervenors conclusions are based on a different methodology that is not appropriate for a site this small.

Mr. Quirk addressed comment #4 that the coefficients for runoff used are too low for these types of soils.  He noted they used the Town standards which refer to the CTDOT drainage manual requiring using coefficients between .16 and .21 for these types of soils and slopes, and they used  the higher .2 for wooded areas and .3 for lawn areas - higher is more conservative and means more runoff.

Mr. Quirk addressed comment #5 claiming the underground runoff systems for the roof areas are undersized.  He said their model shows they retained roof runoff through the 100-year event, but recognizing those concerns they increased the roof collection system capacity by 50% for an increase of 4 recharge units to 6.

Mr. Quirk addressed comment #6 regarding deficiencies in design based on the alternate method  leading to flooding of the depressed section of the proposed roadway severely restricting public/private emergency use of the new road.  He said the roadway is designed to conform to existing grades because good design works with the lay of the land so the development ties in with the terrain and they designed a road that comes up to a flat section in the center, providing a low point in the roadway, and coming up to the cul de sac, so they are referring to the roadway low point.  He said they re-checked the pipe size for draining the low point and the grades for receiving roadway stormwater; the Town requires the main storm drainage lines be a minimum 18-inch diameter pipe which are at only 48% capacity in a 25-year storm, again not anticipating any flooding of this roadway, so the pipes are well-sized to handle the stormwater system.  He said the entire storm drainage system would be at 79% capacity; if everything failed, the emergency spillway is lower than the road low point so stormwater would flow over the spillway prior to flooding the road low point.  To alleviate design concerns, Mr. Quirk said they increased all the low point catch basins from single grates to double grates, doubling grate capacity for each low point.

Regarding comment #7 similarly talking about cul de sac flooding, Mr. Quirk said with a single catch basin in a 25-year storm event they calculated maximum depth of water over the grate at 2 inches, and by doubling grate capacity it would be 1 1/2 inches of water confined to the gutter line along the cul de sac.

Comment #8 regarded permeability of native soils.  Mr. Quirk explained they went through this in the Town Engineer comments and do not expect much infiltration in Basin #1 but do expect some in Basin #2 with its better soils; for the smaller basin, the Intervenor neglected that pond in their analysis, which is where the existing site depression is today and where the good gravel soils explain why runoff is retained on site today, and they expect the same performance occurring today to occur in the proposed development condition, which is purposely an important part of the stormwater management system.

Regarding deficiencies in terms of concept, application rates, and overall design, Mr. Quirk felt many of the review comments presented are based upon the SCSTR55 model, which model is not recommended by Town standards or CTDOT.  Furthermore, he said the Town Engineer has not objected to use of the rational method, despite several review letters of the stormwater management model.  He concluded that for the stormwater management report presented and the design developed in accordance with Simsbury standards and the CTDOT drainage manual, this model is expected to represent the pre and post-development conditions of the Application and the attenuation of the stormwater runoff rates to pre-development conditions will not adversely impact abutting properties or public safety of adjoining roadways.

Commissioner Leavitt-Smith asked about the areas for snow.  Mr. Quirk responded that hatched areas on the subdivision plan sheet G-1 show in the cul de sac where snow piles can be located assuring no impact on areas where utilities or driveways are located.  Chairman Rice asked if Town plow drivers are typically instructed to collect snow in certain areas.  Mr. Rabbitt explained the Town Engineer and Public Works Director wanted the Applicant to show an area where snow could be collected that did not conflict with public utilities, as snow is piled up at the end of the cul de sac in order to assure that a transformer off pavement edge is not affected.  Mr. Rabbitt noted all proposed public utilities are just outside the Town right of way with the exclusion of hydrants which the Town Fire Marshall has requested be placed 10 feet off of curb edge.  These are not the only places the Town can put snow, but show representative areas snow could go and not be in conflict with utilities.  Mr. Quirk reiterated by placing it on the subdivision map, it highlights areas the snow cannot go and is more of a planning tool for Eversource with 2 large areas added to accommodate piling snow.

Attorney Wise recalled that the Intervenor petition dated 11/14/2016 raised 5 different environmental issues for consideration by this Commission.  He believed the Town Attorney, explained that 2 of the 5 claims are outside this Commission’s jurisdiction and granting an Intervenor petition does not expand jurisdiction.  He believed that claims A and D are outside this Commission’s jurisdiction; claim A is “that the property will be clear cut….exposing soils that are highly erodible during the construction phase.  This will result in erosion and sedimentation of offsite areas, including wetlands and watercourses.”  Attorney Wise indicated this Town has delegated consideration of erosion and sedimentation plans to the Conservation Commission, which approved the E&S plan for this Application.  He continued that claim D regards cutting of trees and, “that these trees provide special and unique habitat for many native species, including potentially listed species identified by the State of Connecticut’s DEEP and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as this area is shown as an area where such listed species are estimated to be found based on the most current DEEP mapping.”  He believed this refers to DEEP’s Natural Diversity Database (NDDB) which shows possibly endangered, threatened, or special concern species that may be present on a very, very small portion of this property; NDDB’s primary purpose is to inform State agencies of the presence of possibly endangered species because the State Endangered Species Act prohibits any State agency from taking any actions which might harm such species or their habitats; however, the Connecticut Endangered Species Act does not prohibit private property owners from performing any legal activities on his/her own land that may result in the incidental taking of endangered or threatened animal or plant species or species of special concern on DEEP’s referenced list; that distinction has been drawn by the courts, specifically in 88 Connecticut Appellate 358, which held that development of a residential subdivision is a lawful activity and cannot constitute conduct that is reasonably likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting, etc.; and since the Commission does not have the ability to enforce the Endangered Species Act, it does not have jurisdiction over claim D. 

Attorney Wise believed claims B, C, and E are all based on the premise that the detention system designed by Mr. Quirk is inadequate to control flows off this property.  Regarding claim B that there will be a greater volume of runoff resulting in erosion and sedimentation offsite, he said Mr. Quirk explained that those flows will be reduced and there will be no offsite erosion/ sedimentation.  Regarding claim C, he said Mr. Quirk also responded to the claim there will be offsite pollution because the detention system is defective and will not allow attenuation of discharges.  Regarding claim E, he said Mr. Quirk also responded to the claim that the proposed detention system is inadequate and will result in flooding and dangerous conditions.  Attorney Wise said the claims are all based on the report by Mr. Lally, the Intervenor’s Engineer, who relied on the wrong methodology/model, which is used to design detention basins for areas in excess of 200 acres; Mr. Quirk used the correct methodology dictated by Town regulations.  

Chairman Rice asked if Attorney Wise was reading from a document submitted for the record.  Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated for the Environmental Petition it would be helpful to the Commission, Intervenor, and Applicant for the parties to submit written outlines of claims and counterclaims; while the Commission accepted the Intervenor’s Petition, in 2013 the Legislature changed the law of 22.A.19, subsection A.2 which says, “The verified pleading shall contain specific factual allegations setting forth the nature of the alleged unreasonable pollution, impairment, obstruction of the public trust for air, water, and natural resources.”.  Therefore, Attorney DeCrescenzo thought because the 2013 change added language about specific factual allegations that it would be helpful to the Commission, if the Intervenor and Applicant are willing, to summarize their points in writing tying it all together, but he is not looking for a 40-page brief.  Chairman Rice asked Attorney Case if he believed they have submitted a document that serves that function.  Attorney Case responded that they have submitted testimony and a report, but are prepared to submit additional information; however, they only received the Applicant’s report this evening and he had the impression this was the last meeting and asked if the Public Hearing would be kept open allowing them time to prepare a response.  Attorney DeCrescenzo and Mr. Rabbitt recommended the Commission extend the Public Hearing to their next meeting in order to allow the Intervenors opportunity to review the documents submitted tonight and react to them, but that is entirely up to the Commission to decide.  Attorney Wise had no objection to keeping the Public Hearing open allowing the Intervenor full opportunity to respond. 

Commissioner Beum asked for clarification of whether the requested summaries of testimony heard tonight would relate to which standards should be used for traffic analysis and drainage.  Attorney DeCrescenzo responded the requested summaries related specifically to the Environmental Petition, but the Commission could request similar summary analysis based on drainage and site lines.  Chairman Rice noted Mr. Quirk read from a 7-9 page document and the Commission has revised drawings with site line analysis, and he is less concerned about receiving a summary of the discussion presented by the Traffic Engineer and Mr. Quirk; however, he believed there was discontinuity between the Intervenor’s concerns and how the Applicant has responded and agreed in principle it would be good to have a list presented by the Intervenor with the Applicant having the opportunity to respond formally.  Chairman Rice invited any other questions form Commissioners.  Commissioner Beum would like an explanation of why one specification is better than the other or more applicable.  Chairman Rice explained that Mr. Quirk believed that SCS is more applicable to lots of 200 or more acres and the methodology they chose is applicable to this piece of land.  The Commissioners confirmed their understanding the comments just made regarding the environment specific to Intervenor subjects would be provided in a written summary.  Mr. Rabbitt followed up that State Statute requires the Hearing be closed at some point and the Commission will have 65 days to make its decision, which could be 4 meetings where the Commission deliberates and asks questions of Staff based on the record and Staff responds based on that record.  Mr. Rabbitt noted that once the Public Hearing closes the Applicant no longer has access to Staff or the Commission, and there can be no further submittals received from the Applicant.  Attorney DeCrescenzo added after the Hearing closes, Staff can answer why a Town standard is or is not important based on the record.  Mr. Rabbitt noted that Mr. Shea can provide his opinion to the Commission based on the record.  Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated that while 8-30g is a State policy that overrides local zoning authority as found in subdivision and zoning regulations, Attorney Wise believes it also overrides other Town standards that may be found in ordinances, policy manuals, and other regulations; therefore, it could be helpful to the Commission if Attorney Wise provide in the summary some legal authority for that proposition in support of that Statute interpretation.  Attorney Wise offered they could certainly include that with the submission in the form of a letter for the record.  Attorney DeCrescenzo noted the letter from Attorney Wise should be received in time to provide Attorney Case time for the opportunity to comment.

Chairman Rice invited the Intervenor to speak.   Attorney Case indicated once they have time to review the Applicant’s submission tonight, they will have a more robust response and confirmed they absolutely needed more time to review them.  Regarding Staff having time to review the Applicant’s submission, Mr. Rabbitt responded that if the Hearing were closed tonight, they still need time to review and comment on the Applicant’s submission; there are 2 ½ days left in this week and 3 ½ days next week before the next meeting date and his concern was that Staff’s comments may be provided on about 01/24/2017 and his discussion with the Applicant’s Attorney initially was that they were comfortable with that as they feel they have addressed the issues.  Mr. Rabbitt continued that Public Works and Town Engineering have other projects they are working on and if this Hearing is closed on 01/24/2017, while Town Staff can still assist the Commission with the decision process and he can assure the Applicant will have Staff comments by 01/24/2017; the problem is that if the Hearing closes on 01/24/2017, the Commission does not have enough statutory timeframe to make it to the regularly scheduled February 14th meeting by one day.  The Commissioners discussed the possibility of having a special meeting at end January or early February.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated it is the Applicant’s discretion to grant an extension.  Attorney Wise responded that they are willing to grant an extension and given the extensive discussions to date he did not anticipate anything extraordinary coming from Town Staff, but nevertheless wanted to reserve the right of a day or two to react.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated Staff’s deadline is the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting on 01/24/2017 and he spoke to the Town Engineer who indicated it was unlikely they would have comments in a week and would need more time, and Attorney Wise has indicated they are in a position to consent to more time.  Attorney Wise noted there are 20 more days to extend from 01/24/2017 and they could extend it if the Commission schedules a special meeting; however, he believed there are no major changes to the plan at this point, which is why he is willing to grant the extension.  Mr. Rabbitt clarified the next regularly scheduled meeting for the Commission is on 01/24/2017, which is within the statutory timeframe; on 01/24/2017, there may be a similar discussion to this evening on whether or not to close the Hearing and Attorney Wise is relatively confident that any comments from Staff are predictable and he anticipates they have addressed them with no significant issues anticipated.  Nonetheless, Attorney Wise wanted to reserve the right to ask for additional time, although he does not feel that will happen, and requested Staff comments be provided a couple of days early.  Attorney Case found that request strange given that the Applicant’ submission dated 01/06/2017 was not submitted to the Town until tonight with no copy provided to the Intervenor as a general courtesy, although that is a courtesy the Intervenor has extended to the Applicant, and they will do their best to get information to the Commission to aid in making a decision.  He introduced Mr. Lally to provide a serious response.  Chairman Rice indicated the comments should be substantive.

Ed Lally, P.E. and Land Surveyor since 1973 represented the Intervenor, and commented he has worked on innumerable subdivisions and commercial developments in Simsbury and other towns.  He commented drainage discharge is important because if not properly calculated it impacts public safety causing flooding with sheet flow across pavement where there is currently none making the road unusable and must be avoided; ethics focus on public safety and meeting regulations.  He said if drainage discharge is calculated incorrectly, then erosion controls are not calculated correctly and there will be erosion, sedimentation, and environmental impact.  He recalled as a student learning the rational method, which is a simple method and good for determining peak rates of flow, but in the late 1980’s more complex computer analysis began to be used and his practice shifted from the rational method to the TR20 computer method.  Secondly, he worked on a complex DEEP project and was advised to use the formula appropriate to the project. He continued that for this project the Applicant used a constant coefficient for runoff, so in a 2-year storm for the amount of runoff from the property they used .2 or .3 and they used those same numbers in the 100-year storm, which is allowed by the rational method; however, that is not what happens – they spoke about initial extraction being a benefit of using the TR20 methodology, which refers to the amount of water absorbed by the soil and vegetation with the balance running off the property, and in a 100-year storm a very much larger amount of water runs off the property; therefore, he does not believe the rational method can be used to determine the rate of runoff from the property in 2, 5, 10 or 100-year storms because that is not what is happening.  He continued that for their drainage calculations the base of the storm is at 3x the time of concentration, which in their analysis calls for all the rain in a 2-year 5-minute storm falling in 15 minutes and for a 100-year storm falls in 15 minutes and in their largest part of the watershed falls in 51 minutes, but that is not what happens.  His report also details flaws in their model, including that the bulk of the watershed currently runs by sheet flow toward Tallwood, so that when they say the bulk of the rainfall off the property cannot exceed the current amount, they are not talking about direction and later the water will be intercepted by roofs, houses, gutters and then piped to Climax, so even if their analysis is correct and the overall watershed is not experiencing more water, the water is now going to Climax draining into the depression and does not flow out but flows across the driveway to the north into the another depression and then flows out onto Climax, so it does not discharge in the northwest corner into the gutter now and will not later because a pipe will be put in and the water going in that direction is increased even though their analysis indicated overall water is not increased. 

Mr. Lally also discussed soil tests in his report, and from their data the location of the soils test at one point is 65-80 feet from the detention basin which is 2 feet higher, and the other soil test was 6 feet higher than the bottom of the detention basin and you cannot do a soil test 6 feet above the detention basin and say that is the percolation rate at the bottom of the basin.  He requested the Commission read his report, look at the Town maps and submitted data, and Town requirements to determine what is happening on the site.  Mr. Lally really believes the SCS method is more accurate, provides more data points, and looks at what really rains on the site.  Regarding SCS applicability to small sites, he used SCS for the Green Tea Restaurant project which was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commissions and the Town Engineer to accurately predict what really runs off that site – if he had used the rational method, almost no water would be calculated to run off that site, but quite a bit of water actually runs off Green Tea’s site. 

Mr. Lally requested the Commission read his report, and noted the Applicant made some improvements, including increasing roof retention systems by 50%.  Regarding their change to 2 double catch basins in the cul de sac and at the low point, his professional opinion is that the problem with water ponding there is because the pipes and retention basin are not big enough, not because the catch basins are not big enough. 

Attorney Case indicated they would have further points following analysis of the Applicant’s comments and requested time to do that, as the Applicant has had.  Regarding the requested extension of time to 01/24/2017, Attorney Wise agreed to do so and Town Staff requested that consent be in writing, which Attorney Wise provided for the record.

Chairman Rice invited public comment.

Bob Duguay of 11 Nod Brook Drive, Simsbury, had a question about simple fairness regarding shutting people down without giving both sides equal opportunity to respond to a fairly substantial amount of information.  He said regardless of who is or is not right, and he does not want this development to go forward, we should be fair to all sides; our land use commissions, including this one, are really unfair; he was involved in a Zoning Commission meeting where people submitted information at 4 p.m. on the meeting day and the Zoning Commission Chairman did not want to allow the other side of a contentious issue the opportunity to review it.  He asked why we don’t have a standard that if this is Tuesday, all information has to be submitted 5-6 days in advance so that both sides and the public have the opportunity to review it so we are just fair, or else it cannot be submitted.  He said these people have spent money retaining experts and developing information and the Commission should be appraised of it because the Commission’s decision will affect the public and the lives of everyone here.  He said with the amount of professionals involved, it is affecting our lives and we have to put faith in the Commission making a good, informed, intelligent decision, and while he cannot comment on who is right or wrong, both sides should be heard.  He urged the Commission to very soon have a public hearing to develop new rules of procedure, including that if material is not submitted 5 days before the meeting, it cannot be submitted.  He felt it is baloney and happened to him on a contentious issue.  He listened here to an erudite young man talking about site lines for speed, etc.; he lives off Climax and noted very few questions were asked; other than cutting bushes down for site lines, the next most important thing is what speed are people going, which may not be in his client’s interest to raise, and the speed limit on Climax is 35 mph immediately changing to 25 mph in Avon, which has cost his wife a couple of hundred bucks.  He continued that people routinely speed coming off Bushy Hill and no one is driving 35 mph with a little hill where people hit the gas; he never walks on Climax Road because he considers it dangerous; or people coming from Avon all of a sudden are going 40-50 mph or more, and there is real danger here; if questions are not being asked about speed, then we are not getting the complete picture; he urged the Commission to ask more questions, allow everybody access to information, and insist that we develop new standards, not just for this Commission, but for Zoning and he did not know what goes on in other Commissions.  He asked how are you supposed to react intelligently to something you have no access to; and there should also be procedures that if one side submits something on the same day, they have to submit it to both sides, and if they don’t do it, they cannot answer it; guess what, they are going to comply.  He felt the Commission’s and Staff’s time will be better used, the Commission will have information – you are sitting here dumb and will have better access.

Chairman Rice responded that the Commission is bound by timelines and he personally likes the timelines to be adhered to.  He recalled that the application was withdrawn because the timeline could not be met, and was resubmitted and has been granted extensions; he believed to ensure all interested parties have the opportunity to receive, absorb, and respond to new information as it is submitted.  He really wants the Public Hearing to close as soon as it is able to; new information was submitted today and he is not happy with that and it is not the first time information has been submitted on the day of the meeting – he is not making any judgments as to the timing of that, but the Commission is trying to be as fair and open as possible while maintaining the timelines the Commission needs to operate under.  Mr. Duguay responded to Chairman Rice that it seems obvious to him the Public Hearing could be extended and it seemed to him the ability of certain people to respond is being cut off; he did not care who is right or wrong, but for those with legitimate information or who want to contradict information presented is a good thing because it gives the Commission further information and sharpens points to accept or not accept something.  He said at the Zoning Commission, he was put off as a person because the Chairman said this is not a debate when someone wanted to respond to someone else; he felt it should be a debate with two polite intelligent people going back and forth in real time quickly possibly changing someone’s thinking, e.g. the rational method is good here and not there and this is where the mistake is – it should be a debate; we can be a little bit too stultified although everyone’s rights should be protected and there are procedures under State law and Town regulations; the Chairman should adhere to the argument in question with more rapid fire back and forth.  He felt a lot of information was provided today, but who raised the notion of speed; he is not an engineer but someone died at the Town end of Climax; speed is an elemental issue in this case – today he tried to go out on Hopmeadow at 8:30 a.m. and it makes him nervous.  He thanked the all-volunteer Commission and asked that how the meetings are run really be considered.  Commissioner Burt noted that a traffic study done last February was submitted in July and presented to the Commission indicating 85th percentile speeds for Climax Road were 46 mph for northbound traffic and 47 mph for southbound traffic.  Mr. Duguay said everybody’s speeding and some people are going way too fast.

Bob Michulski of Tallwood Hollow felt Mr. Duguay said a lot of good things.  He felt these guys are doing this for the ultimate outcome of everybody’s making money, including Ferrigno and Mansour making the most.  He said all the water runoff will run down Tallwood Hollow, which is 90% of that; there is only about 80-100 feet of this project on Climax Road and Tallwood Hollow is twice as long as this street and there are only 5 houses on it, including 1 in Simsbury – where will the water for 19 houses go? – it will go on Tallwood Hollow.  He also heard what the Town and State are good for, but if you give in and the rules aren’t good, everybody loses.  Lastly, he heard they may need a right of way and he will never give them a right of way and he is the first one they have to deal with – he owns a right of way on Tallwood Hollow and so does Shelly and they are not getting anything from him.  He said to destroy a neighborhood – the Commissioners know what he is talking about and probably all live in nice areas – and for them to put 19 houses on 4.5 acres is a sin and for them to get away with this with all their good words is a sin and is all for money.  He thanked the Commission and said he speaks it the way it is.

Shelly Perrin of 37 Tallwood Hollow said she would be very close to this development and has spoken at other meetings.  She reiterated the concerns about speed as they live this road and there have been a lot of theoretical calculations, various methodologies, and various deltas, etc. about how to assess both the runoff and site lines, but it is very difficult coming out of the road to see, even now, and always has been and always will be.  She noted the proposal of an 11-foot line that you are supposed to creep out to – are you supposed to drive into the road so you can look up and down the road? – it sounds like a very smoke and mirrors bizarre kind of thing.  She said it is established people come along this road very quickly at 47 mph for 85% of drivers, that means many people are going 55-60 mph down this road, and it was not designed for that.  She said people creeping out trying to see each way, cars come so fast, looking in one direction and then the other, when one direction is clear you look back again and there is a car coming.  She said the site lines are not good and are very dangerous; the proposal to come out to an 11-foot line in the road sounds so preposterous – it would be like a demolition derby and she cannot conceive of it.  Also, she noted the federal ASHTO guidelines are probably very good for federal national standards and may work well in Topeka, Kansas, where you have flat ground and there is not a lot of tree coverage, and don’t have narrow, winding roads, and they may work great in Florida or Arizona, but New England has unique topography in terms of its trees, and we have narrow roads that were originally dirt paths that evolved into small narrow roads that have now become heavily traveled 50 mph roads and they are often windy and were not designed for the site lines you get in many cities in America that were planned more on a grid or in very different landscapes.  She said the safety guidelines developed by the Town of Simsbury for its town and its citizens reflect the topography, the types of roads, the fact that we often don’t have shoulders, that we don’t have sidewalks, that there are a lot of curves, and that roads are narrow.  She concluded that if anything the Town Guidelines should supersede the ASHTO ones because they are specific to the needs and the types of roads and the site lines you have in a small New England community.  She thanked the Commission.

Chairman Rice invited any further public comment and there was none. 

Chairman Rice indicated given the extension of time granted by the Applicant, the Public Hearing will remain open until 01/24/2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Simsbury Town Hall Main Meeting Room.  He requested the Intervenor provide a summary letter of the environmental impact to be submitted next Tuesday, if possible.  Attorney Case could not promise that given people traveling for the holiday, but he will consult with his experts and will submit it to Staff as soon as possible who will provide it to the Applicant.  Commissioner Leavitt-Smith understood that the submissions are for the Commission to understand points for each side.  Attorney DeCrescenzo clarified that the submission from each side for the 22.A.19 Application Petition statutory standard is to tie the standard back to the evidence provided by the Intervenor and Applicant with points regarding failure to meet that standard; these statements would be submitted simultaneously for the benefit of the Commission.  Chairman Rice understood it would be a written statement from both parties of what they have spoken.  Attorney DeCrescenzo noted the statements would not be in point-for-point alignment. .  Commissioner Needham confirmed with the Town Attorney the need to also receive from Attorney Wise  information about 8-30g negating all Town regulations. Attorney DeCrescenzo also requested that the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) actions document be submitted for the record.  Attorney Wise indicated the WPCA on 12/08/2016 granted their application for sewer allocation, and in order to connect, a small extension of the service line is needed; therefore, a WPCA public hearing for that extension request is scheduled for 01/12/2017, which would be followed by an intra-town agreement.  Mr. Rabbitt summarized that the Chairman has requested submission of the summary documents as soon as possible to give all sides and the Commission the opportunity to read them before the 01/24/2017 Hearing continuation, and indicated once those summaries are received by the Town, they are public documents.  Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated that if either side says something the other side feels an obligation to respond to, that they have an opportunity to do that, and the way to do that is to get comments in by at least the Friday before the meeting.  Attorney Wise made a similar request that Mr. Shea make an effort to get his comments to them a little sooner, which has been an ongoing problem for the Applicant.  Mr. Rabbitt noted that there is only one Town Engineer for a town of 23,000 residents.  Chairman Rice commented to Mr. Rabbitt that we cannot ask an applicant or intervenor to have their information in earlier than what has been happening, and not do it ourselves - what’s fair is fair.

Chairman Rice made a motion to leave the Public Hearing until January 24, 2017, citing the Applicant’s consent to such extension.

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

At 9:25 p.m., Chairman Rice called for a 5-minute recess.

At 9:30 p.m., Chairman Rice called the meeting back to order.

2.            Applications

a.            Application #16-02 19-lot affordable housing subdivision at 80 Climax Road (decision must be rendered within 65 days of closing public hearing)

Chairman Rice tabled discussion of Application #16-02.

V.            NEW BUSINESS

1.            Referrals:

a.            CGS 8-24 Referral to the Board of Selectmen on the proposed sale of Town-owned property located at 23 Mountain Road (Assessor’s Map K04, Block 127, Lot 014). Zone R-15.

Chairman Rice read the 8-24 Referral into the record.

The Commissioners discussed the potential sale of this property taken in foreclosure by the Town; or potentially asking the BOS to deed restrict the property and put it in the affordable housing category, although the property does not have heat.  Mr. Rabbitt noted the Commission has been provided Mr. Glidden’s draft motion indicating the property sale is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town’s 2007 POCD.

Commissioner Needham made a motion the Commission finds the sale of the residential property at 23 Mountain Road is consistent with the goals and recommendations of the Town of Simsbury 2007 Plan of Conservation and Development.

Commissioner Beum seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

VI.          GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS

1.            POCD Update

Mr. Rabbitt indicated the consultant and Mr. Glidden are at a listening session tonight at Henry James with increased attendance anticipated.  He noted a 3rd session is scheduled for 02/14/2017 and depending on the timing of the Commission’s application work flow, if the Public Hearing is concluded for Climax Road on 01/24/2017, and if the agenda is light for the regularly scheduled 02/14/2017 meeting, that meeting could be moved to the Henry James 3rd listening session.  The Commissioners noted the problematic date of February 14th.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated at the 01/24/2017 meeting, the February 14th meeting date could be discussed and potentially moved to February 8th or 9th.  Commissioner Burt asked what would be the focus of the February 14th POCD meeting; Mr. Rabbitt believed it would be infrastructure [Chairman Rice noted tonight’s listening session is focused on development related strategies.  Commissioner Needham commented that material received and read so far takes into account Commission comments and pulls references together.  Mr. Rabbitt noted what was unique about the 2007 POCD was an effort by multiple commissions/task forces to look at specific subjects and write sections, taking ownership of those sections; the consultant in this revision process is strengthening the plan, where needed, and also consolidating similar subject matter, where possible.  Regarding going through each section to parse language, Mr. Rabbitt confirmed that would be done in early spring for incorporation into the document released to the public, with possibly one additional Commission vetting to follow.  Commissioner Leavitt-Smith asked if the Commission was still planning to dedicate one meeting a month to the POCD.  Mr. Rabbitt confirmed that intent, but it has been complicated by an application.  Chairman Rice noted Planometrics is on schedule with the POCD.

Mr. Rabbitt advised the Commissioners that the Connecticut Bar Association has a land use seminar every 2 years, and will be held this year on 03/25/2017 at Wesleyan.  He noted in the past the seminar has filled up; they can accommodate 300-400 people in the auditorium and in the past late attendance resulted in being bumped to a classroom watching speakers on a small monitor, rather than being in the large auditorium.  Commissioners Kulakowski and Needham have attended in the past and strongly recommended other Commissioners attend.  Mr. Rabbitt provided the Commissioners with signup forms to be sent to him.  He noted leading land use attorneys in Connecticut will speak, including Mike Cisco, Mark Brandt, and Robin Pearson, any of whom he would recommend hiring as a Town Attorney.  He noted that this year digital copies and not booklets will be provided to attendees; he offered that the Town could print them out and have them bound as they are a good resource.   He will collect signup forms and the Town will pay the fee, but if signup is last minute, a Commissioner may have to pay and then be reimbursed by the Town.

Commissioner Leavitt-Smith complimented Chairman Rice on another outstanding job conducting a Public Hearing and doing a really nice job.

VII.         ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m.

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