Planning Commission Minutes 05/10/2016
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 10, 2016
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman William Rice opened the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:05 p.m. at Eno Hall Auditorium, 754 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, Connecticut. Also present were Jamie Rabbit, Director of Planning and Community Development; Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
Chairman Rice led attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.
II. ROLL CALL
Commission members in attendance were: William Rice, Holly Beum, Alan Needham, Robert Kulakowski, Erin Leavitt-Smith, Ron Locandro, Jr., and Elizabeth Burt.
1. Appointment of Alternates
Chairman Rice noted Alternate Commissioner, Elizabeth Burt, was in attendance but not seated, as a full Board of six regular members were present.
Chairman Rice made a motion to amend the Agenda to take up approval of the Minutes from the April 26, 2016 Meeting.
Commissioner Needham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 26, 2016
Commissioner Beum made a motion to approve the April 26, 2016 Minutes, as written.
Chairman Rice seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
III. APPLICATIONS:
1. Old Business
a. Public Hearing(s)
i. Application #16-01 of Mansour Prime Properties, LLC, Agent; Royce Palmer, Owner; for a 23-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. (received 03/22/2016; public hearing scheduled to open 05/10/2016)
Chairman Rice reviewed there are 35 days to close the Public Hearing on 06/15/2016. He indicated the Commission expects to hear input from the Applicant and residents of Simsbury and guidelines for a smooth hearing include making sure cell phones do not interrupt the meeting. He stated the order of events will be: 1) Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development, will describe CGS 8-30g and the Planning Commission’s role in its application; 2) presentation of the Application by the Applicant’s representative; 3) potential comments by Town Staff and Commissioners asking questions of the Applicant; 4) public attendees will be invited to comment at the podium stating their name, and signing the sheet with their name and address for the record and file; speaker comments should be kept to 5 minutes per person at the podium, but the number of times a person returns to speak at the podium is not limited; this will continue until everyone speaks who wants to; and 5) while the meeting is planned to continue until 10:00 p.m., if there are still comments to be entered into the record, the Public Hearing will be continued until such time as all comments are in the record. Chairman Rice invited questions.
Attorney William Case, representing abutters, Tall Wood Hollow properties, and parties petitioning to intervene submitted intervenor papers for the file for the 3 parties.
Mr. Rabbitt clarified that CGS 8-30g allows an Applicant to submit an application for a development, which does not meet traditional Planning subdivision regulations and/or Zoning requirements, as long as they commit to setting aside 30% of the units at prices or rents deemed affordable for low or moderate income people for 40 years, as stipulated by statute; once an application is submitted, the Planning Commission has the responsibility to review the application as it relates to public health, safety, and the environment; the Commission is not looking at traditional regulatory requirements, i.e. setbacks, lot size, building coverage, etc., but is responsible to determine if an application for affordable housing is denied, that the reasons for denial relating to public health, safety, and the environment outweigh the need for affordable housing in a community as required by 8-30g, which defines a community that is not eligible for exemption as a community that does not have 10% of their housing stock deemed affordable by the State. Mr. Rabbitt noted he had a letter dated 05/09/2016 regarding administration of this Application, which was received 03/22/2016 at the Commission’s 04/12/2016 Regular Meeting and scheduled for Public Hearing for 05/10/2016; and per Connecticut General Statute the Commission has 35 days to close the Public Hearing, but the Applicant can consent to an additional 65 days at any point in the process to give the Commission additional time to make a decision. Staff is in the process of finalizing their review of the Application and scheduling a meeting with the Applicant to go over the findings; therefore, Staff’s recommendation is to continue the Public Hearing with the Eno Hall facility next available on 06/14/2016 as no other facilities of similar size are available in the interim and to allow the Applicant and Staff adequate time to respond to comments and questions. Mr. Rabbitt noted that Bob DeCrescenzo, Town Counsel, and Mike Glidden, Assistant Town Planner, were also in attendance at this meeting. Public attendees indicated they could not hear Mr. Rabbitt’s presentation and he repeated the above information.
Chairman Rice invited the Applicant to give their presentation.
Attorney Lou Wise representing the Applicant and Owner introduced Andrew Quirk, Professional Engineer who will go over the subdivision details, and Brian Miller, a former town planner and consultant in affordable housing plans. Attorney Wise added that 8-30g was enacted by the legislature to encourage affordable housing in the State because of a scarcity of such housing and assure State residents an opportunity to have the same kinds of housing as residents with more income; it was designed for teachers, firemen, policemen, and first-time homebuyers, etc., wishing to remain in the community to have affordable homes to choose from. He indicated 8-30g defines what affordable housing is, provides for a procedure to apply for affordable housing developments; and most importantly, provides a special appeals procedure to Superior Court when affordable housing applications are denied by Planning and Zoning Commissions. He noted Connecticut’s Supreme Court has held the main purpose of 8-30g is to encourage and assist the need for developing affordable housing throughout the State, and as a result, 8-30G is to be liberally construed as a remedial statute by Planning and Zoning authorities. He noted that the only communities exempt from 8-30g applications are towns with in excess of 10% of dwelling units either financed by Connecticut Housing Finance Authority mortgages or are found within affordable housing developments; the latest Connecticut Department of Housing 2015 data shows that of 169 State municipalities, 31 have 10% or greater affordable dwelling units and 138 do not – Simsbury has 3.7% affordable dwelling units and is therefore subject to 8-30g; this data will be submitted for the record. He explained that 8-30g applications supersede all local zoning, including for subdivisions, and CGS 8-25 exempts affordable housing applications even from open space requirements and affordable housing developments can be located anywhere in a municipality, except for industrial districts; the real teeth of statute is found in the appeals section dealing with applications denied by Zoning locally. He read from Judge Fuller regarding land use, “In an affordable housing appeal, the burden of proof is shifted to the agency to show, based upon the record before the agency, that 1) the decision from which the appeal is taken and the reasons given for the decision are supported by sufficient evidence in the record; 2) the decision is necessary to protect substantial public interest in health, safety, or other matters which the Commission may legally consider; 3) such public interest clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing; and 4) such public interest cannot be protected by reasonable changes to the affordable housing development.” He summarized this presents a very difficult burden for municipalities to satisfy.
Attorney Wise discussed the Applicant’s history with this property noting that Michael Mansour of Mansour Developers is a very experienced builder of high-quality subdivision homes and has done a lot of work in the Farmington Valley. He continued that a couple of years ago he signed a contract to purchase the 4.4-acre property at 80 Climax Road. Subsequently, Mr. Mansour met with Town Staff following recent Town promulgation of a Workforce Housing Overlay Zone (WHOZ); Town Staff at that time encouraged Mr. Mansour to consider a WHOZ application as this property was insulated from the rest of the neighborhood, would be a self-contained subdivision on a cul de sac road, and was a modest proposal for 15 lots for single-family homes; he said Town Staff felt this location would be ideal for a first application under WHOZ regulations. Mr. Mansour decided to pursue a WHOZ application, developed a concept, and went to Zoning for informal feedback for 18 lots prior to submitting a formal application; they received very positive feedback for the 18-lot plan with the suggestion that 18 lots was too dense and the lots were reduced to 15; Design Review recommended the application to the Zoning Commission; the Conservation Commission approved the E&S Plan; and prior to Public Hearing all technical issues were resolved with Staff, including the proposed road, drainage system, sewer, and water with no outstanding issues. He continued that despite all these positive factors, the application was denied and they have appealed that decision. He noted that following the denial, Mr. Mansour decided to file the current application which has the same road, sewer and water connections, with the only change being the increased number of lots. He expressed their hope and agreed with Mr. Rabbitt’s suggestion that the hearing remain open to allow them to respond to tonight’s public comments.
Chairman Rice requested Mr. Quirk have the presentation layout simultaneously visible to both the public and Commission.
Mr. Quirk, Project and Professional Engineer, showed the proposed development’s layout on a boundary survey plan before the Commission and public attendees is bounded to the north and east by residences, to the south by a private road named Tall Wood Drive, and Climax Road to the west; 30% of the 4.4-acre development for 23 single-family homes (Sheets S1 and G1) or 7 deed restricted homes would be affordable housing under 8-30g labeled House Type A on the submitted plans for Lots 1, 4, 7, 11, 17, 20 and 23; he submitted for the record proposed house architecture. He reviewed proposed dimension standards for the subdivision for: a 15-foot front yard, 8-foot side yard, and 15-foot rear yard, lot sizes range from 5,000 to 16,000 sq. ft. and are generally 50 ft. wide, and a minimum of 50 ft. from Climax Road right of way would be maintained; public sewer and water were initially approved by the Town of Avon to the project and sewer estimates submitted. He described the drainage analysis as submitted in the storm water management report in an excerpt highlighting a summary rate of discharge chart showing a decrease in runoff through the 100-year storm event, and from the previous application the favorable review letter from the Town Engineer indicating, “that the discharge rate will decrease for various designed storms through the use of onsite storage of storm water provided as part of the proposed storm water system in a controlled storm water outlet from the development site. The proposed discharge rate to the offsite private residential area to the south of the proposed development is also reduced as a result of the reduction in drainage area contributing runoff to this area.” He described the last 2 pages as water shed maps correlating to those charts. He noted the drainage analysis is essentially the same as for their previous application developed with Town Staff’s input, including: the same impervious driveway and roadway area, although the number of lots increased to 23, smaller driveways are proposed and the driveways no longer have side entry garages with front driveways to the homes and a 30-foot x30-foot turnaround area results in a much smaller impervious area so the storm water and sewer system remain the same; currently, the southerly and northwesterly runoff to private residential depression areas provide infiltration with larger events overflowing from the depression areas along Climax Road gutter to the drainage system on Evans Drive with slow infiltration through silty loam soil; post-development storm water conditions replicate this situation with roof galleys recharging ground water onsite and LID replicates the existing system bringing roof water back to the soil; remaining runoff and road runoff are conveyed to an underground concrete retention galley system in front in a Town easement area near Climax Road located near the existing depression area with no discharge from the site expected through a 25-year storm event, similar to present site conditions; an overflow pipe system for larger events is proposed down Climax Road to the Evans Drive drainage system as a prudent conservative measure; a decrease in peak discharge rates through a 100-year storm is expected for both water sheds, which typically would be achieved through 25-year storms, as required by Town regulations, but they wish to respond to the project’s sensitivity; they also modeled with the Town Engineer the larger 78-acre watershed area which indicated a decrease and this development represents about ½ of 1% of the overall watershed area. Mr. Quirk reviewed for Sheet G2 that a detailed Erosion and Sedimentation Plan was developed calling for limited lot disturbance while the road is constructed and a separate E&S Plan for the road construction phase, including diversion swales and sedimentation barriers; the Town will have the power to enforce as part of the unanimously-approved Conservation Commission permit at their last meeting, with their conditions requiring weekly E&S inspections by the Town. He added extensive water quantity measures are included as part of the storm water management system; a stone envelope and storage for a 100-year event has provided a conservative design; the soil testing and lack of issues with the current septic system and drainage issues are testament to the soil’s ability to infiltrate storm water; water quality has been addressed through a series of catch basin sumps and separating roof water from the drainage system. He concluded that the storm water management plan remains the same as previously submitted for WHOZ due to the roadway and driveway impervious areas remaining the same.
Brian Miller, Certified Town Planner and affordable housing consultant, indicated that one of the 8-30g requirements is that an affordability plan be submitted that governs the 7 affordable units; and the purpose of the affordability plan is to create a blueprint so the administrator can insure the plan actually occurs. He added the plan submitted to the Commission was prepared in accordance with CGS 8-30g, as well as the regulations of the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) promulgated in conformance with 8-30g. He noted the affordability guidelines are based on how affordable they would be to residents of the community on a monthly cost basis of either the lower for the Hartford/West Hartford area or State median income; in this instance, the Hartford SMSA updated annually by the State is slightly lower than for the State. He indicated 7 of the units or 30% are affordable for this plan with 4 for families earning 60% of estimated medina income or $54,600/year and the other 3 earning 80% of estimated median income or $72,800/year and the latest median income is $87,500; there are adjustments for purchase and rental for size of unit, family size, etc., which are all set forth in the DECD regulations. He emphasized what they have provided are samples of calculation of prices and income eligibility; incomes change annually and for sale units they take 1/12 of the property tax burden, and it is very subject to changing mortgage rates and recalculated annually. He said the plan administrator would be approved by the Town, which could be the housing authority or a non-profit entity. He gave the example that currently houses set aside at 80% would be priced at $279K, those set aside at 60% would be priced at $200K, and others at market rate. He said there are assumptions regarding mortgages, utility costs, etc., under State regulations and when things change the administrator will make annual adjustments. They provided sample deed restrictions for affordable units for a 40-year time period, as called for by State law, and procedures for those unit owners over time, not just for the initial owner.
Attorney Wise added that the affordable house and market rate unit designs will be indistinguishable.
Chairman Rice invited Commission questions. Commissioner Beum asked if interest rates and costs go up, could the purchaser of a deed restricted home lose money on the home? Mr. Miller responded that was a possibility. Chairman Rice asked if there are any State regulations or deed restrictions requiring re-assessment of a property owner’s qualification after the initial assessment? Mr. Miller responded that the assessment is done once. Commissioner Burt asked if someone qualifies and buys a house, can they rent the house? Mr. Miller responded that it has to be owner occupied according to deed restriction; however, the developer could rent it out initially, but once it is sold it must be owner-occupied. Chairman Rice asked if it was anticipated for the affordable units that they would be owners rather than renters? Mr. Miller answered the deed allows either one, but the original developer can rent it out to an eligible family going through the administrative procedures, but once it is sold the unit must be owner occupied.
Commissioner Beum asked where the water and sewer connections to the Town of Avon were shown? Mr. Quirk responded Sheet D1 for the roadway plan and profile shows the sewer manhole on Climax Road and water being extended to the site from Avon via public water main; they have resubmitted updated sanitary sewer flows for review by Avon and the approval letters may not have come through yet, but they were approved last time and he will confirm that. Chairman Rice noted the previous application had quite a few less bedrooms; he asked for a statement from the water supply entity that water can be supplied adequately at the proper quality. Mr. Quirk will confirm and provide that statement. Chairman Rice commented the storm water management excerpt was updated February 5, 2016, and the Town Engineer’s letter referred to was dated October 15, 2015, presumably in response to the earlier application and he requested an updated letter from the Town Engineer for this Application. Mr. Quirk agreed with that. Commissioner Needham asked if there was any traffic information? Attorney Wise responded that under the Town’s subdivision regulations fewer than 25 lots do not require a traffic study. Chairman Rice noted that due to the number of homes proposed, the Commission would need to see a traffic study referring to requirements under CGS 8-30g. Attorney Wise agreed to do that. Attorney Wise confirmed regarding renting units, that his client intends to sell all the units. Chairman Rice asked if the roof runoff collected in drainage galleries required maintenance of those galleries? Mr. Quirk responded they collect water from the roof leaders and there is an overflow at the roof leader connection to the underground system so if there was a failure it would flow to the grass area and there is no anticipated maintenance. Chairman Rice asked if they would not to be periodically cleaned out? Mr. Quirk indicated any sediment would be caught in the catch basin sump systems and the key is to schedule cleaning those systems to prevent sediment from entering underground storage systems; and cleaning drainage systems on Town roads is the responsibility of the Town. Commissioner Beum asked for clarification regarding the rooftop storage area setup. Mr. Quirk compared it to a small septic system with plastic half-moon arched units with a stone bottom collecting runoff from the roof area allowing water to percolate through the stone into surrounding soils; they are located at least 15 feet from the house down gradient in the rear yard with a pipe underground so you would not know they are there and are not re-introducing ground water to the footing system and there is an overflow at the roof leader. Commissioner Kulakowski asked for a letter from the Fire Marshal regarding acceptability of the cul de sac radius. Mr. Quirk indicated the cul de sac meets the Town standard and they will reconfirm with the Fire Marshal. Chairman Rice asked for comment regarding the driveways serving 5 homes. Mr. Quirk indicated there would be a common easement for those lots. Commissioner Rice asked how that affected affordability for those lots? Mr. Miller responded that an association would be established for those lots, unless there is just a common easement where the homeowners get together and decide. Commissioner Kulakowski asked if that would be part of the affordability calculation for the property? Mr. Miller indicated if there was a fixed cost, e.g. $20/month, that would be figured in for that unit and would be part of the administrator’s process. Alternate Commissioner Elizabeth Burt asked if this was considered a homeowner’s association? Mr. Miller responded it was not, it is a subdivision with some common driveways and with an easement; homeowners figure things out generally, which would be separate from the affordability part but would be on the deeds for lots with shared driveways. Chairman Rice asked how homeowners will manage entry/exit of their vehicles? Mr. Quirk anticipated individuals would drive straight into their 2-car garages via 2-car wide driveways with 15 feet in front of the garage for parking; for the common driveway, they left a larger area for turnaround. Chairman Rice asked about the area identifying snow storage and asked for it to be calculated and its effectiveness to be commented on by Public Works. Mr. Quirk responded they were requested to designate those areas in the right of way and they can calculate that space. Alternate Commissioner Burt asked for clarification regarding private property storage of water offsite. Mr. Quirk clarified their analysis was for 3 drainage directions – one toward Climax Road and one private depression offsite south of the development with a decrease in runoff calculated in both directions; underground storage is within the development in concrete galleys underground as part of the Town drainage system; and the reference to Evans Drive is for an overflow pipe in the event those galleys overflow which would connect to the Evans Drive existing storm drainage. Commissioner Beum asked if the traffic study would address safety issues concerning property egress? Mr. Quirk agreed to do that.
Regarding the intervenor petition and their role in the Public Hearing, Town Attorney DeCrescenzo reviewed that the petition was submitted under Statute 22a.19 where any Connecticut resident can submit a petition in any proceeding where the petition claims that the proposed activity is reasonably likely to unreasonably pollute the air, water, and other natural resources of the State of Connecticut; technical requirements include: the form of the petition has to be a sworn statement of the petitioner, residence requirements that the resident petitioner be an abutter; the form alleges 5 different areas in which the proposed activity allegedly is reasonably likely to unreasonably pollute the air, water, and other natural resources of the State. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated the Planning Commission would need to act to allow the petitioners into the proceeding or not, and the question is whether to do that tonight or wait until the next public hearing; if they are allowed standing to pursue their petition before this Commission they would be allowed to put on evidence as to the specific areas addressed in the petition. Importantly, Attorney DeCrescenzo clarified that the petition does not expand the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction; the alleged activity to reasonably pollute has to be directly related to the Commission’s jurisdiction and he suggested the Commission request a memo from him laying this all out to be very clear what standards have to be met and what evidence must be received. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated the court cases are very clear about whether or not to accept the petition in 22a.19; he offered to provide the Commission advice tonight about whether the form of the petition meets the standards of the statute; if the Commission wanted to act tonight and accept the petition under 22a.19, then they would make a presentation of their evidence related to the petition at the next section of the Public Hearing. Commissioner Needham asked about the effect of delaying accepting the petition? Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated the petitioner should be provided ample opportunity to prepare their testimony, and it is just as important to give the Applicant the opportunity to rebut whatever evidence the petitioner brings forward; also, the public has the right to address the Application and, if it is granted, the petition as well; he reiterated the testimony from the public and petitioners is limited to the five areas alleged in the petition; however, they can also speak independently to the Application. Attorney DeCrescenzo can address in a memo before the next meeting whether the Applicant has met the burden of proof and indicated there is no downside to accepting the petition at this meeting. Attorney Wise indicated the Applicant has not seen the petition and would like an opportunity to see the petition, review it, and provide a written objection and response. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated the Applicant is entitled to that and noted the difficulty of the 35-day time limit and asked for the third time if the Applicant would be willing to grant an extension. Attorney Wise agreed the Applicant would provide an extension. Attorney DeCrescenzo emphasized the need to create a very clear record for all parties as it may go to appeal, and requested Mr. Wise provide their agreement to provide an extension in writing. Mr. Wise agreed to provide that extension in writing. Attorney DeCrescenzo asked the Applicant to provide the maximum 65-day extension; Mr. Wise indicated they would like to do it step-by-step with 30 days; Attorney DeCrescenzo noted the Commission has a 65-day pool to be used in each of the 3 periods: the first period has been satisfied with the Public Hearing opened within 65 days of the Application’s receipt; the second period closes within 35 days of the opening; and the third period to take action within 65 days of the closing of the Public Hearing, and they do not want to spend all 65 days on the Public Hearing. Mr. Wise indicated a third extension could be granted, if needed. Attorney DeCrescenzo noted the need for fairness to the petitioners. Chairman Rice noted a number of questions brought up and the need to allow sufficient time for the Applicant to respond properly. Attorney DeCrescenzo believed those responses should be received at the next Public Hearing date to accommodate public input regarding the petition. Alternate Commissioner Burt asked for clarification about what “petition” is being referred to? Attorney DeCrescenzo clarified it was the Application for Intervenor Status, which includes 3 documents submitted tonight and the Commissioners have not yet received a copy.
Chairman Rice made a motion to postpone taking up the petition until June 14, 2016, to give time for the Town Attorney to review and prepare a summary, and also provide the Applicant the ability to read, absorb, and prepare for any rebuttal required.
Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the motion.
Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested a deadline of 5-7 days before the 06/14/2016 hearing date so Staff has time to include it in the meeting packet.
Chairman Rice amended the motion that any correspondence needs to be completed 7 days before June 14, 2016, so it can be included in the meeting packet.
Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the amended motion, and it was passed unanimously, as amended.
Commissioner Locandro requested the Applicant’s Professional Engineer also provide information regarding the Fire Marshal’s requirements in coordination with Avon Water Company’s final recommendations because they are in different jurisdictions.
Chairman Rice opened the floor to public comment.
Joe Pietsu of Simsbury congratulated the Commission on the excellent questions asked and looked forward to the answers from Staff and Counsel. He heard tonight that the Commission does not have the final approval from Avon Water and Sewer; he did not know if the previous application for 15 units was sufficient for a new application for 23 units and he did not know how the timetable can work without a complete application; and similarly for fire. He understood these homes would be built for purchase, but the Applicant’s representative admitted tonight that they might rent them and he did not know if rental property is included in this type of application; since the Applicant’s representative brought that up as a possibility, it should be considered as part of this Application.
Todd Furnow, a resident of Climax Road, had two comments: first, following the gentleman who spoke regarding the increase to 23 units providing the same numbers as previously, he believed while the impervious driveway surface may be the same, there would be more roofs, sewage, drainage, and water. Also, he noted a new 92-acre development of 1 million sq. ft. has since been approved by Avon at the end of Climax Road; and given the increased burden placed on Avon, he believed up-to-date information should be obtained. Second he noted in development of Powder Forest a number of affordable units are proposed and there is a substantial stock of houses in Simsbury that are not selling at the rate they propose to sell these houses; he did not see how someone making $55K/year could afford to buy a house at $210K projecting into the future. He asked who will bear the burden if the 7 houses don’t sell at the prices they propose; he noted that in Powder Forest they came back to the Planning and Zoning Boards for relief to eliminate the 40-year deed restriction and what will they do to bear the cost of maintaining 7 unoccupied houses?
Joan Pell, of 26 Wickham Drive, talked about what has been going on in Simsbury for many years. She understood the statute for affordable housing requires a 40-year restriction on housing set asides; why restrict the time to 40 years as an arbitrary date? In 1990, the Town used the land set aside under the Eno Trust for the poor of Simsbury through the actions of the State and developed 50 units as the Eno Farms affordable housing complex; there were deed restrictions not adhered to leaving the complex as a fraudulent operation and in litigation for years. The land given to the Town under the Eno Trust encompasses Eno Farms affordable housing, the Town dump, the community farm, Virginia Connolly homes, and Owen Murphy apartments and the only complexes adhering to the deed are the elderly complexes under the housing authority; in this case, restrictions placed on the deeds were ignored. CHFA, the owner of Eno Farms, does not have clear title to several properties, is still in litigation, and the properties cannot be sold. An age-restricted complex was developed around 1970 at Noel Lane; these restrictions became so cumbersome that for the homeowners to sell the properties that all restrictions were voided and now the community has unrestricted housing. There are numerous other developments where restrictive covenants were eliminated as too restrictive to sell. The restrictions placed under the affordable housing act have unintended consequences of being too restrictive. Past history in Simsbury has shown that trying to experiment with legislation for affordable housing and deed restricted property place not only burdens on the property owners, but the Town that administers these restrictions. Land use has always had cycles of bubbles of increase in development and lower demand that lowers the value of the property. Presently, there are many homes in Simsbury that are affordable due to market value without restrictions. The affordable housing act does not benefit the community but increases the wealth of the developer through increased density. The affordable act should be repealed and the marketplace should determine the value of the property. Simsbury presently has many homes that are below the affordable housing level; the burden of compliance to the act placed on the Town and the homeowner is unreasonable. Simsbury has had testimony in the past that the owners of restricted housing were unable to sell their homes because banks would not supply the loans; the Town had lifted the restriction on a home in the development owned by Ensign Bickford. It was her opinion that the affordable housing act is flawed and should be repealed through legislation. She asked that the Planning Commission require monthly reports on all the activity in the development and the number of people purchasing the affordable units; the burden of proof of compliance should be required by the developer and then the homeowners over the years. She thanked the Commission for listening.
Holly Kuny of Climax Road, noted the goal to achieve a percentage of affordable housing for the town of Simsbury, a lofty and excellent idea, although she was not happy with the density, her concern is that if you qualify for a house selling for a reduced rate, e.g. $210K, and household income goes up substantially that there will be no income check in the future, but only a qualification when they go into the home. Her concern was that these homes will be occupied by people who can afford a more expensive home, which wipes out the whole low-income affordable theory in her mind. But what happens when these people sell the house, will they be forced to sell at a reduced rate, will they have stay there, or will it be turned into a rental property. She did not see how it could work on a math basis and it made no sense to her. She thanked the Commission.
Bob Yugenheimer of Sunset Hill Road, spoke about: 1) that 35% of 23 homes discussed earlier would be 9 homes, not 7, which affects their economics; 2) the road and sewage plans previously presented are still good; however, the number of homes needing sewage have increased by 50% and any cushion has disappeared and this does not make sense; 3) for the 26-foot roadway discussed, he wanted to be sure that was not a right of way, which should be significantly more than that; he wondered if Mike Paine could get 2 trucks on that road and believed it would be very difficult; he noted in a recent incident at a neighbors with 3 fire trucks, an ambulance and 2 police cars and he did not see how the circle here could handle that; 4) for water flow into a neighboring yard, has the neighbor agreed to that; at the previous meeting an Avon neighbor made it clear he would not go along with that. He believed this development was poorly thought daydream at best. He thanked the Commission.
Louise DiAugusto of Northgate, spoke on behalf of destruction of natural habitat, including birds, animals and other area creatures, and she did not support this project.
Joanne Pomeroy of 65 Blue Ridge Drive, noted the Applicant’s statement that the driveway and roadway space was the same as for the previous proposal for15 lots, but didn’t mention the total impervious surfaces for the roofs or square footage of the houses. She was looking at this property’s water that was not going into the ground currently for one house and one driveway; mosquitoes breed wherever rain collects or water is stored; eggs can survive up to a year in a dry state and then will hatch when water comes back; given concerns about Zica virus for which there is no vaccine or treatment and causing birth defects like microcephaly and other neurological problems, and while it is fine to say there are downspouts, gutters, and catch basins, but who has not had downspouts or catch basins clog with leaves; and there are many things in the environment that can cause problems and mosquito breeding grounds.
Brian Parker of 10 Miller Road, was offended by the Applicant’s Attorney’s initially implied threat to the Commission that if they don’t approve the proposal, they will sue and appeal. He discussed the conversation about traffic and safety, given the large project coming in Avon; every house will have at least 1 worker and to maintain these houses there will be 2 people working for each house with 2 cars per day; there would be 100 cars/day on Climax Road x 30 days/month is 3000 extra cars on 2 lanes and if the road is doubled in size, people on Climax Road would lose more property; he asked that the traffic study address that point; 3000 cars a day would give everyone on the panel 3 stacks of the pencil visual aid. He thanked the Commission.
Robert Kalechman of Simsbury, discussed the concept of ipso facto; he attended Zoning meetings regarding the last 4-5 applications presented for Hopkins Way, Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Weiss and his company, Mr. Girard, and like Mr. Reagan said – here we go again. He noted the proposal has been approved by Design Review, but when it reached Zoning for some reason almost the same proposal as Mr. Girard’s was presented; he believed it would be approved and the Town did away with affordable housing as required by the law, but affordable housing is not available in Simsbury. He is a constitutionalist, both U.S. and State, because he has seen the people who did the sweat to allow people to sit here and enjoy the constitution. He spoke with Mr. Rabbitt about Greenberg’s trenches across Rte. 10 affecting his car and was told Avon Water Company has the trench, but he did not understand that. He thought this would not be stopped and suggested legislating and putting restrictions on it or there will be a judge requiring Simsbury to have affordable housing. He noted he did not have a dog in the fight and recommended not playing to politics; Simsbury is moving from going to high school to a doctorate in college.
Bob Duguay of Nod Brook Drive, expressed appreciation for the Commission composed of Town volunteers. He noted better amplification was required for him to be able to understand Mr. Rabbitt’s previous explanation. He recommended there should be a requirement for a homeowner’s association with a number of houses needing to get together for snow removal, etc. He lives in an interior lot and was told there couldn’t be another building lot behind him due to an insufficient right of way of 25 feet; this roadway is 26 feet wide, which is not very wide with 2 cars at each house and may have 3-4 cars – this configuration will not work and would be a hazard to people working there. He strongly recommended doing a parking study. He also noted the very large Avon development at the bottom of the hill and that there may be other issues for sewage, etc. and recommended updating that information. He spoke about the beauty of the neighborhood which they would like to retain and this hurts that. He noted mortgage rates are at historic lows and what will happen when a $180K mortgage rate increases to 6%? He thanked the Commission.
Bob Eulay of ? Drive, served on the original housing partnership that worked on Eno Farms and also served in the past on the Planning Commission when the POCD was developed. He noted counsel talked about the statute’s requirement to look at public health, safety, and the environment and whether they outweigh the need for affordable housing; he also said that traditional metrics, e.g. lot size, setbacks, etc. are not looked at; he asked the Commission to use their common sense in looking at this plan and parcel which is creating a parking lot in a residential area. He believed it would have an adverse effect on public health; regarding safety on Climax Road, with school buses and kids especially in the morning, would create a safety issue; as a green space in a nice area of Town, the environment would be adversely affected by turning it into a housing project. He suggested the Commission use common sense and that using a noble statute like affordable housing as leverage to force the Town to negotiate a suit is offensive and wrong.
Michelle Pratt of ? Terrace thanked the Commissioners for their service. She asked who these houses would be marketed next door to and could not imagine who would want to spend more than $220K, $230K. $240K. Her concern was the area would become underdeveloped and the area would look like a war zone. She thanked the Commission.
Greg Mascoli of 9 Tall Wood Hollow, Avon, indicated his property directly abuts the development and indicated the location of his house on the map with his front door some multiples of 8 feet away and he is not supportive of the development. He asked who protects his rights, not financially, but from the health, safety, and environmental perspective with these houses in his front yard. His property floods from a simple thunder storm and from runoff from next door and the surrounding area; that is for Tall Wood Hollow which is not a paved road, so they already have that problem. He noted that with this paved development, the developer feels the runoff is no problem and he is not happy about that and asked that the Commission consider asking the developer to consider not routing their runoff onto his property. He noted the buried structure with gravel beneath to allow roof water to percolate into the soil sounds like it will percolate into his well water; he does not want to pay for Avon water to come to his house and asked who will do the study to tell him his well will not be affected and who has the obligation to pay for the study – he did not feel it should be his obligation to pay for that; he asked that there be a study of the groundwater, which he believed is significant. He asked where all the garbage for these houses will be stored? He had a bear in his year today and noted the number of trash barrels that will be present in the development and with bears there will be trash all over the neighborhood. He is planning to live there for years and asked how much of lawn debris, etc. will end up in his yard; he will have to deal with neighbors dumping their material in Tall Wood Hollow. He asked who was concerned about his, and his family’s health and safety from this development; he did not know if it is the Commission’s obligation as he is in Avon. Chairman Rice asked about the location of his property. Mr. Mascoli indicated the location of Tall Wood Hollow, the private road running across his property, a right of way across his property for the other dwellers, and his property, #9, is the first property on Tall Wood.
Bob Michoski of Tall Wood Hollow, has lived there for over 40 years with one house per acre. He reiterated what Mr. Mascoli said and that he has to maintain the road and there is no way that the water isn’t going to run down as described; that is a main point and there will be problems with that. Who would they go after, given 40 years of his maintaining the road, if it changes drastically; why would he have to accept that? He felt it was a joke and insult and asked where the snow would go – there is no way anything can be done with the snow. He recalled in the snow storm a few years back that they were cutting down trees so Climax Road residents go through and there was no place for the snow; they have 1 foot snow storms all the time and they will not have a place for it with 2 small spots described. He felt there were many problems and the development was being shoved down the throats of the Town and they will make a lot of money under the State Affordable Housing Act; hopefully, the Commission will not allow them to do it, but he did not know how to stop it. He said it would really affect Tall Wood Hollow and they would have to do something if it does – do they sue Simsbury or the State because that will come down the road along with all the wonderful statements made. He is a 40-year expert on the road; it is called the Moravian Woods which is one of the last old stand forests around with 130 foot trees that will be cut down; the grass is just like a road with the water having no place to go. He felt it was frustrating to see this happen for a lot of money for Mansour, noting the Commissioners are not paid and he thanked them for their service and for listening.
Mr. Duguay returned to the podium and added that on a 25-foot wide street you cannot remove snow without a bucket; this is a Town road and the developer needs an HL way to avoid blight; for a 25-foot road a Town full-sized snow removal truck cannot remove street snow and leave driveways in a safe position to allow response by fire trucks or ambulances. He described this as instant blight.
Mr. Parker returned to the podium regarding the cistern being basically a dry well dribbling into the aquifer with the residents all on well water. He noted that there is not city water on the street and if the well water gets sour or tainted somehow they cannot sell their houses and are drinking tainted water – he asked that the Commission consider that.
Betty Goldfarb of Nod Brook Drive, moved here 4 years ago from her former ¼-acre lot to a 1-acre lot here and enjoys the larger lot. She noted that the former Application for this project was defeated and now they have returned under the Affordable Housing Act and won’t the Commission be terrible to deny it. Her suggestion was that the developer build 7 affordable houses on the property.
Mr. Mascoli returned to the podium and agreed with building the affordable housing units, e.g. 4 affordable houses, maybe 5 or 6, but 14 or 23 and all the associated problems are what is objected to. His opinion is that the developer is not interested in affordable housing and it is only about them making money here and now, and has no interest down the road what happens to this property.
Jen Fish of Wheeler Road, was born and grew up there, and recalled that when a neighbor on the street agreed to a right of way for water to come off Evans Drive and across their property it goes directly into the neighbors behind them causing continual massive water problems. Also, water coming off Evans across to Wheeler Road and onward it impacts two houses down from her at a lower elevation. She has water coming down Wheeler during regular rainstorms. She has always been concerned about the well water, as they are all on well water; the well water has changed from when she grew up there in the ‘50’s with the development that has occurred and she is very concerned about the water from this project affecting their well water. Regarding cisterns and the overflow going down Evans Road, she felt it is already a big problem and effect houses at the bottom of the hill and over to Wellington. She thanked the Commission.
Burt Goldfarb of 4 Nod Brook Lane, asked what the mean selling price is for a house in Simsbury? The Commissioners would not speculate. He believed the mean to be somewhere in the low $300,000’s, so these low-income houses are only going for a little less than regular housing stock; with the price of existing houses going down, it seemed absurd to build houses at this low-income price when there are other houses people can buy in Simsbury. He could not imagine that these houses on tiny lots will go for $500K because you can buy a real nice house for $500K in Simsbury on a big lot. He also mentioned other residents of this property in the environment, including the flora and fauna, e.g. bears, coyotes, foxes, raccoons, occasional moose traveling through, and where would they be moved to; also, the old growth trees – would they be replaced with new hardwoods and take 60 years to reach the stage they are currently at – also there are birds in the wetlands, e.g. hawks, and birds of prey, birds distributing seeds and pollinating plants; there are amphibians that are endangered species in the wetlands – where would they live; discussion of the environment should consider the current residents living there. He thanked the Commission.
Chairman Rice asked if there was any further public comment? There was none. He asked Attorney DeCrescenzo if it was appropriate at this point to allow the petitioner to address the Application and also to allow the Applicant the opportunity to respond to comments of their choosing noting there is sufficient time to respond to all the comments at the continuation of the Public Hearing on 06/14/2016. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated that would be appropriate. Attorney Wise asked if the petitioners intended to speak tonight or in June? Attorney Case responded that the petitioner will respond to Staff and Applicant comments on 06/14/2016 and asked for any response received from Attorney Wise, that they be given the opportunity to respond; they plan to provide on 06/14/2016 testimony and evidence from expert engineers the petitioner has hired because there are design and drainage standards that present serious problems. Attorney Case noted their petition outlines this in general terms and their engineer with 40 years’ experience was present at this meeting. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated the Applicant and the petitioner would have 21 days to prepare and Staff would make sure whatever comments they are asked to prepare regarding the petition and any documents or communication are shared with the Applicant and petitioner in anticipation of the Commission’s action; he noted at this point the Commission has not asked for legal advice. Mr. Rabbitt indicated Staff is in the process of finalizing review and meeting dates for next week are being discussed with the Applicant that should be solidified tomorrow; once comments are given to the Applicant they are public and part of the file. Attorney Wise requested a copy of any report by the petitioner’s engineer for the Applicant to review and respond to. Attorney DeCrescenzo agreed that whatever reports the petitioner plans to present also be supplied 7 days before the 06/14/2016 meeting; he recommended to the Commissioners that the petitioner be prepared to put testimony in the record on 06/14/2016, including reports, to assure due process for all parties in the Public Hearing process. Commissioner Beum asked for clarification of when there is a decision regarding the petition? Attorney DeCrescenzo responded a decision would be made on 06/14/2016. Regarding accepting the petition tonight, Chairman Rice was not comfortable doing so without having had time to review it and asked if it could be taken up at the regular meeting in 2 weeks? Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated a Public Hearing would have to be noticed for that meeting to act on the petition. Mr. Rabbitt added there is nothing in the process to prevent abutters who have hired experts from providing testimony at the next Public Hearing regardless of the decision on the intervenor’s petition, e.g. if it is denied, they would still be allowed to provide expert or lay testimony on the public record regarding the Application before the Commission; he suggested they be prepared to do so on 06/14/2016. Attorney DeCrescenzo confirmed a decision would have to be made on the petition on 06/14/2016 and could be first on the Agenda; the parties agreed with that.
Chairman Rice asked if the Applicant would like to respond to any of the comments this evening? Attorney Wise responded they would wait until 06/14/2016.
Commissioner Kulakowski asked whether there was any information received from the Capitol Region of Governments? Mr. Rabbitt confirmed there was; he provided the Commissioners with copies of the affordability housing appeals list for exempt and non-exempt municipalities. Mr. Rabbitt advised that if the intent is to continue the Public Hearing, the time, date and place should be stipulated.
Chairman Rice stipulated the Public Hearing for Application #16-01 is continued until June 14, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at Eno Memorial Hall.
2. New Business
a. Receipt of New Applications
i. None
b. Referrals
i. None
IV. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Executive Session
a. Pending Litigation
2. Commission Education/Workshop (time permitting)
Mr. Rabbitt commented that Chairman Rice did a very good job conducting the meeting and the Commissioners in asking questions and noted that unless a member is seated they cannot be involved in the discussion and/or decision making process, except they can attend executive session and can ask questions during the Public Hearing process, which allows them to be prepared regarding a decision if they are subsequently seated; Attorney DeCrescenzo confirmed that is the bright line rule in Connecticut.
3. Plan of Conservation and Development Update – Request for Qualifications
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Beaum made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Commissioner Leavitt-Smith seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.