Planning Commission Minutes 06/14/2016
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 14, 2016
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman William Rice opened the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:02 p.m. at Eno Hall Auditorium, 754 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, Connecticut. Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
Chairman Rice led attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Rice requested that audience attendees advise him if they are unable to hear those speaking.
II. ROLL CALL
Commission members in attendance were: William Rice, Holly Beum, Alan Needham, Robert Kulakowski, Erin Leavitt-Smith, and Ron Locandro, Jr.
1. Appointment of Alternates
A quorum was present and no alternates were seated.
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.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 10, 2016
Commission Secretary Kulakowski led review of the May 10, 2016 Regular Meeting Amendment.
Chairman Rice with the Commissioners concurrence provided the following corrections and changes to names and addresses for the May 10, 2016, minutes:
On Line 337, the spelling of the name “Pietsu” is corrected to “Piecuch” and following the word “of” the words “8 Oakwood Terrace,” are added.
On Line 346, the spelling of the name “Furnow” is corrected to “Fernow” and following the word “Road,” the word “Simsbury,” is added.
On Line 359, the spelling of the name “Pell” is corrected to “Coe”; the spelling of the word “Wickham” is corrected to “Whitcomb”; and following the word “Drive,” the word “Simsbury,” is added.
On Line 390, the spelling of the name “Kuny” is corrected to “Kuhne”; preceding the word “Climax” the number “17” is inserted; and following the word “Road,” the word “Simsbury,” is added.
On Line 400, the spelling of the name “Yugenheimer” is corrected to “Jugenheimer”; preceding the word “Sunset” the number “15” is inserted; and following the word “Road,” the word “Simsbury,” is added.
On Line 411, the spelling of the name “DiAugusto” is corrected to “Dagosto”; preceding the word “Northgate,” the number “35” is inserted; and following the word “Northgate,” the word “Simsbury,” is added.
On Line 414, the spelling of the name “Pomeroy” is corrected to “Pomerantz”; and following the word “Drive,” the word “Simsbury,” is added.
On Line 424, the spelling of the name “Parker” is corrected to “Karpe”; the word “Miller” is deleted and replaced by “Wheeler”; and following the word “Road,” the word “Avon,” is inserted.
On Line 447, the number “11” is inserted before the word “Nod”; and following the word “Drive,” the word “Simsbury,” is added.
On Line 460, the spelling of the name “Eulay” is corrected to “Mule' “; and delete “? Drive” and replace it with “9 Eastview Drive, Simsbury,”.
On Line 472, the spelling of the name “Michelle Pratt” is corrected to “Michele Piecuch”; and the words “? Terrace” are replaced by “8 Oakland Terrace, Simsbury,”.
On Line 527, before the word “Nod” the number “4” is inserted; and following the word “Drive,” the word “Simsbury,” is added.
On Line 537, the spelling of the name “Jen” is corrected to “Jeanne”; and following the word “Road,” the word “Avon,” is added.
On Line 548, following the word “Lane,” the word “Simsbury,” is added.
Commissioner Locandro made a motion to approve the May 10, 2016 Minutes, as amended.
Commissioner Needham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
IV. 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. (public hearing continued to 06/14/2016)
b. Application (discussion and possible action on):
ii. 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. (public hearing continued to 06/14/2016)
Chairman Rice read the Application #16-01 into the record.
Chairman Rice advised attendees that a memo was received from Mr. Rabbitt indicating the Applicant’s desire to not present any material nor respond to questions tonight and requesting more time to respond to Staff, Commission, and Public comments received at the 05/10/2016 meeting. Mr. Rabbitt clarified receipt of a letter dated 06/10/2016 from Lou Wise, the Applicant’s Attorney, addressed to the Planning Commission and copied to him, where the Applicant requested the Public Hearing be opened this evening and continued to the regularly scheduled meeting on 06/28/2016. He indicated the Applicant felt that would give them adequate time to respond to Staff’s comments from Planning, Engineering, WPCA, Public Works, and the Fire Marshal; the Applicant’s letter also agreed to a 35-day extension of time within which to close the Public Hearing; the additional 30-day extension brings it to the statutory maximum of 65 days, which provides a total 100 days to close the Hearing allowing sufficient time to continue the Hearing to the 06/28/2016 Meeting; while there will not be access to Eno Hall nor the Library meeting room on that date, the meeting will be continued in the Main Meeting Room in the Town Hall. The Public Audience indicated difficulty in hearing Mr. Rabbitt and he repeated the previous information for them, and noted if the Hearing is continued into July, they will have access to other meeting space. Mr. Rabbitt added following discussions with neighbor’s Intervenor counsel that they are also comfortable with continuing the Hearing to 06/28/2016; he noted that the Intervenor’s counsel, Mr. Casey, was present; and Mr. Casey confirmed that understanding. Chairman Rice summarized the possibility of continuing the Intervenor Petition received 05/10/2016 and asked if Mr. Casey had anything to add. Mr. Casey confirmed Mr. Rabbitt’s statement noting the Applicant’s counsel was not present at this meeting and indicated, if the Commission decides to continue the Hearing in two weeks, that the Intervenors agree with that decision.
A member of the Public asked to speak and Chairman Rice invited her to the podium. Bonnie Rothman of 26 Evans Drive, Simsbury, asked if there was something the Townspeople could do for their neighborhoods so this does not happen again with a builder coming in taking acreage in a neighborhood area with a lot of homes to prevent it and protect the community so it is not burst open. Chairman Rice explained that the Connecticut Statutes under 8-30g set forth the requirements and the ability of an Applicant to put in an application like this; certain conditions need to be met and certain philosophies cannot be deviated from, e.g. harming the environment and putting people at risk. Ms. Rothman believed people would be put at risk because the neighborhood has women jogging with children on the street, and people walking dogs; already on Climax Road there is traffic cutting through from Rte. 44 to Bushy Hill and this would male traffic much worse. Chairman Rice thanked her for her comments and clarified there would be a period for public comment.
Chairman Rice indicated a motion needed to be made to continue the Public Hearing. Mr. Rabbitt clarified that once a motion to close the Public Hearing is made, no public testimony can be taken; he noted the Applicant’s counsel is not present nor is the consulting team from the neighborhood intervenors; everyone would need to be patient and return in two weeks. Chairman Rice clarified the public comments received tonight would be recorded but may not be heard directly by the Applicant; public attendees will have an opportunity again to comment at the 06/28/2016 meeting. A member of the public, John Schenkman of 11 Winwood Road, Simsbury, was concerned about constant meetings that do not go anywhere and asked if it would be possible to schedule meetings when it is known the persons will be there, rather than rescheduling. Chairman Rice explained this was a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting and would have occurred in any event; he acknowledged it takes effort for people to come to the meeting and it can be deflating when this happens, but the effort is to minimize unnecessary meetings.
A female member of the public spoke recommending the meeting be adjourned and rescheduled to a time when all parties can interact in order to resolve the issues next time with public comment.
Mr. Rabbitt clarified that Mr. Wise’s letter requesting continuing the Public Hearing allows the opportunity for them to modify and change their plans to address Staff’s comments, including Planning, Engineering, Public Works, Water Pollution and Control Authority (WPCA), and the Fire Marshal; Staff’s comments were lengthy and the Applicant needed the time to address those comments and will submit new plans at the next meeting.
Todd Fernow of 216 Climax Road, Simsbury, indicated he would not be able to attend the next meeting and commented for the record that he knows the Applicant already has an appeal pending if the petition is denied and that the public is limited to what is said on the record in the appeal. He wanted to be clear that his previous testimony and what he says today will be on the record and available, if necessary. He went to the file this week, and noted the Applicant and Intervenor’s may have taken it into account, but the week after the last meeting the Simsbury Director of Public Works sent a letter dated 05/17/2016 regarding the question of snow removal, which was brought up by a neighbor at the last meeting, that in his view the entire snow removal plan is very vague with a plan indicating 3 areas it would be piled. He said the letter made it very clear concerns are very real about moving the snow around and how emergency vehicles will enter/exit. His second concern mentioned at the last meeting regarded the proposal with the Town limited by 8-30g, ordinarily limited by community safety concerns, but he was not convinced the proposal for this property satisfies the threshold question of whether or not there is a real bona fide claim to affordable housing in their proposal; their proposal contemplates that people at the 80% threshold of low income housing deflated by 4.5 children in a house with 3 bedrooms would be at an income of $91K and subtracting from that using the Statute formula; but they have understated both Town taxes, as well as utility costs by a substantial amount, which in the Town cost significantly more than $125/month - using a fairer amount would decrease the cost of a house to $160K, not $200K. He believed their numbers are inflated and they should be held accountable and should be made to answer what they will do with the houses when they cannot sell them. His other point was that even if they reduce the houses to 20, as now proposed, they will not be able to make their money back unless they sell the houses at a rate they cannot sustain, which leaves the Town with vacant houses or houses that have to be sold for much less than proposed. He felt the Commission is entitled to make them answer the questions of what they will do if they cannot sell these houses and fill them so they are not a blight, so they do not come back to the Town and ask to sell the houses for $500K. He believed there are questions they have not dealt with and asked the Commission to hold their feet to the fire.
Bob Duguay of 11 Nod Brook Drive, Simsbury, indicated a desire to be polite and for everyone to be treated fairly by the Commission and that the Townspeople wanted to have a full hearing tonight, with the Applicant’s letter and request described by Mr. Rabbitt. He found it very unusual that the Applicant did not feel it was important enough to send a representative to be present tonight and emphasized he was against this and urged the Commission to deny their request and conclude this matter. He noted the Applicant presumes their request will be granted but felt if they were not polite to him and the neighbors, that they should not be treated politely.
Brian Carly noted there was a request the Hearing be continued, and in case a judge doesn’t grant it, you have someone there; they had a month to do this and should have made sure someone was present so the request should be denied. He felt this was a great way to wear down the neighborhood with people having to keep coming back and hoping less people will show up. He urged the Commission to deny their request and suggested proceeding with the Hearing.
Chairman Rice invited further comment.
April Smith of 44 Climax Road, Simsbury, asked for a signup sheet so the people attending can be recorded so it is known how many people are opposed.
Mr. Rabbitt explained that oral or written testimony can be submitted at the Hearing or until the Hearing closes, so letters from the public can be sent to the Commission until the Hearing closes. He typically advises Commissions under 8-30g to grant requests to continue Public Hearings in order to not cut the process short regarding administration of this Application. He reiterated anyone can submit public testimony until the Hearing is closed because the Commission has to make a decision based on the public record; even if the Applicant sends Staff something, they put it in a sealed envelope and do not read it; the public has the opportunity to address the Commission, the Chairman, through the department letters which are stamped received and added to the file. Mr. Rabbitt noted the Town has a hefty spam filter and to assure receiving correspondence it would be best to bring letters directly to the department where it is stamped in front of you with a copy of the stamped letter provided to you; and he clarified that they cannot confirm receipt of emails.
Holly Kuhne of 17 Climax Road, Simsbury, agreed with her neighbor’s concerns about putting the hearing off and that it should be resolved. She felt it was extraordinarily presumptuous for the people to not be present assuming they would get their way and she had a strong sense that the more it is delayed into the summer with more people away, they will proceed without having to hear from the public. She felt it was extraordinarily rude and presumptuous.
William Casey, Attorney for the Intervenors, indicated they were comfortable with the extension given that it is a particularly complicated Application, and to allow them time to respond to Staff comments. He noted it was part of the 8-30g Application that they address all the health and safety issues, and the Town Department of Water and Pollution Control and Staff did an excellent, very thorough job. He pointed out that Ed Lally and Associates submitted an engineering report on 06/06/2016 and they have a copy and asked that the Commission require the Applicant to submit their proposed changes in a timeframe allowing ample time for their staff and experts’ reviews. He noted they have not yet submitted the requested Traffic Study and he requested ample time be allowed for that review as there are associated issues. He indicated they are trying to help the Town flesh out issues for this problematic Application, which if it is built and approved has serious health and safety issues not addressed in the present plans and that they have not yet shown can be overcome. With the granting of the extension, Mr. Casey requested they have adequate time to respond appropriately. Chairman Rice believed that was a reasonable request and a 7-day deadline for submission of Staff comments to allow the Applicant sufficient time to respond given the extensive comments provided; and the Applicant’s response should be received at least 7 days before the next meeting, which will hold their feet to the fire to allow time for the Applicant to get their work done, and to allow time for Staff and Commission review, as well as for the Intervenors.
An audience member asked if this would be the last continuance? Mr. Rabbitt clarified that the Commission, under State Statute, has the ability to keep the hearing open for a maximum of 100 days from the 05/10/2016 date when the original hearing was opened. Mr. Rabbitt added that due process must be followed in fairness to the Applicant and Commission, and asked if the Commission would like Staff to inform the Applicant it would be appreciated if revised plans were submitted for review by Staff and the Commission 7 days before the next hearing? Chairman Rice confirmed that, but added the plans could also come in after that; Staff will reach out to the Applicant. Mr. Casey asked if it made sense to increase the timeframe to allow the Applicant adequate time to respond, rather than at the meeting in 2 weeks, or there may be another request for another extension in 2 weeks from the Applicant. Mr. Rabbitt indicated the Applicant is doing their best to respond to comments and a request can be made setting a timeframe that Staff and the Commission would appreciate receiving their comments 7 days prior, but they could provide their comments the night of the Hearing and the Commission would have to receive them; the Commission would then need to decide whether to receive them and close the Hearing, ending the proceedings for the Public and the Applicant. Mr. Rabbitt added that if the Hearing is closed, the Commission still has access to Staff. Mr. Rabbitt indicated that if they cannot turn their response around in 7 days, they may appear before the Commission in 2 weeks requesting the Hearing remain open and indicating they would like to respond to Staff’s comments, as well as any from the Public; the State Statute provides for the Hearing to go 100 days – there are no meetings in August and there are meeting dates in July with the last opportunity for the Hearing to close on 07/26/2016 because there is no statutory timeframe to go from 07/26/2016 to the September meeting. Mr. Rabbitt clarified if the Public Hearing is closed on 07/26/2016, the Commission has 65 days to render a decision, which would be at the September meeting; one scenario would be that all extensions are potentially used up during the Public Hearing with the Applicant having the right to request 65 days of extensions that can be used at any point in time during the Application process, so if only 60 days are used, then 5 days would carry over to the decision and the Applicant has to consent. Mr. Rabbitt clarified that under the 8-30g Application process it is not in the best interest of a Commission and/or Applicant to not work in a cooperative manner under the maximum timeframes allowed by the Statute. Commissioner Beum did not believe the Applicant is working in a cooperative manner. Mr. Rabbitt believed it would be extremely shortsighted on the Commission’s behalf with regard to potential future litigation by the Applicant. Mr. Rabbitt and Staff met with the Applicant a week after the last Hearing with Staff’s comments requiring them to do field work to re-engineer and resurvey the site; his extensive experience with the 8-30g process for many subdivisions is that Commission’s allow extensions for the process – the reverse situation could occur where on the 65th day the Commission requires in good faith another week for analysis and one more meeting, and it would be up to the Applicant to consent to that extension; therefore, it would not be beneficial for the Commission not to extend this Hearing and would actually be a detriment to the process.
Chairman Rice asked if there was any further public comment; and there was none. Chairman Rice proposed continuing the Public Hearing with the full understanding cooperation is expected from the Applicant and they are not trying to drag out the process, but rather to respond to comments and have the process work as intended; he acknowledged the need for the Applicant to address comments/questions from the Commission.
Chairman Rice made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at the Main Meeting Room, at 7:00 p.m., Town Hall, granting the extension sought by the Applicant.
Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the motion.
Chairman Rice asked for any discussion by the Commissioners. Commissioner Leavitt-Smith went on record expressing appreciation for the Public’s comments and understood the feelings expressed regarding arrogance, but that it is important the process not be hindered with proper due diligence performed.
The motion was passed with 5 in favor and 1 abstention.
Chairman Rice noted the need to also address the Intervenor’s Petition.
Chairman Rice made a motion to table the Intervenor Petition vote until the next meeting on June 28, 2016.
Commissioner Locandro seconded the motion.
Chairman Rice asked for any discussion by the Commissioners; there was none.
The motion was passed unanimously.
Mr. Duguay asked to address the Commission to comment unrelated to this Application. Mr. Rabbitt clarified there is a set Agenda that does not include public comment with Staff available to answer questions. Mr. Duguay believed his comments were substantive.
Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to amend the Agenda to take public comment.
Commissioner Beum seconded the motion.
Chairman Rice asked for any discussion by the Commissioners; there was none.
The motion was passed unanimously.
Mr. Rabbitt further cautioned this testimony can have no correlation nor relationship to any application before the Commission this evening.
Mr. Duguay responded that it does not and expressed appreciation for the Chairman’s and Commission’s work on behalf of the Town. His comment related to the acoustics in Eno Hall and the difficulty for the audience to hear the proceedings with an investment needed by the Town to provide better microphones; he has repeatedly complained to former First Selectman Mary Glassman and current First Selectman Lisa Heavner about the Town website and suggested the Commission ask for it to be improved in order to improve communication for microphones and emails. He thanked the Commission and expressed appreciation for everyone.
2. New Business
a. Receipt of New Applications
i. None
b. Referrals
i. None
V. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Commission Education/Workshop
Chairman Rice noted that following discussion with Mr. Rabbitt, it was decided to remove the Workshop from the Agenda.
Commissioner Rice made a motion to strike the Commission Education/Workshop
Commissioner Locandro seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
2. Plan of Conservation and Development Update – Request for Qualifications
Mr. Rabbitt reported that the POCD Update RFQ was released last Friday asking for costs, experience, etc. He indicated a goal to have sufficient funding for a large project like this in the Department budget to undertake a reasonably successful POCD in 14-16 months. He asked for the Commission’s assistance in determining the best-qualified consultants to accomplish that task; a price structure is built into the budget. He noted the RFQ is on the Town web page and also on Connecticut Association of American Planners (CCADA) website, and all of the planners/consultants in Connecticut that do POCDs will look at that information; it was not advertised in the Hartford Courant as large firms have search engines; and they already have one firm expressing intent to submit a proposal. Commissioner Beum asked whether it wouldn’t be more efficient to simply contact the last firm who did the POCD? Mr. Rabbitt responded there are two primary consultants in the State and he would not individually contact them; the Commissioners and Mr. Rabbitt explained the procedure in the public sector is quite different from the private sector with State-based planners having access to CCADA, as the primary advertiser of POCDs, and to the Town web page. Mr. Rabbitt will work with the Chairman to vet referrals with a deadline toward the end of June with a small Staff subcommittee open to receive any thoughts. He noted that proposed candidates will be brought before the Commission to build a repoire before a contract is signed. The target for completing the POCD revision is November 2017 and the need to back off 65 days prior to have it available on the Town web page – that is 14 months away; if a town goes longer, the town must submit a letter stating they are in compliance or not in compliance with the POCD, but are X months away and ask for a waiver, but a waiver is only requested if it relates to funding. Mr. Rabbitt has allowed for a small amount of slippage in timing for the POCD revision.
Chairman Rice asked if there was any new business or correspondence; and there was none.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Locandro made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Kulakowksi seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.