Planning Commission Minutes 11/22/2016
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 22, 2016
MINUTES FROM REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Alan Needham opened the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Simsbury Public Library Program Room at 725 Hopmeadow Street. 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
Commissioner Needham led attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Beum made a motion nominating Alan Needham as Acting Chairman.
Commissioner Lungarini seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
II. ROLL CALL
Commission members in attendance were: Gary Lungarini, Holly Beum, Alan Needham, and Erin Leavitt-Smith.
1. Appointment of Alternates
A Commission quorum was present. Chairman Needham appointed Commissioner Lungarini to serve for Robert Kulakowski.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the October 25, 2016 Regular Meeting
Commissioner Leavitt-Smith made a motion to accept the October 25, 2016 Minutes, as recorded.
Commissioner Beum 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 10/25/2016; 65-day extension granted; public hearing must be closed by 02/02/2017)
Chairman Needham read Application #16-02 into the record.
Attorney Lew Wise representing the Applicant reviewed the history leading to this current Application, including that an initial application filed a few months ago for 80 Climax Road was withdrawn because they ran out of time under the statute deadlines due to significant plan revisions and then immediately filed the current application - Mr. Wise asked to incorporate by reference the application file from the initial application in order to be viewed as one application on the record in case the matter goes to appeal. Attorney DeCrescenzo responded that anything the Applicant would like to submit for the first 8-30g application should be submitted as paper documents for clarity with a cover letter making the request, so in the event of an appeal they are in the record.
Attorney Wise summarized that the current 8-30g application is under the State Housing Affordability Statute; there has been extensive litigation regarding affordability plans and the State Supreme Court stated the purpose of 8-30g is to encourage and assist the need for development of affordable housing throughout the state; towns with less than 10% affordable housing, as defined by the Statute, are subject to the procedures of the Statute - of 169 towns in the State, 31 meet the 10% standard and 138 towns do not, including Simsbury which has 3.7% affordable units and is therefore subject to 8-30g. Attorney Wise indicated that means under the 8-30g Statute, affordability housing does not have to meet local zoning requirements, e.g. setbacks, density, subdivision open space, location requirements – it can be anywhere in town, except industrial zones. He continued that the teeth of the statute lies in its special appeal procedure: if a town denies an affordable housing application, the burden is on the town to show substantial public health and safety issues legitimizing the denial; the 3 prongs the town must meet are: 1) the agency’s decision was necessary to protect substantial interests in health, safety or other matters that the agency can legally consider; 2) whether the risk of such harm to the public interest clearly outweighs the need for affordable housing; and 3) whether the public interest can be protected by reasonable changes to the affordable housing development. Attorney Wise believed those standards are very difficult for a town to satisfy, and as a result, towns lose 75-80% of appeals filed under 8-30g.
Attorney Wise reviewed that 80 Climax Road is a 4.4 acre R-40 zone parcel on the Avon town line. His client builds quality single family homes and has developed many subdivisions in the valley and is respected in the industry. He recalled that in 2014 Simsbury adopted a Workforce Housing Overlay Zone (WHOZ) and his client met with the former Town Planner, Mr. Peck, who felt this would be an excellent parcel for WHOZ with all the homes on one road ending in a cull de sac and insulated from neighboring homes with high quality single family homes on ¼ acre for an overall modest-size development. His client was considering an 18-lot subdivision and members of the Zoning Commission in an informal session suggested reducing that to 15 homes, which the client did and then proceeded to submit an application in 2015 to the Zoning Commission under WHOZ for a zone change, special permit and site plan approval required under WHOZ regulations for 15 lots. Attorney Wise noted the Design Review Board reviewed the homes and recommended approval; all technical issues for the subdivision proposal were believed resolved, e.g. road, intersection, water, drainage, sewer, with no technical issues going into the Public Hearing and all WHOZ regulations met; following the Public Hearing, the Zoning Commission denied the application unanimously on 11/30/2015, and the Applicant appealed. Attorney Wise indicated while the appeal was pending, his client decided to drop the appeal and proceed with a new application under 8-30g in mid-March 2016 for 23 residential lots, with all other aspects of the plan identical to the WHOZ application; they proceeded with the Public Hearing on May 8th although they had received no feedback from Staff on the application pending for a couple of months; following their presentation at the Public Hearing, which Hearing was continued, they were promised Staff comments; those Staff comments were received 10 days later including: 35 comments from the Town Planner, 37 comments from the Town Engineer and many proposed modifications, WPCA comments suggesting there was insufficient flow allocation for the subdivision, etc.; these were all new issues that had not been raised in the WHOZ process; however, they met with Staff to deal with these issues and filed a revised plan in late July, but the clock ran out, the application was withdrawn, and they started over. He noted the primary issues raised were: drainage, site line issues at the new intersection, and availability of sewer service for the parcel although they are in the sewer service area. Attorney Wise indicated they subsequently developed a significantly different plan to meet the comments and refiled in late July withdrawing their appeal of the WHOZ application denial; after filing the current application they received another barrage of comments from Staff and made additional changes to the plans to satisfy those concerns and now believe they have satisfied all issues raised by Staff, including drainage, reduced offsite flows through the 100-year storm, site lines that meet State standards for intersections, and for the WPCA flow allocation methodology, they believe it is illegal under a State Appellate Court decision. Attorney Wise concluded they believe concerns of any magnitude have been resolved and he will talk later about WPCA issues and read a letter from his client.
Andrew Quirk, P.E., for the project provided a requested additional report copy and his plan was to go over site plans, subdivision plans, existing conditions, proposals, utilities, changes from the last application and to answer questions. He began that the site is a 4.4 acre parcel at 80 Climax Road bounded on the north and east by residential properties, by private Tallwood Drive to the south, and Climax Road to the west. He described the proposal for 19 lots with village style homes on about 530 feet of proposed town road to town highway standards; public sewer and water would serve the properties; storm drainage design attenuates storm water flows; the 4.4 acre parcel has an existing home with private well and septic which meet FVHD requirements; the property slopes from east to west and north to south towards Climax Road and Tallwood Drive. Mr. Quirk indicated they performed extensive additional soil testing and found silty loam that percolates well over a more compact glacial til that percolates at a slower rate, but where the existing site depression is today is a large very coarse gravel vein and when runoff reaches that vein it percolates very well at a quick rate of about 2 minutes per inch; they would use that as part of their redesign to address the Town Engineer’s comments and insure storm water basins perform as expected.
Mr. Quirk outlined his presentation in order of the plan set provided to the Commission; the Subdivision Plan on sheet S1 details the 19 proposed lots – all lots will have frontage and access from Hendrick Cottage Lane, the proposed town road; lot sizes range from 5,000 to 19,000 sq. ft. and are generally 50 ft. wide; following Commission comments the front yard setback was revised to a minimum of 20 feet from the town right-of-way front yard setback to the homes to insure that any visitor parking is outside the town right-of-way; there are no proposed common driveways; and there are no proposed rear lots. He continued that designated snow storage areas are shown on the plan at the cull de sac area; a preliminary layout of other utilities, which are not in their control, was done to show snow storage can be accommodated outside of their structures as well. Mr. Quirk noted 2 town drainage easements proposed for stormwater basins near Climax Road on the southwest and northwest; Sheets G1 and G2 detail the grading layout and erosion controls - they tried to replicate the current gentle slopes from east to west and north to south and drainage patterns follow the same pre-development conditions. He continued that each proposed home would have a 2-car garage, front entry porch, and rear deck or patio; lots 15, 16, and 17 are proposed with walkout basements to tie into existing property grades; lots 3, 5, 9, 11, 17 and 19 are the affordable units identified as house type A and their location was revised in accordance with Staff comments; all the homes would be served by public water and sewer; all the lots would have private underground ground water recharge galleys as part of the overall stormwater management plan whereby roof water is collected and returned to the subsoil in accordance with Simsbury’s LID guidelines; 2 stormwater basins are proposed near Climax Road that work in series; grading plans indicate slopes would be no steeper than 3:1 to allow for town access and maintenance and 12-foot wide access to the basins; appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls, including construction entrance pads, silt fencing, and hay bale protection are proposed; and the Town Conservation Commission approved the Erosion and Sedimentation Plan as part of this Application.
Mr. Quirk indicated sheet G2 shows the roadway construction phase. He noted the Conservation Commission requested they demonstrate the roadway construction phase and what the erosion controls look like during that phase; as required by the Conservation Commission they are allowed to clear the site, as necessary, for the development of the lots, but the individual lots will not have stumping or grinding operations until those lots are under individual development in order to reduce soil disturbance at any point in time; and there are more stormwater management details for that phase on the plan.
Mr. Quirk indicated sheets P1 through P4 detail the roadway and utility plans for the subdivision. He noted the roadway plans follow a gentle horizontal vertical layout meeting town standards; the sanitary sewer would be extended about 130 ft. along Climax Road from the existing Climax Road manhole up to the intersection with the proposed sanitary sewer running along the town road; Avon is extending public water to the site and they have proposed a water main within the town road, as well as 2 hydrants for subdivision fire safety; the subdivision road will serve all the homes with all the driveways off of that road.
Regarding the stormwater management plan, Mr. Quirk indicated they submitted a report in line with LID guidelines trying to mimic existing stormwater management patterns in the future with each lot having a private underground ground water recharge galley system connected to roof leaders returning stormwater to the soil in the same location as quickly as if the house were not there. For the town drainage system, he noted a series of catch basins are proposed along the roadway to the low point in the cull de sac collecting driveway, site, and roadway runoff in a series of catch basins to the first stormwater basin; outlet protection is designed in accordance with guidelines using a dry well in the first storm water basin to get water to infiltrate in the same pattern as currently with a rip rap filter berm treating the storm water before it goes to the next phase; they have worked with Town Engineer to have an outlet control structure that attenuates peak flows and uses the basin to release treated water at a slower rate; as the water moves to the 2nd storm water basin, a dry well allows it to percolate through that system, which is where the existing system is located at the coarse gravel vein and it is very important to force the storm water through that same pattern infiltrating as much storm water as possible; and there is a 2nd outlet control structure before connecting to a storm drainage pipe down to a town drain. He indicated that the Town Engineer was adamant that they have several stages and means to attenuate peak flows and assure basins would dry between storm events with safety factor redundancy, which has been done with a series of basins.
Mr. Quirk indicated another key component of their revisions, per the Town Engineer, was to connect to a town drain; presently, the site drains northwest along the gutter line of Climax Road to the low point culvert – they copied that pattern after all the storm water treatments and attenuating for peak flows so that any site discharge would be less than today’s flows through the 100-year storm and then connect to a town drain to satisfy that as well.
Mr. Quirk noted they only recently submitted the revised plans to Town Staff who have not yet had an opportunity to review them.
Chris Granatini, P.E., prepared the traffic statement for the Applicant. He indicated they looked at existing site conditions; Climax Road is classified by the DOT as a local street and by Simsbury as a collector street using average daily traffic volume of about 2000 cars per day. He noted Climax Road extends about 1.5 miles from Rte. 44 in Avon north to Bushy Hill; Climax Road in the vicinity of the project site is about 31-32 ft. wide while narrower south of the project area to about 24 ft. wide and north to Simsbury ranges from about 30-33 ft. wide. Mr. Granatini began working on this project in February collecting traffic data over 3 days using average automatic recorder bi-directional traffic volume tubes on the road, which indicated about 190 vehicles in the morning peak hour and in the afternoon peak hour about 192 vehicles and daily just over 2000 vehicles per/day with peak vehicles about 10% of that total; going south cars traveled about 47 mph and north about 45 mph indicating that 85% are traveling at or below that speed. Mr. Granatini continued they then looked at what the proposed small 19 unit development would generate for traffic volume and found in the morning 23 trips – 6 entering the site and 17 exiting, and in a weekday afternoon 24 trips – 15 entering and 9 exiting. He indicated the proposed project would generate very small volume with no traffic impact; they look at capacity to measure impact and found the morning peak hour would continue operating at a level service A for Climax Road, which is the best, and for Hendrick Cottage Lane at a level of service B in the afternoon, which means waiting about 9 seconds to exit.
Regarding traffic safety and collision history, Mr. Granatini looked at about 1500 feet on either side of the project and obtained information from both Avon Police, indicating no collisions, and from Simsbury Police, 1 collision caused by illegal passing.
Regarding site distance at the proposed roadway, Mr. Granatini looked at various site line methodologies, including Ashto Policy and Geometric Design of Highways and Streets which are used as federal guidelines for intersection site distance and stopping site distance by roadway designers and DOTs, that looking at the available site distance from Hendrick for entering or crossing vehicles is at least equal to the appropriate stopping site distance for the major road – Climax Road – then drivers have sufficient site distance to anticipate and avoid collisions; however, in some cases this may require a major road vehicle to stop or slow to accommodate the maneuver by a minor road vehicle; and to enhance traffic operations, intersection site distance that exceed stopping site distances are desirable along the major road. He noted that for intersection site distance, vehicles on Climax Road would have to slow a little; for stopping site distance, they may have to slow down or stop to allow vehicles to enter the road. Looking right and north along Climax Road he indicated Simsbury’s 1981 Highways and Streets Standards define intersections based on the type of street – for this collector road 475 ft. of intersection site distance should be provided in both directions; ConnDOTs Highway Design Manual criteria uses Ashto methodology looking at street operating speeds and how much time drivers have to react, and based on the 85% traveling at 45-47 mph looking right and north ConnDOT is looking for 520 ft. of intersection site distance and looking left and south for 500 ft. Mr. Granatini believed with some grading and clearing of trees/brush in the public right of way and adjustments to the Climax Road cross section, they can provide the required intersection site distance that ConnDOT requires, which exceeds the town’s requirement; but one difference is that the town’s measurement is 20 ft. back from the paved road way edge and ConnDOTs is measured 15 ft. back from either the edge of travel way or road way edge, whichever is present. He indicated stopping site distance is shorter than intersection site distance because it provides for operational safety; stopping site distance based on Astro guidelines is 370 ft. southbound and northbound would be 345 ft. Mr. Granatini discussed P5 in the plan to meet the town’s criteria of intersection site distance from Hendrick Cottage Lane given constraints they are working with in order to determine where to position the intersection on Climax Road to maximize site distance, so the road has been pushed north away from the Avon town line and away from the property corner to the south, as one of the constraints is that they cannot provide a site line over private property. He added that some grading and public slopes within the public right of way are being addressed and they show that with some clearing in the right of way, they can meet the town’s standard to the north; however, at 20 ft. back from road edge, they cannot meet the town’s intersection criteria to the south as drivers would have to look over private property, but at 13 ft. from the town road edge they can meet the town standard to the left and south; realistically, he believed that no one sits 20 ft. back from the road edge to decide whether to pull out, but rather inch up to decide whether to pull out. On the plan they have shown at 13 ft. from road edge the town standard can be met to the south and they have worked on other projects with DOT where they have accepted even a 10 ft. setback from the road. Mr. Granatini continued that P6 shows a 2nd plan restriping Climax Road and a white shoulder edge line given the 30-33 ft. wide roadway through a residential area; installing a white edge line the entire length of Climax Road would provide 11 ft. for vehicles and about a 4 ft. wide shoulder lane for bike traffic, which would slow down travel speeds and overall provide benefits to the neighborhood. He said they then looked at what the intersection site distance would be using State guidelines, which allow 15 ft. from the road edge, so that looking north in excess of 520 ft. would be provided with some clearing of brush and looking south 500 ft. would be provided from the edge of travel way. He believed they have addressed the stopping site distance and with the addition of the white edge lines and the intersection site distance 15 ft. from the travel way edge, they meet the intersection site distance requirements as defined in the State DOT Design Manual.
Mr. Granatini also provided a chart from the State Bike Master Plan showing that with ADT of less than 2500, and they measured 2100 vehicles, and shoulder width in the 3-6 ft. range, the dark green indicates the area is suitable for bike traffic and benefits people in the neighborhood.
Brian Miller, Professional Planner, discussed the Affordability Plan that he submitted as required by 8-30g, which plan meets those requirements. He noted there are 19 units proposed with 30% required to be affordable, which is defined by a formula for 2 categories: 1 for families with 80% of the median income for either the state or metropolitan region within which the community is located calculated at 30% of monthly income, and a 2nd category for families at 60% of median income. Mr. Miller has adjusted his plan to reflect 2016 numbers. He indicated the calculations can be used for either sale housing or rentals with this project planned for sale housing, but a calculation for rental was also done as an option. He noted income at the 80% level would be at $70,720 annually and for the 60% level at $53,040. He indicated projected sales price variables include income, mortgage interest rates – the lower the rate, the higher the affordability cost – for this example, he used 3.5% for a 30-yr. fixed with 20% down; other variables are energy cost and municipal property taxes, all of which vary and at the time this development is built, so these numbers may be irrelevant and are only an example using contemporary data. He indicated at the 80% income level, the cost would be $285,000 and at the 60% level would be $197,500, which are inexpensive by market standards. He reminded the Commission that there would be deed restrictions for 40 years with specific actions required and an administrator appointed to assure incomes stay within that level and that deed restrictions are followed.
Attorney Wise addressed the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) or sewer authority issue regarding a comment received after filing the 8-30g application informing them flow allocation was not sufficient for the number of units proposed. He noted the project address is in the sewer service area. He described the WPCA as basing its allocations for every property in the service area 1st on the zoning classification for the property, e.g. this property is in an R-40 zone allowing 4 homes to be built, and for every bedroom the property gets 150 gallons per bedroom per day with 4 houses x 12 bedrooms x 150 gallons per day or 1800 gallons per day as the maximum for the property. However, they are proposing 19 houses which would require 8,550 gallons per day and the project is deficient by about 6000 gallons per day, and even if the Planning Commission approves the application, the WPCA says the project cannot be built. Mr. Wise indicated they have repeatedly requested WPCA’s basic methodology along with an FOI request. Another example he noted was if the WHOZ was granted, it allows 6 houses per acre and WPCA would not allow that. Mr. Wise indicated there is plenty of capacity and what the WPCA is concerned with is flow capacity; he discussed a case in Newtown with a similar allocation system for an affordability application in 2007 with the allocation denied by the WPCA, so the developer, Douti Construction, appealed and the Appellate Court held WPCA’s regulation was invalid because it foreclosed any development of the property that exceeded the equivalent of the 4 dwelling units for the property as permitted by the 1994 zoning classifications. He continued as explained by the Court, by so doing the WPCA was exercising the power to zone, a power reserved exclusively to the Zoning Commission; since there was enough capacity in the system for the proposed development, the WPCA was ordered to approve the requested allocation. Mr. Wise has pointed out to the WPCA that he believes its system is unlawful because it violates the principles articulated in that decision, and has received no response from WPCA to date to his 09/28/2016 letter provided for the record. He indicated there are 2 other steps to be accomplished, including 1) permission for a short extension for the property to Climax Road and have submitted that routine application, and 2) an inter-town sewer agreement given a short distance flow through Avon that must be approved by both Avon and Simsbury – Avon has provided a letter for the record indicating their agreement. He indicated they have reapplied to the WPCA for both the extension and amendment to the inter-town agreement and received an 11/10/2016 response indicating WPCA has started the request for those actions, but he does not know the schedule for moving forward – they are on WPCA’s agenda next month and understand they will decide on the renewed allocation request based on his legal argument.
Mr. Wise provided additional items for the record, including a record of mail receipts for the notices, the Town Sewer Service Plan showing the project is in the sewer service area, the Municipal Water Service Plan showing they are in the Avon service area and they are agreeable to providing water, and excerpts from the WHOZ application record, including Staff comments and other records relevant to explaining this history of their proposal; Mr. Wise then read his client’s statement of the project sequence of events into the record; and Town Staff secured all documents provided for the record.
Chairman Needham asked if there was a petitioning intervenor; Attorney Case responded that he submitted that petition on Friday. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated the petition can be considered tonight and requested a copy for the Applicant; he assumed the petition was filed under the Private Attorney General Act with cases interpreting the Statute making it clear that activities relating to environmental issues raised in the petition have to relate to the jurisdiction of the agency that it is presenting to, meaning the Planning Commission, and they also have to prepare and submit sworn affidavit meeting the requirements of the Statute; in general, cases have fallen on the side of allowing wide discretion in permitting the applications to be accepted by the agency but requiring that the petitioners limit their testimony in advancing the petition to those aspects that relate to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Attorney DeCrescenzo reviewed the application for intervenor status and noted the Commission should allow the Applicant to comment on the intervenor petition after which he will comment. Attorney Wise indicated no objection to the intervenor petition, but doubted they would be able to prove their case. Attorney DeCrescenzo reviewed that 22a.19 under which the intervenor petition is filed allows any citizen of the State of Connecticut to intervene in any proceeding to protect the air, water, and other natural resources of the State of Connecticut, and the Statute requires that the petition relate to some form of jurisdiction of this Commission; he noted the petitioner cites alleged damage that may occur as a result of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan required under the Commission’s regulations to be filed with the Application, and in his view that is enough for a prima facie case to be allowed in as a party, and then it is the intervenor’s burden to prove that the submitted subdivision plan is reasonably likely to unreasonably pollute the natural resources of the State, and upon that showing then it is the Applicant’s burden to show there is no reasonable alternative to that plan. He believed there is enough in the filed petition to allow intervenor status providing them the right to present their case at the next session. Attorney Case responded that was their preference and they have also not seen the new plan presented. Chairman Needham proposed based on the Town Attorney’s comments that the Commission consider granting intervenor status to the petitioner.
Commissioner Beum made a motion to accept the Intervenor Petition.
Commissioner Lungarini seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Attorney DeCrescenzo noted revised plans have been submitted and Staff reports need to be updated to react to those plans and to testimony taken tonight with many people present, and an opportunity to comment at the next hearing.
Chairman Needham invited public comment and asked people to state their name and address for the record requested initial comments be kept to 4-5 minutes.
Bob Michulski of 31 Tallwood Hollow, Avon, commented that the presentation was nice but believed some facts were not quite right. The model per hour, if they were doing 47 and 45, they were breaking the law – in Simsbury it’s 35 and in Avon it’s 25. He stated the line of site survey was done on his property, not theirs, and he had the police come out because he was on his property doing the survey and refused to leave, but the police did not know the rules and he should have been taken off his property then and there. He stated that he heard nothing about the snow and they get a lot of snow with no place to put it - it cannot be put on Climax; that property is higher than all Tallwood Hollow with 2000-4000 trees there and when they are taken out, there will be big difference, and if it affects his road and there are problems, what will they do?
Joan Coe of 26 Whitcomb Drive stated that after listening to all the testimony she believed the whole project has totally failed. She said Attorney Wise told them the WPCA told him he didn’t have the allocation in order to go forward with this project, so he decided that it’s an illegal allocation and he will do something about it. She said the WPCA has never denied any kind of allocation within their parameters, so this is all lawyer talk, it’s not going to happen, they’re not going to change. She said the reason why the Workforce application went through was because it was in an industrial zone which has higher allocation than R-40. She said this has been studied and gone through and believed this was the first thing they should have looked at because if you don’t have the sewer allocation you can’t have a project, whether it’s affordable housing or not, so that is a failed part of the application. She continued that the 2nd part of the application as far as the safety part, we just had testimony you can make a right turn, but you can’t make a left turn. She said this whole thing is bizarre in all aspects of it; she never heard of an applicant coming in and telling us that everything is wrong. She was also really upset, if the testimony is correct, that Staff said everything was okay; Jamie Rabbitt was not here at the time, but she was really concerned if you get somebody reading into the record that the Staff said sewers are fine, this is fine, everything is fine, just go ahead with the application and you’ll just sail right through. She said it just doesn’t work that way; there is a process and these people have not followed the process, and to come here and tell us well we had a safety study, but we have a couple of things missing in our safety study. She said this is bizarre – the only standards they had to meet were safety and health, and they haven’t even come close to meeting any of those standards. As far as she was concerned, this application has totally failed – they can come in 20 times, but they can’t change what they already have, and even if they change it, it’s not going to work. She asked that the application be denied and thought if it was true, the Staff misinformed them, they didn’t follow the process, and they don’t meet the minimal standards for affordable housing, and she would like the application to be denied.
Chairman Needham asked speakers to sign the sheet with their names and addresses.
Shelly Perron of 37 Tallwood Hollow, Avon, which is the dirt road right next to where this project would be built. She and her husband moved there about 25 years ago when their son was born. She said they are very familiar with the traffic challenges of coming out literally to almost the same spot where the cars from this development will be coming out onto Climax. She said the road is very narrow on Avon’s side, and asked if anyone had driven lately up the road from Rte. 44 on Climax noting it is a very narrow road and there is no shoulder. She noted the proposal to build wide shoulders throughout the entire length of Climax, but as it is now is very narrow and dangerous. She has jogged there for 25 years and has to do only a small section of her run on Climax and it is frightening – she has to literally leap off the road because there is no absolutely no give there. She noted this project has gone through pretzel-like contortions to try to make it fit into this site – density really is destiny as far as safety and health is concerned. She could not conceive if there are 19 houses, with maybe 2 children in each house, 2-3 cars, since these units will probably be rented rather than owned; there will be very little control of what the density, even of this very dense project, will be. As she walks along this road she has to be very careful, and as a previous speaker said, it’s a 25 mph zone and 35 in Simsbury, people zoom along at 60 mph and it was inconceivable to her that at some point a child is not going to be hit or killed and there won’t be major accidents there. She said there is not the kind of space for this density for the safety of the residents in this proposed housing project or in the neighborhood. She said it was like putting a 30-story office building on Tullmeadow Farms, it just cannot absorb it. She said the safety issues in terms of traffic are a real concern and those of us who live there every day know this; you have to look very carefully - even in the summer the site lines aren’t good, and in the winter with the snow piled, you cannot see what is coming and it is very perilous. She said there will be accidents and if there are accidents and people are injured and hurt because of the density of this project, she would like to know if they can sue Simsbury for allowing this project to go through because it just doesn’t make anybody safe in that area. Also, she said most of the people living in this area presumed there would be about 1 house per acre, and many of them have wells and with this kind of density how will it affect their wells – will there be oil runoff from motorcycles, how many cars will be parked there, what kind of use will it have? She said they don’t know, but the water supply is their life, their home, their children’s home; and can they sue Simsbury if their water is bad? She said do they have to get their water tested now to determine a baseline so if something happens, what recourse do they have? She said these types of zoning laws aren’t capricious, they’re there because only a certain amount of density can be sustained by a certain physical space and environment and that is why she hopes the Commission will reject this application.
Sharon Byron of 17 Crestview, Tarriffville, said she has lived in Simsbury almost all of her 70 years and knows Climax Road and Old Meadow Plain Road very well. She said Climax Road is used as a pass through back road for those 2000 cars to get from A to B quickly and efficiently. She said although there has not been a tragedy on that road, Old Meadow Plain, similarly used, did have a tragedy 5 years ago, so it does happen and this would be inviting more by increasing density on that road. She agreed with Shelly regarding the pretzel fit and never heard of someone trying to put in something that’s not needed; there is plenty of housing available right now that could actually be apportioned to affordable housing. She is very much into affordable housing and is presently working on a project. She believed that these people have not thought about Net Zero, which is housing that’s going to be sustainable for the future. She said too many places have already been built in Simsbury that are not even close to Net Zero and we have a new mandate coming very shortly from the Governor’s office; Vermont and Maine are on this and this is where we are going. She said these gentlemen came here from every place else and don’t live here and don’t know how the town works, and she would like them to know how the town works and we have our rules for a reason. She said it is not that we don’t like affordable housing; she lives at 17 Crestview in Tarriffville and is in a working class affordable housing area; they have a few homes for sale if anyone is interested and have affordable housing with solar panels on them. But she did not believe the applicant even got that far and suggested next time bringing some women who live in these homes to get their opinion. She asked that the proposal be rejected.
Greg Mascoli of 9 Tallwood Hollow, Avon, said his property abuts the proposed development. He commented that excellent points had been made so far and he would try not to repeat them. He commented that regarding housing inventory in Avon, and particularly in Simsbury, having sat through these meetings in past months that there is lots of development going on in Simsbury, huge development on Rte. 10 at the Avon line and other very large developments. He had no idea what the town is thinking in terms of who the folks are moving into Simsbury to sop up this enormous amount of housing stock being planned and did not understand how another 19 homes in a small development make any sense at all. He had no idea where Avon and Simsbury think all these people are coming from. Regarding the water runoff, he said it comes toward Climax Road and to the south mostly toward his property at 9 Tallwood. He said talk about the 100-year storm sounds nice, but several times a year all they need is a good strong thunderstorm and his property gets flooded; he guessed he should submit photos of that. He said if all the trees are taken out with asphalt and lawns put down, he will be flooded many, many times a year because of this development and is really, really concerned about the impact on his property. He apologized for speaking just about his property, but thought the other speakers have talked in general about the safety and other concerns and this is his opportunity to talk about the direct impact to his property and family. He was pleased to hear that the developers, even if they take brush and trees 20 feet back off his property, that they are unable to establish the line of site they need; he thought putting a white stripe down one or both sides of Climax Road is ridiculous and would make it into a highway and will be driven like a highway. He is not in favor of modifying his property for the benefit of their development, regardless of whether the right of way is there or not. He felt the traffic study seemed odd with 14 houses and all with 2-car garages for about 38 cars and that at peak times maybe 8-10 cars will leave or enter the property doesn’t make sense – are people staying home all day? Regarding the affordability question, he talked with the expert from the State in other meetings, so $200k to $300K homes with folks bringing home roughly $60k to $75K assuming a 20% down payment, and I’m going to have $40k laying around to put a down payment on a $285K house, which frankly is more than he paid for his house in Avon, as shown in the town records, and he makes a pretty good living; he had no idea how someone making $60K is going to walk into either a $285K or $197K house – it doesn’t make sense. He noted that even though today the developer has no intention of having rental properties, he doubts his intentions make any difference once the houses are built and suspects that over time because of all the inventory in Simsbury and Avon, because of the ridiculous prices of these houses, and the ridiculous sizes of the lots, these houses will not sell as owner occupied and will be bought by some investor and will be rental properties. He will have a big rental development sitting next to him instead of the nice flowery words used by the developer. He was completely opposed to this development and said zoning regulations are there for a reason; there has been enough evidence that the developer nicely brought to the board to be able to reject this plan once again and he hoped the board does reject it.
Bill Nelson of 37 Tallwood Hollow, Avon, said he did not know about traffic studies but has lived off of Climax Road for 25 years and has seen the school buses and he did not hear anyone in terms of the traffic study talking about the school buses. He said today the school buses stop and 3-4 kids get on/off at somebody’s driveway; if you have 18 houses and 1-2 kids in each house you will have 12 kids waiting on the edge of Climax Road because those buses will not turn into that development given their concern for time. He said those buses expect to stop on Climax Road and those 10+ kids will get on that bus and that is dangerous on Climax Road with traffic going 40-50 mph. He was perplexed about widening Climax Road or putting in a white line and who would pay for it; if Simsbury is paying, that is bizarre.
Bob Michulski of 31 Tallwood Hollow, Avon, spoke again asking if affordable housing was 10%; if this project goes in and they do 10% in the project, it doesn’t change anything but takes advantage of the law being shoved down your throats. Secondly, he said this is all for money and these guys are being paid really nice. He hoped it would be turned down and said it is being put in all of our throats. He hoped that when they go home they have 19 houses next door and did not think it was funny.
Jeremy Vearil of 82 Climax Road, said he lived behind the monstrosity on the table tonight with expert testimony paid for by him and with his neighbors help. He said if he was making $60k a year and managed to save $40K, would he buy a $200K deed restricted house – it doesn’t make sense. His other concern was the bike path which is great on the Simsbury side, but his driveway is at the Avon border, and his kids on bikes would want to go to the bike paths on Fisher Drive that connect throughout the whole state; and this is basically saying go drive to the Avon border where the bike path stops and the road narrows to 20 ft. and that is not safe.
Mr. Rabbitt provided an administrative letter stating the Application was received two months ago, the Public Hearing was opened this evening and per State Statute the Commission has 35 days to close the Public Hearing proceedings. Mr. Rabbit indicated it was Staff’s recommendation to continue this Hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on 12/13/2016, and he believed the Applicant would concur, which is well within the statutory timeframe for closing the Hearing and would give the Applicant, Intervenor, and Staff sufficient time to review the revised plan before the next meeting. He recommended that if the Commission decides to continue the Hearing that the time, date and place be named in a motion; the Library is booked for 12/13/2016, but he warned the public should also check the town web page or call his office.
Commissioner Leavitt-Smith made a motion to keep this Hearing open until our next regularly scheduled meeting on 12/13/2016 to take place here in the Library at 7:00 p.m., unless notified otherwise.
Commissioner Lungarini seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Chairman Needham advised that the Public Hearing is continued at the Library location unless otherwise notified.
b. Application #16-04 of LADA, P.C. Land Planners, Agent; Adeline F. Wagner and Richard D. Wagner, Jr., Special Trustees, Owner; for a 7-lot re-subdivision on the property located at 152 Old Farms Road (Assessor’s Map C07, Block 303, Lot 010). Zone R-80. (public hearing to be opened 11/22/2016; public hearing must be closed by 12/27/2016)
Chairman Needham read Application #16-04 into the record and opened the Hearing with the understanding it needed to be continued as it must go to the Conservation Commission. Ms. Hahn confirmed that understanding is correct and the plans are the same as those provided to the Commission on 10/24/2016. Mr. Rabbitt suggested for clarity that the Applicant provide an abridged presentation since this Commission has not seen the proposal.
Terry-Ann Hahn of LADA Land Planners described the property located on the east side of Old Farms Road across from Joshua Drive comprised of 3 lots totaling about 25.9 acres, one lot with an existing single family home and existing driveway and 2 lots with frontage on Old Farms Road. She noted surrounding properties include the George Hall Farm to the north, Land Trust to the east, and Covenant Church to the south; the property is generally rolling with an upper elevation of 354’ with a mix of mowed and wooded land; there are 2 small wetland areas totaling about 12,000 sq. ft. and they are in front of Conservation because while they are not disturbing any wetlands, they are disturbing some of the Upland Review Area (URA).
Ms. Hahn indicated the property is zoned R-80 and the Application is for an R-80 subdivision on a town road combining the 3 lots to create a 7-lot subdivision including the existing house on lot #3; all houses would have access by a new town cull de sac road to focus the property internally on the town road, minimize the number of Old Farms curb cuts, and locate the property by a single town road drive; each property would be served by public water, but would have their own septic, which has been reviewed and approved by the Health Department and a letter submitted for the file. She noted Aquarion Water is available to serve but they have to coordinate with them regarding some low flow components. She described the subdivision as meeting the R-80 requirements with one spider-shaped rear lot where they have minimized impacts on surroundings; all the lots are in excess of 80,000 sq. ft.; and some proposed drainage associated with the town road requires easements. Ms. Hahn discussed the buildable area which is typically a square with the house inside the square although it only has to be in the buildable area, and there are 2 houses where they would like to minimize grading and position those 2 houses closer to the cull de sac, so they have asked for a waiver for those 2 properties. In addition, she noted they have a scenic contour requirement related to the ridge and they are voluntarily proposing a restriction on lot #6 so there is no building on or above the 350’ contour and will submit a letter for the record. Ms. Hahn continued that due to the overall 5-acre plus area of URA disturbance, they are required to submit for a DEEP storm water permit during construction and the Town has requested the project be divided into phases, which is to build the town road first and then the individual lots and the Applicant has agreed; those have been submitted and reviewed by Staff. She noted they recently received the Town Engineer’s comments and are working to complete all of those for full review to be in compliance. She added they are requesting the Town road width be changed to 24 feet, rather than 26 feet in order to reduce pavement and be more in compliance with LID. She indicated that the offset between roadways is 200 feet and the distance for their road is slightly less than that so they are asking for waiver between those limited cull de sac driveways containing a limited number of lots. Regarding street lights, given that most of the other subdivisions in the area don’t have street lights, they would like to have a waiver to not have them. Also, there is one drive where road drainage access comes across lot 1B for 1A and the Town Engineer asked that it be clarified that is private drainage to be maintained by the lot owner.
Regarding the public providing comments at the next hearing and speaking first, Chairman Needham responded that the Applications must be heard in the order received.
Chairman Needham asked for clarification regarding the Land Trust land. Ms. Hahn responded that was a gift from the Wagner Family. Ms. Hahn indicated they have submitted a letter regarding open space requesting fee in lieu of.
Fred Feibel, of 6 Hedge Hog Land and President of the Simsbury Land Trust, read a letter submitted for the record requesting open space along Land Trust borders to create a buffer for open space use, rather than the fee in lieu of, and the Land Trust offered to take title and manage the open space in perpetuity or some other alternative decided on by the Commission.
Constance Keedle of 148 Old Farms Road indicated her property will be immediately and drastically affected by this project and hoped she would be able to get some answers to questions and to state her case. Mr. Rabbitt clarified the purpose of this Hearing is to receive public comment with no obligation for the Commission, Staff, or the Applicant to respond. She understood and reworded her questions indicating her house is very close to the property line and expressed appreciation for Mr. Wagner and all the planning that has been done. She reiterated her house and pool are very, very close to the property line and lot #2 will be close to her and she was concerned about privacy issues; what will be the duration of road construction; and asked for more explanation regarding the road waiver. She spoke to the Town about putting up a sign near the curve near her property as she has children learning to drive and is concerned that it is dangerous for anyone going left on Old Farms Road from her driveway, but the regulation requires 200 feet to put up a “Slow” or “Caution Hidden Driveway”; and she is now concerned that her driveway will be too close to the new road. She asked if any of the Commissioners have looked at the site property and the various abutters, noting that people move out to this area because it is a very, very natural and why the Land Trust was happy to get that property, so when this development is constructed she thought it would alter the land greatly and be irreversible.
Ms. Hahn responded that the adjacent property owner is substantially closer to the property line than what current setbacks allow and they have talked about maintaining an existing buffer with some trees probably added. She indicated the town road construction would take about 6 months. Regarding proximity and Joshua Drive, she indicated they are closer than 200 feet which is why they are asking for a waiver; if they move the driveway further away, it would be closer to adjacent property owners and they believe this location provides the best balance between URA disturbance and adjacent property owners.
Connie Keedle also requested they not put up street lights.
Rick Wagner of 152 Old Farms Road is the owner of the lots and expressed appreciation for Ms. Keedle’s interest and they have worked with her on many options to satisfy concerns. He noted that originally the driveway was right next to her lot and they came up with what he believed to be a better alternative.
Regarding the Simsbury Land Trust, Mr. Wagner was dumbfounded following his family’s donation of the largest gift ever given to the Simsbury Land Trust for zero dollars in honor of his father, who died, and they could have put 40 houses on it, but they chose to honor their Father and give all 62 acres of prime level building land with multiple habitat, including fields. While he respected the Land Trust’s right to augment their property in regard to this development, it felt like a knife in the back. He noted they could have given less acres and for two of the houses planned for this development, trail walkers will still see them through the trees because it’s only 15 feet which would not help with additional habitat. Mr. Feibel responded he could explain. Chairman Needham indicated the Commission did not want a debate. Mr. Feibel responded that the Land Trust only heard about this project about 5 weeks ago when it came up on the Conservation Commission’s agenda. He expressed that the Land Trust is very, very grateful to the Wagners for giving them Wagner Woods, but in their opinion if Town Statutes require a 20% open space set aside, why give it as cash instead of open space as the Statute was intended to convey.
Mr. Rabbitt clarified that Staff comments have been provided for the file. Chairman Needham indicated this Hearing would be continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting on 12/13/2016 at 7 p.m. here in the Library, unless otherwise notified.
Commissioner Leavitt-Smith made a motion to continue this Hearing until our next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, 12/13/2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Library, unless notified otherwise by Town Staff.
Commissioner Beum seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
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)
b. Application #16-04 of LADA, P.C. Land Planners, Agent; Adeline F. Wagner and Richard D. Wagner, Jr., Special Trustees, Owner; for a 7-lot re-subdivision on the property located at 152 Old Farms Road (Assessor’s Map C07, Block 303, Lot 010). Zone R-80. (decision must be rendered within 65 days of closing public hearing))
3. Referrals
a. CGS 8-3a Referral to the Zoning Commission on Zoning Application #16-39 of Robert M. Bourke, Esq., Petitioner, for Text Amendments to the Town of Simsbury Zoning Regulations to: Article 7 Section B, to permit farm vineyards and wineries in all residential zones as permitted uses subject to site plan approvals, such facilities would be allowed to hold special events/promotions and sell products at retail (continued from 09/27/2016, 10/25/2016)
b. CGS 8-3a Referral to the Zoning Commission on Zoning Application #16-40 of Robert M. Bourke, Esq., Petitioner, for Text Amendments to the Town of Simsbury Zoning Regulations to: Article 7 Section B, to permit large acreage agricultural farms in all residential zones as permitted uses subject to site plan approval; such farms would be allowed to hold special public and private events, sell products at retail, and operate commercial kitchens (continued from 09/27/2016, 10/25/2016)
Regarding 3.a. and b., Mr. Rabbitt confirmed that regarding petitions for text amendments, letters were transmitted on behalf of the Commission to the Zoning Commission.
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. POCD Update
Mr. Rabbitt provided an update that a workshop was held recently with less attendance than expected, so they decided to put a Monkey Survey online and got over 200 responses, and hope to get about 400 before taking the survey down.
Commissioner Beum asked about a special meeting in mid-November. Mr. Rabbitt responded that the only meeting was the one held at Henry James but he would like to discuss scheduling a special meeting at the next meeting. The POCD consultant does have listening sessions scheduled with other commissions on 12/13/2016 and Mr. Rabbitt will send out an email asking everyone to bring their calendar as the Commission moves into late December/January/February.
Griffin LLC Industrial Realty submitted correspondence requesting an extension under 8-30g from the Planning Commission for the Riverbend/Meadowood Development; extensions are allowed under the State Statute and he recommended putting discussing the extension on the next Agenda. Mr. Glidden reviewed that the Meadowood project is for 296 homes off of County/Firetown Road with the original application made in 1996, denied in 2000, and a settlement reached in 2007; and it falls under the old 8-30g Statute with different criteria for percentages and time for deed restriction, so the Commission must go by what the Court approved; on 12/13/2016, counsel will be available to advise the Commission. Commissioner Beum asked how long there has been an 8-30g; Mr. Rabbitt will get a definitive date.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lungarini made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Commissioner Leavitt-Smith seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.