Planning Commission Minutes 12/08/2015
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman William Rice opened the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were: Alan Needham, Robert Kulakowski, Ron Locandro, Jr., Holly Beum, Erin Leavitt-Smith, and Elizabeth Burt. Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
SEATING OF ALTERNATES AS NECESSARY
Chairman Rice seated Commissioner Locandro for the vacancy. Chairman Rice introduced new members of the Commission, including Holly Beum, Erin Leavitt-Smith, and Elizabeth Burt.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was noted that the Commission Secretary from the last cycle was not re-elected; therefore, nominations for Secretary were opened by Chairman Rice.
Commissioner Beum nominated Robert Kulakowski as Secretary of the Simsbury Planning Commission.
The Commissioners discussed that, rather than waiting for installation of 3 new Commissioners, a majority chose to elect the Chairman at the last meeting in order to assure continuity of experienced leadership. The Chairman noted that after election of the Secretary, Commissioners could make a motion to nominate a new Chair. Regarding Commissioner Kulakowski’s nomination for Secretary, Chairman Rice noted his significant experience as a Commission member for many years.
Commissioner Needham seconded the nomination, and it was passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING(s)
1. Application #15-03 of Christian Alford, PE, Alford Associates, Inc., Agent; Norma D. Duscheneck, Owner; requesting re-subdivision of the property located at 25 Holcomb Street (Assessor’s Map D05, Block 301, Lot 007) to create 3 lots. Zone R-80. (received 11/10/2015; public hearing must open by 01/14/2016)
Application #15-03 was read into the record.
The Agent for the Owner reviewed that the property outlined in black on the map presented is on the south side of Holcomb Street; their requested subdivision would include an existing house and outbuildings and 2 additional proposed lots. The Agent provided a letter for the file from FVHD indicating the property is satisfactory for septic systems; and the Conservation Commission issued a Wetlands permit. The Agent noted there are State-owned properties on both sides of this property and open space shown in brown on the map was proposed as a conservation easement at the rear of the property with property owners acting as stewards for the easement which is basically an extension of the State open space. The Agent indicated the Owner believed the conservation easement would be an appropriate use of the property. The Commissioners discussed that the FVHD letter indicated soil testing was done and whether it satisfied septic requirements. Town Staff confirmed that test pits dug on the site met the minimum health code for siting residential units using general language, but ultimately a permit to build a house would be applied for in order to determine the leaching system required. Town Staff added that the Applicant would not typically return to the Planning Commission for subdivision approval, unless a constraint arose; and they may need to return to the Conservation Commission if grading closer to the wetland is required for a larger house.
Regarding the proposed open space and the 3 options provided by subdivision regulations. Town Staff confirmed it is the Commission’s sole discretion to accept or not accept: 1) open space or fee in lieu of; 2) dedication of land up to a percentage of total acreage – Staff’s opinion was this was not warranted; or 3) a conservation easement. Town Staff submitted a drawing based on the Applicant’s subdivision plan showing in red the proposed easement and showing in a blue crossed hatch area the majority of the easement is in inland/wetlands already regulated by the Town and State; and also for disturbance in excess of 5000 sq. ft. would be regulated at the federal level by the Army Corps of Engineers; Town Staff’s opinion was this is already a regulatory easement, so fee in lieu of open space may be warranted. Town Staff indicated regulations call out how to assess a fee in lieu of with the Town allowed to take up to 10% of pre-development value; for example, if pre-development value was $210K, 10% would be $21K or $7K per lot with payment for a lot not due until the lot is sold, which may be years from now, and with a caveat placed on Land Records encumbering property for that amount; however, in most instances where farm land is developed, a reasonable fee is used based on past practice and Town Staff recommended the fee not be excessive.
Town Staff clarified the solid blue line showed the flagged wetland perimeter, the blue cross-hatched area shows what is wet with a majority of the easement in that area, and the fuchsia color is outside the 100-foot regulated Upland Review Area, which cannot be accessed without a permitting process and will continue in agricultural use bounded on the east and south side by State protected property. The Commissioners noted the area is already protected and requirements could be satisfied with a fee in lieu of. For fee in lieu of, the Commission can ask for 0 to 10%, and Town Staff requested the Commission act in a manner consistent with treatment of land in other similar applications; the determination should be associated with the Application and division of land, not with circumstances of the Applicant.
Regarding wetlands regulation and the 2 proposed lots, Town Staff noted there is a regulated 100-foot Upland Review Area and the Conservation Commission did not further encumber the property with any easement requirements; the Applicant’s site development plan shows the corners of the leaching systems and related grading within the 100-foot URA with no activity proposed in the wetland; the buffer close to the wetlands would continue to be maintained as rough. Town Staff confirmed the fee needs to be determined by this Commission prior to action. Town Staff explained Connecticut’s procedure that once a Public Hearing is opened, the Commission has 35 days to close the hearing; the Applicant can consent to extensions of the entire process up to 65 days; in essence, there is a month to close a hearing, but it can be held open up to 3 months if the Applicant consents, but if they do not consent to any extensions, the hearing must be closed; once the hearing closes the decision needs to be based on the Application and the information contained within the Public Hearing process – while there is always access to Staff, once the hearing is closed the Commission has no further access to the Applicant, so discussion of fee in lieu of must take place during the Public Hearing. Town Staff clarified that an alternate Commission member can ask a question during a Public Hearing in the event the alternate is seated at a subsequent Commission meeting reviewing the Application. Town Staff confirmed that once a Public Hearing is closed, the Commissioners can request input from Staff who base their response on the record; therefore, it was recommended the Public Hearing remain open if additional information is required.
Regarding fee in lieu of open space, the Agent noted discussion of a $2500/lot fee given homecare costs for an elderly grandmother, and the Applicant would like to sell the 2 lots as soon as possible. The Agent indicated the Applicant preferred open space or a conservation easement left in its natural state adding to the overall area ecology. The Commissioners noted that currently there is no property appraisal. Town Staff confirmed there is a provision in Appendix 2, Section 15b.5 of the regulations allowing the Applicant to request an alternative to the appraisal process assessing $2500 per lot or another agreed-to number, which may be substantially less than allowed by law; or an appraiser would have to be hired which may take time. The Commissioners noted an appreciable amount of property is left in one parcel, but the Agent believed the frontage to be inadequate with further approval by the Inland/Wetlands Agency unlikely.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Nilo Nadriz, a neighbor, asked if the minimum/maximum size of the home was limited in order to not ruin his property value. Town Staff was not aware of any minimum standards associated with home size nor any ability of the Planning Commission to condition approval requiring construction of a certain type and/or size of home on the site. The Commissioners discussed the effects of the buildable square and Town Staff clarified that it related to control of impervious surface and lot suitability.
Charles Kaylor of 29 Holcomb Street asked if the existing frontage lot could be further subdivided in the future. Town Staff approximated about 316 feet would not be enough for 2 frontage lots, but it could not be ruled out at this Hearing without more extensive analysis. Mr. Kaylor asked for an idea of the house sizes planned and was directed by the Agent to the plan submitted for a typical house; however, there is no guarantee in the future of the size house that would be built. Mr. Kaylor did not realize there would be a conservation easement created and Town Staff confirmed there is currently no easement language proposed by the Applicant; sample language could be provided to the Applicant, typically for a no cut/no disturb easement, boots on the ground to remove storm damage, invasives, or deadfall, with exceptions for agricultural activity. Town Staff believed the easement would be redundant given the existing State and Federal regulatory aspects with any exceptions weakening the easement. Town Staff explained fee in lieu of is a targeted fund to acquire more appropriate land in a better setting and the fee is not due until transfer of title – the fee in lieu of open space is in a lockbox and does not underwrite the mill rate. Regarding the frequency of fee in lieu of, Town Staff indicated that it is a long-term activity so 500 lots at $5K over 20 years would be $500 Million, which could help leverage State funds. Town Staff confirmed that fee in lieu of has typically been used by other municipalities for most subdivisions; however, in Simsbury the Chairman confirmed in the last 6 years there has been no fee in lieu of, but instead open space was transferred to the Town or there was a conservation easement. The Commission noted that the Town has begun discussing its inventory of open space and that transfer of the open space in this Application would likely not be beneficial. Mr. Kaylor expressed support for the project and believed Mr. Duscheneck would approve and thanked the Commissioners for their volunteer efforts.
Randall King of White Oak Lane reiterated support of the project and acknowledged the Mr. Duscheneck as a volunteer fireman for 50 years with proceeds going toward keeping the Grandmother in the home. Mr. King believed if the precedent is no fee, that should continue or one of the other options should be considered.
Beth Olson of 40 Holcomb Street expressed support of the project and that Mr. Duscheneck was a wonderful man.
Tammy O’Brien of Simscroft Place stated she has known the Duscheneck family for years and expressed support of the project.
The Agent clarified the proposed conservation easement would not have exceptions, but only allow for clearing of windfall and allow for walking on the property; it would be protected ecologically and adjacent to other open space. Town Staff will provide sample language for a conservation easement to the Applicant tomorrow for review by the Commission at the next meeting.
Chairman Rice continued the Public Hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on 12/22/2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at 933 Hopmeadow Street in the Town Hall. Commissioners Kulakowski, Beum, and Burt cannot be present at this meeting.
V. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
Town Staff will check with Administrative Staff that the Meeting Schedule for June is amended, and email confirmation to Chairman Rice.
Town Staff confirmed with the Town Attorney that State statute does not prevent serving on two commissions and a resignation letter from Commissioner Prell has not been received to date.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from November 10, 2015
Regarding Line 119 and the opinion that the Zoning and Planning Commissions should remain separate, it was explained that was a report of individual opinions expressed, and was not discussed by nor represent this Commission.
Chairman Rice made a motion to approve the November 10, 2015 minutes, as written.
Commissioner Needham seconded the motion, and it was passed with 4 Commissioners in favor and Commissioners Leavitt-Smith and Beum abstaining.
VII. COMMISSION EDUCATION/WORKSHOP
Town Staff confirmed that all meetings must be recorded where a decision is made; alternatively, there could be broad Agenda items with the meeting closed/opened, e.g. workshops. Regarding educational opportunities for the Commission, the Chairman suggested holding a workshop prior to end-January; the POCD and subdivision regulations have been provided to new members. Town Staff confirmed a more formal workshop process is being formulated so that Commissioners understand the global aspect of actions taken; priorities will be coordinated with the Chairman. Town Staff noted they are available for discussion regarding discussion of responsibilities; the Planning Commission primarily acts administratively to approve/deny/modify a subdivision application.
Town Staff confirmed the POCD expires 11/03/2017; however, it is not yet budgeted and statutory requirements, include: 65 days before the public hearing the proposed POCD is filed with the Regional Council of Governments for an opinion; it is filed with the Town Clerk 35 days prior and must be available on the Town website; the Commission does not meet in August, which moves review prior to July; a budget request for an RFQ would be submitted in December in order to hire and negotiate a fee with the best qualified firm; consultant selection in June/July 2016; initiate contract in July/August 2016 and prepare the plan in 8-10 months; final draft April/May 2017; public hearings in June/July 2017; and adoption in September prior to November 2017. Town Staff indicated Commission meetings twice a month should allow for slippage in the schedule to revise the POCD. Town Staff noted that OPM requires a statement for financial assistance for an open space grant that the POCD is current, so November 2017 is a hard date. Town Staff requested the Commissioners read through the existing POCD keeping in mind that with the help of a consultant their primary product is the future land use map, which drives Zoning’s decisions when they formulate their map.
Town Staff will work with Chairman Rice to develop a prioritized list, beginning with Commission roles and responsibilities. Regarding any difference between regular and alternate members, Town Staff recommended holding evening workshops in an open format keeping it open to input from all Commission members. Town Staff confirmed UCONN’s CLEAR workshop is about land use and Connecticut General Statutes and requires 15 attendees, which will be researched further; also, in late-February/early-March 2017 there will be an excellent Connecticut Bar Association all-day workshop at Wesleyan. Town Staff reiterated their availability to Commissioners for consultation.
Chairman Rice thanked SCTV and Bob for recording this meeting.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Locandro made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.