Planning Commission Minutes 12/22/2015

PLANNING COMMISSION

DECEMBER 22, 2015

MINUTES FROM 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:  Holly Beum, Alan Needham, and Ron Locandro, Jr.   Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.

ROLL CALL

Appointment of Alternates

Chairman Rice seated Commissioner Locandro for the vacancy, which provided a quorum.

APPLICATIONS:

Public Hearings:

CONTINUED FROM 12/08/2015:  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; opened 12/08/2015)

Application #15-03 was read into the record.  Chairman Rice requested the Agent representing the Applicant:  1) keep to a brief recap of what transpired at the last meeting; 2) bring up any new items, particularly related to fee in lieu of open space; and 3) provide a rationale for how the open space discussed at the last meeting achieves the open space criteria in Subdivision Regulations.

The Agent reviewed that Application #15-03 is for approximately a 27-acre property on Holcomb Street which would be subdivided into two 2-acre lots and one 23-acre lot.  The Agent proposed a 5.66-acre conservation easement, which is 20% of the property, to preserve it in its natural state in perpetuity; and submitted a draft conservation easement form used in Simsbury.  The Agent also submitted a letter outlining why they believe the conservation easement is the best of the 3 options for preserving the land, rather than dedication of land owned by the Town or fee in lieu of.  The Agent indicated the conservation easement would restrict owners’ activities listing specific restrictions and providing Town inspection and enforcement access; the land is adjacent to a 300-acre State forest; and no one from the public would be able to access the buffer area it provides.  The Commissioners noted segments of the property would be restricted under wetland regulations and granting a conservation easement would not have much development impact on an already restricted area.  The Agent responded that the conservation easement would contain the same percentage of wetlands as the entire property does and noted the location of wetlands, uplands, and an existing hayfield and noted that it would be possible for someone to clear more land to create more hayfields, potentially log some areas, and construct buildings.  The Agent confirmed his belief that the conservation easement would better protect the land than any existing State or Federal regulations regarding wetlands. 

The Agent indicated the Wetlands Agency has jurisdiction to protect the wetlands, rather than the Upland Review Area, and there are agricultural as of right uses where they would act to notify the Wetlands Agency.  Town Staff clarified that for permitted as of right uses, while one of those is agriculture, the Wetlands Agency determines whether they are eligible for the exemption under the law, and the owner must go to them and request that exemption because they believe they are entitled to it, and not just simply notify the Wetlands Agency.

At 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Rice noted that Regular Commission Member, Erin Leavitt-Smith, joined the meeting.

The Agent acknowledged the Wetlands Agency regulatory authority, but they could issue a permit allowing tree clearing and other activities.  The Agent noted the Town has a combined Wetlands Agency and Conservation Commission, and indicated at a recent meeting with them regarding this Application, that the 3 options were discussed and the Wetlands Agency recommended the conservation easement as the best option.  The Agent reviewed items contained in his letter regarding open space and what constitutes a desirable piece of property – one located to protect desirable wetlands and water courses, wildlife, natural resources and features, man-made features, e.g.  stone walls, areas next to existing open space, wildlife corridors or pathways, and land left in its natural undisturbed condition.

The Commissioners discussed the fee in lieu of option and whether 1) it is something the Applicant can ask for but is not demanded by the Commission, or 2) if the first or second options can be satisfied, they are preferred.  The Commissioners noted while finding 20% open space in other subdivision applications has been problematic, in this case, there are only 3 parcels and the fee in lieu of may not contribute substantially to an open space fund.  Town Staff reiterated their goal to assure the Commission is aware of its options and that it is the Commission’s discretion to decide among the options and there would likely be different conclusions for different applications.  The Commissioners discussed the meaning of the word “public” as stated in the Fee in Lieu of Open Space Section in Appendix 2 of the Subdivision Regulations; Town Staff indicated the Commission has the ability to interpret the regulations; and various viewpoints were discussed.  The Agent noted for open space requirements, Section 15b lists the 3 options:  1) the Commission at its discretion may preserve open space at its dedication; or 2) in lieu of dedicated open space, the Commission may secure a conservation easement; or 3) the Applicant, with the approval of the Commission, may pay a fee in lieu of open space.  The Agent believed and the Commissioners agreed that the last option would need to be proposed by the Applicant.   However, the Agent believed their proposed conservation easement for open space adds value to the adjacent existing 300-acre open space and protects the forest and wildlife into the future.  The Agent did not believe engaging an appraiser was warranted in this case and a second option would be to pay the $2500 per lot fee.

The Commissioners discussed POCD language, whether this Application satisfies those requirements, the impact of this small parcel, and the location of the conservation easement.  The Agent indicated the proportion of wetlands to uplands is the same existing 20% as exists on the property and the easement would provide an additional layer of protection.

Chairman Rice invited public comment.

Missy Clark of 183 Pond, which is one of the 5 parcels on the other side of the open space, expressed support for the Duscheneck’s Application and appreciated the open space.

Ted Zintek of 12 Vining Drive expressed support for the Duschenecks, and that the conservation easement fulfills the requirements as recommended by the Conservation Commission.  Also, allowing the proposal to go forward would bring in Town revenue of $12-15,000 per lot which would be about $25-30,000 per year in Town tax revenue which would be mutually beneficial and should be sufficient, and he supported it.

Town Staff wanted to assure the Commissioners had copies of Exhibits 12 and 13 and the two letters received from Alford Associates; and noted if the hearing is closed, a decision would be made based on receipt of sufficient information, or if additional information is requested in order to make a decision, the hearing would be kept open. 

Commissioner Needham made a motion to close the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Beum seconded the motion.

The Commissioners discussed that an appraisal was requested at the last meeting and none has been received; therefore, all the information to make a decision was not received.  The Commissioners discussed whether the Applicant should have to incur the expense of an appraisal.

The motion was passed with 4 in favor and 1 opposed.

Discussion and Possible Action:

CONTINUED FROM 12/08/2015:  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; opened 12/08/2015)

Town Staff noted that it would be appropriate for the Commission to discuss resolving Section 15’s requirements to reach consensus.  Some Commissioners believed the Conservation Easement option criteria were met and would be appropriate in this case, and not fee in lieu of.  The Commissioners also discussed whether a vegetative buffer should be required; Town Staff explained that would be appropriate when a screen is required to protect another asset, but there is an existing substantial vegetative buffer between the State forest and any development on this site, which would also fall under the Conservation Commission’s purview of regulated soils.  The Commissioners indicated Staff’s previous input was cogent that a good deal of this area would not be open for development and substantial regulations protect it in relation to the State forest; however, there are numerous small open spaces throughout the Town that are not beneficial and it would be good to set a precedent to begin collecting a minimal acceptable fee in lieu of that would go into a lockbox for future opportune purchases and noted residents’ support for this project.  The Commissioners discussed that fee in lieu of would work to help distribute resources in other cases to enhance and grow existing open space for greater Town benefit.  Some Commissioners believed the hearing should remain open in order to receive information requested at the last meeting to evaluate whether fee in lieu of is acceptable.  The Commissioners reviewed that not all areas of the 27-acre parcel could be built on, and a minimal $2500 fee per lot would not be collected until title is transferred, but it could be a higher fee and over the years build a more significant fund. 

Town Staff clarified that the hearing is closed and a decision must be made on the information before the Commission for either 1) the proposed conservation easement preferred by the Applicant; or 2) a $2500 fee in lieu of open space.  Regarding setting precedent, Town Staff added that each Application is judged on its merits with the Commission evaluating its regulations in relation to each application, e.g. in another case, a subdivision Applicant may find fee in lieu of to be more acceptable than giving up developable land to open space.   Town Staff noted regulations allow a fee of $2500 per lot totaling $7500 which lump sum could be paid in advance for all 3 properties or $2500 paid at the time each lot is transferred in the future.  Town Staff indicated no evaluation of the property can be applied to this Application, and the Applicant has utilized the options contained in Appendix 2.  The Commissioners noted the wetlands regulations are quite protective. 

Town Staff clarified a motion for conservation easement approval should include the 3-lot subdivision as referenced in the Application; that the final conservation easement contain language submitted to the Commission and reviewed and approved by Staff on behalf of the Commission, with that easement containing a description of metes and bounds and field monumentation; and incorporating the conditions contained in the Conservation Commission’s approval provided to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Beum made a motion to approve Application #15-03 and set the fee in lieu of open space at $2500 per lot payable in either a lump sum or upon conveyance of the parcels, as decided by the Applicant.

Commissioner Leavitt-Smith seconded the motion.

The Commissioners further discussed the benefits of the subdivision and approving either the conservation easement or fee in lieu of for Application #15-03 and working toward purchasing more beneficial open space.

The motion was passed with 4 in favor and 1 opposed.

b.   CGS 8-3a referral on Zoning Application #15-42 of the Town of the Simsbury Zoning Commission for a Proposed Text Amendment to the Town of Simsbury Zoning Regulations, to be enacted as Article Three A. 1. A, for a 12-month moratorium on applications for, or approvals of, permits for development under Article Ten, Section N, Workforce Housing Overlay Zone, effective January 10, 2016, through January 9, 2017

Town Staff provided the Commissioners with a proposed text amendment to regulations from the Zoning Commission for addition of a 12-month moratorium on the Workforce Housing Overlay Zone (WHOZ) applications; the moratorium would become a section of the regulations; as a legislative act, it requires holding a public hearing and requires a referral from the separate Planning Commission for advice/guidance; it is also submitted to the Capitol Region Council of Governments for a statutory referral in  compliance with the regional POCD and the State POCD.  Town Staff indicated it is intended to be a stop-gap measure to allow Town commissions to evaluate the existing language contained within the regulations and determine whether it needs to be modified; the 12-month moratorium allows for 8 months overall to work on the regulations with a 3-month process to re-adopt the regulations – a 6 month moratorium provides 3 months to work on it, then public hearings/referrals and back to Planning, referral to Capital Region Council of Governments and the hearing process.  Town Staff indicated a public hearing to receive comment is scheduled for 01/04/2016, as required by statute, which could be continued for 35 days, extended, or closed. 

Town Staff explained the WHOZ applies to the whole Town and an applicant can apply to build WHOZ housing in any zone, including R-40; two recent applications caused the Zoning Commission to reflect on what those applications entailed and what would be the best way to evaluate this type of application.  Town Staff explained the request is to comment on the text amendment and whether it is consistent with the POCD.  The Commissioners discussed whether to comment and if the WHOZ conflicts with the POCD and that having a moratorium to consider the proposed text amendment is acceptable. The Commissioners noted that other proposed text amendments may substantially affect or propose changes to Zoning Regulations, which would then make a referral from the Planning Commission in order regarding what might be best for the Town.   The Commissioners noted that WHOZ affects referrals provided by the Planning Commission and expressed support for a 12-month moratorium.   Town Staff rephrased the question as whether adoption of a 12-month moratorium is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the POCD.  The Commissioners noted there will be additional opportunity for comment by residents at the public hearing.

Commissioner Beum made a motion that Application #15-42 is not inconsistent with the POCD.

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

The Commissioners noted that if no action is taken by the Commission within 35 days, it is assumed there is no comment; and the text amendment to have a moratorium is not governed by the POCD.

Town Staff will craft the required document and begin providing such documents to the Commissioners as standard practice.

Regarding Commissioners meeting attendance, the Chairman preferred receiving confirmation members will attend a meeting, so if a quorum is tight, Town Staff can reach out to members to assure a quorum. 

Regarding the packet provided to the Commissioners, Town Staff explained it is currently provided to Commissioners in their Town email with a link to the packet.  If Town business goes to personal email, the Chairman noted that a request through FOIA would require a Commissioner to produce those documents in their personal email.  Town Staff noted this would be a topic for further discussion at a workshop.  Town Staff explained that typically the Thursday before a meeting the Commission Agenda packet is available on your Town email with a link.

GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS

Discussion of New and Ongoing Projects

Chairman Rice discussed Simsbury’s membership in the Capital Region Council of Governments Regional Planning Commission (CCROG) and offered to continue as the regular member representing the Commission; and Bob Kulakowski has volunteered to be the alternate.

Commissioner Beum made a motion that William Rice be the representative to the Capital Region Council of Government Planning Commissions, and Robert Kulakowski will be the alternate.

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

Chairman Rice noted that Kevin Prell resigned from the Commission as of 12/16/2015, opening a Republican spot – it is anticipated the Republican Town Committee will soon seek a nominee, who could be an alternate, and present the nominee to the Town Committee, followed by a BOS decision.

Commission Education/Workshop

Town Staff indicated a goal is to begin holding workshops in January and one of the scheduled monthly meetings could be dedicated to a workshop, with applicants notified of the Commission’s schedule for the next couple of months.  Town Staff noted counsel and outside experts could also be brought in for workshops with a more advantageous schedule.  Workshop topics would include:  policies and procedures; roles, duties, and responsibilities of the Commission, including subdivision applications, POCD, 8-24 referrals, motions to approve, questions on FOIA, fee in lieu of open space, changes in case law, and other questions.  Town Staff recommended the 2nd meeting in January be an educational workshop, with any applicants notified their application will be heard in the 2nd month.

V.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES from December 8, 2015

On Line 147, “$500 Million” is corrected to “$2.5 Million”.

On Lines 156 and 158, the spelling of the name “King” is corrected to “Cayne”.

Commissioner Beum made a motion to approve the December 8, 2015 minutes, as amended.

Commissioner Locandro seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

The Commissioners discussed the appropriateness of saying the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of meetings. 

Commissioner Locandro made a motion to introduce the Pledge of Allegiance on the Agenda at the beginning of the meeting.

Commissioner Rice seconded the motion, and it was passed with 4 in favor and 1 opposed.

Town Staff will add it to future Agendas.

Chairman Rice thanked SCTV for recording this session and noted new members can refer to recordings of previous meetings for information, if they wish.

VI.       ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Locandro made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m.

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