The first rumblings about a helipad coming to Bradway Pond Road reached the Planning and Zoning Commission(PZC) back in January. On Thursday night, the story moved forward with a standing-room-only crowd at Town Hall and a parking lot so full that the exit was blocked by pick-up trucks on one side of the building.
Earlier this year, the attorney for potential applicant Everett W. Skinner IV of 14 Bradway Pond Road suggested all they needed was permission from the Zoning Enforcement Officer, but the PZC did not agree. They believed a Special Use Permit was needed and suggested the attorney propose a text amendment to the town’s regulations.
During Thursday’s public hearing, Dwight Merriam, an attorney out of Simsbury, told the PZC that after months of research, he realized there were no good examples of regulations for personal helipads. In some towns, he said, there were essentially no regulations making it an “As of right” accessory use. Others require a simple site plan review. Of course, there are also towns where they are prohibited inside residential zones.
Without a clear guide, Merriam had to improvise. Ultimately, this is what he came up with.
Amend Sec. 4.4 on page 31 by adding a new subsection “E” after “D Domestic fuel oil storage”:
E. Heliports
Pne private, noncommercial heliport, including any equipment necessary to permit safe flights, shall be permitted as an accessory use by the owner of a lot of not less than five (5) acres in the AAA district with approval of a Special Use Permit.
Fueling of the helicopter on the property is prohibited.
The applicant shall have a favorable Air Space Determination from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration for the heliport.
Flights shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. with no more than two (2) flights outside those hours per month and shall be limited to twelve (12) flights per week. The operator of a heliport shall keep a log listing the date, time, and purpose of all flights. The log shall be retained for twelve (12) months and subject to review by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Lights associated with the heliport shall be lit only for so long as is reasonably necessary to permit the pilot to locate the heliport and complete the flight.
The provision shall not apply to:
Air medical helicopter (e.g. LIFESTAR) flights for the purpose of emergency patient care.
Flight by federal, state, or local government officials or their authorized agents in the exercise of government responsibilities, including training.
After the lawyer finished his presentation, the commission and the audience had a chance to ask questions and make comments. The commission seemed to agree that helipad regulations were lacking and commended Merriam on his efforts.
Commissioner Cindy Rummel said that, in Stafford, there is a “sense that people should be able to do with their property as they wish” but that the commission also had to be concerned with the neighbors. She asked about regulations on decibel levels. Merriam said this would be better addressed as part of the actual application process.
Dr. David Mordasky asked about regulating flight patterns. Merriam said that should be included in any application for special use and that it was certainly within the commission’s right to impose reasonable conditions. He said it was “legally defensible to dictate patterns of take-off and landing.”
Richard Shuck had the most questions for Merriam, asking about adding regulations pertaining to the distance from the property line, whether or not five acres was an appropriate size for a helipad, retaining the log for longer, and having it submitted to the ZEO annually, and the number of flights.
Chair Dave Palmberg echoed Rummeel’s sentiments, saying Stafford has “an independent streak of wanting to be left alone.” His main concern was that neighbors have a chance to weigh in and that the special use permit process gives them. He suggested that the commission could decide whether or not five acres was enough room for a helipad on a case-by-case basis, based on the individual lot.
Shuck also asked about potential delineations between helicopter types, saying that while the proposed amendment said the helicopter would have to be for non-commercial use, it does not specify what the size or type of helicopter would be. A consultant suggested that the town specify only “light helicopters” or up to a certain number of passengers. Merriam said he considered adding a weight limit to the suggested regulations but decided it was unnecessary and could cause issues given that aircraft vary greatly in weight. He thought acoustic impacts would be the better way to approach regulating the aircraft themselves.
Shuck still thought the regulations needed more specifics, saying, “No commission wants to be accused of being arbitrary.” He thought there needed to be more meat to the guidelines to administer the rules fairly. Merriam said he thought that if the regulation were too specific, there would be a need for many amendments. Shuck countered, saying that without the specifics, the PZC would find itself in court. Palmberg felt the likelihood of the town receiving many applications for private helipads was slim.
Surprisingly, the neighbors from Bradway Pond Road and Hopyard Road area who spoke were largely in support of the amendment. They did share a few practical concerns. Kevin Provencher of Bradway Pond Road said he thought specifying setbacks, limiting the size or decibel level, and requiring the helicopter to reach a certain height before flying horizontally would be wise. He also suggested that 10 acres may be a more appropriate lot size requirement.
Jimmy Page, also of Bradway Pond Road, said he thought 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. was too wide of a window and that it could be tightened up. Several other neighbors shared this concern.
After Mordasky moved to close the public hearing, Shuck wondered if that was the best course of action because once the public hearing is closed, the commission has to make a decision. He thought it would make more sense to continue the hearing and take some time to rework the language of the regulation to incorporate some changes. Ultimately, however, the commission voted 4-1 to close the hearing. At that point, discussion ensued.
Palmberg said there were some valid concerns about the window for flight times and suggested it might make sense to reduce the window and increase the number of times per month the owners could fly outside of that window.
Mordasky said that going from having no regulation on the books to having a regulation “with some teeth” was an improvement. He said he was “in favor of taking these and running with it.”
Shuck thought the text amendment fell short from the town’s perspective. He would have preferred less discretion on the part of the PZC. Without more criteria to go by, the commission had nothing to fall back on, and it may as well have nothing and just allow people to do whatever they want. He said the town should get the regulation right the first time.
Ron Houle made the motion to accept the amendment as proposed, and it passed 4-1.
With the text amendment approved, the special use permit application and another public hearing will likely be before the commission soon.
Comments