Simsbury, CT - Planning Commission Minutes

Chairman John Loomis called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. in Eno Memorial Hall, CityplaceSimsbury, StateCT. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Susan Bednarcyk, Ferguson Jansen, Carol Cole, Gregory Piecuch, and Mark Drake, with Charles Houlihan arriving just after the call to order and Brad Mead arriving at 7:00 p.m. Also in attendance was Richard Sawitzke, Town Engineer, Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, Emil Dahlquist, Chairman of the Design Review Board, as well as approximately 40-50 other interested parties. Brad Mead left the meeting at approximately 9:45 p.m.

Richard Sawitzke provided an overview of the 6-Year Capital Improvement Program and described his role in working with the Board of Education on their capital projects. The draft handout he provided included a list of the specific projects scheduled within each year, starting with ’07-‘08. He indicated that the ’06-’07 projects, many of which were moved up in the schedule, included the Tariffville School and library renovations, the Ethel Walker open space acquisition, and the Hopmeadow streetscape program (i.e., plantings and walkways, etc.). He noted the recent changes in procedures on the State level that require local approvals be in place prior to grants being reviewed or approved. No capital projects are scheduled for ‘07-’08. The ’08-’09 projects include sewer extensions, and several Board of Ed projects such as the High School Auditorium completion, classroom technology, Latimer Lane roof replacement, and Central School pre-school bathroom installations. Fiscal Year ’09-’10 includes projects such as an allocation for the Economic Development Fund, Simsbury Farms improvements (including an access road to the clubhouse from the main entrance road) and a replacement roof for Tootin’ Hills. The remainder of the years include sewer extensions, park improvements, GIS/Mapping upgrades, multiple upgrades to Simsbury Farms, multiple energy conservation strategies and classroom technology upgrades. In response to Secretary Gardow, Mr. Sawitzke noted the list of projects on the last page of the handout were removed from the CIP due to the fact that the budget had exceeded the 7% cap guideline set by the Board of Finance. Some of the higher State-reimbursable projects on that list could be moved forward, whereas others are there more as place-markers or a type of wish list. Mr. Sawitzke noted that some allocations, as with the updating of the street signage, are not included in the CIP, but rather are categorized as capital non-recurring items.

Chairman Loomis noted the absence of the open space funding of $2 million every other year that has historically been placed in the CIP. Mr. Sawitzke explained that the open space funding has all been brought forward from subsequent years in order to fund the Ethel Walker (EWS) acquisition. However, in the meantime, the Board of Finance has indicated their willingness to consider a special town meeting to authorize funds on a case by case basis. Both Chairman Loomis and Commissioner Bednarcyk expressed their concerns with this short-sighted and less than satisfactory option rather than having a long-term provision and plan for possible future acquisitions. Commissioner Bednarcyk noted that more grants might be available if such proactive planning is found in both the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) and in the CIP. In response to Commissioner Piecuch, Mr. Sawitzke indicated that it would not be until Fiscal Year ’13-’14 before the open space allocations would be reintroduced into the CIP.

The Commission then discussed whether or not they should go on record and put forth a resolution with regard to the absence of the open space allocation in any form for the entire 6-year period. Commissioner Piecuch referred to a similar action taken by the Commission 3 years ago. Commissioner Bednarcyk formed a motion, which was later withdrawn, that would have the Commission put forth a resolution to consider open space funding as part of the CIP for ’08-’09 and beyond at the suggested rate of $500,000 per year. Commissioner Houlihan suggested it was not fair to say that no allocations have been made to open space within the CIP when a choice was made by the Town to essentially spend borrowed dollars to fund the EWS acquisition. He expressed concern with the impact such a proposal would have on the Town’s bonding rate. Commissioner Piecuch noted that the Commission’s actions need to be informed ones, and that the Commission may not be in a position to specify the exact amount nor at what point in the CIP to reinstate the allocation. He suggested recognizing that the funds have been pulled forward for the EWS acquisition and the Board of Finance’s willingness to fund that in a unique way. However, the Planning Commission would like them to resume with the tradition of allocating money for open space on a regular basis once the EWS obligation has been satisfied.

Commissioner Piecuch motioned to send a resolution to the Board of Finance (BOF) and the Board of Selectmen (BOS) recognizing that it has been the tradition of those Boards to allocate, on a bi-annual basis, $2 million for open space acquisition. We note that in the 6-year Capital Improvement Plan no such allocations are shown. The Planning Commission acknowledges that part of this is due to the fact that some monies are being allocated towards the Ethel Walker project. However, we urge the BOS and BOF to reinstate the longstanding principle of making those allocations as soon as the Ethel Walker property is fully funded or sooner if feasible. The Planning Commission further acknowledges the policy of those Boards to consider additional funding on an ad hoc basis. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bednarcyk and unanimously approved.

Chairman Loomis noted the Planning Commission was resuming work on the Special Areas section of the draft Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) that had been rescinded on 12/28/06. He expressed the importance at this stage of placeCitySimsbury’s development, given the few parcels of size that remain to be developed. He also emphasized the importance of identifying with resident input those character issues that the residents care deeply about and to identify how the townspeople want those issues addressed. He described the expressing of the intention of what is desired in unmistakable terms as both meaningful and useful to residents and developers when it comes to understanding what outcomes are acceptable, particular for those remaining undeveloped areas. He thanked the 45 or so individuals who prepared and submitted written material for the Commission’s consideration, including comments on areas other than the Southern and Northern Gateways (i.e., West Street, the airport), comments from the Economic Development and Zoning Commissions, as well as the Chamber of Commerce. In response to Chairman Loomis, each of the Commissioners then identified the key issues needing to be addressed in order to get the Plan completed, as well as the related written correspondence associated with those issues.

Commissioner Houlihan indicated the key issues that emerged for him included the acquisition of the Airport, a zone consideration for addressStreetWest Street, and the vision for the Southern Gateway. He referred to correspondence from a retired pilot reminding the Commission how important the airport is and encouraged its acquisition even before the study is complete. Secondly, the addressStreetWest Street group, which is of one accord from Bushy Hill all the way to Route 10, would like to be part of the Simsbury Center Zone. Finally, with regard to the Southern Gateway, Commissioner Houlihan noted the need for a vision that outlines the type of desired development in that area, in text and in prose rather than with metrics, that addresses the community’s concerns. He noted that although over half the public comments received were opposed to the River Oaks project no application has even been submitted. It is Commissioner Houlihan’s desire that the draft Plan, including the specific vision and guidance for that area, be approved and put into effect before that happens. He noted the Zoning Commission Chairman, Mr. Barney, articulated well his reluctance to insert metrics into the Plan, noting the different roles of the two commissions. Commissioner Houlihan recognized comments submitted by SHARE that fit in with what Mr. Barney had to say. In addition, Mr. Barney cautioned the Planning Commission against discriminatorily applying metrics to a single property in town.

Commissioner Drake noted the input has an overwhelming number of residents in support of including metrics in the Plan for the Southern and Northern Gateways. Some of the Boards are intent on keeping their options open to achieve some kind of development to aid in what they are charged with (i.e., EDC, etc.). Personally, as a builder, he has no problem with the metrics and sees them as guidelines. In addition, since the Plan is strictly advisory, he sees no problem with including metrics to some degree so there is no misunderstanding when it comes to the new form-based planning. He referenced Emil Dahlquist’s written submission of proposed text and advocated using it as a guideline in the Commission’s negotiations going forward on approving the Plan.

Commissioner Bednarcyk indicated the Commission needs to define what the town is looking for in the Gateway areas. She described recent legal advice she received that the Plan can include metrics when defining their vision. She also agreed that Mr. Dahlquist’s submission be considered, noting that with form-based development comes definition. She also indicated addressStreetWest Street is another issue that needs to be addressed by possibly creating a zone similar to the Center Zone. However, due to the fact that West Street has its own character it should not be melded into the Center Zone. Finally, she expressed her opinion that over the past couple of years planning has been marginalized and her personal goal will be to educate everyone in the town on what planning really is.

Commissioner Piecuch agreed with Commissioner Bednarcyk regarding addressStreetWest Street, indicating that although there are similarities between it and the Center Zone, they are not exactly the same and addressStreetWest Street should have its own unique zone. In his opinion, the overriding theme of the issues surrounding the Plan has to do with the credibility of the Plan itself. The implementation tool for the Plan is the Zoning Regulations and if the Planning Commission wants their vision to have any long-term standing it is imperative that alignment with the Zoning Commission is achieved. The Planning Commission has no authority to enact de facto zoning regulations, and the Plan needs to express the vision in a way that maintains its own legal credibility. Thirdly, the Plan needs to maintain its public policy credibility. Some of the current metrics (i.e., caps, ratios and height limitations) are incompatible with the vision expressed in the Plan and the very areas in town that contribute to creating placeCitySimsbury’s character. For example, places such as Simsbury Town Shops could not be achieved under such metrics.

Commissioner Mead suggested the issue of alignment does not simply reside between Zoning and Planning. The issue lies in the Planning Commission representing what the people of placeCitySimsbury want. In his opinion, there is a credibility and trust problem with Planning and, from what residents have told him, probably with Zoning as well. The residents do not trust the Commissions to work with the developers and do not want to leave the flexibility open for a possible Big Box development. He encouraged those Commissioners who do not want metrics included in the Plan to listen to the thousands of residents who have expressed their desires. He further urged them to indicate who they actually are representing if it is not placeCitySimsbury’s residents. Later in the meeting Commissioner Piecuch expressed his view that the Commission’s actions must not only represent the public’s wishes, but must also comply with the Commission’s statutory powers. For example, SHARE’s proposed zoning amendment prohibiting the Town from even accepting an application if it met certain criteria would be illegal.

Commissioner Cole identified the residents fear of a Big Box and the implications that go along with that type of development (i.e., traffic, etc.) She complimented SHARE and expressed her respect for their approach to this situation and the useful information they have provided. She also indicated that simply putting metrics in the Plan may eliminate a Big Box but will not necessarily create something wonderful. She suggested the pieces submitted by Emil Dahlquist, SHARE, and Hiram Peck would be particularly useful to move forward with the Plan.

Commissioner Jansen maintained his consistent stance against metrics in the Plan. He referenced submitted materials from Richard Hogan and the EDC, both of which talk about the real need for additional tax monies, as well as the input from Hiram Peck and Austin Barney. In his opinion, the current Plan document emphasizes the positive and expresses the vision and feel without metrics. Including percentages and caps would kill the market. He suggested the Commissions can work with the developers and make adjustments on what comes in.

Chairman Loomis began his comments by acknowledging the distinct difference between the roles of the Zoning and Planning Commissions. Planning’s role is to advise and Zoning’s role is to regulate. In that context, it is entirely within the purview of the Plan to make recommendations, provide guidelines and standards, and use the necessary metrics for clarity especially when it comes to the remaining 2 formless signature parcels. He noted the considerable concession over time that the Planning Commission has shown with regard to those metrics (i.e., increasing square footages and changes in greenbelt sizes). He suggested reviewing the submissions from Emil Dahlquist and SHARE, as well as residents such as Deborah Thibodeau, Anthony Napolitano, Mark George, and Blake Irons.

Hiram Peck thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to speak and present his research and analysis expressed in a memo distributed today via email. In his memo he presented several towns similar to placeCitySimsbury with separate Planning and Zoning Commissions. He reviewed the general recommendations outlined in his memo. First, the essential objective at this time is to come out of this process with a document that can be widely read and relatively understood and accepted by the Commissions that need to work with it in the future. Secondly, he recommends the use of the Village District designation in the Northern and Southern Gateway. Thirdly, all parcels should be treated uniformly and that the POCD guidelines and recommendations should be applied uniformly to all similarly zoned parcels in the various Special Areas. Finally, research has shown that when the commissions are separate the documents produced by those commissions acknowledge that separate structure.

A list of 10 specific recommendations for consideration with regard to the Special Areas section of the POCD was also included in the memo. Some of those suggestions include: expressing the recommendations in the POCD in general prose language and not in zoning-type text; eliminating the percentages of mixed uses; proposing areas of buffering in terms of performance-based details (i.e., effective screen, sound barrier, etc.); allowing for a variety of building shapes, sizes and textures; and encouraging the zoning regulations consider preserving the view to the Talcott Mountain ridgeline. He stressed the fact that the POCD will not prevent or propose any particular type of development. Upon review of a specific application, the Commission members will know whether they like it when they see it as it compares to the set of standards available under their jurisdiction (i.e., Plan, the Zoning or subdivision regulations, etc.).

In response to Commissioner Drake, Mr. Peck indicated although some towns he researched were considering the form-based concept, none of their Plans were written with that concept in mind. Commissioner Drake suggested the only way to convey a form is with some kind of measurement. Mr. Peck said although the Commission has been very clear as to their vision, the use of some compromised wording would be a better way to make the form-based and use-based concepts work together and get a workable Plan adopted.

Commissioner Bednarcyk indicated she has sent Mr. Peck’s memo to a land use attorney for their review and opinion. Mr. Peck cautioned her regarding protocols and full disclosure considerations. She read from page 31 of the Regional Planning Association’s “Building Livable Communities” handbook regarding the planning process being the only formal opportunity for residents to express their opinion on development matters on a comprehensive basis. Commissioner Houlihan noted public input has been sought and accepted in a variety of ways. In Commissioner Mead’s opinion, that input has been received but ultimately disregarded.

Commissioner Houlihan raised the question as to whether other commission, board and committee heads should be allowed to present their proposals along with Emil Dahlquist. Chairman Loomis noted he had announced quite a while ago that Mr. Dahlquist, in light of his 4 years worth of work with the Commission, was to be a part of tonight’s discussion. Commissioner Houlihan did make a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Piecuch, to allow other chairmen and town representatives to also present. Commissioner Mead suggested the discussion should then be opened up to the residents as well. Commissioner Bednarcyk noted Mr. Dahlquist’s continuous work with the Commission and cautioned that allowing other individuals to speak would create an open forum. Mr. Dahlquist himself clarified that he did not need to make a presentation but rather was here in the spirit of compromise and consensus to work out an effective tool that can be used and endorsed by the Commission. Commissioner Piecuch thanked him for his tireless work and again emphasized the needed alignment between Planning, Design Review and Zoning. Either Planning is going to sort this out on their own or they are going to work with the Chairmen from both of those commissions in order to come to a resolution. Commissioner Houlihan subsequently withdrew his motion.

Chairman Loomis suggested using Emil Dahlquist’s documents – the one sent via email as well as the supplemental one handed out tonight that incorporates the Village District concept for the Southern Gateway – as the basis of where to go next. Commissioner Houlihan expressed concern regarding using the piece that had just been made available this evening as the basis for discussion. Chairman Loomis assured him that the piece handed out tonight simply added the Village District language and was not a major departure from what he had originally received in his packet. He acknowledged Commissioner Houlihan’s desire for more in-depth background on the Village District concept. Commissioner Piecuch confirmed with Mr. Dahlquist that the primary recommendation for the Southern Gateway is still Office/Industrial and that he had simply added the concept of Village District for the alternative strategy section.

In response to Secretary Gardow, Mr. Peck explained the Village District designation as a section in the Statutes that allows the Zoning Commission to create a district in the Town, if outlined or proposed in the POCD, to apply a specific set of standards (i.e., certain architecture, etc.) to that Village District through the Zoning Regulations. He indicated there are approximately 22 Village Districts in the state right now. Commissioner Drake emphasized the need to give the Zoning Commission direction in order to get the details right in the regulations. Chairman Loomis noted what is being proposed is that the Village District would be used in conjunction with Planning’s other specific recommendations.

Mr. Dahlquist described the Village District as a way to merge aesthetics with regulations that would have some meaningful benefit to a town. It was really a precursor to form-based type of planning or zoning. Mr. Dahlquist sees his role as trying to be a resource to come up with a Plan that is for the benefit of the town. Form-based zoning is a tool that can be applied in a variety of meaningful ways by the Commissions and can provide a common language to development. He described the category of ‘form districts’ as a new concept he has introduced in his original submission, which serves to address the idea that parcels are being singled out. In his opinion, metrics are derailing the whole conversation. The goal is to provide clarity as to what the intent is and none of it is meant to be regulatory or seen as a cap. He further encouraged the Planning Commission to take a proactive approach and that really requires taking a position in as much detail as they can agree on about how things should develop.

Commissioner Piecuch acknowledged Mr. Dahlquist’s concepts as being great, however indicated he is struggling with the fact that within the system the DRB, which has the expertise in architecture, and the Zoning Commission are the ones that work hand in hand in site plan review. The Planning Commission does not have legal site plan oversight. Mr. Dahlquist reviewed the process a developer goes through, which includes the POCD as one of several documents used by developers to determine the concerns of the town and the likelihood of approval. He noted that the DRB can modify a developer’s plans only insignificantly. In his opinion, it is nowhere near as effective as if the POCD had specifics about the most desirable way to develop with distinctions between good and bad development. Having the information out there in advance provides for much more of a legal basis for approval or disapproval of a particular project (i.e., versus just a hunch or an opinion). Commissioner Piecuch sees that specificity as being more applicable in the Design Review Guidelines.

Commissioner Houlihan again expressed his desire to hear more about the Village District. He noted, however, that Mr. Dahlquist’s original submission seems contrary to Mr. Peck’s memo (i.e., still uses zoning type text, does not eliminate percentage of uses, etc.). Mr. Dahlquist clarified that he had not seen a copy of Mr. Peck’s memo prior to this evening. He suggested that by deciding to use form-based concepts the language will change from that of use-based zoning and cautioned against going back and forth across the line.

Commissioner Mead expressed his approval of the use of a Village District as well as the rest of Mr. Dahlquist’s piece. In his opinion, the ultimate issue for the Commission is to not only come up with a document that Planning and Zoning are happy with but also represents what the residents are happy about. Commissioner Drake indicated the one main focus to remember is that if Planning is wed to changing over to form-based the rules are going to change slightly. Specifics are necessary so there is no confusion as to what the vision is.

Commissioner Bednarcyk noted the Commission references the Plan when doing an approval or denial. The goal is to move to form-based development and with that there is a need to talk specifically. Planning is to have their own opinions and those should be clearly specified in the Plan in terms of established criteria. Commissioner Piecuch agrees with moving towards form-based development with clarity. The issue, however, is not about clarity. It is about who writes the regulations. He advocates for providing a clear vision and even using some numerics, but just not in regulatory language (i.e., ‘shall’, ‘maximum’, etc.) because ultimately the Plan is not a regulatory document.

Secretary Gardow noted he is still on the learning curve of form-based versus use-based regulations. He advocates for being clear and specific, but noted Commissioner Piecuch has introduced a new concept of not using regulatory language. Commissioner Cole reiterated her concern is not the size of a particular building but what happens as a result of it (i.e., use after late hours, road widening, etc.). She acknowledged the possibility of using the Village District to accomplish the vision and goal for particular areas. She does not have a problem with using some metrics. She recognizes Planning cannot change the regulations but can make recommendations.

Commissioner Jansen agreed with Mr. Dahlquist’s vision and the words on page 5 of his supplemental piece, but has trouble with the specific percentages, which depend on the market, and the caps, which stifle creativity. He respects SHARE and those that have expressed their opinions. He also believes the Commission needs to speak for the 75% of the other tax-paying residents who haven’t been represented. Finally, he liked Mr. Peck’s recommendations describing it as hitting a ‘home run’.

Mr. Dahlquist noted that each time the Commission talks the closer they get to a resolution, but admits he is unsure the best way to accomplish a consensus. He is convinced, and thinks others will be as well, that form-based is the most meaningful way to go about having a dialogue about the community. He encouraged the Commission to put away the misconception that some constraints or limitations will stifle creativity. He suggested everyone, on the Commissions and in town, has the same goal to get the best outcome possible.