Simsbury, CT - Planning Commission Minutes

Chairman John Loomis called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Amphitheater at placePlaceNameSimsbury PlaceTypeHigh School. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Ferguson Jansen, Susan Bednarcyk, Carol Cole, Darren Cunningham, Brad Mead, Charles Houlihan, and Mark Drake. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, as well as approximately 130-150 other interested parties.

Chairman Loomis indicated what Planning’s role is with regard to the proposed PDD, which involves listening to the town regarding the proposed PDD and then evaluating the PDD as it is using a variety of sources, including tonight’s comments. He requested the public focus their remarks on original ideas and emphases and avoid repeating those expressed already. He also welcomed the public to provide written comment to the Commission over the next several days.

David Galt, addressStreet41 Madison Lane, indicated he was thankful for the submission of this PDD, which provides an example of why developers should not be allowed to write the Town’s regulations. The PDD provides for too much impervious surface, does not provide for any type of conservation, contains no measurable or enforceable regulations and can be applied anywhere by petition. He indicated he does support the idea of real mixed-use ideas in the zone in the center of town, but the PDD is not that nor is it even an acceptable starting point for such a discussion. He urged the Commission to not support this text amendment and to reject it outright.

Dan Mudgett, addressStreet30 Madison Lane, noted he had recently visited the new L.L. Bean building and commented on its size and the surrounding area getting larger and larger. He indicated such a large type of development in town won’t just affect placeCitySimsbury but the adjacent entryways into the Valley as well. He noted that the final development is seldom what is originally proposed and encouraged the Commission to not ‘let the genie out of the lamp’ for fear that it might not go back in.

Dorothy Swenson, addressStreet56 Hilltop Drive, encouraged the Planning Commission to get more input from CitySimsbury residents to decide what type of community they want their placeCitySimsbury to be. She cautioned against desecrating another beautiful piece of the Valley here in placeCitySimsbury.

As a member of SHARE, Kirsten Griebel, addressStreet7 Caryn Lane, indicated she has been closely following both the Konover and town PDDs. She noted that the Konover PDD, if approved, would be created as a floating zone, one which would be absolutely wrong for placeCitySimsbury. A one-size-fits-all PDD is not in the best interest of placeCitySimsbury, but rather should be site-specific in order for the development to be integrated into the landscape and harmonize with existing distinct character places. In addition, the PDD provides for excessive lot coverages. If approved, the proposed PDD would open the entire town up to mixed-use development and effectively removing all current zoning requirements. She strongly urged the Commission to send a negative recommendation to the Zoning Commission.

Alan Needham, addressStreet2 Basswood Lane, also urged the Commission to provide a negative referral to Zoning and to tell the developer that placeCitySimsbury is capable of writing their own regulations. The proposed PDD was based on a working draft done by the Town which was a work in progress. He noted the Town does not yet know what the Town wants. He urged the PDD to contain a direct reference to the POCD, for which the Commission has taken the time to get much input. The Commission is in the position to guide the Town to promote development with the best possible results and encouraged them to help write a PDD with the specifics necessary to grow the Center of town while protecting placeCitySimsbury’s neighborhoods. Although he currently trusts the land use commissions, he noted the need for a checks and balances system in the PDD for a possible time when that trust is not warranted. Currently, the PDD could create a Big Box development and all the resulting effects from it, i.e., traffic, no real tax benefit, etc.

Julie Meyer, of addressStreet3 East View Drive, asked the Commission to reject the proposed PDD, noting that Konover is incapable of designing a PDD. She referenced a currently pending lawsuit regarding a zoning dispute in placeCityBlacksburg, StateVA. A development, similar to that of Konover, was proposed by Fairmount Developers, yet after the zone had been changed the site plan came in with a major retailer and no homes. In response, the town created a very specific mixed use zone ordinance to limit the size of retail buildings, which she will forward to the Commission. Ms. Meyer recently spoke with a principal from Fairmount who indicated large retail does not do well in a mixed use venue, specifically when residential is involved. She closed with a quote from the Home Page of the town of placeCityFriday Harbor, WA which stressed that the public does not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them and that the people of the town insist on remaining informed.

Jane Rucci of addressStreet54 Blue Ridge Drive noted there are no technical or performance standards included in the proposed PDD. Resulting development will not be compatible with placeCitySimsbury’s historic precedence. There are no metrics for building sizes, square footage limits, or percentages for mixes of uses, allowing for numerous very large Big Box along with the corresponding negative effects, including traffic and crime, reducing scenic vistas and environmental issues. She noted the 3,000 signatures obtained by SHARE voicing residents’ disapproval of Big Box development. Ms. Rucci thanked the Commission for their time spent already on this PDD, but noted it has kept them from developing a PDD that is best for the Town. She urged the Commission not to let developers decide what is best for placeCitySimsbury, a decision that should be left up to the residents.

Harald Bender, addressStreet6 Maureen Drive, spoke on behalf of the Southwest Homeowner’s Association. He addressed specific concerns regarding the PDD. In the General Requirements Part 2:M, he noted there are no specific requirements with regard to energy conservation that have to be met. At least the minimum placeLEEDS standards, as developed by the US Green Building Commission, should be met. In addition, the success of mixed use requires a fine balance and needs a critical mass, which he is unsure exists in this PDD. Language included in Section 7:C that calls for ‘encouraging’ the developer to meet with local residents and homeowner groups is not strong enough. He would like to see it as a requirement to meet with all of the groups so as to not leave any of them out.

Janet Miller, addressStreet45 Blue Ridge Drive, was opposed to numerous aspects of the proposed PDD, but chose to focus on the excessive lot coverage issue. Not only are the proposed coverage percentages too high, she also noted that the PDD does not include sidewalks and public use space in that figure. There is also an allowance for an additional smaller percentage of lot coverage with no requirement of resubmission of a new master plan application. She believes this excessive coverage will result in a negative environmental impact and permanently change the character and sense of place of the Town. The PDD also calls for improved surfaces, such as reinforced turf and pervious asphalt to not be included in the lot coverage calculation. In her opinion, those types of surfaces, regardless of levels of porosity, should not be in the same category as open space. This regulation is nowhere near in keeping with current Zoning regulations. She asked Planning to provide an emphatic negative recommendation.

Marv Negrin, addressStreet7 Shaw Drive, asked the Commission what they were thinking if they were even considering passing this PDD and asked them to reject the proposed PDD outright. The proposed PDD is missing essential details, specifications, and technical standards, and provides for a floating zone. The PDD could allow for extremes in mixed use (i.e., auto shop next to a million dollar home), as well as Big Box development. He described the proposed PDD as inadequate and omitting necessary financial guarantees, being inadequate, totally disregarding town involvement, and resulting in development that would invite more crime, put a strain on the town’s infrastructure, create commercial sprawl up and down Route 10 resulting in the decrease of property values. This proposed PDD would not improve the quality of life in placeCitySimsbury. He encouraged the Commission to continue to draft the Town PDD, which has only the town residents’ interest in mind and will serve to protect the character of the Town while promoting smart and creative growth.

Bruno Hazen, addressStreet307 Hopmeadow Street, asked the Commission how the town would benefit from the proposed PDD? Would it provide an economic benefit and decrease taxes? If it did that, was tastefully done, and benefited everyone in town he encouraged the Commission to ‘go for it’. He also noted that if the intended users were to be Simsbury residents, perhaps something the town needs could be developed (i.e., possibly a Whole Foods) rather than simply what residents can drive to other towns to get.

Lynne Pollack, addressStreet46 Simsbury Manor Drive, questioned why this particular parcel needed to be zoned differently than what it is now. She encouraged retaining its current designation as light industrial, describing it as the best use. In her opinion, there are more than enough retail establishments and restaurants in the area and noted that many are suffering already. In addition, developing the property as proposed by Konover would negatively affect placeCitySimsbury’s downtown area. The resulting additional traffic is not desired, especially on Route 44. She referenced the Town’s recent large investment in open space at PlaceNameplaceEthel PlaceNameWalker PlaceNameSchool and Tulmeadow Farms and noted open space should be a part of the PDD, and yet it has dissipated.

Joan Coe, addressStreet26 Whitcomb Drive, expressed her opinion that this PDD is about Konover and a money-driven project and has nothing to do with the character of placeCitySimsbury. Though the PDD can be used as a tool, this PDD is not the one that is needed and she asked that the Commission reject it. She referenced, and agreed with, a quote by Mary Glassman suggesting the best use for that space would be an office building. The town should never have developers changing the character of placeCitySimsbury, but rather they should be using our POCD as reference and proceed from there. She reminded the Commission to not listen to their political party but rather the people who have voted them into office and whom they should serve.

Louise D’Agosto, 35 Northgate, objected to the wording in the PDD that called for ‘flexible creative and superior design’, calling it too subjective. She expressed her disagreement with changing to a floating zone. In her opinion, the PDD will not enhance the character of the town and suggested there is too much retail already. She encouraged maintaining Route 10 as a 2-lane ‘country road’ and keep the traffic to Route 44. She referenced the development in placeCityCanton and the loss of character to the town as a result of it.

Melicent Thompson, 40 Musket Trail, brought her 7 year-old daughter to the meeting to allow her to see democracy in action, which seemed especially appropriate on 9/11. Second, she reminded the Commissioners that the children are the future of the town and the decision they make regarding this PDD will affect what their future placeCitySimsbury looks like. She noted several problems with the PDD. The PDD contains nothing but vagaries with Konover meeting their own needs and not allowing for town scrutiny based on measurable standards. Ironically, all of the prohibited uses listed in Section 3 will in some way be generated by a Target or Big Box store even if that is not the primary use. She, too, felt that communication with residents should be required rather than just ‘encouraged’. She noted that this PDD, if approved, would be a major disservice to the current merchants in placeCitySimsbury who, in her experience, bend over backwards to support the various charity organizations in town. Speaking from her experience as an attorney, she encouraged the Commission not to solely focus on the traffic issue, which although is a major concern will not be sufficient to fight against Big Box development.

Eric Hammerling, Executive Director of the Farmington River Watershed Association, expressed his grave concerns with the PDD. He questioned whether placeCitySimsbury has a need for a PDD, and if there is, the author should be the town’s Zoning Commission. Consideration of a PDD should not be rushed because of an individual applicant’s timetable. As a floating zone, the PDD applies town-wide and there needs to be as much thought given as to where the PDD does not apply as to where it may apply. There is no consideration of scale given in the PDD. The PDD General Requirements are too general. He questioned why in the prohibited uses section only dry cleaners using any hazardous chemicals are listed and not other users of hazardous chemicals. He cited and agreed with Janet Miller’s previous comments on excessive coverage proposed by the PDD. He discussed studies done by both Chris Bellucci of the CT DEP in 2005 and the FRWA in 2002 on impervious cover and the affect on water quality in local basins. Based on that data, the FRWA warns that adopting the PDD as written will likely ensure degradation of Nod Brook and further degrade Minister Brook. He recommended very strongly for a negative referral by Planning to the Zoning Commission.

Helen Peterson, 20 Long View Drive, expressed her sincere appreciation for residents’ due diligence and their comments thus far. She noted how unacceptable it is for a developer to draft a PDD for placeCitySimsbury. She noted she is not in favor of a PDD at this time due to the fact that it is based on a reaction to a developer who wants something. She wants to see due process for resident input. The highest and best use for the community needs to be determined for parcels within town, and she suggested that be done through a professional, comprehensive, all-encompassing study, such as a build-out or a Charette. She noted expert advice given earlier this Spring has gone unheeded and the 1998 Charette was incomplete.

Deborah Thibodeau, addressStreet5 Woodcliff Drive, indicated she is not in support of the PDD, describing it as inherently vague, giving the developer too much leeway, and going against the current POCD. A mixed use regulation is necessary, but not as developed on a developer’s terms. She strongly urged the Commission to give a negative referral and get back to their work on the POCD and develop their own amendments to the regulations.

Becky Latimer, addressStreet5 Spence Lane, suggested that Konover’s claim that mixed use creates rising home values is false and characterized it as a small example of the misinformation provided by the developer. Konover used CityReston, StateVA as an example where that has occurred, and yet Ms. Latimer noted that being a suburb of CityplaceWashington, StateD.C. has more to do with the rising values than the mixed use. She does not suppose that placeCityHartford will have a similar effect.

Charmaine Seavy, addressStreet18 Quarry Road, indicated that the PDD is a floating zone and is absolutely wrong for placeCitySimsbury. The one-size-fits all is not in the best interest of placeCitySimsbury. She described placeCitySimsbury as a special place and there would be a terrible impact to the local environment, as well as on traffic, if this PDD were to be adopted. The children of CitySimsbury deserve to grow up in the same placeCitySimsbury she has lived in for over 20 years. In her opinion, there are more than enough retail stores in the surrounding area to fulfill the shopping needs of placeCitySimsbury residents. She urged the Commission to vote no and not let the Konover PDD ruin placeCitySimsbury.

John Juhl, addressStreet23 Lincoln Lane, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak. He noted his concern with the intrusion of a developer to make regulations for the town. Such intrusion was exhibited earlier in the year when Konover paid for the expert study on the area for the proposed River Oaks development. Mr. Juhl referenced repeated attempts by Konover at the 8/14/07 Planning meeting to have the text of the PPD changed from its current wording to facilitate the company’s plans for Big Box development. He described an 8/31/07 email he sent to the BOS stating his concerns with Konover’s interaction with both Zoning and Planning and has not had a response. In his opinion, elected officials have the responsibility to safeguard the rights of the community and not to be influenced by a developer whose only interest is in profit.

George Mason, addressStreet10 Fawnbrook Lane, thanked the Commission for their service and for the public hearing. He characterized them as the ‘first line of defense’. He described a letter he recently sent to all related Commissions with 50 or so questions regarding the PDD and most have not been answered, except for a response from Mr. Peck. He suggested the freedom of speech amendment may be the only reason why the Commission is even considering a re-zoning proposal from a developer with such self-interest. He suggested if the PDD is approved the local child care center could be sold and a McDonald’s allowed there instead and asked why that should be allowed.

Tom Frank, addressStreet19 Banbury Drive, also noted the vagueness of the language contained within the Konover PDD, specifically citing the wording ‘consistent with the overall character of the town’. A PDD should be authored by the town with very well-stated wording defining exactly what is that overall character.

Mitch Kennedy, addressStreet85 Arch Road in Avon, noted that although he is not a resident of placeCitySimsbury he does pass through frequently, enjoys the ride with its vistas and scenery, and is concerned as a neighbor. He described the concept of this PDD as terribly outdated, with the emergence of issues such as depletion of water and oil resources and the global climate change. He urged the Commission to think about what else could be done instead of what is being proposed, noting that Big Box development is one of the most inefficient uses of energy. He described the development in CityCanton as ‘aesthetically abhorrent’ and noted that the original plans for that were similar to the mixed use proposed in placeWest Hartford. However, there were no financial guarantees nor were they tied to performance, and no housing was included. He advocated for creative, intelligent solutions and suggested the Commission research existing examples of net-zero energy use developments (i.e., CityplaceLondon, country-regionEngland).

Judy Rabinowitz, addressStreet126 Hopmeadow Street, endorsed the previous comments regarding scalability and impervious coverage issues. The PDD needs to contain specifics that pertain to development in both the center of town as well as the edges of town. Although she is unsure of some of the technical language used in the PDD, she noted the overall logic of the document seems to put the advantage with the petitioner and tells what the land use commissions will and will not do. Criteria is very low and non-specific in the first steps of the application process and too much change can take place without resubmission between the Zoning approval and the master site plan. She urged the Planning to return a negative referral to Zoning.

Bruce Elliott, addressStreet21 Lincoln Lane, indicated that, although he supports limited mixed use developments and recognizes the need for an enabling amendment to achieve such development, he is opposed to the Konover PDD. Many of the provisions are inconsistent with the long-term best interests of the town. He expressed concern regarding the fact that once a zone change is granted, the town has limited authority to insist on building that is consistent with the plan originally submitted. He agreed with Zoning’s July ’06 discussions regarding requiring posting of a performance bond by the developer at the start of the project, as well as restricting certificates of occupancy to compel proportional completion of all mixed use elements. This PDD, however, proposes only requiring a performance bond for completion of undefined elements of public use and space. Mr. Elliott also expressed concern regarding the excessive lot coverage proposed, which essentially could end up at 100%. He urged the Commission to reject the proposed PDD and resume work on a mixed use zone that will truly meet the long-term best interests of placeCitySimsbury.

Andrew Burger, addressStreet7 Fawnbrook Lane expressed his love for this town. He described the current residents as shepherds and stewards of the resources in the town for its future residents and that decisions today will affect future generations. He encouraged the Commission not to change the face and soul of the town forever by allowing Big Box development. He questioned if there was a compelling reason to be rushed into a decision by one whose motives is solely profit. He asked the Commissioners to consider the resulting negative impact on the center of town, including loss of employment and a reduced tax base if retailers are put out of business. He likened the PDD to a business proposal and suggested if a business proposal had this much vagueness and ambiguity it would be worthless. He suggested the proposed PDD was about control and a shifting of power to Konover and is not in the best interest of placeCitySimsbury. He agreed with previous comments that the comparison by Konover of this mixed use development to that in placeCityReston, StateVA was misleading.

Susan Masino, addressStreet41 Madison Lane, also talked of multigenerational stewardship and questioned what placeCitySimsbury would look like today if this PDD had been passed 10 years ago. Following up on Mr. Frank’s earlier point regarding the character of town, she noted that CitySimsbury just received a prestigious national distinction, the Preserve America status, and is currently under study for a Wild and PlaceNameplaceScenic PlaceTypeRiver designation as well.

Vincent D’Angelo, addressStreet17 Lincoln Lane, suggested this PDD is merely an excuse for a large retailer to do what they want. He suggested there is a need to include requirements for scale and limitations for retail size, noting that the most upsetting result of this PDD would be Big Box development. The proposed lot coverage is an issue. In addition, such light manufacturing that are in keeping with the character and charm of CityplaceSimsbury, such as glass blowing, pottery and small furniture, would not be allowed. He cautioned that this PDD is proposing the master site plan as having a legislative function which makes it almost impossible for any real judicial review. He described this PDD as spot zoning at its worst. He expressed concern with ending up with only what the developer sees as most profitable (i.e., Big Box) and not what was originally planned and proposed.

Mr. Peck informed the Commission that the Board of Selectmen passed, by a vote of 5-1, the latest revision to the Fees Ordinance, which included the 110% maximum fee overage and the State Traffic Commission’s definition for large and complex applications (i.e., 100,000 sq. ft. or 200 parking spaces). In Mr. Peck’s opinion, this will be a good and appropriate tool if used properly. In addition, he believes the commissions may not need to use it as much as some might think. Mr. Peck also updated the BOS regarding Planning’s meeting this evening, as well as the status of the 2007 Draft Plan of Conservation and Development.

Chairman Loomis indicated that a working draft of a motion with supporting reasons on the proposed Konover PDD would be provided to the Commissioners by the weekend for their review prior to the 9/18 meeting. Commissioner Jansen suggested that tonight’s positive comments be included in the supporting documentation (i.e., the idea of green buildings and light manufacturing being the highest and best use of the property), even if the decision is a negative referral. Chairman Loomis requested that he put together a short list identifying such items to include.

Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned whether Town Counsel would be available for the 9/18/07 meeting, which she feels is necessary and important for big decisions like the PDD. Mr. Peck will be requesting his presence, however also offered to accept any questions that the Commission has, either prior to or at the 9/18 meeting, that he could run by Town Counsel and provide the corresponding responses. Mr. Peck noted the Commission will not be drafting legal language for the PDD, but rather offering their recommendation on the PDD. Chairman Loomis clarified for Commissioner Houlihan that if Planning decides on a negative referral they will be providing reasons and pointing out the shortcomings. Planning will not be trying to create a new PDD. Commissioner Jansen stressed the need to base their opinion on ‘what is on the books’ and not just respond based on a feeling.

Chairman Loomis indicated the public hearing on adoption of the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) will be held on 9/19/07 in the High School Amphitheater. Glenn Chalder will be doing a walk-through of the Plan and there will be opportunity for public comment. Mr. Peck clarified for Commissioner Houlihan that the Statutes make it optional for the BOS to make a formal response regarding the POCD. They do have a draft of the POCD and Tom Vincent will be responding to Mr. Peck with regards to the BOS’ intent to hold a public hearing.