Simsbury, CT - Planning Commission Minutes

Chairman John Loomis called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Simsbury High School Cafeteria. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Ferguson Jansen, Susan Bednarcyk, Carol Cole, Darren Cunningham, Brad Mead, and Charles Houlihan. Brad Mead left the meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, Glenn Chalder, AICP, Consultant, as well as approximately 30-35 other interested parties.

Chairman Loomis noted the Planning Commission has been engaged with the POCD since the Fall of 2002 and is pleased to present this proposed Plan for public comment. The proposed Plan attempts to answer the question of how to foster a sense of community and make CityplaceSimsbury a better place to live, work, and play over the next 5 to 50 years. He acknowledged the input from individuals and organizations that has helped to see and shape placeCitySimsbury’s future. Chairman Loomis also acknowledged several previous Planning Commission members who have contributed substantially: Former Chairman Joan Howard, Selectman Dave Ryan, and Gregory Piecuch. Six other individuals’ contribution warrant recognition and the Chairman thanked them for their contributions. They include: Howard Beach, former Chairman of the Conservation Commission, for his extensive work with Hank Gruner and Planning on the Environmental chapter; Anita Mielert, who participated in the drafting of the Historic Resources section; Colleen Fenn, Planning Commission clerk; Emil Dahlquist, Chairman of the Design Review Board, for his patient mentoring and aiding in the Commission’s understanding of form-based planning; and Glenn Chalder, Planimetrics principal, for his shepherding through the logic of the Plan’s organization and the manner of the Plan’s presentation.

Mr. Chalder then provided a 20-25 minute PowerPoint presentation giving an overview of the 2007 Proposed Plan. He described the Plan as being a process for making informed decisions about the future and taking a proactive approach to identify desirable outcomes, alternatives, and strategies for such issues as land use and the physical, social, and economic development of the town. The Plan should be outward-looking, advisory, ‘implementable’ and maintainable. He emphasized that placeCitySimsbury reflects the choices made in the past and that the purpose of this Plan is to continue that legacy of good decision-making into the future. He described placeCitySimsbury’s Plan as a way of guiding the development of the 3,000 remaining acres to protect what is important to the town, to achieve set goals, to enhance the character and quality of life within town, and to make a lasting impact for generations to come.

He reviewed the 4 main parts of the Plan – What We Want to Protect, How We Want to Grow, What We Want or Need, and How We Will Make it Happen – giving an overview of each of the chapters included in each section, referencing associated maps and strategies to achieve the goals of protection, growth, and implementation. Mr. Chalder characterized the Future By Design chapter as one of the most significant in the Plan, with its emphasis on form-based zoning and identification of form characteristics of existing places in CityplaceSimsbury. The Special Areas section recognizes various areas in town (i.e., PlaceNameSimsbury PlaceTypeCenter, Tariffville, CityplaceSimsbury airport, etc.) that have special circumstances or situations and the Plan contains recommendations for each of those. He described the Implementation chapter and its recommendation for the provision of adequate resources and the establishment of an Implementation Committee to ensure goals and recommendations are achieved. In conclusion, Mr. Chalder invited the public to voice their thoughts and feedback, which would then be considered by the Commission.

Chairman Loomis referenced comments made by Victor Dover, highly regarding principal of Dover Kohl, in a May 2007 presentation to placeCitySimsbury boards and commissions. Mr. Dover characterized the Plan as a good and virtuous one and encouraged the Town to make it a priority to approve it. Secondly, Chairman Loomis cited CRCOG’s recent favorable report on the Plan, which commended the Commission’s work on identifying priority areas for growth and tools such as form-based codes to help achieve the type of development desired.

John Romano, addressStreet15 Amy Lane, noted he was here tonight solely as a resident who has had the opportunity to read this incredible Plan. He expressed his thanks to all those involved in completing the Plan and strongly recommended the Commission approve it. He described the Plan as having set out a vision of how the town needs to be developed so that both residents and developers are not left to guess any more on what has to be done. Mr. Romano expressed his support for the I-1 (Light Industrial) designation for the Southern Gateway in order to recruit offices or medical businesses. He also applauded the vision for a mixed-use alternative that is appropriate to placeCitySimsbury. With regard to the Northern Gateway, he supported the idea of mixed-use with the alternative of I-1. He believes metrics are important as they are a guide to what truly fits placeCitySimsbury’s character. In order to adequately implement the Special Areas section, he requested the Commission consider a Charette study that encompasses the town. In his opinion, it is a positive thing to explore the addressStreetWolcott Road area. He believes the Open Space section captures the essence of why placeCitySimsbury has the character it has and suggested focusing more on making the town’s farms more successful. He commended the Plan as setting a clear and positive direction for CityplaceSimsbury and its future.

On behalf of the Design Review Board, Emil Dahlquist commended the Planning Commission’s work on the Plan and reiterated the DRB’s unanimous endorsement as the most important first step in managing future change here in placeCitySimsbury. He described the Plan’s vision, statement of intention, and a citizen-based process as 3 key things that are critical to its success. In addition, the Plan establishes a common language to facilitate a full and open public discourse on form and design. It creates the opportunity for bringing various interest groups together with placeCitySimsbury’s resources as the common goal. Thirdly, the Plan creates a philosophical alignment between various commissions. The Plan has addressed how different types of development will affect the town differently, for better or worse. Finally, it establishes a proactive approach to town planning. He referenced a work by MIT teacher Philip Herr called ‘Saving Place, A Guide and Report Card for Protecting Community Character.’ Dr. Herr emphasized there is a balance to planning that protects property owners’ rights but also encourages property owners’ responsible stewardship. Secondly, cultural and natural assets form the basis for economic development in small communities and protection need not be a limitation on development. Thirdly, property values, jobs and taxes can be boosted, rather than hurt, by well-planned community conservation. Lastly, planning itself should be designed as an educational process. On a final note, Mr. Dahlquist noted that one of the biggest rewards of his working with Planning over the last 4 years has been seeing the amount of public support for their work and the idea that the public is educating themselves about issues and coming to some of the same conclusions as the Planning Commission.

Diane Nash, 5 Merrywood, thanked the present and Commissioners for the time given to this impressive POCD, rightly called the ‘DNA of the town’, in order to get it right. Ms. Nash suggested the 2 Open Space maps need to be updated to show the town’s acquisition of parcels at both the placePlaceNameEthel PlaceNameWalker PlaceNameSchool and The Master’s School, as well as the pending preservation pieces that are being considered by the Land Trust. She also noted there was an error on page 41, which misspells ‘Tulmeadow’. She applauded the reference to the TPL publication regarding the economic benefit of parks and open space. She suggested adding to the objectives section on page 25 a statement that would support the goal of the Open Space Committee to maintain a fund for the acquisition of and stewardship of preserved land. This fund would receive and hold individual donations as well as developer’s funds (in lieu of set-asides). The objective should define the specific authority for the use of such funds. She encouraged the Commission to avoid losing the POCD’s overall importance to a single ‘gene’, i.e., the Southern Parcel. She suggested that the Center Zone is the only area in town that has the immediacy for implementation of mixed-use zoning and asked the Commission to limit the use of a PDD to that area in town. She also suggested adding another objective that would encourage and endorse financial incentives for developers to bring complying projects to the Center Zone. In her opinion, the Northern and Southern Gateways, though possibly candidates for mixed-use, would benefit from adherence to the underlying zone. She questioned the Commission why they did not consider agricultural use as an alternative for the Southern parcel, which would be consistent with the goals under the Agricultural Resources Plan. She stressed that how the remaining 15% of CitySimsbury’s land is utilized is key to CitySimsbury remaining the crown jewel of the placePlaceNameFarmington PlaceTypeValley, no matter how long it takes to get it right.

Richard Boorman, addressStreet19 Berkshire Way, indicated he had read every word of the POCD, which he characterized as well-reasoned, well-written, and easy to understand. He noted that several sections were particularly visionary. The Economic Development section properly balances the grand list growth with net economic impacts. The Housing section gives recognition to needing more diversity in placeCitySimsbury’s housing stock. The Special Areas section is clear how residents want the town developed. He urged the Commission’s approval of the POCD.

Harald Bender, addressStreet6 Maureen Drive, thanked the Commission for their effort on the Plan. He suggested the map on page 18 should reflect a re-charge area on the border of placeAvon. He commended the reference to Dark Skies and would like to see that ultimately progress into the Zoning Regulations. He expressed hesitation with the policy regarding the Southwest Corner, which suggests the rezoning of some of the residential parcels to commercial, and the possible effect on current homeowners if they can only sell their property for commercial uses. Further, he suggested adding another objective to Policy 13 in Community Facilities (p. 130) that would stress energy considerations be placed on all types of construction, including both residences and businesses.

Susan Masino, addressStreet41 Madison Lane, noted she has not read the POCD in its entirety, but characterized it as a wonderful effort aimed at the long-term goal of the town. She suggested including both the recent Preserve America designation in the Plan, as well as tourism which according to statistics is on the rise in CT. With regard to the Transportation section, she suggested including an initiative to get better regional bus transportation and somehow link that to the Greenway system, which people are using to commute on today. In addition, she suggested increasing bus service from CityHartford to placeCitySimsbury, from simply a commuter bus to one that includes extended hours and weekends. Finally, within Policy 7 of the Natural Resources chapter she suggested adding an objective to encourage the use of non-invasive plants within developments and to somehow preserve or integrate into any development plan the mature pines and oaks located on the Southeast parcel.

Alan Needham, addressStreet2 Basswood Lane, supports the implementation of the new POCD and urged each of the Commissioners to vote for it. This POCD represents the strongest effort yet CitySimsbury has made to research and then articulate a path for placeCitySimsbury’s development and has been able to reflect the opinions of all the various groups involved. He characterized it is as remarkable in both scope and vision. He noted it was unfortunate that some metrics were diluted even though he understands it was done in the spirit of compromise. He believes this document will attract the type of development that placeCitySimsbury is looking for without destroying the very nature of what remains of a very special place. He suggested that enacting this POCD is an important step to rewriting some archaic zoning regulations and provides a framework that is understandable by both developers and residents.

Kirsten Griebel, addressStreet7 Karyn Lane, thanked the Commission and everyone who contributed their time to create such a visionary document. In her opinion, this POCD captures the essence of how to retain the unique characteristics of placeCitySimsbury and will serve the town well for the next 10 years. She stressed the need to read the document in its entirety in order to see the broader vision set forth. She noted it is a great disservice to take sections out of context, as has been done in the recent debate on one particular parcel. She referenced the Community Guidelines for Design which states that the ‘whole of placeCitySimsbury is greater than the sum of its parts’, which could also very aptly apply to the 2007 POCD. She provide various examples of how the chapters on What We Want to Protect and How We Want to Grow tie together and provide the balance of conservation, protection, and development (e.g., Natural Resources Goal and policies on open space, in conjunction with Special Areas - Northern Gateway, Policy 2). She urged the Commission to unanimously approve this POCD as it is written today in its entirety.

Kevin Meyer, 3 Eastview Drive, encouraged the Commission to review the use of the word ‘encourage’ as used throughout many of the policies in the POCD (e.g., Natural Resources Policy 3:D&G) and consider strengthening the language to ‘require’. He also questioned the Commission on how the form-based zoning system also addresses real use issues such as traffic, environmental protection, and infrastructure, and not simply the form. Chairman Loomis responded that the form-based system provides a more holistic look in terms of the experience and the feel of a place, taking all of those elements into consideration. The Zoning Regulations need to provide certain standards and criteria to make clear what type of development is possible. Commissioner Houlihan responded that the form-based zoning code would have no bearing on issues such as traffic or environmental standards, but rather those issues would still need to be addressed. Mr. Dahlquist stressed the fact that, even with the form-based zoning, use matters. The goal is to simply shift the weight of discussion from the current 80% on use and 20% on form, to 80% on form and 20% on use. Commissioner Bednarcyk emphasized the fact that the commissions need to ensure they are proactively and comprehensively assessing each development as a whole and not simply relying on what the developers provide.

Marlene Jung, addressStreet5 Phelps Lane, indicated she was representing the West Streeters, a group of 28 business owners and residents along addressStreetWest Street who have been meeting for the past 3 or 4 years. They have previously submitted a petition to be included as part of the Center Zone in the new POCD and Ms. Jung provided several reasons as to why they feel that would be appropriate. West Street is already a pedestrian-friendly street and very much resembles the characteristics of the Center Zone, with an ambulance facility, a school bus depot, a storage facility, multiple offices, 2 repair shops, and a gas station. addressStreetWest Street abuts Route 10 and the group feels it would be a natural continuation of the Center Zone.

Bob Duguay, addressStreet11 Nod Brook Drive, commended the staff and Commission for all of their hard work. He encouraged ample land be set apart for recreation areas (e.g., basketball courts, baseball fields, passive recreation areas) and noted the addressStreetClimax Road area is lacking in such facilities. In addition, he stressed a clearer definition be provided for the term ‘mixed use’ in the Plan which, in his opinion, does not include stores over 100,000 square feet.

Chairman Loomis observed Austin Barney’s measurable contributions to the Plan along the way, reading drafts and being a steady contributor, of which a number of his suggestions have been incorporated in the current proposed Plan. Mr. Peck then read a statement from Mr. Barney regarding the Plan that Mr. Barney wanted submitted as part of the public hearing record. Mr. Barney emphasized the need to give priority to the development of the center of town. Other applications submitted that would compete with the economic viability of the Center need careful scrutiny and careful analysis. Without the clear and emphatic endorsement of the POCD this crucial goal will be much harder to achieve, with the risk that the Center could implode economically. Mr. Barney noted that his statement was submitted based upon his own viewpoint and not as Chairman of the Zoning Commission nor with the Commission’s input or approval.

In light of making changes from the comments suggested tonight, Commissioner Houlihan relayed a question he heard during the break. How much change is too much and would the public be given another opportunity to comment on any of the changes? Would it be just for major material changes? Chairman Loomis suggested the changes heard tonight were manageable and should be able to be brought to conclusion. Mr. Chalder suggested this is much like an application before the Commission and if the Plan becomes too far out from what was advertised or noticed, then he would encourage another public hearing. If the Commission stays within the realm of the comments made this evening, then that would be fine as the public had a chance to comment on them already. In Commissioner Jansen’s opinion, based on the comments made tonight (e.g., if the Commission decided to make West Street part of the Center Zone), there should be another public hearing. Mr. Chalder noted if the Commission decides the addressStreetWest Street group had convinced them of their case and makes the changes in the Plan, there still would be no need for another public hearing since the comments were discussed as part of the public hearing, as well as throughout the entire process. Commissioner Cunningham asked Mr. Peck if he agreed with Mr. Chalder’s comments and he answered affirmatively.