PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman John Loomis called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Ferguson Jansen, Susan Bednarcyk, Carol Cole, Darren Cunningham, Mark Drake, Brad Mead, and Charles Houlihan. Brad Mead left the meeting at approximately 8:35 p.m. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, as well as approximately 8-10 other interested parties.
II. SEATING OF ALTERNATES
There were no alternates needed. Chairman Loomis welcomed Alison Sturgeon, the new Commission Clerk.
III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE on CGS 8-24 referral from Board of Selectman on proposal of Kevin Frieswick to donate a 1.508-acre parcel of land located to the rear of his property at 288 Firetown Road (Map F-6 Block 306 Lot 34) for the specific purpose of open space.
Mr. Peck stated that the map shows existing open space north of Timber Ridge Drive. This parcel will remain. Mr. Frieswick has a small-bay garage on the property, which he cut out of the proposed open space. He would simply like to donate this to the Town. Mr. Peck stated that, with some sophisticated designing, this land could have been divided into 2-3 lots or more. The owner decided not to do this because they did not want to put a driveway through their property, which would necessitate them taking down the existing garage, which they value. The proposal is to donate 1.508 acres to the Town and to retain .750 acres with the existing dwelling and garage. Mr. Peck stated that there are no wetlands or floodplains on this property. This property is zoned R15. He feels it would be a good
suggestion for the Commission to recommend approval.
Chairman Loomis questioned if other staff had been involved in looking at the advantages of accepting this land. Mr. Peck stated that he has talked to Howard Beach and Richard Sawitzke who do not feel that there are any other issues regarding the property.
Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that it is great when the Town has an opportunity to receive land in this way. This could possibly become a playing field.
Regarding the nature of this land, Mr. Peck stated that it is lightly forested. There is some Evergreen and Deciduous vegetation on the property. Chairman Loomis stated that if this land is used for open space with no restrictions, it could be utilized for any appropriate Town purpose. Mr. Peck stated that the applicant has no intention of restricting the land. Chairman Loomis suggested that it be stipulated in the motion that a public hearing would be needed if this land were being proposed for anything other than passive use.
Commissioner Houlihan motioned to recommend that the Board of Selectman accept this gift of property at 288 Firetown Road. The Planning Commission would also recommend that the Board of Selectman hold a public hearing in the event that the Town’s desire is to use this parcel for anything other than passive recreation. Commissioner Bednarcyk seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Gardow made a motion to move Item V. (Approval of Minutes) to come after Item III (Discussion), and to also include the Planning Commission minutes of September 19, 2007. Commissioner Bednarcyk seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Gardow made a motion to approve the minutes of September 18, 2007, Special Meeting, which was held in the Cafeteria of the Henry James Middle School. Commissioner Bednarcyk seconded the motion. A correction on Page 2, Line 61, by Commissioner Jansen was made. He stated that “not specific enough” should be added. The amended minutes should read, “too flowery, ambivalent, and not specific enough”. The motion to approve the minutes as amended was passed.
Commissioner Gardow made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2007, Special Meeting minutes. Commissioner Bednarcyk seconded the motion.
There was some discussion from the Commission regarding adding the televised tape of this meeting to be included with the minutes.
Commissioner Bednarcyk withdrew her motion to second and Commissioner Gardow withdrew his motion to approve the September 19, 2007 minutes.
Commissioner Gardow made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2007, to include the video, which was produced by Simsbury Community Television, as part of the record. Commissioner Bednarcyk seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes was passed as written.
IV. DISCUSSION of Public Hearing input and POSSIBLE ADOPTION of the proposed 2007 Plan of Conservation and Development.
Chairman Loomis stated that this Commission needs to consider the edits that are before them. He suggested that they review Mr. Peck’s memo, which is an overview of comments made at the September 19, 2007, public hearing, and also compare them to the actual written minutes, where each speaker is identified. He stated that after this Commission has decided on the edits that are needed, they would be given to Glenn Chalder, who would then give this Commission a revised version with the changes at a later date. Members of this Commission would need to review those changes prior to the October 9, 2007, meeting, at which time Chairman Loomis anticipates a final discussion.
Commissioner Mead questioned if the POCD would take effect on the date it is voted upon. Mr. Peck stated that a legal notice needs to be published in the newspaper. The date that the Plan would become effective would need to be at least the date of the legal notice, although, he recommended the date be the day after the publication. Commissioner Mead also questioned if that once the Plan is official, would all applications that come before this Commission be gauged against the POCD. Mr. Peck stated that was correct.
In response to a question by Commissioner Cole, Chairman Loomis stated that this Commission has an obligation to get an approved, adopted Plan to the Town Clerk and to the State, amongst others, although, he did not know the timing for having a final document completed. Mr. Peck stated that another reason for making the effective date of the POCD after the date of publication of the legal notice is that it gives time to get the final document completely done.
Chairman Loomis started by handing out a list of suggested edits, which he comprised, to the Commission members. The following is that list and some discussion the Commission had regarding the suggested edits:
Page 8 – Under “Special Areas”, last word, “area” needs to read “areas”.
Page 20 – In the sidebar, “Dark Skies”, Paragraph 3, “A dark-sky ordinance” should read “A dark-skies”.
Page 37 – At the bottom and to the right over the legend colors, “Historical Points” should read “Historic Points”.
Page 68 – Special Areas, under Simsbury Center, after “historic” a comma needs to be added; Under West Simsbury, “acquisitions” is misspelled; Under Powder Forest, “zone” should read “zoned”; Check 1984 date of Master Plan; “Tri Town Airport” should be listed as “Simsbury Airport”. Chairman Loomis questioned if 1984 was the correct date of the Master Plan under Powder Forest. Mr. Peck will be looking into this.
Page 85 – sidebar should read “See page 100”.
Page 100 – sidebar should read, “See page 85”.
Page 109 – under Objective E, omit “1.”.
Pages 157–170 – Under “Responsibility Legend”, add “Design Review Board”. What others, if any, should be considered? Chairman Loomis questioned if any other Commissions should be considered. Commissioner Gardow suggested that the Library Board be included. Commissioner Jansen stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals should be included, also. Mr. Peck stated that only Town agencies would be appropriate to include. He suggested including the Historic District Commission. Commissioner Gardow questioned if Public Works should be added, although, the consensus was that it did not need to be included.
Chairman Loomis stated that the Library Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Historic District Commission, and Design Review Board would all be added to this Section.
Page 174 – Paragraph 2 should read, “As part of this review, the Plan was found to be generally consistent with all the statewide principles.”
Page 178 – Acknowledgments should have Carol Cole’s middle initial as “A”. Under “With Major Contributions From” add Anita Mielert’s name, including her middle initial.
Should we add to the published Plan the aerials that are included in the online edition? – Chairman Loomis stated that the only aerials which appeared in the May 25, 2007, draft are those which happen to be on a page with text around them. The separate aerials that were larger scale did not appear in this document, but do appear online. He questioned if all of the aerials should be included in the document. Commissioner Bednarcyk stated she would like to see all of the aerials in the POCD. Commissioner Houlihan felt that there only needed to be a reference in the document to the aerials being online. Chairman Loomis stated that he would ask Glenn Chalder if including the aerials would effect the pagination of the document, and if so, would it create a significant problem for him. If
it did not create any big problems, the aerials would be included.
Can the fonts on certain maps/plans legends be enlarged? – Chairman Loomis stated that certain maps, including the Open Space map/plan and Historic Resources both have hard to read subscripts. For example, under Ethel Walker School, it is very hard to read “(Pending Open Space Preservation)”. If the font could be enlarged a bit, it would be much easier to read. Regarding the same map on Page 27 and another on Page 15, Commissioner Houlihan stated that at the bottom next to the legend, “conjunction” is misspelled. All of the maps would need to be checked for this same error. Chairman Loomis stated that also, on Page 37, regarding the “Sites”, which are written at the bottom of the map, he would like that font bigger if possible, also. Mr. Peck stated that it
might be difficult to change the font, but he would find out it if would be possible.
The Commissioners reviewed a list by Mr. Peck regarding items that were noted by speakers at the September 19, 2007, public hearing regarding the 2007 Draft POCD.
The Commissioners discussed Diane Nash’s comments from the last meeting regarding the Open Space maps for Ethel Walker School and The Master’s School. She would like the maps to show the Town’s acquisition of the parcels as well as the pending preservation pieces, which are being considered by the Land Trust. Chairman Loomis suggested that the labels should be clearer and that they might show only the area which is pending.
Regarding the development of the Town center, both Diane Nash and Dunny Barney had encouraged and supported development in this area of Town. Chairman Loomis stated that he would like to come up with some language to reflect this. He suggested that under Special Areas, language could be added to make it even clearer and to heighten the emphasis on Town Center as the cultural, economic and historic center. Commissioner Cole believes that ‘mixed-use’ is a very ambiguous term; the Center is a good place to start. They should be focusing on the Town Center with the idea of mixed-use and make it more definitive.
Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that on Page 68, on the Special Areas Map, the text under Northern Gateway should be in bold to keep consistent with the other text on that map.
Regarding the issue of density, Commissioner Houlihan stated that the Town is looking to expand and utilize the West side of Town, Hopmeadow Street. He questioned what the Fire Department needs and what the best way of balancing fire protection with economic development would be on the West side. There has been talk of the Fire Department taking over the Masonic Lodge and expanding their department. This has significant implications for the design that has been set forth in the POCD, as well as what Mr. Barney is suggesting. Commissioner Jansen stated that if the Fire House were built today, it would probably not have been built in that location. He believes that all means should be exhausted before more land is taken over. Commissioner Jansen also stated that he feels strongly that in order to create the “buzz” and the traffic Simsbury needs, to have that be even more dead space than it is now would be a mistake. Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that Simsbury has a great Design
Review Board and if, after taking over the Masonic building, there were 2 separate buildings, there is no reason that it could not be in the center of Town. She believes that the buildings could be beautiful. Commissioner Houlihan stated that it is not about the aesthetics. They are talking about the function of this space. If it is all taken up by the Fire Department it has sparse people walking around. He believes that they should consider having some vitality, commercial vibrancy occurring on the west side, space permitting. A Fire Department does not generate that kind of vitality. Chairman Loomis stated this issue has not been addressed as part of the draft POCD. He suggested that the Commission concentrate only on the comments that were made regarding the Town Center. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested that Glenn Chalder take Mr. Barney’s comments and provide alternative wording.
Chairman Loomis stated that in the past, they had gotten recommendations from the Chamber as to how to define the perimeter of Town Center. He stated that this Commission adopted those recommendations. The perimeter goes further north toward Westminster and further west across Hopmeadow. Everything that is reflected in the POCD about the Town Center is, in part, a function of those recommendations. He stated that there was a Charette done in 1998, which probably needs to be updated.
Chairman Loomis suggested that the Commission agree on the key elements of Mr. Barney and Ms. Nash’s comments to be reflected in the Town Center section. The Commission agreed that the reference to ‘density bonus’ should be taken out. Because there were comments made at the last meeting regarding incentives, the Commission discussed the possibility of giving economic incentives. Chairman Loomis questioned if they should include CRCOG’s recommendations to increase the residential density to approximately 4 units per acre, and if it applies to the Downtown, to make that a part of the Town Center to be more specific as part of the mixed-use Village District. Commissioner Houlihan stated that he agrees with Mr. Barney, who had suggested tools, possibly including financial tax incentives, and to
simply adapt that verbiage to Policy 4 on Page 72 of the POCD. Chairman Loomis stated that he did not disagree other than the emphasis should be reflected on Page 69 rather than Page 72. Commissioner Cole stated that they should establish Simsbury Center as a primary focus for mixed-use development.
Mr. Peck stated that he would take all of the comments and concerns regarding these issues related to the Town Center, along with the CROG recommendations, and work them into this Section.
Emil Dahlquist stated that the Commission should be concentrating on the overall intent of this issue of the Town Center. The best way, instead of referring to bonuses or incentives, would be to say “to implement mechanisms or tools” . There are a number of mechanisms available, but those can be expounded upon by the Commission in the future. He stated that many towns are now having minimum standards as well as maximum standards. An example of a minimum standard would be to only allow two-story buildings in the Town Center; this would help discourage single-story development.
Regarding Harald Bender’s comments at the September 19, 2007, meeting, Mr. Peck stated that the aquifer in the southwest corner of Town has been determined to be cleaner, although DEP has not revised their maps to show this. Until their maps reflect this change, the POCD cannot change their mapping. Chairman Loomis reiterated that because the State has not updated their mapping, all changes would not be official until then.
Regarding another comment from Harald Bender regarding the Southwest Corner, which suggests the rezoning of some of the residential parcels to commercial, Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that this is to provide buffering and to stop the “commercial creep”. Mr. Peck stated that he did not understand it as preventing “commercial creep”, but that it was intended to include the existing residential area into the Commercial Zone. Commissioner Drake believes that it is a traffic issue because of the traffic light, which exists there, is impeding traffic more than it is helping. If the light was moved down to Bushy Hill Lane, it would help alleviate a lot of congestion that currently exists. There was some discussion regarding the language on Page 104 regarding the Southwest Corner. Commissioner
Bednarcyk stated that they could say that the intent of rezoning would stop commercial building from going further down the road. After further discussion by the Commission, it was decided that better language for this section would include “a substantial buffer and commercial development would be limited to this area”.
Regarding energy conservation techniques, including LEEDs, Net Zero and Green Building, Commissioner Houlihan stated that on Page 130, Policies 12-14 are oriented to Town and public buildings. He suggested that a Policy 15 be added to this section that encompasses private developments as well as public. Mr. Peck stated that he agrees with this added policy, although, he was not sure it belonged in this section. Commission members agreed that this new policy could go under the Community Facilities section and also in the Economic Development section. Chairman Loomis stated that there would also need to be a sidebar, which would include definitions of these three conservation techniques.
Regarding comments from Susan Masino concerning Preserve America, Commissioner Houlihan stated that he has circulated some general language and believes that if they do include this in the POCD, it would be appropriate in the Historical Resources section. Chairman Loomis asked Commissioners Houlihan and Cole to undertake writing the specific language for that section. Regarding another comment from Ms. Masino regarding tourism, the Commission noted that this issue is addressed under Economic Development on Page 110, which they feel is sufficient. Commissioner Houlihan suggested that they add a line, which would read, “Promote use and utilize Preserve America designation and related ranks to promote Simsbury”, under Objective C. The Commission members agreed.
Concerning another comment from Susan Masino regarding weekend bus transportation and reverse bus service, Commissioner Bednarcyk stated they could address this issue on Page 135 under Objective E, “including weekend service”, could be added. The Commission agreed.
Regarding a comment made by Kevin Meyer concerning “encourage” versus “require”, Mr. Peck stated that the wording that this Commission has chosen is correct; they should leave it as is. As an example, Chairman Loomis stated that on Page 18, under Policy 8, Objectives C&D, they cannot “require” these things, they can only encourage them.
The Commission discussed comments which were made by Marlene Jung and they all read the sidebar on Page 80. Commissioner Houlihan stated that these business owners want to be included as part of the Center Zone. The counter discussion, which this Commission previously had, was that the impervious surface coverage within the Center Zone is unlimited. On the north side of West Street, there is a fair amount of open green space between the buildings. He stated that there was concern that density limitations and coverage could lead to “strip” development along the northern side of the road. Chairman Loomis stated that these business owners are somewhat frustrated because they feel they have limited opportunities. There are many non-conforming properties in that area, and there is a certain set of
restrictions. Business owners are limited to what they can do with their properties. He stated that one way of addressing these issues is to treat the area with its own identity or as a Village District. Mr. Peck stated that if it is the Commission’s feeling not to expand the Center Zone, but to address these business owner’s concerns through establishment of a district which would ultimately address their concerns, that is important. Mr. Peck suggested that on Page 80, under Policy 1., Objective C, they should add, “special development district” along side “village district”. There was some additional discussion regarding why the Commission originally chose not to include West Street as part of the Center Zone. Regarding Mr. Peck’s suggestion to add “special development district”, Chairman Loomis stated that he agreed and that this would give the Zoning Commission more flexibility.
Regarding the comment made by Bob Duguay that the term ‘mixed use’ was not clear, Mr. Peck stated that mixed use is a mix of uses in various proportions depending upon the context in which it is proposed. Mr. Peck stated that he would come up with clearer wording for a definition, which this Commission could then insert where they feel it would need to go.
Mr. Duguay had also commented on the recreational deficit in the southern part of Simsbury. The Commission believes that this has already been addressed on Page 127, under Policy 3, Objective D. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested that they add in the word ‘existing’, which would read “Identify land in new and existing residential areas…”. Commissioner Cole stated that this issue is also addressed on Page 129, Policy 8, and again on Page 26, Policy 3. Commissioner Jansen suggested that under Objective B, a third point be added to say, “encourage recreational facilities to service the south end of Town.” The Commission agreed.
Regarding the Agricultural section, Commissioner Cunningham stated that language on ‘buying local’ should be added. Chairman Loomis referred him to Page 30, under Policy 1, Objective C, where this is already stated. Commissioner Cunningham stated that he would rather address this issue in the Overview on Page 29. Chairman Loomis asked him to write some language regarding this and also to write wording to make reference to the CRCOG recommendation. Commissioner Houlihan felt this would go under Page 31, Policy 2, Objective G. He felt that they could reference the CROG study and where to find some of the techniques to incorporate, which would then fall into the implementation plan.
Chairman Loomis asked if any Commission members had any other comments or questions since they had completed their review of the edits to the proposed POCD and their review of comments from the public hearing. Regarding Page 31, Policy 2, under Objective C, Mr. Peck suggested that the Commission consider adding the words ‘ or preserving’ to read, “…consider acquiring or preserving…”. He stated that it may not always be in the Town’s best interest to acquire land because the Town may not have the ability to utilize it.
Commissioner Houlihan stated that this Commission has never had any discussion regarding the application of the metrics in the Northern Gateway. He stated that although it was voted on, there was no real discussion on the metrics and use. Chairman Loomis disagreed with Commissioner Houlihan and stated that he believes there was a great deal of discussion regarding the nature of the Northern Gateway in terms of what would be appropriate. He suggested that Commissioner Houlihan look back on minutes from early 2005. There is a history of discussion by this Commission about the appropriateness of development on that parcel. Commissioner Bednarcyk verbally disagreed with what Commissioner Houlihan way saying. Commissioner Houlihan stated that just because this Commission wants to change from use zoning to
form-base zoning does not change the Planning Commission’s jurisdictional prerogative; it does not mean that this Commission can encroach on what Zoning can decide to do regarding bulk, height, etc. Chairman Loomis stated that when they made the decision to move to form-base, it was necessary to be more explicit; describing the form they are looking for includes dimensional aspects and limitations. Commissioner Drake stated that this Commission does not have any regulatory power. They are only presenting a clear picture of what this Commission would like to see. Chairman Loomis stated that this Commission has tried to present a clear vision, which requires some dimensional elements in order to achieve that clarity.
Commissioner Houlihan stated that it would be beneficial to reach a unanimous endorsement of the POCD and that their work is well reflected in the Plan. The dimensions have created a lot of controversy and conversations; if the Plan is scaled back to eliminate them, he feels this Commission would have unanimity. He believes that it is a policy mistake for this Commission to have the dimensions in the plan. Chairman Loomis stated that through the public hearing, they received many letters and comments and that this particular issue has not been raised.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
Regarding the PDD recommendation to the Zoning Commission, Chairman Loomis stated that Mr. Peck has been working on a cover memo. Commissioner Jansen stated that since this is a recommendation as to what should be in the PDD, regarding first 6 pages of the recommendation, he stated he does not object to anything that was cited, although, he believes that they should present this to Zoning as the issues that this Commission believes should be in the PDD, as opposed to what was not addressed. He would like to see more positive language used. Because the Konover PDD was withdrawn, Commissioner Houlihan stated that this recommendation gives too much dignity to something that does not exist. Mr. Peck stated that he will be constructing a list of 13 – 14 items which states what should be included in the PDD.
Commissioner Cunningham suggested putting in introductory language to explain the context of John’s material explaining that work was done in the context of the Konover PDD. Commissioner Drake agreed with Commissioner Houlihan and stated that Konover should not be referenced. Commissioner Houlihan stated that highlighting the deficiencies of something that does not exist is a negative action. The PDD that the Town develops should come directly from the land use Commissions. Commissioner Cole feels it is more important to be careful to create a PDD that sufficiently covers what this Commission wants to have included. She stated she has somewhat of a problem directly reacting to the Konover PDD because it has been withdrawn. Mr. Dahlquist commented that this Commission’s recommendation will be going to the Working Group. Regarding the negativity of the comments, he stated that there is a subtle difference, although important,
in saying, “is not addressed”, versus saying, “address this”. Using this language, they would not be judging what the performance should be; it would be saying that something needs further study.
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
Regarding the CRCOG meeting, Commissioner Gardow stated that he and Commissioner Cole attended a meeting in June where the feature was the University of Hartford’s Creation of a Center for Integrated Design. He stated they addressed a request from Bloomfield, CT, regarding redesigning their Town Center. They used the Charette process to do this. He stated that he has asked for a copy of their report on the Charette they ran in Bloomfield Center; he believes it might be helpful implementing some of the recommendations of the Plan of Development.
Chairman Loomis stated that he attended a CRCOG’s review at the meeting on September 20th. They did do some work on the Regional Plan. He stated that one of his suggestions was that they add to the Agricultural section in terms of maps and illustrations. He also stated that Simsbury’s Plan and PDD were both featured in their review of individual Municipal actions.
Chairman Loomis stated that Glenn Chalder would be taking the edits, which they have discussed at this meeting tonight, and get it back to the Commission. Mr. Peck stated that he would possibly have the edits done and ready for Mr. Chalder by Tuesday, October 2nd. Chairman Loomis asked the Commission members that are working on language for the POCD to have them into Mr. Peck by the end of this week, if possible.
Regarding the PDD, Kirsten Griebel, 7 Karyn Lane, questioned if there was a timeframe of 90 days for the Working Group to write a new regulation. Mr. Peck stated that the 90 days is an estimate. The Town will do a diligent job and will not waste time, although, the timeframe is not a guarantee.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Jansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cunningham and unanimously approved.
________________________________________
Ernest B. Gardow, Secretary
| 
