Simsbury, CT - Planning Commission MInutes

Chairman John Loomis called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room 106 of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Ferguson Jansen, Susan Bednarcyk, Carol Cole, Gerry Post, Mark Drake and Julie Meyer. Charles Houlihan arrived at 7:10 p.m. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, as well as other interested parties.

Mr. Duguay, 11 Nod Brook Drive, stated that he had written a letter to Mary Glassman asking that all of the Boards and Commissions have time for public audience, whether formal or informal, as part of their meetings. He thanked the Planning Commission for their effort.

Regarding the joint meeting that was held on February 20^th, Chairman Loomis stated a great deal of work went in to getting ready for this meeting. At that meeting Mr. Ethier discussed the desire to have predictability and that the Charrette process, in terms of its output, would create this. Chairman Loomis asked each Commission member for their comments and impressions of the meeting.

Commissioner Drake stated it was nice to see everyone in Town around the same table. It is also nice that the Town and community are willing to have this discussion in an open forum. He feels that this meeting was a good start to the process.

Commissioner Houlihan stated this meeting was a good introduction to the Charrette process. The presentations were very informative and gave a lot of reasons to think favorably for a Charrette. This was a good first step, although there is still a great deal of dialogue left and many issues that still need to be raised and sorted out.

Commissioner Cole stated that all of the presenters were very good, although it did bother her that, regarding the mixed-use, Ms. Glassman talked about economic development. She stated that she does not feel that the primary purpose of mixed-use is economic development. She feels that this is only one element of it. She feels that the primary purpose is to create a livable community.

Commissioner Post stated that the meeting was very informative, although he agrees with Commissioner Cole regarding the economic development aspect. He thought Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Ethier’s presentations were most informative of how and why the Charrette should proceed.

Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that she thought this was a great first presentation, although she does not feel that there was enough information regarding the results and what the Town will be getting from the Charrette. She stated that this is very important; people need to be educated and to know this information.

Regarding the next steps in this process, Chairman Loomis stated that the Board of Selectman did not vote to move ahead with the RFP (Request for Proposal) stage. At their meeting last night, there was a motion in favor to move ahead, although it was not seconded. He stated that he was at this BOS meeting and he feels that there was no real meaningful discussion regarding this issue.

Mr. Peck stated that that the joint meeting was a solid introduction for the Charrette process. He stated that Konover has submitted a PDD application. As soon as it is received by the Zoning Commission, the Town will stop working on their draft PDD, as advised by Special Counsel. The Town is required by law to go forward with this application, although the PDD and Charrette can proceed on a parallel track. If this is the case and the PDD is adopted, the PDD could be integrated into the Charrette. He explained that as part of the Charrette process, the Town will be agreeing to take the regulations that come out of the Charrette. Mr. Peck also explained the PDD application process. A public hearing needs to be set within 65 days of receipt of the application and the hearing needs to be conducted within 35 days, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. After the hearing is closed, the Commission has an additional 65 days to make their decision.

Commissioner Drake stated his concerns regarding the Town stopping their work on the PDD. He stated that if the Town can have the Charrette done with outside people involved, then the Town should be able to continue their work on the PDD in-house. If Special Counsel does not have a problem with the Charrette process being on a parallel track, then it should be fine to do this in-house on a parallel track also. He also stated that the Town would not be bound with the outcomes of the Charrette because the Zoning Commission would still need to vote for the adoption of the regulations. Chairman Loomis stated that the outcome is Zoning Regulations, which reflect the Charrette.

Commissioner Houlihan agreed with Commissioner Drake. He also stated that the problem is form over substance. If there is a conflict regarding a Commission generated PDD, than engaging in the Charrette process, with the same outcome, should have the same conflict.

Mr. Peck stated that the POCD and the Route 10 corridor study would be major documents in the process if the Charrette is approved. He stated that there will be a variety of consultants participating in the process. Also, Mr. Peck stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Cole regarding the economic development not being the primary issue. He stated that it does need to make economic sense in order to make everything happen. Commissioner Cole stated that she just does not want to see this marketed as economic development.

Regarding the Route 10 corridor study, Mr. Peck stated that a lot of information is still needed in order to understand the process. The 1998 study recommended many options, which they ultimately decided on spot improvements, where necessary. At the February 20^th meeting, Mr. Maziarz had stated that no matter what the land use area is, they could run it through their computers to figure out what the impacts would be. Mr. Peck stated that if there is any development, there will be more traffic on Route 10, although there has to be a balance regarding economic development. All of the impacts need to be balanced.

Mr. Peck stated that there are good points to the Charrette, and other issues which people find undesirable. The cost is a major point of concern. He stated that, regarding the timeframe, the PDD and the Charrette would take approximately the same time. Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned if there were any Federal Grants that the Town could apply for. Mr. Peck stated that although there are many grants available, Simsbury is not eligible for them for several different reasons.

Commissioner Drake stated that there have been many studies done regarding the Route 10 corridor in the last 20 years. He stated that this information would be helpful for what Simsbury currently needs. He questioned why a new study needs to be conducted and why the other studies could not be used. The major areas in Town have always had the same zoning. Mr. Peck stated that the CRCOG study needed to be updated in two years, but they approved this study 2 years early.

Commissioner Meyer stated that she is currently researching the 42 Towns that have a mixed-use regulation and is putting together a document. She hopes that it will be an indicator that the Town needs more time and development of a PDD or Charrette process. She stated that she is finding these Towns have much more detailed Regulations compared to Simsbury’s draft PDD.

Commissioner Drake stated that the clock has started regarding the Konover PDD; this is a defined amount of time for this process. If the PDD is approved, he feels this would make the Charrette process redundant. Chairman Loomis stated that the outcome of the Charrette process is the Town’s expression, by consensus, of desirable outcomes.

Commissioner Houlihan suggested that the recommendation letter to the BOS should be more focused on the southern gateway and that they should meet the problem head-on. He stated that the Charrette process is stalled for the CRCOG Route 10 corridor study. He feels that it will hurt the Town of Simsbury if things are put off and not dealt with. Commissioner Cole disagreed and stated that she feels all 3 areas need to be looked at together because they all affect each other. They should deal with the Town as a whole and not just one area.

Commissioner Meyer stated that this Commission should come to an agreement regarding the letter of recommendation for the BOS. The Planning Commission should put some form of closure on their opinion regarding the Charrette process, whether for or against it. Chairman Loomis stated that Ms. Glassman is looking for recommendations from all of the Boards and Commissions.

Commissioner Drake stated that this Commission should be unanimous in their decision whether or not to support the Charrette process. He stated the importance of the community working together, regardless of the timeframe. Commissioner Houlihan stated his concern regarding the timeframe for the Charrette process getting started.

Commissioner Post stated that he would like to see the PDD being emphasized in the letter regarding moving forward. He would also like the recommendation letter to identify the financial issues and to clarify the scope of what the Charrette process will give to Simsbury.

Commissioner Jansen stated his concerns regarding the people’s involvement in the Charrette process and he is not sure that Simsbury will get a fair Charrette. He stated that he cannot vote in favor of this recommendation letter. Commissioner Houlihan stated that he would also not vote favorably for this letter. He feels that the Town needs to have a better handle on the timeframe and cost.

Although Chairman Loomis agreed with Commissioner Houlihan regarding time and money, he stated that this letter is only in support of the concept. He stated that he will be adding language to the recommendation letter regarding the Commission’s concerns about funding and making clear the outcomes of the process.

Mr. Peck stated that the Zoning Commission will be receiving the PDD application from Konover at its next regular meeting. There will then be a referral to the Planning Commission at least 30 days prior to the established hearing date. Mr. Peck stated that he would e-mail copies of the Konover PDD to the Commission for their review.

Mr. Peck stated that he has asked Attorney Burns for available dates when he might be able to come in to make a presentation before this Commission. As soon as he gets a reply from Attorney Burns, he will let the Commission know. He is hoping that the workshop will take place sometime in mid-March or April.