DRAFT Minutes
PAD Subcommittee
Meeting of June 18, 2009
Subcommittee members:
Scott Barnett, Chair, Zoning (absent)
Bruce Elliott, Zoning
Chip Houlihan, Planning (acting chair)
Julie Meyer, Planning
John McCann, ZBA (absent)
Don Rieger, Conservation/IWA (absent)
Emil Dahlquist, Design Review
Mark Deming, Economic Development
Derek Peterson, Economic Development
Robert DeCrescenzo, Town Attorney
Hiram Peck, Simsbury Director of Planning
Attorney Robert Sitkowski
6 members of the public
The meeting opened at 7:00 pm
Note: Recording system malfunctioned during this meeting.
Public audience: No public comments were made.
Chip Houlihan, acting chair, opened the meeting.
Guest speaker, Attorney Robert Sitkowski was introduced and made presentation from a Powerpoint series of slides.
Attorney Sitkowski explained the history of Form Based Coding (FBC) and explained the difference between conventional zoning and FBC in accordance with the slides.
A major difference between them is that for a FBC the background work and study is done by the community and produces a detailed, physical plan.
He explained the quid pro quo aspect of the FBC process in that the developer is assured of a good outcome as long as the project conforms to the Regulating Plan while the land use commissions in the community relinquish significant authority as part of the review and approval process. Thus far Hamden, CT and Lowell, MA have produced FBC. Lowell has actually adopted a FBC while Hamden is considering adoption at this time.
At this point Attorney Sitkowski finished his formal presentation and answered questions from subcommittee members.
He stated that he was taking no position as to a preferred model. He stated that PAD/PDD type regulations are in effect in many communities in CT and have been for some time. He also stated that a PAD regulation could not be turned into a FBC without the background work being done by the community. They are two totally different animals as the PAD is not connected to a Regulating Plan. This work has not been done.
Mr. Dahlquist asked if the map contained in the POCD could be considered a Regulating Map. Attorney Sitkowski responded that as it currently stands, it could not be considered a Regulating Map. Attorney Sitkowski then cited the type of regulation used by West Hartford as was used for Blue Back Square as an example of a PDD/PAD type regulation.
Attorney DeCrescenzo then asked if a developer could create a detailed plan as part of his/her application. Attorney Sitkowski responded that they certainly could. Attorney Sitkowski stated that the developer would bring in the detailed plan and if compliant, it could be approved by the Zoning Commission. The PAD then would become the zone for that parcel.
Chip Houlihan then asked about Groton’s 2 step process versus our draft PAD 3 step process. Attorney Sitkowski stated that while it is not as clear as it might be, the Groton process was actually a 3 step process as well. He stated that the conceptual meeting at the beginning of the process can be most helpful.
Mrs. Meyer then asked Attorney Sitkowski which model he personally favored or was advocating for? He stated he was not here to advocate for either model as that was not his charge. He was there to explain the difference between the models. Mrs. Meyer stated that the PAD has too much flexibility as far as she is concerned. Mr. Dahlquist stated that he wanted to establish boundaries for the developer. Attorney Sitkowski stated that you cannot have a regulation that does both.
Mr. Dahlquist stated that the POCD has performance standards in it and now wants to add these details to the regulation. Attorney Sitkowski and Attorney DeCrescenzo both stated that PAD/PDD regulations are created to allow creative development.
At this time Attorney DeCrescenzo stated that he had spoken with the First Selectman and suggested to the subcommittee about the possibility of finding the funding to have Attorney Sitkowski continue to work with the subcommittee on some acceptable basis based on available funding to help finish the regulation. Discussion on this point ensued.
A brief discussion on project bonding was held. Attorney Decrescenzo offered to provide details with regards to which items it was acceptable to bond at a future meeting.
Chip Houlihan then suggested that the next meeting (date to be determined) be dedicated to drafting on the regulation, primarily the standards section.
The Committee was asked to send in any suggestions for Section Four of the draft PAD to Hiram Peck. He would forward them to Attorney DeCrescenzo.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm.
| 
