These minutes are for informational purposes only. For official minutes, please contact the Town Clerk's Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
John Loomis, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Simsbury Planning Commission to order at 7:30pm in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Ernest Gardow, Ferg Jansen, David Ryan, Greg Piecuch, Susan Bednarcyk, Carol Cole and Pamela Katz. Also present was William Voelker, Director of Community Planning and Development, Leonard Tolisano, Senior Planner, and Richard Sawitzke, Town Engineer.
WELCOME TO ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER GREG PIECUCH AND APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
No alternates were needed, but Chairman Loomis officially welcomed Commissioner Greg Piecuch, who was sworn in that morning as an alternate member of the Planning Commission.
ZONING COMMISSION REFERRAL
Application of Mark & Beth Drummey for a Zone Change from Zone R-40 to Zone B-2 on property at 243 Farms Village Road (continued from 11/12/02 meeting) (Public Hearing scheduled for December 2, 2002)
Chairman Loomis opened by asking Mr. Irwin Hausman, attorney for the Drummeys, if he had anything additional to add to the previous presentations on this matter. Mr. Hausman summarized that all the properties surrounding this parcel are either commercially zoned or are being used for commercial or institutional purposes. He mentioned that the lights in the plaza across the street are on until late in the evening and the post office next door opens at 5am. He stated that this property is not viable as a residence and the zoning should be altered to keep this parcel consistent with the neighborhood. He closed by saying that for Zoning to deny the application would be virtually confiscatory since the Drummeys need the change to have a viable use for their property.
Beth Drummey submitted a letter to the Commission members and read that letter aloud for the record. At this point, Chairman Loomis appointed Carol Cole to serve for Susan Bednarcyk in this matter, since Commissioner Bednarcyk would not be voting. He then asked for any positive motions from the members; there were none. Commissioner Gardow then read a draft motion, and the members discussed the language of the motion. Commissioner Gardow accepted the amendments to the motion so that the final motion read as follows:
The Simsbury Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Simsbury Zoning Commission on the application of Mark & Beth Drummey for a zone change from R-40 to B-2 for the property located at 243 Farms Village Road (Route 309), West Simsbury, to deny the application based on the fact that the 1994 Plan of Development has designated the land on the south side of Farms Village Road in West Simsbury Center as “Rural Residential”.
This 1994 designation will be reviewed in the new Plan of Conservation and Development, which is currently in the process of revision with a due date of 2004. The Planning
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 2
Commission requests that the Zoning Commission considers the concept of a West Simsbury design district immediately.
The Planning Commission believes that West Simsbury is one of the Town of Simsbury’s “character places”, as described in the report Guidelines for Community Design published by the Simsbury Design Review Board in 2001. A West Simsbury design district, similar to the Simsbury Center Zone, which is already established, may provide the opportunity for creative architectural design; and sound inter-relationship of buildings to open space, pedestrian areas and automobile circulation, landscaping, parking areas and business signs. The traditional character of West Simsbury could be preserved through the application of thoughtful center zone regulations.
The Planning Commission hereby offers to work with the Zoning Commission in the near future on this issue; in particular, to resolve current discrepancies among the Planning Map, the Zoning Map, and the actual land use at this time. Commissioner Katz seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Upon completion of the voting on this application, Commissioner Cole was no longer required to serve as alternate for Commissioner Bednarcyk.
SECTION 8-24 REFERRAL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31 MAIN STREET, TARIFFVILLE (continued from 11/12/02 meeting)
Chairman Loomis began by asking the members to review the correspondence received regarding this proposed sale, some submitted that evening, expressing both positive and negative opinions on the sale. After this brief review, Chairman Loomis noted that a site walk had been made on Nov. 23, 2002 at 9am, with Pam Katz, Sue Bednarcyk, Ernie Gardow, Ferg Jansen, Carol Cole and John Loomis in attendance. Dave Ryan and Greg Piecuch walked the site separately. Chairman Loomis asked Mr. Rich Sawitzke to provide any new or summary information on the proposal. Mr. Sawitzke opened by addressing two open issues from the last meeting. He said the Property Transfer Act went into effect on May 1, 1967, so it can only be initiated for activities that occurred after that date. He also provided the
members with copies of the results of Phase II environmental testing done in 1995 at the town’s behest. These tests showed no detections of any contaminants. Commissioner Katz noted that the problem was that these tests did not meet the current standards for DEP guidelines for an establishment. Since the exact date of the termination of the dry cleaning operation on this site is unclear, if it was after May 1, 1967, then someone will need to do an investigation for contamination per these DEP guidelines. She suggested that any purchase-sale agreement include agreement that the buyer will be the certifying party to be responsible to do the investigation and any clean-up that might result. Mr. Sawitzke said that is how the town has proceeded in past sales of this nature.
Commissioner Jansen asked for clarification as to whether the issue of potential contamination was really within the scope of the Planning Commission’s referral. Chairman Loomis said that the statute is to make a recommendation on the sale with respect to the 1994 Plan of Development. Commissioner Katz agreed that the issue of contamination was secondary to the purpose of the referral, which is to make a recommendation on the sale as it does or does not comply with the Plan. The members discussed that discrepancy between the Plan of Development designation of this parcel as business/retail, supported by the B-1 zoning currently
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 3
in place, and the previous Planning Commission action which supported the idea of a park on this
site. Since 1993, the pattern of intended use by the town has been for a park/green, with some provision for parking at the south end of the lot. Chairman Loomis opened the meeting to public audience comments at this time.
Mr. John Nagy, 3 Red Hill Rd., read aloud his letter to the Commission, which in summary expressed the opinion that the town should not sell this land but should take a closer look and consider the property’s value beyond the mere dollar value. Mr. Jim Fenton, 50 Winthrop St., said he agreed with Mr. Nagy’s remarks. He also stated that the motion of Commission Gardow regarding the West Simsbury center eloquently defines the situation here, just substitute the word Tariffville where it said West Simsbury. Mr. Taylor, 243 Hillside Rd., Southwick, MA, spoke as the property owner of 20-30 Main St., Tariffville. He stated that Tariffville center needed a shot in the arm, which this sale and the subsequent development might provide, and so he favored the sale. Mr. Richard Martinik, 5
Main St. Ext., spoke in support of the sale. He said that concerns over traffic and the idea of Tariffville center and Main St. as a gateway were not valid due to the creation of Rt. 189. Traffic has been reduced since it is diverted onto Rt. 189, and anyone entering Simsbury through this “gateway” will not generally go down Main St., but will turn onto Elm St. He also agreed that Tariffville needs a shot in the arm, and that the town does not have the staff, money or inclination to maintain this piece, and it should be sold. Ms. Deborah Kane, 10 Red Hill Rd., stated that Tariffville did not need the business, but rather needed to maintain its charm, and she suggested using the space for a green with a gazebo or something like that. Mrs. Joyce Howard, 116 Terry’s Plain Rd., noted Policy 5 of the Plan of Development, which relates to gateway approaches and mentions Rt. 189/Rt. 315 as one of those gateways.
Mr. Joe Sartori, 20 Worcester Rd., stated that traffic is indeed a problem, noting that his car had been hit just parking at the post office. He was concerned that this development would add to that with potentially disastrous results given the number of children who walk along that street daily going to and from school. He also encouraged the town to step back and better organize and review the situation before making the decision to sell this lot. Ms. Jane Fenton, 50 Winthrop St., disagreed with the idea that Tariffville needs a shot in the arm, and asked town officials to give this greater thought. She felt there are a number of economic development alternatives already in place that could be further explored in place of selling this land. Catherine Oakes, 14 Hunting Ridge Dr., stated that
the special village character of Tariffville should be preserved. She pointed out that there are vacancies for retail in the center now, and creating new space will likely make that situation worse. She felt that there should be more study as to what the village actually wants and needs, and she said that the timing for this sale is off since the Planning Commission is starting the Plan of Development update. She suggested not selling this until this area is looked at as part of the Plan update. Mrs. Joan Nagy, 3 Red Hill Rd., concurred that the town should take the process slowly and not rush a sale through.
Chairman Loomis closed the public audience portion of the meeting at this time. Commissioner Cole agreed that the dilemma is that the land is shown in the Plan as business yet the town purchased the land to make a park. She reiterated that the Commission has spoken of Tariffville as a character place, and so they should take more time to consider that. Commissioner Ryan said the indecision also stems from the fact that they can see the site both ways, developed and as a park. Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that if the town purchased land for open space, it would set a precedent if that land was sold for development. Also, she noted that it appeared that the
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 4
next step was never taken after the land was purchased, and perhaps that should be done rather than simply selling it. She also agreed that there are a several vacancies now so it might be harmful to make a new building here. Commissioner Gardow stated that there has not been much time since the Feb. 2001 purchase to develop a plan that would encompass this area in the context of the village. He felt that a sale of the property within two years of purchase was rapid decision-
making, and they should wait and take time to develop concepts for Tariffville as they would under the Plan of Development for all other character areas.
Chairman Loomis provided the members with copies of a neutral draft motion for their consideration and discussion. He stated that he would like to see the referral be as specific as possible. The members reviewed this draft and discussed possible language for their referral. Commissioner Katz made a motion to make a negative 8-24 referral to the Zoning Commission on property located at 31 Main St., Tariffville, that the sale not proceed in order to allow the Planning Commission time to review this part of Tariffville under the Plan of Development and make its recommendation as to the long-term vision for Tariffville center. Commissioner Bednarcyk seconded the motion. Commissioner Ryan stated that he was troubled by the idea that they are operating under the 1994 Plan of Development, yet it
appears in the motion that they are suspending that Plan for the future Plan which has yet to be done. Commissioner Katz agreed that had the town not purchased the land in 2001 for a park, then it would be clear that the Plan shows this piece as commercial. But now there is a question of whether the parcel should be commercial or not given this intended park use. Commissioner Ryan felt that the draft motion prepared by Chairman Loomis would be preferable since it relates reasons for action directly to the 1994 Plan.
The members further reviewed the draft motion and discussed any changes. Mr. Voelker stated that the language should say public “forum” not “hearing”. Commissioner Katz withdrew her motion, and Commissioner Bednarcyk withdrew her second. After making slight amendments to the language, the final motion of Chairman Loomis read as follows:
In response to the Simsbury Board of Selectmen’s 8-24 referral with respect to the proposed sale of a property located at 31 Main Street, Tariffville, the Simsbury Planning Commission recommends that the sale not proceed.
The Planning Commission notes that the proposed usage is consistent with that indicated on Simsbury’s 1994 Plan of Development colored map.
However, the Planning Commission observes that, since 1993, there has developed a pattern of Town-intended uses of the 31 Main Street parcel. That pattern of intended uses consistently identified the larger part of the parcel for passive recreation in the form of a park and/or town green, in combination with some provision for off-street parking toward the south property line.
The text of the 1994 Plan of Development offers, under several topics, statements of goals and objectives, which taken separately or together, support retaining the parcel for the objectives for which the Town has intended it for approximately nine years. The relevant topics and sections include, but are not limited to, those which follow:
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 5
Land Use
Policy 1, C: Encourage that the scale of new development blend with the surrounding areas.
Policy 4, B: Preserve the architectural character and scale of Simsbury Center, Tariffville Center, the intersection of Route 10 and 185, and West Street.
Open Space and Recreation
Policy 5: Promote the acquisition of sufficient land to meet existing and future needs for active and passive recreational opportunities.
Policy 8: Retain title to town-owned open space.
Community Facilities
Policy 1, B, 3: Seek to expand town recreational facilities by using town land and other means.
Furthermore, given the evident interest on the part of Simsbury’s residents, and in particular, those residing in Tariffville, the Planning Commission encourages the Board of Selectmen to give consideration to a public forum at the earliest opportunity. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Commissioner Jansen mentioned that he applauded the Board of Selectmen for trying to take an opportunity to further economic development. He stated that it was important to do the best thing, balancing the needs of the town and the residents. Commissioner Katz felt that the question here was really one of the order of the events, stating that a consideration of the Plan of Development to provide the global vision should perhaps come first and then the possibility of a sale of this property could be explored within that vision. Commissioner Piecuch stated that there should not be a moratorium on development in Simsbury pending the completion of the Plan update in 2004. He wanted to ensure that the decision make a negative referral on this particular sale not be viewed as a moratorium on all
development. Chairman Loomis called for a brief recess at 9:19pm.
PRESENTATION BY DR. MARC BANKS ON “ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE TOWN OF SIMSBURY”
Dr. Banks provided the members with reports covering the analysis and its findings. He explained the process used to do the study, which was sponsored by the East Weatogue Historic District. Mr. Tolisano noted that access to this information would be controlled to avoid too many people becoming aware of and disturbing these sensitive areas. Three areas Dr. Banks mentioned specifically were the Pilfershire settlement, the portion of the Farmington Canal running through the Powder Forest and the Town Farm cemetery. As it relates to the Plan of Development, the members discussed the idea of incorporating this information in some way into the goals and policies. Also, the idea of addressing archaeological sensitivity in some way in the zoning and subdivision regulations was discussed.
UPDATE ON PLAN PRESENTATIONS: COMMUNICATIONS ON THE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
Chairman Loomis ensured that all the members had received the email from Mr. Tolisano detailing the current list of speakers. He also noted that they were on schedule to hold the round
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 6
table discussion with the Zoning Commission on Saturday, December 7th, at the library, beginning with coffee at 8:30am.
APPROVAL OF 2003 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE AND REVIEW OF 2003 CRCOG MEETING SCHEDULE
This was tabled to the next meeting.
STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Tolisano mentioned that the email listing was up and that a few people had requested to be put on this listing. Chairman Loomis asked if they were doing regular announcements on the email of presentations, and Mr. Tolisano said that the process for doing that is not a simple one, and he is working on it. Chairman Loomis also asked Mr. Tolisano to tentatively schedule a Planning Commission meeting for January 7th. Commissioner Katz informed the members that the Water Pollution Commission had won its lawsuit regarding Meadowood.
CORRESPONDENCE
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 12, 2002
The approval of these minutes was tabled to the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Jansen moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:40pm. Commissioner Gardow seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
____________________________
Pamela Katz, Secretary
| 
