PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
SPECIAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman John Loomis called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. in Room 106 of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Susan Bednarcyk, Carol Cole and David Ryan, with Ferguson Jansen arriving just after the call to order and Gregory Piecuch arriving at 6:50 p.m.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 13, 2005
Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the minutes from September 13, 2005. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bednarcyk and approved unanimously.
IV. REVIEW OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER TOPICS WITHIN THE PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Plan and Chapter Introductions:
Community Planning & Design - The Commission reviewed the changes agreed upon last week within the CP&D piece, most of which consisted of Mr. Dahlquist’s edits to the four types of Character Places. One small change was made in line 27 by deleting the last ‘differently’. Chairman Loomis described both the CP&D and Introduction as still somewhat fluid documents even though it has been put to bed for now.
Economic Development - Commissioner Jansen suggested clarifying line 7-8 to read “Since 1993, however, according to the Simsbury Assessor that tax burden has risen to 83% as of 2004.” A question mark was included in the text to confirm the year.
Housing - No additional changes were made.
Open Space - Although not present, Commissioner Howard had emailed a proposed paragraph related to the economic impact of open space. Commissioner Cole agreed to work with Commissioner Howard to incorporate technical data, both national and local, supporting the economic benefits. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested incorporating data from the Plan’s technical documents as well. Commissioner Ryan questioned the wording of the last line which referred to ‘hidden costs of development’. It was agreed to edit the sentence to read “Open space…creates minimal demand for costly services that are as a hidden cost of development. Finally, Commissioner Piecuch suggested removing ‘density’ from the second line and
having it read “Sprawl and density have has ecological and economic costs.”
Goals, Policies and Objectives:
Environment - Commissioner Piecuch confirmed Mr. Beach’s agreement with the Commission’s changes to Policy 11 strengthening the language on assessment and proper remediation of contaminated sites. The Commission then took into consideration emailed suggestions from Commissioner Howard. Within Policy 6: Objective H it was agreed to include the phrase ‘such as pervious pavers’ as an example of permeable surface materials. In addition, floodplain and wetland fringe were added to the list of places where that type of material might be considered for use. Commissioner Howard’s last suggestion was to clarify if the Plan included enough reference to aquifers. In Policy 2: Objective E, it was agreed to add ‘aquifers’ to the list of places
to preserve by directing development away from these sites. Lastly, within Objective G of that same policy Commissioner Piecuch suggested that in addition to the zoning regulations, the subdivision regulations need to be monitored and assessed as well for aquifer protection.
Historic Resources - Commissioner Howard submitted language drafted with Anita Mielert which encourages “the consideration of the surrounding landscape or context within which the historic resource was created” as well as the “linkages between historic sites, creating corridors where possible.” The Commission agreed to add it to the current Policy 2: Objective C. Commissioner Howard also suggested adding a reference to preserving Pharos Farm in agriculture to Policy 3: Objective A. After discussion, however, the Commission decided the reference fit better within Open Space, Farmland & Recreation as its own objective (now ‘G’) within Policy 2. The objective reads: “Preserve town-owned agricultural land, such as Pharos Farm, Town Farm
Dairy, Dewey Farm and Hall Farm on Terry’s Plain Road.”
Economic Development - Commissioner Piecuch indicated he has not yet worked with Mr. Voelker to clarify the new Policy 1: Objective A, which discusses establishing a mixed-use zone in place of the current eight business, industrial and professional office zones. Commissioner Jansen then questioned whether the statement that age-restricted housing eases the town services budget is defensible. He emphasized the need to avoid hearsay in the Plan. Commissioner Bednarcyk agreed, indicating the data should be included in the technical documents. Chairman Loomis spoke in depth of his current independent work with 2 residents to try to determine what the true tax net gain or loss is from particular areas within town. Many factors influence and affect those numbers. For example, the $1 million
benefit to the Town as noted in the Powder Forest age-restricted proposal did not take into consideration the homes that the new Powder Forest residents would be leaving and the net effect of the back-fill in those homes. Commissioner Cole offered to provide some information to Chairman Loomis regarding the costs associated with senior services. Finally, from her review of the Tariffville Village Association’s proposal, Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested an objective be included recommending detail design studies be done for areas such as Tariffville and West Street. Secretary Gardow agreed, indicating it would be worthwhile to include all areas in town where the Plan recommends creating ‘master plans’. In order to address the issue properly, Chairman Loomis requested Commissioner Bednarcyk work with Secretary Gardow to create a statement for the Commission to review next week.
On a side note, additional letters from members of SHARE (Simsbury Homeowners Advocating Responsible Expansion) were distributed to the Commissioners. Chairman Loomis noted that following the presentation by SHARE next week any questions will be limited to clarification and amplification of the material in the binder, not necessarily a debate of the issues. Commissioner Cole indicated the binder information provided by SHARE has allowed her to read the Land Use and Economic Development sections with different eyes. Commissioner Bednarcyk also noted a positive outcome has been that more people are getting involved, are interested in what the Commission is doing, and are providing a fresh eyes look at the Plan that might not have otherwise occurred. Commissioner Jansen noted one common theme within the
letters seemed to be a misinterpretation of the January 18, 2005 meeting the Commission had with Mike Goman of the Konover Corporation. He suggested that a copy of the minutes from that meeting might be helpful to clear up the confusion and show there was no hidden agenda or undue influence. Commissioner Jansen also pointed out Mr. Goman’s role as President of the Simsbury Main Street Partnership. Chairman Loomis indicated that a presentation was also made that night by Dr. & Mrs. Kaplan with regard to their work on Fiddler’s Green and their perspective on a smaller development project. A larger development perspective was also desired and Mr. Goman was invited to provide his perception of Simsbury, its opportunities for development, constraints, advantages, disadvantages, etc. Chairman Loomis agreed the letters implied some bias and indicated his plans to address that issue as well as the fact that Mr. Goman has not participated at all in the
drafting of the revised Plan. However, he also noted that the binder itself contained no reference to any influence the Commission may have experienced. Commissioner Piecuch made reference to the many groups and individuals (i.e., Chris Noble, EDC, Tariffville Village Association, West Street, etc.) that have had the opportunity to give input to the Plan. None, however, have had any undue influence on the Plan drafting.
Chairman Loomis called a recess at 8:20 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
V. REVIEW AND EDITING OF LAND USE TOPIC
Chairman Loomis began by questioning the meaning of the word ‘interrelated’ within the Goal. Commissioner Cole suggested the intent was the idea of transitions between areas of use. Commissioner Jansen believed it to be speaking of the idea of compatible uses, with the opposite being ‘unrelated’. Commissioner Piecuch agreed, indicating the goal is pointing to Policy 2, which speaks of compatibility. It was agreed to change interrelated to ‘compatible’. Within Policy 2: Objective C, Commissioner Cole suggested changing ‘encourage’ to ‘ensure’ that the scale of new development blend with surrounding areas. Chairman Loomis agreed that as a policy there probably would not be an instance where compatibility would not be desirable.
Commissioner Jansen stated that the word ‘blend’ implies a disappearing and all looking similar. Something can be different and yet be ‘compatible’. It was agreed to change the word ‘blend’ to ‘be compatible’. For Policy 3: Objective A, Commissioner Piecuch suggested the Commission should ‘expect’ developers to preserve natural land features by designing buildings to harmonize with the natural surroundings. Commissioner Ryan indicated the beginning of the objective is confusing. It was agreed to delete ‘When reviewing development proposals’ and change ‘encourage’ to ‘expect’.
Moving on to Policy 4, Chairman Loomis proposed that Objectives B-E seemed to go beyond scenic vistas as discussed in the Policy. Commissioner Ryan suggested changing Policy 4 to read “Preserve the rural characteristics of Simsbury.” Commissioner Cole then proposed to use the vistas language as a new Objective A. It was agreed to do both and then make the current Objective A (“Retain title to town-owned property with scenic vistas…”) a bullet under that new Objective A. Commissioner Piecuch suggested using an inset box or map within the text illustrating each of the scenic vistas listed.
Within Policy 5: Objective A, Chairman Loomis suggested changing ‘reduce unnecessary’ to ‘minimize’. Also, within Policy 7 he suggested using the consistent language of ‘scope and scale’ throughout the policy and its objectives.
Commissioner Piecuch offered his thoughts on Policy 10, which suggests consolidating the number and types of non-residential zones. He read through the permitted uses for such zones as B-3, I-3 and B-2 from the Zoning Regulations pointing out the redundancies and possible candidates for exclusion as permitted uses of right anywhere in Town (i.e., earth excavation, junk yards, underground fuel storage as a right, truck terminals, etc.). He further proposed that with respect to industrial and business zones the uses should be evaluated in 3 tiers: 1) what should be allowed to be done as of right; 2) what should be allowed only by special exception; and 3) what should be prohibited. Commissioner Ryan agreed with the concept of simplifying the zones. However, he raised an issue addressed by SHARE regarding
segregating office buildings from industrial uses and what tools are available to keep office parks from being in the middle of light industrial areas. Chairman Loomis characterized Policy 10 as one that will need continuous thought and discussion from now until the end of drafting. He thanked Commissioner Piecuch for his effort and for providing the Commission with a starting point.
Further, Commissioner Piecuch expressed what he felt to be an inadequate handling in the Plan of distinguishing between the 2 contexts of the mixed use concept, i.e., within villages such as Tariffville and Weatogue Center, as well as within developments of scale. There is a lack of an explanation of how the developments of scale would work and what strict design guidelines would be required in order to avoid creating a ‘zone-free’ type of zone. Commissioner Ryan and Chairman Loomis both agreed it was an open issue and no conclusions had been decided upon. Commissioner Piecuch indicated there is nothing in the current Zoning Regulations (i.e., Article 10) that allows for mixed use. If the Commission wants to promote and enable mixed use, he suggested addressing it in Policy 10 and proposed a
new Objective C that reads: “Consolidate the Village Cluster Zone, B-3 Zone, Professional Office Zone and I-1 Zone into a single Mixed-Use Design District Zone subject to, in substance, the prerequisites set forth in Article 10.A.3 and .4 of the Zoning Regulations.” It was agreed to add the objective with a note indicating further discussion is needed.
Chairman Loomis moved on to lines 138-147 within Policy 13, which suggests pursuing incentives in order to implement the Plan’s Land Use goal, policies and objectives. He indicated that although incentives are mentioned in the policy itself, the objectives that follow do not talk about types of incentives at all, but rather only the desired end results. It was agreed to add “such as but not limited to tax abatements or density bonuses” to the policy to give examples and yet not put limits on what can be done.
Finally, Commissioner Piecuch clarified for Chairman Loomis Policy 16: Objective D and why it refers to the ’94 Plan of Development’s Land Use policy map. He explained that for the last 11 years it has been the policy of the Planning Commission that all areas outside the sewer service area ought to be zoned as rural residential. He then referred to the disconnect between the 1994 Plan of Development map and the Zoning map in that although it was recommended on the Plan map that those areas be zoned R-80 or R-160, some areas outside are still zoned R-40. If the Zoning Regulations are meant to take into account the Plan there is a basis for the zone change.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
None.
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Loomis reviewed the agenda for next week’s meeting at the High School Amphitheater which will include the SHARE presentation, as well as review of edits made to the Plan on 9/20/05. It will not, however include any substantive discussion of SHARE’s recommendations. He requested the Commissioners to consider questions to ask the SHARE presenters for either amplification or clarification. He suggested it was not the time to debate the issues, nor is there a specific application that is being considered. Commissioner Piecuch suggested asking Mr. Voelker if any further public notice needs to be given, aside from posting the agenda, as to the site change for the meeting (i.e., posting a notice on the Main Meeting Room door directing individuals to the high school).
On a side note, Commissioner Piecuch requested having more advanced notice on any application information (i.e., subdivision plans and more in-depth staff reports) rather than merely receiving them the night an application is to be considered. In Chairman Loomis’ opinion, generally that happens, but perhaps it could happen more routinely and more completely.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Ryan motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Secretary Gardow and unanimously approved.
| 
