 |
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 29, 2006
SPECIAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman John Loomis called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Henry James Middle School Cafeteria. The following members were present: Carol Cole and Ferguson Jansen, with Gregory Piecuch arriving at 7:20 and Susan Bednarcyk arriving at 8:30. Also in attendance were Howard Beach, Conservation/Inland Wetlands and Zoning Compliance Officer, Glenn Chalder, AICP, Planning Consultant, Emil Dahlquist, Chair of the Design Review Board, as well as approximately 50 other interested parties.
II. OPENING REMARKS BY JOHN LOOMIS, CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Loomis provided opening remarks, including introduction of Commissioners and Town Staff. He indicated the Plan has been on the Town website since November 3rd and that copies have been made available to the Board of Selectmen and Zoning Commissioners. Input has been solicited throughout the lengthy process and additions and changes have been made to the Plan draft as a result (i.e., Chris Noble’s research and suggestion for a Dark Skies ordinance). Comments have been gathered from the Selectmen and will be reviewed along with comments from the two meetings at Henry James and Monday night’s meeting at the High School, as well as any written comments received by December 1st. The goal is to provide a revised draft, reflecting whatever changes the Commission may make, by
12/29/06. He described the 65-day waiting period prior to the public hearing in March, 2007. Following specifics and instructions about the format for tonight’s meeting, Chairman Loomis then introduced Glenn Chalder to make his presentation.
III. PUBLIC MEETING ON THE DRAFT 2007 PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT. PRESENTATION BY GLENN CHALDER, AICP, PLANNING CONSULTANT
Glenn Chalder provided a 25-30 minute PowerPoint presentation of an overview of the 2007 Plan. He described planning as a process for making informed decisions about the future and being proactive in identifying alternatives, considering outcomes, and recommending strategies. He gave an overview of what the State statutes require and recommend be part of a Plan of Conservation and Development. He indicated a Plan should be outward looking, advisory, ‘implementable’ and maintainable. He described placeCitySimsbury’s Plan as a way of guiding the development of the 3,000 remaining acres to protect what is important to the town, to achieve set goals, and to enhance the character and quality of life within town, and to make a lasting impact for generations to come. He reviewed the 4 main parts of the
Plan – What We Want to Protect, How We Want to Grow, What We Want or Need, and How We Will Make it Happen – giving an overview of each of the chapters included in each section. In the Scenic Resources and Community Character chapters, Mr. Chalder invited the public at the end of the meeting to physically mark 2 maps to indicate any scenic vistas or character places they felt should be included in the Plan. Mr. Chalder introduced the Future By Design chapter with its emphasis on form-based zoning and transect concepts. He described the Implementation chapter and its recommendation for the provision of adequate resources and the establishment of an Implementation Committee to ensure goals and recommendations are achieved. He gave a brief overview of the conceptual schedule over the next few months, including opportunity for public comments, a review and refinement of the Plan, and ultimately the Public Hearing on Adoption set tentatively for March 2007. He then
invited the public to make their comments and suggestions.
Janet Miller, addressStreet45 Blue Ridge Drive, expressed her general agreement with the Plan. She commended the Commission for the dedication, hard work, diligence of its members and the thoughtful, insightful document that will help to positive shape placeCitySimsbury for the next decade. She complimented the Commission’s focus on preserving the character of placeCitySimsbury and the attention to detail on all areas of town. She believes the transect concept and the category descriptions will be a valuable aid to the Commissioners and developers alike. She is pleased with the inclusion of retail square footage and building height caps are valuable and guidelines such as this are necessary to reflect the desire of placeCitySimsbury’s citizens. She reiterated the comments from Monday night regarding the
2,210 signatures obtained from those who oppose large-scale retail development in town. She urged the Commission to stay strong in their convictions until the Plan is finalized.
Jewel Gutman, member of the Chamber of Commerce’s Government Affairs Committee as well as a resident of 8 Daniel Lane, admitted to only a quick review of the Plan summary and not the details of the document. However, she commended the Commission for the emphasis on fostering a sense of community, preserving the landscape and encouraging responsible economic development. She has appreciated the open process and reception of input from the public. The idea of updating the Plan incrementally makes sense. With reference to the Center Zone, she appreciates the recommendation to treat the Center Zone as a village district, as well as to increase the density on both sides of addressStreetHopmeadow Street, including mixed use opportunities. She argued, however, with the late addition of the transect concept to
the Plan, indicating that should be something that should be left for later study and possible implementation in one of the incremental updates to the Plan.
Marv Negrin, addressStreet7 Shaw Drive, thanked Mr. Chalder for his great summary of the Plan and complimented the Commission’s super effort to complete a very comprehensive plan. He thanked the Commission for their open-mindedness and desire to work for the good of the town, and indicated he felt a part of the process. He sees the Plan as having at its core an effort to preserve the character, charm and rural signature characteristics of placeCitySimsbury while also recognizing the effect of ill-thought out, improper developments. In his opinion, invoking specific caps on square footages, etc. is the only sensible way to allow for responsible development. He stressed the desire for office use over big box development. The only issue he disagreed with in the Plan was found on page 113, where a
recommendation is made to include the Board of Finance in strategies for economic development and increasing tax revenue. Finally, he disagreed with last night’s suggestions from the EDC regarding a bridge from addressStreetNod Road to the properties that abut Route 10, indicating there would be a negative impact on the neighboring town of placeCityAvon, the surrounding farmland, as well as the small country character of Nod road.
Peter Pabich, Chair of the Chamber of Commerce’s Government Affairs Committee as well as a resident of addressStreet20 Woodchuck Hill Road, echoed the sentiments of the previous speakers. He indicated he could not only see, but almost feel the hard work that has gone into Plan. He also appreciated the inclusion of the Chamber’s recommendations with regards to the Center Zone, validating the hard work put in by many business and land owners. He raised his concern over the concept of the transect levels, suggesting they will be an excessive, cumbersome, and confusing restriction to future land use options (i.e., development, conservation and re-development). Further, the Committee feels very strongly that size and square footage restrictions do not belong in the Plan, but should be left to the governance
of the Zoning Commission. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak.
Judy Rabinowitz, addressStreet126 Hopmeadow Street, was very pleased to hear community character as a part of the Plan. She described her skepticism about Starbucks coming into the Center, but finds she is pleased with the magnificent job they did for the look of the Center in restoring a beautiful building. With regard to size restrictions and caps, she acknowledged she does not know the legalities, but expressed a desire to bring in new businesses and yet still keep the town’s character. She thanked the Commission for their hard work on the Plan.
Bob Stevens, Ensign Bickford Realty, noted the overall POCD was very well organized and is a major step in the right direction. It continues to bring a sense of professionalism to placeCitySimsbury’s land use planning process. He applauded the Commission on the change from use-based to form-based zoning. Although the transect concept and the illustrations on pages 58 and 59 appear to be an appropriate tool to describe the unique qualities of each category, the specific requirements and restrictions on pages 60-61 should be removed as they are more regulatory rather than of a policy nature. He applauded the Commission for the recognition of the value of mixed-use as a viable development concept for some areas of placeCitySimsbury. He asked the Commission to clarify the apparent contradiction on pages 96 and
116 and clearly state that mixed-use would be an appropriate concept for the placePlaceNamePowder PlaceTypeForest. Third, he suggested the mixed-use percentages listed for the Southern Gateway may be in conflict with actual market demand and urged the Commission to reconsider or eliminate the allowable percentages. Finally, he urged the elimination of the discouragement of sewer transfers between properties with dissimilar zoning classifications. This could preclude a development that otherwise would be in the best interest of the Town (i.e., addressStreetHopmeadow Place, CitySimsbury placeInn in the past).
David Richman, resident at addressStreet1 Saddle Ridge Drive and business-owner/investor in placeCitySimsbury, thanked the Commission for their time and hard work. He expressed concern with the word ‘transect’ and urged changing it to a more common, easily understandable word. In his opinion as a developer, pages 58-59 are extremely complicated, represent government interference which will restrict future growth and investment in town. In addition, pages 60-61 should be eliminated. He suggested the Commission should encourage the town to express appreciation for the risk taken by business investors to expand placeCitySimsbury’s commercial tax base. Finally, he indicated there is little market demand for companies to move into CityplaceSimsbury and that will not change until the town needs to adopt
a formal structure or proposal with proactive leadership.
Damon Hearne, Land Use Specialist read a letter signed by both he and Eric Hammerling, from the Farmington River Watershed Association, congratulating the Commission on their steadfast work. Both Mr. Hearne and Mr. Hammerling noted their appreciation of the Town’s willingness to use the best scientific information in its Natural Biodiversity Plan and see Simsbury as a model other towns would benefit from greatly. As an outcome of a new initiative in order to facilitate the FRWA’s contribution to the planning and POCD processes of Watershed towns, attached to the letter was a comprehensive list of comments and suggestions for CityplaceSimsbury’s Plan. Mr. Hearne emphasized one particular recommendation to adopt a scalable fee set for complex and large land use applications. In his
experience, generally the applicant’s expense is small compared to the benefits received not only to make the application better, but also in the actual shortening of the period it takes to get a permit.
Jay Burman, 6 Westridge, warned that placeCitySimsbury is drowning under of acronyms, abbreviations, committees, studies and engineering surveys. He complimented the environmental conservation aspects of this visionary, long-reaching Plan. However, the Plan is unworkably complex and cumbersome to administer. In his opinion, the Plan does not adequately deal with Big Box development. If the issue is not uncovered and dealt with now it will become a legacy the town does not want to live with.
Ray Rosati, 81 Old Meadow Plain, thanked the Commission for their work and also expressed appreciation for allowing the public to be a part of the process. He believes the transect concept is easy and straightforward and works to see the character of placeCitySimsbury is preserved. In his opinion, the POCD needs to outline the desires of the town’s residents and the Zoning regulations should be based on them. He questioned how that can be enabled. He described the rift between the desires a few of the business owners and the majority of the residents. He believes there are opportunities for good development, but not Big Box which will only serve to increase traffic, jeopardize smaller businesses and spoil the scenic vistas. The metrics included in the Plan are appropriate to the document and he suggested
strengthening the wording on building footprint sizes all over town, not just in the Southern Gateway. He encouraged leaving the office designation for the Southern Gateway.
Meri Nordstrom, of 7 Hopmeadow, provided articles she has collected regarding the effects of retail development. In her opinion, the economy will not be supportive of increased retail in the future. She believes the Zoning Commission is stalling in order to allow Konover to come in with a retail development in the Southern Gateway and described Weatogue as being ‘sacrificed’. She referenced individuals, including herself, who are selling or have sold their houses due to the possible future of impact from Big Box development across the street. She encouraged choosing alternative uses such as healthcare.
Todd Angus, of 20 Redstone, thanked the Commission for a well-crafted document that is easy to follow and shows a responsible, and yet flexible, approach to development. He strongly supports the transect concept. In his opinion, the Plan does a good job at looking at opportunities to allow local businesses to grow, but still retain the character of placeCitySimsbury. He stressed the limited amount of dollars that actually go back into a community from large retail development. He strongly disagreed with the reference on p. 113 (Policy 3:D) that encourages the Board of Education to be involved in generating ideas to for new tax revenue, indicating it is not in keeping with their mission and referenced possible conflict of interests with some of their members, including Michael Goman. He, too, agreed seeking
office/medical uses over large-scale retail being more beneficial for the town. More retail is not needed in town.
Doris Musick, 55 Old Meadow Plain, commended the Commission on a great job and effort. She requested an answer to Mr. Rosati’s question regarding the effect of the Plan on the Zoning Commission. Mr. Chalder explained the advisory role of the Plan, indicating it is not legally binding. Chairman Loomis explained the referral process from the Zoning Commission to Planning for such things as zone changes or the sale of town-owned property. He indicated the Commission uses the Plan for guidance to cite applicable policies and strategies that bear on the application. History has shown that in general those referrals, either positive or negative, are taken seriously by the Zoning Commission.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Jansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Piecuch and unanimously approved.
___________________________________________
John Loomis, Chairman (in the absence of Ernest B. Gardow, Secr
| |
