Simsbury, CT - Zoning Commission Minutes

Matt Walsh, Tim’s Sign and Lighting Service, Inc., spoke on behalf of this application. He said the application is a request to install a sign on the front of the building. Mr. Walsh distributed a copy of what the sign would look like to each of the commissioners. The sign does comply with the required size. Chairman Barney said that because they are moving into two spaces this makes the sign look extremely large. Mr. Walsh said that he contacted corporate after the last Design Review Board meeting. Corporate said that if this sign conforms to the zoning regulations they should not have to amend their application. Commissioner Delehanty asked if he had made the necessary changes so that it is no longer an internally lit sign. Mr. Walsh said the sign will be halo lit. Commissioner Gilkey asked the size of the sign. Mr. Walsh said that the sign is 2´2½ high x 25´4½ long. The store font size itself is 55´10½. Commissioner Barnett said that all the stores have signs under their overhang. Will Famous Footwear be also placing a sign under their overhang. Mr. Walsh said not as far as he knows. They are planning on placing two very small vinyl signs that say Famous Footwear on either side of the doors and applied to the windows. Chairman Barney said that they would not be allowed as Famous Footwear has already maxed out with the sign on the front of the building. The shaded appliqués that are shown on the windows are also not allowed.

Jim Ripper, Attorney, said that he represents the Camilleri Restaurant Group. Also attending this evening were Richard Camielleri, Tony Camielleri and Anthony Camielleri. Attorney Ripper distributed a pamphlet on the restaurant to the Commissioners that described their menu, their mission statement and a brief background of Richard and Anthony Camielleri. The restaurant will be called Amelia’s American Bistro. Commissioner asked if there would be a sit down bar. Attorney Ripper said that it is a sit down bar, but as there are only ten seats it is merely a holding place for folks who come in and may be waiting for a table. Chairman Barney asked if they anticipate any music or entertainment. Mr. Ripper said that they have reserved, in their proposed lease with Dr. Kaplan, the right to have something light as far as music. There will not be any type of loud speaker situation and the music will only be inside. Commissioner Delehanty asked how the outside patio area will be fenced. Dr. Kaplan said that there is a fence already there and they are up to code. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the bar waiting area, how will they handle kids. Mr. Camilleri said that outside the dining area there will be a lounge. Attorney Ripper said that he gave the Town Planner the appropriate affidavit with regard to notice.

Commissioner Barney asked that anyone in the public who would like to speak to sign up on the speaker sign- up sheet. He went over the rules for this public hearing. This application is for a specific proposed change to the zoning regulations, which if passed will pertain to the entire town. The matter of the zoning text amendment does not refer to a project. This is not a hearing on a project or on a zone change. Chairman Barney asked the speakers to speak specifically to the proposed amendment. As this is a public hearing, no questions can be addressed to staff or to the commission for answers this evening, but questions after the hearing can be sent to Hiram Peck, Director of Planning at the Town Hall. He said that speakers other than the presenter will be limited to three minutes per person and asked that they not repeat points made by previous speakers. All speakers will get a chance to speak on this agenda item.

William Miller, addressStreetBlue Ridge Drive, gave the commissioners a handout with an additional 587 names. They now have a total of approximately 2,800 names on their petition. Mr. Miller explained that there are three various wordings that people have signed. One was a postcard, one a form and the other was a petition that they actually went out and had hand signed. He said that not everyone signed up to the exact same wording, but everybody has signed up to the same concept, which is that they would like to limit the size of retail buildings except with a curb cut onto Route 44 to a maximum of 40,000 square feet.

Mr. Miller said that the traffic study that was included in the packets was done by Paul Mission. Based on a 1999 study that is available on the state web site, addressStreetHopmeadow Street is operating at 48% of capacity. Mr. Miller said that addressStreetHopmeadow Street is much more heavily trafficked today than back in 1999. He said that Mr. Mission took some data from some well recognized manuals in the industry and said that if you add a 137,000 square foot big box along Route 10 that will raise the traffic on the road during the peak hours from 48% of capacity to 70%. This would require widening the road to four lanes. Mr. Miller said that an office building would have a much lower traffic use. He said that it is clear if you put these big retail establishments on Route 10 you would have to go to a four lane highway. A round-about would improve safety by slowing traffic down and would eliminate traffic lights. This would improve safety, but all the cars would be almost stopped and this would reduce the capacity of the road.

Chairman Barney asked if their traffic analysis studied the traffic patterns from the placeCityGranby line to the placeAvon line and if they are talking about the full span of Route 10. Mr. Miller said that they started off with traffic impacts in and around Pettibone Tavern south. They did not go and look into the northern end of town. Chairman Barney said as the proposal is for a town wide regulation, then the study should be town wide so they can measure the impact. Mr. Miller said that they do not have unlimited resources.

Mr. Miller discussed the economical impact of big boxes. They took a study done on placeCityBrattleboro, StateVermont. He read a portion on placeCityBrattleboro saying that there is an extensive body of academic and other literature on big box stores which overwhelmingly demonstrates the overall adverse impact of large format retail establishments on local economies and municipalities. Aside from studies paid for by Wal-Mart, the subcommittee was unable, despite significant research, to find a single independent study refuting these negative impacts. Studies consistently show big box stores often cause a net lose of revenue to a town. Mr. Miller said that Dr. Fred Carsison of UCONN spoke previously to the Planning Commission, Economic Development Commission and to this commission that the worse form of economic development for a town is big box retail. It causes a tremendous depreciation in housing values in and around the development and would hurt the economic viability of the current businesses in town. There is no redeeming value for these types of developments. Commissioner Delehanty asked what the Town of placeCityBrattleboro did with the recommendations that he had cited from. Mr. Miller said that he did not know. Commissioner Delehanty said that the recommendations in the report that Mr. Miller had submitted to the commission did not have them prohibiting this type of development, but rather adopting additional regulations to deal with it. Mr. Miller said that they allowed it in certain parts of town and not in others. If we are going to add big box stores to placeCitySimsbury, put them on Route 44 where there is already a four lane highway which can accommodate the traffic and do not put them on Route 10 where you would be required to put in a four lane highway. Commissioner Delehanty asked Mr. Miller if he sees Brattleboro as being similar to Simsbury in its size, nature and its surrounding area. Mr. Miller said that he took only a couple of studies that he came across on the internet and copied them for the commission use. Chairman Barney said that he found the Brattleboro study interesting in that their final recommendation was to authorize their zoning authority to essentially have a PDD that would not have building caps involved. They recommended against buildings caps. Mr. Miller said that he used the study to point out the negative economic effect of these large retail big box stores.

Mr. Miller also spoke of the wording of their proposal. He said that Mr. Loomis and Mr. Peck have problems with the language of various parts of the proposal. He said that with this application they are trying to give the commission the idea of what the will of the people is. They would like Route 10 to remain a two lane highway and they do not think a big box store is appropriate. Mr. Miller believes the languages is fine as stated in the presentation, but is certainly open to any suggestions if the commission would like to change any of the wording. He said that the point of all the people who have signed onto this, and the vast majority of the people in the Town of Simsbury, is they do not want a big box store and they do not want Route 10 turning into a four lane highway. The Town’s people of placeCitySimsbury would like this commission to limit the size of retail establishments. Chairman Barney asked if this included commercial buildings. Mr. Miller said just retail. Chairman Barney expressed concern about the existing retail operations in Town and Mr. Miller’s proposal of only being able to expand 120%. There is also concern on the economic impact to the citizens of the town. Commissioner Popik asked about their allowing the larger store that would have curb cuts on Route 44. She said that Simsbury does not have a lot of property on Route 44 and asked what is left on Route 44. Mr. Miller said that there is not enough land there anyway to build a big box, but the issue is if someone wanted to tear down existing structures and build a big box or large retail establishment it should be on Route 44. Route 44 can handle the traffic as it already is four lanes.

Commissioner Delehanty asked Mr. Miller what the philosophical reason is for treating retail distinctly different than other types of development. Why would he not be equally concerned about a major office development other than on Route 44, which would generate significant traffic in the peak hours in the morning and the evening? Mr. Miller spoke of Mr. Mission’s presentation saying that for a 250,000 gross floor space building specialty retail would generate 11,000 trips per day, home improvements 7,400 trips per day, and general office would only generate 2,700 trips per day. There is a much lower traffic impact with general office.

Todd Angus, 20 Redstone Drive said that he is in support of square footage caps on any development in Simsbury especially retail. He spoke of large scale development on water pollution, especially waste water runoff and the effect of large scale development on the habitat of threatened and endangered species. He said that larger development makes it more difficult to comply with and enforce ever tougher environmental standards. There are numerous state and federal regulations on pollution, hazardous waste, and waste water both during construction and also during ongoing commercial activity. Waste water from retail space picks up and transports contaminants including motor oils, gasoline, antifreeze, brake dust, fertilizers, pesticides and soil sediments. He said that typical large scale developments (big box or malls) are 70 or more percent impervious surface and given that Simsbury receives 47-inches of rain per year this results in over 1,000,000 gallons of runoff per acre per year. Reducing the size of individual developments will help protect threatened and endangered species. He submitted a map of the Connecticut DEP site on endangered species as evidence of such areas within the Town of Simsbury and also a list of endangered, threatened and special concerns species within Hartford County.

John Lilliquist, 6 Caryn Lane, said that he supports the notion of a cap on retail development. The big box development is something that the citizens of this town do not want. He asked that the commission deliberate on this cap proposal and use their appropriate judgment to modify the proposal as proposed. Chairman Barney asked Mr. Lilliquist if he agreed that no building over 20,000 square feet should be built. Mr. Lilliquist said that he could see some logic behind amending that percentage adjustment, but he thinks the notion is overwhelmingly that the people of placeCitySimsbury do not want to see big box development in any shape or form. The reasons would be traffic congestion, diminution of property values, etc.

T. J. Donohue, resident of Simsbury and Land Use Counsel to Konover Development Corporation on the Simsbury River Oaks initiative, said that he is speaking in opposition to the proposed zone text amendment. The amendment before the commission this evening would not be helpful to Simsbury River Oaks. Attorney Donohue said that tonight he wants to speak of why this is the wrong regulation for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. 1) CERC and the Connecticut Economic Development Commission information shows that Simsbury lags behind peer communities in commercial spaces in percent of the grand list. Avon is at 11.9%, Farmington is at 21.6%, West Hartford is at 14.2%, Glastonbury is at 12.5% and Simsbury is at 10.9%. The Plan of Conservation and Development recognizes this and encourages growth and diversification on the grand list. He said that the proposed regulation will stop Simsbury from reaching those goals, as it will take away tools which enable the boards to approve smart and appropriate development in Simsbury. 2) These are dynamic times for communities and real estate. This type of proposed regulation reduces Simsbury’s chances in participating in new trends, investments and ideas. Developers would not look at Simsbury as a potential place to make investments. 3) Simsbury, through its Planning and Zoning process should be able to exercise fair judgment to approve those things that suit Simsbury’s needs while rejecting or encouraging modification to ideas not in tune with the plan and reasonable growth of this town. Attorney Donohue said do not tie the hands of the good boards and good commissioners that are dedicated to the town and its future with limitations that are so severe that developers with good ideas will avoid Simsbury because of lack of flexibility. Regulations should be not be drafted to stifle plan growth.

Anthony Napolitano, 39 Banks Road, supports Mr. Miller’s amendment. He said the PDD in general opens too many Pandora’s boxes. They need to have caps and more restrictions on retail because the smaller businesses will suffer without it. Mr. Napolitano spoke of the Eno family name stating that a prominent member of the Eno family is considered the father of transportation and traffic rules. He said that it is appropriate to think that this family produced someone who was very concerned about the detrimental effect that traffic can have on peoples’ lives.

Chuck Ward, 81 Blue Ridge Drive, said that this amendment will help to balance the PDD language. The town does need comprehensive unbiased impact studies of the entire town in order to better understand what can be developed in the town and what should not be developed. Mr. Ward said that while he understands the commission’s concerns to protect the town from costly litigation, he is concerned that by denying the proposed text amendment and approving the PDD would simply trade one evil for another. He said that while the carefully crafted PDD may prevent another Meadowood catastrophe he is concerned that it would loosen the stringent zoning regulations by allowing developers to creatively develop the remaining undeveloped land in town as well as redevelop existing property in ways that may have negative and unintended consequences. The proposed text amendment would still allow for a PDD type regulation to be implemented yet protect the town from being overrun by developers bent on destroying this town with big box stores for their own financial gain. The Zoning Commission is the front line defense protecting this town from predatory developers who would like to pave this town over. Adopting the proposed text amendment would speak volumes about who you are representing and what you are thinking. He said that he believes that this commission is concerned about the town and is trying very hard to make the right decisions for the town while not exhibiting anything that would cause anyone to believe that you pre-judge any future development that comes before this commission. He said that if part of their intent with the PDD is to protect the town, please think long and hard about protecting the entire town from a multitude of disastrous scenarios and to make sure that any changes made to the zoning regulations will stand the test of time.

Carl Eisenmann, 34 Lincoln Lane, said that he lives exactly .6 of a mile from Route 10 or 77-feet from the traffic that will be generated on Route 10. The side streets also cannot take the traffic that will be generated by the retail development on Route 10. Mr. Eisenmann completely supports Mr. Miller’s proposed amendment, but should the commission prefer, on their own motion, to come up with a rule that is consistent with putting a cap on the size of retail buildings that is also fine with him. He wants some kind of a limitation so that this does not sky rocket.

Julie Meyer, 3 East View Drive, said that she supports a cap on retail development. She spoke of the latest buzz word, which is “high density development”. When developers and architects now and in the future speak about “high density development” as a future of smart design her thought is that they want you to believe that the concept is applicable to parcels in Simsbury. Does Simsbury have parcels that can support “high density development”? Ms. Meyer said that when she thinks of “high density development’ she thinks of environmentally advantageous developments that require critical mass to be self-sustaining. They would, by their nature, would be able to reduce CO² emissions and provide dense housing developments where people will work and live. This would allow some of the land to be kept as open space. She asked the Commissioners if they believed that this high density concept that is being discussed would apply to placeCitySimsbury and is needed in placeCitySimsbury. Chairman Barney discussed a conversation he had with a historian at Plymouth Plantation regarding

Deborah Thibodeau, addressStreet5 Woodclif Drive, said that she supports the proposed amendment to the zoning regulation. This is a positive addition to the current zoning regulations for the following reasons: 1) it is consistent with the sentiment with the working draft of the 2007 POCD, 2) character and scale has been covered, 3) impact on small businesses in town center has been covered, 4) big box development in Simsbury is not needed, this is sprawl, 5) traffic has been covered, and 6) economic impact has been covered. Ms. Thibodeau said that people chose to live and stay in placeCitySimsbury because of what we have and what we do not have. She said that communities across the country have prohibited big box development for the above reasons. Why can’t placeCitySimsbury? Many residents want these restrictions on cap. This amendment will shape the placeCitySimsbury of tomorrow and will preserve the quality of life that is enjoyed today. Ms. Thibodeau said that if this commission has issue with the wording of the current proposed amendment, she encourages them to integrate this concept with the work that they have done on the PDD.

Vincent DeAngelo, addressStreet17 Lincoln Lane, said that size does matter to the character throughout the town. He said that big strip malls are bad. You cannot compare placeCityBrattleboro, StateVermont to placeCitySimsbury, StateConnecticut as placeCityBrattleboro is a regional center. There are parcels here that need to be developed and everybody should be concerned about taxes and increasing the base, but that does not mean to rush to develop every available square foot of land quickly. Mr. DeAngelo said that every developer he has talked to said that retail does not help the tax base. He asked why they would want to develop something that will destroy the character of the town. He is in keeping with the idea of caps, but does not know if 20,000 or 40,000 square feet is the right number (CVS store size okay). Mr. DeAngelo said that for a retail store to be successful it has to generate traffic or it goes belly up.

Gerard Lintner, addressStreet22 Massaco Street, said that he is opposed to the proposed amendment. He also is not at all convinced that the majority of placeCitySimsbury citizens support the amendment. Mr. Lintner said that many placeCitySimsbury citizens are intimidated to come to these meetings. He has lived in this community over 25 years and is involved in a lot of volunteer activities. In the late 1950’s placeCitySimsbury had only 5,000 people. The center back then grew out of the dynamics of a variety of people making a living in a community. He said that many of the same people can no longer afford to live in placeCitySimsbury, and many of today’s craft people who come to town to do the plumbing, gardening, etc. cannot afford to live in this town. Mr. Lintner said that this commission was elected with a responsibility. The people’s job is to make sure that the commission has regulations that give them the tools to make appropriate judgments. The reason that this commission is having trouble with the language is that they cannot come up with one definition that defines (forever) a specific square footage for a building. Mr. Lintner said that they (responsibly) cannot pass this proposed amendment as it would handicap commissions for generations. It does not give the commission the responsibility to make a judgment, it prevents them from doing that. He asked that they do not approve this amendment for a cap.

Bruce Elliott, addressStreet21 Lincoln Lane, supports the proposed zoning amendment. He responded to one of the questions Mr. Barney had previously asked regarding if this zoning amendment language only applied to retail establishments. Yes, retail uses only (nothing to do with commercial space). The source of this materials language is a noted Land Use Attorney out of placeCityHartford. He expressed concern that they have come back (this second time) with documents proposed by a Land Use Attorney and this commission gives feed back that the wording is not clear. He asked that the commission consider the merits of this issue and the will of the town. Possibly this issue should have taken up as an issue as an ordinance so it would have been taken to referendum under the charter rather than troubling the Zoning Commission. He quoted from the Simsbury Visitor Web Site and asked the commission if big box retail development has a place in a quintessential placeNew England community. The majority of developers should not have a problem with a cap.

addressStreetAshley Lane, Old Farms Road, said that the purpose of zoning is to protect the town’s interest. He feels that size restrictions on retail would benefit the town and allow the down town business to remain viable. There is not any need to restrict size on industrial or commercial. He briefly discussed the business area and the traffic rotary in placeCityBrattleboro, StateVermont. He feels that placeCityBrattleboro as a model is a poor example because the amount of land that is available to develop is limited. He asked that this commission seriously consider the amendment.

Ray Rosati, addressStreet81 Old Meadow Plain Road, said that placeCitySimsbury is not alone in facing this issue. He mentioned that the town that he grew up in outside of placeCitySpringfield, StateMassachusetts has successfully fought big box development by keeping out a Lowe’s. Similar size caps were put on it. There is a big sentiment in many small placeNew England towns to limiting or capping the size of development. Mr. Rosati said that it should not just be restricted to retail. He said that he is concerned about the traffic issues on Route 10 and also his own road. The Police Department shared with him speed data for a long period of time. He discussed traffic safety issues and noise pollution. Mr. Rosati said that this commission knows what they want and regardless of what the proposed amendment says, if it is not the right wording figure out what is the proper wording and implement it into the zoning regulations for the town.

Terrence Forth, addressStreet90 Sand Hill Road, said that the unencumbered view of the Metacomet Ridge and the placePlaceNameHeublien PlaceTypeTower is sacred. It would be an abomination if it is blocked and also destruction of the beautiful rustic landscape. There is a monetary value in destroying the bucolic nature of the valley. He also expressed concern that this scale of development is not adequately concerning itself with the negative effects and the potential down side of the increased water demand. This is potable water issue (not waste water) and asked who is going to supply the citizens of placeCitySimsbury with water conditions. What are the negligible health effects? This concern has not been addressed by any of the engineers. Metrics has an effect. The larger the size the more demand on the aquifer and the amount of water. This will be an unacceptable cost passed down to the town.

Stephen Selby, addressStreet93 East Weatogue Street, said that the town is not inviting a big box into town, but inviting a business into the town. He said that people should review the share holder’s reports to see what there goals are. They have a goal of increasing their base by perhaps 8% a year (depending on the company). The return in equity has to hit a certain target. If the target does not hit the return on equity the location is closed. There is no community loyalty to a big box. If the location is abandoned, who is going to swoop in and fill that location? In terms of long range development what is the value of having a national chain come in when they are an uncertain community partner. They have a shareholder return concern, not a community concern. He asked that this commission look beyond the box. Mr. Selby said that he understood the tax base when he moved into placeCitySimsbury, but liked the character of the town. He feels that the people in this town are willing to bear an increase in their tax burden to keep a big box out of town.

Chairman Barney said that the hearing will be kept open as they need a referral from the Planning Commission. Chairman Barney said that the obvious issue discussed this evening is traffic impact and the nature of the traffic in the town. He said if the issue is traffic then they should be talking about regulating issues by their traffic generating capacity. The size and square footage of buildings is not really the issue. It is the traffic that they generate. This matter should be voted on at the next Zoning Commission meeting assuming that they get the referral from the Planning Commission.