Simsbury, CT - Zoning Commission Minutes

Austin Barney, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Commission to order at timeHour19Minute07:00 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Patricia Askham, Garrett Delehanty, Jr., James Gallagher, and Alexis Popik. Also in attendance were Director of Planning Hiram Peck, Commission Clerk Debra Sweeney and other interested parties.

a. Application of Thomas S. Antonio, Trustee, Owner, JYG, LLC, Agent, for a Special Exception for restaurant use with a drive-through window pursuant to Article 7, Section E.6.a of the placeCitySimsbury Zoning Regulations on property located at Dunkin Donuts addressStreet1193 Hopmeadow Street. B-2 Zone.

Jim Yocum stated that he is one of the partners that own several Dunkin Donuts in the area and is in the process of acquiring the rights to the Dunkin Donuts in the center of placeCitySimsbury as well as converting the existing Valley Bagels to a Dunkin Donuts. [Alternate Joseph Grace joined the meeting at this point.] Mr. Yocum stated that the use of the site will remain the same and that it is primarily a morning business, with peak hours of timeMinute0Hour77:00-9:00 AM. The request is to move the site of the existing drive-through window from the middle of the building more towards the rear of the building. The other request was to add a menu board. In connection with that request, the applicant provided the Commission with a copy of a noise study report prepared by HMB Acoustics, LLC which indicated that any noise from the menu board would not impact neighboring businesses or residences and was in compliance with allowable noise levels per State regulations. Traffic flow would remain the same, with cars entering from addressStreetHopmeadow Street and, if using the drive-through, exiting via either Hoskins or addressStreetEly Road.

Chairman Barney suggested that there will be a huge increase in the applicant’s business with the brand name change and that, in turn, would have an enormous impact on the traffic pattern, which is already a problem. It was suggested that the removal of the “J” hook in the middle of the parking lot might help. Steve Antonio, owner of the property, indicated that there are access holes to the septic system as well as parking lot lights in the area that would have to be dealt with if the tenant is willing to undertake the expense.

Ms. Askham asked if the existing drive-through window was non-conforming. Mr. Antonio stated that the drive-through window was originally associated with a bank, the original occupancy in 1976. In 1981, the Whole Donut was told it could not use it after it had renovated it for fast food use. Subsequent tenants, Arrow Pharmacy and Lock, Stock & Bagel have used it. Ms. Askham felt that part of the application should be to clear up the conformance issue.

Mr. Delehanty asked if the characteristics of the menu board were within the definition of signage. Mr. Peck was uncertain if the signage calculations had been completed as it was not included in the staff report. Ms. Askham thought the site had a uniform sign package of red, white and blue, whereas Dunkin Donuts is usually orange and pink and wondered if the applicant would be willing to conform with that requirement. Mr. Yocum was unsure, but thought that the major issue was that Dunkin Donuts requires back lighting on the menu board and placeCitySimsbury does not allow back lighting. Chairman Barney thought that the applicant should return with the whole package, complete with a sign plan and that the menu board should be considered as part of the total signage.

Nord Christensen, one of the owners of addressStreetSimsmore Square, stated that Miss Lisa’s placePlaceNameMontessori PlaceTypeSchool, which is currently located on addressStreetQuarry Road, wants to relocate to the 2,000 square foot space in addressStreetSimsmore Square that was previously occupied by placePlaceNameFast PlaceNameTrack PlaceNameKids PlaceTypeAcademy. Chairman Barney asked if there are now two Montessori schools in placeCitySimsbury and Mr. Christensen stated that there are currently two, Miss Lisa’s and Cobb School and that they are unaffiliated and that Miss Lisa’s is for ages 3-6 and the Cobb School has a wider age range. Further, the Montessori school is not a franchise, but rather a philosophical approach to teaching. Lisa Toth, the prospective tenant, explained that she is licensed by the State for daycare due to the fact that she does not wish to exceed 20 students. The State requires licensing as a school if the student population exceeds 27.

Chairman Barney asked Miss Toth to describe her program and she indicated that it is an educational program involving reading and writing so that students leave the program fully prepared for first grade. Mr. Grace asked how many teachers were at the school and Miss Toth replied that there was just herself and her assistant. Ms. Askham asked if her license was similar to those issued to other nursery schools and Miss Toth indicated that it was.

Mr. Christensen indicated that there were no proposed modifications other than the addition of a child’s bathroom requested by the State as well as adding an outside play area. Mr. Gallagher stated that the map shows that wetlands are on the property. Ms. Askham asked if the building has a CO and Mr. Christensen indicated that it did. Chairman Barney asked if it specifically had sufficient sprinkler capacity to conform with State regulations for facilities with children and Mr. Christensen stated that it did. He also provided the Commission with a copy of the Fire Marshall’s report.

Chairman Barney asked if the differencel between the license that Miss Toth holds and a school license was strictly the number of students and not the quality of the program. Miss Toth stated that, for a daycare license, the State considers diapering, etc., but because she has only 20 children, the State chooses to license her as daycare, although she is not providing daycare services per se. Chairman Barney responded that the Commission has a technical problem in that the Zoning Regulations specifically allow a daycare center, but not a school. Mr. Peck thought that it would be helpful if Miss Toth could provide a copy of her license from the State. Chairman Barney asked Mr. Peck to request an interpretation from the Town Attorney relative to the definitional issue.

Mr. Christensen indicated that Miss Toth needs to make an application to the State by July 1^st in order to open in September and that she needs zoning approval in order to do so. As the approval is time sensitive, the Commission indicated that they would be willing to call a Special Meeting in order meet the applicant’s time requirements. The hearing was left open to be continued at a future meeting.

Chairman Barney asked if the sign being presented was the only sign being shown. Mr. Powell stated that there may be a future application for a free-standing sign at a future date, but at this time it is uncertain. Chairman Barney clarified that the application at this time does not include a free-standing sign. The application is for a 17.5 square foot metal sign, illuminated from underneath and the paints will be low luster, non-reflective.

Mr. Delehanty noted that the Design Review Board reviewed the application and found the proposed signage to be in conformance with the guidelines for community design and applauded the applicant’s efforts at enhancing the appearance of the current building, both in terms of the proposed plantings and building treatments.

Guy Gilchrist stated that he is applying to have a sign over the doorway to his business which is approximately 86 yards from the street, noting that his business has its own separate doorway from the rest of the tenants in the professional building and that the sign is needed to identify the entrance. He noted that Mr. Beach has indicated that it complies with the signage allotment for the site and that it has been reviewed by the Design Review Board. Chairman Barney confirmed with Mr. Gilchrist that the color and layout of the sign is consistent with what was shown to the Design Review Board and that they suggested that there be no exterior lighting on the sign.

Mr. Delehanty asked if lighting was necessary and Mr. Gilchrist stated that there are classes that start at timeMinute30Hour186:30 PM and that lighting is an issue in the winter and early spring. He indicated that there is one small exterior light on the building that lights the walkway so that he did not have an issue with the sign not being lighted. Ms. Askham asked if there was a uniform sign package for this site and no members could recall that there ever was one.

Architect Eamon Clohessy stated that the building located at addressStreet86 Hopmeadow Street was originally designed by his firm so as to transition a business park to a nearby residential area. Therefore, the roofline was more residential in character. The owners of the building have recently been finding it difficult to lease the third floor due to inadequate light in the space. The modification being proposed is to link the glass of the windows at the sill height and bring it up another five feet in between the dormers and then shed roof back up to the ridge line on the dormers. The change would only occur on two sides and neither would be visible from the street.

Chairman Barney noted that the Design Review Board found this application to be generally consistent with the guidelines for community design and recommended its approval, but added an understanding that there will be no changes to the exterior lighting, visible mechanical equipment on the roof or roof penetrations as it is restricted primarily to the modification to the windows and the fenestration on the third level of the east and north facades.

a. Ms. Askham made a motion to approve the application of Jim Blanchette, Owner, Jon Powell, Agent, for Signage at Auto~Bon on property located at addressStreet89 Wolcott Road, noting that the Design Review Board found this application to be in compliance with the guidelines . Mr. Delehanty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

b. Mr. Grace made a motion to approve the application of Daniel J. Steinmetz, Member, Res One Realty, LLC – Owner, Guy Gilchrist, Agent, for Signage (Guy Gilchrist’s Cartoonist’s Academy and Cartoon Camp) to be placed on property located at addressStreet237 Hopmeadow Street . Ms. Askham seconded the motion based on the Design Review Board’s recommendation and it passed unanimously.

c. Ms. Askham made a motion to approve the application of Ceres-Simsbury, LLC – Owner, Eamon Clohessy, A.I.A. – Agent, for a Site Plan Amendment for additional windows to improve the natural light condition of the third floor on property located at 86 Hopmeadow Street based on the recommendation of the Design Review Board. Mr. Grace seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

Mr. Peck stated that an application has been received for the River Oaks project. Both Ms. Askham and Mr. Grace recused themselves and left the room. Mr. Peck indicated that the official date of receipt is dateYear2007Day18Month6June 18, 2007 and that the Commission has 65 days in which to hear it and the closest meeting date within that timeframe would be dateYear2007Day20Month8August 20, 2007. Mr. Peck added that it was recommended that the hearing date be pushed farther out due to summer vacations. The applicant may be willing to grant an extension of 35 days, which would move the date to dateYear2007Day24Month9September 24, 2007. He is not recommending that extensions be granted past September 24th so as to allow adequate time for additional hearings or the decision making process.

Mr. Peck stated that there are three separate parts to the application: a proposed PDD, a site plan and a zoning map amendment. The applicant wants them to proceed as one unit and he is checking with Special Counsel to see if that is the way that the Town should proceed. Chairman Barney said that the Commission should continue its work on its own PDD. Ms. Popik asked about the status of holding a charette and Mr. Peck responded that there are a number of issues relative to the charette process, including limited funds, the time required to bid and engage a consultant and getting all the commissions to agree. Ms. Popik asked if Victor Dover could be involved and Mr. Peck replied that, under the proposed fee ordinance, various consultants could feasibly be hired to help guide the commissions. Chairman Barney asked when the fee ordinance amendment will be addressed by the Board of Selectmen and Mr. Peck indicated that approvals are still pending from the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency, but it is expected to go to the Board of Selectmen within the next 2-3 weeks.

Chairman Barney referred to a note that was received by the Zoning Commission from John Romano suggesting that the Commission consider a development moratorium in placeCitySimsbury. Mr. Barney stated that he feels moratoriums create a whirlwind of response and reaction that actually makes the situation worse. Mr. Delehanty added that, given that an application has already been filed, there would be some question as to the legality of a moratorium.

Mr. Peck stated that, in his 25 years of planning experience, he has never advised a commission to use a moratorium due to the potential repercussions, such as a flurry of applications which result in an overload and hastily put together applications that result in denials and appeals. He also noted that the law talks about a specified short period of time in which to deal with a specified purpose or deal with some sort of emergency. Further, he felt that it sends a message that the Town is not prepared to deal with such applications, which is not quite correct. He said that the Town has a tremendous amount of resources and abilities in addition to an enlightened public that can deal with these issues as they come up.

Mr. Peck reiterated that a change in the zoning regulations is a high hurdle for an applicant and that a Commission does not have to approve it. Chairman Barney concurred that the Commission does not need to buy time but rather acquiescence from the applicant to act in a reasonable and prudent way.

Mr. Peck indicated that he would like to see the packages that the Commission receives on applicants contain more information and detailed history, specifically in regard to size and the area allowed, signage on the site, etc. and that such information gets to the Commission earlier. He is hoping the additional staff person in July will help realize that goal.

Relative to sign applications, Mr. Peck proposed that they be handled administratively and in the future he bring a series of consent items on the agenda and specific items will be brought forward to the meeting only if the Commission wishes to see tem. The Commission members all agreed with this proposal.