Simsbury, CT - Zoning Commission Minutes

Austin Barney, Chairman, called the Special Meeting of the Zoning Commission to order at timeHour19Minute07:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of Eno Memorial Hall, StreetState754 Hopmeadow Street, StateSimsbury, StateCT. The following members were present: Garrett Delehanty, Jr., Scott Barnett, James Gallagher, Alexis Popick and Alternate Madeline Gilkey. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning; Howard Beach, Zoning Enforcement and Conservation Office; Commission Clerk Debra Sweeney and other interested parties.

Mr. Peck summarized the current status of the revision of the existing Zoning Regulations, noting that it is a work in progress. He stated that the Commission had contracted with HMA at the end of 2004 and that a rough draft was produced in 2005. Further revisions were put on hold until the Plan of Conservation and Development was completed, which may be happening in September 2007. Mr. Peck highlighted key items that revision review should encompass, noting that it would be most helpful for the staff to hear what the Commissioners feel needs to have the most emphasis.

Key items that need review, according to Mr. Peck, are clarification of definitions, reorganization of the sections of the regulations so as to be more user-friendly and logical, inclusion of graphics, clarification of the application process so that the applicant is cognizant of required materials to be submitted and the timing involved, establishment of landscaping regulations for non-residential projects, and clarification of the powers and duties of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He also noted the following areas of revision for the Commission’s consideration, which are more difficult:

· Inclusionary zoning techniques for workforce or affordable housing. Mr. Peck noted that some towns have undertaken this concept and require that, as a part of any residential development, a certain portion be affordable or categorized as workforce housing as a way of providing a measure of affordable housing in order to mitigate some of the impact of larger developments in the long term. He noted that these techniques are controversial and fairly expensive to developers.

· Special Development Districts or Planned Development Districts. These districts have recently been discussed at length in Town. Mr. Peck noted that, rather than discuss any specific re-organization at this time, the Commission might consider first pre-determining where these SDD’s or PDD’s could be located and decide how many would be appropriate and then laying them out on the Zoning Map so as to assist with getting an appropriate regulation at the appropriate time.

· Village Districts. Mr. Peck noted that the Plan of Development recommends that certain areas be considered for Village Districts and suggested that they could be approached in the same fashion and possibly mapped out as areas that might be appropriate for such districts with an actual regulation to follow.

· Form-based zoning concepts. Mr. Peck noted that, given the time and money that has already been invested in revising the Zoning Regulations, it would probably not be desirable to consider revising the entire set of regulations to go to a form-based concept. He stated that some areas of town might be appropriate for form-based regulations, whereas others would not. He added that form-based zoning can also be very time-consuming and staff heavy in order to get it on track

Chairman Barney stated that two items need to be addressed, namely the process of revising and the needed revisions themselves. He asked Mr. Peck about the current budget allocation available for outside assistance. He also though that it would be appropriate to highlight the various suggestions to the Zoning Commission which are contained in the Plan of Development, listing them and then determining which would be appropriate to prioritize. Finally, Chairman Barney stated that input is needed from Town staff and commissions as well as residents.

Mr. Peck agreed that reviewing the Plan of Development would be an appropriate starting point and stated that he would prepare a list of those recommendations that are directed specifically to the Zoning Commission. He stated that funds allocated for review of the zoning regulations will run out at the end of this fiscal year. He also thought that there should be a rough draft for the Commission by January 2008. He indicated that consultants or attorneys could be brought in for advice and the open question is whether or not to re-engage HMA or use another consultant.

Chairman Barney thought that getting a draft in place by January involved a fairly ambitious timeframe and felt that comments and suggestions regarding regulations should be gotten as soon as possible. Mr. Peck stated that it is important for the staff to know what the Commission is thinking and that the Zoning Commission needs to know about the daily challenges faced by staff and emphasized the importance of moving things along.

Chairman Barney asked about the status of the new staff person that is being hired. Mr. Peck stated that a candidate has been recommended for approval and the he hopes to hear something this week and that, hopefully, the new person will start within the next 2-4 weeks.

Chairman Barney stated that the Commission should also encourage the Design Review Board to produce a standard set of guidelines which could feasibly be included as an appendix to the regulations. He also thought that it is important to review the site plan requirements and that GIS would provide the ability to require more details. He noted that the challenge is to achieve a balance so as to represent the desires of the townspeople while at the same time translating the various regulations and legalities.

Ms. Popick asked Mr. Peck if he could provide an estimate of how much time each area might require so that the Commission might have a timeline to keep it on track. Mr. Peck responded that the responsibility and the authority for the regulations are entirely with the Zoning Commission and that the staff is only there to assist them. He stated that staff can provide the Commission with a draft rather quickly, but that the public input process can stretch the process out. Mr. Peck also added that, before he has any discussion with a consultant, the Commission must have a scope completed before they can develop a timeframe.

Chairman Barney reiterated that he would like to invite ideas from the community or their thoughts on certain topics that need to be addressed and that it is not necessary that it be in a public hearing format. He stated that he did not want to go through the entire drafting process only to have it unraveled and that input from the start would be more appropriate and time efficient and would produce a more cohesive set of integrated plans. He anticipated a lot of work and a certain number of workshops. He asked what would be the most expeditious manner for soliciting public input. Mr. Peck thought that, once a scope is determined, he could then publish it and could schedule a public input session which would not necessarily be a public hearing. Ms. Gilkey thought that input from the public should be in writing. Mr. Peck responded that he could certainly ask for that, but noted that some people prefer to speak and have notes taken for them and will not come to public hearings.

Chairman Barney thought that another area for consideration should be technical relationships such as a parking regulations analysis. Mr. Delehanty noted a funeral home in which the number of spaces required by the regulations exceeded the number of needed spaces. Mr. Peck agreed and noted that a current popular concept is “shared parking”, which could also be dovetailed with coverage requirements, storm water requirements and cost of development. Chairman Barney also noted the issue brought forth by the Kaplans relative to event parking and its detrimental effect for center zone merchants.

Chairman Barney asked about the relationship between the center zone charette and the zoning regulations revisions. Mr. Peck thought that they could be fit together and noted that they face the same dilemma in that their funding will also run out at the end of this fiscal year.

Chairman Barney asked Mr. Beach for his areas of concern. Mr. Beach stated that the Commission needs to define coverage, re-examine parking ratios, incorporate new standards such as “green building”, dark skies regulations and low impact development. Chairman Barney noted that these are areas mentioned in the Plan of Development for suggested Zoning Commission review. Mr. Beach added that the Commission needs to look at:

· Setbacks for sheds and the inequities posed to new applicants when faced with a street full of neighbors with pre-1996 nonconforming sheds. (Mr. Beach noted that many towns have different shed setbacks that are based on square footage.)

Chairman Barney observed that many of the regulations are over 30 years old and applied to a different land base and a town with a population around 10,000. He added he did not want to just amend what exists, but rather have an underlying policy. He also wanted to see regulations regarding the maintenance and planting of trees and referred to plans that the Commission had approved only to have trees eliminated overnight.

Chairman Barney asked Mr. Peck to prepare a schedule for a layout of what needs to be done, including workshops as well as suggested ways to solicit ideas. Mr. Peck stated that he would have a schedule for the Commission’s next meeting. Chairman Barney speculated that a number of Special Meetings and Saturday morning workshops might be in order. Mr. Delehanty asked if the regulations could be converted to Word format. He also added that personal businesses in a residence is another area that should be reviewed. Mr. Beach noted that signage and contractor vehicle parking at home need to be clarified. Mr. Gallagher said that he would like to start working with issues faced by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Chairman Barney said that he would like to see lists that incorporate current wording of existing regulations. He concluded that the top priority of this review should be enforcement clarity in order to ensure parity for all users.