Simsbury, CT - Zoning Commission Minutes

Austin Barney, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Auditorium of Eno Memorial Hall. The following members were present: Scott Barnett, Garrett Delehanty, Jr., Bruce Elliott, James Gallagher, John Vaughn and Alternates Madeline Gilkey and Joseph Grace. Also in attendance were Director of Planning Hiram Peck, First Selectman Mary Glassman, Special Counsel Dwight Merriam, Commission Clerk Debra Sweeney and other interested parties.

Chairman Barney indicated that he had invited First Selectman Mary Glassman to discuss a memorandum that she had sent out over the weekend describing a dynamic charette process. Ms. Glassman stated that she has received requests that an effort be made to get all the land use commissions on the same page. In response, she has extended an invitation to the Board of Selectmen, the PersonNameBoard of Finance, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Commission, the Conservation Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Design Review Board and the Economic Development Commission to all meeting on February 20^th at Eno Hall to talk about an economic development process for the Town and how to proactively attract development to Simsbury. Ms. Glassman stated that, if the Plan of Development is to be a dynamic document, then it needs to be implemented.

Ms. Glassman noted that the last study of the Route 10 corridor was done in 1997. An updated study was not scheduled to be done by the Capitol Region of Governments (CROG) until 2010, but the Town of Simsbury was able to move the study up to 2008 at CROG’s January meeting. There is an Economic Development Plan for the Town of Simsbury within the Plan of Development and it identifies three major sites of potential development for the Town: the center, the north end and the south end of Route 10. The charette would address the capacity of the Route 10 corridor and start a dialogue around economic development and produce a long-range plan, as opposed to allowing developments to happen on Route 10 and then looking back at what should have been done. Such a process was also recommended by the Victor Dover consultants when they came to Town to address mixed-use development. Ms. Glassman stated that she is uncertain at this time as to the cost of such an undertaking, but will be looking for federal grants and foundation money to offset the costs as well as identifying consultant dollars that may be budgeted and can be redirected towards this purpose.

Chairman Barney stated that the Commission has an item on this evening’s agenda that involves receipt of a Planned Development District Zoning Regulation as drafted by Hiram Peck and that the charette process, as described by Victor Dover, would also result in site plans and associated regulations for each of those three sites (each of them essentially being a PDD) and asked Ms. Glassman how the Commission should deal with both issues. Ms. Glassman stated that everything in Town is currently zoned the way it is and the Commission does not have to address any change in zoning unless an application is received; therefore, it is not obligated to do a mixed use zone. She thought that the charette process would involve some exciting possibilities to address a mixed use zone. She added that there are 42 other towns statewide that have already done some kind of mixed use development. Chairman Barney asked when she anticipated that there would be a usable product available for use, given the estimated six-month timeframe for the charette process; Ms. Glassman stated that, once the project is given approval to move forward and an RFP is issued, it would depend on how quickly consultants could be engaged.

Mr. Vaughn asked if Ms. Glassman envisioned an oversight committee that would help manage the charette process and to facilitate communications between the various commissions. Ms. Glassman stated that proper implementation of the Plan of Development is an issue that must be addressed. However, ultimately, any approval of any PDD or mixed use plan would fall solely on the Zoning Commission.

Mr. Elliott stated that he fully supports going forward with the process as outlined by Ms. Glassman, but added that there are only two ways to amend the Zoning Regulations in Simsbury, either by initiative of the Zoning Commission or by petition from someone in the citizenry. He thought that the Commission should defer any consideration of an initiative having to do with mixed use zoning or PDD until after substantial completion of the dynamic planning process as outlined in Ms. Glassman’s memo.

Mr. Elliott made a motion that the Zoning Commission ensure the logical sequencing of its work regarding mixed use zoning by deferring undertaking any initiative to create or adopt any amendments to the Zoning Regulations aimed at enabling mixed used zoning through a Planned Development District at least until substantial completion of the Dynamic Planning Process project as outlined by Mrs. Glassman in her letter of February 1^st for the Zoning Commissioners and others.

There was no second to the motion. Chairman Barney stated that the Commission must first hear how the February 20^th meeting goes as, if the idea of a charette is not adopted by the group, he was uncertain how long it would then be responsible for the Commission to further delay discussion of the PDD. Mr. Delehanty stated that he was exceptionally troubled by the concept of a motion that states that the Commission will not consider options, but understood the concept that the commissions should not be working at cross purposes. Chairman Barney also thought that the Commission should also first hear from Mr. Peck regarding the PDD as he has drafted it. Mr. Vaughn stated that he did not think that Mr. Elliott was inferring that the Commission stop considering the issue, but rather that it not take any immediate action until it receives a firm direction on the design and development that could come out of the February 20^th meeting.

Attorney T.J. Donahue, representing Konover Development, expressed his client’s frustration as a private property owner that has withdrawn its application while awaiting the Town’s development of a PDD. Chairman Barney stated that Attorney Donahue was out of order and reminded him that this was not a Public Hearing and reiterated that only questions directed to the First Selectman regarding the February 20^th meeting were being considered at this time.

Ms. Glassman stated that it is unfortunate that the charette process has been delayed and that the Town wants to have a process where developers know what it is that the Town wants to have and does not want to have. She said there is a need to study the Route 10 corridor so as to avoid future circumstances such as the Town currently finds itself. Chairman Barney asked Dwight Merriam, Special Counsel to the Zoning Commission on land use matters, to explain the role of the current draft of the PDD vs. the product of a charette.

Attorney Merriam stated that this potential initiative of intensively reviewing the Route 10 corridor (or charette) is a site-driven and capacity and resource-driven process that would take the Plan of Development to the next level. The purpose would be to create a community consensus concentrating on a rather small geographic area, which would result in a definitive plan which would give the types of uses, the mix, the density, etc. and result in a form-based code, which is a type of zoning regulation that invites development. He stated that there would ultimately be a lot of overlap with what Hiram Peck has already done in developing the PDD and the results of the charette. Attorney Merriam stated that no one can predict what comes out of the charette process and results could feasibly be at odds with certain portions of the Plan of Conservation and Development and would have to be addressed by the Planning Commission. He thought that the charette process would get the Commission to about 80%-90% of where it would go with the PDD process, but a continuing dialogue about both could inform one to the other. Chairman Barney stated that the Commission would proceed with the understanding that it will attend the February 20^th meeting.

Ms. Glassman stated that other towns have done mixed use regulations and that Simsbury is not the first town to consider one. She added that CROG has been contacted to see how soon the Route 10 study can be moved up and that it will be part of the process; there will be no delay to the process due to the corridor study.

Joel Mandell, 7 Harriett Lane, stated that he supported the charette process, but thought that the Zoning Commission did not need to stop its efforts. He asked how the new charette would compare with the one that was done in the past. Ms. Glassman indicated that it would be much more high tech than the 1998 charette.

Marv Negrin, 7 Shaw Drive, asked what determines if the charette process goes forward. Ms. Glassman responded that there would be no vote on February 20^th and that it would depend on funds being available. The cost would have to be identified and the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance would have to appropriate the funds.

Mr. Peck indicated that the Commissioners received a copy of the sign application as part of their package, including a photograph of the existing sign. He stated that the Design Review Board, at their last meeting, reviewed this application and made some modifications to the size and allowed for some smaller signs to be hung off of it advertising products that are available seasonally. The applicant was in agreed to comply with these recommendations and the report from the Zoning Enforcement Officer indicated that the sign application meets the Zoning Regulations. The applicant also agreed to include the street number on the sign frame or bracket for emergency services identification. Mr. Peck recommended that the Commission approve the application. Mr. Barnett confirmed that there would be no lighting. Mr. Delehanty confirmed that the size of the sign would be 4’ wide by 3’ long.

Mr. Barnett made a motion to approve the application of William S. Walsh, Lessee-Town Farm Dairy, J. William Dryden, Agent, for Signage on property located at the Town Farm Dairy, 73 Wolcott Road on the condition that it include the modifications as specified by the Design Review Board. Mr. Elliott seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Mr. Peck noted that this is not a Public Hearing and indicated that the draft is the result of input received at several detailed meetings or hearings. He reiterated that mixed use development is not an untested concept in Connecticut and that at least 42 municipalities have enacted mixed use regulations. He outlined the general commonalities of such zones or districts. They allow a mix of uses that could contain residential, office and retail in a variety of ratios and proportions depending upon the context in which they are proposed. Some are quite specific and intended to mimic the existing development in the Town, while others are less specific and tend to encourage creativity and new types of development that do not yet exist in the area of the specific site.

The mixed use zone as proposed is intended to be flexible so as to accommodate the development context in which it is proposed. This is intentional because a particular pre-designated mix of uses which is appropriate for one area might be inappropriate for another area. An optimal mix of uses will be determined early on in the application process by the process outlined in the regulation.

Regarding past discussions on building size, the present regulations allow heights as follows: residential zones – 35’ maximum; business zones – 40’ maximum with special exceptions up to 58’; and industrial zones I & II – 40’ maximum with special exceptions up to 75’. The height maximum in the draft regulation is down to 45’.

The draft regulation in no way changes the Inland Wetlands Agency’s participation in this process. The authority granted to the Inland Wetlands Agency remains the same as currently under the Connecticut General Statutes. No rights in this particular regulation vest until the final site plan is approved and the underlying site is displaced by the proposed floating zone.

The proposed draft requires studies in all aspects of the proposed development. Based upon those studies, the Town’s staff and the Town’s consultants’ reports, the Zoning Commission will find the changes acceptable or unacceptable and then would approve or deny the application based upon the facts presented to it.

The requirement in the regulation for structured parking minimizes any additional or unnecessary on-grade parking as well as serves to optimize the amount of available parking required for commercial buildings. The constraints of the building coverage that are built into the regulation at the 60% maximum would allow provision for covered parking.

The bonding and phasing requirements that are part of this regulation were discussed by a number of people during the public discussion process. It would provide the Zoning Commission control over the process so as to pro-rate the amount of development in each particular phase so that the development would proceed as approved.

In view of the fact that many Commissioners have not yet had the opportunity to read the draft, Chairman Barney thought that it would be most appropriate to defer further discussion until the Commission’s next meeting in March. Mr. Delehanty noted that the next meeting would also be after the February 20^th meeting regarding the charette process. Mr. Peck stated that a Special Meeting could also be scheduled in the interim if the Commission so wishes.

Mr. Barnet inquired about how the order of progression changed from a workshop resulting in a PDD draft to a PDD draft progressing to workshops. Attorney Merriam indicated that meetings that were held earlier in the year came under question as to whether they were a Freedom of Information Act violation. The issue was researched and no answer was found or case law found. Due to this uncertainty, it was determined that it was not worth risking a potential challenge of the meetings or seeking a declaratory ruling from the FOI Commission, a complex and costly process with uncertain results.