Planning Commission Minutes 07/28/2015
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SUBJECT TO VOTE OF APPROVAL
JULY 28, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Ferg Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Simsbury Town Offices, Main Meeting Room, at 933 Hopmeadow Street. The following members were also present: Alan Needham, Richard Cortes, William Rice, and Gary Lungarini. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.
II. SEATING OF ALTERNATES AS NECESSARY
Chairman Jansen seated Commissioner Cortes for Robert Kulakowski and Commissioner Lungarini for Mark Drake.
III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, INCLUDING:
a. Referral to Zoning and Planning in accordance with Article Twelve, Section C.1. for a Use Variance for Zoning Board of Appeals Application #15-04 of James W. Gallagher, Owner, for a variance pursuant to Article Seven, Section I, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to allow for automotive use in an I-1 Zone on the property located at 8 Herman Drive (Assessor's Map I02, Block 439, Lot 012). Zone I-1. (received 07/22/2015; hearing must be opened by 09/25/2015)
Application #15-04 was read into the record.
Town Staff introduced Application #15-04 as the first time the Commission has addressed a use variance and noted regulations require referrals from both the Zoning and Planning Commissions to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) before their Public Hearing for the Application. A Town Staff background memo addressing this Application and relevant legal documents were provided to the Commissioners. Regarding the Planning Commission's purview, Town Staff believed typically the Commission looks at items in keeping with the POCD, but there is no clear requirement/restriction of what the Commission can discuss regarding the entire planning scheme. The Applicant's attorney explained that the variance would apply to the full 3/4 of the lot that resides in Simsbury; a portion of the building is also in East Granby which allows automotive use. The attorney indicated the property would function exclusively as a service facility with no gas, fueling, etc., and all activity would take place inside the building.
The attorney added that the history in Simsbury was that regulations were adopted to prevent something happening that would be inconsistent with the POCD by the ZBA, which is the most powerful land use agency in the community due to its ability to vary lot zoning laws. The attorney indicated the Zoning Commission referral last night saw nothing noxious with the zoning system and ZBA should proceed with their deliberation of the main issue; the main issue is not something for the Planning Commission to decide, rather the Planning Commission review and referral to ZBA relates to whether the Application is contrary to the POCD or inconsistent with subdivision regulations. The attorney believed hardship review was exclusively ZBA's purview.
Regarding whether there would be auto sales, the attorney responded that Laurel Automotive's owner occasionally sells a car as a private citizen which is not visible from the road; onsite there are also service bays with lifts, tanks holding oil, tools, etc. Following receipt of Town Staff's report and recommendation, the attorney indicated the owner was making significant efforts to remove visible "junky" cars without plates. The attorney clarified that if the Application is passed by ZBA the whole building would then be zoned the same in both Simsbury and East Granby, where the use has already been approved. The attorney indicated the special permit approved in 2006 applied to only one business and there is a question regarding its legality; but the whole area is I-1. Town Staff confirmed that ZBA always holds a public hearing for a use variance application. The attorney indicated a billboard was up for 15 days and the neighbors were supportive; the Commissioners believed there were negative comments from neighbors at the 2006 public hearing.
Regarding parts of the POCD that this Application supports, the attorney believed the referral related more to whether the Application is noxious to, or incompatible with, any parts of the POCD; however, it represents economic development and business growth and because there is no refueling or auto sales, the auto repair conducted in the building is an I-1 function, as it would be for other mechanical machines. The Commissioners noted that Zoning Regulations clearly do not allow this auto function in an I-1 Zone; Town Staff indicated Simscroft's shop next to Phonon was rezoned to I-2, but their original location was pre-existing and non-conforming. The Commissioners discussed I-1 not allowing auto sales and goals of the POCD, including its blueprint to promote certain attributes for an area and defend it from other activities. The attorney reviewed the Applicant's unique situation with the building in 2 towns, one providing an I-1 zone and one providing a special permit, which is why they seek an opportunity to present their case to ZBA with positive referrals from the Zoning and Planning Commissions.
Regarding POCD concern with protecting natural resources, including surface and ground water quality and containment of spills, the attorney indicated there is no underground storage, no aquifer, and there is rigid enforcement of State regulations; the facility is licensed by the State. The owner indicated there are no floor drains and waste oil/diesel is reused onsite in their heating system; the development was approved in the 1970's and the back of his building is 10 feet from the next property. Regarding whether once the building received the variance, a subsequent owner could come in and sell cars, the attorney indicated the size/shape of the building limits it and ZBA can provide restrictions. Regarding the addition of another auto repair facility, the owner described other neighboring businesses. The Commissioners were concerned about perpetuating a non-conforming use based on a questionable decision made by the Zoning Commission in 2006; the attorney felt that question should be addressed by ZBA.
The Commissioners discussed the format of the referral and phrasing to use and that this businesses would be "not inconsistent with the POCD"; however, another future business could go in. Town Staff advised that phrase is often used and clarified of the diagrams attached to the Application, Unit C is in Simsbury. The Commissioners discussed comments in Town Staff's memo and noted the Public Hearing is tabled until ZBA's review. The owner explained the auto service activity has been ongoing because the owner believed the 2006 special permit was for the whole building and the activity was allowed and when the auto service business applied for a State license they learned the situation needed to be further remedied. The Commissioners noted the industrial types of activity in the area, that there would be no auto sales or potential for oil in ground water, promotion of economic development, and limited space for expansion. The attorney added the zone would not change with this variance and the Application was filed for the truck bay, similar to the Laurel Auto Application in 2006; the attorney will make sure the specific area of variance is clarified with Town Staff prior to the ZBA hearing.
Commissioner Rice made a motion that the Planning Commission return a positive referral for Application #15-04 considering no deviations from the Plan of Conservation and Development and also to have the Zoning Board of Appeals consider limiting the final agreement to prevent automotive sales and also to ensure proper measures are taken to prevent any ground water contamination..
The Commissioners discussed whether to refer to any sections of the POCD in the motion, and decided the motion stands.
Commissioner Cortes seconded the motion, and it was passed with 4 in favor and 1 opposed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of JULY 14, 2015
Review of the July 14, 2015 minutes was postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting, as only 2 Commissioners from that meeting were present.
The Commissioners expressed appreciation for Town Staff agreeing to prepare a summary of outstanding items for Commission consideration before 8/14/2015.
Town Staff continued with comments regarding the proposed Affordable Housing policy and requested the Commissioners review and email back comments/questions on the following material provided, including: the Affordable Housing Plan from the Aging and Disability Commission with an Affordable Housing in Connecticut attachment; a report from Staff regarding Status of Rental/Multi-family Housing in Simsbury with conclusions on pages 13 and 14; the Town Assessor's list of Town of Simsbury Condominium Inventory; a Federal Reserve report entitled Resetting the Housing Market - Demographic & Economic Drivers to 2020; a report currently being updated entitled Metro Hartford Progress Points: Simsbury Profile and Staff's 2014 comments that went into that report. Town Staff indicated there is a tremendous amount of information and developing a policy that deals with housing affordability, aging and disability, there are many considerations. Town Staff provided a 2013 housing data profile for the Town indicating median age in Simsbury of 42 and discussing different types of housing; looking at the Town from the youngest to the oldest over the next 15 years, what should be done if significant drops in enrollment continue, and also how will more older people living in Town be housed, including thinking about potential development of Meadowood with 42 affordable units required. Town Staff believed the long-term trend is toward smaller living spaces in more dense community centers that are walkable with growth of businesses like Uber and how larger homes in strong communities will be affected over time. Town Staff offered to hold another special meeting before 8/14/2015 to discuss affordable housing, if the Commission would like; an example of South Windsor's policy was also provided. Town Staff confirmed that 10% of housing or 800 units currently should be affordable, but as more housing is built that goal moves further out in actual number of units. Town Staff believed as areas become more desirable for people to move into and as land becomes less expensive, then there will be opportunity for developers to provide affordable housing in large blocks. Town Staff added that for work force housing, 20% are required to be affordable which would allow for gradual integration of a smaller number of affordable units; a work force housing development may be on the Commission's September Agenda. Regarding the work force housing overlay zone Climax Road Application, Town Staff plans to meet with them on 8/4/2015 and will advise the Commission about it; they are looking at whether it works mechanically and whether there is a market. Town Staff noted the HUD Median Income Documentation System at their website determines affordability.
The Commissioners thanked Hiram Peck for his guidance and all the education and projects completed for the Town over the years.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Cortes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Commissioner Lungarini seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.