Zoning Commission Minutes 07/07/2014 ADOPTED

ZONING COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM

MINUTES
JULY 7, 2014

I.  CALL TO ORDER

Commissioner Robert Pomeroy called the regular meeting for the Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, July 7, 2014 in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices located at 933 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, CT. The following members were present: Ed Cosgrove, Kevin Gray, Vaughn Marecki, Derek Peterson and Dave Ryan. Others in attendance included Hiram Peck, Director of Planning and other interested parties.  Mike Doyle joined the meeting at 7:53 PM.

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Commissioner Pomeroy appointed Commissioner Cosgrove for Commissioner Post.

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes from June 16, 2014 Regular Meeting were unanimously approved as submitted.

IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1.  Application of the Simsbury Zoning Commission for proposed revisions to Simsbury Zoning Regulations for the adoption of a Form Based Code, Hartford-Simsbury-Form Based Code (HS-FBC), for 173 acres of property located at 200 Hopmeadow Street (Map F-16, Block 153, Lot 9 and Map F-17, Block 154, Lot 9C). Current Zone: Restricted Industrial (I-1).  (continued from 6/16/14).

Ms. Sharon Lizak of 144 Tariff Road objects to the proposed code for the following reasons: 1) Provides no limit or information as to what percent of land can be developed. 2) The code grants authorization to a town employee and not from our elected commissions and boards. 3) Eliminates public hearings, thus negating the citizen’s involvement. 4) Minimizes role of the Design Review and Planning Commission regarding the number of application types. 5) The exemption from a hearing and from submitting a Master Site Development Plan for new buildings of 25,000 sq. ft. is too broad and there is no limit on the number of buildings of that size. 6) The congestion and traffic on Hopmeadow Street is already a safety hazard. Adding a large development interferes with the residents’ right to a peaceful and safe environment. 7) The code states the plan is for “human scaled” buildings. The term “human scaled” does not limit height of buildings but refers to the grounds, roads, and building facades. 

Ms. Elaine Groundwater of 16 Trainor Drive, Weatogue, read out loud a letter addressed to Commissioner Pomeroy from Mr. Louis George, Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, Simsbury Chamber of Commerce.  The letter states that the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce is in favor of the new code and urges the Commission to close the public hearing on July 7, 2014 and adopt the new code. The letter also states that it is imperative that the Town positions themselves to welcome potential developers in order for Simsbury to remain competitive in this type of market.

Ms. Nancy Haase of 1 Stonehenge Drive urges the closing of the public hearing and for the Commission to pass the regulation. She added that The Hartford and CBRE lose out on marketing the property with each day that passes.  Ms. Haas also said that the code provides a format that offers predictability of what will be developed which is not available in the PAD.

1. Commissioner Gray moved to close the public hearing for Application of Simsbury Zoning Commission for proposed revisions to Article Seven, Section C.9.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marecki and was unanimously approved.

Commissioner Pomeroy suggested amending the agenda in order for the Commission to discuss the Form Based Code.

Commissioner Peterson moved to amend the agenda in order for the Commission to discuss the Application of the Form Based Code. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cosgrove and was unanimously approved.

Commissioner Pomeroy moves to approve the Hartford Form Based code as submitted. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Ryan provided a hand out dated July 7, 2014 that lists the seven issues he has with the Form Based Code, which are as follows:

1) According to at least two surveys of Simsbury residents conducted within the past 10 years, Simsbury’s “rural character “ ranks near the top of the Town’s characteristics that residents value. Why are we considering a proposal to encourage and island of “new urbanism” on The Hartford site?

2) Has the Zoning Commission done its due diligence with respect to the scope of the code and the new procedures? The proposal expands the Town’s Zoning Regulations by 60 pages from approximately 160 pages.

3) It was alleged that the Form Based Code would result in a flood of attractive new development proposals. So far, its effect has been limited to extra cost and long delay for the Red Stone Pub in getting a sign permit. In the end, a text amendment was required in spite of the advertised flexibility. Is Form Based Zoning necessary?

4) The proposed code sites the following as regulatory documents: Simsbury Plan of Conservation and Development, Simsbury DRB’s Guidelines for Community Development, and two New Urbanism Walkable Community documents that the Zoning Commission has not seen. Commissioner Ryan states that these documents shouldn’t be regulatory. The Planning Commission, not staff, is charged by State Statute with assessing proposals’ conformances with the POCD.

5) Connecticut Statures prohibits the Board of Selectmen from interfering in land use decisions, yet the Town Planner reports to the Board of Selectmen. The Town Planner should not be empowered to make land use decisions such as approving site plans and deciding land uses.

6) Subdivisions and streets are the responsibility of the Planning Commission by Connecticut Statute. Zoning Commission regulations cannot abrogate Planning Commission functions.

7) The role of the Design Review Board was limited by the new Town Charter that took effect on Jan 1, 2013.  This proposal doesn’t seem to respect the Town Charter’s re-establishment of the Design Review Board’s role.

In closing, Commissioner Ryan added that if the Zoning Commission should approved the new code, can a three-year “sunset provision be added?

Commissioner Peterson stated that he likes the idea of a “sunset” provision since it will provide flexibility within the next three to five years. At that time, the regulations can be removed if it’s not working. He added that the Commission should also provide the ability for the regulations to be renewed on a regular basis.

Commissioner Marecki also agrees to a “sunset” provision. He recommends a five-year period.

Commissioner Gray said that he has three concerns. According to the code, the north parcel could be developed as 100% residential and he does not think it’s the best use of land since it’s our main commercial street in town. Commissioner Gray added that since it’s an industrial zone now, why would we want to go back to a residential zone? He also added that there are technical typos throughout the document that need to be corrected by staff. His last concern is that the code indicates allowed services listed as gas stations. He is questioning is that our intent to have a gas station on either one of the two pieces of property?

Commissioner Cosgrove doesn’t like the idea of the property transitioning from industrial to residential. He added that according to the plan, it looks like there are going to be a lot of apartments -- apartments may be “hot” today but “cold” tomorrow. 

Commissioner Pomeroy addressed certain issues that were raised by the public. He explained that according to the Form Based Code, public hearings are held for certain applications.  For example, a Type 1 Applicant is basically a new tenant taking over the building. A public hearing is not required for a new tenant.

Mr. Peck added that a Type 2 Applicant can add to up to 25,000 sq. ft. to an existing building. If the building is greater than 25,000 sq. ft., Connecticut law requires approval by the Zoning Commission.  Mr. Peck also clarified that the Planning Administrator / Director can approve the addition of one building to the property.  If the decision is greater than one building, the application has to come before the Zoning Commission for review and approval.    

Mr. Peck addressed the comment made by Commissioner Ryan about speeding up the process. He stated that the Form Based Code is intended to speed up the process and provide some certainty. There are four different graphics included with the plan. These plans are what the Commission would expect a developer to provide with a Master Plan. The reason why a PAD is not appropriate in this case is because a developer could propose any design they wish.

Mr. Peck added that the Form Based Code puts in place a firm frame work yet provides flexibility for the developer.  In regards to the comments made earlier about streetscapes, building heights and sizes, he said that these topic are specified in the code. The Planning Commission reviewed the code thoroughly a provided a positive referral to the Zoning Commission. Also, the Design Review Board’s role does increase under the Form Based Code far more than conventional zoning.

Commissioner Pomeroy asked Robert Decrescenzo, Town Attorney, to provide input regarding the regulations of public hearings according to the Form Based Code.

Mr. Decrescenzo, Town Attorney, stated that the question essentially applies to Type 2 and Type 3 applications since Type 1 does not require a public hearing and Type 4 and special permit applications require a public hearing.  Mr. Decrescenzo stated that that final approval process is at the Site Plan level of review for Type 2 and Type 3 applications. Connecticut Statutes does not require public hearings for site plans. However, court cases have consistently said that the decision and criteria for establishing when public hearings are required for site plans are the function of local regulations.  He added that the Town may amend regulations for public hearings according to the Commission’s discretion.  

Mr. Decrescenzo answered Commissioner Gray’s question about informal sessions.  Mr. Decrescenzo said that the informal session is based on statute 7-157.  The language of the statute allows towns to have informal meetings prior to the submission of the application. He added that according to this Form Based Code, an informal session is required prior to the submission of Type 2, 3 and 4 applications.

Commission Pomeroy wanted to discuss Commissioner Gray’s comment of the north parcel. According to the code, the 40 acres of the north parcel are currently an industrial zone and it’s possible the area could become 100% residential. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested amending the language so that if there is an application submitted that includes changing the north parcel to 100% residential, the application has to be submitted as a Type 4 which requires a public hearing.  

In regards to the “sunset” provisions suggested by Commissioner Ryan, Mr. Decrescenzo recommended including a mandatory review of effectiveness every five years to the code.

1.Commissioner Pomeroy moved to approve the Application of the Simsbury Zoning Commission for proposed revisions to Simsbury Zoning Regulations for the adoption of a Form Based Code, Hartford-Simsbury-Form Based Code (HS-FBC), for 173 acres of property located at 200 Hopmeadow Street (Map F-16, Block 153, Lot 9 and Map F-17, Block 154, Lot 9C). Current Zone: Restricted Industrial (I-1) with the following provisions and amendments:

1. Allow permissive public hearings for any Type 2 or Type 3 applications for uses that are appropriate based on the actual applications.

2. Reword the section that refers to the north side of the property to read “two or more of the following.” The wording should also state that if there is more than one application, it can apply as a Type 4 without prejudice. Refer to 7.0, Section C, page 18 of The Hartford-Simsbury Form-Based Code Draft dated May 12, 2014.

3. Allow the Zoning Commission to call for a public hearing for Type 1 applications if the Commission feels it is appropriate.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marecki.  Commissioners Gray, Marecki and Peterson and Ryan approved the motion and Commissioner Cosgrove opposed. The application is approved.    

Note: Application #14-30 and #14-31 are combined in the second public hearing of the evening.

2. Application #14-30 of Christopher J. Smith, Esq., Applicant: Thomas Evans, Owner petitioning for a Text Amendment regarding changes to Article Ten, Sections G(1) and G(2) of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Simsbury.

3. Application #14-31 of Christopher J. Smith, Esq., Applicant; Thomas Evans, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Zone I-1 to Zone PAD on the property located at 155 Hopmeadow Street (Map F17, Block 201, Lot 002A). Zone I-1.

Mr. Christopher Smith, Land Use Attorney and Partner at Shipman & Goodwin LLP, stated he is representing his client Thomas Evans for the two applications.  First application is for two text amendments; gasoline stations and distance requirements for certain type of uses as well as driveway widths associated with the types of uses.  The second application is for a PAD to provide a redevelopment of the property at 155 Hopmeadow Street.

Mr. Smith stated that the applications include the adaptive reuse of the property currently has an unused building known as the Pool Barn store. Built in 1911, the building was used for tobacco curing warehouse, retail, light manufacturing, auto repair and other service uses over the years. The property is 1.87 acres and located in the Industrial 1 Zone district. 

Mr. Smith added that the PAD application proposes two major components; to preserve and renovate the Pool Barn to include various retail and office space as well as four townhouses with two floors. The townhouses can be designed completely as residential or home / occupational use.  The home / occupational design includes sleeping quarters on the second floor and the residence / occupational use on the first floor. This is in effort to offer diversity in housing needs to address the POCD.  Adjacent to the Pool Barn structure is the proposed Cumberland Farms convenience store and gasoline station. Also, the applicant is providing access to the bike trail, bike racks and public bathrooms.

For the record, Mr. Smith stated that the information presented by Mr. Hesketh can be found in Exhibit B in the packet.

Mr. Guy Hesketh, Chief Engineer at FA Hesketh & Associates, Inc. stated that the drainage around the property will meet DEEP standards. Mr. Hesketh also described the details of the proposed property as follows: 2,400 sq. ft. retail space; 3,320 sq. ft. commercial space; 3,029 sq. ft. retail storage; 3,200 sq. ft. warehouse space; 4,200 sq. ft. convenience store; four (4) gasoline dispensers for eight (8) fueling positions; 72 parking spaces, two (2) driveways, fuel tanks, electric vehicle plug-in stations, bike racks, rest rooms for public access, and tables and umbrellas for pedestrian-friendly sections on the east-side of the building.

Mr. Hesketh added that the radius of driveway requires expansion to safely accommodate the fueling trucks. Also, the site line is a hazard which is why 40 ft. will be removed from the front of the Pool Barn and replaced with a patio and seating area. Mr. Hesketh provided results from a traffic study which indicated that traffic has decreased over the years.

For the record, Mr. Smith stated that there were two negative votes (out of 4) from the Planning Commission concerning the residential designs. Secondly, to address the comment from Commissioner Peterson, the idea isn’t to have a public access point for the public to park their car then take their bike on the trial. Commissioner Peterson described a situation where the public could possibly park their car in the lot and access the trail, therefore occupying parking spaces for tenants and customers.     

For the record, Mr. Smith stated that the information presented by Mr. Cutler can be found in Exhibit 4 and 5 in the packet.

Mr. Dale Cutler, Partner of Kenyon & Cutler Architects stated that his responsibility of this project is the adaptive reuse of the Pool Barn. The existing building is structured with very heavy timbers. The building is well maintained and can support 300 lbs sq. ft.  Mr. Cutler discussed the floor plan of the building including the retail, town houses, patio / seating area, and design of the convenience store.  

For the record, Mr. Smith stated that the information presented by Mr. Sanovasi can be found in Exhibit 7, 8 and 9 in the packet.

Mr. Joseph Santovasi, Cofounder and Principal of Advanced Environmental Interface conducted a Hydrogeologic study in February 2014 to determine how the ground water flows if there was an accidental release of fuel. According to his study, the Hamilton Lane well will and any nearby well will not be risk. The Hamilton Lane well is 140 ft. deep and it draws water from 80 ft. – 100 ft. below grade. Mr. Santovasi stated that the gas station is more than 500 ft. away and down-grade from the Hamilton Lane well.

Mr. Hesketh stated that the Simsbury Wetlands Commission requested the walls of the fuel tanks to be increased. Cumberland Farms agreed to provide triple-walled tanks and piping that will be monitored continuously and inspected annually by a third party.  The tanks are made of fiberglass so rust will not be a concern.

Mr. Thomas Evans, Owner of 155 Hopmeadow Street spoke about the number of gas stations that are located near churches and schools along Hopmeadow Street due to the grandfather clause and there haven’t been any complaints.

Commissioner Pomeroy asked if anyone from the public would like to speak.

Mr. Tim Fitzgerald is a lawyer in Glastonbury representing owners of residential properties located near 155 Hopmeadow. He said that they oppose the gas station proposal because it fails to meet several basic zoning requirements and its Master Development Plan falls short of meeting PAD regulations. Specifically, Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that the required buffer between gas stations and certain sensitive public uses should not be totally eliminated. He added that page 122 of the PAD regulations requires a 10 acre buffer zone. He also stated there is not enough open space to meet the PAD requirements. Mr. Fitzgerald added that the housing component is not beneficial to tenants since there will be a steady flow of traffic.

Todd Picken of 4 Hamilton Lane stated that the Hamilton Lane well was built in 1968 and serves 25 residents in seven homes.  It is possible that there are currently cracks in the ledge of the well. Mr. Picken added that if there is a major spill, the hydrodynamic separators will not contain the fuel. He is also concerned about hydrocarbons – people residing near gas stations have serious health problems. Mr. Picken also thinks the site is not suitable for a gas station due to the wetlands near the property.

Mr. John Carroll of 31 Terry’s Plain Road said if it was possible, he would vote twice against the application. He agrees with the comments made by Tom Fitzgerald. 

Ms. Isabella Danielsen of 2 Hamilton Lane said that people don’t move to Simsbury for this type of environment: tenants exposed to noise, traffic, bright lights, gas fumes and the potential for vandalism. Ms. Daneilsen added that she would not have purchased her home if a gas station was there.

Mr. John Ficaro of 5 Hamilton Lane opposes the application because it lacks the requirements for open space and public amenities.

Mr. Steven Mitchell of 165 Old Farms and Owner of Mitchell Auto Group said that he is on the Board of the Bike Committee and said that Simsbury is rated #1 in Connecticut for bike and pedestrian trails. He is pleased that a developer is considerate of trail users. The Pool Barn has been a dump for a long time. Mr. Mitchell added that he lived 150 ft. from a gas station.

Mr. Noel Christensen of 272 Hopmeadow Street agrees with Mr. Mitchell since he lived next to a gas station. He added that he understands the concern about the well water.

Mr. Scott Goetjen of 3 Basswood Lane provided copies of letters from residents unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Goetjen read out loud the letter from Gedalyah Heremias who lives at 1 Hamilton Lane and walking distance the Synagogue Chabad, directly next door to the proposed Cumberland Farms / gas station. They are opposed to the gas station due to safety concerns when walking along Hopmeadow Street to Chabad on the Sabbath and the safety of their drinking water.  Also, the noise level from the gas station would interfere with the meditation process and study of scriptures while at Chabad.  Mr. Goetjen added that he opposes the application since there are three gas stations within two miles of the site..

Mr. Goetjen also read out loud the second letter from Reverend Kevin Weikel of the First Church Simsbury.  Reverend Weikel states that the gas station and convenience store would compromise worship at the Synagogue. He adds that this is also a threat to all places of worship in that the change would apply to the entire town. Reverend Weikel requests that the proposed changes are reconsidered.

Mr. Mike Downs of 72 Simsbury Manor Drive said that he is very familiar with the traffic patterns since he has lived at his property since 1981.  He is questioning the need for a gas station if the traffic has decreased.  Also, he added that if the price point of the fuel is low, landscaping vehicles will access the gas station with their trailers causing a lot of congestion. In addition, during the winter, the snow piles will block the trail and the majority of parking spaces because there isn’t enough open space on the property. Mr. Downs said he has never had a need to search for fuel in this town because there are enough gas stations.

Mr. Alan Needham of 10 Basswood Lane stated that he is opposed to the application because the property does not enhance the town’s character. According to PAD regulations, he said that the environment should be pedestrian friendly, attractive and a minimum of 10 acres.  He questions if the apartments next to a convenience store can be leased and what would the conditions be like in 20 years.

Mr. John Olson of 109 Hopmeadow Street said that his property boarders the bike trail.  He is concerned about the possibility of contaminated water.  He uses the bike trail frequently and will be aware of the fuel smells. He currently sees the garbage from Dunkin Donuts along the trail and it detracts from the quality of the town.

Mr. Decrescenzo, Town Attorney, reminded the Commissioners that the Planning Commission requires the CROG report to be read into the minutes of the Zoning Commission this evening.

Mr. Peck read the following report from the Capital Regional Council of Government (CROG) for the record:  Comments from the staff of Regional Planning Commission of CROG has reviewed this referral and finds no apparent conflict with the regional plans or with the policies or concerns with neighboring towns.

Commissioner Pomeroy stated for the record the two letters from the public that were unable to attend this evening will be added to the record.  Mr. Goetjen read both letters out loud and are included in the minutes. 

Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the hearing for Applications #14-30 and #14-31 will remain open.

VI. ADJOURNMENT:

Commissioner Ryan made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 P.M.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cosgrove and was unanimously approved.

Respectfully Submitted,

Irene Muench, Commissions Clerk