05/26/2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Subject to Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION-MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, May 26, 2020
The public hearing was web-based on Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/2574297243
Meeting ID: 926-7635-2177
I. CALL TO ORDER - Chairman William Rice called the meeting to order at 7:00pm
1. Pledge of Allegiance
II. ROLL CALL
1. Appointment of Alternatives: There is a full contingent of regular members so no appointment of alternates needed.
Present: Michael Glidden, David Blume, William Rice, Craig MacCormac, Erin Leavitt-Smith, Alan Needham, Holly Beum, Richard Cortes, Julie Eaton
Absent: Sean Glenn-Fernand
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Tuesday, May 12th 2020 regular meetings
2. Mr. Needham headed the discussion of the review and approval of the 5/12/20 minutes. Chairman Rice made a request that on page 1 Line 20 to put in parenthesis (due to scheduling confusion). Richard Cortes asked to review line 38 as the word didn’t has two T’s but should reflect only 1 T. Chairman Rice reported on Page 2 line 68 Mr. Needham’s name should be revised to remove the N at the end of his name. Chairman Rice noted on page 3 line 118 to change the word they to the Planning Commission. Mr. Needham noted that on lines 85 and 86 change WAZ to WHOZ.
Chairman Rice made a motion to accept the minutes from the 5/12/2020 meeting as admended. Ms. Beum seconded the motion. When the motion was voted on, it was discovered that there was not enough people for the motion to be considered or passed due to the three abstentions, Ms. Bleum, Ms. Leavitt-Smith, and Mr. MacCormac. It was explained by Mr. Glidden and Chairman Rice that if the alternates are seated at the next meeting or if someone who is abstaining watches the meeting on Simsbury TV then there can be sufficient votes. The motion did not carry; insufficient number of votes to approve. The commission will add the review and approval of the 5/12/20 minutes to the 6/9/20 meeting.
IV. REFERRALS FROM THE ZONING COMMISSION
1. Application #20-06 of Michael Glidden CFM CZEO Director of Planning for Comprehensive re-write and re-organization of Zoning Regulations
• Chairman Rice reminded this Commission that at the last meeting there was a motion for a negative referral for this application dealing with concerns regarding the Workforce Housing Overlay Zone and its distance from Hopmeadow Street. This Commission also approved the motion to grant the Secretary and Chairman ability to finalizethe wording of the referral. This was completed by Chairman Rice and Mr. Needham on Wednesday 5/13/20. Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden for an update on if the letter was delivered to the Zoning Commission. Mr. Glidden confirmed it was and reported the Zoning Commission wanted some clarification in the findings from this Commission. Mr. Glidden reported the Zoning Commission continued the public hearing to their next scheduled meeting on 6/1/20. Mr. Needham confirmed he had watched some of the Zoning Commissions meeting and requested to know what was unclear in the letter submitted by thisCommission. Ms. Beum asked if there was a copy of the letter on the Dropbox as she didn’t see it. Ms. Leavitt-Smith also noted she didn’t see it in the Dropbox. Mr. Blume asked if Mr. Glidden can be specific about where the Zoning Commission felt there was lack of clarity. Mr. Glidden reported it was the correspondence in its entirety. Mr. Glidden reported the Zoning Commission has asked him to look at the language on the distance requirement for parcels and to clarify the 750 measurement. Chairman Rice shared the letter via screen sharing, which was written by himself and Mr. Needham with thisCommissions approval. Chairman Rice read the letter out loud to the Commission:
“The Simsbury Planning Commission unanimously voted a negative referral for the above captioned application at its regularly scheduled meeting held 5/12/20. The Commission found the wording of the proposed regulation section 8-13G #4 to be vague in that it does not specify whether the 750 feet refers to the edge of the site nearest Hopmeadow Street, farthest from it or some other point. There are no specifics as to placement of the site in, next or behind relative to Hopmeadow Street existing neighborhoods, historic or character places. No distinction is made between the various areas along Hopmeadow Street or whether the site could be on the East or West side of Hopmeadow. No buffers were proposed. There is also concern that only Hopmeadow Street was designated for WHOZ. Hopmeadow Street is the face of Simsbury and therefore should have regulations crafted to protect and enhance it and adjacent areas. Specifically the Commission refers to these sections of the 2017 POCD; page 5 How We Want to Grow, section 8.8 Ensure Appropriate Development of the Different Areas along Hopmeadow Street, section 10.1A Residential Character. The Planning Commission feels a joint meeting with the objective of agreeing on the wording for the WHOZ portion of the proposed regulation prior to the closing of the public hearing for the application could result in the revision of a positive referral.”
• Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked if this was agreed to by the Zoning Commission to which Mr. Needham answered no. Ms. Leavitt-Smith clarified she was asking specifically about the joint meeting. Mr. Glidden reported the Zoning Commission cannot have a joint meeting regarding an application that is subject to a public hearing right now. Mr. Needham reported during the Zoning Commissions meeting he heard someone voice concern that this Commission is trying to re-write the regulation which is not the intent. Mr. Needham explained the intent was to see a change in the language used by the Zoning Commission in hopes to pass the application. Chairman Rice reported this Commission is trying to protect the image of Hopmeadow Street. Ms. Beum reported feeling as the letter submitted was clear. Mr. Needham asked Mr. Glidden, what structures are reflected in the revisions of the regulations as to where Workforce Housing can be placed along Hopmeadow Street. Mr. Needham gave the example that they would have to use public utilities meaning there are places along Route 10 that you couldn’t do this because of that restriction. Mr. Glidden agreed and stated or places that are within the 750 feet of Route 10 that are not served by public water or public sewer. Mr. Needham explained that the East side of Hopmeadow is very different from the West side not just in terms of public utilities but in terms of the housing.Mr. Needham further explained that the application doesn’t protect neighborhoods, neighborhood integrity, the town center. Mr. Blume reported he finds the letter to be clear and he is unsure of what clarification the Zoning Commission is looking for to make it clearer and asked is it truly a lack of clarity or is it more of an issue of pride that the Zoning Commission didn’t find the wording appropriate. Mr. Needham asked if thisCommissionshould come up with additional sentences to make this clearer for the Zoning Commission. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated it is not clear to her what the Zoning Commission wants from this Commission. She further asked if the Zoning Commission is looking for further explanation and if so what are looking for so they can be given specifically what they are looking for. Mr. Glidden reported this Commission can decide the letter stands as is or thisCommission can do as Mr. Needham recommended in regards to adding a sentence or two.Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked if this Commission should take the current letter, updated it and resend it. Mr. Glidden provided feedback on what could be added or modified in the letter if this Commission desired. Mr. Glidden reported the main issue and limitations will be public utilities, wetlands and flood plains as in order to get the density bonuses wetlands and floodplains are taken out; it doesn’t prohibit it, just limits it. Chairman Rice took out the sentence about having the joint meeting. Ms. Beum stated the two points brought up in this document are first seeking clarification on how the 750 feet will be measured and how then does the regulations protect neighborhood integrity or neighborhood character. Mr. Blume reported feeling that the most concrete point is the 750 feet and stated that in the thirdparagraphwhere it refers to the 750 feet this Commission can possible incorporate different language to be more specific about the 750 feet. Chairman Rice asked Mr. Needham what does he find so concerning about the 750 feet. Mr. Needham reported the language is unclear as there is no clarification to where the 750 feet starts and where it finishes. Mr. Blume suggested this Commission return the letter with slight modification and can suggest wording that would protect existing neighborhood character. Mr. Needham stated another way to say it is, what language is in it that speaks to preserving neighborhood character. Mr. Blume reported support for adding language as suggested by himself and Mr. Needham. He further stated this Commission was not specific as this Commission was not trying to write the regulation for the Zoning Commission. Mr. Needham recommended this Commission send an addendum instead of rewriting the letter. Chairman Rice stated the existing regulations don’t have any restrictions on where in town a WHOZ can be landed. Mr. Needham stated he goes back to his first point on why pin this to Hopmeadow street and not another street or neighborhood. Mr. Needham would like language that restricts where it can be put on Route 10 as every other part of town doesn’t have to worry about it; Mr.Needham expressed there is nothing to keep it from going in the town center and stated the location to historic buildings has to be considered. Ms. Leavitt-Smith reported this sounds to her like this Commission is trying to write the regulation and doesn’t feel this Commission should be putting in what thisCommissionthinks the language should be in the regulation. Chairman Rice reported he is happy with the way it was submitted the first time and if the Zoning Commission choices not to take it into consideration that is their choice. Mr. Needham asked Mr. Glidden if he can informally pass along the idea that the Zoning Commission consider sensitivity to neighborhood preservation and put some language in to the regulation about the POCD. Ms. Leavitt-Smith and Ms. Beum feel the language in the document is very clear and there are specific examples already listed in the letter that was submitted to the Zoning Commission. Chairman Rice is not inclined to change the letter and stated Mr. Glidden can provide explanation to the Zoning Commission that the request from this Commission is to consider the preservation of neighborhoods. Mr. Needham stated there is restrictions in the 2017 POCD about Route 10 and this doesn’t mention them. Mr. Blume reported being happy with the letter as stands. Mr. MacCormac feels the document should stand as is also. This Commission agreed there is no need to revise and resubmit. Mr. Glidden will provide feedback to the Zoning Commission. Ms. Leavitt-Smith reported the Simsbury community has provided feedback and complained about things that have gone into town that was approved in areas people don’t agree with. Ms. Beum agreed. Chairman Rice decided the document will not be changed. Mr. Glidden will provide a verbal report to the Zoning Commission.
• Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden about the open space referral mentioned last meeting. Mr. Glidden reported it will be on the 6/9/20 agenda along with a preliminary discussion about a new application. Chairman Rice asked for any correspondence. Mr. Glidden reported new flood maps were not sent out however, they should be sent out within the next week or so. Mr. Needham asked if the Dropbox is ever cleaned out and Mr. Glidden reported it is cleaned out randomly. Mr. Needham recommended it be cleaned out and Mr. Glidden agreed. Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked if the plan is to do the meetings virtually through the summer. Mr. Glidden reported at this time it is until further notice from he Governor. Mr. Glidden reported they will have to wait for a new executive order from the Governor. Ms. Leavitt-Smith mentioned that there is no meeting in August of 2020. Chairman Rice reminded Ms. Leavitt-Smith that last year this Commission agreed on one August meeting which will be held on 8/25/20.
V. ADJOURNMENT: Ms. Leavitt-Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Blume seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 7:48pm.
MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions. (6-0-0)
Respectfully Submitted,
Amanda Werboff
Commission Clerk