09/21/2020 Zoning Commission Minutes

Subject to Approval

ZONING COMMISSION-MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY, September 21st, 2020
The public hearing was web-based on Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/2574297243
Meeting ID: 257 429 7243

I. CALL TO ORDER - Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

1. Appointment of Alternatives: Diana Madigan promoted to full voting member.

Present: David Ryan, Bruce Elliot, Anne Erickson, Donna Beinstein, Diana Madigan

Anne Erickson joined the meeting late, thus reflected in the change of voting members from 4 to 5 starting at the public hearing.

Absent: Kevin Gray, Michael Doyle, Melissa Osborne and Shannon Leary Knall

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the MONDAY July 20th, 2020 regular meetings

• Chairman Ryan lead the review of the minutes from the July 20th, 2020 meeting. Ms. Madigan noted line 53 should reflect the word Curaleaf. Chairman Ryan agreed. He then noted thaton line 65 the word replacing should be changed to the word replaced. On line 72 chairman Ryan expressed that the sentence didn’t make sense and thinks it mean to say, write up his views. Chairman Ryan stated that line 73 should reflect that he said the regulations are only allowing multifamily residential. Chairman Ryan stated line 76 should say Simsbury has the capability to gain population. Chairman Ryan asked to change the word is, to the word if on line 81. He further stated that on line 89 the word, new, should come before the words urbanist model. Chairman Ryan asked that line 101 have the word who added before reflect recent court decisions. No other Commission members had corrections.

• Mr. Elliot made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Madigan seconded the motion.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions (4-0-0).

III. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Application #20-07: of Richard Correira, Applicant; Grist Mill Partners, LLC; for a Special Exception pursuant to Article 7 Section J of Zoning Regulations to allow recreation uses for the premises located at 100 Grist Mill Road (G11-103-005-25), Zone 1-2

• Mr. Correira presented the application to the Commission. He stated they are in front of the Commission a couple of months ago for the dance studio to go into Mill Pond. He stated after that meeting, he found that the cost to put her there would be prohibitive to her to continue on. He stated they have more room at at 100 Grist Mill for the dance floors and she would get more space for the same amount of money than at Mill Pond. He explained the tenant was at a Simsmore Square for many years but that building burned downs she moved to the North Village of Simsbury to the south storage facility, but she was unable to renew her lease because the owners were expanding their business. He stated she would like to stay in Simsbury. He stated they had took her everywhere to look for a deal that would work for her economically and that would keep her in Simsbury. Mr. Correira explained Mill Pond became cost prohibited so after talking with town staff they felt that moving her to 100 Grist Mill made more sense. Chairman Ryan asked the Commission for any comments. Mr. Elliot asked Mr. Correira for clarification on if the tenant was previously approved at Mill Pond, which Mr. Correira agreed. Mr. Elliot then clarified that Mr. Correira’s intention is now for the tenant to be placed at the Grist Mill and Mr. Correria agreed. Mr. Elliot asked about if the tenant would be utilizing the same amount of space in the new location. Mr. Correira stated it would be the same amount of space, it's about $50-60,000 less expensive.Ms. Madigan asked where the two locations are in proximity to each other. Mr. Correira explained they are abutting properties. Mr. Glidden stated that was Curaleaf’s original location which now has been vacant for about a year and a half. Mr. Elliot asked if there will be a change to the outside of the area and if there is adequate parking. Mr. Correira agreed there wasn’t. Mr. Correira confirmed there is also adequate parking, more than 150 spaces. The Commission had no further questions. Mr. Glidden stated there was no public comments on this application.

• Ms. Beinstein made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Elliot seconded the motion.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions. (5-0-0)

IV. OLD BUSINESS

1. Applications
A. Chairman Ryan explained that application #20-07 should have been under old business as this was a continued application from a previous meeting.

• Ms. Madigan made a motion to approve the amended agenda. Ms. Erickson seconded the motion.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions (5-0-0)

• Chairman Ryan basked Mr. Glidden for any comments from the town staff. Mr. Glidden stated this is the same application from the Mill Pond application where the Commission reviewed this for that application; there is sufficient parking, all the improvements are interior to the building so staff support granting the special exception. Chairman Ryan asked for the list of special exception considerations; there’s a need, orderly development won’t hinder the neighborhood, property value will not depreciate and harmonize the existing character to the neighborhood, public safety, traffic considerations, landscape buffers and relation to utility systems. Mr. Glidden stated all these standards are met and there is no negative impact to the surrounding area. All commission members agreed.

• Ms. Madigan made a motion to approve application #20-07. Ms. Erickson seconded the motion.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions (5-0-0)

V. NEW BUSINESS

1. Applications
A. Application #20-09: of Mark & Like Scully / Solectran LLC for a Site Plan Approval to install solar carports at the property located at 690 Hopmeadow Street (G11 132 053), Zone SCZ
• Mr. Glidden informed the Commission that this application was discussed earlier by the Design Review Board, who requested more information from the applicant, which the applicant will be brining to the next Design Review Board meeting on 10/5/20. Mr. Glidden stated there is no action needed by this Commission tonight. Chairman Ryan stated in looking at the drawing is there a setback between EB and this property. Mr. Glidden stated the applicant actually applied for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and secured that to put a carport the rear panels within the require setback between EB and 690 Hopmeadow Street. Chairman Ryan stated this looks like something that isn’t visible from the street. Mr. Glidden confirmed the carports will be visible from the street which was a concern for the Design Review Board on what it will actually look like from the road. He further explained that the Design Review Board asked the applicant for specifics on the column, how they will be painted and how they will present from Drake Hill Road. Mr. Glidden stated this will be presented to the Design Review Board at the 10/5/20 meeting. He explained to the Commission that part of the problem was this applicant had some prints that were of a different design, ones that looked very industrial in nature, which isn’t the unit they plan on installing. Mr. Glidden reported the applicant has a more palatable design and stated the applicant needed to revise the supporting documentation. Mr. Glidden recommended to the Commission that this application be tabled. Mr. Elliot stated the material that was submitted clearly stated you can’t see the carports from Hopmeadow street, so he reported concerned that is misinformation from what Mr. Glidden has shared with the Commission. Mr. Glidden confirmed you can see a portion of it from Drake Hill Road; only portions though not the entire carport. He further stated this is why the Design Review Board wanted more information.

• Ms. Madigan made a motion to table application 20-09 to the next meeting. Ms. Erickson seconded the motion.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions (5-0-0)

VI. REGULATIONS UPDATE WORKSHOP

• Chairman Ryan explained that they in consideration of the sign regulations and trying to get the regulations in conformance with the recent court decisions and also to consider the things that need to be changed due to today's environment. Chairman Ryan asked for Mr. Glidden to go over the memo that he provided. Mr. Glidden stated he has a sample regulation also that was uploaded. Mr. Glidden explained the memo to the Commission discusses the two court cases that are impacting the sign regulations; Unites States Supreme Court Case Reed v. Town of Gilbert which says the regulations cannot create classes by the user, and the State of Connecticut Supreme Court Case Arisianv. the City of Milford that says sign regulations in CT can only regulate signs that are advertising. Mr. Glidden stated in his memo he went over items that are violating the United States Supreme Court case and items that violate the Connecticut Supreme Court case. Mr. Glidden discussed temporary signs for temporary outdoor charitable, civic and non-profit technically, under the Connecticut Supreme Court Case that would violate that decision. He stated the Commission has the 8 page memo he provided which goes over the existing regulations and stated he also provided the IMLA model sign code from Bob Decrescenzo, developed by a group of attorneys for Reed v. Town of Gilbert regulations. He explained the Commission has a draft of the structure of a regulation of what sign regulations would look like to conform to the two court cases. Mr. Glidden shared his screen with the Commission. He clarified these are town regulations and not center zone regulations. He stated he did not change the purpose section of the regulations and took that straight from the current regulations. He stated he did add that permanent and temporary signs must conform to design standards.

• Mr. Glidden read the second section titled Residential Zones; permanent signs are permitted in all residential zoning districts subject to the following approvals; 1 sign up to 6 square feet in size no permit necessary, 1 sign greater the 7 square feet not to exceed 12 square feet in size require zoning permit, 1 sign greater than 13 not to exceed 32 square feet in size would require a special exception. Mr. Glidden stated the approval process can always be changed but this would meet Reed v. Town of Gilbert.

• Non-residential sign regulations by zone; the total area of free standing, wall mounted, and canopy signage shall be one square feet for every one foot of building frontage along a public right of way. Free standing signs are only permitted 1 per property with the total area not to exceed 32 square feet 10 feet in height and 12 feet in length. Landscaping along base of sign to be provided 4 feet around base of sign and require site plan approval. Wall mounted/canopy signs are not to exceed 2/3 of the building’s frontage along a public right of way and require site plan approval. Mr. Glidden stated he did not change these regulations at all from the original regulations but stated he just consolidated it. Sign plans are subject to sit plan approval by the Commission.

• Sign plan requirements; Mr. Glidden reported these came directly from the existing regulations, just consolidated.

• Temporary signs; temporary signs is now broken down into residential districts and non-residential zoning districts. Mr. Glidden explained to the Commission that this can change and explain the isn’t looking for anything from the Commission tonight but asked them to look over it for the next meeting. He explained that this gets into how to handle the temporary sings by square footage, by size not by user. Examples of temporary signs as provided by Mr. Glidden are political signs, real estate signs, freedom of speech signs, election signs. A sign not to exceed 6 square feet is allowed no permit necessary, a sign between 7 and 12 feet sign is to be removed after 90 days would require a zoning permit, a sign that is greater than 13 square feet not to exceed 32 square feet is to be removed after 90 days would require a special exception. Chairman Ryan asked Mr. Glidden if there is a limit on the amount of signs a yard can have. Mr. Glidden stated that is a good question for the Commission; do they want to regulate how many signs are on a property or do you want to allow someone to have multiple signs. Ms. Beinstein asked if the signs can add up to 6 square feet. Mr. Glidden stated yes but also recommended that the Commission could limit the amount of square feet that can be used in a yard. Ms. Beinstein also asked if there was a definition for the word temporary. Mr. Glidden stated the model code had some language around defining temporary signage and that was the question for the Commission; what would the Commission consider a temporary amount of time. He reported he put 90 days on this memo however, stated the current regulations say 60 days. Chairman Ryan noted that has seemed to work. Ms. Madigan asked the Commission in regards to contractors, how long do they think contractors would need to do the work while having the sign on the property. Mr. Glidden stated if the sign doesn’t exceed 6 square feet, they wouldn’t need a permit so it wouldn’t matter. He suggested to the Commission that the duration of time for the temporary signs doesn’t apply until you get to the larger signs on the property. Chairman Ryan asked to move on. Mr. Glidden apologized to the Commission as he realized he didn’t have the non-residential zoning district so he explained it verbally; the temporary signs in the non-residential zoning districts will be the same types of regulations based upon the size. He gave the example that someone can put a sign that doesn’t exceed 6 square feet for 60 days. He stated it would be okay or they could require a zoning permit for it. Mr. Glidden stated the next thing would be the size of signs past 6 square feet. He stated he can use similar numbers used right now; 7 to 12 feet would be banners. He asked if the Commission would want to regulate the banners that go up at a business. He stated it would be the same setup as was discussed with residential zoning districts. Mr. Elliot asked Mr. Glidden when he has stated 90 days is it 90 consecutive days or 90 days per calendar year. Mr. Glidden stated that is a good point and the Commission can discuss that. He asked the Commission if they would want it 90 days per calendar year or 90 consecutive days. Mr. Elliot asked what the model says. Mr. Glidden stated there is attitude on how you want to define it. Mr. Glidden reported he is going to sit down with Bob DeCrescenzo about this after. He stated should the Commission want to move in this direction Bob DeCrescenzo wants to take a look at the new sign regulations and conforming to the two court cases. Mr. Elliot asked what are the alternatives if the Commission says they are not comfortable with this. Mr. Glidden explained they will have a code they can get challenged on, which could be problematic. Chairman Ryan asked about directional signs. Mr. Glidden stated Reed V. Town of Gilbert is clearly about directional signs. He stated the model regulation has a comment about traffic signs that they could use however, it treads close to violating Reed V. Town of Gilbert. Mr. Glidden reported he will pose that question to Bob Decrescenzo; how can we put something that deals with temporary directional signs that correlate with events.

• Sign prohibitions;
A. Movable or portable signs, including those which may be attached to vehicle when such vehicle is not an integral part of the operation of the business which the sign adversities.
B. Signs which allow light to project through the face of the sign or where the lights themselves make up the lettering or symbols. Also, signs which have flashing, rotating, or other forms of intermittent lighting are prohibited.
C. Signs which rotate or are otherwise designed to move.
D. No sign shall be erected or placed in a public right of way.
E. No sign shall be erected or placed on public unless written permission is provided by the Town Manager or his/her designee.

• Mr. Glidden explained that there has been an issue with non-permitted signs popping up on town property. He stated they would like town events to continue on Town Property with permission of course however, he stated things that are not approved they will now have a regulation to say no.

• Chairman Ryan noted that Bob Decrescenzo wants them to make a regulation about not putting signs on a public right away. He explained that he doesn’t feel like they have control or will be able to enforce that as the state will pick up and throw the signs away anyways. Mr. Elliot agreed stating that includes political signs. Chairman Ryan also noted there is about 1500 new voters from 2016 to today so he is thinking there is a lot of new people unfamiliar with the town along with lots of businesses getting hammered with the COVID restrictions. He asked if there is an easier way for residents to find properties such as ATMs, restaurants, etc. Mr. Elliot expressed being sympathetic but isn’t sure what can be done as he doesn’t know much about signage but is in agreement for some assistance. Chairman Ryan explained that restaurants should be allowed some signage to attract residents. Ms. Beinstein stated they cannot just allow restaurants that privilege, and the other Commission members agreed stating it would then be a lot of business who want these signs. Ms. Beinstein stated there is also past regulations that limits the colors of signs. Mr. Glidden reported that these current court cases do not allow them to regulate based upon content. Mr. Glidden further reported he can ask Bob Descrescenzo for further clarification on content color previsions; a sign that doesn’t receive approval from the Zoning Commission that the Zoning Officer signs off on. Mr. Elliot stated they have to give consideration to the notion of what is enforceable and ensuring they make regulations that can be enforced. Chairman Ryan asked Mr. Glidden about sign plans on properties. Mr. Glidden stated the non-residential zoning districts would still require a sign plan. Mr. Elliot stated the problem is all properties don’t have them. Mr. Glidden agreed stating many have been found to not have them. Mr. Elliot stated they accommodate things that technically are not permitted but they try to be accommodating. He stated the business’ don’t want additional financial burdens especially given today’s climate. Chairman Ryan asked for direction from Mr. Glidden for the Commission. Mr. Glidden chimed in stating he would recommend the Commission review the documents over the next two weeks and they can discuss it at the next meeting. He also confirmed he will add the non-residential signage information to the document. Chairman Ryan asked Mr. Glidden if some of the information the design guidelines document from the Design Review Board will be wiped out due to the recognition of the court decisions. Mr. Glidden stated for the purpose of the Design Review Board because they are advisory, they may pass the test and but stated he wants to have further conversation with Bob Descrescenzo about it first. Chairman Ryan asked if they could do things such as put up signs that were temporary or just in the evenings. Mr. Glidden stated provided it was in compliance with the zoning district where the property is located then, yes. He further explained you can carve another layer to temporary signs. Mr. Glidden went on to say that anything they do for sign regulations has to be tied to a zoning district. Chairman Ryan noted he was thinking along Hopmeadow Street and West Street where there is commercial properties however, they have a lot of different zones. He stated they can possibly use Hopmeadow street for an example. Mr. Glidden explained that the Commission could say, non-residential zoning district along Hopmeadow street and West street, and then they come up with something for temporary signs which would meet the requirement for a zoning district with a temporary location. Chairman Ryan stated he is just thinking about things that would make business’ more identifiable. Mr. Elliot stated they could also consider a directory on the town website as a better approach. Ms. Erickson noted putting it on the town website makes more sense as most young people use their smart phones or watches. She stated she doesn’t feel the signage has as much importance as it may have had a few years ago. Chairman Ryan asked the Commission to review the documents, think about the implications and come back to the next meeting for a concrete discussion.

• Mr. Glidden discussed the correspondence received about the affordable housing regulations from Mr. Collins. Mr. Glidden stated he received the letter today, but it wasn’t related to the agenda items. Mr. Glidden told the Commission where to find the letter in the dropbox. Ms. Madigan confirmed this was posted on the Facebook group and there was a lot of discussion on it. Mr. Elliot asked Mr. Glidden if all letters received are put in the dropbox. Mr. Glidden stated he will try to remind the Commission members that there is correspondence in the dropbox. Ms. Erickson noted she didn’t get the link for the dropbox. Mr. Glidden will send her the link. Ms. Beinstein stated she has read the letter and has had people come up to her looking for a resolution to affordable housing in the town as well. Mr. Glidden informed the Commission that the Planning Commission is developing an affordable housing plan for the town which will be coming to the Zoning Commission once the plan is developed. Ms. Beinstein asked about the possibility of having the town residents included in this planning. Mr. Glidden stated the Planning Commission is planning on having a town forum for the public regarding the document. Mr. Elliot reminded the Commission that the statute calls for the Planning Commission to develop the plan. Ms. Beinstein stated the town residents are just interested in who they need to talk too and in what kind of setting. Mr. Elliot stated the Commission should direct them to the Planning Commission. Chairman Ryan noted that the problem is that the Zoning Commission has certain responsibilities based upon the state statutes and some of the idea's residents have to fix affordable housing are in conflict with the state statutes which are state issues. He stated the problem is if you don’t adhere to certain parts of the statute you don’t get credit for it, so the Commission is very restricted on what can be done, and many residents want the Zoning Commission to do things they cannot do. Mr. Elliot also recommended that residents come to the Zoning Commission meetings to gain clarity and understanding. Chairman Ryan also recommended that residents go to the Planning Commission meetings.

• Rules of procedure: Mr. Elliot asked about the issue regarding the rules of procedure. Mr. Elliot stated he read it and he can see that one obvious change is to retitle the secretary to vice chairman and the vice chairman is the substitute when the chairman cannot be at a meeting. He stated there is a provision that the chairman will name someone to chair the meeting temporary if the vice chairman isn’t available. Mr. Elliot further stated all of that is fine with him. He reported the change in the language relative to the reliance on Robert’s Rules of Order, the current rules of procedure overstatethe reliance to be limited to guidance. Robert’s Rules of Order is guidance for the Commission as a non-binding procedural guide. He stated is seems Chairman Ryan has changed that significantly and he wonders what the reasoning is. Mr. Elliot stated he is reducing the flexibility of the chairman of the Commission. He stated if the way it is stated now becomes regular practice, it will place a premium on knowledge of Robert’s Rules that hasn’t been a factor in the past. Chairman Ryan stated Robert’s rules is usually accepted as the way to conduct meetings and he hasn’t seen any reason to waffle on it. Mr. Elliot stated if you ask Bob Descrescenzo it is not suggested unless it is required by statute that you limit yourself to compliance with Robert’s Rules. Chairman Ryan noted that may lead to a lawsuit that they don’t really want so he requested that Mr. Glidden ask Bob Descrescenzo about this. He stated generally they adhere to Robert’s rules.

VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Elliot made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Bernstein seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:12pm.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions. (5-0-0)

Respectfully Submitted,

Amanda Werboff
Commission Clerk