Zoning Commission Minutes 09/19/2016
Subject to Approval
Simsbury Zoning Commission
TOWN OF SIMSBURY
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Monday, September 19, 2016 at 7:00PM
Simsbury Town Hall – Main Meeting Room
933 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, Connecticut
PRESENT: Dave Ryan, Jaqueline Battos, Gerald Post, Kevin Gray, Donna Beinstein, Derek Peterson(7:01PM); and Alternates Michael Doyle and Bruce Elliott.
ABSENT: Alternate Vaughan Marecki.
ALSO PRESENT: Director of Planning and Community Development Jamie Rabbit and Assistant Town Planner Michael Glidden
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Dave Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.
II. ROLL CALL:
1. Appointment of Alternates.
Mr. Elliot was initially seated for Mr. Peterson.
MOTION: Mr. Gray, Mr. Post second, to move Agenda Item #8 Informal Presentation ahead of Agenda Item #7 General Commission Business; unanimously approved.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 25, 2016 Regular Meeting and August 29, 2016 Special Meeting:
The July 25, 2016 Minutes should be amended as follows:
• Line(s) 147/148, the portion of text that reads, “…Mr. Sidoti answered questions from the Commission. He said the in-law apartment can be accessed through the garage and main house…” should have the phrase “…and main house…” stricken; and
• Line(s) 153/154, the portion of text that reads, “…Commissioner Elliott requested town staff to ask the town attorney to review the application since the structure is a replacement, not an expansion…” should read, “…Commissioner Elliott requested town staff to ask the town attorney to review the application since the structure is a replacement, not an expansion and to clarify whether the proposed building is in the backyard or sideyard or both…”
MOTION: Mr. Gray, Mr. Post second, to approve the July 25, 2016 Minutes as amended; unanimously approved.
As there were no corrections to the August 29, 2016 Special Meeting Minutes, these were adopted as presented.
Noting Mr. Peterson’s arrival, Mr. Elliot was relieved as Mr. Peterson resumed his regular member role.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Application #16-31 of Brian Denno, Denno Land Surveying, Agent; Frank J. Sidoti, Jr., Owner; for a Special Exception pursuant to Article Seven, Section 9, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations for an accessory dwelling unit above the proposed garage on the property located at 9 Nod Brook Drive (Assessor’s Map C19, Block 510, Lot 044). Zone R-40. (public hearing opened 07/11/2016; 65-day extension granted; public hearing must be closed by 10/19/2016).
Attorney Chuck Shimkus of Shimkus, Murphy and Rosenberger, PC, accompanied by Brian Denno, L.S. appeared before the Commission along with the applicant, Frank Sidoti and Mr. Sidoti’s mother-in-law, the proposed occupant of the accessory dwelling. Mr. Denno reported to the Commission that since the last meeting, his client has revised the proposed barn, going to a more conventional style that he has deemed would fit the neighborhood better. The new barn’s dimensions will remain 48’x32’, allowing for double parking within the garage. Mr. Denno reported that the proposed height is 27½’, noting that the existing structure is 17’. He noted that the proposed structure will replace the existing structure with a smaller footprint. Mr. Denno indicated that the proposed structure will be taller but less long and less wide than what is there presently, noting the proposed footprint is 1536 square feet while the existing square footage is 1856 square feet. He explained that the building would be served by an on-site well and public sewer.
In response to a question from the previous hearing regarding whether or not the barn is in a side yard or in front of the house, Mr. Denno reported that he has determined that his client’s frontage is on Climax Road as revealed through the Town’s recorded Subdivision Plan, dated June 1965, revised 1966. Mr. Elliot questioned whether frontage is being interpreted being where the nearest public roadway is. Attorney Shimkus noted that frontage is determined by what the approved subdivision map reflects. Mr. Elliot opined that frontage is determined by which roadway the driveway hits.
Attorney Shimkus reminded the Commission that his client is attempting to convert the garage into an accessory dwelling, in order to have his mother-in-law and father-in-law live there. Attorney Shimkus noted that his client has no other intention than this and is even amenable to the Commission conditioning their approval that the accessory dwelling be restricted to family members. Attorney Shimkus noted that a letter has been provided from a traffic engineer indicating that the proposal would have no impact to traffic in the neighborhood. He noted that a letter from an appraiser has been submitted noting that there is no diminishment in value to the surrounding properties as a result of this proposal.
In response to the doubt Mr. Peterson expressed regarding whether the Commission would be able to condition an approval restricting the use of the accessory dwelling to family members, Mr. Rabbit explained that the applicant would need to modify the application, lending clarity to what the Commission would be approving. Regarding whether this type of approval would cease should the applicant sell the home, Mr. Rabbit explained that it would. The Commission noted that they would like an opinion from the legal counsel. Mr. Peterson also noted that he would prefer to have more than dimensions and a picture of an existing barn. Attorney Shimkus explained that the rendering is provided to give a sense of the size and scope of the building. He noted that the drawing should be reviewed as a guide of what his client intends to do. Mr. Rabbit questioned whether the rendering is representative of what would be built or whether it is what would be built. Mr. Sidoti confirmed that the rendering is exactly what would be built and opined that this would be in fitting with the neighborhood.
Ms. Beinstein questioned staff as to whether the Commission can deem this application as a conversion, noting that the Applicant is not keeping the existing garage. Mr. Rabbit noted that he would be inclined to deem this as a replacement and not a conversion. Mr. Rabbit indicated that these questions are appropriate for the Town’s attorney.
Mr. Sidoti noted, for the record, that he will build exactly what has been submitted explaining that he wants to be sure the Commission has everything that they need.
Lenore Lynch of 12 Nod Brook Drive addressed the Commission and opined that this house’s frontage is on Nod Brook Drive. She noted that accessory buildings are supposed to be incidental and subordinate to the main dwelling and opined that the proposal is not incidental nor subordinate.
Bob Duguay of 11 Nod Brook Drive addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. He opined that it would be out of character with the neighborhood.
Mary Beth Pinney of 7 Nod Brook Drive spoke in favor of the application. She noted that the applicant has an easement across her property to access Nod Brook Drive and that the applicant maintains his property and that it is well kept.
Judy Bellenger of 5 Nod Brook Drive spoke in favor of the application, noting that she and her husband are looking forward to the work and are supportive of the proposal.
Lucille Duguay of 11 Nod Brook Drive shared her husband’s opposition to the application, noting that she has a lack of trust that the structure would be built as proposed.
Susan Downes of 13 Nod Brook Drive spoke in opposition of the application, opining that it is out of character with the neighborhood and will set precedent for other large buildings being built.
Bill Barton of 16 Nod Brook Drive spoke in opposition of the application citing his concern to what would happen to this accessory building if the applicant were to sell his home.
MOTION: Ms. Battos, Mr. Peterson second, to close the public hearing; unanimously approved.
V. OLD BUSINESS:
1. Applications.
A. Application #16-31 of Brian Denno, Denno Land Surveying, Agent; Frank J. Sidoti, Jr., Owner; for a Special Exception pursuant to Article Seven, Section 9, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations for an accessory dwelling unit above the proposed garage on the property located at 9 Nod Brook Drive (Assessor’s Map C19, Block 510, Lot 044). Zone R-40. (decision must be rendered within 65 days of closing the public hearing).
Mr. Rabbit indicated that a legal update will be received within the next two weeks. Counsel will have the opportunity to weigh in on the frontage issue as well as provide an opinion regarding conversion versus expansion, according to Mr. Rabbit.
MOTION: Mr. Gray, Ms. Beinstein second, to table Application #16-31 until the October 17, 2016 meeting; unanimously approved.
B. Application #16-35 of Matt Wittmer, Phase Zero Design, Agent; Mitchell Auto Group, Inc., Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for changes to the façades on the buildings located at 384 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map F14, Block 145, Lot 001-2). Zone B-2. (received 07/11/2016; 65-day extension granted; decision must be rendered by 11/18/2016).
Mr. Rabbit reported receipt of request from the applicant’s agent for a continuance pending additional document submittal.
MOTION: Mr. Gray, Mr. Peterson second, to table Application #16-35 until the October 17, 2016 Regular Meeting; unanimously approved.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Receipt of New Applications:
A. Application #16-39 of Robert M. Bourque, Esq., Petitioner, for Text Amendments to the Town of Simsbury Zoning Regulations to: Article 7, Section B, to permit farm vineyards and wineries in all residential zones as permitted uses subject to site plan approval; such facilities would be allowed to hold special events/promotions and sell products at retail. (received 09/14/2016; public hearing must be opened by 11/18/2016).
MOTION: Mr. Gray, Ms. Beinstein second, to set the public hearing for Application #16-39 for the October 17, 2016 Regular Meeting; unanimously approved.
B. Application #16-40 of Robert M. Bourque, Esq., Petitioner, for Text Amendments to the Town of Simsbury Zoning Regulations to: Article 7, Section B, to permit large acreage agricultural farms in all residential zones as permitted uses subject to site plan approval; such farms would be allowed to hold special public and private events, sell products at retail, and operate commercial kitchens. (received 09/14/2016; public hearing must be opened by 11/18/2016).
MOTION: Mr. Gray, Ms. Beinstein second, to set the public hearing for Application #16-40 for the October 17, 2016 Regular Meeting; unanimously approved.
C. Application #16-41 of Ronald Bomengen, PE, LEED AP, Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., Agent; Simsbury Developers, LLC, Owner, for a Site Plan Amendment to change the curbing type from “cast in place” concrete curb to “extruded” concrete curb on the property located at 20 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map E18, Block 117, Lot 001-1B). Zone PAD. (to be received 09/19/2016; decision must be rendered by 11/23/2016).
Ron Bomengen, PE of Fuss & O’Neil appeared before the Commission regarding a site plan modification from his client’s 2015 approval. He noted that this project is in the middle of construction, with the foundations and many of the utilities already in. Mr. Bomengen explained that the applicant has been through the design process, the permitting process, construction document process but that after that, value engineering was done. His client would like to value engineer items that won’t aesthetically deter from the project such as the approved “cast in place” curbing to the proposed “extruded” curbing. Mr. Bomengen provided color photograph examples of the two types of curbing, noting that they are almost identical. He explained the only difference is construction.
Mr. Bomengen indicated that “cast in place” is more time-consuming, more labor intensive, and more expensive. He explained that Mr. Rabbbit had expressed concern about the durability and maintenance of the “extruded” curbing. Mr. Bomengen noted that extruded concrete is easier to repair. He assured the Commission that maintenance staff will be on site twenty-four hours per day so if damage is caused by a snowplow or some other means, it would be fixed right away.
Ms. Beinstein questioned why the engineer had proposed the “cast in place” curbing initially. Mr. Bomengen indicated that it is just typically included in the drawings first time around but is not usually used in projects of this size but instead used on smaller scale projects.
MOTION: Mr. Gray, Mr. Peterson second, to approve Application #16-41; unanimously approved.
D. Application #16-42 of Dave Carpenter, Carpenter Electric/Baystate Energy Solutions, Agent; Simmac Enterprises, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for a lighting retrofit plan on the property located at 22 Albany Turnpike (Assessor’s Map A20, Block 503, Lot 002-B) and Albany Turnpike (Assessor’s Map A20, Block 503, Lot 002C). Zone B-3. (to be received 09/19/2016; decision must be rendered by 11/23/2016).
Noting administrative matters in need of clearing up, Mr. Rabbit indicated that his office has had conversation with the applicant’s representatives and requested that the Commission continue this application.
MOTION: Mr. Peterson, Mr. Gray second, to table Application #16-42 until the October 17, 2016 Regular Meeting; unanimously approved.
E. Application #16-43 of Xi Yang, Agent; E and A/I and G Simsbury Commons, LP, Owner; for a Sign Permit for Khagan Mongolian Grill & Sushi on the property located at 530 Bushy Hill Road (Assessor’s Map B20, Block 508, Lot 001-B). Zone B-3. (to be received 09/19/2016; decision must be rendered by 11/23/2016).
Mr. Rabbit explained that the owners received approval from the Design Review Board earlier this evening. Additionally, he noted that the proposal is consistent with the Town’s design guidelines, meets square footage requirements, and that staff has no issues with the application.
MOTION: Mr. Gray, Mr. Peterson second, to approve Application #16-43; unanimously approved.
VII. INFORMAL PRESENTATION
1. 200 Hopmeadow Street (i.e., the former The Hartford site) – Presentation – Concept Layout
Attorney TJ Donohue appeared before the Commission on behalf of his client, The Silverman Group, owner of 200 Hopmeadow Street, the former site of The Hartford. Accompanying Attorney Donohue were Dan Lacz from The Silverman Group, Paul Vitaliano, PE as well as Rod Sawicki, both of VHB, an engineering company with an office in Wethersfield.
Attorney Donohue noted that his client hopes to be in with a formal application in October, and is presenting the concept layout seeking questions and answers informally.
Mr. Vitaliano then presented a rendering of his client’s layout plan, or Master Plan level type layout of the uses and the road networks. He noted the commercial uses along Route 10, amenities to the development as well as to the community at large. Mr. Vitaliano then noted the 128-bed Assisted Living component to the north side as well as the larger (varying from one 28-unit and four 32-unit) apartment buildings to the east. He noted the location, on the drawing, of the clubhouse. Mr. Vitaliano then referred commissioners to the south and east where the smaller sixty 4-unit and sixty-five 5-unit townhouse buildings are located. Mr. Vitaliano opined that the design represents a progression of uses from the commercial to the higher density to the lower density uses, from west to east. He noted the location of the main entrance, indicating that it is centered on the frontage and described it as a grand, boulevard type access meant to bring a traveler to a focal point of interest: the open space in the middle presenting an open view to the clubhouse and also toward the east where the view is being framed towards the direction of the Tower. Mr. Vitaliano noted that the road network was very important and were outlined in the Code, which lends the walkability aspect and density aspects of the design.
Mr. Vitaliano noted that currently the bike path is shown on the edge of the wetland buffers and explained that the connectivity of that is something that will be explored in the second phase. Attorney Donohue explained that the rail trail is across the street, and that his client is in discussion with bringing the rail trail out the front drive and across Route 10.
Attorney Donohue noted that Gateway, the company that performed the design work for his client, will be providing a report on how the proposal will fit into the developmental standards of the Town’s Form Based Code. In response to an inquiry regarding whether opportunity exists for more retail at the site, Attorney Donohue explained that there are no market studies that say retail would come to the site.
With regards to the south parcel, Attorney Donohue reported that all the buildings are gone and that while there is grading to be done, the plan presented at this meeting is the first part of The Silverman Group’s plan. Mr. Ryan explained that the Form Based Code calls for a Master Plan to cover both north and south. Attorney Donohue explained that the word is “or” rather than “and”, clearly establishing an option to present one without the other which is the option his client is choosing. Mr. Ryan noted that the Town is happy to have a party looking to invest in the community but will have to review how it will fit.
A draft of elevations was then shared by Mr. Vitaliano. He noted that all are three-story units. It was noted that the apartments will be roughly 1000-1100 square feet whereas the townhouses are roughly 1500 square feet. It was noted that all these units are rental units.
How the development will effect the view of the mountain was discussed briefly with Attorney Donohue acknowledging that the development is going to effect the view.
Mr. Rabbit briefly shared some of the Design Review Board’s comments.
VIII. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS:
MOTION: Mr. Peterson, Mr. Gray second, to enter into Executive Session at 8:50PM; unanimously approved.
1. Executive Session.
A. Pending Litigation.
i. Richard E. Schoenhardt v. Town of Simsbury Zoning Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Peterson, Mr. Gray second, to exit Executive Session at 9:21PM; unanimously approved.
2. Discussion of New and Ongoing Projects.
A. Zoning Regulations revisions: General Discussion.
i. Glenn Chalder, Planimetrics.
No business discussed.
3. Adoption of the Proposed 2017 Meeting Schedule
MOTION: Mr. Peterson, Mr. Gray second, to approve the proposed 2017 Meeting Schedule; unanimously approved.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Mr. Peterson, Mr. Gray second, to adjourn at 9:25PM; unanimously approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela A. Colombie
Recording Clerk