 |
These minutes are for informational purposes only. For official minutes, please contact the Town Clerk's Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 12, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Joan Howard, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Simsbury Planning Commission to order at 7:34pm in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: David Ryan, Susan Bednarcyk, Ernest Gardow, Carol Cole, Ferg Jansen, Pamela Katz and John Loomis. Also present were William Voelker, Director of Community Planning and Development, and Leonard Tolisano, Senior Planner. As the meeting opened, Chairman Howard requested that a current listing of all Commission members’ e-mail addresses be included in the packet of information for the next meeting.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
As there were no votes scheduled on the agenda, no alternates were necessary.
DISCUSSION OF PLANNING FOR 1994 PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Leonard Tolisano, Senior Planner, was in attendance to provide a historical overview of Simsbury’s past Plans of Development, specifically the 1994 Plan of Development, and the town’s previous approach to planning in general. Prior to World War II, there were no formalized plans of development, but at times, studies were done and consultants from Yale were even brought in for this purpose. The first formal plan was done in the 50’s; the most recent plans are the 1984 and 1994 Plans of Development done by the Planning Commission. The plan done in the 50’s was likely generated out of the Planning Commission’s concern about post-WWII growth and the shift away from a pre-WWII agricultural community. The first Commission in Simsbury was a Zoning Commission in the 30’s, headed from 1930-36 by Chairman Thomas H. Desmond, a landscape architect.
The 1994 Plan of Development, like the ’84 plan, was designed to comply with state statutes and was comprised of three key elements. The first element is the Land Use Map. This is a major policy document which is designed theoretically to last ten years since it is dealing with issues/projects which take years to accomplish. Mr. Tolisano suggested that in creating the new Plan of Development, the policy framework will be more critical than the land use portion, since approximately 75% of the town will remain as it is, either existing residential (coded yellow on the Land Use Map) or existing open space (coded green on the map). Two significant aspects of the map are the “bones”, which are the main arteries like Hopmeadow Street and Rt. 309/West St., and the “gateways”,
which are the points of entry into the town, often encompassing the intersections where the main routes hit. Rt. 185 over the mountain, Rts. 10/202 into Avon, and the Rts. 44 and 167 intersection are examples of these gateways. Mr. Tolisano emphasized the importance of the gateways to the town’s development pattern since people often get their impression of Simsbury from these areas.
The second element is the Technical Document. This document addresses the goals and policies broken down by subject areas such as transportation, economic development, historical preservation and open space. This document has a great deal of data; however, it takes an intensive work effort to compile this, and the information is very time-sensitive, becoming outdated quickly. The third element is the Plan of Development Implementation Guide. This is a management tool in which the goals, policies and objectives are broken down to easily track
Planning Commission Minutes
February 12, 2002
Page 2
responsibility for implementation. This document has proven useful for the Planning Commission in monitoring the process to achieve the goals and policies. Mr. Tolisano suggested reviewing this document early on to update the information and eliminate areas no longer applicable, or add new areas as necessary. Mr. Tolisano stated that from 1984 to 1994, many things were achieved yet a number of items were not. By 1994, some of the things that were very important in 1984 were no longer relevant, which is why an initial review of the goals, policies and objectives is so useful. Chairman Howard agreed that will probably be the Commission’s next step. In response to Commissioner Loomis’ question, Mr. Tolisano stated that he was on the staff in 1984 as a town planner. He
then summarized that the framework for the Plan of Development lies in those three documents: the Land Use Map, the Technical Document, and the Implementation Guide, providing guidelines for tracking the town’s development, seeing where you’ve been and laying out where you want to go.
In 1994, a graduate student planner was contracted to work full-time on the Plan of Development, concentrating on the computer work and creation of the map. He spent approximately 18 months working on the Plan, possibly longer. Mr. Tolisano explained the difficulties presented by trying to fabricate a Plan of Development in-house, ranging from the town staff’s involvement in day-to-day operations, and the Planning Commission’s time being spent dealing with other public issues such as new applications, etc. In general, they tried in 1994 to keep work on the Plan of Development separate and to hold meetings one or two times per month dedicated solely to addressing the Plan of Development. While there was no funding, the Commission began in late 1991 to go over the goals and policies.
By 1993 the Commission had reviewed most of this information and was ready to begin work in earnest on the technical documents by bringing in a paid outside individual; they were preparing for a 1994 ready date.
The process begins with setting forth the goals, policies and objectives. In that respect, there are lofty and somewhat vague goals like the desire to have open space. Then there will be more concrete objectives like the desire to acquire specific properties for that purpose. From the 1994 Plan, about one half of such properties have been acquired, for example the Blazes property in Tariffville, which was a good acquisition in terms of character places. In terms of meetings, the Commission proceeded with a heavy mailing list. There were 22 Boards and Commissions (there are now 24 or 25), and the Planning Commission wanted an appointee from each to work on the Plan of Development. Those boards monitored the process and came in specifically for the parts of Plan that were applicable to
them. They also worked with the Chamber of Commerce, which provided useful feedback on the language for the goals and policies. Rich Correia gave his input as an economic developer, and there were citizens who monitored the process as well. Whereas they used a large mailing list in 1994 to keep people informed on the progress of the Plan, much of that information can now be distributed via the town’s website. Meetings were always scheduled at Town Hall, and the schedule of meetings regarding the Plan was put out a year in advance.
Toward the end of the planning process, there was a series of informational hearings for the public, usually held at the schools. These meetings provided an overview and rough maps; attendance at these meetings was generally lean, although Mr. Tolisano was not aware of the exact numbers. The final two or three meetings were held at Eno Hall, yet there was a sense that while there were some people who were interested in the Plan of Development and the planning process, the broad public was not. With cable access, we can now reach a much bigger
Planning Commission Minutes
February 12, 2002
Page 3
audience. In addition, they tried to get reporters interested by providing them with written articles to be printed, but there was little success with that. Chairman Howard asked for suggestions from everyone on how best to get individuals involved, indicating the Commission will send invitations to groups. The discussion involved suggestions to use access TV and e-mail to provide people with meeting dates, agendas, etc. Commissioner Jansen specifically stated that Eno Hall is a bad venue for community hearings since the acoustics are poor for hearing-impaired individuals; he suggested using the High School instead. Chairman Howard asked Mr. Voelker about the feasibility of using e-mail for broad distribution of information, and Mr. Voelker indicated that it would not be difficult provided
the correct e-mail addresses were given.
Commissioner Bednarcyk asked Mr. Tolisano what he would do differently in the planning process from 1994 to the present. Mr. Tolisano indicated that after the last two plans, updating the Land Use Map and the goals, policies and objectives would be most worthwhile. The Implementation Guide is not time consuming to prepare and with it, the Planning Commission can go back on a yearly basis and review what items have been accomplished. The Technical Document is a good source of information on such items as historical properties, geological data and population data, but is very time consuming. Since this document is such a big effort to compile and becomes outdated so quickly, perhaps it could be skipped; in addition, most of the information contained in the Technical Document can now be easily
accessed via the Internet.
Also, it would be important in the new Plan to put an emphasis on expanding the “Guidelines for Community Design” prepared by the Design Review Board. Specifically, page 38 of this document addresses character places like town centers. Critical points in the future will be the bones and gateways of the town and what to do with them physically (not in terms of use). Mr. Tolisano cited several gateway areas in Simsbury, including the Rt. 44 intersection, the CL & P site, and the area around the International Skating Center, which will experience the most new development in the future. Mr. Voelker agreed that most space in town is already developed and there will be heavy development pressure coming to some of the areas indicated by Mr. Tolisano, and it would be best to be prepared for
it.
Mr. Tolisano emphasized that the Plan of Development must be more specific than simply stating that given areas are gateways; a well-conceived Plan with concrete ideas about what we want to see in an area will possibly allow us to direct future development along those guidelines. In terms of ideas for business use along the bones/gateways, the Land Use Map makes those types of zoning recommendations. There needs to be a sensible business mixture, not one continuous strip along Hopmeadow Street from Avon to Granby. In 1994, the Planning Commission had access to other towns’ Plans, but most of those lacked detail and were not very instructive. In fact, Mr. Tolisano said that when they teach the plan of development at the extension service, they cite the Simsbury Plan of Development, so outside
plans aren’t too helpful. Mr. Tolisano indicated the Planning Department just received information from CRCOG about a video they have and Commissioner Gardow stated this is the video he was referring to at the last meeting. Chairman Howard asked Mr. Voelker if we were going to get this, and he replied that we will now that he has been notified that it is available.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 12, 2002
Page 4
Commissioner Katz asked where to begin now that the key elements have been addressed and at what point in the process would a consultant be brought in. Mr. Voelker indicated that he would like to see the database (for the technical document) updated despite the time-sensitive nature of the information. The Commission must decide how much technical support it needs within the available funding, but we’re not at that point yet. Much of the work can be done in-house regarding updating the database and decisions about an outside consultant can be made later. Mr. Voelker suggested that looking back at past zoning maps might be instructive. He feels the town is at a critical point in its history given the increasing emphasis on enhancing the town’s economic base. There will be
increasing pressure to develop certain areas, and the guidance provided by a comprehensive Plan can provide a solid basis for future decisions. In examining past zoning maps, you can see points at which decisions were made on a reactionary basis, and things were previously zoned in ways we might never consider now; decisions need to be made carefully. Commissioner Bednarcyk cited the Powder Forest as an example of a past decision that must have been made for a reason and can perhaps be expanded on in the future. It provides an area for commercial/industrial zoning yet it is buffered from Hopmeadow St., which was a proactive measure. Commissioner Cole inquired about the role of telecommunications in the new Plan, and Mr. Voelker replied that primarily the role of telecommunications is determined by the end users of that technology, but in looking at land use issues, we can encourage certain types of users through zoning decisions, etc.
Commissioner Jansen suggested that a way to generate more public interest in the Plan would be to address only the areas on the map where development might still occur, and then look at all the issues surrounding those particular areas. He also thought taking the Plan beyond 10 years might be useful. Mr. Voelker cautioned against going farther than 10 years out, due to section 824 statutes which address capital improvements. The Plan needs to be relevant to what your real needs are, and your current inventory, and we don’t always know that looking into the future. Every year the Planning Commission is given a resolution from the Bond Council for recommendations on capital improvements, and those improvements should have a relationship to the Plan of Development. At this point, the
question was asked if all the new members have a copy of the state statutes, and since they do not, Mr. Voelker said he would get those to them. Commissioner Bednarcyk asked if we have the most recent Chung study, which involves population/enrollment projections and is prepared for the Board of Education, and Mr. Voelker stated that the most recent study, done one or two years ago, is in the library.
Mr. Voelker cited the planned expansion of the town’s sewage treatment facility as an example of the impact of capital improvements related to the Plan of Development. The DEP and OPM have indicated that towns across the state need to ensure better compliance with the Statewide Plan of Conservation and Development. Simsbury’s sewer expansion must comply with this plan if we are to get state funding, and changes in the sewer will affect our ability to sustain development in the town. In addition, the DEP has made recommendations that we not increase the carrying capacity in certain areas of the community, so this will affect growth. Commissioner Gardow asked how often the Statewide Plan of Conservation is updated, and Mr. Voelker replied that it is updated every couple of years; the most
recent document is in the library.
Commissioner Loomis asked Mr. Tolisano regarding the 1994 planning process, what went well and what would he do differently. Mr. Tolisano answered that it might have been helpful to
Planning Commission Minutes
February 12, 2002
Page 5
devote more time specifically to the Plan of Development, perhaps meeting more than once or twice a month. He indicated that current technology will allow greater efficiency in terms of mapping and documentation, perhaps even creating a system that can be upgraded every five years instead of every ten. Chairman Howard asked if the town is on the GIS system and Mr. Voelker said not yet, but the town is looking at it since it would be a tremendous tool. Since the policy statements are the most critical elements of the Plan, Mr. Tolisano felt the amount of time and detail that went into establishing the goals, policies and objectives was useful. The process for writing those statements was to look back at the 1984 Plan and re-examine each one in detail. Then the Commission could decide to keep
it, alter it, or drop it as applicable to the new Plan of Development, paying attention to avoid inconsistencies when shifting from one subject area to another.
Chairman Howard stated that indexing was a key to catch references of thought and make sure thy are consistent throughout the document to avoid conflicts. Commissioner Katz requested that all members read the Waterford Plan since she feels this Plan is particularly good. The Waterford Plan started with their vision, then laid out how to achieve it. Commissioner Cole thought the Waterford Plan was the plan which included a wish list and felt this might be something to duplicate in our Plan. She proposed asking the people in town for their wish list of what they’d like to see for the town, and the Commission could keep that in the back of their minds as they go through the planning process. Chairman Howard wrapped up the discussion by asking members to read over the various plans and
implementation guides, and to begin thinking about new chapters to add, how to formulate the plan, timelines, etc. before getting too deep into the details. Commissioner Katz suggested members make note as they read other towns’ plans of any outside consultants they were impressed with for future reference, and Commissioner Cole remarked that she thought the group who did the Bloomfield plan seemed good. Chairman Howard thanked Mr. Tolisano for attending the meeting and providing such comprehensive history.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Voelker stated there were no announcements from the Planning Department. Commissioner Katz said that she will be attending the CRCOG meeting on February 21, 2002. Commissioner Loomis will attend the March CRCOG meeting, Commissioner Gardow will attend the May and June meetings, and someone needs to attend the April meeting. Chairman Howard asked Mr. Voelker to provide a master list of the upcoming CRCOG meetings, and Commissioner Katz requested an agenda for the February 21st meeting. Additional documents requested by the Commission were the “Main St.” list (indicating who’s been invited to Commission meetings), the Charette report, “What’s Legally Required”, Freedom of Information cards, and zoning/subdivision regulations. At least 2 copies of each of
these items is required for the new Commission members. Commissioner Gardow requested a copy of the Implementation Guide from the 1994 Plan.
V. STAFF REPORTS
None
Planning Commission Minutes
February 12, 2002
Page 6
CORRESPONDENCE
None
NEW APPLICATION(S)
a. Resubdivision of property at 24 Ferry Lane. Public Hearing scheduled for Tuesday February 26, 2002.
Mr. Voelker gave an overview of this application, which consists of two lots at 24 Ferry Lane, one with a house and one new lot. He is unsure why it is being referenced as a “resubdivision” since it does not meet at least two of the three tests to determine if something is a resubdivision, but that is academic anyway in terms of the application itself. It is being handled as a subdivision and is going before the Conservation Commission on February 19, 2002 for a Public Hearing. Mr. Voelker stated that the Conservation Commission may move on it that night since the major issue is essentially an encroachment issue (the location of one of the homes is in the buffer area), and possibly a drainage issue. The Planning Commission has a Public Hearing scheduled for February 26,2002, which will
allow the members time to hear the Conservation Commission’s recommendations. Barring any objections, there will likely be a site walk scheduled and the matter will stay open until March. Chairman Howard asked if any waivers were being requested, and Mr. Voelker said no.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 22, 2002
Commissioner Bednarcyk stated that she would like time to listen to the tape of the meeting before approving the minutes. She therefore requested that the minutes be approved at the next meeting. Since none of the members objected, the approval of the minutes of January 22, 2002 was tabled until the meeting scheduled for February 26, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Gardow moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:54pm. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Katz and passed unanimously.
____________________________
Pamela Katz, Secretary
| |
