 |
These minutes are for informational purposes only. For official minutes, please contact the Town Clerk's Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 9, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Joan Howard, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Simsbury Planning Commission to order at 7:33pm in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Susan Bednarcyk, Ernest Gardow, Ferg Jansen, Pamela Katz, Carol Cole, David Ryan and John Loomis. Also present was William Voelker, Director of Community Planning and Development, and Leonard Tolisano, Senior Planner.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None
DISCUSSION OF PRE-PLANNING FOR PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
The Commissioners, together with Mr. Voelker and Mr. Tolisano, began a review of the Implementation Guide for the 1994 Plan of Development. The first section, Land Use, was covered in its entirety, beginning with the goal. Commissioner Loomis stressed the importance of carefully reviewing each of the goals since they are the basis from which the rest of the Plan is formed. Pertaining to the Land Use goal, the members discussed the Zoning Map. The Plan of Development map shows recommended uses for the town’s land, but the Zoning Map is the law regarding use. The statutes state the Zoning Commission must consider the Plan of Development in its decisions, and changes to the Zoning Map that are inconsistent with the Plan must be explained; there is no other obligation on the part of
the Zoning Commission to act on the recommendations of the Plan.
Mr. Voelker stated that a legislative amendment to the 8-23 statute states that the Zoning Commission must consider and discuss the Plan when making changes. This amendment may create a better connection between the zoning regulations and the Plan of Development. Mr. Voelker stated he would provide the commentary from the General Assembly regarding this statutory amendment at the next meeting. Chairman Howard asked the members to bring their Municipal Statutes for review at the next meeting. Mr. Voelker mentioned that the Town of Simsbury cut sheet is in the library if anyone would like to look at it.
Policy 1, objective A entails looking at the zoning map to find inconsistencies in how areas are zoned versus how they are currently being used. Mr. Tolisano stated this type of review began last time and could be continued now. Objectives B and C are ongoing statements and should always be done. Policy 2, objectives A and B were discussed regarding cluster development. Mr. Tolisano said this has had some success since 1994, citing Sydney Way as an example. Commissioner Loomis stated that while objective 2B may not have been implemented practically, it might be desirable down the road. Mr. Voelker agreed with this, saying that the intent of this objective goes beyond single-family clusters, addressing historical and other types, allowing for adaptive use of the land. Policy 3,
objectives A and B were discussed regarding the use of tax abatement programs to preserve natural areas. Mr. Voelker stated nothing had been done specifically regarding tax abatement, but Mr. Tolisano cited the Dewey property as an example of this and discussed Public Act 490. Commissioner Jansen questioned the scenic vistas cited in Policy 3 that have since been developed, primarily the Laurel Lane/Great Pond intersection. Mr. Tolisano said that these areas could still be preserved through open space designations.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 9, 2002
Page 2
Policy 4, objectives A and B were discussed, and objective A was clearly met by the completion of the Design Guidelines by the Design Review Board. Mr. Voelker spoke about the role of the Design Review Board and its importance. While the Board has no statutory power, the Zoning Commission looks to them for design guidance on its applications. The Planning Commission may incorporate certain things from the Design Guidelines into the Plan of Development, possibly with respect to the subdivision regulations. Mr. Tolisano pointed out that the character areas were not fully developed in the Design Guidelines, and Commissioner Cole mentioned that many other towns’ Plans address character areas. Chairman Howard suggested having a design section in the new Plan, or building on Policy 4. Regarding Policy 5, Mr. Tolisano stated the areas mentioned are the exterior gateways. However, the Simsbury Streetscape has its own internal north/south gateways, which might need to be addressed.
Chairman Howard agreed that as new gateways develop, they should be addressed.
Policy 6, objectives A-G, was examined. Mr. Voelker explained the subdivision regulation amendment requiring 2-to-1 tree replacement on trees of 24” caliper or more. He said there has been only one development where this was required since this policy objective was created. Most infrastructure trees of this size are not being cut. He also said that no real streetscape plans other than the Simsbury Center have been made. Chairman Howard stated the Commission may want to go back to 6A and get that done. Regarding 6D, the implementation for a street tree maintenance program would be a Public Works Department function. Policy 7, objectives A-C, was reviewed. Mr. Voelker stated there are not too many large tracts of developable land left in Simsbury. Nothing requires
developers to do fiscal impact studies from a regulatory standpoint, and affordable housing matters would make fiscal impact studies irrelevant. Commissioner Loomis asked if the McLean Trust goes on indefinitely, stating there might be an end-date, even if in the distant future. Mr. Tolisano felt the conditions of the Trust require the main large pieces of land to remain undeveloped in perpetuity, but he will check on this. Regarding 7C, the town usually has numerous staff meetings with developers before any applications are brought before the town, and the developer usually takes on the budgetary responsibility for related infrastructure improvements.
Mr. Tolisano addressed Policy 8, objectives A and B, by discussing aquifers in general and mentioning that objective B was recently met by completion of a study of the Rt. 167/44 aquifer that goes into Avon. He said the water companies are regulated and are largely responsible for doing the types of analysis that Simsbury did in the 1980’s. Quantity of water is tracked by well records, which are kept for every well drilled and indicate the yield. The health department will not certify a well unless it meets potability requirements, so quality of water is tracked and maintained that way. Chairman Howard cited the Plan of Development, on page 6-21, as identifying 5 major aquifers for Simsbury; she asked Mr. Tolisano to elaborate on those areas, which he did. Regarding 8A, Mr. Voelker said
the town talks with neighboring towns as appropriate, but stated that no major development is currently underway on the town lines.
Policy 9, objectives A and B, have more to do with the regional Plan of Development and CRCOG. The State Plan of Development is revised every 3-5 years, and the CRCOG Plan is probably revised on a 10-year cycle, as is Simsbury’s Plan. The CRCOG Plan is currently being revised.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 9, 2002
Page 3
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Voelker reminded the members about the upcoming presentation, scheduled for May 15th, with several speakers, including Bob Sitkowski, of Robinson and Cole, and Shelly Poticha, Executive Director for the New Urbanism Movement. He encouraged everyone to attend, saying that the Design Review Board, Zoning Commission, and others will be invited as well. He’ll provide bios on the speakers ahead of time. Mr. Voelker also said that a tape of the Open Space Seminar was now available and would be put in the library.
CORRESPONDENCE
None
NEW APPLICATION(S)
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 22, 2002, February 26, 2002 and March 26, 2002
Regarding the minutes of March 26, 2002 Commissioner Katz made a correction on page 4, paragraph 2, line 5. Where it stated that the motion passed by a vote of 4 to 3, it should read 4 to 2. Commissioner Bednarcyk said to check the spelling of Cindy Dietlin’s name, listed on page 2. The Commissioners agreed in the future to have members of the public spell their names for the record. Commissioner Gardow stated that the attachment to the minutes regarding capital improvements should be labeled as “Attachment A”, should no longer state that it is a “draft” document, and that the vote count should list 6 in favor, not 7, throughout the document. Commissioner Katz moved to approve the minutes of March 26, 2002 as corrected. Commissioner Jansen seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously.
Regarding the minutes of January 22, 2002 Commissioner Bednarcyk moved to approve the minutes as presented, and Chairman Howard seconded the motion. Commissioner Katz suggested dropping the section that discusses personnel matters. The members discussed this issue, disagreeing as to whether this information should be in the minutes or not. The members agreed to compromise, and Commissioner Bednarcyk amended her motion to approve the minutes of January 22, 2002, making the following change – to exclude all but the last two sentences of paragraph three. Commissioner Ryan seconded the amended motion, which passed unanimously.
Regarding the minutes of February 26, 2002 Commissioner Katz suggested eliminating the first paragraph of section 3a, or stating a summary sentence to the effect that Mr. Voelker and Chairman Howard had a disagreement about a private conversation. The members had the same discussion as to whether the information should or should not be included in the minutes, and
Planning Commission Minutes
April 9, 2002
Page 4
how best to include it. Members of the public requested to address the Commission on this issue, and Chairman Howard polled the members as to whether they would like to hear from the public. The members were polled and did not wish to hear from the public at this time. Commissioner Katz suggested that she would be willing to form a subcommittee with Commissioner Loomis to create a compromise summary sentence on this issue to present to the Commission for approval at the next meeting. The members agreed to table the approval of the minutes of February 26, 2002 to the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Ryan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:58pm. Commissioner Gardow seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
____________________________
Pamela Katz, Secretary
| |
