 |
These minutes are for informational purposes only. For official minutes, please contact the Town Clerk's Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Joan Howard, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Simsbury Planning Commission to order at 7:38pm 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, Cynthia Carey and John Loomis. Also present were William Voelker, Director of Community Planning and Development, and Leonard Tolisano, Senior Planner.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None
DISCUSSION OF PLANNING FOR PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
Review of Plan of Development Implementation Guide
At the outset, Chairman Howard expressed concern, arising form a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Voelker, about there being any limitation placed by Mr. Voelker on the Senior Planner participating in discussions with, or responding to questions from, the Planning Commission concerning the Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Voelker did not wish to discuss this matter, as he considered the conversation private. Following exchanges of viewpoint among Commission members, Chairman Howard directed that the discussion should move to the Implementation Guide.
Mr. Tolisano stated that the Implementation Guide is a management tool, reviewed periodically by the Planning Commission, which sets out the primary responsibility for accomplishing each of the goals, policies and objectives of the Plan of Development. In this way, the Implementation Guide (IG) interacts with the other Boards and Commissions, as well as the town staff. In response to Commissioner Loomis’ questions, the IG did not make much distinction between strategic and tactical goals, nor did it establish timelines; realistically, it is difficult to do this since many items lie outside the Planning Commission’s direct control. Chairman Howard questioned the specificity expected in the new Plan of Development, and Mr. Voelker indicated the Plan could be more specific both in terms of the
goals, policies, and objectives, and in terms of the implementation side, setting timelines on specific measures, etc.
Mr. Tolisano remarked that the level of consensus among the Commissioners sometimes impacted the way an item was written; if something in the IG is vague, it could indicate that the group had difficulty agreeing on that item. Commissioner Ryan observed that there was nothing in the IG regarding capital improvements, although the statutes indicate that to be in the scope of the Commission’s charge. Mr. Voelker replied that capital improvements are usually initiated by other departments, and by the time something reaches the Planning Commission, it is usually
already decided. This generated discussion regarding the importance of involving the other Boards and Commissions in the process of creating the new Plan of Development. Commissioner Jansen suggested preparing a questionnaire to be sent to the other agencies, and drafting the Plan around this input. Chairman Howard indicated the Commission would probably do something along those lines, framing discussion topics and then sending the information out, or perhaps putting it on the website. Commissioner Bednarcyk asked if Mr. Voelker had provided the
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26, 2002
Page 2
previous mailing lists, both the “Main St.” list as well as the list used in preparing the 1994 Plan of Development, and Mr. Voelker said he would get that to the Commission.
Mr. Tolisano said that in preparing the previous Plans, they requested participation from all the 22 Boards and Commissions, and in response to Commissioner Loomis’ question, no other agency “signed off” on the Plan. Ultimately, the Planning Commission has to approve the Plan of Development themselves, without any specific endorsement from the other Boards and Commissions. Commissioner Bednarcyk noted that preparing the Plan was a continual process of reviewing and editing to incorporate as many views as possible; Mr. Tolisano agreed, saying that the Planning Commission met at least three times, often more, on each section of the Plan.
The suggestion was made to meet at 6:30pm and spend the first hour working on the Plan. While all the members indicated they would be available at 6:30pm, there were mixed opinions on the subject, with several members feeling they would prefer to have separate meetings devoted solely to the Plan of Development. Mr. Voelker indicated that statutorily, the Commission could hold meetings an hour earlier, as long as an amended meeting schedule was filed with the Town Clerk in advance. However, he did feel that a 6:30pm start time would not be the best hour for the general public, nor would he be assured of being able to provide staffing (a clerk, etc.) for an earlier meeting time. Commissioner Carey suggested having one extra meeting per month for the Plan, and at regular meetings, they could work on
the Plan if the agenda was short.
Chairman Howard asked to then examine the IG, taking examples of given areas to review how to read the document. The first area reviewed was the Land Use section, and Chairman Howard asked if the zoning regulations had been revised after the last Plan of Development. Mr. Tolisano indicated that there had been minor revisions, but no major overhauls, and Mr. Voelker indicated that there had been no discussions at the commission level about updating the zoning regulations. Mr. Tolisano said that the zoning regulations are, in a sense, the power to implement the Plan of Development and should match the Land Use Map. For this reason, he felt it best to wait to make any major revisions to the zoning regulations until after completion of the new Plan.
Commissioner Ryan asked if there was data available for the last 20 years addressing land values and how they have changed, either up or down, since the Plan addresses issues affected by decreasing land values. He felt it was necessary to know the land values to adequately meet those goals that center around that issue. The feel of the discussion was that this information was only broadly available for the whole town, using census tract information over given periods of time. Mr. Tolisano said the information might be available using land tract grids, of which there are six for the town, but this method, like using the census information, would be hard to interpret and would only give averages. Chairman Howard felt it would be important to determine land values in some fashion, but limiting the
information by choosing specific areas the Commission would like to look at.
The next area examined was the Economic Development section. The discussion recognized that several of the objectives in this section have been, and continue to be, implemented. Mr. Voelker remarked that generally, the feeling is that we want to use the business areas that are already there, but do not necessarily want to create new areas for business, nor are we interested in strip, or “big box” business. He acknowledged that Simsbury does have a locational issue in terms of enticing new businesses to come to Simsbury, and Commissioner Bednarcyk felt that it would be
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26, 2002
Page 3
important in the future to actively solicit new businesses. Commissioner Ryan pointed out that the land value information would be useful in determining areas that may or may not be of more value to the town as business or residential. One example given was the Powder Forest, which stands empty as commercial zoning, but would doubtless be full of houses were it residential. The question is whether the attendant residential issues (increases to student enrollment, etc.) outweigh the benefits of having the land be actively used. Mr. Voelker said that the Board of Education was doing a study on that subject and he would inform the Commission what outcomes were determined by that study.
The suggestion was made to look at age-restricted housing as an alternative in residential land use since the return on tax dollars is maximized by this use. The Commission felt this was a good idea. Chairman Howard expressed the desire for the Commission to get speakers and hold a “Town Center” meeting to envision the Town Center, possibly reviewing the Charette document. Mr. Voelker reminded the members that the Charette had a residential component that should not be overlooked; what makes a town center interesting is the people in it. Presently, most of Simsbury town center is an automobile destination, and is not designed for the pedestrian. Commissioner Gardow proposed taking one or two items from the IG at each meeting, depending on the agenda, and reviewing them, trying in the
process to be more pointed and focused. Commissioner Katz agreed that throughout this review process, it would be useful to drop items that are fairly meaningless, feeling that at this point in the town’s development, such broad statements were not necessary. Mr. Voelker pointed out the importance of reviewing the IG in terms of stimulating the Commission’s creative thinking and establishing relationships among the members. Chairman Howard agreed and noted that each time she goes through the IG, she gleans something new. Mr. Voelker said that he had received the CRCOG video Commissioner Gardow had mentioned at the last two meetings, and would be able to show it if the Commission desired.
ZONING COMMISSION REFERRAL
Proposed amendments to Article Four and Article Seven of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to permit and regulate accessory apartments in residential zones.
Mr. Voelker began by providing background on the history of accessory apartments in the zoning regulations, stating that previous models were more elaborate, having minimum square footage requirements, design criteria for doors on certain sides of the house, age restrictions, etc. The Zoning Commission has since streamlined this, viewing most design criteria as impediments to the process. Two primary requirements that remain are for the house to be at least five years old and for it to be owner-occupied. He informed the Commission that the public hearing on the proposed amendments is scheduled for March 18, 2002.
In response to Commissioner Loomis’ question, the meaning of “structural addition” refers to the accessory apartment having full housekeeping duties (kitchen, bathroom, etc.), and is intended to
be permissive with regard to minor additions that may be necessary to give the apartment “full housekeeping”. Commissioner Bednarcyk felt the proposed amendments did not address the issue of square footage to ensure the conversion remains an accessory apartment and not a two-family dwelling. Mr. Voelker said the Zoning Commission felt that making these conversions subject to a Special Exception would control that issue, since the application must clearly demonstrate the unit to be subordinate in order for the Special Exception to be granted.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26, 2002
Page 4
Commissioner Katz agreed that the Zoning Commission would know the difference between an accessory unit and a two-family dwelling when reviewing these applications.
Chairman Howard asked if the Zoning Commission would consult the Design Review Board on these proposed amendments, and Mr. Voelker said that Zoning had made no referral to Design Review at this point, but might consider consulting them as part of an individual application process. Commissioner Carey expressed support for the amendments proposed, feeling it would help people to do this legally, since many people are doing it already. Mr. Voelker indicated the Special Exception allows the neighbors to know what is going on, and get a look at proposed additions/conversions, prior to any permits being granted. Commissioner Gardow asked if there should be anything in the regulation regarding set-backs, and Mr. Voelker said that was not necessary. Any application would have to show that the conversion
complies with the set-backs (or other zoning regulations, as applicable) before permits would be issued or even before the Zoning Commission could grant the Special Exception.
Commissioner Katz made a motion to give a positive referral to the Zoning Commission regarding proposed amendments to Article Four and Article Seven of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to permit and regulate accessory apartments in residential zones, as being consistent with Policy 4, Objective A, subsection 3 of the Housing Section of the 1994 Plan of Development. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. Chairman Howard asked if there was any additional discussion. Commissioner Bednarcyk proposed amending the motion to add a recommendation that the Zoning Commission include a requirement that the accessory apartment be no more than a given percentage of the total floor area of the house in order to demonstrate that it is clearly subordinate, and not a two-family dwelling. The members discussed this
issue with respect to what percentage would indicate subordination, and whether this was necessary or would make the process too specific. Chairman Howard polled the regular members, and there was an even split of three members in favor of amending the motion and three members against. Therefore, it was determined that the amendment to the motion would be left out.
Mr. Voelker indicated that he would relate to the Zoning Commission the concerns regarding subordination, and the suggestion of perhaps indicating a percentage value to make that determination. Chairman Howard called for a vote on the original motion made by Commissioner Katz and seconded by Commissioner Ryan. The members voted and the motion passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Voelker stated there were no announcements from the Planning Department. Commissioner Katz gave a brief synopsis of the CRCOG meeting she attended on February 21, 2002. At this meeting, there was a discussion about the regional Plan of Development update, expected to be completed by fall 2002. They reviewed two chapters of the regional Plan, the chapter on Public
Water and Sewer, and the chapter on Transportation. The theme regarding water and sewer was for towns to determine their areas of rural character, and keep water and sewer out of those areas so that urban sprawl would not follow. The theme regarding transportation was to focus not on more transportation capacity, but on more transportation choices. The remainder of the meeting consisted of a protracted discussion about a dispute between Tolland and Vernon over zoning changes on the town line. The members then went over the attendance for the CRCOG schedule
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26, 2002
Page 5
as follows: Commissioner Loomis will attend the March CRCOG meeting; Chairman Howard will attend in April; Commissioner Bednarcyk will attend in May; Commissioner Gardow will attend in June; Commissioner Cole will attend in July; Commissioner Jansen will attend in August; and Commissioner Carey will attend in September.
Regarding a letter from First Selectman Tom Vincent, dated February 21st, Chairman Howard briefed the members about this event. Dwight Miriam and the Open Space Committee have organized a group seminar on open space and development rights, scheduled for March 13, 2002. The event is going to be held in the Main Meeting Room of the Town offices, but the location may change if the expected attendance exceeds the meeting room’s capacity. There will be food, so anyone planning to attend should RSVP as soon as possible to Bonnie Christopher. The question was asked if this seminar would be taped for those individuals who were unable to attend, and Chairman Howard said yes. Chairman Howard announced that her email address ending with “attbi.com” should be removed from the list
of email addresses; her other email address is fine. Commissioner Jansen provided his email address to be added to the list: Ferg@tyeemanagement.com.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Voelker called the Commission’s attention to the letter from Senator Lieberman dated February 21, 2002. This letter responds to the Commission’s letter regarding the “Post Office Community Partnership Act of 2001”. Mr. Voelker remarked that finally the members know the status of this issue, and he expects that there will be follow-up information received in the future.
NEW APPLICATION(S)
a. Resubdivision of property at 24 Ferry Lane. Public Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, March 12, 2002.
Mr. Voelker noted that the public hearing on this matter was revised from February 26th to March 12th, and he informed the members that they will probably receive some letters from various neighbors regarding this application. Mr. Voelker also mentioned that this was, in fact, a subdivision, not a resubdivision, so the “re” should be removed. This matter is still being considered by the Wetlands Commission.
IX. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 22, 2002 and February 12, 2002
Regarding the minutes of January 22, 2002, Commissioner Loomis made a change to page one, in section III. Pre-Planning for the Plan of Development. In paragraph three, line five, after the sentence ending “… with him about it.”, Commissioner Loomis requested to have the following sentence inserted: “Commissioner Loomis asked Mr. Voelker whether, between the time of Chairman Howard’s initial email and January 22nd at 4:30pm, he had attempted to contact Chairman Howard, and Mr. Voelker responded no.” In the same section, paragraph one, line one,
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26, 2002
Page 6
Commissioner Bednarcyk requested that the minutes indicate that Chairman Howard was notified at 4:30pm that Mr. Voelker would not be allowing Mr. Tolisano to attend the meeting, rather than simply stating that Mr. Tolisano would not be attending. Chairman Howard asked to strike the line “; therefore she hoped to have that background available at the next meeting.”
Commissioner Bednarcyk wished to clarify in the minutes that her point in discussing the NEMO presentation was that, as much as the focus of NEMO is on watersheds, they do full-fledged planning, offering courses on plans of development, etc. The members agreed to table the approval of the minutes of January 22, 2002, pending a review of the changes listed above.
Regarding the minutes of February 12, 2002, Commissioner Katz mentioned that the spellings of “Blazes” and “Correa” in the minutes should be verified, and corrected if they are wrong. Commissioner Katz made a motion to approve the minutes of February 12, 2002, with the spelling corrections indicated. Commissioner Jansen seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Bednarcyk moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:53pm. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Katz and passed unanimously.
____________________________
Pamela Katz, Secretary
| |
