 |
These minutes are for informational purposes only. For official minutes, please contact the Town Clerk's Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 25, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Pamela Katz, Acting 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: Susan Bednarcyk, David Ryan, Ernest Gardow, Cynthia Carey, Ferg Jansen, Carol Cole and John Loomis. Also present was William Voelker, Director of Community Planning and Development, William Sweeney, Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, and Leonard Tolisano, Senior Planner.
Commissioner Katz informed the members that there had been a change to the configuration of the Board. John Loomis is now a full member and Joan Howard is now an alternate.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None
DISCUSSION OF PRE-PLANNING FOR PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
Discussion of 1994 Implementation Guide
- Economic Development
Mr. Sweeney told the members that the EDC is preparing a report on economic development for the Planning Commission, and the EDC is just waiting to hear from the Planning Commission on the schedule with respect to the Plan of Development update. He stated that the EDC has looked extensively at the ’94 Plan and will include the rationale for any proposed changes to the Plan. Mr. Sweeney expressed frustration with the current Plan and its format, feeling it was inadequate in presenting definable timelines, specific proposals, and any real accountability for getting things in the Plan accomplished. He expressed the opinion that the Plan is too vague and too difficult to decipher for anything to get done. He suggested the Plan revision be more focused to present different Boards and Commissions,
for example the EDC, with three or four specific things for them to focus on and get done.
The Commission members discussed this with respect to how broad or specific the Plan of Development should be. Mr. Voelker said that the other Boards and Commissions need to have ownership of this document in order for there to be effective implementation. Commissioner Jansen agreed that the Planning Commission can talk about and revise it, and other Commissions will simply do what they feel is appropriate without respect for the Plan if they are not thoroughly involved in the process from the beginning. As stated in previous pre-planning discussions, there are pros and cons to both broad policy statements and specific examples to clarify those statements. It was agreed that a mix of the two would be best for the Plan revision.
Mr. Voelker informed the Commission of two specific bipartisan economic development policies voted on unanimously by the Board of Selectmen. The first is a tax abatement program designed to attract new business, and more importantly, to send the message to existing businesses that Simsbury wants them to stay here. The second is a $500,000 infrastructure support fund associated with development. Both Mr. Voelker and Mr. Sweeney said they felt the message was
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2002
Page 2
definitely getting out that Simsbury supports economic development, and any negative reputation that may have existed in the past about it being difficult to do business in Simsbury is fading away. Mr. Voelker did caution, however, that it is still important to insist on the highest possible quality and evaluate projects in accordance with the town’s Design Guidelines, etc.
The members reviewed the Economic Development section of the 1994 Plan of Development Implementation Guide. Mr. Voelker stated that especially in the last few months, he felt that a positive business climate has definitely been maintained. He stated the feedback at town meetings and other public forums has been that the citizenry is pro-economic development with respect to increasing the tax base. Mr. Sweeney felt that since there are only certain areas available for commercial use, and we just need to recruit businesses to come here and utilize those areas, this is not such a controversial issue as most people think. As the members reviewed the IG, Commissioner Katz encourage everyone to think about specifics for any given objective. Mr. Voelker reminded the Commission that there is no legal
tie for Zoning to implement anything in the Plan of Development, so it is vital to include everyone and get people excited about the Plan.
For Policy 1, Objective A, Commissioner Katz suggested changing the objective to say increase the tax base, rather than diversify. The members discussed encouraging underutilized buildings to be used for incubator space. They also discussed the importance of infrastructure and technology to economic development. Mr. Voelker mentioned that there have been discussions about putting a server farm in Simsbury, although this is something that needs to be examined further before ever being implemented. For Policy 1, Objective B, Commissioner Katz felt the town had really done this, although Commissioner Jansen suggested using the word “promote” versus “designate”. He also suggested that the letters sent to the other Boards and Commissions should highlight certain areas of
the Plan for each different group that the Planning Commission would like them to look at prior to attending the meeting. Commissioner Cole asked about redevelopment, specifically the rear of the shops that face onto Iron Horse Blvd. Commissioner Katz said this might fall under Policy 3, Objective A-5. Mr. Voelker said the Zoning Commission would be very willing to look at that type of redevelopment.
Commissioner Loomis suggested that Policy 1, Objective B-8, could hinder development, and said they might not want this in the Plan. Commissioner Carey said that certain items might not need to be stated in the Plan at all, for example Policy 1, Objective B-3, which states that adequate public utilities must be available to support development of a property. The point here is that certain things are obvious and may thus not need to be stated explicitly in the Plan. Mr. Voelker cautioned that some things, while seemingly obvious, should still be in the Plan, like management access (Policy 1, Obj. B-7). Commissioner Katz agreed but said these items might be able to be combined into several concise sentences. Policy 1, Objective C was reviewed. Items 1 and 2 were agreed on by the
members, item 4 was acceptable, although Mr. Voelker suggested adding something about “big box” design, and item 7 was identified as a place to add something. Commissioner Cole asked if the members wanted to incorporate something in the Plan about New Urbanism, and suggested that it would be best first to have a discussion on New Urbanism to determine if and how it applies to Simsbury. The members agreed with this.
Policy 1, Objective D was seen as an item that could be expanded from just a single sentence.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2002
Page 3
Policy 2, Objectives A-D, was reviewed. Commissioner Katz felt this policy addressed much of what Mr. Sweeney was referring to, and Commissioner Jansen agreed that the current EDC is doing a very good job. Commissioner Bednarcyk mentioned that in the past, the town has done a good job at marketing, but not so well at recruiting, which is a more active endeavor. She felt the Commission could expand on this. For Policy 3, Commissioner Katz mentioned the Simsbury Charette, and Mr. Voelker said the Commission may want to review the recommendations at the end of the Charette document to determine if there are any items that should be incorporated into the Plan of Development. Commissioner Katz asked if the Tariffville study mentioned in Policy 3, Objective B, had been done. Mr. Tolisano said
the study had been completed, but no action had been taken thereafter. This prompted a discussion among the members about the various character areas in town and their importance to economic development. Regarding Policy 4 and its objectives, Commissioner Carey remarked that this seemed to be what was formalized in the new Design Guidelines, and therefore, this might not need to be in the new Plan.
Commissioner Loomis asked about how to relate what is in the Plan of Development to the regional Plan of Development. Mr. Voelker stated that mainly, the Commission needs to be mindful of items in this Plan that may be in conflict with the regional Plan, although he felt this would not be a problem. He stated, however, that the Statewide Plan of Conservation and Development would become increasingly important for the Commission to keep in mind, since the State is beginning to tie certain types of funding to compliance with the Statewide Plan. He felt the members should spend some time on the Statewide Plan now, then periodically review both the regional and statewide Plans as they apply to Simsbury’s Plan of Development.
Proposed Planning Calendar Outline
The members examined and discussed the calendar included in the meeting packet. They agreed the calendar provided a good place to start, and gave target dates for them to try to meet so that the Plan of Development revision will be completed on time. The members questioned whether any speakers should be brought in and when, and also addressed the issue of how to best proceed within the framework of the Commission meeting schedule. Mr. Tolisano said that usually Planning Commission business, new applications, and the like can be planned for one meeting night and the Plan of Development can be handled the other meeting night of the month. The Commissioners agreed that there need to be specific topics planned for discussion at each Plan of Development meeting so that individuals and other Boards and
Commissions can attend meetings that pertain to them. Commissioner Cole suggested emailing the Planning Commission’s minutes to at least the Chairs of the other Boards and Commissions, so that they will be informed on the progress being made.
Commissioner Jansen suggested inviting each of the various Boards and Commissions to come in and address the Planning Commission about their point of view and what issues are of particular importance to them, before beginning the revision of the Plan. Commissioner Katz agreed that meeting with the other Boards and Commissions should be on the planning calendar before the revision, currently listed as item IV. The members discussed who should be invited to attend these meetings, listing Zoning, Design Review, Zoning Board of Appeals, Culture, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, The Board of Selectmen, WPCA, Conservation, Historic, and the Housing Partnership, among those who should be invited. The members then briefly
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2002
Page 4
discussed the letter to be sent out, and Commissioner Bednarcyk asked to have the mailing list(s) put in the next packet, which Mr. Voelker said would be fine.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Gardow reported on the June 20th CRCOG meeting. He said there was a presentation of numerous statistics, mainly from the census. He gave Mr. Voelker this information for inclusion in the next packet and for use in updating the technical document. Commissioner Cole stated that she will attend the December 19th CRCOG meeting, and Commissioner Jansen said that he will attend the November 21st meeting.
STAFF REPORTS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
None
NEW APPLICATION(S)
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 11, 2002
The clerk was informed that the word “Tariffville” was misspelled in the minutes. Commissioner Jansen asked if there had been any resolution to the question of whether a member who did not attend a meeting, but had listened to the tape and read the minutes, could vote on the minutes. He pointed out that the Commission’s procedures allow a member to vote on an application in this manner, and since voting on applications is of greater importance than voting on minutes, it seems one should be able to vote on minutes in this manner as well. Commissioner Katz said that the Commission’s procedures are silent on this matter, and in the absence of a response from the town attorney, each member should proceed on this issue as he/she feels is appropriate. Commissioner Gardow moved to
approve the minutes of June 11, 2002 as amended to correct spelling errors. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
(REQUIRED FIRST NOTICE) ELECTION OF OFFICERS
As noted earlier in the meeting, the configuration of the Board has changed, necessitating the election of a new Chairman. Commissioner Katz explained that the procedure for this is to have a first notice of the date of the election, which will be set tonight, and then a second notice restating the date of the election at the next meeting. Therefore, the election itself can be held at the July 23rd meeting. Commissioner Ryan moved to set the date for the election of Chairman for July 23, 2002. Commissioner Gardow seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Commissioner Katz clarified that the second notice of election should be put on the agenda for the next meeting, to be held July 9, 2002.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 2002
Page 5
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Gardow moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:40pm. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
____________________________
Pamela Katz, Secretary
| |
