These minutes are for informational purposes only. For official minutes, please contact the Town Clerk's Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 2002
I. CALL TO ORDER
John Loomis, 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, Ernest Gardow, Ferg Jansen, David Ryan, Carol Cole and Pamela Katz. Also present was Leonard Tolisano, Senior Planner.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None
III. ZONING COMMISSION REFERRAL
Application (David & Susan Johnson) for a Zone Change from Zone I-2 to B-2 on property at 141 West Street (continued from September 24, 2002 meeting) (Public Hearing on October 21, 2002).
Chairman Loomis began by reading from “Land Use Practices” regarding referrals (section 4.1 Land Use Agencies). He reminded the members that the first frame of reference in considering the application should be the Plan of Development. The Planning Commission’s focus is on the zone change, its relevance to the 1994 Plan, and its repercussions in terms of future possible uses, not the site plan currently being proposed. He explained the process, stating that a positive referral from the Planning Commission will require only a simple majority vote on the part of the Zoning Commission, whereas a negative referral from Planning will require a 2/3rd majority vote from Zoning to approve the application.
Mrs. Susan Johnson addressed the members regarding her vision for the property and the planned use. She stated that she and her husband would like to create a “country store” on the site as well as relocating the successful gift basket business currently operating out of their home. As 10-year residents of Simsbury, the Johnsons feel this use will be in keeping with the town’s character as well as that of the site. Mr. T.J. Donohue then addressed the members regarding the zone change as he feels it relates to the Plan of Development. Under the current I-2 zoning, a public utility, manufacturing, or professional office building are all acceptable uses. The I-2 zone does allow for a food &/or retail establishment in an industrial zone if it is compatible with the uses in
the zone, and given one’s interpretation, the proposed country store could possibly go in under I-2 zoning. However, the adjacent uses (principally the package store and the restaurant) are zoned B-2, and the applicants feel this site would fit better as a B-2 as well.
Mr. Donohue cited Policy 1 of the Plan of Development, Land Use Goals, stating that the Plan encourages consistency of uses with adjacent zones. R-15 zoning (as indicated on the Map) and the present I-2 zoning are both inconsistent with the neighboring B-2 uses. Under Policy 4, Mr. Donohue mentioned the statement that new development should architecturally complement the existing architecture; the proposal to renovate the existing house and build a barn structure would meet this requirement. Finally, Mr. Donohue cited Policy 5 regarding protecting the town’s gateway areas; while this intersection is not listed specifically, this area is an important gateway and the applicants feel the zone change will allow them to protect the gateway in the spirit of the
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
Page 2
Plan. In summary, Mr. Donohue asked the members to consider the strangeness of I-2 for this parcel, and he expressed appreciation for the Commission’s consideration of the application.
The Commissioners began their discussion by asking Mr. Tolisano for background on the zoning of other parcels on West Street. Mr. Tolisano explained that the current uses on the street were already in place when he began working for the town, and he has been here for 2 Plan of Development updates. He mentioned that some zones changes were made outright and others are operating under ZBA action. Mr. Tolisano said there may have been some consideration for the future potential for a mixed use zone along West Street, but the decision was made not to pursue that at the time and so the area was maintained on the Land Use Map as one zone (R-15). West Street has been zoned residential but the uses have increasingly moved toward commercial uses.
Commissioner Katz stated that while the Map shows the area as residential, there have been changes of use over time, and both the current I-2 zoning as well as the requested change to B-2 are inconsistent with the Map. The members discussed the zone change with respect to the variety of potential uses included under B-2 zoning, including those that would require a special exception. Chairman Loomis expressed concern that the B-2 zone is much more broad in terms of permitted uses, and while these applicants are not looking for any special exceptions, that would be a possibility down the road, if ownership changed. Commissioner Bednarcyk shared this concern, stating that going down Bushy Hill the zoning is all R-15 and this change at the corner of the intersection will increase traffic and open the door
for additional commercial development along Bushy Hill. Chairman Loomis and Commissioner Bednarcyk agreed that the focus should be on all the potential uses allowed under B-2 zoning, feeling that perhaps that is why the Planning Commission in 1995 may have granted the zone change to I-2 rather than B-2. They presented the opinion that the parcel should remain as an I-2 zone, since B-2 takes the uses beyond anything the Planning Commission would be able to control in the future.
Commissioner Katz felt that a major factor for this piece is its situation in terms of its shared parking and driveway with the other two B-2 uses, as well as the the unlikelihood of additional curb cuts. This limits the functionality of the site, and nothing in B-2 zoning that would fit this parcel with these limitations would be incompatible with this end of West Street. She felt that the Commission must consider that application presently before it, and was hesitant to go down the road of “what ifs” in making a decision. Commissioner Jansen agreed that while B-2 is incompatible with the Plan, it is very compatible with the neighboring uses, and he felt that the R-15 zone on the Plan does not work for this parcel. Commissioner Gardow agreed that the B-2 zone seems compatible with the
neighboring uses, and pointed out that the members will need to look at the Map as they do the Plan update to see if the R-15 zone should be changed on the Map. Commissioner Jansen also remarked that a special exception has to be applied for and granted by the Zoning Commission, so that should not necessarily be a major concern for the Commission in considering this application.
From the discussion, the general comments of the members were divergent regarding the potential negative impact on the R-15 zone along Bushy Hill versus the apparent compatibility of the B-2 zone with respect to the neighboring parcels. Commissioner Cole, while not voting this evening, stated that she understood both views, but would likely approve the application were she voting. At this point, Chairman Loomis called for a motion on the application. Working together with the other members to determine the exact language of the motion, Commissioner Katz made
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
Page 3
a motion to make a positive referral to the Zoning Commission on the application of (David & Susan Johnson) for a Zone Change from Zone I-2 to Zone B-2 on property at 141 West Street with recognition that the 1994 map of the Plan of Development shows this area to be zoned residential but current land uses on the south side of the west end of West Street are not residential; they are primarily commercial. A zone change from I-2 to B-2 will make this parcel consistent with the uses of the neighboring parcel to the east, with which this property will be sharing a parking lot and driveway. Commissioner Jansen seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 4 in favor and 2 opposed.
Having concluded the voting, Mr. Tolisano remarked that as the Commissioners get into the Land Use section of the Plan update, they can review the map and the anomalies that exist with zoning. He stated there may be opportunities for mixed use zoning, particularly along West Street, in Tariffville center, in West Simsbury center, and others. He stated the Simsbury Center zone has four subzones which allow for the mixture of uses within the larger zone. Chairman Loomis agreed the Commission has the opportunity to express a vision for Simsbury even if that vision differs from the current zoning. He went further to stress the importance of working with other entities like the Design Review Board and Zoning Commission to move together to create regulations that will help to realize that vision.
He noted the town of Suffield as an example, which is moving to a preconceived town center approach even though that was not mentioned in their Plan of Development from 1999. Mr. Tolisano agreed, noting that the Simsbury Center zone is flexible, allowing for applications to be approved on a case-by-case basis within the subzones. He said the Plan of Development is the vision and the zoning map is the implementation of that vision.
IV. DISCUSSION OF SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH JIM GIBBONS
Chairman Loomis thanked everyone who attending the presentation, saying that it was well done, and well attended. He said that SCTV taped it for anyone who was unable to attend. Commissioner Katz said she would like to have Mr. Gibbons back to give his economic development presentation, and Chairman Loomis said that given the members’ interest in that, he would send Mr. Gibbons a letter thanking him for the previous presentation and inviting him back to speak on economic development.
Commissioner Jansen mentioned that he had recently seen a good presentation by All Aboard regarding transportation issues which he felt would be useful for the members as they approach the transportation section of the Plan update. He said the organization’s website is www.allaboard.org if anyone is interested in getting background information, and he said he would get written information regarding their presentation.
V. STATUS OF LETTERS OF INVITATION
Mr. Tolisano informed the members that approximately 400 letters went out altogether, the last of which were mailed that afternoon. He was not sure if civic groups had been sent the letter and will check on that. He said the IT person in the town offices was interested in addressing the Commission if that was acceptable. Chairman Loomis said all interested persons could address them as time permits, and asked Mr. Tolisano to keep them informed about responses to the
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
Page 4
letter, including requests to present and/or written material that might be sent. He also said he would be seeing Mike Bradley in the next few days and would speak with him about when he might like to present something to the Commission. Chairman Loomis said he would email the members with updates regarding presentation activity.
VI. DISCUSSION OF RULES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Loomis read from page 7 of the Rules and Procedures regarding the notice required in order to vote on any proposed changes. He then read from page 6, section 9-B, with respect to a member familiarizing themselves and then voting on an application even if they were not present at the meeting at which the application was addressed. Commissioner Jansen stated that this was his original concern – that one could vote on an application when not present at the meeting, but could not vote on meeting minutes. This appeared to him to be somewhat misguided since voting on an application seems more important than simply voting on meeting minutes. If voting on land use issues without attending the meeting is acceptable, then voting on minutes should also be acceptable, in both cases provided the
member familiarizes himself with the relevant material. Chairman Loomis then read from section 4-B and stated this would be where a change would be made defining what action is permissible.
Commissioner Katz provided all the members with a draft amendment to the Rules and Procedures, stating that most of the time this will not apply since a member will rarely be able to take the time to listen to the meeting tape and otherwise familiarize themselves with the material. However, the change would prevent this issue from coming into question in the future. Commissioner Bednarcyk mentioned that at the recent CRCOG meeting, those who had not attended the meeting did not vote on the minutes, although they had not listened to an audiotape of the meeting or made provisions to acquaint themselves with the meeting materials.
Commissioner Gardow made a motion to put the voting action regarding the amendment to the Rules and Procedures on the agenda for the upcoming meeting scheduled for October 22, 2002. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Jansen stated that he is sitting on the Government Affairs Committee affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce, which will be discussing the town’s Plan of Development. He inquired as to whether there was a potential conflict of interest and if it would be better for him not to attend those meetings. Commissioner Katz felt that since there is no personal or financial gain involved, nor would the meetings relate to any application currently before the Commission, there is no conflict of interest. She stated that all the members are gathering information about the Plan from others and this would be a way that Commissioner Jansen could do that. Chairman Loomis agreed that Commissioner Jansen’s involvement with this outside committee did not represent a conflict of interest with
his duties as a member of the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2002
Page 5
VII. STAFF REPORTS
Chairman Loomis informed the members that on October 15th at 2pm at the town offices, there will be a nationwide conference call learning experience. This has a limited capacity for participation; he planned to attend, in addition to members of the Zoning Commission and the Design Review Board. The Chairman stated that he would like two other Planning Commission members to attend with him if anyone would be available and interested.
IX. CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Loomis informed the members that Cindy Carey had submitted her letter of resignation from the Commission. Therefore, there is a vacancy on the Commission, although there has been no word to date as to a replacement member. Commissioner Katz asked Chairman Loomis to send Commissioner Carey a letter of thanks for her service on the Planning Commission and for her valuable technical expertise, particularly in relation to the Meadow Wood application.
X. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 24, 2002
Minor grammatical changes were noted for the clerk. Commissioner Gardow made a motion to approve the minutes of September 24, 2002 as corrected. Commissioner Katz seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Katz asked what business was planned for the upcoming meeting and Chairman Loomis said the predominant business will be a discussion regarding the format for the presentations and communications/publicity (ie, press releases, etc.) for the presentations.
Commissioner Katz moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:35pm. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
____________________________
Pamela Katz, Secretary
| 
