These minutes are for informational purposes only. For official minutes, please contact the Town Clerk's Office.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2000
1. CALL TO ORDER
Carol Cole, Economic Development Commission, called the regular meeting of the Joint Committee on Economic Development to order at 7:20 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Bob Mule, Town Moderator, James Gallagher and Austin Barney, II, Zoning Commission, Cynthia Carey, Planning Commission, Kevin Gray and Charles Stephenson, Design Review Board. Also present were T.J. Donohue, Attorney and Mike Goman, Konover.
2. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
Mr. Goman stated that he is the President and Chief Operating Officer of Konover. He noted that Konover has a real estate division and a construction division and he reviewed the roles of each of these operations. He stated that he has worked in many areas of the U.S. and Canada.
Mr. Donohue reviewed his involvement with Simsbury and as an attorney. He stated that he is involved with land use in Simsbury, Avon, Farmington and Hartford. Mr. Donohue addressed his impression of the land use issues in Simsbury. He stated that one-third of the land is left in Simsbury and the center area enables more intensive use. He noted that Culbro and Ensign Bickford are the two big land use issues in town.
Mr. Donohue stated that commercial development can only be built along Route 10 due to sewer and water access, and recommended that the town not build a high school on property which could be used for commercial development. He stated that Simsbury is perceived as the toughest town in the state to get permits and he noted that Rt. 44 has always been a major thoroughfare. Mr. Donohue suggested that Avon and Farmington are almost fully developed and the technology corridor to Bradley Airport will be a significant feature for Simsbury.
Mr. Donohue expressed his feeling that the disadvantage to economic development in town is the lack of understanding of the mission and responsibilities of the commissions. He stated that commissions overstep their bounds. Mr. Donohue noted that in Avon the Town Planner works with the applicant and is aware of the concerns of the commissions. He stated that when commissions overstep their bounds it disrupts and confuses the process. Mr. Donohue stated that there is a perception that Simsbury wants no growth or change. He suggested that commissions need to be aware of their responsibility to the developer, as well as the community. Mr. Donohue stated that Simsbury has excellent commissioners, but a few have made their decision before they see the applicant’s presentation.
Mr. Barney questioned the statement that commissioners have a responsibility to developers. He stated that commissioners are elected to represent the public interest and have no responsibility to the developers. He expressed his concern that the development community feels that they are owed something because they are bringing tax income to the community. Mr. Barney pointed out that the commissions in Simsbury are infrequently sued and when they are they never lose. He stated that he does not agree with the developers’ perception that they are being put upon by the town.
Mr. Donohue stated that the oath the commissioners take includes protecting the public interest which includes the developers. He stated that there are attitudinal breakdowns and the ill will between the town and Ensign Bickford and Culbro is mostly the fault of those two companies. He stated that these two companies feel they are owed something and this has resulted in a breakdown of communication.
Mr. Donohue expressed his concern with what he believes is the polarization of the boards and commissions. He noted that some commissioners are uncivil to each other. He stated that previously commissions were looking for ways to decline applications instead of trying to work things out. Mr. Donohue suggested that a group needs to work to steer Ensign Bickford and Culbro in a balanced effort to meet the needs of the community. He also suggested that joint Public Hearings be held with the Planning Commission and the Zoning Commission when an applicant is required to go before both commissions. Mr. Donohue expressed his concern that the WPCA is the ultimate arbitrator of density and population. Mr. Barney pointed out that the state’s underlying regulations are predicated on using
sewers and septic to control land use.
Mr. Donohue suggested that as other towns fill up commercial development will move outward. He stated that the Hartford Courant doesn’t reflect the proper image of Simsbury. Mr. Donohue pointed out that the residents are beginning to understand the issues regarding the tax list. He suggested that Bradley Airport is the regional economic engine.
Mr. Goman recommended that the town have a realistic view of what commercial development they can obtain. He noted that developers look at the market, not the community. He suggested that development driven by tax incentives is an expensive way for a town to develop. Mr. Goman stated that the likelihood of substantial commercial development in Simsbury is slim, other than those businesses which service the community. He noted that the idea of a corporate campus in town is a stretch. He pointed out that Simsbury is not near an interstate and employees would be coming from the surrounding Hartford area.
Mr. Goman stated that communities may talk about what type of development they want, but there is not often a choice and the town almost has to take what comes in the door to increase the tax base. He suggested that the town should negotiate on potential commercial developments. He noted that developers will speak with others and will choose the path of least resistance. Mr. Goman stated that it is no longer the case that a company moves to a town because the CEO of the company lives there. He stated that location is chosen in proximity to the market served and the access routes for those coming to the business. Mr. Goman expressed his disagreement with Avon being built-out. He stated that it is a fatal error to say a market is built-out because no market is ever full.
Mr. Goman agreed that the commissions do not owe the developers anything, other than fairness. He agreed that the commission members are good, but expressed his concern that in an inflamed politically charged atmosphere the leadership of the town needs to support development. He pointed out that some developers will request more than they need because they know the project will be reduced. He noted the importance of openness and trust in the town’s relationship with the developer.
Mr. Mule questioned what likely development is possible in Simsbury. Mr. Goman stated that the commercial development will be largely driven by retail, with specific cases for industrial or corporate use. He noted that Rt. 44 is serving a market and Simsbury does not have the necessary infrastructure. He stated that development will not come to Simsbury based on the reputation of the town.
Mr. Barney suggested that the town focus on athletic training facilities, similar to the International Skating Center facility, in order to create a theme for development. Mr. Goman agreed that the athletic facility concept is a thread the town could pursue. He suggested that the town needs to consider how to re-focus to reach its goal and remove any barriers to its goal. He noted that perception is very important and he stated that Mr. Voelker is a great resource which should be utilized.
Mr. Goman explained that when Konover became an applicant for the Simsbury Commons project they requested a meeting with one land use chairman and were turned down. He noted that this started the process in a negative way. He stated that companies know what they want to build and the town cannot tell them what they want built. Ms. Cole noted that everyone needs to be in agreement on principle.
Mr. Barney noted that prior to Mr. Voelker there was a mismatch of expectations. He stated that Mr. Voelker understands the desires of the commissions and addresses them with the applicant prior to their presentation before the commissions. He noted that that there are legal issues which prevent the commissioners from meeting with applicants prior to the presentation. Mr. Goman stated that this process is inadequate and more towns are allowing the informal process. He pointed out that through the informal process the applicant gets to know commissioners on a personal level, which creates a sharper program when the applicant goes before the public and eliminates surprises because a rapport already exists. Mr. Goman stated that he likes to have the support of town leaders and working with town
staff is only part of the process. In response to Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Goman stated that some towns have 2 members from each commission present for a working session. He pointed out that the town could be sued over anything and this should not prevent the informal process from occurring.
Mr. Mule summarized that Simsbury has a lot to offer, but the drawbacks are location and access. He stated that the recommendations are to have a pre-application process, be proactive, have a less adversarial approach by commission members, and look at the regulations which could cause developers to not consider Simsbury. He noted that the town is not seeing projects due to the perception of problems here.
Mr. Stephenson requested two suggestions each from Mr. Donohue and Mr. Goman. Mr. Donohue suggested that the town address the 75 contiguous acres in the center of town and create a new development zone which includes certain items to increase the desirability of developing the land, such as fast tracking, a bonus for open space, and impact fees instead of open space. He suggested that the town ask Ensign Bickford and Culbro to be responsive to the community.
Mr. Goman recommended that Simsbury organize the leadership of the town around the idea of making the town pro-development and increasing the tax base. He suggested that these influential people mobilize and get the message out to the larger population base publicly. Mr. Goman recommended a public statement on the town brochure regarding the pro-development stance of the town and a public information campaign. He pointed out that a good proposal can be finished due to a 150 member homeowner’s association that doesn’t want change.
Ms. Carey stated that there is a difference in what residents of Simsbury want and there is a mind set that people feel they can afford to be picky. Mr. Goman stated that this philosophy doesn’t work over the long-term. Mr. Barney pointed out that the mobility of the community undermines its capacity to hold core leadership. Mr. Donohue suggested that the town do a survey of what the residents want with regard to development and taxes. Mr. Goman stated that it is possible to get buy-in from transient residents, but you won’t know until you try. He pointed out that the town, at the very least, wants the opportunity to say “no” to an application.
Mr. Stephenson stated that he interviewed Larry Buck, Civil Engineer, and Jeff Gebrian, Landscape Architect, regarding their perceptions of Simsbury based on working in other towns. He stated that their comments fit in with the comments made by Mr. Donohue and Mr. Goman. Mr. Stephenson pointed out that a common theme is the interaction between staff and the commissions. He noted that in Avon and Farmington staff reviews the projects and their review notes are distributed to the boards. He stated that board members in these town typically have a site inspection prior to the applicant’s presentation.
Mr. Stephenson pointed out that the Design Review Board receives no notes from staff. Mr. Gallagher stated that the Zoning Commission receives reports from the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission, Mr. Voelker and Mr. Sawitzke. Mr. Barney expressed his concern that there is not enough funding for support of the commissions. Mr. Stephenson noted that prepared commissions facilitate the process.
Mr. Stephenson stated that in Wethersfield all commission members receive all items submitted by the applicant in their packet. He stated that in Avon there is trust between staff and the commissions and the attitude of the commissions is that they are there to help the applicant. Mr. Stephenson noted that when the commission Chairman understands the turf and re-focuses the conversation when it is out of line the meetings run more smoothly and there is less frustration. He pointed out that in West Hartford there are landscape screening designs included in the regulations. Mr. Stephenson stated that the degree to which commission members are prepared by staff, and are assisted by staff during the meetings, can help to facilitate the process. He noted that other towns move through long agendas
quickly. Mr. Donohue pointed out that it is easier to do commercial development in Avon because Rt. 44 is designed for commercial development. He noted that the commissions in Avon are appointed.
Mr. Barney suggested that the thread concept can work, as long as the community unifies around it. Mr. Goman stated that the town has to be committed to making things happen and the town should have an amicable professional relationship with developers. He stated that Simsbury is insular and they need to look outside of themselves to business which is passing by.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2000
Mr. Stephenson moved to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Cole and carried unanimously.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Gray moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and carried unanimously.
| 
