Simsbury, CT - Zoning Commission Minutes 06/16/2008

Austin Barney, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Program Room at Simsbury Public Library, 725 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, CT. The following members were present: Garrett Delehanty, Jr., Scott Barnett, Bruce Elliott, James Gallagher, and John Vaughn and Alternates Joseph Grace and Madeline Gilkey. Also in attendance were Director of Planning Hiram Peck, Commission Clerk Debra Sweeney and other interested parties.

Christopher J. Smith, co-owner of the property stated that the request for Special Exception became necessary when they wanted to install a cooking source in an 830 square foot addition that has already gotten a Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Barney asked about the total square footage of the house and if the square footage of the addition met the mathematical ratios that are required for the Special Exception. Although the exact respective square footages were not readily at hand, Mr. Peck indicated that the Zoning Enforcement Officer had reviewed the application and performed the calculations and had determined that the addition did comply with the requirement. Mr. Peck also indicated that a variance that had been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals to cover all the other outstanding issues. Chairman Barney reminded the applicant that the Special Exception runs with the owner and their family member and does not allow for a rentable apartment.

Chairman Barney noted that there had been some concern expressed by the owners relative to this application that he might have a conflict of interest in that he had made inquiries into land owned by the Drummey's in Barkhamsted. After reviewing the issue with Town Counsel, he determined that no conflict of interest existed and that he would be able maintain objective as he has no business interest with the Drummey's nor do any offers or contracts exist.

Beth and Mark Drummey stated that they had made the same application approximately six years ago and were denied. They believed that the application was denied based on inaccurate Town records, specifically a zoning map that showed surrounding properties to be zoned R-40 (residential) when, in fact, they were zoned B-2. Mr. Peck concurred that the current representation on the current zoning map indicates that the property is surrounded by other properties that are zoned B-2.

Chairman Barney asked if the intent was to keep the building as is. Mr. Peck noted that there is no site plan associated with this application as it is for a zone change only. However, Mr. Drummey stated that a site plan had been submitted with the original application and their current intent would be very similar; he envisioned a small retail store and small deli as appropriate uses for the site. As the house is approximately 150 years old, he also thought that some changes would be required in order to accommodate a business. He did not think that a residence and business could both exist unless the residence was an apartment.

Mr. Kowalski indicated that there have been several studies as well as discussions with the Masons relative to replacing the main firehouse in its existing location and that they have entered into an option agreement proposing a property swap such that the Masons would construct a new facility at the site under application, which is just over one-half acre, and the Fire District would then use their old property for purposes of constructing a new firehouse.

Mr. Elliott asked what the properties north of the Westminster driveway were zoned and Mr. Kowalski stated that they were zoned R-15. Mr. Elliott asked about the size of the current Masonic property and Mr. Kowalski stated that it is just over one-third of an acre.

Chairman Barney asked if the Masonic facility would be used by other groups. Mr. Kowalski responded that the Masons have two evening meetings per month and that another Mason group has one meeting per month. He indicated that they have had no issues with lessees with the Masons at their current location.

Graham Cole, Headmaster of Westminster School, 995 Hopmeadow Street, stated that the School was in favor of the change and that their main concerns were 1) that the architectural renderings of any future construction be in keeping with the surrounding structures and 2) that proper landscaping and buffering be implemented.

Mr. Neuhauser, 4 Owens Place, stated that his residence abuts the property and that he was concerned about the integrity of his residential property. He asked that buffering be done by trees and not fences and hoped that the property would not be rented out to large, noisy parties. Chairman Barney indicated that these issues would be addressed with the applicant when any proposed site plan is submitted.

d. Application of P. Anthony Giorgio, Member, Dorset Crossing LLC, c/o The Keystone Companies, LLC, Thomas W. Fahey, Jr., Attorney, Agent, for a Text Amendment to Article Seven, Section G, Article Ten, Section A.4 and Article Ten, Section E.5 of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations on property located at 1507 and 1515 Hopmeadow Street. I-3 and B-2 Zone.

Mr. Elliott stated that the Chairman had received a communication from Attorney Fahey on behalf of Keystone Companies and Mr. Giorgio at 4:00 p.m. today requesting that he and Mr. Vaughn recuse themselves from consideration of this application due to their "deep and long relationship with SHARE that would bias their judgment". Mr. Elliott and Mr. Vaughn requested that this application be postponed and rescheduled to the Commission's next meeting in order to provide them ample opportunity to consult with counsel before responding to Attorney Fahey.

As a point of order, Attorney Thomas Fahey, representing The Keystone Companies and Dorsett Crossing, LLC, stated that he had e-mailed this correspondence on Thursday evening asking that it be delivered to both Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Elliott on the assumption that he was giving ample opportunity. He indicated that he had also had a conversation with Town Attorney Decresenzo informing him that it was coming. He stated that there was no intent for any last minute notification, that their intent was, in fact, just the opposite, and was not sure why it had not reached Chairman Barney until today.

f. Application of Jeffrey S. Hoffman, Hoffman Enterprises - Owner, Thomas J. Donohue, Jr., Attorney, Agent, for a Zone Change from R-40 to B-3 on property located at the Hoffman Auto Park, 395 West Mountain Road (Map A-19, Lot 2E8, Block 503). R-40 Zone (continued from meeting of May 19, 2008).

Attorney T.J. Donahue, Killian and Donahue, and Sam Pines, Hoffman Auto Group, spoke for the application, which was continued from the May 19, 2008 meeting. Mr. Pines addressed the demands of the car manufacturers for storage of car inventories and noted that he would be the contact point for any neighbor concerns. He indicated that Hoffman has continued to work with the neighbors in addressing their concerns and has been an active partner and neighbor in Town. He stated that this evening's presentation represents a tremendous amount of work spent towards addressing concerns that were expressed at the last hearing.

Dave Dixon, Milone and MacBroom, 99 Realty Drive, Cheshire, CT, reviewed the nine changes that have been made to the proposed plan and Attorney Donahue distributed maps to the Commissioners graphically illustrating these changes. Mr. Dixon also submitted a letter from Landscape Architect Robert "Biff" Schechinger with his comments on the changes.

The earthen berm along the paved lot's northern and eastern edges (as expanded in the last plan) has been regarded to a height of 10 feet above the adjacent pavement grades for nearly all of its 520- foot length. Though there are two short sections where the berm drops to 6 feet in relative height, these are in locations that are now considerably further away from adjacent neighbors due to the introduction of the 200-foot deep residential lot in the northeast corner of the original property. Coupled with the installation of a solid 8 foot high wood fence along the berm's crest (and all the proposed buffer plantings), this will effectively screen any visual access of the paved lot and stored vehicles from all adjacent neighbors. Conditions of approval should state that berms would use appropriate fill material installed in the most effective manner to ensure vegetative stabilization, as specified and detailed on their final drawings, along with a five-year total replacement warranty on proposed plant material, to ensure complete berm vegetative stabilization, as proposed.

Mr. Grace asked how it could be ensured that the plantings will be successfully grown and Mr. Dixon replied that the five-year warranty replacement along with tree watering and care in the first year would be necessary. Mr. Barnett asked how many yards of fill would be removed and where would it go. Mr. Dixon replied that originally it was a balanced site and that the intent is to strive to continue to make it a balanced site. He noted that a lot of the material would be used to make the berm.

Biff Schechinger, 281 West Mountain Road, stated that he is a licensed landscape architect who was hired by the Hoffman Group to represent the neighbors' concerns. He felt that the redesign is comprehensive in taking into account all the comments that were made at the last hearing. He noted that the removal of the lighting is a significant change. He thought that legal descriptions regarding rights-of-way and easements need to be clarified. He noted neighbor concerns regarding potential destabilization of wells due to the vibratory action during compaction. He added that, if a monitor program is established for the landscape material, then an annual report on the general health of the landscape with comments on any potential issues should be a condition for approval. He also thought that there should be neighbor input relative to the color and style of the block wall as well as the style of chain link fence. Finally, he noted that the change represents a net loss of approximately 18,000 square feet of bitumous coverage.

Anneliese Frank, 19 Banbury Drive, read into the record a letter from her husband, Thomas E. Frank, who is Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, but noted that the comments expressed were his personal views and not that of the Commission. Mr. Frank stated that he fully supported the project as it is in compliance with the Plan of Conservation and Development as approved in 2007 in that it supported the development of existing business while minimizing impact of that development upon adjacent residential areas.

Don Proach, 392 West Mountain Road, stated that he needed time to review the new changes, but still was concerned about the environmental impact, the effects of all the new easements and wondered what has substantially changed since the approval of the Hoffman project that necessitates this additional application.

Chairman Barney asked that Mr. Proach's concerns regarding sight lines be explained to him to his satisfaction. Mr. Proach stated that he was concerned about the resultant effect of the highest point of the parking lot combined with the lowest point of the berm.

John Slauenwhite, 11 Maureen Drive, stated that he represented the Southwest Homeowners Association. He noted that the Association has fought past requests by Hoffman for rezoning and those requests were subsequently denied. He stated that the Association is vehemently opposed to rezoning the property from R-40 to B-3 as well as the construction of the parking lot.

Lois Sharlow, 4 Maureen Drive, stated that the issue is not about the sale of hybrid vehicles, plantings or easements, but rather one of residential zoning. She reminded the Commission that the neighboring homeowners were assured that the property would remain residential in perpetuity.

Dave Mattson, 7 Maureen Drive, stated that he was opposed to the rezoning of a residential lot to business use and the eventual construction of a paved road that would go right through the buffer. He asked if any other plans had been considered which would involve keeping the parking on the Hoffman site. He reminded the Commission that they are the neighbors' last resort for defending their rights.

Jean Ladetto, 393 West Mountain Road, stated that the introduction of Best Buy and Nissan is increasing traffic and an additional road would just mean more lights and traffic. She stated that she does not want to be boxed in by two roads and is tired of have to defend her property every 3-1/2 years against an onslaught by Hoffman.

Attorney Donahue summarized that the project is fully compliant with the Town's Plan of Conservation and Development and noted Hoffman's ongoing engagement with the neighbors, citing the development of their policy for test driving directions that were developed in response to neighbor input. Although he felt the revisions are admirable, Mr. Grace wondered what constitutes the necessity for the parking lot. Attorney Donahue stated that the need is for inventory storage in connection with growth of the business so as to allow Simsbury's third largest business to service its customers and experience economic growth.

Chairman Barney noted that during the application process for the Hoffman expansion project, they were repeatedly questioned about the need for additional parking and they repeatedly indicated that it was not needed. He also questioned why, if it was needed, property was then sold off to Best Buy. He asked if the applicant would consider the alternative of using the current four acres of conservation easement on the Hoffman property without pushing into the Markie property, which would then become the buffer. He asked the applicant if they would like to consider that option or if they wished the Commission to vote this evening. Attorney Donahue stated that they would have the engineers consider the possibility. Chairman Barney stated that the vote would be deferred until the Commission's next meeting.

Mr. Peck reminded the applicant that he needs copies of all the most recent maps that were submitted this evening. Attorney Donahue stated that the maps are the same as in the original submission. Mr. Peck asked that Attorney Donahue issue him a letter to that effect. Mr. Peck also requested that drafts of any property easement documents be submitted as soon as possible. Mr. Peck confirmed with Attorney Donahue that the applicant agrees to a two-week extension of the time period for closing the hearing.

a. Application of Jeffrey S. Hoffman, Hoffman Enterprises - Owner, Thomas J. Donohue, Jr., Attorney, Agent, for a Site Plan Approval for a proposed vehicle storage area on property located at the Hoffman Auto Park, 395 West Mountain Road (Map A-19, Lot 2E8, Block 503). (continued from meeting of May 19, 2008).

Mr. Elliott made a motion to approve the application of Lorraine Spicker, Owner, for a Special Exception for an Accessory Apartment pursuant to Article Seven, Section C.9 of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations on property located at 20 Crescent Way, R-40 Zone, with the condition that the Commission is expressly relying on the fact that the square footage requirements meet the Regulations. Mr. Delehanty seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Mr. Gallagher made a motion to approve the application of Lew Sparandio, Owner, Kevin Kowalski, Fire Marshal, Simsbury Fire District - Agent, for a Zone Change from R-15 and PO to PO on property located at 981 - 987 Hopmeadow Street, PO and R-15 Zone. Mr. Delehanty seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Mr. Peck stated that the Town Clerk had noted that wording of a motion made at the Commission's last meeting relative to the submission of a grant application was not the exact wording that is in the grant application form and asked that they would make another motion so that the application can be submitted.

Mr. Delehanty made a motion that the Zoning Commission make a resolution to (1) endorse submission of the grant application for assistance under the Housing for Economic Growth Program referenced in section 8-13(m-x) of CGS; and (2) certify that it will consider the creation of one or more housing incentive zones. Such grant application is attached to and made a part of this record. Mr. Gallagher seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Mr. Peck and the Commission discussed the problems caused by last minute submissions, indicating that there does not seem to be enough time between meetings for applicants to prepare adequate response or for there to be adequate staff review and suggested the possibility that the Commission consider going to monthly meetings. Mr. Barnett was concerned about penalizing those applicants who are well prepared to have to wait on a four-week timeframe. He thought that applicants should be counseled to not go on an agenda if their applications are not complete. Mr. Peck also suggested the possibility of certain items being handled by non-quorum subcommittees.