SOUTHINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING
February 15, 2007
Southington Police Department Community Room
69 Lazy Lane, Southington, Connecticut
MINUTES
Chairman Zaya Oshana, Jr., called the Southington Planning &
Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting to order at 7:15 pm with the
following members in attendance:
John Carmody, John DeMello, Michael DelSanto, James Sinclair and
Patrick Saucier*
Alternates:
Lisa Conroy
Others:
Mary Savage,Town Planner and Mark Sciota, Town
Attorney
Absent:
Francis Kenefick, Commissioner
Brian Zaccagnino, Alternate Commissioner
Richard Hart, Alternate Commissioner
Robert Borkowski, Alternate Commissioner
John Weichsel, Town Manager
Anthony Tranquillo, Town Engineer
(*Arrived where noted.)
A quorum was determined.
Zaya Oshana, Chairman, presiding:
THE CHAIR:
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Just two
notes. Commissioner Kenefick is traveling this evening and will
not be able to be here. Commissioner Saucier will be here. He
is in a business meeting this evening in Hartford and he is
expected to be here around 7:30 pm. So, he will be coming in
this evening after his meeting.
Our meeting this evening is two-fold. The first thing is
to introduce the new Town Planner for the Town of Southington.
Our new Town Planner is Mary Savage sitting here at the end of
the table. She joined us last Wednesday, the 7th of February,
and is coming to Southington from the Town of Manchester.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
2
The meeting is also to give Mary a chance to meet the rest
of the Commission. She has met some of the Commissioners and
talked to some of the public. This will give her a chance to
meet some of the folks here tonight and tell us a little bit
about herself.
Mary?
MS. SAVAGE: I am very pleased to be back in Southington.
I most recently worked in the Town of Manchester. I had been
there eleven years as a Senior Planner working on current zoning
issues as well as comprehensive planning and special projects
which included zoning regulation revisions, grants, just about
anything that they weren’t quite sure who would do it, basically
I did it.
I say that I am happy to be back in Southington as I grew
up in Cheshire and lived there for about fifteen years including
during my high school years. My family had a house there for
about twenty-five to thirty years.
I have not lived in Southington but I do have a familiarity
with the town. My first job was at the McDonald’s by the drive
in. We used to go to the drive in when we could find someone who
had a car.
I remember Southington back in the 80’s. So it is
really nice --- I feel in a way I am coming home even though I
don’t live here. I have family and friends and drive though, so
I do have some familiarity with the community.
I am very excited to be here. I think this is a wonderful
opportunity. A lot of things are going on and I think
Southington is at the crossroads and this is a super opportunity
to really do some thoughtful revisions to the regulations and set
the direction for the Town.
You have a new Plan of Development, so that will be super.
And, I am very happy to be here.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
We are very happy to have you here.
(Applause, applause, applause)
Mary’s credentials are very nice and I think as we go
through not only the process tonight and as we are going through
the normal course of business in this Town, I think that we are
all, as a Commission, excited to have you here. I think as
people begin to work with you and the public works with you, they
will find your experience and background will be helpful to all
of us.
MS. SAVAGE:
Thank you.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
THE CHAIR:
3
Thank you.
The second reason we are here tonight is to begin the
process of or to pick up where we left off in the process of our
zoning regulations review and update.
Tonight’s meeting is a workshop for the
Commission. It is not a public hearing. We
a week or so ago and it was to open it up to
want to have our meetings open to the public
and hear what we are doing.
Planning & Zoning
set up this meeting
the public and we
so people could see
This is an open discussion so we can talk about where we
are, where we are going in this process. The goal is to begin
the process of review in areas of concern where the Commission
felt we needed to review and look at in our regulations.
As some of you may know, we set up a couple of
subcommittees. One was to look at the zoning regulations and one
was to look at the subdivision regulations. As you may know,
these subcommittees have had several meetings and have begun
their work by looking at the regulations and have been meeting as
a group and have been putting together their thoughts and ideas
on where we are, where we were and where we need to go as a Town.
In the deliberations, we are looking to be fair to all
residents in the Town of Southington and not just particular
groups but all residents in the Town of Southington.
You know, when we sit up here and make decisions, it is
easy to criticize if you are either for or against the decision
this Commission makes. We make decisions, we feel based on the
best information that we have, in the best interest of the Town
of Southington, for safety reasons that go along with the
regulations and that are in the best interest of the citizens of
the Town of Southington. And, we need to make sure our
regulations are there for us because when we make our decision,
we want to make sure our decisions are upheld. And quite frankly,
as a Commissioner and for all of us, we are sincerely tired of
having our brains bashed by attorneys, developers and judges when
we make these decisions based on the best interest in the Town of
Southington, in the best interest of the residents of the Town
for now and in the future, and we are sued and we lose
continually. It is time that we make sure that we are not put in
that position going forward.
Now, as part of putting together zoning regulations and any
changes to the zoning regulations, I have been using an analogy
of a solid table.
There are four legs to a solid table and in
order to do zoning regulations, we need all four. One is the
Commission and we have a solid Planning & Zoning Commission who
have worked on subcommittees and as a Commission very well
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
4
together and have looked at these issues and put together a plan
and are moving forward. We have worked very hard at looking at
the Plan of Development which sets the guidelines going forward
of what the Planning & Zoning Commission should be looking at in
terms of development over the next ten years in this Town of
Southington.
The second leg of that table is good, strong solid
engineering and engineer background to help us with the
engineering aspect of Planning and Zoning and we have that in
Town Engineer Tony Tranquillo.
The third leg is a good, strong solid attorney who can help
us with legal aspects not only in setting up regulations but also
in interpretation of those regulations. We have that in our Town
Attorney, Mark Sciota.
And, the fourth leg is a good, strong solid Town Planner.
And, we have that with Mary Savage who started with us last week.
We began this process with a good, strong solid Town Planner,
Mary Hughes, --- thank you for having the same name, Mary, so we
don’t get confused.
Mary Hughes resigned and left a couple of months back and
we all wish her well. But, that probably set us back. We had
subcommittees and they started working and we were ready to meet
with Mary to start the process. You have to understand you need
the Town Planner with experience and skills in planning and
development of regulations to get this process going and we lost
that and that set us backwards in our progress.
With Mary Savage onboard, now we are ready to go.
Mary
has had the opportunity to meet with some of the Commissioners,
the public and other elected officials and she has a quick
understanding of what Southington is looking at, where we are and
where we are looking to go and I think that Mary, from what I
have seen and/or have a sense, has a strong understanding of what
we are looking at, what our needs are and with her background and
experience she has the experience to help us tremendously as we
move forward in this process.
So, with a few last comments, we will get started. From a
procedural perspective what we will do in this process tonight is
throw out ideas, issues and concerns we are looking at as a
Commission. What do we want to look at going forward, what are
the areas of concern in your regulations for review, updating,
changes, deletions, adding, whatever. We will get those items to
the subcommittees and working with staff and the entire
Commission bringing those things forward. We will be having
meetings, getting involved with the public in a forum so we can
bring in public input and talk as we move forward through this
process.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
5
We are not looking at public input tonight. We will have
public input as we go through the process and look into the areas
and where we are looking to bring our regulations to.
Then it will be on an Agenda for a public hearing, bringing
it to a vote and implementing the changes. That is the process.
I had an opportunity to talk to some Commissioners and we
had a call for some timeframes and deadlines. Staff and as a
Commission, you know, we are looking at doing these things and
doing these things right. We are not looking at setting
arbitrary deadlines which may or may not be met. What we are
looking at doing is spending the right amount of time and energy
and make sure we do it right and right the first time. We cannot
afford as a Town to do this speedy and wrong.
So, tonight what we will do is, we have two Chairpersons of
our subcommittees -- Vice Chairman of the Commission, John
DeMello is Chairing the subcommittee on subdivision regulations
and Commissioner Kenefick, who is not able to be here tonight, is
Chairing the committee on zoning regulations. I will ask the
subcommittees have their meetings and in April come forward with
their first report to the full Commission, the full Planning and
Zoning Commission.
MR. CARMODY:
To be honest with you, I know Fran isn’t
here, but I am sure when Pat comes, the subcommittee for the
zoning regulations, we will be ready well before April.
We want to get moving quickly and get these things on the
Agenda. People want some answers.
THE CHAIR: I have a question for the Town Attorney. We
had a discussion sometime ago about a temporary moratorium on
building that didn’t pass. I know there was some discussion of
putting some temporary pauses on some activities now. The
question I have is, is it possible, legally, between now tonight
and when we implement our regulations changes which will happen
hopefully by springtime -- when you look at the calendar that
isn’t that far –- can we as a Commission legally stop accepting
applications on a temporary basis for building until we complete
these regulations changes?
ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Well, you have to go through the process
of an official moratorium to do something like that. I went
through this with the Commission before.
You would establish a resolution either by a legislative
body or yours. The resolution would then be sent to all the
regional planning authorities. I believe State agencies would
require it, as well. Also, it would go to your bordering Towns.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
6
The timeframe, you know you have a typical timeframe for
regional authorities to review. You would establish your own
schedule for public hearings and after public hearings you would
then proceed to a vote.
Your resolution would have to be very specific as to a
timeframe. Your resolution has to state exactly why you are
putting on the moratorium and I am not sure if changing your
regulations would fly and I would have to sit down with Mary and
talk about that a little more before I comment on terminology.
It is not a tomorrow situation. If you are talking about
changing your regulations by springtime, you are talking about
the same time.
MR. CARMODY: If we get on the ball here and get the
changes on the Agenda it seems to me – I understand there are
certain instances where a moratorium works and a temporary
moratorium works, but we are talking about a real short time
period to make some changes. If we direct our attention that way
and go through all the hoops that we have to jump through to put
a moratorium in place, we are just taking focus away from getting
this done and on the Agenda, have public hearing, notifying the
regionals. Let’s prioritize them and get them done.
THE CHAIR: I think it is important everybody understand
the process that is required to set up a moratorium. We talked
about it about a year and half ago when we looked at this the
first time.
I just think it is important to get it on the record what
the process is in setting up the moratorium. So, thank you,
Mark.
All right.
I have talked enough for now.
I have got a few things I want to bring
items to talk about tonight. I think though
else does, too. I am wondering if we should
items we want to throw out there as issues.
it is a subdivision or a regulation change.
start doing that now.
up in terms of
that I know everyone
start talking some
It doesn’t matter if
I think we should
Who wants to start?
MR. DELSANTO:
I think what is going through a lot of
people’s minds is time frames. To actually try to pinpoint a
specific time when this whole process will be done from beginning
to end, is in my opinion, impossible because as you said earlier,
we don’t want to rush this process. We want to be really
analytical with regard to the pros and cons as we go through the
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
7
process. So, to put an actual timeframe to it – I know some
people are saying or requesting by July 1st they want this done.
I think this is a bad idea. I don’t want to hold ourselves to a
timeframe because what if it comes June and we are not quite
there yet, we have to race against time to get this done.
I think we would be remiss if we did something like that.
We are already into March and it is just a few months away. It
is a lot for us to go through and it is not as easy as some may
think it is.
MR. CARMODY: Folks, bear with us.
It is a little awkward
sitting here in a different room and we don’t have a standard
schedule here.
I want to talk prioritizing. I think that is real important
here. I think our main priority was to the industrial
regulations. I will get to residential in a second. A big item
of concern for this Commission and one that should be for
everyone is our tax base. It is 81 percent residential and rest
mixed business and industrial.
Really, for the long term health of this community, we have
to increase our tax base under the nonresidential side of things.
Making changes to our industrial regulations will really help in
that regard, in my opinion.
Our industrial regulations are very restrictive and very
difficult for certain users to comply with. Please, don’t
confuse industrial with smokestacks. I am talking about --- you
could have a job shop with a guy who cuts granite countertops.
He has eight employees. He doesn’t need five acres of land. He
can’t afford it.
They’re out there. Our industrial regulations
are so restrictive that they can’t comply. We need to make
changes to the industrial regulations and that has to be a
priority.
I think priority 1-A is looking at the residential zones.
A lot of folks have some issues with --- I’ll use the term
overdevelopment. I think what will be beneficial is -- we did a
good bit of this during our Plan of Development -- getting out
our map and taking a look at what we have left in our residential
z ones.
Please tell people who are not here, when we have these
public hearings, get them all out and all the people’s concerns
out. We should have our map up there and take a look at what our
residential zones are. What we have left. I think it is
important to know what we have left as we get into the
residential zones.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
8
I will mention that I think the Commission has done a few
things over the lat few years that are what I consider proactive
and promoting smart growth.
Took multi family use out of the business zones.
Decreased the density in the R-12 zone from one unit
per 8,000 sf to one unit per 10,000 sf.
Introduced R-12 Limited zoning. This does not allow
multifamily housing.
Increased the side yard requirements in the R-12 zone
from 10 to 15 feet.
Prohibited rear lots in the R-12 zone.
Those are things to me that promote smart growth.
John Barry was instrumental in instituting ridge top
protection regulations. We didn’t sign the Metacomet compact but
our ridge top protection regulations are better, in my opinion.
Instituted the ROD regulations as a take off of our
recent Plan of Development. A lot of the ROD regulations now in
place have to do with the Ideal Forging site but you will see a
lot of good regulations regarding parking, landscaping and
signage. A lot of that will be incorporated into our
regulations.
When making changes, it a progression. Making sweeping
changes is difficult to impose on a lot of people. It is our
responsibility to be fair to everybody because things don’t
happen in a vacuum and they affect a lot of people. It is our
job to be as fair as possible.
Whenever you do zoning, you don’t stop development, you
change development. So, we want to make sure when we make
changes it is in the direction that we want the Town of
Southington to progress to. I wanted to get that out.
MR. DEMELLO: In reviewing the subdivision regulations, we
have had a few meetings and had some discussion on items that
need to be revamped. The problem is once again things don’t
happen overnight. Change comes with time.
Looking at the regulations, the Commission has done a great
job over the past few years revamping certain regulations but
some of the things that were brought up were relative to the
residential zones.
We also had discussion about:
-
minimum lot sizes, decreased in the R-12
cul de sacs were a major issue as to the length.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
9
We are working on all of that and hopefully, we will have
some changes very soon.
As to industrial zones, we are talking about changing some
to the business zone.
MR. SINCLAIR:
We have been talking about having less R-12
and more R-12 Limited for single family use and less
condominiums.
The length of permanent cul de sacs is an issue.
cul de sacs are being looked at.
Spurs on
The subdivision regulations are very technical and for
those things a lay person doesn’t understand, we need to have the
Town Engineer, Fire Department, Health Department review them.
We did talk some of the minimum square. I would like to
have our Town Planner look at that.
Other things we brought up were using a multiplier. That
is if you have a parcel of property, how much of that can you use
in the equation for how many units for that property.
That’s all.
MR. CARMODY: Zaya, when interviewing Mary, you asked her a
particular question and her response was enlightening. Can you
ask her again? It was a question with regard to smart growth and
resource based zoning versus something else and I think I would
like the persons here to hear you ask it again and hear Mary’s
response.
MR. DEMELLO: One other thing we wanted to bring up is
architectural review. We want to discuss that. There are things
happening here in Town with buildings that are looking great. I
mean, there is a developer that is making a lot of things happen
here and the building looks great.
If you go to Cheshire, on Route 10, there are building
structures that are similar in nature and they are beautiful. So
hopefully, we can do something here in Southington and work on
that.
MS. CONROY: I have only been on the Commission as an
alternate for the last six months. So this is all a very new
process to me. I really do feel for the people who only come to
the occasional meeting or came to this meeting and they are not
aware of the process and they want to give input but that might
be in a different part of the process, or in a different
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
10
procedure, where generally the Commission has allowed input for
these topics, I think it would be helpful for the occasional
visitor to go to if our website had a timeline on it or a flow
chart of what the processes are so that the public could better
understand.
It would show where it starts, when it comes up for
review, and it might make it a little more easier for people who
are just coming every once in a while to understand how it goes.
Discussion of how the ZBA explains their procedure to be
followed at the beginning of every meeting.
THE CHAIR: Mary, I know you have had some time to spend
with the staff and go over some items and some issues and review
things. But before that, I guess we will go to Mr. Carmody’s
question.
When we met during the interview process, we asked this
same question of all the applicants and I think your answer was
very interesting.
Mary, the question was: Hypothetically speaking, you came
to Southington and there was an issue with development and a
desire to control development or if you felt development was
residentially growing too fast, and you had two options:
increasing lot sizes by up zoning from R-12 to R-20/25, from R20-25 to R-40, et cetera or looking at instituting a resource
based zoning program in the Town of Southington, which would you
prefer and why?
MS. SAVAGE: I do remember the question now but I don’t
remember my answer but I think that I answered it by not
answering it because that is a very broad question.
I think zoning regulations are a great tool --- this isn’t
exactly what I told them, but zoning regulations are a great
tool. To use up zoning because of a concern about development
for me as a Planner I would need more information before I could
advise on options or how to proceed.
I would be curious to know if it is school over crowding,
impact to the wetlands, public utilities over extension, or are
there different issues in different parts of Town and it may be
that there are different solutions in different areas.
I would not just say rezone the Town. I would ask a few
more questions and then perhaps there would be different
opportunities to achieve this goal the Commission and public were
looking to achieve.
THE CHAIR:
Take us through some of the issues.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
11
MS. SAVAGE: I wouldn’t want to call them issues. They are
opportunities. I did take the regulations home last weekend and
read them through.
They are definitely not committed to memory,
but I did make some quick notes about some opportunities to
perhaps make incremental changes in either design layout, some
more technical aspects of plan review.
I have also had some feedback from different staff members
about parts of the regulations they would like see some
strengthening or review because as staff to an extent we are
limited to advise the engineers and developers on what to do by
what is in the regulations.
You cannot be too discriminatory. I would like to have a
good working relationship with the developers that I do work with
regularly and sometimes there is room for give and take. There
is some opportunity definitely to make changes. Other parts of
the regulations I thought were very good.
The subdivision regulations, I think perhaps some internal
process and public improvement standards and maybe even some
administrative processes.
I think it is a big dynamic with lots of different parts,
some which take longer and some which do not. I would like to
tell the Commission that though you have the best zoning
regulations, strong design standards or very technical site
design requirements for different types of things, once the
zoning regulations are adopted, it is not as though you wake up
the next day and all of a sudden everything is different.
As you tighten up design standards, facades or architecture
requirements in business zones, those types of things, you set up
standards and sometimes it takes a few years to start to see an
effect because when we adopt regulations, it won’t apply to
existing development, particularly for business.
If there was a new design standard and if the business was
sold and someone new wanted to do an addition, at that point, the
new regulation and standard would be applied. It is an
incremental process and that is why it is important to be
thoughtful now looking down the road as to your vision and what
you would like the different parts of Town to look like, feel
like and function like.
THE CHAIR: From my prospective, I think we need to look at
several sections of our regulations. We need to decide how to
tighten them up.
Some things I would like to add to the list:
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
12
Look at floodplains and how the regulations drafted
right now is working for us in the Town. Are we in a situation
where we see where the floodplain is but yet we are flooding
beyond? What do we do?
As to downtown, development potential, they’re talking
about putting in condos and with flooding beyond the flood plain,
I don’t know how you deal with things like that. We need to look
at that.
(Mr. Saucier entered the meeting.)
Traffic studies. We have some regulations as to when
we are supposed to do traffic studies and when we are required to
do traffic studies. The regulation says 75 trips in a peak time.
I am not a traffic expert and I don’t pretend to be one. We
listen to them a lot in our meetings. I am not an expert but I
do drive around a lot and I find it hard to believe how some of
these work. We are lucky enough to have somebody like Lisa on
our Commission who understands and works with this stuff on a
daily basis. She can give us her expertise.
I would like to see us look at traffic study requirements.
As we grow, we are putting more and more traffic on the streets
and I want to make sure we are not over burdening our highway
system here in Town.
Densities. I am concerned right now about the R-12.
When we started looking at the R-12 and the over 55, we have a
regulation that allows us to take and drop to one unit per 3000
sf. We think that’s huge and actually it’s tiny. We need to
look at the regulations.
As we continue to get more and more into sensitive areas,
we need to start looking at buffers and the requirements for
buffers. Not only the size, but what our buffers are made of.
MR. DELSANTO: Zaya, as to buffers, bigger developments
with bigger sized lots, are you talking about across the board
buffers or just R-12 and R-12 Limited?
THE CHAIR: Anything across the board right now.
But I
think we should talk about this as a Commission and probably the
different zones but across the board right now as to buffering
requirements.
Open Space Subdivisions. We have open space subdivision
regulations on the books which is a great idea. We did one a
couple of months or longer ago. It is a great idea. A great
regulation but, it is a brutal regulation, I think. You have to
jump through hoops, I mean evil hoops. It is horrible.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
13
There is no desire I can see for a developer to come into
Southington and do an open space subdivision. None. We need to
take the open space subdivision and make it more attractive for
someone to come in and do an open space subdivision.
(Open Space Subdivisions were explained to the audience.)
We talked about industrial zones. I think that Mr. Perillo
is in the back and has some great ideas. This is more for site
review than for zoning, but you know the old saying, if you build
it, they will come kind of thing. The Town needs to do some kind
of development, if we do infrastructure work, it means spending
some money and putting in roads and infrastructure but people
will come.
We need to be more flexible on lot sizes.
get people to come into Town.
That is how we
I know that Lou will work very closely with us on that sort
of stuff. Lou’s commitment in the industrial zone is
unquestionable. Hopefully, we can have his help with that.
One huge thing we will need
prospective is the SPU process.
I think our SPU is toothless and
something that is different than
Mark’s help with from a legal
I think our SPU process is weak.
has no bite. It is to allow
what the regulations allow.
ATTORNEY SCIOTA: In some zones, it is allowed as of right
and you can allow others in with an SPU.
THE CHAIR: I think the SPU is for things that are not
normally allowed there. That’s the reason for the word special.
What I would like to do is add some teeth to the special permit
process allowing us to be a little more restrictive and putting a
lot more emphasis on the ability to say no and then not get sued
and get a hatchet to the head and lose.
ATTORNEY SCIOTA:
facts add to it.
Meaningful stipulations backing up the
THE CHAIR: Also, some regulations allowing us to say no
based on public safety, based on surrounding areas and things
like that. Facts like we know we have the Chief of Police saying
it is a safety hazard or issue that really means something and it
doesn’t get overruled. Stuff like that. I think it is
important.
There is a lot of other stuff, but I will stop talking.
think we need have an overall comprehensive review.
MR. SAUCIER: You covered a lot of stuff that we talked
about and I don’t see anything missing at this time.
I
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
14
Relative to the traffic study, intersections of
development, what I would like to see us have is be able to
expand that radius to the effect of, if the traffic is being
reduced from a level of service C to level of service D, we can
go ahead and look in a certain radius and not just the direct
intersection of the development and we can take that into
account.
We have had issues with an intersection that was not
directly related to the subdivision and when we went to court on
that, we were overturned. We couldn’t consider that
intersection.
Also, things like level of service F. We understand there
is nothing lower than a level of service F. I want to be able to
take into account, not only direct intersections but affected
intersections.
MR. CARMODY: I would like to expand on that. When we met,
we talked about level of service ramifications. If an
intersection is level of service C and I don’t know how realistic
this is, or practical and that is why you are here, Mary. Pat
and I think level C or B, whatever, the new development can’t
have the effect of dropping it another two levels -- something
along those lines.
MR. SAUCIER: We have it in our regulations if the traffic
impact is down to a level of service D, which are grounds for us
to deny the application. I believe it is in the industrial or
commercial regulations. It says if it is a level of service D,
we have the right to reject that application based on traffic. I
would like to see that expanded throughout some of our traffic
analyses – our decision based on traffic.
MR. CARMODY: There is a difference between traffic and
congestion. I want to make that clear and we should keep that in
mind.
I love what you said about open space subdivisions or
cluster housing. We are trying to promote that. The number one
way to promote open space is to own it. You want more open space
in town, we have to own more open space. Open space ownership or
controlling of development rights is one huge hammer keeping open
space. That being said, open space subdivisions and making
things a little less restrictive, Zaya, I am totally onboard with
that.
As to industrial regulations, how feasible is it to have no
delineation between the I-1 and I-2 zones and just have a
universal industrial zone regulation that promotes whatever but
is all done by SPU? Does that slow down the process by having a
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
15
public hearing with all industrial applications is what I’m
asking.
I would love for us not to be restrictive in the industrial
zones and just have one set of regulations. Have it done by
special permit and judged case by case. But I don’t want to slow
down the whole process. Is that at all possible?
ATTORNEY SCIOTA: We talked about this. The whole purpose
is not to slow things down. By the SPU process, you are slowing
it down by regulations because you have to come in under a two
step process.
You have the SPU and a public hearing with certain
timeframes. And, a site plan. So therefore, to answer your
question, yes, SPU can take double the time. It is up to you,
however.
It is your public hearing and you can keep it open or close
it. The State allows 35 days plus another 35 days for public
hearing. Then you have 65 days plus another 65 days to make a
decision. You could keep it open for three or four months.
MR. CARMODY: Another question. I had someone from the
public ask me this. I said I didn’t know how practical it is,
but I will bring it up.
An applicant comes in and they require a traffic survey or
a soil sample. And, you know the process, the applicant is
responsible for bringing that information to the table. How
practical or impractical is it for the town to appoint those
experts, not pay for it, but the Town appoint that traffic
engineer or that soil scientist for that application? Actually,
select is what I want.
You would have your stable of people and use them instead
of the applicant doing the selection.
ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Spoke about a Town approved list. It
would still be paid for by the applicant and the only way to take
it out of their hands is to do a peer review. You do have that
tool. It is not used often. I am not sure what Mary has in her
budget for that. He then explained a peer review as you are not
duplicating the work, your representative is just going over what
the person who did the work presented.
It is less cost.
MS. SAVAGE: My take on that, some municipalities would
have a traffic engineer on retainer as a specialist and we would
route them plans to review. They would be like a quasi-employee.
They would be hired by the Town to do the plan review.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
16
If you reach a certain point where every development you
want to have a traffic engineer review it, at that point then the
town needs to think about does it make sense to actually add
somebody to staff because when you are working with a consultant
there is a time lapse.
We need somebody to review the traffic reports. I do know
some things about them but if you are interested in getting to a
point where you have somebody making some recommendations about
possible roadway improvements that would alleviate some concerns
or the advisability of certain entrance locations, it is better
to use, I think, someone and have them on retainer for the town
to represent us.
The applicant should pay for and hire whoever they want and
submit their material and make their case. If the town is
involved, I think in deciding which pool of candidates the
applicant can choose from, Mark would probably be very busy after
while. It is hard to defend that.
Are they biased? Especially if you are going to make
decisions based on that review, it really has to be clear.
MR. CARMODY: The argument can be made the other way as far
as bias is concerned, if you know what I mean.
MS. SAVAGE:
who hires them.
They are professionals and work for the person
ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Most of your traffic studies are done
through our own engineering department. Any review that is done
by the applicant, he hands in the traffic study. A presentation
is given to you at SPU or regular site plan meeting and it is
then reviewed by the engineering department. Tony’s department,
often by Tony himself. I don’t know who he has doing that.
MR. CARMODY:
like that?
On Greenway Commons aren’t we doing something
ATTORNEY SCIOTA:
review.
MR. CARMODY:
MS. SAVAGE:
You have authorized us to do a peer
Should that be standard operating procedure?
You need a bigger budget.
MR. DELSANTO: Relative to traffic studies and what Pat was
saying about level of service F and the right to turn it down. It
is in our regulations. Would that bring up any legal
ramifications if it is already a bad enough area? Do you know
what I mean? Already a level of service F and someone wants to
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
17
propose industrial or business use or even residential and it is
already a problem?
Extensive discussion about level of service F
intersections.
MS. SAVAGE: I don’t think it is white or black. There are
other opportunities that staff has to work with and report to the
board. There is lots of different opportunities in development.
If it is an area you truly want economic development in yet there
are existing traffic situations, there are other solutions and
that where staff will be able to work with economic development,
the Town engineer, the Town Attorney, myself and we can talk
about opportunities for eliminating curb cuts, providing more
roadway connections.
If you have cul de sacs with only one way out, you are
tunneling everyone to that intersection, so there are many
different means of design and development patterns too that may
get followed. That is not to say you should approve things if
the level of service is unacceptable to you.
If there is a development everyone is supportive of, there
may be other opportunities that you find out will work for the
town, the traffic and the developer. It doesn’t have to be yes
or no.
MR. SAUCIER: I totally agree. We do want that discretion
and right now we don’t have the discretion of saying no. I
definitely want to see that.
MR. CARMODY: A question. There has been a lot of recent
public anxiety over a clear cutting of trees on Hart and West
Street. I know that a great deal has to do with the requirement
of a public road in Town with slope requirements, the entrance
location of the road, et cetera. What are your thoughts about a
more rural road? No sidewalks, drainage swales, that kind of
thing. A narrow road so you can keep some of those trees.
What’re your thoughts on that?
MS. SAVAGE: I think I am very supportive of different
types of subdivision regulations. There is a lot of
opportunities. One area is flooding and our floodplain
requirements. I think we can address some flooding issues with
better storm water management procedures, which staff will be
working on internally.
The physical design of different residential zones
providing they meet public safety and fire department and police
department requirements would help with that type of thing. I
think it is on a case-by-case basis depending on the density and
the area.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
18
There are opportunities to do nonconventional things.
MR. CARMODY: Those are the kinds of things that would save
some mature vegetation, the natural slopes and contours. Am I
wrong?
MS.SAVAGE: Well, it depends on the situation. Just saying
that we wouldn’t have curbs or sidewalks would not necessarily
save a lot of trees but, if you encourage developers to develop a
subdivision that is sensitive to the existing topography, you can
reduce a lot of grading.
There are open
There are some good
prospective, I am a
I work to represent
space developments and cluster developments.
models out there and especially from a staff
very good tool for the Commission as well as
the regulations with the developers.
Once we have revised these regulations and I continue to
build a working relationship with the applicants and engineers,
and they come to understand that I am working for you and the
Town and you support me and I support the regulations, then I
think you get to a point where there is an opportunity to have
everyone win.
I think that there is more opportunity for effective
working relationships as staff when the professionals I am
working with understand that you will support staff. It is a
consistent process. It is not an arbitrary process. It is based
on the regulations and I can make design suggestions and it would
be better served.
MR. CARMODY:
Thank you.
THE CHAIR: I agree, John. He spoke above traveling to
other areas where there are cookie cutter developments and their
unattractiveness.
Another thing is sidewalks. I think as a Commission we
should be looking at adding sidewalks not only in residential
areas but industrial and commercial areas. Sidewalks are
important for safety for the residents themselves. The more we
have sidewalks in Town and stop waiving them, the more we have
sidewalks coming together and forming the network so people can
walk and be safe not only in residential but business areas, too,
where people do work.
Also, I want to put down here we need to look at signs. We
do have a pretty decent sign program here in Southington. But
there are some recent signs that fit the regulations, but
personally, they are ugly. And, in my opinion, they don’t fit in
in Southington.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
19
I know this Commission and past Commissions have spent a
long time putting sign regulations together. But I think not
only do we need to enforce the sign regulations but we have to
take a look at what we have and tighten them up.
I think we need to make sure we don’t turn into a neon or
blinking sign area. As signs come down, we need to make sure
they are replaced with good, nice ones, classy ones. And, that
billboards do not get replaced.
Also, I think with development it is important that we
continue to ask for and we continue to push for and get reviews.
We need to ask for them and follow up and listen to what are
police are telling us, our fire department is telling us and what
our health department is telling us as well as our water
department. Also, what the highway department is telling us and
our education group is telling us.
We have to make sure we are not overtaxing our services in
Town. We have had this discussion before. We are talking about
some large developments coming into Town and we need to make sure
we invite these people and inform these people what we are doing
as a Commission and other boards, as well. Open communication.
Make each one knows what the other board is doing.
In the Plan of Development we stated communication between
the Boards in Town and I think we need to make sure we live up to
that as part of our Plan of Development. If we don’t, the right
hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing and we will start
messing up.
Discussion.
We need to keep our eye on the Plan of Development to make
sure that all parties are involved. We need to make sure we are
all charging down the right and same path.
Anybody else have anything tonight?
MR. CARMODY: Anybody who knows me knows I don’t like to be
deadlined or be pushed to an ultimatum. That being said, I know
my subcommittee can make effort to get our thoughts down on paper
and open up these discussions for public hearing as soon as
possible. You said April, we can do it two weeks prior to that.
Let’s get this up and running now.
Discussion.
MR. DEMELLO: I agree.
April, we can move it up.
We don’t even have to wait until
MR. SINCLAIR: We have done a lot of work and it’s up to
the Town Planner now to get the wheel back on the wagon.
Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop
February 15,2007
20
MS. SAVAGE: A lot of good feedback. I am looking forward
to hearing back from the subcommittees. There may be some
sections of the regulations that could move forward on a
different schedule than others. I would caution the Commission
to not rush to proceed but do so in a thoughtful manner.
That being said, within the subcommittees, perhaps we
should prioritize some sections and I agree the public input is
wonderful and necessary and a valuable part but I do think it is
effective to have some kind of draft information for the public
to react to. And, then you can obtain public input on a draft of
the residential zones or industrial zones.
You can’t eat an elephant in a day. You have to go bite by
bite. So, I am here to work with you but there is also ongoing
work and a lot of backlog of work and it is not as though this is
the only thing I have to do.
ATTORNEY SCIOTA: We are ready when you give us your
thoughts and Mary and Tony and I will start working them up along
with Lou.
THE CHAIR: We have begun the process. The subcommittees
will contact Mary. We will get to the process of prioritizing
and setting objective guidelines.
We will go to the public in public forums to open it up to
our public hearing and bring it up. Then we will bring it to the
Commission to vote on.
Thank you very much.
(Upon a motion made by Mr. Sinclair, seconded by Mr.
DelSanto and passed unanimously, the meeting was adjourned.
(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 o’clock,
p.m.)