The Simsbury Zoning Commission voted 5'to'1 on Oct. 6 to direct town staff to negotiate a contract and scope of work with FHI Studio (now IMEG) to perform a comprehensive rewrite of the town's zoning regulations.

The vote capped a night of presentations by three finalist consulting teams that responded to the commission's request for proposals: FHI Studio/IMEG, a planning and design team that emphasized Connecticut experience and line'by'line regulatory review; Gohmen/GOVEN York (presenting as Gohmen York), which stressed 'swift, simple and certain' regulations and market realism; and a third firm led by Molly Gavioso and John Steinmetz (Rochester office), which presented a code assessment approach and an engagement-focused process.

The commissioners said their immediate goal in the meeting was not to rank all three firms but to identify the strongest match to the RFP. After the presentations and a round of questions, the commission moved to authorize staff to negotiate a final scope and price with FHI/IMEG; the commission chair cautioned that any contract would return to the commission for formal approval.

Why it matters: the vendor selected to lead the rewrite will shape how Simsbury updates its more-than-100'page zoning regulations to reflect the town's 2024 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) and recent state statutory changes. Consultants told the commission they would review statutory changes (consultants referenced Public Act 21'29 and other recent public acts) and work to make the rewritten code more usable for staff and the public while aiming for legal resilience.

What the finalists proposed

FHI Studio / IMEG: FHI representatives framed their proposal as a Connecticut'focused service, citing recent local projects in Hartford, Danbury, Bristol and other Connecticut municipalities. The team recommended an 18'month schedule and a line'by'line review of Simsbury's regulations, aiming to reduce redundancy and produce a digitally navigable document with linked tables, definitions and graphics. The firm's budget quote was discussed during the meeting as $124,800 over 18 months; commissioners asked about schedule and legal compliance. FHI said it uses retained land-use counsel (Peter Olsen) as needed and emphasized producing regulations that are "within your statutory authority" and "legally resilient."

Gohmen/GOVEN York: Gohmen York presenters emphasized market realism and an approach summarized as 'swift, simple and certain.' They proposed a shorter timeline (presenters cited about 15 months), stressed user-friendly graphics and charts, and flagged several statutory and drafting issues (for example, content neutrality in sign rules and the statutory limits on character-based special permit criteria). The team also emphasized public engagement (workshops, targeted focus groups and online surveys) and said their work would be led primarily by the presenters who appeared at the meeting (Justin Lafalin and Donald Poland), with Alyssa Fleming providing research and GIS support.

Third finalist (Molly Gavioso / John Steinmetz team): The Rochester-based team described a detailed code-assessment-first approach: identify nonconformities and unnecessary complexity, map which parcels and regulations would be affected, and restructure the code to make it easier to administer. The presenters proposed a sequence of stakeholder interviews, two major public workshops, targeted outreach (surveys, pop-ups) and a deliverable set of draft regulations intended to be editable in Microsoft Word and exportable to an interactive PDF and/or an online host such as eCode for public use.

Commission discussion and points of emphasis

- Legal compliance and resilience: multiple presenters told the commission they would review recent Connecticut public acts and ensure the code language aligns with statute and case law. FHI explicitly named in-house retainer counsel (Peter Olsen) as available for review.

- Public engagement: all three firms proposed multiple touchpoints; Gohmen and the Rochester-based team laid out specific workshop and online-survey plans. The commission repeatedly stressed that public meetings for this procurement were informational and that public comment was not part of each presentation.

- Format and maintenance: consultants recommended drafting in Microsoft Word so town staff could edit the document after adoption, then delivering interactive PDFs and options for hosting on eCode or similar platforms to preserve hyperlinks and cross-references.

Formal action

After discussion, the commission voted to direct staff to negotiate a final contract and scope with FHI Studio/IMEG. A motion to that effect was made, seconded by a commissioner identified in the record as Tony, and carried by a 5'to'1 vote. Chair Bruce Elliott reminded the room that "there is no contract until the zoning commission approves the contract," indicating that the negotiated agreement will be returned to the commission for final ratification.

Next steps and timeline

Town staff will negotiate scope details (number and format of meetings, in'person versus virtual work sessions, final deliverables, and any adjustments to the proposed budget) with FHI/IMEG and will return a finalized contract to the commission for approval. Consultants' proposed schedules ranged from roughly 15'18 months depending on approach and phasing; commissioners discussed the tradeoff between pace and thoroughness.

What the record shows and what it does not

- The meeting record contains the commission's direction to staff to negotiate with FHI/IMEG and the 5'to'1 vote.
- The vote tally is recorded in the meeting; individual recorded roll-call votes by name were not published in the transcript excerpts provided (the outcome and tally are explicit). The final contract scope, meeting cadence and the commission's formal contract approval remain to be completed.

Ending

Because the commission directed staff to negotiate but did not sign a contract, the project remains at the procurement stage. Town staff will return a negotiated scope and contract to the commission for formal approval before any work begins. Chair Bruce Elliott closed the meeting by reiterating that the commission would see the final contract before it becomes binding.