Developers pitch 35‑unit Simsmore Square apartment; zoning text change or PAD discussed

Terry Ann Hahn, of LAVAPC, representing Simsmore Square, presented a preliminary concept for a 35‑unit apartment building in Simsmore Square and asked the Simsbury Zoning Commission for feedback on zoning pathways and design constraints.

Hahn said the proposed building would step with the site topography—three stories on the Hot Meadow Street side and four stories on the lower side—yielding roughly 10 units on each upper floor and about five walk‑out units on the lower floor for a total of 35 units. “We’re here, just to get some reaction before we embark in a particular direction,” Hahn said. The developer team at the meeting included Nord Christensen and Rich Korea.

Why it matters: The parcel sits in B‑1/B‑2 zoning where multifamily residential is not currently permitted as a stand‑alone use; Hahn and staff discussed two regulatory paths: (1) a text amendment to allow multifamily in the B‑districts under defined conditions, or (2) creating a PAD that would treat Simsmore Square as a mixed‑use parcel with site‑specific standards. Commissioners expressed general support for adding housing and asked staff and the applicant to explore PAD language and technical constraints.

Key design and regulatory details discussed:

- Unit type and count: The proposal is primarily one‑bedroom units; total proposed count is 35.

- Height and visibility: The site drops about 20 feet from Hot Meadow Street to the proposed first‑floor elevation; Hahn said from Route 10 the building would generally show only the upper floor and rooflines due to intervening buildings.

- Parking: Zoning requires two parking spaces per unit; Hahn said the current concept provides roughly 70–74 spaces on site, with some shared parking arrangements for existing commercial uses.

- Stormwater/impervious coverage: The Simsmore parcel currently has a special exception permitting up to 60% impervious surface; Hahn proposed pervious pavement for portions of the new parking but said she will confirm with town engineers whether that pavement will be classified as non‑impervious for stormwater purposes.

- Accessibility: The lower‑level walk‑out units would be readily accessible; an elevator is likely for upper floors and doors would be sized for accessibility where practical.

- Ownership/affordability options: Commissioners raised the prospect of ownership units versus rental. Commissioner Tony (first name used in the meeting) asked whether some units could be for sale; Hahn responded that the project is single‑owner rental today and changing to ownership would introduce legal and financing complexity, but she said the team will explore options. Planning staff noted the town’s affordable‑housing requirement: roughly 10% of new units must be deed‑restricted (staff observed that, for 35 units, that equates to about four restricted units), and clarified that such units must be administered and deed‑restricted to count toward town goals.

Regulatory path discussion: Staff described two feasible approaches. A PAD would enable a site‑specific mixed‑use plan that includes commercial and residential across the Simsmore parcel and would allow shared parking and coordinated site improvements; a townwide text change would change the B‑district use table so multifamily could be permitted in other locations as well. Several commissioners favored the PAD approach because it preserves flexibility for the whole Simsmore property and would allow the applicant to resolve lot‑line, parking and shared‑use arrangements in a single unified plan.

Other items: Hahn said a small white building at 540 (the White House structure) is likely to be converted back to a single‑family residence rather than remain commercial; commissioners suggested a special‑exception path might permit quicker reuse. Commissioners also discussed precedents including Eno Farms and the Hartford South project, the town’s ongoing zoning regulations update (RFP out with proposals due August 1 per staff), and other nearby projects under construction (Iron Horse Boulevard—175 units across five buildings was noted as under construction).

Next steps and staff direction: The commission did not vote. Staff and the applicant agreed to pursue more detailed site engineering, stormwater analysis and draft PAD or text‑amendment language; the applicant will return with detailed plans and staff will advise on PAD boundaries, lot‑line adjustments and whether pervious pavement would count against impervious coverage. Commissioners asked the applicant to explore affordability pathways and to bring more detailed unit size/price information at the next review.