Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Chase Hot Meadow topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Commission approves Chase Bank site plan at 730 Hot Meadow despite one commissioner’s safety concerns
Summary
The commission approved a 3,432 sq ft Chase Bank and drive‑up ATM at 730 Hot Meadow (Simsbury Center SC1) with conditions on lighting, minor engineering comments, and an erosion bond; the motion passed 5–1 after a commissioner opposed citing design and a second curb cut on Hot Meadow.
The Simsbury Zoning Commission approved application ZC‑26‑05 permitting a freestanding JPMorgan Chase Bank at 730 Hot Meadow Street (Simsbury Center SC1) by a 5–1 vote.
Staff said the proposal includes a 3,432‑square‑foot bank building, a drive‑up ATM, 20 parking stalls (including an ADA stall), and an exit‑only curb cut; the parcel is in the town center zone (SC1). Design Review recommended adjustments during preliminary reviews and issued a positive referral following iterative changes to height and materials. Staff and the town engineering office noted minor stormwater and ADA comments that the applicant agreed to address prior to permitting.
Jennifer Porter, attorney for the applicant, introduced the team; Matthew Cheka of Stonefield Engineering described site circulation, lighting plans intended to meet municipal standards, and a reduction of roughly 6,000 square feet of impervious surface with additional landscaping (about 11 new trees and many shrubs). The engineering letter requested a revised lighting plan and minor stormwater and ADA improvements to be resolved before issuance of a building permit.
One commissioner said they opposed approval because the second curb cut on Hot Meadow presented a safety concern based on daily local traffic patterns and the preferred earlier design. Staff said police and engineering had reviewed the traffic plan and were satisfied given expected trip generation for a bank (not a high‑turnover restaurant). Commissioners also debated the building’s scale after DRB asked for a taller, more prominent design to harmonize with nearby red‑brick buildings.
The approving motion requires: development in substantial conformance with the site and architectural plans dated 03/18/2026; submission of a revised lighting plan to planning staff prior to building permit; addressing minor engineering comments in the 03/30/2026 referral to the satisfaction of planning and engineering staff before permit issuance; and submission of an erosion and sediment control bond in a form and amount acceptable to the town. The motion passed 5–1, with the dissent recorded as based on design and the second curb cut.
Next steps: applicant to submit revised lighting and stormwater/ADA corrections for staff review before a building permit is granted.
