AVON TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
February 5, 2009
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Avon Town Hall, in the Selectmen's Chambers, by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Mrs. Samul, Messrs. Pena, Shea and Zacchio.
II. PUBLIC HEARING: none
III. MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETINGS: January 8, 2009
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Zacchio, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council accept the January 8, 2008 minutes as submitted.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs: Carlson, Pena, Shea and Zacchio voted in favor.
IV. COMMUNICATION FROM AUDIENCE – Items not on this Agenda
V. COMMUNICATION FROM COUNCIL
Mr. Zacchio reported that there is a coyote issue again. A coyote attacked a neighbor’s dog and there are many signs of a coyote in the area, such as tracks around homes. The Police Department has been made aware of the situation and have provided more patrols in the area.
Mr. Pena reported Mrs. Samul, Mr. Schenck and himself attended a regional meeting in Granby on January 22nd. Nothing really came out of the meeting. Personally it was disturbing, because we were looking for new sources of revenue and enhancements and none were forthcoming. He reported our Representative Tim LeGeyt was not at the meeting, he does represent Avon and also Kevin Witkos was not there. Both representatives should have been there.
Chairman Carlson reported on the economic stimulus plan and was happy the Town of Avon responded to the Governor's request for 'shovel ready' projects.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
08/09-04 Initial Review, Discussion and Distribution: FY 09/10 Budget
The Assistant Town Manager reported the complete budget was not 100% prepared for today despite our best effort. The Budget Work Session will be February 28th at 8:00a.m in the Selectmen's Chambers. This Board will review the budget and make changes at that point and will make recommendations to the Board of Finance. The budget presented this evening does not include the Board of Education's budget, since we do not receive it until February 15th by Charter. The total budget is $27,511,966 which includes the Town Operating Budget, Sewer Fund, Debt Service and Capital and is level funded from last year. The economy is a large factor in this year's budget process and when the Board of Finance did not set a target we felt that sent a very strong message. The challenge was to get to 0% increase across all of the
funds. The biggest increase in the budget this year is the contribution to the defined benefits pension plan, over $218,000, which is a 34% increase from the budget last year. If that had not been so high the budget increase for the operating budget would have only been 2.3%. If the sewer budget, which was a decrease this year, was set aside this year and just looked at the rest of the budget, it would still not quite be 3.5%. The other budgets besides the Operating Budget did decline. The Operating Budget was up 3.5%, Sewers were down 9.1%, Debt Service and Capital was down 6.4%. The major increases in the budget this year are:
• Employee Benefits (includes required pension increase of $218,810): $367,861
• Employee Wages and Salaries (includes Town Manager transition) 126,710
• Buildings and Grounds contracted services (offset by personnel reductions) 71,275
• Fire Fighting, Hydrant Rentals (last year of the 100% DPUC increase 64,500
approved in 2007)
• Snow and Ice Materials (salt) 34,409
Revenues are expected to decline and the news we heard from the Governor this year is good news. We expected more of a decline. The larges anticipated decreases in revenue are:
• Anticipated Non-Renewal of Supplemental Conveyance Tax Grant $200,000
• Reduction in School Construction Reimbursement Grant 170,022
• Reduction in Interest Earned on Town Funds 119,400
• Reduction in Supplemental Motor Vehicle Taxes 51,100
• Reduction in Building Fees 50,000
We are trying to keep our programs at what is expected from the residents. We have made some tough decisions and eliminated some programs that we would rather not do but we felt we needed to do. Those include:
• Reduction in Landfill hours resulting in one less day open per week
• Deferring the DARE program
• Investigating rotating Sunday Library hours with the Farmington Valley towns
• Outsourcing Town staff when we have an excess capacity to other towns, such as the Building Inspector
• Reduction in staff which results in a net reduction of five positions for this year. One being a layoff of a current part-time employee. We are trying to do more with less.
• Reorganization and reduction of three full-time staff positions to part-time with a corresponding reduction in staff hours for:
o Town Clerk's Office (17.5 hrs/week);
o Accounting (12.5 hrs/week);
o Planning (23.7 hrs/week);
o Tax Collection (22.5 hrs/week);
• Full reduction of two full time employees in Public Works and substitution of contractual service agreements;
• Reassignment of Police Officer from Regional Drug Task Force to patrol deferring filling one patrol position;
• Deferral of purchase of all replacement Police vehicles;
• Eliminate Police physical fitness program and facility in building eight;
• Reductions in non-essential professional development throughout the budget
We are going to continue to work really hard with some regional efforts. We are very excited about the Governor's budget that would give us further incentives to do that and will follow up on those.
The Assistant Town Manager reported the Capital Budget was cut significantly. It started with backing out the cost of the Roaring Brook School boiler that was added in at the end of the process this year. We kept in the critical items, such as the environmental issues and the salt shed, which has been a real issue this year and a very expensive large dump truck for Public Works, so we can keep the core fleet on the roads to keep the roads clear. Mr. Zacchio questioned the cost of the DARE program. The Town Manager reported it is a reallocation of a Police Officer's time to the schools. They rotate them among the classes. We are not filling police positions and pulling people in from the drug squad to keep people on the street.
Mr. Shea stated Mr. DerAsadourian, Town Assessor, should be notified that we may need his service at the Public Hearing and possibly at the Budget Work Session on February 28th due to it being a Revaluation year. We will need his input on the process and how it impacts us. The Assistant Town Manager stated Murtha Cullina requested a large increase this year of $20,000 and it is in the budget for this year. It would be spread over two years. If you would like them to come in to discuss this they would be happy to do so. Chairman Carlson stated they have done a great job for us, but we should have some discussion on other billing methods.
08/09-41 Appointments: Avon Clean Energy Commission (2 R, 1 D - 12/31/09)
Mr. Pena stated we have heard through emails communications that people are interested in this commission. Maybe we should notify them and let them know the process and once the commission is formed and there is a Chair and a meeting date that they are all welcome to attend the meeting. Mr. Shea stated this should be done through the Town Clerk, since that is who they are contacting.
Mr. Shea urged the Commission to go forward with the first meeting even though one appointment still needs to be made.
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Mrs. Samul, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council appoint Martin Kaplan to the Avon Clean Energy Commission for a term to expire December 31, 2009
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, Shea and Zacchio voted in favor.
On a motion made by Mr. Zacchio, seconded by Mrs. Samul, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council appoint Linda Meyers to the Avon Clean Energy Commission for a term to expire December 31, 2009
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, Shea and Zacchio voted in favor.
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Mrs. Samul, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table one Republican appointment to the Avon Clean Energy Commission
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, Shea and Zacchio voted in favor.
On a motion made by Mr. Zacchio, seconded by Mrs. Samul, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council appoint Olivier Gressier as Chairman of the Avon Clean Energy Commission for a term to expire December 31, 2009
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, Shea and Zacchio voted in favor.
08/09-43 Appointments: Youth Services Advisory Board (2 R - 12/31/09)
On a motion made by Mr. Zacchio, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table the two appointments to the Youth Services Advisory Board
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, Shea and Zacchio voted in favor.
08/09-45 Appointment: Town of Avon Representative to Farmington Valley Health
District, (12/31/09)
On a motion made by Mr. Zacchio, seconded by Mr. Pena, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table the appointment of the Town of Avon Representative to the Farmington Valley Health District
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, Shea and Zacchio voted in favor.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
08/09-47 Review and Discussion: Canton, Avon, Burlington Hydroelectric
Project: Dick Barlow, 1st Selectman, Town of Canton
The Town Manager reported Dick Barlow First Selectman in Canton is present to review with the Council this item and encouraged him to attend this evening to give an update on where we stand on the potential of resurrecting of the two dams on the Farmington River in Collinsville. The upper dam is in Collinsville and the lower dam, where the old powerhouse is in Avon and the Dam goes across the river into Burlington. This has been something, over the years, that have been looked at as a potential source of funding and electricity by a number of organizations and companies. It has never really taken off for a variety of reasons. With the most recent energy issues that have developed over the past several years and in particular with Mr. Barlow's interest in energy, it has come back to the floor. We are potentially
looking at this as a potential project that can be done jointly with Avon, Canton and Burlington.
Mr. Barlow stated this was something that was presented shortly after he was elected last year. We were looking for a way to increase the water in the river for recreation purposes and knew that there were licensing issues and researched the issue. After some research was able to find the application that needed to be filled out. The issue of energy was raised to the Board of Selectmen and we sent a letter to FERC indicating our intent to file for the license. Shortly after we received a phone call from an attorney in the Washington D.C. area who was active in the FERC licensing processing and he mentioned it may be possible to get the application approved. That resulted in us receiving a proposal for $20,000 to have some civil facility scope and economic scoping of the project. Our Board of Finance was very
supportive of the idea and felt even if it took 20 years to see a return on the investment it would be alright since it would continue for the next 75-80 years. It would be the one power source where the cost of the fuel is going to be the same today as 20-30 years from now. We did go forward and signed a contract, and in August submitted the preliminary application with FERC. The preliminary application is basically a place holder. It gives us three year to gather and submit a final license application. That process resulted in the preliminary permit being noticed on December, 2008.
Mr. Barlow further reported as we proceeded with the inspections, it became obvious that out of the two dams the upper one in Collinsville and the lower one, half in Avon and Burlington, it would not be very well received to Avon if we received the permit and one day arrived and started drilling and building on Avon property so started to have discussions with the Avon Town Manager and the Burlington First Selectman. We will be going forward with the project under the presumption that going forward we would take the upper dam and Avon and Burlington could share the development of the lower dam. We have been operating on the premises. At this point in time the only money really expended has been the $20,000 that we used to have the studies done. The two dams can produce in the range of one megawatt per facility so the
total capacity is somewhere in the range of 1,600-2,000 watts. It would be enough energy to power all of the facilities in the Town and believe that would include the schools. It would be a nice project. It was reported by the contact in D.C. that it is possible that FERC has been told by Congress to issue licenses due to legislative action and in that process it can be transferred. We have asked the construction costs and they are estimated to be in the range of $8-10million and have asked to be included in the stimulus project as we move forward for the opportunity for us to get funding through that. As we look at the project we've tried to find a way to go forward. Mr. Barlow reported meeting with Connecticut Innovations last week and tried to promote clean energy but currently have no funding available at this point. If they do not use the money through the budget process they anticipate having funding in July and we can avail ourselves
of money for the preliminary engineering and project design up to $250,000. This is not a grant, it is a loan re-payable upon financing the project or operations, it is prime plus 2-3%. That would be a really good opportunity. The positive side of that would be if we spend the money and the project does not go forward and get approved then the loan is forgiven. Depending on the rate structure is, it looks like the estimates would be for the two projects, would generate operating income of $620,000. Chairman Carlson questions if the $8/10 million construction costs combined. Mr. Barlow reported they are combined in that estimate. That would include the civil works being established. The upper building is in semi-decent shape and the roof is still somewhere there. The lower building near the power structure and intake house the roofs are gone. Clearly the bricks have suffered from the water getting into them, so we would have to tear
the structures down and start over. Today with the equipment and technology we probably can do it without building massive buildings. The $8-10million would include building and dredging both in the intake structures and in the outfall areas. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) oversee these types of projects and have had numerous discussions with Commissioner McCarthy and will meet again next week on making arrangements for us to have access to the facilities. We do not want to have to pay significant rent for the projects so will work closely with the Senate and Representatives for all three towns and we have a bill that will be heard next Tuesday in the Senate Energy and Technology Committee. The State will have to give us access to those facilities at no charge and see if we can put in some provisions that would allow the State to allow bonding for the projects. The DEP commented on our FERC application. The comments were
not surprising, they were: 1. they own the dams, 2. they support the hydros proposals, 3. they require fish ladders. We have commented to the Wild & Scenic Designation Committee that we wanted to exclude the areas of both dams from their study. At this point they have agreed to that so there should be no problems. The project is going forward on a number of fronts.
Chairman Carlson questioned what type of staff would be necessary in the planning. Mr. Barlow stated it would be minimal, maybe two to three at tops. We have looked at it and realistically the skill sets it would take to run that facility are no different than the skill sets to run the sewer treatment plant. There have been some estimates on the operation and maintenance costs and they be in the range of $60,000 for the first year, $620,000 income with a 40% cost in the debt service would be about $275,000 and available revenue would be about $345,000. This would be dependent on the rates we could get for selling the energy back into the community.
Mr. Zacchio questioned when you make the estimates around the costs and revenues, is that based on an average month or what. Mr. Barlow reported it is based on an average. It could produce a lot more certain times of the year. Mr. Zacchio questioned the structure of the dams. Mr. Barlow reported the upper dam is just blocks of stone. The lower dam is a concrete dam and may need to be looked at. There are different techniques available to repair the dams. Mr. Zacchio reported it is a great idea to put them back to work. Burlington may or may not agree to get involved, if they chose not to do so, does that present any problems for the project. Mr. Barlow stated we would be able to work it out. Those discussions can be had once we get further down the road. Mr. Shea reported it
is an exciting project but it is all about the money. It is a large project and it will be a hurdle.
Mr. Pena questioned the transmission lines, it states 600 feet is all underground, but are any residents going to be bothered by this. Mr. Barlow reported not knowing exactly how long it will be but the power lines run down there and any excavation that will need to be done will need the proper permits. Mr. Pena questioned if a lot of noise is generated by these powerhouses or not. Mr. Barlow reported this should not be an issue. Mr. Pena further questions the numbers of homes it could supply for? Mr. Barlow reported the 1,600 -2,000 homes was an estimate or average. We would not know until we get closer.
Mrs. Samul stated it was reported on Tuesday you will be at the Capital hearing on the proposed bill, would a letter of support from the Council be good. Mr. Barlow reported this would need to be discussed with the Town Manager. Mrs. Samul questioned if there is anything else at this point you would need from us on the project. Mr. Barlow stated at some point in time we may ask that you to give us back some of the $20,000 that we put into the project.
The Town Manager stated wanting a consensus from the Council on how they feel about the project and whether you would like to continue conversations. The Council concurred they are all in support of the project.
08/09-48 Review and Discussion: Proposed St. Matthews/AT&T Cell Tower
Chairman Carlson reported there was a letter from the State on January 16, 2009, and we did not see the letter until the packet was received. When the phone call was received the letter was not yet received. We have a couple of courses of action we can take. The Connecticut Siting Council has jurisdiction over where they want the tower, or where they will allow a tower. Taken to the worse extreme, they wanted to put a tower right out on the town green they could do so, despite our protests. We could incorporate town feedback and take our concerns back to them. The Planning & Zoning Commission will be taking this item up again at their next meeting on February 10th. We could ask them to weigh in with their opinions. We should not sit silent on the issue, since we have heard several concerns from our
citizens about this.
Juan Fernandez, 246 Lovely Street, reported living in Avon for 25 years and his house is 25 yards from the possible site location. One thing that is important to him is the care of my neighbors. Where I live in this neighborhood, neighbors care for each other. This project does not belong in a residential neighborhood. It would have a serious impact of property values, the area is too crowded and trees would have to be taken down. Also, it would have an industrial look, which would have an impact on the properties. We all like living there and love coming home to the neighborhood. It is important that, what has been seen in other places, is that people don't care when changes come to a neighborhood and they don’t care to come out and speak on a very cold night but not in Avon. Another thing, the tower will be
there for the next 40 years. We use to speak very highly of fiber optic cables and then it moves along and we find it very unnecessary now. These towers may not be needed one day and we will be stuck with it for years to come.
Mark Toomey, 9 Greenwood Drive, reported the cell tower will be seen right out my front window. There is great disappointment on the whole lack of knowledge on the whole issue. This supposedly has been talked about for months now and we have had no knowledge of this. With the church being a neighbor of mine they never said anything. Thank you for reading the letters I sent. I received a letter two days before Christmas about the possible erection of the cell tower. I have two children; my son will be five in a week and a daughter who is one and a half. I consider the church and church property part of my property due to the fact that my children ride their bikes there and play there. It is even more disturbing that the Assistant Pastor at the church has two children as well, that play their and that he would support
this project. It is all about the money in this situation. If they were neighbors, they would have notified us about it. I am sure the Council has received comments about it but I am sure there are not more bodies here due to the lack of knowledge. It is very disappointing about the lack of knowledge the residents had about this. It will be considered an eyesore, it is outrageous. We do have cell service right outside my door. They are proposing such a large tower with such a small amount of space that is lacking coverage, it doesn’t make sense. A concern is the health risks involved living close to a tower, the radiation that will be coming off of the tower. I think the room would be fuller if the residents knew about this situation. I hope you take my words in consideration and you take my words to heart. This is not a good site and alternative sites should be researched. It is not an area I want to raise my
children in.
Peter Wiese, 240 Lovely Street stated he lived in Avon for 56 years. Mr. Wiese reported living at 240 Lovely Street since 1978, and it is the property right on the corner of Lovely and Greenwood Drive so it is directly south of the church. I must stress I appear here tonight as a private citizen and speak only for myself. This was first learned about through a letter, dated December 23, 2008, and was very surprised and knew nothing about this. Information was then gained from the Church and Pastor Carter, and he directed me to Mr. Hines, and then to Kevin Day, who works for a company that is representing AT&T and he has done a lot of work on this application. What has been learned initially is, and was told in a very polite and calm nature, is the tower will be going up. It was suggested to Mr. Hines
that perhaps the tower could be moved to another location on the property or perhaps it could be designed to look like something else, a cross or a steeple. Thereafter, a letter dated January 15, 2009, was left in a neighbor's mailbox. I have a Verizon wireless cell phone, and do lose reception going down Lovely Street, around Craigemore Circle and it comes back around Country Club Road. There is cell phone coverage at my house fifty percent of the time.
Mr. Wiese reported AT&T has identified a public need, which is the first criteria for this process, and cell tower was proposed at the St. Matthew's Lutheran church. AT&T represents in their application dated January 9, 2009 from the Siting Council in part the following that "the town has reviewed the proposed facility, has offered their support and requires space be made available for municipal antennas. They respectfully submit that the tower is consistent with the town's overall Planning & Zoning objectives." There were nine additional sites in town that were identified and denied. One of those locations was the Roaring Brook School. It is my position, that if there is a public need them public property should be the first to be considered. Mr. Weiss reported the site at Roaring Brook
School was not properly reviewed and considered. The due diligence has not been done. It should have been explained to the Siting Council that all locations in Avon be turned down until a proper site be properly investigated and determined. Regarding the proposed site at St. Mathew's Lutheran Church, the area surrounding the church is a residential zone and homes in the surrounding streets are approximately 2,000 +/- square feet , single family dwellings. A church in a R-30 Zone would represent a special exception. The AT&T application refers to the church as a five and a quarter parcel, but it is a very compact site. The designated area for the tower is not to the rear of the building, it is in close proximity to the fencing of the playground. This is an area that is used on a daily basis by church goers and is used by children in the neighborhood.
Mr. Wiese further reported the tower is designed as a 100 foot metal pole for which the town would install two -three antennas, they are submitted as being 10-20 feet in height. This is the equivalent of a 12 story building. AT&T proposes to install six panels of antennas, which would be a minimum of 10ft in diameter around the pole. The top of the 100 ft pole would have a façade profile of 10 ft wide by 25-30 ft going down the pole. The pole would be a metallic in color. To put thing in perspective the church steeple is approximately 70 ft in height. The tower would be 50 ft higher with the town's antennas and 30 ft higher without. The AT&T application states that the surround trees will lessen the impact of the tower but this is foolishness. The tower will be approximately 40-60 ft taller
than the trees. Those trees are around 75 years old. The claim that they will hide the tower is not accurate. They are, if anything, at the end of their lives.
Mr. Wiese further reported on photos what were enclosed in the AT&T application and how the photos do not accurately show the size and location of the proposed tower. The pictures show how the tower really hovers over the steeple and the trees, and these pictures show only the AT&T antennas and not the additional tower antennas that would be on the top as well. What is being proposed is a 50x50 or 2,500 sq ft area, which would include a large fence and a chain link fence and barbed wire. AT&T proposed a 12 x 20 ft building and the 10 ft wide access road facing Greenwood Drive. The facility would include heating and cooling systems and generators. All the equipment is extremely valuable and would need constant maintenance. Because of the high visibility from the road, this would attract
many kids to the area. The facility would also promote vandals and thieves due to the very valuable equipment that will be housed on the property. The tower and proposed facility will have a negative impact on my property for the following reasons: 1. there will be an overwhelming effect on the neighborhood, 2. the footprint of the site is much larger than any home in the neighborhood, 3. the 100-120 ft tower with antenna panels will be clearly visible from my property and for miles away. 4. The generators and other equipment will bring unwanted noise to the neighborhood, 5. The required maintenance will bring unwanted traffic into the neighborhood, 6. Proximity of the tower to other buildings creates public health and safety issues, 7. The looming presence of the tower will effect the quality of my life, 7. The facility will have a direct effect and adverse value of my property and does not fit
with the R-30 zone.
Mr. Wiese stated that AT&T reported that the tower would only be seen from a few of the roads in the area, which is simply not true, it would affect many more than a few and several of the open space areas. In conclusion, feels that the Town Council should recommend to the Siting Council an alternative location should be found. AT&T should be required to offer more locations. If the church location continues to be proposed then the antennas should be on the church steeple. The church is looking into this and hopefully they continue this way. The tower should be at least moved on the property to the rear of the property. AT&T was unwilling to move the tower to any other location on the property due to the fact that they already spent monies and are unwilling to spend more. Many other types of poles
could be offered; one being a flag pole, one would be a steel pole. The church officials and AT&T have been unwilling to work with the neighbors on any of these issue and feels the reason is the money. AT&T would get substantial revenue from cell carriers for the tower and the cost of the development is much less than some other sites. The church sees the opportunity as a steady stream of income. These payments could be made to the Town at the Roaring Brook site and could assist in that way. There are some other towers in the area: 530 Bushy Hill Road, Simsbury Commons behind the Stop & Shop is a 120 ft steel flagpole only used by Sprint and Cingular and the presence is less obtrusive; 82 Lovely Street in Farmington, there is a brick building where there is a 102 brown painted pole with small antennas; 277 Huckleberry Hill Road is a 100 ft wooden pole located at the Landfill; 1 Westerberg Drive in Farmington, located at the sewer plant, 156 ft flag pole was used; 2 School
Street and 61 Main Street in Farmington these are church steeple applications. The towers and equipment are virtually invisible; 345 Bushy Hill Road, Simsbury at the Fire House, 80' mounted pole and the area used is very small. I urge you to consider my recommendations.
Mr. Pena stated after hearing the presentation this evening it seems as if the residents in the area were not notified of the proposed tower and that is not nice even if they have final authority. It could be a larger area and people don't realize what is there until it goes up. Mr. Pena questioned the distance between the tower and the Toomey residence and health issues. Mr. Toomey reported it is approximately 100 yards. The understanding on the health issues is that the states really don’t look at it to closely and most studies are done in Europe and there is a lot of documentation in Europe as far as cancer and radiation. It seems to be brushed over in the States. Its not really looked at very closely. Mr. Pena reported the towers are going up and no one wants them in there back yards, for the emergency reasons we
do need them. Mr. Pena questioned the Town Manager about the service in the area. The Town Manager reported the town does not do reports or research these things. We go by comments by people in the area. Police and fire departments are aware of it but we have never researched the area. The best info that has been collected is done by the carrier companies. Mr. Pena questioned if it could be better served by a smaller tower at the St. Matthews church and maybe increase the size at the landfill. The Town Manager reported the Siting Council will be holding a Public Hearing at Town Hall on March 31 and AT&T will be there and these specific questions can be asked at that time. The hearing is suppose to start at 2:00 p.m. at the site location with the hearing following.
Mr. Zacchio thanked Mr. Wiese for coming out and reported there is a tower at the end of Ridgewood Road that was put on the water tower. We were unaware in the neighborhood when the site was proposed and did not know about it until the construction started. We have had concerns around radiation and it is not as big of a concern as we once thought and we had concerns around noise. Thankfully the town has worked with us with the noise issue. This becomes a Planning & Zoning issue and hopefully they hear your concerns. If there is opportunity for the tower to be downsized then it should be discussed. The question--- is that site viable if it can meet some of your needs? Mr. Toomey stated there are many neighbors that will be able to see the tower. The bottom of the tower would be the most obtrusive
for the neighbors and would like to see the church take some responsibility and maybe put it on the steeple. This would be a better location and would be more viewer friendly. Mr. Zacchio stated this is the first step in the process. Because the Planning & Zoning Commission makes these decision, which would be the place it starts. Mr. Fernandez reported objecting to the site all together.
Chairman Carlson stated the most disturbing thing is there seems to many different alternatives here and whereby the church is not seeking. There appears to be compromises that can be made where there is money for them and cell coverage and less obtrusive structure for the residents. The recommendation would be to go to the Planning & Zoning Commission with comment as to advising them to request the Siting Council to look into all the options available and how this option has a number of negative aspects.
Mr. Shea stated the first concern is the lack of communication. There was an obligation on AT&T and the church to communicate sooner than December 23rd. As you heard prior to this, this should go before the Planning & Zoning Commission and they should weigh in on the presentation and that would help everyone and what we should and should not do. It is my hope that prior to us meeting again, that some compromising can be made. There is a public need there for the cell service but can not see putting a cell tower on the Roaring Brook School property. There is no interest about hearing how much AT&T has spent. That is the cost of doing business and should not be relevant. If a structure is built there, then proper buffering can alleviate the noise but that is at a different part of the process. I hope compromises can be made. I can not support the Roaring Brook School. Mrs. Samul reported she has many concerns. We should try for a delay in the process before it goes to the
Siting Council. Our Chairman stated, he received a letter on the 14th but did not receive the letter until this evening, due to our process. Mr. Toomey questioned how they could delay the process without having lawyers. Mr. Shea reported there can be a delay for many reasons.
Mrs. Samul reported the people in town do not seem to know what is going on despite our efforts. The Town is in a car and is in the passenger seat, but the Siting Council is in the drivers seat. I am familiar with all the cell towers, and Mr. Kushner was very persuasive in having that one at the Landfill look like wood. There are a lot of people out by the Landfill that would have seen it and he was able to help reduce the size and the appearance. We have a real asset in the Planning & Zoning department. You are urged to go to the Planning & Zoning Commission and state your case. On the other hand, all the comments are based on the idea, that the tower would be OK if the tower was smaller and more appealing. The idea that it is an attractive hazard for children if it were to fail, there would
be problems with electrodes, then to suggest it should be put at a grammar school. That argument I do not follow. It would not be in anyone's best interest to have it on the Roaring Brook School property.
Mr. Shea reported our Board did not know about this until recently. Chairman Carlson reported that the cell tower in that area was needed due to the lack of coverage. He recommended the Town Manager write a letter to the Planning & Zoning Commission regarding other alternatives, lack of adequate notice to the abutting neighbors and there were many questions to be answered and they have not been. Mr. Shea questioned if the letter can ask that all parties get together to discuss alternatives and avail Mr. Kushner.
The Town Manager stated what you want is to do is write a letter to Planning & Zoning to have a meeting with the neighborhood and the church to see if a compromise can be reached and to report that to the Town Council with the Planning & Zoning feedback. Once the Planning & Zoning Commission reports back to the Council, the Council will then decide if they will be a party, if need be.
Chairman Carlson questioned if there is a possibility that the delay not be granted. The Town Manager stated this should not be a problem. Mr. Shea questioned if it should be stated that this tower not be proposed for the Roaring Brook School property as he is opposed to this. The Council concurred with this statement. Roaring Brook School is not a possibility. Mr. Wiese questioned if the Siting Council's Public Hearing will be postponed as well. The Town Manager reported they will be back for the March 5th meeting with the Planning & Zoning report and it should be decided then as to whether we should be a party or not. Mr. Toomey questioned how we can get the word out to the residents regarding this issue. Chairman Carlson stated a good way is to gather email addresses and it is the
quickest way to gather and share information.
08/09-49 Appointment (Replacement for Bud Herrmann): Avon Volunteer Fire
Department, Length of Service Award Program (LOSAP) Trustee
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Zacchio, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council appoint Tom Harrison as a trustee to the Avon Volunteer Fire Department Length of Service Award Program for an indefinite term
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, Shea and Zacchio voted in favor.
VIII. TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT/MISCELLANEOUS
Misc. A Construction Update: The Assistant Town Manager reported the Board of Education received a complete compliance review of the Avon High School and its programs late in the fall and received a preliminary report and a final report about a week ago stating about 10 pages of items where the school does not meet the ADA requirements, for the various programs offered on campus and off. Violations were also sited. The list has been turned over to Kaestle Boos and they are going over it with a fine tooth comb and will be advising us on all the building related items whether they are in the renovated section or not. The Board of Education will have to decide whether to continue with programs offered at other locations that do not meet expectations. They do mention Fischer
Meadows and we are looking into that. Mr. Shea stated the ADA compliance in the new wing of the high school should even be an issue. It was just re-done. The other locations, hockey rinks and fields, how does that work, are they looking at spectators or participants. The Assistant Town Manager reported they are looking at all the programs and that is why these other locations got tied into the review. When the wing of the school was built, it met the regulations at that time. Even if it doesn't meet all the requirements today does not mean they need to be redone today. They would like us to but it is not necessary. With the current renovation project any issues that were found, Kaestle Boos or FIP would be responsible to fix anything that is not just right. We are waiting for a report from them on what needs to be done. The Town Manager reported one thing that needs to be done is this project needs to be closed at some point and what
we would like to do, when this is done and identified, if it is agreeable with the Council is to sunset this building committee and have the list be transferred to the Superintendent's office so it would be the Board of Education's issue to resolve, so we are not continuing on for the next year or so. The Assistant Town Manger reported all the issues with the Roaring Brook School boiler have been resolved this week.
Misc. B. Purchasing Update: The Assistant Town Manager reported this has been slow with dealing with the production of the budget but should be gearing back up soon.
Misc. C. Regional Service Sharing: The Assistant Town Manager reported there is a list of items that we are working on and want to be working on: Regional Dispatch, sharing Library hours on Sundays, sharing staff with other towns such as Canton. Hopefully there will be a lot of opportunities if the Governor's budget goes forward with grant opportunities. We have great relationships so hopefully something's can work out. Chairman Carlson reported he wanted a slide for the budget presentation that shows all the regional activities along with the ones that we are sharing.
Misc. D. Federal Stimulus Package: The Assistant Town Manager reported on the projects that went to the Governor's office in December as "Shovel Ready" projects. The bill did come out for the projects and a few changes had been made. The number of days for the project went from 180 days to 120 days. The interesting part is state and local law enforcement assistance that would come down through CRCOG and community oriented policing grants, highway construction, over $1billion in energy efficiency and renewable energy. The bill is not clear on how much would be available for town projects. We are going to have to wait and see what comes out of all of this. Until the Senate and the House figure this out, it is still difficult to say what we could be in line
to receive. A longer list is compiled of projects that are not yet 'shovel ready' but hit all different areas. The Library would be great to put on the list but feels it is too far out as a project. The Hydroproject in Canton would be a great idea to put on the list as we move forward.
Misc. E. Administrative Services Study Committee: Mr. Zacchio reported the Committee met on Monday with Matrix and we are on target with having a draft proposal with recommendations at our next meeting which is tentatively scheduled for the first week of March. They have done a good job so far of breaking up Finance, Human Resources and Technology. They have almost done a complete mapping of Town services and where things get reported to and how the workings of operations get accomplished. Then they are going through and recommending best practices, and showing strengths of the Town, and strengths of the Board of Educations, or there are no opportunities since things are done so well. They are going through the process at a decent pace and what we have seen so far is what we expected. We have not seen the meat of the recommendations but do expect that at the next meeting. Mr. Shea questioned if a complete package would be had by mid-March. The Assistant Town Manager
stated the committee would get it the first week in March and that would be a draft. Mr. Zacchio stated what we would have in the draft is what they feel our opportunities are.
Misc. F. Town Manager's Report: The Town Manager stated a letter was written to the Department of Environmental Protection about the FEMA flood insurance program and some of the problems that have developed locally about that. We have about 50-100 properties that are designated in the flood plain because they superimposed a more detailed mapping on top of 1970's maps and people and mortgage companies are picking it up and requiring people to have the insurance.
The Town Manager further reported on the old Horse Guard Barn and a letter received from the Historical Society wrote. They are looking for a letter of support to save the barn from possible demolition.
IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Land/Negotiation :
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Zacchio it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council go into Executive Session at 10:10 p.m. to discuss property negotiation and personnel issues. Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena Shea, and Zacchio voted in favor.
The Town Manager, the Clerk and the Director of Human Resources attended the session.
On a motion made by Mr. Pena, seconded by Mr. Zacchio, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council come out of Executive Session at 11: 15 p.m.
Mrs. Samul, Messrs Carlson, Pena, Shea, and Zacchio voted in favor.
X. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Attest:
Caroline B. LaMonica
Clerk
| 
