The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday October 27, 2009. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Henry Frey, Vice-Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Carol Griffin, Linda Keith, David Cappello, and Edward Whalen and Alternates Marianne Clark and Donald Bonner. Absent was Alternate Elaine Primeau. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Griffin requested a correction to the minutes of the October 13, 2009, meeting. She noted that her motion for App. #4457 should have included language stating that no trees are to be removed for the pool until a new application is approved. Ms. Keith motioned for approval of the October 13, 2009, minutes, subject to Mrs. Griffin’s noted correction. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4462 - Central Connecticut Health Alliance, Inc., owner/applicant, request for 2-lot Subdivision, 2.31 acres, 121 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520121 in an R40 Zone.
App. #4463 - Central Connecticut Health Alliance, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.5. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit a waiver of the density requirement, 121 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520121, in an R40 Zone.
Present to represent these applications were William Tracy, Law Offices of Furey, Donovan, Tracy & Daly, P.C.; and Joseph Green, Robert Green Associates, L.L.C.
This public hearing was continued from October 13.
Attorney Tracy submitted revised drawings and explained that land area was added to the proposed southern lot (Parcel #4520127). The proposed house location for the southern lot was moved in order to gain some distance from the easement area. He noted that subdivision and grading sheets have been created.
Mr. Green stated that the proposed northerly lot has been decreased in size and now has just over 40,000 square feet in lot area, which meets the requirement of the R40 Zone. The proposed southerly lot has approximately 60,000 square feet; 32,000 square feet (of the 60,000) is located outside the easement area. The proposed house location for the southerly lot has been moved to the north; the distance from the corner of the house to the easement line is now 30 feet (the distance was 5 feet before the revision).
Mr. Starr commented that the 30-foot separating distance is close to the normal 40-foot front yard setback requirement, as the proposed southern lot is a corner lot.
In response to Mr. Starr’s comment, Mr. Tracy commented that it could be looked at that way but the 30-foot distance is much closer if it is viewed as a side yard setback. He added that 30 feet is as much as they were able to gain without sacrificing frontage or conformity to Parcel #4520121. Mr. Starr noted his understanding.
Mr. Starr asked Mr. Tracy if the setbacks for the houses on Bolleswood have been investigated. Mr. Tracy noted that other than looking at aerials he hasn’t taken any measurements, as he isn’t allowed on private property. Mr. Tracy commented that there appears to be a variety of front yard setbacks for the properties surrounding the subject site, as many of these properties were developed in the 1950’s before Bolleswood existed.
Mr. Tracy addressed the special exception requesting a density waiver. He noted that if the easement area is excluded the lot area for the two proposed lots do not add up to 80,000 square feet. Mr. Tracy commented that he doesn’t feel the easement area should be excluded from the calculation. In that event, both proposed lots would be conforming but would not meet the density calculation.
Mr. Starr commented that he doesn’t believe the Commission has an issue with density for this proposal.
Mr. Tracy noted that he has read Attorney Zizka’s opinion and has discussed it with Mr. Kushner. Mr. Tracy submitted information in connection with the history of the easement area. He noted his understanding of Mr. Zizka’s point with respect to a private road or a road that is created in conjunction with a subdivision application. He explained that he found some of the origins of Bolleswood on the Land Records. He referenced a map dating back to 1947 which shows a 20-foot right-of-way for the Bolles property to the north and the Plude property to the south. He noted that the right-of-way terminated where the Plude property began. He referenced a map identifying the Austin Frederick lot, which was cut out in 1954. He pointed out that on the Bolles side (northerly side)
the 10-foot right-of-way was extended up to this lot, which predates the Subdivision Regulations (this property is located just west of the subject site). Mr. Tracy noted that another house, just to the west, was added in 1956 but no map could be located. He noted that the right-of-way was increased from 20 feet to 50 feet in 1961, as a result of an agreement between the Bolles, the Fredericks, and the Pludes. Mr. Tracy added that at that time the right-of-way only extended as far as the Bolles property. He noted that, more recently, the Town of Avon acquired a 50-foot easement over this same 50-foot area to allow for emergency vehicle access. The Town taking this easement was not part of a subdivision proposal, as the right-of-way already existed. Mr. Tracy noted that the driveway is blocked off where it meets Diane Drive; there is no through traffic.
Mr. Tracy noted that, in his opinion and based upon the origin of the right-of-way, this area is a private way that is not open to the public and it is limited to the houses in the area; there is no through traffic and it is privately maintained. He commented that the right-of-way appears to function more like a common driveway than a private road and added that he feels this scenario/arrangement can be distinguished from Mr. Zizka’s opinion for that reason. Mr. Tracy noted that he understands Mr. Zizka’s opinion in connection with the other setting and added that he feels it was appropriate in that case but this situation is not the same. He commented that if a right-of-way is not used for public travel it is not a street, under the Town’s definitions, and there are no setbacks from a
private street. He noted that the driveway easement area is not required to be taken out of the buildable area calculation like wetlands, watercourses and steep slopes. Mr. Tracy commented that because of this he feels that the subject proposal can be accomplished to meet the 40,000-square-foot lot area requirement.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Tracy noted that 6 houses currently use the driveway/easement area. He added that the proposal is to have the two proposed houses have their access from West Avon Road, as there are two existing curb cuts.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner commented that each house off of Bolleswood would generate, on average 10 trips per day (5 trips in, 5 trips out). Mrs. Griffin noted that that would equate to 60 passages per day. Mr. Tracy noted that no change from that existing condition is being proposed. Mrs. Griffin noted her understanding but added that 60 car trips per day doesn’t sound like something that isn’t a street. Mr. Tracy commented that much of the activity in this area predates the Subdivision Regulations and grew over a period of time as well as much of it being grandfathered. He added that if this condition was being proposed today it would be viewed much differently.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Tracy explained that if the roadway is not calculated in as part of the lot area for the southern lot, the area left is approximately 32,000 square feet; this square footage also excludes the land area on the other side of
the easement area.
Mr. Starr pointed out that the total lot area shown for the southern lot is 60,105 square feet and the easement area bisects 40,350 square feet of area. The combination where the house is plus the parcel on the other side of the easement would equal just under 40,000 square feet.
.
Mr. Tracy noted that if the easement area is viewed as a private street and excluded from the lot area, as well as excluding the area on the other side of the easement, the southern lot area adds up to 32,000 square feet. If the easement is not viewed as a private street, all of the area gets counted as lot area.
Mr. Kushner displayed a 1984 subdivision map for “Southridge Estates” and noted that both Diane Drive and Sarah Drive were created as a result of this subdivision. He noted that during his review of the meeting minutes for this subdivision he found a significant discussion by the Commission regarding the need for an additional access back to West Avon Road for public safety. Mr. Kushner noted that the Town Engineer indicated that although Sarah Drive and Diane Drive were built to public road standards they could not meet the storm drainage requirements and therefore were approved as private roads. Referencing information provided by Mr. Tracy, Mr. Kushner noted that Bolleswood is a modern-day approval and the Commission clearly approved it as a private road; it is not a public way. The
normal yard setbacks were applied; the front yard setback is measured from the edge of the 50-foot right-of-way for both roadways. Mr. Kushner noted that Bolleswood came into play as the result of the need to provide emergency access back to West Avon Road. He noted that Bolleswood was not approved in the traditional way where there was a clear effort to built a new road that meets public road standards; it existed prior to the adoption of zoning in Avon. Mr. Kushner noted that he reviewed the maps for the 6 homes on Bolleswood and commented that it appears that the front yard setback varies from house to house but there are some houses that meet or closely meet the required 40-foot front yard setback. He added that it appears that as some of these homeowners made improvements/additions to their houses the setbacks that were used are consistent with setbacks that would be required on Diane Drive and Sarah Drive. Mr. Kushner commented that he feels it
is important, with respect to maintaining consistency, for the applicant to investigate how the two proposed houses sit on the property (i.e., setbacks) in relation to the existing houses on Bolleswood. He added that he feels that the proposed 30-foot setback is close but it is important to find out what the average setback is for the homes on Bolleswood.
Mr. Kushner addressed his communications with Attorney Zizka. He commented that he believes that the gravel parking lot located on the south side of Bolleswood was used as an overflow parking area for the Reid Treatment center when it was operational. Mr. Tracy concurred. Mr. Kushner noted that Mr. Zizka provided case law information about parcels of land that are separated by a right-of-way. He noted that Mr. Zizka also provided information about what types of situations would allow for a separate parcel of land (separated by a right-of-way) to be counted as part of the main lot area. He also provided information about instances where a separate parcel would need to be considered as a separate parcel and not counted as part of the lot area. Mr. Kushner noted that Mr. Zizka indicated
that the answer is not clear in this case due to the historic use of the separate parcel being used as an adjunct to the main parcel (gravel parking lot). He noted that Mr. Zizka commented that due to this historic use possibly the property should not be considered separate and it may be reasonable to consider the area as one parcel and count the land area. Mr. Kushner added that Mr. Zizka did, however, note that an argument could be made in the reverse consistent with the opinion given in relation to the Parsons’ Way Subdivision. He added that Mr. Zizka thought it was important to note that in 1984 when Sarah Drive and Diane Drive subdivisions were before the Commission, the applicant represented to the Commission that he owned the upper end of Bolleswood. Mr. Kushner noted that the applicant only had easements rights over the lower portion, which was owned by the Reid family in 1984. The applicant represented to the Commission, at that time, that he
believed that he had the legal right to grant to the Town an easement not only over the portion that he owned by also the portion that he had easement rights over. Mr. Kushner noted that there are a number of private roads in Town that have a 50-foot right-of-way that predate the Commission’s existence in 1957. Conventional front yard setbacks have been applied to these existing rights-of-way for years. He noted that all of Secret Lake was laid out prior to 1957 and very often homeowners must apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals because they cannot meet the required yard setbacks. He pointed out other roads in this situation including Montevideo Road, Cider Brook Road, and Lakeview Boulevard.
Mr. Kushner summarized the proposal and noted that the easement area, prior to zoning adoption in 1957, was 20 feet but the area expanded to 50 feet in 1961. He commented that in 1984 new lots were created but no attempt was made to turn the easement area into a public road but the area was important because the Commission was concerned about obtaining easement rights for the Town so it would be clear that it could be used as an accessway for emergency vehicles. Mr. Kushner commented that if the Commission is considering an approval for the proposed 2-lots, he added that he feels it is important to research how the existing houses on Bolleswood are laid out to ensure that the 2 new houses are laid out in similar fashion (i.e., setbacks to the street).
Mrs. Griffin noted that Ms. Keith suggested at the last meeting that if the proposed house on the southern lot was turned sideways, it would result in a greater setback area.
Mr. Starr noted that the first plan showed a 5-foot separating distance and the revised plan shows a 30-foot separation.
Mrs. Griffin commented that if the house was turned, a separation of greater than 30 feet could be realized. The house could still be accessed from West Avon Road.
Mr. Kushner commented that if the house was turned, it would have the same appearance as the other houses on Bolleswood.
Mr. Tracy noted that he could see turning the home. He commented that it was also considered to have access from Bolleswood, as it would permit a different kind of setback, but Mr. Kushner indicated that there is a restriction with regard to the number of homes permitted on a private way. The curb cuts on West Avon Road are existing.
Mr. Starr noted that he prefers using the West Avon Road curb cuts.
Mr. Tracy noted that after some research he determined that the lot area that the Reid Treatment Center used for overflow parking (Parcel #1370015) is really not a stand alone parcel. He noted that Parcel #1370015 cannot meet the zoning requirements and was clearly only used for parking for the treatment facility. He referenced Mr. Zizka’s opinion relative to the term “merger” where he indicates that different parcels exist but are used in conjunction with an entire use; the parcels are used together in a way such that they are not separable.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Tracy noted that the applicant owns the land located underneath the right-of-way.
Mrs. Griffin questioned whether the right-of-way could be moved to the edge of the property line. Mr. Starr commented that it appears that the right-of-way is already location on the edge of the boundary, at least on the lower part. Mr. Tracy noted that there is some space between the actual pavement and the property line, as the paved area is much narrower than 50 feet.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Tracy explained that all 5 property owners to the west would have to agree in order to make the parking area part of the road area, as they all have easement rights. The Town would also have to agree.
Mr. Starr questioned whether it would be possible to reconfigure the proposed house location for the southern lot so that the setback is greater than 30 feet. Mr. Tracy noted that he could take a look at Mr. Starr’s suggestion. Mr. Starr noted that a greater setback for the house on the southern lot would give it a similar visual orientation to the rest of the houses on Bolleswood, even though the driveway would be off of West Avon Road. Mr. Tracy noted that because the driveways are coming off of West Avon Road, the thought was to try and match the setbacks and appearances from West Avon Road. He pointed out that the houses on Bolleswood are not visible from West Avon Road.
Mr. Starr noted that he doesn’t have any issues with the proposed layout if the setback from the right-of-way can be at least as great as the setback that exists for the houses on Bolleswood.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Keith noted that she would like to see the proposed house on the southern lot turned.
Mr. Kushner recommended that the applicant meet with Town Staff when the plan is revised. Mr. Tracy noted his agreement.
Mr. Whalen motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4462 and #4463 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Ms. Keith, received unanimous approval.
App. #4465 - West Avon LLC, owner, Drew Sassi, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.B.3.a.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class I restaurant, 427 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520427, in an NB Zone.
App. #4466 - West Avon LLC, owner, Drew Sassi, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(7) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit a wall sign, 427 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520427, in an NB Zone.
Present to represent these applications were Drew Sassi, applicant, and Frank Noe, owner.
Mr. Noe explained that the proposal is for a Class I restaurant, “Pizzeria DaVinci” to be located on the north side of the building located at 427 West Avon Road. He added that the restaurant will be primarily takeout; there is ample parking on that end of the building.
Mr. Sassi noted that his business offers pizza, calzones, subs and salads; no “fryolaters” are proposed and no delivery is proposed. The proposed hours are Monday through Friday, 11 am to 9 pm. He noted that all the ovens will have canopies and exhaust fans. Mr. Sassi noted that he has 10 other restaurant locations and 85% of the business is takeout.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Sassi explained that there is no delivery at any of his restaurant locations.
Ms. Keith requested that the employees park in the spaces furthest from the restaurant. Mr. Sassi noted his agreement.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Noe stated that he has addressed employee parking requirements verbally; there is no clause in the leases. Mr. Kushner requested that Mr. Noe investigate whether his approval requires clauses in the leases. Mr. Noe noted his understanding.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Sassi noted that the pizza ovens are natural gas-fired, self-contained, deck ovens.
Mrs. Griffin questioned whether a filter is needed for the exhaust to minimize smells in the neighborhood. She noted that there were complaints when the Kevin Charles Smokehouse was located in this area. Mr. Kushner noted that the sites where the Commission has typically imposed this type of condition were businesses using a “fryolater” with grease. He added that cooking pizza may produce odors more like those associated with baking bread than frying in grease. Mr. Cappello commented that he doesn’t think a filter is necessary in this case.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Sassi explained that in his other locations he uses exhaust fan systems channeled out through the roof or the side of the building. He noted that there are fans that have more velocity and that could be investigated if necessary.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she has been in areas where she could smell pizza. There are people that live nearby pizza restaurants who want to use their yards and not smell pizza.
Mr. Starr noted that he doesn’t remember any problems or complaints from neighbors with the prior pizza restaurant that occupied this location.
Mr. Sassi addressed the proposed wall sign for “Pizzeria DaVinci” and noted that he prefers the plain font, as it is easier to read. Mr. Starr concurred.
There being no further input, the public hearing for Apps #4465 and #4466 was closed.
Mr. Sassi and Mr. Noe thanked the Commission for their time.
App. #4467 - Avon Congregational Church, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 6 West Main Street, Parcel 4540006, in a CS Zone.
Present to represent this application were David McElligott, representing Avon Congregational Church and Joseph Garrity, Canton Sign Shop.
Mr. McElligott noted that he is a church member as well as a member of the Building and Grounds Committee. He noted that the old sign is rotted and requested approval to erect a new sign.
Mr. Starr noted that the existing sign most likely predates zoning. Mr. Kushner agreed and noted that certain rights for the sign are grandfathered.
In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Garrity explained that the proposed sign is similar in square footage to the existing sign but would be located closer to the ground than the sign currently in place.
Mr. McElligott pointed out that there are removable plaques proposed to allow for change for different church services.
Mr. Kushner explained that a 12-square-foot detached sign is permitted in the CS Zone; the existing sign predates zoning and the nonconforming rights can be continued. He added that a renovation of the existing sign would be permitted under the Zoning Regulations. The proposed sign is slightly smaller than the existing sign.
Mr. Garrity noted that the existing sign is 24.86 square feet and the proposed sign is 24.00 square feet.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comment, Mr. McElligott clarified that the proposed sign is double sided.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comment, Mr. McElligott noted that only two light fixtures will be needed, as opposed to the four shown on the drawing. He added that the lights will be shielded.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4467 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Griffin motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4465, #4466, and #4467. The motion, seconded by Mr. Whalen, received unanimous approval.
App. #4465 - West Avon LLC, owner, Drew Sassi, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.B.3.a.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class I restaurant, 427 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520427, in an NB Zone.
Mr. Starr noted that App. #4465 meets the Special Exception Criteria.
Mrs. Griffin motioned for approval of App. #4465. The motion, seconded by
Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.
App. #4466 - West Avon LLC, owner, Drew Sassi, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(7) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit a wall sign, 427 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520427, in an NB Zone.
Mrs. Griffin motioned for approval of App. #4466. She noted that either of the presented sign designs is acceptable. The motion, seconded by Mr. Whalen, received unanimous approval.
App. #4467 - Avon Congregational Church, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 6 West Main Street, Parcel 4540006, in a CS Zone.
Ms. Keith motioned for approval of #4467 subject to the following condition:
1. A total of two (2) low-voltage LED light fixtures are permitted to illuminate the detached sign, as represented by the applicant.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Questions relating to possible drive-through, fast food restaurants on Route 44 - Bob Larkin
Present were Bob Larkin and Gary Somerset.
Mr. Larkin explained that he would like to locate a Dairy Queen at 205 West Main Street, home of the former Sovereign Bank location.
Mr. Starr asked Mr. Larkin if he has talked with Town Staff regarding the traffic situation at this site; in order to make a left turn onto Route 44, the traffic light at Plaza 44 must be utilized. Mr. Larkin noted that he has discussed that issue with the owner of Plaza 44. Mr. Starr noted that he feels there would be a problem with that much more traffic from a restaurant in that area. He noted that there isn’t much stacking room at light at Plaza 44. Mr. Larkin noted that the peak traffic hours for the restaurant would be in the evenings when most of Plaza 44 is closed. He added that there would be some traffic during lunch as well.
Mr. Kushner noted that he feels traffic may be an issue; a traffic study would need to be done. He commented that high volume restaurants with drive through windows are best located on sites that have a traffic light right near the building (i.e., Party City at Nod Brook Mall) with a well established driveway. He noted that the vacant parcel located just west of T.J. Maxx would be a good location, as there is access to a traffic light.
Ms. Keith noted her concerns with the drive through and the traffic. She noted that, in her opinion, if a drive through is going to exist there must be a traffic light. She added that she wouldn’t want to see a drive through.
Mr. Kushner noted that there was a significant discussion about the driveway configuration during the application process for the Sovereign Bank and a right-in and right-out only drive was eventually approved.
Mr. Starr noted that the bank use at 205 West Main Street was a much lower traffic-generating use than a restaurant with a drive through window. Access from the bank building to the traffic light at Plaza 44 is very awkward. Mr. Starr noted that he doesn’t have a problem with a drive in on Route 44 if it’s located in the right area (i.e., Marshall’s Plaza, T.J. Maxx Plaza, Big Y Plaza) where there is stacking room and a traffic light.
Mr. Larkin noted that he has had a discussion with the owner of Plaza 44 about possibly closing the right-in and right-out only driveways. Mr. Starr noted that in that event, all the traffic would be internal. Mr. Larkin agreed.
Mr. Kushner suggested to Mr. Larkin that he talk to a traffic engineer about traffic volumes on Route 44 and also provide data from other Dairy Queen sites. He reiterated that there is very little stacking room at the light at Plaza 44.
Mrs. Griffin commented that there aren’t any other fast food, drive-through restaurants in Avon. She questioned whether Avon wants fast food restaurants or a restaurant with a drive through.
Mr. Starr and Mr. Frey noted that they like Dairy Queen.
Ms. Keith commented that she doesn’t want a restaurant with a drive through.
Mr. Frey asked Mr. Larkin about traffic volume at one his other Dairy Queens locations and questioned what the traffic count is at the peak hour. Mr. Larkin stated that during the peak 2-hour period in the summer there are approximately 70 customers, per hour, going through the drive through.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she likes Dairy Queen but doesn’t want a drive through.
Mr. Larkin noted that the Zoning Regulations for a Class III restaurant permit a drive-through window. Mr. Frey agreed with Mr. Larkin but clarified that there cannot be more than 350 cars going through the drive through during the peak hour.
Mr. Starr commented that the right location on Route 44 is needed for this to work. It has to be convenient for the customers as well.
Mr. Starr noted that while there are some Commissioners that do not support the proposal, he reiterated that he doesn’t have a problem if a proposal conforms to the Regulations. Mr. Frey concurred.
Mr. Somerset noted that they will investigate traffic studies and the possibility of closing the right-in and right-out only driveway at 205 West Main Street. Mr. Starr clarified that he feels there still may be a traffic problem on that site even if that driveway were closed.
Mr. Larkin and Mr. Somerset conveyed their appreciation to the Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
| 
