The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday October 12, 2010. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Carol Griffin, David Cappello (arrived 7:32 pm), Linda Keith, Marianne Clark, and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner and Christian Gackstatter. Mrs. Primeau sat for the meeting. Absent was Edward Whalen. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve the September 14, 2010, minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Thompson, received approval from Mesdames Griffin, Keith, and Clark and Messrs. Thompson and Starr. Mrs. Primeau abstained as she had not been present at the September 14 meeting but noted that she has read the minutes and is familiar with their content.
Mr. Starr welcomed Mr. Gackstatter as a new alternate commission member.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4507 - 302 West Main Street LLC, owner, Stephen Fish, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 302 West Main Street, Parcel 4540302, in a CR Zone.
Mr. Starr reported that the applicant has requested a continuation of the public hearing for App. #4507 to the next meeting, scheduled for November 16.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4507 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4508 - David Ford, owner, Jack Kemper, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit sports court in 150-foot ridgeline setback, 44 Sky View Drive, Parcel 6060044, in an RU2A Zone.
The public hearing for App. #4508 was continued from the September 14 meeting.
Present were Jack Kemper, Kemper Associates Architects; John Stewart, CR3 Landscape Architects; and David Ford, owner.
Mr. Stewart submitted 3 colored photos of the subject site showing the existing house and the area where the sports court is proposed; one photo is a view of the house from Fisher Meadows. He displayed a map of the site and noted that approval was received from the Commission in 2007 to construct the house that now exists on the property; the site is 4 acres in size. He noted that the house and the garage total 8,719 square feet which equates to 5% lot coverage. He explained that the proposal is to construct a sports court containing approximately 4,700 square feet on the north side of the residence to be attached to the existing garage. Mr. Stewart noted that approval was received from the Inland Wetlands Commission on October 5; minimal disturbance and impact are proposed. He noted that the
intention is to make the proposed building disappear as much as possible, so as not to be seen from below. He noted that the construction area will be as tight as possible to minimize tree cutting. Large spruces between 12 and 16 feet in height are proposed to be planted after the building is constructed. Mr. Stewart explained that the owner has no interest to develop the area around the proposed sports court for any type of fields or recreation; the area around the building would be returned to its natural state. He explained that no trees are proposed to be cut down in front of the area where the sports court is proposed. Back planting is proposed behind the structure once built and dark color tones (green, gray, brown) are proposed for maximum blending into the landscape. Mr. Stewart noted that the addition of the sports court would bring the total square footage on the site to approximately 13,000 square feet; the total lot coverage would be
increased to 7.5% (maximum allowable lot coverage is 15%).
Mr. Stewart reviewed the cross section drawings taken from Waterville Road, the Farmington River, and Fisher Meadows and noted that due to the existing trees intended to be saved, the structures cannot be seen. He noted that the height of the proposed sports court is lower than the existing garage and reiterated that evergreen trees are proposed to be planted in front of the new structure.
Mr. Starr commented that all the plantings will be up on the plateau area shown on the cross section drawing. Mr. Stewart concurred and noted that there would be minimal disturbance to the site for the construction of the sports court.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Stewart explained that some material would need to be removed in order to construct the foundation, which would be below grade.
Mrs. Griffin asked how far down the foundation is proposed to be. Mr. Kemper explained that the floor of the sports court would be 6 feet below the floor of the garage. Mr. Kemper commented that the foundation would have to be at least 42 inches below grade. Mr. Stewart noted that for explanatory purposes, the garage elevation is zero. The connector between the garage and the proposed sports court is also at zero elevation. There are stairs proposed in the connector leading to the sports court, located 6 feet below. He noted that approximately 500 cubic feet of material is estimated to be removed.
Mrs. Griffin asked whether blasting will be required. Mr. Stewart commented that no blasting is anticipated but that won’t be known until the digging begins. Mrs. Griffin commented that the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone is not in place just to protect the trees and the views from below but is also there to protect the stability of the stone and soil on the mountain’s edge. Mr. Stewart noted his understanding. Mrs. Griffin commented that there is already quite a bit of encroachment from the existing house and garage. She noted that there will be considerable digging for the foundation of the proposed sports court, which will be located entirely in the protected setback area.
Mr. Stewart commented that, to the best of his knowledge, when the house on this site was constructed, which has a full foundation and basement, no blasting was needed. He added that there is no onsite indication that there is exposed ledge in the area.
Mr. Ford explained that he just found out that minimal blasting may be needed on the northeast end. He noted that an excavator was onsite and dug down to see what was there. He noted that the excavator indicated that the work could possibly be done with a machine called a “rip” but, if not, minimal blasting may be needed.
Ms. Keith asked why a slab is not being used. Mr. Stewart explained that a slab will be used but the slab would be located 6 feet below grade. He added that the slab must be supported with a foundation. Ms. Keith asked what the purpose of the building is. Mr. Stewart explained that the proposed building is a sports court for the Ford family.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Ford explained that he is tired of watching kids do nothing but play video games. He noted that he built an indoor basketball court at his house in Glastonbury so his kids would be active and he would know where they are. He noted that the traffic from the addition of this building will be minimal; this residence would generate no more traffic than any other house this size. He noted that traffic is not an issue as the driveway is very long. Mr. Ford noted that the building is proposed to be 6 feet underground, at a great cost, to keep it from being visible from below. Ms. Keith asked if scheduled activities with other children are planned for this building. Mr. Ford explained that he plays with his 8 year-old everyday before school.
He noted that after school his teenage son may have friends over but the building will not be used as a health club. He explained that he likes to know where his kids are. He added that he participated in “fat dads” a few nights a week at his house in Glastonbury and noted that he hopes to continue that play at this location. Mr. Ford stressed that there won’t be any schedules or leagues; the building is very large because he only wants to do it once.
Mrs. Primeau asked whether trap rock can be blasted. Mr. Kushner commented that most of the rock on the mountain is already broken up enough where it can be ripped with a machine. He noted that the testimony tonight is that it is possible that some of it cannot be ripped and some blasting may be required. He added that it rips easy, as it is basalt, and is the same kind of rock that people would commonly call trap rock.
Mrs. Griffin asked how ripping affects the stability of the mountainside edge. Mr. Kushner noted that the proposed building would be located approximately 80 to 90 feet back. Mrs. Griffin noted that the building would be located within the 150-foot setback that the Commission is trying to protect.
Mr. Ford noted that the trap rock on this site is located between the northwest corner and the wetlands and is not anywhere close to the ridge.
Mr. Stewart noted that, to the best of his knowledge, the in ground pool located just to the north of this site on the Pappa residence required no ripping or blasting and the pool is most likely 8 to 10 feet deep.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Ford noted that David Lord is the soil scientist that has been to the site. He added that the wetlands are there because there is trap rock right before the wetlands. He commented that he doesn’t feel there is an issue on the ridge side, as the excavator has dug holes.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Stewart explained that the soil scientist examined the entire length of the wetlands and suggested plantings as shown on the Site Development Plan. He noted that while no digging was done, the soil scientist indicated that from a visual inspection of the site that he didn’t think there would be any rock issues in this area.
Mrs. Primeau asked whether ledge is considered trap rock. Mr. Kushner explained that ledge is a generic term that refers to rock that is sticking out of the ground. He added that the soil scientist hired for this site is not a geologist or a soils engineer. He commented that he doesn’t believe a soils engineer has done any drillings or borings. Mrs. Primeau noted that her concern relates to the stability and protection of the ridgeline, which includes the trap rock.
Mr. Stewart noted that a couple of the houses in the Brocklesby subdivision required rock removal; he added that, to the best of his knowledge, there were never any concerns about destabilization. He noted that the houses in Brocklesby are much closer together than the houses in the subject area. Mr. Stewart commented that while he is not a geologist, he has a lot of knowledge about construction in the subject area and stressed that he doesn’t believe there would be any problems with stability.
Mr. Ford added that no blasting was required for the house itself. He noted that there is a lot of fill in the area where the sports court is proposed. He commented that he is also concerned about the stability of the area.
Mr. Stewart noted that the plant material and the trees in the area are not stunted, as they would be if there was a lot of ledge in the area. He reiterated that the owner is doing everything he can, some at an increased cost, to make the proposed building disappear into the background (i.e., constructing the building below grade and using specific colors and plant material).
Mrs. Clark asked what type of plants would be installed between the proposed building and the wetlands. Mr. Stewart noted that standard wetland plantings, suggested by the soil scientist, would be installed in that area. He added that the plantings are to be done such that they look natural and not uniform and would not be maintained by the owner; the area will be planted to grow wild.
Mr. Bonner asked whether it can be guaranteed that the public won’t be able to see the proposed building. Mr. Stewart commented that it cannot be guaranteed. Mr. Bonner noted his concern that the public may have to look at the building. Mr. Stewart explained that the project team is doing everything within their ability to make the proposed building invisible. He noted that it won’t be brick, it won’t have windows, and the roof will be dark gray. Mr. Bonner noted that the public will still have to look at it. Mr. Stewart noted that the public may look into the area where the building will be located but he noted that he doesn’t believe they will see the building.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kemper stated that the proposed building is 22 feet high.
Mr. Cappello commented that he would like to see the architectural drawings.
Mr. Kemper displayed elevations of the proposed building and noted that the intent is to have it resemble a barn; it would be connected to the house. He explained that the grade drops down so the proposed building is lower; it follows the grade. The floor of the sports court is located 6 feet below the floor of the garage. Mr. Kemper noted that wood siding is proposed with shingles to match the house; the colors are proposed to blend into the woods. There is some glass proposed with barn doors; the floor level is actually below where the windows on the outside are located.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions, Mr. Kemper noted that the barn doors are fixed. He explained that when inside the building, the bottom of the window is 4 feet above your head; he added that the windows are not walk out style and are there to allow light in.
Mr. Cappello noted that because the grade slopes down a couple of feet, the actual depth for the foundation will be 4 feet rather than 6 feet. Mr. Kemper concurred.
Mr. Starr commented that the only excavation needed would be for the foundation at the far end. Mr. Stewart concurred and added that the hole would be cut out and then the grade would be restored to its original state; after the building is constructed, the ground elevation would be identical to the elevation that exists today.
Mrs. Primeau commented that it appears that the cupolas proposed for the top of the sports court are higher than the peak of the garage and asked what the total height of the proposed building is, including the cupolas. Mr. Kemper noted that the cupolas are higher but the base of the proposed building is lower than the garage.
Ms. Keith commented that the proposed building would have trees in front of it and noted that she doesn’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Ford noted that he picked this specific site because it cannot be seen from below.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Starr noted that the height of the proposed building including the cupolas is 32 feet.
Mr. Kushner noted that the subject application is not as aggressive as other proposals that the Commission has been presented with. He noted that the proposed structure would be located behind the 75-foot ridgeline setback. He added that he doesn’t believe that the structure could be seen but noted that if it is, it would be very minimal. He commented that he doesn’t believe that there would be any defacing of the cliff, as the building is proposed so far back from the ridge. He stated that Mrs. Griffin’s earlier comment about protecting the ridgeline is correct and valid; it’s not just about minimizing the visual aspects.
Mr. Starr noted that groundwater recharging has not been addressed and asked for information about drainage. Mr. Stewart noted that drainage was addressed as part of the Inland Wetlands application. He noted that a footing drain was requested by Town Staff and explained that clean water coming off the roof will discharge into the wetland.
Ms. Keith noted her understanding that Mr. Ford did not construct the existing house but questioned whether something could be done to fill in the tree line so the house cannot be seen from below. She noted that while it cannot be seen from Fisher Meadows she added that it can be seen from much farther back. She asked whether more plantings could be requested in connection with the pool application.
Mr. Starr asked what the rate of growth is for a spruce tree. Mr. Stewart commented that in a good growing season a foot of growth, or maybe more, could be realized. Mr. Stewart offered background information on houses that have been constructed on the ridge and explained that the Town (John McCahill) has been very helpful with regard to tree handling. Mr. Stewart acknowledged that the subject house can be seen from below. He explained that at the time the house was constructed, along with several other houses on the ridge, the diseased hemlocks were causing a big problem. Mr. Stewart noted that Mr. McCahill recommended that all the diseased/dead hemlock trees in this area be cut down. He explained that some of the homeowners in the Brocklesby and Sky View Drive subdivisions agreed to
plant large trees, within affordable reason, to help mitigate the hemlock removal. He added that Mr. McCahill has required some homeowners to back plant if too many trees were taken down during construction. He noted that spruce trees have been selected for the subject site, as they are fast growing evergreens that will get very tall. Mr. Stewart noted that construction would be kept to a minimum with as few tree cuttings as possible and back planting would occur.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about the pool, Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission could ask for additional plantings in connection with a pool application. Ms. Keith noted her appreciation of Mr. Ford’s effort but added that a situation has been established with the prior owner and she would like to see it cleaned up. Mr. Kushner noted that he doesn’t feel that additional planting requests should be made part of this application, as the pool will have to be a separate application. Ms. Keith concurred.
Mr. Ford noted that he has no interest in cutting more trees and added that he will plant more trees than he has to. He commented that there are 50 trees in front of the trees that are proposed to be planted in connection with the sports court. He noted that he doesn’t have a problem planting the trees but added that he thinks it’s a waste because they are not needed and they won’t be seen. He explained that he wasn’t there when the original owner had the trees cut and noted that he likes his views to be framed.
Mr. Gackstatter asked if native species are preferred in the ridgeline and/or whether the rate of growth is a factor. Mr. Kushner explained that the Zoning Regulations don’t address that issue but added that the soil conditions on the ridge are poor for growing trees and the climate is harsh. He noted that evergreens are planted because they will grow and block views and are hardy enough to withstand the weather conditions.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Kemper noted that the connector area located between the garage and the proposed sports court would be used for weights and storage.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4508, as well as the entire public hearing, was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Ms. Keith motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider App. #4508. Mrs. Clark seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4508 - David Ford, owner, Jack Kemper, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit sports court in 150-foot ridgeline setback, 44 Sky View Drive, Parcel 6060044, in an RU2A Zone.
Mr. Starr commented that it appears that no conditions of approval are necessary, as all the details are shown on the plans and the pool is not part of the application. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Starr noted that the application conforms to the Special Exception Criteria for the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone and reviewed the following points:
- Adequate safeguards have been taken to minimize the visual impacts of the activities;
- The proposal has not affected the viability of the area as a wildlife resource;
- The groundwater quality and recharge potential has been preserved, and;
- No areas of historical importance have been identified; the stability of the ridgeline is protected.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4508. She stated that she has many concerns because almost every house that is built on the ridgeline asks for an exception to either the 150-foot setback or the 75-foot setback. She commented that it appears that there isn’t one residence that can be built that stays within the Regulations. She noted that she is voting to approve this application, as she feels the applicant has made great efforts to minimize the appearance and stabilize the existing conditions. Mrs. Griffin concluded by noting that she doesn’t feel that every applicant should think that they are entitled to a waiver of the Ridgeline requirements. She noted that the requirements of the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone are there for a purpose and the Commission should
strongly enforce them.
Mr. Thompson seconded the motion to approve App. #4508. He noted that he doesn’t mind a few exceptions to the Regulations, because he gets a warm feeling when he looks up and sees all the tax income.
Mr. Cappello commented that to be consistent with past approvals he wants assurance that any glass that is used is non-reflective in nature. Mr. Ford stated that he would ensure that non-glare glass is used.
Voting in favor to approve App. #4508 were Mesdames Griffin, Keith, Primeau, and Clark and Messrs. Thompson, Starr, and Cappello.
OTHER BUSINESS
2011-2012 Meeting Schedule
Mr. Starr noted that the meeting schedule has been revised to change the November 8 meeting to November 1, so as not to conflict with an election day.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve the 2011-2012 Meeting Schedule, as revised. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
STAFF REPORT
Time limits for temporary cul-de-sacs
Mr. Starr addressed the Plan of Circulation from the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development and noted that there are some road connectors shown that should be removed from the map (East Woodhaven Drive and Woodhaven Drive). Mr. Kushner concurred and noted that corrections can be made to the map but noted that the Plan of Circulation also shows temporary cul-de-sacs. He noted that Town Attorney Zizka has indicated that the Commission could develop rules that place limits on temporary cul-de-sacs. He noted that temporary cul-de-sacs would still be allowed to be extended; the number of lots served by that cul-de-sac could be increased in a situation where the Commission is trying to fulfill an objective on the Plan of Circulation. Mr. Kushner noted that a street could be extended in small
increments until a connection is made.
Mrs. Griffin commented that no additional lots to the side should be permitted; an extension should only be permitted if it leads in a direct line to a road connection. Mr. Kushner noted that Attorney Zizka’s comments/opinions are in agreement with Mrs. Griffin’s comments.
Mr. Kushner noted that Northington Drive is a good example, as it was constructed incrementally over the past 15 years; the last section will be built in connection with the Weatherstone Subdivision providing a connection to Lofgren Road. He commented that a good example is Haynes Road and that a regulation could have been written that requires a road connection to the north before any lots are added. Mr. Kushner noted that many of the temporary cul-de-sacs shown on the Plan of Circulation have been accomplished or are obsolete. He explained that Attorney Zizka has indicated that a regulation could be drafted to give the Commission discretion with regard to additional development on temporary cul-de-sacs.
Ms. Keith commented that she doesn’t want to see more homes built on a temporary cul-de-sac if no through road connection is proposed. She added that adding more homes to a temporary cul-de-sac creates the potential for disaster.
Mr. Kushner pointed out that temporary cul-de-sacs are discussed at the Planning Staff Meetings and noted that while the Commission is very concerned, with good reason, the public safety officials are not concerned about this issue.
Ms. Keith and Mrs. Primeau remembered that some years ago there was a safety official who did not want any cul-de-sacs in Town because of equipment issues.
Mrs. Griffin questioned how an ambulance can get past a road block.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the circulation patterns for some streets are not that good.
Mr. Kushner noted that the Commission has struggled with developers over the years with regard to emergency connections between developments; it has been a struggle to get connections and they are often not maintained.
Mr. Starr questioned how many times the gate on Route 44 for Pond Place has been used.
Mr. Thompson commented that there have been occasions when residents have indicated that they don’t want their street to be cut through and that they would rather take their chances with an emergency. He noted that this was the scenario with Tamara Circle and Sylvan Street.
Side and rear yard setbacks for small outbuildings
Mr. Kushner explained that many applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals are homeowners needing a variance to place a small shed (under 200 square feet) on their property. He noted that currently any size outbuilding must comply with the required yard setbacks and many variances for this purpose are granted. He asked whether the Commission would consider a modification to the Regulations such that property owners could erect small structures (10 x 16) to be located
10 feet from property lines.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels this could be accomplished if a written agreement was received from the abutter. Mr. Kushner explained that a written agreement would not be permitted under the Town Code. He commented that only small structures that would have a small impact would be allowed at the 10-foot setback.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels it depends on what the building would be used for. She added that she feels the Regulations are fine as they are.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she feels screening would be important, especially for the smaller lots. Mr. Kushner noted that screening doesn’t usually work very well as judgment is needed and plants often die.
NON PRINTED ITEM ADDED TO THE AGENDA
Ms. Keith motioned to add to the agenda a request for a 90-day extension to file mylars in connection with recent subdivision approvals for Chidsey Road and Haynes Road. The motion, seconded by Mr. Thompson, received unanimous approval.
Request for 90-day extension to file mylars - Chidsey/Haynes Road (PZC Apps. #4486, #4487) Sunlight Construction
Ms. Keith motioned to approve the request for a 90-day extension to file mylars in connection with recent subdivision approvals for Chidsey Road and Haynes Road. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on October 12, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4508 - David Ford, owner, Jack Kemper, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit sports court in 150-foot ridgeline setback, 44 Sky View Drive, Parcel 6060044, in an RU2A Zone. APPROVED.
Dated at Avon this 13th day of October, 2010. Copy of this notice is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Avon Town Hall.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, November 16, 2010, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Town Hall, on the following:
App. #4510 - Gold Borg Associates, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.3.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign, 353 West Main Street, Parcel 4540353, in a CR zone.
App. #4511- David Ford, owner, Jack Kemper, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit in-ground pool within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 44 Sky View Drive, Parcel 6060044, in an RU2A zone.
App. #4512 - Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to the Industrial Park Zone.
App. #4513- Avon Properties, LLC, owner, Progressive Animal Wellness, LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.D.3.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit veterinary clinic, 56 East Main Street, Parcel 2140056, in a CS zone.
App. #4514- Sunlight Construction, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit 2 rear lots, 85 Chidsey Road, Parcel 1780085, in an RU2A zone.
App. #4515 - Sunlight Construction, Inc., owner/applicant, request for 2-lot resubdivision, 85 Chidsey Road, Parcel 1780085, in an RU2A zone.
App. #4516- Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.G.4.a. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit construction of athletic field in the floodplain, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone.
App. #4517- Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.H. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit earth removal, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone.
All interested persons may appear and be heard and written communications will be received. Applications are available for inspection in Planning and Community Development at the Avon Town Hall. Dated at Avon this 1st day of November, 2010.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman / Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
