The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, May 18, 2010. Present were Henry Frey, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Douglas Thompson, Carol Griffin, Edward Whalen, Linda Keith, and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Marianne Clark, and Donald Bonner. Mrs. Primeau and Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent were Duane Starr, Chairman, and David Cappello. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Frey, acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Whalen motioned for approval of the April 27, 2010, minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received approval from Messrs. Whalen, Frey, Thompson and Bonner, and Mesdames Primeau and Keith. Mrs. Griffin abstained, as she was absent from the April 27 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4480 - CT Valley Developers, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit one rear lot, 415 Lovely Street, Parcel 3060415, in R30 and R40 Zones.
App. #4481 - Salmon Brook Development LLC, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot subdivision, 1.82 acres, 4 and 10 Southgate, Parcels 5390004 and 5390010 in R30 and R40 Zones.
Present to represent these applications were Richard Goodine, Kilbourne and Tully, P.C., representing CT Valley Developers and Robert Hiltbrand, PE, R.R. Hiltbrand Engineers & Surveyors.
In response to Mr. Frey’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that Apps. #4480 and #4481 will be addressed simultaneously.
Attorney Goodine explained that the subject applications are identical to applications that were approved in May of 2009 (#4425/26). The record maps for Apps. #4425 and #4426 were never filed and the approvals lapsed. He noted that the request is to create a rear lot at
415 Lovely Street with access from a driveway located on a Southgate lot owned by Salmon Brook Development. Mr. Goodine clarified that the request is to create a rear lot at 415 Lovely Street; no subdivision is being requested as it has been determined that a “free cut” is permitted. Four or five years ago Salmon Brook Development created 2 building lots on the Southgate parcel. The reason for the subject subdivision application (#4481) is to create a driveway access off of Southgate to serve the rear lot (App. #4480).
Mr. Hiltbrand displayed a map of the site and explained that 415 Lovely Street is a large parcel that was formerly owned by Jeannette Gervais; the lot is approximately 8.5 acres. The 2 lots owned by Salmon Brook Development total approximately 1.75 acres. He explained that last year’s application proposed to combine the 2 lots on Southgate and develop them as 1 lot, to arrive at a better plan. He noted that if 415 Lovely Street were developed on its own, there would have to be 2 curb cuts on Lovely Street; the current proposal calls for one curb cut. The proposal to reconfigure the lot lines for the parcels on Southgate provides a driveway access to the rear lot from Southgate rather than from Lovely Street. Mr. Hiltbrand noted that he understands that it is everyone’s viewpoint
that this is a better plan. The proposed lots will be served by public sewer and water. The proposed house location for Lot #2 was moved to the east eliminating the need for a retaining wall and potential grading issues.
Mr. Kushner offered background information and noted that the original approvals granted last year included a request to subdivide 415 Lovely Street, as the owner had assumed that the property had been divided before. Mr. Kushner noted that Attorney Goodine has performed a title search and has certified that App. #4480 (a request to create one rear lot) would be the first division of 415 Lovely Street; a house has existed on this site for many years. Mr. Kushner noted that a “fee in lieu” payment was offered in connection with the original subdivision application. There is no open space (or fee in lieu) requirement for the current proposal at 415 Lovely Street, as there is no subdivision application. He explained that there is, however, a subdivision application to modify 2 existing
lots on Southgate to provide a 30-foot access strip to the rear lot at 415 Lovely Street. Mr. Kushner added that no open space will be required for this 2-lot subdivision, as the open space obligation was satisfied as part of the original Southgate subdivision. He noted that all the issues for the rear lot proposal that were addressed last year (i.e., house location, grading, front yard setback) are still reflected on the plan and remain the same. The rear portion of 415 Lovely Street has some steep land and the Commission had a discussion with Andrew Mason at last year’s hearing about possibly requiring a conservation easement. There was some discussion about Mr. Mason selling the property at the top to the adjacent property owner to the west; some tree cutting for views was also discussed. Mr. Kushner noted that the very top portion is not as steep as the center portion. He noted that the current applicant is willing to agree to the same
conditions. The same property to the west is still interested in the very top portion of the lot but there is also an interested property owner to the north that has interest in the center-most piece.
Mr. Goodine explained that the current owner of 415 Lovely Street is only developing the lower 25% portion; 75% of the lot is very steep but does plateau and has potential for a building lot if an access could be created. He confirmed that the property owner to the west is still interested in purchasing the rear-most portion of the lot. He added that a homeowner to the north (Conroy) has expressed interest in purchasing the center-most portion of the lot to add to their backyard; the Conroy’s have indicated that they wish to keep the area treed and natural. Mr. Goodine noted that he doesn’t know the extent of the original conservation restrictions.
Mr. Frey noted that, in his opinion, a conservation restriction means no excavation and no tree cutting. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Goodine commented that someone could picnic in that area. Mr. Kushner agreed and added that the Town has a sample conservation restriction form (part of the Inland Wetlands Regulations) that notes no cutting of living trees, no grade changes, and no building construction. Mr. Kushner commented that because the details of the land purchases are not yet known, if the Commission is considering an approval, the conditions relating to a conservation restriction imposed on the original approval could also be imposed on this application. He clarified that notes would have to be added to the record plans and deeds with regard to the proposed land conveyances to adjoining properties. It would have to be made clear on the record maps and deeds that additional land, if added to adjacent lots, could not be
considered an additional building lot.
In response to Mr. Frey’s question, Mr. Kushner clarified that the conservation restriction would only be placed on the center-most section of 415 Lovely Street and would not include the area near the very top of the parcel. He added that the conservation restriction would include the area that the Commission approved last year.
Mrs. Griffin noted that she feels that all the excess land must be sold in order to avoid the possibility of a land-locked parcel. Mr. Goodine explained that the intent is to not create any land-locked parcels or empty lots. In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comment, Mr. Kushner noted that if the sale of land at the upper end fell through the owner would not be at liberty to sell the middle section, as that would result in a disjointed parcel.
Mrs. Primeau asked that if boundary lines are changed and excess land is added to existing parcels whether there will be confusion in the future about clear cutting and conservation restrictions if certain properties were to change ownership again. Mr. Kushner noted that certain protections are put in place; a conservation easement/restriction is filed on the Land Records. The deed that transfers the property would make it clear that the additional land is not to be considered an individual parcel but rather merged with the adjoining parcel. He pointed out that the Tax Assessor would not assign the additional land a separate Parcel ID. Mrs. Primeau questioned how the Commission can be assured that the deed language is clear to avoid any problems/questions in the future. Mr. Kushner explained
that the owner would need to decide what land transfers would take place before a record map could be created. He added that deeds could also be prepared with specific language that the Commission could require the Town Attorney to review.
Mr. Goodine noted his understanding and agreement with Mr. Kushner’s comments.
Ms. Keith noted her concerns with potential gaps in property boundaries if land transfers were to take place involving Conroy and Psaras. She noted that, in her opinion, there can’t be anything in between; the Psaras property line has to meet the Conroy property line. Mr. Goodine noted his understanding and added that no specific drawing is available yet but explained that no gaps will be left if land transfers occur. He further explained that no property will be left landlocked.
Mrs. Primeau asked whether there would be any issues with this open land since it will be held in private ownership. Mr. Kushner explained that there would not be any issues in this instance, as it was never the Commission’s intention to have this land area exist as public open space; the property was always to be privately owned subject to a conservation easement. He further explained that there would be an easement in favor of the Town but it would only be for the Town to be able to enforce the terms of the document; no rights would be extended for public use, as the land would remain in private ownership. Mrs. Primeau asked which lot would be acquiring the extra land located within the conservation easement area. Mr. Kushner explained that that answer is not yet known but there are various
proposals pending. He noted that the Commission must decide whether they are comfortable allowing the applicant to make decisions about ownership of the extra land. He noted that if the current circumstances are too vague the public hearing could be continued to the next meeting to allow the applicant time to work out details with adjoining property owners.
Mr. Goodine asked that if the subject applications were approved and the land owners wished to enter into agreements for boundary changes at a later date whether there is any obligation to come before the Commission. He explained that he isn’t sure whether the Commission has any authority with regard to lot line revisions; he added that he does not want this to be an issue or have it create a delay for his clients. Mr. Goodine explained that if a conservation easement exists on a property, any owner, no matter who it is, is subject to the terms of the easement.
Mr. Goodine noted prior conversations with his Mr. Kushner and apologized for any possible misunderstandings. He noted that there was a title issue with an adjacent property that has now been resolved and reiterated that he doesn’t want to delay his clients any further.
Mr. Frey noted his agreement with Mr. Goodine and noted that it is important for certain sections of 415 Lovely Street to be subject to a conservation easement. He noted that any land transfers could take place at any time in the future as long as all the lots involved retained sufficient land area to be legal. The Commission would have no authority in connection with these land transfers. Mr. Frey commented that he doesn’t feel this is a reason to hold up the applications.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she would like the Town Attorney to review the deed language for clarity. Mr. Frey agreed that if an approval were considered, a review by the Town Attorney could be a condition of approval. Mr. Goodine noted his agreement as well.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with Mr. Frey in that, in this instance, the land in question is not needed to support the development of the lot at 415 Lovely Street; the land located at the upper end is excess land. He added that minor changes to lot lines is not a problem but potential boundary line changes that may occur after complicated grading plans have been approved could be more significant.
Ms. Keith reiterated that it is important to her that all the lot lines line up and that there will be no spaces in between.
Mr. Thompson commented that the issue of all lot boundaries lining up presupposes that lot line revisions must take place at the same time as the approval of the subject applications. He noted that he doesn’t feel that is fair to the applicant and noted his agreement with
Mr. Frey’s commented that it shouldn’t matter as long as the conservation easement stays in effect. Mr. Thompson pointed out that if a piece of land became landlocked it wouldn’t matter because a conservation easement governs the land and a building could not be constructed.
Ms. Keith commented that it would just be cleaner if there was an understanding by all the property owners (and future owners) about the lot lines lining up but it wouldn’t have to hold
up any such agreements.
Mr. Kushner pointed out that the upper portion of 415 Lovely Street is not going to be subject to a conservation easement. For example, if the Conroy family (35 Old Kings Road) was interested in purchasing the middle section of the lot, it may orphan the upper section without a conservation easement which may imply that this area is buildable without access which could be a problem. Mr. Kushner noted that if the whole area was subject to a conservation easement it would be less of an issue. In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Goodine noted that an agreement is in place and Mr. Psaras is ready to purchase the upper portion of the lot.
Carleen Conroy, 35 Old Kings Road, noted that her family would like to purchase the land behind her property, which is located 75 feet from her rear property line. She noted that she enjoys the wildlife in the area and would not want to clear cut the area; however, the land that would be added is in their backyard and they would like to be able to improve some of it. The land to be added is thickly wooded with some fallen trees but the terrain is flat. She noted her concern that some of these trees are very tall and could hit her house if they fell. She requested that a portion of the land to be added not be included in the conservation easement so some trimming or raking could be done in the area abutting her back yard. She commented that she entered into an agreement with Jason (CT Valley
Developers LLC) on April 23 to purchase 2.7 acres with the understanding that the property would extend to the Psaras parcel but added that she hasn’t seen a map.
Mr. Frey commented that there is more than 2.7 acres in that area. Mr. Goodine commented that the intent is to begin at Mr. Psaras’ property and extend to the Conroy’s boundary line. The estimate is approximately 2 acres and doesn’t include all the land; some of the land would remain with 415 Lovely Street. Mr. Frey commented that this scenario complicates the issue. Ms. Conroy noted that the conservation restrictions are not clear at this point and she doesn’t want to do anything that is not appropriate. She reiterated that she would like to be able to maintain the area in a natural state while preserving her backyard.
Mr. Goodine explained that he did not find out until today that Ms. Conroy has questions about the definitions of a conservation easement. He added that he does not want to cause any problems in this area.
Mr. Kushner noted that if an approval is being considered he suggested that it be approved in the same manner as the original application (PZC #4425/26) or continue the public hearing to June 8 to allow time for the land issues to be worked out.
Mr. Goodine noted that some of the issues may become moot, as the conditions of the conservation easement may be too restrictive for some parties.
Mr. Kushner noted that the Town’s conservation easement standards have remained constant for the past 20 years; there haven’t been any negotiations to date.
There was no further input for Apps. #4480 and #4481; the public hearing was kept open.
App. #4485 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Josh Livingston, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit fitness studio, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone.
Present to represent this application were Edward Rosenfield, owner; and Josh Livingston, applicant.
Mr. Rosenfield noted that the subject proposal is a reapplication of a previous approval (App. #4478) for Snap Fitness. He explained that the first issue is the hours of operation. Snap Fitness is a small gym; an alternative solution to a big box club. There are no trainers or group sessions; members can go in and work out whenever they want. There are currently 1,200 clubs with 900 coming in the future. Snap Fitness advertises nationally that their clubs are open 24 hours a day 7 days a week; it’s just a concept. He noted that less than 1% of the members are expected to use the club between 11 pm and 5 am. He commented that he was informed by Snap Fitness that rarely would there be more than 10 to 12 people in the club at any one time. Mr. Rosenfield explained
that the busiest times are 7 am to 9 am and 5 pm to 7 pm. The club is only open to members and if the club isn’t staffed it is locked and secured. The club has 24-hour video surveillance; there are 4 to 6 cameras inside each club. There is a panic button and security system on the wall. Mr. Rosenfield noted that the TJ Maxx Plaza is 3 parcels away from the nearby neighborhood and there is a dense layer of trees. He noted that there is a Bank of America located 2 buildings away from the subject site that averages 9 ATM uses daily between 12 midnight and 5 am. Mr. Rosenfield explained that it is important to the applicant to be able to continue Snap Fitness’ advertising concept of being open 24/7.
Mr. Frey asked if the request is to allow Snap Fitness to be open 24 hours a day. Mr. Rosenfield confirmed that the applicant is asking for permission to allow Snap Fitness to be open 24 hours a day to comply with their advertising; it’s a concept. He added that people don’t work out 24 hours a day but it’s a concept for Snap Fitness. Mr. Rosenfield submitted to the Commission an aerial view of the site. Mr. Frey commented that he thought the issue was the number of members. Mr. Rosenfield explained that the number of members is the second issue. He commented that he has letters from police personnel in other cities supporting this business noting that there has never been any trouble. Mr. Rosenfield commented that Avon is a wonderful area. He reiterated
that the business would rarely be used during the off hours but it is important to stay with the advertising concept. He submitted testimonials to the Commission and noted that it’s a proven and tried concept that there has never been a problem with. Mr. Rosenfield noted that Route 44 is a busy road; people could just drive in, far away from any neighborhood, and work out if they couldn’t sleep.
Mr. Rosenfield addressed the issue of membership and noted that the Snap Fitness concept is relatively new; it started in Minnesota a couple of years ago. He noted that there is a Snap Fitness club in Bethel, CT, that has 900 members; there are never more than 20 people in the club at one time. He commented that membership is not really the issue; how many people will be in the gym at the same time is the issue. Mr. Rosenfield commented that the Fire Marshal has indicated that 90 is the maximum occupancy for this space.
Mr. Frey commented that he doesn’t believe that the Commission had any issues with the number of members. He noted that somehow the Commission was led to believe that a membership of 400 was adequate; the Commission would have been comfortable with a membership of 600. Mr. Frey noted that he would not have a problem with more members.
Mr. Livingston explained that at one point during the first meeting it was mentioned that an average club would have 400 members; it was not meant to be a cap.
Mr. Bonner commented that the approval was written such that if the applicant wanted permission for more than 400 members he could come back to the Commission.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the Commission had a problem, and still does, with the business being open 24 hours. She noted that the Commission has an obligation to the residents as well as the clients for their health, safety, and welfare.
Mr. Rosenfield commented that there are cameras inside the building and there has never been a problem.
Mrs. Griffin commented that it is a long time from when something is viewed on a camera and when the police department can get to the scene. She commented that there could be problems with people leaving the facility at 2 am and heading to their cars, which don’t have cameras.
Mr. Livingston noted that there haven’t been any incidents (i.e., vandalism or injuries) in the over 1,000 clubs that exist to date. He noted that there are cameras monitoring the facilities and there is also a panic button and a necklace. The doors are locked; no one can enter without a key card. He commented that it’s a proven concept and Avon is a safe place.
Mrs. Primeau asked who watches the camera 24 hours a day. She noted that a necklace is available upon entering but there could be a problem if someone doesn’t put on the necklace and then later has a problem getting to the necklace. Mr. Livingston commented that people can get hurt and have medical problems in all types of situations.
Mr. Kushner noted that this proposal was discussed at a Staff meeting and the Chief of Police indicated that he doesn’t have a problem with the business being open 24/7, as a medical emergency could happen anywhere at any time.
Mrs. Primeau noted that the Commission has a responsibility to the residents of Avon.
Mr. Bonner noted that the neighbors objected to the business being open all night and the Commission agreed with them. He commented that he feels it is reasonable for a Town like Avon to have businesses closed from 12 pm to 5 am.
Mr. Rosenfield reiterated that the Bank of America on the next parcel has an ATM that averages 9 customers a night; the neighbors would not know the difference.
Mr. Livingston noted that he thought that the nearby neighborhood was located behind TJ Maxx but now realizes it is farther away from where Snap Fitness would be located. He added that there are trees and a fence between the subject site and the neighborhood.
Mrs. Primeau noted that the neighborhood residents have had issues with the TJ Maxx plaza in the past.
Mr. Rosenfield noted that Snap Fitness won’t modify their advertising for a change of hours in Avon.
In response to questions and comments, Mr. Kushner explained that the original approval for Snap Fitness stands if nothing is decided tonight.
Mrs. Clark noted her concerns with females in parking lots at night. The area to the rear of the building is heavily wooded creating a dangerous situation at 2 am. She also noted her concerns with setting a precedent for other 24 hour businesses in Avon.
Mr. Livingston noted that people that work off hours (i.e., emergency personnel) would benefit from the club being open 24 hours.
Mr. Whalen asked why the business would want to be open 24/7, as it would not be profitable to be open around the clock if no one is using it. He also asked that if the business cannot be open 24/7 whether that terminates the deal for Mr. Livingston.
Mr. Livingston explained that he wants to follow the marketing concept plan for Snap Fitness, which is 24 hours a day 7 days a week. He noted that he already owns a franchise and wants to open the business but only if the hours can be 24/7.
Ms. Keith noted that while she empathizes with Mr. Livingston and all small business owners, she has been an Avon resident for 40 years and she doesn’t want to create an opportunity for disaster; Avon is a safe town. She added that she has a personal issue with a 24/7 business and she doesn’t want anything bad to happen.
Mr. Kushner commented that there may be more exposure across the street at businesses like Walmart and Big Y, as there are trucks unloading goods on a regular basis. In addition, the employees are in and out of the store constantly.
Mrs. Griffin and Mr. Bonner noted that the situation at Big Y and Walmart is different, as there are always people inside the buildings unlike Snap Fitness that would be monitored with a camera.
Mr. Frey asked whether it would be possible to have an employee inside the building at all times for monitoring purposes.
Mr. Livingston noted that it would be impossible to have an employee inside the building 24/7. He added that there are safety issues everywhere.
Mr. Rosenfield reiterated that the applicant would like the opportunity to have more than 400 members; the original approval permits a maximum of 400 members.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4485 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Primeau motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4480, #4481, and #4485. Mr. Bonner seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4480 - CT Valley Developers, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit one rear lot,
415 Lovely Street, Parcel 3060415, in R30 and R40 Zones.
App. #4481 - Salmon Brook Development LLC, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot subdivision, 1.82 acres, 4 and 10 Southgate, Parcels 5390004 and 5390010 in R30 and R40 Zones.
Mrs. Griffin commented that there are too many unresolved land issues for the Commission to act on these applications tonight. She asked that the applicant return to the next meeting with a clearer idea of what will happen with the excess land and the conservation easement.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4480 and #4481 to the next meeting, scheduled for June 8. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
App. #4485 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Josh Livingston, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit fitness studio, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone.
Mrs. Griffin noted that she feels the Commission made a wise decision when they approved the original application to require a reduction in the hours of operation. The Commission has a responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of all Avon residents. The proposed Snap Fitness facility, as well as the parking lot, will be unattended.
Vote on Membership
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve the applicant’s request to remove the cap on the number of members permitted (the original approval for App. #4478 limited the number of members to a maximum of 400). The motion, seconded by Mr. Whalen, received unanimous approval.
Vote on Hours of Operation
Mrs. Griffin motioned to deny the applicant’s request to permit Snap Fitness to be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (the original approval for App. #4478 required Snap Fitness to be closed from 12 am midnight to 5 am). The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau received approval from Mesdames Griffin, Primeau, and Keith and Messrs. Frey and Bonner. Mr. Thompson and
Mr. Whalen voted in opposition of the motion to deny.
The Commission approved App. #4485 subject to the following conditions:
1. Snap Fitness is approved with no limit to the number of members permitted. (The facility shall comply with all Building and Fire Codes regarding occupancy.)
2. Snap Fitness is approved to be open from 5 am to 12 am (midnight), 7 days per week. The business must be closed between the hours of 12 am (midnight) and
5 am, 7 days per week.
3. An AED device (automated external defibrillator) shall be installed inside the facility.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
CREC - discussion regarding proposal for 450-student school in Avon Park North
Present were Roger LaFleur, Director of School Construction, Capitol Region Education Council (CREC); Andy DiFatta, President, Ensign Bickford Realty Corporation; and David Friar, architect, Friar Associates.
Mr. LaFleur noted that the CREC magnet school currently located at 150 Fisher Drive is a huge success. He noted that this program has enhanced the community; a positive relationship has developed between the members and the families. An adequate permanent location is needed and the proposed school location within Avon Park North is only ¼ mile from the existing location. A total of 435 students are proposed. Mr. LaFleur noted that an architect has been selected, as a permanent location is needed in 2 years time.
Mr. DiFatta explained that Ensign Bickford likes the idea of a school in Avon Park North. Many parents drive their children to school which would benefit the retail uses proposed in the Master Plan for the Park.
Mr. Friar noted that the proposal is to construct a 75,000-square-foot school. He referenced the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development and noted that the proposed magnet school would provide a buffer from the retail and residential uses also proposed in this master plan. The proposed school would be a two-story building but would have the visual appearance of a one-story building from Climax Road. No parking in front of the school is proposed. The site would exit into retail businesses. Mr. Friar explained that he is aware of the colonial architectural concepts that currently exist in Avon Center. He noted that an outdoor play area would be proposed in the MDC easement area; he added that the MDC has indicated that they are okay with a play area over their easement. A total of
135 parking spaces are proposed with 435 students in total. Mr. Friar concluded by noting that Friar Associates has done many school projects and a school would be a good use of this site.
Ms. Keith commented that she remembers several of the Commission members asking that a school not be put on this site. The road size is a problem and bussing would be difficult in this area, as the traffic is heavy. She noted that she has many years of experience in a school setting. She explained that while she understands why a school would be wanted in this location, as the extra traffic would help the retail component, she noted her objection to the proposal. She also noted that this school would add nothing to the tax base in Avon. She reiterated that it’s not the right location.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the school would have a large number of students; 435 students ages 3 (pre-kindergarten) to 10 years of age. There would be a lot of cars and busses, as 3 and 4 year olds cannot ride a bus. In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. LaFleur noted that there would be approximately 30 to 40 students in the 3 and 4-year-old category.
Mr. Kushner explained that the discussion about the cost to the Town is not a planning and zoning issue. He referenced the 2005 Avon Center Study and noted that Ensign Bickford is working on a revised master plan for Avon Park North and they feel that it makes sense to put a school in this area. Mr. Kushner pointed out that all the public schools in Avon are located in residential zones on busy streets.
Ms. Keith commented that the Planning and Zoning Commission made it clear that they did not want a school on this site. Retail uses are proposed and there will be lots of cars; the children can’t be secured. She reiterated that she doesn’t think it’s a good location for a school.
Mr. Bonner noted that he likes the idea of a school in this location but any restaurant proposed nearby could not serve alcohol, as there is a provision in the Zoning Regulations about alcohol sales and distances to schools.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the Commission is supposed to be reviewing a general concept and a school is a specific concept. She commented that she feels that the Planning and Zoning Commission agrees with a mixed-use proposal but not a school.
Mr. Kushner commented that Ensign Bickford has been talking with different developers about sequencing of development. If a school was found to be favorable, it would be the first piece of the plan and a new regulation will need to be prepared. He explained that Ensign Bickford has a timetable to move forward with a school.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she remembers a similar discussion about a school proposal in Avon Park South and it was decided that Avon Park South would not be a good location due to traffic issues. She noted that a school doesn’t belong in Avon Center.
Mr. Frey commented that he agrees that Avon Park South is not a good location for a school, as there are many existing uses that are not compatible with a school. He noted that the existing buildings in Avon Park North are smaller in scope and he asked where a better location would be from a traffic perspective.
Mrs. Primeau noted her agreement with Mr. Bonner about how a school use could potentially restrict other nearby uses. She noted that it could be a problem if the school were located too close to First and Last Tavern and restricted their alcohol sales.
Mr. Kushner noted that the traffic that would be generated from a school would not be much different from the traffic that would be generated from an office park, which is what the subject site is zoned for and has been for many years. He noted that there is heavy parental involvement for the CREC school and Ensign Bickford feels it could be a complementary relationship, as parents drop off students they could frequent the nearby retail uses.
Mr. Frey noted that there are currently 180 students at the CREC school located at 150 Fisher Drive and there doesn’t appear to be any increase in traffic. He commented that the traffic is not an issue.
Mr. Thompson commented that the traffic will only get worse from now on.
Mr. Kushner commented that traffic will have to be addressed right from the beginning no matter what the first use will be.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she feels a school is the most restrictive use to begin with in terms of how that use will determine the other uses. She noted that she feels the Commission needs to know the distances from the proposed school site to all the surrounding existing uses to determine what restrictions would have to be in place. She noted that she cannot approve a concept if she doesn’t have all the information.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission is being asked to think about an overall concept plan, which is different than traditional zoning practices such as separation of uses. This concept will be marketed as an asset to the community, not a negative, but it may not appeal to everyone. He commented that he feels this scenario is similar to the Rails to Trails concept when it first began. Initially, there were many people against Rails to Trails who saw only the negative aspects (i.e., disturbances to neighborhoods and devaluing of property values). He noted that many people now support Rails to Trails and see it as an asset for resale home value. He noted that this concept is not about separation of uses but more about having many amenities within close proximity to each other. If
this type of concept is being promoted, the Commission needs to decide if it makes sense to locate a school on the edge of such a mixed-use development.
Ms. Keith commented that she has an open mind about mixed uses and feels this is a wonderful idea for this site but noted that she doesn’t want to see a school there.
Mrs. Primeau noted that Blue Back Square is successful and it doesn’t have a school.
Mr. Thompson noted that he doesn’t have a problem at all with a school in this location.
Mr. Frey asked where a better location would be and noted that the school is going to be built in Avon somewhere.
Mrs. Primeau commented that it is not her charge as a Commissioner to find a suitable location for the school.
Ms. Keith commented that CREC isn’t a public school and there will be students coming from other towns; the school won’t be dedicated to the population of Avon. Mr. Kushner asked whether it would make a difference if the request was for a satellite campus for UCONN.
Ms. Keith noted that she wouldn’t support that either; she commented that she doesn’t support a school in this location due to the traffic issues it would create. Mrs. Primeau noted her agreement.
Mr. Kushner explained that all the traffic patterns for the school have not yet been studied as it is somewhat early but added that a certain amount of traffic is needed for a successful downtown.
Mr. Bonner acknowledged that a school proposal is not a tax revenue issue but asked how many jobs would be created. Mr. LaFleur stated that a school of 425 students would have a staff of approximately 70 to 75 people. Mr. Bonner noted that creating jobs would be a positive.
Mr. LaFleur explained that CREC takes child safety very seriously. At the current time, there are approximately 5000 students enrolled in CREC and there are schools located in urban as well
as suburban settings. There is a school in Hartford at Dutch Point, which is a tough area.
Mr. LaFleur reiterated that child safety is taken very seriously and there is good security.
He noted that there has never been a problem with any student either from injury or getting in trouble. Mr. LaFleur commented that if CREC locates in Avon, being able to protect the children in the proposed setting is a piece of cake; protecting the children in Hartford is much tougher.
Mr. DiFatta addressed traffic. He noted that a traditional office building might have 200 square feet per person; if a call center is involved it could be 100 square feet per person. Relating this information to a 60,000-square-foot building, there could be anywhere from 300 to 600 cars per day, which far exceeds what CREC would be generating in traffic. Part of the traffic pattern would occur at hours different than normal commuting times. Mr. DiFatta pointed out that great care was taken not to propose the school’s main entrance on Climax Road. A new road internal to the site is proposed to get the traffic off the main roads; the cars and busses will split up once inside the site.
Ms. Keith commented that 435 students are proposed and asked Mr. DiFatta if he thinks there would be fewer cars for a school than for an office building. Mr. DiFatta confirmed that he feels there would be fewer cars with a school than with a traditional office building use. Ms. Keith commented that everyone in Avon drives their children to school. Mr. DiFatta and Mr. LaFleur noted that their prediction is that 40% of the students, at most, will be driven to school.
Mr. LaFleur commented that 50% of the students will be coming from Hartford and bussed and an additional 10% to 20% will be bussed from other areas.
Mrs. Primeau commented that 3 and 4 year olds cannot ride a bus. Mr. LaFleur noted his understanding and explained that those students would make up part of the percentage that would be driven. In response to Mrs. Primeau’s questions, Mr. LaFleur explained that there are special harnesses that are used for the 3 and 4 years olds being bussed in from Hartford; there are special buses for this purpose.
Mr. LaFleur confirmed that CREC is not in violation of any State requirements. He added that CREC is in charge of transportation for their 5000 students but is also in charge of the transportation for most of the students in the Hartford school system. All the magnet school transportation is managed by CREC.
Mr. DiFatta further reviewed traffic issues and pointed out that Avon Park North has 3 traffic lights and 3 other means of entrance into the business community; the traffic is coming from multiple directions.
Mr. Frey noted his agreement and commented that he can’t think of a better location from a traffic perspective. He commented that his first concern was a big school building located next to an active adult community on Climax Road but it sounds like the building could be designed to have a low profile. He added that he wouldn’t like to see something like the former Towpath School; something that sticks up like a monument. Mr. Frey pointed out that the question is whether the Commission would accept a school in any form in the proposed location. Mr. Frey noted that he could accept a school in the proposed location if it met all the zoning requirements.
Mrs. Clark commented that between the proposal for Avon Park North and the proposed redevelopment in Avon Park South there may be a lot of traffic on Route 44 someday.
Mr. Frey asked for a vote from each Commissioner on whether they would approve a school in any form in the proposed location. Mesdames Griffin, Keith, and Primeau voted in opposition for a school in the proposed location. Messrs. Frey, Thompson, Whalen, and Bonner voted in favor of a school in the proposed location.
Mesdames Griffin, Keith, and Primeau pointed out that they all have backgrounds in education and feel that the proposed location is not the right place for a school. Mr. LaFleur thanked the Commission for their time.
STAFF REPORTS
15 Scarborough Drive - Encroachment onto Found Land
Mr. Kushner reported that the owner of 15 Scarborough Drive has constructed a shed and put up a fence and both are located on the Found Land. He noted that the Town is working with the owner to move these items off of the Found Land property and onto the property owner’s land. Mr. Kushner pointed out that the deed for the Found Land states that the land must always be used as open space.
14 Tyler Court - Property Transfer
Mr. Kushner reported that a portion of the cul-de-sac for Tyler Court will be deeded to the property owners at 14 Tyler Court. Originally, this cul-de-sac was designed to be permanent but when Michael Mansour (Kingswood of Avon) received approval to extend Tyler Court to connect with Kings Wood Drive, part of the cul-de-sac was discontinued. He explained that this situation is somewhat unusual and the Town Council must conduct a public hearing to complete this transfer.
Town Center Sidewalks/Lighting Phase I and II
Mr. Kushner reported that Phase I is almost complete and the street lights should be installed in approximately 3 weeks. He noted that decorative plaques will be added to some of the donated street lights. Phase II will involve replacement of the sidewalks to Old Avon Village North and should happen soon, as the Town has another $200K grant from the State (Phase I was $300K). The plans for Phase II are already designed.
AT&T - Proposed Tower at St. Matthews Church - Lovely Street
Mr. Kushner reported that the CT Siting Council granted approval to AT&T in October of 2009. He noted that he met with AT&T at the site in December of 2009 to review the latest proposal. Mr. Kushner explained that 3 options were considered by the Siting Council; AT&T had a preferred option but there were 2 alternate options. The Siting Council approved Location #3, which is located behind the parsonage. The church wasn’t happy with Location #3, as it is too close to the parsonage, so the tower has been moved 76 feet to the north of the approved location. The location of the compound area (equipment building) has also been moved. Mr. Kushner explained that the Siting Council approved the tower at a height of 110 feet with the opportunity to add 2 additional carriers. He noted that AT&T has indicated that they already have 2 other carriers. Mr. Kushner noted that the neighbors are unhappy about the tower proposal. Just recently AT&T submitted their design and maintenance plan
(D & M), which is the last piece required by the Siting Council before tower construction can begin.
Mr. Kushner noted that some of the material in the D &M Plan doesn’t match some of the record that was built during the Siting Council’s public hearing process. The type of tower proposed to be constructed appears to be different that what was approved; it appears to be wider at both the base and at the top. The narrative included with the plans indicates that the tower is designed in such a way that it could be expanded by another 20 feet. Mr. Kushner noted that this is contrary to the Siting Council’s ruling and the neighbors are not happy; he noted that he will be writing a letter to the Siting Council. On a positive note, the design of the equipment building was changed to look more like a residential-type shed and the fence was changed from chain link to wood stockade. The tower site will now be accessed from the end of the cul-de-sac on Greenwood Drive, which is located just outside the wetlands (along Roaring Brook). The original plan had a driveway coming in from the
church parking lot. Mr. Kushner noted that the Siting Council process exempts cell phone carriers from local wetland review. He added that he doesn’t believe that this type of application would ever be approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission; Roaring Brook is a very valuable wetlands corridor. Mr. Kushner concluded by noting that he will be sending a letter to the Siting Council and will also update the Town Council.
Ms. Keith asked whether AT&T is subject to the Siting Council’s guidelines. Mr. Kushner explained that the Siting Council’s staff has to review AT&T’ s plans for compliance with the Siting Council’s ruling. After AT&T makes a formal appearance before the Siting Council,
the Siting Council then decides whether they believe AT&T has complied with the order as it was issued. He clarified that there is no additional public hearing; there is no additional testimony.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the procedure seems one-sided, as only AT&T gets to make a presentation. Mr. Kushner noted that AT&T was directed to work with the Town to address the issues but there has been very little communication, during the entire process, from AT&T to the Town. Mr. Kushner noted that he will make it clear to the Siting Council that there has been virtually no communication from AT&T, except for one meeting with the Town on December 9.
20 Security Drive - Presentation Scheduled for June 8
Mr. Kushner reported that the development team for 20 Security Drive would like to make a presentation at the Commission’s June 8 meeting. The consultant has been working on several studies. He noted that the development team for Avon Park North appears to be interested in a positive way in what the development team for 20 Security Drive is doing, and vice versa.
Mrs. Primeau addressed the Avon Park North presentation earlier in the meeting and commented that from what was presented tonight, she doesn’t see a master plan for Avon Park North. She noted that she doesn’t feel CREC should have been put in the position of presenting a plan for Avon Park North; it should have been Ensign Bickford presenting a master plan. Mr. Kushner clarified that Andy DiFatta, who spoke earlier, is the President of Ensign Bickford; Bob Stevens is also part of Ensign Bickford and was present near the back of the room. Mr. Kushner further clarified that the colored drawings submitted tonight say CREC in the title block but the drawings are really Ensign Bickford’s master plan that was presented to the Commission last November at a meeting held at the Company #1
Firehouse. Ensign Bickford has been working on this plan for about 2 years; the CREC school is superimposed on the drawing. Mrs. Primeau asked what was shown on the plan originally in the location where they are now showing a school. Mr. Kushner explained that a school was always shown in that location. Mr. Frey concurred. Mr. Kushner further explained that the drawings submitted tonight are a further refinement of the original master plan submitted last November; the shape of the school changed but the school was always shown on the drawing.
Mr. Kushner continued his report on 20 Security Drive and noted that the development team will be in attendance at the Commission’s June 8 meeting. He noted that three or four development scenarios will be presented to the Commission. He noted that three of the 4 studies will show a big box retail space. He noted that the development team feels that the parking garage is an asset and will remain under all design scenarios. Mr. Kushner explained that the team must be prepared to convince the Commission how the proposed redevelopment for 20 Security Drive fits in with the already approved master planning for Avon Center (2005 Avon Center Study). He noted that there will be discussions about connectivity issues, both pedestrian and vehicular, as well as connections to Rails to Trails and
how these efforts may enhance the proposals for Avon Park North.
Ms. Keith commented that the Commission is open to the idea of mixed use at 20 Security Drive but added that the majority of the Commission said no to a big box.
Mr. Kushner commented that he doesn’t remember the Commission saying no to a big box.
Mr. Bonner commented that he made it clear he didn’t want a big box. Ms. Keith agreed.
Mrs. Clark commented that she remembers a discussion by the Commission about making a big box look like it was separate smaller stores from the exterior. Mr. Kushner noted that he would review the record but it is his understanding that the development team got a different impression and they have spent $15K on a study. Mr. Bonner noted that he remembers asking for a charming atmosphere with boulevards that has retailers but not as a big ugly box. Mr. Kushner commented that each of the design scenarios employ that logic but added that the design team did not get the impression that the Commission was totally against a big box, as is being represented tonight. Mr. Kushner commented that the team has some innovative designs with a bigger footprint (i.e., parking under the building, two-story
elevation for “big box”, including smaller retailers to give it a different look). He noted that it may be a challenge to find a tenant for this type of design.
Ms. Keith asked if all the trees will be cut down. Mr. Kushner explained that a lot of site work (i.e., clear cutting and regrading) will need to be done to accommodate the redevelopment.
Mr. Bonner asked about the Fireman’s Fund building. Mr. Kushner noted that the owner of
20 Security Drive is talking to the owner of the Firemen’s Fund building but it is not clear yet what will transpire. He noted that the owner of the Fireman’s Fund building wants to see the Commission’s reaction to the proposed site plan for 20 Security Drive. If a positive reaction is received the owner of the Fireman’s Fund building may pursue something similar.
There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on May 18, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4485 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Josh Livingston, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit fitness studio, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
Dated at Avon this 20th day of May, 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
Henry Frey, Vice_Chairman and Secretary
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Town Hall, on the following:
App. #4486 - William and Pamela Ferrigno and Avon Land Trust, owners, Sunlight Construction, Inc. applicant, request for 9-lot Subdivision, “”Knoll Lane” 9.045 acres, 191 and 193 Haynes Road, Parcels 2600191 and 2600193, in R30 and ROS Zones.
App. #4487 - Sunlight Construction, Inc., owner/applicant, request for 2-lot Resubdivision, “Rivendell”, 21.6 acres, 61, 65, 73, and 85 Chidsey Road, Parcels 1780061, 1780065, 1780073, and 1780085, in an RU2A Zone.
App. #4489 - Avon Marketplace Investors, LLC, owner, Kenneth Pilon, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit replacement of detached identification sign, 380 West Main Street, Parcel 4540380, in a CR Zone.
App. #4490 - Avon Land Trust and William and Pamela Ferrigno, owners, Sunlight Construction, Inc., applicant, request for Zone Change from ROS to R30, 4.29 acres, 191 Haynes Road, Parcel 2600191.
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 25th day of May, 2010.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Henry Frey, Vice_Chairman and Secretary
| 
