The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday July 20, 2010. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Carol Griffin, and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Marianne Clark, and Donald Bonner. Mesdames Primeau and Clark and Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent were Henry Frey, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Linda Keith, Edward Whalen, and David Cappello. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Thompson stepped down.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve the July 6, 2010, minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received approval from Mesdames Clark and Primeau and Messrs Starr and Bonner. Mrs. Griffin abstained as she had not been present at the July 6 meeting but noted that she has read the minutes and is familiar with the content.
PUBLIC HEARING
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.
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.
The public hearing was continued from the July 6 meeting.
Present were Attorney Robert M. Meyers, representing the applicant; William Aston, Principal, Buck & Buck LLC; and William Ferrigno, applicant and President of Sunlight Construction.
Attorney Meyers addressed open space and noted that there are 3 elements involved at the request of Mr. Kushner. He noted that one of the proposed building lots is now proposed as open space to be deeded to the Town. A 20-foot strip (that runs north) is also proposed to be deeded to the Town, as there is the opportunity for additional open space if the property to the north gets developed in the future. He added that there is also a 10-foot conservation easement strip located along the Farmington Woods boundary. Mr. Meyers noted that Mr. Ferrigno met with a couple of Farmington Woods’ residents resulting in a change to the proposed easement strip such that it has been enlarged in a couple of areas (i.e., there are areas wider than 10 feet but no areas narrower than 10 feet). He added
that there is one area where the grades on both properties are similar and, as a result, a berm with some plantings has been proposed. Mr. Meyers commented that he doesn’t feel any additional information about the sewers is necessary, as Mr. Kushner has prepared a list of possible approval conditions and information about sewers is included.
Mr. Starr asked about a letter that was to be sent to the residents of Haynes Road regarding the sewers. Mr. Meyers confirmed that such a letter has been mailed to the Haynes Road residents and submitted a copy for the record. In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that the letter instructed the residents to the call the Town Engineering Department and added that he believes some calls have been received.
Mr. Kushner reported that, to date, approximately 35 responses (approximately half) have been received with varying degrees of interest in the sewer project; in general, approximately 50% are supportive and 50% are non supportive but there are some people in between.
Mr. Meyers addressed the proposed emergency access (gravel roadway) that would run from the westerly edge of the lot proposed to be open space to the Farmington Woods boundary.
Mr. Starr commented that the emergency access would be located entirely on the Town-owned open space. Mr. Meyers concurred and added that it would be located adjacent to the nearest proposed lot. He noted that a wood-beamed, hinged gate with a pad lock is proposed and added that it is understood that a condition will be placed requiring the applicant to construct the gravel roadway and install the gate. He added that one of the Town’s officials (possibly the Fire Marshal) would contact Farmington Woods and if it is agreeable to Farmington Woods and they grant permission for an extension of the gravel roadway to Chestnut Drive, the applicant would also be responsible to construct an extension of the roadway. Mr. Meyers clarified that an extension of this roadway cannot be constructed without
permission from Farmington Woods. Mr. Kushner noted his agreement.
Bob Campbell, 37 Haynes Road, questioned the efficiency of the method used to determine the level of resident interest in a sewer project on Haynes Road. He commented that a letter was sent to the residents and added that he feels a much more formal, organized approach is needed to properly assess the feedback from the neighborhood.
Mr. Kushner explained that Haynes Road residents should call the Town Engineering Department, not the builder, in connection with sewers. He noted that the final decision of whether sewers would be extended to the Haynes Road neighborhood is not the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission but rather falls under the jurisdiction of the Avon Water Pollution Control Authority (AWPCA). He explained that the letter sent out by the builder was done only to get a general understanding of how much interest, or lack of, there would be. He further explained that if there is substantial interest in this project, the AWPCA would hold one or more formal public hearings where the residents would be formally notified and where a formal decision would be made by the AWPCA and not this Commission. Mr. Kushner
added that a letter to the residents is only the first step.
Mr. Campbell noted that he is confused about much of this business. He commented that he has heard that the “trust” for the subject land is going to be ignored or set aside and added that he assumes that if that is the case, that there is an attorney’s written judgment that should be available to the public.
Mr. Starr commented that he believes that much of the correspondence has been available over the course of the last several meetings.
Mr. Campbell noted that he is asking about the Land Trust dissolution, if that is the correct wording, and questioned where he could read about the determination.
Mr. Starr noted that Greg Frey has voluminous records on the subject and asked Mr. Frey if he could assist Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Meyers explained that the letter that was sent to the residents was nothing that the builder dreamed up and was done at the request of the Town Engineering Department, who had input. Mr. Campbell noted his understanding. Mr. Meyers further explained that the Attorney General is charged, by law, with regulating charities, especially when assets are disposed. He noted that the subject transaction was reviewed by the Attorney General’s office and that office also generated letters and emails. In response to Mr. Campbell’s question, Mr. Meyers noted that this information is part of the public record.
Ms. Campbell, 37 Haynes Road, noted that someone said that they called the Attorney General’s office to inquire about this topic and they (Attorney General’s office) indicated that they want nothing to do with it and have wiped their hands of it.
Mr. Starr explained that there is a letter from Blumenthal’s office in the public record.
Mr. Kushner explained that this is the 4th public hearing on this matter and offered a brief summary. In 1973 a subdivision was approved that was somewhat similar to the current proposal. He noted that the approved subdivision was never built as the developer passed away and the asset transferred to his widow who, in turn, donated the property to The Nature Conservancy. The Avon Land Trust did not exist at the time that the property was donated to The Nature Conservancy. He noted that in 1980, or thereabout, the property was transferred from The Nature Conservancy to the Avon Land Trust; the Town of Avon had no connection to the donation and it was not the result of any action by the Planning and Zoning Commission or any other regulatory commission in Town. He commented that it is
possible that the donation was made, in part, for tax deduction purposes and also because the widow wished to preserve the property as open space. He noted that when the widow conveyed the property there were no deed restrictions. When The Nature Conservancy transferred the property to the Avon Land Trust, there were restrictions added to the deed at that time. He explained that The Nature Conservancy conveyed the property to the Avon Land Trust with the understanding that the Avon Land Trust would maintain it in perpetuity as open space and if they didn’t, The Nature Conservancy reserved the right to ask for the title back. Mr. Kushner clarified that the Town of Avon was not party to any of these transactions in any way; it was a private real estate transaction. He continued by noting that when the subject proposal occurred Greg Frey and others questioned whether it was appropriate and contacted the Attorney General’s office.
Mr. Kushner noted that there is a copy of the Attorney General’s written response in the public record. He noted that the Attorney General ruled that there is nothing in the proposed transfer that violates any State law but noted their appreciation of the concerns raised by the Haynes Road homeowners and encouraged the Town of Avon, including the Planning and Zoning Commission, to hear all the concerns and address those concerns through the Town’s Regulations. Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Attorney has indicated, in writing, that there is no regulation in the Town of Avon that would prevent this transaction from taking place. He noted that the public is welcome to get copies of anything in the record.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the letter was from the Assistant Attorney General, not the Attorney General. Mr. Starr noted that it was from the Attorney General’s office.
Mrs. Primeau agreed and read, verbatim, the last paragraph of the subject letter: “Because of this, this office has no jurisdiction to intervene to prevent the land swap from proceeding. However, this conclusion in no way casts doubt on or diminishes the concerns of homeowners and others who oppose this land swap as inconsistent with their expectations that Knoll Lane property would remain undeveloped; nor does this conclusion prevent the Town of Avon, acting through its conservation board or Planning and Zoning Commission, from reviewing this proposal to determine whether it is in the best interests of the Town pursuant to its independent authority. At the very least, all residents should have their concerns fully heard and fairly considered.”
Bob Ball, 26 Byron Drive, commented that he has heard nothing about the subject proposals; there have been no flyers or letters or anything. He noted that if it weren’t for the good efforts of a neighbor, he would not have known about tonight’s meeting either. He noted that he is not happy with what he hears and added that when he moved to Byron Drive in the mid 1970’s Farmington Woods indicated that there would not be any construction near his home. He commented that he believes the proposed easement is within 10 feet of where he parks his car. He asked where he could get a record of what is going on.
Mr. Starr explained that there are records of all the previous public hearings and added that residents can sign up to receive email notices of agendas from all the commissions in Town.
Mr. Ball noted his understanding and thanked Mr. Starr.
Joanne Ball, 26 Byron Drive, commented that it appears that she has missed a lot and asked whether the land transfer is a foregone conclusion and whether the land can be used for homes.
In response to Ms. Ball’s questions, Mr. Starr explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission has no jurisdiction over the ownership of the land; the Commission only has jurisdiction over the use of the land. He noted that tonight is the 4th public hearing on this matter and the Commission is getting close to making a decision. He explained that the subject open space was originally zoned residential R30, which is the same zoning that exists on the rest of Haynes Road. He noted that in 2005 the Town adopted a new digitized zoning map for the entire Town and, at that time, the Commission rezoned the subject land (owned by the Avon Land Trust) from residential (R30) to recreation open space (ROS). Mr. Starr pointed out that the subject open space parcel was originally zoned
residential, R30, as the original developer received approval to construct single family homes on this land. He explained that the heirs of the original property owner have spoken before the Commission and have indicated their support of the proposed land transfer. Mr. Starr noted that the Avon Land Trust would acquire a larger open space parcel located on Chidsey Road in exchange for the subject parcel on Haynes Road.
Ms. Ball commented that this transaction would work against the homeowners and would be at their expense.
Mr. Starr commented that there would be no expense to the homeowners.
Ms. Ball commented that the value of homes would be affected and the beauty and security would also be a consideration. She commented that this proposal would create a whole new look to that section of Byron Drive; currently there are trees and open space.
Vivienne Semler, Farmington Woods, commented that no one has been aware of what is going on. She noted that Farmington Woods has over 1,000 units and they have a lot to lose but were never informed while 30 to 40 residents of Haynes Road knew about it.
Mr. Starr explained that legal notices are published in the newspaper and residents have the right to sign up to receive agendas from every commission in Town.
Mr. Meyers noted that a gentleman who identified himself as the President of the Farmington Woods Master Association was present and spoke at 2 of the previous public hearings.
Mr. Starr concurred.
Jerry Cutler, Farmington Woods, commented that he has learned to not trust the trust. He noted his understanding that this board cannot bar the land transfer but added that this board is the last stop to save the open space of this Town. He commented that it has been noted that the original zoning was R30 but added that the original zoning was whatever the Indians were doing with it. He commented that the land has been open space for many years and the direct abutters were not notified. He commented that if you don’t trust the trust and the trust is walking away because they are in the public parks business rather than in the conservation business, then it’s up to the zoning board to maintain a property in the way it was thought to be by everyone who spent all their money buying real
estate in the area.
Bob Breckinridge, President of the Avon Land Trust, noted that there are residents here that were not present at the first couple of meetings. He indicated that he feels that if these residents had heard the reasons why things were done, (as a result of 3 years of discussions about this property) that they would have a better understanding and would not be making the comments he has heard tonight. Dr. Breckinridge stated that the Avon Land Trust (ALT) owns 350 acres of land in Town. He added that the ALT is composed of a group of very hard-working individuals who are paid nothing and spend hundreds of hours per year working on different projects. He commented that many years have been spent researching this matter and it was not an easy decision; it was known that everyone could not be pleased with
the decision. Dr. Breckinridge explained why the decision had to be made. He noted that the newspapers had incorrectly reported this matter as if the whole project was ALT land. He explained that that is not the case, as there are two 4-acre parcels; one parcel is owned by Mr. Ferrigno and one parcel is owned by the ALT. He noted that Mr. Ferrigno intends to develop, at the least, his parcel, which would have severe impacts on the ALT parcel because of the road. He explained that Mr. Ferrigno has a right, per the 1950 deed, to build a road on the ALT property. He noted that this creates a potential liability issue for the ALT, which is a non-profit organization, because the ALT owns the road. He noted that the ALT parcel would be drastically changed by the construction of a road and the ALT has no control over it. Dr. Breckinridge explained that attorney’s from The Nature Conservancy, the ALT, and the Attorney General’s office have reviewed the contracts and come to this
conclusion. He commented that if the ALT is going to preserve property in Avon, the out that was given to the ALT is a larger parcel located on Chidsey Road that Mr. Ferrigno also intends to develop; this 25-acre parcel is exceptionally unique to Avon. He noted that this property has never been open to the public and it is a site that is much appreciated by those who have seen it. Dr. Breckinridge explained that if the proposed land swap does not happen, both properties will be lost. He noted that it is an unfortunate position and added that the ALT sympathizes with the residents near the Haynes Road parcel but explained that the ALT stands to lose an 18-acre parcel that is truly unique to Avon for a 3-acre parcel which presents a liability issue. Dr. Breckinridge reiterated that he wants everyone to understand what is going on. He commented that the ALT has only one other parcel, like the subject parcel, that is unique in the way it was donated. He noted that the daughter
of the woman who donated the parcel has testified that her mother had no interest in preserving the parcel, as it was going to be developed by her father. Her mother gave it The Nature Conservancy as a tax deduction. He noted that The Nature Conservancy has been involved in this matter and they are a national organization with millions and millions of acres of land. He added that The Nature Conservancy does not treat these types of matters lightly and they had control over this situation. Dr. Breckinridge explained that if The Nature Conservancy said that the transaction could not be done then it could not be done. He noted that The Nature Conservancy indicated that they were adamant that this transaction should take place. He commented that, in spite of what the letter says, if you talked to the attorneys who spoke with the Attorney General’s office they would tell you that the Attorney General’s office was very in favor of this
transaction. He added that Mr. Blumenthal is current running for public office.
Dr. Breckinridge concluded by noting that the ALT has looked at a number of alternatives in a number of ways but added that they are bound by a number of laws on the subject property. He commented that it appears that the best option for the Town of Avon would be to preserve 17 acres. He noted that his hope is that everyone could understand that, unfortunately, the 3-acre parcel will be changed no matter what the ALT does. He pointed out that only half of the parcel is owned by the ALT and that parcel will be changed no matter what happens tonight.
Dr. Breckinridge thanked the Commission.
Mr. Ball commented that the owner got a tax deduction for donating the conservation land in perpetuity and asked who would claw it back and asked if the owner has been notified.
Mr. Starr explained that the owner has been deceased for a number of years.
Mr. Ball asked about the heirs and commented “shame on you”.
Greg Frey, 189 Haynes Road, commented that the 3-acre parcel that Dr. Breckinridge referred to is 4.29 acres. He commented that the parcel was rezoned from R30 to ROS in 2005 but it has been open space, in effect, since 1970. He asked if the Town Attorney was consulted with regard to the public notice and commented that it was published showing the owners as both Avon Land Trust and William and Pamela Ferrigno.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Attorney was not asked because both Mr. Ferrigno and
Mr. Meyers indicated that the public notice was an accurate indicator of ownership.
Mr. Meyers explained that a private contract exists that is not part of the public record. He noted that an owner of the land exists and there is something called a contract purchaser of the land and they both have an interest in the land.
Mr. Kushner clarified that the Town believes that the public notice is accurate.
Mr. Frey addressed the zone change and noted his understanding that the Commission does not have authority over the private land swap between the Avon Land Trust and Sunlight Construction but noted that the Commission does have authority over the proposed zone change.
He commented that that Zoning Regulations say that if the Commission approves a zone change it cannot decrease the value of the property around it. He noted that he found a report from the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research on the impact of open space on property values and read verbatim the following excerpts: …”most studies have found that preserving open space land, generally, but not always, increases the property value of nearby homes”…..”homebuyers are generally wiling to pay more for property located close to parks and open space”……”the impact report notes that it is hard to quantify the impact of open space on property values because of the many different types and uses of open space; the various uses of land surrounding them; and other
factors but it states that a 20% increase in value for property adjoining or fronting a passive-use park as a reasonable starting point”. He commented that the Haynes Road parcel would be a passive-use park. Mr. Frey submitted the report to the Commission. He commented that his hope is that since it would decrease property values that the Commission would not approve the zone change.
Joanne Ball commented that it appears that the Commission and Bob Breckinridge and the Avon Land Trust have been put in an indefensible position. She commented that you are trying to weigh 4 acres of land against 20 acres of beautiful land that the Town wants. She noted that the scenario is unsavory and it is almost like blackmail and is putting the Commission and the Avon Land Trust in a bad position.
Eileen Kaplan, resident of Farmington Woods, commented that she has a view of the beautiful trees where the trails are and noted that there are people that walk every morning and this will all be gone.
Mr. Starr explained that the trails that have been referred to are not located on the open space parcel but, rather, are located on a parcel owned by the Thompson family that is located to the north of the open space parcel.
Ms. Kaplan commented that whether it’s the trail or not, there are still people walking in there and enjoying the beauty of nature. She noted her concerns with the amount of development that haven taken place in Avon since she moved here 32 years ago.
Mr. Primeau asked Dr. Breckinridge whether there are metes and bounds on the 50-foot easement (the road) or is it just a right to pass and repass.
Dr. Breckinridge noted that he would have to defer that question to an attorney.
Mrs. Primeau commented that if it’s a right to pass and repass and there are no metes and bounds, the road could be right on the side.
Mr. Meyers explained that the area in question is a separately described parcel with metes and bounds.
Dr. Breckinridge noted that there are actually 2 parcels; one is called the Knollwood Lane parcel and is approximately 1 acre in size. Mr. Meyers concurred. Dr. Breckinridge explained that both Avon Land Trust parcels are lumped together.
Mrs. Primeau asked if the road runs across both parcels. Dr. Breckinridge explained that it runs the whole length of the other parcel. He noted that the larger parcel (3.4 acres) is bound by the 1-acre parcel, which is where the road would be. He commented that, essentially, if the area is developed as a road, that parcel would be bordered on all sides by a road.
Mr. Meyers explained that there is a separately defined metes and bound location 1.1 acres in size that would permit the construction of a road as well as the installation of utilities.
Mrs. Primeau asked if the 1.1 acres could be deeded directly to the developer, which would waive the liability while keeping the open space.
Mr. Meyers commented that he thinks it is unlikely that the developer would accept 1.1 acres in return for 16 beautiful acres on Chidsey Road.
Mrs. Primeau commented that that is not her place.
Ann Fitzgerald, 51 Byron Drive, asked why the Attorney General was asked about the legality of a zone change in this instance.
Mr. Starr explained that the legality of a zone change was not the question before the Attorney General. The focus and concern of the Attorney General is the proper preservation of assets by a charitable organization and whether they are receiving value for those assets. The Attorney General’s conclusion is that there was an exchange of value from one parcel to another.
Ms. Fitzgerald noted that her point was that the Attorney General had to be asked. She asked why so many people are speaking out against the proposed land swap if it is the right thing to do. She asked how many Commissioners have visited Byron Drive, Heritage Drive and Chestnut Drive to see the area in question.
Mr. Starr noted that Farmington Woods is a private, gated community.
Mr. Bonner noted that he was at the site today.
Ms. Fitzgerald noted her appreciation to Mr. Ferrigno for his proposal to put in a planting buffer but suggested that the Commission should visit the site before they vote on something so volatile. Ms. Fitzgerald submitted photographs to the Commission.
Mr. Campbell asked if any consideration has been given to the traffic on Haynes Road.
Mr. Starr explained that traffic, as well as other issues, have been discussed for the past 4 meetings but no judgment has yet been made, as the Commission is still receiving input. He added that no judgment can be made until the public hearing is complete. Mr. Starr commented that no further input will be received once the public hearing is closed.
Michael Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, commented that he believes it is within the Commission’s right to allow the parcel to be zoned something other than R30 (i.e., R40) and asked if that is being considered.
Mr. Starr explained that the Commission strives to keep the zoning compatible with the neighborhood and noted that the rest of the neighborhood is zoned R30.
Mr. Kohlhoff commented that he believes that some of the lots are .69 acres in size and asked if this has been compared to the rest of the 82 houses on Haynes Road.
Mr. Starr noted that he can’t answer that question.
Joan Brault, Farmington Woods, asked if the land swap has already been done.
Mr. Starr explained that the land swap is most likely subject to receiving approvals from this Commission.
Ms. Brault asked what would happen if they just swapped the land and kept the zoning as open space. She noted that both parties are shown as co owners of the land.
Mr. Starr explained that a land swap is a private business decision between land owners. The Commission’s concern revolves around the use of the property regardless of who the owner is. He further explained that there are legal ownership rights for both owners that exist on the subject parcel because of the road.
Ms. Brault asked whether there would be a benefit (i.e., a tax write off) to Mr. Ferrigno to donate the land on Chidsey Road to the Avon Land Trust and leave the other parcel undeveloped.
Mr. Starr noted that he could not answer that question, as it is not his area of expertise.
Mr. Meyers commented that he needs to add a few things to the record in connection with the proposed zone change. He explained that the land was zoned R30 from the adoption of zoning in 1957 to the change in the zoning map (from analog to digital) in 2005. He noted that in 2005 some parcels were changed to ROS perhaps because of their current use or perhaps because of the identity of the owner or maybe because of an incorrect assumption that the donor had placed a restriction on the property. He noted that no consideration was given at the time to the classification of the subject parcel on Haynes Road and the donor had not placed any restrictions on it. He noted that the parcel was zoned R30 continuously from the late 1950’s until the 1970’s when The Nature Conservancy received title
to the property and could have sold it or done something else with it. Mr. Meyers commented that the change in zone of this small parcel in a sea of R30 land that stretches for some distance in any direction may also run a foul of an illegal concept known as spot zoning but noted that there would be no point in contesting something done in 2005, whether the owner was notified or not. He noted that the Commission is acting in its legislative capacity in connection with the pending zone change application and the Commission has broad discretion with regard to changing the zone. He commented that if the subject applications are approved there would be a significant increase in otherwise developable land that will be protected forever from development. He noted that there would also be a significant increase in the amount of land available for public access. He added that the land that would become available for public access is more environmentally
interesting (i.e., varied animal habitat and plant species), more diverse, and more sensitive than the land presently available for public access. He explained that the Commission has 3 items in its Regulations to consider, namely conformance to the purpose of the Zoning Regulations; conformances with the Plan of Conservation and Development; and the health, safety, welfare, and property values of the public. Mr. Meyers noted that an approval of the pending zone change application, and the other applications, furthers many of the 13 purposes found in Section I of the Zoning Regulations and is not contrary to any of these 13 purposes. Mr. Meyers commented that an approval of the pending applications would be in conformance with the Plan of Conservation and Development, specifically Chapter 5, Open Space and Recreation. He noted that the proposed applications propose to increase, markedly, the amount of open space available in the Town of Avon. He
noted that another objective of the Plan of Conservation and Development is to “create larger, unfragmented open spaces valuable in maintaining the health of certain wildlife populations”. He added that approval of these applications would do exactly what the Plan of Conservation and Development requires. He commented that the “Goals and Policies” section in Chapter 5 of the Plan of Conservation also speaks to maintaining sufficient open space in order to preserve community character and quality of life in Avon, to include the conservation of natural resources; the preservation of larger tracts of land; and the maintenance of extensive trail networks while preserving historic sites. He noted that a letter in the record from the Town Historian references the history of the Chidsey Road area including the ice pond and the 18th century roadway. Mr. Meyers noted that it is clear that the uses permitted in the R30 zone will not
adversely affect the health, safety, welfare, and property values of the general public.
Mr. Meyers addressed the issue of property values and noted that information was submitted tonight that referred to the effects, in general, of open space on the value of some properties.
He noted that this information has no relevance to the subject property and offered an appraisal prepared by Sean Hagearty, a certified general appraiser in the State of Connecticut. Mr. Meyers read, verbatim, some of the information contained in the section entitled “Summary of Conclusions” from Mr. Hagearty’s report, dated July 20, 2010, where Mr. Hagearty indicates that, in his opinion, the replacement of the open space parcel on Haynes Road would not negatively impact the market values of abutting properties on Haynes Road. Mr. Meyers submitted the appraisal for the record and stated that it is the applicant’s belief that the subject applications comply with State law and all of the Commission’s Regulations. Mr. Meyers concluded by respectfully requesting that the
applications be approved.
Kathie Freeman, 28 Springbrook Drive, noted that Big Brook runs between the houses on Springbrook Drive and Haynes Road. She asked where the water comes from that flows through the existing swale.
Mr. Starr explained that the water comes from the pond that is located at the “old curb” on Country Club Road.
Ms. Freeman noted that the water level has increased over the past few years and asked whether there will be more drainage volume if more houses are built.
Mr. Kushner noted that the Town Engineer agrees that the proposed project will most likely result in some increased runoff, especially during peak flows. Mr. Kushner noted that Mr. Aston has indicated that with the completion of the proposed development, even with an increase in pavement, that there would be no increase in peak flows beyond what was approved in 1973. Mr. Kushner noted that the Town Engineer has suggested that a condition be added if an approval for this project is granted. This condition would require that the applicant be responsible for examining the problem, doing the calculations and making whatever modest improvements might be necessary to the ditch/stream/swale such that the existing conditions would not be made worse, and if possible, improved.
Mr. Meyers stated that the applicant is accepting of a condition relating to necessary modifications to the swale/ditch.
There being no further input, the public hearing for Apps. #4490, #4486, and #4487 was closed.
App. #4495 - West Avon LLC, owner, Frank Noe, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.B.3.a.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class 1 restaurant, 427 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520427, in an NB Zone.
Present was Frank Noe, owner.
Mr. Noe requested a continuance of the public hearing for App #4495 to the next meeting, scheduled for September 14.
Mrs. Griffin commented to Mr. Noe that there are dead trees on his site that need to be replaced. Mr. Noe noted that he is aware of the situation and that he would take care of it.
Mrs. Clark motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4495 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Thompson returned to the meeting.
App. #4496 - Brighenti Enterprises, LLC, owner, Henry Frey, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(7) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign, 395 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520395, in an NB Zone.
Greg Frey was present to represent this application.
Mr. Kushner clarified that lighting currently exists on the building and that lighting will be used for the proposed sign.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4496 was closed.
App. #4497 - Brighenti, Michael, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.5.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit a waiver of the density for a first division of land, 38 Pine Hill Road, Parcel 3560038, in an RU2A Zone.
Present were David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers, LLC and Michael Brighenti, owner.
Mr. Brighenti noted that this application requests a waiver of the density requirement for a free cut for a 7-acre parcel he owns on Pine Hill Road. He noted that he intends to build a small home for himself.
Mr. Starr commented that it appears that the density shortage is due to the steep slopes on the site. Mr. Brighenti concurred and noted that there are no wetlands on the property.
Mr. Whitney explained that an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to permit a density waiver for first divisions of land was recently approved by the Commission. He noted that the subject property has never been divided and the applicant would like to divide the parcel to create 2 lots. He displayed a map of the site and noted that the parcel is 7 acres in size with an existing house that is located close to the road; the rest of the site is vacant with wooded and open grassed areas. He noted that there are 2.5 acres of steep slopes on the site; application of the developable land calculation results in 4.6 acres of buildable land with an allowable density of 1.4 lots.
Mr. Whitney explained that the request is to waive the density requirement and permit 2 lots.
He noted that the plans have been revised to include 2.5 acres with the existing house, which is proposed Lot #1 (the original plan was to include 2 acres with the existing house). He also noted that the lot line for proposed Lot #1 has been straightened out, at the recommendation of
Mr. Kushner. Mr. Whitney commented that proposed Lot #2 (currently vacant) includes 4.6 acres.
Mr. Whitney addressed grading and explained that the density calculation is based on the 1984 aerial photogrammetry on file with the Town Engineering Department. He explained that the site has been regraded but clarified that the density calculations are based on the original site topography and not on the revised site topography. He noted that the cleared portion of the site is relatively flat and added that the land to the east, north, and west would remain wooded.
Mr. Whitney displayed a map showing the overall vicinity of the site and surrounding properties. He noted that this map was prepared at Mr. Kushner’s request and was submitted to the Staff with the revised plans. He noted that the proposed house appears to fit into the existing neighborhood. Mr. Whitney submitted a copy of the 1984 aerial photogrammetry showing the area before any grading was done on the subject site. Mr. Whitney noted that the request is for a waiver of the density regulations.
Mr. Whitney reviewed the Special Exception Criteria in Section VIII of the Zoning Regulations:
A. Suitable Location for Use - The subject site is in the RU2A zone and all surrounding properties are also in the RU2A zone. The proposed lot, 4.6 acres, is twice the minimum size required in the RU2A zone.
B. Suitable Structures for Use - The proposed house on Lot #2 is a single-family residence and would conform to all setbacks and house requirements in the RU2A zone.
C. Neighborhood Compatibility - The existing neighborhood is an eclectic mix of houses and the proposed house would be compatible and within the range of some of the existing houses on Pine Hill Road.
D. Adequate Parking and Access - There is an existing driveway for the existing house. The location of the driveway for the proposed house is in the same location where a driveway formerly existed that led to a garage that has since been torn down. There are adequate sightlines on Pine Hill Road for the proposed driveway location and also adequate parking areas for both lots.
E. Adequate Streets for Use - Pine Hill Road is a public road with relatively low volumes of traffic. There are less than 20 houses on Pine Hill Road.
F. Adequate Emergency Access - Pine Hill Road is an existing public road adequate for emergency vehicles. There are 2 means of access to the site, one from Waterville Road and one from Wilcox Lane off of Reverknolls.
G. Adequate Public Utilities - The existing house has a well and the proposed house would also have a well. The Farmington Valley Health District has indicated that there aren’t any water supply problems in the Pine Hill Road area. Sewage disposal would be accomplished with onsite septic systems. The soil on the site is very well drained suitable for septic but, to date, no soil testing has been done on the site. Mr. Whitney noted that it is understood that soil testing is required prior to the filing/recording of a map for land division. He noted that he dug some observation holes to confirm that the site soil is very sandy.
H. Environmental Protection and Conservation - The proposed lot is 4.6 acres and less than 40% would be cleared (as it is already clear) and no additional tree clearing is proposed. The proposed impervious surface is under 6,000 square feet, which is 1.8% of the lot.
I. Consistent with Purposes - It is the applicant’s opinion that a waiver of the density requirements to allow one additional single-family house would not have any detrimental effects on public health, safety, welfare, and property values.
Mr. Starr asked whether an approval could be granted subject to the requirement for an approval by the Farmington Valley Health District. Mr. Kushner noted that an approval from the Farmington Valley Health District should be received prior to this Commission considering an approval. He added that the Town Attorney has indicated that approvals should not be conditioned upon the need for an approval by another agency, as the Planning and Zoning Commission has no control over other agencies. He noted that the Staff recommends that the hearing be continued to the September meeting. In response to Mr. Kushner’s comments, the Commission unanimously agreed that they do not have any issues with the request for a density waiver on this site.
Mr. Whitney explained that, generally, soil testing is done right away in areas where the soils are known to be problematic. In this instance, the applicant wanted to get an idea about the Commission’s feelings about a density waiver before an investment in soil testing was done. Mr. Whitney concluded by noting that he can almost guarantee that an area suitable for a septic system could be located on this site.
Mr. Starr noted that the public hearing for App. #4497 will be continued to the next meeting.
Mr. Whitney stated that the applicant will grant an extension of the public hearing, if necessary.
Mr. Whitney thanked the Commission for their time.
Mrs. Clark motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4497 to the next meeting, scheduled for September 14. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
App. #4500 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Josh Livingston, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit modification to existing detached sign, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone.
Present was Josh Livingston, applicant.
Mr. Starr asked that the street address number be mounted on top of the existing monument sign. Mr. Livingston noted his understanding and added that no lighting is being requested for the Snap Fitness panel.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4500 was closed.
App. #4501 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.6. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit reduction in minimum landscaped area, 267 & 281 Country Club Road and 10 Sunnybrook Drive, Parcels 1940267, 1940281, and 4170010, in R30 and R40 Zones
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
App. #4502 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit addition to existing library, 267 & 281 Country Club Road and 10 Sunnybrook Drive, Parcels 1940267, 1940281, and 4170010 in R30 and R40 Zones.
Present were Peter Wells, Architect, Tuthill & Wells Architect LLC; Douglas Ellis, PE, Buck & Buck, LLC; Dean Johnson, LA, Johnson Land Design; Steve Bartha, Assistant to the Town Manager; and Virginia Vocelli, Library Director.
Mr. Wells displayed a drawing of the site and noted that revisions have been made in connection with the proposed addition but there has been no change to the square footage or to the location of the addition. He pointed out that the existing parking lot would be extended onto the property that the Town has recently purchased. He noted that the changes will be done in phases, as the library intends to stay in the building while the renovations are occurring. He pointed out the location of a proposed emergency access and noted that it will be grassed over with processed stone and gravel; there will be fire truck access. Mr. Wells noted that the parking is proposed to be increased to 109 spaces; currently there are 59 spaces. He noted that the building entrance will remain as is with a proposal
to add a 150-seat community room. He added that adult services will remain on the first floor of the library with the children’s area located on the second floor. He commented that there is handicap parking and noted that the driveway access will remain in its current location off of Country Club Road.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Wells stated that there are currently 2 handicap parking spaces; the proposal is for a total of 4.
Mrs. Griffin asked whether the emergency access will be plowed in the winter and noted that it must be maintained all year long in order to function as an emergency access. Mr. Wells noted that markers will be installed.
Mr. Kushner reported that the Fire Marshal has indicated that the emergency access doesn’t need to be plowed. Mrs. Griffin commented that she doesn’t feel that would be safe. Mr. Kushner commented that the proposed markers would be flush mounted with the grass and if there were a few inches of snow on the ground you wouldn’t be able to see the markers and know where to plow or where to drive. Mrs. Griffin commented that the Commission has never allowed an emergency access to not be maintained year around.
Mr. Kushner noted that the Staff recommends that the applications be tabled to the September 14 meeting to work out details on the plans. He commented that he would get clarification from the Fire Marshal.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels it would make more sense to have the emergency access come off of Country Club Road rather than running a long grassed area from Sunnybrook Drive.
Mr. Wells explained that the location of the emergency access has been discussed at length by the development team and the Fire Marshal/Fire Chief. He further explained that the Fire Marshal/Fire Chief wasn’t sure for some time whether he wanted the emergency access at all, as he feels the building could probably be serviced without it. Mr. Wells noted that the Fire Marshal ultimately decided that the access would be nice to have just in case and that is why it’s on the drawing.
Mrs. Griffin commented that fire is not the only emergency and added that ambulances need to be able to get into the site.
Mr. Starr commented that if the Fire Marshal/Fire Chief doesn’t need the emergency access for safety reasons, he noted that he would prefer to see the second emergency access located near the short end off of Country Club Road, as there is already an existing driveway cut there. He added that the area is shorter and easier to maintain. Mr. Kushner noted that he would check with the Fire Marshal. Mr. Starr asked about a walkway in the area of the proposed community room that leads to the library’s main entrance. Mr. Starr asked whether walking through the parking lot, if parked in the overflow parking area, is the only way to get to the main entrance.
Mr. Wells noted that you could walk through the parking lot, as is done currently, or you could cross the existing island and enter that way.
Mr. Starr asked why there wouldn’t be a sidewalk in the area where the proposed community room abuts the parking lot. Mr. Ellis explained that a drive-up book drop is proposed to be attached to the side of the building near the community room and, therefore, a sidewalk could not be put in that area.
Mr. Ellis explained that there are many things that drive the layout of the site; the existing parking areas have been rearranged somewhat to introduce more islands. He noted that the existing large island is a big feature of the site and is to be saved at all costs. He noted that the book drop, located at the corner of the addition, and the existing island determine how the rest of the site can be setup. He noted that meetings have taken place with Town Staff regarding the arrangement of the handicap parking and added that it has been angled to produce a one-way drive and to discourage people from driving in the wrong way. He explained that the book drop has to have a driver’s side drop and, therefore, people need to come from the south to reach the side of the building. He noted that
due to this, there cannot be a sidewalk along the building in this area. Mr. Ellis noted that much of the existing drainage will be utilized and added that the new drainage will be sheet flowed.
Mrs. Griffin asked whether a book drop from a car is so important such that it makes sense to rearrange people’s normal driving habits; people normally drive to the right. She noted that people will still drive the way they always have. She asked if it is worth doing away with a sidewalk just to get a book drop.
Mr. Wells explained that the development team was required to design a book drop into the building. He added that the plan has been revised to show the book drop in many different locations and noted that the current scenario works best.
Mr. Thompson asked who made the requirement for the book drop.
Mr. Wells commented that even if the book drop wasn’t in the proposed location, there should still be a means of discouraging people from going that way. He noted that currently people are going every which way in the parking lot.
Mrs. Clark asked how the traffic would be restructured.
Mr. Wells explained that the width of the driveway will be restricted to result in one-way traffic.
Mr. Ellis commented that there would be one-way traffic to the exit. The handicap parking spaces would be angled and some difference in the pavement will be introduced as a visual reminder not to enter; signs will also be utilized.
Mrs. Primeau commented that people drive on the right side and normally go to the right. She asked who made the requirement for the book drop.
Mr. Wells explained that the book drop has been part of the building program from the first day. He noted that most libraries being designed today have a book drop.
Ms. Vocelli commented that society is very mobile and people always drive to the library and drop off books.
Mr. Starr noted that if there isn’t a book drop, people will drive in and stop and park anywhere and run in to the building; traffic would be blocked.
Mr. Wells noted that there are many problems with the current book drop that are proposed to be eliminated. He commented that a book drop is an important part of the way a library functions; there is a need for a more efficient book drop than what currently exists.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she has a problem with no sidewalks because of the proposed book drop location.
Mr. Wells noted that he would guess that there have been incidents due to the current design, as there are conflicts. He commented that the development team is trying to resolve conflicts that already exist.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels a mice maze is being created.
Ms. Vocelli explained that the current book drop is a big problem.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the problem is not being corrected by the proposed plan.
Mr. Wells noted that the book drop has been laid out in many ways and the parking has been through many design changes. He explained that the development team believes that the subject proposal is the most efficient of all the scenarios investigated; there have been 9 or 10 scenarios.
Mrs. Clark asked why the current design works better than other designs investigated. Mr. Wells
explained that the current proposal flows better than any of the other layouts.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she doesn’t feel it flows well at all.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she doesn’t feel the traffic flow would be rectified with this plan; arrows are not the answer.
Mr. Bonner asked if the main entrance could be moved.
Mr. Wells noted that moving the main entrance was discussed very early on but it was decided to keep it as is.
Mr. Johnson addressed landscaping and noted that, for the most part, the existing vegetation on all sides will remain. He noted that some of the crabapple trees are not in good shape and are proposed to come down. He noted that evergreen trees will be planted around the parking area, leaving room for drainage and snow drop. He noted that flowering dogwoods and broad-leaf evergreens are proposed for the walkway through the parking lot. A walkway is proposed through the existing island. The courtyard area is 50% green and 50% impervious surface; the concrete walks are proposed to be pre-cast pavers to allow water to drain through. A grove of birch trees is proposed for this area. Additional plantings are proposed for the new addition.
Mr. Johnson explained that the vegetation in front of the existing building will be replaced. The existing island is proposed to be expanded. An island is proposed to be created around the dogwoods located in the existing parking lot. He questioned whether 2 entrances so close to Country Club Road would be a good idea. Mr. Johnson noted that he has worked on quite a few libraries recently and added that there is almost always a requirement for a vehicle book drop. He commented that he feels the proposed book drop works a lot better than others he has worked on.
Mrs. Griffin asked about the courtyard’s purpose and access.
Mr. Johnson explained that double doors from the proposed auditorium/community room provide access to the courtyard area. He noted that there is also an emergency access that comes off of the addition from the south side of the building. There is a walkway along the area as well.
Mr. Wells commented that library patrons can access the courtyard/patio area from the large doors in the community room. He noted that the intended use of the outdoor area is for performances and music, weather permitting. When no events are occurring, the library patrons are welcome to read in the nicely landscaped courtyard area.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the library is located in a residential zone and asked about music noise outside.
In response to comments from Mrs. Griffin and Mrs. Primeau, Mr. Wells explained that a decorative screen/fence/sitting wall is proposed to enclose the courtyard area, which will discourage people from wandering off with books. He noted that library music programs are basically chamber music and piano or possibly a guitar.
Ms. Vocelli commented that there is no plan to have a lot of music concerts in the courtyard area, as it won’t be that big. She noted that most of the music programs are in the community room but people would be able to walk outside if it’s a nice day. She added that there may be sound outdoors but no rock concerts are anticipated.
Mrs. Griffin commented that no amplifiers should be permitted.
Mr. Starr commented that it is likely that a noise restriction will have to be imposed, similar to restrictions that are placed on commercial operations (i.e., no amplified music, limited hours).
Mr. Wells noted his agreement with Mr. Starr’s comments.
Mrs. Clark asked about the possibility of an entrance on the west side of the building on Country Club Road that would circle around the back of the building for the book drop.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s comment, Mr. Wells explained that that scenario was investigated but noted that experience indicates that people would not use a separate access just for the book drop; it doesn’t work that way. He commented that people tend to enter the site where the parking is.
Mrs. Clark commented that if the main entrance was moved to the other side of the building it would force people to go a certain way, as they would have no choice.
Mrs. Primeau commented that a horseshoe could be installed at the end of the community room.
Mr. Starr suggested that the Staff work with the development team regarding the book drop.
Mr. Wells noted that there are a lot of criteria involved with locating a book drop, other than how vehicles access it. He commented that the book drop’s relationship to other spaces inside the library is also important.
Mr. Starr addressed lighting and noted that he doesn’t want the site to look like St. Matthews Church at night, as the subject site is located in a residential neighborhood. He suggested that the Staff work with the applicant on lighting issues.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Ms. Vocelli explained that there is an informal parking agreement with the church but noted that she could pursue a written agreement, if necessary. Ms. Vocelli noted that the current informal reciprocal agreement works very well.
Mr. Wells addressed the photometric lighting plan and noted that there is zero light emission at the property boundary.
Mr. Kushner noted that the light level shown is quite a bit less than that at St. Matthews Church.
He commented that the light fixtures proposed are the same as the fixtures displayed at the Carmon Funeral Home. He added that the Staff will work on the emergency access, the book drop, and sidewalks for the next meeting. He noted that the current plan is the 10th version and added that the 7-member library building committee has been working on this plan for approximately 2 years. Mr. Kushner introduced Steve Bartha to the Commission. He noted that Mr. Bartha is the Assistant to the Town Manager and also staffs the library committee. He noted that Mr. Bartha would like to present a status report on the library to the Town Council at their meeting scheduled for September 2.
Mr. Bartha concurred with Mr. Kushner’s comments and added that budget considerations will be discussed once the design plans are complete.
In response to a conversation about sidewalks, Mr. Kushner asked the Commission if they would like to see a sidewalk in the front of the building if it contributed to the overall landscaping on the site while not creating a problem with regard to total lot coverage.
Mr. Starr noted that he is not concerned with a reduction in overall lot coverage in connection with sidewalks. He noted that, in his opinion, the key issues are the location of the emergency access and the safe flow of traffic for cars, pedestrians, and the book drop.
Mr. Kushner asked if the Commission is comfortable with the total number of parking spaces.
Mr. Starr indicated that he is comfortable with the proposed parking due to the reciprocal informal parking agreement with the West Avon Congregational Church that has been working well for many years.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4501 was continued to the next meeting.
Mrs. Clark motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4501 to the next meeting, scheduled for September 14. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Thompson motioned to table App. #4502 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by
Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
The entire public hearing was closed.
Mr. Thompson stepped down.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Griffin motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4496, #4500, #4490, #4486, and #4487. Mrs. Clark seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4496 - Brighenti Enterprises, LLC, owner, Henry Frey, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(7) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign, 395 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520395, in an NB Zone.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4496. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received approval from Mesdames Griffin, Primeau, and Clark and Messrs. Starr and Bonner.
App. #4500 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Josh Livingston, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit modification to existing detached sign, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4500 subject to the following condition:
1. The street address number shall be added to the top of the existing monument sign.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received approval from Mesdames Griffin, Clark, and Primeau, and Messrs. Starr and Bonner.
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.
Mr. Starr motioned to approve the zone change, App. #4490, from ROS to R30 on the entire parcel except for one lot that is to be continued as open space.
Mrs. Clark seconded the motion.
Mrs. Griffin noted that there are many things about this application that she doesn’t like. She noted her recognition that the land can be developed in accordance with the original approval granted years ago. She added that while she doesn’t like the idea of the Avon Land Trust swapping land she acknowledged that it seems to make sense in this instance.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she doesn’t feel the land swap makes sense.
Mr. Starr commented that by maintaining one lot of open space, along with a 20-foot strip on the border, open space protection and access is provided for the adjoining neighbors.
Mrs. Clark noted that it is a unique situation and added that development will occur on the parcel that Mr. Ferrigno owns whether the Commission approves this application or not. She also noted the Avon Land Trust’s liability in connection with the road.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the Avon Land Trust has the ability to deed the road to the developer and leave their parcel in tact; the liability would be transferred to the developer.
She noted that the excess land on Chidsey Road could be divided amongst the property owners. The Avon Land Trust could then approach the new property owners to ask if they would like to donate their unusable, unbuildable land.
Mr. Starr noted that the land on Chidsey Road will become accessible to the public, whereas currently it is not. Mrs. Primeau noted her understanding.
Mr. Kushner commented that he is not sure that the Commission has not heard anything in the public record over the last 4 public hearings to indicate that the Avon Land Trust is certain that they have the right to deed the road to Mr. Ferrigno. He noted that he believes that anything the Avon Land Trust does would have to be approved by The Nature Conservancy and it is not clear whether The Nature Conservancy has been asked about deeding the road. Mr. Kushner noted that he feels it is incorrect to assume, based on the record, that the Avon Land Trust has the right to deed the road.
Mrs. Primeau noted her agreement with Mr. Kushner’s comments that it is unclear whether the Avon Land Trust has the ability to deed the road. She added that she doesn’t know, and it is not in the record, whether The Nature Conservancy has been asked about deeding the road to
Mr. Ferrigno.
Mr. Starr commented that deeding the road was not raised during the public hearing and therefore it cannot be considered at this time.
Mrs. Primeau clarified that she did raise the issue of deeding the road during the public hearing.
Mr. Bonner noted that he remembers Mrs. Primeau asking about the road at the last meeting.
Mr. Starr stated, for the record, the reasons for the zone change noting that the proposed zone change is consistent and complies with the Plan of Conservation and Development. He noted that the subject area was zoned R30 in the past and added that all the surrounding residential parcels are zoned R30. He commented that by maintaining the open space that abuts existing homes, property values will be maintained. He further noted that if an emergency access is required in connection with an approval of the related applications, public safety will be maintained.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that in 2005 a new digitized zoning map was adopted for the entire Town. He noted that most of the open space in Town (owned by the Avon Land Trust, the Town, and the State) was already zoned ROS but there were a few miscellaneous open space parcels that were not zoned ROS. He explained that when the new map was adopted these miscellaneous parcels were rezoned to ROS, as the Commission agreed that it seemed logical. He noted that a formal public hearing was noticed and held and formal motions were made by the Commission to adopt the map. He noted that after the public hearing process was over, the map was formally filed with the Town Clerk.
Mrs. Primeau commented that a legal notice was published in the newspaper before the new map was adopted.
Mr. Kushner explained that while the new map adoption was done in accordance with State law, the Avon Land Trust has indicated that they were disappointed that they were not notified or aware of this proposal before this zone change occurred. Mr. Kushner commented that, unfortunately, it was assumed that all of the parcels owned by the Avon Land Trust are deed restricted, as are most of the open space parcels owned by the Town. He noted that the Commission may, at their discretion, conduct a public hearing and change the zoning map when it is deemed to be in the best interests of the Town. He reiterated that the changes made to the Zoning Map in 2005 were done because the Commission felt that it made good sense; it was not done to be harmful to property owners.
Mrs. Griffin noted that before this application was presented she never had any suspicion, and doubts that anyone else did either, that any land that was deeded to the Avon Land Trust could ever be taken out of that trust.
Mr. Kushner noted that he has been in the zoning business for many years. He explained that if he were interested in buying a property in the Farmington Valley that was located next to a parcel owned by a land trust and if he looked at the deed and saw that it was deed restricted, he noted that he might logically conclude that that parcel was permanently deed restricted. He noted that he learned something from the subject proposal such that unless there is an easement that was granted back in favor of the Town where the Town has control or, at a minimum, unless the Town was responsible for creating the open space by the Commission’s action it is a private transaction. Mr. Kushner commented that if there is a mechanism between private property owners that legally permits them to release a
restriction, then it can be done. He added that this is consistent with Town Attorney Zizka’s opinion, in his letter dated June 22, 2010.
Mr. Kushner explained that Attorney Zizka suggests that if it seems appropriate to deed open space to the Avon Land Trust or another non-profit organization but the Commission would like some certainty with regard to the open space, then a conservation easement in favor of the Town should also be required and filed. Mr. Kushner commented that it may be best to follow this procedure going forward but noted that this scenario was not the case that resulted in the creation of the subject open space.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she doesn’t feel the approval of this zone change would have any real adverse effect on anyone’s property values. She noted that residents of Farmington Woods have made comments about the trees when they look out their windows. Mrs. Griffin commented that people only have control over what they own. She pointed out testimony from previous hearings and commented that if residents are currently hiking on private property they are lucky that those owners are not stopping them for trespassing.
Mr. Starr commented that these same arguments were brought up by abutting property owners when Farmington Woods was going to be developed.
Mrs. Primeau asked whether the Avon Land Trust identified the boundaries of their property such that people knew where it began and where it ended.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that he doesn’t know the answer but added that from the testimony heard at the public hearing, with the exception of a small piece of one trail, all references made by the public to walking on trails was a situation of trespassing on private properties owned by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Ferrigno. He added that it appears that the bulk of the trespassing was done on Mr. Thompson’s property.
Mrs. Clark noted her support of Mrs. Griffin’s comments and added that she feels that the proposed houses would only enhance Farmington Woods and the areas surrounding it.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she can’t make a judgment one way or the other in connection with property values, as she cannot see into the future.
Mrs. Griffin noted that the one thing she finds most bothersome is the fact that the road has only one means of ingress and egress but acknowledged that the Commission has no control over that fact, as the Regulations permit it.
Mr. Starr motioned to approve App. #4490 subject to the following condition:
1. Proposed Parcel #6140005, .699 acres, shall remain as open space.
Mrs. Clark seconded the motion that received approval from Messrs. Starr and Bonner and Mesdames Clark and Griffin. Mrs. Primeau voted in opposition to approve App. #4490.
Mr. Kushner noted, for the record, that the Commission is making a determination that the proposed zone change is consistent with the long-range goals of the Commission’s 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development to protect public health, safety, general welfare, and property values. Mr. Starr noted his agreement.
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.
Mr. Kushner reviewed proposed conditions of approval for App. #4486 relating to sewers, open space, emergency access, and future road connections. He noted that some minor changes were made as a result of conversations today with the Town Engineer.
Mr. Starr motioned for approval of App. #4486 subject to the following conditions:
1. Sewers - The Commission recognizes the approval granted by the Farmington Valley Health District for the installation of onsite subsurface sewage disposal systems. However, the Commission also notes receipt of a letter from the applicant dated July 9, 2010, indicating an interest in installing a public sewer to serve these 8 lots. If accomplished this would provide an opportunity to service approximately 85 homes in the Haynes Road neighborhood. This neighborhood has been designated as a high priority for sewer service in the Avon Water Pollution Control Authority’s (AWPCA) Master Facilities Plan. The applicant is directed to work with the AWPCA in an effort to enter into an agreement which will result in the
installation of public sewers. If an agreement with the AWPCA can be entered into by October 30, 2010, the applicant shall extend public sewers in lieu of onsite septic systems. Under all conditions the applicant shall be obligated to install a capped sewer which will, at a minimum, provide an easy opportunity for an eventual connection of these new homes to the public sewer system. Said sewers are to be constructed in accordance with AWPCA and Engineering Department requirements.
2. Open Space - An offer by the applicant to make a payment in lieu of the dedication of open space is not approved by the Commission. Instead, the applicant shall deed to the Town land previously shown on the proposed subdivision map as Parcel #6410005 plus an additional 20-foot strip of land comprising the easterly most portion of Parcels #6410006 and #6410027. This 20-foot strip of land will make it possible for a future trail connection to open space, which may result from an eventual subdivision approval for property located to the north owned by Douglas Thompson and Robert and Jean Parker. To alert potential buyers of the 20-foot strip, the applicant shall place signs at 50-foot intervals on both the east and west side
located on 4 x 4-inch wood posts identifying this strip of land as Town of Avon owned open space. These signs shall be installed before any Certificates of Occupancy are issued to any of the adjoining new homes. In addition, the record maps shall clearly identify this area as public open space and as a future trail. In addition, a 10-foot conservation restriction shall be placed along the perimeter of all lots which abut Farmington Woods and berms constructed, as depicted on Drawing No. 1, Schematic Site Plan.
3. Emergency Access - The applicant shall be obligated to construct an emergency access gravel roadway leading from Knoll Lane traveling southerly along the western edge of the Town open space (formerly Parcel #6410005) and adjacent to Parcel #6410009. The Town of Avon shall continue a dialogue with the Farmington Woods Master Association (FWMA) to determine whether the Association believes that an extension of this gravel emergency access roadway to Chestnut Drive in Farmington Woods is to their benefit. Should this be the case, the applicant shall be obligated to continue the construction of this roadway to property of Farmington Woods. The final design of this roadway is to be agreed upon between Town Staff and the FWMA with
a gate to be approved by the Fire Marshal. Should the FWMA not be interested in an additional emergency connection driveway, the applicant shall limit construction to the open space property to be owned by the Town of Avon.
4. Future Road Connections - The Commission has determined that it is both feasible and likely that a future road connection will be built from Haynes Road to the Brownstone Subdivision to the north. Evidence has been presented indicating ownership by the Town of two 50-foot rights-of-way necessary to accomplish this connection. This roadway is shown in the Commission’s 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development. As a result, Haynes Road may be properly considered a temporary cul-de-sac.
5. The applicant shall address drainage concerns raised by Mrs. Freeman, 28 Springbrook Drive. The applicant shall work with the Town Engineer to assess the condition of the existing drainage way in this area. Improvements shall be made by the applicant at the direction of the Town Engineer such that the increase in runoff from this new subdivision will not adversely affect downstream properties.
6. The applicant shall address and comply with the Town Engineer’s Staff Comments, dated June 8, 2010, as well as follow-up comments and questions that may arise.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received approved from Messrs. Starr, and Bonner and Mesdames Clark and Griffin. Mrs. Primeau voted in opposition to approve App. #4486.
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.
Mr. Kushner reviewed proposed conditions of approval for App. #4487 relating to open space, drainage, trails, gravel parking lot and gazebo, and street.
Mr. Starr motioned to approve App. #4487 subject to the following conditions:
1. Open Space - The Commission accepts the applicant’s offer to satisfy open space requirements by deeding property directly to the Avon Land Trust in addition to other properties which will be deeded as part of the proposed land transfer between the Avon Land Trust and Sunlight Construction. Prior to the recording of the approved subdivision map, the applicant shall convey to the Town of Avon easement rights giving the public certain rights to use this open space property for public park purposes. The rights extended to the Town shall give the public the right to use this property similar to Town owned parks consistent with the rules established in Ordinance #49 (Parks and Public Places). The final easement language is to be
approved by the Avon Town Council after the conduct of a public hearing.
2. Drainage - The Commission recognizes the importance of wetlands on this property for those matters concerning storm water. The applicant shall convey to the Town all drainage rights that the Town Engineer feels are necessary to support the interests of this subdivision and other properties which drain to this site. The applicant shall submit language subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney.
3 Trails, Gravel Parking Lot, and Gazebo - The applicant shall be responsible to install concrete piers (for the gazebo) and construct one (1) of the walking paths from the open space to Reverknolls. These items shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for either of the 2 approved lots. The construction of a gazebo and other trail amenities, as approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission, shall be the responsibility of the Avon Land Trust. The time frame for completing these items shall be at the discretion of the Avon Land Trust. There shall be no responsibility assigned to the Town to maintain, insure, or make any improvements to this property.
4. Street - The proposed new street known as “Rivendell” is not needed to satisfy any long-range transportation plan as adopted by the Town. It is proposed as a permanent cul-de-sac serving only 2 building lots. No other public roadway approved by the Commission serves this very limited function. As a result, this road is approved as a private roadway that shall meet the specifications of a public road but will not be accessible to the public. The layout of proposed lots is such that frontage requirements are satisfied and therefore these lots are deemed to have met all the requirements of the Zoning Regulations. As indicated during the hearing, the applicant reserves the right to
petition the Commission at a future date to reduce the construction standards of this roadway and seek approval for the creation of 2 rear lots.
5. The street name, “Rivendell”, shall be changed such that it is not similar to other existing street names in Town. This name change shall be approved by the Fire Marshal/Fire Chief.
6. The applicant shall address and comply with the Town Engineer’s Staff Comments, dated June 8, 2010, as well as follow-up comments and questions that may arise.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received approval from Messrs. Starr and Bonner and Mesdames Clark, Griffin, and Primeau.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on July 20, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
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. APPROVED WITH CONDITION.
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. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
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. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
App. #4496 - Brighenti Enterprises, LLC, owner, Henry Frey, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(7) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign, 395 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520395, in an NB Zone. APPROVED.
App. #4500 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Josh Livingston, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit modification to existing detached sign, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITION.
App. #4498 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Midwood Management Corp., applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for modifications to existing façade, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone. WITHDRAWN.
App. #4499 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Midwood Management Corp., applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to modify existing sign theme concept, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone. WITHDRAWN.
Dated at Avon this 21ST day of July 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
| 
