The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, June 7, 2011. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Carol Griffin, Linda Keith, and Peter Mahoney and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Christian Gackstatter. Messrs. Bonner and Gackstatter sat for the meeting. Absent were David Cappello and Marianne Clark. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Keith motioned to approve the May 17, 2011, meeting minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4535 - Avon Self Storage, LLC/Avon Dreamer, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.H.3.k. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit self storage facility, 190 and 230 Old Farms Road, Parcels 3360190 and 3360230, in I and R40 Zones (proposed zone change to I for Parcel 3360230)
App. #4539 - Avon Self Storage, LLC/Avon Dreamer, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.G.4.d.and f. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit filling and regrading in the floodplain, 190 and 230 Old Farms Road, Parcels 3360190 and 3360230, in I and R40 Zones. (proposed zone change to I for Parcel 3360230)
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
App. #4536 - Avon Self Storage, LLC/Avon Dreamer, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit self storage facility, 190 and 230 Old Farms Road, Parcels 3360190 and 3360230 in I and R40 Zones (proposed zone change to I for Parcel 3360230)
The public hearing was continued from the May 17 meeting.
Present to represent these applications were Attorney Richard Case, representing the owner; David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers, LLC; and Robert Haines, owner.
Attorney Case explained that a zone change from R40 (residential) to I (industrial) for 1.83 acres of Parcel #3360230 (230 Old Farms Road) was approved at the Commission’s April 26 meeting. He noted that this land area is located just south of the existing self storage facility on Old Farms Road. He commented that the subject proposal requests two special exceptions and one site plan approval; one special exception is for an additional building to be constructed and one special exception is for work within the floodplain. Mr. Case commented that he believes the proposal meets the Special Exception criteria (i.e., suitable location for use, suitable structures for use, and compatibility with neighboring uses) contained in the Zoning Regulations. He noted that the proposed building is located
to the east of the existing self storage buildings. There is open space land located to the east of the site and to the north is an area formerly occupied by the Rotondo concrete facility. Land to the south is owned by Avon Dreamer LLC and further to the south is the Sconsett Point development; Old Farms Road is located to the west. Mr. Case commented that the only property that would be impacted by the current proposal is the site to the south, owned by Avon Dreamer (Avon Self Storage, Robert Haines).
David Whitney, PE, displayed the site plan and noted that 1.8 acres of land from Parcel #3360230 was added to Parcel #3360190, as the result of an approved zone change at the last meeting. Parcel #3360190 currently houses the self storage facility. He noted that Parcel #3360190 is comprised of 9.3 acres; the addition of 1.8 acres results in a total area of 11.5 acres. He noted that Parcel #3360230 is zoned R40 while Parcel #3360190 is zoned Industrial. He noted that approval has been granted by the Inland Wetlands Commission. The proposal is to add one new building (Phase IV) with a footprint of 21,624 square feet; it would be the 13th building on the site. The plans originally proposed a 14th building but the plans have been revised to show a gravel
“RV” storage area (approximately 6,000 square feet in size to hold 10 “RV’s”) in lieu of the 14th building. He explained that the applicant understands that if a 14th building is proposed in the future, an application to the Planning and Zoning Commission would be required. Mr. Whitney noted that the existing impervious coverage on the existing 9.3 acre parcel is approximately 38%; the proposed building and pavement would increase the impervious coverage to 39%, well below the 50% maximum that is permitted.
Mr. Whitney addressed the floodplain and explained that some filling in the area of the proposed building is needed to raise the elevation above the 500-year flood line. Some excavation is proposed for the rear of the property to make up for the site disturbance; this area would act as wetland mitigation. He noted that cuts and fills on the site are balanced. He added that regrading would remove far more material than the amount of fill that would be brought onto the site; approximately 4,000 cubic yards would be excavated to create a wetlands mitigation area. He noted that a certain amount of fill would be above the 500-year elevation. He explained that the proposed work in the floodplain (regrading and filling) is the same procedure that was used for the first 3 phases of the self storage
facility, as well as for Sconsett Point.
Mr. Starr asked whether all the fill would remain onsite, with nothing being trucked off site. Mr. Whitney confirmed that nothing would be taken off site, as it is not a gravel operation and added that material may actually need to be brought onto the site.
Mr. Whitney addressed elevation and explained that the last 2 buildings in the existing self storage facility are almost invisible from Old Farms Road. The “RV” storage area would be completely hidden from the road and the proposed building would also be mostly hidden but the rooftop may be visible from Old Farms Road. Mr. Whitney noted that the proposed building (13th building) would be the largest building on the site but would be hidden due to its location.
Mr. Whitney addressed drainage and noted that drainage/volume calculations have been submitted to the Town Engineer. He explained that the calculations are the same as those approved by the Town Engineer in connection with an application to Inland Wetlands in 2008. He added that the storm drainage system is relatively simple. The proposal is to regrade below the 100-year flood elevation to move material (approximately 4,000 cubic yards) out and then move it about 400 yards and then have it stay there. Fill in the amount of 2,600 cubic yards is proposed between the 100-year and 500-year flood line. Mr. Whitney explained that the elevations would be matched to what currently exists on the site, as a very uniform grade exists to the rear of the buildings. Mr. Whitney addressed buffering
and noted that a Class “C” bufferyard would be provided on the southern portion of the site. The adjacent parcel, 230 Old Farms Road, is zoned R40; the subject parcel, 190 Old Farms Road, is zoned Industrial and, therefore, requires a bufferyard. He noted that a landscape plan has been submitted (Rosemary Aldridge).
Mr. Whitney addressed lighting and noted that currently the site contains 14-foot tall shoe-box downward casting light poles and some wall packs (spaced 40 feet apart) on the existing buildings. The same lighting is proposed for the new building and no additional light poles are proposed.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Whitney confirmed that the plan for the new building shows the identical storm drainage design as the existing buildings; the downspouts are connected to a collection system that is tied to the storm drainage.
Ms. Keith asked if “RV’s” can be stored outside on gravel at this location because it is located in the Industrial Zone. Mr. Kushner explained that the Zoning Regulations state that all commercial activities are to be wholly enclosed within a building except for those activities normally conducted outdoors (i.e., live plants). He commented that the subject site is located in the Industrial Zone and it is the Commission’s judgment whether or not to permit outdoor RV storage.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Whitney explained that the impervious surface, currently at 39%, includes the gravel area. He further explained that there would probably be some percolation through the gravel from vehicle fluid spillage but added that most of the fluid would probably flow into the catch basin. Mr. Gackstatter noted his concern that an RV, sitting in one position for long periods, could have an oil leak that would drip onto the gravel area. Mr. Haines explained that the requested outdoor RV area is really only for a two-year temporary test period. He further explained that if he gets enough customers, he would come back to the Commission to request either a canopy or an enclosed building. He noted that plastic would be put down before the gravel was laid. He commented that there is an oil separator process that would be used if the RV storage area became a permanent activity. Mr. Gackstatter asked if there are regulations relating to parking
trucks on open spaces and the polluting of ground water from oil spills. Mr. Kushner explained that it is against the law to dispose of oil and/or gasoline into the ground and there are Aquifer Protection Regulations in place to address such activities. He added that RV storage or commercial parking lots would not be considered regulated activities under those Regulations. He explained that the Aquifer Protection Regulations are geared towards activities that have a much higher probability of ground water contamination, such as large manufacturing operations. Mr. Kushner noted his understanding of the concerns but noted, as perspective, the thousands of vehicle parking spaces in Town and the many hours they are occupied with vehicles.
Mr. Case commented that Mr. Haines’ office is located onsite at the self storage facility and he could monitor the proposed RV storage area that would hold approximately 10 RV’s. Mr. Haines stated that he takes very good care of his facility and added that if an RV was dripping oil he would know about it and take care of it right away.
Mr. Bonner asked about screening for the proposed RV storage. Mr. Whitney noted that Mr. Kushner’s Staff Comments asked for consideration for additional screening. He noted that there is existing vegetation in the area that is not shown on the plans. Mr. Bonner commented that he would like the RV storage area to be successful but at the same time noted that he would like to see the area look as natural as possible. Mr. Haines noted his understanding and agreement and added that the RV area won’t be seen from the road.
Mrs. Griffin asked if retaining walls are proposed. Mr. Whitney explained that the area where fill is proposed is a 2:1 slope; a filled slope. He noted that the fill area would be planted to hold the fill in place, as shown on the landscape plan. He explained that a 1:1 slope is structurally stable but Best Management Practices and the Department of Transportation (DOT) require 100% safety factors, thus a 2:1 slope is generally the maximum that is accepted.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Whitney noted that the Fire Chief has confirmed that accessibility is adequate.
Mr. Case explained that a road connector/emergency access road plan was presented to both the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal. He noted that some changes to the 60-foot buffer area would have to be made to accommodate the access road. Mr. Case commented that the Commission has, for a number of years, been asking about an emergency accessway to Sconsett Point. He explained that a couple of years ago the owner submitted an application to the Inland Wetlands Commission to construct a road access (different from the current design) but the application was denied. Mr. Case explained that a new application was submitted today to the Inland Wetlands Commission for a 12-foot gravel emergency access road that would cross the towpath of the old canal.
Mr. Starr noted that a sewer line exists in the area where the 12-foot gravel road is proposed. Mr. Case concurred and noted that the sewer line is only 10 feet wide so the Fire Marshal has asked that the gravel road be 12 feet wide. Mr. Case added that the applicant will ask that the road not be gated at Sconsett Point but, instead, will ask that a chain be installed. Mr. Starr explained that in order to meet the safety requirements of the Fire Chief/Marshal for the connector road on the Site Plan, the Commission cannot act on the subject applications until after Inland Wetlands has completed their review. Mr. Case commented that the hope is that the Inland Wetlands Commission will handle the road connector application as a summary ruling; he noted that the last review for this road proposal went
on for 8 months. Mr. Starr noted his understanding. Mr. Case noted that he has requested Mr. Kushner to attend the wetlands meeting and has asked the Fire Marshal to write a letter explaining the need for this road for public safety reasons.
Mr. Kushner stated that it would appear that the proposed 12-foot wide gravel road has a very minimal, if any, impact on the wetlands. He noted that a great effort was made to work within the existing already disturbed water/sewer line. He explained that the original proposal was for a 22-foot wide road. He further explained that currently there is only one way in and one way out of Sconsett Point; the proposed road would serve both as emergency access to Sconsett Point as well as provide access to the southwest corner of the self storage building. Mr. Case requested that the public hearing be continued to the Commission’s July 19 meeting.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4535 and #4539 to the July 19 meeting. The motion, seconded by Ms. Keith, received unanimous approval. Mrs. Griffin motioned to table App. #4536 to the July 19 meeting. The motion, seconded by
Ms. Keith, received unanimous approval.
App. #4541 Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations to adopt new regulations for Avon Village Center Zone CONTD from May 17
Mr. Starr reported that the public hearing for App. #4541 will be continued to the next meeting. A public hearing to discuss an amendment to the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development to adopt Design Guidelines in connection with the Avon Village Center Zone will also be held at the next meeting.
Mr. Thompson motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4541 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
App. #4542 - Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to lot coverage in the RU2A Zone, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant
App. #4543 - Old Avon Realty, LLC owner, Friar Associates Inc., applicant, request for Zone Change from OP to RU2A, 8.908 acres and from NB to RU2A, .659 acres, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059.
Mr. Starr offered background information. He explained that there is a request for a change of zone from commercial to residential for property located at 59 Waterville Road. He further explained that the surrounding residential properties to this site are also zoned RU2A
2-acre minimum). Mr. Starr commented that the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC) is proposing a school on this site and schools are only permitted in residential zones by special exception. In addition, there is a request for an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to modify lot coverage in the RU2A zone; the footprint of the proposed school currently exceeds the maximum allowable lot coverage. Mr. Starr noted that if these two applications are approved, the applicant could then submit applications for a school, which could occur at the next meeting scheduled for June 28.
Present to represent these applications were David Hoopes, Mayo Crowe LLC, attorney on behalf of the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC); John Mena, Don Walsh, Bruce Douglas, Denise Gallucci, and Josephine DiPietro-Smith, CREC; Luke McCoy and Glenn Yeakel, Friar Associates, Inc.; and Dr. Roy Beebe, owner, and his attorney Richard Case.
Attorney Hoopes noted that a number of school supporters are in the audience. He noted that CREC currently operates a school in a temporary location at 150 Fisher Drive; a permanent location in Avon has been sought for some time. He noted that a school site was identified in Avon Park North but was not fully supported by the Commission. He added that the subject site is located at 59 Waterville Road, at the corner of Waterville Road and Avonwood Road. Mr. Hoopes addressed the proposed zone change and the proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations. He noted that schools in Avon are only permitted in residential zones; the subject property is currently zoned mostly Office Park (OP) but a portion is zoned Neighborhood Business (NB). He noted that, in the past, proposals for
office/medical buildings on this site were approved but did not move forward due to the economy. He noted that CREC feels the subject site is a good location for a school, for many reasons. He displayed the official Zoning Map and explained that the proposed zone change to RU2A seems most appropriate, as mostly everything surrounding the site is zoned RU2A. He noted that the impacts from a school use would be similar to impacts from a business office use that would be permitted under the current zoning. He added that from a planning perspective, CREC feels that a school on this site would be a good transitional use and, in some ways, better than a commercial use, as the area is surrounded, generally, by residential uses.
Mr. Hoopes addressed the proposed text amendment pertaining to lot coverage. He explained that lot coverage in the RU2A zone is currently limited to 10%; he added that this rule is clearly directed at single-family homes. He commented that it is not as appropriate to have a threshold this low for commercial uses or special exception uses. He noted that the Zoning Regulations allow the Commission discretion with regard to lot coverage for special exception uses in both the R30 and R40 zones. The Commission may, by a 2/3’s vote, permit lot coverage as high as 15%. Mr. Hoopes noted that the request is that the same allowance be permitted in the RU2A zone. He reiterated that this change would only apply to special exception uses in the RU2A zone and would require a 2/3’s vote by
the Commission; it would not apply to single-family homes. Mr. Hoopes explained that the amendment is needed because the proposed school is currently at approximately 11% lot coverage and it cannot be lowered and still meet the State’s criteria.
Mr. Hoopes submitted, for the record, a binder containing letters of support, organized by Town, for the proposed school. He noted that there are a number of school supporters in the audience.
Bruce Murray, 93 Ayrshire Lane, noted that he is not in favor of a school at 59 Waterville Road. He noted that Ayrshire Lane is already used as a traffic cut through and noted his concern that the proposed school would add to the constant flow of traffic. He commented that he feels that buses are not reliable and, therefore, more people would be driving to the school. The intersection of Route 10 and Route 44 would become even more complex than it already is. He conveyed his concerns about the probability of accidents, noting that a “T” intersection would be created where Avonwood Road intersects with Waterville Road. He noted that there are no sidewalks in the area.
Eric Throndson, of the Avonwood Road Residents Association, noted that the residents of the Avonwood Apartments have major concerns. He indicated that he owns a condominium on Avonwood Road. He noted that the concerns do not really involve the requested zone change but explained that the concerns involve Avonwood Road, Waterville Road, and parking. He noted his understanding that these concerns would be more appropriately addressed at the next meeting. Mr. Starr concurred. Mr. Throndson commented that it is his understanding from reading the Zoning Regulations that a school must be located on 25 acres. Mr. Starr noted that he doesn’t believe that the Zoning Regulations state that requirement. Ms. Keith concurred.
Mr. Kushner explained that the high school site is approximately 35 acres but added that most of the other school sites are substantially smaller. Mr. Throndson concurred but noted that he is curious about whether there is a regulation for school site size.
Joe Delbone, 45 Waterville Road, noted his concerns relating to his property value. He asked how the Town could rezone a viable commercial property into a tax-exempt property. He commented that he believes even Avon is in a recession. Mr. Delbone commented that
Dr. Beebe has had many great plans over the years that have been stymied by the Town. He indicated that buildings could have been built by now if everyone was a little more cooperative. He noted that he feels the current proposal is a bad idea; his family has owned the adjacent property for about 110 years. He indicated that he would fight this to the end.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission, on their own initiative, would, most likely, not be motivated to rezone the subject site to residential. He noted that in his Staff Comments, dated June 3, 2011, he reported that the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development has specific recommendations; specifically, the scarcity of vacant land in Town zoned Office Park (OP). He noted that the subject site is the last sizeable parcel that is zoned OP. Mr. Kushner explained that it could be argued, however, that the land use impacts from a school versus an office building (i.e., a 98,000-square-foot office building was approved for this site in 1997) might be similar in certain respects. The traffic patterns/peaks would be different but there would still be a lot of people traveling to the site in the
morning and a lot of people leaving the site in the afternoon. Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission is faced with a challenging situation, as they must make a decision about a zone change before they have the details/specifics about the site plan for the proposed school. He noted that while it is an unlikely scenario, he believes it may be possible for a zone change to be granted by the Commission and then, in turn, the Commission could rezone the property back to its original zone should an approval for the school not be granted.
There being no further input, the public hearing for Apps. #4542 and #4543 was closed.
App. #4544 - John Boullie, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.q. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit accessory apartment, 101 Old Mill Road, Parcel 3380101, in an R40 Zone.
Present to represent this application was John Boullie, owner.
Mrs. Griffin asked if there is a need for a separate kitchen and commented that Mr. Boullie’s mother would most likely eat with the family. Mr. Boullie explained that he has hired an “Au Pair” from Brazil who will be arriving in mid July.
Mr. Starr pointed out that the proposed accessory apartment does not have its own entrance; the only way into the apartment is through the main house. Mr. Boullie concurred and added that there would not be separate utilities nor would there be a dishwasher. He noted that he already has a second refrigerator in the basement; he noted that he plans to add a sink for the wet bar/recreation room and a microwave. Mrs. Griffin commented that it really wouldn’t be a full blown kitchen but rather a small cooking area. Mr. Boullie concurred.
Mr. Mahoney asked whether the proposed accessory apartment could be rented out and if there was a separate entrance.
Mr. Kushner explained that approvals for accessory apartments do not differentiate between a rental and an “Au Pair”. He noted that the subject site is unique, as there is no separate outdoor entrance. The proposed space is approximately 1,600 square feet.
Mr. Starr noted that 1,600 square feet is the size of the entire basement, which is not necessarily part of the accessory apartment.
Mr. Kushner commented that because the subject apartment is most likely the largest one ever to come before the Commission, he added that it would be good to recognize, for the record, the unique circumstances, such as a small kitchen and no separate entrance.
Mr. Gackstatter asked what makes this proposal different from any other finished basement. Mr. Kushner explained that the second kitchen is the defining factor; if a finished basement doesn’t have a second kitchen then it doesn’t require approval as an accessory apartment.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Boullie noted that his house is served by public water and sewer.
There being no further input the public hearing for App. #4544 was closed.
Mr. Bonner stepped down.
App. #4545 - Sunny Sky Realty LLC, owner, Sunny Sky Realty LLC and Twenty West Avon Road Associates LLC, applicants, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 18 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520018, in a CS Zone.
Present to represent this application was Frank Lombardi, principal, 20 West Avon Road Associates.
Dr. Lombardi explained that recently the detached sign at 18 West Avon Road was taken down when a car hit it. He noted that the subject proposal is for a new detached sign at 18 West Avon Road, a wall sign at 20 West Avon Road (interior lot) and a replacement directional sign (for both 18 and 20 West Avon Road) located in the right-of-way on Dale Road. He noted that the original detached sign for 18 West Avon Road was approximately 20 square feet; the replacement sign is 19.89 square feet. He noted that the replacement directional sign on Dale Road (existing sign is 12 square feet/ replacement sign is 12 square feet) would give more description to what is located at 20 West Avon Road, as the building cannot be seen from the road.
Mr. Starr noted that the proposed wall sign for 20 West Avon Road doesn’t require approval under the Zoning Regulations, as it cannot be seen from the road. He added that the design of the proposed signs is similar to that of the adjoining medical building. Dr. Lombardi concurred.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4545 was closed.
Mr. Bonner returned to the public hearing.
App. #4546 - Jodi Oh, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit in-ground pool and associated tree work within 150’ ridgeline setback area, 6 Deer Ridge Road, Parcel 5090006, in an RU2A Zone.
Present to represent this application were Jodi Oh, owner, and Mike Slayton, B & B Landscaping. Ms. Oh commented that the request is for an in-ground pool within the ridgeline. She noted that the location chosen for pool construction is accessible/visible from the house and would also preserve the ridgeline. She noted that she recently planted 37 evergreens and has plans to complete the landscaping with additional mature trees. She noted that a topographical map was prepared by Don Hammerberg Associates; the map also indicates the use of 4-foot retaining walls. She added that a wall engineer has been brought in to ensure that the retaining walls are appropriately designed. Ms. Oh indicated that many trees on the property have been maintained but 2 to 3 dead trees would have to be
removed. She added that the proposed retaining walls are so low that they could only be seen from a helicopter.
Mr. Slayton explained that the proposed pool elevation is 14 inches below existing grade on the site. He noted that as far as he can tell, nothing would ever be seen from anywhere other than specified by Ms. Oh.
Ms. Keith asked about drainage and whether it would move toward the proposed pool. Mr. Slayton noted that steps off the existing porch into the pool area are proposed. He added that the proposed retaining walls include drainage.
Mr. Gackstatter asked about the grade elevation of the proposed pool and whether the walls are gradient or decorative. Mr. Slayton commented that the patio around the pool would be at grade/elevation 702. He explained that a smaller wall is proposed to hold the pool equipment. He further explained that the proposed walls are to build up the surface as there is an elevation change; a level area is needed for the pool. He explained that the maximum height of the bottom wall is 5 feet; the maximum height of the top wall is 8 feet. Mr. Slayton noted that he has an engineered drawing to support the walls. Mr. Gackstatter commented that the proposal is for one 8-foot wall, one 5-foot wall, and one 4-foot safety fence; the pool would not be visible. Mr. Slayton explained that the 4-foot
wall would connect to the 4-foot safety fence at the lowest point on the wall.
Mr. Kushner clarified that the wall would satisfy the 4-foot fence requirement over a portion of the perimeter.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated that it is his understanding that the 8-foot section of the retaining wall would act as the 4-foot section of the safety fence and as the retaining wall bleeds away, another wall would continue on to remain as a safety fence. Mr. Slayton and Ms. Oh concurred. Mr. Slayton added that the 8-foot wall would gradually reduce in size to 4 feet on both ends where the fence would be incorporated.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Ms. Oh confirmed that she would be maintaining the existing trees in the area where the pool and wall are proposed. Mr. Slayton explained that 3 to 5 new trees are proposed to be located inside the wall.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Ms. Oh indicated that it is her understanding that the fill around her house is substantial and therefore no blasting would be required.
Mr. Starr commented that the Town (John McCahill) has visited the site, surveyed the trees, and agrees with what’s being cut, planted, and the ridgeline sightline. Mr. Kushner concurred. Ms. Keith noted that additional trees are proposed to be planted after the pool is installed. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Gackstatter asked why the proposed pool couldn’t be located in the southwest corner of the property; he asked whether digging could occur in this area. Ms. Oh commented that there is no door from the house that is accessible from all sides. In addition, due to the position of the house, the southwest corner is the only backyard area. Mr. Slayton explained that the southwest corner is quite a bit lower and noted his understanding that the family would like to keep that area as a playing field. Ms. Oh added that there is stone in this area so blasting would be required.
Mr. Starr commented that he understands that Mr. McCahill looked at the southwest area of the site and agreed that it would not be the best area for the pool; this area is located at the bedrock level.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that it is his understanding that the Commission normally only permits encroachments into the 75-foot ridgeline setback when there are geology/land constraints. He added that, generally, work is not permitted in the 75-foot setback for aesthetic reasons only. Mr. Starr concurred and noted that the topography of the subject site is such that the pool would not be visible in the proposed location and child safety is also a consideration.
Elaine Primeau noted her concerns with the ridgeline and traprock. She noted that if the pool was moved 5 feet to the south it would help to preserve the traprock and at the same time get the other side of the pool out of the ridgeline. She added that the pool equipment as proposed is located totally within the ridgeline setback. She commented that moving the pool 5 feet would also help with the topography issues for the proposed walls. Mr. Slayton explained that moving the pool 5 feet would result in almost the entire pool being located out of the ground, which probably can’t be accomplished.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4546 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4542, #4543, #4544, #4545, and #4546. Mr. Bonner seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4543 - Old Avon Realty, LLC owner, Friar Associates Inc., applicant, request for Zone Change from OP to RU2A, 8.908 acres and from NB to RU2A, .659 acres, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that the property has been zoned OP for many years but not as far back as 1957 when zoning was first adopted.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comment, Mr. Kushner explained that conditions cannot be placed on an approval for a zone change but added that the Commission could initiate a change to the Zoning Map, at any time, in any way they feel appropriate.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4543. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received approved from Mesdames Keith and Griffin and Messrs. Bonner, Starr, and Gackstatter. Voting in opposition of approval were Messrs. Thompson and Mahoney.
App. #4542 - Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to lot coverage in the RU2A Zone, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant
Ms. Keith commented that she would not like to see the Regulations amended to allow 15% lot coverage for every application involving the RU2A zone. She added that she feels each application should be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels the same language that currently exists for both R30 and R40 zones pertaining to lot coverage should also be used for the RU2A zone. He noted that the language indicates that lot coverage exceeding 10% is not be permitted by right, but, rather, is subject to special exception review and approval by the Commission. Ms. Keith concurred.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4542 subject to the following condition:
1. The existing language pertaining to maximum lot coverage contained in Section IV.A.6.* of the Zoning Regulations shall also be applied to the RU2A zone.
Mr. Bonner seconded the motion that received approval from Mesdames Keith and Griffin and Messrs. Bonner, Starr, Thompson, and Gackstatter. Mr. Mahoney voted in opposition to approve App. #4542.
App. #4544 - John Boullie, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.q. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit accessory apartment, 101 Old Mill Road, Parcel 3380101, in an R40 Zone.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4544 subject to the following condition:
1. No outside entrance is permitted for the accessory apartment.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Bonner stepped down.
App. #4545 - Sunny Sky Realty LLC, owner, Sunny Sky Realty LLC and Twenty West Avon Road Associates LLC, applicants, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 18 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520018, in a CS Zone.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4545. The motion, seconded by Ms. Keith, received approval from Mesdames Griffin and Keith and Messrs. Starr, Thompson, Mahoney, and Gackstatter.
Mr. Bonner returned to the meeting.
App. #4546 - Jodi Oh, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit in-ground pool and associated tree work within 150’ ridgeline setback area, 6 Deer Ridge Road, Parcel 5090006, in an RU2A Zone.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve App. #4546. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Request for rock crushing at Kingswood Phase IV - Michael Mansour
Michael Mansour of Mansour Developers was present.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Mansour explained that the majority of the large rocks have already been hammered down; the request now is to make gravel.
Ms. Keith asked if new technology would be used for the rock crushing. Mr. Mansour explained that he would be using the same company he has used in the past. Ms. Keith commented that there are a lot of residents in that area now and crushing is very noisy. She noted that the noise can be heard over the entire Valley and added that she has a problem with this request. She added that the noise could be heard in Burlington during the last crushing. Mr. Mansour commented that he hasn’t done any crushing in many years, maybe 10 years.
Mr. Starr asked Mr. Mansour whether the crushing company he uses has newer equipment than was used 10 years ago. Mr. Mansour noted that he is not aware of any new technology.
Mr. Bonner requested that the technology be investigated and noted that he can hear crushing at his house; he added that the noise is more than you can imagine.
Mr. Starr commented that he understands that developers are now using newer, quieter crushing technology in areas where there are existing neighborhoods surrounding the crushing site. Mr. Mansour commented that he believes the company he uses is the same one that performed the rock crushing on the adjacent site at the Weatherstone Subdivision.
Mrs. Griffin suggested that if there is quieter technology available, it should be investigated. Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Mansour to inquire about the type of equipment to be used and the decibel rating.
Mr. Starr noted that the crushing operation is requested for July and August. He asked
Mr. Mansour if alternatives could be investigated and submitted to the Commission at their June 28 meeting.
Mr. Mansour commented that the Kingswood Subdivision is very close to the Weatherstone Subdivision (2,000 feet away at maximum) and added that when rock crushing was going on at Weatherstone he did not hear anything. He added that there were no complaints from the residents of Kingswood.
Mr. Kushner noted that the noise that is the most objectionable and generates the most complaints is the hammering and pounding.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Mansour explained that the majority of crushed material would remain on site; a large majority of the material would be used for road construction for Phase IV of Kingswood. Some material would be stockpiled on site to be used in the future for driveways. Mr. Mansour acknowledged the noise that crushing produces but noted his agreement that the hammering, which was completed over 2 years ago, is really the noisiest part.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns with dust and asked about the location of the nearest wetland. Mr. Mansour explained that there are no wetlands in the Kingswood Subdivision and added that he doesn’t believe there are any wetlands, at all, nearby. Mr. Kushner commented that there are some wetlands approximately 800 feet away in the Weatherstone Subdivision. Mr. Mansour commented that the area between the crushing site and the wetlands is completely wooded.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that the trees keep the dust down.
Mr. Starr requested Mr. Mansour to provide additional information at the Commission’s June 28 meeting.
Canton Zoning Regulations - additional language/text proposed for signs
Mr. Kushner commented that the Commission may be interested in new technology that is available in connection with signs. Mr. Starr agreed that moving signs should not be permitted but added that he doesn’t feel that any new technology for lighting should be banned altogether, as the new technology may be better that what currently exists.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that, currently, Avon’s Zoning Regulations do not permit moving/flashing/intermittent signs of any type.
STAFF REPORT
Design Guidelines for AVC Zone - public hearing to amend POCD tentative for June 28, 2011
Mr. Starr noted that the public hearing for the adoption of the Design Guidelines will be scheduled for the June 28 meeting. Mr. Kushner concurred and noted that the public hearing to adopt the Avon Village Center Zone Regulations has been continued to the June 28 meeting as well; he added that the Design Guidelines are an accompanying element to the Avon Village Center Zone Regulations.
Low Impact Development (LID) Regulations - public hearing to amend Zoning and Subdivision Regulations tentative for July 19, 2011
Mr. Kushner explained that the last piece of the LID Study/Grant are changes proposed to the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations to add language pertaining to Low Impact Development (LID) in an effort to encourage environmentally-friendly development techniques for storm water management. He noted that many tiers of rules/regulations have evolved over the years such as Inland Wetlands/Storm Water Regulations, Floodplain Regulations, and Aquifer Protection Regulations. He added that the LID Regulations are the next generation/layer of regulatory guidelines/standards. The proposed LID language uses somewhat of a suggestive/ optional approach with the hope that developers would see the advantages.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on June 7, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4542 - Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to lot coverage in the RU2A Zone, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant. APPROVED AS MODIFIED. EFFECTIVE JULY 7, 2011.
App. #4543 - Old Avon Realty, LLC owner, Friar Associates Inc., applicant, request for Zone Change from OP to RU2A, 8.908 acres and from NB to RU2A, .659 acres, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059. APPROVED. EFFECTIVE JULY 7, 2011.
App. #4544 - John Boullie, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.q. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit accessory apartment, 101 Old Mill Road, Parcel 3380101, in an R40 Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITION.
App. #4545 - Sunny Sky Realty LLC, owner, Sunny Sky Realty LLC and Twenty West Avon Road Associates LLC, applicants, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 18 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520018, in a CS Zone. APPROVED.
App. #4546 - Jodi Oh, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit in-ground pool and associated tree work within 150’ ridgeline setback area, 6 Deer Ridge Road, Parcel 5090006, in an RU2A Zone. APPROVED.
Dated at Avon this 8th day of June, 2011. Copy of this notice is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Avon Town Hall.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, June 28, 2011, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Senior Center on the following:
App. #4547 Proposed Amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development to adopt Design Guidelines for Avon Village Center Zone; Town of Avon, applicant.
App. #4548 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Colony Grill of Avon LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.b. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, Nod Brook Mall, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone.
App. #4550 Old Avon Realty, LLC, owner, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant, request for 2-lot Subdivision, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059, in an RU2A Zone.
App. #4551 Old Avon Realty, LLC, owner, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.b. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit public school, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059, in an RU2A Zone.
App. #4552 Old Avon Realty, LLC, owner, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit public school with associated parking, access drives, and play area, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059, in an RU2A Zone.
All interested persons may appear and be heard and written communications will be received. Applications are available for inspection in Planning and Community Development at the Avon Town Hall. Dated at Avon this 14th day of June, 2011.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
