The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Senior Center on Tuesday June 28, 2011. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Linda Keith, Marianne Clark, Peter Mahoney and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Christian Gackstatter. Mrs. Primeau and Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent were Carol Griffin 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Keith motioned to approve the June 7, 2011, minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received approval from Mesdames Keith and Primeau and Messrs. Mahoney, Starr, Thompson, and Bonner. Mrs. Clark abstained, as she had been absent from the June 7 meeting but noted that she has read the minutes and is familiar with the content.
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)
Mr. Starr announced that the public hearing for Apps. #4535 and #4539 is being continued to the next meeting, scheduled for July 19. He explained that an application is pending before the Inland Wetlands Commission, who must render a decision before this Commission can take action.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4535 and #4539 to the next meeting, scheduled for July 19. The motion, seconded by Ms. Keith, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to table App. #4536 to the next meeting, scheduled for July 19. 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
Mr. Kushner explained that the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Regulations would create a “floating” zone that would, in turn, provide an opportunity for property owners located within the defined Village Center area to apply to the Commission for a zone change. The adoption of the proposed regulations does not automatically “land” or create the Avon Village Center Zone; a property owner would first need to apply to the Commission for a zone change and an overall master development plan would need to accompany the zone change request. If a zone change approval was granted by the Commission, a property owner would then be required to submit applications for special permit and site plan approval; these applications would be governed by the newly adopted AVC Zone Regulations.
Mr. Kushner noted that there would be a lot of review by the Commission; they will have significant discretion. There will be added flexibility in this new zoning district for property owners, as a greater mix of uses other than those currently permitted under the existing/conventional Zoning Regulations would be permitted.
App. #4547 Proposed Amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development to adopt Design Guidelines for Avon Village Center Zone; Town of Avon, applicant.
Mr. Kushner explained that the proposed amendment to the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) is a companion piece to the proposed adoption of the AVC Zone Regulations. The proposed “Design Guidelines” are intended to inform the applicants as to the Commission’s expectations relative to building design in Avon Center; the intent is to preserve the existing character in Avon Center, including structures built in the 19th century. He further explained that it is intentional to make the Design Guidelines part of the POCD rather than the Zoning Regulations; these guidelines are meant to be more suggestive in nature, include recommendations, and allow for more flexibility than the Zoning Regulations could provide.
Mr. Starr explained that the proposed Avon Village Center Zone Regulations and Design Guidelines have been reviewed and discussed by the Commission over the last several months but added that public comment is allowed.
There being no further input, the public hearing for Apps. #4541 and #4547 was closed.
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.
Present was Ed Tessier who stated that he will be one of the owners of the proposed Colony Grill restaurant in Avon. He explained that the Colony Grill restaurant has existed for 60 years in Stamford; a franchise has been opened in Fairfield and is very successful. He explained that pizza would be the only food item on the menu and the proposal is to occupy the space formerly occupied by the 99 Restaurant.
Mr. Starr commented that no live music is proposed. Mr. Tessier concurred. Mr. Starr commented that operating hours are proposed to be 11 am to midnight, Sunday through Wednesday, and 11 am to 1 am, Thursday through Saturday. Mr. Tessier concurred.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Tessier confirmed that there would be no outside music or outdoor speakers; no music at all is proposed.
Eileen Weiblen, 20 Francis Street, noted her concerns with odors from the proposed restaurant. She asked if details about the exhaust system have been provided. Mr. Tessier explained that there isn’t much exhaust from pizza ovens but noted that he could talk to the manufacturer and provide information at a later date. He noted that there would be no open flames or flat grills. Mr. Starr commented that there would be exhaust through the roof. Mr. Tessier agreed that there would be exhaust through the roof but confessed that he doesn’t know any of the details.
Mr. Starr commented that the details in connection with exhaust could be handled at the Staff level. Mr. Kushner concurred. Mr. Starr explained that if this application is approved, a condition would be imposed such that the applicant would be required to utilize a state-of-the-art exhaust system.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4548 was closed.
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.
Present to represent these applications were David Hoopes, Mayo Crowe, LLC, representing the applicant; Don Walsh, John Mena, and Denise Gallucci, CREC; Luke McCoy and Glenn Yeakel, Friar Associates; and Steve Ullman, Purcell Associates.
Attorney Hoopes explained that the proposal is for a 68,000 square foot elementary magnet school for children ages 3 to 11. The subject site is 10 acres in size and is located at the intersection of Avonwood Road and Waterville Road (Route 10). The subdivision application proposes to split the site into 2 lots; one lot would be approximately 9 acres and the other lot approximately 1 acre. He noted that the applicant has worked extensively with the Town Staff over the last two months to address both technical and substantive planning methods. He added that the applicant believes that all significant issues have been addressed; there are a few minor outstanding technical/engineering issues that are still being worked out with Town Staff.
Mr. Hoopes submitted a document to the Commission entitled “Reggio Magnet School for the Arts, Applicant Comments to Staff Reports, June 28, 2011”, prepared by Friar Associates, Purcell Associates (Engineers), and Mayo Crowe LLC. He added that this document addresses Staff Comments from the Director of Planning and the Town Engineer.
Mr. Hoopes explained that Avonwood Road is a private road but the subject property, 59 Waterville Road, possesses a deeded access easement over Avonwood Road as do both multi-family residential complexes located at the end of Avonwood Road. He noted that the first part of the road, which is the only part that the proposed school would use, is in good shape. He noted that this can’t be said for parts of the road located further back. Mr. Hoopes noted that it is the applicant’s understanding that there has been a dispute in recent years between the 2 housing developments at the end of Avonwood Road (Avon Place and Avon Mill Apartments), as to who is obligated to make repairs to the road. He explained that the applicant has been in contact with one of the property owners and the applicant
has pledged to do what they can to facilitate a global long-term solution when they become a stakeholder in the road. He reiterated that the applicant, Capitol Region Education Council (CREC), would only use the first short part of the road near Route 10, which is in good shape.
Mr. Hoopes addressed traffic and noted that, currently, there is only one off-site traffic issue. It is difficult to make a left from Avonwood Road onto Waterville Road during the peak morning hours. He commented that the applicant’s traffic engineer has indicated that this problem is shared by every side road that intersects with Waterville Road; it is not a unique problem. He added that the applicant believes that they could fix this condition and actually make it better than it is right now, even with the addition of traffic from the proposed school. He explained that getting a traffic light approved by the State Traffic Commission (STC) would improve existing conditions. He added that the applicant’s professionals have met with the STC and, while there is no guarantee, the
feedback is positive that the STC would approve a traffic light. Mr. Hoopes indicated that the applicant would exercise their best efforts to get this light approved.
Luke McCoy, landscape architect with Friar Associates on behalf of CREC, reviewed the proposed subdivision of the existing property.
The existing property that is currently zoned NB (Neighborhood Business) would be left as a 1.42-acre property and the existing yellow barn would remain, as well as 21 parking spaces and landscaping associated with that building. The second parcel (the newly created lot) is zoned RU2A and is where the proposed CREC School would be located. He noted that all required setbacks can be met; the proposed building orientation is such that the front yard setback from Waterville Road is 236 feet and the front yard setback from Avonwood Road is 147 feet. He explained that Town Staff has requested an access road connecting the existing property (yellow barn) with the new school site, as two entrance and exit points onto the school site from Avonwood Road are proposed. The proposed access road would provide
an emergency access from Waterville Road (Route 10) through the existing property in the event of an accident on Waterville Road or if Avonwood Road was closed.
Mr. McCoy reviewed bus drop off and noted that the site is broken up into 2 areas. The buses will enter and exit on the easterly side of the site; there is room for buses to stack in the drop off area as well as in the parking lot, thus avoiding overflow into the road. Parent drop off, both entering and exiting, is located on the west side of the site. Mr. McCoy noted that both parents and buses would exit in the same direction; parents would not cross the bus traffic as was shown in the original plan. He added that this traffic pattern also keeps the area for delivery trucks clear. He noted that a paved play area with a basketball court and a play structure are proposed; a small grass field is also proposed. Two educational pieces are proposed to the north of the proposed school.
An outdoor classroom is proposed which would function as a series of tiered retaining walls as well as provide an exterior teaching area (i.e., an amphitheater). A separate play area for younger children, including a separate play structure, is proposed on the eastern portion of the site. Due to the proposed building orientation, the main entrance faces both Waterville Road and Avonwood Road.
Mr. McCoy addressed landscaping and noting that the proposed planting plan meets all requirements of the Zoning Regulations; plantings are proposed along both frontages. He noted that the applicant would coordinate with Town Staff before any plantings occur, as there are existing utility easements in this area.
In response to Ms. Keith’s concern regarding the location of the loading dock, Mr. McCoy explained that deliveries would be set to occur either before school opens or during a time when there was no activity in that area. He noted that deliveries would not occur during drop off or pick up times. He explained that there would be access to the classrooms from the back of the school, should a delivery occur while the children are outside. He added that it is unlikely that students would exit via the main entrance to reach the play areas; they would most likely exit out of the northwest side of the school.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. McCoy commented that deliveries would be scheduled before school hours.
Denise Gallucci, CREC Superintendent and Avon resident, explained that large scale deliveries (i.e., food, garbage pickup) would typically occur between 6 am and 7 am, prior to school drop off. She noted that there may also be deliveries at the end of the school day but, to date, the school has been unable to determine the times that FedEx and UPS would arrive.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about recycling, Ms. Gallucci noted that specific information relative to recycling vendors has not yet been determined but offered to get back to the Commission on this point.
Mr. McCoy noted that, generally, the drop off area is used for either regular mail or FedEx delivery (FedEx is usually in and out very quickly). Trash pickup is normally not scheduled during drop off and pick up times.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. McCoy explained that school hours are 8:30 am to 3:00 pm.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Ms. Gallucci explained that morning daycare runs from 7:30 am to 8:30 am and afternoon daycare runs from 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm. Ms. Gallucci noted that morning deliveries would occur between 6 am and 7:30 am and prior to any student arrival.
Mr. McCoy explained that the reason for having deliveries occur on the far side of the building is so the trucks can unload and have no interaction with parent or bus traffic.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. McCoy explained that no fencing is proposed around the property. Mr. Bonner noted that Avon has a lot of bears and other animals that wander around; he noted his concern for the children. Mr. McCoy commented that fencing is proposed around the play area but not around the entire school; he noted that it could be discussed with the applicant.
Steve Ulman, PE, addressed the traffic study for the proposed school, which is estimated to be 63,000 square feet and 103 parking spaces. He commented that, normally, this type of proposal would not require an STC Certificate; however, Avonwood Road is a private road that serves condominiums and apartments and businesses located on that road and the aggregate of all that exceeds the STC’s threshold. He explained that the STC is requiring the applicant to file a Certificate. He clarified that a school by itself, without all the aforementioned existing conditions, would not require a Certificate. Mr. Ulman stated that 24-hour traffic counts were done at the intersection of Route 10 (Waterville Road) and Avonwood Road and the intersection of Route 10 and Route 44. Traffic flows were
observed as well as the latest traffic data for accidents at the intersection of Avonwood Road and Route 10. He stated that one proposed driveway on the site is approximately 220 feet to the west of Route 10 and the other is approximately 480 feet to the west of Route 10; the available sightline looking to the west exceeds 480 feet. He added that when looking towards the east, Route 10 can be seen from both driveways. He noted that there is an excess of 700 feet of sightline from Avonwood Road onto Route 10 in both directions. This exceeds the 570 feet needed for the 85th percentile speed of 51 mph. He noted that the latest data available indicates that there have been 5 accidents for the
3-year period from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2008. He commented that the accident data doesn’t show any pattern that would be associated with the need for improvements at the subject intersection.
Mr. Ulman addressed trip generations and noted that the 2008 ITE Trip Generation Manual indicates that the average daily traffic is 561 vehicles in total; the morning peak hour is 159 vehicles and the afternoon peak hour is 110 vehicles. He noted that the afternoon peak hour is the not the normal commuting peak hour but is rather the peak hour for a school. The 159 vehicle count breaks down to 87 vehicles entering in the morning and 72 vehicles exiting in the morning. The evening hour breakdown is 50 vehicles entering and 60 vehicles exiting.
Mr. Ulman explained that the trip generation data is based on average schools throughout the country. He noted that studies and observations show that magnet schools, typically, generate slightly less than normal generation because, generally, a higher percentage of the students are bussed. He commented that the only real traffic problem is left-hand turns out of Avonwood Road. The average delay per vehicle making a left out of Avonwood Road is 208 seconds; the addition of a school would worsen this condition. He indicated that this issue is typical of every side street off of Waterville Road. He explained that a traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted; the intersection meets 3 warrants. Mr. Ulman noted that his findings have been presented to the State Department of
Transportation (DOT) on an informal basis to find out their general feelings about a light at the subject intersection. He explained that the State DOT/STC indicated that they could not give an answer until they review the Certificate but noted that they were not opposed to a traffic light at this location.
Mr. Starr asked about the number and size of buses that would be used for the proposed school.
Don Walsh, Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Operations for CREC, explained that 15 buses would be needed; a mixture of full-size buses and vans would be utilized. Mr. Starr questioned how that number compares to what is being used at the existing CREC School located at 150 Fisher Drive, which is a much smaller student population. Mr. Walsh noted that 15 van size/small buses are currently used at the Fisher Drive location.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Walsh noted that there are, typically, 70 seats in a large bus.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Walsh noted that, typically, there are 20 parent drop offs at the existing CREC school on Fisher Drive.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Walsh noted that Avon children attending the CREC School are bussed according to their need for bussing, which is determined by Avon Public Schools.
Glenn Yeakel, architect for Friar Associates, reviewed proposed building architecture. He addressed the floor plan and noted that there are a number of entrances and exits around the building. The first floor would contain classrooms for Pre-k, kindergarten, and 1st grade; assembly and administrative rooms; and a gym and cafeteria. He explained that a loading area, not a loading dock, is proposed with an overhead door for access. The second floor would be classrooms for 2nd through 5th grade. The second floor would also house faculty rooms and toilet facilities. Mr. Yeakel noted that the proposed architecture utilizing brick masonry aims to keep in scale with the surrounding residential properties; the proposed building height is lower than the existing
yellow barn on the site. The classrooms on the lower level for Pre-k, kindergarten, and 1st grade all have exits into their respective play areas without crossing any vehicular paths.
Don Walsh explained that the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC) is a cooperative owned by the 35 schools districts located in the greater Hartford area. He noted that currently CREC manages 15 magnet schools and 3 special needs schools for challenged children. He added that one of these schools, Reggio Emilia, is currently operating in a temporary location at 150 Fisher Drive. Mr. Walsh addressed 3 areas of concern (overflow parking management, storm water maintenance, and open space) that the Town of Avon has requested assurances for.
He addressed overflow parking and explained that CREC operates differently than many schools with regard to special events. He noted that in many of the schools, including Reggio Emilia, standard operating procedure is to hold large events either at the Metropolitan Learning Center located in Bloomfield or at another CREC operated facility that can accommodate large groups. Due to the fact that students come from a number of different towns/cities, this procedure is often more convenient for participants and also addresses overflow parking issues that schools often experience. He noted, for the record, that a schedule describing all special events to be held throughout the year has been submitted to Mr. Kushner; the schedule includes events to be held both offsite and onsite. The onsite events
include information indicating that the 103 available parking spaces on the site would be more than sufficient. Mr. Walsh stated that CREC is very confident that there would always be plenty of parking spaces on the site and that there would never be a reason/need for anyone to park on Avonwood Road or anywhere except on the school site.
Mr. Walsh addressed storm water maintenance and noted that it is understood that the storm water management facility must be maintained; he added that a narrative would be prepared and submitted containing a schedule acceptable to Town Staff. He noted that the cost of storm water maintenance is approximately $10,500 annually; he noted that the cost is doable and would be included in the School’s annual maintenance budget. Mr. Walsh noted that he has submitted, for the record, a letter stating such. He explained that CREC clearly understands the Town’s requirement that the existing barn be demolished before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; CREC has no problem with this requirement. He conveyed his assurance that the applicant would not seek any change to this requirement if
school construction were permitted. Mr. Walsh noted that he has submitted, for the record, a letter stating such.
Mr. Walsh addressed open space and noted that CREC is seeking a waiver of the requirement for land dedication and/or a fee in lieu of open space. He noted that CREC is owned by 35 school boards of which Avon is one. The proposal is to build a public school for 435 children and the school construction budget has been set. He asked that the Town consider that every $100K that CREC pays the Town as an open space contribution is $100K that cannot be put into the school facility for the student’s benefit. He noted that CREC offers the Town, regardless of the outcome of this issue, access for Town events/groups utilizing both indoor and outdoor CREC facilities. Mr. Walsh noted that CREC appreciates the Town’s consideration in this regard.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Walsh confirmed that any school function that would require more parking spaces than would be provided on site (103 spaces) would be held offsite in Bloomfield.
Mr. Hoopes addressed the Subdivision Regulations and the requested waiver of the open space requirement. He noted that the open space requirement can be satisfied by either dedicating 10% of the land area or by making a payment in lieu of land dedication. He explained that because there is no extra land on the subject site, the applicant requests that a payment in lieu of open space land dedication be permitted. Mr. Hoopes commented that the open space requirement is not mandatory; it is permissive by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. He indicated that the open space requirement is more appropriate for a large parcel of land that is going to be divided into many lots. He added that it is less appropriate for a 2-lot subdivision, particularly a commercial 2-lot subdivision that could
easily be developed as a single project where no subdivision would be needed and no open space required. Mr. Hoopes requested that the Commission exercise their right to waive the open space requirement.
Mr. Hoopes addressed the recently approved text amendment to the Zoning Regulations pertaining to lot coverage in the RU2A zone; the amendment permits, by special exception approval of the Commission, lot coverage in excess of 10%. He noted that the proposed School’s lot coverage is approximately 11.1%. He explained that because the State imposes certain requirements for school construction, it is not possible to get the lot coverage below the current 11.1%. He explained that the applicant has addressed the Staff’s Comments in a document entitled “Reggio Magnet School for the Arts, Applicant Comments to Staff Reports, June 28, 2011”, submitted for the record. He noted that most of the comments relate to making sure that the extra lot coverage doesn’t adversely impact
the neighbors.
Mr. Hoopes addressed the Special Exception Criteria, Section VIII of the Zoning Regulations, and noted that it falls into two broad categories; the first category being whether the subject site, in general, is suitable for a school. He noted that this issue was addressed when the applicant requested a zone change at a previous meeting. He commented that the subject site is suitable for a school, as there is an existing commercial corridor along Route 10 and fairly large multi-family developments to the rear of the site. The applicant believes that a school use is a good transition between the two existing uses, as the impacts from a school are similar and, in some respects, less than those of commercial uses. Mr. Hoopes commented that for this reason, the applicant feels the subject site is an
excellent location for a school. The second category involves the site plan specifics and the specific impacts that the development would have on the neighbors. Mr. Hoopes commented that the applicant believes that tonight’s presentation demonstrates that the proposed project is very well designed. The proposed school would be attractive and work well in terms of traffic, both internally and externally. He noted that the existing traffic problem on Avonwood Road of making left turns onto Avonwood Road during morning peak hours would be resolved. Mr. Hoopes commented that the applicant feels that they have demonstrated that the proposed use is harmonious with the abutting properties and, in many ways, is a much better use than an office or commercial use. The proposed school is smaller than the medical office use that was approved some years ago. He noted that the design of the proposed school has had a lot of input from the Town Staff
and added that the applicant appreciates the cooperative attitude and assistance provided by the Town. In conclusion,
Mr. Hoopes noted that many professionals and CREC educators are present to address questions.
Mrs. Clark commented that it was indicated earlier that parent drop off was estimated at 20 vehicles. She noted that on the handout entitled “Facts about the planned facility”, it states that the estimated number of vehicles for parent drop off is 40 to 60; she asked for clarification.
Ms. Gallucci explained that 40 to 60 vehicles is the maximum number of vehicles projected for the number of preschool students. She noted that this is not an accurate number of what is occurring today. She explained that CREC’s security office has done several counts and a typical day averages 20 parent drop off between the hours of 7:30 am and 8:30 am. She added that the number of preschool students would remain the same and the parents of preschoolers are not the typical parents who are dropping off students. Mrs. Clark commented that it is possible that there could be more preschoolers. Ms. Gallucci agreed but explained that during the last 3 years the number of preschool students has not increased. She noted that the average is 20 parents per day dropping off and picking up
their children. Entrance and dismissal times are staggered so the drop offs and pick ups don’t occur all at the same time.
Mrs. Primeau commented that Avon Public Schools have paved areas around the schools for fire trucks/equipment. She commented that there is no way for a fire truck or an emergency vehicle to access the rear or sides of the proposed building. Mr. McCoy concurred and explained that the proposed building would be fully sprinkled. The applicant has met with the Town Staff and the Fire Marshal on this issue; the Fire Marshal does not require a full access around the school due to the building being fully sprinkled. He noted that the Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans for the school and has indicated his agreement with the proposed plan, as it meets his requirements for access to the building.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Ms. Gallucci explained that the University of Hartford Magnet School located in West Hartford is a similar design to the proposed school. The Montessori Magnet School at the Learning Corridor in Hartford shares the same typical hometown feel. She noted that the look of small houses is a typical CREC design to ensure a feeling of family, as many children come from a variety of communities throughout greater Hartford.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question about what towns students come from, Ms. Gallucci explained that students attending a Reggio School come from 28 towns; these towns are listed in the information packet submitted for the record. She noted that the majority of the students, 50%, come from Hartford; approximately 30% to 40% come from the Farmington Valley with the remaining small percentage coming from the outside.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question regarding other schools of similar population size, Ms. Gallucci explained that CREC has 7 elementary schools; 3 are currently in development and opened in 2008, similar to the Reggio Magnet School. Schools similar in population to the proposed school are the University of Hartford Magnet School, Glastonbury Elementary Magnet School, and Montessori Magnet School. She noted that these schools serve the same number of towns. She explained that the number of buses and drop offs for these schools are typical; 15 buses per school except for East Hartford and Glastonbury, which is lower. She noted that the numbers for parent drop off is low at all of the schools, approximately 20 to 30 families. Mr. Mahoney commented that he would like to see some real
numbers. Ms. Gallucci indicated that that information could be provided.
Mrs. Primeau commented that it is her understanding that all of the Avon Public Schools are sprinkled and that access for fire trucks/emergency vehicles is also provided.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that he doesn’t know whether all the public schools in Town are sprinkled but noted that he could find out. He confirmed Mr. McCoy’s earlier comments that the Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and finds the proposed access to be adequate.
Mr. Starr opened the hearing for public comment.
Linda Moses, 31 Brian Woods Drive, noted that her son attends a CREC School and conveyed her support for the proposed school on Waterville Road. She commented that she feels this school is a great educational facility and has been a valuable asset to our community, as it brings new people and ideas and has enriched the life of her child. She read a prepared statement of support.
Robert Paine, Avon resident, asked whether the proposed location is the only place in Avon to locate the proposed CREC School. He commented that he doesn’t feel Waterville Road is a good location and asked whether people would send their children to a school located on a highway. He noted that he can’t believe how much time and effort has been spent on the proposed location and added that it is the most disgusting thing he has ever seen. He commented that magnet schools are super and the results are great; parents are greatly involved. He reiterated that a better location should be found, as the school is needed.
The maintenance supervisor for Avon Place Apartments, located on Avonwood Road, noted that he is very familiar with the road and the subject property. He indicated that his concerns do not involve the proposed school or any other use of the subject site. He noted that his concerns relate to the increased use of the road, as it is a privately owned by the developer of the property. He indicated that the first portion of the road was repaved approximately 5 years ago and added that the road was never accepted as a Town road because it doesn’t meet Town road standards. The road has little to no subsurface drainage. He noted that there have been severe water conditions under the road’s surface, even since the repaving, causing severe potholes. He added that these problems are
within the 480-foot section of the road from Route 10; it’s not a good situation. He requested assistance from the Commission, if possible, to put pressure on the road’s owner and on the adjacent land owner to come to some agreement for improvements to the existing conditions. He added that it is not a road that should be used for school traffic or any other regular business traffic.
Jeff Brighenti, 60 Quail Ridge Drive, asked what the amount of the fee in lieu payment would be.
Mr. Kushner stated that the amount has not yet been determined but explained that, under State Law, the amount would be equal to 10% of the fair market property value prior to any Commission approvals. He added that it could be in the range of $150K to $200K.
Mr. Brighenti suggested that the Commission consider not waiving that fee. He noted that he owns the small shopping center on the other side of Avonwood Road and asked whether having a school on the subject site could prevent certain types of businesses from occupying his site. For example, a restaurant with alcohol, liquor store, etc.
Mr. Kushner confirmed that there are separation requirements under the Zoning Regulations between schools, either public or private, and adjoining uses that operate with either a restaurant liquor permit or a package store permit. He indicated that this could be an issue under the current rules.
Mr. Brighenti requested that the adjoining properties be looked at in consideration of future development uses.
Margaret Bratton, 15 Old Mill Road, commented that there isn’t a lot of commercial property in Avon and now the subject site has been changed to residential; she noted that the Town will lose tax revenue every year. She noted that the proposed school location is near Avon Mountain, where there is already a lot of traffic during peak hours, and two apartment complexes located at the end of Avonwood Road. She commented that no referendum for the proposed school is required and questioned what the long-term effects would be. She asked the Commission to vote no to the subject proposal.
A female resident of Hunters Run in Avon asked whether the population of the proposed school is capped at 450 students, K through 5, or if an expansion is possible.
In response, Ms. Gallucci explained that the school construction grant awarded by the State Department of Education is for a Pre-K through Grade 5 school of 435 students. She noted that there is no possibility of expanding grade levels beyond Grade 5.
Mr. Starr added that the subject property is not large enough to add any additional physical space.
Robin Schwartz, 88 Harris Road, noted that she has lived in Avon for 25 years. She noted her support of the proposed CREC School at the subject location on Waterville Road. She noted that she commutes to work on Waterville Road and the traffic is fairly light. She asked how many students at the CREC School on Fisher Drive live in Avon and also asked if that number would increase at the proposed location.
In response, Ms. Gallucci explained that currently there are 253 students at the CREC School on Fisher Drive; 28 of those students are Avon residents. She noted that CREC is currently working with the Avon Board of Education to determine whether or not it would be favorable for the Board of Education to enter into an agreement for a certain number of students. Ms. Gallucci noted that conversations are ongoing and nothing has been settled to date.
Ms. Schwartz commented that the increase in the size of the proposed CREC school, as well as the interest of Avon residents to be able to have their children in a larger and more permanent school for more total number of years, would serve more Avon residents in the future.~ It would also take the pressure off of the other Avon public schools in terms of future enrollment.~ She noted that she is in favor of public education and noted her support to keep the proposed school in Town.~ She added that looking at only the fiscal impacts is not in keeping with the context of how many Avon residents view the proposed school.~ She reiterated her support to keep Reggio in Avon.~
Eric Throndson, resident of 48 Avonwood Road and President of the Avonwood Road Residents Association, commented that the Association is not opposed to a school on the subject site but is opposed to it being put there badly. He noted that it is understood that someday something will occupy this site but it must be done in the right way. The issues of Avonwood Road must be resolved before anything else can be resolved. He noted that he is also a member of the Avon Place Condo Association who paid for the repaving of the portion of Avonwood Road that the proposed school would be using; this Association pays for snow removal and repair. He noted that he doesn’t feel it is fair for the Association to continue to subsidize the maintenance of the road. He commented that the road needs to
become a public/Town road; the road needs to be fixed. He stressed that snow removal, repairs, and landscape maintenance must be addressed up front and before anything else can be discussed. Mr. Throndson indicated that Avonwood Road is not the same as other roads; it serves about 7% of the Town’s population. There is no other means of ingress and egress; the intersection is dangerous, especially traveling northbound on Waterville Road when road conditions are slippery and icy. He noted his feeling that the intersection would need to be redone; the road would have to be widened with a left-hand turn lane to head northbound on Waterville Road. There would also need to be a cutout on the southbound side of Waterville Road to enable vehicles turning right onto Avonwood Road. In addition, Avonwood Road would also need to be widened for exiting vehicles, adding one left-hand turn lane and one right-hand turn lane. He added that Avonwood
Road should be made a no parking, no standing, and no stopping zone to ensure that there would be no parents who may decide that it would be easier to let their children off on Avonwood Road, as opposed to driving into the school site. He further requested that no construction equipment for the proposed school be allowed to park on Avonwood Road. In response to a question from the audience,
Mr. Throndson stated that he doesn’t have a count for the number of members of the Avonwood Road Residents Association, as it is an informal group and there are no membership requirements. He noted that the website has received over 411 unique visitors and there are sections for comments. He commented that the #1 and #2 taxpayers in Avon are located on Avonwood Road, as is a huge portion of the population. He concluded by noting that all the issues need to be addressed for the residents of Avonwood Road.
Ms. Menchetti, 86 Bridgewater Drive, noted that she has children that attend Avon Public Schools as well as a child who attends the Reggio School. She noted her support for earlier comments relative for the need to address the condition of Avonwood Road, as well as the traffic. She commented that Roaring Brook School does not have fire truck access around the entire school building. She noted that her experience at the Reggio School has been that large parent events have been held offsite in Bloomfield. She indicated that drop off and pick up times have not been an issue and neither have truck deliveries; she noted that she feels the School handles these issues very well. She stated that there are no fences around Avon Public Schools or the playgrounds. She added that the playground
equipment at the Reggio School is top notch; the education is top notch and an asset to this community. The Reggio School offers education for 3, 4, and 5-year olds in a full day session, which the majority of the existing elementary schools in Town do not.
Mr. Starr announced that the public hearing for Apps. #4550 and #4551 will be continued to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for July 19. He noted that an application is pending before the Inland Wetlands Commission, who must render a decision before this Commission can act.
Ms. Keith addressed access at the Roaring Brook School and noted that there is a parking lot to the rear with an open field; fire trucks and emergency vehicles can use this access and that is why there is no road.
Mrs. Primeau asked whether the proposed CREC School is required to have sidewalks, as sidewalks were required when the elementary schools in Town (Pine Grove and Thompson Brook) were constructed. Mr. McCoy explained that sidewalks were reviewed with Town Staff and, specifically, the Fire Marshal. A continuing sidewalk is proposed to run all the way around the building; the width of the sidewalk meets the egress requirements based on the Fire Code. Mrs. Primeau commented that sidewalks, one mile in every direction, are required at public elementary schools. She asked if this requirement pertains to the proposed school. Mr. McCoy indicated that it is not a State requirement.
Mr. Kushner noted that sidewalks, while desirable, are not a local requirement either.
Mrs. Primeau requested that the sidewalk requirements be researched for clarification.
Ann Marie Peale, 12 Wyngate, noted that her son attends the CREC Reggio School in Avon. She praised the teachers and the Staff at the Reggio School; she noted that her son has Downs Syndrome and has made tremendous progress. She commented that the traffic at the public schools in Avon is much worse than at the Reggio School.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Ms. Peale noted that there are 217 students at the Reggio School that her son attends. Mrs. Clark commented that there would be more traffic for a school with 435 students. Ms. Peale concurred.
There being no further comment, Mr. Starr announced that the public hearing for the CREC School proposal will be continued.
Mrs. Clark motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4550 and #4551 to the next meeting, scheduled for July 19. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
Mrs. Clark motioned to table App. #4552 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
The public hearing was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Mahoney motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4541, #4547, and #4548. Mr. Bonner seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4541 Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations to adopt new regulations for Avon Village Center Zone.
App. #4547 Proposed Amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development to adopt Design Guidelines for Avon Village Center Zone; Town of Avon, applicant.
Mr. Starr commented that he believes the proposed regulations for the Avon Village Center (AVC) Zone and the accompanying Design Guidelines are in good form.
Mr. Kushner reported that the only significant testimony in connection with the proposed regulations and Design Guidelines for Avon Center were from Ensign Bickford and Town Staff. He commented that Ensign Bickford has asked for some additional flexibility/modified language in connection with the proposed regulations but added that the regulations could be adopted as proposed and amended at a later date, should it be necessary. He noted that Mr. Jasminski suggested that additional language such as “unless waived by the Commission” could be added to certain areas of the proposed regulations. Mr. Kushner commented that he didn’t know if the Commission wanted to make such a change at this time.
Mr. Starr commented that he would prefer to move forward with the language as it currently exists, as property/market conditions are bound to change as time goes on and modifications to the regulations could be made in the future.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4541, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval. The effective date is July 6, 2011.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4547, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval. The effective date is July 6, 2011.
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.
In response to a discussion regarding cooking odors, Mr. Kushner commented that restaurants that cook with a lot of grease generally create the most odors (i.e., Chinese restaurants, Boston Market, etc.). He pointed out that the proposed restaurant is considerably further away from residential homes than was the former Boston Market location. He suggested that the owner investigate and utilize a state-of-the-art exhaust system to try and control cooking odors. He commented that because the proposed restaurant is just pizza, there should be fewer issues with cooking odors but he added that it is very difficult to guarantee that there wouldn’t be any at all.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4548 subject to the following condition:
1. A state-of-the-art exhaust system shall be used to minimize cooking odors. Equipment detail/specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Planning.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
NEW APPLICATION
App. #4549 Robert Zappalorti, owner, Accubranch, LLC, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for bank with drive thru and modifications to parking, dumpster, and landscaped areas, 232 West Main Street, Parcel 4540232, in a CR Zone.
Present to represent this application were Attorney Robert M. Meyers, representing the applicant; Joseph Lenahan and Mark Vertucci, Fuss & O’Neill, Inc.; Eric LaChapelle, Maier Design Group; and Roland Graziani, First Niagara Bank.
Joseph Lenahan, PE, displayed the site layout of the proposed bank. He noted that the proposed bank would be open fewer hours than the former tenant, Boston Market. The majority of waste from a bank use is paper. He noted that the applicant is proposing to maintain the green space along Lawrence Avenue (90 and 94 Lawrence Avenue); the existing landscaping would be assessed to ensure that the green space requirements are met. A section of green space on the west side of the site would have to be removed to create a drive through. There are currently 31 parking spaces on the site; 8 parking spaces are proposed to be removed leaving 23 spaces. He noted that the existing handicap parking spaces would be maintained. Green space is proposed to be added on the site and the dumpster
location has been reconfigured for better truck access.
Mr. Lenahan addressed access from Route 44 noting that it is understood that many illegal vehicular maneuvers occur. He noted that a substantial increase in the size of the island in the right-in and right-out driveway area is proposed. He noted that the existing two-way connection to Town Fair Tire would be maintained and signage is proposed to improve traffic circulation. He explained that there is room for a Chevrolet Suburban to access both the teller and ATM lanes and there is room for a vehicle to pass; there is 18 feet from the island to the curb and the standard parking space is 9-feet wide. He noted that there is sufficient room for a garbage truck to access the rear of the site and then exit; there is 18 feet from the canopy to the curb line.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Attorney Meyers explained that the Francis Lawrence Neighborhood Association has requested that trash pickup be limited to the hours of 10 am to 5 pm. He suggested that trash pickup hours not be limited due to the fact that the bank will only have a trash pickup once per week or possibly only once every two weeks. In addition, all the shredded paper (the majority of the trash) would be picked up separately by a shredding company during normal banking hours. Mr. Meyers commented that it would be a bad idea to impose a condition where trash pickup occurred while the bank was open, as that could create a traffic conflict at the ATM and teller.
Eric LaChapelle, architect, explained that the existing building is brick veneer with aluminum gutters and a simulated slate shingle roof. The proposal is to replace the stucco with fitted brick veneer. The wood paneling would either be painted or replaced with PVC material; a 9-inch trim band is proposed for the top of the building to enhance the existing roof. A drive-through canopy, approximately 14’ to 18’ off the building, is proposed. The canopy would be held up by two structural columns that match the existing building. Two recessed down lights are proposed for the canopy. He noted that the existing 6 lights in the front of the building are proposed to be removed and replaced with two wall packs. A photometric plan has been submitted for the existing site
lighting, which would remain as is, as well as the new lights.
Mr. LaChapelle addressed signage and noted that a 24-square-foot sign is proposed; the Zoning Regulations would permit a 60-square-foot sign (1 square foot per lineal foot of building frontage). He added that no signage design information is currently available. He concluded by noting that the existing aluminum windows would remain.
Mark Vertucci, PE, addressed traffic and vehicle circulation. He noted that access to the site from Route 44 westbound would be provided via a right in and right out driveway; the existing drive would be reconfigured to result in more restrictive right in and right out movements. He explained that more restrictive movements discourage vehicles from turning left onto Route 44 when exiting the site as well as discourage vehicles from turning left into the site when heading eastbound. He noted that secondary access would be provided via a driveway that connects the subject site with the remainder of the Town Square development (Town Fair Tire and Bank of America). Customers could travel through the Bank of America and Town Fair Tire site to access the traffic light across from the Walmart plaza (TJ
Maxx plaza).
Mr. Vertucci addressed parking and noted that the layout is similar to what existed for Boston Market; there is parking on the south and east sides of the building. The proposed drive through lane is on the west side of the building; one lane for the teller and one lane for the ATM. The cueing storage provided is for 7 vehicles with enough room to stack 2 vehicles at the teller, 2 vehicles at the ATM, and 3 vehicles along the north side of the building. He noted that the ITE Manual recommends 4 vehicles in the cue for a bank. He explained that counts for both
the Simsbury Bank and the Farmington Savings Bank were done; cues for both banks average between 2 and 5 vehicles. A sign for “drive through traffic only” would be utilized but an 8 to 10-foot-wide bypass lane/area would also be provided.
Mr. Vertucci addressed a traffic generation comparison between the proposed bank and the former Boston Market. Rates for both uses were reviewed, as provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. He noted that the Manual indicated that a bank would generate significantly less traffic during a weekday midday peak period and about the same traffic during a weekday afternoon peak hour. Mr. Vertucci noted that at the request of Town Staff, traffic counts were also conducted at the Simsbury Bank and the Farmington Savings Bank as well as at a similar Boston Market location in Glastonbury. He explained that the counts reveal that the bank traffic tends to peak at the same time as Boston Market, during the weekday midday peak hour and at lunch time. He further explained that these peak times do not
overlap with peak times on Route 44 (7 am to 9 am and 4pm to 6 pm). He commented that on Saturdays the bank would typically be open only from 9 am to 12 noon, which is before the retail peak hours, which normally occur around lunch time into the early to mid afternoon. Saturday lunch traffic for Boston Market peaked between 12 noon and 2pm which overlapped with the retail traffic; the proposed bank would result in less traffic impact on Saturdays. He added that the actual trip generation rate counts at both local banks and the Boston Market were nearly identical; the average of the two banks versus the Boston Market showed a difference of only one or two trips for both weekday midday and weekday afternoon peak hours. This information is included in the Traffic Impact Statement, dated June 8, 2011. Mr. Vertucci stated that the traffic study concludes that the proposed bank would not have a significant impact on traffic operations either on Route 44 or
to the internal circulation for the Town Square development. He explained that the Town Square project (Town Fair Tire, Bank of America, proposed bank site) is certified by the State Traffic Commission (STC) but because there is a request for a change of use an administrative review is required; an application is currently pending and approval is expected within the next 2 to 3 weeks. Mr. Vertucci further explained that the proposed changes to the right in/right out driveway require work in the State right-of-way which, in turn, requires an encroachment permit.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that he met with the bank Vice President regarding hours of operation who indicated that the bank would close at 3pm or 4pm with a possible extension to 5pm but no later.
Mr. Meyers communicated that information relative to site lighting has been provided. The civil engineer has indicated that there is enough room for a Chevrolet Suburban to access the teller and ATM lanes. He noted that the bank has provided, at the Town’s request, a maintenance plan for the parking lot (catch basins) and also a statement from the bank indicating that there would be sufficient funds in their budget to implement the maintenance plan. Mr. Meyers explained that although the applicant does not object to a condition, if an approval is granted, noting that a restaurant could not utilize the drive through he further explained that any restaurant use at this site would require special exception approval by the Commission. He clarified that the only food intended to be served is dog
biscuits and lollipops via the drive through window.
Mr. Meyers addressed signage on the site and noted that the neighbors have asked that the bank be responsible to replace the “no left turn” sign should it disappear. He noted that the bank would take responsibility for signs located on their property but clarified that the “no left turn” sign is located in the State right-of-way. He explained that if the State allows the bank to replace the “no left turn” sign they would be happy to.
Mr. Meyers addressed the right in/right out access drive onto Route 44 and noted that, although it would be costly, the bank has agreed to have this area reconfigured, as they realize it would benefit their day to day operations. He asked that if this item is made a condition if an approval is granted that it be worded such that if the State Department of Transportation (DOT) approves an encroachment permit, the work would have to be performed. He noted that if the State does not issue a permit, the changes cannot be made.
Mr. Meyers addressed sidewalks and noted that Mr. Kushner has suggested that the bank construct approximately 600 feet of sidewalk, 5-feet wide, to extend along the subject site as well as the adjacent sites to the west. He noted that while the applicant understands the Town’s concerns and the importance of sidewalks, this request would be disproportionately expensive in comparison to the scope of the project and indicated that the bank has asked that this condition not be imposed. He explained that the bank would have no authority to construct sidewalks on the adjacent properties (Town Fair Tire and Bank of America), as they are under different ownership control. He further explained that most of the pedestrian traffic crossing Route 44 at this location can be put into 2 groups (Town Fair Tire
customers and employees wishing to patronize the Walmart plaza and Walmart customers wishing to shop at TJ Maxx) which has no real connection to the subject site and the proposed bank. He noted that no bank customers are expected to arrive on foot and requested that a sidewalk requirement/condition not be imposed.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels the bank should construct a sidewalk along the frontage of the subject building. He noted that if every property owner along Route 44 follows this protocol, eventually each site would have a sidewalk. He added that he doesn’t feel it is necessary to extend the sidewalk into the rest of the Town Square site.
In response to Mr. Meyers’ question, Mr. Starr stated that the sidewalk should be constructed now, without ends, as someday it would be extended as adjacent properties are redeveloped. Mr. Meyers commented that the applicant would work with Town Staff to determine the location of the sidewalk. If the location decided upon is located in the State right-of-way, permission from the State would be required. Mr. Starr concurred.
Mr. Starr commented that adequate internal signage is needed for people on the site trying to exit onto Route 44, heading either east or west; adequate signage is also needed for the drive through lanes. Mr. Meyers noted that the applicant is agreeable to whatever signage the Town deems appropriate/necessary.
Mr. Starr addressed site lighting and commented that the parking lots lights should be turned off earlier than midnight, as represented earlier. Mr. Meyers suggested that the lights be turned off an hour after the bank closes. Mr. Starr concurred
Mr. Mahoney asked whether a drive-up ATM is the only one proposed. Mr. Meyers explained that the current proposal is for the lane nearest the bank to be a live teller and the outside lane to be an ATM. He further explained that this setup was decided by New Alliance Bank which has since been changed to First Niagara Bank, who is now deliberating whether this is the best setup. He added that consideration is being given to locate the ATM next to the building and have the live teller more remote. Mr. Meyers clarified that the applicant is requesting the current proposed setup and noted that if things change, the applicant would return with a site plan modification. Mr. Mahoney commented that 24-hour lighting is needed for the ATM. Mr. Starr concurred that security lighting would be needed
for the ATM.
Scott Simmons, Chairman of the Francis & Lawrence Neighborhood Association of Avon, asked whether the neighborhood is protected from a restaurant use in the event the proposed bank, if approved, vacates the property. Mr. Starr explained that any request for a restaurant (Class III) use on the subject site requires Special Exception approval by the Commission. Mr. Starr added that drive-up windows are not permitted for restaurants.
Mr. Simmons addressed signage and requested that an extra “no left-hand turn” sign be on hand for when the sign disappears; he explained that the sign disappeared all the time when Boston Market occupied the site. He suggested that the bank be made responsible for the “no left-hand turn” sign because that would greatly reduce the chances of the sign disappearing. Mr. Starr commented that he believes it is likely that the whole post gets taken down.
Mr. Kushner acknowledged that the language pertaining to conditions of approval, if granted, needs to be worked on for the next meeting. He explained that the State would be issuing a formal Certificate to allow work in the State right-of-way and part of the Certificate would reference the approved site plan. Although the Commission has no direct ability to influence the State DOT, the approved plan would contain specific signage recommendations/requirements that the State would expect to be maintained. He noted that the approved plan could state that both the tenant and the property owner are responsible to maintain compliance with the State Traffic Commission’s (STC) approved plan. He noted that, in turn, it would appear that a sign located in the State right-of-way that disappears or is
damaged could be replaced by the owner/tenant without asking permission from the STC. Mr. Simmons noted his agreement but added that it seems like a lot of effort to just keep a sign standing. Mr. Kushner concurred but explained that if the Town gets a call that the sign is down, the Town can call the owner/tenant to ask them to replace the sign in order to remain in compliance with the approved plan; no call to the State would be required.
Mr. Simmons addressed trash pickup and noted his respectful disagreement with Attorney Meyers’ earlier statements. He explained that he has been battling with the owner of the TJ Maxx plaza for the last 10 years about trash pickup times. He noted that trash pickup is permitted between the hours of 8 am and 3pm and explained that he has documented numerous instances over the last 10 years where trash pick up has occurred before 8 am. Mr. Simmons commented that since trash pickup for the bank has been represented to be only once a week or once every other week he noted that he feels it would be more appropriate to inconvenience the bank, as opposed to the neighboring residents, and ask for a reasonable pickup time.
Mr. Meyers commented that he doesn’t believe that trash can be picked while the bank is open. Mr. Simmons suggested that trash pickup could occur after 12 noon on Saturdays. Mr. Meyers indicated that it would be difficult to get a trash company to set their route/schedule around a customer who has trash pickup only once a week.
Mr. Starr commented that this application will need to be tabled to the next meeting in order to work on language for approval conditions, should an approval be granted. He added that, in the mean time, it would be helpful if information relative to trash pickup times for the Farmington Bank and the Simsbury Bank could be investigated.
Mrs. Primeau asked whether a safety light, facing downward, could be installed on the back side of the building so the area wouldn’t be totally dark, including the ATM.
Mr. LaChapelle explained that the parking lot lights are proposed to be turned off after midnight but a security light currently exists over the back door. He noted that the fixture may need to be replaced with more of a “down light” fixture. Mrs. Primeau noted her agreement and added that it should be lit such that the light doesn’t go off the property.
There being no further input, Mrs. Clark motioned to table App. #4549 to the next meeting, scheduled for July 19. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Request for rock crushing at Kingswood Phase IV - Michael Mansour
Mr. Mansour was present and explained that Fay & Wright Excavating use the most up-to-date equipment and methods to eliminate noise in connection with rock crushing. Ms. Keith asked whether the crushing would be constant or if breaks would be taken. Mr. Mansour commented that he doesn’t think there would be any breaks other than at lunch time (30 to 45 minutes) but noted that the operators would have to refuel the machines from time to time. In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Mansour noted that he believes the crusher would be located at least 500 feet from the nearest house. Mr. Kushner commented that an alternative method, although not very practical and less efficient, would be to setup the crusher some distance down Windsor Court. He added that setting up the crusher
next to where the rock currently exists makes the most sense but it is located within 500 feet of the closest house. Mr. Mansour noted that moving up Windsor Court brings you closer to some of the existing houses. In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Mansour noted that no blasting is proposed as it was done a few years ago.
Mr. Starr questioned whether all the crushing could be done by the end of August. He suggested a schedule of Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4 pm.
Mr. Kushner explained that the contractor indicated that once the job got going he wouldn’t need that many days to complete it.
Mr. Mansour concurred. Mr. Kushner commented that it would be a good idea to approve a maximum number of days. Mr. Mansour commented that the contractor estimates between 15 and 20 days, acknowledging that there would be some days that crushing could not occur (i.e., weather issues).
Mr. Starr proposed that crushing could occur on 20 days during the months of July and August, Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4pm. Mr. Mansour concurred.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve rock crushing for Phase IV of the Kingswood Subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. Rock crushing is permitted for a total of 20 days during the months of
July and August; crushing shall be completed by the end of August, 2011.
2. The permitted hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 7:30 am
to 4 p.m.
3. The crushed material shall be used on site and no material shall be transported off site.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on June 28, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4541 Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations to adopt new regulations for Avon Village Center Zone. APPROVED. EFFECTIVE JULY 6, 2011
App. #4547 Proposed Amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development to adopt Design Guidelines for Avon Village Center Zone; Town of Avon, applicant. APPROVED. EFFECTIVE JULY 6, 2011
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. APPROVED WITH CONDITION.
Dated at Avon this 29th 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, July 19, 2011, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Senior Center on the following:
App. #4554 William Deramo, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot Resubdivision, 2.69 acres, 359 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520359, in an R40 Zone.
App. #4555 William Deramo, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.5.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit waiver of density requirement, 359 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520359, in an R40 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 5th day of July, 2011.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
