The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday February 22, 2011. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Linda Keith, and Alternates Elaine Primeau and Donald Bonner.
Mrs. Primeau and Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent were Carol Griffin, Marianne Clark, Edward Whalen, David Cappello, and Alternate Christian Gackstatter. 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 January 25, 2011, meeting minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve the February 8, 2011, meeting minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4525 - Farmington River Professionals, LLC, owner/ applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for building addition and miscellaneous improvements, 70 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520070, in an OP Zone.
Present to represent this application were David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers, LLC; Andrew Kuhlberg, DMD, owner, Richard Lawrence, AIA, The Lawrence Associates; Robert Durbois, The Masters Construction Corporation; and Robert Murphy, Designs from Space.
Mr. Whitney noted that the existing building has been a dental office for many years; the applicant proposes a small addition to the rear of the building as well as a small vestibule addition to the front of the building. He noted that the additions fall within the building envelope and the site is located in the Office Park zone. Mr. Whitney explained that because the proposed addition will extend out to the existing septic system, the site will be connected to the existing sewer lateral located on the adjacent property; an easement is in place and a note to this effect has been added to the plans. He noted that there is an existing well on the site but the applicant would like to connect to public water (which is available) as part of this construction project. He added that the total impervious
surface including the small additions equates to approximately 37%, which is well below the 50% maximum permitted. Mr. Whitney noted that the basement would be used for storage; only the first floor is office use. The parking requirement is 16 spaces; the existing parking lot has 21 spaces. He explained that Mr. Kushner requested that a note be added to the plans indicating that, in the future, if the basement were to be used for something other than storage that the applicant would be required to return to the Commission. Mr. Whitney noted that the applicant understands and agrees to comply with this requirement. He commented that he believes all Staff Comments have been addressed. The existing septic tank will be abandoned in accordance with Health Code requirements in response to comments by the Farmington Valley Health District; this information has been noted on the plans.
Mr. Lawrence noted that Dr. Kuhlberg feels it is necessary to improve the physical space of the building, which was originally constructed in 1969 as a residence consisting of 1,100 square feet. In 1979 the building was enlarged and renovated to become a dental office. He noted that 6 dental chairs and the operatory space will be moved to the rear of the building once the addition is complete; there will be no increase in the number of dental chairs but the expansion will provide more space, which is required by current dental practices. Mr. Lawrence noted that the proposal is to replace the existing façade, repaint the outside, and add new shingles. The vestibule proposed for the front of the building would provide a more inviting entrance.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve App. #4525 subject to the following conditions:
1. The basement level shall be used for storage only. Should the building owner wish to change the basement use, he shall return to the Planning and Zoning Commission to address parking needs.
2. The existing septic tank must be properly abandoned and documentation provided to the Farmington Valley Health District, in accordance with their comments dated 2/21/11.
The motion, seconded by Ms. Keith, received unanimous approval.
App. #4526 - Lexham Avon, LLC, owner, Don Hammerberg Associates, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to modify interior and façade of existing building to house urgent care facility, 339 West Main Street, Parcel 4540339, in a CR Zone.
Present to represent this application were Mark Shipman, Shipman, Sosensky & Marks, LLC; Mark Fey and Don Hammerberg, architects, Don Hammerberg Associates; Gary Grom, site engineer, Pereira Engineering; John Manners, interior architect for Harford Hospital, The Casle Corporation; Gary Hath, LA, CR3; and Karen Goyette, VP Strategic Planning, Hartford Hospital.
Attorney Shipman stated that the proposal is for a medical office building.
Mr. Fey noted that the subject proposal is for a façade facelift/upgrade along with minor site and interior renovations for an existing 13,000-square-foot building located at 339 West Main Street (former home of Blockbuster Video since 1989). He noted that the left side of the building has been vacant and difficult to lease due to the number of support columns but clarified that this situation would be rectified. Mr. Fey explained that the subject proposal would provide another quality medical office location for residents; Hartford Hospital would lease the entire building.
Ms. Goyette explained that the proposal is for a satellite medical facility with a walk-in center; a primary care practice that would handle both walk in visits as well as primary care scheduled appointments. She noted that Hartford Hospital operates approximately 13 such centers throughout Connecticut. She added that a type of time-share office would also be contained within the facility to house specialists that would rotate throughout the building. In addition, some minor radiology procedures/x-ray diagnostics as well as a lab drawing station will also be available. She noted that Hartford Hospital has a long-standing commitment to Avon; the subject proposal would complement the existing Hartford Hospital services located on Simsbury Road and Fisher Drive.
Mr. Fey explained that the interior layout is still a work in progress. He noted that an exterior design concept is being developed that would be advantageous to the patients as well as provide an aesthetically-pleasing street view. He noted that some roof-top units are proposed to be added; he added that John Manners is working on the interior design. Towers are proposed for the front of the building to add elevation and verticality to the building as well as enhance the streetscape, which currently is bland and low and exhibits mostly roof views. He noted that the proposed towers would provide an area for sign panels and complement design elements found on buildings located across the street; the color of choice currently is green. The location of the windows and doors will not be known
until the interior design is completed. The addition of vertical façade that would meet the towers is proposed in a maintenance-free material that would allow panels to be added to the building. A retaining wall located on the side of the building blocks any utility boxes that may be visible. An accessible entrance to the rear of the building will be provided near the center of the building, as this is the only location that meets grade; this entrance would be primarily for hospital employees while patients would enter at the front of the building. Mr. Fey concluded by noting that any changes will be addressed at the next meeting.
Mr. Grom explained that the site has been through a few layout designs and added that the current layout keeps the site essentially the same; the existing parking lot can remain as is and be restriped to conform to current regulations and ADA requirements. He noted that a portion of the rear parking is being removed to allow a greater landscape buffer between the site and neighbors to the rear. He noted that the proposal includes a cutback of the existing center island to let the traffic from Friendly’s exit in a smoother/safer fashion. He explained that handicap parking is proposed for both the front and rear parking areas; currently a total of 95 parking spaces exist but the proposal is to reduce to 85. Mr. Grom noted that the Town Engineer has requested that the existing catch basins and
pipes be flushed and inspected to ensure operability; he noted that this would be done as soon as the weather permits (when the snow melts). In addition, a silt fence will be added on the north side during sidewalk construction to keep the road clean. He added that the proposed 5-foot wide bituminous sidewalk has been changed to concrete, per a suggestion by the Director of Planner.
In response to Mr. Starr’s questions about parking, Mr. Grom explained that 67 spaces is the minimum required in accordance with the Regulations (5 spaces per 1,000 square feet). He noted that Hartford Hospital has asked for 85 spaces. He noted that currently there are 9 handicap spaces. Mr. Starr asked if 9 spaces was adequate and added that there can’t be too many handicap spaces. Ms. Goyette explained that 10% is the standard.
Mr. Starr inquired about a patient drop off area. Ms. Goyette commented that she has asked for an enhancement of the patient drop off area; a canopy over the main entrance would be helpful. She noted that the plans are still in progress. Mr. Starr commented that the patient drop off area is an important aspect of the building even if a driver doesn’t need handicap parking. He added that the drop off area should be designed such that it does not cause cueing problems at the entrance.
Mr. Kushner commented that the Hospital is asking for 6 parking spaces per 1,000 sq ft; the Regulations require 5 spaces per 1,000. He noted that much of the parking is located to the rear of the building, which, for the most part, has gone unused. He commented that it may be beneficial to encourage hospital staff to use the rear parking in order to free up some of the parking in the front. As the interior layout is finalized, it may help to encourage some of the patient traffic to the rear.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Grom noted that there are 32 spaces in the rear. Ms. Goyette commented that the Hospital likes the dedicated parking to the rear and noted that the Hospital is strict about requiring employees to park in the furthest location from the entrance to keep the best access for the patients. She noted that employee parking is monitored as much as possible.
Mr. Kushner commented that employee parking at The Wellness Center on Simsbury Road has been a problem even with the several tiers of signage that exists. He noted that the doctors appear to be the biggest violators and asked that this issue be given special consideration at the subject location.
Mr. Starr pointed out that there was never an entrance to the rear of the building at 339 West Main Street that was open to the public before, so no one would have ever parked in the rear.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels that assigning parking spaces to the doctors appears to be the only way to achieve compliance.
Mr. Shipman commented that assigning doctor spaces near the rear entrance may work.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she feels the patient drop off area should be located closer to the east side of the building to avoid crowding and jamming up of cars. Ms. Goyette noted her appreciation and agreement that having the drop off located further to the east would be beneficial but added that the drop off has be near the entrance.
Mr. Bonner commented that he would not ever want to see a mobile MRI unit/truck located behind the subject building, as there are residences nearby. Ms Goyette stated that she doesn’t think that an MRI unit would ever be located behind the subject building, as the site is very small. She noted that, generally, the sites that would house a mobile MRI unit are in the range of 30,000 square feet. Mr. Bonner added that he would like it put in writing that the subject location would never have a mobile MRI unit.
In response to Mr. Starr’s comments, Mr. Fey reiterated that the subject proposal is a work in progress; there are many issues being worked on, including the ones discussed this evening. He commented that many issues, if not all, should be worked out by the next meeting. Mr. Starr noted that the Commission has provided positive comments about the facility.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that a separate application for signage will be required. The basic proposal is two signs on the building and one freestanding sign.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about the proposed location of the wall signs, Mr. Fey explained that Hartford Hospital is currently changing their sign/logo and therefore the sign shape/layout may change from what is currently shown on the drawings. Ms. Keith noted her concerns with the current proposed signage, as it is busy and would be located very high on the building. She added that the signage should be clarified before any changes are made to the façade. Mr. Fey explained that the proposed letter height for the building is approximately the same height as the largest letters currently found on Route 44. Ms. Goyette commented that she feels the signage criteria should be decided upon in the next couple of weeks. Ms. Keith commented that the proposed freestanding sign
contains a logo and 2 lines of text; a busy sign. Mr. Fey added that the proposed wall sign contains one line of text currently but noted that that may change to two lines.
Mr. Kushner suggested that it would be beneficial for the Commission if the entire sign package were submitted all at once for their review. Mr. Fey explained that two wall signs are proposed along with one freestanding sign and therefore two special exception applications will be required. Mr. Kushner concurred and added that the total square footage of the proposed building signs will be much less than what would be permitted under the Regulations, as normally a building of this size would be split up into several different tenant spaces.
In response to Mr. Thompson’s question, Mr. Fey noted that site lighting will remain the same (as is) but added that a lighting plan would be prepared to ensure compliance. He added that it may be time to change/upgrade the light pole heads.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Ms. Goyette noted that the proposed hours of operation are 7 am to 7 pm.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Ms. Goyette explained that one of the elements being studied is the possibility of pushing the entrance (and the proposed tower) towards the east to make the patient drop off area function better. Mrs. Primeau commented that it would look better if the entrance/tower was pushed down and located in the center of the building.
Mr. Shipman explained that a shared driveway agreement exists with Friendly’s. He explained that the owner does have the right to make road improvements but added that, as a courtesy, Friendly’s will be contacted so they will be aware of what is going on.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to table App. #4526 to the next meeting, scheduled for March 15, 2011. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
App. #4527 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Midwood Management Corp, applicant, request for Site Plan Modification for minor changes to traffic circulation and parking lot layout, Nod Brook Mall, 287 and 315 West Main Street, Parcels 4540287 and 4540315, in a CR Zone.
Present were Kevin Cornell, VP, Midwood Management Corporation, and David Carson, PE, OCC Design Group.
Mr. Carson displayed the approved site plan and addressed the island/median located at the main entrance. He explained that the size of the island/median has been revised to now reflect a conventional standard width. He noted that the connection between the second parking bay and the main entrance has been eliminated such that, now, the entering traffic makes a “definitive decision” to either turn right into The Fresh Market or continue on into the plaza. He noted that the alignment of the “ring road” has been straightened out.
Mr. Starr commented that motorists leaving The Fresh Market must drive in front of the existing Marshalls’ building in order to exit the plaza. Mr. Carson concurred and added that the revised signage plan includes directional signs for traveling east and west on Route 44.
Mrs. Primeau asked how the State Traffic Commission can mandate changes to the entrance island but not allow an area that would enable customers to pass from The Fresh Market to the rest of the plaza. Mr. Cornell noted his understanding and acknowledged that he also, at times, questions the policing powers of the STC. He asked whether their review should be confined to the shopping plaza’s specific impacts on Route 44. He explained that it can be difficult sometimes to get the STC to narrow their focus.
Mr. Carson explained that the STC can force the elimination of a connection between The Fresh Market and the rest of the plaza at the entrance drive because of the possibility of someone making an illegal left-hand turn.
Mr. Cornell further explained that the STC would have preferred to keep the existing entrance drive the way it is now (dropping straight down) and add The Fresh Market traffic into the mix. He noted that this scenario would have resulted in a loss of approximately 50 parking spaces.
Mr. Starr asked if an internal stop sign is proposed for the customers exiting the plaza from The Fresh Market. He noted that a stop sign could be located at the end of the existing building to allow motorists to take a left to exit the site (from the easterly-most driveway). Mr. Carson explained that, currently, no stop sign is proposed in this location but added that if it appears to be necessary in the future it could be added. Mr. Starr suggested that a sign alerting motorists of pedestrian traffic would be beneficial. Mr. Cornell noted that crosswalks have been added to slow things down.
Mr. Bonner commented that he feels the applicant will be returning in a year because the circulation plan is terrible.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Carson noted that he believes the current plan/layout will be approved by the STC, as it reflects all the comments received from the STC at the meetings. He added that the STC has indicated that the entire package must be resubmitted for approval. Mr. Starr clarified that the Commission is being asked to approve the subject site plan, revised to February 17, 2011. He added that an approval condition should note a gross floor area of 100,602 square feet and a total parking count of 627 spaces. Mr. Carson and Mr. Cornell noted their agreement. Mr. Kushner noted that all the prior conditions associated with the approval of App. #4519 should also be included. Mr. Starr concurred.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4527 subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is subject to plan revisions dated February 17, 2011, prepared by
OCC Design Consortium.
2. Building Gross Floor Area is approved at 100,602 square feet.
3. Total parking is approved at 627 spaces.
In addition, the Commission approved App. #4527 subject to the conditions of approval for App. #4519, dated January 25, 2011:
4. As offered by the applicant, in a letter dated January 5, 2011, the applicant shall prepare a traffic study one year, or sooner, from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and shall submit the same to the Planning and Zoning Commission and their staff for the Commission’s determination as to whether additional measures are required to mitigate any negative impacts with respect to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. If the Commission determines that additional improvements relating to vehicle circulation, safety and signage are required, the applicant shall be responsible for completing all reasonably required improvements.
5. Any modifications to these plans, as required by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and or State Traffic Commission (STC) will require additional review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
6. Applicant shall work with Town Staff in developing a final plan for traffic control signage.
7. Deliveries shall be received by the Fresh Market only between the hours of 6 am and 9 pm. Signs shall be posted instructing drivers of delivery vehicles to park to the rear of the main building (Marshalls/Michaels) should they arrive at times outside of these hours. All store managers shall be instructed and shall have the obligation to notify drivers, and/or the companies who employ them, of these rules if they are known to be waiting at the loading dock prior to 6 am or after 9 pm.
8. The final location for the concrete sidewalk to be constructed from the entrance drive to the westerly boundary line parallel to Route 44 shall be determined with Town Staff. In addition, plans shall be highlighted defining an area for an easement to be granted to the Town for future sidewalk construction from the entrance drive running parallel to Route 44 to the eastern boundary line with the Rotondo property (275/279 West Main).
9. Notes shall be added to the site plan indicating that the proposed location for the future driveway connection connecting with property to the west may be altered in the future with the consent of both the applicant and the Commission depending on various redevelopment scenarios for commercial-zoned property along Bailey Road, which abuts this parcel.
10. Final site lighting details to be approved by Town Staff. All “shoe-box” style fixtures shall be full cutoff.
11. Applicant shall work with the State Department of Transportation (DOT) to obtain permission to construct a handicapped-accessible ramp transitioning the new concrete sidewalk to Route 44. In addition, the applicant shall work with the State to make whatever adjustments may be required for the existing pedestrian buttons located on the traffic light signal pole on both the north and south sides of Route 44 and add a striped crosswalk on Route 44 meeting State specifications to better facilitate a safe crossing for pedestrians between the north and south sides of the highway.
12. Provide brick paver crosswalk detail.
13. Applicant shall utilize integral concrete curbing, as shown on detail sheet for all curbs to be constructed in association with these improvements.
14. Applicant shall provide a maintenance plan for all planted areas including, but not limited to, weeding, mulching, fertilizing, and watering, with added detail for how ornamental plants and grass will be maintained on the landscaped entrance islands. In addition, applicants shall provide evidence of a one-year warranty for all plant materials.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Thompson, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies - Annual Conference March 24, 2011
Mr. Starr noted that there are no Commissioners at this time that qualify for either a 12-year or 25-year achievement award but added that members are welcome to attend if they wish.
Proposed Regulations for Avon Village Center Zone - Update
Mr. Kushner reported that he had a long meeting with Town Attorney Zizka to review the proposed regulations for Avon Center. He explained that Mr. Zizka has indicated that he has some concerns about the proposed application process (i.e., Step 1- adopt the new regulations and amend the map; Step 2- file a special exception application for a master plan, and; Step 3 - file individual site plan applications for VDDs). He noted that Mr. Zizka has suggested an alternative approach which has been shared with Ensign Bickford who appears to be in agreement but is thinking it over. Mr. Kushner addressed Mr. Zizka’s suggestions and noted that the Commission would still adopt new text for the Avon Village Center Zone Regulations but would not adopt the proposed AVC Zone boundary as part of the official
Zoning Map. He noted that, instead, the new zone would function as a “floating zone”, which is a fairly common technique even though it has not been used in Avon. The regulations would be created along with the ability for a private property owner to seek a zone change to become part of the AVC Zone (the floating zone). Mr. Kushner explained that Mr. Zizka has indicated that this process is the more traditional method for regulating mixed-use districts; this method would also vest the Commission with optimal discretion.
Mr. Starr pointed out that by using Attorney Zizka’s approach the AVC Zone boundary, initially, would only include property owned by Ensign Bickford. Any and all additional property owners who wished to become part of the AVC “floating zone” would have to apply to the Commission and request a zone change. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mrs. Primeau commented that when the commercial zones in Town were initially created ownership wasn’t a consideration. Mr. Kushner concurred and added that in 1957 the Commission started with a clean slate. Mr. Starr referred to Attorney Zizka’s concerns and pointed out that there are no uses allowed by right in the proposed AVC Zone; all uses require special exception approval but in every other zone there are some uses that are permitted by right. Mr. Kushner agreed and added that there are no “as of right” uses in the proposed AVC Zone. Mrs. Primeau noted her concern about the possibility of properties located in the AVC Zone being sold to new owners who may not want to be included in the Zone. Mr. Kushner noted that Attorney Zizka has indicated his concerns if the
Commission were to decide, on its own, to “float” the AVC Zone on the Marriott Hotel parcel because any/all uses are only permitted by special exception. He further noted that Attorney Zizka has also conveyed his concerns relative to including some of the smaller properties in the AVC Zone, as it would prove burdensome to the property owners; the proposed regulation is designed for larger parcels of land where a master plan investment may make sense.
Mr. Thompson acknowledged that including some of the smaller property owners in the AVC Zone would not bother him if these owners had been included and were on board with the proposal from the beginning but noted that it seems rather late at this point.
Mrs. Primeau questioned how the proposed AVC Zone would affect existing properties in Avon Park North; she added that mixed uses already exist in adjacent properties located in the CS Zone.
Mr. Kushner noted that the Commercial Specialized (CS) Zone is not located far from the proposed mixed-use AVC Zone; many of the uses that currently exist in the CS Zone are the same types of uses that would be encouraged in the AVC Zone. He noted that the Marriott Hotel is located in the CP-A Zone, which is a type of mixed-use zone that permits such uses as retail, offices, and manufacturing. The CP-A Zone doesn’t permit residential uses which will be allowed in the proposed AVC Zone. He added that he feels the CS Zone that currently exists around the perimeter of the proposed AVC Zone provides complementary and transitional uses.
Mr. Kushner stated that he will continue to work on the AVC Zone regulations with the Town’s consultant, Milone and MacBroom, as well as Ensign Bickford; a revised draft reflecting the Commission’s comments/suggestions should be ready for the next meeting.
Mr. Starr clarified that a definition for the proposed AVC Zone would be prepared but no properties would be included in this zone, aside from Ensign Bickford properties, and reflected on the official Zoning Map until such time that a request for a zone change is received from a property owner. Mr. Kushner concurred and added, as clarification to Ms. Keith’s question, that unlike a conventional zone change, a request for a zone change to the AVC Zone would also require the simultaneous submission of a master plan.
Mr. Kushner addressed VDDs and site plan approvals and noted that Attorney Zizka has suggested that special exception approval be required in connection with restaurants that may be proposed in combination with a residential use (i.e., mixed-use concept of residential over retail/restaurants). Mr. Kushner noted that the Commission raised concerns at the last meeting with regard to an entertainment feature (music volume) in a restaurant.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s comment, Mr. Kushner noted that language was added to the proposed AVC Zone Regulations in connection with some type of entertainment feature. He added that Ensign Bickford has indicated that an entertainment feature would be complementary and add to the excitement of the district but they also noted their concerns with financing.
Mr. Bonner commented that a great promoter is the key to a successful entertainment feature. He made a comparison to Infinity Hall noting that something small and charming is what is needed. He added that he feels the building should be enclosed to keep the sound inside.
NON PRINTED AGENDA ITEM
CREC School - Proposal for 59 Waterville Road
Eric Throndson, 48 Avonwood Road, noted his concerns about the possibility of locating a CREC Magnet School at 59 Waterville Road. He explained that he and his neighbors are concerned about the traffic patterns on Avonwood Road. He added that there are approximately 1,000 residents that live on Avonwood Road and there is only one way in and out. He commented that a school containing 450 students with cars and buses would be a pretty severe impact; he noted that the neighbors will be getting involved in the process.
Mr. Starr commented that if a CREC School were to be located on the site, a traffic light would be installed at the intersection of Avonwood Road and Waterville Road. Mr. Throndson commented that a traffic light is needed now, as it is already difficult to get out onto Waterville Road.
There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on February 22, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4525 - Farmington River Professionals, LLC, owner/ applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for building addition and miscellaneous improvements, 70 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520070, in an OP Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
App. #4527 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Midwood Management Corp, applicant, request for Site Plan Modification for minor changes to traffic circulation and parking lot layout, Nod Brook Mall, 287 and 315 West Main Street, Parcels 4540287 and 4540315, in a CR Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
Dated at Avon this 24th day of February, 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, March 15, 2011, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Town Hall, on the following:
App. #4528 - Sylwester Barwinski and Zbigniew Matulaniec, trustees, Rossetti Development, LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit pool within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 485 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090485, 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 25th day of February, 2011.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
