The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, May 17, 2011. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Carol Griffin, Linda Keith, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, and
Peter Mahoney, and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Christian Gackstatter. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve the April 26, 2011, minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received approval from Mesdames Griffin and Keith and Messrs. Mahoney, Starr, Thompson, and Cappello. Mrs. Clark abstained, as she had not been present at the April 26 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 reported that the applicant has requested to continue the public hearing for Avon Self Storage.
Mr. Starr reported that the applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing for Apps. #4535 and #4539, as issues relating to emergency access are being investigated.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4535 and #4539 to the next meeting, scheduled for June 7. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to table App. #4536 to the next meeting, scheduled for June 7. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
App. #4537 - OAVX Associates, LLC, owner, Blink, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.D.3.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit indoor dance and party/entertainment business, Old Avon Village, 45 East Main Street, Parcel 2140045, in a CS Zone
Present were Ann August, OAVX Associates, LLC, owner, and Leanne and Darius Orlowski, applicants.
Ms. August explained that the applicants are proposing a children/teen center in Old Avon Village, Building #45. She noted that the space is approximately 2,000 square feet and is the former home of the Sweet Tooth candy store. She added that the proposed business would be located next to a hair salon, a nail salon, and adjacent to Carmen Anthony’s Restaurant, located at 51 East Main in River Park. She commented that she feels the proposed business would mix well with the existing businesses in Old Avon Village. She added that parking is abundant near Bldg #45 and Carmen Anthony’s uses parking in that area. Ms. August commented that children would be dropped off and, hopefully, the parents would stay in the Village and patron some of the nearby businesses.
Leanne Orlowski stated that the proposal is a party/entertainment venue (i.e., birthday parties, fund raisers, private parties) with dancing offered from DJ-type music.
Mr. Starr commented that all activities (i.e., dancing, music) would occur inside the building. Darius Orlowski confirmed that all activities would be contained inside the building. Mr. Orlowski added that the business would be for children of all ages (i.e., toddlers through high school including middle schoolers).
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Ms. Orlowski explained that the bulk of the parties would be held Friday through Sunday, beginning Friday evening and running through Sunday night. Mr. Orlowski added that parties would be by appointment only; the business would not be open to the public without a scheduled event.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Orlowski explained that the ending time for parties would depend on the type of party. He noted that parties for toddlers/minors would run approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes and would begin in mid afternoon; hours of operation on the weekends would be 9 am to 9:30 pm. He added that if there was a special event/party scheduled it could possibly go later than 9:30 pm but at this time party length and time slots are still in the planning stage. He noted that the larger private parties could last from 2 to 4 hours.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question about ending times for parties for teenagers and young adults, Ms. Orlowski commented that the proposal is to not keep the business open past 11 pm. Mr. Orlowski explained that if an event is catered to a middle-school crowd, only children in that age range would be permitted to attend. He noted that there would not be an application for a liquor license and no smoking would be permitted.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Orlowski commented that the maximum capacity would be set by the Fire Marshal, who has initially indicated that the space could hold a maximum of 150 people. He noted that, typically, birthday parties for younger children would total between 15 and 20 people, 25 maximum. The larger events would be capped at under 100 people. He reiterated that anyone attending a party would have to be invited; no outsiders would be permitted. Ms. Keith asked whether the business owners would be checking individual invitations at the door for parties for older children in the event that uninvited guests show up. Mr. Orlowski explained that if a private party is planned, the parents would likely send out invitations. He added that a non-public event would
remain a non-public event. If the event is a fund raiser or an event open to high schools in other towns, it would be verified at the door that the incoming guests are affiliated with a particular fund raiser or students at a particular school.
Ms. Orlowski clarified that events held for middle/high school students would require that students remain in the building once they arrive. She noted that the intent is to devise a dropoff/pickup time/system to avoid loitering and to ensure that everyone stays inside unless they are leaving the premises.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s comment, Mr. and Ms. Orlowski confirmed that they would be monitoring attendance to ensure that individuals are not wandering around the parking lot. Mr. Orlowski indicated that some type of hand stamp or wrist band system is being investigated.
Mr. Kushner commented that if a large event (up to 150 people) occurred, it is likely that many people would arrive within a 15 to 20 minute window. He asked if traffic circulation for drop off purposes has been considered; would an area be dedicated for drop off and/or would parking spaces be left open. Mr. Orlowski explained that the current configuration of the space would allow traffic to come in, drive through, and loop around. He noted that there are two entrances to access the area. Mr. Orlowski addressed parking and explained that as you face Building #45 and turn north there are 27 parking spaces available on that side. There are 9 additional spaces beyond the stop sign near the oak tree. There are 28 spaces near the hair salon and “Good to Go”. In front of
the building, facing Carmen Anthony’s (near the bagel shop), there are 14 parking spaces; there are 5 spaces in front of “Good to Go”; and 18 spaces along Route 44. He noted that all parking spaces are on the same elevation; there are 101 available parking spaces for all the businesses in the area. He added that many of the businesses/professional offices may not be open during weekend events for the proposed business.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Staff has noted their concerns with the drop off area rather than the parking areas. Ms. Orlowski commented that they have considered dedicating the first 4 parking spaces for a drop off area. She added that most of the events for older children, where they would be getting dropped off, would occur in the evening hours when most of the other businesses would be closed. Mr. Orlowski commented that he believes there is enough room for two-car passage even if one car happens to be parked; the area is not tight in terms of being able to drive around a vehicle. Mr. Kushner commented that the driveway aisle is most likely 24-feet wide, which is the Town standard, which permits 2 cars traveling in opposing directions to pass comfortably. He noted, however, that
there are also parking spaces located on either side of the drive aisle where vehicles would be coming in and out. He asked whether orange cones would be used to block off areas near the front for special events. Ms. August explained that specific information for drop off has not yet been worked out but noted that cones would be a good idea. Mr. Kushner asked whether the carpet store would be okay if certain parking spaces were blocked off during certain times of the week. Ms. August indicated that she feels the parking/drop off area can be worked out with the other businesses.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels the issue is more about the continuous movement of cars than parking. Ms. August commented that instructions relative to a drop off area can be created. Mr. Cappello commented that he feels there is plenty of room in the subject area for stacking cars.
Mr. Orlowski commented that the narrowest part may be 24 feet wide but the parking lot is very wide.
Mrs. Griffin commented that, normally, once a year several large events (i.e., arts and crafts shows) are held at Old Avon Village on Saturday and/or Sunday that generate a lot of traffic. She commented that it doesn’t seem like one of these events could take place at the same time as one of the proposed parties. Ms. August agreed and noted that she would have to ensure that these types of large events were coordinated with large parties for the proposed business.
Mrs. Griffin commented that Old Avon Village has always possessed special character; it is located in the Commercial Specialized (CS) Zone. The Zoning Regulations indicate that businesses permitted in the CS Zone can not generate large amounts of traffic, which the proposed business would. She noted that she feels the subject proposal is not in character with the existing businesses in the Village. She asked whether the adjacent businesses are aware of this proposal and are agreeable. Ms. August explained that the larger events would take place in the evening when many of the existing businesses are closed. Mrs. Griffin commented that children’s birthday parties normally occur on Saturday afternoons when many of the other businesses are very active. Ms. Orlowski explained that
younger children’s birthday parties that would be held during the day would be small parties (10 to 20 children). The parties for older children would occur in the evenings. She added that the hope is that parents would patron some of the other businesses once they drop off their young children.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Ms. August noted that she has neither discussed the proposed business with the existing business owners nor asked their permission.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question relating to music noise, Mr. Orlowski explained that the building is insulated and any music played would not exceed the standards contained in the Zoning Regulations for decibel levels and frequencies. He added that there would be no outdoor music.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Ms. Orlowski commented that there would be no cooking on the site; snacks, coffee, and soda would be offered and the parties would have the option of bringing pizza in.
Elaine Primeau, 12 Towpath Lane, noted that she is an abutter to the proposed business. She noted that there is approximately 21 feet from the edge of the subject building to the chain link fence, located at the property line. She commented that it is approximately 50 feet from her house to the chain link fence; she added that all her bedrooms are located on that end of the house. She indicated that she measured the Selectman’s Chambers and noted that it is 42.6 feet long. Mrs. Primeau explained that she has been dealing with children for over 30 years and noted that there is no way that the sound level could be maintained. She asked how many chaperones would be on site for 150 children.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Orlowski commented that the number of chaperones would be whatever is deemed appropriate. Mrs. Primeau asked whether the ratio of adults to students has been determined and noted that she believes there are State Regulations that must be abided by. Ms. Orlowski agreed that there are State Regulations and added that the ratio depends on the age group. Mrs. Primeau asked how many chaperones are needed for middle school aged students. Ms. Orlowski noted that she is not aware of the exact ratio. Mrs. Primeau commented that it has been represented that there would be from 1 to 3 employees on site; she added that there actually may be more. Mr. Orlowski noted that it would depend on the size of the event.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the applicants indicated that corporate functions may be permitted and asked whether alcohol would be served. Mr. Orlowski stated that the business is currently not licensed for alcohol; no alcohol would be provided. Mrs. Primeau noted that people can bring in their own alcohol. Mr. Orlowski commented that individuals would be subject to the stipulations in the contract that they would be required to sign. Mrs. Primeau commented that it is being noted on the record that there will be no alcohol brought in for any event, corporate or not. Mr. Orlowski explained that if a contract that an individual would be signing states that no alcohol would be allowed, no alcohol would be allowed at that event. Mrs. Primeau commented that there would be no alcohol if the
contract states such but she asked for clarification whether the applicants are putting on the record that alcohol would be permitted or that alcohol would never be permitted. Mr. Orlowski, stated, for the record, that the business has not currently and has no reason to apply for an alcohol license. He explained that alcohol would not be sold. Mrs. Primeau explained that that is not her question and noted that there could be events that people could attend where they would be allowed to bring in alcohol. Mr. Orlowski commented that people would have to be of age.
Ms. August commented that, at this time, the focus of the business is for children. Mrs. Primeau commented that there are State Regulations regarding the safety of 3 and 4-year old children. She asked if the applicant complies with such issues as the height of the windows and the height of the plugs in the room. Ms. Orlowski indicated that she has met with the Fire Marshal.
Mrs. Primeau noted that the applicant must comply with both State and local Regulations. Ms. August commented that she would ensure that the State Regulations are investigated and complied with. Mrs. Primeau commented that there is a legal responsibility for this type of business to take care of children for the specified time; the State would issue a license. Mr. Orlowski commented that the proposed business is not a day care center. Ms. August reiterated that the applicants would investigate the State Regulations and abide by them.
Mrs. Primeau noted that there appears to be a lot of open-ended questions that have not been answered.
Mrs. Primeau noted her concerns with a shortage of parking for events for 16-year-olds, as they cannot bring anyone with them in the car. She asked what precautions would be in place should a 15-year-old leave the building before the event is over, as the door cannot be locked. She asked if the business owner would know if children leave the building. Ms. Orlowski commented that there would be specified hours of drop off and pickup and children are not to leave, similar to the way the teen center in Simsbury operates. Mrs. Primeau commented that the Simsbury teen center is non profit and is totally different than the proposed business.
Mr. Cappello commented that children leave the movie theater every night of the week; he noted that it is the same scenario. Mrs. Primeau commented that the movie theater is not right near her house. She noted her concern with the outdoor noise level and where the kids would go when they leave the building. She reiterated that she feels there are too many unanswered questions.
Mr. Starr indicated that Mrs. Primeau’s concerns have been noted.
Susan Norman, 277 Cider Brook Road, asked whether costs could be controlled if parties for small children were held during the day with maybe some adult parties at night but excluding parties for children ages 12 to 18 at night. Mr. Orlowski commented that the majority of the parties would be for toddler-aged children up to the “tween” level. He added that the way the business is currently structured one large event per month, possibly on a Saturday night, would be scheduled. Ms. Norman asked whether the business would still be viable if the larger events were not permitted. She commented that she feels the toddler birthday parties would be valuable because the people dropping the children off would shop in the area. Mr. Orlowski commented that another idea is to have a Thursday “date night” where parents could drop off their children and go to a local restaurant. Ms. Orlowski commented that school fundraisers have also been considered, so there would be parents in addition to
the students. She added that it is not the intention to have a wild party atmosphere; she explained that birthday parties would be the core of the business and not the random functions.
Ms. Keith asked whether the business owners would set parameters/restrictions (i.e, time deadline) for a function that was permitted to have alcohol. She noted her understanding that a liquor license is not required. Mr. Orlowski explained that he was informed by the State Liquor Commission that no time limits could be imposed because no liquor license is being issued. He noted that the Liquor Commission further indicated that any events including alcohol would be the responsibility of the individuals bringing the alcohol in. He noted that he is not anticipating many of these types of events but added that if a real estate office wanted to offer a cheese and wine night the business may not prohibit it. Mr. Orlowski explained that if this type of event were to be allowed, any liability issues
would be addressed. Ms. Keith suggested that imposing a time limit would offer protection for the business owners.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4537 was closed.
App. #4541 Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations to adopt new regulations for Avon Village Center Zone
Michael Looney, Senior Planner with Milone and MacBroom, was present.
Mr. Looney addressed the proposed Regulations for the Avon Village Center Zone (AVC) noting that the new zone would be a “floating” zone, which would initially be unmapped. He explained that an applicant would have to apply for a zone change to “land” the AVC Zone on the official Zoning Map. The request for a zone change would have to be accompanied by a mixed-use development plan, which must meet specific criteria including the development of individual “pods” within the AVC Zone. The “pods” would be subject to site plan and special exception review before adoption. He noted that language addressing Design Guidelines and Low Impact Development (LID) will also be adopted.
Mr. Kushner explained that conventional zoning divides the Town into different zoning districts to separate land uses, as certain uses are not compatible. He noted that the proposed Avon Village Center (AVC) Zone Regulations are a non-traditional approach that would provide flexibility to permit a mix of uses that are not typically permitted under the current Zoning Regulations. An applicant would have discretion with issues such as parking requirements, building positions and height, and buffer yards while the Commission will retain discretion with regard to approvals. Mr. Kushner noted that the intent is to create an enhanced village center and a “new urbanist design” (i.e., recreating new village centers using existing, older, traditional town center designs as well as some newer
successful town centers as models/guides). He noted that the intent for Avon is not to reproduce Blue Back Square; there are parameters in the proposed Regulations to limit the scale of development. He noted that once the proposed Regulations are adopted it would set the stage for Ensign Bickford, or other property owners in the Village Center, to apply for a zone change that must be accompanied by a master plan. The master plan would identify certain parameters and the uses being proposed. It is likely that the master plan would contain information for 6 to 8 “pods”, or sub districts, contained within the master plan. If a zone change and master plan were approved, the owner could then market the “pods” to developers who would, in turn, need to submit conventional applications for site plan and special exception for review by the Commission.
Mr. Kushner addressed three minor changes to the proposed Regulations, as a result of meetings with Ensign Bickford. He noted that Item #3 on Page 5, under MUDP Requirements, the word “preliminary” was added to the sentence pertaining to earth removal and fill. He noted that at the master concept plan level it may not be reasonable to produce a “real world” grading plan but some thought should be given to how much material may need to be moved (i.e., 5,000 yards or 50,000 yards). The final grading plan would be a more detailed, exacting plan. The next change is on Page 13, Item 6, MUDP Dimensional Requirements. He explained that the words “unless waived by the Commission” were added to the sentence pertaining to general setback
requirements. The language states that the general setback requirement is a minimum of 20 feet and a maximum of 40 feet. Mr. Kushner noted that the intent is to create a traditional downtown where buildings are set fairly close to the road with off street parking. The last change is on Page 14, Item #4, Performance Standards”; the paragraph indicating the requirement of an LID maintenance and management plan has been removed. Mr. Kushner explained that this section was deleted because it is more appropriate to require an LID maintenance and management plan at a later stage of development.
Mr. Starr noted that the public hearing for App. #4541 will remain open until the public hearing to amend the Plan of Conservation and Development to adopt the Design Guidelines is opened, which is scheduled for the next meeting, June 28.
Ms. Keith commented that the proposed Avon Village Center Zone Regulations have evolved to meet the Commission’s comments/requests. She noted that the proposed language gives the Commission flexibility; she congratulated Mr. Kushner and the Staff on the development of the proposed Regulations.
Gus Jasminski, Ensign Bickford, conveyed his excitement about the proposed Regulations. He added that he feels the language is headed in the right direction but noted that the details are very specific to Ensign Bickford’s application. He noted that while it works great for Ensign Bickford he suggested that the Town may want to consider that the proposed Regulations are very specific with regard to the number of housing units and square footage and may not be appropriate for other property owners. Mr. Jasminski commented that the proposed Regulations are also very specific about density and lot coverage. He noted that Ensign Bickford and/or others could, at some point, propose a better method that differs from what the proposed Regulations state. He commented that it should not be a
problem as long as the wording exists such that the Commission has discretion and flexibility. He noted that the proposed Regulations currently require that approximately 20% of the commercial development take place before 25% of the residential use is proposed. Mr. Jasminski noted that while Ensign Bickford understands the need/importance of having some of the commercial base established before residential units are proposed he added that flexibility in the Regulations with regard to sequencing is important. He commented that Ensign Bickford could propose residential on certain parcels under the Zoning Regulations as they stand today. He added that while there will be more flexibility with use, parking, and building locations, the issue of site coverage will remain the same; the current requirement is 50% and the proposed AVC Zone is also 50%. He explained that, overall, the density of all the acreage is not changing but flexibility is being gained to
focus development in certain areas to create the look of a town center. Mr. Jasminski noted that Avon’s village center will not look like West Hartford Center, as their coverage is closer to 90%. He concluded that, overall, Ensign Bickford is happy with the proposed Regulations except for a couple of small issues.
Andy DiFatta, Ensign Bickford, noted his agreement with the proposed language for drainage and Low Impact Development (LID); he added that there has been a lot of communication with the Town Staff and Ensign Bickford has made many recommendations in connection with the proposed Regulations. He addressed the “hurdles” in the proposed Regulations and explained that if Ensign Bickford had a developer who wanted to build 200 apartment units in the area where the CREC School was originally proposed, they couldn’t accomplish that unless 200,000 square feet of commercial (office and/or industrial) space was constructed first. He explained that Ensign Bickford has been in the area for decades and they don’t have over 100,000 square feet of commercial space; he added that the residential
component may not happen if the mixed-use component is required beforehand. He noted that 100 apartment units would require 100,000 square feet of mixed-use space under the current formulas. Mr. DiFatta asked for language to be added giving the Commission the ability/discretion to permit waivers under certain conditions. He added that without the possibility for waivers, there could be a significant delay in development time.
Mr. Starr noted that the proposed Regulations do contain a provision that allows a modification up to 10 percentage points. Mr. DiFatta commented that he could bring in 10 developers that would say that that provision doesn’t work at all. He added that the market dictates and 10 percentage points doesn’t work in the real world. He reiterated that the request is to add language that gives the Commission the ability to waive their own requirements. He noted that at one time the Commission indicated that they would like to have 10% of the residential units located above retail space/mixed use. He explained that when the CREC School was proposed on Climax Road there was a developer who was willing to create that scenario but that option no longer exists. He added that Ensign
Bickford agreed to take the proposed school out but noted that there are consequences and, most likely, development delays will be the result. He commented that the requirement for 10% residential above mixed use will have to occur in a different area in the center; he added that most cities that have tried this have been unsuccessful with second and third stories along their main street.
Mrs. Griffin asked what the connection is between the school and living space above a store. Mr. DiFatta explained that the CREC School would have brought in about 250 people per day, which would have been a magnet for the retail portion. He noted that most people do not want to live above retail and while there is a select market for it there are very few developers that would agree to build it.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question about residential over retail and the connection to the CREC School, Mr. Kushner explained that the specific real estate developer from Boston who was very interested in buying the parcel on Climax Road (where the CREC School was proposed) is not as interested now that the CREC School is no longer a possibility in this location. He added that while this developer may be one of the few individuals that would be interested in second story residential it doesn’t mean that there would never be another developer in the future interested in this scenario. Mrs. Griffin commented that it was only a connection for that developer and is not a standard.
Mr. Cappello commented that you can’t really make a blanket statement. Mr. DiFatta agreed that a blanket statement cannot be made but added that if you look at other developments (i.e., the shops in Canton and Evergreen Walk) the two-story residential component does not exist. He noted that he has only found one place in Boston where it really works.
Ms. Keith commented that the Commission told Ensign Bickford from the very beginning that they did not want a school in that location but the plan was presented with a school. She added that residential development doesn’t pay enough taxes. She noted that she would be uncomfortable allowing 200 apartments, with children, and no retail to offset the taxes. Mr. DiFatta noted his understanding but noted that many of the apartments would be 1 and 2 bedrooms and would not be the type to generate a lot of children.
Mr. DiFatta explained that the proposed school was abandoned because Ensign Bickford knew how the Commission felt. He added that apartments in a certain location may not happen just because the proposed Regulations mandate it and asked for consideration in this area. He reiterated his request that language be added to give the Commission the discretion to waive their own requirements. He commented that he has talked with one developer who has proposed half to two thirds of the units be only one bedroom. Mr. DiFatta commented that hurdles in the Regulations without flexibility doesn’t work well.
Mrs. Clark commented that she feels one-bedroom units would work well in that area for new couples or empty nesters.
Mr. DiFatta explained that Ensign Bickford is looking for retail that fits in the Town Center; not a big box but something that looks like it’s been there for many years.
Mr. Starr commented that it may take 15 to 20 years for this area to build out. Mr. DiFatta concurred and added that if Ensign Bickford were to bring in a proposal that the Commission favors, there should be language in the Regulation that permits it.
Mr. Kushner noted that the proposed Regulations are trying to promote retail development and the enhancement of the village center. He commented that it is agreed that the housing market is most likely stronger at this time even without any additional retail. He noted that Avon Park North has been an office park for nearly 4 decades and there hasn’t been as much growth as everyone would have hoped for. The proposed Regulations are structured as such because the major objective is retail development, even though it is easier to develop residential. He noted that the timing is important and it is understood that Ensign Bickford needs to gain income from the sale of property for residential development but, at the same time, find developers for the commercial pieces. Mr. Kushner explained
that no one wants to end up with a scenario, for example, where 400 residential units are constructed and no commercial development has taken place; a balance must be achieved. He explained that the intent is not to have hundreds of additional residential units in lieu of the creation of a business park.
Mr. DiFatta commented that he has talked with a retailer who looked at the area and wanted to tear down some of the existing buildings (along Route 44) and build new ones to house The Gap and other national chains and possibly a “big box” store. Mr. DiFatta noted that he has explained to the retailers that Ensign Bickford doesn’t want “big box” development and also do not want to tear down existing buildings, as they work well. He reiterated that he wants to ensure that there is enough flexibility in the proposed Regulations to give the Commission discretion in connection with certain “hurdles” that may arise. Mr. DiFatta acknowledged that Ensign Bickford cannot comply with the current proposed Regulations, as was thought a couple of months ago. He noted
that the original numbers of 400 to 500 residential units with 500,000 to 600,000 square feet of mixed use may not work under the parameters/guidelines outlined in the proposed Regulations. He reiterated that because Ensign Bickford currently has only 100,000 square feet of commercial space after several decades these projected numbers may need to be adjusted down to allow for a starting point.
Mr. Starr stated that the public hearing for App. #4541 will be continued to the June 7 meeting.
Mrs. Clark motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4541 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
The public hearing was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Mahoney motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider App. #4537. Ms. Keith seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4537 - OAVX Associates, LLC, owner, Blink, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.D.3.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit indoor dance and party/enter-tainment business, Old Avon Village, 45 East Main Street, Parcel 2140045, in a CS Zone.
Mr. Starr commented that this application is a special exception and added that oftentimes a 2-year time limit is imposed to see if the business works out as proposed by the applicant. He noted the areas of concern being a temporary drop off area, alcohol on the premises, closing times, compliance with all Town and State Regulations, and noise levels off the premises.
Ms. Keith suggested that a condition, within the standards of the Regulations, addressing noise off the property line be included.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Zoning Regulations have certain standards that have to be met at the property line. He added that noise regulations are not easy to enforce in terms of measurement and the hours of the day a violation may occur. There are many variables (i.e, wind, airplane noise, background noise) that make it difficult to take an accurate sound reading; it is not a precise science. Ms. Keith noted that she will propose approval for a 2-year period and if a noise problem occurs there will be a record of the complaints. Ms. Keith commented that she would like to ensure that alcohol not be permitted past 9 pm.
Mr. Starr noted that it would be hard to enforce a condition that doesn’t allow alcohol past 9 pm.
Mr. Cappello commented that 25-year olds would not be a problem, as they would go to bars. He added that he doesn’t think that realtors having wine and cheese parties are going to be a problem. Mr. Cappello noted that he doesn’t believe alcohol is going to be an issue at this site. Ms. Keith agreed but noted that she does want the approval for a 2-year time limit. Mr. Starr concurred.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comment about adding a condition for noise, Mr. Kushner asked whether the suggestion is that a condition be added indicating that noise levels at the common boundary line be within the standards contained in the Zoning Regulations. Ms. Keith noted her understanding and concurred. Mrs. Clark asked who would monitor noise. Ms. Keith commented that the police would be called. Mr. Kushner explained that if the police are called, the police would call him the next day for clarification. He noted that it may not be easy to enforce the noise standard but noted that the Town would do its best to verify whether the noise is in or out of compliance with the Town’s standard. Ms. Keith commented that she feels the business owners would be stricter about their
operation if they found out that the police have been called because they know they only have approval for a 2-year time period.
Mrs. Griffin asked for everyone to review the specifications of the Regulations for the Commercial Specialized (CS) Zone. She noted that for years the Commission has tried to keep Old Avon Village a special place, with special character. She added that businesses without a lot of traffic were preferred; the area has always had some dignity. Mr. Mahoney asked how much the Commission can tell people how to run their business. Mrs. Griffin commented that the proposed business does not belong in the CS Zone. Ms. Keith commented that the applicants have represented that the business focus would be smaller parties for younger children which may generate business for the existing businesses in the area. She added that she feels the teenage parties, represented as possibly one night a month,
would be self regulating; if the Town receives complaints, the owners would change their operation. Mrs. Griffin commented that the proposed business would change the character of Old Avon Village; it would no longer be regarded as it once was and there would no longer be anything special about it. Mr. Mahoney asked what is special about Old Avon Village right now. Mrs. Griffin noted her surprise at
Mr. Mahoney’s comment.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4537 subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is granted for a 2-year time period.
2. Detail for a temporary moving drop off area shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval.
3. The business shall close at 10:30 pm.
4. No outside activities are permitted.
5. No outside music is permitted.
6. The business shall comply with all State and local Regulations.
7. Noise levels shall conform to the standards in the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Mahoney seconded the motion that received approval from Ms. Keith and Messrs Mahoney, Starr and Cappello. Voting in opposition were Mesdames Griffin and Clark and Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Starr addressed the applicants and explained that they have heard the concerns that have been voiced in connection with the potential impact to the adjacent residential neighborhood.
He suggested that these concerns be kept in mind while running the business and added that, hopefully, in 2 years there will have been no complaints and the business can continue.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels it is very important that the applicants, to the best of their ability, work to keep the character of Old Avon Village in tact. Mr. Orlowski noted his understanding.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
O’Neill’s Chevrolet - 5 West Main - upgrade to building façade and additional service bay
Present was Dante Boffi, architect. Dante J. Boffi Design LLC
Mr. Kushner explained that Mr. Boffi is working for Mr. Sullivan, who is the general manager of O’Neill’s Chevrolet. He commented that O’Neill’s is under pressure from General Motors to upgrade their facility, to be consistent with a nationwide program to modernize all facilities. He noted that this building is located in the Village Center; Avon does not have an historic district but if it did, this building would be located in it. The hope is to reach a compromise and meet General Motors’ expectations while respecting the location of the building. Mr. Boffi stated that he has been working with O’Neill’s and explained that the first color version of the drawing came direct from Chevrolet. He submitted a modified black and white drawing. He
noted that there is no way that the proposed upgrade would take place according to the drawing received from Chevrolet. He commented that the additional service bay proposed and shown on the first drawing is no longer a part of the plans. He noted that the drawings will be modified for the formal application review. He explained that the initial drawing is probably a Chevrolet prototype for a brand new building. Mr. Boffi noted that consideration must be given to the fact that the building is located only 2 feet from Route 44. The tower/entry element has been scaled down significantly and is approximately 8 to 10 feet lower than the original proposal of approximately 30 feet. The roof assembly would be taken down and replaced with a more “main street” approach. Mr. Boffi explained that a building this close to the road needs pedestrian scale; a transom is proposed for the top 2 feet of the windows along with dividers. He
noted that he may not have much leeway with the proposed signage and added that he hopes the Commission understands that Chevrolet needs its logos on the building. The limits of the showroom renovation include the elevation that faces Route 44 and the cluster of windows around the corner. He added that building trim is proposed to be thick and pre-finished white (i.e., hardy materials rather than wood). He explained that full cutoff lighting in line with an old “main street” look will be proposed. He indicated that the owners are happy with the proposed look. Mr. Boffi concluded by noting that the revised drawing will be presented to Chevrolet with the hopes of returning with a formal application.
Mr. Mahoney commented that the proposal is just for the façade; the footprint is not changing. Mr. Boffi concurred.
Ms. Keith asked if the color behind the Chevrolet sign would be blue. Mr. Boffi confirmed that the color would not be blue. He explained that the color of the existing O’Neill’s sign (currently blue) will be part of the discussion with Chevrolet. He added that the prominent blue box in the front is proposed to be taken away and noted that gray tones are proposed behind the lettering. Mr. Boffi explained that the entirety of the front façade is proposed to be crisp white with two tones of gray; the color scheme would be earth tones.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the proposal is a huge improvement over what currently exists.
Mr. Cappello commented that he doesn’t think the initial drawing/proposal is a great effort by Chevrolet but added that Mr. Boffi’s revised drawing is a great effort; classy and nice.
Mr. Kushner explained that the subject site is located in the Commercial Specialized Zone, which does not allow internally-illuminated signage; he added that specifics can be discussed at a later date.
Mr. Bonner asked if the corners of the building would be beveled. Mr. Boffi explained that the corners would be square.
Mr. Gackstatter asked what the state of the sidewalk that currently exists in front of the building would be with the proposal renovation. He noted that it would be nice to have some curbing or stone work.
Mr. Starr commented that the sidewalks and lights should reflect what exists across the street.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his understanding for Chevrolet’s need for branding but added that it would be interesting to have a building with white clapboard with a small door highlighted with a blue square (i.e., similar to Talbots). Mr. Boffi noted that clapboard style was proposed as one option but was not received well by anyone; the building is not residential in scale and forcing clapboards doesn’t work. He commented that he likes the blue door effect and added that it was discussed as an entry-door system.
Mr. Starr noted that the Commission has given Mr. Boffi sufficient input/feedback. Mr. Boffi thanked the Commission for their time.
OTHER BUSINESS
Request for 2-year extension of conditional approval - Phase III Weatherstone (PZC App. #4304)
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve a 2-year extension of the conditional approval for Phase III of the Weatherstone Subdivision. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received approval from Messrs. Thompson, Starr, and Cappello and Mesdames Griffin, Keith, and Clark. Mr. Mahoney abstained noting that he isn’t familiar with the Weatherstone Subdivision. Mr. Kushner reported that the owners of Weatherstone Phase II (Tom Francoline and Jeff Sard) have entered into an agreement with Toll Brothers, who will be purchasing the rights for 24 lots. A construction trailer, proposed to be located on the site by Toll Brothers, would function as a sample showroom. A permit has been taken out to build a model home but no other houses would be built until sales have taken place.
Mr. Kushner addressed the connection/extension of Northington Drive through the Found Land into the Kingswood Subdivision and explained that this is scheduled to occur as part of Weatherstone Phase III. He explained that Mr. Francoline has indicated that he (Mr. Francoline) may request to divide Phase III into 4 sub phases, which would offer him more time to achieve the road connection through the Found Land. Mr. Kushner noted that he and the Town Engineer feel this is a reasonable request and added that an application to the Commission would be required to modify the existing approved phasing plan.
NON PRINTED ITEM ADDED TO THE AGENDA
Mr. Thompson motioned to add to the agenda a request for a 1-year extension of the site plan approval for 221 West Main Street (PZC Apps. #4394/95 - approved January 13, 2010). The motion, seconded by Ms. Keith received approval from Messrs. Thompson, Starr, and Cappello and Mesdames Keith, Griffin, and Clark. Mr. Mahoney abstained, noting that he is unfamiliar with this project.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve a 1-year extension of the site plan approval for 221 West Main Street (PZC Apps. #4394/95). The motion, seconded by Ms. Keith, received approval from Messrs. Thompson, Starr, and Cappello and Mesdames Keith, Griffin, and Clark.
Mr. Mahoney abstained. The 1-year extension will expire January 13, 2012.
Mr. Kushner reported that no construction has begun to date.
There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on May 17, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4537 - OAVX Associates, LLC, owner, Blink, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.D.3.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit indoor dance and party/entertainment business, Old Avon Village, 45 East Main Street, Parcel 2140045, in a CS Zone. APPROVED FOR 2-YEAR PERIOD WITH CONDITIONS.
Dated at Avon this 18th day of May, 2011. Copy of this notice is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Avon Town Hall.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, June 7, 2011, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Town Hall, on the following:
App. #4542 - Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to lot coverage in the RU2A Zone, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant.
App. #4543 - Old Avon Realty, LLC owner, Friar Associates Inc., applicant, request for Zone Change from OP to RU2A, 8.908 acres and from NB to RU2A, .659 acres, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059.
App. #4544 - John Boullie, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.q. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit accessory apartment, 101 Old Mill Road, Parcel 3380101, in an R40 Zone.
App. #4545 - Sunny Sky Realty LLC, owner, Sunny Sky Realty LLC and Twenty West Avon Road Associates LLC, applicants, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 18 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520018, in a CS Zone.
App. #4546 - Jodi Oh, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit in-ground pool and associated tree work within 150’ ridgeline setback area, 6 Deer Ridge Road, Parcel 5090006, in an RU2A Zone.
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 24th day of May, 2011.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
