The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Senior Center on Tuesday, September 13, 2011. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Carol Griffin, Linda Keith, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, 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. Clark motioned to approve the July 19, 2011, minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received approval from Mesdames Clark and Griffin and Messrs. Mahoney, Starr, and Thompson. Ms. Keith and Mr. Cappello abstained as they had not been present at the July 19 meeting but noted that they have read the minutes and are familiar with the content.
PUBLIC HEARING
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
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
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
Mr. Starr reported that Apps. #4550, #4551, and #4552 have been withdrawn by the applicant. He explained that App. #4564, to be heard tonight, requests a zone change for the remaining land at 59 Waterville Road (see App. #4543 for first zone change). He further explained that if App. #4564 is approved, the applicant will likely reapply for site plan approval.
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.
Mr. Starr reported that the applicant has requested a public hearing continuance to the Commission’s next meeting.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4554 and #4555 to the next meeting, scheduled for September 27. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4558 - Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, Marc Rietze, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.F.3.c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124, in a CP-B Zone.
Present to represent this application was Marc Rietze, applicant.
Mr. Rietze explained that “The Lime Bar & Grill” will possess a full restaurant license; both lunch and dinner will be served. The menu is traditional American bar food such as sandwiches, salads, wings, and a few entrees with some unique items. He noted that the business will not be marketed as a “sports bar” but added that there will be numerous televisions for viewing; a casual, fun atmosphere is the goal. The restaurant will contain a full bar with a dining room, lounge, porch, and two-level patio. A diverse wine list and creative cocktails will be offered with seating for 65 people. Mr. Rietze concluded by noting that he feels the existing parking is adequate.
Mr. Starr explained that the proposed restaurant would be located in Riverdale Farms, Building #14 and would replace the “Bosc Wine Bar” restaurant. In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Rietze explained that he expects a somewhat younger crowd than at the Maple Tree in Simsbury but added that his focus is a clean, responsible and moderate establishment not geared towards college students.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Rietze noted that he would like to have live music with just one acoustic individual; he noted that it would not be loud.
Mr. Starr explained that, generally, the Commission puts restrictions on approvals that involve outdoor patios such that no music or speakers are permitted outdoors. He added that there are residential neighborhoods across the street from Riverdale Farms.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4558 was closed.
App. #4560 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.G.4.a of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit activities in the floodplain/ floodway for expansion to Fisher Meadows Park, 800 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360800, in an ROS Zone.
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
App. #4559 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct new pavilion, multi-use fields, and parking lot expansion and renovation, Fisher Meadows Park, 800 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360800, in an ROS Zone.
Mr. Starr announced that Apps. #4560 and #4559 will be continued to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for September 27, in order to give Town Staff additional time to review the proposal.
Mr. Thompson motioned to continue the public hearing for App #4560 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Thompson motioned to table App. #4559 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.
App. #4562 Proposed Amendment to Avon Subdivision Regulations pertaining to Low Impact Development (LID); Town of Avon, applicant.
App. #4563 Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to Low Impact Development (LID); Town of Avon, applicant.
Mr. Starr announced that Apps. #4562 and #4563 will be continued to the Commission’s next meeting to allow Town Staff additional time to review and provide input to the proposed LID regulations.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4562 and #4563 to the next meeting, scheduled for September 27. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4564 - Old Avon Realty, LLC owner, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant, request for Zone Change from NB to RU2A, 1.42 acres 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059.
Present to represent this application were David Hoopes, Mayo Crowe, LLC, representing the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC); David Friar and Luke McCoy, Friar Associates; and Don Walsh and John Mena, CREC.
Attorney Hoopes explained that the subject application requests a zone change from NB (Neighborhood Business) to RU2A (residential) for a one-acre piece of land. He further explained that the subject area is part of a larger parcel, 59 Waterville Road, which contains just over 10 acres in total. He added that in June of 2011 the Commission approved a similar zone change (from OP and NB to RU2A) for 9 acres of the subject 10-acre site. Mr. Hoopes noted that the purpose of the subject zone change is the same as that of the June 2011 zone change and that is to permit an elementary magnet school at 59 Waterville Road. He explained that it has always been CREC’s preference to purchase the entire 10-acre parcel but noted that, initially, the owner of the yellow barn (“Le Jardin”) did
not want to sell it. He further explained that the owner would not sell the barn for the price CREC was allowed to pay, in accordance with State funding requirements. Mr. Hoopes noted that circumstances changed in late July 2011 and CREC has been successful in negotiating a price/contract with the property owner to purchase the entire site. He explained that purchasing the entire parcel eliminates the need for a subdivision application.
Mr. Hoopes noted that the Plan of Conservation and Development states that the general concept for the subject area is mixed use, commercial office. He commented that there is high-density residential to the left of the subject site and lower density residential surrounding the site. He commented that a school use is consistent with a mix-use concept. He explained that when mixed uses exist it is always better, from a planning perspective, to have transitional uses; a school is an excellent transition between commercial and residential uses. A school is similar in scale and impact to the commercial uses that would be permitted by right on the subject site; however, a school would be somewhat less intense. A school would not have significant traffic in the roadways during peak evening hours
and on weekends, as would typical commercial uses. He commented that there would be a relatively small number of buses as opposed to a large number of cars. Mr. Hoopes added that a school is a really good transition for a lot of reasons. Consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development, a school use is similar but less intense than the type of uses that would be permitted as of right. He noted that the applicant feels that the proposed use makes sense and added that the Commission must agree, as they granted a zone change in June of 2011 for the other 9 acres that comprise this site.
Mr. Hoopes addressed effective dates for zone changes and noted that Avon’s Zoning Regulations state that zone changes are effective 30 days after approval, unless the Commission states otherwise. He requested that the effective date of the subject zone change, if approved, be September 26, 2011. He explained that an effective date of September 26 would allow the applicant to apply for a site plan and special exception after the zone change becomes effective, rather than before. This effective date also allows the applicant to apply in time to be included on the October 18 meeting agenda. Mr. Hoopes explained that the applicant wishes to avoid applying for a site plan and special exception premised on the subject land area being RU2A before it actually is RU2A. Mr. Hoopes offered to
answer any questions.
Julie Blake, O’Connell, Flaherty, Attmore, LLC, representing John and Joe Delbone, noted that for the reasons stated in the Delbone appeal she and her clients oppose the proposed zone change. She commented that she and her clients believe that the subject proposal is spot zoning and does not comply with the Plan of Conservation and Development, which seeks to preserve office space area in Town. The proposed zone change would eliminate the subject site as a tax base and possibly lower property values in the area for sites zoned NB, as their commercial uses would be limited by a school being located nearby.
Margaret Bratton, 15 Old Mill Road, commented that changing the zone on the subject parcel negatively impacts the neighboring properties and their owners and residents; it also negatively impacts Route 44 landowners and travelers, plus negatively impacts Avon with higher traffic, congestion, and danger. The Commission granted a zone change for 8+ acres and now they are asking for another acre. She reiterated her concerns that the proposed school would negatively impact Avon.
Mr. Hoopes commented that Mr. Delbone’s counsel made the argument that the proposed zone change is spot zoning; he explained that the subject proposal is the opposite of spot zoning. He further explained that spot zoning is where a piece of property is zoned in a way which is inconsistent with the surrounding sites. He noted that a better example of spot zoning would be to propose rezoning the subject site to the NB zone, as much of the surrounding properties are zoned RU2A. Mr. Hoopes referenced earlier statements from Mr. Delbone’s counsel regarding Mr. Delbone’s motivations for appeal; he added that the points mentioned are not Mr. Delbone’s motivations. Mr. Hoopes explained that Mr. Delbone had a conversation with Mr. Walsh, CREC’s Deputy Executive Director, where
he (Mr. Delbone) stated exactly what his motivations are, which have nothing to do with any of the reasons stated by Mr. Delbone’s counsel. Mr. Hoopes noted that this conversation between Mr. Delbone and Mr. Walsh may come up at the next meeting.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4564 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Griffin motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4558 and #4564. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4558 - Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, Marc Rietze, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.F.3.c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124, in a CP-B Zone.
Mr. Starr commented that music inside the building would be fine but he suggests that no music or speakers be allowed outside on the patio. Mr. Cappello concurred.
Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App. #4558 subject to the following condition:
1) No music or speakers are permitted outside the building.
Mr. Thompson stated that App. #4558 meets the criteria of Section VIII of the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Thompson seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4564 - Old Avon Realty, LLC owner, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant, request for Zone Change from NB to RU2A, 1.42 acres 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059.
Ms. Keith commented that approving the proposed zone change would make the subject property a contiguous piece. She indicated her belief that the entire subject property was zoned RU2A in the past.
Mr. Kushner commented that he believes that the property was zoned RU2A many years ago but was rezoned to NB at some point. He noted that his understanding is that the other 9 acres on this parcel were originally zoned RU2A but then were rezoned to NB (Neighborhood Business) and then rezoned to OP (Office Park). He explained that the Commission just recently granted a zone change to RU2A for these 9 acres, in connection with App. #4543 approved in June 2011.
Ms. Keith commented that because the property was zoned RU2A in the past, she has no problem putting it back to RU2A.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4564. Mrs. Griffin seconded the motion.
Mr. Starr stated that the proposed zone change would be consistent with the general objectives to have transitional areas.
Mrs. Clark stated that she is opposed to the zone change. She noted that she was not present at the June meeting and conveyed her concerns for safety in the area. She commented that it was mentioned tonight that there would be a significant increase in traffic. She stated that she doesn’t think a school belongs in this location.
Mr. Starr explained that, at this time, there is no application for a school. Mrs. Clark noted her understanding but reiterated that for safety reasons she is opposed to the zone change.
Mr. Kushner questioned whether it is the consensus of the majority of the Commission that the zone change to RU2A might result in one of several different possible land uses; and, also, whether it is the Commission’s finding that those land uses would generally be consistent with the area, as the Commission has stated that these uses could provide a reasonable transitional land use and not negatively impact adjoining property values.
Mr. Starr conveyed his understanding and agreement with Mr. Kushner’s comments.
Ms. Keith noted that she made the motion and further noted that Mr. Kushner’s comments are her understanding because of the fact that the property was, at one time, zoned RU2A and hasn’t been deferred from that in a dramatic sense.
Voting in favor to approve App. #4564 were Mesdames Keith and Griffin and Messrs. Starr and Thompson. Voting in opposition of approval were Mrs. Clark and Messrs. Cappello and Mahoney.
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4561 - Norwich Commercial Group, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct new building, 139 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970139, in an OP Zone.
Present to represent this application were David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers; Wesley Horbatuck, owner; and Dale Cutler, Kenyon & Cutler Architects.
Mr. Whitney noted that the subject site is located at 139 Simsbury Road, across from Riverdale Farms; access is via a common driveway shared with Group Fore. The existing building is approximately 5,600 square feet on two levels with parking to the front and rear. The subject request is to construct a second building to the rear of the site; a 3-story structure with parking on the first level is proposed. The proposal includes the addition of 10 parking spaces to the existing parking lot, which currently contains 27 spaces. An extension of existing utilities to the new building is also proposed. Mr. Whitney explained that the proposed building is needed to provide more office space for the existing employees; no additional employees are proposed. He noted that 2 handicap parking spaces
are included in the total count of 37 spaces. The grading plan shows 3 retaining walls to the rear; all are approximately 3 to 4 feet high and will be designed by an engineer. A larger storm water drainage system is proposed to replace the existing storm drainage setup.
Mr. Starr asked how much earth removal is proposed and noted that over 1,000 cubic yards requires a special exception application.
Mr. Whitney conveyed his belief that earth removal is less than 1,000 cubic yards and noted his awareness of the requirement.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Whitney explained that, currently, the site is at 35% impervious surface; the increase in impervious surface will bring the total to 42.7%. He noted that the net increase in impervious surface is 3,763 square feet or just under 1/10 of an acre, 7% of the site.
Mr. Cutler addressed architecture and noted that the proposed building is fairly modest at 1,200 square feet of coverage. The proposed building is 3 levels. The first level contains 5 parking spaces with a small entrance and stairway; the second level contains 1,200 square feet of office space with a restroom and small kitchen; the third level is a 400-square-foot mezzanine. Mr. Cutler noted that the total square footage is 1,600 square feet. He added that the proposal maintains the 10% permitted lot coverage. The materials used would be the same as on the existing building; same siding, same colors, and same roof material.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Cutler explained that no elevators are proposed and added that the proposed 1,200-square-foot building doesn’t require handicap accessibility under the Building Code. Mr. Cutler stated that a building must contain 3,000 square feet before an elevator is required in the State of Connecticut. Mrs. Griffin asked if outside people would be coming into the building. Mr. Cutler explained that the proposed building is really to serve the needs of the employees and is strictly office use; there are no handicapped employees at this time. He further explained that the proposed building is an annex to the main building, which is fully handicap accessible on the first level.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions, Mr. Cutler noted that no “green” measures (i.e., solar, geothermal) are intended at this time. He commented that the subject property has a common driveway with Group Fore.
Mrs. Griffin noted her concerns with parking and questioned whether adding only 10 more spaces is adequate. Mr. Cutler explained that the intent is not to add more employees but rather to relocate certain employees from the main building to the new building. Mrs. Griffin com-
mented that parking could be tight if people from other businesses visit the site. Mr. Cutler noted that the purpose of the proposed parking under the new building is to free up some of the existing parking.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Cutler confirmed that the 5 parking spaces proposed for under the new building are included in the 10 additional spaces proposed; in total, 10 additional spaces are proposed.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Whitney explained that the proposed retaining walls are approximately 5 feet apart and noted that the intention is not to mow but to rather create a landscape plan that doesn’t need mowing. He added that one wall would be 5 feet high and the other two would be 3 feet high.
Mr. Whitney addressed Staff Comments and noted that a final landscape plan would be sub-mitted for review and approval by Town Staff. He noted that the proposed light poles for the rear of the property are similar to style, color, and height to the existing light poles on the front of the site. He noted that the new building will be similar in appearance to the existing building. Mr. Whitney explained that the applicant would like a dumpster enclosure with a top for more security; a note has been added to the plans stating that dumpster enclosure details will be submitted for review and approval by Town Staff. He noted that revisions have been made to the plans regarding lowering the sewer, in response to comments from the Town Engineer, and drainage calculations have been submitted. He added
that the plans have also been revised to show bollards in front of each of the columns, as a protective measure recommend by the Town Engineer. Mr. Whitney concluded by noting that he believes all the Staff Comments have been addressed and offered to answer any questions.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that he and the Town Engineer met with Mr. Whitney earlier today and the Town Engineer has indicated that he is comfortable with the changes to the plans but requested that if the Commission acts tonight that they include his Staff Comments, dated September 9, 2011, as a condition of approval. Mr. Kushner requested that his Staff Comments, also dated September 9, also be included as a condition, if an approval is granted.
Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Kushner if he is comfortable with an approval by the Commission before a landscape plan has been submitted. Mr. Kushner commented that he is fine with it but noted that he has suggested to Mr. Whitney that the applicant hire a licensed landscape architect.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve App. #4561 subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall satisfy all items listed in the Town Engineer’s Staff Comments, dated September 9, 2011.
2. Applicant shall satisfy all items listed in the Director of Planning’s Staff Comments, dated September 9, 2011.
The motion seconded by Ms. Keith, received unanimous approval.
App. #4565 Crusheen, LLC, owner, Dante Boffi Design LLC, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for exterior façade renovations, O’Neills Chevrolet, 5 West Main Street, Parcel 4540005, in a CS Zone
Present to represent this application was Dante Boffi, applicant.
Mr. Boffi, representing O’Neill’s Chevrolet, noted that the proposal is for a façade renovation. He noted that both he and the business owner agreed that the original design from General Motors for the façade upgrade would have resulted in a proto-type looking building in the center of Avon, which is not acceptable. He explained that he has reworked the proposed façade changes/upgrades to something more suitable for the Town Center, a softer, smaller approach with toned-down colors. He explained that no carport service bay is now proposed; General Motors has agreed. He added that Town Staff had expressed concerns and the owners did not want the carport anyway. Mr. Boffi displayed a drawing of the proposed renovations and noted that it includes 75 feet of the front façade (facing West Main Street). A more pedestrian-friendly new main entrance with a modified tower element is proposed. The existing tower that contains shingle-like pieces will be removed; the original tower
structure will remain and be wrapped with a combination of all white maintenance-free material. He noted that the panel system will resemble limestone when complete; the color would be gray tones. The storefront assembly will remain but the large glass areas would be broken down and softened for a more town center feel while still permitting adequate visuals into the showroom. He noted that a taupe brick veneer is proposed for under the entire glassed area, to introduce a traditional material to a building that is unmistakably a car dealership. Mr. Boffi explained that the rest of the building would be repainted; 3 difference gray tones would be used. He acknowledged his understanding that signage would require a separate application but explained that “O’Neill’s Chevrolet” and the Buick symbol would be the signage requested. Full cut-off lighting fixtures on the face of the building are proposed; down lighting is proposed
for the entryway.
Mrs. Griffin asked whether the new entryway extends any farther into the front yard, towards Route 44, than the existing setup. Mr. Boffi explained that a buildup of the face of the building is proposed and, therefore, the entrance would extend out farther due to the thickness of the building material being added to what’s already there. He added that the entryway would extend approximately 1 foot further into the space.
Mr. Kushner asked if there is any way to construct the proposed façade improvements without encroaching closer to the road, as the existing building is already non-conforming to the setback requirements. Mr. Boffi explained that no addition/increase to the building’s footprint is proposed; no ground is being broken and the existing building/base is suitable to add to the façade. He further explained that it is his understanding that as long as the ground plate is not broken, there would be no increase to the non-conformity. Mr. Kushner noted that the question is whether the measurement begins at the foundation or at the front wall. Mr. Boffi noted that it has been his experience that the measurement is usually taken from the foundation (footprint) and added that overhangs and
awnings can extend into a non-conforming area. He noted that he can hold the area as tight as possible on the final construction drawings. He commented that the intent is to achieve the thickness of a steel stud and sheathing and no more. He acknowledged his understanding of the concern.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that a separate application would be required for signage. Mr. Boffi noted his understanding.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Boffi explained that all existing lighting would be low-wattage and full cut off. He noted that no additional lighting is proposed.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Boffi commented that no cars are proposed to be displayed between the building and the road. He noted that the intent is to create visibility into the showroom from the front of the building; visibility from pedestrians as well as vehicles.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Boffi commented that he has discussed with the owners about adding landscape to the front of the building once the cars are removed. He added that he believes the owners would be happy to work with Town Staff to come up with an acceptable landscape plan. Mr. Kushner commented that a low, modest landscape plan could work, so as not to obstruct views into the showroom.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4565 subject to the following conditions:
1. A landscape plan/detail for the area in front of the building that is currently being used for two display spaces shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval.
2. All building signage requires a separate application to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Weatherstone Subdivision (PZC App. #4304 - conditional approval) request to revise phasing plan for Phase III to create sub phases - Tom Francoline and Jeff Sard
Present were Glenn Chalder, Planimetrics, and Tom Francoline and Jeff Sard, Weatherstone of Avon, LLC
Mr. Chalder provided background information and noted that in 2007 the Commission approved a three-phase subdivision known as Weatherstone. He explained that Phase III has only received conditional approval, to date, and, therefore, lots cannot be sold until either the site improve-ments are completed or bonded. The applicant is requesting to divide Phase III into 4 sub phases to better reflect current market conditions. Phase III-A would include the lots near the intersection of Northington Drive and Cranbrook and the dedication of open space. Phase III-B would be 8 lots and include the construction of Northington Drive through to Lofgren Road. Phases III-C and III-D would contain the remaining lots on Cranbrook and Weatherstone.
Mr. Starr commented that the open space would be acquired in Phase III-A and the connection of Northington Drive to Lofgren Road would happen in Phase III-B; these items would occur sequentially. Mr. Chalder concurred and noted that that is the intention.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that it has been discussed by Town Staff and concluded that a separate application for the proposed rephrasing would not be required. He further explained that no changes to the lot layout and the road layout are proposed; these items remain exactly the same as shown on the original approved plan. He noted that the applicant would need to request a modification to the original approval but no application filing or public hearing would be needed. He noted that if the Commission is in agreement with the proposed rephasing, the applicants’ engineer would refine the drawings in order to prepare the record maps for filing. The applicants would close the sale on the property and request the status of their approval for Phase III-A be
changed from conditional to final. Mr. Kushner explained that he has been made aware, by Mr. Chalder, of a recent change in the State Statues which indicates that in a case where a plan is presented to the Commission that shows individual phases and where the Commission has a procedure to permit bonding, that the Commission could treat each phase as if it were a separate project. He noted that a request by the applicant to change each subphase from conditional to final approval would be sequential (i.e, Phase III-A would be followed by Phase III-B and so on). A separate set of plans for each subphase would be required for recording.
Mr. Chalder noted that, currently, the maps for this phase are filed in the Town Clerk’s office with the Chairman’s signature for conditional approval. He explained that new mylars would be prepared for the Chairman’s signature reflecting the conversion from conditional to final approval. He noted that the intention is to start with Phase III-A and continue in order.
Mr. Kushner commented that the dedication of open space for the Weatherstone Subdivision would be addressed with Phase III-A; this open space will provide a critical link between the two existing open space pieces in the area. (The Found Land and the Huckleberry Hill Open Space.) Connecting Northington Drive to the Kingswood Subdivision would be accomplished with Phase III-B.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Chalder explained that the proposal is to add notes to the construction drawings to show in which phase certain site details would be accomplished (i.e, catch basins, drainage, etc.). He commented that the applicant is comfortable working out these details with Town Staff, if the Commission is agreeable; he added that the applicant would return to the Commission in two weeks.
Mr. Starr commented that the applicant would need to return for each of the four subphases to obtain final approval from the Commission. Mr. Chalder commented that he isn’t sure whether the applicant would need to appear before the Commission to take the approval from conditional to final but the new/revised plans would require the Chairman’s signature. He added that the Chairman’s signature on the modified, phased plans would reflect that the bond had been posted and/or the improvements have been accepted.
Mr. Kushner explained that Weatherstone would be listed on an agenda and one of the applicants would have to attend the Commission’s meeting and make a brief presentation.
Mrs. Griffin asked if there would be another way to access the open space, as the proposal is to acquire it during Phase III-A but access would not be gained until Phase III-B. Mr. Chalder noted that the property is accessible today by individuals who walk through but there are no lots which directly abut the open space until Phase III-B happens.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that individuals could access the subject open space via the existing Town open space located on either side.
Mr. Chalder noted that a right-of-way has been cleared; you can see from one side of the open space to the other. He added that the intention is to deed the open space as soon as possible to dispel any concerns, complete the road connection, and proceed with remaining lot development in a phased approach.
Mr. Kushner asked the applicants whether their intent would be to ask for final approval for Phase III-A at the upcoming September 27 meeting or at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Francoline responded by noting that approval for Phase III-A would be requested at a subsequent meeting.
Mr. Kushner addressed Mr. Starr and stated that he and the Town Staff would be happy to work with the applicants and Mr. Chalder to revise the plans. He added that once the plans have been satisfactorily modified, the applicants would come back to the Commission to ask for final approval for Phase III-A.
Mr. Starr commented that the Commission would motion to approve the applicants’ request to divide the current Phase III into 4 subphases (Phase III-A, III-B, III-C, and III-D) and work with Town Staff to prepare modified record plans. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Cappello motioned to approve the division of Phase III (PZC App. #4304 approved July 24, 2007 currently in conditional approval) into 4 subphases (Phase III-A, Phase III-B, Phase III-C, and Phase III-D) as well as permit modification of the record plans for the Weatherstone Subdivision. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin received unanimous approval.
2012 PZC Meeting Schedule/Calendar
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve the 2012 Meeting Schedule, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
Staff Report - Gordon Property/45 Deercliff Road
Mr. Kushner explained that a temporary Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) was issued by the Town in December of 2010 for the Gordon residence located at 45 Deercliff Road. He noted that while the Town doesn’t normally issue temporary C/O’s for single-family homes, David Gordon had requested it due to bank financing issues. He commented that the house was mostly complete but there were some landscaping issues that needed to be addressed. Mr. Kushner noted that Mr. Gordon had received 2 approvals from the Commission; one approval for the house and a subsequent approval for an in-ground pool. More recently, Mr. Gordon requested a final C/O for both the house and the pool but upon inspection by Town Staff (John McCahill) it was discovered that the landscape plan was not built in total
conformance to the approved plan. He noted that it appears that a couple of trees have been cut in error and a few trees that were supposed to be planted have not been planted. Since that time, the Town has requested Mr. Gordon to provide additional documentation.
Mr. Kushner addressed the pool and noted that there is a bluestone pool deck located on the cliff side of the property which is inconsistent with the approved plan. He explained that he believes that when the pool application was before the Commission that there was a discussion about where the pool deck would be located. The plans showed a deck located on the cliff side but after some discussion between Mr. Gordon and the Commission, Mr. Gordon moved the deck to the non-cliff side of the pool. When Mr. McCahill inspected the property he also noticed that some trees had been cut that appeared to be located off the Gordon’s property on land owned by the Town. He noted that the Town’s forester has since walked the property and cataloged the cut trees, approximately 30 sizeable trees.
Mr. Kushner addressed a letter sent to Mr. Gordon, dated July 28, 2011, addressing these issues. He noted that there has been one meeting between Town Staff, the Town Attorney and Mr. Gordon’s attorney. Mr. Kushner noted that the Town is trying to reach an amicable settle-ment and added that input from the Town Council will be needed. Mr. Kushner explained that Mr. Gordon’s attorney has communicated to the Town that it is his belief that Mr. Gordon had someone working for him who was instructed to cut a few trees but not to the extent that were cut. Mr. Kushner stated that Mr. Gordon has been requested to provide documentation to the Town that shows the exact pool and pool deck location, along with a comparison to the structure and the approved landscaped plan. He noted that it
seems likely that the Council will ask Mr. Gordon to have the cut trees removed under the Town’s supervision and the area restored with wood chips so the area could possibly be used as a hiking trail. The Town’s forester has also recommended that some additional plantings/remediation (seedlings or smaller trees) may be appropriate on the Town’s land. Mr. Kushner noted that the Town Attorney has pointed out that there are penalties, under the State Statutes, for cutting trees on public property.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels that whatever costs are incurred by the Town should be paid for by Mr. Gordon.
Ms. Keith asked why larger trees couldn’t be replanted on the Town’s land. Mr. Kushner noted that this investigation is still in the beginning stages; negotiations and/or solutions will have to be considered and found acceptable to the Town Council, the Commission, and the Gordons. He explained that the site is very, very steep and it would be difficult to plant trees of any substantial size.
Mr. Starr noted out that more damage may be done to the area by trying to get in there to plant new trees.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels Mr. Gordon should be responsible to replace the trees taken down with coverage of some kind. She added that she feels he should be responsible to pay all the expenses. She noted that she wants to stand firm as a member of this Commission that Mr. Gordon needs to restore the area.
Mr. Kushner noted his understanding and agreement with Ms. Keith’s comments and added that he and the Town Attorney agree that
Mr. Gordon is in a difficult situation, as he does not have a final C/O.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that the Building Official has indi-cated that a temporary C/O has a limited duration and if the situation cannot be resolved to the Town’s satisfaction Mr. Gordon may lose his temporary C/O. Mrs. Griffin commented that Mr. Gordon should not be given any leeway with regard to the pool area; she added that she feels he should be made to remove anything that is located beyond where it was approved.
Mr. Kushner commented that Town Staff won’t be giving Mr. Gordon permission to do anything; it will be the Commission’s decision. He explained that Mr. Gordon has been notified by the Town that he is responsible to pay all of the Town’s legal fees. He noted that the Town’s advice to Mr. Gordon, via the Town Attorney, is that it is in Mr. Gordon’s best interest to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. Mr. Kushner concluded by noting that he would provide information about the timetable for temporary C/O’s at the next meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on September 13, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4558 - Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, Marc Rietze, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.F.3.c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124, in a CP-B Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITION
App. #4561 - Norwich Commercial Group, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct new building, 139 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970139, in an OP Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
App. #4564 - Old Avon Realty, LLC owner, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant, request for Zone Change from NB to RU2A, 1.42 acres 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059 APPROVED. EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 26, 2011.
App. #4565 - Crusheen, LLC, owner, Dante Boffi Design LLC, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for exterior façade renovations, O’Neills Chevrolet, 5 West Main Street, Parcel 4540005, in a CS Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
In addition, the following applications were withdrawn:
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 WITHDRAWN
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 WITHDRAWN
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 WITHDRAWN
Dated at Avon this 14th day of September, 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, September 27, 2011, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Town Hall:
App. #4566- Avon Park North 150 Associates, LLC, owner, Farmington Valley Academy Montessori, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.G.3.e. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit unlimited extension for Montessori school use, 150 Fisher Drive, Parcel 2280150, in an IP Zone.
App. #4567- Avon Properties, LLC, owner, Ready Imaging, Inc., applicant, request for Special Exception under Sections VII.C.4.b.(1) and (5) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit refacing of detached and gas price signs, 80 East Main Street, Parcel 2140080 in a CS Zone.
App. #4568- Lexham Avon, LLC, owner, Artfx Signs, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached sign, 339 West Main Street, Parcel 2140080 in a CR 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 13th day of September, 2011.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
