The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Senior Center on Tuesday November 22, 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. Griffin motioned to approve the minutes of the October 18, 2011, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4562 Proposed Amendment to Avon Subdivision Regulations pertaining to Low Impact Development (LID); Town of Avon, aplicant.
App. #4563 Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to Low Impact Development (LID); Town of Avon, applicant.
Mr. Starr reported that Apps. #4562 and #4563 have been withdrawn to allow additional time for review and input by Town Staff. He explained that these applications will be resubmitted in the spring of 2012.
App. #4571 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. #4572 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 areas, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059, in an RU2A Zone
The public hearing was continued from October 18.
Present to represent these applications were David Hoopes, Mayo Crowe, LLC, representing the Capital Region Education Council (CREC); Bruce Douglas, and Don Walsh, CREC; Luke McCoy, David Friar, and Glenn Yeakel, Friar Associates; and Steve Ulman, Purcell Associates
Attorney David Hoopes referenced his presentation at the last meeting concerning the legal standards of this proposal. He explained that if he went overboard on this issue and offended any of the Commission members, he conveyed his apologies to everyone and added that it was not intentional.
Mr. Hoopes reported that an alternate plan for the northerly part of the site (the yellow barn) has been submitted to the Commission. This alternate plan calls for the demolition of the existing yellow barn and proposes 20 new parking spaces, as well as 38 new parking spaces provided via grass pavers. He noted that access to the proposed school would still only be from Avonwood Road; the curb cut from Waterville Road (Rt. 10) would only be accessible by the Town for emergency purposes.
Luke McCoy, landscape architect, stated that the site is located on the corner of Avonwood Road and Waterville Road (Rt. 10). There are 3 existing buildings on the site (the red barn, the cider mill building, and the yellow barn). He displayed the current site plan and addressed concerns expressed by the Commission at the last meeting about the safety of the outdoor play area. He noted that fencing has been added in this area to enclose the play areas; the children would be completely separated from surrounding properties and roadways by distance and also now by fencing. Mr. McCoy explained that it has been discovered that there is additional room on both the subject site and on Avonwood Road to add another partial lane to provide a stacking area for 10 to 12 cars during parent drop off. He
noted that this extra lane is totally out of the way and would not impact any of the thru traffic, coming or going, on Avonwood Road.
Mr. McCoy referenced discussions at the last meeting regarding the possible removal of the yellow barn and displayed an alternate site plan showing the elimination of this building. CREC would find an alternate location for the temporary classroom need for the next 2 years. The proposed paved parking area for 20 vehicles would remain and the access drive would remain for emergency access and be gated. He added that grass pavers (room for 38 vehicles) are also proposed for additional parking. Grass pavers do not create a muddy situation like typical grass on a wet day and, additionally, provides a grassed area that could also be used as a recreation area. He noted that the original plan proposed 103 parking spaces; this plan proposes 20 additional paved spaces and 38 grassed (overflow,
temporary) spaces, which would increase the total proposed parking to 161 spaces. Mr. McCoy noted that the current Zoning Regulations require the proposed school to have 98 parking spaces. He clarified that these parking changes do not impact the proposed schedule for offsite events; all large school events would be held offsite.
Steve Ulman, traffic engineer, addressed traffic and Avon Mountain. He noted that CREC’s policy, since 2008, is that no buses go over Avon Mountain and added that there is no intention to change it. He commented, from the perspective of a traffic engineer, that the recent improvements to Route 44 and Avon Mountain (widening, landscape medians), in a way, make the previous accident history obsolete. He provided accident history on Avon Mountain for recent years and noted that in 2006 there were 20 accidents; in 2007 there were 19 accidents; in 2008 there were 37 accidents; and in 2009 there were 27 accidents. Mr. Ulman noted that 55 of the total number of accidents for this 4-year period (103) were rear end accidents which occurred at the bottom of the Mountain at the signal. There were
31 accidents relating to the geometry of the Mountain; 10 side swipes in the same direction; 7 side swipes in the opposite direction; and 14 fixed object accidents. He explained that these statistics are indicative of the windy nature, the hill, and the narrowness coming over the Mountain. Mr. Ulman commented that he believes some of these accidents will be significantly reduced in the future due to the recent improvements to Avon Mountain but added that the rear end accidents at the bottom of the hill will not change.
Mr. Ulman addressed Ayrshire Lane and noted that he did counts during the morning peak period which shows that Ayrshire Lane, coming out onto Waterville Road, operates at Service Level E in the morning. He explained that the 2013 no-build volumes keep this area in Service Level E and building the proposed school also keeps this area at Level Service E. He noted that there is a delay for left turns out of Ayrshire Lane. He explained that traffic volume counts during normal traffic times do not indicate that Ayrshire Lane is really being used as a cut through to Route 44; he added that it is likely that motorists occasionally use Ayrshire Lane as a short cut. Mr. Ulman stated that Avon’s emergency personnel direct individuals to use Ayrshire Lane when there is an incident at the intersection of
Route 10 and Route 44 and noted that he doesn’t see that scenario changing.
Mr. Ulman addressed signalization at the intersection of Avonwood Road and Waterville Road (Rt. 10). He explained that there isn’t physically enough width on Waterville Road without encroaching on private property to create a full left-turn lane. If the west side of Waterville Road was widened there would be encroachment into the existing wetlands/floodplain on the subject site. There are likely wetlands on the commercial property to the south and there is insufficient room in the right-of-way, at the corner, to locate a utility pole without encroaching onto private property. He noted that there is a very steep slope on the east side that would require removing part of the hill, clearing a lot of trees, and gaining permission from private property owners. Mr. Ulman stated that the
applicant intends to request from the State DOT permission for the traffic signal with a left-turn bypass area.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s questions, Mr. Ulman stated that, to his knowledge, Avon Mountain is the only road in Connecticut that has a runaway truck ramp; the ramp has never been used. He commented that this ramp style is being built in other locations and has successfully stopped trucks on more than one occasion. He added that information is available to indicate that once a truck is pulled out of the ramp area by a tow truck the damage is not that significant and, generally, the truck is able to be driven away. Mr. Ulman explained that buses for the CREC School that currently operates in Avon do not travel over Avon Mountain; CREC’s policy is that no buses go over Avon Mountain. He noted that it is his understanding that it is CREC’s responsibility, rather than the
Town’s, to determine which roads/routes used are used for bus transportation to CREC Schools. In response to Mrs. Clark’s concerns, a CREC Staff member stated that CREC guarantees that their buses will not travel over Avon Mountain.
Glenn Yeakel, architect and LEED accredited professional, explained that it is his responsibility to ensure that the State of Connecticut’s high performance guidelines for this facility are met, as the building is State funded. He noted that the State’s requirements are setup such that they are equivalent to a silver rating for LEED. He commented that questions were raised at previous meetings about the types of “green” techniques that were being used for this building; various types of energy systems were investigated and analyzed. He explained that because funding is being provided by the State, the School really can’t take advantage of supplemental funding available from clean energy funding. Mr. Yeakel stated that the proposed school has been designed with natural
gas appliances; the condensing boilers are high efficiency. The envelope of the building is highly insulated; lighting fixtures along the exterior window walls will shut down automatically if it’s a sunny day. He explained that all the building information has to be incorporated into a computer model and the results must be 25% better than code minimums in order to meet CT Standards. He added that a 30% reduction in water usage, above the code baseline, is proposed. Specific landscape techniques are proposed to reduce heat index effects on the site; the recycling of materials and management of construction wastes is also proposed. Mr. Yeakel concluded by noting that many issues are being addressed and added that when you look at the project as a whole, a significant impact is being made with regard to energy.
Mr. Hoopes stated that this proposal has been a very long process that began last January when CREC appeared before the Commission seeking guidance about the location of the proposed school. He conveyed, on CREC’s behalf, their appreciation for this guidance as well as the Commission’s voicing of their preference of the subject site over a site on Climax Road in Avon Park North. Mr. Hoopes thanked the Commission for their time participating in the many hours of public hearing for this proposal. He also thanked Mr. Kushner, Mrs. Sadlon, and all the members of the Town Staff for their time in reviewing this proposal. Mr. Hoopes concluded by noting that CREC believes that all the special exception and site plan criteria contained in the Town’s Regulations have been satisfied.
Mr. Starr asked for clarification on whether the existing yellow barn is still being proposed as a temporary classroom use or is being proposed to be razed along with the cider mill. Mr. Hoopes explained that the yellow barn would come down if that is the Commission’s wish.
Mr. Starr opened the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Delbone, 45 Waterville Road, noted his surprise with the proposal to take down the yellow barn and asked how much CREC paid for the property and whether the yellow barn was included in the price. Mr. Starr commented that he doesn’t believe the cost is relevant to the hearing but offered to let CREC answer if they wished. Mr. Delbone commented that he wants to know where all the money is coming from, as there is a lot of money invested in the yellow barn; he added that he knows he is getting off the subject but commented that it would be taxpayers’ money that would pay for the building tear down.
In response to Mr. Delbone’s concerns, Don Walsh explained that the State regulates the acquisition process; the seller is entitled to receive the higher of two appraisals from a list of appraisers that the State approves. He stated that two appraisals were done and neither appraisal assigned any value to the yellow barn; therefore, from an appraisal viewpoint, the yellow barn is inconsequential.
In response to Mr. Delbone’s question, Mr. Walsh indicated that if the yellow barn comes down trees would be planted on the subject site to provide a buffer to Mr. Delbone’s property. Mr. Delbone indicated that he doesn’t want trees and noted that he would rather have a wall.
In response to Mr. Delbone’s question, Mr. Starr explained that if an approval is granted, a 35-foot “B” Bufferyard would be required on the subject site. Mr. Starr commented to Mr. Delbone that he (Mr. Delbone) could put up any type of buffer, such as a wall, on his own property but the subject site would be required to plant a vegetated “B” Bufferyard.
In response to Mr. Delbone’s question, Mr. Starr noted that the Commission did not have any discussions with residents of neighborhoods located next to other CREC schools. Mr. Delbone asked whether such a discussion would have been prudent.
In response to Mr. Delbone’s question, Bruce Douglas explained that there is no way to measure, at this time, what percentage of the cost of the school ($30M per Mr. Delbone) would remain in Avon but noted that CREC intends to make every effort to engage Avon businesses and provide jobs for Avon residents. Mr. Delbone noted his concerns that no dollar figure or percentage can be identified with all the time that has been spent on this project. Mr. Douglas confirmed that no dollar figure can be identified at this time even with all the time that has been spent on this project.
In response to Mr. Delbone’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that the “fly-over bridge” is currently a dead issue. He noted that while he could never say “never”, he explained that he was told verbally by the State DOT that the costs to implement the project would be very large and that the reception by neighboring property owners was “lukewarm”, at best. He noted that the State DOT had meetings with the River Mead Condominium Association who were very negative towards the project, as were other nearby property owners such as Nassau Furniture. Mr. Kushner noted that no written response has been received from the State but added that the Town was informed that the project is not going to happen.
Mr. Delbone questioned the accuracy of peak traffic counts presented at a previous meeting and added that it has been represented by Mr. Ulman that the majority of the students are dropped off by bus and asked whether anyone has verified that information. Mr. Starr explained that the applicant has reported that the current situation is that the majority of the students are dropped off by bus; he added that the Commission has no reason to disbelieve that information. Mr. Delbone commented that it has been represented that there would be 68 administrators and 26 vehicles carrying students coming into the school during the peak hour. Mr. Ulman explained that peak hour is the peak hour for the school traffic. He noted that, typically, the administrators and staff would arrive early and not all 68
administrators would arrive during the peak hour. He indicated that he has observed the current Reggio School on Fisher Drive and explained that most of the staff arrived at the school prior to 7:30 am. He explained that the peak morning period is generally 2 hours but noted that the numbers in the report are indicative of the heaviest one-hour period. Mr. Delbone noted his understanding.
In response to Mr. Delbone’s question, Mr. Starr explained that the State DOT cannot receive any requests pertinent to this proposal until a decision is made by the Commission. He further explained that if the Commission approves this proposal, one of the conditions will require that the applicant apply to the State for a traffic signal; the proposed widening of the road would also be part of the State application. If the State does not approve the applicant’s requests, the applicant would have to return to the Commission with a new application.
Mr. Delbone indicated that Mr. Douglas was being disingenuous at a previous meeting when he said he was sorry that he wasn’t going to be able to repay the Town of Avon for the $21K in lost tax revenue. He further indicated that Mr. Douglas failed to mention the $300K to $500K that the Town would lose. Mr. Starr explained that tax revenue does not fall under the Commission’s purview. Mr. Delbone noted that Mr. Douglas represented that the proposed school would offer a world-class education for 20 to 40 Avon students; he commented that he thought Avon already has a world-class school system. Mr. Starr noted that the type of education is also not an issue for the Commission. Mr. Delbone noted his understanding and went on to say that Mr. Douglas has also represented, at an earlier
meeting, that Avon would be part of a solution for regional public school inequities as well as a reasonable solution to desegregation. Mr. Delbone commented that this type of statement has no bearing upon a zoning application. Mr. Starr stated that the Commission is only looking at zoning issues and offered no comment. Mr. Delbone commented that the proposed plan is not in accordance with the Town’s comprehensive Plan of Development because it would adversely affect public safety due to increased traffic and would adversely affect the private property of the surrounding areas. Mr. Starr explained that those issues would be part of the Commission’s consideration.
Mr. Delbone commented that when the Commission votes their actions will create an illegal spot zone. Mr. Delbone stated that social engineering and the comprehensive plan are the only issues that should be considered here, as those are the Commission’s only responsibilities. He concluded by noting that his concern is the economic impact to Avon and the adherence to the rules and regulations of the Town and the Commission and added that, this being the case, the Commission has to reject the subject proposal as it is black and white.
Mrs. Clark informed Mr. Delbone that she was out of Town and not present in June when the zone change occurred. She commented to
Mr. Delbone that when he is speaking to the Board he should be aware that she wasn’t here and didn’t vote on that application. Mr. Delbone commented that there have been members on and off for a while; some drop in and some drop off and sometimes there’s an alternate. He added that he hopes everyone has been keeping up to speed, as it has been a long process.
Ben Colman, 37 Tamara Circle, and Abha Bernard, 2 Churchill Place, addressed the Commission. Mr. Colman noted that he and Ms. Bernard work for Women’s Health USA (22 Waterville Road) and read aloud, verbatim, a letter of support, for the record, from Robert Patricelli, CEO, dated October 21, 2011. Mr. Starr reported that the letter is part of the application’s public record. Mr. Colman noted that he has a petition with 166 signatures from employees at Women’s Health in support of the proposed school.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s questions, Mr. Colman explained that the number of employees that live in Avon are probably in the minority; he guessed that most employees commute from other areas. He noted that he feels that peak hours refer to normal rush hour traffic times but explained that Women’s Health employees come and go all day and are on the road all day. He explained that the employees mostly utilize Waterville Road (Rt. 10) and Avon Mountain, as they are not permitted to cut through other properties. Mr. Colman indicated that Women’s Health has been located at 22 Waterville Road for 15 years; he added that he has been employed there for 4 ½ years and noted that he has not seen any increase in traffic in that time.
Abha Bernard, 2 Churchill Place, conveyed her support for the school. She commented that CREC has offered to install a traffic light on Waterville Road to address concerns related to an increase in traffic from the school. She noted that the employees of Women’s Health do not feel that having an elementary school as a neighbor is cause for concern from either a traffic or a safety standpoint. She urged the Commission to approve the proposal.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Ms. Bernard explained that she would support the school even if a traffic signal was not installed.
Mr. Colman clarified that the 166 individuals who signed the petition would support the school with or without a traffic signal.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s comments, Ms. Bernard agreed that she feels Waterville Road would function better with a traffic light in the subject area; she added that she feels this way in the same manner that she feels that the intersection of Country Club Road and Lovely Street (Rt. 177) near Roaring Brook School would benefit from a traffic light. Ms. Bernard reiterated that she supports the proposed school with or without a traffic light.
Bob Paine noted that he will speak on behalf of Reverend Henry Brown, who has been called to a vigil in Hartford due to a shooting. He noted that Mr. Brown is the head of an organization for mothers united against violence. He commented that Mr. Brown has reacted to the proposal to build a school on a highway in a high-risk area that young minority children from inner cities would attend. He commented that there would be no opportunity in this location for the students to gain from Avon’s educational culture. Mr. Paine commented that before 1997 there was no mandate for magnet schools to be concerned with integration and diversity.
Mr. Starr commented to Mr. Paine that he is deviating from information pertinent to this Commission. Mr. Paine added that the minorities think that the proposed school location is horrible and feel that a school belongs on the inside of Avon, in the heart of the city. He commented that he believes that CREC buses are coming over Avon Mountain.
Ms. Keith pointed out that the Commission has no control over dialogue presented by an applicant during a public hearing process and added that the Commission cannot make a judgment on issues such as segregation. She explained that the Commission makes their judgments based on the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Mr. Starr referred to a handout from Peggy Roell, dated October 12, 2011, and noted, for the record, that Section A. Suitable Location for Use lists the following Farmington Valley elementary schools that front on Route 10: Granby Kearns Elementary; Plainville Wheeler Elementary and Linden Street Elementary; Southington North Central Plantsville and Derynoski Elementary; and Cheshire Highland Elementary. He noted that all these schools may have side road entrances, just as we would have at the subject site, but reiterated that they all front on Route 10.
Laura Young, 57 Hitchcock Lane, commented that Roaring Brook School is located about a 10th of a mile from Route 177, a road that is similar to Route 10. Mr. Starr explained that Route 177 is a State Highway like Route 10 but noted that Roaring Brook School does not front on Route 177 but, rather, fronts on Old Wheeler Lane. Ms. Young asked whether Roaring Brook School is considered to be in a dangerous location. Mr. Starr said no.
Jim Walsh, resident of Cider Brook Road and Reggio parent, noted his support of the Reggio approach. He explained that he lived in the Avonwood Apartments for a short time when he first moved to Town and is familiar with the traffic patterns in that area. He added that he doesn’t believe traffic would be affected that much by having a school on the subject site.
Margaret Bratton, 15 Old Mill Road, commented that she feels that most of the individuals who have spoken against the proposal are not giving opinions based on emotions or social justice reasons. She noted that she believes that most reasons have to do with planning and zoning issues. She commented that no matter which direction the buses come from there would be 16 more buses than there are now in Avon, which will add to traffic backups on Route 10 and Route 44. She questioned whether the State or the Town of Avon would be authorized to shut the school down should funding from the State for CREC’s expenses cease at some point. Mr. Starr explained that fiduciary issues are not under the Commission’s purview. Ms. Bratton conveyed her concerns for maintenance and safety if the
building were closed down and asked who would be responsible. Mr. Starr commented that he believes the State would be responsible should the school be closed and explained that this same scenario is a possibility for every new business that starts up in Town. He explained that businesses close all the time and noted that vacant spaces are the building owner’s responsibility.
In response to Ms. Bratton’s concerns, Mr. Walsh explained that CREC fully maintains all of its facilities and offered a guarantee in this regard.
In response to Ms. Bratton’s concerns, Mr. Starr explained that everything the applicant says and represents in a public hearing is made part of the public record with regard to the approval process.
In response to Ms. Bratton’s question regarding recourse, Mr. Douglas commented that he believes the question of recourse could be asked of any new business coming into Town. He explained that CREC does not have a track record of being deceitful but added that CREC does have a track record of fulfilling its obligations.
Attorney Hoopes explained that if CREC violates a condition of an approval, the Town has remedies, under State Statutes, just as they do for any zoning violation.
Ms. Keith asked whether it has been considered to use the existing yellow barn as office space for CREC staff instead of taking the building down.
Mr. Starr conveyed his belief that CREC has responded to the Commission’s feeling of the need for more parking. Ms. Keith noted her understanding.
Mr. Hoopes clarified that CREC has presented both scenarios (one plan showing the building to remain and one plan showing the building taken down) for the Commission’s consideration.
Wade Horsey commented that he has lived in Avon his whole life and conveyed his support for the proposed magnet school but noted his concerns relating to the accident several years ago on Avon Mountain, where a truck crashed into Nassau’s Furniture. He noted his concerns with bringing 500 students into this area and exposing them to the accident history on Avon Mountain. He asked whether a school in this area would be the best representation of Avon. He commented to the Commission that if they think the subject area is safe for kids on a bus, vote yes.
Ms. Bernard, 2 Churchill Place, commented that school buses for Avon Public schools travel over Avon Mountain every day.
Robin Schwartz, 88 Harris Road, asked if there is any accident data for Route 10 in the subject area. She commented that she doesn’t have the history of this area as being a bad area despite all the traffic; she added that she feels everyone is pretty conscious of the proposed school. She explained that she commutes to work in West Hartford and often drives by the Cider Mill on Waterville Road and hasn’t observed any traffic issues. She concluded by noting her support for the proposed school.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4571 was closed.
App. #4573 - Path LLC, owner/applicant, request for Zone Change from RU2A to CPA, 2.13 acres, 38 Guernsey Lane, Parcel 2500038
Mr. Thompson motioned to continue the public hearing for App. 4573 to the next meeting, scheduled for December 13. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4574- Three Ninety Five Deercliff Partners LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit pool within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 395 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090395, in an RU2A Zone.
Present to represent this application was Gary Hath, principal, CR3.
Mr. Hath explained that approval for a pool was received in connection with a previous application (App. #4482 - approved April 2010) and further explained that the subject application proposes to move the pool from one side of the lot to the other.
Mr. Kushner offered background information and noted that the subject parcel is the former home of the Travelers Insurance Cliff House; there is a large patio area that remains and overlooks the Valley.
Mr. Hath displayed a map showing the original approved location of the proposed pool and pool house. He noted that the owners wish to eliminate the pool house and locate the pool house functions on the inside; the proposed pool has also been moved to the other side of the lot. The proposed pool is 10 feet longer than the originally approved pool; the former approved pool was 20 x 40 and the proposed pool is 20 x 50.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Hath stated that the proposed pool extends 30 feet further into the ridgeline than the previously approved pool. He added that the pool would not be visible; there are no trees that would need to be taken down; and the house construction is almost complete.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Hath explained that the pool house would be eliminated, as all the pool functions would be located inside the pool area.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Hath noted that the pool is proposed to be located lengthwise (perpendicular to the house)) on the lot as opposed to being located parallel to the house because the owners have indicated that they want to be able to control/monitor their young children. Ms. Keith commented that the proposed pool intrudes into the regulated ridgeline setback. Mr. Hath commented that the pool would be invisible. Ms. Keith noted that there is an invisible line that represents the regulated cliff area and added that it has nothing to do with whether the pool can be seen or not; it has to do with the traprock regulations. She commented that she’s not sure she wants to approve this proposal and set a precedent to allow future pools in the regulated area.
Mr. Starr noted that a pool for this site has already been approved. Ms. Keith noted her understanding and pointed out that the current proposal encroaches further. She commented that she feels the Commission needs to start taking a firmer stance with regard to pools in the ridgeline; the proposed pool extends 30 feet into the regulated area, which is too much.
Mr. Kushner noted that the entire backyard is cleared of trees and there is a large concrete patio that, essentially, hangs over the cliff that was part of the former Cliff House. Mr. Hath confirmed that no tree clearing is proposed and very little grading is required. Mr. Kushner added that this site was developed and improved long before the ridgeline regulations existed.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Hath noted that a yard exists in the area from the patio to the house. He noted that the area where the circular Cliff House building used to exist is all open. Mr. Cappello commented that nothing would be seen from below.
Mr. Starr commented that the original pool approval permitted a 20-foot encroachment into the 150-foot regulated area and the subject application proposes a 30-foot encroachment into the 150-foot regulated area. Mr. Hath concurred but then offered clarification. He explained that there is a difference of 30 feet; the length of the current proposed pool encroaches 50 feet into the 150-foot setback. The original pool proposal encroached 30 feet into the 150-foot ridgeline setback. Mr. Starr noted that the encroachment is 20 feet further into the regulated area. Mr. Hath concurred.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Hath explained that trees for screening are proposed to be added; hardwood evergreens are proposed for the perimeter of the property.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4574 was closed.
App. #4576 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, American Sign Inc., applicant, request for Special Exception under Sections VII.C.2.f.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign larger than 75 square feet, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone
Present to represent this application was Tony Lafo, American Sign, Inc.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner stated that there are no outstanding issues; the new sign is slightly smaller than the existing sign but noted that, in accordance with the Zoning Regulations, all signs larger than 75 square feet require Commission approval.
Tony Lafo questioned the requirement for the sign returns to match the building color and noted that most of the existing signs on the building (Nod Brook Mall) do not have return colors that match the building.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Zoning Regulations require a sign theme for each plaza. He noted that one of the criteria of the sign theme for Nod Brook Mall is that the sign returns match the building color. He explained that sometimes there are signs in a plaza don’t comply with the sign theme but as the tenants change new signs are brought into compliance.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Lafo explained that “Marshalls” does not want to have the returns on their sign match the building color; he added that pretty much 100% of the Marshalls signs all over the country have white returns with blue faces. He added that the building owner, Nod Brook LLC, approved the drawings as submitted. Mr. Lafo noted that the new proposed sign is 42 square feet smaller than what currently exists.
Mr. Kushner commented that another plaza in Avon, Avon Marketplace, has many signs with raceways and returns that match the building color; he noted that this requirement is very common for sign themes.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4576 was closed.
App. #4577 - Ensign Bickford Realty Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Zone Change from CPA to AVC (Avon Center Zone), 6.6 acres, 16 Ensign Drive, Parcel 2210016; from CPA to AVC, 11.6 acres, 21 Ensign Drive, Parcel 2210021; from IP to AVC, 30.7 acres, 65 Ensign Drive, Parcel 2210065; from IP to AVC, 16.3 acres, 70 Ensign Drive, Parcel 2210070; from IP to AVC, 13.7 acres, 55 Bickford Drive, Parcel 1300055; from IP to AVC, 5.4 acres, 75 Bickford Drive, Parcel 1300075; from CPA to AVC, 6.5 acres, 65 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970065; from I to AVC, 1.0 acres, 71 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970071; and from IP to AVC, .93 acres, 93 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970093
Mr. Starr reported that the applicant has requested a public hearing continuance to the next meeting for App. #4577.
Ms. Keith motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4577 to the next meeting, scheduled for December 13. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Griffin motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4571, #4572, #4574, and #4576. Ms. Keith seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4571 Old Avon Realty, LLC, owner, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.b. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit public school, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059, in an RU2A Zone.
App. #4572 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 areas, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059, in an RU2A Zone
Ms. Keith motioned to approve Apps. #4571 and #4572, subject to discussion by the Commission. The motion was seconded by
Mrs. Griffin.
Mr. Starr opened the motion for discussion by the Commission.
Mr. Starr reviewed and provided his comments relative to the Special Exception Criteria contained in Section VIII of the Zoning Regulations:
A. Suitable location for use - the proposed school is in a residential zone and has access to a State highway, which is a positive attribute. The overall traffic impact is less than that of the previously approved medical office use.
B. Suitable Structures for use - the size of the proposed building (approx. 60K sq ft), both square footage and height, is less than the previously approved medical office building (approx 90K sq ft). The lot coverage for the proposed school is lower at 35% maximum versus 50% maximum for the medical office building. The scale of the proposed building is in proportion to nearby commercial buildings. The proposed fence, wall, building, and traffic layout appear to provide student safety.
C. Neighborhood compatibility - site screening is proposed from the neighboring single-family homes and condominiums including a B Bufferyard for the north side of the site. The proposed school is a transitional use that would be active for only 180 days per year versus a normal business with year-round activity. There would be no adverse impacts to nearby residential property values. There have been new single-family homes constructed next to Pine Grove Elementary, Avon High Middle and Avon High School after these schools were constructed.
D. Adequate parking and access - all the existing buildings (yellow post and beam and Cider Mill and red barn) would be removed such that additional parking could be created. Large school events would be held offsite at other CREC locations. Waterville Road (Route 10) provides better access for northeast and south arrivals and departures than would local residential streets such as Climax Road and/or Old Farms Road. The proposed new traffic signal at the intersection of Avonwood Road and Waterville Road would improve traffic flow especially during morning peak hours. Avonwood Road is to be rebuilt into the School property line and joint maintenance agreements are to be provided. The student dropoff area for both
buses and cars provides safety for students and vehicles.
E. Adequate streets for use - covered in Item D - Waterville Road provides adequate vehicle movement and traffic signals and Avonwood Road is to be rebuilt.
F. Adequate emergency access - the site plan has been approved by both the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief.
G. Adequate public utilities - public water, sewer, and storm management meet engineering criteria.
H. Environmental protection and conservation - the subject proposal received approval from the Inland Wetlands Commission on September 6, 2011.
I. Consistent with purposes - there would be no detrimental effects on public health, safety, welfare, and property values and the proposed use would not conflict with purposes of the Zoning Regulations.
Ms. Keith commented that the proposed school would offer Avon an opportunity for the use of an additional athletic field as well as the use of another building for public events, which Avon could really use. She added that she has extensive experience working in public schools and noted that buses and parents for drop off and pickup times don’t always arrive and leave at the same time.
Mrs. Clark commented that she has concerns with traffic and safety issues and added that she doesn’t feel the subject site is a good location for a school. She noted that she feels a better location could be found.
Mr. Mahoney commented that an assertion was made that the subject location is better than the location on Climax Road and added that there is no backup to support that position. He noted that this is a big issue for him.
Mr. Starr noted that he feels that Climax Road is narrower than Waterville Road and therefore the bus traffic would be better served on Waterville Road.
Mrs. Clark commented that the school would be built and then there would be a wait for the traffic light to be installed. She commented that she feels there are too many accidents in the area and doesn’t feel right about it.
Mr. Starr explained that a condition could be put on an approval that requires a traffic light in order for the applicant to be able to move forward with the project.
Mr. Mahoney commented that the Climax intersection has signalization and turn lanes available.
Mr. Starr noted that if a traffic signal cannot be achieved at the intersection of Avonwood Road and Waterville Road there may not be an approval. He explained that he feels if the Commission is going to move forward with this proposal that they can require a traffic light and the approval language can be written such that if no traffic light can be achieved then the applicant must return to the Commission for a modification.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels the subject site is far better than the Climax Road area, which would bring additional traffic into an already heavily trafficked Town center. She noted that her main concern, before tonight, was adequate parking on the site. She commented that she feels the proposed school needs to be able to function on its own without having to rely on parking in other locations for large events. She explained that with the proposal to tear down the existing yellow barn and the addition of parking spaces she now feels the subject site is viable on its own. She concluded by noting that she likes this location.
Mr. Thompson noted, for the record, that the current discussion is not about whether Climax Road is a better or worse location than 59 Waterville Road, as the application before the Commission is for 59 Waterville Road. He explained that he feels the subject proposal meets the Special Exception criteria found in Section VIII of the Zoning Regulations and added that he would vote for approval.
Mr. Cappello noted that it appears that the fact that a Reggio Magnet School is currently operating in Avon is being overlooked. He commented that no calls from the neighborhood are received; no calls about traffic. He explained that he rides his bicycle to work 5 days a week and noted that he rides right past the School. He added that he may see one bus per week, if he’s lucky, between 8 and 8:30 am. He commented that his children take the bus everyday to Thompson Brook School because he refuses to drive them due to the traffic. He concluded by noting that he doesn’t see this school proposal as a problem at all.
Mr. Starr read aloud, for the record, a document entitled, “Possible Conditions In The Event The Commission Moves To Approve CREC Applications #4571 and #4572, November 2011”.
Mr. Starr commented that the applicant has now made the representation that they would be willing to take down the yellow barn. He conveyed his feeling that he believes the Commission would prefer that all the existing buildings on the site be taken down.
Mr. Kushner explained that Mr. Douglas represented at an earlier hearing that there is a 60% likelihood that CREC would end up dismantling the yellow barn due to the impracticality of using the building for office space. He added that the State funding/budget specifications do not allow for building renovations. Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with the Commission that it would be a shame to just knock down the yellow building, as it is a post and beam structure that could be dismantled piece by piece, according to the Building Official, and put back together in another location.
Mrs. Clark asked if deliveries could be scheduled so as not to occur during school hours.
Mr. Starr commented that he believes a representation has already been made that all deliveries would occur outside of school hours, either before or after. Mr. Douglas provided affirmation of Mr. Starr’s comment.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve Apps. #4571 and #4572 subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall provide additional field-topographic information as required to refine the storm drainage conditions from adjacent sites onto the CREC property; this information shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall also provide proof that the State DOT has approved the design as it relates to the State’s drainage system.
2. The road surface and base material of Avonwood Road shall be removed and rebuilt to Town of Avon Standards for its entire length along the frontage of the subject parcel. In addition, CREC shall be responsible for coordinating discussions and developing written agreements with abutters of the road to manage maintenance of the roadway. However, independent of the outcome of these discussions/agreements, CREC shall be responsible for full maintenance of Avonwood Road along the entire length of the frontage, in order to guarantee safe travel, especially in winter conditions.
3. The Commission finds that the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Avonwood Road and Waterville Road and the proposed widening of Waterville Road to incorporate a bypass lane are critical to the safe operation of this intersection and the school. The Commission also recognizes comments from the applicant that preliminary meetings with State DOT staff indicate support for the proposed improvements. However, should it be the case that this signal not be approved by the State or that the proposed widening not be approved, given the Commission’s findings, the applicant shall reapply to the Commission and seek approval without these improvements. In addition, the Commission finds that the even greater widening of
Waterville Road to accommodate a full extra lane is preferred and encourages CREC to work with the DOT to permit this.
4. The applicant shall comply with representations made to the Commission whereas all school events that would generate a substantial amount of parking demand that exceeds the defined parking capacity shall be conducted offsite. The list of these school events shall be similar to but not limited to those identified in Exhibit G contained in Reggio Magnet School for The Arts, Applicant Submission, October 18, 2011, Exhibits A through K.
5. The site plan shall be modified to add a white-line stripe marking a shoulder along Avonwood Road for the purpose of defining an area where cars entering the school site from Avonwood Road (when dropping off students) may stack, if need be, from the CREC driveway onto Avonwood Road. The Town Engineer shall review and approve a final design. If needed, additional pavement shall be added to this portion of the roadway to increase its width.
6. If CREC elects to build the recreational field (shown as optional), this field shall be made available to the Town Recreation Department for use when such activities do not conflict with CREC’s use of the field. As represented by CREC, this shall be done at no cost to the Town of Avon. In addition, as represented, the auditorium, gym, and classrooms will be available to Avon residents/groups on weekends and during the summer.
7. All existing buildings including the yellow post and beam building (and associated electric panel) shall be removed from this property prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C/O). Regarding the garden center, CREC has indicated there are legal agreements which they have entered into in order to accomplish this requirement. No exceptions to this requirement shall be made and it shall be the responsibility of CREC to ensure that this condition can be complied with prior to the issuance of a C/O for the School.
Applicant shall construct the grass paver parking area depicted on Sheet L1.1A.
Applicant shall prepare a detailed site grading plan for this area to include all improvements, grading, drainage, etc. This plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer. Parking lot lighting shall be added in this area subject to approval of the Planning Director.
8. CREC shall satisfy all buffering requirements along its northern boundary line in accordance with landscape regulations. In the future, with the redevelopment of property located to the north in the NB Zone, any added buffering requirements as a result of the
RU2A zone shall be deemed to have been complied with. CREC shall modify its site
plan designating the required B Bufferyard (35 feet) and, in addition, add whatever plants
may be necessary to satisfy this requirement. This plan is subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received approval from Mesdames Keith and Griffin and Messrs. Starr, Thompson, and Cappello. Mrs. Clark and Mr. Mahoney voted in opposition to approve Apps. #4571 and #4572.
Mr. Kushner reported that it has been determined that more than 1,000 cubic yards of gravel will need to be removed from the site. He explained that a separate application for gravel removal will need to be submitted at some future date.
App. #4574- Three Ninety Five Deercliff Partners LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit pool within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 395 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090395, in an RU2A Zone.
Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App #4574; the motion was seconded by Mr. Thompson.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the Commission has stated in the past that a line needs to be drawn on the number of applications for activity in the ridgeline. She commented that it seems like almost every lot owner on the mountain applies for a special exception, as if they feel they have a right to encroach into the ridgeline setback. She noted that each encroachment seems to be more and more and added that she feels now is the time to draw the line. Mrs. Griffin stated that she feels there is no reason that the proposed pool couldn’t be situated on the lot in a way that doesn’t involve any encroachment into the ridgeline setback; there is plenty of available land. She commented that a pool approval has already been granted for this lot and indicated that she feels it is inappropriate to
come back and ask for more. She concluded by noting that she doesn’t feel the Commission should continue to allow these types of requests.
Mr. Cappello noted his understanding and agreement with Mrs. Griffin’s comments but pointed out that the subject lot has significant frontage to the existing retaining wall on the cliff. He noted that the proposed pool could not be seen and no tree clearing is needed.
Mrs. Griffin commented that it doesn’t make a difference, an encroachment is an encroachment.
Mr. Thompson questioned what would be saved and noted that the lot has already been trampled over. He added that the lot was disturbed by Travelers Insurance years ago; the lot cannot be preserved in its natural state.
Mr. Mahoney asked whether the setback area relates to the preservation of the traprock.
Mr. Cappello noted that the traprock was disturbed years ago and the area will remain open; the disturbed area cannot be restored. He added that no illegal tree cutting is proposed.
Mrs. Griffin pointed out that they need to dig into the ground to install a pool.
Ms. Keith commented that the Ridgeline Protection Regulations were not in existence when this lot was initially developed by Travelers Insurance. She noted that although the Commission was not charged with regulating the traprock at that time, there are now ridgeline regulations in place that the Commission must adhere to and enforce.
Mr. Thompson requested that Mr. Kushner provide clarification about the specifics of the Ridgeline Protection Regulations.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone Regulations involve environmental protection and natural resources. The Regulation states that the traprock ridge is a unique natural asset of both the Town of Avon and the State of CT and only the towns that have this physical feature are permitted to adopt these special regulations to protect the traprock. He commented that, for various reasons, some areas of traprock are deemed to be more valuable than others. He noted that it is his opinion that, in this case, an argument could be made that this site has already been disturbed and while there are some natural pieces left below grade, the whole site was clear cut and graded out. Travelers Insurance built a large circular building that was perched right on the cliff’s edge
that was torn down when the lot was redeveloped. The new house that was constructed is large but is set much further back from the cliff; remnants of the former Cliff House patio remain perched on the cliff’s edge. He noted that the subject proposal is to build a pool at grade; no additional trees are proposed to be cut and a pool was already approved for this site. The current proposal pushes the pool further into the ridgeline setback and moves it to the other side of the site but he explained that no excavation or massive amounts of earth removal are proposed and no tree cutting is proposed. Mr. Kushner clarified that the Commission could certainly change their policy and start reviewing ridgeline applications more rigorously. He concluded by noting that this proposal has considerably less encroachment on the ridge than many other pools that have been approved on Deercliff Road.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels there is no reason that the proposed pool has to encroach at all, given the amount of available land. She added that other applicants have provided reasons why an encroachment is necessary; there is no reason for this application.
Mrs. Clark commented that the owner has indicated that they want the pool positioned a certain way with regard to the deep and shallow ends for child safety reasons. Mrs. Griffin commented that parents need to watch their children regardless. Mrs. Clark indicated her understanding but noted that she was pointing out the owners’ wishes.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that just 2 days ago the owner decided to make the pool 10 feet longer and so the plans were changed and brought into the Town by Mr. Hath, of CR3.
Mr. Cappello’s earlier motion, seconded by Mr. Thompson, received approval from Messrs. Cappello, Thompson, and Starr and Mrs. Clark. Voting in opposition to approve App. #4574 were Mesdames Griffin and Keith and Mr. Mahoney.
App. #4576 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, American Sign Inc., applicant, request for Special Exception under Sections VII.C.2.f.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign larger than 75 square feet, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4576. The motion, seconded by Mr. Thompson, received approval from Messrs. Mahoney, Thompson, Starr, and Cappello and Mesdames Griffin, Keith, and Clark.
NEW APPLICATION
App. #4575 - Avon Properties, LLC, owner, Peter K. Lee, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to modify Sign Concept, 56 East Main Street, Parcel 2140056, in a CS Zone
The applicant, Peter Lee, was present for this application.
Mr. Starr noted that the request is to modify the sign theme to allow the color blue; the current sign theme only permits black and white. Mr. Lee concurred.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4575. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
OUTSTANDING APPLICATION
App. #4570 Fred & Bonnie, LLC owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification for changes to existing and proposed buildings and site layout, 221 West Main Street, Parcel 4540221, in a CR Zone
Present to represent this application were Robert M. Meyers, representing the owner; David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers; and Fred Bauer, owner.
Attorney Meyers explained that the subject application is a request to modify a previous approval for an oil-change center. He noted that the proposed changes include the reduction of impervious surfaces; a reduction in building size; and the pedestrian connection to Big Y is being moved to a better location. He explained that one additional parking space has been added to the front building and one additional space has been added to the rear building; the parking for each building, independently, now meets the parking requirements for the site. Mr. Meyers noted that the 4 vehicular connections to adjacent sites proposed with the original applications remain unchanged. The fence proposals remain unchanged; the dumpster will be moved further from Pond Place; and one additional catch basin is being
added.
Mr. Starr commented that the variance received from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) involved the side yard setback for the front building. Mr. Meyers explained that 4 separate variance requests were approved. Mr. Kushner confirmed that all variance requests were unanimously approved by the ZBA.
Mr. Kushner recommended that if the Commission is considering an approval for App. #4570, that consideration be given to including the conditions of approval from prior approvals in 2009.
Mr. Meyers concurred with Mr. Kushner’s recommendation and added that the applicant is also agreeable to 2 additional conditions, one to add a sidewalk on Route 44 and one to address the existing well on the property. He explained that the owner plans to hook up to public water but is considering keeping the well for irrigation purposes.
Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App. #4570 subject to the following conditions (including conditions from former approvals for this site):
1. The owner shall construct a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk running along the entire frontage of this parcel along Route 44. This shall be installed within the State Right-of-Way if permitted by the State Department of Transportation; otherwise, it shall be installed on private property in a location to be approved by Town Staff.
2. In accordance with comments from the Farmington Valley Health District dated October 17, 2011, if the existing well is not abandoned, the casing shall be raised 6” above grade. If the well is abandoned, the owner shall hookup to public water.
The Commission approved App. #4438 subject to the following condition:
3. Applicant shall work with Town Staff to determine if any traffic control/safety signage should be added in the vicinity of the driveway located on the easterly side of the reconstructed building. In addition, the applicant shall review with Town Staff the advantages of incorporating one or more bands of textured pavement in this same portion of the driveway.
The Commission approved Apps. #4394/95/96 and #4403 subject to the following conditions:
4. Several future driveway connections and a sidewalk connection are shown on the site plans. The following shall apply:
a) Westerly side connection to rear:
Applicant shall be obligated to make this connection prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy if permission can be obtained from the adjoining property owner at 225 West Main Street. If permission cannot be obtained, applicant shall place a note on the site plan indicating an obligation to exchange easement and grading rights at a future time when the adjacent property applies for and receives site plan approval.
b) Westerly property line, front connection:
The property owner of 221 West Main Street agrees to grant rights to the adjacent property to the west (225 West Main Street) in connection with a possible redevelopment of the Dakota restaurant site. Approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required prior to construction of this connection by either the owners of 221 West Main Street or 225 West Main Street.
c) Future connection on east side of property for access to 211 West Main Street (currently Olson property) and 213 West Main Street (currently Cirinna property)
A note shall be added to the plan whereas the property owner of 221 West Main Street is obligated to exchange easement/grading rights at a future time when adjoining property receives site plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. No physical connection shall be made prior to site plan approval.
d) Future sidewalk connection to west
The property owner (current and future) of 221 West Main Street shall continue discussions with the adjacent property owner to the west (225 West Main Street - currently Dakota restaurant) and seek permission to extend a proposed sidewalk shown at the northwest corner of the main building and extend the sidewalk to the paved parking lot to the rear of the garage/apartment of the Dakota restaurant site.
In general, the above requirements shall obligate the current owner or his successors to these conditions.
5. Applicant must obtain an encroachment permit from the State Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of a building permit.
6. Applicant shall install a fence, as detailed, at the southerly property boundary to provide a buffer to the abutting property owner to the south (Pond Place). The fence shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
7. Applicant shall install an 8-foot high fence on his property in the easement area owned by the Avon Water Company. The fence shall run the full length of the side yard between 221 West Main Street and 211 West Main Street. The fence details shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning prior to fence installation.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Thompson, received unanimous approval.
STAFF REPORT
Select Consultant to review Mixed-Use Development Plan for Avon Center (in connection with Ensign Bickford Realty Corporation App. #4577)
Mr. Starr reported that the Town Council has approved, under Ordinance #55, the hiring of a consultant, Milone & MacBroom, to review Ensign Bickford’s proposed mixed-use development plan for Avon Park North.
Mr. Kushner explained that a proposal has been received from Milone & MacBroom and noted that he feels they are a good choice. He further explained that Milone & MacBroom are familiar with the project, as they assisted with the preparation of the language for the Low Impact Development (LID) Regulations and the Town center plan. He noted that Milone & MacBroom’s estimate is $8,500 and, in accordance with Ordinance #55, if the Commission chooses Milone & MacBroom, Ensign Bickford would deposit with the Town $8,500 plus a 50% contingency. He noted that if Ensign Bickford decides to withdraw their application and if none of the deposited funds have been spent, the money would be refunded to Ensign Bickford. He explained that Ensign Bickford would only be obligated to pay the
costs incurred and noted that if the costs went over the estimated amount (over the 50% contingency), Ensign Bickford would not be obligated to pay any additional amount. Mr. Kushner explained that a great deal of effort has gone into this proposal/application and noted that he feels it is worthwhile for the Commission’s consideration.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve the selection of Milone & MacBroom as consultants to review Ensign Bickford’s proposed mixed-use development plan for Avon Center. The motion, seconded by Ms. Keith, received unanimous approval.
Chairman Starr announced that Mr. Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, has advised that he will not be seeking reappointment when his term expires at the end of 2011. Mr. Starr noted that Mr. Thompson has participated on this Commission for the past 35 years and added that December 13 will be his last meeting. Mr. Starr reported that Mrs. Griffin, Ms. Keith,
Mr. Mahoney, and Alternates Mrs. Primeau, Mr. Bonner, and Mr. Gackstatter have indicated that they will accept reappointment at the end of 2011. Mr. Starr concluded by noting that his term, along with Mrs. Clark and Mr. Cappello, expires at the end of 2013.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on November 22, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4570 Fred & Bonnie, LLC owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification for changes to existing and proposed buildings and site layout, 221 West Main Street, Parcel 4540221, in a CR Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
App. #4571 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 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
App. #4572 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 areas, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059, in an RU2A Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
App. #4574 Three Ninety Five Deercliff Partners LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit pool within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 395 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090395, in an RU2A Zone APPROVED
App. #4576 Nod Brook LLC, owner, American Sign Inc., applicant, request for Special Exception under Sections VII.C.2.f.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign larger than 75 square feet, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone APPROVED
App. #4575 Avon Properties, LLC, owner, Peter K. Lee, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to modify Sign Concept, 56 East Main Street, Parcel 2140056, in a CS Zone APPROVED
In addition, the following applications were withdrawn:
App. #4562 Proposed Amendment to Avon Subdivision Regulations pertaining to Low Impact Development (LID); Town of Avon, applicant. WITHDRAWN
App. #4563 Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to Low Impact Development (LID); Town of Avon, applicant. WITHDRAWN
Dated at Avon this 23RD day of November, 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, December 13, 2011, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Town Hall:
App. #4578 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, National Sign Corporation, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.2.f.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign larger than 75 square feet, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone.
App. #4579- Leibert Real Estate Limited Partnership, owner, Mark Smith, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit self-service dog bathing, 192 West Main Street, Parcel 4540192 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 28th day of November, 2011.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
