Town of Avon, CT Minutes & Agendas Archive

PZC Minutes FEB 14 2012

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, February 14, 2012. Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Linda Keith, Vice-Chair, Carol Griffin, David Cappello, Peter Mahoney, Christian Gackstatter and Alternates Elaine Primeau and Donald Bonner. Mrs. Primeau sat for the meeting. Marianne Clark was absent. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.

Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm and welcomed Chris Gackstatter noting his newly appointed status as a regular Commission member. Mr. Gackstatter formerly served as an Alternate on the Commission.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve, as submitted, the minutes from the January 24, 2012, meeting. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.

PUBLIC HEARING

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

Present to represent this application were Glenn Chalder, Planimetrics; Gus Jasminski and Andy DiFatta, Ensign Bickford Realty; and Bob Stevens, Stevens Land Architecture.

Mr. Chalder explained that the public hearing for this application has been open for several months and added that it is a large application that has received deserved attention and feedback from Town Staff. He noted that replacement/updated material has been provided for both the Staff and the Commission.

Mr. Chalder addressed each “Tab” and reviewed the revised materials/information as follows:

Tab #1 - is an overview of the development and highlights, “The Overall Vision”.
Tab #2 - represents the up-to-date maps based on comments and feedback from the Commission. The last page of the “Plan Narrative” includes a page entitled “Summary of Changes to Plan - January 24, 2012, to February 7, 2012”. He noted that changes were made to intersections, parking locations, emergency access, the public park, as well as other changes in response to feedback from Staff and the Commission.
Tab #3 - represents the individual plans for each design district (ACDD); the plan concepts have been integrated and text added describing each ACDD. Additional information relating to ACDD #8 has been added relating to public park improvements.
Tab #9 - the Stylebook” has been created in response to comments from Staff and the Commission
Tab #10 - contains “Anticipated Phasing”, created to show at what times different improvements are expected to occur (i.e., when the new “main street” would be created and when the various public park improvements would be done).

Mr. Chalder offered to answer any questions.

Mr. Starr commented that it would be helpful for Mr. Kushner to review the DRAFT of proposed/suggested approval conditions.

Mr. Kushner noted that he believes good progress has been made since the last meeting with the applicants. He noted that there have been a number of lengthy meetings with the Town Staff and a lot of the details have been worked out.

Mrs. Griffin asked whether the possibility of a northern exit from the upper development POD has been investigated. She noted that she believes both she and Duane asked about this at the last meeting. Mr. Starr concurred and noted that the area in question is along the MDC right-of-way. Mrs. Griffin asked what the obstacles are that make this access impossible.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Chalder explained that Bob Stevens created illustrations that propose an emergency access in the MDC right-of-way in the vicinity of the intersection of Fisher Drive and Ensign Drive. He noted that there are grades in this area between 20% and 23%. He noted that he shared this drawing with Mr. Kushner and added that a grade of 20% would be very challenging for a loaded truck. He explained that an emergency access from Climax Road has been created that proposes 2 connections to the road network (both a boulevard providing access into the development and an emergency access way are proposed). He noted that the pathway would be similar to what exists at Forest Mews; a pedestrian walkway would be constructed to handle a fire truck but would not look like it could handle a fire truck; it would appear to be a recreational pathway.

Ms. Keith asked whether the MDC area is grassed and flat such that a four-wheeler could get in there in case of an emergency. Mr. Kushner explained that, at the current time, this area is too steep even for a four-wheel-drive vehicle. He added that the current proposal appears to be the best and most reasonable alternative.

Mr. Kushner addressed and summarized a list of 15 proposed conditions of approval, “Possible Approval Conditions For EBs Master Plan, PZC App. #4577- Zone Change”:

Condition #1 - Ensign Bickford’s master plan presents a series of design districts with representations concerning density and scale. Mr. Kushner explained that if there are any changes to any individual design districts with regard to density and overall scale in connection with approvals for individual site plans, the Commission reserves the right to request that Ensign Bickford either compensate for these changes or balance them, such that the final project, at buildout, represents the square footage and densities/scale shown on the master plan.

Condition #2 - Tab #10, “Anticipated Phasing”, lists improvements required as part of this project; when these improvements would take place; and who would be responsible for completing these improvements. Mr. Kushner noted that Condition #2 also recommends additional clarification/changes to Tab #10. ACDD #2 involves the construction of a portion of the new “main street” (to connect ACDD #1 and ACDD #3) as well as the construction of a new bridge across Nod Brook. Mr. Kushner noted that these 2 items would need to be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) for any building constructed in ACDD #3. Additional requirements contained in Condition #2 include the establishment of a small gathering area in front of the existing Farmington Valley Arts Center building and relocation of a portion of the Farmington Valley Greenway, located just to the rear of the Town Hall Complex.

In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the trail would still go through the tunnel, once relocated. Mr. Chalder further explained that the trail would run through the rear of ACDD #3, coming out uphill of the existing trail location behind the Town Hall, near Buildings #5, #6, and #7.

Mr. Gackstatter reiterated that he hates the trail running along the streets and noted that he would like to see it run by the Arts Center, near the proposed public area, so it would bring people into the buildings as opposed to around the buildings.

Mr. Cappello noted that he likes the path the trail takes and added that he feels it works just fine the way it is.

Mr. Chalder commented that the signed portion of the trail would provide for control of bicycle usage while minimizing conflicts with parked cars. He explained that people will have choices and multiple opportunities to access all areas of the proposed project via bicycle.

Mr. Kushner explained that Town Staff is aware of the steep grades and noted that this issue would be taken into consideration before the trail design begins.

Mr. Kushner continued his review of Condition #2 and explained that ACDD #8 contains 14 acres that Ensign Bickford has agreed to make improvements to and convey to the Town for use as a public park. Town Staff agrees to work cooperatively with Ensign Bickford in connection with permitting (local or State) that would be required due to wetlands on the site. He noted that Ensign Bickford has agreed to provide any drawings needed for application to the Town, the State, or the Army Corps of Engineers. Condition #2 further notes that Ensign Bickford agrees to complete all improvements with the park prior to the issuance of the first C/O for the first building in ACDD #4.

Mr. Chalder explained that because ACDD #4 may occur in 3 separate phases, the total scope of improvements may be in excess of what is realized in the first phase. He noted that Ensign Bickford requests some flexibility and asks that the park improvements be deeded to the Town when 1/3 of the units have been built. He added that Mr. Kushner has recommended that the applicant return with more detailed park plans prior to the first ACDD plan submittal to the Commission. Mr. Kushner conveyed his agreement with Mr. Chalder and added that this approach seems reasonable while noting that it is a good idea to establish parameters now with regard to the Town’s expectations.

Condition #3 - Mr. Kushner explained that the future owners of the properties for ACDD #1 and #3 are encouraged to work with the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department to promote special events to help the businesses in those areas.

Condition #4 - Mr. Kushner noted that information relative to sewer capacity and service flow and whether upgrades would be required for this project would be determined by the Town Engineer. Prior to the submission of the first site plan, the applicant would present a report to the Town Engineer for review and approval. He noted that all sewage from Avon Park North flows to the Town of Simsbury; the Town of Avon owns a certain capacity in Simsbury.

Condition #5 - Mr. Kushner explained that Mr. McDermott (Commission’s consultant, Milone & MacBroom) recommends that the proposed reconstruction of Woodford Avenue result in a “T” intersection. He noted that the applicant agrees.

Condition #6 - Mr. Kushner noted that ACDD #4 will require significant grading to accommodate housing shown on the master plan. Currently there are 54 housing units shown and although a preliminary grading plan has been prepared, Mr. McDermott has determined that a more refined grading plan needs to be prepared before a final evaluation can be made.

Condition #7 - Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission recommends that ACDD #4 be divided into 3 sub phases, to result in less of a disturbance. He noted that one of the main objectives of the project is to build a new “main street”. The rules allow the construction of approximately 100 residential units in connection with approximately 100,000 SF of commercial retail space; he added that phasing could provide this opportunity. He noted that the current proposal is that one phase would be the single-family housing; one phase would be condominium/apartments close to Bickford Drive; and one phase would be apartment-style buildings near the MDC right-of-way.

Condition #8 - Mr. Kushner explained that after much discussion with Town Staff about whether certain streets should be privately or publicly owned, the Staff recommends that Bickford Drive remain a public street, as it is needed for public safety reasons. He noted that many improvements are proposed along Bickford Drive that the Town is not equipped to maintain (i.e., on-street parking, pedestrian bump-out areas, sidewalks, landscape amenities). He indicated that some of the improvements would be located inside the Town’s right-of-way but some would be outside the Town’s right-of-way. Mr. Kushner explained that the Town agrees to continue to maintain the travel lanes of both Bickford Drive and Ensign Drive, as it always has in the past. The new owners (developers) of the land located adjacent to the right-of-ways for both Bickford Drive and Ensign Drive would be responsible to maintain all the improvements proposed.

In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that the Town would retain all the rights to the Town’s right-of-ways and the roads would remain public. He explained that the new “main street” would be privately owned, constructed, and maintained by Ensign Bickford but subject to an easement conveyed to the Town for public use. He explained that the project, once complete, would appear seamless to the public; it would not be apparent that there was more than one developer or that some streets are private as opposed to public.

In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question about how the new “main street” would be policed, Mr. Kushner explained that this issue has been discussed at length at the Staff meetings and there is no perfect solution. He noted that the Chief of Police has indicated that there are limitations under the law for a police officer to issue tickets for things like speeding or running a stop sign on private property but added that there are no limitations for major offenses such as shoplifting. Mr. Kushner pointed out that the design of the new “main street” would promote a very slow rate of travel.

In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question about double parking, Gus Jasminski, Ensign Bickford, indicated that he believes the police can enforce double parking and have vehicles towed from private streets because the fire lanes must remain clear.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that, for example, police have the authority to issue tickets or can tow vehicles blocking the fire lanes located on private property, such as at Walmart or at Avon Marketplace.

Mrs. Primeau questioned how policing would work in this project, as there would be privately-owned residential uses that would be near public commercial uses; she commented that it appears to be a gray area. Mr. Starr explained that the residential housing part would be no different than what exists at Hunter’s Run or Farmington Woods. Mrs. Primeau added that the proposed project is more of a community-type situation. She reiterated that the new “main street” being privately owned would create a gray area and added that she feels the Town should own a “main street”.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner clarified that the Town would continue to own the travel portion of Bickford Drive but the new “main street” would be owned/controlled by Ensign Bickford. He explained that the Town did not come up with the proposal for Ensign Bickford to retain ownership of the new “main street” and noted that the applicant presented this scenario to the Town. He further explained that Town Staff has been debating all the points being discussed right now and added that the proposal is really a compromised solution with pros and cons. Mr. Kushner noted that there have been many differing opinions on this subject at the Staff level and added that while it is not a perfect solution he feels that the subject proposal works reasonably well for most Town Staff.

Mrs. Griffin asked why the new “main street” couldn’t function similarly to Bickford Drive, such that the Town would control the travel portion of the road and anything beyond the curbing would be controlled by the developer. Mr. Chalder explained that the current arrangement is one that the applicant has proposed and Town Staff has reviewed and added that while there is not unanimity the applicant is not of the position to say “take it or leave it”. He noted that the applicant is committed to making the project a success while working effectively with all Town Departments to ensure that everything comes together. Mr. Chalder noted that this situation could end up to be a different arrangement than exists today. Mrs. Griffin commented that she wants to make sure everything works from a legal perspective as well. Mr. Chalder commented that while all the details have not yet been worked out he reiterated that the applicant is committed to working with Town Staff to produce a favorable outcome.

Mr. Gackstatter asked the applicant whether a legal document could be created to give the Avon Police Department authority to police the new “main street” even if it is held in private ownership. Mr. Chalder noted that this scenario has not been investigated. Mr. Kushner noted that it could be looked into.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Bob Stevens, Steven’s Land Architecture, explained that the proposed width of the new “main street” is 12-foot lanes. Mr. Kushner noted that the road would be narrower because it’s designed to allow traffic to move while also slowing down the rate of speed to give preference to pedestrians. Mrs. Primeau commented that trees planted in the center also serve to slow traffic. Mr. Kushner explained that no center island is proposed but other amenities adjacent to the street are proposed such as trees, sidewalks, and bump outs for pedestrians. Mrs. Primeau commented that she has seen attractive, publicly-owned streets with amenities for pedestrians, such as berms and bump outs; the best of both worlds.

Mr. Kushner noted that the issue of public versus private streets is something that could be revisited in greater detail in the future as serious buyers come forward.

In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Chalder explained that the master plan clearly indicates what the design intent is and it is backed up by the representations made by the applicant, as well as the “Stylebook”. He further explained that the master plan is not meant to be a set of handcuffs that requires everything to be built exactly as shown but rather serves to identify items that the applicant wants to accomplish integral to the plan, which includes the character of the new “main street” along with all other representations. He referred to Tab #4, “Overall Management” noting that a master association would be created and every ACDD must belong to the master association, as well as create its own association.

Condition #9 - Mr. Kushner explained that the traffic report prepared by Fuss & O’Neill indicates that there may be more parking spaces (as many as a couple of hundred) than necessary to support the proposal. He noted that the project proposes some low impact development (LID) techniques to reduce impervious surfaces where not necessary and to treat storm water. In observance of these points, the Commission reserves the right/discretion, when more detailed plans are prepared/presented, to request that some of the parking spaces be eliminated if deemed unnecessary.

Condition #10 - Mr. Kushner explained that the applicant has represented to the Commission that modifications to an existing STC permit would be required. The applicant has represented that they would comply with all aspects of STC requirements. In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that timing requirements are noted in Tab #10, “Anticipated Phasing”.

Condition #11 - Mr. Kushner noted that the Commission has encouraged the applicant to seek out developers who could provide a variety of modestly-sized and priced housing. The applicant has indicated that there is a high demand from “empty nesters” and younger individuals. Smaller units would also be a better fit for the topographic challenges in ACDD #4.

Mr. Starr pointed out that this condition would also serve to alert potential land buyers that the Commission may not agree with a proposal to construct 3,000-square-foot housing units.

Condition #12 - Mr. Kushner explained that ACDD #8 is the proposed public park and noted that some additional refinements have been made to the plans. He noted that Town Staff recommends requesting some additional items such as a shelter, an outdoor amphitheater, and playground equipment and added that the final plan should be submitted to the Commission with the first site plan for any ACDD.

Condition #13 - Mr. Kushner stated that earth removal in excess of 1,000 cubic yards would require a special permit application to the Commission.

Mr. Starr confirmed that 1,000 cubic yards refers to that amount within each/any of the individual ACDDs. Mr. Kushner concurred.

Mr. Chalder explained that the applicant recognizes that each ACDD, itself, is probably not balanced but added that it is not known at this time whether the site, overall, would be balanced, as the final design/plans are not yet known. He noted that if anything more than 1,000 cubic yards is proposed to be taken offsite, the applicant would come before the Commission. Mr. Starr commented that earth removal offsite would be the Commission’s main concern. He added that he believes the best way to address this is to have each individual site grading plan indicate where earth removal would be stored for the next use. Mr. Chalder concurred.

Condition #14 - Mr. Kushner noted that the applicant must comply with the Town Engineer’s report, dated February 10, 2012.

Condition #15 - Mr. Kushner noted that the applicant is responsible to comply with all plans, written materials, and representations made during the public hearing process.

Mrs. Primeau noted her concern with the proposed width of the new “main street” at 24 feet; she added that she feels it should be wider. Mr. Kushner explained that the road would contain 24 feet of travel lane with on-street parking on both sides of the road and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on either side of the on-street parking. Mr. Stevens stated that the sidewalks would be 12 feet and the right-of-way would be a total of 60 feet. Mrs. Primeau reiterated that she feels 24 feet is a very narrow street. Mr. Gackstatter commented that the proposed street is not a main thoroughfare or a traditional main street. Mrs. Primeau noted that her concern revolves around the width of the road. Mr. Gackstatter commented that this street is designed for people going in and out of the parking for the nearby buildings; this road would not have the problems of a traditional main street with through traffic. Mrs. Primeau commented that she feels the successful “main streets” that she has seen have wider streets.

Mr. Bonner questioned who would be responsible to police the associations to ensure that they fulfill their obligations for maintenance of the properties. Mr. Chalder explained that all the property owners would be involved in the associations. He noted that there could be a situation where a property is owned or managed by one ownership entity. He added, for example, that ACDD #3 is likely to be one owner with multiple tenants. Mr. Bonner noted that his concern is more for the commercial tenants if they should have financial difficulties. Mr. Chalder commented that the associations are created to deal with issues such as economic hard times; everyone would work together in the best interests of the whole. He added that Old Avon Village North is a good example of a condominium environment.

David Fink, Policy Director for Partnership for Strong Communities, noted that he is pleased to see that Town Staff recommends that developers be encouraged to build a range of housing in the proposed project, including some smaller, modest units. He requested that the Commission consider requiring developers to make a portion of the housing units affordable for members of the workforce (i.e. police, fire fighters, teachers, nurses), as it is beneficial to have these individuals living in the community. He added that this proposal would provide options for adult children who wish to live near their parents, as well as “empty nesters” who want to live near a town center. Mr. Fink noted that he believes affordable housing, in the range of 10% to 20%, is doable and would still allow builders to make a profit. He noted the importance of deed restricting these units, due to the low supply, to ensure availability for workforce members. Mr. Fink commented that deed-restricted units can be found in many towns Statewide. He concluding by noting that Avon is a model community and added that he feels the rest of the State would take note if deed restricted housing was made available.

Michelle, representing the Avon/Canton United Way, noted the United Way’s support of Mr. Fink’s comments. She commented that the United Way is requesting that at least 10% of the housing units for the proposed project be priced at 50% of Avon’s median household income, which is approximately $53,000. Beth Ferrari was also present.

Mr. Chalder commented that he doesn’t feel there is any entity in Avon’s history that has done more in connection with affordable housing that Ensign Bickford. He noted that Ensign Bickford requests that their history and traditions be respected and that they not be treated any differently, or different standards imposed, than any other developer in Town.

Mr. Starr commented that the Commission has indicated, right from the start, that the preferred housing for this area should be more modest than what exists on the ridgeline and should be designed for “empty nesters” and adult children wanting to return home. He noted that this issue would be addressed when individual site plans are submitted.

Claudia Burson, Forest Mews resident, asked if transportation studies have been done for Bickford Drive and Climax Road; she noted that this intersection is already a dangerous situation.

Mr. Starr confirmed that a traffic study has been done and submitted to the Commission; he added that he believes the study noted the sightline issues in this area.

Mr. Chalder explained that the traffic flow/distribution for all intersections in the area has been studied. He noted that the subject site is well served by two State highways and Climax Road, which provides connections, and added that the proposed traffic from this development distributes itself across the road network and the impact may not be as significant as expected from a typical suburban development. He added that because the proposal is for a mixed-use area the traffic generation is expected to be less, as people could walk back and forth.

Mr. Chalder addressed the intersection of Bickford Drive and Climax Road and acknowledged the existing crown/apex in the road and the impacts to the sightlines. He added that although the conditions don’t necessarily meet the warrants for a stop sign the Police Department feels that the intersection would work better with the addition of a stop sign and the applicant agrees. Mr. Chalder concluded by noting that the applicant has made a pledge to the Commission, in all the information presented for this project, to make certain improvements that are deemed necessary.

In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Chalder clarified that a 4-way stop is proposed at the intersection of Climax Road and Bickford Drive.

Mr. Kushner added that the future submission of individual site plans would require more detailed traffic studies which may, in turn, identify the need for additional traffic improvements.

There being no further input, the public hearing for App #4577 was closed.

App. #4584 - William Deramo, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot Resubdivision, 2.69 acres, 359 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520359, in an R40 Zone

App. #4585 - 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

Present to represent these applications were Robert Meyers, The Law Offices of Robert M. Meyers, representing the owner, Mr. Deramo; and William Ferrigno, Sunlight Construction.

Attorney Meyers explained that the subject proposal had been previously submitted to the Commission but later withdrawn (PZC Apps. #4554/55). He offered background information noting that the original proposal called for a steep driveway to the new lot/house to originate from West Hills Drive. The existing house has driveway access via an existing right-of-way from West Avon Road. He indicated that a Declaratory Ruling was granted by the Inland Wetlands Commission at their February meeting. He explained that the current plans are unchanged from the original application but clarified that the total land area subject to resubdivision is 2.88 acres, rather than 2.69 acres; he added that a small portion of the land (.19 acres from 15 West Hills Drive) is owned by Sunlight Construction. The applicant is proposing a fee in lieu of land dedication.

Mr. Meyers addressed the existing right-of-way and noted that this 20-foot-wide area is located on property owned by Mr. Savona, 361 West Avon Road. He added that Mr. Deramo currently accesses his house/property from this right-of-way. He explained that this right-of-way cannot be used to access the new proposed lot because the Zoning Regulations require that a right-of-way be at least 30 feet wide and also be owned in fee by a rear lot; the subject right-of-way is owned by Mr. Savona, on a front lot. Mr. Meyers explained that title insurance for the proposed lot would be required and also very difficult to obtain due to overburdening of the existing easement; there would be a 100% increase in use of the right-of-way if access to the proposed lot were permitted. Mr. Meyers indicated that the proposed driveway has been redesigned such that at no point is the grade more than 12%, or close to 14%.

Mr. Starr recommended that the proposed house have a sprinkler installed and asked where the nearest fire hydrant is located. Mr. Ferrigno noted that he believes the closest fire hydrant is approximately 125 feet away. The driveway is proposed at approximately 180 to 200 feet in length. Mr. Starr asked/suggested, as an alternative to a sprinkler system, whether an additional hydrant could be installed/located closer to the proposed house. Mr. Ferrigno explained that a hydrant could be added but noted that he doesn’t know what the financial impact is.

Mr. Kushner noted that the Town must pay a fee to the water company for every hydrant installed.

In response to Ms. Keith’s questions and concerns, Mr. Ferrigno explained that there is no ledge on the proposed lot and no blasting would be required; test holes have been done. He noted that the soil on the subject lot is sand and gravel but noted that there is ledge on Wellesley Court. Mr. Meyers confirmed that the driveway grades would not exceed 12%; no one spot is more than 12%, as indicated on the engineered plans. Mr. Ferrigno noted that the Zoning Regulations allow up to 14% grade and added that there are 3 driveways in the West Hills Subdivision that are at 14% grade.

In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that steep slopes are part of the calculations for a subdivision and/or resubdivision. Mr. Meyers further explained that the developable land calculation deducts steep slopes and wetland soils before determining the number of allowable lots. He noted that the Zoning Regulations permit the request for a density waiver and added that this is part of the applicant’s request. Mr. Meyers explained that the applicant has met with the Town Engineer, as well as Mr. Kushner, in connection with the design of the driveway. He stated that the Town Engineer has indicated that he is ok with the current proposal but noted that before construction could take place a driveway permit would be required, at which time the Town Engineer would address design, slope, and water issues. Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns with turns at the top of the hill. Mr. Starr commented that he feels review considerations for the driveway should be handled by the Town Engineer.

Ms. Keith commented that the property calculation equates to 1.94 lots and asked if that is within the parameters to request a waiver. Mr. Starr said yes and noted that the Commission has discretion up to .10 (i.e., if the density calculation is 1.90 the Commission could grant a density waiver to permit 2 lots). Mr. Kushner concurred. In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the developable land calculation is done using existing conditions before any disturbance or regrading has occurred; he added that altering the site doesn’t really change/help the calculation.

Mr. Kushner commented that the Commission has approved other lots that have driveway designs/grades similar to the subject proposal. He noted that there are some driveways in the West Hills Subdivision with even steeper grades. He acknowledged that these designs were not always the Commission’s first choice and noted that these types of lots/driveways are not for every buyer.

Mr. Ferrigno stated that he has built a public road at 14% grade. Ms. Keith noted her understanding. Mrs. Griffin commented that it doesn’t mean it’s really safe for travel and added that she doesn’t believe all pieces of land should be divided just because they have the required acreage; some pieces would be best left as is for safety reasons.

Mr. Gackstatter commented that the proper acreage doesn’t exist and the applicant is asking for a special exception. The density is within the 10% but the land is marginal.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about driveway design, Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Engineer has indicated that the final driveway design would occur after approval, as the subject application is only a demonstration of feasibility and the house shown may not be the exact design that ultimately gets constructed. Mr. Ferrigno concurred. Mr. Kushner added that once the details for the house are determined a driveway would be designed. Mrs. Primeau commented that due to the topography she wouldn’t feel comfortable approving anything until the exact details of the house location and driveway design are known and approved by the Town Engineer. Mr. Meyers noted that Mr. Deramo has emphasized to him the importance of getting this proposal approved, as he is buying a new house, constructed by Sunlight Construction, and is anxious to move in.

Mrs. Primeau reiterated her concerns about house and driveway design. Mr. Ferrigno explained that the proposed plan shows a house (approximately 3,000 SF on 2 levels) that is representative of a house that is likely to be built.

In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the additional .19 acres comes from 15 West Hills Drive, which is an existing house and was not part of the West Hills Subdivision. Mr. Ferrigno explained that the house at 15 West Hills was constructed in the 1970s when West Hills Drive was a private road.

In response to the Commission’s discussion, Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission is not obligated under the Regulations to grant a density waiver. He noted that the Commission has discretion in this area but pointed out that this type of application request may occur more often as the Town reaches buildout.

Ms. Keith noted that she is uncomfortable with all the unanswered questions for this application and noted that someone needs to take a stand with these types of cramped lots. She noted her concerns with setting a precedent if this type of application were approved without having specific information; she added that she feels better answers are needed.

Mr. Kushner asked the applicant if they would consider providing some specific house information and committing to a specific design for the next meeting. Mr. Ferrigno noted that he could provide specific house information but noted that he is committed to a 12% driveway no matter what size the house is.

Mr. Gackstatter commented that the Regulations are in place to give some leeway with regard to density when there is a decent piece of property to allow another house to be built. He commented that there are a lot of mitigating circumstances that don’t make this a good piece of property; the driveway is not good looking and there is low density. He commented that he doesn’t believe the Commission is obligated to allow the construction of another house. He added that he could see offering some leeway for a small lot with other optimal conditions but noted that there are a lot of conditions fighting the current proposal plus a small lot.

Mr. Ferrigno explained that the subject lot is 1.5 acres. Mr. Gackstatter noted that the density can’t be met. Mr. Ferrigno concurred.

Mr. Gackstatter commented that much of the acreage is lost due to the steep slope calculation and that’s why there’s a density problem.

Mr. Ferrigno pointed out that the Regulations permit a 14% driveway grade and noted that if the subject lot was conforming he would not have to discuss the driveway grade. Mr. Gackstatter noted that the driveway grade would be a public safety issue but not an issue relating to subdivision. Mr. Ferrigno commented that if he submitted a site plan for a building permit with a 14% driveway it would be approved.

Mr. Gackstatter commented that the thing that is holding the applicant is that the density requirement cannot be met due to the steepness of the lot; he added that he feels the Regulations are working well in this regard. He conveyed his belief to the rest of the Commission that the Regulations are in place to not approve this type of proposal; he added that he doesn’t feel this is a property that should be given a lot of leeway on because it’s kind of an ugly duckling. Mr. Ferrigno asked whether it would be acceptable if he had more flat land but still proposed a 12% driveway; he noted that with this scenario he would not need to request a waiver. The Commission noted that that scenario would not necessarily be acceptable. Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels the question before the Commission is whether this lot should be subdivided; he conveyed his feeling that he doesn’t feel the lot should be subdivided because it doesn’t meet the density requirements and it’s an ugly duckling lot that would lead to other issues. He commented that the Regulations are in place for a reason.

Mr. Kushner explained that every subdivision application requires a site grading feasibility plan and even if a driveway plan is within the 14% grade allowance, the Commission has some discretion with regard to house placement, site disturbance, and overall impacts.

Mr. Starr asked the applicant if they would like to continue the public hearing. Mr. Meyers responded by commenting that he feels a continuation would be beneficial. He added that it is his understanding that one commissioner feels that the parcel should not be subdivided but others have said that they would like to see specific house and driveway detail plans. Ms. Keith commented that she feels the applicant needs to meet with the engineer and provide the Commission with an engineering report. Mr. Meyers stated that he could get a report but reiterated that the applicant has met with the Town Engineer. Ms. Keith noted her understanding and asked to see a report on what the driveway would be like. Mrs. Primeau commented that she would like to see the whole thing. Mr. Meyers noted his understanding and communicated that the applicant will meet again with the Town Engineer.

There being no further input, Ms. Keith motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4584 and #4585 to the next meeting, scheduled for March 6. The motion seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.

App. #4586 - Martha Dean and Malcolm McGough, owners, Martha Dean, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.s.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit home occupation, 144 Reverknolls, Parcel 3690144 in an RU2A Zone

Present to represent this application were Martha Dean and Malcolm McGough.

Mr. Starr commented that one non-family member employee is being requested. Ms. Dean concurred. Mr. Starr explained that, generally, requests for home occupations are approved for a 2-year time period and if no problems are reported during that time, reapproval is normally granted without limitations.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that while the approval runs with the property, the approval is granted based on specific representations (i.e., nature of business, number of employees number of customers) made by the applicant; an approval is not being granted for any type of business. He noted that if the property changed ownership and the new owner wanted a home occupation they would most likely have to reapply to the Commission because it is unlikely that their business would be identical in nature to that of the previous owner.

There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4586 was closed.

App. #4587 - Mary Vernon, owner, Lawrence Vernon, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.5 of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit modification of density requirement for first division of land, 57 Smith Road, Parcel 3990057, in an R30 Zone

Mr. Starr announced that the applicant has requested a public hearing continuance to the next meeting.

Mr. Gackstatter motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4587 to the next meeting, scheduled for March 6. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval

App. #4588 - Lawrence Brunoli, owner, Dongsoo Lee, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit taekwondo classroom instruction, 220 West Main Street, Parcel 4540220 in a CR Zone

Present to represent this application were Dan Nagle, representing the owner, Lawrence Brunoli, and Dongsoo Lee, applicant.

Mr. Starr commented that the hours of operation submitted by the applicant note that there is approximately 20 minutes between sessions, so there appears to be time for traffic turnover.He noted that parking problems sometimes arise when arrival times overlap departure times.

Mr. Starr asked the applicant if this issue would be controlled.

Mr. Lee assured Mr. Starr that he would control arrival and departure times. He added that he has been in this business for 12 years.

Mr. Nagle explained that in 2000 the subject tenant space was occupied by a similar type of business (Avon Aikido Academy). He further explained that in 2000 a mattress store was located in the next tenant space and noted that today there is another mattress store in that same location. He stated that mattress stores don’t generate much daily traffic so it’s a good fit with the proposed classroom instruction.

Mr. Nagle noted that this scenario has worked out in the past and added that Mr. Brunoli supports the subject proposal.

In response to Ms. Keith’s question about awards night or graduation, Mr. Lee explained that normally students get tested every two months but everyone is not tested at the same time. Mr. Nagle explained that from his experience with his son in a similar school, student testing is done on an individual basis and is not a group event or an awards-type ceremony.

In response to Ms. Keith’s concerns with parking, Mr. Lee confirmed that there would not be group testing.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Nagle indicated that there is a reciprocal parking agreement with M & R Package Store (214 West Main).

There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4588 was closed.

App. #4589 - Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, Marc Rietze, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.F.3.c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit outdoor music for existing restaurant, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124 in a CP-B Zone

Present to represent this application was Marc Rietze, applicant.

Mr. Rietze explained that his request is for a single acoustic player on the lower outdoor patio with a single speaker that would face the building and project away from the parking lot and road. He noted that a test was performed recently using a moderate sound level and it could not be heard near the sign on Simsbury Road (Route 10 - near the package store). He noted that the proposed music would add atmosphere but would not be at a level that could interrupt conversations at the restaurant. Mr. Reitze noted that music would not be an every day occurrence; the proposal is for maybe once or twice a month.

In response to Mr. Starr’s question about hours of music, Mr. Rietze commented that he would abide by whatever hours the Commission grants; he added that he’s not looking for late hours. In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Rietze noted that 9pm would be fine.

Ms. Keith commented that no matter how soft the music is people will talk louder. Mr. Rietze noted his understanding but added that the music volume would not be increased over the conversation level. He reiterated that he is only looking to add atmosphere and not overpower anyone.

Mr. Starr commented that possibly an approval could be granted for one season to see how it goes. Mr. Rietze noted that he would be ok with that.

Mr. Cappello commented that the noise from cars on Route 10 would probably be louder than the music.

Mr. Starr commented that complaints from that area have been received in the past so he would rather proceed cautiously.

Mrs. Griffin questioned whether this music would bother other businesses. The Commission indicated that most of the other businesses would be closed when the music is playing.

There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4589 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

Mr. Mahoney motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4577, #4586, #4588, and #4589. Mrs. Primeau seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.

In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Starr explained that the zone change provides a master plan and added that each individual district (ACDD) must submit specific, detailed site plans for approval.

Ms. Keith commended the applicant/project team for creating a very comprehensive plan.

Mrs. Griffin commented that she likes the idea of the property owners giving permission to the police department to monitor all the roads in this area. Mr. Kushner noted that he would discuss this with the Police Chief at the next Staff Meeting.

Mr. Gackstatter reiterated his wish that the location of the trail be readdressed. He noted the subject area is a place where people could park their car by the shops, go for a bike ride, and come back and shop. The current trail setup would not provide for this scenario.

Mr. Starr explained that the zone change is just a guideline and added that specific details can be examined by the Commission in connection with individual site plans.

Mr. Cappello commented that he feels it is in the applicant’s best interest to locate the trail such that it is easy for people to get to the retail areas; he added that it would also be beneficial if people did not need a street map to figure out how to get from point A to point B.

Ms. Keith commented that she feels bicyclists would travel through the area randomly no matter what, because of the way the area is being developed.

Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4577 subject to the following conditions:

1. The master plan prepared by the applicant, Ensign Bickford Realty, presents a series of development districts (ACDDs) with proposed uses and densities with an overall project density and scale of construction which is deemed to be consistent with the purpose of the Avon Village Center Zone. At the time when a site plan is submitted to the Commission for an individual ACDD, if the applicant proposes a density different than shown on the master plan the Commission reserves the right to request a comparable adjustment in another ACDD in order to maintain an overall balance of uses and density in Avon Village Center.

2. The master plan is approved with the following modifications to the “Anticipated Phasing” schedule outlined in Tab 10 as follows:

ACDD #2 - this section of “main street” including the construction of the Nod Brook bridge will be completed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) for any building within ACDD #3.

A formal plan for the gathering space in the lawn area in front of the Farmington Valley Arts Center will be submitted for review and approval by the Commission prior to the first site plan application and will be constructed by Ensign Bickford Realty, or its successor, prior to the issuance of the first C/O for the first building within ACDD #3. ACDD #3 - the relocated Farmington Valley Greenway, behind the Town Hall, will be constructed prior to the issuance of the first C/O for the first building within ACDD # 2 or ACDD #3.

ACDD #8 - Town Staff will work cooperatively with Ensign Bickford Realty to obtain approvals related to regulated wetland activities, which will be required in order to complete park improvements within ACDD #8. Ensign Bickford will be responsible to prepare all plans and retain any consultants that may be required. Ensign Bickford Realty, or its successor, agrees to complete all improvements within the park prior to the issuance of the first C/O for the first building within ACDD #4.

Ensign Bickford Realty, or its successor, will deed to the Town the land area within ACDD #8 upon completion of all improvements.

It should be noted that the schedule for the completion of many improvements contained in Tab 10 of the master plan, and the modifications made thereto, are predicated on ACDD #4 being the first phase to be built within the project. Should the applicant decide to build in a different sequence, the Commission reserves the right to modify any portion of these requirements.

3. Much of the infrastructure that exists in Avon Park North that was created in the 1970’s is a result of a public/private partnership between the Town of Avon and Ensign Bickford Realty. The construction of the new “main street” will result in a private roadway subject to a public easement built in association with three individual design districts. In an effort to aid these mostly commercial enterprises, the developers of these three design districts are encouraged to work with the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department to promote activities which would be of benefit to Town residents, as well as business owners.

4. Avon Park North has a sanitary sewer service flow allocation based on its buildout as an office/industrial park. The change to this mixed-use development may result in changes to the predicted sewer plan at buildout. Prior to the submission of the first site plan application for a design district, the applicant will present a detailed analysis of sewer flows for review by the Town Engineer. Should the projected flows be substantially higher than now predicted, the applicant may be required to purchase additional capacity from the Town of Simsbury.

5. The master plan for ACDD #1 recommends reconstructing Woodford Avenue to result in a “T” intersection. Some of this work may take place outside of the Town’s Woodford Avenue right-of-way. Ensign Bickford Realty may need to convey a small portion of property to the Town to accommodate these improvements.

6. The applicant has presented a very preliminary grading scheme for ACDD #4 in an effort to demonstrate how housing units, roads and drives may be sited. Given the topography of the site, it appears that that there ultimately may be fewer units than now illustrated in the master plan. A more detailed grading plan will be necessary to properly evaluate this area. In addition, because of the significant amount of tree removal that will be required, a very aggressive reforestation plan will be required in conjunction with a site plan application for this area.

7. The applicant shall divide ACDD #4 into 3 smaller sub phases: 1) the single-family detached homes; 2) the multi-unit apartment/condominium buildings closer to Bickford Drive (south of the MDC ROW); and 3) the area north of the MDC ROW.

8. In accordance with the master plan, the developer(s) of properties adjacent to Bickford Drive will be responsible to construct on street parking, sidewalks, curb extensions, and other landscape amenities, some of which are within the Town-owned street right-of-way for Bickford Drive, Ensign Drive, and Fisher Drive, and portions which are located outside of the Town right-of-way. The purchasers of these adjoining properties shall also be responsible for all maintenance associated with these improvements. The Town will continue to maintain the travel lanes within the roadway.

9. The applicant’s traffic engineer has indicated that the overall master plan may show more parking spaces than needed to accommodate all uses at build out. The Commission may ask that the overall number of parking spaces be modified so as to be commensurate with the actual mix of uses presented through the site plan approval process.

10. The applicant has acknowledged that a certificate from the State Traffic Commission (STC) will be required for the development illustrated in the master plan. The applicant agrees that it will be responsible for the implementation of all off-site improvements in the sequence as may be required by the STC.

11. The Commission encourages the applicant to seek developers for the residential portions who will provide a variety of housing types and prices. Testimony from the applicant discussed the high market demand from “empty nesters” and younger individuals with both groups seeking modest-sized units. Smaller units will also better relate to topographic constraints present in ACDD #4. In addition, within this housing mix, consideration should be given to providing a modest number of moderately-priced housing units, which may be deemed as “workforce” housing.

12. The overall scope of the master plan warrants, in the Commission’s opinion, additional improvements to be completed within ACDD #8. In addition to the sketches prepared to date, Ensign Bickford Realty shall give consideration to adding one or more of the following additional elements:

A shelter to accommodate up to 50 persons
An outdoor amphitheater
Playground equipment

A final plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Commission in advance of or concurrent with the first site plan application for any district.

13. The applicant has represented that the intention is to have a balance of earth movement over the entire development but that there may be imbalances within individual ACDDs. In the even that there is a need to export earth material, separate special permit will be required for the removal of any earth in excess of 1,000 cubic yards.

14. The applicant shall comply with, and address any issues raised in a report from the Town Engineer, dated February 10, 2012.

15. In addition to the above conditions, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with all plans, written materials, and representations made by the applicant during the public hearing process.

The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.

Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4586 subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval is granted for a two-year period.

2. Approval is limited to the specific use and representations made by the applicant.

The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.

Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App. #4588. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.

Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4589 subject the following conditions:

1. Music is approved for a one-year trial period.

2. Music shall cease at 10pm. Volumes shall be monitored such that no music can be heard at the property line along Simsbury Road.

Mrs. Primeau seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.

OTHER BUSINESS

Annual CFPZA Conference - March 15, 2012 - Aqua Turf

Mr. Starr noted that he would be attending the conference and would be receiving a 25-year lifetime achievement award. Ms. Keith commented that she also plans to attend. Mr. Cappello also indicated that he would attend.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. Kushner provided an update to the Commission on pending litigation.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Sadlon, Clerk

LEGAL NOTICE

TOWN OF AVON

At a meeting held on February 14, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:

App. #4589 -Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, Marc Rietze, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.F.3.c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit outdoor music for existing restaurant, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124 in a CP-B Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

Dated at Avon this 15^THday of February, 2012. Copy of this notice is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Avon Town Hall.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Duane Starr, Chairman

Linda Keith, Vice-Chairwoman

LEGAL NOTICE

TOWN OF AVON

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 6, 2012, at 7:30 P.M. at the Avon Town Hall:

App. #4590 -Nod Brook LLC, owner, Eric Johnson, applicant request for Special Exception under Sections V.D. and V.O.5. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit outdoor display and outdoor seating, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone

App. #4591 -Lovley Development, Inc, owner, Ronald Frattini, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit 2 rear lots, 181 Arch Road, Parcel 1090181, in an R40 Zone

All interested persons may appear and be heard and written communications will be received. Applications are available for inspection in Planning and Community Development at the Avon Town Hall. Dated at Avon this 21^st day of February, 2012.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Duane Starr, Chair

Linda Keith, Vice-Chair