The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday May 1, 2012. Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Linda Keith, Vice-Chair, Carol Griffin, David Cappello (arrived at 7:45pm), Christian Gackstatter and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Jenna Ryan. Mrs. Primeau and Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent were Marianne Clark and Peter Mahoney. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Starr requested a correction to the April 10, 2012, minutes noting that Mr. Gackstatter and Mr. Mahoney are members of the Board of Directors of the Avon Land Trust, not just members. Ms. Keith motioned to approve the April 10, 2012, minutes, as corrected. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received approval from Ms. Keith and Messrs. Bonner, Starr, and Gackstatter. Mesdames Griffin and Primeau abstained as they had been absent from the April 10 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4599 - William Deramo, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot resubdivision, 2.96 acres, 359 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520359 in an R40 Zone
Present to represent this application were Robert Meyers, representing the owner, William Deramo, and Bill Ferrigno, Sunlight Construction, Inc.
Attorney Meyers explained that the request is for a resubdivision to gain one additional lot. He noted that a previous application requested both a resubdivision and a small density waiver, which became controversial. He further explained that the land area that is the subject of this application has been changed as a result of boundary line changes with the parcels on either side; he added that there is now sufficient land to generate 2 lots without the need to request a waiver of density or any other type of waiver. Mr. Meyers stated that the subject application is a request for resubdivision that fully conforms to the Zoning Regulations.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Meyers noted that the applicant offers a fee in lieu of open space land dedication.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that the proposed application is correctly a 2-lot subdivision. He further explained that the boundary line adjustments involving the parcels on either side were completed/recorded before the resubdivision request was submitted. Mrs. Griffin questioned the change in the dimensions of 3 existing lots that were part of a previous approved subdivision and asked how they were able to sell land. Mr. Meyers explained that excess density exists for the approved West Hills subdivision and added that the lots involved in the subject boundary line changes have enough land such that the remaining shape of the parcels conforms to the Zoning Regulations independently.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that lot line adjustments, in this instance, do not violate the subdivision approval because the boundary line adjustments still result in conforming lots in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. He noted, in connection with Mrs. Griffin’s comments, that he has received advice in the past from Town Attorney Zizka who indicated that a property owner is not at liberty to make significant changes to a recorded subdivision plan without first reviewing these proposed changes with the Commission. Mr. Kushner explained, for example, that every lot line for the last phase of the Kingswood Subdivision was reconfigured (improved) to permit sewer installation and, therefore, the developer (Michael Mansour) came back to the Commission for
a modification to the recorded maps. He added that modest lot line adjustments (land swaps) are done on a fairly frequent basis between private property owners and many occur many years after a subdivision has been recorded.
Mr. Starr noted that he asked Mr. Kushner if the boundary line revisions done in connection with the subject resubdivision application impact the density of the original subdivision approval and Mr. Kushner explained that no impact to the density would be realized, as there was more than adequate density for the original subdivision approval.
Mr. Meyers added that the boundary line adjustments did not affect the density or the requirements of a conforming lot (i.e., frontage, area, setbacks).
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s request, Mr. Meyers addressed the existing driveway and explained that there is a right-of-way that exists over land owned by Savona, 361 West Avon Road, to access the Deramo house. He explained that, legally, the use of the right-of-way can not be increased by 100% by allowing access to another house. The driveway for the proposed new lot originates from West Hills Drive while the original existing driveway (from West Avon Road) will continue to serve the existing Deramo house.
In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Starr explained that the existing Deramo property is no longer a rear lot, as it now has frontage on West Hills Drive. Mr. Meyers concurred. In response to Mrs. Primeau’s comment, Mr. Starr explained that the existing house doesn’t have to have a driveway from West Hills Drive and will continue to utilize the existing driveway from West Avon Road.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that part of the existing driveway will go over the new proposed lot by way of the same right-of-way. Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that this scenario has not changed from the original plan design.
Mr. Starr asked if the eventual owners of the proposed new lot at 25 West Hills Drive would need to grant an easement to allow continued access via the right-of-way to the existing house at 359 West Avon Road. Mr. Meyers explained that, most likely, Mr. Deramo would retain his rights as the owner of the right-of-way when he deeds away the new lot but added that the end result would be the same. When Mr. Deramo sells the new lot he can retain rights, by adding language to the deed, to pass and repass over the right-of-way for vehicular purposes. Mr. Starr commented that the buyer of the new lot would have the option to accept, or not, this condition on the deed. Mr. Meyers concurred.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about driveway grade, Mr. Meyers explained that both the first floor of the house and the first floor of the garage would be raised so there would be fewer feet of altitude down from the garage floor. The same length exists to accomplish fewer feet of driveway so the slope is slightly less.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that a walkout basement is still proposed but now the overall house is higher to accommodate a driveway that is less steep.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Meyers noted that Mr. Ferrigno met with the Town Engineer, Larry Baril, at the site today and the location of the guard rails has been agreed upon. He added that the applicant is fine with the Commission imposing a condition requiring guard rail installation before a C/O is issued but noted that the guard rails would be installed a month before a C/O is requested.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Ferrigno stated that approximately 650 cubic yards will be required to raise the house; approximately 35 truck loads total.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the proposed house is proposed to be raised up approximately 1½ feet. He added that the original driveway was proposed at a 12% grade; the driveway is now proposed at 11.5% grade.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4599 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider App. #4599. Mrs. Griffin seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4599 - William Deramo, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot resubdivision, 2.96 acres, 359 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520359 in an R40 Zone
Mrs. Griffin commented that she doesn’t feel that any of the Commissioners are ecstatic about the application. She added that it seems like the rules are being bent and things are being moved to make things fit. Mr. Starr noted that the proposal meets the Zoning Regulations. Mrs. Griffin concurred.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4599 subject to the following conditions, as noted in the Town Engineer’s Staff Comments dated April 26, 2012:
1. All AWPCA requirements are to be met
2. The revised drawings include alterations to the driveway design resulting in an 11.5% driveway slope – a reduction in the slope from previously submitted and within the Town’s regulated maximum slope of 14%.
3. The plans indicate the installation of a timber guide rail for the driveway. ~They do not show the guard rail required for the roadway (which has not yet been installed). We recommend that all required guard rail for the subdivision be installed prior to issuance of the CO for this house.
4. The plan appears to show that the sanitary force main is to be connected to the existing sanitary manhole on the adjacent property (parcel 4520359). ~Within lot 4520359 this force main must either be installed entirely within the sanitary easement or separate easement must be granted.
5. The plan indicates grading requirements on both adjacent parcels. ~We understand that the developer either owns or has agreements to allow this.~ If not, sufficient rights must be granted to allow
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received approval from Mesdames Griffin and Keith and Messrs. Gackstatter, Starr, Cappello, and Bonner. Voting in opposition of approval was Mrs. Primeau.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concern, Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding and explained that the best way to plow this driveway would be to push the snow right off the end of it; the area at the end of the driveway is currently open and very level.
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4600 - Fred & Bonnie, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to request permanent parking waiver, 221 West Main Street, Parcel 4540221, in a CR Zone
Present to represent this application was Robert Meyers, representing the owner; Fred Bauer, owner; and John Eucalitto, franchise owner.
Attorney Meyers noted that several site plan modifications have been approved for this site. An oil-change center is proposed for the rear building and a restaurant, “Jakes Wayback Burgers” is proposed for the front building.
Mr. Meyers explained that the Zoning Regulations provided for 3 classes of restaurants. He noted that, in this instance, the distinction between a Class II and Class III restaurant comes down to whether the food is consumed on or off the premises. He noted that if the majority of the food were to be consumed off the premises (i.e., if this site were proposed to be a Dunkin Donuts with the same number of seats and employees) it would be a Class III restaurant by right. He noted that the majority of food from Jakes Wayback Burgers would be consumed onsite and therefore is classified as a Class II restaurant, per the Regulations. He noted that the parking requirements for Class II and Class III restaurants are different. For Class III, the need is 1 parking space per 2 seated customers and 1
space for every 2 employees. Class II has the same requirement but there is an additional requirement subject to deferral, which is 10 additional spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space. Mr. Meyers explained that the subject application requests permanent deferral of the additional parking requirement, as the existing parking is more than adequate to meet the needs of the proposed restaurant.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that when the site plan was originally designed the parking requirements for each building were satisfied separately, at the request of the Director of Planning. He noted that there are 19 parking spaces dedicated for the front building, although there is extra parking to the rear that could be used; 6 employees, which is the maximum, would utilize 3 of the spaces.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comments about employee parking, Mr. Meyers confirmed that the Regulations require 1 parking space for 2 employees and 1 parking space for two seats in the restaurant. Mr. Kushner concurred. Ms. Keith noted her understanding. Mr. Meyers noted that the remaining 16 parking spaces would be dedicated to customers; there are 32 seats in the restaurant.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question about shared parking agreements, Mr. Meyers explained that a shared parking agreement would only be needed if there was more than one owner for the property. He noted that the subject site has only one owner and therefore the owner can decide to let the front building utilize the parking in the rear and vice versa.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Meyers confirmed that the leases will be written such that the customers of the burger restaurant will be free to park anywhere on the site as will the customers of the oil-change center.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels that customers of the oil-change center will walk over to the restaurant while they are waiting for their car to be serviced. She added that she feels the parking will be shared between the two buildings regardless of whether there is a shared parking agreement or not and, therefore, the proposed parking meets the requirements. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Ms. Keith questioned a conversation by the Commission, at a past meeting, about a smaller enterprise occupying the front building.
Mr. Kushner explained that, initially, a site plan was approved that preserved that building as it was. Mr. Meyers added that that approval included a restaurant use among other things. Mr. Kushner noted that there have been several modifications to the original approved site plan but added that the most recently approved site plan modification allows for new construction of the front building, with no changes to the square footage, rather than adding on to the existing building.
Mr. Kushner offered clarification of the Zoning Regulations pertaining to parking requirements for Class II and Class III restaurants. He explained that, in his interpretation, the Regulations ask the Commission to make a judgment with respect to the need for additional parking in connection with both Class II and Class III restaurants. Mr. Kushner referenced Mr. Meyers’ earlier comments and noted that Mr. Meyers is correct with respect to the distinction he made between mostly “dine in” or “take out” restaurants. Mr. Kushner pointed out that Class II and Class III are both larger scale restaurants and their characteristics can vary greatly (i.e., high volume, high turnover, low volume, low turnover). He explained that a scenario could exist where a restaurant of a
certain scale is being proposed that really needs more parking than indicated by the formula listed in the Zoning Regulations (i.e., 1 space for 2 employees plus 1 space for 2 seats) and noted that this scenario is what the Commission is being asked to make a judgment about with regard to the proposed restaurant.
Mr. Meyers indicated that he may have misspoke earlier and added that the smallest class of restaurant does not have the additional 10 space per 1,000 SF requirement. Mr. Kushner noted his understanding and agreed.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Bauer stated that the front building is approximately 1,600 square feet.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Meyers stated that the proposed restaurant will have 32 seats, which is determined by the parking which can be a maximum of 16 spaces for customers (3 spaces for employees for a total of 19).
Mrs. Primeau questioned whether the proposed parking for the entire site will be enough. She commented that there will be instances where someone will drop off their car and leave it overnight at the oil change place. She also noted that while some of the restaurant customers will come in for take out orders they will have to park their vehicle while they are inside.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. Meyers noted that there will be bays located behind the oil-change center to store cars that are dropped off for detailing.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about parking spaces behind the building, Mr. Meyers pointed out the parking spaces for the oil-change building and the parking bays used for vehicle detailing.
Ms. Keith commented that she understands that shared parking on this site has been discussed before but noted that now a restaurant is proposed for the front building. Mr. Meyers noted that a restaurant was always planned for the front building. He noted that the approved plans have a restaurant label on them. Ms. Keith asked if the restaurant employees can be required to park in an off-base place. She noted that she is comfortable with the proposed parking at certain points in time but added that she is somewhat uncomfortable deferring that many parking spaces permanently because it is not known how the proposed restaurant will take off. Mr. Meyers commented that the franchise owner could most likely provide information on projected volumes.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that a permanent parking deferral is being requested because there is no way (there is no room) on the site plan to show a future parking location.
John Eucalitto explained that a typical “Jakes Wayback Burgers” restaurant is approximately 1,600 square feet; the restaurant is family style and specializes in milkshakes. He noted that, on average, the restaurant generates about 130 customers per day and noted that the menu includes burgers, chicken sandwiches, and salads.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Eucalitto explained that the Torrington location is 2,400 square feet, larger than what is proposed for Avon and the prototypical location. He noted that 6 employees is the maximum at any one time, as there are only 6 service stations; the off hours usually have 2 employees.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Eucalitto explained that some employees are high school students and there are some employees that may take public transportation depending on where they are coming from. Some locations have more full-time employees but there are also part-time employees as well.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. Eucallito stated that 10:30am is typical opening time and 9pm is typical closing time.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Eucalitto explained that in most locations, 130 daily transactions break down to a 50/50 split, between lunch and dinner.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that when the site plan for the subject site was approved the Commission required that a note be put on the plan showing an area for a cross easement for a driveway connection with the “Dakota” property, located at 225 West Main Street. He noted that a driveway connection onto the Dakota property can not be made without the property owner’s consent but confirmed that the owner of the subject site plans to pave right up to the property line. Mrs. Primeau conveyed her understanding and added that she wonders if there is a way to secure a connection. Mr. Meyers noted that the Dakota property is currently vacant. Mrs. Primeau noted that the peak time for the restaurant is also the peak traffic time on Route 44 which
would make exiting to the west very difficult. Mr. Bonner agreed and noted that an exit to the rear would be great.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comments, Mr. Eucalitto explained that the restaurant employees are educated to park as far away from the customer area as possible. Mr. Meyers added that parking lot lighting would be provided by the property owner.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Bauer explained that the hours of operation for the oil-change and detailing center are 8am to 6pm. The business in the rear would be closed during the peak restaurant dinner hours leaving parking spaces in the rear open for restaurant patrons. He noted that there are 3 spaces in front of the oil-change center and 3 spaces behind it that could be used for restaurant customers.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Meyers noted that there are no parking spaces behind the dumpster area.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Eucalitto indicated that restaurant deliveries could be received either in the front or in the back and are generally once a week; he added that deliveries typically occur in the morning, as no lunchtime deliveries are allowed. Mr. Bauer explained that there will be a back door for fire access and a back door for deliveries, located near the dumpster area.
Mr. Kushner addressed parking for the entire site and asked Mr. Bauer if he was going to have control over how parking is shared between the front and back buildings. He asked if this issue will be addressed/controlled in the lease for the oil-change center. Mr. Bauer confirmed that he will guarantee that parking will be shared on the site. He added that the vehicles left for detailing will be stored inside a bay overnight for liability reasons. Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Bauer if he would take personal responsibility to ensure that there would be available parking in the rear for the restaurant use. Mr. Bauer confirmed that he would manage and take responsibility for shared parking on the site.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s concern about vehicles exiting to the west when leaving the site, Mr. Bauer explained that he has met with the owner of the former Dakota site (Mr. Fazio) 6 or 8 times at his office and added that he will be working with Mr. Fazio to take down some old trees and landscaping on the shared border. He commented that Mr. Fazio has indicated that he is looking at different tenants, may want to remodel the building, and was verbally open/agreeable to paving a driveway connection in the rear but there is nothing in writing at this point. Mr. Bauer noted that he would continue to work with Mr. Fazio.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Starr commented that if a permanent parking deferral is granted it applies only to this application and not to the site. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4600 subject to the following conditions:
1. A permanent parking deferral is granted.
2. Employees of the proposed restaurant in the front building shall park to the rear of the site.
3. The property owner shall be responsible for shared parking to ensure that there are spaces available to the rear of the site for restaurant patrons during dinner hours.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
App. #4304M - Toll CT Limited Partnership, owner/applicant, request for subdivision modification for phasing of Weatherstone Section III, 57.31 acres, 47 Lofgren Road, Parcel 3030047 in an R40 Zone
Present to represent this application were Ted Merchant and Curt Simon, Toll Brothers, and Chris Alford, Alford Associates, Inc.
Mr. Merchant provided background information noting that the Weatherstone Subdivision, Phases II and III, received conditional approval in July of 2007. In September of 2011, the previous owners of the property came before the Commission to request that Phase III be broken down into sub phases. He explained that in early 2012 Toll Brothers purchased the project and now propose modifications to the requested sub-phasing plan for Phase III. Mr. Merchant indicated that the current modification request would allow stricter adherence to the approved engineered plan than what the previous developer had requested. The request is for fewer and larger sub phases and the inclusion of the extension of Northington Drive to Lofgren Road to take place in the first sub phase, Phase III-A. The open space
would be turned over to the Town as part of Phase III-A; the remainder of Phase III-A would include Cranbrook Road. He commented that Phase III-B would include 7 lots off of Norwood Way and Phase III-C would include 7 lots on the extension of Weatherstone.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Merchant explained that the former owners/developers (Francoline and Sard) submitted a request to break down Phase III into 4 sub phases. He noted that the former Phase III-B had anticipated putting grinder pumps in the basements with a forced sewer; Mr. Merchant noted that Toll Brothers does not want to proceed in that direction. He explained that the current sub phasing plan would keep the approved sewer plan for Cranbrook which would be constructed during Phase III-B.
Mr. Kushner noted that the dedication of 23 acres of open space is an important aspect of this project to the Commission and added that a public hearing has been scheduled to accept this open space at the Town Council’s meeting scheduled for May 3, 2012. He noted that the deed should be recorded shortly after the acceptance. The extension of Northington Drive is also important to the Commission and is now part of Phase III-A, along with the construction of a small gravel parking lot on the Found Land open space. Mr. Kushner stated that he agrees with Mr. Merchant that the proposed sub phasing is an improvement over the previously proposed sub phasing plan, as there are less phases and the open space dedication and the extension of Northington Drive will be accomplished in the early phase.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comments and concerns about open space access and parking, Mr. Kushner explained that the access strip is there to provide access for the homeowners that live in the subdivision; he noted that the plan includes a small stone dust trail that intersects with the road and a small Town of Avon open space sign will be placed at that location. He added that the developer has been asked to install the open space signs before any of the lots are sold so that the new owners are fully aware of the open space in the area.
Mr. Kushner noted that the Town hopes that the majority of people will park in the nearby public parking areas that have been created rather than parking in the public streets. He concluded by noting in addition to the gravel parking area to be constructed on the Found Land there is also a public, off-street parking area in the Bridgewater Subdivision.
In response to comments from the Commission about the open space, Mr. Kushner explained that the stone dust will be installed first and then the split-rail fence; the signs identifying the Town open space would most likely not be installed until the rest of the trail is constructed.
He added that the gravel parking lot to be constructed on the Found Land will be the main access for people coming by vehicle.
Mr. Cappello motioned to approve the request for sub phasing modification in connection with App. #4304M, as proposed in a letter from Toll Brothers dated April 25, 2012. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.
STAFF REPORT
Emergency road connections and associated maintenance - public & private
Mr. Kushner addressed concerns raised by Mrs. Griffin regarding the emergency road connection at Sconsett Point. He noted that there is one road that currently leads to nowhere, running right next to the canal, and a second parallel road that is access to the 14 homes in Sconsett Point. During the approval process for Phase IV of Avon Self Storage (App. #4535 July 2011), the Commission discussed at length the connection between Sconsett Point and Avon Self Storage. He explained that although there was testimony from some of the Sconsett Point residents the Commission concurred that the emergency access is necessary and Mr. Haines is obligated to make a physical connection from his property to the Sconsett Point when he begins construction of Phase IV; no building permits have been applied for to date.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comments about boulders on the Sconsett Point property, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Starr noted that it was agreed during the Commission’s review of Phase IV for Avon Self Storage that the boulders must be removed when the emergency connection is made. Mr. Starr commented that the Sconsett Point homeowners indicated that the boulders were put there to keep cars from parking in that area. In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question about placing items in a right-of-way, Mr. Kushner explained that the subject right-of-way is a not public; he added that it’s a privately-owned driveway, owned by the Sconsett Point Homeowners Association. He further explains that there is a note on the approved plan that defines a 40-foot strip with a note that says because the strip
does not meet the public standard of 50 feet, the private road/strip can never be contemplated or petitioned to become a public road. Mr. Kushner indicated that connections between private properties can often be a real burden for the Town, as each private property owner is, rightfully so, looking out for their own best interest. The Sconsett Point Homeowners Association has made it clear that they do not want the emergency connection. He noted that conversations regarding property connections have taken place at Planning Staff Meetings where the police chief, fire marshal, public works director, town engineer, and the building official have participated; he added that this topic will continue to be discussed at future meetings. He noted that he has requested the Fire Marshal to prepare a map that inventories all the connections (public and private) required over the years by the Commission. Mr. Kushner commented that he feels the public safety
officials should determine which connections are really necessary and offer them an advantage; he added that some have not been properly maintained over the years. He indicated that protocol for enforcement and maintenance of these connections is needed and noted that he has suggested that the Fire Marshal take some responsibility, as these connections provide a benefit to the safety officials more than anyone else. He explained that he realizes that there may be a lack of resources at the Town to maintain these connections but added that if these connections are necessary and have been required and the public safety officials say they are needed, ongoing maintenance is a must.
Mrs. Griffin stressed her point that the Commission has required emergency accesses in certain developments for safety reasons and to meet the Regulations; she noted that the Commission would not have approved certain projects without requiring an emergency access. She indicated that she feels that all emergency personnel should be aware of the locations of all the emergency connections and this should be part of their training. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Kushner noted that certain developments are doing a good job at maintaining emergency connections. For example, the gate at Farmington Woods, Condo 15, that empties out into the Brownstone subdivision has an automated gate and remote openers are kept in the fire trucks. He noted that the Fire Marshal has indicated that this access is used quite frequently and it is well maintained. He noted that Pond Place also maintains their connection but there are projects where connections are not maintained.
Ms. Keith commented that she remembers that some of the emergency connections were required by the Fire Marshal or another Town Official, not the Commission. She indicated that the Commission was fulfilling their responsibility to others by requiring the connections. She added that she is fine if the safety personnel come back and say that some of the connections are not needed but added that if certain connections are necessary they must be maintained. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Gackstatter suggested that language could be added (for future proposals) that states that if an emergency connection is required but not maintained that the property owner shall be liable. Mr. Kushner agreed and added that private homeowners/condominium associations could be required to add language to the deeds alerting all buyers of the obligation to maintain an emergency connection.
In response to Ms. Ryan’s question regarding Sconsett Point, Mr. Starr explained that Sconsett Point was required to construct a road connector up to their property line and Avon Self Storage is required to construct a road connector on their property (as part of Phase IV construction which has yet to occur) such that both road connectors meet to form an emergency access. He added that the boulders would be removed once the connector is completed. Mr. Kushner explained that the emergency connection has been shown on the Sconsett Point plans from the very beginning.
Mr. Kushner commented that no one knows better than the Fire Marshal and Police Chief what is needed to effectively respond to emergencies and added that he will ask them for input. The first step is to inventory what currently exists and find out which connections are actually used and develop a program for regular maintenance.
Mrs. Primeau noted her agreement with Mr. Kushner and indicated that she feels part of the problem is communication. She added that there has to be a system in place to ensure that all the Town agencies (i.e., police and fire and the Commission) are kept informed and up-to-date; someone has to be in charge.
Mr. Kushner noted that there are also cisterns and retention basins in Town with no clear maintenance schedules. He noted that these types of issues get more complicated as the Town continues to grow and added that it is difficult for individual Town departments to take on extra responsibility when budget cuts sometimes reduce manpower.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on May 1, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4599 - William Deramo, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot resubdivision, 2.96 acres, 359 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520359 in an R40 Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITION
App. #4600 - Fred & Bonnie, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to request permanent parking waiver, 221 West Main Street, Parcel 4540221, in a CR Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITION
App. #4304M - Toll CT Limited Partnership, owner/applicant, request for subdivision modification for phasing of Weatherstone Section III, 57.31 acres, 47 Lofgren Road, Parcel 3030047 in an R40 Zone APPROVED
Dated at Avon this 4th day of May, 2012. Copy of this notice is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Avon Town Hall.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chair
Linda Keith, Vice-Chair
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, May 22, 2012, at 7:30 P.M. at the Avon Town Hall:
App. #4601- Shops at Applewoods LLC, owner, ARG Restaurant Group LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.D.3.a.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, 51 East Main Street, Parcel 2140051 in a CS Zone
App. #4602 - River Mead Condominium Association, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.3.b.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 100 River Mead, Parcel 3740100, in an RU2A Zone
App. #4605 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.3.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit park entrance sign, 60 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970060, in an ROS 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 8th day of May, 2012.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chair
Linda Keith, Vice-Chair
| 
