The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday June 12, 2012. Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Linda Keith, Vice-Chair, Carol Griffin, Marianne Clark and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Jenna Ryan; Mesdames Primeau and Ryan and Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent were David Cappello, Peter Mahoney, and Christian Gackstatter. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve the May 22, 2012, minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received approval from Mesdames Clark, Keith, and Griffin and Messrs. Starr and Bonner. Mrs. Primeau abstained, noting that she had been absent from the May 22 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4606- Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, ROS Restaurants LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.F.3.c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124 in a CP-B Zone
Present to represent this application was Rocco Carbone, applicant.
Mr. Carbone explained that he proposes to operate his restaurant in the space currently occupied by “Papacelle” restaurant, located in Riverdale Farms; he added that he would not utilize the outdoor patio for entertainment. He noted that a family-style Italian restaurant, open from 11:30am to 9:00pm during the week and from 11:30 am to 11pm on Saturdays, is proposed. The restaurant would most likely be closed on Sundays.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that he has met with the applicant and the Staff has no concerns.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Carbone confirmed that the detached “Papacelle” sign located on Route 10 would be removed. He added that only signs permitted by the Town would be displayed for the proposed restaurant.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4606 was closed.
App. #4607 - Avon Village LLC, owner/applicant, request for Zone Change from R40 to CP-A 2.932 acres, 117 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970117, and 8.071 acres, 121 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970121
Present to represent this application were Robert Aiello, PE, John Meyer Consulting, representing the owner, and Matthew Herz, owner.
Mr. Aiello explained that the proposal is for a zone change from R40 (residential) to CP-A (commercial) for Parcels 3970117 and 3970121 (117 and 121 Simsbury Road). He noted that in 2008 the subject properties were the subject of an application by Sunrise Senior Living for a 74-unit assisted living facility and an office/retail development; a similar conceptual site layout has been included with the subject zone change.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Aiello confirmed that a zone change was also part of the 2008 application package. He added that the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development identifies Route 10 (Simsbury Road) as a major transportation route and Chapter 11 notes that the subject parcels are an appropriate location for high-density residential use due to their proximity to Avon Center. He noted that the Future Land Use Plan depicts these parcels as being rezoned to either business or medium-density residential. The subject parcels are surrounded by office park and commercial zones.
Mr. Starr commented that the proposed zone change appears to be consistent with the current zoning for the surrounding properties, the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development, and with the development that was proposed in 2008. He noted that the 2008 proposal was withdrawn by the applicant but most likely would have been approved by the Commission. Mr. Kushner concurred.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4607 was closed.
App. #4611- Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.B.4.a. and c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit temporary parking reduction, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone
App. #4612- Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.H. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit earth removal, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing.
App. #4610- Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for building addition and parking expansion and renovation, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone
Present to represent these applications were William Richter, LA, Richter and Cegan, representing Reflexite; Steve McGuff and John Cunningham, Reflexite; Doug Ellis, PE, Buck & Buck LLC; and Bob Day, Robert Day Architects.
The Commission received (via email) written comments/concerns from Brian Baldwin, 67 Arch Road.
Mr. Richter explained that Reflexite needs to expand their building and previous approvals granted for this purpose have lapsed/expired. He displayed the site plan noting that the site is 21 acres in size; there is an existing 200-foot setback off of Arch Road and a 60-foot perimeter setback from the remainder of the site. There are currently 135 parking spaces on the site. He noted that the site was comprised of 2 parcels that were to be consolidated and as part of past approvals the paper street that was located between the 2 parcels has been relocated to the west side of the site and a right-of-way has been deeded to the Town. Some land area was also deeded, as open space and trails were constructed. He noted that all regulated activities from past wetland approvals was done approximately
10 years ago and added that a new wetlands approval has also just been granted.
Mr. Richter addressed the proposed expansion noting that a single-story, 7,400-square-foot addition is proposed for the west side of the building and a two-story, 46,500-square-foot addition is proposed for the east side of the building. The Zoning Regulations require 395 parking spaces for the proposed square footage (3.3 spaces per 1,000 SF). He noted that Reflexite will have 180 employees in the fully occupied and expanded space. There are 3 shifts that require only165 parking spaces, thus a 25% temporary installation reduction and a 25% temporary shared-use reduction is requested. This would permit the construction of 199 spaces and have196 spaces in reserve (in the southeast corner). The building coverage is at 10%, the parking and walks are at 20%, and 67% of the site is open space. He explained that the extent of the proposed expansion (i.e., outline of the parking) essentially matches that of past approvals.
Mr. Starr commented that the reserve parking shown in the southwest portion of the site extends into what would have been the footprint of the originally approved building expansion. Mr. Richter concurred.
Mr. Richter reviewed the site plan and noted that the existing driveway located near the main entrance will be moved to the east property line to get around the larger addition; the overhead door in the service drive is only used for swapping equipment and is not used daily. Employee parking will be located along the east side, as a new east entrance is proposed; handicap parking will also be constructed. The main entrance will remain as is but the main parking lot will be reconfigured (including handicap parking) and expanded to the west. He noted that a separate drive will remain for the reserve parking area. All storm drainage around the building will be routed to an infiltration basin in the front of the building. The entrance drive to the reserve parking area would be paved at the throat
and an emergency access gate installed; the drive would be a combination of gravel and paving. He explained that this access drive would be maintained all year round to ensure that there is a second way out of the parking lot.
Mr. Starr commented that the access drive would also be needed if the reserve parking lot ever had to be built out. Mr. Richter concurred and noted that the drive would become the base for the road. He stated that 199 parking spaces are proposed; 58 spaces along the east side and 141 spaces on the west side.
Mr. Richter explained that an excavation permit will be needed for a cut into the slope in the southeast corner; approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards will have to be removed. He noted that the proposed earth removal is tied only to the reserve parking area and is not part of the first phase of the proposed expansion.
Mr. Richter summarized by noting that approvals are being requested for a 25% installation reduction, a 25% shared-use reduction, earth removal, and site plan approval. He noted that all Staff Comments have been responded to satisfactorily and the proposed expansion is within the limits of past approvals.
In response to Mr. Starr’s request, Mr. Richter addressed the comments of the Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief, dated June 12, 2012. He explained that the parking is proposed along the building (on the east side) because the existing driveway and sidewalk are already in that location. An employee entrance with handicap parking already exists, so the parking is proposed for the same side as the sidewalk. In addition, the turning movements are tight in the loading dock area and the current proposal allows the drive to be located 18 feet further away and open up the turning movements. Mr. Richter commented that locating the driveway on the other side may result in some less desirable site conditions. He noted that a hydrant currently exists at the main entrance, opposite the main driveway
and there is another hydrant in the parking lot; the next hydrant is located at the driveway for Legere Woodworking. He noted that he would meet with the Fire Marshal to determine what location would be the most desirable to add another hydrant on the other side of the building.
John Cunningham stated that he has met with Hartford Sprinkler and noted that a new system will be needed on the east side of the building so adding a hydrant at that location should be possible. He added that discussions with Hartford Sprinkler are still in the beginning stages.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Richter explained that “shared” parking in this instance relates to shift conditions. He noted that two standard catch basins would be installed at the paved entrance to the gravel driveway and the base would be graded such that the area drains along the east side, towards the basins and eventually into the rain gardens. Mrs. Griffin commented that the Town has had bad experiences in the past with emergency accesses that have not been maintained and asked whether it would be better to pave the access drive, rather than gravel, and use it as a second entrance. Mr. Richter explained that the proposed gravel drive is not needed as an entry point; it would be used only as an emergency access. He added that both the Fire Chief and Fire
Marshal have indicated that a gravel drive is sufficient for their needs. He commented that Reflexite is a solid business in Avon and they are committed to keeping the access drive clear/maintained.
Mr. Starr questioned whether the access drive would need to be gated, as it would be plowed. Mr. Richter commented that “gated” in this instance means a chain would be used to alert individuals that the drive is not an access into the rest of the site.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Richter indicated that it may be, sort of, easier to plow the emergency drive if it were paved but noted that gravel can also be paved. He explained that it is an economic decision; if paving is not required that is one less thing needed to be done.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Richter explained that approximately 20 feet of the drive would be paved so that a vehicle could be parked in front of the chain.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Richter explained that all the “light green” trees shown on the plan are the new plantings proposed along the back edge of the site; he noted that there is a 200-foot setback along Arch Road. Mrs. Primeau noted that she can see the building in the winter time and added that she feels that planting evergreens would help to buffer noise. Mr. Richter noted that there is a 25-foot grade change from the property line down to the building location. He added that he believes the letter received from an Avon resident is actually referring to Legere Woodworking, and not Reflexite. He noted that over 300 feet of trees currently exist and there is over 400 feet of distance to the building. He noted that if trees were planted in this area they
wouldn’t be seen because the view is across the top. Mrs. Primeau commented that the trees would be seen once they grow. Mr. Richter explained that due to the drop in elevation it would be many years before the trees could grow tall enough to be visible from a vehicle driving by the site.
Steve McGuff, Director of Manufacturing at Reflexite, stated that over the years Reflexite has carefully considered any concerns from abutting neighbors, particularly those along Arch Road. A series of evergreen plantings have been installed along Arch Road to address some concerns. He noted that Reflexite has invested over $100,000 in a sophisticated silencer for the exhaust system. He explained that he has walked the property many times with abutting neighbors and added that 9 times out of 10 the issues involve other nearby manufacturing facilities, and not Reflexite. He commented that there are other manufacturing businesses that abut the 200-foot setback from Arch Road and added that Reflexite is often confused with Legere Woodworking.
Mrs. Primeau asked whether systems going on at 5am would be coming from a neighboring business. Mr. McGuff noted that is it likely that anything at 5am would be coming from a neighboring business. He explained that, in past years, when complaints were received about early morning noises Reflexite surveyed everything going on in their operation and stopped all deliveries/trash pickup occurring before normal business hours to address any potential problems. He noted that all delivery vehicles have been encouraged to use Route 44 rather than Arch Road.
Mr. Starr commented that most drivers probably realize that it is longer to use Arch Road than Route 44.
Ms. Keith commented that the Commission has a description of a whining and clunking noise and asked if that is Reflexite. Mr. McGuff indicated that he doesn’t believe those noises are coming from Reflexite’s site and added that there is a dust-collector system located on a neighboring property, as they are in the woodworking business; this system faces the Reflexite building on the east side.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s reference to the clunking and whining noise, Mr. Cunningham explained that the HVAC unit (heating and air conditioning) runs 24/7, as do all systems at Reflexite; there is no start up and/or shutdown time at any time during the day because everything runs constantly. He further explained that based on the address, which is located directly across from Legere Woodworking (80 Darling Drive), and because the complaint also references a woodworking operation, he commented that he is 99% certain that the complaint is referencing either Legere Woodworking’s dust collection system or their HVAC system. Mr. Cunningham further explained that Reflexite does not have any woodworking operations.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with Mr. Cunningham’s comments. He indicated that the Town has received a few complaints of loud whining noises that he believes are originating from OFS (55 Darling Drive), located on the other side of the road. He noted that OFS has a couple of large heating units in front of their building that are relatively new and make a loud noise when they start up. He explained that he has been working with the plant manager at OFS to address this situation. He confirmed his belief that the noise issues do not relate to the Reflexite facility.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s questions, Mr. McGuff explained that the processes at Reflexite are considered environmentally very sound. The facility designs and manufactures high-tech optical products to save energy and lives (i.e., sign materials, safety tape, fireman’s tape). He further explained that there are very few processes with environmental discharge issues and those processes that have discharge issues are maintained well above any Federal and State standards. Mr. McGuff confirmed that the business that will occur in the new building additions is the same business that is presently taking place. He noted that Avon has been Reflexite’s headquarters for many years and the wish is to continue that practice.
Mitch Kennedy, 85 Arch Road, conveyed his gratitude to Reflexite for addressing/responding to his requests to address noise and visual screening; he noted that he can still hear the noise. He noted his concerns for construction vehicles using Arch Road and asked that that not be permitted.
Mr. Starr stated that no construction vehicles on Arch Road will be a condition if an approval is granted.
Mr. Kennedy noted his understanding that the proposed expansion would occur in 2 phases and added his concerns for the proposed parking additions on the southeast and southwest portions of the site, as they abut the 200-foot visual buffer. The southeast corner proposes a cut into the bank which extends into the buffer; wildflowers are proposed which would reduce the number of trees that would screen Reflexite from Arch Road. He requested that screening be increased with non-deciduous trees and not white pines. He noted that some of the trees planted by Reflexite several years ago have died and the facility was visible during this past winter. He indicated his concerns for increased noise with the proposed addition and noted his gratitude for anything that can be done to reduce noise to Arch Road;
he noted that he hears noise 24/7 from his bedroom with the windows shut. He concluded by noting that he supports manufacturing uses in this State.
Dina Pelletier, 85 Arch Road, commented that she hears a high-pitched whining noise 24 hours a day. She noted that she has visited Reflexite and believes that an HVAC unit is the source of the noise problem. She commented that she can hear trucks from the loading dock early in the morning.
Mr. McGuff conveyed his appreciation to Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Pelleteir for their comments and noted that Reflexite will continue to work with them, as they have in the past. He commented that he believes the visual screening can be addressed with Phase II. Mr. Richter concurred and noted that a slope can be replanted. Mr. McGuff indicated that the dead trees can be addressed and added that some tests were just done to assess noise levels at the perimeter but official results are not in yet. He indicated that Reflexite is aware and concerned with noise levels and neighbor concerns; he added that they certainly don’t want to add noise.
Bob Day, architect, explained that Reflexite was aware of noise concerns back in 2000 when a warehouse addition was proposed. An environmental consultant has been contracted to perform an acoustical study with regards to construction; sound was measured at the perimeter of the site and also at Pond Circle, located about ½ mile from the building. A measurement was taken in 2 locations and the noise levels fall below the standard. He noted that the new mechanical equipment intended for the larger addition will be located in the area of the building closer to Darling Drive, which is the heart of the industrial area. He noted that the chiller unit will remain in use but will be relocated to a different location; the unit has to be moved because its current location is where the smaller addition is
proposed to be constructed. Mr. Day explained that the new location of the chiller unit is not yet known, as the engineers are still studying the possibilities but added that it will be either located on the ground or mounted on the roof of the existing building. He added that now that the sound specifications are known, this information can be used when the new equipment (for the addition) is designed to ensure that the noise remains within the operating threshold.
Mr. Kennedy commented that the noise study did not show measurements in front of his house. Mr. Day noted that the information was put together very quickly but indicated that he could get that information.
Mr. Kushner explained, for the record, that the Zoning Regulations do contain noise standards and special standards where industrial zoning districts abut residentially-zoned properties. He noted that the Regulations do not guarantee absolute silence at the property line; a certain amount of noise is permitted and the Regulations recognize that a certain amount of noise will exist. He noted that he feels Reflexite has done a commendable job over the years and added that he feels confident that they will go the extra mile and do what can be done. He explained that while the Town doesn’t receive that many noise-related complaints from this area, he noted that, from his experience, he feels that the complaints received are related to other businesses in Avon Park South and not directly related to
Reflexite’s operations. He pointed out that zoning is not a perfect tool and the subject site is located in an industrial park that has existed for 40 years. The Commission required a 200-foot buffer to the rear of all the businesses located along Darling Drive and Arch Road; this buffer will remain and is well above the requirements of the Zoning Regulations. He added that a buffer that size is without precedent, as there are no 200-foot buffers across the street in Avon Park North. He explained that a condition will never exist where no noise is generated from businesses located in either Avon Park South or Avon Park North. Mr. Kushner noted that the Town always does the best job possible but added that there can never be a guarantee that residences located within approximately 400 feet of an industrial park will never hear any noise. He indicated that similar concerns are received from residential property owners who purchase homes near
existing commercial uses on Route 44. Mr. Kushner concluded by noting that the Town/Commission always tries to achieve the best possible conditions for everyone but it can never be perfect.
There being no further input the public hearing for Apps. #4611, #4612, as well as the entire public hearing, was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Primeau motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4606, #4607, #4610, #4611, and #4612. Mrs. Clark seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4606 - Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, ROS Restaurants LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.F.3.c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124 in a CP-B Zone
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4606. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4607 - Avon Village LLC, owner/applicant, request for Zone Change from R40 to CP-A 2.932 acres, 117 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970117, and 8.071 acres, 121 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970121
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4607. The motion, seconded by Ms. Ryan, received unanimous approval. The effective date of the zone change is July 12, 2012.
Mr. Starr stated that the zone change is consistent with the surrounding properties, as well as the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development.
App. #4610- Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for building addition and parking expansion and renovation, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone
Mrs. Griffin commented that she would like the access road to be paved rather than graveled. Mrs. Ryan and Clark agreed. Ms. Keith commented that if the access road is paved it would have to be ripped up, rebuilt, and made wider if the applicant decides, at some point in the future, to construct the reserve parking area. She explained that while she would normally favor asphalt she acknowledged that it doesn’t seem fair, at this point, to require it due to the cost factor.
Mr. Kushner explained that one aspect of low impact design is reducing the amount of pavement and impervious surface, where practical. He noted that while he agrees with Mrs. Griffin’s comments about the importance of paved emergency accesses he pointed out that this scenario is different. Most emergency connections are located between different properties. The subject access is located completely on Reflexite’s property and there are 3 driveway entrances for this site, which is probably without precedence in Avon Park South. He noted that Reflexite has committed to maintain the access and the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal are happy with a gravel drive. He added that a paved driveway may be better in some ways but it would add to the amount of runoff and impervious surface and it
may not be necessary for a long time.
Mr. Bonner commented that he feels gravel is fine at this point in time and noted his agreement that there is no need to place an extra burden on the applicant at this time.
Mr. Kushner explained that there is no other business that is dependent on this driveway; it is solely for the purposes of Reflexite’s business and would only be used in the event of some major catastrophic event.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4610 subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall work with the Fire Marshal to add another hydrant on the east side of the building.
2. Applicant shall work with Fire Marshal in connection with the installation of an interior standpipe system.
3. Applicant shall install additional plantings to mitigate any barrier/buffer that gets removed if the reserve parking in the southeast portion of the site is constructed.
4. All construction trucks shall utilize Route 44 and Darling Drive and not use Arch Road.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4611- Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.B.4.a. and c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit temporary parking reduction, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone
Mrs. Griffin asked about the request for a temporary parking reduction for shared shifts and noted that parking calculations are based on the size of a building and not how many people work in the building. Mr. Starr explained that the applicant is asking the Commission to consider the “shift” type of operation that Reflexite operates. He further explained that parking need is based on square footage, per the Zoning Regulations, but this business is different from many others. Mrs. Griffin commented that another use could someday take over this building. Mr. Starr concurred and noted that that is why a reserve parking area is shown on the plans.
Ms. Keith commented that a 25% reduction is high but noted that she understands the “shift” issue.
Mrs. Clark commented that the highest number of employees would be during the day with less in the other shifts.
Mr. Kushner explained that Reflexite knows how many employees will be in the facility at any one time and the parking lot has been designed with spaces in excess of what is needed; Reflexite is very comfortable with the proposed parking. In response to Mrs. Griffin’s earlier question, he added that he doesn’t believe the shared parking section of the Regulations has ever been applied to “shifts”.
Mr. Bonner commented that if additional parking is not needed at this point there is no need to create additional pavement, which would reduce grassed and treed areas. If the business grows and the building additions are constructed, more parking should be constructed at that time.
Mrs. Griffin indicated her agreement that no more parking than is currently needed should be built at this time but added that she wants to ensure that there is adequate parking should there be a change in tenant/business.
Mr. Starr explained that the requested temporary parking reductions could be built out to satisfy the parking (395 spaces) that is required at this site based on the formula/square footage calculations in the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Kushner pointed out that Legere Woodworking is a good example of a business with an excess of unused parking, excess pavement. He confirmed that the subject plan shows the potential for a substantial amount of additional parking, should it be needed. He explained that the proposed parking may not accommodate every other type of user for this site (i.e., an office use with cubicles) but should accommodate most manufacturing uses.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that the Commission has granted a 25% parking reduction in the past; no precedent is being set.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4611 subject to the following condition:
1. A 25% temporary parking reduction is granted/approved..
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Ryan, received unanimous approval.
App. #4612 - Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.H. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit earth removal, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone
Mr. Starr noted that the applicant has represented that between 3,000 and 4,000 cubic yards of earth are proposed to be removed for the reserved parking area proposed in the southeast corner of the site. He added that the earth removal request would only apply to this area of the site.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4612 subject to the following conditions:
1. All earth removal trucks shall utilize Route 44 and Darling Drive and not use Arch Road.
2. The hours of operation for earth removal shall be determined by the Traffic Authority.
Mrs. Clark seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4608 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Ken Pilon, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for modifications to store front façade, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315 in a CR Zone
App. #4609 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Ken Pilon, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to modify sign concept, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone
Present to represent these applications was Ken Pilon, Moser, Pilon, Nelson Architects.
Mr. Pilon displayed the site plan and noted that the proposal is to modify a section of the front building façade, as well as the sign theme. He noted that “Lane Bryant” is a new tenant proposed for the space where the façade changes are proposed; he added that this tenant would serve as a mini anchor for the Nod Brook Mall. He explained that the tiled area (under the overhang) for the façade section that extends from “Marshals” to “Michaels Crafts” will be removed and replaced with store front windows. He noted that the window glass will be 7-feet high and this section will look more like the rest of the building.
In response to questions from Mesdames Keith and Ryan, Mr. Pilon explained that the existing tenants (bagel store, etc.) will most likely keep their current signs but he added that they may be able to ask for larger signs, as some are undersized with what is permitted by the current approved sign theme. He noted that because every sign has to fit within the sign band area it would be unlikely that any change in size would be very noticeable.
Mr. Pilon explained that he has suggested to the property owner that additional lighting be added to the façade but noted that none is proposed at this time; one step at a time. Mr. Pilon addressed the proposed sign theme modifications and noted that there is a designated sign band area for each tenant space; each sign must fit within a finite sign band area.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comment, Mr. Pilon noted that Lane Bryant is a larger tenant and will be permitted a larger sign; per the sign theme, sign size is based on tenant square footage. The smaller tenants will have smaller fascia to work with but all tenants have the same sign opportunity with regard to ratio, as the size is determined by tenant square footage.
Mr. Starr commented that sign size based on square footage is consistent with the existing sign theme. Mr. Pilon concurred and noted that the sign theme has existed for about 20 years.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4608. The motion, seconded Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4609. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Ryan, received unanimous approval.
STAFF REPORT
Emergency road connections and associated maintenance - public & private
Mr. Kushner reported that the Fire Marshal has prepared a map/inventory of the connections and noted that he (Mr. Kushner) continues to meet and have discussions with the Director of Public Works and the Fire Marshal. The Fire Chief has also provided input noting that he would like to maintain as many connections as possible.
Extend sidewalks north on Route 10 - STEAP Grant
This item was discussed at the May 22 meeting.
Bicycle and pedestrian planning
Mr. Kushner indicated that a rough draft plan should be available for the July 17 meeting showing how bicycle lanes could possibly be added, as well as a long-term plan for pedestrian circulation.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the trees on Scoville Road and Thompson Road have grown so much that a bicyclist could not be seen. She suggested that the areas next to the roadways need to be opened up before an accident happens.
Ms. Keith commented that bicyclists are supposed to stop before crossing a roadway but they often don’t; she added that the sightlines need work.
Mr. Starr stated that he has bicycled every morning for the past couple of weeks and noted that while you may not be able to see the cars coming you can hear them (i.e., at the curve on Country Club Road). Mrs. Griffin commented that she meant the cars cannot see the bicycles, and noted that the bicycles don’t stop. Mr. Starr noted his understanding/agreement that the cars cannot see the bicycles but reiterated that that is why he stops when he hears the cars. Ms. Keith commented that it’s more comfortable for the drivers when the sightline is open.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he would alert the Director of Public Works about the sightline issues.
Mr. Starr noted his agreement with Mrs. Griffin that the trees at the crossroads should be trimmed back by Public Works. Mr. Kushner noted his understanding.
There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on June 12, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4606- Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, ROS Restaurants LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.F.3.c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124 in a CP-B Zone APPROVED
App. #4607 - Avon Village LLC, owner/applicant, request for Zone Change from R40 to CP-A 2.932 acres, 117 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970117, and 8.071 acres, 121 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970121 APPROVED EFFECTIVE JULY 12, 2012
App. #4608 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Ken Pilon, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for modifications to store front façade, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315 in a CR Zone APPROVED
App. #4609 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Ken Pilon, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to modify sign concept, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone APPROVED
App. #4610- Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for building addition and parking expansion and renovation, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
App. #4611- Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.B.4.a. and c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit temporary parking reduction, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
App. #4612- Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.H. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit earth removal, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Dated at Avon this 13th day of June, 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, July 17, 2012, at 7:30 P.M. at the Avon Town Hall:
App. #4613- Toll CT Limited Partnership, applicant/owner, request for Special Exception under Section III.H. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit earth removal, 47 Lofgren Road, Parcel 3030047 in an R40 Zone
App. #4614- Edward M. Ferrigno and Lovley Development, applicants, Daniel and Ruth Carvalho and Mark Lovley, owners, request for 5-lot subdivision, 7.1 acres, 173 and 181 Arch Road, Parcels 1090173 and 1090181, in an R40 Zone
App. #4615- Leibert Real Estate Ltd Partnership, owner, Tim and Maureen Callahan, applicants, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit laundromat, 192 West Main Street, Parcel 4540192 in a CR Zone
App. #4620 - Golf Club of Avon, Sarah Rubinfeld, Steven and Barbara Kulikowski, owners, JZMAR LLC, applicant, request for Zone Change from ROS to R40, 6.257 acres, 160 Country Club Road, Parcel 1940160; from R30 to R40, 0.048 acres, 5 Pioneer Drive, Parcel 3600005; from R30 to R40, 0.003 acres, 33 Woodland Drive, Parcel 4700033
App. #4621 - Golf Club of Avon, Sarah Rubinfeld, Steven and Barbara Kulikowski, owners, JZMAR LLC, applicant, request for 5-lot subdivision, 6.50 acres; 6.257 acres, 160 Country Club Road, Parcel 1940160, ROS Zone; 0.064 acres, 5 Pioneer Drive, Parcel 3600005, R30 Zone; and 0.179 acres, 33 Woodland Drive, Parcel 4700033, R30 Zone (R40 Zone proposed)
App. #4624 - Avon Self Storage, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.H. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit earth removal, 190 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360190, in an I 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 29th day of June, 2012.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chair
Linda Keith, Vice-Chair
| 
