The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday July 17, 2012. Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Carol Griffin, David Cappello (arrived 8pm and did not sit), Peter Mahoney, Marianne Clark, Christian Gackstatter and Alternates Donald Bonner and Jenna Ryan. Mr. Bonner and Ms. Ryan sat for the meeting. Absent were Linda Keith, Vice-Chair, and Alternate Elaine Primeau. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2012, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received approval from Messrs. Gackstatter, Starr, and Bonner and Mesdames Clark, Griffin and Ryan. Mr. Mahoney abstained, as he had not been present at the June 12 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
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
Present to represent this application were Robert Meyers, representing the applicant, and Ted Merchant, Tony Casapulla, and Curt Simon, of Toll CT Limited Partnership.
Attorney Meyers explained that the original request was to remove 55,000 cubic yards of earth material. He noted that the applicant is requesting a modification (15,000 cubic yards is tonight’s request) at the request of the Director of Planning, who has asked for assurances that the construction of the extension of Northington Drive is adequate for truck traffic. Mr. Meyers noted that the section of Lofgren Road that is owned by Michael Mansour is the best route for the trucks to use; he noted that arrangements must be discussed/secured with
Mr. Mansour. He added that the applicant is investigating ways to possibly modify the grading plan to leave some of the material onsite. Mr. Meyers concluded by noting that the applicant will return sometime in the fall to request permission to remove additional earth.
Mr. Starr commented that 15,000 cubic yards of material is being requested to be removed from Phase IIIA and will be done in 30 working days beginning as soon as possible. Mr. Meyers concurred and noted that the applicant hopes to do as much as possible while school is not in session. Mr. Starr noted that until the northern section of Northington Drive is completed the trucks have to travel south of Northington Drive to 5 drop off points. Mr. Meyers explained that some trucks will travel to Huckleberry Hill and some to Lovely Street.
He further explained that the trucks will utilize different routes in accordance with Mr. Kushner’s request that no roads or individual neighborhoods be overly burdened. Mr. Meyers indicated that the applicant anticipates that the Commission will request that the northerly route be utilized for the additional earth removal to be requested in the fall. Mr. Meyers added that the Police Chief has indicated that the proposed truck routes are acceptable.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question about the number of truck trips, Mr. Meyers noted that a comparison sheet was submitted for tonight’s application. The original request was for one truck every 15 minutes; the modified request is for one truck every 18 minutes.
Mr. Kushner commented that it would be preferable to distribute the truck traffic on a daily basis; that is, utilize all routes every day to minimize the burden to any one road. Mr. Meyers concurred and acknowledged that the applicant is agreeable to such a condition if an approval is granted.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s concerns regarding “jake brakes”, Mr. Merchant explained that the truck contractor has indicated that trucks cannot be operated safely without jake brakes at speeds that will need to be traveled on residential roads. He added that if the trucks traveled slowly enough the jake brakes may not be needed, but added that it wouldn’t be practical and would slow down the earth removal schedule. Mr. Merchant explained that jake brakes are necessary for normal truck operations.
Mr. Bonner conveyed his concern for children that may be playing/riding bicycles in the area and asked that the truck speed be kept down. Mr. Meyers noted his agreement and added that all the speed limits are low until you reach Lovely Street; he added that the applicant commits to obeying the speed limits. He explained that greater percentages were assigned to the truck routes that have the least number of houses.
Mrs. Clark noted her concerns with the steep and winding nature of Northgate. She asked that it be stressed to the truck drivers that there are a lot of children and many homes in the area. Mr. Meyers conveyed his understanding and added that Old Kings Road will not be used, as it is too steep.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4613 was closed.
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
Present to represent this application were Andrew Quirk, PE, Kratzert, Jones & Associates, Inc., and Edward Ferrigno, applicant.
Mr. Quirk displayed a map of the subject site located in the R40 zone and noted that 181 Arch Road is a 4-acre parcel and 173 Arch Road is 3-acre parcel; the total acreage is 7.2 acres. There are 2 existing houses on the site with associated driveways, garages, and lawns. The land is flat with well-drained soils; a soil scientist has determined that there are no wetlands on the site. The proposal is to create 4 new residential lots; the Carvalho residence will remain. A new 685-foot public road known as Hidden Oaks Drive is proposed and will serve the 4 new lots; the Carvalho lot will remain as a rear lot with a driveway from Arch Road. He added that, relative to design standards, the proposed conforms to the Plan of Conservation and Development; all proposed lots meet the R40 regulations.
Mr. Quirk indicated that the applicant offers a fee in lieu of open space land dedication and an appraisal will be submitted; payments are proposed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Quirk commented that Hidden Oaks Drive will be 22-feet wide and have a 50-foot right-of-way; a separate landscaping plan has been prepared showing street trees and pine plantings between both existing residences and the proposed houses. The lots will be graded to drain into the roadway drainage system. A street light is proposed at Arch Road and a street light is proposed in the cul-de-sac, outside the snow plowing area.
Mr. Quirk addressed design guidelines and noted that low impact development (LID) techniques are proposed to handle storm water. He noted that LID is an alternative design that proposes to reduce the overall environmental impacts; rain gardens operate like mini retention systems and are proposed for each new lot. Rain gardens will reduce flooding and downstream impacts as well as reduce impacts to the Town’s drainage system. The curbing along the proposed roadway has been eliminated; the water from the roadway will be directed into a series of drainage ditches and swales. Mr. Quirk explained that part of the swale will be located on the new lot so that the new owner will know that they are responsible to maintain the swales and grades and not restrict water flows. He submitted, for the
record, draft language for a swale easement. He added that catch basins are proposed at the low point (in addition to the swales) and a conventional pipe system; the design is for a 50-year storm. He indicated that a waiver of Section 5.07.02 (Subdivision Regulations) is being requested relative to the requirement for curbs to promote the LID feature. A waiver of Section 5.10.04 (Subdivision Regulations) relative to drainage ditches is also being requested; an underground pipe is proposed for the overflow system with roadside swales. Mr. Quirk noted that all this information has been reviewed with the departments of Engineering, Planning and Public Works at the Avon Town Hall.
Mr. Quirk explained that all new lots are proposed to be served by private wells. The closest existing water main is 940 feet away along Arch Road. He noted that a letter has been submitted by The Avon Water Company indicating that the applicant is working with the water company in an attempt to come to a mutual agreement regarding water service. The Farmington Valley Health District has approved the proposed septic system locations. He noted that sidewalks are not required nor proposed in an attempt to reduce the amount of impervious surface; all utilities are proposed to be underground. The only tree clearing proposed is at the rear portions of the new lots.
Mr. Quirk concluded by noting that the applicant has worked well with Town Staff to put together a good proposal; he requested an approval for the proposed subdivision with the 2 waivers noted earlier.
Mr. Kushner addressed fee in lieu of open space dedication and noted that there is no other Town-owned open space near the subject site; the Staff feels fee in lieu is the most appropriate in this instance. He clarified that a one-time fee-in-lieu payment could be accepted but would have to be made prior to the first lot sale/conveyance, as opposed to prior to the issuance of the first C/O, as discussed earlier by
Mr. Quirk. Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Engineer agrees that the proposed subdivision is an ideal project to introduce LID techniques. He added that the waivers being requested by the applicant are needed because the LID Regulations haven’t been officially adopted as of yet but pointed out that the Town Engineer and Public Works Director have been very involved and provided much input relative to LID for this project. He noted that language is being drafted to appear on the record subdivision maps, as well as the individual deeds, to clarify to new buyers their responsibility with regard to maintenance of swales. Mr. Kushner noted that Town Staff is recommending that an exhibit that highlights and details the swales also be prepared and recorded with the conveyance of each lot.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Quirk explained that the builder would take care of the initial installation of the rain gardens. He added that the rain gardens would be maintained by the homeowners, as they would be located on private property.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Quirk explained that leaves in the swale area would not be any different than leaves on any other lawn area; the side slopes would be very flat and not have sharp depressions, like a ditch. He noted that, most likely, there would be leaves that would need to be removed but the swales are not expected to collect debris more than any other lawn area. Mr. Quirk noted that a legal drainage easement document would be filed on the Land Records identifying the owner’s responsibility to maintain the swale; this document would be enforceable.
Mr. Kushner added that, hopefully, the likelihood for the need to enforce a drainage easement in this instance is slight. He noted that the proposal is to have a very shallow swale located in the middle of the front lawn. He indicated that someone would really have to work at it to block the swale but added that should a blockage occur a drainage easement will have been granted to the Town and filed on the Land Records giving the Town the right to issue an order to “unblock” the swale. He noted that in an extreme case, the Town’s Public Works Department could unblock it. He commented that the Town Engineer has confirmed that if the grass is not mowed, tall grass would not affect the functionality of the swale; it would still work.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Quirk explained that there is only one driveway (Lot #1) that crosses a swale; a small piped section would be sloped to match the natural grades. He explained that the pipe is part of the drainage easement so it will be the homeowner’s responsibility to maintain. Mr. Quirk stated that a detail is shown on the E & S Plan. He noted that grass would grow on the swale; the slope is quite flat.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. Quirk explained that there is no specific plan to revisit the site in 10 years to inspect the area to ensure that the design is working but noted that the drainage would become part of the public works system.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that the Town would be monitoring the project. He explained that the subject proposal is a demonstration, an innovation project. He pointed out that until the current system of catch basins and pipes was created the proposed system was the “norm” and this is the way roads were constructed in the past and some roads in Town still have this design (i.e., parts of Old Farms Road, Huckleberry Hill Road, Nod Road, Cider Brook Road). Mr. Kushner noted that the Public Works Department has experience with this type of design. He explained that while the soil conditions on the subject site (flat, very well drained, short road) are very favorable for this type of program, the soil conditions on Cider Brook Road are very different
and unfavorable for this type of design. He concluded by noting that the Staff feels confident that the proposed system will work and reiterated that the Town will be monitoring the site. He added that if this program works as well as expected, it will be repeated on other sites.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Quirk explained that water draining from the end of the cul-de-sac into a drainage ditch would flow into underground piping; the slope is very flat at ½%. He noted that the water eventually will drain into an offsite wetland area, which has been reviewed with Town Staff.
Mr. Kushner addressed water and explained that the Avon Water Company has submitted a letter stating that the closest water line is about 900 feet away from the subject site. The Subdivision Regulations require a developer to extend public water if a connection is available within a certain distance (150 feet times the number of lots). He explained that the distance is so close in this instance that Town Staff recommends that the Commission consider a condition requiring public water. He added that if providing public water creates a significant financial hardship for the developer, possibly the motion could include an opportunity for the applicant to return to the Commission to request a modification/waiver. Mr. Kushner commented that he feels connecting to public water adds an element of
additional public safety and would be an overall advantage to the homebuyers.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Ferrigno noted that propane will probably be used to heat the houses. Mr. Quirk explained that propane location would normally be situated at the time of the plot plan. He noted that the lots are one acre in size and added that a suitable location can likely be found on each parcel. Mr. Ferrigno indicated that natural gas in not available.
Mr. Kushner explained that it will be no problem to find a location for propane on these lots. He added that, typically, propane is a 500-gallon buried tank and there are lots of opportunities on these lots if the homeowners choose propane.
Mr. Starr noted that propane is also regulated by the State Fire Marshal. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Audrey Palmer, Arch Road, asked where the road is proposed in relation to the existing driveway for 181 Arch Road. Mr. Quirk stated that the proposed road will be in the same location as the existing driveway; the road will be 22-feet wide with no curbs and be the responsibility of the Town to maintain. Ms. Palmer noted her concerns with additional traffic on Arch Road in a location with bad sight conditions.
Mr. Starr asked, for the record, what the sightline is for Arch Road in the subject location. Mr. Quirk explained that the numbers are on the Plan and Profile sheets, which he noted he doesn’t have with him, but indicated that he believes a distance of 335 feet is required and a distance of 370 feet is available.
Dina Pelletier, 85 Arch Road, indicated her approval of LID and asked that the construction trucks take the long way around.
Mr. Starr explained that the trucks have to go one way or another on Arch Road. Ms. Pelletier commented that there are fewer houses to the west. Mr. Starr further explained that no removal of earth material is proposed. Mr. Quirk confirmed that no earth removal will occur; the site is balanced. Mr. Starr added that material will, of course, be required to build the road.
Mr. Cappello, Avon resident, (and member of the Planning and Zoning Commission but not sitting) asked if the rear lot is going to connect to the new road. Mr. Quirk explained that the rear lot will maintain its existing driveway.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Quirk explained that the net add to the proposed development from the original proposal is 2.2 acres.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4614 was closed.
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
Tim and Maureen Callahan were present for App. #4615.
Mr. Callahan noted his family has lived in Avon for 20 years and indicated that he is asking for a special exception to operate a Laundromat at 192 West Main Street. He explained that he would occupy the tenant space of the former sign shop located next to a sound and vision store and across the street from the Ski Market. Mr. Callahan indicated that he has received approval from the Town Sewer Department. He commented that the proposal is for a high-end laundry company with low water use machines and a high-efficiency hot water system; the machines will be setup for card swiping (debit and credit cards) and WI-FI will be available. He indicated that approximately 15 cars (30 turns) a day is expected with a peak of approximately 6 to 7 cars. Mr. Callahan commented that he feels very
comfortable about the amount of available parking; he indicated that there isn’t much parking near the smoke shop but noted that sound and vision doesn’t get a lot of traffic. Mr. Callahan concluded by noting that he feels it is a safe area to access, both in and out, and feels comfortable that it will work
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Callahan stated that approximately 14 dryers and washers will be installed; both small and large machines will be available. He added that somewhere between 7 and 10 people are expected at a peak time. He explained that Maureen would be on site to help customers get in and out quickly.
In response to Mr. Bonner and Ms. Ryan’s questions, Mr. Callahan explained that peak times are typically Saturday and Sunday, after work, and during school hours.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that any requirements of the Avon Sewer Department have been satisfied.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the Town will be working with the State Department of Transportation regarding various locations on Route 44 that could benefit from a crosswalk.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4615 was closed.
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)
Present to represent these applications were David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers and Jon Zieky, JZMAR LLC, applicant.
Mr. Whitney displayed a map of the site and explained that the subject proposal involves portions of 3 separate properties; the zone change involves a request from 2 zones to a third zone. Frandel Drive comes off of Arch Road and takes a turn to become Oakridge Drive which makes a sharp curve onto Pioneer Drive; recently a road named Fairway Ridge (Fairway Ridge Subdivision) was approved and built to connect through to Tamara Circle, which comes out to Country Club Road. Mr. Whitney explained that the majority of land for the proposed development (6.25 acres from the northern parcel) is being purchased from the Golf Club of Avon, which is currently zoned ROS (recreation open space). The golf club owns 2 parcels; one parcel is located to the north of Country Club Road (122 acres – 160 Country Club
Road) and one parcel is located to the south of Country Club Road (115 acres – 199 Country Club Road).
Mr. Whitney addressed zones and noted that the land located immediately to the north of the Golf Club of Avon property is an existing residential area zoned R30 which includes part of Oakridge Drive, part of Pioneer Drive, and part of Woodland Drive, which is a private road that comes in from West Avon Road. Mr. Whitney explained that this area is from a 1954 development that predated zoning; the area has always been zoned R30 and is surrounded by land zoned R40. He noted that an NB (Neighborhood Business) Zone exists if you travel a bit to the southwest (near Luke’s Donuts). He explained that there are areas on Sunnybrook Drive, Steven Street, and Richard Street that are zoned R30 but noted that, otherwise, the subject site is surrounded by the R40 zone. He further explained that this is the
reason that 6.2 acres of land from the Golf Club of Avon (currently zoned ROS) is proposed to be changed to R40 (residential).
Mr. Whitney addressed access, displayed the “existing conditions and zone change map”, and pointed out that the 6.2 acres of golf club land is currently landlocked and has no access from a public street and, therefore, the applicant has made an arrangement with 2 other adjacent property owners. Woodland Drive, a private road, is contained within a 60-foot right-of-way that extends approximately 1,400 feet in from West Avon Road and consists of 2.3 acres. This separate parcel of land (33 Woodland Drive), known as the Woodland Drive right-of-way, is owned by Steven and Barbara Kulikowski who also live at the end of this road at 54 Woodland Drive. A portion of 33 Woodland Drive (a little under 8,000 square feet) will be transferred to the applicant as part of the road right-of-way in from the
intersection of Oakridge and Pioneer Drive. The proposed road access to the proposed site will also cross over a vacant lot, 5 Pioneer Drive, currently owned by Sarah Rubinfeld. He explained that 5 Pioneer Drive is part of a 1982 subdivision when Oakridge Drive and Pioneer Drive were approved. He noted that 5 Pioneer Drive has a “tail” which is excess land; the lot currently has approximately 40,000 SF located in an R30 zone (30,000 SF minimum required). He explained that the applicant has purchased 5 Pioneer Drive; the property lines have been revised and the lot area has been reduced to approximately 32,000 SF. Part of the “tail” (approx 3,000 SF) has been added to the access way for the proposed subdivision; the remaining land of the “tail” will be deeded to the Woodland Drive right-of-way, so as not to create a non-conforming lot.
Mr. Whitney explained that the 6.25 acres proposed to be acquired from the Golf Club of Avon consists of wooded land while the center has been used for a number of years by the golf club as a dumping ground for grass clippings, stumps, and weeds; a disturbed area exists in the middle of the subject site. The Fairway Ridge Subdivision abuts the property to the east; the golf course abuts to the south and west. He pointed out that the proposed subdivision proposes to extend a public road from the intersection of Oakridge and Pioneer Drive, following the existing radius of Oakridge Drive, and ending in a permanent cul-de-sac.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether people on Arch Road, who currently have the right-of-way, would maintain rights to use the right-of-way if a small sliver of land is changed to a public road. Mr. Starr commented that he believes the entire public has rights over a public road.
Mr. Whitney commented that there are 6 houses on Woodland Drive and they all have certain rights in their deeds for ingress and egress to and from their residences from West Avon Road. Mr. Whitney explained that the applicant has studied the deed and his attorney has reviewed it; Woodland Drive, a private road, terminates at the Kulikowski residence. Mr. Gackstatter conveyed his concern with possible claims in the future if the road is changed to public. Mr. Whitney explained that, to the best of his knowledge, for land to be transferred for a road right-of-way, it must be free and clear of any encumbrances. Mr. Starr commented that the attorneys will have to ensure that no encumbrances exist. Mr. Gackstatter noted his understanding.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Zieky commented that he is confident from his research and study of the maps that all the easements are from Woodland Drive back to West Avon Road; nothing goes forward past the Kulikowski’s house. In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concern about the legal right-of-way, Mr. Zieky reiterated that he has reviewed all the maps over the last couple of days and all the right-of-ways begin at the driveways and extend back on Woodland Drive to West Avon Road; the right-of-ways don’t exist forward past the Kulikowski house.
Mr. Kushner noted that this question was also raised by Staff and explained that the right-of-way issue can not be a problem today or 20 years from now. He further explained that if this project is approved and constructed, the developer will be required to turn the title (for the road) over to the Town and a warranty deed will be required indicating that the title is clear. Mr. Gackstatter noted his understanding. Mr. Kushner noted that the applicant appears to be confident that this is not an issue. Mr. Zieky reiterated his confidence that there won’t be any encumbrances; he indicated that he knows it won’t be a problem.
Mrs. Griffin asked if there is going to be a physical connection between the end of Woodland Drive and Eagle Drive or is there going to be a chain at the end. Mr. Whitney explained that there will not be a chain, as Woodland Drive is a private road and there is no desire by any of the residents of this road to connect through to the proposed road, Eagle Drive. The Kulikowski family resides at the end of Woodland Drive; they own the right-of-way and have zero desire for a connection. Mr. Whitney added that nothing is being proposed that would prevent a connection in the future, should the residents change their mind. He noted that a clearing through the woods was done recently when a water line was installed in Woodland Drive and extended to Pioneer Drive for the Fairway Ridge Subdivision.
Mr. Whitney addressed the proposed 22-foot-wide limited local public road terminating in a cul-de-sac. He explained that the original plans proposed some low impact development (LID) techniques (roadside swales instead of curbs and catch basins) but noted that these techniques have been eliminated in response to comments/concerns from the Department of Public Works. The plans have been revised to change the road design back to a conventional design with curbs and catch basins; the swales and culverts have been eliminated. He noted that the storm drainage system would connect to the existing system in Pioneer Drive. The road topography will match the existing 1% grade; overall the site slopes gently in a southwesterly direction towards Lilly Pond. He indicated that public water and onsite
septic systems are proposed; no sewer is available. Approval has been granted by the Farmington Valley Health District.
Mr. Whitney addressed conservation areas and noted that the restricted area along the northern property line has been increased from 25 feet to 30 feet; this will provide a buffer from the proposed development to the houses on Pioneer Drive. The conservation restriction area will follow the model found in the Town Regulations; no public access is proposed. The applicant will clean up the existing accumulated debris (dead trees) and plant appropriate native species.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Whitney commented that, currently, no planting plan exists for the conservation buffer area, as the area needs to be cleaned out first to determine where plantings should be.
Mr. Gackstatter asked if there will be something on the deeds that states how the conservation area must be maintained (i.e., dumping, grass clippings, etc.) on both sides of the easement. He noted that there are a lot of land strips throughout Town where people like to dump leaves and trees and over the years these areas become burdened with yard waste. Mr. Whitney pointed out that yard wastes exist in this area right now and added that a “Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Reservations” is proposed for the new lots. He explained that this document would be a private agreement enforced by the neighbors to regulate such things as house color and clotheslines, as well as the conservation restriction/buffer area. In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concern, Mr. Whitney
explained that the Town will not get dragged into any issues that could arise with the conservation area because no easement will be granted to the Town and reiterated that a Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Reservations is proposed.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concerns, Mr. Kushner explained that a property owner is not allowed to dump waste on someone else’s property; it’s a trespassing claim and a matter for the police. He noted that, based on past discussions between the Town Council, this Commission, and the Inland Wetlands Commission over the years, the Town is trying to differentiate between private covenants and interests normally related to Town government. The proposed conservation restriction area (30 feet off the property line) for buffering purposes will be included with other private covenants that Mr. Zieky will be imposing on each of the new lots. These types of covenants/restrictions are, typically, not the interest of nor regulated by the Town (i.e., what color your house can be; whether you
can have a clothesline; whether you can have an above-ground pool; how many hours before you have to bring in your trash can, etc.).
Mr. Kushner explained that any and all items listed in the private covenants would be enforceable privately. He further explained that there is no language contained in either the Zoning or Subdivision Regulations that requires conservation restrictions; there is no obligation on the part of the applicant and it is typically not done. He noted that this offer is being made by the applicant because of the zone change that is being requested and because there will be some impact to the existing homes on Pioneer Drive.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concerns for the existing neighbors on Pioneer Drive regarding the buffer area and what recourse they would have for any violations because they are not part of the private covenants, Mr. Zieky explained that the neighbors on Pioneer Drive could initiate a civil suit against any of the new lot owners if trees were cut and/or debris was dumped in the conservation area, as it would directly impact them. He added that he believes the Pioneer Drive neighbors would have a good chance of winning a civil suit.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Whitney explained that no material will be taken offsite; the site will be balanced.
Mr. Whitney explained that a second conservation area is proposed for the southern property line at the golf club’s request. He noted that the golf club would retain ownership for approximately 40 feet into the woods with a separate 30-foot area to remain treed, but some invasive species can be removed. Mr. Whitney noted that one area is a conservation area and one area is a private restriction.
Mrs. Griffin asked if there will be any separation from the golf course to the back yards of the new homes such that golfers will know where the boundaries are (i.e., so they know how far they can go).
Ms. Ryan commented that there’s a golf cart path that runs along the property line in between the houses on Pioneer Drive; you can’t get past the path, as it’s lined with trees. Mr. Whitney noted that it is his understanding that “out of bounds” white stakes/markers are placed in the ground.
Mr. Whitney addressed Staff Comments and noted that the street light location has been moved to the throat of the cul-de-sac, as recommended by Town Staff; a stop sign and stop bar have also been added at the intersection. Mr. Whitney noted that the existing intersection has always been somewhat odd and added that he believes the construction of the new road will result in a 3-way intersection (3-way stop) that looks and feels more like a real intersection and will provide a better situation than currently exists.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Whitney confirmed that there are other stop signs in the area that were required as part of the Fairway Ridge Subdivision.
Mr. Whitney explained that in response to comments from the Fire Marshal, the proposed name “Eagle Drive” will be changed to a new name acceptable to the Police Chief and Fire Chief.
Mr. Whitney addressed open space and indicated that the applicant is requesting/offering a fee in lieu of open space land dedication. He noted that an appraisal report has been prepared and submitted to the Town.
Mr. Starr opened the hearing for public comment.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question regarding the conservation restriction area in relation to the western property boundary,
Mr. Whitney explained that the intent is to keep the property lines into the woods. Mr. Cappello commented that it appears there is enough room to continue the 30-foot buffer up to the road. Mr. Whitney noted that the members of the golf club and the applicant spent quite a bit of time determining where to place the property lines; the proposed lines are the result of their consensus. Mr. Zieky added that the reason for the location of the western boundary line is because there is a golf hole that juts out in a different direction such that there is no danger of people getting hit. In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Whitney confirmed that 5 Pioneer Drive has the option to have a driveway that comes from either “Eagle Drive” or from Pioneer Drive. He added that the
applicant is purchasing 5 Pioneer Drive and the intent is to have a driveway that originates from Eagle Drive.
Richard Emmings, 23 Pioneer Drive, noted that he has lived in his house for 25 years and added that his purchase was based on the fact that it is adjacent to recreation open space land. He noted his concerns for his property value and added that he is opposed to the zone change.
Robert Paine commented that he is familiar with the subject property. He commented that there is a swamp at hole #3 that overflows onto the fairway; the 2 houses proposed for the southerly portion will be in a swamp. He commented that there is a huge gorge between the subject site and Fairway Ridge. He noted his concerns that the Town has to provide fire and police service to Woodland Drive, which is a private road, but no one else has access. He commented that the Town should change that via eminent domain.
In response to Mr. Paine’s concerns, Mr. Starr explained that the road proposed as part of the subject application will be a public road.
Mr. Paine noted his understanding but added that Woodland Drive should be connected to both pieces of property or the rights for that road should be taken away.
In response to Mr. Paine’s question, Mr. Whitney confirmed that there are no wetlands on the subject site. There are wetlands on the Fairway Ridge Subdivision site but they are located more than 100 feet to the east. Mr. Whitney explained that he has walked the subject site numerous times and confirmed that it has no steep slopes, no floodplains, no wetlands, and no gorge. The density calculation permits the proposed 5 lots. The steepest slope anywhere on the subject site is between 7% and 8%. Mr. Whitney reiterated that no gorge exists.
Mr. Starr commented that no connection to the Fairway Ridge Subdivision is proposed.
Mr. Whitney concurred and added that there is no right-of-way left over for a connection.
Sue Fitzgerald, Pioneer Drive, asked for clarification that no swales are proposed and catch basins are proposed. Mr. Whitney confirmed that no swales are proposed and catch basins will be installed. Mr. Starr commented that the proposal is for conventional storm drainage.
Mr. Whitney agreed and added that storm drainage would flow to the existing catch basin in Pioneer Drive. He noted that a set of catch basins will be installed at the natural low point on the site and from the low point the road will go up at a 1% grade all the way to the cul-de-sac. He noted that because catch basins are required every 400 feet, a set has been added where the road takes a bend. Mr. Starr noted that the proposed storm drainage will be connected to the existing storm drainage system under Pioneer Drive. Mr. Whitney concurred and noted that the drainage system continues out to Arch Road. He explained that all the water from the roofs will not go into the storm drainage system; he further explained that downspouts installed on the houses will drain into drywell leaching chambers
allowing some of the water to go back into the ground (a low impact development technique).
In response to concerns from Ms. Fitzgerald about ice clogging catch basins on Pioneer Drive; Mr. Starr clarified that the water from the proposed subdivision will not flow over Pioneer Drive; it will flow underneath in the existing drainage system. Mr. Whitney confirmed that no water from the subject project will flow towards Ms. Fitzgerald’s house. He displayed a watershed map and explained that all of the proposed developed areas (the driveways and the yards for the new houses) will all drain to the new road, Eagle Drive (name to be changed). He stated that there will be no increase in water to the backyards of the existing houses on Pioneer Drive.
Ms. Fitzgerald referenced the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development and asked for clarification about the number of acres of open space that are permanently protected. She commented that Chapter 5 indicates that 2,604 acres are permanently protected as open space and 469 acres are privately owned and asked how the zone for open space can be changed if it is permanently protected.
Mr. Starr commented that the information possibly doesn’t apply to privately-owned land zoned ROS.
Mr. Kushner explained that he wrote much of the information contained in the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) and further explained that he remembers it being very difficult to characterize and differentiate between land that is currently used as open space but not permanently protected and land that is currently used as open space and is permanently protected. He indicated that maybe the best language was not chosen but added that the information can be interpreted in different ways. He explained that open space exists in Town that is not permanently protected, such as Blue Fox Run Golf Course (formerly known as Bel Compo). He further explained that this land is privately owned and currently used as a public golf course; he added that there are other open space assets that are not owned
by either the Town or the State. He noted that the intent of the information in Chapter 5 is to differentiate between properties in Town that are, in fact, open but owned privately.
In response to Ms. Fitzgerald’s comments/concerns, Mr. Kushner conveyed his understanding but explained that the acreage owned by the Golf Club of Avon is not permanently protected. He explained that he doesn’t have the 2006 POCD in front of him but noted that the intention of the information contained in Chapter 5 was to identify the fact that certain open space assets exist in Town and while they are “open” they are owned privately and are not permanently protected. He apologized for any confusion in reviewing/interpreting the open space information in the 2006 Plan but reiterated that the land owned by the Golf Club of Avon is not permanently protected nor is the land for Blue Fox Run Golf Course. Neither of these properties is deed restricted or owned by either the Town or the
State of CT. Mr. Kushner explained that the purpose of Chapter 5 is to characterize a certain number of acres that, in 2006, were open and, additionally, try to differentiate the portions that cannot be developed. He stated that the Town owns 250 acres known as the Huckleberry Hill Open Space. He indicated that this land is currently zoned open space (ROS) and the Town has no plans to develop or sell it but explained that it is not permanently protected, as there are no deed restrictions. He pointed out that the Town owns other assets that are included in the 2,600 acres noted in Chapter 5 that are permanently protected because the Town sought Federal funds to buy open space and, as a result, a conservation easement exists. There is also land that has been gifted to the Town, such as the Fisher Meadows Recreation Area, which has included in the deed a restriction indicating that the Town cannot do anything with it other than use it as open space.
Mr. Kushner concluded by explaining that there are many properties included in those 2,600 acres that are classified as “open” but also have different factors and/or classifications attached that indicate whether they are or are not permanently protected. In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. Starr explained that the 2006 POCD can be found on the Town’s website; he added that possibly the wording could have been better and conveyed the Commission’s apologies.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his agreement with Mr. Kushner that the subject property is not deed restricted but added that it is zone restricted. He commented that he feels the proposed subdivision is a nice plan and well thought out but asked whether the Commission should be looking at this site that was originally zoned as recreation open space and should the Commission be starting to set precedent of nibbling away at open recreational spaces to shoehorn in little subdivisions. He commented that he feels the first question is whether a zone change should be permitted.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comments, Mr. Starr explained that it is easier to hear the entire proposal at one time but noted that when the Commission begins their discussion there is a need for agreement on the zone change because without it there can be no subdivision.
Mr. Whitney explained that the zone change and subdivision applications were submitted simultaneously to show the Commission the exact proposal. He indicated that it is his understanding that when zoning was instituted in 1957 the Commission, at that time, looked around Town to see what the existing land uses were. The golf course was there at that time and, thus, zoned open space. He added that he doesn’t think anyone just decided that the subject site was a perfect spot for open space; it was existing open space at that time being used as a golf course. Mr. Whitney noted that, similarly, the Woodland Drive neighborhood was an R30 neighborhood and that’s where the designation came from. He concluded by noting that it is important to remember that the subject site is privately
owned and added that the ROS zone designation doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the highest and best use of the land in the opinion of the private land owner.
Mr. Cappello commented that the subject site was zoned open space by association with the golf course but noted that it is private property, as Mr. Whitney stated.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s questions, Mr. Whitney noted that the houses proposed have a 3,600 SF footprint and added that the septic systems have been sized for 5 bedrooms but noted that either a larger or smaller house could be requested. Mr. Zieky added that the proposed houses could be anywhere in the range of 3,000 SF to 6,200 SF. Mr. Whitney commented that the lots are oversized for the R40 zone.
Mr. Gackstatter asked why the green space and the set aside space proposed between the Avon Country Club and the proposed subdivision is not located behind the other houses that this project will abut and affect their home values. He commented that a gentleman in the audience stated that he can’t see how putting a 4,000 SF to 6,000 SF house behind his house is going to make his home value go higher. He commented that it looks like the country club doesn’t want to be affected by these homes but added that here is a piece of land that is zoned open recreational and the Commission is being asked to change the zone which will affect not just the country club but will affect abutters on the other side. He asked why the abutters on the other side were not benefited to a greater degree. He
asked if the golf club would not allow this and was it part of the deal.
Mr. Whitney noted that it is his understanding that the golf club did not want to change the character of the hole.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that they are willing to change the character of the people’s backyards behind them.
Mr. Whitney noted that that is the reason for the proposed conservation restriction area.
Mr. Gackstatter asked if the character could be better preserved by making the restriction area 60 feet in width.
Mr. Whitney commented that that is a matter for discussion.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether the zone should be changed for this reason.
Mr. Starr noted that the Commission will discuss the zone change.
Dina Pelletier asked if there are any wetlands on the subject site. Mr. Starr confirmed that no wetlands exist on the subject site. She asked if there could be a vernal pool on the site and asked if that could be investigated. Mr. Starr explained that he believes the Inland Wetlands Commission reviewed this site and determined that no wetlands exist.
Mr. Whitney commented that he believes John McCahill, Town Wetlands Officer, has walked this site. He explained that the property has been tested and there are no signs of any wetlands; there are no water bodies, no wetlands vegetation, and no duck habitats or rain gardens.
Ms. Pelletier commented that vernal pools are temporary in nature. Mr. Whitney acknowledged his understanding and noted that there is an area located to the east that is a wetlands area that probably is a vernal pool. He added that this area is protected by a conservation area on the Fairway Ridge Subdivision.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with Mr. Whitney and added that the wetlands area on the Fairway Ridge Subdivision was discussed at length by the Inland Wetlands Commission in connection with the Fairway Ridge Subdivision, which resulted in many restrictions and conservation easements.
Mr. Cappello asked if the proposed cul-de-sac could be extended a little bit towards the Fairway Ridge Subdivision to eliminate a rear lot.
Mr. Whitney explained that there is an existing house there and people like rear lots.
Mr. Starr noted that the Commission approved that rear lot and noted that it meets the requirements of the Regulations.
Mr. Kushner commented that it is his understanding that discussions have taken place between the members of the golf club and the developers of Fairway Ridge in advance of the discussions with Mr. Zieky and no agreement was reached with the developers/owners of Fairway Ridge. Mr. Cappello noted his understanding.
Adele Emmings, Pioneer Drive, noted that she is very opposed to the proposed subdivision as she feels it will devalue her property; she added that part of the reason she purchased her property was because the golf course is there. She commented that she was also opposed to the Fairway Ridge Subdivision.
Bon Smith, 4 Pioneer Drive, noted his agreement with Ms. Emmings’ comments. He noted that all the trees have been removed from the Fairway Ridge Subdivision and it is a desert. He noted that there are tree buffers between each house on Pioneer Drive, which makes it nice. He noted that he and his wife are very much against the proposed zone change.
Mr. Whitney explained that he and Jon Zieky, the applicant, met with some of the neighbors; he added that he feels that Mr. Zieky went to great lengths to indicate that he does not desire to develop the subject site in the same manner that Fairway Ridge has been developed. He indicated that he believes the water quality basins located on the Fairway Ridge Subdivision are doing very well. Mr. Whitney added that he feels Fairway Ridge is not very attractive in its current state but added that Mr. Zieky has indicated to the neighbors that he does not want the proposed subdivision to look like Fairway Ridge.
Ms. Fitzgerald conveyed further concerns about information in the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development regarding permanently protected open space. She noted that the Plan indicates that 229 acres of privately-owned property has been permanently protected via legally-binding conservation restrictions that have been required by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and Inland Wetlands Commission over the past 20 years. She commented that she feels there is a little too much information to make her think that it is just worded incorrectly.
In response to Ms. Fitzgerald’s comments, Mr. Starr explained that the properties that are permanently protected are the ones that the Commissions have required conservation easements on or the donors of the property have required. There are other open spaces, such as the subject golf course or the Blue Fox Run Golf Course (formerly Bel Compo) or even some of the area located around Avon Old Farms School, that are designated as open space but they are still privately owned and they don’t have conservation restrictions or other legal restrictions.
Ms. Fitzgerald commented that if open space is being diminished in Town it makes it harder for people who like open space to get it behind their property. She added that her area will not stay in the manner of how it was built and for the reason she bought there.
Ann Kammerer commented that she lives at 11 Pioneer Drive with her family and noted that she is close to the proposed development. She noted that she submitted a letter right before the meeting started. She commented that she and her husband are opposed to the zone change, as they feel it would diminish their property value and the enjoyment of their property. She referenced Section X A.1.c.of the Avon Zoning Regulations noting that it states that the Commission shall make a determination that the zone change conforms to the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). She argued that the proposed zone change is not in conformance with some sections of the POCD, such as the Future Land Use Plan, Open Space and Recreation Plan, and The Buildout Analysis; all these designate the proposed zone change
area as open space. She noted that one of the documents depicts it as private but they all state it as open space. She commented that she would contend that the zone change is not in conformance with the POCD and is part of the inventory of open space reported in Chapter 5 of the POCD, as was pointed out by a neighbor. She noted that she questions reducing open space without replacing it somewhere and asked if there was another form of compensation other than fee in lieu of open space. She commented that the zone change must be consistent with the purposes of the Regulations, which include preserving the value of buildings and property. She noted that she doesn’t see how the proposed plan can increase her property value and feels it will detract from it by not being open space. She asked if the golf club has decided that the subject 6 acres are now surplus land and whether there are other dispositions of the land that could have been
considered. She added that nobody approached her and added that she doesn’t think anybody from the country club approached the residents of Pioneer Drive to ask them if they would be interested in purchasing a piece of open space. She explained that her thinking is that you change a zone contrary to the usual criteria if a property owner is suffering some type of hardship by the existing zoning requirements. She added that she questions whether a zone change is appropriate if the golf course hasn’t demonstrated any hardship by maintaining the zoning as open space. She noted her opposition to the subdivision and added that she doesn’t want to give up open space that residents have been led to believe is part of the Town’s plan to remain open space. Ms. Kammerer indicated that the proposal doesn’t conform to the POCD, is detrimental to property values of abutting homes, reduces the Town’s open space inventory, and doesn’t address any urgent need or hardship on the part of the
current property owner and therefore thinks it should be denied. She added that if the Commission decides that this is something they should approve then she has some questions and requests in relationship to the legal standing of the conservation restriction and has requested (in her letter) that any appropriate changes to the term be made such that the conservation restriction would be legally recognized and binding under the context of the proposed subdivision. She noted her pleasure that the developer has agreed to 30 feet rather than 25 feet but noted that she would now like to add a request for “no dumping” to the conservation language, as well as request for language to be added to allow dead trees to be removed and some under story trees and shrubs to be planted. She commented that she has been advised that the conservation restriction should be included in the deeds to give it some teeth. She noted her disappointment with some of the
aspects of Fairway Ridge and added that she was reassured to hear that Mr. Zieky does not intend for his project to look like Fairway Ridge but to look more like his other developments. She commented, however, that her experience with the Fairway Ridge hearings told her that if things aren’t reflected in the minutes of the meeting they didn’t happen; and, therefore, she noted she is bringing these things to everyone’s attention so that, hopefully, they can be reflected in the minutes. She concluded by noting that she will read the minutes afterward to make sure that they are there because otherwise they don’t happen..
Esther Aronson, 12 Pioneer Drive, asked if the zone change will be considered with respect to the criteria that Ann just went through that are in the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Starr confirmed that the zone change will be considered using the criteria contained in the Zoning Regulations. Ms. Aronson asked whether an approval or denial of the zone change will have with it an opinion which shows us how each criteria was or was not met so that the basis of the decision can be understood.
Mr. Starr explained that the Commission will do their best.
Brian Beakey, 29 Pioneer Drive, commented that he lives on the edge of Fairway Ridge and noted that for 15 years he has had a path that comes through the woods that has provided him with access to the golf course. He noted that right now it’s a junk area and doesn’t look very nice and added that he is very sure that there are no wetlands, as he has walked the area hundreds of times. He noted that he is glad that Mr. Zieky and his partners are the ones who will be building in this area, as they build quality homes and will create a nice neighborhood. He added that he is sure that they will leave enough of a buffer for the neighbors and added that he hopes his neighbors will be happy with the development when it’s done. He reiterated that he feels the applicant will do a nice job
and added that he is looking forward to it.
There being no further input, the public hearing for Apps. #4620 and #4621 was closed.
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
Mr. Starr reported that the applicant has requested a continuance to the next meeting for App. #4624.
Mr. Bonner motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4624 to the next meeting, scheduled for September 11. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Starr closed the public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Clark motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider all the public hearing items. Mr. Bonner seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that a request for zone change should not be taken lightly and noted that part of the basis for the Commission’s decision to approve or deny has to do with consistency with the Plan of Conservation and Development. He added that case law also plays a part where commissions have approved changes of zone and have been sued by unhappy parties or where zone changes have been denied and sued by unhappy parties. He reiterated that zone changes should not be taken lightly and pointed out that there is some case law that is very strict that suggests that the zoning map should not be changed unless there is a finding that there was an error in the drafting of the original map. He noted that a zone change approval requires findings, similar
to what some of the homeowners have asked for, and a simple majority vote of the Commission. Mr. Kushner explained that there aren’t that many properties in Town zoned ROS and added that there has not been any zone changes granted recently for properties zoned ROS. Mr. Starr added that he doesn’t remember any. Mr. Kushner further explained that if a zone change is granted there is an appeal period similar to any other type of appeal permitted by private property owners.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that in 1997 a zone change was granted for the property located at 27 Nod Road. He noted that the property was originally zoned A (agricultural), as the land area was part of Bel Compo golf course, which is now known as Blue Fox Run. A zone change from A to OP (Office Park) was granted.
Mr. Kushner addressed zoning, in general, and explained that, at one time, there were many hundreds of acres of land in Town that were zoned Agricultural that became residential neighborhoods, zoned R40. He further explained that a similar discussion took place during the preparation of the 2006 POCD about the EL (educational land) Zone. He noted that Avon Old Farms School owns several hundred acres that are currently zoned EL and added that when projections for maximum buildout (i.e., number of housing units and buildout population) were done two different projections resulted. The first projection assumes that Avon Old Farms School will always own those several hundred acres and maintain it as their school campus or as open space, which is what most of the land is today. The second projection
assumes that the School decides to sell their property and the likely zone change that would result (one scenario rezones the property to R40 and one scenario rezones the property to RU2A). Mr. Kushner pointed out that while this likelihood is not great and the hope is that the School will preserve this acreage as open space, he explained that it is important to keep in mind that this land is zoned EL and is privately owned. He indicated that over the years the School has sold off land and noted that the Devonwood Subdivision, located in Farmington, is comprised of 500 acres that was sold in the late 1970s and the Stony Corners neighborhood in Avon was created from land sold by the School in the 1960s.
Mr. Kushner referred to the 2006 POCD and explained that the language was not meant to be tricky or deceiving in any way. He explained that he remembers that it was quite a struggle at the time to differentiate between different categories of open space, some of which were permanently protected because they were owned by the Town or State or deed restricted and other properties that function much like permanently-protected open space but, in fact, are not. He noted that this is the reason that the 400 acres was shown as privately-owned open space. He added that he can understand how someone could view the term “recreation open space” and think of it as permanently-protected open space; he commented that possibly a better designation could be PGC (private golf course) because that’s
really what the subject site is. He asked whether the majority of the residents in the community, perhaps with the exception of the members who own the club, would prefer to see the site remain as permanently protected open space. He noted that the answer is, of course, yes because it helps to define community character and adds value to the nearby single-family house lots but reiterated the fact that the site is not permanently protected.
Mr. Mahoney asked whether the open space section of the POCD could be somehow clarified to avoid this situation in the future.
Mr. Kushner reiterated that he doesn’t have the Plan with him and added that while he doesn’t believe the language is as confusing as some people may think, he indicated that he would review it and suggest changes to clarify it.
Mr. Kushner addressed earlier comments from private property owners noting that they couldn’t see any way that this proposal could increase their property values and pointed out that there is no law or regulation that requires the Commission to make a finding that the approval of the zone change and the resulting development will, in fact, increase someone’s property value. He explained that there is no reference to this issue in State law or any case law that he is aware of. He further explained that what the Commission should be considering and must make a finding of is whether a proposal will diminish property values; the Commission does have an obligation to zone the community in a way that protects private property values and quality of life for adjoining residents. Mr. Kushner noted
that it is not correct to think that the Commission is constrained in a way such that they need to determine that the adjoining property values will increase.
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)
Mr. Gackstatter conveyed his understanding that both the Town and private property owners should have the right to ask for a zone change on a property zoned ROS but added that it is the nature of this small piece of property and the chipping away and the precedent that it would set not only for the golf course but for every other little piece like it that bothers him. If the golf course was no longer a viable business and wanted to sell the property he noted that he doesn’t think the Town has the right to tell a private property owner that they must stay in the golf course business but noted that he feels they are chipping away at every little piece and trying to monetize every little piece to the benefit of the golf course and hurt the others. He noted that he finds it interesting that they wanted to,
as the engineer said, keep a 40-foot piece of land before you even get to their property and then a 30-foot piece of land of set aside because they wanted to have the nature of the golf course not change because they understood that building houses on the golf course would devalue the value of their golf course yet they are willing to push all that stuff closer to the residents. He commented that he feels this is a reason not to make the change. He referred to a letter submitted by Ann Kammerer who asks if the proposal meets the existing plan and feel of the area and added that he feels that that is exactly what’s changing. These people’s lots back up against a golf course and the golf course will remain but what’s changing right behind their houses is the existing plan and feel. He reiterated that it’s chipping away and if the golf course wasn’t going to remain there and there was going to be a whole subdivision going in he
noted that he thinks that would be a reasonable thing to ask for. He commented that the golf course is asking to maintain its feel and look of the area while monetizing it and throwing the loss onto someone else’s back; he added that he thinks that is wrong.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels Mr. Gackstatter is making a presumption that the subject proposal would diminish the value of the homes along Pioneer Drive and he added that he isn’t sure if that is an accurate conclusion. He noted that he doesn’t feel that anytime a residential zone is placed against another residential zone that it, per say, creates any change in value. He explained that the Commission tries to prevent putting any type of commercial zone against a residential zone, which definitely has the potential to reduce residential property values. He added that he is not comfortable saying that residential against residential has any diminishing effect. Mr. Starr referenced a similar scenario with a recent subdivision at the end of Haynes Road involving a residential
neighborhood and the Avon Land Trust where a zone change occurred. He commented that he believes there was a real estate appraiser who gave an opinion that changing the zone would not diminish property values.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the subject situation involves residential against a business. The people on Pioneer Drive that bought their houses at the time put a value on it in the state that it was in. He reiterated his concern for the chipping away and noted that it’s not even the value of the house and are they losing the value of the house but is a precedent the Commission will set for the chipping away of these open spaces. He asked if every little pocket in Town will be found where one or two more houses could be snugged in; he added that he feels this would be a bad precedent for the Commission to set. He noted that he is opposed to it.
Mrs. Griffin referenced the subdivision at the end of Haynes Road and noted that an open space swap occurred as part of that development. She noted that the Town got open space in another area that the Town didn’t have before. She noted that there were a lot of people on Haynes Road that objected to that subdivision.
Mr. Kushner explained that he remembers there being a similar feeling/discussion with regard to the open space and the subdivision at the end of Haynes Road. He noted that the property at the end of Haynes Road was zoned ROS but noted that there may have even been a greater degree of assumption that the land would be protected because it was owned by the Avon Land Trust. He commented that it makes sense that an educated land buyer would assume and expect that a property zoned ROS and owned by a land trust would remain open.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that the land at the end of Haynes Road was owned by The Nature Conservancy and not the Avon Land Trust.
Mr. Kushner explained that although someone could logically draw such a conclusion, the property owned by The Nature Conservancy was publicly owned but not deed restricted nor permanently protected.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the whole property at the end of Haynes Road was sold but only a part of the subject site is proposed to be sold; he reiterated chipping away and that the golf course wants to maintain the look and feel of a golf course. They want a good set of woods between the course and the houses yet are trying to put the burden of the development and the monetization of their land on the neighbors and not on themselves. He commented that if the whole course is being sold he noted that he realizes that the Commission cannot force a private property owner, as they have rights to do what they wish with their property; but added that chipping away at every little piece to the owner’s advantage and letting the chips fall where they may and then having those chips fall on other
people’s backs is wrong.
Mrs. Clark asked Mr. Gackstatter if he thinks the conservation area between the new development and the existing homes should be widened. Mr. Gackstatter commented that if the chipping is allowed to occur, which is a bad precedent, the conservation area should go to the people being most affected; all 60 feet should go between the current homeowners and the new homeowners and let the new houses sit right on the golf course.
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to deny App. #4620. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, was unanimously approved.
Mr. Gackstatter stated the following reasons for denial of App. #4620 for a zone change:
In taking just a chip of the property the zone change is affecting the existing “plan and feel” of the area and is not in line with the current Plan of Conservation and Development. Because it is just a small area and doesn’t require a whole reversal of the Plan of Conservation it is not in the spirit to stay with the Plan of Conservation.
The proposed zone change may have resulted in a detrimental impact to the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Bonner noted that his concern would be the way the original Plan reads and added that, whether stated one way or the other, it needs clarification before the applicant could move forward. He added that the uncertainty bothers him.
Mr. Starr commented that he believes App. #4621 (subdivision) must also be denied, because there is no appropriate zone. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to deny App. #4621 because the property is not appropriately zoned for such development. The motion, seconded by Ms. Ryan, received unanimous approval.
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 a Laundromat, 192 West Main Street, Parcel 4540192 in a CR Zone
Ms. Ryan noted her concern that there could be a little crunch in parking with the Laundromat and the Jazzercise having the same peak morning hours, as mothers drop off their children at school and may go to either business during the same hours.
Mr. Starr commented that there is parking all along the front of the building and on the other side.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4615. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
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
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4613 subject to the following conditions:
1. 15,000 cubic yards of earth removal from Parcel 3A is approved.
2. Earth removal is approved for 30 working days. Truck routes, as represented by the applicant and approved by the Traffic Authority, shall be adhered to.
3. Rock crushing is approved for a 2-week time period.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
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
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4614 subject to the following conditions:
1. The Commission accepts the applicants’ offer to make a fee in lieu payment. The applicant has agreed to make one single payment to the Town prior to the conveyance of the first lot, as opposed to incremental payments.
2. Language specific to swale detail and maintenance responsibilities, as represented and submitted to the Commission by the applicants, shall be provided to all buyers of lots within this subdivision. New home buyers shall be instructed that these swales shall not be altered in any way. These notes shall be recorded on the record subdivision plan, as well as recorded on the deeds for each individual lot. A separate document shall be prepared for recording along with each deed that depicts the details of the swale on each lot. The final language for this document shall be reviewed for approval by both the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney.
3. A street light shall be installed in the cul-de-sac. The proposed location, as represented by the applicants’ engineer, shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Authority prior to installation.
4. A stop bar and stop sign shall be installed at the intersection of the new street and Arch Road.
5. Applicant shall extend public water to the subdivision, as the applicant has represented that public water is close/available to the site and is also close to meeting the threshold of the Subdivision Regulations where an extension would be mandatory. Should the extension of public water pose an unreasonable hardship, the applicant may return to the Commission to seek a modification.
6. In accordance with the applicants’ request, the Commission waives certain construction standards contained in Section Five of the Subdivision Regulations relative to storm drainage in favor of utilizing low impact development (LID) techniques as represented at the public hearing.
The motion, seconded by Ms. Ryan, received approval from Mesdames Clark, Griffin, and Ryan and Messrs. Starr and Mahoney.
Mr. Gackstatter voted in opposition of approval and added that he doesn’t want to have a big discussion about open space.
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4616 - ACOP, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for minor building expansion, 43 West Main Street, Parcel 4540043 in a CS Zone
Mr. Kushner noted that he will present on behalf of the applicant who was unable to attend and explained that the proposal is to add a 500-square-foot addition to Mr. Francoline’s existing office building. He noted that the proposed addition is for the east end of the building which was once the location of a canopy for a bank drive thru; this canopy was torn off by a box truck a couple of years ago. He explained that 500 square feet, more or less, matches the footprint of the roof of the canopy. He noted that the existing driveway plan will be redesigned to maintain the existing 7.5 foot green strip located around the east side of the building.
Ms. Ryan motioned to approve App. #4616. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.
App. #4617 - Nod Road Properties LLC, owner, Jamick Szefer, applicant, request for Site Plan Modification for minor changes to parking and landscaping for office building (Phase III), 27 Nod Road, Parcel 3290027 in an OP Zone
Jamick Szefer, Architectural Department with Apple Health Care, explained that minor modifications are being requested for the Phase III building at 27 Nod Road. He requested that 11 parking spaces be kept in reserve; 8 of the spaces are located in front of the building, 2 are on the north side, and 1 space is along Nod Road. He explained that the purpose is to provide better access for tenants between two of the buildings; one tenant has requested some additional landscaping and to provide additional sidewalk access to all 3 buildings. He noted that a small patio (15 x 15) is also proposed and the addition of a small forested berm to screen the building from the maintenance barn on the golf course.
Mr. Kushner commented that a small amount of pavement will remain in the area where parking spaces are requested to be eliminated to construct the berm and suggested that the landscaped area be increased to take up the entire area where the parking is being taken away.
Mr. Szefer explained that the decision was based on the layout of the island on the other side; the tenant feels that the proposed design will have a symmetrical look, as the shape of the islands are the same on both sides.
Mr. Kushner noted his understanding and concurred.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4617. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
App. #4618 - Blue Fox Run Golf Course, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to add fence around tennis court, 65 Nod Road, Parcel 3290065 in an A Zone
Jamick Szefer explained that there is an existing tennis court on site (part of the golf course) that was used in the past for team tennis events. He noted that a small fence (4 10-foot sections of 5-foot high green vinyl coated chain-link fence) is proposed to allow tennis for family members, golf course employees, and possibly some small training activities. Mr. Szefer noted that the tennis court would not be used beyond anything that has been previously approved.
Mr. Starr commented that no change in use is proposed. Mr. Szefer concurred.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Szefer noted that no lighting is proposed.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4618. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
App. #4619 - West Avon Congregational Church, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to add parking spaces and repave lot, 280 Country Club Road, Parcel 1940280, in an R40 Zone
Present was David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers, LLC, representing the applicant.
Mr. Whitney explained that the Church would like to repave the parking lot and add additional spaces. There are currently 74 spaces and the request is to add 27 spaces on the west side and some parallel parking spaces along the driveway where people already park but is not a designated parking area. He noted that the Church would like to eliminate the islands in the rear to add some additional parking spaces there. The impervious surface coverage is 26% currently, which is under the maximum permitted. The additional spaces would raise the impervious coverage to 27%, still well under the maximum.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Whitney explained that the proposal is to eliminate the rear islands entirely and stripe new parking spaces. Mr. Starr commented that he feels it would be better to keep a small part of each of the islands. Mr. Whitney noted that that was also the feedback from Town Staff and suggested that, as a compromise, the islands could remain and fewer parking spaces could be added; the islands could be shrunk down to make room for some additional parking. Mr. Starr noted his agreement and added that the islands are necessary to keep traffic flowing out of the parking lot.
Ms. Ryan commented that she isn’t sure the islands are needed, as they are located in the very back of the parking lot and there is a curve that slows people down.
Mr. Starr explained that islands better define the parking areas and added that normal parking regulations require end islands of some type.
Mr. Kushner explained that islands define the drive aisle and protect the cars parked on the end. He added that islands are really the standard and, in this instance, keeping the islands means the reduction of only 3 parking spaces and 24 spaces could still be added. The Commission noted their understanding.
Mr. Whitney noted that no changes to the drainage patterns are proposed.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4619 subject to the following condition:
1. The landscaped end islands located to the rear of the existing parking lot shall remain but may be reduced in width to allow the installation of additional parking spaces.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.
App. #4622- Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification for minor change to recently approved building expansion, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone
Present to represent this application were John Cunningham, Reflexite, and Greg Nicoll, LA, Richter & Cegan.
Mr. Cunningham displayed the recently approved site plan and explained that the request is for a modification to the approved square footage of the manufacturing facility to allow enough room for the new equipment, as well as the equipment that will be moved from the New Britain facility to Avon. He noted that this change will also eliminate another problem such that the buildings do not come together now in the front on the north side of the expansion. He explained that the request is for a swap of approximately 2,500 square feet of additional manufacturing space with a reduction of that same amount of square footage for the office space proposed on the second floor. He further explained that a mechanical room is proposed for the second floor that would have access from the manufacturing
area on the first floor. The mechanical equipment that is currently located outside the building would be put into an enclosed space, as well as some of the new mechanical equipment that will be coming in. He indicated that the hope is that this change will reduce some of the noise that has been brought up by residents of Arch Road at previous meetings.
Mr. Starr explained that this application is not a public hearing and added that the proposal is, basically, to add a penthouse on top of the building to enclose certain equipment that has been the subject of comments and concerns about noise from some of the neighbors at a prior meeting.
In response to Dina Pelletier’s question, Mr. Starr told her that she could ask a question but reiterated that the application is not a public hearing.
In response Ms. Pelletier’s question, Mr. Cunningham explained that the only equipment that will remain outside the building is the thermal oxidizer (which is an incinerator) unit that is currently located on the back of the building, as it cannot be relocated at this time. He further explained that there will be some packaged roof-top units, such as air conditioners. He noted that the 90-ton train chiller unit makes a lot of noise and is currently located on the western side of the building but will be relocated inside the building. He added that the chiller unit is a redundant piece of equipment, as an upgrade will occur.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4622. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
App. #4623- Avon Business Park LLC, owner, Frank Mairano, applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to add loading dock and parking, 15 Industrial Drive, Parcel 2870015, in an I Zone
Present was Frank Mairano, owner, who explained that the existing building is used for warehouse space and a new tenant has requested a traditional loading dock and some additional parking. He noted that the plan has been reviewed at length with the Town Engineer and the Director of Planning; parking, drainage, lighting, and landscaping have been addressed. He added that he believes that all of the Staff’s questions have been addressed.
Mr. Kushner noted that the Staff recommends approval with a few conditions, as some cleanup of rubble and old equipment is needed on site.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4623 subject to the following conditions:
1. All remaining debris on the site, including stockpiles of rubble and other equipment shall be cleaned up and removed from the site. The two existing storage trailers and backhoe may remain.
2. The existing gravel area shall be top soiled and seeded to grow grass and look more like a traditional landscaped area.
3. A 12-inch pipe shall be installed to satisfy the requirements of the Town Engineer.
4. All requirements and concerns of the Engineering Department, noted in their report dated July 13, 2012, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Request to modify Subdivision from conditional to final approval, “Weatherstone Phase III”
(App. #4304 - conditional approval granted July 24, 2007)
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve the request to change App. #4304 from conditional to final approval. The motion, seconded by
Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
Request for 90-day extension to file mylars for App. #4599 – Deramo 359 West Avon Road
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve the first request for a 90-day extension to file mylars in connection with a 2-lot resubdivision at 359 West Avon Road. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
Request for 2-year extension of conditional approval for Apps. #4239/40 (3-lot subdivision for William Grunewald)
Mr. Kushner explained that State Statutes permit a total of 10 years for the completion of subdivisions; the initial period is 5 years with the opportunity to request a 5-year extension. He added that it is his understanding that this time period applies to both conditional and final approvals, cumulatively, and, therefore, final approval will have to be requested in the next couple of years. He pointed out that there are no public improvements that need to be constructed so bonding is not an issue.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve the request for a 2-year extension of conditional approval for Apps. #4239/40. At the end of this approved 2-year extension period (July 25, 2014) the applicant will be required to request final approval. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark received unanimous approval.
General Discussion Regarding Zone Designations and the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD)
Mrs. Griffin suggested that some clarification to the POCD may need to be provided.
Mr. Kushner noted his understanding and indicated that he would review the material. He added that while some clarification may be needed he noted that he doesn’t feel the information is as unclear as some may believe.
Mr. Mahoney commented that maybe further clarification is needed for what certain zones mean; he added that assigning a zone to a property doesn’t necessarily mean its forever.
Mr. Kushner commented that maybe a zone name other than Recreation Open Space should be considered.
Ms. Ryan commented that she feels that when people think of open space they think it’s protected in some way by the powers that be and it’s not going to change. Mrs. Clark concurred.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that maybe the land that is perpetually preserved space should be identified as preserved space versus open space.
Mr. Kushner suggested a term such as permanently-protected open space. Mr. Gackstatter concurred. Mr. Kushner added that the Commission may want to consider this change for some of the Town-owned properties, such as the Huckleberry Hill Open Space. He explained that at one time the Town was looking at Town-owned assets when another school was being considered. He noted that there is also a large piece of Town-owned open space behind the high school and there was a discussion some time ago about possibly building ball fields there. Mr. Kushner stressed that it is important to remember that the zoning designation of a property is not necessarily indicative of whether it’s permanently protected or not; some are and some are not.
Mr. Gackstatter commented about utilizing the POCD as a planning document versus a legal document; if used as a legal document it would have to be more precise.
The Commission conveyed their feelings that these issues will arise more and more over time.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement and indicated that he would take a look at Chapter 5 of the POCD.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on July 17, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
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 APPROVED WITH CONDITION
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 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
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 APPROVED
App. #4616 - ACOP, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for minor building expansion, 43 West Main Street, Parcel 4540043 in a CS Zone APPROVED
App. #4617 - Nod Road Properties LLC, owner, Jamick Szefer, applicant, request for Site Plan Modification for minor changes to parking and landscaping for office building (Phase III), 27 Nod Road, Parcel 3290027 in an OP Zone APPROVED
App. #4618 - Blue Fox Run Golf Course, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to add fence around tennis court, 65 Nod Road, Parcel 3290065 in an A Zone APPROVED
App. #4619 - West Avon Congregational Church, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to add parking spaces and repave lot, 280 Country Club Road, Parcel 1940280, in an R40 Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITION
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 DENIED
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) DENIED
App. #4622- Reflexite Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification for minor change to recently approved building expansion, 120 and 140 Darling Drive, Parcels 2030120 and 2030140 in an IP Zone APPROVED
App. #4623- Avon Business Park LLC, owner, Frank Mairano, applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to add loading dock and parking, 15 Industrial Drive, Parcel 2870015, in an I Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Dated at Avon this 18th day of July, 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, September 11, 2012, at 7:30 P.M. at the Avon Town Hall:
App. #4625 - Louise Dunne and Frank Dubiel, owners, Lovley Development, applicant, request for 3-lot subdivision, 5.0 acres, 140 Huckleberry Hill Road, Parcel 2810140 in R15 and R40 Zones
App. #4626 - Louise Dunne and Frank Dubiel, owners, Lovley Development, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit 2 rear lots, 140 Huckleberry Hill Road, Parcel 2810140, in R15 and R40 Zones
App. #4628 - Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, Paige Rotas, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.F.3.c.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit pet grooming, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124 in a CP-B Zone
App. #4630 - Nancy Fillmore, owner, Kevin Fillmore, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 300 Country Club Road, Parcel 1941300, in an NB Zone
App. #4633 - Shops at Applewoods LLC, owner, Brian Foley, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.B.2.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations for parking waiver, 51 East Main Street, Parcel 2140051 in a CS Zone
App. #4634 - David Ford, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit expansion of sports court in 150-foot ridgeline setback area, 44 Skyview Drive, Parcel 6060044 in an RU2A 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 27th day of August, 2012.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chair
Linda Keith, Vice-Chair
| 
