The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday November 20, 2012 Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Linda Keith Vice Chair, Carol Griffin, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, Christian Gackstatter, and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Jenna Ryan. Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent was Peter Mahoney. 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. Starr noted a correction needed to the fifth paragraph on Page 719 - “Town Council” should read “Town Attorney”. Mr. Cappello motioned to approve the minutes of the November 6, 2012, meeting, as corrected by Mr. Starr. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received approval from Messrs. Cappello, Starr, and Gackstatter and Mesdames Clark and Keith. Mrs. Griffin and Mr. Bonner abstained, noting that they had not been present at the November 6 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4640 - Gold Borg Associates, LLC, owner, The Sign Center, applicant, request for Special Exception under Sections VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached sign, 347 West Main Street, Parcel 4540347 in a CR Zone
Present to represent this application was Jay Kahn, The Sign Center.
Mr. Kahn indicated that a detached sign is proposed for Friendly’s restaurant, similar to other detached signs on adjacent parcels; the proposed sign is 24 SF and 5 feet high with the address at the top. He noted that the proposed sign location is the same as was approved for “Sambos” restaurant years ago. He noted that an LED illuminated sign is proposed.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kahn explained that internal LED, versus fluorescent, is proposed.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4640 was closed.
App. #4641 - Town of Avon, owner, Avon Land Trust, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.3.b.(5) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit a directional sign on existing street sign, intersection of Chidsey Road and Waterville Road, in an RU2A Zone.
Mr. Gackstatter stepped down, noting that he is an Avon Land Trust board member.
Dr. Bob Breckinridge was present, on behalf of the Avon Land Trust.
Dr. Breckinridge explained that the request is for a sign to be attached to the existing Chidsey Road street sign (corner of Waterville Road and Chidsey Road) indicating the location of Avon Land Trust open space located off of Chidsey Road. He noted that people have acknowledged that it is difficult to find this open space. Mr. Starr commented that the requested sign would be brown in color and similar to other signs used in Town, such as for identification of the Governor’s Horse Guard and the cemetery off of Arch Road. Mr. Kushner concurred and added that while the sign would not have to be brown it could be no larger than 2 square feet and must be mounted on a Town street post. Mr. Kushner stated that the Police Department/Traffic Authority has asked that the Land Trust contact them prior
to having the Department of Public Works create the sign to ensure that the sign complies with the latest rules regarding reflectivity and font sizes for safety purposes.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that currently there is no sign plan (i.e, color) for these types of signs but added that if more requests are received it may be a good idea to consider adopting a sign theme. He commented that this is only the second sign request since this sign regulation was adopted. He explained that while there is currently no color theme, brown and white seem to have become the ‘theme” for Town-owned properties.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question about whether the brown and white signs are visible enough at night,
Mr. Kushner explained that the Public Works Department makes a lot of signs and will follow the current code requirements including reflectivity.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4641 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
Mr. Gackstatter returned to the meeting.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Griffin motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Mrs.Clark seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4640 - Gold Borg Associates, LLC, owner, The Sign Center, applicant, request for Special Exception under Sections VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached sign, 347 West Main Street, Parcel 4540347 in a CR Zone
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4640. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4641 - Town of Avon, owner, Avon Land Trust, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.3.b.(5) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit a directional sign on existing street sign, intersection of Chidsey Road and Waterville Road, in an RU2A Zone.
Mr. Gackstatter stepped down.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4641 subject to the following conditions:
- The sign specifications (i.e., color, size, font, and reflectivity) shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Department prior to construction by the Department of Public Works.
The motion seconded by Mr. Bonner received unanimous approval.
Mr. Gackstatter returned to the meeting.
NEW APPLICATION
App. #4639 - Lothar and Elizabeth Candels, owners, John Noelke, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct deck for outdoor art sculpture display, 2 Mountain View Avenue, Parcel 3250002 in a CS Zone
Present was John Noelke, applicant.
Mr. Noelke explained that the proposal is to display sculpture in front of his gallery located at 2 Mountain View Avenue. He noted that the sculpture display would be temporary in nature and the items would not be for sale.
He submitted sketches to the Commission showing possible ideas for sculpture display and communicated that his intent is to create sculptures that would honor local achievement and inspiring-type efforts (i.e., Ann Strother, basketball courts in Haiti). Mr. Noelke also submitted a portfolio of permanent sculpture monuments that he has created, noting that he has a master’s degree in sculpture from Tufts.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Noelke confirmed that the proposed sculpture display would be visible from Route 44 noting that it would be approximately 70 feet from the road. Mr. Starr asked if there are trees and shrubs on the site that might block some of the visibility from Route 44. Mr. Noelke explained that landscaping is proposed around a sculpture pad, which will be raised up a couple of feet to match the level of the existing parking lot. He added that a small retaining wall with pavers is proposed.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. Noelke explained that he just started an art gallery in Dr. Candel’s former pediatrician’s office.
Ms. Keith noted that there are large permanent metal sculptures located on Route 4 in Farmington and asked
Mr. Noelke whether his display proposal would be something similar. Mr. Noelke explained that his work is connected to a sense of place whereas the sculpture on Route 4 is more abstract in nature. He added that the exhibits on Route 4 are permanent in nature and have been there for quite a while; he noted that his display is proposed for 45 to 120 days with rotation.
Mr. Starr commented that a two-year time period is often imposed with certain special exception uses but noted that if no issues/problems are encountered during that initial two-year time period an unlimited approval is granted after that. Mr. Noelke noted his understanding.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Noelke stated that he creates the art work but added that he may subcontract out welding if aluminum is involved. He noted that the permanent work tends to be bronze so it will last.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. Noelke commented that it would be nice to have one light on the proposed display but added that it would not be essential.
Mr. Starr commented that the Commission likes to ensure that if lighting is used that it does not drift onto adjacent properties and/or cause any adverse traffic conditions or distractions. Mr. Kushner commented that he feels that art in the center of Avon is positive influence and added that while the proposed outdoor display would draw attention to the site similar to the way a sign would draw attention, there would not be any advertising in a traditional way. He explained that Mr. Noelke has made it clear that the work proposed to be displayed would not be for sale; the artwork would be rotated on a regular basis. Mr. Kushner added that he has informed Mr. Noelke that it is important that any displayed artwork not be offensive to anyone.
In response to Mr. Starr’s comment about special exception uses, Mr. Kushner explained that the subject application is for site plan approval only; the proposal to create a pad (for the display) and a retaining wall are modifications to the site that require approval by the Commission.
Mr. Bonner asked whether the artwork once displayed and retired would be able to be placed/located in other areas in Town as it would add culture. Mr. Noelke noted his understanding and agreement.
Mrs. Clark commented that other towns display different types of animals (painted horses, cows) but noted that the proposed artwork would be nicer. Mr. Bonner agreed.
Mr. Kushner explained that the animal displays create ambiance but are non-controversial and appropriate in any location. He pointed out that the subject location is the gateway into the Center of Avon as well as the entrance to a nice residential neighborhood. He noted that a final site plan showing site grading is needed including details about the construction of the retaining wall. Mr. Kushner noted that the original design proposed a wooden deck which has since been changed to a small stone patio with brick pavers.
Mr. Noelke stated that his landscape designer has completed the drawings showing the pavers.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the proposal for a stone patio is similar to the type of garden ornament sculpture display (Toyen) at the Avon library.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement and explained that Mr. Noelke is requesting permission for sculpture display that would be integrated into a landscape plan and become an asset to the site that is not intended for advertising or the sale of merchandise. Mr. Noelke concurred and welcomed any human interest stories that the Commission may have knowledge about.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels a two-year approval would be appropriate in this instance to try out the sculpture display.
In response to Mr. Starr’s comments, Mr. Kushner agreed and noted that the Commission could ask the applicant to come back to the next meeting with a special permit application that would allow a two-year approval period; he added that time limits cannot generally be attached to site plan approvals. Mr. Kushner noted that the proposed use is unique and consistent with other uses that would be allowed only be special permit in the CS Zone.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4639 subject to the following conditions:
- Applicant shall submit a Special Exception application for review and approval of the use of the outdoor patio for sculpture display.
- Applicant shall submit a revised grading plan for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to the commencement of any site work.
The motion seconded by Mr. Bonner, received approval from Mesdames Clark, Keith, and Griffin, and Messrs. Bonner, Starr, Cappello, and Gackstatter.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Proposed Subdivision at 44 Lenox Road – Sunlight Construction/Bill Ferrigno
Present were Robert M. Meyers, representing Sunlight Construction; Bill Ferrigno, Sunlight Construction, and Bill Richter, AIA Richter & Cegan.
Attorney Meyers explained that the subject property (formerly owned by the Thompson family), is located in an R30 zone; residential development is proposed. He noted that a road connection between Haynes Road and Lennox Road (shown in the last 3 Plans of Conservation and Development) would be constructed in conjunction with the development of this parcel. He noted that the applicant is looking for input from the Commission about a possible extension of both Copplestone and Bronson and noted that such an extension would require wetland crossings. Mr. Meyers explained that you can get from the subject parcel to Sycamore Park via land owned by the Town (located on Haynes Road) that contains significant wetlands; he added that only a very small portion of Sycamore Park is currently being utilized. He
noted that a getting to Sycamore Park would also require a wetland crossing but not a vehicular crossing; he added that some type of a boardwalk makes sense for pedestrians.
Mr. Meyers explained that the applicant is looking for input from the Commission in connection with several residential development scenarios such as a conventional fully-conforming R30 subdivision or a cluster subdivision with “Farmington Woods” like construction on the portion of the subject parcel that abuts Farmington Woods.
Mr. Richter explained that the subject parcel is 44 acres in size, zoned entirely R30, and fully wooded; the site was formerly farmed and there are some existing stone walls and a brook runs through it. The development calculations yield 43 lots under normal R30 conditions. The wetlands located along the east edge have been field flagged and added that there is also floodplain that must be addressed. He indicated that there is potential for a trail network along the wetlands that could connect to Sycamore Park. There is a possibility for an access easement along the south edge that picks up the open space easement that is part of another nearby Sunlight Construction subdivision; this easement could also connect to Farmington Woods (there is a parking lot along Byron Drive that could serve as a
natural connection). Mr. Richter noted that a trail connection could be extended to Hollister and considered as part of the subject development.
Mr. Richter addressed different development scenarios noting that an as-of-right R30 subdivision with standard roads could hold 33 lots.
Mr. Kushner explained that the site would permit 43 lots, theoretically and as a result of the developable land calculation; however a conventional development would result in fewer lots due to physical land limitations.
Mr. Richter addressed another possibility of a cluster subdivision with 43 lots and a combination of both R15 and R30 zones with the same road network as an “as-of-right” subdivision and some open space along the brook. There could be a straight line connection between Lenox Road and Haynes Road which would promote moving traffic off of Hollister or a road network that makes people stop/slow down. A straight R30 subdivision with the same road network and an open space piece is another possibility. A cluster subdivision of 42 lots with R15 zoning located closer to Farmington Woods with R30 zoning along the main road and adjacent to other developments with open space access and a trail network is another scenario. An alternative design proposing some houses in the middle with green
corners as pocket parks with a double road and 41 lots allows a connection to happen while not allowing through traffic. A develop-ment with 38 single-family condos with R30 along the edge and R15 in the center is also a possibility; the same road network to stop the connecting traffic would be used while creating a sense of place for a wider range of housing in Town. This scenario would provide central open space that could be connected through to Farmington Woods and Sycamore Park. Mr. Richter explained that there are several different kinds of developments that could be realized on this site while utilizing the same road network.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Richter and Mr. Ferrigno explained that all the lots for either R15 or R30 zones would be fee simple.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that he is considering something other than a traditional subdivision for the subject site given its location and the proximity to Sycamore Park, which appears to be under utilized. He added that it doesn’t appear that the 2 lots owned by the Town in this area would ever be developed as building lots as they are about 95% wetlands.
Mrs. Griffin indicated that there used to be a path from Haynes Road through the woods that led to the swimming pool but noted that as times changed people didn’t want their children walking through the woods to reach the Park. Over time trees came down and blocked the path. Mrs. Griffin noted that she doesn’t feel a trail in this area would get used as much as the developer thinks it wood, as it is common now for bears to be in the area.
Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding of Mrs. Griffin’s comments/concerns but added that it seems to be a popular notion that trails are a good thing. He noted that he would like to propose some creative and different subdivision styles as opposed to what has been traditionally built to date.
Mr. Starr asked if something like the “Spring Meadow” development (located behind Friendly’s) would be considered for R15 zoning.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that in the R15 zone he would not be proposing anything like Spring Meadow but, rather, would be proposing a more practically-sized house (i.e., 2,000 SF to 2,500 SF). He added that a higher density proposal/area would be more appropriate for a Spring Meadow type development. He noted his understanding that proper buffers would have to be considered/proposed to surrounding neighborhoods.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comments, Mr. Ferrigno commented that he doesn’t want to clear cut the site, under any scenario/development scheme but noted that property owners on a standard R30 lot can clear cut their lot if they wished. Ms. Keith noted her concerns with clear cutting as it can result in drainage and fill issues. Mr. Ferrigno explained that the grades are very level on this site.
Mr. Starr commented that any new lots that would abut existing lots should be kept the same size as much as possible. Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding.
Mrs. Clark commented that she likes the mixed use scenario noting that the Town needs condos.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Richter noted that one scenario proposes a total of 64 units.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that 2 to 3-bedroom condos would be proposed without gating but with a nice circulation plan and some private roads.
Mr. Richter added that density would be 3 units per acre and a homeowner’s association would be proposed.
Mr. Kushner noted that all condos in Avon are approved via special permit and are all located in a residential zoning district; special permit approvals allow densities up to 4 units per acre. He added that Farmington Woods was initially approved at 4 units per acre but was not built to that density. He explained that there is a lot of flexibility in the Zoning Regulations for cluster subdivisions in an R30 zone. He further explained that the Town would encourage cluster developments to achieve approximately the same density as that of a conventional development while using the land more efficiently and preserving significant open space. Mr. Kushner pointed out that the town of Farmington has a provision in their cluster regulations that states that no more density than could be realized under a
traditional “as of right” development can be achieved in a cluster development. He explained that if a more efficient utilization of land is the goal perhaps the cluster development should be the “as of right” development and the less efficient traditional development should require special permit approvals. Mr. Kushner concluded by noting that the Commission is being asked if they would be comfortable with greater density on this site and added that there is likely to be public input regarding the proposed road connections.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that he would like to give more than the minimum requirement of 10% open space, closer to 15 to 20% (to include conservation easements). He noted that he thinks a trail network would be a positive.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she doesn’t think a trail would work if the plan is to utilize it to get children and others from the site to Sycamore Park. She noted her support of family hiking trails.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels trails should be shown as part of any proposal but added that how they get used is up to each individual. Mr. Ferrigno noted his agreement adding that Avon has been promoting trails in Town for many years.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Ferrigno noted that there would definitely be sewers; he added that the water main lines have all been refurbished in that area and gas lines may be coming soon as well. Mrs. Griffin noted that she is against any blasting. Mr. Ferrigno explained that he has done some test holes and added that while he cannot guarantee that some blasting won’t be needed he indicated that if it is needed it would probably only be for utility installation. Mrs. Griffin conveyed her opinion that going forward developers should be required to work with the lay of the land.
Mr. Richter explained that any slopes on the site are gentle; no extensive regrading would be required. Mr. Ferrigno noted that no shallow ledge has been found from the test holes done to date.
Mr. Starr indicated that he would like the site to be balanced. Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that the site would be balanced; it would be a goal.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the lots would be approximately 1/3 of an acre (15K SF) with two-story houses in the range of 2,000 to 2,500 SF (approximately 1,500 SF footprint).
Ms. Keith indicated that she likes the concept with the road going through and acknowledged her understanding that there may be a lot of flack received from the public about the road. Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding and agreement. Ms. Keith noted her concern that the some of the proposed cluster houses would be located very close to existing homes and asked about buffering. Mr. Ferrigno explained that there is currently 60 feet to the property line and noted that if a conservation easement is implemented there is the possibility for another 40 to 50 feet. He acknowledged his understanding of Ms. Keith’s concerns but noted that the displayed plans are large scale and don’t necessarily show all that is potentially possible. Mr. Ferrigno noted that the houses in this area are
proposed in the range of 1,500 to 1,800 SF with either 1 ½ or 2 stories (Cape style) and full basements and garages but no rooms over the garages.
Mr. Richter addressed side-loaded garages and explained that all of the end units that would front on the open space could be side-loaded. Ms. Keith commented that she doesn’t feel there should be side-loaded garages when units are stacked one on top of each other but noted that she feels side-loading is fine on the corners where there is extra land. Mrs. Griffin commented that side-loaded garages reduce the lawn and green area. Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding and agreement.
Mr. Starr indicated that the developer is looking for feedback/input from the Commission and suggested that each member provide comments. He noted that the mixed-use concept appeals to him and seems to appeal to others.
Mr. Starr suggested that the proposed condos should be zoned R15, as they would abut an existing R15 zone.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question about 110 Bronson Road (Thompson owner) becoming landlocked,
Mr. Richter explained that if the properties were developed together most likely 4 or 5 lots with a single-loaded driveway would be the result. Mr. Ferrigno noted that 110 Bronson Road is approximately 5 or 6 acres.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that road access to this area would be brought in from Hollister Drive but noted that access could be brought in from another direction if need be.
Mrs. Griffin noted her concerns with adding R15 lots as it would increase the density and, in turn, increase traffic on Haynes Road, which she noted is not a safe road and is very poorly constructed, especially the corner.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that a house in the R15 zone will generate less vehicle trips per day, probably half the trips of a conventional house. He added that it has been proven that the vehicle trips are less, as the need is different; owners are not going to soccer games. Mr. Bonner and Mrs. Clark noted their agreement about the reduced vehicle trips.
Ms. Keith conveyed her concerns about the existing traffic conditions/hazards on Haynes Road; she noted that people are taking chances to get out onto West Avon Road.
Mr. Starr confirmed that the traffic on Haynes Road is going to be an issue with the development of the subject parcel.
Mr. Kushner commented that people generally do not like change and indicated that a traffic and trip generation study as well as a good buffering plan will be needed to satisfy both the Commission and the existing adjacent neighborhoods. The challenge will include providing the road connections that the Town has been showing for decades and be able to do it in a way that doesn’t encourage a cut through or high rate of travel speed. He noted that a good trail connection to Sycamore Hills Park would so be beneficial. Mr. Ferrigno concurred.
Mr. Starr commented that he believes that individuals who purchase homes on the subject site would more likely use Lennox Road and Hollister Road more because they are better roads and there are traffic lights on the West Avon Road side. He added that he believes people will figure out after some trial and error that Haynes Road is not the best choice. Mr. Ferrigno concurred.
Mrs. Griffin noted her understanding of the cluster concept proposed next to Farmington Woods but indicated that she does not want to see a high number of condo-style homes built in that area in an R15 zone.
Ms. Keith noted her understanding of the concept that R15 zoning creates less traffic but added that smaller traffic isn’t smaller traffic when you’re adding traffic. Mr. Ferrigno explained that a traffic study would be done to illustrate what traffic would be generated in a fully compliant situation versus a cluster type environment. He noted his agreement with Ms. Keith that in any scenario there will be an increase in traffic.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Ferrigno noted that 34 lots could be realized in a conventional subdivision in an R30 zone.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she doesn’t like all the cul-de-sacs. Ms. Keith indicated that she wouldn’t like to see 4 cul-de-sacs either. Mr. Ferrigno noted that people love cul-de-sacs.
Ms. Keith suggested that the number of 1,500 SF units be reduced; the area where 4 lots are proposed should be reduced to 2 lot; and ensure potential access to the property to the north in the future. In response to
Mr. Ferrigno’s question about trails, Mr. Starr suggested that the trails be put in; individuals can decide on their own whether they wish to use them or not. Mrs. Clark noted her agreement.
Mr. Starr asked whether all commissioners favor a mixed-use concept.
Mrs. Griffin noted that she likes the design with the horse-shoe, a traditional R30 subdivision.
Mr. Meyers indicated that his assumption is that no one wants a wetlands crossing. Mr. Starr confirmed that no crossing of the wetlands is desired; the rest of the Commission concurred.
Mr. Meyers commented that the Commission prefers a stop sign for a calming cut through rather than a straight cut through. The Commission indicated their preference for a calming cut through.
Item Added to Agenda – Proposed Amendment to Chapter 5, Open Space and Recreation, 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD)
Mr. Bonner motioned to add to the Agenda a discussion regarding a proposed amendment to Chapter 5, Open Space and Recreation, 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development. The motion seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Attorney has indicated that the POCD is an advisory document and the Commission is not bound by the language. He noted that the Town Attorney cautions the Commission against using the words “permanently protected” anywhere in Chapter 5. He referred to discussions at previous meetings where the Commission discussed the idea of providing more detailed information about what types of restrictions, if any, exist for open space parcels in Town. Mr. Kushner noted that he has given this idea much thought and has concluded that adding more information would be problematic for a number of reasons. There are varying degrees of restrictions, as deeds are worded in various ways; some deeds appear to be iron clad that a property is permanently protected but others
are not as clear. He pointed out that the Town Attorney has indicated that, from a real estate perspective, even deeds that are written very clearly can be modified; nothing is really permanent. He explained, for example, that the average resident, more than likely, views the Huckleberry Hill Open Space property as permanently protected land when, in fact, it is really only protected as open space via policy of the Town Council. He further explained that this land area could be used for a school site; the land was purchased with Town funds and no deed restrictions exist. He conveyed his understanding that the average person often makes certain assumptions about open space land areas that are just not true. Characterizing privately-owned parcels, such as Blue Fox Run Golf Course (formerly Bel Compo) and the Golf Club of Avon, is equally difficult. These properties have the zoning designation ROS (recreation open space) and the Town has been sort
of characterizing these properties as open space. He explained that the term “private open space” was chosen which actually turns out to be somewhat confusing for many, although that was not the intention. Mr. Kushner explained that he tries to clarify, via the proposed changes, that there is open land in Town that is privately owned and used for recreation but is only allowed to be used for recreation by members of that private club. The individuals that own the property do have the right to ask the Commission for a change in zone or change in rules to permit other possible uses. Blue Fox Run Golf Course now has three office buildings located on property that was part of the original Bel Compo golf course. Mr. Kushner concluded by noting that there are varying degrees of open space such as private open space, public open space, open space owned by the Town, some of which is deed restricted while some is not. There are also many
parcels that have been deeded to the Avon Land Trust and while most are deed restricted there are some that are not. Mr. Kushner asked the Commission to review the proposed language changes.
Ms. Keith noted that she likes the proposed changes to Chapter 5.
Mr. Starr commented that the words “permanent” and “restricted” have been removed from the text. Mr. Kushner confirmed that those words have been removed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Discuss pending litigation
No Executive Session was held.
There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 8:50pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on November 20, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4639 - Lothar and Elizabeth Candels, owners, John Noelke, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct deck for outdoor art sculpture display, 2 Mountain View Avenue, Parcel 3250002 in a CS Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
App. #4640 - Gold Borg Associates, LLC, owner, The Sign Center, applicant, request for Special Exception under Sections VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached sign, 347 West Main Street, Parcel 4540347 in a CR Zone APPROVED
App. #4641 - Town of Avon, owner, Avon Land Trust, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.3.b.(5) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit a directional sign on existing street sign, intersection of Chidsey Road and Waterville Road, in an RU2A Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITION
Dated at Avon this 21ST day of November, 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
| 
