Town of Avon, CT Minutes & Agendas Archive

PZC Minutes SEPT 11 2012

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday September 11, 2012. Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Linda Keith, Vice-Chair, Carol Griffin, David Cappello, Christian Gackstatter, and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Jenna Ryan. Ms. Ryan and Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent were Marianne Clark and Peter Mahoney. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.

Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Bonner motioned to approve the July 17, 2012, meeting minutes, as submitted. Mr. Gackstatter seconded the motion that received approval from Messrs. Bonner, Gackstatter, Starr and Cappello and Mesdames Griffin and Ryan. Ms. Keith abstained as she had not been present at the July 17 meeting but noted that she has familiarized herself with the minutes.

PUBLIC HEARING

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 Starr reported that the applicant has withdrawn App. #4624.

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

Present to represent these applications were Andrew Quirk, PE, Kratzert Jones & Associates; Mark Lovley, applicant; and Edward Ferrigno.

Mr. Quirk displayed a site plan and noted that the site is 5 acres and located in both the R15 (front) and R40 (rear) zones; there is an existing house, garage, and septic system on the site. Public water is available in Huckleberry Hill Road; approval for septic systems (a replacement for the septic for the existing house, should it be necessary, and both rear lots) has been received from the Farmington Valley Health District. He noted that the proposal is to create 2 rear lots, each with its own driveway originating from Huckleberry Hill Road; each proposed rear lot is in excess of 80,000 square feet in size, independent of the land area required for access.

Mr. Quirk addressed the existing house and noted that there is a porch on the side of the house that would encroach into the side yard setback; he added that prior to a closing, the owner would remove the portion of the porch that extends into the side yard setback area. The existing house is located in front of the front yard setback/building line but noted that this is a pre-existing condition (house was constructed in 1947). He explained that the density calculation permits 4.8 lots; the applicant proposes 3 lots including the existing house.

In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Quirk noted that the existing frontage will remain in conformance to the Regulations.

Mr. Quirk addressed storm water and noted that there is an existing, long-standing culvert located in Huckleberry Hill Road. He explained that research on the Land Records indicates that a storm water “right-to-flow” from the end wall exists and added that it goes right along the subject property line. There are trees and swale evidence which continues on to a natural condition towards the rear of the site, which eventually flows into a wetland area located off the site. Storm water from this site will be directed to and carried along the driveway and then routed to a natural-looking depression in the rear of the site to control runoff through a 100-year storm. Mr. Quirk stated that storm water has been reviewed with the Town Engineering Department and noted that the applicant would comply with comments from Town Engineering regarding a level spreader. He added that 25% of the flow that is currently draining along the subject property line would be cut off/reduced by intercepting the flow and redirecting it.

Mr. Quirk addressed open space and noted that there is an existing open space parcel to the east and Town-owned land to the north; the open space proposed as part of this application would be contiguous with both of these parcels. The open space proposed is .5 acres and noted that a fee in lieu option was reviewed. He commented that Town Staff indicates that providing open space is the best option in this instance.

Mr. Quirk explained that an alternative design with a public road was initially investigated; the layout consisted of the existing house with 4 new lots for a total of 5 lots. He noted that a replacement septic wouldn’t fit within the existing 15,000 SF lot and the density calculation was slightly low at 4.8 (need 5.0 for 5 lots). He commented that it was determined that 2 large rear lots without a Town road was the best use of the land.

In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Quirk confirmed that the driveways would be owned by the rear lots.

Ms. Keith noted that the storm water drains to a nearby brook that is not very well maintained; she noted that no riprap exists but that some natural stones exist in the brook. Mr. Quirk concurred. She added that there is only a foundation for a garage on the existing house lot.

Mr. Quirk concurred. She noted her concern with oddly shaped property/boundary lines and asked if the boundary lines for the proposed open space could be modified to look more like an upside down “L” instead of a pie shape. She added that an “L” shape would be more comfortable for abutting land owners and more favorable should trails ever be constructed on the open space.

Mr. Quirk explained that the shape of the proposed open space has been designed as such in an effort to be more contiguous with the existing nearby open space while at the same time avoid a right angle that would intercept trails; a smooth transition is the goal. He noted that the proposed lots are somewhat “squared off” in terms of the developable area. He commented that he could take a look at it again.

Ms. Keith commented that pie-shaped lots can be a problem for abutting neighbors to know where the boundaries are and asked that maybe the line could be moved over a little bit with a longer piece down the side. Mr. Quirk noted his understanding.

In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Quirk explained that both rear lot houses are proposed at elevation 515 and the road is at the same elevation. Mr. Starr noted that the lots are relatively flat. Mr. Quirk concurred and added that the rear section of the lots is wooded with pines and oaks and noted that an effort was made to allow the existing vegetation between the 2 lots to remain. He noted that these 2 lots would also be screened from the existing homes on Huckleberry Hill Road; the rear lot areas are quite secluded.

In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Quirk explained that comments have been received from Town Staff regarding sightlines; he stated that from his observations at the site, the sightline appears to be greater than 800 feet in each direction and added that he can document that for the record.

Mrs. Griffin asked if the frontage for the remaining lot is so tight such that the driveway could not be moved over a little to allow enough room for extended drainage on this lot so it doesn’t have to be located right on the property line. Mr. Quirk explained that the frontage requirement in R15 is 100 feet and the site has only 102 feet.

In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Quirk explained that other than the removal of the portions of the porch that will encroach into the side yard, no other renovations to the existing house are proposed.

There being no further input, the public hearing for Apps. #4625 and #4626 was closed.

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

The applicant Paige Rotas was present.

Ms. Rotas explained that the proposal is for a small pet grooming shop in Riverdale Farms; service would be by appointment only at approximately 6 pets per day. She noted that an area has been designated for dog walking and all natural chemical-free products are proposed. She added that biodegradable pet waste bags will be available.

In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that he checked with the Engineering/Sewer Department and there are no water issues.

In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Ms. Rotas commented that the dog walking area should not be a problem in the winter if there is snow, as there are wooded areas behind the building. She added that she doesn’t believe that snow will be plowed onto the sidewalk areas but noted that if that occurs she would shovel to clear the access. She added that there is a barrier between the parking area and the dog walking area.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Ms. Rotas noted that her business would be located in Building #6, which is directly across from The Lime Bar & Grill and next to the photography business.

In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions, Ms. Rotas commented that hours of operation are Tuesday through Friday from 8am to 4pm. She noted that she will add Saturday hours in response to client demand. She explained that approximately 1 inch of hair is cut off per dog; it doesn’t fill up a garbage bag.

There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4628 was closed.

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

Present to represent this application was Kevin Fillmore.

Mr. Fillmore explained that the proposal is for a detached sign to better identify the businesses within the building, as some of the tenants are complaining that they don’t get enough visibility from the wall signs on the building.

In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions, Mr. Fillmore commented that the sign is proposed for West Avon Road to get the benefit of the traffic. He noted that he has met with the State DOT and the proposed location is not within the State right-of-way. Mr. Fillmore stated that he would like to utilize ground lighting but added that the lighting would be blocked such that it would only shine on the sign.

Mr. Starr stated that a condition of approval will require that any light source be shielded to eliminate glare for oncoming traffic. Mr. Fillmore noted his understanding and noted that only spot lighting would be used.

There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4630 was closed.

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

Present to represent this application were Jamick Szefer, on behalf of the owner, and Dan Brennwald, property manager. Also present were Sam Macaluso, Prudential Realty, and the potential new tenant for 51 East Main.

Mr. Szefer explained that the request is for a waiver of the parking regulations in connection with shopping center requirements. He noted that there are currently 188 parking spaces on the site, which includes 7 handicap accessible spaces. He commented that the waiver is requested in connection with the regulation that states that no more than 25% of the businesses in a shopping center can be for food service establishments. He noted that this waiver is being requested in connection with a new frozen yogurt business (Class 1 restaurant) being proposed; the business would have seating capacity for less than 20 and although most of the product would be consumed offsite there would be some tables and chairs provided. The square footage of the proposed tenant space, formerly occupied by a flower shop called “Willows”, is approximately 1,055 square feet.

Mr. Starr asked if the Commission is being asked to approve a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. He added that the number of required spaces increases when the food/restaurant uses make up more than 25% of the tenant mix for the entire plaza. Mr. Kushner concurred and explained that there is a provision in the Zoning Regulations that allows for a somewhat reduced rate of parking for a shopping center which, by definition, is a project that has a minimum of 20,000 square feet of commercial retail space. In order to take advantage of this rate, no more than 25% of the total size of the project can be occupied by restaurant tenants. He noted that the combined square footage of “The Grist Mill” and “Brueggers Bagels” is very close to 25%.

Mr. Szefer explained that The Grist Mill and Brueggers Bagels equate to 22% but noted that if a seasonal patio is included for The Grist Mill it increases the percentage to 26% or 27%.

Mr. Kushner noted, for the record, that Old Avon Village and River Park (the subject site) are also part of a consolidated parking agreement, approved by the Commission many years ago. Any customers shopping at River Park can and do park at Old Avon Village and vice versa.

Mrs. Griffin indicated that today she visited the public park located at the River Park shopping complex. She commented that some years ago, when Carmen Anthony’s restaurant requested outdoor dining, was the last time that this park area was reviewed; she noted that she remembers how poorly the park was being maintained. She noted that one of the big white light fixtures located between the park and the parking lot was in disrepair with wires hanging; some of the other fixtures were also broken. She noted that the Commission was told that these items would be addressed by the property management but added that her visit today confirmed that nothing has been done, as there are still lights in disrepair. There is one bench and 2 tables that are functional; everything else is either broken or missing. She commented that neither the public park (the pond has scum and there are overflowing trash cans) nor the parking lot is being maintained. She added that people are still using the park, as there was someone there today when she was there.

Mr. Kushner explained that there were wetland impacts associated with the construction of River Park; the pond and the park were created as compensation for some of these impacts. The park is owned privately by the property owner but the owner was required to grant the Town an easement to allow public access. He noted that the Town has discussed maintenance with different property managers over the years. Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Szefer to check into this issue and report back to the Commission with a plan of action. Mr. Kushner explained that he knows that there have been problems with vandalism at this park.

Mrs. Griffin commented that although the broken lights in the parking lot have nothing to do with the park they should definitely be repaired.

Mr. Szefer indicated that he knows that some lights were on order and that the current light fixtures have been discontinued.

Dan Brennwald, property manager for River Park, noted that he was hired last February (2012) and is aware of some of the problems at this site. He indicated that he doesn’t personally maintain the site but noted that a staff person cleaned up many broken trees after the damage from the storm last fall. He acknowledged that there is more work to be done and noted his agreement with Mr. Kushner about the problems with vandalism.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s earlier comments/concerns, Mr. Brennwald explained that because he doesn’t have a long history with this company he doesn’t know the background with regard to lighting but added that a lighting designer is now on board. He noted that LED fixtures are being considered and either changing the whole pole and lanterns or just the lanterns is also being considered. He noted that there are other things at this plaza that need to be addressed and added there aren’t funds to do everything at the same time.

Mrs. Griffin commented that lighting is important in a restaurant area where people are coming out at night. Mr. Brennwald noted his agreement.

Ms. Keith noted her concerns with the pond maintenance. Mr. Kushner explained that to the best of his knowledge the pond is functioning to serve as storm drainage; the parking lot drains into the pond. He added that the pond also provides a recreational benefit for the surrounding trails which do need maintenance; the original signs around the pond have rotted and disappeared.

Mr. Szefer reported that the signs around the pond have been replaced twice.

Mr. Kushner suggested that the applicant talk with the owner and provide a written report to the Commission, possibly for the next meeting, as to what steps are planned to make some immediate efforts to clean up the park. He added that a long-term, ongoing maintenance plan is also needed.

Mr. Starr commented that he feels the lights in the parking lot should be the first priority.

Mr. Szefer explained that the current light fixtures are no longer available and the owner hadn’t planned to install temporary lights because that would result in several different styles so it has been decided that new lighting will be provided, even if it is just temporary lighting.

Mr. Starr commented that what is needed is a plan that addresses both lighting and park clean-up; he added that he would like to see something within the next 30 days.

Mr. Kushner agreed and added that while a plan for the short term is important the plan really needs to address long-term maintenance, as this has been the biggest problem.

Mr. Starr commented that the subject application requests an additional 2% reduction in required parking spaces due to the proposed additional food service business. Mr. Kushner concurred. Mr. Starr added that any approval granted for this application will include a condition requiring a written report within 30 days addressing lighting and park maintenance – a plan of action.

Mr. Kushner suggested that the chain located at the driveway to the park be moved/relocated 20 feet down the driveway so individuals see the chain and the park rules at the same time.

Ms. Keith commented that she wouldn’t mind if the grills/fire pits don’t get replaced due to fire hazards and vandalism. Mrs. Griffin commented that the benches and tables are being used.

Mr. Bonner commented that when the park area was maintained it was very charming.

Mr. Szefer explained that the chain was put there because it was discovered that people were driving in and having large parties. He noted that the park has been an uphill battle in some respects.

Mr. Gackstatter asked why the applicant feels that most of the customers for the yogurt business will pick up their food and leave versus ordering and staying to socialize outside the restaurant.

Mr. Szefer indicated that the proposed yogurt store is a Class I restaurant with a maximum seating capacity of 20 and no outdoor seating is proposed at this time. He noted, however, that the area of the plaza where the subject tenant space is located is designed for public gathering; it’s an open area away from the parking lot.

Mr. Cappello commented that the Commission is trying to encourage people to walk around outside. Mr. Gackstatter noted his understanding and added that he wondered how many parking spaces this business would occupy.

Mr. Kushner commented that the River Park shopping center is well positioned for outdoor activity; it’s a beautiful plaza.

Mr. Szefer explained that the makeup of the plaza is such that there are 3 businesses that operate only during regular business hours and there are 2 businesses that have even shorter hours. The patio area for the restaurant only operates during good weather and is not open in the winter.

There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4633 was closed.

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 Sky View Drive, Parcel 6060044 in an RU2A Zone

Present to represent this application was John Stewart, LA, CR3. The owner, David Ford, was also present.

Mr. Stewart explained that the request is for an extension/expansion (20’ x 55’) to an existing sports court, approved in 2010. He displayed a map of the site and noted that the requested expansion fits within the same area approved for the original application; the proposed expansion does not go forward of the 75-foot ridgeline setback and is still within the 150-foot ridgeline setback. He added that the proposed expansion just nestles up to the wetlands setback. He displayed an elevation drawing showing the view from the west; the expansion area looks identical to the existing building (i.e., same roof line, roof materials, siding, and windows). The expansion is deeper into the woods and therefore has less visibility; evergreen trees and wetland plantings have been installed in accordance with the approved 2010 plan. He explained that David Lord, soil scientist, has revisited the site and notes that the subject expansion does not impact the wetlands but does, however, suggest that approximately 100 additional wetland plants be installed. Mr. Stewart commented that Mr. Ford has indicated that he has no problem and will install the additional plantings. He added that the siltation control measures put in place in 2010 are the same today; there is no increase to the disturbed area, no change to the wetland area, and no change to the trees.

In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Stewart explained that the elevation drawing is the view looking from the west to the east; it’s the view from the ridgeline. Ms. Keith commented that a great presentation/discussion took place during Mr. Ford’s first application to the Commission but noted her concern that the subject application was not filed appropriately and also that the Inland Wetlands Commission has not yet rendered a decision.

Mr. Stewart explained that tonight’s presentation is for informational purposes only; it is understood that no decision can be made.

Ms. Keith commented that the concrete has been poured on the assumption that the Commission would allow the expansion. She noted that it’s a large building and asked what the function of the extension is.

In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Ford explained that he had a water problem on the north side because the nearby trap rock is higher than the foundation and funneled water down towards the foundation. He noted that he dug up the foundation to re-waterproof it and while it was dug up it was moved back from the existing foundation because if it wasn’t, any type of blasting could potentially damage the foundation. While it was dug out, the thought was maybe a patio could be installed. He explained that the concrete guy said if you’re going to do a patio now is the time to put in an extension, if you’ve ever thought about it, because all you’d have to do is make the footings bigger. Mr. Ford noted that he said ok, do it, and added that he was out of State in Martha’s Vineyard. He explained that he received a call from John McCahill (Town Zoning Enforcement) asking him what he’s (Ford) doing. Mr. Ford commented that he told Mr. McCahill that this is the plan and added that now he guesses he needs a permit; he noted that Mr. McCahill confirmed that he (Ford) needs a permit. Mr. Ford indicated that that is why he is before the Commission tonight and added that the original intent was not to do this; he noted that the original intent was to fix the grading. He indicated that his wife got a blasting permit because he knew he needed a blasting permit but added that this did not start out as what is being asked for now; it kind of morphed into it.

Ms. Keith commented that that’s what happens in trap rock. Mr. Ford agreed.

Mr. Starr reported that the subject application cannot be approved tonight, as no decision has been made yet by the Inland Wetlands Commission.

In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Stewart noted that, to his knowledge, no tree cutting has been done. He explained that the drawing displayed is the same drawing that was used in 2010 when the original sports court was proposed. The area requested to be cleared in 2010 was cleared and the siltation erosion controls were installed at that time. After the sports court was constructed the area was left alone and there was trap rock and debris left over. He explained that an access already existed for the equipment needed to build the proposed addition; no trees were required to be removed. Mr. Ford commented that there were dead trees that needed to be removed; he added that it looks like the moon back there. Mr. Stewart noted that he remembers a discussion back in 2010 about a lot of dead trees that needed to be removed; he added that those dead trees were taken out but there were still several in the subject area. In response to earlier questions, Mr. Stewart explained that no additional clearing was necessary to construct the proposed addition. Mr. Ford explained that that is not 100% accurate and noted that there was a damaged tree that Mr. McCahill said could be taken away. Mr. Ford further explained that he wanted to keep the tree until it was determined that it was dead so the tree has been removed. Mr. Stewart noted that he was not aware of that situation.

Mr. Cappello commented that the building is on a slab and water was seeping into the playing surface. Mr. Ford explained that the slab is located 6 feet below because he didn’t want the building to look too big from below.

Ms. Keith asked if the purpose of the building, with the extension, is still the same. Mr. Ford confirmed that the purpose of the building is for personal sports use only; he noted that there are no commercial activities.

There were no further comments. Mr. Starr announced that the hearing must be continued to allow time for the Inland Wetlands Commission to render a decision.

Mrs. Griffin motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4634 to the next meeting, scheduled for October 9. The motion, seconded by, Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.

The public hearing was closed.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

Mrs. Griffin motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Mr. Bonner seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.

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

Mr. Kushner suggested, in response to an earlier discussion about modifying the lot lines in connection with the proposed open space, that the applicant could revise the drawings and present them at the next meeting.

Mr. Cappello commented that if the open space lot lines are changed to an “L” shape it may result in a “quirky” piece of open space.

Ms. Keith commented that she feels that property lines that come to a point (i.e., a triangular-shaped piece) often cause problems, as people do not know where the boundaries are.

Mr. Starr commented that the proposed open space parcel abuts Town of Avon property.

Ms. Keith noted her understanding but added that she is looking at the future of what could potentially happen.

In response to Ms. Keith’s concerns about drainage into the existing brook, Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Engineering Department has reviewed the drainage. He noted that the property owner of 160 Huckleberry Hill Road (Dubiel), located just to the south of the subject site (140 Huckleberry Hill Road, owned by a different Dubiel family), has been complaining to the Town for years about the impacts that the storm drainage from the subject site has on his property. Mr. Kushner explained that it is his understanding that the Town Engineer has worked out a plan with the applicant’s engineer to improve the existing situation; the plan will not solve the problem but will make things better. He commented that the applicant will pick up water, where they can, on the subject site and run it down the site; the water will continue to drain to 160 Huckleberry Hill Road but it will happen further down the property. Mr. Kushner reiterated that the current situation will be improved as much as it can be. In response to Ms. Keith’s concerns about the brook overflowing the properties on both sides, Mr. Kushner explained that both the Engineering Department and the Department of Public Works are very aware of the situation in this area. He added that the Town Engineer has indicated that the proposed plan will help the current situation.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner indicated that he doesn’t know but added that he could ask the Town Engineer about whether water would cover the driveway during a flood stage.

Mr. Gackstatter commented that the applicant’s engineer noted during his testimony that the plan is designed for the 100-year flood.

Mr. Starr commented that flood issues are something that the Town Engineering Department addresses. Mr. Kushner agreed and added that the Town Engineer has met several times with the applicant’s engineer and the Town Engineer has indicated that he is satisfied with the plan but offered to get more information if the Commission wishes.

Mr. Starr commented that he prefers the proposed open space in a triangular shape because he feels it is a better fit for the open space, even though the Commission usually likes to square off lot shapes. He reiterated that, in this instance, there is a greater benefit to the open space with the proposed shape.

Mr. Gackstatter indicated that he feels the triangular shape allows a nice transition from one trail to another. He commented that he believes that Mr. Cappello’s point is that if there is a corner sticking out people will walk around it and, eventually, if it’s in the woods, people will cut through it.

Mr. Kushner suggested that the applicant could present some alternate plans for open space at the next meeting, if the Commission wishes.

After some discussion, Mr. Starr recommended that Apps. #4625 and #4626 be tabled to the next meeting to allow the applicant to return with some alternatives on the open space shape.

Mrs. Griffin motioned to table Apps. #4625 and #4626 to the next meeting, scheduled for October 9. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.

Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App. #4628. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.

Mr. Gackstatter motioned to approve App. #4630 subject to the following condition:

Any ground-mounted light source shall be shielded/screened to minimize glare.

The motion, seconded by Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.

In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concern about lighting, Mr. Starr noted that the parking lot is currently being used. Mr. Gackstatter noted his understanding but added that he feels the parking lot lighting should be fixed before any increase in parking density is allowed; it’s a public safety issue. He noted his understanding that the park maintenance may take more time.

Mr. Cappello commented that he doesn’t think parking or lighting is an issue in this location, currently.

Mrs. Griffin commented that she would like to see the owner submit a plan for lights to take care of this issue as soon as possible.

Mr. Kushner suggested that the Commission could require that the broken fixtures be replaced with temporary fixtures, even though the exact fixtures are no longer available. He added that repair could be required before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.

Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App. #4633 subject to the following conditions:

1. Any/all parking lights in disrepair shall be repaired/replaced before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new business is issued.

The applicant, within 30 days, shall prepare a long-term action plan to address both parking lot lighting and maintenance of the public park. This plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval by the Commission.
A minor parking waiver/reduced rate of parking is granted in connection with the applicant’s representation/proposal for a Class I yogurt restaurant with seating capacity for less than 20 to occupy the former “Willows” flower shop space. The Zoning Regulations require a higher rate of parking for shopping centers where more than 25% of the uses are from restaurant and/or /food service uses. (The applicant represents that the parking calculation is 22% for current restaurants in the plaza, namely The Grist Mill and Brueggers Bagels; the parking calculation is 26% including the seasonal use of the rooftop patio. When using this latter calculation, a slight reduction of 1% is required.)

The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.

NEW APPLICATIONS

App. #4627 - Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, Educational Playcare, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct playground in parking lot, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124 in a CP-B Zone

Present to represent this application were David Whitney, PE, representing the applicant and owner; and Gary Pastor and Jane Porterfield, Educational Playcare.

Mr. Whitney explained that Educational Playcare has been located in Riverdale Farms for 27 years and is licensed for 325 children. He noted that last fall Educational Playcare received approval to occupy Building #19 (relocating from another building in Riverdale Farms), located to the rear of the shopping complex and adjacent to Avon Meadow. There was no expansion of the total number of children. He noted that there is a requirement for 75 square feet of playground area for every child. The proposal is to construct a playground in the parking lot located in front of Building #19.

Mr. Whitney displayed a site plan showing the proposed 4,000-square-foot playground. He noted that white PVC fences, 4 feet in height, would surround the perimeter; interior fences would be 3 feet in height with gates in between 5 separate play areas. Three permanent canopies are proposed and the surface is a rubberized material that is soft and yielding; the material is poured right onto the existing asphalt pavement and solidifies into place for a surface that is about 2 inches thick. The surface is porous; water will drain off and through it; an excellent surface for a playground. He explained that there are presently about 13 parking spaces in the area where the playground is proposed; the playground will not keep vehicles from being able to travel completely around the building. Mr. Whitney noted that neither the Fire Marshal nor the Traffic Authority have any objections.

Mr. Whitney addressed parking and noted that employees for Educational Playcare park to the rear of the Riverdale Farms complex; parents drop off their children in the morning and are, typically, on site for less than 5 minutes. He added that the loss of the parking spaces for the proposed playground really has no effect on the operation, as there is very little traffic coming and going during the day. He further added that the loss of parking is temporary such that if/when there is a change in tenant (Educational Playcare has a long-term lease but may someday leave Riverdale Farms) the playground can be removed and the parking area restored. There are plenty of available parking spaces for the chiropractor’s office, located in the same building on the north end. In response to Mrs. Griffin’s concerns about available parking locations for the chiropractic office, Mr. Whitney reviewed the traffic patterns for the entire shopping complex. He noted that Avon Meadow Lane serves as a major driveway into both Avon Meadow and that end of Riverdale Farms. He explained that patients can enter Riverdale Farms via Avon Meadow and drive up to the chiropractic office as they do currently; no change in traffic pattern is needed because of the proposed playground.

Mr. Whitney explained that Town Staff, initially, had concerns that the playground was going to be in the middle of a major thoroughfare; he confirmed that the playground area is out of the way and not in the middle of a major thoroughfare.

Mrs. Griffin noted that she drove through the area today and commented that she feels it is unsightly; there are big plastic barriers. She commented that she assumes that this is the same area that used to have 2 basketball courts and taped off with yellow tape.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comments, Mr. Whitney noted that he doesn’t believe the subject playground area is the same area that was used for basketball courts.

Gerald Pastor, Educational Playcare, explained that there are basketball hoops and yellow barricades in front of Building #10 (barn-like building for school-age program); he clarified that the proposed playground area is not the same location.

Mrs. Griffin responded that parking spaces have been taken away in front of Building #10 as well. Jane Porterfield, Educational Playcare, explained that the barriers in front of Building #10 are temporary and come back and forth. Mr. Pastor noted that the barriers are only put up when the children are outside. Mrs. Griffin indicated that there were no kids outside when she was there and the barriers were up.

Ms. Porterfield noted that the barriers are only put out in the afternoon. Mrs. Griffin commented that there is also an area where there’s a playground that goes right up to the driveway with a walkway across where it looks like kids must cross at different times. She indicated that it seems like there are pieces all over and added that she didn’t realize that things were going to be so broken up when the Commission was approving this use for different areas in this complex. She noted that the operation should be consolidated somehow and play areas should be constructed in the back of the building. Riverdale Farms is in a commercial park zone with commercial buildings and uses and also has kids going from one building to another with yellow plastic barriers and fences. Mrs. Griffin noted that the site is not what she envisioned as a commercial park area and added that she doesn’t feel that the proposed playground belongs in the front of the building taking up parking spots.

Mr. Starr explained that all the things that are there today, with the exception of the proposed playground, were previously approved by the Commission at various times.

Mrs. Griffin acknowledged the Commission’s past approvals but added that she didn’t realize what it looks like.

Mr. Starr commented that the business is a large operation and added that it would be nice if they were all in one building or in buildings that are interconnected.

Mrs. Griffin recommended that the goal should be to get the whole operation in one area, instead of the current piece-meal setup.

Mr. Starr noted that the rear of the building drops off dramatically into the floodplain

Mr. Whitney explained that there is a “walk out” to the rear of Building #19; the rear is 8 feet lower in elevation. He further explained that alternative locations were investigated and noted that vehicles travel back and forth to the maintenance barn on the south side of the building, so that area could not be blocked. The north side where the doctor’s office is located is 8 feet lower in elevation; he pointed out that the field that is visible behind the building is not part of Riverdale Farms, so there is no room to the rear. He added that the playground is requested in the proposed location so that children do not have to travel across the parking lot to reach another playground location; the children in Building #19 are toddlers and infants. Mr. Whitney further explained that if this playground was being designed in conjunction with the construction of a new building, the playground location would be in the front of the building. He noted that vehicles can still get all around the building for fire and circulation purposes. Two parking spaces to the north of the playground have been eliminated and a grassed-end island proposed, at the Town’s request. The playground will be surrounded by green space and be more permanent than other areas now utilized in the complex.

In response to Mr. Starr’s question about the Fire Marshal’s requirements, Mr. Whitney submitted a sketch to the Commission that proposes bollards along the west side. He noted that the Fire Marshal indicated that the bollards are acceptable but noted that he (Fire Marshal) would not object to a guard rail, trees, or a taller berm, in connection with safety structures that get installed on the south, west, and north sides. Mr. Whitney concluded by noting that the purpose of a bollard is to stop a vehicle.

Mr. Bonner noted that stopping vehicles is critical.

Ms. Keith commented that she would like to see signage at the entrance to the parking spaces that would go to the playground and the doctor’s office; signage that says “no exit” or “no thru traffic” to alert motorists.

Mr. Kushner commented that a white fence will completely enclose the area.

In response to Ms. Keith’s request, Mr. Whitney confirmed that a 4-foot-high white fence is proposed but noted that adding signage seems reasonable. He added that signage is proposed for parking for the doctor’s office and parent drop off areas.

Mr. Whitney noted that the owner is agreeable to reconstructing the parking lot should Educational Playcare be replaced by a new tenant; a note will be added to the plans.

Mr. Kushner communicated that the nature of daycare seems to be changing such that daycare businesses appear to now be seeking out commercial retail locations. He noted that although complexes such as Riverdale Farms were not built for daycare centers (with playscapes and small children) he believes that daycare businesses are now seeking out these types of locations because they think the parents are looking for convenience. Parents want a location with a traffic light so they can get in and out quickly and then get to work. He explained that there are now approximately 290 children at Educational Playcare; it’s a large operation. He suggested that as part of a long-term plan that the owners could consider consolidating Educational Playcare, as other tenant spaces become available.

Mrs. Griffin commented that there needs to be safe areas for children and not pieces here and there with vehicles moving in between.

Mr. Gackstatter requested that extra grass be added on the south side to create a more welcoming front yard. He also suggested/requested a speed bump to the south between the 2 islands.

Ms. Ryan suggested that a speed bump could also be added near the maintenance shed as well; a speed bump on either side.

Mr. Gackstatter noted he’s not opposed to 2 speed bumps, as there are kids around.

Mr. Whitney pointed out that other than the maintenance workers, parents of daycare children, and patients of the chiropractor’s office there is really no one else driving through this area.

Mr. Bonner commented that he feels it would be wise to have signs up on poles that say, for example, “caution-children at play” and “drive slow”; signs similar to the ones posted for school areas that are simple to do. Mr. Whitney noted his agreement and added that while no such signs are proposed at this point, he feels it is reasonable.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Whitney noted that the child drop off area is on the south side of the building. She noted that the parents park and bring the children in to the building. Mr. Whitney concurred. Mr. Kushner noted that Building #19 is for infants and toddlers only.

In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question regarding the possible installation of grass on the south side, Mr. Whitney explained that the area in question is on an incline and noted that it doesn’t seem like an area where anybody would be driving in that direction or an appropriate area for grass. Mr. Starr, Mr. Cappello, and Ms. Keith commented that they feel a couple of large planters would work just as well and they would be portable. Mr. Whitney and Mr. Gackstatter concurred.

Ms. Keith requested that the applicant please remember in the future to seek any necessary approvals/permits before initiating any work. Mr. Whitney indicated that there was some miscommunication between the owner, applicants, and the contractor and added that work was stopped immediately once it was discovered that an approval was needed.

Mrs. Griffin commented that she hopes that all the Commission members have driven through the area before they make a motion.

Mr. Gackstatter motioned to approve App. #4627 subject to the following conditions:

Bollards and trees shall be added on the west side of the playground, as illustrated in a drawing prepared by David Whitney, PE, entitled “Sketch 9-10-12 Scale 1”= 20 feet”.
Grassed end-islands shall be installed on the north side, as illustrated in the drawing noted in Condition #1.
Bollards shall be installed on the south side and 2 large planters located there to discourage vehicles from parking in this area.
The owner shall be required to remove the playground and return the area to a parking lot (as previously approved) if/when there is a change in tenant for this location.
Within 30 days the applicant shall provide engineered, detailed drawings as well as a narrative describing the operation of all other outdoor play areas in the Riverdale Farms complex for review by the Commission.

The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received approval from Messrs. Gackstatter, Bonner, Starr, and Cappello and Ms. Keith. Voting in opposition of approval were Mesdames Griffin and Ryan.

App. #4629 - Norwich Commercial Group, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for minor modifications to parking and landscaping, 38 Security Drive, Parcel 3900038 in an IP Zone

Present to represent this application was Wesley Horbatuck, owner.

Mr. Horbatuck explained that site plan modifications are proposed for the subject building, which was recently purchased by Norwich Commercial Group. He noted that the building is in the process of being updated so the business can be moved from its current location (on Simsbury Road) to this building. He indicated that a land berm has been installed in the parking lot to change the traffic flow and direct visitors to the correct parking area; he noted that the previous tenant did not have much visitor traffic but his business will. He explained that a significant amount of trees have been cleared out to open up the building; he added that it was lucky that the building was not hit with any trees during last year’s October storm.

Mr. Horbatuck addressed Staff Comments and explained that some trees have been cleared on the east side of the parking lot and confirmed/verified that the “B” Bufferyard requirement in that area has been maintained. He noted that he walked the property and took measurements. He explained that the parking lot in this area is pretty beat up but noted that the intention is to pave the front half over the next 2 months; this includes the drive-up area. He submitted a highlighted plan to the Commission. The back portion of the lot will remain unpaved through the winter which allows dumpsters to be placed there without damaging the pavement and a place to park contractors’ trucks. Mr. Horbatuck indicated that the back portion will be paved next spring (2013). He commented that he has talked with the Fire Marshal about the berm placement in connection with traffic flow for fire-fighting equipment; he added that, currently, 30-yard dumpster trucks, as well as all the contractor trucks, can get around this area with no problem. He indicated that because the area all around the building has been opened up significantly, there is greater access around the entire building for fire fighting. Mr. Horbatuck confirmed that a key for a knox box will be provided.

Ms. Keith noted that she has visited the site and seen the tree cutting that has taken place.

Mr. Kushner explained that he met with Mr. Horbatuck prior to the tree cutting and acknowledged that he thought the cutting was going to be more limited. He noted that a reputable tree contractor was hired and the result was a more aggressive cutting that was agreed upon by both the owner and the tree contractor. He explained that it is his understanding that the large concrete retaining wall that exists along the easterly slope (built sometime in the 1970s) was added as a way to preserve trees and offer a buffer to nearby residential homes on Old Farms Road. Mr. Kushner noted that Mr. Horbatuck is a licensed engineer and has stated that he (Mr. Horbatuck) has walked the property and confirmed that the “B” Bufferyard still exists. Mr. Kushner suggested that, as a condition if an approval is granted, the Staff walk the property with the owner to verify that the “B” Bufferyard is indeed intact. He added that if this information cannot be verified by Staff, the owners would be responsible to hire a surveyor to stake the line and, if necessary, a supplemental planting program would be required.

In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that no complaints have been received from any of the nearby homeowners.

Ms. Keith asked if some pine trees could be planted as a good neighbor gesture. Mr. Horbatuck indicated that he doesn’t have a problem planting a few trees in that area but noted that it will take 30 years for the area to grow up. He noted his agreement with Mr. Kushner that he would be happy to walk the property with Town Staff.

Mr. Kushner pointed out that the area was cleared but the stumps were not removed so the stumps will sprout and grow and in 5 to10 years there will be substantial growth again.

Ms. Keith noted her agreement.

Mr. Horbatuck stated that the entire area in front of the building will be hydroseeded and added that plants will be added in all the areas where there is a change of elevation.

Mr. Kushner suggested that the Commission also recognize, if an approval is being considered, the applicant’s representation of a two-phased approach for the parking lot plan. Mr. Horbatuck confirmed that the area of the parking lot that will be used will be restriped and all the handicapped spaces marked after the paving is done. He added that he is committed to refurbishing the remainder of the parking area at some point in the future.

Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App. #4629 subject to the following conditions:

The owner shall walk the site with Town Staff to review the limits of tree clearing and to confirm that the required “B” Bufferyard still exists. If Town Staff cannot determine that the “B” Bufferyard requirements have been satisfied, the owner shall hire a surveyor to locate the lines and verify whether or not the “B” Bufferyard is intact. If necessary, a supplemental planting plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the Director of Planning and the Commission.
The parking lot plan shall be implemented in accordance with representations from the owner. The front portion of the lot shall be repaved, restriped, and all handicapped spaces marked within the next 2 months. The rear portion of the lot shall be repaved, restriped, and all handicapped spaces marked in the spring of 2013.

The motion seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.

App. #4631 - Golf Club of Avon, Sarah Rubinfeld, Steven and Barbara Kulikowski, owners, JZMAR LLC and Golf Club of Avon, applicants, 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. #4632 - Golf Club of Avon, Sarah Rubinfeld, Steven and Barbara Kulikowski, owners, JZMAR LLC and the Golf Club of Avon, applicants, 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. Starr reported that the subject applications are an unusual request. The Commission has been advised by counsel that the Commission will make their decision based upon the written materials submitted with these applications. He explained that no verbal comments from either the applicant or the audience are permitted. He further explained that the Commission must decide whether to accept these 2 applications into the process and schedule a public hearing. Mr. Starr commented that he feels it has been demonstrated, or at least alleged, in the letter from the Golf Club of Avon that there is information that the Commission did not know about; specifically, that the proceeds from the sale were to be used to purchase a house on Country Club Road that is located next to the maintenance area and that would be incorporated into the country club property. Mr. Starr added that he doesn’t know whether this would make a difference but noted that it is information that the Commission did not have before. He indicated that, in his opinion, this information is enough to warrant a review of the subject applications. He pointed out that the Commission can also request to see an overall plan of what the entire parcel looks like today, similar to what the Commission asks for from developers in connection with a phased development. He explained that, in this instance, a phased development is not proposed but a plan could be requested to show where the active golf course exists; where the maintenance and support facilities exist; and where there may be excess land pieces, similar to the parcel that is currently being requested to be rezoned.

Mr. Starr concluded by noting that he feels this type of information, if submitted with an application, would be valuable.

Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels it makes a significant difference that an appeal has been filed and the legal procedures have not reached their conclusion.

Mr. Gackstatter indicated that none of the statements/issues put in the letter (i.e., the additional information put forth), were in his mind when he made the decision to vote in the negative to approve the zoning plan. He noted that, particularly, what the proceeds are used for or what’s happening on another part of the property had nothing to do with why he turned down the zoning. He indicated that his decision was made based on what the applicants said. Mr. Gackstatter communicated that he was in the affirmative until the applicant spoke up and said exactly what he was doing and the process he was going through and why he was doing it and that he was actually trying to maintain the integrity of the golf course whole. Mr. Gackstatter noted that he saw that as, if you are going to try to maintain the zoning of the land as open space by the design of the course then you should keep it as that. He concluded by noting that he doesn’t see any new information in the documents presented to add to that and noted that he feels we should just let it run its course. Mr. Gackstatter stated that he is not for revisiting the application at this time.

Mr. Cappello commented that he doesn’t feel the Commission would be revisiting; it’s a new application. He acknowledged

Mr. Gackstatter’s comments and asked Mr. Gackstatter if he would feel differently if the applicant had proposed houses on the actual golf course.

Mr. Gackstatter responded to Mr. Cappello’s question by noting that he doesn’t really think this is the time to get into that but added that the plan, as presented, contained adequate information about what the applicant proposed to do and, given that information, made him vote in the negative. He added that if they had presented a different plan then he would have voted differently. He commented that it is his understanding that the same plan is coming back again in a short amount of time; he noted that he feels it would be better for them to have the time to go out and put in a more thoughtful plan and then actually look at that plan but to revisit the same plan again, or very similar plan, seems like a lot of effort and a lot of money on everybody’s part and asked why we should do that.

Mr. Cappello noted his understanding of Mr. Gackstatter’s comments and communicated that his (Gackstatter) thought process is such that if a plan came in with houses on the golf course, it’s still a zoning change from ROS to residential, regardless of how they presented it.

Mr. Gackstatter reiterated that he doesn’t want to debate the whole thing but added that his main point is that the extra documents provided do not give him any pause to consider something else, as none of those things were the driver of his decision and his decision stands based on the information that was given. Mr. Gackstatter commented that if there is new information from a new plan that is well thought out then it should be entertained but noted that he doesn’t feel the same plan should be looked at again within a couple of weeks or months.

Mr. Starr explained that if the Commission decides to accept the new applications, the Commission can request additional information at the public hearing if deemed necessary.

Mr. Starr motioned to accept the applicant’s request to schedule a public hearing for Apps. #4631 and #4632; each member voted individually.

Ms. Ryan voted in opposition of the motion.

Mr. Gackstatter voted in opposition of the motion.

Mrs. Griffin voted in opposition of the motion.

Ms. Keith voted in opposition of the motion.

Mr. Starr voted in favor of his motion.

Mr. Cappello voted in favor of the motion.

Mr. Bonner voted in favor of the motion.

Mr. Starr announced that the vote is 4/3 and Apps. #4631 and #4632 are not accepted by the Commission.

OTHER BUSINESS

Review proposed changes/clarifications to Chapter 5, Open Space – 2006 POCD

Mr. Kushner explained that he has proposed some changes/clarifications to Chapter 5, Open Spaces. He noted that he has talked with Town Attorney Michael Zizka about the permanent/semi-permanent nature of certain open space assets (i.e., Town-owned, privately owned) and explained that Attorney Zizka cautions the Town against using the word “permanent” anywhere in Chapter 5 because, from a legal perspective, no open space is permanent. Mr. Kushner commented that while, certainly, some open space is more permanent than others, the most permanent condition is likely open space that is owned publicly by the State or the Town; the Avon Land Trust is a non-profit organization. He explained that, additionally, some property is deed restricted, meaning there is language in the deed that says the property has to be protected as open space; however, Attorney Zizka pointed out that even in this instance, there are ways to release, for example, the Town from deed restrictions. Mr. Kushner commented that this doesn’t happen on a regular basis and is certainly not the Town’s goal to do but explained that things come up where the Town has had to do this and pointed out that Fisher Meadows is a good example. He provided history noting that Fisher Meadows was purchased, in part, with funds acquired via the National Park Service as a deed in favor of the Federal Government; the property is deed restricted. There have been a couple of instances where the Town has wanted to do things with Fisher Meadows; not build houses or high rise buildings but build certain structures that would otherwise be prohibited. In order to get permission from the National Park Service the Town must find another open space asset (located elsewhere in Town) buy it, secure the rights, and then go through a conversion process where another property that has been determined to be of equal value is substituted for the property that is being requested to be released from a deed restriction. He noted that it is his understanding that when the Unionville Water Company sold the 250-acre Huckleberry Hill Open Space to the Town in the 1970s (sold to the Town when it was watershed land that helped protect the drinking water supply – now Countryside Park) it was sold at fair market value and the Town used local tax dollars to purchase it; there were no deed restrictions at the time of sale.

Mr. Kushner explained that approximately 10 years ago the Town Council and the Board of Education asked him and the Town Engineer to take a look at Town assets to see where 20 to 30 acres of Town-owned land could be found in the event that Avon needs another elementary school. The Huckleberry Hill Open Space and the Found Land were identified and both these sites were marked and walked by the Town Council. He communicated his point that the average person knows that the Huckleberry Hill Open Space is Town-owned with trail systems and is promoted for recreational use so it is natural to make the assumption that it is permanently protected. He explained that this site is really protected via policy of the Town Council, as the Council is in charge of how this property is ultimately used or disposed of. He reiterated that while there is a great likelihood that the Huckleberry Hill Open Space will be preserved as open space, there is always the possibility that this could change.

Mr. Kushner addressed how open land is characterized; for example, the two golf courses in Town (Blue Fox Run, formerly Bel Compo, and the Golf Club of Avon). He noted that these properties, while open space assets, are privately owned; there is no government interest in these properties at all. He noted that while both these sites are great assets and contribute substantially to the community and the owners have to comply with all Federal State, and Town rules and regulations, the land is not deed restricted. Mr. Kushner indicated that he remembers it being difficult to properly characterize open space assets while preparing the 2006 update to the Plan of Conservation and Development; it’s a tricky problem. He concluded by noting that the proposed changes to Chapter 5 are an attempt to point out differences/add clarifications with respect to open space assets

Mr. Kushner addressed the ROS (recreation open space) Zone and noted that it does sort of imply to non-planning individuals that there is a certain amount of protection that accompanies it. The ROS Zone is very restrictive in nature and limits uses to golf courses and recreational uses, both private and public. The EL (educational land) Zone limits uses to private and public schools and the A (agricultural) Zone is for farming activities. He explained that all these zones originated from a zone known as RL (reserved land), which was created in the 1970s to serve as a type of holding zone. He indicated that property owners are allowed to apply for zone change requests, as there is no prohibition against it, but that doesn’t mean that the Commission is obligated to grant/approve the change. Mr. Kushner concluded by explaining that, as an example, Old Farms School, who own hundreds of acres of land that is not deed restricted or prohibited in that way, could, at any time, submit a zone change application to request a change of zone.

Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels the 2006 Plan should clearly state what is deed restricted land and what is not deed restricted. He noted that he remembers a statement going around when the Plan was being updated in 2005 that, basically, 17% of Avon was open space. He commented that if you looked at the land that was deed restricted, the number is way below 17% but added that 17% gets brought up all the time. He noted that if you look at deed-restricted open space, it’s less than 3%. He commented that the Plan should really identify true deed restricted space at 3-4%. There is recreational space that is maybe 12-13% but reiterated that he feels these words need to be put into this document to make it clearer. He stated that 70 acres of land owned by the Avon Land Trust are permanently protected open space by its charter and why it’s formed. There is also land owned by the Land Trust, beyond those 70 acres, that is not deed restricted that the Land Trust owns to sell; the information should be clear.

Mr. Kushner noted that some of the property that the Avon Land Trust owns is similar to the Huckleberry Hill Open Space.

Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels that some of the zoning designations need to be changed or somehow clearly point out that there is deeded open space and there is recreational space.

In response to a discussion about privately-owned vs. publicly-owned open space, Mr. Kushner explained that individuals cannot walk on property owned by the Golf Club of Avon unless they are members; it is privately-owned land. He addressed a master plan prepared in the 1990s and explained that, at that time, there was a serious discussion about building a foot bridge to cross Chidsey Brook to access the large open space area (owned by the Town) located behind Avon High School. There were a number of homeowners in the area who voiced their opposition to the foot bridge. Mr. Kushner explained that these residents explained that when they bought their homes the realtor told them that this area is an open space asset owned by the Town. He pointed out that this is a perfect example of a Town-owned property that doesn’t show up on any open space inventory and just happens to be property owned by the Town located adjacent to the High School. It’s not a park area and there are no trails but the area has been used by the cross country team to jog along the Brook to reach Scoville Road. Mr. Kushner explained that he is certainly not faulting the public, as their assumptions are natural; the area is wooded and owned by the Town so, therefore, it must be protected open space. He further explained that sometimes the Town buys land for other purposes and noted that the Town-owned land on Scoville Road that was purchased 40 years ago was used temporarily as a park and community garden but this land was eventually turned into Pine Grove School.

Mr. Starr noted that the Town-owned M.H, Rhodes property, located on Thompson Road, is a good example of this same scenario.

Mr. Kushner concurred.

Mrs. Griffin noted that, years ago, the open area behind Avon High School was used as a Girl Scout camp and there was a bridge across the Brook and there were trails through it.

Mr. Kushner addressed the proposed revisions to Chapter 5 and what language would be the best for clarity purposes and explained that the Town Attorney points out that while deed restricted open space makes it much less likely that that condition would change, it’s not without precedent and it is possible to change it. He explained that using the word “permanent” is incorrect but added that to say that there is a great likelihood that it’s protected and it’s reasonable to make that conclusion appears to be ok. Mr. Kushner concluded by noting that he understands the language changes the Commission is looking for and will work on it for the next meeting.

Ms. Keith commented that she feels some of the open space information should include an “*” with additional language that explains that although unlikely, there is the possibility that a status change could occur in the future.

Mr. Gackstatter suggested a statement for Chapter 5 such as, “The Town of Avon has 17% recreational open space land, of which 5% is deeded open space”. He added that this type of general statement, using the correct actual numbers/percentages, may offer clarity to prospective home buyers.

Mr. Starr further noted that the open space fee requirement currently shows as 5% and should be changed to 10%. Mr. Kushner concurred.

Review and Comment on 2013-2018 State Plan of Conservation and Development

Mr. Kushner reviewed the 2013-2018, DRAFT State Plan and explained that this document is equivalent to the Town’s local Plan of Conservation and Development. The State Plan is updated every 5 years and has recently taken on some new importance. The State uses this Plan to review applications received from Towns for various State grants to ensure that the Town’s project is consistent with the recommendations contained in the Plan. If, for example, a Town is looking for funds to purchase open space or to extend some type of infrastructure and there’s a State program to help fund it, this Plan will be referred to. Mr. Kushner addressed his DRAFT comments to the Town Manager, dated August 30, 2012, noting that the State’s Plan incorrectly shows large parcels of land owned by Avon Old Farms School as preserved open space when it should be shown as privately-owned, undeveloped property. He also noted that for the past 40 years or so the Town, via comprehensive planning efforts going as far back as 1968, has recommended the relocation of Old Farms Road. The Town has been struggling for approximately the last 20 years with a project to rebuild the road. Mr. Kushner explained that Tom Daukas (former Town Engineer and employed with the Town since 1971), has significant background and, although officially retired, continues to work at the Town part time on a consulting basis solely to manage this project. Mr. Kushner noted that it is his understanding that the Board of Directors at Avon Old Farms School supports this project, as relocating the road would provide the School an opportunity to expand their campus and have all of their facilities located on the north side of the relocated road. He noted that the Town wants the State to recognize this project in their Plan, as over $1M has been invested (mostly with Federal and State funds) in studies that investigate various alternatives and environmental impacts. The project has been divided into 2 parts; Part “A” is the bridge replacement over the Farmington River and the State has said that this item will go forward. The State has taken over this project and the State will fund it and the bridge replacement will be tied into the State improvements to be done at the UConn Health Center. Mr. Kushner reported that progress, although not as much, is also being made with the Old Farms Road realignment project. He stated that the Town wants to ensure that the information regarding this long-standing project is correctly reflected in the State’s Plan.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the new bridge will be located to the north of the existing bridge and the old bridge will be going away.

Mr. Kushner explained that the State’s Plan has different categories for land (i.e., high priority for preservation or high priority for development) and different criteria is used to make determinations. For example, if a large piece of unfragmented open space exists, more than 250 acres in size, the State says that that land area would be a good candidate for open space preservation because, just due to the shear size, the land is bound to have some natural assets/resources. If land has access to a sewer line or is part of the Town’s Master Sewer Facilities Plan the land is shown on the State’s Plan as being desirable for development. If land is conflicted (i.e., the land has assets both good for development and worthy of preservation) it is shown in the hybrid zone. He addressed the large land areas owned by Avon Old Farms School and explained that the Town is recommending that the State’s Plan reflect the land located to the south of the proposed road realignment as high priority for conservation while the land located to the north of the proposed road realignment should be shown as balanced growth. He explained that while Town Staff reviews the State Plan to identify glaring errors, at the same time, the Town is asking the State to write their Plan in a way that gives this Commission and private property owners the maximum flexibility that may be possible under different scenarios.

In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that the State Plan doesn’t show the Governor’s Horse Guard property correctly and added that maybe the Town should ask the State to place this land in a “high priority for preservation” category to ensure that the State doesn’t sell the land.

In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that Sperry Park is one of the items addressed in the Town’s recommendations to the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) and noted that this area is currently shown as priority development and balanced growth but noted that it should be correctly shown as preserved open space. He added that Sperry Park is a Town park that was donated by the Sperry family and a separate board exists that controls the use of the property consistent with the deed.

Mr. Kushner addressed the 100-year floodplain and noted that the area along the Farmington River is a no-build area. He explained that some of these areas are somewhat conflicted due to the fact that they are currently shown as both worthy of preservation and worthy of development, as some of these areas may be located in the Avon Water Company’s master water extension plan. He noted that the Town is suggesting to the State that if someone owns property along the Farmington River that is located in the 100-year floodplain it should never be developed, as it’s not safe and is prohibited by FEMA and local Zoning Regulations.

Ms. Keith motioned to accept/approve the Town’s recommendations in connection with the update to the 2013-2018 State Plan of Conservation and Development. The motion, seconded Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.

Request for 90-day extension to file mylars for 5-lot subdivision at 173/181 Arch Road App. #4614 Lovely Development

Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve a 90-day extension to file mylars in connection with a 5-lot subdivision at 173/181 Arch Road. The motion, seconded by Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.

There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 10:10pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Sadlon, Clerk

LEGAL NOTICE

TOWN OF AVON

At a meeting held on September 11, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:

App. #4627 - Riverdale Farms LLC, owner, Educational Playcare, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct playground in parking lot, 124 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970124 in a CP-B Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

App. #4629 - Norwich Commercial Group, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for minor modifications to parking and landscaping, 38 Security Drive, Parcel 3900038 in an IP Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

In addition, the following application was withdrawn:

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 WITHDRAWN

Dated at Avon this 12thday of September, 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, October 9, 2012, at 7:30 P.M. at the Avon Town Hall:

App. #4632 - Robert Zappalorti, owner, First Niagara Bank, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 232 West Main Street, Parcel 4540232, in a CR 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 25th

day of September, 2012.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Duane Starr, Chair

Linda Keith, Vice-Chair