Town of Avon, CT Minutes & Agendas Archive

PZC Minutes OCT 9 2012

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on October 9, 2012. Present were Linda Keith, Vice-Chair, Carol Griffin, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, Peter Mahoney, and Alternates Elaine Primeau and Donald Bonner.

Mrs. Primeau and Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent were Duane Starr, Chair, Christian Gackstatter, and Alternate Jenna Ryan. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Zoning Commission.

Ms. Keith called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Cappello motioned to approve the minutes of the September 11, 2012, meeting, as submitted. Mrs. Primeau seconded the motion that received approval from Messrs. Cappello and Bonner and Mesdames Primeau, Keith, and Griffin. Mrs. Clark and Mr. Mahoney abstained, as they had not attended the September 11 meeting but noted that they have read the minutes.

PUBLIC HEARING

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

Ed Ferrigno was present and stated that the open space has been reconfigured at the request of the Commission and revised maps were submitted to the Town.

Mr. Kushner explained that the applicant’s engineer came up with an alternate plan and noted that he believes the changes address the Commission’s concerns; the revised open space plan presents a .5 acre parcel of land to be deeded to the Town. The proposed open space spans 2 other pieces of open space; to the north by remnants of the Huckleberry School property and to the east by the 250-acre Town-owned Huckleberry Hill open space. He further explained that the revised plan provides a nicer open space connection while also preserving a relatively uniform shape to the 2 new lots, which appears to meet the Commission’s objectives.

Mr. Kushner addressed drainage and noted that he has talked to the Town Engineer who indicates that the Town is very much aware of the existing drainage conditions/issues at 160 Huckleberry Hill Road (Carl Dubiel’s property), as they have been ongoing for many years. He explained that the Town Engineering Department notes that there is a significant amount of drainage that comes off of Huckleberry Hill Road and there is a sizable watershed that contributes to it. The Town has an unrestricted right to discharge onto Mr. Dubiel’s property (160 Huckleberry Hill) through a culvert, which has become clogged, in part, over the years due to sediment that washes into the drainage ditch located at 160 Huckleberry Hill Road. Mr. Kushner noted that the Town Engineer has indicated that, as a general rule, the Town does not maintain drainage ditches that are located on private property when the Town has an unrestricted right to discharge. This is a private matter between Mr. Dubiel and the Town but the Town is very much aware of this situation and because this ditch is partially clogged the ditch overflows during certain rainstorms and adds water to Mr. Dubiel’s property. He noted that the Town Engineer further reports that in an earlier version of the plan the applicant was considering constructing a public street on the subject property, which would have provided some additional opportunities to intercept some water coming down and ending up in the drainage ditch but the road would have required an easement from Mr. Dubiel and it is the Town’s understanding that Mr. Dubiel is not interested in granting an easement and he is under no obligation to do so. Mr. Kushner explained that because of the easement issue and the expense of building a road the alternate plan that was developed proposes 2 rear lots that are the subject of tonight’s applications. The new driveway that is proposed to be located closest to Mr. Dubiel’s property (2 new driveways proposed) to the south is designed and graded such that it will intercept some water (not the water coming over Huckleberry Hill Road) that will drain over the 2 proposed lots and direct it via its own swale down towards the wetlands on the Town open space. Mr. Kushner reported that the Town Engineer indicates that there would be a modest improvement to the existing drainage condition at 160 Huckleberry Hill Road as a result of this project and no degradation to the existing condition.

Ms. Keith communicated that she is pleased with the revised boundary lines for the open space; very nicely done.

There being no further comments, the public hearing for Apps. #4625 and #4626 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 was John Stewart, LA, CR3 who announced that the applicant Mr. Ford was not yet present but was expected to arrive shortly.

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

Present to represent this application was John DeTulio, Sign Lite, Inc.

Mr. DeTulio explained that the request is for a free-standing ground sign.

In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that the proposed sign complies with the Regulations and added that many freestanding signs along Route 44 are 24 square feet in size; the proposed sign is 12 square feet and is proposed to be installed in the same location as the freestanding sign for the former tenant, Boston Market.

In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. DeTulio noted that he could suggest to the Bank that plantings be added to the base of the sign.

In response to Messrs. Bonner and Cappello, Mr. DeTulio indicated that the sign would be internally illuminated.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. DeTulio explained that the white, blue, and yellow pattern at the top of the sign is the Bank’s logo.

There being no further comments, the public hearing for App. #4632 was closed.

Ms. Keith temporarily suspended the public hearing to allow the Commission to hear App. #4635, while waiting for Mr. Ford to arrive (App. #4634).

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

NEW APPLICATION

App. #4635 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit lighting at existing tennis courts at Avon Middle School, 375 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520375 in an R40 Zone

Present to represent this application was Glenn Marston, Town of Avon Director of Parks and Recreation.

Mr. Marston explained that the prospect of lighting the tennis courts at the Middle School dates back to 1986. The request was suspended in the Capital Project for the Middle School when the courts began to deteriorate and the Thompson Brook School was built. He noted that lights at Sycamore Hills are out of the question because the neighborhood is very tight there and there isn’t a proper location. He explained that through the efforts of the people sitting here tonight the Middle School courts have been completely renovated, as they were unusable, and are now better courts than the Town has anywhere else. Due to this renovation there is a renewed interest in lighting these courts for a multitude of reasons. He explained that the lighting technology has changed significantly since this item was part of the Capital Project and added that the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this topic periodically. He commented that he feels the time is right to install lights; West Avon Road is a busy street and 16 is the maximum number of people that can play on the courts at any given time. Mr. Marston noted that the lights that were installed at Sperry Park 10 years ago were the highest technology at that time; he added that the whole area around Sperry Park is a very tight neighborhood. He noted that there have been games played at Sperry Park for the past 10 years and there have been no complaints to date. He noted that you only have to go a short distance from the playing surface before you can’t see your shoelaces; the technology that would be used at the Middle School is even better. The court surface gets lit but nothing around it gets lit. He noted that abutting neighbors will be able to see the lights but their front yards will not be affected; there are already more lights on West Avon Road that light up houses to a greater extent than the proposed tennis court lighting ever could. Mr. Marston communicated that he feels the lights are a good idea and it’s the right time but added that he doesn’t know how the lights will be paid for. He noted that the Town doesn’t need more courts, just more playing time after 5pm.

Andrew Dyjak, Musco Lighting, explained that the proposed design is 4 poles, each 50 feet tall, with 3 fixtures on each pole; 12 fixtures light the entire court. He noted that spill and glare are the biggest issues and explained that the new technology called “light structure green” reduces the spill and glare over the previous technology used at Sperry Park. This reduction is achieved via an optometric design; the use of a visor; proper mounting heights; and by the ability to reduce the number of fixtures installed due to their efficiency. He explained that the percentage of light going onto the court went from 20%, in the beginning, but is now over 80%. He noted that the visor is guaranteed for 25 years so it would be replaced for free should it ever fall off. Every fixture is custom built depending on the height needed, the court, and the level of play. The visor captures the light and redirects it onto the playing surface; he noted that most of the light that the players, abutters, and spectators see is the light that is reflected from the ball, and not the actual light coming from the fixture. He stated that the higher the pole height, to a certain extent, the more it helps to decrease spill and glare because the aiming angle of the fixture can be more direct. Mr. Dyjak noted that Musco provides all the lighting for the USTA in Flushing Meadows, NY; approximately 100 courts.

In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Dyjak confirmed that 4 poles with 3 lights each is the setup that would be used at the courts at the Middle School; about 40 foot candles.

In response to Mrs. Clark’s questions, Mr. Dyjak explained that feedback from other towns that have used Musco lighting is pretty good. He noted that many towns in CT have strict zoning requirements and every installation guarantees light on and off the court. All the light adjustments are done in the factory; the fixture is constructed and aimed in the factory. He added that 150-mile-an-hour winds will not move the fixtures and winter weather has no effect but added that if there ever is a problem, Musco fixes it at no charge.

In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Dyjak noted that many installations have been done throughout the State including Avon, Bristol, and West Hartford.

In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions, Mr. Dyjak stated that everything is built in Iowa. The cost would be approximately $4 to $5 an hour to run the whole system.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Dyjak explained that a remote system via cell tower antennas controls when the lights go on and off. The Town would have the ability, for example, for the lights to be on from dusk until 9pm or 10pm; the lights are not actually on but are capable of going on. A push button is installed for anyone to push for the lights to come on for about 45 minutes and then a strobe flashes when 2 minutes are left. If someone touches the button again the lights go on for another 45 minutes but if no one touches it the lights go off. If 10pm is the latest time allowed and someone pushes the button at 10:04pm nothing happens; the lights do not go on.

In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Dyjak explained that in order to light only 2 courts at a time (if there were 4 total) there would need to be additional poles and fixtures which may be cost prohibitive and also increases the light up.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Kushner commented that he doesn’t recall any reference to lighting in the Plan of Conservation and Development. He referenced Mr. Marston’s earlier conversation and noted that he does remember this item being listed for years in the Capital Budget request and further noted that he remembers certain members of the Commission having specific concerns about the impacts on the some of the homes across the street from the tennis courts.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Dyjak explained that he would guess that the distance from the edge of the court to an abutter’s house s approximately 100 to 150 feet and it could be more.

Mr. Marston referenced a sketch he prepared in 1986 and noted that the closest houses to the courts are in excess of 350 to 400 feet; he added that some of the houses are over 500 feet away.

Mrs. Primeau commented that Mr. Marston is talking about the distance to a house and not the property line.

Mr. Bonner and Mr. Cappello noted that the street needs to be discussed. Mr. Bonner commented that the street is the biggest thing, as cars that are going by could be distracted.

Mrs. Primeau commented that she remembers the zoning board constantly taking this item off the board and added that she doesn’t remember whether it was because it was also in the Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Kushner noted that he doesn’t recall.

Ms. Keith communicated to Mr. Marston that she remembers/ believes that the Commission’s recommendation was that this lighting item not be included in the Plan of Conservation and Development.

Mr. Kushner explained that there are a multitude of projects submitted/referred to the Commission from the Town Council and some very significant projects such as bridge replacements, road reconstruction, and construction of new schools. He further explained that, not withstanding these very important projects, he remembers that there were a couple of years where the Commission focused on the subject lighting project, as there were a couple of Commission members that were very interested and/or concerned. He added that he also believes/remembers that it was not a unanimous objection by the Commission, as while some members were concerned there were some that were strong advocates. He reiterated that he doesn’t recall whether any member identified a specific reference to this project in the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) noting a conflict; he added that he doesn’t remember there being any reference in the POCD.

Mrs. Primeau commented that she believes the reference would have been associated with noise more so than with lights.

Mrs. Griffin referenced the sports courts at Sycamore and their proximity to the backyards of the houses on Haynes Road and added that those people are very much disturbed by the noise from those courts. She noted that the language used by some of the players can be particularly disturbing to parents trying to put young children to sleep.

Ms. Keith noted her concerns with possible nighttime parking issues/conflicts and asked if there is a plan such that when the school is active that the courts cannot be used.

Mr. Marston explained that, generally, if evening activities/special events are scheduled at any of the schools, sports schedules/practices are cancelled. He noted that the schedules need to be monitored, as this could be a problem anyway. He explained that the noise and language heard at Sycamore Hills is coming from the basketball court not the tennis courts. He indicated that he isn’t sure that anyone will be able to hear any noise across the street from the tennis courts because West Avon Road is such a busy road; he added that the closest proximity are commercial buildings. He indicated that having anybody out on the playing fields in this area from 3pm to 7pm in daylight is a distraction to drivers. He conveyed his opinion that this entire area is already so busy that he doesn’t feel that anyone is going to notice lights being on.

Mrs. Primeau commented that at 8pm or 9pm there is no one around at this intersection but during the day and during school hours there are plenty of people around. She noted that she has traveled through this intersection many times between 8pm and 11pm and there is no one around.

Ms. Keith asked whether there will be a schedule to use the courts. Mr. Marston explained that it depends on what’s going on; there are 3 or 4 different leagues that utilize a schedule but other than that people can just drive up and use the courts. He noted that it’s generally self policing.

In response to questions/comments from Ms. Keith, Mr. Cappello and Mrs.Griffin about funding for the proposed lights, Mr. Marston noted that the lights at Sperry Park are not funded by the taxpayers; they are paid for by fees and charges that are imposed on the leagues and via registration programs that are paid out of a special revenues fund. He added that he would anticipate that the funding for the proposed lights would be handled in the same manner. He indicated that he doesn’t anticipate that there would ever be large numbers of people wanting to use the courts on a regular basis.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Marston explained that the Town already has 4 tennis leagues that play at Sycamore and Thompson Brook. He noted that a facility use policy exists that identifies all users of all park areas. He explained that, generally, the individuals that use the Town’s facilities are Avon residents.

Mrs. Primeau asked whether the school system has the majority of control as to who uses the courts and what times are permitted. Laura Young, resident of 57 Hitchcock Lane, noted that she is present with Wendy Howard, Louisa Hogan, and Jim Young, who are all volunteers of Avon Community Recreational Neighborhood Inc, who is responsible for fundraising for various projects in Town (i.e., Roaring Brook playground and the high school track) as well as the rebuilding of the tennis courts at the middle school. She noted that at this time private funds in the amount of $25K in a community match grant are available to help pay for the proposed lights; additional fund raising would be done privately. There are signs in place currently at Thompson Brook and the Middle School that restrict the use of the courts during school hours. Lights would allow playing time for working adults and playing hours could be extended throughout the summer when school is not in session.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about times that the tennis team plays at other schools, Ms. Young noted that she is almost certain that the tennis team doesn’t play at night but noted that she could confirm it.

Ms. Keith commented that if lights end up being installed at the Middle School she noted that she would like the tennis team to know that playing at night is not an option. Ms. Young commented that throughout the State there wouldn’t be anyone for the team to play at night but added that the courts would be available to the general public at night. Ms. Keith conveyed her understanding. In response to Mr. Kushner’s request, Ms. Young noted that she spoke informally with some of the neighbors directly across the street from the Middle School; two neighbors were fully supportive; one female neighbor noted it didn’t matter to her; one neighbor noted his support via contact with Bill Stokesbury; one neighbor noted they weren’t the owners; and one neighbor was not able to be contacted.

Mrs. Griffin asked if any of the residents of Country Club Road that back up to the school property were contacted. Ms. Young noted that she wouldn’t know who they are. Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels these homeowners may actually be the most effected. An unidentified speaker commented that it’s all commercial property that backs up to the school and added that the homeowners that Mrs. Griffin is referring to live beyond the school area.

Mrs. Primeau commented that the Commission is also concerned about noise coming from the courts. Ms. Young indicated that she does not know what the planning and zoning procedure is for notifying neighbors, as that’s not her role. Mrs. Griffin commented to Ms. Young that she (Ms. Young) said she talked to the neighbors. Ms. Young reiterated that she talked to the 4 neighbors directly across the street. Mrs. Griffin commented that those are the closest neighbors.

In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Marston noted that one house is 590 feet away and one house is 500 feet away; the houses directly across the street are 450 feet and 460 feet away.

Mrs. Clark communicated to Mr. Marston that she thinks the courts look great and are a nice improvement for the Town.

Mr. Cappello noted his agreement with Mrs. Clark but asked what was going to be done about the courts at Thompson Brook; they don’t look very good. Mr. Marston indicated that the courts were just resurfaced this past summer and added that the courts at Sycamore will be done next.

Mr. Bonner asked for information about light spillage onto West Avon Road and also added, for the record, that he does not want the subject lighting proposal to set any type of precedent for any other fields such as the football field at the High School. He clarified that he’s talking about permanent lighting only and not temporary lights that have worked in the past and been fine with the neighbors.

Mr. Marston conveyed his understanding that while he supports the subject lighting proposal, and supports lighting in general, he confirmed that he is comfortable with a requirement that every proposal/site must be considered on a case by case basis and this proposal will not set any precedents.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s questions/concerns about lighting times and how to ensure that the lights are not being turned on by kids in the area, Mr. Dyjak explained, for example, that the lighting window will be from dusk to 9pm; the lights are not on but are capable of being on if someone hits the button. He further explained that the lighting window is a moving time depending on the time of year (i.e., the lights would not go on in the summertime at 6pm when it doesn’t get dark until 8:30pm). He noted that the button could be located wherever it is deemed to be most convenient/appropriate.

Mr. Kushner recommended that the Commission not get too involved with any details about the operation of the courts, as that would best be left up to the Board of Education. The Commission noted their agreement. In response to Mr. Bonner’s earlier question about light spillage onto West Avon Road, Mr. Dyjak explained that there are anywhere between zero and a maximum of 5.6 foot candles on the road. The average in a parking area is about 2 to 3 and on a road it’s a little more than that. The amount of light on the edge of that road from the actual tennis court is going to be very similar, if not less, than the actual street lighting that is on the road at night anyway.

Ms. Keith communicated that she feels the Commission has enough information.

Albert Leone, Haynes Road, commented that the lighting is not the problem but rather it’s the activities that go on during the night when certain people are trying to sleep. He requested that the Commission keep this in mind and ask if they would want this in their own backyard. He noted that he’s not talking about the tennis courts at the school but about other areas, especially where he lives, like Sycamore Park. He reiterated that there are a lot of people up and down the street that like to sleep. He commented that the daytime activities are enough and added that he doesn’t think we want anything at night. He stressed that it’s not the lighting, it’s the activities. The lighting is secondary.

In response to Wendy Howard’s question, Mr. Dyjak explained that the light timer can be set for anywhere between one minute and an hour.

In response to Ms. Keith’s comment about how late at night the lights should be allowed, Mr. Kushner suggested that the Commission make a strong recommendation about the timing of the lights but added that he feels it is most appropriate for any complaints to be directed to the Board of Education or the Department of Recreation and Parks, because it’s not really a zoning issue but more of an operational issue. Ms. Keith noted her agreement.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Marston explained that the timing of the lights at Sperry Park was done by consensus; the lights go off at 10pm on Friday and Saturday but no double headers are allowed Sunday through Thursday nights, so the lights are turned off earlier. He explained that the courts at the Middle School will be more of an adult activity with far fewer people and 10pm doesn’t seem unreasonable. He added that he has access to a website that covers all the parks in New England and could find out what times are generally considered acceptable and then figure out what would work best for the subject site. Mr. Marston noted that his business is complaint driven.

Mr. Kushner noted that if there were a significant number of complaints received, similar to any other Town-operated facility, these complaints would be addressed by the Department of Recreation and Parks, the Town Council, or the Board of Education. He pointed out that these types of complaints are not really a function of zoning. Mr. Marston noted his agreement.

There were no further comments for App. #4635.

Ms. Keith resumed the public hearing to hear App. #4634.

PUBLIC HEARING

Present to represent this application were John Stewart, LA, CR3 and David Ford, owner.

Mr. Kushner offered background information and noted that Mr. Ford received approval from this Commission in 2010 for an indoor, 4,000-square-foot sports court; the subject application seeks permission to add a small addition for an indoor batting cage. The requested addition is located in the ridgeline protection overlay zone and is also within the 100-foot regulated setback area. He noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) granted approval at their meeting held on October 2, 2012. He noted that the IWC determined that although the wetland system on this site of not of high value they did discuss the application at length and were concerned that work was done without the benefit of a permit.

Ms. Keith communicated that she remembers a very instructive presentation at the last meeting and noted that she feels it’s now a question and answer situation.

Mr. Bonner noted that he feels the Commission asked a lot of questions at the last hearing that were satisfied, outside of the wetland issues.

Mr. Kushner commented that Mr. Stewart’s testimony at the last meeting noted that the area where the addition is going was essentially cleared of trees as part of the earlier construction and there was maybe one tree that had to be cut down.

Mr. Stewart displayed a site plan and pointed out the area that was cleared for the construction of the sports court and noted that the proposed addition is within the cleared area. He noted that there is no need to remove or do anything, as the area has been cleared since 2010. He confirmed that one tree was removed, as it was dying, and was approved by Town Staff. No clearing is needed and the access is already open.

In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Stewart explained that the trees she referred to on the site plan signify existing trees on the site. He added that approximately 100 additional wetland plantings were required by the Wetlands Commission as part of their most recent approval.

In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the current area of disturbance will be regraded and disappear.

There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4634 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

Mrs. Primeau motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Mrs. Clark 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. Cappello noted that he likes the revised shapes of the lots, as they work well with the open space. Mrs. Clark concurred.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s comment/question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that he feels a condition noting that the drainage be implemented as shown on the plans should be imposed. He added that if the culvert discussed as part of this application gets cleaned out it would happen unrelated to this project and be addressed as a separate item.

Mr. Edward Ferrigno asked for clarification that the applicant is being required to comply with the proposed drainage plan. Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Engineering Department has indicated that while the plans, as shown, are an excellent start the final plan for house construction must comply with and satisfy all Town Engineering standards and requirements. Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding.

Mr. Cappello motioned to approve Apps. #4625 and #4626 subject to the following conditions:

The feasibility plan addressing drainage issues shall be implemented as depicted on the plans. A final plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.

2. The required removal of the small portion of the porch located to the north side of the existing house at 140 Huckleberry Hill Road to satisfy side yard requirements shall be completed prior to either the sale/transfer of either of the two new rear lots or prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either of the two new rear lots.

Mrs. Clark seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.

Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve App. #4634. The motion seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received approval from Mesdames Griffin, Primeau, Keith, and Clark and Messrs. Cappello and Bonner. Voting in opposition of approval was Peter Mahoney.

Ms. Keith admonished Mr. Ford with regard to any future activities the need to apply for permits/receive approval from various Town Commissions before any work begins. Mr. Ford noted his understanding.

In response to Mr. Bonner’s question about LED lights, Mr. Kushner explained that there is currently no light standard for internally-illuminated signs but noted that the light intensity should not be such that it creates distractions for motorists. Mr. Kushner noted that the sign representative indicated that the sign background is a dark blue color so it is unlikely that a lot of light would come through.

Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4632 subject to the following conditions:

The light intensity shall be configured such that it does not create a distraction to motorists.

2. Plantings shall be added at the base of the sign.

The motion seconded by Mr. Mahoney received unanimous approval.

App. #4635 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit lighting at existing tennis courts at Avon Middle School, 375 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520375 in an R40 Zone

Mr. Bonner conveyed his concerns about setting a precedent and asked for affirmation that similar requests/proposals would have to come before the Commission on a case by case basis.

Mrs. Clark commented that she thinks every location would be unique.

Ms. Keith commented that she feels Mr. Marston’s earlier comments about Sperry Park provide confirmation of the need for separate approvals for each location.

Mrs. Primeau noted that her concern is more for noise rather than lighting and added that while she doesn’t know how the noise could be controlled she asked that the noise not spill over the property line.

Mr. Cappello commented that he goes to Luke’s every morning and there are people out there playing tennis. He said that tennis people are a different breed, as they are quiet, and added that Mr. Marston indicated that the noise was coming from the basketball court at Sycamore and not the tennis courts. He reiterated that he has never heard anything from the tennis courts at the Middle School and added that it will not be a problem.

Mrs. Primeau noted her understanding of Mr. Cappello’s comments but indicated that she would like some type of a condition relative to noise as reassurance.

Mrs. Griffin commented that she has heard a lot of noise on tennis courts, as it all depends on who is playing. Mr. Cappello noted his agreement but reiterated that he doesn’t think this area will be a problem.

Mrs. Primeau reiterated that she wants some type of assurance relative to noise in the Commission’s approval. She noted that she doesn’t know how to word it (i.e., at the property line) a noise condition but added that she feels part of the Commission’s charge is to protect the neighbors from noise.

Mr. Kushner explained that this is a unique condition, as it involves a Town-owned facility. He further explained that if complaints are received, the Town Council and the Board of Education would have a responsibility to set policies and ground rules. He indicated that the Commission should not feel obligated to take on more of a burden than is needed, as no privately-owned facility is involved. The tennis courts are located on a Town-owned facility and Mr. Marston reports to the Town Manager who reports to the Town Council. Mr. Kushner conveyed his opinion that the Town Manager/Town Council and the Board of Education have a responsibility to come up with an operational system that works for everyone and complaints should be directed to the Board of Education or the Town Council and not the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Ms. Keith commented that while it’s not within the Commission’s perusal to do so, the noise could be adjusted by the timing of the lights. She referenced Mr. Marston’s earlier comments about the possibility of 10pm being the light shut off time and noted that if it gets too noisy that time could be cut back to 9:30pm or 9pm. Ms. Keith commented that the Commission is approving the lighting but noted that the timing of the lights is a decision to be made by

Mr. Marston.

Mr. Kushner commented that Mr. Marston has the expertise in this area.

Mrs. Griffin indicated that she feels 10pm might be too late and noted that she feels 9pm is more sensible, as there could be small children in any of the houses surrounding the courts. She noted that she is more concerned with the two houses on Country Club Road, as those houses were there before the Middle School was built.

Mr. Cappello commented that it could be a recommendation only.

Ms. Keith concurred that the Commission could make a recommendation as part of the motion.

Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4635, without any recommendations. He noted that the money is not in place.

Mrs. Primeau commented that there’s a big question about the money as to whether it’s going to go back to the Town.

Mr. Mahoney noted his agreement with Mrs. Primeau’s comment and added that it may never happen. He indicated that the technology presented is great and the Commission is voting on lighting and not voting on possible noise issues.

Mrs. Griffin commented that she thinks it makes a difference whether it’s the lighting that was presented tonight or whether different lighting could be used because it costs less money.

Mr. Kushner indicated that the Commission is approving the specific plan presented tonight.

Ms. Keith concurred that the Commission is only approving the lighting that was presented tonight.

The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received approval from Messrs Mahoney and Cappello, and Mesdames Clark and Keith. Voting in opposition of approval were Mesdames Primeau and Griffin and Mr. Bonner.

Mrs. Primeau reiterated that she feels a recommendation about noise should be included and noted that she voted in opposition for that reason.

Mrs. Griffin indicated that she feels the Commission should have control.

OTHER BUSINESS

2013 PZC Meeting Schedule

Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve the 2013 Meeting Schedule, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.

Appraisal for 173/181 Arch Road – App. #4614 – Lovley Development

Mr. Kushner reported that the existing house on the site has been demolished and the developer has opted to make a payment in lieu of donating open space; the appraiser is listed on the Commission’s approved appraiser list.

Mrs. Clark motioned to approve/accept the appraisal for 173/181 Arch Road, as submitted.

Mr. Bonner seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.

Appraisal for 359 West Avon Road – App. #4599 – William Deramo

Mr. Kushner explained that the State Statutes say that the appraisal methodology is supposed to include the valuation of the property in question minus any structures that are on the property. He further explained that the pre-approved value must be established, not what the value is the day after the Commission grants approval. The pre-approved value is supposed to be what the market place would pay for the land if someone had to close on the property in advance of an approval by the Commission. Mr. Kushner noted that the subject appraisal falls within the lower end of the dollar range (on a per lot basis) of recently approved appraisals.

In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that he believes the Town of

Simsbury has adopted a regulation that gives developers the option to either have an appraisal prepared or agree to pay a fixed fee. He noted that he would ask the Town Attorney for more information, as he doesn’t believe there is any information in the State Statutes.

Mrs. Clark motioned to approve/accept the appraisal for 359 West Avon Road, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.

Informal Discussion Relating to In-home Fire Sprinklers for Rear Lots

Ms. Keith noted that according to recent information from CRCOG, some towns in Connecticut require rear lots to have in-home sprinkler systems because it may be difficult to get fire equipment to the site.

In response to Ms. Keith’s inquiry about in-home sprinklers, Mr. Kushner noted that the Fire Marshal (and former long-time Fire Chief) has indicated that having sprinklers in homes, especially in certain situations (i.e., rear lots) is a great asset as it helps protect life. He explained that while the Town could possibly adopt such an ordinance to address this issue, State Building and Fire Codes do not require sprinklers for single-family residential construction, although some individuals in the fire service business might advocate for sprinklers because they’ve seen horrible things occur. He commented that the government’s role and how much the Town would feel comfortable imposing on the average home buyer are things that would need to be discussed. He indicated that the Town of Windsor currently has such an ordinance and there may be other towns; he noted that he would ask the Fire Marshal. Ms. Keith noted that she has gotten an indication that there is more than one town. Mr. Kushner further noted that the Commission would need to have a discussion about what their role is and also possibly the Town Council would have to be consulted because this issue might best be addressed via a Town Ordinance.

Mrs. Griffin commented that Avon relies on volunteer firemen who don’t have big insurance policies the way other towns do that have paid firefighters.

In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comment, Mr. Cappello explained that Avon firefighters have the same insurance as towns that employ paid firefighters; the Town has their liabilities covered. He noted that the Avon Fire Department goes into plenty of houses and pointed out that people don’t even maintain the batteries in their smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and questioned how homeowners would possibly maintain a complicated sprinkler system. He noted that he doesn’t feel homeowners should be asked to do that.

Mr. Bonner noted that Mr. Cappello’s comments are Mr. Cappello’s opinion.

Ms. Keith commented that she would like Mr. Kushner to look into this item and report back to the Commission. Mr. Kushner noted his understanding.

Request for 90-day extension to file mylars -Phase 3A Weatherstone App. #4304M – Toll Bros.

Mr. Kushner explained that the request for an extension relates to Phase 3A only and noted that Weatherstone Phase 3 was recently divided into 3 subphases (A, B, and C).

Mr. Bonner motioned to approve the request for a 90-day extension to file mylars in connection with Phase 3A of the Weatherstone Subdivision, App. #4304M. The motion, seconded by

Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.

STAFF REPORT

Bicycle and pedestrian planning

Mr. Kushner reported that there is group of Avon residents that have been advocating for improvements for bicyclists and walkers; Chris McCahill, PhD in Transportation Planning, completed a study for the Town at no cost. The study looks at all the roads in Town and certain criteria (i.e., roadway width, pavement width, posted rate of speed, traffic volumes, and marked shoulders) were applied to determine “bike friendliness”. The roads shown in green in the study map represent low volume roads that are thought to be pretty good for bicycles. He noted that most of the local roads shown in green are 26 feet wide, have been built within the last 40 years, and carry relatively modest traffic volumes. Although some of the major roads in Town such as Country Club Road, Arch Road, and Old Farms Road are not very conducive to bike riding there are other ways to arrive at your destination using some of the smaller roads. The Study suggests that the Town consider doing a demonstration project, as there are opportunities in some areas to paint markings on the road along with the addition of signage that would provide education to motorists that the road is shared with cyclists. Mr. Kushner noted that a Bicycle Pedestrian Committee has been formed at the Avon Town Hall and a meeting at the Simsbury Town Hall is planned, as Simsbury has added these markings on several roads. There is no budget for this project so whatever is done will be on a trial basis, at a very low cost, and on a limited number of roads in Town. The aforementioned group of Avon residents is also interested in walkability issues, especially getting children to school. He noted that there is currently a group that walks students to Roaring Brook School. Mr. Kushner concluded that the focus at this point will be on the bicycle lanes and to try to identify the best place in Town to begin.

Mrs. Clark remembered this topic being discussed by the Natural Resources Commission some time ago and noted her support.

Mrs. Primeau commented that the sides of Hollister Road are very wide such that there is room for people to ride bikes or walk; she noted that there is room because no one wanted a sidewalk.

Mr. Bonner commented that there is room on Hollister but noted that it is very windy and people drive fast there.

Mrs. Primeau commented that there would be room to reline Hollister if the Town wished.

Mr. Kushner noted his understanding and said it would be looked at. He added that he feels interest in this subject will grow in the future.

Ms. Keith asked that the roads with “fog lines” be studied to see how well the bicyclists do.

Mr. Kushner noted his understanding and added that the Director of Public Works has indicated that there may be certain roads with while line “shoulder stripes” that may have to be blacked out in favor of the “chevrons” (i.e., carrot-shaped markings identifying a bicycle lane).

Mr. Mahoney stated that the bicycle traffic in Avon has doubled/tripled in the last couple of years because of what Simsbury has done.

Ms. Keith commented that the bicycle traffic on Huckleberry Hill has increased dramatically in the last 40 years because it is used as a short cut.

Mrs. Primeau noted that she has seen bicycle tours/races in large groups on collector roads (i.e., Waterville Road, Lovely Street, and Old Farms Road near Avon Old Farms School) rather than on the back roads.

Mrs. Griffin commented that there isn’t enough room for cars on portions of Old Farms Road and is a bad area for bicyclists.

In response to Mrs. Primeau’s comment, Mr. Kushner noted that the Town is looking into a grant, as there is no budget for this project.

There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 9:21pm

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Sadlon, Clerk

LEGAL NOTICE

TOWN OF AVON

At a meeting held on October 9, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:

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 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

App. #4635 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit lighting at existing tennis courts at Avon Middle School, 375 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520375 in an R40 Zone APPROVED

Dated at Avon this 10thday of October, 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 30, 2012, at 7:30 P.M. at the Avon Town Hall:

App. #4637 - Thomas Hall, owner, Soden Tek, applicant, request for Special Exception under Sections VI.D.3.a.and V.O.5.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant with outdoor dining, 85 East Main Street, Parcel 2140085 in a CS 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 15th day of October, 2012.

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 30, 2012, at 7:30 P.M. at the Avon Town Hall:

App. #4638 - Crusheen LLC, owner, O’Neills Chevrolet, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.2.f.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign larger than 75 square feet,

5 West Main Street, Parcel 4540005, in a CS Zone

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Duane Starr, Chair

Linda Keith, Vice-Chair