The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Company #1 Firehouse, 25 Darling Drive, on Tuesday February 26, 2013. Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Linda Keith, Vice-Chair, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, and Alternates Elaine Primeau and Jenna Ryan. Absent were Carol Griffin, Peter Mahoney, Christian Gackstatter, and Alternate Donald Bonner. Mesdames Primeau and Ryan sat for the meeting. 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
Ms. Keith motioned to approve the January 15, 2013, meeting minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve the January 29, 2013, meeting minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4648 - Donald and Pamela Battiston, owners, Beloved Companions LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit pet family/funeral center, 369 West Main Street, Parcel 4540369 in a CR Zone
Present were Jeffrey Battiston, owner, and David Olson, and Devra Sisitsky, applicants and partners of Beloved Companions, LLC.
Mr. Olson explained that the proposal is for a pet family center to be located in the rear building at 369 West Main Street, behind Battiston Cleaners. He noted that the space would be used for meetings with family members to discuss arrangements but confirmed that no crematory services are proposed on site. Ms. Sisitsky added that there will not be any animal storage on site. Mr. Olson noted that transporting of deceased pets will be part of the business; veterinarians are large clients. He noted that many of the meetings with families would occur in the home and not on site. Mr. Olson explained that there are no processions and no traffic volumes. The business hours will be M-F 9am to 5pm or by appointment. Mr. Olson noted that most meetings with families would be in the
evening, after 5pm, when there are very few cars at the Battiston site.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Olson explained that the trucks used would be van size; no large trucks would be used.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions, Mr. Olson noted that he would be working with a crematory located in West Hartford. He confirmed that no hearses are used.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Olson confirmed that animals that are put down in the home would also be removed from the home. Ms. Sisitsky noted that the animal is normally taken directly to the crematory from the home.
Mr. Starr requested Mr. Battiston to address the outstanding work/improvements at 369 West Main Street, as shown on the approved 2009 site plan.
Mr. Battiston commented that the rear building behind Battiston Cleaners has existed for approximately 30 years. He noted that it was originally built for storage for the dry cleaning operation but indicated that there have been retail tenants in the building for 25 years. He noted that a site plan approval was granted in 2009 to bring the site into compliance, as much as possible; improvements to traffic flow within the site were part of the approval. He noted that a connection between the subject site and 385 West Main (Cosi Restaurant) was included on the 2009 site plan. In the front of the site both paving and the replacement of a culvert were done. He noted that the bad portions of the parking lot located between the front and rear buildings were cut out and the area was repaved.
All the other items required on the 2009 approved site plan (i.e., islands and curb cuts) were held off because no agreement could be reached with the Hoffmans (owners of 385 West Main Street) regarding the connection; the islands and curb cuts were going to be done at the same time the connection was made. He noted that the Town is aware of this situation. He noted that everything was put on hold because it didn’t make sense financially to hire a contractor unless all the items could be done at once. He noted that the Hoffmans have since agreed to the connection (will sign an easement agreement) but further noted that he informed Mr. Kushner last week (before he knew about Hoffman agreeing to connection) that regardless of the status of the connection that he agrees to move forward with the plans, as designed, with the understanding that all the work would be done up to the property line. Mr. Battiston stated that he intends to move forward this
spring to fulfill the requirements of the 2009 approved site plan. He indicated that he will start construction this spring but noted that because the busiest season for Battiston Cleaners is the spring he cannot promise that all of the work will be completed in the spring, as he doesn’t want to interrupt their business. He promised that all the work shown on the approved 2009 site plan will be finished by the end of the summer, if it cannot be completed in the spring. He noted that he will speak with the owner of Battiston Cleaners.
Mr. Starr communicated that Town Staff has expressed concerns that there have been a number of stops and starts on the work at this site. He indicated that if he, individually, were going to approve the subject application he would want to ensure that no permits were issued for any new tenant use of the building until the site plan is completed or a bond could be submitted to the Town.
Mr. Battiston conveyed his understanding of Mr. Starr’s comments and added that his father, Donald Battiston, has indicated his refusal to issue a bond to the Town for any reason noting that he has been a resident of the Town for most of his adult life, owns property, and pays taxes; his word should be good enough and a bond is not going to happen.
Ms. Keith commented that the Town has 4 years worth of promise from someone who is dedicated to his ties to the church and paying taxes.
Mr. Battiston noted that the promises were not fulfilled due to the connection issue, which was beyond his control.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Kushner confirmed that he has spoken with Jeff Battiston and the Hoffman’s attorney on several occasions regarding the connection. He indicated that it is his belief, noting that he believes Mr. Battiston disagrees with him, that with or without the connection to the Hoffman property, all the site improvements shown on the approved 2009 site plan represent a significant improvement to the property; improvement in areas of circulation and significant improvement in parking. He explained that there are a substantial number of parking spaces that need to be constructed to the rear of the back building; a guard rail needs to be installed; and more parking in the back. He noted that parking is very tight right now. He explained that the 2009 site
plan is more than just trying to upgrade the property to meet standard with respect to islands and circulation; the functionality of the property needs improvement. He referenced his Staff Comments, dated February 21, 2013, and noted that the rear building was approved in 1976 for storage and was used for storage but noted that things change over time and the building was put to more practical uses in recent years. Currently there is a landscape contractor and a catering/restaurant business in the rear building and the storage use is no longer. The 2009 site plan approval was a requirement to bring the site into better compliance with the Zoning Regulations and also to serve as an agreement to allow the owner to use the rear building for uses permitted in the CR zone. He added that it is understood that the site cannot comply 100% with modern-day standards. He noted that the connection to the Hoffman property is a bonus and indicated that he feels the
connection will be of particular benefit to the Battiston property, as customers at 369 West Main Street will have access to 385 West Main Street and then, in turn, to Dale Road where there is a traffic light.
Ms. Keith commented that there is a worn path between the 2 sites because people refuse to park at the Battiston site due to the lack of parking and because you can’t get out. Mr. Kushner concurred. Ms. Keith added that she has no idea why either property owner would object to the connection.
Mr. Kushner commented that he has spoken with the Hoffman’s attorney who has indicated that the Hoffmans have agreed to sign an agreement. He noted that he also spoke with Attorney
Bill Severni to let him know about the agreement. Mr. Kushner indicated that there are certain protocols that are followed in connection with posting a bond to guarantee site improvements. In this particular case, the rear building is already occupied with tenants so the Town is trying to bring it into compliance with present day code/zoning requirements. He explained that there is no forgiveness with the Building Code; one cannot make a promise to comply with the Building Code in 4 months or even have an option to post a bond to guarantee to comply in 4 months; you just comply. He noted that the same scenario applies to the Health Code. He indicated that the Zoning Code, however, does appear to possess some forgiveness and noted that while he doesn’t think it’s unreasonable to
wait to the spring or late summer to complete the improvements he added that he feels it is reasonable, under the circumstances, to offer some type of guarantee to the Town that the work will be done. Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with Mr. Starr’s earlier comments such that if there is reluctance to post a bond, an approval for tonight’s application could be considered with a condition that the work be done before a C/O is issued for the proposed pet family center business.
In response to Mr. Battiston’s question regarding bond amount, Mr. Kushner explained that, typically, bids are submitted to the Town Engineering Department for approval; the Town normally accepts the contracted amount which sets the bond amount. Mr. Battiston reiterated that his father refuses to post a bond. He conveyed his understanding that while the use may be approved by the Commission no rent can be collected from the subject applicant until the site work is complete. He stated that the work is going to get done; an approval has been received by the Hoffmans. In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Battiston noted that the only thing he is waiting for is the snow to melt.
In response to Ms. Keith’s concerns, Mr. Battiston clarified that he is going to begin work as soon as equipment can be brought in but added that he cannot promise today that all of the work on the plan will be done this spring, as spring is the busiest season for Battiston Cleaners and he has not yet spoken with the manager about parking arrangements while the work is being performed.
Ms. Keith noted that the parking and sidewalks were renovated recently across the street at Avon Marketplace. She noted that people shopping were inconvenienced with regards to parking but it was done because the owner knew the work needed to be done.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comments, Mr. Battiston explained that the work will be organized and work will begin. He added that the work will be completed in the spring if it can be done without any huge upset to the cleaning business. He reiterated that he cannot make promises before he talks to Battiston Cleaners. He promised that by the end of July and no later than August that everything on the plan will be done.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she feels this application should be tabled until all conversations have taken place and a time table is known; she added that this project has been ongoing for the past 4 years.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels the time table issue could be handled by adding conditions if an approval is granted, such that no Certificates of Occupancy be issued for any new tenants until the work is done or a bond posted.
There being no further comment, the public hearing for App. #4648 was closed.
App. #4649 - Craig and Nancy Nation, owners/applicants, request for 2-lot subdivision modification, 3.43 acres, 71 and 75 Old Wood Road, Parcels 3420071 and 3420075 in an R40 Zone
Present was David Whitney, PE, representing the owners.
Mr. Whitney displayed a site plan map and explained that the 13-lot Old Wood Road Subdivision was approved in 1966, part of the Avonside Subdivision; Section 10 of Stony Corners project. He noted that Craig and Nancy Nation have lived at 75 Old Wood Road for over 40 years; the Nations purchased the vacant lot next door in 1978 (71 Old Wood Road). A barn was constructed on 71 Old Wood Road approximately 45 years ago but currently a one-story house is under construction that the Nations plan to move into. Mr. Whitney noted that there is an existing dirt road that comes off the cul-de-sac and there are 3 driveways at the cul-de-sac (one to Nation’s house, one to Mrs. Weldon’s house, and the dirt road that leads to the barn lot). He noted that the dirt road is shown on the 1966 map.
There is an easement across
75 Old Wood Road for driveway access to 71 Old Wood Road. There are wetlands, streams, and many tall trees in the area. The Nations would like to revise the property lines, as they want to own/control the land along their driveway so that they can control tree cutting. Approximately 8,700 SF would be taken away from 75 Old Wood Road and added to 71 Old Wood Road (new house construction). This lot line revision will allow the driveway to be on land owned by the property served. Mr. Whitney pointed out that nothing is going to change on the site other than the property lines and added that he realizes that the lots are oddly shaped but acknowledged that they always have been. He concluded by noting that from a visual standpoint, everything on the site looks fine and the Nations are
requesting a lot line revision.
Mr. Starr asked whether there is an existing tree line in the area of the proposed property line revision.
Mr. Whitney explained that the area is wooded with the exception of the old wood road. He noted that the Nations would like to keep the trees in the area.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Whitney explained that the proposed driveway is 11 feet wide; the old wood road is approximately 8 to 9 feet wide.
Mr. Starr commented that if the property was vacant there would be issues with the easements but noted that the existing driveway is an easement onto the neighbor’s property. The proposed boundary line revision improves the situation and there is no point in disrupting the wetlands to obtain driveway access from the other direction. Mr. Whitney agreed that it makes no sense to disrupt the wetlands. Mr. Whitney reiterated that nothing is going to change other than a new house constructed in what was previously an open field without trees.
Mrs. Clark commented that the existing trees will screen the new house from the existing house.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Whitney noted that there will be approximately 45 feet of joint/shared driveway.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Whitney indicated that from the edge of the road to the new house is approximately 390 feet.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4649 was closed.
App. #4651 - Avon Business Park, LLC, owner, Cross-Fit Avon, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.H.3.k. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit cross-fit gym, 15 Industrial Drive, Parcel 2870015, in an I Zone
Present were Frank Mairano, owner, and Merle McKenzie, applicant.
Mr. McKenzie, Cross-Fit Avon, LLC, explained that he is a group fitness provider (everyone ages 5 to 80) and would like to bring this service to Avon.
Mr. Starr conveyed his understanding that currently there is no building to accommodate this use and added that the applicant is here to find out if the Commission is comfortable with this use in the Industrial Zone. Mr. McKenzie concurred.
Mr. Mairano, property owner, explained that he received site plan modification recently for the existing building at 15 Industrial Drive; modifications to drainage, parking, and lighting were implemented. He indicated that buildings were “sketched” onto the site plan for 15 Industrial to show the potential for 2 additional buildings, approximately 10,000 SF each.
Mr. Starr stated that he visited the site today and indicated that he noticed how the parking lot extends out from the building, in the area occupied by the Hartford Courant. Mr. Mairano confirmed that the parking lot continues on.
Mr. McKenzie provided photographs of existing gyms he operates in West Hartford, Glastonbury, Durham, and Higganum.
Mr. Starr announced that the public hearing would be kept open to allow time for a site plan application to be submitted.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Mairano offered assurance that there would be enough parking around the 2 additional proposed buildings for the proposed gym use.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Mairano explained that Rails to Trails is his neighbor; it separates his property from anything to the west and is approximately 70-feet wide in that area.
Mr. Kushner noted that the right-of-way is 66 feet wide but the Town only has rights (with the State of CT) to use the centermost 15-foot portion where the trail is paved right now. He added that while, technically, there is no ability to cross between the edge of the right-of-way and the paved trail he further added that it is a good idea and noted that he would look into it.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Mairano stated that there would be 30+ spaces for each of the 2 new proposed buildings; currently there are approximately 60 parking spaces for the existing building. He added that his tenant, the Hartford Courant, only uses their parking spaces from 11:30pm to 3am.
Ms. Keith commented that if extra parking was needed for the proposed new buildings, parking spaces at the existing building could be utilized. Mr. Mairano concurred.
Mr. Starr noted that while he doesn’t hear any opposition from the Commission about the proposed gym use, he added that a decision cannot be granted until a site plan is submitted.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4651 was continued to the next meeting.
Mrs. Clark motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4651 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for March 19. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
App. #4652 - Proposed Amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development pertaining to Chapter 5, Open Space & Recreation; Town of Avon, applicant.
Mr. Kushner addressed the proposed amendment noting that the proposed language changes attempt to clarify what the Commission means when the term “open space” is used. The most significant change is the deletion of the word “permanent”, as the Town Attorney indicates that it is not proper to label any open space as permanent because nothing is permanent. He explained that some open space assets owned by the Town are deed restricted and are that way because the owner/grantor placed a restriction on the deed when it was prepared. He noted that the Town purchased the Fisher Farm with State grant funds and the State required a conservation easement in favor of the State, making it less likely that development could occur. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that even in instances like
Fisher Farm there are opportunities to modify the deed when necessary. (i.e., Avon Water Company drilled drinking water wells at Fisher Meadows). He explained that the Commission’s goals haven’t changed with respect to open space; there are different degrees of protection for open space and that is really the crux of the proposed language changes. Mr. Kushner noted that the Huckleberry Hill Open Space was purchased by the Town in the 1970s without any deed restrictions and without any assistance from the State or Federal government. He added that approximately 10 years ago a 20-acre site was identified on Huckleberry Hill Road (at the end of Northington Drive) and another site at the Found Land for a possible new school location. He noted that open space is difficult to define, as there are so many different types owned by many different entities (i.e., Avon Land Trust, Town of Avon, State of CT, and private open space such as Golf Club of
Avon and Blue Fox Run Golf Course). He concluded by noting that he feels the language modifications are more helpful than the original language used in 2006.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels the language modifications offer a significant improvement.
John Darcangelo, Avon resident, noted his understanding about the different types of open space but asked about specifics about the Golf Club of Avon and the possibility of that entire parcel being developed.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Golf Club of Avon is privately owned and taxes are paid to the Town at a reduced rate, as it is classified as undeveloped property. The Golf Club has the ability as a private property owner to use their land for any purpose that the Regulations permit. He noted that the Golf Club of Avon is located in the ROS (Recreation Open Space) Zone and explained that, to the average person, that designation adds another element of certainty that that property would be much less likely to be developed. He indicated that a request for a zone change from ROS to another zone would be required before any development could take place but added that property owners are allowed to apply for such a zone change. The Town is not permitted to confiscate private property via developing
zoning rules and regulations that are so onerous that it prevents a private individual from making any reasonable economic use of their property; this is what the law states.
In response to Mr. Darcangelo’s questions, Mr. Kushner noted that the Golf Club of Avon has been zoned ROS since 1977 and the golf club has been in existence since 1926. Mr. Darcangelo noted that there are many people who bought homes that back up to the golf country club under the premise that it is open space and won’t be developed. Mr. Kushner explained that anyone considering buying a house that backs up to the golf club with the mindset that there is a 100% guarantee that the land will be preserved as open space is operating under a false assumption; however, he acknowledged that there are certainly greater impediments to permitting development of land zoned ROS. He noted that there are a few remaining farms in Town; the Thompson Farm on Thompson Road is zoned R40 and is beautiful open
space but is privately owned and the owner is paying taxes to the Town. The same scenario exists for the Severni Farm (former Smith apple farm) located on West Avon Road. If these property owners decided to sell their farmland there would be greater certainty that the land could be developed, as it is already zoned for that purpose (R40 residential). Mr. Kushner explained that the Town cannot decide as a matter of law to create a zoning district that permits no reasonable economic return; that is not allowed under State law and is called “taking without just compensation”.
Mr. Darcangelo noted his understanding of open land zoned residential but asked at what point does the Town make a decision that it’s a good idea for the taxpayers to have the country club develop their property rather than use it for recreation purposes such as a park. Mr. Kushner explained that the country club is privately owned and further explained that the Town cannot, in accordance with State law, tell a private property owner that the only use permitted on their property is a park. He reiterated that because the golf club is zoned ROS there are greater impediments/hurdles that would have to be overcome if the owner decided to sell additional portions of that site. Mr. Kushner offered additional information noting that the Town has no knowledge and doesn’t believe that the Golf Club of
Avon has any interest in selling off any additional property now or in the near future. Mr. Kushner concluded by noting that the golf club is privately owned and if the owners chose to ask for a zone change, legally the ability exists via a public hearing process with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Zone changes are not taken lightly but there are opportunities under State law to ask for changes.
Ms. Keith noted that the Golf Club of Avon has testified that they have no interest in selling additional land at this time nor are they looking in the future. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Starr noted that there have been economically failed golf courses all over the country. He clarified that this is not the case with the Golf Club of Avon but added that if it were the case and the owners wanted to liquidate the value of their property, they are a private property owner and could come before the Commission to request changes. He noted that the State has talked a couple of times about possibly “swapping out” the Governor’s Horse Guard property for property located elsewhere to allow development on the Horse Guard site.
Mr. Cappello commented that Farmington Woods has talked about whether to maintain the golf course or consider building more condos.
Mr. Kushner commented that if the Golf Club of Avon property were to be put up for sale at some point in the future, the Town would probably try to acquire it and then there would be a greater certainty with respect to open space protection.
The public hearing for App. #4652 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. #4649 - Craig and Nancy Nation, owners/applicants, request for 2-lot subdivision modification, 3.43 acres, 71 and 75 Old Wood Road, Parcels 3420071 and 3420075 in an R40 Zone
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4649. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4652 - Proposed Amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development pertaining to Chapter 5, Open Space & Recreation; Town of Avon, applicant.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4652. The motion seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval. The effective date of the amendment is March 6, 2013.
App. #4648 - Donald and Pamela Battiston, owners, Beloved Companions LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit
pet family/funeral center, 369 West Main Street, Parcel 4540369 in a CR Zone
Ms. Keith asked, hypothetically, whether a bond could be issued for the portion of the work that may not get completed in the spring. Mr. Kushner explained that this site is a bit unusual in that 80% of the rear building is already occupied with tenants and there is a commitment to make site improvements dating back to 2009. He added, however, that the Town could probably accept a bond for the balance of the work that could not be completed this spring.
Mr. Starr motioned to approve App. #4648 subject to the following condition:
- All site improvements shown on record drawings entitled, “Site Development, 369 West Main Street, Avon, CT, October 20, 2008, revised June 24, 2009, prepared by BSC Group, Glastonbury CT” (PZC App. #4408 approved January 27, 2009) shall be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit or zoning permit for the pet funeral home use or any other new uses or work requiring a zoning or building permit in the rear building. In lieu of the completion of this work, the owner may post a bond in an amount equal to 100% of the cost of this work with a guarantee to complete all work no later than August 31, 2013.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Ryan, received unanimous approval.
NEW APPLICATION
App. #4650 - Town of Avon, owner, Avon Little League, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit new “snack shack” and light poles at Sperry Park, 60 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970060 in an ROS Zone
Present were Glenn Marston, Director of Recreation and Parks, and David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers LLC.
Mr. Marston explained that Little League in Avon is pretty aggressive and involved; the proposal is to light one additional field at Sperry Park. Mr. Whitney clarified that 2 new light poles and 2 new light fixtures on 2 of the existing light poles are proposed. Mr. Marston noted that the proposed changes would also accommodate girls’ softball, which currently takes place all over Town. He noted that no phone calls/complaints about lights, or any conditions, have been received by the Town from the surrounding neighborhood in the 10 years that Sperry Park has been operating. He added that the current proposal would not impact anyone differently than the existing conditions; screening from the road exists.
Mr. Starr noted that no additional fields are being added and no fields are proposed to be relocated but the concession stand is proposed to be relocated. Mr. Marston concurred and addressed the current location of the snack bar “snack shack” and explained that it is proposed to be moved to provide a greater economic advantage to Little League. He noted that he has a few concerns with the proposed location due to proximity to foul balls but added that the current layout plan is still preliminary and clarified that it is not a site plan for approval tonight (i.e., water and sewer lines need to be moved/relocated). He commented that Little League is also considering converting the existing snack bar to permanent bathrooms; he clarified that a new snack bar would be built for the new proposed
location.
In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Whitney explained that the Little League came to him the day before the application deadline and therefore there wasn’t enough time to put all the details on the plans. He noted that he used his drawing/plan for Sperry Park from 2001 and drew on manually the proposed changes. He indicated that a final site plan will be prepared in the next month or so.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Marston explained that the proposed additional light fixtures will be superior to the existing light fixtures, as the technology has changed in 10 years. He pointed out that it really comes down to what the Little League can afford and added that nothing that is proposed is inconsistent with what’s currently going on in the Park now; nothing will be visible from Route 10 that isn’t already visible from Route 10.
Mr. Whitney explained that the Eddy Street neighbors were concerned about the lights back in 2001 but noted that Musco Lighting demonstrated that the light levels at the property line would not be increased. Ms. Keith noted her understanding of the presentation by Musco Lighting and added that she supports the tabling of this application.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Marston explained that no changes to grade and landscaping are proposed. He noted that the Park is utilized by 12 year olds and younger, as the fields are not large enough for anyone older than that.
Mrs. Clark motioned to table App. #4650 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for March 19. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Rock Crushing – 46 Stockbridge Drive – Bill Cole and Associates LLC
This request was withdrawn by the applicant, Bill Cole.
CT Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies – Annual Meeting – March 14, 2013
Mr. Starr noted that there are no 12-year or 25-year awards this year.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on February 26, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4648 - Donald and Pamela Battiston, owners, Beloved Companions LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit pet family/funeral center, 369 West Main Street, Parcel 4540369 in a CR Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
App. #4649 - Craig and Nancy Nation, owners/applicants, request for 2-lot subdivision modification, 3.43 acres,
71 and 75 Old Wood Road, Parcels 3420071 and 3420075 in an R40 Zone APPROVED
App. #4652 - Proposed Amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Develop-ment pertaining to Chapter 5, Open Space & Recreation; Town of Avon, applicant APPROVED EFFECTIVE March 6, 2013
Dated at Avon this 27th day of February, 2013. 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, March 19, 2013, at 7:30 P.M. at Company #1 Firehouse, 25 Darling Drive, in Avon:
App. #4654 - PDP Financial, LLC, and MOJO Enterprises, LLC, owners, Sunlight Construction, applicant, request for 24-lot Subdivision, “Jefferson Crossing”, 45.5 acres, 44 Lenox Road, Parcel 3010044, in an R30 Zone
App. #4655 - PDP Financial, LLC, and MOJO Enterprises, LLC, owners, Sunlight Construction, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.k. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit single-family cluster development, 44 Lenox Road, Parcel 3010044, in an R30 Zone
App. #4657 - PDP Financial, LLC, and MOJO Enterprises, LLC, owners, Sunlight Construction, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.j. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit 34-unit multiple dwelling development, 44 Lenox Road, Parcel 3010044, in an R30 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 5th day of March, 2013.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chair
Linda Keith, Vice-Chair
| 
