The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at Company #1 Firehouse, 25 Darling Drive, in Avon on Tuesday March 19, 2013. Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Linda Keith, Vice Chair, Carol Griffin, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, Christian Gackstatter, and Peter Mahoney, and Alternates Elaine Primeau and Donald Bonner. Absent was Alternate Jenna Ryan. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve the February 26, 2013, meeting minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Cappello, received approval from Mesdames Clark and Keith and Messrs. Cappello, Starr, Gackstatter, and Mahoney. Mrs. Griffin abstained, as she had not been present at the February 26 meeting.
Mr. Starr announced that App. #4653, which is not part of the public hearing, will be heard first.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
NEW APPLICATION
App. #4653 - Fishberg Associates, LLC, owner, Gifts of Love, applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to reconfigure driveway for delivery and handicap access, 34 East Main Street, Parcel 2140034, in a CS Zone
Present to represent this application were Ed Queirolo, board member of Gifts of Love and business owner in Avon; and Diana Goode, Gifts of Love.
Mr. Queirolo explained that Gifts of Love would like to relocate to 34 East Main Street, which currently only has one main entrance into the building. The proposal is to have 2 entrances into the building to allow the visitors to be separated from the workers. He noted that one option shows driveway access from inside the park and one option shows driveway access from Mountain View Avenue.
Mr. Starr explained that he doesn’t like the current driveway configuration, as trucks would have to either back into the driveway or back out of it and it is difficult for box trucks or any other vehicles to have to back up to get out.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Queirolo explained that if an entrance is constructed off of Mountain View Avenue a couple of parking spots would be lost.
Mr. Kushner explained that if the Commission wishes to approve a different plan than was presented originally, a condition should be considered that changes to the driveway configuration be reviewed by the Town Engineer and the Traffic Authority to ensure that there is proper sightline.
Mr. Starr commented that another driveway cut from Mountain View Avenue is needed, as well as a change to the driveway configuration, to allow drivers to access the site and drive through without having to back up. Mr. Queirolo noted his understanding and agreement.
Mr. Kushner commented that a sign would be needed on Mountain View Avenue noting that the driveway is for Gifts of Love only, and not for the general public.
Mr. Starr agreed that a sign noting donation delivery and handicap access would be beneficial.
Mr. Queirolo noted that a sign would be no problem.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner commented that he believes another driveway cut on Mountain View Avenue could work well, noting his agreement with Mr. Starr’s concerns about backing up. The additional curb cut would only be used for “Gifts of Love”.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4653 subject to the following condition:
- A new driveway cut shall be constructed from Mountain View Avenue. A detailed driveway reconfiguration/modification shall be prepared and reviewed and approved by both the Town Engineer and Traffic Authority prior to the commencement of any work. This driveway shall be clearly marked with signs indicating that this driveway is to be used ONLY for delivery vehicles for Gifts of Love.
The motion, seconded by Ms. Keith, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
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
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
App. #4656 - PDP Financial, LLC, and MOJO Enterprises, LLC, owners, Sunlight Construction, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit 34-unit multiple dwelling development, “Southampton Village”, 44 Lenox Road, Parcel 3010044, in an R30 Zone
Mr. Starr explained that the applicant is going to make a presentation tonight and the Commission will ask questions along the way. The hearing will also be opened for public comment; he asked that individuals wishing to speak come to the front of the room and use the microphone. He further explained that the public hearing will not be closed tonight and will continue to the next meeting, scheduled for April 9. The Inland Wetlands Commission has not yet rendered a decision; their next meeting is April 2. Mr. Starr explained that State law prohibits this Commission from rendering a decision before a decision has been made by the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Present to represent these applications were Robert M. Meyers, The Law Offices of Robert M. Meyers, representing the applicant, Sunlight Construction, Inc; William Ferrigno, President, Sunlight Construction;
Bill Richter, ASLA, Richter & Cegan, Inc; Bill Aston, PE, Buck & Buck, LLC; and Mark Vertucci, PE, Transportation/Traffic Engineer, Fuss & O’Neill.
Attorney Meyers explained that the subject site is approximately 44.5 acres located southerly of Lenox Road and northerly of Haynes Road. (He clarified that one of the public hearing notices incorrectly noted 45.5 acres). He noted that the site is one of the few sizable tracts of residential land remaining in Avon. He noted that the site presents an unusual opportunity for creative and innovative planning and the preservation of additional open space, due to the size and topography of this parcel; the presence of a brook and related wetlands; and being located next to Town-owned land, which, in turn, also abuts Town-owned Sycamore Hills. A mix of housing choices not commonly found in Avon is proposed. The site has been zoned R30 for a very long time. Mr. Meyers added that some of the
communications to the Town from the neighborhood indicate that some believe that the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) says that the subject site should be developed as R40, which is not correct. He indicated that he has verified this with the Town Planner. He explained that the 2 parcels noted in the Neighborhood 11 discussion (in the POCD) are Thompson property located on the easterly side of West Avon Road and Harris Road and the Severni property located on the southerly and easterly side of Route 167; not the subject site. An application of current regulations would permit a conforming subdivision of 43 large single-family homes on the site; however, the uniqueness of the property limits the homes to a fully conforming, as-of-right subdivision to approximately 35 homes. He noted that the applicant has chosen to propose a mix of homes consisting of 23 smaller single-family homes clustered to preserve additional open space and 34
condominium-style homes targeted to the senior adult market. The condo-style homes are proposed adjacent to Farmington Woods.
Mr. Meyers addressed the 4 applications before the Commission; the first is a subdivision application to create 23 lots for the proposed cluster homes and 1 larger lot, consisting of 12.5 acres, for the creation of the condo-style homes. Two special exception applications are required; one is to allow clustering of homes (Section IV.A.4.k. of the Zoning Regulations) and one is to allow condo-style homes (Section IV.A.4.j. of the Zoning Regulations). The final application is a site plan showing the locations of the proposed homes and other required information. He explained that the project team will present information demonstrating and permitting the Commission to find that both special exception applications are in full compliance with Section VIII of the Zoning Regulations and that the cluster
application is in full compliance with Section IX.D. of the Zoning Regulations, entitled Cluster Development. The condo-style home application is in full compliance with Section IX.A. of the Zoning Regulations, entitled Multiple Dwelling Development.
Mr. Meyers commented that the proposed development would add fewer children to the Avon school system, than the “as-of-right” development would add. He noted that the traffic engineer will report that the development, as proposed, will add a statistically insignificant amount of traffic more than the as-of-right subdivision would add. He noted that Mr. Vertucci’s traffic study indicates that during the busiest hour of the day, the proposed development would add 2.5 more car trips to Haynes Road than the as-of-right subdivision would add. One of the primary design objectives was to design the proposal in a way that is most considerate of all neighboring property owners. Mr. Meyers noted that it is understood that some neighbors would prefer that Lenox Road and Haynes Road not be
connected. Neighborhood opposition has often times arisen in Avon when the Planning and Zoning Commission has had other considerations involving connection of roads as shown in the POCD. He noted that similar objections were raised when the Commission required the connection of Hollister Drive east and Hollister Drive west; the connection of Woodmont and Juniper; and the connection of Pioneer Drive and Tamara Circle. In each case, the connection was shown on the current POCD and the Commission implemented the Plan. The Town Planning Department researched the POCDs back to 1968 and noted that the 1968 POCD, as well as all POCDs adopted since that date (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2006), dictate that the road connection between Lenox Road and Haynes Road be constructed for the purpose of facilitating and improving traffic circulation in Avon. The integrity of the process, together with consistency and predictability, will be furthered by the Commission
requiring that the road connection be constructed as shown in the POCD at no cost to the Town, as part of the pending application. Mr. Meyers added that the Fire Marshal has remarked favorably, as has the Fire Chief, regarding the proposed road connection indicating that it is consistent with Avon’s circulation plan. The Fire Marshal has recognized that the connection of the roads is not simply for the purpose of emergency access. A stated goal in the POCD is “to provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle traffic within the Town of Avon”. He noted that it is also important to understand that the completion of the road connection is not dependent on the nature of the development of the property. He explained that the road connection would still be mandated by the POCD whether the property is developed in accordance with the current pending applications or whether the property is subsequently developed
as 35 larger conventional, single-family homes, fully conforming to all regulations and accomplished as-of-right with no special exceptions needed. Mr. Meyers noted that there may be a concern that the number of proposed homes, 57 currently, might generate more traffic or place more children in the roads and in the schools than 35 larger homes, permitted as of right. He explained that while the Commission does not really consider financial matters, questions about children and schools and tax revenues generated often come up at these types of hearings and added that he finds it useful to honestly answer the questions rather than avoid discussing these matters. He commented that it will be heard tonight that the development, as proposed, will add fewer children on the streets and in the schools, than 35 larger single-family homes would generate. It will also be noted that the development, as proposed, will generate more tax revenue for the Town than 35 larger
single-family homes that could be built without any special exceptions.
Mr. Meyers addressed traffic and noted that it will be heard that the traffic impact of the proposed development, as contrasted with the as-of-right development, will be insignificant; the traffic engineer has determined that the development, as proposed, will generate less than one more trip during the busiest morning hour on both Lenox Road and Haynes Road and will generate 2.5 more trips on Haynes Road and 7.5 more trips on Lenox Road during the busiest afternoon hour. Mr. Meyers noted that some neighbors have expressed concern that the connection of Lenox Road and Haynes Road will result in significant additional traffic generated by people trying to bypass the traffic light at the intersection of Hollister Drive and West Avon Road. He explained that the traffic engineer will report that both of those
routes were studied and that choosing to drive on Lenox Road and Haynes Road will actually add travel time for people choosing that route. He noted that a more direct and efficient route already exists to bypass the traffic light at Hollister Drive and West Avon Road by traveling over Crestwood Road and Bronson Road. He commented that the traffic engineer will explain that people seeking to avoid the traffic light will likely choose the existing route at Crestwood and Bronson rather than the connection of Lenox and Haynes after it’s built. Mr. Meyers noted that the main beneficiaries of the Lenox and Haynes Road connection will be the residents on the upper portion of Haynes Road when they travel to the west and the northwest, such as to the Shoppes at Farmington Valley in Canton.
Mr. Meyers summarized by noting that the proposed development has many beneficial aspects, as it provides diversity and a mix of housing types, sizes, styles, prices, and architecture that would fill needs within Avon. It also provides for more open space than the Regulations require and possibly, most importantly, it provides for public access to almost 9 more acres than required under the Regulations and almost 9 more acres than 35 larger single-family as-of-right homes would provide.
Bill Ferrigno, President of Sunlight Construction in Avon, addressed his narrative noting that he will provide the summary version. He noted that he was approached by the subject property owners approximately one year ago and noted that he has a different vision for this site than he has had for other more typical developments he has received approval for in the past. He noted that the site is surrounded by existing development and has unique environmental features. The site is abutted by Farmington Woods to the west and more traditional residential neighborhoods to the south and to the north. He commented that his project “Knoll Lane” exists to the south of the subject site and was approved by the Commission a few years ago. He noted that Avon has cluster regulations and special
exceptions for a reason but added that he understands that these regulations should only be implemented when it can be proven that it is a good thing to do. He pointed out that there have been a lot of very large homes built in Avon over the last decade but things are changing and people seem to be getting more sensible and realistic about home size.
Mr. Ferrigno indicated that the demographic of our aging population is also something to consider and added that he gets calls from people in Town asking for a way to downsize and stay in Avon. He noted that he doesn’t know of any single-family detached developments that offer first floor master bedrooms; homes for empty nesters. He noted a concept called “zero threshold construction” which allows aging people to enter their house/garage without steps. He commented that, for both business and personal reasons, his wish is to offer something where more privacy could be created for the subject proposal and the existing houses in the area.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that conventional developments/neighborhoods (i.e., Knoll Lane Subdivision, homes on Lenox Road, homes on Haynes Road) allow clearing right up to the property line. He noted that there would be almost 1,100 feet of boundary against Farmington Woods and more than that against Knoll Lane and Haynes Road and a fair amount of perimeter along Lenox Drive and Hadley Drive. He commented that he feels the proposed development would be good for the Town, good for his business, and good for the neighbors. He explained that although 43 lots would be permitted in this zone, per the density calculation, he added that due to constraints on the site it was decided that 35 lots would be the maximum. He indicated that he knew he was going to be called upon to make the road connection; he
added that he believes that Mrs. Griffin insisted on a feasibility study when the “Knoll Lane” subdivision was approved to ensure that a road could be engineered in that area. He explained that the road connection was designed to satisfy the needs of the Town, as expressed in the POCD, as well as offer a traffic calming influence. Mr. Ferrigno noted that 3 stop signs are proposed and 2 different right hand turns; these factors will slow down traffic.
Mr. Ferrigno addressed his informal discussion before the Commission in November 2012 and noted that a version of the informal submission is now part of the formal application submissions but has been refined. He noted that many of the proposed clustered lots contain 30,000 SF (approximately 60 to 70%), as required in the R30 zone; some lots have more and some have less. He noted that 34 single-family, detached condominium units are proposed; he noted his intention for the area to look like a small village, similar to Sconsett Point. The intent is to use traditional design with high-quality exteriors; sizes would be the range of 1,700 SF with a maximum of 3,000 SF; the average will be 2,100 SF.
Mr. Richter, landscape architect, explained that a wider range of housing options in Avon is the goal. The site is predominately wooded with some tree gaps and gently slopes from west to east. There are 8 acres of wetlands bordering Big Brook, which runs north south. The wetlands system runs from Hollister to Haynes Road. He noted that development essentially surrounds the site but there is a vacant parcel in the northeast corner (Thompson owner) and wetland parcels in the southeast corner, owned by the Town of Avon. There are also 2 wetland parcels located at the south end of Sycamore Park. Mr. Richter noted that 35 conventional lots could be achieved on the site. The Plan of Development, since 1968, has shown a connection between Haynes Road and Hollister Drive;
alternative means of moving vehicles throughout the community is needed. Haynes Road is probably the largest cul-de-sac in Avon with almost 80 lots and it needs relief. He explained that the overall approach and design is to create a significant publicly-available open space accenting the wetlands and Big Brook; a north south open space system from Haynes Road to Lenox Road could be achieved. Cluster housing is proposed next to the proposed public open space, as well as a connection. A workable mass of single-family condominiums are proposed adjacent to Farmington Woods in an appropriate relation to the neighbors on all sides. A road connection between Lenox Road and Haynes Road is proposed but not as a through road; as a neighborhood road. Mr. Richter commented that he feels everything has been achieved. He noted that almost 13.5 acres of public open space (8 acres of wetlands and 5.5 acres of good land) is proposed with a woods walk
with the ability to be extended to either Hollister or Haynes Road; it would also be connected to the open space at the Knoll Lane Subdivision and walk connections to public roads at Jefferson Crossing and Lenox Road. Mr. Richter noted that the 5.5 acres of open space is more than what is required for the cluster development. He noted that part of the acreage is shown as the 23-unit cluster single-family subdivision called “Jefferson Crossing”; the condominium-style homes, “Southampton Village” are proposed to the west of Jefferson Crossing. Jefferson Crossing is comprised of nine (9) full R30 lots; eight (8) lots just meeting the 30,000 SF requirement of R30; and six (6) R15 lots, 15,000 SF. He explained that the extensions of both Lenox Road and Haynes Road are treated as cul-de-sacs that have a crossing connection between them; there would be stop signs and turning movements which would slow down traffic and not permit through
traffic. He noted that Southampton Village is 34 single-family condos on 12.5 acres; 2.7 units an acre, which is under the 4 units allowed per the Regulations. The main entrance is boulevard style off of Lenox Road. He noted that the main road would make a loop and Southampton Drive would come around back to Jefferson Crossing. There are 2 neighborhood roads, Quinn’s Court to the north and Londonderry Lane, the connector.
Mr. Richter noted that the project works with the existing grades such that all of the east side units are patio flat ground and all the west side units are either partial or full walk outs. Bands of trees will be preserved to allow smaller areas of development and not clear cut the site. A 60-foot perimeter is proposed for the south, the north, and the east side of the property; a 30-foot offset is proposed along Farmington Woods, a similar use. A 35-foot “B” Bufferyard is proposed around the perimeter and is contained within the existing tree line that would be permanently retained. Over 24% of the site is permanent open space; 15% open space is required. Lot coverage, the buildings themselves, is just under 12%; 15 % is the maximum permitted. Overall coverage is a
little over 26%; the landscape area is just under 74%, which exceeds the 65% minimum. All buildings meet the building separation requirements (i.e. window walls between units). Mr. Richter stated that the proposed development fully complies with all of the Town’s Regulations for layout, design, and orientation.
Mr. Aston, civil engineer, addressed the design of public roads, public drainage, public sewer and a schematic of the water system to serve the lots proposed. All of the roads meet the Town’s standards with Jefferson Crossing and a portion of Lenox Road at 26 feet wide, as they are through roads. A cul-de-sac named Northampton Ridge and an associated portion of Lenox Road will be built to 22 feet wide to limit the amount of pavement and the runoff to Big Brook. All the roads in Southampton Village are also 22 feet wide, similar to road widths in Farmington Woods and the standard in Town. He explained that much of the project drains to Big Brook; there is a slight high point through the middle of the site which divides the drainage that goes to the north and to the south. The
recommendations in the DEEP’s Storm Water Quality Drainage Manual have been followed and all the storm water from the paved roads has been routed to 2 water quality ponds near the wetlands. He noted that public sewers will be extended from the new sewer in Haynes Road; the sewers will follow the proposed roadways. Gravity sewers will be used to serve the low point of Lenox Road. An extension of the existing water main in Lenox Road is proposed to be connected to the new water main in Haynes Road with spurs to serve the 2 cul-de-sacs. The water main will also be looped through Southampton Village to provide paths for water flow to the water company hydrants located throughout the project. All road grades are within Town standards at 2%; the maximum grade is 8% but most are well under that. The cul-de-sac grades are 5% or less.
Mr. Richter noted that the overall open space that would be produced by this project is almost 37% of the 44.5 acres of land, combined between the 2 developments. He reiterated that the connector road has been part of the Plan of Conservation and Development for a long time and everything possible has been done to make it a neighborhood street and not a thoroughfare.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Richter explained that a road stub is not shown towards the Thompson’s property because that parcel can be accessed off of Hollister Drive. He added that a connection from the subject site is not shown because it is not necessary to develop the Thompson parcel.
Mr. Vertucci, traffic engineer, addressed the “Traffic Impact Study, dated March 13, 2013” and noted that Hollister Drive runs east west along the northern portion of the study area; West Avon Road runs north south; Lovely Street runs north south; and Haynes Road is to the south. Traffic operations were reviewed at 4 intersections; Haynes Road at West Avon Road; Hollister Drive at West Avon Road; Lenox Road at Hollister Drive; and Lovely Street at Hollister Drive. Turning movement traffic counts were conducted at each of these locations during the peak morning (7:15am to 8:15am) and afternoon (4:45pm to 5:45pm) traffic hours. The counts were grown to the 2016 build year with a 1.2% per year growth factor. He noted that the ITE Trip Generation Manual was used to determine traffic
generation for land uses (single-family detached housing and senior adult detached housing). The ITE rates show.75 trips per unit in the AM peak hour and 1 trip per unit in the PM peak hour for the single-family detached and considerably less for the age-targeted units; .22 trips per unit in the AM peak and .27 trips per unit in the PM peak. Mr. Vertucci noted that this is 1/3 to ¼ of the trips that would be generated from a typical single-family home. He noted that the age-targeted homes are often smaller houses than a single-family home and often don’t have school-age children and generate, in general, fewer trips during the day. The peak hours do not coincide with a commuter peak hour like a typical single-family house. He explained that a local trip generation was done at a similar development, namely Buckingham of Avon, which has a similar breakdown of units. The traffic rates were similar to ITE, just a bit higher; he noted that
the higher rates were used for the traffic study to provide a conservative analysis. The rates confirmed the ITE information that the age-targeted units generate significantly less traffic than the single-family homes. Mr. Vertucci explained that as another conservative measure, 25% of the age-targeted units would function as a typical single-family home. The application of these rates indicates that the overall development would generate in the AM peak hour 12 entering and 29 exiting trips and in the PM peak hour 23 entering and 16 exiting trips. He noted that for the “as-of-right” use, 35 single-family homes, the actual increase in traffic is about 3 trips in the AM peak, overall, and 10 trips in the PM peak. He noted that 25% of this traffic would come from Lovely Street to the north; 25% would come from the south; and 25% from West Avon Road, to the north; and 25% from West Avon Road, to the south. This represents an increase of
11 trips for the AM peak hour and 10 trips for the PM peak hour on Haynes Road; and compared to the “as-of-right” use, it is an increase of approximately 1 trip in the AM peak hour and approximately 3 trips in the PM peak hour.
Mr. Vertucci explained that the proposed project is a very low traffic generator to begin with and once the traffic is dispersed the actual volume increase on each road in the network is very insignificant, as it represents one additional car every 6 minutes on Haynes Road in the highest peak hour of the day. He noted that residents of Haynes Road intending to head towards Route 177 (Lovely Street) will now have this connection. Rather than going out to West Avon Road and Hollister Drive, residents could travel to Lenox Road through the proposed development, and these trips would reduce trips on Haynes Road traveling to reach West Avon Road.
Mr. Vertucci addressed the impact of additional trips created by the proposed development on adjacent road networks and noted that an intersection capacity analysis was done at each of the study area intersections. Operations were compared before the development goes in versus after the development is in. He explained that “Level of Service” is a report card type scale, from A to F; A = very low delay at an intersection and F = considerable delay at an intersection. The capacity analysis reveals that there are minimal increases in delay at each of the 4 intersections and there were no reductions in the levels of service at the Hollister/Lovely intersection; at the Hollister/West Avon intersection; or at the Haynes/West Avon intersection. The Hollister/Lenox intersection did realize a
decrease in the level of service, and went from A to B but is still an efficient operation. The queue increase lengths, on average, were one vehicle length or less. The sightline at Lenox Road and Concord Place was studied; there will be a new 3-way intersection formed in this area. The sightline at the intersection with the site roadway and Haynes Road was reviewed and data was compared to ConnDOT; sight distances exceeded ConnDOT criteria in all cases except the new intersection that would be created with Concord Place (there is a row of pines trees in the Town ROW that is overgrown and the recommendation is that branches be trimmed back).
Mr. Vertucci addressed accident records for the study area and noted that there are no identifiable accident patterns; the accidents that were reported by Conn DOT and the police department are not considered abnormal by DOT standards for the roadway in the study area.
Mr. Vertucci addressed internal site circulation and travel time analysis for vehicles traveling through the site. The proposed development would encourage very low traffic speeds, as traffic calming measures have been implemented in the plan. He reviewed travel speeds and noted that 2 different routes were studied (i.e., at the Hollister/Lenox intersection traveling south on West Avon Road using the traditional route, going over West Avon Road to the signal making a right and heading south; and the new route, through the development site, to Haynes Road and out to the Haynes/West Avon Road intersection) and the routes were studied in the opposite direction and also during AM peak and PM peak hours. The cut-through route, through the development, shows that trips take approximately 4 minutes,
consistently. The northbound direction route took 3 minutes and 6 seconds for vehicles traveling along Hollister and West Avon Road; the southbound direction averaged 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Mr. Vertucci explained that low travel speeds on the residential roadways and the stop signs throughout the development site will slow traffic down. Speeds on West Avon Road and Hollister Drive are higher, as they are straighter collector roads with speeds in excess of 40 mph. There are only 2 points for delays at the traffic signal at Scoville and Hollister and signals are timed to favor traffic on West Avon Road. Mr. Vertucci explained that vehicles that got delayed at these signals were still taking less time than utilizing the cut-through route.
Mr. Vertucci summarized by noting that travel time through the site will, in almost every instance, take longer than utilizing the Town’s local roads and State roads. He pointed out that Bronson Road to Crestwood Drive is another route that could be used and noted that the travel times are roughly the same as going through the signal at Hollister/West Avon Road; it was quicker, in some cases, if a delay was realized at the traffic light. Mr. Vertucci concluded by noting that the proposed development will be a low traffic generator; the trip generation rates used in the study are backed up by a local trip generation study that was conducted at a similar residential development in Avon. The study results compare favorably to ITE rates. The additional development traffic does not result in
a decrease in Level of Service at any of the intersections and the traffic study concludes that upon completion of the sightline clearing improvement noted earlier (on Lenox Road) that the proposed development would not have a significant impact to traffic operations on the adjacent road networks.
Mr. Ferrigno reviewed the narrative that he submitted to the Commission earlier and noted that the topic of “footprint” has become a big discussion item lately (i.e., large houses with big foundations, large driveways, significant hardscape areas) in relation to low-impact design. He noted that there would be almost 1 less acre (43,000 SF) of footprint using the proposed development proposal versus building 35 “as-of-right” homes on the site. Although fiscal matters are not the Commission’s charge, he noted that the subject proposal is going to attract empty nesters which mean fewer children. Mr. Ferrigno noted that he studied some demographics in Town and explained that a conventional development results in approximately 1.1 school-age child per household. The
proposed development is similar to developments like 31-unit Muirfield Village and Sconsett Point; there are .13 school-age children per household in Muirfield Village. In comparison, that would translate to approximately 39 school-age children from an “as-of-right” development and approximately 30 from the subject proposal. The private roads proposed would be maintained by a private homeowners association and not the Town.
Mr. Ferrigno stated that he spoke with Doug Thompson today and noted that a feasibility study has been done off his property at 125 Hollister Drive (Thompson also owns 110 Bronson Road) including a sightline analysis; he noted that although it is reasonable to conclude that this site could be developed from Hollister Drive, he further noted that that is not the final disposition. He noted that there will be ongoing discussions with Mr. Thompson and Town Staff.
Mr. Ferrigno concluded by noting, for the record, that he believes the subject proposal will introduce into the Town some desirable housing styles, respect privacy between units, and privacy to abutting neighbors. He noted that there are large buffers and conservation easements and deeded open space. He acknowledged that wetlands are regulated and cannot be developed anyway but noted that the open space “good land” contribution exceeds the 10% minimum and the extra open space land could be privately held without public access and not deeded to the Town. A trail network is proposed and will be discussed at the wetlands meeting. He commented that smaller footprints are proposed with positive impacts to revenue and expense. Mr. Ferrigno commented that although the traffic study meets
the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan he noted his understanding of the objections to this proposal and added that he feels the traffic is being addressed as sensitively and as calmingly as possible. He indicated that the proposal could have included a straight road, which would create a reason for objection.
Mr. Starr addressed the multi-unit portion, Southampton Village, and noted that the Regulations require at least 15% open space. He commented that it is his understanding that all the bufferyards and interior wooded areas are included in the proposed open space area. He noted that, in his view, the open space should be only the area deeded to the Town, or its nominee; bufferyards should be located on property that the developer or association is retaining ownership of. Mr. Starr added that this is a special exception application and the Commission has discretion.
Mr. Ferrigno requested clarification that Mr. Starr is expecting open space land dedication to the Town in Southampton Village. Mr. Starr concurred. Mr. Ferrigno acknowledged that he was not clear on that. Mr. Starr commented that he feels that the 3 proposed condo units, adjacent to the open space trail connection to Knoll Lane, should be the open space area. He added that, in addition, the 2 lots on the other side should be made into open space to provide for more than just a narrow path to the wetlands. Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding and added that there has been a lot of thought to development in those areas; location of units was based on proximity to other neighbors. He added that there is a huge distance between units.
Mr. Starr noted his understanding of distance to neighbors but added that he is referring to the flow of open space through the subject area; something more than a narrow trail is desirable. Mr. Starr reported that he is uncomfortable with the dedication of open space being the area around the wetlands that is unbuildable anyway.
Mr. Ferrigno noted that over 5 acres of buildable land is included in the open space proposal; he commented that a wider area around the wetlands that would be deeded to the Town should be achieved. Mr. Starr concurred and noted that there are 5 lots along the south border that could be looked at.
Mr. Starr noted that if 3 of the condo units were not proposed, it would be possible to gate the entrance into the condo area such that all the condo traffic would flow out onto Lenox Road, rather than trying to get to Haynes Road. Mr. Starr stressed that he doesn’t think there should ever be a gate at Jefferson Crossing, as it needs to be open.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Ferrigno noted that the drainage discharge area is designed to be both drainage with a water quality pond and access to the open space and trail that is proposed in that area. Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that the area is piped from the edge of the road; the area would be 20 feet wide and owned by the Town and the proposed wood chip trail would be 5 to 6 feet wide. He noted that the area where the trail is proposed is defined as wetlands but is not a wet soggy area; he added that if the Inland Wetlands Commission want the trail moved, it would be moved.
Mr. Richter explained that in discussions with Staff, if the trail is constructed as proposed it would allow people to get from point A to point B in the shortest distance; the design was reviewed in the field and everyone agreed the proposed location is best but it does require wetlands approval.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Aston explained that there is only one spot containing 120 SF where the slopes are in excess of 25%.
Ms. Keith asked how much clear cutting is proposed and how much will remain treed.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that the areas color coded yellow/green on the map are the areas designated to be cleared; the medium to darker green areas are areas that do not require clearing. He noted that traditional lots allow clearing right up to the property line and added that that is not proposed here. He indicated that the amount of clearing done in certain areas will be restricted.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that there will be clear cutting where the houses are proposed but confirmed that the area would be replanted; 2.5 to 3 inch caliper trees are part of the planting plan and shown on the drawings.
Ms. Keith noted a trend concerning seniors and retirement. She commented that many seniors will not be able to retire and therefore will be working longer; she noted that the traffic study done for the Buckingham Subdivision is more of a reality because people are working longer. The proposed condo units may be purchased by empty nesters but they may still be working and contributing to the traffic. She asked whether the traffic calculations, including national figures, have taken into consideration that retirement age may be increased to 67 with regard to social security benefits.
Mr. Vertucci, traffic engineer, confirmed that the Buckingham Subdivision was studied to get the more recent rates, as more seniors are still working. The Buckingham rates are higher than the ITE rates, so the Buckingham rates were used to be conservative. He noted that if in 4 years there are even more seniors working, the rate is 3/10 a trip per unit; if that goes up to 5/10 or 6/10 trip per unit that’s only one more vehicle trip for every 10 or 12 units and there are only 34 units total. He explained that the entire proposed development could be measured at 1 trip per unit and it would not impact the traffic study findings; there still would not be a significant impact at the intersections.
Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding of Ms. Keith’s comments but added that children are what add vehicle trips.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s questions, Mr. Ferrigno stated that no age restrictions are proposed. He added that the limits of clearing will be documented on the record plans.
In response to Mr. Starr’s comments about clearing, Mr. Ferrigno commented that he intends to put conservation easements in place and added that he has developed lots in Town where a conservation easement exists and a year later a homeowner clears the trees.
Mr. Starr opened the hearing for public comment.
Virginia Kristie, 17 Haynes Road, asked what the implications are calling the units condos rather than town houses.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that “condo” is a legal term; a townhouse can also be a condo. The proposed units are single-family structures that can be held in condominium ownership. He added that a townhouse is an architectural term; the units are connected together normally. The proposed units are single-family detached homes.
Attorney Meyers explained with regard to “condos” that there is a law called the “Common Interest Ownership Act”. A version of it is adopted in all States; units are declared, declarations are created, and an association is established to manage the units. He further explained that “townhouse” is not a term in the law; townhouse is the way a home might look or function.
Joanne Markowitz, 32 Copplestone, noted her concerns with a possible connection to Bronson Road, as it flows into Kingsbridge and there are a lot of children in the area.
Mr. Ferrigno stated that the connection to Bronson Road exists today and people use it now.
Ms. Markowitz commented that by encouraging people to use the Bronson Road connection it opens up Kingsbridge to more traffic as well as Hammersmith and Copplestone.
Mr. Starr noted that from Crestwood Road, turning left onto Bronson and then taking a right onto Kingsbridge is not a shortcut.
Steve Wilson, 12 Hammersmith, asked why the condominiums would not be designated as 55+ (age). He also asked if Mr. Ferrigno was looking at other property to developer near Hollister Drive.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that there is more open land near Hollister Drive (12-15 acres) and the Commission inquired about it as part of their charge to plan for the orderly development of the Town.
Mr. Wilson asked how much of a traffic increase there will be on West Avon Road during the AM peak hour. He added that he would appreciate whatever tree cutting restrictions could be implemented.
Mr. Vertucci confirmed that the amount of increase on West Avon Road during the AM peak hour is negligible; the AM peak hour on West Avon Road realizes approximately 1,000 trips and the proposed development would add 11 trips.
Mr. Starr reported that if the subject proposal is approved, there would be no construction equipment coming in on Haynes Road; all construction equipment would enter off of Hollister Drive and Lenox Road because the roads are shorter and better.
Joseph Kuzma, 30 Lenox Road, asked if there is going to be a stop sign at Lenox and Concord.
Mr. Vertucci noted that a stop sign is proposed at Concord Place.
In response to Mr. Kuzma’s comments, Mr. Starr explained that an emergency gate would allow for a second way into Southampton Village.
In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Ferrigno explained that all the proposed roads meet the Town’s standards for school buses and vehicles.
Linda Stein, 27 Lenox Road, asked for clarification on traffic.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that the traffic study compares what traffic would be reasonably expected with an “as-of-right” development versus the proposed development.
Ms. Stein asked if there is going to be a stop sign at Lenox Road and Lexington Road.
Mr. Ferrigno noted that he would not have an objection to an additional stop sign.
Mr. Vertucci stated that the Town’s legal Traffic Authority would make the final determination about stop signs.
Sara Harrigan, 21 Greenwich Lane (Farmington Woods), noted her concerns that she doesn’t think the landscaping that was done between the Knoll Lane Subdivision and Farmington Woods is attractive enough. She asked if the Commission could visit the site to see what improvements could be made for landscaping between Farmington Woods and the proposed development.
Mr. Ferrigno noted that a meeting at Knoll Lane is scheduled for next week.
In response to Ms. Harrigan’s question, Mr. Starr explained the proposed emergency access would be a second way into Southampton Village; there would not be any access from Farmington Woods.
Glenn Silva, 38 Lenox Road, asked whether any age restriction is proposed.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that no age restriction will be imposed and added that it is his opinion that the proposed units will attract individuals without children. In response to Mr. Silva’s question about property values,
Mr. Ferrigno explained that he expects the housing prices in the proposed development to be between $400,000 and $850,000. He confirmed that it is his opinion that the proposed development would raise the property values of adjacent homes.
Mr. Silva commented that he now has 3 driveways past his house but the proposed development could add 35 driveways past his house and added that he feels it would have an impact on his assessment.
In response to Ms. Kristie’s question about road connections and “red dots”,
Mr. Starr explained that some of the red dots indicating road connections (shown on many of the Town’s Plans of Conservation and Development) such as shown at Copplestone and Bronson Road will most likely be eliminated because connections are not realistic due to wetlands in the area.
In response to questions from Laurie Pugsley, 4 Haynes Road, regarding age restrictions and traffic counts,
Mr. Ferrigno clarified that age restricted means at least one unit owner must be at least 55 years of age or older and age targeted means that homes are designed to attract an audience of people that meet the description of someone 55 or older, but they wouldn’t necessarily have to be 55 years or older. The type of floor plan and setting proposed for the condo units are not attractive to the traditional family unit.
Attorney Meyers noted that age restrictions have fallen into disfavor in the market place and added that the Towns of Simsbury and Windsor have removed age restrictions from certain existing developments.
Mr. Vertucci explained that age targeted and age restricted exhibit very similar trip generation characteristics. To keep a conservative approach, the single-family home rate was used for 25% of the development. He noted that it has been his experience with age-targeted developments that there aren’t a lot of large families with children generating a lot of trips.
John Jennings, 69 Haynes Road, commented that while he likes the proposed condominium units he added that he thinks they would be more appropriate in an urban center and not near the existing homes.
Mr. Ferrigno noted that the proposed condo units would be located next to 1,100 similar type units in Farmington Woods.
Mr. Jennings noted his concerns that many people will use the proposed development as a short cut because people do not like to sit at traffic lights; he added that he doesn’t think stop signs will make any difference. He commented that he would like to see only emergency access at Haynes Road into the proposed development.
Linnea Liljedahl, 10 Haynes Road, noted that college students often live with their parents after graduation and asked if this was considered in connection with traffic counts. She noted existing speeding issues on the straight parts of Haynes Road, going past her house, and asked what would be done about that.
Mr. Ferrigno addressed the instance of children living at home after college and indicated, honestly, that every possible life situation cannot be anticipated with regard to traffic counts. He noted that the speeders are likely residents of Haynes Road, your neighbors.
Mr. Vertucci explained that there are two options with regard to speeding; enforcement and/or traffic calming measures through the Town. He indicated that the traffic counts relative to college students living at home after graduation is blended in with the study numbers. He reiterated that the age-targeted approach could be scrapped and traffic for this entire development could be generated using all 57 units based on single-family home rates that would generate around a 50 trip range but it would not impact the findings of the current traffic study at all. He stated that he has run the numbers both ways, using a conservative route, and noted that there is no impact to Level of Service at any of the study intersections. Mr. Vertucci concluded by noting that an automatic traffic recorder was put
down (a tube counter) on Haynes Road in the vicinity of the tie in with Jefferson Crossing. The speeds recorded were 25 mph in that location, which is the speed limit.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question about current values for Levels of Service, Mr. Vertucci explained that the Haynes Road approach to Route 167 is Level of Service “C”, in both the AM peak and at 12 noon. He further explained that the average vehicle delay for Level of Service “C” is 30 to 40 seconds per vehicle.
Chuck Thornton, 56 Haynes Road, commented that it has been represented that it is quicker to go from Lenox Road to Hollister to West Avon Road than to travel through the proposed development to reach Haynes Road.
Mr. Vertucci concurred. Mr. Thornton asked why the access from Haynes Road to the proposed development cannot be for emergency vehicles only. He noted his concerns with high traffic speeds near the end of Haynes Road, and the increased traffic that may use the proposed development as a cut through. He also noted his concerns that families with children could consider buying the proposed freestanding condominium homes.
Mike Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, noted his concerns that his house is very close to the proposed new road connection; he added his skepticism with the traffic study.
In response to Mr. Ferrigno’s question, Mr. Kohlhoff confirmed that his house is located next to the Town right-of-way. He asked why the proposed road connection cannot be for emergency vehicles only.
In response to Mr. Kohlhoff’s concerns regarding increased traffic, Mr. Starr explained that the traffic study reports the traffic that is over and above what a conventional 35-house development would generate; the “one” additional trip noted in the peak hour is not the total increase.
In response to Mr. Kohlhoff’s concerns about zoning designations noted in the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development, Mr. Kushner explained that the R40 zone that is referred to in Chapter 11 of the Plan does not refer to the subject parcel. He confirmed/clarified that the subject 44-acre parcel has been zoned R30 since 1957; the Haynes Road neighborhood is also zoned R30. Mr. Kushner explained that the cluster regulations, by special exception, allow some of the proposed lot sizes to be reduced to R15 in an R30 zone. He added that the rezoning to R15 is supposed to result in a more efficient development that results in greater amounts of open space. The goal is not necessarily to achieve a greater number of units or a greater density.
Richard Matt, 10 Alder Lane, asked how open space can be calculated using 2 different lot sizes; one for the small village part and one for the larger area. He noted that he is a professional engineer and on the public works committee at Farmington Woods.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Zoning Regulations permit the type of development that is being proposed. The Commission has significant discretion regarding this type of proposal. There are very few applications like this that come before the Commission, as a minimum of 10 acres is needed.
In response to Mr. Matt’s comment that not enough open space is being proposed, Mr. Starr confirmed that open space is one of the Commission’s issues as well.
Mr. Kohlhoff commented that he feels the developer could do better job for the existing residents, as far as views are concerned. He noted that he has enjoyed a treed view but now he would look at cars and garages.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the proposed condos would be 1½ stories with 2 and 3 bedroom options. Mrs. Clark commented that it is possible that people with children could move in. Mr. Ferrigno concurred and explained that he represented earlier that 25% of the units have the possibility for children.
Mike Transue, resident at 255 Haynes Road and member of the AVFD, noted that he lives on the circle and added that twice in the last year access up Haynes Road to the circle was obstructed. He noted that he is a career fire fighter of 16 years and added that emergency access gates often get taken out, as they don’t work. He added that emergency gates are not necessarily noted on maps and an ambulance may not be able to or know how to open a gate. He reiterated that he lives on the circle and goes to Canton quite often and indicated that the new development would provide another means of access to Canton without driving by all the houses on Haynes Road. Mr. Transue concluded by noting that he doesn’t think the development would be used as a huge cut through and that everyone needs to
take responsibility for speeding in all neighborhoods.
Heinz Rosskothen, 43 Byron Drive, asked about parking availability in the proposed condo area.
Mr. Ferrigno stated that 2-car garages are proposed and there would be 2 spaces in the driveway.
Peter Pugsley, 4 Haynes Road, noted his concerns that the proposed road connection would be used as a cut through; he noted that he has seen a dramatic increase in traffic in the area since 1998 when he bought his house. He indicated his disagreement with Mr. Transue regarding the emergency gate and asked why an emergency gate like the one at Peachtree Village on Arch Road couldn’t be used. He addressed the special exception criteria, Section VIII of the Zoning Regulations, pertaining to neighborhood compatibility and cluster homes and noted that there aren’t any cluster homes currently in the adjacent neighborhoods.
Bette McIntire, 4 Concord Place, noted her concerns that the proposed development would result in 34 more people driving past her house and noted that she wasn’t expecting that. She noted that she could live with more homes, but doesn’t want condos.
Rebecca Kuzma, 30 Lenox Road, noted that the other condo developments in Town (Peachtree Village) have their own entrance off of a major road and are not coming through residential neighborhoods. She noted her concerns that the proposed development would affect property values on Lenox Road, as the traffic would increase.
Attorney Meyers addressed Ms. Kuzma’s comments and clarified that age 55 restricted homes are not selling. He added that people don’t want to buy age 55 restricted because they don’t want to be restricted in their resale opportunities. He further explained that it is not an issue for age 55 targeted homes because people with a child can legally purchase those homes.
Celeste Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, noted her concerns with the age-targeted concept for the proposed condominium development, as the houses would be single-family detached homes in the same size range as the existing nearby homes. There would be nothing to hold back anyone with children from purchasing an age targeted home. Ms. Kohlhoff noted her concerns with overall increased traffic and parents using the cut through to get to the schools.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that the back yard areas for the proposed condos are approximately 20 feet by 30 feet. Ms. Kohlhoff commented that a lot of people do not want to maintain yards.
Mr. Ferrigno indicated that most of his customers would not buy a home with that type of back yard.
An unidentified resident of Hadley Drive commented that she bought her house 8 years ago and has enjoyed seeing nothing behind her house except wildlife and noted she’s not thrilled about the proposed development. She commented that the morning traffic is bad; the traffic light at Hollister and West Avon is very difficult to get through. She noted her concerns that the new road would become a cut through.
Amy Brown, 7 Concord Place, noted her concerns with the proposed condo-type homes and the effect they could have on property values for the nearby single family homes.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that the distance from the back of Ms. Brown’s house to the back of the proposed condos is approximately 170 feet. He further explained that if the proposed condo area was developed with “as-of-right” homes, clearing can take place right up to the property line.
In response to Ms. Brown’s concerns about the need for more stop signs in the area, Mr. Ferrigno noted that he would defer that decision to the Traffic Authority.
In response to a question from Drew Liljedahl, 10 Haynes Road, Mr. Ferrigno explained that he is the applicant and added that he has a contract to purchase the land subject to certain approvals. He clarified that he does not own the property currently.
In response to Mr. Liljedahl’s question regarding Town purchase of the subject property as open space,
Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission conducted a study in advance of the preparation of the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development. He noted that many people who participated in the survey indicated that they would be willing to pay several hundred dollars per year to preserve open space. Approximately 30 larger parcels of land were ranked as possible high priority for preservation, as they came on the market for sale. The Fisher Farm, on Tillotson Road, was a highly ranked parcel and was purchased by the Town for $2M a few years ago. Mr. Kushner indicated that he doesn’t think the subject parcel, 44 Lenox Road, was one of those 30 highly ranked parcels but added that it doesn’t mean that it would not be a good parcel to preserve.
Janet Romanowicz, 94 Haynes Road, asked whether the subject parcel would be a good choice for the Town to purchase, as it is located next to other Town-owned sites such as Sycamore Hills, which could possibly be expanded. She asked who would use the proposed pathway.
Mr. Starr explained that he conveyed his concerns at the beginning of the presentation that more open space should be proposed to connect to other existing nearby open space pieces. He further explained that the proposed pathway would have public access; he added that he feels the local people would probably tend to use it more, so parking should not be an issue; on-street parking is also an option. He noted that there are large trail systems in the Huckleberry Hill Open Space and there are also parking areas available.
Chris Wilde, 110 Haynes Road, reiterated an earlier comment that most cluster homes are located off of a main road. She added that the more development that occurs on this site the less desirable it will be for the existing residents of Lenox and Haynes Road. She questioned the traffic study noting that a lot of new houses with people with cars are going to drive past existing houses on Haynes Road and Lenox Road.
An unidentified female audience member read aloud the following: “my family is suggesting that the cluster homes for our Town, especially those that are age restricted (but I’m finding now that this is not necessarily the case for Jefferson Crossing) be built closer to the Town Center for easier access to services, shops, and public transportation.”
An unidentified female audience member noted her concerns that in the winter when there is snow Haynes Road is not passable by 2 cars, if there is someone walking a dog; the road is very narrow and dark in the AM when the students walk to get the school bus. She noted her concerns with adding more cars to Haynes Road.
In response to Mr. Kohlhoff’s comments, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the density calculation permits 43 houses but noted that it would be hard to design for any more than 35 houses.
Mr. Starr announced that the public hearing will remain open until the next meeting, scheduled for April 9.
Bruce McIntire, 4 Concord Place, commented that the entrance to Farmington Woods that is visible from his house is an eyesore, as well as the berm. He commented that the proposed development looks a lot like what he thought was going to happen and noted that he has no problem with it but added that he thinks it’s going to be very crowded. He indicated that he thinks it would be better if the site was developed strictly as R30.
Sam Sheiker, 15 Hadley Drive, commented that he didn’t think the traffic study results for the area are reality and questioned if it was done during the summer when school is not in session.
Celeste Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, conveyed her agreement with Mr. Starr’s earlier comments about the need for wider buffers. She noted her concerns that there is nothing delineating the back of her house from the trail and added that people will walk through her backyard.
Mr. Starr conveyed to Ms. Kohlhoff that she is looking at what is proposed and not necessarily what might be approved. He noted that the trails would be owned by the Town.
Ms. Keith communicated that numerous meetings were held during the construction of “Rails to Trails” and added that the people that were in opposition to the idea now love the trail system.
Mr. Starr explained that once the trails are completed they will be well identified.
Dave Hauth, 14 Hadley Drive, commented that he feels the consensus of the audience/neighbors is such that no faith exists with regard to the traffic engineers estimate that taking the site from 35 units to 57 units would create only a minimal traffic increase. He noted that making the road a through connector will add additional traffic beyond the 35 or 57 units. He indicated that he feels there will be a significant traffic increase and asked that both Haynes and Lenox be looked at to see if they have been constructed to be able to support this traffic increase.
Mrs. Griffin asked if a right-hand lane were added at the intersection of Hollister and West Avon Road would that make a significant difference in the backed up traffic.
Mr. Vertucci stated that an analysis would have to be run but noted that the right turn lane would have to be made long enough to get past the queue at the signal.
Mrs. Griffin commented that maybe the queue wouldn’t be so long and people wouldn’t choose to go through the proposed development as an option if they could get by the backup as they approach West Avon Road. She indicated that it is her understanding that the backup is at the High School.
Mr. Vertucci explained that the intersection operates at an acceptable Level of Service in the peak hours; the backup with school-related traffic is something that is occurring for 20 minutes during the day. He further explained that a design change is typically not implemented for something that happens for only a 20 to 25 minute period per day but added that it could be looked at.
An unidentified male audience member noted that he doesn’t feel an extra lane on Hollister Drive would make much difference because the traffic on West Avon Road is unbelievable anyways. He noted that you can wait a significant amount of time trying to get onto West Avon Road from Haynes Road due to the traffic in both directions; the traffic backs up all the way to Country Club Road.
In response to questions from the audience, Mr. Starr explained that the Inland Wetlands Commission will hold a public hearing on April 2 and a decision may or may not be made. The public hearing for Planning and Zoning will continue to remain open until at least such a time when wetlands makes a decision; the next meeting for Planning and Zoning is April 9. Once the public hearing closes, all comments from the applicant, the experts, and the public will be taken into consideration and discussed by the Commission. Mr. Starr explained that once the public hearing is closed no comments can be received from the public but the public can be present while the Commission deliberates.
In response to a question from Mike Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, Mr. Starr explained that hypothetically, if the current proposal is rejected by the Commission and a traditional R30 development is proposed or a significant change to the current proposal is made, additional public hearings would be required.
There being no further input, the public hearing was continued.
Mrs. Clark motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4654, #4655, and #4657, to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for April 9. . The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
Mrs. Clark motioned to table App. #4656 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for April 9. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
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
Mrs. Clark motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4651 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for April 9. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.
OUTSTANDING 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
Mrs. Clark motioned to table App. #4650 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for April 9. The motion, seconded by Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on March 19, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4653 - Fishberg Associates, LLC, owner, Gifts of Love, applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to reconfigure driveway for delivery and handicap access, 34 East Main Street, Parcel 2140034, in a CS Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITION
Dated at Avon this 20th day of March, 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
| 
