The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, April 30, 2013. Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Linda Keith, Vice Chair, Carol Griffin, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, Peter Mahoney, Christian Gackstatter, and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Jenna Ryan. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve the minutes of the April 9, 2013, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, 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 Starr announced that Sunlight Construction has withdrawn Apps. #4654/55/56/57 in connection with their proposal for Lenox/Haynes Road.
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
Mr. Starr announced that the owner has requested a public hearing continuance to the May 21 meeting.
Mrs. Clark motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4651 to the next meeting, scheduled for May 21. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
App. #4659 - Sunlight Construction, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot resubdivision, 2.617 acres, 15 Aspenwood, Parcel 6460015, in an R40 Zone
Present to represent this application was Robert M. Meyers, on behalf of the applicant.
Attorney Meyers explained that the subject lot is oversized and meets all the requirements of the Zoning Regulations for resubdivision. He noted that the Town Attorney has indicated that a $6,000 fee in lieu of open space is required for this resubdivision and that the current $30,000 mortgage deed for the Aspenwood Subdivision will be amended to total $36,000.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that the Town Attorney has determined that an additional $6,000 fee in lieu is required.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4659 was closed.
App. #4660 - Breakaway Enterprises, LLC, and Kenneth Dixon, owners/applicants, request for 2-lot subdivision modification, 8.71 acres, 598 and 600 Deercliff Road, Parcels 2090598 and 2090600, in an RU2A Zone
The owner, Ken Dixon, was present.
Mr. Dixon explained that his request is to move the lot line 50 feet to make both lots approximately the same size.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Dixon explained that the driveway is already in place.
Mr. Kushner indicated that the proposal is a very minor lot line revision and explained that it is before the Commission because the Town Attorney has advised that any change to boundary lines from a previously approved subdivision, via a public hearing process, must be approved by the Commission. He noted that the Farmington Valley Health District has granted their approval but has noted some requirements that must be complied with.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4660 was closed.
App. #4661 - Darci and Daryl Vallez, owners, Liljedahl Brothers Inc., applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.q. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit accessory apartment, 37 Beverly Drive, Parcel 1290037, in an R40 Zone
Present were Russ Liljedahl, applicant and contractor, and Darci and Daryl Vallez, owners.
Mr. Liljedahl explained that the request is for an accessory apartment for the owner’s mother.
In response to Mr. Starr’s questions, Mr. Liljedahl indicated that the garage will be pushed back and the apartment will be created in the existing garage; there will be a common entrance. He noted that there will be a second floor with a bedroom. He added that while he doesn’t know the exact square footage of the proposed apartment he noted his understanding that the apartment cannot exceed 25% of the entire house, per the Zoning Regulations.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions, Mr. Liljedahl noted that there is a 2-door garage on the site. He noted that the first floor will not change. Darci Vallez noted that there is unfinished space above the garage and the playroom that can be utilized and the roof will be raised.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Liljedahl explained that there would be no change to the side of the garage just to the back of the garage.
Mr. Kushner explained that no additional exterior entrances are proposed; the house will continue to look like a single-family home. In response to Mr. Kushner’s questions, Darci Vallez confirmed that the apartment is for her mother. Mr. and Mrs. Vallez agreed to conditions such that when the apartment is no longer needed that the house would be converted back to a single-family residence and that the kitchen in the apartment would be removed. Mr. Kushner explained that the kitchen area is what defines the area as a separate apartment and added that, other than the kitchen, the apartment space can be altered any way the owner wishes. He noted that the contractor should calculate the square footage of the apartment, as it cannot exceed 25% of the total house.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Liljedahl commented that he believes the proposed apartment is less than 25% of the total house but noted that he would do the necessary calculations to confirm. He reiterated that the proposed addition is in the back so it won’t be seen from the side or front of the house.
Ms. Keith noted that if the proposed apartment is in excess of 25% of the total house the applicants would have to either come back or reduce the size of the area. Mr. Kushner concurred.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Liljedahl explained that no rent will be charged for the accessory apartment.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4661 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Clark motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Mr. Mahoney seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4659 - Sunlight Construction, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot resubdivision, 2.617 acres, 15 Aspenwood, Parcel 6460015, in an R40 Zone
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4659 subject to the following condition:
1. An additional fee in lieu of open space in the amount of $6,000 shall be submitted to the Town. The existing Mortgage Deed for $30,000 shall be increased to $36,000.
The motion, seconded Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
App. #4660 - Breakaway Enterprises, LLC, and Kenneth Dixon, owners/applicants, request for 2-lot subdivision modification, 8.71 acres, 598 and 600 Deercliff Road, Parcels 2090598 and 2090600, in an RU2A Zone
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4660 subject to the following condition:
1. The comments/requirements of the Farmington Valley Health District, dated April 29, 2013, shall be adhered to/complied with.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.
App. #4661 - Darci and Daryl Vallez, owners, Liljedahl Brothers Inc., applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.q. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit accessory apartment, 37 Beverly Drive, Parcel 1290037, in an R40 Zone
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4661 subject to the following conditions:
- Approval is valid only for immediate members of the Vallez family; the owners have represented that the apartment is for a mother-in-law.
- Approval is valid for a two-year time period; reapplication to the Town is necessary to extend approval beyond April 30, 2015.
- The area of accessory apartment cannot exceed 25% of the total house.
- The second kitchen associated with the accessory apartment shall be removed when the apartment is no longer utilized by the Vallez family and/or if the house is sold to a new owner.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received approved from Mesdames Clark, Griffin, and Keith and Messrs. Starr, Cappello, and Mahoney. Mr. Gackstatter voted in opposition of approval, noting that he doesn’t feel the second kitchen should have to be removed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Proposed Amendment to Zoning Regulations – parking for industrial uses
Mr. Kushner requested the Commission consider an amendment to the Zoning Regulations regarding parking in the Industrial Zone. He noted that Reflexite, located in Avon Park South, has a 60,000-square-foot expansion to their building under construction. A master plan for this site includes a proposal for an additional building on the adjacent, vacant site (140 Darling Drive). Mr. Kushner explained that Reflexite does not have a large number of employees relative to the size of the building. He noted that the building is very large to house a lot of large machines and noted that more large machines are currently under construction in Germany to be shipped to Avon. He noted that his recommendation is to modify the parking regulations to more closely resemble the language in the Town of Farmington’s Regulations (that has existed for many years) to give the Commission the ability to grant waivers and set parking rates based on individual circumstances. He explained that currently
the rate is 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area but noted that there are great variations when it comes to manufacturing uses. The applicant would be asked to demonstrate ways to add parking in the future in the event the property needed to be sold. Mr. Kushner noted that it is his understanding that Reflexite’s intent is to make Avon the Reflective Coating Division Headquarters in the US. He commented that CRCOG has been noticed and a public hearing could take place on May 21.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that the proposed parking amendment is not being proposed specifically for Reflexite and could be used by other manufacturing uses with a similar scenario.
Mr. Kushner explained that if Reflexite ever gets to the point of preparing a site plan for another building on the adjacent site, they are prepared to demonstrate the possibility of constructing a parking deck in the parking lot but added that this scenario is unlikely in the near future. He noted that a parking deck is similar to a parking garage.
Mr. Starr indicated that Avon tends to get technology type industrial uses that have lower numbers of employees.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his agreement and added that automation is the way of the future.
Ms. Keith noted her understanding of the proposed amendment and asked if any reduction would be via special exception. Mr. Kushner confirmed that parking reductions would be via special exception. Ms. Keith commented that an applicant does not have to show where the 3.3 parking spaces would be built and noted her understanding of the parking deck concept but also noted her concerns that if the building is sold that the new owner/tenant might be forced to build a parking deck. She asked if it should be considered whether a property has available land to expand parking, if need be.
Mr. Kushner noted his understanding of Ms. Keith’s comments/concerns and explained that while there is no perfect solution the parking regulations in Farmington state that the applicant will provide parking equal to 1 space for the number of employees in the largest shift. He clarified that the proposed parking amendment suggests essentially what the Town of Farmington’s existing parking regulations state. He noted that the proposed amendment is a bit more conservative, such that 3.3 spaces is the standard but if there is a unique circumstance the applicant has the ability to demonstrate to the Commission that adequate parking will be provided. In addition, to contemplate for the future, the applicant could show that there is some modest opportunity to add additional parking, but not
necessarily to arrive at 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of space.
Ms. Keith noted her understanding but conveyed her concern that if a new tenant with more employees took over a building there should be a way to provide additional parking.
Mr. Kushner reiterated that there is no perfect solution and explained that part of any parking reduction is a determination by the building owner that their needs can be met now and in the near future. He added that the building owner also understands that if something were to change as soon as 10 years from now, that there would be some limitations. He explained that if an industrial use is held to 3.3 spaces/1,000 SF you end up with a situation like exists in the building located next to Reflexite, which has changed tenants many times over the years and has a parking lot that is now approximately 70% vacant on any given day (currently occupied by Legere Woodworking which has very large machines inside the building).
Mrs. Griffin commented that while tenants would not be forced to build a parking garage the available parking limits the number of employees that would be permitted in the building.
Mr. Kushner concurred but noted that numbers of employees can change over time and it is not something that is normally tracked.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that the parking calculation for Legere Woodworking most likely equates to 3.3 spaces per 1,000 SF, which is in excess of what is actually needed.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s suggestion about revising the proposed amendment language to provide a means/path for an applicant to demonstrate/satisfy parking requirements, Mr. Kushner noted his understanding but explained that 3.3 parking spaces/1,000 SF is not likely indicative of what the few industrial users in Town are likely to actually need.
Mr. Starr suggested that research could be done to see if 3.3 spaces should be changed to another target number. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that a parking “path” could be demonstrated/achieved by knocking down part of a building, if need be; building a parking garage is not the only answer. He added that his suggestion for revised language includes the possibility that the 3.3 figure should be changed.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement and understanding of the Commission’s comments and added that although the proposed amendment would apply to all industrial uses in Town, he explained that Reflexite is thinking long term in Avon; possibly world headquarters for their reflective division for many years. He concluded by noting that it is difficult to project what type of parking may be needed in the distant future, as transportation methods/needs could change greatly.
Old Farms Road – realignment proposal
Mr. Kushner addressed the Old Farms Road project and the environmental study required by the Federal government and explained that there is now the possibility of this project being split into 2 projects/phases. He explained that the Federal government would fund 90% of the construction of the portion of the road along the railroad right-of-way and construction would begin quickly, in approximately 2 years.
In response to Mr. Starr’s comment, Mr. Kushner confirmed that the portion of the road along the railroad ROW does not have any wetlands.
Mr. Kushner further explained that although the proposed Alternate “I” alignment has been modified in many different ways to minimize wetlands impacts, the Federal government considers the alignment a new road in a more pristine environment. He noted that the comparison to Alternate “I” is improving Old Farms Road in its current location, which would also create environmental impacts. He pointed out that any scenario results in some environmental impacts. The Federal government would like to get started on the portion of the road along the railroad ROW if the Town is agreeable but also noted that they (Federal) would like to continue with the environmental study for the Alternate “I” alignment utilizing a less rigorous and costly study (EIE - Environmental Impact
Evaluation) than the initial EA (Environmental Assessment) proposed. He noted that the State would most likely fund this study. If the study results in a favorable finding, the Town is trying to determine if the State would help finance the construction of Alternate “I”. If the State will not help fund the road construction, a plan has existed for many years such that the Town and Avon Old Farms School would jointly finance the road construction.
Ms. Keith commented that the first part of the project is where the Town wants the road to be constructed. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Gackstatter and Mr. Mahoney noted their concerns that the first part of the road could be constructed but the second part not be approved and asked whether it would be worth building the first part in that case. Mr. Kushner explained that there would have to be some blending of the new road section with the existing Old Farms Road but acknowledged that an answer to that scenario cannot be known at this time. He added that while the entire project is very, very complicated, Avon Old Farms School has indicated that they are very interested in the Alternate “I” road alignment.
Ms. Keith noted her support to begin the first part of the project, as the environmental evaluation can be done while the first phase is ongoing. She commented that she feels approvals would take less time for an ongoing project, versus a project that hasn’t begun.
Mr. Kushner explained that the concept of splitting the project into 2 parts is recent but further explained that the Town (Tom Daukas, former Town Engineer, now Special Projects Engineer) has been working on this project for 30 years.
Mr. Kushner stated that the School owns approximately 100 acres along Alternate “I”. Approximately 60% is a wetland with not much monetary value for development however there is approximately 35 to 40 acres that is developable. Mr. Kushner noted that it has been considered to ask the School to donate these 100 acres as their contribution for road construction costs. He explained that Mr. Daukas has indicated that the cost is roughly $2.5M more to build the new alignment but noted that the numbers are still being refined. He added that there have been discussions over the years between the Town and the School about the possibility of the Town acquiring some of those 100 acres to preserve as open space.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that the option of a property exchange is still part of the discussions. The School has committed to deed to the Town, at no cost, the right-of-way that is necessary to construct the entire new road alignment. He noted that the Town, in exchange, would deed to the School the Old Farms alignment.
STAFF REPORT
O’Neills Chevrolet – 5 West Main Street – vehicle display
Mr. Kushner addressed vehicle display in front of O’Neill Chevrolet and noted that the meeting tapes where this discussion took place (Sept 2011) between the architect (Dante Boffi) and the Commission have been listened to, again, and it has been confirmed that Mr. Boffi indicated that the vehicle display spaces were to be removed. He explained that there had been 4 vehicle display spaces in front of the building for many years and Mr. Sullivan indicates that his intention was never to give up all 4 spaces. The site plan approved by the Commission in Sept 2011 (App. #4565) has a condition of approval implying that 2 spaces would remain.
Mr. Kushner acknowledged that 2 remaining spaces is his understanding and Mr. Sullivan accepts 2 spaces. He indicated that Mr. Sullivan still needs to install a small amount of landscaping in 4 areas in the front patio area and noted that Mr. Sullivan has confirmed that he will plant the area.
In response to Mr. Starr and Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that Mr. Sullivan has requested to rebuild, exactly as is, the existing detached sign. He noted that the sign looks dated so the plan is to rebuild it to the same size using more modern materials.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on April 30, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4659 - Sunlight Construction, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot resubdivision, 2.617 acres, 15 Aspenwood, Parcel 6460015, in an R40 Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITION
App. #4660 - Breakaway Enterprises, LLC, and Kenneth Dixon, owners/applicants, request for 2-lot subdivision modification, 8.71 acres, 598 and 600 Deercliff Road, Parcels 2090598 and 2090600, in an RU2A Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITION
App. #4661 - Darci and Daryl Vallez, owners, Liljedahl Brothers Inc., applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.q. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit accessory apartment, 37 Beverly Drive, Parcel 1290037, in an R40 Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
In addition, the following applications were WITHDRAWN:
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. #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
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
Dated at Avon this 1st day of May, 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, May 21, 2013, at 7:30 P.M. at the Avon Town Hall:
App. #4664 - K Brothers LLC, owner, Tim’s Signs, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 213 West Main Street, Parcel 4540213, in a CR Zone
App. #4665 - Proposed amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to parking for industrial uses; Town of Avon, applicant.
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 6th day of May, 2013.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chair
Linda Keith, Vice Chair
| 
