The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Company #1 Firehouse, 25 Darling Drive in Avon on Tuesday October 8, 2013. Present were Linda Keith, Chair, Carol Griffin, Vice Chair, Duane Starr, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, Peter Mahoney, and Christian Gackstatter and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Jenna Ryan. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Ms. Keith called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2013, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4680 - Avonwood Enterprises LLC, owner, National Sign Corp., applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign,172 West Main Street, Parcel 4540172, in an OP Zone
Present to represent this application was Tracy Becker, National Sign Corporation.
Ms. Becker explained that Prudential has been purchased by Berkshire Hathaway; the proposal is to replace the existing base and monument sign.
Mr. Kushner indicated that the sign complies with the Zoning Regulations.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4680 was closed.
App. #4682 - Charles R. Pilitowski, Trustee of Casimer S. Pilitowski Revocable Trust and Executor of Estate of Regina~ P. Pilitowski, owner/applicant, request for 4-lot Resubdivision, 4.0 acres, 237 Huckleberry Hill Road, Parcel 2810237, in an R30 Zone
Present to represent this application were Robert Reeve, Scully, Nicksa, & Reeve LLP; and
Doug Ellis, PE, Buck & Buck, LLC.
Attorney Reeve explained that the subject site is a 4-acre parcel that has been in the Pilitowski family for many decades. He noted that the developable land calculation results in 4.75 lots; the proposal is a 4-lot resubdivision. The subject parcel was originally part of the 24-lot Westbury Subdivision, located to the west of the new proposed lots. The existing Pilitowski house has frontage on Huckleberry Hill Road and will be preserved; 3 lots will have frontage on Westbury and will conform to the requirements of the R30 zone, without the need for any special permit or variance approvals. The wetlands located on the western portion of the parcel are protected by a conservation easement in connection with the Westbury Subdivision. He noted that the Inland Wetlands issued a Declaratory Ruling
at their September 3, 2013, meeting and asked that that ruling be made a part of this public hearing record.
Mr. Ellis explained that all 3 proposed lots will be using existing utilities. He noted that the Fire Marshal has requested an additional hydrant and noted that a hydrant exists around the corner and another hydrant exists at the intersection. He noted that a letter has been received from the CT Water Company stating that they can serve this project. The existing well for the Pilitowski house is now shown on the plans, per a request from the Farmington Valley Health District. He added that the existing sewer line will have to be rerouted.
Mr. Kushner explained that there is no new infrastructure that needs to be built for the proposed lots, as the road is already in place; the existing house remains as is, with less acreage, and with the existing driveway from Huckleberry Hill Road.
Mr. Ellis read aloud the letter received from the CT Water Company and submitted the letter for the record.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4682 was closed.
App. #4683 - PDP Financial, LLC, and MOJO Enterprises, LLC, owners, Sunlight Construction, applicant, request for 39-lot Subdivision, “Stratfordshire”, 45.5 acres, 44 Lenox Road, Parcel 3010044, in an R30 Zone
App. #4684 - 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
Present were William Ferrigno, President, Sunlight Construction; William Aston, PE, Buck and Buck LLC; Robert M. Meyers, Meyers, Piscitelli & Link LLP; and Mark Vertucci, PE, Traffic Engineer, Fuss and O’Neill.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that the proposal is for a 39-lot subdivision, proposed under the cluster regulations. The Inland Wetlands Commission granted approval for regulated activities needed for utility construction at their September 3 meeting. He explained that the original proposal, submitted earlier this year, was for 57 units. He clarified that no condominium units are proposed; all lots would contain single-family freestanding homes with both public and private roads. He noted that he has been working with the Town Engineer to implement low-impact drainage measures/designs. Mr. Ferrigno explained that the proposed cluster development calls for less disturbed area than there might be with a conforming “as of right” R30 subdivision. The property is served by public water
and public sewer and natural gas. He noted that many different design layouts/development possibilities were prepared and several were “as of right” designs; the “as of right” designs resulted in quite a bit more disturbance and he added that he believes that point is one of the highlights of the subject proposal.
Mr. Ferrigno displayed an overview map (PowerPoint presentation), noting that the subject parcel is located between the Lenox Road and Haynes Road neighborhoods. He noted that most of the developed area of Sycamore Hills is near West Avon Road. The density calculation for this parcel results in a maximum of 43 lots. The proposal is to connect Lenox Road, currently ends in a road stub, with Haynes Road, which ends in a paved road stub that has existed for some time. Also proposed is a private road, called “Southampton” and a public road, “Stratfordshire Ridge”. A temporary cul-de-sac is proposed to connect to the undeveloped land located to the north. Mr. Ferrigno displayed a map that proposes a theoretic, “as of right” development; every lot would
meet the R30 requirements and he added that no additional wetland activities or approvals would be needed to construct this layout. He noted that a trail network near “Big Brook” is proposed as part of the subject proposal. Approximately 4.5 acres of open space is proposed as part of subject proposal. He indicated that he has been asked to provide a routing from Haynes Road through to Lenox Road and noted that the subject proposal does that.
Mr. Ferrigno read aloud the purpose of the cluster development from the Regulations….”the purpose of this section is to permit variations in residential developments which would not otherwise be possible, permit flexible site design so that development may be constructed in harmony with and preserve natural site features and permit residential developments which are sensitive to parcel configuration, topography, natural features, and the surrounding neighborhood.” He noted that he feels a cluster subdivision is a better solution for development on this site because it would preserve the natural features, as well as result in privacy to adjacent neighbors; the site is surrounded by developed properties including approximately 1,100 feet of shared frontage with Farmington Woods. A large
conservation easement is proposed to offer protection between the two properties; privacy is also trying to be achieved through non clearing and cluster results in much less disturbance of soil. He explained that if the proposed development were approved as submitted, approximately 58% of the site would remain undisturbed. Mr. Ferrigno added that it is his opinion as a builder/developer that the subject proposal is nicer, as more trees can be preserved. He noted that there is more potential for clearing in connection with a conventional subdivision even after the property is sold, as many people will clear more trees. He explained that the dark green shown around the perimeter of the property are areas that are proposed to be left in their natural state. There is between 25 and 50 feet of buffer to the Lenox Road neighborhood that would be held in a conservation easement and there is even more separation to the Hadley Drive property owners. A
ring of trees is proposed to be left adjacent to Knoll Lane and Haynes Road. He noted that a large area in the center of the site is proposed as dedicated open space and/or retained as forest.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the entire property slopes generally from west to east; Big Brook is at the lowest point. He indicated that the dedicated open space area proposed in the center of the site contains a mini wetland area and no activities are proposed.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that there are large mature oak trees along the border with Farmington Woods but there is not much understory; he noted that he has talked with Farmington Woods about possibly adding some understory, should the subject proposal be approved. He noted that adding a line of boulders is also a possibility to create a boundary in an attempt to keep people from entering Farmington Woods, as it’s a private community.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Ferrigno explained that access to the open space proposed adjacent to Southampton Lane could be provided through one of the new lots; he added that the Commission could suggest an access area. He added that this area of proposed open space is highly developable and could easily be made part of 2 or 3 lots; it was put there to provide a break between the smaller lots and the larger lots. He explained that he proposes to build homes more fitting to “empty nesters” on the smaller lots; homes with first floor master bedrooms that do not encourage a lot of children. He commented that he believes housing of this nature is needed, based on calls he receives. Southampton Lane is proposed as a private road with a homeowners association; owners
would own and take care of the inside but the exterior would be maintained by an association.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the conservation easements could be held by whomever the Commission wishes; easements could be held by either the homeowners association or the Town and it could be discussed.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the zone is R30 but noted that some of the lots are as small as 12,000 SF. Mr. Ferrigno explained that the proposal is for a cluster development where lot areas and frontages can be reduced under the Regulations. Mrs. Griffin commented that the lots are pretty small. Mr. Ferrigno commented that he is not aware of any minimum lot sizes required in a cluster proposal.
Mr. Kushner confirmed that Avon’s Zoning Regulations do not contain requirements for minimum lot sizes for cluster developments as some other towns do, such as Farmington.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that a minimum of 100 feet of frontage is proposed to allow for separation between houses.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the proposal is to construct 2,500 SF houses; approximately 48 to 52 feet in width.
Mrs. Griffin noted that at the first public hearing for this property both the Commission and members of the public expressed their concerns about maintaining the character of the Lenox Road and Haynes Road neighborhoods; she added that these neighborhoods are not close to lot sizes of 12,000 SF. She indicated that this proposal is very similar to the first proposal.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that the subject proposal has 18 units less than the first proposal.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the subject proposal still contains a section of housing that is no way comparable to either of the adjacent developments.
Mr. Ferrigno questioned in terms of house size or lot size.
Mrs. Griffin commented that lot size is not comparable.
Mr. Ferrigno indicated that there are many houses on Haynes Road that are not 2,500 SF in size.
Mrs. Griffin commented that what is starting out in an area is not is what is ending up in an area.
Mr. Ferrigno asked for clarification.
Mrs. Griffin explained that at the first public hearing the Commission suggested that Mr. Ferrigno return to the Commission with a plan that is compatible with the adjacent areas. Mr. Ferrigno noted that Farmington Woods is adjacent to the subject site.
Mrs. Griffin commented that Farmington Woods is not part of the other neighborhoods; she added that Mr. Ferrigno represented that Farmington Woods is a private gated community that wants to maintain their separation. She added that the other neighborhoods are contiguous and flow back and forth. The proposed area of very small lots is not comparable to either of the adjacent proposed areas.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that there is one proposed driveway entrance off of the proposed “main road” which connects to neighborhoods being referred to by Mrs. Griffin. He suggested that given that the area is off of the main road that it is a little bit of a different neighborhood itself. He asked for clarification from Mrs. Griffin if her concern relates to smaller lots and whether they fit in or not.
Mrs. Griffin confirmed that she feels the smaller lots do not fit in and in the long run would bring down the property values of the other areas.
Mr. Ferrigno stated his opinion that there would be no reduction in property values; the proposed homes would sell for $500,000 to $600,000. He explained that there are plenty of instances (Muirfield Village/Farmington Woods and Sconsett Point) where similar type homes have been built and those houses are not lower in value. He added that the houses proposed for the larger lots on this plan would be in the range of $800,000; he indicated that Avon has quite a few of these types of houses already and added that maybe it’s time to do something different in Town. He reiterated his opinion that he doesn’t see any reduction in home values.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated that he feels the difference between the original design and the current design is that it appears that an effort has been made by Mr. Ferrigno to sequester the neighborhood with a bank of trees. He added that he is not sure how much different the current design is from the original design but added that there appears to be more trees separating the project from the neighborhoods.
Mr. Ferrigno stated that half as many units are being proposed as were proposed originally; there were 37 units on the original plan.
Mrs. Clark commented that it appears that an effort is being made to put the cluster homes in their own area.
Mr. Ferrigno commented that he wants to separate the neighborhoods a little bit.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Aston explained that the area is approximately 100 feet wide by 100 feet long.
Mr. Ferrigno clarified that it is 100 feet from boundary to boundary; there is another 50 to 60 feet of trees on either side. He noted that there is probably closer to 130 to 150 feet.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions about how much wooded area exists between the existing homes on Lenox and Haynes Roads and the proposed development, Mr. Ferrigno indicated that there is probably 80 to 100 feet of treed area on the Lenox Road side and noted that the separation on Haynes Road differs depending on the area. He explained that there is maybe 30 feet in some areas but noted that the area broadens out to approximately 150 feet. He reiterated that while there isn’t a lot of understory at the border with Farmington Woods, there is a thick hardwood forest.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the proposed road seems to be one-way, with a dead end with a lot of houses on it.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that the road meets the Town’s Regulations for permanent cul-de-sacs. He added that he hasn’t seen any comments from either the Fire Chief or Fire Marshal.
Mr. Kushner stated that the Fire Chief (Michael Trick) submitted a letter noting that he is not happy with the number of homes on the road and the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Ferrigno commented that he believes the Fire Chief is not happy with the proposed planted cul-de-sac. He stated that the length of the proposed dead-end cul-de-sac road and the number of lots meet the Regulations.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Aston noted that the Regulations permit a road length of 1,500 feet or less for dead end cul-de sacs and added that proposed road is less than 1,500 feet in length and is 26 feet wide.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that private roads have to be built to Town public road standards but are not maintained by the Town.
Mr. Ferrigno continued his presentation and explained that the proposed design offers a variety of lot sizes and housing options while allowing an increased buffer to adjacent property owners. He noted that Farmington Woods was approved by special permit.
Mr. Ferrigno displayed a map that showed open space and bufferyards and noted that the areas in dark green designate the conservation easements and/or dedicated open space areas discussed earlier. He noted that restrictions would be placed on clearing limits and noted that if the subject proposal were to be approved, some type of clearing map would likely be a condition of approval.
Mr. Kushner agreed that a “clearing map” would be one way to control tree cutting but asked what would prevent future home buyers, in this instance, from cutting trees on their property if the only areas of restriction are located along the perimeter of the site.
Mr. Ferrigno indicated that if another layer/level of control is not possible, a conservation easement could be placed on the entire area. Mr. Kushner concurred and added that the “forest preserve areas map” could identify the restricted areas. Mr. Ferrigno conveyed his understanding.
Mr. Gackstatter asked who enforces conservation easements and asked what recourse neighbors would have when/if a homeowner dump leaves, for example, onto their own property, which happens to be located in a conservation area. He added that the legal instruments need to be considered.
Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding and asked how all the existing conservation easements in Town, as well as Town open space, are enforced. He asked if it would be better if the conservation areas were held by a third party so as to be better policed.
Mr. Gackstatter stated that he feels policing would be better with a third party.
Mr. Ferrigno noted his appreciation for Mr. Gackstatter’s comments and indicated that his long-term goals are similar.
Mr. Kushner explained that because the benefits of conservation in this instance are only for the individual homeowners that would be living in this development, he added that he doesn’t feel the Town Council would be interested in policing the area. He added that a private homeowners association would most likely be the best mechanism for enforcement; peer pressure is often helpful in these situations.
Mr. Starr pointed out that bad neighbors can exist anywhere and noted that there is no way to prevent certain situations. He referenced the open space trail that was constructed in connection with the Knoll Lane Subdivision and noted that on the map the trail appears to end at the street. He added that he believes the intent of the trail was to connect into existing open space to allow individuals to access the overall trail network. He indicated that the map shows the area as bufferyard setback and not as open space.
Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding of Mr. Starr’s comments and indicated that the maps would be changed. He added that the intent is to promote pedestrian access to the open space.
Mr. Starr noted that the change may cause some of the lot sizes to shrink below minimum requirements, as the area cannot be shown as both lot area and open space.
Mr. Ferrigno conveyed his understanding and added that it is his intention to provide a 10 to 20-foot wide corridor to access the open space located due east.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that while the subject property is close to Sycamore Hills it does not directly abut it and therefore no connection could be made.
Mr. Ferrigno concluded by noting that the proposal provides a connection between Lenox and Haynes Roads; access is being provided to the Thompson parcel located to the north; public water and sewer are provided; natural gas and utilities are provided; enhanced public access to open space is provided including a trail to be constructed on the site; and low-impact design elements are being implemented, which would result in no increase to peak flow into Big Brook.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that approval was received from the Inlands Wetlands Commission to build a wood chip trail in the open space area with a connection to the neighborhood. He clarified that that is the proposal but the Commission could ask for the trail in a different location.
Mr. Vertucci, PE and transportation engineer/traffic operations engineer, explained that an updated traffic impact study was done for the site. He stated that the site provides an opportunity to connect 2 neighborhoods; this connection was envisioned in the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development with the goal being to improve connectivity and circulation between the neighborhoods. The connection also improves safety by providing a second outlet for each of these neighborhoods which currently only have one way in and out. He explained that the intersections studied include Hollister at Lovely Street; Lenox Road at Hollister Drive; the signalized intersection at West Avon Road and Hollister Drive; and the intersection of Haynes Road and West Avon Road. Turning movement traffic counts were
conducted in February 2013 at each of these 4 intersections; morning peak is 7:15am to 8:15am and afternoon peak is 4:45pm to 5:45pm.
Mr. Vertucci explained that traffic volumes were grown to build year 2016, as the site would most likely be partially occupied by that time.
Mr. Vertucci addressed traffic generated by the proposed development and noted that rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual was reviewed. The Manual projects .75 trips per unit in the AM peak hour and approximately 1 trip per unit in the PM peak hour. He explained that no rates are available for age-targeted homes, which are roughly half of the proposed development. A local trip generation was conducted earlier this year and also last month; traffic counts were done at “Buckingham”, a similar type development with 140 single-family homes. The rates were similar to the ITE rates, a little bit more in the AM peak and a little bit less in the PM peak; these local rates were used to determine how much traffic the proposed 20 single-family homes would generate. He noted
traffic counts were also done at “Muirfield” located in Farmington Woods, which is also an age-targeted community; “Sconsett Bluff” was also counted, as it contains age-targeted homes. The results of these counts were .76 trips per unit in the AM peak and .69 trips per unit in the PM peak. He noted that the age-targeted homes generate less traffic than single-family homes but they generate more traffic than what would normally be seen from a senior adult housing project with an age restriction component.
Mr. Vertucci explained that the results were expected, as the proposed houses are marketed more towards the senior population; the house design caters to families without children and tend to generate less trips per day and less peak hour trips. He stated that 36 trips are anticipated from this development; 36 trips in the AM peak hour and 30 trips in PM peak hour. He commented that 35 “as of right” houses could be constructed on this site, which would result in a reduction of 2 trips in the AM peak hour and an increase of 1 trip in the PM peak hour. Mr. Vertucci summarized by noting that there is no noticeable change in traffic generation from what is currently proposed versus the “as of right” use.
Mr. Vertucci addressed traffic distribution and explained that 25% of the traffic is coming to the site from the southeast on West Avon Road; 25% is coming from the northeast; 25% is coming from Lovely Street to the north; and 25% is coming from Lovely Street to the south. The proposed development would generate 10 additional trips on Haynes Road during the peak hours; 1 car every 6 minutes, very low traffic generation. Lenox Road would generate 26 trips in the AM peak and 21 trips in the PM; about 1 car every 3 minutes. He noted that these volumes are the same as would be experienced with an “as of right” use.
Mr. Vertucci addressed redistribution of existing traffic and noted that it is likely that some of the traffic on the west end of Haynes Road will choose to use the new connection through the site to access Hollister Drive if Lovely Street is their goal. He explained that this would result in a reduction of the existing trip traffic at the West Avon Road intersection. He noted that it is unlikely for a number of reasons that any existing traffic from West Avon Road or Hollister Drive will redistribute along the proposed route. The site has been designed to promote very low traffic speeds and traffic calming. Looping “S” formations in the roads are proposed as well as 2 “T” stop sign intersections, one located in the middle of the site and one located at “Stratfordshire
Drive” and Haynes Road. The intersections will be stop controlled; speeds throughout the site would be in the range of 20 mph. He noted that the proposed road network is long and circuitous as compared to the Hollister Drive route, which is a straightaway road with speeds of 40+ mph and only 2 potential stopping points at the traffic signals on West Avon Road and Scoville Road. West Avon Road is also a straightaway with speeds of 40+ mph.
Mr. Vertucci indicated that Crestwood Road and Bronson Road would be a much more desirable cut through route for people looking to avoid school traffic during the morning peak hour at the intersection of Hollister Drive and West Avon Road. He explained that a series of travel time runs were conducted; a run through the site, the alternate route of Crestwood/Bronson Roads, and the primary route of West Avon Road and Hollister Drive. He noted that travel times for the future connected road through the site are substantially more than either of the other 2 routes. The southbound route (Hollister Drive turning right heading down West Avon Road) has an average travel time of 2.45 minutes; heading northbound (West Avon Road to Hollister Drive westbound) has a travel time of 3.06 minutes. The cut through
route of Crestwood/Bronson Roads have similar travel times and at times were slightly less. The model route through the site is approximately 4 minutes, due to turns, lower travel speeds, and longer distance. Mr. Vertucci stated that the existing route and the alternate cut through route have less travel time than the route through the proposed site and, therefore, concluded that the likelihood of cut through traffic from existing traffic volumes is likely to be low, as it does not save time.
Mr. Kushner asked whether the alternate routes/cut through routes were studied during peak traffic times, such as during school hours, to see if they would be more or less desirable.
Mr. Vertucci responded by noting that the simulated travel time runs were done during the peak hours; the times noted earlier were an average of the morning and afternoon peak hours. He noted that there is a big spike for 15 minutes during school times that could generate longer queues longer than modeled, particularly at the West Avon Road and Hollister Drive intersection. He noted that the Crestwood/Bronson route would be more desirable as a cut through, as the route is shorter and more direct and the travel time is approximately 1½ minutes less than traveling through the subject site.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s questions, Mr. Vertucci explained that the traffic study was not done with the assumption that the cluster portion of the development would be sold to seniors/empty nesters. He further explained that the ITE Manual has no reference information for age-targeted homes and that is why traffic counts were done at 2 other existing age-targeted developments in Town; those rates were then applied to the 19 proposed houses. Mrs. Clark commented that the proposed houses will have up to 3 bedrooms and could potentially be occupied by families with children. She added that seniors are working longer and suggested that this be kept in mind with regard to the numbers. Mr. Vertucci noted his understanding and noted that that was the reason for the traffic counts at Buckingham
and Sconsett Bluff, as they are the same type of homes.
Mr. Vertucci stated that the traffic count results are higher than senior adult rates but lower than the single family rates and fall somewhere in the middle, as expected.
Mr. Gackstatter asked if the traffic coming out of Thompson Road from the School was included in the traffic counts. He noted his concerns with people coming out of Thompson Road dropping off children and asked if the counts included people trying to get back home. Mr. Vertucci stated that the traffic coming out of Thompson Road was not counted.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concern that traffic backs up at Thompson Road and Haynes Road and suggested that data for Thompson Road to Route 167 be added to the traffic study area.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Vertucci confirmed that traffic counts were done while school was in session.
Mr. Starr referenced the redistribution of traffic on the back circle part of Haynes Road and asked whether the traffic counts included the number of vehicles coming out onto West Avon Road from that back circle. Mr. Vertucci confirmed that no counts were done for Haynes Road at Haynes. Mr. Starr explained that he feels it would be very helpful to know what percentage of the Haynes Road traffic is coming from the rear portion of the road. He added that the residents located at the back circle are more likely to use the new proposed access through the site to Hollister Drive. Mr. Vertucci noted his agreement. Mr. Starr indicated that this scenario may offset a portion of the new traffic that may be coming onto Haynes Road from the proposed development. Mr. Vertucci concurred.
Mr. Vertucci stated that a capacity analysis was done to determine any impacts at the 4 study intersections. The analysis revealed that there would be minimal increases in delay and no reductions in Level of Service at any of the intersections except the Lenox Road approach to Hollister Drive in the morning peak, which decreased from Level A to Level B. He noted that both Levels A and B are efficient service levels with low vehicle delay; no significant impact. Increases in vehicle queues at each intersection are an average of one vehicle length or less.
Mr. Vertucci explained that sight distances were measured at the site driveway where “Stratfordshire” intersects with Haynes Road; at the intersection at Concord Place and Lenox Road, now a “T” intersection; and at Lenox Road at Hollister Drive. He explained that each of the sight distances measured exceed State DOT criteria for the posted speeds with one exception and that is coming out of Concord Place to the left there is a row of pines that need to be trimmed to improve the sight line; the trimming can occur within the Town right-of-way.
Mr. Vertucci concluded by noting that the proposed residential development would be a low traffic generator and generate similar volumes to the “as of right” use. Trip generation rates used in the study are backed up by local data collected in Avon at similar residential developments. No noticeable increase to vehicle delay is anticipated at any of the study intersections and the TIS concluded that upon completion of the aforementioned sight line improvements, the proposed development would not significantly impact traffic in the study area.
Mr. Ferrigno addressed the Director of Planning’s Staff Comments and clarified that the underlying density for this site is 43 units rather than 45 units. He acknowledged that the site cannot be designed for the allowable density due to site restrictions. He further clarified that while Mr. Kushner’s report noted that a conventional development could include approximately 30 lots in total he noted that several studies have been done and added that tonight’s presentation included a demonstration for 35 lots.
Mr. Kushner asked whether a plan has been prepared with a level of detail to show that grading and construction of 35 houses is possible. Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that none of the plans have advanced to that level but added that he would be happy to do it. Mr. Kushner clarified that there is the possibility for as many as 35 houses but it is not certain at this time. Mr. Ferrigno noted that he used the word theoretical in connection with the number of lots and added that there may be the possibility for 37 homes but noted that in that instance there would not be enough land to deed 10% open space. He explained that while fee in lieu may be an option he added that he assumes the Commission would not accept fee in lieu, as there are significant areas of existing open space in this area.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Ferrigno agreed that more detail could be gathered and provided at the next meeting.
Mr. Ferrigno addressed traffic and stated that he would have no problem paying for an independent traffic engineer hired by the Town to conduct an independent traffic study. He added that he believes his traffic study has been professionally done and reflects the facts.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he has a problem with tonight’s traffic study as it does not include data from Thompson Brook to Route 167 and added that he feels this area should be added to the model. Mr. Ferrigno stated that Thompson Brook could be added to the traffic study area.
Mr. Ferrigno conveyed his understanding and agreement with the Fire Chief’s comments. He reviewed the Fire Marshal’s comments and noted that it is not his intention to put fire sprinklers in the homes, as it is not part of the CT Building Code. He confirmed that he is ok with the Fire Marshal approving the hydrant locations. The Fire Marshal has indicated that some of the road names may need to be changed due to similarities/confusion to other existing names in Town. Mr. Ferrigno noted that while he likes the names he will defer to the judgment of the Commission and the safety officials. He noted that no comments have been received from the Town Engineering Department.
Mr. Kushner indicated that the Town Engineering Department has no significant issues and are generally in favor of the proposed engineered plan.
Mr. Ferrigno noted that it is likely the public hearing will be continued and further noted that he will continue to work with Town Staff.
Mr. Ferrigno, in conclusion, explained that the subject site is going to be developed and homes are going to be built; he noted that, currently, he has a contract to purchase the land. It seems evident that there is a strong desire by the Town to establish a cross connection and added that he has no argument with that, as a road with 90+ homes should have another way in and out. He conveyed his opinion that a cluster development achieves some things that cannot be achieved in an “as of right” development; namely, more separation from the subject site to the abutting neighbors. He added that he feels there is plenty of evidence in the last few years of “as of right” developments where there is not a lot of respect for saving trees. Mr. Ferrigno explained that due to
topography and blasting the Knoll Lane Subdivision was essentially clear cut. He added that the Cambridge Crossing Subdivision had a very different visual outcome, as trees could be saved. He indicated that cluster developments give the Commission quite a bit of discretion and added that he feels that some of the concerns have been anticipated and the design reflects it. He added that he is happy to address items that are subject to change, such as open space as discussed earlier.
Mrs. Griffin commented to Mr. Ferrigno that he was going to provide reasons for making the proposed road a private road. Mr. Ferrigno explained that the property would be marketed with a separate homeowners association if the road was private; all 19 proposed homes would be subject to the association. While there would be controlling architecture and landscaping he added that he feels the strong benefit to the Town is they would not have to take ownership so there would be no maintenance responsibilities. He added that the proposed 19 home area would probably only result in 2 school-age children. He noted that of the 30+ homes at Muirfield (Farmington Woods) and Sconsett Point, there are currently only 4 children in the school system.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Ferrigno indicated that while he is not planning to gate the area people will know that it is a different type of community with pillars, lighting, and signs and the houses will be smaller. He added that the architecture will blend in with the rest of the site.
Mr. Starr asked for the next meeting to see the north end of the private road connected back in to provide an option to go north thru Lenox rather than head south first. He noted that he feels it should be a public street rather than private. He explained that the open space that connects from the trail from Knoll Lane must be factored in along the southern property line back to the Big Brook open space. He noted that this will possibly impact the number of lots and added that there needs to be enough width so individuals are not walking through backyards.
Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding and added that he believes 20 feet was used on Knoll Lane.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels wider than 20 feet would be desirable.
Mr. Gackstatter asked Mr. Starr why he prefers a public road over a private road.
Mr. Starr explained that once the second or third home is built the residents start asking why their road is not being plowed by the Town. Mr. Gackstatter noted his understanding.
Mr. Ferrigno commented that many of the side streets in Buckingham are private.
Mr. Starr commented that Buckingham and Farmington Woods are different due to the size of the developments. He reiterated his preference for a public road on the subject site.
Mr. Ferrigno noted that changing the road to public will change the setbacks and the clearing. In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that he believes a homeowners association could still be created but it would have nothing to do with the road.
Mr. Starr commented that there are public roads in Town that have homeowners associations (i.e., Juniper Drive is one example).
Ms. Keith commented that there are several members of the Commission who would like to see the road connected and not end in a long cul-de-sac to provide diversity for entry and exit. She announced that the public hearing for this application will be continued to the next meeting, as the Commission has requested that an independent traffic study be conducted.
Mr. Starr indicated that the following areas should be addressed in the requested traffic study:
- Thompson Road/West Avon Road
- Haynes Road/Haynes Road
- Additional traffic calming measures – can a 3-way stop be installed at Hollister/Lenox to slow speeds well below the posted speeds on Hollister
Mr. Mahoney commented that he doesn’t feel age-targeted homes should be a part of the traffic study. Mr. Starr concurred and noted that all the houses built should be based on single family. He also asked whether the traffic would be impacted if the proposed private road is connected.
Mr. Kushner recommended that the first step is to ask the applicant’s engineer to study each of the items just mentioned and present a revised report to the Commission. The Commission may also want to hire their own independent expert to:
1) Review the supplemental information as well as the main body of the report and then determine whether the Commission’s expert concurs or not with all findings.
2) Another opinion is needed as to whether or not the proposed connection road will or will not be used as a cut through; he added that a lot of testimony will be received from the neighbors on this issue. He explained that if it is determined that the route would not be used as a short cut and it is found to truly serve the needs of the existing neighbors plus the new homeowners on the site, there will probably be much less concern by the neighbors.
Mr. Starr indicated that he feels part of the information could be obtained by monitoring the traffic that is turning right from Hollister onto Crestwood, as that is where the morning queuing would take place.
Mr. Kushner noted that if the Commission’s traffic study expert indicates that the new connection will not be used as a short cut but doesn’t express the same level of confidence conveyed in Mr. Vertucci’s report, the Commission’s expert could be asked to study other traffic calming measures. For example, change the design to introduce other measures to slow traffic while still accommodating both public safety and the circulation plan discussed in the Plan of Conservation and Development. Make changes to possibly make it take longer to get from Hollister Drive to West Avon Road. He noted that Mr. Bonner pointed out at a previous meeting that the Stony Corners neighborhood is very complex such that people would not consider using it as a cut through.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether Mr. Vertucci’s traffic study took into account variations of travel speed based on the road topography.
Mr. Vertucci explained that each segment of the model uses the prevailing travel speed; recorded speeds were documented and used where there were actual automatic traffic recorder counts. He noted that in other instances, typically 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit was used. He added that an ATR was done in the vicinity of where the site driveway will come out; speeds recorded there were 25 mph, which is the speed limit.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Vertucci clarified that he doesn’t have recorded speeds on the straight run sections of Haynes Road. Mr. Gackstatter requested that data for these areas be studied during school time in the next month.
Mr. Kushner addressed the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) and clarified that the Town is not relying on a 50-year-old Plan. He explained that the Commission is required by State law to prepare a Plan of Conservation and Development and a section of that Plan must include a Plan of Circulation for the Town. He explained that the first POCD was adopted in 1968 and Haynes Road is shown, as it was already completed, but Hollister Drive was only built in portion. He noted that State law used to require the Plan be updated every 10 years, which has since been changed, but further noted that subsequent Plans were adopted in 1979, 1991, and 2006. He stated that there were 38 road stubs shown in the 1991 Plan, which were strips of land left from earlier subdivisions to be used specifically for
road extensions. He pointed out that some of these stubs have been accomplished while some still remain; the Haynes Road stub is one of the remaining stubs. Mr. Kushner indicated that the Commission has struggled over the years on how to provide notice to residents that road stubs exist. He noted that all subdivision maps recorded in the Town Clerk’s office have notes identifying future road stubs. He explained that to ensure that the Town has the right to extend roads when the time is right, the Town now takes title to the road stubs but added that this wasn’t always the case. He explained that the Town owns the land where the Haynes Road stub exists to permit an extension; the road stubs for both Haynes Road and Lenox Road have been paved to make it obvious.
Mr. Kushner addressed the Plan of Circulation and explained that there are essentially 3 classifications of roads; local roads, collector roads, and arterial roads. The roads being discussed tonight (Lenox, Haynes, Spring Brook, etc.) are local roads, which are not designed to carry heavy volumes of traffic but rather are designed to serve the needs of specific homeowners. He read an excerpt from the 1979 Plan of Circulation, noting that the theme remains in both the 1991 and 2006 Plans:
“The priority goal of the Plan of Circulation is to provide for a safe and efficient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the Town of Avon. The circulation map presents a plan which relies on an integrated network of arterial, collector, and residential streets to distribute traffic throughout Town. Residential streets function to provide access to residential properties. (He clarified that residential streets really means local streets – local streets function to provide access to residential properties.) Collector streets serve primarily to funnel traffic from residential areas to arterial streets.”
He explained that collector roads include Hollister Drive, which was built to a more rigorous standard than any of the other smaller roads being discussed. It has a wider pavement width (60-foot right-of-way) and carries higher traffic volumes and was designed for that purpose. It was shown in the 1968 Plan of Circulation and designed to those standards. Other examples of collector roads in Town are Stagecoach Road, Juniper Drive, New Road, Huckleberry Hill Road, Country Club Road, and Arch Road. Arterial roads, also known as State roads, are designed to efficiently distribute local and regional traffic throughout the Town (i.e., Lovely Street Route 177, West Main Street, Route 44, West Avon Road, Route 167, and Simsbury Road and Waterville Roads, Route 10). He indicated that he feels
it would be a good idea to verify the statements of Mr. Vertucci, via an independent traffic study, that the site would not be used as a cut through. He confirmed that while the intent of the proposed road connection is not to transform the nature of quiet residential areas he also noted that none of the existing neighborhoods being discussed are private gated communities; they are served by public streets and part of the public road system. The recent road connection of Tamara Circle to Pioneer Drive dates back to the 1968 Plan of Circulation but took a long time to happen. There were similar concerns with Arch Road and Country Club Road and whether the connection would be used as a cut through. He explained that the Commission asked the developer of the Fairway Ridge Subdivision to build a circuitous roadway to slow traffic; he added that through personal observation he has not seen this road used as a cut through, as it would take longer. Pheasant
Run to Wright Drive is another road connection as a result of the Far Hills Subdivision; he noted that this connection is only used when Route 44 is blocked. Northington Drive was created incrementally over a 15-year time period in connection with the construction of 5 or 6 residential developments. He explained that construction of the road never really stopped over that 15-year time period and added that the last connection to Lofgren Road took place recently. He indicated that no calls were received by the Town Hall about the Lofgren connection and explained that it could be due to the fact that construction had been ongoing for a long time. He noted the connection from Hazen Drive to Ridgebury; Woodford Hills was an established neighborhood with one way in and out. Other connections include Westbury to Deepwood Drive and Woodmont to Juniper Drive.
Mr. Kushner noted an example where the Commission deviated from the 2006 Plan of Circulation and this occurred in connection with the Buckingham Subdivision. This project was approved with 205 lots and followed the Plan of Circulation by providing 2 main outlets to 2 major roads, New Road and Huckleberry Hill Road; the developer was required to make significant improvements to New Road. A gated connection only was made to Buttonwood Hill, as the Commission concluded that it would be an unfair burden on Buttonwood Hill and not needed to satisfy public safety.
Mr. Kushner read verbatim, for the record, the Fire Chief’s comments dated October 6, 2013, addressed to the Planning and Zoning Commission:
“Planning and Zoning,
The Avon Volunteer Fire Department feels the proposed subdivision that will link the Haynes Road and Lenox Road are a positive addition to the towns overall plan. The proposed subdivision will enhance the response time for units responding from the Fire Stations located on the west end of town. During the October storm of 2011 fire units responded to a reported chimney fire in the Haynes Road area. While units were on scene several trees fell and blocked the ladder and a pumper truck on Haynes Road. During the period of time Public Works worked to clear the road the apparatus were unable to respond to any other emergencies. Most recently during the structure fire on Haynes road on the 4th of July of this year the street was blocked for several hours.
Residents were unable to enter or leave due to ongoing fire suppression operations. The original intention of the Haynes Road area was to have another point of access. The density of the houses was allowed with this intention. The master plan for this area shows the proposed connection for several decades. The water system, including fire hydrants, will be connected to close a larger loop and this will insure better flow if needed. Our operational guide line states, wherever possible, to respond to an address using different approach routes to avoid intersection confrontations. This procedure is in place to enhance the safety of the responders and to ensure redundancy in case units are blocked in one direction adding to a further delay of response times. Any installation of any type of barrier will be an impediment and be counterproductive to any emergency response to the area. Critical moments will be lost that will require responders to stop and remove or open
any device. Any electrical or mechanical device that may be proposed will necessitate maintenance. Some of these systems have been shown to be unreliable if not properly maintained. In this time of trying to reduce spending and lowering maintenance by adding any system will have an impact. During snow removal operations the tendency will be to push snow into this area and crews may not have the time to open or remove any barricades to necessitate removal until the snow event is over. Among some concerns with the newest plans for the subdivision are the similarities of the street names with existing streets. There may be confusion on dispatching into this area. The traffic circle at the end of the “Southampton lane” should not have an island. Any questions and comments may be directed to me. I have included the FMO and the President and Vice President of the Corporation as well on this communication. This opportunity to join two
residential areas should not be marginalized.”
Michael F. Trick
Chief
Avon Volunteer Fire Department
Ms. Keith opened the hearing for public comment.
Janet Romanowicz, 94 Haynes Road, commented that the theoretical alternate plan had 3 right-angle turns with stop signs that would calm traffic and prevent cut through traffic. She noted that the current plan shows just one big loop.
Laurie Pugsley, 4 Haynes Road, thanked Mr. Gackstatter for proposing that Thompson Road be included in the traffic study. She asked if another traffic study would be possible in 2016 when development on the site is projected to be completed and all the houses occupied if the traffic increase exceeds 25%.
Mr. Kushner explained that he met with Mr. and Mrs. Pugsley today in his office and traffic impacts were discussed. He commented that if the Commission approves a plan at some point, either cluster or conventional, and it is realized over time that the Town was wrong relative to projected traffic increases and/or cut through traffic would it be possible to add a gate at that time. He indicated that he thinks a gate would be a possibility but clarified that criteria for what constitutes substantial increases in traffic would have to be determined and/or measured by the Commission.
Pam Giannini, 38 Lenox Road, conveyed her support for an independent traffic study and recommended that traffic that comes out of Lenox, up from Haynes and West Avon, and takes a left onto Hollister and a right onto Carriage Drive to reach the Middle School during peak hours be added to the study. She noted that the size of the proposed buffer areas seem unclear on the maps and asked for clearer markings/scaling and added that the cluster homes should not be considered as “age targeted” unless deeds are involved.
Michael Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, commented that he shouldn’t have to remind us about the purpose of the Zoning Regulations. He quoted…..”guiding the growth in the Town of Avon in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan” noting that Mr. Kushner just discussed this and “ as well as encouraging the most appropriate use of the land throughout the Town of Avon with reasonable consideration for the existing or planned character of the area”. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan says this site should be developed as R40 and as such the maximum number of lots should be approximately 29. The open space proposed is non buildable land and just meets the guidelines. The average lot size on Haynes Road is .89 acres; the average lot size on Lenox Road is .91 acres.
There are only 2 houses on Haynes Road that are over 2,500 SF; the developer represents that all the proposed houses, including cluster, will be well in excess of 2,500 SF and added that the character of the surrounding area needs to be considered. He pointed out that neither his property nor 207 Haynes Road will contain 170 feet of frontage if the road goes through and added that it was never meant for a road to go through this area. He added that if a road is put in it should only be an emergency exit, as it’s not really meant to be a through road.
Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Kohlhoff how his lot frontage could be reduced. Mr. Kohlhoff explained that it’s not and noted that it’s still the Town right-of-way but further noted that the area is not used land right now and if half the road is taken away he has only about 175 feet. Mr. Kushner explained that land in the Town right-of-way is not part of property owned by Mr. Kohlhoff.
Mr. Kohlhoff commented that putting a road in would make his lot even smaller or make it appear even smaller.
Mr. Starr explained that frontage requirements in all residential zones were increased a few years ago.
Mr. Kohlhoff added that the proposed cluster lot sizes are not in character with either of the existing neighborhoods to the north or the south where all the traffic will be going through.
Tom Horan, 166 Haynes Road, asked if there is an agreement between the Town and the developer about how many homes could be built “as of right”.
Mr. Kushner explained that the theoretical calculation is 43.7 homes but noted that the Commission is more interested in the practical application, meaning how many lots can actually be achieved given the road layout and grading requirements. He noted that the developer presented information tonight indicating that he feels reasonably confident that 35 homes could be constructed. Mr. Kushner noted that this information cannot be confirmed until the developer’s engineer prepares an actual real-world design, which should be available at a future meeting.
Mr. Horan noted his understanding but asked how it works when cluster homes cannot exceed the density permitted in that zone.
Mr. Kushner explained that, theoretically, the Zoning Regulations permit an application for more homes in a cluster development than would be achieved as part of a conventional development. He added that there is an implication due to goals and considerations (i.e., open space, blend with existing areas) of the Commission that it may be difficult to build more homes than allowed by a conventional design.
Mr. Horan noted his understanding but asked if he would be trespassing if he walked on the private road. Mr. Kushner confirmed that it would be trespassing if the road is private. Mr. Horan noted his understanding that the Commission has asked for consideration to make the road public. He asked if there are any existing situations in Avon where a cluster home development leads onto a local road.
Mr. Kushner explained that about half of the homes in the Buckingham Subdivision are private and noted that the thru streets that were built as public streets are local roads; there are no collector roads within Buckingham. The main roads leading to the ball fields are public and the whole project was approved as a cluster development, such that some of the lots do not conform to traditional setback requirements. He noted that there is greater flexibility to build a cluster development on a private street vs. a public street.
Mr. Horan asked whether a precedent would be set, in this instance, to allow a cluster community to have its entry and exit on a local road. He noted his support for an additional traffic study but asked that it be done completely independent of the current study, as the current study has a lot of data that is based on age-targeted homes.
Ms. Keith confirmed that the traffic study being requested will be separate and independent from the information contained in the current study; she clarified that there will be a review and verification after the new study is done. Mr. Horan noted his understanding.
John Jennings, 69 Haynes Road, noted that he is encouraged by all the questions about traffic and added that while he personally has no objection to cluster homes he noted that he would like to see no more than the “as or right” number of homes in the cluster development. He noted that he assumes that the cluster homes would be owned by regular families. He commented that the neighbors’ biggest concern is the thru traffic and commented that he doesn’t think that the development itself is going to do that much to the traffic on his street; it will probably even out in the wash. He noted his concerns for thru traffic adding that he doesn’t think time is always what people are looking to save when they choose a cut through. He explained that he takes Old Farms Road,
rather than West Avon Road, and added that he doesn’t know if it’s faster, as Old Farms Road has many twists and turns that should deter people. He added that a lot of people might consider taking Haynes Road to Lenox through the subject site for the same reasons; it’s a pretty street with lots of turns and twists. He noted his support for an independent traffic study noting that he doesn’t feel it was the traffic engineer’s charge to talk much about thru traffic; it was all about the development itself.
Mr. Starr commented that it is important to realize that Crestwood and Bronson Roads have been there for many years and a count for the traffic moving through there is needed, especially at peak times when potential blockages and delays could occur at the traffic light. This information will tell us whether this route is being used as a shortcut.
Mr. Jennings commented that Crestwood and Bronson only get you around one traffic light and added that Scoville Road covers a much bigger area.
Mr. Starr indicated that the Commission will see what the new traffic study reveals.
Peter Gill, 35 Byron Drive, conveyed his support of the proposed cluster subdivision, as are other residents of Farmington Woods that he has spoken with, due to the larger conservation easement that is proposed. He noted a standard development in that area would cause Farmington Woods to lose a lot of privacy. He communicated that many trees were taken down between Byron Drive and Knoll Lane for the Knoll Lane Subdivision to create the appropriate sized lots; he added that this has been a problem with aesthetics and privacy for both Farmington Woods and Knoll Lane. He reiterated his support of a cluster development for that section of Byron Drive over a more traditional project.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Gill stated that he is a member of the Board at Farmington Woods and meetings have taken place with the Board but explained that there has not been a formal vote by the Board or the total community. He added that he is the district representative for this section of Farmington Woods.
Dave Hauth, 14 Hadley Drive, conveyed his support for the independent traffic study and added that he feels there is a lot of skepticism in the room in connection with some of the assumptions that were made. He commented that it has been represented that traffic would move through the site at 20 mph and added that when people are trying to take a short cut and/or are not part of a neighborhood they usually move quickly. He noted his concern for the intersection where Lenox Road is crossed by Hadley and Lexington. He indicated that he used to live on the corner of Lexington and Lenox and quite often cars came down the hill at a high rate of speed and asked that the traffic study include ways to make that intersection safe.
Michael Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, commented that Mr. Kushner has discussed at past meetings that the reason for cluster is to preserve open space and added that he feels the proposed cluster development does very little to preserve open space; the only thing it does is allow more houses to be squeezed onto the land. He noted that that should be taken into consideration. He stated that currently he has structure (deck) within 40 feet of the road and added that if the road was already there and he went to put the structure in he is sure the Town would require a variance. He noted that the Town has not asked him for a variance to put the road in.
In response to Mr. Kohlhoff’s question regarding frontage, Mr. Kushner clarified that any lot that was in existence prior to the change to lot frontage requirements is protected under the old Regulations. He added that every resident that comes into the Town for a building permit who has a house that was built prior to 2006 follows the old set of rules, as the lots were approved under a different set of rules.
Chris Wilde, 110 Haynes Road, asked if the plan is to have Haynes and Lenox go to Copplestone and not to connect directly.
In response to Ms. Wilde’s question, Mr. Kushner clarified that the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) shows a connection to Haynes Road and also shows a connection to Copplestone; he explained that this was discussed at the first set of public hearings for the subject site. He explained that comments received from the Inland Wetlands Commission made it seem improbable that a connection could be made to Copplestone due to Big Brook. He noted that wetlands rules came into effect in 1974 and the first recommendations were made in the 1968 POCD. There are very little wetland activities associated with the subject proposal. He explained that the Plan showed a connection to Copplestone but also showed a road connection to the north.
In response to Ms. Wilde’s comments, Mr. Starr indicated that the 2006 POCD shows a stub off of Copplestone and explained that the Commission made a recommendation to eliminate the Copplestone road stub and also the Bronson Road stub, as they lead into Big Brook. He further explained that these road connection recommendations were put into the POCD before wetlands requirements came into being and before the topography for the area was studied.
Ms. Wilde commented that the proposed road connection will do lousy things to the neighborhood; there will be a lot of cars dumped into the neighborhood that weren’t there before and people will use the road as a cut through. She asked if there are better ways to connect Haynes Road to another road. She asked why the parcel that belongs to the same guy who owns this parcel is not included in this plan; why are we looking at just connecting these 2 roads.
Ms. Keith stated that the Thompson parcel located to the north is not for sale.
Ms. Wilde commented that her neighborhood has existed this way for 50 years; there haven’t been any changes or construction that has been ongoing for 15 years. She added that she has no problem with a road connection to Haynes but asked whether it has to be this one.
Mrs. Griffin asked where else Haynes Road could connect and which direction would be best.
Ms. Wilde noted that she’s not a developer but commented that maybe a connection could be made under Big Brook to connect to Copplestone. She commented that she’s not saying that a connection should not be made somewhere but noted that Haynes Road has existed this way for 50 years and there are not that many old roads.
Mr. Kushner explained that the planning objective is to achieve a road connection with some assurances that there will not be additional traffic burdens on Haynes Road. He added that if this cannot be concluded then perhaps the Commission makes a finding that the road doesn’t get connected. He noted, however, that if there is a way to achieve a road connection with good certainty as has been done in many other areas of Town, either based on the current proposal or based on some alternative design that could be explored, then the result may be the best of all worlds with increased public safety and increased convenience with no change to how the current neighborhood looks and feels. He pointed out that there may be different cars traveling on the road, as not everyone living at the upper end of
Haynes Road may use Haynes; they may now choose the alternate route. He concluded by noting that there is the potential that the traffic volume realized with the proposed development would be very similar to the traffic volume today and added that that is what the Commission is trying to document. If the conclusion is different the Commission must make a judgment.
In response to Ms. Wilde’s question regarding alternate road connections, Mr. Kushner explained that alternatives have been explored but added that he doesn’t believe that any exist. He further explained that a road stub was left at the end of Haynes Road because it is an easy connection; it was designed that way. Ms. Wilde commented that it wasn’t designed to be an easy connection in this manner; it was designed to be an easy connection through a different way. Mr. Kushner concurred and added that the Town tries to plan for the future and a general strategy exists to try to disperse traffic and not burden any one street or neighborhood. He added that the developer has been asked to include a cul-de-sac on the plan to address the Thompson property to the north, as one day it will
be sold although when that will be is not known at this time.
In response to Ms. Wilde’s comment about Haynes Road crossing Big Brook twice, Mr. Starr explained that today’s wetlands regulations would not permit Haynes Road to be constructed as it currently exists; he added that the road would stop before it reached the Brook. He pointed out that things have changed. Ms. Wilde acknowledged her understanding.
Ms. Keith stated that she has lived in Avon for the past 40 years and noted that there has been an explosion of development in the last 30 years. She indicated that while many people have experienced this development and feel the same way about their neighborhoods, the Commission’s charge is to try and make it work for everyone. She stressed that Commission members have put in a lot of time and thought while dealing with their own conscience about what is best for everyone; nothing is done lightly.
Mrs. Griffin stated that the Commission’s first charge is to provide for the health safety and welfare of the residents and added that, right now, Haynes Road is not safe to live on if the road has been blocked 3 times in 2 years; there was no way to get an emergency vehicle in or out. She added that the current proposal is a way to solve the problem now, not in 50 years or after a tragedy occurs.
Pam Giannini, 38 Lenox Road, conveyed her concern with traffic increase relative to the proposed cluster housing and noted that the proposal is a request for an exception and it’s up to the Commission to decide if an exception will be granted. She noted that Adequate Streets for Use, per the Zoning Regulations, is one of the criteria that must be measured; she added that she feels a good traffic study would show an increase in traffic just by the sheer number of homes being proposed.
Brian Freeman, 28 Springbrook Drive, stated that Big Brook runs through his backyard. He noted that his mother met with Mr. Ferrigno several times about her concerns regarding water coming from Knoll Lane into an existing swale that was designed 40 years earlier; he added that the problem was never addressed. He noted his concern about runoff from the storm water in the proposed development and asked whether it would go into Big Brook.
William Aston, PE, Buck & Buck Engineers, stated that the storm drainage system has been designed with much consultation with the Town Engineer. Onsite infiltration is being provided to limit the flow to Big Brook and the calculations show that the actual peak flow in Big Brook would not be affected, actually a slight decrease; the duration of storm flow remains essentially the same. The storm drains connect to 2 water quality ponds located outside of the wetlands; the water will be cleansed and portions will be infiltrated then flow overland across the wetlands to Big Brook.
In response to Ms. Pugsley’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that the developer is responsible for maintaining the water quality ponds up until the time when the Town accepts title to the road and all public improvements; once the Town owns these items the Town will be responsible to provide maintenance. Mr. Kushner clarified that there is no way to know if the year 2016 will be the completion date, as there is no way to know when the project will begin.
Ms. Pugsley commented that there hasn’t been any progress from what was promised from the original land swap at Knoll Lane 3 years ago with regard to a walking path that would have public access. She requested a contract of some sort that would bind the developer to past promises.
Mr. Kushner asked Ms. Pugsley to contact his office if she is aware of some specific item that wasn’t fulfilled in connection with Knoll Lane and explained that the standard protocol is that any project approved by the Commission results in a final set of drawings that has detailed information combined with a schedule for work completion. He further explained that Town Staff then makes periodic inspections and no permits are signed off until all work is done in accordance with the plan. He stated that when everything is complete Town Staff recommends that the Town accept the improvements and added that there are no “passes” where a developer is allowed extra time. He indicated that State law requires that before maps can be recorded, before lots can be offered for sale, and before
building permits can be obtained, the developer has to post a bond with the Town to guarantee that all the public improvements are completed in accordance with the approved plan.
Celeste Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, commented that the traffic report doesn’t take into account human nature with regard to the road being a cut through; most people are not going to want to wait at stop lights and in traffic. She commented that 2 stop signs and some waves in the road would not create a highly undesirable situation for people looking to cut through; she noted that she knows a lot of people who would love to cut off the corner at Hollister Drive during school times. She noted that she feels the extra time it would take to use the cut through (as noted in the traffic study) would not deter people, as most would rather keep moving than sit in bumper to bumper traffic. She questioned the use of the term “age targeted” and cluster housing in this instance due to large houses
on small lots and noted that most of West Harford would be considered age targeted, as there are many families that fit this description.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated that he has experienced bumper to bumper traffic on Haynes Road during rush hour, which he sees as a deterrent, since most people do not let you in and asked why people would want to take that route.
Ms. Kohlhoff noted her agreement with Mr. Gackstatter’s comment and added that the traffic at Thompson Brook is also very bad. She asked what else could be done besides the proposed stop signs and” weave” in the road and asked if speed bumps or more turns in the road are possible. She noted that there are blind spots on Haynes Road with fast drivers and lots of children and conveyed her concerns for safety.
Mr. Starr pointed out that additional traffic calming measures have been requested.
Ms. Keith stated that she has been on Haynes Road several times to watch development on Knoll Lane and added that she was on Haynes Road at 6:15pm tonight and there were 2 cars but no one on the walkway. She noted the problem was making a left-hand turn onto West Avon Road. She noted her agreement with Mr. Gackstatter that getting out of Haynes Road will be a deterrent for people.
There being no further input, the public hearing was continued to the next meeting.
App. #4683 - PDP Financial, LLC, and MOJO Enterprises, LLC, owners, Sunlight Construction, applicant, request for 39-lot Subdivision, “Stratfordshire”, 45.5 acres, 44 Lenox Road, Parcel 3010044, in an R30 Zone
App. #4684 - 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
Mr. Mahoney motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4683 and #4684 to the next meeting, scheduled for October 29. The motion, seconded by Mr. Starr, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Kushner announced that it is highly unlikely that a revised traffic report, as well as an additional traffic report, will be available for the next meeting and added that it is likely that the hearing will be continued to the November 19 meeting.
The public hearing was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Starr motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Mr. Mahoney seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4680 - Avonwood Enterprises LLC, owner, National Sign Corp., applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign,172 West Main Street, Parcel 4540172, in an OP Zone
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4680. The motion, seconded by Mr. Starr, received unanimous approval.
App. #4682 - Charles R. Pilitowski, Trustee of Casimer S. Pilitowski Revocable Trust and Executor of Estate of Regina~ P. Pilitowski, owner/applicant, request for 4-lot Resubdivision,
4.0 acres, 237 Huckleberry Hill Road, Parcel 2810237, in an R30 Zone
Mr. Starr motioned to approve App. #4682 subject to the following condition:
1) Compliance with Farmington Valley Health District comments dated October 3, 2013.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
NEW APPLICATION
App. #4681 - West Avon Congregational Church, applicant/owner, request for Site Plan Approval to replace 11 parking lot lights and add 14 new lights, 280 Country Club Road, Parcel 1940280 in an R40 Zone
Present to represent this application was Brett LeFevre.
Ms. Keith commented that the proposal is very straight forward and therefore no presentation is necessary.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. LeFevre confirmed that the lights would not be like those at St. Matthews Church and added that the lights will go off at 10pm.
Mr. Starr motioned to approve App. #4681. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Driveway access to 16 Timothy Way
Attorney Robert M. Meyers was present.
Mr. Meyers offered background information noting that there are 3 possible scenarios to address driveway access for 16 Timothy Way and noted that he’s looking for input from the Commission. He displayed a map of the site and explained that there is a strip of land now owned by the Town, after some research by the Town Attorney and the former developer of the adjacent subdivision. He noted that Timothy Way was accepted as a public road but was never owned by the Town until recently. He noted that the road was left years ago and labeled on the plan as “future road” to access open adjacent land. He explained that due to open space and wetlands in the area, the only land that can now be accessed is the subject site, 16 Timothy Way, which is a rear lot. He added that the owner
and the Town thought that 16 Timothy Way was already a building lot, as taxes have been paid on it for years.
Mr. Meyers explained that the 3 choices are as follows:
A) Build a public road just as was intended but realize that the road could only serve one house, 16 Timothy Way;
OR
B) Acquire ownership of the existing land strip, which the owner is willing to do.
OR
C) Build a driveway to the rear lot over the Town-owned strip of land, which would require an easement/permission from the Town.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels the easiest way is to buy the strip (Option B).
Ms. Keith and Mr. Starr concurred that Option B is the best. The Commission concurred that Option B is the best choice.
Mr. Kushner noted that it’s better if the eventual homeowner of 16 Timothy Way owns the land and the driveway as opposed to having an easement.
Mr. Meyers acknowledged the Commission’s choice.
Weatherstone Subdivision – Request to convert Phases 3B and 3C to final approval
PZC App. #4304M
Attorney Robert M. Meyers was present.
Mr. Meyers stated that the request is to convert Phases 3B and 3C of the Weatherstone Subdivision from conditional to final approval.
Mr. Starr motioned to approve the request to convert Phases 3B and 3C of the Weatherstone Subdivision from conditional to final approval. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:50pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on October 8, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4680 - Avonwood Enterprises LLC, owner, National Sign Corp., applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign,172 West Main Street, Parcel 4540172, in an OP Zone APPROVED
App. #4682 - Charles R. Pilitowski, Trustee of Casimer S. Pilitowski Revocable Trust and Executor of Estate of Regina~ P. Pilitowski, owner/applicant, request for 4-lot Resubdivision, 4.0 acres, 237 Huckleberry Hill Road, Parcel 2810237, in an R30 Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITION
App. #4681 - West Avon Congregational Church, applicant/owner, request for Site Plan Approval to replace 11 parking lot lights and add 14 new lights, 280 Country Club Road, Parcel 1940280 in an R40 Zone APPROVED
Request to convert Phases 3B and 3C of the Weatherstone Subdivision from conditional to final approval in connection with App.#4304M APPROVED
Dated at Avon this 10TH day of October, 2013. Copy of this notice is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Avon Town Hall.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Linda Keith, Chair
Carol Griffin, Vice Chair
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, at 7:30 pm in the Selectman’s Chambers, Building #1 at the Avon Town Hall on the following:
App. #4685 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Adams Ahern Sign Solutions, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone
App. #4688 - J. Timothy and Pamela Lefever, owners/applicants, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit filling and grading within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 595 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090595, in an RU2A Zone
All interested persons may appear and be heard and written communications will be received. Applications are available for inspection in Planning and Community Development at the Avon Town Hall. Dated at Avon this 15th day of October, 2013.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Linda Keith, Chair
Carol Griffin, Vice Chair
| 
