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 November 19, 2013. Present were Linda Keith, Chair, Carol Griffin, Vice Chair, Duane Starr, Marianne Clark, Peter Mahoney, Christian Gackstatter and Alternates Elaine Primeau and Donald Bonner. Mrs. Primeau sat for the meeting. Absent were David Cappello and Alternate Jenna Ryan. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Ms. Keith called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to approve the minutes of the October 29, 2013, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4692 - Lexham Avon LLC, owner, ARTfx, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign, 320 West Main Street, Parcel 4540320, in a CR Zone
Lawrin Rosen, applicant, was present.
Mr. Rosen explained that the ground sign has been redesigned and the name of the plaza has been changed from “Tri-Town Plaza” to “Westridge Shops”. The existing brick sign base will remain and has been painted an off-white color. Mr. Rosen explained that the owner intends to paint the building the same color next year. A wrought-iron railing is proposed across the top of the sign, between the 2 pillars; the address number has been added. The address will be non-illuminated but the letters will be reflective so as to be read at night. He explained that the letters for “Westridge Shops” will be stencil cut into opaque aluminum; the faces don’t light but the sides will halo glow halo. Two larger sign panels for the 2 anchor stores are proposed
along with 6 smaller sign panels; the letters will be white with burgundy backgrounds. Mr. Rosen concluded by noting that the sign will be internally lit using, most likely fluorescent lighting rather than LED.
Mr. Kushner stated that the proposed sign meets all the Regulations and is an improvement over the existing sign.
In response to questions about the ground lighting, Mr. Rosen explained that the existing ground light will be removed and added that there is a planting plan but noted that the photograph used for the application was taken in early spring.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Rosen explained that the owner is quite diligent about maintenance and added that, although he cannot speak for the owner, he feels the owner would touch up the paint on the sign should it start chipping off.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4692 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
The public hearing was continued from October 8, 2013.
Present were William Ferrigno, President, Sunlight Construction; William Aston, PE, Buck and Buck LLC; Robert M. Meyers, Meyers, Piscitelli & Link LLP; Mark Vertucci, PE, Traffic Engineer, Fuss and O’Neill; Richard Pearson, PE, Traffic Engineer, John Meyer Consulting; and Bill Richter, LA/AIA, Richter & Cegan.
Mr. Ferrigno summarized the information from the October 8 meeting with a PowerPoint presentation noting that the proposal is for a 39-lot cluster subdivision. He noted that the density calculation results in 43 lots but added that the site could probably not yield 43 lots. The overall site layout shows a private road on the west side; a circuitous connecting road from Haynes to Lenox; another cul-de-sac road on the north side; and in the northeast corner a provision to extend the road, via a temporary cul-de-sac, into the 6-acre parcel (Thompson property) located to the north of the site. He noted that he chose the cluster regulation to comply with its purpose, which is flexible site design and to preserve natural features and topography and respect the existing nearby neighborhoods.
He added that it is his opinion that the proposed cluster layout is aesthetically more pleasing allowing for a variety of lot sizes and housing options. There is over 1,000 feet of existing buffer to Farmington Woods. There are approximately 8 acres of wetlands on the site, which would not be disturbed. There is the possibility for a combination of dedicated open space and conservation areas/easements; the form of dedication of some of these areas would be up to the Commission. Mr. Ferrigno concluded by noting that he believes the proposal accomplishes a circuitous traffic pattern and conforms to road connections shown in the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development for the last 40 years. Sewers, public water and fire protection, and underground utilities are proposed, as well as public access to open space areas via trails. He noted that low-impact drainage elements are proposed to better manage storm water runoff.
Mr. Vertucci, PE Traffic Engineer, explained that he has provided information in response to comments received at the October 8 meeting; some additional traffic data was collected and an analysis was done. He noted that this additional information is contained in 2 letters addressed to Mr. William Ferrigno; one letter is dated November 14, 2013, and the other letter is dated November 18, 2013.
Mr. Vertucci addressed his letter dated November 14.
COMMENT #1 – West Avon Road/Thompson Road Intersection and Interaction with Haynes Road:
Mr. Vertucci explained that traffic was observed from 7:50am to 8:15am during the morning peak hour related to the Thompson Road School drop offs. A southbound queue developed on West Avon Road and extended north past Haynes Road for approximately 1,600 feet to just south of Scoville Road; queues also occurred on Thompson Road. He added that drivers were courteous and allowed vehicles out of Haynes Road during this period. Mr. Vertucci indicated that there is a lack of available southbound road width on West Avon Road at Thompson Road; there is not enough room for vehicles to get around cars turning left onto Thompson Road. The queue dissipated quickly after the peak hour and the intersection operated quite well the rest of the day. Mr. Vertucci explained that the traffic at this intersection
is an existing condition and the traffic from the proposed subdivision is expected to generate approximately 10 additional vehicle trips during the morning peak hour. Existing conditions generate 950 trips during the morning peak hour; the proposal would generate a 1% increase. Mr. Vertucci stated that the proposed development would not impact existing traffic conditions at this intersection.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question about how the queue affected the traffic trying to get out of Haynes Road, Mr. Vertucci noted that only a couple of vehicles accumulated at the end of Haynes Road, as people were letting them out; there is not a substantial volume of traffic coming out of Haynes Road.
Mr. Gackstatter asked if a queue developed on the northbound lane turning into Haynes Road. Mr. Vertucci explained that the same scenario was observed; cars allowed a northbound car turning left into the queue. Mr. Gackstatter commented that people could cut through there.
Mr. Vertucci confirmed that cars could make the turn; the queue was more of a rolling nature.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether a queue was created in the north bound traffic by the cars waiting to turn into Haynes Road. Mr. Vertucci explained that for the time period that a car could not make a left into Haynes, a couple of vehicles would accumulate forming a small queue but added that it did not last a substantial amount of time.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Vertucci explained that the morning peak hour was the focus but noted that the afternoon peak hour studied was the commuter peak hour, when background traffic is at its highest level, and not the school peak period.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated that he is not particularly interested in the load of traffic from the proposed development but rather the length of the queue on the south bound lane that would prevent people heading north from turning onto Haynes and using the development as a cut through.
Mr. Vertucci explained that much of what happens really depends on the drivers; if someone is heading north waiting to turn left onto Haynes Road and there’s a rolling queue someone might stop and let the car in. If you approach the turn and there are already 2 or 3 cars stopped waiting to turn, you may decide to just continue on and, for example, use Crestwood and Bronson as a cut through.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Vertucci explained that the north bound left movement onto Haynes Road is very low volume in the morning peak hour; there are more people in the afternoon peak hour. He added that in the afternoon peak hour, there is no south bound queue.
COMMENT #2 – Estimate for # of Cars at Loop End of Haynes Rd that may use Development as Cut Through:
Mr. Vertucci explained that 66% of the residents (52 homes out of 79 total) live on the “loop” section. The volume of cars coming out of Haynes and turning left and going up West Avon Road to Hollister Drive was studied and it was determined that there would be 4 cut through vehicles in the morning peak hour and 5 cut through vehicles in the afternoon peak hour.
Mr. Starr asked how many residents on the “loop” are likely to exit Haynes Road going out through Stratfordshire versus exiting Haynes onto West Avon Road. He commented that there may be a balance of traffic from people on Stratfordshire exiting down Haynes Road and people on Haynes exiting via Stratfordshire but asked whether a neutral situation at the lower end of Haynes (loop) would really be the result. He indicated that, present conditions, if he lived on the “loop” and was going to Unionville he would take a right onto West Avon Rd at the end of Haynes Rd but explained that if he had the option to exit via Stratfordshire he would go that way and take a left on Hollister, as it would be shorter.
Mr. Vertucci noted his agreement with Mr. Starr and indicated that the aforementioned 4 or 5 trips would offset some of the traffic.
Mr. Starr explained that if 45 cars are exiting Haynes Road during the morning peak hour and 2/3 of the houses are on the “loop” then there is a potential for 2/3 of those 45 cars to exit via Stratfordshire.
Mr. Vertucci explained that the traffic study is only looking at left turns coming out of Haynes road.
Mr. Starr pointed out that the right turns out of Haynes Road also need to be considered, as some people may be headed to Unionville.
Mr. Vertucci noted his understanding of Mr. Starr’s comments adding that people could go over to Lovely Street and then move south.
Mr. Starr concurred. Mr. Vertucci indicated that the study uses an estimate and proportions and added that whether you use the total or the left turns only, the results indicate a small number, somewhere in the 5 to 10 vehicle range. He explained that of the total traffic volume coming out of Haynes Road most are traveling either north or south on West Avon Road and not going over to Lovely Street.
Mr. Starr pointed out that right now we don’t know the traffic volume moving towards Lovely Street, as currently you have to exit Haynes via West Avon Road.
Mr. Vertucci explained that the traffic distribution information for Hollister Drive heavily favors West Avon Road north bound in comparison to the left-hand turns onto Hollister.
Mr. Gackstatter asked about traffic distribution information from West Avon Road when continuing right on West Avon Road versus. staying straight and traveling onto Harris Road.
Mr. Vertucci explained that if you live in the Stratfordshire development and are heading to Unionville most likely you will take Hollister Drive to Lovely Street. In present conditions, if you live on the Haynes Road “loop” you may take a right on West Avon but you may head north, through the new development, if that was an option.
Mr. Starr commented that if he lived on the “loop” and was headed to Unionville he would drive through Stratfordshire, if it was an option, as it is much easier and quicker.
In response to Mr. Vertucci’s comments about traffic cutting through the proposed development, “Stratfordshire”, Mr. Starr clarified that his point is that there would be an alleviation of traffic on the lower part of Haynes from the residents on the “loop” because now they have an alternate way out; and, in addition, asked whether that alleviation offsets anyone coming through from Stratfordshire onto the lower part of Haynes.
Mr. Vertucci noted his understanding of Mr. Starr’s comments and agreed that that scenario would offset some of the traffic.
Mr. Starr asked if the offset would be 1:1 or would there by slightly more or less traffic on the lower end of Haynes and explained that that is what he would like to see a professional opinion on based on the traffic models.
Mr. Vertucci noted his understanding but explained that when looking at the whole picture including intersection operations there would not be an impact. He further explained that an engineering judgment has been made with regard to how many people it is believed would go in each direction. He added that this is the best that can be done, as no one can predict which direction each person will take.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that a judgment has not been made as to the number of people that would use Lenox Road if the new segment was added to the traffic model.
Mr. Vertucci stated that the existing proportions at each intersection were looked at and then 66% of the houses were applied to each of those proportions. In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comment, Mr. Vertucci agreed that there could be a few additional cars that turn right and use the cut through so rather than 4 to 5 cars it could be 8 to 9; he added that he feels the volumes are very small in any event.
Mr. Starr acknowledged that he is not a traffic engineer but noted his opinion, from a common sense standpoint, that there would be more of a diversion off of Haynes onto the new road, Stratfordshire, and onto Lenox and Hollister.
Mrs. Griffin commented that a lot of it will depend on where the people in the area work.
Mr. Starr agreed and added a lot will depend on where they shop too. If you are headed to Lovely Street you are more likely to use the new cut through route.
COMMENT #3 – Traffic Calming
Mr. Vertucci indicated that 7-foot landscaped medians with 12-foot travels lanes on either side are now proposed at the entrances to the proposed development from Haynes Road and Lenox Road. Narrower travel ways encourage slower speeds and may discourage cut through traffic.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter questions, Mr. Kushner explained that the Public Works Department is very conservative about snow removal but have indicated that they are not adverse to the proposed islands as the snow can still be effectively plowed.
In response to concerns from Mr. Gackstatter, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the islands would be set in some and not located right next to the entrance to Haynes Road. Mr. Ferrigno added that there is room on the road shoulder for snow accumulation.
Ms. Keith and Mrs. Clark noted her support of the landscaped islands.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Ferrigno indicated that the landscaped islands would be maintained by a private association after the Town takes ownership of the roads.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he feels landscaped-island entrances alert motorists that they are entering a different kind of area and may discourage people that don’t live in the area from using it as a short cut. He addressed connectivity between neighborhoods and explained that the hope would be that residents of both Haynes Road and Lenox Road would use the new road, Stratfordshire, as this is how neighborhoods are joined together and this is how the road systems in Town have been built. He reiterated that the vehicles that are trying to be discouraged via the landscaped islands are the people that don’t live in this area, or the cut through traffic.
COMMENT #4 – Allway Stop at Hollister and Lenox
Mr. Vertucci explained that the warrants contained in the MUTCD are not satisfied based on the delay and volume on Lenox Road; in addition, the accident history does not warrant all-way stop control. He indicated that he is not recommending an all-way stop in this location.
COMMENT #5 – Use Single-Family home rate for 100% Units
Mr. Vertucci explained that the analysis was redone based on all 39 homes being single family and noted that the results are 7 additional morning peak hour trips and 3 additional afternoon peak hour trips on the network. He noted that this has a very minimal impact on the analysis findings and no noticeable change in traffic operations.
COMMENT #6 – Traffic Distribution Using Public Road vs. Private Road and Add Thru Connection to Lenox Road
Mr. Vertucci explained that the opinion is that opening the cul-de-sac to provide a through connection would have little to no impact on the traffic distribution arriving and departing from the proposed development. The distribution of traffic is based more on regional distribution, such as traffic from West Avon Road to the north or Lovely Street to the north.
COMMENT #7 – Existing Cut Through Traffic at Bronson and Crestwood Roads
Mr. Vertucci explained that an origin destination study was conducted. Two people were assigned to count traffic; one at Hollister/Crestwood and Bronson/West Avon Road. During the morning peak hour (which is same time as high school peak hour) there were 24 total cars and 15 were cut throughs. He noted that people were avoiding backups at Hollister and West Avon Road during the school peak. The afternoon/commuter peak, when school is not a factor, there were 3 cut through vehicles out of 15, total. He added that there is some cut through traffic at Crestwood and Bronson but it seemed to be correlated to school peak hours and not necessarily other times of the day.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question relative to traffic queues at Thompson Road, Mr. Vertucci clarified that the queues do not affect traffic trying to turn onto Bronson Road as the queues on Thompson Road ended before Scoville Road.
COMMENT #8 – Prevailing Speeds on Haynes Road
Mr. Vertucci explained that a radar gun was used to record speeds approximately 900 feet west of West Avon Road; speeds were recorded in the 85th percentile, which is considered design speed, as 85% or less of all vehicles were traveling at or lower than posted speed. He indicated that the speed limit in this area is 25 mph and therefore the 85th percentile is approximately 9 mph over the limit (25 + 9 = 34 mph). He pointed out that there are other locations where the road has more curves than where the speed counts were measured so it is expected that at other locations the speeds are at or maybe a bit lower than 34mph.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question about whether these findings are comparable to other projects in other towns where the posted speed is 25 mph, Mr. Vertucci explained that the subject location is not that much out of line but is on the higher end of the range, which is not uncommon. He further explained that, typically, 85th percentile speeds are seen anywhere from
5 to 8 mph over the speed limit.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Vertucci clarified that the afternoon peak hour was conducted between 4:30pm and 5pm.
Mr. Vertucci stated that he drove up and down Haynes Road between West Avon Road and the proposed driveway to Stratfordshire and the travel time is approximately 90 seconds but added that the road could be comfortably traveled with an average speed of about 30mph. The potential cut through route from Lenox to West Avon Road is approximately 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The routes from Hollister to West Avon Road as well as the Bronson and Crestwood cut through were rerun; travel times on Hollister/West Avon was approximately 2 minutes to 2 minutes and 10 seconds and the Crestwood/Bronson cut through was approximately 2 minutes 25 seconds. He explained that it is still longer to cut through the proposed development than it would be to stay on Hollister or West Avon Road or take the alternative cut through
route.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Vertucci explained that the aforementioned results are for typical peak hour conditions and typical signal delays on West Avon Road. He further explained that the delays are realized from sitting in queues waiting to turn and at traffic signals; vehicles are delayed turning out of Haynes Road and accounts for approximately 20 to 30 seconds. Mr. Vertucci concluded his presentation by pointing out that vehicles pick up time on free flow speed, which is approximately 40 mph on both Hollister and West Avon Road, which is faster than your speed would be cutting through the proposed development at 20 to 25mph. He thanked the Commission for their time.
COMMENT #9 – Traffic Counts and Potential Allway Stop at Lenox/Hadley/Lexington
Mr. Vertucci explained that the volumes, delays, and accidents are not satisfied to warrant an all-way stop at this intersection. He noted that a stop sign is not a good traffic calming measure and not recommended by the MUTCD.
Mr. Kushner introduced Richard Pearson, PE, John Meyer Consulting, who conducted an independent traffic study. He noted that
Mr. Pearson has never worked with Sunlight Construction but has worked on other projects in Avon.
Mr. Pearson, PE, and traffic operations engineer, explained that he has prepared hundreds of traffic studies and reviewed studies for various municipalities. He referenced and reviewed his report dated November 19, 2013, addressed to Mr. Kushner and explained that he reviewed existing traffic conditions last Wednesday from 7am to 8:45am; he added that he drove the area roadways and observed intersection operations.
Existing Conditions
Mr. Pearson explained that he feels the study area is reasonable for the type and size of the proposed development. The peak hours have been identified as 7:15am to 8:15am and 4:45pm to 5:45pm. He noted that no count time information was provided, adding that it is typically from 7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm. He noted that he has requested information relative to specific times that traffic counts were taken.
Access and Circulation
Mr. Pearson noted that the connection between Lenox Road and Haynes Road has been shown on the Town’s Plan of Circulation, contained within the overall Plans of Conservation and Development from 1968, 1979, 1991, and 2006. The location of the proposed connections to Haynes and Lenox are evident and were observed during the field review.
Trip Generation
Mr. Pearson noted that the applicant prepared local studies and reviewed volumes as published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); he added that he has been a member of ITE for many years. He explained that local data was used for both weekday AM and PM hours and added that he suggests that the ITE data be using during peak PM hour, since it would have higher traffic volumes and should be used for a more conservative analysis of potential traffic impacts.
Trip Distribution
Mr. Pearson noted that the applicant’s study considered 50% of the site generated traffic utilizing Lovely Street from Hollister; 25% going north and 25% going south. The study considered 25% of the site generated traffic using West Avon Road north of Hollister Drive and 25% using West Avon Road south of Haynes Road. He indicated that the applicant’s analysis seems to be based, in part, on some of the existing volumes on Lovely Street and West Avon Road. He explained that the 25% traveling south on West Avon Road may be reasonable but the percentage may be higher since approximately 40% of the Haynes Road traffic travels to and from the south on West Avon Road. He noted that it is his opinion that the 50% projected to utilize Lovely Street appears to be overestimated, since
the cumulative traffic that entered and exited Lenox Road from and to the west along Hollister Drive was only 17%. Mr. Pearson explained that even though it’s a relatively low sample size, the indication is that there would not be as many vehicles from the development, which proposes 21 or 22 houses off of Lenox Road. Mr. Pearson explained that he has requested that a sensitivity analysis be done modifying the percentage distributions and take a higher percentage north on West Avon Road and less to the west.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that Mr. Pearson indicates that he feels there would be less people heading towards Unionville and more people heading towards West Avon Road towards Route 4 than the applicant’s study shows.
Mr. Pearson added that you can also get to Unionville by taking a right onto West Avon Road. He commented that the actual volumes are in the applicant’s traffic study and noted that the distribution may change somewhat when looking at a larger time slot sample size but added that the results doesn’t seem to be half of the overall traffic heading to the west on Hollister.
Intersection Site Distance Analysis
Mr. Pearson explained that it appears there would be sufficient sight distance at the proposed connection to Haynes Road. The applicant’s study recommends pruning back some white pines along Lenox road; he noted that he has asked that the same situation be evaluated using 15 feet off of Lenox and having a higher design speed than the posted 25 mph. Currently Lenox Road is a dead end at Concord but noted that once the road is connected the approach could be higher than 25 mph and an all-way stop control may be appropriate at that intersection.
Mr. Kushner noted that while stop signs can add an element of safety they don’t always slow traffic and he asked Mr. Pearson if it is his recommendation that although this intersection may not meet MUTCD standards that there would be no harm to install a stop sign.
Mr. Pearson confirmed that he doesn’t believe a stop sign would be harmful in this instance and added that he feels it would potentially slow down traffic and reduce the possibility of the area being used as a cut through. He explained that under proposed conditions Lenox Road would extend south of Concord and noted the possibility for an undesirable sight distance; he noted that the applicant’s traffic study has been asked to study this scenario and the consideration of a three-way stop.
Mr. Pearson addressed and reviewed the 9 responses provided by the applicant’s traffic engineer/study:
#1 West Avon Road/Thompson Road Intersection
Mr. Pearson concurred that the proposed development would not significantly impact the intersection operations. He noted that the queuing associated with the school on Thompson Road is relatively short in duration and does not appear to be a substantial problem for those entering or exiting Haynes Road at West Avon Road.
#2 Haynes Road Cut Through Traffic
Mr. Pearson explained that from his observation he did not see a large percentage of the overall traffic destined west onto Hollister. He indicated that approximately 20% of the vehicles currently exit onto Haynes Road during the peak hours and of the vehicles entering and exiting Lenox Road, approximately 30% were destined towards West Avon Road to the south. He explained his general projection is 13 or fewer vehicles traveling from Haynes Road along Lenox Road and 7 or fewer vehicles traveling from Lenox Road along Haynes Road during the peak am or pm hours. He noted that while his estimates are slightly higher than the applicant’s traffic study, the big picture does not show a very substantial volume. He added that current residents on Haynes Road choosing to travel through the proposed
new roadways, connect to Lenox, and then connect to Hollister Drive down to West Avon Road, does not appear to be a time savings. He noted his opinion that, most of the time, there does not appear to be a substantial benefit if traveling north on West Avon Road to turn left onto Haynes Road, work your way through the proposed development, and work your way back up a circuitous square pattern, as compared to continuing at 40mph or higher and turning onto Hollister. He added that he did his own traffic simulation and found that no time savings was realized using Haynes Road, Lenox Road, and the proposed new roadways as opposed to using the existing roadways. He added that the Town may wish to consider traffic calming along the roadway regardless of the proposed development, such as speed humps.
#3 Traffic Calming Within the Development
Mr. Pearson concurred that the proposed entrance treatment could provide traffic calming and added that that decision would be up to the Commission. He indicated that while it may not be necessary, the section of Lenox Road between Stratfordshire and the existing portion of Lenox Road could be made a one-way road. He commented that a one-way road, in either direction, would prohibit that section of road being used as a cut through.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concerns about a one-way road, Mr. Pearson confirmed that he doesn’t really think it would be necessary and was just pointing out an option.
#4 and #9 All Way Stop at Hollister and Lenox
Mr. Pearson concurred that an all way stop would not be appropriate at this intersection.
#5 100% Single Family Homes
Mr. Pearson reiterated his recommendation that the applicant use the ITE equation rather than the rate for single-family homes. He explained that using the equation during the peak pm hour, rather than the rate, there would be approximately 45 vehicles generated by the 39 units as single-family homes as compared to the 33 vehicles mentioned in the response letter and as compared to the 30 vehicles analyzed in the traffic study. He noted that there would be an increase of approximately 15 vehicles over what was analyzed in the applicant’s study during the pm hour. Mr. Pearson explained that the ITE data is an average of approximately 300 studies of single-family developments and noted that they all vary but added that his analysis is conservative, as he uses the higher of the two numbers.
#6 Private Road Revisions
Mr. Pearson explained that if modifications are proposed to the proposed road layout plan it may increase travel times and further reduce the desirability of cut through traffic.
#7 Bronson and Crestwood Cut Through Traffic
Mr. Pearson stated that he observed this traffic but noted that he could not provide counts, as he was alone. He noted that the applicant’s study showed that during the am peak hour 15 vehicles, out of 160, total, made a right turn from Hollister to Crestwood to Bronson to West Avon Road. He noted that 145 vehicles made the right turn at the signalized intersection. He noted that 15 vehicles is approximately 10% of the overall right turn volume, which is a much more convenient cut through than the proposed new roads and subject application. He noted that the return routes, for both am and pm, showed minimal cut through traffic on those roadways. He stated that he sat on Crestwood for about 5 minutes at 8:15am and noted there were no vehicles that made a right turn from Hollister onto
Crestwood. He concluded by noting that the applicant’s analysis seems reasonable in this regard.
Mr. Kushner noted that the professional traffic engineers have indicated that the likelihood of this development being used as a cut through on a regular basis is slim because it will take longer. He added that it doesn’t mean that people won’t try it but once they try it and realize it doesn’t save time they may stick to using the collector roads, which is what the Comprehensive Plan is trying to promote.
Mr. Kushner pointed out some things that the Commission may want to consider:
- Landscaped island, similar to that at the Weatherstone Subdivision
- Addition of a stop sign at the intersection of Lenox and Concord
He explained that the Staff has been trying to come up with creative ideas with regard to the proposed road layout noting that there may be ways to make the road even more circuitous to make it even less likely that motorists not connected with these homes would use it.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns with the 1,600 foot queues noted earlier and asked if any travel distances were studied from Route 167 to Harris Road for through traffic. He noted that people getting caught in long queues could decide to short cut through the proposed development’s circuitous route and asked what the time savings would be and if this scenario has been studied.
Mr. Vertucci explained that no travel time analysis was done for West Avon Road but further explained that the queue discussed earlier is not a standing queue but, rather, is a rolling queue, such that people get caught in it for a few minutes but traffic moves and stops.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns that less people would travel down Haynes Road because they don’t want to get caught in a long queue. He noted that if you are stuck in a queue you are not traveling 40 mph – you may be going 5 or 10mph for 1,600 feet – and therefore the trip is going to be longer than 2 ½ minutes to get to Haynes Road. The cut through now becomes the shorter route, not because of distance or design travel time but because of queuing travel time.
Mr. Starr pointed out that a driver is still getting in most of the queue when you travel on West Avon Road from Haynes Road.
Mr. Pearson noted that there is approximately 700 feet between Haynes and Thompson Road. He added that the morning he was at the site he did not see a queue of 1,600 feet.
Mr. Vertucci clarified that 1,600 feet was the longest the queue ever got; the worst case scenario.
Mr. Ferrigno presented new information (via a PowerPoint presentation) showing the feasibility of making the proposed road a through road, rather than ending in a cul-de-sac. He noted that if the road was made public it would have a 50-foot ROW and 26-foot wide pavement and the setbacks are larger/different from private roads.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the new road design pushes the houses into the neighbors’ back yards. Mr. Ferrigno agreed and added that a public road accomplishes the “through” concept but requires a little extra clearing and the houses would be some distance back from where they were originally proposed. He added that the public road design was requested by the Commission; he noted that it could be done but it doesn’t quite conform to his original concept for the development.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Ferrigno noted that the additional clearing would equate to 1.1 acre.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the small private cul-de-sac proposed is permitted under the Cluster Regulations. Ms. Keith commented that if the road was straightened out and the cul-de-sac removed some lots may be lost. Mr. Ferrigno acknowledged that removing the cul-de-sac would probably result in fewer units. He added that frontage requirements are different for cluster than for conventional subdivisions.
Mr. Kushner commented that the plan being viewed is really a concept plan, as the house footprints are not known at this time. Mr. Ferrigno concurred and noted that the drawing is a schematic. Mr. Kushner added that the actual house locations could be different. Mr. Ferrigno agreed.
In response to comments about the houses being pushed back into neighbors’ yards, Mr. Kushner explained that the Zoning Regulations still mandate certain buffering requirements between cluster subdivisions and existing developments such as Farmington Woods.
Mrs. Griffin commented that it looks like there is no buffer between the proposed street and Farmington Woods.
Mr. Ferrigno responded by noting that there is only a 10-foot conservation easement in that area.
Mrs. Griffin added that Farmington Woods can provide/plant a buffer.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the buffer to Farmington Woods, from the subject layout/proposal, would meet the 35-foot requirement. He added that the buffer size varied under the other proposal/layout but was approximately 50 to 60 feet in some areas.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that he connected the road (opened the cul-de-sac) in response to remarks received by the Commission.
Ms. Keith noted that because so many houses are proposed on the road, it is preferred to have it a through road as opposed to ending in a cul-de sac.
Mr. Starr asked if a drawing was prepared showing a traditional R30 subdivision with the current road layout or similar layout.
Mr. Ferrigno responded by noting that no drawings were prepared for a traditional subdivision layout.
Mr. Starr conveyed his concerns with the cluster development, as it would be located between existing traditional developments, and suggested that it should be a traditional R30 proposal. He acknowledged that a traditional layout would take down roughly 4 houses bringing the total to 35 from the original 39.
Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that 2 plans were drawn that show approximately 35 homes.
Mr. Starr indicated that he is more comfortable with a traditional project.
Mr. Ferrigno clarified that the road layout for a conventional project is different than what is being viewed currently.
Mr. Starr noted his understanding.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Starr explained that if the proposed development fronted on a collector road he would view it more favorably. He added that in trying to minimize the traffic flow he would rather see a conventional project.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that, as a tradeoff, the existing residents that back up to this project will realize less privacy as bigger houses would be built.
Mr. Starr commented that the road layout for an R30 project may have a different road layout.
Mr. Ferrigno commented that if the entire proposal becomes conventional, none of the proposed buffers would apply.
Mr. Starr added that the Commission has some discretion with buffering requirements and there are setback requirements as well.
Mr. Ferrigno indicated that the area proposed for increased density backs up to Farmington Woods and the buffers are also increased.
Mr. Starr clarified that he has concerns with the additional traffic, however marginal.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she doesn’t feel placing a cluster development between two established traditional neighborhoods is a good idea, as it doesn’t flow very well.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that Farmington Woods is located between the two existing neighborhoods.
Mrs. Primeau commented that Farmington Woods is a private condominium community and the neighborhoods surrounding it are all public; they were built at different times. She added that there should be some consistency.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that proposing a cluster development keeps the buffer so it wouldn’t be seen by the existing neighborhoods; a traditional development will be visible by all the houses on Haynes Road. He noted that from his view, you don’t keep the look and feel of the neighborhood by building traditional homes.
Mrs. Primeau indicated that a smart developer would create a buffer so that people don’t see the development.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that homeowners come in and do what they want in connection with buffers once they buy a house in a conventional development, regardless of what the developer may have provided. He added that people put in swimming pools and tennis courts; they don’t respect buffers.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question about housing for empty nesters, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the subject proposal is a compromise of his original proposal, which was withdrawn due to resistance. He acknowledged that he indicated that the cluster homes would be for empty nesters. He added that the Commission asked that the traffic study be based on regular housing, to be conservative. He stated that traffic counts were done using similar type homes that he built in Town producing about half the traffic. He explained that traffic is generated by the type of use and the time of day.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Ferrigno indicated that he will build 3-bedroom houses, as 3 bedrooms is the minimum because people have grandchildren and studies/offices. He added that he has never sold a 2-bedroom house in Avon.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Ferrigno stated that there is definitely more clearing with a conventional house; the houses are bigger with 3-car garages and the owners want bigger yards.
Ms. Keith commented that even if the houses were moved back to meet the regulations for the road, less clearing would be needed and the buffer could remain between the different areas. This would be somewhat better because the conventional homes are huge and cause tree removal.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that, generally, Ms. Keith’s comments are correct but added that he won’t make promises that he may not be able to keep. He noted that in most areas more trees could be protected using the subject plan with a cluster development. He indicated that he would be willing to put restrictions on the property but conveyed his opinion that restrictions cannot be placed on a conventional, as-of-right, development. Mr. Ferrigno pointed out that a certain measure of built in protection is the reason he came in with a cluster plan in the first place. He noted that he’s spent a lot of time and money developing this plan and added that if the Commission is not going to consider a cluster plan he will return with a conventional, conforming subdivision plan that will allow
buyers to do what they wish with their property.
In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission can allow the “loop” road to be a private road and added that there also may be ways to make the road pattern even more circuitous than it already is.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with Mr. Ferrigno’s earlier comments, that the Commission has much less discretion with a conventional subdivision as compared to a cluster proposal.
Mr. Starr commented that the Commission can require anything they want with a conventional subdivision.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with Mr. Starr’s comment and added that landscaped islands, stop signs, and a more circuitous road network can all be discussed as part of a conventional proposal but explained that he doesn’t believe the Commission has the same ability to completely reinvent the road network, as might be permitted with a cluster. He noted that he could verify this with the Town Attorney.
Mr. Ferrigno displayed a plan showing the proposed road “Stratfordshire” not connected all the way through the proposed development, noting that the cluster regulations allow for flexibility. He noted that this design would require all the traffic to follow a more circuitous network. He explained that this plan needs more work/refinement but proves that alternatives are possible.
Mr. Kushner explained to Ms. Keith that it is possible under the Regulations to allow the cluster road, even in a loop fashion, to be private should that be the Commission’s preference. In the alternative just presented by Mr. Ferrigno where Stratfordshire would not be a through road and, instead, the loop road is the through road, it would have to be a public street.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that the houses would be pushed back into the neighbors unless there is a provision in the Regulations to prevent it. He explained that this is part of the challenge and frustration.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he believes if a public street is proposed the Regulations require that more rigid setback requirements have to be met.
Mr. Gackstatter asked if it would be possible, in connection with the layout showing the road “Stratfordshire” not connecting all the way through, to shift all the houses down to the east to save some of the buffer area.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that the buffer shown was put there deliberately to provide a neighborhood separation but noted that it might be possible to shift things and gain 20 feet in another location.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his understanding of Mr. Ferrigno’s comments but pointed out a future possibility such that residents of both Haynes Road and the new development may ask/want to connect the road, “Stratfordshire”. He asked whether the current design is being over thought, as 2 traffic engineers have presented information stating that there would not be a big impact from the current design.
Mr. Kushner commented in connection with the current design that it would be possible to accomplish a private loop road that would provide additional flexibility and, theoretically, if the density were appropriate, could result in less land disturbance.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels making the new road very curvy takes away incentive for the residents of Haynes Road to exit that way. She added that the main reason the Commission is insisting on the road connection is for safety reasons in case of emergencies and added that it’s a trade off.
Mr. Ferrigno noted his agreement with Mrs. Griffin that the road connection must be made for safety reasons; he conveyed his understanding that people don’t want the connection but pointed out that people will want it when someone is having a heart attack or when someone’s house is burning down and there is no other way to get in. He commented that he believes most people knew that this road connection was going to be made eventually. Mr. Ferrigno indicated that he feels the proposed cluster plan is more beneficial for everyone, including himself.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Ferrigno stated that houses on the larger lots would be 3,000 to 3,800 square feet and houses on the smaller lots would be 2,400 to 2,800 square feet. He explained that if a conventional subdivision is constructed, the “as-of-right” homes would have 4 car garages. He further explained that he came up with the cluster plan because he feels it meets various changing needs; some people want larger lots with big yard but there are some who want smaller yards so they don’t have to maintain it.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that there seems to be 2 choices; one design produces a little bit less cut through traffic and the other design produces less privacy to the surrounding neighbors. He noted that comments from the public should be heard.
Mr. Ferrigno asked for input from each Commission member, as to how he should proceed with plan design.
Ms. Keith stated that she has lived in Avon for 42 years and noted that she is very familiar with change and the impact that clearing lots can have on surrounding properties. She conveyed her opinion that she doesn’t feel there should be a break in the road, “Stratfordshire”, as it is going to complicate matters for the road stub on the other side.
Mr. Kushner commented that if the Commission is in favor of the cluster proposal a consideration might be to ask Mr. Ferrigno to take the plan to the next level and have a landscape architect prepare a more detailed analysis/plan to provide more information and allow a judgment to be made.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated that he feels Mr. Ferrigno should be given more specific direction before he is asked to create more detailed plans; public input is needed.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that a concept map reviewed at the last meeting showed 35 lots for a conventional subdivision. He added that he is not sure 35 lots would be approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Mr. Ferrigno conveyed his opinion that the cluster proposal will generate less traffic. He explained that he has built these homes before and knows what traffic is generated because he has done his own traffic studies. He reiterated that there would be less control over the final outcome with a traditional subdivision. He noted that a lot of time, money, and effort have been spent on this project and asked that he be informed if there is no attraction for a cluster plan. He added that he could prepare a plan that meets all the Regulations. He concluded by noting that the land is going to be developed in any event.
The hearing was opened for public comment.
Janet Romanowicz, 94 Haynes Road, noted that she likes the alternate designs better due to calming traffic patterns and being more consistent with the neighborhoods it would connect with. She noted her concerns with more traffic on Haynes, as that are a lot of small children there. She noted that two-story houses are not targeted for seniors, as they want one-story. Three-bedroom houses are going to be all families and most families today have 3 cars. She asked consideration for a 3-way stop sign at Haynes Road.
Tom Horan, 166 Haynes Road, commented, in connection with the “loop” road in the cluster development, that it is his understanding that only a cul-de-sac can be a private road. He submitted to the Commission copies of Mr. Ferrigno’s PowerPoint presentation from the last meeting, noting that he added page numbers for reference. He reviewed page 6 and asked whether the developer has a right to expect a cluster development and whether it is up to the Commission to decide what’s best for the Town. He reviewed page 10 and asked if the homeowner’s association would only include the houses in the cluster part or would it include everyone in the development.
In response to Mr. Horan’s question, a member of the project ream stated that everybody in the development would be part of the homeowner’s association.
Mr. Horan noted his concerns with half the development being cluster and the confusion that it may cause in the future with regard to the homeowners’ association.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that the entire development would be built under the cluster regulations, if an approval is granted.
Mr. Horan noted his understanding but added that half of development would be built with larger homes and added that it would be confusing for people buying into the development in the future, as it would not be a closed community.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Buckingham Subdivision is a similar scenario such that half of the roads are private but everyone is a member of the same association. It’s important for individuals to do research before they purchase homes to decide if they like the conditions of a particular development.
Mr. Horan continued and reviewed page 8 and asked about possible discrepancies with the drawings that show forest preservation areas. He commented that it appears that the developer has the opportunity to build in buffers anywhere he chooses even if the development is built as a conventional project and added that he feels that the developer will leave buffer space in. People will want a buffer to Farmington Woods.
Mr. Gackstatter responded to Mr. Horan by noting that one of the green spaces shown on the plans is a wetland area and is protected and cannot be built.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comment that some people may come in and clear all the trees depending on what their preference is,
Mr. Horan conveyed his agreement but noted his point that tree clearing will be within the association’s control and added his concern that ultimately these issues come back to the Town.
Mr. Horan continued and reviewed page 5 noting that he feels the alternative design offers an advantage for traffic flow as two additional 90° turns are proposed. He explained that he would rather see the development built for 35 homes rather than 39, noting that the difference between 39 and 35 is 11.4% and is a significant increase in the potential for Town expenses. He concluded by noting his concerns for standards in connection with age-targeted developments. He submitted a legal opinion to the Commission and added that age targeting without declaring an age-restricted development is against the CT Statutes.
Mr. Kushner offered clarification that the developer may market the houses to a certain population but that doesn’t mean that the developer wouldn’t sell a house to anyone who wishes to buy it.
Mr. Horan noted his understanding but commented that he thinks the line has already been crossed by putting in writing that the proposed development is an age-targeted community; he noted his concerns for the Town and suggested that the Town Attorney be asked.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission doesn’t promote any discriminatory practices in connection with house sales but further explained that the Commission is not charged with enforcing these types of laws. He added that it is his understanding that there are houses that are marketed for people aged 55 and older and the law supports that. He noted that it is also his understanding that Mr. Ferrigno is not saying that you have to be 55 or 62 or 72 to live in his houses but rather is building houses that he thinks will be attractive to a certain group of people that are generally empty nesters. He added that this approach may turn out to be correct or not.
Mr. Ferrigno conveyed his agreement with Mr. Kushner’s comments and confirmed that he would not refuse a house sale to someone with kids and all the houses in the proposed development would be available for purchase to anyone of any age. He clarified that the term “age targeting” is probably over used for marketing purposes. He concluded that he would never restrict house sales.
Mr. Horan noted his understanding but reiterated his concerns.
Charles Thornton, 56 Haynes Road, noted his concerns with traffic but added that he feels the designs are pretty good. He asked if the Commission has the authority or can require some type of traffic calming on Haynes Road. He noted that he was a policeman for many years and doesn’t believe that 34mph is the average speed of 85% of the people on the “flats” part of Haynes Road. He reiterated his concerns for traffic and speeds on the lower end of Haynes Road and asked that it be addressed.
Amelia Brown, 7 Concord Place, commented that if the cluster development is going to be built she noted that she doesn’t want the design that shows a connection near her house because that would result in 3 homes in her backyard. She noted that she is very confused with all the different plans.
Ms. Keith explained that the 3 homes referred to by Ms. Brown are not changing location whether the plan proposes a through road or a cul-de-sac.
Glenn Silva, 38 Lenox Road, commented that there is no clear cutting on Lenox Road; he noted he has lived there for 20 years. He noted that Knoll Lane has been leveled. He conveyed his opinion that the proposed houses could be set in amongst the existing trees. He noted that people in this area do not cut trees; people in CT like trees.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that there are instances where people do cut down trees and conveyed his concerns that this can result in neighbors suing each other. He noted that it needs to be discussed as to whether people should be allowed to have control over whether they can cut down trees to the edge of their property or not. He added that he would like to hear everyone’s opinion on this issue.
Mr. Silva commented that everyone in his neighborhood has control over their lot and no one has cut to the border and the same scenario exists on Haynes Road. He noted his assumption that the consistency would be the same in nearby neighborhoods.
Robyn Abbate, 71 Lexington Road, commented that a conventional plan could possibly allow some restrictions and buffering.
Mr. Kushner explained that basic zoning rules apply to every conventional residential lot; there are setbacks for the front, side, and rear yards that dictate where a house can be positioned and is not negotiable, meaning everyone must comply. He further explained that with regard to tree clearing restrictions in connection with a conventional development, it is both his opinion and that of the Town Attorney that the Commission has very limited discretion in this area. He noted that the Commission does have discretion with a cluster proposal and added that the Commission is looking for input from the neighbors.
Robyn Abbate, 71 Lexington Road, conveyed her understanding that the land is going to be developed but noted that she feels a line should be drawn down the middle without a connector road. She commented that a connection from Haynes Road to the proposed development would be ok or a connection from Lenox Road to a conventional development would be ok, as it would allow for the landscaping to continue with what currently exists in the areas on both sides. She noted her concerns for the additional traffic putting the children in the area at risk. She noted her displeasure for landscaped medians, as that would make the area prominent and she doesn’t want that; she added her concerns for reductions in home values. She praised the Commission for managing where other developments in Town have
been built, noting that those developments come out onto double yellow line roads. She reiterated her preference that no cut through be permitted, as two separate residential areas on both sides could be achieved.
Ms. Keith noted that the Plan of Circulation warrants the proposed road connections; the stubs have been there right along. She explained that the Commission is obligated and it is their charge to follow these Plans and consider circumstances such as the fire safety (i.e., fire truck access) and the health and welfare (i.e., ambulance access) of all residents.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Plan of Circulation results in the road network that everyone in Town takes advantage of every day. Hollister Drive didn’t exist in the 1980s; it was shown in planning documents but was built in an incremental way over the years. He explained that double yellow lined roads are collector and arterial roads, noting that Hollister Drive is a collector road designed with a 60-foot right-of-way and planned to accommodate the traffic coming from the Brownstone Subdivision and the surrounding areas. He added that Hollister Drive was designed to carry today’s traffic and more, as are the State highways. The proposed road connection shown in the Comprehensive Plan between Haynes Road and the Brownstone Subdivision is supposed to be for the convenience and safety of
the residents that live there today. He explained that the road connection is not supposed to duplicate or siphon traffic off the collector roadway system and added that, by design, if that is the end result then it does not match the goals and objectives of the Plan of Circulation. He further explained that the objective is not to lessen the burden on the collector road system; the collector road system was designed to carry higher volumes of traffic.
Ms. Abbate commented that Hollister can handle the proposed development but Lenox is not a collector road and noted that she would be ok with a development directly off of Hollister without coming through Lenox but clarified that she knows that cannot be done. She noted her concerns with traffic from 35 homes, as every house will have 2 or 3 cars. She noted that she has talked to people who live on the other side of Hollister who cut across to avoid the traffic lights; she noted that this traffic would only increase and added that she doesn’t feel that one-day traffic reports are accurate. She concluded by noting that she feels that both Lenox and Haynes Road would be turned into something that is not intended, as they are both currently local roads.
Mr. Silva, 38 Lenox Road, commented that if an emergency gate is an option, he noted that it allows circulation for emergency vehicles while cutting off traffic flow for the private citizens.
Ms. Keith conveyed her understanding about emergency gates but noted that the same comments/arguments were discussed when Hollister Drive was connected. She explained that the Commission is charged with providing road connections and noted that if more homes are constructed in this area while not allowing the traffic circulation to run through would be a large detriment to the population.
In response to Ms. Abbate’s question about whether there has to be a connection on both sides, Ms. Keith reiterated that the Commission is charged with providing flow through traffic in this area.
Mr. Starr explained that the Zoning Regulations allow a maximum number of homes on a cul-de-sac. He further explained that Haynes Road has always had more houses than is allowed by regulation because the Commission knew that someday a road connection was going to be made and a road stub was left many years ago for that reason.
Ms. Abbate noted her understanding and conveyed her appreciation for the explanation.
Laurie Pugsley, 4 Haynes Road, commented that she would like to see another traffic study done in 3 years, in 5 years, and in 7 years from now to see how the impact of traffic has increased beyond the projected 25%; she asked for clarity as to what 25% means. She also requested a binding contract from the developer in the event that the projected increase is exceeded. She requested speed bumps at the end of Haynes Road, noting that she sees a queue of cars at the intersection of Haynes and West Avon Road and reaches Scoville Road when the light is red. She noted that cars line up in front of her driveway in the morning for cars turning right onto West Avon Road; she added that the majority of vehicles turn right. She communicated her concerns with cut through traffic noting that there will
always be first timers trying the route. She noted her preference for the alternate plan noting that open space can be preserved without a cluster development, as the Commission has discretion. She noted her agreement with the traffic reports in connection with morning rush hour but noted that there is also traffic congestion on West Avon Road from 2:45pm to 3:15pm and it’s more than just school traffic. She added that the Avon Health Center has shift changes in the afternoon making it difficult to cross the street. She concluded by expressing her concern with people who use GPS (which doesn’t provide a time factor) that may use the area as a cut through/alternate route.
Shelia Sokolski, 55 Lexington Road, noted that it bothers her to know that it seems like the rules pertaining to circulation can change; we can choose to either apply the rules or not. She noted that Haynes Road exceeded the allowable number of houses when the loop was built and the cut through was ignored then but not now.
Chris Wilde, 110 Haynes Road, commented that the proposed development is only one bit of the cut through that is being created and added that different traffic calming measures need to be looked at, noting that fast traffic speeds will still occur on the flat area of Haynes Road. She asked if an extra lane could be added at the traffic light at Hollister and West Avon Road to help move traffic.
Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Vertucci if there is sufficient width to add pavement for a right-hand turn on Hollister Drive, noting that this would help significantly with capacity.
Mr. Vertucci concurred with Mr. Kushner and noted that he would have to study the signal plan to provide an exact width; travel lanes are about 12 feet.
Mr. Kushner indicated that this option is worth investigating.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the traffic speeds on the flat areas of Haynes Road are a Town of Avon issue more than an issue for the proposed development/developer.
Mr. Kushner agreed with Mr. Gackstatter, adding that the Traffic Authority has jurisdiction over local road speeds and any calming measures considered. He noted that a Commission member could talk directly with the Police Chief or he could speak to the Police Chief on behalf of the Commission.
Mr. Starr explained that court cases have shown that the Commission cannot force a developer to do anything off of the property.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels the Commission could ask Mr. Kushner to speak to the Traffic Authority in connection with the concerns raised by the neighbors about traffic speeds. She explained that the Commission does not have the authority to force the developer in this regard.
Janet Romanowicz, 94 Haynes Road, noted that she lives on the flat area of Haynes Road and conveyed her concerns with the increased traffic from the proposed development, as it is the fastest way to Unionville.
Mr. Starr explained that for those who live on the loop of Haynes Road, West Avon Road may not be the fastest way to Unionville.
Ms. Keith pointed out that vehicles will be dispersed in 2 directions, not just on Haynes Road, and added that the Commission is aware of the neighbors’ concerns.
Mr. Ferrigno indicated that when roads gets extended property values do not go down, noting that he has been involved in many developments where that is not the situation. He noted that he is building a development right now where the property values have probably doubled and added that this will not be a concern for the proposed development. He commented that the police chief and the fire chief have indicated that the road connection must happen in order to protect Avon’s citizens. He added that although he knows the road connection is a necessity, it would be less expensive for him to build 2 cul-de-sacs and most likely be more marketable, as people want to live on a cul-de-sac. He indicated that he is willing to provide aesthetically pleasing traffic calming measures while noting that no
situation is perfect. He added that he would be willing to consider a small investment in the possibility of adding speed reducing measures off the site, although it cannot be required of a developer. He noted his support for a 3-way stop sign. He concluded by acknowledging his understanding of all the concerns raised but noted that the land is going to get developed; he noted that he would not indiscriminately clear trees. He asked for input/direction from the Commission regarding the cluster concept.
Mr. Starr noted his support of the cluster plan for the whole site provided that a couple of the proposed houses in the northwest corner get eliminated, reducing the total number of houses from 39 to possibly 35. He noted his support for traffic calming measures. He indicated that the road connector needs to be public and asked if it’s possible to shift the road to the east.
Mrs. Primeau commented that a homeowner’s association can have rules that change over time; for instance, they can decide that trees are not important and allow people to cut them down.
Attorney Meyers noted his agreement with Mrs. Primeau noting that it has happened around the State. He noted that he discussed this with Mr. Kushner who has suggested that conservation easements in favor of the Town be considered, as enforcement would then be under the Town’s jurisdiction.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about recourse, Mr. Meyers explained that the standard language in the Town’s conservation easement gives the Town many options for remedies adding that it is up to the Town to pursue those remedies.
Mrs. Primeau expressed her preference for a standard subdivision, something designed like Stony Corners. She noted that she doesn’t support a cluster subdivision, as that adds houses closer together. The neighborhoods should flow and look connected and not disjointed.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Council is generally willing to accept conservation easements relating to permanently protected areas located around the perimeter of a development and large open space assets but additional restrictions imposed on individual lots would not normally be accepted.
Mrs. Clark noted her support of Mr. Kushner’s comments in that the proposed cluster development could be done very nicely with the right landscape plan that could add to the Town and the surrounding neighborhoods. She noted that she feels people are afraid because it’s a big change but added that she feels in the long run it would be a positive thing.
Mr. Kushner clarified in connection with tree clearing that in most cases there are no complaints but if there are usually the Town finds out by receiving a call from a neighbor. He explained that the Town would follow up a complaint by inspecting the site and if trees were cut in an area protected by a conservation easement, the cutting would be stopped and remediation ordered if necessary.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels it would be beneficial, as a community effort, to try to improve the speeding situation on the flat areas of Haynes Road; he added that this situation has nothing to do with the proposed development. He indicated that he feels a cluster development would be less impact than an “as-of-right” development. He commented that he feels a good example of an “as-of-right” development is located at the top of Haynes Road and added that there’s not a tree in there. He conveyed his support for a cluster development noting that the little problems could be fixed to make it the best it could be.
Mrs. Griffin indicated that originally she thought a conventional subdivision would be best but explained that after hearing a lot of testimony she now feels there should be public streets and noted that she likes the traffic flow of the cluster proposal. She added that she would like to see the large green space shown in the center shrunk a bit and maybe pull the street down a bit to make the lots in the back somewhat larger. She added that she would also like to see 1 or 2 fewer lots. She noted that she feels a cluster would best protect the neighborhood and keep it more consistent to what it is as opposed to going the other way.
Mr. Mahoney indicated that he likes the cluster concept noting his surprise at the neighborhood’s reaction to it. He conveyed his concern with enforcement of conservation easements. He noted his agreement with Mr. Starr that he would like to see fewer lots.
Mr. Ferrigno suggested that he could work with Mr. Kushner’s office in the coming days to discuss ways to make the cluster design more specific, such as firming up the road layout and addressing the aesthetic concerns.
Ms. Keith commented to Mr. Ferrigno that she feels he heard the Commission’s preference to reduce the number of lots by at least 1 or 2.
Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that he heard everything.
Mr. Starr motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4683 and #4684 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for December 10. The motion seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
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
The applicant requested a continuance to the December 10 meeting.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4688 to the next meeting, scheduled for December 10. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
The public hearing was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Mahoney motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Mrs. Clark seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4692 - Lexham Avon LLC, owner, ARTfx, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign, 320 West Main Street, Parcel 4540320, in a CR Zone
Mr. Starr motioned to approve App. #4692. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Regulating the Production and Dispensing of Medical Marijuana
Mr. Kushner suggested, due to the late hour, that this item be discussed at the next meeting, scheduled for December 10. The Commission agreed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on November 19, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4692 - Lexham Avon LLC, owner, ARTfx, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign, 320 West Main Street, Parcel 4540320, in a CR Zone APPROVED
Dated at Avon this 20th day of November, 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, December 10, 2013, at 7:30 pm at the Avon Town Hall on the following:
App. #4696 - Metro Realty Group LTD, owner, Exacta Box LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.G.3.c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit daycare center, 50 Darling Drive, Parcel 2030050, in an IP Zone
App. #4698 - SHP IV/LCB Avon, LLC, and Avon Village LLC, owners /applicants, request for Special Exception under Section III.H. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit earth removal, 117 and 121 Simsbury Road, Parcels 3970117 and 3970121, in a CP-A Zone
App. #4699 - Brighenti Enterprises LLC, owner, Eric Rosow, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.B.3.e. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit rowing center, 395 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520395, in an NB 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 26th
day of November, 2013.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Linda Keith, Chair
Carol Griffin, Vice Chair
| 
