The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday October 29, 2013. Present were Linda Keith, Chair, Carol Griffin, Vice Chair, Duane Starr, David Cappello, Peter Mahoney, and Christian Gackstatter, and Alternates Elaine Primeau and Donald Bonner. Mrs. Primeau sat for the meeting. Absent were Marianne Clark and Alternate Jenna Ryan. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve the minutes of the October 8, 2013, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
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
Ms. Keith announced that the public hearing for Apps. #4683 and #4684 will be continued to the November 19 meeting.
Mr. Starr motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4683 and #4684 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for November 19. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
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
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
App. #4686 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Adams Ahern Sign Solutions, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for Sign Concept, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone
Present were Robert M. Meyers, Meyers, Piscitelli & Link LLP, on behalf of the owner; and Chris Adams, applicant, Adams Ahern Sign Solutions, Inc.
Attorney Meyers stated that the proposal is to change signage at the former TJ Maxx shopping plaza.
Chris Adams explained that the existing building sits approximately 315 feet away from the public right-of-way. Individual channel letters are proposed for the wall signs, which would allow national chain stores to keep their logos. The existing tenant (Snap Fitness) already utilizes channel letters. He noted that each tenant space has a sign band, ensuring that all wall signage will be located within a specific area. He explained that the proposed wall sign sizes are much smaller than what is allowed for the plaza.
Mr. Adams addressed the existing detached sign and explained that the existing sign base would be used but the address number has been added to the top. He noted that the sign is now proposed to be internally illuminated with four tenant sign panels; he added that the letters themselves are the only part that will light up at night.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Meyers confirmed that a site plan application would be submitted if “Goodwill” signs a lease.
Mr. Meyers clarified that the sign theme proposes either individual channel letters drilled directly into the building (like “Snap Fitness”) or signs attached to a panel (i.e., raceway), which are painted the same color as the building. He explained that signs attached to raceways look like individual letters but fewer holes in the building are needed.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question regarding 5 tenant spaces, Mr. Meyers explained that interior building walls can be added or taken away, as needed, but noted that the leases currently anticipated are for Snap Fitness and 3 other tenants.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the actual framework for each sign area is not consistent and added that she feels it would look better if they were more equal in size.
Mr. Adams explained that 3 of the sign areas are identical in size to the framework around them. He further explained that the sign area for “Advance Auto Parts” is slightly larger, as this area was originally the main entrance to the building. He noted that certain businesses have corporate specifications that dictate how their signs need to be displayed. Each proposed wall sign is smaller in size than would be allowed per the Regulations.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s concern about the different sizes/heights of the proposed wall signs, Mr. Adams explained that the size of a sign is calculated, per the Zoning Regulations, by drawing a contiguous rectangle around the text itself; the dimensions of the trim on the building are not part of the calculated measurement.
Mr. Kushner asked if all the proposed tenant signs will be mounted on the building in the same way, noting the exclusion of the existing sign for “Snap Fitness”.
Mr. Adams confirmed that all the proposed new tenant wall signs would be mounted on a raceway.
Mr. Kushner added that a possible condition of approval might state that any new tenant in the Snap Fitness space would have to comply with the raceway requirement.
Mr. Adams concurred with Mr. Kushner but noted from his visual inspection of various plazas in Town that raceways do not seem to be consistent even within the same plaza. He confirmed that all the raceways in the subject site would be painted the same color as the associated sign.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Adams explained that the border for the “Advance Auto Parts” sign would not be visible, as it would be painted white to match the sign band; white on white. Mr. Adams added that white on white would be the case for all the proposed wall signs.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4685 was closed.
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
Tim and Pamela Lefever were present.
Mr. Lefever noted that he has lived in Avon for 20 years and has recently purchased the subject site. He noted that the lower portion of the lot is located in the ridgeline setback and added that he seeks permission to fill and grade approximately 15-20% of the lot area, as described in the site grading plan prepared by CR3. The proposal is to relocate an existing gravel pile, which was deposited by the owner to the north, and also to fill a depression located in the southwest corner of the lot. He noted that activities would involve the existing gravel pile and the importation of fill, which is currently available in north Avon. The project involves no tree cutting and the intent is to return the lot to its original natural contours.
Mr. Starr asked for history on the lot and why the depression exists.
Mr. Lefever indicated that he is not sure why the depression is there but added that he acquired the lot from Peter Kagan who acquired the lot from Kurt Claywell, who was an electrician. He noted that there was an electrical building on the lower portion of the lot where there is a level gravel area and a gravel road. Mr. Lefever commented that Mr. Claywell may have been responsible for some of the depression in order to build up the flat area where the electrical shop was placed. He added that the lower portion of the lot has been pretty much disturbed.
Mr. Starr commented that Mr. Lefever is trying to restore the site to its original topography and eliminate the area used for electrical. Mr. Lefever concurred and added that he wants to eliminate the sizeable gravel pile located on the northwest corner of the lot. Mr. Starr added that Mr. Lefever has indicated that eventually he would build a house on this site but at this point the house is expected to be located outside the setback area. Mr. Lefever concurred and added that his plan is to build a private residence but fully expects it to be located behind the 150-foot setback line.
Ms. Keith commented that material removal will be needed for a foundation and septic system and added that since those areas are not known at this time, it is not known what kind of disturbance will occur. She commented that it would appear to be beneficial to both the Town and the owner to know now where the house is going to be located. She added that the Commission usually gets information regarding a house footprint before material is moved around, especially in the ridgeline.
Mr. Lefever noted that, at this point, he feels very strongly that the house foundation and related grading will be behind the 150-foot ridgeline setback. He noted that the Commission approved the Claywell application for this lot in 2001; the septic system was located adjacent to Deercliff Road, which is well behind the setback area. He indicated that if he chooses the same location, which is quite possible given that testing has been approved by the Farmington Valley Health District, the septic system would be nowhere near the restricted area. Mr. Lefever stated that the activity proposed to date does not limit the Commission’s ability to regulate anything that might occur in the future and added that he feels his application is separate and distinct from any issues in the regulated area.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he believes that the aforementioned pile of fill is not from Mr. Claywell but rather was deposited there by a developer (Fotis Dulos of Fore Group) who at one time had an option to buy this parcel and may have brought fill in from another project he was working on in Farmington. He added that the existing pile of fill has no connection to the subject lot. He added that he doesn’t believe it is accurate to say that Mr. Claywell created the depression and that the fill proposed would replicate the natural condition of the site. He noted that this has not been studied but added that topographic maps could be reviewed; he added that he doesn’t believe the site was substantially different than how it exists today. The area where the fill is proposed to be brought
in is completely within the regulated setback. He added that the Commission always struggles to find a balance/compromise between allowing a private property owner to make some reasonable use of their land (i.e., in this instance the eventual construction of a house) while applying the rules/regulations of the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone. He explained that from his conversation with Mr. Lefever at the Town Hall, in order for the Commission to properly evaluate the subject proposal it would be seem advisable for the Commission to have the whole picture. Mr. Kushner noted that Mr. Lefever has indicated tonight that the house and the septic will, in all likelihood, be located outside the 150-foot ridgeline setback. He added that if Mr. Lefever represents with certainty that no additional regulated activities would be needed then maybe the Commission has enough information to make a judgment. However, if Mr. Lefever comes back at a later, for
example, after tonight’s application has been approved and the activities completed, it could be the case that the Commission would have come to a different conclusion with regards to the amount of fill that was approved. Mr. Kushner noted that if Mr. Lefever wants to state, for the record, that he will not be back to request any additional regulated activities, the application still needs an analysis to show what the view would be from select points lower in the Valley and some thought as to the natural character of the site (i.e., how much area was disturbed by Mr. Claywell and do the requested activities comply with the Regulations). He added that no analysis beyond the prepared site grading plan has been done.
Mrs. Griffin asked if the depression ends at the property line or whether it continues onto the adjacent site.
Mr. Lefever explained that his site is lower topographically than either of the bordering north or south properties.
In response to questions and comments by Mesdames Griffin and Primeau, Mr. Lefever indicated that the gravel pile continues onto the property to the north. Mrs. Griffin asked if the pile was going to be chopped off and the rest of the pile left sticking up in the air. Mr. Lefever confirmed that the pile would be chopped off at his property line, as he has no jurisdiction over the adjacent site.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about grades, Mr. Lefever stated that his intent is to have slopes conforming to the maximum slopes that are walkable and workable from a mowing standpoint, which is approximately a 17° slope; he added that there would be no sharper slopes on any part of the lot post grading activity. He explained that the grading proposal addresses the issue of returning the lot to more natural contours. He noted that the gravel pile is 7 feet high on the lower level and 14 feet high at the property line, which totally distorts the previous contour lines shown beneath the cross hatched area on the map; he added that this would also be addressed by the proposed plan. Mr. Lefever indicated that he feels the lot would be improved by the proposal, regardless of whether Mr.
Claywell created the depression or not. He indicated that from both an erosion and natural standpoint the end result topography would be far superior to what currently exists, which is an unsightly, sharply graded gravel pile. He added that the closest visual, from a public access perspective, is from Tillotson Road in Farmington.
Mrs. Griffin conveyed her concerns with cutting the pile and leaving part of a hill going up on the neighbor’s property.
Mrs. Primeau noted her agreement with Mrs. Griffin that cutting the pile doesn’t seem like a safe situation.
Mr. Lefever commented that it would be no steeper than 17 degrees.
Mrs. Primeau indicated that the original topography does not go in the direction shown on the map; the natural topography of the lot is changing. She noted that a full site plan is needed to see the entire picture. The direction of the topography on the map heads west when it really is going south. She added that Mr. Lefever shows a difference of 14 feet while she sees a difference of 12 feet, per the original information.
Mr. Starr noted that the applicant has represented that he doesn’t plan to put a house in the impacted area and a septic system has been approved (for the former owner) by the Farmington Valley Health District.
Mrs. Primeau reiterated that she has a problem with the way the proposed plan is being handled.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels there are two parts; one is the existing fill on the site and the other is filling the depression. He noted that it sounds like the property has been disturbed where the fill is located and asked if the contour being reviewed is the natural contour or whether it is a disturbed, graded contour.
Mr. Lefever explained that the lower area of the lot (western portion) is, by and large, disturbed and added that there is a gravel road that swings around and enters the lot to the south. He noted that there was a roadway at one point to give access to the lower lot, 609 Deercliff Road.
Mr. Gackstatter asked if the original contour shown on the map is a result of previous activity on the site. Mr. Lefever replied, yes, in part. Mr. Gackstatter asked what the reason is for filling the site, as it has been represented that a house would be located outside the 150-foot ridgeline setback. He asked if Mr. Lefever wants to get the gravel moved or is there another reason for changing the contour.
Mr. Lefever explained that the gravel pile is the first reason and a flatter lot, less basin like, that is more aesthetically pleasing is the second reason.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated that he feels the gravel pile and depression are 2 separate issues. He noted that he can see an argument/reason for moving the existing gravel pile and grading it to result in a reasonable connection to the neighbors. He questioned whether the material removed from the gravel pile should be used to fill the depression area or whether that area should be left as is. He conveyed his understanding that the applicant has a chance for some cheaper fill but noted that there isn’t enough information at this time to move forward.
In response to Mr. Lefever’s question about what additional information is required, Mr. Gackstatter indicated that a decision has to be made as to whether it is a good idea or not to add fill within the ridgeline setback. He asked if the gravel should be moved offsite altogether and added that all this information is predicated on where the house would be located, as grading will also be required for construction. He added that photos of the site would be helpful.
Mr. Cappello asked how long the gravel pile has existed on the site.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he’s not sure but agreed with Mr. Lefever that it is probably 3 or 4 years.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions, Mr. Lefever noted that most of the gravel pile is located on the northerly property; approximately 25% to 30% would be removed. Mr. Cappello commented that the topographic map must have been prepared after the southerly disturbance but before the gravel pile was deposited on the northerly part. Mr. Lefever noted that part of the “cheap” fill noted in his correspondence would come from his lot and part would come from somewhere else in North Avon. He added that the existing gravel pile provides about 1,200 CY of fill.
Mrs. Griffin commented that when the pile is moved and additional fill is brought in it looks like the majority of the 150-foot setback area is going to be clean soil with nothing growing on it all season.
Mr. Cappello commented that the fill coming from North Avon is time sensitive but the existing gravel pile is not time sensitive; it’s not going anywhere. Mr. Lefever concurred.
Mr. Kushner explained that while there was prior disturbance (i.e., gravel road and utility building) of the site by Mr. Claywell it is not clear that there was ever any prior excavation. He noted that while the area may not have been beautiful from a landscape perspective he explained that the goal of the ridgeline regulations is not necessarily to improve visual conditions but rather to preserve the ridgeline in its natural character. He noted, however, that activities are permitted by special exception review of the Commission and typically a landscape architect presents a detailed plan for the entire site. Mr. Kushner indicated that if it is the applicant’s representation that under no circumstances will he be back to ask for any additional regulated activities then it seems that the Commission
can make a decision on the subject proposal but added that he feels additional information is preferred in order to make a proper judgment.
Mr. Starr asked Mr. Lefever if he would be agreeable to having a professional landscape architect prepare a plan that shows actual site conditions, as well as site conditions after the proposed activities are completed. Mr. Lefever indicated that he could do that but noted that he is not sure what additional information is needed.
Mr. Starr stated that the following information is needed:
- photographic evidence of the existing site
- the landscape architect’s opinion as to what the existing conditions are (i.e., has the site been this way for a very long time or was the site disturbed 20 years ago)
- a detailed plan showing what the site would look like when the proposed work is done
Mr. Starr added that the Commission would be willing to continue the hearing to allow the applicant time to gather the information.
Ms. Keith conveyed her opinion that at least 50% of the 150-foot setback will be disturbed either by gravel removal and replacing it somewhere else and/or by adding topsoil in a depression. She added that the site has settled into a self-imposed natural state for several years.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Lefever noted that the gravel proposed to be removed would be used in the depression area. He added that the gravel pile has no reasonable growth of woody shrubs or grasses. Ms. Keith noted her understanding. Mr. Lefever added that the gravel pile is unsightly and far from the natural state of the ridgeline.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the gravel pile was deposited more recently and came from the “Jefferson Crossing” project in Farmington.
In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Kushner noted that he doesn’t know the background behind the gravel pile on the site but added that he would find out.
Ms. Keith indicated that she would prefer to see a full site plan before making any decisions on this application; she added that she needs some guarantees.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Lefever explained that there used to be electrical wires on the existing poles on the site; he added that one pole has wires that are hanging down.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the gravel road is not shown on the plans and noted that the ridgeline regulations exist to maintain the ridge.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated that he understands the reason for wanting to move the existing gravel pile but added that he doesn’t feel filling the depression area to make it more aesthetically pleasing is a very good or valid reason. He added that if there are photos of the area showing a gravel road with blast markings, that information could indicate that the area is not in its natural state and has been disturbed.
Mr. Kushner explained that if it is a fact that a proposed house, including septic and well, would be located completely outside the regulated setback, then, perhaps, the proposed activities in the ridgeline setback, although significant, could be deemed reasonable; a counterbalance of sorts. He noted that there is often a compromise reached by the Commission when discussing the ridgeline; a balance is the goal. He noted that Mr. Lefever has not confirmed that he would not be back in front of the Commission.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels Mr. Lefever cannot say yes or no about whether he would have additional requests because there is not enough data, to date, to make that decision.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about talking to the neighbors to the north to ask if they would like to soften the gravel pile on their side, Mr. Lefever noted that he has not talked to Fotis.
The Commission noted their concern for the stability of the gravel pile and the possible repercussions if it’s disturbed.
Pam Lefever explained that the gravel pile is located on top of a root system of very old trees. She added that the adjacent site looks like a piece of property where a house would be sitting with a moat around it. She added that it is clear that the builder wanted to extend the area so it wouldn’t look like a moat and a house could be moved out further. She addressed visuals and noted that a basin is similar to a swimming pool such that if filled with dirt, it could not be seen from the road if located on a mountain. She added that the intent is not to grade the basin area flat but rather to grade to reflect better what exists on the lot to the south. She noted her understanding of percentages discussed earlier but added that they do not reflect the visuals.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that visual impacts are not the only issue; disturbance to the ridgeline must be considered.
Ms. Keith asked that photos and a more definite plan be provided at the next meeting. She explained that the Commission is very sensitive to activities in the ridgeline because things have happened in the past that shouldn’t have happened.
Mr. Starr noted that he would like to see drawings from a licensed landscape architect showing existing conditions as well as what the conditions would be after the proposed activities are complete.
Mrs. Primeau noted her agreement with Ms. Keith and Mr. Starr, noting that the ridgeline regulations are in place to protect the trap rock.
Mr. Lefever asked if a full landscaped architectural plan for the proposed house is needed. The Commission confirmed that what is requested is a landscape architect’s drawing/plan showing existing conditions and impacts for all proposed activities within the regulated setback area. Mr. Lefever noted his understanding.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comment, Mr. Starr noted that a septic system location has been approved by Deercliff Road.
Ms. Keith added she would also like to receive some type of guarantee that Mr. Lefever would not be disturbing the regulated area again when he builds his house.
Mr. Starr motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4688 to the next meeting, scheduled for November 19. The motion, seconded by Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.
The public hearing was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Starr motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Mrs. Griffin seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
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
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4685. The motion, seconded by Mr. Starr, received unanimous approval.
App. #4686 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Adams Ahern Sign Solutions, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for Sign Concept, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App #4686 subject to the following condition:
1. Approval for all wall signs includes all details and notes as shown on drawings entitled, “Sign Concept Approval Design Concepts”, dated October 29, 2013, by AdamsAhern. When the tenant space currently occupied by “Snap Fitness” changes, all new tenants shall comply with the requirements for wall signs to be mounted on a raceway, consistent with the approved sign theme.
Mr. Starr seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4687 - Jackson, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct sunroom addition, 279 Avon Mountain Road, Parcel 1170279, in a CPA Zone
Present were Henry Withers, landscape architect, CR3, and Jeff Brighenti, owner.
Mr. Withers explained that the proposal is to replace the existing tent structure with a 960 SF sunroom, similar to the one constructed at The Simsbury Inn. He noted that the proposed sunroom is almost exactly the same size as the existing tent and would be constructed at almost the same grade; the size of the exit out of the building will also be maintained. The existing trees on the edge of the property will be maintained, as well as the outdoor lights along the path.
Ms. Keith commented that the sunroom looks more attractive than the tent.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question regarding parking, Mr. Kushner explained that there is no change to parking requirements, as the sunroom will be used in the same manner as the tent is currently being used (i.e., tent is used all year round and has tables and chairs).
Mr. Brighenti confirmed that no increase in parking is needed, as there will be the same amount of people and the same size structure.
Mr. Withers explained that parking needs for the tent structure were provided at the last site plan approval.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission has approved the plan.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Brighenti confirmed that no kitchen enhancements are proposed for the sunroom.
Mr. Starr motioned to approve App. #4687. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
App. #4689 - AT&T Mobility, applicant, CT Online Computer Center, owner, request for Site Plan Approval to install generator at Avon Water Co tower, 105 Darling Drive, Parcel 2030105 in an IP Zone
Bob Watson, Turning Mill Consultants, was present.
Mr. Kushner explained that the request is to add a generator to the water tower tank owned by the Avon Water Company, located at 105 Darling Drive. He noted that Avon Water Company leases land at this location and there are several other cell phone company antennas on this tank. He noted that he inspected the site today and added that no screening is necessary for the generator, as the area is well hidden and not visible from the road.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Watson explained that there currently is no generator on site for AT&T but noted there might be a generator there for another carrier.
Mitch Kennedy, Arch Road, commented that he can hear every generator in the neighborhood and asked that the proposed generator be required to be compliant with regard to pollution issues; he noted that last time there was a power outage the area was covered in smoke.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Watson explained that the proposed 50kw generator is diesel fueled and has a level 2 sound enclosure; he noted that at 21 feet the sound level is around 68 decibels, which is in between the sound of normal conversation and a telephone dial tone. He noted that the generator will be located 61 feet from the street and over 70 feet to the adjoining commercial property.
Mr. Kushner commented that Mr. Kennedy’s property is approximately 600 feet away from the subject site and asked Mr. Watson if he thinks Mr. Kennedy will be able to hear the subject generator.
Mr. Watson noted that he doesn’t think Mr. Kennedy will be able to hear the generator but added that he would probably be able to hear the roof top equipment on the commercial building.
In response to Dina Pelletier’s comments, Mr. Watson confirmed that the proposed generator is for emergency backup use only and would be exercised weekly (midweek and midday so as not to be a disruption) for approximately 15 minutes.
Mr. Cappello referenced Mr. Kennedy’s earlier comments and noted that a lot of the smoke was coming from wood burning stoves and not just generators. Mr. Kennedy noted his understanding and acknowledged that there are rules governing wood stoves.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4689. The motion, seconded by Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Regulating the Production and Dispensing of Medical Marijuana
Mr. Kushner explained that the State of CT has adopted a new law that went into effect September 1, 2013, such that the State will permit 3 licenses for indoor growing facilities. The product will be grown and pills/tablets will be produced to be dispensed via doctor prescriptions. He noted that in Connecticut the product will be used only for certain medical conditions and is not to be used for recreational purposes, as is allowed in some other states. Chain link fences will be required around the building and security required. He noted that although this use could be viewed as a manufacturing use, because of the agricultural component it would not be permitted in the IP (industrial Park) zone under the current Zoning Regulations. He explained that the Town Attorney has indicated that the
use could possibly be considered via special permit criteria while creating some significant standards that would have to be met. He noted that the State has standards that require this use to be located a certain distance from schools, churches, playgrounds, etc. Mr. Kushner commented that he believes the licensing/permit fee is $1M ($250,000 down and $750,000 after the State grants a license) and noted that 100% of the program cost is to be paid by the manufacturer; nothing is to be funded by the taxpayers. The State will be allowing a certain number of dispensaries that will have security requirements. He noted that the Town of Simsbury has recently adopted zoning regulations pertaining to medical marijuana and has also been approached about the possibility of having a production facility. Both Farmington and West Hartford have enacted moratoriums, which allow time for review of the State’s regulations and consideration for the
impacts/compatibilities. He indicated that Avon has options which include the adoption of a moratorium; a decision to consider requests for medical marijuana facilities based on the existing zoning regulations, or; a decision to adopt regulations pertaining to medical marijuana facilities.
Mr. Gackstatter addressed fencing and asked if the current Zoning Regulations contain language that allows high-security fences, such as chain link with barbed wire.
Mr. Kushner noted that he doesn’t believe there is anything in the Zoning Regulations that prohibits those types of fences but added that fencing might be part of the Commission’s review of a site plan application.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels a moratorium is a good idea to allow time to evaluate what other towns have adopted for regulations.
Mrs. Primeau commented that input from the Town Attorney would be beneficial.
Mr. Mahoney noted that it is his understanding that the State won’t be granting any licenses until January 2014, at the earliest, so the Commission has time. He indicated that he feels the chance for requests in Avon is low and added that Connecticut’s model for regulation is the strictest in the nation.
Mr. Gackstatter conveyed his opinion that some people may want a growth facility in Avon for the tax revenue and added that he feels the Town may want to move forward with regulations. He indicated that he is not advocating one way or the other but added that he feels there are two parts that need to be addressed; growth facilities and dispensaries.
Mr. Mahoney noted his agreement that growth facilities and dispensaries should be viewed as two different items.
Ms. Keith commented that she would really want the fencing issue to be addressed.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with Ms. Keith about the fencing issue, as one of the duties of the Commission is to protect surrounding property values. He added that the Commission needs to consider what the goals are and where a growing facility might be permitted, if it is decided that a growing facility would be allowed in certain locations. He noted that regulations can be written to accommodate what the Commission may be comfortable with (i.e., 2,000 feet from schools, churches, parks; parcels of at least 15 acres in size, etc.). He explained that the Town Attorney has indicated that a more proactive approach may be preferable, meaning the Commission may want to figure out what locations would be acceptable for such facilities, if it is decided that these facilities should be allowed, and
create regulations that would direct individuals to those locations.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels land that is zoned agricultural would be appropriate.
Mr. Mahoney noted that he feels special exceptions in an industrial area should be allowed, as it is an indoor growing operation.
Ms. Keith commented that she would not like to see a building constructed in an agricultural zone for this purpose. Mr. Mahoney noted his agreement.
Mr. Kushner explained that it is helpful to make it a special exception use, as that allows the Commission discretion.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that a lot of time could be spent on this very controversial subject with lots of people commenting at public meetings and nothing may ever come of it.
Mr. Starr suggested that Mr. Kushner could take a look at the map of Avon and identify some possible sites that would be a reasonable distance away from residences, as well as schools and churches. He pointed out that there may not be any place in Town for such a facility.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she would like to see Attorney Mike Zizka, rather than the Town Attorney, review this matter to make sure that the Commission is completely informed.
Mr. Kushner reported that Mike Zizka is mostly retired at this point and noted that Attorney Kari Olson has essentially taken over for him.
Mr. Mahoney indicated that he doesn’t feel the Town should do any work to help people figure out where to put something; let them do their own research.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner indicated that he doesn’t believe a statement can be added to the Regulations saying that a marijuana facility is absolutely prohibited but clarified that locations that may be acceptable via special permit can be narrowly defined.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that a moratorium is theoretically non controversial; a public hearing would be scheduled and probably not contested. He added that it seems logical that people wishing to obtain these licenses are going to gravitate towards the communities that are the most receptive, as there are so many hurdles already.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his agreement and questioned spending a lot of time in public debate over something that may never amount to anything.
Mr. Starr noted that Mr. Kushner can look into the matter and then the Commission can decide if they want to pursue it. The Commission agreed.
Request for 90-day extension to file mylars for LCB Senior Living – PZC Apps. #4669-70-71
There was no need for an extension.
STAFF REPORT
Traffic Study for Lenox Road – Sunlight Construction
Mr. Kushner explained that a well-qualified traffic engineer at John Meyer Consulting (JMC) has been chosen to prepare an independent traffic study; the proposal is $3,800. He noted that this firm was involved with the senior living project on Simsbury Road and also the “Fresh Market” project. He noted that JMC has been instructed to prepare a peer review of the report already prepared by Fuss & O’Neill, as well as the 9 additional items requested at the public hearing held on October 8. Additional traffic calming measures to make it even less likely that the proposed road connection would be used as a short cut will also be studied by JMC. He noted that JMC will also make a site visit to witness traffic during the morning school peak time at 7:40am and present all his
findings at the Commission’s meeting.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the traffic engineer should come between 7am and 7:40am, as school starts at 7:20am.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that he feels the traffic engineer should also witness traffic at 3pm, as traffic backs up and people may decide to drive up Haynes Road.
STAFF APPROVALS
App. #4690 - DP3 LLC, owner/applicant, request for Staff Approval under Section X of Avon Zoning Regulations for minor modifications to existing building façade (New England Pasta Company-new tenant), 300 West Main Street, Parcel 4540300, in a CR Zone
Mr. Kushner reported that New England Pasta Company recently relocated to 300 West Main from 2 existing locations, 210 West Main and the rear building at 369 West Main. Minor building façade changes were completed recently.
App. #4691 - AVA Parcel 2 LLC, owner/applicant, request for Staff Approval under Section X of Avon Zoning Regulations for minor modifications for change of restaurant use in Bldg. #41 (“Good to Go” changing to “Pick and Mix”), 33 East Main Street, Parcel 2140033, in a CS Zone
Mr. Kushner reported a restaurant change at Old Avon Village noting that “Good to Go” will now be called “Pick and Mix”; he added that the use is similar with a new owner. Minor building façade changes were done recently.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on October 29, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
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 APPROVED
App. #4686 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Adams Ahern Sign Solutions, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for Sign Concept, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITION
App. #4687 - Jackson, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct sunroom addition, 279 Avon Mountain Road, Parcel 1170279, in a CPA Zone APPROVED
App. #4689 - AT&T Mobility, applicant, CT Online Computer Center, owner, request for Site Plan Approval to install generator at Avon Water Co tower, 105 Darling Drive, Parcel 2030105 in an IP Zone APPROVED
Dated at Avon this 30th 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, November 19, 2013, at 7:30 pm at Company #1 Firehouse located at 25 Darling Drive, in Avon, on the following:
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
All interested persons may appear and be heard and written communications will be received. Applications are available for inspection in Planning and Community Development at the Avon Town Hall. Dated at Avon this 5th day of November, 2013.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Linda Keith, Chair Carol Griffin, Vice Chair
| 
