The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday December 10, 2013. Present were Linda Keith, Chair, Carol Griffin, Vice Chair, Duane Starr, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, Christian Gackstatter, and Alternate
Donald Bonner; Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent were Peter Mahoney and Alternates Elaine Primeau and 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
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2013, meeting, as submitted. The motion seconded by Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Timothy Way – Request waiver to allow 20-ft access for driveway construction Atty Robert Meyers
Mr. Meyers stated that he is present on behalf of the property owners on Timothy Way.
Mr. Kushner offered background information explaining that a 50-foot strip of land/right-of-way was left on Timothy Way as part of the Northgate Subdivision (approved in 1991) for the construction of a future road to connect Northgate with the land to the north, known as the Bridgewater Subdivision. He explained that when the Bridgewater Subdivision was under review in 1996 it was determined that a road connection in this area did not make sense due to a large band of nearby wetlands; he added that most of the wetland area was deeded to the Town to satisfy the open space requirement for the Bridgewater Subdivision. There is a 2.1-acre parcel of land owned by the Brighenti Family (16 Timothy Way) that is a remnant piece of the Bridgewater Subdivision that has potential for
development but needs access. He explained that the Commission agreed (as a result of a discussion with Attorney Meyers at their October 8, 2013, meeting) that it made sense to use the aforementioned 50-foot strip of land for driveway access, as it didn’t make sense to build a public street for one house (16 Timothy Way). Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Engineering Department inspected the site and found that a substantial part of the driveway for 10 Timothy Way is actually located in this 50-foot strip. He added that it appears that the driveway was constructed in accordance with an approved plan in 1991 and the owners of 10 Timothy Way (Molson) do not wish to move their driveway. The Town Engineering Department has devised a plan that the Staff believes works well. The proposal divides the 50-foot strip (currently owned by the Town) in half but to ensure that 10 Timothy Way gets enough land to include their entire driveway, the split is 30
feet at the street for 10 Timothy Way and 20 feet at the street for access to the rear parcel (16 Timothy Way owned by Brighenti). He addressed two triangular-shaped areas (134 SF each known as radiuses) left on either side of the 50-foot strip noting that these areas are left because they are needed for future road construction; he explained that one area will be deeded to 10 Timothy Way (Molson) and the other deeded to 20 Timothy Way (Smith). Mr. Kushner further explained that if the Commission is in agreement with the proposed plan, the Town Council will conduct a public hearing on December 12, as this is necessary per Town Charter before the Town can dispose of property.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Attorney Meyers explained that the radius area is being deeded to 20 Timothy Way to square off their lot and because their utilities are located in that area.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the Molson family has conveyed their understanding that the landscaping that they planted and have been maintaining over the years next to their driveway is located in the Town right-of-way and have further noted their understanding of the possibility of a future road in that area someday.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comments about the Town right-of-way, Mr. Molson explained that he bought his house in 1992 as a “spec” home, noting that the lot had been approved by the Town in 1991. He further explained that he had a reason to believe that what he saw was an approved lot at that time and added that nothing he did was confiscating land.
Mr. Kushner asked the Commission if they are in agreement that the proposed driveway plan seems reasonable, given the existing conditions/circumstances. He added that sometime in the near future an application for subdivision and special exception (for a rear lot) will most likely be submitted for the Commission’s review.
Ms. Keith noted her agreement with the proposed driveway plan and added that she doesn’t feel it would set a precedent due to the history behind how the current conditions came to be.
Mr. Starr recommended/motioned that the Commission approve the plan being given to the Town Council. Mr. Gackstatter seconded the motion that 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
The public hearing was continued from November 19.
Present were William Ferrigno, President, Sunlight Construction; Robert M. Meyers, Meyers, Piscitelli & Link LLP; and Bill Richter, LA/AIA, Richter & Cegan.
Mr. Ferrigno stated that a detailed landscape plan for the cluster development has been prepared by Bill Richter. He noted that changes have been made to the road and unit layout and also tree preservation and open space.
Bill Richter displayed a revised cluster subdivision plan noting that the major change is the proposal for two cul-de-sacs; each cul-de-sac serves 10 lots. The larger lot areas have not changed from previous plans. He explained that the intent of two cul-de-sacs is to provide an opportunity for traffic redirection as well as address the road length and avoid the thru road issue. There would be a pathway connection between the two cul-de-sacs for the smaller cluster lot units to promote community. Overall, 39 units are still proposed but open space opportunity has been increased and other development amenities have been added.
Mr. Richter displayed the open space plan noting that tree preservation of over 50% of the site is proposed; 30% of the total would be Town open space with 3 points of public access. He added that there is also public open space that will be connected to the Knoll Lane Subdivision. He explained that one homeowners’ association is proposed for the entire cluster development (both small and large lots). This association will own and maintain the interior open space that will include an area in the middle of the site; as well as the 2 cul-de-sacs, the entry islands and the separation buffer, and the walkway path between the 2 cul-de-sacs. He explained that a conservation easement would be placed over the proposed “preservation” areas to restrict
tree clearing; 50% of the site would be under a conservation easement to restrict tree clearing.
Mr. Richter addressed buffers and explained that although the grading plan isn’t complete, some interior space, beyond what was shown previously, has been gained. There is a 60-foot buffer along the Haynes Road border; a 50+-foot buffer along Farmington Woods; and a 35-foot buffer in areas along the perimeter. He noted that these buffers satisfy the requirements for a cluster development.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that the changes presented are a follow up in response to comments received from both the Commission and the audience. He stated that the subject plan commits to a greater area of conservation easement and tree preservation than the last plan. Mr. Richter concurred. Mr. Ferrigno addressed the two different cul-de-sacs noting that one would exit to the north and one would exit to the south. He noted that the roads are now private such that the setback distance can be to the edge of pavement and added that this is one way that the center open space can be achieved.
Mr. Richter concurred with Mr. Ferrigno’s statements and added that all the public access points have an adjacent tree preservation area.
Mr. Richter addressed the proposed boulevard entrances at both Haynes and Lenox Roads noting that it would provide traffic calming and add privacy. He noted that Lenox Road proposes a 12-foot wide center median with two 12-foot travel lanes and 3 stone piers and a change of pavement. He added that what exists at the Weatherstone Subdivision is a scaled-down version of what is being proposed here. He noted that everything shown in “green” on the open space plan is existing vegetation.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s questions about speed tables at the entrance, Mr. Richter clarified that a change of pavement will be constructed at the entrance; for example, if there is bituminous on either side, the change of pavement may be a cobble finish with a different color. He confirmed that the change of pavement would act as a “rumble strip” of sorts.
Mr. Ferrigno added that the change of pavement would be visual and you would feel the difference as you pass over it.
Mr. Richter added that he doesn’t feel a “raised” table would be necessary; that would be a step beyond what is proposed here. The pavement would be curbed as well.
Mr. Richter explained that the same boulevard proposal would be used at the Haynes Road entrance and ornamental trees would be installed at the corner. He noted that everything would be located within the Town right-of-way and not on private property. There could also be signs in this location noting public access.
Mr. Richter addressed the public/community open space and explained that each cul-de-sac would be landscaped specifically with ornamental trees; these trees would also be used as part of the drainage component and the LID (low impact development) improvements agreed to by the Town Engineering Department. Additional landscaping would be added to the basin areas to provide a visual amenity such that the street becomes much more offering for the abutting residents. He explained that maintenance of the pathway connection between the two cul-de-sacs would be the responsibility of the homeowners’ association; a band of ornamental trees would be planted to accent the walkway.
Mr. Richter addressed the large “Stratfordshire” open space located in the center of the parcel noting that it is accessible on 3 sides by public roads and a connection from this area to the Town of Avon open space is proposed. A walking trail is proposed around the wetlands, outside the 100-foot regulated area. Some edge vegetation between the walkway and the street is also proposed, as well as some benches. He noted that this area would provide a good center piece/amenity for the neighborhood. Mr. Ferrigno noted that the proposed open space is for the benefit of the people living in this community but added that the 3 entry points from the public road would offer entry into the public open space, located in the eastern portion of the site.
Mr. Richter concurred. Mr. Ferrigno clarified that the aforementioned planted medians would be located inside the Town right-of-way and owned by the Town but would be maintained by the homeowners’ association.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s questions, Mr. Richter explained that residents coming to the open space from other areas in Town could park on the street; parking would be at the end of a cul-de-sac. He explained that the existing trees on the site are primarily deciduous but noted that there are some evergreens.
Mr. Ferrigno indicated that the site is approximately 70% hardwood and deeply forested.
Mrs. Griffin asked whether the homeowners’ association would be responsible for enforcing the conservation easements and instituting fines and/or replacement costs. Mr. Meyers explained that until 5 years ago the trend was to grant easements to the association and charge them with the responsibility of enforcement. He further explained that because people do not like to be charged with enforcing things against their neighbors the Town Council has indicated that the preference is now that easements are granted to the Town, making the Town the enforcer.
Mr. Kushner indicated that while the Town Council may not necessarily encourage burdening the Town with enforcement, they now recognize that it may be the best approach and have accepted the obligation to enforce conservation easements, at least in connection with significant open space assets that are being preserved. He noted that the subject scenario involves only modest land strips around the perimeter of the property but added that he cannot say for sure what the Council’s position would be. Mr. Kushner commented that maybe there would be a possibility to grant an easement in favor of both the homeowners’ association and the Town; the Town acting as a backup, of sorts.
Mr. Meyers indicated that he feels it would be legal to have a joint easement and added that the applicant is willing to grant an easement to whomever the Commission/Town wishes.
Mrs. Griffin conveyed her preference that the easement posses strong enforcement capabilities to prevent people from dumping on other people’s property.
Mr. Meyers noted his understanding.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated his preference that dollar amounts for fines (i.e., $10,000 for cutting down a tree) be clearly specified in the easement agreement.
Mr. Meyers conveyed his understanding but explained that you would have to go to court to enforce fines. He added that notice will be provided; the deed to each house would contain language that indicates that by accepting the deed the owner must become a member of and be bound by a declaration of the homeowners’ association.
Mr. Starr addressed open space and noted that wetlands are not included in the 10% calculation.
Mr. Richter explained that the proposed open space is beyond the 4.5 acres of required “good” land for open space dedication; he added that he doesn’t have the calculation but noted that it has been confirmed by Mr. Aston.
Mr. Starr suggested that the pathway from Knoll Lane should be pushed away from the existing houses on Haynes Road; there should be some type of preservation area between the pathway and the existing houses. He added that it may take a wider preservation area in order to have areas on both sides with the path down the center.
Mr. Ferrigno conveyed his understanding of Mr. Starr’s comments noting that there is 60 feet in that area so it should not be a problem.
In response to Mr. Ferrigno’s question about the existing/natural vegetation meeting the B Bufferyard requirements, Mr. Richter indicated that it does, in principal, with the discretion of the Commission.
Mr. Kushner explained that the B Bufferyard contains specific standards in the Regulations; if there is no existing vegetation, canopy and evergreen trees and shrubs need to be planted for every 100 feet of linear distance. The Commission can determine, in accordance with the Regulations, that existing vegetation either meets or exceeds the standards. He recommended that an onsite evaluation be done by a licensed landscape architect.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s comments about a group owning land in fee, Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding and agreement that there is strength in ownership and people may view land differently and strive for preservation knowing they own it in conjunction with others but added that he doesn’t know how that scenario would affect his setbacks.
Ms. Keith noted that it would be good to eliminate the proposed pie-shaped lots, as that would square off the lots and make them more uniform.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that this is the first time he is hearing this scenario and noted that he agrees with the goal of land preservation but noted that the method needs to be further discussed.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Richter explained that the proposed trail is approximately 800 feet (less than ¼ of a mile). The trail would be made of wood chips.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that it would be up to the homeowners’ association to maintain the trail and added that the path would not be open to the general public, as it would be located on a privately-owned parcel of land.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comment, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that there is access to the Town-owned open space from the trail; he noted that there are a total of 3 access points on the site.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comments, Mr. Ferrigno clarified that the proposed benches noted earlier would be placed on the private open space.
Mr. Richter confirmed that the applicant will do whatever is required on the public open space but explained that there would be maintained buffer area between the walkway and private properties.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question about adding hedges at the entrance to Haynes Road to provide privacy to existing houses,
Mr. Richter explained that shade trees are proposed in the Town right-of-way and noted that, from his perspective, he is not in favor of adding a hedge to define the official entrance. He added that there is only 50 feet of room to work with; adding a hedge, along with the proposed tree plantings, would take away the snow shelf. He explained that the current proposal is acceptable to the Town Engineering Department.
In response to comments about plantings near the road entrance, Mr. Kushner indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Kohlhoff (213 Haynes Road) prefer to not have the proposed island near their house and added that the Commission will have to make a decision. He noted that it is possible to implement the proposed plan where the subject site starts rather than at the intersection with Haynes Road. He explained that there may be advantages from a traffic calming and shortcut standpoint to implement the plan right at Haynes Road but consideration/fairness may have to be considered. He added that the plan works in either location.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that the current location is not right at Haynes and is moved in a bit but added that Mr. Kushner may be talking about moving it in even further.
Mr. Richter noted his opinion that the effectiveness of the plan will be lost if it’s pushed in too far because once people are in that far they will continue.
Ms. Keith indicated that she would not want to see it moved back any further, as it will lose its effectiveness. Mrs. Clark concurred.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that maintenance of both the northerly and southerly entrances, as well as the common landscaped elements, would be the responsibility of the homeowners’ association.
Mr. Richter continued his presentation and noted that for both the smaller and larger lots one corner definition would be accomplished with a pair of ornamental trees; a larger ornamental tree would be part of the entrance to each unit and have 2 shade trees that would flank the house; a landscape pattern would be established to the midpoint of the house to be recognized from the road. He indicated that the applicant agrees to preserve, where possible, reasonable and functional trees.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the larger lots are expected to have houses between 3,000 and 4,000 SF and the smaller lots are expected to have houses between 2,600 and 3,200 SF. Mr. Ferrigno submitted photo examples of both size houses.
Ms. Keith noted that the smaller house is closer to the road than the larger house.
Mr. Ferrigno agreed and explained that the house shown closer to the road is characteristic of the type of house placement that is proposed for the 2 cul-de-sacs on the western part of the site.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question about whether something can be done with landscaping to clearly define where the preserved areas begin, Mr. Richter explained that although that is a challenging task to manage, he noted that saving side yard trees or planting trees at property corners is proposed. Mr. Gackstatter noted that it would be nice to have the same type of tree along the whole boundary.
Mr. Ferrigno conveyed his understanding but noted that boundaries are a huge challenge. He acknowledged that he won’t really know what he has for trees until development begins but noted that boulders are prominent on this site. He indicated that possibly both boulders and trees could be used for boundary markings.
Ms. Keith commented that some people use stonewalls to mark/divide their properties (in the woods) but still have trouble with other people dumping on their property. She noted that she likes the ideas of boulders and trees to mark boundaries and added that some type of boundary clarification is needed.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that the plan is a work in progress, noting that Mr. Richter’s presentation is a response to comments from the November 19 meeting. He commented that he feels the proposed cul-de-sacs help traffic distribution and added that he feels the proposed program for open space and trails is creative.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels some feedback is needed from the fire and safety officials regarding the proposed cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Starr indicated that the proposed cul-de-sacs meet the Regulations.
In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the current plan proposes 10 houses on one cul-de-sac and 11 on the other cul-de-sac; he noted that the original plan proposed 19 houses on one cul-de-sac.
Mr. Kushner reported that the Fire Marshal has seen the latest plan and has noted that he (Fire Marshal) always prefers through roads.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he explained to the Fire Marshal that the Zoning Regulations have rules relating to maximum street length and the maximum number of lots permitted on a cul-de-sac. Mr. Kushner noted that he feels the more significant issue is the main road connection (Stratfordshire), and added that he feels the Fire Marshal agrees. He added that there are cul-de-sacs all over Town.
Mr. Bonner noted his concerns about traffic speeds where Lenox Road meets/connects to the new road, “Stratfordshire” noting that some measures need to be taken (i.e., stop signs) to slow/stop motorists down before turning and continuing on. He added that neighbors have voiced their concerns that they don’t want cars “flying” through the area.
Mr. Ferrigno noted his understanding of Mr. Bonner’s concerns and added that he would have no problem making that area a 3-way intersection but noted that he doesn’t have the authority.
Mr. Kushner explained that stop signs for local roads fall under the jurisdiction of the Chief of Police/Traffic Authority. He indicated that traffic engineers have explained that adding a stop sign on a through street that otherwise doesn’t call for a stop sign for public safety reasons is not a legitimate function of a stop sign; however, he added that stop signs do slow traffic and there are other places in Town where the Traffic Authority has decided to add stop signs. He suggested that both Mr. Ferrigno’s traffic engineer and the Commission’s traffic engineer be asked about the stop sign.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comments, Mr. Ferrigno explained that there will be a stop sign at the end of Lenox Road but noted that the question is whether a stop sign is needed on Stratfordshire or even 2 stop signs on Stratfordshire. He confirmed that he has no objection to adding stop signs and noted that he would talk to the Traffic Authority.
Mr. Starr asked if grooved pavement could be considered for the lower part of Haynes Road; he noted that it would wear down over time but noted that it’s something that could be explored and would not affect snow plowing.
Mr. Ferrigno responded to Mr. Starr noting that he could look into grooved pavement. He indicated that adding a stop sign at the “loop, where Haynes meets Haynes, seems like an obvious place to control traffic.
Mr. Kushner noted that he asked Mr. Pearson, the Commission’s traffic engineer, about the possibility of a stop sign at Haynes and Haynes and he (Mr. Pearson) suggested that a stop sign might not be a good idea in that location, as it might have the reverse effect if you’re trying to dissuade people from outside the neighborhood from using the road connection. Currently, the cars exiting from the new housing development on Knoll Lane do not have to stop; if the cars are forced to stop, it may make it easier for someone making that move because now everyone has equal weight as they approach the intersection.
In response to general comments from the Commission about traffic speeds on the flat areas of Haynes Road, Ms. Keith indicated that she feels this issue is separate from the subject application and will have to be addressed separately with Mr. Kushner.
Mr. Starr commented that it would be helpful if Mr. Kushner could find out costs for some of the speed-controlling methods mentioned, as Mr. Ferrigno has indicated that he may be able to help contribute in part.
Mr. Ferrigno asked for direction from the Commission.
Ms. Keith opened the hearing for public comment.
Michael Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, addressed the buffer areas and noted that there is very little understory in the area near his house so something would have to be done. He asked about the sequence of construction and how long the area would be disrupted.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that a sequence of construction has not yet been determined but added that a schedule would be worked out with Town Staff. He added that the sewer line will have to be run up to the site.
Mr. Starr addressed construction equipment and noted that the shortest distance from a major road into the site is coming off of Hollister Drive into Lenox Road.
Mr. Kushner confirmed that a schedule will be worked out with the developer and added that the burden will be shared between both existing neighborhoods. He noted his agreement with Mr. Starr that it probably makes sense to start in the direction of Hollister and Lenox but maybe shift direction to use other roads midway through the project.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that he does not yet know the schedule for road completion, as it would be part of the overall construction schedule.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner noted his feeling that it would not be a good idea to wait to the last minute to make the road connection because then there will be another group of new homebuyers that may not be aware of what their expectation should have been regarding the road connection. He suggested that possibly the connection should be considered/made after the issuance of the first 15 Certificates of Occupancy.
Mrs. Griffin commented that Haynes Road will have to be dug up to extend the sewer line and suggests that the connection could be made and used as an emergency access before the road is paved.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comments, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that he would work with Planning and Engineering to come up with a construction schedule. He added his agreement that connecting the road early on for use only by emergency vehicles would be a good idea.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. Ferrigno noted that 80 to 90 test holes were dug 8 to 10 feet down and the procedure was manageable with machinery but he also noted that there is ledge in Haynes Road. He indicated that there is a possibility for blasting.
Mr. Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, noted his concerns with blasting. He commented that the proposed median seems to be getting larger and asked how everything was going to fit; he indicated that the divided thing and widening of the road is as close to his house as possible. He commented that from an aesthetic standpoint it might look good from Haynes Road to be pushed back but noted that he would rather see it further in, towards the subject parcel, so it’s not encroaching on his house. He added that he would rather not see it at all.
Ms. Keith commented that all the work is proposed in the Town right-of-way and nothing is extending onto property owned by
Mr. Kohlhoff. Mr. Kohlhoff noted his understanding. Ms. Keith indicated that she doesn’t see how the proposed island would serve much purpose being pushed much further in.
Mr. Meyers commented that the traffic engineers have indicated that the area would have its maximum turn effect if you saw it before you left Haynes Road.
Ms. Keith noted that showing the area pushed in as far as it is currently shown is not really the recommended space. Mr. Meyers concurred. Ms. Keith noted it should be shown closer to Haynes Road.
Mr. Kohlhoff noted that he is against rumble strips for noise reasons.
In response to Tom Horan’s (166 Haynes Road) questions, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the private roads proposed for the cul-de-sac would be marked “private”. He further explained that the proposed walking trail would be accessible from public roads but would be marked for the use of the proposed neighborhood. The proposed 14-acre open space parcel would be accessible to the public from 3 different areas. He indicated that access from the open space at Knoll Lane to the open space in the proposed development would be provided. He clarified that the buffer zone in this area is 35 feet but a 60-foot strip exists, so there is extra land.
Mr. Kushner indicated that details about public access over the land strips/buffer area will need to be worked out.
In response to questions from Mr. Horan, Mr. Starr clarified that the open space trail will be owned by the Town; the green space shown on the far eastern side of the map will all be Town owned. The preservation area shown on the map is going to be controlled somehow by the homeowners’ association and/or the Town but noted that this detail needs to be worked out. Mr. Starr explained that whatever is shown on the drawings is what the Commission is going to require; the proposed development is a cluster and therefore the Commission has discretion with the buffer size.
Mr. Ferrigno explained that he is offering extra buffer areas as an incentive for approval.
In response to Mr. Horan’s question, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the location of the main road, “Stratfordshire” has not changed or moved at all; he added that the geometry of all the roads has not changed.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the proposed private roads allow the houses to be located closer to the road; he further explained/clarified that the excess land was given to the protected area and not to the homeowners, such that there has been a modest increase in the amount of protected land.
In response to Mr. Horan’s question, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that a trail around the wetlands was part of the approval granted by the Inland Wetlands Commission. In response to Mr. Horan’s question about 39 homes still being proposed, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that he heard the Commission’s comments/directives loud and clear but added that he hired Mr. Richter to come up with a creative plan that does a better job than what was proposed at earlier meetings. He explained that increases have been realized in tree preservation, conservation areas, and utilitarian recreation areas. He further explained that the subject plan calls for an incredible increase in investment; calming measures and extra plantings have to be paid for. Mr. Horan noted that the
calming measures were mentioned at the last meeting. Mr. Ferrigno noted that the enhancements proposed with this plan will cost money and further noted that moving houses in along the edges reduces the lot size which, in turn, has an impact on marketability. Mr. Ferrigno stated that he feels 39 homes is a reasonable and prudent number but added that it will be up to the Commission to decide.
Mr. Horan communicated his desire for all the roads to be public so he could walk the area as it is being developed. He added that he feels one advantage of public roads is that the houses would not be situated right on top of the road and buffers would still be required.
In response to Mr. Kohlhoff’s question about lot coverage, Mr. Ferrigno explained that he hasn’t calculated all the figures yet and noted that the idea of deeding off part of the properties is a new concept just discussed tonight. He further explained that deeding of property would be a negative towards lot coverage; the details would have to be worked out and the Regulations satisfied. Mr. Kohlhoff noted his concerns for the proposed 39 houses, versus 35 houses, noting that it is understood that open space is trying to be preserved. He added that he doubts the Commission would approve the plan that showed 35 houses and communicated his agreement that maybe Mr. Ferrigno did not hear exactly what the Commission said last time.
Mr. Ferrigno reiterated that he heard the Commission and noted that he has worked with this Commission for the last 25 to 30 years and conveyed his strong disagreement with inferences made by Mr. Kohlhoff. He noted his understanding that it is the Commission’s discretion whether they approve 39 lots or not but added that an “as-of-right” 35-lot development is achievable on the subject site but explained that he doesn’t want to build that. He indicated that he feels the proposed cluster plan is the most sensitive use of the property and conveyed his hope that it can be seen that he has taken measures to increase the sensitivity of the proposal against the existing neighborhoods.
Ms. Keith noted her displeasure for cul-de-sacs, in general, and added that she is not in favor of the 3 houses proposed on the small “eyebrow” corner. She noted her concern with the lots sizes and asked if the current proposal is feasible if the ownership changes.
Mr. Ferrigno communicated to Ms. Keith that he cannot answer that question tonight, as he doesn’t know.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he doesn’t think the feasibility would change, as the green areas would not be changed in any event.
Mr. Gackstatter conveyed his opinion/experience that private roads are often a problem, as residents complain that the Town isn’t plowing the roads even though it’s not the Town’s responsibility. He noted his concerns with the right “raised” eyebrow area and suggested that if one of the houses was taken out the eyebrow could be flattened out a bit and the buffer area could be increased to Farmington Woods.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comments, Mr. Ferrigno explained that the proposed plan is more than what is required and added that Farmington Woods hasn’t done much in that area to buffer themselves.
Mr. Cappello commented that the whole island could be eliminated; if there were only 2 houses in that area the island wouldn’t be needed.
Mr. Ferrigno asked for clarification if the goal is to get the houses away from this area.
Ms. Keith responded, yes, and also that the houses are going to look tight together. She asked Mr. Ferrigno to see what he can do in that area.
Ms. Keith addressed the walkway that connects the two cul-de-sacs and noted that it would run very close to the projected footprint of 2 of the houses and asked how that would be handled.
Mr. Richter stated that one side of the walkway would be landscaped and the other side would be defined; he explained that there is a 10-foot building line on the lots currently.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Ferrigno noted that the walkway would not be paved, as he doesn’t like pavement; he noted that possibly a dust surface would be used.
Mr. Richter added that there is room on either side of the subject units noting that they could be moved. Mr. Ferrigno concurred.
Mr. Kushner pointed out that this is the type of detail that could be provided at the next meeting.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Ferrigno indicated that his objective/goal is to provide plans to the Staff, for the next meeting, with a level of detail such that a comprehensive report could be conveyed to the Commission.
Mr. Kushner addressed additional traffic comments received from Mark Vertucci, (PE and traffic engineer with Fuss & O’Neill, report dated December 9, provided as handout tonight to the Commission) in response to the expert report received from Richard Pearson, PE and traffic engineer with John Meyer Consulting in New York. He noted that Mr. Pearson has been asked to review Mr. Vertucci’s report and provide information to the Commission at the next meeting, scheduled for January 14.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s comment, Mr. Ferrigno confirmed that he would look at the understory status in certain key areas on the site.
Ms. Keith and Mr. Cappello commented that the name “Stratfordshire” needs to be worked out.
Mr. Cappello suggested that either the beginning or the end be taken off but not all three (i.e., “Fordshire” or “Stratford”). Ms. Keith commented that the name could be worked out with the Town Staff.
There being no further discussion, Mrs. Clark motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4683 and #4684. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, 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
Mr. Starr motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4688 to the January 28, 2014, meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
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
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
App. #4697 - Metro Realty Group LTD, owner, Exacta Box LLC, applicant, request for Site Plan approval to permit daycare center, 50 Darling Drive, Parcel 2030050 in an IP Zone
Present to represent these applications were David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers LLC; Robert M. Meyers, Meyers, Piscitelli, and Link, LLP; and Becky Smith, business owner of proposed Goddard School.
Attorney Meyers explained that the Goddard School is proposed on a piece of land located adjacent to the Peachtree Village housing development. He noted that tonight’s presentation will focus on the school use rather than the site plan, in accordance with recommendations from the Town Staff. He noted that a representative of the Goddard School system is not present tonight due to weather restrictions. He explained that the proposed school would be locally owned and operated by Becky Smith and her family; the land and the building would be owned by Ms. Smith’s father and Becky would own the business. The Goddard School was founded about 25 years ago and there are currently 400 schools around the country with 5 in CT. Mr. Meyers explained
that the Goddard School is licensed as a daycare center, which is controlled by the State Health Department, but has an educational component. Mr. Meyers explained that Goddard has indicated to him that they attract and retain high caliber teachers and noted that this information is also on their website. He further explained that Ms. Smith wants to make it clear that because of the wage scale offered at what is primarily a daycare center the School is probably not going to be staffed by State accredited public school teachers. He reiterated that the School would operate as a daycare center with an educational component.
Mr. Meyers addressed the safety and security of children noting that these issues are important to the Goddard School as well as Ms. Smith. The proposed playgrounds would be surrounded by a 6-foot high fence made to code so children cannot get stuck but can be seen through, from the inside and the outside. He noted that the State requires staffing ratios for both classrooms and playgrounds; the ratio depends on the age of the children. The playgrounds and fences would be monitored by closed circuit video. The maximum number of children allowed on either of the 2 proposed playgrounds at any one time would be 20, which would reduce noise generation. Both playgrounds would also be internally separated by a fence, to accommodate different age groups.
Access to the building would be controlled by a biometric hand reader; parents must enter a code to enter the building. The entire building would be protected by an automated fire alarm system and fire suppression/sprinkler system; an exterior emergency generator is also proposed. Training for staff would be provided to keep them current; a low student to staff ratio would create jobs that Ms. Smith indicates she hopes to fill with local residents. Mr. Meyers noted that Ms. Smith realizes that parents will need to feel that the location of the School and the surrounding neighborhood is safe. He noted that there are Goddard Schools located in both residential and commercial/industrial settings and added that the Darling Drive setting met the requirements, as the surrounding commercial/industrial uses; the nearby senior apartments; and the nearby magnet school are all benign uses. Mr. Meyers stated that he asked Mr. Kushner about
complaints relating to the CREC magnet school that has existed in this area for several years and Mr. Kushner indicated that no complaints have been received.
Mr. Meyers commented that the current uses in Avon Park South, including such issues as traffic, noise, and odors, etc., would not cause significant concern amongst the School operators or the parents. He explained that he has been authorized by Ms. Smith and her father, Bill Butler, to tell the Commission that they (Ms. Smith and Bill Butler) understand the nature and the usual operations of the businesses in Avon Park South as they have spent time there and believe that the proposed use will be compatible with the existing uses. Additionally, it is believed that the proposed School would cause no difficulty to the existing uses and vice versa. He noted that Ms. Smith has indicated her wish to be a good neighbor and the proposed building would contribute significant
local tax revenue. The proposed school is a for-profit operation and not seeking any tax benefit.
Mr. Meyers addressed parking and noted that the Goddard representative has indicated that the proposed parking shown on Mr. Whitney’s site plan would be more than sufficient to meet their needs. He added that the Goddard representative has indicated that there is never an excess parking demand at any of the other operating Schools. Parental drop off and pickup is staggered, unlike a public school, as this is a daycare center and enrollment times differ (i.e., some children are full time, some are part time, some are am only, some are pm only, etc.).
Mr. Meyers addressed special events (i.e., graduations, etc.) and noted that Ms. Smith has indicated that she would plan few events and would arrange them such that the parking would not be over burdened. The School operates only Monday through Friday and events would be planned only on weekends. He explained that Ms. Smith has a lot of experience in childcare and a master’s degree in teaching and knows that parents prefer weekend events because it is easier for them to attend. Graduations would be limited to 20 children at one time. Open houses would also be held on weekends to avoid parking issues. Mr. Meyers communicated that Goddard reports that their locations in commercial/industrial areas are welcomed by their neighbors in part
because employees take advantage of the nearby high quality childcare. Traffic generation by the School would be modest and there would be no odors and very little noise. Mr. Meyers concluded by noting that both Ms. Smith and her father report that they feel that the subject site meets the needs/is favorable for such things as street access, utilities availability, and the proximity of emergency services.
Mr. Whitney displayed a site plan noting that the property is 1.8 acres and was approved as a “flex” lot when Peachtree Village was approved, in 2008. He noted that a prototypical Connecticut building is shown but the actual building would be designed by an architect, with some modest changes. The proposed building is 8,600 SF, one-story brick building with white trim; 10 classrooms are proposed. The playgrounds are proposed for each side of the building surrounded by 6-foot high fences. The parking lot is proposed for the front of the building with 34 parking spaces and two (2) one-way driveways from Darling Drive. He noted that the building will be served by public water and sewer, which are available in Darling Drive; the building would have a
sprinkler system. A future annex is shown on the west side of the building, which would consist of two additional classrooms and a gym; 7 additional parking spaces would be constructed if the annex is built. He noted that the maximum impervious surface coverage is approximately 37%; the maximum allowable is 50%.
Mr. Meyers explained that although 10 classrooms are proposed with a maximum of 20 children per classroom (10 x 20 = 200), the maximum number of students is 128 and if the annex is built the maximum number would be 144. He further explained that only a couple of classrooms would have 20 children.
Mr. Kushner explained that the main question for the Commission is whether they feel the proposed use meets the special exception criteria and is compatible with the existing uses in Avon Park South. He noted his agreement that the proposed use could, in many ways, be an asset to the Park. He noted that many large office complexes with manufacturing uses have their own in-house daycare facilities; the proposed use could function in that capacity. He noted that the nature of the Park has evolved somewhat over the years and become more of a mixed-use environment. He explained that the Town does, on occasion, get complaints about noise and odors from single-family residents that live near the Park. He noted that only one resident of Peachtree Village has
complained to the Town on numerous occasions about various activities in Avon Park South. The resident has been offered an “out” of their rental agreement with no penalties but the resident has declined because they do not want to move. Mr. Kushner explained that while zoning doesn’t guarantee perfection it is supposed to provide some certainty and predictability. He noted that the Commission must weigh the pros and cons and feel comfortable that the proposed use would not be injurious in any way to the existing uses in the Park. The Town has an obligation to the existing businesses in the Park (i.e., Reflexite, R.R. Donnelly, Legere Woodworking).
Mrs. Griffin noted that the subject area is an industrial park and voiced her concerns that the proposed use is neither an office use nor a manufacturing use. She asked if the proposed use would result in as much of a tax base as would an industrial building/plant that this Park was intended for. She indicated that the schools approved for the Park were only approved on a temporary basis, adding that school use isn’t something that the Commission has encouraged. She asked whether the Town paid for any of the infrastructure in the Park and added that the Town isn‘t going to get another industrial park area.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comment about job creation, Mr. Starr noted that the subject site is too small to fit a manufacturing facility but may be large enough for an office building.
Mr. Kushner indicated that the site is very small but possibly a two-story office building could be built to generate more tax revenue. He explained that the Zoning Regulations do not address fiscal impacts but added that in the 1970s there was a partnership between Fisher Properties, Ensign Bickford, and the Town to complete the infrastructure in Avon Park South. He added that while most of the cost was paid privately he noted that he believes the Town funded some of the infrastructure.
Mr. Starr commented that he doesn’t feel the proposed use is much different than a similar sized building for office use, as the traffic would be no greater and the proposed building is not a special purpose building and could be converted into an office.
Mrs. Griffin conveyed her concerns that the specialty zones for different purposes are gradually being nibbled away.
Mrs. Clark commented that the zone for the CREC School was changed and it shouldn’t have been because Avon’s commercial property is very precious.
Mr. Starr pointed out that if there is no demand for commercial uses and/or office space the land sits vacant and added that the buildings at 10, 20, 30 and 40 Tower Lane all have vacancies.
Mr. Meyers indicated that there are 2 existing industrial-type buildings in Avon Park South that are currently vacant. He noted that the relatively small size of the subject parcel combined with the existing vacancies makes it relatively unlikely that the Town will soon get a proposal to construct an industrial building.
Ms. Keith pointed out that the subject site is located in an industrial park zone with trucks and odors and noise and asked whether the applicant is willing to put on the record that they agree to not return to the Commission with any complaints about being located in an area that is a known industrial area.
Mr. Meyers explained that no one could ever say that they won’t complain because something truly unusual or unforeseen could occur in the future that is not currently going on but further explained that the applicant has authorized him to say that they (applicant) are aware of the existing conditions in the Park and believe the proposed use is compatible with the existing uses and would pose no harm and, likewise, that the existing uses would pose no harm to the proposed school use.
Ms. Keith commented that the future can change for the industrial park; other noise and smells could be imposed and added that the Commission needs to know that the applicant is fully aware of this fact.
Mr. Meyers explained that the applicant understands the zone and what is permitted as of right and by special exception.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comment about the need for written acknowledgement by the applicant, Mr. Starr and Mr. Cappello noted their disagreement. Mr. Cappello added that he doesn’t feel any special language is needed.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the proposed use may have nap rooms and noted his concerns if a noisy/smelly industrial use should locate next to the subject site. He asked how many special exception uses/buildings would be approved for the Park.
Mr. Starr commented that the subject site is the only vacant land left in Avon Park South.
Mr. Bonner noted his opinion that the proposed use would be ideal for Avon Park North, as it fits right into what is proposed for Avon Center, and asked if this has been considered.
Mr. Meyers explained that the applicant has looked at sites all over Town and added that the subject site makes the most sense economically.
Mr. Bonner voiced his concerns with odors and gases and noise next to senior residents. He commented that the proposed use is a wonderful business that could be much better in a different location.
Mr. Meyers explained that if the parents decide that the location is not a good fit for their children they won’t enroll; this is a risk the business operators are taking. He further explained that taxes will be paid on the building whether it is occupied or not and added that the building could be converted to another use, if need be.
In response to Mr. Meyers’ question, Mr. Whitney explained that he doesn’t feel there are any vacant lots left in Avon Park South. He further explained that it is anticipated that many people who work in the Park would utilize the proposed daycare. He noted that the land that now houses Peachtree Village was for sale for 20 years and, for whatever reason, did not sell for an industrial use. He explained that Peachtree Village has been a very successful project and added that Avon Park South is a relatively peaceful and quiet place, for an industrial park.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s concern about setting a precedent for schools in the Park, Mr. Meyers explained that the proposed Goddard School is licensed by the Department of Health as a daycare center, not a school.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Whitney noted that the building for the Goddard School in Farmington is almost exactly the same size as the one being proposed here.
In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Meyers explained that the applicant requests that the Commission make a decision on the special exception application so they know whether to proceed and invest additional money into the site plan.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Meyers concurred that the applicant is fully aware of the uses in an industrial park and accepts the existing uses. Mr. Meyers added that the applicant is aware of all the present uses as they are currently operating; they are aware what types of uses are permitted by right in an industrial park; and they are aware what types of uses are permitted via special exception. He added that the applicant agrees that the proposed use is compatible with the existing uses and that neither would cause the other any harm.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concern about noise and babies, Becky Smith stated that she will be the onsite owner and explained that she has extensive experience in daycares and both public and private schools. She communicated her understanding that the firehouse/fire alarm is right down the street. She added that she has worked at a daycare in Simsbury which is also located very close to a firehouse and noted that the children get used to the alarm and don’t even notice it after the first week. She indicated that you can hear the fire alarm all over Town, no matter where you are.
Ms. Keith opened the hearing for public comment.
There being no further comment, the public hearing for App. #4696 was closed.
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
Present to represent this application were Rob Aiello, PE, John Meyer Consulting; Spencer Osborne, SHP IV/LCB Avon LLC; and Matthew Herz, owner of 121 Simsbury Road.
Mr. Aiello explained that the application requests the removal of approximately 11,200 CY of material associated with the site plan approved in July. He added that the schedule for earth removal is expected to take place over a 6-month period.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question about how much time it will take to remove the material offsite, Mr. Aiello noted that 18 weeks (90 workdays) is the expected time frame and explained that 11,000 CY is approximately 4 trucks per day at 30 yards or 6 trucks per day at 20 yards.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that the Traffic Authority should approve a truck schedule.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Aiello confirmed that the weeks noted in the letter from Butler Company, dated November 20, 2013, are all concurrent; the entire earth work process is estimated to be about a 6-month process.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s questions about removing material from the site, Matthew Herz explained that he has analyzed the site to determine whether there is a need to move the excess material from 117 Simsbury Road onto the adjacent site (121 Simsbury Road) and it has been concluded that there is no need for the material on the remaining portion of the site (121 Simsbury Road). Mr. Herz explained that this determination was just realized today but noted that he has been researching this information diligently for the past few days because work has already begun on the site.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Herz explained that he doesn’t anticipate needing to bring any material onto the site when 121 Simsbury Road is developed except in the event that it is determined that the proper material does not exist, for example, for use under a driveway or wall. Mr. Herz clarified that if a small amount of material needed to come onto the site, it would occur through normal construction processes but no large amounts would be needed.
Mr. Aiello explained that material needs (cuts and fills) really depend on what would get built on the northerly parcel (121 Simsbury Road).
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the material coming off is sandy, good material.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Aiello explained that he is not sure exactly which route would be used but noted that Simsbury Road is a State highway and added that the trucks would use primarily State roads out of Avon and into their destination.
Spencer Osborne, Project Manager for LCB, explained that the site contractor will have to find a place to deposit 11,000 CYs and added that there could be multiple sites, depending on need. He confirmed that the material is good quality that will not be difficult to sell.
Ms. Keith noted that all scheduling related to earth removal needs to be approved by the Traffic Authority. Mr. Kushner concurred.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the site contractor indicated at the pre-construction meeting that he is likely to move most of the material to his yard (Butler) located in East Windsor.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4698 was closed.
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
Eric Rosow, John Costell, and Rene Jones were present.
Mr. Rosow explained that the proposal is to locate an indoor rowing center at 395 West Avon Road. He noted that he is the varsity coach for the Avon girl’s rowing team, adding that rowing is a lifetime sport. He stated that it would be a dedicated center for indoor rowing with certified coaches and some very specialized equipment. He noted that this particular location would well serve both the middle school and high school. He added that people outside the school would be welcome in the center as well; adult programs would be offered. The hours of operation during the pilot would be primarily around the middle school hours, from 2:30pm to 8:30pm and same on the weekends. He noted that no classes would be offered before 6:30am or 7am.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question and comments about parking, Mr. Rosow explained that there would be no more than 22 people at any given time. He noted that he did not count all the parking spots but noted his understanding that he would have to share the parking with the other tenants (i.e., the driving school and a college counselor). He commented that there is one side where the parking is empty.
Mr. Cappello noted that he goes by the building everyday and the parking areas along the side of the building are empty.
Mr. Kushner noted that most of the participants are students and don’t drive.
Mrs. Griffin commented that there still needs to be room for parent drop offs and pickups.
Mr. Starr commented that he drives by the site several times a day and noted his agreement with Mr. Cappello that there are a lot of available parking spaces. He added that if the business is successful the space will be outgrown and the owner will probably want to find a larger space.
Mr. Rosow noted that he would like to keep the center within walking distance, as most of the clients do not drive.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Rosow noted that there are 2 bathrooms and 2 changing areas would be provided; one for males and one for females. He added that many people come ready to go without the need to change. There are no showers and noted that there would be no plan to add bathrooms if there are only the numbers of people referenced in the literature. Mr. Rosow noted that the space is all on one level with lots of windows; the ventilation is very good. He added that the outside lighting seems to be adequate; there are about 17 parking spaces along the backside. He explained that the high season is ongoing right now so it’s a good time to test the business. He further explained that the hope is to open early
January, 2014, and noted that the pilot program is 3 months long.
Mr. Kushner clarified that the proposal is similar to the CREC use that formerly occupied this space; both are classroom-like instruction. He added that he is not anticipating any problems.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4699 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Starr motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Mr. Gackstatter seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
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
Mr. Starr motioned to approve App. #4696. Mr. Starr indicated that App. #4696 meets all the special exception criteria contained in the Zoning Regulations. The motion, seconded by Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.
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
Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App. #4698 subject to the following condition:
1. A schedule indicating truck routes, dates/length of operation, and hours of operation shall be prepared and reviewed and approved by the Police Chief/Traffic Authority prior to any material leaving the site.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received approval from Messers Cappello, Starr, and Gackstatter and Mesdames Clark, Keith, and Griffin. Mr. Bonner voted in opposition of approval.
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
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to approve App. #4699. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4697 - Metro Realty Group LTD, owner, Exacta Box LLC, applicant, request for Site Plan approval to permit daycare center, 50 Darling Drive, Parcel 2030050 in an IP Zone
Mr. Starr motioned to table App. #4697 to the next meeting, scheduled for January 14, 2014.
NEW APPLICATION
App. #4694 - Shops at Dale Corner LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for Sign Concept Modification, 385 West Main Street, Parcel 4540385, in a CR Zone.
Present was Anne Bjorkland, Property Manager for the Shops at Dale Corner.
Ms. Bjorkland explained that the sign theme/concept needs to be modified due to 2 new tenants in the plaza. She noted that the requested modifications are modest and preserve the look of the plaza. Wall signs for tenant spaces marked A thru E on the drawing would be centered over the stores; all signage would be uniform with allowances for font, logos, and colors. All sign letters are proposed to remain as channel letters but the lighting would be converted to LED for energy conservation. She explained that wall signs are also proposed for the stores with approved rear public entrances (which are currently only Moe’s and Sweet Frog); box-lit LED signs no larger than 15 SF are requested.
In response to Mr. Keith’s question regarding color, Ms. Bjorkland explained that the tenants in the building are franchises (Cosi, Moe’s Sweet Frog, Pier 1, and Rite Aid) and the colors will follow the marketing theme of their respective national company. She added that she believes the colors for Moe’s are green and yellow and the colors for Sweet Frog are pink and green and white.
Mr. Kushner explained that the tenant spaces for the building have changed and the placement/location for wall signs has changed. He noted that national tenants are becoming more and more frequent which makes it harder to maintain a theme but added that he feels the proposed sign theme preserves enough common elements while providing flexibility to the owner and tenants.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that he feels the proposed signs for the rear entrances are superfluous and added that he feels they will be distracting from Dale Road.
Mr. Starr explained that the intent of the rear entrance signs is so people will look in that area, park in the rear, and enter the building through the back. He further explained that the Commission required the rear entrances as part of their approval of the recent site plan for this site.
Ms. Bjorkland explained that the proposed lit signs for the rear entrances are for safety and to encourage parking in the rear to alleviate some traffic in the front.
Ms. Keith commented that lit signs on the rear entrances help to illuminate the whole area at night.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Ms. Bjorkland explained that the dumpsters have been cleaned up and new pads have been poured; when the snow clears the fencing will be installed. She noted that the walkway between the subject site and the adjacent site (Battiston Cleaners – 369 West Main) is now paved. She added that the new LED lights for the back parking lot are in the process of being installed.
Mr. Starr motioned to approve App. #4694. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received approval from Messrs. Starr, Cappello, and Bonner and Mesdames Clark, Keith, and Griffin. Mr. Gackstatter voted in opposition of approval.
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 December 10, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4694 - Shops at Dale Corner LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for Sign Concept Modification, 385 West Main Street, Parcel 4540385, in a CR Zone APPROVED
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 APPROVED
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 APPROVED WITH CONDITION
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 APPROVED
Dated at Avon this 11th day of December, 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, January 14, 2014, at 7:30 pm at the Avon Town Hall on the following:
App. #4695 - Two Fifty Five West Main LLC, owner, PB2 Architecture + Engineering, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.2.f.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign larger than 75 square feet, 255 West Main Street, Parcel 4540255, in a CR Zone
App. #4700 - Silvio Brighenti Family LLC, owner, Town of Avon, applicant, request for Zone Change from ROS to R40, 2.15 acres, 16 Timothy Way, Parcel 4350016; and from ROS to R40, 3.57 acres, 225 Lovely Street, Parcel 3060225
App. #4702 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Borghesi Building & Engineering, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.a.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit 2 wall signs, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone
App. #4703 - DP3 LLC, owner, John Dillon, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, 300 West Main Street, Parcel 4540300, in a CR Zone
App. #4704 - Ashish and Deepshikha Arora, owners, Creative Communities Builders, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.G. of Avon Zoning Regulations for new house construction in the floodplain, 87 Haynes Road, Parcel 2600087, in an R30 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 30th day of December, 2013.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Linda Keith, Chair
Carol Griffin, Vice Chair
| 
