The Planning and Zoning Commission of the town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, June 24, 2014. Present were Linda Keith, Chair, Carol Griffin, Vice Chair, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, Christian Gackstatter, Tom Armstrong, and Alternate Elaine Primeau. Mrs. Primeau sat for the meeting. Also present were Kari Olson, Town Attorney, Murtha Cullina LLP, and Steve Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Ms. Keith called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4716 - Gladys Walker, owner, Oak Land Developers, LLC, applicant, request for 4-lot Subdivision, 4.99 acres, 354 and 362 Huckleberry Hill Road, Parcels 2810354 and 2810362, in an R30 Zone
App. #4717 - Gladys Walker, owner, Oak Land Developers, LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit one rear lot, 354 and 362 Huckleberry Hill Road, Parcels 2810354 and 2810362, in an R30 Zone
The public hearing was continued from June 10.
Present were David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers, LLC, representing Oak Land Developers, LLC.
Mr. Whitney explained that the existing site is 2 lots; one lot has an existing house and one lot is vacant. The density calculation permits 5 lots total. He noted that at the last meeting he displayed a drawing for a 5-lot subdivision with a small public road to show how this site could be developed to its maximum potential. He clarified that 5 lots are the current proposal. The current proposal is for 4 lots on 5 acres; 3 front lots with one rear lot. He noted that a fee in lieu donation has been offered by the applicant. He noted that this seems like a reasonable compromise, as it is not the maximum development potential. He added that the applicant feels that the proposed 4-lot subdivision meets all the requirements of the Special Exception criteria, noting that this was
reviewed at the last meeting. Concerns about drainage, the proposed rear lot, and lot shape were received from the Commission at the last meeting. Mr. Whitney indicated that it is his opinion that the development of the rear lot with driveway and proposed grading would reduce the amount of acreage that directs storm water runoff to the adjacent property at 370 Huckleberry Hill Road. He explained that there would be no impact to the aforementioned neighbor and there would actually be a reduction of water flowing onto the neighbor’s site. He noted that the Town Engineer agreed with this information in his staff comments. He noted that while there were no comments relating to specific criteria concerning the rear lot, several Commission members conveyed general concerns. He noted that there is very little information in the Town Regulations concerning lot shapes, except to keep lines perpendicular to front street lines. He explained that
the subject site is oddly shaped to begin with and therefore impossible to create square rectangular lots. Mr. Whitney explained that each application is a balancing act and a decision on what’s reasonable (i.e, economics, time considerations, etc.) must be considered; he noted that the applicants and owners are willing to consider revising the application to a 3-lot subdivision, eliminating the rear lot. He noted that the layout has been revised for 3 lots; the property lines are perpendicular from Huckleberry Hill to the rear of site. Proposed Lot #1 would be more than twice the minimum required in the R30 zone, over 60,000 SF. Proposed Lot #2 (middle) would also have over twice the land area needed and proposed Lot #3 would have 3 times (close to 90,000 SF) the required land area. He explained that the applicant feels that 3 lots are very reasonable, as 2 lots would be allowed by right. He indicated that with this 3-lot proposal, the
applicant now proposes a conservation restriction, rather than the aforementioned fee in lieu of open space, around the entire perimeter of the site. The total conservation restriction area is 1.62 acres, which is 32% of the site and exceeds the required
10% open space dedication. Mr. Whitney noted that the applicant is looking for feedback from the Commission about the latest proposal.
Ms. Keith conveyed her support for the 3-lot proposal, noting that she likes the way the plan looks. She asked that the conservation restriction area at the top of the site be squared off.
Mr. Whitney addressed Ms. Keith noting that her suggestion seems reasonable but noted that the 3-lot proposal needs to be finalized and reviewed by the Town Staff before the applicant returns to the Commission on July 15.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question about consolidating open space to create one larger area, Mr. Whitney explained that lot lines cannot be shifted due to lot frontage requirements.
Ms. Keith indicated that the proposed conservation area layout provides a buffer for the existing house on Huckleberry Hill Road.
Mrs. Clark noted that she prefers the current layout and lot shapes over the previous proposal.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about the proposed conservation restriction, Mr. Kushner explained that, under the Regulations, applicants must provide to the Town 10% of the developable land as open space or offer a payment in lieu of land dedication. He clarified that the Commission cannot mandate a fee in lieu payment; it must be voluntary by the applicant. He explained that fee in lieu payments are most common in smaller projects, like the subject proposal, as the Town hasn’t historically wanted to accept small isolated pieces of open space. Mr. Kushner indicated that the Subdivision Regulations allow the Commission to accept a conservation restriction in lieu of land dedication or a payment in lieu of land dedication. He added that while this scenario hasn’t been used
very often, he noted that it makes sense in this instance.
In response to Ms. Keith’s inquiry about drainage, Mr. Kushner noted that the Town Engineer is not present tonight but explained that the Town Engineer has indicated that, as a general rule, there is a natural flow of water and water is allowed to flow naturally, under the law. He explained that the flow of water cannot be interrupted; for example, water cannot be concentrated in a pipe and discharged in the same direction it currently travels adversely impacting a downstream property. Mr. Kushner noted that the general procedure is to try to ensure that there would be no deterioration of current conditions; he added that ways to improve current conditions are sought. He explained that the aforementioned 5-lot alternative plan, if considered, would require clear cutting and a formal drainage system
implemented that could substantially decrease the amount of water draining to the adjacent site at 370 Huckleberry Hill.
Mr. Whitney noted that a detention system would have to be installed for the 5-lot scenario.
Ms. Keith noted that a detention system is costly. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Kushner addressed the 4-lot layout noting that this proposal results in more tree clearing and substantial additional grading but presents an opportunity to assist with drainage concerns at 370 Huckleberry Hill Road due to the proposed driveway pitch for the rear lot. The proposed driveway could be constructed such that it could cut off approximately 2 acres of a 6-acre watershed that, otherwise, drains towards 370 Huckleberry Hill Road. He clarified that while this would be an improvement, it wouldn’t magically make any existing conditions that the property owner thinks are adverse disappear; the existing conditions would be improved somewhat.
Mr. Kushner addressed the latest 3-lot proposal and noted that while the final plan has not yet been prepared, he noted that it appears that it would result in substantially less grading. He further noted that this layout would also provide fewer opportunities to assist with drainage problems. He explained that, as a general rule, according to the Town Engineer who has indicated that he will prepare a written report for the Commission, the Town reviews all proposals to ensure that anything being considered isn’t going to exaggerate or make an existing problem worse. He pointed out, however, that it cannot be expected that a small project can solve all drainage issues that may exist in a neighborhood; that is not a fair or reasonable burden to place on an applicant. You can’t expect the
same kind of drainage system that you would get with the construction of a public street; it has to be reasonably related to the scope of a project.
Ms. Keith commented that there would be less land disturbance such that it would not cause the water to move more rapidly downhill.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Whitney explained that no matter what the scenario, you cannot send more water onto adjacent properties. He indicated that the proposed driveway for proposed Lot #3 will be designed/pitched essentially the same as the driveway for the 4-lot layout. He explained that the 4-lot layout proposed a 4th driveway which would have intercepted additional water. He stated that while water will be intercepted and brought down to the existing storm drainage located in Huckleberry Hill Road and not onto the neighbor for the 3-lot plan, it would be less water than for the 4-lot layout.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Whitney confirmed that if the house were moved back a bit the driveway would not be too long and would still meet Town regulations. She commented that a longer driveway would catch more water.
Mr. Cappello suggested that a swale be put in rather than the proposed conservation restriction area. He noted that the swale could be run down into the drainage system.
Mr. Kushner reported that the Town Engineer explained that, although a grading plan has not yet been prepared, the likely result is that all the water now traveling onto 370 Huckleberry Hill will still go there but perhaps with a slight reduction; no additional water will flow onto 370 Huckleberry Hill Road. He reiterated that while the Town tries to be helpful and improve conditions, all the existing problems cannot be solved.
Ms. Keith noted her understanding but noted that she feels it would be helpful if there is any way to make the driveway longer to pitch the water. Mr. Kushner noted that that could be looked at.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s comment, Mr. Whitney confirmed that while there are trees around the perimeter, the site is essentially overgrown field with no significant trees. Mr. Whitney pointed out that the layout is only a feasibility plan, noting that the house locations may shift depending on a detailed grading plan.
Ms. Keith reiterated that she much prefers the 3-lot layout.
Mr. Armstrong conveyed his preference for the 3-lot layout noting that he would vote for approval. He noted his concerns about the slope of the proposed driveway and being able to get vehicles off the road and into the driveway in the winter months.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s concern, Mr. Whitney explained that a 2% slope for 20 feet is essentially flat and added that he feels it is plenty of room to allow a car to get off the road. He noted that the proposed driveways vary from 175 feet to 225 feet long and the average slope is either 7% or 8%; the Town allows up to 14% maximum driveway slope. He noted that he doesn’t recommend slopes above 10% and noted that all proposed driveways are a maximum of 8%. He explained that grades are transitional, noting that there is typically 25 to 30 feet of transition before the maximum slope.
Ms. Keith opened the hearing for public comment.
There was no further input for Apps. #4716 and #4717.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4716 and #4717 to the next meeting, scheduled for July 15. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4722 - Proposed amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development pertaining to Chapter 11, Neighborhood Goals and Policies; Town of Avon, applicant
Present were Bob Orenstein, Business Manager for Avon Old Farms School, and Glenn Chalder, Planimetrics, the School’s consultant.
Mr. Kushner noted that the proposed amendment has been an ongoing discussion between the Town and Avon Old Farms School for some time, as it affects the School’s property. He explained that the proposed amendment relates to the possible reconstruction of Old Farms Road, which dates back about 3 decades. He displayed a map showing the proposed realignment of Old Farms Road, noting that it would shift the road south of where is exists now. He clarified that while tonight’s discussion is not directly about the road project, he explained that the State has committed to rebuild a new bridge over the Farmington River where Old Farms Road intersects with Route 10; he noted that this is part of the State’s investment with the UConn Health Center. A new bridge would be constructed northerly of
where the existing bridge is and the existing bridge would be removed. He noted that ongoing discussions have taken place between the Town and the School as well as with State and Federal regulatory agencies (i.e, Army Corps of Engineers; EPA; DEEP) noting that great steps have been taken in an attempt to minimize environmental impacts. He explained that while the final design has not yet been prepared, part of the discussion has included ways to try to preserve a 100-acre corridor of open space on either side of the proposed new alignment. The School owns approximately 800 acres of undeveloped property that they currently have no interest in selling. Mr. Kushner explained that the School has sold many acres of land in the past to create subdivisions known as Devonwood (500 acres located in Farmington) and the Stony Corners neighborhood in Avon. He noted that if the School ever decides to sell land, the Town would pursue acquisition of that land
(highest priority as shown in the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development-POCD) if the taxpayers were agreeable. If the School decided they wished to sell land for development, the 2006 POCD states that development would likely occur in either the R40 or RU2A zone, as the land located to the east is zoned RU2A and land to the west is zoned R40. The proposed amendment states that the subject land would remain as the highest priority for open space preservation, if that could be accomplished. If open space cannot be realized, the amendment proposes that the Commission might consider an amendment to the Zoning Regulations making it possible for cluster housing (compact development of some type) in the EL (educational land) zone. Mr. Kushner explained that more specifics could be attached to the text amendment regarding the types of uses (i.e, condominiums, assisted living, etc.) that would be permitted (i.e., uses comparable to single-family developments). He further explained
that the intent is to create a win/win situation such that the School would be allowed to sell some or all of their land at a reasonable value (i.e., comparable value as that of a conventional single-family project) while preserving a substantial amount of the land as open space. He explained that the types of uses proposed (i.e., condominiums, assisted living) usually result in a favorable financial condition for the Town (i.e., no children/education costs and with a high tax revenue). Mr. Kushner noted that the proposed amendment preserves the current language in the 2006 POCD but also adds some additional creative ideas that could result in a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Kushner addressed the road realignment project and explained that the second alternative is to leave Old Farms Road where it is now and make road improvements (i.e., flatten the curves and rebuild the bridges). He noted that it is his understanding that both the Town Engineering Department and the Town Council believe that building the southern alignment offers significant public safety advantages; he noted that the southern alignment would cost at least $2M more than repairing Old Farms Road where it is now. He noted that the Town has communicated to the School that if the southern alignment occurs, which the School favors, that it seems reasonable that the School contribute $2M towards the cost of the project. The aforementioned 100-acre open space corridor would connect the Farmington Valley
Greenway to Fisher Meadows; a stone dust path/trail would allow access from the Greenway onto the newly constructed roadway and into Fisher Meadows. Mr. Kushner noted that this is the vision. He explained that there have been discussions with the School about how to determine how much property would have to be conveyed to the Town to equal $2M in value. He further explained that in order to determine this answer you need to know the current zone of the land, what uses are allowed, and the market value of the land. He noted that the range of uses allowed in the EL zone are very narrow such that, in the long term, it would force an application to the Commission for a zone change, likely to a conventional single-family zone.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that, hypothetically, 20 years from now the School decides they’re going to build another science building and they need $20M to fund it and the School’s Board of Directors decides that it’s in the School’s best interest to sell off 500 acres of land. He noted that in order for the School to find a willing buyer, there is going to have to be a discussion with the Commission about a zoning district, other than EL, that would permit a range of uses that would be acceptable. He explained that the School could propose a cluster development but noted that the cluster regulations do not offer the type of flexibility that the proposed amendment to the 2006 POCD is talking about. He noted that the cluster regulations
allow single-family homes but explained that a project like “Hunters Run”, for example, could not be constructed south of Old Farms Road under the current Regulations. He explained that the proposed amendment would add flexibility; he further explained that the next step would be to consider an amendment to the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Kushner indicated that he envisions a change to the Zoning Regulations such that the Commission would reserve discretion through special exception review and public hearings would be required to amend the Regulations.
Mr. Armstrong commented that his understanding of the sequence is that the proposed change to the Plan of Conservation and Development would occur and then a waiting period would follow to see whether the School decides to sell any property.
Ms. Olson explained that the Plan of Conservation and Development is a planning tool and advisory in nature; she noted that the Plan is much more flexible than the Zoning Regulations. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to ensure, in the future, that if the School wanted to come before the Town that the School would be able to submit a text amendment that is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development. She explained that this scenario is the true function of having the subject text amendment up front and noted that the proposed amendment does not bind the Commission to any particular development in the future.
Mr. Kushner noted that public sewers would really need to be available to accommodate the type of cluster developments just discussed. He explained that for sewers to become available the Avon Water Pollution Control Authority (AWPCA) would have to amend their master Sewer Facilities Plan to include this area and in order for the Sewer Plan to be amended a conversation between the Town and the State DEEP is needed. The DEEP has authority over the extension of public sewers because the State contributes heavily to the financing of sewage treatment plants. He explained that sewage from Avon is pumped to either Farmington or Simsbury, as Avon does not have its own sewage treatment plant. Avon does, however, have intermunicipal agreements with both Farmington and Simsbury which gives some ownership
interests. He explained that he has been told that the subject land could go to either Farmington or Simsbury but the closest run is to Farmington, possibly through the Devonwood Subdivision. He noted that the State’s Plan of Conservation shows this land as a high priority for open space conservation. He explained that a letter was sent to the State Office of Policy and Management explaining that the Town has also identified the subject property as a high priority for open space conservation but also further explained to the State that it may not be possible due to the cost of preservation. Mr. Kushner pointed out that a lot of “what if” scenarios exist noting that while it is possible that the taxpayers may agree to finance the purchase of the open space some day, it is also possible that they won’t. He explained that the Town has indicated to the State that if the Town has not acquired the open space but a proposal for
development is received that it would seem like a better idea to promote a development that would result in the same density and traffic impact but in a more compact fashion with as much as 50% of the site preserved as open space. He noted that the State responded that they agree with this scenario and amended the State Plan to include language that under certain circumstances it would be appropriate for the State to make a determination that the extension of a public sewer could be deemed to be consistent with the State’s objective to preserve open space.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated his understanding and agreement but noted his concerns that this amendment could make it easier, more convenient, for the School to sell their land. He commented that the School may not have considered selling right away and added that this amendment would provide a clear path to the money and asked why the Town would want to put this in place now. He suggested that this plan could just be made ready for when the School communicates real interest in selling and developing their land. He noted that he feels the School has been good about working with the Town and noted that they probably want the best for the Town also. He concluded by reiterating his concerns that this amendment could potentially speed up development and added that he feels the longer it’s put off
the better.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he doesn’t think the proposed amendment would speed up development and explained that the proposed amendment allows for better future planning. He noted that this amendment allows the Commission to look at the big picture and consider the most significant privately held open space parcel in Town. The amendment would allow the Commission to proactively think about development potential, if/when the opportunity arises, as opposed to reacting to any plan prepared by a real estate developer. He noted that, in the absence of this amendment, he feels that the most likely scenario would be a request for a zone change to allow an R40 development. He explained that an R40 development would look a lot like the rest of Avon but noted that this is an opportunity to create
something unique.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his agreement that planning is good but again asked why we couldn’t wait to implement this plan until such time that interest is shown in developing this land.
Ms. Keith and Mrs. Primeau noted their disagreement with Mr. Gackstatter.
Ms. Keith indicated that if a developer comes before the Commission and the proposed amendment is not in place, you cannot go back. Mrs. Primeau concurred. Ms. Keith noted that she doesn’t feel the Commission is “opening the door” but rather are refining and defining the preferred direction for development.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about the location of the wetlands, Mr. Kushner explained that the wetlands have been surveyed and identified and the topography has been established; the location on the map is precise. He noted that in 2008 both the Town and the School had a real estate appraisal done. The School hired Richter & Cegan to study the property who, in turn, prepared conventional subdivisions showing both R40 and RU2A configurations. He noted that both configurations look a lot like other large existing neighborhoods in Town.
Mr. Armstrong asked if the EL development concept could be realized under either road project scenario (i.e., repair Old Farms Road in place or the proposed realignment). Mr. Kushner confirmed that it could. Mr. Armstrong noted that it is possible that one road design may receive funding but the other scenario may not. Mr. Kushner noted his understanding and agreement and reiterated that the EL concept would work under any scenario.
Mr. Kushner noted that there are ongoing discussions between the Town and the School about funding the cost differential for the road project; in this scenario the payment would be land rather than cash. He indicated that getting the road project done in a way that accomplishes the objectives of satisfying the regulatory agencies while also deciding what the correct amount of acreage/land is needed to be received to equate to the increase in the cost of the project. He explained that it would be valuable for a real estate appraiser to know, realistically, what type of development could be accomplished. He concluded by noting that there is no urgency for the Commission to make a decision on this issue tonight.
Mr. Cappello noted that the current Old Farms Road configuration has natural traffic-calming qualities; he noted that you can’t drive fast and there aren’t a lot of accidents. He commented that the new alignment looks more like a racetrack and noted that there are a lot of wetlands (bridges are expensive) located to the south of the current road location. He agreed that a unique opportunity exists but noted that possibly the land to the north could be considered for purchase. He added that the $2M could be used to purchase the open space which would create a huge tract of open space, if this land was connected to Winding Trails.
Mr. Kushner acknowledged Mr. Cappello’s comments and explained that there will be other public forums conducted by the Town Council in the future to discuss the actual road reconstruction project. He clarified that the cost is going to be in the millions regardless of whether Old Farms Road is fixed in place or the new alignment is constructed. He communicated that there is no question that Old Farms Road is very beautiful and scenic but explained that there are public safety concerns. The bridges are not in good condition and something must be done. The Town Engineer is trying to design the new alignment for a speed that is as slow as possible such that the Town can still qualify for State and Federal subsidies to introduce traffic calming elements while building a road that is much safer
than what now exists.
Mr. Kushner concluded by noting that the Commission’s action involves the proposed amendment rather than the road realignment.
Bob Orenstein, CFO, Avon Old Farms School, conveyed the School’s support for the proposed amendment noting that the situation is a win/win, which is important to the School. He conveyed his appreciation for the collaborative effort that has taken place with the Town on this proposal. He added that he feels this communication is consistent with how the School and the Town have communicated historically as well as how the School intends to communicate moving forward. Mr. Orenstein thanked the Commission for their consideration.
Glenn Chalder indicated his agreement with Mr. Orenstein’s comments noting that the Town has been working on the road relocation project for more than 30 years and the School has been very cooperative. He noted his agreement with Mr. Kushner’s comments about open space and the concept of connecting the Greenway with Fisher Meadows Park. He explained that the subject amendment is part of the puzzle in terms of currency and how we can get all the pieces to work together, including the possible preservation of 100 acres of open space, to result in the best outcome for the Town.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she is fine with the proposed amendment as written.
Mr. Kushner reported that CRCOG has endorsed the proposed amendment and noted that the changes are consistent with the Regional Plan of Development.
The commission indicated that they would like to review the proposed language in more detail.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4722 to the next meeting, scheduled for July 15. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4723 - Proposed amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to detached identification signs in commercial zones; Town of Avon, applicant
Lisa Bohman, Executive Director of the Avon Chamber of Commerce, was present.
Mr. Kushner explained that while signs are important to retail businesses, public safety and aesthetic issues need to be considered. He noted that every retail business inside a mall (i.e., West Farms, Buckland Hills) has to comply with rules regarding signage. He noted that the rule book for West Farms Mall, for example, is 10 times the size of Avon’s Zoning Regulations. He explained that mall landlords are trying to manage aesthetics and avoid clutter while promoting public safety, such that you won’t see dozens of signs (i.e., going out of business, sales, etc.) in mall parking lots. He noted that the Avon Chamber understands the need for sign regulations but has been looking for ways to add some additional signage. He noted that every business can have at least one wall sign,
and more than one in some instances. Every commercial parcel in Town can apply for a special permit to allow one detached sign (i.e., Nod Brook Mall; Walmart Plaza); he noted that detached signs can be directory style and either 12 or 24 square feet in size. He noted that every new business is allowed to have a 30-day new business sign. In addition, every business is also allowed a temporary sign for a 2-week period, twice per year. Temporary Special Events such as sidewalk sales are also permitted with additional signage for the event. He explained that every business would not be allowed to have a permanent A-frame sign by the road because there would be hundreds of A-frame signs on Route 44 at any given time; he added that, ultimately, he doesn’t think this scenario would be good for business and would be a distraction/public safety issues for motorists.
Mr. Kushner addressed the proposed regulation change noting that it would allow the owner of a shopping center that has at least 5 tenant spaces to apply to the Commission for a second detached sign; this sign would be permanent and in addition to the already existing detached/directory sign (if there is one). The purpose of the sign is to allow businesses in the plaza additional chances for advertising. He clarified that if this avenue is chosen, each of the businesses would give up their rights under the Regulations to have a temporary A-frame sign by the road. He explained that the sign could be designed with removable panels and be either 12 square feet (5 to 10 businesses) or 24 square feet (more than 10 businesses) in size. The landlord/owner would be responsible to contract with a sign
vendor; all panels would have to be professionally made by the sign company. The landlord/owner would be responsible to divide the sign time equitably amongst the tenants (i.e., generally change panels every 2 weeks) and the rules would state that, at a minimum, the panels would have to be changed every 30 days. Mr. Kushner commented that he feels this proposal would be particularly beneficial to projects that have a large number of tenants that don’t have visibility to Route 44. He explained that if the sign program doesn’t work the way that it’s been represented by the landlord/owner, the Commission can terminate the permit and the sign would be required to be removed within 30 days. Mr. Kushner indicated that he doesn’t know of any other Town in the State that has this type of regulation and noted that the proposed amendment has been worked on with the Avon Chamber for the last couple of years. He noted that while he cannot
guarantee that it would work perfectly he indicated that he thinks it’s worth a try; he added that he doesn’t think there would be that many applications.
Lisa Bohman thanked Mr. Kushner and the Commission for their attention to this subject. She noted that this would help many of the smaller businesses in Town and, in turn, supports the community in general.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that currently the Zoning Regulations prohibit dynamic/LED signs because the Commission feels the aesthetics of those types of signs are different and they haven’t been encouraged. He noted that gas stations love the LED signs. He added that the Zoning Regulations would have to be amended if the Commission decides they want to allow dynamic/LED signs.
Mr. Kushner addressed the proposed sign amendment and explained that control over sign style, size and lighting would remain unchanged and be in accordance with the current Zoning Regulations. The proposed amendment would allow the potential for those properties with higher numbers of tenants to have more than one detached sign; no more than 2 detached signs would be allowed on any parcel. He explained that the result could either be a property with 2 detached signs or a property with a detached sign that decides to add sign panels/make their existing sign larger. He noted that the proposed amendment suggests that the second detached sign should be located near the site’s main entrance.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that a single tenant parcel would not need an additional sign. He added that visibility for smaller projects/sites tends to be better, as the building tends to sit closer to the road.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels this proposal sounds like an enforcement nightmare; she noted that there are many existing problems with A-frame signs that appear every Friday afternoon and sit there illegally every weekend. She indicated that signs should be used to identify the business and noted that she wants people paying attention to the roadway and where they’re driving instead of looking at sales promotions.
Ms. Keith commented that this amendment would take away some of the A-frame signs.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with Mrs. Griffin that sign enforcement is a very tough job. He commented that it’s a thankless and impossible job but noted that Avon takes it very seriously. He added that he would compare Avon to any other Town in the Valley in terms of the efforts put into sign enforcement because it is very important. He acknowledged Ms. Keith’s comment and explained that, theoretically, this proposal would eliminate some of the A-frame signs that exist today because properties that take advantage of the new regulation would forfeit their right to the temporary A-frame signs. He explained that there seems to be a direct correlation between the number of permitted A-frame signs and the number of illegal signs. He noted, for example, that a tenant in West Farms
Mall that puts out a sign illegally could have their lease terminated; he explained that landlords have enforcement authority that the Town doesn’t. He explained that the Town has very limited power and cannot issue citations; at best, the Town can issue “Cease and Desist” orders and then work with the Town Attorney. He stated that the “Cease and Desist” method has not been done routinely as it is a huge expense to the Town and sometimes the court is sympathetic towards the business owner. He pointed out that he feels the subject proposal has the potential to reduce some of the A-frame signs.
Mrs. Griffin noted her concerns with some absentee landlords in Town who don’t work with their tenants and don’t enforce any rules.
Mr. Kushner noted his understanding of Mrs. Griffin’s concerns and explained that he feels this proposal will only attract those landlords that are actively involved, as it requires an investment in both time and money. The Commission will have discretion over applications submitted under this regulation.
Mrs. Clark indicated that she feels this proposal would reduce the A-frame signs and noted that signs located closer to the road may add more safety for drivers, as motorists wouldn’t have to strain to see the building.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that the Town’s enforcement authority would remain the same but noted that if the landlord doesn’t follow through with what they have committed to do in connection with signs, the Commission could revoke the permit and the sign would have to come down.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concerns about the possibility for empty/blank sign spaces, Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission would ask the applicant/landlord during the application process about the sign management plan. He confirmed that the Town would not be involved in the day to day decisions about which signs are displayed; this would be controlled by the owner. He added that he doesn’t feel it’s likely that there would be a lot of blank panels.
Mr. Cappello commented that the signs would always be rotating and the spaces could be used however the owner wants.
Ms. Keith commented that the Commission can require, as part of the application review, that no blank sign areas/spaces exist.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concerns about sign compatibility (i.e., similar colors, look and feel Mr. Kushner explained that these items would be discussed as part of the application process. He noted that sign content cannot be controlled, under State law; only height area and location can be controlled. He further noted that language has been added to the amendment noting that there should be an effort to make signs match the architecture of the plaza and also match architecture of existing signage on the site; sign themes are important.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Ms. Olson indicated that she hasn’t seen the proposed regulation but noted that the Commission has discretion to review the proposed signage and make recommendations; part of the review would include how the sign program would function in the future. She noted that it should be made clear to the applicant what would be a condition of approval and what would constitute a violation.
Mrs. Primeau commented that many of the larger projects have existing sign themes. She noted that she feels the proposal would be helpful for some of the larger sites that don’t currently have enough signage to identify the businesses in the rear.
Mr. Armstrong noted that he would like to see all the businesses succeed but acknowledged that there will be some businesses that won’t have signs posted (i.e., there will be winners and losers, per se). He asked Lisa Bohman to find out if the merchants are generally in favor of this sign proposal. He noted his agreement with Mrs. Griffin’s concerns about the signs noting that this proposal may be more appropriate as a pilot study to see if it works before it is released to all the businesses.
Mr. Kushner noted that one zone could be chosen (i.e., the CS zone includes Old Avon Village) for a study but explained that one property could not be targeted.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Ms. Bohman stated that the Board of Directors supports the proposal and noted that the Town has participated in 2 programs with the Chamber of Commerce regarding signage. Ms. Bohman confirmed that there is already a positive consensus.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question about lighting, Mr. Kushner explained that lighting would be governed under what currently exists in the Zoning Regulations. He noted that currently there are no restrictions about lighting all night but added that the Commission typically asks for shielded light fixtures for the non-internally illuminated detached signs to avoid glare for motorists. He noted that these same rules would apply unless the Commission wanted to consider new rules. Mr. Cappello commented that he feels lighting should be restricted, as more signs would be added and noted that these signs would replace A-frame signs that are not illuminated.
Ms. Keith commented that the hearing could be continued to the next meeting to give Mr. Kushner time to write additional language pertaining to illumination. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4723 to the Commission’s next meeting. The motion, seconded by
Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
The public hearing was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OUTSTANDING APPLICATIONS
App. #4720 - Geoffrey and Kelly Nevins, owners/applicants, request for 2-lot Resubdivision, 10.3 acres, 408 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090408, in an RU2A Zone
Mr. Kushner indicated that the hearing for App. #4720 was closed at the last meeting but no vote was taken. He addressed open space and noted that the MDC owns a large parcel to the east; he added that the MDC does not want access to their property. He explained that this application appears to be a good candidate for a conservation restriction rather than open space dedication noting that the plan shows a substantial area that would be subject to conservation restriction. The area includes some wetlands but exceeds the minimum open space required under the Regulations.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4720. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
The Commission accepted the 4.06-acre conservation restriction area (as depicted on Subdivision Plan prepared by Neriani Surveying dated May 21, 2014) to satisfy the open space requirement.
Mr. Kushner clarified that the conservation area is a “restriction” rather than an easement granted to the Town. The Commission noted their understanding.
App. #4708 - Meredith Corporation dba WFSB-TV, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.a.of Avon Zoning Regulations to replace communications tower and add Doppler Radar weather system, 375 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090375, in an RU2A Zone
App. #4709 - Meredith Corporation dba WFSB-TV, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to replace communications tower and add Doppler Radar weather system,
375 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090375, in an RU2A Zone
Ms. Keith indicated that the Commission will continue their discussion/review from the June 10 meeting regarding the proposed Doppler radar.
Kari Olson, Town Attorney, addressed the draft motions she prepared and explained that while the motions provide a template for the Commission, she further explained that the Commission should discuss whether or not they agree with the content and feel free to make any changes and then move forward with a decision for a vote. She stated, for the record, that she has supplied the Commission with a memo, per the Commission’s request, on how to analyze the various “terms” contained in the Regulations. She noted that she provided general rules and what a court would do, as well as a number of different definitions from different sources relative to the Commission’s specific questions in connection with Section IV.A.4.a., of the Regulations.
Mr. Armstrong indicated that he has given the application a lot of thought. He noted that it is his view and that he would vote such that he cannot support the application as submitted and cannot support the application as submitted and revised by the applicant. He noted that he could support the application similar to the prepared draft motion for approval but with edits. He submitted copies of his proposed edits to the Commission. He noted that if his motion for approval cannot be seconded then a motion should be made to disapprove.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that he cannot accept either draft motion, as written. He commented that he doesn’t feel the proposed tower and radar constitute a modification and indicated that he would “no” in the affirmative but noted that he feels the applicant did a good job at proving that the proposed site is a useful spot and doesn’t degrade land use or health and safety issues. He noted that he feels the subject site is a good place for radar but noted that the Regulations, as written, do not allow the radar to be there. He commented that he feels the issues need to be discussed separately.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Gackstatter noted that he feels the motion for denial doesn’t work because the language says that the proposal doesn’t meet the health standards and doesn’t meet the property evaluation and added that he feels the application does meet the health standards and property evaluation. Mr. Cappello noted that those issues could be removed because the main point is the proposal does not constitute a modification. Mr. Gackstatter agreed.
Ms. Keith communicated that she has been on the Commission for a long time and noted that when towers were first proposed on this site, the property was huge. She noted that over time land has been sold off and now the site contains 21 acres. The land sold off now contains homes surrounding the site. She noted that years ago the towers were approved because the land area was much greater; the type of umbrella that was on the site many years ago no longer exists. She noted that she would like this point stated in the motion for denial, if that is the motion that is used.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his disagreement with Ms. Keith’s point such that the towers were there houses were built; the people knew the towers were there. The addition of a tower for a radar does not create a tipping point because it is like building next to a factory; you knew you were building next to a factory and the factory adds another device that has minimal impact health and safety wise. The values of the houses were created with the towers there so values were defined. He noted that he feels the applicant proved this in their testimony and added that he doesn’t think it’s safe for the Commission to say that the applicant didn’t prove it. The Regulations say modification or replacement of existing equipment; he noted that a new functionality is going in now and added
that he doesn’t think our Regulations allow that. He noted that if the Commission agrees that new functionality is acceptable, he conveyed his feeling that the applicant has passed all the requirements and the radar should be allowed.
Mrs. Clark commented that she doesn’t believe the proposal is a modification; she noted that they are adding the dome.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mrs. Clark confirmed that she views the application as a new function.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels one of the reasons for the amendment to the Regulations to not allow any new towers was because the Commission didn’t want to see anything new go up in this area. She noted that allowance is given for replacement towers. She added that the Regulations only allow replacement of things that already exist on the towers; there is no provision for new apparatuses that were not there before.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether radar is a new replacement of a broadcasting device or does radar have a different functionality that is not currently there.
Mrs. Griffin commented that her first stumbling block is that she doesn’t think the proposal is for “apples for apples” replacement or even “apples for oranges” replacement. She noted that the proposal is an entirely different type of apparatus and does not meet the special exception criteria.
Ms. Keith commented that she has been to the site 4 times since the application was submitted. She noted that she imagined an 18-foot dome circling over the treetops and added that she doesn’t feel the application meets the compatibility issue relating to aesthetics of the area. She noted that she also spent some time in Fisher Meadows looking up at the site. She confirmed that she feels the proposed radar is a new apparatus and not something that conforms to existing equipment; the proposal is not a modification.
Mrs. Clark commented that she doesn’t feel the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood at all.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that he feels it would be wise to adopt verbiage for consistency. He added that if the devices that can go up there provide the same functionality then they should be allowed. If the devices provide a different operational capability, that’s not allowed (i.e., UHF is not same as radar).
Ms. Keith commented that the design and replacement are supposed to be the same as what is there; currently there is no 18-foot circular equipment.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he would deny the application because it doesn’t meet its operational capabilities; the proposed device is not a replacement/modification or equipment swap out for the functional capabilities that now exist. If the applicant has to put up a larger antenna (i.e., an 18-foot dome) to meet the same function, he noted that he feels the applicant has the right to do that. He noted that he doesn’t think the applicant has the right to put up a new operational capability, which he feels is the radar.
Ms. Keith noted that she feels both the functionality and the aesthetics can be addressed together and added to the motion for denial.
Ms. Olson noted that Mr. Gackstatter’s position is clear and suggested that other Commission members voice their opinions/positions, for the record. She explained that there could be other reasons discussed; there are no limits.
Mr. Cappello asked Mr. Gackstatter whether he would be ok with the motion for denial if the property value point was removed.
Mr. Gackstatter responded by noting that he would be fine with the motion for denial if the bottom part of the motion to accept was swapped with the bottom part of the motion to deny. He added that he feels the applicant has proven what they set out to prove and to deny them that would set up a problem during an appeal. He noted that he feels the applicant has met the health and safety and property values issues but noted that he still doesn’t feel that the Regulations allow the proposal.
Mr. Cappello commented that he could take out the property value language contained in the denial motion. He noted that no one knows for sure about the public health aspect just like we don’t know for sure what the proposed radar would do to property values. He commented that he feels we know for sure that the radar is not going to increase property values but noted that no one knows what would happen over time. He noted that we don’t know for sure whether adding the radar to all the existing antennas and equipment already on the tower creates a tipping point, even if the applicant submitted testimony about the health aspects and the strength of the radar. He reiterated that the effects on health and property values cannot be known for sure given the cumulative effect of the proposed
radar with the existing equipment on the tower.
Mrs. Clark commented that the Commission takes an oath for health, welfare, and safety and added that we really don’t know what the radiation is going to do.
Mrs. Primeau noted her concerns with denying the application such that now the Commission will not be able to review the existing equipment on the tower and improve the existing conditions on the site.
Ms. Keith noted her understanding of Mrs. Primeau’s comments and added that while she feels the Commission needs to reexamine the property she noted that she feels that is a different discussion. She commented that the Commission may lose leverage on what now exists but noted that the discussion could only include one item; the discussion could not include all the existing dishes and all the other apparatuses on all the other towers.
Ms. Olson clarified that the subject application is not an enforcement action and noted that she doesn’t think anything has been established regarding what is or what is not there without a permit. She noted that a couple of permits were submitted during the public hearing. She explained that if there is an ongoing use that is in violation of the Regulations, whatever action the Commission takes on this application has no bearing. She further explained that the Commission is not approving what currently exists on the site by denying this application.
Mrs. Primeau commented that conditions such as more screening and taking equipment off the tower could be attached to an approval. If the application is denied, there are no conditions. Ms. Olson concurred.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the Commission has no ability to reduce radiation if the application is denied.
Ms. Olson explained that if there are items on the tower that were not permitted and are in violation and this can be established, the Commission is not losing their right to enforce the Regulations with respect to whatever is decided on the subject application. She noted her agreement with Mrs. Primeau such that there are other items that could be controlled by adding conditions to an approval of the subject application that cannot be controlled right now.
Mrs. Primeau commented that more control would be realized, especially with Mr. Armstrong’s additions.
Mr. Armstrong noted that he could not support the application, as submitted or as amended, because he added 31 conditions; he added that there are significant landscaping and radar deficiencies (i.e., fail safe devices in radar to prevent it from going below zero to the horizon). He noted that without these conditions he feels the application would fail in 3 areas, namely the special exception criteria in Section VIII A (suitable location); VIII C (neighborhood compatibility); and VIII I (consistent with purpose, detrimental on public welfare). He commented that if an approval is considered, the conditions are needed to overcome the hurdles in the special exception criteria. He noted that he thinks those voting to deny the application would do so focusing on the neighborhood compatibility issues.
Ms. Keith commented that large numbers of conditions attached to an approval always end up becoming a problem; the Planning Department ends up getting calls. She noted that she feels the application is lacking is several areas; she added that the applicant did not submit sufficient information regarding property values to make her feel comfortable. She indicated that while there may already be existing violations on the site, adding a lot of conditions to an approval sets up both the Commission and the Town for failure and may also create a monitoring situation for Town Staff.
Mr. Armstrong noted his understanding of both Ms. Keith’s and Mrs. Primeau’s comments; he acknowledged that the applicant has certain rights on their property but noted that if some corrections could be made it might improve the overall conditions.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the Commission has to come up with one motion that the majority agrees with.
Ms. Keith indicated that she doesn’t feel the Commission has to totally agree on everything, item by item, as long as an overall consensus is reached.
Mr. Armstrong agreed that the Commission doesn’t have to be unanimous, in either direction, in their reasons for voting, but added that he feels items listed in the motion that no one raises as an issue need to be taken out.
Ms. Olson noted his agreement and suggested that a member could raise a motion and then modify it to see if a consensus could be reached. She explained that the Commission does not have to use the prepared draft motion but further explained that the Commission needs to state, on the record, the reasons for either denying the application or the basis for an approval, if considered, and any conditions imposed. She stressed that it’s up to the Commission to create the record and raise the motion. She noted that if there is no consensus on the draft motions they don’t have to be used; the draft motion could also be used as a template.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s question about whether the Commission should review the bulleted list and decide whether or not they support each item, Ms. Olson noted her understanding but explained that someone must make a motion to begin a discussion and then modifications could be made; a clear record must be established. She reiterated that the Commission could create their own motion.
Mr. Kushner noted that the bulleted list is essentially the language contained in the special exception criteria in Section VIII; he added that it might be helpful to elaborate on reasons why the Commission either agrees or disagrees.
Ms. Olson pointed out that the Commission could modify the motion, if they see fit, to be more general and the reasons would be stated on the record.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to deny Apps. #4708 and #4709. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Clark.
Ms. Keith asked for discussion on the motion.
Mrs. Griffin referenced the bulleted items on Page 3 of the motion for denial…..”proposed tower and radar does not constitute a modification to or replacement of an existing telecommunications transmission tower and change in equipment within the meaning of the Regulations Section IV.A.4.a.”
Mr. Gackstatter noted his disagreement and noted he would vote against it because of that.
Ms. Olson addressed Mr. Gackstatter noting that that is the part he agreed with.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his disagreement noting that the language says it does not constitute a modification.
Mr. Kushner addressed Mr. Gackstatter noting that that was his whole point.
Ms. Keith addressed Mr. Gackstatter noting that his point was functionality which is basically the same thing. She noted that more information could be added to the bullet.
Ms. Olson explained that the Commission is bound by the Regulations and noted that new regulations cannot be created that the applicant was required to meet. She suggested that each Commissioner could voice their opinion, for the record, as to whether they agree with this statement (bullet point). She noted that Mr. Gackstatter’s viewpoint is already on the record, as he interprets this bullet as relating to functionality.
Ms. Keith noted that she considers the proposal a new use and not a modification.
Mrs. Clark commented that the proposal is an addition and not a modification.
Mr. Cappello noted his agreement, just like the motion states.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his agreement.
Mr. Armstrong suggested that the word be “communications” rather than “telecommunications”, as that is the word used in the ordinance.
Ms. Olson noted her understanding and made the change from “telecommunications” to “communications”.
Mrs. Griffin asked if the words “change in equipment” is enough and whether it should read “change or replacement” because the applicant says they are replacing but the Commission doesn’t feel they are replacing like for like. The applicant is proposing a new apparatus.
Ms. Olson noted that any language revision is up to the Commission.
Mr. Cappello commented that he feels the word “change” is good.
Ms. Keith commented that the Commission doesn’t consider the application a modification or a replacement; the Commission believes the proposal is a new function. She noted that she feels the language is covered.
Ms. Olson confirmed that other than removing “tele”, the language is ok. The Commission concurred.
Ms. Keith addressed the next bullet item….” The Site Plan does not conform to the Regulations Section X.A.1.a, for the following reasons:
The Applicant has failed to supply the Commission with adequate information as to the current functionality, location and height of the existing antennas and equipment already affixed to the existing tower.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the applicant has provided all that information.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she doesn’t feel the applicant provided all the information.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated that there will have to be an agreement to disagree on this point.
Ms. Keith accepted Mr. Gackstatter’s request to agree to disagree.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that he feels the applicant has checked all the boxes.
Mr. Cappello asked if all the antennas were identified.
Ms. Keith noted that the applicant didn’t identify all the antennas; they could only give the Commission 4 of about 6 or 8 on the tower.
Mrs. Clark noted her agreement with Ms. Keith.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that the applicant couldn’t physically identify the antennas to the list.He noted that the applicant had a list of 8 and said that he could give the names of the antennas but could not map the physical design of the antenna to the list.
Mrs. Griffin noted that because all the antennas could not be identified, the applicant did not provide all the information.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his understanding of Mrs. Griffin’s comments but noted that he feels differently.
Ms. Keith addressed the next bullet item…..”The Applicant has failed to disclose which antennae and equipment will be reinstalled and at what location on the reconstructed tower.”
Mr. Armstrong indicated that he feels this item has been met.
Ms. Keith commented that they didn’t show where the other antennas are going to go.
Mr. Armstrong noted that they offered to take the antennas down and not replace them until approved by the Town.
Mrs. Primeau agreed.
Mr. Cappello commented that it would be kind of a condition.
Mr. Armstrong commented that he doesn’t feel the Commission needs everything there; it’s not a significant issue and added that he feels the applicant has met this item.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Cappello indicated that he would almost take out the prior bullet item and leave this item in.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he would take out both bullet items.
Mrs. Griffin indicated that she feels the items should be left in.
Ms. Keith noted that the applicant failed to tell the Commission where the locations are going to be on the reconstructed tower.
Mr. Armstrong suggested that the bullets could be reworded, similar to Ms. Keith’s statement.
Ms. Keith provided new wording…..”The Applicant failed to provide the relocation of any of the antennas and equipment that are affixed to the existing tower.”
Mrs. Primeau commented that they didn’t say what they were.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that they said there would be none of them there, so they identified it.
Mrs. Primeau agreed but noted that would be for approval; this is for denial.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that for either approval or denial, the applicant said what they said.
Mrs. Primeau agreed and noted that when they applied they should have identified what was working, what wasn’t working, who owned it, how long the lease is for, what is emitted from those different pieces; she noted that we don’t know the answers and we’re never going to know.
Mrs. Clark noted her agreement with Mrs. Primeau’s comments.
Ms. Keith indicated that the following bullet should be eliminated…..”The Applicant has failed to supply a complete landscaping plan identifying existing conditions on site.” The Commission concurred.
Ms. Olson read the following corrected language…..”The Applicant has failed to provide the Commission with adequate information regarding the functionality, location, and height of existing antenna and equipment already affixed to the existing tower.”
Ms. Olson asked what happens to the relocation of antennas, noting that the Commission commented that they failed to provide this information.
Mr. Armstrong noted that he doesn’t think relocated antennas need to be addressed because the applicant agreed to remove all the antennas.
Ms. Olson explained that just because the applicant agreed to do something as a condition doesn’t mean that the Commission has to agree that this isn’t something the Commission wanted up front.
Mr. Cappello commented that he feels it should be added then.
Mrs. Clark agreed.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels everything should be left in except the last bullet regarding landscaping.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated that he feels the Commission is setting themselves up to lose on appeal.
Ms. Keith suggested language…..”The Applicant has failed to supply the Commission with adequate information as to the current functionality, location and height of existing antenna and equipment already affixed to the existing tower along with submission of what would be reinstalled.”
Ms. Olson noted that the words….”and also failed” should be added.
The Commission noted their agreement.
Ms. Keith continued with the next item…..”AND WHEREAS the Commission has also considered the Special Exception criteria contained in Section VIII of the Regulations and has determined that the proposed tower and Doppler radar equipment does not meet the relevant criteria as follows:
- That the location and size of the proposed use and the nature and intensity of the use in relation to the size of the lot is not in harmony with the orderly development of the area and compatible with other existing residential uses;”
The Commission agreed that the above bullet point should remain.
Mr. Armstrong referred to his earlier comments and noted that he feels the area is deficient in landscaping and additional plantings would be needed and more limited tree cutting.
Ms. Keith asked if information could be added on to the bullet item.
Ms. Olson indicated that she doesn’t think anything needs to be added on but explained that it would be helpful if people would talk about their reasons.
Ms. Keith noted that the next bullet item discusses landscaping and asked Mr. Armstrong if information could be added there.
Mr. Armstrong concurred.
Ms. Keith read the next bullet…..”That the kind, size, location, and height of structure proposed and the nature and extent of the landscaping on the lot are inappropriate for the location and will hinder or discourage the appropriate residential use of adjoining property or diminish the value thereof;”
Mrs. Griffin asked if “inappropriate” should be changed to “inadequate”.
Mr. Kushner noted that the language in the Zoning Regulations cannot be changed; he explained that each Commissioner should state, on the record, their personal thoughts and conclusions, based on the many hours of testimony heard, as to whether the special exception criteria have been satisfied or not and, if so, why.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels the landscaping is inadequate.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she feels the landscaping is both inadequate and inappropriate.
Mrs. Clark asked if both words can be used.
Ms. Olson confirmed that both words could be used.
Mrs. Clark suggested that both inadequate and inappropriate be added to the language.
Mr. Armstrong noted his agreement with Mr. Kushner such that the Commission should track the verbiage and then state their reasons. He conveyed his agreement with Ms. Keith noting his comments regarding inadequate landscaping, too few trees planted, too low height, proposed tree cutting; there needs to be more pruning, as the tower is there already and functional so there are questions about the proposed tree cutting.
Ms. Keith commented that one of the reasons is that the proposed landscaping falls short of what is considered to be a more appropriate screening of the tower.
Mrs. Griffin noted her understanding of Ms. Keith’s comments and asked whether this is what inadequate means.
Mrs. Primeau noted that it’s both inadequate and inappropriate, as they didn’t come up with the right size and they didn’t come up with the right number.
Mr. Armstrong referenced the criteria and noted that the proposed landscaping would discourage the appropriate use of the adjoining property or diminishes the value thereof. Landscaping is inadequate because too few trees were planted, types of trees, trees weren’t planted at the right angles to cover all the transportation along Deercliff Road.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the applicant shows by analysis that all the trees proposed cover all of the dome; the lowest one is 5 feet above so you couldn’t see it from the houses. The applicant showed by taking pictures on the tower that you couldn’t see the front doors of people’s houses and asked how it is inadequate. He noted that everyone can see the tower next to it so that is the standard; the neighborhood is already like that and people built houses in that neighborhood; they could see the towers and asked how it’s much different.
Mr. Armstrong conveyed his opinion that an 18-foot dome makes it different.
Mrs. Clark commented that a dome is different than a tower.
Mr. Armstrong noted that it also changes the visibility from Deercliff Road.
Ms. Keith commented that tree removal is proposed and noted that we don’t know what the impact will be because they are not putting back trees with the height of the trees coming down.
Ms. Keith continued with the next bullet….’That the design elements of the proposed development are unattractive and not suitable in relation to the site characteristics and style of other residential buildings in the immediate area, and that the proposed use will alter the essential characteristics of the otherwise residential area;”
Ms. Keith asked if the same reason pertains.
Mr. Armstrong agreed that the same reason pertains but noted that he suggested earlier that earth tones should be used on the tower and the building and the color of the radome should be considered.
Ms. Keith commented that no option other than gray was provided.
Mrs. Clark noted that either gray or white were the options given.
Mrs. Primeau noted that we don’t know if there are other options.
Mr. Kushner asked if there is anything the applicant can do to satisfy this condition. He asked if it is the Commission’s conclusion that painting the tower a certain color still doesn’t mitigate the issue and there are still concerns.
Ms. Keith commented that she doesn’t feel the tower meets the characteristics of the residential area regardless of the color.
Ms. Keith continued with the next bullet…..”That the proposed addition of the Doppler weather radome will impact property values in the neighborhood;”
Mr. Cappello noted that we don’t have to have it all here.
Mrs. Griffin noted her agreement.
Ms. Keith commented that she went to the site Sunday night and noted that the top of the platform sites above the tree line on Deercliff Road. She noted that there’s a dish and some whip antennas that are 8 feet higher and added that she imagined 18 feet around the treeline.
Mrs. Clark noted that she would not buy a home in that area with a dome.
Mr. Gackstatter asked Mrs. Clark if she would buy a home in that area with the existing towers.
Mrs. Clark confirmed that she would not buy a home in that area with the towers next door.
Mr. Gackstatter asked what the tipping point is. Mrs. Clark indicated that the dome is even worse and added that because of her own beliefs and what she has studied that she would not live near the dome.
Ms. Olson explained that it would be helpful if the Commission considered the testimony heard on property values; she noted that maybe you agree with one of the reports.
Mrs. Clark commented that there was no exact data because there was none out there but she added that she asked herself if her home values would be lowered and confirmed that she believes they would be. She noted that she has had several homes in different areas and added that this is her belief.
Ms. Keith commented that you can see through and look through towers but noted that the radome is a solid space ship that doesn’t really go in a neighborhood.
Ms. Olson mentioned that Ms. Keith’s comment is really a compatibility issue.
Ms. Keith explained that because the radome doesn’t really belong in a neighborhood the property values would change. She noted that people bought homes in the area knowing there were towers in the area that can be seen through but now the proposal is to put up a barn on a pedestal. She noted that she feels people would look at a barn differently than a see-through tower.
Mr. Kushner remembered that the applicant presented information relative to a study done in Farmington and that some of the concerned neighbors hired their own expert, Mr. Kilcommons, who indicated that there really wasn’t any data that he could site however he gave his professional opinion as to what the likely conclusion would be. He referenced Ms. Olson’s earlier recommendation that the Commission will want to have a conversation about the conflicting testimony that’s been received and, in turn, decide which expert is more credible.
Mrs. Clark commented that Ms. Olson noted that the Commission could make their own judgment from the expert testimony because exact data wasn’t available.
Ms. Olson clarified that the experts still provided their professional opinion.
Mrs. Clark noted her agreement with Ms. Olson but indicated that she asked herself what she would do and then confirmed that she would not live near a tower, as she has read about radiation. She indicated that this is her own personal opinion.
Ms. Olson explained that determination is needed as to whether the Commission believes that the subject radome would decrease property values, not necessarily specific to anyone’s personal preference.
Mrs. Clark stated that she believes property values would be decreased by the proposed radome.
Mr. Cappello noted that the bullet point just says that the Doppler will impact property values. He noted that impact could mean either increase or decrease, depending on the person’s viewpoint.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels the testimony is clear that impact would mean negative in this instance.
Ms. Keith asked if the Commission is in agreement that the proposal would have a negative impact on property values.
Ms. Olson asked if the Commission wanted the word “negatively” added….would negatively impact property values. Ms. Keith said yes.
Mr. Armstrong commented that he doesn’t feel there needs to be uniformity on this point. He noted that the proposed landscape helps to mitigate the problem but noted that if there is a deficiency in the applicant’s submission is it that they used a study on cell towers that did not have a conclusion and many of the short descriptions demonstrated a decrease, although minor, in value. He noted that there wasn’t a quantum of evidence to sway him either way.
Ms. Olson explained that, at the end of the day, each Commissioner must vote either for or against the motion that has been raised.
Ms. Keith commented that most of the installations, per the testimony, are done in industrial park areas and not in residential areas. She noted that industrial areas and open fields are chosen because it will negatively impact home values.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that the applicant showed several that were not, they were next to expensive homes. The single installations shown were in a tower field. He noted that his goal is not to say what’s right or wrong but rather to ask whether the Commission is setting itself up to lose on appeal because the applicant showed that you’re probably not going to really tip housing values that much from the structure. People bought in that location based on the towers being there. He noted that he feels to say that this is the reason the Commission should reject the proposal is the wrong reason. He added that he feels there is a reason to reject the proposal but reiterated that he feels this is the wrong reason.
Ms. Olson explained that she doesn’t feel the basis of whether the Commission would win or lose on an appeal is one of the criteria that need to be considered. She reiterated, however, that the Commission’s job is to create an appropriate record of what the decision is based on. She indicated that the Commission is creating a record by articulating their feelings about the various criteria that the Commission is obligated to consider but added that if there are portions of a motion that the majority does not agree on or that would not result in a quorum on the motion then you’re back to square one. She confirmed that a consensus is needed on the major issues.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comment about not agreeing on one bullet point, Mr. Gackstatter noted his understanding but added that there are several bullet points in the denial motion that he doesn’t agree with. He commented that the applicant has provided data and there has been testimony against that data that says that the housing value will be reduced but noted that this really hasn’t been shown. He noted that the expert that talked about housing value would not put anything in writing, for the record, saying that the proposal would reduce housing; the expert only said that he feels it would. The health expert never went on record, in his professional opinion, and did not put anything in writing; he noted that he feels there have been studies and noted that it is his personal
opinion.
Mrs. Clark asked if there is nothing available that the health expert could draw from.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that there is plenty that the health expert could draw from.
Mrs. Griffin asked if the applicant supplied their assurance that things would remain the same.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the applicant did supply the Commission with assurances and added that things don’t have to remain the same. He noted that the applicant showed 5 or 6 locations that have radar that have large houses (Alpine, NJ) that are being sold. The applicant showed that people live next to radar installations and build big houses next door.
Ms. Keith noted that the applicant didn’t prove that the home buyers could have gotten a better price or a lower price for the same house. She noted that houses were built but the information didn’t say whether the homes sold for a maximum price or a diminished price.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the people who built near the subject site did so with the knowledge of existing towers in the area putting out radiation, which set the value of the houses. He noted that the assessor indicated that the closer to the towers you are the less the value per square foot. He noted that the question is whether adding the extra proposed tower tips the situation such that people would now never live there.
Mrs. Clark commented that we’re talking about a dome.
Ms. Olson explained that it doesn’t have to be a case of whether someone would never live there; she added that that is not the criteria.
Mr. Cappello noted that the towers were there before the houses.
Ms. Keith noted that the Commission will have to agree to disagree on this point.
Ms. Keith continued to the next bullet…..”That the proposed use is located in an area where access in an emergency situation is not assured;”
Mr. Cappello indicated that this bullet point should be taken out.
Mrs. Griffin agreed that this bullet point should come out.
Ms. Keith continued with the next bullet….”The proposed plans have not provided sufficient buffering from neighboring properties and will impact the natural features of the area;”. She noted that this is part of the landscaping discussion and added that this bullet could be removed.
Ms. Keith continued with the next bullet….”The applicant has failed to establish that the proposed use will not have any detrimental effects upon the public health, safety, welfare, or property values, or that it will not conflict with the purposed of the Regulations which seek to restrict the impacts of telecommunications towers to what is pre-existing in the area.”
Ms. Olson noted that “tele” would be removed; the word should be “communications”.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that they’re adding less than 1% radiation.
Ms. Keith indicated that she agrees with this bullet point.
Mrs. Griffin commented that it’s the impact of the towers now that something new is being added that wasn’t there before.
Mrs. Clark noted her agreement with Mrs. Griffin.
Mr. Armstrong noted his concern that there is a potential for change in standards that are there and the potential for increased results due to annual reports. He noted that there are safeguards that need to be built in, such as the ability for both on site and off site shut down of the system if the beam becomes stationary or drops below zero degrees to the horizon. He noted that without those conditions he is not comfortable with community welfare.
Ms. Keith commented that the experts on this subject are few and far between because this is new technology and therefore a lot of questions are left outstanding. She noted that even though the application has met the MA criteria, which is stringent, it’s still difficult to find experts to testify. She noted that questions about the future are left unanswered, if it turns out that the MA criteria is not the baseline or the most stringent.
Mr. Kushner noted that 3 experts testified and 2 experts were engineers. The Town’s expert engineer made it clear that he was not an expert in public health, so the expertise is in the predicted radiation. He indicated that Dr. Carpenter was the only public health expert.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that Dr. Carpenter would not go on the record saying that the radiation would be damaging. He noted his disagreement that this is new technology, as it is 60-year old technology and added that there are tons of radiation experts who work for the FCC who have long and debated discourse on public health about radiation. The FCC sets a standard then NIER listens to the FCC; NIER also set a standard. He noted that we then apply those standards; the proposal is only using 30% of the allowable so we are well within the bands of public health in this instance. Mr. Gackstatter noted that the doctor who testified as a radar expert couldn’t get right how radar actually harms the body and added that he doesn’t feel his testimony was very credible in that area.
Mrs. Clark noted that workers must be carrying monitors for a reason.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the workers are carrying monitors for the amount of exposure over time.
Mrs. Clark noted that the people that live nearby will have exposure over time.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that they are clearly under the exposure, as they are getting .003%.
Mrs. Clark asked how you really know for sure.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that it has been defined and measured by 2 experts; the applicant’s engineer and the Town’s engineer provided data.
Mrs. Clark commented that the engineers are not health people.
Mr. Cappello noted the importance of piece of mind.
Mrs. Clark commented that she would not want to live up there with children.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that Mrs. Clark is entitled to her opinion and noted his agreement that the engineers are not health people but noted that they work with numbers. The health people at the FCC and NIER provide the engineers with acceptable numbers for safety that they must operate within and as long as operation takes place within those numbers, it’s a safe area.
Mrs. Clark noted her understanding but added that she doesn’t have to agree with it.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he doesn’t think Mrs. Clark is qualified to do that and added that he doesn’t think anyone on the Commission is qualified to do that.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels it’s a gray area and noted that everyone has said cell phones are safe and now there is new information coming out. She noted that the usage down the road is unknown and asked what happens if the beam comes off center from where it’s supposed to be and gets stuck.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that if we considered every “what if” scenario (i.e, car crashes, plane lands on a house) nothing would ever go on in the world.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Gackstatter noted that he has no problem with the radiation but noted that he doesn’t like the way the towers look and wouldn’t live there for that reason.
Ms. Keith noted that we need to agree to disagree.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that public health safety information exists and added that the Commission delegates that to NIER and FCC. He noted that the Commission has no expertise to say they don’t believe the information and added that he feels it’s dangerous to put things in a document that could be shot down based on those things. He indicated that he is in favor of voting against the proposal but reiterated his concerns about putting things in that the Commission really doesn’t know and have the facts on. He noted that it makes it a weaker argument and so weak that he would vote for it. He indicated that he doesn’t believe the radar should be up there for the reasons he stated but noted that if the Commission keeps putting things in that really aren’t the facts he noted
that he’s not going to vote for it because it’s not the facts.
Mr. Cappello commented that it could just be taken out.
Mr. Gackstatter agreed and noted that it should be taken out.
Mrs. Clark noted that this radiation isn’t even allowed in other countries.
Mr. Cappello suggested a comment noting that the proper safeguards are not in place.
Mr. Kushner explained, for example, that if the Commission cites 10 reasons either for an approval or a denial and there is an appeal, the judge will review the record. He indicated that it could be the case that several reasons are dismissed by the court but there may also be 1 or 2 main arguments that are sufficient to sustain the Commission’s decision.
Ms. Olson explained that there are 2 scenarios that could happen. The Commission provides a formal, collective statement of reasons that everybody agrees with and the court will look to see if there is substantial evidence in the record to support those collective reasons. If the Commission fails to give any reasons the court will search the entire record to determine if there is sufficient information to support their decision. The Statutes ask that reasons be given for decisions but noted that it’s not jurisdictional and the court is not going to overturn the decision on that ground alone but pointed out that that is why the Commission is performing this exercise.
Ms. Keith noted that while there isn’t agreement on every point, the overall context of the motion is what’s important. She commented that a person doesn’t decide not to vote because one paragraph isn’t to their liking, if the rest of the Commission feels that that paragraph is appropriate and the overall consensus is that the Commission has done the right thing regarding a possible court case. She noted that she feels the court is going to look at the parts where there are definite signs of agreement by the Commission and not necessarily at the parts taken out that weren’t agreed to by every commissioner.
Ms. Olson noted her understanding of Ms. Keith’s comments but noted that an accurate collective statement of reasons provided by the Commission is the best approach. She indicated that if the Commission feels the motion should be modified, it should be modified; otherwise, it’s not a collective statement of reason.
Mr. Armstrong commented that the motion on the floor is to deny the application. All the items stated are the reasons of those who would vote against the application. He noted that
Mr. Gackstatter’s reason may be related to the fact that the proposal is not a modification but someone else’s reason may be that it’s not compatible with the neighborhood. He noted that a vote to deny is for all the reasons contained in the motion.
Ms. Olson noted her agreement with Mr. Armstrong but reiterated that the motion should be an accurate statement of the Commission’s reasons. She explained that modifications should be made to the items that are not agreed upon.
Mr. Armstrong noted that items have been deleted that no one has unanimously agreed to.
Ms. Olson noted her understanding and agreement but reiterated that if any of the remaining language is not in keeping with the Commission’s thought process then it should be reviewed.
Mr. Armstrong noted his agreement with Mr. Gackstatter such that the standards have been met but noted his concerns with safeguards, noting that safeguards need to be a part of any approval process. He noted that annual testing would be done and asked what happens if the numbers go way up or if the standards change. He asked that if there was a power shut down and the beam stayed on due to auxiliary power, would there be the ability to shut off the equipment from either offsite or onsite. He asked if the Commission is in agreement with this aspect of the special exception criteria.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the testing is for everything in the area and not just the radar, so you cannot know what specific items the numbers are attributable to; there could be a problem with the tower next to the radar, for example.
Mr. Armstrong noted his agreement and explained that no one is saying that the radar would have to be removed and couldn’t operate but clarified that the matter would have to be brought back before the Commission.
Ms. Keith addressed the last bullet item……”/that for the foregoing reasons, no conditions, terms or modifications to the Application will alleviate the Application’s non-compliance with the relevant Regulations or the intent thereof.”
In response to the Commission’s question, Ms. Olson noted that she doesn’t think the last bullet item is needed. The Commission unanimously decided to eliminate this item.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels that, overall, the Commission is in agreement with the major points in the motion for denial, even though everyone has expressed a lot of different opinions. She noted that these points cannot be resolved in attempting to add conditions to a motion for approval. She noted that the Commission is against some of the very major points of the proposal. She indicated that she feels the Commission can agree to disagree on some issues but the end decision has to be what’s in the best interest of the overall motion.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Ms. Olson explained that the number of votes doesn’t play into the equation. She clarified that the judge is going to look at what the Commission decided and the basis for the decision.
Mrs. Griffin amended her motion to deny Apps. #4708 and #4709 based on the draft motion as amended through the Commission’s discussions. Mrs. Clark seconded the motion.
Ms. Olson read the amended motion for denial…..”WHEREAS the Commission finds that the Application for Site Plan Approval and Special Exception fails to meet the technical requirements of the Regulations for granting the Special Exception as follows:
- The proposed tower and Doppler unit does not constitute a modification to or replacement of an existing communications transmission tower and change in equipment within the meaning of Regulations Section IV.A.4.a.; and
- The Site Plan does not conform to Regulations Section X.A.1.a., for the following reasons, among others:
- The Applicant has failed to provide the Commission with adequate information regarding the functionality, location, and height of existing antenna and equipment already affixed to the existing tower; and also failed to disclose where it would relocate the antenna and equipment that are to be affixed to the reconstructed tower.
AND WHEREAS the Commission has also considered the Special Exception criteria contained in Section VIII of the Regulations and has determined that the proposed tower and Doppler radar equipment does not meet the relevant criteria as follows:
- That the location and size of the proposed use and the nature and intensity of the use in relation to the size of the lot is not in harmony with the orderly development of the area or compatible with other existing residential uses;
- That the kind, size, location and height of the structure proposed and the nature and extent of landscaping on the lot are inadequate and inappropriate for the location and will hinder or discourage the appropriate residential use of adjoining property or diminish the value thereof;
- That the design elements of the proposed development are unattractive and not suitable in relation to the site characteristics and style of other residential buildings in the immediate area, and that the proposed use will alter the essential characteristics of the otherwise residential area;
- That the proposed addition of a Doppler weather radome will negatively impact property values in the neighborhood; and
- That Applicant has failed to establish that the proposed use will not have any detrimental effects upon the public health, safety, welfare, or property values, or that it will not conflict with the purposes of the Regulations which seek to restrict the impacts of communications towers to what is pre-existing in the area.”
Voting in favor of the motion to deny were Mesdames Keith, Griffin, Clark, and Primeau and Messrs. Cappello and Armstrong.
Mr. Gackstatter voted in opposition of the motion to deny.
Ms. Keith indicated that the application is denied.
Mrs. Griffin noted that she has lived in Avon almost her entire life and explained that she has seen the towers in the subject area when there were open fields without all the tress and equipment that is there. She commented that the area looks like a mushroom field now with all the domes on the bottom and suggested that the Regulations need to be changed such that in the future anything that is added has to be approved before its added. She clarified that she doesn’t mean the subject application but rather from here on in. She noted that she feels the equipment on the site should have come to the Commission before because there were provisions in the Regulations but added that she doesn’t think the provisions were followed. She explained that she’s not referring just to the
subject site noting that there are other areas that cannot be walked to see what exists.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comments, Ms. Keith noted that she has discussed this issue with Mr. Kushner and pointed out that while no changes can be made now, she suggested that someone visit the site at some point to look at everything.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he has reviewed the building permit files for this site and noted that there haven’t been very many permits issued in the recent past to add new antennas or equipment. He noted that there is coordination with the Building Official such that the addition of a new dish requires an application to the Commission. He pointed out, however, that cell phone companies are always changing out their equipment and noted that there are many cell phone antennas on the Channel 18 tower, located across the street from the subject site. He noted that while there is a lot of equipment at the subject site and some has probably been there a long time, he reiterated that his review of the files in the Building Department indicates that there haven’t been as many changes as the
Commission may think. He announced that WTIC Radio (located on the adjacent parcel) will be coming before the Commission in the near future to ask for modifications to an emergency generator and antenna that they wish to install to comply with Federal requirements. He noted that a landscape architect has been hired to address aesthetics.
Ms. Keith left the meeting at 10:50pm and turned the meeting over to Mrs. Griffin, Vice Chair.
Mrs. Griffin chaired the rest of the meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Heliport request –Town of West Hartford – Arnold Chase
Arnold Chase was present.
In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission recently sent a referral letter to West Hartford regarding a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations making it possible to establish a heliport in West Hartford. He further explained that the amendment was adopted and now there is an application pending for a heliport. The Commission has been asked to comment on the actual site plan for the proposed heliport. Mr. Kushner noted that any comments to West Hartford are only advisory in nature, as Avon has no regulatory authority but added that this is more than a courtesy on the part of West Hartford as State law requires notification. He pointed out that he learned from his conservations with the Staff in West Hartford that they were interested in the Commission’s comments.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that this issue is completely outside of Avon’s jurisdiction, as there is no physical work being conducted within the Town of Avon.
Mrs. Primeau noted that she feels the first letter sent to West Hartford is fine, which indicates no more than 18 flights per year and that Avon doesn’t allow heliports in residential zones.
Mrs. Griffin’s commented that the first letter could just be resent. Mrs. Primeau agreed that the Commission’s position hasn’t changed.
Mr. Kushner suggested that the Commission could ask West Hartford to consider certain factors to ensure computability with Avon residences. He noted that the overall number of flights per year could be restricted to 18; he noted that Mr. Chase has indicated that he would comply with this request. He commented that a restriction on evening flights could be considered but noted that any flights conducted for emergency purposes would not be restricted.
Mr. Cappello commented that he doesn’t think too much information should be added but noted that restricting the number of flights is fine. Mr. Cappello and Mrs. Clark agreed that any emergency flights would override any regulations.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comments about restricting flight patterns over Avon,
Mr. Kushner explained that most likely flight patterns are controlled by the FAA, although West Hartford could voice their preferences.
Arnold Chase explained that according to the Connecticut Aviation Authority, helicopters can operate either by visual approach or instrument approach.
Mr. Kushner reported that Mr. Chase indicated that no flights are permitted after 8 or 9pm, in accordance with the recently adopted West Hartford Town Ordinance.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he would write a letter to West Hartford on the Commission’s behalf requesting that 18 flights per year be the maximum allowed. The Commission concurred.
App. #4708 - Meredith Corporation dba WFSB-TV, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.a.of Avon Zoning Regulations to replace communications tower and add Doppler Radar weather system, 375 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090375, in an RU2A Zone
App. #4709 - Meredith Corporation dba WFSB-TV, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to replace communications tower and add Doppler Radar weather system, 375 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090375, in an RU2A Zone
Ms. Olson reported that some significant correspondence was received at the Town after the close of the public hearing. She noted that it’s public information and the Commission is permitted to review the information at this point, as a decision has been made on the applications. She explained that Attorney Hollister had sent the Commission a letter relating to a purported conflict of interest by Attorney Dowd by his presentation to the Commission. She added that she believes Attorney Dowd provided a response.
In response to comments from the Commission, Ms. Olson explained that a statement was made that Mr. Dowd’s firm represents Meredith Corporation and therefore he should not have been opposing Meredith Corporation in front of the Commission. She added that there was also an email received after the close of the hearing noting concerns about electromagnetic radiation. She explained that this information was intentionally not shared with the Commission before the vote in order to maintain the integrity of the process but noted that it is now ok for the Commission to read this information.
15 and 21 Industrial Drive – Zoning Map Correction for ROW from Residential to Industrial
Mr. Kushner stated that “before” and “after” colored maps were included in the Commission’s agenda package showing the correction to the Zoning Map; he noted that the correct zone is industrial. (The map was revised to correctly reflect the zone for the ROW area for both
15 and 21 Industrial Drive as industrial, rather than residential.) He referenced Attorney Meyers presentation at the June 10 meeting; Mr. Kushner clarified that, based on recent research, this map change is a correction to correctly reflect what was approved in the past.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on June 24, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4720 - Geoffrey and Kelly Nevins, owners/applicants, request for 2-lot Resubdivision, 10.3 acres, 408 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090408, in an RU2A Zone APPROVED
App. #4708 - Meredith Corporation dba WFSB-TV, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.a.of Avon Zoning Regulations to replace communications tower and add Doppler Radar weather system, 375 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090375, in an RU2A Zone DENIED
App. #4709 - Meredith Corporation dba WFSB-TV, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to replace communications tower and add Doppler Radar weather system, 375 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090375, in an RU2A Zone DENIED
Dated at Avon this 25th day of June, 2014. 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, July 15, 2014, at 7:30 pm at the Avon Town Hall on the following:
App. #4724 Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to sale and service of Manufacturer Certified Pre-Owned Motor Vehicles; Avon West Main, LLC, applicant
App. #4725 - Jeannette and Martin Weichhardt, owners, Jeannette Weichhardt, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.q. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit accessory apartment,
25 Copplestone, Parcel 1910025, in an R30 Zone
App. #4726 Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations to permit reduction in overall landscaped area for redeveloped sites in the Industrial Zone; Avon Business Park, LLC, applicant
App. #4728 Avon Business Park, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.H.3.k. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit storage and dispatch of school buses, 15 and 21 Industrial Drive, Parcels 2870015 and 2870021, in an I Zone
App. #4730 - Stephen Miller, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.G. 4.f.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit garage construction in the floodplain, 165 Secret Lake Road, Parcel 3890165, in an R15 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 June, 2014.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Linda Keith, Chair Carol Griffin, Vice Chair
| 
