The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, July 15, 2014. Present were Carol Griffin, Vice Chair, Peter Mahoney, Christian Gackstatter, Joseph Gentile, and Alternate Elaine Primeau; Mrs. Primeau sat for the meeting. Absent were Linda Keith, Chair, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, and Tom Armstrong. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mrs. Griffin called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve the minutes of the June 10, 2014, meeting, as submitted. Dr. Gentile seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
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
David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers, LLC, was present.
The public hearing was continued from June 24.
Mr. Whitney explained that the original proposal was for a 4-lot subdivision; 3 front lots and 1 rear lot. The proposal has been revised to propose 3 front lots; the rear lot has been eliminated. He noted that the subject site is 2 existing lots of record and there is an existing house at 354 Huckleberry Hill Road. Approval has been received from the Inland Wetlands Commission for proposed work within the 100-foot review area. He noted that a conservation restriction area totaling 1.7 acres, 34% of the site, is proposed around the entire perimeter of the site. The proposed grading has been reduced significantly. The density calculation permits 5 lots on this site; a plan for 5 front lots was displayed at an earlier meeting. He noted that the Engineering Department has
submitted a memo, dated July 15, stating that they feel there would be no adverse downstream storm water impacts due to the proposed grading. He commented that the Engineering Department also indicated that while diverting storm water runoff from its current course by grading the proposed site may improve existing conditions at the adjacent site at 370 Huckleberry Hill Road but would have potential to create runoff problems on the west side of Huckleberry Hill Road. Therefore, the Engineering Department does not suggest regrading the subject site to divert runoff. Mr. Whitney explained that the proposed driveway for the rear lot (part of the original 4-lot proposal) would intercept water flowing down towards the existing house located at 370 Huckleberry Hill and be diverted to the storm drainage system in Huckleberry Hill Road, reducing the runoff onto the neighbor’s property. He further indicated that he agrees with the Town Engineer’s opinion such
that now that the proposed disturbance to the site is significantly less, the existing drainage patterns should be maintained. Mr. Whitney noted that the water that currently flows to the neighbor’s property would continue to do so but noted that development of the proposed 3-lots is located in the water shed that will flow down to the existing catch basin and not onto the neighbor’s property. Mr. Whitney concluded by noting that reducing the proposal to 3 lots and by reducing grading and site disturbance, the exact same storm water runoff pattern that exists today would be maintained.
Mr. Whitney reviewed his bulleted list for “P&Z Application #4716”, submitted to the Commission, at the July 15 meeting. He noted that the site is not being developed to its maximum potential. Site disturbance has been reduced, as the rear lot has been eliminated.
The conservation restriction area proposed is 1.7 acres, 34% of the total site, which is more than 3 times the minimum requirement (open space).
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Whitney confirmed, in connection with tree cutting and grading along Huckleberry Hill Road, that the southerly most area will also be graded; grading occurs 10 feet back from the property line (within the Town’s ROW). He clarified that no grading would occur in the wetlands but explained that several trees will be cut down to improve sight lines, as permission has been granted by the Wetlands Commission.
Mr. Whitney noted that a row of boulders would be installed along the edge of the conservation restriction area.
Mrs. Griffin asked about some kind of marking/delineation around the entire perimeter of the conservation restriction to alert people where the boundaries are so they know where no activities are permitted.
Mr. Whitney noted that there aren’t enough boulders to go around the entire area but indicated that perhaps signage could be installed on the trees.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she would like something more substantial than signs and suggested a stone wall; something that can’t be moved. She noted her concerns that people forget where boundaries are and added that she wants to make sure this area stays clear and open, like a typical open space area.
Mr. Gackstatter suggested large boulders at the corners.
Mr. Kushner suggested possibly pressure-treated posts to mark the edge of the conservation area with signs and added that this item could be addressed as a condition of approval. Mrs. Griffin concurred.
Mr. Whitney communicated that the applicant will comply with whatever the Commission requires.
Mr. Whitney continued the review of his bulleted list noting that the first 20 feet of driveways would be at 2% grade; the maximum grade is 10% (maximum allowable is 14%). He noted that the longest driveway is approximately 250 feet.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concerns regarding icy conditions, Mr. Whitney explained that the grading plan shows that water will be directed away from the house and the driveway.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Whitney stated, on behalf of the applicant, that App. #4717 is withdrawn.
Mr. Kushner reported that the July 14, 2014, supplemental report from the Town Engineer agrees with Mr. Whitney’s presentation in connection with drainage impacts.
Rick Walker, representing the owner Gladys Walker, noted that his family was involved with creation of the Berkshire Crossing subdivision; he also noted that his family has owned the subject site for 5 generations. He indicated his approval of the conservation area noting that he is very familiar with the field, as he was born and raised on this site.
There being no further input, the public hearing for Apps. #4716 and #4717 was closed.
App. #4722 - Proposed amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development pertaining to Chapter 11, Neighborhood Goals and Policies; Town of Avon, applicant
Mr. Mahoney motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4722 to the next meeting, scheduled for September 9. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
App. #4723 - Proposed amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to detached identification signs in commercial zones; Town of Avon, applicant
Mr. Mahoney motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4723 to the next meeting, scheduled for September 9. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
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
Present to represent App. #4724 were Tom Regan, representing Avon West Main, LLC, an affiliate of New Country Motor Cars; Jared Cantanucci, VP, New Country Motor Car Group; Tim Parker, General Manager of New Country Motor Car Group for Hartford area facilities/dealerships; and Robert M. Meyers, on behalf of the property owner.
Attorney Regan explained that the proposal is a text amendment that has been worked on for several months with Town Staff and Attorney Meyers, who represents the property owner. The text amendment would allow for the sale of certified pre-owned manufactured dealerships in the CR zone. He explained that the Zoning Regulations currently allow only new car dealerships. Mr. Regan noted his understanding of the history, noting that years ago there was a lot of open land on Route 44 and there were concerns of automotive uses taking over. He explained that the proposed use is not a use that existed years ago; years ago there were new car dealerships and used car lots. He indicated that the subject proposal is neither but explained that it is similar to a new car dealership, a certified manufacturers’ pre-owned facility. He noted that the location would have to be approved by an automotive manufacturer, which is the same standard required for a new car dealership. He further
explained that a used car lot sells any vehicles, and all makes and models, not approved and not reviewed by a new car dealership. Mr. Regan indicated that if the amendment is approved, the proposed facility would be for a BMW dealership. He noted that language has been incorporated into the proposed text amendment to offer protection such that 70%, at a minimum, of the cars sold at the facility would have to be the make/model of the approved manufacturer.
Jared Cantanucci indicated that his Company is family owned, from Saratoga Springs, NY. He noted that his dealerships are located in Saratoga Springs, Hartford, Greenwich, Westport, and Palm Beach, Florida. He conveyed his understanding of the high standard demands in Avon for architecture and the wish to not have used car lots; he added that the building would be commensurate with Avon and the BMW brand. He explained that the dealerships he purchased in Hartford, over 20 years ago, have been turned into 2 of the most beautiful facilities in New England.
Mr. Regan commented that the existing facilities, as noted by Mr. Cantanucci, are incredible and noted that that is what would be built in Avon; a first class dealership, essentially a new car dealership. He noted that 2 books were submitted to the Commission (BMW certified pre-owned program and photos of existing facility locations). He explained that the majority of sales would be manufacturer certified and reiterated that more than 70% would have to be BMW. He added that some low mileage loaner cars still covered under manufacturer warranty would also be sold. Mr. Regan pointed out that he is a 20-year Avon resident, adding that he feels this facility would be welcomed by the community.
Mr. Regan addressed the site (279 West Main Street) and noted that he has submitted a preliminary design drawing for a potential site layout; the property is fairly narrow with wetlands surrounding it. He noted that the site is approximately 9 acres but only about 4 acres would be used; similar access points would be used. A high-end showroom with a display area and 8 service bays and a couple of detailing stations would be proposed; parking would be for about 160 vehicles, counting display, storage, and cars coming in for maintenance. He noted that landscaping would be proposed all the way around and input for the building design would be worked out between Town Staff and BMW’s architect. Mr. Regan confirmed that no architectural drawings would be started until approval is granted for the
text amendment. He added that the building design would fit with the Town’s character and added that visible from Route 44 would be some display cars and a nice building façade, as the majority of the building would extend back onto the site. Mr. Regan indicated that many BMW buyers are Valley residents and noted that a service facility in Avon would be much more convenient; the proposed facility would be a good enhancement to Route 44. He explained that there are only 2 potential properties on Route 44 in Avon where the proposed facility could be accomplished. He concluded by noting that he feels the proposed text amendment builds in all the protections that the Town would have for a new car dealership and added that he feels the proposed text is more restrictive than the current Regulation language for a new car dealership.
Mrs. Griffin asked what inspections and certifications will be offered to the public for the 30% of vehicle sales that are not included in the category of certified pre-owned manufacturers’ vehicles.
In response to Mrs. Griffin, Mr. Cantanucci explained that the BMW brand must be protected; there would not be Suzuki sales out front but further explained that if someone trades in an Audi there are motor vehicle inspection requirements. He explained that the only vehicles he is allowed to certify are BMWs; this is the way the industry works. He noted that vehicles that fall with the 30% would have to meet internal reconditioning and safety standards, as mandated by State and Federal law. Mr. Cantanucci confirmed that he is not in the business of putting out vehicles that would put customers in harm’s way or create customer service problems.
Mr. Regan pointed out that 30% is much more restrictive than what currently exists in the Regulations for new car sales. There are no ratios, currently, for new car sales, such that a new car dealership could open and sell more than 30% as used cars without any restrictions.
Mr. Kushner explained that when the current Regulations were put in place there was no such thing as a certified pre-owned manufacturers’ program. There were new car sales and used car sales, accessory to a new car dealership without a specific percentage. He pointed out that the word “accessory” has meaning, such that it is subordinate to the principal use and a judgment is made. He commented that the Commission is being asked to consider the relationship between certified pre-owned cars versus used cars, rather than new car sales versus used cars.
Mrs. Primeau commented that certified pre-owned is another name for used cars and asked why some new cars couldn’t also be included.
Mr. Cantanucci indicated that he wishes he could sell new cars but explained that there are State franchise laws that prohibit it. He noted that his dealership is located in Hartford and he is not allowed to put a new car dealership in Avon; he added that he has been approved for a certified, pre-owned and service facility as an amenity for the customers living in this area.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about a new car dealership, Mr. Regan explained that there have been discussions with BMW and based on the franchise agreement there is no opportunity to open a new car dealership in Avon.
Mr. Cantanucci explained that BMW must consider the franchise laws for every State and cannot grant exceptions.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about what constitutes 20% of the vehicles, Mr. Cantanucci explained that when people come in for service they are given a loaner car to use for a day or so. He indicated that the loaner cars are low mileage, under 10K miles, and don’t need to be certified as they are still under manufacturer warranty. He noted that the proposal is for 8 to 10 service bays with 1 car in each bay.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Cantanucci estimated 25 cars per day maximum for service.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Regan explained that the service bay cars are allocated and part of the 160 total number of vehicles.
Mr. Kushner pointed out that tonight’s review is about the proposed text amendment and not the site plan. The question is whether or not the Commission would vote to approve the proposed language. He explained that the applicant is representing and believes that the proposed use would function much like a new car dealership and the Commission must decide whether they feel comfortable amending the Regulations. The Commission would have, in the future, opportunity to review all the details of this proposal, should the Regulations be amended.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Cantanucci explained that 20% of the vehicles would have very low mileage and carry the balance of the manufacturers’ new vehicle warranty, which is better than the certified pre-owned program. He further explained that these cars are still BMWs and are essentially new cars with low mileage (from 2K to 10K miles). It is better for the customer to maintain the existing new vehicle warranty.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns that this site would become a service location, rather than either a used car, new car, or pre-owned dealership. He noted that the site is surrounded by wetlands. He added that he feels the proposed amendment should include language relative to the percent of revenue from sales versus the percent of revenue from service; there should be a limit for the percent of revenue from sales versus service revenue. He noted that a service business is different than a pre-owned use car dealership. He suggested that if the business is going to be pre-owned dealership, 75% of revenue should be from sales. He noted that he would like to see sales revenue information from other used car dealerships.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question regarding whether the revenue breakdown (sales vs. service) for the proposed facility would be comparable to the Hartford facility, Mr. Cantanucci stated that he hasn’t given that enough thought but explained that the Hartford facility has 34 service bays.
Mr. Cantanucci addressed Mr. Gackstatter and explained that he isn’t sure his suggested language would be protective because the vehicle sales price is very high.
Mr. Gackstatter clarified that he wasn’t looking for figures from the Hartford facility but rather from other pre-owned facilities, similar to the subject proposal. He noted his concerns that the proposed facility would be a service station for all the owners living in the Valley, so they don’t have to drive to Hartford.
Mr. Kushner explained that the specifics and details of a proposed certified car dealership would be reviewed at a later date in connection with a special permit application. He further explained that the current Regulations allow service facilities and noted that someone could apply today for nothing but a service facility, by special permit discretion of the Commission, in the CR zone on Route 44.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns about having a lot of service vehicles on tarmac surrounded by wetlands.
Mr. Kushner confirmed that the Inland Wetlands Commission would review any proposal near the wetlands. He reiterated that tonight’s discussion involves a possible amendment to the Regulations and not whether the Commission is comfortable with a specific site or this particular proposal.
Mr. Regan noted that if BMW wanted a satellite facility to only service cars that could be done by applying for a special permit; the proposed text amendment would not be needed. He clarified that the intent is for car sales and not service, and if new car sales were permitted, the proposal would be for a new car dealership.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concern that the proposed regulation applies to everyone who might want to apply for this use and commented that the service component must be considered and suggested that language specific to service be included.
Mrs. Primeau noted that she isn’t pleased with the current wording of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Cantanucci explained that he went to great lengths to make the language as tight as possible such that it isn’t an open door for everyone.
Mr. Kushner explained that language relating to service never came up during conversations at the Staff level but noted that it was discussed/acknowledged that the relationship between service and sales would be similar to the same relationship that exists in a new car dealership. He indicated that every new car dealership has a large number of service bays.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that individuals who bought cars in the Hartford dealership could have their cars serviced in Avon. Mr. Cantanucci concurred and explained that it is his understanding that people could do that today, under the current Zoning Regulations.
In response to Mr. Cantanucci’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that he could apply for a special permit for a service facility.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Cantanucci explained that the Hartford facility has 32 service bays. Mr. Kushner noted that the proposal is for approximately 8 service bays in Avon. Mr. Cantanucci concurred. Mr. Cantanucci further explained that, initially, he would like to have 6 BMW technicians; he added that some cars require 6 to 7 hours of diagnostic programming.
Mrs. Primeau commented that certified pre-owned cars are the same as used cars; a used car lot. She noted that there will be other cars on the lot other than BMWs.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that the proposed language would allow different types of used cars, such as Suzuki, which are low-end, cheap import cars; very different from a BMW. He asked when a pre-owned car becomes a used car.
In response to concerns from Mrs. Primeau and Mr. Gackstatter, Mr. Kushner explained that the subject applicant is the only person, in the last 25 years, who has shown interest in opening a certified pre-owned facility. He noted that he doesn’t think there is a big demand for this use and explained that, at this time, there are only a limited number of manufacturers that even offer certified pre-owned programs. He stressed that the Commission is reserving rights/discretion through the special permit process to make judgments about each application individually as to whether it does or does not meet/comply with the special exception criteria under the Regulations. He indicated that Firestone Tire has been looking for a site on Route 44 for several years; Firestone Tire has a small retail showroom
(similar to Town Fair Tire) with a large number of repair bays. He reiterated that tonight’s discussion is only about the possibility of making it possible for someone to apply for a certified pre-owned facility. He indicated that the subject applicant could apply, under the current Regulations, for a new car Lexus dealership.
Mrs. Primeau noted her concerns that other dealerships could come in if the amendment is passed and they could change from used car to manufacturers’, certified pre-owned.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Cantanucci confirmed that 70% of the cars would be BMWs and clarified that of that 70%, some cars would be certified and some cars would be the aforementioned low-mileage cars. He confirmed that all the cars would be BMWs. Mrs. Primeau commented that she is not comfortable with the proposal.
Mr. Kushner indicated that used car lots tend to bring up a visual image (i.e, sites with trailers and car hoods raised with flags/banners, etc) of sites with nothing but used cars, without a service facility or retail showroom. Those cars are not taxable as there is no permanent facility. He explained that, in his view, what is being asked for consideration tonight is not a used car lot but rather a new car dealership with a new name, certified pre-owned.
Mrs. Primeau noted her concerns that there is a car dealership at the beginning of Route 44 and a couple at the end and there is only 2.5 miles of Route 44 in Avon. She reiterated her concerns with opening up the possibility for other used car dealerships and the beginning of a trend.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that used car lots tend to bring in supportive type services/businesses such as shops for paint, parts, brakes, mufflers, and general repairs.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comment, Mr. Kushner explained that towns need services, such as body shops and muffler shops. He further explained that towns set up zoning regulations that allow these types of uses either by right or special permit because towns recognize these needed services. He pointed out that Avon allows most of the aforementioned services in the same zoning district as the subject proposal, which is the CR (commercial retail) zone. He indicated that a new auto parts store just opened in Town; this use/business is allowed by right. He explained that he doesn’t think there is a direct correlation such that an approval for a certified pre-owned facility would automatically result in an influx in the aforementioned related uses/businesses.
In response to comments from Mrs. Primeau and Mr. Gackstatter, Mr. Regan explained that the applicant wants to be located on Route 44 in Avon; the other facilities are located in similar communities such as Greenwich, Westport, Palm Beach, Florida, and Saratoga Springs, NY.
Mr. Regan explained that a lot of effort has been channeled into this site and the applicant has worked hard with Town Staff, as it is believed that the proposed facility would be good for Avon.
Dr. Gentile asked that if the text amendment is approved whether the Town can still reserve the right to say no to other dealerships.
In response to Dr. Gentile’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission has discretion with any future application, such that the Commission would have to grant special permit approval. The applicant would have to demonstrate compliance with all the special exception criteria, including the language discussed tonight by Mr. Regan, as well as the language contained in Section VIII of the Regulations (i.e., no adverse impact on property values, etc.) He further explained that the Commission doesn’t have the right to just say yes or no, at will, but the special exception criteria vests the Commission with significant discretion to review each site/proposal. Some sites on Route 44 have direct access to a traffic light, allowing for greater volumes of traffic and some sites are well
buffered to residential uses while some sites are adjacent to residences.
Mr. Regan noted that there are not a lot of properties on Route 44 where the proposed facility could be located; he noted that an extensive search was done. He noted that the proposed dealership facility is a very expensive venture, adding that it would be much less expensive to propose just a service facility. He indicated that the applicant wants to give Avon something that is commensurate with the New Country brand, which is the highest of quality.
Mr. Kushner explained that he feels if the proposed facility is done right, with the brand recognition that a high-end dealership possesses, that it could have a very positive effect on the Route 44 corridor, as opposed to some of the negatives commonly associated with car dealerships. He noted that the facility would be first class and indicated that he is convinced that the site would be managed as well if not better than existing dealerships in the area. Mr. Kushner reiterated that he believes the proposed facility has potential to have a positive impact on the commercial Route 44 corridor and could generate a good amount of tax revenue.
Mr. Regan explained that the retail market has changed dramatically, noting that the proposed use is very high end and added his agreement with Mr. Kushner that it would add to the existing character on Route 44.
In response to Dr. Gentile’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that should the facility be approved and the building constructed, the approval could be worded to the specific testimony and representations made by the applicant such that if the building were ever sold in the future, the new owner would have to operate the new business in exactly the same manner. He further explained that this scenario would be unlikely, as conditions can not usually be duplicated by another business.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Kushner concurred that if the dealership went out of business and there wasn’t a new, identical business to replace it, the building would become vacant. He explained that this scenario could occur, and has, in other locations in Town, such as when the 99 Restaurant ceased operating in the Nod Brook Mall; that tenant space is still vacant. He indicated that if a use is permitted by right, no application to the Commission is needed; if the use is approved by special permit, the Commission has discretion under the Regulations and an application is required.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that he is fine with the proposed language but noted that he would like to see sales versus service addressed. He added that while he has issues with wetlands and design elements he acknowledged his understanding that this information would be addressed during a site plan review.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Regan explained that the” term” certified, manufacturer pre-owned must be approved by an automobile manufacturer. He noted that this holds true for a new car dealership, such that you cannot have a new car dealership unless that dealership is certified by a manufacturer of the cars to be sold.
Mr. Kushner explained that the quality and value of certified pre-owned cars is generally equal to or above the average sale price of an average new USA car. He added that his understanding is that the average price of a new car is approximately $28K and noted that the applicant has indicated that the average sales price of certified pre-owned cars is substantially higher. Mr. Cantanucci concurred.
Mr. Kushner asked if the applicant would be willing to add language to the proposed amendment to address the relationship between service and sales to provide some discretion to the Commission. Mr. Regan indicated that he would not have a problem with it.
Mr. Cantanucci suggested the following language…..”service revenue at any point could not exceed sales revenue”.
Mr. Gackstatter indicated that he feels the language should say something like “comparable to other dealerships within the metro area”.
Mesdames Griffin and Primeau commented that they don’t see how this issue could be enforceable.
Mr. Kushner suggested that language could be added stating that the predominant use is the sale of new cars and service is accessory and subordinate to sales and the Commission reserves the right to request additional information.
Mr. Regan explained that the meaning of “accessory” in zoning law can be 25% to 30% at maximum.
Mr. Cantanucci explained that an approval for just a service facility would be much more easily acquired. He acknowledged that he does not have a crystal ball and noted that it’s possible that no one would want to purchase a car from this location and would prefer to shop in Hartford or some other location and just use the Avon location for service. He indicated that if this were to be the case, he will have overbuilt and spent a lot of money for little return.
Mr. Regan noted his agreement with Mr. Kushner that the Commission would have an opportunity to review the facility proposal during the application process (if the text amendment is approved), as impacts to adjoining properties and traffic concerns would have to be addressed.
Dr. Gentile indicated that he doesn’t want to look at the existing building on this site for the next 20 years and added that he feels the proposed dealership would be much more of an asset than what exists now. He clarified that he’s not necessarily saying that the Commission should vote for a dealership because it’s better than what may come along but reiterated that the site, right now, is not contributing to the Town.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns with the proposed amendment language such that it could apply to any site in Town. He confirmed that he’s fine with the proposed facility and agreed that it would look better than what now exists.
Mr. Mahoney conveyed his position that he has no problem with the proposed amendment. He added that the Commission could review a proposal if application is made.
Attorney Bob Meyers, representing the property owners, indicated that the Rotondo family is one of the longest and best known families in Town. He noted that the Rotondo family has health concerns and that is why the property is under contract for sell to Mr. Cantanucci’s family. Mr. Meyers noted that the Rotondo family asks for approval of the proposed regulation change. The property is long and narrow with wetlands issues and due to the shape of the parcel typical stores like Walgreens and CVS utilizing square buildings wouldn’t work. Mr. Meyers explained that while he thought the sale of BMWs would work out fine, significant time was put into the proposed amendment to include extensive language relative to warranties and elitist concepts that were perhaps discriminatory in nature. He noted that the final product is the language submitted tonight. He stated that in 1955 (when zoning began in Avon) Route 44 was wide open and a legitimate concern existed that it would turn
into a used car lot strip. He noted that there is only one other spot on Route 44 where the subject proposal is possible (area of 213 West Main) and added that it isn’t probable in our lifetime. He acknowledged that while the theoretical concerns presented by the Commission are correct, he explained that, in practicality, they are really not going to occur.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s questions, Mr. Cantanucci explained that the newest BMW dealership is located in Watertown, CT. He further explained that distance is not the only issue, indicating that there are also franchise laws in each State and each franchise owner is given a primary area of responsibility. He added that the franchise laws are in place to protect the franchise owners and their market area.
Mrs. Primeau indicated that she cannot believe the State, having 169 towns, would say that the distance between Avon and Watertown is too close. Mr. Meyers stated that he said the exact same thing to the applicant and explained that it isn’t the State that establishes the locations, its BMW, but added that State law allows for State enforcement. He noted that BMW is not flexible and added that he made the applicant prove to him what BMW allows.
Mr. Cantanucci explained that BMW has never allowed any of their other dealers (350 in the USA) to just pick any town within their area and further noted that if BMW did this for one dealer they would have to do it for others. He commented that his area is 14 miles around his dealership and Avon is part of his area. He concluded by noting that he has had his dealership since 1994.
Bruce Cagenello, commercial broker for over 40 years, noted that he thinks the subject proposal would be super for Avon. It would be great for business and bring more people into Town; there is currently a lot of space that isn’t leased.
Mike Kohlhoff, 213 Haynes Road, noted that he feels the proposal is a good idea adding that he doesn’t see certified pre-owned BMWs as used cars because he bought and was happy with a certified pre-owned car (although not BMW).
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4724 was closed.
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
No one was present for App. #4725.
Mrs. Griffin indicated that because no one was present for App. #4725, that the hearing should be closed.
The public hearing for App. #4725 was closed.
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. #4727 - Avon Business Park, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct parking area for school buses, 15 and 21 Industrial Drive, Parcels 2870015 and 2870021, in an I Zone
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
Present was Attorney Robert M. Meyers, representing the applicant; Frank Mairano, Avon Business Park, LLC; and Henry Moore and Mike Turner, Specialty Transportation.
Mr. Meyers explained that the Town changed school bus providers and a place to park the buses is needed. In order to make room to fit the buses at 15 Industrial Drive, a reduction in required landscaping is needed. The current Regulation doesn’t include the Industrial zone; App. #4726 proposes to add the Industrial zone to the existing zones where an applicant can ask for a landscape waiver and allow 40% coverage for redeveloped sites. Mr. Meyers indicated that Apps. #4727 (site plan) and #4728 (special exception) won’t work without this regulation change.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he feels the proposed regulation change is reasonable, as it gives property owners incentive to invest money in connection with site redevelopment.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that tonight’s requests include only the text amendment, the special exception for the bus parking use, and a limited site plan to construct bus parking. He added that the text amendment (40% landscape waiver) will need to be effective for submission of a full site plan application, which would be submitted in September; the text amendment is not needed for tonight’s special exception and site plan.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained/clarified that the decisions for the Commission’s consideration tonight are:
- Is the Commission comfortable amending the Regulations.
- The owner would like site plan approval only for Phase I of the project; Phase I involves the construction of the parking lot this summer to accommodate 40 buses. He clarified that no building is being asked for, just the parking lot.
Mrs. Griffin noted her concerns that the parking lot could be constructed in areas where landscaping would be required. She noted that the proposed amendment should be addressed first.
There was no input from the audience for App. #4726.
Mr. Meyers addressed App #4728, a request for special exception for bus parking use. He explained that the request is for bus storage, dispatching, and maintenance. He noted that it seems like a reasonable use in this zone, as it has been ongoing for years across the street from the subject site.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that a new building is proposed (site plan application planned for September) in conjunction with bus dispatch; the existing building (Brunoli) would not be used for this purpose. He further explained that for now, operation will have to occur without a building; a trailer will be needed.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Frank Mairano, owner, explained that there is an existing building on the site and noted that it is fully occupied (Hartford Courant and a mechanical contractor) and has been for some time. H noted that he has owned the property at 15/21 Industrial Drive for about 10 years and that there has been bus parking across the street for many years. He indicated that the proposal for a new building (site plan application in September) would be used by “Specialty Transportation”, who would like a very upscale building to serve the Town and also respect the neighbors. He explained that he cannot apply for site plan approval with a 10% landscape waiver until the proposed amendment is approved.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the proposed parking lot would be located between the 2 buildings (between the existing building and the proposed new building). Mr. Mairano concurred and explained that the subject site was always intended to have 3 buildings (the existing building, a center building, and one on the end). He noted that the proposed bus parking lot takes up the space of where one of those buildings would be located. He explained that the area needed for paving of the proposed parking lot is actually more than what would be needed if there was actually a building there, with adequate parking and circulation; he pointed out that this additional area is the reason he needs the 10% waiver (App. #4726 – text amendment).
Mrs. Griffin commented that if a reduction in required landscaping is being requested, enough area must be left for an excellent landscape program and added that proof must be provided to the Commission that the aforementioned 10% reduction is deserved. She noted that the current entrance to the apartments (Towpath) located beyond the subject site is not very attractive; she added that some landscaping may need to be added in front of the existing building on the site.
Mr. Mairano explained that Industrial Drive (Town owned) ends in a cul-de-sac which feeds into the condominium properties and noted that this entrance will be addressed as part of the aforementioned site plan proposal in September.
Mrs. Griffin noted her understanding but indicated that if paving is placed in areas where landscaping is expected, the paving would have to be removed. She reiterated that the 10% waiver/reduction is not as of right. Mr. Mairano acknowledged his complete understanding and noted that “Step A” is the proposed regulation change; “Step B” is the proposed parking lot; and “Step C” is the proposed future new building (application in September).
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Mairano stated that no trees would be removed for the parking lot construction (Step B); the existing condition is a grass field. The parking area would drain to the existing drainage system.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that site plan for the new building is planned for September. The applicant is required to submit, in conjunction with the site plan application, an application/request for special exception in connection with the request for the 10% landscaping waiver. He further explained that the Commission will have discretion in connection with the request for the 10% landscape waiver. He clarified that Mr. Mairano would like approval to build the proposed parking lot this summer. The site plan proposed to be submitted for September would include photographs of the newly constructed parking lot.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concern, Attorney Meyers explained that the applicant understands and accepts the risks of parking lot construction prior to site plan approval for the new building.
Mr. Mairano pointed out that he is taking a risk by building this parking lot but noted that he has done all the planning up front and indicated that he feels confident that the Commission will be happy with the site plan presented in September. He explained that parking for buses in needed in August.
Mr. Kushner explained that Mr. Mairano understands all the risks in building the parking lot and knows that changes/modifications could be requested by the Commission in connection with landscaping and the new building.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner indicated that he believes the Regulations require that 20% of every parking lot, including those in industrial areas, be landscaped but explained that, in this instance, it is not possible to have landscaped islands in a way that would accommodate for 40 school buses. He suggested that possibly landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot could provide compensation. Mrs. Griffin commented that adequate screening should be provided so the school buses are not visible on this site, as buses are already visible on the other side of the road.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s request, Mr. Mairano explained that because the buses will be tightly parked, he has gone after every inch of green space possible to the rear of the site.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels the landscaping belongs in the front of the site, towards the road.
Mr. Mairano noted that he feels the landscaping should be in the rear. He explained that Towpath Condominiums are located in the front and Old Farms Crossing to the rear, which is considerably farther away. He noted that there is 115 feet between his property line and the first building, noting his concerns are for sounds and bus startup time.
Henry Moore, Site Manager for bus operation in Avon, explained that the first buses would leave the site at 6:15am (school starts at 7:20am). He noted that the buses will be brand new and very quiet, with no need for idling.
Mr. Mairano explained that only the CREC buses (smaller version) are maintained across the street. He noted that you don’t have to wait for warm up on the new buses, so there shouldn’t be issues with sounds from bus engine startup. He explained that the reason he feels landscaping should be concentrated in the rear is because that provides the most barrier to the closest neighbor.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question regarding compliance with Town noise standards,
Mr. Moore indicated that he would be very conscientious about complying with every regulation from signs to tracking drivers. He noted that every effort would be made to mitigate noise and added that the fleet is turned over every 5 years on average.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question regarding sound levels measured by an expert, Mr. Moore explained that his other bus yards operate in industrial areas, which are 24-hour operations with no restrictions but acknowledged that the subject site is not 24. He clarified that he would be happy to become familiar with the noise standards in Avon.
Mr. Mairano noted that backup alarms operate at 107 decibels, which is the equivalent of standing 3 feet away from a lawn mower.
Mr. Kushner commented that he believes a standard lawnmower is closer to 75 decibels and noted that while the subject site is located in an industrial zone, it is surrounded by residential homes and complaints have been received, in the past, about backup alarms at other sites.
Mr. Meyers indicated that he confirmed with Mr. Moore that the buses will be parked such that in the morning they will only move forward and no backup alarms would be used. He explained that when the buses return to the yard, when most people are at work, backup alarms would be used.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mike Turner, VP of Specialty Transportation, explained that buses arriving back at the site late at night (night sports) would not need to use backup alarms because spots can be left open such that they only need to drive forward to park and also don’t need to back up the next morning.
Mr. Kushner reported that the Town Engineer has indicated their concerns relating to the adequacy of storm drainage in the area; however, the Town Engineer believes that the drainage issues can be resolved and asked that if site plan approval is granted tonight that a condition be added giving the Engineering Department discretion to obtain additional information and require whatever measures are needed to address drainage issues.
Mr. Meyers stated that the applicant would agree with requirements of the Town Engineer.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4728 was closed.
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
Present were David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers, LLC, representing the owner, and Stephen Miller, owner.
Mr. Whitney explained that existing house is on piers and is one-story with less than 1,200 SF; there is no basement, no garage, no suitable parking area, and very little attic. Most of the site is below the 100-year floodplain and located within 100 feet of Secret Lake. He noted that the proposal is for a small addition (227 SF on piers at the north end of the house) and a garage (2 cars with 700 SF footprint and storage space above) in the southeast corner. Approvals have been received from both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Inland Wetlands Commission; the garage is proposed 2.7 feet from the front property line and 2.6 feet from the southern boundary line. All adjacent neighbors have indicated that they have no objection to either the addition or the garage. He noted that a new
driveway is proposed starting at 2% grade and ending at 8%.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions about the placement of the garage, Mr. Whitney explained that the land drops off, from the road, sloping down to Secret Lake. The desire is to minimize the amount of activity below the 100-year floodplain and keep the garage construction as far away from the wetlands as possible. The garage would be placed on a concrete slab, not piers. He explained that the proposed driveway and garage are located above the 100-year flood elevation, as required. He noted that the 100-year flood elevation and 500-year flood elevation are the same for Secret Lake. He added that a total of about 49 cubic yards is needed for cuts and fills.
Mr. Kushner explained that a thorough review was conducted by both the Inland Wetlands Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Engineering Department confirms that the proposal provides adequate compensation (cuts balance fills) to comply with the Floodplain Regulations; no impact to downstream properties.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4730 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Primeau motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Dr. Gentile seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
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
Mrs. Griffin noted that App. #4717 has been withdrawn.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4716 subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is granted for 3 frontage lots. A subdivision plan showing 3 lots shall be submitted for Town Staff review. (Proposed Three-Lot Subdivision for Oak Land Developers, LLC, Parcels #2810354 and #2810362, David Whitney, Consulting Engineers, LLC, revised to July 7, 2014)
2. The Commission accepts a 1.7 acre conservation restriction area to satisfy the open space requirement. The conservation restriction area shall be delineated. A plan shall be prepared identifying/marking boundaries and submitted to Town Staff for review and approval. Markings shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any of the
3 homes.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.
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
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels it is unusual for an applicant to apply for an accessory apartment if the property is going to be sold; approvals should not be granted to make it easier for a sale. There should be a need by the new owner.
Mrs. Primeau noted her agreement.
Mr. Mahoney noted that no one was present for App. #4725.
Dr. Gentile noted his understanding that the approval for the accessory apartment expired in 2007 and added that the owner has indicated that non-family members have been staying in the apartment. He commented that the request is for permanent approval of the accessory apartment. Mr. Kushner confirmed that Dr. Gentile’s comments are accurate.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to deny App. #4725. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
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
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4730 subject to the following condition:
1. Compliance shall be demonstrated with comments from the Farmington Valley Health District, memo dated July, 11, 2014, and the Inland Wetlands Commission, memo dated June 17, 2014, revised to July 15, 2014 (IWC App. #739).
Mr. Gackstatter seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
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
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4726. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval. The effective date is July 23, 2014.
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
In response to Dr. Gentile’s question regarding environmental concerns, Mr. Kushner indicated that the bus fleet would be brand new and therefore there should be few leaks. He noted that a paved lot will contain the runoff so it can be directed properly.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns with a lot of bus traffic on the road all at the same time in the morning and asked if the police should review traffic issues.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the Dattco buses (CREC School) across the street are not a full fleet.
Mr. Kushner addressed Mr. Gackstatter’s comments and explained that the Police Department can’t require operational changes and noted that it would be up to the Commission to set parameters. He noted that the applicant could be required to consult with a traffic engineer and present a report to the Police Chief for review.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that if traffic becomes an issue then phase 3 will be an issue.
Mr. Meyers acknowledged his understanding.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4728 subject to the following condition:
1. Applicant shall comply with the noise standards contained in the Zoning Regulations.
If complaints are received by the Town, the owner shall hire a licensed sound engineer/expert to demonstrate compliance with the Regulations. A written report shall be prepared and submitted to the Town for review and approval. If necessary, corrective measures shall be undertaken to gain compliance with Town standards.
Mr. Gackstatter seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4727 - Avon Business Park, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct parking area for school buses, 15 and 21 Industrial Drive, Parcels 2870015 and 2870021, in an I Zone
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether the proposed parking area can be considered a parking lot, as the business operates equipment (buses) and doesn’t park cars. He asked if it meets the parking regulations relative to where trees need to be located.
Mr. Kushner agreed that the proposed lot is not a conventional parking lot and is more of a storage lot. He explained that the Commission will have discretion/a chance to review the entire site plan/landscape plan in September.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4727 subject to the following condition:
1. Approval to construct parking area for buses is subject to modifications as may be required by the Town Engineering Department in connection with drainage improvements.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
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
Mrs. Griffin acknowledged that her initial reaction to this amendment was not positive. She noted that the Commission, over the years, has worked to preserve the character of the businesses along Route 44 so that it would not be overrun with businesses involving automobiles, such as gas stations, dealerships, repair shops, etc. She indicated, however, that the Commission has, in the past, approved 2 car dealerships (one was never built). She communicated her feeling that the subject proposal is somewhat different than a used car lot; it is halfway between a new car dealership and a used car lot. She noted that she doesn’t think the proposal is as bad as initially thought.
Dr. Gentile noted his concerns with the future and what the site may look like in 20 years if the owner decides to sell.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his agreement with Dr. Gentile’s concerns and added that he has concerns about wetlands that he would like to discuss further. He asked if the Town wants to change the Zoning Regulations to allow pre-owned car dealerships with service using the proposed text/ language. He pointed out that the regulation could be adopted and every application could be denied, as the use would only be allowed by special exception approval.
Mrs. Primeau commented that if the proposed amendment is approved, the door is now open. She noted that the type of car doesn’t make any difference to her, as it would still be a used car dealership. Someone else could come into Town and buy a shopping plaza and put in a pre-owned car lot and it’s still a used car lot; the price of the car is not the issue.
Mr. Mahoney commented that if there is a vacant plaza in Town, considerations should be given for other uses.
Mr. Kushner pointed out that Route 44 has been changing over the last 50 years and will continue to change. He noted that he has discussions every week with property owners about possible changes in tenancy. He noted that even in robust economic times, there have always been vacancies on Route 44.
Mrs. Primeau noted that she worked in commercial real estate some years ago and pointed out that sometimes there are reasons for certain buildings to have vacancies.
Mrs. Griffin commented that there are safeguards/protection built into the proposed amendment (i.e., business must be a manufacturers’ dealership).
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to approve App. #4724, as submitted. Mr. Mahoney seconded the motion that received approval from Messrs. Gackstatter, Mahoney, and Gentile, and Mrs. Griffin. Mrs. Primeau voted in opposition to approve App. #4724. The effective date is July 23, 2014.
OTHER BUSINESS
Stratford Crossing Subdivision/Sunlight Construction – 46 Lenox Road – Robert M. Meyers
Attorney Robert M. Meyers was present, on behalf of Sunlight Construction.
Mr. Meyers referenced his letter to the Commission, dated July 1, 2014. He explained that the request is to construct one model home at 46 Lenox Road, part of the Stratford Crossing Subdivision. He noted that all Town requirements would be complied with that the road be boxed out and road base installed, but not paved, for safe driving; this would be done for ½ to 2/3 of the lot frontage.
Mr. Kushner explained that there is a long list of conditions for the Stratford Crossing Subdivision; one condition is that the main road, from Lenox to Haynes, must be completed with a binder course of pavement before any building permits could be issued. He noted that
Mr. Ferrigno is asking for a modification to the conditions to allow the construction of one home on Lenox Road (46 Lenox Road), located at the far north end of the project where the construction entrance is located.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that the home is intended as a model home but noted that while it is possible that someone would be interested to buy it, no sale can happen until the C/O is issued.
Mr. Kushner noted that Mr. Ferrigno has agreed to make improvements from Lenox Road to include 50% of the frontage of this lot, in response to concerns from the Fire Marshal for access during construction. The Town Engineer has asked that this portion of the road be boxed out and the required subbase be in place and compacted. He explained that all other approval conditions would remain in place, such that no other permits would be issued until the main road is built.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that the building permit would only include the road base in front of this lot.
In response to comments/concerns, Mr. Kushner confirmed/clarified that the request is for only one house and nothing more.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he doesn’t feel any exceptions should be made, as this application was very contentious with significant resident input and there are no residents present tonight. He noted that he feels the Commission would not be acting in good faith and confirmed that he would not vote in favor.
Mr. Mahoney noted his agreement with Mr. Gackstatter’s comments.
Mrs. Griffin called for a vote of the request to build a model home at 46 Lenox Road.
Dr. Gentile abstained, noting that he was not present at the meetings for this application.
Mrs. Primeau and Messrs. Gackstatter and Mahoney voted against the request to allow construction of a model home at 46 Lenox Road.
Mr. Kushner clarified that Mr. Ferrigno will still be highly motivated to build the road and added that, under normal circumstances, developers are permitted to construct homes, model or otherwise. He concluded by noting that there would be no impact to the neighborhood and feels the request is reasonable but noted that it has to be the Commission’s decision.
Mr. Meyers commented that the sooner the subdivision is completed, the better it is for the neighbors; the construction of this one house would probably contribute to faster sales.
Mrs. Griffin indicated that she would like to see this development completed as quickly as possible; she noted that other developers have been allowed to build one house and this doesn’t seem like a big deal.
Mrs. Primeau noted that she doesn’t see a hardship/need and added that she can’t go against all the testimony received on this development.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on July 15, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
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 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
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 APPROVED Effective July 23, 2014
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 DENIED
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 APPROVED Effective July 23, 2014
App. #4727 Avon Business Park, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct parking area for school buses, 15 and 21 Industrial Drive, Parcels 2870015 and 2870021, in an I Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITION
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 APPROVED WITH CONDITION
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 APPROVED WITH CONDITION
In addition, the following application was withdrawn,
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 WITHDRAWN
Dated at Avon this 16th day of July, 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
| 
