The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, September 9, 2014. Present were Linda Keith, Chair, Carol Griffin, Vice Chair, David Cappello, Peter Mahoney, Christian Gackstatter, Tom Armstrong and Alternates, Elaine Primeau and Joseph Gentile. Mrs. Primeau sat for the meeting. Absent was Marianne Clark. Also present were Kari Olson, Town Attorney, and Steve Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Commission met with the Town Attorney and Steve Kushner from 7:00pm to 7:30pm to discuss pending litigation.
Ms. Keith called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to approve the minutes of the June 16, 2014, meeting, as submitted. Mrs. Griffin indicated minor changes are needed to pages 118 and 119. Mr. Gackstatter amended his motion to include Mrs. Griffin’s suggestions. Mrs. Primeau seconded the amended motion; the motion received unanimous approval.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve the minutes of the June 24, 2014, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2014, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received approval from Mesdames Primeau, Keith, and Griffin and Messrs. Mahoney, Cappello, and Gackstatter. Mr. Armstrong abstained, as he had been absent from the July 15 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4722 - Proposed amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development pertaining to Chapter 11, Neighborhood Goals and Policies; Town of Avon, applicant
Mr. Kushner suggested that input/comments from the Avon Water Pollution Control Authority (in connection with the Master Sewer Facilities Plan) may be helpful before the Commission takes action on this amendment. He noted that although the Town has identified this land as a high priority for acquisition and conservation, the Town may not be in a position to buy it and the School may decide, at some point, to sell land to a developer. He noted that some type of cluster development might be the most beneficial to both the Town and the School, as a large percentage of the property could be preserved as open space. He explained that the Town Engineer believes that a cluster development would be better served with public sewers rather than onsite septic, even if the soil conditions are favorable. He
explained that, currently, land owned by the School is not shown in the Master Sewer Plan and an amendment to the Plan would be needed; approval by the State would also be needed. He further explained that the inter-municipal sewage treatment agreement with the Town of Simsbury would also have to be amended. He concluded by noting that no formal action is needed by the AWPCA at this time but reiterated that their input would be helpful for the Commission.
Mrs. Griffin asked if the proposed sports complex on Thompson Road should be included in the discussion about the proposed amendment to the 2006 Plan of Development. She suggested that roads and traffic should be considered and discussed.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Council has been studying traffic with the Town’s consultant, relative to the proposed sports complex on Thompson Road. He noted that should plans move forward, the Town Council intends to hire a traffic engineer to study the proposal. Mr. Kushner noted his understanding of Mrs. Griffin’s concerns.
Mr. Armstrong commented that while amendments/changes to the Zoning Regulations may be needed at some point in the future, it appears that the proposed amendment to the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) could be approved now.
Mr. Kushner concurred and explained that the POCD establishes the Commission’s goals in connection with the School’s property, should the School, at some point, need to sell their land. He added that while the School has indicated that they have no plans to sell any land in the near future, the School has sold land in the past (500 acres for the Devonwood Subdivision in Farmington). He explained that planning ahead is essential.
Ms. Keith noted that App. #4722 will be tabled to the next meeting to allow time for input from the AWPCA regarding sewers.
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to table App. #4722 to the next meeting, scheduled for September 30. 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
Lisa Bohman was present, representing the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Kushner explained that the proposed amendment allows commercial properties with at least 5 tenant spaces to apply for a second permanent, detached sign to be placed along the property frontage. This sign could be directory style or simply use the name of the plaza (i.e., Nod Brook Mall). He noted that the Regulations have allowed, for many years, businesses to display temporary signs (12 SF) for a 2-week period, twice per calendar year. New businesses are allowed to display a temporary “new business” sign for 30 days. The detached signs that would be applied for under the proposed amendment must have removable sign panels made for all interested tenants. The landlord would be required to identify a vendor, as all signs must be made to the same specifications. He
explained that the landlord would also be responsible for rotating the signage in some equitable manner. He clarified that if a landlord applied for and was granted approval for a second permanent detached sign, the current provision allowing temporary A-frame signs for a 2-week period would no longer be permitted by that site. A new business would still be allowed a 30-day new business sign and signage for temporary special events would still be allowed. He explained that the proposed sign amendment notes another change such that each individual business/tenant (not each location/site, as the Regulations currently state) would now be permitted to a 2-week temporary sign twice per calendar year. Mr. Kushner indicated that the proposed amendment is experimental, as he is not aware of any other town that uses this approach.
Mrs. Griffin asked if this was going to create an enforcement nightmare.
Mr. Kushner explained that the proposed language is worded such that the site owner is going to be responsible to police compliance. Documented violations give the Commission the right to order sign removal; he noted that this would part of the permit condition.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about whether the Chamber would help in the control of signage, Ms. Bohman explained that while the Chamber of Commerce would not enforce the rules they would certainly help in letting their members know about this change. She added that she feels this change is going to be a huge benefit for the businesses and that the businesses will be very pleased. She concluded by noting that she hopes no business would “rock the boat” or violate the rules.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that he feels the amendment should clearly note that no dynamic/electronic/LED signs are permitted. He noted his concerns with blank sign spots (panels) near the road’s edge; it makes it look like there are vacant tenant spots.
Mr. Kushner explained that tenants are always asking for more signage and indicated that he can’t see a scenario where the sign panels would not be continuously utilized. He noted, however, that the property owner could be asked for a backup plan (i.e., business hours, seasonal greetings). He clarified that the Town is not allowed to control sign content.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that the maximum sign area for a second detached sign is 24 square feet; it would be up to the property owner as to where the sign gets located. He noted that probably a maximum of 6 removable panels could fit on a 24-square foot sign.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he doesn’t think there would be an influx of applications right away, if this amendment is approved. He noted that there are probably 1 or 2 property owners in Town willing to try it out and make the investment.
Mr. Armstrong addressed the Chamber and indicated that he, as a commissioner, does not want to get involved with fairness issues between landlords and tenants. He added that he doesn’t feel an initial time limit is needed should an approval be granted, as long as everyone understands that the program could be terminated.
Mrs. Griffin indicated that if the amendment is approved and it doesn’t work out, the regulation would be terminated. She asked the Chamber for their cooperation in educating their members. She noted that there were 15 written sign violation letters in August.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner suggested that the issues of LED lighting be addressed separately, and not be part of the subject proposed amendment. Ms. Keith concurred.
Jeff Brighenti, Riverdale Farms, noted that he feels the proposed sign amendment is a very good idea for small businesses in Avon, as they make up approximately 80% of the total businesses in Town.
In response to Mr. Brighenti’s question regarding zone designations, Mr. Kushner explained that “CS” means Commercial Specialized (Old Avon Village, Fairway Shops); “CR” means Commercial Retail (Walmart, Nod Brook Mall); “CPA” means Commercial Park A (mixed use such as Riverdale Farms); and “CPB” means Commercial Park B (also mixed use). Mr. Kushner noted that the proposed amendment does not include the NB zone (Neighborhood Business) at this time but clarified that it could be added later should the program be successful. He explained that the NB zone is the least permissive/most restrictive.
Ron Evans, Chamber member and business owner, noted that sign discussions have been ongoing for a long time; he indicated his support and urged the Commission to approve the subject proposal. He noted that the proposed amendment doesn’t just apply to retail businesses adding that it could help people find many other types of businesses, such as chiropractors, attorneys, engineers, and consultants.
Ms. Keith noted that she feels the proposed amendment has been very well thought out.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4723 was closed.
App. #4734 - Lexham Avon LLC, owner, Robert Schechinger, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit hardware retail use, 320 West Main Street, Parcel 4540320, in a CR Zone
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing.
App. #4735 - Lexham Avon, LLC, owner, Robert Schechinger, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit façade modifications, above-ground propane, and related site improvements, 320 West Main Street, Parcel 4540320, in a CR Zone
Present were Robert (Biff) Schechinger, ASLA; Tom Bailey, owner; Karen Tietjen, property manager; and Kevin Cochrane, owner of Avon Hardware.
Mr. Schechinger explained that the 27,600 square foot building located at 320 West Main used to be called “Tri-Town Plaza” but is now called “Westridge Shops”. He noted that maintenance and upgrades to the building have been done in an attempt to fill building vacancies. He provided background/history and explained that when the building was originally constructed (1990) the building footprint was expanded beyond what was approved such that one interior space was required to be left undeveloped. He noted that over time approval was granted to use the aforementioned interior space, which consists of 7,800 square feet with 1,500 square feet of interior storage space, which will be refinished with a concrete floor/sheetrock. Mr. Schechinger explained that when this space was
granted approval for use, one of the uses not permitted by right was hardware stores because of the potential for higher traffic flow.
Mr. Schechinger addressed the first phase of the proposed site modifications noting that no grading is proposed and no change to lighting is proposed. He noted that trees located along the western side (white pines and spruce) and in the front parking area (flowering crab apples) are unsightly and impede the sightline and access into the plaza. White and pink flowering dogwoods are proposed along the western side with evergreens for understory. Birch trees are proposed for the front parking area to provide a high canopy. He noted that the existing landscaping in the sidewalk area will be removed and replanted with shade grasses and hedges. He added that 2 directional signs will be removed, as they are not utilized. There are 2 existing concrete pads; he noted that one more pad (10 x 12)
will be installed for recycling, at the request of the proposed hardware store. The entire fence system will be rebuilt and bollards added to protect the new gates; the dumpsters will be visually screened. He noted that no changes to parking are proposed.
Mr. Schechinger addressed the second phase, which is more specific to the hardware store use proposed to occupy the western/anchor portion of the building. He explained that the owner of the hardware store understands that no outdoor storage is permitted. He noted that the signage proposed (one freestanding sign and wall mounted) encourages visual recognition of the proposed hardware store. He further explained that the two existing front doors will be closed, to discourage the front of the building from being the formal entry point. There is a lot of parking to the rear that no one realizes exists. He indicated that outdoor storage for propane tanks (residential outdoor grill use) is proposed and is the only outdoor use proposed by the hardware store. An 8 x 8 rollup metal garage door
is proposed for the new storage area (inside the building). All bulk storage for the hardware store will be in this location (inside the building), which is located adjacent to the new entry in the rear of the building. Mr. Schechinger explained that the rear entry is being encouraged as the main entry for Avon Hardware.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions relative to the propane tanks, Mr. Schechinger explained that approximately 80 square feet of pavement will be removed to accommodate the outdoor propane area. He explained that the back area will be cleaned up and the parking spaces made compliant, each space at 9-feet wide. He clarified that while technically (on paper) one parking space is lost, 25 parking spaces still exist to the rear of the site. He noted that one or two trees will be removed for the propane; the trees are very old and not providing any real screening functions. He clarified that none of the proposed site improvements are within the existing 35-foot landscape buffer. Addressing proximity of the proposed propane area, Mr. Schechinger explained that there is a piece of
property that is unbuildable that is located between the subject site and the first residential property. He reiterated that a 35-foot landscaped buffer exists that won’t be touched. The closest parking space is 5 feet from the propane but noted that concrete and steel bollards are proposed to surround the tanks.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about parking, Mr. Schechinger noted that the parking spaces are not shown on the plan because the spaces already exist and nothing is changing. Ms. Keith asked that the plans be revised to show all the parking on the site, as clarification for some of the newer Commission members. Mr. Schechinger indicated that he would revise the drawings to show all the parking spaces on the site.
Mr. Kushner addressed parking noting that there are approximately 65 parking spaces in the rear and approximately 29 spaces in the front. He noted that parking on this site has been an issue for years and parking to the rear has always tried to be encouraged. He added that the proposed signage program provides a good opportunity for rear parking. Hardware store business tends towards repeat customer traffic and the hope is that customers will realize the convenience of parking to the rear.
Ms. Keith asked for clarification about doorway locations on the drawings.
Mrs. Griffin asked about a loading zone near the large garage door to the rear of the building.
Mr. Schechinger indicated that a large volume/bulk activity is not expected in the pickup area (loading area) to the rear of the site. He added that the hardware store proposed to be located at the subject site would not operate like the current business on Dale Road.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Schechinger clarified that the rear garage door is not located in existing parking spaces. He added that the garage door is located directly across from a large island and a 9-foot-wide concrete walkway. No parking would be disturbed. Ms. Keith commented that she would like to know how the traffic circulation would work and how cars would park in that area. Mr. Schechinger explained that neither the parking nor the current circulation patterns are changing but noted that he would show this information on the drawings.
Kevin Cochrane, Avon Hardware, explained that carts will be used, as they are currently used on Dale Road. He noted that no one would be asked to park in a certain area, as the hardware store employees would bring items out to people’s cars.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Schechinger explained that the elm tree proposed to come down is 30 inches in diameter (trunk) and leaning dangerously into the site; the tree is rotting and unstable. He further explained that this tree was not part of the formal planting plan and is likely to fall over should a big storm occur. He added that understory plantings are proposed where this tree stump exists.
Mr. Cochrane, Avon Hardware, explained that he has been in business for 25 years in Avon; 16 years on Dale Road. He noted that he needs to change his business model noting his goal is to focus on his Avon clients and get away from contractor/side businesses. He indicated that both his landscape and rental companies are for sale. He acknowledged his understanding that outdoor storage is not permitted at 320 West Main Street. A higher end product with a “boutique” hardware store feel is the goal.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Cochrane indicated his understanding that no outdoor storage is permitted. He stated that he would fully comply with the Town’s regulations regarding outdoor storage.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question about containing odors from bagged fertilizer, Tom Bailey, property owner, explained that the storage area would remain closed so that the odors would not travel.
Mr. Cochrane explained that fertilizer bags are now completely sealed and could be stored outside and not get wet. He further explained that often times what people smell inside the store are the insecticides, which are also sealed but are liquid in nature.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s question, Mr. Cochrane clarified that all display would be interior/indoors; no outdoor storage or display would occur.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Schechinger explained that there will be a door in the front of the building but it would not be the main front door as it exists now. Mr. Cochrane explained that the former CVS entrance (on the side of the building) will be used.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question about having a checkout counter near the front of the building for people parked and exiting to the front of the site, Mr. Cochrane noted that he hasn’t decided exactly where the checkout counter area will be located. He added that one counter with 3 cash registers is proposed.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about door access, Mr. Schechinger explained that there will be direct access into the hardware store. Currently, there are 4 doors into the space; there are 2 doors that are perceived as the “main entrance” and there are 2 doors located off center on the side of the building. Mrs. Primeau noted that she wants to make sure there is direct access to the outside from both the front and rear of the building. Mr. Cochrane confirmed there would be direct access for the hardware store.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s question, Mr. Kushner confirmed that the Fire Marshal will have to sign off on the propane tanks. Mr. Armstrong suggested that if this project is approved that a condition be placed on the propane such that if the use is abandoned for one year that the propane be removed unless required earlier by State law. Mr. Schechinger noted his understanding.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s question, Mr. Schechinger explained that the fence gates are
4-feet wide; the fence is 6 feet high.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels a detailed parking plan is needed for the propane area.
Ms. Keith agreed on the need for a parking plan for propane.
Ms. Keith noted that she likes the proposed new signage and asked the property owner if all the existing businesses are going to be required to conform to the new sign theme and upgrade their signs.
Tom Bailey, property owner, indicated that he is not planning to ask the other businesses to conform right away.
Ms. Keith noted that she feels it’s important that all signs conform.
Mr. Kushner explained that when situations such as this have occurred in the past, property owners have committed to compliance with the new sign theme, over time; that is, as tenants leave and new tenants come in that all new signs conform to the new sign specifications.
Mr. Bailey noted his understanding and confirmed that he would comply with the sign theme over time, as tenants leave. He stated that he has invested approximately $1M into the site with many needed aesthetic improvements.
Ms. Keith asked if the proposed color theme change to the building is going to be progressive.
Mr. Bailey explained that he is still finalizing color/aesthetic/design issues and will present information to the Staff at a later date.
In response to Mr. Bailey’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission would like to continue the hearing to the next meeting so more information on the parking can be made available before a vote is taken. He added that details about the exterior of the building could also be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Bailey noted his understanding and agreement.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Schechinger indicated that information relative to the proposed canopies will be provided at the next meeting.
Mr. Kushner explained that Mr. Bailey inherited a problem at this site and has invested a lot of time and money. The prior owner created the situation that exists today (building constructed is 3,000 SF larger than approved by the Commission). The extra 3,000 SF was initially not allowed to be leased but it was reduced to 1,500 SF over time. The Commission reserved judgment over the uses for the 1,500 square feet that might generate more traffic; a hardware store was identified as one such use. Mr. Kushner clarified that a hardware store is normally permitted by right in the CR zone. He explained that Town Staff approves many changes to businesses and locations on a weekly basis; there are many tenants coming and going. He conveyed his compliments to the property owner for the
changes/investments made and added that it will be good for the Town to have this space occupied.
Ms. Keith noted her agreement with Mr. Kushner’s comments, indicating that she just wants clarification/details shown on the plans. She commented that she likes the landscaping plan.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Cochrane stated that he will be phasing out his small engine repair business and would also not be engaging in a rental business or a landscape business. He indicated that he would like to retain his “handyman” service, which does not involve any outside activity. He confirmed that the hardware store is the main focus.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Cochrane indicated that he plans to completely vacate his current location on Dale Road; the rental and landscape businesses have been sold.
Mr. Gackstatter asked about access to the garage door and asked if the area is an open court yard. Mr. Cochrane noted that the garage is located indoors, in the back of the building; it’s an open space once you get inside.
Mr. Schechinger indicated that the garage will be closed in and meet Code for ventilation. He explained that there is an existing door that runs across the public corridor; there is both internal and external access to the garage.
Ms. Keith addressed the Fire Marshal’s request that the rear lot be connected to Westridge Drive and indicated that she would not like to see that happen, as it could end up to be a cut through. She added that she feels the nearby residents would have a problem with that connection. The current setup forces everyone to utilize the traffic light.
Mr. Kushner addressed the applicant and the owner and provided a summary of plan revisions needed for the next meeting. The propane tank area and the overhead garage door area need to be studied and proposals presented at the next meeting. All the existing spaces and all doors should be marked on the plans. A discussion with Mr. Cochrane is needed to determine the expected volume of traffic at the loading door/cart system and a proposal presented at the next meeting. Finally, details for the painting of the building and awnings should be worked out and discussed at the next meeting, scheduled for September 30.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Cochrane explained that tanks being brought in would be refilled; no tanks would be swapped.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4734 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to table App. #4735 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by
Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
App. #4736 - Jeannette and Martin Weichhardt, owners, Steven and Linda Jenkins, applicants, 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
Present were Steven and Linda Jenkins, applicants; and Attorney Linda Meyers, representing the owners.
Linda Meyers noted her presence on behalf of the Weichhardt family.
Mr. Kushner noted that a special permit was granted by the Commission in 2007 for a 2-year time limit for an accessory apartment to be used only by family members. He noted that the Jenkins family wishes to purchase the property and use/maintain the accessory apartment for family use. Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins intend to occupy the accessory apartment and have their grown son and family occupy the main portion of the house.
Mr. Jenkins noted his agreement with Mr. Kushner’s statements.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4736 was closed.
App. #4741 - Avon Business Park, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.A.2.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit reduction in landscaping, 15 and 21 Industrial Drive, Parcels 2870015 and 2870021, in an I Zone
App. #4742 - Avon Business Park, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.H.3.c. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wholesale business and warehouse storage, 15 and 21 Industrial Drive, Parcels 2870015 and 2870021, in an I Zone
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing.
App. #4740 - Avon Business Park, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct 11,600 SF building for bus depot, 15 and 21 Industrial Drive, Parcels 2870015 and 2870021, in an I Zone
Present were Attorney Robert Meyers, representing the owner; Frank Mairano, owner; Gary Hath, landscape architect, CR3; and Michael Turner, VP of Specialty Transportation.
Robert Meyers explained that the subject applications are a follow up to applications approved by the Commission in July 2014, relating to school buses for Avon’s public schools. He noted that Mr. Mairano’s proposal includes a request for the construction of a new building for a school bus depot, a 10% landscape waiver, and a wholesale/distribution bathing suit business. Mr. Meyers explained that the proposed building would accommodate bus employees; construction would take approximately 12 weeks.
Mr. Mairano indicated that he has tried to demonstrate excellence in overall site design. He noted that plan drawings have been distributed to the Commission tonight, as revisions have been ongoing. He explained that the site plan is essentially the same as what the Commission has already received but noted that changes to landscaping where the bus parking exists has been increased in density; lot coverage/zoning data is the same. The building design/footprint/floor plan is the same but architectural detail has been enhanced. He added that landscaping changes have been made as a result of conversations with both Town Staff and nearby residents of Towpath Condominiums. Photometric/lighting fixture information has also been provided.
Mr. Mairano displayed the site plan noting that the proposed building footprint is 7,600 SF; the area under a portion of the building is proposed to be used for maintenance/offices/driver’s lounge for bus operation. Retaining walls are proposed and will be addressed later. He referenced the landscaping area where the buses enter and exit and noted that he hired an arborist in the spring (2014) who pruned the existing 30-year old white pines in this area; 9 healthy trees now remain. He noted that gaps in this tree line were filled in with new white fir trees. The understory will be addressed by planting 33 rhododendrons, under the pines, which will grow to 10 feet in height. He noted that 8 to 10-foot white pines were added to complete this section/row of landscaped area.
Mr. Kushner suggested that the displayed drawing be turned such that the audience/residents of Towpath Condominiums could view.
Mr. Mairano indicated that he has shared the original landscape plan, on the site, with residents of Towpath and asked for their comments. He noted that a dense landscape screen will be developed from the lower parking area up to the driveway entrance for the new building. He commented that the location of the driveway is right off the cul-de-sac. In order to enter the building you must drive across the front of building, such that it provides a natural screen for the neighbors from the building and the parking. There is no parking immediately in front of the building. He explained that the piece of property located around the corner from the cul-se-sac was enhanced with dogwoods and junipers.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Mairano noted that there is a loading area on the building but there is no overhead door. He explained that an interior loading area is proposed so that the building elevation all looks the same, with glass doors. He commented that bumpers would be built away from the wall on the foundation to allow trucks to stop but still use a portable leveler. Trucks bringing in merchandise for the proposed wholesale bathing suit business would come inside the building and unload the pallets and stack into bins; it may take a half an hour or so. Mr. Mairano indicated that he tried to design the building from both a landscape and architectural viewpoint, such that it doesn’t look like an “industrial” building.
Mr. Mairano noted that the plantings located along the south side of the site create a 50-foot-wide buffer, in accordance with the “C” Bufferyard, requirements in the Zoning Regulations. He noted that this area is densely packed. He indicated that there is a natural berm located south of this buffer area that contains evergreens. This berm rises up 6 feet above the site elevation such that the buffer being created is adding to the existing screening already provided by this berm. The dumpsters for Towpath Condos are located on the other side of this berm but there are no houses there. The building foundation is planted to enhance the architecture and soften the commercial/industrial look of the building.
Ms. Keith asked if the landscaping for the existing building could be continued onto the islands in an attempt to hide the existing building similar to the way the proposed building is screened.
Mr. Mairano explained that the islands are planted and grassed and owned by the Town. He noted that some shrubbery was taken out of the island area when the building was renovated and the recent site plan approval granted because of the sightline distances. He indicated that he feels the existing building is attractive as is; he added that adding landscaping hurts the sightline distance and doesn’t really gain anything.
Mr. Armstrong noted his concern that the deciduous trees proposed to be planted on the southerly part of the site will survive, as they will be shaded by existing tall trees.
Mr. Mairano explained that the berm was created in accordance with the density required by the Regulations and the types of trees meant to be used. He added that his landscape architect could review the plan. He noted that this area gets light from the west.
Mr. Mairano addressed building architecture noting that he used the buildings at Avon Self Storage (across the street) for color reference. Split-face block is proposed using a brownstone custom color mix that was developed by the individual involved with the construction of the buildings located at Avon Self Storage. He noted the windows would be glazed in bronze and the siding is a cool gray color. A canopy over the front door (4-foot overhang) is proposed so the lines are smooth; the lighting is recessed within the canopy. The front elevation has 4 entries; the 4th entry utilizes glass to create an inconspicuous loading area. A small retaining wall is proposed to the left of this entry; no concrete will be exposed.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Mairano explained that the proposed roof is flat but pitched; you don’t see the roof at all. The siding is ribbed with concealed fasteners. He noted that his goal is to maintain architectural detail that is consistent with a good commercial/industrial design. No roof units are proposed. The color of the overhead doors located on the rear of the building will match the siding color; the pass doors will be matched as well as the block around the back of the building.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Mairano explained that the north elevation, lower level, will be used by the bus company. Currently, one tenant is proposed for upstairs; he noted, however, that the building is a “flex” building so there could be as many as 4 tenants. He noted that the first interested tenant is the bathing suit business; he explained that he doesn’t know how many tenant spaces this business might occupy.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s question, Mr. Mairano explained that the purpose of the rear garage door is for a typical service business. He further explained that the proposed building would be built as a service building such that offices are located in the front with warehouse spaces in the back.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Mairano explained that one retaining wall is 10 feet high and one is 14 feet high. He noted that low junipers would be planted in front of the walls.
Mr. Mairano addressed site lighting and explained that all the proposed lighting is LED. He noted that the wattage can be controlled such that adjustments can be made to avoid light trespass onto adjacent properties. LED meets INS requirements for parking lot lighting.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Mairano explained that the lighting would be controlled by timers and photo sensors; lights would not be on all the time.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Mairano explained that when the buses are running inside the garage/lower level of the building for maintenance purposes, the exhaust would be vented out the overhead door. The buses cannot be running inside the garage with the door closed.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Mairano explained that the basement area runs 60 feet; the entire building is 117 feet.
Mr. Mairano indicated that Code drawings have been provided to the satisfaction of both the Building Official and Fire Marshal.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Mairano explained that the proposed bathing suit business would have 4 employees. He noted that it’s a mom and daughter operation.
Ms. Keith noted her concerns that the proposed bathing suit business is not really an industrial use. She indicated that there are 14 parking spaces and noted her concerns about adequate parking should there be 4 to 6 employees for the other 3 available tenant spaces.
Mr. Mairano explained that the entire site must be considered with respect to available parking. He noted that the entire site contains 84 spaces and meets the requirements in terms of square footage for the proposed use.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about the request for a 10% landscape waiver, Mr. Mairano explained that 10% of the total area is approximately 13,000 SF (out of total of 138,000). He noted that without the 10% waiver, not much of a building could be constructed. He indicated that he used the grades creatively to modify the site in order to house the buses.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels the proposal is a little aggressive for the site, given the homes nearby.
Ms. Keith opened the hearing for public comment.
Tim Maynard, resident of Towpath Apartments, noted that a few months ago a green area was demolished and a bus parking lot created. He noted his concerns with the continued development in this area as well as access on Industrial Drive, as it’s not a big road. He noted that Dattco drivers park along the side the road making it difficult to get by and added his concerns with adding another bus yard and building. He expressed his concerns with the existing lighting on the existing building as well as concerns with the intensity of the entire site and future tenants.
Mr. Mairano indicated that the bus drivers park on his property now and not on the road. Enough parking spaces have been created for parking on the site.
In response to concerns from the audience about Dattco buses parking on the road, Mr. Kushner explained that if Dattco buses are parking on Towpath property, this is a trespass issue that the police department should address.
Gabriel Nunes, owner/resident of Towpath, Building #7, complained about the beeping noises coming from the buses, noting that there is very little distance between the buses and where the residents live. He noted that another bus company will add to the noise. He noted his concerns with the cul-de-sac and asked how the buses can come onto Towpath property. He added that
2 entrances are shown on the plans for the new bus company. He expressed his concerns with being able to access his property due to vehicles blocking the cul-de-sac.
In response to Mr. Nunes questions/concerns, Mr. Mairano explained that Industrial Drive is a Town owned road, built to Town specifications (width, etc.). The cul-de-sac is a 50-foot diameter paved area that is owned and accepted by the Town. The mailboxes for Towpath are located on the edge of the cul-de-sac, on Town property. The Towpath dumpsters are also located on Town property, on the edge of the cul-de-sac. He further explained that he owns the “pie” shaped piece of property, shown on the drawings, located near the cul-de-sac. He noted that beyond that pie-shaped piece is the Towpath driveway that leads to the units located to the south. He pointed out that this driveway has a right-of-way over the property he owns, to enable vehicles to travel over his property, from
the end of the cul-de-sac, to reach the driveway.
Karen McQuade, resident of Towpath, Building #7, noting her concerns with the easement. She noted that there are driveways on Industrial Drive for “Car Biz” a glass company, and the Hartford Courant; further up is Dattco. She noted her concerns with adding another driveway for delivery trucks, located directly across from where she pulls into her parking lot. She noted her concerns with increased traffic in this area.
Ms. Keith noted that the traffic/parking issues in the road are a police matter and not under the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Mr. Kushner suggested that Towpath management consider meeting with the Town Engineering Department to review the maps for this area that would clearly show where Town ownership begins and ends. He further recommended contact with the police department as well.
Mr. Cappello commented that it appears that the issues raised by the residents are Dattco problems and noted that he doesn’t see any reason why buses from Mr. Mairano’s property would go past his driveway into the cul-de-sac.
Katie Stevenson, owner at Towpath, noted her concerns with snow removal and Dattco parking along the road making it difficult for residents to use Industrial Drive. She added that construction vehicles have been coming onto Towpath property blocking access to the driveway to reach her home; she added that some trucks are coming from Old Farms Road. She noted her concerns for environmental hazards, as the buses will need to run and warm up in the cold weather; she noted that she has asthma. There will be many different vehicles/trucks coming and going creating increased traffic and fumes that will impact all the residents of Towpath and Old Farms Crossing.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Mairano explained that one of his driveway entrances off of Industrial Drive is paved and always has been (Hartford Courant access). A track pad is laid out to show the location of where the second driveway will be.
Luke Abucewicz, resident of Towpath, noted his disbelief of what was approved in July and where the buses are now parked. He commented that no notification was received and then one day hundreds of trees were gone; shortly after the area was paved with buses. He complained of diesel fumes and beeping sounds/noise all day. He noted that the primary function of the turnaround area is for Towpath residents and if it’s not, it should be changed. He commented that his property value has decreased and asked how he could ever sell his home being located about 100 feet from a bus depot. People cannot idle cars at the Town schools because of environmental concerns but 50 diesel buses are allowed near his home. There are no construction fences of any kind; he noted his concerns that his
children could walk over to the construction vehicles at any time.
In response to concerns from residents about road access, Mr. Kushner reiterated that Towpath management/representatives should come into the Town Hall for research to find out who owns the cul-de-sac. He added that no one can block Town-owned roads.
Amy Abucewicz, resident of Towpath, complained that her house shakes all day long due to the construction activities. She noted her concerns with all the trees taken down and questioned if the property boundaries are known (i.e., who owns the trees). She conveyed her concerns for loss of property values.
Ms. Keith suggested that residents follow Mr. Kushner’s earlier suggestion to go to the Town Hall and research the information for clarification. She conveyed her compassion but explained that this Commission has no jurisdiction.
In response to questions from the audience/residents, Mr. Kushner explained that the subject site is located in an industrial zoning district and has been zoned this way since 1957; the street is named Industrial Drive. He further explained that the function of the cul-de-sac is to service both Towpath Condos and Industrial Drive; the cul-de-sac does not exist exclusively for Towpath Condos. He noted that Towpath Condos were built in the 1960s and Industrial Drive already existed; the builder understood what he was building. He noted that the official Zoning Map for this area has not changed since 1957. He explained that the Commission must balance property rights while at the same time interpreting and implementing its Zoning Regulations. Towpath owners have property rights but Mr. Mairano
also has property rights; everybody pays taxes. Mr. Kushner indicated that in today’s world, the mix of uses that now exist on this site may not necessarily be encouraged. Dattco and Towpath Condos have existed for a long time and it’s not a perfect scenario; zoning does not guarantee perfection. The proposed bus facility is located in an industrial zone. He noted that up until the late 1980s, early 1990s, the bike path that now exists behind Towpath Condos used to be a freight train. There is a long history of industrial uses in this area.
Michael Turner, VP of Specialty Transportation, explained that buses do beep in the morning but not at 5:30am; most buses leave the yard at about 6:30am. The only beeping before 6:30am, which is regulated by the DMV, is a required pre-trip inspection that must be done for every bus. The bus must be put in reverse to ensure that the backup warning works. The pre-trip inspection takes about 5 to 10 minutes. The buses are brand new and emissions are as low as possible for a diesel. All the buses have block heaters and power stations will be installed for the colder months; as soon as the bus is started the heat is on. Mr. Turner noted that buses are only started when doing the pre-trip inspection and not before.
An unidentified male audience member noted that bus startup has to be staggered in some way and cannot just begin at 6:30am; it must be a continuous cycle for pre trip. Mr. Turner noted his understanding and clarified/confirmed that the buses are stacked 2 deep but explained that part of the pre trip test is a roll forward for a brake test. He noted that when the buses in the front line roll forward for brake testing, they leave earlier than the back line of buses. The unidentified audience member noted that when the buses return they have to back up, which takes more time. He added that the buses are beeping on and off essentially all day, until about 7pm, and no retaining wall is going to block that noise. Mr. Turner indicated that all the buses operate on a 3-tier program; start at high
school and middle school and go to Thompson Brook School and then the elementary schools. All the buses depart the yard at approximately 6:30am; the earliest bus to return is at approximately 8:45am and the latest is 9am to 9:15am. Buses are again leaving the yard around 2pm and returning at around 4:15pm to 4:30pm; the buses back in (rather than pull in forward) to the yard. The late buses for sports return around 7pm.
Mr. Turner noted that the late buses could pull in, rather than back in, if the Town wishes, to avoid the backup alarms.
Susan Connelly, Towpath resident and President of the Board, noted that people have been asking her how the buses came about and how the lot was cleared. She noted that she has dealt with Dattco and Technical Coatings Lab in the past, because she cannot open her windows. She conveyed her concerns with the buses being full of diesel fuel and asked about a filling station.
Ms. Keith explained that the bussing issue is not part of the subject application; the subject proposal is for a separate building for bus maintenance.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Mairano indicated that there would not be outside storage.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Mairano indicated that no fuel would be stored onsite; a fuel truck would come to the site and fuel each bus and then leave.
In response to a question from Brandon Ryan, Towpath resident, Mr. Mairano explained that the lower portion of the proposed building would be used for offices and a driver’s lounge and one bay for bus maintenance. Mr. Ryan noted that brakes contain asbestos and this will blow out of the building; he noted that face masks must be worn when brakes are changed.
In response to concerns from the audience, Mr. Mairano noted that there has been a bus garage in this area for over 35 years.
Mrs. Griffin indicated that there have been buses in this area since 1940.
Mr. Mairano explained that he wants to build a state-of-the-art project, something to be proud of. He asked for the opportunity to create a bus depot the correct way; create an attractive and neat site. He commented that when the parking lot was paved it was landscaped right away and made to look as good as possible. He noted that he would be happy to meet with the neighbors, as he knows the answers to the property line questions.
Mr. Cappello asked if the backup alarms could be softened somewhat; possibly a test mode. He noted that the alarms are very loud.
Mr. Kushner commented that he understands that there is an OSHA approved alarm/new technology that is much less annoying.
Mr. Turner indicated that he hasn’t heard of any new technology but noted that the backup alarms are inspected yearly by the DMV and have to meet a certain decibel level.
Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Turner if he could research this information. Mr. Turner noted that he doesn’t know if school buses are held at a different standard than other vehicles.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Turner confirmed that a backup test has to be done in the yard before the bus leaves. He added that the bus is not supposed to leave the parking spot if something is wrong.
Neil, Towpath owner and resident, asked everyone if they owned property and now that property is worth half as much, whether the building will be allowed to be built.
Ms. Keith noted her understanding and indicated that the hearing for this application will be continued to the next meeting on September 30.
Katie Stevenson, Towpath resident, asked if the surrounding homes were taken into consideration when the bus depot was approved. She commented that while the noise is annoying the bus fumes appear to be an environmental hazard; the buses won’t be new forever. She noted her concerns about the maintenance garage and asked how and where it would be ventilated.
Ms. Keith reiterated that the public hearing will be continued to the September 30 meeting and noted that answers should be available at that time. She encouraged the neighbors to visit the Town Hall and also talk to Mr. Mairano regarding property boundary information/clarification. She explained that while problems from previous approvals cannot be solved in connection with the subject application, the Commission will do their best to meet everyone’s needs in accordance with the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Kushner explained that any site work in conjunction with the July approval can be ongoing at this time but noted that no work shown on the drawings presented tonight is authorized to start.
Mr. Cappello motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4741 and #4742 to the next meeting, scheduled for September 30. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received unanimous approval.
The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4738 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit lighting at existing tennis courts at Avon Middle School, 375 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520375, in an R40 Zone
Present were Ruth Checko, Director of Parks and Recreation; and Mike Mahoney, Musco Lighting.
Ms. Keith explained that this application was approved in 2012 and noted the only reason it is back before the Commission is because the approval expired. She noted that nothing has changed and reapproval is being requested.
Mr. Kushner introduced and welcomed Ruth Checko, recently appointed to replace Glenn Marston. He noted that he understands that funding is now in place.
Ms. Checko confirmed that she is prepared to order the equipment tomorrow morning, as there is a September 30 deadline on some of the funding.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Mahoney confirmed that the lights would have wireless control and the lights would shut off completely at a certain time.
Ms. Checko added that once the lights shut off they cannot be put back on.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Mahoney explained that the administrator can set the time for the lights to turn on and off; if nobody shows up to play tennis, the lights would not be on. If someone wants to play, they press the button and lights turn on for a pre-determined amount of time (i.e, an hour). A strobe light comes on, as a warning, about 5 minutes before the time limit will expire. If the button is pressed again, the lights stay on for another hour.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve App. #4738. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s question, Mr. Mahoney stated that the product could be onsite in 4 weeks.
App. #4739 - Shops at Dale Corner, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to permit minor façade changes and canopy installation, 385 West Main Street, Parcel 4540385, in a CR Zone
Present were Anne Bjorkland, representing the owner; Sheldon Crosby, architect; and Matthew Nichols, “Sport Clips”.
Ms. Bjorkland explained that the request is to modify the façade for building space “E”. She noted that this space was originally used by Cosi Restaurant but now needs its own identify and is currently blocked by support columns.
Mr. Kushner asked how far out the proposed columns for “Sport Clips” would project and whether it would interfere with the outdoor dining and landscaping in front of the building.
Ms. Keith noted her concerns with the proposed “red” color, noting that it’s not part of the current sign program; she asked that the color be toned down. She asked about the red fence.
Sheldon Crosby, architect, explained that “red” is “Sport Clips” color. Red is part of the corporate logo; Sport Clips is a franchise. He noted that he could explore other red tones; more earthen tones.
Mrs. Primeau noted her understanding of the corporate logo and commented that the only word that needs to be red is the word “Sport”. Everything else doesn’t need to be red.
Ms. Keith asked if the supporting beams have to be red and asked if just the cover could be red.
Mr. Crosby explained that the red color on the columns could be darkened; he noted that he would like to keep the red awning.
Mr. Gackstatter asked which part of the proposal is required by the franchise to be red in color; he asked if it is just the word “sport”.
Mr. Crosby explained that if he told the Commission that the only part required by the franchise to be red is the “sport” part of the sign, he would not be telling the truth. He indicated that the red façade and visibility of the space is what led the tenant to this space..
Mr. Gackstatter suggested that the franchise red be allowed for the sign but asked that the awning be made brick red color.
Mr. Crosby agreed that an earthy red color/brick red could be used on the posts and awning.
Mrs. Primeau noted that she doesn’t like that the posts stick out too far. She asked that the façade for this space be made compatible with the existing pillars.
In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Crosby noted that Sport Clips wants their roof separated slightly from the other tenants. He indicated that he could pull the posts back.
Matt Nichols, Sports Clips, noted that his tenant space at this building is a very small part of the overall architecture at 7% of the total space, with very limited visibility under the current conditions. He noted that pulling the posts forward and the red color will allow for better visibility; pulling the posts forward would not impede pedestrians and traffic flow.
Mr. Cappello asked whether the roof can remain as is and remove the posts and cantilever the 2 feet extra.
Mr. Crosby noted that he could cantilever, if the Commission wants the posts pulled back. He noted that he doesn’t want this structure to be a part of the other existing structures; it needs to be pulled away.
Ms. Keith noted that if the posts are all lined up together with a cantilever that she is ok with the subdued red color.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns that the red frame must be considered and counted as part of the sign area. He noted his concerns that other tenants may want to make similar changes.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the posts proposed for this tenant are not the same/consistent as the posts used for all the other tenants; therefore, the posts are considered part of the sign for this tenant. She noted that she doesn’t like the structure, as it doesn’t fit the style of the plaza; she added that she is ok with the sign.
Ms. Keith left the meeting at 11pm.
Mrs. Griffin chaired the remainder of the meeting.
Ms. Bjorkland explained that a canopy currently exists that the owner would like to remove because it’s old and unsightly. She noted that she would be glad to modify/tone down the color and remove what’s there. The intent is to make all the signage for the building even, so that there is some continuity. She noted that from a presentation standpoint that the red for the proposed tenant has been elaborated without showing all the other existing tenant signs, which would have helped to show that the proposal blends in and is not as outstanding as it may appear.
Mr. Kushner suggested that the columns be pulled back and the roof cantilevered. He indicated that the columns should be painted a subdued red color, as well as the canopy and the frame.
In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Nichols noted that Sport Clips would be open every day of the week. He thanked the Commission for their time and noted that there would not be a rear entrance; all customers would enter from the front of the building. He noted that most customers are boys and men so it’s a quick turn around and wouldn’t impact the parking area.
Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App. #4739 subject to the following conditions:
1. The support columns and cantilever for the “Sport Clips” façade shall be pulled back.
2. The proposed red color shall be toned down. A more subtle brick red color shall be used on both the canopy and the pillars.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received approval from Messrs. Cappello and Gackstatter and Mesdames Primeau and Griffin. Voting in opposition of approval were Messrs. Mahoney and Armstrong.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Mrs. Primeau seconded the motion that 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 approve App. #4723. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval. The effective date is September 17, 2014.
App. #4736 - Jeannette and Martin Weichhardt, owners, Steven and Linda Jenkins, applicants, 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
Mr. Gackstatter motioned to approve App. #4736 subject to the following conditions:
1. The accessory apartment is approved for use only by family members of the applicant.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Cappello, received unanimous approval.
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 September 9, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4723 - Proposed amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to detached identification signs in commercial zones; Town of Avon, applicant APPROVED Effective September 17, 2014
App. #4736 - Jeannette and Martin Weichhardt, owners, Steven and Linda Jenkins, applicants, 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 APPROVED WITH CONDITION
App. #4738 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit lighting at existing tennis courts at Avon Middle School, 375 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520375, in an R40 Zone APPROVED
App. #4739 - Shops at Dale Corner, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to permit minor façade changes and canopy installation, 385 West Main Street, Parcel 4540385, in a CR Zone APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Dated at Avon this 10th day of September, 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, September 30, 2014, at 7:30 pm at the Avon Town Hall on the following:
App. #4737 - Pipnpobble, LLC and Arch Twenty-One LLC, owners, Julie Gershon, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached sign, 21 Arch Road, Parcel 1090021 in an I Zone
App. #4745 - 290 Clipper Center LLC, owner, Charles Vendetti, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 290 West Main Street, Parcel 4540290, in a CR Zone
App. #4747 - Brighenti Enterprises LLC, Canton Sign, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 296 Country Club Road, Parcel 1940296, in an NB Zone
App. #4748 - Brighenti Enterprises LLC, Canton Sign, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 395 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520395, in an NB Zone
All interested persons may appear and be heard and written communications will be received. Applications are available for inspection in Planning and Community Development at the Avon Town Hall. Dated at Avon this 15th day of September, 2014.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Linda Keith, Chair
Carol Griffin, Vice Chair
| 
