The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, September 30, 2014. Present were Linda Keith, Chair, David Cappello, Peter Mahoney, Thomas Armstrong, Joseph Gentile, and Alternates Elaine Primeau and Audrey Vicino. Mrs. Primeau sat for the meeting. Absent were Carol Griffin, Vice Chair, and Marianne Clark and Christian Gackstatter. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Ms. Keith called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2014, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Armstrong, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
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
David Whitney, owner (Pipnpobble), was present on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Whitney explained that the subject sign is for his office building located at 21 Arch Road. He noted that he and his wife occupy the second floor of the building and the Drs. Gershon occupy the first floor (radiologists). The sign is currently located in the driveway that leads to the parking lot and cannot be seen from the road. The proposal is to move the existing sign to the northeast corner of the site, located on private property outside the Town ROW. He noted that the proposed sign location does not create sightline issues on Arch Road.
Mr. Kushner noted that the proposal meets the Regulations.
The public hearing for App. #4737 was closed.
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
Charles Vendetti was present.
Mr. Vendetti explained that the request is to replace the existing detached sign with a new sign.
Mr. Kushner explained that there is an existing detached sign at this location that was approved many years ago. The request is to remove that sign and replace it with a new directory-style sign. The proposal meets the Regulations.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Vendetti noted that the existing sign is illuminated.
The public hearing for App. #4745 was closed.
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
Joe Garrity was present from Canton Sign.
Mr. Garrity explained that the proposed sign is freestanding, double faced, 12-square-feet with removable plaques for tenants; material is PVC.
Mr. Kushner indicated that the proposal complies with the Zoning Regulation.
Mr. Garrity noted that he doesn’t know if the sign will be lit.
Ms. Keith indicated that a condition for lighting will be placed on the approval.
The public hearing for App. #4747 was closed.
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
Mr. Garrity explained that the proposed sign is freestanding, double-faced, 12-square-feet with removable plaques for tenants.
The public hearing for App. #4748 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. Kushner noted that this application has been reviewed/discussed several times at previous meetings. He explained that the proposed language is an amendment to the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development; he clarified that it is not an amendment to the Zoning Regulations. He further explained that this amendment relates to ongoing discussions with Avon Old Farms School about relocating Old Farms Road. He added that this road project has been ongoing for several decades but noted that, currently, progress appears to have been made with various State and Federal permitting agencies. Discussions have included the potential for a corridor of land preservation along the roadway and the possibility of the School’s financial participation to help fund this preservation. Mr. Kushner
clarified that at this time the School has no plans to sell any land but noted that it is important to consider “what if” scenarios. He noted that the Town would be interested in buying land should the School decide/need to sell but explained that if the Town was not able and the land was sold for private development, the proposed amendment language creates an opportunity to create some type of cluster project at a comparable density to a single-family development. He explained that there is no opportunity for a cluster project under the current zoning of the property (EL – educational land). He indicated that if the subject amendment is adopted, the next change to consider would be an amendment to the Zoning Regulations. He clarified that the Plan of Conservation and Development is a planning document, only, and not the actual Zoning Regulations.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Armstrong indicated that the AWPCA reviewed/acknowledged this information at their September 11 meeting. The AWPCA indicated that sewer issues would need to be addressed by both the Town and the DEEP.
Mrs. Primeau suggested minor language changes to the second paragraph on the second page; add “also or may also, after the word “opportunities” and take out “as well” as the end of the sentence.
Mr. Armstrong suggested that the word “industrial” be added as the first word in the last sentence in the first paragraph on the second page (sentence currently begins with “commercial”).
Mr. Kushner concurred on both suggestions.
Dr. Gentile asked if the Town has considered the differences/effects of cluster versus single-family development on schools and the tax base.
Mr. Kushner explained that a separate study was not done in connection with this amendment but noted that it has been looked at in connection with other, similar projects.
Ms. Keith noted that the road realignment project has been ongoing since the 1980s such that there is considerable information available.
Mr. Kushner indicated that in 2008, Avon Old Farms School and the Town each had independent real estate appraisals prepared. The School also hired a land planner who prepared a preliminary lot layout showing approximately 300 single-family homes. He reiterated that if the proposed amendment is adopted, the next step would be a zoning regulation change should the School consider development at some point.
Ms. Keith noted that any change to the Zoning Regulations for development would be a special exception review and therefore the Commission would have discretion. Mr. Kushner concurred and added that while the proposed amendment creates an opportunity for future development, nothing is set in stone. The amendment does not prevent a conventional development but rather creates another scenario that doesn’t currently exist.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4722 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 to represent these applications were Attorney Robert M. Meyers, on behalf of the owner; Frank Mairano, owner; and Jeffrey Gebrian, landscape architect, CR3.
The public hearing for Apps. #4741 and #4742 was continued from the September 9, 2014, meeting.
Ms. Keith addressed the audience noting that the applicant will make their presentation. When the applicant is done, the Director of Planning will provide a report followed by comments/statements from each Commission member; comments from the public will then be taken.
Attorney Meyers submitted to the Commission copies of documents relating to road acceptances, obtained from the Avon Land Records. He explained that misinformation was received at the September 9 hearing and indicated that a title search has determined that the entire roadway of Industrial Drive, including the last portion known as Industrial Drive Extension, was accepted by the Town. The first part of the road was accepted by the Board of Selectman (as it was known at that time) and the second part was accepted by the Town Council. He noted that the road, including the cul-de-sac, is owned by the Town and therefore allowed to be used by any member of the public. Mr. Meyers confirmed that the Town did receive, via deed, the entire fee interest in the road. He added that the right-of-way is
larger than the paved portion, which is always the case. He explained that any parking issues on the road should be addressed with the Police Department and any maintenance issues should be addressed with the Department of Public Works; neither issue involves the Commission.
Mr. Meyers noted that the landscape plan has been enhanced. He indicated that the subject site is located in an industrial zone and explained that a pretty ugly building could be proposed under the present building coverage limits/regulations. He added that uses far less benign could be proposed. (i.e., a contractors yard or anything permitted “as of right” in the industrial zone) but noted that because the applicant needs the 10% landscape reduction it gives the Commission much discretion and a chance to ask for a building that could never be required with an “as of right” proposal.
Frank Mairano submitted updated planting plans and photographs to the Commission. Mr. Mairano commented that the requested 10% landscape bonus provides incentive for the whole area. The proposed building is upscale for an industrial area; it would be easily maintained and keep its attractive nature over time. He noted that upscale buildings tend to attract higher end tenants and not uses that may be objectionable to the neighbors. He noted his consideration for the neighbors’ comments and acknowledged the importance of property values, as they work both ways. He noted that the landscaping proposed for the building has been enhanced; the tree size proposed is between 8 and 10 feet and spruce trees would be planted, as opposed to white firs.
Ms. Keith asked how the roots of the existing pine trees would be protected during construction. Mr. Mairano noted that the area is fenced and grubbed and there is no reason to dig in that area. The area may get raised slightly with topsoil to provide a plant bed for the spruce trees. He noted that there is an abundance of top soil on the site such that berms could be created should that be requested by the Commission. He noted that it is to his benefit to preserve and maintain the pine trees.
Mr. Mairano explained that the bus parking takes up a great deal of impervious area and noted that he is trying to offset about half of what has been invested in the pervious area.
Jeff Gebrian displayed the planting plan indicating that it shows the new plantings that will fill in the space/provide screening between the ground and the existing pine trees. He indicated that both the A2 and C Bufferyards exceed the required number of plants, as there is concern of views to the neighbors. The lower plants would be in the front and the taller plants in the middle and the chosen plants would provide color and interest and not just screening; a living fence. The proposed buffer is greater than would normally be required. Mr. Gebrian noted that the larger pines may conceal the building such that it may not be visible at all.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Gebrian explained that a total of 43 evergreen trees are proposed; the trees proposed in front of the bus parking are part of this total. He noted that aside from 8 or 9 trees, the balance of trees are in the buffer. A total of 155 mixed plants are proposed. He commented that new plantings are also proposed for the small lawn area, located outside the regulated buffer area.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question about the size of the white pines, Mr. Gebrian clarified that 3 to 4 inches refers to caliper, meaning the size of the tree is in excess of 10 to 12 feet high.
Mr. Armstrong noted that some of the parking in the front has been moved to the rear to allow room for additional plantings.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Gebrian indicated that parking on the upper level was reduced by 2 spaces to make room for additional landscaping. He added that a couple of handicap parking spaces were added. There is 32 feet of buffer space between the edge of pavement and the property line.
Ms. Keith commented that the handicap parking spaces are not near a door. Mr. Gebrian indicated that a crosswalk and a doorway can be added for the small number of cars that would use these spaces. Ms. Keith noted her concerns for people with walkers.
Ms. Keith commented that 3 businesses are projected for the second floor of the building. She noted that 13 parking spaces are shown for the shared parking area for the second floor. She added that the shared parking is on the lower level near a wall and commented that it appears to be inconvenient for second floor businesses. There are 5 parking spaces close to a staircase to the second floor or entry through a garage. She noted her concerns with the possibility of 3 different businesses occupying the second floor with a very strong likelihood of a shortage of parking on the upper level.
Mr. Mairano commented that there is more than enough parking on the entire site in terms of the square footage and occupancy of the building. He pointed to the right-hand side of the driveway and noted that a stairway with a landing is proposed near the wall; this stairway would connect with the lower level. He commented that this is a safe and attractive way for people to access the lower level if there is overflow parking on the upper level.
Ms. Keith commented that people would be crossing in front of an area where truck traffic is backing in to a loading dock. She added that this scenario may be optimal for ummer/spring/fall but noted that it would not be optimal in the winter.
Mr. Mairano explained that the parking can either be located up against the building or not. The parking in front of the building was taken away to provide more screening for the building. He noted that the parking can be put back in front of the building. The area behind the building can also be used for 4 additional parallel parking spaces, noting that these spaces have not been shown on the plans. He indicated that he feels that each business proposed for this building will require special exception approval by the Commission. He explained that the proposed wholesale business (App. #4742) may take the entire upper floor; they have 6 employees.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Mairano noted that the retaining wall is approximately 8 feet.
In response to Mr. Cappelo’s question, Mr. Mairano explained that all the existing vegetation near the Rails to Trails has been left; the area is quite dense and the trail is lower in elevation (12 to 13 feet) than the site.
Mr. Armstrong commented that he visited the site noting that it appears that the building would rise up and be higher than the street.
Mr. Mairano confirmed that the building would be slightly higher than the street but noted that the building would be at the same elevation as the street at the southerly property line. He added that the pitch for the driveway was kept relatively low.
Mr. Armstrong noted that there is an area for some berming to the left of the driveway off of Industrial Drive.
Mr. Mairano concurred and noted that Mr. Gebrian has shown this area planted with spruce trees, dogwoods, and rhododendron.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s question about parking, Mr. Mairano explained that there are approximately 21 parking spaces on the upper level; the required parking is 25 (per the Zoning Regulations). The total required parking on the lower level is 82 spaces, noting that 84 spaces in total are provided. He added that parking spaces for the drivers has been provided, as opposed to having them park in the street.
Mr. Kushner explained that the required parking is based on a formula/standard contained in the Zoning Regulations; 3.3 parking spaces are required for every 1,000 feet of gross floor area. He noted that this standard has been used for many years in the Industrial zone and explained that it’s an average. In some cases there’s a surplus and in some cases there’s a deficit. He further explained that Mr. Mairano is providing the 3.3 spaces as one unified site (both 15 and 21 Industrial Drive) such that there is a slight deficit for the new building, if you view the building as a standalone, but confirmed that the site as a whole meets the standard.
In response to Dr. Gentile’s questions, Mr. Mairano confirmed that spruce trees would be planted; however, the plans currently show fir trees.
In response to Dr. Gentile’s concern about pines, Mr. Gebrian indicated that the tops of the eastern white pines can be cut off early such that the trees are maintained to continually provide a visual barrier.
In response to Dr. Gentile’s concern about lack of visual barrier along the greenway,
Mr. Gebrian explained that the deciduous trees located along the greenway are an existing condition; the trees will grow very large.
Mr. Kushner stated that this site has been zoned industrial for many years; the first zoning map in 1957 shows this site as zoned industrial. The land that currently houses Towpath Condominiums was also zoned industrial in 1957; a zone change to residential was asked for in the late 1960s when the condominiums were approved. All the land on Industrial Drive and Sandscreen Road has been zoned industrial from day one of zoning, the year 1957. He noted that the Commission must make a determination as to whether the special exception criteria have been satisfied in connection with the request for a 10% landscape bonus (i.e., increase lot coverage by 10%). He noted that in July Mr. Mairano asked for a regulation amendment to allow a 10% landscape bonus in the industrial zone; the amendment was adopted
by the Commission. He explained that the Commission understood that while they approved this amendment, they understood that they still have discretion with regard to special exception criteria. He explained that these special exception criteria are many of the concerns expressed by neighboring residents at the last hearing (i.e., traffic impacts, property value reductions, etc.). Mr. Kushner further explained that he feels the Commission’s assessment should consider the current proposal and the potential impacts versus what could result with an “as of right” development, if the current proposal is not granted. He noted that an “as of right” building could be constructed on this site but it would be substantially smaller than the current proposal. The current proposal allows the Commission to ask for additional buffering. The applicant was directed at the end of the last hearing to try and fit the most aggressive planting
plan possible; the Commission must determine whether this has been accomplished. He concluded by noting that there are really 2 options, A and B. The current proposal, Option A, includes enhanced buffering; Option B doesn’t really exist at this point but noted that it would include a smaller building with less pavement and with a buffer but not as aggressive as the current buffer proposal.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s question/concern with parking, Mr. Mairano explained that if approval is received for the subject proposal, the parcels would be combined to form one parcel (i.e., 15 and 21 Industrial Drive would be merged as one site).
Mr. Meyers explained that in order to sell a piece of the property, a subdivision approval would be required and each of the resulting parcels, independently, would have to conform to the Zoning Regulations.
Ms. Keith asked for comments from the Commission relative to the subject applications.
Mr. Armstrong commented that he was more opposed than in favor of the subject proposal until hearing that the parcels would be combined. He added that he feels there is opportunity for increased buffering and some elevations could be built up (left side of driveway) without killing tree roots and maintaining line of sight. He noted his agreement with concerns about handicap parking. He reiterated that he is more in favor knowing that the 2 lots would be combined if an approval is granted.
Mr. Mahoney passed.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she feels the improvements make the building more palatable. She noted that she doesn’t prefer white pines and noted that further reductions would be fine. She noted that she is ok with the parking, the stairs, and the screening, as this is located in an industrial zone.
Mr. Cappello indicated that there is always a problem when there are properties that abut each other located in different zones. He noted that buffering often times solves the problem but noted that he feels the building and the retaining wall may actually help buffer the noises from the buses. He added that he feels a bit more buffering could be offered. He asked where the dumpster would be located noting that he doesn’t want more noise if the trucks show up early in the morning. He also asked about proposed lighting.
Dr. Gentile noted his understanding that while the applicant has rights to maximize his property he conveyed his compassion that this is home for the residents of Towpath Condominiums. He noted his concerns with the type of buffering that would be provided, over time, by the proposed evergreens. He indicated that if could be assured that the building would be completely buffered from the view of the nearby residents that he would be more in favor of the proposal that he was before.
Ms. Keith noted her concern with the size of the proposed building and the number of parking spaces.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that 13,000 is the 10% figure for reduced coverage; the coverage includes both the building and the parking surface.
Ms. Keith reiterated her concerns with any potential businesses on the second floor. The proposed building is somewhat large and there is the opportunity for 3 businesses, although the applicant has indicated that he may already have a tenant that would occupy the whole space. She noted that that tenant may leave and there is no alternate plan showing parking for different businesses. The retaining wall causes a problem for sharing of the lower parking lot with the upper lot; she noted that she doesn’t think this situation is optimal for multiple businesses. She indicated her favor of the additional plantings proposed but conveyed her concerns with extra traffic from other businesses. She noted that she doesn’t see the lower parking lot as an option for extra parking.
Mr. Meyers indicated that the applicant wants to work collaboratively with the Staff and Commission. He noted that as much landscaping and buffering has been added but noted that other good ideas have been presented tonight. He noted that the applicant would be willing to comply with conditions relative to Staff approval of tree species, etc, if an approval is considered. He questioned whether the landscaping has been overdone in front of the building where parking spaces were removed to add plants. He asked if that parking should be added back in, as the proposed buffering in that area really doesn’t accomplish much.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Mairano noted that the tenants that would occupy this building don’t use large dumpsters; the parking circulation doesn’t allow for a large trash truck to get in and out. He noted that his tenants would use 90-gallon containers and that that is why he didn’t show a dumpster location on the plans. He explained that if he was going to install a dumpster, it would be located to the rear of the building, at the dead end. There are 3 parking spaces there, such that one parking space would be lost. He noted that 25 spaces in total would be needed and there are 19 spaces, if the parallel parking in the back is included. He noted that he would need to put back the parking shown in the front. He explained that he’s at 32 feet
right now and would have to come back 18 feet in order to regain the 5 parking spaces in the front.
Ms. Keith commented that if the berm is installed plantings could be done on both sides.
Mr. Mairano agreed that the berm could be formed at the head of the parking area such that the parking could come around the corner. He noted that he has to be careful with how he calculates the 13,000 square-foot reduction that he needs.
Mr. Kushner clarified that he doesn’t feel the Commission’s determination has to be an “either” “or” situation. He explained that the Commission must make a decision as to whether they feel the special exception criteria have been met, such that the buffering that is being offered is sufficient to mitigate the impacts noted in Section VIII of the Regulations. One could argue that the revised plans showing the removal of parking spaces enhances the overall landscape plan. If the Commission determines that the screening provided by the removal of the parking spaces is essential to meeting the standards in the Regulations, the Commission must also be comfortable with the parking layout and the number of spaces provided. He explained that the proposed building is
7,600 SF in size but added that there is nothing in the Regulations that says a building on this site is guaranteed to be that size. He noted that every developer tries to maximize the building size allowed in a commercial zone. Mr. Kushner clarified that the entire proposal must be considered and the Commission is not burdened with having to make compromises relating to parking, landscaping, building size, etc. He reiterated that the Commission has discretion and the decision does not have to be “either” “or”.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s questions, Mr. Mairano explained that the 10% equates to 13,000 square feet. Mr. Armstrong noted his agreement about the size of the proposed building but noted that eliminating 13,000 square feet eliminates the whole building. Mr. Mairano indicated that he has worked the calculations many times.
Mr. Kushner confirmed that 13,000 square feet relates to both lots being combined (15 and 21 Industrial Drive).
Mr. Mairano indicated that with a 9.3% landscape reduction he is using 82,700 SF out of 138,000 SF. He commented that if the parking makes the Commission more comfortable than the buffer, the berm could be raised to get more impact out of the trees. He added that the berm would have to be brought forward slightly to get the parking spaces back in the front. He noted that he left enough square footage such that the entire 10% reduction isn’t needed. He commented that 34,000 square feet of building could be built on this site, given the lot coverage. He indicated that when he initially looked at this property he considered the existing building and two 9,000 square foot buildings. He commented that he could lay this site out to build two 9,000 square foot buildings and get all the
needed parking but explained that he chose to get involved with the buses, which is what is driving the current proposal. He explained that having the buses underneath is good site design, as it utilizes the site well making the upper elevation more compatible with the neighbors. The retaining walls allow the lower space to be used as a maintenance area. He noted that the current proposal grew out of good site design but added that it’s a compromise for two 9,000 square foot buildings. He concluded by noting that he knows the Commission cannot consider economics but noted that the Town saved $371,000 over a 5-year period.
Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Mairano what size building could be built, given all the lot coverage that the bus parking now takes up, if the 10% landscape bonus was not granted.
Mr. Mairano indicated that there would be enough room to build a garage required for the buses; approximately a 4,000-square-foot building. He noted that there is approximately 6,700 square feet in coverage without the bonus.
Mr. Kushner asked if the 4,000 square foot building would have little to no additional pavement because the service would be down below. Mr. Mairano explained that, on the contrary, the buses would be serviced from above; he indicated that the building would have to be constructed on the upper level and be a single-user/tenant specific building. The building would be a basic service building such that it could be taken down if it was no longer needed; the building would not be what is proposed currently.
Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Mairano why he would take advantage of the grade change and construct a smaller scaled, 2-story building with a garage under the building and office on the second floor.
In response to Mr. Kushner, Mr. Mairano explained that economics would keep him from building the aforementioned scenario; he noted that a great deal of the cost is invested in building 14 to 15-foot-high foundation walls and bringing in infrastructure.
Mr. Kushner indicated that from a design/engineering perspective, the building could be accomplished but it doesn’t work from an economic standpoint. He commented that the building would be half the size of the current proposal but no longer be a two-story building and would be serviced from the street elevation. Mr. Mairano concurred and noted that service would take place in the upper driveway.
Ms. Keith opened the hearing for public comment.
Attorney Franklin Pilicy noted that he represents the Towpath Association; there are 57 unit owners. He noted that he has not spoken to every unit owner. He indicated that it is unclear to him what the various options are, if a special exception is not granted. He noted that if consideration is being given to granting a special exception, there are certain criteria that are important to the both the Commission and the owners of Towpath Condominiums, such as neighborhood compatibility and adequate street layout. He indicated that he feels the street issues may be self-resolving and an issue for the Police Department, as noted earlier. He noted that landscaping is a big issue and commented that it seems that positive changes have been made since the last hearing; possibly berming could be
further examined by the Town and applicant. He requested that the landscaping be bonded for a 3-year period, as a condition of approval. He asked if a lighting plan exists and if so if it conforms to the Town’s Regulations. Towpath is looking for cutoff fixtures with no light trespass and asks that this be added as a condition should an approval be granted. Mr. Pilicy indicated that he has been told that there are users from the subject site that quite often use the private drive through Towpath for both construction and regular access. He noted that much of the Towpath community would prefer to see the proposed special exceptions denied. He asked that if approval is considered that attention be paid to enhanced landscaping, bonding for at least 3 years, lighting, and a condition to prevent access through Towpath private property.
In response to Ms. Keith and Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Mairano confirmed that a photometric, LED lighting plan was submitted at the last hearing.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Kushner indicated that the Commission could require compliance with IES standards in connection with lighting. He noted that a cash bond could be required to guarantee landscaping plants for 3 to 5 years. He also noted that the Commission could ask that a dumpster location be shown on the plans, in the event a dumpster is needed.
Katie Stevenson, Towpath resident, noted her agreement with Attorney Pilicy’s comments, such that buses and construction vehicles utilize the Towpath driveway; she noted that she witnesses this on a daily basis as she works at home.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions, Ms. Stevenson explained that she has seen smaller school buses enter the Towpath driveway from Industrial Drive on their way to Old Farms Road. She noted that she thinks the bus is just driving through but is not sure if children are being picked up.
Ms. Keith explained that the Commission cannot regulate the bus routes.
Mr. Kushner indicated that if buses continue to travel through the private roads in Towpath, this would be a trespass problem to address with the Police Department.
Michael Turner, Specialty Transportation, noted that he is unaware of one of his buses traveling onto Towpath property.
Ms. Stevenson commented that a bus traveled through Towpath this morning and it has been happening since school began.
Mr. Turner indicated that his buses do not go through Towpath and added that he will speak to the drivers and inform them that they are not to drive through Towpath. He noted that he is aware of buses that have driven through Towpath but said that they are not his company.
Ms. Keith noted that the bus number could be reported to the Police Department.
Attorney Meyers indicated that the police generally required a sign to be posted and then the police will respond to complaints. He indicated that regardless of what has happened in the past, Mr. Turner will instruct his employees not to drive through Towpath.
In response to Ms. Stevenson’s concerns about large truck deliveries and the applicant’s driveway being located right next to the Towpath driveway, Mr. Kushner explained that he is not aware of any zoning regulation that requires a separating distance from property lines for driveways. Ms. Keith concurred. Mr. Kushner clarified that there are separating distances for buildings but not driveways.
In response to comments and questions from Karen McQuade, resident of Towpath, regarding the confusion with Town regulations, Mr. Kushner explained/clarified that the Town of Avon Zoning Regulations are the only rules that apply in connection with the subject proposal for such things as lot coverage, how close a building can be to the road, and driveway separating distances. He indicated that the Zoning Regulations are available online on the Town’s website and apologized for any confusion.
Ms. Keith noted that the applicant’s proposal meets the requirements of the Zoning Regulations. She added that the neighbors were invited, at the last meeting, to come to the Town Hall for assistance, if needed.
Mr. Armstrong asked if Towpath was granted a right-of-way to use the road located at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Mairano confirmed that a right-of-way exists over property he owns.
Mr. Meyers clarified that Mr. Armstrong is referring to the triangular piece of property shown on the map that is owned by Mr. Mairano.
Mr. Armstrong commented that it appears that any truck attempting to enter the loading dock would have to travel beyond the cul-de-sac, land also owned by Mr. Mairano.
Ms. Keith commented that the trucks should not have to go beyond the cul-de-sac to get to the loading dock.
Mr. Meyers confirmed that the area is owned by Mr. Mairano and is 100 feet in diameter; the largest truck is approximately 84 feet.
Mr. Cappello commented that the trucks should never have to go beyond the cul-de-sac; they would either go around the cul-de-sac and back in or travel just past the driveway and back in, never entering the cul-de-sac.
Luke Abucewicz, Towpath resident, asked if any of the Commission members, other than Mr. Armstrong, have visited the site since the last meeting.
Mesdames Keith and Primeau and Mr. Cappello reported that they have been to the site.
Mr. Abucewicz noted that he has reviewed as much of the municipal code as possible, over the last several weeks and asked if the Commission has really taken into consideration things like noise and traffic pollution. He noted his concerns that no crosswalk is proposed between the applicant’s driveway and the Towpath Condominiums. He shared his concerns with extra traffic on Industrial Drive, noting that his wife’s car, with his children in it, almost got rear ended this morning by a bus. He noted his concerns that property values at Towpath will not be improved with the subject proposal. He asked if the Town accepted a bid for a transportation to come in and replace Dattco; he commented that appears to all be about money. He referred to an amendment passed in July allowing the bus
parking.
Ms. Keith explained to Mr. Abucewicz that the Commission has no jurisdiction/involvement with financial matters/bids.
Mr. Kushner explained to Mr. Abucewicz that the applicant came to the Commission in July to ask for permission to build a parking lot. The Commission has regulatory authority over proposed physical improvements at commercial sites (i.e., construction of a bus parking lot).
He confirmed and reiterated, for the record, Ms. Keith’s comments that the Commission has no connection/involvement of any kind with the bid process. Mr. Kushner stated that he works at the Town Hall everyday and had no knowledge of the bids/contracts relating to the bus parking, adding that tonight is the first time he is hearing it.
Mr. Abucewicz commented that the 2 subject parcels haven’t been built on for 60 years. He noted that the reason is probably because it wouldn’t be worth building on without the 10% exception; he noted that he heard that stated more than once. He indicated that maybe mistakes were made in the 1960s but noted that it isn’t ok for the Commission to make mistakes in 2014; the area is either residential or it isn’t. He conveyed his concerns relating to the environment (sewer/septic, runoff), traffic, noise, and property values; he noted that Towpath residents also have issues with the Towpath Association, as septic tanks need repair.
Ms. Keith explained to Mr. Abucewicz that the proposed application meets all the necessary requirements concerning sanitation and size; the applicant has provided information/met the Zoning Regulations in connection with a request for a special exception. She told
Mr. Abucewicz that he has the opportunity to go to the Town Hall and speak with Staff for any unanswered questions he may have. She further explained that this Commission is not charged with the responsibility for every aspect of a proposal; there are other departments/commissions involved. She communicated her compassion that Towpath Condominiums are located next to a site that is zoned industrial. She concluded by noting that the Commission members are all Avon residents and they have also, at times, dealt with many of the same issues being discussed tonight.
Mr. Abucewicz yelled that it’s going to be on the Commission if they decide this; he noted that someone is going to get killed. There have been no guarantees made for Towpath residents but everyone else is making money from this proposal. He noted that he has done his research. He indicated that he was going to have a heart attached and left the meeting.
Karen McQuade, Towpath resident, commented, from reading the July 15 minutes, that this proposal started about the bus station and not 4 commercial offices with more traffic. She noted that Mr. Mairano is not doing the neighbors any favors by putting an extra addition to the building. She noted that she doesn’t own at Towpath but lives across the street from the proposed building.
In response to Ms. McQuade’s concerns, Ms. Keith explained that the subject site is zoned industrial; property owners, such as Mr. Mairano, have rights to build on their property when their proposals meet the Zoning Regulations. She indicated that there are no guarantees that once something is built that something additional couldn’t be built. It’s the same as a homeowner adding an addition to their home.
Mr. Kushner further explained/clarified that, in July, Mr. Mairano showed the Commission a master plan for a future building, along with his proposal for a bus parking lot. He added that there was a rush for the construction of the bus parking lot before September 1.
Attorney Pilicy submitted to the Commission a map showing the Towpath property and roads.
Ms. Keith reported that she feels several of the concerns noting tonight could be addressed in the Commission’s motion (i.e., construction vehicles). She noted that the proposed lighting plan is acceptable to the Commission.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Ms. Keith noted that she would prefer to see an alternate plan at the next meeting. The Commission concurred.
In response to Mr. Meyers’ question, Ms. Keith noted that she would like to see additional parking and what the area would look like with berms and where a dumpster would be located, should it be needed. She confirmed that the lighting plan is acceptable.
Mr. Armstrong asked to see the location of handicap parking. He noted that about 6 more inches of berm on one side is needed to prevent runoff; there is room for about 3 to 4 feet of berm on the other side.
Mr. Meyers commented that it seems that the majority of the Commission prefers to see parking reinstated on the upper level, which allows the relocation of handicap parking. He added that it is understood that while these actions would shrink the landscape area, the number of plantings would not be reduced; the area may be raised for berming.
Ms. Keith indicated that it has been confirmed that Industrial Drive is a Town-owned public road and, therefore, Mr. Mairano must be cognizant to keep his operations off of Towpath property. She noted that it needs to be understood and confirmed that the bus company will not trespass onto Towpath property.
Mr. Meyers indicated that the applicant has no objections to a condition of no vehicles on Towpath property.
Mr. Cappello noted that he would like to see a fence along the road in the lower parking lot where the stairs are proposed; he added that it could deflect some noise and trees would be planted in front of the fence. He added that he would like to see dumpster pad area shown.
Attorney Pilicy noted that many of the comments received from the Towpath community are pertinent under the special exception criteria, such as adequate parking and access; adequate public utilities (sewage disposal); and environmental protection and conservation. He noted that all the special exception criteria should be looked at and considered by the Commission, along with all the evidence in the record including comments from the Towpath residents tonight and at the last hearing. Mr. Pilicy thanked the Commission.
Ms. Keith noted her understanding and concurred.
Attorney Meyers stated that the sewage disposal at the subject site is via septic and has been approved by the Farmington Valley Health District. Mr. Pilicy conveyed his understanding.
In response to Dr. Gentile’s question about lighting, Mr. Mairano stated that lighting would be controlled/regulated by a timer; the proposed lighting is all LED.
Ms. Keith noted that although Mr. Mairano’s testimony regarding lighting is in the record, she added that she doesn’t see any harm including lighting in the Commission’s motion.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question regarding dimming, Mr. Meyers explained that the LED lights can be controlled directionally.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the light source would stay on the subject site.
Ms. Keith asked if the light control would also apply to the upstairs of the occupied building on the site. Mr. Mairano confirmed that it would be the same scenario and added that the lighting plan shows layered lighting.
Mr. Kushner asked that consideration be given for which lights need to stay on later and which lights can be turned off earlier (i.e., parking lot lights). A minimal number of lights should be left on during late night hours.
Mr. Cappello noted that he doesn’t want it to look like the Avon Library.
Katie Stevenson, Towpath resident, asked if there is a proposal to plants trees to block views of the buses from Industrial Road and/or from Rails to Trails. She noted that buses can be readily seen from Towpath and from Rails to Trails.
Mr. Kushner explained that the bus parking lot approved in July required plantings on the Industrial Drive side; these plantings have not yet been installed. The plan displayed tonight shows these plantings/trees; he noted that there have also been trees added since the last hearing.
Ms. Keith explained that plantings on the Rails to Trails side were part of the July approval; these plantings have not yet been installed.
In response to Deana Barber, property manager for Towpath (Elite Property Management), Ms. Keith indicated that a time frame for the plantings on Rails to Trails can be required.
Ms. Keith stated that much of what has been discussed tonight will be addressed at the next meeting; the hearing will be continued to the October meeting. She noted that when the Commission votes all the special exception conditions will be included.
In response to Ms. Stevenson’s question regarding zoning issues, Mr. Kushner confirmed that he could help with zoning questions and recommended that it would be best if Towpath residents came in as a group so everything could be addressed at the same time. He suggested that the Association president and/or board members attend, as well as Towpath’s attorney.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to continue the hearing for Apps. #4741 and #4742 to the next meeting, scheduled for October 21. The motion seconded by Mr. Armstrong, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to table App. #4740 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mr. Armstrong, received unanimous approval.
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 Robin Pearson, on behalf of the owner; Robert (Biff) Schechinger, landscape architect; Tom Bailey, owner; Kevin Cochrane, Avon Hardware; and Hans Winkle, architect.
Attorney Robin Pearson, representing Lexham Avon, LLC, owner, explained that the issues raised at the last hearing have been addressed. She indicated that the special exception application requests to add 7,822 square feet for the proposed hardware store, located at the western end of the building. An additional 1,434 square feet is also requested for storage; the application also includes new signage. She noted that the plans have been revised to show all parking; all driveway locations; all the doorways, including information relating to the storage doors; and the location of an additional concrete pad. She added that clarification was requested as to how the hardware store would function; how people would get propane; and how bulky storage would be handled.
Ms. Pearson addressed the site plan changes, referencing Sheet L2B of the plan set. She noted that 10 parking spaces have been assigned for hardware store employee parking; the pavement will be marked/painted and signs (designating employee parking) placed at each end of the row of 10 spaces.
Mr. Schechinger noted that the employee spaces will be striped in yellow.
Ms. Pearson continued and noted that 8 spaces will be designated in front of the back entrance to the hardware store; these spaces will also be marked with signs to be located on the back of the building. The existing evergreens located to the rear of the building will replaced with ornamental grasses, providing more height to the planted areas.
Ms. Pearson addressed the propane area noting that a loading space has been designated in the back corner; this area is significantly buffered for any property to the north and northeast by the addition of new plantings to replace the old pines. The propane area is heavily screened to abutting properties. A parking space will be provided for people to park, go into the building, and ask a hardware store employee to come out and fill the tank. The filling area is enclosed by fencing and bollards; only hardware store employees are allowed to access the propane filling area. A striped walkway is proposed between the fencing and the parking space.
Ms. Keith asked that she would like to see 3 parking spaces designated for the propane area; she noted that this area will be busy in the summer and during Memorial Day weekend.
Ms. Pearson noted her understanding but asked if the bigger goal is to encourage/direct hardware store customers to park in the back, whether you want to designate 3 spaces solely as propane parking.
Ms. Keith indicated that there is plenty of parking in the rear.
Ms. Pearson confirmed that 3 parking spaces can be designated for propane.
Ms. Pearson addressed the rear storage (bulk) doors and noted that the width has been increased such that the entire opening is now filled by the doors, an aesthetic façade improvement. Requests made by customers for items in bulk storage will be handled by a hardware store employee; items will be wheeled out to customers’ cars.
Ms. Pearson addressed signage noting that 2 signs indicating “hardware parking” will be placed at each end of a row of 5 parking spaces, located along Westridge Drive entrance.
Mr. Schechinger addressed architectural changes noting that a walkway crossing has been added for pedestrians coming out of the bulk storage area.
Ms. Pearson explained that the plans now show which doors are changing and what the new doors will look like. The front of the building will now have false doors; the entrance to the hardware store will be via 2 double doors, as shown on the plans. Signs are proposed to direct people to the rear of the building, for the hardware store. All signs will be white raised lettering; the existing sign theme for the building will continue to be adhered to.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s question about additional plantings along Westridge Drive,
Mr. Schechinger explained that a schedule for the new plants to go in will be reviewed tomorrow. All the evergreens proposed are 6 to 7 feet minimum; all trees are 2 to 3 inch caliper.
Dr. Gentile asked Mr. Cochrane about the aesthetics of the propane area. Kevin Cochrane explained that he bought a cabinet (plastic Rubbermaid) that will house the propane tanks; unfilled tanks will be located in the building.
An unidentified Westridge resident noted that the propane area abuts a residential area; she noted that the back and sides were cleared and a lot of trees have come down.
Mr. Schechinger explained that the landscape buffer is a minimum of 35 feet and the propane area is in front of the buffer. He noted that the native plant material still exists, there is just no understory; the 35-foot buffer area is not being touched. He noted that a series of understory plantings is being created; the neighbors won’t see anything.
In response to the unidentified audience member asking about safety regulations for propane, Ms. Keith noted that the applications have met the Regulations. The audience member noted her concerns with the poor quality of the rear parking lot and the increased traffic in this area. She noted that more screening is needed for the neighbors.
Ms. Pearson explained that the buffering that the owner is proposing is very attractive and thick.
Mr. Schechinger noted that the propane area won’t be visible, either will lights. He explained that the area further down is not being touched and is very thick.
Mr. Kushner confirmed Mr. Schechinger’s comment that the pie-shaped lot (also owned by Lexham Avon) located beyond the propane area is undevelopable/non buildable.
Jason Indomenico, 24 Westridge Drive, noted that his property overlooks the aforementioned pie-shaped piece of land. He commented that he feels the buffer to the residential area is currently inadequate. He noted that the activity in the rear parking lot is going to be increased and added that the buffer should be extended all the way to the end of the employee parking spaces to provide screening for the adjacent neighborhood.
Tom Bailey, owner, noted that rhododendrons already exist that should provide a better buffer from the recent pruning.
Mr. Indomenico indicated that he knows from experience what the views are and added that there should be some protection between the site and the residences located behind it; additional buffering isn’t too much to ask. He noted his concerns with noise and the propane area and asked about sound barriers/buffers.
Mr. Schechinger explained that the evergreen buffer is anchored by a series of 6 to 7-foot installed needle evergreens; he noted that the propane area will not be visible. He noted that a lot of the dead wood has been cleaned up recently but explained that there are still many trees/shrubs in the existing 35-foot buffer that exists as part of the original approval for this site.
Ms. Pearson indicated that the applicant is willing to add some additional evergreens to augment what currently exists.
Ms. Keith commented that the applicant is willing to work on/enhance the landscape plan with the Commission and the Town.
Ms. Pearson explained that the owner would be willing to coordinate with Mr. Schechinger and Mr. Kushner to review the landscape plan. She noted that the buffer being proposed is a key, ornamental type and explained that it wouldn’t make sense to just continue it all the way down. She further explained that some key spots need to be looked at where it would make sense to fill in.
Mr. Kushner agreed that a field evaluation makes sense to determine where the spots exist and where the parking lot can be seen from the neighbors. He noted that once the areas are identified it makes sense to put plants in those areas, but it doesn’t necessarily mean along the entire boundary.
Ms. Pearson concurred.
In response to Mr. Indomenico’s question, Mr. Schechinger explained that a 6-foot high, chain link fence (black PVC coated) is proposed around the propane area; concrete bollards (4-feet high) would surround the area. He noted that there is a curb around the propane area also.
Mr. Schechinger added that the enclosure of the existing 2 dumpster pads is being rebuilt and noted that another dumpster pad will be constructed for recycling cardboard.
In response to a question from Michael Skeggs (4 Foxridge Lane) about garbage pickup at 5am, Mr. Kushner explained that there is no Town Ordinance that governs/restricts trash pickup times.
Heidi Zacchera, 17 Westridge Drive, noted that the site is not as densely buffered as you might think; she noted that she can see right through.
In response to a question from Christine Skeggs, 4 Foxridge Lane, Mr. Bailey noted that the site lights go off at 11pm and added that no change to the site lighting is proposed.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4734 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4746 - Avon Self Storage, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct new 12,000 SF building, 190 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360190 in I Zone
Present were Robert (Hutch) Haines, owner; and David Whitney, PE, Consulting Engineers, LLC
Mr. Armstrong indicated that he visited the site, which is very well maintained. The owner indicated that he would repair a fenced area (area of runoff) in the parking lot.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Haines explained that the front side of the proposed building starts at 10 feet and the roof pitch is such that it won’t be seen from the road.
Mr. Whitney explained that the building would be constructed into the side of the hill.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Haines indicated that the roof would be flat, shed style; the same color and material as 2 others existing buildings.
Mr. Whitney explained that half of the area is a gravel parking lot approved for RV storage; half the area is already graded.
Mr. Armstrong motioned to approve App. #4746. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
App. #4749 - Ten East Main Street Avon, LLC, owner, John Lumani, applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to add parking and office use in rear of building, 10 East Main Street, Parcel 2140010, in a CS Zone
John Lumani was present.
Mr. Lumani explained that the front portion of the building is used for his barber shop and noted that his request is to utilize the back portion for office space. He noted that he has been working on this proposal for over a year with Mr. Kushner.
Mr. Kushner noted that this is a unique site and added that compliance with the Parking Regulations is demonstrated with only a modest amount of restriping/reconfiguration. He added that Mr. Lumani now has a legal right (a reciprocal easement was exchanged) to use the parking area located on the Town-owned property next door, The Living Museum. The Historical Society has submitted written support of this proposal.
In response to Mr. Armstrong’s comment, Mr. Lumani noted that the propane tanks will be removed; he just tied into natural gas.
Mr. Armstrong motioned to approve App. #4749. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Cappello motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider the public hearing items. Mrs. Primeau seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
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
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4737, subject to the following condition:
- Any ground-mounted light source shall be shielded/screened to minimize glare.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
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
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4745, subject to the following condition:
1. Any ground-mounted light source shall be shielded/screened to minimize glare.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
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
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4747, subject to the following condition:
1. Any ground-mounted light source shall be shielded/screened to minimize glare.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
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
Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App. #4748, subject to the following condition:
1. Any ground-mounted light source shall be shielded/screened to minimize glare.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
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
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
Mr. Armstrong motioned to approve Apps. #4734 and #4735 subject to the following conditions:
1. Three (3) parking spaces shall be marked in the rear parking lot for the propane filling area.
2. The propane filling area shall be removed if it becomes non operational for a 1-year time period.
3. Additional plantings shall be added to the 35-foot buffer area located adjacent to Westridge Drive. The applicant shall prepare revised plans and submit to the Director of Planning for review and approval.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval.
App. #4722 - Proposed amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development pertaining to Chapter 11, Neighborhood Goals and Policies; Town of Avon, applicant
Mr. Armstrong motioned to approve App. #4722, as amended. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau, received unanimous approval. The effective date is October 8, 2014.
OTHER BUSINESS
2015 PZC Meeting Schedule
The Commission unanimously approved the 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Schedule.
Proposed Site Plan – Hopmeadow Street/Route 10, Simsbury
Mr. Kushner reported that this proposal is now pending in the Town of Simsbury; the site (surrounds the NE Utilities building) is located right over the Avon Town Line, adjacent to Avon Meadows office complex and Riverdale Farms. He noted that the entire site is approximately 40 acres and the proposal is to sell 16 acres to a housing developer to build 185 condos and apartments. There is no buyer currently for the remaining acreage. The Town of Simsbury has required the applicant to prepare an overall master plan, similar to the master plan in Avon approved for Ensign Bickford. The entire development would include approximately 300,000 square feet of space; phase one is now under review. He noted that no major improvements to Route 10 are proposed at this time; no traffic signal is
proposed but it is possible that future phases may require a signal.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the site plan is currently pending in Simsbury where an approval is being requested for permits to build the aforementioned 185 units.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on September 30, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4722 - Proposed amendment to 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development pertaining to Chapter 11, Neighborhood Goals and Policies; Town of Avon, applicant Approved as amended Effective October 10, 2014
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 Approved with Conditions
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 Approved with Conditions
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 Approved
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 Approved
App. #4746 - Avon Self Storage, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct new 12,000 SF building, 190 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360190 in I Zone Approved
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 Approved
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 Approved
App. #4749 - Ten East Main Street Avon, LLC, owner, John Lumani, applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to add parking and office use in rear of building, 10 East Main Street, Parcel 2140010, in a CS Zone Approved
Dated at Avon this 7th day of October, 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
| 
