PZC 9/30/14

Page 239

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 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.