Advisory Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]

Good evening. Welcome to the town of Avon advisory plan commission meeting. If you're interested in having a copy of the agenda, they are available on the tables to the right of the audience. We will be conducting business as outlined on the agenda. From time to time, the board may deviate from the agenda. As president of this body, I will inform those in attendance of any deviations. This meeting is being recorded for the public record. Because of this, we request that personal conversations are kept to a minimum and that all cell phones are set to vibrate. Any phone calls shall be taken outside of the chambers. This would be a good time to check your cell phones. If you are interested in commenting during the public hearing portion of the commission's deliberations, please sign up on the sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience. When your name is called, please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please address your comments to the board and not to the staff or to the petitioner. Your comments should relate directly to the case at hand. During the conduct of the public hearing portion of the commission's deliberations, the petitioner will have 10 minutes to present their case to the commission. Reministrators will have 10 minutes to present objections to the petition. Persons in support of the petition other than the petitioner will have 10 minutes to present support for the petition. And finally, the petitioner will close the public hearing portion of the presentation with a fiveminute rebuttal period. Once the public hearing is closed, no additional testimony will be heard unless it is solicited by members of the commission during the question and answer phase of the commission's deliberations. Subdivision plat and development plan petitions are ministerial requests, meaning that if the proposal meets the

requirements set forth in the town's development ordinances, the plan commission must approve the request. In the interest of transparency, state law requires that the plan commission hold a public hearing, even if the development proposal must be approved. Responses to public comments and questions may be given once the public hearing portion is closed. We do understand that there may be several persons who wish to speak. In order to keep the meeting running in a timely fashion, we would request that you not repeat previous comments. Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. Again, welcome to our meeting and please stand for the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Uh, let's do a roll call.

Greg Zusen. Greg Zusen is absent. Paul Genenberger here. Katherine Ransburg here. Dave Kaufman here. Bill Reid here. Andrew Rockebrand here. Jennifer Spencer. Jennifer Spencer is absent. We have a quorum. And we now move on to the approval of the June 23rd plan commission meeting minutes. Has everybody had an opportunity to read the meeting minutes? Have any questions, suggested edits, or changes? If not, we'll entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes.

I will make that motion. Just a minute. I I just noticed an error. Um it indicates that Jennifer Spencer was absent, but she was here. Okay. We'll make that change. My apologies. Okay. Would you like to make the motion as amended? I will uh make that motion to approve the meeting minutes from June 23rd, 2025 as amended. Second. Having heard a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed? Motion carries. Meeting minutes are approved.

Uh, do we have an updated agenda or is the agenda in our packet what we're using? The agenda's been updated but not substantial, not anything substantative. It's just to add some stuff to the end that's required by state statute now, but is no changes to the agenda.

Okay. Uh this would be the time uh during the meeting at which if you have anything you'd like to speak to that is not on tonight's agenda, this is your opportunity to come forth and and uh speak. If there's a pothole that bothers you in particular or you don't think we have enough chicken places or or whatever, this is the opportunity to come forth. If it's already on tonight's agenda, then we'll just wait to then. Would anybody like to speak about anything that is not on tonight's agenda? Having had nobody step forward, the public hearing, public comment portion is closed. We now move on to the request for continuences or agenda modifications. [Music] Thank you, President Ransburg, members of the commission. staff would draw your attention to DPR 254 at 11:37 North Avon Avenue. Um, this development plan review was docketed um for your May hearing and was continued from the May hearing to the July hearing because staff had not received any revised plans or responses from the petitioner. Um and the the petitioner is here to tonight to um request a continuance and indicate why that should be granted. Perhaps give you an update on why they have not submitted any revised plans or responses to date. Um and staff really has no significant opinion on whether or not this would be continued. We don't know to what date. Um, the petitioner might request that continuence, but would suggest that if a continuence were entertained, it would need to be probably at least two months in order for the potential for revised plans to be submitted and reviewed in time for a subsequent hearing. And I do

believe any continuence of um more than a month requires additional notice to be mailed by the petitioner. just and my understanding is that DPR2508 is also going to be continued.

Yes, there is a request to continue that to September because the petitioner is planning to make some revisions to their proposal in addition to um dressing addressing the uh comments from the commission regarding the architectural waiverss. They're they might be changing the size of the building um for other reasons, not just to address your comments. They may be reducing the size of the building, I believe.

Okay. Um, unless council objects, I suggest we go ahead and approve the or since um, Ray Kellman is not here and they've put in the request and the staff object to that continuence. Um, they requested um, this is their first request for continuance. They are um, they said they were going to make some substantial changes to the building. So, they needed two months. So it they are now requesting a continuence to September 22nd. That's different than what's in your packet. It says August. Okay. The emotion is correct. September 22nd and because this is their first request, it is a continuence by right.

You still need to vote on it because it's two months. But yes, it it we are recommending approval because it is their first. Okay. Well, then let's go ahead and deal with the Ray Skilman automotive. Would that require an additional notice then because it's two months or

Yeah.

from the original.

Yes, it does need notice. Okay, because this is a request uh this is a first request. It is continuence by right. Um so do I hear a motion to approve the request for continuance for DPR2508. I'm go ahead. I move that we continue DPR25-08 race and automotive of Avon a development plan review to provide for 31,980 ft auto automobile dealership to the September 22nd 2025 hearing with additional notice. I'll second. Having heard a motion and a second, we'll take a vote. Reed, four, Rocke,

four. Cookenberger, four. Ransburg, four. Kaufman.

Motion carries and DPR 258 is continued to the September 22nd meeting of this commission. Okay. Going back to DPR2504 uh which is um sea store and gas uh 1137 North Avon Avenue sea store and gas station. Um we understand that there is a request confer continuence and we have the petitioner here to make that argument. Good evening here on behalf of brothers LLC with respect to DPR 254 and we are requesting a 90day continuous the reason being there was some confusion between the correspondence between Steve Moore on the right way work and what was necessary for the zoning approval. Um, and after additional correspondence with the zoning staff, uh, we realize there's a lot more work that needs to be done as far as determining what's necessary for the right work. So, we are going to undertake that work, but we need the additional time. So, that's the reason the 90 days continue. And so we understand that there had been requests for updated plans and your and the reason we haven't received those is because you said there's a mis was a miscommunication happening.

Yes. And so essentially we'll have to survey and do the civil engineering for the right of way in order to expand. Um when we had initially submitted a proposed plan showing the additional passing blister in third lane um Steve Ward said that should be sufficient for zoning. So we didn't think we would need to do the additional survey work and civil engineering work for the zone approval and have since come to learn that we do need to do all that additional surveying engineering just for the zone of approval. And so um it's just a matter of time of getting that done since it's a significant area right away. So I got a question as far as like so this has been going on for several months here. Is there a reason why you just came to this I mean that several months have passed by was this not brought up or you did not um seek them for information at the time to where now we're waiting three more months. Well, there was different emails saying different things and some of them were going to engineers, some of them were going to the architects, some of them myself and all of them it wasn't exactly clear to us that this was all necessary. We thought based on the email saying that this cipher that we submitted application was sufficient showing the work in the right way that we weren't going to at this time have to do the syllable and survey work in the right way and then

there was clarification emails after that that said we could so Are you the petitioner that uh sought to build a gas station in 2023 then is that so so for the last two years I mean this a lot of time here has passed to get this information and get the instruction. So so then we resubmitted in between. Okay.

This was that was when we added the rightway work but we did a preliminary plan showing the rightway work submitted it to More along with the traffic impact setting and I had an email saying that it should be sufficient and then um Paul sent an email saying that that was not sufficient. Um, and then I included Steve Moore and he said, "Well, that's not what I meant when I was saying it was additional purposes." Okay. Thank you.

There's this would be the second request for continuence. Is that correct? Yes. This was continued this was continued um from your May 27th hearing. And when did you become aware that there had been this miscommunication between uh your company and town staff?

It was kind of always evolving. But I think I spoke with Linda on the phone probably month ago roughly and that's when clear. Have you started doing any of the additional work that you realize needs to be is required?

Uh we've started obtaining bids, but it's going to be a significant amount of work since it's a significant area of the right away. So we're trying to obtain bids to make it affordable. So you've taken a substantial step towards meeting that requirement. Yes. When was this originally sub? Um, this filing was filed on February 5th. Seemed like at the main meeting there was a there was comment that they that there had been any communication.

So yeah, this filed on February 5th. It went to attack technical advisory committee on March 20th. um because the petitioner's representative at that meeting indicated that they would need more time. Normally, it would have been docketed for your April 28th meeting, but because they said, "This is a lot of stuff. We're not going to be able to meet the deadline for April," we said, "Okay, we won't uh docket it for April." So, then we docketed it for um your May hearing, and we hadn't heard anything from um Mr. Rooney or the engineer that appeared at the T at the TAC meeting before that time. And if you recall then um in May you continued it to July and there was some discussion about the lack of communication with the petitioner. So we sent a certified letter um indicating your action at the May meeting to continue that to July. Um and then the Mr. Rooney reached out and um we really haven't had any communication. I don't think I've had any communication other than with regard to requesting another continuence here tonight.

So I guess that's what I was wondering is March to May we had to kind of proactively say we're going to go ahead and do a continuous So what was that gap? Well, portion of it was I mean there wasn't no communication because the engineer attended meeting I wasn't at meeting but they discussed that portion of it there and between then there was when we were reaching out to get bids and clarifying what all we need for the right way work. I am concerned that there doesn't seem to be an urgency on the part of the petitioner about maintaining constant communication with town staff. Um I I may have misunderstood what you just said, but I believe Dave was asking about the poor communication before the last continuence. Is that correct? I think every email that we've ever gotten from staff has been replied to the whether it was the engineer or myself always replied to every email or responded and replied through phone call. So there I don't

and yet there was nobody here at the last meeting and so we had as Dave said we had to like we haven't heard anything what should we do? Um I mean I I am nor I would normally be inclined to be in favor of granting this continuence because we like to see projects developed and going through. Um the fact that this is the second chance to develop this project because the first one fell through for whatever reasons that happens. But I I'm I'm going to need to hear some asurances that there's going to be a lot more proactivity. No, certainly there was an email that said it was going to be that we had to request not this meeting but previous and so that's why we didn't attend it was just going to be continued. We didn't even request and so that's why we didn't think we didn't need to attend that we had no need to attend to the next meeting. I would suggest for f for future reference, if this project is ever on the agenda, you should be present. Even if it's just to witness that it it's that something's being continued.

Um have a question for staff. So what we've been hearing here, is that accurate as far as the um what communications have been, your attempts to communicate with them, their responses to us? all the department.

So, this is Paul's case, but both he and I have been talking to Mr. Rooney um on different occasions. And I just want to say that early on after TAC meeting, we talked about it not getting on the very next agenda because there was a lot to get done. I think he thought we were going to hold off until we got more information, not that it was just one month. So, I don't think he was expecting, and correct me if I'm wrong, Pat, but I don't think he was expecting for it to be on the May agenda, and that's why we hadn't heard any like we hadn't had any communication, and we didn't hear from him saying, "I didn't I didn't know I was going to be on the May agenda." But that's what I think happened at the May agenda is that we docketed it and he didn't think we were going to possibly

based on the wording the email saying it wasn't ready for that because of the tag meeting. So I did that it's not placed on the agenda. So we didn't need to Okay. Is there any objection to the 90-day the request for 90-day continuance by staff or council?

Um staff wouldn't object to that. I would just um note that you have a requirement in your rules procedure to um not move any petition out more than 6 months beyond the original schedule hearing date. So, um, a 90-day continuance to October 27th should be fine. That would be a total of 5 months at this point. But um per your rules, it um that should be with additional mailed notice to the uh surrounding property owners of whom you have three in attendance here tonight just in case you were wondering and uh we're interested in any comment from them. I'm not sure that they would have any comment on a continuence request.

Okay. Thank you. So, do you think there's an do you have enough time to get to the October meeting to get all the work done that needs to be done to satisfy the requests and the um the additional requests from the staff? Is that enough time? Yes. Is is there urgency on this project now? I mean, it's been five or several months now and there's been no urgency on it. Is there different? Is it different now than it was three months ago? Get this.

Okay. Okay. Uh just um because this is a request for continuence, do we also take public comment? No public comments. This is not a public hearing. Um, so you're not required to take public comment for a request for a continuence. Okay. Thank you. Any further question? Uh, go ahead. Is it the So, your comment not required, but at our discretion, we could if we wanted to. Sure.

Okay. So, I just it's like if um we have members in the audience that might like to make comments that the petitioner could hear then too. That might help all parties understand anything that may come up. and need to be addressed. And if anybody wants to make comment, I'd be interested in the comments. Anybody object to that? I think it's a good idea. We're doing things a little bit different than I agree because it's a short agenda tonight. We

I I agree that it's always helpful to have input from the community. So, thank you. If you'd like to have a seat, I understand that we've got some uh community members who would like to speak on this. understand that tonight we are making a decision simply on the matter of continuing the presentation out. So, um, who do we have? Oh, I don't know if

like I think I I I don't know if they want to comment on the continuence, but if they do, we've I know they've signed in just in case the case was going to be heard, but I'm not sure if they have any comment on the continuence request or not. Do any of the members here want to speak? You do. Just come up and state your name and address.

Yes. Might want to pull that microphone down. 695 Park Square drop. Thank you.

There are others too who disagree with the [Music] gas station and convenience store. We have so much traffic on 267 and there's only one building between the proposed building and another large speedway gas station. I don't think we're ready for another. Also, they would be right next door to a day which does not seem very safe. That's really what we have against right now. Will we be notified? Again, I'm the only person that got a letter that I know about and um will we be notified of the next time this comes up?

Yes. No. Oh, I'm this is just your opportunity to speak. So, um staff can answer that question. Um I believe they will continue it with notice and whoever was on the original list will be on the next list. Not everybody in the development would get one. It's just two properties away from the property itself. So, if they're a little further into the development, they may not have gotten one. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Would either of you two ladies like to speak? My name is Cheryl Ross and I live at 6967 Park Square Drive, Lumber D. And I echoing what she said about it being next to a daycare. I just don't think that's appropriate. Plus, I also think it will affect our property values. And I just really I don't know why we need one, you know, but I just think it's not a good because of the traffic now. It's impossible to get out sometimes during the evening and in the morning. So that's I just don't like it next to a dayare.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am, would you like to speak? No. Okay. Public comment portion is closed. Um, would you care to or it's not closed, but would you care to remmonstrate? Would the petitioner care to remmonstrate? Yes.

Yes. Just real quick, we did after the initial filing, we did a traffic impact study and that is the reason for the additional rightway work uh which would help to alleviate traffic both existing and any new traffic that we would add. Um and the um the daycare was next to the car wash while it was a car wash and the gas station and sees a similar use. Um so we I would be happy to get their contact information to see if there's any um additional commitments that they would like to see that work out.

Okay. Thank you very much. Now, the public comment section is closed. As I reiterated earlier, we are not here to discuss the tonight. We're not here to make a decision upon the uh proposed development, but to approve or disapprove of the petitioner's request for a 90-day continuance, 60 90 days, 60 days. 90 days. 90 days. So, for clarification, is that October 27th? Yes, sir. Okay. Any discussion about the request?

So, we we did have some discussion on this and Dave, you brought that up and and it's like it it seemed like there wasn't any progress being made and the petitioner wasn't being responsive. I think that's been cleared up. Some still um I am Don't ask me to vote first because I'm not sure which way I would vote in the summit at Crossroads on this as far as whether we should continue it or not. And I think we need four votes regardless to approve tonight. So, um approve whatever motion would be made. So

any other thoughts, comments? Well, I would argue that communication is now going, so it's better than last time. I don't know, you know, if it goes beyond October 27th without additional um concrete uh advancements on this project, I think that would be a sign that this needs to be dismissed. Um, I'm willing to move that we I'm not going to say it right now. I'm willing to go forward with continuence, give everybody a chance, get the communication cleared up, get the project rolling, but if it's not rolling, it will exceed the 60 or the six months and then should be dismissed.

I I would agree with that. I want to see some if if not all the work is done, I want to see significant progress uh showing that there's been substantial very substantial work towards this bill. I've got a question for council. If we were to move on this for 90 more days, can we put a contingency in with any motion that this would be the final one that we would grant?

Not at this time. Um you would just address it at the next if you were to continue it to the October hearing, it would be at that time. you physically could not go past the November hearing. So, the only other motion you could do at that time would be a 30-day continuance to November and then it would have to be decided that day or dismissed because you'd be past your six months. But, I think you've at least communicated that to the petitioner. So, I think they're aware at this point what's going to happen if they don't move the project forward. Thank you.

There's no further discussion. We'll entertain a motion. I move that we continue DPR 25504 1137 North A1 Avenue SEO gas station development plan review to provide for a convenience store gas station to the October 27 period with additional I'll second having heard a motion in a second we'll now take a vote rock four Reed four Kaufman Ransburg four Genenberger Four.

Motion carries. DPR 254 is now continued to the October 27th plan commission meeting. I'd like to make one correction. I do apologize. The minutes where I said to add Jennifer back in, I was confusing last meeting with our special meeting that she was at. So, she was in fact not here at the June meeting.

Council, do we need to Okay. Okay, moving on. We have no old business, no new business. Do we have any other business? I'd like to bring up something. Um, and Paul, you kind of references our rules of procedure. So, we I I don't remember last time we had the rules of procedures and we kind of talked about that, but you referenced that. So, you're referencing something. I'd like to get a copy of the rules of procedure of what you have at the next meeting so that we all have that because it's been a while. I can't remember the last time we reviewed those and we got a copy of them. So, um

it's been a while since we have though. Yeah. And I I believe the BCA also has the same rules of procedures too. So, anything can dig up and get to us because if you reference something, just give us what your reference is. If we need to modify them, recreate them, let let's do that, too. Absolutely. We can get copies of those. Just for um your information, plan commission's rules were last adopted by this body in December of 2023. So, um I don't know if you guys got copies then, but we can certainly make copies and get them for you with the next month's agenda.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I don't throw away anything. And I I think I found a draft of those, not the the adopted rule. So I just the anal part of me likes to have that document so I can reference it every once in a while. Thank you. You're welcome. I want to add to that that um I've just started the process of trying to do some updates um with state law change. I want to make a few updates. So I was planning on presenting that to you either in August or September. with a redline version so you'd see what you have now, what I was proposing. Then you could also read through it and see if you wanted to or have a discussion to see if you wanted to propose any any more changes.

Okay. Do do we anticipate a full agenda next month? We do not. It will just be the plan or the comprehensive plan, I believe. Okay. And we have a few things coming in on Friday that will be for September. Okay. Um, you mentioned that there are some additional things we need to tend to on the agenda. She talking about what you added in the end, but I think that's what she's referring to. Oh, I just was clarifying the minutes. I don't have anything else. Oh, okay. I thought you said there was something relating to updated

the end of the agenda that's now posted on our website and that it's on the back table has as required by statute now the list of all the plan commission members who appointed them and their dates of appoint like start and stop of their term and that's required by statute now. So that's all we added and everything we post now to the newspaper or on our website will have all of your names, who appointed you and your term. Okay. Uh committee reports. We I know we did not have a BCA meeting

redevelopment. In addition to, pardon me, invoice approvals, we approved a resolution authorizing rightaway acquisition for the County Road 525 improvements and uh as well a revised the revised uh reimbursement agreement with Centerpoint uh regards Dan Jones phase three. Any other committee meeting reports? Anything else for the good of the order? Okay. If not, this meeting is now adjourned.