On July 5, at a standing-room only public hearing that stretched more than four hours, Clinton residents turned out at Andrews Memorial Town Hall in full force to weigh in on several applications before the town’s Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC). The biggest of these was an application to land a floating zone on a group of properties at the corner of routes 1 and 81.

That floating zone application, which would allow a CVS drive-through pharmacy in the town center, drew widespread criticism for its presumed negative effects on traffic, town character, and public transit.

Floating zones—which are said to “float” over a town’s map—can be landed in certain areas to allow for modifications to the existing regulations in that area. Those modifications might include smaller setbacks (for example, less distance between a building and the street or other structures), less parking, and higher density.

Developer Douglas Benoit, who hopes to construct a CVS drive-through pharmacy on the corner of routes 1 and 81, initially petitioned the town’s PZC for the adoption of floating zones, which would be the first step in allowing the kind of development he has planned. On March 14, the commission approved the adoption of floating zones generally, in town. Now Benoit has applied to land the Main Street District (MSD-1) floating zone on the property he intends to develop, which includes 15, 19, 21, and 23 West Main Street as well as 6 John Street Extension. According to Benoit’s attorney, Tom Cronan, the land is a little over an acre and a half. It’s bounded on the south by Route 1, on the east by Route 81, and on the west by John Street Extension.

“It’s no surprise that if we succeed in clearing all the regulatory hurdles,” said Cronan, “the plan is to relocate the CVS here. I hope you’ll see your way clear to accept this application.”

The reason for requesting a floating zone, he explained, is because the parcel is bifurcated by B-3 and I-1 (business and industrial) zones, a combination that doesn’t allow for the type of proposed development.

A CVS retail pharmacy is situated just more than two blocks away, approximately a tenth of a mile east on Route 1. If a new CVS is built, the existing pharmacy, which does not have drive-through, would close.

Before the public was invited to comment on the application, letters submitted to the PZC both in favor of and against landing the floating zone were read into the record. They included correspondence from Clinton Historical Society President David Bautz and Historic District Commission Chairman Larry Ouellette, both of whom pointed out that the area in question contains historic buildings dating as far back as the 1740s. The buildings, they said, are relevant to Clinton’s cultural history and contain irreplaceable architectural features and characteristics, and their demolition in order to build a drive-through pharmacy would be inconsistent with the historic village downtown envisioned by the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (PCD).

A letter from the town’s consultant planner, John Guszkowski, urged both the developer and the commission to consider the guidelines established in the PCD. Guszkowski also noted, however, that the commercial intersection of routes 1 and 81 “holds tremendous potential for redevelopment” and “retail vitality” as well as improved landscaping and streetscapes. The “current jumble of properties” on that parcel, he noted, is “a disjointed collection of residential and commercial uses without a unifying design.”

‘It’s a Traffic Nightmare Already’

Dozens of residents lined up to voice their opposition to the proposed project.

Criticisms centered on four main themes: increased traffic congestion, the demolition of historic properties, the placement of a chain retail drugstore at the historic gateway to Clinton’s downtown area, and a lack of transit-oriented development to increase rail ridership. (The property in question is bounded on the north by Clinton’s Shoreline East/Amtrak train station.)

Michael Milano, who owns a storage facility and other commercial properties west of the Route 1 and 81 intersection, expressed concerns that turning the property into a high-traffic commercial area would create a “blood clot” that would keep people from traveling westward on Route 1.

“It’s a traffic nightmare already,” said resident Mary Jo Phelps, who also argued that a chain drugstore at that location “doesn’t really fit with the PCD.”

Echoing those sentiments, resident Vin Cimino called the intersection a “totally inappropriate location” with “tremendous traffic implications.”

“Nothing makes sense about this decision,” another speaker contended.

Many questioned why the developer would pursue this property as opposed to other sites in need of redevelopment, such as the long-vacant Friendly’s Restaurant further west on Route 1.

Situating a chain retail pharmacy at the entrance to Clinton’s downtown district, said one speaker, “will turn people off to our town.”

“This is where visitors form their first impression of us,” said another.

‘We’re Losing Old New England, One Building at a Time’

Three historic buildings—a white barn and two 18th-century homes—are situated on the property.

Megan Stine, immediate past president of the Clinton Historical Society (CHS), told the PZC, “We have strong objections to the loss of these properties…We cannot let the town tear down one building after another.” Circulating a petition to protect the buildings from demolition, the CHS collected 581 signatures—more than 250 of which were received in the first 24 hours—evidence, said Stine, of the strong public sentiment surrounding this issue.

If the town moves forward with the floating zone landing, said Richard Manley, “we will set a precedent for destroying historic homes.”

Jeffrey Cashman asked if anyone remembered the Hull House in Clinton or recalled what happened to it. A dining room table and harvest table in his home, he said, are made from materials from the historic home “that I scrounged from a Dumpster.”

Christ Obymachow, a mother of three who said she shops frequently downtown and throughout Clinton, argued that the loss of historic properties would have no real economic benefit. A similar drive-through pharmacy already exists in Clinton, she said, adding, “No one’s at Walgreens.”

Her husband, Rick Obymachow, held up a painting of a historic barn on State Street in Guilford that hangs in his office. His family, which once owned the barn, sold it when he was 13. Eventually it was sold again and ultimately torn down to put up condominiums. Obymachow lamented the loss of the historic structure to development.

“This painting is all I have left of it,” he said.

Steven Bielitz, owner of Glastonbury Restoration Company, said that he travels often through Clinton and has noticed the area’s historic barns and center-chimney buildings.

“They represent old New England, the essence of Post Road. We’re losing old New England, one building at a time,” he said.

Bielitz urged the PZC to honor the town’s historical legacy, stating, “There are tax incentives for this. You could find good economic reasons for saving these buildings.”

Bielitz said his company has preserved historic structures such as the Noah Webster House Museum and Loomis Homestead at Loomis Chaffee School.

Throughout the hearing, a number of audience members remarked that they’d “lost faith in the process” and implied that decisions are sometimes made to benefit special interests, regardless of public outcry to the contrary. One allegation was that moving forward on the CVS project is designed to directly benefit Selectman John Giannotti, who owns some of the property in question.

“Not a single citizen has stepped forward and said, ‘I support this,’” said Robert Torres.

Paul Gebauer, one of the last speakers to voice his objection to the application, told the PZC, “You’d have to be tone-deaf to not know that people think this stinks.”

A number of speakers, including Gebauer, Debbie Lundgren, and others, recommended the formation of a train working group to promote rail ridership in Clinton—a project that they said could bring more visitors Clinton while reducing road traffic. One speaker noted that even with the redevelopment of the Route 1 and 81 corner, parking at Clinton’s train station would be limited to around 140 spaces, far less than the 200 to 300-plus spots available in Shoreline East towns such as Old Saybrook and Madison.

Not Unanimous

Not everyone at the hearing was opposed to the potential redevelopment. Jane Scully Welch noted that many of the buildings in question have fallen into disrepair and that while residents object to seeing “the back of a CVS building” at the entrance to Clinton’s downtown, the existing property, she said, offers an even less attractive view of dilapidated structures and abandoned cars.

PZC Commissioner Edward Alberino called some of the existing buildings “death traps” that have attracted vagrants.

Welch also noted that property owners, including Giannotti, have a right to sell what they own.

Even some of the plan’s critics admitted they were conflicted about the need to preserve the character of the town and to encourage economic development, goals that are often—but not necessarily—mutually exclusive.

PZC commissioners Alan Kravitz and Aman Singh requested that the public hearing be kept open until traffic studies could be done and more information on potential traffic impacts could be discussed and shared with the public. The commission was given a deadline of Tuesday, Aug. 9 to close the public hearing. The PZC voted 5-2 to close the public hearing, however.

The commission has 65 days after the public hearing is closed to render its decision on landing the floating zones.