This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
01/05/2017 11:00 PMThe design has changed, but public opposition to a new CVS building in Clinton remains the same. At least 80 residents showed up at the Jan. 4 Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) public hearing; the vast majority opposed the proposed construction at the corner of Hull Street and Boston Post Road on a parcel owned by Selectman John Giannotti.
Although the revised plan no longer includes special provision for a “floating zone” with smaller setbacks that would permit a drive-through, it elicited the same complaints: It will increase traffic in an already busy area and destroy three structures with some historical significance; it does not encourage use of the adjacent train station; and more suitable commercial properties are available in Clinton. One more complaint was also added to the list: The design is ugly.
“I am not opposed to a new CVS, but I never liked the location at the corner of routes 1 and 81,” said Phil Sengle. “This location often has horrendous traffic, is too close to what should be a New England downtown, and I see the CVS development as a threat to the redevelopment of our train station. The worst of this is that the current design submitted by the developer is an abomination from an architectural and aesthetic point of view.”
According to Eric Knapp, the town’s zoning and wetlands enforcement officer, the lack of visual appeal arises from the fact that the back of the building, which has very few windows, faces both major roads.
“If you’re driving on Hull Street or West Main Street, you’re only going to see the back of the store, which doesn’t have many features,” Knapp said. “Even the people in favor of CVS moving were in disfavor of the architectural plans shown. They seemed very boxy, they didn’t seem to have a lot of architectural features—they were drab.”
Without the earlier requested variance for a floating zone, the plan no longer flouts town regulations—only public opinion.
“The public was nearly universally opposed,” noted Knapp of those present at the hearing; 26 spoke against the proposal while six spoke in favor.
Despite the opposition, the PZC’s attorney Richard Roberts advised the commission to approve the application. Unlike the previous application for a floating zone, which gave greater discretion to the PZC, the current application needs only to prove it confirms to current regulations, so residents simply not liking the proposal does not give the PZC a reason to deny. If public input revealed the proposal doesn’t conform to regulations or creates a safety or environmental hazard, however, the commission could use those grounds to deny the application.
The revised plan conforms to current town regulations, Roberts said, and thus would likely win an appeal should PZC reject it.
Despite the lack of a drive-through in the revised plan, it is still possible that one would be constructed at a later date, after the initial plan is approved.
“They have not requested a drive-through. That said, they do show—probably, it looks like—where a drive-through could go,” Knapp said. “It’s not a part of this particular application. If they came back, they’d have to come back with a special exception plan for the drive-through. That’s harder to get.”
The first public hearing on the matter took place on Jan. 4, 2016; last week’s hearing took place exactly one year later. PZC may make a decision at its next meeting on Monday, Jan. 9.
“It’s up for deliberation by the full commission Monday night,” said Knapp. “It can be appealed either way to superior court, and certainly I think it’s quite possible it would be appealed either way. It’s obviously a matter of great interest to the public and to CVS.”