This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
02/20/2017 11:00 PMIn a unanimous decision, the Clinton Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) voted Feb. 13 to deny the application by Douglas Benoit for a new CVS on several lots located on the corner of Hull Street and Route One.
The PZC cited several specific issues it had with the application for development, including concerns about the traffic study and overall design.
A traffic impact and access study was conducted by VHB, Inc., as part of the proposal made in November 2016. On Feb. 13, PZC members discussed items in the study they found to be “non-credible.”
The first issue the commission cited with the study was that it failed to account for future modifications to the train station, something the town expects to begin in the near future. The study failed to consider the expected delays and traffic associated with a high volume of commuters in an accurate way, according to the denial.
Due to the proposed access points of the CVS, the commission found it likely that a high volume of pedestrians would be crossing the parking lot and driveways at busy times, which creates a risk of injury. Additionally, due to the construction of new driveways and curb cuts, they said there is a concern that cars would cut through the CVS parking lot as a short cut, creating a further danger for pedestrians and vehicles crossing the parking lot. This was not taken into consideration by the traffic study, they said.
Besides the issues with the Route One study, the commission noted several design infractions that the application did not address. Sight lines from surrounding building and locally significant features were not accounted for in the design plans. The building’s façade would be unbroken for a length of more than 40 feet along a street line, which is a code violation. Finally, the building had “no recessed entries, recessed or projecting bays, expression of architectural or structural modules and detail, or variations such as surface relief, expressed joints and details, colors and textures...incorporated across the building frontage,” as required by building codes.
There was a long discussion after commission member Christine Goupil proposed adding supplemental reasons to the motion to the deny the application. Goupil wanted to note the potential for flooding on Hull Street, an evacuation route for the town that already floods easily. However, other members of the commission noted that a study concluded that the drainage from the site would be no worse than it is presently. Ultimately Goupil’s motion to amend the original motion did not pass.
The denial of the application puts to an end to this phase of an ordeal that had taken many twists and turns, as well as drawn plenty of ire from people in the Clinton community over the course of a year. When the CVS relocation was first proposed last summer, the PZC voted to deny the developers the option to land a floating zone on the site, which would have allowed the developer to add features like a drive-through in exchange for greater town input on things like design.
In December 2016, Benoit came back with a new application that dropped the proposed floating zone. The application drew plenty of comment from the public, nearly all of it against the proposed plan. Residents voiced a wide array of reasons for opposition to the CVS at a crowded Jan. 4 public hearing. Residents cited concerns including increased traffic in a busy area, demolition of historic structures, and “ugly” design plans. The Clinton Historical Society published a newsletter that in part said “The POCD [the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development] clearly states that new development on Main Street should encourage pedestrian traffic, should be transit-oriented (i.e. encourage people to walk to or use the train station), and should preserve historic buildings. A large box store on that site does none of those things.”
The developer can return to the PZC with a new application that addresses the commission’s reasons for denial, or can appeal the decision in court.