The public hearing on this proposed gas station at 520 Middlebury Road will continue April 2 at the P&Z meeting. (Terrence McAuliffe image)
By TERRENCE S. MCAULIFFE
The Middlebury Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) at its March 5 meeting continued public hearings on plans to replace the Shell Station on Middlebury Road with an larger facility and on updates to the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD).
Approximately 20 residents attended a public hearing to review and comment on plans by Wesson Energy to demolish the Shell Station at 520 Middlebury Road and construct a larger station and convenience store on that site and the adjacent lots formerly occupied by Vinnie’s Pizza and Johnny’s Dairy Bar.
Attorney Michael McVerry, representing Wesson Energy, owner of all the properties, said a 3,275-square-foot gas station and convenience store with an expanded canopy, five double-sided gasoline pumps, and 34 parking spaces would replace the existing four-pump, 1,630-square-foot Shell station. The new building and canopy would be constructed on the adjacent empty lots, and the old station, canopy and underground tanks would be removed upon completion of the new one. McVerry said the fire marshal and the Economic and Industrial Development Commission (EIDC) have approved the project, and applications are under way with the Conservation Commission, Water Pollution Control Authority, and Torrington Health District.
Professional Engineer Dainius Virbickas of Artel Engineering Group said the store would re-utilize the existing water and sewer connections and would add an external grease trap to comply with Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection requirements. The drainage system will have a series of six catch basins and two trench drains, and roof and canopy runoff will be routed into a subsurface storm-water infiltration system. He said the property would be heavily landscaped with an evergreen Geo retaining wall in the rear, a building design fitting the character of the town, and a gabled wooden canopy instead of the flat-roofed canopies typical of gas stations. A sidewalk, curb cuts and decorative lamp posts would be similar to those of Middlebury Station across the street. The identification sign would be on the southeast portion of the site.
McVerry explained a drive-through window in the plans and a driveway around the building for cars to queue up off the main road. He said the pick-up window was not for food prepared or consumed on site, but instead for prepackaged items such as potato chips, pretzels, prepackaged sandwiches, dairy products, beverages, tobacco products and other nonfood items. He told commissioners he was aware zoning regulations prohibited restaurant takeout food and said the window was intended as a convenience for those not wanting to get out of their car to come into the store.
Town Engineer John Calabrese said he would review the drainage retention system to be sure it was large enough and told McVerry Department of Transportation approvals needed to be given to the town prior to construction. Calabrese questioned the 16 seats inside the building and said they might affect parking calculations depending on what they were being used for. He also questioned how truck deliveries and dumpster pickups would be handled.
Town Planner Brian Miller said the proposed station did not seem to match the vision for a pedestrian-friendly Middlebury Center as described in the POCD, despite the incorporation of sidewalks. He said the five gasoline pump islands were very automobile-oriented and more suited for Straits Turnpike or right off a highway exit.
In comments from the public, Kris Jacobi and Cathy Smith spoke in opposition, with Jacobi questioning the need for 34 parking spaces if there was a drive-through. She asked commissioners to consider how the in-and-out flow of vehicles would mix with traffic from the Dunkin’ Donuts and bank across the street, noting concerns for the safety of children walking along and crossing the street, and site lines obscured by plantings and shrubbery. She read a letter from her husband, Michael Jacobi, who said the unattractive commercial district of Middlebury was a drag on the reputation of the town, lowering real estate values and deterring employers from locating here. His letter said commissioners have a rare opportunity to decide the future of Middlebury. He encouraged a safer, more pedestrian-friendly downtown with power lines buried underground and more green spaces.
Smith said the Wesson proposal was not downtown development but instead a destination gas station for traffic coming in from Exit 16 and circling through town for the 10 gas pumps and convenience store that she said was more like a truck stop. She called it a travesty and a disservice to everyone in the community.
Other public comments were more favorable. John Cookson, former EIDC chairman, said he was pleased with the development moving forward but did not see the purpose of a drive-through and worried it would lead to fast-food restaurants.
David Theroux said the design was a big improvement and encouraged approval. Ingrid Manning said there were pros and cons, but the new station needed to be large enough to be economically viable, and it was an improvement in architectural appearance and better planned traffic flow.
George Frantzis said the new station improved the appearance of the center of town and could help attract more local businesses. Paul Anderson said the design and setback of the new station and canopy was more in keeping visually with the character of the town and was replacing dated 1970s buildings. Robert Wesson said it was his intention to build something that would be an asset to the town and a convenience to its citizens.
In comments from commissioners, Matthew Robison said he didn’t think the station was oriented toward residents but more towards commuters. He encouraged a traffic study and pointed out the need for fencing on the retaining wall. William Stowell and Erika Carrington were concerned with children walking to the site, suggesting repositioning of the crosswalk and adding a walkway that avoids the pumping area. Carrington said the drive-through was a big decision and didn’t think it would be possible to stop prepared foods from being served, setting a precedent.
McVerry said there would be a separate clerk at the drive-through, limited to items intended for those customers. Paul Babarik agreed with the concerns of Stowell and Carrington on children safety and in opposition to the drive-through. Chairman Terry Smith said he also agreed with commissioner concerns regarding safety and the drive-through and said he liked the improved architectural appearance of the station but thought five pump islands was not in keeping with a semi-rural town.
Attorney McVerry replied to Cathy Smith’s comment about the facility being a “destination gas station.” He said there were already gas stations with convenience stores at many Route 84 exit ramps, so there would be no incentive to drive six miles into Middlebury. He said the renovation was an improvement to the existing station and not a truck stop or change in use.
In the public hearing on updates to the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), Chairman Smith read a petition from 20 residents urging the elimination of Section 9 from the plan. That section describes the concept of Middlebury Center and suggests the adoption of regulations and land-use changes to improve the area. The petition, signed by owners of properties on Nutmeg, Regan and Edgar Roads, said the concept would lead to over-development and have an adverse impact on residences and water courses. Town Planner Brian Miller, author of the POCD, said updates since the previous public hearing included an expanded section on open space, clarification of boundary lines, and details on areas of proposed commercial development.
In public comments, resident Brendan Browne of Clearview Knoll also commented on Middlebury Center, noting the difficulty of calculating parking requirements and traffic backup concerns along Route 64. He asked commissioners to increase setback requirements if a commercial property abuts a residential property.
In comments from commissioners, Robison said he did not favor a business center district in the POCD. He said he was in favor of architectural standards and agreed beautification is necessary but said he was fearful of the potential of rezoning the areas.
Miller said the POCD did not recommend rezoning Middlebury Center for commercial use but did specify the character of such development if it did occur. Chairman Smith emphasized the POCD did not change zoning regulations but was simply a set of considerations and concepts. He said zoning changes would always require a public hearing.
In other comments, Smith said the 2015 POCD would completely replace the 2001 POCD and not require a reference from one to the other. He also said the inclusion of names and definitions for the eight commercial districts could lead to architectural standards and permitted uses for each one in future regulations. Smith asked Miller to provide a reference to potential uses of the Triangle Boulevard area acquired by the State of Connecticut. The public hearing was continued to April 2.
The next regular P&Z meeting will be Thursday, April 2, at 7:30 p.m. at Shepardson Community Center.
You must be logged in to post a comment.