Outcome Uncertain After Zoning Vote on CVS Plan

Town Planner Jeffrey Ollendorf is checking with the town attorney to find out if a 4-2 vote in favor of a proposed CVS pharmacy at 330 Main St. is enough to approve the project.

The Town Plan and Zoning Commission voted on the project with 4 in favor and 2 against Wednesday night during the commission’s regular meeting. But for proposals in which pavement or building cover more than 40 percent of the site, regulations require that five out of six commission members vote in favor. Site coverage of more than 50 percent requires a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

However, current site coverage of the property is 63.9 percent and the applicant is proposing to reduce the size to 57.2 percent of the property. Members couldn’t venture a guess on what the outcome would be, but Ollendorf said the town attorney would be able to offer an opinion quickly.

The vote comes after a lengthy public hearing on April 12, during which many speakers offered testimony and opinions on the subject and after the developer made several revisions to appease neighbors' concerns.

The plan would allow the CVS currently located in Post Office Square to build a new 12,900 square foot pharmacy with a drive-through prescription pickup window at 330 Main St., where the Silo restaurant and an office building now stand. The developer would demolish the Silo and the office building and construct a pharmacy designed to match the neighborhood’s historic character. Trees would be planted and asphalt coverage reduced.

But whether the pharmacy would match the neighborhood was a subject of contention among residents speaking at the public hearing and among commission members.

Timothy LeBouthillier, who with Bill Stanford voted against the proposal, said the issue is one of precedent, responsible development and making a deliberate choice about the future of the area.

“I was listening to the residents and most of them had a lot of concerns and one thing that was said was we need to think above par and to me that says it all. This is an area of our town that is so important,” he said. “We have shopping centers for a reason — that’s where this type of business should be …I think we can do better planning and do something that’s above par.”

Phillip Dunn disagreed with LeBouthillier’s description of the property as the gateway to the historic district and to his argument that the decision would set a precedent that would bring in more chain stores and more drive-throughs. Dunn said he drove down Main Street in the Silo area and saw a gas station, a rundown office building, the Silo with an acre of pavement, the discolored overpass, an abandoned printing company, a sprawling apartment complex and the boxey shopping center where CVS is currently located. None of the properties are historic, he said, and few are attractive.

“I find it hard to believe this will somehow mar an already industrial neighborhood,’ Dunn said, stressing that his greatest fear was that the Silo property would become a weed-filled parking lot once the owners closed the restaurant.

“This proposed use is perfectly consistent with the zone and the neighborhood — that’s what’s allowed in the BR zone, that’s why we have zoning. We’re not here to pick what property owners do with their property as long as the usage is within the zone…we should be careful about putting onerous conditions on a responsible property owner who has bent over backward to make this one of the nicest looking CVS I’ve seen anywhere,” he said.

Bill Stanford said the commission need not pass a proposal it didn’t believe in because the site is a perfect location and will likely be pursued by both CVS and other companies.

But Barbara Brenneman, who made the motion, pointed out that the Silo has been on the market for years and since the original CVS proposal was defeated by the commission in 2006, no other company has come forward.

“It’s an opportunity to use that corner,” she said of the CVS plan. “Is it 100 percent in my mind? No. There are a lot of other things I would have liked to see done but we’re at a point where we can compromise — can we get something half-way decent that’s safe? That’s more important to me than anything… that it be safe and that it’s logical use.”