The Borough Wrestles With Controversial

Office Building Proposal

By Andrew Gorosko

Boulevard residents have stressed to Borough Zoning Commission members their concerns about the proposed construction of a 35,000-square-foot office building on the vacant corner of The Boulevard and Church Hill Road.

The three prime concerns raised by Boulevard residents at an April 10 public hearing focus on the additional traffic that would be generated by an office building in the heavily traveled area, the size of the office building, and the placement of the sole entry/exit driveway for the building on the residential Boulevard. About 30 members of the public attended the three-hour hearing at Newtown Middle School auditorium.

Borough Zoning Commission members took no action on the development proposal, instead continuing the public hearing to May 14 to allow the applicant to provide additional information on the project.

Church Hill Partners, LLC, proposes a two-story office building, in what would be the most intensive commercial development project in the borough since the mid-1990s redevelopment of Newtown Shopping Village on Queen Street. The office building would house professional offices, some of which would be medical offices.

Church Hill Partners is seeking approval for construction of the building on the southwestern corner of a 4.4-acre site at 37 Church Hill Road, including an adjacent 161-space parking lot. The site, which is in a P-1 Professional zone, is across Church Hill Road from Starbucks Coffee.

The developer is seeking a “site development plan approval,” as well as a “special exception” to the borough zoning regulations to construct the building and related facilities.

The applicant has received a conditional approval for the project from the Conservation Commission, serving as the borough’s wetlands agency. The Conservation Commission approval requires that certain sections of the office building’s parking lot not be covered by conventional pavement for wetlands protection reasons.

The Police Commission, acting as the borough’s traffic authority, has recommended that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Church Hill Road and The Boulevard to alleviate traffic congestion, if an office building is constructed.

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has raised concerns about the office building proposal regarding traffic safety, the size of the project, its architectural design, and vehicle parking.

Church Hill Partners’ office building proposal is a revised version of its similar informal proposal for the site, which borough officials reviewed last fall. That earlier version called for a 39,260-square-foot building, plus 30 more parking spaces than the current proposal.

The Economic Development Commission (EDC) has found that the current construction proposal is an improvement over the previous informal proposal. The EDC has endorsed the current proposal, provided that traffic signal installation is pursued. 

A town engineering review of the development plans determined that the proposed office building would generate an estimated 1,216 vehicle trips per day. Church Hill Road in that area now has more than 15,000 vehicle trips daily.

The state Department of Transportation (DOT) would not allow full entry/exit access to the site from Church Hill Road to prevent existing turning-traffic problems on Church Hill Road from getting worse, according to Fuss and O’Neill, Inc, the town’s consulting engineering firm, which reviewed the development proposal. The DOT, however, might allow a right-turn-only entryway to the site for traffic traveling westward on Church Hill Road.

 Fuss and O’Neill recommends that the site design for pedestrians’ use of the property be reconsidered. The engineering firm also recommends that the town be certain that its largest fire truck is able to navigate the site.

Fuss and O’Neill also is posing questions about the proposed use of a “pervious” paving system in a section of the complex’s parking lot. Such pervious concrete pavers contain holes, through which stormwater drains, as a wetlands water quality protection measure.

Attorney Paul Jaber, representing the applicant, told Borough Zoning Commission members that the proposed office building might contain four to six tenants, some of which would be medical offices. The attorney, however, stressed the applicant does not yet have any tenancy commitments.

Public Comment

Although the majority of people, who spoke at the April 10 public hearing, opposed to the project, some people voiced support for it.

Thomas DiNicola of 13 Bristol Lane spoke in favor of the project, saying there is a limited amount of office space in the borough. Development of the vacant site is inevitable, he said. The applicant’s proposal would make for a better use of the site than other uses that could be built there, he said. “I think it would benefit the town and I would welcome it,” Mr DiNicola said.

Anthony Baiad of 4 Budd Drive said he generally favors the proposal, but added that the structure would be a large building. Mr Baiad expressed concerns that stormwater runoff from the site would drain into his backyard.

Tom Johnson, the owner of Lexington Gardens at 32 Church Hill Road, asked what would become of the development project if the DOT does not approve traffic signal installation at the intersection of Church Hill Road and The Boulevard, as has been recommended by the Police Commission.

Mr Jaber responded that the DOT would not consider approving a traffic signal for the intersection until after the project receives local approval. A state traffic signal review may take two to six months, he said. Mr Jaber added that the applicant expects that the Borough Zoning Commission would make traffic signal installation a condition of any approval of the project.

Peggy Baiad of 4 Budd Drive said she would prefer that no development occur on the site, but expects that the property would eventually be developed. If the site is developed, she would prefer that vehicle access be provided directly from Church Hill Road, she added.

“I’ve seen a lot worse proposals for the corner,” Ms Baiad said, referring to various projects for the property that have never materialized. The proposed building is “attractive”, she said, but added that it is “large.”

Opposition

Most people who spoke at the public hearing had negative comments about the office building proposal.   

Jennifer Peterson of 25 The Boulevard told Borough Zoning Commission members that traffic flow has increased on that residential street. “I’m appalled to think that one would want to dump that much traffic on our street,” she said.

Ms Peterson predicted that with the presence of a traffic signal at the intersection of The Boulevard and Church Hill Road, the section of The Boulevard between Church Hill Road and Schoolhouse Hill Road would become a shortcut for motorists traveling through the town center.

Ms Peterson said that 34 children live on that section of The Boulevard, which has 22 driveways. “It breaks my heart that these children have to be afraid of the street,” she said. The presence of an office building would have a negative effect on The Boulevard, she said.

Ms Peterson suggested that a traffic signal be installed further to the east on Church Hill Road, near the St Rose Church property, to control traffic for the church property and for the proposed office building.

 John Madzula of 20 The Boulevard said he resents the DOT’s deciding that a Boulevard driveway should absorb the traffic entering and exiting an office building parking lot, instead of a Church Hill Road driveway. Mr Madzula predicted that if a traffic signal is installed at the Boulevard/Church hill Road intersection, The Boulevard would become a shortcut for people seeking to avoid traffic problems at the Main Street flagpole.

Victor Roy of 15 The Boulevard said although an office building is a good use for the site, “The application is fundamentally flawed.” Mr Roy urged that the commission reject a “commercial [driveway] curb cut” in a residential area, terming such a situation “encroachment into a residential area.” Mr Roy asked whether the developer has sought to locate a driveway for the project near an adjacent gas station lying to the east of the site.

“We’ve got a scale problem here…The scale would be completely disproportionate” with other, smaller buildings in the area, Mr Roy added.

Kathleen Moody of 6 The Boulevard, which is next door to the development site, said, “I can’t live with having that much traffic dumped onto The Boulevard.” The presence of an office building would pose multiple problems for the neighborhood, she said.

 Motorists in the area do not observe speed limits, she noted, adding that The Boulevard is a dangerous place. A commercial building should not have a driveway extending from a residential street, she said. Having an office building in the neighborhood would damage property values, Ms Moody said. Even with the presence of a traffic signal at the intersection, there would be multiple traffic backups in the area, including backups on Church Hill Road, she said.

Victor Krochia of 8 The Boulevard said of that street, “The road is a drag strip and it’s going to get worse.” He added that if the state would not allow a driveway for the site extending from Church Hill Road, the commission should not allow a driveway extending from The Boulevard. “If the state said ‘No,’ we should say ‘No,’” Mr Krochia said.

Kenneth Law of 11 The Boulevard said the town needs more commercial development, but The Boulevard is a residential street and should remain so, and not become an entry/exit point for a commercial building.

Jack Quinlan of 12 The Boulevard said that considering that the proposed office building would generate well over 1,000 vehicle trips daily, The Boulevard would become a short cut for motorists going elsewhere.

James Gaston of 18 Main Street said he favors local commercial development, but added, “It has to be compatible with the residents of the borough.” Mr Gaston said the development proposal is not consistent with the Borough Zoning Commission’s “village district” zoning proposal for areas in the borough with professional and commercial zoning designations. Mr Gaston said he would prefer that a smaller project be developed, without the installation of a traffic signal. Mr Gaston urged that any mechanical equipment atop the roof of an office building be sonically shielded to prevent noise problems in the area. Mr Gaston, who is a member of the Borough Board of Burgesses, urged Borough Zoning Commission members to seek aid from the burgesses in reviewing the office building proposal.

Michael Gates of 10 The Boulevard said having an office building nearby would create traffic problems, adding that a having driveway for the complex on The Boulevard is not appropriate.

Heather Law of 11 The Boulevard told commission members that many children live on the street and school buses travel through the area. The street carries high speed traffic, she cautioned.

Borough Traffic

Borough Zoning Commission Chairman Linda Shepard told audience members that all commission members live within the borough and are aware of its traffic issues.

 Mr Jaber, representing the developer, stressed that the DOT would not allow full access to the site from Church Hill Road, so the only place to build a driveway is The Boulevard.

Mr Roy, however, challenged that viewpoint. “That’s not true. You can work with abutting property owners” in seeking a driveway on Church Hill Road, Mr Roy said, referring to the adjacent gas station.

Ellen Hill of 7 The Boulevard said the applicant should discuss creating a common driveway on Church Hill Road for both the office building and the gas station.

Borough Attorney Donald Mitchell urged that the applicant keep in mind several traffic factors, when returning to the commission at the reconvened public hearing on May 14.

The former Grand Union property, which has an entry/exit on Church Hill Road, eventually will be put to some use and thus generate new traffic, Mr Mitchell said. Also, the state is in the process of raising the clearance on the Housatonic Railroad bridge above Church Hill Road, a project which will allow tall vehicles to directly drive up Church Hill Road from Interstate 84, Mr Mitchell added.

The borough lawyer also noted that St Rose Church has continued to seek additional uses of its Church Hill Road property and may continue to do so in the future.