The Planning & Zoning Commission met on Thursday, October 17, to continue the discussion regarding 2-4-6-8 Riverside Road. Barbara Manville, a commissioner, began the meeting by reading a letter that was sent in by the Design Advisory Board regarding the proposed development.

The letter stated, “In our opinion, the applicant is not [done] yet, and therefore this is still not our final review regarding this project.” It continues, “There is … a bit of disconnect between our goals and the applicant’s. The applicant is trying to create a cohesive design within their development. Our goal is to help make these new buildings look as if they were always present at Sandy Hook Center.”

The letter also mentioned that the Design Advisory Board feels, overall, that the project is too big, it recommends switching some residential and retail spaces around, and that the board’s job is to “maintain the antique character of the district.” The Design Advisory Board suggested making one building look like an old barn, which was further discussed by Kevin Williams, the applicant for the proposed development on behalf of 2468 Riverside Road LLC.

Following the reading of the letter, Williams approached the commission with edits and revisions based off previous feedback from the public and the Planning & Zoning Commission. The biggest of these changes includes the elimination of building 4.

Building 4 was meant to be a mini building 2: residential units on the second floor with retail spaces on the ground floor. This building was also going to take inspiration from the Design Advisory Board’s suggestion of a barn, but the architect, George Wiles, decided to eliminate the building for more parking.

The previous proposal included about 130 parking spaces for 37 residential units and retail spaces. With the elimination of building 4, Wiles added about 30 more parking spaces. Manville expressed her concern about the lack of green space due to the added parking. There was some discussion between Charles Spath, the engineer from Stuart Somers Company and David Rosen, the chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission, about whether or not all 159 spaces are necessary and, if possible, preserving some green space by not putting all 159 spaces in immediately.

Rosen also commented about the new green space added in front of building 5, or what most readers know as the existing building at 2 Riverside Road that faces the Glen. He said, “I really do like the space in the front [building 5], I think that that does, in my opinion, and leave it at that, enhance the town center.”

Building 5 drew the most criticism. It was suggested that the facade of building 5 be brick, but Wiles thought it would be “too heavy” considering the red brick that serves as sidewalks through Sandy Hook Center. The Design Advisory Board asked the developers for more brick siding, and Wiles said, “The Design Review board … asked us to do one whole unit with brick, rather than only going halfway, and we think that’s a good comment and we would do that.”

Manville commented that building 5 should “look very similar to the existing” building, as the Design Advisory Board’s letter suggested. She added that it “looks too overwhelming for the middle of the intersection.”

Wiles explained that the red mass behind the proposed drawing is where the current building is. He said, “Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s good architecture.”

Rob Sibley also made a comment towards the end of the meeting regarding a possible link of 2 Riverside Road to the Underground Railroad, but said that he found no evidence to support that claim.

The last major point of contention before public comments was the proposed colors of the development. Roy Meadows, a commissioner, believed the development, as presented, is “technicolor.” Wiles assured them the colors on the computer are brighter than it would be in real life, and that he plans to work directly with the Design Advisory Board on color palettes using the Benjamin Moore historic paint palette.

Public Comment

Erica Sullivan, the owner of Castle Hill Chocolate, was the first to speak at the meeting. She said, “I understand that the architect is trying to balance everything, but to understand the history of Sandy Hook, how things were put in place, why it’s important for us as a community, especially those of us who have businesses down there, to keep that charm and to make sure that we are honoring the history that goes along with this. I just don’t see where the design and the references that they’re pulling really support the history and why those buildings look the way they do.”

She ended her comment by saying, “I would like to just see more of an honoring of why those buildings are there, who built them, what they were there for, and, you know, not nitpicking on whether it’s gonna look like the building next door or the building across the street … but really looking at our history and where we’ve come from, from where Sandy Hook used to be and where it is now and bringing it to fruition.”

Charlie Gardner spoke at the meeting as well. He agreed with the applicant that barn architecture would not suit Sandy Hook Center. “I would agree with the applicant that farm architecture, barn architecture, is totally inappropriate for a village characterized by commercial and industrial buildings.” He also said of the size and use for the proposed buildings, “Sandy Hook has had even larger buildings in the past, so I think it is entirely appropriate for the location.”

Gardner added something a lot of residents already know, “People want to live here.”

Following public comment, Franklin Pelosi on behalf of the applicant asked for an extension of the public hearing to the next meeting on Thursday, November 7.

=====

Reporter Sam Cross can be reached at sam@thebee.com.