The CVS project drew more scrutiny. At the last DRPB meeting, board members requested a reduction in the number of parking spaces, and the addition of landscaping. The engineer hired by CVS redesigned the site to include about 30,000 square feet of shrubs and trees, and reduced the number of parking spaces from 75 to 70 (the current combination of CVS and defunct Blockbuster video store has 105 spaces).
Jeff Bianco asked the applicant to justify creating more than the required number of parking spaces, which is 53. Attorney Ralph Wilson, representing the land-owner, said that CVS would simply not tolerate fewer than 70. Other members of the board were reluctant to oppose the 70 spaces, or to require that some of those spaces be made of a material more aesthetically pleasing than asphalt, and the plan for 70 spaces was approved.
Steven, I am glad you were at last nights meeting! But your article makes it seem as if we as board members did not try at all to work with CVS and just gave in to 70 spaces- not true at all. I added that the developer provide a list of sustainable practices and design decisions that were incorporated into the project upon approval of the 70 spaces.This stipulation, as well as the buffering of the dumpsters on the residential side of the site were included in the motion. I, and i think other board members felt that not every site can use non asphalt paving; it is not the ONLY way to be environmentally thoughtful and compromises must be made. It is give and take, and the dialogue last night reflected this and should be noted. The CVS developers followed through with all other requests by the board including significant greening of the site, and a 30% reduction in parking. To ask them to come back a third time to reduce from 70 spaces to 50- about a (80 ft by 20 ft section of paving in reality) seemed to me trivial if they have been willing to compromise in so many other areas & willing prove that the project has "green" if you will elements (again, not even a requirement in Middletown)- The developer did say that CVS may pull the project if it went below 70 spaces. In a time when providing jobs is crucial to citizens, I certainly did not want this to happen. I and ALL others on the board try very hard to made good aesthetic, historical, and environmentally friend decisions as well as maintain the vision of private owners which I think is somewhat over looked in the article. Thanks-
ReplyDeleteMolly Salafia
I do agree with you Steven, and did not intend to be mean with my comment, knocking down 2 buildings to build 1 on the same spot is wasteful; and I told the developer that, being as it may it is their decision. The developer's team indicated that is was a financial and program one- unfortunately it is not within the board's power to tell them they cannot do this- all we can do is ask that they act responsibly and reuse as much material as possible (which I did) and create a good working dialogue to make the private owner want to comply and work with us. Jeff Bianco made great site recommendations including moving the entry which was complied with.I hope this dialogue between board and presenters continues.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way for a signed and informed comment to be "mean", in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the elaboration, it accurately reflects the concerns that you and other board members had, and the changes that CVS agreed to. My short post was necessarily incomplete, and I always welcome other accounts and viewpoints.
30,000 square feet of shrubs??? Seems like a lot -- even though certainly desirable!
ReplyDelete