Route 17 Re-Development Plans Moving Forward

The long and arduous Route 17 rezoning process is continuing to move forward with a public hearing, the planning board voted Tuesday night.

Village Planner Blais Brancheau said after concerns were raised by the applicants who initially spurred the process, he developed a report containing a revised land use amendment draft on permitted uses in the new "highway commercial" zone.

Real estate developer Malvern Burroughs has held in his possession an undeveloped 2-acre tract of land on Route 17 for nearly 30 years, dropping thousands in taxes without any return on investment. Burroughs and his attorney Tom Wells have been pushing the planning board to finally allow a commercial project after several misfires on previous proposals. The permitted uses, should they be approved, would also blanket a neighboring office building.

According to preliminary plans, the Burroughs site would feature a 70-foot buffer from Route 17 and a 30-foot buffer from Linwood Avenue, with one residential property on its border. Traffic would be routed only through Route 17. The Linwood Avenue office would not have access points through Route 17.

Brancheau further proposed crafting an ordinance that set aside different parking requirements depending on the use of properties in the zone. In the Burroughs case, a 35-foot-tall building (including a pitched roof) could be erected should the planning board pass the amendment (to be reflected in The Master Plan), the council affirm the decision with an ordinance, and a site plan be developed that's mutually agreed upon.

Wells stated Tuesday night at the planning board's meeting his client is eyeing a drive-thru bank along with a Starbucks, but that's drawn the ire of nearby resident Jack Ingraham. Ingraham, whose property abuts the site, raised a litany of objections to the proposed zoning change. Ingraham stated that the "offensively loud" loading docks would be directly behind his property and he'd be subjected to an extreme uptick in traffic, a point Wells denied.

"Can you imagine if this is your house and they put this in your back yard? I want you to think about it," he told the planning board. "I built this house myself 35 years ago and I don't plan to tear it down."

Wells fired back, implying Ingraham had sour grapes because he didn't get the outcome he wanted when Burroughs offered to purchase his property and use it as a buffer.

Planning board member Costantino Suriano said he would like Brancheau's next draft to exclude food and beverage establishments as an accepted use for development. Because a possible tenant is Starbucks, an eating and drinking establishment, Wells objected to Suriano's hope for further exclusion.

Board member Jane Shinozoka said although Ingraham was not a traffic expert, he just might be right that problems could arise with such a development. No formal traffic study has been undertaken, Brancheau conceded.

Other members felt a proper 'balance' has been struck with protecting the homeowners while also allowing development.

Not surprisingly, Ingraham didn't exactly see it that way.

"I think they should develop the property but not at my expense," he said. 

The date for a public hearing has not yet been set; Brancheau will still need to redraw maps for inclusion in the Master Plan and said Tuesday he was unsure how long that would take.