After Wednesday evening’s Zoom meeting was sold out and other participants were prevented from attending, the Grievance Committee postponed the hearing on the special permit application for the 290 West Main Street gas station until October 2.

Residents of the property – which is located at the intersection of School and West Main Streets – filled the virtual meeting room. Other residents who wanted to learn more about the plan and voice their concerns were also in attendance.

About an hour into the meeting, the board was made aware that some residents were unable to attend the Zoom meeting because the number of participants was capped at 100 and the maximum had already been reached. Denying people access would be a violation of the state’s public meeting laws.

The board decided that the public hearing needed to be postponed and chose October 2 as the best available date. Members agreed to a hybrid model for the meeting and chose to use space in the Select Board Room at City Hall.

Before the meeting was adjourned, representatives of Rte 85 Realty Corp. had begun to present their case to the board.

The company is seeking approval for a change of use for the property as the land is zoned for agricultural use. The change would maintain the current zoning while allowing specific use for a village shop and petrol station.

Neal Bingham, the attorney for Rte 85 Realty, argued that the uses permitted under the current zoning regulations were a burden on his client.

“Literal enforcement of the bylaw would be hard (for the developer),” Bingham explained.

He and Shawn Reardon, the project’s structural engineer, described conditions on the site that make the land “undevelopable” under existing zoning regulations.

Reardon cited a large wetland on the western edge of the property and steep slopes as factors that would push any developable projects too far east, “into an area that he believes would otherwise be uninhabitable.”

The developer believes the proposal represents the most appropriate use of the property and goes beyond what is currently permitted in the agricultural zoning area.

According to a memorandum submitted to the board by Bingham’s law firm, their insistence on the variance over a full rezoning is to keep the project “in a style consistent with the existing semi-rural residential neighborhood.”

The real estate company’s proposal calls for the construction of a 370 square meter village store with four gas pumps on the north side of the complex. Four charging stations for electric vehicles will be installed, as well as a new stormwater management system for the property.

Also included in the design are pollinator gardens and blueberry bush plantings that will serve as a transition to the wetlands west of the property.

Before the hearing was adjourned, the board members asked clarifying questions.

Member Shawn Masterson inquired about the current owners of the property.

Bingham responded that Allan O’Connor still owned the deed. O’Connor previously operated Evergreen Haven Garden Center on the property.

Bingham further stated that O’Connor has reached an agreement with Rte 85 Realty to sell the property should the project move forward.

Other members expressed concerns about the need to demonstrate hardship and what standing the developer even has to request a variance.

Citizens want their voices to be heard

Due to the problems at Wednesday evening’s meeting, residents are still waiting for their concerns to be addressed.

In the run-up to the meeting, a coalition of citizens had formed to submit objections to the city and encourage citizens to participate in the public hearing.

“We have collected almost 100 signatures from our neighbors and taxpayers who are opposed,” Alison Fitzpatrick said in a previous interview with the Independent. She and her husband, Jim, live on Dicarlo Road, directly adjacent to the property at 290 West Main Street.

She and other residents have submitted their objections to several city committees.

“Not a single person we spoke to said this was a good idea,” noted Alison Fitzpatrick.

The Fitzpatricks and their neighbors share a long list of concerns they want to see addressed by both the project developer and the city. They have questions about the permitting process, environmental and traffic concerns, and the need for the project.

While Rte 85 Realty’s memorandum to the appeals board notes that the developer spoke with neighbors and “received generally positive feedback from respondents,” the Fitzpatricks and others claim that no such attempts at contact were made.

“We only heard about (the public hearing) second-hand,” Alison Fitzpatrick said.

Additionally, because their property borders the wetlands that affect the 290 West Main Street property, the Fitzpatricks – who have lived in the city for nearly 20 years – view the variance request as a double standard in the process.

They said they have consistently worked with the Conservation Commission to ensure that home improvement projects undertaken do not encroach on wetlands. The couple wants developers to go through the same rigorous process.

“We’re worried about 40,000 gallons of gasoline in the ground,” Jim Fitzpatrick said.

He claimed the water table in the area was high and neighbors were afraid that a leak in the storage tanks could lead to a spill into Lake Maspenock.

Steve Conti, another Dicarlo Road resident, echoed that sentiment. “Aside from the obvious environmental impacts, these things also need to be looked into by the fire department,” he said.

According to Conti, the neighborhood is located at the far end of town relative to the fire department’s location on Main Street.

Conti said: “You have to be able to come here and have a security plan.”

The developer has assured that its plan is being channeled through the proper channels. It is anticipated that the site plan will be approved by the Planning Board, the letter of intent will be submitted to the Conservation Commission and a formal design review process will be undertaken.

However, residents remained skeptical of the variance request, saying they would prefer the developer to pursue its project through normal review channels rather than through exceptions under a variance.

“We are simply asking that (the plan) follows the normal process,” Alison Fitzpatrick said.