Stewart's: Public Hearing Ends

Matthew Frederick's thirteen improvements to the proposed Stewart's expansion have come to define the standard the Planning Board would like Stewart's to meet. At one point on Tuesday night, late in the discussion which took up the first hour of the three and a half hour Planning Board meeting, board member Betsy Gramkow asked the engineer from Stewart's who was standing in for Chuck Marshall if there was anything in Frederick's plan that was an absolute no. Frederick's thirteen suggestions are an effective way to organize what we now know about the Stewart's plan.

1. Frederick's recommendation was for full-sized street trees (his drawing shows eight), ground cover, and hedges. The Stewart's landscaping plan involves four trees and flower beds against the building and at the corner. Stewart's did agree to plant one more tree and to investigate the possibility of using perennial ground cover instead of flowering plants.
2. Responding to the recommendation that they use tinted concrete to reduce glare, the Stewart's spokesman said they never used tinted concrete. It seems, however that most of the surface is meant to be asphalt not concrete.
3. The canopy over the pumps will be 14½ feet. The Stewart's spokesman denied that it was ever to be 16 feet high.
4. Bollard lighting is one of the things that was an "absolute no," because "bollards get hit."
5. The material for the retaining wall remains Versa-Lok, with plantings only on one side--the side facing the adjacent property on Green Street not the Stewart's parking lot and Fairview Avenue.
6. Stewart's readily agreed to install a cedar fence on top of the retaining wall instead of the white vinyl fence they had proposed.
7. Stewart's stated they would plant twenty-four arborvitae "on the neighbor's side of the fence." To this statement, Frederick responded, "Well, then we need more."
8. The Stewart's spokesman said they would consider planting hedges and ground cover around the building instead of the flowers they were planning.
9. A true second story was also an "absolute no." The opening in the parapet. which exposes the mechanicals on the roof, will face the delivery area.
10. It is not clear what the signage and branding on the building will be
11. Stewart's has added three picnic tables and two park benches but maintains that the interior layout of the store will not accommodate a walk-up ice cream window. Planning Board members Gramkow and Clark Wieman were not taking no for an answer and asked for further explanation of why an ice cream window would not be possible.
12. A bike rack has been added to the plan.
13. There was no discussion of widening the sidewalks.

Frederick criticized Stewart's for only providing only engineer's plans to show what they are proposing. The plan below, which was presented more than a year ago, is an example of the drawings presented by Stewart's, from which the Planning Board must imagine what the completed project will look like. Board member Ginna Moore asked Stewart's to produce "something other than engineering drawings," renderings of what is proposed that were more like those Frederick had created.          

Concern remained that the proposed site was "more oriented to people gassing up than to people living in the area." Kurt Wehmann, who lives on Fairview Avenue, expressed the opinion that what is proposed was "still not a very neighborly approach to a business with a neighborhood." He also questioned how often the picnic tables would be used if they were far away from the entrance to the building. In contrast to those advocating for a more neighborly building that could be a gathering place for people in the neighborhood, a woman who also lives on Fairview Avenue expressed concern about people congregating at the picnic tables after hours. (The store will be open from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m.)

Planning Board chair Walter Chatham reminded the board that it operated within "a box" that defined its purview and commented, "Stewart's has been very nice entertaining what falls out of that box." Wehmann commented that the plan was "still so open-ended, it could be anything," but Chatham's assessment was "we are close." 

Although board member Wieman wanted to keep the public hearing open and "discuss among ourselves," the public hearing was closed, and Chatham noted that the board now has sixty days to make its determination.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CAROLE OSTERINK