Wake Robin hearing continued to Oct. 16

SALISBURY — The second round of the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission on Aradev LLC’s application for a special permit to redevelop the Wake Robin Inn in Lakeville featured changes on the plans from the applicant, intensified opposition from neighbors, and criticisms of the commission’s process.

The hearing was continued to Wednesday, Oct. 16, 6 p.m. on Zoom.

P&Z chair Michael Klemens, in introductory remarks, said “we regulate use, not users” and that the qualifications of the applicant are not in the commission’s purview.

He noted that the commission can require bonding and has other ways of ensuring that a “project is completed in a satisfactory manner.”

He warned against speculation about future uses of the property. In particular, he addressed rumors that the property would be subsequently converted to a religious use.

Klemens said he found this alarming because the town could find itself in danger of violating the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

Citing a case in Cromwell, in which the town was subject of a punitive judgment of $5 million (later reduced to $2 million), Klemens cautioned “This is not an abstraction.”

Mark Arrigoni of SLR Consulting took the lead in presenting revised plans in response to comments from the public and from the commission at the first session of the public hearing Sept. 3.

Changes included: Reworking the height of the main hotel building and expansion to be lower than the maximum allowed by regulations; moving the exercise equipment to the main building and out of the spa building; adding a vestibule and limiting doors and windows on most of the event barn building to cut down on noise; fencing and a retaining wall along Wells Hill Road to cut down on visibility from the surrounding neighborhood.

The item that received the most attention was Aradev’s proposal to change the front access to the property on Sharon Road (Route 41), adding a separate road and exit off the existing drive.

During discussion commissioners asked if parking, especially at the pool and spa area on the Wells Hill Road side of the property, couldn’t be reduced more.

Other suggestions included moving the cottages to the Wells Hill side and relocating the pool/spa or the event barn, and enclosing the event barn porch with glass designed to deaden sound.

Public comment was again uniformly negative, although the intensity varied.

One suggestion from Mark Hochberg, that the developers meet directly with the neighborhood group or groups, received a positive response from Klemens, and, toward the end of the meeting, from Aradev attorney James Mackey, who accepted the offer on behalf of his client and provided contact information.

Neighbors from Sharon Road and Wells Hill Road objected to the potential for increased traffic and warned of accidents; the extra load on the town’s sewer system; light pollution; noise pollution; late night events; the look of the proposed fencing along Wells Hill Road (one resident said it reminded her of the San Diego Freeway).

Residents questioned the validity of the traffic study provided by the applicant; wondered aloud about the applicants’ bona fides and business plan; and criticized the commission’s process.

At several points, Klemens and Land Use Director Abby Conroy had to ask participants to stop using the Zoom webinar “chat” feature for anything other than technical problems.

One criticism found a sympathetic reception. Angela Cruger said it was impossible to read all of the relevant materials, especially when they are added to the town website days or hours before the hearing.

Klemens agreed with that, saying the commissioners have the same problem.

He asked Mackey, the Aradev attorney, if his client would commit to getting all materials submitted a week before the hearing resumes on Oct. 16. Mackey said yes.