The Derby Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday approved a plan to redevelop Red Raider Plaza, despite concerns raised by neighboring property owners about traffic issues.
The application — to tear down part of the plaza, redevelop the building that housed XPect Discounts, and build a Walgreens pharmacy — had been the subject of a public hearing since January.
Commissioners closed that public hearing Tuesday.
Concerns remaining about the site were mostly traffic-related.
Red Raider Plaza sits at the corner of two very busy roads, Pershing Drive and Division Street. Getting into and out of the property is already tricky due to speeding cars trying to get to Route 8 and motorists trying to get in and out of other shopping centers.
Deal?
In addition, much of the discussion Tuesday was about whether the owners of the plaza could come to an agreement with neighboring property owners to rebuild an irregular, five-way intersection on Pershing Drive.
Chairman Theodore Estwan Jr. said that though the commission “can strongly suggest” BL Companies, which applied to redevelop the plaza, come to an agreement to rebuild the intersection to make it a more traditional four-way junction, “we have to draw the line somewhere, and there’s a legal issue of where we can and cannot be.”
John Mancini, director of business development at BL Companies, began the hearing by saying that the parties involved were in the process of “putting the finishing touches on language” for an agreement and “coming up with an equitable way” to share the cost of construction.
He later said that cost amounted to “several hundred thousand dollars.”
“We’re going to get there,” he said.
Or No Deal?
Jerry Nocerino, the principal partner in a company that owns the former Valley Bowl, characterized the discussions differently.
Nocerino said he had felt “pressed” during the discussions even though he thinks “the problem is more on their property than ours.”
“We don’t have a deal. We don’t have an agreement,” Nocerino said. “And it concerns me, because it’s a bad intersection.”
While he is willing to share a “good portion” of the cost, he said, the parties have gone “round and round” but still haven’t made a deal.
Mancini later held up a document saying it was the agreement, but noted that “what’s not in agreement right now is how we’re sharing the cost.”
“We’re committing to doing this work,” he said.
Rocco Cingari, who owns the ShopRite plaza across Pershing Drive from the proposed Walgreens, asked the commission to use its influence to improve traffic flow at the property, as he said the commission had done when it approved his development.
Estwan pointed out that when the ShopRite application was before the board, one company owned all the property involved, so the commission could have more input.
“Unfortunately this commission doesn’t have that type of control or say in this application,” he said.
When the proposal was taken up a little over an hour later, Estwan summed up the process by saying the commission had “beat this application to death.”
He then proposed a motion noting that while the developer “has expressed a willingness” to come to an agreement with its neighbors, the commission is not in a position where it can require a property owner to enter into an agreement.
Still, Estwan noted in his motion, the commission would “strongly recommend” the State Traffic Commission, which also must approve the proposal consider the question as part of its review process.
The commission approved the motion unanimously.
