WASHINGTON — The much-anticipated hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Thursday, July 31, on the proposed inn at 101 Wykeham Road turned out to be a legal rather than a public hearing, much like the one earlier in the week with the Zoning Commission. A group of more than 40 residents had dwindled to half that number by the time the public actually had the opportunity to speak. Most had given up and gone home by then, deferring to the lawyers.
Following a presentation by the applicant and minimal questions from the commissioners, Chairman Brad Sedito promised that public comment would be taken after a brief break. At the conclusion of the break, the lawyers rushed to the microphone, tying up the floor for the next hour.
Recognizing this, Mr. Sedito suggested the hearing be continued. Some members of the public offered the hope as they departed that they, rather than the attorneys, would be allowed to speak before the legal voices at the next meetings of Zoning and ZBA. Opening the evening with a surprise, Attorney Robert Fisher, representing Wykeham Rise owner Matthew Klauer, announced that the lot coverage for the project had been reduced still further from the initial 17.6 to 11.99 percent and was now 11.38 percent.
The reduction was attributed to the elimination of the planned tennis court. The town’s maximum allowed coverage in residential zones is 10 percent. Documentation was presented to the ZBA supporting this change, but opposing attorneys Edward Hill and Gail McTaggart, representing various neighbors, maintained that they had no opportunity to examine the new plans and the hearing should be continued for that reason. Attorneys Hill and McTaggart then each argued at length why the applicant had not demonstrated the hardship need for a lot coverage variance, the reason a variance is typically granted by ZBA.
The opposition’s basis for this claim included no necessity for the number of rooms proposed in the project; comparisons used by the applicant to other Washington locations cannot be considered; alleged incomplete paperwork submitted by the applicant; questions regarding the emergency vehicle access to the cottages; and the use of the planned walkways.
Project engineer Paul Szymanski allowed that the inn could have fewer rooms, but noted that this would make the venture economically unfeasible. The planned resort on a 27-acre parcel, formerly the site of a private boarding school, contains two main buildings housing a restaurant, bar, lobby, spa and swimming pool as well as 54 rooms in cottages on the site. According to Mr. Hill, the plans contain no access route for emergency vehicles to reach the cottages scattered throughout the property.
Mr. Szymanski admitted that this needs to be addressed and promised to return to the next hearing with an answer. Much discussion centered around the proposed walkways to the cottages from the main building. Mr. Szymanski, when questioned by ZBA members, said only walkers will be allowed on the grass paths. Luggage will be hand-carried by porters to each cottage, he stated.
Mr. Hill scoffed at this idea. Addressing the commission, he predicted, “You and I know there will be carts to transport the luggage. And if so, that’s not a walkway; it’s a delivery route.” Driveways and delivery routes are included in calculations as lot coverage. Mr. Hill also argued that a deed restriction exists on the property, held by his client, Wendy Federer, dated in 1990. He says it restricts building on the southern 330 feet of the property adjacent to the Federer property and claims this restriction was transferred to Ms. Federer by a trustee of Wykeham Rise three years ago.
Mr. Sedito then offered Atty. Fisher an opportunity to respond. Mr. Fisher waived this option, asking that members of the public be allowed to speak and added that he and Mr. Klauer had no objection to the continuation of the hearing so that could be accomplished. He was followed by Ms. McTaggart, representing John and Mary Ewing. Ms. McTaggart reprised her arguments from the Zoning public hearing and seconded Mr. Hill’s contention that no hardship requiring a variance had been demonstrated.
Once again, it was after 10 p.m. when members of the public were invited to the podium. Six hearty souls rose to offer their opinions, including Mr. Federer and Dr. Ewing, whose attorneys had already argued their case. Mr. Federer compared the Wykeham Rise project to the Mayflower Inn, noting that Mayflower operates with 30 units on 50 acres, as opposed to 54 units on 27 acres. “Growth is inevitable, but this project is way out of scope with the neighborhood,” he maintained.
Valerie Cooper reminded the commission to consider the traffic issues once again; Wykeham Rise neighbor Richard Taylor spoke supporting the project; and William Smith asked if the ZBA was satisfied with the answer it received on emergency vehicle access. Near the end of the hearing, Joe Pullaro rose to say he hadn’t planned to speak but was compelled to on behalf of future generations who can’t afford to live in Washington. “Mr. Klauer is offering us a chance for our children to live here,” he said, recalling, “There was danger on the roads 25 years ago too, trying to navigate around hay wagons. “I remember when there were more cows in town than lawyers and I find them easier to understand and their product easier to swallow,” he reflected. After urging the public and commissioners to “come together to find a solution…Washington must grow in order for our children to live here,” Mr. Pullaro sat down to tumultuous applause from the room. It was unclear whether that was directed at his opinion, his oratory or his observations about cows, but it resonated with the group that remained. Following some discussion among ZBA members regarding closing or continuing the hearing, the ZBA opted to continue the hearing until 7:30 on August 28.
By Ann Compton – Voices News