Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Change Jobs topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbors oppose zoning change for potential industrial site on Clark Avenue; commission continues review

Bristol Zoning Commission · February 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A zone-change application to convert an R‑40 parcel to IP3 for an industrial facility promising up to 50 jobs drew neighborhood opposition Feb. 9 over wetlands, school proximity and truck traffic; the commission continued the application to March 9 to let the applicant propose revisions such as partial rezoning or buffers.

Attorney James Iogus presented an application Feb. 9 asking the commission to change a residential R‑40 parcel (Map 66, Lot 261 and related parcels) to an IP3 Industrial Park zone to consolidate space for a wire‑manufacturing operation. The proposed project would place a roughly 40,000–60,000 square‑foot facility on the existing IP3 frontage and use the rear parcel (currently R‑40) for parking and storage. The applicant said the conversion could support about 50 jobs and that the R‑40 rear parcel is bisected by railroad tracks and an Eversource transmission line, limiting residential development.

Neighbors and property owners opposed the change, citing extensive wetlands in the rear parcel, the close proximity of West District School (about 800 students), existing freight rail deliveries of hazardous materials, and narrow residential streets used by pedestrians and schoolchildren. Speakers urged the commission to reject wholesale rezoning and to consider alternatives such as leaving a portion of the parcel residential as a buffer, requiring conservation easements, or requiring further wetlands and traffic studies before any zone change is granted.

Commissioners questioned whether the zoning change alone can bind future site plan mitigation and whether conservation easements can be enforced as part of a zone‑change approval. One commissioner said they were “not interested in making this zone change” as presented, but supported continuing the application so the applicant could explore revisions. The commission voted to continue the public hearing to the March 9, 2026 meeting.

Next steps: The applicant will consider whether a partial rezoning or protective buffer can address neighborhood concerns. The zoning commission will revisit the proposal on March 9; no zone change was approved Feb. 9.