Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_082013MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 20, 2013 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA at 7:30 pm. Present at the hearing were the following members: Kevin Mackie, Chairman; Elisabeth Garber - Miller, Clerk; David Luca; Philip Shannon; James Rathbun. 1. Meeting opened at 7:30 pm. 2. Old Business Guggenheim Real Estate Partners, Inc., 229 -243 School Street, Map 11, Parcels 5 and 3. The application is for a Variance from Sections 4.4.1, Off- Street Parking, and 4.4.4.17, Employee Parking, of the Zoning By- Law for the construction of an 8,500 square foot building with less than the required number of parking spaces at 229 -243 School Street (Assessor's Map 11, Parcels 5 and 3) in the Industrial 1 (11) Zone. The following documents were submitted: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on May 17, 2013; a copy of the public hearing notice; June 13, 2013 letter from the Planning Board; "Proposed Firestone Complete Auto Care Site Plan, Lots 3 & 5, Map 11, Mansfield, MA ", dated May 6, 2013, and "ZBA -2 ", prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., and June 18, 2013 and July 2, 2013 requests to continue the public hearing signed by Attorney Edward Valanzola. Planning Board letter: On June 12, 2013, the Planning Board with six (6) members present, considered the application for 229 -243 School Street. Following discussion, the board voted five (5) in favor with one (1) abstention to send a negative recommendation on this application because it does not meet the statutory three -part test for the grant of a variance. The board would need to see data to substantiate the applicant's claim that less parking is needed and feels a smaller building would fit better on the site and eliminated the need for a variance. Attorney Edward Valanzola, Edward Tartufo, Jack Conway Co., and Jason Mikrut, Senior Project Engineer, Vanasse, Hangen, Brustlin, Inc., were present. Mr. Mackie explained this public hearing had been continued from June 18, 2013 and July 2, 2013 because there were only four members present at each of these meetings and approval for the requested Variance would require four positive votes. Mr. Shannon and Mr. Rathbun were not present at the June and July meeting but in accordance with Mass General Law, they were able to witness the testimony via DVD. Mr. Mackie asked Mr. Shannon and Mr. Rathbun to confirm that they had viewed the DVD. Mr. Shannon replied yes. Mr. Rathbun replied yes. Attorney Valanzola gave a brief overview of the project. He explained the site is approximately 6,349 acres, or 275,000 square feet. He said the 10 -bay, 8,500 square -foot building Firestone Complete Auto Care is proposing will be in full compliance with the front and side yard setbacks and floor ratio but requires a variance from Section 4.4.1, Off - Street parking, where 53 spaces are required and 42 spaces are provided. He said the challenge the site presents is that the site contains significant wetland areas. Attorney Valanzola said there will be 7 -10 employees. He explained customers' vehicles will be in the bays when being worked on and will only be parked in the lot before and after work is performed. Typically there will be an average of 28- 45 vehicles per day, with customers dropping off their vehicles early in the morning and picking them up later the same 01 day. He explained Firestone requires that any vehicles left overnight must be stored within the building. Attorney Valanzola stated Firestone Complete Auto Care can comfortably operate with 42 spaces. He said there will be no overflow parking on School Street or Route 140. Attorney Valanzola said the hardship is the irregular shape of the lot and its proximity to Route 140, resulting in limited areas on which to locate the building and the inability to install a curb cut on Route 140. The topography of the site and the soil conditions, particularly the wetlands, also limits the building and the parking size and location. He said the prior Conservation Agent asked that the applicant minimize the amount of impervious surface and other improvements to the site. The Stormwater Management area has to be located immediately behind the building because of the wetland conditions. Attorney Valanzola said there are financial benefits to the town with construction costs, permit and licensing fees and increased tax revenue and will generate temporary construction jobs. He said this is an allowed use in the Industrial 1 Zone, is consistent with the zoning in this area and is a very low impact use. Mr. Mikrut said the property is located at the northwest corner at the intersection of Route 140 and School Street. He said the wetlands and intermittent stream that run along the west side of the property limits the amount of the site they can use. Mr. Mikrut said he has met with Planning, and Conservation to present a pre - construction plan showing the whole site built out with the required 53 parking spaces and without any disturbance to the wetlands. However, he said construction would be right up to the Conservation Commission's 25 -foot No -Touch Zone. He said because of the four acres of wetlands and the 25 -foot No -Touch Zone, only 1.88 acres of this 6.35 -acre site can be developed. Both Planning and Conservation suggested the parking be reduced to limit the impact to the resource areas. Mr. Mikrut explained the parking area was placed along the front and side of the building, as far as possible from the resource area, which limited the site to 42 parking spaces. He noted there are 10 additional spaces inside the bays, for a total of 52 spaces. Mr. Mikrut said the Stormwater Management areas are located adjacent to the wetland areas at the back of the building. He said Mass Highway suggested the egress and ingress be as far to the west, away from the School Street /Route 140 intersection, as possible. Access to the site will be from School Street only, with no left turns allowed for vehicles leaving the site onto School Street. The loading area will be on the left side of the building. Mr. Mikrut said overall this plan will function to meet the needs of Firestone and limit disturbance to the natural resources on the site. Mr. Rathbun asked if the building would meet the zoning requirements if it were placed right to the wetland markers. Mr. Mikrut said if they were to disregard the wetland buffer, they could meet the requirements, but he said this is a much more environmentally sensitive plan. Mr. Rathbun said if you took into account current conservation laws, you could build and meet the requirement of 53 spaces, without having to ask for relief from Conservation. Mr. Mikrut said the Conservation Commission has the right to enforce a greater buffer than 25 feet, up to 50 feet. Mr. Shannon said he is concerned that the wetlands could be contaminated from this business. Attorney Valanzola said Firestone would have to comply with all federal, state and local laws regarding the disposal of hazardous waste material. Mr. Tartufo said there have been several development proposals for this site, which is limited by the inability of traffic to turn left when leaving the site. He said two properties have been combined, allowing the egress to be as far away from the intersection of Route 140 as possible. Because there are only approximately 28 -45 vehicle trips per day, Mr. Tartufo said Firestone is the best type of use for this site. 2 Mr. Rathbun asked if there will be access to the back portion of the building; he was told there would not be. Attorney Valanzola said this site is no longer zoned residential and Firestone Bridgestone is a perfect fit for the site. Hearing ended at 7:50 pm. Mr. Rathbun made the motion to grant a Variance from Sections 4.4.1, Off - Street Parking, and 4.4.4.17, Employee Parking, of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of an 8,500 square foot building with less than the required number of parking spaces at 229 -243 School Street in the Industrial 1 (11) Zone. Ms. Garber - Miller seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Mackie said there are a lot of wetlands on this site, restricting how it can be developed. He said based on the nature of this business, he does not think the grant of the Variance will derogate from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By -law because the 42 spaces are more than enough to service the customers. Mr. Luca said he is not concerned with the proposed use, but is concerned if the building was sold to another business and the use changed, there would be insufficient parking. Ms. Garber - Miller said a new business would not purchase the building if the parking is not sufficient for what they are proposing. Mr. Shannon said his only concern is the wetlands and the potential for contamination. Mr. Rathbun said he is concerned about people throwing debris into the wetlands if access is allowed to the back of the building. Mr. Luca said the applicant could remove one or two of the bays or push the parking spaces closer to the wetland buffer and construct the building without needing relief. He said the only issue here is whether the proposal is detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Rathbun agreed the 42 parking spaces are more than sufficient. Mr. Shannon said he would rather see the dumpster located on the other side of the building. Mr. Mackie said it would be a difficult location for a truck to safely pull in and back up while collecting the trash. Motion passed 4 -1 -0. Mr. Shannon voted against the project. 3. Steve Cunningham, 17 Pratt Street, Map 22, Parcel 93. The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.2, Footnote 2 of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of a mixed -use development with a commercial office and two parking spaces on the first floor and two residential units on the upper floors at 17 Pratt Street (Assessor's Map 22, Parcel 93) in the Business 1(01) Zone. The following documents were submitted: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on July 22, 2013; a copy of the public hearing notice; the July 24, 2013 letter from the Planning Board; "Site Plan for 17 Pratt Street in Mansfield, MA ", dated May 4, 2012 and revised May 31, 2012, June 5, 2012, June 14, 2012 and June 21, 2012 and July 8, 2013, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Cunningham was present Ms. Garber - Miller read the Planning Board letter into the record: On July 24, 2013, the Planning Board, with seven (7) members present and following discussion, the board voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on this application because it does not meet the statutory three -part test for the grant of a variance. Mr. Cunningham explained he submitted a special permit application and plan for a three - family building on this site but was denied by the Planning Board in July 2012. He said there had been a duplex on the lot, but the lot has been vacant for a number of years and has become overgrown since the duplex was destroyed in a fire. Mr. Cunningham said the Planning Board suggested he build a duplex on the lot, but there is no longer an allowance for a duplex in the Zoning By- law in a Business (B1) District. Mr. Cunningham stated he is requesting relief for the construction of a mixed -use development with a retail /office space with two parking spaces on the first floor and two residential units on the upper floors of the building. He said it would be difficult to have only a retail space on this lot because of the traffic on Pratt Street, Ms. Garber - Miller asked about the orientation of the building and how the garages for the residential units would be accessed. Mr. Cunningham explained the retail /office space will face Pratt Street and access for the residential units will be off Crocker Street. Mr. Mackie said the space does not seem practical for any type of retail use. Mr. Cunningham said it would be used as office space. Ellen Spilewski, 18 Thompson Street, said she was concerned about the traffic on Pratt Street. She said visibility is greatly reduced during the day because of on- street parking. Mr. Mackie said it is very unlikely the unit would be used as retail space because it is too small. Mr. Rathbun agreed the traffic on Pratt Street is a big problem. Mr. Luca wanted to confirm the easement to access the two on -grade parking spaces is outside the property line and the parking spaces are actually on the 17 Pratt Street property. Mr. Cunningham said the spaces are on the 17 Pratt Street property. Hearing ended at 8:05 pm. Ms. Garber - Miller made the motion to grant a Variance from Section 4.2.2, Footnote 2 of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of a mixed -use development with a commercial office and two parking spaces on the first floor and two residential units on the upper floors at 17 Pratt Street in the Business 1 (B1) Zone. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca said this is an odd - shaped lot, limiting what can be constructed on the site, but has the necessary parking spaces within the building so he feels the request is reasonable and not anymore detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Garber - Miller said this is the kind of development the town is looking for around the train area. Mr. Rathbun said the proposed building is big for the lot but the lot has been vacant for a long time. Mr. Luca said a single - family home could not be built on this lot because it is in a Business (61) District. He said the proposal will not create a traffic problem. 4 Mr. Mackie said it is a difficult lot to build on because of the use restriction and this is the best use for this property. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 8:30 pm: Luca /Garber - Miller. Passed 5 -0. Next meeting will be September 17, 2013 at 7:30 pm. ` F 7 Elisabeth Garber - Miller Date 5