Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_061813MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 18, 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; Associate Member John McKenna. 1. Meeting opened at 7:40 pm. 2. 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 6,500 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 ", dated May 6, 2013, and "ZBA -2 ", prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 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, and Jason Mikrut, Senior Project Engineer, Vanasse, Hangen, Brustlin, Inc., were present. Because there were only four members present and approval for the requested Variance would require four positive votes, Mr. Mackie asked if the applicant wanted to proceed or continue the hearing to the next meeting, July 16, 2013. Attorney Valanzola asked if the hearing could be opened and if necessary, continued, so the fifth member of the board can then watch the DVD of the tonight's hearing and participate at the next meeting. He said this is a commercial development, there are time constraints. Ms. Garber - Miller said her only concern is that the board members watching the DVD will not have the opportunity to ask Mr. Mikrut questions if he is unable to attend the next meeting. Mr. Mackie said he does not have a problem with continuing the hearing to the next meeting or going forward tonight. Attorney Valanzola asked that the hearing be opened. Associate Member John McKenna was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Attorney Valanzola addressed the Planning Board's letter of recommendation. He said the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has jurisdiction over these hearings under the statute and the requirement that the Planning Board make a recommendation was revoked about 15 years ago and in most communities this is no longer done; Mansfield is one of a few that continue this practice. He said this violates due process because the Planning Board 11 does not have the right to hold a hearing on a ZBA application, to deliberate, to decide or try to influence this board. He said there is nothing in Mass General Law, Chapter 40A, that says another board can hold a preliminary hearing where the applicant or a representative does not participate and send a recommendation that might influence the decision of the other board members. He asked if the Planning Board has all the information when they make their recommendations that this board would hear when the application is presented. Ms. Garber - Miller said the Planning Board's comments are based on the information before them at the time and that is why the board holds a full hearing and the board members make a decision on all the information that is before them. Mr. Luca said he is not influenced by the Planning Board letter and because they are Mansfield residents, they could make the same comments when the application is presented at the hearing. Attorney Valanzola said this area has been re -zoned an Industrial 1 Zone. The site is approximately 6,349 acres and the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 4.4.1, Off- Street parking, where 53 spaces are required and 43 spaces are proposed. He said the 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 except for the relief requested by the application. The challenge the site presents is that the site contains significant wetland areas. An Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation was presented and approved by the Conservation Commission but the applicant has not applied for an Order of Conditions because they are waiting for the ZBA decision. Attorney Valanzola said all the parking will be located in the front of the building because there are three stormwater retention areas that have to be located behind the building. Attorney Valanzola said site constraints present a hardship for the applicant; the irregular shape of the lot and Route 140 limit suitable areas to locate the building and the lot does not have frontage on both roads because a curb cut is not allowed on Route 140. The topography of the site, the soil conditions, particularly the wetlands, limits the building size, location and parking area. Attorney Valanzola said there will be 7 -10 employees and the average number of vehicles on site on a daily basis will be 28 -45. He explained that customers will drop off vehicles early in the morning and pick up the same day; vehicles will only be parked in the lot before and after work is performed and any vehicles left overnight would be stored inside the building. He said there will be no overflow parking out on School Street or Route 140. Attorney Valanzola said Firestone can comfortably operate with 43 spaces. Mr. Mikrut said this is a very constrainted site; there are approximately 6.3 acres with 4 acres of wetlands, leaving only 2.3 acres of dry, developable area, but because of the 25 -foot no disturb zone set by Conservation, only 1.8 acres can actually be developed. He said because of the irregularly shaped lot and limits of the buffer zone, it is very difficult to utilize the area and provide the required parking. Mr. Mikrut said plans submitted at a pre - application meeting with the Planning Board and Conservation Commission, showed work right up to the 25 -foot no touch zone and it was decided that the project as designed would result in too much impact on the wetlands. Mr. Mikrut said Firestone does not need 53 parking spaces because most of the cars on site will be in the ten bays; 30 -40 spaces would be what would service their site properly, what they need operationally. He said having less impervious area will have less impact on the wetland areas and provide more room to do the proper stormwater management areas that are needed. Mr. Mikrut said the 8,500 square foot building with 10 bays is the standard size for a Firestone building. He explained egress and ingress will be off School Street only, with no left turns onto School Street and parking will be along the front of the building with the loading area located along the back side of the building. E Mr. Mackie asked if any compact spaces have been designated and would this allow for more spaces. Mr. Mikrut said with the limited space on site, even if the spaces were reduced from 9 feet down to 8 feet, they would still not be able to provide 53 spaces. Mr. Luca asked if the bay areas can be considered garage spaces. He said because the variance runs with the land and if the 10 garage spaces have been designated as parking spaces, he is concerned that if the building were to be sold and the use of the site changed, a new owner would have to keep the building as retail space with a ten -bay garage to meet the requirement of 53 spaces. Mr. Mikrut said it has always been presented and accepted that the ten spaces within the building do count as spaces for the site. Attorney Valanzola said if the use were to change, because this is going to be built as Firestone building with 10 bays, anyone purchasing the building would have to change the building. Whether they enlarge the footprint or keep the same footprint and modify it, they would have to come before the board asking for further variances and site plan approval. Ms. Garber - Miller asked what the area to the left of the building would be used for. Mr. Mikrut said this area is the off - street loading area with the loading doors to the back of the building. She asked what the symbol next to the handicapped parking space is for. Mr. Mikrut said this is a designated space for hybrid cars. He said Firestone tries to be very environmentally friendly with hybrid parking spaces, using recycled rubber mulch for landscaping areas, and recycled rubber for the sidewalks. Ms. Garber - Miller said she was concerned about the egress and ingress to the site because the intersection is very busy. Mr. Mikrut said there were discussions with MassDOT about this site and there is a non - access line that runs along the site about 350 feet from the intersection and the curb cut is located outside the 350 feet, meeting the requirements in this respect. He said they had to go through Mass Highway before they even considered this site to make sure the state would allow them access to the site and they would grant them an Indirect Access Permit later. Mr. Mikrut said during the peak hours there are typically 29 trips entering and exiting from the site, less than a trip every 2 minutes. He said peak hours are in the evenings and Saturday mornings. Mr. Mikrut said this is a light automotive business with oil changes and mounting and rotating tires Mr. Luca asked about the abutting properties. Attorney Valanzola said the property is bordered by a vacant lot to the left and a state right -of -way to the right, with train tracks located in the back of the property. Attorney Valanzola said this is a very challenging site, and even with 6.3 acres there are not many buildings with a small parking area that could fit on this property. Mr. Luca said the property is landlocked. Ms. Garber - Miller said there is no access to the upland area on the property. Mr. Mackie said the presentation is very good and, based on the shape of the lot and the wetlands on site, this is a good use of the property. Mr. Luca said the 1.8 acres is more than what an 8,500 square foot building would need. Ms. Garber - Miller asked how many of the 43 spaces proposed are for customers and employees. Mr. Mikrut said a maximum of 10 spaces are required for the employees and there will be 43 spaces for customers. Attorney Valanzola said he would like to close the hearing tonight. He said this is a unique site, the use fits and everything is permitted by the By -law, the applicant only needs relief on the parking. Because the board has never allowed members to view the DVD of a missed meeting and then participate at future hearings, Mr. Mackie asked how the board would like to proceed. He said he is comfortable voting tonight. Mr. Luca said he would prefer not to set precedence by allowing the absent members to view the DVD and would rather close the hearing and vote tonight. Ms. Garber - Miller said it is ultimately the applicant's decision if he wants the board to vote or not tonight. She said as long as she has been on this board, a review of a meeting tape or DVD by members not present at the hearing was never done. She said even when a hearing lasted for a prolonged period, only members that were present at the hearing were eligible to vote. After a discussion with the applicant, Attorney Valanzola asked that the hearing not be closed but continued to the next hearing. He asked that the two absent members be given the opportunity to review the DVD of tonight's meeting. Mr. Mackie asked that the DVD be sent to both the members to their homes for review. The hearing will be continued to July 2, 2013. 3. Old Business: The board signed the following decisions: 18 Highland Avenue — Variance; 1779 West Street — Finding; 29 Henry Street — Variance; 600 West Street — Variance (new plans were submitted); 66 West Street — Special Permit (new plans were submitted). 4, question and Answer Session: Stacie Hooper, 93 Campbell Street, addressed the Board regarding confusion over comments made during a hearing on a prior decision, and specifically to address some comments between Board members she perceived as contradictory. The Board attempted to address her concerns as much as possible, and Mrs. Hooper acknowledged that she has been present at several subsequent Board meetings and did not perceive the same issue occurring. 5. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 9:00 pm: Luca /Garber - Miller. Passed. Next meeting will be July 2, 2913. Elisabeth artier- Miller, Clerk Date / a, / /3 4