Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 12/13/2016Mansfield Board of Appeals RFI,E'ivEQ Minutes r7rtl s! C..v'':;S OFFICE i.` 33 U December 13, 2016 al INR i O All' 19 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, at :30 pm. Present at the hearing were the following members: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Matt Cummings, Agipg;Clerk; D,a�lPne Pruitt; Associate Member Eric Correira. f 1. Meeting opened at 7:30 pm. 2. Mansfield Parking, LLC, 75 Chauncy Street, Map 21, Lot 331 The application of Mansfield Parking, LLC for a Variance/Special Permit from Zoning By -Law Section 230-5.3 C.(7) Drainage; C.(9) Landscaping and C(12) Drainage Calculations and soil tests at a proposed lot at 75 Chauncy Street (Map 21, Lot 331) in the Industrial 3 (I3) Zone, was continued at the November 29, 2016. The following documents were submitted: Application for a Special Permit, filed with the Town Clerk October 6, 2016; a copy of the public hearing notice; "Parking Plan Site Plan" dated October 26, 2016, prepared by Beals & Thomas, Inc. Attorney Edward Valanzola, Robert and George Turner, David LaPointe, Beals & Thomas, Inc., were present Attorney Valanzola explained Applicants Robert and George Turner, the owners of Mansfield Parking LLC, purchased the property in September 2016 and plan to develop the site as a mixed-use property with retail, restaurants, parking garage, residential, and open space/outdoor areas. He said this is the former Cleveland Twist & Drill site with a total of 6.3 acres and the Applicants are proposing a parking area with 194 spaces on an existing concrete slab; Attorney Valanzola said there are an additional 173 parking spaces on the abutting parcel, which the Applicants also own. He said the Applicants will go before the Planning Board tomorrow night (December 14, 2016) for a Special Permit. Attorney Valanzola said they are only asking for relief for landscaping and drainage calculations, and noted this is a short term plan and the Applicants plan to develop the site consistent with town recommendations. He said the Applicants did not purchase the property to operate a parking lot; this is a temporary Phase I and as they move forward they will file plans for the redevelopment of the site. Attorney Valanzola said there is an extensive Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on the property, creating a hardship. He said before the ground can be disturbed, a licensed site professional would have to coordinate any activities at the site, Because of the AUL, he said at this point it would not make sense to do drainage calculations or landscaping because this is temporary. David LaPointe explained the proposed parking area will be located on the southern portion of the property and the wooded area between Draper Avenue and River Street will remain untouched. Mr. LaPointe noted there is a driveway that historically provided access to the former Cleveland Twist & Drill building. He said the eastern portion of the property is already functioning as a parking lot with 174 spaces for the train station and, as part of this; application, the Applicants are also applying for the 17 additional spaces, which are currently being used but were never permitted. He said they are not proposing any additional grading or major excavation; the cars will park on the existing concrete slab so there will be no disturbance to the soil. He said they are proposing lighting at the town's request, for safety reasons, and there will be screening placed along the Draper Avenue side of the property to block vehicle headlights from shining on to the adjacent properties. Attorney Valanzola said they are creating no additional impervious area and the site would have to be redeveloped in a way that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Pruitt asked Attorney Valanzola to define short term. He said the redevelopment would probably start within 1-2 years, once plans have been finalized. Mr. Cummings asked if there was a landscaping plan for the property. Attorney Valanzola said there is no plan because there is very little green area surrounding the perimeter of the property so at this time they will provide some screening and lighting as suggested by Shaun Burke, Planning Director. Mr. Cummings read into the record an e-mail dated December 13, 2016 from Dennis and Debbie Mall, 26 Highland Avenue, stating they are opposed to the proposed expansion of 194 parking spaces. Peter Farrell, 123 Morrow Street, noted approximately 200 spaces are being added to an already bad situation. Attorney Valanzola said a traffic study would be discussed at the Planning Board on Wednesday December 14, 2016. John Piche, 2 Bella Vista Avenue, said his main concerns were the drainage, environmental impacts and snow removal. Attorney Valanzola said snow storage is not shown on the plan but the Planning Board will ask for designated spaces for snow storage; he said they are not creating additional impervious area so whatever runoff, whether the property is developed or not, will still be there. Mr. LaPointe said there are areas at the western edge of the property adjacent to Draper Avenue as well as the green space on the access road that could be used for snow storage. Ms. Garber -Miller noted there is no access to Chauncy Street (Route 106) from the parking area. Charlene Giblin, 18 Draper Avenue, said there is only one way out of the parking area, up Allen Street and onto Highland Street. Kathleen Deely, 48 Draper Avenue, asked Attorney Valanzola to be more specific about the time frame for the redevelopment. He said hopefully plans will be approved and the project can move forward within 1-2 years. Ms. Deely said it was also mentioned that the Applicants did not purchase this property to be parking lot owners and asked why they are building a parking lot instead of moving forward with the redevelopment. Attorney Valanzola said there is a need for additional parking. Ms. Deely said she is all for the development of this property but the Applicants are asking for a waiver for drainage where the abutting parking area already has a huge problem with drainage; she asked, instead of the proposed 194 parking- spaces, why not redevelopment this area first. Attorney Valanzola said the Applicants are now aware of the drainage problems and represented to the town that this issue would be addressed. Ms. Deely said when the town was discussing the redevelopment of the train station area, one of the points of this whole development was a second means of egress from the parking area through Foxboro. At that time she asked what the possibility of the redevelopment being approved without the second means of egress; she said Mr. Ross said it would not go forward. She said the neighborhood cannot tolerate or accommodate the additional traffic and the Applicants should work with and fix what is already there and not subject this entire neighborhood to the impacts of this proposal. Ms. Garber -Miller said the current parking area closest to the train station and MBTA parking lot will be the first area to be redeveloped, with the existing parking spaces eliminated, resulting in the net gain of 20 spaces. Ms. Deely said she assumed the Applicants knew this was an AUL site when they purchased the property and the cost associated with developing the site. Anne Farrell, 123 Morrow Street, said she had issues with the additional parking spaces, the screening on Draper Avenue and additional light pollution. Attorney Valanzola said the lights are designed so nothing is illuminated offsite. Mr. LaPointe said at this time the type of screening has not been established but would probably be a chain link fence, 3-4 feet high with slats or fabric material. Ms. Farrell asked the Board to consider once the special permit is issued, it is forever. Attorney Valanzola said the Planning Board would impose conditions to address the many questions and concerns of the neighbor. Laurence Malsky, 26 Draper Avenue, said a 3 -foot fence would not be an adequate substitution for a landscape buffer of trees and shrubs. He said he is not opposed to development and is actually excited about Phase II of the project. Attorney Valanzola said the Planning Board would impose conditions for the lighting and the landscape buffer when granting the special permit. He suggested a berm with arborvitae in addition to the fence, to break the sight line. Michael Brophy, Jr., 67 Draper Avenue, said he is concerned about the speed and volume of traffic coming out of the parking area; he noted the roads are in disrepair and drivers do not obey the street signs. John Piche, 2 Bella Vista Avenue, said the existing concrete slab is cracked and crumbling and he is concerned about potential toxic leaks. Robert Turner said there are no toxic chemicals on the site. Attorney Valanzola said when the site is redeveloped, the Applicants will have to deal with the AUL; it would be cost - prohibitive to go in now to take care of the AUL and anything else that is on the site for the short period of time the parking lot will operate. He said if the project is denied by the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, whatever is currently under the concrete slab will still be there until the entire site is developed. He said the site will be cleaned of debris and the overgrown areas. He said the concrete slab has been tested and the integrity is fine. Ms. Deely noted the Applicants are asking for relief from zoning regulations that are imposed on any new construction. Ms. Garber -Miller said the impervious surface is already there so they do not want to do the drainage calculations that would ordinarily be required for a new parking area. She said their argument is the surface is already there and the only thing they are going to do is stripe the surface and use it temporarily. Ms. Deely said they are proposing to use the site in a manner that it is not currently being used or designed for, without doing the proper studies required if they were going to disturb the ground. They are arguing that the impervious surface is already there, they are going to clean the area of debris but they are not going to put more pavement there; they are just going to stripe the existing surface because they do not want to spend the money to make this into a parking facility, where they anticipate this is temporary. Stephen Megerdichian, 11 Morrow Street, said he does not understand how the Board can grant a waiver without the Applicant showing a commitment to development over time because it could become a parking area for the next twenty years or always be a parking area Thomas Kinney, 41 Morrow Street, was concerned the parking area would be there for a very long time. Attorney Valanzola noted the AUL is an underground condition, not in the concrete. Ms. Farrell asked what the advantage this project would have for the town. She said the proposal does not deal with the traffic, the proper drainage or the landscaping for a parking lot. Michael Clemmey, Wrentham, said they should have been more prepared with a landscaping plan showing the proposed fencing, screening and lighting. He agreed the concrete foundation is in poor condition, and once approved, the parking is there forever. William Clemmey, 55 Fowler Street, said they are looking for drainage relief and have said there will be no additional impervious materials, but it would be impossible to get from the area where the unpermitted parking spaces are located to the proposed parking area without adding more impervious material. He said they purchased a property with an existing AUL, which is not a hardship, and any work on the property would affect the drainage. Mr. Clemmey noted at this time there are no plans in place for a second means of egress. Attorney Valanzola said they will not be adding anything to the parking lot other then striping the lot. Mr. Malsky said when a previous owner of the property submitted a similar proposal the police chief was opposed to the project because of public safety issues. Mr. Malsky said the Board also unanimously rejected the proposal. Ms Deely said they do not have a problem with the development of the site; the Issue is with the additional 194 parking spaces on a 100 year-old concrete slab on an AUL site, without a second means of egress or proper landscaping designed to protect the neighborhood. Karl Clemmey, 175 Essex Street said the access area off Draper Avenue belongs to the Town of Mansfield. He discussed the drainage and flooding in this area and the traffic issues. Michael Clemmey asked if the Board were to approve this project, would they be willing to put a time frame on that approval for the landscaping and drainage. Attorney Valanzola said the Planning Board would put conditions and time constraints on this project as well as the screening, lighting, landscaping and traffic issues. Mr. Piche, 2 Bella Vista Avenue, noted nothing concrete has been presented about this project. Ms. Deely asked the Board to take into consideration there is a big problem with drainage. Ms. Garber -Miller said the issue is not on the drainage itself but on having to perform the drainage calculations. Ms. Deeley said she understands the drainage and drainage calculations will not be done now because it would be a financial hardship at this point, until they develop the land and follow the proper AUL protocol. She said the issue is there is an existing drainage problem within the existing lot and you will be making a bad problem worse. She said it is a safety hazard for anyone walking through the town -owned portion of the parking lot, so if it is approved, and they never develop the land, they do not ever have to do drainage calculations. Attorney Valanzola said the Planning Board can consider adding a condition to the special permit that a review is done after a 12 -month period to determine if the project is adding to the existing water problems on the site. Mr. Farrell said the Applicants have owned the parking lot where drainage is a problem and asked why this has not been fixed; if there is an existing water problem, why would this board waive the drainage and drainage calculations. Attorney Valanzola said the drainage problems were discovered after the Applicants purchased the property in September. Ms. Garber -Miller said they do not want to do the calculations on what they know is an impervious surface that is draining onto another part of their property when they know the entire area is going to be redeveloped within a relatively short time frame. Mr. DePillo, 47 Howe Street, asked if the concrete slab had been inspected. Mr. Turner said the slab has been inspected. Ms. Farrell said if you are going to make changes to the proposed landscaping, why don't you come back to the board when you have a final plan. Attorney Valanzola said a berm with a row of trees will be added and the Planning Board will condition the project tomorrow night. Mr. Cummings made the motion to continue the hearing for Mansfield Parking, LLC, 75 Chauncy Street, to the next meeting, January 31, 2017, after the Applicants have had a discussion with the Planning Board. Ms. Pruitt seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1-0 (Pruitt, Garber -Miller, Cummings in favor -Mr. Correira opposed) 3. Executive Session Motion: To go into executive session to consider pending litigation for Wayside Estates, LLC because an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the public body, an to come out of executive session to adjourn the regular meeting. (Pruitt/Cummings) Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair — aye; Matt Cummings, Acting Clerk, - aye; Darlene Pruitt — aye; Associate Member Eric Correia — aye. All in favor. Passes 4-0-0. 4. Adjournment: Motion: To adjourn at 10:00 pm. (Pruitt/Cummings) All in favor. Passes. Next meeting will be January 31, 2017. Matthew Cummings, Acting Clerk Date f