Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-26-ZBA-minMinutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom May 26, 2022 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Norman P. Cohen, Nyles Barnert, Martha C. Wood and associate William P. Kennedy Alternate Member: Beth Masterman Administrative Staff: James Kelly, Building Commissioner and Julie Krakauer, Zoning Administrator Address: 915 Waltham Street The petitioner is requesting (15) FIFTEEN SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-5.3.4, and 135-5.3.5; to allow for No Transition Area where the Property abuts or is across the street from a residential zone or any part of a residential zone, 135-9.4, 135-8.4.2 and 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow the Front Setback to be 12.5’ instead of the required 30.0’ ( Pump Safety Canopy), 135-4.1.1, Table 2 Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow a side setback to a residential district from a CN zone to be 20.9’ instead of the required 30.0’ ( Pump Safety Canopy), 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow a side setback to a residential district from a CN zone to be 17’ 6” instead of the required 30.0’ (Market Building), 135-4.1.1 Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow a Floor Area Ratio of 0.249 instead of the allowed maximum of 0.20, 135-4.1.1 Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow Total Site Coverage of 24% instead of the allowed maximum of 20%, 135- 5.1.11-3, Minimum Yards for Parking; to allow for paved parts of all parking spaces, driveways, and maneuvering aisles to be 1’ from a residential district lot line instead of the required 20’, 135-5.1.11-3, Minimum Yards for Parking; to allow for paved parts of all parking spaces, driveways, and maneuvering aisles to be 0’ from the street line instead of the required 10’, 135- 5.1.12-3; to allow screening for parking to be 1” instead of the 4’ minimum requirement, 135- 5.1.13-1; to allow for parking spaces of 9 feet wide by 18 feet long instead of the required 9 feet wide and 19 feet long, 135-5.1.13-1; to allow for ADA parking spaces of 8 feet wide by 18 feet long instead of the required 9 feet wide and 19 feet long, 135-5.1.4, Table of Parking Requirements; to allow 14 parking spaces instead of the required 16 parking spaces, 135-3.4, Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards), Line J1.03; to allow Takeout Food Service between the hours of 6:00AM to and 12:00AM instead of the required 7:00AM to 11:00 PM, 135-5.1.11-2, Minimum Yards for Parking, to allow for a portion of the parking stall to be located in the front yard, 135-4.1.1 Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls; to allow a canopy height of 18’-6” instead of the maximum height of 15’ and TWO (2) VARIANCES, sections 135-4.1.1 Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow a building height of 20’- 9” instead of the maximum height of 15’. 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow a rear setback to a residential district from a CN zone to be 14.0’ instead of the required 30.0’. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographical Plan, Plot Plan, Plans and Elevations. Also submitted was a project narrative, a previous ZBA decision, Gross Floor Area Calculations, Traffic Letter, Flat Building Roof Elevation Example, Rendered Elevations and Abutter Letters. On may 17, 2022 the applicant submitted update plans, ambient sound readings, existing light levels, a buildable area document, and a cover letter. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator, Conservation Administrator, Engineering Department, Health Department, Chief McLean and Planning Department. Presenter: John Farrington attorney on behalf of Colbea Enterprises Mr. Farrington presented the petition. He provided a review of the project. They plan to address three issues. The first thing being improved is the existing site design to make it less confusing and dangerous for customers and deliveries. Second is a replacement of the underground fuel storage tank system. The third is the replacement of the older building to meet functional and ADA requirements. Sheryl Guglielmo, LEED AP Senior Project Manager, reviewed the changes they made from the previous Hearing. She stated they reduced the building footprint by taking ten feet off the left side of the building, Reducing the total square footage from 27,000 to 24,000 square feet. They have reduced the overhang on the building as well. The dumpster enclosure has been moved and made smaller. The bike racks have been relocated and they added more. There is a new connector between this property and Wagon Wheel. They added new light posts. They made minor changes to the landscape plan. The building height has been reduced from 31’ 3” to 20’ 9”. This is the lowest they can get the roof. They still have the equipment screen. A Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned the curb cut on Waltham street. He worried the arrows will fade and suggested a “do not exit” sign to the right of the entrance. Heather Monticup, of Greenman-Pedersen Traffic Engineer at 181 Ballardvale Street Wilmington MA, stated a sign would be ok if it is way over to the left. Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, questioned if there was a sign proposed for the medium in that exit (Ms. Monticup stated no, just painted because it is a truck entrance/exit). Mr. Farrington stated they could find an appropriate way to sign this. Ms. Monticup stated the concern is people are going to be too far left when using this exit. Mr. Clifford asked if it would be acceptable to add a condition that the signage will be reasonably acceptable to the Building Commissioner (Agreed). Mr. Clifford stated the furlong case focuses on likely to cause injury. He questioned if this a problem with this parcel. Andrew Delli Carpini, CEO of Colbea Enterprises at 7 Josephine Drive, Smithfield FI, stated there is nothing he can recall, perhaps minor incidences. Mr. Farrington stated one of the consultants stated they had a minor accident there 15 years ago. Mr. Clifford questioned how the proposed design improves safety (Mr. Delli Carpini stated the new design removes the requirement to back up at the dispensers. The current design does not allow for circulation, you can get stuck on one side of the island and the only option is to back up). Mr. Clifford asked in order to get the change the building need to move and be closer to the residence (Mr. Delli Carpini responded yes). Mr. Clifford asked if the height has anything to do with safety (Mr. Delli Carpini responded no, this is just for sound deadening and aesthetics). Mr. Clifford stated he doesn’t suppose there is a case that establishes that a Zoning Board of Appeals can look at aesthetics in the same way they can look at public safety as a compelling hardship. Mr. Farrington stated there is the general statement in the bylaw about fitting in with the surrounding neighborhood. The Zoning bylaw does allow a structure above the roof. He does not know of a direct case on aesthetics. Mr. Clifford asked if the ADA parking sites that are being reduced in size are still ADA compliant (Ms. Guglielmo responded yes). Mr. Clifford asked if the proposed operating hours are the same as the current, 6 am to midnight (Mr. Farrington responded yes). William Daily of 114 Marrett Road, stated he is not aware of any significant accidents or injuries over 50 years. An audience member, Steve Heinrich of 11 Potter Pond, stated his opposition for the rear setback to a residential zone and traffic flow on this small site, particularly for vehicles after they pull up to the pumps or trying to access the retail store from the entrance closest to the intersection. Cars will back up onto Waltham Street when waiting for a pump. He stated his concern for trucks with trailers on site. He requested the variances not be approved because a 30-foot buffer between a commercial and residential zone should not be violated and safety should be a concern. An audience member, Bruce Morgan of 396 Concord Avenue, stated there is no evidence of safety issues to override the variance and the expansion of the size of the store is not justified. He requested clear justification for any variance if they are to pass. There were no further questions or comments from the audience. A Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, requested the applicant to review the existing setback on the residential side (Ms. Guglielmo stated the shed is 20.5 feet and the main building is 30.5 feet. Mr. Farrington stated they currently have 8 fueling stations. The driveways work fine expect when there are cars at the pumps or backing out of the pumps. Ms. Monticup stated there are still 4 pumps, just different positions. The new design allows for more room around the pumps with the canopy rotated, adding more room at the entrances. On paper it looks like there is less room as a canopy is up in the air. Mr. Barnert questioned if there would be a problem with trucks with trailers (Ms. Monticup stated there is 30 feet between the canopy bollard and 28 feet on the right side. This allows for a second car to be behind it. She doesn’t think traffic will be blocked as trucks will wait on Waltham Street). There were no further questions from the Board. Mr. Delli Caprini stated they currently have tractor trailers pulling into the site, the existing situation probably creates situations where they are sticking out into the road more now than the proposed design. People can navigate the facility now without accidents. The proposed design will not cause any more issues. Other stations in town have used this design as well. Mr. Farrington stated the current configuration is not a modern, safe configuration compared to Cumberland Farms. The first three fueling stations closest to Concord Ave are a problem. Folks leave their cars to go into the store. Traffic engineers and site operators testify this is a safer more efficient method of circulation. The site is abutted on two sides by a RO zone. They submitted a diagram that shows if all setbacks were mandated the useable area is reduced by 2/3 leaving 7,200 sq. ft. of buildable area. This renders the site with limited usefulness. Wagon Wheel is a commercial operation in a residential zone. When the site was built in 1947 the 30’ setback from residential areas was not in effect. It is appropriate here to allow a closer than 30’ setback to the residential zone where extensive sound deadening would be provided and extensive landscaping would be provided to minimize the impact on residents. The dumpster was also moved out of consideration for the resident. Ms. Guglielmo stated they had gone through several iterations of this plan. The existing site layout would require 11 special permits. Additional square feet of building are for ADA compliance. The site needs proper safety circulation. The Hearing was closed at 8:04 pm (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, William P. Kennedy – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). The Board discussed the setback variance. Mr. Barnert stated the shape of the lot would be used to justify this variance. The Board agreed. Mr. Clifford stated they have to keep in mind the size of the lot, which is not sufficient for the zoning variance because that affects all lots equally. The curve is the issue. Mr. Clifford questioned the substantial hardship. Associate member, William P. Kennedy, stated this lot was the same size as it was in 1947. The zoning bylaws have changed sense then. Its impossible to have a business there and comply with the laws. Mr. Cohen stated the new plan is much better. This site needs to be fixed up. Ms. Wood stated she can think of three gas stations where the building abuts a residential area and the buildings are as close as this one. They are looking at business sustainability. She stated she favors this. Alternate Member, Beth Masterman, stated they have done a good job at responding to the issues. This is a good plan. Mr. Clifford stated his concern for safety during his site visit due to traffic flow. The new plan is not perfect but it is going to make it better. This does not cause substantial detriment to the neighbors. The building façade is not an active space. He stated his support for this specific Variance. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.2.2.2 and 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow a rear setback to a residential district from a CN zone to be 14’ instead of the required 30.0’ (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, William P. Kennedy – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). The Board discussed the building height variance. Mr. Barnert stated it is at a reasonable height. Mr. Cohen, Ms. Wood, Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Masterman agreed. Mr. Clifford stated he does not like flat roofs but the applicant does not have the safety or the lot to point to here. The Board is not in a position to justify this Variance based on what they are supposed to do. The Board should not grant this Variance. They can build the gas station that will have the business capabilities that are appropriate and have the safety enhancements with out needing this Variance. He would deny this Variance. Mr. Barnert stated the A/C is going to be at 20 feet anyway. Mr. Clifford stated that is allowed as a matter of right. Aesthetics are not a part of our zoning analysis. Mr. Cohen stated safety can be an issue with snow storms. Mr. Clifford stated a lot of commercial buildings have a flat roof, this is not uncommon and it can be done safely. The Board of appeals voted four (4) in favor, one (1) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-4.1.1 Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls; to allow a building height of 20’-9” instead of the maximum height of 15’ (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– No, William P. Kennedy – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). The Board conditioned a 5-year term to allow Takeout Food Service between the hours of 6:00AM to and 12:00AM instead of the required 7:00AM to 11:00 PM. The Board conditioned snow removal be taken off site as needed. The Board conditioned the signage on the Waltham Street entrance shall reasonably acceptable to the Building Commissioner. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant (15) FIFTEEN SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-5.3.4, and 135-5.3.5; to allow for No Transition Area where the Property abuts or is across the street from a residential zone or any part of a residential zone, 135-9.4, 135-8.4.2 and 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow the Front Setback to be 12.5’ instead of the required 30.0’ ( Pump Safety Canopy), 135- 4.1.1, Table 2 Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow a side setback to a residential district from a CN zone to be 20’-9” instead of the required 30.0’ ( Pump Safety Canopy), 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow a side setback to a residential district from a CN zone to be 17’ 6” instead of the required 30.0’ (Market Building), 135-4.1.1 Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow a Floor Area Ratio of 0.249 instead of the allowed maximum of 0.20, 135-4.1.1 Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls); to allow Total Site Coverage of 24% instead of the allowed maximum of 20%, 135-5.1.11-3, Minimum Yards for Parking; to allow for paved parts of all parking spaces, driveways, and maneuvering aisles to be 1’ from a residential district lot line instead of the required 20’, 135-5.1.11-3, Minimum Yards for Parking; to allow for paved parts of all parking spaces, driveways, and maneuvering aisles to be 0’ from the street line instead of the required 10’, 135-5.1.12-3; to allow screening for parking to be 1” instead of the 4’ minimum requirement, 135-5.1.13-1; to allow for parking spaces of 9 feet wide by 18 feet long instead of the required 9 feet wide and 19 feet long, 135-5.1.13-1; to allow for ADA parking spaces of 8 feet wide by 18 feet long instead of the required 9 feet wide and 19 feet long, 135-5.1.4, Table of Parking Requirements; to allow 14 parking spaces instead of the required 16 parking spaces, 135-3.4, Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards), Line J1.03; to allow Takeout Food Service between the hours of 6:00AM to and 12:00AM instead of the required 7:00AM to 11:00 PM, 135-5.1.11-2, Minimum Yards for Parking, to allow for a portion of the parking stall to be located in the front yard, 135-4.1.1 Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls; to allow a canopy height of 18’-6” instead of the maximum height of 15’ (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, William P. Kennedy – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom May 26, 2022 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood and Associate James Osten Alternate Member: Kathryn Roy Administrative Staff: James Kelly, Building Commissioner, Julie Krakauer, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Other Business: 1. Minutes from the May 12, 2022 Hearing. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approved the minutes from May 12, 2022 Hearing (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, William P. Kennedy– Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). The Board voted to adjourn.