Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
December 5, 2012
Landuse Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Ethan Berg, (EB); Robert Fuster, (RF); Ned Douglas, (ND); Robert Fuster Jr., (RFjr); Shawn Leary Considine, (SLC)
Absent with notification: Cliff Snyder, (CS)
Staff present: Mary Albertson, (MA); Peggy Ammendola, (PA)
PVI Lenox Village LLC 60-68 Main Street, Map 43, Parcel 196, aka Nejaime’s. Special Permit Section 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses, or, in the alternative, under Bylaw Section 6.4 Planning Unit Commercial Development. Proposed construction of 1,880 square foot retail addition on the east side of an existing retail.
There were 3 members of the press, and three members of the public.
Making the presentation were: Attorney Philip Heller; Drew Davis of PVI; Joe Nejaime;
Stephen Barry of Barry Architects; and Jim Scalise of SK Design Group, Inc.
Attorney Heller reviewed the history of this property which consists of 1.3 acres. He stated that it is either a non-conforming use for which he is filing for a Special Permit or an expansion of a Planned Unit Commercial Development. There are two buildings, one of which is the existing Nejaime’s consisting of 3024 square feet and the other is a two story structure with a footprint of 6400 square feet. The current density is 17 percent and should Nejaime’s be granted permission to expand, the density would be 20 percent. Currently there are 65 parking spaces, but the required number of parking spaces with this addition would be 60. Attorney Heller stated that the HDC has approved of the project with conditions which was documented in a copy of the HDC minutes.
Mr. Barry described the proposed project which is to extend the form of the existing building. The back of the existing building is in need of some updating and the addition will look identical to the existing. The roof will be Cobblestone Grey. The expansion is for retail space and storage only with no bathrooms. The proposed schedule is to finish in the winter and open in the spring.
Mr. Scalise gave an overview of the municipal impact. The existing parking spaces are not conforming, but will upon completion of project. There will be no new storm water impacts. A retaining wall is proposed that will be 190 feet in length with heights going from 1 to 3.5 feet. There will be plantings along the top easterly side. There are plans for a 200 square foot planting bed including a deciduous tree which will aesthetically improve the area. Mr. Scalise said that the proposed project meets the design standards.
ND expressed concern about delivery trucks impeding traffic. The proponents said that the retaining wall will improve this as a portion of the bank will be removed.
Mr. Davis said that PVI purchased this property approximately 2 years ago. He spoke of the improvements that have been made since their acquisition.
George Jordan, a resident, stated that the previous owner offered leased parking and he asked if this would continue. Mr. Davis said that it wouldn’t. Mr. Jordan also suggested that the entry from Main Street be widened. Mr. Scalise said that the existing width works to slow traffic.
Attorney Jeff Lynch, a tenant who has his office on the second floor of the larger building, supported the project. He stated that he uses the parking lot each day.
There was no correspondence received.
The Board discussed and there was agreement that the petition meets all of the criteria for a pre-existing non-conforming special permit application and Section 9.4.2. Also it was stated that it is an established, successful business.
SLC asked PH if he had a preference of a SP and he responded that he felt that it was more of a Special Permit than a PUCD.
EB made a motion to grant a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2, Nonconforming Uses with the addition of the Historic District Commission requirements. RFjr seconded the motion and the Board voted to approve 5-0.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 115 East New Lenox Road, Map 34, Parcel 1. Amendment to a Variance granted on March 4, 1970, or, in the alternative, a Special Permit to allow expansion of a non-conforming use under Lenox Zoning Bylaw Section 3.3.2 and expansion of a non-conforming structure under Section 3.3.3
Prior to the hearing, EPRI submitted a written request to withdraw their petition without prejudice. SLC made a motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. RF seconded the motion and the Board voted to agree 5-0.
Shanlen Realty Corporation, aka "Hoff's Mobil", 90 Main Street (Map 43, Parcel 192) Special Permits Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 and 5.1.7, and Variances from Sections 5.1.18 and 5.2.19, to allow establishment of a convenience store as a new use to accompany the existing use of the sale of gasoline.
Presented by Attorney Jeff Lynch and Glenn Hoff.
Also present were Dan O’Brien, owner of O’Brien’s and his attorney, Alexandra Glover.
Additionally there were three members of the press, and two other citizens.
All board members disclosed that they frequent both establishments but feel that they can be fair in making their decisions, but would step down if anyone objected to their participation. There were no objections.
This gas station and auto repair facility has been in operation at this location since 1929. Hoff’s Mobil acquired the business in 1977. The applicant wishes to eliminate the repair and towing business, but keep the existing gasoline sales and open a convenience store.
Originally the applicant filed for a Special Permit in January 2012 for the operation of a gasoline station and retail convenience store and was eventually withdrawn without prejudice on May 23, 2012 for the applicant to deal with issues brought up at the previous hearing.
Attorney Lynch brought the Board up to date by briefly reviewing the concerns raised by the Board during the hearings for the petition presented earlier this. The primary concern was the traffic congestion on the site. At that time they applicant proposed six parking spaces, which did not take into account the parking spaces at the gas pump, but the Board felt that cars coming in and cars at the pump would be a tight fit. In addition there were concerns for handicap access and a loading zone. These concerns resulted in a plan by SK Design Group. Among changes include a handicap parking space with additional space for access and a ramp to the store and a loading zone for deliveries. Additionally there will be four designated spaces with four available spaces at the gas pumps. Attorney
Lynch stated that in his research he has found nothing that says that the parking areas at the pumps cannot be considered in the count for required parking spaces. He also pointed out that this project does not trigger parking requirements. With the renovation plan it is likely that the middle pump will be removed which will alleviate some of the perceived congestion. The traffic flow and safety will be improved when compared to the current use.
Attorney Lynch said that the existing non-conforming use of gasoline sales is not changing; it provides a benefit to the public and is not a negative aspect to the sale of gas to this site. The removal of the existing non-conforming use of the repair of automobiles since 1929 that was allowed is changing to a conforming use, not changing a non-conforming use which is allowed by right.
SLC said that she thought that this new petition would provide a new configuration of Hoff’s. The building would be reoriented to front on Franklin and all traffic would be going north and south. Attorney Lynch said that had not been a consideration for different reasons, but in particular such a reconfiguration would not be effective.
Discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of the bylaw and its application to this petition.
RF said that he has read and re-read the petition, which he felt was very well done and detailed, but he suggested for clarity that Attorney Lynch prepare a chart for the Board which lists the various parts of the petition, indicate whether a section applies or doesn’t apply and why. Attorney Lynch agreed to do so.
There was no correspondence.
Public Comment:
George Jordan suggested a traffic study which he indicated had been discussed at a site visit under the previous petition, reconfiguration of the fuel pumps and a change in the building façade to look historic. Attorney Lynch said that at the site visit to which Mr. Jordan referred, he asked a Board member if the Board was asking for a traffic count study. Attorney Lynch was told that such a study was not necessary, but instead the Board was seeking a way for a better flow of traffic and spacing.
Dan O’Brien said that removing the middle pump would not be an improvement. Attorney Lynch disagreed, saying that it could pay a role in potential congestion.
Attorney. Glover, representing Mr. O’Brien, gave a copy of her submission which included her previous two submissions when the first petition was before the Board. She said that her issues are identical to the first petition. She said that it is important for the Board to focus on the definition of non-conforming uses as this proposal is for two uses sharing a small lot. She said that since a gas station is not allowed under our zoning bylaw, there are no parking requirements, but if allowed more parking spaces would be required. Attorney Glover briefly reviewed all of the issues she addressed in her submission dated December 5, 2012.
Attorney Glover pointed out that the bylaw calls for 80% of the required parking area to be located to the side or rear of the property line. She also thinks that another site visit should be required. She also suggested that there be an expert who could advise the minimum parking required to make a safe site. Considerable discussion took place on this and the continued concern for safety, number of parking spaces etc. Questions from the Board included but were not limited to what number of spaces would be required for a gas station, could a space by a gas pump be included in the count of parking spaces, etc. Both attorneys agreed to research and discuss their findings. MA will speak to the Planning Board about the 80% requirement. The Board reserves the right to request a traffic
safety study, but it was agreed to continue the hearing to hear from the attorneys first.
SLC made a motion to continue the hearing to Dec 19, 2012 at 7:00 pm. ND seconded the motion and the Board voted to agree 5-0.
RF made a motion to adjourn at 9:10 pm. RFjr seconded the motion and the Board voted to agree 5-0.
Minutes: November 7, 2012-Tabled until the next meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
