TOWN OF MARION
PLANNING BOARD
August 16, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Ryder, Chairman
Tom Magauran, Vice-Chairman
Joe Napoli
Steve Gonsalves
John Sweeney
Julia Deane Crowley Note: Left at 9:10 P.M.
Sherman Briggs, Clerk
BOARD SECRETARY: Terri Santos
ALSO PRESENT: Ricky Pursley
Richard Schaefer
Eunice Manduca
Laura Pedulli Carol
Sanz
Ted North
Lucy Napoli
Jack O’Leary
Rob Pellegrini
Richard Boyle
Giles Ham
Manny Paiva
John Aharonian
Commencement – Chairman Ryder called the meeting to order at 7:25 P.M and explained the meeting procedure.
Old/New Business
Member Sweeney asked if the final 2015 Report had been presented to the board by the architect.
Vice - Chairman Magauran answered that it had not been presented.
Vice – Chairman Magauran then brought up a procedural question as to if it is critical that we have the final 2015 Report. Once the board closes the Cumberland Farms public hearings the Board will not be able to take that information for the record. He suggested the Board close the public hearing for Cumberland Farms at the next hearing.
Approval of Bills
None
Approval of Minutes
None
Continued Public Hearing - Special Permit for Setback, Special Permit for Retail and Site Plan Review – 406 Wareham Street c/o Rob Pellegrini
7:30 P.M. - Motion was made by Vice-Chairman Magauran to open the Public Hearing for Cumberland Farms and was seconded by Member Gonsalves.
Vote: 6-0-0 Note: Member Sweeney Recused
Robert Pellegrini introduced himself along with Manny Paiva (Planning), John Ahronian (Architect) Jack O’Leary (Engineering), Richard Boyle and Giles Ham from Vanesse Associates. He began by asking for permission from Chairman Ryder to summarize the project referring to his letter to the Planning Board dated August 6, 2010 (on file in Planning Board Office).
He pointed out the differences between the new and old site plans. He reminded the board that there is no change of use in the proposed Cumberland Farms.
The following are details that have been changed based on Peer review, Board and Public comments:
- Architecture has been revised
- Landscaping added
- Parking no longer on street, is up against the building, away from traffic
- Front street driveway will be entrance only
- Front street (South) will be two way and significantly smaller
Cumberland Farms is unique in that they do all of their own deliveries.
He explained that the curb cuts are DOT regulated under the jurisdiction of the DOT and designed in conjunction with the DOT. He explained that preliminary meetings were held with Vaneesse and the DOT.
Vice–Chairman Magauran asked if they had met with Ed Feeney.
Giles Ham answered saying that that in early stages of the project they had met with Ed Feeney to discuss Route 6, the curb cuts and the proposed design of the Cumberland Farms site.
Vice-Chairman Magauran stated he had spoken with Ed Feeney and he had no recollection of speaking with anyone regarding the Cumberland Farms in Marion.
Mr. Ham stated that they had brought the plan into Ed Feeney and told him how they were going to modify the curb cuts and reduce the widths. But that goes back to the fall of last year and he may not remember the meeting because it was so long ago. He stated that it is their protocol with clients to meet with MA DOT prior to coming to the Boards.
Mr. Ham stated that his testimony as a professional engineer is that he met with Ed Feeney, reviewed the plans with him. He explained that they did not tell the Board that MA DOT approved the plans, but that they just had a meeting with them. Cumberland Farms can not file an application or get an approval until it is approved by the local boards.
Vice-Chairman Magauran stated that Ed Feeney had told him that they would not review any projects prior to permitting by a local authority. He asked that if they want comments put into record that they be put into writing from Mr. Feeney. Vice-Chairman Magauran stated that it’s very misleading to say that this plan has been developed in conjunction with the MA DOT.
Mr. Ham stated that there was nothing in their conversations with DOT that would indicate they would not accept such a plan, but cannot file a permit until process is done. He reiterated that they do not have a permit or an approval.
Attorney Pellegrini went on to summarize his letter and also brought up the fact that the dumpsters will now be in the back and will be on a concrete pad and screened.
Carol Sanz asked how many parking spaces there are now and how many are proposed with the new plan.
Attorney Pellegrini summarized that there are now 5 spaces on Front Street with a total of 19. The proposed total parking spaces will be 18 with no parking on Front Street.
Ms. Sanz commented that it looked a little strange to her that they are more than doubling the size of the building gas pumps and canopy, and yet having fewer parking spaces.
Attorney Pellegrini said that according to bylaw the requirement is one space per 200 feet of retail.
Vice-Chairman Magauran stipulated that the current bylaws require one space per 200 feet of retail space although there is some question if the pumps constitute a retail space or not.
Ted North summarized his submission to the Planning Board dated August 16, 2010 (on file with the Marion Planning Board). Topics are as follows:
-Building Design
-Corporate and Product Branding and signage
-Zoning Bylaw relating to windows
-Temporary signs (not allowed under Marion Bylaw)
-Lighting under the canopy
-Boat Traffic
-Project too big
-Windows violation of zoning bylaw
Mr. North questioned as to whether the underground tank storage increase would require a special permit.
Chairman Ryder explained that the underground tanks are a state regulated permit.
Vice - Chairman Magauran suggested possibly two other Special Permits that could be required. One would be a special permit if total square footage of retail space if over 5,000 and the other would be a reduction in parking because does not have the ability to add more spaces. Both are still questionable based on the information Mr. North provided.
Ted North went on to present examples of Cups relating to the branding and linking of the building to the color scheme of the chain. He commented that they need a building design that is generic with no corporate identification.
Ted North questioned if the canopy was backlit the applicant stated that it will not be backlit.
Attorney Pellegrini introduced John Ahronian (Cumberland Farms Architect) to summarize architectural items that were mentioned in Cornish Associates Architectural Review (available in Planning Board Office). He explained that a good portion deals with the 2015 report and they have already gone over that before.
John Ahronian expressed concern that they were unable to communicate with the consulting architect. He stated that this building breaks away from the typical Cumberland Farms and that he is proud that the store is recognized as a Cumberland Farms. Items discussed are as follows (report on file with the Planning Board Office):
3.1, 3.2 - Is concerned that Cornish Associates did not look at the correct elevation referring to the fact that the roof pitch is a 8:12 which is what Cornish Associates Recommends in his report. The proposed plan does have an 8:12 pitch.
3.3 - Willing to eliminate the elliptical element and bring down to something acceptable with town.
3.4 – Faux dormers were discussed, willing to take the dormers off and have a pure simple sloped roof.
4.1 – It was suggested to look at Greek Revival style of architecture in the Town.
4.2 –Suggested that Ashlar Stone should be same color and pattern as seen in the community. Have not seen two ashlar Stone patterns that were similar although thinks what they propose fits in with the community - so will work with. The stone based product was shown.
4.4 – Have not suggested a column yet but will consider use the suggested fiber cement for the columns.
4.6 – Reference to making a light maple color with trim being light – felt was using similar shades as buildings in the area.
4.7 – Will make the ventilation louver shape square instead of triangular as proposed.
Chairman Ryder asked if they looked at the site plan Cornish submitted referencing putting the pumps to the right hand side with the building on the corner. They are looking at this site as the “Gateway to Marion”.
Manny Paiva explained that there were many reasons why it would not work for them:
-Circulation, not designed for a 50ft tractor going in and out of the site. Not designed for a tractor trailer, tanks.
-Not proper circulation around the gas pumps
-No site lines to the gas pumps.
-Would require giving bank some of land, re-zoning and redefinition of bank property.
-Been with Cumberland Farm for 21 years and something like this has never left his desk.
-Noted that Town Engineer has approved their layout.
Mr. Paiva commented that the layout before the Board is what they want to go with - not the layout of the Town Architect.
Chris Collings of River Road stated that he is more worried about the general scale of the building and asking if it is necessary to have such a large building. He also question what will happen to the property across the street and if the other location will become abandoned – needs to be some covenant as to what happens to the other property. He stated that he is seriously worried about just “making this big because it is an inexpensive time to grow businesses”.
Rob Pellegrini stated that it is “not a less expensive a time to expand” and that they are making upgrades. He then made the following comments:
- The site will have LED lighting which will have a lower impact environmentally than what is there today.
- They are not expanding because the Marion population has doubled but because the building has been there for a long time and it is long overdue to renovate.
- It significantly increases storage which reduces the amount of deliveries and helps with the environmental issues, improvement of portion of street‘s sewer and storm water system.
- They will expand to have more room inside with men’s and women’s wheelchair accessible bathrooms.
- There have been many revisions to the site plan -one was the dormers, will eliminate them if the board would like them to do so.
- It is not a giant piece of land as shown in the Cornish Report but will be a great improvement.
- They have been told by Town Counsel that they cannot have a covenant as to use of other site and he explained that he is not qualified to answer what will happen to other site – it is owned by Christy’s.
- The proposed building does meet the zoning bylaws and designed to meet existing requirements of community. .
- Regarding “dormers and things we can eliminate them,” the comment was made that it was” too symmetrical so can make asymmetrical. With regards to the siding if we had more collaboration with Cornish we could determine what needed.”
- Looking at the existing operation it will be a vast improvement in traffic according to peer review and Cumberland Farms traffic review and has come a long way from the brick flat roof building that is there today and many revisions have been made based on what we have heard at the meetings.
- He explained that it is a business and they are selling things so there will be advertising.
Chairman Ryder asked for comments from Board Members.
Sherman Briggs commented that they spent nine years debating Dunkin Doughnuts with many generic models brought up and ended with a cookie cutter model.
There was discussion as to whether the applicant actually received the 2015 report and which report they received. Rob Pellegrini responded that he “was talking about the Cornish Report and to give the architectural report dealing with the architectural style of the building at the last hearing is not reasonable.”
Vice – Chairman Magauran - Questions to Cumberland Farms read into the record (Attached).
1. For the record, are the tanks that are currently on the site needing repair, relining or replacement in the next 5 years?
Manny Paiva said that the tanks were installed in 1984 so they will need to be replaced at some point. He stated that it is not the reason for the change at this time. They will need to be replaced within 3 to 4 years.
2. Is this why you wish to make this dramatic change at this time?
Manny Paiva stated that it was not the reason for making the change.
3. What is it about the site or the demographics that leads you to believe that such an increase in gasoline dispensing capacity and retail square footage will drive an increase of 50% in volume of traffic to the site?
Rob Pelegrini explained that the volume of traffic is based on the Vanesse Report which is based on ITE which is national standard.
Mr. Hamm stated that they estimated an increase in traffic by 41% in the weekday and it is based on the square footage of the building. They conducted existing counts at the site then used the ITE standard to project the use of the site and came up with the increase.
It was asked by Vice- Chairman Magauran how they factor existing competition and if the store across the street folded into the calculations.
Mr. Hamm stated that they are based upon monitoring existing stores – the competing store is built into the equation. The calculations are based on a store across the street so the base counts may change. He stated that the store would impact what the existing counts would be. Obviously if the store across the street closes the business may go up.
Vice – Chairman Magauran questioned if the two stores were comparable in volume of gasoline as well as convenience store volumes.
Rob Pelegrini stated that they did not do a count on the other store. And stated that are asking a hypothetical questions and the other store has nothing to do with the application.
Vice-Chairman Magauran commented that he can’t trust the volumes unless they can explain them. They correlate the store across the street as the sole competitor. He questioned how they calculate volume and how much it will increase if the store across the street closes. It would have an impact because the other store is the only competition in the town of Marion.
Attorney Pellegrini stated that the Board did not require volume studies. The traffic flow has been reviewed by your peer review and engineers and has been said to be safer and an improvement than what exists today.
Giles Hamm explained that it does not account for a new store opening or a store closing in the area and how much traffic they generate. The standard is based on square footage or can be based on the number of pumps – decided to go by square footage. The ITE is a national factor and industry standard and there is a manual that is used for convenience stores, gas stations, hospitals etc.
4. The welcome and See You Soon signs – are these for traffic direction or additional brand signs? Based upon colors and logos – and failure to simply state entrance and exit – I believe that these signs are to be covered under the sign bylaw – which they do not meet – are you willing to change them to simple universal signs? How about colors?
Manny Paiva explained that the “former version was enter and exit” but the new signs felt more welcoming to the customer. No different than Dunkin Doughnuts - would have no problem changing the signs to enter and exit. They have colors to match company colors. And will comply with the sign bylaw.
5. See attached
6. The signage on the front of the building would seem to exceed the size allowed under the bylaw. Are you prepared to reduce this size to meet the bylaw? All signs must come into compliance with sign bylaw.
Vice-Chairman Magauran confirmed that all signs will be conditioned
Jack O’Leary commented that the directional signs at Dunkin Doughnuts were approved by the Planning Board so he would expect the Board to be consistent with their decision.
7. – 13 See Attached
14. How do the businesses of the two Cumberland farms compare today? Are they roughly equal in terms of gas and convenience store sales? What happens if the demand doubles?
Attorney Pellegrini stated that national numbers are designed to determine if a project is safe or not. In order to have a study of traffic flow it would have required the Board “not waiving the traffic study originally.”
Vice-Chairman Magauran commented that exiting from the back of the lot is unreasonable and that cars will use the other entrances. He questioned how much a sign is going to help direct the traffic flow, and that it is not reasonable. Fifty percent of traffic will have to go to the back of the lot to exit.
Mr. Hamm commented that the Front Street changes were made to address comments from the Board and the Board’s peer review consultant. He would suggest having the Northerly Front Street curb cut just an entrance which would make it safer.
Member Gonsalves stated that when he goes to Cumberland Farms “it gets a little hairy when it is busy. He likes the concept but does not think everyone will read the signs. Member Gonsalves explained that at peak times at 6:45am - 7:00am it can be difficult to get in and out quickly. Member Gonsalves suggested making the North Entrance into an Entrance and Exit so as not to have congestion at the South Exit and Entrance.
Attorney Pellegrini commented that if board doesn’t agree with the consultants they could make the North Front street Entrance like the South.
15. -19 See attached
20. Did your representative share a plan or any physical representation to the Fire Chief for him to review to make his comments other than what was sent to him by the PB?
Manny Paiva stated that they did give the Cornish plan to Fire Chief.
21. You have stated that you have no interest in a Fast Food Special Permit. The concept of a “restaurant that sells gas” certainly seems like one that would include over the counter serving food. Can you state with confidence that there will be need for a fast food in the next few years?
Attorney Pellegrini stated that “this current plan does not require a fast food permit; if it does in the future Cumberland Farms will return for permits”.
22. See attached
23, 24, 25.Are the employee parking spaces represented on the plan, needing to be emptied in order for fuel deliveries or trash pickup, really to be considered fully available parking spaces under the bylaw? Do you believe that there will be times when the back exit will be blocked by either the gas delivery trucks or the trash pickup? How should we address this? What is the designated delivery location? Where are other delivery truck to go?
Rob Pellegrini stated that the dumpsters are clear now. The gas delivery truck is called a WB50 Truck...
Manny Paiva stated that all other trucks would be no bigger than a gas truck.
Vice-Chairman Magauran asked to pull up a graphic of a truck delivery and indicate where the truck would be when delivery is made. He voiced concern that 50%of the traffic will have to leave from that back corner where the delivery trucks may be parked.
Mr. Hamm stated that the trucks may block a few parking spaces when making a delivery.
Rob Pellegrini stated that Cumberland Farms schedules the deliveries for nonpeak times. Vanesse report indicates the peak times and can schedule deliveries literally anytime. The busiest times are the morning, afternoon and weekends.
Attorney Pellegrini stated that they own and operate their own deliveries and that they will not be made at peak hours. He explained that they can schedule for any time necessary. He commented that the most frequently used spaces are at the front of the store. For the convenience of the customer it will function a lot better than what you see now.
26-27.See attached
28. The impervious surface lot coverage is 72.2% of the lot. How is this not excessive as all other applications of this sort aim for a minimum of 40% impervious surface? Does this go to the question of intensity of use?
Manny Paiva explained that the 27.8% is just the front portion.
Jack O’Leary stated that the total existing impervious surface is 81%; the proposed impervious coverage is 76.5%.
Vice-Chairman Magauran stated that the bylaw requirement does not have a specific requirement but aims for 40%.
29– 30. See attached.
Attorney Pellegrini asked what we wanted from this project and why the reference to Spring Street.
Vice-Chairman Magauran summarized that if the site is built as planned; the connection from Front Street to Spring Street will be lost for ever. The Cornish Plan is consistent with the 2015 plan.
Attorney Pelegrini commented that again is referring to the Cornish plan which may or may not be true to dimensions. The Cornish plan would require accessing the abutters land and driveway looks like it is off the property. “Does this project meet the 2015 guidelines no but does it meet the current bylaws in effect, yes.”
Motion was made by Member Napoli continue public the Public Hearing to September 7, 2010 at 5:15 p.m., seconded by Member Gonsalves.
VOTE: 5-0-0
Motion to Adjourn made by Member Napoli, seconded by Member Gonsalves at 9:30.
VOTE: 6-0-0
List of Documents Submitted:
Cumberland Farms
Comments from Rob Pellegrini dated August 6, 2010
Questions from Tom Magauran dated August 16, 2010
Site Plan Application Review #4 dated August 16, 2010
Comments from Board of Health dated August 3, 2010 and August 13, 2010
Comments from Ted North received August 12, 2010
Architectural Review from Cornish Associates dated July 29, 2010
Memorandum from Massachusetts Department of Transportation re Marion Village Estates dated August 6, 2010.
Minutes Board of Selectmen 7/13, 6/15 and 8/4/ 2010.
Minutes Conservation Committee dated August 13, 2010
ZBA Notice of Decision Case # 641
WPA Form 5 – Order of Conditions – Sardinha Family Trust
Planning Board Budget dated August 6, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
Sherman Briggs, Clerk
| 
