MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes
October 13, 2010
The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals held Public Hearings on Wednesday, October 13, 2010, at the Mashpee Town Hall. Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, William A. Blaisdell and James Reiffarth and Associate Members Peter R. Hinden and Ronald S. Bonvie were present. Engineer Charles Rowley was also in attendance as a consultant to the Board. Board Member John M. Dorsey was unable to attend the hearing.
Chairman Robert G. Nelson opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. He announced that the meeting is being publicly televised.
NEW HEARINGS
First Citizens’ Federal Credit Union: Requests a Special Permit under Sections 174-25.D(1), 174-25.E(4), and 174-25.F(6) to allow for construction of a bank with office space and drive-through windows on property located in a C-1 zoning district at 71 Job’s Fishing Road (Map 74 Parcel 19B) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, William Blaisdell and James Reiffarth and Associate Board Member Peter R. Hinden. Mr. Hinden will be sitting in place of Board Member John M. Dorsey who is not present.
First Citizens’ Federal Credit Union: Requests a Variance from Sections 174-31, 174-31 footnote 14, and 174-40 of the Zoning By-laws to vary the front setback requirements, the buffer zone requirements and the accessway requirements in a non-residential district to allow for construction of a bank with office space and drive-through windows on property located in a C-1 zoning district at 71 Job’s Fishing Road (Map 74 Parcel 19B) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, William Blaisdell and James Reiffarth and Associate Board Member Ronald S. Bonvie. Mr. Ronald S. Bonvie will be sitting in place of Board Member John M. Dorsey who is not present.
Also in attendance:
Attorney Kevin M. Kirrane.
Engineer Michael J. Borselli, Falmouth Engineering – site layout and design.
Architects Robert Morris and Chris Snell of New England Design – design of the structure and floor plans.
Frank Almeida, V.P., Retail & Marketing – First Citizens’ Federal Credit Union.
Peter J. Muise, President/CEO, Director – First Citizens’ Federal Credit Union.
Attorney Kirrane represented the Petitioner and submitted copies of his summary along with photos of the site. The proposal calls for construction of a branch facility at the corner of Job’s Fishing Road and Route 28. The subject property is under agreement for purchase by the Petitioner. It will be separately owned by the Credit Union upon the satisfaction of contingencies, one of which is obtaining permitting from the ZBA.
First Citizens’ Federal Credit Union is a Federally Chartered Institution which services the residents of Bristol, Plymouth, Norfolk, Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket Counties in nine branch offices in Southeastern Massachusetts, including three branches on the Cape.
The Petitioner went through strict review by the current owners, Mashpee Commons Limited Partnership. Design and Plan Review Committees have also held meetings concerning the proposal. Because the subject property was part of a MEPA filing by the Mashpee Commons Limited Partnership on an adjacent property, this proposal also required review by the regulatory committee of the Cape Cod Commission. On October 12, 2010, the Cape Cod Commission approved the amendment to the DRI which allowed for the adjacent property to include this site.
Attorney Kirrane referred to the conceptual drawings and said that the proposal calls for construction of a 2,520-square foot, single-story building with a drive-up window and 13 parking spaces. The proposed use as a banking/financial facility is a permitted use upon grant of a Special Permit under Sections 174-25.D(1), E(4) and F(6).
The subject property meets the C-1 Zoning District requirement of 40,000 square feet of land. It exceeds the required 200 feet of frontage along Job’s Fishing Road. This road will serve as the only access to the property.
This long, narrow parcel of land has two frontages, which requires a 40-foot setback from Job’s Fishing Road and a 75-foot setback from Route 28. This also translates into two 40-foot rear setbacks. In addition to the 75-foot setback, there is a required 50-foot vegetated buffer zone along Route 28 and a 10-foot vegetated buffer zone around the remainder of the parcel. The parcel slopes from west to east and drops approximately 50 feet from the southwesterly corner to the southeasterly corner. According to Engineer Borselli, the measurement from the center line of the drive to the gutter line of Route 28 is 195 feet.
Attorney Kirrane said that the sloping topography and rectangular shape of the parcel restrict location of the building; therefore, the Petitioner is requesting Variance relief from the following: front setback requirements; the 50-foot and 10-foot undisturbed buffer zone requirements; and the separation between the accessway requirements. These conditions are unique to this parcel and not to the C-1 zoning district in which it is located. Attorney Kirrane said that the cost to move the proposal in a southwesterly direction in order to comply with the setback requirements would be prohibitive. This would require substantial cutting into the slope and construction of an 8-foot retention wall, which could cost an additional $70,000 to $100,000. This also creates a financial hardship for the Petitioner.
The local Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Policy Plan and local By-laws restrict location of parking on the rear and side of buildings creating further need for Variance relief.
Attorney Kirrane said that the Petitioner is interested in maintaining the “village concept”, which is consistent with other development planned for the neighborhood.
Attorney Kirrane said that construction of the drive-through windows and parking along with installation of the septic system involves minimal disturbance of the 50-foot buffer. Installation of drainage necessitates disturbance of the 10-foot buffer area. Both of the disturbed areas will be re-vegetated. Mr. Borselli said that he favors a different location for the septic system, which will require some minor re-grading.
The Petitioner has made several revisions to the proposal in response to suggestions made by the Plan and Design Review Committees. Revisions were also made in an effort to address Mr. Rowley’s concerns as itemized in his site review letter dated October 12, 2010. Modifications have been made to the proposed retaining wall, drainage and parking.
Section 174-24.C(2) of the Zoning By-laws states:
“A special permit may be issued only following the procedures specified by the General Laws and may be approved only if it is determined that the proposed use or development is consistent with applicable state and town regulations, statutes, bylaws and plans, will not adversely affect public health or safety, will not cause excessive demand on community facilities, will not significantly decrease surface or groundwater quality or air quality, will not have a significant adverse impact on wildlife habitat, estuarine systems, traffic flow, traffic safety, waterways, fisheries, public lands or neighboring properties, will not cause excessive levels of noise, vibrations, electrical disturbance, radioactivity or glare, will not destroy or disrupt any species listed as rare, endangered or threatened by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage
Program or any known historic or archaeologic site, will not produce amounts of trash, refuse or debris in excess of the town’s landfill and waste disposal capacities, will properly dispose of stumps, construction debris, hazardous materials and other waste, will provide adequate off-street parking, will not cause excessive erosion or cause increased runoff onto neighboring properties or into any natural river, stream, pond or water body and will not otherwise be detrimental to the town or the area.”
Attorney Kirrane said that the Credit Union use is a low-impact use that will not generate a large amount of traffic. The proposal does not pose a threat to public health or safety and will not have detrimental impact on the area. There will not be an excessive demand on community facilities.
Attorney Kirrane referred to Chapter 40A Section 10, which states:
“The permit granting authority shall have the power … to grant upon appeal or upon petition with respect to particular land or structures a variance from the terms of the applicable zoning ordinance or by-law where such permit granting authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such
ordinance or by-law.”
Attorney Kirrane said that the Petitioner would incur substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, due to the shape, topography and soil conditions of the subject property. He said that relief may be granted without nullifying or derogating from the By-laws.
Mr. Borselli clarified the traffic flow in response to the Board’s questions. Mr. Muise stated that studies of the volume of traffic flow reveal that 80% to 90% of bank transactions take place inside the lobby, with only 10% to 20% volume created by drive-through customers. Mr. Almeida said that, based on factors and historical experience with other branches on the Cape, the proposed number of parking spaces is ample for this proposal.
Mr. Nelson said that he did not feel that the Petitioner had established the criteria necessary for grant of a Variance from the accessway requirements. Attorney Kirrane said that moving the driveway ten feet would require moving the parking area back into the hill. He said that concerns were raised at the Design and Plan Review Committee meetings that traffic, particularly emergency vehicles, traveling in an easterly direction would not have enough time to react to traffic due to the elevation of the road and the hill. Attorney Kirrane said that moving the driveway and building the parking lot into the hill would further impede visibility.
Mr. Rowley offered several suggestions on parking locations. A lengthy discussion ensued about parking, handicap parking and the retaining wall. Mr. Nelson said that the cost of grading would be less than the cost of installing a retaining wall. Mr. Snell said that the Petitioner really did not want to install a large retaining wall and that grading would require some landscaping and plantings.
Mr. Furbush asked Mr. Rowley to comment on the proposed entry/exit curb radius of 10 feet. Mr. Rowley said that 20 feet makes it much easier to turn out onto Job’s Fishing Road and easier to stay in lane. The Petitioner believes that retaining a narrow 10-foot width of the entry/exit way will slow traffic. Attorney Kirrane said that the current owner of the property is opposed to widening the entry way to 20 feet.
Mr. Rowley suggested incorporating swales which would allow runoff water a chance to filter into the soil, grass and vegetation for nitrogen uptake. Catch basins and leaching pits can be used in conjunction with the swales.
Mr. Nelson referred to the drainage leaching pit easement and said that the Petitioner will need to obtain a written easement from the owner.
Mr. Muise said that the Petitioner would like to install footings and foundations before the frost and spend the remainder of the winter working inside. Mr. Rowley assured the Board that he would be able to meet with Mr. Borselli and work out revisions for submission of a new plan within the next two weeks.
The Board discussed at length its concern that cars exiting the drive-through may block other traffic. Mr. Muise said that bank customers don’t normally queue up like customers do at a Dunkin Donuts. He said that the width proposed for the drive-through is sufficient for the bank since the car-stacking formula is different for a bank.
Concerns were raised that the truck servicing the dumpster would have difficulty emptying the dumpster and would have to back out onto Job’s Fishing Road. Mr. Almeida said that the dumpster is not normally serviced during business hours. He also said that because of confidentiality and privacy of the banking business, most of the paper work is processed through a shredding mechanism and that there is minimal waste. Mr. Almeida said that the dumpster will be enclosed in a way that will not detract from the parcel. Mr. Rowley suggested that the pad on which the dumpster will rest should be shown on the plan.
Attorney Kirrane asked if the Petitioner could submit building plans to the Building Department in an effort to start the building permitting process. The Board said that the structure does not affect the location and told Attorney Kirrane to proceed with the building permitting process.
Mr. Nelson moved to continue the Petition until October 27, 2010 to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to submit revised plans to the Board. All were in favor.
OTHER BUSINESS
Accept September 22, 2010 Minutes
Mr. Blaisdell made a motion to accept the September 22, 2010 Minutes. Mr. Furbush seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Voucher
Reimburse Attorney Jason Talerman for professional services in connection with Breezy Acres Phase II Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit Petition
Mr. Nelson made a motion to approve the voucher to reimburse Attorney Talerman. Mr. Furbush seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Bartos
Administrative Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
| 
