Approved
Minutes of Zoning Board of Appeals Public Meeting
Date:March 15 2012
Time: 7:00 PM
Location: Wellfleet Sr. Center
Attendees: Acting Chair William Nicholson, Roger Putnam, Mick Lynch, Tom Reinhart, Sharon Inger and Christine Bates, Committee Secretary
Regrets: Bruce Drucker, Manny Heyliger, Vern Jacob and Robert Hankey
7:00 pm
12-12 (a) Seaman’s Bank, 2746 Route 6, Map 15, Parcel 143: Application for a Special Permit to raze lawful preexisting nonconforming commercial structure and reconstruct commercial bank building partially within front yard setback area but relocated further away from front lot line.(Cont’d from 02/02/12). The Board consisted of William Nicholson, Tom Reinhart, Mick Lynch, Roger Putnam and Sharon Inger. Acting Chair William Nicholson stated the Board had requested a landscaping plan and possible parking changes. Attorney L. Jay Murphy represented the applicant and stated the six parking spaces located along Route 6 have been removed and replaced with a landscaped area. There were originally 32 parking spots which has been
reduced to 26 parking spots to adequately serve the building. The buffer area to the rear has been increased four feet with a planting screen so there will be less impact to the neighbors. The total disturbed area has been reduced from 41% to 39%. Curt Raber, architect, explained the trees in the buffer area will be planted above a retaining wall, providing additional height. Wild flowers will be planted over the drainage system. He gave an overview of the various plants which will be planted.
The Board expressed concern with the asphalt coverage and wanted permeable materials. They stated they were happy with the removal of six parking spots. Attorney Murphy stated the bank felt it was necessary to have an asphalt pavement for the safety of the patrons. The amount of pavement was reduced by 1,000 square feet. He stated the water run off from the pavement is directed to drainage areas and flower beds. Tim Brady of East Cape Engineering stated stones or shells are not a practical long-term approach because the material would be dragged into the street and he feels all the parking should be paved. Brady stated some of the peat on the property will be covered with good dirt which will be
hardened, then asphalt will be placed on top of it.
Roger Putnam moved for Findings of Fact:
1. This is an application for a Special Permit to reconstruct a commercial bank building partially within the hundred foot front setback, but relocated further away from the front lot line than the pre-existing commercial bank building which is to be demolished.
2. The lot is located in the Commercial District.
3. The existing commercial bank building is a lawfully pre-existing, nonconforming structure having been built in 1955 according to the Assessor’s Office.
4. The existing nonconformity regarding the structure is intrusion into the front setback.
5. The proposed new bank building will be 77 feet from the front setback and will be less intrusive into the front setback than the existing building.
6. The use of the new commercial bank building conforms with the objectives of the Commercial zoning district and is an authorized use.
7. There will be no change in use.
8. Proposed lot coverage will be approximately 6.1%
9. Parking needs will be adequately served by the proposed plan.
10. The proposed structure will use handplank concrete siding and azek synthetic trim, giving the appearance of wood siding as specified by WZB 5.4.2.2 while providing savings with regard to longevity of product and reduced maintenance
11. The alteration will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming commercial bank building.
12. .After considering the District Objectives for the zoning district as provided for in WZB 3.2 and the relevant criteria set forth in QZB 8.4.2, the Board finds that the benefits of the proposal will outweigh any adverse effects on the Town and the vicinity.
Roger Putnam moved the Findings of Fact subject to the following conditions:
a) The hours of operation of the drive-through teller shall be 8:30 am – 4:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:30 am to 6:00 pm Friday.
b) The applicant will implement the Landscaping Plan shown on drawing SP1 dated 03/07/12.
c) The applicant will regularly maintain the landscaping shown on the Landscaping Plan and the applicant will promptly replace any landscaping that dies or otherwise fails.
d) The applicant will direct all outdoor lighting downward and inward and otherwise comply with all applicable Town of Wellfleet and State regulations concerning outdoor lighting.
Seconded by Mick Lynch; passed 4-1.
Mick Lynch moved to grant the Special Permit subject to conditions; seconded by Sharon Inger; passed 4-1.
12-12(b) Seaman’s Bank, 2746 Route 6, Map 15, Parcel 143, Application for a Variance Request pursuant to MA General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 10 to authorize construction of elevator town at height of 31’8” which exceeds maximum height of 28 feet under Sec. 5.4.4 of WZB. Cont’d from 02/02/12).
The Board consisted of William Nicholson, Tom Reinhart, Mick Lynch, Roger Putnam and Sharon Inger. Attorney L. Jay Murphy stated the roofline over the elevator area has been reduced to 28’ 11”. Due to the soil conditions and topography on the property, the grade has to be raised approximately 2 feet due to ground water. He stated based on the criteria for variances, this property meets the requirements due to circumstances which makes it a hardship. Curt Raber, architect, stated the entire building has been lowered 8 inches into the ground, the hoist beam for the elevator has been lowered 8 inches and the roof pitch lowered by utilizing a 5 pitch design. Tim Brady of East Cape Engineering
stated the ground water is the issue, and the other type of commercial elevator, which is driven by a shaft at the bottom of the elevator, cannot be used. The building will not have a crawl space. The ground water levels are based on high water level. The building will not appear to be more than 28 feet in height. Two letters supporting the project were read into the record. The Board felt, in general, that the application meets the requirements for a variance based on the water table, soil and topography of the property. Mick Lynch did not support the variance request.
Roger Putnam moved for Findings of Fact:
1. This is an application for a variance under MGL Chapter 40A, Section 10 and WZB 8.4.3 for the construction of an elevator tower to a height of 11 inches which exceeds the maximum height of 28 feet allowed under WZB 5.4.4.
2. The applicant proposes to raze the existing one story commercial bank building on the lot and construct a new two-story commercial bank building on the lot with an elevator tower at the height of 28’ 11”.
3. The Zoning Board of Appeals has received and reviewed among other things various plans and drawings pertaining to the project including the East Cape Engineering. Inc. site plan dated January 18, 2012 and the Brown Lindquist, Fenuccio & Raber, Architects Inc. plans A1.1, A1.2, A2.1 and A2.2 all dated January 12, 2012 as well as A.21 and A2.2 revisions dated 03/07/12 and Architectural Site/Landscape Plan SP1 dated March 7, 2012.
4. The Zoning Board of Appeals has made a site inspection of the property. Each member of the Zoning Board of Appeals is personally familiar with the property, the existing commercial bank building and the surrounding neighborhood.
5. According to its website, the applicant, Seaman’s Bank, is a community oriented $300 million institution with five offices from Provincetown to Eastham.
6. The subject lot is located in the Commercial District.
7. Soil conditions on the site make construction of a basement impossible and a second floor is necessary to provide an area for the HVAC equipment, IT server room, kitchen area and meeting function room as well as storage. The inherent site-based hardships include soil conditions: the water table only three feet below existing grade and upwards of thirty feet of old peat bog, highly decayed, organic based soil that necessitate an extensive, expensive foundation system of driven concrete piles and that precludes a full basement; a
topography; a negative swale in the optimum location for the new building that, along with a poorly draining soil condition, requires at least a two foot high positive re-grading.
8. Under regulations of the American Disability Act, handicapped access must be provided to the second floor of the building which requires the installation of an elevator as part of the building construction.
9. In order to install an elevator it is necessary to construct an elevator shaft which must contain the mechanical equipment and support facilities to operate the elevator. This includes the car top clearance dimensions required by state code. The proposed building provides for a height of the elevator tower of 28 feet 11 inches which is 11 inches above the maximum building height of 28 feet.
10. The ground water soil conditions coupled with the requirement for handicapped access create a substantial and significant hardship upon the Applicant which is due to said soil conditions and which requires the height of the elevator tower to exceed the maximum building height of 28 feet.
11. Without the elevator access, it is not legal for the bank to provide for a second floor area and, given the fact that soil conditions make the construction of a basement impossible, it would be a significant hardship upon the bank were it not to be able to have a second floor on the building available for use both by employees and various civic, educational and charitable groups.
12. Since the building will be set back approximately 125 feet off of the Route 6 traveled surface, the height of the elevator tower will not produce any noticeable difference in the visual aspect of the structure.
13. If the applicant’s are not granted the required variance from the height requirements, it would create a substantial hardship since an elevator is required by regulation for access to the second floor.
14. The height variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw.
Roger Putnam moved the Findings of Fact; seconded by Tom Reinhart; passed 4-1. William Nicholson moved to grant the variance; seconded by Roger Putnam; passed 4-1.
Other Business
Roger Putnam moved to adjourn at 8:05 pm; seconded by Sharon Inger; passed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine A. Bates, Committee Secretary
| 