Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5131 770 Route 28 Summary of Reasoning Nissan 1 Law Office of Singer & Singer, LLC 26 Upper County Road P. O. Box 67 Dennisport, Massachusetts 02639 Andrew L. Singer Tel: (508) 398-2221 Marian S. Rose Fax: (508) 398-1568 ______ www.singer-law.com Myer R. Singer (1938-2020) Yarmouth Board of Appeals Petition #5131 SUMMARY OF REASONING NCI Auto, Inc. [“Applicant”] is the tenant at 770 Route 28, South Yarmouth [“Property”]. The Property, which is shown as Parcels 38, 39, and 40 on Assessors’ Map 33, is located in the B1 & B2 Zoning Districts. The Property has two existing curb cuts on Route 28 and contains 14,934 sq. ft. of disturbed land area that has been used for many years as parking. This parking area is both paved and dirt and consists of employee vehicles and shuttles for an area business, vehicles from a nearby towing company, and truck trailer pick-up and delivery of new and used vehicles. The Property is a conforming lot and is abutted to the west by a car dealership and to the east by an office complex. The Applicant proposes to redevelop the Property to include a proposed 9,991 sq. ft. auto sales and service building (Nissan dealership) and 14,503 sq. ft. of inventory storage behind the building. In order to complete this redevelopment as shown on the submitted plans, the Applicant is requesting a Special Permit for an H4 auto sales and accessory service use and, as necessary, a Variance from the provisions of Sections 301.4.6, 303.5.4.1, and 303.5.5.1 and .2 of the Yarmouth Zoning By-Law [“Zoning By-Law”] and M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Sections 6 and 10. In order to grant the requested special permit for auto sales and accessory service, the Board must make a finding that the proposal will not create any undue nuisance, hazard or congestion and that there will be no substantial harm to the established or future character of the neighborhood or Town. The Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed redevelopment satisfies each of the above criteria and will be a benefit to the neighborhood and Town because: 2 1. The Property is located in a commercial zoning district among other commercial uses on a main road; 2. The Applicant has many years’ experience operating similar uses, including the KIA dealership next door to the Property, and has a proven track record of providing high-quality service to residents of Cape Cod; 3. There will be a reduction from two to one curb cut, which will allow for a significant and substantial landscaped front buffer on either side of the driveway, as well as landscaped buffers along the sides of the Property; 4. Parking will be conforming in terms of numbers and design and will be located to the side and rear of the building as required by the Zoning By-Law. In addition, a conforming number of in-lot trees (7) will be provided to meet the requirement of 1 tree per 8 parking spaces in the open parking area. No in-lot trees are proposed for within the inventory storage area in the rear which will be used solely to store vehicles. To the extent this requires additional relief from the Board, there will be further discussion below; 5. The proposed building will conform to setback and height (28 ft. proposed) requirements; 6. Building coverage (8%) and impervious site overage (48%) will each be conforming and substantially less than what is allowed by right (25% and 70%, respectively); 7. Site lighting will comply with lighting requirements as shown on the photometric plan; 8. A sidewalk will be provided to tie-into the existing sidewalk along Route 28; 9. There will be no negative impact to drainage, septic or stormwater. The Property will be connected to the new Town sewer when available; 10. The proposal has been reviewed by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission. The Commission has approved an Order of Conditions and has also completed its review and will be approving a Stormwater Management Permit later in September; 11. The proposal has been reviewed by both the Design Review Committee and Site Plan Review Committee; and 3 12. The proposal will be in keeping with and compatible with the character of the neighborhood. There are two potential areas where variance relief may or may not be or is required if the Board so determines. First, as noted above, to allow no in-lot trees in the rear inventory storage area (Section 301.4.6). Second, for the freestanding monument and attached wall signs (Sections 303.5.4.1, 303.5.5.1, and 303.5.5.2). In reviewing a variance request, the Board is authorized to grant dimensional relief when it finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of such land or due to circumstances relating to the structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which they are located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning By- Law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the Applicant; that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; and that such relief can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law. A question was raised during Site Plan Review as to whether the rear inventory storage area should be considered a parking lot for in-lot tree calculation purposes. If the inventory of the business were other than vehicles, there would be no issue. It would be simply a storage area. Here, however, the inventory is cars, and they will be stored in the back of the Property. In this instance, requiring in-lot trees within a designated storage area would involve substantial financial and practical hardship to the Applicant. In fact, it would likely render the project infeasible because there would otherwise be insufficient vehicle storage capacity for the business to operate. Compressing the storage area allows the design to stay more than 50 ft. from the wetland to the northeast and more than 100 feet from the wetland to the north. The proposed impervious site coverage is also only 48%, where 70% is allowed by right. Under all the above circumstances, if relief is required from Section 301.4.6, the Applicant submits that the required findings can be made. As for the freestanding monument sign, the proposed sign will be a conforming 9’ 3.75” tall. It is shown as MNT43 on the attached NRC Sign Family Plan (marked Page 2) and is a change from the pylon sign originally submitted. The proposed face of this sign (excluding the base) is 42.52 sq. ft. While this is larger than generally allowed (24 sq. ft.), it will be in keeping with the approved, freestanding sign for the adjacent car dealership and will be most appropriate to the scale of the Property and business thereon. 4 As for building signage, please see the revised front façade and sign plans (Sheet SK-1 and those marked Page 3 and Page 7) updating the rendering that was included in the original submission. This updated plan reflects channel letters for “Cape & Islands” and “Nissan” and the Nissan logo. The channel letters are a conforming two feet in height. No portion of the channel letters or logo extend above the front facia of the building. A question was raised during site plan review about the architectural element to which the Nissan logo is affixed in connection with Section 303.5.5.1, which prohibits attached signs from extending above or beyond the roof ridge line on a building. This architectural feature is part of the building itself and is a conforming height. It is separate from the logo to which the latter will be affixed. The building roof is 28 ft. high, and the element extends 13.76 in. above the roof to add architectural context to the building. The highest point on the building is thus well below the 35 ft. maximum allowed. As for the number of attached signs, the name of the business, Cape & Islands, is proposed to be separate from the Nissan brand name for aesthetic considerations with the logo in the middle. If the lettering is considered more than one sign for review purposes, then relief would be required from the provisions of Section 303.5.5.2 Singly Occupied or Co-branded Business Location. Two signs are allowed; however, placing them on the opposite east and west facing walls would not be as attractive nor as practical as placing them on the front facing wall in providing identification and assistance to customers visiting the Property. Allowing these signs would also be more compatible on a larger building and will not harm the public good. The signs comply with the overall size limitation per sign (60 sq. ft. maximum), except for the extension length along the front façade of the building. Given the size of the building and its placement on the Property, it is submitted that allowing the proposed signage will not be harmful nor detrimental. For all of the above reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Board of Appeals make findings that the proposal satisfies the criteria for a special permit and, if necessary, a variance and grant relief to allow the redevelopment to be completed as shown on the submitted plans.