This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
05/23/2017 12:00 AMThose who have been intrigued or concerned by the proposal to build an expanded U-Haul facility on Route 1 are going to have to wait until summer to hear a decision. The U-Haul proposal was originally on the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) docket on May 17, but with some details still up in the air, the proposal was pulled.
This is the second time residents came to hear the proposal at the PZC, but were ultimately turned away. The PZC held the first public hearing on March 15 on a proposal from U-Haul to construct a new, three-story facility on its Boston Post Road site, a proposal that raised questions about design, traffic, and the character of Route 1 in town.
The proposed facility would be located at 301 Boston Post Road on the corner of Route 1 and Tanner Marsh Road on what was formerly the Mannix Motors site. The U-Haul proposal includes renovating the existing structure on the site and building a second structure for storage. If approved, the site would include more than 500 storage spaces within the two buildings, U-Haul trucks for rent including seven trucks parked close to the front of the property, a new perimeter of trees, and a new sidewalk along the Boston Post Road.
The application came before the PZC without formal approval from the Design Review Committee (DRC), a committee that has expressed concern over the size of the new building and the seven trucks that would be parked close to the front of the property.
DRC does not have authority to reject an application and is simply advisory, as the name suggests. However, after the committee elected not to recommend the design, the U-Haul applicant is back with DRC to see what if any changes can be made, causing the delay at PZC.
With the U-Haul application now having been pushed twice, Town Planner George Kral said the proposal had to be formally withdrawn from PZC due to time limits on applications. Kral said the applicant is still working with the DRC to try and find a solution to some of the size and aesthetic concerns surrounding the building proposal.
Kral said, “one of the elements of that change in the plan is to move the big new building, the storage building, further away from the road.”
Moving the building back requires a variance due to the minimum and maximum setback requirements for that zone. The proposal would also require a revised wetlands application as moving the building back brings it closer to wetlands, according to Kral. The applicant would have to get a variance and a revised wetlands plan before returning to PZC and Kral said the applicant is also looking at ways to make the building seem smaller.
“One resolution is to move it back or ‘articulate’ the building design, so U-Haul is working on some revision to the building design which would achieve that articulation,” he said. “It probably means breaking up the façade of the building somehow so it is not quite as uniform as was originally designed.”
The other issue floating around is the number of trucks U-Haul would be allowed to display for rent at the front of the property. DRC does not have any jurisdiction over this issue and Kral said that decision ultimately lies with lawyers and the PZC.
With lawyers working on the number of trucks, Kral said he expects U-Haul to go for a variance and a revised wetlands application in June. If all goes well, Kral said the U-Haul proposal will likely come before the PZC again sometime in July.