This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
05/22/2018 12:00 AMThere will be no verdict on the controversial U-Haul proposal until June. At a Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) meeting on May 16, the commission continued discussions on some of the larger and finer points of the application. While some members indicated a readiness to take a vote that evening, the commission ultimately decided to wait until its next meeting on Wednesday, June 6 to take a final vote on the application.
At the meeting on May 16, the commission picked up on discussions that began at a special meeting on May 2. Commissioners reviewed issues involving the grading of the property as it relates to building height, the potential affect of this proposal on neighboring properties including potential future developments and current property values, vehicle display, and screening of the property.
Commissioners again worked through the issue of a non-conforming use in regard to vehicle display and the question of whether the right to a non-conforming use was abandoned when the property was briefly the Grass Island Market. PZC Chair Philip Johnson asked Town Planner George Kral if the current display of vehicles on the property could be considered a legal use.
“The way the site is being used right now, if this application were to be denied, then they would have a zoning violation,” said Kral. “If it were denied, especially on the basis of the non-conformity issues, then they would have a zoning violation now because they are displaying vehicles in that front area. This application is in part a correcting of the current situation.”
Commissioners will have to decide if the property owner abandoned their non-conforming use, but even if the commission makes a positive determination to that end, U-Haul could still display trucks in the front section of the property if the special permit is approved.
Commissioners also reviewed the lighting plan for the building and the ability of the commission to control the color and visibility of the typical U-Haul orange storage doors. Residents had previously expressed concern over seeing the orange storage doors through the self-storage building windows and commissioners discussed whether restrictions or conditions could be placed on such items within the application.
“My opinion is the application is as presented and we really can’t put those types of restrictions on,” said Johnson.
Kral did not agree with Johnson’s assessment.
“In my opinion you can make any reasonable conditions of approval, especially with a special permit application,” he said. “What is reasonable is subject to debate of course, but I think you have a lot of latitude to make conditions of approval.”
Johnson said he is concerned about light pollution the building might generate and the fact that while the quantity of lighting will change throughout the day, the building will be lit to some capacity 24/7. Kral said that the Design Review Committee (DRC) had reviewed the lighting plan with the applicant and set a number of rules. Commissioner Allyn Brown said the debate over details like lights had dragged on for far too long.
“I am listening to this and I am thinking I can drive down Route 1 across from the rock pile and see the new car lot with six flood lights facing out at the road over the top of the cars and there are half a dozen other places that are just as bad and you are worried about dimming the lights?” he said. “I mean, how far are we going to go with these people? They bent over backwards to try to meet every criteria you came up with.”
The U-Haul proposal was not a part of the public hearing at the meeting as the proposal has already gone through the two necessary public hearings. However, PZC spent a considerable amount of time discussing the application, and while some members were ready to vote, Johnson said a bit more time to consider the application was the best course of action.
“A couple of the commissioners wanted to have a vote and I felt that this is a 100-year decision for the town and that we really needed to think long and hard and come up with a correct position one way or another, because whatever decision we make has a very good chance of being appealed by either party,” he said.
After a second public hearing that lasted more than two hours on April 18, PZC decided to take the allotted 65 days to review the proposal, documents, and objections. At the time, Town Attorney Chuck Andres suggested whatever decision made by the commission is likely to result in an appeal, so the commission will want to be as comfortable with its decision as possible. The timeline expires in late June, but Johnson said the commission will be ready for a vote on June 6.
“We have ’til June 22, but I think this needs to come to a head,” he said.
The Previous Public Hearings
The U-Haul proposal first came before PZC in spring 2017. At the time, concerns were raised about how far the new building would be set back from Route One and the fact that the application came before PZC without formal review from the Design Review Committee (DRC). Concerns delayed the application to a point where by regulation it had to be pulled and resubmitted.
Nearly a year after its first proposal, U-Haul returned to PZC on April 4 for the first public hearing seeking approval for a special permit and site plan application to build a new storage and rental space on Boston Post Road. 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 and where U-Haul currently operates. 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 400 storage spaces within the two buildings, U-Haul trucks for rent including seven trucks parked within 30 feet of the front of the property, a new landscape buffer along the Post Road including a perimeter of trees, and a new sidewalk along the Boston Post Road.
Under the new application, submitted by the U-Haul Corporate Office on behalf of the current building owner, the structure doesn’t exceed the maximum height allowance of 40 feet, according to the town planner. U-Haul requested and received a variance to set the storage facility back further from the main road; the storage building can now be constructed 70 feet back from the Post Road rather than 50 feet. The proposal has also received Inland Wetlands Commission approval and a favorable review from DRC.
At the first public hearing, there was focus on the appearance of the building, level of usage, lighting, and questions about if the building would fit with the character of the town. At the second public hearing, U-Haul addressed some remaining questions, but much of the focus was placed on the process U-Haul went through with DRC.
While public comment at the first public hearing was largely opposed to the project, comments at the second hearing reflected a balance. Some residents spoke in favor of the proposal and even some of those who spoke in opposition acknowledge that U-Haul had worked hard to try to change the building design to address resident’s concerns. Many others still stood to adamantly oppose the proposal.