HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-19-2024 Eric Schwaab 307MainParkingConcerns_011924Eric Schwaab
157 Melbourne Road
Hyannis, MA 02601
January 19, 2024
Dear Board Members
I am concerned that the many “agreements” that have been made on behalf of Winn Development’s proposal for 307 Main Street properly requires a Regulatory Agreement.My concerns follow:
Concerns Regarding Parking
Winn Development has proposed 122 spaces for their 120 unit building, but only 50 of them are full sized (9'x20'). It is our understanding that 9 feet by 20 feet is the minimum sized
parking space allowed by the town. (See Table 1 and Diagram 1 below).
The other 72 spaces proposed by Winn are being sold as compact spaces. Of these 59 are 8.5'x18' and 13 are 8.5'x16'. Wedon’t know many people who drive cars that will fit into a 16'
long parking space. A Ford F-150 pick-up is 19' 4" feet long. A Toyota Camry is 16 feet long. The Camry would need to touch the wall to fit. A Prius is 14 feet long and 5 feet wide.
It will fit easily provided you don’t want to open the door to get out of your car.
The extra small spaces (8.5'x16') along the west wall of the building are accessible by way of a fire lane. It is our understanding that a fire lane must be an unobstructed 25 feet wide.
Unfortunately, the lane Winn has selected is a shared WAY going back to the 1900's. The residents of the Cape Cod Times building use it for access. So, if a guest parks his/her full
sized car in a small sized space and a tenant next door is unloading groceries, there is little chance that a fire truck will be able to pass in an emergency. (See Diagram 2). It is
our understanding that these parking spots should not be allowed given their proposed configuration.
Most of the other 59 undersized parking spots are in the underbuildinggarage. Here there are at least 23 support columns crowding the parking spaces. The support columns aren't next
to the undersized spots. The support columns are in the undersized spots, so the 8.5' width in the underground parking is for the most part a fiction. The actual size is likely 7.5’x15’.
Is a permit even necessary?
It appears to us that Winn is applying for a "Preemptive" Special Permi. In an email tdated Dec 19, 2023retrieved from a previous records request, Attorney Brennan states: "We comply
with zoning but want a special permit in case we do not." This is an extremely unorthodox request. Does Winn need a special permit or not? Please advise.It would be an extremely imprudent
use of taxpayer-funded town employee time workingon a Special Permit for Winn when Winn argues it fully complies with zoning. Barnstabletaxpayers deserve better.
Winn has argued that there are no dimensional requirements for regular parking spaces. Winn is claiming that the by-law does not reference specific sizes and because of this they need
relief. We disagree. There are specific plans for various parking schemes incorporated in the by-law, which have always been required. Can you provide examples of all prior decisions
about parking dimensions?Specifically, we'd like to see guidance provided by the Town Attorney or the Building Commissioner on required parking site dimensions.
It is our understanding that 5 Handicapped Spaces plus one Handicapped Van Space for a total of 6 Handicapped Spaces will be required. Is there space for a handicapped van?
Winn has proposed a 25’ wide Fire Lane. Isn't there language in the By-Law which prohibits having parking spaces that require vehicles to back directly onto a “Way”, let alone a Fire
Lane?
“Special Circumstances” do not apply
The Winn memo referenced above argues that the Planning Board should grant the Special Permit in light of "special circumstances" of the "zoning subdistrict and the Project itself" that
"minimize, if not eliminate, residents dependent use of automobiles....".
To support its Special Permit case, Winn points first to the statement of intent of the new zoning provision: "The Downtown Main Street District is intended to promote the continuation
of a walkable, pedestrian-oriented downtown environment with continuous active streetscape." This is nonsensical and contrary to the plain requirements in the code on parking. There
is no stated intention beyond the four corners of the established parking requirements for residential units in the zone to "minimize" or "eliminate" the "use of automobiles". The Town's
intention to have a "walkable, pedestrian-oriented" downtown does not negate the code's express requirement for there to be specific parking spaces based on the intended use. If the
Town had a goal of "eliminating" or further "minimizing" parking, it would not have adopted the specific parking requirements.
Winn next argues that Winn will have assigned parking spaces and cars not parking in the assigned spaces will be towed. So what? It is extremely common for apartments and condos to have
assigned parking. That has no bearing on parking requirements or reducing them.
Finally, Winn argues that this property is proximate to the Regional Transit Authority and that the location was selected by Winn to "lessen, if not eliminate, the cost burden of automobiles"Even
if it is true, hypothetically, that Winn has a private heartfelt objective to eliminate the use of cars at its developments, it needs to select land to develop housing where there is
not required parking for each residential unit. Its corporate goal to eliminate cars and thus parking does not overrule the Code's specific parking requirements. And it doesn't turn
Hyannis into the south end of Boston. Moreover, the Regional Transit Authority was there when the Town adopted the parking requirements. If the Town intended to minimize or eliminate
parking at housing units near the Regional Transit Authority, it could have and would have structured the parking requirements accordingly. It did not. The Town did not conclude that
proximity to the Regional Transit Authority was a basis to reduce parking.
Can you tell is if the Department of Planning and Development and/or the Town
Attorney finds these arguments to have merit? What are we missing whenwe read the plain language of the Code?
Winn refers to several sections of the Zoning Code. Here are some for reference.
First, 240.24.1.5.c.2.(b) - Parking standards.
1. Applicability.
(a) Parking is required based on the intended use of floor area within a building at construction permitting and not for the subsequent establishment, change, or expansion of any permitted
use; or the renovation of any existing principal building.
2. General.
(a) Accessory parking must be provided as specified by Table 2 and is calculated as the sum of all required spaces, including any adjustment specified for on-site shared parking.
(i) Commercial parking uses are exempt from Table 2.
(b) Relief from the parking requirements of Table 2 requires a special permit. (THE TABLE REQUIRES 1 PER RESIDENCE)
(c) In its discretion to approve or deny a special permit authorizing relief from the minimum parking requirements of Table 2, the Planning Board shall consider conditioning the special
permit upon one or more of the following:
(i) Elimination or reduction of existing curb cuts and driveway aprons.
(ii) Establishment of a shared driveway or cross-access connection between abutting parking lots with a binding easement and joint maintenance agreement defining the responsibilities
of abutting property owners sharing access.
3. Location.
(a) Accessory parking spaces must be located on the same lot as the building they support and may be provided within a principal building or outbuilding or as surface parking.
(b) Motor vehicle parking of any type is prohibited within the frontage area of a lot and any required landscape buffer.
Is the Planning Board authorized to approve the substandard parking spots and are they permitted to waive required landscape buffers?
The Winn narrative also refers to § 240-57. See: Circumstances warranting reduction of requirements. [Amended 11-5-1988 by Art. 1]
The Zoning Board of Appeals may reduce the requirements of this article by the granting of a special permit only if lesser off-street parking is shown to be adequate given such special
circumstances as:
A. Use of a common parking area by different uses having different peak hours of demand.
B. Age or other characteristics of occupants which reduce auto usage.
C. Characteristics of use invalidating normal methods of calculating parking demand.
D. Supplementary parking provided off premises.
It is our understanding that the Planning Board can only provide relief for the number of required parking spots. Since WINN is not asking for fewer parking spots we do not believe that
the Planning Board has the ability to grant them the dimensional relief they are seeking and in need of.
Winn needs to go to the ZBA for relief.
I recall your Form-based Zoning code consultant, Utile, saying at a public meeting that “…parking will occasionally be the tail that wags the dog…”. The unorthodox Winn approaches create
myriad serious questions about which the community deserves straight answers. We are mindful that how the Town stewards the public interest in this parking proposal will influence future
development and ultimately the quality of life on Main Street, should the Form-based Zoning Coderemain as is. It is critical, in our view, that you get it right for the community.
Best regards,
Eric Schwaab
Table 1:
Diagram 1
Diagram 2
Diagram 3
Diagram 4
Diagram 5