Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF EASTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 50 Payson Avenue, Easthampton, MA 01027 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 26, 2020 Board X John Atwater * X Lindsie Alterkun x Jared Olinski Members: X Linda Bush  X Anthony Karella - Fran Hamel ~ * ZBA Chair |  Vice-Chair | ~ Associate Board Member (x) present | (-) absent | (L) late City officials: Jamie Webb, Assistant Planner; Jeff Bagg, City Planner Other attendees: see attached sign-in sheet Administrative Items  Approval of the minutes of 1/22/2020  Tabled to March  Correspondence/Requests for comment from other boards, committees, officials, etc.  none  Public Comments / Public Speak  none Public Hearings Susan Moore & Theodore Olejnik, seeking a special permit for a major home occupation (psychotherapy practice, craniosacral therapy, and private yoga instruction) in accordance with sections 10.4 and 12.7 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance. Subject property is located at 208 Park St (parcel ID 162-8) and zoned Residential Rural B (R40) Present  Susan Moore & Theodore Olejnik Applicant Presentation / Board Q&A  Theodore Olejnik  retired VA therapist. Is continuing to see patients out of the house. Will see clients in the basement. Probably 6-10 per week.  Susan Moore  has been in training for craniosacral therapy and yoga. Is now done with school and would like to start seeing clients out of the home. Clients are fully clothed but it is a hands-on modality.  John Atwater  question as to licensure from state? ⦁ Susan Moore  No required licensed under Mass General Laws for craniosacral therapy but that may change in the future to protect body workers from human trafficking. Is licensed for massage therapy but will not be doing that.  John Atwater  two home occupations but only one will operate at a time? ⦁ Theodore Olejnik  will only see patients Mon, Tues, and Wed afternoons ⦁ Susan Moore  will have other hours and will not see patients at the same time Discussion of Findings – Home Occupations – Standards for All Home Occupations – Section 10.43 1) The owner/operator of every Home Occupation shall reside in the dwelling unit on the property at which the business operates  Yes, both applicants live at 208 Park St 2) No more than thirty-three percent (33%) of the existing gross floor area of the residential unit shall be devoted to the Home Occupation, regardless of whether such use is carried on in the residential unit or in an accessory structure  yes, application stated 700 sq. ft. will be used for home occupation. Total residence GFA is 2152 sq. ft. 3) There shall be no display or storage of finished goods, raw materials, or inventory visible from the street or lot lines  not applicable 1 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 26, 2020 4) There shall be no storage of goods or products produced off-site unless they are used as the raw materials to be combined into a finished product or they are used as the inventory or materials for services performed at an off-site destination  not applicable 5) There shall be no sales of products or services that are not produced on the premises. In addition, there shall be no areas intended for retail sales or service  no sales of this type will be conducted 6) No advertising on the premises is permitted other than a small non-electric sign not to exceed two (2) square feet in area  no sign intended 7) The premises and building on which the Home Occupation is conducted may not include a feature or design not customary in residential use buildings  no changes to existing structure 8) Any newly installed or replaced exterior lighting fixture shall be aimed and shielded so that it does not shine upwards or produce light beyond the boundaries of the property at which the Home Occupation is conducted  no changes to existing lighting 9) Any addition, alteration, or change to a building must comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback restrictions as described in the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance  no changes to existing structure 10) Toxic, explosive, flammable, combustible, corrosive, radioactive, or similar hazardous materials shall not be used, stored, or manufactured on the premises in amounts exceeding those which are typically found in residential use  not applicable 11) Off-street parking for the Home Occupation shall be provided as described in Section 10.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance  yes, 4 spots will be provided. Discussion that two spots are currently used for the residence. Only one or two clients will be seen at a time; there is space for at least 2 visitor spots without backing up onto Park St. 12) Traffic associated with a Home Occupation shall not place an unreasonable burden on the City, roads, or surrounding neighborhood due to noise, safety, congestion, or other associated nuisances  not applicable 13) No overnight storage of any kind of vehicle on the property is permitted except for those for the personal use of residents of the property and for those used in conjunction with the Home Occupation. Vehicles used in conjunction with the Home Occupation and stored overnight must be owned or leased by the operator of the Home Occupation and may not belong to people who do not reside at the property  yes, applicant will comply with this Discussion of Findings – Additional Standards Major Home Occupations – Section 10.45 1) Major Home Occupations must meet the following standards in addition to the standards listed in Section 10.43 and Section 12.79 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance. In case of conflict, the stricter standard shall apply  ok 2) No more than two (2) non-resident employees shall be employed to work at the subject property  no nonresident employees will work at the property 3) Unless otherwise determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals, hours of operation to the public, including non-resident employees, clients, business visitors, as well as pickups/deliveries shall be limited Monday through Friday to the hours between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM and on weekends to the hours between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM  yes, proposed applicant business hours comply 4) There shall be no increase of traffic to the in excess of two (2) vehicles per hour (on average) during hours of operation to the public  proposed use complies 5) Unless otherwise allowed by the board, only Class 1 and Class 2 vehicles, as classified by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, may be stored or used on the property in conjunction with the Major Home Occupation  n/a 6) The premises and building on which the Major Home Occupation is conducted shall not be made objectionable or detrimental in any manner (including but not limited to the exterior appearance or emission of atmospheric pollution (e.g. odors, gas, fumes, smog, smoke, and dust), electrical disturbance, excessive light, glare, noise, or vibrations) to the residential character of the 2 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 26, 2020 neighborhood and/or the residential use of the other units in a multi-family structure  no impact or changes to existing structure Discussion of Findings – Special Permit Criteria for Approval – Section 12.79 a) Conformance with the provisions of the ordinances of the City of Easthampton, the General Laws of Massachusetts and all applicable rules and regulations of state and federal agencies  therapist is licensed by state. Currently, now license is needed for body work but if state changes licensure requirements then she will get license b) Protection of city amenities and abutting properties through the minimizing of any detrimental or offensive uses or destruction of unique or important natural, scenic or historic features on the site  no changes to existing site c) Minimization of traffic and safety impacts of the proposed development on adjacent highways or roads, and maximizes the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site  no changes to existing site d) Adequacy of the methods of disposal of sewage and refuse and the drainage of surface and subsurface water  no changes to existing site e) Adequate means of protecting wetlands, watersheds, aquifers and well areas  no changes to existing site f) Mitigation of adverse impacts on the city's resources including the effect on the city's water supply and distribution system, sewage collection and treatment systems, fire protection and streets  no impact because no changes to existing structure g) Provisions for the off-street loading and unloading of vehicles incidental to the normal operation of the establishment, parking, lighting and internal traffic control  already covered. Complies h) Applicant's efforts to integrate the development into the existing landscape through design features such as vegetative buffers and retention of open space or agricultural land  no changes to existing i) Minimization of the area over which existing vegetation is to be removed. Where tree removal is required, special attention is to be given to the planting of replacement trees  no removals j) The consistency of the development with respect to setback, area, placement of parking, architectural style and landscaping of the surrounding buildings and development  no changes to existing structure k) Adequacy of the measures to prevent pollution of surface or groundwater to minimize erosion and sedimentation and to minimize changes in groundwater levels, increased run-off and potential for flooding  no changes to existing site l) Adequacy of the methods to ensure that the use will not constitute a nuisance by reason of unacceptable level of air or water pollution, excessive noise or visually flagrant structures and accessories  no changes to existing structure or site Public Comments  none Further Discussion  Board discussion that this is an appropriate home occupation Motion to close public hearing  Motion by: John Atwater  Seconded: Linda Bush  Approved by a vote of five (5) in favor and none (0) against Motion to approve the special permit for a major home occupation for psychotherapy practice, craniosacral therapy, and private yoga instruction at 208 Park St in accordance with the findings as discussed and as submitted with application.  Motion by: John Atwater  Seconded: Tony Karella  Further discussion: none  Absent: Fran Hamel 3 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 26, 2020  Approved by a vote of five (5) in favor and none (0) against Gary & Sandra Campbell, seeking a variance to the lot size requirements for a two-family residence in accordance with section 13.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance. Subject property is located at 106-108 East St (parcel ID 111-38) and zoned Residential Rural B (R40) Present  Gary Campbell, Sandra Campbell, Gerrit Stover, Bob Canon, Jeff Bagg Applicant Presentation / Board Q&A  Gary Campbell  last year, large amount of the property was sold to city for park land acquisition. Too much land was accidentally carved off and now the lot is nonconforming to lot size. Excess land and is now owned by city and state and can’t be bought back. Seeking a variance so that the property can be legally resolved without needing an act of the state of the state legislature. Does not actually affect the property as it’s an existing two-family and the excess area is minimal.  Linda Bush  Clarification that this mistake was made during the survey. Applicant stated that it did.  Gerrit Stover, Pascommuck Conservation Trust  property has Article 97 land protection and adjustment to the boundaries would require an act of the state legislature. This was made as a result of trying to do a public good by maximizing the amount of conservation land.  Discussion regarding the amount of required land for two-family (40,000 sq. ft.), existing amount of land (37,825 sq. ft.), and amount being requested to be varied (2,175 sq. ft.)  Bob Canon, Canon Real Estate  property was about to be sold to a customer but then the buyer backed out because the lot is not legally conforming. The property was non-conforming to frontage requirements but that predated zoning. The reduction in lot size made it more non-conforming and affected the title and cannot sell the property without a clean title.  Discussion and clarification that this property has been a two-family for many years.  Jeff Bagg, City Planner  variance is a rigid set of requirements and that this relates more to “shape” of lot rather than size because it is surrounded on two sides by permanently protected land and on the third side is a lot that also cannot be reduced because it is also at the minimum. For understanding of the finding of hardship: it’s unlikely that they could get this land back because the City would have to find a similar amount of land somewhere else, purchase it, swap it, and then get the state legislature to approve an amendment to the Article 97 process but no guarantee that could happen. No detrimental impact to neighborhood because it is existing, and the uniqueness is that the Article 97 land surrounds it. So, it’s not likely to occur again and set precedent.  John Atwater  if the clock could be reversed, then the land would have been exempted from the purchase and sale originally.  Linda Bush  comfortable that this is not setting a precedent Public Comments  none Public hearing closed with unanimous consent by John Atwater Discussion of Findings – Variance Requirements – Section 13.13  The variance must be with respect to a particular parcel of land or to an existing building on the land  The proposed variance applies only to the subject property located at 106-108 East St. The transfer of the remainder of the original parcel to the City of Easthampton occurred as part of a coordinated effort to preserve a total of 23 acres of adjacent land. The relief requested is the minimum amount necessary to ensure that the property will conform to the areas required for a two-family dwelling.  There must be circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography especially affecting such land or structure, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located  related to shape of lot and uniqueness as discussed previously, and in coordination with the City goal to acquire land for preservation. 4 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 26, 2020  Literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant  substantial hardship related to the difficulty, cost, and uncertainty to increase lot size and inability to sell the property without a clean title.  Desirable relief may be granted if there will not be substantial detriment to the public good, or nullification or substantial derogation from the intent and purpose of this ordinance  no substantial detriment or derogation because it is in the back of the property adjoined by permanently protected park land and will not be discernable to the public Motion to grant a variance of 2,175 sq. ft. to the minimum lot size requirements for two-family residence at 106-108 East St  Motion by: John Atwater  Seconded: Linda Bush  Further discussion: none  Absent: Fran Hamel  Approved by a vote of five (5) in favor and none (0) against Matthew Gawle, seeking a variance to the side-yard setbacks and special permit to reconstruct a pre- existing nonconforming nonresidential structure in accordance with sections 11.13 and 13.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance. Subject property is located at 118 Union St (parcel ID 53-22) and zoned Downtown Business (DB) Present  Terry Reynolds, T Reynolds Engineering  Emily Holmberg, Holmberg & Howe Land Surveyors Background Applicant Presentation / Board Q&A  Terry Reynolds  seeking to redevelop Hurry and Scurry building/lot. The building is in rough shape and needs to be reconstructed. But a variance is needed for the side yard setbacks because the lot is small and does not conform to lot size requirements. The existing building currently encroaches into the setbacks, leaving 4.08’ to one side and 5.45’ to the other. The reconstructed building will not encroach further into the setbacks than the existing.  Linda Bush  owner has owned the building for over 20 years and has allowed the building to deteriorate. City does not have an obligation to grant variances because the property owner let the building deteriorate. Also, plans call for addition of a second floor but currently there is only one floor. There is no site plan showing parking which is adding intensity.  Terry Reynolds  Second floor and parking will be part of planning board site plan approval process.  Emily Holmberg  We’re just seeking a variance right now to continue using the existing side setbacks when we reconstruct  Lindsie Alterkun  question: setback encroachment is not consistent along property  Terry Reynolds  seeking to maximize the size of building and square it up to the lot lines  Discussion regarding deteriorated building and obligation of city to grant variances when the owner could have maintained the building and then renovated it but chose not to. Member Bush objects bailing out the owner in this situation. Member Atwater counters with the process would be the same to add a second floor regardless of the owner maintaining the building in the past. Assistant Planner Webb states that because the building is non-residential, any change to the existing structure would require the owner to apply to the ZBA for a variance/special permit.  Terry  seeking variance because lot is very narrow and a conforming structure could only be 23 feet wide, which is not a feasible width for a building. Seeking variance to the setback requirements so that it maintains it current non-conforming footprint. 5 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 26, 2020  Discussion regarding use of adjacent property for parking. Question: will there be a permanent deed restriction for parking? Answer: that will be part of Planning Board process. Additional parking, if needed, could be located at an abutting property.  Discussion that parking should be part of the ZBA concern and that the ZBA should look at this comprehensively and not just the setbacks.  Question: will the new structure have the same footprint as the existing? Answer: will be part of Planning Board process but it will not be any more nonconforming than existing. No members of the public present and interested in speaking with regard to this variance Member Atwater closed the public hearing for variance Discussion of Findings – Variance Requirements – Section 13.13  The variance must be with respect to a particular parcel of land or to an existing building on the land  yes, the building and parcel located at 118 union St  There must be circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography especially affecting such land or structure, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located  shape of land is unique due to dog leg and narrow lot size  Literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant  yes because zoning would limit building to width to 23’  Desirable relief may be granted if there will not be substantial detriment to the public good, or nullification or substantial derogation from the intent and purpose of this ordinance  yes, because reconstruction of the building will benefit the city and eliminate a blighted building in the Downtown Further discussion  none Motion to grant a variance as requested to the minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks at 118 Union St  Motion by: John Atwater  Seconded: Anthony Karella  Further discussion: none  In Favor: Jared Olinski, John Atwater, Lindsie Alterkun, Anthony Karella  Opposed: Linda Bush  Absent: Fran Hamel  Approved by a vote of four (4) in favor and one (1) against Member Atwater opened the public hearing for the special permit  Terry Reynolds  now that a variance has been granted. Would like to demolish and reconstruct a new 2-storey building with commercial space on the first floor and residential units on the second floor. Is seeking to purchase additional land from adjoin property owner so as to be able to make the building a little deeper. Neighboring property would maintain 10’ setback from and 118 Union would north side setback would be more conforming at 9.31 feet. Rear setback would be conforming at 10 feet. Additional land would make lot size conforming. Overall this would make the building and lot more conforming than the existing.  Discussion as to whether the neighboring property would be made more nonconforming by this land swap with regard to parking requirements. Emily Holmberg clarified that the lot will remain conforming because parking has nothing to do with lot conformance and the land swap does not affect parking. Lot conformance is frontage and area only. Parking has to do with use conformance.  Discussion that a permanent parking agreement for all three lots owned by the Gawle’s will need to be presented as part of Planning Board process.  Discussion that ANR will make rear setback compliant. Side setback more compliant on one side. Lot area will be compliant. Width of lot (frontage) will be more compliant.  Discussion of ordinance requirements regarding abandonment and non-use (Section 11.3). Because this building has not been used for more than two years, it can only be used in a conforming manner. Granting a variance and special permit would make reuse conforming to the ordinance. 6 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 26, 2020  Discussion that an unsafe structure (Section 11.5) may be restored to a safe condition provided that it is not more non-conforming. This proposal would make the lot and structure more conforming with the ordinance once the ANR plan is approved by the planning board. Member Atwater closed the public hearing for the special permit Board Discussion  Linda Bush stated that she will be voting against this special permit  Lindsie Alterkun asked about public notice. Assistant Planner Webb stated that the public was notified in advance of the hearing as required by the ordinance.  Discussion of conditioning this special permit upon approval of Planning Board granting the ANR. Assistant Planner Webb stated that the ZBA cannot condition a permit upon another board’s approval.  Discussion of how to proceed with this special permit if it cannot be conditioned upon the Planning Board. Decision to continue the public hearing to the next ZBA meeting so that the applicant can get their ANR approval from the Planning Board first. Continued to March 25, 2020 at 6pm in Conference Room B Announcements  The next regular ZBA meeting is Wednesday, March 25, 2020 @ 6:00 PM  The submission deadline is Wednesday, March 4, 2020 @ noon Meeting adjourned at 19:17 7 of 7