Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF EASTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 50 Payson Avenue, Easthampton, MA 01027 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 27, 2020 Board x John Atwater * x Lindsie Alterkun x Jared Olinski Members: x Linda Bush  x Anthony Karella * ZBA Chair |  Vice-Chair | ~ Associate Board Member (x) present | (-) absent | (L) late City officials: Jamie Webb, Assistant Planner Other attendees: Emily Holmberg, Brenda Gawron, Mark Reed, Terry Reynolds Meeting commenced at 7:05pm. ZBA chair, John Atwater, read a prepared statement regarding holding this remote meeting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Administrative Items  Minutes of 2/26/2020 tabled  Motion to approve the minutes of 1/22/2020 and 3/25/2020 ⦁ Motion by: Linda ⦁ Seconded: Anthony ⦁ Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent Lindsie Alterkun X John Atwater x Linda Bush X Anthony Karella X Jared Olinski X ⦁ Approved by a vote of five (5) in favor and none (0) against  Correspondence/Requests for comment from other boards, committees, officials, etc.  none  Public Comments / Public Speak ⦁ Longtime ZBA member, Fran Hamel, passed away towards the end of April. John Atwater made a brief statement to honor his memory and his work with the ZBA. Public Hearings Continued from 2/26/2020 - 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  Representatives of the Applicant: Emily Holmberg and Terry Reynolds Background  Variance was approved on 2/26/20 Discussion  Emily Holmberg  ANR plan was approved by the Planning Board on 3/5/2020. New property line provides 9.31’ to the building from the northern property line and 4.08’ to the building from the 1 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, May 27, 2020 southern property line. Seeking approval to raze and reconstruct the building in a slightly enlarged footprint based on the new lot lines. Public Comments  none Board Discussion  Linda stated that she is abstaining from a vote on the special permit because she voted against granting the variance. She voted against the variance because the property owner let the property fall into disrepair and the ZBA should not grant a variance to the zoning requirements when the owner failed to act in a timely manner. Because the Board was wrong to issue the variance, she is abstaining from the special permit vote to reconstruct a pre-existing nonconforming 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  yes 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  will improve from what is there now 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 access will go to Union St. Site plan will be approved as part of Planning Board process d) Adequacy of the methods of disposal of sewage and refuse and the drainage of surface and subsurface water  Planning Board will review as part of special permit process e) Adequate means of protecting wetlands, watersheds, aquifers and well areas  not applicable 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  not applicable 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  all traffic to come off of Payson Ave 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  not applicable 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 trees on property j) The consistency of the development with respect to setback, area, placement of parking, architectural style and landscaping of the surrounding buildings and development  Planning board will review as part of their process 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  very small lot already developed lot 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  will be better than what is there now Discussion of Findings – Pre-existing Nonconforming Uses, Structures, & Lots – Section 11.13 – Nonresidential Structures  A special permit will be granted if the ZBA finds:  That the proposed alteration, extension or change complies with the zoning ordinance standards or has received a variance for such proposed alteration, extension or change from the ZBA  variance approved on 2/26/2020  That the proposed alteration, extension or change will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure(s)  will not be more detrimental as the new building will be in substantially the same footprint Conditions 2 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, May 27, 2020  In accordance with the variance granted on 2/26/20, and as shown on the plan titled “Plan for Special Permit Application for 118 Union Street, Easthampton, MA” and dated 2/4/2020, the southern side setback shall be no less than 4.08’, the northern side setback shall be no less than 9.31’, and the eastern front setback shall be no less than 10’.  Vehicular access to the site shall be limited to/from Payson Ave  A special permit and/or site plan approval from the Planning Board shall be required to permit the uses in the newly reconstructed building Motion to approve the special permit to demolish and reconstruct a pre-existing nonconforming nonresidential structure at 118 Union St  Motion by: John Atwater  Seconded: Tony Karella  Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent Lindsie Alterkun x John Atwater x Linda Bush x Anthony Karella x Jared Olinski x  Approved by a vote of four (4) in favor and none (0) against with one (1) member abstaining Brenda Gawron, seeking a variance to the side-yard setback to construct a two-car garage attached to an existing residential structure in accordance with section 13.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance. Subject property is located at 42 Division St (parcel ID 174-181) and zoned Residential Rural B (R40). Present  Brenda Gawron, Mark Reed (applicant’s representative) Applicant Presentation & Discussion  Mark Reed  would like to build a two-car garage on westerly side of existing residence. There are only four houses on this section of the street. Lot was approved in 1973 when zoning setbacks were different than they are now. Seeking 10’ encroachment into 25’ side setback. Neighbor on that side has submitted a letter of support. Street is the lowest point on the property and rises towards the back yard. Due to existing overhead electric utilities and underground gas lines serving the property the garage cannot be in front of the house. Garage would have to be dug down to meet existing floor if put behind the house. Requesting variance to construct garage partly in the side setback.  Linda Bush  variance should be granted because lot is only 100’ wide and that’s a hardship. If the lot were to have been created with today’s zoning requirements, then it would have a 120’ of frontage and more than enough room for a garage. This could set a precedent because neighboring properties are also quite narrow and also don’t have garages.  John Atwater  residence appears to be off-center of existing lot whereas the other houses are more centered  Mark Reed  back corner of proposed garage is jogged to maintain 15’ setback as the lot line is angled a bit with respect to the garage Comments were received from:  Conservation Commission  no comment. Not jurisdictional to Conservation Commission.  Fire Department  Per current fire and building code, a heat detector interconnected with smoke/CO alarms in the house must be installed Public Comments  Letter of support received from Charles Gliniak & Jacqueline Kolodziej (abutters) at 40 Division St Discussion of Findings – Variance Requirements – Section 13.13 3 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, May 27, 2020  The variance must be with respect to a particular parcel of land or to an existing building on the land  yes. 42 Division 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  topography of lot makes it impractical to construct the garage in the backyard and have it connect to the existing finished floor grade  Literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant  if the zoning ordinance was not changed to require a wider lot then there would have been enough room to build the garage without granting a variance  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, a variance to the side setback will not nullify the ordinance Conditions  As shown on the plan titled “Site Plan showing a proposed garage addition in Easthampton Mass, for Brenda A. Gawron” and dated March 18, 2020, the proposed garage may encroach no more than 10’ into the side setback so that the structure maintains a minimum setback of 15’ to the western property line. Motion to approve the variance to the side-yard setback to construct a two-car garage attached to existing residence at 42 Division St  Motion by: John Atwater  Seconded: Tony Karella  Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent Lindsie Alterkun x John Atwater x Linda Bush x Anthony Karella x Jared Olinski x  Approved by a vote of five (5) in favor and none (0) against Announcements  The next regularly scheduled ZBA meeting on Wednesday, June 24, 2020 is canceled as no applications were submitted by the application deadline.  The next regular ZBA meeting will be Wednesday, July 22, 2020 @ 6:00 PM  The submission deadline is Wednesday, June 24, 2020 @ noon Motion to Adjourn  Motion by: Tony Karella  Seconded: Lindsie Alterkun  Approved by unanimous consent Meeting adjourned at 6:55 pm 4 of 4