Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF EASTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 50 Payson Avenue, Easthampton, MA 01027 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2020 Board x John Atwater * x Lindsie Alterkun x Jared Olinski Members: x Linda Bush  x Anthony Karella x Steven Lytwyn ~ * ZBA Chair |  Vice-Chair | ~ Associate Board Member (x) present | (-) absent | (L) late City officials: Jamie Webb, Assistant Planner Other attendees: See attached participant list Meeting commenced at 6:06pm. ZBA chair, John Atwater, read a prepared statement regarding holding this remote meeting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Administrative Items  Motion to approve the minutes of 2/26/2020 and 5/27/2020 ⦁ Motion by: Linda Bush ⦁ Seconded: Lindsie Alterkun ⦁ Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater x Linda Bush x Lindsie Alterkun x Anthony Karella x Jared Olinski x Steven Lytwyn x ⦁ Approved by a vote of five (5) in favor and none (0) against with one (1) member absent  Correspondence/Requests for comment from other boards, committees, officials, etc.  none  Public Comments / Public Speak  none Public Hearings NSA Property Holdings, LLC d/b/a Moove In Self Storage, seeking a variance to the frontage and front-yard setback requirements for construction of additional self-storage units in accordance with section 13.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance. Subject property is located at 9 Coleman Rd / Main St Rear (parcel ID 164-8) and zoned Industrial (I) Present  Ellen Freyman, John H. Gilliland, Jeff Murdorf, Jeff Squire (BDG), Mark Esposito Applicant Presentation / Board Q&A  Attorney Ellen Freyman, authorized representative of the applicant, presented the request to the Board. NSA Property Holdings purchased the property in 2019 and because busines is doing well there, they would like to expand the amount of self-storage units. However, half the property is in Easthampton and half is in Southampton. The town line cuts through the middle of the property and because of this, they do not have meet the frontage or setback requirements in Easthampton and will 1 of 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, September 2, 2020 be unable to expand unless a variance is granted. Attorney Freyman then presented the reasons for why the variance should be granted with respect to the four-pronged test: ⦁ Very unique situation  wetlands and topography limit the developable area of the property and the shape, due to the town line cutting through the middle of the property, means that all the frontage is along Coleman Rd in Southampton. If not for the town line they would meet the requirements of the ordinance and no variance would be required. ⦁ Literal enforcement would involve substantial hardship as the owner would not be able to expand their business as they do not meet frontage requirements in Easthampton ⦁ Relief may be granted without detriment to public good as there is already a business there and expanding it would not be detrimental. In fact, it would create jobs and increase tax revenue. ⦁ Purpose of the ordinance is to protect welfare and public good and this would not have an impact on the community as the frontage requirement exists to make sure that adequate access exists for each property. There is currently adequate access to the site and there is no purpose in denying the variance as it does not benefit City. Additionally, there is frontage along an existing road but that roads happens to be in Southampton is immaterial.  Attorney Freyman presented additional reasons to support the variance as the definitions for front yard setback and frontage refer to the street line not a town line. But for town line, they meet the frontage and setback requirements. Additionally, there is case law supporting a variance in this situation. And finally, special permits from planning board is still needed after the variance is granted.  Linda Bush  Normally does not support granting variance but the City created this problem by approving ANR in 2011. City should grant the variance as this problem was created by the City.  John Atwater  there is an easement from Verizon (422 Main St) for access to site.  Ellen Freyman  Will still need conservation commission approval and permits from Southampton  John Atwater  Majority of construction will be in Easthampton and there will be fencing all the way around site  Discussion regarding comments received from other boards  none  Discussion regarding proximity to bike path  John Gilliland  would like to build an office on the site for customer interactions and would like to increase the number of units as they are at 95% capacity. Would appreciate a positive vote.  Any additional public comments  none  Motion to close public hearing ⦁ Motion by: Linda Bush ⦁ Seconded: Tony Karella ⦁ Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater x Linda Bush x Lindsie Alterkun x Anthony Karella x Jared Olinski x Steven Lytwyn x ⦁ Approved by a vote of six (6) in favor and none (0) against Board Discussion  Discussion that additional permits will still be needed from Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Town of Southampton  Discussion that the only reason that it is in front of the ZBA is because of the town line but that without the town line, the property would conform to the ordinance requirements.  Jared Olinski  agrees the variance should be granted as it meets the requirements.  Linda Bush  supports granting the variance as previously stated 2 of 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, September 2, 2020  Lindsie Alterkun  supports granting the variance and has nothing additional to say  Tony Karella  supports granting the variance  Discussion of potential conditions to require approvals from other boards. Determined not to be necessary because the ordinances already require these approvals. Board 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 parcel of land located at 9 Coleman Rd  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  agreement that Attorney Freyman’s explanation is valid  Literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant  yes, the rest of the property is unbuildable if the variance is not granted  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, agreement that Attorney Freyman’s explanation is valid  Discussion that the same findings apply to both the frontage and setback variance request Motion to approve the variance to the frontage and front-yard setback requirements as requested by NSA Property Holdings, LLC d/b/a Moove In Self Storage at 9 Coleman Rd / Main St Rear (parcel ID 164-8)  Motion by: John Atwater  Seconded: Tony Karella  Further discussion: none  Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater x Linda Bush x Lindsie Alterkun x Anthony Karella x Jared Olinski x Steven Lytwyn x  Approved by a vote of six (6) in favor and none (0) against Announcements  The next regular ZBA meeting is Wednesday, October 28, 2020 @ 6:00 PM  The submission deadline is Wednesday, September 30, 2020 @ noon Meeting adjourned at 6:42 3 of 3  Topic ZBA Meeting 9/2/2020 Meeting ID 84961759819 Start Time 9/2/2020 17:45 End Time 9/2/2020 18:41 Duration (Minutes) 57 Participants 17 Name (Original Name) User Email Total Duration (Minutes) Easthampton Planning Department planning@easthamptonma.gov 57 Jamie Webb, Asst. Planner 56 Jeff Murdorf 53 Anthony Karella 51 John H. Gilliland 46 Lindsie Alterkun lindsie.alterkun@gmail.com 48 Jeff Squire - BDG 44 Linda Bush labush222@gmail.com 45 Ellen Freyman 42 Mark Esposito 41 Jared Olinski 44 John Atwater johnath2o@gmail.com 37 Steven Lytwyn whalerfan@charter.net 43