Zoning Board of Appeals

Meeting Minutes December 16, 2020 Board ✓ John Atwater * ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Jared Olinski Members: ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Steven Lytwyn ~ * ZBA Chair | Vice-Chair | ~ Associate Board Member (x) present | (-) absent | (L) late City officials: Jamie Webb, Assistant Planner; Curtis Wiemann, Assistant Planner Other attendees: William Bundy, Chris Rogers, Ken Blanchard Meeting commenced at 6:07pm. Administrative Items • Motion to approve the minutes of 11/18/2020 • Amendments / comments / corrections / etc.: None. • Motion by: Steve Lytwyn • Seconded: Linda Bush • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Jared Olinski ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ Approved by a vote of 6 in favor and 0 against with 0 members abstaining and 0 members absent • Correspondence/Requests for comment from other boards, committees, officials, etc. • There was no comment offered by other Boards or regulatory entities. • Public Comments / Public Speak • There were no public comments offered. Public Hearings (continued from 11/18/2020) 1. Rachel Philips – 135 Main Street Rachel Philips - seeking a special permit under Sections 12.7 & 10.4 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinances to operate a Major Home Occupation as a hairstylist at her house. The property is located at 135 Main Street (Map 144, Parcel 59) in the Residential - Urban (R-5) zoning district Applicant Presentation / Board Q&A • Rachel Philips presented a parking agreement with the owners/stewards of St Philip's Episcopal Church for three (3) parking spaces in the church parking lot at 128 Main Street, directly across the street from 135 Main Street (the location for the proposed Major Home Occupation), with no restrictions in regards to hours of use. Board Discussion • The Board discussed the proposed additional parking and found that the Applicant's suggestion of parking spaces at St. Philip's satisfied the requirement for on-site parking associated with the major home occupation use. The Board further discussed and determined that a condition to  disallow client appointments at the home occupation during church services on Sunday mornings should be added to ensure that the home occupation retains sufficient on-site parking for the use. Motion to close the public hearing • Motion by: Linda Bush • Seconded: Anthony Karella • Further discussion: None. • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Jared Olinski ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ Further Board Discussion • John Atwater opened the floor to the members of the Board for further discussion. Hearing none, he proposed the following findings: 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. ⋄ The owner/operator of the proposed Major Home Occupation resides at 135 Main Street and proposes their home occupation at the same location. 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. ⋄ Less than 33% of the existing gross floor area of the residential unit will be devoted to the Home Occupation as the home is 2,592 sq. ft. and the area used by the business will be 238 sq. ft. 3) There shall be no display or storage of finished goods, raw materials, or inventory visible from the street or lot lines. ⋄ The home occupation is for a service and not selling a product and therefore no display or storage of finished goods, raw materials, or inventory will be visible from the street or lot lines. 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. ⋄ No goods or products produced off-site will be stored or sold on-site and there will be no retail sales. 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 goods or products produced off-site will be stored or sold on-site and there will be no retail sales.  6) No advertising on the premises is permitted other than a small non-electric sign not to exceed two (2) square feet in area ⋄ There will be no advertising on the premises nor signage of any kind. 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 the existing structure are planned or proposed. 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 new lights are proposed. 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 the existing structure are planned or proposed. 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 ⋄ Toxic, explosive, flammable, combustible, corrosive, radioactive, or similar hazardous materials were not proposed as part of the Major Home Occupation and will not be used, stored, or manufactured on the premises. 11) Off-street parking for the Home Occupation shall be provided as described in Section 10.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance. ⋄ At least five (5) off-street parking spots are provided as described in §10.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance, with two (2) spaces included on the residential premises and an additional three (3) spaces provided by indefinite lease agreement with St. Philip’s Episcopal Church directly across the street. Four (4) spots are reserved for the residence (two for each unit) and one (1) spot will be available for visitors to the home occupation. The only vehicles stored overnight on the property will be those for the personal use of residents of the property. No commercial vehicles will be used in conjunction with the home occupation. 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. ⋄ As off-street parking is provided and the amount of increased traffic is minimal, the traffic associated with the Home Occupation will not place an unreasonable burden on the City, roads, or surrounding neighborhood due to noise, safety, congestion, or other associated nuisances. 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. ⋄ No overnight parking is proposed except for the owner of the property. Discussion of Findings – Additional Standards Major Home Occupations – Section 10.45 1) No more than two (2) non-resident employees shall be employed to work at the subject property. ⋄ No non-resident employees will be employed to work at the subject property.  2) 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. ⋄ The hours of operation will be limited to Monday through Friday from 8am to 8pm, Saturday from 10am to 6pm, and Sunday from 12 noon to 6pm. 3) 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. ⋄ The increase of traffic created by the proposed Major Home Occupation is far fewer than two vehicles per hour. 4) 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. ⋄ No vehicles are proposed to be used or stored on the property in conjunction with the Major home Occupation. 5) 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 neighborhood and/or the residential use of the other units in a multi-family structure. ⋄ The premises and building that house the Major Home Occupation will be unchanged by the proposed use. 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. ⋄ The project conforms to the provisions of the ordinances of the City of Easthampton, the General Laws of Massachusetts, and the applicable rules and regulations of state and federal agencies. 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. ⋄ The proposed Major Home Occupation includes extremely limited changes to the use and structure of the subject property and as such does not negatively impact city amenities or abutting properties. 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. ⋄ The proposed Major Home Occupation includes extremely limited changes to the use and structure of the subject property and as such does not negatively impact roads and traffic in the area. d) Adequacy of the methods of disposal of sewage and refuse and the drainage of surface and subsurface water. ⋄ The proposed Major Home Occupation includes adequate means to dispose of on- site water and refuse.  e) Adequate means of protecting wetlands, watersheds, aquifers and well areas. ⋄ The proposed Major Home Occupation includes adequate means to protect wetlands, watersheds, aquifers and well areas. 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. ⋄ The proposed Major Home Occupation includes adequate means to protect the City’s infrastructure and resources. 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 ⋄ The proposed Major Home Occupation includes adequate provisions for off-street loading and unloading. Further, no unloading/loading or internal traffic are proposed. 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. ⋄ The existing residential structure integrates into the surrounding landscape and no changes are proposed which would render it visually distinct or abrasive. 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 removal of existing vegetation is proposed. j) The consistency of the development with respect to setback, area, placement of parking, architectural style and landscaping of the surrounding buildings and development. ⋄ The existing residential structure integrates into the surrounding landscape and no changes are proposed which would render it visually distinct or abrasive. 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 ⋄ The proposed Major Home Occupation includes adequate means to minimize erosion. 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. ⋄ The proposed Major Home Occupation includes adequate means to protect the City’s infrastructure and resources. Motion to approve the Special Permit for Major Home Occupation at 135 Main Street • Motion by: Linda Bush • Seconded: Anthony Karella • Further discussion: None. • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Jared Olinski ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ Approved by a vote of 6 in favor and 0 against with 0 members abstaining and 0 members absent 2. Chris Rogers, 105 Pleasant Street Chris Rogers - seeking a special permit under Section 12.7 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinances to operate a commercial establishment with uses Retail & Service #10: Restaurant and Bar and #40: Indoor Recreation. The property is located at 105 Pleasant Street (Map 136, Parcel 11) in the Neighborhood Business (NB) zoning district. Applicant Presentation / Board Q&A • Jeff Squire of Berkshire Design Group presented on behalf of the Applicant. During the presentation, the Applicant’s representative offered the following details salient to Board review: • The proposed hours would be Monday to Friday, 6pm to 11pm; Saturday 10am-9pm, and Sunday 11am-8pm. • The extremely constrained site, with 12,500 sq. ft. useable out of a total of 43,462 sq. ft., puts space at a premium and renders adequate parking for the proposed use very difficult. • The site is proposed to be used as a billiards hall with incidental food and drink service rather than a bar with pool tables and as such should have the lesser parking expectation and requirements of an indoor entertainment use in the opinion of the Applicant. • Three prospective seperate site drawings were presented - one with no parking in the front setback, 15 total parking spaces, and a smaller building size, another with parking set to the site east and a smaller building size, and the last with a similar sized building and parking spaces extending eastward from the building with no parking spaces in the front setback. • No off-site parking agreement was furnished to the Board. Board Discussion • The Board remained concerned about the issue of parking on the site, with Board members opining that the parking spaces were a. too small, b. too few, and c. potentially unuseable due to the location of the dumpster. Other members expressed that the parking in the front setback was not an issue for their approval of the project given the surrounding area's predominant pattern of parking in front yards up to the property line. The Board further remarked that the scale of the business could require spaces above the mandatory minimum to ensure adequate on-site parking during peak hours • The Board discussed the soil, shape, and topography of the site and opined that a variance might be advisable or necessary to allow for development on the property. Planner Jamie Webb commented that a variance would allow the Applicant to place parking in the front setback and change the size of individual parking stalls, but not change the requirement of parking spaces associated with the use. • The Board inquired about food service, beverages, and proposes operations on the site. Applicant Chris Rogers stated his intent to operate the site as a billiards hall with incidental and much-desired food/beverage service, rather than a restaurant or bar primarily, and indicated that customers would travel to the site to play billiards rather than to eat as a primary motivation. The Board discussed the use of the property at length and concluded that the use and associated parking requirements for the proposed development would be indoor entertainment rather than bar/restaurant. • Planner Curtis Wiemann outlined the variable numbers of parking spaces potentially required for the project, with the Applicant using the area of "unconcentrated assembly" interior to the  structure rather than the total gross square footage of the structure to inform the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use. The Board stated their contention that the gross square footage determined the required parking and as such a minimum of twenty-two on-site spaces would be required (with a total of seventeen depicted on site plans). Public Comments • William Bundy, owner of Eastworks at 115 Pleasant Street, reiterated concerns regarding the parking on the site and that customers would utilize un-associated parking at Eastworks across the street from the proposed indoor entertainment use. Further Board Discussion • The Board stated that amended site plans showing sufficient parking within the area formed by the front and side setbacks or a variance to allow parking in the front and side setbacks would be necessary from the Applicant was needed before members were comfortable voting to approve. The Board reiterated their contention that that the use and associated parking requirements for the proposed development would be indoor entertainment rather than bar/restaurant. John Atwater requested that the Applicant submit revised plans with amendments to address the issues communicated in regards to on-site parking, now with additional information regarding the Board's interpretation of the use, and proposed that the Board continue the hearing to allow the Applicant the opportunity to prepare new materials. Motion to continue to 6:00pm on January 27, 2020. • Motion by: Linda Bush • Seconded: Lindsie Alterkun • Further discussion: None. • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Jared Olinski ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ Continued to 6pm on January 27, 2020 by a vote of 6 in favor and 0 against. 3. John Losito, 63 Strong Street John Losito - seeking a special permit under Sec. 12.7 & 8.5 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinances to establish an Accessory Apartment at his single-family home at 63 Strong St (Map 173, Parcel 1) in the Residential-Rural B (R-40) zoning district. Applicant Presentation / Board Q&A ⬧ John Losito presented on his own behalf. During the presentation, the Applicant offered the following details salient to Board review: ⦁ The proposed accessory apartment would constitute an approximately 1,200 square foot accessory structure, a repurposed pre-existing barn building, on the Applicant's residential property at 63 Strong Street. The Applicant intends to rent this accessory apartment to short-term tenants.  ⦁ The property is otherwise conforming in regards to size and frontage, with multiple other accessory structures already on site, including an approximately 800 sq. ft. primary residence. ⦁ The property was the subject of a Cease and Desist order issued by the Easthampton Board of Health due to the operation of an underpermitted accessory apartment in the barn structure on premises. Board Discussion • The Board discussed and expressed concern about the size of the proposed accessory apartment given its size, while the controlling ordinance in the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance mandated that the structure be no more than 33% of the primary residential structure or 800 sq. ft. (whichever is less). • Some members of the Board stated their concerns that the application represented a more disruptive use than an accessory apartment and asked if music on property had been the subject of any complaints. The Applicant responded that the site had operated in its capacity as a space for musicians to stay and practice music without complaints for some time. The Applicant inquired if the underlying “residential business” zone would support the use, and the Board replied that the zone was residential with some businesses allowed. Members of the Board expressed that they would not vote to approve the application as presented given that the accessory music studio concept was incompatible with the surrounding residential zone. Public Comments • Ken Blanchard at 69 Strong Street stated that, as a neighbor, he had not had past issues with the operation of the site at 63 Strong Street including music and accessory lodging on the premises. Further Board discussion • The Applicant stated that most of the music made on site was the result of his personal band, which was both not making music on site any longer and not relevant to the accessory apartment use. • Planner Curtis Wiemann stated that the Applicant could reverse the application such that the 800 sq. ft. primary residence be the subject of the accessory apartment application and the 1,200 sq. ft. secondary residence be treated as the primary, but stated this would also create potential issues of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The Board did not agree as to whether this path was appropriate. Planner Jamie Webb stated that the 33% size restriction would also constrain the number of persons who could legally stay at the apartment given minimum habitable space per the building code, and further stated that the zone disallowed multi-family dwellings and a bed-and-breakfast use would require the proposed bed and breakfast to be located within a contiguous structure with the primary residence. • The Board restated their reservations regarding the use and size of the accessory apartment, and further stated that they were uncertain as to how switching the structure subject to the accessory apartment application would allow or disallow a decision with conditions intended to control the use on the site. • John Atwater requested that the Applicant submit revised plans with amendments to address the issue of scale between the principle residential structure and accessory apartment in order to conform with City ordinances and to potentially revise site plans to answer the expressed Concerns on the Board. Motion to continue to 6:15pm on January 27, 2020. • Motion by: Laura Bush  • Seconded: Tony Karella • Further discussion: • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Jared Olinski ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ Announcements • The next regular ZBA meeting is January 27, 2021 @ 6:00 PM • The submission deadline is January 20, 2021 @ noon. Motion to adjourn • Motion by: Jared Olinski • Seconded: Tony Karella • Further discussion: • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Jared Olinski ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ • The meeting was adjourned at 7:54pm by a vote of 6 in favor and 0 against.