Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF EASTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 50 Payson Avenue, Easthampton, MA 01027 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 24, 2021 Board ✓ John Atwater * ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Steven Lytwyn ~ Members: ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Anthony Karella * 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 6:05pm. Administrative Items • 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 1/26/2021) 1. John Losito, 63 Strong Street (Continued from 1/26/21) 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 ❖ The Applicant John Losito presented on his own behalf. The Applicant stated that the Ordinance Committee of the Easthampton City Council was still deliberating how they wished to amend the Accessory Apartment ordinances for the City. In light of the foregoing, he requested a continuance to the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (3/24/2021). Additionally, the Applicant inquired as to outstanding issues with the application, the scale disparity between the main structure and accessory apartment notwithstanding. Board Discussion ❖ The Board discussed the proposal. Member Bush reiterating concerns about the nature of the proposed accessory apartment with specific regard to its occupancy being greater than the proposed occupancy of standard accessory apartments and its potential use as a stage (for musical performance). The Applicant inquired about what Member Bush’s specific concerns were regarding occupancy, and Member Bush expressed concern regarding negative impact upon abutters, including noise and parking impacts. Chair Atwater expressed his view that, given the size of the proposed accessory apartment and the issues discussed in this and previous hearings, the Applicant should request to withdraw without prejudice in order to re-apply under prospective new accessory apartment ordinances. The Applicant demurred, citing the cost of public advertisement. Public Comment 1 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 24, 2021 ❖ The Board opened the floor to public comment. Hearing none, they moved directly to continue the hearing to allow the Applicant the opportunity to participate in and potentially benefit from ongoing City Council deliberations which could likely impact the standards for Accessory Apartments in Easthampton. Motion to continue to 6:00pm on March 24, 2021. • Motion by: Linda Bush • Seconded: Anthony Karella • Further discussion: • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ 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. Due to delays from the site architects, the requested updated plans showing the interior of the proposed site at 105 Pleasant and the other elements discussed at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on January 27, 2021 were not yet available. In light of this, the Applicant requested a continuance to March 24, 2021 in order to provide the updated plans for review by the Zoning Board. Board Discussion & Public Comment ❖ With no new information available in regards to the proposal, the Board omitted further discussion and public comment. The Board agreed that the hearing should be continued to March 24, 2021 in order to provide time for the Applicant to provide previously-discussed plan elements. Motion to continue to 6:00pm on March 24, 2021 • Motion by: Anthony Karella • Seconded: Linda Bush • Further discussion: None. • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ 2 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3. Brandon O’Donnell and Shira Simon, 10 West Street Brandon O’Donnell - seeking a special permit under Sections 12.7 & 7.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinances to construct an in-ground pool in the Flood Plain Overlay District. The property is located at 10 West Street (Map 137, Parcel 7) in the Residential – Rural C (R-35) zoning district and the Flood Plain Overlay District. Applicant Presentation / Board Q&A ❖ The Applicant Brandon O’Donnell presented on behalf of himself and his wife Shira Simon. The Applicant described the subject parcel along the northern bank of the Manhan River and the location of the pool. Planning staff elaborated on the purpose and authority for this public hearing. The south-western portion of the proposed pool structure and associated concrete apron fall within the Floodplain Overlay District / Manhan River Protection district, requiring it to obtain a special permit from the ZBA in order to proceed. Otherwise, the proposed pool conformed to all dimensional regulations for the R-35 zone and those applicable for accessory structures. Board Discussion ❖ Chair Atwater inquired as to input from the Conservation Commission, and read for the record a letter from the Conservation Agent, which stated that while not subject the provisions of 310 CMR / the Wetland Protections Act, the project could prevent negative impacts on the watershed of the Manhan River through storing any pool chemicals outside of the area of the Flood Plain Overlay District, utilizing best practices to prevent sedimentation during construction, and draining the pool as needed outside of the area of the Flood Plain Overlay district. The Conservation Agent further recommended these as conditions of any Decision to approve the project. The Board discussed and Member Bush asked the Applicant if these conditions could be met, and the Applicant stated that they could. Member Bush amended the proposed condition regarding drainage to prevent drainage and runoff into the Manhan River but to allow drainage into the soil as needed. The Board concluded discussions of the proposal and found that it provided adequate information to reach a decision as presented and waived the requirements for a professional site plan established in Section 12.7.5.1, traffic flow analysis per Section 12.7.5.1(n), and topography per 12.7.5.1(k). Public Comment ❖ The Board opened the floor to public comment. Hearing none, they moved to close the public hearing and review the required findings and proposed conditions for the project. Findings In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A and the special permit requirements for the Flood Plain and Manhan River Protection District, Section 7.812 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance, the Board found: (required findings provided in italics) Four (4) copies of a plan determining that the construction will be in conformance with the State Building Code (specifically those sections dealing with construction in floodplains) and will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, or conflict with existing local laws. The ZBA shall provide a copy of the plan to the Planning Board, the Board of Health, Conservation Commission and shall be required to wait twenty-one (21) days for a recommendation from each board. After twenty-one (21) days the ZBA may render its decision. – The Board found that the Applicant provided a site plan depicting that the construction and operation of the proposed in-ground pool in the Flood Plain Overlay 3 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 24, 2021 district will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, or conflict with existing local laws. Within Zones A 1-30, where base flood elevation is not provided on the FIRM, the applicant shall obtain any existing base flood elevation data. These data will be reviewed by the Building Inspector for their reasonable utilization toward meeting the elevation or floodproofing requirements, as appropriate, of the State Building Code. – The Board found that a base flood elevation of 137’ was provided and will be utilized towards meeting floodproofing requirements. No encroachments (including fill, new construction, substantial improvements to existing structures, or other development) shall be allowed unless it is demonstrated by the applicant that the proposed development, as a result of compensating actions, will not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of a 100- year flood in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s regulations for the National Flood Insurance Program. – The Board found that the proposed development will not result in increased flood levels during the occurrence of a 100-year flood. The proposed use shall comply in all respects with the provisions of the underlying district, and the Zoning Board of Appeals may require such additional requirements and conditions as it finds necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public or the occupants of the proposed use, or of the floodplain district. – The Board found that the proposed construction conforms with all provisions of the underlying R-35 zone, and imposes additional conditions under Conditions below to protect the public, Applicant, and Flood Plain District. A determination that the proposed use is in compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act, Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40. – Per commentary from the Conservation Agent, the project is not subject to the provisions of the Wetland Protection Act. The Board found that conditions listed under Conditions below served to ensure the project’s operation in compliance with the intended goals of the Wetlands Protection Act. In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A and the special permit criteria for approval, Section 12.79 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance, the Board found that the proposed use: • 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; • Does not negatively impact city amenities, abutting properties, wetlands, watersheds, aquifers and well areas, surface or groundwater, important natural, scenic or historic features, or city resources including water, sewage, and fire protection systems; and minimizes erosion, sedimentation, run-off, changes in water levels, and the potential for flooding as the use takes place in existing structures and no exterior changes to the site or building are proposed; • Does not measurably increase the amount of traffic or create vehicular or pedestrian safety issues; and adequately provides for the off-street parking, loading, and unloading of vehicles; • Is integrated into the development of the existing landscape; does not remove existing vegetation; and is consistent with respect to setback, area, placement of parking, architectural style, and landscaping of the surrounding buildings and development; • Does not create any additional nuisance by reason of unacceptable levels of air or water pollution, excessive noise, or visually flagrant structures. Conditions 1. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining any permits, licenses, etc. from other regulatory bodies as appropriate. Any changes to the site plan for the proposed accessory pool as approved must be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and approval. 2. The Applicant must not store chemicals associated with pool maintenance within the Flood Plain / Manhan River Protection Overlay Districts. 4 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3. The Applicant must utilize best practices during construction to prevent runoff or sedimentation in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act. 4. The Applicant must not discharge water from the pool into Manhan River or allow pool water to run off into the river during draining or normal operation. Motion to close the public hearing and approve the proposed Special Permit application: • Motion by: Linda Bush • Seconded: Anthony Karella • Further discussion: • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ 4. Kirsten Losert, 410 Main Street Kirstin Losert – seeking a special permit under Section 12.7 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance and a Stormwater Management Permit under Article VII of the Easthampton City Ordinances to expand an existing animal hospital. The property is located at 410 Main Street (Map 154, Parcel 8) in the Industrial (I) zoning district. Applicant Presentation / Board Q&A ❖ After an introduction by the Applicant Dr. Kirstin Losert, Civil Engineer Bucky Sparkle presented on behalf of the project. The Applicant proposes to construct a 3,317 square foot, 1.5 story structure and redesign site access, landscaping, signage, parking, lighting, utilities, and drainage in order to accommodate increased business to the site. During construction, the existing animal hospital structure will remain operational and will be demolished upon completion of the new 3,317 square foot structure. The two existing curb cuts will remain but be widened to 16’ diameter to accommodate two lanes of traffic. The proposal additionally includes the installation of additional impervious surface to support a total of 27 parking spaces including two handicapped-accessible spaces located in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Engineer Sparkle additionally described the project’s hearing with the Conservation Commission and addressed the Commission’s outstanding inquiries regarding site plantings and DPW approval of the proposed riprap infiltration system within the Wemelco Way right-of-way. Planning staff offered a formal comment from City Engineer Dan Murphy stating the DPW’s approval of the proposed infiltration system so long as it did not disturb existing paving on Wemelco Way, to which Engineer Sparkle replied that it did not. Finally, Engineer Bucky Sparkle showcased architectural elevations depicting design and signage for the site. Board Discussion ❖ The Board discussed the proposal. Member Lytwyn asked whether the roof pitches were designed to accommodate heavy snowfall. Engineer Bucky Sparkle replied that building roof pitches were designed with the New England winter in mind. Member Bush inquired whether the site landscaping provided sufficient exterior space for visiting animals to relieve themselves or recreate before being brought inside. Engineer Bucky Sparkle replied that the site will possess 5 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 24, 2021 ample space in front of the building despite the steady downward slope of the rear of the property. Public Comment ❖ The Board opened the hearing to public comment; hearing none, the Board concluded discussions including commentary that demonstrated their belief that the proposed animal hospital met the required findings established in Section 12.79 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance (listed below). Findings In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A and the special permit criteria for approval, Section 12.79 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance, the Board found that the proposed use: (required findings provided in italics) ❖ 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; The Board found that the proposed use, as a reconstruction of an existing use on the parcel that would serve to expand the original structure and bring the parcel into compliance with the dimensional regulations of the Industrial (I) zone, conforms to the best of available information with all relevant regulations and ordinances. ❖ Does not negatively impact city amenities, abutting properties, wetlands, watersheds, aquifers and well areas, surface or groundwater, important natural, scenic or historic features, or city resources including water, sewage, and fire protection systems; and minimizes erosion, sedimentation, run-off, changes in water levels, and the potential for flooding as the use takes place in existing structures and no exterior changes to the site or building are proposed; The Board found that the proposed use, as a reconstruction of an existing use without abutter commentary in opposition, and with apparent consideration taken to create a structure and lot that would impose minimal impacts upon City amenities or abutters, does not create negative impacts on the above-mentioned subjects. ❖ Does not measurably increase the amount of traffic or create vehicular or pedestrian safety issues; and adequately provides for the off-street parking, loading, and unloading of vehicles; The Board found that the proposed site redesign does not increase traffic and includes sufficient on-site parking as well as a safe and navigable internal circulation plan for pedestrian and vehicle visitors, especially in light of its adoption of Fire Department recommendations to ensure adequate Fire apparatus access to the site. ❖ Is integrated into the development of the existing landscape; does not remove existing vegetation; and is consistent with respect to setback, area, placement of parking, architectural style, and landscaping of the surrounding buildings and development; The Board found that the design of the proposed animal hospital structure was appropriate with regard to size, scale, and integration with the existing landscape and built environment. ❖ Does not create any additional nuisance by reason of unacceptable levels of air or water pollution, excessive noise, or visually flagrant structures. The Board found no evidence that the proposed use, which has already been in operation on the site, would generate additional nuisance. Conditions 6 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, February 24, 2021 After reviewing the information submitted by the Applicant, hearing from and questioning the Applicant at the hearing, and in light of the proceeding, the Board therefore decided to grant the special permit with the following terms and conditions: ❖ The Applicant is responsible for obtaining any permits, licenses, etc. from other regulatory bodies as appropriate. Any changes to the site plan for the proposed site plan as approved must be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and approval. Motion to close the public hearing and approve the proposed Special Permit application: • Motion by: Linda Bush • Seconded: Anthony Karella • Further discussion: • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ Motion to adjourn • Motion by: Anthony Karella • Seconded: Linda Bush • Further discussion: • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ • The meeting was adjourned at 7:08pm by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against. 7 of 7