Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF EASTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 50 Payson Avenue, Easthampton, MA 01027 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 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 6:06pm. 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. ❖ Meeting Minutes: 2/24/2021 ➢ Member Bush offered several corrections to the minutes from February 24, including correcting the date for the meeting, correcting the record regarding discussion of the use at 63 Strong Street to remove mention of “home occupation”, suggesting that the commentary of Board members be correctly attributed to the speaker rather than the Board as a monolithic body, and expanding discussion as well as contracting the included findings and conditions including in special permit decisions such as 10 West’s and 410 Main Street’s included in the 2/24/21 hearing. Given the number of proposed changes to the record, the Board did not vote to approve. Public Hearings (continued from 2/24/2021) 1. John Losito, 63 Strong Street (Continued from 2/24/21) 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. John Losito requested to withdraw the application for an accessory apartment at 63 Strong Street without prejudice as his goal to apply for approval under the local amendment to the accessory apartment zoning ordinance might require him to re-apply for a special permit in accordance with State law. Chair Atwater commented that this seemed appropriate. Public Comment ❖ The Board opened the floor to public comment. Hearing none, they moved to allow the Applicant to withdraw the application for an accessory apartment without prejudice. Motion to allow the Applicant to withdraw without prejudice: • Motion by: Linda Bush 1 of 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, March 24, 2021 • Seconded: Anthony Karella • Further discussion: • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ 2. Nicole Singer – 21 Lyman Street Nicole Singer – seeking a variance under Section 13.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance with regard to the front yard setback requirements for an accessory structure on a single-family residential property. Subject property is located at 21 Lyman Street (Map 105, Lot 2) in the Residential – Suburban A Zone (R-15) Applicant Presentation ❖ The Applicant Nicole Singer presented. Nicole Singer explained that her property at 21 Lyman Street, as a corner lot, required a 30’ setback from the two front lot lines for any accessory structure and a 10’ setback from the primary structure on the property. The Applicant shared an aerial-view site plan of the property which depicted the 30’ front yard setback line, 10’ building setback line, and existing vegetation and gardens, along with the shed at a proposed location to the eastern portion of the site located across the front setback line by approximately 6’. This location, the Applicant explained, would prevent the hardship of destroying existing vegetation and fencing on the premises and minimize the impacts of the shed’s delivery on the subject property and its neighbors. The location for the proposed shed also enjoys a natural buffer of existing vegetation that would serve to prevent negative impacts on neighboring properties. Board Q&A ❖ Member Lytwyn asked what the size of the shed would be, and Nicole Singer replied that the shed would be 10’x16’ and operate as greenhouse and storage for art supplies for the property. Member Bush opined that this application seemed very appropriate given her own experience with accessory structures on corner lots. Chair Atwater concurred and stated that the Applicant laid out how this was the only feasible location for the proposed shed. Public Comment / Board Discussion ❖ The Board opened the floor to public comment. Hearing none, they discussed the proposal briefly. Member Lytwyn stated that the location of the shed made sense and only included a minor violation of the front yard setback requirement. Chair Atwater closed the public hearing and read the following findings and conditions for the record: ➢ The variance is in respect to a particular parcel of land: 21 Lyman Street (Map 105, Lot 2). ➢ The parcel to which this variance applies has unique circumstances relating to the lot shape which impose impediments to its development unique to this property and not generally affecting the Residential – Suburban (R-15) zoning district. As a corner lot, 21 Lyman Street possesses two front yards and two side yards, with no rear yard for placement of accessory buildings. Further, the curvature of Lyman Street / the front yards’ lot lines creates a uniquely broad front yard setback on the parcel which 2 of 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, March 24, 2021 constrains development over a wider area on this parcel than on other properties and other corner lots in the R-15 zone. ➢ Literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial hardship by mandating applicant removal of extensive clearance of existing healthy vegetation in the form of shade trees, perennial planting, and vegetable garden in order to place the proposed structure. ➢ The setbacks promulgated in Section 6.7 and Table 6-1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance exist to protect viewshed lines and establish visual harmony between like uses within the zone from the public right of way. The subject property includes vegetative screening which would generate no detriment to the public good. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is upheld by the vegetative screening surrounding this proposed structure, thus preventing this variance from nullifying the intent of the zoning ordinance. ❖ Following the review of the proposed findings and conditions, Member Bush made a motion to approve the application for variance at 21 Lyman Street. Member Karella seconded. Motion to approve a variance at 21 Lyman Street: • 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 ✓ 3. 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 ❖ Chair Atwater began the hearing by reminding the Applicant of the submission deadline included in all ZBA agenda that requires all materials to be reviewed by the Board to be submitted one week in advance of a scheduled hearing and remarked that members of the Board including himself may not have had sufficient time to review. Member Bush commented that while she had reviewed the letter outlined traffic mitigation strategies from Berkshire Design Group, she was unsure whether they were practical. ❖ Jeff Squire of Berkshire Design Group presented on behalf of the Applicant. Jeff Squire apologized for the submittal of amended site plans less than a week before the hearing. The Applicant’s representative presented the amended plan set starting with a full floor plan, which he remarked showcased the majority of interior space in use as space for playing billiards. He remarked that in order to satisfy building code requirements for the structure, the footprint of the building increased to a total of 3,200 sq ft, less than the original proposal but more than the 3 of 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, March 24, 2021 reduced footprint discussed at the January 27 ZBA meeting. The Applicant’s representative detailed the site plan changes, including a reduction of the number of parking spaces provided to twenty total, but moving these spaces such that none were blocked by the on-site external waste storage. Additionally, the site plans included bike racks, a guard rail between the sidewalk and parking area, and sidewalk tie-in. Finally, the Applicant’s representative detailed the Trip Reduction Plan proposed for the site, which includes both the physical design aspects outlined in the plans as well as a shuttle service for overflow parking at Millside Park, reimbursement for staff and/or patrons to ride share or use the bus, and lockers on the site for employees arriving by bicycle. The Applicant Chris Rogers affirmed his willingness to commit to the measures outlined in the Trip Reduction Plan. Board Discussion ❖ Member Bush expressed her opinion that she would feel comfortable with the use “Indoor Entertainment” being used for calculating the number of parking spaces required for the building so long as the business did not begin to add on diverse other uses that would strain on- site parking, including on-site live entertainment. Chris Rogers stated that the idea of live entertainment, discussed in the submittals for this meeting, was just a concept being considered rather than a fundamental aspect of the business plan. Member Lytwyn asked about the tables on the exterior deck. Chris Rogers stated that these were not dining tables in that visitors wouldn’t be able to get a reservation for a table, and the facility did not intend to function as a restaurant. The Board briefly discussed the occupancy of the building per State Building Code. ❖ Member Alterkun asked what specific incentives would be offered to employees to encourage ridesharing and carpooling and how many employees would be on site. The Applicant replied that he was still considering options beyond bus reimbursement, but was willing to add additional incentives. The Applicant also estimated that one to four employees would be required on site. Member Alterkun asked about the use of parking at Millside Park and how the proposed shuttle service would operate. Chair Atwater also cast concerns upon the feasibility of bus service for employees to the site, as bus service through Easthampton terminated before 7:30pm most days. The Board briefly discussed the off-site parking proposal and determined that the Applicant should discuss with the Easthampton Parks Department to coordinate events and ensure adequate off-site parking. ❖ 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. Public Comment ❖ Will Bundy from Eastworks spoke in opposition to the project and detailed his concern that the Board did not establish a firm occupancy number for the structure, without which he felt the business would have multiple uses (including use of the deck), imposing parking strain on the surrounding area. He reiterated his fundamental view that the site lacked adequate parking, and that the Trip Reduction Plan did not sufficiently address that deficiency. He concluded by requesting the Board to require more than the twenty spaces provided by the Applicant. Motion to continue to 6:00pm on April 28, 2021 • Motion by: Linda Bush • Seconded: Lindsie Alterkun • Further discussion: None. • Roll Call Vote: In favor Opposed Abstained Absent 4 of 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, March 24, 2021 John Atwater ✓ Linda Bush ✓ Lindsie Alterkun ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ Steven Lytwyn ✓ Announcements & Discussion of the Board • The next regular ZBA meeting is April 28, 2021 @ 6:00 PM • The submission deadline is April 21, 2021 @ noon. • Member Bush inquired as to how they could express their views on proposed ordinances, specifically the proposed accessory apartment ordinance under review by the Easthampton City Council’s Ordinance Committee. Planner Webb explained the City Council process and detailed the meeting schedule for the Board’s use. Member Alterkun asked if other projects had seen a reduction in their minimum parking using a Trip Reduction Plan like the one proposed by 105 Pleasant Street per Section 10.524 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinances. Planner Webb commented that in her experience these plans were unnecessary for proposed new-build projects to meet the minimum parking requirements, and that most projects sought to build in overflow parking more often than minimize parking. The Board also briefly raised the question of liability in the case of an accident with a patron from 105 Pleasant parked at Millside Park, but concluded that these subjects would be appropriate for the next hearing on the subject if they desired to discuss. Motion to adjourn • Motion by: Anthony Karella • Seconded: Steven Lytwyn • 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 7:19pm by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against. 5 of 5