Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF EASTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 50 Payson Avenue, Easthampton, MA 01027 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 26, 2023 Board John ✓ Lisa Jaffe ✓ Matthew Robert Ferris Members: Atwater Waugh ✓ (associate (chair) member) ✓ Steven ✓ Anthony ✓ Tim Lytwyn Karella Garaceau (Vice- (associate Chair member acting as acting as Chair) full member) City officials: Eli Bloch, Assistant Planner; Other attendees: Blake Underhill (remote), Naresh Patel, Terry Reynolds Meeting commenced at 6:00pm. Administrative Items  Correspondence/Requests for comment from other boards, committees, officials, etc.  New Associate Member Robert Ferris was introduced to the Board.  Public Comments / Public Speak   Meeting Minutes: Public Hearings  1. Blake Underhill - seeking a variance to the lot size requirements and special permit to reconstruct a nonresidential structure on a pre-existing nonconforming lot in accordance with sections 11.13 and 13.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance. Subject property is located at 2 East St (parcel ID 110-32) and zoned Highway Business (HB). Blake Underhill Appeared Remotely to speak on behalf of the application. He explained the following: • His business provided safety training for industrial work sites. • The proposed structure would be very similar in footprint to the existing structure, and would meet all setbacks. • The proposed building would be barn like and store two vehicles with a small office on the second floor. • The existing structure is in very poor condition and needs to be demolished. Member Lytwyn asked if Industrial Safety Rescue was on stand-by 24 hours a day to respond to emergencies. Blake Underhill explain that Industrial Safety Rescue was only open 9-5 and was not an emergency response business and did not have sirens. 1 of 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Member Karella asked about drainage on the site. Blake Underhill stated that the Planning Board included a condition about stormwater retention in their special permit. Public Speak: Beverly Wodicka, 4 Symanksi Avenue – Spoke in favor of the project, since it would improve a property that has been in poor condition for many years. Acting Chair Karella read through draft findings that had been prepared by the Planning Department and the Board assented to said findings. Motion to Approve the Special Permit Member Lytyn made a motion to approve the special permit. Member Jaffe seconded. All five members of the Board voted in favor and the special permit passed. In favor Opposed Absent John Atwater ✓ Matt Waugh ✓ Lisa Jaffe ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ (Acting Chair) Steven Lytwyn ✓ Tim Garaceau (Acting ✓ as full member) Robert Ferris (associate member)  2. Easthampton Mahadev LLC - seeking a special permit and/or a variance to change the use of a pre-existing non-conforming non-residential structure in accordance with sections 11.13 and 13.1 of the Easthampton Zoning Ordinance. The structure is nonconforming due to insufficient front-yard setbacks. The proposal is to change the second floor from one residential unit into four units. Subject property is located at 334 Main St (parcel ID 155-77) and zoned Neighborhood Business (NB). Terry Reynolds presented the application. He explained: • The property is mixed with a convenience store downstairs, and one large upstairs apartment that they would like to convert to four units. • It is a tight site that does not have formal parking for the store and does not have room for formal parking in front of the building. • The applicant donated land to the City for a sidewalk, and that made more formal parking impossible. • The back area is more open and has space for tenant parking. • The only changes to the building would be interior and all apartments would be one bedroom. Naresh Patel explained: • The upstairs apartment is almost 3,000 square feet and is not economical. • The retail area lost 2-3 parking spaces due to donating land to the City for a sidewalk expansion. 2 of 5 Zoning Board of Appeals The Board discussed parking. The applicant stated that the parking spaces would be designated for an individual tenant, and that there would be one visitor parking space. Naresh Patel also stated that visitors could park in front of the store as well. Assistant Planner Bloch reminded the Board that they could not require more parking than is mandated in the Zoning Ordinance. Public Speak Roslyn F. Helefun, 64 South Street – Spoke on behalf of the Condo Association at 64 South Street. She stated the Condo Association was against the project due to increased traffic in the area and unsafe conditions at the intersection of South and Main Street, danger to students walking to new Mountainview School, illegal parking from variety store customers on South Street, and snow removal from the property. She added that a lot of her concerns were based on existing conditions at the store and not necessarily new apartments. Naresh Patel stated that they have never received a complaint about snow removal at that property and that he personally checks on the property. Harik Patel (no relation to the applicant), 355 Main Street – Stated that having one parking spot for an apartment is adequate, and that the applicant should not have to add more. The Board discussed the possibility of designating spots for tenants at a gas station across the street that is owned by the applicant. The applicant expressed support for the idea, but ultimately the board decided against adding a condition for this. Member Lytwyn asked about why there was no organized parking for the retail space. Assistant Planner Bloch stated that the addition of new apartments did not affect the retail parking and thus was not in the Boards jurisdiction. Terry Reynolds stated that he has attempted to design striped parking but it was impossible on the site. Member Lytwtn expressed concern that the lack of parking for the retail use could cause people to park in tenant spaces. The Board discussed how many more people could be expected to live in the space and how many cars they would have. Member Jaffe stated that there could be 2 or 3 people in a one-bedroom apartment and that it would not all be single people. Acting Chair Karella countered that a single apartment could be a family of six with four teenagers who all have their own cars, and they could not assume a large increase in the number of people living there. Member Jaffe asked how long construction would take. Naresh Patel responded that it would take 3-4 months and all be staged inside. Member Garceau asked about snow removal. Naresh Patel stated that if there was more than 4-5” snow then they would remove snow from the property and ship it off. Member Garceau also asked if there was access to trip generation estimates. Assistant Planner Eli Bloch stated that he did not have numbers for this project but that residential uses added very few trips compared to retail uses. Terry Reynolds added that residential uses add insignificant traffic to surrounding streets. Member Waugh stated that that the Board should not be dissuaded by traffic concerns, and that many places have a much higher density of population. He also stated that if a tenant needs more parking then is provided that is an issue for them to solve, and that the Board cannot consider contingencies that go beyond what zoning requires. Member Garceau stated that the increase in traffic was not insignificant, and that the Board had a responsibility to not worsen the conditions of traffic and parking in the area. Member Garceau also stated that the retail use had far less parking than is required. 3 of 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Member Waugh made a motion to approve the special permit with the condition that the applicant receive a special permit from the Planning Board, Acting Chair Karella seconded the motion. Acting Chair Karella read through the draft findings prepared by Assistant Planner Bloch. The Board continued to deliberate. Member Garceau stated that he planned to vote against the motion as it would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, and disagreed with the notion that the front of the site was not in the scope of the special permit. Member Jaffe stated that she also planned to vote no, due to section 12.79 C., and 12.79J and a detrimental effect on traffic at the intersection. Assistant Planner Bloch reminded the board that two no votes would amount to a denial of the permit, and that the applicant should have the opportunity to withdraw their application. Assistant Planner Bloch reminded the Board that the finding for section 11.13 is if the change is “substantially more detrimental” not “more detrimental”, he stated that the increase in traffic would be very minimal. He also stated that in his opinion this could leave the board vulnerable to an appeal by the applicant. Associate Member Rob Ferris added that the word “substantially” was an important part of this finding and should not be ignored. Member Waugh argued that the increase in traffic may be slightly more detrimental to traffic but certainly not substantially more. Member Jaffe added that the Condo Board submitted a letter stating that it would be substantially more detrimental. Naresh Patel stated that he did not understand why the Board would deny a small project like this when much larger projects are approved in busier areas. The Board deliberated about parking and how many more cars would realistically park there compared to existing conditions. The Board also discussed if they could realistically characterize the additional parking requirements as “substantially more detrimental” and if a ruling against the application would be vulnerable to an appeal. Member Garceau asked the Board to look at all the findings of the 12.79 and not just 11.13. The Board discussed the issue of customers of the store parking illegally, stating that it was out of their jurisdiction for this application but encouraged the applicant to make an effort to reduce problems on the street. Naresh Patel stated that he will go through any effort to make sure that abutters concerns are accommodated and shared his cell phone number with a concerned abutter. Member Jaffe stated that her concerns were not with the findings for section 11.13, but solely with 12.79 C, and J. She requested that the language of the findings be changed to reflect that traffic and safety impacts will be examined by the Planning Board. The Board discussed what would be considered by the Planning Board. Member Garceau stated that it was disturbing that the Board abdicated their duties to the Planning Board. The Board agreed that the language of the findings would be changed. Assistant Planner Bloch stated that parking and traffic would be looked at, but he could not say if the Planning Board will look at parking for the retail use. He added that any Board members were welcome to write a letter to the Planning Board with concerns or attend their meeting. The Board voted four (4) in favor and one (1) against on the motion to approve the special permit, and the special permit passed. 4 of 5 Zoning Board of Appeals In favor Opposed Absent John Atwater ✓ Matt Waugh ✓ Lisa Jaffe ✓ Anthony Karella ✓ (Acting Chair) Steven Lytwyn ✓ Tim Garaceau (Acting ✓ as full member) Robert Ferris (associate member) Announcements & Discussion of the Board Member Garceau also asked that applications include more information. Assistant Planner Bloch explained that in this case it was his fault as there had been information submitted to the Planning Board but not formally submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals that he had not passed on to Board Members. The Board discussed how to improve their meeting process, and stated that they would like to utilize a straw poll the next time that there was a contentious meeting. Member Jaffe made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Member Waugh seconded, all voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM Next meeting May 24, 2023 5 of 5