Loading...
ZBAPermitApplication_Colvest Northampton, LLCPermit Application Todav's Date_ 04/26/2010 Owner Applicant Colvest/Northampton, LLC Colvest/Northampton, LLC 360 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 208 360 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 208 Windsor, Connecticut 06905 Windsor, Connecticut 06905 860 - 688 -3667 plapointe @thecolvestgroup.com City of Northampton department: No Work Location Information How many lots involved in the project: 1 Map / Block Lots of all lots in project: 24B 038 Deed Book of all lots in project: 4607 294 Project work address: 327 King Street City/ State/ Zip: Northampton 01060 Zoning District: HB Application for following Permit Types ❑ Planning .Bd. Special Permit w/ Site Plan ❑ Planning Bd. Special Permit w/ MAJOR Site Plan NO Special Permit ❑ Planning Bd. Special Permit w/ Site Plan for flag lots ❑ Planning Bd. Site Plan (NO Special Permit) ❑ Planning Bd. Major Site Plan Approval (No Special Permit), including 40R projects ❑ Subdivision Preliminary ❑ Subdivision Definitive with no Preliminary Approved ❑ Zoning Board Special Permit ❑ Appeal of Building Commissioner- Zoning ❑ Variance ❑ Historic District (Elm St) Determination of Appropriateness ❑ Wetlands Notice of Intent IF state wetlands ❑ Wetlands Request for Determination OR Resource Delineation ❑ Wetlands Certificate of Compliance reauest ❑ Approval Not Required Plans ❑ Subdivision Definitive with Preliminary Approved ❑ Subdivision Definitive Amendment Zoning Board Finding ❑ Comprehensive Permit (40B) ❑ Demolition (Demolition Delav) ❑ Central Business Architecture ❑ Wetlands Notice of Intent IF ONLY local wetlands ❑ Wetlands Amendment or extension 210 Main St., Rm. 11, City Hall, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 587 -1262 Existing Use Retail/Personal Services Planned Use See Attached Detailed Project Information Site Plan Description: See Attached Files Uploaded: By typing my name in the signature box, I certify that all the information above is accurate to the best of my knowledge, I am the property owner or have permission from the property owner to apply for this permit. I also grant permission to the City of Northampton to inspect the proposed work Signature: Mark A. Tanner Attorney for Applicant Date Signed: 04/26/2010 210 Main St., Rm. 11, City Hall, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 587 -1262 Fee Information Zoning Board Finding - $200 $200 Total Fee Amount: $200.00 Bacon_­- i son.__. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Zoning Board of Appeals C/O Planning Department 220 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 ( 1 NORTHAMPTON AMHERST April 26, 2010 Re: Application for a Finding - 327 King Street "Hill and Dale Mall" Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: Please accept this submission in support of Colvest/Northampton, LLC's ( "Applicant ") Application for a Finding(s) pursuant to Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Northampton, Massachusetts as it relates to 327 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts commonly know as the Hill and Dale Mall ( "Property "). The Property is located in the Highway Business (HB) Zoning District on King Street in Northampton, Massachusetts. This Property currently contains three principal structures. These structures include (1) an existing structure currently utilized by Firestone for the retail sale of tires and mechanical services, (2) a cell phone tower, and (3) an existing principal structure consisting of approximately 63,000.00 square feet located at the rear of the Property ( "Structure ")(Collectively "Property" or "Site "). It is the Applicant's desire to make repairs and improvements to the facade of the Structure and other changes to the Site in order to make it available for continued Retail and Personal Service Use. Prior to this filing, the Applicant requested a Zoning Permit from the Building Inspector for the City of Northampton, Massachusetts pursuant to Section 10.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. In his decision on the Applicant's request for a Zoning Permit, the Building Inspector found that the .Property and the Use of the Structure for Personal /Retail Service Use each to be pre- existing and non - conforming ( See Attached Decision As a result of the Building Inspector's Decision, Section 9.2 of the Zoning Ordinance mandates that ' All references to the Zoning Ordinance are to Chapter 350 of the Northampton City Code. 2 Retail and Personal Service Use is defined in § 2.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 § 9 of the Zoning Ordinance, promulgated in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws 40A § 6 11, allows the continued use of pre- existing non - conforming structures as of right. This protection extends to those non- conforming structures that remained substantially unchanged. As such, to the extent the Zoning Ordinance requires some level of permitting to continue to use a non - conforming structure such provisions conflict with § 9.0 of the Zoning Ordinance and Mass. Gen. Laws 40A § 6 11; See also Bartlett v. Board of Appeals of Lakeville, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 664, 670 (1987)(city or town cannot adopt a zoning ordinance which conflicts with pertinent enabling legislation of general application.) SPRINGFIELD WESTFIELD Bacon Wilson, P.C.\ Morse & Sacks 31 Trumbull Road Tel 413.584.1287 - - - - -- - - -- - -- --Attorneys at- Law- - - - - -- -- — - -- Northampton -MA 01060-- - - - - -- Fax - 413,584,0453 - - -- [changes] to the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to structures or uses lawfully in existence or lawfully begun ... prior to the change in zoning which made them non- conforming." In order to make changes to a "grandfathered" use or structure, and as directed by the Building Inspector in his Decision, the Applicant requests a Finding from this Board pursuant to Section 9.3 of the Zoning Ordinance that the proposed scope of work to the Structure /Site, or any change in Use of the Structure /Site is not 'substantially more detrimental than the existing conditions at the Structure /Site. Scope of Proposed Work The Applicant proposes to perform the following work on the exterior of the Structure and to the Site: 1) Remove the wood and glass restaurant addition protruding from the front of the building. This minor change will enable the applicant to create a uniform fagade with a continuous pedestrian walkway, new storefront type entries and an unbroken canopy across the front of the building (See Attached Plans). 2) Update the building's street front fagade with a new brick veneer, new storefronts and windows, and a new sidewalk, canopy and sign band (See Attached Plans). 3) ' Replace the deteriorated metal wall panels on the Structure with new masonry exterior walls using the existing steel structure. The masonry sidewalls on the front building will also be cleaned, pointed and repainted to match the Structure (See Attached Plans). 4) Repair, overlay and re- stripe the parking area in a layout that will accommodate the new driveway location and a proposed cross access with adjacent properties while providing a safe, functional parking area for both vehicles and pedestrians (See Attached Plans). 5) Proposed work to the Structure also includes roof repairs, replacement of HVAC systems, restoration of the building fire sprinkler system, and interior build out. Additionally, electrical service, sanitary sewer and water service lines may also be upgraded if existing services are determined to be antiquated or inadequate. 6) The Applicant previously received Site Plan Review from the Planning Board to relocate the existing curb cut to the North. To the extent additional relief is required from this Board by a way of a Finding on the relocation of the curb cut, the Applicant seeks to relocate and signalize the site driveway so as to position it between the existing King Street traffic signals and to align with the driveway serving the properties on the opposite side of King Street (See Attached Plans). Bacon Wilson, P.C. \ Morse & Sacks - -. Attorneys at - - - - -- - - - - - -- — - - - -- Alteration of Pre - Existing Non - Conforming Uses /Structures A pre- existing non - conforming structure or use such as the Structure /Site at issue here may be changed, extended or altered under § 9.3(1)(G) of the Zoning Ordinance with a finding from the Zoning Board of Appeals. See also Rockwood v. Snow Inn Corporation, 409 Mass. 361, 566 N.E.2d 608 (1991). A finding.in turn requires that the ZBA determine that a change or extension will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non - conforming nature of the structure or use. See § 9.2. Here, the Applicant proposes to make limited changes to the fagade of the Structure, and conduct the limited scope of work detailed above. These changes do not make the Structure or Site more non - conforming and but for the non - conforming set back already in existence, the proposed changes substantially comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Given the commercial nature of the Highway Business Zoning District, and the uses of properties directly abutting the Property (manufacturing /cement plant /retail) fagade and other minor changes to make the building more attractive to Retail and Personal Service Use tenants is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing Structure. Thank you for your attention to this Zoning Application. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Colvest/Northampton, LLC By Mark Tanner Its Attorney Bacon Wilson, P.C. \ Morse & Sacks ATTACHMENT A Office of the Building Commissioner Attn: Inspector Anthony Patillo Pulaski Municipal Building 212 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Zoning Permit/Reuse of the Structure known as the Hill and Dale Mall Dear Inspector Patillo: Please accept this submission as Colvest/Northampton, LLC's ( "Applicant ") application for a Zoning Permit as it relates to the principal structure located at the rear of 327 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts commonly know as The Hill and Dale Mall ( "Property ")' The Property is located in the Highway Business Zoning District on King Street in Northampton, Massachusetts. This Property currently contains three principal structures. These structures include (1) an existing structure currently utilized by Firestone for the retail sale of tires and mechanical services (2) a cell phone tower and (3). an existing principal structure consisting of approximately 63,000.00 square feet located at the rear of the Property ( "Structure "). It is the Applicant's desire to make repairs and improvements to the fagade of the Structure in order to make it available for continued use as Retail and Personal Services space ". In recent years, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Northampton ( "Zoning Ordinance ") has undergone substantial changes to § § 5.2, 6.2, 10.15 and 11 "' relating to Retail and Personal Service Uses in the Highway Business District. Given these changes, the Applicant desires to affirm the pre - existing non - conforming status of (1) the Structure and (2) the use of the Structure prior to applying for a building or other permit. X. Status of the Structure Section 6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that for Retail and Personal Service Uses above 10,000 square feet, the maximum setback is 55 feet within which no more than one row of parking may be created. Due to its distance from its frontage on King Street (in excess of 55 feet) the location of its parking (in excess of one row in front of the structure) and its size, 63,000.00 + / -, the Structure does not comply with Section 6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. As such, the Structure could not be built in its current configuration without a variance. Here, the records kept by your office attest, the Structure existed prior to the changes to § 6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which rendered it non - conforming. The Structure is protected as a pre - existing non - conforming structure. Section 9.2` of the Zoning Ordinance states that the "Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to structures or uses lawfully in existence or lawfully begun ... prior to the change in zoning which made them non - conforming." Sections 9.2 and § 2.0 of the Zoning Ordinance incorporate c. 40A § 6 of the General Laws into our Zoning Ordinance and provide "grandfathered" status for the Structure as it exists today. Under certain circumstances not present here, pre - existing non - conforming structures may lose their "grandfathered" status. Section 9.2 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that subsequent changes in the Zoning Ordinance, would apply to the Structure if the Applicant were to undertake a reconstruction, extension or structural change to the Structure Scope of Proposed Work Here, the scope of the Applicant's repairs and rehabilitation to the Structure include renovating the Structure's fagade with the addition of a brick or masonry veneer, new store front entries and the replacement store front windows. The projecting solarium- type restaurant space will also be removed and the canopy overhang made uniform across the front of the Structure. Facade improvements will also be made to the supporting structure and at the front of the building, both to support the new fagade and to comply with current code. The damaged and deteriorated fascia materials on the rear "butler building" will be removed and replaced to create a weather tight, secure building exterior. The interior concrete floor will be reworked to eliminate damaged areas, changes in elevation and the remnants of former tenant's utilities. Proposed rehabilitation work also includes roof repairs, replacement of HVAC systems and restoration of the building fire sprinkler system. Electrical service, sanitary sewer and water service lines may also be upgraded if existing services are determined to be antiquated or inadequate. The Proposed Rehabilitation Work Will Not Cause the Structure To Lose its Grandfathered Status The terms reconstruction, extension, and structural change of structure are not specifically defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Section 2.0 of the Zoning Ordinance does however define "Substantial Improvement" which in turn incorporates each of the c. 40A § 6 terms and provides applicants guidance as to how the City of Northampton determines whether there has been sufficient reconstruction, extension or structural changes to a pre - existing non - conforming building or structure so as to cause the structure to lase its grandfathered status. Section 2.0 of the Zoning Ordinance defines the term "Substantial Improvement" as "any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure within a five year period which either increases the building area of the original structure by fifteen (15 %) or more, or the cost of repair, reconstruction or improvement which equals or exceeds fifteen (15 %) of the assessed value of the original structure, either (a) before the improvement is started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored before the damage occurred." The rehabilitation to the fagade of the Structure will not increase the "building aree"' of the Structure by 15% or more. The initial language in the definition of Substantial Improvement found is § 2.0 of the Zoning Ordinance is therefore inapplicable. Under the definition of Substantial Improvement in §2.0, a structure might lose its Section 9.2/40A § 6 grandfathered status if the cost of repair, reconstruction or improvement. in a five year period exceeds 15% of the assessed value of the Structure. Here, the cost to implement the desired changes to the Structure will not exceed 15% of the building's assessed valuation. As the contemplated improvements do not exceed this 15% threshold, the Structure does not lose its status as a pre - existing non - conforming structure because of the work being contemplated by the Applicant. Assuming arguendo, some level of permitting is required by the Zoning Ordinance. A pre- existing non - conforming structure such as the Structure at issue here may be changed, extended or altered under § 9.3(1)(G) of the Zoning Ordinance with a finding from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This relief is possible when the expansion extends (vertically or horizontally), but does not increase the non - conforming nature of the property and does not create any new zoning violations. See also Rockwood v. Snow Inn Comoration, 409 Mass. 361, 566 N.E.2d 608 (1991). A finding in turn requires that the ZBA determine that a change or extension will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non - conforming nature of the structure or use. See § 9.2 Vii Here, the Applicant proposes to make changes only to the fagade of the Structure. These changes do not make the non - conforming structure more non - conforming and but for the non - conforming set back issue already in existence, comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Given the commercial nature of the Highway Business District, and the uses of properties directly abutting the Property, fagade changes to make the. building more attractive to Retail and Personal Service Use tenants would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing Structure. In fact one can make the argument that it is reasonably likely the proposed changes will make a substantial improvement to the neighborhood in general. Conclusion As detailed above, the Structure is protected under Mass. Gen. Laws. c. 40A § 6 and the Zoning Ordinance as a pre - existing non - conforming structure. Under Northampton's Zoning Ordinance the work proposed by the Applicant does not remove the Structure from the protections afforded by Section 9.2/40A § 6 and the proposed improvements should be regulated solely by way of a building permit. 2. Status of the "Use" of the Structure. The same modifications to the Zoning Ordinance which rendered the Structure itself non - conforming have rendered the historic "Use" of the Structure a pre - existing non - conforming Use as well since use of the existing Structure for Retail and Personal Services Use in excess of 10,000 square feet would now require a Special Permit. See § 2.0 defining "Non - Conforming Use." Section 9.2 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates that the Ordinance shall not apply to uses lawfully in existence at the time the change in zoning rendered the use unlawful. This language creates grandfathered status for all historic Retail and Personal Service Uses of the Structure, which have not been abandoned or discontinued. Abandonment or Discontinuance of a Use Under § 9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance "Any non - conforming use of a non- conforming structure and/or lot which has been abandoned or discontinued for a continuous period of two (2) years or more shall be deemed extinguished and shall not be re- established." As such, a pre - existing non - conforming Use could be lost either through "Abandonment" or "Discontinuance." Each of these theories requires a separate and distinct finding. Discontinuance is defined in § 2.0 of the Zoning Ordinance as "The cessation of a non - conforming use unless evidence is provided that the property has been actively and continuously marketed during such time and said marketing has contemplated the continuation of the non - conforming use. A non - conforming use, which has been discontinued for a period of two (2) years, cannot be re- established." In this case, the Property has, at all times been actively and continuously marketed for Retail and Personal Services Uses. This is evidenced by the documents on file with the City of Northampton. Further, the attached document and signage clearly displayed on the Property itself are indicative that the historic use of the property has not been "Discontinued." See Attached Exhibit 1 Unlike Discontinuance, Abandonment requires more than non -use. Abandonment is defined in § 2.0 of the Zoning Ordinance as "The cessation of a non - conforming use as indicated by the declared or otherwise apparent intention of an owner to terminate a non- conforming use of a structure or lot ... or the cessation of a non - conforming use or structure caused by its replacement with a conforming use or structure." As such, in order for legal "Abandonment" of a use to occur, the owner of the property must have expressed a subjective intent to abandon the use through affirmative declarations, actions or other statements sufficient to demonstrate the owner's actual intent to abandon the use. Here, there is no evidence in the public record or otherwise that any owner of the Properly or Structure intended to abandon the Retail and Personal Services Use of the Structure. As such, the criteria to establish Abandonment of the use of the Structure cannot be met and the property continues to enjoy its grandfathered status. As there is no evidence of Discontinuance or Abandonment of the grandfathered use of the Structure, the pre - existing non - conforming Use of the Structure may lawfully continue. Here, the Structure even with the work contemplated by the Applicant continues to enjoy its grandfathered status with regard to both the Structure and its Use. The Applicant requests that the Office of the Building Inspector issue a Zoning Opinion stating: 1. As it currently exists, the Structure is grandfathered as a pre - existing non- conforming structure under the Zoning Ordinance and Mass. Gen. Laws. c. 40A § 6. 2. As it currently exists the Use of the Structure for Commercial and Personal Services retail is grandfathered as a pre - existing non - conforming use under the Zoning Ordinance and Mass. Gen. Laws. c. 40A § 6. 3. That the proposed alterations to the fagade of the Structure do not serve to alter or amend the pre - existing non - conforming status of the Structure and that such changes require only a building permit. Thank you for your attention to this Zoning Application. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 'This Zoning Permit Application is made pursuant to § 10.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. "Retail and Personal Services Use is defined in § 2.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. "' All references to the Zoning Ordinance are to chapter 350 of the Northampton City Code. " § 9 of the Zoning Ordinance, promulgated in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws 40A § 6 11, allows the continued use of pre - existing non - conforming structures as of right. This protection extends to those non- conforming structures that remained substantially unchanged. As such, to the extent the Zoning Ordinance requires some level of permitting to continue to use a non - conforming structure, such provisions conflict with § 9.0 of the Zoning Ordinance and Mass. Gen. Laws 40A § 6 ¶ 1; ,See also Bartlett v. Board of Appeals of Lakeville, 23 Mass.App.Ct, 664, 670 (1987)(city or town cannot adopt a zoning ordinance which conflicts with pertinent enabling legislation of general application.) \ i " The Following are terms which are defined in the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. Building, Non - conforming A building, lawfully existing at the effective date of this Ordinance, or any subsequent amendment thereto, which does not conform to one or more of the applicable regulations for the district in which the building is located. § 2.0 Preexisting Non - conforming Structures A structure or addition which when originally constructed, was lawfully in existence or lawfully begun and conformed to any zoning requirements relative to minimum setbacks, maximum floor area ratio or other dimensional and area requirements which were then in effect, but which zoning requirements have since been amended so that such structure or addition would now require a variance. § 2.0 Structure A combination of materials for permanent or temporary occupancy of use such as a building, bridge trestle, tower, framework, retaining wall, tank, tunnel, tent, stadium, reviewing stand, platform, swimming pool, shelter, piers, wharves, bin, fence, sign, gasoline pumps, recreational courts, or the like. § 2.0 Structure Non - conforming A structure lawfully existing at the effective date of this Ordinance, or any subsequent amendments thereto, which does not conform to all applicable regulations of this Ordinance for the district in which it is located. § 2.0 " Building Area is defined in § 2.0 of the Zoning Ordinance as the ground area enclosed by the walls of a building, together with the area of all covered porches and other roofed portions, including areas covered by building overhands in excess of eighteen (18) inches. File # MP- 2010 -0030 -- APPLICANT /CONTACT_ PERSON BACON & WILSON PC ADDRESS/PHONE 31 TRUMBULL RD (413) 584 -1287 () PROPERTY LOCATION 327 KING ST MAP 24B PARCEL 038 000 ZONE HB THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST ENCLOSED REQUIRED DATE Building Permit Filled out Fee Paid Typeof Construction: ZPA - SEE ATTACHMENT A New Construction Non Structural interior renovations Addition to Existing Accessory Structure Building Plans Included: Owner/ Statement or License 3 sets of Plans / Plot Plan THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION BASED ON INFORMATION PREVENTED: Approved (/ Additional permits required (see below) PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § Intermediate Project: Site Plan AND /OR Special Permit with Site Plan Major Project: [,-" Site Plan AND /OR Special Permit with Site Plan ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § 390 - ?- Finding Special Permit Variance* Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed Other Permits Required: A. c1�iy �ti Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer Availability Septic Approval Board of Health Well Water Potability Board of Health Permit from Conservation Commission Permit from CB Architecture Committee Permit from Elm Street C nnussion Permit DPW Storm Water Management Signature of Building Official Date Note: Issuance of a Zoning permit does not relieve a applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Department of public works and other applicable permit granting authorities. * Variances are granted only to those applicants who meet the strict standards of MGL 40A. Contact the Office of Planning & Development for more information. \ T (1 N01� IT - 2009 - - ------ - - - - - - i File No. "' -- Please type or print all information and return this form to the Building Inspector's Office with the $15 filing fee (check or money order) payable to the City ofNorthampton 1. Name of Applicant: r'nT LLC Address: 360 Bloomfield Ave. Windsor, CT 06095 Telephone: 860 -688 -3667 2. Owner of Property: Co Ives t /Northampton, LLC Address: Bloomfield Ave., Windsor, CT 06099 Telephone: 860 3. Status of Applicant: Owner X Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain) 4. Job Location: 327 Y.i ng ,Street 6. Description of Proposed Use /Work /Project /Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary): See Attachment A 7. Attached Plans: Sketch Plan Site Plan X Engineered /Surveyed Plans 8. Has a Special Permit /Variance /Finding ever been issued for /on the site? NO DONT KNOW YES IF YES, date issued: See Attachme B IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? NO DONT KNOW YES See Attachment B IF YES: enter Book Page and /or Document# See Attachmen B 9.Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO _X DONT KNOW YES IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission? Needs to be obtained Obtained , date issued: (Form Continues On Other Side) W:\Documents \FORMS\ original \Building- Inspector\Zoning- Permit- Application- passive.doc 8/4/2004 \ 5. Existing Use of Structure/ Property: Retail /Personal Services 10. Do any signs exist on the property? YES X NO IF YES, describe size, type and location: 6' x 24' double ai derl " i i 1 inni nat Sign in main site drive island Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property? YES X NO IF YES, describe size, type and location: move sign to new driveway location 11. Will the construction activity disturb (clearing, grading, excavation, or filling) over 1 acre or is it part of a common plan of development that will disturb over 1 acre? YES NO X IF YES, then a Northampton Storm Water Management Permit from the DPW is required. 12. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION This column reserved for use by the Building 13. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Date: -7—O& 9 Applicant's Signature l eve [L (. NOTE: Issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve an applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Historic and Architectural Boards, Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities. g s W:\Documents\FORMS\ original \Building -Inspector\Zoning - Permit Application- passive.doo 8/4/2004 e, 1 CD ZL N _.__._.�._._ N N N A .._.. _�- N _. _, N N .... ,p N Cn ._. _.� —..... __. W W W W W W CO W CO co co co co co W W W W W W W W CO O W W O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O W O W O W O W O CD W W w w W w W W co W W W W W W 00 W W W co W w W w m 0o 0u 0u 0o a 00 I0- 00 co O 00 O O co O w 00 O 0 0 00 O co O O W 0o 666 0'' 00 O c0 O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD I ° W W N A A A A A 0o Oo m co W co N N A A A A A Cp A A W A W AAA W W W A W A W W W W W W ° ? ° 0 v o Q c > W N O W O W O W O W O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O m O CA O '* cn N co W W J J J A W W W W W CA W P W O N 00 N m ( O m O A W I� W O W O O O O CJh O O —a O O O -I O CO 666 00 00 q O O O O O O �! O O g O O O O O 'D O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O N N I° C) 0) W N W W W O S G) W N W W W N W N W O s f0 _ J _ J O O m A A 0 o CD W W p O w O r J co m A N Co co W m O O co J m 0 T. T. T T T r CD E T. T_. T T T D D z z z T T °: Z Z Z Z Z p O G) G) ;0 � ° O C: u O G) o G) Cn G) Cn G) Cn G) Cn G) Cn r Cn a O Cn O Cn O Cn Cn Cn Cn m :1 m � Cn Cn z0 -I -i � -i -I o� ��rrr� � a z -I ° M c cm C) n G) p CO r < n ii m O O z z 5 cNO m z m O m W v v� m _ m D D z O r r r CO 0Cn CU) S cmi O W n O O W �, ., cO I�r O D r1r Z A m m O O { O X Cn D z m b D ° 0 - �i O = Cf) Z co CO N D z D Z O Z O p O n G) > T O c O c z D co a Cn Mo r �n n° z -i Z z z O n r Z r r r m m O z r 9 Cn n ° n n Z S 2 O T. r z z n -1 r J TO g r n T T r l Z C n n D > D D 0 O G7 n z z z< c z z 9 O y c m M m m Z m m n n cn r CD c m n W W 0 o X m m "' z 90 z n O n co v 11i n m m z m m z A A G D Cn � N N N W J J ° O 0 -N G ° 0 00 O A O O O O z -I c o o A A A O W W a n O o 0 S W= co co °� co a D mz2 z z 0 ;o ° O cc O p p 0 Cn O N 5 0 Z z z O X ;o X 0� c c G) O Z O Z c Cn a X 3 X w X m X CD X W a p oo m y O Cl) O Cn O Cn co C= -I -1 �I ow - m � C coin 2 S 00 m w C J n J � D m m -4 o '� I r U) r r m m 0 o A m Z Z z° D S Cn 5 Z C) �rI z Z Z m O D O O O a n O O O m r W o o I � r - r O r O O -I a- > Z D Cn O O O O A O -� (/) Z co co -I 2 a o c Z 4 X :D -I ° i 4 -I -I z -1 -I -I ?� -1 -I -I S m = m 2 D Z G m G) m Z m Z S Cn o S S D S D S a n S D S D S D m r S D S D D CD M D -n n n a K D < 9 9 K n 9 9 9 ° w n v m m z --ii o -°i a O ° z z z z z z z z z z Z z D D D D o D D D D I D D D D D D a D D D D D m O N O p J O O _. O O O Mwm O o m O O O �_ O O O O O O O cnoN O 00 CO N O co O N m CD co t m m m O m O m O m O W 00 m O m o m O CA O J N D N N O <o —� (n co w Cn N O O O N J Oa Q CD CD ZL \ \ k \ n q « ¥ I = m $ \ P -n \ § > \ \ ( ) 9 ƒ > 0 > . cn _ -0 \ co c \ \ } k \ k \ z ? z z� § R z 2 R .\ k 0 > 0 0 § z ƒ § ? _ = o = \ \ > \ 0 S m° o �� > »� / 8 2 / § § § > w > I ) / r z cn ) z z / ® w m & r ± \ ) m \ f co X / \ k \ = 3 ® § 9 ? 2 X _ \ _ = z CO \ m \ \ M \ 2 § _ > \ \ \ z ( j § ) § ) 00 Zoning Board of Appeals - DecisionCity of Northampton Hearing No.:ZBA-2010-0025Date: June 21, 2010 APPLICATION TYPE:SUBMISSION DATE: Commercial Finding4/28/2010 Applicant's Name:Owner's Name: NAME: NAME: COLVEST NORTHAMPTON LLCCOLVEST NORTHAMPTON LLC ADDRESS:ADDRESS: 360 BLOOMFIELD AVE SUITE 208360 BLOOMFIELD AVE SUITE 208 TOWN:STATE:ZIP CODE:TOWN:STATE:ZIP CODE: WINDSORCT06095WINDSORCT06095 PHONE NO.:FAX NO.: PHONE NO.:FAX NO.: (860) 688-3667 (13)(860) 688-2343 (860) 688-3667 (13)(860) 688-2343 EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: plapointe.colvest@snet.netplapointe.colvest@snet.net Site Information:Surveyor's Name: STREET NO.:COMPANY NAME: SITE ZONING: 327 KING ST HB TOWN:ADDRESS: ACTION TAKEN: NORTHAMPT0N MA 01060 Grant MAP:BLOCK:LOT:MAP DATE: SECTION OF BYLAW: 24B038000 Chapt. 350-9.3 (1) (D): Pre-existing TOWN:STATE:ZIP CODE: Nonconforming Structures or Uses May be Book:Page: Changed, Extended or Altered with a 4607294 PHONE NO.:FAX NO.: Finding from the Zoning Board of Appeals. EMAIL ADDRESS: NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK: Retail/Personal Service HARDSHIP: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: FINDINGS: The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the Finding based on the materials and graphics submitted with the application. The Findings of the Board under Section 9.3 for the change to a non-conforming structure were based on the plans and information submitted with the application as follows: 1. The Board determined from documents in the submittal that the structure is non-conforming for setbacks and height. 2. The Board found that the change to the building itself would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. Changes proposed and approved are limited to: a. Removal of the glass addition attached to the front to allow a continuous sidewalk along the front of the building under the canopy. b. Masonry bearing structure to steel bearing structural changes. c. Cinderblock front façade changes to brick veneer with the sides to remain cinderblock. d. Other mechanical upgrades to the HVAC system. 3. The Board determined that the Findings in this application do not include the parking lot, site, or use. 4. The Board determined that other changes to the building, use, parking lot, or site could require other permits, or Zoning Board of Appeals Findings, as specified in the zoning ordinance and determined by the Building Commissioner through a zoning permit application process. COULD NOT DEROGATE BECAUSE: FILING DEADLINE:MAILING DATE:HEARING CONTINUED DATE:DECISION DRAFT BY:APPEAL DATE: 4/27/20105/22/20106/24/2010 REFERRALS IN DATE:HEARING DEADLINE DATE:HEARING CLOSE DATE:FINAL SIGNING BY:APPEAL DEADLINE: 5/15/20107/2/20106/10/20106/24/20107/11/2010 FIRST ADVERTISING DATE:HEARING DATE:VOTING DATE:DECISION DATE: 5/13/20105/27/20106/10/20106/21/2010 SECOND ADVERTISING DATE:HEARING TIME:VOTING DEADLINE:DECISION DEADLINE: 5/20/20105:30 PM6/24/20108/6/2010 MEMBERS PRESENT:VOTE: Elizabeth Silvervotes toGrant GeoTMS® 2010 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions, Inc. Zoning Board of Appeals - DecisionCity of Northampton Hearing No.:ZBA-2010-0025Date: June 21, 2010 David Bloombergvotes toGrant Sara Northrupvotes tono action needed Bob Riddlevotes toGrant MOTION MADE BY:SECONDED BY:VOTE COUNT:DECISION: Elizabeth SilverBob Riddle3-1Approved MINUTES OF MEETING: Available in the Office of Planning & Development. I, Carolyn Misch, as agent to the Zoning Board of Appeals, certify that this is a true and accurate decision made by the Zoning Board and certify that a copy of this and all plans have been filed with the Board and the City Clerk on the date above. I certify that a copy of this decision has been mailed to the Owner and Applicant. ___________________________________ NOTICE OF APPEAL An appeal from the decision of the Zoning Board may be made by any person aggrieved and pursuant to MGL Chapt 40A, Section 17 as amended, within (20) days [30 days for a residential Finding] after the date of the filing of this decision with the City Clerk. The date of filing is listed above. Such appeal may be made to the Hampshire Superior Court with a certified copy of the appeal sent to the City Clerk of Northampton. GeoTMS® 2010 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions, Inc.