24A-217 24A-218 ZBA-Planning-FINDING withdrawn-history.___I
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Wayne Feiden, Director • p fanning @nortbamptonplanning.org • www.nortbamptonp[anning.org
Cit q Hall • 210 Main Street, Room ii • Wortbampton, MA of o60 -3198 - (413) 587 -1x66 • Fax. 587 -1264
Filed in City Clerk's Office: March 18, 20 02
Date: March 14, 2002
To: Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Property located at 15 Locust Street, Map 24A, Parcels 217 & 218
I hereby request that I be allowed to withdraw without prejudice my application for a
Finding to extend, pump island by 16' for the addition of a new gas pump and single
column ?vhiph was filed on October 23, 2001.
ki
planning board • conservation commission • zoning board of appeals • housing partnership • redevelopment authority - nortbampton GIS
economic development - communitydevelopment - bistoric district commission • bistorica I commission • central businessambitecture
originalprintedon recgcledpaper
AGREED TO:
J \
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
City Hall • 2 z o Main Street, Room ii . Northampton, MA o z o - 3 1 9 8 • (4 • Fax: 587 -z 2,64
waNne Feideh, Director • planning@ nortf)amptonp[anning.org wron
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Conrad R. Decker for DB Companies & Syed Igbal
c/o Decker & Company
33 Park Plaza
Lee, MA 01238
Syed Igbal
15 Locust Street
Northampton, MA 01060
RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: 15 Locust Street
MAP AND PARCEL NUMBERS: MAP 24A PARCEL 217
PROPERTY RECORDED IN THE HAMPSHIRE COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS IN
BOOK 5586, PAGE 16.
At a meeting conducted on January 24, 2002, the Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
unanimously voted 3:0 to grant the request of Conrad R. Decker for DB Companies & Syed
Iqbal for a SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section 7.2 in the Northampton Zoning
Ordinance, to remove three existing 9 square feet canopy logos and install two new 9.5
square foot canopy logos at 15 Locust Street to be . 'constructed and located as shown on the
following plan:
"Canopy Elevations for Locust Street, Northampton, MA" Sheet L -2, prepared by
DB Companies, dated September 27, 2001.
Zoning Board Members present and voting were: Chair Mark NeJame, Bob Riddle and David
Narkewicz.
In Granting the Special Permit, the Zoning Board of Appeals found:
A. The requested use protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses because
the number of canopy logos will be reduced from three to two thereby reducing the total
square footage of canopy logos from 27 square feet to 17 square feet as depicted on plans
planningboard • conservation commission • zoning boardof appeals • housingpartnership • redevelopmentauthoritN • northamptonGIS
economic development • communitNtlevelopment • historic district commission • historicaI commission • central business architecture
original printed on recgcledpaper
plans and information submitted with the application.
B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian
movement within the site and on adjacent streets, minimize traffic impacts on the streets
and roads in the area because the reduction in number and square footage of canopy logos
will have no impact on pedestrian flow and movement or on traffic patterns.
C. The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces
to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area
because the reduction of the number and square footage of the canopy logos will be
beneficial to the community aesthetics.
D. The requested use will not overload, and will mitigate adverse impacts on, the City's
resources including the effect on the City's water supply and distribution system, sanitary
and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, fire protection, streets and schools.
E. The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in Section 7.2 (13) of the Zoning
Ordinance. (See Attachment A for criteria)
F. The requested use bears a positive relationship to the public convenience or welfare. The
use will not unduly impair the integrity of character of the district or adjoining zones, nor
be detrimental to the health, morals or general welfare. The use shall be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance.
G. The requested use promotes City planning objectives to the extent possible and does not
adversely affect those objectives, as defined in City master or study plans adopted under
M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81 -C and D.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 11, I, Angela Dion, Board Secretary, hereby
certify that I caused copies of this Decision to be mailed, postage - prepaid, to the Applicant
and Owner on February 1, 2002.
c -
ATTACHMENT A
SIGN /SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA
A. Signs are located only where they are otherwise permitted in the district; and
B. The location of the building and nature of the use being made of the building is such that
additional signs would not detract from the character of the neighborhood and should be
permitted in the public interest.
C. Any change in said signs requires a new or revised Special Permit.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws (MGL), Chapter 40A, Section 11, no Special Permit,
or any extension, modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision
bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has
been filed, or if such an appeal has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in
the Hampshire County registry of Deeds or Land Court, as applicable and indexed under the
name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee
for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant. It is the owner or
applicant's responsibility to pick up the certified decision from the City Clerk and record it at the
Registry of Deeds.
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals hereby certifies that a Special Permit has been
GRANTED copies of this decision and all plans referred to in it have been filed with the
Planning Board and the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that
this decision is filed with the Northampton City Clerk on the date below.
If anyone wishes to appeal this action, an appeal must be filed pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A,
Section 17, with the Hampshire County Superior Court or the Northampton District Court and
notice of said appeal filed with the City Clerk within twenty days (20) of the date that this
decision was filed with the City Clerk.
Applicant: Conrad R. Decker for DB Companies, Inc. — 15 Locust Street
DECISION DATE: January 24, 2002
DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY
IO
plans and information submitted with the application.
B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian
movement within the site and on adjacent streets, minimize traffic impacts on the streets
and roads in the area because the reduction in number and square footage of canopy logos
will have no impact on pedestrian flow and movement or on traffic patterns.
C. The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces
to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area
because the reduction of the number and square footage of the canopy logos will be
beneficial to the community aesthetics.
D. The requested use will not overload, and will mitigate adverse impacts on, the City's
resources including the effect on the City's water supply and distribution system, sanitary
and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, fire protection, streets and schools.
E. The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in Section 7.2 (13) of the Zoning
Ordinance. (See Attachment A for criteria)
F. The requested use bears a positive relationship to the public convenience or welfare. The
use will not unduly impair the integrity of character of the district or adjoining zones, nor
be detrimental to the health, morals or general welfare. The use shall be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance.
G. The requested use promotes City planning objectives to the extent possible and does not
adversely affect those objectives, as defined in City master or study plans adopted under
M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81 -C and D.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 11, I, Angela Dion, Board Secretary, hereby
certify that I caused copies of this Decision to be mailed, postage - prepaid, to the Applicant
and Owner on February 1, 2002.
ATTACHMENT A
SIGN /SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA
Section 7.2 (13) In Granting the Special Permit to alloy =� MO t-. Ri
= gnc than Otherwise
permitted
0 the Zoning Roard of Appeals fonnd!
A. Signs are located only where they are otherwise permitted in the district; and
B. The location of the building and nature of the use being made of the building is such that
additional signs would not detract from the character of the neighborhood and should be
permitted in the public interest.
C. Any change in said signs requires a new or revised Special Permit.
M
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws (MGL), Chapter 40A, Section 11, no Special Permit,
or any extension, modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision
bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has
been filed, or if such an appeal has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in
the Hampshire County registry of Deeds or Land Court, as applicable and indexed under the
name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee
for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant. It is the owner or
applicant's responsibility to pick up the certified decision from the City Clerk and record it at the
Registry of Deeds.
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals hereby certifies that a Special Permit has been
GRANTED copies of this decision and all plans referred to in it have been filed with the
Planning Board and the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that
this decision is filed with the Northampton City Clerk on the date below.
If anyone wishes to appeal this action, an appeal must be filed pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A,
Section 17, with the Hampshire County Superior Court or the Northampton District Court and
notice of said appeal filed with the City Clerk within twenty days (20) of the date that this
decision was filed with the City Clerk.
Applicant: Conrad R. Decker for DB Companies, Inc. — 15 Locust Street
DECISION DATE: January 24, 2002
- - DECISION FILED N
)2 _-
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATInN FnR-
3. Applicant's Name:
Conrad R. Decker for DB Companies & Syed Iqbal
-- —
-----------------------------------------
Address:_ — c/o Decker & - Co., 33 Par Pl aza, Lee, MA 01238
--------- - - - - -- --------------- - - - - --
Telephone:— 413- 243 -4083
4. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map #? 4 ` a ' — Parcel # 217 _Zoning District:_ NB
Street Address: 15 Locust Street
5. Status of Applicant: _____ Owner; _ -- Contract Purchaser; - -_ Lessee
— X — Other (explain) Ag ent
6. Property Owner: _ S d _I qba 1 - - _ - -- -- -_
Address:_ 1 Locu _Street_ —_ -- Telephone: 413-586-9 - --
7. Describe Proposed Work/Project (Use additional sheets if necessary):
Three (3) existing canopy Citgo logos (each 9 SF) will be
rem and two L_ logos installed e_ _ac 9_
Has the following information
been included in the application?
`__— Site /Plot Plan ___ List of requested waivers x__ fee ($150.00)
X__ Signed dated and denied Zoning Permit Application
3
p EC"E0WE
JAN 3 2002 -0
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060
8. Special Permit Approval Criteria. If any permit criteria does not apply, explain why.
A. How will the requested use protect adjoining premises against seriously detrimental
uses? __ The - -
number of canopy logos will be reduced fr the existing
three - to the proposed two_ Total square - f
- - -- --------- - - - - -- ------------------
oo
tage - - canopy logos
How will the project provide for: will be reduced from 27 SF to 17 SF.
surface water drainage: _N /A --------- - - - ---
sound and sight buffers: N/A
the preservation of views, light and air: N/A - reducing the number of
-------------------- - - - - --
logos from 3 to 2 will be beneficial to neighborhood aesthetics.
B. How will the requested use promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within
the site and on adjacent streets?
The reduction in number and sq footag of canopy logos
should have on pedestrian flo or m _
How will the project minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the —
area? The redu in the n umbe r and squa - footage o f canopy logos
should hav n in fluence on traffic pat terns or impacts
Where is the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets? — — —
N/A
What features have been incorporated into the design to allow for:
access by emergency vehicles: N -- — ---- _ - - - --
the safe and convenient arrangement of parking and loading spaces
N/A
provisions for persons with disabilities: N/A
4
C. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to:
the natural landscape: Reducing number & square footage of canopy
- - -- - - - -- ---------------------------
logos will be beneficial to neighborhood aesthetics.
- -------------------------------------------
-------------
to existing buildings:_ Reducing the number & square footage of
---- -----------------------------------------
canopy logos will be beneficial to neighborhood aesthetics.
other community assets in the area: __re the _ numbe & tot square
footage of canopy logos will be beneficial to community
- - --
D. What measures are being taken that show the use will not overload the City's resources,
including:
water supply and distribution system:_ N/A — ----
sanitary sewage and storm water collection and treatment systems:
N/A
fire protection, streets and schools: N/A
How will the proposed project mitigate any adverse impacts on the City's resources, as listed
above? Imp to aest hetics of si te by reduc both
the n - umber and total sgoare footage of canopy logos.
E. List the section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance that states what special regulations are required for
the proposed pro
7.2 -1 3 t1ect (Accessory apartment, home occupation, accessory structure, etc.)
How does the project meet the special requirements? (Use additional sheets if
necessary)? N - --
5
s
F. Explain why the requested use will:
not unduly impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining
zones:_ reduction in number (from 3 to 2) and _total square footage
(from 27 SF to 19 SF) of canopy logos will be beneficial to
----------------------
-
the neighborhood.
-----------------------------------
t e aesthetic integrity of
------ - - - - --
not be detrimental to the health, morals or general welfare:__ Reduction in the
canopy signa
number & square footage of -- ---------
ge well e- beneficial.
----------------
be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance:
Reduction in both the number & total square footage of canopy
--------------------------------
s will_ .
be in harmony _with the general
of the ordinance purpose_& intent
G. Explain how the requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and
will not adversely effect those objectives, defined in City master study plans adopted under M.G.L.
Chapter 41, Section 81 -C and D.
Reduction in the number & total square footage of the canopy
------ - - - - -- _
------------------ - - - - --
logos wi ll be in harmony with the objectives defined in city's
master study. - - ----- --- - --
9. 1 certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge. I (or the landowner if I am no th la downer) grant the Zoning Board of
Appeals permission to enter the ope y o re ew this application.
Z , Conrad R. Decker for
Date: Applicants Signature:_ DB Companies
Date: I - -L Owner's Signature:.
(If n&4, Ome as a
0
Conrad R. Decker for
DB Companies & Syed Iqbal
a
File # BP- 2002 -0444 %"
A PPLICANT /CONTACT PERSON DECKER & COMPANY, INC
ADDRESS/PHONE P O BOX 258 (413) 243 -4083
PROPERTY LOCATION 15 LOCUST ST
MAP 24A PARCEL 217 001 ZONE NB
THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY:
PERMIT A PPI In A - TrNX. _ _
ENCLOSED REQUIRED DATE
Owner/ Statement or License
3 sets of Plans / Plot Plan
THE FOLLOWING A TION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION BASED ON
INFORMATION P SENTED:
Approved Denied
PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER:§
Intermediate Project: Site Plan OR
Major Project: Site Plan OR _Special Permit and Site Plan
__Special Permit and Site Plan
ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § a l? 'Oftoor/t joldwa✓
Finding Special Permit (/ S�wS TH�t�
Variance *_
Received & Recorded at Registry -4/'x G 7 —
g try of Deeds Proof Enclosed_
Other Permits Required:
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 Commission
Signatur o Building Officia 2�
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
of public works and other applicable permit granting authorities. Commission, Department
* Variances are granted only to those applicants who meet the strict standards of MGL 40A. Contact Office of
Planning & Development for more information.
Date: �� 0 V K, 26 0 (
Re: DB Mart
15 Locust Street
Northampton, MA
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This letter certifies that Conrad R. Decker, Ronald J. Fortune or any other
representative of Decker & Company, Inc. may act on behalf of property
owner Syed Iqbal as his authorized agent and legal representative for
obtaining permits and approvals for the proposed changes to the gas station
facility located at 15 Locust Street, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Very truly yours,
Syed Iqbal
,,
P
10. Do any signs ebst on the property? YES x NO
IF YES, describe size, type and location: Existing free- standi na sign & wall sign wi
remain unchanged. The (3) existing canopy Citgo logos (9 sq. ft each)
will be removed and (2) 9.5 sq. ft. Citgo canopy logos will be installed.
Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property? YES _.x___ NO
IF YES, describe size, type and location: Two new canopy Citgo logos ( each 9-5 SF) w ill
be installed & three existing logos (each 9 SF) removed.
11. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLE'T'ED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED DUE TO
LACK OF INFORMATION.
Thii C01== to ba rl22ad is
by the Ba "U-q nwp art=ant
Required I
I Existing I Proposed I' By Zoning
Lot size
Frontage
Setbacks - frnn
- side
- rear
Building height
12,466 sq.ft.
188.22'
canopy 10'
L: 50' 6 R: 40'
n/a
12,466 sq-ft.
188.22'
canopy 10'
L: 'R 3 3 ,
n/a
18' canopy 118' canopy
10,000 sq.ft.
80'
01
6'
6'
35'
Bldg Square footage
1464 sq . f t .
1464 sq . f t .
60% .
%Open Space:
(Lot area minus bldg
&Paved Parking)
4.5%
4.5%
20%
# of "Parking Spaces
6
6
4.88
# of Loading Docks
n/a
n/a
n/a
Fill:
vol -time - -& location)
n/a
n/a
n/a
13. Certification: I hereby certify - that the in2
is true ar4d accurate to the best of my *fibvl
D20E: 10/23/2001 -J
APPLICANT'S SIGNATU
NOTE: Issumnoa of a zoning permit doom not rmli®YO a
z9ning raquiramants and obtain all requlrad Parm f
Commtmmion. Department of Pubito Works and othar mpplio
FILE #
ation contained' herein
e.
Conrad R. Decker for
DB Companies
int'a burdan to oomply wlt"
Board of Health. Cohmarvtation
0 parmit granting muthoritlem.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPFAI S Apps WATinKl Vno-
oast -a�
�1. Type of Project:
X -_- SPECIAL PERMIT:
------- Home Occupation
- -_ -_- __Historical Association /Society, et al
--- X ---- Sign
------- — Attaching Accessory Structure to Principal Building
Permit is requested under Zoning Ordinance: Section - 7 _2. = _13__
3. Applicant's Name:
Conrad R. Decker for DB Companies & Syed Iqbal
--------------------- - - --
-
- - -Co --
-- - - - - -- --------------------------
Address: c/o Decker & ., 33 --- Park Plaza, --Lee, - MA - 01238
-----------------------------------------------------
Telephone:_
4. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map # 2 __ Parcel # 217 __ Zoning District:_ NB__-
Street Address: 5 L ocust Street
5. Status of Applicant: ----- Owner; _- ___Contract Purchaser; ----- Lessee
X - Other (explain)__
--------------------------
6. Property Owner: _ Syed _Igba 1 - ------------------ — ----- -- --------------
Address: _ 15_ Locust -Street _ ------ Telephone: 413 - 586 -9413
7. Describe Pfoposed Work/Project (Use additional sheets if necessary):
Three (3) existing canopy Citgo logos (each 9 SF) will be
------------------------------
removed 12)__lg _installed beach 9_5
Has the following information
been included in the application? •l
------- Site /Plot Plan _ List of requested waivers x — fee ($150.00)
__ X__ Signed dated and denied Zoning Permit Application
p E JAN C EowE
3 2002
3
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
NORTHAMPTON MA olom
U
8• Special Permit Approval Criteria. If any permit criteria does not apply, explain why.
A. How will the requested use protect adjoining premises against seriously detrimental
uses ?_ The number of canopy logos will be reduced from the existing
three - to _the proposed - two_ - Total_ square - footage of canopy logos
How will the project provide for: will be reduced from 27 SF to 17 SF .
surface water drainage: _N /A
sound and sight buffers: N/A
- -------------- - - --
_ of
the preservation of views, light and air: N /A - - redu --- cing the number
logos from 3 to 2 will be beneficial to neighborhood aesthetics.
B. How will the requested use promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within
the site and on adjacent streets?
The reduction in number and square footage of canopy
should have -no_ impact on -pedestrian
_
edestrian flo wor_mo_vem_ent_ - - __ -
How will the project minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the
area? The reductio i n th n umber an s quare_ f ootage of canopy logos
should have no patter influen on traff — o r impacts. - - - -
---------- _ _____
Where is the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets? —
N/A
What features have been incorporated into the design to allow for:
access by emergency vehicles: N/A
the safe and convenient arrangement of parking and loading spaces
N/A
Provisions for persons with disabilities: N/A
.'
4
,
C. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to:
the natural landscape: Reducing - number & square footage of canopy
------------------------- - - - - -- - -- - - - - --
logos will be beneficial to neighborhood aesthetics.
-------------------------------------------- ----------------
to existing buildings:_ Reducing the number & square footage of
---------------------------------------------------
canopy logos will be beneficial to neighborhood aesthetics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
other community assets in the area: __ reducing - the number & total square
f o o t s e o f ca n o -----------------
g py logos will be beneficial to community
ae sT is s ------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
D. What measures are being taken that show the use will not overload the City's resources,
including:
water supply and distribution system:_ N/A
sanitary sewage and storm water collection and treatment systems:
N/A
fire protection, streets and schools: N/A
How will the proposed project mitigate any adverse impacts on the City's resources, as listed
above? Imp to a o f site by nr g both
the number aril toga - I - square footage of caopy loos.
E. List the section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance that states what special regulations are required for
the proposed project (Accessory apartment, home occupation, accessory structure, etc.)
How does the project meet the special requirements? (Use additional sheets if
necessary) ?_ N - --
5
U �
F. Explain why the requested use will:
not unduly impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining
zones: - reduction in number (from 3 to 2) and total square footage
-- - --
-
----------------------------- - - - - -- --------------- - - - --
from 27
---- SF to 19 SF) of canopy logos will be beneficial to-------------------------
------------------------- - - - - -- ___________
the aesthetic integrity of the neighborhood.
not be detrimental to the health, morals or general welfare: Reduction in the
number & square footage of canopy - - -- --
_ py signage will be beneficial.
be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance:
Reduction in both the number & total square footage of canopy
----------------------------------
sJ will be - _in harmony - with - the - general - purpose _& intent
of the ordinance.
G. Explain how the requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and
will not adversely effect those objectives, defined in City master study plans adopted under M.G.L.
Chapter 41, Section 81 -C and D.
Reduction in the number & total square footage of the canopy
---------------------------------------------------
l will be in harmony with the objectives defined in city
master study. -
9. 1 certify that the information contained herei kitrue and accurat e to the best of my
knowledge. I (or the landowner if I am n t ner) grant the Zoning Board of
Appeals permission to enter the p ert his application.
Conrad R. Decker for
Date: , _Z" � _Applicants Signature:_ _ DB Companies
Conrad R. Decker for
l ,L.d -�
Date:,' —___— Owner's Signature: _ _ --- _ —_ -_ DB Companies & Syed Iqbal
(If n same s applica;t's) --
0
wtlw/p n
Erection. ... . ..... __ ... ...... ( )
• Alteration ......... .. ...........
(X )
Plans must be filed with the Building Inspector, Repair _........._.- .._....... -..( )
before a permit will be granted, Repainting ........ ............ ( )
Removal ...... ................... ( )
of
Application for a Permit to Place or Maintain a
Sign
or other Advertising Device
(Application to be filled out in ink or typewritten)
PAGE.......... PLOT..........
Northampton, Mass.,October 23, 2001 �g
.K ......... ...............................
To the Building Commissioner:
Application fora permit to place or maintain a sign or other advertising device, or marquee.
BUSINESS NAME ..... C?.tgg ...... J)13..Ma.r.t.........
I. .. ...............................
....................
CATION, STREET and No.
...... 15 .... 7G.Q -Quz.ii....S.hx.� iii. ._.._ ..........................
2. Owner's Lessee: DB
name............ ........Come..II.�.... fXis*.. ..... ............................... ...
3. Owner's address..... Co
4. �.S..,ncor d Street, Pawtucket R! 0286,Q .........................
......................
Makers n
................. ...............................
Maker's
• address ....................... _....................
6. Ere . ...............................
to be ................... ...................... ......
......._.
determined ........... .........................
Erector's name ....................... ............................
........................................... ...............................
7. Erector's address . ...............................
........... ...............................
...................... ...............................
SIGN KIND OF SIGN
1. Sign will be (check one) illuminated ....... X ....... non-illuminated .................. (Designate)
2. Will sign obstruct a fire escape, window or door ...... IQ
Marquee ....... ...............................
3. Lower edge will be .... 1. 4 ....... ft. ....f ........... ins. above the public way. Projectin
4 . Upper edge will be .... Le . ....... ft. ....Q ........... ins. above the public way. Roof ..... _ .... _ ....................................
5. Height ....... 1. ...... ft ........... 6 ..... ins. Width.... 6..._.....ft. -... `1.........ins. Temporary
6. Face area--.2-.5--sq. ft. .. ...............................
Wall................. _ .............................
7. Inner edge will be- m./&_...ins from the building or pole. Ground ... ...............................
Outer edge will b e.11.1..A_ ..... ins. from the building or pole. Other ...QW- 0.P.y.. ... Lagus (2 )
9. Face of building or pole is D,/A...ins. back from the street line.
10. Sign will project.... Q...•....•ins. beyond the street line.
11. Sign will extend..n /a „_,ft ..... ...... ins. above the building or pole.
12. Of what material will sign be constructed ? Frame ... a iiz,
13. Estimate cost..$. ?QQQ. 00
The undersigned certifies that the above stateme
best of his knowledge and belief. to the
Conrad R. Decker
Signature of Owner or Agent) �. P..
NOTE: Ja order that this application may be accepted, the data called for above must be set forth
r
File # BP- 2002 -0445 `U
APPLICANT /CONTACT PERSON DECKER & COMPANY, INC
ADDRESS/PHONE P O BOX 258 (413) 243 -4083
PROPERTY LOCATION 15 LOCUST ST
MAP 24A PARCEL 217 001 ZONE NB
Non Structural interior renovations
Addition to Existin
AccessM 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 PP3ESENTED:
Approved Denied
PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER:§
Intermediate Project: Site Plan OR
Major Project: Site Plan OR Special Permit and Site Plan y�/f
Special Permit and Site Plan!', /�/�O
ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: §
Finding Special Permit Variance *
Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed
Other Permits Required:
Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer Availability
Septic Approval Board of Health Well Water Potability Board of Health
rbm Conservation Commission Permit from CB Architecture Committee
Permit from Elm Street Commission '
,��"o 4,.- Signature of Building Offi 6
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 Office of
Planning & Development for more information.
c.UMINU rURM FILLED OUT — 1xr-YU11 -MJ DATE
Fee Paid
Building Permit Filled out
Fee Paid
Typeof Construction• INSTALL I LUM S DE CANOPY 1'6" X 6'4" SIGN CITGO
New Construction
N-/
Date: N� 0V 6 2G, (
Re: DB Mart
15 Locust Street
Northampton, MA
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This letter certifies that Conrad R. Decker, Ronald J. Fortune or any other
representative of Decker & Company, Inc. may act on behalf of property
owner Syed Iqbal as his authorized agent and legal representative for
obtaining permits and approvals for the proposed changes to the gas station
facility located at 15 Locust Street, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Very truly yours,
Syed Iqbal
NOTICE OF EXTENSION
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 15
TO: The City Clerk of the City of Northampton
DATE: December 19, 2001
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15, the required time
limits for a public hearing and said action, may be extended by written agreement
between the applicant and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
This notice along with the attached request dated December 19, 2001, shall serve as the
written agreement between Conrad Decker for DB Companies, for property located at 15
Locust Street, and the Zoning Board of Appeals to extend the public hearing for above
property until such time as the applicant has submitted additional information for said
public hearing.
Nothing in this Extension limits the Zoning Board of Appeals from scheduling a Public
Hearing on this matter at an earlier date.
(See attached request of December 19 2001)
Conrad R. Decker for DB Companies, Inc.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
N
4- ME-/
Date fil�in the City Clerk's Office: December 21, 2001
. 12/19/01 16:28 FAX 413`243 4088
DECKER & CO. INC
DECKER & COMPANY, INC.
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
December 19, 2001
City of Northampton
Municipal Building
212 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Attn: Cynthia Williams,
Planning Office
Re: DS Companies, Inc.
15 Locust Street
Northampton, MA (DB 101)
Dear Ms- Williams,
Y
33 PARK PLAZA, P.O. BOX 258
LEE, MASSACHUSETTS 01 238
41 3 -243 -4083
413- 243 -4088 (FAX)
Reference is made to our discussion of this morning regarding our ZBA
applications filed for the above mentioned location.
We would like to request a mutual extension of time for public hearing to allow
DB Companies the ability to assemble additional information for a 01 -24 -02
hearing date. This extension is required so as to not jeopardize the mandated 65
day hearing window.
If this is acceptable, please show the City's assent by executing below and
returning a copy to our office.
R J Decker,"for
ANIES, INC.
y Williams, for
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
CRD /prf
CONSULTANTS TO THE PETROLEUM & CONVENIENCE STORE INDUSTRIES
DESIGN PLANNING Sc PERMIT PROCUREMENT
Q001
REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION
Oa- f, i�
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDING APPLICATION FOR THE CITY
(Change of a Pre - Existing Non - Conforming Use or Structure
1. Applicant's Name: Conrad R. Decker for DB Com anies, Inc.
Decker & Co mpany
Address: 3-9 park Plaza, LPe, MA 01238 Telephone:_
2. Property Owner's Name: Leasee : DB Companies, Inc.
Address: 25 Conc S tr e e t , Pawtucket, RI
Telephone: 401-722-8005
3. Status of Applicant: Owner Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain) Agent
4. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map # 2 4A Parcel # 217 & 2 1 8 Zoning District(s) NB
Street Address: 15 Locust Street
Property Recorded at the Registry of Deeds: County: Hampshire Book: 5 586 Page: 16
5. Finding is being requested under Zoning Ordinance: Section 6 - 1&2 , page
6. Narrative Description of Proposed Work/Project: (use additional sheets if necessary) I n s t a 11 pump
island ext - 4'x16' added to e xisting 4 island; install
new gas pump; and install single column canopy extension of 12 1 x24'
to existing (2) column 20 canopy. Please see attached Si
Plan for details.
7. State How Work/Proposal Complies with the following Finding Criteria: (see also Section 9.2 ; for Signs
Section 7.0). If the change, extension or alteration conforms to zoning in all respects, no Finding is required.
*Explain why the existing building, lot or use is legally pre - existing non - conforming. (Buildings, lots or uses that
are in existence at the time new zoning is enacted are protected under grandfathering provisions)
This etas station has existed for decades, pre dating the zoning
by -law. It has been non - conforming in that approximately 4. of
the property is green or open space where the by-law requires 20%
be open space in a NB Zone
*Does the change, extension or alteration create a new violation of the zoning, which would require a variance?
Yes No x If Yes, explain how: This site has been non - confor
because there exists 4.5% open space in a zone where 20% is re quired.
ThP size and ShanP of thi a rn makP� y p ble
�]._27PYty i t ri rt11a 1 1 i m nSGi
to meet h 0%dui rement
*Explain how the change, extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use to the neighborhood: The long - standing use of this property
has been as a gas station & c -store and these will continue to be
f.hp nrn _perry I G 11 Tha r Dnstad extension pump i &
p—Q of the 11m 1 1 an[9
canopy k fhP Addi t.i nn of a gam Pump will not hP suhetant-J aIJ y_ m ore
rlPtrimental to this neinhhnrhnn.a
8. Attached Plans: Sketch Plan Site Plan x No a Required
9. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained herein is true and cc ' ate to the best of my
knowledge. I (or the landowner, if I am not the landowner) grant the in oar and Planning Board
permission to enter the property to review this permit application.
Conrad R. Decker
Date: ( Q -Z3 - Cj k Applicant's Signature: for DB Companies
Owner's Signature (if different from applicant's):
E C E O U E
tT��4Il�TgN2001
File # MP- 2002 -0043
APPLICANT /CONTACT PERSON DECKER & COMPANY, INC
ADDRESS/PHONE P O BOX 258 (413) 243 -4083
PROPERTY LOCATION 15 LOCUST ST
MAP 24A PARCEL 217 001 ZONE NB
u
THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY:
PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Building Permit Filled out
Fee Paid
Tvneof Construction: EXTEND PUMP ISLAND BY 16' TO ADD A DISPENSER
New Construction
Non Structural interior renovations
Addition to Existin
AccesM Structure
B_ uilding Plans Included•
Owner/ Statement or License
3 sets of Plans / Plot Plan
THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION BASED ON
INFORMATION PRESENTED:
Approved Denied
PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: §
Intermediate Project : Plan OR Special Permit and Site Plan
Major Project: Site Plan OR Special Permit and Site Plan
ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: §_ _� /
z
Finding I!!!� Special Permit Variance*
Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed n
Other Permits Required:
Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer
alorltl/
S A ,4e
OCT EC El E
2 3 zoos D
Septic Approval Board of Health Well Water Potability Board of Health
OFFICE
MA 01060
Permit from Conservation Commission Permit from CB Architecture Committee
Permit from Elm Street Co ion
Signature of Building Official l 2
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.
10/24/01 WED 11:00 FAX 4017268986 DB Cojfp9NIES
,. Q 0 O1
DE CaMPANM, INC.
CORPORAM OFFICE 25 Cancord Street
Pewtuck.t, 2/ a766n
o� TEL 407 -:22 -8005 .
sa'
1�9X 4!)7-722 -7F9n
MAILLNG ADDRESS PO $ox 9477
October 24, 2001 Praoidrrrce, N 02940-9477
Town of Northampton
iuliiiiuiiity Development Ofuce
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: 15 Locust Street, Northampton
This letter will authorize Conrad R Decker to act on behalf ofDB Companies regarding
the above- referenced location.
If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 4 01- 722 -8005, Ext. 265.
Sincerely,
Y
Charles H. DeBlois, Jr.
ExeculivC v ire President
c: Conrad R. Decker
ri
M 10. Do any signs exist ou the p op
Y? YES X _ NO
location: Existing free — standing sign & wall sign will
The (3) existing Citgo logos will be modified on the
YE5, desUi8e Size, ty je and
remain unchanged.
ne ( extended) canopy, each 9.5 sq. ft.
Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property? YES X NO
IF YES, describe size, type and location: Two new Citcto logos will be installed on the
new (extended) canopy, each 9.5 sq. ft. in size.
11. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED
DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION This column to be filled in
i
CO
12. Certification: I hereb y Certify that the IIIforIIlatlOII . " ..___:_:- .:�._.::...s;`- .,�. >, ...:...�.,.: -: • :_.:..
: _:...: _. _ "` :~.>!six�- ..: •.:a;.; .. °d is true and accurate to the best of my 1paowWge.
Date:' Applicant's Signatur Conrad R. Decker fo
NOTE: Issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve ..
all required permits from the Board 4 Healt a a b to comply with all zoning tegviremp is and obtain
Department of Public Works and o applicable permit Historic anti Archioectural Boi�rds,
. r...» .. . .. ._..�.... t''. L.. .+.s ...i graatia� at2tl10rLties.
by the Building Ue artmen
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Lot Sue
12,466 sq.ft.
12,466 sq.ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
Frontage
188.22'
188.22'
80'
Setbacks Front
canopy 10'
canopy lot t
10'
Side .
L: 50' 6" R: 40'
L:50' 6 R: 33'
IL • 6 R 6
Rear'
N/A
N/A
61
Building Height
18' canopy
18' canopy
35.'
Building Square Footagh
1464 Sq. Ft.
1464 sq. ft.
60%
% Open Space: (iot
pus t�ad;ag &paw : �....
- n -
-
4.,5.%
;
.
# of Parking Spaces
6
# of Loading Docks
,
IA- -- -
A
Flu: .
(volume & location)
...
N/A
., ,�(,. __ a °_:_.: —.
- -,, t• is rl 1 . "f (.,
i
CO
12. Certification: I hereb y Certify that the IIIforIIlatlOII . " ..___:_:- .:�._.::...s;`- .,�. >, ...:...�.,.: -: • :_.:..
: _:...: _. _ "` :~.>!six�- ..: •.:a;.; .. °d is true and accurate to the best of my 1paowWge.
Date:' Applicant's Signatur Conrad R. Decker fo
NOTE: Issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve ..
all required permits from the Board 4 Healt a a b to comply with all zoning tegviremp is and obtain
Department of Public Works and o applicable permit Historic anti Archioectural Boi�rds,
. r...» .. . .. ._..�.... t''. L.. .+.s ...i graatia� at2tl10rLties.
10. Do any signs ebst on the property? YES x
IF YES, describe size, type and location: Existing free - Standing sign & wall sicyn wi ll
remain unchanged. The (3) existing canopy Citgo logos (9 sq. ft each)
wi be removed a nd ( 2) 9.5 sq. ft. Ci tgo ca logos will',be ;insta
Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property? YES x NO
IF YES, describe size, type and location: Two new canopy Citgo logos ( each 9.5 SF) will
be installed & three existing logos (each 9 SF) removed.
11. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED DUE TO
LACK OF INFORMATION.
This —1— to be filled i s
br th Bnildiny n apar —n t
a 111t.Q6. -%. A. s [,CLCL)Y uer t nar the a nx
is true ar4d accurate to the best of m T � ro
1
DATE: 10/23/2001 ' I APPLICANT's SIGNATU
NOTE: laeunnoe of n zoning permit does not relieve
zoning requirements and obtain all required permitt
Comm ission, Department of Publlo Works and other applloe
FILE if
tion contained herein
Conrad R. Dec ?ter for
/\_ DB Compa
nt's burden to oomply with al
Board of Health, Co"eirvatlo
k permit granting suthoritl
Kequirea
Existing
Proposed
By Zoning
Lot size
12,466 sq.ft.
12,466 sq.ft.
10,000 sq.ft.
Frontage
188.22'
188.22'
80
Setbacks
canopy 10'
canopy 10'
1
- side
L: 50 1 6 R: 40
L: 50' 'R: 33'
61
-rear
n/a
n/
6 ,
Building height
18' canopy
18' canopy
35'
Bldg Square footage
1464 sq.ft.
1464 sq.ft.
60%
%Open Space:
(Lot area minus bldg
4.5%
4.5%
20%
&paired parking)
# of�Parking spaces
6
6
4.88
f of Loading Docks
n/a
n/a
n/a
Fill:
t vol -Eime -& location)
n / a
n/a
n/a
a 111t.Q6. -%. A. s [,CLCL)Y uer t nar the a nx
is true ar4d accurate to the best of m T � ro
1
DATE: 10/23/2001 ' I APPLICANT's SIGNATU
NOTE: laeunnoe of n zoning permit does not relieve
zoning requirements and obtain all required permitt
Comm ission, Department of Publlo Works and other applloe
FILE if
tion contained herein
Conrad R. Dec ?ter for
/\_ DB Compa
nt's burden to oomply with al
Board of Health, Co"eirvatlo
k permit granting suthoritl
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS
1�. City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Legal Department
586 -6950
Maureen Ryan -Wise, Esq.
City Solicitor
tric w, M". , Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
Mr. James Doherty, Agent
Dairy Mart, Inc.
240 South Road
Enfield, CT 06082
November 2, 1983
In re: Buffer Strip, Section 12.1, Environmental Performance
Standards: Screening and Buffers
Dear Mr. Doherty:
Please be advised that Edward J. Tewhill, Building Inspector
for the City of Northampton recently received a letter, a copy of
which is attached, from Robert Phaneuf, an abutter. In this letter
Mr. Phaneuf complains that there has been no buffer strip provided
as mandated by Zoning Ordinance between the location behind Dairy
Mart, Inc. and his property. Mr. Phaneuf has requested, by com-
plaint, that action be taken to enforce the installation of a buffer
as prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance.
At this time, prior to taking any legal action towards enforce-
ment, I would suggest that Edward Tewhill, representatives of Dairy
Mart, Inc., Leonard Corliss, Robert Phaneuf, Peter McNulty of the
Department of Public Works and Gene Bunnell and /or Larry Smith of
the Planning Department, meet to discuss how a buffer strip can be
installed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, hopefully to the
satisfaction of all parties.
Please contact Mr. Tewhill who will arrange with the required
City offices for attendance at a meeting either at the Locust
Street location or at City Hall within the next seven (7) days.
(more)
,� -2-
Sinc ly,
P trick T. Gleason
Assistant City Solicitor
PTG:mlm
cc: Peter McNulty
Edward J. Tewhill
Larry Smith
Gene Bunnell
Robert Phaneuf
Leonard Corliss
oGrr 17
October 5, 1983
Dear Mr. Tewhill:
As it has been at least a couple of months since I approached you with
the matter of enforcing compliance with the Town of Northampton Zoning By-
laws, I now feel it necessary to reduce my complaint to writing so that I
may be on record as having presented to you what I feel are violations of
the Zoning Bylaws as they are written, with the expectation of seeing some
action taken by your office.
First, a brief history in the conversion of Charlie's Mobil Station on
Locust Street by Dairy Mart, Inc. Back in February 7, 1983 I addressed
concerns about the then proposed conversion to your predecessor, Mr. Clark.
Specifically, I had envisioned the present operation of 'a 24 hour business
combining a convenience store with self- service gas and automotive accessories.
Mr. Clark instructed me not to worry about lights or noise, as he stated these
were to be controlled under the Zoning Bylaws, and enforceable through the
Building Inspector's office. He further instructed me to put my concerns in
writing and send them to him stating that he would see that all parties in-
volved were notified, including appropriate town boards. It was his idea to
have the issue aired in this fashion as he stated it would be easier to
obtain compliance with objections prior to the opening of the business. I
followed his instructions and did send him a letter outlining my concerns on
February 15, 1983. It wasn't until the Planning Board meeting in May 1983
four months later, that Mr. Clark stated that he had never followed up on his
proposal, thereby notifying no -one of my concerns. Why, as stated to me the
letter was not copied, and not sent out from his office so that all parties
could be made aware of the issues, still perplexes me.
In a letter dated March 7, 1983 to Attny. David Kaplan by Cecil Clark
it is stated by Mr. Clark that "Section 12.1 Environmental Performance
Standards, specifically paragraph F, H, and I, and Section 6.5 page 6 -5,
Screening and Buffers: This is a change of use to the property and therefore
must conform to these sections. Mr. Corliss and I have discussed this and
it is my understanding that these conditions will be met." Again, I was
assured that I shouldn't worry about lights, disruptive noises or other
negative features of the convenience store /gas station operation. In June
1983 the Z.B.A. postponed a decision on the issue of my concern over whether
a Special Permit was in order to protect the neighborhood interests. The
delay was to allow Mr. Corliss, property owner, Dairy Mart, Inc. and myself
to reach a compromise on the issues involved. Relying on Mr. Clark's letter
of March 7th, I was unwilling to compromise on the buffer strip issue and
the lighting issue, as I felt it was an area within which they had no choice
but to conform. Since we were unable to compromise on hours of operation
-2-
(they would.not entertain discussion on this issue) the matter went back
before the Z.B.A. on the Special Permit issue only, and the decision was made
that the proposed operation required no Special Permit as it would not be
substantially different from Charlie's Mobil Station in terms of "patronage,
service, appearance, noise, employment or any similar characteristics" which
might be considered. As hard as it was for me to understand how that decision
was made, I decided after an extensive legal bill, to again see Mr. Clark
after the new business was in operation and requested that Dairy Mart, Inc.
be made to comply with the Environmental Performance Standards and Screening
and Buffer Standards that he had delineated in the March 7th letter. We are
now at the end of June and Mr. Clark informs me that he never in 5 months
took the time to check the site with respect to where my dwelling was, and
had in fact been of the opinion that my house was located somewhere different
from where it is, thereby making it no longer necessary for Dairy Mart, Inc.
to comply with the Environmental and Buffer Strip Standards. Again, hard
for me to believe since Mr. Clark was told in a phone conversation in late
January 1983 of a concern a tenant in my house had and he was instructed
and corrected about the location of the house she was calling from.
I expressed to Mr. Clark my disappointment with the way in which this
situation was handled. I also expressed to him the fact that, as the
business was now operating, the lights both from the pump canopy lighting
and the headlights from parked, entering, and exiting cars at all hours of
the night had produced a glare and annoyance whereby the ability of the
residents in my house to sleep at a reasonable hour and remain sleeping, had
been greatly impaired. I also informed Mr. Clark that the present business
had produced a situation where the noise generated by the normal business
use had proved disruptive particularly in the late evening and early morning
hours. The degree of noise had been mostly due to car doors slamming, hoods
slamming after automotive servicing, a multiple of cards parked with engines
idling, car radios left at a high volume with doors open, deliveries from
trucks as early as 6 a.m., and the entry and exiting of cars at unsafe
cornering speeds at a close proximity to our windows. Mr. Clarks suggestion
to all of this was that I find a light meter and sound meter somewhere,
find what levels were not allowable and see the Board of Health for further
details. Needless to say, they had a good laugh at the Board of Health when
I explained that Mr. Clark had referred me to them.
Feeling totally misled and frustrated at the enforcement side of this
issue, I planned a course of conversation with Mr. Lawrence Smith, the Town
Planner. It was his opinion that the provisions delineated in Sections 12.1
and 6.5 dealing with Environmental Performance Standards and Screening and
Buffers should have been complied with and presently need their proper
enforcement.
At this point I would like you, as enforcer of the Zoning Bylaws of
the Town of Northampton to act upon this issue by convening, if you still
feel it necessary, the meeting that we all spoke of but were not able to
set up mostly due to the inability to get the lawyers involved to cooperate.
With or without lawyers I would like you to either convene the meeting
or at a very minimum act upon this issue of by -law compliance which has
been brought to your attention. The allowance of this 24 hour type of
business without restrictions in this neighborhood business zone was in
my opinion a serious oversight by both the Z.B.A. and your predecessor, Mr.
Clark. Since June when the business began there has been an incalculable
disruption and deterioration in the quality of life in this neighborhood.
However, compliance with section 12.1 and 6.5 of the Zoning Bylaws might
T
-3-
make the present operation of the 24 hour gas /convenience business more
bearable for me, and less of an intrusion on abutting zones. As I have
expressed to you verbally when we spoke in your office, I would like to
see light shields put on the canopy lights to lessen the glare on my
house. I would also like to see a 5' high solid fence erected along the
N. Elm Street side of property to buffer the headlights, noise, and trash
which have proven to be extremely annoying in this residential zone. A
solid fence would also help to eliminate the adverse affects of loitering
by up to 60 Smith Vocational students especially in the morning hours.
To date we have had to engage the Northampton Police Department on 2
occasions. One was to help curb the morning noise level and the second
to report breaking and entering and theft from the cars in my driveway.
It is my hope that & solid fence would afford us some privacy and help
to eliminate the conditions which have produced the situation requiring
police help.
I am enclosing a copy of the written brief which was filed with the
Z.B.A. which will perhaps be of use to you in this matter. Before
proceeding further, I will await your response to this letter.
Sincerely,
cc: Lawrence Smith
Gene Brunell
Robert Phaneuf
i.
ij
DECISION OF THE
NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS
! I
I
Ij The Northampton Board of Appeals met on June 20, 1983 and
J, unanimously voted to deny the petition of Robert Phaneuf on his
appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector for the City of
Northampton's issuance of a Building Permit to a Leonard Corliss
for property located at Locust Street in said Northampton.
Present and voting were'Robert C. Buscher, Chairman, William
Brandt, and Dr. Peter Laband.
Based on evidence presented by the Board in an earlier meet-
ing dated June 1, 1983 in which Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt,
and Dr. Peter Laband were all present, the Board made the follow-
ing findings in regard to the petition:
1. The Building Permit issued by the Northampton
Building Inspector was valid in that no special
permit was needed since the convenience store
operated by Leonard Corliss was allowed by
right in this Neighborhood Business Zone, and
the gas pumps were a continuation to a lesser
degree of a previously existing, non - conforming
use.
2. That the prior use of the property (i.e gas
station) had operated on the site for approxi-
mately fifty (50) years, but was closed for
one year prior to the petition of Mr. Phaneuf.
The decision of the Northampton Board of Appeals to deny the
petition of Robert Phaneuf was unanimous.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P.M.
_ �i'..� - tai:. _
ROB T C. BUSCHER, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM BRANDT
/
DR. PETER LABAND
s.� NORTHAMPTON BOARD
Decision on Appeal
June 20, 1983
OF APPEALS
of Robert Phaneuf
The Board of Appeals met at 7:00 PM, June 20, 1983, to render
its decision on Robert Phaneuf's appeal of the Building Inspector's
issuance of a building permit to Leonard Corliss for property on
Locust Street. Present and voting were Robert C. Buscher, Chairman,
William Brandt, and Dr. Peter Laband.
It was moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to accept the
minutes but to waive the reading.
The Chairman explained that a gas station had operated on the
site for approximately 50 years, but closed about a year ago. Leonard
Corliss, owner of the property then leased it to Dairy Mart for a
convenience store with two gas pumps. Robert Phaneuf, an abutter to
the site, appealed the issuance of building permits for the property.
It was the Chairman's opinion that the building permit issued by
the Building Inspector was valid, and that no special permit was
needed since the convenience store was allowed by right in this neigh-
borhood business zone, and the gas pumps were a continuation to a
lesser degree of the pre- existing, nonconforming use.
Mr. Brandt and Dr. Laband agreed with the Chairman's findings.
On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to
deny Mr. Phaneuf's appeal on the grounds that the convenience store
is an allowed use in a neighborhood business zone, and the gas pumps
are less nonconforming than the previous nonconforming use, namely, a
full service gas station.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 PM. Present, in addition to
the Board members, were Clare Fennessey, Clerk, two reporters, and one
interested citizen.
Robert C. Buscher
Chairman
i
NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS
Public He ng on Appeal of
Rober Phaneuf
June 1, 1983
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing at 7:00 PM, June 1, 1983,
on the appeal of Robert Phaneuf of the Building Inspector's issuance of a
building permit to Leonard Corliss for property located on Locust Street.
Present were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt, and Peter Laband.
The Chairman read the public notice as it was published in the Daily
Hampshire Gazette on May 18 and May 25; the Senior Planner's findings;
and the Planning Board's recommendation that the appeal be denied. He
a0knowledged receipt of copies of several pieces of correspondence between
the applicant and the Building Inspector, and between Atty. David Kaplan
and the Building Inspector, but with the opposing attorney's permission,
chose not to read them aloud.
He advised those present of their right of appeal.
Atty. David Kaplan, 8 Crafts Avenue, representing Robert Phaneuf,
told the Board that when his client became aware that a convenience store/
service station was going to open at the Locust Street site, he wrote a
letter to the Building Inspector stating that, in his opinion, a special
.permit was required for such a use. Because of the proximity of the
business to his home, he asked that the issues of fencing and hours of
operation be brought to the attention of the Board of Appeals. In a tele-
phone conversation, the Building Inspector denied the request, whereupon
Mr. Phaneuf sought legal counsel. As the applicant's representative, Mr.
Kaplan then wrote to Mr. Clark asking that construction at the site be
stopped, but in a written response, Mr. Clark disagreed with him, but did
not address the cease and desist request. In a second letter, Atty.
Kaplan asked Mr. Clark for a yes or no answer to the cease and desist
request, but concluded from Mr. Clark's written reply that the answer was
no. Their only recourse at this point was to appeal to the ZBA.
He read Section 4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which states that the
Ordinance shall apply to any change in use or any alteration of a building
or structure when the alteration amounts to reconstruction, extension, or
structural change. He argued that the gas station was substantially
different from a convenience store with gas pumps, in which case, the
Zoning Ordinance would apply. He contended that with a special permit
the Board could impose conditions which would make the business more
tolerable for the neighbors.
Atty. Thomas Growhoski, representing Leonard Corliss, owner of the
property in question, spoke in opposition. He said that the former gas
station had operated at the site from about 1920 to approximately one
year ago, and was a far more intensive use of the property than is the
present use. Referring to Section 4.3, he contended that this section
has to do with expansion of a nonconforming use. He stressed the end of
the paragraph which states that the Zoning Ordinance shall apply when the
use is the same but to a greater extent. In this case, according to the
attorney, a full service station is being reduced to two gas pumps, and
therefore is not substantially greater. The convenience store is allowed
by right in this zone.
In answer to the Chairman's question about whether the building was
enlarged to accommodate the convenience store, Mr. Growhoski said that it
.�
u
Phaneuf Appeal
June 1; 1983
was remodeled, not enlarged. A mansard roof was added, making the
building a few feet higher, but this addition, purely for decorative
purposes, was merely "tacked on" and could be removed.
After questioning by the Chairman, it was determined that the set-
backs meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Atty. Growhoski commented that the bone of contention appeared to
be the hours of operation which he claimed could only be regulated by
the City Council.
The Chairman noted that, since the building contained 1,700 square
feet, six parking spaces were needed. Frank Pollicino, the architect
for the project, produced plans which showed the layout of the building
and the parking area which could accommodate at least six cars.
In response to Mr. Phaneuf's complaint about having his sleep dis-
turbed by car headlights, Mr. Pollicino suggested that shrubs about
three feet tall be planted to lessen the glare. Mr. Phaneuf said that,
besides being concerned about the lights, he was also upset about the
hours of operation, and he felt that the shrubs should be taller than
three feet.
Atty. Kaplan thought that fencing would be more effective for
screening light and would be no more expensive.
Mr. Brandt asked Mr. Phaneuf how long he has lived near the site
and if he was bothered by the previous use. The petitioner replied
that he has owned his home since 1973 and that there was no comparison
between the gas station and the present use because the gas station
closed early in the evening.
Returning to the issue of the fence versus shrubs, the Chairman sug-
gested that the two parties come to an amicable agreement on their own.
Mr. Phaneuf, however, was reluctant to settle the matter in this way.
He felt that if the business had to operate under a special permit, the
Board could impose restrictions on lights, hours and screening.
Cecil Clark, Building Inspector, noted that screening must be pro-
vided for any residential property adjoining a business use but, in this
case, a public street separates the two properties, thus the need for
screening is questionable.
At this point, it was moved and seconded to continue the hearing
to a later date in order to allow the Board time to visit the site and
to review the material relating to the appeal.
The hearing was temporarily adjourned at 8:45 PM. Present, in
addition to the Board members and those mentioned, were a reporter from
the Gazette, Clare Fennessey, Clerk, and three interested citizens.
Robert C. Buscher
Chairman
- 2 -
Do Not Write In These Spaces
Application Number:
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Name of Applicant Robert J. Phaneuf NppTHAMPTON, MA.
Address 169 North Elm Stree North ton. MA 0
2. Owner of Property same
Address
3. Applicant is: ®Owner; 0Contract Purchaser; OLessee; 0Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
C VARIANCE from the provisions of Sectio page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
D SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
MOTHER: Appeal fro® "=tin Q of buildfiw pgyffdt to Leonard nr7 i a
5. Location of Property Locust_ Street, Florence being situated on
the northerly side of Locust Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. Page 24A , Parcel(s) Plot 217
6. Zone N$
7. Description of proposed work and /or use; A
station wit two gas pumps, with
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; DYes 0 N
(b) Site plan: OAttched 0 Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application Is based: see Continuati Sheet
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge.
Dot „ Signature
APPLICATION- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ROBERT J. PHANEUF
CONTINUATION SHEET
9. Although the previously permitted service station use with two
repair bays had been "grandfathered in" without the necessity of
a special permit, the coupling of the changed use to that of a
convenience store, which is allowed by right, coupled with a
two -pump gasoline service station, which will run in conjunction
with the convenience store, is substantially different use as
defined by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton as
amended in Article 2 at Page 2 -18, which defines use, substantially
different:
"as a use which by reason of its normal operation would
cause readily observable differences in patronage, service,
appearance, employment, or similar characteristics from
the use to which it is being compared."
All of this is true for the changed use complained of by the
applicant.
I '- -
J
RE: Appeal To ZBA Of Robert Phaneuf Of The Building
Inspector's Refusal To Issue A Cease And Desist Order
Relative To The Property Owned By Leonard Corliss, City
Tax Map Page 24A, Plot 217, Zoned N
INTRODUCTION
BROWNELL,
GLISERMAN,
WASHBURN.
ETHEREDGE,
GERMS & KAPLAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
6 CRAFTS AVENUE
NORTHAMPTON, MASS.
01060
On February 15, 1983 Robert Phaneuf wrote to Cecil
Clark, Building Inspector of the City of Northampton,
complaining that Mr. Corliss' prospective use of the lot in
question may well be in violation "of the intent and letter of the
Zoning By- laws ". A copy of Mr. Phaneuf's letter is annexed
hereto.
In his letter he requested that a solid fence be
constructed parallel to North Elm Street. Secondly, and most
importantly, that a time limitation be set as a condition to
operation so that at the very least, the gas station portion of
the convenience store would stay open no later than 10:00 p.m.
The Building Inspector indicated to Mr. Phaneuf that he
felt no special permit was required and therefore no conditions
such as these could be set.
On March 3rd and March 10th, letters were sent to the
Building Inspector by Attorney Kaplan requesting that a Cease
and Desist Order be issued by the Building Inspector's office
until the appropriate special permit is applied for with
conditions attached. Copies of those letters are annexed
hereto.
The Building Inspector replied on March 7th and again on
March 21st of 1983, wherein he refused to issue that order.
Copies of those letters are annexed hereto.
As a result of the Building Inspector's refusal to issue
a Cease and Desist Order, an appeal to the ZBA was filed, which
brings this matter before the Board tonight.
ARGUMENT
Section 4.3 at Page 4 -1 entitled "Existing Buildings and
Land" states "This Ordinance shall not apply to existing
buildings or structures, nor to the existing use of any building
or structure or of land, to the extent to which it is legally used
1416) 584.7271
at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, but it shall apply to
any change of use thereof and to any alteration of a building or
structure when the same would amount to reconstruction,
extension or structural change, and to any alteration of a
building or structure to provide for its use for a purpose or in a
manner substantially different from the use to which it was put
before alteration, or for its use for the same purpose to a
substantially greater extent. ", meaning that any alteration of a
building or structure to provide for a use for purpose which is in
a manner substantially different from the use to which it was put
before alteration or if the use, even though the same or similar
is substantially greater, notwithstanding its pre - existing
nature, requires special permit.
Use, substantially different, is defined at Page 2-18 of
the Zoning By -laws. It states that a use, substantially
different, is a "use which by reason of its normal operation
would cause readily observable differences in patronage,
service, appearance, noise, employment or similar
characteristics from the use to which it is being compared."
It is acknowledged that the convenience store use is a
permitted use which requires no special permit. According to
the Table of Uses at Page 5 -9, an automobile service station in a
neighborhood business zone requires a special permit. Thus,
even though the service station use was a pre- existing
nonconforming use, by means of attaching a permitted use, that
being the convenience store, a use has now emerged which is
substantially different in that patronage, service, appearance,
noise, and employment, all as defined as use, substantially
different, have, in fact, changed as a result of the intended
convenience store /gas station proposed use of the new owner.
It is not necessary that the use necessarily be greater
only that the use be substantially different which triggers the
application of the By -law as per Section 4.3.
tfjgl .4 y Is tted,
BROWNELL,
GLISERMAN,
WASHBURN.
ETHEREDGE,
GERMS & KAPLAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
6 CRAFTS AVENUE
NORTHAMPTON, MASS.
07060
VID R.\KAP ,`-`
torney for bert Phaneuf
(433) 5647271
INSPECTOR
Cecil I. Clark
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
212 Main Street - Municipal Building
Northampton, Maas. 01060
March 7, 1983
Attorney David R. Kaplan
Brownell, Gleserman, Washburn
Gervais &
8 Crafts Avenue
Northampton, Ms. 01060
Re: Robert Phaneuf letter dated March 3, 1983
Dear Attorney Kaplan:
In regards to your letter concerning the building permit issued to
Leonard Corliss, City Tax Map, Page 24A, Plot 217, zoned N.B., please
be advised of the following:
We all agree that this Automobile /Service Station has existed for
many years. This use is an allowed use by Special Permit., Section
5.2, Page 5 -9 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinances. The proposed
automotive use as stated in your letter, eliminating two repair bays,
is for a substantially lesser use then the existing. Hours of oper-
ation are not controlled by zoning ordinances. In my opinion, the
proposed use does not require a special permit, as it is not adding,
but is in reality lessining the usage. However, I do feel that any
increase in gasoline storage would require a special permit.
The convenience store use is allowed by right, Section 5.2, Page
5 -7. Permits from this office are required.
Section 12.1 Environmental Performance Standards, specifically
paragraphs F., H. & I,'and Section 6.5, page 6 -5 Screening and
Buffers:
This is a change of use to the property, and therefore must conform
to these sections. Mr. Corliss and I have discussed this, and it
is my understanding that these conditions will be met.
I hope this clarifies the matter. If you have any further questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
S ncerely,
ecil I. rk
BUILDING INSPECTOR
elt of Xvd4a ttn
jB;gand
CC: R. Phaneuf
U)
I .... ...... I C.\
Cite of Nod4anTpOn
jB;ge;ckutft
INSPECTOR
Cecil I. Clark
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
212 Main Street - Municipal Building
Northampton, Mass. 01060
March 21, 1983
Attorney David R. Kaplan
Brownell, Gliserman, Washburn,
Gervais & Kaplan
8 Crafts Avenue
Northampton, Ma. 01060
Dear Attorney Kaplan:
Re: Dairy Mart, 15 Locust Street, Northampton, Ma.
With reference to your letter dated March 10, 1983;
please note:
I reference my opinion in the previous letter as to the
use of the structure. I do understand Mr. Phaneuf's
concern with the hours of operation, but in my opinion,
this issue is not part of the Zoning Ordinances.
As long as Dairy Mart conforms to the ordinances as to
usage, I do not feel it is under the jurisdiction of
this office to order a cease and desist at this time.
Sincerely,
cil I. Clar
BUILDING INSPECTOR
CIC /lp
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Lawrence B. Smith, Planner, on behalf of the Northampton Planning Board
SUBJECT: Phaneuf Appeal
DATE: May 10, 1983
FILE: 486
At their meeting on May S, 1983 the Northampton Planning Board reviewed the Application
of Robert Phaneuf Appealing the Building Inspector's issuance of a Building Permit for
a convenience store, which also pumps gas, replacing a automobile service station, at
the intersection of Locust Street and North Elm Street.
After hearing the report of the site inspection subcommittee and discussing the matter
with Mr. Phaneuf, his Attorney and Cecil Clark, the Building Inspector, thef_onowing motion:
it
that the Planning Board recommends tnat
granted and that Mr. Corliss be required to submit an Application for a
Special Permit based on Section 4.3 of Article 4 and Retail Service Commercial
Use l.a. on page 5-7 and 13. on page 5-9 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinances
Table of Use Regulations."
Failed by a vote of 1 -4 with one abstention.
CITY of NORTHAMPTON
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Lawrence B. Smith, Planner
SUBJECT: Phaneuf Appeal
DATE: May 3, 1983
FILE: 486
OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
At the corner of Locust Street and North Elm Street was a gasoline service station,
a pre- existing non - conforming use (it was permitted when it was created but in the meantime
the Zoning changed, only allowing such a facility in the district by Special Permit).
Recently the Building Inspector issued a Building Permit permitting the garage to be
converted to a "convenience store" which also pumped gas. The Building Inspector felt
that since a convenience store was permitted by right in that District, and since the
scope of the non - conforming nature of the operation was being reduced, that no Special
Permit was necessary.
hours
Mr. Phaneuf, an abutter across the street, apparently is conc with t the definitior
of operation of the convenience store. In his'application
for USE, SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT, and feels that the change to the convenience store is a
substantially different use. However, he doesn't site which Section of the Zoning
Ordinance was violated in the issuance of the Building Permit, nor does he say what course
of action should have been followed.
Mr. Phaneuf, the Building Inspector and the present owner of the property have been
invited to attend our meeting.