Loading...
2024-06-27 ZBA Staff Report Nathan Chung, Land Use Planner ▪ NChung@NorthamptonMA.gov ▪ (413) 587-1262 Staff Report PERMIT TYPE PUBLIC HEARING DATE OWNER / APPLICANT EXISTING USE ZBA Special Permit 06/13/2024 Applicant: Adam Niksa from Mass Signs Owner: ELLENDAVE LLC. (Occupying business is Goodwill) Nonconforming over-height sign at the rear of the building. PROPERTY ADDRESS/PARCEL ID/ZONE/LOT SIZE 1. Address: 971 Bridge Rd 2. Parcel ID: 18D-070-001 3. Zone: HB (Highway Business) 4. Lot size: Approximately 1.494 AC per Assessor’s property card APPLICATION URL Direct link: https://northamptonma.portal.opengov.com/records/1026 (*Parent folder link if you have trouble using the direct link. Locate the application folder by street address: https://northamptonma.portal.opengov.com/) Summary of Request The applicant, the sign maker for the business occupying the building, proposes to update the existing nonconforming wall sign by putting a replacement sign with a new design to the left of the existing sign while staying within the same size and below the current height. Due to the unique topography of the site and the building, the business’s main entrance is in the rear lot and the existing nonconforming sign in question is over this main entrance. This makes the sign a rear sign, which has more restrictions than a front sign. The nonconformity of the existing and proposed signs is due to the height, not other factors such as the size of the sign. The existing and proposed signs are positioned around 15’ vertical from the grade to the top of the sign while the zoning ordinance limits the vertical position of rear signs to 10’ maximum from the grade to the top of the sign. If the sign is to be placed 10’ from the grade as required by the zoning ordinance, it will cover the window glass. [Text in italics added on 6/26/2024 for clarification] While zoning ordinance 350-7.6 allows for a findings permit for nonconforming signs in residential districts and nonconforming projecting (blade) signs in the Central Business district, since this sign is in the Highway Business district, the provision does not apply. According to zoning ordinance 350-7.2M, the ZBA can issue a special permit to exceed certain zoning requirements for signs. While the ordinance does not explicitly say whether the height maximum is one of the factors for which the permit can provide relief, the staff is making a broad interpretation. The details are in the “Applicable Laws” section below. To grant a special permit under 350-7.2M, the Zoning Board of Appeals needs to determine that the architecture of the building; the location of the building or the land; or nature of the use being made of the building or land is such that the sign would not detract from the character of the neighborhood and should be permitted in the public interest. Applicable Laws 1. 350-7.4B(5) at https://ecode360.com/30995480: Rear wall signs. From § 350-7.4B(5)(c): “The sign shall not be higher than 10 feet above grade.” 2. 350-7.2M at https://ecode360.com/30995433: ZBA sign special permit criteria a. Additional staff note: 7.2M explicitly mentions maximum size and the number of signs as requirements that the ZBA special permit can provide zoning relief for. It also explicitly prevents providing relief for a “taller” sign, which the staff interprets to mean the vertical length of the sign itself, not the height. The tallness is especially important for ground signs. 7.2M says, “The Board of Appeals may issue a special permit allowing more than the number of signs herein permitted and/or for signs of a larger size, but not taller than herein permitted, provided that:…” It stays silent on whether the permit can allow for exceeding the allowed maximum height. The staff is making a broad interpretation that the ZBA special permit can provide zoning relief to exceed the required height. Please note that proposed new sign will be placed slightly lower than the existing sign. b. As a similar past precedent, the ZBA on May 27th, 20092011 granted to R. Michelson Galleries (Parcel 32C-007) a special permit for a rear wall sign placed higher than 10'. The decision is “32C-007 Special Permit 2009” in the folder at http://archive.northamptonma.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=305453&dbid=0&repo=Ci tyOfNorthampton. It used the special permit provision in that year’s Section 7.4. Compliance with Zoning TYPE REQUIREMENTS EXISTING NON- CONFORMITIES PROPOSED CONDITIONS Vertical position of the sign from the grade to the top of the sign, i.e. the height. 10’ maximum 185” ~= 15.4’ 178.25” ~= 14.9’ Note: The staff looked into past building permits and special permits for the existing Goodwill sign by looking at application for the parcel and also the nearby CVS parcel. Staff could not find any. The Building Department’s folder, which would have applications for signs, only have building permits going back to 2023 but not older. Other Issues and Comments by Other Departments DPW had no comments. Staff Decision Recommendation ☒ Approve ☐ Approve with Conditions ☐ Deny Staff Condition Recommendation None, except if otherwise determined by the Board based on public hearing comments. Nathan Chung, Land Use Planner ▪ NChung@NorthamptonMA.gov ▪ (413) 587-1262 Staff Report PERMIT TYPE PUBLIC HEARING DATE OWNER / APPLICANT EXISTING USE ZBA Residential Findings June 27th, 2024 Gregor Miles Toulson Wimmer Single-family home PROPERTY ADDRESS/PARCEL ID/ZONE/LOT SIZE 1. Address: 27 Woodbine Ave 2. Parcel ID: 25A-156 3. Zone: URB 4. Lot size: 0.18 AC according to owner-applicant APPLICATION URL Direct link: https://northamptonma.portal.opengov.com/records/1197 (*Parent folder link if you have trouble using the direct link. Locate the application folder by the street address: https://northamptonma.portal.opengov.com/search) Summary of Request The owner-applicant proposes two changes to the existing nonconforming single-family home with a narrow left-side setback of about 5’, looking at the house from Woodbine Ave. 1. Enclose the existing porch on the left side of the house. The porch has a left-side setback of about 5’ and a left-side-facing egress door. After the enclosure, the side-facing door will no longer be an egress door. The proposed enclosure triggered the findings permit requirement due to the side setback being less than 10’. In URB, if the nonconforming side setback is 10’ or greater, horizontal or vertical expansions that stay within the setback such as the proposed enclosure would have been allowed by- right. 2. Add a new mud room to the rear of the house, about 15’ by 8’. It will have a left-side setback of about 11’. It will have a new rear facing egress door that will replace the function of the existing porch egress door. This proposal alone would not have triggered the findings permit requirement because it meets the two requirements for being by-right: it stays within the existing nonconforming setbacks and the side setback of the proposed mud room is greater than 10’. The ZBA can consider the two items separately. To approve the findings permit according to 350- 9.3A(7), the ZBA must find that the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing conditions and does not create any new zoning violations. Applicable Laws • 9.3A(7): https://ecode360.com/11957619 • URB setback requirements: https://ecode360.com/attachment/NO2226/NO2226- 350g%20Table%20of%20Use%20and%20Dim%20Regs%20URB.pdf Compliance with Zoning TYPE REQUIREMENTS EXISTING NON- CONFORMITIES PROPOSED CONDITIONS Setbacks Side: 15’ minimum Left-side: About 5’. No change. Notes: Proposed rear mudroom expansion is further from the left-side lot line and is set back about 11’. The staff asked the applicant to also provide a rough open space estimate before and after the changes. Open space is compliant according to the applicant. Other Issues and Comments by Other Departments No comments from DPW. Staff Decision Recommendation Verify how the locations of the egress door(s) will change. ☒ Approve ☐ Approve with Conditions ☐ Deny Staff Condition Recommendation None, except if otherwise determined by the Board based on public hearing comments. Nathan Chung, Land Use Planner ▪ NChung@NorthamptonMA.gov ▪ (413) 587-1262 Staff Report PERMIT TYPE PUBLIC HEARING DATE OWNER / APPLICANT EXISTING USE ZBA Findings June 27th, 2024 DC Coffee Vacant automobile sales lot and office PROPERTY ADDRESS/PARCEL ID/ZONE/LOT SIZE 1. Address: 5 Fulton Ave 2. Parcel ID: 39A-030-001 3. Zone: CBg (Central Business Gateway) 4. Lot size: 0.39 AC according to the applicant’s site plan application Existing Conditions (Curb cuts in RED) Proposed Changes APPLICATION URL Direct link: https://northamptonma.portal.opengov.com/records/1175 (* New permitting system’s parent folder link if you have trouble using the direct link. Locate the application folder by street address by going to the Location search bar: https://northamptonma.portal.opengov.com/search) Summary of Request The applicant-owner of the property proposes a café + food venue and up to 10 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations on the property. As a part of the project, the applicant proposes to remove two of the four existing nonconforming curb cuts and move one curb cut to a different location on the property, changing the total number of curb cuts from 4 to 2. The property is the former site of automobile sales lot and office for Pleasant Journey Used Cars. The site is currently vacant with the buildings demolished. The property has frontage on three streets: Pleasant St, Fulton Ave, and Conz St. The applicant through its consultant Berkshire Design Group submitted a Planning Board site plan application for the proposed project. During the review of the application, the staff learned that the existing curb cuts are nonconforming and the proposed curb cut changes require a ZBA findings permit due to having the same type of nonconformity. The property currently has two curb cuts on Pleasant St and two on Fulton Ave. The zoning ordinance requires curb cuts to be at least 50 feet away from street intersections and other curb cuts in business districts. The existing curb cuts do not meet these requirements and are nonconforming. The applicant proposes to remove one curb cut on Pleasant St and one curb cut on Fulton Ave. The applicant then proposes to move the one remaining curb cut on Fulton Ave to Conz St, placing it further away from the street intersection. The proposed moving of the curb cut, while safer than the current condition and more than 50 feet away from the nearby street intersection, would still not be fully compliant with the zoning ordinance requirement since it is less than 50 feet from the curb cut of a neighboring business. Due to the physical constraint of the site, it is difficult for the new curb cut to become compliant without being too close to the proposed principal structure which will abut Fulton Ave. The Planning Board can approve more than one conforming curb cut on a parcel as a part of the site plan approval. For the Planning Board to approve the nonconforming curb cut, the ZBA needs to grant a findings permit. To grant the findings permit, the Zoning Board of Appeals need to determine that the proposed curb cut changes will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing curb cuts and do not create any new zoning violations. Relevant Documents “1B-ZBA Request for Finding-with Diagrams.pdf” in the application package with narrative and plans. Applicable Laws 1. 350-8.8F (https://ecode360.com/11957582): “Unless directly opposite an intersecting street, no portion of a driveway entrance or exit shall be closer than 50 feet to the curbline of an intersecting street nor shall it be closer than 50 feet to any portion of an existing driveway located in a business or industrial district.” 2. 350-9.3A(7): Findings permit requirement. Compliance with Zoning TYPE REQUIREMENTS EXISTING NON- CONFORMITIES PROPOSED CONDITIONS Curb cut location in business districts At least 50 feet away from street intersections and other curb cuts in business districts 4 existing curb cuts total as follows: A) 2 curb cuts on Fulton Ave: -Curb cut labeled A in the submitted drawing is 29.2’ from the intersection with Pleasant St. -Curb Cut B is 25.1’ from the intersection with Conz St. B) 2 curb cuts on Pleasant St: * --Curb Cut C is 30.3’ from the intersection with Fulton Ave. –Curb Cut D is 26.5’ from the Florence Bank curb cut on Pleasant. Reduce to 2 curb cuts total as follows: A) On Fulton Ave: Remove Curb Cut A and move Curb Cut B to Conz St, making it Curb Cut E. It will be 81.5’ from the Fulton-Conz intersection, and it will be 29.4’ from the Florence Savings Bank curb cut on Conz St. B) On Pleasant St, remove Curb Cut C on and retain Curb Cut D. Other Issues and Comments by Other Departments As of 2024/06/18, waiting on DPW comments. It is also reviewing the corresponding site plan application, which is extensive. Staff Decision Recommendation 1. Verify the rationale for having two curb cuts instead of just one. 2. Verify the traffic flow of the proposed curb cuts, i.e. two-directional or one-directional. 3. Verify that the proposed changes are safer than the existing conditions. ☒ Approve ☐ Approve with Conditions ☐ Deny Staff Condition Recommendation None, except if otherwise determined by the Board based on public hearing comments.