25C-080 (7) R
did not feel the project qualified for a Variance, so they continued the hearing to the spring to
allow the applicants to pursue a zoning change, he confirmed. He noted that he had met with the
applicant, former Senior Planner John Bennett, the City Solicitor, etc., to discuss options, and it
was decided to recommend that the applicant seek a zoning change. They were asking to
withdraw without prejudice so they would not have to wait two years to resubmit their petition,
he clarified.
Fratar informed members that the financial situation of that location continued to be bad. The
location continued to lose approximately$50,000 a year in revenue because it was not large
enough to act as a self-service gas station, he advised. The way to recoup that was to try to
expand the sale of non-gas retail items that were sold in a limited way now, he suggested. As
part of that process, the building would be totally renovated with a new facade and painting, and
there would be more green space; the asphalt would also be redone, he presented. Now there was
no incentive to put any money into it because they were in such a deficit, he pointed out. If they
closed the gas station, they would lose their pre-existing nonconforming status, so they continue
to operate at a loss, he explained. If they tried to sell the property as a building lot, they would
lose a large amount of money; the last estimate was $120,000; however, if they were allowed to
go forward they would renovate the building and improve the property, he said. He pointed out
the business did employ a number of people, and the neighborhood was in favor of the change.
Snelling informed members of light cosmetic work which had been done to the building,
including painting the guardrail fence. He referred to the Pride station/Citgo station as an
example of the style they would like to adopt.
Todd and Heather Willard of 6 Sherman Avenue attended the meeting to stay informed of the
process and the status of the project. They expressed concerns over the existing conditions of the
site, but stated they understood that this hearing was regarding withdrawal of the application.
NeJame clarified that the applicant wanted to withdraw the petition, and the Board had to decide
whether to allow withdrawal with or with out prejudice. Williams confirmed that even if a new
application were submitted under a new zoning designation that approval would still be required
through the Planning Board Special Permit process.
Riddle moved to accept the petition to withdraw the application without prejudice.
Northrup seconded. The motion passed unanimously 3:0.
r � PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
CitN Hall• 2i o Main Street,Room ii • Northampton,MA o i o60-3 r 98 • (413)587-1266 • Fax:S87-1.264
i
�«=P wapnereiden,Di rector•emaiLplanning@ cite.northampton.ma.us-in ternet:wwwnorthamptonp[anningorg
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
June 22, 2000
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals held a meeting on Thursday, June 22, 2000 at 6:00
p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Present were Members: Chair Mark NeJame, Vice Chair Bob Riddle and Associate Member Sara
Northrup.
Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner Cynthia Williams and Board Secretary Laura
Krutzler.
At 6:01 p.m., NeJame opened the meeting. NeJame introduced Board members and staff.
At 6:02 p.m., NeJame opened the Continuation of a Pubic Hearing on requests filed by Decker
& Company, Inc. for a Finding, or whatever other relief is necessary, to change a pre-existing
nonconforming use (from an auto repair facility to a convenience store) in a pre-existing
nonconforming structure under Section 9.3 (1) (D) of the Zoning Ordinance, for a Variance
from the provisions of Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, or whatever other relief is necessary,
to allow a convenience store in a UR-B District, and for Variances, or whatever other relief
is necessary, to relocate and change two existing nonconforming wall signs under Section 7.6
(1) for property located at 310 Bridge Street, Northampton, also known as Map 25C, Parcel
80.
NeJame read the legal notice.
Robert Fratar, Esq. of Fratar& Kern, 1391 Main Street, Springfield, MA, presented the
application, accompanied by C.J. Snelling of 17 Washington Street, Springfield,District
Manager for B & D Petroleum. Fratar said he was asking that they be allowed to withdraw the
applications without prejudice, and he had submitted a letter to that effect. (He said he
understood discussion had been held at the meeting earlier in the month.) They were attempting
to rezone this facility and other locations along Bridge Street and had retained the services of
Attorney Thomas Growhoski, he advised. He noted that he had contacted Growhoski earlier,
but, unfortunately, he had had some pretty severe health problems and had been unable to move
forward. He clarified that he would like to withdraw the applications without prejudice on the
theory that if the zone change were unsuccessful, they would like to be able to return before the
Board to pursue these applications.
NeJame briefly reviewed the history of the application. As the hearing was left, most members
planning board-conservation commission •zoning board ofappea ls •housing partnership•redevelopmentatithorit'v •northampton GIS
economicdeve lot)ment•communitg develop men t-historic district commission •historicaI commission•centraI business architecture
original printed on regcledpaper
r
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
May 25, 2000
Page 2
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to call me at your convenience
should you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
FRATAR & KERN
By:
Robert N. Fratar,
RNF/nb
cc: Mr. Conrad Decker
Decker& Company, Inc.
Mr. Michael F. McCarthy
Vice President and Treasurer
B&D Petroleum Sales, Inc.
e
� 1
FRATAR C7t.. KERN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HARRISON PLACE ROBERT N.FRATAR
1391 MAIN STREET WILLIAM E KERN
SPRINGFIELD,MA 01103
TELEPHONE: (413) 734-3119 WALTER A.ARANOW
FACSIMILE: (413)736-0670 of Counsel
E-MAIL: fntkem @crockeccom
DONALD W.O'NEIL
W W W.FratamndKem.com (1928-1984)
May 25, 2000
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Attn: Mark A. NeJame, Chairperson
RE: Public Hearings on requests by Decker& Company, Inc. for finding to change
pre-existing non-conforming use, variance to allow convenience store in UR-B
district, and variances to relocate signs
Property: 310 Bridge Street,Northampton, Massachusetts
Dear Attorney NeJame:
As you know, our firm represents B&D Petroleum Sales, Inc. in connection with the
above-referenced matters. Since our last meeting at the Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing in
October, 1999, our client B&D Petroleum Sales, Inc. has been exploring the possibility of
seeking a zone change to the most restrictive type of commercial use to allow for the operation of
a small convenience store within its existing building at the subject location.
Such a zone change would not only be a benefit to our client, but would also,we believe,
benefit the other businesses along that particular section of Bridge Street. Also, as you will recall
a large number of Northampton residents signed a petition in favor of the use of a portion of our
client's building as a convenience store. Such use, if approved, would provide our client with the
incentive to vastly improve the appearance of the location by renovating the exterior facade of
the building, adding landscaping and green space to the property, improving signage, fencing and
lighting. The convenience store would also provide a much needed amenity to the surrounding
neighborhood, making convenience store items accessible to the neighbors, especially those who
could easily reach the facility on foot.
We therefore request, on behalf of our client, that the Zoning Board of Appeals allow our
client to withdraw the above-referenced petitions without prejudice.
MAY `; 0
2W
FPnFiled in City Clerk's Office June 23,20
u� JUN23 ?.0
DEFT OF SIB
�OFTF�
Date• June 22, 2000
To: Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
I hereby request that I be allowed to withdraw without prejudice my
Finding, a use Variance, and two variances to relocate and change two non-
applicatiory for aAconforming wall signs which was filed on
March 3, 1999 (Finding) and March 31, 1999 (Variances)
(See Letter for Sitnature)
Applicant