1985-08-12 Spec Permit Nton Ford.'
• j ;1
" " :,
'I .,
.;
01~~28
D!::CISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on Aup,ust 12, 1985, the Board of Appeals of the
City of Northampton voted unanimously to grant two Special Permit requests
and two Variance requests and to deny another Variance request of Robert
Thomas, 2215 Dixwell Avenue, Ilamden, Connecticut to expand an existing
building and erect ground sir,n5 in conjunction with a change in use which
is establishing a full service car dealership at property located at
5S Damon Road, Northampton (GI Zon~). Present and voting werel Chairman
Robert C. Buscher, Peter Laband and William Brandt.
The findings were as follows I
P. Laband, referring to the petitioner's request for change in
use in the pre-existing nonconforming structure under Section 9.3 (E),
found that the requested usc would not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing usc. Referring to the request to
construct an addition onto the pre-existing nonconforming structure
under Section 9.3 (A.3), he found that the addition will be in
conformance with present zoninr" and therefore, not substantially
more detrimental than the existing structure. Referring to
Section 10.10 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, he found that
the use is listed in the Table of Use Regulations with a Special
Permit; that the requested use will bear a positive relationship
to the public convenience insofar as many families possess two cars
which need repair and maintenance; that p(.destrian safety is not
really applicable, as there are few pedestrians in that area; that
the requested use will not increase an existing traffic problem;
that there would be no chance regarding municipal systems; that
Article XI does not apply; that the requested use will not unduly
impair the character of the zone, as the present use is more intense
and has a more "cluttered" appearance; and that the requested USe
is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance.
Referring to the Variance request for ground sign (designated
as "A"), Dr. Laband tound that under Section 2.1, Page 2;16, definition
of "sign, surface area of", the proposed signar,e does not exceed
100 sq. ft. as the surrounding non-illuminated metal frame is part
of the support, and therefore, a Variance is not necessary. Ile also
found, after a site view, that a limitation of a 15 ft. high sign would I
obstruct: motorists' vision at that point on D"mon Road due to the
proximity of Route 1191; that a hardship relatns to the public int"rest
and traffic difficulties; and that the requested uSe will not impair
the character of the neighborhood, nor derogate from the intent of
the Ordinance. Referring to the request for directional sir;ns, Dr.
Laband stated that after checking with the City Engill<'er rer,arding
the Industrial Drive setback, he found that all other bus.iness
signs are set back with the assumption that the paved roadway is the
right of way and that because the City did not offer information as
to property lines, the topography is unique; that a hardship is
involved as this business would have the only siCn setback at that
distance; and that the request will not be different than other 'area
siCns, nor will it nullify the intent of the Ordinance. lie voted
to deny inclusion of a logo on these two signs.
R. Buscher, referring to the proposed addition under Section 9.3,
found that the addition would not be in violation of the Ordinance.
• • 2
t •
", ., •
.'
.. '.
•
•
. ~i ; . no .. ,;' 'r
,"
ri
'.' ~~~~:
. , .. ~'
,I·~<\ .1-•. ' -,
•
•
•
•
•
"
"
I'
,:
'I
!.lecis ion -Rollert TI:",,,as
Pace 2.
"net fOUHlt In 1"tivor. H<:.::ferring to tt1(~ chilnr;e in use, he found that
\-lherc a c.)r dealership 15 a conslH:H::r-orientcd lJusinc5s, the presenta-
tion of tho business would be n~atcr, cleaner and mora attractive than
a tire shop's surrourldin,;s, and therefore, no·t mOICe detICimental than
tll~ (!xistir\~ us~~
I~ concurred with Dr, Laband re~ardinR the disadvanta~e of a
directional sir;n placed 15 ft. b~'lck from the Cityls property line,
and found placement 1-2 ft, from tha lot line beneficial to the
public in dircctin'j traffic flo'.:. However, h(~ t'"ul~d ap).J.inst the
plaCQment 01 the FURD 1080 on the direction~ sirns, find inc the
potitioner·s at"!,;ucmcnt8 not co!npelling cnou~h and the inClusion of
a lOl;O not necessary for direction to warrant relief,
Referrinr; to the corporate sir',n "A", ~Ir. Buscher found that the
existing sirn is substantially hi~her than that requested by the appli-
cant and that a 15 ft. 5i~n in that location would be a traffic hazard.
Rcferrine to the sllrfacc area, he fo~nd ~hal because the requested
siron is a univ(!r~;ully used sign~ ilf\fi the ele~:}(~ats of tho sien blend
into on" another, that the si~n is greater than 100 sq. ft, He stated
that the applicant's arr,uemcnt that the national franchisor requires
this size sit,nage for all dealerships is an arrog.lut approach, citing
several co~~unitiel where this size sien would not be allowed, and
.,
!
I
j
I I I expressed concerns with scttinR a precedent; howover, because almost J
all otl",r car dealerships in ~orthampton have the same size sign I
or larl;cr, which would pl.lce the applicant at a competitivc disadvantage.
he \;o\lld vote in favor of the sien, as it \Jill serve th" public j
intere,;t by o1"ferill!1 a consumer choice, employment and improvement to .
the site,
W. Orandt, referrinc to alteration of the buildinC and chance in
use under Section 9.3, found that the use is not suhstantially more
detrimental, as the used tire business is on the decline because
of Lechnically advanced tires in a healthy auto industry, and that a
car dealership would clean up the site. Referring to the c"rporate
siCn, he found that althou~h the Ordinance is clear in requiring a
15 ft. maximum heicht, because of the underpass, a 15 ft. sign could
cause a traffic hazard as uell as place the applicant at a competitive
di$~i(lvanta~e •
Rl'f<:rrinr, to criteria for a Vari.lnCG from Chapter 40A, ~IGL, he
found that location of the site is unique and preSonts a hardship
because of the possible traffic problems; that the surface araa of
the sign would not be attractive or safe on a 15 ft. siCn; and that
the request would not be of (letriment to the surrounding area. He
concurred witl. Dr. Laband that the size of Lhe sign is not &reater
than IOU sq. ft., and therefore, does not re'luit'e a Variance. Mr.
Brandt found in favor of the setback for the directional sign on
Industrial Drive, but acainst inclusion of the corporate logo on the
two siens.
After Saine discussion rcr,arding the procedure for allouinr, tha
erection of the corporate sien "A", Chm. Buscher agreed to acquiesce
to his colleaeues' opinion that a Variance uaS nOL necessary •
•• 3
i .;l r,.; 5" '~/" :! Deci$ion -Robert Thomas
, Page 3 ,
'1
[i
;1 Ii
i,
A sununary of the find1r.!!s 111 88 follows I
1. A Special Permit request for a change in use 18 granted.
2. A Special Permit request for alteration of a pre-existing
nonconforming structure is cranted.
3. A Variance request for a 3U foot corporate sign is granted.
4. No Variance is needed for the surface area of the corporate
si~n (less than lOU square feet).
5. A request for a Variance to ~clude the corporate lor,o on
two directional sir.ns 15 denied.
6. A Vari,.nce request to allow the directional siCn on Industrial
Drive to be set back less than 15 feet trom the lot line is granted.
;:
I' I!
!I i I Received al Cily Clerk's aftic.
d ~IO'\.YH""MPTON' HASS, i; '~.-~_ ) 1tH1--,,141>
i8 -~~'
lioa,e7li,'S" ,L.38 1$2 -
:/ , o'J.~->Q f(n7. II Time ,,-
'I II
~~. Itohort C. lJuscher. Chairman
November 14, 1985
:! I. Christine Skorupski. Assistant City Clerk of the City of
:: Northampton, hereby certify that the above decision of the
I' Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals was filed in the Office i! of the City Clerk on August 30, 1985, that twenty days have
i~ elapsed since such filing and that no appeal has been filed
~I in this matter.
Ii I
II
I
I
I I
I
-"
o
, .
", •
"
.~
. ~
•
•
; ......
, " , ., : ~ ,.
(0, ~' .,
, . I.~'
• ",,0\0'