The URL can be used to link to this page

18D_033A Plan Believed Not to Require Approval Damon RdN FORM A NORTHAMPTON, MA . . acX.i ., ., APPUCATION FOR ENDORSEMENT OF PLAN BEUEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL File five completed forms and plans and one mylar with the City Clerk and the Planning Board in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.02. To the Planning Board: The undersigned, believing that the accompanying plan of his/her property in the City of Northampton does not constitute division within the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law, herewith submits said plan for a determination and endorsement that Planning Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law is not required. 1. Applicant_ 4m Wa- N 1 `✓S P int or typ name ignature �s S u P4 &7) sBY��sZ Address Phone 2. owner K%P-YKW PAXTNS=54 0 Print or type name Signature Ile, 5oUTH S5'tRWT i OMATTor l Yi3 .s$Y 571 Address Phone ALMM RUNTLEY JR • 3. Surveyor SC ASSOc.tg-reg+ 1"C, - Print or type name Signature I rJous-��.ia� LA1 E t45T �o12T►aAMl�toPl 5P4 71444 Address Phone 4. Deed or property recorded in O Registry, Book -640+- Page I to B EbooK,. 5o b4 Pb -Y 2 ci I S. Location and Description of Prop rty: +wo Faurcet s 0-t,%h9 ©vi PmAN 'Qa wwm -?&ad PCL A : 7 2, 2 sf PCL py 6. Assessor's Map ID: Lot (s) 33 thrbv.ah 37 Date Submitted for Planning Board Approval: City Clerk: (Signature) (8/13/91) Date Planning ecis�jon Fil City Clerkz SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS -------PAGE 60 APR 151997 ' ' f.+>! . J PROCEDURE FOR ACCEPTING FORM A'S APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAA All of the following must be included in order to be considered a full application for endorsement: A. The original, reproducible (mylar) drawing of the Plan, with the endorsed Seal of a Professional Land Surveyor, registered with the *Commonwealth of Massachusetts, B. Five (5) prints of the Plan, C. Five (5) copies of the fully completed and endorsed application "Form All, D. Filing Fee made payable to the City of Northampton: $50.00 per sheet PLUS $50.00 per lot if there are not four points tied to the Mass. -State Plane system (1927 datum) PLUS $25.00 per sheet when no electronic version is provided NO APPLICATIONS SHALL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE INCLUDED Application should be delivered to the City Clerk for date stamping and then delivered to the Office of Planning and Development. All accepted Applications will be acted upon within twenty-one (21) days of their acceptance. Once an Application has been acted uggri, the Applicant receives back only the original, reproducible (Mylar) drawing. The five (5) prints and the five (5) "Form A's" shall remain in the Office of Planning and Development for distribution and the Filing Fee shall be deposited with the City (regardless of whether the Plan has been approved or disapproved). ICA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS -------PAGE 61 City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950 FAX (413) 586-3726 • conservation commission • Historical commission • Housing Partnership • Parking commission • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals Stephen P. Cahillane, Partner Kerryman Partnership c% 375 South Street Northampton, MA 01060 August 13, 1997 Dear Mr. Cahillane, In reviewing the files for the Damon Road dealership projects, it was brought to my attention that hearing a final landscaping plan has not yet been submitted. If you recall during the planning BBoardsubmitted. As a result of this, the Planning Board hearing process, two landscaping plans were Picked the preferred planting features from each one and required the site plan. As you are nearing completion of the site work the landsthem to capincorporated g is no tyetlin Place, I am enclosing a copy of the landscaping plans approved by the Planning Board o that the project will be in compliance prior to the requesting of and receipt of a final occupancy permit. If you have any questions regarding the information enclosed with this letter, please do hesitate to contact me. not Sinc 1 , Paulette L. Kuzdeba, AIC Senior Planner cc: Building Inspector '- file encl: 3 landscaping plan pages ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER r � J d d Q^ t Z x R III d a LO :t a Q U ,s,tnn- V' J d � 9�- - N — t� rY -d j J tl J , U, ay �00 arc cj d a LO :t a Q U ,s,tnn- V' J d � 9�- - N — t� -d .�. 14 �in 0 U, ay e4 r 4 L) ` _J d v ob NO �i - 1.)t,/CNvra V Lbw -C A a zi -C - 1.)t,/CNvra V Lbw -C A a zi 1p co a A (0 t) Al 97 U- RIS 1p co a A (0 t) Al 97 U- Z u N r A to vi � d cod U A. 4L d ?ffOt co Cli N r 'd t t j d it IPA Q d a .d D 4t �QN A ©r Q 4d: 2 Q 1 Agr Ar �aLU 44 410 &t Ad Q d a 1- ti 8 z C[ - a 0 T a IV) IS CC K r -,OO, C1 i Zora- ,(or4 r 2 Xis'�zs . m , f- L7 , /fib-33f3� NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS Decision on Rust and Kerryman Realty Trust Petition March 13, 1976 The meeting to decide on the application for various vari- } antes and special permits for Charles and Mary Rust and Kerryman rder at 9=:00 AM in the Council Cham - Realty Trust :+as called to o bens, City Hall by the Chairman, Charles W. Dragon. E The minutes of the public hearing which had been advertised in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on February 17 and February 24, 1976, were read and approved unanimously. The Chairman noted that the property in question was ori- ginally two separate parcels -containing two separate buildings, but the two were combined for the operation of a camping trailer and mobile home business by the present owners. Only one entrance to the property exists. Severe economic conditions affected this business and the owner now wishes to sell. The recently enacted zoning ordinance, however, requires side lot setbacks of 15 feet and building separation of 30 feet which cannot be met. To sell the two parcels separately would require a variance and the addition of a second entrance which would be in close proximity to the railroad crossing with the inherent danger that would result. A corner of the smaller building and the entire rear portion of the property is within 100 feet of a brook and an easement to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts exists on the property. These conditions affect these parcels but do not affect generally the zoning district in which they are located so that literal enforce- ment of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant. There will be no increase in the use of water and sewer facilities; and retaining a single entrance onto a state by-pass highway at the portion of the property opposite the railroad crossing will prevent any detriment to the public good. The repair of autos which is allowed with a special.permit in this zone, seems to be an allied business to the sale of new and used autos and does not differ greatly from the present use of selling mobile homes and camping trailers. In this respect there is no nullity nor substantial derogation from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. On the special permit for the repair and service of autos, the use is ligted in the Table of Use Regulations. The property which is becoming run-down and deteriorated will be refurbished. The site is located on a state by-pass highway and traffic will be no heavier than that caused by the heavy moving vehicles formerly used on the property. There will be no increase in the use of water and sewer facili- ties. The character of the neighborhood will not be changed since similar businesses now exist in close proximity to this site. On the matter of the special permit for the erection of signs, the Chairman said that he would make no broad interpretation of the question of the two buildings constituting two establishments. He felt that, in this case, the petitioner has a right to have signs on each building in addition to a free standing sign as the zoning ordinance states. The Building Inspector agrees with this. Mr. Brushway remarked that the signs should be in conformance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, in which case, no permit will be necessary. On the matter of the need for a permit because a portion of the property is in the Watershed Protection District, the same reasoning for granting this permit applies as in the case of the permit for auto repairs. At this point the vote was taken. The Board voted unanimously to grant the requests with the following restrictions: a. There will be no storage of waste materials which might run off into the stream. b. There will be no excavating for the purpose of underground storage in the Watershed Protection District. C. The property is to be used only for the purposes requested on the application, and the submitted plans will be initialed and filed. d. In conformance with Board policy, a performance bond in an amount to be decided by the YC' must be posted by Ir the petitioner. r.1111 -u-", ,rc, a,,�. c l 0-4 - 2 - The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM. Present and voting were Charles W. Dragon, Chairman, Armand Moggio and Thomas Brushway. C axles AW.Dragon Chairman - 3 - `� 7"2CL� - :i�i✓tet%/,,;r,��-,;zz,+� JAMES C. O'DONNELL CITY SOLICITOR THOMAS P. NAGLE, JR. ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR CITY OF NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION /p _ 53 3y In re Petition for Variances and Special Permits by Charles F. Rust, Mary Rust and Kerryman Realty Trust. A public hearing was conducted by the Board of Appeals on March 3, 1976, at City Hall, concerning the request of the petitioners for: (1) a permit for automotive repair or automobile service station under Principal Use 14, Page 5-10 of the Zoning Ordinance; (2) a Variance from Prinicpal Use No. 5 at Page 5-9 to allow an estab- /or used automobiles and lishment auntmsbileellingnew tires andoothereaccessories, motorcycles, households new auto 0 and camping trailers; (3) a Variance from the minimum sideline setback requirement for a building a llealteration renovation repair of the small building with essthanfifteenfeet setback as required in Article 6.2; (4) a Variance from the requirements of Section 6.8 (3) at Page 6-7 from the requirement that no two unattached structures shall be located closer to one another than thirty feet; (5) a Permit under Article 14, Watershed Protection District, to use hin this the portion of the of vehicles, ty partscanddfortaccessoryDistrict for use, accessoryrtonthe and storage principal use of the structures; and (6) a Permit for the erection of a sign on the front of the large building, a small sign on the front of the small building, one ground sign with a changing type facing for the large building, and one smaller ground sign for the small building. The Chairman, Charles W. Dragon, presided and called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Also present were members Armand Moggio and Thomas Brushway, Clerk Claire Fennessey, Stephen Cahillane of Kerryman Realty Trust, William Welch who is the attorney for the petitioners, and members of the public and representatives of the news media. Notice of the meeting, as published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on February 17 and February 24, was read into the record. The Chairman stated that a memorandum from the Planning Board was available for anyone who wished to read it. The Chairman read a letter from the Northampton Redevelopment Authority, an abuttor to the property, stating that it had no objection to the granting of the petition. Board of Appeals Decision - Charles F. Rust, Mary Rust & Kerryman Realty Trust - page 2 Mr. Welch presented the case for the petitioners as reported in the next six paragraphs. Mr. and Mrs. Rust own the property and have entered into an agreement to sell the property to Kerryman Realty:Trust, but the agreement is contingent jpon the allowance of the petition. Kerryman Realty Trust operates a business on South Street, North- ampton, selling automobiles and motorcycles. It has the agencies for Honda, Jeep, Dodge and AMC Motors and a garage and auto body shop. Kerryman desires to move the Honda Agency and the garage and auto body repair facility now, and one other dealership later, to the Damon Road site. An automotive repair facility may be operated onthese premises with a special permit, but a variance is needed to operate an automobile sales agency. The agency must have a repair facility and a repair facility without the agency is financially unfeasible. Before the Rusts owned the property, it consisted of two separate but adjoining parcels, each with a building located thereon, one used as a warehouse, the other usedsit forprivate camperutrailerAfter sales,Rusts repairsed the property, Mr. Rust incidental to this type of business. The interior of both buildings would be extensively renovated but the outside dimensions will not be changed. There will be no construction, filling or excavation affecting the wetlands area The Planhing Department memorandum stated that it would have pre- ferred that the applications for variances and special permits be separ- ate. Mr. Welch discussed this point with the Building Inspector and came to the conclusion that the variances and permits are "interlocking" since one is worthless without the others. The Chairman here stated that he had consulted with the Assistant City Solicitor on this point, and it was felt that in this case it would be unrealistic to require separate applications; but the various requests would have to be decided individually. Mr. Kloc, an abuttor, said that he has no objections to the application, and approved of development in this area. No one spoke in opposition. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. At a meeting duly called, in accordance with the rules of the Board of Appeals, which was held at 9;00 A.M. on March 13, 1976, with the chairman, Charles W. Dragon presiding and members Armand Moggio and Thomas Brushway present, the Board made the following findings and gave the following reasons for its decision: In connection with the conditions especially affecting theRust parcel and the buildings on the Rust land, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, the Rust property was formerly two ontoeDamoneRoad. with Aftertwo purchaseseparate bybuildings Rusts, itwith formedseparate one entrances Board of Appeals Decision - Charles F. Rust, Mary Rust & Kerryman Realty Trust - page 3. lot with one entrance. The parcel is located adjacent to a railroad crossing with crossing signals. Under the former zoning law, when the buildings were compiled into one lot, there was no restrictions as to how close the buildings could be together and there was no sideline violation. Under the new zoning law, the lot itself abuts a brook and therefore the rear 100 feet across the property is subject to the Water- shed Protection zoning which severely restricts any use of the rear 100 feet. In addition, a corner of the small building is within this 100 feet Watershed Protection District. The two buildings also are closer than thirty feet together and the smaller building is not fifteen feet from the sideline, the present use is a nonconforming use so that any renovation, alteration or modification of the buildings for any other use or any expansion of the nonconforming use will require dimensional variances and the physical construction of the larger building limits its use to light manufacturing insofar as manufacturing is concerned. Insofar as a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involveCsubstantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners, the present use is a nonconforming use being used for the sale and servicing of motor homes and campers. This business has been severely affected and limited in the past few years by the gasoline situation, the state of the economy and the increase in interest rates. The City of Northampton, in the past few years, has not seen any manufacturing plants established or located and in fact, several rpoperties have been converted from manufacturing uses to other uses. Under the new zoning law there are very few uses to which this property could be put to as a matter of right, its main use apparently being a construction supply establishment or manufacturing but economically the property cannot be put to these uses at this time. A separation of the lot into its former two separate lots would not be permissible as a matter of right under the new zoning law and to deny the variance, to prohibit the sale of new and used automobiles whereas the sale of new and used campers is presently being conducted, would involve sub tantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the Rusts, and in particular, where they have been trying to sell the property for several years but have not been able to do so. In connection with the question of whether desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance, the proposed use for the sale of new and used automobiles and other vehicles, together with the permit for the repair or vehicles, would be exactly the same kind of use as the property directly across the road; would be similar in use to the nonconforming use presently being conducted, would provide for the reduction in such use by the Cahillanes on South Street, a residential area; would :trantf k—,this _. usesto Damon Road, a business area; would be similar to other uses on King Stre--, within - rew hundred feet of this location asad such use has been affirmatively endorsed by the abutters as being of benefit to the neighborhood and the sale of new and used vehicles VDUW.A tlb*n practical without also a permit to repair vehicles in connection there- with. Such a change would also result in the substantial physical Board of Appeals Decision - Charles F. Rust, Mary Rust & Kerryman `Realty Trust - Page 4 improvement of the property, and there will be no unusual increase in water or sewer usage, nn additional blacktopping of the areas and no change in the exterior lines of the buildings. In connection with a permit to use the premises for automotive repair requested by Kerryman Realty Trust, the requested use would bear a positive relationship to public convenience or welfare in that it would retain the single entrance which is of benefit, it being near the railroad crossing; would make a use of the property very similar to the present nonconforming use; would help to remove a business use from South Street, a residential area, and transfer it to Damon Road. The requested use would not increase any traffic congestion as the entrance way would remain as it presently is, the traffic coming to the site would be for automotive sales or repairs rather than camper sales or repairs; the road is a bypass State highway and the buildings immediately adjacent are business properties and not residential, as a result of which pedestrial travel is extremely limited and the requested use would not materially change or increase the use of water or sewerAor the other-1,musicipal systems. Further, the property has approximately 70,000 square feet, less approximately 13,000 square feet of building space, leaving approximately 55,000 square feet of open areas and has a loading dock. The use would not impair the character of the district or be detrimental as the district is business in nature, has an automotive and tire business across the street and an Industrial Park also across the street and the neighbors are in favor of the upgrading of the property which would result from the allowance of the permit and the same reasons apply as far as the permit under the Watershed Protection area, in addition to which there would be no filling in or excavating or extension of any building on to the 100 foot area and no additional blacktopping and the soil would remain as it is. ��.� � rat.i c.��.�'c+�.►♦ 'M �,�. 'r.�.-►i ♦�'� ..t.4'y., .��>.1.�:�►�>► .E�� :�:��►�n.a.� ,�:a�a�'w.�ti:�,�:'� t:T. �.i"fA�,i i.►6U tri � >t.� :•1.i.t.�i 3 �.i,♦ ;).J:.3.�t.a It was unanimously decided that, owing to conditions especially affecting the Rust land and buildings but not affecting generally the zoning district in which they are located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial and otherwige, to the appellants, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. Upon separate motions, duly made acid seconded, it was unanimously voted in each case: 4,- Board of Appeals Decision - Charles F. Rust, Mary Rust and Kerryman Realty Trust - Page 5. (a) To grant a permit for automotive repair or automobile service station under Principal Use 14, Page 5-10_of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) To grant a variance from Principal Use No. 5 at Page 5-9 to allow an establishment selling new automobiles and/or used auto- mobiles and trucks, new automobile tires and other accessories, motorcycles, household and camping trailers. (c) To grant a variance from the minimum sideline setback require- ment for a building in a G.I. Sone to permit the alteration, renovation or repair of the small building with less than fifteen feet setback as required in Article 6.2. (d) To grant a variance from the requirements of Section 6.8 (3) at Page 6-7 from the requirement that no two unattached structures shall be located closer to one another than thirty feet. (e) To grant a permit under Article 14, Watershed Protection District, to use the portion of the property located within this District for parking and storage of vehicles, parts and for accessory use, accessory to the principal use of the structures. (f) To grant a permit for the erection of a sign on the front of the large building, a small sign on the front of the small building, one ground sign with a changing type facing for the large build- ing, and one smaller ground sign for the small building. On motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously voted that the granting of these permits and variances is subject to the follow- ing restrictions: (a) There will be no storage of waste materials which might run off into the stream. (b) There will be no excavating for the purpose of underground storage in the Watershed Protection District. (c) The property is to be used only for the purposes requested on the application, and the submitted plans will be initialed and filed. (d) In conformance with Board policy, a performance bond in an smount to be decided by the Board, with advice from the City Solicitor, must be posted by the petitioner. 1-nairman Thomas Brushway u NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS Public Hearing - Kerryman Realty and Rust March 3, 1976 The public hearing on the petition of Kerryman-Realty Trust and Charles and Mary Rust for special permits and variances to conduct an automotive sale and repair business in a General Industrial zone was called to order at 7:40 PM in the�_Council Chambers, City Hall, by the Chairman, Charles W. Dragon. The public notice which was published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on February 17 and February 24, 1976, was read into the record. The Chairman read a letter- from the Northampton Redevelop- ment Authority, an abutter to the property, stating that the NRA had no objections to the application. The Chairman then noted that a memorandum from the Planning Department was available for anyone who wished to read it. Attorney William Welch, 143 Main Street, represented the petitioners. He said that the property, located on Damon Road, is now owned by the Rusts and was originally two separate parcels with two separate buildings. One of these buildings was used as a warehouse, the other a private club. The warehouse building would be suitable for light manufacturing, but not for industrial use. After acquiring the property, Mr. Rust used it for camper trailer sales, and repairs incidental to this type of business. The property has never been used for auto body repair work. Kerryman Realty Trust now has a buy and sell agreement with the Rusts, contingent upon the Board's granting the variances and permits. The Rusts have been trying to sell the property for the past three years. The petitioners, now operating their business on South Street, would like to move part of their operation to Damon Road because they have outgrown the South Street site. At the present time, they have the Honda, Jeep, Dodge, and AMC Motors Agencies, along with an auto body shop. The removal of some of these operations would lessen traffic congestion on South Street. It is proposed that the Honda Agency, the auto body repair facility, and eventually, one of the other dealerships will move to the Damon Road site. Continuing, Mr. Welch said that according to the new zoning ordinance, an automotive sales agency is not allowed in this General Industrial zone without a variance, but an automotive repair facility is allowed with a special permit. He contended that in order to operate a sales facility, a repair facility is essential, and that limiting the property to automotive repairs would be financially unfeasible. The uses allowed in this district under the new zoning ordinance are very restrictive, according to Mr. Welch. Manu- facturing is allowed here, but even the nearby Industrial Park has not been successful in getting tenants for its property. Restricting the parcel to industry would, in effect, be competing with the Redevelopment Authority. The property is served with water and a sewer system,, neither of which will be burdened by the proposal. The present parking lot will remain unchanged. Extensive renovations are planned for the interior of the warehouse building and, in the future, the smaller building will also be renovated. The outside dimensions of the buildings will not be changed. There will be no construction done in the wetlands area, nor will there be filling or excavating. Referring to the Plan++ing Department memorandum in which concerns were expressed about only one application being filed for the various requests, Mr. Welch said. that after discussions with the Building Inspector, he came to the conclusion that in this particular case, the variances and permits are "interlocking" since one is no good without the other. At this point, Mr. Dragon said that he had consulted with the Assistant City Solicitor on this matter, and it was felt that the need for several applications was unrealistic. However, the various requests must be decided on individually. The following requests are being made: o Permit for signs o Permit for automotive repairs o Permit because a portion of the land is in a wetlands area o Variance to sell automobiles - 2 - o Variance for existing setbacks I'/ o Variance because the two existing buildings are not far enough apart. Proceeding with his presentation, Mr. Welch said that there are several businesses operating in this area, and the proposed use is in keeping with the character of the neighbor- hood. The limits imposed by the zoning ordinance has caused hardship for Mr. Rust. Also the drainage easement to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a hardship affecting this property, while not affecting neighboring parcels. Mr. Welch further stated that granting the requests will provide employment in the area, and will remove business from a residential zone to a commercial zone. Mr. Kloc, an abutter, said that he has no objections to the proposal, and approved of development in this area. Steven Cahillane, 400 King Street, said that expansion is necessary to better serve the customers. No one spoke in opposition. The hearing was adjourned at 8:25 PM. Present were Charles W. Dragon, Chairman, Armand Moggio and Thomas Brushway. Also present _ere Clare Fennessey, Clerk, Attorney William Welch, Steven Cahillane, Steven Kloc, and several interested citizens. as well as members of the news media. - 3 - Charles W. Dragon, hairman OIL ,��._ , �t• � _ _ - $ �I' A R fir OV APPIA . ... .. . ..... c�,► .rounds 'f'R�'�iQti'tion. ed 'infdrm6ti dii 'shall be yail'ure 'to supple` .al:l' rec�ua'r , ..... , ... • .. , wether with seven 1. filled out in ink or typewritten, toy, This petition must be lans 'of 'tYie 'affecfed 'premises 'showiri tlotice:- $ 'set's 'of p dimensions and copies,' 'arid 'ac'cdmpani ed by and ,the .loca.ti.ons,, locatioA,..dimensions. and area .og..the lot,. . a Inspector 'arid 's'r11'-` ' ' ' • ' the distance from the boundary lieesofficelo•fsthecliui:ldin�tures ected and to tie , erected.'' It sYiall' b'e ,filed 'at 'the .00 and a charge. of .32•.00 for. each . anied by, a filing fee ,of„ •375 be accomp. entitled to notice. " person .. . . . . . ... . . . '�,i TION .§k1RTl APPEALSS'll(ii2iam'.H'.�Feci 'FF..LR! 6rt hjKane' . 5 ... Qx.Awt.R�?� . , . ... Ste ene .Caa °� � g��...R Address..,.�.43.:N .�.�.. . Petitioner(s�j.,J�S. a11RYtFerryman North �am t6lijA 272• Grove St ::7 .......•.........,. OUmef r 'o :. & • *qLryR}tst Address.....• ..:.,• ...,. • Premises .. .. r.... has a written con-. The. peti,tionex.is the.orrnex,e96+ this etition. (Cross out tract to purchase p.• the premises affected by inapplicable' wdrds', not applicable 'td pe'tition6 for 'review)`.' ' ' .forth on J lrtitiva Is ■aM for • V=Ult or awtMotivrl re"3A se etttometslZe serrlee Statl.en ctet4er 't'�rlttcipit2 a 14-- Zoning Ordinance; For a Variance from Principal Use No. 5 at Page 5-9 to allow an establishment selling new automobiles and/or used automobiles and trucks, new automobile tires and other accessories, motorcycles, household and camping trailers; For a Variance from the minimum sideline setback requirement for a building in a G.I. Zone to permit the alteration, renovation or repair of the small building with less than fifteen feet setback as required in Article 6.2; For a Variance from the requirements of Section 6.8 (3) at Page 6-7 from the requirement that no two unattached structures shall be located closer to one another than thirty feet; For a Permit under Article 14, Watershed Protection District, to use the portion of the property located within this District for parking and storage of vehicles, parts and for accessory use, accessory to the principal use of the structures; and For a Permit for the erection of a sign on the front of one large building, a small sign on the front of the small building, ooone ground sign with a changing type facing for the large building, and smaller ground sign for the small building. are filed Three zoning applications, No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, herewith, one for the Permit, one for the Variances, and one for the Special Conservancy Permit. Description of puse:.........+ ..... 5. roposed work and ......... ......................................................................:..................... }� ,•;-easons upon -.which ,this patitiori is based are: as follows: ; ' ...... 3EE. SMMA1'TAC.HED , HE.RETO....................• ....................... . .. . . ........ • ................. . .. . ....... . . .... . . ...... ..0000.00000-0........... •. ..00.006.0000 0.00 .0.0.0.0 ................0.0.0.0... .l .- . . .0.0.0.0... ... :. ... ....�� . .0.0.0.0 .:.:....1..x.......... . '. .. xgnature of owner 3 r a�;ezi Date (OVER) ��'` 'q Petition,. ,e hereby made for a. V a-4- WPM 0 OPK2W TO & 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 'X=A%SX XXXWXMR The PrerniseB affected are situate on, the.. **.Bide of.I)MAQU RA'* 2bdZZK:k; designated as Parcel 23. A4. Sheet No, .,00115J3L&...... of the, Assessors' Plan of the City of Northampton'and are known...... Description of *WjvX=x 'Building Existing.,,........ .bl d 50 x l.. Size. of Existing 50 - Size Of Proposed Building. j3MV161616 0 0 0. 0,0. 0... 0.0 2., . Occupanc or, use:. (of each )Presentusehas been as a warehouse and'as.a camper-f3railer d.ealership 0 "saler eind-inobJele. homes.,...* 0 9,9.0 0 0.0 0 4- . 0 0 0 . 0 0"....."". . . 3. , Zone Distript ..... Qenwexal. JAdusjtrAajo; . a. 9 o to 0. 0 & 0. 0,0 0 0. 0 0. 0,&.. 4. Has ,there, been a previous petitioA ooncerning—the, affected premiseB?.,,,.,,.XQ.,,, If yes; specify......,........,.." -- "o 0. 61. 5. Description of proposed work and Use,: 0 0 0. 0000 000 goo 00& ... *0. e. 0.0 0.010 a & a o.. 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.0 0 0 0 0 9 .. 0 6 . . ... . . . . . . . :Whish ,this petition 1s based are. "as fbIldwo: • ....... §FE 06 qWn*to AWJ�CHM HERETO ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 . . . Date ignEZture of owner i wrent/ (OVER) 04 a44� — ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: PETITION TO BOARD OF APPEALS PETITIONERS: Charles F. Rust, et als No. 5. Description of proposed work and use: It is proposed that the buildings will be used, both the large building and the small building, for the repair and servicing of automotive vehicles'of all types and their accessories; for the operation of an automotive body shop involving the repair and servicing of automotive vehicles and other pieces of equipment brought in to the body shop for work; and for the sale and display and storage of all types of motor vehicles, both new and used, and their accessories. The small building being used primarily as an office and for the display of parts for small vehicles. No. 6. The reasons upon which this petition is based are as follows: The large building was originally built by McCallum's as a storage facility and the small building originally was a,cabinet shop and then the Franco -American Club, until both were purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Rust. -The buildings have been used for the past several years for the repair, servicing and sale of campers, trailers and mobile homes. This business has been severely cur- tailed because of the gas crisis of approximately a year or two ago and because of the general economy and inflation. The property itself has been on the market for some time but it has not been possible to find a buyer to use the property for its present limited purposes as a camper and mobile home distributorship. The proposed zoning allows the use of a building in a G.I. Zone for automotive repair if a permit is granted, but does not allow the use of such premises for the sale of new and used automobiles or trucks. In fact, the new zoning law does not allow the present use that the property is being put to, namely, for the sale of household and camping trailers, so that the present use is actually a non- conforming use under the new zoning. The new zoning does, however, allow the building to be used for a business service or supply service establishment. The property itself is beginning to deteriorate. Kerryman Realty Trust is willing to purchase the property, to expend money in repairing and renovating it and has secured financing from a bank for the same but the bank is not willing to grant such financing and Kerryman Realty Trust is not willing to expend large sums of money without assurance that it can be used both for automotive repair and for sale of new and used vehicles, as one use clearly complements the other and the property cannot justify purchase and financing through a bank without such expanded use. In order to operate a busine46/for the sale of new and u�.,$ vehicles, the "dealer must have facilities for the repair and servicing r:. g of these vehicles. The property is served with a sewer line and a water line and there will be no substantial alterations to the exterior of the. a property or to the land area. The land is further restricted and limited because the area to the rear along the brook, is believed to be in a Special Conservancy Area. This area would be used only for parking storage of vehicles, except for the small corner of the small building which appears to be in this District and this small corner would be renovated and repaired. The new zoning ordinance applies to the renovation of present It is also believed that avariance would be required for the small building as the new zoning law appears 4' 15'side yard setback and this building would have to be renovated extensively as it is.now deteriorating ra idI � It would, therefore a p y' ew zon to such repairs and renovations,�ethus hrequiringlthe1aw 15,wsidd apply e yard setback and a variance is therefore required from this requiremen addition, Section 6.8 (3) indicates that two unattached strut. ent. cannot be located closer to one another than thirty feet and the two structures are closer than thirty feet and a variance from this requirement is also required. 14 of the hRetailiServicerCommercialperuses under Article 5 at Page 510where Section special permit -is required in a General Industrial. Zone hfor an automotive repair or automotive service station. The present owner did perform repairs on campers and trailers but not generally on trucks, motorcycles or cars and other automotive vehicles which the new owners would repair. •A variance is required from Article 5, Retail Service Commercial use, Section 5 at page 5.9 where a general industrial zone does not permit anestablishment selling new automobiles and/or used automobiles and trucks, this property,need a vanew automobile tires and other accessories. The new owners would, in order to financially support tires, accessoriesriance to sell such automobiles, trucks, , motorcycles and mobile and camping trailers. Since part of this property is located within 100 feet of a brook, it appears the watershed district zone of Article 14 overlays it and a permit is therefore required•uAider that section to use the property for the anticipated uses but the applicants do not intend to construct any buildings or structures within this 100 feet, but to use it for storage and parking, which is present use. its The applicant wil of the ,large building and for the larger building to repair, auto body and the Sigh for the front of -the for the smaller building, dealership. 1 further need a..sign to place on the front a ground sign out along the street line notify persons of its use for automotive sale of new and used cars, and a small smaller building and a smaller ground sign probably notifying persons of the Honda - 2 - NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS Decision on Rust and Kerryman Realty Trust Petition March 13, 1976 The meeting to decide on the application for various vari- ances and special permits for Charles and Mary Rust and Kerryman Realty Trust was called to order at 9::00 AM in the Council Cham- bers, City Hall by the Chairman, Charles W. Dragon. The minutes of the public hearing which had been advertised in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on February 17 and February 24, 1976, were read and approved unanimously. The Chairman noted that the property in question was ori- ginally two separate parcels containing two separate buildings, but the two were combined for the operation of a camping trailer and mobile home business by the present owners. Only one entrance to the property exists. Severe economic conditions affected this business and the owner now wishes to sell. The recently enacted zoning ordinance, however, requires side lot setbacks of 15 feet and building separation of 30 feet which cannot be met. To sell the two parcels separately would require a variance and the addition of a second entrance which would be in close proximity to the railroad crossing with the inherent danger that would result. A corner of the smaller building and the entire rear portion of the property is within 100 feet of a brook and an easement to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts exists on the property. These conditions affect these parcels but do not affect generally the zoning district in which they are located so that literal enforce- ment of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant. There will be no increase in the use of water and sewer facilities= and retaining a single entrance onto a state by-pass highway at the portion of the property opposite the railroad crossing will prevent any detriment to the public good. The repair of autos which is allowed with a special permit in this zone, seems to be an allied business to the sale of new and used autos and does not differ greatly from the present use of selling mobile homes and camping trailers. In this respect r there is no nullity nor substantial derogation from the in Purpose of the zoning ordinance. tent or On the special permit for the repair and service of autos, t use is listed in the Table of Use Regulations. he is becoming run-down and deteriorated will be refurbiproperty shed. which site is located on a state by-pass highway and traffic wille heavier than that caused by the heavy be no on the property. Y moving vehicles formerly used ties. There will be no increase in the use of water and sewer fac' ili- The character of the neighborhood will not be changed since similar businesses now exist in close proximity to this site On the matter of the special . the Chairman said that he Permit for the erection of signs, question of the would make no broad interpretation of the two buildings constituting felt that, in this case, the g two establishments. $e on each building in addition to tatfreerstandinghas a �signtas the have signs ordinance states. The Building Inspector agrees with this. zoning Mr. Brushway remarked that the signs should be in conformance with the requirements of the zoningordinance Permit will be necessary. � in which case, no On the matter of the need for a property is in the Watershed Protection rDistrict, the mit because a Portion so the for granting this permit applies as in the case of the auto repairs. permit for At this point the vote was taken. to grant the requests with the following reStrictionsed unanimously a. There will be no storage of waste materials which might run Off into the stream. b• There will be no excavating for the purse storage in the Watershed Protection Districtof undergratiund C. The property is to be used only on the application, and the submitted hplanspwill be ses requested and filed.initialed d. In conformance with amount to be decided Bb tard policy, a performance bond in an the petitioner. Y the City Solicitor must be posted by - 2 - M The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM. Present and voting were Charles W. Dragon, Chairman, Armand Moggio and Thomas Brushway. C rles W. Dragon Chairman - 3 - 67'z�/- "�IA r tall • _ `''v' " he p A - 1 `. , - • 1 � r rake �� Y-A'i.'�' '� `�'o" , • ! ! 1 • !t!' i ! ! 1 1 1�1L p,y��.'t�.r�S with 86Ven •*O �N:i' .Y . + ' 4 ' ' .t0 *et1lQ .L ii... , ..:� vail' ur L , , , / 1 , • k or. typewritten, g • , . , 1 be filled out in,in t�enii;aes 'shor+ins petition nuiat 8 ,se'tie `of plane 'of 'tYi�a affedtea �P dimensions and. isotices- Thi s P , 'aria 'ac'colnpanied by d ,the ] ocati.ons,• copies, area, .oaf, the lot 9, an locatioXl,• d,imensi,ons. ,and structures erected and to be. • e distance from the boundary 'lines of all. iuil'dixid Irispeotor e 'o• the T to filed 'at' 'the 'offia 2..00 ''foY•. each , • , + ' erected.' ' it 'Shall' b•e . .00 .and , a charge. of � , . . . a.:filing fee of.. X75 be accompanied tiY 4,, ,!•,,,l1l,l,•!," �,,., to notice ' person entitles p[,S F tti�ss RD a , . + ' e f� 'Attu �W�.il�am na ►P .g ,M Xi«1 Steh r.le Cahn ' - toVber� aQ . I ss.6..j43.,Ms'��r�..►S.t.,,�.Qxt j ffen. n ' 1�4��.,• f.. Addr.e petiticrier( 'Nrryman Realty ' . ' ' ' , Ove •Std 4Northam�ton, MA` 272 . t ..,......• . 1... Otimex• off' & MarY., 5.�ust'... , ,Addxeee.. .....G:•....•..... SAN �,........ 4�t.ten con G�? �LVM§ . F'r , . has a wri.• eS . • (ei6ss out .. xe'�oYmex, �Lwro+",. this petition. �.. +1'h© petitioner is ' , ' ' the premises affected by ,.,,,'' tract to pux•chase �'� eti'tio�s �'ox xeviea)v r�anCe as set I -ort on,". ords riot applicable 'to p' a the s� irjL l)plicable' tir 1 , . . permit Petitie�a to for ` p' 1 flee' -34, ,g� 3-10 of 'the _ snta■�obiie service ' stattea Umar Prl"cipa -9 to S1104Zoning Ordinance; rom Principal Use No. 5 at Page 5 Fora Variance f omobiles an establishment a V selling new automobiles accessoriesut motorcycies, t and trucks, new automobile tires and other trailers; household and campingce from the minimum sideline setback neor Fora Varian Zone to permit the alters 9 for a building in a G.I. with less than fifteen feet setback as repair of the small building at ' required in Article 6.2' from the requirements of Secti n 6. es shah. f For a Variance 6-7 from the requirement that no two unattached s tructu page it under Article 14, Watershed Protection District, be located closer one another than thirty thin this District for For a Pe property located within use, accessory;',; to use the portion of the Prop arts and for accessory parking and storage of vehicles, P and n on the front of the to the principal Permit struct of a sig small building, one For a Perini n on the front of the building, and one large building, a small sig type facing for the large ground sign with a changing YP 3, are filed smaller ground sign for thicationssmall buNO, 1, No. 2 and No. Three zoning appl and one for the one for the Permit, one for the. Variances, herewith, Permit. Special ConservancyA.r1-PA HF HE,,��rl.T .!YY'i"f'►^1 .•I' �^iT�. {'"i" •'1 •• • O �• 960.0 ..,; S Dascx,intion of proposed Wo and use :...,.,.,• •3Pk1 .... . ............... • 9999 • 9999. . • • .. • • r • • • • r . • :9'90,0 • ••r • . •.• • r • r r • • • •.• • r ,'• -• • • _, I �'., ••.••••r•...••.••.•••.•••..• 1 I .{ • • • 41.0 • ... • .. • ► • . •:• 11!• R • • y it i I I' 'I litl The reasons upon lioh .this petition is base4 are, as follows: ATTACHED HERETO' 0, SEE SHEET...,.............'........;..,..:,.� • i 11 .. .. 9999.. ........ , .a a ' . ,. ,) . r • • • . • • • • •• • • • • • .• • • • • • . . • • • . .. • . • • • • • ... • • • • • • • •• ..• • . • . • • 0,0,;90 . •• .. • 1 99:99 • .. • . • .. • • • . •r !"t. T 1 LO, D�1)� ••./•�L••.•••• r •��• � • • • •~?• • 57.��t1£itt1T'Ei Of O1Jne� Qxl ti •^ t . • 9999 • Date ( OVER) X?ii7dy�¢'}C�7I�X'*IK7��4�HX • r � , r r rr r {, The- Promises affected are situate oh, the.-•: A NA. • •'• ...... side Of.1DAM'QU. Rid,., xxxk; designated Fs ParCei.33 • &• A4 Sheet x10 ..... lop. .... • ..of the Assessors } Piajt ' of' tha City at' l�oxtharnptorCand are' known ae.. 3A...& • , . r . . • ' Desoription o2; ; r ,x�1ir', to 17 Z. Size. of Exist'ing buiidCn.Lax.:�.$...��.0.:;.,��.�.an�l� small bld(;�,50�tx X84+ ,:.. Size of Proposed buiWing.... a�?..,....'.....:...,......,..........................,......,.....'�`.' ,,' 2•: Occvpancy, or uses of each flo x Present use has been 006*0 .asp a warehouse and ' as ; a, ,.. 11 camper—trailer d alership 1ofi tW4,. sale ancf repair 6 crejapblIv 0 ttv±16I'S end.mol 011e. homes,.....................,.............:.................... •......,...., . Jx�dus tx �a 1 3. . loner D.�stz•z.c:-t.....Gex�xal. �•.•..•.•....•..••'••..•••.•,.•••••••••,...•.',: , 4. Has there, beer?, a previcl.ls.petitioxi ocnoeznixxig. ,the. affectod Qrernises?.,.'.0IOXQ0,0 ------- J;f yes; specs.fy..... .:.....................'..................'..... goo ..............:...:.....,'.... . . .... ....... ,. ,....,....,. ;. ... ,. ............,, .0.0 0.0 ;.,.. .. 0 9 •�' , ' .,; 00.001010. ..............,.. ....0.0'00,•.. S p r d 81;�i UXT ATTAQ$0� , Dascrip'tioll 000E ro .ose work and .use:.,.,..•.. E tETO r, . • • . • . • • • • • ..• • . • . • . • • • . • • . • • . • • •,• .. • • . • . • ..'41 . 0 4 •...• . • • ••• .. • • • . •'• • • • . • • . 414' tR '"f.,• • , I,• :• ... 1 6. ifelio reasons upon which ,this Detitlon is .based axe, as follows': SEE SHEET ATTACHED HERETO .. 0 0 .. • 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0••.• i. 1 •C . • . • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • 00,41 • . • . • .. • ... • .. • • • , • • • ... • R . • •,•I •,• . • '' f R I • R • • • 410`0 ,.. • • 0000 • • •"0000.. • 0000 • • • . • . • • . • • .. • .. ,. r , .. �T �'' • •• 41'41 0000.. • •....• . • .. • . t'• . • • • • 4 0 • •'...�t.........`}�..'�'.. ,0000.. 0 0 6 r qtr ' 0000...-�-1:....�....�<. �:.. • 0000 ' � l ' 11tLte • • • • • • • • • • ..�0 �•-i. -/' t. • i.}✓/Jc41.,40'--0 do Signziture of oner oz+ a ' . _ ...F. 0, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: PETITION TO BOARD OF APPEALS C A 6 219(1 l PETITIONERS: Charles F. Rust, et als No. 5. Description of proposed work and use: It is proposed that the building -swill be used, both the large building and,the small building, for the repair and servicing Of automotive vehicles of all types and their accessories; for the operation of an automotive body shop involving the repair and servicing of automotive vehicles and other pieces of equipment brought in to the body shop for work; and for the sale and display and storage of all types of motor vehicles, both new and used, and their accessories. The small building being used primarily as an office and for the display of parts for small vehicles. No. 6. The reasons upon which this petition is based are as follows: The large building was originally built by McCallum's as a storage facility and the small building originally was a cabinet shop and then the Franco -American Club, until both were purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Rust. The buildings have been used for the past several years for the repair, servicing and sale of campers, trailers and mobile homes. This business has been severely cur- tailed because of the gas crisis of approximately a year or two :ost i -a ago and because of the general economy and inflation. The property v4ir,"% --,itself has been on the market for some time but it has not been possible to find a buyer to use the property for its present limited ,5L V15 r.1WDV '- purposes as a camper and mobile home distributorship. The proposed ETc, zon ng a lows a use o a ui in in a one ror automotivel_ 5,P repair if a perm,it is granted, but does not allow the use of sue premises for the sale of new and used automobiles or trucks. In fact, the new zoning law does not allow the present use that the property is being put to, namely, for the sale of household and camping trailers, so that the present use is actually a non- NOO-c mr,Ust conforming use under the new zoning. The new zoning oes, owever, a ow a ui ing to be used for a business service or supply 4-ALLcNlEp service establishment. The property itself is beginning'to deteriorate. Kerryman Realty Trust is willing to purchase the property, to expend money in repairing and renovating it and has secured financing from a bank for the same but the bank is not willing to grant such financing RIANCS*, and Kerryman Realty Trust is not willing to expend large sums of money without assurance that it can be used both for automotive re air and for sale of new and used v hi iPc. as one use clearly complements the other and the property cannot justify purchase and financing through a bank without such expanded use. In order to ` t.,Vperate a busin dealer must have acilitiessale for thenew and re air and vehicles, the vehicles. p servicing of these The property is served with a sewer line and a water line V and there will be no substantial alterations to the exterior of the property or to the land area. eoO! The land is further restricted and limited because the area to the rear along the-brook, is believed _to be in a (S ecial �� Conservancy Area. his area would be used onlyfar ark in and storage of vehic esp, except for the small corner of the small building which appears to be in this District and this small corner would be renovated and repaired. The new zoning ordinance applies to the renovation of present buildings or to new uses. `,,IGEtro'T(_ It is also believed that a variance would be required ;,pGAAANGAlfor the small building as the new zoning law appears to require a 15 side yard setback and this building would have to be renovated extensively as it is now deteriorating rapidly. It would, therefore, appear the new zoning law would apply to such repairs and renovations, thus requiring the 15' side yard SLPWTION setback and a variance is therefore required from this requirement. VAKIANLE: In addition, Section 6.8 (3) indicates that two unattached structures cannot be located closer to one another than thirty feet and the two structures are closer than thirty feet and a variance from this requirement is also required. The permit required is a permit under Article 5 of Section 14of the Retail Service Commercial uses a Pae where a special permit is required in a General Industrial Zone for an S,P, automotive repair or automo ive service s a ion. The present owner did perform repairs on campers and trailers but not generally on trucks, motorcycles or cars and other automotive vehicles which the new owners would repair. A, variance is required from Article 5, Retail Service U5E Faccessorie ommercial use, Section 5 at Paae 5.9 where a general industrial jARIANC6►one does not permit an establishment selling new automobiles nd/or us d automobiles and trucks, new automobile tires and other The:new owners would, in order to financially support this property, need a variance to sell such automobiles, trucks, tires, accessories, motorcycles and mobile and camping trailers. Since part of this property is located within 100 feet of NA�1ERsD[do brook, it appears the watershed district zone of Article 14 S'P verlays it and a permit is therefore required under that section o use the property for the anticipated uses but the applicants -S.F. not intend to construct any buildings or structures within this 00 feet, but to use it for storage and parking which is its resent use. The applicant will further need all *gn to place on the front f the large building and around si n out along the street line 3j6N [—dde or the lar er bu ld ng to notify persons of i. s use or'au omo ve RMIT; epair, ��auto o y an he sale of new and used cars, and�a. small i n for the front of the smaller building and a� mallet round sign for the smaller building, pro a y y no ng persons of the Honda alership. 5- 2 .. Y NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Regular Meeting March 3, 1976 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM in the Board of Public Works Building, 125 Locust Street, by the Chairman, Dr. Peter Laband. The minutes of February 11, 1976 were approved as read. On the matter of Brookwood Estates's request for modifica- tion of the approved plan, the Chairman explained the history Of this subdivision to the new members.' He then reviewed the staff report on the question of modifying part of the plan dealing with the south r-nd of Ellington Road and Crestview Drive. Charles Dauchy, Conservation Planner, explained that it was his impression that this area was an important recharge area for the City wellfield to the northwest, and that if considerable paving were to be done in the area, it might affect the v.lume of water entering the recharge area. The Planning Director ex- plained the options the Board had in this matter. The Chairman suggested that the staff report be referred to the developer for his information. Discussion followed on the possibility of cluster, on the zoning provisions, and on the possibility of visiting the site before the next meeting. It was decided that such a visit would be arranged, with the representatives of the developer in attendance. On the matter of Kerrvman Realty Trust, the Chairman ex- plained the history of this case for the new members, and re- viewed the various requests being made. Dr. Platt asked why the variance route was followed rather than amendment. There was discussion o the desirability of getting a new plan with addi- tional detail. Dr. Platt moved to recommend: (1) Obtaining a better site plan showing items suggested by the staff; (2) Denial of the request for a variance for new car sales on the grounds of its not meeting state law limita- tions on variances and on the fact that the new zoning law, which the Planning Board will recommend be accepted discourages use variances. The Board suggests that amendment would speak to this issue more appropriately. Dr. Platt further indicated that his motion was not intended to affect requests for other variances. This motion was seconded by Mr. Kochin, and approved unani- mously. On the ZBA application of Danrich Realty, the Chairman ex- plained this case. Mr. Kochin moved and Mrs. Alexander seconded the motion to express the Board's opinion that there were no problems and that the proposal would not do injury to the growth of the City. On the matter of Park Hill Acres, the Chairman read a letter from Mr. Blauvelt, then he explained the history of this case. Mr. Blauvelt had agreed to the Board's desires as�expressed at the December 10 meeting. Dr. Platt moved and Mrs. Goldstein seconded to accept the prop-4al and release the bond. The Chairman reported on the budget hearings of February 25. A resolution was presented by the Planning Director to recommend expansion of the Building Inspector's staff to improve zoning enforcement, Mr. Kochin moved and the motion was approved unanimously. - 2 - CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060 (413) 584-0344 RESOLUTION WHEREAS the Planning Board of the City of Northampton is charged with making recommendations regarding the growth and development of the City; and WHEREAS the Planning Board has, as one of its duties and obligations. that of recommending to the City Council modifications and changes to be made in the Zoning Ordinance of the City; and WHEREAS enforcement of that Ordinance is critical to its effectiveness in regulating uses and development and thereby in preserving and protecting the pleasant character of the community and the value -Of property therein; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Northampton hereby recommends to the City Council and Mayor that serious and due con sideration be given to the establishment of the Position of Local Inspector to allow the Building Inspection Department to give adequate time and attention to zoning enforcement problems within the City. This resolution was considered and approved on March 3, 1976. 3 - A letter from the Northampton Redevelopment Authority on downtown renewal was received by the Board. The Planning Direc- tor announced a meeting on March 23, at which time a development in the downtown would be explained. It was decided to request an NRA staff presentation of the urban renewal plan at the March 17 meeting and to express to the NRA a desire to work with them further on this matter. The Chairman read a letter from the Westhampton Planning Board re: amendments proposed to the zoning by-law. It was decided to exchange ordinances and to offer moral support. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Present and voting were Chairman, Dr. Peter Laband, Secretary, Raymond Kochin, Mary Ann Alexander, Dr. Rutherford Platt, Leon Christenson, and Marcia Goldstein. Also present were York Phillips, Planning Diiector, Richard Carnes, Conservation Commission Chairman, Charles Dauchy, Conservation Planner, James Brooks, Hugh Massey Of WHMP Radio, and Martha Oravecz of the Daily Hampshire Gazette. Dr. Peter Laband, Chairman Northampton Planning Board Raymond Kochin, Secretary Northampton Planning Board - 4 - NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS Decision on Rust and Kerryman Realty Trust Petition March 13, 1976 The meeting to decide on the application for various vari- ances and special permits for Charles and Mary Rust and Kerryman Realty Trust 'was called to order at 9=:00 AM in the Council Cham- bers, City Hall by the Chairman, Charles W. Dragon. The minutes of the public hearing which had been advertised in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on February 17 and February 24, 1976, were read and approved unanimously. The Chairman noted that the property in question was ori- ginally two separate parcels containing two separate buildings, but the -two were combined for the operation of a camping trailer and mobile home business by the present owners. Only one entrance to the property exists. Severe economic conditions affected this business and the owner now wishes to sell. The recently enacted zoning ordinance, however, requires side lot setbacks of 15 feet and building separation of 30 feet which cannot be met. To sell the two parcels separately would require a variance and the addition of a second entrance which would be in close proximity to the -railroad crossing with the inherent danger that would result. A corner of the smaller building and the entire rear portion of the property is within 100 feet of a brook and an easement to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts exists on the property. These conditions affect these parcels but do not affect generally the zoning district in which they are located so that literal enforce- ment of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the appellant. There will be no increase in the use of water and sewer facilities; and retaining a single entrance onto a state by-pass highway at the portion of the property opposite the railroad crossing will prevent any detriment to the public good. The repair of autos which is allowed with a special permit in this zone, seems to be an allied business to the sale of new and used autos and does not differ greatly from the present use of selling mobile homes and camping trailers. In this respect there is no nullity nor substantial derogation from the intent or Purpose of the zoning ordinance. On the special permit for the repair and service of autos, the use is ligted in the Table of Use Regulations. The property which is becoming run-down and deteriorated will be refurbished. The site is located on a state by-pass highway and traffic will be no heavier than that caused by the heavy moving vehicles formerly used on the property. ties. There will be no increase in the use of water and sewer facili- The character of the neighborhood will not be changed since similar businesses now exist in close proximity to this site. On the matter of the special permit for the erection of signs, the Chairman said that he would make no broad interpretation of the question of the two buildings constituting two establishments. He felt that, in this case, the petitioner has a right to have signs on each building in addition to a free standing sign as the zoning ordinance states. The Building Inspector agrees with this. Mr. Brushway remarked that the signs should be in conformance With the requirements of the zoning ordinance, in which case, no permit will be necessary. On the matter of the need for a,permit because a portion of the Property is in the Watershed Protection District, the same reasoning for granting this permit applies as in the case of the permit for auto repairs. At this point the vote was taken. oarVot to grant the requests with the following Treshe trictionsed unanimously a. There will be no storage of waste materials which might run off into the stream. b. There will be no excavating for the purpose of undergrGund storage in the Watershed Protection District. C. The property is to be used only for the 'purposes on the application, and the submitted plans will beginitialed and filed. d. In conformance with Board Policy, amount to be decided by the City the petitioner. Solicitormmust beance bond in an Posted by - 2 - L.� The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM. Present and voting were Chars W. Dragon, Chairman, Armand Moggio and Thomas Brushway. i �A ZO/I C axles W. Dragon Chairman - 3 - gv, 3F-/-3 a"A - It S "r UA&Uixous decisi= that ihe pdbr tPXSYSd df the petitian be grated under the pr-,V1s1=3 ,�t= with the follOr-Ing tv ;rd,na� 'Ices of thf the C1 — ; City of 14 0r tnam, 4 res trictionsl #That the property in que5t-ton is to be Put thirty (30) fejt from %#1 the viest iron 6take Ln front of the lot. That no A&Chinery is to be used of ter six o1clock at nightt* %her . efEores It is orderSdjp adjudged ar-d decreed thata permit be and it hereby is, granted 1; to 11ario J, Guiiardino — A4k Bancro;rt Road for the property located an Dam= Road, ecnown as LOt NO- 1 Glee; ora Treatp for the purpose and in the location set forth in the Petitiou, on conditi'la that the pet.Ltjoner co dies %with all 'pertiaent provlsi=3 of Chapter 46 oftheCity Ordixiances of the City 01 Mortheapton and all other lawsp rules and reguiatlj4s Vegu.Latlng the change as described &OOVO. This is not a tildg. pert. A. bldg. PerMi t BUS t be abta ed from mu Kdg* InSPo cc. Bldg- IASP, City .Ciera pinning Board V. Guilardino 71aeveijleo Aember CITY OF NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS JAMES C. O'DONNELL CITY SOLICITOR BOARD OF APPEALS THOMAS P. NAGLE, JR. ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR DECISION In re Petition for Variances and Special Permits by Charles F. Rust, Mary Rust and Kerryman Realty Trust. V A public hearing was conducted by the Board of Appeals on March 3, 1976, at City Hall, concerning the request of the petitioners for: (1) a permit for automotive repair or automobile service station om under Principal Use 14, Page 5-10 of the Zoing Ordinance; (2) a Variance from Prinicpal Use No. 5 at -rage 5-9 to allow an estab- lishment selling new automobiles- and/or used automobiles and trucks, new automobile tires and other accessories, motorcycles, household and camping trailers; (3) a Variance from the minimum sideline setback requirement for a building in a G.I. Zone to permit the alteration, renovation or repair of the small building with less than fifteen feet setback as required in Article 6.2; (4) a Variance from the requirements of Section 6.8 (3) at Page 6-7 from the requirement that no two unattached structures shall be located closer to one another than thirty feet; (5) a Permit under Article 14, Watershed Protection District, to use the portion of the property located within this District for parking and storage of vehicles, parts and for accessory use, accessory to the principal use of the structures; and (6) a Permit for the erection of a sign on the front of the large building, a small sign on the front of the small building, one ground sign with a changing type facing for the large building, and one smaller ground sign for the small building. The Chairman, Charles W. Dragon, presided and called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Also present were members Armand Moggio and Thomas Brushway, Clerk Claire Fennessey, Stephen Cahillane of Kerryman Realty Trust, William Welch who is the attorney for the petitioners, and members of the public and representatives of the news media. Notice of the meeting, as published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on February 17 and February 24, was read into the record. The Chairman stated that a memorandum from the Planning Board was available for anyone who wished to read it. The Chairman read a letter from the Northampton Redevelopment Authority, an abuttor to the property, stating that it had no objection to the granting of the petition. U � Board of Appeals Decision - Charles F. Rust, Mary Rust & Kerryman Realty Trust - page 2 Mr. Welch presented the case for the petitioners as reported in the next six paragraphs. Mr. and Mrs. Rust own the property and have entered into an agreement to sell the property to Kerryman Realty :Trust, but the agreement is contingent jpon the allowance of the petition. Kerryman Realty Trust operates a business on South Street, North- ampton, selling automobiles and motorcycles. It has the agencies for Honda, Jeep, Dodge and AMC Motors and a garage and auto body shop. Kerryman desires to move the Honda Agency and the garage and auto body repair facility now, and one other dealership later, to the Damon Road site. An automotive repair facility may be operated on these premises with a special permit, but a variance is needed to operate an automobile sales agency. The agency must have a repair facility and a repair facility without the agency is financially unfeasible. Before the Rusts owned the property, it consisted of two separate bug adjoining parcels, each with a buildi64 located thereon, one used as a warehouse, the other as a private club_. After the Rusts acquired the property, Mr. Rust used it for camper trailer sales, and repairs incidental to this type of business. The interior of both buildings would be extensively renovated but the outside dimensions will not be changed. There will be no construction, filling or excavation affecting the wetlands area. The Planning Department memorandum stated that it would have pre- ferred that the applications for variances and special permits be separ- ate. Mr. Welch discussed this point with the Building Inspector and cam to the conclusion that the variances and permits are "interlocking" since one is worthless without the others. The Chairman here stated that he had consulted with the Assistant City Solicitor on this point, and it was felt that in this case it would be unrealistic to require separate applications; but the various requests would have to be decided individually. Mr. Kloc, an abuttor, said that he has no objections to the application, and approved of development in this area. No one spoke in opposition. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. At a meeting duly called, in accordance with the rules of the Board of Appeals, which was held at 9:00 A.M. on March 13, 1976, with the chairman, Charles W. Dragon presiding and members Armand Moggio and Thomas Brushway present, the Board made the following findings and gave the following reasons for its decision: In connection with the conditions especially affecting the Rust parcel and the buildings on the Rust land, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, the Rust property was formerly two separate lots with two separate buildings and with separate entrances onto Damon Road. After purchase by the Rusts, it formed one Board of Appeals Dcision - Charles F. Rust, ry Rust & Kerryman Realty Trust - page 3. lot with one entrance. The parcel is located adjacent to a railroad crossing with crossing signals. Under the former zoning law, when the buildings were compiled into one lot, there was no restrictions as to how close the buildings could be together and there was no sideline violation. Under the new zoning law, the lot itself abuts a brook and therefore the rear 100 feet across the property is subject to the Water- shed Protection zoning which severely restricts any use of the rear 100 feet. In addition, a corner of the small building is within this 100 feet Watershed Protection District. The two buildings also are closer than thirty feet together and the smaller building is not fifteen feet from the sideline, the present use is a nonconforming use so that any renovation, alteration or modification of the buildings for any other use or any expansion of the nonconforming use will require dimensional variances and the physical construction of the larger building limits its use to light manufacturing insofar as manufacturing is concerned. Insofar as a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners, the present use is a nonconforming use being used for the sale and servicing of mRtor homes and campers. This business has been severely affected and limited -in the past few years by the gasoline situation, the state of the -economy and the increase in interest rates. The City of Northampton, in the past few years, has not seen any manufacturing plants established or located and in fact, several rpoperties have been converted from manufacturing uses to other uses. Under the new zoning law there are very few uses to which this property could be put to as a matter of right, its main use apparently being a construction supply establishment or manufacturinc but economically the property cannot be put to these uses at this time. A separation of the lot into its former two separate lots would not be permissible as a matter of right under the new zoning law and to deny the variance, to prohibit the sale of new and used automobiles whereas the sale of new and used campers is presently being conducted, would involve sub tantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the Rusts, and in particular, where they have been trying to sell the property for several years but have not been able to do so. In connection with the question of whether desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance, the proposed use for the sale of new and used automobiles and other vehicles, together with the permit for the repair or vehicles, would be exactly the same kind of use as the property directly across the road; would be similar in use to the nonconforming use presently being conducted, would provide for the reduction in such use by the Cahillanes on South Street, a residential area; would transfer this usesto Damon Road, a business area; would be similar to other uses on King Stre--, within - rew hundred feet of this location and such use has been affirmatively endorsed by the abutters as being of benefit to the neighborhood and the sale of new and used vehicles would not be ---- practical without also a permit to repair vehicles in connection there- with. Such a change would also result in the substantial physical Board of Appeals Deci�on - Charles F. Rust, Mary- ust & Kerryman Realty Trust - Page 4 improvement of the property, and there will be no unusual increase in water or sewer usage, nn additional blacktopping of the areas and no change in the exterior lines of the buildings, In connection with a permit to use the premises for automotive repair requested by Kerryman Realty Trust, the requested use would bear a positive relationship to public convenience or welfare in that it would retain the single entrance which is of benefit, it being near the railroad crossing; would make a use of the property very similar to the present nonconforming use; would help to remove a business use from South Street, a residential area, and transfer it to Damon Road. The requested use would not increase any traffic congestion as the entrance way would remain as it presently is, the traffic coming to the site would be for automotive sales or repairs rather than camper sales or repairs; the road is a bypass State highway and the buildings immediately adjacent are business properties and not residential, as a result of which pedestrial travel is extremely limited and the requested use would not materially change or increase the use of water or sewer or the other municipal systems. FurtDer, the property has approximately 70,000 square feet, less approximately 13,000 square feet of building space, leaving approximately 55,000 square feet of open areas and has a loading dock. The use would not impair the character of the district or be detrimental as the district is business in nature, has an automotive and tire business across the street and an Industrial Park also across the street and the neighbors are in favor of the upgrading of the property which would result from the allowance of the permit and the same reasons apply as far as the permit under the Watershed Protection area, in addition to which there would be no filling in or excavating or extension of any building on to the 100 foot area and no additional blacktopping and the soil would remain as it is. t"It:; f. - st: f +i . �• fS f1.T; e• a7 raa, o rSTI It was unanimously decided that, owing to conditions especially affecting the Rust land and buildings but not affecting generally the zoning district in which they are located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to the appellants, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. Upon separate motions, duly made and seconded, it was unanimously voted in each case: Board of Appeals Decision - Charles F. Rust, Mary Rust and Kerryman Realty Trust - Page 5. (a) To grant h permit for automotive repair or automobile service station under Principal Use 14, Page 5-10 of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) To grant a variance from Principal Use No. 5 at Page 5-9 to allow an establishment selling new automobiles and/or used auto- mobiles and trucks, new automobile tires and other accessories, motorcycles, household and camping trailers. (c) To grant a variance from the minimum sideline setback require- ment for a building in a G.I. Zone to permit the alteration, renovation or repair of the small building with less than fifteen feet setback as required in Article 6.2. (d) To grant a variance from the requirements of Section 6.8 (3) at Page 6-7 from the requirement that no two unattached structures shall be located closer to one another than thirty feet. (e) To grant a permit under Article 14, Wate.rphed Protection District, to use the portion of the property located within this District for parking and storage of vehicles, parts and for accessory use, accessory to the principal use of the structures. (f) To grant a permit for the erection of a sign on the front of the large building, a small sign on the front of the small building, one ground sign with a changing type facing for the large build- ing, and one smaller ground sign for the small building. On motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously voted that the granting of these permits and variances is subject to the follow- ing restrictions: (a) There will be no storage of waste materials which might run off into the stream. (b) There will be no excavating for the purpose of underground storage in the Watershed Protection District. (c) The property is to be used only for the purposes requested on the application, and the submitted plans will be initialed and filed. (d) In conformance with Board policy, a performance bond in an smount to be decided by the Board, with advice from the City Solicitor, must be posted by the petitioner. Char es W. _Drag Armand MoggioJ1J Thomas Brushway Chairman Date: September 28, 2000 To: Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals I hereby request that I be allowed to withdraw without Prejudice Variance to allow a ground sign to be locatedejud] ce my application for a on a different lot from the busines being advertise at which Was filed on August 14, 2000 amon oa (See Attached Letter for Signature) Applicant On September 28, 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously 3:0 to accept the request for withdrawal of the application for a variance to allow a ground sign to be located other than on the same lot as the business being advertised. Filed in the City Clerk's Office: November 2, 2000 Fax: Transmittal Sheet AERO FASTEN8P CO.,YNC David J. Noonan, Esq. 32 Tanglewood Rd. Amherst, MA 01002 Tel. No. 413-478-8441 Fax No. 413-253-6776 noon2000ftaol com To: Ms Cynthia Williams Northampton Planning Dept. From: David J. Noonan Pages Included: 1 1 413 56e 2190 P.01i01 Date: October 3, 2000 Fax No. 413-587-1264 Re: Steve Lewis Subaru, Inc & Cahillane Auto Body Notice of Withdrawal of Sign Permit ZBA Appeal 32 & 48 Damon Rd. Message: Dear Ms Williams As we discussed on the phone, please find a notice of withdrawal of the above referenced pending appeal. Please call if you have any questions or require any further documentation form me. TOTAL P.01 \1-1/ 1—�/ advised. Both are owned by Kerryman Partnership, applicants. 48 Damon Road houses the actual buiding thatas the are SteveLewis the int Damon Road is the lot that has the autobody shop set considerably back from the road. Subaru. 32 these businesses conduct business from 32 Damon Road, and both have lease a ad. Both of them leasehold interest in 32 Damon Road, he asserted. Bothpaysi agreements giving through Kerrynnan partnership, he added. In the case of Significant amounts of taxesshig has issued a Class I License to the Subaru dealership which covers bopt, the city of Northampton The city has licensed the dealership to conduct business from 32 Damon Ro d2 and 48 which anion Road. where the pole sign is, he stressed. ch is the lot Noonan related that he had chatted at length with Building Inspector AnthonyPatill and Patillo denied the application because, in his judgment, the dealership did not conduct this, business from 32 Damon Road. Noonan pointed out that one of the requirements o duct 7.4(4)(C)(2) was that a ground sign be located in the same lot as the structure or establishmentSection being advertised. It was d tillo's interpretation, and he respectfully disagreed. that dealership would also need to have a building at 32 Damon Road i n order to be eligible the ground sign, he indicated. gible for the Existence of Establishment. Noonan repeated that the city had licensed the Subaru dealership to conduct business at 32 Damon Road. On 32 Damon Road, the dealership has in excess of a million dollars worth inventory, he pointed out. In addition to the storage of inventory, orth of following things at 32 Damon Road: greets customers, concludes�sale dealership tionseS the cash and accepts deposits in order to conclude a sale, he asserted. , exchanges shop, the dealership plows the lots and main addition to the autobody dealership is conducting business from 32 Damon Road, he maintained Y indications that the "If you had a business where you were financing millions of dollars worth were concluding sales transactions on the lot, employees were w to inventory, you believe you had an establishment there?" He asked. walking the 10 etc., would you He asked if the city would conclude in the case Of Internet businesses that those bus' not conducting business? He asked what type of message they were messes were com businesses or to all future businesses if they concluded the applicant needed a structure giving to all the existing dot Damon Road in order to qualify for a variance (sic)? eat 32 to do to conduct business at 32 Damon Road? ( ) He asked what else someone would have Prima facie evidence that the dealership was conducting usidriesst from 32 Damon the license in of itself was on Road. Noonan continued by pointing out that the sign was existing - it was not changing, not affecting by eliminating confusion caused by havinga sign pesa rmit would actually improve public safety sea of brand new Subaru's. He testified that pele d been illaneobserved Auto Body, i the midst of a drove by on Damon Road because they were confused as to what business was be' g o they at 32 Damon Road. By allowing both business to identify themselves as conducting conducted g business at 2 u 32 Damon Road, it would indirectly help a traffic situation, he maintained. Variance Requirements. Noonan said he thought in all other respects, the application met the requirements for a variance. He admitted that Steve Lewis had appeared before the Board twice before for a sign permit and that Lewis had told members he would not be back for another application. However, he stressed that this statement was made at a point of time when, based on the lease agreement, all the parties, including him, believed Lewis already had the right to simply insert another face panel in the existing sign. Noonan stressed that Lewis in no way meant to mislead the Board. Noonan concluded by noting that Webster's seventh edition defined establishment' as `something established, a place of business or residence.' He said he thought if they asked themselves what else someone would have to do to conduct a business or establish a business such that it qualified for this permit, they would conclude that, absent building another building on the lot, there was nothing that the dealership could do to establish that it was conducting a business. Member Questions. Riddle asked how many curb cuts there were? Cahillane said the curb cut at 32 Damon Road served 48 Damon Road also. The curb cut on 48 is more for employees moving cars back and forth, he noted. Riddle asked where trucks came in to unload cars? Noonan said 32. Cahillane said everything came in through 32 In response to a question from NeJame, Cahillane briefly related the history of the succession of businesses at the site. The prior dealership (Chrysler) was there for about three and a halfears, he said. Before that, it was a leasing office, and prior to that, it was the Captain's Table. He commented that the former dealership had been stymied Board in puttin decent sign. He said they could not make money he d e ship and Planning the ended u sell g up a P selling it off. NeJame said he had a few issues. He pointed out that this was the third time Subaru had been for signage relief. The first time they came in, the said " in third time they said the same. [Steve Lewis] also said last time lthat lhe wawans going toand etake all and signage out of the windows, which he hasn't done yet, he noted. If they were being persuaded e that the two parcels were one parcel, then they would only get one sign, he suggested. If the granted this, they would want them to take the other sign down, he clarified. y NeJame continued by saying he thought it was ridiculous... signage, both Steve Lewis and Cahillane had made the argumentHe noted that in arguing for their [the Ford dealership] had a giant sign, so why couldn't they have one? �e place across the street y He reminded them that 3 he had informed them that it was a sign of progress that they were reformin signage. had been on the Planning Board when the work on the two parcels took place, and he He said he remembered a lot of discussion about whether it was one parcel or two parcels. If they were treating it as one site, his inclination was to only allow one sign, he concluded. Noonan said there was only one sign. NeJame proceeded to review the variance criteria. Regarding the requirement that there be unique circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or structures he expressed his understanding that they were claiming unique circumstances in that one of the structures was set back... . Noonan said 32 was set so far back from the road and blocked by 48 that"you would drive b 32 Without knowing anything was on 32." y NeJame said the same was the case for other businesses on the road, the computer sho , etc. P Noonan said he knew of no other businesses on the street where one business blocked the other in the same way. He asserted that you could not see the business at 32 Damon Road until you were past it. He repeated that he thought it was significant that the city had already issued a Permit for the dealership to conduct business from 32 Damon Road. There were a whole series of legal commitments based on the issuance o granted by Subaru without that permit, [there f that permit, he claimed. No franchise could be would be] no financing without the class I license. He said he thought it was a major point that the city itself had licensed the dealership for 32. "I do think that he has established a business there. I don't see any opposition, and we are reall talking about the exact same sign," he reasoned. Y Discussion continued, with Noonan continuing to emphasize the importance the Class I Auto Dealer's License and also drawing attention to the spec wording oissuance Section 7.4(4)(C)(2). The words in the Zoning Ordinance say "structure or establishment," he ointed out. He stressed that it didn't say "and establishment," it said "" know what anyone could do to establish a business there oor.He repeated that he didn't Other than put up a bricks and mortar building. He asked if it would be easier or more appealing for the Board if the dealershi wen through the charade of putting a little kiosk out there? p t NeJame said the question was whether that would also be in violation of zoning. Noonan said he was trying to get the Board to see that they had already established a business because of their investment, daily use of it, conducting sales there, and license. Why make someone go through the charade of constructing a kiosk to prove they were conducting a business? He questioned. NeJame and staff pointed out that all that was before the Board tonight was the variance application. Williams explained that if he wanted to argue about the interpretation of the Zoning 4 Ordinance, the mechanism would be to appeal the Building Inspector's decision. With regard to the variance criteria, NeJame said he didn't see 8A (unique circumstances). He said he believed there was a financial hardship, but he didn't think they were denied all use of the property. He said he didn't know whether the hardship was self-created, but he believed the variance could be granted without detriment to the public good. He said he was not sure they had met the variance criteria. Members discussed how to proceed. NeJame wondered aloud if they could make some sort of determination here that if this came before them, they would overturn the Building Inspector's decision? Noonan referred to Patillo's written comment in denying the Zoning Permit Application: "The sign must be on the lot of the business being advertised." Patillo's interpretation is that they need to have a bricks and mortar structure in order to qualify for this type of sign, regardless of how many people or sales transactions [take place on the lot], Noonan observed. Noonan quoted from the ordinance, "Said ground sign shall be located in the same lot as the structure or establishment being advertised." He submitted that the word "establishment" was totally superfluous if you agreed that it meant only `building,' since the ordinance already said structure. Northrup commented that it seemed clear to her that the business was established on Lot 32. She remarked that she did not think the Internet was a great analogy for this at all, but traffic safety was a valid concern. She said she wouldn't want to put more signs on the stretch; it was already getting to be distracting for drivers. She also said she wouldn't want to put another sign on the lot with the dealership because that would block the visibility of the main entrance for both lots. Williams said it would be helpful if Lewis would keep his word about removing the signs on the inside, and Cahillane said he would bring this to his attention. Riddle said he couldn't see where this required a variance. He said it seemed to him that Section 7.4(4)(C) was met, since this was an establishment. He agreed it didn't meet the variance criteria. It was debatable that it would create financial hardship, the applicant would not be unable to use the property without approval of the variance, and there were not really any topographical distinctions for this property opined. that didn't exist for other properties in the area, he Without admitting that he didn't meet the criteria, Noonan said he was here seeking a variance at the explicit direction of the Building Inspector. If they were telling him there was another way of getting the same result, he was all ears, he said. NeJame acknowledged they were disagreeing with the Building Inspector's decision. He suggested Noonan could continue his application for a variance, and the Board would indicate its opinion that, from what they had heard, it seemed the `or' in [Section 7.4(4)(C)(2)] was pivotal 5 and that there was an establishment being advertised. This should allow a sign to go forward without a variance, he noted. If he appealed the Building Inspector's decision, they would probably overturn it, NeJame confirmed. He said Noonan could go back to Patillo and inform him of his intention to appeal his decision if necessary. This would give Patillo the opportunity to either reverse his decision or to give the same decision and allow it to be appealed, he indicated. NeJame said he was inclined to say he agreed with Noonan and thought Patillo had misinterpreted the `or' word in there. NeJame polled members as to their feeling if it came to them as an appeal of the Building Inspector's decision. Riddle and Northrup agreed they would be inclined to overturn it. Northrup asked to see a copy of the Class I license, and Noonan submitted a copy of the application for the Class I license and the license itself. Williams said she would communicate the Board's sentiment to Patillo. Noonan requested a continuance. Northrup moved to continue the Public Hearing to September 28, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. Riddle seconded. The motion passed unanimously 3:0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. l—I PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON CitN Haff • 110 Main Street, Room 11 • N0rtbarnpton, MA oI o60-3198 • (413) 587-1266 • E=587 -z2.64 Wayne reiden,Director -email. pta nning@city-northam pton.ma.us • in ternet:wwwnorthamptonplanning org Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting September 28, 2000 The Northampton Zoning Board ofAppeals held a meeting on Thursday, September 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall (Second Floor), 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were members: Chair Mark NeJame, Bob Riddle and Sara Northrup. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner Cynthia Williams. NeJame opened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Cynthia explained that two applicants — Peter Frothingham and Cahillane Auto Body/Steve Lewis Subaru, Inc. — had requested withdrawal of their variance applications. Peter Frothingham successfully obtained a Special Permit to allow the proposed front porch addition at 15 Butler Place, so a variance was no longer necessary. As for Cahillane, in response to the stated opinions of Zoning Board members at an initial hearing on the variance application, the Building Inspector reversed his decision that the signage request required a Variance and instead yielded to the opinion of Zoning Board members that it was allowed as of right according to the wording of Section 7.4(4)(C)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. Riddle moved to accept the Peter Frothingham's request to withdraw his application for a variance for property located at 15 Butler Place without prejudice. Northrup seconded. The motion passed unanimously 3:0. Northrup moved to allow Cahillane Auto Body/Steve Lewis Subaru, Inc. to withdraw their request for a variance. Riddle seconded. The motion passed unanimously 3:0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. planning board • conservation commission -zoning board of appeals • housingpartnership • redevelopment authority • northampton GIS economic development • Comm unity development . historicdistrict commission • historica I commission • central businessarchitecture originalprintedon rxYdedpaper PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT •CITY OF NORTFCAMPTON City Hall • azo Main Street, Room ii • Nortbampton, MA of o60-3198 • (413) 587-za66 • ram 587-za64 Wayne Riden, Director -email. plan ning@city.northampton.mams • internet:wwrvnorthamptonplanning org The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting September 14, 2000 The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals held a meeting on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall (Second Floor), 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mark NeJame, Bob Riddle and Sara Northrup. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner Cynthia Williams and Board Secretary Laura Krutzler. NeJame opened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. At 6:05 p.m., NeJame opened the Public Hearing on a request by Cahillane Auto Body and Steve Lewis Subaru, Inc. for a Variance from the requirements of Section 7.4(4)(C) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a ground sign to be located on a different lot from the business being advertised for property located at 32 Damon Road, also known as Northampton Assessor's Map 18D, Parcel 34. NeJame read the legal notice. David Noonan, Esq. presented, accompanied by Bob Cahillane of Kerryman Partnership, the owner of 32 and 48 Damon Road. Steve Lewis, the principal of the dealership, was out of state at a mandatory meeting for owners of Subaru dealerships, Noonan informed members. He confirmed he was there to convince Zoning Board members to issue a variance for the application for a ground sign. Noonan gave a brief history. He noted that the exact same pole and sign had been in existence in the exact same place for at least seven years. The occupants are seeking to use the exact same pole and the exact same sign but simply to insert different face panels, he explained. The type of sign is one seen throughout Northampton, a sign that advertises two businesses from the same pole, he observed. They had examples of this type of sign at malls - the Big Y mall and the other mall on King Street. They had many examples of single signs that introduced to the public the fact that many different businesses conducted business from the location where the sign was, he commented. This application was really no different from that, he asserted. Both applicants rent 32 Damon Road, he said. They have two lots, 32 and 48 Damon Road, he TO: FR: DA: RE: CC: M MEMORANDUM Mark NeJameAs. ir, Zoning Board of Appeals George Andrildn., Acting Director D September 12, 2000 ;artment of Public Works File #01-V-13 32 Damon Road — Change file Sign panels The DePartnent of Public works has reviewed the above ref eftneed application for the following item; Traffic: --2L—Volume & Impact on City Street Roadway Capacity Adequacy of City Road Construction x Site Distances Parking Driveway Openings Utilities: Drainage Into City Stormwater System Capacity of Stormwater Line Sanitary Sewer Water Other: The Department of Public Works has the following comments: x No Concerns, project will not have an impact on any items reviewed Traffic Study is required Roadway does not have adequate Roadway is not adequately constructed to handle proposed ie the additional cease n traffic Site Distances are not adequate for proposed project m traffic Parking spaces do not meet minimum requirements Parking spaces are too close to driveway opening Driveway openings are not adequate for proposed use City stormwater system is not adequate to handle increase in drainage Stormwater system does not meet minimum requiu ements f Suspended Solids (TSS) or reduction of Total Sanitary Sewer lime is not adequately sized forproposed use Sewer line connection is not properly shown Water line is not adequately sized for proposed use Wats' fine connection is not properly shown Other Comments: September '8, 2000 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Cito FIa((. 210 Mein Ski Room"' lvonb'mirt0n,MAoio60-3198 • (413)587-1266 • R=587-1264 wayneFeiden,Director • email:plan ning@citv�.northampton.ma.us • internet:wwwnorthamptonplanning org Cahillane Auto Body and Steve Lewis Subaru, Inc. 32 Damon Road Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Mr. Cahillane and Mr. Lewis: Your application for a Variance to allow a ground sign to be located on a different lot from the business being advertised for property located at 32 Damon Road has been accepted b the Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals, and a Public Hearing has been scheduled for Y September 14, 2000 at 6:00 P.M. in Hearing Room 18, Street, Northampton. City Hall (Second Floor), 210 Main explain the application aYou and/or your representatives) are required to attend this meetin to nd discuss the merits of the application. g Approximately two weeks before the Public Hearing, a legal notice announcing the meeting will be published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette co g hundred feet of the property (copy attached). All the abutters within three P perty will receive a copy of this Notice in the mail. If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Planning and Development, City Hall Telephone 587-1262. Sincerely, Laura H Krrutzle Board Secretary Enclosure cc: Kerryman Partnership, 375 South Street, Northampton, 32 Tanglewood Road, Amherst, MA 01002. p ° MA Ol 060; David J. Noonan, Esq., Planning board • conservation commission • zoning board o of appeals • housing partnership • redevelopment ai4ority • nort am ton is economic development • communitv�development • historic district • historicalcommission, centralbusinessa�chitecture originalprinfedon recycledpaper City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hail - 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950 FAX (413) 586-3726 - community and Economic Development • conservation - Historic Preservation • Planning Board - Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission TO: George Andrikidis, DPW RE: Permit application FROM: Laura Krutzler, Board Secretary/OPD DATE: aoo6 Would you Please review and return the enclosed- - application before the Planning Boa � Ppe meeting scheduled for so that we can advise the Boards of any concerns you may have. Thank you. City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hail • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060. (413) 586.6950 FAX (413) 586-3726 Community and Economic Developm ant • Conservation - Nistoric Preservation • Planning Board - Zoning Board of Appeals Northampton Parking Commission TO: Captain Michael Wall, Police:Department RE: Permit application FROM: Laura Krutzler, Board Secretary/OPD DATE: 4- A04 Would you please review and return the enclosed application -T� -� 6,e W before the Planning Board jn oa 4--p-�emeeting'Scheduled for so that we can advise the .Boards of any concerns ' you may have. Thank you. 19 City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hail • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01050 • (413) 586-6950 FAX (413) 586-3726 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission TO: Anthony Patillo, Building Inspector RE: Permit application FROM: Laura Krutzler, Board Secretary/OPD DATE: Would you pleasereview and return the enclosed application before the Planning Board oni Boar ppe meeting scheduled for. �.Vb so that we can advise the Boards of any concerns you may have. Thank you. M August 14, 2000 David J. Noonan, Esq. 32 Tanglewood Rd. Amherst, MA 01002 Tel: 413-478-8441 Fax: 413-253-6776 noon2000(Maol.com Zoning Board of Appeals City of Northampton 212 Main St. Municipal Building Northampton, MA 01060 Re: Application for Sign Permit Cahillane Auto Body Steve Lewis Subaru, Inc. Dear Board Members o/- V-(3 AUG 14 2000 CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 Enclosed please find a Variance Application ("Application") for a permit for a sign jointly serving the businesses of Steve Lewis Subaru Inc. (the "Dealership") and Cahillane Auto Body (the "Body Shop"), collectively (the "Applicants"). This is an appeal from a decision of the office of the Building Inspector, dated 7-27_00. Enclosed with this Application please also find: 1) three relevant pages of the lease between the Dealership and the . landlord, the Keryman Partnership (the "Lease"); and 2) the quitclaim deed covering, among other parcels, the two parcels known and numbered as 32 and 48 Damon Road, Northampton (please see the metes and bounds description entitled Tract If (Damon Road) and Tract III (Damon Road), (the "Deed"). This current application makes clear that both the Applicants conduct business from 32 Damon Road (the "Parcel"). The existing ground sign, which the applicants seek to modify, is located on 32 Damon Road. The Applicants conduct business from both 32 (the Auto Body and the Dealership) and 48 Damon Road (solely the Dealership). For ease of your reference I have highlighted in yellow those sections of the three pages of the lease, which identify 32 Damon Road as part of the Dealership's leasehold interest. Additionally, an on site inspection of 32 Damon Road will reveal that the Dealership's inventory, having a value in excess of one U million dollars ($1,000,000.00) is located on 32 Damon Road. The Dealership could not conduct business without using 32 Damon Road as customers inspect the inventory from that site and sales are w sped Dealership's Class i license, issued by the City of Northampton, covers that site. The location 32-48 Damon Road. Additionally, the Dealershi is a' ing a the amount of rent for the use and occupancy of 32 Damon Road which, in tP.uammgful results in tax payments to the City. , The Applicants believe that their Application should be approved beta 1) section 4 B of the Sign Ordinance clearly contemplates the scenario where two businesses conduct business from one lot (32 Damon Road such as in the present case; and ) only one ground sign permit is being sought for 32 Damon Road. Section C of the Sign Ordinance authorizes the Zoning Board of A e of a special permit for this ground sign because: PP lis to issue (In Response To Question 8A) A) The only structure located on 32 Damon Road (the Body building) is setback well in excess of one hundred 10p Shop Damon Road and it is blocked from view from an easterlyfeet from approach, by the structure located at 48 Damon Road. The orientation and setback of the structure restricts the visibility of an wall signs. As a result there is no other way to advertise 32 Damon Road's business use by two separate businesses without the ground sign sought by this Application. This is a characteristic which does not generally affect other structures or businesses in the zoning district. (in Response to Question 8B (1) B) if the variance is not granted the Applicants' will suffer a continued substantial financial hardship namely, the loss of significant sales at the same time the businesses pay significant rents to a landlord and taxes to the City. Additionally, the public will continue to be confused as to which inventory belongs to which business as the existing sign identifies only Cahillane Auto Body as conducting business at 32 Damon Rd. The Body Sh Whether it does repair automobiles s new veh cies are diurectl'on under its sign. The Dealership's customers question whether they can enter onto 32 Damon Rd., to inspect the new car inventory, which.is directly under the Auto Body's sign. The disparagy between the above referenced costs associated with the Parcel and the limited dollars the Parcel can generate because of the above referenced confusion of identity creates a severe hardship for the Applicants. (in Response To Question 8B (2) C) The Dealership has over one million ($1,000,000) dollars of new car inventory located on 32 Damon Rd. The costs associated with this inventory are significant. Prior automobile dealerships have not survived at this location even when the business benefited from the use of a ground sign similar to that sought by the Application. Without the benefit of ground sign, which clearly identifies which establishments conduct business from 32 Damn Rd., the Applicants will effectively lose reasonable use of the Parcel. (in Response To Question 8B (3) D) As described above in the response to Question 8A, the very location of the structures located on 48 and 32 Damon Road Prevent the public driving in an easterly direction, from seeing any signage located on the building located at 32 Damon Road. This result was not self created by the Applicants; and (in Response To Question 8C (1 & 2) E) The proposed sign is in full Compliance with the dimensional restriction setforth in section C 3. Additionally, because the same ground sign (note the existing pole will continue to be used and only the panels themselves will change) has been in use for at least 7 years, the proposed "new" sign will not change in any way the character of the nearby area or harm nearb p People who own or work on Y Pro Properties. Finally, the Applicants believe that public safety will be enhanced by granting the Application because driving on Damon Road who are interested in either bus ness, will no longer be faced by the confusing sight of new car inventory located under a sign that does not correspond to that product. The Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance in question is to allow the City to control the Potential proliferation of unsightly ground signs that do not relate to the business use of the property where the ground sign is located. To begin with, the sign in question is already in place, the Applicants are not adding a new additional sign to the streets of Northampton. Furthermore, the establishments seeking the Variance, are actually conducting business from 32 Damon Road. This is the exact result that the sign ordinance seeks to Promote. (In Respose To Question 8D) In light of the fact that a ground sign is already in existence and the Applicants seek to only change the faceplates to the existing sign, the Applicants believe they are seeking the smallest possible relief possible. Before concluding I would like to make sure the Board does not misinterpret Steve Lewis' prior comments made before the Zoning Board of During a prior ZBA hearing, Mr. Lewis stated that he would not a seeking any A) further "special permitsn from the ZBA for further signage. In light of the terms of the above referenced lease, the terms of which Mr. Lewis was quite familiar, it is quite clear that when he made this statement, he believed he already had the right to use the pre-existing ground sign, which is the subject of this Therefore, he did not believe he would have need of any additional speciation. permits from the ZBA. In conclusion, this is not a request for a totally new, previously non-existent ground sign. As this Board is aware, the existing ground sign has been in use for over 7 years. As a result, the present Application, if approved, will cause no visual change to Damon Road; rather it will facilitate traffic flow and enhance public safety by eliminating confusion in the mind of the public as to which entities are conducting business from 32 Damon Road. The Applicants respectfully request the approval of their Application. Regards, Cc: Steve Lewis Subaru Inc. Cahillane Auto Body Kerryman Partnership CITY OF NORTHAMPTON VARIANCE APPLICATION 1. Applicant's Name: G Address: Phone; . •LOt,1 2. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map tl Parcel tl(s) 63qZoning District_ Street Address: 3. Status of Applicant Owner; Contract Purchaser; Other (explain) —k�—Lessee 4. Property Owner's Name: Address: . Phone: 5. VARIANCE is requested under Zoning Ordinance Section. Page 6. Describe proposed work and/or project (use additional sheets if necessary): _SreH 7. Attached Plans: Sketch Plan t/0' Site/Plot Plan _ None Required S. How does the proposed work and/or project comply with the Variance Criteria listed below: (See: "Applicant's Guide" for assistance to filling out the questions listed below) A. Are there circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or structures (where the variance is being requested) that effects only this property/structure, and not other r properties in the neighborhood? NO * (see note at bottom of next page) YESIf yes, explain what condition(s) exist: B•(1) Would a literal enforcement of the Zoning Requirements create a hardship, financial or otherwise' NO * (see note at bottom of next page) YES if yes, explain belo-,v: * If this is checked, you may not yualif}' wider the statutory reyuirements for a Variance, but have t right to apply to the Board of Appeals for relief from any requirement within the Zoning Ordinance. 2 If a Variance is not granted, would the applicant be denied all use of the properly? NO * (see note at bottom of page) /' YES , If yes, explain below: (3) Is the hardship self-created? YES * (see note at bottom of page) NO X If no, explain below: C. (1) Can relief be granted without detriment to the public good? YES , h0 i 2) If granted, would the variance nullify or substantially derogate from the Zoning Ordiilancc? intent or purpose of the YES * (see note at bottom of page) NO If no, explaib why, below: K �{ D. Is your request for the smallest relief possible? NO * (see note at bottom of page) YES 1f yes, explain below: ------------- 9• 1 hereby certify that 1 tiavc read the "Applicant's Guide for Complying with Variance Criteria - the information provided in this application is true and acbtoest of my knowledge. ' and that DATE: % --® APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: TURF: Print name here: i DATE:- UD -- -- - - -- ___..._ ...._ OWNER'S SIGNATURE (if not the applicant) Lr�Ow- Print name here: Ae"& Id, If this is checked, you ruav not qualif} under the statutory requirements for a Variant have the right to appy, to (lie Hoard of Appeals for relief from any requirement within the 11Zoning 3 File # BP -2001-0104 APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON KERRYIMAN PARTNERSHIP ADDRESS/PHONE 375 SOUTH ST PROPERTY LOCATION 32 DAIMON RD MAP 18D PARCEL 034' ZONE. SGB THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION: App "ved as presented/based on information presented. erred as presented:. Special Permit and/or Site Plan Required under: § PLANNING BOARD ZONING BOARD Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed Finding Required under: § w/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed V Variance Required under: § `[ _w/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS __-Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed Other Permits Required: Curb Cut from DPW Septic Approval Board of Health Vater Availability Sewer Availability Well Water Potability Board of Health ORO- NLS .5I6N M05 7— A/r- b/r' Si4:oT strt AI ( o AWrieJ72_1_E6 IS z-ocr�r�4 t � I e �s Permit from Conservati ommission Permit from CB Architecture Committee e � Signature o ding (5fficiaf 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. LIHIHX3 \ t. gad, •k - bILVL LLWIb bUbAKU mut n� ------------- P.02 JUL--14-00 01 :15 PM �SNLf�3d J LOG `2 0 Co -I—, 0 tA �SNLf�3d J LOG This Lease Agreement is dated as of this 16**' day of June, 1999 between KERRYMAN PARTNERSHIP, a Massachusetts partnership with a usual place of business at 375 South Street, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 (hereinafter the "Landlord") and STEVE LEWIS SUBARU, INC., a. Massachusetts corporation with a usual place of business at 4 Hilltop Park, Wilbraham, Massachusetts 01095 (hereinafter the "Tenant"). 2. In consideration of the rent reserved herein and the mutual covenants contained herein, the Landlord leases to the Tenant and the Tenant leases from the Landlord, the following: A. The land, together with the improvements thereon, known and numbered as 48 Damon Road, Northampton, Massachusetts (the "Dealership Property'), together with the exclusive right to use that portion of 32 Damon Road, Northampton, Massachusetts shown on Exhibit A and identified as "Reserved For Sales Only" Area = 12673 S.F. + /-" (the "Sales Lot"). The Dealership Property and Sales Lot are outlined in yellow on the plan attached to this Lease as Exhibit A and are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Premises". B. In addition, the Landlord grants to the Tenant the non-exclusive right to use, in common with others, those portions of the Premises shown on Exhibit A and identified as "(Common Area) Area = 15488 S.F. +/ (the "Common Area'), for purposes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. As used in this Lease, the following terms shall have the following meanings: A. Base Rent- Adjustments. The initial Base Rent shall equal $96,000.00 per year. After the third year, the Base Rent shall equal $102,000.00per year. B. Base Year: The year commencing July 1, 1999 and ending June 30, 2000. Q. BlAm. None. D. Com nencement Date: July 1, 1999 E•iration Date: June 30, 2002, unless otherwise sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Lease or extended in accordance with the provisions of this Lease. 4fl 2J'�� Premises by the Tenant before the expiration of the Term. Only a written notice from the Landlord to the Tenant shall constitute acceptance of the surrender of the Premises and accomplish a termination of the Lease. The Landlord's consent to or approval of any act by the Tenant requiring the Landlord's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the Landlord's consent to or approval of any subsequent act by the Tenant. Any waiver by the Landlord of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Lease. In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have caused this Lease to be executed and sealed as of the date first above written. LANDLORD KERRYMAN PARTNERSHIP By*Pq ane aZ Partner By: e�.•— Robert P. Cahillane / Partner By: J es F. Cahillane l�4 er ! TENANT rPresident U, INC. Ap Wi s By: Its w -30- lot' EXHIBIT A Doc: 96fl004s06 OR /4836/0309 16/19% 10:32 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT Stephen P. Cahillane, Robert P. Cahillane and James F. Cahillatte, co-partners, Kerryman Partnership with a business address of 375 South Street, Northampton, I Iampshire County, Massachusetts, for consideration of One Dollar (51.00) paid, grant to Kcrryman Partnership, a Massachusetts general partnership with a business address of 375 South Street, Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, with quitclaim covenants, the land in Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, being more particularly bounded and described as follows: See Fxhihit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. Witness our hands and seals, this d y of March, 1496. Ste en P. Cahillane, Co -Partner l P. Cahillanc, Co -Partner F. Cahillane, Co -Partner R Doc: 960004606 LV 14836!03110 03/06M 32 Commonwealth ofMassachusetts Hampshire, ss. Then personal) a March s' 1996 y appeared the above-named Stcphcn p. Cahillanc and acknowledged the oregoing instru execution of the fment to he his free act and deed, before me, 6� ichacl Kfdall 'otary Pu is My Commission Expires: 7/5/96 Commonwealth on-assachusetts Hampshire, ss. March S ; I q96 Then personally appeared the above-named Robcrt p. Cahillane and ackn dxecution of the foregoing instrument to be his free act an deed, before meowledged the 1 , 4ichael R td fall Notary Public My Commission Expires: 7/5/96 Commonwcalth of Maxaachusetts 1.1=pshire, ss. ' Mm's S 1995 Then personally append the above-named James execution of the foregoing F. Cahillane and instrument to he his free act and deed before macknowledged the e, hichael R Si all -"— Notary Public My Cnmmission Expires: 7/5/96 Doc' ""0' OR /g836 M 03/' -IS 10.32 The land in Northampton, EIampshirc County, Massachusetts, being hounded and three tracts as follows: described in T�iC-_ 11 � C1UTN STRF�n farce— 1�: Those two lots Orparcels of land, situated on South Street, in said Northampton, known as number eight (9) and number nine (9) on a Plan of Lots called in Tract Hampshire County Registry of Deeds at Book of Flans 5, Page 44, to which plan "Moloney Tract" and being recorded in for a more particular description. once is hereby made Parcel NAI : Lot numbered twelve (12), as shown on a Plan ofl.ots e8lled "Nolo " Hampshire County Registry of Deeds at Book of Plans 5, F Tract parti reference is herebymoreage 44, to which plan ad record recorded in cUlar and two hundred twenty-five (225) feet, more or less, deep This lot is ft thereof fry (50) feet front on South Street camalc: Also, that certain tract of land designated and described as lot no. 11 on a Plan of Lots led "Moloney Tract" recorded in Hampshire County Registry egist of D which Plan and record reference is hereby made for a morn definite description. �k of Plans S. Page fronton South Street and two hundred twenty-five (225) feet, more or less, deep. y ( 44, to This lot is fifty (50) feet 'wee-- Imo: Lot numbered 10 as shown on a Plan of Lots called "Molone T County Registry of Deeds at gook of Plans 5, Page 44, to which Y Tact" recorded in Hampshire for a more definite description of Said premises. p� and record reference is hereby made Excepting from the above tract, that tract of land deeded to the City of Northampton by deed of Marcus Busby dated March 12, 1940, and recorded in the llampshirc County Registry of Deeds at Book 947. Page 245, PUAX 1 N : A certain tract or parcel of land situate in said Northam Plan of South Park Terrace, belonging to Charles L. Sauter, dated Apri6, being92numbered r�rded m the a Hampshire County Registry of Deeds at Book of Plans 8, Page 16, being more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Southerly line of South Street at the Northeaster! said Flan, said point being distant one hundred ei Y comer of Int #5 on Southerly line of South Street with the Easterly line of saidSouth% zi corn the intersection of the along said lot #5 one hundred (1 ()0) fat to lot # 17 on said Plan; t 1'errac e, thence (60) feel to lot #7 on said Plan; thence Northerly along said lot ?one hundred (1 W) fen t� Southerly hence Easterly along said lot f! 17 sixty thence Westerly along said South Street sixty (f (i) feet to dee place n beginning. South Street; E&MC1 NQJ: That certain parcel of land located offouth Street now or formerly to James C. Cahillane, bounded and described as follows: ws:ck f property elread y belonging Beginning at the Northeast corner of property now Southeast corner of the property to be conveyed; thence ororfofo llf said Cahillane, which is the Westerly hundred and 95/100 (200.85) feet DX' 1483610311 03/06-10:32 (Continued - Page 2) along the property now or formerly of said CahWane to an iron pin; thence Northerly twelve 12 projection of the Westerly side line now or formerly of said Cahillane property; thence ( fret as a Parallel to the Northerly line now or formerly of said Cahillane propertyEasterly on a [ire feet more or less to a projection of the Easterly side line now or forw or mid �d 85/10o (200.85) thence Southerly along the projection of the Fasuerly side line now or formerly of said Li altillane grope twelve (12) feet to the point of beginning. Prof property h4MQ 1 No 6; A certain parcel of land with the buildings thereon situated off South S Northampton, and bounded and described as follows; tt+oet in said Beginning at a point on the Northerly side of Hebert Avenue, so-called, near the bottom of a brook crossing said Hebert Avenue; thence Westerly along the Northerly line of said Avenue one hundred forty- two (142) feet to a pin; thence Northerly along other land now or formerly of one a town , making . of 1170 26' with the first boundary, eighty-six and 4/10 (86.4) feet to a pin two (2) feet Northerly oan f the �e North rail of a spur tract on land now or f'ormcriy of Margaret C. Brown; curve of said spur tract and at a distanoc of two (2) feet therefrom, ore hundred sence ixty-seven following the (167.9) feet to a pin at land of the New York, New Haven and Hartford then e N and 9/10 to along land of said Railroad two hundred ainetY-eight and 4/10 (298.4) feet to a pin; thence Southeesterl , thence Northeasterly, making an angle of 69D 37' with the last-mentioned boundary, three hundred three and 06/100 (303.06) feet along other land now or formerly of -Margaret C. Brown to the place of beginning. y EXCEPTING AND RESERVMNG, however, from the above-described the same which were taken by the City of Northampton for flood control premises, those portions of Taking dated February 16, 1939, and recorded in the Hampshire County R poses by es Instre Port of Page SZ 1, to which reference is made for a more particular description of the same. For further ty Registry of Deeds at Book 939, description of the parols taken by the City of Northampton, see plan recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds, at plan Book 23, Pages 16 and 17. EU&CLX4.1: That certain parcel of land with the buildings thereon, situate on the Northwesterly 4 ngide of South Street, in said Northampton4 beiaportion of lots #14, "Moloney Tract, Northampton, Mass.", dated 1920 and recorded in art`d #pshhr6 asoe County Regentitled istry of wn on Plan Deeds, at Plan Book 5, Page 44, and further bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of South and Earle Streets; tha running NLxterly along said South Street one hundred sixty-eight (168) feet to an iron pin at the Southwest Co meero of lot #13 as shown on said plan; thence running Northerly along said lot #13 a d to an iron pin at land noor formerly of thety i stance of ninety-three (93) feet Ci w, of Northampton taken from Control purposes, thence running Westerly along land noWilfred Meunier for Flood w or Formerly of said Ci eighty-seven more or less, to an iron pin; thence running Southwesterly ale 18 ty-seven (87) feet, distance of sixty-eight (69) fret, more or Icss, to an iin on he Easterlynow sidformerly l SStreet;C; ity a mn p running Southerly sixty-two (62) feet, more or less, to the point of bethcmc #15 and #16 as shown on said 1 g'Ming, sathe Ci id parcel being lots #14, instrument dated April 6, 1939p d recorded 'ret the at Hampshire Cortion taken unty Registry off DeedtY of Northampton by Page 535. k 940, 10/0313 031W'IS 1032 EXBIWIA (Continued -Page 3) PBtce1 No g: Land with buildings thereon situated in said Northampton designated and n on Plan of Lots called the Moloney Tract recorded in the Hampshire Count Registry �edlot #13 Book 5, Page 44 to which plan and resod reference is hereto made for a more g a7' of Deeds at Plan description of the granted premises, particular and definite Excepting and reserving however that portion of the same conveyed b Northampton Bards to City of Northampton by deed dated January 20, 1940, and recorded at Book 947, Page 510 and therein described as follows: The following described tract known as _ by Cooperative Northampton dated April 6, 1939 and recorded April 12. 1939 at Rook 940el #19 m Taking b sewn as Northerlyg Y City of part of lot # 13 recorded at Plan Rook 23. Page 27 bound and described and asfo ed and Northerly 50 feet more or less by lots#1 7 and #18 as set forth in Plan of Lots know,t as M Tract filed with Hampshire Courtly Registry of Deeds at Plan Book 5, Pal, 44 also entitled "plan Moloney Ci Northampton Dike Flood Control Section 5 Mill River Diversion March 31, 1939, E.L. Fllard, City gineet' • Easterly 7 feet more Or less by lot #12 as set forth on saidp tan less the saining part of lot # 13 as, set forth on said plan and Westerlyfeet more eor less by Jn r #14 in plan. All comers being marked by iron pins. assett forth in said EXCEPTING AND EXCLUDING that portion ofparcel no. 6 conveyed Patricia A. Young dated May 24, 1979, and recorded in the Ham to Rtcltard A. Young and 2098, Page 90. Aspire County Registry of Deeds at Book TRACT I being the same premises conveyed to these grantors by Deed ori ames F. Cahillane, Michael T. Cahillane, Robert P. Cahillane and Stephen P. Cahillane, Trustees of the K Trust to James F. Cahillane, Michael T. Cahillane, Robert P, Cahillane and Stephen P. Cahillane, Tenants in Partnership,ettyrnan Realty dated December 30, age 2 4.d recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds on December 31, l 986 at Book 2885, Page 294. 11: Beginning at a point on the Northerly side of Damon Road where land Thomas L. Gleason, et ux, meets land now or former) of one now or formerly of along said land naw or formcsrly of said Gilazdino three hundredo Gilardino; thence N. 160 22, W. Pin at land now or formerly of the City of Northampton; thence N. 3 °° 9'30" L -ninc and R1o(349-6) � now"ocron formerly of the City of Northampton two hundred one (201) feet to an iron pin at land now or former) of said Thomas L. Gleason, et ux, and now or formerly of one Mu] o , or formerly of said Mulara five hundred eight and 5/10 (508.5) feet to an iron pin at the Northcri Y arz; thence S. 16 22 E. along land now said Damon Road; thence S. 82° 31' 30" W. along said Damon Road one hundred fifty (150) feet to the place of beginning, y side of Meaning and intending to convey and hereby conveying lots entitled "Plan of Land in Northampton, Mas2 and 3 as shown on a certain pian Masi, belonging to Thomas L. Gleason, W.1V.1'orbush, Reg. C. E.", and recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deed4 October 39, Page I5. Book of Flans \1� Dae, X606 0� I 314 031*Ir 31 (Continued 4) hu&LZ: Beginning at a point on the Northerly side of D• Southwesterly cornet of amon Road in said North formerly t the Boston & premises herein conveyed and at the Southeaster) corner at the formerly of the Boston & Maine ilmad ComRailroad pany' thence N. 160 22' W. Y mer of land now or feet to an iron pin at land of the City of Northampton; a distance of two h along said land now or of Northam ampton; thence N. 31 ° y, 30" E. severity and 2/10 (270.2) now or formerly; one hundred and �5;10 (100.5} fat to iron pin at land of ' along said land of the City forty-nineY thence S. l6 Z2 E. along said land of said Thoma Thomas L. Gleaso and 6/10 349.6) feet to an iron pin at the Nurthcrly side of said et ux, 30" W. along the Northerly side of said mon, et ux, thna hundred meaning and intending to cony . , Dannon Road seventy_ f�•e (75) feet to Rte' dna S. 82° 31' Registry of eY 1W #1 nn a certain plan of land recorded in thePlace of beginning; Thome L Deeds at Plan Bop.k 39, Page 15, entitled "plan of Land in N Gleason, dated October 21, 1951, W.W. Forbush,shire County O1.., — �°- ' Mass belonging to TRACT II �. C. E.I." Michael T. beutg the same premises convcyed to these t Cahillane, Robert P.'" Trust to t Cahillsnc and St 8rantor$AP,Y eed, pf James F. Cahillane, James F. Cahillane, Michael T. P Cahillane, Trustees iif the K in Partnership, dated December 3U, l q86, and Mme' Robert P. Cahillane and Stephen Realty December 31, 1986 at Book 2885, P ended in the Ham 'heti P• ahillane. Tenants Page 299.h'ro o tiegistry of Deeds on Xam Being known and designated as lot no. 4 (four) on a lay Northampton, Mass belonging to Thomas I.. GI P of land entitled "Plan of be nand recordedmore to the Hampshire County Registry o�n"' dated October 21, 1951, W.W. Land in 8 particular) bo Deeds at Book of Plans 39, Pae 15 Forbush, o. 4 - Y bounded and described as follows: t; ,said lot no. 4 EASTERLY: by lot no. 5five ( ) as shown on said Pian, six hundred three and 9/10 (603.8) feet; SOUTHERLY: by Damon Road as shown on said Plan, ninety • ( 90) f ; WESTERLY.- by lot no. 3 (du") as shown on said Plan, bfive hundred NORTIJERLY: (120.5} feet. eight and 5/10 (508.5) feet; twenty and 5/14 (1y land of City Northampton (20' basement) as shower on said plan, one hundred Also hereby conveying all of the right, title and interest the strip of land designated on said Plan as an easement twe whish these grantors may Northampton, and lying between the extensions in a straight ty 20 the in wid Y have in and to above-described lot nu. 4., belonging to the City of Easterly and Westerly lines of the EJCCE est o f ,SVD RESERVM r from the above-described by the Department of Public Works, acting on behalf of the Co instrument of talo prcmiscs, that Portion thereof taken ng dated Novemher 6, I9tii, and recorded in the yH wealth ofMassachusettsti b Hampshire Cour Y County Registry of Deeds t'lans must be filed with the Building Inspector, Wore a permit will be granted, No Erection_ ( ; Repair____-. ( ) Repainting___.•..-.-....-( ) (fitaf Nort4ainptan, Application for a Permit to Place or Maintain a Sign or other Advertising Device (Application to be filled out in ink or typewritten) FF:F ....... I'AGC......... nar.......... Northampton, A'Iass...... . ......... � To the Building Commissioner: Application for a permit �t[o1place or maintain a sign or other .16-et-tisin9 device. or marquee - BUSINESS NAME ..... ��tittJJ717t%! � -ZJPY/%• 1. LOCATION, STREET and No.... -_..............__.......................................... ........ .. . -.2 1 ?. , ............................... ' Owner's name �- - • 3. Owner's address . .. �� s3t_�. � ............................ ........ ................... _._.............. _.. •l. Maker's name............_...._..._.._...._......._......._.._.._...................I.............._............ 1?�s/,�,.�., _., i~....� yy��y�.................... ........ .................... 5. Maker's address........ ��I�--..._.........._...................... 6,{ Erector's name......& Ay."•571*g� ........................... ......:Jfl A................ ........................................_... ��..,,�QQ ��,// fE..... 1.L�L.>> ...... 7. Erector's address--�!>/-.....O+�............................................................ SIGN KIND OF SIGN (Designate) 1. Sign wilt be (check one) illuminated..... x.......non-illurn�iinated.................. Marquee....._...._..........--••• •••-•-• 2. Will sign obstruct a fire escape, window or door 7...!..�Lf_..... Projecting .---._.........._....._........ 3. Lower edge will be.�_....._._ft....~......... ins. above the public way. Roof._..._..__-.....-..•--•--•----- 9. Upper edge will be_is....... above the public way. ft...._�._.....ins. • Temporary._..._......._.._........._.. S. Height ..... _..... ft ....... "....... ins. Width.......-ft...''w"'._..... �ns. Wall ................. ....................... 6. Face area...7QL-sq. ft, Ground._ ..........................._..__..... 7. inner edge will be.....�.... ins from the building or pole. Other........ .................... . ........ S. Outer edge will be....- .... ins. fr m the building or pole. 9. Face of building or pole is -1-6 ......iw. back from the street line. 10. Sign will project....:a7!" _ins. beyond the street line. 11. Sign will extend_. -.ft...__ _ins. above the building or pole. 12. Of what material will sign be constructed 13. Estimatecost3r4?oo..• The undersigned certifies that the above statements are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. (ignatureMofN ner or Agent) NOTE: In order that this application may be accepted, the data tailed for above must be set forth U File No. ZONING PERMIT APPt2dA!r±oN �«10.2) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ALL nTFORaTION 1. Name of 2. owner of Property: Address: Tole no: 3. Status of Applicant: Owner _Contract Purchaser_ j,!:: see Other (explain): 4. Job Location: a2—h ur1; Parcel Id: Zoning Map#_______, Parcel# District(s): (TO BE FILLED IN BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT) 5. Existing Use of StructurelPropmW " 8. Description of Proposed UseNllork/Project/Occupation: (Use addMonal sheets If necessW. 7. Attached Plans: Sketch Pian _ Site Plan Engineered/Surveyed Pians Answers to the following Z Questions awy be obtained by checking with the Building oept or Planning Dep rbrient Files. 8. Has a Special Permit/Variance/Finding ever been issued forlon the site? NO DONT KNOW YES IF YES, date issued: IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? NO DONT KNOW --X- YES IF YES: enter Book Page and/or Document # 9. Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO_,. DON'T KNOW YES________ IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission? Needs to be obtained Obtained date issued: (FORM CONTINUES ON OTHER SIDE) y � 10. Do any signs exist on the property? YES_ IF YES d NO escdbe size, type and bcatfon: Are there any proposed changestoor addidonsof giMs FYES d d tar the property? YES escrfbe size. type and location: Nfl 11. �,'�PO�rXON RUST BSC1pMpy OP rwORMATIOX. . or- PS,ttl�ltg• CAN BE TO � � to b, fIII- t is Existin Required` g Proposed Lot size I By Zoning Frontage Setbacks=-frnnt_ - side -rear Building height Bldg Square footage %Open Space: --- (Lot area minus bldg SPatfed Pa` .kIng) bf Parking Spaces �`` �f Loading Docks Fill: Y vOlvive -& Zocation) L: R: L; R• 13' Certi fi ca tion : i is true I hereby Certif � and accurate to the bestOf that�the inzozmation contained herein DATE: Y knowl edge. No'r� lsaase awning aoe of APP.LICAMpi g zoniSIGNATFIRg f"uirern a ng Permit " Cammtssion, �pe*t�*+e d ob bUn an regYirema ed reN "It ea Pablio Worke endo i�r 1 the @�, � oomplY MOUX .all ePPiioable Permit arentIng Outhoritt plow FILE ,{� A .9 O � b N � o0 II 0000 0 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o 00 o$ o 0 0 •Q x o 0 0 0 0 _ _ o o $N z O O � O O Q z _$ _$ _o c co, o O p t _ _ 0 0 o O O O o o F A z o o U z ozo zzo9x0 zz w xM� F°H 11100Fzz9 &0 � ��o axx r� A O O H F• a Q5 zv� zzz°11 zo 0 �QF��Qxxxwww� z��A��z ° ° ° Z CO zzozo� zz Coco zz U Vl ° z Vi Vi Z a a v W W W oa Oo Oo o o 0 C7 C7 O Q"� pnonago go goOOp vii OOx 0 x N v M � ss. a s M M M M M �� " N N g q z a z ° o z Z O aa.a,� OO q CO a9�2wwwz� �ltW�C3 z �U U Q Q a a a a W W x 0 0 z U W w z Z<it '�zzzzoazQFFz�Z om u co AA g°Qoq �z000� 0 ��°o� zO H o0 ' 0 O 0 z MN `9 A N 00 v b►� $ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,_„ a � o _ 000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M a O O O O N 00 00 00 00 M City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hail • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950 FAX (413) 586-3726 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Hoard of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD APPLICANT: William F. Hodgkinson ADDRESS: 136 William Street Springfield, MA 01105 OWNER: ADDRESS: Xerryman Partnership c/o Cahillane Leasing 48 Damon Road Northampton, MA 01060 RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: 32 Damon Road MAP MID PARCEL NUMBERS: MAP #18D PARCEL 34 At a meeting conducted on August 22, 1996, the Northampton Planning Board unanimously voted 5:0 to grant the request of William F. Hodgkinson for SITE PLAN APPROVAL under the provisions of Section 10.11 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, to construct an addition to an existing autobody shop at 32 Damon Road, and known as Assessor's Map #18D, Parcel 34 in accordance with the following plans: 1. CDA -1823.L1 - "Site Plan," prepared by Commercial Design Associates and dated April 8, 1996; revised August 16, 1996. 2. CDA.1824.A1 - "Floor Plans," prepared by Commercial Design Associates and dated April 8, 1996; revised August 16, 1996. Planning Board Members present and voting were: Crystal, Jody Blatt, Kenneth Chair Andrew J. Jodrie, Mark NeJame and Anne Romano. In Granting Site Plan Approval, the Planning Board found: A. The requested use protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses because the current use of the property for an autobody shop will not change, but offices, F a Parts Department and a car preparation and wash area will be added. Surface water drainage patterns will not be changed. ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site because the site layout has been modified to separate the public from repair vehicles as much as possible. In addition, the owners will regrade the entrance to Damon Road to make entrance and exit safer. The requested use meets the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. C. The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to existing buildings and the natural landscape because the addition is in keeping with the existing structure. D. The requested use will not overload the City resources. E. The requested use meets any special requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. F. The applicant has complied with the technical performance standards as follows: (1) No new curb cut has been requested. (2) Pedestrian and vehicular traffic have been separated on site _to_the extent possible. The following conditions were imposed upon the project: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised plan to the Office of Planning i Development showing only the parking spaces required by Zoning on each lot, to be approved by the Senior Planner and to become part of the file. 2. The applicant shall submit a planting plan by September 5, 1996 to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. The Planning Board voted 5:0 to approve the waivers as requested in the application. 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 Planning Board hereby certifies that a Site Plan Approval Permit has been Granted and that 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, a pursuant to MGL Chapter 4OA, Section 17, County Superior Court and notice of said City Clerk within twenty days (20) of the decision was filed with the City Clerk. Applicant: Hodgkinson - 32 Damon Road DECISION DATE: August 22, 1996 n appeal must be filed with the Hampshire appeal filed with the date of that this DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: September 19, 1996 J City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950 FAX (413) 586~3726 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission Hodgkinson - Request for Site Plan Approval Northampton Planning Board Minutes of Meeting August 8, 1996 The Northampton Planning Board held a meeting on Thursday, August 8, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Andrew Crystal, Jody Blatt, Nancy Duseau, Kenneth Jodrie, Mark NeJame (arrived at 7:29 p.m.) Anne Romano and Associate Member Paul Diemand (left at 9:30 p.m.). Staff: Senior Planner Paulette Kuzdeba, Board Secretary Laura Krutzler. At 7:05 p.m., Chair Crystal opened the meeting. At 9:35 P.M., Crystal concurrently opened the Public Hearing on a request from William F. Hodgkinson for a Site Plan Approval Permit to construct an addition under Section 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 48 Damon Road, known as Assessor's Map #18D, Parcel 35 and the Public Hearing on a request from William F. Hodgkinson for a Site Plan Approval Permit to construct an addition to an existing auto body shop under Section 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 32 Damon Road, known as Assessor's Map #18D, Parcel 34. Crystal read the legal notices advertising the public hearings and explained the procedure he would use in conducting the hearings. William Hodgkinson presented the applications. The subject parcels are owned by Kerryman Partnership. Plans call for an addition to the existing autobody shop at 32 Damon Road and the addition of a Jeep Eagle showroom (presently located on South Street) to 48 Damon Road. Owners plan to move the leasing business at 48 Damon Road off-site. Offices there will be converted from a service department for the leasing business to a service department for the 1 ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Jeep Eagle showroom. Hodgkinson stressed that the businesses located at 32 and 48 Damon Road are separate agencies, although owned by the same partnership. By decision dated April 5, 1976, the Zoning Board of Appeals allowed the repair and service of automobiles at 32 Damon Road. The use of the property will remain the same, and there will actually be slightly fewer employees than in 1976. Hodgkinson described the following additional construction details: ---- No additional paving is proposed. ---- Owners will remove a wood -framed garage which has no foundation. ---- Work will take place outside the one hundred -foot buffer zone of a drainage ditch. ---- The owners have fulfilled the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. ---- Owners intend to create separate entrances for customers and employees to enhance safety. They also plan to slightly elevate the driveway exiting onto Damon Road to enhance visibility. ---- Workers will remove a small amount of grass in front of the existing offices (at 48 Damon Road) and install a large, attractive planter filled with flowering shrubs to surround the new showroom. Hodgkinson reviewed the waivers requested in the applications. Stephen Cahillane of Berryman Partnership, President of Cahillane Motors, spoke in favor of the application. The business has been servicing and selling cars on Damon Road for twenty years. The owners have now negotiated with Chrysler to move a franchise to that location to remain competitive with other car dealerships. Kerryman Partnership will move its used car business to South Street and add new car sales at Damon Road. There will be no intensification of use. Robert Cahillane, also a Berryman partner, said the addition would be nothing but an enhancement to the existing property. Since Chrysler has only given the business a short time to obtain approval, the applicant would appreciate Board action at tonight's meeting, Hodgkinson said. No one else spoke in support of or in opposition to the applications. OAI The Department of Public Works had no concerns. Kuzdeba pointed out the following problems: ---- Although the project has been presented as two separate applications, plans show the customer entrance for both lots located on one property. ---- Parking spaces for Lot 48 extend over the lot line of Lot 32. ---- The percentage of open space listed is in error. Hodgkinson responded to these issues as follows: ---- Although two separate legal entrances exist, the owners decided to use a common entrance for safety reasons. ---- Creating additional open space on Lot 32 would involve tearing up pavement and "incredible hardship." In addition, the Zoning Board granted a waiver of the open space requirement as part of its April 5, 1976 action. However, the written ZBA decision does not list this waiver, Kuzdeba said. A Special Permit must be obtained in order to have a shared driveway or shared parking facility, Crystal clarified. Otherwise, parking for Lot 48 must be located on Lot 48, and entrances must be separated. However, the Board encourages the use of common driveways. The owners do not have enough time to apply for a Special Permit for shared parking or a common driveway, Hodgkinson said. He argued that the application fulfills the intent of the ordinance by providing sufficient off-street parking. However, Crystal said the Board does not have the authority to approve non -conforming plans. The applicant requested a brief recess to consult with his clients. Upon reconvening, Crystal suggested the applicant request a continuance to August 22, 1996 to submit revised plans. Revised plans must show separate driveways, sufficient legal parking spaces and the location and square footage of any open space. Because of "grandfathering" provisions, the site does not have to meet current zoning requirements for open space, Kuzdeba clarified. However, the Board has previously required applicants to come as close as possible to meeting zoning requirements. Jodrie stressed that he would like to see planting wherever possible. Board members clarified that the applicant can have parking spaces which extend over the boundary of Lot 32 if these are not used to meet the number of parking spaces required by zoning. The spaces 3 which straddle the lot lines are intended to provide handicapped parking right next to the entrance of 48 Damon Road, Hodgkinson said. Also, once site plan approval is granted, the applicant could reapply for a Special Permit for a shared driveway, members commented. Once a permit is received, the owners could install signs to segregate customer and employee entrances. Blatt moved to continue both public hearings to August 22, 1996 at 6:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Duseau seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6:o. 4 City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hail • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950 FAX (413) 586-3726 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation . Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission Hodgkinson - Request for Site Plan Approval Northampton Planning Board Minutes of Meeting August 22, 1996 The Northampton Planning Board held a meeting on Thursday, August 22, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Andrew Crystal, Jody Blatt, Kenneth Jodrie, Mark NeJame, and Anne Romano. (6:20 p.m.) Staff: Senior Planner Paulette Kuzdeba and Board Secretary Laura Krutzler. Chair Andrew Crystal opened the meeting at 6:19 p.m. At 7:42 p.m., Crystal opened the continuation of a Public Hearing on a request from William F. Hodgkinson for a Site Plan Approval Permit to construct an addition under Section 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 48 Damon Road, known as Assessor's Map #18D, Parcel 35; and the continuation of a Public Hearing on a request from William F. Hodgkinson for a Site Plan Approval Permit to construct an addition to an existing auto body shop under Section 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 32 Damon Road, known as Assessor's Map #18D, Parcel 34. Hodgkinson presented a revised plan with the following additions: ---- Areas of open space outlined in color. ---- A revised legend showing that the required number of parking spaces have been provided. Parking spaces which straddle the boundary between the two lots were not used to meet the parking requirement. ---- Separate entrances for each lot rather than an employee entrance on one lot and a customer entrance on the other. ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Hodgkinson described details of proposed plantings. Board members said they would like site plan approval to be conditional upon approval of a landscaping plan at the next meeting. Hodgkinson said this would be acceptable. The owners have increased the amount of green space from six hundred and thirty (630) square feet to seventeen hundred (1700) square feet, he pointed out. Board members requested the applicant submit the landscaping plan by September 5, 1996. Jodrie said he would like to see shade trees along Damon Road. However, Hodgkinson said this was not possible because it would interfere with the line of sight of. cars exiting the property. Hodgkinson also noted the following proposed improvements: ---- the area of the property near the entrance to Damon Road will be built up so at least three cars will be on the same level as Damon Road while waiting to enter the roadway. ---- Handicapped parking spaces have been relocated so that handicapped customers have easier access to the facility. Kuzdeba said she was satisfied with the revised parking calculations. In addition, the applicant has met the requirement of providing at least five percent green space. However, Kuzdeba said she would like the applicant to submit a plan of each site showing only the number of parking spaces required by zoning. Crystal said the Board would be willing to grant approval subject to Kuzdeba's satisfaction with such a plan. The owners could apply for a shared driveway permit if they would later like to add signage to segregate employee and customer entrances, Crystal said. NeJame moved to close the concurrent Public Hearings. Blatt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 5:o. Blatt moved to approve the request for Site Plan Approval for 48 Damon Road with the following conditions: ---- The applicant shall submit a revised plan to Paulette Kuzdeba for her approval showing only the parking spaces required by zoning on each lot. ---- The applicant shall submit a planting plan by September 5, 1996 to be reviewed and approved by the Board. NeJame amended the motion to also approve the requested waivers and seconded it. Blatt accepted the amendment. The amended motion passed unanimously 5:o. Blatt moved to approve a Site Plan Approval Permit with the waivers as requested and conditions as discussed for 32 Damon Road. NeJame seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 5:o. Applicant's Name: W tu.lAWl F Mi C�b Cc K VMS©N CCDM 14SL1RCa AAL McgiC m. Address: 1%16 Will.1 5►.,$QQ� ;r1 Telephone: AH3 -733 10-M 2. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map # 3 Parcel # Zoning District:_ :�b Street Address: 3Z a mow% R oA.� 3. Status of Applicant: Owner<;�" Contract Purchaser; Lem t Other(explain) Pil�GT L1ES1�lER 4. Property Owner. Address: o C PNU N i•.G JEkwt Telephone: 0341 ��E� r 341 M0;k7 1 ON0-MN 5. Describe Proposed Work/Project (Use additional sheets if necessary): 4u� x'74-'--� tic2�'- oK�6i't W��asO�l R`� Prt�p t�Ttolu To 'tom SMACY �v kc—vi B4vS ******************************************************************************************** Has the following information beeninoded in the application? 000* ✓ - Site/Plot Plan List of requested waivers fee t/ 2 sets of labels (supplied by the Assessor's Office) Signed dated and denied Zoning Permit Application Three (3) copies of the Certified Abutters List from Assessors' Office. TA U '�2 D ►o 4 Roil � �lw 1 819% 8• Q�and Special Pe Approval ri N CLERKS FI�,E not apply, explain why) se additional sheets if necessary. Assistance for completing this information is available through the Oftke of Planning & Development. A• How will the requested use protect adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses? UM ARS. NeT lt3 CREiAs t K�•,r t.,t3'i-14R ri oR E Eft" �`�KT QF TAC- Li %l_o Si Ts - How will the project provide for: surface water drainage: _TKE S i T� kL3kyAD�( O Q ECTSSO Q.f� T+D i \I�IC� �i��:Al.��3►�. �i'i'GN . W\4..KIier,� ( SO sound and sight buffers: —me '�Siltyt c SiR'C. t 5 i�MGToR �,.!'llC�, 5�� S�N� R��R �� S�►oP . �Tw\�R�Mg�t�, So the preservation of views, fight and air.y-ii-„ APS_t t-piW (Tp N /qKE IITRE SIM 1HoR=, Fit„ B. How will the requested use promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets? E TO P* E'iZS-kT km ou fZ s V ilcLes. How will the project minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area? S�e*o- LS kg Cr- NZ— �� I�+ti'C'CEfl 1.af��iovT 28th b�ca5�f)N ¢05 �`�7Co� Where is the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets? Utz \LIUS— Resmik r..X 14 r__ Pbu 6V1 S— TO T14 M dat o Z kl q A*f��. �lK1CFt M! Atl�. � � Q,��-.rQ �j jej� '� K �4►kCF tT �.13� �. 5;.�� What features have been incorporated into the design to allow for access by emergency vehicles:'ZMT_. SQ'& .5tkAk,%_ k��Rj, p%% TTK* YK ArVL % .:ES the safe and convenient arrangement of parking and loading spaces: To (tAi- provisions for persons with disabilities: Sh%&L ""'Pa WO (AF_ bZS I C -*3 -C"4% V_ �G UTA KE.wc\O*T io N o r- TtIE J U_.jp.,� 50 v i 4 ftN Co OT-- mCsT � cy �� R t�c.�S t N C� Cs3 �p �,'� � 1 ri E �Cl�-l�`y- t�ivfl 1'O CuR SOts�j S�' TQC.\�l`�I t�At#.ketsj Vkb C. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to: the natural landscape: to existingMt�mxoms T-0 "t other community assets in the area: t Kr-- M%Qafk CK RJLAILt1.tN Cr o'F C54.S k" IL S-Waxvmf, ET- 6&G Com.. fkCQ.LAftWU"XL D. What measures are being taken that show the use will not overload the City's resources, including. (water supply and distribution system: (�r� {��+'1,�L ,`' � . 5 6M L sanitary sewage and storm water collection and treatment systems: Mez— Nspyy fire Protection, streets and schools:_ SZ:,W 6r2j V r= How will the proposed project mitigate any adverse impacts on the City's resources, as listed above? a, ETr— kvzm 76 E. List the section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance that states what special regulations are required for the proposed project (flag lot, common drive, lot size averaging, etc.) nkE gig .s -&D.%askb. C-43 %4a.% sA l►t. Dt1olJ R.&x3LW tis How does the project meet the special requirements? (Use additional sheets if necessary)? r % % NJL i&14 A P �� '.TT D QST. RF -k Z bk MCM oma A, Ar%QN WS �HAi,I. NOT. ?AN►Q cT AES C�MP�S F. State how the project meets the following technical performance standards: 1. Curb cuts are minimized: we A%LRkE"14QF,Mr, �.� ISg1l t� esl R fl O►!Q` s Zo c�NE o ld S Loo\*% 6AD f�VD-)OW E- LOT& RECEIVE U Check off a thatply to the project: %use of a common driveway for access to more than one business use of an existing side street use of a looped service road 2. 1>bes th"roject require more than one driveway cut? .v/NO YES (if yes, explain why) 3. Ares bicycle and vehicular traffic separated on-site? YES NO (if no, explain why) For projects that require Intermediate Site Plan Approval, ONLY . sign application and end here. f 9. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. The undersigned owner (s) Planning Board permission to enter the property to review this application. Dater9 ( Applicants Signature: Dated Owner's Signature: _ 14._ (If not same as applicant) For projects that require a Special Permit or which are a major project, applicants must also complete the following page. d IMI JUL 1481996 32 DAMO $3 SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS REQUEST FOR WAIVERS APPLICATION The application MUST include a site plan containing the information listed below. The Planning Board may waive the submission of any of the required information, if the Applicant submits this form with a written explanation on why a waiver would be appropriate. To request a waiver on any required information, circle the item number and 811 in the reason for the request. Use additional sheets if necessary. Locns plea ✓�. Site plan(s) at a scale of 1"-40' or greater. Name and address of the owner and the developer, name of project, date and scale plans: Plan showing Location and boundaries of the lot adjacent streets or ways 4 GV 6A 44A y M% Dov tb {moi all properties and owners within 300 feet �� CJD OcYs�15 AOsS OvM1+J 0.o@sp l�R, t1J 'rN i'e. all zoning districts within 300 feet �t�►h.3sa'R t lam, Pi�{�� B-3. Existing and proposed: buildings setbacks from property lines building elevations all exterior entrances and exits (elevation plans for all exterior facades structures are encouraged) B-4. Present & proposed use of the land buildings: Existing and proposed topography (for intermediate projects the permit granting authority may accept generalized topography instead of requiring contour lines): - fl at two foot contour intervals SRST' �O q� :.`SF,�W L1rg�aS�i' gz s - O showing wetlands, streams, surface water bodies - `o"showing drainage swales and floodplain: C� showing unique natural land features o T I J� 7 JUL 1 81996 S2 tAwm o U B-6. Location of: parking & loading areas public & private ways driveways, walkways access & egress points Proposed surfacing: Location and description of - all stormwater drainage/detention facilities - water quality structures�� - public & private utilities/easements S kTr—. - sewage disposal facilities water supply facilities OB -8- Existing & proposed - <'�!) landscaping, trees and plantings (size & type of plantings) stone walls, buffers and/or fencing 0-9_JkKSigns- existing and proposed: Ur- g" W � V—Xt - j 06_ 6N <~ C*, - Location_. Tl�t� S►%J CUI�.PI�i�'1`p tS DESctv` dimensions/heightgUtLTC' color and illumination . All k* - `� 13-10. Provisions for refuse removal, with facilities for screening of refuse when appropriate: FOR MAJOR PROJECTS ONLY: B-11. An erosion control plan and other measures taken to protect natural resources & water supplies: C. Estimated daily and peak hour vehicles trips gperated by the proposed use, traffic patterns for vehicles and pedestrians showing adequate access to and from the site, and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site. Site Plans submitted for JUL 18 19% shall be prepared and stamped by a: 4 p Architect, or Professional Engineer APPLUCANT/CON-TACT PERSON ADDRES.S%PHONE: PROPER LOCATION: MAP THIS SECTION FOR�OFFICiAL USE ONLY: PER iaT APPLICATION CHECK BT Approved as presented/based on information presented Denied as presented: Spe i 1 Permit and/ ite ]?1,$ der. ' . `�> C5 PLANNING BO ZONING BOARD Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed Finding Required under. § w/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed 1".,0 Variance Required under. yr/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed Other Permits Required: Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer Availability Septic Approval-Bd of Health Well Water Potability -Bd Health Permit from Conservation Co usion Signature of Building NOTE: lssuanoe of an zoning permit does not relieve an appiloant'a burden to oomply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from the Board of Health. Conservation Commisslon. Department of Publio Works and other applloabie permit granting authorities. • '�� I_S ih fi �� 3 � 7 File No. 4bol ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION (§1.0.2) PLEASE TYP;g OR PRINT ALL =0P.MATI0N 1. Name of Applicant:_4ffg W1LX-k AM VsSip fit` C+�rMVft DESK Se+ - 01105 Address: IU- w\wA„MM ST `SPR1 i MPh Telephone: J1 -733 20? o - 2. Owner of Property: K�,�f L AW �N Address: �2- bAjyp+Q (-D VJQ1kN% 64 TW4 Telephone.M Z SIT Q- PA©°S 7 3. Status of Applicant: Owner Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain): BC.A D@SlLQ*, 4. Job Location: 32 5. Parcel Id: Zoning Map# Parcel# District(s): (TO BE FILLED IN BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT) Existing Use of Structure/Property ?-12N WM UjQg. tl.. t3y t" ►h. *j"7(,, ZjS11', p�ClSl,p� -�"- Description of Proposed Use/Work/Project(Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary): VOArr+►o4 RbA%67% p kw STs 7. Attached Plans:Ar6bv6, Sketch Plan cbA,'K23-u Site Plan w+%%-m�% Shgineered/Surveyed Plans u�z� Answers to the following 2 questions may be obtained by checking with the Building Dept or Planning Department Files. 8. Has a Special PermittVa6ance/Finding ever been issued for/on the site? NO DONT KNOW YES IF YES, date issued: IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? NO DONT KNOW YES IF YES: enter Book Page and/or Document # AAlN 'Tib' &X%(—jjtTl 9, Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO DONT KNOW YES w th R vwikE- bzta X21. 1ecMo\t chtl.`( IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission? Needs to be obtained Obtained V , date issued: (FORM CONTINUES ON OTHER SIDE) 10. Do any signs exist on the property? ' YES ✓ NO IF YES, describe size, type and location: c�1JP_- CSC$,_ SkCTN hlt)APh k _No p(%4ACSN Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property? YES `� NO IF YES, describe size, type and location: %M\Q PAAK N 7ZJc9 l.1\ V.1 & , 11. ALL I7TFORMAT.£ON MUST BE COMPLETED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED DUE To LACK OF INFORMATION. This columa to be`ii21sd im by the Build-tmg X�'-ps-'•'m ne z kation- I hereby certify that the information contained herein G is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. a MOE: AUL`l � �,�APPLICANT's SIGNATURE NOTE: Issuanoe of zoning permit does not reileve a app(toant's bu on o oompiy with all zoning requirematts end obtain all required permits from the Board o! Commission De Ith, ConsertratI _� partment of Publio Worits and other applioable per**tit granting authorities. z ,. Required Existing Proposed By Zoning Lot 3z al sr -11s size 4� z4 lgasf: saw �e+�l� % \o�cst3oS� Frontage 1_F Setbacks -frnnt 72`t i\Co 11A4 - -Z25` Z251 20 r to G L: R: L: R: - side 3z- -rear 3'L �i-v .• i'c 6 Pr Building height 32 1.7 �f �o 'Z(Q �(o Bldg Square footage 32 11)TAC� `� = �� J4.4 070 S(6 C40 Sir C)'o 60 7o. %Open Space: �Z 2� sF21 ��bSrr (LOt area minus bldg &paved parking) (fg �? (�� SF a,� Si= 1 of marking spaces 3 #' sof Loading Docks Fill: 4i'.11 EA SL location) wo c 13 Cert ' f ' z kation- I hereby certify that the information contained herein G is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. a MOE: AUL`l � �,�APPLICANT's SIGNATURE NOTE: Issuanoe of zoning permit does not reileve a app(toant's bu on o oompiy with all zoning requirematts end obtain all required permits from the Board o! Commission De Ith, ConsertratI _� partment of Publio Worits and other applioable per**tit granting authorities. z ,.