18D-026 (22) 0) —V d b 019G28 Q a
vvv II NOV • �
4 in
DECISION OF I n{/y 2 6 , i
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS pp((pp�� U
At a meeting held on August 12, 1985, the Board of ..ea�p :, .�;>-`YA U1 'ONS
OW i
' City of Northampton voted unanimously to grant two Special Permi . .
and two Variance requests and to deny another Variance request of Robert
Thomas, 2215 Dixwell Avenue, Hamden, Connecticut to expand an existing
building and erect ground signs in conjunction with a change in use which
is establishing a full service car dealership at property located at
55 Damon Road, Northampton (GI Zone). Present and voting were: Chairman ,
' Robert C. Buscher, Peter Laband and William Brandt.
The findings were as follows: ,
P. Laband, referring to the petitioner's request for change in I
use in the pre-existing nonconforming structure under Section 9.3 (E), !
found that the requested use would not be substantially more j
detrimental than the existing use. Referring to the request to
construct an addition onto the pre-existing nonconforming structure
under Section 9.3 (A.3), he found that the addition will be in
conformance with present zoning, and therefore, not substantially
more detrimental than the existing structure. Referring to
Section 10.10 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, he found that
the use is listed in the Table of Use Regulations with a Special
Permit; that the requested use will bear a positive relationship 1
to the public convenience insofar as many families possess two cars
I
which need repair and maintenance; that pedestrian safety is not SI
4 really applicable, as there are few pedestrians in that area; that
the requested use will not increase an existing traffic problem;
that there would be no change regarding municipal systems; that
Article XI does not apply; that the requested use will not unduly
impair the character of the zone, as the present use is more intense 1
and has a more "cluttered" appearance; and that the requested use
is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance.
Referring to the Variance request for ground sign (designated
as "A"), Dr. Laband found that under Section 2.1, Page 2.16, definition j
of "sign, surface area of', the proposed signage does not exceed
100 sq. ft. as the surrounding non-illuminated metal frame is part
of the support, and therefore, a Variance is not necessary. He also
founa, after a site view, that a limitation of a 15 ft. high sign would ,
obstruct motorists' vision at that point on Damon Road due to the
1i proximity of Route #91; that a hardship relates to the public interest
,, and traffic difficulties; and that the requested use will not impair
the character of the neighborhood, nor derogate from the intent of i
the Ordinance. Referring to the request for directional signs, Dr. j
Laband stated that after checking with the City Engineer regarding !
the Industrial Drive setback, he found that all other business
signs are set back with the assumption that the paved roadway is the
right of way and that because the City did not offer information as i
IH to property lines, the topography is unique; that a hardship is
involved as this business would have the only sign setback at that
distance; and that the request will not be different than other area
�II� signs, nor will it nullify the intent of the Ordinance. He voted
II to deny inclusion of a logo on these two signs.
IIR. Buscher, referring to the proposed addition under Section 9.3,
II found that the addition would not be in violation-of the Ordinance,
II
[I . .2
11 I
H Decision - Robert Thomas
Page 2
. I
•
and found in favor. Referring to the change in use, he found that
where a car dealership is a consumer-oriented business, the presenta-
tion of the business would be neater, cleaner and more attractive than
a tire shop's surroundings, and therefore, not more detrimental than
the existing use.
He concurred with Dr. Laband regarding the disadvantage of a
directional sign placed 15 ft. back from the City's property line,
•
and found placement 1-2 ft. from the lot line beneficial to the
• public in directing traffic flow. However, he ruled against the
placement of the FORD logo on the directional signs, finding the
petitioner's arguements not compelling enough and the inclusion of
a logo not necessary for direction to warrant relief.
j'.
Referring to the corporate sign "A", Mr. Buscher found that the
existing sign is substantially higher than that requested by the appli-
cant and that a 15 ft. sign in that location would be a traffic hazard.
Referring to the surface area, he found that because the requested
lei sign is a universally used sign, and the elements of the sign blend
it into one another, that the sign is greater than 100 sq. ft. He stated
that the applicant's arguement that the national franchisor requires
�� this size signage for all dealerships is an arrogant approach, citing
several communities where this size sign would not be allowed, and
C =.--iii expressed concerns with setting a precedent; however, because almost
all other car dealerships in Northampton have the same size sign
J41, ail _ or larger, which would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage,
ghe would vote in favor of the sign, as it will serve the public
_ interest by offering a consumer choice, employment and improvement to
IAD the site.
'' r` Q - W. Brandt, referring to alteration of the building and change in
- use under Section 9.3, found that the use is not substantially more
detrimental, as the used tire business is on the decline because
1x of technically advanced tires in a healthy auto industry, and that a
car dealership would clean up the site. Referring to the corporate
it sign, he found that although the Ordinance is clear in requiring a
15 ft. maximum height, because of the underpass, a 15 ft. sign could
cause a traffic hazard as well as place the applicant at a competitive
.� disadvantage.
' Referring to criteria for a Variance from Chapter 40A, MGL, he
•
ill found that location of the site is unique and presents a hardship
because of the possible traffic problems; that the surface area of
•
the sign would not be attractive or safe on a 15 ft. sign; and that
ii the request would not be of detriment to the surrounding area. He•
concurred with Dr. Laband that the size of the sign is not greater
than 100 sq. ft. , and therefore, does not require a Variance. Mr.
1 Brandt found in favor of the setback for the directional sign on
Industrial Drive, but against inclusion of the corporate logo on the
two signs. E
After some discussion regarding the procedure for allowing the
erection of the corporate sign "A", Chm. Buscher agreed to acquiesce
to his colleagues' opinion that a Variance was not necessary.
. .3
1.
1
Decision - Robert Thomas
Page 3
A summary of the findings is as follows:
1. A Special Permit request for a change in use is granted.
2. A Special Permit request for alteration of a pre-existing
nonconforming structure is granted.
3. A Variance request for a 30 foot corporate sign is granted.
4. No Variance is needed for the surface area of the corporate
sign (less than 100 square feet).
5. A request for a Variance to include the corporate logo on
two directional signs is denied.
6. A Variance request to allow the directional sign on Industrial
Drive to be set back less than 15 feet from the lot line is granted.
I I
lt
`i,t NOV 2 6 1985 till J%" `` -'-111r-r-s.-
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
CDOM
I OB NOOFH th aN IAA 01060
QK . �(
li Received at City Clerks AO44ice Peter Laband
tORIN?MPSS.
Ig `3D �i iYJ 11iam Brantlt:��f��
-
Date A.-.
I i Tune �Y�
November 14, 1985
I , Christine Skorupski, Assistant City Clerk of the City of
H Northampton, hereby certify that the above decision of the
IIS, Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals was filed in the Office
of the City Clerk on August 30, 1985, that twenty days have
H elapsed since such filing and that no appeal has been filed
in this matter.
II -
J
.y o 0
iI Attest 4 fe(/KF A/L
-ssistant City Clerk
City of Northampton
LE HEE E S A TRUE COPY OF IHS RECORD IN
lEt o d OF THE HAMPSHIRE
UTZ liRrY_' 7 r/ O
0 47 ad
IRRT,;? TE
DECISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on August 12, 1985, the Board of Appeals of the
City of Northampton voted unanimously to giant two Special Permit requests
and two Variance requests and to deny another Variance request of Robert
Thomas, 2215 DixweTnlle, Hamden, Connecticut to expand an existing �..
building and erect ground signs in conjunction with a change in use which
is establishing a full service car dealership at property located at
55 Damon Road, Northampton (GI Zone). Present and voting were: Chairman
Robert C. Buscher, Peter Laband and William Brandt.
The findings were as follows:
I P. Laband, referring to the petitioner's request for change in
,,' use in the pre-existing nonconforming structure under Section 9.3 (E),
found that the requested use would not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing use. Referring to the request to
construct an addition onto the pre-existing nonconforming structure
under Section 9.3 (A.3), he found that the addition will be in
conformance with present zoning, and therefore, not substantially
more detrimental than the existing structure. Referring to
Section 10.10 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, he found that
11
ii the use is listed in the Table of Use Regulations with a Special
Permit; that the requestedL u e will bear a positive relationship
to the public convenience insofar as many families possess two cars
di which need repair and maintenance; that pedestrian safety is not
ii really applicable, as there are few pedestrians in that area; t
id the requested use will not increase an existing traffic problem;
H that there would be no change regarding municipal systems; that
H Article XI does not apply; that the requested use will not unduly
Ili impair the character of the zone, as the present use is more intense
i,I and has a more "cluttered" appearance; and that the requested use
h is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance.
j
6 Referring to the Variance request for ground sign (designated
as "A"), Dr. Laband found that under Section 2.1, Page 2.16, definition
of "sign, surface area of', the proposed signage does not exceed
100 sq. ft. as the surrounding non-illuminated metal frame is part
of the support, and therefore, a Variance is not necessary. He also
1�-----_—� found, after a site view, that a limitation of a 15 ft. high sign would
�i'� obstruct motorists' vision at that point on Damon Road due to the
9j proximity of Route ?k91; that a hardship relates to the public interest
Zjf ". and traffic difficulties; and that the requested use will not impair
,� O z2f the character of the neighborhood, nor derogate from the intent of
_s M the Ordinance. Referring to the request for directional signs, Dr.
mz� Laband stated that after checking with the City Engineer regarding
CZ1
7 the Industrial Drive setback, he found that all other business
E az si ns are set back with the assum tion that the
� g p paved roadway is the
right of way and that because the City did not offer information as
to property lines, the topography is unique; that a hardship is
involved as this business would have the only sign setback at that
distance; and that the request will not be different than other area
signs, nor will it nullify the intent of the Ordinance. He voted
to deny inclusion of a logo on these two signs.
R. Buscher, referring to the proposed addition under Section 9.3,
found that the addition would not be in violation of the Ordinance,
. .2
Decision - Robert Thomas
it
Page 2
and found in favor. Referring to the change in use, he found that
where a car dealership is a consumer-oriented business, the presenta-
tion of the business would be neater, cleaner and more attractive than
a tire shop's surroundings, and therefore, not more detrimental than
the existing use.
He concurred with Dr. Laband regarding the disadvantage of a
directional sign placed 15 ft. back from the City's property line,
and found placement 1-2 ft. from the lot line beneficial to the
public in directing traffic flow. However, he ruled against the
placement of the FORD logo on the directionl signs, finding the
petitioner's arguements not compelling enough and the inclusion of
a logo not necessary for direction to warrant relief.
Referring to the corporate sign "A", Mr. Buscher found that the
existing sign is substantially higher than that requested by the appli-
cant and that a 15 ft. sign in that location would be a traffic hazard.
Referring to the surface area, he found that because the requested
sign is a universally used sign, and the elements of the sign blend
into one another, that the sign is greater than 100 sq. ft. He stated
that the applicant's arguement that the national franchisor requires
this size signage for all dealerships is an arrogant approach, citingI.
several communities where this size sign would not be allowed, and
expressed concerns with setting a precedent; however, because almost
all other car dealerships in Northampton have the same size sign
or larger, which would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage,)
he would vote in favor of the sign, as it will serve the public
f interest by offering a consumer choice, employment and improvement to
lithe site.
W. Brandt, referring to alteration of the building and change in
use under Section 9.3, found that the use is not substantially more
detrimental, as the used tire business is on the decline because
of technically advanced tires in a healthy auto industry, and that a
I(t1,n 2 car dealership would clean up the site. Referring to the corporate
sign, he found that although the Ordinance is clear in requiring a
15 ft. maximum height, because of the underpass, a 15 ft. sign could
o £ cause a traffic hazard as well as place the applicant at a competitive
nl'.. disadvantage.
C
Referring to criteria for a Variance from Chapter 40A, MGL, he
._
found ste hat location f e trafftie pirs obunleimquse nt prthsenfa chardrs
f:
the sign would not be attractive or safe on a 15 ft. sign; and that
the request would not be of detriment to the surrounding area. He
concurred with Dr. Laband that the size of the sign is not greater
than 100 sq. ft. , and therefore, does not require a Variance. Mr.
Brandt found in favor of the setback for the directional sign on
Industrial Drive, but against inclusion of the corporate logo on the
two signs.
After some discussion regarding the procedure for allowing the
erection of the corporate sign "A", Chm. Buscher agreed to acquiesce
to his colleagues' opinion that a Variance was not necessary.
. .3
Decision - Robert Thomas
Page 3
A summary of the findings is as follows:
1. A Special Permit request for a change in use is granted.
2. A Special Permit request for alteration of a pre-existing
nonconforming structure is granted.
3. A Variance request for a 30 foot corporate sign is granted.
4. No Variance is needed for the surface area of the corporate
sign (less than 100 square feet).
5. A request for a Variance to include the corporate logo on
two directional signs is denied.
6. A Variance request to allow the directional sign on Industrial
Drive to be set back less than 15 feet from the lot line is granted.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
?Lk,-/
Peter Laband
11
gilliaibL344,46X
m Brandt
I,
NOG 3 01985
UEPOTRIW KU AS oiowons