Loading...
32A_271 1 Bridge Street ZoningDECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS At a meeting held on July 1, 19911 the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to DENY the request of Sports Bar, Inc. for a Finding under the Provisions of Section 9.3 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, to allow construction of a seasonal outdoor patio at the rear of T. J.'s Restaurant at 1 Bridge Street. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. The findings were as follows: 1. Section 9.3(b) of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance provides that a pre-existing nonconforming use may be changed, extended or altered providing that the Zoning Board of Appeals issues a Finding that said change, extension or alteration will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use. 2. Mr. Weil found that the presence of up to 28 patrons on the patio, until 11:00 p. M. on weekdays and midnight on Saturdays would likely exacerbate activity in the parking lot which residential neighbors already find offensive. He felt the extension of an indoor activity to the outdoors would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current situation. 3. Dr. Laband found that the quality and character of the expanded use, and the degree of it, would have a substantially more detrimental impact on the neighborhood. 4. Chairman Buscher, appreciative of applicant's argument that waitpersons would be able to control patrons' activities, felt that human nature and alcohol are probably beyond applicant's total control. He felt that the neighbors should be protected from the worsening of an already troublesome situation of noise NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION SPORTS BAR, INC. APPLICATION FOR A FINDING PAGE TWO and other problems in the parking lot, which he found would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The Finding is denied. Robert C. Suscher, Chairman �L Rn. Dr. Peter Laband M. Sanford geil, Jr. Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals June 19, 1991 Meeting Page One The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 8:10 p. m. on Wednesday, June 19, 1991 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, to conduct a Public Hearing on the Application of Sports Bar, Inc. for a Finding under the Provisions of Section 9.3 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of an uncovered, seasonal concrete patio at the rear of the building at 1 Bridge Street, which houses T. J.'s restaurant. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Ch. Buscher opened the Public Hearing by reading the Application, the Legal Notice, a memorandum from the Northampton Planning Board, portions of Section 9.3 relating to pre-existing nonconforming structures and uses, and Section 8.1(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, which he referred to as "totally ambiguous." Atty. Joseph DeFazio was present representing the Applicant. Also present was John Smith, owner of the property and principal in the corporation Sports Bar, Inc. In response to Dr. Laband's question, he told the Board that the subject piece of property was once owned by the railroad, but now Mr. Smith owns the building and all the land, which contains some 35-40 unstriped parking spaces, with access off Hawley Street across the Jack August Restaurant property. Mr. Smith also leases space from August's and uses it for parking after Jack August's Restaurant is closed (8:30 p. m.). Ch. Buscher asked if the patio would eliminate any parking spaces, and was told, "One." Mr. DeFazio said that, although the patio would not have a roof or walls or screening, there would be some latticework and landscaping to generally improve the appearance of the rear of the building. Mr. Weil asked, "If access is based on a verbal agreement, and if August sells the property and the next owner doesn't agree, then what?" Mr. DeFazio replied, "Then we lose our access to the property behind the building. We don't need any parking to run T. J.'s because the building is pre-existing nonconforming and the parking regulations don't apply. The existing parking is a convenience. T. J.'s would still exist. The Gala Cafe was there long before T. J.'s. The building has been a bar and restaurant long before the zoning ordinance. We are here for a Finding, the criteria for which ar, "Is it substantially more detrimental." He cited Bridgewater v. Chuckran , a 1966 case which, he said, described the components of "substantially more detrimental" as being: 1) The extension of use reflects the prevailing use when the zoning ordinance went into effect; 2) There must be a difference in quality or character of the extension of use to make it substantially more detrimental, and that is not the case here; and 3) The current use must be different in kind in its effect on the neighborhood." He went on, "The neighborhood is retail, commercial, restaurant, lumber yard, church, railroad tracks --what impact will outside diners have on the neighborhood? The patio will only be open as long as the kitchen is open. It is Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals June 19, 1991 Meeting Page Two for eating and drinking, not drinking only. My client contacted Capt. Wall at the Police Department, and learned that there nas never been a noise complaint. There have been no complaints to the Liquor License Commission. We want diners outside. There's another outdoor patio at The Depot that is closer to the neighbors. There's Pearl street." Mr. Weil asked, "When does the kitchen close?" Mr. Smith replied, "11 p. m. weekly, midnight on Saturday." Mr. DeFazio went on, "The purpose of this is to make T. J. Is more attractive to diners. Waitstaff will supervise the parking lot. It will be landscaped. The community will be better served." Ch. Buscher commented, "Making the leap that T. J. 's is the same as the Gala Cafe is OK, I guess, but if you add on square feet, do you cross over the line from grandfatherhood to meeting the requirement of the additional seven tables? That needs 14 more spaces." Mr. DeFazio asked, "Does the first phrase of Paragraph three of §8.1 apply to a, b, 3 and 4?" Dr. Laband asked, "Do you claim exemption from "a" or "b"? "No," he replied, "from #3." Mr. DeFazio went on, "Was the intent to limit it to the CB District? Item #4 says, 'municipal facilities and municipal property.' Does that mean only CB Look at (b). Why does (b) mention 'CB' particularly if the section is meant to apply to CB? I suggest that some exemptions exist, some CB and come not." Ch. Buscher asked, "Would your client accept conditions?" "Absolutely," replied Mr. DeFazio. "We want to serve food and alcohol --no bar, no music, no TV." The Chair asked if anyone else was present to speak in favor, and no one responded. When he asked for opponents, the following people spoke: Atty. William O'Neil 351 Pleasant Street, representing Cynthia Morse, an owner at the Brookside condo. "Her apartment is on the Northwest corner of the building, facing the rear of T. J. Is. Some other occupants of that building oppose this extension. I point out that this open facility would be more detrimental to the neighbors than a closed facility. Ms. Morse already gets noise from the open rear door. This is a seasonal use, only when the neighbors have their windows open. They have paid considerable money for their apartments. The outdoor use is inconsistent with the residential portion of the neighborhood. T. J.'s is not The Depot. It is a sports bar. It does not attract the most quiet of people. The police were there last weekend to break up two fights. The parking lot issue I won't go into. It is not crystal clear that they can add this without providing for parking. I submit that what they propose violates one of the criteria of Bridgewater v. Chuckran. Zoning does not want situations worsened. 'Shall not be substantially more detrimental.' I submit there is too much human nature here, too many unknowns. How can you determine if it will not be more detrimental?" Ed Callahan 73 Hawley Street, commented, "I don't object to T. J. Is expanding, but I don't want them to expand Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals June 19, 1991 Meeting Page Three outside. Outside activity is not what I expected when I bought my condo. Sitting outside is a considerable change in use." Kathy Baatz . 17 Hawley Street commented, "My husband and I own two units. There are six bedrooms on the third floor facing the parking lot. This will have a very negative effect on our life. The noise is intermittent --people quarrel in the parking lot. People cause problems in the parking lot. a continuous problem is worse than an intermittent problem. This is a 50% increase over existing seating. It's a sports bar. T. J. I's will be pressured to have TV or radio on the patio. The existing noise is significant --this will be worse." Paula Bretzky(sp?), a tenant at 17 Hawley Street, in the third floor rear, said, "Our bedrooms face Jack August's and T. J.'s. T. J.'s is a very interesting place. I pay very good rent to Jack Cahillane, and I'd ask for a reduction due to increased noise. You can't compare a sports bar to Jack August's. People urinate in the parking lot. We hear the peeling of tires, arguments with the 'f' word. We keep our windows closed and use the air -conditioner to avoid the noise. The Depot doesn't bother me, nor does Jack August's, but T. J.'s does. There were four cruisers in the lot one night. I wish Mr. Smith would keep better track of his customers. I definitely don't want an outdoor porch." Joe Menzek(sp?) commented "I work nights to 5 a. m. T. J.'s doesn't bother me. I patronize T. J.'s, but an open patio is something we hadn't planned on when we moved in." Ch. Buscher commented to Mr. DeFazio, "I think the issues are clear." Mr. DeFazio replied, "The outside door will have an air lock to reduce noise. I take issue with my brother. 'as detrimental' isn't the phrase. 'Substantially more detrimental' is the phrase. What impact would outdoor dining have on the current noise levels of people in the parking lot? Eating outside won't increase any problems." Mr. Weil commented, "I can see a noisy arrangement from people having a pizza and ten beers." Mr. DeFazio replied, "Noise and rowdiness are matters for the police and the license commission --not the zoning board. Every licenseholder is obliged to maintain a proper premises. The fact that people will be eating outside does not mean more noise. What we are trying to do, in and of itself, is not irresponsible." A condo resident asked, "Where will the dumpster go? Where will August's barrels of grease go?" Mr. Smith first replied that he could move the dumpster under her window if he chose, but upon urging of the Chairman to give a more responsive answer, replied, "It will stay where it is, next to the tracks." Atty. O'Neil added, "The present use is somewhat detrimental. A 50% increase outdoors is substantially more detrimental. You must find that this will be substantially more detrimental." Ch. Buscher asked Mr. DeFazio, "Have you given any thought to enclosing the patio?" The reply was, "No. We are using latticework and landscaping. T. J.'s doesn't want to get in a Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals June 19, 1991 Meeting Page Four battle with the neighbors. We want to accommodate our customers. It doesn't make any sense for a licenseholder to disturb the neighbors. We don't want to create noise. our landscaping will keep noise down. We can have waitstaff police the parking lot. The door airlock will cut down on noise. The license commission and police should regulate noise, not the ZBA." There being no one else wishing to be heard, Dr. Laband moved that the Public Hearing be closed. Mr. 'Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Dr. Laband commented, "The ordinance is inconsistent. We should ask Kathleen Fallon for her opinion on §8.1(3) --does it apply to the NB zone? Also, the Bridgewater case. It was agreed that the Board would hold a special meeting at 5 p. m. on Tuesday, July 2 in Council Chambers to announce a decision. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman •a Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals July 1, 1991 Special Meeting Page One The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 5:00 p. m. on Monday, July 1, 1991 to conduct a special meeting to announce a decision on the application of Sports Bar, Inc. for a Finding to allow construction of a seasonal outdoor patio at the rear of T. J.'s at 1 Bridge Street. Present were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Also present were John Smith, owner of T. J.'s, his attorney, Joseph DeFazio, Atty. William O'Neil and his client. Dr. Laband moved that the minutes of the June 19, 1991 meeting be approved without reading. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Ch. Buscher read a memorandum dated June 25th from Kathleen Fallon, the City Solicitor. Mr. Weil read a prepared statement, outlining seven points relative to the application, and concluded, "Based on all of these presumptions, it is my judgement that the requested extended use, as described, would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use. I am therefore prepared to deny the Finding." Dr. Laband commented, "Per se, the outdoor patio is not the question. It's the influence of the patio, particularly after the closing of the kitchen, how it would affect the neighborhood. The quality and character of the use, and the degree of it, would have a substantial impact on the neighborhood --substantially more detrimental --we should not issue the Finding." Ch. Buscher concluded, "As to whether or not §8.1 covers this set of circumstances, I agree that these people are exempt from providing additional parking. That's the good news. Then the question is, does this activity fall within the purview of Chuckran? I find it does not. This proposal is an extension of what is currently going on in the building, but a different kind of quantitative activity. If he enlarged the building, Chuckran would apply. But taking the activity outside, the affect on the neighborhood is far greater than enlarging the building. The applicant knows he has an exposure here, and wants to keep his patrons civil and thoughtful. Unfortunately, human nature and alcohol will probably be beyond his total control. Residences are nearby, and those people have to be protected. They move into a situation with the expectation that it won't get any worse. People will be out there at all hours, some loud, some creating problems. I'd vote in opposition. Mr. Weil moved that the Finding be denied. Dr. Laband seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary. i Robert C. Buscher, Chairman CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NORTHAMPTON. MASSACHUSETTS 01060 DATE: JULY 30, 1991 RE: THE REQUEST OF SPORTS BAR, INC. FOR A FINDING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR PATIO AT THE REAR OF T. J.'S RESTAURANT AT 1 BRIDGE STREET. Pursuant to the Provisions of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the above date DENYING the requested Finding. If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed in Superior Court within 20 days of the date this decision was filed in the Office of the Northampton City Clerk. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman Sports Bar Decision - 7/2/91 - 5PM 1. We are addressing a Finding under Section 9.3 (B) to construct a patio and Fence at the rear of Sports Bar Resturant, 1 Bridge Street. (extension of non -conforming use). 2. The Finding must meet the requirement that this requested extension of use will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non -conformity, which currently takes place within the structure. 3. Sports Bar is a resturant serving food and liquor. After the dinner hour the emphasis is on bar service, supplemented by the kitchen. 4. The establishment caters to a clientel which has resorted on occasion to boistressness and fighting in the parking lot at the rear of the resturant. However, at the present time the bar activity is confined to the interior of the structure and the disturbance occurs after the patrons have left the resturant. 5. The patio would accomodate seven tables and seat up to 28 people.The applicant states that the outdoor accomodation would be restricted to dining. It is probable, however, that after the dinner hour the kitchen service would mainly a supplement to the drinks which would be served. The outdoor area would be open until the kitchen closed at 11 PM weeknights and 12 PM Saturdays. 6. Abbutors live in third floor condominium apartments overlooking this facility. They are already being disturbed by the resturant's patrons after they have left the establishment. It is assumed that the disturbance would be materially exascerbated if the patrons were permitted to eat and drink in the outdoor area after the dinner hour. The ability of the servers employed by Sports Bar to control the patrons behavior is doubtful. 7. In view of the fact that the ZBA isrequired to approve the extended use, this conflicts with the presumption that the activity is the sole responsibility of the Liscence Commission and the Police. 8. Based on all of these presumptions it is my judgement that the requested extended use,as described, would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood that the existed non -conforming use. I am therefore prepared to deny the Finding. L AW O F F I C E S of Joseph J. DeFazio ...I Joseph J. DeFazio Laura F. Arbeitman M. Torii Maloney, Legal Assistant June 26, 1991 Robert J. Pascucci Board Secretary Office of Planning City Hall 210 Main Street and Development Northampton, MA 01060 RE: SPORT'S BAR, INC. Addendum to Application For Finding Dear Bob: Enclosed please find an addendum to the Sport's Bar, Inc.'s application for a finding; said plan should have been provided at the time the original application was submitted on or about May 20th. I'm sorry this comes at such a late date, but, what was apparent from the board meeting was that the original drawing that we provided did not clearly show what the plans were with regard to screening. Hopefully, the board will consider this addendum in reaching their decision. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause but look forward to your anticipated consideration in this matter. Thank you. Very truly yo , Jo eph J.'DeFazin JJD/tr Enclosure cc: John Smith 231 Main street Northampton Massachusetts 01060 Telephone (413) 586-6161 FAX(413)584-9163 City of Northampton MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Kathleen G. Fallon, City Solicitor �� SUBJECT: Sports Bar, Inc. DATE: June 25, 1991 Law Department You have requested an opinion on two issues connected with the Sports Bar, Inc.'s request for a finding under Section 9.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Sports Bar, Inc. wishes to add an outdoor patio to its present facility. The business is located in a NB district and is a non -conforming use. The first issue is whether Section 8. 1, subparagraphs (a), (b), (3) and (4) are applicable only to the CB district. Section 8.1 is, at best, poorly drafted. The paragraph immediately preceding these subparagraphs deals with CB districts. However, the sentence preceding the subparagraphs does not specifically refer to the CB district. If that sentence were part of a separate paragraph, there would be little doubt that the subparagraphs were applicable to all zoning districts. Of the four subparagraphs, only (b) specifically refers to the CB district. I suspect that the intent of the drafter of the ordinance was to confine the exceptions in the four subparagraphs to the CB district. Both the paragraph preceding and that following the subparagraphs deal with the CB district. Subparagraph (3) was added in response to specific situations which occurred in the CB district. However, the Planning Board finds sufficient ambiguity in the ordinance to extend those exceptions into other districts. I, too, find the ordinance vague enough to support that view, although an argument certainly can be made for the more restrictive interpretation. Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance is scheduled for revision. Hopefully, that revision will clear up these ambiguities. For the moment, however, the Board must decide which interpretation it feels best reflects the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The second issue concerns the applicability of the Bridgewater v. Chuckran case. That case set out a three part test for determining if an existing use is the equivalent of a protected non -conforming use. The test standards are: (1) whether the use reflects the nature and purpose of the use prevailing when the zoning law prohibiting the use took effect; (2) whether there is a difference in the quality and character of the use as well as the degree of use; (3) whether the current use is different in kind in its effect on the neighborhood. In the Chuckran case these standards were used to judge if an existing use had expanded or changed so as to negate the protection afforded by a prior non -conforming use. These standards could be applied as part of the determination as to whether a proposed alteration of a non -conforming use is entitled to a finding. However, this "Chuckran" determination is really made, usually by the Building Inspector, prior to the submittal of the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If any proposed alteration of a non -conforming use meets all three "Chuckran" criteria (i. e. (1) it reflects the nature and purpose of the use prevailing when the zoning law took effect; (2) there is no difference in the quality or character of the use; and (3) there is no difference in kind in its effect on the neighborhood), then the alteration is substantially the same as the original non- conforming use and no relief is required. If the alteration fails to meet one or more of the tests, then Section 6 of Chapter 40A requires a "finding" by the permit granting authority that the proposed alteration is "not substantially more detrimental" to the neighborhood than is the original non -conforming use. This is the statutorily required standard that must be met. Sports Bar, Inc. has an application before the Board because the Building Inspector has already determined that the proposed alteration/expansion of the non- conforming use fails the "Chuckran" test and requires zoning relief. It is now up to the Zoning Board to determine if the proposed alteration/ expansion of the Sports Bar, Inc. Is operation to include an outdoor dining/drinking area is "substantially more detrimental than the existing non -conforming use to the neighborhood." This is a subjective determination by the Board. The Board's decision should be supported by specific factual reasons for its determination and not by mere recitation of the statutory standard. CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Kathleen Fallon, City Solicitor FROM: R. J. Pascucci for the Zoning Board of Appeals SUBJECT: Sports Bar, Inc. request for a Finding DATE: June 20, 1991 FILE: Attached are the minutes of last night's public hearing on the captioned application. The Board has two requests of you: 1. §8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance seems ambiguous to the Board. Do paragraphs a, b, 3 and 4, specifically paragraph 3, apply only to the Central Business District? The Planning Board felt that Paragraph 3 extended to other districts. What is your interpretation? 2. Do you feel that the three considerations set forth in Bridgewater v. Chuckran, 351 Mass. 20, 217 N. E. 2d 726 (1966) are appropriate criteria against which to judge the merits of this application? CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Northampton Planning Board $Ary' SUBJECT: Sports Bar, Inc. Finding request DATE: June 14, 1991 FILE: The Planning Board reviewed this application on June 13. Applicant seeks a Finding to allow a seasonal, uncovered concrete patio at the rear of the structure housing T. J. Is at 1 Bridge Street. The Board finds that the existing parking (35-40 spaces) is grandfathered relative to the parking space requirements generated by the existing indoor seating. The Board interprets the exemption stated in §8.1(3) , "A use which is temporary and seasonal and only operating from May 1st - September 30th," as extending beyond the boundary of the CB District, meaning that there is no additional parking requirement for the seats on the proposed patio. The Board further finds that the proposed patio will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing restaurant, and voted 6-0 with two abstentions, to recommend that you grant the requested Finding, and that you concur that §8.1(3) extends to this locus. If you do not agree that the §8.1(3) exemption applies to this parcel, then Applicant's only avenues to comply with the parking requirements for the patio seating are to apply for a Variance from the parking requirements, or get a Special Permit for off-site parking which requires a written lease/rental agreement. VW Northampton Planning Board June 13, 1991 Meeting Page Two activities since last year. Mr. Crystal commented, "Hearing no complaints from neighbors, I'd recommend approval." and so moved. Mr. Riddle seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. ORIS BAR, INC. seeks a Finding to allow construction of a seasonal, uncovered concrete patio at the rear of the structure housing T. J.'s at 1 Bridge Street. Atty. Joseph DeFazio represented the Applicant. He pointed out that the patio will not be screened, but latticework and landscaping will make the area more attractive. Mrs. Mendelson asked if Joyce August (direct abutter) was aware of the plan. John Smith, owner of the property on which T. J.'s sits, said, "I have showed her the plans and she has no problem with it." Mr. Smith pays Mrs. August for access to his parking lot over that of Jack August's restaurant on an oral agreement. Atty. DeFazio stated, "T. J.'s is grandfathered for parking. The parking area is adequate for the additional serving area." Mr. Feiden commented, "I question if these are legal parking spaces because it's only an oral month to month lease." Mr. DeFazio pointed out, "The Applicant is Sports Bar, Inc. The owner is John Smith. The Applicant pays rent to the owner." Mr. Crystal calculated that the total parking requirement for the existing and proposed seats is 53 spaces. It was generally agreed that the existing parking lot has 35 to 40 spaces. He added, "I'd feel better if there was a written agreement." Mr. Feiden commented, "You could approve this with the condition that if parking access is lost, then so is the Finding." Mr. Crystal asked, "Will this put an excessive burden on the neighborhood? That's the issue." Mr. DeFazio emphasized, "We ask for a Finding. The test is, 'is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood?' That's the issue. It has nothing to do with parking. Is the extension of the pre-existing nonconforming use substantially more detrimental? That's the issue. All we're doing is a little bit more of what we're doing." Mr. Feiden countered, "The issue is, are you creating a new violation because of parking? If so, you need a variance. The use in NB needs a Special Permit." Ch. Beauregard added, "If you add 20-40 more customers, then it could be more detrimental to the neighborhood." Mr. Crystal said, "There are three separate issues. The dimensional and use nonconformity. I see nothing substantially more detrimental, and would recommend the Finding be granted. But increased parking is what I'm not comfortable with." Mr. Holeva moved to recommend that "the Finding be granted based on Applicant's ability to use his property for 35-40 cars. If this access is lost, the Finding will be invalidated." Mr. Riddle seconded. Mr. Larkin pointed out, "This is seasonal. The intent of the seasonal ordinance addresses exactly what T. J.'s is trying to do. August could cancel tomorrow, and they'd still have parking VW 14ww Northampton Planning Board June 13, 1991 Meeting Page Three available. If there's a change in access, he would have to come back before the Board for another Finding. This is seasonal, and therefore not substantially more detrimental." Mr. Crystal added, "If it's seasonal, it's exempt from parking regulations. Let's not muddy the water." Mr. Holeva withdrew his motion. Mr. Crystal moved to recommend to the ZBA that the Finding be granted because the seasonal use is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use. He added, "No zoning relief is required for parking. The Planning Board feels that §8.1(3) is not limited to the CB District." Mr. Riddle seconded. The motion passed 6-0-2(Larkin, Duseau). SION, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN, "AUTUMN ESTATES." The Chair opened discussion by reading a May 23 letter from the DPW, and a May 14 memo from Wayne Feiden. Richard Brazeau of Huntley Associates made the presentation on behalf of James and Patricia Boyle, the developers, who were present. This is a seven lot subdivision off West Farms Road which includes two lots on which the Boyles' own house and garage are situated. Six of the lots are out of the buffer, and the seventh will be 50 feet out of the buffer. The preferred method of looping the water line is to have it exit to Westhampton Road via a sliver of land owned by the Boyles which extends to that road. The problem with this "sliver" is that, at its narrowest point, it is only 23 1/2 feet wide, where the Subdivision regs call for 301. The water line will be five feet deep, which applicant feels can be handled by the existing strip. Applicant realizes that he must either acquire additional land to widen the strip, or seek a waiver. Mr. Feiden pointed out that the DPW is unwilling now to recommend granting the waiver. They want the developer to go the last mile to try to acquire land to widen the strip to 301. Mrs. Duseau commented, "This is a recommendation from the DPW. We can waive if we want." Mr. Feiden advised, "If you want direction, request the waiver in writing, giving details, and we'll submit it to the DPW." Mr. Boyle commented, "The Lacinski property (which abuts the strip) is for sale. I'm trying to work out a land swap with them. There is a flow of roadwater from Westhampton Road via a swale toward the wetland." Mr. Feiden commented, "Lots #1 and #2 cannot be sold separately until the garage, which straddles the property line between them, comes down." Mr. Brazeau showed the Board two alternate schemes for developing the land --a cluster plan and a flag lot plan. He commented that fire flows are 530 gpm. Mr. Feiden pointed out that a Homeowners' Association is required for the detention basin, cul de sac maintenance, and maintenance of the road until the city takes it over. p �i c m5•�m Soww ^ na G o, w o tdi 7w (p (D p u. V, il. N N N N a fi ry N N fi V y y G'b a.y S• a ,p�:a �'< ww �'v, woo m c c�o.n5 °.o _. , no. fD w m �' N =. M =0rf'i rC O (D ^J' FJ o V'• Ei• J � O N f'r � jj � f'r Or 5 O '.0 Fwd w ?p O..o P� N *'�' O O p m 3d. a �� a�� �". `° o ff.m ��b �'o°�o w w o9��'m.� °'E o 9• Y5'w`T ? go�D•i oa�.v 0ma0p.5 p0nM � tim pp p 61 oq e o. a cr O+oC 0ao0 °wa •. z w 5 m 6ti o �• w e w ti p" B ° oS.ya` b o �.� -en hyots a m E S P �'C w 0 m p pp p t• m oao oao a -.00 w �° o n o oo �. o O o'm I° N..r^J'•'-'. �rn*'w+ a ^' aN SvZ`�°�'m �'o-S���N(° •� O cr 5.0 �• O. H,� �'•%!'. A as m '•�'�. 5' n �5'cno c� �•�'�° w 5 ��� o �• Aa�• ioC E a a•<ti �o z 5. Orly wj• O. -3 D, K w ° �' 0° � m a � � yr ,P w 7 5• m z'�'� N `�° 5 $,° �, c 7 '.•�; w'a'G Ej d o `� N G �' o �� E�� .m '"�,b z °o �y��•`ew Q•K• �t75 �.r�m� =° 7 `g.aa Ma-fD a°,w p dip 'Gwwwc,do:Zw a �G7ow C �P.c �kaa=7•m5tiy� w ❑a oc <3m 5 .ro _a CD p 0o 'JID �' va'� 5' gm a y 7 aM m ��. °'•C-n,E •� ^ mw � w G ti p p� .o P' o�•�� g -'. p O. o ~j o' m 7 m m w 3 U rc b'kr �' S w o05, w ooh th3 m a o;p 't7 N rGi, d C1.m N p ❑ �.aw �: v, a8 m a `' 5•� ' a i'n $gym afDi ti n p .J. .'%. o 0 5 Q 7 ��° ick 5 rtm s+y ac�b0°pcpav'C co �'� m R i o ofd .-y � OQ A y y C.o w CJ i �o ro oaoo 5w td �.o ^p •Oq G wZoo •� `.°*'+m o moo: a o. �•nm � ^ co 5 a w m z rp 0 O. .+. p w p •< �w •o m wAy"N moo:",-,�CwFE:mmn A W a G0 o° G G w w= S 7 N o >�rt" w cy °'•� k o. oo•� �•'' oG'A,a,p•m� E z��a •. a 5 a m ^a r' 00 'J o Uq .y p p•O. n a C, 5 ry how.+. m m m + !? �C•.i',' a og °iU a x r� .�.'y H,n m �. oo •� `may am ttl a.w aN m ww p� G a' G O Sro 5 ao w^'10 m �n m �A.S,^w•� � ooqq o E ,. p,m w `"•�ib'7 7�o.x.o% �o°=ayAaOwa °G�m ZSB owryy m w 7 r•., ti w � — o� 3 N m y; m o w o• .-. w 9 �• 5' � �r m +..� �' � - � � N G. b �, Ap'f � M a p• STyC P �. w. o.� �G w o�"°s. b'wty� �S W iD rr'O O O r�M Sw o o�m o"woa o °< m❑ m w. N w e_ m oq Oq G ti w f7 0 o p 7L�� < 7,0„•� crmro `� kV+ey m'w ��'r vm •o w ."a•c S.o A G ..rEj G p m 0Q a aNw a oa �i a moo: rv'a or...� ago v m O O om p `� C o N mow$ ^� .n°�'• m. Ci p� w 0.0 `t. w m N p0 ted m m. a� ❑ ov 5. :;m AC �c�o G •< ufD, wo'o o.��s�= 5'm•$�w �S'�,°n ?�o.�oo `�" � o3'a. 5'w ��ai'�mY � =� G r-� ti m c0� m 7 a w epy goo c.0� or ,b G] � m 'e o� a •.t E .- O -$', ro o w� aM oo oar., a[�] oo�iDo`�acwam�o �_J'• m1.0 S O a o 'si a oogg In N ' d 9 0 'SL wo�� Na mea• v, n� °am'7Sn3 '+a5'o:$'a" YooSo�ooao $ N 5 rr m F-+ o G F-+ m° co a J o. ff. `0 mow oo a cn o o mq ro a E o z G w cry P' o � `&.•<r".wmo � 5'C'm :A oow o w�ae�Co�N`�ovo,m zm�E,' C]�efD�O° Q'y mwpbY?.� m�5• waE ��c�a oKa� gym° thO�w r�3�5"58 p S' °c� < m a m w < m e:7 m ° a a �,b � .noo � � � m •o 00 ° a ���.w�N cocN7c mwm 7o5o^w °Dop°8° SCo.ogwaS�p �c' c"°Oma"c� O�-[ �.+��m Gw N .a �o�a Zf �,a,•o e. aW W�Cy7 O A o., 7' w • <° c <° Fo 0 5 N e th a _ o. ry m - rn '* 9 • M o. E. pin. w `" C e 2 0 �•'SL. a• 7 6 n o td o _ a ".. 5. w S m> o aq rC to N _, o .a A_s�.�-.�sB�vA..a=-Q�..p 4j iv.N PTO NOW Date Filed File No. T1 X21 APPLICATION FOR A FINDING (Change Extension or Alteration of a Pre -Existing Nonconforming Use or Structure) L. Name of Applicant:Sport's. Bar.; "Inc- Address: 1 Bridge Stre,et Telephone: 586-1726 2. Owner of Property: John J. Smith Address: 137 Bridge Street Telephone: 584-2386 3. Status of Applicant: Owner Contract Purchaser X Lessee Other (explain: ) 4. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map Sheet# 32A Parcel# 271 , Zoning District(s) G.I. Street Address 1 Bridge Street - 5. Finding is being requested under Zoning Ordinance Section c)3 , Page 9-1 0 7. Narrative Description of Proposed Work/Protect: (Use additional sheets if necessary) To set in place a concrete natio with iattArP fPnrP- Please refer to plan State How Work/Proposal Complies with Finding Criteria: (See Applicant's Guide and use additional sheets if necessary) Attached Plans: X Sketch Plan Site Plan None Required Abutters (See instructions. Use attached abutter's list) 10. certification: I hereby certify that I have read the GUIDE TO APPLYING FOR A ZONING VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT OR FINDING and that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. P n t I Date: ���0�9 / Applicant's Signature V90 ../ ADDENDUM The Applicant, Sport's Bar Inc., d/b/a T.J's. with the permission of the landlord, Mr. John Smith, is requesting the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to City of Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Article IX to issue a finding that the proposed work, and the extension of the current use to an outside patio, is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non -conforming use to the neighborhood. T.J.'s is a full service restaurant located at 1 Bridge Street. It serves food and alcohol to its customers at 66 seats in the dining room and 12 seats at the bar. It is opened seven days a week to serve lunch and dinner. Its customers are mainly Northampton residents with a small percentage from outside the area. The applicant has been located at the premises since July, 1983. It leases space in a building that was constructed in early 1900 and has been used as a bar and restaurant continuously since its construction. The premises is located in Zoning District G.I. and is on a pre-existing non -conforming lot. The neighborhood where the premises is located services many community needs. It has various retail and commercial establishments, offices, restaurants, lumber yard, and railway tracks, as well as residential units. The Applicant suggests that the "Proposed Work" and the extension of the current use to the outside patio is not substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood. The extended use reflects the nature and purpose of the use prevailing when the zoning by-laws took effect. The additional few tables does not change the character nor quality of the current use. The current use with its extension is not different in its effect on the neighborhood. The premises can accommodate the parking requirements for the additional seven tables. It should be noted that the patio will only be used during the summer months. Da.te Filed 1"1w "Aw I . File No', ZONING P1, 1 'RHP IT APPLICATION ICION Zoning Ordinance Section 10,2 o _1�n t : -Z' , , d' I.- Name of Ar)ql ' r -k o Addr ass 12 1 D ,5 Telephone: 2. Owner. of Property: //4/ 7 Address: j37' f31t'ID6C- 5? Tel eph one 3 Status of ATDrDli,cant. : Owner Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (e.xplain: 4, Parcel Identification: Zoning Man Suet/' Parcel Zoning District(s) Street Address / J3 1Z t 5. Compliance' with Zoning, Xlst ing Proposed P a -,-t Use of Structure/pro y - L-) 0- ff k 1�_ Size of Structure (sq.ft.) $_ - 441d Building height Building Coverage Setbacks - front - -,side - ----- rear Sq Lot size Frontage Floor Area Ratio Open Space Parking spaces -3 4k5 Loading Spaces : j 7'1_ 6/c 4— signs Till (volume & location) 'LTarrati�7e Description of 'Proposed Work/project; (Use addit�6naj shoats if.necessary) po*r -- I)Cjo f) rAb i Q_ J(/ sea_T� L 7 Attached Plans; Sat -ch Plan Site Plan 8. Certification; I hereby certify that the 'ih�.Cp'rmati on, contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, Date! Applicant's Signature: - -- - --- - - - - --- - - - - - - - -- .THIS -SECTION- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - - : Approved as presented =Deni'ed as presented. Reason for Den)'.al: Signature of BOildinq inspector.. I MAY If �. 1"W AFFIDAVIT I, John J. Smith, do hereby depose and swear under oath: 1. My name is John J. Smith and I am the owner of Sport's Bar, Inc., located at 1 Bridge Street, Northampton, MA. 2. The building that houses the Sports Bar was constructed in early 1900. 3. The Sports Bar has been used as a bar and restaurant since its construction. 4. Renovations have been made to the restaurant and bar over the years, but no additional space or seating has been created. 5. There was no designated parking lot at the time of the establishment of the restaurant and bar. 6. The current parking lot, which is a dirt lot, has always been in existence as part of the total lot. 7. There has never been a determined amount of parking spaces but the dirt lot can accommodate approximately 30 vehicles. 8. The addition of a seasonal outside patio will not take away any of the space currently used to accommodate the 30 vehicles. 9. The outside seasonal patio is an extension of the main one story building and does not effect the parking lot which will remain as is. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this day of May, 1991. J n t COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Hampshire, ss May a� , 1991 Then personally appeared before me the above-named John J. Smith and swore to the truth and accuracy of the foregoing statements to the best of his knowledge and belief before me, In" 91L/&LZV ItOtary Public My Comm. Exp.: �y/9 PUMP We City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586.6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservations Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals Special Permit Issued by Planning Board Map I. D. File # Date Submitted , ?/ '7l y' 7 OPD Staff Review for fee and for completeness and for B.I. signature Planner Review r/ Set up public file folder Legal Notice Gazette h ,7 -.3 3 i 0, v 72 (Notice 7 and 14 days b fore hearing) Legal Notice Posted Agenda Posted Letter to Owner J I -q9 % Letter to Abutters/Towns Copy to BI Copy to DPW --?Tt Copy to BOH Copy to C.C. Copy to Fire Dept. Copy to P.B. members Planning Board Hearing 3i.. -77)v7 r— Planning Board Decision 7 Decision filed with City Clerk�1�� Decision mailed to: Owner/Abutters/Towns 42;s 47 Decision to DPW Decision to BI Permit entered on computer Decision filed O.P.D. (Memorex: PLAN.BD\PBINSTRU 4/3/92) 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 DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD APPLICANT: ONE BRIDGE STREET, INC. 1 BRIDGE STREET NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 OWNER: ONE BRIDGE STREET, INC. ADDRESS: 1 BRIDGE STREET NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 RE LAND/BUILDINGS AT: 1 BRIDGE STREET, NORTHAMPTON, MA MAP AND PARCEL NUMBERS: MAP #32A PARCEL #271 At a meeting conducted on April 10, 1997, the Northampton Planning Board voted 6:0 with one abstention (Associate Member Sanford Weil, Jr.) to GRANT the request of One Bridge Street, Inc. for a SPECIAL PERMIT with Site Plan Approval under the provisions of Section 6.2, 10.10 and 10.11 in the Northampton Zoning Ordinance to construction an addition less than thirty feet in height in a CB District at 1 Bridge Street. Planning Board Members present and voting were: Chair Andrew J. Crystal, Vice Chair Daniel J. Yacuzzo, Jody Blatt, Paul Diemand, Kenneth Jodrie, Anne Romano and Associate Member Sanford Weil, Jr. In Granting the Special Permit with Site Plan Approval, the Planning Board found: A. The requested use protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses because the addition is to the rear of the building and will follow the same roof line as the existing building. B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within the site because the applicant has included a covered pedestrian walkway leading to the rear entrance of the restaurant. The applicant has also provided sufficient parking and obtained a right-of-way to provide access to the parking spaces. ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C. The proposed use will promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to existing buildings because the addition will maintain the roof line of the existing building and not change the building's profile. D. The proposed use will not overload the City's resources, including the City's water supply and distribution system, sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, fire protection, streets and schools. E. The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance as listed in Section 10.11 (6). (See Attachment A) F. The proposed use bears a positive relationship to the public convenience or welfare and will not unduly impair the integrity of character of the district or adjoining zones, nor be detrimental to the health, morals, or general welfare. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. G. The requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible. The following conditions were imposed upon the project: 1. The applicant shall submit revised plans showing signage to direct patrons to the designated parking spaces. The Plans shall be submitted to the Office of Planning & Development to become a permanent part of the file. 2. If the lease agreement for access to the parking spaces terminates, the owner/applicant must submit documentation that provisions for the three additional parking spaces required by this permit are in place. Members also voted 6:0 with one abstention (Weil) to approve the following requested waiver: B-5 Existing and proposed topography at two -foot contour intervals showing wetlands, streams, surface water bodies, drainage swales, floodplains and other unique natural land features, because the site is flat and no changes to topography are proposed. SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA SECTION 10.11 ( 6 ) In reviewing the Site Plan submitted with this Special Permit application, the Planning Board found: A. The requested use protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses because the addition is to the rear of the building and will follow the same roof line as the existing building. B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within the site because the applicant has included a covered pedestrian walkway leading to the rear entrance of the restaurant. The applicant has also provided sufficient parking and obtained a right-of-way to provide access to the parking spaces. C. The proposed use will promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to existing buildings because the addition will maintain the roof line of the existing building and not change the building's profile. D. The proposed use will not overload the City's resources, including the City's water supply and distribution system, sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, fire protection, streets and schools. E. The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. F. 1. No new curb cuts are proposed. 2. Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic movement on site are separated to the extent possible. 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 Special Permit with Site Plan Approval 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, an appeal must be filed pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, with the Hampshire County Superior Court and notice of said appeal filed with the City Clerk within twenty days (20) of the date of that this decision was filed with the City Clerk. Applicant: One Bridge Street, Inc. - 1 Bridge Street DECISION DATE: April 10, 1997 DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 25, 1997 ... -apor 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 Northampton Planning Board Special Permit with Site Plan Approval - One Bridge Street Minutes of Meeting April 10, 1997 The Northampton Planning Board held a meeting on Thursday, April 10, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Andrew J. Crystal, Vice Chair Daniel J. Yacuzzo, Jody Blatt, Paul Diemand, Kenneth Jodrie, Anne Romano, and Associate Member Sanford Weil, Jr. Staff: Senior Planner Paulette Kuzdeba and Board Secretary Laura Krutzler. At 7:48 p.m., Crystal opened the Continuation of Public Hearings on a request from One Bridge Street, Inc. for a Special Permit with Site Plan Approval to construct a 1,246 square foot addition less than 30 feet in height and a Site Plan Approval Permit to convert a cellar to usable space under Section 5.2, 10.10 & 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, for property located at 1 Bridge Street, also known as Northampton Assessor's Map 32A Parcel 271. Crystal read the legal notice advertising the Public Hearing. Tom Douglas of Thomas Douglas Architect presented the application, representing the owner, Claudio Guerra. The proposed work involves gutting the interior of the old "TJ's" restaurant to create a new dining room and constructing a kitchen addition at the back of the building. The applicant submitted a zoning permit application some months ago, Douglas explained. City staff inadvertently overlooked the fact that the addition requires a Special Permit because it is below the minimum height required in the Central Business district. The applicant now seeks a Special Permit to allow a structure less than thirty feet in height. (The applicant no longer plans to convert the cellar.) 1 ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER The rear addition continues the roof line of the front of the building, Douglas said. The addition does not add height or change the building's profile. However, the rear addition is narrower than the front of the building, so the owner has used the extra roof on the east side to create a covered pedestrian walk leading to the rear entrance of the restaurant. Douglas posted a plan and pointed out features of the existing site and the addition. All of the addition will be used for a kitchen. The front facade will remain as is except for the removal of the existing awning and the addition of a new, canvas, retractable awning. The site has twenty-six parking spaces, Douglas said. A corner of the existing building actually extended over the property line, but this problem has been resolved, Douglas commented. Similarly, HVAC equipment for Martini's extends onto One Bridge Street's property. The applicant has obtained a right-of-way to allow cars to enter the parking lot and park in designated spaces. Patrons can then enter the restaurant through the rear entry. The former kitchen has been removed, and the front of the building is now a dining area with an open bar. The .restaurant's occupancy is seventy people. The former TJ's occupancy was eighty people. Douglas reviewed the parking requirements under the Zoning Ordinance: For the kitchen addition, the applicant is required to provide one parking space for every five hundred square feet, or three new spaces. For the restaurant, zoning regulations require one parking space for every four seats, for a total of eighteen spaces. Therefore, twenty-one parking spaces are required, and twenty-six are shown on the Site Plan. The intent of height requirements is to encourage second floor additions along Main Street, Douglas noted. Since the proposed addition is off the back of the building, the expansion will have no impact on Main Street, he stated. The applicant addressed the Special Permit criteria in the written application, Crystal noted. Douglas reviewed the waivers as requested in the application. Topographical information was omitted because the property is flat. Also, no erosion control plan was provided because the addition and renovation is not a major project. Site Inspector Romano said that her concerns about parking had been addressed by a conversation with Claudio Guerra. Although plenty of parking is available, it was unclear how patrons would know which parking spaces were for Martini's and which were for One Bridge Street. To address this concern, Guerra plans to hire a parking attendant on weekends to direct patrons to spaces designated for One Bridge Street, Romano said. 2 It would not make sense to require that the addition be taller than the front of the building, Romano added, since this would not accomplish the intent of the by-law. Blatt asked whether there would be a sign to direct patrons to parking for One Bridge Street? There will be a sign at the Bridge Street entrance to the property, Douglas said. One Bridge Street and Martini's share a common entrance, and there is already a sign for Martini's parking area, Romano said. Jodrie noted that the owner leases the access to the parking area. Since the term of the lease is seven years, what happens if the lease is not renewed, Jodrie asked? Members discussed whether to make the Special Permit contingent upon the continued existence of a lease agreement for access to the parking lot. Yacuzzo argued against such a condition, pointing out that it might make it difficult for the applicant to obtain a loan. The property used to include a right-of-way over the Rugg Lumber property, but the right-of-way was never conveyed when the property changed hands, Yacuzzo noted. However, Crystal questioned whether the Board has an obligation to insure that the applicant continues to provide the requisite parking. Romano stated that she thought the Board only needed to determine that the required number of parking spaces are available. August Woicekoski of 57 Bridge Street identified himself as the owner of two galleries. Woicekoski said he was concerned about his parking area because, when TJ's was open, men used to urinate and empty ash trays there. The former owner, John Smith, failed to correct the problem. Woicekoski said he spoke to Claudio and he was very cooperative. Woicekoski said he wouldn't mind patrons of the restaurant parking in his spaces after 6 p.m., since the galleries close at 5 p.m. However, he wouldn't want to be liable if someone were injured. The owner has suggested alternatives for addressing this problem such as paying for insurance and renting spaces, Douglas said. Crystal pointed out that the applicant has provided more than the number of spaces required by zoning. Any agreement for additional spaces would be between Woicekoski and the applicant. Crystal asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor or against? No one spoke. Member Discussion. Yacuzzo agreed that allowing the addition would not violate the intent of the zoning ordinance, since the addition is in keeping 3 with the roofline of the existing building and the building next door. The intent of the height requirement is to encourage second and third floors and avoid the "missing teeth" effect, Yacuzzo commented. Since the addition is behind an existing building and barely visible from the street, it does not disrupt the skyscape, he concluded. Blatt said she would like signage clearly directing patrons to designated parking spaces, such as "Parking for straight ahead," included on the plans. The Department of Public Works (DPW) had no concerns, Crystal noted. Members continued to discuss whether to include a condition requiring that the applicant maintain access to the available parking spaces. The existing lease gives the applicant the option to renew for seven years at the end of seven years, members noted. Some members said they would like to include wording which requires the applicant to demonstrate at the end of fourteen years that he has continued access to his parking spaces. Yacuzzo repeated his concern that this would hurt the owner's ability to receive financing. However, Crystal expressed concern about the possibility of having a seventy -seat restaurant with no accessible parking. Kuzdeba pointed out that the addition only requires the creation of three additional parking spaces. She suggested a condition requiring that, in fourteen years, if the lease is not renewed, the applicant must obtain a Special Permit to allow a payment in lieu of providing parking for the three spaces. Upon further discussion, members agreed not to limit the applicant to this particular option. Instead, they agreed to require that, if the lease is not renewed, the applicant must present an alternative for providing the three parking spaces required under zoning. Douglas asked whether this would affect the owner's ability to sell his property? Crystal said it would not if the lease were assignable. Blatt moved to close the Public Hearing. Diemand seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0 with one abstention. (Weil) Jodrie moved to approve the Special Permit with Site Plan Approval together with the requested waivers with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide signage to direct patrons to the designated parking spaces; and 2. If the lease agreement terminates, the owner/applicant must submit documentation that provisions for three 4 parking spaces are in place. Diemand seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6:0 with one abstention. (Weil) Blatt moved to recommend that a temporary certificate of occupancy be issued to the applicant so that he can proceed with existing business plans (assuming that other requirements are met). Crystal noted that the delay was due to the Planning Board's failure to have a quorum at their last meeting. Diemand seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6:0 with one abstention. (Weil) 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FILE FROM: LAURA KRUTZLER DATE: APRIL 8, 1997 I HAD A BRIEF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH JOYCE AUGUST WITH REGARD TO THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION FOR ONE BRIDGE STREET. MRS. AUGUST INFORMED ME THAT SHE HAS A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CLAUDIO (THE OWNER OF ONE BRIDGE STREET) FOR THE USE OF THE ALLEYWAY. THE LEASE GIVES CLAUDIO PERMISSION TO CROSS HER PROPERTY. HOWEVER, AUGUST SAID SHE HAS NOT GIVEN PERMISSION FOR ANY PATRONS FROM ONE BRIDGE STREET TO PARK ON HER PROPERTY AT 5 BRIDGE STREET. MRS. AUGUST OTHERWISE HAD NO CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION TO ONE BRIDGE STREET. LEASE AGREEMENT AGREEMENT to Lease Access Over Land by and between JOYCE L. AUGUST of 50 Wilson Road, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060, hereinafter LESSOR, and CLAUDIO GUERRA of S C? l%1��c1 S f ` Northampton, Massachusetts 01060, hereinafter LESSEE. WHEREAS LESSOR is the owner of property at 5 Bridge Street, at the corner of Bridge and Hawley Streets, Northampton, Massachusetts by deed dated September 11, 1979 and recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds at Book 2123, page 289; and WHEREAS LESSOR has leased the property at 5 Bridge Street to Nuray Ozcelik dlb/a Martini's by Lease dated which Lease provides that LESSOR shall have the right to settle all claims with the owner of the adjoining property at 1 Bridge Street, Northampton, Massachusetts; and WHEREAS LESSEE is a contract purchaser of the abutting property at 1 Bridge Street, Northampton, Massachusetts; and WHEREAS LESSEE wishes to lease access to the property LESSEE has a contract to purchase at 1 Bridge Street, Northampton; now THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF the payment of Rent by the LESSEE, the LESSOR agrees to lease the premises to the LESSEE as follows: 1. PREMISES. LESSEE and its customers and suppliers shall have the right to cross over and upon LESSOR'S property for all purposes for access to LESSEE's property, including delivery and access to parking. Such access shall be unrestricted and available at all times. a. Such access specifically does not include the right to parking or storage of vehicles or other property on the LESSOR'S property and such access shall not impair or interfere with LESSOR'S use of her premises of her tenant's use of the premises. LESSOR shall not impede nor interfere with LESSEE's access and shall notify any tenant of LESSOR of LESSEE's rights under this Lease to cross over LESSOR'S premises. b. LESSEE shall have the right, but not the obligation, to plow snow and clear the access over the LESSOR'S property. 4 C. LESSOR shall have the right, but not the obligation, to plow snow and store snow on the LESSEE'S premises in such places as the LESSEE may designate for snow storage. d. If LESSOR and its tenant or LESSEE or any tenant of LESSEE shall share the cost of a dumpster, LESSEE agrees that the dumpster may be placed upon LESSEE'S property in such location as the LESSEE may from time to time designate. 2. RENT. The rent for the use of the premises shall be $3,600.00 per year payable in equal monthly installments of $300.00 on the first day of each month during the term of this Lease. LESSEE shall pay the first and last month's rent upon signing this Lease Agreement. 3. TERM. The term of this Lease shall be seven (7) years commencing November 1, 1996 and ending October 31, 2003, 4, DEFAULT. If LESSEE fails to pay any installment of rent by the date due, and fails to cure such default by a late payment, without notice of the default, by the tenth day of each month, LESSOR shall have the right to terminate tlus Lease. Any three (3) such late payments within a calendar year shall be a default which can not be cured by a late payment. LESSEE shall also be in default if LESSEE shall file or have filed against it a petition in United States Bankruptcy Court under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code or by the appointment of a trustee or receiver in an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Upon a default, this Lease shall terminate and all rent for the remaining term shall be immediately due and payable. 5. ASSIGNMENT. This Lease may not be assigned without LESSOR'S written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 6. INSURANCE. LESSEE shall maintain comprehensive casualty and liability insurance which shall include, as part of the insured premises, the access granted by this Lease. 7. NOTICE OF LEASE. Notice of this Lease and the terms hereunder may be recorded by the LESSEE in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds. 8. EXTENSION AND RENEWAL. LESSEE may renew this Lease for an additional term of seven (7) years, upon written notice to LESSOR, ninety days before the expiration of the initial term, if LESSEE is not in default of the terms of this Lease. LESSOR and LESSEE agree to negotiate a renewal rent. The rent for the renewal term shall not be less than $4,800.00 per year nor more than the current rent increased by the cumulative sum of the CPI (Consumer Price Index, Northeast, urban areas) for the years 1997 through 2003. 2 9. SLJBORD INAwCSN. This Lease is subordinate to any -?r t mortgage given by the LESSOR for the premises which the LESSEE is granted access across and LESSEE agrees to sign any instrument effecting the subordination within seven (7) days of presentation to the LESSEE. If, after seven days, the LESSEE has failed to sign or otherwise execute the subordination, the LESSEE appoints the LESSOR as its attorney- in-fact for the purpose of executing the subordination in the LESSEE's name. 10. INCORPORATION AND MERGER. This Lease Agreement contains all of the terms of the Agreement between the LESSOR and LESSEE relating to access to the LESSEE's premises across the property owned by the LESSOR. There are no other promises, understandings, agreements or representations between the parties relating to the access except as are set forth in this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. Witness: LESSOR: J' yce August LESSEE: C audio Guerra; 3 402 Amherst Street - Suita,,,„ Nashua, NH 03063-4228 603 595 1614 603 595 2414 FAX March 18, 1997 City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall, 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Sir: Enclosed is a copy of a notice I recently received pertaining to a proposed land use in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts. Please be advised that Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc. manages real estate matters for several corporations. This response is sent on behalf of the following corporations in reply to your notice received March 13, 1997: ° Boston and Maine Corporation; ° Maine Central Railroad Company; ° Portland Terminal Company; ° Springfield Terminal Railway Company; ° Hudson River Estates, Inc.; ° Delaware River Estates, Inc.; or ° DH Estates, Inc. (formerly Delaware and Hudson Railroad). As you may well be aware, the railroads listed above receive numerous notices on a daily basis. Based upon the limited time frame existing between the date on which the notice is received and the scheduled hearing date, I respectfully request your cooperation regarding this matter. Although the railroads are concerned with each and every notice, there are certain instances which are of particular concern to the railroads. You may be able to advise me if the petition involves land plans showing a crossing of railroad property. Specifically the railroads' concern exists even in the event that your petitioner indicates that it is the holder of a valid railroad crossing. Also, the railroads must be advised if the petition proposes any City of Northampton, MA March 18, 1997 Page Two development within 25' from the centerline of an existing railroad track, even if such development occurs on non -railroad property. As such, petitions for variances from set back requirements can be particularly troublesome. Please be advised that this letter should not be construed as a waiver of any other objections which the railroads may have to a proponent's plan. However, the railroads respectfully request your assistance in bringing their attention to any such matters. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, Kellie A. Dunn ✓'` Vice President, Real Estate KAD:img c: Stephen F. Nevero Vice President -Engineering (above w/enc.) 1. Applicant's Name: ©/1/E 134;.[)6 C sfRFt 7-, zAjG Address:_1134;dogf- 6*EFf' Telephone: 5S'6 - a ( 6 y Ykl,4 6),0&6 2. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map #_3 a A Parcel # a7/ Zoning District: Street Address: 67�+eC f, /y /?4v /L/ 3. Status of Applicant: ✓ Owner; Contract Purchaser; Lessee Other (explain) 4. Property Owner: On/e ARi a/c9e s A r'e t 7jkjc Address:d4 A T'M Telephone: 5. Describe Proposed Work/Project (Use additional sheets if necessary): / -A d.4cF ej/- 6vi/c�in� ******************************************************************************************** Has the following information been included in the application? / 7ez Site/Plot Plan e,S List of requested waivers IeS fee yes 2 sets of labels (supplied by the Assessor's Office) C,/S Signed dated and denied Zoning Permit Application 7 e S Three (3) copies of the Certified Abutters List from Assessors' Office. 1 8. Site Plan and Special Permit Approval Criteria. (If any permit criteria does not apply, explain why) Use additional sheets if necessary. Assistance for completing this information is available through the Office of Planning & Development. A. How will the requested use protect adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses? (Vo I��1 Arf,, c{ AI Lv4er. Nfw p(o+�++iNr�S a..nd walk waw will r,+'n�t elrLa .�i How will the project provide for: c1C,IACr+0 A{ihvf t✓, surface water drainage: 41L' /�� 7 �� <� /�� { sound and sight buffers: ift^i b y VC' rnG v, ?S � rep►f et/7e'!4 fV!' / /Not 11cy�/ac� ` G;�►c��E � <; �` the reservation of views light and air. 1 t r 1 ; t✓ ?G{ rlC r�/c l 9 , T' B. How will the requested use promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets? GfCC��S �/°Jl�^ � PaI�INS ,LD� 7y 15P1�9t S7 T How will the project murimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area? No C.�all-I Where is the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets? OFF /q VJ! %::� S� What features have been incorporated into the design to allow for: access by emergency vehicles: gin f e F /"T r ; N l,;)v(dt(V AAs 42 the safe and convenient arrangement of parking and loading spaces: �AS 6"%2 decry fd fa. e41IOW 7002 4IL) O ANC/ Fe des4rlAN Jaw, L0AJItJ� eccvrs a+ Jlffe-rt-.-t kvrj -4 p G(iC.-At a cess , provisions for persons with disabilities: 7L"' r? A C t r JS J `oW7M� Arta r /ECEIVF\ MAR 71997 2 C. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to: 0 E. the naturral landscape: N 699) lie INS II S f J to existing buildings: G a N �I N c S x l l A r' m e other community assets in the area: /moi D{2 e iz y.J e S .f r j,.— I G 4z�, Ct r What measures are being taken that show the use will not overload the City's resources, including: water supply and distribution system:_ l 1 C4 !,.vj 3 /,1 ID/ sanitary sewage and storm water collection and treatment systems: � I 1_F l � e ?x1 S /N! � Pi1 JGI 0� ,Stylw+ Wal �j °l F ' i fire protection, streets and schools: ! a r ?< t ,- �' Pf i / l �"` '�t S l�✓ ,g '-fr 9-v� vI rprJM How will the proposed project mitigate any adverse impacts on the City's resources, as listed above? A)r 41 XIJ v iP r !rl/ �s 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.) Sit 7 I O nJ �O . I'ENl S / `�-� /Z 1-1 r/' aL >{ I d N 1 Mw. HetFle111,t4� dor bvI rJ IN C H ()IS 3o fcc.+ How does the1 project meet the special requirements? (Use additional sheets if necessary)? Prr�DPOSP�it!! f'�.o�� nc)d,,ha� coN TlNvcs ��1�,�' o &X Is f) /V T�DNT Pili �dIN/� � F. State how the project meets the following technical performance standards: r Curb cuts are minimized:__ F X l s �) N, rt r ,. C -D h -f y ; / 1l? tJ �ECEIVF\ MAR 7 1997 n � c�FAK NORSE% Check off all that apply to the project: )4- use of a common driveway for access to more than one business 7L use of an existing side street use of a looped service road 2. Does the project require more than one driveway cut? r- NO YES (if yes, explain why) 3. Are pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic separated on-site? YES NO (if no, explain why) L .�? 1 ; �;;, ,N bti' "til cJGPI_ IA -1 rr h fr1rJt AL:� p PJf/�nv� -�l,e 51dewA i< aN For projects that require Intermediate Site Plan Approval, ONLY , sign application and end here. 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. Date: 1,2 1.2 46 Applicants Date: Owner's Signature: (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. QE�EI�Fp 4 MAR 71997 �c�'FA SNP�eo KNOR I%W ..IPW F. Explain why the requested use will: not unduly impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining zones: not be detrimental to the health, morals or general welfare: be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance: G. Explain how the requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and will not adversely effect those objectives, defined in City master study plans (Open Space and Recreation Plan; Northampton State Hospital Rezoning Plan; and Downtown Northampton: Today, Tomorrow and the Future). I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. The undersigned owner(s) grant the Planning Board permission to enter the property to review this application. Date: Applicants Signature: Date: Owner's Signature: (If not the same as applicant's) MAJOR PROJECTS must also complete the following page: /ECEIV 0 5 MAR 71997 14� MAJOR PROJECT APPROVAL CRITERIA: Does the project incorporate 3 foot sumps into the storm water control system? YES NO (if no, explain why) Will the project discharge stormwater into the City's storm drainage system? YES NO EF NO, answer the following: Do the drainage calculations submitted demonstrate that the project has been designed so that there is no increase in peak flows from pre- to post -development conditions during the: 1, 2, or 10 year Soil Conservation Service design storm ? YES NO (if no, explain why) Will all the runoff from a 4/10 inch rainstorm (first flush) be detained on-site for an average of 6 hours? YES NO (if no, explain why) Is the applicant requesting a reduction in the parking requirements? NO YES If yes, what steps have been taken to reduce the need for parking, and number of trips per day? �ECEIVF\ MAR 7 1997 0 u 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 fill in the reason for the request. Use additional sheets if necessary. A. Locus plan B. Site plan(s) at a scale of 1"=40' or greater. Ea E-0 Name and address of the owner and the developer, name of project, date and scale plans: — �.. - ,r Plan showing Location and boundaries of. the adjacent streets or ways all properties and owners within 300 feet all zoning districts within 300 feet 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 Z-s'q-+ buildings: Existing and proposed topography (for intermediate projects the permit granting authority may accept generalized topography instead of requiring contour lines): at two foot contour intervals <, i 4c showing wetlands, streams, surface water bodies showing drainage swales and floodplain: showing unique natural land features SEC El �tAR 7 IWAW ..IPW B-6. Location of parking & loading areas public & private ways driveways, wallcways access & egress points proposed surfacing: B-7. Location and description of - all stormwater drainageldetention facilities - water quality structures - public & private utilities/easements - sewage disposal facilities water supply facilities B-8. Existing & proposed: landscaping, trees and plantings (size & type of plantings) stone walls, buffers and/or fencing: B-9. Signs - existing and proposed: Location dimensions/height color and illumination B-10. Provisions for refuse removal, with facilities for screening of refuse when appropriate: FOR MAJOR PROJECTS ONLY: ,'B-1 1, An erosion control plan and other measures taken to protect natural resources & water supplies: •+rt I� ��A�, �Jv ti�✓r� ►JAG✓ SDUrGes N 0►r�• C. Estimated daily and peak hour vehicles trips generated 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. PL+ aw+ �, G -Fro v�A C V 5 e, Site Plans submitted for major projects shall be prepared and stamped by a; Registered Architect, Landscape Architect, or Professional 0 CEIVx MAR 7 1997 �..� ../ 2 0 , �:, File No. �- -" j� `) I ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION (§10.2) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ALL INFORMATION g 1. Name of Applicant: Claudio Guerra, Thomas Douglas (architect) Address: PO Box 957 Northampton, MA Telephone: 586 6313 2. Owner of Property: Claudio Guerra Address: PO Box 957 Northampton , MA Telephone: 586 6 313 3. Status of Applicant: xx Owner Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain): 4. Job Location: One Bridge Street, Northampton, MA Parcel id: Zoning Map# Parcel#�( District(s): (TO BE FILLED 1N BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMEN 5. Existing Use of StrAu re/P rope rty Restaurant/bar 6. Description of Proposed Use/Work/Project/Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary): Renovate existing structure for a new restaurant Add a rear addition for kitchen space and partial dining room in new basement.(Full basement under new 7. Attached Plans: X Sketch Plan X Site Plan Engineered/Surveyed Plans Answers to the following 2 questions may be obtained by checking with the Building Dept or Planning Department Files. 8. Has a Special Permit/Variance/Finding ever been issued for/on the site? NO DON'T KNOkN' x YES IF YES, date issued: IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? NO DON'T KNOW YES IF YES: enter Book Page and/or Document # E Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO x DON'T KNOW IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Needs to be obtained Obtained , date (FORM CONINUES ON OTHER SIDE) YES FILE # µ) APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON:` l,<'?u't',' ,.L ,c ez.� ADDRESS/PHONE: PROPERTY LOCATION: MAP PARCEL: ZONE (� THIS SECTION FOR -OFFICIAL USE ONLY: i.— PERNUT APPLICATION CHECKLIST ENCLOSED.REOUIRED DATE THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION: Approved as presentedfbased on information presented T� ��}r���)c �C:r�r�C.r� 0,CCGvf�r(�^ Denied as presented: Z Co `.VO- c.� y ,c �y i Special Permit and/or �Required❑der: §, / C , / wtlPLANNING BZONING 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 P�CEl Variance Required under: § w/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 40 Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed MAR 7 1997 Other Permits Required: Q Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer Availability CFA/( NO kl Septic Approval-Bd of Health Well Water Potability -Bd Health !Permit from Conservation C-qmmission i i Signature of 2 - ED ED NOTE: Issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve an applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from the board of Health, Conservation Ccmmisslon, Department of Publio Works and other applioable permit granting muthoritles. '"W bridge st zoning 2/17/97 `E'' _t-�20 EXISTING AND PROPOSED AREAS 2/18/97 One Bridge Street (Existing TJ's Restaurant) One Bridge Street. Northampton, MA. CR7 7FRK Thomas Douglas Architect 76 Crescent St. Northam ton, MA. 413-585-0641 NOR��o Existing Building Area SQFT Lot Coverage SQFT existing 1st fl 1737 Existing 1st fl 1737 50'-2"x 34'-8" New addition 1294 Garage: 0 EXISTING TOTAL 1737 Outbuildings: 0 Proposed New addition 42'x 29'-8" 1246 Outdoor decks: 0 Rear covered entry 8 x6 48 Basement dining rm: 28'x 13' 364 PROPOSED TOTAL 3395 Total Building Area 3031 paved areas: 247 total lot area 14123 Proposed BUILDING COVERAGE: 0.21 Proposed OPEN SPACE (lot area 77% minus bldg & paved parking UNPAVED PARKING 8645 Proposed OPEN SPACE (lot area 17% minus bldg & UNPAVED parking Building height: 25'-0" Map; 32-A, lot # 271 Zoning district CB parking spaces proposed: Max. Building coverage allowed: 85% occupants (70 on 1st fl & 20 in basement) 90 Minimum Open space required 5% 1 space for each 4 seats 22.5 FAR: 3 1 for each 500 sq ft kitchen Allowable Set backs front: 0 kitchen (min"&-c�on): 1051 Side 0 kitchen spaces required: 2.102 Rear 15 total spaces required Max building height 55 lQ Page 1 Zj >�a79,a EC EI VFO CR7 7FRK NOR��o Page 1 Zj >�a79,a Z 2 a " V � v G � 9 � � •� •b � "� Ir Q , 0 •��' - r'- '' °O O o O ♦ r r , r ♦ rr �OO O o le 3 C;O �e o a�� 0 o�G -:3� ED o Z ED �Q o Q � >I