Zoning board approves demolition and new office at 573 Springfield Avenue with conditions

The City of Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 12, 2025, approved an application to demolish the existing structure at 573 Springfield Avenue and build a new professional office building consistent with the ORC‑1 zone’s residential character, but imposed conditions on landscaping, stormwater, lighting and parking.

Attorney James Weber said the application is a continuation of a hearing begun on Jan. 8 and that a structural engineer’s report led applicants to conclude the existing building cannot be salvaged. Architect Thomas Bijak described the building’s condition, telling the board that “nothing really original besides the roof is original to this property” and that previous alterations had removed much of the historic fabric. Bijak said the foundation shows settlement and the interior has been stripped of original finishes, and the structural evaluation led the design team to propose a new building that conforms to the ORC‑1 design guidelines.

Planner John Barry (licensed professional planner) testified that the proposed use — professional office — is a permitted use in the ORC‑1 zone but the application requires a d(1) use variance because the proposal replaces the existing structure rather than reusing it. Barry said special‑reason findings support the variance (public welfare, safety and the ORC‑1 purpose to promote a residential character for small office uses). He noted the design includes a front porch, walkway and façade treatments intended to maintain a residential appearance.

The application requests several additional c variances: lot‑coverage relief (the existing paved easement and ADA ramp increase the calculated lot coverage), a floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) exceedance driven primarily by basement area (41.3% proposed where 40% is permitted because commercial FAR counts basement area), parking relief (20 spaces required under the DRO; the application proposes 14 physical spaces plus one EV space that the applicant said counts as two under state rules, yielding 15 credited spaces), parking screening/buffer relief, sign setback relief for the preexisting sign, and continued use of the existing refuse enclosure location. The architect and planner said the use has operated at the site for decades and that the site’s circulation, driveway in/out and rear parking area have proven functional.

Board members questioned alternatives, including whether the structure could be rehabilitated and whether the new building could be reduced to eliminate parking relief. Bijak and Weber explained the structural report, the extent of previous alterations and practical constraints (an existing carriage‑road easement and paved area off the property that contributes to the lot coverage calculation). Barry said removing the easement‑paved area from the coverage calculation (because it is not used by the applicant) lowers the computed lot coverage percentage closer to existing conditions.

The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the plans and “does not object” provided the new structure adheres to DRO design and material guidelines; the applicant agreed to comply with the HPC’s design expectations. Board professionals requested an enhanced landscape plan and stormwater management improvements; the applicant agreed to additional landscaping and to work with the town engineer on stormwater.

The board approved the application with conditions including enhanced landscaping (subject to the review and approval of the city’s planner/engineer), stormwater improvements, design/material consistency with ORC‑1/DRO design guidelines and Historic Preservation Commission recommendations, replacement or upgrade of lighting to meet municipal standards, and an additional EV parking space (beyond the EV‑crediting shown on the plan). The board also agreed to retain jurisdiction over landscaping and lighting for up to two years to ensure compliance. The vote passed by the required five affirmative votes; one board member voted no.