Loading...
48-006 140 Loudville Road ZBA and PB ApplicationApril 28, 2010 To whom it may concern, Below is a list of the abutters within 300 feet of the property identified on the Assessors' maps as Map 32A, Lot 19 assessed to Deborah S Koch, 140 Loudville Road, Northampton, Ma. 01060 and located at 0 Loudville Road, Westhampton, Ma. 01027. Map-Lot Owner 32A-2 32A-3 32A-4 32A-5 32A-6 32A-7 32A-18 32A-8 32A-9 32A-10 32A-12 Location Mailing Address Todd L Fondakowski 29 Loudville Road Westhampton, Ma. 01027 William Trzcienski 33 Loudville Road Judith Trzcienski Westhampton, Ma. 01027 Liana Charter 35 Loudville Road Westhampton, Ma. 01027 Kathleen G Gauger 37 Loudville Road Westhampton, Ma. 01027 Nayla Jeanne Collins 39 Loudville Road Westhampton, Ma. 01027 Mark R Young Karen Young 41 Loudville Road Westhampton, Ma. 01027 Revampit LLC Same as location Same as location Same as location Same as location Same as location Same as location 45 Loudville Road 299 Mountain Road Westhampton, Ma. 01027 Wilbraham, Ma. 01095-1750 32A-20 Raymond Laprade,Trs 0 Loudville Road 156 Loudville Road Fernande Laprade Westhampton, Ma. 01027 Easthampton, Ma. 01027 Irrev Trust I certify, to the best of my abilities, that this is an accurate and complete list. Board of Assessors Town of Westhampton Dolores S Thornhill Principal Assessor PROPOSED ADDITION FOR 140 LOUDVILLE ROAD List any requested waivers from the requirements that the plans include the following, along with the reasons for those waivers: 1. Site plan at V=40' or greater. No waiver is requested 2. Name and address of the owner and developer, name of project, and date. This requirement does not seem to pertain to our single-family, residential request as we do not have a developer or a project name, per se. If requesting a waiver of these requirements is appropriate, I hereby do so. 3. Existing and proposed buildings, property line setbacks, building elevations, exterior entrances/exits. A basic plan, sufficient for our builder, can be supplied. 4. Present and proposed use of the land and buildings. Present and proposed use of the land and buildings are the same - single-family residence. 5. Existing and proposed topography using two foot contours. The existing topography will not be changed. To provide a map with two foot contours would require a costly survey, money that we would prefer to use in building the addition. We believe the attached topography map and photos provide the reviewing panels with sufficient written and visual information to adequately understand existing topography and answer related questions. We therefore request a waiver of this requirement. 6. Wetlands, streams, water bodies, drainage swales, wetlands, unique land features. Materials being prepared by our wetlands scientist should satisfy this requirement. 7. Location of parking, loading, public/private ways, driveways, walkways, access and egress, surfacing. As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. The driveway will not move. We therefore request a waiver of this requirement 8. Location and details of all storm water drainage, detention and water quality facilities, public and private utilities and easements, sewage disposal facilities, water supply facilities. As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. A new septic system was installed prior to the purchase of the property and related information is on file with the City. We therefore request a waiver of this requirement. 9. Existing and proposed landscaping, trees, plantings, stone walls, buffers, and fencing. 10. Existing and proposed sign locations, dimensions and details. 11. Provisions for refuse removal and screening. 12. Lighting/photo metric plan (with a maximum of 0.5 foot candles at property boundary). 13. Erosion control plan (MAJOR projects only). 14. Traffic study (MAJOR projects only). 15. Stormwater Management Plan with Drainage Calculations (MAJOR projects only). 16. Plans stamped by Professional Engineer (MAJOR projects only). As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, all of the requirements in 9-16 are non-applicable. We therefore request a waiver of these requirements. PROPOSED ADDITION FOR 140 LOUDVILLE ROAD Address how you meet ALL THREE of the criteria below to improve circulation and reduce traffic and parking and any other related mitigation: 1. Minimizing curb cuts, using only ONE unless traffic safety requires more, and using access from a common driveway, shared service road, or existing side street when possible. As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which staying the same, this is non- applicable. 2. Separation on-site of pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. 3. Reducing parking demand and reducing the number of required parking spaces (provide detail on any request to reduce the number of parking spaces). As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. Describe in detail how your project will avoid traffic conflicts where traffic accesses your site, including any traffic mitigation at your curb cut: As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. Describe in detail how your project mitigates all off-site (beyond your driveway access point) traffic impacts using one of the following three approaches: 1. Providing off-site traffic improvements or public bicycle and pedestrian improvements that reduce traffic to mitigate for your projects traffic. As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. 2. Paying payment-in-lieu of traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements in accordance with the Zoning. As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. 3. Providing clear documentation as to why your project does not generate any new traffic. As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. PROPOSED ADDITION FOR 140 LOUDVILLE ROAD Note to reviewers: Please read the following with compassion toward an amateur applicant trying to anticipate exactly what all the various boards and departments need to know in order to confer necessary permits. I am quite willing to provide more information as needed. Just ask! Our home at 140 Loudville Road, Parcel 48 -006-001, is on the far western border of the Town of Northampton. In fact, a small strip of our land is in Westhampton. (See Northampton orthophoto map and Assessors and Zoning Map #48.) It is a small, one story, green cottage/ranch house with a shed. (For a photo, see the City's Google Earth maps, photos 400, 402, and 404 Loudville Road - the numbers do not correspond to our house number because it appears that Google uses one house numbering system, continuing from Easthampton's.) We would like to build an addition onto our existing house, which according to the Assessor's Office Residential Property Record Card, is 936 square feet with an attached one-car garage of 264 square feet and a wood deck of 192 square feet. We propose to tear down the garage completely and put the bulk of the addition on that footprint, extending the footprint slightly in the front of the house and more considerably in the rear of the house. We also propose an extension of the existing deck. (See Assessor's Office plat with proposed addition and deck extension. See also front, side, and rear exterior plans created through Google SketchUp.) More specifically, in the front of the house the addition beyond the existing footprint would extend 43" toward the road from the front of the existing garage door onto what is now driveway. The result would be that the new addition wall on the first floor would be in alignment with the existing house wall it adjoins, which is not the wall closest to the front property line. The current front wall of the house closest to the front property line is an additional 7" closer resulting in a non-conforming setback distance of approximately 15'. Even with extending the garage footprint toward the front property line, there would be nothing closer on that front wall to the front property line than the existing non-conforming wall. (See photos #12 & 13.) In the rear of the house, we propose to extend the current garage footprint an additional 15' 9" toward the rear property line. This additional distance includes 33" from the current rear garage wall to be where a wall would be in alignment with the rear wall of the house, 8' along the existing deck, and an additional 5' beyond the deck toward the rear property line. (See photos #2 & 11 to see location of proposed rear addition that would extend outside of the garage footprint.) However, this additional 5' does not extend beyond the current non-conforming point of the deck due to the angled rear property line. The deck is NOT parallel to the rear property line. (See photos #6 & 8.) Currently, the northeast corner of the deck is the closest built point to the rear property line, a distance of approximately (see below for why the word "approximately" is appropriate) 35'. Because the deck is not parallel to the angled rear property line, the southeast corner of the deck is 5' further away from the rear property line than the northeast corner of the deck. (See attached October 1956 land survey recorded in Plan Book 60, Page 23 and Mortgage Loan Inspection Plat, which is based on that survey and shows the house location.) Understanding that it is important to maintain and not exceed the current non- conformity, the same 35'+/- distance from the rear property line currently marking the northeast corner of the existing deck would be maintained as the distance to the rear property line of the northeast corner of the proposed addition (which would extend from the line of the current southeast corner of the deck). Because of the river's course and thus an angled rear property line, the proposed southeast corner of the addition would be at a further distance from the rear property line than the 35'+/- non-conforming point of the existing deck. Deed descriptions since 1962 are based on the above-referenced 1956 survey of the property. Deed descriptions prior to this did not use precise bearings and distance measurements, but rather descriptions of physical markers or references to other properties. The 1956 survey plat and subsequent deed descriptions specifically account for the varying location of the river, noting that property lines, while on a distinct bearing, go a certain distance, more or less. This is an important distinction, as it means that if the river marks the rear property line, the rear property line moves according to the height of the river, hence why I describe the distances as approximate. The 1956 survey plat does not have any structures noted on it. My amateur records search research did not uncover a recorded survey plat that also has the house on it. The mortgage plat prepared for Jane Carey by surveyor Randall E. Izer on January 6, 2004 is based upon this survey plat and subsequent deed descriptions and does have the current house and garage noted on it. Although it makes a specific statement that "building location accuracy is not guaranteed," a recent conversation with Mr. Izer confirms that in preparation of this plat, he did tie in at least one corner of the house to one of the property line set pins. With properties built before existing zoning rules and in non-compliance as a result, I submit that what is of significance is not the precise measured distance from building to various property lines. What is important is that whatever the existing points of non- conformity are, the proposed building addition points do not go beyond these points; that all points of the proposed addition are no closer to the property lines than points on the existing property. Thus, if a corner of the deck is 35' or 36' from the rear property line is not the issue - what is of note is that whatever the measure, the proposed addition will not go closer to the property line than that measure. I note this because the rear property line is the river which is not in a constant position. Whether the actual distance from the deck to the river is 35' or 30' in high water and 40' in drought, using on-the-ground measurement, we have confirmed what the mortgage loan inspection plat shows - that the distance to the river from the northeast corner of the existing deck is approximately 5' less than the distance from the southeast corner of the existing deck. 2 To meet the requirements of "350-9.3 Legally preexisting nonconforming structures, uses, or lots may be changed, extended or altered as set forth below. If a use is not eligible under one subsection, proceed to the next subsection" look at 350-9.3A(6) for an appropriate allowable use, "As-of-right, if the expansion (vertical or horizontal) is for a residential use and does not extend either further into a required setback than the existing nonconforming structure, and such extension does not create any new zoning violation (such as further reducing a setback or open space), and the applicant provides written evidence satisfactory to the Building Commissioner that all owners of all parcels within 300 feet of the subject property have no objection to the expansion." I am not as skilled as the readers in full comprehension of the code, but it would seem this section is the applicable one. I am unclear, however, if the City's abutters' notification and subsequent hearings satisfy the "no objection" requirement or if I am required to personally collect written statements of no objection. I have spoken with three abutters thus far and have not gotten any objections. Because of the steep slope of the property where the proposed addition beyond the current garage footprint would be, the bulk of this extended portion would be suspended above the ground on beams supported by two piers, as suggested by a structural engineer. These piers would be in alignment with the four existing piers under the deck. We also wish to extend the deck northward so that its outer limits would be in alignment with the northern wall of the existing house, an additional 11'10". (See photo #4. The extension would end before the bush and large tree.) The edge of the deck closest to the rear property line would be tapered, narrowing the width of the deck, as it proceeds toward the north (side) property line so as to maintain - and not be less than - the non- conforming 35' distance from the rear property line. An additional pier, likely in alignment with existing piers, and stairs to the ground at the north end of the deck would be included. The first floor of the addition would be 41.5' long by 12' wide. However, the proposed second floor would not be the same dimension. We propose to maintain the same roofline in the front of the house; the roof will appear as one surface over the current house and the addition. The second floor would begin from the peak line of the roof, approximately 8' back from the front wall. Additionally, the width of the second floor would be 2' wider than the first floor, with a 2' cantilevered section on the south wall. Thus, the second floor dimensions would be 33.5' long by 14' wide. With these dimensions, the square footage of the first floor addition would be 498 square feet (with 264 square feet of that being current garage space, only 234 square feet would be new) and the square footage of the second floor addition would be 469 square feet. A proposed egress from the first floor addition would require either steps or a ramp on the south side of the property in a space currently outside of the garage footprint. We 3 would prefer to put in a ramp so as to accommodate a friend who uses a wheelchair and request permission to do that. Planning and zoning considerations: 1) Open Space - The lot is.28 acres and, according to Assessor's Office's Residential Property Record Card, 12,400 square feet. Current structures (house, deck, garage, and 8x10 shed) account for 1,472 square feet, equaling 88% open space. The house addition will add 234 square feet and the deck extension will add 110 square feet, totaling 344 square feet over open space beyond current square footage. This will result in total structure square footage of 1,816, equaling 85% open space, well within the required 80%. 2) Flooding - Re: 350-6.6 and 350-14.1 B: Our house is NOT within a floodplain. On the above-mentioned Mortgage Loan Inspection Plat, the surveyor states, "Note: A portion of the premises is located within a 100 year flood zone (Zone A), the structure is not located within this flood zone." Moreover, the house does not have a basement, but rather a crawl space, so occupied space is not within the ground level. The floor of the deck - the part of the house closest to the river - is 77" off the ground at the southeast corner and 87" off the ground at the northeast corner. The floor of the proposed addition would be approximately 9' off the ground at the point closest to the river. On site inspection (and attached photos #1-7 and #9-11 and attached relevant portion of City topography map #48) will show topography with a steeper slope on our property than on the property on the other side of the river. Given that topography, excessive water spreads on the lower elevations across the river. With the exception of some times during the winter, when it might be frozen over, the river is constantly in motion, so water would not be impeded and backing up. We have numerous photographs of the river during the direst, post-hurricane or snow melt rain storms that we would be happy to share with reviewers. (See photos #14-17.) While sometimes ferocious, five years of experience has shown us that the river gets nowhere near the house. 3) River Protection - Re: 350-14.1 A: We concur with the City's desire "To preserve and protect the streams and other watercourses in the City of Northampton and their adjoining lands." We love this river; nothing we propose with this addition encroaches on the purity and flow of it. We have engaged a wetlands scientist to assure compliance with all city and state wetlands and Conservation Commission requirements. 4) Substantial Improvement - Re: 350-14.3A: "A structure intended for human occupancy or use on a permanent basis having water and sewerage facilities" already exists on this property. We request a special permit as specified within 350-5.2. 5) Affect on adjoining premises - Re: 350-10.1.C: No properties immediately adjoining ours will be affected by the proposed construction and finished addition in terms of "surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers and preservation of views, light, and air." Nor will "the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets" be affected. We are taking specific design steps, such 4 as setting back the second story, into consideration so as to "promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape." We rely on a well and septic system so "The requested use will not overload, and will mitigate adverse impacts on, the City's resources including the effect on the City's water supply and distribution system, sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems..." 6) Neighbors: I am in the process of discussing this proposed project with our neighbors. I have spoken to Fern Laprade, our southern abutter; to Virginia Van Scoy, a property owner abutting Mrs. Laprade to the south; and to Neyla Collins, one of our Westhampton abutters across the street and none have expressed objection. 5 PROPOSED ADDITION FOR 140 LOUDVILLE ROAD Describe in detail how you meet ALL SEVEN requirements: 1. Will protect adjoining premises from seriously detrimental uses. The purpose of the proposed addition is to expand our limited living space. Our activity therein will be no different than current activity. No seriously detrimental uses are or will be in play. 2. Will minimize and mitigate traffic impacts. As an existing single-family residential structure, with two inhabitants, and the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. 3. Promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open space. We consider ourselves very fortunate to live on a site that is like having our own state park. The trees and the river are a joy which we happily conserve. The proposed addition design is intended to blend with the treed, natural landscape. Open space is part of the attraction of this site and the proposed addition design maintains a compact footprint. 4. Protect the general welfare. As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. 5. Avoid overloading and mitigate impacts on City resources. As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. We don't get City water nor use City sewer. We require no more of City services than any other citizen, perhaps even less. 6. Promote city planning objectives (see Sustainable Northampton, Open Space Plan, and Transportation Plan). As an existing single-family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non-applicable. 7. Meet all zoning requirements. Please see the answers to the questions above relating to 1) pre-existing non-conforming properties and 2) not creating any new zoning violations. Also, to meet the requirements of "350-9.3 Legally preexisting nonconforming structures, uses, or lots may be changed, extended or altered as set forth below. If a use is not eligible under one subsection, proceed to the next subsection" look at 350-9.3A(6) for an appropriate allowable use, "As-of-right, if the expansion (vertical or horizontal) is for a residential use and does not extend either further into a required setback than the existing nonconforming structure, and such extension does not create any new zoning violation (such as further reducing a setback or open space), and the applicant provides written evidence satisfactory to the Building Commissioner that all owners of all parcels within 300 feet of the subject property have no objection to the expansion." I am not as skilled as the readers in full comprehension of the code, but it would seem this section is the applicable one. I am unclear, however, if the City's abutters notification and subsequent hearings satisfy the "no objection" requirement or if I am required to personally collect written statements of no objection. I have spoken with three abutters thus far and have not gotten any objections. PROPOSED ADDITION FOR 140 LOUDVILLE ROAD Describe in DETAIL how you meet ALL THREE requirements: 1. The existing property or building or use is legally pre-existing non-conforming. Based upon the definition found in Section 350-2.1 of the Northampton Code of Ordinances, the existing single family residence at 140 Loudville Road is legally pre-existing non-conforming, having been built prior to current "zoning requirements relative to minimum setbacks." Current property line setbacks are 35' from the north (side) line, 35' from the east (back) line, 57' from the south (side) line, and 15' from the west (front) line. With regard to minimum required lot area, frontage, and depth, the lot has not been altered since a survey of 1956 laid out its pre-existing, non-conforming dimensions. Its frontage is 127.42' and the longest side property line is 147.71' (more or less - see 1956 survey plat, which indicates the variable location of the river - the back property line). The .28 acre lot is less than 80,000 square feet. Other requirements relative to maximum building height and minimum open space are conforming. Current building height is approximately 13' and current open space is at 88%. 2. The proposed work will NOT create any new zoning violations. Our existing house is shown to be 936 square feet on the Assessor's Office's Residential Property Record Card, with an attached one-car garage of 264 square feet. The proposed work will largely take place in the existing footprint of the attached garage, extending the footprint slightly in the front of the house and more considerably in the rear of the house. However, no part of the proposed addition will extend past pre-existing non-conforming setbacks and thus will not create any new setback zoning violations. In the front of the house the addition beyond the existing footprint would extend 43" toward the road from the front of the existing garage door onto what is now driveway (see photos #12 & 13). The result would be that the new addition wall on the first floor would be in alignment with the existing house wall it adjoins, but this wall is not the closest point to the front property line. The current front wall of the house closest to the front property is an additional 7" closer. (See photo #13.) In the front, the second floor portion of the addition would not be in alignment with the first floor front wall. Its front wall would be approximately 8' back from the first floor front wall, starting in back of the peak of the roof line. The side setbacks are not an issue as they are currently conforming and the proposed addition and deck extension will not exceed the mandated setbacks of 20'. On the north side of the house, the deck extension will end in alignment with the north wall of the existing house. On the south side of the proposed addition, the first floor will not extend past the present garage footprint and the second floor will only extend 2' more toward the south property line. In the rear of the house, we propose to extend the current garage footprint an additional 15' 9" feet toward the rear property line. This additional distance includes 33" from the current rear garage wall to be where it would be in alignment with the rear wall of the house, 8' along the existing deck, and an additional 5' beyond the deck toward the rear property line. (See photos #2 & 11 to see location of proposed rear addition that would extend outside of the garage footprint.) However, this additional 5' does not extend beyond the current non-conforming point of the deck due to the angled rear property line (see photos #6 & 8). The deck is NOT parallel to the rear property line. Currently, the northeast corner of the deck is the closest built point to the rear property line, a distance of approximately (see below for why the word "approximately" is appropriate) 35'. Because the deck is not parallel to the angled rear property line, the southeast corner of the deck is 5' further from the rear property line than the northeast corner of the deck. (See attached October 1956 land survey recorded in Plan Book 60, Page 23 and Mortgage Loan Inspection Plat, which is based on that survey and shows the house location.) Understanding that it is important to maintain and not exceed the current non-conformity, the same 35' distance from the rear property line currently marking the northeast corner of the existing deck would be maintained as the distance to the rear property line of the northeast corner of the proposed addition (which would extend from the line of the current southeast corner of the deck). Because of the river's course and thus an angled rear property line, the proposed southeast corner of the addition would be at a further distance from the rear property line than the 35'+/- non-conforming point of the existing deck. Deed descriptions since 1962 are based on the above-referenced 1956 survey of the property. Deed descriptions prior to this did not use precise bearings and distance measurements, but rather descriptions of physical markers or references to other properties. The 1956 survey plat and subsequent deed descriptions specifically account for the varying location of the river, noting that property lines, while on a distinct bearing, go a certain distance, more or less. This is an important distinction, as it means that if the river marks the rear property line, the rear property line moves according to the height of the river, hence why I describe the distances as approximate. Whether the actual distance from the deck to the river is 35' or 30' in high water and 40' in drought, using on-the-ground measurement, we have confirmed what the mortgage loan inspection plat shows - that the distance to the river from the northeast corner of the existing deck is approximately 5' less than the distance from the southeast corner of the existing deck. The proposed addition will add a second floor of approximately 10' that will make the total house height approximately 23', considerably less than 35' tall. In terms of open space, the lot is .28 acres, or according to Assessor's Office's Residential Property Record Card, 12,400 square feet. Current structures (house, deck, garage, and 8x10 shed) account for 1,472 square feet, equaling 88% open space. The house addition will add 234 square feet and the deck extension will add 110 square feet, totaling 344 square feet over open space beyond current square footage. This will result in total structure square footage of 1,816, equaling 85% open space, well within the required 80%. 3. The proposed work is not any more detrimental to the area than existing conditions. Relying on Section 350-9.2, 1 can attest that the proposed addition and deck extension do not exceed any current preexisting nonconformity and "...will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming nature of the structure, lot and or use..." Visually, we will not impede on our neighbors' views. There is no residential structure on the lot to the north. Our eastern abutter is well across the river with a mini forest and river in between our properties. The southern abutter's house is not visible from ours as that property has a large garage in between our houses. Again, trees exist between our properties, with a lively creek running through the middle. Abutters on the west side, across the road can see our house easily and are grateful for the initial work that we have put into upgrading it substantially. We purposely are setting back the second floor so as not to build an imposing structure from that vantage point. In the back of the property, rather than converting the landscape to lawn, we mostly let nature do its thing and have no intention of changing that. Most of the addition exceeding the current footprint will not be directly on the ground, due to the very steep slope of the property. We propose two piers in alignment with current deck piers that will hold up a cantilevered room. File # MP-2010-0088 APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON KOCH DEBORAH- S - _ ADDRESS/PHONE 140 LOUDVILLE RD (413) 586-2092 PROPERTY LOCATION 140 LOUDVILLE RD MAP 48 PARCEL 006 001 ZONE RR(100)//WP THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST ENCLOSED REQUIRED DATE Building Permit Filled out Fee Paid TWeof Construction: ZPA - ADDITION New Construction Non Structural interior renovations Addition to Existing Accessory Structure Building Plans Included: Owner/ Statement or License 3 sets of Plans / Plot Plan THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION BASED ON INFORMATION PRESENTED: Approved Additional permits required (see below) PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER : § 3 cb -14 Intermediate Project Site Plan AND/OR f! Special Permit with Site Plan Major Project: Site Plan AND/OR Special Permit-with Site Plan ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § Finding~v ~1- Special Permit Variance* Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed Other Permits Required: Curb Cut from DPW Septic Approval Board of Health Well Water Potability Board of Health _tz-Permit from Conservation Commission Permit from CB Architecture Committee Permit from Elm Street Commission Permit DPW Storm Water Management 6/3//C) " 64~ Signature of Building O icial Date Note: Issuance of a Zoning permit does not relieve a applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Department of public works and other applicable permit granting authorities. RT&~ , ~ (A) (7) Water Availability Sewer Availability * Variances are granted only to those applicants who meet the strict standards of MGL 40A. Contact the Office of Planning & Development for more information. C E 1. Name of Applicant: Address: lica'~ LCIUMI L L r- ~-p Telephone: ,~t 2. Owner of Property: G `t f -z6 -7s-5-- f +-l q Address: 140 ► ,V tLL E:-- Telephone: 3. Status of /applicant: Owner 4Z Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain) 4. J6b-1ocatib-P:.:: 6. re v- -1D &OLIA&L. /P s f air- , -Eke-tck s 7. Attached Plans: Sketch Plan ✓ Site Plan ' Engineered/Surveyed Plans _ 1 ~ 8: Has a Special Permit/Variance/Finding ever been issued fdr/on the site? NO DONT KNOW YES IF YES, date issued: IF YES: Was the permit recorded' at the Registry of Deeds? NO DONT KNOW YES. IF YES.. enter Book Pale. _ and/or-. Document - 9.1)oes the site contain a brook; body of water or wetlands? NO DON'T KNOW YES- IF ✓ . YES, has a permit been or.need to be obtalned from the Conservation Commission? Needs to be obtained Obtained date-issued Q, sr W (Form Continues On Other Side) W.\ )ocuments\FORIviS\original\Building-Inspector\Zoning-Permit-Application-passive.doc 8/4/2004 'lease type or print all information and return this form to the Building Inspector's Office with the $15 filing fee (check or money order) payable to the City ofNorthamp ton 5. Existing Use of Structure/Property: Description of Proposed Use/Work/Project/Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary): 10. Do any signs exist on the property? YES NO IF YES, describe size, type and location - Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property? YES NO IF YES, describe size, type and location: 11. Will the construction activity disturb (clearing, grading, excavation, or filling) over acre or is it partof a common plan of development that will disturb over 1 acre? YES NO IF YES, then a Northampton Storm Water Management Permit from the DPW is required... 12. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION This column reserved a"orsseb >7e > amg EXISTING PROPOSED ; DAY Lot Size ~"f acre_ 1. . Frontage T Setbacks Front Side L: 3 R:S3 R:;'. R Building Height 173 Building Square Footage - 1 I % Open Space: (lot area aved & uildi tar } 9 p ng minus b D /0 # of Parking Spaces # of Loading Docks Fill: h_ (volume & location) 13 Cer-tafcation:4.hereby. certify_that .the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best-of my- knoWledge. . . ®A licant'sSi nature 'LCD Date: PP g e_ a avm~e.s pe. ~..:r .7.,0~des not reS~e.,e -n--- SrrS~ranf'c Ih»r~ien to co% ply With &l. NOTE: issuance Of mm `~tD3iEt6~, cruxc requirements and obtain all required permits from the Board of Health, Consei Ation Commission, Historic:and_A rdhitectural Boards, Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities. w:\Documents\FORM.S\original\Building-lnspector\Zoning Permit-Application-passive.doe 8/4/2004 o yN -_N~N - o , i i 1 i i i 1 i i i i x o ~ y ;11 1 iy 1 r ~ y i i x 0 x M~ ~b ti :t $ 0 rn , J ff li jy 1 ,t t m I -NOTE- THIS PLAT IS COMPILED FROV DEEDS, PLANS AND OTHER SOURCES AND IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ACCURATE SURVEY AND IS NOT TO BE RECOR= BUILDING LOCATION ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED NOTE: A POR-~ l- v~ THE PREMISES IS LOCATED WITHIN A 1 C EAR F LOOD ZONE (ZONE A), THE STRUC_T..UR.= IS O .1 C-- ED WITHIN THIS FLOOD ZLN-E-: i I~ ~ . - IBS i ►~C~ n'- gc0 TO: PEOPLESBANK & CONNECTICUT ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF 1 HEREBY REPORT THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE PREMISES AND BASED ON EXISTING MONUMENTATION ALL VISIBLE EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS AND BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED THE GROUND AS SHOWN AND THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE ENTIRE'I WITHIN THE LOT LINES, EXCEPT AS NOTED. I FURTHER REPORT THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A FLOOD PRONE AREA AS SHOWN ON FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE MAPS FOR COMMUNITY # T-- 250167 SURVEYOR: 1---~ r OF RANDA.LL yGc` E. v #350 2 y, suot ON -NOTE- THIS PLAT FOR MORTGAGE LOAN PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PROPERTY SURVEY -MORTGAGE LOAN INSPECTION PLAT- NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS PREPARED FOR JANE CAREY SCALE: 1"=40' JANUARY 6, 2004 HAROLD L. EATON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 235 RUSSELL STREET - HADLEY - MASSACHUSEITS 0 I44 - a 00 ---7 W 7 N o~ 0> 4 S s It ,I- z~ ~t 2 W _T J* 4 w- r N Ay Owl s~~ Z~ ide M o~ 13; A W 5 g we st f r~ E, S w a w 000 A ~ s~ i o ID° r f i r ~ M + * w Assessors Office - City of Northampton 01 U; Ranch 1950 1 None Crawl 4 2 2 0 Frame 0 664 936 City of Northampton, MA: Residential Property Record Card New Search Property Type Classification Code Reference Card 1 of 1 Parcel - Location - Zoning - Assessment I Map-Block-Lot: 48 -006-001 1 Zoning: I Assessment: Location: 140 LOUDVILLE RD Neigborhood: 2 Land: 90,800 #Living Units: 1 Deed Book: 7669 Building: 65,700 Class: R-101 Deed Page: 19 Total: 156,500 ,Dwe ling Information Building Sketch Style: Year Built: Story Height: Attic: Basement: Total Rooms: Bedrooms: Full Baths: Half Baths: Exterior Walls: Unfinished Area: Ground Floor Area: Total Living Area: Finished Basement Living Area: Basement Recreation Area: Woodburning Fireplace Stacks/Openings: Metal Fireplace Stacks/Openings: Heat/Central A/C: Heating System: Fuel Tvve: 0X0 0X0 0/0 0/0 10 7 12 2 1i ~ssa~ l.2 24 E d Deck if~t"TCi:°re? 192 f 'C http://www.northamptonassessor.us/ 12 6 F- e0IjV4z-R-D .V i-i41% F_G ~2s4 cc } P Basic 1, Electric Electric 1 of 1 6/1/2010 10:32 PM Plan Book 60 Page 23 l'9a'~ ha 77 S~%• 3 I ~b ~X g6.9 -E- N6° - .B 122 7 - 9g o X/CIY. //e 7?o ad /H• 4.t' ~0 o~y on Ocf"o6e r ~f; /9.s'G, i~ fie fibre se~ce i ,labra~t, ano/ was .08rted -~bon t ° ~ .bG tflt ~ioa~dary ~/~tt ,6Ctc~ea~s sB~d Phr/~~h Pir~ar~'s and ,~ay~rJo~,a/ V ~ Cor drip 0 /.t..~ aroo~ / 0 set A /l lyorfharrl o xr Mass. p1a = al ,Ia-nd ,-7? _ ssngs. p~_ Be long/~8 7c , g APPROVAL R=qU D /i1b A. mard et wX UI SA"--Vey anal P/a n Oc fo b er, 19s ( - Sca/e / = 30 ' Alr"cr' f/Al 517 ;~'/t y, ,I r Swracyor So,vfh8~r~6~'oy7 0. Co Hampshire, ss. ~a minutes It g o clock Received and Recorded. I?gfy:IPno-7741 V /a1brao% C?4.AI/ 8 /o,t i - P /BD TJie -,8 was asf-a6/,s final PROTO 4:r l view of slope from southeast comer P Noro # 3 view of slope and of site of proposed addition. the floor of the closest point of the proposed addition to the river would be approx. 8-9 off the ground. P tbTo # 4 view of slope from northeast comer view of slope and of proposed deck extension site PROTO 2. pgoTo #s view of deck and site of proposed addition taken from near river view of slope taken from next to the river. note that the line of the river is angled away from the deck as one gets closer to the spot from where the picture was taken. the deck is not parallel to the river's edge. P kv-rb * -7 view of topography on other side of the river taken from deck, note that river is not parallel to line of deck P"TO -W& PNDro t8 porn 4 R slope where proposed addition would go over. P40TO :W I t pVoTo 4C 10 example of steepness of slope. proposed addition would start at the comer of the deck. site of proposed addition- addition would not sit on ground. it would be cantilevered over hillside on 2 piers in alignment with existing deck piers- pOo7o # i z view of proposed addition in front. wall would be extended 43" from existing front of garage to be in alignment with existing front wall of kitchen. P1+ ~O #:5 existing wail of kitchen is not the point closest to the road. this picture shows closest wall is an additional 7" closer to the road. so the proposed addition would not be closer to the road than the current wall.