32A-255 (147) L r. Capers found that , while there has been much discussion about
the sentiment attached to the hotel and its survival as an economic
unit , the Board must determine whether the proposed use would be sub-
stantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the present use -
whether it would generate more traffic, impose a burden on public
facilities , have any adverse effects on the district, and whether it
bears a positive relationship to the public convenience or welfare.
He found that the requested use is in harmony with the previous use
and with the surrounding district, in that it is not a radical depar-
ture from its former use as a place of lodging; that the historical
nature of the building has been given Proper consideration in view of
the fact that the lobby and excterior of the building will remain
unchanged; that the proposed use would have less impact on public
facilities than the previous use; and that, while King Street is a
busy street , it has handled the traffic generated by the hotel in the
past , and the amole off-street parking area and the Gothic Street
entrance to the parkina area, should provide a smooth flow of traffic.
Thus it would seern that the proposed project would not be more detri-
mental than the previous use.
Based on the above findings, the Board then voted unanimously to
grant the special permit , subject to the five conditions recommended
by the Chairman .
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 PM. Present , in addition to
the Board members , were Eric Gross , Clare Fennessey, Clerk, represen-
tatives of the news media, and several interested citizens.
G vais
Chairman
3 -
an excess of available parkins: space. All of the proposed apartments
exceed the minimum square footage requirements of the ZZoning+ Ordinance
and, as stated earlier, every other existing use within the structure
presently conforms to the Zoninq Ordinance.
Notwithstanding what I have rreviously said, I am particularly
concerned that the petitioner has yet to receive a firm financing
commitment nor has he prepared and submitted final plans. Obviously,
the latter are not merely procedural steps , but are substantive ones ,
which, if not obtained within a reasonable time, will not only pro-
hibit this development but may inhibit others who view the hotel as a
developable property. Therefore, I recommend that the following
conditions be imposed:
(1) that apartments be limited to the second, third, fourth and
fifth floors , and that there be no more than six apartments
on any one floor;
( 2) that the petitioner submit to the Board for its approval a
final design plan showing the square footage, layout and
number of apartments on each floor as well as proposed common
areas , the parking areas , and a lighting plan for the parking
areas within ninety days of the date of the expiration of the
applicable appeal period from this decision, but in any event,
prior to construction;
( 3) that the petitioner provide the Board with a letter evidencing
a financing commitment signed by the lender within ninety days
from the date of the expiration of the applicable appeal
period from this decision, but in any event, prior to con-
struction;
(4) that substantial construction be commenced within sip: months
from the date of the expiration of the applicable anneal
period from this decision , and that construction be completed
upon a floor by floor schedule; and
(5 ) that a performance bond be submitted to and approved by the
Board for the benefit of the City of Northampton in an amount
equal to the projected construction costs of the fluor then
under construction , that the progress of the construction be
reviewed by the Board, and the amount of the bond be adjusted
from time to time so as to reflect the amount of construction
completed and the amount to be completed.
Mr. Buscher found that the Board ' s approval is governed by Section
9.3 of the Zoninq Ordinance, and that conversion of the hotel into
condominium use would be less detrimental than the existing use, in that
the proposed use would be less intensive, and a deteriorating property
would be improved. However , if the project was started and not finished ,
or if the work was not begun at all , the building, the uses of which are
limited, would become a detriment to the City. He agreed with the
conditions proposed by the Chairman.
- 2 -
GRA/vrtp q
NORT11AYIPTOT BOARD OF APPEALS
S�s_ Sc� Decision on Application of
Eric Gross (Hotel Northampton)
April 23 , 1980
The Board of Appeals met in the Council Chambers at 6: 30 Fi,l,
April 23 , 10- E0 , to decide on Eric Gross ' petition to convert the Hotel
Northampton to condominium use. Present and voting wore Eric B.
Gervais , Chairman , Raymond Capers and Robert Buscher , Associates.
The minutes of the public hearing, held on April 9, were approved.
Reading of the minutes was waived.
It was noted that the Board had visited the site.
A motion was made and seconded to vote on the matter.
Mr. Gervais ' findings are as follows:
This petition is brought pursuant to Section 9.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance , which provides , in part , that pre-existing, non-conforming
uses may be extended or altered provided that no such extension or
alteration shall be permitted unless there is a finding by the permit
granting authority that such extension or alteration shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing non-confori-ning use.
The structure relating to this petition contains various uses , all of
which are permitted within the central business district, except the
present residential hotel use.
Therefore, the only question before the Board is whether or not
apartment units within the hotel structure will be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the present residential hotel use.
At the public hearing, the majority of the speakers were in favor
of the proposed use, citing the need for more downtown dwelling units
and the need for rejuvenation of the hotel structure itself . The
evidence presented indicated that there exists a waiting list for
these units and the desire of individuals to live within the dcumtown
area. The public demand for these units speaks well for the City of
Northampton and for the efforts of downtown business to provide an
attractive atmosphere within which to live as well as to shop.
On the other hand, there was virtually no evidence presented at
the hearing relating to any aspect of this proposal which would lead
to the conclusion that apartments would be more detrimental than
hotel room use.
Many factors have contributed to the lack of patronage of the
hotel . I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the Board to
evaluate them in light of the present proposal . However , lack of
attention, up-keep and investment have rendered an active historical
attraction of this City an unused and slowly deteriorating museum. It
is clear that such deterioration will continue and it is my opinion
that this proposal will. not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing use, but to the contrary, will revitalize the structure ,
attract business , and will be a part of a continuing effort of many
people to make Northampton a unique City within which to live. The
site and structure are eAsily adaptable to this proposal . There is
i
r
-2-
period from this decision and that construction be completed
upon a floor by floor schedule; and
5. that a performance bond be submitted to and approved by the
Board for the benefit of the City of Northampton in an amount
equal to the projected construction costs of the floor then
under construction, that the progress of the construction be
reviewed by the Board, and that the amount of the bond be
adjusted from time to time so as to reflect the amount of
construction completed and the amount to be completed.
i
` E . G 'VAIS, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT BUSCHER
RAYMOND CAPERS
i
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
c;l_-3 7
3/ B-- X38
DECISION OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At its meeting on April 23, 1980, the Zoning Board of Appeals for the City;,
of Northampton voted unanimously to grant the petition of Eric Gross for a
special permit to convert the Hotel Northampton to condominium use.
Based upon the evidence presented to the Board, the Board made the follow-
ing findings in regard to the special permit:
1. That the petition was brought pursuant to Section 9.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the structure relating to this petition contains various
uses, all of which are permitted within the central business
district, except the present residential hotel use.
3. That the proposed use will not be more detrimental to the
building than the present existing use.
4. That the proposed use will revitalize the structure, attract
business, and is easily adaptable to the structure.
!
5. That the proposed use will not increase traffic congestion
in the area and that there is ample off street parking.
6. That the proposed use will not impair the character or in-
tegrity of the neighborhood as the requested use is not a
radical departure from the building's former use as a place
of lodging.
!
7. That the proposed use will not impair the historical nature
of the building as the lobby and exterior of the building
will remain unchanged.
The special permit is however, granted subject to the following conditions:;
1. That the apartments be limited to the second, third, fourth
and fifth floors, and that there be no more than six apart-
ments on any one floor;
2. that the petitioner submit to the Board for its approval a
final design plan showing the square footage, layout and
number of apartments on each floor as well as proposed com-
mon areas, the parking areas, and a lighting plan for the
parking areas within ninety days of the date of the expira-
tion of the applicable appeal period from this decision, but
in any event, prior to construction;
3. that the petitioner provide the Board with a letter evidencing
a financing commitment signed by the lender within ninety days
from the date of expiration of the applicable appeal period
from this decision, but in any event, prior to construction; j
1I � � that substantial construction be commenced within six months
from the date of the expiration of the applicable appeal
MAY 6 $
DEPT.OF BUILDING I PECTIONS i
NORTHAMPTON, .01060