32A-255 (152) JAS
-re°
DEPT.Or BUILDING INSPECTIONS
NO€?TNAtviPTON,
A.01060
e -3-
Mr. Cecil Clark January 14, 1980
if you have any further questions please contact me.
Sin e ly,
Cam--------
ureen
C ty Solicit r
ec/Atty Robert W. Ritchie
MR/mv,
a e
DEPT.ff
-2-
Mr. Cecil Clark January 14, 1980
Because the Hotel is non conforming, it is subject to the provisions of
Section 9-2 of the Ordinance. This section which pertains to non conforming
structures, reiterates section 4-3 to the extent that the Ordinance shall
apply to "any change or substantial extension of such use. .to any reconstruc-
tion, extention or structural change of such structure— to provide for its
use for a substantially different purpose, or for the same purpose to a
substantially greater extent. . "
Therefore, the question is whether the proposed alteration of the building
would provide for the use of the building either in a substantially different purpose
or for the same purpose in a substantially different manner. If so, the
provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance would be applicable.
The Language of section 9-2 is taken from the M.G.L. Ch. 40 A 36 covering
alterations of existing structures. In case Law interpreting that section, it
is apparent that non conforming uses may be expanded or changed within judicially
developed guidelines. A rescent case dealing with the expansion of a non-
conforming use is Board of Selectmen of Blackstone v. Clayton TeZZestone, 590
Mass App. Lt. Adv. Sh (1976). There the court discussed the test developed by
the Supreme Judicial Court in Bridgewater v. Chuckran 351 Mass 20, 2)!7 NE ID
491 (1973). The expanded non conforming use would be permissable if (1) the
expanded or changed use reflects the nature and purpose of the use prevailing
when it became non conforming; (2) it does not differ in quality, charactor or
degree of use; and (3) it is not different in kind in its effect on the neighbor-
hood. Further, though a zoning ordinance cannot prevent a Landowner from doing
a much greater business, "it must be of the same sort without a change in the
plant" Inspector of Buildings of BurZington v. Plur2hy 320 Mass 207, 68 NE ZD
918 (1947)
It is the opinion of this office that the proposed alteration of the Hotel
Northampton would be a change in use and a change in plant not meeting the tests
enumerated above, and would therefore be a substantial change in use.
By making the Hotel units permanent residential units the business would not be
of the same 'sort'. Also, such alteration would probably entail reconstruction
of the hotel as well as possible structural change. Such changes would clearly
affect the quality and character of the use of the building. The degree of use
would also be increased from what is now a hotel for sleeping accomodations to
a permanent residential complex. The change of use to permanent units would
also be different in kind in the effect on the neighborhood as to parking and
increased traffic.
Because the proposed alterations of the Hotel Northampton are a substantial change
in use, it will be necessary for the prospective buyer to comply with provisions
of section 9-3 of the Ordinance, which provide that no such extension or
alteration shaZZ be permitted unless there is a finding by the special permit
granting authority (the Zoning Board of Appeals) that such a change shall not be
more substantially detrimental than the existing non conforming use.
a �e
DEPT.QP B��',�:G iIvSPEe'i�ONS
w
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
�r MASSACHUSETTS
r° City Hal
210 Main Street
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
l LEGAL DEPARTMENT
�� ici�at�x •
Maureen Ryan
City Solicitor
Harry J. Jekanowski, Jr.
Assistant City Solicitor
January 14, 1980
Mr. Cecil Clark
Building Inspector
City of Northampton, MA
RE: Hotel Northampton - King Street
You have asked this office whether a proposed alteration of the hotel rooms in
the Hotel Northampton to permanent residential units is a substantial change in
use of that building requiring compliance with the zoning ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
Under Section 4-3 of the City 's Zoning Ordinance, it is clearly stated that the
ordinance does not apply to existing structures to the extent it was legally
used prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, but it shall apply to "any change
of use thereof and to any alteration of a building or structure when the same
would amount to reconstruction, extension or structural change, and to any
alteration of a building or structure to provide for its use for a purpose or
in a manner substantially different from the use to which it was put before the
alteration, or for its use for the same purpose to a substantially greater extent. "
The hotel, containing five stories, is located in a Central Business District.
It is considered a non conforming use since the maximum number of stories allowed
under the Ordinance is four. See page 6-3, of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance.
However, since the building was an existing structure prior to the Ordinance 's
enactment, it is not necessary that the building comply with the Ordinance.
��tiAMp�,
� e