35-175 (16) of Xwd4autvton
$ e �tass�drasctfs kv
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR 212 Main Street ' Municipal Building
Edward J. Tewhill
Northampton, Mass. 01060
May 5, 1986
Thomas Nagle Esq.
72 Mian Street
P.O. Box 463
Easthampton, Mass. 01027
Re: Robert Racicot - Pine Valley Road
Dear Mr. Nagle:
On November 26, 1985, on behalf of Robert and Joan Racicot, 1 Pine Valley Rd.,
Northampton, Mass. 01060, City Tax Map 35 Lots 175-177, Zoned SR; you made an
application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance under Section 5.2, Page
5-10, paragraph 13, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Under date of January 29, 1986, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny the
variance and so recorded it at the City Clerk's Office on February 14, 1986.
Because Mr. Robert Racicot failed to cease and desist per ZBA deniel, on February
25, 1986, we submitted an application to the Northampton District Court for Show
Cause Hearing April 2, 1986, at 2:45 P.M.
Prior to the Show Cause Hearing you and the City Solicitor, Patrick Gleason agreed to
allow Mr. Racicot to finish working on two (2) vehicles and cease and desist within
a three (3) week period.
Therefore, I am not in a position to over-rule the agreement made to the magistrate
or the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Sincerly—,
Edward J. T&hill
Zoning Enforcement Officer
EJT/ld
j0jjS j, MoftIARTY
'kTTOaNEy,'kT-Lxw APR ? 4
P-0.BOX 463
12 MAIN STREET. will -MASS.01027
EASTHAMPTON' DL`T Oc
TELEPHONE 11131 Nwwm&�� A
laipal
Mun
mpin Street
NowthamPyoo_
Ret pobert -
H on
I WOUIU
d
ha�u :qnv1c%
thof Y�
g"Al
The
4r7
were built Withe" . !too g�
t tw, dinj Yon
withou - , " y 0 WRJ � YTI . 17
Ono,
the! an e t Z
2 sincq I
mi
Aithonj"
not ordi im a- !me 'l ,
,,
v he cases jh" Le
wnich entail
_earQ. Murel, er
4,
the 5t2t"o 7
pct
- "v 4
tny naa2 Vogt 1 q u�
mr -
vo numm5v tne Sol T!
Kc"jgn ne"IEV qi
to ply
�hn 7 oni nq
a bunial Of py
who"' A
onvic7"
O
� �Ixssxcknsetfs _�
& f T >
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS �-
INSPECTOR 212 Main Street ' Municipal Building _
Edward J. Tewhill Northampton, Mass. 01060
May 20, .1986
Thomas Nagle, Esq.
72 Main Street
Easthampton, Mass. 01027
Dear Mr. Nagle:
We wish to have a meeting in the Building Inspector's office on May 27, 1986,
at 2:00 P.M., regarding a problem concerning Robert Raciot of Pine Valley Rd.
If not convenient please give me a call at 586-6950 ext. 240.
Sincerely,
Terri Gleason P044' r
Law Department Tewhill
Building Inspector
EJT/ld
�i
II DECISION OF
j; ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
�II
i At a meeting held on January 29, 1986, the Zoning Board of Appeals
of the City of Northampton, in a split decision, voted to deny the Variance
request of Robert and Joan Racicot, 1 Pine Valley Road, No77hampton for
the purpose of operating an automobile repair facility at property located
at 1 Pine Valley Road, Northampton (SR Zone). Present and voting were:
Chairman Robert uscher, William Brandt and Peter Laband.
lThe findings were as follows:
�! P. Laband, referring to criteria necessary to grant a Variance
I' from Section 10, Chapter 40A, M.G.L. , found an unusual situation
in the lay-out of the land which goes back many years with deeds
somewhat more vague than other deeds in the City; that literal
enforcement and the shutting down of Mr. Racicot's business of
28 years would create a substantial hardship; that the use can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without nullifying the intent of the Ordinance if certain conditions
are imposed. He voted to approve the Variance.
W. Brandt, referring to Chapter 40A, M.G.L. found that, although
he sympathizes with Mr. Racicot's situation, he can find nothing
unique about the land or structure; and that the continued operation
of the business would be of detriment to the neighborhood. He voted
to deny the Variance.
R. Buscher found that the applicant established this enterprise on
the site in the early 1960's, at which time it was much smaller and less
noisome and that the City has never taken action regarding the
situation; that he recognizes the hardship to the applicant if the
petition is denied, however, it is the duty of the Board to protect I
the inhabitants of this SR zone and to allow the business and the
storage of unused vehicles to continue would be detrimental to the
zone; and that he is unable to find a unique aspect to the property.
i
He also voted to deny the Variance.
I,
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
i .,
William Brandt
I
FEB 14 1ow
Peter Laband
�I
I
II:
�, i
uti( -n
�.Aiiderson Battle For Home 11)ine I allev R,, - Sol i
N7inty out av Lie 'X_ith Man Civen
I
Seems To Be D. ILI,
3 yesterday, gavp Iiirn De�
,� cause celebre yesten . 1 . 1 Wficult Time' Bv Clitvl
an �Iinpty lot today--such ap- to wiild n:s ::c.-re, n-ace rios.
pears to be the fate of proper- Bible by a neil,hboc to
In an irc:,,; ',aabiesace-tur�*ed were It
IN, on Fine Valley Rd. grin the necessary f� "I,,!
ronta�,e .tuation. ioiuuon of the Pine out c,ty �W.1.,M;S51I,.'1, r."
'"hough the street is rnuch,on Burts Pit Rd- so that he 1.'al'e v -,U. problem -na% have followed, all L;,�v-,g '1:v
in the news now. it was an at- compiled with city regula- iingc on a Ia'ndrwner who line to ?lie t •O origina' hcvi
tempt by James Anderson to tions. In th,^ meantime. an ex- 'a',L up attempts to settle on for their water s L p p!
build a home on a lot he own- ception to the trailer ban was t�'is lot and moved to Vl%l- city has moved to get t:-,c ;i,ri
e�i There' that first put Pine allotted and ,krider,;on and his I , - for -
.-Imsou.g. in shapo wceptance '1,i i
Vallev Rd. in the limelight. family continued occupancy.
Pesi(.en:s of th e a.-ca �,.ave pubiic way partly to ro�!P
April of this pe".,,ioned for ac-o—anee of.,.l.'ris !-.ea`1h and sif,21v
year. Anderson� Today. Nov- Y. the cellar
excavated a cellar for the excavation remains the only t:,,e w a,. a$ a pubic street.. The mayor inforn,,f
home he contemplated in the (-videnct, of the Anderson 'r
Mayo: Durbin H. Wells t0da, in the letter that a ens,:.°
Burrs Pit Rd.Ryan addressed a lettor to Robert
yan Rd. sec- presence on the property. The sutxirvision has been drawn �i-:
tion of Florence. lie was de- trailer is sittin.a, in a. neigh* E as their spokesman _v C,ty Francis P. R.�an- IA
hied permission to build b}' bor's lot. unoccupied. It is said n' which be detailed problems flnisned subdivision plan --r(j
city officials. Anderson and his farm are
up further action on street acceptance p,a
Their argument was that living in Williamsburg. tne petition. upon the "owners 'a:�d
the street was an unaccepted The Anderson cause has Cl,,.�Cf a,mong t�ese s enough vcived" solvin5z a
wav with inadequate water died: that of 1-II-ne Valley Rd. land'for the :treet, One of the
facilities.. A number of home- linzers on. prob!erni. Un,,!•the c;ty mus' have �s that
plan Is tileti wit!" e plan-
owners had built there Prior ...n k- no -1,7-
permission. ,,-.vncd b,y jarn,?s J. Anderson. ,-g Board, I,, w4�i i_
I o that--without e d i's a.7 ias� year t:on or, ac_,cPti:-�.;
lost of them were tapping off -a.-, n jit a fo,_,nda-
SLx problems a water line to one of the ori- a o s
I z
-inal homes. t�,e rria,.c..
�.o r,
When told this, Anderson vas trie Sccu7�ng c,' a-!d1,,t".,-)na:
a perm—
Land ficm.
quit work aml brought in a i:cl have front- or Ernest D Pec� Jr.,
trailer for himself, his wife Ile to take and children. INS violated a. t�tr-n brougft' in a
city edict In,;en presently Burts 11"it 1:1 -re ov�n
�-ailer. 1e �xa_s to'�d he cculd ,
prohibits trailer residences I, lornes
this L-,_cause Mere '
,v-1thin dty limits. The ban is agains! Rd.
wa.F n al-c,:nance
imposed I
,emporar3, posed so ordi- -Ier .n of t��e
,ra. ,s .
nances can be set up to better le strip" r,,? r)
g
Pan n i: Board ab,
;-(,;T,j1ate trailer residences.
ra'!P-S :Ae I'S C r,, P'T
Anderson's plight woti the
,vrnpathv of many and the He SS
ity finally compromised, e :n, :'I ',v. home 0%%rel 1:19 n's
notes. He
-�n_ nea,est ac-
";eedf4d n..rn t-`,e L,n" is
n ta-e &^a <<e Ma'r,4'. a
be�7
Tine Valley Rd agreed t ha, .- n,e.-s "or `e
:) .i r, 0�'s "uCt,o w.n. 3, a hom�� vi-hin a few T h.r 'he
ownr:f:._iA of w n, r,I "s ,f
%
eri- lac'
nd u'
Residents Plan �ad -I ecl
'�o
Ta x 'ann to the �r
-n 5 to tre crv. *,.-e
x, Rebellion h-
' !e
CJ
N'01:74AMP70\
xt coy n(`! mee.-g --L;esd3%,
'
Va'le M_
-.,
dents are planning May
1%,17elis a7 nme coun,:!
;-)an.
C s rn
Yi.Saturday. "v,-e are
Commission met 11 '14t that meet np and tne't the survey and plan m
,he Water v:in
Wednesd,, night with Robert( _)f'know xe arou!A. V;e Valley Rd., so
;k1sick of 7�,Wnig the_ :�'zri '%-"s the
and Raymond G. Schorge,,. props std city %ka*er pi D, ,
Mimitz n-lout jjf-,-� and gett;07 easemer,-. Ts -
residents of pine Valley Rd., to!- a,-; b,,�n
discuss a proposed vater suPPIY;* for thern. sent to vOu as .>no-�esr,12n 'Oi�
le I It was pointed out t�,at 'he� -L,, area resdx7i V11, I I
np for that are e
a. )4 rnbers of ;arne,
a
(homes are taxed a,* ',he piease see thaz ear aerie,
the Water board Will attend I
wn hall' i—Y er w,.L)
,rnaLelv lro ra i te as th,�,se zee n h, be
meeting in the M. �-,e �he
Where plans- Se"Ied areas :)f ,,ie p_-,opc,d en s-mpn?
Frida, night at spo"Cesman said c^ es a ccriv.
for the proposed new WF3t \Nhate-
rie�h,,,je to icy sa-nr, -1 S
reservoir will be. discussed with tul s I clo-x n to,,%n n, t A'a.
I c 17"",
y res intertsted :,a tLres by
,ri,AT. officials and
o-e -�)f P;r s aff-c!o,; i:I -)o e�.�
:dents. vr,�i n u
e r S
Vail as Z-)
borer I ��
V CG 1 o a d o F rs a:
v r7,. ':"'
ra
,.d former `,la` .)r
f fife
�'
7' / ��
7
»/-' > / / ' -
��4� �� ]/
���� �w ������w*�v���o�
Offit* *fthic 3nn9m*t*x of jAvi[binge
2/2 Main Street Municipal B
Northampton, Mass. 01060
COMPLAINT SHEET
How received: Telephone ( ) laint No.
Personal Date:
~ v }
JAN
Letter ( ) Timexv��A�M. ___ P.M.
DUT OF WILDING INWIM Telephone No.
NITRIAN1170(M&0050
Complainant's Name:
Complainant's Address: Rix 'ev
Complaint received by:
VIOLATIONS OF: 212 Main ----
Norftmptom Moss. 010e0
IR Chapter 44 Zoning Ordinances, City ofNorthampton
O Chapter 8O2AuAmnnmgnded Mass. State Building Code
O Sanitary Code, Art.2
Complaint reported against:
Name: Tel.
Address:
Location of complaint: K4ap# Lot#
Signature of Complanants:
Nature of complaint:
Investigation: Yes No Investigated by:
P 00--f P-
'