25-075 (7) 3 . The applicant has chosen not to appeal the decision of
the Inspector, but rather, to obtain a variance from
the requirements of the Ordinance pertaining to the use
of the structure. This request is the subject of this
application.
The Planning Department has reviewed the proposal and has
come to the following conclusions:
1 . The area is predominantly residential and agricultural
and the proposed use is therefore incompatible with
such uses. In addition, 'while the proposed use is not
in and of itself objectionable, it does establish a very
poor precedent for interpretation and enforcement of the
Ordinance.
2. While the use is located adjacent to a main highway, it
is not functionally accessible therefrom and could cause
traffic problems as a result of persons trying to reach
the structure. This precedent is further objectionable
because of similar occurrences in the past which have
allowed incompatible uses to evolve into a permanent
status. It is now necessary to bring a stop to the
evolution of violations which may be started in good
faith, but which expand beyond the point of reasonable-
ness .
3 . The fact that the outbuilding (or "barn" , as it is called
in the building permit application) was not specifically
recognized in the special permit nor in the wetlands per-
mit, should be dealt with.
The staff therefore concludes that the proposal is a deroga-
tion of the intent of the Ordinance and creates a significant
planning issue. The staff recommends disapproval of this applica-
tion.
cc: ' hard Ingersoll
RZil Clark, Building Inspector
Charles W. Dragon, Chairman, Board of Appeals
2 -
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board
FROM: York Phillips , Planning Director
SUBJECT: Variance Application of Richard Ingersoll
DATE: August 19 , 1977
FILE: N400-274
This office has reviewed the subject application and notes
the following:
1. The applicant obtained special permits on two different
occasions under the provisions applicable in the SC
District to construct houses on Riverbank Road. In
connection with the construction of one of these, a
building permit was obtained to build a barn on the
parcel involved in this application (Map No. 25BD,
parcel 75) . The applicant has obtained a special per-
mit under the SC zone and a certificate of conditions
from the Conservation Commission regarding the house.
It does not appear that he has obtained such permits
regarding the barn.
2. Subsequent to obtaining the building permit, the appli-
cant constructed a steel and concrete structure located
at the cul-de-sac at the end of Riverbank Road (which
structure can be seen from Rt. 9 opposite Damon Road) .
In response to a request for a plumbing permit for the
structure, the Building Inspector inspected the property
and found that its use was not in conformance with the
Zoning Ordinance or with the building permit application.
After making the inspection, the Building Inspector sent
the applicant a letter stating that:
"In reference to our discussion on August 3 , 1977 , it
is the opinion of this office that you are in violation
of the Zoning Ordinance, City of Northampton, specifi-
cally a business office in a residential zone.
This decision may be appealed to the Zoning Board of
Appeals on or before September 6, 1977."
DECISION OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At its meeting on June 25. 1980, the Zoning Board of Appeals for the City
of Northampton voted to deny the petitions of Richard Ingersoll for two vari-
ances and a special permit to change the boundary line separating two parcels
Of land on Riverbank Road, and to convert a storage building into residential
use.
Based upon the evidence presented to the Board, the Board made the follow-
ing findings in regard to the two variances and special permit:
1 . Allowance of the variance request for lot 76 would nullify and
derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance by
creating two lots with smaller dimensions than those required by
the Ordinance, resulting in additional congestion in a Special
Conservancy District .
2. The findings for lot 76 apply almost equally to the variance sought
for lot 75, except that lot 75 has no special conditions affecting
it since there are other lots of the same or equal size within the
zone.
3. Denial of the petitions for two variances in changing the boundary
lines would not result in a financial hardship for the applicant
since he owns both parcels, and if he wished to sell the property,
both parcels could be conveyed in the same deed to one purchaser.
4. As to the request for a special permit to change a storage build-
ing into a single family home, it was found that the proposed use
is listed in the Table of Use Regulations.
5. The proposed use would not create undue traffic congestion nor im-
pair pedestrian safety.
6. The proposed use would not create excessive usage of the municipal
systems.
7. The proposed use would not, however, bear a positive relationship
to the public good in that it would impair the character of the
neighborhood by allowing the structure to be used as a home since
3' it was built in 1975, after the adoption of the present Zoning
Ordinance, which prohibits construction of single family homes on
lots of this size in the Special Conservancy Zone.
w
' ROBERT BUSCHER, ACTING CHAIRMAN - ARTHUR ZINKIN ti j
t TPTLAS �RUSHWAY
{I
._ _._ __
i ;
1 � � r
W
�'
Q
�v.
V
� v
__
m o
p D m
m A
m
D
n
O
o
m
z
m 1
0
t D
m
m
X
Z �
0
D
z
O 3
� m Z
m
T
I1 CIS CIS C7 tf7
rnA rfrA 3?r A C t /ate
m Z n+ G7 r CT] S1 C O
O O-t 2 0 Dz m
0 C O C C3 -- D C7m C7 r