Loading...
38B-245 (9) r CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZON ! NG BOARD OF APPEALS � NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060 i DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1989 RE: THE APPLICATION OF ROBERT ANDREWS FOR A FINDING TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A FOUR-FAMILY DWELLING TO A FIVE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 236 SOUTH STREET. Pursuant to the Provisions of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the above date DENYING the Finding. If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed in Superior Court within 20 days of the date this decision was filed in the Office of the Northampton City Clerk. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals October 4, 1989 Meeting Page One The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 9: 10 p. m. on Wednesday, October 4, 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, to conduct a Public Hearing on the Application of Robert Andrews for a Finding to allow the conversion of a pre-existing nonconforming four-family dwelling at 236 South Street to a five-family dwelling. Present and voting were Chairman Dr. Peter Laband, William Brandt, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Ch. Laband opened the Public Hearing by reading the Application, the Legal Notice, and a memorandum from the Planning Board. Mr. Andrews said that he missed his appearance before the Planning Board because he misread the notices he was sent. He stated, "What I 'm trying to do is self-explanatory. It won' t add any more, vehicles or people. If we had four people before, we' ll have four now, with the same number of cars. Ch. Laband asked the Applicant to "elaborate on the parking situation. " He explained that there' s a five-bay garage, and plenty of room for five more cars to park on the grass along the driveway, which circles from South St. to Olive St. Ch. Laband pointed out that Section 8. 10 tells what' s required, and when over five are required, they must be paved. There was no one present to speak in favor or opposition. Ch. Laband said, "I 'd like to take a look at this. I take the Planning Board' s recommendation seriously. " Mr. Brandt suggested the Public Hearing be continued, not closed, so he could look at the parcel and then be able to take additional testimony. Mr. Andrews was asked to bring with him at his next appearance a drawing showing exactly where parking would be. Mr. Brandt moved the Public Hearing be continued to November 1 . Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary. Dr. Peter Laband, Chairman Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals November 1, 1989 Meeting Page Two up to announce his presence. He then asked that the Public Hearing be reopened so he could explain the parking. Mr. Brandt moved to reopen the Public Hearing, Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Andrews said, "All I have to add is that the existing density wouldn't be changed. The apartment I want to change is three or four bedrooms and three cars. That would change to a two-bedroom apartment and a one-bedroom apartment, with the same number of cars. It will be a five-family, but the density won't change. " Mr. Weil commented, "We continued the hearing for a parking plan for ten cars. Did you bring something?" Mr. Andrews replied, "I reviewed the parking regulations. I 'm not changing the density. I did not bring a parking plan. I feel there is adequate parking. My position is I 'd rather not blacktop the lawn. That would change the character of the house--it' s not necessary. " Mr. Weil pointed out, "The law requires ten spaces, paved. We kept the Public Hearing open for just that reason. You haven't done that. We can't react to what you haven't given us. " Mr. Andrews ' response was, "I don't want to pave ten spaces. That' s the answer. " No one else was present wishing to speak, so Mr. Weil moved the Public Hearing be closed, Mr. Brandt seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Weil commented, "We've already gone through why we denied. I 've learned nothing to change my mind. I ' ll vote to deny. " Mr. Brandt stated, "Andrews agrees ten spaces won't meld in with the property. Since that' s the request, I ' ll vote against. " Ch. Laband added, "I concur. " Mr. Weil moved to reaffirm the previous vote to deny the request. Mr. Brandt seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary. Lc,� Dr. Peter Laband, Chairman Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals November 1, 1989 Meeting Page One The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7 : 00 p. m. on Wednesday, November 1, 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton to continue the Public Hearing on the Application of Robert Andrews for a Finding to allow conversion of a pre-existing nonconforming four-family dwelling to a five-family dwelling at 236 South Street. Present and voting were Chairman Dr. Peter Laband, William Brandt and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Mr. Andrews was not present. Mr. Brandt moved the minutes of the October 4 , 1989 meeting be approved without reading. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. There being no one present to speak in favor or in opposition, Mr. Brandt moved the public hearing be closed, Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Dr. Laband commented, "I viewed the site and parking is the problem. " Mr. Brandt added, "We had some difficulty with this, and that' s why we asked Andrews to get us more information. I 'm not ready to approve without that information, but if he couldn't be here, I 'm unwilling to flat-out deny. " Mr. Weil said, "We know from experience we cant make his absence a reason to deny. We need substance. The abutters were concerned about the increase in density not being in the best interests of the neighborhood. The Finding must be that the change will not be substantially more detrimental. We questioned the parking--he has not responded, but we couldn't see where he'd put it. He has failed to prove he has parking, and I 'm not prepared to approve the fifth apartment under the circumstances. " Mr. Brandt added, "I;d hate to deny and have him come in two hours from now. " Mr. Weil countered, "I was inclined to deny at the Public Hearing. " Ch. Laband said, "This will add more vehicles and people. Five apartments = 10 cars. He was asked to elaborate on the parking situation. I pointed out it must be paved. If he paves, then the whole lot will be paved, and he' ll run short of open space. I looked at the house--five families would be sardines, and parking would be tight. I think four families is too tight, and five families worsen it. The Applicant didn't prove anything to the contrary. Upon viewing it, and with no one here to explain, I find five families too dense and against the intent of zoning. I find it more detrimental. " Mr. Brandt said, "I 'm prepared to vote against it, " and so moved. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. At 7 : 25 p. m. , Mr. Andrews made his presence known, saying he arrived late, was sitting in the back of the room, and didn't stand .3 DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS At a meeting held on November 1, 1989, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to DENY the Application of Robert Andrews for a Finding that the conversion of a pre-existing, nonconforming four-family dwelling at 236 South Street to a five-family dwelling would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing dwelling. Present and voting were Chairman Dr. Peter Laband, William Brandt, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. The Findings are as follows: Section 9 . 3 (a) of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance provides that a pre-existing nonconforming structure may be changed, extended or altered provided, where said change, extension or alteration is with regard to the specific pre-existing nonconformity of the structure, that it first receive a finding from the Zoning Board of appeals that such change, extension, or alteration will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a five-family dwelling have ten paved parking spaces. Mr. Andrews ' response to that requirement was, "I don't want to pave ten spaces. " The Board found that the existing four-family dwelling was "too tight for the lot--five would be worse. " The Board found that the proposed change, with or without paved parking, would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing dwelling. I 16 SW Dr. Peter Laband, Chairman DEPT Of BUILDING INSPECTION j , `� �/ etORTHAMPTON MA 010�� William Br nd't t M. Sanford Weil, Jr.