10B-022 mulberry st board of appealsCity of NortfJampton Aaoacbusetw
BOARD OF APPEALS
Room 15
City Hall
Notice: —This petition must be filled out in ink or typewritten, filed in triplicate and accompanied by 3 sets of
plans of the affected premises showing location, dimensions and area of the lot, and the locations, dimen-
sions and the distance from the boundary lines of all structures erected and to be erected. It shall be
filed at the office of the Board of Appeals and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $10.00.
PETITION TO BOARD OF APPEALS
Petitioner(s) Chart -Pak . Mulberry & River Streets
.... .... .... .... ... ... .... ......... ... .....
»........... .............. Address ................»...........»_..... aY...............................».......».......».......... ...... »....... »....... »........
.............................. Inc .
(Leeds���Northampton, Mass.
The petitioner i$ the v wvs has a written contract to purchase o3rsse the premises affected by
this petition. (Cross out inapplicable words, not applicable to petitions for review).
Petition is hereby made for a { Variation from the requirements of
4W
Section ........1.3............ : ............................ of C. the City Ordinances of the City of Northampton.
The Premises affected are situate on the North ..... ..... ......... South ............ _. East,.».X.. -. West.......»..... side
. .. »..»... no
S 3mt2 . ....... a:t.. .................. the corner of ]I uj.jD,0.r. .
. . y .................... ».» ....... ......... »ti_ ..................... ..... Street and are known a No.
Mulberry Street » tx,
Description of Proposed Building
1. Size of building:........ Z,zOQ.Q.....sq.�... ». t... .. front ..........._.. .2... ................... _ _... ». ... »_. feet deep.
Height . »(W.0 ................... stories: ... a.21 ...... and .....91.................... feet.
2. Occupancy or use: (of each floor) .11Z. .t ..... Tel.=. f4.C'i.1.l ring.... 4 ....o f. 1... f' r......._........._.........._ ................_............. ..._...._......................
Industrial
3. Zone District ....$.... /....... ................. 4. Date of erection (only if already existing)
5. Has there been a previous petition concerning the affected premises? ..................... 1... ...............................
6. Description of proposed work and use:
..... . .... ............R.reotton....vf.... plant- for ....1.1.gh.t..... man ufaetur Ing ............................................... _........................................................
. .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .......................... ...................
........................................ . . . .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . _ ................................................
7. The reasons upon which I base my petition are as follows:
Under the General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 40, Section 30
............. . ............ _ ................ eu b. s.e.e.t.i. =.... numbered...... 3. j .............................................................................._................................................................................... ...................__..........
....., �"................. _.....
......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ ................... _
........ .......
j
I (we) hereby certify that the persons named below are all the owners of the property adjoining the premises affected, and
are all the owners of all the property within a distance of 200 feet of an boundary of t�A premises affected as they appear on
the most recent tax list. 9
_....._. Ga�utyy✓� _. _....
Signature of o r spent
f
Names: L R2 't' J (�
.............. ....... .._....... ...........,................... ...�. Addresses...! ��454 !z � r
�?..�" .R:- !.v...... _ ................... ............ ...._...... ................... ...........
_.. ............. ..- ............................
... ...... . ... .
� �.1. ........... R :l ................. s
....... ..........�....h.....s�._ I.Ak.r.2 ........... -s� Gri ,e►� ..s . ...................................
............. . l..�..Q.
f ..
. ....a....... "r ........ r L . �Is�
p
....
�.J9 I? ......�..........1........ =: .:.[:... I :A ....................... ".... �� .�.... . r..._. s ...... .. .. . .
.-.. .�e.r .............:.......'... a w e
: .6
v �eVr I
......... ...............................
.C>..)`.Q. ............ 4........ha.a.k .. 36...�....C�....l..h-�._. ...t. � .. t Oh.
. .........._3 ................... u �^�..o_ti...... t:.:� -. d
Q .�_.. n.... [..'Y�...►�- ,...e- .h.t.,u..�t �1.:..:...`'.?
f ......... _... ......... .
.... _ ...........
_...
4
b
`
-.._ .........
........ �... ��d
............................... ...............................
�/� lam/ ............. ......................_ a... ..�I. ........................ _.. ................
Do Not Write In These Spaces Now, Application NurrY6er:
as B . Checked Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcel (s)
yi D�eA' "" By- Date Date Amt. Date R Date
k'
4 D b
u il��: a � 1,
;MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
tVCkttiti ",FtCtV, ", - ". r
:`"`Na°'f4f f° �rpt#cant °CHA,t.TPf}k — A 476/9S OF 7 -Aeh"64 06,
Address / RIV69 A AAQ X9SE, iy,t a/ !ra
2. Ownerof Property .r '•A 0 a..
3. Applicant is: WOwner;
4. Application is made for:
❑Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession.
El VARIANCE from the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
$SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page /A/ of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
❑OTHER:
5. Location of Property /v , being situated on
the 61155 side of 4 ? /VhX 46A.D treet; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. /6—.& , Parcel (s) 2/—.2a
6. Zone IAI -DUSMP
7. Description of proposed work and/or use;
I' /: • 72 i L /&,*(_ / &W ♦ Z -AP er
/ t /a F
111 11 4
8.(a) Sketch plan attached; ,$Yes O No
(b) Site plan: % Attched ❑ Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based:
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to t st of my kno ge
/ J
Date- /��° ` A pplicant's Signature
11. List of Abutters:
Address
Assessor's Map
Sheet No. Parcel
1.
�'D dn/77�iN . CrE/I��►J
�
�� MGCe9C R f� ST �`✓
/D :B
S�
2.
R /t2�/L /Zo D (s" eve cE.r�
30.
12. 6 ff67 T; f-SlGUE
3. 94/k/NDA/11
/W
4.
C O Rt? / .c% 06ROT964
M,
/� i'fGC,B�'ftR .ST,
/U
•S�
5.
RE AI
K.
"&6le/1
6. �v�/w�
i2oB6CT
f,�,
cs"O RwE2 RO��
�d--�
�•f'
7.
11 C& "60
Jf, T4
RivE2 *,4,v
1 7
8.
I�E,e sr��cc Fs c�t��c c.�
YG R� �E� 104.p
140
! P
9. /A
yS/ Owed< SAP
0. AgfoV /C!fe i OadeQ
— S, 19 411D u.8OA1 A 0AP
/O — B
,20
27.
28.
R /t2�/L /Zo D (s" eve cE.r�
30.
12. 6 ff67 T; f-SlGUE
13.
14.
15.
19
20
2'1
22.
23,
24.
0
17. �Qvv?ti tJ Gc ei9Y,� !� 7 aieAq
18.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
(Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
N
-110
O
E PW
0
0
0
1 1%
h �
7. P
S ,
t:
20 _r ' 6-F -
-PANK"46 4.6-r,
ILI-
V.
20 _r ' 6-F -
-PANK"46 4.6-r,
APR
y�
202'" _C14D or
--pARKIAI& L- r
,m
. j y) 6,
X
'7q
- D
a.
ILI-
•p
I-AT
APR
y�
202'" _C14D or
--pARKIAI& L- r
,m
. j y) 6,
X
'7q
- D
a.
y�
202'" _C14D or
--pARKIAI& L- r
,m
. j y) 6,
X
'7q
- D
a.
'a✓ I.W/
DECISION OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
The Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Northampton met on June 9,
1982 and unanimously granted the petition of Chartpak for a special permit to
construct an addition to their plant at 1 River Road, Leeds.
Based upon the evidence presented to the Board, the Board made the follow-
ing findings in regard to the special permit:
of 1. The proposed use is listed in the Table of Use Regulations.
2. The proposed use bears a positive relationship to the public
good in that the increased employment will benefit the City
and its workers.
3. The proposed use will not create traffic congestion nor impair
pedestrian safety because an adequate number of parking spaces
will be available.
I! 4. The proposed use will not overload the public systems, nor
?j will it be detrimental to the health, morals or general
is
welfare of the community.
i
5. The proposed use will not impair the district and will be
in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
i i
' 6. The Board also noted that the site is located in a Watershed
�# Overlay District which forbids the dumping or filling of any
earth material in excess of 50 cubic yards without a special
permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The special permit is, however, granted subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. That the applicant adhere to the Order of Conditions imposed
by the Conservation Commission.
ROBERT C. BUSCHER, CHAIRMAN
PETER SHARAC
I•
PETER LABAND
fI
I
R
I
CvN1. COh a� 6 � �6
W
NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS
Pub " - Hearing on Application
*fto, ...if Chartpak
June 9, 1982
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on June 9, 1982, at 7:15 PM, on the
petition of Chartpak for a special permit to construct an addition to their plant at
1 River Road, Leeds, Present were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Peter Sharac, and
Peter Laband.
The Chairman read the public notice as it appeared in the Daily Hampshire Gazette
on. May 26 and June 2; the Planning Board's recommendation of approval; and the Con-
servation Commission's Order of Conditions. He noted that application was being made
under Section 14.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, and advised those present of their right
to appeal any decision handed down by the Board.
Stanley Galusza, speaking for Chartpak, told the Board that the company plans to
construct a 20,000 square foot addition to their present plant, and because the prop-
erty is located in a Watershed Protection District, a special permit is needed. The
site is zoned General Business where the use is allowed by right. He said that
Chartpak has been at its present location since 1957 and from that time to the present,
the plant has never suffered from water damage because the foundation is 10 -12 feet
above the normal river level. He explained that an increase in business and the com-
pany's plan to move its Florida operation to Leeds has created the need for more space.
The Chairman asked about the number of parking spaces now available. Albert Aube,
also of Chartpak, answered that there are approximately 140 spaces, and other land is
available if more space is needed.
There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal.
On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted to proceed with the decision.
Dr. Laband found that the use is listed in the Table of Use Regulations; that it
bears a positive relationship to the public good in that the increased employment will
benefit the City and its workers; that the proposed use will not create traffic conges-
tion nor impair pedestrian safety because an adequate number of parking spaces will be
available; that no public systems will be overloaded; nor will the proposal be detri-
mental to the health, morals, or general welfare of the community. He noted that the
Board was aware that the site is located in a Watershed Overlay District which forbids
the dumping or filling of any earth material in excess of 50 cubic yards without a
special permit from the Board.of Appeals. He further found that the proposal will not
impair the district; and that it will be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordi-
nance. He voted to approve the petition
The Chairman and Mr. Sharac agreed with these findings, and they too voted in favor.
Since the vote to approve was unanimous, the special permit was granted, subject
to the applicant's adherence to the Order of Conditions imposed by the Conservation
Commission.
The hearing was adjourned at 7:40 PM.
and those mentioned, were a reporter from
Present, in addition to the Board members
the news media and Clare Fennessey, Clerk.
Robert C. Buscher ,
Chairman
* %W-
WARD 07 APFTADS
CITY or XOPTH011Y"M
.woo
Jtalt 21 1p
Roats 15 City skil
NeAbore Presents
O'X.hexatb*
seenord Vaughn
Wilton 1. Tstrobne
John Marphy
Decision on potition of mart -Pak, Inc.. Mulberry & River Streets (Leeds) w
Northampton, Haas.
It Is the WAvAimotis decision that tbe petition of O'haart -Pak, Inc,, Leeade, Knes.
property looaated nn last Side of River Street at the corner of %lberry Street
be granted on the following findingst
The Board finds it n facts (1) The property inetalre d is split • a p
as Residentiaal, N - and aw portion as Industrial.
( ) To oontlraae the claavtifica►tion, of a portion as Residence 3 would
eaoustiftte an =due haarship upon the owner - a8 the property is not
suitable to construction of re+sidenoos because of in'bodded boniders
and proximity to IrAnstriaal property.
(z) The gftntlrag of the variance will not effect adversely the sat;arrott:n►UV
property. The tanoUltability for residence to pecu&& .r to this partim-
(4) Indnnetrial use Is the 'beet ato to whieah this trait my be pant.
WRUMIMI It it ordered. adjudged and deaoreed that the petition of Chart.paak,
Inc. be granted on condition that the petitioner aompiies Frith all the ruder
and re olaationt of the City OrdinwWOO of the City of Northampton,
10tet this to not a bldg.
permit. A permit mast bo
obtained from the Sldg.Iatep.
acct City Clerk
Flaming Board
Bldg. Insp.
Petitioner
7110
To The Board Of Appeals,
Northampton Mass'.
Charles A. Berube, Chairman
We the undetBigned citizen's of Leeds,(Northampton Mass). Ward-7 Bare
in favor of granting a permit on the petition of Chart-Pak,& corpora-
tion of Stamford Conn; to build at the intersection of Mulberry And
River Streets in Leeds
Y
/T *
tr w
C;
IA
4
LAI
JLt4�
f
r t
�- _- — _ _._. : _._ . maxi _ -"'___ ; _ •
I
{ J
•
I. J
To The Board Of Appeals,
Northampton Mass,
Mr. Charles E. Berube, Chairman
We the undersigned citizen's of Lee<
in favor of granting a permit on the
oration of Stamford Conn. to build
and River Streets in Leeds.
l
v
Ls, Northampton Mass. Ward 7B, are
petition of Chart -Pak, a Corp -
Lt the intersection of Mulberry
l�
4L 1� t k 1, -L t
43/
40t , tZ / 67
y
t
I
M
4 -
1 -
J
s
Y
^ w
I./'
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASS.
Saturday, July 28, 1956
City Council Rooms
The meeting was brought to order by Mr. Charles E. Berube, chairman
of the Board of Appeals, at 11;15 a.m. with the reading of the notice
duly printed in the Daily Hampshire Gazette. The chairman stated that it
is customary for the petitioner or his agent to submit the petition to the
Board end thereafter anyone may be heard by stating his name, address and
question.
Atty. Edwin P. Dunphy, acting as agent for Chart -Pak, Inc., the
petitioner, informed the Board that the request was to permit industrial
use of a portion of the lot that is now the Dorothy Raymond property
situated on the corner of River and Mulberry Streets in heeds ared appearing
on a map, a copy of which has been furnished to each member of the Board.
It is a lot of irregular shape, varing in depth (from River Street) from
131 feet to 169 feet. The planning ordinances of the city of Northampton
make the portion abbuting River Street residential for the first 100 feet.
This property had been part of a larger tract which had been devoted to
industrial use for many years. Mr. Dunphy then listed several companies
owning this land stating that Gerald. L. Grant doing business as Pioneer
Publishing Company was the last. As trustee in bankruptcy, Atty. Dunphy
sold this portion of the land to Dorothy P. Raymond with the plant and
another portion of the property going to another purchaser. Therefore,
at the time the ordinance was enacted, this land was part of an industrial
tract, he continued. The property was then split by the zoning board to
show the first 100 feet as residential. There is a total of 167,480 square
feet of land in the parcel, of which 100,000 is designated as residential,
By virtue of our city ordinances, a lot which is abounding a differently
zoned area, may, without requesting permission of the board, use 30 addi-
tional feet for the less restricted use. Therefore, without appearing before
this Board, the petitioner could use all but 70 feet of this land. Atty.
Dunphy then stated that he would prove that Chart -Pak, Inc. had a buy and
sell agreement to purchase this land, that they would erect a plant on this
land, that would employ people from our community, that evidence will be
shown that this land is not conducive to erection of homes due to boulders
in the area which would be too costly to remove, and that Chart -Pak, Inc.
could construct their building without a cellar.
Atty. Dunphy then questioned Mr. Harold Frohbach and received the
following information; Mr. Frohbach is president and treasurer of Chart -
Pak, Inc. and presently lives in Stamford, Connecticut; that he has held this
office since 1950 when he joined the company; that his concern has entered
into a buy and sell agreement for the property in question; that a profile
of the plant has been prepared by James Britton, architect; that his concern
manufactures pressure sensitive tapes; that said company does not use any
heavy machinery, the heaviest being a 40 inch paper cutter; that no pro-
duction noise would be heard outside the plant; that there are not fumes or
od-o rs from the process of manufacture; that the company is desirous of con-
structing a plant, basically the same as shown on the exhibited drawing on
this land; that they intend to set up a pilot operation in the near future;
that the company anticipates employing 20 Northampton people immediately
and within a year expects to have 40; that 5 executives and between 5-7
technical personnel would accompany the company; that the estimated cost of
the completed plant will be about $100,000. Mr. Murphy of the Board
then questioned Mr. Frohbach and asked if this would be Chart -Pak's complete
operation after the move and was informed that it would be; additional
W
questioning by Atty. Dunphy showed that Chart -Pak was currently doing
business with one Northampton Machine Tool firm and also hoped to arrange
business with another upon their relocation in our community.
Atty. Dunphy then questioned Thomas McCool with the following determina-
tion of facts; said individual has been a building contractor in Northampton
for 13 years; that in the course of his business he has had the occasion to
make test holes on the property in question and from this it was his opinion
that although residential construction could be done in the area., the cost
of excavation would be prohibitive; that the nature of the soil as far as
he can determine is gravel and satisfactory for septic tanks; upon the
question of Mr. Murphy as to where the plant would be located in relation
to the entire piece of land, it was pointed out on an a,ccompaning diagram
of Mr. Britton.
Atty. Dunphy then presented to the Board of Appeals a list of names of
Leeds residents who had signed a spontaneous petition in favor of granting
this permit. Among these names it was determined thattwo were abuttors.
When asked the question as to the number of residents in Leeds and the per -
cnetage this list comprised, Atty. Dunphy stated he did not have these
figures.
Atty. Dunphy then stated that he had been informed that the Board had
two letters from abettors in favor of granting the petition and asked if these
might be read. They were not as other discussion intervened.
Atty. Dunphy then called upon those present to give their name, business,
and views on the subject.
David
Mr. /Lipshires - merchant - definitely in favor.
Mr. Horace Dragon - merchant - very much in favor.
Mr. Joseph Sylvia - manager of Hotel Northampton - favorable.
Mr. John Fortier - representing Western Mass. Bus Lines - favorable.
Mr. John Banner - real estate & insurance - very much 14avor
-4- ..r
Miss Grace Maloney - merchant - favorable.
Mr. George Hartling - Cashier Northampton National Bank - favorable.
Two Leeds residents unidentified - favorable.
Thereupon, Mr. Berube asked if there were any present who wished to
speak against the granting of the petition and there were none.
Mr. Murphy then asked Atty. Dunphy when the last time the property
in question was used for industrial purposes. Atty. Dunphy stated that it
was used for industrial purposes, either in 1949 or 1950 when owned by
Gerald Grant. Since that time it has been dormant, not being divided into
residential lots or used as industrial property.
Mr. Berube, thereupon, stated that since there were no more questions,
he would close the meeting and take the petition under advisement.
Meeting adjourned at 11:40.
Beverly Duplissey
(Mrs. James Duplissey)
Temporary Clerk