10B-108 20 grove ave zoning`.. .■/`
DECISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on November 28, 1984, the Zoning Board of Appeals
of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to grant the finding request
of Donald & Karen Judge and Bruce & Cindy Ellison to alter the sideyard
lot lines at their properties at 20 -42 Grove Avenue, Leeds. Present
?` and voting were: Chairman Robert Buscher, William Brandt and Peter Laband.
The findings were as follows:
I P. Laband stated that under Section 9.3, he approves changes as
shown on the map attached to the application, namely that a piece on
the northern side of Lot 1B be deeded from Lot 2A and that a piece as
j shown on the plan goes from Lot 1B to Lot 1A. He stated that Lots lA and
2A will still be in conformity and 1B will be closer in conformity than
i� before.
R. Buscher concurred to grant the alteration in the lots under Section 9.3,
a' finding that such alteration would not be substantially more detrimental,
and in fact, would be less detrimental in that it would increase the
• ;� size of one lot without decreasing the size of either of the adjacent
i' lots'below that which is required in that zone.
�i W. Brandt concurred that the application should be considered under
Section 9.3 and that changing lines will permit the nonconforming lot to
become less nonconforming.
The following condition shall apply:
; a
That the new lot lines be as indicated on a plan marked
j� 1 -5 -79 updated through 9 -5 -84 by Pharmer Engineering Design
of Holyoke so that Lot IA measures 21,874 sq. ft.; Lot 1B, 17,780
sq. ft.; and Lot 2A, 25,344 sq. ft.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Peter Laband
�� William Brandt
Northampton Zoning Boa d of Appeals -Mao,
Public Hearing on Application of Judge /Ellison
November 28, 1984
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on November 28, 1984
at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Walter J. Puchalski Municipal Building, on the
variance modification request of Donald & Karen Judge and Bruce & Cindy Ellison under
the provisions of Section 6, Page 6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton
for the purpose of altering the sideyard lot lines at 20 -42 Grove Avenue, Leeds. Present
were: Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt and Peter Laband.
The Chairman read the public notice as it appeared in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on 11 -14
& 11- 21 -84. The Chairman referred to the Table of Density & Dimensional Regulations and quoted
the required dimensions for a URA zone. He reviewed Section 10.10 ; requirements for
a variance and Section 9.3 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance. He advised those present of
their right to appeal.
The Chairman read a memo from L. Smith, Planner, on behalf of the Northampton
Planning Board recommending in favor of the application. He explained that a variance
had been granted previously to subdivide property on Groves Avenue, Leeds.
Donald Judge stated that he and Mr. Ellison wish to alter their sideyard lot
lines and showed the Board plans of the three lots in question. He briefly reviewed the
history of the properties. He described the net effect of swapping parcels with Mr.
Ellison as increasing Lot lA from 20,640 sq. ft. to 21,874 sq. ft; decreasing Lot 2A
from approximately 27,000 sq. ft. to 25,344 sq. ft.,(both still conforming) and
increasing Lot 1B from 17,114 sq. ft. to 17,780 sq. ft., bringing it closer to
conforming without creating any nonconformity.
P. Laband stated that in approving the modification of the variance the end result
would be that Lot lA +2A are still in conformityand Lot 1B is closer to conformity than
previously, thus closer to the intent of the Ordinance. W. Brandt concurred.
Dr. Laband suggested that under Section 9.3, the Board approve changes as shown
on the map attached to application, namely that a piece on the northern side of Lot 1B
be deeded from Lot 2A and that a piece as shown on plan goes from Lot 1B to Lot lA .
He wished to draw attention to the fact that Lot IA and 2A will still be in conformity
and 1B will be closer in conformity than before.
R. Buscher concurred to grant in the Lots under Section 9.3, finding
that such alteration would not be substantially more detrimental, and in fact, would
be less detrimental in that it would increase the size of one lot without decreasing
the size of either of the adjacent lots below that which is required in that zone.
He suggested a condition be laced upon the transfer as indicated on the plans attached
to the application and so 4fl� new lot lines be as indicated on a plan marked 1 -5 -79,
updated through 9 -5 -84 by Palmer Engineering Design of Holyoke showing Lot lA to measure
21,874 sq. ft., Lot 1B, 17,780 sq. ft. and Lot 2A, 25,344 sq. ft.
W. Brandt stated that the application should be considered under Section 9.3,
not under a varaince as the Lots have always been 12 feet short in depth to conform
to zoning requirements. He concurred that changing lines will permit the nonconforming
lot to become less nonconforming.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to grant the petition with the
condition as stated by Mr. Buscher.
The hearing adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Present in addition to those mentioned was J. Parker, Board Secretary.
C
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
ra.. ../
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Northampton Zoning Poard of Appeals
' e -t
FROM: Lawrence B. Smith, Planner, on behalf of the Northampton Planning Board
SUBJECT: Judge /Ellison Variance Modification Request
DATE: November 28, 1984
FILE:
At their meeting on November 15, 1984, the Northampton Planning Board
reviewed the Variance Modification Request of Donald & Karen Judge and Bruce
& Cynthia Ellison for th e purpose of altering the sideyard lot lines at
20 -42 Grove Avenue, Leeds.
After discussing the matter with the applicants and hearing the report
of the site inspection subcommittee, the Planning Board voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the modification of the variance.
Do Not Write, Application Number: 5
(., a Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcel (s)
is
L t Date Amt. Date By Date
,� �:" �o 0�8 1 1Z�8
®6rd_F� I�DE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
1..,,,MarrfoApplicant Donald P. Judge, Karen M. Judge, Bruce Ellison and Cynth
Address 20 Grove Avenue, 42 Grove Avenue. Leeds Massachuset Elliso
2. Ownerof Property Donald P. Judge, Karen M. Judge Bruce Ellison and Cynth
Address 20 Grove Avenue, 42 Grove Avenue, Leeds Massachusetts Fllisp
3. Applicant is: 00wner; ❑Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ' 0 Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
91 VARIANCE from the provisions of Section Vl page 6 -2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton. Lot area, depth and rear set back, or in the
alternative
❑ SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
HER f indinc
r that ar chan e of pr e -exi i - s
will nod be substantially more aetrimental that the exis ing ue� ect'pn
5. Location of Property. 20 -42 Grove Avenue Leeds being situated onpenAix A
the west side of Grove Avenue ,
Sheet No. lOB � Street; and shown on the Assessors Maps,
, Parcel (s) 108 - 32
6. Zone U.R.A.
7. Description of proposed work and /or use; Applicants
lot lines to increase t he total area of Lot
area
nou l 1B owne
Grove Avenue) nrem
alt si
A (20 Grov Avenue
ses owned
crea sing
8.(a) Sketch plan attached; Kl Yes ONO
(b) Site plan: OAttched ONot Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: Variance for r n+- 1B was preyi n jag
granted to construct a single family home on 02/15/84 All three l
non conforming lots with respect to depth and set backs fo the PXy are
structures but Lot lB is the onl ng
area. The new plan will retain Lot IA anr3 rn A COri total
area and will make Lot 1B less non - conforming by increasing the total
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).Non- conforming depth and set backs will
remain the same.
12. I hereby certify that information contained herein is true t he best of my knowledge.
Date A pplicant's Signature
40
ti
a
IT
�q
�
� l
t M
o
0
iso /(/
A. /.�( 4 0 61 r .NoO
N 2&- 138
,E..
11721 �5 S
S
j
o
a
�Q
W
'�Q
p�O��i
0
[ O
_J
W
Q
W
0
W
0
v
0
Al. 261
,F- /! 722. 778
/. p Fp.
uli �
t v
T:
Cz
UPLAND
ROAD
It
*MEW .■.M00
Application Number: q
Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcel (s)
V� By
Date
BY17 i Date Date Amt. Date By Date
L.
RE8Y MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
1. Name of Applicant Donald P.& Karen Judge
Address 20 Grove "v e L eeds, Mass.
2. Owner of Property. Donald & KarOrr. Judge
Address 20 Grove Ave Leeds, Mass.
3. Applicant is: FOwner; ❑Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
❑ VARIANCE from the provisions of Section VI page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton. pargraph 3
❑SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisicns of Section__ page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
Ere
5. Location of Property 20 Grove Ave, Leeds, Mass. being situated on
the side of Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 10 H, Parcel (s) 108
6. Zone _J z a-
7. Description
2 lots of
of proposed work and /or
which the minimal
use;
dept
Sub— divide
is 120 which
an ex i sti ng l ot i ntn
excistina is
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; ❑Yes 0 N
(b) Site plan: IXAttched ❑ Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: To build a si ngl e fnrr i Ty ci pwpi l i mc ,
for ourselves on a lot which subdivision is not required
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge.
Date A pplicant's Signature A-
NORTHAMPTON I RD OF APPEALS
Public Hearinn Application of
Donald and Karen Judge
October 19, 1983
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing at 7:00 PM, October 19,
1983, on the petition of Donald and Karen Judge for a variance to
subdivide a parcel of land on Grove Avenue, Leeds, in order to construct
a single family home. Present were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Peter
Sharac and Dr. Peter Laband.
The Chairman read the public notice as it was published in the
Daily Hampshire Gazette on October 5 and October 12; the Planning Board's
recommendation that the application be denied; and the requirements for a
variance according to the Zoning Act.
He advised those present of their right of appeal.
Mr. Judge, speaking for himself and Mrs. Judge, explained that in
1979 he owned a large parcel which he subdivided into two lots. He
built his home on one of these lots which contains over 34,000 square
feet of land. He later realized that he should have divided the parcel
into three lots, with each lot containing over 20,000 square feet, thus
complying with the Zoning Ordinance requirement. He now plans to sell
his original house and to construct a single family home on a lot which,
after being divided, will contain 12,804 square feet. He claimed that
the home will be at least 100 feet from any other home in the immediate
vicinity so that the home will not be squeezed into a congested area.
Mrs. Judge commented that the vacant lot is a collector of debris,
and that the neighbors have no objections to a home being built here.
Dr. Laband advised the applicants that there were certain require-
ments which must be addressed when seeking a variance, and he suggested
that they ask for permission to withdraw their application until they
are able to obtain legal counsel.
Mr. and Mrs. Judge agreed, and asked the Hoard's permission to
withdraw.
On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to allow
withdrawal without prejudice.
The hearing was adjourned at 7:20 PM. Present, in addition to the
Board members and the applicants, were Clare Fennessey, Clerk, and a
reporter from WHMP.
Robert C. Buscher
Chairman
NVMW 1"04
Application Number:
l
Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcels)
Date A0 , &te By Date `� 1 6 1
MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
1. Name of Applicant Donald P. Judge and Karen Judge
Address 20 Grove Avenue, Leeds, Massachusetts
2. Owner of Property Donald P. Judge and Karen Judge
Address 20 Grove Avenue, Leeds, Massachusetts
3. Applicant is: L30wner; ❑Contract Purchaser; DLessee; ❑Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
Kl VARIANCE from the provisions of Section VI page 6 -2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton. Lot area and depth, rear set back.
❑SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
DOTHER:
5. Location of Property 20 Grove Avenue, Leeds, Massachusetts , being situated on
the West side of Grove Avenue Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 10B , Parcel (s) 108
6. Zone U.R.A.
7,. esc iptigr�yf work and /orvse; Applicants propose to construct a
s�.a mi om on a proposed n o a as more an
equa a frontage but lacks sutticient depth and area under existing
oning. AEso rear set back wi'7T be less than thirty feet.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; DYes 9No The existing lot has three times the
required frontage for a single family
(b) Site plan: DAttched CXNot Required home under existing zoning and the
proposed lot has more than adequate
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: /frontage . The depth di mensi n n
a nd the area of the lot are not adequate because of the shape of the
l and which abuts the unused Massachusetts Electric Power easement. This
m akes this parcel a uniquely shaped piece of land. T. wmuld take faun 3,ra
to attempt to obtain additional area from the Massachusetts Flectr -ir CcL
to comply with existing zoning which creates a substantial hardship to the
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form). applicants.
0
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to tb of my knowledge.
�J
Date January 11, 1984 A pplicant's Signature �
trick J. Melnik-for-Donald and
A
T
10
A
o
- 4
��
X
'b
c�r N
O
Ot
t ab.
VC,
IL
t or
,3
V' 7
k .) Th -t � -
VIA M
A y%"%\
ILIA
.I
u
t
AQ>
I
sc
C)2
IN>
��
X
'b
c�r N
O
Ot
t ab.
VC,
IL
t or
,3
V' 7
k .) Th -t � -
VIA M
A y%"%\
ILIA
.I
u
t
AQ>
I
TEPEE
qc
�q ry)
Z0
W
o I�
Q
N
z
I �
[.vivyL. U Y
d?7 i/
0 o'2
LOT I B
AREA
12,8 4S. F.
O ~ ✓
'3
/44 7 7" 9, olo
LOT IA
AREA
21,874 S. F.
8
h
�9
N �
0�
N Z6- /38
E.//72 /5SY
w
Q
w
0
3
W
>_
O
v
A/. Z6
F. 1172 -7778
S 89'39' 27" W / P.
R )OAlAl /�9o�Z92
\7 0HAI T d`
, (46517a5
UPLAND
ROAD
�.
CO
j
o
a
6C
�0
nm
t°
o
a�
0wh�
N
N�
�Q
V
Q
O
w
Q
w
0
3
W
>_
O
v
A/. Z6
F. 1172 -7778
S 89'39' 27" W / P.
R )OAlAl /�9o�Z92
\7 0HAI T d`
, (46517a5
UPLAND
ROAD
/. P. FD.
FT 0 '
METERS img
�.
CO
6C
GC
�a
nm
t°
o
a�
/. P. FD.
FT 0 '
METERS img
NORTHAMPTON 'BOARD OF APPEALS
Public Hear on Application of
Donald and Karen Judge
February 1, 1984
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing at 7:00 PM, February 1,
1984, on the application of Donald and Karen Judge for a variance to
construct a single family home on an undersized lot on Grove Avenue,
Leeds. Present were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt, and
Kathleen Sheehan.
The Chairman read the public notice as it was published in the Daily
Hampshire Gazette on January 18 and January 25; the Planning Board's
recommendation that the petition be denied; the Senior Planner's findings;
and the requirements for a variance accordance with the Zoning Act.
He advised those present of their right of appeal.
Atty. Patrick Melnik, 311 Chesterfield Road, representing the appli-
cants, told the Board that his clients had been granted a variance in
1979 to subdivide a large parcel on Grove Avenue. This parcel could meet
all Zoning Ordinance requirements, except depth, and, in fact, had enough
frontage to accommodate six lots. They had no experience with matters
of this kind, and feared that it would be inappropriate to ask for more
than the one variance, thus, instead of dividing the parcel into three
lots, they settled for two. Referring to the variance requirements,
Mr. Melnik claimed that the lot was pie shaped, being very long, with
little depth, and slopes sharply toward that portion on which the Elec-
tric Company has an easement. The Judges tried to purchase additional
land from the Electric Company, but found that only in rare cases does
the company sell its land, and even if they agreed to sell, it could be
two years before the sale is completed.
He presented a plan of the neighborhood, pointing out that the
proposed use of the land would fit in with the overall scheme of the
area and would not create the appearance of being overcrowded.
The attorney, after presenting the Board with new dimensions of the
property, said that the Judges have acquired 1,246 square feet from the
larger lot, and have purchased 3,072 square feet from the Ellisons who
own an adjoining ,parcel. The lot under consideration now contains
17,116 square feet, but the Ordinance requires 20,000 in this URA zone.
There are other lots in this area which cannot meet that requirement.
Under the Chairman's questioning, Mr. Melnik contended that the
difficulty in dealing with the Electric Company is creating a hardship
for his clients, along with the Judges' error in not subdividing the
parcel into three lots in 1979.
He claimed that because of the vandalism which occurs here, the
neighbors would like to see the parcel developed and while he does not
advocate development of every parcel in the City, in this case, it
would eliminate a neighborhood nuisance.
Donald Judge, co- applicant, said that at the suggestion of the
Planning Board, they acquired more land from abutting parcels, but still
lack a little under 3,000 square feet, and the rear setback would be
approximately 10 feet short.
Mrs. Judge said that the Planning Board had recommended acquisi-
tion of enough land to bring the square footage up to about 17,000,
which they have done.
Cynthia Ellison, an abutter, spoke in favor. She felt that,
based on the original home built by the Judges, the new home would
enhance the neighborhood.
Ellen Rocket, 7 Upland Road, also in favor, said that the first
home built by the Judges was a deterrent to trespassers and she agreed
that the second home would improve the neighborhood.
There was no one present to speak in opposition.
- 2 -
At this point, it was moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to
take the matter under advisement so that the Board members who were
not familiar with the area could visit the site before making a deci-
sion.
The hearing was adjourned at 8:00 PM. Present, in addition to
the Board members and those mentioned, were Clare Fennessey, Clerk,
and several interested citizens.
Robert C. Auscher
Chairman
M
DECISION OF Tf
N "' ZONING BOARD OF APPeALS
The Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton, at a
meeting held on February 15, 1984, voted unanimously to grant the
variance request of Donald and Karen Judge, subject to their
adherence to the plans they submitted, to construct a single-
family home on an undersized lot at 20 Grove Avenue, Leeds.
d
The findings were as follows:
Mr. Brandt, referring to the requirements for a variance
according to the Zoning Act, found that the shape and size of the
parcel make it unique; that, when subdivided, the empty lot would
be the only one in a series of lots all containing houses, that
this portion is an eyesore; and that the
petitioners would suffer
a hardship if they were denied the right to make reasonable use
of their land. He also found that a hardship would be imposed on
'; the entire neighborhood if this portion could not be developed
because the property is becoming an "attractive nuisance" through
its use as an access to an area used by young people for late
night partying. He further found that desirable relief might be
;granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and in
fact, would be beneficial to the neighborhood; and that, since
the lot contains over 17,000 square feet, as opposed to the
20,000 required, there would not be substantial derogation from
the intent of the 'Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Sheehan agreed. She further found that the parcel meets
the frontage requirement but lacks adequate depth, and because of
an easement, it is impossible to acquire additional land. She
felt that development of the site would enhance the area rather
than be detrimental to it.
Mr. Buscher found that this lot is unique because, although
there are other lots in the neighborhood and in the district
F which might be larger than that required for a single family home
and is large enough to be subdivided, this one has adequate
frontage, and also, its rear boundary abuts a right -of -way which
,;was once part of the large lot and is now owned by a public util-
; ity; that the hardship is on the neighborhood which is being
adversely affected by the use of the property as an access to an
area used by revelers; and that, since the property is in an area
where the majority of homes are on lots similar in size to that
proposed, approval will not derogate from the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance nor be detrimental to the public good.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
F William Brandt
lee
Kathleen M. Sheehan
NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS
Decis on Application of
bwiald and Karen Judge
February 15, 1984
The Board of Appeals met at 7:15 PM, February 15, 1984, to render a
decision on the variance request of Donald and Karen Judge to construct a
single family home on an undersized lot on Grove Avenue, Leeds. Present
and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt and Kathleen
Sheehan.
The minutes of the public hearing, held on February 1, 1984, were
accepted, but the reading was waived.
The Chairman explained that the Judges had a large lot which they
wished to subdivide into two parcels, one of which would be approximately
3,000 square feet short of the required square footage. They plan to build
a single family home on the smaller lot.
On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to grant
the variance, subject to the applicants' adherence to the submitted plans
when subdividing the parcel. Approval was based on the following findings:
Mr. Brandt, referring to the requirements for a variance according to
the Zoning Act, found that the shape and size of the parcel make it unique;
that, when subdivided, the empty lot would be the only one in a series of
lots all containing houses; that this portion is an eyesore; and that the
petitioners would suffer a hardship if they were denied the right to make
reasonable use of their land. He also found that a hardship would be im-
posed on the entire neighborhood if this portion could not be developed
because the property is becoming an "attractive nuisance" through its use
as an access to an area used by young people for late night partying. He
further found that desirable relief might be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good, and in fact, would be beneficial to the
neighborhood; and that, since the lot contains over 17,000 square feet, as
opposed to the 20,000 required, there would not be substantial derogation
from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. He recommended that the subdivi-
sion conform to the submitted plan.
Ms. Sheehan agreed. She further found that the parcel meets the
frontage requirement but lacks adequate depth, and because of an easement,
it is impossible to acquire additional land. She felt that development of
the site would enhance the area, rather than be detrimental to it.
Mr. Buscher found that this lot is unique because, although there are
other lots in the neighborhood and in the district which might be larger
than that required for a single family home and is large enough to be sub-
divided, this one has adequate frontage, and also, its rear boundary abuts
a right -of -way which was once part of the large lot and is now owned by a
public utility; that the hardship is on the neighborhood which is being
adversely affected by the use of the property as an access to an area used
by revelers; and that, since the property is in an area where the majority
of homes are on lots similar in size to that proposed, approval will not
derogate from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance nor be detrimental to the
public good.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 PM.
Board members, were Clare Fennessey, Clerk,
Present, in addition to the
the licants, and a reporter.
Robert C. uscher, Chairman