Loading...
10D-001 Chesterfield Rd Board of AppealsQT,ifa of BOARD OV7 APPEALS City Hall 1 '�. - ;..3.1 i:�.' :., - (l :S t11JTJ1V Lcl 1. _ f.'i1�TLlL'c,} Lli :, (�l'iacit.l_(,:11 :i }: c ..Li L��=? �' ? :'O �.._._�.b .Ti O.P Ci "E:?�ilc ii , l' ±7. . ".. - .....�5 T)e, tlO i ; a b I"lll:,'r_1 out in 7.:!{ Or 'L,' tteil tGC; 3 : hei' COPies, an,(_ a,ccomp ln_ied oy 8 6e is 01 pl ns the ,.f. l e s: vy c3.i. eCi.E'E. t).L'....l.SPi ? C- l^C3t10A1 C1JL1r..-;Lti10:i2 cIilr ;.'rea, of the 10-i -'1 F11 <(IC. 1`_)C,),tiOiLS, ;sl«3 d1„t•an(,e '_,'0371 the baui ,da.ry line 7 O.1" al 1. si:uuc tui es B -cted eroc;,ed. wt _,_lall be filed at ttie ofa.•i.ce Of the :r`-_iic 0 =. .i000i:'ly 11iitied ')Vf a, h ., it F 7C. i h-a=e l ;, `t? r, for e 1 I' F. O I ! J• ()) ;3,i1t _ 8. <.., C 1 a v V t' c a C; OYl F' ;.; ;3.'t�E.d t i.o ,lO r *, f't 7 r t , c J�11.1_i0 + 10 LOAtd) Oi0 k PEALi -, i -one, 1 > >) .. Fioyd•Andrus•,a fir. and Nia.omi A. AndrUre , -,.. 81.Lake Street, .Florence, .Mass. l rc i ; E .. . FloSrd �lruirw .. $� . atyd. NAQmi dA E dtus t� t�_ �� Bl .iA19a .$kls�t...i4�+nea•. Mips. to T).il v:? se Or tiio `,?t°.�Ser, i.esi - .ee l t'.l17l.tit lti iOo._ CS1iJ2 ?., has a, '•Ir2tt.�.. ?� lease. the the i)- rernises af f'eCte l IL-'y t , - pz: i tion. (LroSS oat %ot tipplic "to peti io-is J L`or S'F'vi.c v. . U P-tit1UY'_ i here?)y Rd�::. for j, ......... .a ««a 1'20111 L.Ile 2c'_jU� T�r:::ITS of' ec tiof l :.. ....... a s a ... 1�.`°^,?•(1`;r ij);. s •eases - . c o a o Oi G . LEL, oY The 1i i't j' C:Cd1Y.-._ icC :: of .:i2 ;'_iP Premises af't'ec' ed are situate on of. Chesterfield. desi�i3ate�x .t'artiel .... 1 a .. «.Sheet ,oa .. lOL1 ......... oI "tile l.SSessor ' P .a_ Of t1 3 i,ity of 110.C`L•}"LL :U21 rl11ra _-�L'C- ao'.0Ia_ a S . . . . . . . . . . . . o ........ . .............. ... s . Proposed @Scrip t1on Of a ld r or Buildin6 Size of proposed buildings :x t ♦ - . App1LcAnt, propmas to consutructU cAndominivazs,..h M the Eollowing d ensi s 104_' X 28 ;. 36' x 28'; 168' x 28'; 200' x 28'; and 232' x 28 . Each building salhve 1 ��� s ♦ maids t © attached pYan hoc s more perticiilai description the q x M. 60's r i ;. floor) ♦Resi+dentialr • . —. a ...... « ...... « ........ < ... . .. > .......... A and` Ms ictence : All Vd11c1,in sbb117� 1*6*`'tWcT 11>Ei °R6kidenceA. 3 . - a_i li t :L ic: baM located ia.both J%Ode 9.end ed uild A. b .x ) .Rq °th'e#re land loc in Residence B shall be used as the site or the propos l . i trere been c_ nreViOUS Datl_tioll. C07'?.Cer1ii,_r,, the ai elctled premises? ..... o .. o .. . ♦ N.o ♦ a e a e e• r . o 0 of c ced woa•:. Y!A. >_ a:.. To. constru 4.condaminiums.contoining.86 units on toto within a total area of 75.7 acres of which 14.3 are developed. a O . ♦ . ♦ . a . . a a . f . .. [ . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . • a . ♦ . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . . . o o . . . > . . . • . . . . . . a . . . . ♦ • . o . . . . . ... . o . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . • . .. . • . . . . . . . . a . . . .. 6e !'1;._ I' =OYi: ll-, }O l jJ <'11.Cr tfL:LS E)etdtio.:1 1S .: scd are as f'oi�Ows: JAQal, Wi"MMt Pf .th 3TAVIs1SPl. Pf.the A4QLAQ JW71AWAA IPM AK $09. palt4q . area and topo'a$h► of the land and its location would result in substantial hard ; . • . e . . . n . . . . . . . a . p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ship to the applicants and the proposed use is in the best interest of the community . >. ..........I... ..............« ........ .....I..... . .... without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the zoning by -law. . ... ........................................... ............................... .... August.3, -M7.3 ............... ... FloydAndrm,. Jr. 4nd.Noad A.. Andrus ;)a .e Signature of viner or het By Their Attorney c free Northampton, Mass . -- 1 II L (ua) hereby certify that the persons below are all the owners of the property abutting the premises affected, and the ovrners of land next adjoining the land of the abuttors, the parcels being identified by reference to the Assessors' P PaEe and Parcel IiLmiber, as they appear on the most .recent tax list. Assessors' i Iaar:e:,. ...... • .. Page and Parcel ••• •••••• ............... Addresses.............. ......•.....lvo ............. • • • . . . • • s • . • • . a • . • . . • • • • . • • . • • • . • . ... . • • • • • • • R • . • . . • • • o • • . • D m .. • a • • • . • • • • • • • • • R . • • • . • . • • • . • . • • . . • • • . . • . • • • . • . . • . • . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • . • • . . . • . • . . • • • • • • . . . • . • . • • . . . • • • • • • . • . . . • . . . • . . . • • . • • • • . • • . .. • R o . • . • . . . . • . • • . . • • • . . • . . . .. • • . R • . • .. • • . . . w . a • . Y . • • . . . . • • . • f . • . . . • . .. • . e . . • e . . • m • . . . . . . • . . • . . . • • .. • e o . . • . • . . . • . . • • • • e • . . • . . e • • . . • • • • . . • . • . • .. • . • . . . • • . . • • • • • . . . . • . • • . • • . f . . • • . . . • • • • D • • . . . • . • . . • • • • • . • • • . . • • • • . . • . . • . . . t • • • . .. . • • . • • . • . • . • . • . . • . . • • • . • • . . e . • + • • . . • • • . • • . • . . • • . . • • . . R • . • • • e s 0 . • . • • . • • . . • . . • . . . . . ♦ . . . . . . • • . • . • • • . • • • . . • . • . . . • • . . . . • • . • . • • . . . . • . • . • . . . • • t m . • • • . • . • • • • • • D . . . • . . • • • • • • . . . • . . • + • • . . • • • • . • • . • • . • • • • • . . . • . . • • • . a • . • f • e • • • . . • . • • . R • • e • • . . D . . . • . . • • . a . . • . . o • • • e • e • • e • w . • . . • • . • . m • • . . . • • • . • m • . • • • • . • . . . • . . . R . . • . • • . . . . • • • D • • . a • . a • • . • a . • • . . . . • • • a • a . • . . • • • . . • R • R . • • . . . . D • • . • • • • . . • . • . • . . . . • . • • . • . . . • • • • • • a tl • f D • . • • • Y a • • + • L . + . • . . . . • . . • . • . . . . Y • • • . . • • . • . . • . t • • . • . • . . . . . . . . t • • • . • • . • • . . . • • . • ! • . • p . • • i D • • t R . 6 Y . • . • . a . . • ! . . D o . . . . . • • f • • . . • . • • • . • . . . . o . . . . • . • • . e . • • . • . • • • • • s . • . • • . • . . • a . • . . . . • • . • R • a . e e o . • • . . . . • • • • • • • . • . . • • • • . • . a t • • • • • • R . . . • • . . • • • • . . • e • . • . . . • . . . • . • . . • . s . . . . . . . • . . • D . • a • • . . . . • . . • . . • • . . • • • . • . • • . • . • . . • . e • • • • . . . . • . • . .. . • a .. . . . • . • . • •. ... . e r . m e . a s . a. e . r . • • • . . . • o • . . • . • . • n o • R • • . • • . • • f • • . • o • • . • • . • . . R . . • • . . • . . . f . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . R a • . . . . . . • . . • • . . • . . . . . . . . • m . . f • • . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . • • . . • . . . . . • . . • . • . . • . . . . . . • . • • . t • . . . . • • • . • • • . • • • • . . . . • . . . . t . • . • • • • • . D • • f • . . • • . • . . . . • • . • . . . . . • t • . • • . . • . • • . . . . . • . . e t • • . . • . . • • a . . o . • • . . . . • . . . • . . . • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . • • . e . . . . s . . • . • . • . a . ♦ R • • . • • • D . . D . • . R . . . t . • . • . • . . . . f • . • • • • . . • . • . • . . . • • • . • . . . . • • • • . • • . . . • . . • • • • . . • . . . • o • . • • • . • • . . a . . • • • . . a • R • ! . . • • D • . . . . . • • . • . D D . • . • • ! . . • . • • • • • • . • . a . . • • . . • . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . • • • . . . • • • • • • . . • • • • . . a • • • • . . • . . . . . . • .. . . • . f . . • . • . . . t R . a . . . . m • . .. . . . • • . . . • • • • .. . . . . • . . e . . • . . . . • • . . • • • • • . . • • • . . • • • . . . . . • • . • . e • • . . . e • • • . . . • • . . . . • . . ... . t . • . . • . . • . • • . . • . • f • . . • . . • . • . . . a • . e • . . . . . . • . • . . • . • . . a . • . • . . . . . • . . • • • . . . D a • . • . . . • • . • • • . . . • . • . • . R . . . . • • . . . • a . • . • . . • • . • • . • . • . • . D • . . . • • . . . . . . . a • . • . . . . . • . . • • . . . . . • . . • . • . . • • . . . . . . . • • • . . ! • • . • • • • • . . . . • • • • • . . . • . . • • . • • • . . • . • . . . e . • • . • . . . . • . . • . D • . . • . . • . . . • • • . . . . . . • • • • . . . . . w . . . . • . . . • • ! R • . . • . • • • . • . • • . • • . . . . . • . • • . . • • . . . • • . • • • .. . . • . . . . . o . • . . • • • . . • • . • • • • . • • . • . • • . . . . . • • . • . • . • . . . . • .. • • . e . • . . .. • • • . . . • • • . . • • . . . a . • • . . • . • . e . • • • • • . . • . • • . L m . t . . • . • R . . • . • . . e • . • • • a . . . t • • . . • • • . D . . . a • • . . . . . • Y . . • a • D . • • a • . • • . • . • . • . . . . • . . . . • . . • • • • • . . . • • . • . • • • • . .. . . • a • • . . . . . . • . . . • • • • .. . . . + . . . . . • . . .. • • . . . . . . • • • . • • • • . • . . • • . . e . . . • • . • • . . . • • • . • • • . . . • . • . • • • . . • . • . .. . .. • .. . • . • • • . . . . . . . . • . f R . . . . . . . • • • • . . . . • . . . • • . . . . . . • • • . . • • . • . • • . . . . • . . . . . • . . . • . . • . . . • • . • . . • . • • . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . e D • z • • . • w • • . . a . f . • w • . a . • • . . a • • . . . a . . • • .. • . • • • . • . . • . a . s . . . . . • . .. • . . . • . • • • . . o . • • . w . w R • • • ! e . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . m . . • . • • . D • . . • • . • . . D . • . • . . • . • • e . . . • • . . • • . • . . • • . • . R • . . • • . . . • . . a . • R • • e . • . • • . . . • • . • . • • . • . . • • • • . • • a . • . • . . • D • . • . . . . . • . . • t • • .. • . a • • o . • . • . . . . . • . . . . • . . . a • . .. . • M s . • • a • R . • . . • . . • t D . . . • . . . . • . . • D • w • • • . • • • . r . . . • . Y . • . . . • . • . • . • . . . .' m . . . ! . . • • • • . • • • • . • . . . • • • . . • o . • • . • . • • • . • • . + . . . . • • .. . • . • • • • • • • . • • • • . . . • • • • • . • • • • . • . • • . • . • . . . . . • . • • . . • s . • . . . • . • • • . • • • . • + .. • . . . . • . • . . e • • o . • . . • • • • . • • • • • . • • . . . • . . • . . . • • . . .. • • • • • • • . . . • . . Y . . . • . • . . . w . . . . e . . . . L . a a t . . . . • • . . . . . . . L . . . . . . • a D . . . . D . . .. . • . . • . . • . . • r > . • . . . . a . • • • • • . L • . . • . • • . • . e • • . • • . . . . . • . • • . . . • • • . • e . t • . . • . . . • . • a • • . • . • .. • . . . • • • • • • . • • . . . . • a • . • . • • • . . . . • . w • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . • • • Si6nat ure 11 4 ' . D E C I S I O N This is the decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton on the petition of Floyd Andrus, Jr. and Naomi A. Andrus of 81 Lake Street, Florence, Massachusetts, dated August 3, 1973, which requests a variation from the requirements of Section 11 of Chapter 44 of the City Ordinances of the City of Northampton. This matter was advertised on September 19, 1973 and September 26, 1973 and came on for hearing before us on October 10, 1973. Chairman, Charles W. Dragon, presided at the hearing joined by Board members, Cecil I. Clark and Edward E. Keefe. The petitioners were present and represented by Elizabeth A. ]Porada, Esquire. Several opponents also appeared at the hearing. After due hearing and consideration, the Board rules that the petition for variation is hereby denied, the vote on said FOLEY & MURPHY ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW 297 MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060 ruling being as follows: Concurring in said denial of petiti variation: J CHA 'S W . DR, EDWARD E. KEEFE In favor of the petition for var' tion: CLARK •..� ,I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAMPSHIRE, SS. Board of Appeals of, the City of Northampton, Massachusetts PETITION OF FLOYD ANDRUS, JR. AND NAOMI A. ANDRUS OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS FOR A VARIANCE FROM CHAPTER 44, SECTION 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS, FLOYD ANDRUS, TR. AND NAOMI A. ANDRUS STATEMENT OF CASE The Petitioners , Floyd Andrus, Jr. and Naomi A. Andrus of 81 Lake Street in Florence, Massachusetts , have filed a petition for a variance from Section 11 of Chapter 44 of the City Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, requesting permission to vary the Zoning By -Laws of the City by constructing fourteen multi - family dwelling units designated as condominiums because of their proposed form of ownership on 75.7 Acres of land belonging to the Petitioners located on the northerly side of Chesterfield Road and on the westerly side of Dimock Street in Leeds , Massachusetts . The property in question is undeveloped and consists principally of dense woods and vegetation. Almost all the property is located in a Residence A Zone with a small portion located in a Residence B Zone under the City Zoning Ordinance. The buildings shall be constructed of wood and brick materials and shall contain a total of 86 living units. Each building will vary in size and contain four to eight dwelling units apiece as indicated on the plans presented to the Board of Appeals . Each building will contain at least two one - bedroom units and the others will be all two- bedroom units. Access to the development will be by a road leading off of Chesterfield Road as shown on the plan presented to the Board which is approximately 500 feHt in length and which shall connect with a circular drive which wi 11 connect all thee living units . Roads , parking space, and utilities shall be constructed as per tht subdivision rules and regulations of the City of Northampton. Water and sewerabE will be provided from the municipal systems . The development shall be construdtf by the Petitioners . ISSUES 1. Does the Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton under the City Ordinances and the provisions of Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, have the jurisdiction to grant or deny this petition for a variance 2. If the Board of Appeals does have the jurisdiction to grant this petition, can it be found as a matter of fact and law, that a literal enforcement of the Zoning By -Law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the Petitioners and may desirable relief be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By -lraw? 1 1 s 1. if - 2 - ARGUMENT 1. The Board Of Appeals Has The Jurisdiction To Grant Or Deny the Petitioners' Application For A Variance Under Chapter 44, Section 11, Of The Zoning By -Law Of The City Of Northampton, Massachusetts. The legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granted to the Board of Appeals the power to authorize upon appeal or upon petition a Variance from the terms of the applicable zoning ordinance or by --law where, owing to condi- tions especially affecting such parcel or such building but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by -law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the appellant, and where desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by -law, but not otherwise. Massachusetts General Laws (Ter. Ed.) Chapter 40A, Section 15. I The very same provisions have been embodied in Chapter 44, Section 4B of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts. Thus, the Petitioners allege that both the Massachusetts General Court and the City Council of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts , have granted to the Board of Appeals its power to grant a variance from the terms of the applicable zoning ordinance or By -Law where the prerequisites contained in Chapter 40A, Section 15, Clause 3, may be found to exist. Thus , if the Zoning By -Law forbids a landowner to mawe a certain use of his property or sets forth other limitations with which he does not wish to comply, his only remedy short of amending the zoning ordinances is to petition for a variance. McLaughlin, Walter H. Jr., Zoning Practices in Massachusetts, Z6, Mass. Continuing Legal Education, Inc. Reference Notebooll 1970. This right being exercised by the Petitioners in the instant case has been recognized repeatedly by the Massachusetts Supreme Court although the Court f has repeatedly said that the power to vary the application of a zoning ordinance must be "sparingly exercised." Blackman v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 334 Mass. 446 (1966); Tanzilli v. Cassassa , 324 Mass. 113 (1949); and Norcross; v. Board of Appeals of Boston, 255 Mass. 177 (1926) . In the aforementioned Norcross case, which is often cited with respect to the Supreme Court's views on the authority of a Board of Appeals, the Massachusetts Supreme Court sustained a decision of the Board of Appeals of the Building Department of Boston granting to a builder the right to erect a building 155 feet in height in a local Business District where buildings of that character were restricted only to 100 feet. The Board of Appeals in that case found for the applicant on the grounds that due to its location, the locus in question was an extremely valuable one, was located within a half block of the 155 -foot height district, and was in a neighborhood which was in a rapidly changing Business District; the proposed structure was peculiarly adapted to the location; the value of the land was disproportionate to a building of any lesser height than 155 feet and the nature and occupancy of the proposed structure did not derogate from the character of the neighborhood and that the variance from the application of the act in the particular case could be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the act. The Massachusetts Supreme Court in sustaining the action of the Board of Appeals held: �J .. t - 3 - Whether the proposed building will derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning act is a question which demands insight, vision, and wisdom. It is primarily a question of fact, although it may become a question of law. The reasons stated on the record in the case at bar while not overpoweringly convincing cannot be pronounced erroneous as a matter of law. Norcross v. Board of Appeals, 255 Mass. 177 at 185 -186 (1926) . Shortly after the decision in the Norcross case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the power of the Board of Appeals of the Building Department of the City of Springfield to grant a variance to permit the alteration of an addition to a dwelling house located within a Residence B District for use as a retail store which use was prohibited within a Residence B District. In that particular case, the owner of the dwelling house several times petitioned the appropriate Plannin� Board in Springfield to amend the Zoning Ordinance so that his property would be in a "Business A" District and his petitions were denied. Then the applicant, petitioned the Board of Appeals established by the Zoning Ordinance to vary the I ordinance with respect to his property so as to permit alteration of and an additi�n to his dwelling for use as a retail store. In the zone in which he was located, Residence B, no building or premises could be used for any industry, trade, manufacturing or commercial purpose. The Board of Appeals had, however, under' the city ordinance of Springfield the power to "vary the application of this ordinance in specific cases wherein its enforcement would involve practical ! difficulty or necessary hardship and where desirable relief may be granted with substantial derogating from the intent and purpose thereof but not otherwise ". The Massachusetts Supreme Court sustained the granting of a variance by the Board of Appeals on the grounds "practical difficulty and necessary hardship ' were imposed upon the Petitioner caused by his inability to rent the property in question for residential purposes, it being in close proximity to non -- conforming 1 business premises and that the granting of the petition in no way would establish a new business section and that desirable relief could be granted without derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By- Law. " More recently, in Sherman v. Board of Appeals of Worcester, 354 Mass. 13 , 235 N.E. 2d 800 (1968), the Board of Appeals of Worcester granted a variance to a radio station and Judge Quirico of the Superior Court bench at that time sustained the authority of the Board to grant the variance. An appeal was taken to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Board of Appeals did not exceed its authority in granting a variance for a radio tower 200 . feet high on a small building to house transmitting equipment on 5.61 Acres of unimproved land in a district zoned primarily for single family residences with minimum lots of 700 square feet which also allow public service buildings, fire and police stations , pumping stations , cemeteries , educational institutions , etcd. INONVe 1..0� - 4 - In sustaining said variance, the Court considered the fact that the locus in question was at a lower elevation than other land in the area, that it was complete undeveloped , that its soil was moist and contained deposits of deep peat or silt and that said soil conditions made the locus unattractive to residential developers There was testimony in that case that houses which normally would cost $15,000 because of the soil problems of the locus would have to have $6,000 to $8,000 added to their price. The Court also considered the fact that the proposed radio tower would be located 300 feet from the nearest existing residence. It was the Board's opinion that the value of residences in the neighborhood would not be adversely affected for there would be no noise, and landscaping requirements were imposed which would protect the appearance of the locus . This variance was granted and sustained by the Massachusetts Supreme Court despite the Planning Board's adverse report and their opinion that there was a shortage of park land in the city and despite the opposition of neighbors and others on the grounds that the locus should be preserved without change. In fact, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held to rule contrary in this particular case would lead to situations similar to those considered in other cases in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the literal enforcement of a zoning amendment or zoning by -law to a particular parcel of land amounted to confis- cation of said land. In Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, 344 Mass. 547 (1962) which this Petitioner cites as being particularly applicable to the factual situation in this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the granting of a Zoning variance. permitting the erection and use in a Residence District of a filling station. In that particular case, the Petitioner purchased a 19 -Acre tract of land which was located at the time of purchase in a single- residence district. At the time of said purchase, the area was also located near a tract of land which had been rezoned for limited commercial use. Also, the tract of land was subject to two easements , one 250 feet wide and granted to Boston Edison Co. and a narrow grant for an underground pipeline. The applicant in said case had filed a petition for a zone change with the City Council for business usage. The City Council granted the applicant permission to withdraw his petition for a zone change. Subsequent thereto, the applicant applied for permission to erect and use the land as a filling station in a single- residence district. The Board of Appeals granted the variance with certain restrictions relative to fencing, hours, signs, and lighting. The members of the Waltham City Council and the Building Inspectpr appealed the decision of the Board of Appeals . The Superior Court sustained the granting of a variance and stated that the Board of Appeals had not exceeded its authority by granting a variance. In upholding the Board of Appeals , the Superior Court judge stated that the presence of high tension wires , the isolating effect of the two easements and streets , the peat deposits on the lot, the sub - street level of the land , its triangular shape and location at the intersection are all factors which must preclude any possible residential use of this lot. The judge felt that the relief could be granted by a variance without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the zoning ordinance. In this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court concurred that the Board of Appeals had not exceeded its authority and had properly exercised its functions under Chapter 40A, Section 15, Clause 3.in granting a variance to the applicant. In addition to the specific legislative grant of authority to the Board of Appeals, to vary the Zoning By -Law where the conditions of Chapter 40A, Section 15, Clause 3, are met, and the express recognition of this authority by the Massachusetts Supreme Court as cited above, numerous experts in the zoning figlc have recognized the power of the Board of Appeals to grant such a variance. See Anderson, American Law of Zoninq, Section 14.02 , Page 593; Section 14.04, Page 599; and Section 14.08 , Pages 560 through 565. Hardy, Municipal Law and 73 i, to Practice, Volume 1, Section 372, Page 409. In Rathkop`, Law of Zoninq and Planninq , Volume II , Section 39-9, 10, and 13, the author sets forth the following on the question in issue in this case: The cases in which the Courts have termed the action of a Board of Appeals an attempt to exercise forbidden legislative power are cases in which the Board of Appeals has granted a variance without sufficient evidence establishing a fundamental basis of variances , namely, that the situation in which the propertygvW*e found himself vas unique and distinct from that of neighboring owners , or where . the rule of the enabling act that a variance could be granted only where the spirit of the ordinance would be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done, was similarly not supported by evidence. Where the proof does not show that there is a hardship or that the hardship complained of is unique to the specific property with respect to which the application is made, but arises through conditions which are common to all properties in the area, an attempt by the Board of Appeals to grant a variance would be equivalent to an attempt to do just what the legislative body could do to relieve the situation by amending the zoning ordinance... In summary, when Courts say that Board of is Appeals may not exercise legislative powers, they mean that the Board may grant a variance only under the strict conditions laid down in the enabling act; otherwilse, it is legislating. Thus, it is the Petitioners' contention that the Legislature, the Supreme Cout!t of this Commonwealth, and eminent authorities in the field of zoning, all have recognized the Board of Appeals' authority to act on a petition such as this and thus , the Board of Appeals has the power to either grant or deny a variance provided they act within the statutory guidelines set forth in Chapter 40A, Section 15, i' Clause 3, and the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton. 2. That A Variance Is The Proper Remedy In This Particular Case Because the Literal Enforcement Of The Provisions Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Northampton Would Involve Substantial Hardship, Financial And Otherwise, To The Petitioners , And Desirable Felief Can Be Granted Without Substantial Detriment To The Public Good And Without Nullifying Or Substantially Derogating Ftom The Intent Or Purpose Of The Zoning Ordinance Of The City Of Northampton, Massachusetts . A. The literal enforcement of the Zoning By -Law of the City of Northampton, would impose substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to the applicant. The Petitioners submit that there are special conditions affecting this particular locus which distinguishes it from other land in the Residence A Zone in this area and that a literal enforcement of the Zoning By -Law as a result of said conditions would impose a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the applicants. The particular tract in question is undeveloped. It consists of dense woods , vegetation, marshland, meadowland, water, and steep hills and rock formations, ' It is bisected and disected by three easements . A 60 -foot high tension wire f easement runs north to south across said property cutting it off from the remainirig property owned by these developers which is of entirely different terrain. Anoth (tr 50 -foot high tension wire easement belonging to the Massachusetts Electric Co. bisects the 75.7 Acre tract of land by running in an easterly to westerly direction. Another easement runs north to south along the easterly side of the property and consists of a 50 -foot water line easement owned by the City of Northampton, Massachusetts. The division of this tract of land by said three easements, the t� dense woods and vegetation covering said tract, and the steep grade of the tracti f together with the rocky and extremely ledgy character of its soil make developmelnt for any of the uses permitted within a Residence A District set forth in Section 11, Chapter 44 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - 6 _ �.✓ prohibitive costwise . In Rodenstein v. Board of Appeals of Boston, 337 Mass. 333 (1958), the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld a variance permitting a lot of land in a congested residential section to be used for a parking lot for a filling station for which a variance had been granted. In that particular case, the judge found the land in question was largely of rock formation and that in view of said rock formation, the tract of land could not without difficulty, be developed for residential purposes . In Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, cited above, the crossing of a tract of land by easements, its size, the level of the terrain, and its location resulted in the Massachusetts Supreme Court's upholding the granting of a variance. In the Sherman case, cited above, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the granting of a variance where a large part of the tract of land was covered by peat, It is the contention of the Petitioners in this particular case, that the unusual circumstances which affect this particular parcel of land which would result in the impracticability and the prohibitive cost of development of the tract of land in question for any of the permitted usages constitute substantial hardship to the Petitioners . Thus , it is the Petitioners' belief that the rocky and ledgy character of the soil of the property in question, its steep terrain, the division of the property by three easements, two of which are high - tension power lines, and its present coverage by dense woods and vegetation would not allow any use to be permitted under the ordinance which would result in a fair and reasonable return to the owners in question and thus, this is an apt and appropriate case where the test of substantial hardship has in fact been met. B. The Granting Of A Variance In This Particular Case For The Proposed Use Would Not Result In A Detriment To The Public Good. It is the contention of the Petitioners that there is a need for this particular type of housing and form of ownership in the nature of condominiums in the City of Northampton. Today, young couples without families and older couples whose families have grown up or who have no families, wish to preserve the advantages of ownership of real estate but wish to forego the responsibility of individual maintenance of said real estate. In view of the cost of land near the heart of the city, it is almost impossible to develop said land for residential purposes. Thus, only through a plan such as this , can large tracts of land be preserved for residential use near the heart of the city and give to those who desire this type of housing the advantages of individually owned real estate near the heart of a municipality without the prohibitive responsibilities . In addition thereto, in view of the wild state of the land and its tax assessment, the land cannot be left in its natural state. This plan represents an attempt to develop only 14.3 Acres of land and to allocate approximately 64 Acres of the 75 .7 Acres of wild land for the development, thus preserving 64 Acres in the City of Northampton in its natural and open state. It goes without saying, there is a need in all communities to peserve as much as possible of their land in its natural state if the community can afford to do so. In the particular case, here is a private developer willing to allocate 64 Acres of open land near the heart of the city for perpetual preser- vation. In addition to preserving some of Northampton's open land, this preser- vation of land operates as a buffer zone around the development thus protecting the adjacent land from the development. In view of the aforementioned, it is the contention of the Petitioners that the proposed use does not have any sub- stantial detriment to the public good. See Broderick v. Board of Appeals of Boston t 1972 Mass. Adv. Sheet 633, 280 N.E. 2d 670 (1972) where the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the granting of a variance against the opposition of neighbors with respect to property values and traffic conditions where the Board felt that there was a greater need for the proposed use in that case than the conflicting evidence on the decrease in value in property or traffic congestion to be caused thereby. In the instant case, the Petitioners note that the opposition did not cite any detriment to the public good in their opposition of said variance. - 7 - C. The Granting Of Said Variance Would Not Nullify Or Derogate From The Intent And Purpose Of The 'Zoning By -Law. The Petitioners point out that the multi - family dwelling units are recognized as a permissible use in the Zoning By -Law of the City of Northampton. They are specifically provided for in a Residence B District on a special permit from the Board of Appeals . A small part of the property in question before the Board is in fact located in a Residence B Zone. However, since no part of the building of the proposed use shall be located therein, the Petitioners have of course, requested a variance. However, the Petitioners note that the proposed use is in keeping with the general residential character of the usages set forth in Section 11. The Petitioners also point out that the proposed new zoning ordinance locate such multi- family dwelling units in a Residence A Zone in which the Petitioners propose to construct said multi- family dwelling units . Thus, it could hardly be contended by the opposition that the proposed use is not in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Zoning By -Law of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts . As indicated in the Norcross case cited above, the Massachusett; Supreme Case held that whether or not the grant of said variance would nullify or derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By -Law is a question of fact. The Supreme Court said that whether a proposed use would derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning act is a question which demands insight, vision, and wisdom. In that particular case, the Supreme Court sustained a Board of Appeals decision that the grant of said variance did not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By -Law on facts which are a lot less compex- i ; ling than in the instant case. Thus , as the Supreme Court said in that particular case, whether or not the proposed use in question here is in derogation of the spirit and intent of the Zoning By -Law lies with the Board of Appeals to decide. ? As the Supreme Court stressed in that particular case, it is a question which does demand insight, vision, and wisdom. The Petitioners call upon the Board's: r insight, vision, and wisdom in this case to give serious consideration to a well conceived plan prepared by able engineers and architects for the proposed use of land involving a new concept of ownership of multi - family dwelling units, t condominiums , in the City of Northampton, when the literal enforcement of the Zoning By -Law would impose only hardship upon the Petitioners and a variance for said proposed use would not result in substantial detriment but rather an i asset to the community of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts . CONCLUSION The Petitioners submit that the Board of Appeals have within the provisions of Chapter 40A, Section 15, the authority to grant a variance in this particular ` case on the grounds that the special conditions affecting this particular parcel of land, namely, its size, location, its steep terrain, the rocky and ledgy character of its soil, the dense woods and vegetation and marshland that cover i� said tract of land, the presence of three easements which bisect and Bisect said property, including two of which being a 60 -foot and 50 -foot hightension wire I easementsisolating said tract of land from other portions of property belonging to the Petitioners, impose a substantial hardship on the Petitioners and said hardship may be remedied without substantial detriment to the public good. Instead, i. the grant of said variance will preserve for the City of Northampton 64 Acres of land in its natural state which will act as a buffer zone to protect adjacent land for this particular development and answer a need for this form of ownership of multi- family housing in Northampton. Also, the proposed use will not nullify or derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By -Law in view of the fact -8 - that the particular use is in keeping with the residential character of the neigh- borhood and the proposed use of this property for condominiums would not detract from the particular zone any more than some of the permitted usages such as churches , libraries , museums , farms , poultry farms , garden or nursery _selling, tourist homes or businesses permitted by certain professionals in the home. Further, the proposed use for said zone is recognized by a proposed zoning amendment which would allow multi - family dwelling units on certain conditions in said zone and part of said property is located in a Residence B Zone wherein multi - family dwelling units are permitted under a special permit. Thus , the Petitioners submit that this is an appropriate case for the Board of Appeals to exercise their authority under Chapter 40, Section 15 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the facts of this case substantiate the three requirements for granting a variance. The Petitioners submit that this case stands on no different footing than the case of Sherman v. Board of Appeals of Worcester, 354 Mass. 133, 235 N E. 2d 800 (1968) cited supra at rage 3 or Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, 355 Mass . 177 ( 1962) cited supra at Page 4. To find otherwise might lead to a situation of which the Supreme Court of Massachusetts warned in the Sherman case and that is that a literal enforcement of said Zoning By -Law with respect to this tract might be confiscatory. See Sherman cited above at 235 N.E. 2d 800 at 803 (1968). In conclusion, the Petitioners submit that this is an apt and appropriate case where a variance is not only permissible but also required to allow the Petitioners to make use of their 75.7 Acre tract of land. THE PETITIONERS, By Their Attorney: Elizabeth A. Porada 76 Gothic Street Northampton, Mass. The : ortha­. " E ' o, - �r - 1 of e_.__S On , "r - - r., 'in% - )'-e 3trc:et - -lore nce, - -'_f: ssac. variation riation Naomi A. An-Irus 1 L_ 0 the re-uirements of Section 11 of Cha::Iter of the Cit:, 3r_-_ of th� Cit" of '.zorthaii: on GctoL-3r 10, 197" at 7:3 in the Cit.y Co-unci", Hoom, '.i%,' H all Nor the mnton XasS. For t.1.3 F- of' constructin- 14 Condo:-.iniums con- tainin7-, 86 units en toto within a total area of 75.7 acre's of which 14 -3 arcs developed. The property is locate) on the north side of Chesterfield Road west of Dim.oci. Street. It is zoned Residence A with a small part zoned � B. Access would be from Chesterfield Road with a circular drive. Sub-division would b� in accordance with the rules and rc�-ul.itions. Th(� Zuildin:-s would be constructed of wood and brick materials and shall contain a total of 86 living units. i:a-ch building will also contain at least two - one - bedroom units an-i the rest will be two-bedroorr, units. Provision 40A Section 15 of the Massachusetts General Laws. The same provisions have been embodied in Chapter 44, Section 4B of the Revised Ordinances of the; City of Northa.cpton. Thus the -:assachusetts General Court and the City Council, have granted the Board of Appeals power to r 7rant a variance from the Ter.-ris of the Applicable zoning ordinance or By-Law where the prerequisites contained in Chapter 40A, Section 15, clause 3, may be foun,4 to exist. The size of the track is one of the largest within cit, limits. Topoi-raph of this track in this portion is of wood and vegetation. It is undeveloped anr. is in its natural state. Very hilly -high plateau an consisting of rock and ledf-,',- and the cost would be prohibitive for any other develop:-,ent. This type or develop7rent would give the petitioners a fair return for his investment. Their is and Electric Light easement and Hijh Tension wires on the property. A total of 64 acre -; would bo lt;ft of' open wood-land and would act as zo-e. The logislature r;rantod to the Board of th=e power to authori­, upon or uron petition a variance from the- t•-nrs ol , or k—law especially affcctinj* such parco or 1,iiildin• t nor n"`t_ "ho zoning district in which it is located, a 'iteral enforcement o' t ',rovi!;ions sow Flnyri Andrus et ux vs Board of Appeals of the City of F!nrthamptnn Brief of Law in opposition to petition Submitted by Abutters and Interested Persons The Petitioners have requested "a variation from the requirements of Section 11, paragraph -_ -- of C.44 of the City Ordinances of the City of Northampton" for the purpose of erecting 86 apartment units in 14 buildings to be located in a residence A zone. The below - listed abutters and interested parties are filing this brief of law to demonstrate that the Board of Appeals do not have the authority to grant the variance sought. The Board of Appeals receives its authority in matters of variances from General Laws C.4OA which reads: 3. To authorize upon appeal, or upon petition in cases where a particular use is sought for which no permit is required, with respect to a particular parcel of land or to an existing building thereon a variance from the terms of the applicable zoning ordinance or by -law where, owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel or such building but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by -law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the appellant, and where desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by -law but not otherwise. The prerequisites set out by the statute are clear and four in number; each will be considered separately. 1. CONDITIONS ESPECIALLY AFFECTING SUCH PARCEL BUT NOT AFFECTING GENERALLY THE ZONING DISTRICT. The petitioners have an affirmative burden to show that the Andrus tract has characteristics or conditions that the rest of the residence A zoned M land does not have. Toomey v Board of Appeals of Worcester, 347 mass 684. The Board heard about a number of easements which cross the premises. But these easements do not end at the Andrus boundaries. Virtually every other large tract of land in the city has some kind of easement crossing it. The Board has heard about the terrain with outcroppings of ledge. Roberts Hill is honeycombed with ledge as is Saw mill Hill across Chesterfield Road and all of the land bordering Kennedy Road. As to hilliness, the Andrus tract is more level than the other four major tracts located on Roberts Hill. About the only unique characteristic of the Andrus tract is its beauty, a feature which Mr. and Mrs. Andrus ask the Board to sacrifice so that they can avoid a financial hardship. The first statutory condition has not in fact been met. 2. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP, FINANCIAL OR OTHERWISE, TO APPELLANTS. Mr. and Mrs. Andrus purchased the 125 tract on Roberts Hill from Edna Bowles in May of 1970 for $19,000. They come to the Board some three years later for a variance because, they assert, they have a substantial financial hardship if the petition is not approved. The petitioners have not argued that their hardship is otherwise than financial. In Bruzzese v Board of Appeals of Hingham 343 Mass 421, the Supreme Judicial Court made clear that "financial hardship" does not mean loss of a chance to make a large sum of money. The petitioners have presented to the Board their plans for more than four million dollars worth of development so that they can make a "fair return on their investment." Their land was zoned residence A when they acquired it. What they are saying to the Board is this: "If this land were zoned differently now, we would make a fortune." M 1.00 The same statement could be made of numerous residence A tracts around the City. If that was what financial hardship meant the Board would have to be full time to handle its workload. In Ferrante v Board of Appeals of Northampton 345 mass 15B, the petitioner created a situation where he then would have incurred a real loss if the zoning law were strictly applied. Mr. and Mrs. Andrus have likewise created what they desire the Board to consider a hardship. Mr. Ferrante was not entitled to a variance because he spent a substantial sum of money on his cabinet shop. Mr. and Mrs. Andrus are not entitled to a variance when they purchase residence A land for $19,000 because it would be worth ten times that amount if it were zoned for apartments. See also Planninq Board of Barnstable v Board of Appeals of Barnstable 267 NE2d 923, where the precise question was answered by the Supreme Court contrary to the Andrus' position. 3. D1= SIRABLE RELIEF WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. The entire structure of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance is predicated upon the strict uses permitted in residence A zones. Any change as requested by the petitioners to permit apartments in Residence A zones will completely change the relative values of the different types of zoning classifications. The value of all the abutters' houses would be diminished and the land market in this City would be in a state of chaos. See Cary v Board of Appeals of Worcester 340 Mass 748. 4. DESIRABLE RELIEF WITHOUT NULLIFYING OR SUOSTANTIALLY DEROGATING FROM THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. It. is obvious from the petition that relief is not sought from a word or phrase or paragraph of chapter 44 Section 11. The petitioners are requesting that the entire section be varied as to their lot. They ask that Q• this B -)ard nullify Section 11 as it applies to their lot and that their land be rezoned to permit. apartments. This Board does not have such power under its variance procedure. Sullivan v Board of Appeals of Belmont 346 mass 81. (cannot change zoning lines) Shacka v Board of Appeals of Chelmsford, mass 593. (cannot change permitted uses). The planning Board of the City of Northampton has pointed out this fact to the Board of Appeals in their letter. There is annexed to this brief a list of those abutters and interested persons who oppose the grant of the requested variance. RespectFully submitted, b y Jo&O � Attorney for Irene Lashway et als objecting J M s . PETITION To: Z-.ninw 3oar. of A:peals of tr_ City 01 .-�ortI Re : .eetir_s of Cctobc-r 10, 1373: - Andrus' re for a variance construction of condcrmiinium apartment units on Chesterfield :=cad in Teeds. ie, t p tit' cners. do net feel that our o-,positio- to t e ,- -ezcn - n6 request of Floy _t�.nar ras made sifficientlly cle.- y �r to tne Zoni zoard of z. meeting of Cctober 10, 197 By signing tris netition, W .= I to make our opposition to tnis "variance known to tae Zoning Board of r_ 1 j f f���� -� // � � ,- �: yr ! 17 Address C `� .„.(�. � "v , 'l�:"d �� ���� / �' `J�,� -.�.L LL: tom\ IC I �f 9 Oil ��� ��� 71 J �,�� j.C( LC �Y r� E - i `l re IL Tff f i Y 1' _ 1� �'` 'f L CSC f / < ,13 C XL_ n ex kL f f% /ti yy Ad : -e 6s tLr � Le k f 11 :* a 1_ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS # .: FILE' . Action Permit ' -::' Variance Owner of-Record, �hT.�:.;��"._.; Parcel Nose "l .,r A Y ,�.�,.�i�� 3 �>� % �P��` , �'. 4 �,,s Applicant !''. �..kN tlr .Yek,'. ... , . Special Re it Date "bit itted w :..: : {: -� �. • ,. , 4 li j ^ .x - . b '•x5 �'� wr�`e - : Y�•'3s� .. ! ' z x_4 r f � �"�..� r: °� � t F,r °• ,y , u;, � 's , a: ear r..�.• z�.#Y� #'t'a' °- .t gt � �. >^%.,_hYy��* !'� ,'�t.'R ,+ - :�� ''.•�'`��": �`:. „•, #°x'�o� ,,�'" �^ 'L';'�'" • <'3:''� s ;�'- t +„'�* ffi' �*'`a4 •a r^t. � �,r�`.'��n, � 'ii;,� = ;r -. r _ �F ": `�^�_, . z,,�@�.,i+'�sc "�y`� ' �'�i >.'�' �a � -3; ;'��,. �; .L'�� � :.- : �•� � . r -. � �y^:, ,; `��" - c "s'-'.: { - '+^`„ ` s ., t _ + <� ;•-•'`�� .. e�, i:a.:y,,. r q'ri�,.. `: �';¢c�4 `*3 „F -a'.. z. rX> t `a S D -�;•a _ .;,�,,, -•k:• - r�g ; ++, :rr„ ^�•,�`1'f.�,l�' -x q `�� :. - �,. � r F , "*4,,, ` N, R`'- k",=.";,��•:'� ^;pg=i:� -;Y'' ''a C;:'�; ;sn -`fir: ,i4' r ,af- �;E?yk':� >'y'•:.TyE><, ��.a qe kke� s ,�; �'�;y, •'s, - •M.m ,� • Decision ' s Bate M1 . .3 ',4r <'• 4 �. o- 5k ''"'KV .1 r_ '�+�.�";Y :t'): "...`. :�- ?., na. '� -y _ w ` ! ” .4._ ?u „? -.�'. ''.mss ' # -' a i } q:. t%• as � = + �:. A" -:. ved y , �c' *°t -•- - \"- t { ! Variance Date Submitted .� '.a ;�_i ° 4��' Bearing ]late ,i.,_Oc..2.e_r 1t} s _. if ; �.ti^�;;.ri ;..5 ,. ..7 ' ��??t*� °# �. �d.. `::,.az !.y -,'.S ' - ::r ,�? �: Y ' >, ;� � ci�^""r - „ a e � � .• .: `: "» •�,�;», � - '� - - ,. ',$. s h.. 'R'. i';.' # .:a� ^ �?e'...11f . .�G d. +s,",^ ;'�� y n - `.` f4 ?.'$'�' - _ _ ' - _. ,. - ^gx `.Af ':i . .:.s y . _ �.X::. `i5;,.i'J 3� K : '_ {c�..'1'iFr t- ... '";f.' _ rv � » >, °•' }�q yr ^i;! ` ,.R' . �a. ` . Y } .+, `�^ Nom,. ,,�' '^rF x :d".Y aa= y c+�trs �':.t�" `'� ..c. - � •$ - a. - -'.y�• t r� - J' �. a �� f3 ` , p( ,, w - ,� Ns" � r y `' ±Y y y � .:n ^` _ 4 , `^ a � -� • k� sr."" '> 4'�x"� -° Comments; _ .. ,'r �• Y r '`"• r'' - i > `Fa > x r ' » i x."Y! ,'-w - � 9' s } ,.� c.a,.'an"�'s� w �•�• , a at¢ M .. S � a>' +"h'f,�i � � tt'�S �. Sc- j � wit d'4\` .'* 3 _ e � - rt � ., - "`T'x gc��k "�j��',� �`�`'�S �E" L 4 `s"`Y �," o ;`�Y r �+` r �,M ' � +Yi >�� } ;�� .: _ f= " +4 y 'H -Y�`', "'fi ' <.' ,! .,}' • ., "3• ''r; "�j' a t �' { K x� -.t Other Aetion; Ar t ,, + (�.r! t,.a�Yr .� �� t y a a `•. - j; .,y 'i� � - }� } - ,Y5 >s s _ � y } - :.t s T - y 4 � -f K � 1 r .t, � - 'a.�', - ry V i + it � `R',f 'y.` ::. ° � , t.'�,s'f,"Y-. y ?.', iF"_+w' ::;:- " ^; �, "f' *e."`+;, :n'.r . %iRw.':;.'�;.'`- .r; '. {y' �: - yr' �''`^ .�•.:t�.:ct' ':.� ... a', "� .5.' .. -. :.�`.:; ��`''' _ _ - - ':'"�i' ` :g'r' Y ,. t : - w+d . - °s: #, 4} . ; , 4..r4,rv 4 , , ,� � •g �: °'t'1'" rS,.. :`S p r y _ _ � '°ar - •.� _ �9 ._ ;'X:9!' � •.J� +� ° -.g yF., "- �' wiz' " .mot`. "+4 •a=- <-r+. - ' '�'! -' •�3':. ��*� '� - �:;�, -.. ?-,. � r e, � 3 .,X ., - 4 ! • fir, :irt,� _ ._}: °•`' ar. - _, �� ... .. .: .,:.._ ^'.fii :'t .•{�. c't1Y�� _�.,: - m ,.'��'. sc, ,,a � �„R! �a` a �• k' a. 5.=. 0, �.:.-' a a`+ h '..^r?::q :2+:�$:� ,;.e. _,.• -._. a...-.:.. ac.:' �• �e' sa:.: �=^-`. �. �. �bin;" a- F. a��,:',' ��• f, �" r:.,- sm, �.�Ri:,i.:''- :,i. ".3�'.._..�. 4 h �� /�tJ Jr•� / f.Y i.. �.%rr v� �,.- �y �� „�v :.3 v`i.��r •4 �i� t-N AV l A C. BI :l7 OV M'I'L• ALS c; : >• 11:,, l Petitl Anqkua,.Ir•. PAd nO9M . A.. c 81.Lak-A$treet. JhcenCe..Maaa • O'rtrlf:I' oi• Yxcl:u.st.s F10YSi.�p�t4lS.. told apm�� :.�AdF1�s !:ci:3L : -5. .4 � S,t M,, Florence,, Mass. Tile 1 :� *(:( ()L.Jr.' 1 i r,. C t` 1 Lr ..'.ii:' ] ti 1,0­ Jr i(­ j,: l:: il. tvact 'o ') 1iCi _i:),. o tt:@ in ;..y)Pl ic,au:e wovd.; 1 t. )t ;,i)_)I ' C.,Ui( t0 1) % ..1 L1G(1:. i 7i' ]'C'•i1...:� 31 xx^x�cxxX xx Petition 1: r::;.((.tt tR1 .......... •...... .• '•1(ail I';_ ' :1 _'2.C(`flt(, Ut xxxx%xxxx=Mx%xxx xxxxicaocxxxtAx= xxxxx�txxxxxxx�ss 3(2Ct :Lori .. X......... •... .............U: ( /: ^: t.l,! City QI'd;]!lanco :: of t C:i.ty 01' ilorthavi )t.o /l. `i'ne P.cemiscs nfTec arc oil t:l(' .... NorthCLLY. ...... (icie of. Qbesie UP10. Road SiW{X�G; Cit'.Si�'(l7'•E!i1 _., YCLr: C 1. .L .......: ... )PD ........... Uf 1 , 11r i::;:;r::t:OT :' i'1(1:1 of tilt.' G 1 ty Ui :lo ('L:: ;t npi.�) /1 al. c•;' ta:: • . . .. • .. . • ... • .. ... ... • .... • . • .. .. • ... ... . XXXxXXX: 1. xxxxx'x cX x x x� AAAIic iL DrODQSeA. XO.GOp�XrUL�.l.`� pA1ldRmlPiVM ti kth the following dimensi.ops: 104',x 28'; 136' x 28'; 168' x 28'; 200' x 28'; and 232' x 28'. Each building sil h�v �1EOM inad'e'fo'the atfachbo plan for 'a irioee particuldf de9dription e� , ir�}� s 4�? ° ra,. b Y �! i 1' 1 I j .. Residential ... ............................... ................................................. ............................... shall be RResidd�he�''A �. 'c''lb`c 'te l i' o�R es ddnce B'ana Re }cl e X but no " part s 'of'ttie 1a 'd located Resid nce�u8.s l�'�u� lea �Stt.��lt Prop. s; ed• . puii��ings� 'p�.t�tXancg,z�EF�x9� ..... in 1 1 Tf' ............................ ............................... ................................................. ............................... j. .i:,.. 1 J_ pt.ioil }i s,qr} tetp,wlihtZ,a, ot��,$�ga,gf 75 ; 7 acres ef,yvhich 14.. are,deueloped ......... ................................................. ............................... L CO81 enforcement of the provisions of the zoning :.)y -law in view of the nature, ................................................. ............................... area end topography of the land and its location would result in subitar,tial hard - ................................................................................ ship to the applicants and the proposed use is in the best interest of the community .. .. . .... ............................................................... ................. wfthout� substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the zoning vy -law. ................................................. ............................... . .. .... ...... ...... • ......... • ............. X40"%"♦ f.%-e.4. ew • T.• •A • •hw.ii..n ti tl i tOi,lCrc. _,.�.. fu;t: �tC •.� ,..,t �.. _ �;.... �,.. .. .. ;,. '�'•'�. t'' -' :. �' �... t'_ _;-..'�',. C 1 :U:)1(', 1:)r;�ti.ioil �J...'r'st: �.... .... !i'! f ?f (' :). 1 1:. _ O f a 1 .. v t'.:% 1" ._ c 'ck, t, • ”. ..,..- I„ 1 br E1re';U4''Q. 1. .:x..11 2 Jt: ..L�lC a', ilex Z oII C,1tJ t t r,7 Petitl Anqkua,.Ir•. PAd nO9M . A.. c 81.Lak-A$treet. JhcenCe..Maaa • O'rtrlf:I' oi• Yxcl:u.st.s F10YSi.�p�t4lS.. told apm�� :.�AdF1�s !:ci:3L : -5. .4 � S,t M,, Florence,, Mass. Tile 1 :� *(:( ()L.Jr.' 1 i r,. C t` 1 Lr ..'.ii:' ] ti 1,0­ Jr i(­ j,: l:: il. tvact 'o ') 1iCi _i:),. o tt:@ in ;..y)Pl ic,au:e wovd.; 1 t. )t ;,i)_)I ' C.,Ui( t0 1) % ..1 L1G(1:. i 7i' ]'C'•i1...:� 31 xx^x�cxxX xx Petition 1: r::;.((.tt tR1 .......... •...... .• '•1(ail I';_ ' :1 _'2.C(`flt(, Ut xxxx%xxxx=Mx%xxx xxxxicaocxxxtAx= xxxxx�txxxxxxx�ss 3(2Ct :Lori .. X......... •... .............U: ( /: ^: t.l,! City QI'd;]!lanco :: of t C:i.ty 01' ilorthavi )t.o /l. `i'ne P.cemiscs nfTec arc oil t:l(' .... NorthCLLY. ...... (icie of. Qbesie UP10. Road SiW{X�G; Cit'.Si�'(l7'•E!i1 _., YCLr: C 1. .L .......: ... )PD ........... Uf 1 , 11r i::;:;r::t:OT :' i'1(1:1 of tilt.' G 1 ty Ui :lo ('L:: ;t npi.�) /1 al. c•;' ta:: • . . .. • .. . • ... • .. ... ... • .... • . • .. .. • ... ... . XXXxXXX: 1. xxxxx'x cX x x x� AAAIic iL DrODQSeA. XO.GOp�XrUL�.l.`� pA1ldRmlPiVM ti kth the following dimensi.ops: 104',x 28'; 136' x 28'; 168' x 28'; 200' x 28'; and 232' x 28'. Each building sil h�v �1EOM inad'e'fo'the atfachbo plan for 'a irioee particuldf de9dription e� , ir�}� s 4�? ° ra,. b Y �! i 1' 1 I j .. Residential ... ............................... ................................................. ............................... shall be RResidd�he�''A �. 'c''lb`c 'te l i' o�R es ddnce B'ana Re }cl e X but no " part s 'of'ttie 1a 'd located Resid nce�u8.s l�'�u� lea �Stt.��lt Prop. s; ed• . puii��ings� 'p�.t�tXancg,z�EF�x9� ..... in 1 1 Tf' ............................ ............................... ................................................. ............................... j. .i:,.. 1 J_ pt.ioil }i s,qr} tetp,wlihtZ,a, ot��,$�ga,gf 75 ; 7 acres ef,yvhich 14.. are,deueloped ......... ................................................. ............................... L CO81 enforcement of the provisions of the zoning :.)y -law in view of the nature, ................................................. ............................... area end topography of the land and its location would result in subitar,tial hard - ................................................................................ ship to the applicants and the proposed use is in the best interest of the community .. .. . .... ............................................................... ................. wfthout� substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the zoning vy -law. ................................................. ............................... . .. .... ...... ...... • ......... • ............. X40"%"♦ f.%-e.4. ew • T.• •A • •hw.ii..n %W .s FORM A NORTHAMPTON, MA APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEMENT OF PLAN BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL File five completed forms and plans and one mylar with the City Clerk and the Planning Board in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.02. To the Planning Board: The undersigned, believing that the accompanying plan of his /her property in the City of Northampton does not constitute division within the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law, herewith submits said plan for a determination and endorsement that Planning Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law is not required. City of Northam 1. Applicant y ton p Print or type name Signature City Hall - 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 Address Ph 2. Owner Attorney Francis Collins Print or type name S atu e 22 Merrick Lane Northampton, MA 01060 Address Phone 3. Surveyor Heritage Surveys, Inc. CFGLt�c___ ; Print or type name Signature P.O. Box 1 - College Highway Southampton, MA 527 -3600 Address Phone 4. Deed or property recorded in Hampshire County Registry, Book 1770 & 1731 page 24 & 279 S. Lo t i,ori -fin r Parcel =���.. 1 6. Assesso Map I M 99 Date Submi d €� Board Approk�',. ., r:,, •' City Clerk: (Signature) (4/11/91) of Property:Parcel Tcel 2 = 8.112 acres, �cel 4 = 5. (6- -a �C. >&rll� 5 t�!;acres. Lot(s): D :� 6 � ' 1 i. MAY Date Planni and _. Decision ed: r. i City Cl /Kl /{ (Signature) f "vrM el y /a - /� - 3 6 // / t e t'►, . SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - - - - -- -PAGE 60 %../ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Cit,V Hall . 21 o Main Street • Nortbampton, MA o 1060 • (413)587-1266 • Fax: (413)587-1264 wayre Feiden, Director -email: p fanning @citN.northampton.ma.us - irnterrnet: wwwcitrx.northamptorn.ma.us January 20, 2000 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. 311 Chesterfield Road Leeds, MA 01053 Re: Request for Access Across Conservation Commission Property on Chesterfield Road. Dear Pat: As we told your forester, the Conservation Commission has granted permission to cross Commission -owned land on Chesterfield Road for the purposes of logging your adjacent property. At their meeting on January 10, 2000, Commission members voted to allow this request with the following restrictions: 1) No parking or storage of any equipment on City - owned land, and 2) The portion of the property used for access must be restored by filling in any ruts and planting ten native upland shrubs in the area where trees are cut. 1265. If you have any questions with regard to this matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 587- Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, Director Office of Planning & Development Enclosure planning board • conservationcommission • zoning board of appeals • yousing partnership • redevelopment autyoritrx economicdevelopment • communitsdevelopment - historic district commission •historicalcommission • northamptonGIS originalprintedoa regdedpaper .../ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF NORTT3AMPTON Cit2q Haff • 211 o Main Street - Northampton, MA o i o6 • (41131587 -1266 - E=413)587-1i64 wayreFeiden,Director • email: plan ning@c ity.northampton.ma.us - irtternet :www.cit2g.northampton.ma.us Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting January 10, 2000 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Monday, January 10, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, Second Floor City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Allan Doe, Susan Roy and William Rosen. Staff. Director Wayne Feiden and Board Secretary Laura Krutzler. Kru er informed members that Northampton Airport owner Richard Guisto would be co Ing in soon wI a Notice of Intent for the reconstruction of the runways at the airport. She sai ' ad been brought to r attention that a pile of material which had been used for compensato storage for a recent buildin roject at the airport still had not been removed. She offered write a letter to Guisto remindin of his obligation under the Order of Conditions to move the pile, and members accepted. Bill Rosen arrived at 7:30 Maronn opened the regular meetft at 7:30 p.m. At 7:30 p.m., Maronn opened the Continual College Church, Inc. to construct a paved system to provide off -street parking for c Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by area and associated stormwater management qd activities at 48 and 58 Pomeroy Terrace, Northampton, also known as Assess y . s Map 32A, cels 226, 227, 228, 230 and 268. Work will take place within the 100 -ye ood plain of the Co 7ti c ut River and within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetate etland. Andrew Kawczak of er Huntley, Jr. & Associates, Inc. remin members that he had been before the Board in tober to discuss the project - the expansion of existing parking lot off Pomeroy Terrace sociated with College Church. Because of the location Pomeroy Terrace in relation to the onnecticut River, there are flood plain issues associated with th roject. The flood plain is ap ximately one hundred and twenty -five (125) feet above sea level, rep ented by a red line on a plan, he noted. The Connecticut River is about a mile away, he said. e last time around, the design included a storm water management swale to manag� total 1 planning board • conservation commission • zoning boar o o f appeals - housing partnership - redevelopment authoritry economicdevelopment • communitydevelopment • historic district commission •historicalcommission - northamptonGIS original printed on recycled paper **400► *I.i' Maronn asked if, based on the limited study they had done of this area, Huntley felt they should make some drainage improvements on the fairground itself? Huntley said he didn't know yet. He said he did know they needed to dig out the drainage ponds to make them larger. He said he assumed they had the Commission's blessing to do this. They needed to go into the detention pond area, take a back hoe and dig down to find the level of the ground water, he said. Feiden asked the fair's time schedule for filing a Notice of Intent? Huntley said he planned to file another notice for maintenance sometime next month which would include work in the retention ponds. Maronn said he assumed that once the storm drain study was complete, they would be coming in with a new Notice of Intent to upgrade the maintenance plan for the storm drainage system and for proposed improvements to the storm drainage system. Feiden noted that because he could not find authorization for work in the track area, material removed from the retention pond should not count for compensatory storage. Maronn noted they had mentioned beefing up the access roads as part of the new permit. Huntley said he would talk to Ray and see what they planned to do in that area. Maronn said they would review the material submitted. Members thanked Huntley Roberts Hill Conservation Area Logging Access Request. Feiden informed members that Pat Melnik was going to have his property logged and had requested permission to use the City's existing curb cut on Chesterfield Road for access to his property. (The Roberts Hill Conservation Area has a small amount of frontage on Chesterfield Road with a small curb cut, he noted.) He noted the alternative would be for Melnik to create a new curb cut onto Chesterfield Road, which wouldn't be the most beautiful thing in the world. The disadvantage to the City is that they would lose four trees and get temporary ruts, he pointed out. He said he thought it made sense because if they didn't allow it they would lose more trees along Chesterfield Road. Roy said she would be concerned that it be agreed that none of the skidder contractor people leave their equipment on [Commission - owned] property for any period of time. They could cross it but not store it there for any period of time, she clarified. Members agreed they also wanted them to restore the area they cut with shrubs. Roy moved to allow the request with the caveats as discussed. Rosen seconded. The motion passed unanimously 4:0. 9 tic ` \ k m ih 0000-01 Ilk a 5 A ............. i t ,♦ a ,- 9 1116 -2 i jjftl 7 � it '^` let 7Y �I 1 v I Ll : r