10-003 App. to Northampton ZBA January 4 19881%wwl -.011
Do Not Write In These Spaces Application Number: _
. t,, 4 G; 1-A Pop PH Recd. ZB A Map(s) Parcel (s)
gy u Date gY v v Date Date t. Date � By Date
` 1
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOAR[
. •...- -eft
1
F:
Name of Applicant
Address 362
Owner of Property same j;AN
Address J
t4p LOO
3. Applicant is: X] Owner; El Contract Purchaser; El Lessee; ❑ TenartT in Possession
4. Application is made for:
VARIANCE from the provisions of Section 2.1 page 2 -11 of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton. Definition of lot width as amended July 16, 1987.
,SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
;OTHER:
5. Location of Property 362 Kennedy Road, Leeds , being situated on
the easterly side of Kennedy Road Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 10 , Parcel (s) 3
6. Zone RR
7. Description of proposed work and /or use; Applicants seek to divide their existi
113,879 square foot lot into two lots containing 53,865 square feet and
60,014 square feet, respectively, which conform with all dimensional
requirements except the definition of lot width which requires that at
n o point between the front lot line and the rear of the structure that
lot shall have a width less than the minimum lot width.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; ❑Yes ❑ No
(b) Site plan: LXAttched ❑ Not Required
etrTment to t
e a
1 u ers (see instructions; list orr reverse sloe of tormt. purpose of the :6ons.ng uras.nance.
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to 4est of y kn
November 25 1 /;ice.
Date 987 A pplicant's Signature
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: The shape of the lot which narrows
30.7 feet over its depth meets or exceeds all the requirements of the
z oning ordinance to divide the existing lot into two lots except the
definition of lot width. The literal enforcement of the zoning ordinanc
Assessor's Map
11. List of Abutters: Address ..� Sheet No. Parcel
1,c'h aries N & Mildred Brooks 332 Kennedv Road 9 4
M.3 Mo.
3.
Inc.
4. n,,, l A u 7aanattP c' C,rn c - ll. _ Kepjuac�� RnAd 9 5
170 Audubon Road
5 Robert A. & Ann M. Borawski P Box 301 10 1 _
6 -Norman E. & Carol A. Gougeon 401 Kennedy Road 10 2
7 Wendell S. & Marilyn D. Roberts 357 Kennedy Road 10 4
8 Joseph C. & Nancy W. Dickinson 311 Kennedy Road 10 5
170 Audubon Road
9 Robert A. Borawski P.O. Box 301 10 20
10 Ann M. Borawski P.O. Box 301 10 19
64 Kennedy Road
,,.Peter L DeRose Mail Adc1rPs.5 28 Pmapect Ave- 14 6
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
JAN t;
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
(Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
P WP
New"
..r/
i
I INC" = 50 FEET
362 KENNEDY ROAD 110kTHOMP10I1 - DISK;
N
26
co 4;//- 7- 1C
1797
3,
k
a9
4
-- -
G
V O.
S
7
.
5
24
21 19
U
lb
Z�
.�
4 H
\•
22
Zz /? - 1•
L TL OlEl 6
P,
14 ee
0
d
'S. 414-
3•R � o
�o
o.
<
1 1
lo
�\
..- - - -- - - -
12
Do Not Write In These Spaces
N ftwl
Rec'd. B. 1. Checked Filed Fee Pd
r000
Application Number: -
Rec'd. ZBA Maps) Parcel(s)
ey gate ey pate pate Amt. Date By pate
7; �,� I'
AN 4
ARPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
1. Name of Applicant Nelson E. Nordcauist and Doris C. Nordquist
Address 362 Kennedy Road. Northampton (Leeds) , MA
2. Owner of Property s ame
Address
3. Applicant is: ®Owner; ❑Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
xD VARIANCE from the provisions of Section 6.2 page 6 - 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton. Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations
Minimum side setback
ESPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
❑OTHER:
5. Location of Property 362 Kennedy Road, Leeds , being situated on
the easterly side of Kennedy Road Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 10 , Parcel (s) 3
6. Zone RR
7. Description of proposed work and /or use; A "l i r an-I-c harp filed a separate peti tion
fo a variance from the provisions of Section 2.1 Definition of Lot Widt
If the variance is granted, the applicants wish to maintain the existing
im =age on the home lot which is located 8.11 feet from the'new side lot line
at its closest point. The ordinance provides for a side lot line requir
merit of feet.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; ❑Yes ❑ No
(b) Site plan: ❑ Attched ❑ Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: The shape of the lot requires that the
new division line creating two lots be located so as to cause the existi
gar age to violate the side lot requirements The literal enforcement of the
zon ing ordinance involves substantial hard hi]2 to the a1212licant. which d oes
not affect generally the Zoning Di s ri ct _ Thp granti of i rP =nPGt will n
be a detriment to the ublic good and will not derogate from the intent and
� instr u2t G � form).
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to th�,best of my now e Ve,,
November 25, 19 8 7 -
Date A pplicant's Signature
' G
Assessor's Map
11. List of Abutters: I-ftw Address � Sheet No. Parcel '
1 Charles N & Mildred Brooks 332 Kennedy Read 9 4
2
Donald H. & Mona H. Sprecker
400 Kennedy
Road
9
6
3
Berkshire Electric Cable Co.,
River Road
9
3
4
5
6
C.
Donald R. & Jeanette G. Gougeon
Robert A. & Ann M. Borawski
Norman E. & Carol A. Gougeon
317 Keened
Audubon
P.O. Box 301
401 Kennedy
Road
Road
Road
9
10
10
5
1
2
7.
Wendell S. & Marilyn D. Roberts
357 Kennedy
Road
10
4
8
Joseph C. & Nancy W. Dickinson
311 Kennedy
Road
10
5
9
Robert A. Borawski
170 Audubon
P.O. Box 301
Road
10
20
10
Ann M. Borawski
P.O. Box 301
10
19
11
Peter L. DeRose Mail Address:
64 Kennedy Road
28 Prospect Ave.
14
6
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
AA
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
(Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
I INCH 50 FEET 06V KFNNIr.I)Y ROAD NORTNANPTON - I)TSk: 5
N --
<b
S
,c/F&WETc MS
�� z9
q
�p �
j .6 - -
�
S I C
ti
24
� � 19 Ai
22 Jo
\a
S, 1S 6
1_
\
14
�B
v3p` a `Z, `v �� C'
�
� 1 • 111 . -_ —__- .
- S
i \ 2
U
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
u
At a meeting held on February 17, 1988, the Zoning Board of Appeals
of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to GRANT the Apnlication of
NELSON & DOROTHY NORDQUIST for a Variance under the provisions of Section
6.2. Page 6 -2 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of
maintainine a earaee situated on a lot that violates the side setback
requirements at nroperty located at 362 Kennedv Road, Northampton, MA
(RR Zone). Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter
Laband, and Irene David.
The Findings were as follows:
1. The Variance reauested is for a specific parcel of land at 362
Kennedv Road, Northampton, MA and an existing building on
said land.
2. There are circumstances relating to the shave of said land
that especially affect it, but do not generallv affect the
zoning district in which it is located.
3. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial
financial hardship to the Petitioners, in that they relied
upon an incorrect frontage measurement as recorded on their Deed
,i to said property, and a similar error on the Assessor's Maps,
j as a basis for acquiring said property.
4. The reauest, if granted, will not be a substantial detriment
to the public good, nor will it substantially derogate from the
intent and purpose of the ordinance, since the impingement on
the side setback is less than two feet on a 175' dimension.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Dr. Peter Laband
Irene David
U
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on February 17, 1988, the Zoning Board of Appeals
of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to GRANT theADplication of
NELSON & DOROTHY NORDQUIST for a Variance under the provisions of Section
2.1, Page 2 -11 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance for the Durpose of
dividing an existing building lot into two lots which will have a width
less than the minimum required width at property located at 362 Kennedv
Road, Northampton, MA (RR Zone). Present and voting were Chairman
Robert C. Buscher. Dr. Peter Laband, and Irene David.
The Findings were as follows:
1. The Variance reauested is for a specific parcel of land at
362 Kennedv Road, Northampton, MA.
2. There are circumstances relating to the share of said land
that especially affect it, but do not generally affect the
zoning district in which it is located.
3. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial
financial hardship to the Petitioners, in that they relied
upon an incorrect frontage measurement as recorded on their Deed
to said property, and a similar error on the Assessor's Maps.
as a basis for acquiring said property.
4. The request, if granted, will not be a substantial detriment
to the Dublic good, nor will it substantially derogate from the
intent and purpose of the ordinance, since both lots far exceed
all other dimensional reauirements for the zone.
Robert L. Buscher, Chairman
Dr. Peter Laband
Irene David
`r
:Northampton
.February 11,
Page Four
Planning Board
1988
... "
for the purpose of constructing an extension t ing,
.nonconforming structure at property locat_ Main Street,
Northampton, MA. Based upon eviden ed in the companion
case, Mr. Herlihy moved we re approval of the requested
:Finding on the basis e` improvements do not create a
situation that is - iztially more detrimental to the
neighborhood existing condition. Mr Jacincki seconded
NELSON AND DORIS NORDQUIST'S Application for two Variances came
up for consideration. Both requests involve the creation of two
]building lots from one existing lot, with the resultant problems
of the lots being technically too narrow, and a garage on one lot
violating the side setback. The Applicants last year "swapped
homes" with a daughter, and moved to the house on the property in
question. They wish to divide their large lot for the purpose of
diving another daughter the newly- created building lot. Both
lots well exceed the 40,000SF required in the RR Zone, both lots
have adequate frontage, but they narrow by 30' at the rear line,
so that literal enforcement of the width requirement makes it
impossible to divide the lot legally. All of the discussion
revolved around two issues; Hardship, and Lot Size vis a vis the
proximity to the reservoir.
Hardship: Messrs. Smith, Beauregard and Crystal had a
problem finding a hardship that met the literal requirements of
the Ordinance. Atty. Growhoski said that since the Applicants
originally made their plans to divide the lot, the City added a
"quirky" width requirement, a "floating definition" of width.
Mr. Smith replied that the division would have created
unacceptable lots even under the old requirements. Mr.
Andrikidis agreed, and Atty. Growhoski came around as well. Mr.
Herlihy, the Site Inspector, supports the Variance request, and
feels that literal enforcement is ridiculous. Atty. Growhoski
felt that what the Applicants are trying to do is compatible with
the neighborhood, the flaws are very minor, and this is the only
lot in the neighborhood with this unique problem. Mr. Smith
admitted that the question of hardship is one of "relativity."
Mr. Andrikidis stated that the legislative intent of the "width"
law was not to apply to this type of instance, that it was
directed at a "different type of offending lot." Coun. Brooks
supports the Applicants.
Lot Size Relative to Water Supply: VCh. Mendelson felt we
"have aquifer problems - -this is close enough to the reservoir to
fall under Ward Motts' 80,000SF aquifer lot." Mr. Herlihy felt
that the two divided lots are large, 54,000 SF and 60,000 SF, and
" Motts isn't law yet." VCh. Mendelson brought up Mr. Hathaway's
voluntary willingness to comply with the 80,000 SF lot, but Dr.
Beauregard said in that case we were talking 17 lots, and here
�r
Northampton Planning Board
February 11, 1988
Pa ge Five
only two. Someone mentioned that the Motts study related only to
aquifers and not reservoirs.
Mr. Herlihy moved the Board recommend approval of the
Variance for lot width. Mr. Jasinski seconded. Dr. Beauregard
asked if abutters have an opinion, but no one responded. The
motion fails 3 -2 (Herlihy and Jasinski). Mr. Crystal moved we
recommend denial because the request fails the Hardship test. Dr.
Beauregard seconded and the motion passed 3 -2 (Herlihy and
Jasinski).
__ _ _
RO$RRT" ;AYOTTE' S . Application = for = a - = Special 'Permit "u
provisions of Section 9.3 , Page _9 =2 of -- the Zoning Ordina of
the City of Northampton for the purpose of con stru ng 22
apartment units in a zone which does not permit mu - family
dwellings, at property located at 110 Oak Street, rthampton,
MA. Briefly, the history of this Application goes ack to 1978,
when the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Speci Permit to Mr.
Ayotte to build 22 units. That decision was ppealed, but was
upheld by the Court in 1981. Because the ri is granted by the
Special Permit were not exercised within 8 months (due to 26%
mortgage money, said the Applicant), the Special Permit lapsed.
The Applicant is "grandfathered" fo the 22 units, since the
multi- family prohibition was adopted ubsequent to 1981. the
question here now involves a ension of a pre- existing,
nonconforming use, and whether o not it is substantially more
detrimental to the neighborh than what is in place. The
current Application was befor the Planning Board in November,
1987, but discussion was t led to allow time for the Applicant
to present more detailed a sneering plans.
Applicant is here t is evening represented by Atty. Paul
Boudreau, of South Ha ey, with a scaled -down plan involving 16
units in a very dif rent configuration. There are now three
duplexes at the Oa Street entrance to the property, which Atty.
Boudreau describes s "fitting into the existing character of Oak
Street." At e westerly end of the project is a ten -unit
building. All units have garages (duplexes attached, ten -unit
underneath). There is screening and - shrubbery, with more
proposed to creen the Oak Street side. There is a parking lot
for visi rs. Atty. Boudreau explains the reduction from 22
units t 6 is because of the Applicant's sensitivity to the
neighb rhood, and a desire to be more compatible
Mr. Jasinski says this will be more detrimental, and change
the character of the neighborhood because sewer problems exist on
Oak Street now, and 16 more units can only make things worse.
Councilor LaBarge comes forward and hands out to all Board
members and Atty. Boudreau a letter from Peter J. McNulty, Sr.,
Lomn
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Appeals
R. J. Pascucci, Planning Board Secretary
FROM:
SUBJECT: Nelson and Doris Nordquist -Two Applications for
Variances at 362 Kennedy Road
DATE: February 16, 1988
FILE:
At the February 11, 1988 Meeting of the Northampton Planning
Board, it was voted 3 -2 to recommend DISAPPROVAL of the
Applicant's requests for two Variances -one for failure to meet
the Width requirement of lots in the RR Zone, and one for a
garage that violated the side setback, both recommendations based
on the feeling of a majority of the sitting members (3 -2 vote)
that the requested Variances failed to meet the "hardship" test.
\r -ftwoo
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
February 17, 1988
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7:30 p. m. on
February 17, 1988 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski
Municipal Building to conduct a Public Hearing on the Application
of Nelson and Doris Nordquist for a Variance under the provisions
of Section 2.1, Page 2 -11 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance for
the purpose of dividing an existing building lot into two lots
which will have a width less than the minimum required width, and
for a second Variance under the provisions of Section 6.2, Page
6 -2 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of
maintaining a garage situated on a lot that violates the side
setback requirements, both at property located at 362 Kennedy
Road, Northampton, MA (RR Zone). Present and voting were Chm.
Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and Irene David.
Chm. Buscher read the Legal Notice as published twice in the
Daily Hampshire Gazette, and read appropriate Sections of the
Zoning Ordinance. He also read a communication from the Planning
Board which stated that, at the Board's February 11, 1988
Meeting, both Variance requests were denied by a 3 -2 vote based
on a feeling of the Board that the requested Variances failed to
meet the "hardship" test.
Atty. Thomas Growhoski appeared for the Applicants. He presented
photographs of the property and copies of the Assessor's Maps to
the Board members. He stated that in April, 1987, the Applicants
exchanged their former home in Leeds for their daughter's
property (the subject property) on Kennedy Road. Their reason
for doing so was to create another building lot for their other
daughter out of the large single lot they now owned. Based on
the dimensions as recorded in the Deed, they had 378' of frontage
on Kennedy Road, more than enough to allow division into two
lots. The Applicants arranged for a survey, which showed the
total frontage to be 340 The way the division was planned, the
Applicant's lot became 7' shy on width, and the newly created lot
3 The lots easily met all other dimensional requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Atty. Growhoski argued that this lot is unique in the area, its'
shape affecting these parcels but not generally affecting the
Zoning district in which they are located. He further argued
that literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create a
hardship in several ways:
1) The Nordquists swapped homes, intending to divide a lot
which, based on the description in the Deed, and on the
Assessor's Maps was properly and legally divisible.
2) In Northampton in 1988, to not allow the creation of a
building lot to provide affordable housing, because the
lot is 3' short on a 175' dimension, creates a hardship.
Atty. Growhoski further submitted that granting the Variances
would not be a substantial detriment to the public good, nor
1%0101 ..vo`
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
February 17, 1988
Page Two
would it derogate from the intent of the Ordinance since he felt
the legislative intent of the Ordinance was to prevent the
creation of grossly irregular lot shapes, whereas these two lots
are almost perfect rectangles and are in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. In a Zone where 40,000 SF lots
are required, the total square footage of these two lots amountq
to 113,000 SF.
The Board clearly had ambivalent feelings, since the lots
complied 950 of the way, with minor faults, and were not out -of-
character with the neighborhood. Chm. Buscher called for
proponents (none in audience) and Opponents (no abutters
appeared). Councillor Brooks, in the audience, voiced his
approval of the two requests.
Dr. Laband moved the Public Hearing be closed. Mrs. David
seconded, and the Motion passed unanimously. Dr. Laband felt the
"transgressions" were minor. The Ordinance was written to insure
the land we have is employed to the greatest social benefit.
This parcel, left as one lot, is a waste of precious land. To
deny the Variances flies in the face of everyone's expressed
desire to provide reasonably priced housing in Northampton.
Literal enforcement would be a hardship to the Applicants, and to
proper land use in the city. He voted to approve the width
Variance. As to the garage violating the side setback, it is an
accessory structure requiring a ten -foot setback - -it has 8.1 feet
of setback, and Dr. Laband felt the difference of less than two
feet was not worth discussing, and he would vote to approve that
Variance request as well. Mrs. David agreed with Dr. Laband.
Chm. Buscher agreed that the intent of the Ordinance is not
violated; that this is essentially a "large- parcel neighborhood,"
but the Assessor's Map shows lots in the area that do not meet
minimum square -foot requirements. Chm. Buscher "reluctantly"
went along with his colleagues, with the condition that this is
p urely a Variance from Sections 2.1 and 6.2, and not a Variance
from minimum required frontage.
Dr. Laband moved for approval of both Variance requests, Mrs.
.David seconded, and the Motion passed unanimously.
Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci,
:Board Secretary.
r�
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
r...
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NORTHAMPTON, MASSAGHUSE_TTt 1060
February 24, 1988
TO: NELSON & DOROTHY NORDQUIST, 362 KENNEDY RD., NORTHAMPTON, MA
AND THEIR ABUTTERS
Pursuant to the provisions of the General Laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is
hereby given that a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of
the City of Northampton was filed in the Office of the City Clerk
on February 24, 1988 granting two Variances to Nelson and Dorothy
Nordquist, relative to the division of one building lot into two
lots which will have a width less than the minimum required
width, and relative to maintaining a garage situated on a lot so
as to violate the required side setback requirement.
If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed in
Superior Court within 20 days of the date the decision was filed
in the City Clerk's Office.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
S000-
-"./
- - - THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS -- -- -- - -
NORTHAMPTON
City or Town
BOARD OF APPEALS
Date: FEBRUARY 24
Certificate of Granting of Variance or Special Permit
(General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11)
The Board of appeals of the City or Town of NORTHAMPTON
, 1988
hereby certifies that IVariance gr6midtounk has been granted
To
NELSON AND DOROTHY NORDQUIST
Address
362 KENNEDY ROAD
City or Town NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060
affecting the rights of the owner with respect to land or buildings at
362 KENNEDY ROAD, NORTHAMPTON, MA
And the said Board of Appeals further certifies that the decision attached hereto is a true and
correct copy of its decision granting said variance — special permit, and that copies of said
decision, and of all plans referred to in the decision, have been filed with the planning board and
the city or town clerk.
The Board of Appeals also calls to the attention of the owner or applicant that General Laws,
Chapter 40A, Section 11 (last paragraph) provides that no variance or special permit, or any ex-
tension, modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the
certification of the town or city clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has been
filed in the office of the city or town clerk and no appeal has been filed or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the registry of deeds for the county
and district in which the land is located and indexed in the grantor index under the name of the
owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for such recor-
ding or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant.
C irman
Clerk
If the rights of a Variance granted under the provisions of Section 10,
Chapter 40A, M. G. L. are not exercised within one year of the date of
the grant of such Variance, they shall lapse and may be reestablished onlv
after notice and a new hearing pursuant to Section 10, Chapter 40A, M.G.L.
FORM 1094 HOBBS &WARREN. INC.. REWSEO 1978