31A-035 (3) '21h -t3,5
Do Not Write In These Spaces Application Number: /77
Red'd. B.I. Checked Filed Fee Pd. Reo'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcel(s)
By
ode By Date J Date Amt Dare By Date136.00 31 4 35363/y
t r`I3tJt
APPLICATION.1S_'tEREBY MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
Narita of Applicant NORPEW'tPT(X1l PINE REST, INC.
Address 5 Franks i n Street, Northampton, Massachusetts ..._.._ _...
Owner of Property Northampton Pine Rest, Inc.
Address 5 Franklin Street, Northampton, Massachusetts
3. Applicant Is: -.XOwner; -Contract Purchaser; OLessee: -.Tenant in Possession.
1. Application is made for:
12 see attached Exhibit "A"
x VARIANCE$rom the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
-:SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section_ page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
OTHER:
5. Location of Property 211 Elm Street, Northampton, MA , being situated on
the Nort easterly side of Elm Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No., 31A , Parcel(s) 35, 36, 37
6. Zone URB ....... ....
7. Description of proposed work and for use;
Continuous caanitment of use of all parcels concerned to existing uses in all
respects, The intent is to create a new parcel to Include the building
designated as 211 Elm Street.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; Eves iN No
(b) Site plan:K Attched E.Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based:
See attached Exhibit "B"
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12, I hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge.
N,g r'+rr,r re, r. (' r - r .l.✓c.
Dateireri72... /� � Applicant's Signature .5-2-11.2€ ZZ ' 7 L �l2
n
ooup
Idp
11. List of Abutters: Address Sheet No, V parcel
1 North Hatfield Realty, Inc. 229 Elm Street 31A-14
Mao. ins R. ess - S-po -., 'o i 'a ie •, 'o 1..
2. Irene F. DePaola & Louise E. 225 Elm Street 31A-15
Jeffway
3 Bruce M. Fogel 18 Franklin Street 31A-16
Os ar David & Miriam Usher 21 Franklin Street 31A-32
Chrisman
5 Eric Montagne Beekman & 15 Franklin Street 31A-33
Faith C. Foss
6. Florence H. Bruce 7 Franklin Street 31.A-34
7, Olive L. Copeland 205 Elm Street 31A-38
8. Richarsd.._P. & Joy M. Unsworth 197 Elm Street 31A-39
g, Richard R. Rescia 277 Crescent Street 31A-42
10. Nonie F.. Stramese 273 Crescent Street 31A-43
t1 Amelia Ripa & Anna CaMposeo 267 Crasnnt Street 31A-44
12 Donald R. Warburton 196 Elm Street 31A-68
i3 John F, & Victoria C. Qlatek 206 Elm Street 31A-69
14 Paul R, & Sally R. Evans 210 Elm Street 31A-70
15 Virginia L. Christie 21.8 Elm Street 31A-71
Mailing Address-fib North P4th Street, Newport, PA Irut4
16. Bernard J. & Mary Rose Cobbo222 Elm Street 31A-72
17, Chester A. & Edith A. Barwikoski 234 Elm Street 21A-73
18„_. Robert W. Jeffway, Jr. , 8 Washington Avenue 31A-208
19. Murray J. & Jean V. Kiteley 25 Harrison Avenue 31A-209
20. Charles:; Hay & Janet Mix 20 Harrison Avenue 31A-230
_He mugger ...
21. Samuel & Alice Chornesky 14 Harrison Avenue 31A-231
22 Janice Wood Wetzel 11 Kensington Avenue 31A-232
23 Stanley M. & Dorothy Elkins 17 Kensington Avenue 31A-233
24. Russell. A. & Constance W. Bishop 253 Crescent Street 31A-327
25. Planning Board of 'limn of Northdlupton
26 Planning Board of Town of Hadley
27. Planning Board of Tam. of Hatfield
28. Planning Board of 1110ibLOtEiIliamsburg
29. Planning Board of `toaii of.Eas}_hanlptan
30. Planning Board of Town of Westhampton t. ;i �9J• 1
(Attach additional sheets, 2 necessary) -
CITY OF NORTHAMP'CN, MASSACHUSI:l'Ib
zaNING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY HALL, NORIHAMPICN, MASSACHUS1rib
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHMENT 20: Application to the City of Northampton, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Northampton Pine Rest, Inc. for Variances
Attachment to Itan 4:
Twelve Variances are being sought in connection with the
attached application described and specified as follows:
1. Variation from the requirements of Section 6.4
(subdivision of lot under cannon ownership) of the
zoning ordinance of the City of Northampton as indi-
cated on page 6-5. Reference is made to the proposed
subdivision as set out on a plan of land entitled
"Plan of Land in Northampton, Massachusetts, surveyed
for Northampton Pine Rest, Inc. , dated March 5, 1981,
by Abner Huntley, Sr. & Associaties, Inc. , a copy
of which is attached to this application.
The following six (6) items relate to the property at
5 Franklin Street, designated as Lot B on the Plan referred to above.
2. Variation frau the requirements of Section 6.2
(frontage) of the zoning ordinance of the City of
Northampton as indicated on page 6-2.
3. Variation from the requirements of Section 6.2
(front setback) of the zoning ordinance of the City
of Northampton as indicated on page 6-2.
4. Variation fran the requirements of Section 6.2
(silo setbacks) of the zoning ordinance of the City
of Northampton as indicated on page 6-2.
5. Variation from the requirements of Section 6.2
(maximum building coverage) of the zoning ordinance
of the City of Northmapton as indicated on page 6-2.
6. Variation from the requirements of Section 6.2
(maximum floor area ratio) of the zoning ordinance
of the City of Northampton as indicated on page 6-2.
7. Variation frau the requirements of Section 6.2
(minimum open space) of the zoning ordinance of the
City of Northampton as indicated on page 6-2.
The following three (3) iters relate to the property at
211 Elm Street, designated as Lot C on the Plan referred to above.
8. Variation frau the requirements of Section 6.2
(rear yard setback) of the zoning ordinance of the
City of Northampton as indicated on page-.6-2..
[Though reference to Section 6.8-4(c) is Marls relative
to allowed projections into setbacks.]: -
. Continued . .
Continued . . . . EXHIBIT "A"
9. Variation frau the requirements of Section 6.2
(maxinmrn floor area ratio) of the zoning ordinance
of the City of Northampton as indicated on page 6-2.
10. Variation from the requirements of Section 6.2
(minimum open space) of the zoning ordinance of the
City of Northampton as indicated on page 6-2.
The following two (2) items relate to the property at
219 Elm Street, designated as Lot A on the Plan referred to above.
11. Variation flu() the requirements of Section 6.2
(maximum floor area ratio) of the zoning ordinance of
the City of Northampton as indicated on page 6-2.
12. Variation from the requirements of Section 6.2
(rear setback) of the zoning ordinance of the City of
Northampton as indicated on page 6-2.
CITY OF NORPHAMP'1CY1, M?SSACHUSE:1'1b
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY HALL, NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSH185
EXHIBIT "B"
ATTACBAnNT TO: Application to the City of Northampton, Zoning Ward of Appeals
RE: Northarcpton Pine Rest, Inc. for Variances
Attachment to Item 9:
Statement of reasons upon which application is based.
I . Proposal
The desired result which the applicant, NORTHAMPTON
PINE REST, INC. , hereinafter referred to as APPLICANT , is seeking
to achieve is to subdivide the parcel of land shown on the plan
of land, referred to in attachment A to this application for
variances , into the three (3) parcels of property designated thereon
as Parcels A, B, and C. As part of this desire, the APPLICANT
has contracts for the purchase and sale of Parcels B and C to
ALFRED G. MARTINBEAULT and ROBERT A. BORAWSKI , respectively,
which Agreements are contingent upon the allowance of the applied
for Variances. The Variances are necessary by virtue of the
fact that the three (3) parcels of land, designated on the
Northampton Assessor' s Maps as Lots 35 , 36 , and 37 , on Map 31-A,
have been brought into common ownership over the period of years
between 1966 and 1974 , and as such , are subject to being treated
as a single parcel of land pursuant to Section 6 . 4 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The attempt to have this single parcel subdivided
into three (3) parcels , each similar to the original three (3)
parcels , is intended to create parcels of land for each of the
three (3) distinctive uses which this lot is being put to at
this time.
II . Background
As indicated above, the property in question consists
of three (3) lots which had originally been purchased between 1966
and 1974 , and are shown on the Northampton Assessor' s Map 31-A,
as Lots 35 , 36 , and 37 . Lot 35 is entirely devoted to the property
referred to as 5 Franklin Street. This parcel (31-A/35) was
acquired on March 15, 1966 , in deed recorded in Hampshire County
Registry of Deeds , in Book 1481 , Page 370. At the time of acquisition
in 1966 , and ever since , the property has been used as a nursing
home. In 1969 , a permit was secured for the addition to the
nursing home (see the proposed plan of land attached to this
application) , which addition was built on what was , at that time ,
the rear of other land owned by the APPLICANT, designated as
Lot 37 , on Map 31-A. The enlarged structure has i at. all times ,
and continuously, been used as a nursing home.
f : t u.
-2-
Exhibit "B" Continued . . .
The Lot numbered 37, on Map 31-A, is primarily de-
voted to a multi.-family residence, commonly referred to as
211 Elm Street, Northampton, Massachusetts , and was acquired on
October 28 , 1966 , by deed recorded in Hampshire County Registry
of Deeds , Book 1496, Page 595. As indicated above, the nursing
home addition was put on the rear of this original parcel in
1969 . At all times from the date of the acquisition , and con-
tinuously, the building on this parcel has been put to the same
use as it now is, that being a multi-family residential dwelling.
Lot 36 , on Map 31-A, is entirely devoted to residential
rental use and was acquired on January 2 , 1974 , by deed recorded
in Hampshire County Registry of Deeds , Book 1732 , Page 39. This
lot, and the building thereon, has been used continuously, and
for the same use as it is now put, since the date of acquisition.
The building on this parcel has been continuously referred to as
219 Elm Street.
These lots were acquired with a view toward an
ultimate expansion of the nursing home, originally located on
the 5 Franklin Street parcel. Attempts consistent with these
plans , and based on State regulations , relating to Life-Safety
codes, were initiated in 1975. This reference to the Life-Safety
codes relates to safety procedures and requirements, which are
necessary for nursing home operation. These regulations required
certain updated safety measures which were difficult, if not
impossible, to incorporate within an existing structure such as
the original nursing home. Over those five (5) years following
1975, efforts proceeded towards gaining the necessary approvals
to use the property owned by the APPLICANT, on the corner of
Elm and Franklin Streets , to the use desired, which would involve
the expansion of the nursing home to include a building which
utilized the entire corner lot.
Recent revisions in the State licensing regulations ,
relative to these Life-Safety requirements , have permitted the
licensing of nursing homes , in older buildings, by means of al-
ternative standards to those which were previously applied to
newer homes and older homes alike. Through this procedure, the
APPLICANT is now able to continue the operation of the nursing
home in the existing facility without the need for expansions ,
as previously sought.
The APPLICANT concedes that the three (3) separate
lots , as noted on the Assessor' s Maps , are, for the purposes of
the Zoning Ordinance, in common ownership. It is its purpose
-3-
Exhibit "B" Continued . .
and goal to re-establish three (3) lots for each of the three (3)
buildings located on this corner parcel . In attempting to do this ,
the APPLICANT is seeking to divide the lots in such a way as to
most clearly reflect the current usage required by each of the three
(3) buildings . Lot 36 , or 219 Elm Street , would remain as it had
been originally acquired in 1974 . Lot 37 would be divided, as in-
dicated on the attached plan, to dedicate a portion of the lot
originally acquired as part of 211 Elm Street, to the present use
of the multi-family dwelling at that address , with the remainder
being applied to the use to which it had been put by the expansion
of the nursing home in 1969 . The remainder of Lot 35 , which con-
tained the original nursing home at 5 Franklin Street, would be
added to that rear parcel of Lot 37 to respond to the property ' s
use as a nursing home, located at 5 Franklin Street.
To reiterate , the APPLICANT is trying to divide the
single larger parcel , which had come from three (3) separate
deeds , into three (3) new lots , fundamentally quite similar to
the three (3) lots as originally acquired. These three (3)
new lots have been established in such a way as to be most
responsive to the continued use and operation of those three
(3) buildings as they have been put to, to date.
It is of extreme and crucial importance to recognize
and realize that no use of any building on the entire parcel is
undergoing any change whatsoever, from the use that presently
exists in those buildings . This means that no increase, no
decrease, and/or no alteration from the existing use is involved,
under consideration, or contemplated, by virtue of this appli-
cation. Reference is made to Article IX of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton, and Massachusetts General Laws ,
Chapter 40A, Section 6 , relative to the permitted nature of the
existing uses to which these buildings are put : as non-conforming
uses in existance prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
III . Variances
Consistent with the foregoing, the vast majority of
the variances being sought relate only to dimensional and density
regulations . In every instance we are dealing with variances for
buildings which have existed for at least twelve (12) years , as
in the case of the addition to the nursing home , and certainly
at least fifty (50) years , as in the case of each of the other
buildings . The one exception to the representation that the
variances all relate to dimensional and density regulations is
the reference to Section 6 . 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. This
1'�'' HQo.
-4-
Exhibit "S" Continued .
Section provides that no groups of lots in common ownership
may be separated so as not to be in conformance with a provision
of this zoning ordinance. The APPLICANT submits that this
provision relates primarily to dimensional and density issues ,
as the use of each of the buildings is permitted, as a non-
conforming use, and as such conforms to the Zoning Ordinance.
These variances are delineated in the attachment
marked Exhibit "A" to this application and reference may be had
thereto.
IV. Grounds
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws , Chapter
40A, Section 10, the basis for the granting of a Variance include
the following:
1. Due to circumstances relating to . . shape . .
of land or structures , which . .
2 . especially affect such land or structures , but
not affecting generally the zoning district
in which it is located, cause . .
3. a substantialhardship, financial or otherwise,
and .
4 . desirable relief may be granted without detriment
to the public good and without substantially
derogating from the intent and purpose of the
Zoning Ordinance or By-laws.
1. Relative to the first enumerated issue, the
APPLICANT suggests that the fact that there are three (3) buildings ,
each committed to a separate and distinct use from the other, all
located on one (1) tract of land, are circumstances which relate
to the shape of structures located on this property. Likewise ,
the nursing home building, located at 5 Franklin Street, is a
two (2) story structure, which is approximately 148 feet long
and about 46 feet wide. This building is broken up into approxi-
mately thirty-four (34) rooms of varying shapes and sizes . The
front part of the building is a wood from building of fairly old
construction, while the newer addition, built in 1969 , is of steel
frame and cinder block construction.
2 . It is these circumstances , as to the shape of
the structure, as well as the variety of buildings on the parcel,
which the APPLICANT suggests especially affects such structures
-5-
Exhibit "B" Continued . . .
and land, but does not generally affect the Zoning District in which
they are located. There are few, if any, lots within the neighbor-
hood, and/or Zoning District , which approach the subject parcel in
area. There are certainly no other parcels which contain three
(3) separate buildings, each of which are dedicated to a distinct
and unrelated use, as with the subject parcel.
3. The APPLICANT contends that these special cir-
cumstances , which particularly affect its property , cause a sub-
stantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to it. This substantial
hardship, which the APPLICANT complains of, is the fact that the
parcels are not able to be separated without the approval of this
Board, due to the Zoning Ordinance. This limitation on the right
of the APPLICANT to market its property is significantly troublesome,
inasmuch as the separate and distinct uses to which each of the
buildings are put make them unmarketable in any form of a package
deal. This is due to the cost of such a transaction which would
discourage the normal investor , who may well be able to focus on
one or two of the three uses but, would have difficulty in
managing to accept all three of the uses to which this property
is committed. The APPLICANT contends that the literal compliance
with the established restrictions puts it in a position to
potentially bear an unjust and proportionate share of the price
of community welfare. It further suggests that the desired result
could be made available to it and would, as the APPLICANT contends ,
add to the preservation of the uses to which each of these properties
is currently put , by limiting any further expansion of any one or more
of these uses , by creating fixed parcels of property for each use.
Following this line of reasoning, in the event an investor could
be attracted, who would be interested in buying the parcel in its
entirety, it is likely that such an investor would wish to change
one or more of the uses of the buildings located on the said parcel
to that of one or more of the other buildings ' uses . In doing so,
the said investor would be faced with zoning problems involving
not only the issue of the density and dimensional matters now
before this Board, but also the use to which the properties are
presently being put. This is valid since any use different from
those which are currently in place, would be limited to the U.R. -B
allowed uses . The only allowed uses are as follows :
1 . Single family dwelling;
2 . Church;
3 . Municipal facility;
4 . Cemetary;
5 . Historical Society ; - -
6. Facilities for essential serUih*s;
7 . Agricultural ; Acer' iaQ1
8 . Forestry.
-6-
Exhibit "B" Continued . . .
Any other use would require either a special permit or a Variance.
Such an avenue would also be of significant consequence to any
potential investor. This hypothetical investor situation is based
on the current situation where two (2) separate investors each
desire to purchase separate buildings located on the single parcel ,
but neither is willing to buy all of the buildings . The APPLICANT
suggests that the hardship claimed is , therefore , not perceived
but real.
4 . The APPLICANT further contends that the desired
relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and, without substantial derogation from the intent
and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. This contention is predicated
on the fact that by granting the relief sought, the public good would
be served as real estate taxes would increase by virtue of the
impending sale of the two of the three buildings and their
appurtenant lots at current fair market value; this would pre-
sumably involve an increase in real estate taxes . The granting
of the desired result would also promote and, in effect, insure
the continuation of the existing uses at their current levels by
committing each parcel to the building and its appropriate use .
It is also the APPLICANT 'S feeling that the creation of these
three (3) parcels as requested, would reduce, if not eliminate,
the possibility of further expansion or revisions of existing
uses . The circumstances would also , seemingly, allow for the
improvement and maintenance of all of the buildings located on
the parcels by the present , and/or new, owners. It is also
felt that the desired relief would be consistent with the
statement of zoning purposes , as contained within the Zoning
Ordinance , in that it would conserve the value of lands and
buildings within the city, while encouraging the most appropriate
use of the land. It would also straighten out a convoluted set
of circumstances which have been existing by virtue of the three
(3) separate uses on what is considered to be a lot in common
ownership. The APPLICANT re-affirms that since there will be no
change in any use of any of the three (3) properties , the granting
of this relief will be consistent with the continuation of the
usage that this parcel of property has had over the last twelve
(12) years.
In summation the APPLICANT is seeking to re-draw lot
lines , consistent with the long standing uses to which this
property has been put by virtue of the buildings which have been
located on this parcel of land. It is being suggested that in
doing so, the City of Northampton would stand to benefit by the
continued availability of a quality nursing home, while limiting
-7-
Exhibit "B" Continued . . .
any further expansion, without limiting the availability of such
care to the people in need thereof. Likewise, the availability
of housing space in the tight Northampton market also has benefits
for the community.
V. Parking
The APPLICANT, for the purposes of this zoning appli-
cation, submits that pursuant to Article VIII , Section 8 . 1 of the
Zoning Ordinance, there are no circumstances which would bring the
parking issues , for the application ' s purposes , within the
purview of this matter. None of the circumstances delineated
in Section 8. 1 come to bear on this application, inasmuch as there
are no changes to which the use is being put, such as a new
structure, enlargement of an existing structure , new land use ,
or change in existing use. As such, it is suggested that
Article VIII is inapplicable as far as minimum parking spaces and
related issues are concerned.
Nevertheless , recognizing the valid concerns for
the availability of parking and the free flow of traffic to and
from the subject parcel, it is submitted that all parking, as had
existed on the said parcels to this date, will remain functionally
and actually available to all parties in interest. Copies of
the purchase and sale Agreements can be made available to the
Zoning Board of Appeals upon request , to indicate that the stated
objectives and goals of the parties , as well as the legally
binding obligations upon each of them, require that the existing
parking circumstances be preserved at all costs . It is further
submitted that the parking provisions , as well as the access to and
from the parcels in question, from both Franklin Street and
Elm Street, have been adequate for the needs and purposes required
by these parcels.
This set of circumstances , relative to the maintenance
of the existing parking facilities , is consistent with Section 8. 3
of the Zoning Ordinance , which requires that parking spaces
maintained with an existing use shall not be decreased or removed
from service. It is this set of circumstances which is proposed
for the continued availability of parking at its current levels.
Also, reference may be had to Section 8. 5 of the Zoning Ordinance ,
which indicates that, with the approval of the administrative
officer, parking may be provided on adjacent lots. Consistent
with this section, the legal obligations and rights of the
proposed owners of the new parcels to be created, include their
obligation to maintain all parking as it has heretofore existed.
t t c'
Exhibit "B" Continued . . .
The allowance of the desired relief, as applied for,
would have no impact on the intensity of the use for parking and
traffic that the parcels are presently undergoing. The property
at 211 Elm Street has a need for only six (6) spaces in its present
tenant structure, while the greatest number of cars required for
the staff of the nursing home , at any one time, would be eleven
(11) cars . The APPLICANT further submits that the amount of visitor
use, delivery use, and emergency use that the property undergoes
for the nursing home are all at levels which, for at least twelve
(12) years have not generated any significant traffic problems ,
parking problems, or other related situations which the parcel ' s
capacity, as it presently exists, could not accomodate.
In summary, the APPLICANT contends that the
situation relative to traffic and parking needs for all the
uses to which the property (or properties) is/are used are
adequately provided for.
For your information and reference , a table has been
prepared to indicate the various dimensional and density require-
ments and the applicable data for the lots as proposed, and is
attached hereto, as Exhibit "Ca .
CITY OF NORTHAMP'IW, MASSACHUShfib
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY HALL, NORPHAMP'IW, MASSACHUSEI'ib
EXHIBIT "C'
ATIACHI•ENTP TO: Application to the City of Northampton, Zoning
Board of Appeals
RE: Northampton Pine Rest, Inc. for Variances
Required
Item Information * Lot A ** Lot B ** Lot C **
1-lot area 10,000 sq. ft. 10,966 ft. 14,138 ft. 18,597 ft.
2- front 80 feet 89.10 ft. 55 ft. 116.79 ft.
2- depth 90 foot 92.60 ft. greater than greater than
90 ft. - 90 ft.
4-Setback: greater than greater than
a) front 20 feet 20 ft. 13 ft. 20 ft.
b) side 15 feet 15 ft. 4 ft. 15 ft.
c) rear 20 feet 18 ft. greater than 18 ft.
20 ft.
5-maximum height 35 foot SPP item 6 see item 6 see item 6
or
6- stories 2-1/2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2-1/2 stories
7-maximum build.
30% 18% 37% 198
coverage
8-mviimrm floor
arca ratio .25 .3031 .7169 .2812
3-if uRimUU open
50% 53% 21% 40%
space
* Information submitted for "Any other permitted use" in
U.R-B Zone.
** Reference to lots A, B, and C are to the parcels designated
on the plan referred to in Exhibit "A" to the the application
noted above.
Lot A would contain building known as 219 Elm Street
Lot B would contain building known as 5 Franklin Street
Lot C would c..xita]n building known as 211 Elm Strutt
'$1
I DECISION OF THE .i
li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
h 1*.. !t
3i ,� 5
, ,
4i The Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Northampton met
. ,', on July 29, 1981, and unanimously voted to grant the petition of
the Northampton Pine Rest Nursing Home for 12 variances needed to
- 1 subdivide a parcel of, land at the corner of Elm and Franklin
4' Streets,
' Based upon the evidence presented to the Board, the Board
! made the following findings in regard to the variances:
1. The parcel is unique, in that it contains three separate
buildings, and unless the parcel could be subdivided,
it none of the buildings could be conveyed individually.
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create
Ej substantial hardship to the petitioner,because the
� nursing home on the parcel would narrow down the number
of potential purchasers of the property who would have
difficulty making use of the two additional structures
on the same lot.
iI 3. In granting the variances, there will be no detriment to
the public good, inasmuch as there will be no visible
. changes to the property: and the Zoning Ordinance was
not intended to lock anyone into a hopeless situation
I in which removal of the two additional buildings would
, be the only alternative.
I 4. The neighborhood, while residential in character, has a
1 large number of substandard lots, therefore, returning
i the lots to their former status of pre-existing, noncon-
1 forming lots would not derogate from the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The variances were granted, subject to the condition that
the parking spaces on all three parcels remain interchangeable.
k
iI
, ---�..c:'',-tom e�e"' C-..---.1,....-e„„ ,_
c 2 Fc Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Wi�ff}"iayym Brandt] jj��
i Alt-- Laec.fMgy
II Pe er Laband
I
DECISION OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Mr. /1j
35 4- v�
The Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Northampton met
on July 29, 1981 , and unanimously voted to grant the petition of
, the Northampton Pine Rest Nursing Home for 12 variances needed to
subdivide a parcel of land at the corner of Elm and Franklin
Streets.
Based upon the evidence presented to the Board, the Board
Ii made the following findings in regard to the variances:
1. The parcel is unique, in that it contains three separate
buildings, and unless the parcel could be subdivided,
none of the buildings could be conveyed individually.
li
11 , 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create
substantial hardship to the petitioner because the
nursing home on the parcel would narrow down the number
of potential purchasers of the property who would have
difficulty making use of the two additional structures
on the same lot.
it 3. In granting the variances, there will be no detriment to
{ the public good, inasmuch as there will be no visible
changes to the property; and the Zoning Ordinance was
not intended to lock anyone into a hopeless situation
in which removal of the two additional buildings would
be the only alternative.
4. The neighborhood, while residential in character, has a
large number of substandard lots, therefore, returning
the lots to their former status of pre-existing, noncon-
forming lots would not derogate from the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The variances were granted, subject to the condition that
the parking spaces on all three parcels remain interchangeable.
Ii
1' < �. o_eRobert C. Buscher, Chairman
6V05/ /,(74C477-
/ ll
wilciam Brandt
iI
I Kn• C M
Laband
11i
!
DECISION OF THE ?t-e77
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
14)o. /ij
3//9 - 35; J%, 375-1,1
The Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Northampton met
: on July 29, 1981 , and unanimously voted to grant the petition of
�'. the Northampton Pine Rest Nursing Home for 12 variances needed to
I subdivide a parcel of land at the corner of Elm and Franklin
(i Streets.
Based upon the evidence presented to the Board, the Board
ii made the following findings in regard to the variances:
11
li
1; 1. The parcel is unique, in that it contains three separate
buildings, and unless the parcel could be subdivided,
1 none of the buildings could be conveyed individually.
ii
II2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create
substantial hardship to the petitioner because the
nursing home on the parcel would narrow down the number
of potential purchasers of the property who would have
difficulty making use of the two additional structures
on the same lot.
1 3. In granting the variances, there will be no detriment to
the public good, inasmuch as there will be no visible
changes to the property; and the Zoning Ordinance was
not intended to lock anyone into a hopeless situation
in which removal of the two additional buildings would
be the only alternative.
4. The neighborhood, while residential in character, has a
large number of substandard lots, therefore, returning
the lots to their former status of pre-existing, noncon-
forming lots would not derogate from the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
jThe variances were granted, subject to the condition that
I the parking spaces on all three parcels remain interchangeable.
�.- 7-
)
-- -- , E.e( Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
/P, -
4 /7�
LA Wiam Brandt
11
Peterl er Laband
L
I
1