13-087 42 stonewall drive (law department)City of Northampton
MEMORANDUM Law Department
TO:
Paulette Kuzdeba, Senior Planner
FROM:
Kathleen G. Fallon, City Solicitor t
SUBJECT:
Stonewall Drive: substandard lot
DATE:
May 5, 1995
As I understand your inquiry regarding three lots located on
Stonewall Drive, the pertinent facts are as follows. Parcel 1,
known as 42 Stonewall Drive, has frontage of twenty (20) feet on
Stonewall Drive. A variance as to frontage was granted in 1978 to
"legitimize" the existing use of a single family dwelling.
Subsequently, the owner of 42 Stonewall Drive has acquired two
adjacent parcels (Parcels 2 and 3), each of which has only twenty
(20) feet of frontage on Stonewall Drive. Neither parcel has any
structures thereon. The question is whether the owner can sell
either Parcel 2 or Parcel 3, or the two together, as a building
lot.
M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 6, paragraph 4, reads: "Any increase
in area, frontage, width... requirements of a zoning ordinance...
shall not apply to a lot for single and two - family residential use
which at the time of recording or endorsement, whichever occurs
sooner was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land,
conformed to then existing requirements, and had less than the
proposed requirement but at least five thousand square feet of area
and fifty feet of frontage.
It does not appear that Parcels 2 and 3 qualify for protection
against dimensional increases in the Zoning Ordinance since neither
has the fifty feet of frontage required by Section 6. Even if the
two lots were combined, they would not have the minimum frontage
necessary for Section 6 protection. Therefore, neither lot, nor
the two combined, may be built upon without zoning relief.
DECISION OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At its meeting on Wednesday, July 18, 1978, the Zoning Board
of Appeals for the City of Northampton voted to grant the petition
of Robert and Bernadette Stein for a variance from the provisions
of Section 6.2 of the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Northampton
which requires certain minimum lot frontage which the applicants'
lot, known as 42 Stonewall Drive, does not have.
Based upon evidence presented to the Hoard, the Board made the
following findings in regard to the variance:
1. The property in its present form is unique in that it is a
key lot which at the time of the subdivision approval, had
sufficient frontage under the then existing Zoning Ordi-
nance, but was not properly recorded in the Office of the
City Clerk.
2. The literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would re-
sult in substantial hardship to the petitioners because
the lot on which their home was built was not properly re-
corded in the City Clerk's Office, through no fault of the
petitioners, when the original subdivision plan was ap-
proved by the Planning Board. At the time of approval,
the lot met the Zoning requirements. However, as a new
lot, it would not meet the frontage requirements of the
present Zoning Ordinance.
3. There will be no detriment to the public good because the
use will not overload public facilities, and the size of
the lot exceeds the present Zoning Ordinance requirements.
4. The Zoning Ordinance will not be nullified or derogated in
that the use, a single family home, is allowed in this
Rural Residential District. !
ilo
CHARLES GRXI
R AWND' CAPt175 , AgSOCIATE
D ill WAM L , 8O C A Th;
I
/Y- L3 0
23 June 1978
Mr. Charles 11. Dragon
Chairman
Board of Appeals
Northampton, MA 01060
OPINION OF THE PLANNING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF -
Bernadette and Robert stein's request for a variance to establish
a parcel of land as a legal lot -
The Planning Board, at its meeting of June 7, 1978, voted
unanimously to eecommend to the Board of Appeals that the subject
variance be granted. The Board noted that the request was similar
to that of Raymond Campbell who received a variance a short time
previously in the same vicinity. The Board further noted that the
lots were properly and legally established under the old zoning
ordinance but they were not protected by the "grandfather clause"
contained in the state subdivision law, theeefore creating a
hardship on the applicant.
if you have any questions on this matter, please feel free
to call me.
York Phillips, ATP
Planning Director
cc: Applicant
Building Inspector
1AA
�,�,pTpN 5.
1 Nqj Applicant
i t n II i Q;
Address .
2. Owner of
Address
3. Applicant is: i dwner; ❑Contract Purchaser;
J
❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possessiull.
4. Application is made for: Ordinance of the
L ARIANCE from the provisions of Section�� ---- -page
_�� of the Zoning
City of Northampton.
ESPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Sect ion______p
of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
❑OTHER: being situated on
5. Location of Property I Street; and shown on the Assessors Maps,
side of '
the –- Parcel MLL
Sheet No.
6. Zore
ro osed work a d 1 or use;
7. Description of p P
g. Sketch plan attac hed; -/Yes No
g. Site plan:.^:Attched ,Not Required
10. Se�forth reasons upon which application is based:
11. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form) kno ledge.
best of my
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to
pplicant's Signature 0
Assessor's Map
Address Sheet No. Parcel
11. List of Abutters: �- �- / --
6� �
2.
e
4:56 CA
4. z' - �O
5.
7.
8.
9.
10. c LZ
le-
r
,
16. '
17. -
18.
19.
20.
21.-
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28..- -_.- --
29.
TI+E RRINIING M %SS
30.
(Attach additional sheets, if necessary)