44-058 (6) (4 L/ 5
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on November 20, 1989, the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to GRANT
the Application of G. Francis Osborn for a Variance from the
Provisions of Section 6. 13 of the Northampton Zoning
Ordinance for the purpose of allowing a portion of a common
driveway leading to a flag lot to have a grade in excess of
seven percent. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C.
Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
The Findings are as follows:
The Board found a circumstance relating to the topography of
this parcel that is unique to this parcel and not found
elsewhere in the district, that circumstance being the rapid
rise in elevation of the lot from the grade of Easthampton
Road, creating, at one section of the driveway, a grade of
7- 23%, which, when looked at in the light of the 7% maximum
w
cg ade allowed by the ordinance, is a de minimis variation.
11 e Board found that literal enforcement of the ordinance
1/_/11___ _
ould create a financial hardship for the Applicant, who,
Nithout this Variance, would be unable to create a Flag Lot
otherearofhisproperty, and thusdeprivedof ubstantialincomefor usein hisretiremenearsThe Board found that the requested relief can be granted
without derogating from the purpose and intent of the
ordinance, since the intent is to insure that parcels are
accessible to emergency equipment, and the Fire Department
has confirmed in writing that the small portion of the
driveway having a grade of 7.23% will not impede their access
in the event of fire.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
0-e-L
Dr. Peter Laband
M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 20, 1989 Special Meeting
Page One
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 5: 00 p. m. on
monday, November 20, 1989 in Room 18 of City Hall to reach a
Decision on the Application of G. Francis Osborn for a Variance
from the Provisions of Section 6. 13 of the Northampton Zoning
Ordinance for the purpose of allowing a portion of a common
driveway leading to a Flag Lot to have a grade in excess of seven
percent. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr.
Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Dr. Laband moved that the minutes of the November 15, 1989 meeting
be approved without reading. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. Weil found a circumstance relating to the topography that is
unique to this parcel in the District, that being the steepness of
the hill as it rises quickly from the grade of Easthampton Road.
Mr. WEil further found that literal enforcement of the Ordinance
would create a serious financial hardship on the Applicant, because
he would then be unable to create a flag lot to the rear of the
parcel on which his house is situated; the proceeds of the sale of
this property are intended to supplement the Applicant's retirement
income. He moved that the Variance be granted.
Dr. Laband found this to be a set of circumstances that truly fits
the Chapter 40A criteria. The shape, size and topography of the
parcel are unique. The grade of the driveway, at one section, is
7 . 23% as opposed to the 7% maximum grade allowed by the ordinance.
Dr. Laband found this to be a de minimis variance. He found that
literal enforcement would create a hardship to the Applicant in
that he has a parcel of land (in addition to the parcel upon which
his house is sited) that is more than two times as large as is
required in the District, and unless a flag lot can be created by
granting this variance, the parcel is undevelopable. He found that
the requested relief can be granted without derogating from the
intent of the ordinance, since the Fire Department has stated that
even with a 7.23% grade, the parcel is accessible, which is the
intent of the ordinance. He seconded Mr. Weil 's motion.
Ch. Buscher said that he concurred with his colleagues. Mr. Weil 's
motion passed unanimously.
Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci,
Board Secretary.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 15, 1989 Meeting
Page One
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 9 :05 p. m. on
Wednesday, November 15, 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J.
Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, to
conduct a Public Hearing on the Application of G. Francis Osborn
for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 6 . 13 of the
Northampton Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of allowing a portion
of a common driveway leading to a Flag Lot to have a grade in
excess of seven percent. Present and voting were Chairman Robert
C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Ch. Buscher opened the Public Hearing by reading the Application,
the Legal Notice, and a memorandum from the Northampton Planning
Board. Atty. Mark Najame appeared for the Applicant, and mounted
a plot of the land on the Board. Dr. Osborn lives in a house
having frontage on Easthampton Road, and has created a Flag Lot
behind his lot which has access via the driveway which now serves
the existing dwelling, said driveway to be extended to the rear
parcel. A portion of the existing driveway has a grade in excess
of seven percent. The extension of the driveway, according to
Atty. Najame, will have a grade less than seven percent. Mr.
Najame argued that the circumstance relative to shape, topography,
etc. is the abrupt slope of the land from the street, a condition
which cannot be modified, since getting "from Point A to Point B
in X distance requires that some portion of the grade exceed seven
percent, where there is not room for many S turns to accomplish
it. " The Hardship is financial. 7% is not possible, and Applicant
needs the income from the sale of the Flag Lot to supplement his
retirement income. There is no detriment to the public good,
argued the attorney, since the offending portion of the driveway
already exists. The Fire Department has no problem with it. He
presented letters from both abutters who have no problem with it.
He felt that allowing this Variance would not derogate from the
intent of the Ordinance, since the grade is 7 . 23% rather than the
7% that is allowed.
The Board questioned whether it is in fact physically impossible
to get "from A to B" without violating the ordinance, and
ultimately decided that a viewing was called for. Ch. Buscher
questioned the hardship allegation, and it was pointed out that if
the driveway were bulldozed in an attempt to even out the grade,
"the drainage would get screwed up. "
There being no one present to speak in favor or in opposition, Dr.
Laband moved the Public Hearing be closed, and the matter taken
under advisement. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R.
J. Pascucci, Board Secretary.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
„so tti1/414
• CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
t ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060
x�..cr4r�
Qa
DATE:N O : iiA
Certificate of Granting of Variance or Special Permit
(General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 11 )
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON HEREBY
CERTIFIES THAT A VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT HAS BEEN GRANTED:
TO: G. FRANCIS OSBORN
ADDRESS: 11.96 FLORENCE ROAD
CITY: NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060
AFFECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER WITH RESPECT TO LAND OR
BUILDINGS AT: 1196 FLORENCE ROAD, NORTHAMPTON, MA.
And the said Zoning 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 all plans referred to in the decision, have been
filed with the City Clerk.
The Zoning Board of Appeals also calls to the attention of the
owner cr applicant that General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 11 ( last
paragraph) provides that no Variance or Special Permit, or any
extension, modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect until
a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk
that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has been filed in
the Office of the City Clerk and nc 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
recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
\ _ I
By:By: TP
B :
Chairman Secretary
Al
U O ? N +0 .j'zt
9-1 r--, :t rl .' 0 I-4
•
< C7 to 0 01*-)' 1cf q) 44
E-' y• O U qI V 4
1
•
•
G1 fel try }j a) �� a
•
7 u) U) 0 a) •c. 1: w C:
.•� V U .0 0 C)
O r� Al
Lam.' +1, 4 to
\ 0.
•
a) 0 '�
• N •
• O to j Q1
•
4a C
Z < m• 1:4 pfY 0 +,f N
•
•
•
11-1
a°- Its4 u en
� I )O rtf 04J ill t10) _y kb
a 0.� 4a LA_ : O ,A4Z _ U0 U L'•V) `g t7 a UOC h '01
a.
0
•
r,v El
'si
O = 1a of 0
4" m �,: WEE, • 44 _- --) � v to {�11 )1
O a '• O 0 o 0 a) 5+ 0
•
O �r A
•
;a +a O .r 'h ul rtf 0
•
fy Z F V a U t: S•1 tv ai I• `: 'U .I r0
•
O A et
U filr{ N )j N •
U Z :0 ,a . •
.1 t; 0
O •z . Z [=1 • to �)11� .a Z
N Z O rtiCf 1)1 n1 C:
O g' rC 0 V 41 .pj I t ev 01.11 to
t �y U 0 f1, ` 44 a) as ..-1
'_. 3 4)
V to r• ,r4
•
•
to
^-�. C, O •
U 0 r j 0 •' () t)
V-0 0 t1 to ,
44
_1� U r0a v 1.1
o�*_. ��, :). 1-1 7 C 1 f; to 1:: fy 0 p
4� irt1� .. El El )-) z It} 0 N of V :1..j 0 •
a ,-1 f17 :1 Itf f'
r H O ,-7 U u) u u a) >+ S-1 4.)
t- ` �= 1" 4 14 04 f4 of 1, Rf )-, :i u
4;47, )• (4rCCap, II; Oaa7, 'U 11v) �f