ZBA 1989-01-04
IVED MA01060 ... " SDOlf3325I'AS(, 0095 002065 DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING'BOARD OF APPEALS .." t, At a meeting held on January 4. 1989, the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the, ;City of Nor-champtcn voted unanimously to GRANT , the request of .James R. Tunstall. et a1 to modify a. Variance whioh had been,qranted by this
Board cn November 28, 1984, to , allow the subs.titution of a Physical Therapy office as the tenant in the building at 238 Bridge Street, replacing Hampshire I· Office Products, the
tenant specified in the 1984 Decision. i. Present and vot.inq were Chai,nnan Robert C. Buscher. Dr. Peter taband. and H. Sanford Weil, Jr. I' The findings were as fo110w&1 The Board
reiterated all the findings in their decision thaC was filed on December 11, 1984. Ch. Buscher and Dr. Laband. who sat:. at this Public Hearing also sat at the 1984Hearinq. The Board
found that the proposed tenant. a Physical Therapy office, would be an appropriate one. It is agreed that parking at this commercial site in a zone is awkward
and limited. The "by appointment only" nature of this tenant' s bUsiness results in a low and predictable level of traffic on the site. f The Board heard testimony that the leather business
of Mr. \ Tunstall is evolving from retail to a higher deqree of ;t Wholesale, resultinq in a decrease in traffic on the slte. i. 1 The Board aqreed t.o expancl the list of qualified
tenants to" i those outlined in the following sections of the NOl':thampton Zoning Ordinance: II Section 5.2. Page 5-8. Pal':4graph 2 and 2(a). "Retail. establishment.s. with maximum
floor of 10.000 square feet pe: floor for any single estabLishment. 5ell1ng general 1merchandise, including, bUt not l1l'II1ted to. dry goods. apparel ..t I ., ,
-. .., .' h . , .:'.._-..ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION ON '1'!m APPLIC1.TION OF JAMES It. ,'l'UHSTAU., ET At. PAGE TWO \ ., , , II and accessories,
furnitUre and home turnishinqs. home equipment, small WAres And hardware, and includinq discount. and limitee. price variet.y stores.It SAle ot toad is specificAlly prohibited. " 21
Section 5.2, Page SwlO, PAraqraph 12, "Miscellaneous professional and business offices ane. services including, but limited to, medical, and other professional
services &r:.d tinance, bankinq, insurance and real estate otfice.I,Ip r. I' -C. Buscher. Chairman l! j i; Dr. ?eter Laband i; -; -M.
San;ord Weil, Jr. ,I I R&'!tiv:Jd 3t City Officep I') r I:I· II j' i: CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK February 2, 1989 I '; I, Adeline Hurray, City Clerk of the City.
of Northampton, ber:by certify that the above Decision of,the Northampton \ lon1ng Board of Appeals was filed in of the City Ii Clerk on January 12, 1989, that
twenty days elapsed \1 llatter. It since such filing and that no appeal filed Iti . '1J /' .. ,./1 ... j ! Attest: , t::/t; (i
n 'J Adeline Murray, .'A .. '. " ."{l. City Clerk Vi . ',:", City of Northampton 1 IInatfi;I rei 1989 au.:l.-o'c1ock at'd..:U..nri"'''-rz:M.. Rf'C'd enrd and eom'&, , -:...--..;II.,'llII•
•••a....a;........•.__.....t.""'t...... ...;$""",''''
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETI'S Northamoton C'ityorTo-n BOARD OF APPEALS Date: 11. • 1!S4 Certificate ofGranting of Varianceor Special Permit (General Laws Chapter
4OA. Section 11) The Board ofappeals ofthe Cityor Town of hereby certifies that a Variance or Special Pe'mit bas been granted To HOD r"',st{,hm<>s Tu"sta 1 J
Address 238 City or Town .!I/crt'li'lmot:;n affecting the rights of [he OW!ler -.\lith respect. to land or buildings al____.......----BridGe Street.
And the said Board of Appeals further certifies that aua.::xd hereto is a uue and . . . mod lTlca t 10" '-d correct copy of Its dCClSlon granting
said variance -speciU :and that COPies of Sal decision. and of all plans referred to in the decision. bave been ided with the plannins board and the city ortown clerk. The
Board of Appeals also calls to the attention ofthe owner or appi1::mt that General Laws. Chapter Chapter 4OA. Scaionl (last paragraph) provides that no variance or spa:ial pennil.
or any extension. modifieation:or renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy ofthedccision bearing the certification of the town or city cl::rk that twCDty days have elapsed afto-the
decision has been filed in the office ofthe city or town clerk and no appeal has been riled or that. ifsuch appeal bas been filed. that it has been dismissed. or denied. is recorded
in the registry ofdeeds for the county and district in which the land is locat.cc1 and indexed in the grantor indeX under the Rame of the owner ofrecord oris rccordc:d and noted on the
owner's certifICate oftide. The fee for sudI recordingorrqistcring shall bepaid by theowncrorapplicant. f _ . , tee , ___ __•• f ______________________------f
!; it DECISION OF %OHlRC BOARD or APPEALSII ,. 1\ " Ii • 1 At a _etinl\ held on Noveaber 28. 1984. the Zooul loa" of Appeal. I \1 of the Cit.y of Nortbampton voted unaoUDoualy
to grant the vadance 1II04iflc_ tion requeat of ROP Truat, 238 Bridge Street. Northampton and 3.... :11 . Tunstall. Northveac Road. Westbampton t.o ua.e a portioo of the pl'embes at
i Ii 'ji,,! 238 Bridge Street. Northaaptoa for the retail ..le, wholesale. repair and . of leather garmenta and gooda io conjunction wiCh the existing whOle-I slae/retaii
office aupply atore. Present and voting were: Roberc i Bu.cber, William Brandt and Peter Labaad• • The finding. vere as followa:! P. Laband, referring to Section 10.13.
Page 10.8 of the Zoning•t Ordinance, found tbat the srructure i. unique because of its peculiarII shape and beiag situaCed in a primarily residential are. where it is .'I the only buildiog
like this in the area; that a hardship ._i$ta.. , nothing other than a buaineaa could uae the building; and there villIt be no substantial detriment to the public good or the use will
notIi derogate the intent of the I W. Brandt. referring to criteria for a variance. Section 10.13 andlII to the previous.decision granting in favor of the
variance, stated thatl the building : ..nin8 having been used for business aince 19 GoO. ' II He found that the proposed use .would be a good uae for the building. but
concerns with the lack of adequate parking i£ the ! business evolves into a high volume retail store. He alao found that .j'I II the structure is unique; that a hardsbip
exi..u .s the building baa been on tbe marltet for a conaiderable amount of ti...e anc! would be I foreclosed if not sold; that the building =uat be used ur lay fallow; and the use does
not derogate from the intent of tbe Ordinance as the building be used aa a residence. II R. Buscher concurred tbat the building is unique scd that it lS a purely commercial
atructure and not aDaptabLe to use aa a residence: Chat while it is not the 01 the Board to sava someone from bad re$ults. according to
tDe testimony 01 realtor, h Kr. Mur?by. the applicants have sought acd been unable to sell the It buildl·ng. and thua a nar<lsh1p e",i"'tot. He stated t.tule "lee.use ther.,
Ii .'II (' vill be no expansion of or inereaoe or footase. the Hoard . c ..place restrietians on parit.J.ng. , t HObert c. Buscner.Chairm&D ' .
j .••.•Af:, •it \lL 1halll I! 1! 11 il-,'I !I'I CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK 3anuary 2. 1985 Adeline Murray. City Clerk of the City of Northampton. certify
that the above Decision of the Northampton ..... ' ;Cning Bo.&rd of Appeals was Office of the City. . an December 11. 1984, that.'.twent,'days
have elapsed since such filing and that no appea).'·.hu.: been. in this matter. ..... ,', ..' • City; Clerk . ·5·' '., '.. C,ity,of Northampt:on
,;" ..--, .. ••f------,_... ,-_._---_.•.,--...., _.__... _---------------