Loading...
48-006 (2) File # MP- 2010 -0088 APPLICANT /CONTACT PERSON KOCH DEBORAH S ADDRESS/PHONE 140 LOUDVILLE RD (413) 586 -2092 () PROPERTY LOCATION 140 LOUDVILLE RD MAP 48 PARCEL 006 001 ZONE RR000L/WP THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST ZONING FORM LED OUT ENCLOSED REQUIRED DATE P ee .Pai Building Permit Filled out Fee Paid Typeof Construction: ZPA - ADDITION New Construction Non Structural interior renovations Addition to Existine Accessory Structure Building Plans Included: Owner/ Statement or License 3 sets of Plans / Plot Plan THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION BASED ON INFORMATION PRESENTED: Approved !/ Additional permits required (see below) PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: Intermediate Project Site Plan AND /OR f/ Special Permit with Site Plan Major Project: Site Plan AND /OR Special Permit -with Site Plan ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § 2 Findin Q Special Permit Variance* 7 • 7 (A) (1 A - TMCF— Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed Other Permits Required: Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer Availability Septic Approval Board of Health Well Water Potability Board of Health _ f � Permit from Conservation Commission Permit from CB Architecture Committee Permit from Ehn Street Commission Permit DPW Storm Water Management A4,-," 41 3 1 1 0 Signature of Building O icial Date Note: Issuance of a Zoning permit does not relieve a applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Department of public works and other applicable permit granting authorities. * Variances are granted only to those applicants who meet the strict standards of MGL 40A. Contact the Office of Planning & Development for more information. flu L J U N- 2 2010 File No. 1004 y — Please type or print all information and return this form to the Building Inspector's Office with the $15 filing fee (check or money order) payable to the ^ � City of 1. Name of Applicant: 0k S l�--r� Address: 140 (—C�VI LL1 Telephone: S�lO' 2a�TZ �fT+�l►4e 2. Owner of Property: DlU30 IZAf KO 41-6 --75-5-- (OC#c Address: 140 V I LL E— R-b. Telephone: 3. Status of Applicant: Owner i. / ' Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain) 4. Job- ,Location .: __..t' __- jyt -Le. s. 5. Existing Use of Structure /Property: G��-- 6. Description of Proposed Use/Work/Project/Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary): P e--se dL. 4ertisckn � cle>. J,--- . p [,,e e see x0zzAe-44, Aw &4 [ ek , eSC - t�e -�. A lso re4� 4v Cek"I ear p�e , e lms , &4e-+ &e S 7. Attached Plans: Sketch Plan ✓ Site Plan _V' Engineered /Surveyed Plans 8. Has a Special Permit/Variance /Finding ever been issued for /on the site? NO DONT KNOW V ol YES IF YES, date issued: IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? NO DONT KNOW YES IF YES: enter Book . — Page —..--- , and /or Document # �_ - - • — / - - -- 9.Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO DONT KNOW _ YES V IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission? Needs t o be obtained Obtained ; date 'sstm" Z�.s ' * k 4,� (Foft' Continues On Other Side) P re+&*P- a-Q. W:\Documents\FORMS \originar Buil ding- Inspector\Zoning- Permit - Application- passive.doc 8/4/2004 10. Do any signs exist on the property? YES NO _ IF YES, describe_ size, type and location Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property? YES NO_� IF YES, describe size, type and location: 11. Will the construction activity disturb (clearing, grading, excavation, or filling) over acre or is it part of a common plan of development that will disturb over 1 acre? YES NO IF YES, then a Northampton Storm Water Management Permit from the DPW is required. 12. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION This column reserved for useTS;�theBv�r7arrg EMSTING PROPOSED Lot Size Q.ov- Frontage Setbacks Front Side L:3 R: g L �� R: 5 Rear 35f/! Building Height i 13 23 Building Square Footage I 'cis % Open Space: (lot area minus building &paved parking # of Parking Spaces Q, u # of Loading Docks Fill: (volume & location) 13, Certification:l hereby certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Date: /i� Applicant Signature NOTE: Issuance of a zoning permit does not reL;exre an app-1 ic?*it's burden to comply with all. zoning . . requirements and obtain all required permits from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Historic and Architectural Boards, Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities. W:\Documenta\FORMS\origkWsuil ding- inspectorizoning- Permit - Application- passive.doc 8/412004 R PROPOSED ADDITION FOR 140 LOUDVILLE ROAD Describe in DETAIL how you meet ALL THREE requirements: 1. The existing property or building or use is legally pre - existing non - conforming. Based upon the definition found in Section 350 -2.1 of the Northampton Code of Ordinances, the existing single family residence at 140 Loudville Road is legally pre- existing non - conforming, having been built prior to current "zoning requirements relative to minimum setbacks." Current property line setbacks are 35' from the north (side) line, 35' from the east (back) line, 57' from the south (side) line, and 15' from the west (front) line. With regard to minimum required lot area, frontage, and depth, the lot has not been altered since a survey of 1956 laid out its pre- existing, non - conforming dimensions. Its frontage is 127.42' and the longest side property line is 147.71' (more or less — see 1956 survey plat, which indicates the variable location of the river — the back property line). The .28 acre lot is less than 80,000 square feet. Other requirements relative to maximum building height and minimum open space are conforming. Current building height is approximately 13' and current open space is at 88 %. 2. The proposed work will NOT create any new zoning violations. Our existing house is shown to be 936 square feet on the Assessor's Office's Residential Property Record Card, with an attached one -car garage of 264 square feet. The proposed work will largely take place in the existing footprint of the attached garage, extending the footprint slightly in the front of the house and more considerably in the rear of the house. However, no part of the proposed addition will extend past pre - existing non - conforming setbacks and thus will not create any new setback zoning violations. In the front of the house the addition beyond the existing footprint would extend 43" toward the road from the front of the existing garage door onto what is now driveway (see photos #12 & 13). The result would be that the new addition wall on the first floor would be in alignment with the existing house wall it adjoins, but this wall is not the closest point to the front property line. The current front wall of the house closest to the front property is an additional 7" closer. (See photo #13.) In the front, the second floor portion of the addition would not be in alignment with the first floor front wall. Its front wall would be approximately 8' back from the first floor front wall, starting in back of the peak of the roof line. The side setbacks are not an issue as they are currently conforming and the proposed addition and deck extension will not exceed the mandated setbacks of 20'. On the north side of the house, the deck extension will end in alignment with the north wall of the existing house. On the south side of the proposed addition, the first floor will not extend past the present garage footprint and the second floor will only extend 2' more toward the south property line. In the rear of the house, we propose to extend the current garage footprint an additional 15' 9" feet toward the rear property line. This additional distance includes 33" from the current rear garage wall to be where it would be in alignment with the rear wall of the house, 8' along the existing deck, and an additional 5' beyond the deck toward the rear property line. (See photos #2 & 11 to see location of proposed rear addition that would extend outside of the garage footprint.) However, this additional 5' does not extend beyond the current non - conforming point of the deck due to the angled rear property line (see photos #6 & 8). The deck is NOT parallel to the rear property line. Currently, the northeast comer of the deck is the closest built point to the rear property line, a distance of approximately (see below for why the word "approximately" is appropriate) 35'. Because the deck is not parallel to the angled rear property line, the southeast comer of the deck is 5' further from the rear property line than the northeast comer of the deck. (See attached October 1956 land survey recorded in Plan Book 60, Page 23 and Mortgage Loan Inspection Plat, which is based on that survey and shows the house location.) Understanding that it is important to maintain and not exceed the current non - conformity, the same 35' +/- distance from the rear property line currently marking the northeast corner of the existing deck would be maintained as the distance to the rear property line of the northeast comer of the proposed addition (which would extend from the line of the current southeast corner of the deck). Because of the river's course and thus an angled rear property line, the proposed southeast corner of the addition would be at a further distance from the rear property line than the 35' +/- non - conforming point of the existing deck. Deed descriptions since 1962 are based on the above - referenced 1956 survey of the property. Deed descriptions prior to this did not use precise bearings and distance measurements, but rather descriptions of physical markers or references to other properties. The 1956 survey plat and subsequent deed descriptions specifically account for the varying location of the river, noting that property lines, while on a distinct bearing, go a certain distance, more or less. This is an important distinction, as it means that if the river marks the rear property line, the rear property line moves according to the height of the river, hence why I describe the distances as approximate. Whether the actual distance from the deck to the river is 35' or 30' in high water and 40' in drought, using on- the - ground measurement, we have confirmed what the mortgage loan inspection plat shows — that the distance to the river from the northeast corner of the existing deck is approximately 5' less than the distance from the southeast corner of the existing deck. The proposed addition will add a second floor of approximately 10' that will make the total house height approximately 23', considerably less than 35' tall. In terms of open space, the lot is .28 acres, or according to Assessor's Office's Residential Property Record Card, 12,400 square feet. Current structures (house, deck, garage, and 8x10 shed) account for 1,472 square feet, equaling 88% open space. The house addition will add 234 square feet and the deck extension will add 110 square feet, totaling 344 square feet over open space beyond current square footage. This will result in total structure square footage of 1,816, equaling 85% open space, well within the required 80 %. 3. The proposed work is not any more detrimental to the area than existing conditions. Relying on Section 350 -9.2, 1 can attest that the proposed addition and deck extension do not exceed any current preexisting nonconformity and "...will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming nature of the structure, lot and or use..." Visually, we will not impede on our neighbors' views. There is no residential structure on the lot to the north. Our eastern abutter is well across the river with a mini forest and river in between our properties. The southern abutter's house is not visible from ours as that property has a large garage in between our houses. Again, trees exist between our properties, with a lively creek running through the middle. Abutters on the west side, across the road can see our house easily and are grateful for the initial work that we have put into upgrading it substantially. a JUN - 2010 - PR0,POSED ;iJ�DITl 1. -. -- PN FOR 140 LOUDVILLE ROAD Note to reviewers: Please read the following with compassion toward an amateur applicant trying to anticipate exactly what all the various boards and departments need to know in order to confer necessary permits. I am quite willing to provide more information as needed. Just ask! Our home at 140 Loudville Road, Parcel 48 -006 -001, is on the far western border of the Town of Northampton. In fact, a small strip of our land is in Westhampton. (See Assessors and Zoning Map #48.) It is a small, one story, green cottage /ranch house with a shed. (For a photo, see the City's Google Earth maps, photos 400, 402, and 404 Loudville Road — the numbers do not correspond to our house number because it appears that Google uses one house numbering system, continuing from Easthampton's.) We would like to build an addition onto our existing house, which according to the Assessor's Office Residential Property Record Card, is 936 square feet with an attached one -car garage of 264 square feet and a wood deck of 192 square feet. We propose to tear down the garage completely and put the bulk of the addition on that footprint, extending the footprint slightly in the front of the house and more considerably in the rear of the house. We also propose an extension of the existing deck. (See Assessor's Office plat with proposed addition and deck extension highlighted. See also front, side, and rear exterior plans created through Google SketchUp.) More specifically, in the front of the house the addition beyond the existing footprint would extend 43" toward the road from the front of the existing garage door onto what is now driveway. The result would be that the new addition wall on the first floor would be in alignment with the existing house wall it adjoins, which is not the wall closest to the front property line. The current front wall of the house closest to the front property line is an additional 7" closer resulting in a non - conforming setback distance of approximately 15'. Even with extending the garage footprint toward the front property line, there would be nothing closer on that front wall to the front property line than the existing non - conforming wall. (See photos #12 & 13.) In the rear of the house, we propose to extend the current garage footprint an additional 15' 9" toward the rear property line. This additional distance includes 33" from the current rear garage wall to be where a wall would be in alignment with the rear wall of the house, 8' along the existing deck, and an additional 5' beyond the deck toward the rear property line. (See photos #2 & 11 to see location of proposed rear addition that would extend outside of the garage footprint.) However, this additional 5' does not extend beyond the current non - conforming point of the deck due to the angled rear property line. The deck is NOT parallel to the rear property line. (See photos #6 & 8.) Currently, the northeast corner of the deck is the closest built point to the rear property line, a distance of approximately (see below for why the word "approximately" is appropriate) 35'. Because the deck is not parallel to the angled rear property line, the southeast corner of the deck is 5' further away from the rear property line than the I A northeast corner of the deck. (See attached October 1956 land survey recorded in Plan Book 60, Page 23 and Mortgage Loan Inspection Plat, which is based on that survey and shows the house location.) Understanding that it is important to maintain and not exceed the current non- conformity, the same 35' +/- distance from the rear property line currently marking the northeast corner of the existing deck would be maintained as the distance to the rear property line of the northeast corner of the proposed addition (which would extend from the line of the current southeast corner of the deck). Because of the river's course and thus an angled rear property line, the proposed southeast corner of the addition would be at a further distance from the rear property line than the 35' +/- non - conforming point of the existing deck. Deed descriptions since 1962 are based on the above - referenced 1956 survey of the property. Deed descriptions prior to this did not use precise bearings and distance measurements, but rather descriptions of physical markers or references to other properties. The 1956 survey plat and subsequent deed descriptions specifically account for the varying location of the river, noting that property lines, while on a distinct bearing, go a certain distance, more or less. This is an important distinction, as it means that if the river marks the rear property line, the rear property line moves according to the height of the river, hence why I describe the distances as approximate. The 1956 survey plat does not have any structures noted on it. My amateur records search research did not uncover a recorded survey plat that also has the house on it. The mortgage plat prepared for Jane Carey by surveyor Randall E. Izer on January 6, 2004 is based upon this survey plat and subsequent deed descriptions and does have the current house and garage noted on it. Although it makes a specific statement that "building location accuracy is not guaranteed," a recent conversation with Mr. Izer confirms that in preparation of this plat, he did tie in at least one corner of the house to one of the property line set pins. With properties built before existing zoning rules and in non - compliance as a result, I submit that what is of significance is not the precise measured distance from building to various property lines. What is important is that whatever the existing points of non- conformity are, the proposed building addition points do not go beyond these points; that all points of the proposed addition are no closer to the property lines than points on the existing property. Thus, if a corner of the deck is 35' or 36' from the rear property line is not the issue — what is of note is that whatever the measure, the proposed addition will not go closer to the property line than that measure. 1 note this because the rear property line is the river which is not in a constant position. Whether the actual distance from the deck to the river is 35' or 30' in high water and 40' in drought, using on- the - ground measurement, we have confirmed what the mortgage loan inspection plat shows — that the distance to the river from the northeast corner of the existing deck is approximately 5' less than the distance from the southeast corner of the existing deck. 2 To meet the requirements of "350 -9.3 Legally preexisting nonconforming structures, uses, or lots may be changed, extended or altered as set forth below. If a use is not eligible under one subsection, proceed to the next subsection" look at 350- 9.3A(6) for an appropriate allowable use, "As -of- right, if the expansion (vertical or horizontal) is for a residential use and does not extend either further into a required setback than the existing nonconforming structure, and such extension does not create any new zoning violation (such as further reducing a setback or open space), and the applicant provides written evidence satisfactory to the Building Commissioner that all owners of all parcels within 300 feet of the subject property have no objection to the expansion." I am not as skilled as the readers in full comprehension of the code, but it would seem this section is the applicable one. I am unclear, however, if the City's abutters' notification and subsequent hearings satisfy the "no objection requirement or if I am required to personally collect written statements of no objection. I have spoken with three abutters thus far and have not gotten any objections. Because of the steep slope of the property where the proposed addition beyond the current garage footprint would be, the bulk of this extended portion would be suspended above the ground on beams supported by two piers, as suggested by a structural engineer. These piers would be in alignment with the four existing piers under the deck. We also wish to extend the deck northward so that its outer limits would be in alignment with the northern wall of the existing house, an additional 11'10 ". (See photo #4. The extension would end before the bush and large tree.) The edge of the deck closest to the rear property line would be tapered, narrowing the width of the deck, as it proceeds toward the north (side) property line so as to maintain — and not be less than — the non- conforming 35' distance from the rear property line. An additional pier, likely in alignment with existing piers, and stairs to the ground at the north end of the deck would be included. The first floor of the addition would be 41.5' long by 12' wide. However, the proposed second floor would not be the same dimension. We propose to maintain the same roofline in the front of the house; the roof will appear as one surface over the current house and the addition. The second floor would begin from the peak line of the roof, approximately 8' back from the front wall. Additionally, the width of the second floor would be 2' wider than the first floor, with a 2' cantilevered section on the south wall. Thus, the second floor dimensions would be 33.5' long by 14' wide. With these dimensions, the square footage of the first floor addition would be 498 square feet (with 264 square feet of that being current garage space, only 234 square feet would be new) and the square footage of the second floor addition would be 469 square feet. A proposed egress from the first floor addition would require either steps or a ramp on the south side of the property in a space currently outside of the garage footprint. We 3 would prefer to put in a ramp so as to accommodate a friend who uses a wheelchair and request permission to do that. Planning and zoning considerations: 1) Open Space — The lot is .28 acres and, according to Assessor's Office's Residential Property Record Card, 12,400 square feet. Current structures (house, deck, garage, and 8x10 shed) account for 1,472 square feet, equaling 88% open space. The house addition will add 234 square feet and the deck extension will add 110 square feet, totaling 344 square feet over open space beyond current square footage. This will result in total structure square footage of 1,816, equaling 85% open space, well within the required 80 %. 2) Flooding — Re: 350 -6.6 and 350 -14.1 B: Our house is NOT within a floodplain. On the above - mentioned Mortgage Loan Inspection Plat, the surveyor states, "Note: A portion of the premises is located within a 100 year flood zone (Zone A), the structure is not located within this flood zone." Moreover, the house does not have a basement, but rather a crawl space, so occupied space is not within the ground level. The floor of the deck — the part of the house closest to the river — is 77" off the ground at the southeast corner and 87" off the ground at the northeast corner. The floor of the proposed addition would be approximately 9' off the ground at the point closest to the river. On site inspection (and attached photos #1 -7 and #9 -11 and attached relevant portion of City topography map #48) will show topography with a steeper slope on our property than on the property on the other side of the river. Given that topography, excessive water spreads on the lower elevations across the river. With the exception of some times during the winter, when it might be frozen over, the river is constantly in motion, so water would not be impeded and backing up. We have numerous photographs of the river during the most dire, post- hurricane or snow melt rain storms that we would be happy to share with reviewers. (Four pictures are attached to show an average river and a storm - filled river. See photos #14 -17.) While sometimes ferocious, five years of experience has shown us that the river gets nowhere near the house. 3) River Protection — Re: 350- 14.1A: We concur with the City's desire `To preserve and protect the streams and other watercourses in the City of Northampton and their adjoining lands." We love this river; nothing we propose with this addition encroaches on the purity and flow of it. We have engaged a wetlands scientist to assure compliance with all city and state wetlands and Conservation Commission requirements. 4) Substantial Improvement — Re: 350- 14.3A: "A structure intended for human occupancy or use on a permanent basis having water and sewerage facilities" already exists on this property. We request a special permit as specified within 350 -5.2. 5) Affect on adjoining premises — Re: 350- 10.1.C: No properties immediately adjoining ours will be affected by the proposed construction and finished addition in terms of "surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers and preservation of views, light, and air." Nor will "the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within 4 the site and on adjacent streets" be affected. We are taking specific design steps, such as setting back the second story, into consideration so as to "promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape." We rely on a well and septic system so "The requested use will not overload, and will mitigate adverse impacts on, the City's resources including the effect on the City's water supply and distribution system, sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems..." 6) Neighbors: I am in the process of discussing this proposed project with our neighbors. I have spoken to Fem Laprade, our southern abutter; to Virginia Van Scoy, a property owner abutting Mrs. Laprade to the south; and to Neyla Collins, one of our Westhampton abutters across the street and none have expressed objection. 5 PROPOSED ADDITION FOR 140 LOUDVILLE ROAD Describe in detail how you meet ALL SEVEN requirements: 1. Will protect adjoining premises from seriously detrimental uses. The purpose of the proposed addition is to expand our limited living space. Our activity therein will be no different than current activity. No seriously detrimental uses are or will be in play. 2. Will minimize and mitigate traffic impacts. As an existing single - family residential structure, with two inhabitants, and the use of which is staying the same, this is non - applicable. 3. Promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open space. We consider ourselves very fortunate to live on a site that is like having our own state park. The trees and the river are a joy which we happily conserve. The proposed addition design is intended to blend with the treed, natural landscape. Open space is part of the attraction of this site and the proposed addition design maintains a compact footprint. 4. Protect the general welfare. As an existing single - family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non - applicable. 5. Avoid overloading and mitigate impacts on City resources. As an existing single - family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non - applicable. We don't get City water nor use City sewer. We require no more of City services than any other citizen, perhaps even less. 6. Promote city planning objectives (see Sustainable Northampton, Open Space Plan, and Transportation Plan). As an existing single - family residential structure, the use of which is staying the same, this is non - applicable. 7. Meet all zoning requirements. Please see the answers to the questions above relating to 1) pre- existing non- conforming properties and 2) not creating any new zoning violations. Also, to meet the requirements of °350 -9.3 Legally preexisting nonconforming structures, uses, or lots may be changed, extended or altered as set forth below. If a use is not eligible under one subsection, proceed to the next subsection" look at 350- 9.3A(6) for an appropriate allowable use, "As -of- right, if the expansion (vertical or horizontal) is for a residential use and does not extend either further into a required setback than the existing nonconforming structure, and such extension does not create any new zoning violation (such as further reducing a setback or open space), and the applicant provides written evidence satisfactory to the Building Commissioner that all owners of all parcels within 300 feet of the subject property have no objection to the expansion." I am not as skilled as the readers in full comprehension of the code, but it would seem this section is the applicable one. I am unclear, however, if the City's abutters notification and subsequent hearings satisfy the "no objection" requirement or if I am required to personally collect written statements of no objection. I have spoken with three abutters thus far and have not gotten any objections. E- � K � ° o 'A b oo N W t Q► A ? P rA N il tA 14 A O � h ° o h co s a H tHAV CL a' 0 4 4 4 C ¢ O r 0 0 N W THIS PLAT IS COMPILED FROM DEEDS, PLANS AND OTHER SOURCES AND IS ItiO 3 TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ACCURATE SURVEY AND IS NOT TO BE RECORDED_ BUILDING LOCATION ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED NOTE: A PORTION C THE PREMISES IS LOCATED WITHIN A IOC' YEAR FLOOD ZONE (ZONE A), THE STRUCT.UREE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THIS FLOOD ZDN -E — — � ppiTi 0 !x PA91 W& sits - 'O: PEOPLESBANK & CONNECTICUT ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY - 0 THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF HEREBY REPORT THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE PREMISES AND BASED ON EXISTING AONUMENTATION ALL VISIBLE EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS AND BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED ON THE GROUND AS SHOWN AND THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE LOT LINES, D(CEPT AS NOTED. I FURTHER REPORT THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN k FLOOD PRONE AREA AS SHOWN ON FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE MAPS FOR COMMUNITY # 250167 SURVEYOR: �• �. THIS PLAT FOR MORTGAGE LOAN PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PROPERTY SURVEY �tN'S - MORTGAGE LOAN INSPECTION PLAT - ctia NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS RAN E . PREPARED FOR v IZEER ; JANE CAREY +135032 50,32 SCALE: I"=40 JANUARY 6, 2004 S RV HAROLD L. EATON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 0 1 m N a v h a A� e� pOg b A c a lF C V � 1 W O 9££ —� 9Z £ 'S2C Oo f . Ni In pNN �tJO 0 IA 1� ti � � o � + ©Q ,� J � J © y O J w V1 � a a a �- o J U J 7 20 Assessors Office - City of Northampton http : / /www.northaniptonassessor.0 s4 1i sc•urc• /r for 11nks,of horne propc Olf's asse8sols statement thtelest City of Northampton, MA: Residential Property Record Card New Search Prcpert Ike Cl Code Refe Card 1 of 1 Parcel - Location - Zoning - Assessment Map- Block -Lot: 48-006-001 Zoning: Assessment: Location: 140 LOUDVILLE RD Neigborhood: 2 Land: 90,800 #Living Units: 1 Deed Book: 7669 Building: 65,700 Class: R -101 Deed Page: 19 Total: 156,500 Dwelling Information IBuilding Sketch Style: Ranch Year Built: 1950 Story Height: 1 Attic: None Basement: Crawl Total Rooms: 4 Bedrooms: 2 '�C.46 2 E v� oo Deck � � Full Baths: 2 , t S � s Nme-I`' [ Half Baths: 0 00 2 3 3 Exterior Walls Frame is - $ 12 Unfinished Area: 0 12 &F- E Ground Floor Area: 664 2 To Uql% FG Total Living Area: 936 6 26 2 � 25 � 2sa 22 Finished Basement Living 0 X 0 16 � S Area: Basement Recreation Area: 0 X 0 12 24 g >�+�aT1taJ �� Woodburning Fireplace 0/0 Stacks /Openings: Metal Fireplace 0/0 Stacks /Openings: Heat /Central A/C: Basic Heating System: Electric Fuel Type: Electric 1 of 1 6/1/2010 10:32 P F � Z Y —t LA } O d 17 Z co ' eo z� �N� d r z. tf r g �"U d P 7 ce b� • co w s L i mac: r -� n a x AM W r _ c a r. F P IAOT O PiAo - ro 44 2 view of slope from southeast comer view of slope and of site of proposed addition. the floor of the closest point of the Proposed addition to the river would be approx 8-W off the ground. tF � 4 ..OiM J r ✓ � ee w 4 f r. Pj+oT-0 3 P ROTO # view of slope from northeast corner view of slope and of proposed deck extension site r � ly fff' r � � i ' JE y p g To view of slope taken from next to the river. note that the line of the river is angled view of deck and site of proposed addition taken from near river away from the deck as one gets closer to the spot from where the picture was taken. the deck is not parallel to the river's edge. j5 4 �� ,tPA'�,� ^� t .. 3`i. .,� L,', a ",fix "' "`� ^?• c t.A R a* r PkoTa -7 p"ro 48 view of topography on other side of the river taken from deck. note that river is not parallel to line of deck L e'E y.+fa i x 9 }�1. y IaP' y. . -: • < T+a . G ^ y ' ��• ' 6 � 1 t ,7 r PA T7) R POOTO !o slope where proposed addition would go over. example of steepness of slope. proposed addition would start at the corner of the deck. I I 4 �4 +.et �a; #.. •; P ROTO l I site of proposed addition. addition would not sit on ground. it would be cantilevered over hillside on 2 piers in alignment with existing deck piers. t h BLS 9 :' AM p �Tr) t z P H-oTO #13 view of proposed addition in front. wall would be extended 43" from existing front of existing wall of kitchen is not the point closest to the road. this picture shows garage to be in alignment with existing front wall of kitchen. closest wall is an additional 7" closer to the road. so the proposed addition would not be closer to the road than the current wall.