32C-129 (5) 2ZC
rn
m m i c)
y I D J—G)
I - D
G)
I
_----
116.3 N
n
c o A '" D
2 p m C pi r :U
m
to _ Q)
---- ---- -- --- --- G) i
r9 WALK 7U -r o' A p
Z — Tl Z (fi
0 z n Im ° o n
-i N(fi i .
v OD z
rn
r� r1
D r
- ---------
W
$c SMITH STREET
> D
c rn o0
oN
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
$ � a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
t ,
1`
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060
�
usn
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1989
RE: THE APPLICATION OF RICHARD, MAUREEN AND ALFRED VENNE FOR A
VARIANCE AND FINDING RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE OF A TWO-
FAMILY DWELLING AT 48-50 FRUIT STREET TO A THREE-FAMILY DWELLING.
Pursuant to the Provisions of the General Laws of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, Secticn 15, notice is hereby given
that a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of
Northampton was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the above
date DENYING the Variance and Finding.
If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed in
Superior Court within 20 days of the date this decision was filed
in the Office of the Northampton City Clerk.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 1, 1989 Meeting
Page Two
circumstances. That's why you are called upon to use judgement and
discretion. You will end up with an improvement for everybody.
If you grant the Variance, you grant the Finding as well. I got
four votes from the Planning Board. "
Mr. Weil moved the Public Hearing be closed. Mr. Brandt seconded,
and the 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 1, 1989 Meeting
Page One
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 9:35 p. m. on
Wednesday, November 1, 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J.
Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton to
conduct a Public Hearing on the Application of Richard, Maureen and
Alfred Venne for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 6. 2 and
9 . 3 (c) to allow enlargement of a two-family dwelling to a three-
family dwelling at 48-50 Fruit Street. Present and voting were
Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt, and M. Sanford Weil,
Jr.
Ch. Buscher opened the Public Hearing by reading the Application,
the Legal Notice, a memorandum from the Planning Department, and
a letter from abutter Remas. Atty. Harley Sacks appeared for the
Applicants, and showed a rendering of the site. He mentioned that
the Planning Board during Site Plan Review specified that a six-
foot high fence be erected between the subject property and that
of abutter Johnston. He showed six parking spaces, on-site,
accessed by the existing Fruit St. driveway. He pointed out that
the conversion to a three-family requires 13 , 000 square feet, with
only 9, 450 SF existing, which is also insufficient for the existing
two-family. He asked, "Will three families be more detrimental
than two? The hardest thing to prove here is the Variance
criteria. Lot size averaging failed. There are a lot of multiple-
family units in the neighborhood. We do not have an irregular
shape. It' s a flat lot with typical soil. The shape of the
building is the uniqueness. It's much larger than neighboring
houses, and it's deteriorating. The position of the structure on
the lot is part of the criteria. It's an unusually shaped
structure. The hardship is that the Vennes cannot properly
maintain the building on the cash flow from two apartments. We
will have the same number of square feet of space. There will be
two four-room apartments, and a four-room townhouse, instead of two
six-room apartments. This will add a dwelling unit to the city.
Currently, there' s two or three families per apartment, causing a
lot of cars and a nuisance.
Ch. Buscher pointed out that the big issue is hardship. Mr. Sacks
pointed out that the building is deteriorating, and will continue
to deteriorate because it doesn't generate enough cash. "We're a
blight on the neighborhood. " Ch,. Buscher asked, "Why did they buy
the building before coming here?" Mr. Venne said, "We've spent
$20, 000 just to make it habitable--two new furnaces. "
Mr. Sacks stressed, "A three-family is allowed. How does the
lacking 3 , 000SF make a difference?" Ch. Buscher responded, "The
concept of requiring another thousand square feet for each unit is
to keep people from being cheek by jowl. " Mr. Sacks replied, "The
place exists. The footprint won't change. The ordinance doesn't
work well here--it didn't intend to affect situations like this.
I 'm trying to make a case for a Variance under difficult
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 15, 1989 Meeting
Page Two
As to the Finding, Mr. Weil said he looked to Section 9.3 (d) , pre-
existing use. "It will not be more detrimental, and I 'd approve. "
Mr. Brandt found that moving from a two-family to a three
"increases density and makes it additionally substandard and
substantially more detrimental. " Ch. Buscher commented, "I agree
with Bill [Brandt] .
Mr. Brandt moved to deny the Finding, Ch. Buscher seconded, and the
motion passed 2-1 (Weil) .
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 7: 10 p. m. on
Wednesday, November 15, 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J.
Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, to
reach a decision on the Application of Richard, Maureen and Alfred
Venne for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 6. 2 and 9 . 3 (c)
of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a
two-family dwelling at 48-50 Fruit Street to a three-family
dwelling. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher,
William Brandt,and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Mr. Weil moved the minutes of the November 1, 1989 meeting be
approved without reading, Mr. Brandt seconded, and the motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. Weil commented, "The house is in disrepair--it could be useful
if the property were rehabbed. Now it' s two six-room apartments,
and they want three four-room apartments, with no exterior changes.
I 'd be inclined to favor approval of the Application.
Ch. Buscher said, "We need a Variance here because the lot is only
9, 450SF, and they need 13 , 000SF for a three-family. The structure
fails the setback requirements, and the change in use needs a
Finding. 'Not substantially more detrimental ' governs. A three-
family would not result in more rooms or change, therefore we find
it not substantially more detrimental. As to the Variance, we have
a much stricter series of requirements: The parcel must be unique,
literal enforcement would create a hardship, no detriment or
nullification, and as to all of these, I have some difficulty
finding anything unique. The large lots in the neighborhood are
public housing--the rest of the neighborhood is one and two-family
dwellings on small lots. This is a square, flat lot, with nothing
to prevent its use as a two-family. There is nothing unique. As
to hardship, they claim that deferred maintenance is a problem--
not enough cash flow to keep the place up. However, they recently
purchased this as a two-family, and the opportunity to come before
us before buying. It is not the job of this Board to prevent
people from making bad deals. As to 'no detriment, ' when you add
a third unit it becomes more substandard--it's already in
noncompliance. The purpose of the ordinance is to prevent stress
of life. We should not grant this Variance.
Mr. Brandt said, "I 've vacillated, and thought, 'Why not? ' There
are many multi-families in the neighborhood, but the criteria keep
me from voting for this. It's a square, flat lot, and the hardship
is self-induced. They should have done a cash-flow analysis .
It's not our job to help improve an investor's cash flow. "
Mr. Brandt moved the Variance be denied. Ch. Buscher seconded, and
the motion passed 2-1 (Weil) .
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION
RICHARD, MAUREEN AND ALFRED VENNE APPLICATION
PAGE TWO
felt, "It will not be more detrimental, and I 'd approve. "
Messrs. Buscher and Brandt found that changing the
dwelling from a two-family to a three-family "increases
density, makes it additionally substandard, and
substantially more detrimental. "
Both Applications are denied.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
William Brandt
M. Sanford Weil, Jt.
. ._ �,�_
r :
r<,�
�v
DECISION OF n
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL �1
DEPT OF SAS p�N MA
a meeting held on November 15, 1989, the r of
Appeals of the City of Northampton voted 2-1 (Weil) to DENY
the Application of Richard, Maureen and Alfred Venne for a
Variance from the Provisions of Section 9 . 3 (c) of the
Northampton Zoning Ordinance, and a Finding under the
Provisions of Section 9 . 3 (e) of the Ordinance, all relative
to their proposal to convert a two-family dwelling at 48-50
Fruit Street to a three-family dwelling. Present and voting
were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt. and M.
Sanford Weil, Jr.
The Findings are as follows:
As to the Variance request:
Mr. Weil, who voted in favor of granting the Variance,
felt that "the house is in disrepair; it could be useful
if the property were rehabbed. Now it' s two six-room
apartments, and they want three four-room apartments, with
no exterior changes. I 'd be inclined to vote in favor of
the Application. "
Messrs. Buscher and Brandt, who voted against granting the
Variance, found that the parcel in question is flat and
square, and has no characteristics relating to soil
conditions, shape or topography, especially affecting such
land or structure but not affecting generally the zoning
district in which they are located.
They further found that literal enforcement of the
ordinance does not involve substantial hardship to the
Applicant, and even if it did, the hardship would be self-
imposed, since Applicants recently purchased this property
and had the opportunity to come before this Board before
buying the property. "It is not the business of this
Board to prevent people from making bad deals. "
They further found that granting this request would be a
substantial detriment to the public good and would
derogate from the intent of the ordinance, in that, with
a two-family dwelling, the parcel has fewer square feet
than required, and with a three-family, it becomes more
substandard and moves even farther away from compliance.
As to the Finding:
Mr. Weil, who voted in favor of granting the Finding,
0
z
Ln Ln � N O 00 r--I Ln (— (n ct Lr) In
E-1 tD r-I H r-i M N I- N r-♦ O O M
O r-I r-i
a
a
0
cq z0 u u U U u u u u u u W
W N N N N (NJ N Gil m N N N N 00
V) pa M M M M M M M M M M M M M
En
Q
4J 4 >~
4-I U (0 a
.r-i Cq (1) N 4-) 4-)
(n O O O 41
rX' Z NEf) NU) P Q) 0
C7 U) (0 r1 H +-) U 4J �4 4-) H 4-3 14 C:
z U) U) +-) -I - z U) W : CU �j z U) 4-) O r-I 4-)
H W Q) I - O - O I U) 4-) r-I Q)
a c� (n Q) rl O cn O U) U a O Q)
H Q U I~ O r. IT-r-I Z31 . N U �4
(� •rI O (0 rt3 Q) ro (1) ro (0 0 $:� 41
a 41 rtf U 4J ty)r-1 CT r-i 41 .'S O .G U)
Q) Q) u) Q) rl S 4 O �4 O Q) H Q) u 41 4J
O 0 (d �4M O O �4 rn �4 .,
rd r0 r-I Ln f •H fo a) o a) m (1) m (d Q) o (d o 0 F H
U) U) Cz, 00 P4 U) U) x c7 T ZT co U, z U) W
u�
4-) 4-) 4-) 4J
+-) 4J 41 4-) 4-) (L) Ell Q) 4-) 4-) Q
(2) Q) O U Q) (1) Q) (3) Q) 0
Q) 4J (1) Q) (L) �A N 4J �4 (1) (1) �4 4-)
E-( in $-I �4 I~ S4 >~ 14 L". �4 1- >~ rl (1) 4 3~ �4 5~ �4 41 f: Q) �.
cZ U) 4J O 4-) O -N O -IJ O 41 O U) O O O a) O w O 4-) O 4J O U) O O O
W w U) 4-1 (f) +-) U) 4-) U) 4-) U) +-1 4-) u -W �-4 -P +) cn +-3 U) 4-) 4-) �4 4-)
a s a a a a a +) a a 4j 4j 04 a a a a
0 Q N E N E N N E N ri F E En -rl E N E N E -P E C!)
P4 C] L: (0 S" (0 L: (d f. (d 4:' (0 (0 (6 (d �:l (0 $:' m �." (d •r♦ CO (d
a O O O 0-.11. - o 1,4 i &,' 4-) 9,- �4 �Il o Olc� r
u +-3 u 4-3 u 41 U 4-J U 4-J w +-) -P +) -rl -P G4 4-) U 4-) U 4-) U) +) 4) 4-)
�4 �4 �4 �4 �-1 �4 -A �4 :5 �4 s4 �4 >4 �4 �:l �4
N O -4 O -4 O co O O N O O S4 O (p 0 m 0 0 0 co 0 O O
lfl 'Z,a to Z+ �,o z r- z d' z U) z Ga z (Y1 U) '�-+ 111 z r-I 'Z.a U) z
E
Q) O I
x �I �4
i - •rl - -r-i
H I~ La I~ U)
rn r� (d a (d a
L4 � a L� -rl >4 F� �4 r�
. h > a) ro Q
s4 a a :~ a Q) 0 h a) Q)
Q) Q) (d O O r-i a u > 44 > 4-I
f� 4J C7 �4 N Q) Q) -I x x }4 O O (1)
w r1 o �4 [ (0 + > H H U)
I~ (75 a I~ a- >1 v �4 o H I~ U H �-: 0 (1)
O rl Q) W U �-4 (1) 4-) (0 +-) .rl 41 •rl O 4 C7 �4 -r♦ H �4 .r i H r-I
s4 H .H O t-D U) x >~ a �( a �4 a Q) (0 4-3 (0 4-J O
Q) w r- a I~ O O O 1-1 + U) 3 m + 3 ro + u
x (0 rl rl >1 rI >1
(n +-J + (n + (2) >~ s~ >~ U) 4J cn (2) -rI lz� u 41 10 u 41 -C
F� (0 41 �l 41 H 3 3 (d >~ 41 �j 41 �j (0 41 row -A0 r40 �-_i +-)
(d u 14 U) �4 W O O �4 S4 Kt �4 �:l �4 tT 1-( (n �:l �4 (1) �:l rl
(d ro �4 �4o o O o (3) 0 o -ri 0 (1) 0 0cn0
m w m m h 2 c~ m 3ca 3 � u 3 < u (n
p 00 Ol O N M
Do Not Write In These Spaces Application Number:
Recd. B.1. Checked Filed Fee Pd. Recd. ZBA Map(s) Parcel(s)
By Date By Date Date Amt Date r Date IF 1 1
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
1. Name of Applicant Richard W. Venne, Maureen A. Venne and Alfred J. Venne
Address c/o Harley M. Sacks, Esq., 31 Trumbull Road, Northanpton, MA. 01060
2. Owner of Property Richard W. Venne, Maureen A. Venne and Alfred J. Venne
Address 164 North Maple Street, Florence, MA. 01060
3_ Applicant is: k Owner; -,Contract Purchaser; _Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for
X'VARIANCE from the provisions of Section 4 3r page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton. I,ot for proposed use is greater than existing use
'SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
X-OTHER: Finding under Section 9.3, crag 9-1 and 9-2 of hP Zoning OrdinancPG of
the City of Northampton (pre-existing or non-conforming structure and lot with change in use)
5. Location of Property AR-r.Pyniit q&-nn, t , being situated on
the nnri-hPaGt side of Fniit Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. Parcel(s) 199
6. Zone Urban Residence C (URC)
7. Description of proposed work and/or use; Existing_structure - 2 fami lt' hog P. Z=p 1 it-ant
would like to enlarge it to a 3 family house. No structural changes to exterior of
building are necessary. At ached J-, list of all- irmnsional r=ii ements.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; LXYes --'No
(b) Site plan: CAttched [XNot Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: Prop spA use is a permitt-PA use in this zone.
The eyi St int-i l r& area of_9gS0 s_f_ is already in vi nl at i nn of 1 nt area rerni i rcjnent and by
adding nnP nitro unit will nn1V incrPasp that non-confnrmitV h�z 1000 additional =iarP feet.
Asl - yrnn nog x7i-n]Af-ion c wll l be CrP;:1t:2C1 `j'hi c i c an
area of s11.1iagS
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form). See list attached
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge.
Date Applicant's Signature
0.��f pT
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ?°'° `°y
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION a ; Tax Map No. 32C Lot 29
Zoning Ordinance Section 10.2 M Received: File No. Plan File
Richard W. Venne, Maureen A. Venne and Richard W. Venne, Maureen A. Venne and
Owner Alfred J. Venne Applicants o e J. Venne
Harley M. sacks, Es q.,
Address 164 North Maple Street, Florence, MA. Address 31 Trumbull Road, Nort-ha=t-on, MA,
Telephone Telephone 584-1287
This section is to be filled out in accordance with the "Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations:
(Z.O. ARTICLE VI)
Zoning Use Lot Front Depth Setbacks Max. Bld. Min. Op.
District Area Width Front Side Rear Cover Space
Two Family 2'-
Past URC Existing 9450 sf 82.50' ill 12' 77' 24% 43%
Three Family 2'-
Present URC Proposed 9450 sf 82.50' 11' 12' 77' 24% 43%
Mark the appropriate box to indicate the use of the parcel:
X Non-Conforming Lot and/or Structure. Specify Undersized lot with several dimensional violations
a Residential ❑Single Family Unit ®Multi-Family
❑ Duplex ❑ Other
❑ Business
❑ Individual
❑ Institutional
❑
El Subdivision Regular El P.U.D.
❑ Cluster ❑ Other
❑ Subdivision with "Approval-Not-Required"-Stamp:
❑ Planning Board Approval:
❑ Zoning Board Approval (Special Permit 10.9: Variance)
❑ City Council (Special Exception S. 10.10)
Watershed Protection District Overlay: (Z.O. Sect. XIV) ❑ Yes ] No
Parking Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.1) Required X Proposed 6
Loading Space Requirements: (Z.O. Secf. 8.2) Required Proposed N/A
Signs: (Z.O. Art. VII) ❑ Yes ❑ No N/A
Environmental Performance Standards: (Z.O. Art. X11) ❑ Yes X No
Plot Plan ❑ Yes N No Site Plan ❑ Yes LX No
(S. 10.2) (S. 10.2 and 10.11
Waiver Granted: Date ❑
This section for OFFICIAL use only:
❑ Approval as presented:
❑ Modifications necessary for approval:
[a Return: (More information needed)
[ Denial: Reasons:
Riches d_W. Venne, Maureen A. Verne and
Alfred J. Venne
Signature of Applicant IlarZey M. SacTcs, Date Signature of Admin. Officer Date
Their Attorney �^++
PRIM�TSMOP
•t
II
VENNE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
EXISTING TWO FAMILY THREE FAMILY
FRUIT ST.
REQUIRED HAVE REQUIRED FRONTAGE
SQ. FOOTAGE 12,000 9,450** 13,000 9,450**
WIDTH (Feet) 75 82 .50 75 82 .50
DEPTH (Feet) 80 82.50 80 116 .5
SETBACKS:
FRONT (Feet) 20 11 20 11
SIDE (Feet) 15 2/12 15 2/12
REAR (Feet) 20 77 20 77
HEIGHT (Feet) 40 n/c 40 n/c
NO. STORIES 3 n/c 3 n/c
BUILDING
COVERAGE 50% 24% 50% n/c
FLOOR AREA none N/A none N/A
OPEN SPACE 30% 43% 40% 43%
PARKING
SPACES 4 2 6 6***
DRIVEWAY
THROUGH
FRONTAGE Y Y Y
* New violation
** Increased violation ,
*** Eliminate violation
n/c No change
, SACKS & FENTON �
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
L 22 JAM 31 TRUMBULL ROAD
PTO N, MASSACHUSETTS 01060
ILDING INSPECTIONS (413) 584-1287
PTON.MA.01060
18,
ALVERTUS J. MORSE (1872-1949> May 1989
ALVERTUS D. MORSE (1904-1982)
HARLEY M. SACKS*
STEPHAN H. FENTON
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEW YORK
Bruce A. Palmer, Building Inspector
City of Northampton
212 Main Street
Northampton, MA. 01060
RE: Venne Application
Dear Mr. Palmer:
Enclosed you will find a proposed application for a variance
for property at 48-50 Fruit Street, Northampton. Please review
it to see that we have requested all the relief that is necessary
to obtain appropriate building and zoning permits . If further
applications are necessary, or if you require changes to this
application, please advise me. Upon being advised that this is
acceptable, I will at that time file the petition.
Would you please furnish me with the appropriate application
for site plan review. I presume this must apply under the
concept of intermediate projects, as a conversion from two family
to three family. As there are no exterior changes taking pl
is all of the work that is required relative to the site ace,
(topography, building elevations) really necessary? The enclosed
plan which had been prepared does identify the structure, etc.
It can be improved by showing some landscaping, but this really
seems rather absurd. Would you please advise me.
As you know, I appreciate the opportunity or
staff to review this in advance of filing so that weowilldbeour
certain that we have filed all the appropriate documentation.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
MORSE SACKS & FENTON
By
HMS:P
Ha y,° `• i ks
Enc.