32C-141 (55) gq
� �!i . ""'"""'i
��- v � � � �
� �`--.
w
to fN
w� O K/ 393
o GO L A S N "/�0 �.� Be
,ti ,01 �j 1 ` lip �' v �
0E s `, O 8.50. 44 P4�,, 1, I� t_ � cn F�'A/✓C/S tf S J
P�� N 47' -. 3/' - si E Zoo 00,
+ � ° 1
ge S l ae
10-Min. - - �
'M I381
F71 a6, 79
m
,4D WIDE PL�,5
al �' �n 1225 .
J 1 Top
2-1-Slope 1,
/Cp'� tl r L l,��q ti�5 1197
/, ,,PROPOSED I,�I
7,_ f of slope - (=ILL
AREA 5 1 9 1 BK 1249,
1 11i 122
1197T 5 5 .1E7 3. 70'- '
`�1 I o Slope \ofEo/moo a r i s
2 to Z
\x N�
\ / 122 5� \
1 \1187
\\ 20 Top N.
z0 .°'
1210Top 1225
I'
r �
MAY
DEPT.OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
,►" - oy,� NORTF!AMPTON,MA-M 01060„ , t �
iP ro
1
" '• � cu vE.PI Eptwc s /ftit�' y
3
MM
t QF FICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
CITY of NORTHAMPTON --°,.
MEMORANDUM
Building
Inspector M 2 5
TO: Ted Tewhill,
Lawrence B. Smith, Planner "•"
FROM Application Number
SUBJECT:
Stephen P. Cahillane Special Per
PP
DATE:
May 24, 1983
FILE: grade
Special Permit to fill and g
Duseau jr. / and Robert T.
1980 Stephen P. Cahillane received a Sf
On April 23: William L.'Wood/Armand 3•
Cahillane/ a copy of which I have attached).
land of Stephen P. found
Michelman Avenue
and I inspected the site an
Foote at the end of Inspector) had been filled, yet
the Special Permit
Permitted by Clark Balled Mr. Cahillane and informed him
Last SummeYeaeand volume(p(Building
total a site. Mr. reed.
that the was being placed on Mr. Cahillane agreed.
fill should be placed on site.
additional fill
that io additional ineer) informed me that construction
that the contractor in-
1984 George Andiri"dis {DPW Eng rovements and e off of the end
On May 10, in on the Pleasant Street i pr Cahillane's property exceeded its
work was about to beg Mr.
dispose of his excavated materials on disposal site. 1984
ended to informed Mr. Andrikidisaveato fandsanot edr disP of May 10,
t Avenue. I would h
of Michelman fill, and that they On the evening so inform the contractors. Meeting, and informed him
permitted volume Of a planning Special Permit did not appear
Andrikidis said that he would ust prior ,to
into Mr. Armand Duseau,j ointing out thathis SP
I ran Mr. Andrikidis p Mr. Duseau responded that no one had
discussion with laced on the lot. Avenue, and assured that none would
of my more fill Oe p at Michelman
to allow for any the property
permission to place fill on
be placed there. Ulshoeffer (Asst.
fill had been placed
inspected the site with Elbert
of May 23, 1984 I insp additional
a substantial amount
of
On the morning and found that that which the Special Permit allowed see
Inspector) exceeding by 70' jneasures have been taken to pre~
Building laces ear that any
on the site, in some P it does not app aired in Condition ��2•
Plan) - In addition the slopeS, as req
attached P or to stabilize and the Northampton
vent erosion Wetlands Protection Act, been violated as
that the Of Applicability have
ears that the atten-
In addition it apF will bring this matter to
Negative Determination
I
Conservationhasn`encroached into the 100
the filling Commission. soon as possible)
tion of the Conservation with Mr. Cahillane (as remedy the
a meeting perhaps he will voluntarily plans
suggest that you set up "as built"
I would sugg this matter with him and p �,ngineer submit
discuss wire that his
so that we can
the very least we should req
situation.
with the approved plans.
to ensure conformance
. . �. .
e^N4
...........
I� DECISION OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At its meeting on April 23, 1980, the Zoning Board of Appeals
for the City of Northampton voted unanimously to grant the peti-
tion of Stephen Cahill ane for a special permit to fill a parcel of
land at the end of Michelman Avenue, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Based upon the evidence presented to the Board, the Board
made the following findings in regard to the special permit:
1. The proposed use is listed in the Table of Use Regulations.
2. The proposed use would bear a positive relationship to the
public convenience or welfare, in that it would give an
i undevelopable parcel of land the prospect of being
j developed in the future, as well as aesthetically en-
II hancing the property and the immediate zone in which it
is located.
3. The proposed use would not generate a permanent increase
in traffic, although traffic may increase for the period
when fill is being brought to the site; and it will not
impair pedestrian safety.
t4. In the area where the filling is to be done there are no
public facilities , thus there will be no overloading of
such facilities.
5. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the character
of the district nor to the general welfare, but rather
would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance which is to enhance the value of property
within the City of Northampton.
cial permit was granted subject to the following con-
O ons
VX 5 1 hat the applicant comply with Section 11.3, Subsection
of the Zoning Ordinance;
at he submit to the Board a statement showing what
measures will be taken to prevent soil erosion, and a
statement on the potential effects of the filling on the
immediate area and downstream;
(3) that he provide the Board with a certificate from the
engineer stating the exact number of cubic yards to be j
used;
(4) that no filling be done bey;;= ntour.
rman
Raym6nd Capers, ,
Robert Buscher i