Loading...
32C-149 (17) o�frTo J g CiT `% CF PJORTHAMF'T, 0 n ^ }p 7C, 'N1 ^1G BOARD OF APPALS usn DATE: October 18 , 1990 RE: THE REQUEST OF CHARLES AND ELIZABETH PAQUETTE FOR A FINDING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 275 PLEASANT STREET, AND THE SQUARING OFF OF THE "FOOTPRINT"THE NEIGHBORHOOD THANLTHE O I EX EXISTING BUILDINGI.Y MORE DETRIMENTAL TO Pursuant to the Provisions of the General Laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice of the hereby City of that a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals Northampton was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the above date GRANTING the requested 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 October 3 , 1990 Meeting Page Two This is unfortunate, but this addition is not substantially more detrimental. ventilation is still possible, and a view is not something that is guaranteed. I 'd vote in favor. " Mr. Weil read into the record the City Solicitor' s opinion, and asked that it be made part of the decision. Mr. Weil moved that the Finding be granted. Dr. Laband 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 October 3 , 1990 Meeting Page One The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7 : 15 p. m. on Wednesday, October 3 , 1990 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, to announce a decision on the Application of Charles and Elizabeth Paquette for a Finding to allow them to square off the footprint of their building at 275 Pleasant street, and to add a second story. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Dr. Laband moved that the minutes of the September 19 , 1990 Public Hearing be approved without reading. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. The Board dealt first with the "squaring off" issue. Mr. Weil commented, "In my estimation, the Finding is appropriate. Squaring off the building is not more detrimental, and I 'd vote for it. " Dr. Laband added, "I concur. It will not be substantially more detrimental. " Ch. Buscher concluded, "I concur. The applicant is adding a reasonably small addition to make the building rectangular. There is no visual impairment to the neighborhood. " Dr. Laband moved to grant the Finding to square off the building. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. As to the proposed second-floor addition, Mr. Weil commented, "An abutter has an objection. We agreed to visit the site. I went into the Eagles ' building. Their second-floor windows facing Paquette' s building will face a solid wall, and any noise from their functions will not disturb Paquette' s tenants. As to the view of the mountains, I looked out the window and found the view to be already partially blocked by a building farther down Pleasant St. I don't find the impediment of view is sufficient to deny this request. Also, Kathy Fallon' s opinion is that the Eagles have no prescriptive easement for light and air. I think we can ignore any differential in the light and air situation. I 'm prepared to allow the addition. It will only come halfway up the Eagles ' windows. " Dr. Laband added, "What concerned me was changes in air circulation. I don't think the added second floor will interfere with that. The Eagles were concerned about their noise, but with the solid wall, that' s not a problem. The Eagles ' arguments were strained, to say the least. On balance, I conclude the risks of disturbance to the Eagles do not warrant declining this request. It may be more detrimental, but it' s not substantially more detrimental. " Ch. Buscher concluded, "I concur with Peter. Clearly, any time a change is made to a property, there is a possibility or a likelihood that it will have some sort of negative affect on abutters or the neighborhood, but that' s no reason to deny people the right to change. The Eagles will have their openness reduced. Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals September 19 , 1990 Meeting Page Two kitchen. " Wilfred LaFountain Secretary, FOE, said his fears included, "We have night parties. If there are apartments there, there will be complaints to the police if there' s noise. A band or DJ will cause problems. If the apartments have air conditioning, they will drip into the alley. It will be bad for his tenants and for us. I think we will have problems if he has apartments. We're like a pizza wedge--we ' re surrounded on three sides. Our first floor is elevated above sidewalk level . It ' s a two-story building with a basement. What I call the third floor is really the second floor. " Mr. Weil asked Mr. Mawdsley if the wall facing the Eagles would be solid, and was told, "Yes, no windows. The entrance to our building will be on the south side, with egress for the second floor on the East side, not the alleyway. The Eagles ' complaints are not relevant to the building being planned. Paquette has never denied access to his roof to the Eagles. He lets the Eagles park on his property. No other abutters have responded. " Mr. Weil asked, relative to ' not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood, "If the Eagles are the only complainer, is that substantially detrimental to the neighborhood?" Mr. Mawdsley replied, "That' s a question of fact. Weigh one abutter against the whole neighborhood. " Mr. Weil asked Mr. Mawdsley to address the issue of ' light and air. ' Mr. Mawdsley declared, "They have no easement for light and air. They have no legal right. If we build, then as a matter of law we can partially block light and air. There are windows on the North and West sides of the Eagles. " Dr. Laband asked the Eagles generally, "How many parties have you had in the last six months?" The reply was, "Eleven, but we' ll have more in the winter. " Richard Beebe Member, FOE, pleaded, "You can't block our view of the mountains. " Ch. Buscher stated, "We need to view this. " Dr. Laband agreed, stating, "I 'd like to take a look at it. Let' s close the Public Hearing and take it under advisement. " Ch. Buscher asked the Secretary to inquire of the Law Department if a prescriptive easement for light and air could be acquired by the passage of time. Dr. Laband moved that the Public Hearing be closed, and the matter taken under advisement. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mawdsley suggested that the members, when visiting the club, inspect the upcoming calendar of events. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 1990 Meeting Page One The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7 : 45 p. m. on Wednesday, September 19, 1990 to conduct a Public Hearing on the Application of Charles J. and Elizabeth V. Paquette for a Finding under the Provisions of Section 9 . 3 (a) , to allow them to square off the footprint of their building at 274 Pleasant Street, and to add a second story. The building is pre-existing, nonconforming due to insufficient frontage and side setback. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Atty. Russell Mawdsley of Ely and King in Springfield was present to represent the Applicants. He told the Board that "The Law Department agrees that this is merely an extension of an existing nonconformity and not a new violation. We want to add a second story. Mr. Paquette does not yet know who his tenants would be. most likely, business on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor. The Eagles ' Lodge is 4 1/2 ' to the North of his building. There' s a fire escape at the end of the alleyway. The Paquette building will be 19 ' -20 ' tall, and the top of the new building will be at the midpoint of the windows on the Eagles ' top floor, and 6 ' away from their building, since Paquette ' s second story will cant inward. As to parking, we don't know what the use will be, but we estimate ten spaces based on business on the first floor (six spaces) and two apartments on the second floor (four spaces. ) This building used to be Nick' s Whistle Stop, which burned down in 1985, and then the Phoenix Restaurant, which burned down in 1988 . " There was some discussion about the number of parcels involved, and it was agreed that there are four parcels, all under common ownership since May of this year. Ch. Buscher asked if "Any part of this lot is being used for any other purpose now?" Mr. Mawdsley replied , "Yes, storage of lumber and a shed on tract #1. " Mr. Mawdsley continued, "As the Planning Board said, this is the gateway to Northampton, and is in bad shape. We will improve the appearance, the space between the buildings will not change, the Eagles have top-floor windows on both the west and north sides for light and air, and the proposed building is not our-of-place in the neighborhood, nor is it substantially more detrimental. " There was no one else present to speak in favor, but when opponents were called for, the following people spoke: Patrick Johannesen, Trustee of the FOE, said that "There ' s a great view of the Mt. Holyoke Range from the South windows. We have weddings and showers on the top floor. We've put a lot of money into upstairs renovations. It' s difficult to paint all four sides of the building as it is now. I 'm concerned about drainage in the alleyway, and wind force in the alleyway. Our kitchen is in the cellar, and is vented into the alleyway, and I 'm concerned that this new building will detract from our ability to- cool the NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION CHARLES AND ELIZABETH PAQUETTE APPLICATION PAGE TWO Dr. Peter Laband M. Sanford Weil, Jr. r t Tip n� � . :* a DECISION OF � 8 HAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS s At a meeting held on October 3 , 1990, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to °GPANT the request of Charles and Tliza.beth Paquette for a Fin ingw under the Provisions of Section 9 . 3 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton, that the construction of a second story addition to an existing building located at -275 Pleasant ; Street', and the squaring off of the "footprint" of that building would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure, which is nonconforming because of a front setback deficiency. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. The Findings were as follows: 1. Section 9 . 3 (a) of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance provides that "Pre-existing nonconforming structures may be changed, extended or altered provided that. . .there is a Finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that such change, extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. . . " 2 . The proposal is to square off the "footprint" of the irregularly shaped building. The Board finds unanimously that this reasonably small addition to make the building rectangular creates no visual impairment to the neighborhood and will not be substantially more detrimental. The Finding is granted. 3 . The proposal to add a second story provoked a complaint from the immediate abutter to the north that light, air and view would be impaired by the addition. The Board members visited the site, entered the building and assessed the impact of the addition. They found that the windows on the south side of the abutter' s building will face a solid brick wall of the new addition; there will be no disruption in air circulation patterns in the alleyway between Applicant ' s building and the abutter; abutter' s view to the south is already partially blocked by a building farther down Pleasant Street, and the proposed addition will only come halfway up the abutter ' s second-story windows; there is no prescriptive easement for light and air, and a view is not guaranteed. The Board finds that the proposed addition will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The Finding is granted. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman