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