32C-168 (5) NORTHAMPTON 20NING BOARD 0? APPEA.LS•'DECISION
_.
THE PRO CORPORATION, APPLICANT
IPAGE TWO
1i� violation, since the new site of the silo is well back from
' the property line vis a vis the front of. the building itself,
which is nonconforming because it is on the property line.
1� The total nonconformity is not increased.
D. This Finding is restricted to the work substantially as
presented to this Board at the Public Hearing, as depicted
on three plans dated March 16, 1990, prepared by Hill
Engineers Architects Planners, and entitled "Pro Corporation
,i Existing Conditions, New Construction and Utilities, and
Proposed Grading. "
1
i
L JuN 17 1990 Robert C. Busche-r, Chairman
Cl 71 CLERKS OFRCE a
1� William R. Br-afidt
M. Sanford Weil,�,7x
I
CERTIFICATE: OF CITY CLERK July 18 , 1990
� I , Christine Skorupski , City Clerk of the City of Northampton I
thereby certify that the above Decision of the Northampton Zoning
lBoard of Appeals was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on
June 27 , 1990 , that twenty days have elapsed since such filing I
land that no appeal has been filed ,I his matter .
Attest 4 �-
Christine
korupski
City Clerk
City of Northampton
i
1
I
DEC1$10N OF
NORTIL MPTON ZONI G BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City Of
Northampton held on June 20 , 1990, it was voted unanimously
to GRANT the request of The Pro Corporation for a Finding
under the Provisions of Section 9 . 3 (a) of the Northampton
I J Zoning Ordinance that the renovation of loading docks and the
' shipping yard, and relocation of a storage silo to a point
closer to the property line that it currently is, are not
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing structure and property at 296 Nonotuck Street,
Florence. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C.
Buscher , William R. Brandt, and M. Sanford Wei] , Jr.
11�
The Findings were as follows:
it 'A. Section 9. 3 (a) of the Northampton Zoning ordinance states
in pertinent part:
o min structures may be changes,
Pre-existing nonconf r g �
extended or altered, provided:
1 . Where said change,
extension or alteration is
II with regard to the specific pre-existing
�! nonconformity of the structure, that it first receive f
a Finding from the Zoning Board of Appeals that such
change, extension or alteration will not be
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood
ttjan the existing nonconforming structure .
I �
f
2 . Where said change, extension or alteration will
create a new violation of the present zoning
requirements, that appropriate variances be received.
3 . Where ali aspects of said change, extension or
alteration conform, in all respects , to the present
zoning requirements, no Variance— is required.
B. The Board unanimously found that the proposed changes
Will not be substantially more detrimental to the,
neighborhood than the existing structure. In fact, the Boar
sees a substantial benefit to the neighborhood in the almost
total elimination of truck traffic between the honotl1ck
° Street and Pine Street locations.
Y
N �o
7-5D- C . The Board unanimously found that the relocation o a
�q it storage silo from its current location to a site several feet
closer to the front property line does not create a new
I;