32C-231 (3) `r Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision - Venne, Venne, Kingsley
Page 2
5. That no on-street parking be allowed by the tenants
of 19 Hancock Street.
i
I
I! Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
�! I
I'
i LJ"Cz.
Peter Laband
i
li
jI
Shirley uchalski
I
NOV ! 4 X085
INSPUAiCiiS
I
i
' DECISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on October 30, 1985, the Zoning Board of Appeals of
the City of Northampton voted unanimously to grant the Variancer,request of
Richard Venne, Maureen Venne and Peter Kingsley for the purpose of converting
a two-family dwelling into a three-family dwelling at property located at
19 Hancock Street, Northampton (URC Zone). Present and voting were:
Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Peter Laband and Shirley Puchalski.
The findings were as follows:
P. Laband, referring to Section 9.3 (C) of the Northampton Zoning
Ordinance and Section 10, Chapter 40A, MGL, found that the structure
is unique, in that it is a large building built on a small lot, which
effects this structure but not the zoning district in which it is
located; that a hardship is involved, as the house is too large to
function as a single family or two-family dwelling, which presents a
hardship to the owners; that relief can be granted without substantial
jdetriment to the public good, as most of the other houses in the area
are multifamily dwellings; and that the requested use does not nullify
nor derogate from the intent of the Ordinance, as the purpose of the
Ordinance is not to prevent a suitable use for a house built to early
1 1900's standards.
R. Buscher concurred that the requirements necessary to grant a
Variance have been met, finding that the structure is close to one side
�o lot line, is a large old house, which would be more appropriately used as
a three-family dwelling; that because the upkeep of such a large struc-
�r X ture for a single or two-family use is so high and because the house is
in poor condition with two decrepit structures on the lot, a hardship
> �m-X is involved to the owners; that as there are many adjoining houses of
° similar type on substandard lots and granting the request will improve
the situation.
a
S. Puchalski found that the structure is adequate to house a third
I
two-bedroom unit; that the deteriorating barn presents a safety hazard
and she recognizes the financial hardship; and that the additional unit
will not derogate from the neighborhood, as there are other multifamily
dwellings in the area.
The following conditons shall apply:
1. That a driveway measuring 15 ft. in width (see Section 8.10
[12), Page 8.8) be constructed and hard-paved, allowing for
some green space along the property line. Said driveway will
enter onto a six-car parking area located past the adjacent
house and situated so that the cars park perpendicular to the
lot line.
2. That a fence be erected between this parking area and the
adjacent house, and the existing garage demolished.
3. That the addition of a fire escape be the only exterior
addition.
4. That the submitted list of proposed improvements, signed by
abutters, be adhered to, including:
• removal of the two-story barn
• siding or painting of the main structure
• landscaping the entire property including the area
now covered by the barn
. .2