Loading...
35-016 (12) Tile Board had vietaed the site on February 28. The meeting for ti-le purpose of making a decision on the petition of Cmasta Bros . for a variance to construct a building in an SR zone was called to order at 7 : 10 PM in the Council Cizarabers , City Hall, by the Chairman, Charles W. Dragon. The public hearing on the matter ;lad been advertised in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on February 3 and February 10, 1976. The minutes of that public hearing were read and approved unani- mously. The Chairman noted that while the petitioner contended that the site in question was not suitable for residential use, the property could in fact, be used for two building lots; that there was no hardship affecting this particular parcel but not affecting other parcels in thcaarea; and that granting the vari- ance would derogate from the intent of the zoning ordinance because people have the right to expect a degree of permanence to the zoning ordinance. -- TMir. Brushway agreed with Mr . Dragon. In addition, he said that the district is residential and the type of business proposed for this property is not for a residential zone. He further stated that the lots are excellent, not poor as the petitioner claimed . In his opinion, the requirements for a variance have not been met. ,fir . Moggio agreed with the findings of the other two members. The vote was taken resulting in a unanimous vote to deny the request. The meeting was adjourned at 7 :25 PM. Present and voting were Charles W. Dragon, Chairman; Armand Mo, gio and Thomas Brush- way. Also present were Attorney Harley Sacks, Clare Fennessey, Clerk, and a reporter from the Daily Hampshire Gazette. Ch rles W. Dragon C'z rman � Armand 1 iioggio ti omas Brushway - 3 - r Continuing, Mr. Sacks said that Cmasta Bros, Inc. , a con- struction company having several vehicles and presently renting space to park them, has been plagued by damage to the vehicles by vandals, and if a shelter cannot be provided , the company will be 'forced out of business. The company has been unsuccess- ful in its search for another suitable site for the proposed building, and they would prefer to stay in Northampton. The purchase of this particular parcel, on which the petitioners have a buy and sell agreement, would allow the company to stay on a competitive footing. Since the area is, in Mr. Sacks ' words , commercial, he claims that the proposed building would probably be one of the best in the area, and would blend into the surround- ing land . Fences, trees or shrubs would be provided if the Board so states. Gravel could be used for dust control. Presently, there is much vehicular movement in the area , and no increase is for!-seen. The Chairman asked Mr. Buczala, present owner of the land, if there has been any previous effort on his part to sell the land . Mr. Buczala said that there had .Wt. Mr. Sacks was then asked if the company had plans for the remainder of the lot, and he said that it would be used for a turning and parking area for the equipment. Robert Conners, Clerk of Cmasta Bros . , said teat the company is now using a rented site bordering the parcel in question, there- fore the amount of traffic generated from the operation would be the same. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr . Conners believes that the gravel bank near the property will be operating for some time. Mrs. Robert Conners spoke in favor of the application, saying that the building would add to the area. Questioned by the Chairman about sewers in the area, Mr . Conners said that there are no sewers, but that percolation tests had been done three or four years ago. Mr . Mcggio said that he believed that the laws on the percolation tests have changed since then. Mr. Sacks said that there will be ample space between the proposed building and the wetland area . The matter was then taken under advis ment and the hearing was adjourned at 9 : 30 PM. 2 - j r DECISION OF THE BOA=RD OF APPEALS In re : Petition for variance by Gmasta Bros . , Inc. This is the decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of s Northampton on a petition filed by O.nasta Bros . , Inc. requesting a variation from the requirements of Article V, Section 3 of Chapter 44 of the Revised Ordinances , for the purpose of con- structing a building forty by forty-eight feet, by approximately t;venty feet in height and being a one story structure for an office and storage of vehicles. The premises affected are located on the easterly side of vest Farms Road , designated as Parcel 16, Sheet No. 35 of the Assessors ' Plan and are known as the land of Thomas and Ella Buczala . The public notice on this matter was published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on February 3 and February 10, 1976. The Plan- ning Department recommended denial of this application for the following reason: type of business proposed for this suburban residence district would be detrimental �.,to -the- neighborhood. The Board of Appeals ' hearing was held at 8: 15 PM in the Council Chambers , City Hall, on February 24, 1976. The Chairman, Charles W. Dragon, presided. The other members present were Armand Moggio and Thomas Brushway. Also present were Clare Fen- nessey, Clerk, Attorney Harley Sacks, Mr. Buczala, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Conners , Norman Gorenstein of the Daily Hampshire Gazette, and three interested citizens . There N.jere no objectors to the petition present. Harley Sacks of Norse and Morse, Attorneys-at-Law, represented Ofnasta Bros . He showed a map of the land and described the site of the proposed building, which, when completed , will have space in the rear area for parking trucks, thus keeping the vehicles hidden from view from the street. The parcel is bounded by a ceme- tery, a wetlands area, open space, and a gravel removal operation. Mr . Sacks acknowledged the fact that, given some dirt, a home can be built anywhere , but contended that this particular parcel is not suitable for residential use. He said that the composition of the soil is rocky and scraggly, and that the area contained nothing that would provide a pleasant view. He further stated that this lot is unlike any other SR zoned land , and the proposed use would not undermine the intent of the zoning ordinance.