36-278 (6) ZBA Meeting Minutes 8 13194
would result if the applicant did not construct the house, and that
_ moving the house 51 closer to the road would not be noticeable
compared to the other houses on the street.
Elaine Reall stated, "If the Conservation Commission did not think
that the building should be built, they should have denied the
permit. " Reall said she liked the way this development is designed
and would like to encourage honorable businessmen to build good
housing.
Chairman Laband said that the actions of the Conservation
Commission produced the hardship and noted that the developer
should be allowed to build the house without being penalized.
Elaine Reall moved to close the Public Hearing. M. Sanford Weil
seconded the motion which passed unanimously 3:0.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Sanford Weil said that the Variance should be approved because
the Conservation Commission has imposed the hardship upon the
applicant by conditioning the moving of the house. Weil reviewed
the criteria as listed below:
1. There exists circumstances relating to the soil conditions,
shape and topography of the land that does not generally
affect the zoning district in which it is located because of
wetland areas and concerns regarding construction.
2. Literal enforcement of the ordinance involves substantial
financial hardship to the applicant because the hardship
resulted from the Conservation Commission's Order of
Conditions that requires the applicant to move the house site
5' closer to the street than required by the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The setback change will not nullify the intent of the
ordinance since there will still be a good distance from the
road to the house.
Elaine Reall said she would be in favor of granting the Variance.
Chairman Laband said he would be in favor of granting the Variance
also.
Elaine Reall moved to grant the requested Variance for the reasons
outlined above. M. Sanford Weil seconded the motion which passed
unanimously 3:0.
-5-
v
ZBA Meeting Minutes of 8/3/94
Chairman Laband opened the continuation of Public Hearing on the
request of Edward Davidson/DAVCO Company for a Variance under §6. 2,
page 6-4 of the Zoning Ordinance to construct a single-family
dwelling within 25' of the property boundary at Lot 23A, #51 Woods
Road. Present and sitting on the case were: Chairman Peter
Laband, Member M. Sanford Weil, Jr. and Associate Member Elaine
Reall.
Glenn Ofcarcik of NKA Consultants was present on behalf of DAVCO.
He explained that the request for a Variance resulted from an Order
of Conditions granted by the Conservation Commission on this
property. It was the opinion of the Commission that the applicant
should move the house 5' closer to the road to have a smaller
impact on the wetland area. Ofcarcik asked whether the ZBA members
had conducted a site visit. Sanford Weil said he had visited the
site but couldn't tell much from looking at the site. He asked
Ofcarcik if the original plans showed rectangular lots at the time
that the lots were approved through the subdivision by the Planning
Board. Ofcarcik said that at the time of the original filing, the
applicant would have been granted the permit to build. He stated
that the building would be allowed if the wetlands were replicated.
Kuzdeba discussed the original wetland lines and how those lines
had shifted over time, away from the proposed dwelling.
Kuzdeba corrected Ofcarcik by informing the Board that it was not
guaranteed that th elots could be built upon even though they were
approved through sub-division control. She said "creating a lot
does not create a buillding lot. "
Sanford Weil questioned whether the hardship was self-inflicted.
He said that the reason for having two smaller lots versus having
one larger lot was financial. Ofcarcik said the applicant was
looking for a Variance for a lot which was already approved three
years ago by the Planning Board. Kuzdeba reviewed the history of
the Planning Board's subdivision situations and the fact that lots
that are approved do not necessarily mean that the lots are
building lots.
Elaine Reall questioned whether the hardship was created by the
Conservation Commission with the Order of Conditions. Reall said
she thought the Conservation Commission unfairly threw this request
on the ZBA by making the moving of the house by 5' a condition of
the Order of Conditions. Dr. Laband said that the Conservation
wants certain requirements met and they want the house to be 25' to
the road instead of 30' so that the house is further away from the
wetlands.
Dr. Laband reviewed the criteria under which Variances may be
granted. He stated that the circumstances which exist relating to
soils, shape and topography were in the form of the wetlands and
the steep slopes located on the property. A financial hardship
-4-
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) , Chapter 40A,
Section 11, no Variance, or any extension, modification or
renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision
bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have
elapsed after the decision has been filed, or if such an appeal
has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded
in the Hampshire County registry of Deeds or Land Court, as
applicable and indexed under the name of the owner of record or
is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The
fee for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner
or applicant. It is the owner or applicant's responsibility to
pick up the certified decision from the City Clerk and record it
at the Registry of Deeds.
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals hereby certifies that a
VARIANCE has been Granted and that copies of this decision and
all plans referred to in it have been filed with the Planning
Board and the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15,
notice is hereby given that this decision is filed with the
Northampton City Clerk on the date below.
If anyone wishes to appeal this action, an appeal must be filed
pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, with the Hampshire
County Superior Court or the Northampton Disctrict Court and
notice of said appeal filed with the City Clerk within twenty
days (20) of the date e€ that this decision was filed with the
City Clerk.
APPLICANT• Edmxd David.6onIDAVCO Company
DECISION DATE: August 3, 1994
DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: Augot 16, 1994
PeteA LabcInct, Cha,(Aman
. an,a n.
-3- ,
-2-
DAVCO - Variance Decision
3 . That by allowing this variance, desirable relief may be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good or
nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and
purpose of the Ordinance, since the lots within the
subdivision are large, have varied setbacks and will not be
crowded by this new construction. Additionally, the front
yard setback reduction of five (5) feet will still allow an
acceptable setback distance from the road which would not be
noticable in relation to the setback of other houses
constructed on the street.
i
-2-
j E
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
_Office of Planning and Development `"3`, G 7 �•
City Hail • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 - (413) 586-6950 DEPT Of BUILDING INSPECTIONS
FAX (413) 586-3726 NORTHA.Y.PTON MA 01060
•Community and Economic Development t
•Conservation •Historic Preservation
• Planning Board•Zoning Board of Appeals
• Northampton Parking Commission
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICANT: EDWARD DAVIDSON/DAVCO COMPANY
ADDRESS: 21-11 RADBURN ROAD, FAIRLAWN, NJ 07410
OWNER: EDWARD DAVIDSON/DAVCO COMPANY
ADDRESS: 21-11 RADBURN ROAD, FAIRLAWN, NJ 07410
RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: - OAD.
ASSESSOR'S MAP and PARCEL NUMBERS: MAP #36 PARCEL # 278
At a meeting conducted on August 3, 1994, rthampton Zoning
Board of Appeals unanimously voted the request of
Edward Davidson/DAVCO Company for rom the dimensional
requirements of the front yard setbac required under the
provisions of
Ordi
Zoning Board Members present and voting were: Chairman Peter
Laband, M. Sanford Weil, Jr. and Elaine Reall.
In GRANTING the request for a Variance, the Zoning Board of
Appeals found:
1. That circumstances exist relating to the soil conditions,
shape, and topography �of the land that does not generally
affect the zoning district in which it is located, in the
form of wetlands located across a major portion of the
property and a steep slope that limits the placement of a
building in relation to the wetlands.
2 . That a literal enforcement of the provisions of the
ordinance would involve substantial financial hardship to
the petitioner because the Conservation Commission issued an
Order of Conditions requiring the applicant to obtain a
variance to move the house five (5) feet closer to the front
lot line. If the variance was not received, the applicant
would not be able to construct the house in accordance with
the provisions contained within the Order of Conditions
issued under the Wetlands Protection Act.
-1-
ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER