18C-048 (28) y f� '�//
__ .� �� �
6 April 2000 Page Two
I believe that these demonstrations would have added significantly to the Board's ability to
quickly and efficiently grasp the crux of the issues, existing and claimed, regarding the
luminairs' enclosures and lamps, the Zoning Ordinance Requirements, the Appeals and the
Building Commissioner's contentions. ,,
By not allowing these demonstrations I believe my ability to present my case was seriously
compromised, diluted and damaged.
Attempting to present information, comparison and arguments of a technical nature is
always difficult, tedious and without such presentation aids, frequently unsuccessful.
You have denied me the opportunity to present the two significant portions of my case
and arguments to your body and I request you to remedy the situation.
As regarding further Appeal of these matters, I believe that erecting barriers to the Zoning
Board's receipt of discussion and information which was designed only to more efficiently
make the case will only weigh to the negative for the Zoning Board and the City of
Northampton.
Sincerely,
Steven E. Susco
Steven E. Susco
754 Bridge Road APR 1 2 2000
Northampton, MA 01060 'w
6 April 2000
Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Northampton, Massachusetts APB' ! [i 2
City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 k
RE: Appeal by S. Susco of Building Commissioner Decision Regarding Outdoor
Illumination Systems of Northampton Nursing Home
Filed: 14 February 2000
Public Hearing Opened: 23 March 2000
Chairman and Gentlepersons:
Thank you for allowing me time to present an overview of my Appeals' information
package as part of the opening of the Public Hearing held on 23 March 2000. As I stated
that evening, the information package was created to detail my Appeal and to bring
together all applicable documents and information for the Zoning Board's appraisal.
I understand that given the Board's schedule, that limits must be imposed on presentation
times. Nevertheless, I must also raise my strong objection to not being allowed to finish
my presentation. Although my overview was allowed, you did not allow me to present to
the Board the essence of my Appeal. Although the Discussions and Appeals of Sections 1
through 4 of my information package are documented, the essence is veiled by technical
discussion which is tedious at best, although I hope not boring. At the Public Hearing it
was my desire to relate to the Board as clearly as I possibly could the essence of my
Discussions and Appeals.
I believe I was denied the opportunity to make my case in the only forum reserved or
available for such.
Additionally, I had prepared for presentation to the Board models of the lighting systems in
question. You again did not allow me to make the presentation, which I estimate would
not have exceeded fifteen minutes.
The scale models would have demonstrated by visual example many important aspects of
my Discussions (of my information package). Included were modeled luminair enclosures
incorporating clear, textured clear, frosted, colored, coated and diffusing characteristics, all
of which are germane to what exists at the Nursing Home's site and what the Building
Commissioner states in his response/decision and continues to purport.
Additionally the models included lamps with various germane characteristics and attributes
(clear, frosted, diffusing and coated) which I was prepared and intended to demonstrate
both operating and extinguished with and within the model globes/enclosures.