Loading...
25C-008 (2) Inspector take no enforcement action until June 1, 1992. Chair Buscher agrees that the applicant has not proven that there is a hardship that cannot be solved with other alternative methods and that granting the ordinance would be against the zoning rules. B. Reckman noted that if a building permit had been applied for, as is required for a situation like this one, then they would have been denied and the applicants would not have gotten themselves into this situation. S. Weil seconded the motion to deny variance and the motion was passed unanimously. . ROBERT C. BUSCIift, CHAIRMAN a Mr. Weil asked what the topographical problem was. Ms. Archambault said that the soil conditions meet the criteria because of the muddy situation which results from the accumulation of water. An abutter, Daniel O'Connor, 142 North Street, said he had absolutely no problem with Mr. Archambault's request for variance. Bob Reckman asked how the structure is attached/fastened to the house. Reckmans said that maybe they could detach the roof a little bit or just have the roof attached to either the house or the garage. He suggested that the Archambaults had alternative solutions to the problem besides illegally attaching a roof to both the house and the garage. Reckman said that there were snow hooks, gutters, and other solutions which could help alleviate the accumulation of water. He said the fact that the garage was built too close to the house was a major source of the problem and thus the condition was self-inflicted and does not meet the hardship criteria. There are alternative solutions in this case and usually a variance is only granted when there are no alternatives. In this case there are ways of addressing the situation so that the breezeway does not have to touch both structures and by doing this, the Archambaults would still be protected from the falling snow. Reckman said he did drive by the site and could understand why the Archambaults attached the roof, but that in order to grant the variance the Board must find a unique situation, a hardship, or a topographical problem. Reckman said that, as a member of the ZBA, he could not make recommendations or give building advice. Mr. Weil noted that there has to be extreme circumstances in order to grant a variance and said there was a state law which the Board must follow. Weil said in this situation it appears that there are alternative ways to address the problem so I cannot see how I could move in favor of granting the variance. Bob Reckman said that although the board was sympathetic to the Archambault's problem, they do not meet the criteria for the variance, and we cannot overlook that fact just because there are no opponents to the request. S. Weil moved to close the public hearing. B. Reckman seconded and the motion passed unanimously. S. Weil said that after hearing the explanation from the representative of the applicant he was not convinced that there are no alternative ways to address the problem other than granting the variance. Weil does not feel that the criteria for variance have been met, particularly with regard to the hardship aspect. Because the roof was built by the applicant, this is a self-inflected hardship and does not meet the criteria. Therefore Weil felt he could not vote in favor. B. Reckman said he was in agreement that the literal requirements of the law have not been met and there are alternative solutions. The requirement for change in the property can be put off until the nice weather comes. B. Reckman moves that the request for variance be denied and recommends that the Building The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7:50 p.m. on January 29, 1992 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building to conduct a public hearing on the request of Gerald Archambault for a variance from side yard setback requirements to allow an attached garage at 150 NORTH STREET. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Robert Reckman, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Also present, in addition to those mentioned above, was Mary H. Martineau, Board Secretary. Chairman Buscher read the Legal Notice as published twice in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on January 15 and January 21st. There had been one item of correspondence from Wayne Feiden on behalf of the Northampton Planning Board stating that at its January 9, 1992 meeting the Planning Board had voted to recommend that the ZBA deny Mr. Archambault's request for variance and noted that found that it does not meet the criteria for a variance, including unique site conditions and a hardship that is unique to the lot. Buscher noted that this board may or may not reach a similar decision on this matter. Doreen Archambault, 30 Vermont Street, Holyoke spoke on behalf of the applicant, Gerald Archambault. She showed the board a drawing which showed the work which had been done to the property. The garage is setback from the house and you enter the structure from the outside. The walls are open spaces. Buscher noted that what the applicant had done was create an open breezeway and asked how long the roof had been attached. Ms. Archambault said the roof had been there for a year and a half. She said the reason that the roof was added was because the open space between the house and the garage accumulated rain water and snow and made the entrance to the house dangerous. She said Mr. Archambault had fallen because of the accumulated snow and ice. Because the roof is slanted the rain and snow accumulated and slid off the roof like an avalanche in front of the entrance door to the house. She believes the danger of someone getting hurt by falling snow off the roof is a condition that meets the criteria for a hardship. The Archambaults had tried a canopy but when the weight of the water and snow was too much, the canopy collapsed. They decided that the only solution was to have a flat roof structure there. The roof does not add to the living space because it is an open area underneath. This roof does not create an extra room or an addition in any way. The roof was put there to protect them from the weather when entering and exiting their home. Ms. Archambault said she thought they met all the requirements to grant a variance because the soil conditions change when the water and snow accumulate. The backdoor to the house is connected to the driveway and is the main door the family uses. The garage is now attached to the house and the setbacks did change so we are seeking a variance of the setbacks. As the pictures show, the only setbacks that do not conform are the side ones. The open air breezeway cannot be seen from the road and there are no neighbors in the rear of the property. The roof is not an eye sore and does not create a hazard to any neighbor. It does not affect water flow and there are no wetland issues on this land. If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 17, with the Hampshire Superior Court and notice of said appeal filed with the City Clerk within twenty (20) days of the date this Decision was filed with the City Clerk. DECISION DATED: February 19, 1992 DECISION FILED WITH CITY CLERK: FEB 2 1 19�;-Z- Robert C. Buscher, Chairman Robert Reckman M. Sanford Weil, Jr. PAGE 2 City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950 $ FAX (413) 586-3726 * '� • Community and Economic Development , • Conservation •Historic Preservation • Planning Board•Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICANT: GERALD ARCHAMBAULT APPLICANT ADDRESS: 150 NORTH STREET, NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 OWNER: GERALD ARCHAMBAULT OWNER ADDRESS: 150 NORTH STREET, NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: 150 NORTH STREET , NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 At a meeting held on January 29, 1992, the Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to VENTithe request of GERALD ARCHAMBAULT for a VARIANCE from side yard setback requirements under the Provisions of Section 6.2 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, to allow an attached garage at 160 NORTH STREET. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Robert Reckman, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. The findings were as follows: 1. The Board found no unique circumstances relating to the soil conditions or topography. 2 . The Board did not find any substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals hereby certifies that a variance, finding, or special permit has been denied and that copies of this decision and all plans referred to in it have been f iled with the Planning Board and the City Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 40A, section 15, notice is hereby given that this decision is filed with the Northampton City Clerk on the date below. PAGE 1