Loading...
25C-085 (19) ZONING PERMIT 9 5 C APPLICATION T--,'-'� 11-p T':). Lit Zoning Crdin,,.nce Sectil"'n 10.:' c: v I'l-n File Owner 44AMF?rA1 C- F F I Ct 'Fk() I nc TAME, Address ;Z3 LbRl D CYV� f�'T r e 141 A va L, Iro V1 Telephone This section is to be out in accordoixe .-JtJ,, tie C. of Density Regulatione:. (Z. A171 LF, VI) Zoning T.T Lot t Fv)))t Dc"t-ji u t I c1- Min. Or. District Ix c n "idth Side -Cover. Space Past Exictir,",' 13 ,4 1 15,751F bo �-6 resent Proposed Mark the @-rprorrint-c T,ox try indic,�,t(�'�'t t1l u of 111, Residcntini 1111Lf =Vulti-Fo'nily Dul-lex. Q0thei Business Industrial Institutir-1 Subdivision Q R 1'.U D C I Subdivii 3 Ju I, wj.tjj N, t T J, Plai.,nirr, T.�(,),-)rd Arprovol Zonin,- Rorxd A!'prowil (Spc.,cj,,j p<,r),jit = city Council ('Special Fycrpt-ion , '.Vatershed Protection District Ove •lT-y: (7,.C1. Sect. Yes ro Parkin, Space Requiremento: (ZI.('. .sect. ".1) Re-quircd NO Pripose"', Loading Space Requirements: (Z.(.'. "(,,ct. 8.2) Required-ff-0—Pro"nosed Signs: (Z.0,. Art. VII) Yec _0 T10 ,Environmental Performance St.,,,ndardr,: (Z Q, Art, Xj..1) =Ycr, Plot Plan CKI Yes i t c P 1.;-7111 0 y c ITO (S. 10.2) 10.12 !Djid . This section for c)Fj,, ICIAI_, use only: =Approv,al. as presentcd- =1,11odificatiDns Re-turn: (1101-0 irformitinn ne—ic.-A) Denial: p e,-r o 1,,3 Signature (5f ApI)lic-T)t Date )f AO!ftin. Officcl, Date i -S yip Oir - �;/ �• ( �,�/ V GENERAL NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS i -This project conforms to the followingi Uniform Building Code ( �•�r..�„ Los Angelfes City Code Los Ange,fes County Code 2- Design Loads: Wind Load @ 20 psf. Dead Load @ 6 psf. r -The Engineer assumes res onsibilit only �- ! -_ :__ rT_ ± E Q 3 w for the structural integrity of this project Any alterations will void this sheet. This ! ' I _� /T.,eC�.4s �t " ) y c sheet valid only if signed in ink by the � 1 �/i � Engineer. 4 -Method of attachment to pole or wall sur- face is not a part of this project and shall p 1 � be shown by others. 5- Sheet steel shall be 24 ga. minimum - Paint Loc or approved equal. o. W $1 i 6 -All steel shall be A 7 or A 36 f, 20,000 psi. Steel less than '6" thick shall be galvanized. 7 -Welding ,shall conform to all applicable _ s••� _ _� c 4 �° codes. One half stresses are used through - - " out. Certified welders are required' �� '4 ` l,S...�C�..n.r �lr.J✓i -,�+} a nQ� 8— Alummum frame where noted. Alloy 6063 f.4��t �+� �. sf.�.�'T lr. T42 minimum. See sketch. •�� 9s's, r�x�i I � 9 - There shad t>e a mirnmum of t IA 3071 _ _: a 6. Q - Q M�chire Bolt at each connection (Or ?" of �,j� `n` ,fit a weld). y f,,. !. .4141-W +i H N 10- Sign panels are to be Underwriters' Ldhora tory ouproved. Use only approved plastics. r`.! "�' �•��'s' �� � - d < -- �' U ' , ..i. r <- /� '..7� Imo► t/Or � - + W > 77 11W 7„L U 4f d..c% �.� J - Q �--- .a a W�'k= 0 U / • �- j� �sdr �tfrriAr♦ A.14,>05;%0,- m W < 0 CL �$.Y�.v)l.•») r <!�c SO; �j•�., c1►' -gip � � j < i �.� ... r-�.. :.,via.• , _ W,l � ('L .)�Io� ?�o' (;,�rsra•ri� � S. r'ri = �0 9 ,.. � j Eaa!/e a4'O7.Li F Z � ui cc n O W r .7r? G�.j i=__�_____ _ --- vi✓. J f r lrie ..fry •/ , ' �+ - ' . i E. . .+ 0 'C5 • irli v � �� '/f. ���eJ���r�izir �L® Y � ��/ri t�� '�Y i +• .'�� G'i%►,J IL +- ✓j' ���M� �Y1 )(�) 3 7 t (f oK 4 * B �Glsaaxdptaetta - — DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR 212 Main Street ' Municipal Building Edward J. Tewhill Northampton, Mass. 01060 January 11 , 1985 Mr. James R. Tunstall 238 Bridge St. Northampton, Mass. 01060 We have received the decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals today; granting your application. There is now a twenty (20) day appeal period you must await. After the appeal period is up, you must go to the City Clerk' s office and get a stamped copy from them which will indicate that there has. been no appeals on the decision you received from the Zoning Board. Then bring the stamped copy they give you over to the Registry of Deeds and file it with them, but be sure they give you a copy to give to us to keep on file in our office. Then you can come to our office to apply for the building permit, but until all the above listed steps are complete our office can 't issue you the building permit. Be sure to get the above mentioned copy from the Registry of Deeds, so we can process the building permit immediately. For Your Information: Zoning Ordinance Section 10.6 - Permit Time Limits. A Zoning Board Decision granted under the provisions of Section 10. 10 shall lapse within eighteen (18) months (including such time re- quired to pursue or await the determination of an appeal ) from the grant thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause, or if, in the case of a permit for construction, construction has not begun by such date except for good cause. With the exception of a Variance, the time lapse period is twelve (12) months, not eighteen (1G) months. Edward ew i Building Inspector EJT/lb go „�oy CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060 g A )ING IftPEG'IOV$ DATE: JAN 12199 .�.�.�,,'..'�r ��, �A. n RE: THE APPLICATION OF JAMES R. TUNSTALL, ET AL TO MODIFY A VARIANCE GRANTED ON DECEMBER 11, 1984 RELATIVE TO PROPERTY AT 238 BRIDGE STREET, NORTHAMPTON. Pursuant to the Provisions of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton was filed in the Office of the City Clerk On: JAN 121909 GRANTING the request of James R. Tunstall, et al For Property Located at: 238 Bridge Street, Northampton If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed in Superior Court within 20 days of the date this decision was filed in the Office of the Northampton City Clerk. &L""�"/" -P Robert C. Buscher, Chairman 5 d x Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1989 Meeting Page Two .;u;:; predictable parking needs. " There was no one else present to speak in favor, nor were there any opponents. Dr. Laband moved the Public Hearing be closed, Mr. Weil seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Dr. Laband referred to his statements in the 1984 Decision, and stated he found again that there is uniqueness of the property, and that literal enforcement would cause hardship. He added that this area is primarily residential, and moved for approval of the variance modification specifically for this proposed tenant, with a limit of three practitioners at any one time. Mr. Weil said he had no objections to what' s being asked for. "If the Variance was OK in 1984, it' s appropriate now. " He did, however, question how the three-practitioner limit could be enforced. Ch. Buscher said that Dr. Laband had correctly stated the reasons why the modification should be allowed, but thought "we should give a broad range of appropriate tenants. " He proposed those uses allowed by Section 5. 2, Page 5-8, Paragraph 2a (retail) and miscellaneous professional uses as listed on Page 5-10, Paragraph 12. He put a 10,000 square foot limit on the space that could be occupied by the tenant, and prohibited food sales. Dr. Laband said he could agree with that, and agreed to withdraw the "three practitioner limitation. " He so moved with the above conditions, Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals January 4 , 1989 Meeting w,,.,• The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7: Wednesday, January 4, 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, to conduct a Public Hearing on the Application of James R. Tunstall, et al to modify a Variance from the Provisions of Section 5 . 2 of the Northampton Zoning ordinance which was granted by this Board on November 28, 1984. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Ch. Buscher opened the Public Hearing by reading the Application, the Legal Notice as published twice in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, and the appropriate portions of Section 5 . 2 which provide that retail establishments are not allowed in a URB Zone without a Variance. He gave a history of the building' s occupancy by Hampshire Office Products and Mr. Tunstall' s leather business. He pointed out that this Board granted a Variance in 1984 specifying Hampshire Office Products as the tenant, with the condition that if they were ever to be replaced by another tenant, a modification of the variance would be necessary, which is why the Applicant is here tonight. Ch. Buscher also read the Variance criteria from Section 10 of Chapter 40A, and a memorandum from the Northampton Planning Board. Atty. Joseph Hanafy, 335 Bridge Street, Northampton, appeared for the Applicant. He pointed out that the previously approved tenant had gone bankrupt and had been evicted; that it has been a hardship on the applicant with no tenant for the last year and a large mortgage payment; that the applicant has considered 15-20 tenants, and now proposes a Physical Therapy Office as the "ideal tenant" for the building. He said the nature of this business will not be detrimental to the neighborhood but in fact would be an enhancement to the community in providing physical and occupational therapy. Half of the office' s work is done off-site. He stressed that "a nicety of this type of use is that it' s noiseless, non-polluting, no merchandise changes hands, all business is by appointment, and traffic flow is negligible and regulated by appointments. In addition, he pointed out that Mr. Tunstall' s business is moving away from retail to wholesale, with a diminution in traffic on the site. He asked the Board to allow the modification, and further asked for language in the Decision that would be broad enough to obviate the need for Mr. Tunstall to return every time a new tenant comes along. Dr. Laband asked if the parking arrangements had changed since he heard the Variance request in 1984, and was told they, and the entire building, remain exactly as they were. Mr. Weil asked why the Applicant didn' t choose a tenant whose retail business would not require a modification, and Mr. Hanafy said that many of the tenant opportunities were "of the pizza parlor type and would cause traffic problems. He chose these tenants because of the low and e CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060 DATE: ;JAN 12 18009 Certificate of Granting of Variance or Special Permit (General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 11) THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT A VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT HAS BEEN GRANTED: TO: JAMES R. TUNSTALL, ET AL ADDRESS: 238 BRIDGE STREET CITY: NORTHAMPTON, MA AFFECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER WITH RESPECT TO LAND OR BUILDINGS AT: 238 BRIDGE STREET And the said Board of Appeals further certifies that the decision attached hereto is a true and correct copy of its decision granting said Variance/Special Permit, and that copies of said decision, and all plans referred to in the decision, have been filed with the City Clerk. The Board of Appeals also calls to the attention of the owner or applicant that General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 11 ( last paragraph) provides that no variance or special permit, 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 in the Office of the City Clerk and no appeal has been filed or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Registry of Deeds for the county and district in which the land is located and indexed in the grantor index 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. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON By: By: Chairman Secretary FORM 1094 i I NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION ON THE APPLICATION OF JAMES R. TUNSTALL, ET AL PAGE TWO j and accessories, furniture and home furnishings, home equipment, small wares and hardware, and including discount and limited i li price variety stores. " Sale of food is specifically prohibited. I� 2) Section 5. 2, Page 5-10, Paragraph 12, "Miscellaneous 11 professional and business offices and services including, but not limited to, medical, legal, and other professional services and finance, banking, insurance and real estate office. " I `1 I Robert C. Buscher, Chairman i Dr. Peter Laband I 10 1 M. Sanford Weil, Jr. j i li I Ii 1 I i I { I JAN i DECISION OF O T_OFMUI'DING'1W NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �r ° �`' ' o c ii At a meeting held on January 4, 1989, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to GRANT the request of James R. Tunstall et al to modify a Variance which had been granted by this Board on November 28, 1984 , to allow the substitution of a Physical Therapy office as the tenant in the building at 238 Bridge Street, replacing Hampshire Office Products, the tenant specified in the 1984 Decision. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. I� I I' The findings were as follows: i, li j' The Board reiterated all the findings in their decision ! -that was filed on December 11, 1984. Ch. Buscher and Dr. Laband, who sat at this Public Hearing also sat at the 1984 Hearing. The Board found that the proposed tenant, a Physical Therapy office, would be an appropriate one. It is agreed that parking at this commercial site in a Residential zone is awkward and limited. The "by appointment only" nature of this tenant' s �i business results in a low and predictable level of traffic on } II the site. I � The Board heard testimony that the leather business of Mr. Tunstall is evolving from retail to a higher degree of wholesale, resulting in a decrease in traffic on the site. i The Board agreed to expand the list of qualified tenants to ithose outlined in the following sections of the Northampton I Zoning Ordinance: 1) Section 5. 2 , Page 5-8, Paragraph 2 and 2(a) , "Retail �Iestablishments, with maximum floor area of 10,000 square feet per floor for any single establishment, selling general merchandise, including, but not limited to, dry goods, apparel I i /4 W t to ry Da HAMPSHIRE TUNSTALL OFFICE LEATHER PRODUCTS , [n CANTON "! TYPES^]BITER n ¢ a 9 .3 %� LLJ cj ro Moak ra k56 243 lop kAO 241 _ cto cyl to The •Hoard also unanimously ft=3 t'..at gran t-inci -)f the �� •,ncc would not derogate from the intent and piirposo of t.:., as the granting of`the varili�ce wou1t? co:.stitutc �� corlLin�i.Zn:.c! uP the "nonconforming use. After clue hearing the Board votee unani-mously to grant thcc variance. Dated April' a, 197 b. i W, CV! Y OF NORTHAMPTON WARD OF APPi►t1 DECISION Re: Petitioa for a variance try H O P TRUST & ENID REALTY TR Tnis is the Decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton on a position filed by 11 O P TRUST and ENID REALTY TRUST, requesting a variance from the provisions of Chapter 44 , Section 4D, Paragraph 3, of �th Revf*ed 'Ordinances, ,pf the City of Northampton. The p%izitionei3rs ,re guest ', 1 Board grant a variance to Permit the petitioners to operate a4.wholes .e and retail dffice supple store and to carry on' any `find' ..all 'Activities associated with such business . The nremisei lnffec"d are situated at: 239-240 nridge Street and arty designated on the Asaeasors Map of the City cif, Northanint.on as Parcel 85, Sheet 25C. t t The matter was duly a. vertised o:} February 27, 1974 and March G, t 1 74`, in the paily tlampshi:�e Gaiette, and'Vas heard by the Board on March l0, ;?74 Charle8- W. Dragon, ChairmAn presided at the hearing i:�nci ht3ard td mutter, with-Board members, Cecil I. ,Clark and Edward F. Keefe. R The petitioners were present and were represented by Attorney William r..`, yer. Therq 'were no objectors. The 46 q unanimously found that a substantial hardship exists witp 'relatibri to thi's pa el of la4d as the property consists mainly of a ` com;ft'eroial=�'fbUt ;dinl �p&,ited in a residentiA''I area. The premise: have been used for`'busin®ea purposes sinces . 1940 'and are not compatable to re'sidential used.`` ` The Soa=d further unanimously found' that desirable relief may be gr4ntpd without subdt;antial dettiment to the public good as the proposed U66- is in' k4eping With the present 'use by variance and the former non- conforming­`uee. The Board..also found that the parking problems in the a neighbonccgad:*wopld�. be sobstant4ll allev:t;Itedw by the proposed business .