25C-104 (3) Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision - Nevin, Page 2
Itoo small for the requested use and will be detrimental to the
(general concept of what should be done in that area of the
City; that Grant Avenue is a crowded street that will be
!burdened by additional traffic. He stated that the benefit of
Iproviding affordable housing does not balance the impact to the
Ineighborhood and added that the structure should sell with no
difficulty as a single-family dwelling.
R. Buscher found, upon viewing the property, that this
; dwelling is amenable to conversion with a minimum of structural
changes. He suggested that in view of the fact that there are
two separate back entrances, this structure could have
originally been built as a two-family dwelling. He stated that
although a strong case was not presented in regards to meeting
the criteria necessary to grant a Variance, the location of the
structure on the lot represents a unique situation, as the lot
is small with no side yard on one side and no rear yard.
Referring to the criteria necessary to grant a Special
Permit, Mr. Buscher found that the use is listed in the Table
of Use Regulations; that the requested use bears a positive
relationship to the public convenience, as it will provide
needed housing and is easily amenable to conversion; that the
! requested use will not create undue traffic congestion, as
,,there is ample area on the lot on which to provide the required
'parking and the dwelling is located near the intersection of
! Bridge Street, so that there will be minimal traffic impact on
the more populous part of Grant Avenue; that the requested use
will not overload municipal services; that as the character of
this district is mixed residential, the conversion of this
1idwelling will not impair the character of the neighborhood and
; will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
I situation.
i
j Robert C. Busc er, Chairman
I
Peter Laband
Sanfo d Weil, Jr.
iol
V
Ana 3 r
DECISION OF OF8U1lOiMGINSPFCt10Na
��NORtN vroN.MA
ZONING BOARD OF APPE
At a meeting held on March 18, 1987, the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the City of Northampton, in a split decision, voted
to den the Variance, Special Permit and Finding requests of
Jane H. Nevin, 21 West Street, Hadley, MA for the purpose of
converting a single-family dwelling into a two-family dwelling
ton a lot which is nonconforming in its area, frontage, depth,
!' setbacks and open space requirements in a nonconforming
structure at property located at 29 Grant Avenue, Northampton,
jMA (URB Zone) . Present and voting were: Chairman Robert C.
Buscher, Peter Laband and Sanford Weil, Jr. '
The findings were as follows:
P. Laband, referring to Chapter 40A, M.G.L. and the
criteria necessary to grant a Variance, stated that although
the applicant presented somewhat unorganized and inadequate
arguments, he found the structure unusual in that it already
functioned as a two-family dwelling with separate entrances and
exits, and an existing kitchen and bath; that unless relief is
granted, the existing facilities could not be used for a
single-family dwelling and would have to be removed at great
expense to the owner; that providing rental housing in
, Northampton is of benefit to the public good; and that as this
apartment contains ample living space, the requested use is in
harmony with the general intent of the Ordinance.
Referring to Section 10 . 10 of the Northampton Zoning
Ordinance and the criteria necessary to grant a Special Permit,
P. Laband found that the use is listed in the Table of Use
, Regulations; that the requested use bears a positive j
; relationship to the public convenience and welfare by providing
+`rental housing; that the requested use will not create undue
'traffic congestion nor impair pedestrian safety, stressing that
'the objectors to this petition will have problems with
congestion regardless of any action taken by this Board; that
the requested use will not overload municipal systems; that
,Article XI does not apply; that the requested use will not
impair the character of the district, as this area is
predominantly multifamily; and that the requested use is in
harmony with the general intent of the Ordinance. Referring to
the request for the Finding, P. Laband found that the requested
use will not be substantially more detrimental than the present
use.
S. Weil stated that although the structure had been used
by the present owners as a two-family dwelling, it is not a
foregone conclusion that it can be used as such again,
especially if the two-family use will exacerbate existing
nonconformities. He found that the size of the parcel is