25C-141 (4) Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
r Decision - Gertrude E. Epstein
Page 2 March 5, 1986
The following conditions shall apply:
�r I 1. That the applicant shall address any water run-off
problems created by the gradation of the newly constructed
parking area by providing an adequate method for proper j
drainage (i.e. , drain or berm around the exterior of the
parking area) . I
2. That the applicant shall not use the premises for parking
during the Tri-County Fair.
ji
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman i
,`!C ,T: , , , Kathleen M. Shee an '
o v.
Shirley P halski
s�
Time
A
April 8, 1986
I, Adeline Murray, City Clerk of the City of Northampton,
hereby certify that the above Decision of the Northampton
i! Zoning Board of Appeals was filed in the Office of the City
Clerk on March 14, 1986, that twenty days have elapsed since
such filing and that no appeal has been filed in this matter.
Attest
Adeline Murray,
City Clerk
City of Northampton
i
i
1-
I
j DECISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
` At a meeting held on March 5, 1986, the Zoning Board of Appeals of
the City of Northampton voted unanimously to grant the Special Permit and
Finding request of Gertrude E. Epstein, 31 Marian Street, Northampton
for the purpose of converting an existing two-family dwelling into a
three-family dwelling at property located at 47-49 Orchard Street,
j Northampton (URB Zone) . Present and voting were: Chairman Robert C. Buscher,
Kathleen M. Sheehan and Shirley Puchalski.
The findings were as follows:
'! R. Buscher, referring to the request for a Special Permit, found,
under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, that
the use is listed in the Table of Use Regulations; that the requested j
use bears a positive relationship to the public convenience by
providing needed housing to the community; that the addition of an
i apartment in this heavily occupied area will not create undue traffic
nor impair pedestrian safety; that the addition of one housing unit j
will not overload municipal systems; that Article XI does not apply;
and that the addition of one housing unit will not impair the integrity
or character of the district nor derogate from the intent of the
Ordinance, as Orchard Street is predominantly a multi-family street
(with 2- to 6-family dwelings) in a fairly congested part of the City.
t
jc Referring to the request for a Finding under the provisions of
Section 9.3 (D), Mr. Buscher found that for all of the reasons stated
LO above, the requested use will not be substantially more detrimental
-- to the neighborhood than the existing use.
,.± K. Sheehan found that the use is listed in the Table of Use Regulations;
°a that the requested use bears a positive relationship to the public
convenience by providing needed additional housing, noting the 1-12
vacancy rate for residential rental space which currently exists in
j; Northampton; that the requested use will not create undue traffic
ii congestion nor impair pedestrian safety, as the applicant has provided
an adequate parking area for the tenants in the rear of the property;
that the requested use will not overload municipal systems; and that
the requested use will not impair the character of the district nor
derogate from the intent of the Ordinance.
Referring to the request for a Finding, Ms. Sheehan concurred that
the requested use will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing use.
S. Puchalski, referring to the Special Permit request, found, after
�! a site visit, that many homes in the area are located on similar lots
!j and are multi-structured; that although there are severe traffic
congestion problems in this area of the City, ample parking space has
been made available; that the requested use will not impair the integrity
i
or character of the district nor derogate from the intent of the
Ordinance; that the requested use bears a positive relationship to the
ii public convenience by providing needed additional housing to the community;
and that there was no opposition from abutters `other than drainage problems
from the installation fo the new parking area.
Referring to the Finding request, Ms. Puchalski also found that
the requested use will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing use.
. .2