25C-187 (4) Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals W 66.=7
Public Hearing on Application of Rollas W. Batten
Mav 6 , 1987 DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
NORTHAMPTON,MA.01060
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of rthampton ffe=
a. public hearing at 8: 20 p.m. on May 6 , 1987 in Council Chambers,
Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building to consider the request
of Rollas W. Batten for a Variance and a Finding under the
provisions of Section 9 . 3 , Page 9 . 2, Paragraphs C & E of the
Zoninq ordinance of the City of Northampton for the purpose of
converting an existing two-family dwelling into a three-family
dwelling at property located at 28 Hind Avenue, Northampton,
MA (URC Zone) . Present were: Acting CHairman Peter Laband,
William Brandt and Sanford Weil, Jr.
The Actinq Chairman read the public notice as it appeared in
the Dailv Hampshire Gazette on April 22, and 29 , 1987 . He
reviewed Section 9 . 3 (C & E) and the criteria necessary to grant
a Variance. He read a memo from L .Smith, Planner, on behalf of
the Northampton Planning Board recommending denial of the
Variance , but in the event that the Zoning Board grants the
Variance, the Planninq Board recommends in favor of the Finding
.request. The Acting Chairman advised those present of their
.right to appeal.
Rollas Batten, 82 Harrison Avenue, owner of the property at
28 Highland Avenue, stated that this structure contains two, two-
bedroom rental apartments, as well as two vacant unfinished rooms
on the third floor, which he would like to convert to a third
.rental unit. He stated that the area contains a number of
multifamily dwellinqs, that this 10 ,000 sq. ft. lot is the
taraest on the street, that there is ample room for additional
vehicles on-site (noting a 31 x 57 ' section in the rear of the
structure, which could be enlarged if necessary) and that the
addition of a third apartment will not be more detrimental to the
neiahborhood, as there will be no exterior changes.
After some discussion regarding the necessity of addressing
the criteria for a Variance, the applicant requested to be
allowed to withdraw his petition without prejudice in order to
more thoroughly research his application.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to allow the
applicant to withdraw his petition for a Variance and a Finding
without prejudice.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to close the
hearing_ at 8: 40 p.m. Present, in addition to those mentioned,
were J. Parker, Board Secretary and several interested citizens.
i
Peter Laband, Acting Chairman