17B-008 (11) A
O�
� � �lassach�zsetts
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
212 Main Street ' Municipal Building
INSPECTOR Northampton, Mass. 01060
Edward J. Tewhill
September 29, 1987
Mr. James I. Hutchins
22 Washington Ave.
Northampton, Mass. 01060
Dear Mr. Hutchins:
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.
Sincerely,
e:n 7 .
r %W i'T`l'�.,�'_'—
Building Inspector
EJT/lb
AA
DECISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on September 23 , 1987, the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to grant
the Finding request of James I. Hutchins, 22 Washington Avenue,
Northampton, MA, for the purpose of constructing an addition
onto a pre-existing nonconforming two-family dwelling at
property located at 446 Bridge Road, Northampton, MA. Present
and voting were: Chairman Robe ft C. Buscher, William Brandt
and Peter Laband.
The findings are as follows:
Referring to Section 9.3 (B) , P. Laband found that the
proposed addition onto the rear of this pre-existing
nonconforming two-family dwelling will have a minor impact on
the neighborhood and will not be substantially more
detrimental, as there is ample room on the lot and the addition
will be screened from the neighbors.
W. Brandt concurred that the requested use will not be
substantially more detrimental, as the applicant will not be
! extending the use, but only making the second dwelling unit,
which has existed for 41 years, slightly larger.
R. Buscher also concurred, finding that as the applicant
indicated that the addition would be used as an expansion of
the living quarters, and not as a bedroom, the use will not be
( intensified and will not be substantially more detrimental than
the existing nonconforming use.
The following condition shall apply:
That the extension shall be used to expand existing rooms,
not for additional bedrooms, which would intensify the
nonconforming use.
f , x" Robert C. tuscher, Chairman
L;
k SEP 2 91987
,, a... ... _ Peter Laband
V ,
William Brandt