Loading...
17A-127 (8) r ti CITY OF NORTHANI PION • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS $ Q� NORTHAMPTON. MASSACHUSr. r DATE: September 8, 1988 RE: APPLICATION OF RICHARD J. WANCZYK FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 . 2 OF THE NORTHAMPTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A BREEZEWAY TO CONNECT AN EXISTING HOUSE AND GARAGE AT 305 BRIDGE ROAD, FLORENCE. 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: September 8, 1988 Denying the Variance requested by: RICHARD J. WANCZYK For Property Located at: 305 BRIDGE ROAD, FLORENCE. 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. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals August 17 , 1988 Meeting The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7:50 p. m. on August 17 , 1988 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, to conduct a Public Hearing on the Application of Richard J. Wanczyk for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 6 . 2 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of building a five-foot long breezeway to connect an existing house and garage, resulting in a violation of the side setback because the garage, which complied with the setback requirement when it was an accessory structure, no longer complies when it becomes a part of the structure. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Irene David, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Ch. Buscher read the Application, the Legal Notice as published twice in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, a memorandum from the Planning Board which unanimously recommended denial of the request, the Variance criteria from Section 10 of Chapter 40A M. G. L. , and the Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations where applicable to this Application. A 15 ' side setback is required for an attached garage, whereas only a four foot setback is required for a detached garage. Mr. Wanczyk appeared, and presented the Board with letters from five abutters, including Sullivan, the direct abutter on the side where the violation would exist. All the letters were in support of the Application. He said the breezeway would be "more of a convenience, " and "would be a bigger value to the house when it' s connected. " He felt that "the breezeway won' t affect anything, and the garage is already there. " Mr. Weil, who visited the site, explained the physical layout. Ch. Buscher commented, "They had a garage and made a family room out of it. Then they said, 'Let' s build a garage, ' Then they said, 'Let' s connect the two. '" Mr. Weil cited an earlier, similar case where he said the Board granted the Variance. Ch. Buscher stated, "That was a wrong decision. " Mr. Weil asked the Applicant, "This is just a matter of convenience, isn' t it? I see no hardship. " The applicant agreed it was a convenience, and felt the hardship would be in not being allowed to do this project now, instead of in their later years when they might not be able to afford it. Mr. Weil moved to close the Public Hearing. Mrs. David seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Ch. Buscher and Mrs. David felt they wanted to visit the site, and Mrs. David moved the matter be taken under advisement. 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 August 31, 1988 Meeting The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7:05 p. m. on August 31, 1988 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, to announce a Decision on the Application of Richard J. Wanczyk for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 6. 2 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of building a five-foot long breezeway to connect an existing house and garage, resulting in a violation of the side setback because the garage, which complied with the setback requirement when it was an accessory structure, no longer complies when it becomes a part of the structure. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Irene David, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Mr. Weil read the Variance-granting criteria from Section 40A, r and stated that his perception was, unfortunately for the Applicant, he doesn' t have a topographical problem. "The Applicant told us, ' It' s a convenience, ' and I ' ll have to move to deny. " Mrs. David agreed that the Applicant "does not have a topographical problem or hardship, and I don' t see how we can approve. I would vote to deny. " Ch. Buscher said he had to concur with his colleagues. "He had a garage and made it into a family room. Then he built a garage four feet from the side line, and now wants to connect it for convenience. Clearly this is convenience, not hardship. Even if it were hardship, he brought it on himself. There is nothing unique about the lot. I agree with my colleagues that his arguments are deficient. " Mr. Weil moved the Application be denied, Mrs. David seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman Sp *Ap c FF hf og fSEP 1 e I t DECISION OF ,,:..., NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPE S OEPT.QFBUILDIN iF T NORlxrl��iorv, i I At a meeting held on August 31, 1988, the Zoning Board i of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to DENY the Application of Richard J. Wanczyk for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 6.2 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of building a five-foot long ± w breezeway to connect an existing house and garage, resulting j lj in a violation of the side setback requirement because the garage, which complied with the setback requirement when it j was an accessory structure, no longer complies when it becomes part of the primary structure, located at 305 Bridge Road, Florence, MA. Present and voting were Chairman Robert I C. Buscher, Irene David and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. I The Findings were as follows: I � Applicant has not demonstrated any characteristic of I size, shape, soil conditions or topography that satisfies the statutory requirement for the granting of a Variance. Applicant has not presented any evidence of hardship, financial or otherwise, that meets the statutory i requirement. In point of fact, Applicant has described the proposed construction as a "convenience. " Even were there hardship, it is the finding of the Board that it is self- inflicted. The Application is denied. i 1 I � Robert C. Buscher, Chairman NJI Irene David I� I I - I i M. Sanford Weil, Jr. i i I'