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'