17C-171 (8) meaning of the statute because the center is to be leased, controlled
and supervised by the Commonwealth' s Department of Correction, a
government and "public" body. Additionally, the center will be
partially staffed by Hope Home, Inc. , a non-profit corporation. In
Worcester v. New England Institute & New England School of Account-
ing, 335 Mass . 486 , 489 (1951) , the Court stated that "the promotion
of education by non-profit institutions not maintained at public
expense has from early times been often asserted, recognized or
reaffirmed as a public purpose. " In the same case, the Court
indicated that the fact that a non-profit institution charges fees
for its services does not destroy the public character of its pur-
pose. In addition, the funding for the center will come from the
Department of Correction, with a portion of initial funding coming
through grants from the United States Government. Such financing
is "public" in even the most restricted sense.
In Article XIV of the Agreement it states :
"The Contractor agrees to comply with all state
and local building codes . "
However, the above-quoted language does not indicate com-
pliance with zoning ordinances which would otherwise be inapplicable
to property to be used for public educational purposes and would
frustrate, or even hinder, pgrformance of the Agreement . See
Med:L'ord v. Marinucci Bros . & Co. , Inc . , 344 Mass . 50 (1962) .
Therefore, the Court rules that on this phase the plaintiffs
prevail, and the proposed use of the premises is educational with
a public purpose and is exempt from the regulatorywp,,., , ti-X4
Holyoke zoning ordinance.
JUL 619 9
o N SA O M 01060�whs
-22-
G.L. c . 40A, §2 provides in part that:
. .no ordinance or by-law which prohibits or
limits the use of land for any. . . educational
purpose which is . . .public shall be valid. . . . "
The Supreme Judicial Court has stated that the term
"educational purpose" shall be interpreted according to the common
and approved usages of the language without enlargement or restric-
tion and without regard to the court' s own conceptions of expediency.
Moulton v. Building Inspector of Milton, 312 Mass . 195 (1942) . In
Mount Hermon Bo s ' School v. Inhabitants of Gill, 145 Mass . 139 ,
146 (1887) , the Supreme'Judicial Court defined "education" as follows :
"Education is a broad and comprehensive term. It
has been defined as ' the process of developing and
training the powers and capabilities of human beings . '
To educate, according to one of Webster ' s definitions ,
is ' to prepare and fit for any calling or business ,
or for activity and usefulness in life. ' Education
may be particularly directed to either the mental,
moral, or physical powers and facilities , but in
its broadest and best sense it relates to them all. "
The Supreme Judicial Court has held that an institution ,
the teaching of which was primarily vocational rather than academic,
nevertheless served a public educational purpose within the estab-
lished principles , and thus , was within the applicable scope of
the statutory exemption. Worcester v. New England Institute &
New England School of Accounting, 335 Mass . 486 (1957) .
In view of the findings made by the Court relative to the
purpose of the center and the actual instruction to be received
and provided for at the center, the Court rules that the center
will serve a predominantly "educational purpose" within the meaning
of G .L. c . 40A, §2 .
"
The education purpose of the cent s public" wit In the
�.y
-21- w..m .. .... ...
the Department of Correction and Hope Home, Inc. , the lease is
invalid.
III. EXEMPTION OF PRE-RELEASE CENTERS FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING ORDINANCES
OR BY-LAWS .
The Court has ruled in Part I and Part II that the ,authority
of the Commissioner to i-hstitute correctional pre-release centers
and to negotiate leases and contract for services has been estab-
lished by statute, but that the failure to follow mandated statutory
procedure has left the establishment of the center in Holyoke without
force and effect. In addition the Court has invalidated the lease
between the Department and Hope Homes , Inc .
However, assuming that the procedural defects are corrected,
the Court feels it is in the' best interest of the parties to decide
other issues raised by the pleadings .
The plaintiffs contend that they are exempt from the muni-
cipal zoning ordinances or by-laws of the City of Holyoke . The
plaintiffs base their contention on three points . They argue (1)
that the proposed use is educational with a public purpose, (2)
that the proposed use is a legitimate function of state government
with such governmental activity exempt by case law, and finally ,
(3) they state that if both arguments fails , the proposed use comes
within the scope of those permitted for district RM-20 under the
"Schedule of Use" regulations adopted by Holyoke.
Realizing that only one of the three points raised by the
plaintiffs needs to be upheld for the plaintiffs to prevail in
regard to this issue, the Court will rule as tq,,.th.e, use, of the
premises as educational with a public pure
DEPT.OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
NORTHAMPTON, MA.01060
-20-
The center is federally funded in that monies paid to
Hope Home, Inc. are from a grant obtained from LEAA. However,
some state funds are used, mainly to pay the salaries of the
Department ' s personnel.
The selection of the site for the center was made by the
Commissioner and the Department, and not by the Governor.
Based upon the findings of fact, the Court makes the follow-
ing rulings. Because of the number of issues raised by the plead-
ings , the Court has segregated the rulings under appropriate
headings .
I. AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
TO ESTABLISH PRE-RELEASE CENTERS (HALFWAY HOUSES) , AND THE
PROCEDURE THEREFORE .
The defendants allege that the authority of the Commissioner
of the Department of Correction to establish "programs" outside
correctional facilities and to permit inmates to participate in
such programs, as provided in G.L. c. 124, §§1-10, does not extend
to the "housing" of inmates outside correctional facilities .
G.L. c . 124, §1 (as amended by Chapter 777 of the Acts of 1972 ,;
the "Correctional Reform Act, " and Chapter 430 of the Acts of 1973)
prescribes broad powers and specific duties of the Commissioner
of the Department of Correction. Pertinent to the issues presently
before this court, it provides in part:
"§ 1. In addition to exercising the powers and
performing the duties which are otherwise given
him by law, the commissioner of correction, in
this chapter called the commissioner, shall:
(a) designate , establish, maintain, and administer
such state correctional facilities as he deems
necessary, and may discontinue the use of such state
correctional facilities as he deems appropriate for
such action. . . .
.
(e) establish, maintain and administer programs of
-7-
The program to be implemented at the center is divided into
three parts : Orientation, Implementation and Aftercare.
Orientation Phase.
The inmate receives extensive evaluation and instruction
in the program. This phase takes place entirely at the center
and will involve the staff and some outside lecturers . The phase
will last for 60 hours over a two-week period.
Implementation Phase.
If the inmate successfully completes the orientation phase,
he will start the second phase. In this phase, the inmate will
be out of the center during part of the day, either working or
attending some type of academic or vocational program. In addition,
within the center itself the' inmate will participate in programs
conducted by the staff or outside lecturers for about 20 hours a
week. Each inmate will be encouraged to take additional programs
in the areas in which he shows particular need. These programs
will be concerned with the problems of health (drugs and alcohol) ;
family, society (credit, budget, etc . ) ; government and its agencies;
and employment . In regard to the field of employment, the inmate
will be taught how to complete a job application, the intricacies
of a job interview, how to act on the job .
Aftercare Phase.
After the inmate is released, the center will continue to
assist parole officials and the inmate.
1979
DEPT.DF BUILDING IN5FECT!f:<" ,
NORTHAMPTON,MA.QI(; '::
-6-
recommendation to the Commissioner as to whether the inmate should
be sent to the center. The center has input into the final decision
as it receives a carbon copy of the report to the Commissioner. If
the Commissioner decides to recommend the inmate for release to
the center , the transfer is made.
The Department, obviously aware that inmates to be placed in
the center are under sentence to maximum security institutions ,
have devised various safeguards once the inmates reach the center.
Elaborate and vigorous security procedures have been adopted in
regard to the center. Head counts are required to be taken at
least three times a day. The inmate, while in residence, is not
locked in his room but must be "logged" in and out of the center .
An inmate ' s purpose, method, route, and time in transit must be
put in writing.
If an inmate has not returned at the approved return time,
he is placed on "late status. " An inmate cannot remain on "late
status" longer than two hours after the approved return time without
being placed on escape status . If the inmate is considered an
escapee, the State Police are notified, and a description of the
inmate is circulated. If there is a serious infraction of the
zules , the inmate may be returned to the maximum security facility
wherein he was lodged prior to being sent to the center.
1 O-°k Because an attack has been made as to the proposed use of the
s ��
CD ;` enter , a description of the programs to be offered to the inmates
I —ZD� a� s in order at this point. Generally, the program employs resources
urrently available in the community to provide opportunities to
develop skills in the inmate and at the same time to operate a
training program within the center itself.
Occupancy under the State Building Code are not now before the
Court. (') The denial of the Certificate of Occupancy under the
zoning ordinances of the City of Holyoke is still open and will
be decided later in this opinion.
An examination of the plan wherein the Department releases
inmates to the center is warranted at this point.
Inmates at M.C. I . -Walpole, M.C.I . -Norfolk, M.C.I .-Concord,
and M. C. I. -Bridgewater will be periodically screened by the
Department for eligibility to be sent to the pre-release center .
Those inmates who have been convicted of certain crimes , i . e. ,
murder, will not be eligible. The inmate must be cleared of any
sexual offender status , have no outstanding felony warrants , and
must be within six months of a parole eligibility hearing date, (2)
and must also be from the Greater Springfield-Holyoke area. (3) A
maximum of fifteen (15) inmates will be at the center at any one
time.
After being screened, the inmate appears before the Depart-
mental Community-Based Classification Committee. This Committee
consists of six persons from the Department who in turn make. a
(')During the course of the trial, the Court suggested to counsel
that it appeared that the proper vehicle of appeal of the defen-
dant Mulcahy' s decision relative to the State Building Code should
#lam be heard by the State Building Code Appeals Board. Counsel agreed
W�D_ to this suggestion, and the matter was taken out of the case and
rn �q presented to the Board on November 4, 1976 . The decision was in
co favor of the plaintiffs .
)The statute speaks of eighteen months of parole eligibility hear-
ing date. The Department plans to use the center in Holyoke as
a short pre-release center and therefore only inmates within six
a months of their parole eligibility hearing date will be considered
for the Holyoke center .
kl) It is estimated that the Department releases approximately one
hundred twenty-five inmates yearly from Springfield and approxi-
mately fifteen inmates yearly from Holyoke alone.
zoning ordinance as permitting the use, "multi-family residence
(20 units/acre) ."
Sometime prior to February 1976, the use of the residence
as a center for the residential rehabilitation of drug-dependent
girls was discontinued by Hope Home, Inc. On February 27, 1976
the Commonwealth, acting by and through its Department of Correction
(Department) , entered into an agreement with Hope Home, Inc. whereby
Hope Home, Inc. is to operate for and on behalf of the Department
a pre-release center (center) for inmates incarcerated in M. C.I . -
Walpole, M. C. I. -Norfolk, M. C.I . -Concord, and M. C.I . -Bridgewater.
In effect, the center is to operate under the control and super-
vision of the Department of Correction on real estate leased to it
by Hope Home, Inc. for the purpose of educating inmates for their
re-entry into society. Hope Home, Inc . , under the agreement, will
provide the facility and also six counselors . The center, its
occupants and the staff are to be under the direct supervision
of the-Department which would directly employ the director and the
assistant director. At all times the Department is to maintain
custody and supervision of the inmates .
On July 7 , 1976, after conversations between the plaintiffs
and the defendant Mulcahy regarding the plaintiffs ' request for
the issuance of a new occupancy permit for the building and after
inspections by the defendant Mulcahy of the premises , the defendant
Mulcahy denied the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to the
plaintiffs . The defendant Mulcahy based his denial on the conten-
tions that the premises and the new inter�, ,94 - .ra ot; Che_ premises
� � Vk: r
were and are in violation of the State B1ing Code and zoning
ordinance of the City of Holyoke The Cer tificate of Use' s ' d
DEPT.OF DUILDING INSPECTIONS
I^" NORTHAMPTON,MA.01060
-3-
- defendants denies the allegations of the plaintiffs and sets up
a multitude of defenses including the authority of the Commissioner
of the Department of Correction. to establish pre-release centers
(also known as 'half-way houses) ; the authority of the Commissioner
to negotiate leases for pie-release centers and to contract for
such centers; the exemption of pre-release centers from municipal
zoning ordinances or by-laws; the standing of a non-contractual
party to raise the defects of another party' s contractual arrange-
ments . The answer also raised ancillary issues important to the
resolution of this action which will be discussed in the body of
the opinion.
After hearing testimony, examination of the exhibits and
the briefs , the Court makes the following findings of fact.
Hope Home, Inc . is a duly organized, non-profit, tax-exempt
corporation which owns real estate at 229 Cabot Street, Holyoke.
The structure at 229 Cabot Street is a large, two-story residen-
tial structure of frame construction located on a lot approximately
80 feet by 118 feet . It was formerly a residence, then a residence
with the cellar made over to accommodate a school for the training
of beauticians . It was purchased by Hope Home, Inc. on or about
January 8, 1974. Since that time it was used by Hope Home, Inc.
as a center for the residential rehabilitation of drug-dependent
girls . The City of Holyoke had issued to Hope Homes , Inc. the
appropriate occupancy permits for use of the premises as a center
for the residential rehabilitation of drug-dependent girls . The
structure is located in a largely residential neighborhood. The
real estate is located in "Zone RM-20" wh`Lghjis defined ,by the
6 1979
EPL p , EC UONS
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Hampden, ss. Superior Court
#76-3339
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS )
AND HOPE HOME, INC. )
Plaintiffs )
V. j FINDINGS, RULINGS ,
r„ ��;REW
cN COUNTY
ERNEST E. PROULX, as he is SUPERIOR COURT
Mayor of Holyoke, and ) FILED
JOHN R. MULCAHY, as he is ) r c G i`ai I
Building Inspector for Holyoke)
Defendants ) 4��x����0��
r CLERK
This complaint is brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and Hope Home, Inc . , a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation which
oxms real estate at and has a principal office at 229 Cabot Street,
Holyoke, Massachusetts, for a declaration of rights , injunctive
relief and damages against the defendants, Ernest E . Proulx as he
is the Mayor of Holyoke, and John R. Mulcahy as he is the Building
Inspector for Holyoke.
The complaint states that the Commonwealth, acting by and
through its Department of Correction . entered into a contract
for services involving the operation of a pre-release center for
inmates under the control of the Department. The complaint further
states that Proulx, acting in his capacity as Mayor, after learn-
ing of the intentions of the Commonwealth ordered the defendant
Mulcahy not to issue an occupancy permit. The answer of the
ffBIJILDIING 79
DEPT. OF IAfSPECfIGP`'`
• special permit. There, the residents of the house were to be
sentenced inmates from MCI-Walpole, MCI-Concord, and MCI-
Bridgewater, most of whom were to be engaged in educational
and work release programs.
Similarly, in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Cook, (Suffolk
Superior Court No. 284221 January 11, 1974) , the Court ruled
that the City of Springfield could not require special permits
for an intermediate care facility for mentally retarded per-
sons.
See also the following cases when the activities were held to
be exempt from local zoning laws: Zarek v. Attleboro Area
Human Servides, Inc. , Bristol No. 2450 (June 11, 1974) (resi-
dence for mentally ill adults) ; North Shore Association for
Retarded. Children, Inc. v. Joseph F. Doyle, Essex No. 990
(March 24, 1976) (residence for retarded children) ; Schonning
v. People' s Church Home, Inc. , Worcester No. 7188 (January
f8,-1977) (residence for emotionally disturbed adolescents) ;
Dynamic Action Residence Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Appeals
of Mashpee, Barnstable No. 36049 (February 3, 1977) (residence
for youth committed to DYS) .
Based on this string of unbroken decisions, Hampshire Correc-
tional Services, Inc. would request that you find that its
activities are exempt from the special permit requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, and that a zoning permit accordingly be
granted.
If I can be of any further help in this matter, please feel
free to call. Since time is of the essence in this matter,
we will be waiting to hear from you at your earliest con-
venience.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Thomas Lesser.
TL/md
Enclosure
OEM,OI6A 100"s MRMFTONM 06
-3-
for a purpose not otherwise proper under the ordinance.
G.L. c. 40A, §9 . There is no need to secure a permit when
the statute sanctions the use and forbids the municipality
to regulate, restrict or prohibit it.
Second, Supreme Judicial Court decisions interpreting
Section 3 Iformerly Section 2) and, more recently, a series
of Superior Court decisions applying those cases to rehabili-
tative "halfway house" facilities to leave little room for
doubt that the activities of Hampshire Correctional Services,
Inc. are educational and therefore exempt.
The Supreme Judicial Court in the early case of Mount Herman
Boys' School v. Town of Gill, 145 Mass. 139 (1887) defined the
term "education" as follows:
Education is a broad and comprehensive term. It
has been defined as ' the process of developing and
training the powers and capabilities of human beings. '
To educate, according to one of Webster' s definitions,
is ' to prepare and fit for any calling or business, or
for activity and usefulness in life. ' Education may be
particularly directed either to mental, moral or physical
powers and faculties, but in its broadest and best sense
it relates to them all. Id. at 146.
This broad definition of the term education has been applied
in subsequent cases in determining whether a particular insti-
tution served an educational purpose within the meaning of G.
L. c. 40A, §2. See Harbor Schools, Inc. v_. Board of Appeals
of Haverhill, 1977 Adv. Sh. 1012 (Appeals Ct. ) ; Kurz v. Board
of Appeals of North Reading, 341 Mass . 110 (1960) ; Worcester
v. New England School of Accounting, Inc. , 335 Mass. 486
(1956) .
See also Shuman v. Board of Alderman of Newton, 361 Mass.
758, 762 (1972) where the Supreme Judicial Court described a
residence for delinquent youths as an " ' educational'" insti-
tution attempting to prepare its high school 'clients' for
life and to assist them to solve their difficulties in ad-
justing to their parents. Id. at 762.
This same approach, adopting this definition of education, has
been employed over the past several years by seven different
Superior Courts, and in each case the activities were found to
be . educational and exempt from local zoning. In Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and Hope Homes, Inc. v_. Proulx, et als,
u
(Hampden Superior Cort no. 76-3339) (pertinent parts of which
are attached) the Court ruled that the City of Holyoke could
not require a pre-release center for inmates sts.. a
-2-
it
D.t(VID R. KAPLAN KAPLAN, LESSER, NEWMAN & SIBBISON
THOMAS LESSER
WILLIAM C. NEWMAN
WENDY SIBSISON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 39 MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON, MASS. 01060 (413) S84-7331
July 16, 1979
Mr. Cecil Clarkew "
Administrative Officer DEPT.OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS M N $
Northampton City Hall NORTHAMPTON,MA.01060
Northampton, MA 01060
Dear Mr. Clarke:
I am writing concerning the proposed purchase of property at
26 Sumner Avenue, Florence, by Hampshire Correctional Services,
Inc. for a residence for persons released from the Hampshire
County House of Correction.
It is the position of Hampshire Correctional Services, Inc.
that the activities of the residence , as evidenced by its
past activities at Locust Street, Florence, clearly fall within
the meaning of "educational use and are, therefore exempt from
zoning restrictions by virtue of G.L. c. 40A, §2.
First, the pertinent part of G.L. c. 40A, §3, provides that:
"No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or
restrict the interior area of a single family
residential building nor shall any such ordinance
or by-law prohibit, regulate or restrict the use
of land or structures for religious purpose or for
educational purposes on land owned or leased by the
commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or
bodies politic . . . ; provided however, that such
land or structures may be subject to reasonable
regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures
and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open
space, parking and building coverage requirements. "
(emphasis added) .
The statutory authorization to enact reasonable regulations
governing dimensional and parking requirements does not give
the municipality the power to compel an organization to seek
a special permit prior to using land for educational purposes.
A special permit allows a use of land in a zoning district or
-1-
;��
_ .�r:. �.
-. ,,
�.. ;, s ..
� •
.. r,.,
,,. ,.1. �� .,,,
To: Legal Department
Frame Cecil I. Clark, Building Inspector
Subject: Proposed purchase of property at 26 Sumner Ave., Florence
See letter of July 16, 1979 from Kaplan, Lesser, Newman
& Sibbison
I am hereby requesting a legal opinion of the above mentioned letter
addressed to me concerning the Hampshire Correctional Services Inc.
As they are obligated to have an answer within five days, they will
be requesting a Certificate of Occupancy to move in.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
F .^7
KAPL..AN, LESSER, NEWMAN Sc SIBBISON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,..
39 MAIN STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MASS. 01060
Mr. Cecil Clarke
Administrative Officer
Northampton City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
VIII. ZONING PLAN EXAMINERS NOTES 7 e— ---
DISTRICT 7\ 8,
USE °
FRONT YARD
SIDE YARD ? _ SIDE YARD -----
REAR YARD
NOTES
IX. SITE OR PLOT PLAN — For Applicant Use
HfE e.}
a
a¢
3,
�,t a dT �> s t i rj� m a
r
4t _$ i
} 1
t' 4-*
at b 4 A 41 d .
t Y 4j 4 rGt
r q'"iy r €. '
i t t P t
s ' �§ y % 1: t_ # 'd t-r YF
i i t L k P "-E Y ¢ ..m -0 a t 4 P k k ' 6 1 f
j ^+ fi x .,w t i " ' x' G .� 'ys'� r # .y,„p,t'- a ^� S -�.l�..k.. s... 1,:, ��§g aa..p„
r .. a p 4 r @ v - * -a t -�d n ,[ ,,§y P # t as
k 4 �"
+ V- "_6 e' .,_y-r� r- �-1111-1 t .
g F
+
>.t°{e„:¢
.-.i'6¢rr 11a�r,r�'°....{$C;-�--.-.-.�,.q'}k 9a ak�Y�S a""�-.T k���-Ta x�t r[-`ma a`a sa�}i r(l�a a''3�1 rt a'v•."«.M�,v:r a r f i'.-"-y�k j r aa-{r fr`.-.^'y.„pY¢�a4 a r..,"�.---.�,a,-,Y A+74 Fr'.sY:.---�d#q_^?'§.t$§b'�r.,e'--...^'5t y q x�r€t1tr 9 r i'----.--”r#T sk§t 4+Et.�-"-^,°'.#.r r t�w g'r,t tr.-''.�'r�i��.-_-�,Y.t S+,rL�'.-_--".s a�,k�r.iprkP ym_.._'...".�.t Y+.Lp k f�y tr{1 et;--~-.�¢L r s a s�-d-ki*i�---+�+g ir rt;-.'.+..E+arxb k-.._-.-a a3t'�t,#�.-z-;¢t�s..-....�:.""..1.fi�,r f a YY"a tl.---T+f t;w---".,��zfi a i�x i g T-`''.f?�1-.�-&�rk#}t t 4 r,a;r.
,sP G rt,afi+t
I +1 1,
'{
H4 4
`} ""T' 7M„ t
? -'J r -k
j h r .
J a
w p q #� � � t q H
4 -j 4
'rse �5 Ya{ $
-
IT
I { -C °" 4,ff1 }
1
� F
i 11,H r
"
k
w
' F w s t
Y � .. 't LA
kt'_r} k s a{t e `� 1 i s
J_' 1it C A i 4` t"- t} e _ � I S a
.. r a
4 l r I M'Pi
.
:w�S i.A}.�;}t:t".;;,.•„
-..
......-.,'
-
.3+
..-
.'
'
:,.
`..,,
,
k } �1.. r� k•. k r.,r _ rr ,€r ja�:: 'r E q'.6} i., ...,
r � ,� y,ir s -•r z'r � r — � ��n } '� s`s � _ �4 t k 3� f_r k �'�a� tt��k a "t rt � � �°t-?"� i^�
BOCA FORM APEBP — 669 01969 BUILDING OFFICIALS & CODE ADMINISTRATORS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
IV. IDENTIFICATION — To be completed by all applicants
Name Mailing address — Number, street, city, and State ZIP code Tel. No.
Owner or
y-
Lessee (�It�
Bui Ider's
2.
License No.
Contractor
3.
Architect or
Engineer
I hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of record and that I have been authorized by the owner to
make this application as his authorized agent and we agree to conform to all applicable laws of this jurisdiction.
Sign ture of applicant : Address Application date
�.
00 NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
V. PLAN REVIEW RECORD — For office use
Plans Review Required Check Plan Review Date Plans B Date Plans B Notes
9 Fee Started y Approved y
BUILDING $
PLUMBING $
MECHANICAL $
ELECTRICAL $
OTHER $
VI. ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED OR OTHER JURISDICTION APPROVALS
Date Date
Permit or Approval Check Obtai ed Number By Permit or Approval Check obtained Number By
BOILER PLUMBING
CURB OR SIDEWALK CUT ROOFING
ELEVATOR SEWER
ELECTRICAL SIGN OR BILLBOARD
FURNACE STREET GRADES
GRADING USE OF PUBLIC AREAS
OIL BURNER WRECKING
OTHER OTHER
VII. VALIDATION
Building FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Permit number
Building Use Group
Permit issued 19
Building Fire Grading
Permit Fee $ Live Loading
Certificate of Occupancy $ Occupancy Load
Approved by:
Drain Tile $
Plan Review Fee $
TITLE
NOTES and Data — (For department use)
4e, -:Z-Z-/ "0-1::l -a4 04�1
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
212 MAIN STREET APPLICATION FOR
NORTHAMPTON, MA. 01060 PLAN EXAMINATION AND
/ 7 C — 17 t BUILDING PERMIT
IMPORTANT — Applicant to complete all items in sections: 1, 11, 111, IV, and IX. O
I•
AT (LOCATION) :;���+' ''•�•l6I ZONING
` 1 IL C/i �< l 1'i r'Gtt' 1611) J) ZONING
LOCATION (NO.) (STREET)
OF BETWEEN AND
BUILDING (CROSS STREET) (CROSS STREET)
LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE
Vr
II. TYPE AND COST OF BUILDING — All applicants complete Parts A — D
A. TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT D. PROPOSED USE — For"Wrecking" most recent use m
m
1 ❑ New building Residential Nonresidential
2 ❑ Addition(If residential, enter number 12 MOne family 18 ❑ Amusement, recreational
of new bousing units added, if any,
in Part D, 13) 13 ❑ Two or more family — Enter 19 ❑ Church, other religious
number of units— — — — -->. 20 ❑ Industrial
30 Alteration (See 2 above) 1q ransent hotel, mote ,
❑ T i h l l 21 ❑ Parking garage
4 ❑ Repair, replacement or dormitory — Enter number
5 ❑ Wrecking (If multifamily residential, of units ——————— — --) 22 ❑ Service station, repair garage
enter number of units in building in 15 ❑ Garage 23 ❑ Hospital, institutional
Part D, 13) ❑
16 Carport 24 ❑ Office, bank, professional
6 ❑ Moving (relocation)
7 r_1 Foundation only 17 F-1 Other — Specify 25 ❑ Public utility
26 ❑ School, library, other educational
B. OWNERSHIP 27 ❑ Stores, mercantile
28 ❑ Tanks, towers
B � Private (individual, corporation,
nonprofit institution, etc.) 29 ❑ Other — Specify
9 ❑ Public (Federal, State, or
local government)
C. COST (Omit cents) Nonresidential — Describe in detail proposed use of buildings, e.g.,food
processing plant, machine shop, laundry building at hospital, elementary
10. Cost of improvement................ ' t t school, secondary school, college, parochial school, parking garage for,
department store, rental office building, office building at industrial plant.
To be installed but not included If use of existing building is being changed, enter proposed use.
in the above cost
a. Electrical.....................
b. Plumbing .....................
c. Heating, air conditioning..........
d. Other (elevator, etc.)..... ( t
11. TOTAL C05Kf OF IMPROVEMENT $
III. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING — For new buildings and additions, complete Parts E — L;
for wrecking, complete only Part J, for all others skip to IV.
E. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF FRAME G. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL J. DIMENSIONS
30❑ Masonry (wall bearing) 40 Public or private company 48. Number of stories................
31 Wood frame 41 ❑ Private (septic tonk, etc.) 49. Total square feet of floor area,
all floors, based on exterior
32 Structural steel dimensions ....................
33 ❑ Reinforced concrete H. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY
50. Total land area, sq. ft. . F
34 ❑ Other — Specify 42 Public or private company """"" 1
43 ❑ Private (well, cistern) K. NUMBER OF OFF-STREET
PARKING SPACES
F. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF HEATING FUEL I. TYPE OF MECHANICAL 51. Enclosed .......................
35 Gas Will there be central air 52. Outdoors........................
conditioning?
36 ❑ Oil L. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ONLY
37 ❑ Electricity 44 K Yes 45 ❑ No 53. Number of bedrooms....4.......
38 ❑ Coal
39 ❑ Other — Specify Will there be an elevator? Full..
54. Number of •�•
46 ❑ Yes 47❑ No bathrooms
Partial.......
�::
.r. .
... . r r ,.
-. t �
_ �
f
i
1�. � ...
July 18, 1979
Hampshire Correctional Services, Inc.
Hampshire Hall of Records
33 King Street
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Attention: Me. Cronin, Director
In accordance with Chapter 802 of the Acts of 1972 as amended -
Section 114.1 , I give the following decision:
You filed application for a building permit on July 17, 1979 for
a single-family residence located on 26 Sumner Avenue, Florence,
shown on Zoning Map page 17C, plot 171, zoned URB. The applica-
tion is filed properly with the intended designated use as a
Community Residence under Section 424. Before this application
can be acted on, compliance must be had with the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton, Section 5.2, Page 5-2, Paragraph 8,
Halfway Houses which requires a Special Permit from the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
On the other hand, if you had filed a request for a Zoning Permit
claiming to propose an educational use, the Mass. Building Code
(Table 305), would prohibit my issuing a building permit for a
two-story wooden structure.
Therefore, your application is denied. This opinion may be app-
ealed to the Z.B.A. If I can be of further assistance, please
call.
Sincerely,
Cecil I. Clark
INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
CIC/lp