Loading...
17C-161 (7) that the project will increase traffic with the addition of a home. Chair Andrew Crystal suggested that the applicant supply additional information before the next meeting including the DPW's review of the driveway plans. Nancy Duseau said she is concerned about that suggestion. She said she did not think that the Board could turn down this application because of driveway considerations. Crystal said if there is a safety issue on the street, the applicant should show how his plan alleviates such safety hazards. Dan Yacuzzo said he agreed with Duseau and noted that there was no driveway plan submitted, or required to be submitted, with the application. Jody Blatt said she would like the applicant to submit calculation information on lot sizes in the neighborhood. Further discussion ensued regarding the original "intent" of this provision. Jody Blatt suggested that the ordinance may need to be re-written to clarify the language since it is very confusing. Nancy Duseau moved to close the Public Hearing. Dan Yacuzzo seconded the motion which passed 5: 1: 0 with Mark NeJame opposing. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Duseau moved to approve the Special Permit for lot size averaging to separate a parcel into two lots at 66 Chestnut Street since the Special Permit criteria, as outlined in Exhibit "I" in the application, has been met. Dan Yacuzzo seconded the motion. Mark NeJame said he did not - think that the applicant had met criteria "B" . Yacuzzo noted that there could be no less impact to the neighborhood than by constructing a single-family home. NeJame noted that there is less impact with one home on the parcel than there will be with sub-dividing the property and having two homes on the site. The Planning Board approved the Special Permit with a vote of 5: 1: 0 with Mark NeJame opposed. one parcel into two lots. Discussion ensued, with all participating, regarding different interpretations of lot size averaging in the Zoning Ordinance. Mark NeJame said that, according to §6.3 (2) (C) , a list of all of the lot sizes, frontages and other applicable dimensional and density measurements for the abutters and abutters to the abutters (as certified by the City Assessor's Office) must be filed with the Special Permit. NeJame noted that he believed this requirement had not been met. No one spoke in favor of the plan. Steve Edwards of 67 Chestnut Street said he would like to understand the proposal since he lives across the street. He said he was concerned because one lot would be on a lower elevation than the other and worried about drainage. He said the lot that has the house on it is higher in elevation than the other lot and noted that the bank slopes down toward the lot. Site inspector Nancy Duseau said she had visited the site. She said she had noted that the houses in the area are small and the lots are also small. She said if a house was built on the sub- divided property, it would fit right into the neighborhood. She said that allowing additional building through lot size average was meant to allow such a use as long as the new building blended into the adjacent properties. Duseau said she had no concerns about putting a house on the lot since the applicants meet all the requirements to sub-divide the parcel. Jody Blatt, the other site inspector agreed. Anneke Corbett of 78 Chestnut Street said she had no problem with another house being built but was concerned with the bank between her house and where the new house will be built. She said there were ten, very large trees between the properties. She worried about the trees being cut, since the cutting would have an impact on her privacy and views. Corbett said she hoped that the applicant would plan to keep the trees to serve as a buffer between the properties. Dan Yacuzzo said he would like to see the calculations for the lots in the area as required by the Zoning Ordinance. He said he would appreciate having those figures before making a decision. Mark NeJame said that he lives about two blocks away from the site and travels on the street on a daily basis. He said Chestnut Street is a very busy street and traffic sometimes travels at a �. very fast rate. NeJame said that he was concerned about the Special Permit criteria #B being met which states that the requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets, minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area. NeJame said that the visibility from the sight line is not good and -5- t Planning Board Meeting - 4/13/95 At 8 : 30 p.m. Chair Crystal opened the Public Hearing on a request for a Special Permit from James & Patricia Boyle under §6.4 of the Zoning Ordinance for lot size averaging to separate a parcel into two lots at 66 Chestnut Street, Florence. Crystal explained procedures for conducting public hearings and read a copy of the legal notice which was published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on March 30th and April 6th. Mark NeJame announced that he had a potential conflict in this case. He is not an abutter but lives nearby. He said that he had spoken in opposition to a proposed re-zoning on the property about five years ago. NeJame asked the applicant whether he had any objection to his sitting on the case. The applicants, James and Patricia Boyle, stated that they had no objection to NeJame sitting and voting on the application. Attorney John Moriarty was present to represent the Boyles. He said that the application contains a map of the parcel of land located on Chestnut Street in Florence showing 140' of frontage, which is not quite enough for two separate lots under the existing Zoning Ordinance. However, with lot size averaging of the frontages, the Zoning Ordinance allows sub-division into two parcels if the applicant meets the average size of the lots surrounding the particular parcel of land. Moriarty said that the average frontage of surrounding parcels is 67 .26' and that the lal)(1. on Chestnut Street after being sub-divided would contain two parcels with 70.35' of frontage which surpasses the average frontage. Moriarty said that the Boyles would be acquiring a strip of land across the back of the lots which will allow each lot to have 10, 000 square feet and meet the size requirement and Special Permit criteria for lot size averaging. The house that is presently on the parcel is located to one side of the lot. There will be no problem with any setbacks with the new parcel. Moriarty said that the applicants believe that the requirements of §6.4 of the Zoning Ordinance for Separation of Lots and §10. 10 for Special Permit criteria have been met. Moriarty said that the requirements for Special Permit approval have been met as outlined in Exhibit "I" in the application. He said that a house will be located on the property after the parcel is separated. The land is in a residential area and a single- family home would be built on the parcel. The new house will not substantially add to the traffic in the area. The storm drain system, sewage and water are adequate to allow for the addition of one single-family home in the area. He said that the new home will have a positive impact on the neighborhood by adding a residential unit. The single-family home will be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Mark NeJame asked whether the applicant would need a Special Permit on both lots. Paulette Kuzdeba explained the process of lot size averaging and that one Special Permit would be granted to separate -4 1 Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) , Chapter 40A, Section 11, no Special Permit, or any extension, modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has been filed, or if such an appeal has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Hampshire County registry of Deeds or Land Court, as applicable and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant. It is the owner or applicant's responsibility to pick up the certified decision from the City Clerk and record it at the Registry of Deeds. The Northampton Planning Board hereby certifies that a Special Permit has been Granted and that copies of this decision and all plans referred to in it have been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that this decision is filed with the Northampton City Clerk on the date below. If anyone wishes to appeal this action, an appeal must be filed pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, with the Hampshire County Superior Court and notice of said appeal filed with the City Clerk within twenty days (20) of the date of that this decision was filed with the City Clerk. Applicant: James & Patricia Boyle - 66 Chestnut Street - Florence DECISION DATE: April 13, 1995 DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 27, 1995 ouculo-p Andrew J. C stal Jody Blatt Nancy Duseau Kenn th J rie Daniel Yacuzzo -3- r D. The requested use is for an additional single-family home and will not overload, and will mitigate adverse impacts on, the City's resources including the effect on the City's water supply and distribution system, sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, fire protection, streets and schools. E. The request exceeds the average of all frontages that exist within 300' of the proposed site, and will contain the minimum lot area required by City Zoning regulations as described in §6. 3 (2) in the Zoning Ordinance. F. The requested use bears a positive relationship to the public convenience or welfare because the use is in harmony with the adjoining parcels which are residential. The use will not unduly impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining zones because the district and area are residential. The use will not be detrimental to the health, morals, or general welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. G. The requested use is in keeping with City planning objectives in that it keeps the use of the property residential and it also will conform to average lot frontage in that location. -2- t City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street J Northampton, MA 01060 • 413 586-6950 FAX (413) 586-3726 +� •Community and Economic Development �j •Conservation •Historic Preservation k O'C , • Planning Board•Zoning Board of Appeals , • Northampton Parking Commission DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD APPLICANT: JAMES F. & PATRICIA A. BOYLE ADDRESS: 4 TIFFANY LANE, NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 OWNER: JAMES F. & PATRICIA A. BOYLE ADDRESS: 4 TIFFANY LANE, NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: _,- E MAP mo PARCEL NUMBERS: At a meeting conducted on April 13 1995, the Northampton Planning Board voted 5: 0: 1 t 11r, request of James F. and Patricia A. Boyle for a under the provisions of S c t e No amp on Zoning Ordinance I M -_- ra .Planning Board Members present and voting were: Chairman Andrew Crystal, Vice Chairman Daniel Yacuzzo, Jody Blatt, Nancy Duseau, Kenneth Jodrie, Mark NeJame. In Granting the Special Permit, the Planning Board found: A. The requested use to separate a parcel into two lots protects the subject premises against the possibility that it could be used as an ingress and egress from the adjacent parcel, which is a large parcel zoned for commercial use. B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets, minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area since the separated lot will be used for a single-family dwelling which is a much lower traffic generator than other possible uses for the property. C. The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area because an additional single-family residential lot in an area of single-family and some two and three family homes will be in keeping with the neighborhood. -1- ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER