17C-183 (7) a
$ CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060
m
S
Date: APR 9 ,� N91
To: All legal abutters of property at 57 Chestnut Street,
Florence.
On September 21, 1989, Louis and Lynn Montgomery, owners of the
above property, applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a
Finding to allow them to convert their three-family dwelling to a
four-family dwelling. A Public Hearing was held on November 15,
1989, and was continued to December 6, 1989, at which time the
Zoning Board of Appeals denied the request for a Finding. The
Applicants appealed that decision to the Superior Court, and on
January 28, 1991, Judge Lawrence Urbano annulled the Zoning Board's
decision, and remanded the matter back to the Zoning Board with
instructions to conduct a further hearing in which the sole issue
shall be whether the proposed four-family use is substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the present three-family use.
The Zoning Board met on March 20 to reconsider the application,
following Judge Urbano's instructions. The Board voted unanimously
that the proposed change will not be substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood, and granted the finding. This decision was
filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the above date.
If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed inn
Superior Court within 20 days of the date this decision was filed
with the City Clerk.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
March 20, 1991 Meeting
Page Two
substantially more detrimental. " Mr. Weil added, "There's a four-
family next door, and this is on a large lot. " Dr. Laband
commented, "Yes, those are the germane facts. If you're going to
make a Finding, forget the 'V' word. Just consider the facts on
their merits. This is a judgement call. This is a huge house, a
white elephant. " Mr. Weil concluded, "If my reasoning in the first
case was fallacious, I will change my opinion and find it is not
substantially more detrimental. " Dr. Laband added, " ' Substantially
more detrimental ' is so subjective it's more difficult than a
variance to decide. Variances have clear criteria. " Mr. Weil
added, "I can't say in good conscience that it is substantially
more detrimental. "
Ch. Buscher commented, "I clearly had a muddied opinion last time,
and fell into the trap that it's more detrimental. The ordinance
doesn't say what you need for a four-family because it's not
allowed. He has a 16, 000 square foot lot, and is not too dense,
and in looking at it again, I change my mind. He has space for
more parking. "
Dr. Laband moved that the Finding be granted for the reason that
the conversion to a four-family house will not be substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing three-family
house. Mr. Weil seconded, with the stipulation that an outside
staircase be added. 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
APR 171991
March 20, 1991 Meeting
Page One DEPT OFSUILDINGINSPECTIONS
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7 : 00 p. m. on
Wednesday, March 20, 1991 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski
Municipal Building, Northampton to reconsider the Application of
Louis J. Montgomery III and Lynn M. Montgomery for a Finding under
the Provisions of Section 9. 3 (b) that the conversion of a three-
family dwelling at 57 Chestnut Street, Florence, to a four-family
dwelling will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing structure. The same three members
sitting this evening were the same members who voted 2-1 on
December 6, 1989 to deny the original request for a Finding. The
Applicants appealed that decision to Superior Court, and Judge
Urbano remanded the matter back to the ZBA for reconsideration,
with instructions to "decide the matter in accordance with the
correct standard of law. " Present and voting were Chairman Robert
C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Atty. Richard Carey was present representing the Montgomerys. He
said, "The issue in Judge Urbano' s decision is clear--is this
substantially more detrimental? It is our position that it is not.
This is a turn-of-the-century 18 room house. There are two
apartments on the second floor totalling nine rooms, and a nine-
room apartment on the first floor. If this Finding is granted,
there will be no enlargement of the structure. The first floor's
nine rooms will become two apartments. We will go from an 18-room
three-family to an 18-room four-family. We are not doing anything
substantially more detrimental. It's the same amount of living
space divided up differently. "
Mr. Weil commented, "At the original hearing, you said you were
going to add an egress from the second floor. " Mr. Carey replied,
"You jog my memory. There will be a stairway from a common hallway
on the second floor, on the rear side of the house. " Mr. Weil
added, "The reason we gave for our denial was that, even though you
are pre-existing nonconforming, we felt it was substantially more
detrimental because if you weren't pre-existing nonconforming,
you'd need a variance. A four-family needs a variance in the URB
zone. The court, I think. misunderstood us. " Mr. Carey replied,
"I adamantly disagree with you. You are applying the wrong
standard. You cannot do that. You must recognize he is
grandfathered. Because four-families are not allowed today in URB,
you can 't use the present standard. The law provides you an easier
road to follow. The standard is, ' is it substantially more
detrimental? ' This is not a new building, it' s an existing
building. " Mr. Weil added, "I still have problems with your
nonconforming use. The sky's the limit if you're pre-existing
nonconforming. "
Dr. Laband commented, "The reasoning is what' s at question. You
can take a host of other factors into consideration, but you can't
use the variance issue. Look at the facts and decide if it' s
TAA m
DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF v
At a meeting eld on March 20 19"1D?E%$P Z onin g r of
Appeals of the City of Northampton vot T
the request of Louis J. Montgomery III and Lynn M. Montgomery
for a Finding under the Provisions of Section 9. 3 (b) of the
Northampton Zoning Ordinance, that the conversion of an 18-room
three-family dwelling at 57 Chestnut Street, Florence, to a
four-family dwelling, will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing dwelling.
This Application, originally received on September 21, 1989,
was the subject of a Public Hearing that began on November 15,
1989, and was continued to and concluded on December 6, 1989 ,
at which time the Board of Appeals voted 2 (Buscher and Weil) -1
(Laband) to deny the request for a Finding. Applicants
appealed to the Superior Court, and Justice Lawrence B. Urbano,
on January 28, 1991, annulled that decision and remanded the
matter back to this Board for a further hearing in which the
sole issue shall be whether the proposed four-family use is
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
present three-family use to the neighborhood. The members who
sat at the December 6, 1989 meeting are the same members
sitting tonight, namely, Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William R.
Brandt, and Dr. Peter Laband.
The Findings were as follows:
1. The existing dwelling is a large eighteen-room house, with
nine rooms on the second- floor being divided into two
apartments, and the nine-room first floor is one apartment.
2 . The requested change involves dividing the first floor
apartment into two apartments. There will be no enlargement
of the structure, except for the addition of a staircase at the
rear of the house as a second means of egress from the second
floor.
3 . The house sits on a 16, 000 square foot lot. There is
another four-family dwelling next door to it.
Based on the above, the Board finds unanimously that the
requested change to a four-family use will not be substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing three-
family use.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Dr. Peter Laband
M. Sanford Weil, Jr.