Loading...
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.