31A-035 (2) 11 )10
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE, SS. DISTRICT COURT
it DOCKET NO. 1427
III NORTHAMPTON PINE REST, INC.
Plaintiff
vs.
CHARLES W. DRAGON, THOMAS
BRUSHWAY and ERIC B. GERVAIS,
'I, as the BOARD OF APPEALS OF
THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Defendant
ij
T. FINDINGS
This action came on for hearing before the Hampshire County District Court
; Ryan, J. , presiding, and based upon the evidence submitted, the following facts
11
tare found:
1. The structure on the parcel at 5 Franklin Street, Northampton, Massa-
IF chusetts,
fassa-IFchusetts, is unique to the zoning district in that plaintiff has conditions III
ii especially affecting it that are unlike other structures in the area; these
'Especial conditions include, but are not limited to, the height, length, exter-'
11 nal and internal structural construction, heating facilities, and floor area.
1 2. The evidence submitted, and a view, establish that the zoning district,
I, is made up of large buildings used as multi-family dwellings, business and large'
1
l single-family dwellings. No other buildings are as large, or as uniquely divi-
ded and partitioned.
3. The plaintiffhas received a notice of deficiencies present in its
El physical plant from the Life Safety Code Unit of the Department of Public Safe-
pit ty of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the agency supervising its operation as
,'l a nursing home. These deficiencies were required to he corrected, and in default
1
i of which, the license issued by the Commonwealth to the plaintiff for its opera-
tion of a nursing home could be lost.
4. The plaintiff can neither correct the deficiencies, as required, with-
III I
HAMPSHIRE, SS. - 2 - DISTRICT COURT
in its present physical plant in any economically feasible manner; nor can it
make the necessary corrections on its land without first obtaining zoning clear
Ijances. The effective result of not being able to make the necessary corrections)
I! would be to force the plaintiff out of business.
5. There would be no market for the facility as a nursing home without
Hthe required corrections; and a sale of the parcel for any other purpose would
I1, 16e insufficient to satisfy the mortgage. Since the structure is, at present,
inon-conforming, it would be necessary for any subsequent user, pursuant to the
regulations of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, to obtain some type of zoning
'il clearance to put the parcel to any use other than a single-family residence.
6. The continued operation of the plaintiff's nursing home is beneficial
:Ito the community. The present operation of the building produces substantial
ill real estate taxes and water and sewer charges and consumption of local goods and
services. The effect of plaintiff's proposal would also be in the best interests
of the community by providing a safe, and adequate, facility for the care of the
II ii
elderly of the community without having to relocate them, and which is conve-
nient to public facilities and the downtown business district.
I'1 7. The applicable zoning ordinance provides that the interest of that
ij
.- ordinance includes the following:
(a) To conserve health; li
I I
II
II (b) To secure safety from fires;
(c) To conserve the value of buildings and land; and
(d) To encourage the most appropriate use of land.
8. The use as a nursing home is set out as a Special Permit in the zoning
Bill ordinance at Article V.
lj 9. There would not be any significant increase in traffic, either vehi-
II, HAMPSHIRE, SS. - 3 - DISTRICT COURT
11
I1l color or pedestrian, from the proposal to the existing flow of traffic on Elm
Street.
10. The facility, as altered, would not overload any public water, drain-
::
,:
rain-I'I: age or sewer system.
11. Based upon a view, the neighborhood, which prior to World War II had
f been largely residential (in the sense of single-family dwellings) has changed ",
II in character to the point where most of the area buildings are being utilized as,
apartment (as distinguished from two or three-family units) buildings or busi-
messes and for college dormitories.
12. A nursing home has been operated in the neighborhood at the same loca-
'! tion for at least thirty (30) consecutive years and prior, therefore, to the
( adoption of the original Northampton Zoning Ordinance in 1948. II'
1, 11. RULINGS:
Based upon the above facts as found, the Court makes the following rulings
iof law:
1. That the plaintiff has satisfied all the conditions precedent set forth
Alin Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 40A Section 15.
I� I
2. The building is unique and has conditions especially affecting it which
do not exist in regard to any other buildings in the district.
3. The plaintiff is faced with a severe hardship which involves more than
just a loss of profits.
4. The hardship is not personal to the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff's proposal is beneficial to public good.
it 6. Itwill be consistent with the stated purposes of the Northampton Zon-
N ing Ordinanceto permit the plaintiff to proceed with its proposal.
7. The plaintiff has adequately met all the conditions necessary for the
I� j
; HAMPSHIRE, SS. - 4 - DISTRICT COURT
Irgranting of a Special Permit pursuant to Article X, Section 10.9 of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Northampton and Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A,
I
( Section 4.
8. The Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton erred in denying the
itgranting of the requested variances and special permit , and in doing so, it al-
1 so exceeded its authority and its decision was capricious and arbitrary based
',. on the facts found by this Court.
11
9. This Court has the jurisdiction of this matter and the parties, as
I! well as the power to annul the decision of the Board of Appeals and to order the
is Board to change its records accordingly. li
11
III. ORDER AND JUDGMENT:
it
This action came on for hearing before the Court, (Ryan, J. presiding),
lit and the issues having been duly heard and findings having been duly rendered,
It is therefore ORDERED that the Decision of the Board of Appeals, dated
October 18, 1976, and filed in the Offices of the City Clerk of Northampton, on
November 23, 1976, be and is hereby ANNULLED and that the Board of Appeals of
the City of Northampton is hereby notified to change its records accordingly and
to act in accordance with this decision by granting the special permit and the
I variances requested by the Petitioner herein, based upon the application and
, plans submitted by the Petitioner. It is FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this
iii ORDER be sent to the City Clerk of Northampton and to the Building Inspector of
the City of Northampton within thirty (30) days of the entry thereof.
"sail
March 3, 1978 LU _ F. RYAN, JUSTIC✓
District Court of Hampshire