39A-76 (24) /gef_
• AsA
a`
DECISION OF
(00 ~•� S
gyp p NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
41.' a meeting held on November 1, 1989, the Zoning Board of
pE,,e Appeals of the City of Northampton voted 2-1 to DENY the
Application of Quickbeam Realty Trust for a Variance from the
Provisions of Section 2 , Page 2-11 of the Northampton Zoning
Ordinance (Definitions: Lot Layout) for the purpose of
subdividing one lot into two at 19 Fulton Avenue, with one
of the resulting lots failing to satisfy the definition.
Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter
Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
The Findings are as follows:
The definition of "Lot Layout" in the Ordinance is as
follows: In addition to the minimum lot area, depth, width
and frontage requirements, lots shall be laid out in such a
manner that a square, with sides equal to the minimum
frontage requirement for the zoning district in which it is
located, can be placed within the lot with at least one point
of the square lying on the front lot line with no portion of
the square extending beyond the boundaries of the lot. " The
Applicant concedes that his proposed "Parcel 1" as shown on
"A Plan of Land in Northampton, Massachusetts Surveyed For
Quickbeam Realty Trust" dated June 6, 1989 and prepared by
Almer Huntley, Jr. and Associates fails this test.
Dr. Laband, who voted against the motion to deny the
Variance, found, "There are circumstances relating to the
shape of this parcel, especially affecting this parcel and
not the rest of the district; a literal enforcement would
cause hardship simply because of the fact that the Applicant
must comply with the 'Hadley Square ' requirement; relief may
be granted without substantial detriment, and the amount of
derogation is a nitpicking minor transgression--a
technicality--one of the reasons for Zoning Boards being able
to resolve minor inconsistencies. "
Mr. Weil found, "I 'm not persuaded that the problem with
Fulton Avenue is important. The street ends in his lot. I 'd
find it difficult to deny the variance on that issue, but
'hardship ' that meets the Chapter 40A criteria is my issue.
I don 't see any. "
Ch. Buscher found that, "The history of this is that it was
two lots with frontage on Pleasant Street, and one lot having
frontage on Fulton Avenue as well. They all came under new
ownership. Then that owner, Quickbeam, built a building
primarily on Parcel 2 , but partially on Parcel 1. Now he
wants to move that lot line to make it conform, and divide
Parcel two into Parcels two and three, with Parcels 1 and
two having enough frontage on Pleasant Street, Parcel three
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION
QUICKBEAM REALTY TRUST VARIANCE REQUEST
PAGE TWO
being OK with frontage on Fulton Avenue, but failing on the
'Hadley Square' test. Dr. Laband is correct--Fulton is not
really a street, and the Applicant does have his frontage.
The 'Hadley Square ' issue is all there is to look at. Mr.
Weil is correct on hardship--it can't be self-inflicted, and
can 't be because there will be slightly less profit. The
owner was in the driver 's seat, and could easily have made
three conforming lots, but he put a building in the wrong
place and lost his ability to make three legal parcels. I
would deny because this is a self-induced hardship, and it' s
not our job to make the land more profitable for the
Applicant by granting him a Variance. "
On Mr. Weil 's motion to deny the Variance, the vote was 2-1
with Dr. Laband in the minority.
i
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Dr. Peter Laband
M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 1, 1989 Meeting
Page One
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7 : 10 p. m. on
Wednesday, November 1, 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J.
Puchalski Municipal Building, for the purpose of announcing a
Decision on the Application of Quickbeam Realty Trust for a
Variance from the Provisions of Section 2, Page 2-11 (Definitions:
Lot Layout) , for the purpose of subdividing one lot into two, with
one of the resulting lots failing to satisfy the definition.
Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter
Laband and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Dr. Laband, looking to the Variance granting criteria of Section
10 of 40A, and found there were circumstances relating to the shape
of this parcel, especially affecting this parcel and not the rest
of the district; found that a literal enforcement would cause
hardship simply because of the fact that Applicant must comply with
the "Hadley Square" requirement. He found that relief may be
granted without substantial detriment, and further found that the
amount of derogation is "to be honest with you, a nitpicking minor
transgression--a technicality--one of the reasons for Zoning Boards
being able to resolve minor inconsistencies. " He also found it
worthwhile to correct the fact that the auto lube building is
partially on the tract directly to the south.
Mr. Weil said, "I 'm not persuaded that the problem with Fulton
Avenue is important. The street ends in his lot. I 'd find it
difficult to deny the variance. Hardship is my issue. " He asked
Dr. Laband to amplify on "hardship, " and Dr. Laband stated, "This
odd, nonexistent street is preventing him from doing what he 'd like
to do, and that' s a considerable hardship. This is an abortion. "
Ch. Buscher said that he disagreed with Dr. Laband. "The history
of this is that it was two lots with frontage on Pleasant Street,
with one lot having frontage on Fulton Avenue. They all came under
new ownership, then that owner built a building primarily on Parcel
2 , but partially on Parcel 1. Now he wants to move that lot line
to make it conform, and divide Parcel 2 into Parcels 2 and 3, with
Parcels 1 and 2 having enough frontage on Pleasant Street, Parcel
3 being OK with frontage on Fulton Avenue, but failing on the
"Hadley Square" test. Peter is correct, Fulton is not really a
street, and the Applicant does have his frontage. The "Hadley
Square" issue is all there is to look at. Sandy is correct on
hardship--it can't be self-inflicted, and can't be because there
will be slightly less profit . The owner was in the driver' s seat,
and could easily have made three conforming lots, but he put a
building in the wrong place and screwed up his ability to make
three legal parcels. I would deny because this is a self-induced
hardship, and it's not our job to make the land more profitable for
him by granting a Variance.
Mr. Weil added, "I concur and agree with you. Variances are seldom
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 1, 1989 Meeting
Page Two
given. This is an accommodation. "
Dr. Laband remarked, "I reiterate Laband' s Rule--I put the severity
into context with what' s being requested. "
Mr. Weil moved the Variance be denied. Ch. Buscher seconded, and
the motion passed 2-1.
Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci,
Board Secretary.
Robert . Buscher, Chairman
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
October 18 , 1989 Meeting
Page One
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7 : 00 p. m. on
Wednesday, October 18 , 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J.
Puchalski Municipal Building, for the purpose of conducting a
Public Hearing on the Application of Quickbeam Realty Trust for a
Variance from the Provisions of Section 2 , Page 2-11
(Definitions :Lot Layout) , for the purpose of subdividing one lot
into two, with one of the resulting lots failing to satisfy the
definition. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher,
Dr . Peter Laband and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Ch. Buscher opened the Public Hearing by reading the Application,
the Legal Notice, and a memorandum from the planning Board. Atty.
Eric B. Gervais appeared for the Applicant, and read the definition
of "Lot Layout" as it appears in Article II : " . . . lots shall be
laid out in such a manner that a square, with sides equal to the
minimum frontage requirement for the zoning district in which it
is located, can be placed within the lot with at least one point
of the square lying on the front lot line with no portion of the
square extending beyond the boundaries of the lot. " Parcel 1 fails
this test, but Parcels 2 and 3 are in compliance. He stressed that
the failure to meet the test is de minimus, and does not derogate
from the intent of the ordinance. The lot meets every other
requirement. He said that the shape of the lot creates the
hardship. It became apparent that the recently built lube facility
encroaches on Parcel 3 , and this redrawing of property lines will
legitimize that error also.
Mr. Weil questioned the "hardship" criterion of Chapter 40A. Atty.
Gervais explained that the hardship relates to the shape of the lot
resulting from Fulton Ave, where Parcel 1 has its frontage. This
lessens the value of the land and creates an economic hardship.
He added, "The Supreme Judicial Court has held that where a
dimensional requirement is minor, and is the only failure, the
hardship requirement is fulfilled. " Dr. Laband agreed that "we
must use common sense. I need to evaluate the 100 ' square
requirement and its implications. I 'd like to take it under
advisement and talk to Larry Smith."
There was no one present in favor or in opposition, so Dr. Laband
moved the Public Hearing be closed and the matter taken under
advisement, Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci,
Board Secretary.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
*ttAA1 p
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
d
NORTHAMPTON. MASSACHUSETTS 0105C
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1989
RE: THE APPLICATION OF QUICKBEAM REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO TWO AT 19 FULTON AVENUE.
Pursuant to the Provisions of the General Laws of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given
that a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of
Northampton was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the above
date DENYING the Variance.
If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed in
Superior Court within 20 days of the date this decision was filed
in the Office of the Northampton City Clerk.
ti
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman