Loading...
31B-285 (20) A 0 ,/, A.,7, P . '.4_5\e) / E C tOVE 116Kw1, °Pt a fill DECISION OF "THAM N MA INSPECTIONS Owen NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I I At a meeting held on June 8 , 1988 , the Zoning Board of A eals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to the request of Edward DeVarennes for aliMINIONA from the Provisions of section 6 2 of- _the Northampton Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and lot frontage, for the purpose of constructing a three-story building on a vacant lot at „ Northampton, MA. Present and voting were Chai an bent C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. The Findings were as follows : The Variance is requested for a specific parcel of land, 100 King Street, Northampton, MA. There is a circumstance relating to the shape and topography of the land that is unique to this parcel, and does not affect generally the district in which it is located, namely: This is the only vacant lot on King Street. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner, in that he was H granted a Special Permit in 1980 by this Board to construct a building, but because of economic factors , did not . Since he had been given permission to build the structure, he felt that letting the Special Permit lapse would not cause irreparable damage, feeling confident that he could reapply for and be granted a Special Permit again. j Subsequent to 1980 , the Zoning of , this parcel was changed to 1 Neighborhood Business, and Applicant now needs a Variance, not a Special Permit. I i 1 DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RE: DEVARENNES, PAGE TWO Granting the request would not substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY: 1 . The dimensions on the "Construct Associates, Inc. Plan dated 2/26/88" be verified as accurate, and when ''//,fconstruction is complete, there must be 23% open space on the lot. 1 2 . The surface of the parking lot to the rear of the structure is to be pervious compacted crushed stone, and not bituminous pavement of any type. 3 . The structure is to be sited far enough back on the lot so as not to impede light and air to the abutter to the immediate North. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman 7)'-- ?-cJc.k. Za-gA411_,.. Dr. Peter Laband ------.----/-14-i/(---/d4z4"-"-'/ M. Sanford Weil, Jr. l I 1 Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals June 8 , 1988 Meeting The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 8 : 55 p. m. on June 8 , 1988 in Council Chambers , Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, to render a Decision on the Application of Edward DeVarennes for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 6 . 2 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum lot area, minimum lot width and lot frontage, for the purpose of constructing a three-story building on a vacant lot at 100 King Street, in a Neighborhood Business Zone. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Dr. Laband read the criteria that must be met for a Variance to be granted. As to circumstances relating to shape or topography of the land, he felt this parcel was unique because it' s "the only vacant lot on King Street. " He pointed out that this applicant was granted a Special Permit in 1980 to construct this building (but did not do so because of high interest rates ) , and his hardship results from purchasing the lot after the Special Permit was granted, in reliance on the permission to build having been granted. He felt hardship should be taken in context of what is being asked for. He further felt that granting the Variance would not derogate from the intent of the Ordinance, since the makeup of the neighborhood is heavily mixed residential and business--exactly what is being proposed here. He felt that the public good is better served by having this business at this location, and found conjointly on all points , stating he would vote in favor of granting the Variance. He added a Condition that the dimensions on the "Construct Associates , Inc. Plan dated 2/26/88" be verified as accurate, and that in fact there will be 23% Open Space on the lot when construction is complete. Mr. Weil concurred, but deferred to one of the requests of North side abutter Melnik, that the structure be sited far enough back on the lot so as not to impede light and air to the abutter. A further stipulation was that the parking area to the rear of the building be gravel, not blacktop. Ch. Buscher agreed with his colleagues , and found a real hardship on the "reliance" issue. He felt the neighborhood today is much more "mixed use" than it was in 1980 . He stated he was not too concerned with abutter Melnik' s many requests , since this applicant could, by right, erect a two-family house anywhere on this lot. Dr. Laband moved the Variance be granted, 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 Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 1988 Meeting The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 9 : 35 p. m. on June 1 , 1988 in Council Chambers , Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building to conduct a Public Hearing to consider the request of Edward DeVarennes for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 6 . 2 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum lot area, minimum lot width and lot frontage, for the purpose of constructing a three-story building containing apartments on the top floor, offices on the second floor, and a retail pet stgre on the first floor, on a vacant lot at 100 King Street, Northampton, in a Neighborhood Business Zone. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Ch. Buscher read the Legal Notice as published twice in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, and a memorandum from the Planning Board which indicated that the Board voted 5-1 in favor of denying the requested Variance. Atty. Timothy Washburn appeared for the Applicant. He stated, "Some history is important, " and reviewed what happened in 1980 when the Applicant bought the vacant lot. He signed a contract in 1980 subject to getting a Special Permit, and, as a contract purchaser, appeared before the ZBA and was granted a Special Permit. He then bought the lot, but interest rates at that time were in the 20% range and he could not afford to build. Knowing that his Special Permit would expire in two years , he felt secure that he could merely reapply for the Special Permit, and probably get it. In late 1987 , the Building Inspector said a Variance was required. Atty. Washburn said he "has filed for a Variance and is here tonight to rise or fall on that Application. " This is to be a three-story wooden structure with pet grooming in the basement, a retail pet store selling fish, birds and reptiles on the first floor, offices on the second floor, and two apartments on the third. Atty. Washburn said "Minimum Open Space" became an issue at the Planning Board, since the Application said there would be 75% Open Space, and Mr. Smith thought the proper percentage was closer to zero, since the drawings seemed to indicate that the structure and the parking lot would take up the entire parcel. He said that, subsequent to the Planning Board meeting, he asked Architects , Inc. to re-check their calculations , and the correct figure is now represented to be 23% Open Space, where 20% is required. Atty. Washburn then described the neighborhood as containing "a sub shop, Borawski ' s real estate office , a funeral home, an accountant' s office with apartments next door, this lot, Atty, Melnik' s building with a law office, driving school and apartments , and then more multi-family units going North on King Street. Across the street are a bank, churches , the old Armory, Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals June 1 , 1988 Meeting Page Two Friendly' s , etc. " Atty. Washburn said the Planning Board told him that the NB Zone was supposed to be a "buffer" between the Central Business District and the Highway Business Zone which begins at Summer Street. He characterized the zone as having "mixed uses all over the place--no different than what we are proposing. King Street is the main commercial artery in town, and our proposal is a 'buffer ' , with apartments and offices. The Planning Board was looking for more residential use, but what we are proposing is equal to the neighborhood. " He showed architectural drawings of "a nice house--designed not to be an out-of-place building. " Atty. Washburn turned to the subject of hardship. He said there was some discussion before the Planning Board that any hardship was "self-created, " and he reiterated that the Applicant didn' t buy the lot until he received his Special Permit in 1980 , and "he relied on that. " He acknowledged that today, we have a different Building Inspector, a different City Solicitor, and the property has been re-zoned to NB. Dr. Laband asked, "His hardship is reliance?" Atty. Washburn replied, "Yes , but only partially. Our best hardship is that the lot is just slightly smaller than what ' s needed for a Variance, and we' re on a heavy commercial street. The Planning Board says , 'You don' t have a hardship--you can build a two-family house, ' but the lot was purchased on the belief it could be used for commercial use. It is smack in the middle of a commercial area, and the thought of putting a two- family house here is ludicrous. The only reasonable use of this lot is commercial, given its location and adjacent uses. " Ch. Buscher asked, relative to the Table of Use, "What do you allege his business fits under?" Atty. Washburn replied, "Retail establishment--he sells mainly pet food and supplies. " Ch. Buscher replied, "Mixed use in this district does not allow a pet store. " Atty. Washburn replied, "it ' s not exactly a pet store. " [Secretary' s note: The Application reads , " . . .a retail pet store on the first floor. " ] Ch. Buscher commented that the proposed building abuts Trumbull Road which, on its North side, is exclusively residential. Mr. DeVarennes stated that he has 19 letters of support from the 25 abutters , and turned them over to the Board. Ch. Buscher asked why the building was set so far back on the lot. Mr. DeVarennes replied that in 1980 , the abutter to the North, whose building is very close to King Street, objected to the loss of air and sunlight, plus the fact that the rear of the lot is four feet lower than the front, which allows handicapped access to the basement where the pet grooming is done. Ch. Buscher asked why the third floor was needed. Atty. Washburn responded that economics was a big part of the reason, plus the fact that this is a mixed use area, a "buffer area, " and the apartments make the building more compatible, plus Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals June 1 , 1988 Meeting Page Three the city badly needs apartments. There was no one present to speak in favor, but a direct abutter, Patrick Melnik, spoke in opposition. He had a shopping list of requests , namely: 1 . He wants no impervious cover to the parking area. 2. He wants no alteration to the drainage at the rear of the property. 3 . He wants no parking in front of the building because it ' s "visually negative. " 4 . He wants the front of the building to more or less line up with the abutting buildings . 5 . He wants the Applicant to site the building on the South side of the lot, so he is not deprived of sun and air. 6 . He thinks the building is too high. Mr. Melnik' s comments were noted. Dr . Laband canvassed the hearing room for additional comments , and there were none . He moved that the Public Hearing be closed and the matter be taken under advisement. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10 : 50 p. m. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORTHAMPTON City or Town BOARD OF APPEALS Date: June 16 19 88 Certificate of Granting of Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11) The Board of appeals of the City or Town of NORTHAMPTON hereby certifies that a Variance or) i 1( ti f has been granted To Edward DeVarennes Address 319 Pleasant St. City or Town Northampton, MA 01060 affecting the rights of the owner with respect to land or buildings at 100 King St., Northampton And the said Board of Appeals further certifies that the decision attached hereto is a true and correct copy of its decision granting said variance — special permit, and that copies of said decision, and of all plans referred to in the decision, have been filed with the planning board and the city or town clerk. The Board of Appeals also calls to the attention of the owner or applicant that General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 11 (last paragraph) provides that no variance or special permit, or any ex- tension, modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the town or city clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has been filed in the office of the city or town clerk and no appeal has been filed or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the registry of deeds for the county and district in which the land is located and indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for such recor- ding or registering shall be paid by the owner or applican Chair Clerk FORM 1094 HOBBS &WARREN. INC.. REVISED 1974 2°4Al4rz ,, Ciz#yaf Nbrflnttn :* ,_ - $i.ar 10 , Yt40 Alassxcbusetts �fillii y'—y DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS ; }` , 212 Main Street ' Municipal Building t INSPECTOR s.° Northampton, Mass. 01060 awl Edward J. Tewhill June 16, 1988 Mr. Edward DeVarenees 319 Pleasant Street Northampton, Mass. 01060 Dear Mr. DeVarennes : We have received the decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals today; granting your application. There is now a twenty (20) day appeal period you must await. After the appeal period is up, you must go to the City Clerk' s office and get a stamped copy from them which will indicate that there has. been no appeals on the decision you received from the Zoning Board. Then bring the stamped copy they give you over to the Registry of Deeds and file it with them, but be sure they give you a copy to give to us to keep on file in our office. Then you can come to our office to apply for the building permit, but until all the above listed steps are complete our office can 't issue you the building permit. Be sure to get the above mentioned copy from the Registry of Deeds , so we can process the building permit immediately. For Your Information : Zoning Ordinance Section 10.6 - Permit Time Limits. A Zoning Board Decision granted under the provisions of Section 10. 10 shall lapse within eighteen ( 18) months (including such time re- quired to pursue or await the determination of an appeal ) from the gran. thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause, or if, in the case of a permit for construction, construction has not begun by such date except for good cause. Sincerely, Edwar ' e`l ew`�ice" Building Inspector EJT/lb