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