Loading...
18D-004 (6) li cc ' (1 . : : ,..,iir:,;- -- V ' 1 , JUN - 1 198? V OEPL OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS NORTHAMPTON, MA 01650 / c „,„- ,'‘? ( 1 / / tk- ¢. Aa?v - ;./ CITY OF NORTHAMPTON /z `� - V ' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - { • - '71:±: � L � � NUI- cI riAMi' l UN, MA55A CkiUS ET'rS 0I060 t "` ��� M ( Ili) 584 - 0344 � ( J`' • `` May 28, 1982 Mr. William Krimsky 104 Damon Road Northampton, ''RA 01060 Dear Mr. Krimsky: At our meeting of May 19, 1982, the Board of Appeals made certain suggestions to you for correcting your application. One of these concerned the sub - paragraph defining the use of the building. We stated to you that we thought you had filed under the wrong paragraph. However, careful reading of the Zoning Ordinance indicates that the section under which you applied is correct, in that this property could best be defined under the sub - paragraph, "PERSONAL AND CONSUMER SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT: For the purpose of this Ordinance, personal service estallishments shall include, but need not be limited to, .... health clubs, and other similar places of business, but not including .... any establishment with a gross floor area of more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. ", and not a private membership club as we suggested. Yours truly, Robert C. Buscher t, j ( --s / ,) Chairman / V.) - ‘ i DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS At a meeting held on May 14, 1986, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to grant the Finding request of William and Judith Krimsky, 104 Damon Road, oI rthampton for the purpose of extending their nonconforming use at 104 Damon Road, Northampton (GI Zone). Present and voting were: Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Peter Laband and Kathleen M. Sheehan. The findings were as follows: P. Laband, referring to Section 10.10 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, found that the use is nonconforming and will not be substantially changed; that the requested use bears a positive rela- - tionship to the public convenience by providing this type of store i in this area; that the traffic and pedestrian safety will be unchanged; that there will be no change in the use of municipal systems; that Article XI does not apply; and that the requested use will not unduly impair the character of the district, as the replacement of the existing building will improve the area drastically. K. Sheehan found that the construction of a new building will not be more detrimental than the existing building; that although the ii new building will be slightly larger, it will not create undue 1i traffic congestion, as the parking area on the lot is adequate; that i the use is listed under Section 9.3 (B) of the Northampton Zoning gl Ordinance; that the requested use will not, overload municipal systems i! `) any more than the present use; that Article XI does not apply; and that the requested use will not unduly impair the character of 1111 the neighborhood. 1 R. Buscher found that a more intensive use will not be more detriment I to the neighborhood than the existing use, and that a new structure ■ will be beneficial to the area; and that the increased parking necessary for the added floor area is adequately provided for on the lot. 1 . r i C 4 - 9 Robert c. Buscher, Chairman f � /U � 2 8 i � , __:P L iIf 7 r,, -. a Peter Laband t o --.416efee23.17. Kathleen M. She an I I; 1y z I l!