06-006 502 Haydenville Road-Decision of the Northampton BOAppeals-1983DECISION OF THE
NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS
At the Northampton Board of Appeals meeting held on June 20, 1983, the
petition of Janean Strong- Cifarelli for a Variance to use property located at
502 Haydenville Road for the sale of antiques was denied due to a split
decision of the Board.
Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt, and
Dr. Peter Laband.
Based upon the evidence presented to the Board, the Board made the follow-
ing findings in regard to the petition for a Variance:
1. Chairman Robert C. Buscher found:
A. that the applicant did not meet the Variance requirements
on hardship due to the fact that the property was already
being put to its "highest" use, namely residential and any
hardship suffered by the applicant would be self- imposed
since she was not the owner of the property;
B. that the proposed use would generate additional traffic
on an already heavily travelled road and this would be
a detriment to the public good; and
C. that the property zoned Suburban - Residence abuts a Special
Industrial Zone, but the cutoff point must occur somewhere and
it is the responsibility of the Board to prevent erosion of
residential zones.
Chairman Buscher voted to deny the Variance.
2. Dr. Peter Laband found:
A. that the property is unique because it abuts the Massachusetts
Electric property which is zoned Special Industrial and is
one parcel removed from Hampshire Engineering;
B. that a literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would
create a hardship for the petitioners in that the sale of
the property now owned by the applicant's in -laws is
contingent upon receipt of the Variance, without which the
applicant cannot afford to retain the property in the family;
and
Dr. Peter Laband voted to grant the Variance subject to the aforementioued
restriction.
C. that relief may be granted without derogating from the intent
of the Ordinance since the proposed use would have little
impact on the neighborhood, provided the antique business is
confined to the barn area.
3. William Brandt found:
A. that the property is unique because of the size of the barn
on the premises, but a Literal enforcement of the Zoning
Ordinance would not create a hardship for the petitioner
-2 -
since she is not the property owner.
William Brandt voted to deny the petition.
Since the vote was not unanimous, the application is hereby denied.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. on June 20, 1983.
ROBERT C. BUSCHER, CHAIRMAN
n ���
DR. PE'LER LA AND �
WILLIAM BRANDT
i