32C-219 (29) E. The proposed change of use and alteration of the structure does not meet the criteria of
§9.3 for the issuance of a Finding.
Issues for discussion: Does this apply if the work is internal and the use was determined
to be allowed by right, with plenty of parking available, as determined by the Building
Commissioner,by approving the permit?
C. The proposed use is not an educational activity under MGL Ch. 40A §3.
Issue for discussion: Section 3 of 40A states "No zoning ordinance or bylaw shall...
regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for
educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its
agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic , or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a
nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however, that such land or structures
may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of the
structures, and determining yard sizes, lot areas, setbacks, open space, parking and
building coverage requirements.
1. Court rulings have stated that a "nonprofit educational corporation" within the
meaning of the statute qualifies as such if the corporations articles of
organization stated that corporate purposes include education or an educational
component. Does ServiceNet meet this requirement?
2. Courts have also ruled that the statute(40A)prohibits zoning ordinances from
barring the use of land for educational purposes by non-profit educational
corporations. Is this within the Articles of Organization?
3. Did the Building Commissioner correctly determine that there were no additional
"reasonable regulations" that could be imposed on the proposed use, concerning
the bulk and height of the structures (no external changes were being proposed),
the determination of the yard size, lot area, setbacks, open space, building
coverage requirements (no external changes were being proposed that would
effect these items) .
Did the Building Commissioner correctly determine that there were no additional
"reasonable regulations" that could be imposed on the proposed use, concerning
parking. Applicant stated that 53 parking spaces were available for use of the
premises. Although not located on the lot, the owner has been leasing parking
from an adjacent site for many years (prior to the Zoning Ordinance requiring a
Special Permit for this). Until 1990, the only person requiring to give permission
for shared parking was the Zoning Administrator(Building Inspector). Many
permits were issued for new uses, without requiring additional parking.
D. Pursuant to 9.2 the Zoning Ordinance applies to the proposed change of use and alteration
of the present non-conforming structure.
Issues for discussion: Does this apply if the work is internal and the use was determined
to be allowed by right, with plenty of parking available, as determined by the Building
Commissioner, by approving the permit?
City of Northampton, Massachusetts t" MP7O
Office of Planning and Development �.
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950
FAX (413) 586-3726
•Conservation Commission•Historical commission �t
•Housing Partnership•Parking Commission
• Planning Board•Zoning Board of Appeals
TO: Zoning Board of Appeals
FR: Paulette L. Kuzdeba, AICP, Senior Planner
RE: 123 Hawley Street- Appeal of the Building Inspector's Decision
DA: October 29, 1997
The decision before the Zoning Board tonight needs to be based upon:
1. The specific items (A- E)raised within the appeal document;
2. The information/testimony received during the hearing; and
3. Whether or not the actions taken/interpretations made by the Building
Commissioner, with regard to the Zoning Ordinance and MGL Ch.40A were
correct.
The five issues raised within the Appeal were as follows:
A. The Zoning Permit Application relied upon by the Building Inspector contained false
and/or inaccurate information.
Issue for discussion: If you find that this statement is true, do you believe that the
Building Commissioner would have reached a different conclusion,with different
information shown? Are the errors significant enough to determine that a different
conclusion would be reached?
B. As per the Table of Use regulations of§5.2,page 5-2, of the Zoning Ordinance, the
proposed use as an overnight cot shelter is not an allowed use.
Issue for discussion: Did the Building Commissioner make a proper determination that
the proposed use is an "Educational use which is religious, sectarian, denominational or
public or other use?" This use is allowed (by-right) in the SI district. See next item.
ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER