32C-230 (16) Zoning Board of Appeals City of Northampton
Hearing No.: ZBA-2007-0013 Date: December 18, 2006
6. The Zoning ordinance clearly allows by-right the rebuilding of a non-conforming single or two-family after damage from fire/natural
disaster when such are rebuilt in the exact footprint as the previously non-conforming structure.It also clearly allows by-right the
reconstruction of other structures that are only partially damaged by fire and rebuilt in the exact footprint The Zoning is not as
straightforward about reconstruction of single-family or two-family homes rebuilt in a slightly different footprint or other structures rebuilt
in a slightly different footprint than the previous building. However, the City has consistently allowed these reconstructions to be
pursued under the "Finding"standard(following the instruction under the 9.3 described above). Thus any change proposed that is
outside the by-right parameters either because it is not in the exact footprint or it is not the reconstruction of a single or 2-family home
would fall under the entire Finding umbrella for review.
7. Department of Public Works did not issue comments relative to site distance issues when the original finding application was made.
The nature of their concerns related to sewer and water connections.
CONDITIONS:
1. The location of the house is slightly different from the original submittal dated 7118106. The house will be 3'setback further from
Hancock Street and 1'setback further from Williams Street.
2. The property owner will retain all healthy, mature trees on the lot that do not interfere with the construction of the proposed plan.
COULD NOT DEROGATE BECAUSE:
FILING DEADLINE: MAILING DATE: HEARING CONTINUED DATE: DECISION DRAFT BY: APPEAL DATE:
Tue Nov 14,2006 Sat Dec 09, 2006 Thu Dec 28, 2006
REFERRALS IN DATE: HEARING DEADLINE DATE: HEARING CLOSE DATE: FINAL SIGNING BY: APPEAL DEADLINE:
Sat Dec 02, 2006 Sun Dec 24, 2006 Thu Dec 14, 2006 Thu Dec 28, 2006 Sun Jan 07, 2007
FIRST ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING DATE: VOTING DATE: DECISION DATE:
Thu Nov 30, 2006 Thu Dec 14, 2006 Thu Dec 14, 2006 Mon Dec 18, 2006
SECOND ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING TIME: VOTING DEADLINE: DECISION DEADLINE:
Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:00 PM Fri Jan 26,2007 Sun Jan 28, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: VOTE:
Malcolm B.E. Smith votes to Deny
Elizabeth Wroblicka votes to no action needed
David Bloomberg votes to Deny
Sara Northrup votes to Deny
Bob Riddle votes to no action needed
MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: VOTE COUNT: DECISION:
David Bloomberg Malcolm B.E.Smith 3-2 Denied
MINUTES OF MEETING:
Available in the Office of Planning&Development.
1, Carolyn Misch,as agent to the Zoning Board of Appeals,certify that this is a true and accurate decision made by the Zoning Board and
certify that a copy of this and all plans have been filed with the Board and the City Clerk on December 18, 2006
1 certify that a copy of this decision has been mailed to the Owner and Applicant.
'J i
NOTICE OF APPEAL
An appeal from the deicsion of the Zoning Board may be made by any person aggrieved and pursuant to MGL Chapt 40A, Section 17 as
amended, within(20) days[30 days for a residential Finding]after the date ofthe filing of this decision with the City Clerk. The date of
filing is listed above. Such appeal may be made to the Hampshire Superior Court with a certified copy of the appeal sent to the City Clerk
of Northampton.
GeoTMS®1998 Des Lauriers&Associates, Inc.
Zoning Board of Appeals City of Northampton
Hearing No.: ZBA-2007-0013 Date: December 18, 2006
APPLICATION TYPE: SUBMISSION DATE:
Appeal Fri Oct 20, 2006
Applicant's Name: Owner's Name:
NAME: - - , NAME:
Arnold&Marilyn Levinson - r ALAN VERSON
ADDRESS: ADDRESS:
14 Hancock St
1 56 Main St
TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE: TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE:
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 NORTHAMPTON MA 01060
PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.:
EMAIL ADDRESS: - EMAIL ADDRESS:
Site Information:
Work Location.: SITE ZONING:
25 HANCOCK ST URC
TOWN: SECTION OF BYLAW:
NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 Section 9.3
GIS# MAP: BLOCK: LOT: ACTION TAKEN: -
6673 1 32C 230 001 Denied
Reason for filing:
Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to grant a Finding for the reconstruction of non-conforming use and structure destroyed by
fire at 25 Hancock St
HARDSHIP:
FINDINGS:
The full Zoning Board of Appeals denied the appeal of the original decision granted by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2006.
In its decision to deny the appeal, the Board upheld the Administrator's decision to Find that the proposed change in use and structure to
a 2-family structure slated to be a 2-unit condominium was not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the previously
existing use of a 6-unit rooming house with 2 apartments. In so doing, the Board did modify the decision by issuing a Finding with two
additional conditions not originally granted.
In making its decision, the Board found:
1. Section 9.3 indicates that if one subsection does not apply then applicants shall proceed to subsequent sections.
2.Based on this instruction, the Building Commissioner and staff determined that due to the nature of the fire and the order by the
Commissioner to demolish the remaining structure prior to obtaining a permit from the ZBA, the appropriate subsection under 9.3 was
the general Finding Standard of 9.3(1H). Thus all non-conforming aspects of the property would be viewed under the Finding standard.
3. The previous condition is listed as containing 8-units on the assessor's card and has a state building code classification of a "rooming
house". Although by zoning ordinance definition,a Rooming House is one that contains four or more units, the Assessor's do not
classify properties in accordance with zoning definitions. The assessors consistently do not give mixed classifications of residential
properties. A rooming or lodging house is defined in the zoning ordinance has having lodging units with shared kitchen facilities. By
contrast Dwelling units are self contained living units as defined in section 2 of the zoning ordinance.
Regardless of the differences between the Zoning Ordinance definitions and the Assessor's records,a Finding under 9.3(1H)would be
the appropriate mechanism to alter a full rooming house to some other non-conforming structure/use.
4. The detached garage is allowed by right for any residential structure and is NOT part of the Finding except that it was viewed as a
mitigating structure in that it provides more privacy to the abutting properties and screens vehicles from view. The zoning ordinance
dimensional standards requires a 4'setback on the rear and side and 15'from the front lot line for detached accessory structures.
5. There are two different classifications for two-family structures which only relates to the URB zoning district where a special permit is
required for a two-family that does not have a single entrance or shared party wall. The reference to grandfathering was instituted to
address the "Single-lot exemption"provision in state statute(and also in§9.4)where a lot that has never been developed nor been in
common ownership with an abutting parcel has an automatic allowance to be deve loped for either a single family home or a two-family
home. This relatively new distinction for two family homes Northampton Zoning addresses problems with the single lot exemption.
The table of use section states that in URC, "any other 2-family not subject to grandfathering,"is by-right. This project came before the
board as a result of a pre-existing condition, not a grandfathered lot and the Finding would"cure'this issue.
GeoTMS®1,998 Des Lauriers&Associates, Inc.