32A-255 (76) �` °e Grlt� of Narthamptan x r
a
a — �
� � �Gtaesacitirsctfs -
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
212 Main Street ' Municipal Building _ s
INSPECTOR Northampton, Mass. 01060
Edward J. Tewhill
July 9, 1987
Rostoff, Inc.
c/o Hotel Northampton
36 King St.
Northampton, Mass. 01060
Dear Sirs:
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 grant
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,
Edward4'/
Building Inspector
EJT/lb
I,
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision - Rostoff, Inc.
P I( 2
by land not available at an affordable price; that the existing
parking area, which takes up most of the land, is necessary for
the proper functioning of the Hotel for both guests and
function activities; that the addition of a sixth floor will
not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the City at large, as
the plans attempt to minimize the affect of a sixth floor, and
because there will be only slight visible impact. He noted
that the information supplied by the architect indicates that
the ultimate height of the proposed addition to the top of the
elevator towers is approximately 90 feet.
Referrinq to the request for a Finding, Mr. Buscher found
that as the requested expansion of the shed is parallel to the
existing structure, it will not be more detrimental.
The following conditions shall apply:
1. That the Building Inspector shall issue no Building
Permit until an engineering study has been submitted (to
his satisfaction) that ensures the addition of a swimming
pool to the sixth story will be structurally safe.
2. That the building shall not exceed the height as shown on
the architect' s drawing submitted to this Board by more
than 5% measured from the existing surface of the
driveway at the immediate northeasterly corner of the
Hotel.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Peter Laband
;a E# 91987
Sanford M.,' Weil, Jr.
q 1987 if
DECISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on June 24 , 1987 , the Z0 `Sca
-` Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to go t C/o
the Finding and Variance reque to°SMAfforlthe�purposetof
Northampton, 36 King Street, Northam p building which
adding a sixth story to an existing five-story
hei ght anatnP property an to
will violate the permitted 36
extend a nonconforming outbuilding nd
Kin Stre�etl Northampton. votin Chairman
Robert C. Buscher, Peter Labanl
xpand
P. Laband, referring to the request for afounddthattasethere
a storaae shed in the rear of the building,
is no vehicular traffic in tarea
the requested would
keeping with that of the Hotel,
not be more detrimental than the existing nonconformity.
Referring to the request for
the shape structurerand
addition, P. Laband found tha t
rthampton
its location on the lot is unique;
hotelthat
and thethe CHtyehas°expressed
is the only central downtown that because of
interest in it continuing as a viable concern;
its uniqueness and in el remainseinatfinancialsdifficulties,
viable business, the Hotel
and therefore, a literal enforcement of the Ordinance
prohibiting the added amenities citizens
can Northampton; that relief
to the owners and to the
can be granted without substantial hardship to the public good,
as the addition will not on, is tastefullye designed and not
other landmarks in Northamp
overwhelming; that relief can be graasedtheth intent llofythe
from the intent of the ordinance, within the City and to
'or
event of au skyscraper.
S. Weil, referring to the request for a Finding, found that
the expansion of the shed will be advantageous to the Hotel and
patrons of the Hotel.
Referrina to the request for aVariance,perty concurred
that the building and the shape he applicants'
that the hardship issue has been addressed by ts ace used for
representative. He found that the exist
ng
Of Hotel, and
p arkinq is necessary for the viability that the
therefore, is not available otrtower eXabove expansion; and
addition of a sixth floor will n
buildings , will blend in with the City' s ambience and will be
advantageous to the public.
as the
R. Buscher found that aompeteuin the situation cur e
current market because
Hotel cannot effectively encroached upon
of its age and style; that this lot is closely