Loading...
07-065 North Farms Road zoning._ 2o4�TO2 _r q 4 w D O CITY OF NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS JAMES C. O' DON N ELL D EC TS ION CITY SOLICITOR THOMAS P. NAGLE, JP. OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ASSISTANTCITY SOLICITOR IN RE: Petition of Len J, Shepard and B. Irene Shepard for a variation This is the decision of the Board of Anneals of the City of Northampton and a petition filed by Leo J. Shepard and B. Irene Shepard requesting a variance to construct an attached garage to their home which is now under construction, The premises affected are located at the easterl side of North Farms Road designated as Parcel 65, Sheet No, 7 of the Assessors' Plan of the City of Northampton and are known as Lot #10, North Farms Road. The petition sought the variance under Article VI, Section 6.2 of the Revised Ordinance of the Citv of Northampton. Public notice had been publi.sbed in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on April 14 and April 21. A communication from the Planning Department had been filed recommending that the petitioner be, allowed to withdraw his apnlication without prejudice. A letter of the Assistant City Solicit O was filed stating that under Chapter 40A, Section 5A certain lots may exempt from the setback requirements of a zoning ordinance adopted after the lot was recorded. The Board of Appeals hearing was held at 7:32 PM i_r the City Council Chambers, City Hall on April 28, 7976. The Chairman then read the zoning ordinance requirements for a variance. Atty. Francis Collins, 74 King Street, representing the petitioner, said that the old zoning ordinance, in effect at the time the. was purchased, required a lot width of 100 feet in A Residence A zone. The meaning of the term "width of 100 feet" had not been clear. The former Building Inspector had said, according to Mr. Collins, that his understanding was that the lot must have a frontage of loo feet, or that. the Int must measure 100 feat at the building .line. In this respect the Shepard lot does comply with the old zoning ordinance, under which he would he able to seek the variance in accordance with Chanter hOA, Section 5A of the Znring Enab7_ing Act.. However, Mr.. Collin. nrefPrs to seek the variance under the new v.nnin^ ordinance to preclude the nosnibi_lity of nuesti -ons bai.r raised iin'the fpture nhout, whether or not this is q "nroner Intl'. scar W .. •-qr�� nr o t��Y th n. 'A ,l ii ±��. F � - -. ti . i �... r - iii iii nm Tn r -tci i it 'pn lr The Chrirr,.nit mir, 9 ad t'r. ',n11i t-. ,.. t' 7nard hn� .lien T.inn �- h'td hence _ •'r - . Q.d +d ol r'. nnl nrny all r� r rh a i^ 'i -^nbl 1 r Tv .. T her= air d.r ner -.n ?clrl :;y , linl l i n a clrnry j f t'r, rte. nnt' bi r,n coal P tta ���t q y wit 1 1 ??reit td1 cn 4'-;a Chat .man tinfor and him nat hF CT.tr_ ' n�) crntlh acnk i:hn Vl an ^i r� io= trr3'� nF rminsi nn to ^e nttTVni t. the a,n�1 icatinn -It *- ,in the lwr .. rim" limit. irgnnsnd h,. nhr v.'tnir, n"9 Tr to i,tr ;h 11 hnut, ilni.}dirm Tns,nat. do r_a l_ boi n- rwi�taer9. T,ha (}3i �`m�n �i ir, Ira razr� t.n r,nna',tl_t. t t,.r Tni. i. ^itnr rm Chi g, Rrigh'mav mound 1 - .n vOtn nn thn n?hi hi on and t ^e cnr,<1 nh h r r Nlnv,,i n. The Bnard vt ,.ri nna n.i mnn sl�� i.n de'^ -r thn ,inri ance. b'lr t,asrd t t ^n agken it a dst-ao'n E rnmti ^Pd It foot sinlnt, ;9�mnn =i_nn rwln 'nenni lt. by .i T!•.,.. �-u- ;hmr�,, infnr�ah nFr tat }. ih rrn;l t ?. � _ Thn h 1rl �P v;as �d �rntrhprT aT Q:OC) Phl. Pr atcl v,j, i n� r- Cl l ,,. D mon �. man Th mn� Rr ghtra z -. and Arm no P tf�'i o. Al S t .ter ,r re i f,erv,�s �stoci t n mb,r ;;1a t c1*12ss. Cl t.r Att, P " nci� r, Cnl l i n". Arir'. !ind 1`' 1. `;}. _. _nar,l. n .Tc —IJ ?Tn tm�nn o:P t� { rinah� ,?ae8t,2. Charles W. Dragon ha iman =.as E. COILI ➢'S. ]n. ,<I , I. I.�,,, Zoning Board of Appeals City of Northampton In re: Petition and Variance - - Leo J. and B. Irene Shepard Prior to the enactment of the July 22, 1975 Zoning Ordinance the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, effective February 14, 1949 as amended, provided that no dwelling shall be erected in a Resi- dence A district on a lot less than 100 feet wide. The time - honored interpretation of this provision was to require either 100 feet of frontage or 100 feet of width at the set -back line. When the subdivision plan submitted by Alexander 1.1. Borawski to the Planning Board showing the Shepard lot was stamped, "Approval under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required," the Northampton Planning Board approved in effect the Shepard lot for residential, single family construction. When the tract was sold by Alexander W. Borowski to Richard I Purrington on August 27, 1973, the Northampton Zoning Ordinance had not yet changed. On March 9, 1976, when the tract was trans- ferred to Mr. and Mrs. Shepard, the new zoning ordinance had be- come effective. General Laws, Chapter 40A; Section 5A provides in part that "...any lot shown on a plan endorsed with the words 'approval under the subdivision control law not required' ..which complies at the time of such.,. endorsement.-.with the minimum' area, frontage, width and depth requirements, if any, of any zoning ordinance or by -law in effect in the city or town where the land is situated, notwithstanding the adoption or amendment of provisions of a zoning ordinance or by -law in such city or town imposing minimum area, frontage, width, depth, or yard requirements, or more than one such require- ment, in excess of those in effect at the time of such recording or endorsement may thereafter be built upon for residential use if, at the time of the adoption of such re- quirements or increased requirements, or while building on such lot was otherwise permitted, whichever occurs later, such lot was held in ownership separate from that of adjoin- ing land located in the same residential district...provided ..at the time of building (a) such lot has an area of five thousand square feet or more and a frontage of fifty feet or more, is in a district zoned for residential use, and -2- conforms, except as to area frontage, width and depth with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance or by -law in effect in such city or town and (b) any proposed structure is to be located on such lot so as to conform with the minimum requirements of front, side and rear yard setbacks, if any, in effect at the time of such endorsement...... The Shepard lot and the location of the building thereon comply with the front yard setback (20 feet), the side yard set- back (10 feet), the rear yard setback (15 feet), and lot area (10,000 square feet) in effect at the time of the endorsement and has at least 5,000 square feet and a frontage of at least 50 feet and conforms except as to area, frontage, width, and depth pro- visions with the new zoning ordinance. The proposed structure is so located on the lot as to conform with the front, side and rear yard setbacks on the date of the endorsement, and the building is designed to comply with all other requirements for building in the City of Northampton. This matter comes before the Zoning Board because the build- ing inspector, pursuant to the enclosed notice, revoked the b, 11 )ermit with regard to the garage on the premises but did not revoke. `he building permit for the house being constructed on the premises.! [he foundation for the garage and building have already been laid, and in view of the question raised by the building inspector, the )etitioners determine that a variation from the width and side yard) requirements under the new zoning ordinance would be the only )ractical way to ensure that the issue of whether a lot with 100 feet )f frontage, 100 feet at the back line and 94 feet at the building Line complied at the time of the recording of the subdivision plan 7ith the then - effective provisions of the Northampton Zoning ) rdinance i.e., 100 -foot width. The Planning Board so determined )y endorsing the plan pursuant to G.L.c41 §81P .. The Planning Depart -i )ent has indicated to the Zoning Board that it is satisfied that he lot may be built upon. The petitioners and their counsel are satisfied that the lot may be built upon. However, since the build - ng inspector has revoked the building permit with regard to the ,arage, and the neighbors, for reasons unrelated to zoning consider- Xions, are antagonistic to the petitioners' construction on this ot, and finally because of the expense, delay and hardship that the etitioners have incurred to date: because of all of these disputes nd to foreclose forever any possible dispute over compliance wi he old zoning ordinance, th we request that this variance be granted y the board, The petitioners say that they comply with the requirements of ,L.c40A §15(3), namely; .,cis e. coons. Jr.. CONDITIONS ESPECIALLY AFFECTING SUCH PARCEL OR BUILDING BUT NOT GENERALLY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS NE 1413 -3- LOCATED. The foundation was installed pursuant to a valid building permit. The layout of the lot is susceptible to dispute as to whether there is "100 feet of width," despite the fact that there is 100 feet of frontage and 100 feet of width at the back line. 2) LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD INVOLVE' SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPELLANTS. The petitioners have installed a foundation pursuant to a valid building permit at considerable expense, and as a result of revo- I cation of that building permit, incurred a filing fee of $125, together with attorney's fees to prepare, present, and brief the subject matter of the petition. 3) DESIRABLE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. The location of the foundation and the proposed building on the lot complies with the 10 -foot side yard requirement in effect at the time the plan was endorsed. The area is zoned for residence and is one of the few remaining building lots in the city with the requisite highway frontage. 4) DESIRABLE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY DEROGATING FROM THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF SUCH ORDINANCE. The 1975 ordinance provides that a detached garage may be erected within 10 feet of the side lot line (Section 6.7). The petitioners merely seek permission to erect an attached garage within 15 feet but further than 14 feet from the side line, I Respectfully submitted, LEO J. and B, IRENE SHEPARD i their attorney 1111, e. cowxs. Ja. '1m11'1 a. u.,r o RSM J T r Z ty r x liafu of lolrtlTnmyfmt i° - GJffier of the ?lnspeetox of �B uilLings INSPECTOR PLitq Tall, Marc 2 Name Leo Shepard - 80 Fox Farms Road Florence Mass Address Lot #10, North Farms Road City Tax Map Page 7 Lot # 65 Zone RR NOTICE OF VIOLATION It has been brought to the attention of this office that you are in violation of the Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Section 6 , Paragraph 1 & 2 Specifically, setbacks in a rural residence zone Please notify this office if corrections can made within days. Violations of this Section 10.8. "Penalti be affixed in an amount for each offense. Each violation is allowed to offense." order are subject to Article 10, :s for violations may upon conviction, not to exceed fifty dollars (;$50.00) day, or portion of a day, that any continue shall constitute a separate Sincerel , Z1 Cecil Cecil I. Clark Inspector of Buildings