Loading...
25C-104 (3) Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals Decision - Nevin, Page 2 Itoo small for the requested use and will be detrimental to the (general concept of what should be done in that area of the City; that Grant Avenue is a crowded street that will be !burdened by additional traffic. He stated that the benefit of Iproviding affordable housing does not balance the impact to the Ineighborhood and added that the structure should sell with no difficulty as a single-family dwelling. R. Buscher found, upon viewing the property, that this ; dwelling is amenable to conversion with a minimum of structural changes. He suggested that in view of the fact that there are two separate back entrances, this structure could have originally been built as a two-family dwelling. He stated that although a strong case was not presented in regards to meeting the criteria necessary to grant a Variance, the location of the structure on the lot represents a unique situation, as the lot is small with no side yard on one side and no rear yard. Referring to the criteria necessary to grant a Special Permit, Mr. Buscher found that the use is listed in the Table of Use Regulations; that the requested use bears a positive relationship to the public convenience, as it will provide needed housing and is easily amenable to conversion; that the ! requested use will not create undue traffic congestion, as ,,there is ample area on the lot on which to provide the required 'parking and the dwelling is located near the intersection of ! Bridge Street, so that there will be minimal traffic impact on the more populous part of Grant Avenue; that the requested use will not overload municipal services; that as the character of this district is mixed residential, the conversion of this 1idwelling will not impair the character of the neighborhood and ; will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing I situation. i j Robert C. Busc er, Chairman I Peter Laband Sanfo d Weil, Jr. iol V Ana 3 r DECISION OF OF8U1lOiMGINSPFCt10Na ��NORtN vroN.MA ZONING BOARD OF APPE At a meeting held on March 18, 1987, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton, in a split decision, voted to den the Variance, Special Permit and Finding requests of Jane H. Nevin, 21 West Street, Hadley, MA for the purpose of converting a single-family dwelling into a two-family dwelling ton a lot which is nonconforming in its area, frontage, depth, !' setbacks and open space requirements in a nonconforming structure at property located at 29 Grant Avenue, Northampton, jMA (URB Zone) . Present and voting were: Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Peter Laband and Sanford Weil, Jr. ' The findings were as follows: P. Laband, referring to Chapter 40A, M.G.L. and the criteria necessary to grant a Variance, stated that although the applicant presented somewhat unorganized and inadequate arguments, he found the structure unusual in that it already functioned as a two-family dwelling with separate entrances and exits, and an existing kitchen and bath; that unless relief is granted, the existing facilities could not be used for a single-family dwelling and would have to be removed at great expense to the owner; that providing rental housing in , Northampton is of benefit to the public good; and that as this apartment contains ample living space, the requested use is in harmony with the general intent of the Ordinance. Referring to Section 10 . 10 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance and the criteria necessary to grant a Special Permit, P. Laband found that the use is listed in the Table of Use , Regulations; that the requested use bears a positive j ; relationship to the public convenience and welfare by providing +`rental housing; that the requested use will not create undue 'traffic congestion nor impair pedestrian safety, stressing that 'the objectors to this petition will have problems with congestion regardless of any action taken by this Board; that the requested use will not overload municipal systems; that ,Article XI does not apply; that the requested use will not impair the character of the district, as this area is predominantly multifamily; and that the requested use is in harmony with the general intent of the Ordinance. Referring to the request for the Finding, P. Laband found that the requested use will not be substantially more detrimental than the present use. S. Weil stated that although the structure had been used by the present owners as a two-family dwelling, it is not a foregone conclusion that it can be used as such again, especially if the two-family use will exacerbate existing nonconformities. He found that the size of the parcel is