17C-227 (17) conforming use. If you based your decision on other evidence, I
would be interested in finding out what that evidence stated.
Also, the reason for the denial as stated on the zoning permit
appears contradictory. The stated reason is "change of use".
To my knowledge, no change in the use has been proposed. There was
some discussion that the new owners might request a larger number
of rooms than were in use before the fire. In that case, there
would be an expansion of the use, but not a change. If by "change
of use" you mean that the commercial office use (the taxi company)
on the site will be discontinued, that discontinuance would not
invalidate the non-conforming use protection. Nor would that
protection be lost if that space were used for another office use.
I realize that this is a very controversial matter. However,
unless you have clear evidence that the use does not qualify as a
valid pre-existing non-conforming use, the disapproval of the
zoning permit appears to me to be incorrect.
Very - ruly your /
�lrl
K hleen G. , F llon
cc: Mayor David B. Musante, Jr.
Frank Sienkiewicz, Building Inspector
Attorney Joseph DeFazio
John Dunne
O4'St1AMp�0 CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS ()
Kathleen G. Fallon,Esq.
CITY HALL City Solicitor
$ 210 Main Street
-NDIUaaWton, MA 01060 Joseph M. Cook, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
' ..:� �
..��
L AW DEPARTMENT
k'
s;
OCT (413) 586-6950, ext. 245
FAX:(413)586-3726
DEPT elf r''T
October 11, 1991
Richard Gormley, Asst. Building Inspector
Municipal Building
Northampton, MA. 01060
Re: 16 North Maple Street, Florence
Dear Mr. Gormley:
Prior to my vacation, I discussed the situation at 16 North Maple
Street in Florence with you. As you know, the premises have been
used as a lodging house for some years. The area is zoned GB.
Lodging houses currently are not allowed by right in that zone
although that use was allowed prior to 1975. There was some
question as the exact time at which the lodging house use began.
If it began prior to 1975, then the use would be protected. If it
began after 1975, no protection would exist.
The owner of the property had submitted various affidavits and
letters which stated that the lodging house use had begun prior to
1975. In the absence of contradictory evidence, there seemed to be
no grounds for disapproving the zoning permit because of the zoning
issue. At the conclusion of our conversation, I was under the
impression that the zoning permit would be approved.
I have now been informed that you disapproved the zoning permit.
The reason listed on the form is "change of use. " There is now a
petition in the file signed by a number of residents claiming that
the lodging house constituted a nuisance to the residents and
businesses in the area. The petition states that the site is
zoned "for occupancy by only two families and one business" .
Technically, that is an incorrect statement. Two family dwellings
are not allowed in GB zones. The petition does not contradict the
owners' assertion that the lodging house use predates 1975.
Indeed, it affirms that a lodging house use did exist on the site.
If you denied the zoning permit on the basis of the petition, I
advise you that, in my opinion, your decision is not supported by
the evidence. There is nothing in the petition which negates the
owners' assertion that the lodging house use is a valid non-
oQ`'cTO
Grin of Wort4amptan z r
$ � �Isssachusetfs
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
� a
INSPECTOR 212 Main Street ' Municipal Building
�y 5„ey
Northampton, Mass. 01060
Richard A. Gormely
c' r3 (r it
Assistant Building Inspector ; t' ( - �
OCT
4 Ic 0p
October 24, 1991
Kathleen G. Fallon. Esq. , City Solicitor
City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA. 01060
Re: 16 North Maple Street, Florence
Dear Kathleen,
As you know, the building at 16 North Maple Street has allegedly been
a Lodging House for some eight (8) units, with a business on the basement
level . My denial for the Zoning permit was brought about by verbal and
physical evidence along with my own memory of the building.
The Zoning application was requesting an increase from the present re-
sidential units and to make added residence in the commercial area in the
basement which would bring the total units to thirteen ( 13). This would in-
crease the non-conformity. An increase in this non-conformity is NOT allowed
according to the Zoning By Laws in reference to this zone General Business
district. That is the main reason for the denial of the permit.
Very Truly Yours,
aj0 4011e
Richard A. Gormely
Assistant Building Inspector
RAG/pk
cc: Mayor David B. Musante, Jr.
Frank Sienkiewicz, Building Inspector
Attorney Joseph DeFazio
John Dunne