Comments by a Concerned Citizen Opposed9/11/23, 9:57 AM City of Northampton Mail - Comments on the Memorandum in Support of Application for Special Permit (Finding)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=46b15cdcbd&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1776675548812734280&simpl=msg-f:1776675548812734280 1/3
Nathan Chung <nchung@northamptonma.gov>
Comments on the Memorandum in Support of Application for Special Permit
(Finding)
Riverbank 129 <riverbank129@gmail.com>Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 2:17 PM
To: nchung@northamptonma.gov
Hello Mr. Chung,
I am reaching out regarding the upcoming hearing about the Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing on
September 14th.
I urge you not to issue a Special Permit based on incorrect information contained in the materials supporting the
application.
After reading the August 17th Memorandum in Support of Application for Special Permit (Finding), I have several
observations. For clarity, I will follow the structure of the Memorandum. Verbatim quotes in italics, my observations
underneath.
In I. Introduction, it is stated:
"In 2021 the ZBA issued, essentially, the same special permit I am now seeking but my client was unable to comply with
the time constraint of that permit. Based upon the language of the 2021 permit, it is null and void; thus, I am seeking a
new, almost identical Special Permit using documentation filed with the 2021 permit application and extremely similar
evidence."
A copy of the 2021 ANR plan has been submitted as Exhibit B.
A copy of the existing conditions plan has been submitted as Exhibit C.
Neither Exhibit shows the existing condition of the structure:
1) The structure now has a third floor tower, which is not shown in either Exhibit. "Peak of new structure height" per owner
is listed at 26.2', which is inaccurate.
2) The "excavated gravel driveway" is a concrete slab, poured and finished by June 9th 2023, as visible on this video.
In II. Pertinent Facts, Documents and Plans, it is stated:
Point 6.
"The exact square footage amount of the violation could be subject to some debate depending upon the treatment of
building overhangs and the possible utilization of nonporous pavement. Yet, my client’s surveyor and planning and
sustainability officials agreed that the acquisition of approximately 1568 ft.² of land would resolve any open space
violation."
If the amount of square footage has been calculated based on documentation provided by the owner, the amount may
need to be revised after taking into account the actual existing condition of the structure.
Point 8.
"At a hearing held on September 9, 2021, multiple neighbors spoke unanimously in favor of the Special Permit saying
words to the effect that the addition was not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the prior
nonconforming home."
This is a misconstruction. The situation on Riverbank Road 129 presents a complex social situation. The wider Watling
family has been living in the neighborhood for generations. There are at least 4 other houses on the same block that have
familial ties with the owner of Riverbank 129. If anyone from or outside of the family spoke against the Special Permit, it
would be at great personal expense. In addition, no one wants to be on the bad side of a sometimes volatile neighbor in a
tightly-spaced neighborhood. Instead, many in the neighborhood are relying on seeing relevant laws applied and expect
logical consequences to follow.
Postcards for this hearing were sent to 27 addresses, majority of which are neighborhood residents. If less than half of
those households speak up during the hearing, whatever you hear cannot be taken to represent the majority's attitude
towards the Riverbank 129 situation. I have ties to the neighborhood and no one I spoke to who opposes the granting of
9/11/23, 9:57 AM City of Northampton Mail - Comments on the Memorandum in Support of Application for Special Permit (Finding)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=46b15cdcbd&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1776675548812734280&simpl=msg-f:1776675548812734280 2/3
the Special Permit plans to speak against it during the hearing. I will not sign this email since it would almost certainly
negatively affect people I care about.
Point 10.
"Unfortunately, my client was unable to purchase the land from the owner of 117 Riverbank Rd."
This statement conveniently omits pertinent details.
Then-owners of the 117 Riverbank Pinky Hota and Vinayak Ramanan wrote to the city to clarify the situation:
"Regarding: Special permit application by Richard Watling to build an addition and expansion of a non-conforming
setback at 129 Riverbank Rd, Northampton Map ID 25-26
Dear Council,
We were contacted by our neighbor Richard Watling on September 9 2021 requesting the sale of a portion of land from
our property at 117 Riverbank Rd, Northampton MA 01060 to enable construction of a rear setback on his property at 129
Riverbank Rd, Northampton MA 01060.
Since this was the first time we had heard about this issue, further investigation revealed the following facts that we would
like to clarify for the record:
•Richard Watling began construction in 2020 and we were not aware that he had any issues with permits from the city.
•Mr. Watling has been representing to the city since 2020 that he has an agreement to purchase a parcel of land from us.
As noted above, we were first approached on September 9 2021 and no such agreement has ever existed.
• Mr. Watling has conducted a land survey without our knowledge on our property to mark off the land he desires.
• We have been away from Northampton, MA since September 2020 and could not attend the hearing on September 9th
2021 on Zoom as it coincided with the birth of our second child.
We appreciate your diligence in ensuring that new structures in Northampton, MA are built according to code. Thank you
for allowing us to issue clarifications on this matter.
Sincerely,
Vinayak Ramanan and Pinky Hota"
Point 11.
"I contended that the ZBA should never uphold a teardown order until the ZBA is absolutely certain that there could be no
zoning relief which would allow the structure to remain. An order to tear down a structure should be a last resort, issued
only when there is no possibility of zoning relief that could legalize the structure."
In point 13 we learn that the secured purchase and sale agreement for additional land is "contingent upon: (a) my client
obtaining the zoning relief which is the subject of this application; and (b) obtaining an order of conditions from the
Northampton Conservation Commission." Therefore, if the city does not issue the zoning relief, it can be absolutely
certain that there is no possibility of zoning relief that could legalize the structure - the land will never be acquired, and the
structure will remain in non-compliance.
The details from this case might not be all too relatable to the Sheppard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Boston, 81
Mass.App.Ct. 394 at 407 (2012). This might render the threat of "a contentious Land Court battle with the city" from later
in the letter much less compelling.
Point 14.
"My client has already retained Mr. Ward Smith, a well-respected wetlands expert, to represent him before the
Conservation Commission."
When should he have retained him? No later than 2020 when the construction of the new addition began. While Mr. Smith
"intends to file a notice of intent with the Northampton Conservation Commission to obtain an order of conditions which
will alleviate any alleged wetlands violations or rivers protection act violations with reference to the new construction,"
there is no timeline for the completion of this process. Instead, the City is requested to "Grant my client at least 45 days
after the Conservation Commission's Order of Notice pertaining to the addition to make the subject purchase." In between
now and the final subject purchase is an undefinable amount of time.
In III. Grounds for the grant of the Special Permit, it is stated:
“I request that the ZBA find that the addition is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing
prior nonconforming home. My client would not object to the board adopting the finding that was made in 2021.”
The documentation provided in the request for the special permit in 2021 (Exhibit A) did not show the tower. The
documentation provided in the request for the special permit in 2023 (Exhibit B) does not show the tower or the recently
paved driveway. All the additions added since 2020 are “substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing prior nonconforming home,” which is why they run against so many formal and informal community expectations.
Anecdotally, the structure is clearly out-of-scale both for the lot it’s on and when compared to the rest of the
neighborhood.
9/11/23, 9:57 AM City of Northampton Mail - Comments on the Memorandum in Support of Application for Special Permit (Finding)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=46b15cdcbd&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1776675548812734280&simpl=msg-f:1776675548812734280 3/3
In IV. § 350-9.3. (A) (10), it is stated:
“§9.3. (A) (10) provides in pertinent part: “A preexisting nonconforming structure ... may be changed ... with a special
permit ... when the Zoning Board makes a finding that the change which includes new zoning violations (such as
reduction of open space, new setback encroachments or further encroachments into the setback, etc.) will not be
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming single- or two-family structure. My
client had a preexisting nonconforming structure. He made a change to that structure. The change included new
violations including an open space violation.
The plain English language grammar reading of this ordinance is that if the ZBA finds the `nonconforming home with the
changes not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, then the new changes, including the open space
violation, are allowed and are in conformity with zoning. The city sustainability and planning officials are simply adding
words to the ordinance which do not exist. The words of the statute are "which includes new zoning violations" but the city
officials have added the words "that are the same type of violations which affected the prior nonconforming structure.”
These words do not exist in the statute and they cannot be construed to exist through the other language of the
ordinance.”
The plain English grammar reading of this ordinance does not allow multiple violations to be lumped together and given a
free pass as long as the last in a long line of violations is addressed and accounted for.
In V. Conclusion, it is stated:
“Based upon the reasons and authority set forth above, I request that the ZBA grant my client the
requested special permit:
1. Find that the addition is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing
nonconforming home such that the new dimensional setback violations are allowed;
2. Condition the special permit on my client’s acquisition of the 1568 ft.? of property from 117
Riverbank Rd. as shown on the 2021 ANR plan such that the new open space violation will be
eliminated; and
3. Grant my client at least 45 days after the Conservation Commission’s Order of Notice
pertaining to the addition to make the subject purchase.”
To that I respond:
1. Apply the letter and the spirit of the laws, rules, and regulations citizens are expected to adhere to. If such a gross
violation ends up sanctioned, the City loses credibility.
2. Have an independent survey of the Riverbank 129 done before granting any permits. The situation you were presented
with administratively does not correspond with the actual situation on the ground.
3. Avoid having an undefined amount of time in which this process will be allowed to continue. Letting it continue is
detrimental to the neighborhood and an unconscionable drain on public resources.
I think it is also worth noting that the applicant has continually flouted the authority of all relevant city agencies during this
building process: beginning work without proper permitting; continuing to work through multiple stop-work orders; and
making changes to the structure that do not comport with the plans shown to the city. It’s hard to imagine a change of
heart that will make the applicant, if granted a permit, suddenly begin to respect the authority of city agencies and finish
the project in compliance with materials filed with the city.
Thank you for your time, attention, and effort.
A Concerned Citizen