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