10B-003 Aubudon Rd ZoningDo Not aces Application Number:
Acked Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcel (s)
Date By Date Date A Date By Date
jel� 0 -2 -s -� /6/ 5 13, V, 5, 3 9
EB MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
� NOR�AMPI�N• M�.
ame of Applicant William J . Lashway, Jr . and Lee H. Lashway
Address 94 Audubon Road, Northampton
2. Owner of Property same _
Address
3. Applicant is: NOwner; ❑Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
Table of Use Regulations
IRVARIANCE from the provisions of Section 5. page / of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton. Residential: 2. To permit a two- family
dwelling in Rural Residence Zone.
ESPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
f0ID"
5. Location of Property 94 Audubon Road , being situated on
the south side of Audubon Road xk xxX and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 10B Parcel(s) 3, 4, 5 & 3q (5 arreS) 330' f rontag
6. Zone Rural Residence
7. Description of proposed work and /or use; Renovation of a garage and breezeway
to return the building to living accommodations for secnnrl fami1.,T Th
removea =rom tnis
the main house was oeing constructea tnis garage was occu iea as living
Space with kitchen facilities. The garage would be connected to the
_principal building by a breezeway.
8. (a) Sketch. pllh attached; C1 Yes X1 No
(b) Site plan: ❑ Attched X1 Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: premises were formerly equipped for
use as a two - family house; next - abutting premises is a two - family hous
addition of second story above garage would be barely visible from the
amount required for two lots; construction of garage is completed;
variance is necessary to install kitchen facilities.
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledgo
Date (P `a a pplicant's Sig
11
Assessor's Map
2. Lamoureux, Suzanne R.
65 Reservoir Road
10B
40
Roland A.
10. Virginia A 141
Audubon
Road
3. Lamoureux, Gladys A.
79 Reservoir Road
19B
99
Evans, Helen L. and
11. Water T)tz'pnrtmPnt
4 _ Gazzillo, Carolyn R.
112 Audubon Road
10B
2
Luce, Douglas B. and
5. Lorinda A.
122 ,Audubon Road
10B
1
6. Pri cri 1 1 a Fraiinrl 111 Audubon Road 5 18
Washburn Timothy F. and
7. Julia J. Audubon Road 10B 6
a
Hal Fales 73 Audubon Road 10B 6
MacLachlan, Robert C., Jr.
and Patricia M. 125 Audubon Road 5 35
Burrows, James R. and
10. Virginia A 141
Audubon
Road
5
17
City of Northampton.-- :
11. Water T)tz'pnrtmPnt
Reservoir
Road
10
6
MacLachlan --
12. see above
Audubon
Road
5
16
Dickinson, Joseph C. and
13. A - 969
Audubon
Road
5
18
Uhlig, Karl Rudy and
14. Andree E. 150
Audubon
Road
10B
1
Priscilla_ D. Freund 111
Audubon
Road
10B
102
15. GPP nbhye-
16.
17.
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25..
26..
27..
28.,
29.
30
(Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
x •
f � �, �"�Y�1 •"'w.. y.,... 1 ° t � 4"� z rF 6 ay ° �4" x
K`
7 r � �. � _ w , � � •rte ,+
{ � , �$2" r yiw 4 r•' Y `�� � W �,�. . F': �'� { .a � � _, � " �& i �'
7
jbt 5
QF
t
• _ F ` � - .":5129+ -.$ t; � f - .��.� �. i�L. :l � s f "
"�- wn.. w+� r;,n:_ yy..�a• a?�r.�'i�' tt ' f 7 ,
� �t r d � � j';', `� Bch, y �t liirtel�r�[ � e a j L; ' "`� �t � i�" � s �
�� `. � � :�,` � $ g� '��' '` � '� � � �, € �' � p � •:
tt
-nay
1�
q F �,
uj
ol
C
4.
l
"t,ir:P� w. 'E�i«"'�"4ba.vt `= 7�. vF." a ..*'as��'.%� {'aae'i� , .. ?�..�. , a.t;.ss rw'�Y.�Y;.c•H'. i•n^,�"A�.'.Y''..1z� .s�:e .,n,'c yFj,
CITY,OF NIORTHAMPTOIr
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Zoning Ordinance Section 10.2
Owner 4 2 - <L1 , 7 -2 17 1 V 4 F /�/ <.9S��i4v1L
Address _? V/'ft/�U 6 Opt/
No. /OPT I Lot
Re yed : � 1984
Address
Telephone S"S / y�_ 71 I Telephone
❑ Multi - Family
❑ Other
This section is to be filled out in accordance with the "Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations:
(Z.O. ARTICLE VI)
Zoning
District
Use
Lot
Area
Front
Width
Depth
Setbacks
Max. Bid.
Cover
Min. Op.
Space
Front
Side
Rear
Past
Existing
SSA
330
60
/0
yfi< -
pv
Present
Proposed
+ A
3 3 tj
(
loo
.
Mark the appropriate box to indicate the use of the parcel:
❑ Non - Conforming Lot and/or Structure. Specify
��Residential /a{ ��• .� usf F �2
❑ Business SF�o•J� 0,J r'
❑ Individual
❑ Institutional
❑ Subdivision
❑Single Family Unit
❑ Duplex
• Regular
• Cluster
• P.U.D.
• Other
❑ Subdivision with "Approval- Not - Required " - Stamp:
❑ Planning Board Approval:
❑ Zoning Board Approval (Special Permit 10.9: Variance)
❑ City Council (Special Exception S. 10.10)
Watershed Protection District Overlay: (Z.O. Sect. XIV) ❑ Yes a-lqo
Parki Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.1) Required Ayo Proposed
Loading Sp ace Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.2) Required vo Proposed
Signs: (Z.O Art. VII) ❑ Yes Dwo
Environmental Performance Standards: (Z.O. Art. XI 1) ❑ Yes ON o
Plot Plan
(S.10.2)
0 Yes ❑ No
This section for OFFICIAL use only:
❑ Approval as presented:
❑ Modifications necessary for approval:
❑ Return: (More information needed)
N Denial: Reasons:
Site Plan es ❑ No
(S. 10.2 and 10.11
Waiver Granted: Date ❑
77 z 4 a
r
J
24
Plan File
Signature of
J , 7 !
Officer /Date
a s o
1�
N
y
i
1 '
w
� rr ti
N 0�cmm���g�
N D A
m ZNODO
Z
_ �� �t
o
o m r
o = M \ n
m1 = ti
N
C�
i
vwol'
00 Oa 0 a t-\ I
��qq
c �
8 8
Z- `z
�toa
m
i D
\
D Z
N
z
- � - 1
O ~ m
1r<s��C
�
�
�
1
1
1
S
3 m � c
8
�
1
4
m c
di
C
C�
i
vwol'
M
7
00 Oa 0 a t-\ I
��qq
8 8
W
�toa
t
'e
~
1r<s��C
�
�
M
7
�qa�y @v
4
16
, M M
g
i � D • O
m
N
m
O
N
m
m
N
c
m
z
1
00 Oa 0 a t-\ I
��qq
t
'e
~
�
�
�
1
1
1
S
3
�
1
4
di
C
r NN
1 ,
1
• �C
1
1 '
�qa�y @v
4
16
, M M
g
i � D • O
m
N
m
O
N
m
m
N
c
m
z
1
N%0r
DECISION OF
BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held September 5, 1984, the Zoning Board of Appeals of
the City of Northampton voted one in favor, two opposed to deny the
variance request of William and Lee Lashway, Jr. to convert a garage into
a second dwelling unit at their home at 94 Audubon Road, Leeds. Present
and voting were: Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Peter Laband and Kathleen
Sheehan.
The findings were as follows:
P. Laband, referring to criteria for a variance, found that the
structure is unique in that the peculiar housing situation is located
on a very large lot with the two structures built before zoning
regulations and which do not effect the zoning district;that a hardship
exists in that the Lashwyas wish to help their grown son and his family
by providing their housing; that there is no detriment to the public
good because the neighbors are not opposed to the request; and that
the request does not derogate from the intent of the Ordinance to
control density of population, because the large lot could technically
be subdivided to add another family. He voted in favor of granting the
Variance request.
R. Buscher, also referring to criteria for a variance, found that
although the large lot could accomodate two housing units, the lot
is not unique in that there are several large lots in the area; that
although the outbuilding had been used at one time for a residence and
the utilities and appliances had been retained, it had not been used
as an active use within two years and, according to the Zoning Ordinance
is an abandoned use; that there are no unique circumstances in regards
to the structure, as it was a single story garage before renovating;
that although the argument had been presented that a financial hardship
existed because extensive renovation involving a substantial investment
had been completed, the hardship was self- imposed because of ignorance
of the law; and that although helping the son is a good argument, it is
not a hardship; that the requested use would be a detriment to the
public good and derogate from the intent of the Ordinance by allowing
the zone to be eroded without a compelling hardship and by overcrowding
the lot and zone where there are no other multiple family dwellings in
the immediate area. He voted to deny the Variance request.
K. Sheehan concurred with Mr. Buscher finding nothing unique in the
structure and noting the definition of an abandoned use according to
the Ordinance; and found no financial hardship because the family
continued renovating without checking their rights. However, because
of her knowledge of a personal hardship in pbe family and because
there were no objections from the neighbor , s e voted
to grant the variance.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Kathleen Sheehan
�L
Peter Laband
1*MV1 ../
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing on Application of William and Lee Lashway
August 14, 1984
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on August 14, 1984
in the Council Chambers, Municipal Office Building on the variance request of William
and Lee Lashway, under the provisions of Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton for the purpose of converting a garage into a second dwelling unit
at their home at 94 Audubon Road, Leeds (RR Zone). Present were: Chm. Robert Buscher,
Kathleen Sheehan, and Peter Laband.
The Chairman read the public notice as it appeared in the Daily Hampshire Gazette
on July 31 and August 7, Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and the criteria for a
variance. He advised those present of their right to appeal.
Correspondence : The Chairman read a memo from L. Smith on behalf of the Northampton
Planning Board recommending denial of the variance request, comments from Mr. Smith
and a letter from Priscilla Freund, a neighbor, dated 8 -12 -84 addressed to Mr. Buscher's
home and suggesting the second dwelling be restricted to family members.
Att. Frank Collins, representing the Lashways, distributed to the Board a
1981 survey of the Lashway lot showing the location of all buildings on the property.
He presented a description of the Lashway's unique situation stating that as the
principal house was being constructed (prior to the Lashways owning the property),
40 -60 years ago, the garage was used as a dwelling unit. After the principal structure
was completed and after the Lashways moved in, the garage was used as a garage,retaining
three rooms and the kitchen facilities until they were removed approximately one year
ago. At that time, the Lashways received a building permit to renovate the second
floor of the garage for studio space and to construct a breezeway between the main
dwelling and the garage to connect the two buildings to comply with regulations for
one dwelling structure /lot.
While renovating, the Lashways decided that they would prefer an apartment in
that second floor space for one of their married sons, with the contractors continuing
work assuming there was no problem moving the kitchen facilities one floor up. However,
the Building Inspector, in checking progress, refused a permit for the addition of
kitchen facilities, claiming that two kitchens constitLte a two - family dwelling.
Att. Collins stated that whereas the Planning Board site inspectors acknowledged
the quality of work and directness of Mr. Lashway, they felt that they could not
recommend approval of the variance as it did not meet the variance requirements regarding
uniqueness of shape or topography of land or structure. Att. Collins contended that
the structure is unique in that the existing municipal systems and utilities have
always been present in the building and that there is a substantial financial hardship,
and thatthe use will not affect the zone. He then suggested a restriction on the
variance to allow only members of the immediate family to reside in the apartment.
R. Buscher noted that the fact that the Lashways proceeded with construction does
not weigh upon the Board's decision and expressed his concerns that if the use were
permitted, it may create a precedent in this RR zone. He also noted the zoning
definitions of abandoned use and a non - conforming use and suggested that restricting
residency to family members is unenforceable.
Responding to an inquiry from K. Sheehan regarding the number of other two - family
homes in the area, Att. Collins estimated two or three at the beginning of Audubon Road,
and stressed his view that an in -law apartment does not detract from the neighborhood.
y Public Hearing
Lashway
Page 2
After several questions regarding the lay -out of the buildings, R. Buscher
suggested a site inspection would be helpful and a Monday, August 20th at 5:30 p.m.
date was decided. September 5, 1984 at 6:45 p.m. was agreed.upon for a Decision date.
It was moved, seconded and unanimously approved to adjourn the public hearing
at 8:35 p.m.
Present in addition to those mentioned was J. Parker, Board Secretary.
�0 _
Robert Buscher, Chairman
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision on Application of William and Lee Lashway
September 5, 1984
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday, September 5, 1984
in the Council Chambers, Municipal Office Building at 6:50 p.m. to render a decision
on the variance request of William and Lee Lashway under the provisions of Section 5.2
of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton for the purpose of converting a
garage into a second dwelling unit at their home at 94 Audubon Road, Leeds, (RR Zone).
Present and voting were: Chm. R. Buscher, P. Laband and K. Sheehan.
The Chairman stated that the public hearing had been held on August 14, 1984,
end the decision postponed so that the Board members could view the property. It was
nioved, seconded and unanimously approved to accept the minutes of the August 14, 1984
public hearing without a reading.
P. Laband, referring to criteria for a variance, found that the structure is
unique in that the peculiar housing situation is located on a very large lot with
the two structures built before zoning regulations and which do not effect the zoning
district; that a hardship exists in that the Lashways wish to help their grown son
and his family by providing their housing; that there is no detriment to the public
good because the neighbors are not opposed to the request; and that the request does
not derogate from the intent of the Ordinance to control density of population, because
the large lot could technically be subdivided to add another family.
He moved for approval of the variance with the condition that the second dwelling
unit be used only by a member of the Lashway family.
R. Buscher, also referring to criteria for a variance, found that although the
large lot could accomodate two housing units, the lot is not unique in that there are
several large lots in the area; that although the outbuilding had been used at one time
for a residence and the utilities and appliances had been retained, it had not been
used as an active use within two years and, according to the Zoning Ordinance, is an
abandoned use; that there are no unique circumstances in regards to the structure,
as it was a single story garage before renovating; that although the argument had been
presented that a financial hardship existed because extensive renovation involving a
substantial investment had been completed, the hardship was self- imposed because of
ignorance of the law; and that although helping the son is a good argument, it is not
a hardship; that the requested use would be a detriment to the public good and derogate
from the intent of the Ordinance by allowing the zone to be eroded without a compelling
hardship and by overcrowding the lot and zone where there are no other multiple family
dwelling in the immediate area.
K. Sheehan concurred with Mr. Buscher finding nothing unique in the structure
and noting the definition of an abandoned use according to the Ordinancei and found
no financial hardship because the family continued renovating without checking their
rights. However, because of her knowledge of a personal hardship in the family and
because there were no objections from the neighbors, she seconded the motion to grant
the variance with the stated restriction.
The Board voted two in favor, one opposed; thus denying the variance request.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Present in addition to those mentioned
were, J. Parker, Board Secretary and a member of the press.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman