10B-093 1 florence st unit 1 zoningApplication'Tlumber: _ 3
1. Name of Applicant - -, A M ( nMAN
Address GROVE HILL, LEEDS, MASSACHUSETTS 010c;3
Address GROVE HTLL, LEEDS MASSACHUSFTTS 1
3. Applicant is: IXOwner; OContract Purchaser; OLessee; OTenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
0 VARIANCE from the provisions of Section r,-? page 5 -9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
OSPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
OOTHER:
5. Location of Property C r_Qxre will Leeds Village being situated on
the FactPrly side of Old FlnrannP Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 10 3 , Parcel(s) 95
6. Zone 11A a
7. Description of proposed work and/or use; cQpj Aj;1gle family dwelling
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; KYes El No
(b) Site plan: WAttched ❑Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: The exi r +in„ ,d n'g was a i n
r
a hill ni.,,. — - -- 41_ a:rr - - -- I -
s Ae-ca�'Cauy itc chanP anrt C17P PSnP(IAIIt/ afferting this striirture which is unique in this district i5 sucl
that literal enforcement of the By -Law involves substantial hardship to the petitioner. Granting the
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form). petition will not adversely affect the public good
or t urpose an intent of the By -Law.
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to th`e of y ledge.
Date �s�_ 1kjl A pplicant's Signature / _ -
by M AUt I O 1 111 GI I Y OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
CITY OF NORTHAMPTOt
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATIM
Zoning Ordinance Section 10.2
Owner Sam and Marjorie A Goldman Applicant Sam C oldman
Address . Grove Hill, Leeds, Mass. 01053 Address Grove Hill, Leeds, Mass. 01053
Telephone — 4 - 264, I Telephone 58L 4
This section is to be filled out in accordance with the "Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations:
(Z.O. ARTICLE VI)
Zoning
D i str ict
Use
I Lot
Area
Front
Width
Depth
Setbacks
Max. Bld.
Cover
Min. Op.
Space
Front
Side
Rear
Past URA
5_� family
C
g _ l Existing
2.86A
268+
_
460+
_
190+
50+
160+
25 %
60
Present
multi — family
Proposed R -
2.86A
268+
—
460+
—
190+
50+
160+
25 %
60 %
Mark the appropriate box to indicate the use of the parcel:
❑ Non - Conforming Lot and /or Structure. Specify
:J Residential PRESENT OSingle Family Unit
❑ Duplex
❑ Business
❑ Individual
❑ Institutional
❑ Subdivision ❑ Regular
❑ Cluster
Wulti- Family PROPOSED
❑ Other
❑ P.U.D.
❑ Other
Q Subdivision with "Approval- Not - Required " - Stamp:
❑ Planning Board Approval:
® Zoning Board Approval (Special Permit 10.9: Variance)
❑ City Council (Special Exception S. 10.
Wa P rote c tio n Distri Ov er l ay: (Z. O. Sect. XIV) ❑ Yes -I No
Parking Spac R (Z.O. Sect. 8.1) Required _2_ Prop 14
Loading Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.2) Required NA Proposed NA
Signs: (Z.O. Art. VII) ❑ Yes 52 No
Environmental Performance Standards: (Z.O. Art. XII) ❑ Yes ) n No
. ; g
JLL 2 61978 ap No. ID
eceived: Fi _ J 0 L l
Lot �
Plan File
Plot Plan
(S.10.2)
[2 Yes
❑ No Site Plan 0 Yes ❑ No
(S. 10.2 and 10.11
Waiver Granted: Date ❑
This section for OFFICIAL use only:
❑ Approval as presented:
❑ Modifications necessary for approval:
❑ Return: (More information needed)
X Denial: Reasons: �P_--
� 4
K k.. 2
Date
u
N7 °56'1,0 E NORTHAMPTON
/2.66 CITY
R STREET COORDINATES
OE�C
/N wiDTN X= 11. C.07. 304
59 j0 BE �r9.5' 2D %✓ 14713 ,
N17`3 -
i.P
�LYI CGY ✓7ROI
A!O/✓UN •ANT
3 lO.o5Z
;N Sp. FT. b O c
it 3 S Q. FT.
- N i N � ti ti
0
h 2 1, 195 SO. FT
��
.52 IN Ig sr E -
/C � FRAME I
_ 1YC ° 09 20 iY \
1 - 9 800- \
-
ii.7 -
n O ti
2
/0. PArE 121
kCT 3 20,559 SQ. FT 0
ACRES t G = a
A 2 -$6 ACRES G 19597 O v
t5 O
t
O &-St o Q
20.375 SQ. FT_ V
I
i
lGS.39 / -P ?22 G9 X758 lyt -
5/0 - 0/ SD E LP. //2 - 1 RQD ROD
19 LQ F Dug
JUL 2 W97
/ ✓OH' G�? F== /•. r?LY ROBERT A. &CRAWS / 900A 17S/ P.aGE 2/8 _ --
`r
NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS
Decision on Application of
Samuel Goldman
August 31, 1978
The Board of Appeals met in the Planning Department Office
on August 31, 1978, to decide on the application for a variance
for Samuel Goldman to convert a single family home into seven
apartments. The meeting was called to order at 8:30 PM by the
Chairman Charles W. Dragon.
The public hearing on this matter had been held on August 23,
after having been advertised in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on
August 9 and August 16. The minutes of that hearing were read
and approved unanimously.
The Chairman made the following findings:
o The physical size of the dwelling makes its continued use
as a single family home financially unfeasible because of
the increased costs of fuel and therefore imposes a
financial hardship on the petitioner.
o Desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the
public good in that no overcrowding will result from the
use since the building and grounds are large enough to
accommodate seven apartments.
o There will be no nullification of the zoning ordinance
because the structure will remain a dwelling and its use
will be unchanged.
Mr. Capers found that the special condition affecting this
property was its size and he could see no other suitable use for
the building. He noted the excessive costs involved in maintaining
such a home. In addition, he found that the use would not be
detrimental to the public good nor would the intent of the zoning
ordinance be nullified since the proposed use is the most appro-
priate use for the property.
Mr. Wampler found that literal enforcement of the zoning
ordinance would cause hardship to the petitioner; that the home is
economically unsuitable as a single family home; that, left vacant,
the building would be a detriment; that the craftsmanship in the
home cannot be duplicated; and finally, that there was support from
the neighbors but no opposition.
Based on the above findings, the Board voted unanimously to
grant the variance, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM.
Present and voting were Charles W. Dragon, Chairman, Raymond
Capers, and David Wampler, Associate. Also present was Clare
Fennessey, Clerk.
M
Charles W. ragon-
Chairman
- �e-
DEC ISION OF THE
ZONING HOARD OF APPEAL6
At its meeting on Wednesday, August 31, 1978, the zoning board
of Appeals for the City of Northampton voted to grant the petition
of Samuel Goldman for a variance to convert a single family home
into seven apartments, a use not permitted within the Zoning Dis—
trict.
Based upon evidence presented to the Board, the Board made the
*ollowing findings in regard to the variance.
1. The property in its present form is unique and has prob—
lems affecting it and no other in the Zoning District in
that the physical size of the building limits the suitable
uses to apartments.
2. The literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would in—
volve substantial hardship to the owner in that the use of
the building as a single family home is financially un—
feasible because of the heating and other maintenance
costs for such a large building.
3. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public
good in that the size of the building and grounds will
prevent overcrowding even with seven apartments and if
left vacant, the structure will become a detriment.
4. The proposed use will not nullify or derogate the intent
of the Zoning Ordinance as the structure will remain a
dwelling and the proposed use is the most appropriate.
° /70 RA CAPE
DAVID WAMPLEfi, ASSO CIATE
go Not Write In Thee Spaces
Application Nb,. ber: Y02,
a; -• qfs).., ,,.Checked Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcel (s)
'' ate By Date Date Amt. Date By Date
At
DEpj. OF jjuj,.mrm neo -c -- -•• �-� • •• �� v, , v, ,vvn 1 nrlrvtr I %J1 LUN INU IJUAHU W- AP'P'EALS
t4oRi"AMPTOt�.3; ..01 `;:
iWmeofApplicant Alan Verson and Lawrence 0 ° Connor
Address 16 Center Street . Northampton, Ma 01060
2. Owner of Property
Address
same
3. Applicant is: ®Owner; El Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; El Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
REESTABLISHMENT OF
VARIANCE from the provisions of Section 5.2 page 5 -2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
OSPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
OOTHER:
5. Location of Property Grove Hi $ Leeds
the �asterl y side of Florence being situated on
Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 1.0B Parcel (s) 93
6. Zone Tr R a
7. Description of proposed work and /or use; Pony .rsj on from a si n P fermi l err r3TTa1 i i ng
to a multi family dwelling not to exceed three stories and cont fining six
sj=rat P r3w_e1 n a „n, t s _ There will be no exterior construction work on the building
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; EX ONo
(b) Site plan: ❑ Attched ONot Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: A ttached _
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of n r kn9wledge.
Date March +� , 1981 a pplicant's Signature ZIM
r
r
IF,
A
-✓
.t .
APPLICATION FOR REESTABLISHMENT OF VARIANCE
9• The subject building is an elaborate one hundred year old brick
Victorian Mansion that is no longer feasible for use as a single
family dwelling. The building has approximately 10,000 square feet
of living space, excluding the basement which has 11 foot ceilings
and more square feet of floor space than any other floor. The size
of the building makes it feasible for use as a single family dwelling
only with live -in servants. The cost of heating the building also
makes it prohibitively expensive for any one family to occupy the
dwelling.
The building is set on approximately 2 acres of land, so six
dwelling units can easily be accommodated without detriment to the
public good or neighborhood.
The Grove Hill Mansion is a Northampton landmark that cannot
possibly be maintained in good condition as a single family dwelling.
The only way to prevent it from falling into disrepair, which will
hurt the surrounding neighborhood, is to convert it into an economically
viable type of structure.
ac MAR 121981
} f AEU. tq
s..i
�gSBAC�jlt5ttt4
Offirr of Ot xn5plerfor of Pui[biitgs
INSPECTOR 212 Main Street • Municipal Building
Northampton, Mass. 01060
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN WAIVER
Date MAR l < 951
Address Grove Hill Leeds
Page 10B Plot 93 __ Zone tTR
I understand that in compliance with Section 10.11 North-
ampton Zoning Ordinancesp such waiver may be granted only
upon a showing that compliance with the the provisions of
this Ordinance can be ensured without the necessity of
site plan review. In reviewing a request for a waiver,
the Administrative Officer may require the submission of
specific ltems of information pertinent to the proposed
development.
Signature of Applicant
E] I will submit a plot plan with all required speci-
fications.
Waiver granted '
C
Administrative Officer (i[� t t�!� ✓��
ASSISTANT BLDG. INSPECTOR
..rein• -� � e T {��"'
fpYU'•", �;
AR ! 2198
U Lit
a
NORTHAM `ON BOARD OF APPEALS
`•/ Publics. 'aring on Application
of Alan Verson and
Lawrence O'Connor
April 8, 1981
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on April 8, 1981,
at 8;05 PM, on the petition of Alan Verson and Lawrence O'Connor
for the re- establishment of a previously - granted variance to convert
a single family home at Grove Hill, Leeds, into six dwelling units.
Present were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt, and Marianne
'mourn.
The Chairman read the public notice, published in the Daily
Hampshire Gazette on -March 25 and April 1; the Planning Board's recom-
mendation that the application be approved; a memo from the Planning
Board Chairman, expressing his personal concerns about the effects of
traffic on the neighborhood and the Leeds School; and the require-
ments for a variance according to the Zoning Act.
He then informed those present of their right of appeal.
Atty. Alan Verson addressed the Board. He explained that Sam
Goldman, the previous owner, had been granted a variance to convert
the structure into seven apartments. Before the work was undertaken,
Mr. Goldman sold the property to him and Lawrence O'Connor. They
had difficulty obtaining financing for the project, and before the
financing could be arranged, the variance expired. Thus, they now
seek to re- establish the variance in order to convert the home into
six condominium units.
According to Mr. Verson, the property, which he described as a
mansion, had been recommended by the Historical Commission for inclu-
sion on the National Register of Historic Places. It has 10,000
square feet of living space, excluding the basement and garage which
he plans to use for living quarters and storage. Its size and
construction make it unique. He claimed that a literal enforcement
of the Zoning Ordinance would create hardship because it would be
unfeasible to use the structure as a single family home; and that
the variance was in effect at the time he and Mr. O'Connor purchased
the property. He further contended that relief may be granted
without substantial detriment to the public good, in that a deterio-
rating structure, with its grounds unmaintained, would be improved
under his proposal and would, therefore, benefit the public. He
noted that the people living near the site had no objections to the
project, and he presented a statement to that effect signed by a
majority of the abutters.
The home, situated on three and one half acres of land, will be
restored, but the exterior will remain the same. The amount of land
available for the six units will exceed that required by the Zoning
Ordinance. The condominiums will have either one or two bedrooms,
and a solar system will be installed on the south side of the
building. Eight carports in the front of the building, and two in
the rear will provide ten . parking spaces for visitors, while addi-
tional spaces for the tenants will be available elsewhere on the
parcel.
`, 2
1 , X. Verson said that a private right -of -way, running through the
parcel from Front Street to Florence Street, has been used by the
public as a shortcut but, with the owner's consent, he intends to
install posts or plant shrubbery at one end of the driveway to elimi-
nate this problem. Fie said that the driveway will be improved but
will not be paved.
He told the Board that the home is now rented, and he estimates
that seven people occupy the site.
The condominiums, according to Mr. Verson, will sell for approxi-
mately $45,000 - $90,000, with the smallest unit containing 870 square
feet, and the largest 2,000 square feet. He said that he had dis-
cussed the proposal with various realtors who feel that the units will
sell.
F'e claimed that all the reasons for granting the original vari-
ance are valid today.
Brian Heafey, 59 Front Street, an abutter, said that he supports
the proposed conversion because the building is now deteriorating
and he feels that restoring the building will improve the neighborhood.
Milton Kurian, also an abutter, spoke in opposition. He expressed
concern about the water supply and sewers, and claimed that at times
the water pressure in his home is inadequate. He said that his pro-
perty is the closest one to the site, and that they share a common
boundary. Because of this proximity, he feared that pedestrians would
intrude on his land.
r ^ r. Verson answered that he lives on Front Street and has no
problems with water pressure. He stated that sewers were the responsi-
bility of the DPW.
Carol Parsons, Councillor from Ward 7, Donald Charest, Assistant
Superintendent of Schools, and Raymond Labarge, School Committeeman,
were concerned about traffic in the vicinity of the Leeds School.
William Turomsha, who had lived in the home at one time, claimed
that during his residency he saw no great number of cars using the
Leeds School property.
Mr. Verson, responding to concerns about traffic near the Leeds
School, said that his proposal would decrease traffic on the School
side of the parcel because access would be restricted to five families -
four occupying a four - apartment dwelling, and one in the small home
which was originally part of the mansion property. Those in the
condominiums would have access only from Front Street.
The Chairman then asked the applicants to submit floor plans of
the proposed conversion.
The matter was taken under advisement after the Chairman informed
the applicants that the Board would visit the site.
Present, in addition to the Board members and those mentioned,
were Clare Fennessey, Clerk, and several interested citizens.
kbbt &.
cher, Chairman
d
r. 0
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Lawrence B. Smith, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Variance Application of Alan Verson and Lawrence O'Connor
DATE: April 8, 1981
FILE: N404
At their meeting on Mw ch 26, 1981, the Planning Board
reviewed the variance request of Alan Verson and Lawrence O'Connor
to convert a single family dwelling (Grove Hill Mansion) into six
separate dwelling units.
After discussing the matter and hearing the report of the
site - inspection subcommittee, the Board voted in favor of the
variance request. Based upon the applicants' presentation at the
March 26, 1981, meeting, the Planning Board understands that access
to the units will only be from Front Street and the access from
Florence Street would be blocked.
'w ,
NORTHAMPTON 'ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
s..r Decisional Application of Alan
Verson and Lawrence O'Connor
May 13, 1981
The Board of Appeals met at 8:00 PM, May 13, 1981, to decide on
the request of Alan Verson and Lawrence O'Connor for a variance to
convert the Grove Hill Mansion in Leeds into six condominium units.
Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt,
and Marianne Zurn.
The minutes of the public hearing, held on April 8, 1981, were
approved as read.
On a motion made and seconded, the Board proceeded with the vote
on the matter.
Mr. Buscher found that there were circumstances relating to the
structure which would make it unlike others in the zoning district,
namely, its size which, under current conditions, is too large for
use as a single family home, and that most other overly large homes
in the City have already been converted. Literal enforcement of the
Zoning Ordinance would create hardship to the petitioner since the
home would be impossible to heat and maintain as a single, two or
three family dwelling; and further, that the applicants had purchased
the home when the previously granted variance was valid. The proposal
will not be detrimental to the public good, but rather, will provide
needed housing; will improve a deteriorating structure; will preserve
open space; and will add to the City's tax base. Finally, it will
not derogate from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because the area
will remain residential and the large lot will preclude the possi-
bility of congestion in the area.
The Chairman stated that when he and Mr. Brandt had visited the
site they had spoken to Atty. Verson who had informed them that he
was considering the possibility of selling a portion of that section
of the parcel which abuts on Front Street, and which contains the
former carriage house, now used as living quarters. He would impose
the restrictions that the driveway running through the property be
blacked off; and that the parcel, if subdivided, remain in some kind
of common ownership.
Discussion followed on the possible subdivision.
Ms. Zurn felt that subdivision of the parcel would change the
large expanse of open land which she found to be one of the unique
features of the property.
Mr. Brandt felt that since there had been no mention of the
subdivision at the hearing, the parcel should remain undivided.
Ms. Zurn and Mr. Brandt agreed with the Chairman's findings,
but would not approve of subdividing the parcel.
The Board then voted unanimously to grant the variance, subject
to the following restrictions:
' Verson /0 "onnor decision Page 2
o that the parcel not be subdivided; and
o that the driveway be blocked off at that end near the Leeds
School by use of shrubbery or posts to prevent access to the
school property.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM. Present, in addition to
the Board members, were Clare Fennessey, Clerk, a reporter from
WHMP, and five interested citizens.
Robert C. Buscher
Chairman
DECISIM OF TTIF
ZONING BOARD OF APP-_,,�LS
The Toning Board of Appeals for the City of i;orthampton, on
''ay 13, 1981, voted unanimously to grant the request of elan
Verson and Lawrence O'Connor for a variance to convert the Grove
Hill Mansion in Leeds into six condominium units.
Based upon the evidence presented to the Poard, the Board
made the following findings in regard to the variance:
1. There are circumstances relating to the structure,
namely, its size, which would make it unlike others in
the zoning district, and under current conditions, the
home is too large for use as a single family dwelling.
2. T,iteral enforcement of the .coning Ordinance would create
hardship to the petitioner, since the home would be
impossible to heat and maintain as a single, two, or
three family dwelling.
3. The home had been purchased by the applicants when the
previously granted variance was valid.
4. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public
good, but rather, will provide needed housing, improve a
deteriorating structure, preserve open space, and add t:,
the City's tax base.
5. The proposed use will not derogate from the intent of i:,..
Toning Ordinance because the area will remain residential
and the large lot will preclude the possibility of con-
gestion in the area.
However, the variance is granted subject to the following
restrictions:
o that the parcel not be subdivided; and
o that the driveway be blocked off at that end near the
Leeds School by using shrubbery or posts to prevent
access to the school property.
Robert C� Buscher, Chairman
., ` w .6-1
Do Not Write In These Spaces Application Number: , 'l�
Rec'd. B. 1. Checked Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcel (s)
Dat
By Date By Date Date Amt. By Dat
ril
P A I IS'HE614BY MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
U
UPT. �� di4�if t�G f� t Alan Verson
NQRiHrTON.'v1(�.0 Q �
Street, Northampton, TMA 01060
2. Owner of Property Same _
Address
3. Applicant is: CXOwner; El Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
L7 VARIANCE from the provisions of Section 5.2 page 5 -2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
❑SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
❑OTHER:
5. Location of Property Grn`rP Ki l I y T.arq , being situated on
the easterly side of Florence Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 10B Parcel(s)
6. Zone U R A
7. Description of proposed work and /or use; Conversion from a singIP family dwelling
to a multi — family dwelling not to exceed three stories, ane ccntair_ing seven
separate dwelling units.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; C&.Yes ❑ No
(b) Site plan: ❑ Attched J4 Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based
Attached.
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to Pq best of knowledge.
Date II taA� A pplicant's Signature
rr ../
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
A variance to convert the building into six units was granted by
the Board on July 30, 1981. The interior layout of the proposed units has
now changed, making a seventh unit necessary. This application, therefore,
is merely to obtain a zoning permit to build seven units instead of ,six.
A large, two - level, two - bedroom unit has been changed into twc smaller
one - bedroom units.
The subject building is an elaborate one hundred year old brick
Victorian Mansion that is no loner feasible for use as a single family
dwelling. The building has approximately 10,000 square feet of living
space. The size of the building makes it feasible for use as a single
family dwelling only with live -in servants. The cost of heating the
building also makes it prohibitively expensive for any one family to
occupy the dwelling.
The building is set on approximately 32 acres of land, so seven
dwelling units can easily be accomodated without detriment to the
public good or neighborhood.
The Grove Hill Mansion is a Northampton landmark that cannot possibly
be maintained in good condition as a single family dwelling. The only
way to prevent it from falling into disrepair, which will hurt the
surrounding neighborhood, is to convert it into an economically viable
type of structure.
e
V GK �
DEPT. Of BUILDING INSPEQTIONS
NORTHAMPTON, MA. 01062 ;:
Nam►
j,?f. . Z-
cz
w
_
P, O�j
-E
1 JAN 1 8
VPT OF Wfu rl!Mr, ITS5F—C�I—Oms
NORTHAMnTON BOARD OF APPEALS
,V", Public,.. on Application
of Alan Verson (Grove Hill)
February 24, 1982
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on February 24, 1982,
on the request of Alan Verson for a variance to convert a single-
family home, known as the Grove Hill Mansion, into seven apartments.
Present were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt, and Peter
L aband .
The Chairman read the public notice as it appeared in the Daily
Hampshire gazette on February 10 and February 17; and the require-
ments for a variance according to the Zoning Act.
He informed those present of their right of appeal.
Atty. Alan Verson, speaking on his own behalf, said that his
case was unusual, in that the previous owner of the property was
issued a variance in 1978 to convert the mansion into seven units.
Before the conversion was made, he sold the property to Mr. Verson,
but the time limit on the variance had expired before Mr. Verson
could proceed. The attorney then came before the Board to ask for
reestablishment of the variance, but his plans called for six units
instead of seven. That application was approved and plans were drawn
up to convert the structure into six condominiums. One of the units
would have contained 2,000 square feet of floor space. He felt that
it was too large for a two - bedroom apartment and wanted to use this
space for two units instead of one. Thus, he was requesting the
variance for the added unit.
Noting the requirements for a variance, he claimed that there
are circumstances relating to the structure, specifically its.size,
which makes it unique, not only in the district, but also in the
entire City; that the mansion is not suitable for use as a single -
family home because of the cost of heating such a large building;
that the overly large apartment would be difficult to sell or rent;
that housing is needed, and unless seven units are allowed, he will
not be able to restore the house to its original beauty; and that,
because of the size of the lot, approximately three and one -half
acres, seven apartments would not create overcrowding.
Regarding concerns about use by area residents of a driveway
leading from the Leeds School property through the Verson property,
Mr. Verson pointed out that Mr. and Mrs. Struthers, abutters to
Grove Hill, have an easement over the driveway. He said that he had
discussed the matter with the Struthers and they have agreed to
allow blockage of the driveway at the school end if this solution
would help to restore the Grove Hill Mansion.
Mr. Brandt noted that the previous variance was granted for
condominiums, while the new application was for rental units. He
felt that the two concepts were very different.
Mr. Verson disagreed, claiming that there was no legal distinc-
tion between the two. He said that because of today's economy, the
market is not right for condominium sales. In the future, however,
he hopes to sell the units as condominiums when and if economic
conditions improve.
"V
PH - Verson - 2/24/82
.,./
Questioned by Dr. Laband about whether the hardship would be
that much greater with six units than with seven, Mr. Verson said
that because of economic conditions, seven units would allow him to
more properly restore the property, maintaining its historical char-
acter without making exterior changes.
No one present spoke for or against the proposal.
John Ball of the School Department suggested that the driveway,
across which the Struthers have a right -of -way, be blocked off at
the school end rather than on the Verson end to protect the school
children.
Mr. Verson responded that the Board could not set criteria on
property not under consideration, and in any event, such a deter-
mination would have to await a ruling from the Fire Department.
The Chairman asked Mrs. Struthers about her feelings on the
matter. She answered that she would prefer to have the access remain
as is, but if restoration of the mansion could be accomplished only
by blocking off the driveway as suggested by Mr. Ball, she would
agree to that solution.
The Chairman suggested that Mr. Verson discuss the matter with
his neighbors to see if some agreement could be reached.
At this point, the Board took the matter under advisement, and
the hearing was adjourned at 9:00 PM.
Present, in addition to the Board members and those mentioned,
were Clare Fennessey, Clerk, and several interested citizens.
^ Robert C. Butcher
Chairman
IWM
CITY of NORTHAMPTON
TO: Zoning Board of Appeals
`00.
OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Lawrence B. Smith, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Verson Variance Request
DATE: February 26, 1982
FILE: N436
At their meeting on February 11, 1982, the Planning Board
reviewed the variance request of Alan Verson to convert the Grove
Hill Mansion into a seven -unit dwelling.
After hearing the report of the site inspection sub - committee,
and discussing the matter with the applicant, the Board voted unani-
mously to recommend approval of this application provided that legal
arrangements can be made to block the right -of -way at the property
line between the school property and Struthers' property. These
arrangements might include a quitclaim deed from Struthers to the
School Department for a right -of -way and also a deed of easement
from Verson to Struthers for a right -of -way to Front Street from
Struthers' property. If this provision cannot be met, the Planning
Board would recommend against approval of the application unless
other arrangements can be made to prevent traffic from Verson's
development from going through the school driveway.
On February 12, 1982, I inspected the site with Fire Chief
Driscoll to investigate the adequacy of emergency access to the
Struthers' property. It was Chief Driscoll's determination that
access to the Struthers' must be retained over the Verson property
as the turning radii from the Leeds School property were inadequate
for the access of the Fire Department's ladder truck. The Chief
also noted that parked cars often blocked access from the school,
and that access from Front Street would place them 100 feet closer
to a hydrant. Chief Driscoll felt that if this right -of -way had to
be blocked off,it would be best to place the barrier at the Struthers/
Leeds School property line instead of the Verson /Struthers property
line. Otherwise, his trucks would not have access to the Struthers'
property.
Also, I have attached a more complete layout of the properties
in question than was submitted by Mr. Verson.
i
M
too
�J
` mlpw ..l,
ALAN VERSON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
16 CENTER STREET, SUITE 812
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060
TELEPHONE (418) 586 -1848
March 19, 1982
Robert Buscher, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
Dear Mr. Buscher:
I am writing to you in connection with the pending application that I
have for a variance to convert the Grove Hill Mansion into a seven unit
dwelling. The issue that I am addressing is the type of restriction that
will be imposed concerning blocking the present driveway that extends through
the property of the Leeds School.
I do not object to a restriction being imposed that would require that
the driveway be blocked off in such a way as to prevent traffic generated
by the seven units in the Mansion from passing through the school's property.
That objective can be totally accomplished by the driveway being blocked at
any point between the Mansion and the school. The restriction that was
imposed by the Board a year ago in granting the variance for six units did
just that.
I do object, however, to a requirement that the driveway be blocked
exactly at the boundary of the school property. First, this would require
that the boundary be placed on property that I do not own; surely the Board's
legal authority to impose such a requirement would be questionable. Second,
blocking the driveway at this exact point would not be the necessary or only
means of accomplishing the objective referred to above, and it is not the way
that I would prefer to deal with the problem.
As I stated to the Board at the hearing, the written consent of David and
Rachel Struthers, the other owners of the property on the driveway, would be
required in order for me to block off the property at any point. Both they
and I, as the owner of the four family building directly adjacent to the school,
will be certain that the driveway is not blocked in such a way as to interfere
with access to the area by the fire department. I would suggest that you
should leave the issue of access by the fire department to be dealt with by
the parties directly involved and not base your decision on this issue. In
the interim between when I hope the Board will grant the variance and when a
- continued -
NORTHAMPTOV BOARD OF APPEALS
Decision Application of
Alan Verson (Grove Hill)
March 24, 1982
The Board of Appeals met at 8:25 PM, March 24, 1982, to render a
decision on the application of Alan Verson for a variance to convert a
single-family home on Grove Hill, Leeds, into seven units. Present
were Robert C. Buscher, Chairman, William Brandt, and Peter Laband.
The minutes of the public hearing, held on February 24, 1982,
were approved unanimously.
Mr. Brandt commented that the Grove Hill property is unique
because of its size, and that in today's economy, it would be diffi-
cult to use the home as a single - family dwelling. On the issue of
hardship, he claimed that it is the neighbors who are suffering a
hardship because, during the time the applicant has owned the prop-
erty, he has allowed it to steadily deteriorate, thus creating an
eyesore for the neighborhood and a hazard to children. Regarding
the third condition for a variance, that desirable relief may be
granted without detriment to the public good, he felt that the pub-
lic good would best be served by granting the variance since it
appeared that the applicant was unwilling to improve the property
if it remained a single-family home. While he was reluctant to allow
seven units in a URA zone, he would vote to approve the application
for the above- stated reasons.
The Board then discussed the driveway which must be blocked off
to protect the children at Leeds School. On a motion made and
seconded, they voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting until such
time as the applicant could submit a plan showing where the driveway
could be blocked to meet the standards of the Fire Department and to
satisfy the abutters on whose property blockage would occur.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM. Present, in addition to
the Board members, were Clare Fennessey, Clerk, two reporters, and
four interested citizens.
Robert C. Buscher
Chairman
JEREMIAH P. DRISCOLL
Chief
To: Larry 6mith
Planning Board
From: J.P. Lriscoll VJ
Fire Chief
Late: April 23, 1982
Fie: Alan Verson
Grove Hill Estate
(114 of
Yor#4tt> PtLM, ' Mttssttc4usctts
01868
FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS
OFFICE OF CHIEF
60 MASONIC STREET
Telephone 584 -7165
r •� 1't E.
Larry, Ar. Verson has asked Wr opinion as to whether a gate across a road on
his property off Grove St. in Leeds would would impair firefighting operations. I would
say that a gate would not hinder our operations as long as the following stipulations
were met:
1/ Distance between gate posts were not less than 10 feet.
2/ Prohibiting parking of cars in front of gate on either side.
3/ If gate were to be kept locked we would like a key or in an emergency we
would have to cut any lock.
4/ I have looked at the roadway and it is nw opinion that this Department
would probably use the roadway coming in from Front St. for any fire calls
which we might have there.
FIRE PREVENTION PAYS
- .
0
m
z
y
u
F RON T
c�
QC
STR E E -r--
�
F'l
�J
VC,e5
KA � M�4nrs��N
G�
A s
irrpi--, rte. T a
�`D
F M/L
Y
LI
LEEDS SCHOOL
ST"RuTME
r
All = -of BZ
000
NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF APPEALS
Decisior p Application of
A1'14 Verson ( Grove Hill)
April 28, 1982
The Board of Appeals met at 8:30 PM, April 28, 1982, to render a
decision on the variance request of Alan Verson to convert a single
family home at Grove Hill, Leeds, into a seven -unit dwelling.
Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt,
and Peter Laband.
The Chairman noted that the Board, at a previous meeting, had
voted unanimously to ask the applicant to submit a specific plan for
blockage of a driveway which was of concern to the School Department
because of its proximity to Leeds School.
Mr. Verson presented a map showing the location of the proposed
blockage.
The Chairman noted receipt of a copy of a communication from the
Fire Chief which stated that placing a gate across the roadway would
not hinder the department's access to the site, provided certain
conditions were met.
Mr. Verson described the proposed gate as a long pole attached
to a swinging hinge at one end, with a lock at the opposite end. He
said that Mr. and Mrs. Struthers had given written permission to
install the device on their property. With the installation of the
gate, access through the driveway would be limited to the Struthers
and to the tenants of a four - family home on the site. A sign will be
posted to prevent parking in front of the gate. He said that he
would file a legal document with the Register of Deeds executing the
agreement between him and the Struthers family, and would ask the
Board to impose the erection of the gate as a condition.
Mr. Brandt recommended that, if granted, approval be contingent
on the gate's being maintained properly.
Since there was no one present to speak in favor or in opposition,
Dr. Laband stated that he would make the same findings as had been
made on July 30, 1982, for the variance request to convert the structure
into six units. However, he would change the second condition to read:
"that the driveway be blocked off at the point north of the Struthers'
property, and north of the entrance to the driveway onto the road."
He would add all conditions recommended by the Fire Chief in his com-
munication of April 26, 1982, and further, would recommend that a
document be filed in the Registry of Deeds giving Mr. Verson the right
to install the gate across the road.
Mr. Brandt found that the property is unique because of its size,
and that considering today's economy, it would be difficult to use the
home as a single - family residence; that, while denial of the variance
would impose a hardship, the hardship would actually affect the area
residents who would have to contend with the presence of a possible
hazard to children and an eyesore in their neighborhood: and that
relief may be granted without detriment to the public good, in that
the public would best be served by having the property maintained in
good order. He would recommend that the fence around the swimming pool
be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements and that it
be adequately maintained.
Mr. Buscher agreed with the findings of Dr. Laband and Mr. Brandt.
Based on the above findings, the Board voted unanimously to grant
the variance to convert the home into seven units, subject to the
following restrictions.
(1) that the driveway be blocked off at the point north of the
Struthers boundary, and north of the driveway entrance, as
indicated on the submitted plan;
(2) that the distance between gate posts be not less than 10
feet;
(3) that parking be prohibited in front of the gate on either
side;
(4) that if the gate is to be kept locked, a key be provided
to the Fire Department;
(5) that a document be filed in the Registry of Deeds giving
the applicant the right to install the gate across the road;
(6) that the parcel not be subdivided.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM. Present, in addition to
the Board members, were Alan Verson, Clare Fennessey, Clerk, and
representatives of the news media.
Robert C. Buscher
Chairman
�+ DECISION OF THE .,o
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
The Zoning Board of Appeals met on April 28, 1982 and voted unanimously to
grant the petition of Alan Verson for a variance to convert a single family
home at Grove Hill, Leeds into a seven unit dwelling.
Based upon the evidence presented to the Board, the Board made the follow-
; ing findings:
1. That the property is unique because of its size, and considering
today's economy, it would be difficult to use the home as a
single family dwelling.
2. That the denial of the request for a variance would impose a
hardship on the applicant, further, the hardship would also
effect the area residents who would have to contend with the
presence of a possible hazard to children and an eyesore in
their neighborhood.
3. That relief may be granted without detriment to the public
good, in that the public would best be served by having the
property maintained in good order.
The variance is, however, granted subject to the following conditions:
1. that the driveway be blocked off at the point north of the
Struthers boundary, and north of the drivewav entrance, as
indicated on the submitted plan;
2. that the distance between gate posts be not less than 10 feet;
3. that parking be prohibited in front of the gate on either side;
4. that if the gate is to be kept locked, a key be provided to the
Fire Department;
5. that a document be filed in the Registry of Deeds giving the
applicant the right to install the gate across the road;
6. that the parcel not be subdivided.
4�
ROBERT C. BUSCHER, CHAIRMAN
PETER LABAND
WILLIAM BRANDT