15B-012A Gazda School Zoning1 ,,
City of Northampton
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Zoning Board of Appeals
..d
Office of the Legal Department
Kathleen G. Fallon, City Solicitor '
Gazda Application for Home Occupation
July 1, 1993
FILE:
I have reviewed the Gazda application and the minutes for the
Board's June 16, 1993, meeting. It is my opinion that a school
such as Ms. Gazda proposes in the application does not qualify as
a home occupation under Section 11.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The home occupation permit was intended for a practitioner of
certain occupations which could be conducted in a residential
neighborhood with minimal impact on that area. For that reason,
occupations which would generate visible traffic flow, such a:.
doctors, lawyers, and insurance agents were specifically excluded
from this permit. A school will clearly impact on a neighborhood
far more significantly than a electrologist who sees one client at
a time.
Ms. Gazda could not submit a new application for a special permit
to operate a private school at the location. Since Ms. Gazda lives
in the building in which the school would be operated, this would
be a mixed use. Mixed uses are not allowed in the URA zone in
which Ms. Gazda lives. In any case, schools are not among the uses
permitted as part of a mixed use.
Mr. Ghiselin's suggestion that the Board could, on its own motion,
amend the application to one for a private school is not viable for
the same reasons. And, in addition, the permit was advertised as
• home occupation permit under Section 11.11. If the Board granted
• permit under Section 5.2 for a private school, the advertisement
would not have given the public accurate notice of the subject
matter of the application. Therefore, the permit would be void.l
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Maln Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950
FAX (413) 586 -3726
• Community and Economic Development
• Conservation • Historic Preservation
• Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals
• Northampton Parking Commission
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 1993 meeting
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday June 16,
1993 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski
Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton. Present were
Chairman Robert Buscher, Zoning Board members Alex Ghiselin and M.
Sanford Weil, Jr. Chairman Buscher called the Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Continuation of Public Hearing
The request of Karen & Ladislav Gazda for a Special Permit and Site
Plan Approval under §11.11, page 11 -31 to operate an electrolysis
school as a home occupation out of the basement at 582 Spring
Street. Present and sitting on the case are: Chairman Robert
Buscher, Alex Ghiselin, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Robert Buscher announced that the hearing was originally scheduled
for May 19, 1993 and continued to this date because the Planning
Board has requested that the ZBA not take any action on the request
because the Planning Board had some significant concerns. The
applicants had not attended the Planning Board meeting so the
Planning Board members had not been able to address those concerns.
Buscher announced that there had been two items of correspondence
received. A memo dated 6/3/93 from Sam Brindis of the DPW stated
that the DPW had no concerns with the application. A memo dated
June 8, 1993 from the Planning Board to the ZBA stated that at its
May 27, 1993 meeting the Planning Board voted 6:1 with one
abstention to recommend that the ZBA approve the request for
Special Permit and Site Plan. The member voting against felt that
a "school" is not what a home occupation is meant to be, under
Northampton's zoning. The Planning Board voted to recommend two
conditions: (1) only four cars shall be allowed to be parked
outside of the garage; and (2) that the number of students shall be
limited.
Mrs. Gazda said she needs to have at least 12 students in order to
make the business profitable. She said that the Planning Board had
voted to limit the number of cars to four instead of putting a
number limit on the number of students, and reiterated that if she
could not have enough students to make a profit, the business would
not be worth the expense and effort.
1
ZBA Meeting June 16, 1993
..e
A discussion by the Zoning Board ensued which covered the possible
conditions the ZBA might place on the applicant if they voted to
approve the Special Permit. Some of the conditions the ZBA
discussed placing included:
that the applicant would have to meet any requirements in the
building code and elsewhere which would be required of any
school.
Suggested hours of operation suggested Monday- Friday from 9:00
A.M. - 3:00 P.M.
Home occupation must take place within the structure as it now
stands.
A lengthy discussion covered the topics:
What is the definition of a school, according to the Zoning
Ordinance, and
Does a school qualify as a home occupation?
Other alternatives which were discussed included the possibility
that the Zoning Board could take it upon themselves to amend the
application for Special Permit for a private school instead of for
a home occupation. Alex Ghiselin said that if the ZBA gave the
applicant a permit for a school, there would be less chance for the
ZBA to place conditions on the permit such as limiting the number
of employees which is covered under the home occupation section of
the ordinance.
Mrs. Gazda said that she is limited to teach only 12 students under
her license to teach electrolysis.
Alex Ghiselin said he thought that the intent of the ordinance for
home occupations was to make sure the business had the least amount
of impact on the neighborhood. Buscher said one of the reasons
there are limits on a home occupation is to limit the amount of
traffic being generated by the business. Buscher was concerned
that once you get into a teaching situation in a home occupation
which is supposed to have a limit of two people employed (the home
owner and one employee), suddenly that one on one contact burgeons
into one on twelve or one on six. Buscher said he thought an
electrolysis school would be really stretching the requirements
under a home occupation. Buscher also said he thought that the
definition of a private school was more like a Montessori School or
Smith School where the emphasis was on teaching academics. Alex
Ghiselin said he thought the definition of a school should be
E
''NUPW -"W
ZBA Meeting June 16, 1993
clarified in the zoning ordinance. Further discussion followed on
the pros and cons of having a school in a UR zone.
Mrs. Gazda said she would hate to have the number of students
limited because of the amount of money she has to spend on
equipment for the school and because of the time element involved
in the school, she will not be doing very much of her own
electrolysis work, and therefore her income will be decreased. Mr.
Gazda said that he would like the Board to know that the school
would be strictly supervised by her Electrolysis Board.
Buscher said he still had a problem with whether to call the
business a home occupation or a school.
Mr. Gazda said that with a home occupation Special Permit, they
would have to reapply for a Special permit renewal after one year.
If there were any problems caused by the home occupation, the
neighbors would be able to complain.
M. Sanford Weil suggested that the Board vote to expand the home
occupation permit and limit the students to no more than 12. Weil
said the home occupation must meet all building codes and suggested
a condition that not more than six cars be parked in the yard.
Buscher said he still did not feel comfortable voting on this
application. Buscher said if the Board voted in favor of the
application, they would be saying that operating a school is a home
occupation and he was not sure about the definition of school.
Weil said he was prepared to vote in favor of the special permit
with conditions on the permit. Alex Ghiselin said that he thought
the ordinance is written so broadly that the ZBA could approve the
application.
Bob Buscher said he would feel more comfortable taking the matter
under advisement in order to get advice from the Senior Planner and
the Law Department on whether the applicant meets the requirements
of a home occupation or whether she should apply for a school.
Sanford Neil moved to close the Public Hearing. Alex Ghiselin
seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Sanford Neil moved to take the matter under advisement and
suggested that each Zoning Board member individually seek advice
and counsel from the Senior Planner, Paulette Kuzdeba, and the City
Solicitor, Kathleen Fallon. The ZBA will make a decision on this
case at the ZBA meeting scheduled for July 7, 1993. Alex Ghiselin
seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
3
�.r
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
Clty Hall • 210 Maln Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950
FAX (413) 586 -3726
• Community and Economic Development
• Conservation • Historic Preservation
• Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals
• Northampton Parking Commission
TO: Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Northampton Planning Board
.../
RE: Karen & Ladislav Gazda - Request for Special Permit &
Site Plan Approval
DATE: June ®, 1993
At its May 27, 1993 meeting the Northampton Planning Board voted
6:1 with one abstention to recommend that the Zoning Board of
Appeals approve the request for Special Permit and Site Plan
Approval.
The member voting against felt that a "school" is not what a home
occupation is meant to be, under Northampton's zoning.
The Planning Board voted to recommend the following conditions:
1. Only four cars shall be allowed to be parked outside of the
garage.
2. Number of students shall be limited.
Zoning Board of Appeals
5/19/93 meeting
The request of Karen & Lodislav Gazda for a Special Permit and Site
Plan Approval under §11.11, page 11 -31 of the zoning ordinance to
operate an electrolysis school as a home occupation out of the
basement at 582 Spring Street. Present and Sitting were: Chairman
Bob Buscher, Bill Brandt, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Bob Buscher
read a copy of the Public Notice which was published in the Daily
Haml2shire Gazette on May 5 and May 12, 1993.
Buscher also read a copy of the May 18, 1993 memo from the
Northampton Planning Board to the ZBA which stated that the
Planning Board had voted unanimously to recommend that the ZBA take
no action on the request because the Planning Board had significant
concerns about the proposal and the applicant had not been present
at the Planning Board meeting to address those concerns. No
waivers of site plan filing requirements were granted by the
Planning Board. The Planing Board requested that the ZBA continue
their Public Hearing to allow the Planning Board to discuss the
request at their next meeting.
The Zoning Board continued the Public Hearing until June 16, 1993
at 7:00 P.M. in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal
Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton.
The Zoning Board granted Karen & Ladislav Gazda a Notice of
Extension, GL Ch. 40A, Sec. 15, for an additional 90 days for their
Special Permit request.
-../
Planning Board Meetin Minutes -- 5 27 93
Review of ZBA Case:
Request of Karen and Lodislav Gazda for a Special permit and Site
Plan Approval under §11.11, page 11 -31 of the zoning ordinance to
operate an electrolysis school as a home occupation out of the
basement at 582 Spring Street.
Both Mr. and Mrs. Gazda were present to discuss the case. Mrs.
Gazda said she currently has an office in the basement of her home.
She plans to have approximately eight (8) students in school from
9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Massachusetts students need 1100 hours of
instruction in order to get a license. Connecticut students need
600 -650 hours of instruction. There would be no other employees
besides Mrs. Gazda who is a licensed electrolysis operator and a
registered teacher of electrolysis.
Ken Jodrie said he did not think there was adequate parking space
for 8 vehicles. Wayne Feiden said that the application was
considered a major project for a home occupation. Feiden said that
the standard for home occupation is that it should be invisible to
the neighborhood.
Dan Yacuzzo said he did a site visit and said it was obvious that
there were no marked off parking spaces, and thought the parkin
area was behind the building. Yacuzzo said he did not know what
kind of light industry is going on across the street but noted that
there was heavy duty work being done next door. The houses are
fairly far apart in that section of the neighborhood. There is a
walk -in basement. Diane Welter said she looked at the property for
the last meeting, and did not think it meets the criteria for a
home occupation. Welter asked whether there was any other method
under which the applicant could apply to have such a business in
the house.
Dan Yacuzzo moved to recommend that the Planning Board recommend
that the ZBA approve the request for Special Permit and Site Plan
Approval with the condition that there be a limit of four vehicles
allowed and a limit placed on the number of students allowed. Joe
Beauregard seconded the motion. Bob Riddle suggested asking
neighbor for parking spaces. Diane Welter amended the motion to
have a condition on the Special Permit that four cars outside of
the garage be allowed. The motion, as amended, passed with a 6:1
vote with one abstention.
9 3 -- _9�-le
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
1. PERMIT AUTHORITY(IES): ZBA Planning Board Council
2. Applicant's Name:
Address:_ r�; ;� , , ► ; T Telephone: y/3 - _Yjfo `3
3. Property Owner: K o , -en t (/;, /c b!7� 7 0//,
Address: �_T ; „ T Telephone: 5 3q 0
4. Status of Applicant:Owner Contract Purchaser Lessee
Other (explain)
5. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map #/5 Parcel 0 Zoning District: uEA
Street Address:
6. Special Permit requested under Zoning Ordinance Section(,=' .J, Pg_-
7. Site Plan is for: Intermediate Projec Major Project
8. Narrative Description of the Proposed Project (Use additional sheets if
i necessary):
9. How does project comply with Special Permit criteria: (See Applicant's Guide for
criteria -use additional sheets is necessary)
10. Site Plan, with any requests for waivers, must be attached.
11. Abutters List from Assessors' Office must be attached.
12. 1 certify that 1 have read the SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN CRITERIA and
that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge. I (or the landowner, if I am not the landowner) grant the Zoning
Board and Planning Board permission to enter the property to review this
permit application.
,
Date:-? %- Ap Signat `
ate i efl. iie
(deftb:siteptan.pb 10/8/92)
NOW
C. Estimated daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed use,
traffic patterns for vehicles and pedestrians showing adequate access to and
from the site, and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site.
CONSULT ZONING FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR MAJOR PROJECTS.
9,,-7e 2 S S
Site Plans submitted for major projects shall be prepared (and stamped) by a registered Architect,
Landscape Architect, or Professional Engineer
A. LOCUS (show where your project is)
r
�l
m
�
r.
t�K o�j
G
L
(delRpb \siteplan.pb 3/6/92)
Date Filed ho1 q'
1.
ZONING PERMIT
o
ups 2 0
F LId N r ,
APPLICATION ( §1 . ). ,`
Name of Applicant: Address: 5-Z 1. 1 52 > �( S J Z /{ Tele
2 . Owner of Property:
Address r ;�
=�aJ Te
3. status
ephone :
of Applicant: x Owner Contract Purchaser
Lessee Other (explain:
4. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map Sheet #
Zoning District (s) Parcel# CjL .� _
( ) ( include overlays) / f �, ]
Street Address � c- c
5. Required
Existin Pr oposed t,� 7 ^" 4 "- Use %a Structure /Property
(if project is only interior work, s
Building height
%B1dg.Coverage (Footprint)
Setbacks - front
- side L: R:
- rear -
Lot size
Frontage
Floor Area Ratio
%Open Space (Lot area minus
building and parking)
Parking Spaces
Loading
Signs
Fill (volume & location)
o #6
L:
6. Narrative Description of Proposed Work /Project:
if necessary)
one: 3 ",:
N
(Use additional sheets
Ic
rB
8. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained herein
is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Date Applicant's Signature:
r )� /�� ✓cam
THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: - - - - - -
proved as presented /based
Denied as presented -- Reason:
Special Permit and /or Sit-P
on information presented
r.ian Required
Variance Required:
Date
NOTE: issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve an applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits
from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities.
iel')_
Vlans: Sketch Plan Site Plan
? 0
Date Filed r /t / % I APR 20 j, ! File No.
REGISTRATION OF HOME OFFICE /OCCIIRJW §1;0.2 & 11.11)
With the bu ing.13i : 0z.._
1. Name of Applicant:
Address: 5 S,-) r � n Telephone:
2. Owner of Property:
Address: i � ), Ste,
3.
i`
Telephone: 5Yw _!� yc
Status of Applicant: x Owner
Other (explain:
4. Parcel Identification: Map # / , Parcel # ,
Zoning District(s) (include overlays)
Street Address 7
5.
6. Is this a legal residential building?
7. Will there be an employee who does not
8. Will you ever see clients or customers
How often dc —
For what purposes � c
live in the home?
at your site?
7 Q
XY, NO
YES M
YES NO
9. Will there be any signs for the Home Office?
10. Will there be. any goods sold from the premises or any sale
goods stored on premises, either retail or wholesale, or
11.
12.
display of goods on premises?
Will there be any outdoor storage
Will your use be totally within a
outward manifestation (including
congestion, noise, air pollution,
If NO explain:
13. Attach Plans .(if applicable)
YES
of
any
YES
NO
NO
NO
of materials? YES
building and not cause any
traffic generation, parking
and materials storage)? YES
14. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained herein
is true and accurate. I understand that if any information is incorrect,
my permit is null and void and I may be liable for non - criminal fines and
criminal and civil actions.
Date:
Applicant's Signature:
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE
- - - -
ONLY:
- - - - - - - -
Approved as presented /based on information presented
APPROVAL EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 31 OF THIS YEAR AND MUST THEN BE RENEWED
Denied as presented - -- Reason:
Signature of Building Inspector
Contract Purchaser Lessee
Date
NOTE Issuance of a permit does not relieve an applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits
from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities.
Narrative Description of Proposed Home Office: (Use additional sheets
if necessary /)C/
�.. •,.,o
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
jj At a meeting held on September 14, 1988, the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted
unanimously to GRANT the Application of Karen Gazda for a
Special Permit under the Provisions of Section 5.2(14) of
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton, and voted
unanimously to issue a Finding under the Provisions of
! Section 9.3(c) that conducting a home occupation in a pre-
existing nonconforming dwelling at 582 Spring Street, Leeds,
would not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing structure. Present and
voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband,
j and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
The Findings were as follows:
The use requested is listed in the Table of Use
Regulations as requiring a Special Permit in the URA Zone
where the dwelling is located.
The requested use bears a positive relationship to the
public convenience, in that Applicant's present place of
business at 13 Old South Street is going to be torn down,
and permitting a home occupation allows the Applicant to
continue to serve her clients.
The requested use will not create undue traffic
congestion, since clients will be treated one at a time on
an appointment basis, and there is a circular driveway so
I that cars will not be backing onto Spring Street.
I -
j The requested use will not overload any municipal
systems.
I
The requested use will not impair the integrity or
character of the district. It will be conducted in the
basement of the dwelling, there will be no outside sign of
j any nature, and there will be no employees.
..r/
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION -KAREN GAZDA
PAGE TWO
The Following conditions shall apply:
The Special Permit is specificallv limited to
electrolysis as the home occupation, and confined -to 582
Spring Street, Leeds.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
�.. R_ t,-,
Dr. Peter Laband
1
M. Sanford/Weil, Jr.
`..
-.../
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NORTiIAM PTON, MASSACHUSr f 1 r , '::r 1
DATE: September 14, 1988
ficate of Granting of Variance or Special Permit
(General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 11)
THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON HEREBY CERTIFIES
THAT A VARIANCE AND /OR SPECIAL PERMIT HAS BEEN GRANTED
TO: Karen Gazda
ADDRESS: 582 Spring Street
CITY: Leeds, MA 01053
AFFECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER WITH RESPECT TO LAND OR
BUILDINGS AT: 582 Spring Street, Leeds, MA
And the said Board of Appeals further certifies that the
decision attached hereto is a true and correct copy of its
decision granting said Variance /Special Permit, and that copies
of said decision, and all plans referred to in the decision, have
been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk.
The Board of Appeals also calls to the attention of the
owner or applicant that General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 11
(last paragraph) provides that no variance or special permit, or
any extension, modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect
until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the
City Clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has
been filed in the Office of the City Clerk and no appeal has been
filed or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been
dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Registry of Deeds for the
county and district in which the land is located and indexed in
the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is
recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee
for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or
applicant. If the rights of a Variance granted under the
provisions of Section 10, Chapter 40A, M.G.L. are not exercised
within one year of the date of the grant of such variance, they
shall lapse and may be reestablished only after notice and a new
hearing pursuant to Section 10, Chapter 40A, M.G.L.
"ie
Chairman Secretary
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
September 14, 1988 Meeting
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7:30 p. m. on
Wednesday, September 14, 1988 in Room 18 of City Hall to conduct
a Public Hearing on the Application of Karen Gazda for a Special
Permit under the Provisions of Section 5.2(14), Page 5 -3, and a
Finding under the Provisions of Section 9.3(c), for the purpose
of conducting a home occupation (electrolysis) at 582 Spring
Street, Leeds in a URA Zone. Present and voting were Chairman
Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Ch. Buscher read the Application, the Legal Notice as published
twice in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, and the appropriate
sections of the Ordinance. Mr. Weil read the definition of "Home
Occupation ". Ch. Buscher read a memorandum from the Northampton
Planning Board which unanimously endorsed the requests.
Mrs. Gazda explained that she would be using two small rooms and
a bath in the basement of her home for electrolysis. She
estimated that 200 square feet would be devoted to this purpose,
well within the 600 SF maximum. She explained that there would
be only one person there at a time, by appointment. She would
have no employees, and intended to have no sign. The Planning
Board requested that the Special Permit and Finding, if granted,
be limited to this applicant for this occupation. Dr. Laband
said he "was not too wild about doing that," and wasn't even sure
it could be done. Mr. Smith, Senior Planner, was available, and
told the Board that they could indeed make such a restriction.
Mr. Weil was in favor of restricting any approval to this use;
Dr. Laband agreed, and stipulated, "electrolysis at this
address."
Dr. Laband moved the Public Hearing be closed when no one else
appeared to speak in favor or in opposition. Mr. Weil seconded,
and the motion passed unanimously.
Dr. Laband recited the Section 10.10 criteria, found that this
Application met all the tests, and said he would vote in favor of
granting. Mr. Weil stated that he concurred. Ch. Buscher also
concurred, and thought this was a good solution to the problem of
people being displaced from 13 Old South Street. Dr. Laband
moved the Special Permit and Finding be granted, for electrolysis
at 582 Spring Street, Leeds. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion
passed unanimously.
Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci,
Board Secretary.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Is
CITY OF NORTHAMPTO
ZONING PERMIT APPLICAT N
Zoning Ordinance Section 10.2
JUL I 1 198
:eived:
No. %5 — j9 I Lot 1o
q3' I Plan File
BOWING 1 M L'
Owner K2 &A arl. i tUttSt�AMJ'fOtd, t��A _
, �PPlica:nt """Ttia,-1 6
Address 5�8� =5 0�; n g 67 Address - 5?A S,or ;n ,t SY
Telephone Telephone IV 0 3
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
P
Setbacks
Max. Bid.
Cover
Min. Op.
Space
Front
Side
Rear
Past C) /�
/I
Existing/
CLc° ,
gd
�,�I•
%
°
/°
Present
Proposed
%
%
Mark the appropriate box to indicate the use of the parcel: 14 -n c G CC vpez tim
❑ Non - Conforming Lot and /or Structure. Specify N oil C ho GrM ; ng k6
%j
A Residential
❑ Business
❑ Individual
❑ Institutional
❑ Subdivision
�rSingie Family Unit ❑Multi - Family
❑ Duplex ❑ Other
❑ 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 ❑ No
Parking Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.1) Required Proposed
Loading Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.2) Required Proposed
Signs: (Z.O. Art. VII) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Environmental Performance Standards: (Z.O. Art. XI 1) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Plot Plan
(S.10.2)
❑ Yes ❑ No
This section for OFFICIAL use only:
❑ Approval as presented:
p Modifications necessary for approval:
Site Plan ❑ Yes ❑ No
(S. 10.2 and 10.11
Waiver Granted: Date ❑
❑ Return: (More information needed)
W Denial: Reasons:
r
Signature of Appli ant Date Signature of Admin. Officer ate
v rf' r
i s cos Application Number: q31
BRec'd. B. 1. ked Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcels) o t
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPE0ONS
RE13Y MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
1. Name of Applicant 6 2ciL
Address
2. Owner of
Address
� y . 1 i �� BY �� Dale Date � D 1- � 0 [ 9y Date
to
3. Applicant is: K
Owner; ❑Contract Purchaser; OLessee; OTenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
D
VARIANCE from the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
pIq
Is PECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section .�page of the Zoning Ord inance
of the pity of Northampton.
O¢OTHER: %. -3 � �W�- 9• �i C-
5. Lo ation of Property ���f;�,��+ being situated on
the side of
_Tr � n ar T Street' and hown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. ,Parcel (s) ��
s. Zone y 2A
7. Description of proposed work and /or use;
8- (a)
Sketch plan attached; ❑Yes ❑ No
(b) Site plan: OAttched El Not Required
9. Set forP
reasons upon which application is based:
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. I hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge.
Date 7- ��'G�' A pplicant's Signature
Owner; ❑Contract Purchaser; OLessee; OTenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
D
VARIANCE from the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
pIq
Is PECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section .�page of the Zoning Ord inance
of the pity of Northampton.
O¢OTHER: %. -3 � �W�- 9• �i C-
5. Lo ation of Property ���f;�,��+ being situated on
the side of
_Tr � n ar T Street' and hown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. ,Parcel (s) ��
s. Zone y 2A
7. Description of proposed work and /or use;
8- (a)
Sketch plan attached; ❑Yes ❑ No
(b) Site plan: OAttched El Not Required
9. Set forP
reasons upon which application is based:
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. I hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge.
Date 7- ��'G�' A pplicant's Signature
11. List of Abutters: Address
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Assessor's Map
sheet No. ParcQl
12.
13.
14.
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
(Attach additional sheets, if necessary) 0
I
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Northampton Planning Board
SUBJECT: Karen Gazda's Application for a Special Permit and Finding
DATE: September 9, 1988
FILE:
This Application for a Special Permit and Finding to conduct a
home occupation in a house on a nonconforming lot. The home
occupation is electrolysis, and will be conducted in two basement
rooms, well within the 600SF maximum area allowed. No sign is
desired, there will be no employees, and parking is not an issue.
The Board voted unanimously to grant the Special Permit and
Finding, but asked that they be specific to this person for this
use.
l
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION
1. PERMIT AUTHORITY(IES): ZBA -! Planning Board Council
2. Applicant's Name: LLr�ej) -1 Ly/;.c /a V (-,,z 0 (
Address: Telephone: 1113 - SAC - 3yo:3
3. Property Owner: xr, t e,, r L; ; s /c b*-r z 0/4,
Address: _�r Y A T ; „ ST Telephone: 5i4- 3q
4. Status of Applicant:Owner K Contract Purchaser Lessee
Other (explain)
5. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map # /5 6 Parcel 6/2— Zoning District: C-(—
Street Address:
6. Special Permit requested under Zoning Ordinance Section�L._L Pg_&
7. Site Plan is for: Intermediate Projec Major Project
8. Narrative Description of the Proposed Project (Use additional sheets if
i iac;essary):
fL
9. How does project comply with Special Permit criteria: (See Applicant's Guide for
criteria -use additional sheets is necessary)
10. Site Plan, with any requests for waivers, must be attached.
11. Abutters List from Assessors' Office must be attached.
12. 1 certify that I have read the SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN CRITERIA and
that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge. I (or the landowner, if I am not the landowner) grant the Zoning
Board and Planning Board permission to enter the property to review this
permit application.
Date: - 4 pplicant's Signature: rr i /rr r��
r
(de11\pb:sitep1an.pb 10/8/92)
-..o+
C. Estimated daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed use,
traffic patterns for vehicles and pedestrians showing adequate access to and
from the site, and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site.
CONSULT ZONING FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR MAJOR PROJECTS.
In C ctTS
Site Plans submitted for major projects shall be prepared (and stamped) by a registered Architect,
Landscape Architect, or Professional Engineer
A. LOCUS (show where your project is)
0�!
Dri
1
r
m
[ti
(delApb\siteplan.pb 3/6192)
Date Filed ?liol q_;
ZONING
0
�0 0 t 00 ' 000 " ,
PERMIT APPLICATION (510.2) File No. i wr P
I.
Name of Applicant: r r- a 1-) ( w
Address : 6 X S �,f I ;, S 7 L �� -lam
Telephone:
2.
Owner of Property: r . pv , - 1 � /�, L ,
f 6Z ; ?—
Address: 5 5 �: , �, s7
v
Telephone:
�-�� �• y o 3
3.
Status of Applicant: x Owner Contract Purchaser
Lessee Other (explain:
4.
Parcel Identification: Zoning Map
Zoning District(s) (include
Sheet# 1.4;-
Parcel# U,�t
r
overlays)
Street Address c y ) r
- ��-�
��
5•
Existing
Proposed
Required
b 'Required
Zonin
Use of Structure /Property
(if project is only interior work, skip
to #6)
Building height
%B1dg.Coverage (Footprint)
Setbacks - front
- side L: R:
L: R:
- rear 1
Lot size
Frontage
Floor Area Ratio
%Open Space (Lot area minus
building and parking)
Parking Spaces
Loading
Signs
Fill (volume & location)
6. Narrative Description of Proposed Work /Project: (Use additional sheets
if necessary)
7
8. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained herein
is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Date Applicant's Signature:
THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: - - -
proved as presented /based on information presented
D
enied as presented -- Reason:
Special Permit and /or Site Plan Required:
� 3 nding r / 1-- d • variance R
of Bu
spector
area:
i/ 7
Date
NOTE issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve an applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits
from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities.
i e l-
nL- Ua%:iiCU r SKetch Plan Site Plan
'
9 i
se
Date Filed File No.
REGISTRATION OF HOME OFFICE /OCCUPATION ( 510.2 & 11.11)
With the Building Inspector
1. Name of Applicant:
Address: 5 �, 3,)/ Telephone :
2 . Owner of Property:
Address: ��� J �r ST Telephone:
3. Status of Applicant: Owner Contract Purchaser
Other (explain:
live in the home?
at your site?
4. Parcel Identification: Map # /1 t3 , Parcel # C, ,
Zoning Districts) (include overlays)
Street Address
5.
6. Is this a legal residential building?
7. Will there be an employee who does not
8. Will you ever see clients or customers
9.
10.
11.
12.
How often dc� ',
For what purposes
Will there be any signs for the He
Will there be. any goods sold from
goods stored on premises, either
display of goods on premises?
Will there be any outdoor storage
Will your use be totally within a
outward manifestation (including
congestion, noise, air pollution,
If NO explain:
Lessee
YYS NO
YES M
YES NO
YES
of
any
YES
of materials? YES
building and not cause any
traffic generation, parking
and materials storage)? YES
13. Attach Plans .(if applicable)
NO
ILO
NO
NO
14. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained herein
is true and accurate. I understand that if any information is incorrect,
my permit is null and void and I may be liable for non - criminal fines and
criminal and civil actions.
Date: Applicant I s Signature: h�- L-„�
THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY:
Approved as presented /based on information presented
APPROVAL EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 31 OF THIS YEAR AND MUST THEN BE RENEWED
Denied as presented - -- Reason:
Signature of Building Inspector
Date
NOTE Issuance of a permit does not relieve an applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits
from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities.
Narrative Description of Proposed Home Office: (Use additional sheets
if necessary) � l�c�ry /�.,;.s )rj /, /;• IJ 6 C P
the premises or any sale
retail or wholesale, or
'BOARD OF ASSESSORS
ASSESSORS
Joan C. Sarafin, M.A.A., Chairwoman
Richard M. Sikorski, M.A.A., Secretary
Edwin M. Padeck
o
a
0
...0
Telephone
586 -6950 Ext. 200
WALLACE J. PUCHALSKI MUNICIPAL BUILDING
212 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
TO: BOARD OF ASSESSORS
FROM:
(Individual or Company Name
PHONE L- z/Q7
DATE:
I /WE REQUEST FROM THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS, AN ABUTTER'S
LIST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT ,S yr �07 i zig S.T
THE MAP AND LOT NUMBERS OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY ARE
THE NAME OF THE BOARD REQUESTING THIS LIST AND THE EXTENT OF THE
LIST REQUIRED IS PLANNING BOARD/ZONING BOARD--all abutters and abutters to the
abutters within 300'
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS REQUEST HAS UP TO SEVEN (7) WORKING
DAYS IN WHICH TO BE COMPLETED.
a
L'I
(Sigaacure or p�icarac)
DATE LIST WAS COMPLETED y
'3/91
`...
rn
SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS- OPTIONAL REQUEST FOR WAIVER
The application MUST include a site plan and documentation with the following
information. Upon written request, the Planning Board may waive the submission of any
of the required information, provided that the Applicant provides some written information
on each of the items and explains why a waiver is appropriate.
For each requested waiver cirde the item number and fill in the reason for your request
in the space provided. Use additional sheets if necessary. See the Zoning Ordinance
for all site plan requirements.
B. Site plan(s) at a scale of 1" = 40' showing
B -1 Name and address of the owner and the developer, name of the project, date
and scale of plans
B -2. Location and boundaries of the lot, adjacent streets or ways, location and owners
names of all adjacent properties and thcse within 300 feet of the property line,
-
and all zoning district boundaries; _ , . - etc.,, -_/"
B -3. Existing and proposed buildings, setbacks from property lines, building
elevations, and all exterior entrances and exits (elevation plans of all exterior
facades structures are encouraged); 9 h w A ca? all a Qp��_
B - 4. Present &proposed use of the land and buildings , J�-L C2i
B -5. Existing and proposed topography at two foot contour intervals, showing
wetlands, streams, surface -water bodies, drainage swales, floodplains, and
unique natural land features (for intermediate projects the permit granting
authp m ^W an_r_npapneralizod to pnompb/ inatparJ of rWi iifiQA matni jr lines
B -6. Location of parking & loading areas, public & private ways, driveways, walkways,
access & egress points, proposed surfacing;
B -7. Location and description of all stormwater drainage facilities, (including applicable
calculations and drainage public & private utilities, sewage disposal facilities, and
water supply i 't _t 1
B -8. Existing & proposed landscaping, trees and plantings (size & type of plantings),
stone wails, buffers, and fencing L ,!4
B -9. Location, dimensions, height, color, illumination of existing and proposed signs;
B -10 Provisions for refuse removal, with facilities for screening of refuse when
appropriate; u
B -11 An erosion control plan (for major projects only) and other measures taken to
protect natural resources & water supplies a c1c i 1 r , ,
=3
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950
FAX (413) 586 -3726
• Community and Economic Development
• Conservation • Historic Preservation
• Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals
• Northampton Parking Commissio bECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
'"0
APPLICANT: KAREN & LADISLAV GAZDA
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 582 SPRING STREET, LEEDS, MA 01053
OWNER: KAREN & LADISLAV GAZDA
OWNER ADDRESS: 582 SPRING STREET, LEEDS, MA 01053
RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: 582 SPRING STREET
At a meeting held on July 7, 1993, the Northampton Zoning
Board of Appeals voted 2:1 not to approve the request of Karen &
Ladislav Gazda for a SPECIAL PERMIT and Site Plan Approval under
the Provisions of Section 11. 11, page 11 -31 and §10.11 of the
Northampton Zoning Ordinance, to operate an electrolysis school as
a home occupation out of the basement of their home at 582 Spring
Street. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Alex
Ghiselin, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
The reasons for denial were as follows:
1. The Zoning Board found that a home occupation, by nature of
its limited size and scope, should not have any outward
manifestation (such as traffic generation, parking congestion,
noise or air pollution, materials storage, public service,
utility demand, etc.) which is uncharacteristic of, or an
additional disturbance to, the particular residential
neighborhood in which said property is located.
2. The Zoning Board found that the requested home occupation
would manifest a noticeable increase in traffic and would thus
be detrimental to the neighborhood.
3. The Zoning Board found that an electrolysis school would cause
a significant visible impact on the neighborhood because a
group of students would be arriving and departing at the same
time each day. Operating a school in a residential area would
result in extra cars being parked on the property and a
visible increase in the traffic flow entering and exiting the
property at the same time each day.
4. The Zoning Board found that operating a school in a URA zone
would constitute a mixed use. Mixed uses are not allowed in
the URA Zone, and schools are not among the uses permitted as
part of a mixed use.
PAGE 1
N...
..r°
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chap. 40A, §11, no variance,
finding, or special permit, or any extension, modification or
renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision
bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have
elapsed after the decision has been filed with the City Clerk and
that no appeal has been filed, or if such an appeal has been filed
that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the "Hampshire
County Registry of Deeds or Land Court, as applicable" and indexed
under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on
the owner's certificate of title. The fee for such recording or
registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant. It is the
owner or applicant's responsibility to pick up the certified
decision from the City Clerk and record it at the Registry of
Deeds.
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals hereby certifies that a
variance, finding, or special permit has been denied and that
copies of this decision and all plans referred to in it have been
filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 40A, section 15, notice is
hereby given that this decision is filed with the Northampton City
Clerk on the date below.
If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed
pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 17, with the Hampshire
Superior Court and notice of said appeal filed with the City Clerk
within twenty (20) days of the date this Decision was filed with
the City Clerk.
DECISION DATED: July 7, 1993
DECISION FILED WITH CITY CLERK: July 13, 1993
Alex Ghiselin
r �
M. sanfora Weil, Jr.
Page 2
Nftm. r•..o,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950
FAX (413) 586 -3726
• Community and Economic Development
• Conservation • Historic Preservation
• Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals
• Northampton Parking commission
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
July 7, 1993 meeting
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday July 7,
1993 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski
Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton. Present were
Chairman Robert Buscher, Zoning Board members Alex Ghiselin and M.
Sanford Weil, Jr. Chairman Buscher called the Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Buscher announced that the purpose of the meeting was to reach a
decision on the request of Karen & Ladislav Gazda for a special
permit under §11.11, page 11 -31 and site Plan Review under §10.11
to operate an electrolysis school as a home occupation out of the
basement at 582 spring street. Present and sitting on the case
are: Chairman Robert Buscher, Alex Ghiselin, and M. Sanford Weil,
Jr.
Robert Buscher announced that the hearing was originally scheduled
for May 19, 1993 and continued and heard on June 16, 1993. The
Public Hearing was closed on June 16, 1993 and the matter was taken
under advisement and scheduled for a decision on July 7, 1993.
Since the June 16th ZBA meeting, the Board has received one item of
correspondence from City Solicitor, Kathleen Fallon dated July 1,
1993. Ms. Fallon's memo read as follows:
I have received the Gazda application and the minutes for the
Board's June 16, 1993 meeting. It is my opinion that a school
such as Ms. Gazda proposes in the application does not qualify
as a home occupation under §11.11 of the zoning ordinance.
The home occupation permit was intended for a practitioner of
certain occupations which could be conducted in a residential
neighborhood with minimal impact on that area. For that
reason, occupations which would generate visible traffic flow,
such as doctors, lawyers, and insurance agents were
specifically excluded from this permit. A school will clearly
impact on a neighborhood far more significantly than an
electrologist who sees one client at a time.
Ms. Gazda could not submit a new application for a Special
Permit to operate a private school at the location. Since Ms.
1
." `".r�
Gazda lives in the building in which the school would be
operated, this would be a mixed use. Mixed uses are not
allowed in the URA zone in which Ms. Gazda lives. In any
case, schools are not among the uses permitted as part of a
mixed use.
Mr. Ghiselin's suggestion that the Board could, on its own
motion, amend the application to one for a private school is
not viable for the same reasons. And, in addition, the permit
was advertised as a home occupation permit under Section
11.11. If the Board granted a permit under §5.2 for a private
school the advertisement would not have given the public
accurate notice of the subject matter of the application.
Therefore, the permit would be void.
Chairman Buscher noted that the opinion of the City Solicitor is
purely advisory and not binding on the ZBA.
M. Sanford Weil, Jr. started the discussion process by stating:
"We are considering a request to expand a previously approved
Home Occupation in a URA /MP zone to include a teaching
process. We also have a letter from the Legal Department,
received after the hearing was closed. We may or may not
include the opinions contained therein in our judgement.
If we were to amend the application to make it a request to
establish a private school, it would be necessary for the
applicant to construct a handicapped accessible entry as well
as two handicapped accessible bathrooms (one male and one
female). In the present instance this would not be a
practical solution.
In addition, the Legal Department asserts that a combination
of a residence and a school would create a mixed use, which is
not allowed in a URA zone. However, I am puzzled as to why a
Home Occupation in a URA zone would not also create a mixed
use.
A Home Occupation expansion to include teaching the previously
approved activity must meet several criteria.
I can find nothing in the Ordinance's Section 2 (page 8)
defining Home Occupation or in Section 11 (page 31) specifying
requirements for a Home Occupation which would exclude a
school or teaching process involving expanding the previously
approved use, although a new Special permit would be required.
The definition for Home Occupation includes a small business
or profession which could be conducted entirely within the
main residential building. I believe that teaching
electrolysis to six to eight students would meet this
criteria.
0A
`.r -move
The applicant's property is non - conforming due to a frontage
of only 82'. However, because of its depth, the total area of
the lot is a 1/2 acre or 21,780 square feet. The dimensions
of the structure in the record is 2425 square feet. This
would leave 88.5% of open space against a required 70 %. Also,
the building covers 1.5% and a required parking area to
accommodate 7 parking spaces would be 1.5 %.
Next the question of available parking for 7 vehicles must be
considered. A swimming pool behind the existing parking area
would limit expansion of that area. Seven spaces of 9' X 18'
each are required. An existing driveway circles the house.
Perhaps the driveway on the right side of the house could be
sacrificed to accommodate more parking spaces.
The traffic generation and its impact on the neighborhood
appears to be the principle reason that the Legal Department
would recommend disallowance of the expanded use. It is
conceded that a retail store or a doctors office would create
such a condition. However, section 11.11 (5) would permit
goods to be offered for sale at the discretion of the ZBA.
On the other hand, the arrival and departure of six to eight
students at 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. from Monday to Friday
should have a much smaller impact on the community. Since
there are no food stores in the area and the students would
have only one -half hour for lunch, the daily activity would be
"uncharacteristic or an additional disturbance to this
particular residential neighborhood" is therefore a question
of judgement. No complaints by abutters is significant."
Mr. Weil said he was inclined to vote in favor of the application.
Alex Ghiselin said that he found some of Mr. Weil's argument
persuasive but differed on his reading of the zoning ordinance
regulations. Ghiselin also noted the validity of the opinion from
the Legal Department. He said that if the applicant wanted to be
able to teach 12 students, then 12 cars coming and going from the
property at the same time each day would generate considerable
traffic and definitely have a detrimental impact on the
neighborhood which is specifically prohibited by the ordinance for
a home occupation. Ghiselin said he would tend to agree with the
Planning Board's recommendation that only four cars be allowed to
be parked outside of the garage. Mr. Weil agreed that 12 students
would create too much of an impact on the neighborhood, and said
that if the application was approved, the Board could place
limitations on the number of students and the number of cars
allowed, and those restrictions would limit the amount of impact
the home occupation would have. Weil said he thought that a limit
Of six students would be acceptable.
Chairman Buscher said that the decision was obviously a complicated
3
`.,, ..►`
one and is giving this Board a great deal of difficulty. Buscher
said he thought the reason for the difficulty for him was that he
personally did not have a particular objection to what the
applicant was proposing to do. He said he understands that
economic times are tough and that people need to do what they could
to make a living. The applicant is describing a business that will
have a limited number of students and has promised to abide by any
restrictions imposed by the Board. Although Buscher said he was
sympathetic to the needs of the applicant, he did not honestly
believe was what was envisioned by the home occupation ordinance
included a school type situation like the applicant has in mind
because it would prove to be too intensive. Buscher said he did
not believe that the Board could change the petition to ask for a
permit for a private school either because it really does not
qualify as a school in that sense. A home occupation is a separate
and distinct entity since it is neither a mixed use or a residence.
A home occupation is one use. There are two activities being
carried on in the home but by law the home occupation is a single
use. It is not two uses. Buscher said he did not think this
applicant's request was a particularly egregious one, but the
Ordinance specifically sets down parameters on what is allowable in
certain zones.
Alex Ghiselin said he might be willing to grant the Special Permit
providing that the number of students and the number of cars be
limited.
Weil said he would be willing to vote for approval on the basis of
six students and four cars. Weil said if the conditions were not
agreeable to the applicants, then the applicant did not have to
start up the school.
Chairman Buscher said the applicant has applied for a Special
Permit to operate an electrolysis school at her home at 582 Spring
Street, Leeds under the rubric of a home occupation. Buscher said
that he views a home occupation as an activity that is customarily
carried on in the home primarily by an occupant of house. He
stated "I believe that at a home occupation there is one client at
a time going in and out of the business; there is a service
performed on the site; or there is something the applicant does
themselves like painting or pottery." Buscher said a home
occupation should not have a bunch of people coming and going at
the same time which causes an impact on the traffic in the
neighborhood. Buscher said he did not think that the applicant met
the criteria for a home occupation. Buscher expressed concern
about the ability of the applicants to restrict the number of cars
on the property as a result of the school. He said there was
really no way to enforce or police a restriction on the number of
cars at the site. Buscher said that although he did not think the
home occupation would be extremely detrimental, that it would
certainly be noticeable in the neighborhood. A home occupation, by
definition, should be unobtrusive in the neighborhood. Buscher
4
noted that a suggestion was made that the applicant may need to
apply under §5.2 for a Special Permit to operate a school in a URA
zone. Buscher said he agreed with the Law Department's opinion
that the request creates a mixed use and a mixed use requires a
variance in a URA zone. A variance is a much more stringent permit
to obtain. Buscher said that he regretfully is forced to vote in
the negative on the request for Special Permit.
M. Sanford Weil moved to approve the request for special Permit
with the condition that the applicant is limited to six students
and that only four cars would be allowed on the site. Alex
Ghiselin seconded the motion. The motion was denied with a 1:2
vote. (Weil voted in favor, Buscher and Ghiselin voted against).
5