The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals on June 12 approved a special permit allowing Leary Building Company to complete a 12×12 three‑season porch at 23 Fort Hill Terrace that creates a new rear‑setback violation. The board voted unanimously (3–0) to grant the discretionary permit, and added a condition that the structure's roof not be converted into any second‑floor deck, balcony, or walkout.

The permit was requested after the owner and contractor began construction and a stop‑work order followed a complaint from a rear abutter. Tim Leary, owner of Leary Building Company, told the board he had submitted zoning paperwork in August 2024 and later obtained building permits, but that a measurement error in the rear setback went undetected and construction advanced until a neighbor complaint prompted a stop order. Leary said the project is a 12×12 porch intended to match the house, and acknowledged the error: "I gotta eat it and own it. It was a mistake," he said.

Leary explained that the porch's closest point to the rear lot corner measures about 13 feet from that reference point, a change the contractor described as a roughly 7‑foot encroachment from the previously stated dimension. The board reviewed site plans, an assessor/locust map, and multiple photos supplied by the applicant and the complaining neighbor. Planning staff advised the board that the relevant ordinance language is in the section governing "change, extension, or alteration of legally preexisting nonconforming structures" (identified in materials as §350‑9.3), which provides the board the discretion to approve a change if it "will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming single‑ or two‑family structure." Planning staff also referenced Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40A (M.G.L. c.40A) time limits for legal nonconforming status (staff noted a six‑year rule for permitted projects in their review).

Several abutting property photographs were displayed and discussed; one rear neighbor provided a single photo showing the porch from a vantage point on 109 South Street. The owner/occupant who spoke at the hearing said the neighbor's photo was taken with noticeable magnification and that direct views into the backyard are limited by garages, mature plantings and the neighborhood's terraced topography. The homeowner (who identified himself as the applicant's client) indicated a willingness to discuss additional screening, including planting or fencing, to address privacy concerns.

Board members emphasized that the special permit standard focuses on whether the change is "substantially more detrimental" and that the board must apply that discretionary standard regardless of whether construction had begun. After discussion — including that the property already contains side‑setback nonconformities, which the planning department said allows consideration under §350‑9.3 — the board concluded the porch would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and voted to approve the special permit. Maureen Scanlon moved to approve and Aaron seconded; roll call votes were taken and were unanimously yes.

Conditions recorded by the board include: the roof and parapet detail must remain a roof (not a deck or balcony) and no second‑floor walkout or balcony will be permitted. Staff will follow up on permit amendment steps and any documentation required to close the stop‑work order and finalize inspection requirements.