10D-017 TACEY (2) i
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Hampshire, ss. Superior Court
Civil Action No. 89-309
BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY ]
OF NORTHAMPTON, l
Plaintiff ]
l
VS. ]
l
TACY CONSTRUCTION CO. , INC. , et al ]
Defendants l
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This action came on to be heard before the Court, Murphy, J.
presiding , upon motion of the defendant Tacy Construction Co. , Inc .
a/k/a Tacy Excavating Co. Inc. for summary judgment and to dismiss ,
and pursuant to Mass . R. Civ. P. 56 , the parties having been heard,
and the court having considered the pleadings , briefs , affidavits
and opposition briefs filed, finds that there is no genuine issue
as to material fact and that the plaintiff , Building Inspector of
the City of Northampton is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law;
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1 . Judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff , Building
F%UE COPY
srlft7tor of the City of Northampton and the constructive grant of
_mercy Construction Co. , Inc. is hereby annulled;
2 . �CtWq4Mr
� s 1 within thirty days send attested copies
thereof to the Building Inspector, Zoning Board of Appeals and the
Clerk of the City of Northampton.
Dated at Northampton, Massachusetts this First day of
December, 1989 .
FORM OF JUDGMENT APPROVED:
By
Jo F. Murp J j C erk/Magi ,t�'ate
J s�tice of the S p for Court ( t�
[` P SIE
FNON 1 51988
8
DECISION OF DEPT,OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPE NORTHAMPTON,MA,01060
I
i
i
j
I
At a meeting held on November 2, 1988 , the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the City of Northampton voted to sustain the
Appeal of Raymond LaBarge of the issuance by the Building
j Inspector of Foundation Permit 4553 to Eugene Tacy for the
commencement of construction of a Construction Supply
Establishment at 175 Main Street, Leeds. Present and voting i
ii were Chairman Robert D Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and
William Brandt.
I
i.
!; The findings were as follows: I
I
The property is zoned Special Industrial. Prior to the
division of what was Parcel 7 of Sheet 10D of the
Northampton Assessor' s Maps, the entire parcel was used as a
j construction yard. A construction yard use in an SI Zone
requires a Special Permit. Since the construction yard use
of the site predates the Special Permit requirement, it is a
'I I
pre-existing, nonconforming use, and as such, is regulated
by Chapter 40A, Section 6 of the Massachusetts General Laws,
and Section 9 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. Chapter
40A states that a pre-existing, nonconforming use may be
changed, altered, or expanded only after a Finding by the
Zoning Board of Appeals that the change, alteration, or
expansion is not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the current use. [Section 9. 3 (b) ,
Northampton Zoning Ordinance] .
Applicant proposes to build a 60 ' x 60 ' building on the
property, and to use that building to house a construction
supply establishment, an allowed use in a Special Industrial
Zone. Applicant' s original application for zoning relief in
1984, and the 1987 application, indicated that the building
would be used both for the nonconforming use (repairing and
storing equipment) , and the proposed new use. The
application for which a permit was granted in 1988 indicated
that the building would be used only for the construction
supply establishment. If the nonconforming use is still
present on the lot, the addition of either a building or a
new use, even if that use is allowed, is an expansion of
that nonconforming use and requires a Finding by the Zoning
Board of Appeals that the proposed use is not substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use.
j
i
DECISION OF THE NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN THE
MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF RAYMOND LABARGE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A
BUILDING PERMIT TO EUGENE TACY. PAGE TWO.
The Planning Board did in fact approve an "Approval not
required under the subdivision control law" for the divided
site. The only zoning issue resolved by the approval of
li such a plan is that each lot, as created in said plan, has
sufficient frontage for that zoning district. It does not
give any guarantee that the lots will qualify as building
lots. Section 6. 4 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance
states that "No lot. . .may be divided so as not to conform
with a provision of this ordinance. No group of lots in a
common ownership may be separated or the ownership of one or
i more lots changed so as not to be in conformance with a
it provision of this ordinance. " The pre-existing,
nonconforming use has been shifted to a fractional portion
of the original lot, thereby intensifying that use, which is
an alteration which requires a Finding by the Zoning Board I
of Appeals. Until the issue of the intensification of the {
I� nonconforming use on one ;lot is resolved, neither of the two
i lots shown on the "AIR" Plan conform to the Zoning
I� Ordinance.
I� The Building Inspector' s :issuance of the Foundation Permit
( #553 ) was erroneous.
I
i
Robert C. 8uscher, Chairman
i
� b /
Dr. Peter Laband
William Brand
D _LIEL �
I
t11OpV 151
"UiL DING INSPECTIONS
'!Oil, iilA.0 0
NOV ! �
TACY PROPERTY
ni
DEPT.OF BUfLvi,r 4G r„SE`;1`iai'I°>
NORTHAMPTON. ;'AFi 01060 1,
The following is a chronological history of the zoning
issues which have appeared during the Tacys' attempt to construct
a building on their lot on Main Street in Leeds. A legal
explanation of the issues follows the history.
In 1984, Tacy is operating a contractor' s yard (open storage of
raw materials used in construction) on the site. That use at
that time requires a special permit in the SI district. The use,
however, by Tacu and his predecessors, predates the permit
requirement so it is considered a pre-existing non-conforming
use.
1. September 21, 1984
Tacy files his first application for zoning relief to the ZBA.
It is a request for a finding under Section 9 . 3 (B) of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit expansion of his non-conforming use by ( 1)
constructing a 40 X 44 foot, one 4tory building and ( 2) by adding
a new use, that of construction supply establishment.
2. November 28, 1984
The ZBA votes to grant a "special permit" to Tacy to construct
the building and allow the new use. It appears the ZBA may have
granted improper relief since the application to the board asked
for a "finding" and the board cannot grant relief which has not
been requested. The point is moot, however, since Tacy did not
exercise the permit within eighteen ( 18 ) months as required and
so the permit expired by operation of law.
3 . January 20, 1987
Tacy applies to the ZBA for the same relief requested in the
September 21, 1984 application.
4. February 18, 1987
The ZBA holds a public hearing on the January application. It is
discovered that Tacy is actually requesting a 60 X 60 foot
building rather than the 40 X 44 foot one previously requested.
The ZBA allows Tacy to withdraw the application.
5. March 4, 1987
Tacy files a new application asking for a finding for the
addition of the construction supply establishment use and the
construction of a 60 X 60 foot building.
E kp
NOV
6. April 15, 1987 m~�
,DDEPT,DE UILDI�G NSC"
Tacy files an application for a building perm' t fOWRlp o�nPP, a. o
building with the Building Inspector.
7. May 6, 1987
The ZBA denies the March 4, 1987, request for a finding.
8. May 22, 1987
Tacy files an appeal of the ZBA denial of the request for a
finding in Superior Court.
9. June 12, 1987
Tacy files an appeal to the ZBA from the Building Inspector' s
refusal to issue a building permit on the April 15, 1987
application.
10 . August 12, 1987
The ZBA votes to uphold the Building Inspector' s refusal to issue
a building permit on the April 15 , 1987 application.
11. August 19, 1987
Tacy submits a ANR application to the Planning Board. The ANR
plan divides the Leeds site into two parcels. Since both parcels
have the required frontage for the zone, the plan is approved.
12 . October 6, 1987
Tacy amends his Superior Court complaint to include the August
12, 1987 decision of the ZBA.
13 . August 29, 1988
Tacy files an application for a building permit with the Building
Inspector. It requests a permit !for construction of a 60 X 60
building for use as a construction supply establishment on the
easterly lot shown on the ANR plan. The foundation permit is
issued the same day.
14. September 7, 1988
Councillor LaBarge files a complaint with the Building Inspector
alleging that the issuance of the !foundation permit on August 29,
1988 , was improper.
15. September 22, 1988
The Building Inspector replies to Mr. LaBarge' s complaint stating
that the permit was correctly issued.
16. September 23, 1988
Mr. LaBarge files an appeal to the ZBA on his complaint to the
Building Inspector.
17 . October 3, 1988
The Building Inspector issues a building permit for the Tacy site
even though he acknowledges he has been told that, at the very
least, the construction requires site plan approval by the
Planning Board.
18. October 17, 1988
The ZBA holds a public hearing on Mr. LaBarge' s complaint.
ZONING ISSUES
A. THE ORIGINAL NON-CONFORMING USE.
The Tacy property is zoned Special Industrial. Currently, a
construction yard use in an SI zone requires a special permit.
Since the construction yard use of the site predates the special
permit requirement, it is, therefore, a pre-existing non-
conforming use.
Non-conforming uses are primarily regulated by Chapter 40A,
Section 6 , of the Massachusetts General Laws and Section 9 of the
Northampton Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 40A states that a non-
conforming use may be changed, altered, or expanded only after a
finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the change,
alteration, or expansion is not substantially more detrimental to
the neighborhood than the current use. This state statute is
echoed in Section 9. 3 (b) of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance.
B. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.
Mr. Tacy proposed to add (1) a 60 X 60 foot building to his
property, and ( 2) to use that building to house a construction
supply establishment, an allowed use in an SI zone. Mr. Tacy' s
original application for zoning relief in 1984 and the 1987
application indicated that the building would be used both for
the non-conforming use (to repair and to store equipment) and
the new proposed use. The application for which a permit was
granted in 1988 indicated the building would be only for the
construction supply establishment.'
If the non-conforming use is still present on the lot, the
addition of either a building or a new use, even if that use is
allowed, is an expansion of that non-conforming use requiring a
finding by the ZBA.
C. THE DIVISION OF THE LOT.
The Planning Board did approve an "approval not required under
the subdivision control law" for the Tacy site. The only zoning
issue resolved by the approval of such a plan is that each lot as
created in said plan has sufficient frontage for that zoning
district. It does not give any guarantee that the lots will
qualify as building lots.
Mr. Tacy has stated that he has moved the non-conforming
construction yard use to the westerly lot shown on the ANR plan
and that it is no longer present on the easterly lot on which the
building is being constructed. If this is the case, there are
still two problems outstanding.
First, if the construction yard use has been moved onto a
smaller lot, that is an alteration of the non-conforming use by
intensifying it. This would require a finding by the ZBA.
Second, Section 6. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance states that no lot
may be divided if such division causes the lot not to conform
with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, until
the issue of the intensification of the non-conforming use on one
lot is resolved, neither of the two lots shown on the ANR plan
conform to the Zoning Ordinance.
There remains the subsidiary issue of confirming that the non-
conforming use has, indeed, been moved from the easterly lot. It
would seem some sort of written document from Mr. Tacy to that
effect should be required.
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 2, 1988 Meeting
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7:00 p. m. on
Wednesday, November 2, 1988 in Council Chambers, Wallace J.
Puchalski Municipal Building, to announce a Decision on the
Appeal of Raymond LaBarge of the Building Inspector' s issuance of
a Foundation Permit ( #553 ) to Eugene Tacy for the commencement of
construction of a Construction Supply Establishment at 175 Main
Street, Leeds. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C.
Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and William Brandt. Dr. Laband moved
the minutes of the October 17 , 1988 Meeting be accepted without
reading. Mr. Brandt seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Ch. Buscher summarized the chronology, substance and facts of the
case. He said that Atty. Melnik' s position is that the building
in question is allowed by right once Tacy moved the construction
equipment to the other lot, and "One ought to be able to use
one ' s lot for what is allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. " Ch.
Buscher went on, "At first blush that' s a very appealing
proposition, but Mr. Tacy stumbled over an obscure and technical
provision of the ordinance by intensifying the use on one parcel,
and violated Section 6 . 4 which states , 'No lot. . .may be divided
so as not to conform with a provision of this ordinance. No
group of lots in a common ownership may be separated or the
ownership of one or more lots changed so as not to be in
conformance with a provision of this ordinance. ' What Mr. .Tacy
did was subdivide an existing lot that had a pre-existing
nonconforming use on it, and shifted that use to a fractional
portion of that lot. The division of the lot is not in
compliance with the Zoning ordinance, even though he has a
perfect right to divide the lot. " Ch. Buscher went on to
describe what he saw as Mr. Tacy' s three alternatives: 1) He can
seek a Finding for the fractional part of the lot where he
conducts his previous business more intensively, 2) abandon the
pre-existing nonconforming use entirely and then use either or
both lots for what' s allowed, or 3 ) continue with the pre-
existing nonconforming use and abandon the erection of the
building. "This is obscure and frustrating to Mr. Tacy, but I
would vote to uphold Mr. LaBarge' s appeal. "
Mr. Brandt stated, "I too will vote in favor of allowing the
appeal of Mr. LaBarge. Moving; the pre-existing, nonconforming
use to a smaller lot intensifies the use, therefore he needs a
Finding. The construction supply business is allowed by right,
but the equipment business is not. Mr. Tacy does not run his
business in a vacuum. I will support the Building Permit the day
he abandons the equipment use. "
Dr. Laband said that he also agreed as to the intensification
issue, and the division of the lot being "against 6 . 4. " He felt
that Assistant City Solicitor Fallon' s four page summary and
opinion should be made part of the Decision, and finally, "I
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 2, 1988 Meeting
Page Two
agree the Building Inspector' s action was erroneous. "
Mr. Brandt moved to uphold the Appeal of Mr. LaBarge, Dr. Laband
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci,
Board Secretary,
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
October 17 , 1988 Special Meeting
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals held a Special Meeting on
Monday, October 17, 1988 in Council Chambers, Wallace J.
Puchalski Municipal Building, to consider the Appeal of Raymond
LaBarge of the Building Inspector' s issuance of a Foundation
Permit ( #553 ) to Eugene Tacy for the commencement of construction
of a Construction Supply Establishment at 175 Main Street, Leeds.
Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter
Laband, and William Brandt. The meeting was called to order at
5 : 12 p. m.
Ch. Buscher read the Legal Notice as published twice in the Daily
Hampshire Gazette. He also read the Application for the Appeal
as submitted by Coun. LaBarge. He cautioned the many members of
the public that "This is not a trial of Mr. Duclos, " and opened
the Public Hearing by asking Coua. LaBarge to speak. He stated,
"I believe Building Permit #553 violates Section 9. 3 (b) , and
violates the ZBA Decision of August 12 , 1987, to which Mr. Tacy
has filed an Appeal. " Ch. Buscher asked if anyone present wanted
to speak in favor of the appeal, and there was no response.
Atty. Patrick Melnik rose to speak on behalf of his client, Mr.
Tacy. He briefly recounted the chronology of events leading to
the present. He mentioned that when he was last before this
Board in 1987 , Mr. Weil "said the Board would issue a Building
Permit if Tacy divided the lot. " Ch. Buscher corrected Mr.
Melnik by saying, "Mr. Weil said he would, not the Board. " Mr.
Melnik stated that Mr. Nimohay also told him to divide the lot
and he would grant a Building Permit. He said the clear sense
was that if Tacy divided the lot into two legal lots, he would
get a Building Permit for the lot not encumbered by construction
equipment. Tacy then divided the lot. Mr. Melnik said Asst.
City Solicitor Fallon wrote thatiif Tacy had 120 ' of frontage,
and proper setbacks, he could got a Building Permit. "She made
that statement before the Court oe the Appeal. " Mr. Melnik said
that Mr. Tacy had a right to rely on such a statement. Ch.
Buscher asked, "When you asked for these admissions, did you
specifically ask about abandonment: of the contractor's lot?" Mr.
Melnik replied, "He divided the lot, and terminated all
construction business activity on the lot where he wants to build
his building. Lot 17A, not the adjacent lot, is in question.
The lot adjacent is not his--he has no legal interest in it. "
Ch. Buscher asked who owned the Mother lot, and was told, "The
Tacy Corporation. " Ch. Buscher asked, "Who owns the
corporation?" Mr. Melnik replied' "Members of the Tacy family.
Gene Tacy is not connected to the corporation. Richard is
President and Director of the corporation. Gene and Jim own Lot
17A. The other lot is owned by The Tacy Corporation, in which
Gene has an interest. " Mr. Melnik then consulted the Table of
Dimensional and Density Requirements, Section 6 . 2 of the
Northampton Zoning Ordinance, and compared the dimensions of Lot
17A to those required by the Ordinance. He said, "As to the use
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
October 17, 1988 Special Meeting
Page Two
wanted on Lot 17A, Construction Supply Establishment, Section
5. 12( 3 ) allows this by right. Mr. Tacy has gone through all the
hurdles. Mr. Duclos issued him a Building Permit, and I don' t
know why this has come under such fire. Duclos was obligated to
issue this Building Permit. Mr. LaBarge raises 9.3 and he is
wrong. Forget the adjoining property--this is a legal lot. "
The Chair asked for comments from members of the public who
supported Mr. Melnik' s position, and the following people spoke:
Henry Cabot, Florence: "I feel there are political and personal
reasons why this Building Permit was denied. " r
Tom Rockett, 7 Oakland Rd. , Leeds: "In the past, there' s been a
great deal of harassment by elected and appointed officials. . . "
At this point, Ch. Buscher vigorously took Mr. Rockett to task,
stating, "I will not let you attack this unpaid Board which
doesn' t get a goddam cent for serving. "
i
Eugene Tacy introduced himself,' and said, "I believe I 've
complied with everything. We snood in the Building Inspector' s
office with Duclos and Tewhill 4n August,- went over all the
paperwork, and the foundation p4rmit was issued. I poured the
foundation, got the plans for thepre-fab building and gave them
to the Building Inspector. Four or five hours after I received
the Building Permit, the Police Dept. came to -my door and revoked
everything. I find nothing in the ordinance that says I can' t
build. " He then read the definition of "abandonment" from the
"Definitions ' section of the ordinance. Dr. Laband asked, "Did
you discontinue the construction business on both lots?" "No,
just on one, " was Mr. Tacy' s reply. He then read Section 2. 1 of
the Ordinance, and added, "I have 'done everything this book says
I must do. If the Board can tell me what I 've done wrong, I ' ll
listen. All I 'm trying to do is make a living. "
James MacRostie, 131 N. Maple St. , Florence, said, "I think they
were 'originally denied on a technicality. Then they found a
technicality to allow them to do what they want. I don' t see any
reason why they can't use their property effectively.".
Mr. tiandt asked if those people who had spoken lived within 300 '
of the Tacy' s property, and the general response was "No. " He
said, "We have to protect the rights of the city at-large, and
the neighborhood. Mr. Melnik asked if Mr. LaBarge was an
abutter, and there was no discernable reply.
Kelly Creighton said, "I support the Tacys. "
Peg Tacy, 32 Lake St. , Florence said, "As far as I know,
objecting abutters can' t prevent something allowed 'as a matter of
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
October 17, 1988 Special Meeting
Page Three
right. Am I correct?" Ch. Buscher replied, "Yes, but is this
such an instance?"
Marcia Humphrey, 185 Main St. , Leeds said that those objecting to
the building didn' t understand that when the Chair previously
called for those "in favor of the appeal" to speak, that he was
referring to those opposed to the building. She stated, "I 'm an
abutter renting at 185 Main St. for four years. I don' t know the
legalities, but if the construction equipment business that was
on two lots is now on one, it needs a ruling. Many neighbors
object, but some don' t want to speak out. Mr. Tacy says everyone
on Main St. supports him--not so. "
Larry Smith Senior Planner Office of Planning and Development
stated, "The issue is essentially when a nonconforming use on a
parcel is squeezed onto half the land, is that an alteration or
change of use by intensifying the use?" Dr. Laband asked, "If we
divide the lot and condense the usage on the other lot, we have a
new issue. How does that affect Lot 17A?" Mr. Smith replied, "A
Form A does not make any attestation other than there is adequate
frontage on a city street. If,ithere is adequate frontage, the
Planning Board must sign the Form A. The Planning Board, Kathy
Fallon and Ted Tewhill agreed that the Planning Board had to sign
it, but we knew there were zoning problems. He referred to and
read from Sections 6 . 3 and 6. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, and
presented the Board members with a copy of Miss Fallon' s opinion
dated Sept. 12, 1988 . He added, "They are also in violation of
the Site Plan Review Ordinance adopted July 7, 1988 , Section
10. 11. No one is trying to prevent them from doing what is
allowed. He' s entitled to either the nonconforming use or the
new use, but not both. The "site" to me is the two lots
combined. " Dr. Laband asked, "If he were to discontinue the
nonconforming use on both parcels, the Building Permit would be
legal on 17A, right?" Mr. Smith responded in the affirmative.
Dr. Laband continued, "This is 'deja heard' --we decided that once
already. What' s new is the subdivided lot. "
Mr. Melnik interrupted with, "Point of order! LaBarge' s appeal
is the only issue before us. " Ch. Buscher shot back. "Don't be
so disingenuous. You know damn well what' s going on here. Come
on, call a spade a spade. Stop waltzing around the issue." Mr.
Melnik replied, "The only thing before the Board is this Building
Permit. " Ch. Buscher' s response was, "This is not a legal lot
under 6 . 3 and 6. 4. " Mr. Melnik responded, "He has divided the
lot. He has abandoned the use. You have a patent bias in this
case, " and made reference to Ch. Buscher' s participation in a
meeting requested by the Mayor to mediate the situation. Ch.
Buscher replied, "It' s part of my job to attend a meeting at the
request of the Mayor. "
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
October 17, 1988 Special Meeting
Page Four
Mr. Tacy continued, "When I started applying five years ago. . . "
and then read the definition of "Construction Supply
Establishment" from the Ordinance. "That' s what I 've been doing
for ten years. I have construction equipment and I maintain
materials there. If you can read that definition, and tell me
that' s not what I am, I ' ll listen. " He then went into a
description of offers he said were made by Coun. LaBarge to buy
the subject property. "He offered me $50,000 and that was
baloney. Then he offered $250 ,000 and that was baloney. He
tried to take it by Eminent Domain for elderly housing. " Ch.
Buscher asked, "Is this relevant?" Mr. Tacy went on, "I have
three people in Leeds who heard LaBarge say if he can' t buy the
land, he ' d see that I could never get to use it. "
Mr. Brandt interceded, defending the Zoning Ordinance as an
instrument "that generally works. We are charged with protecting
people' s rights. Sometimes things aren' t black and white. We
are not trying to screw you--we are trying to protect the city. "
Mr. Tacy asked, "Would the Board agree to this? If I were to
turn over all my construction equipment to a construction supply
company, would I then be allowed to have that building as a
matter of right? If all the stuff I owned was turned over to
Tacy Construction Co. , could I have my building?"
Coun. LaBarge interjected, "I want to answer Mr. Tacy' s statement
that I would try to get his land by eminent domain. " At this
point, all pretense of decorum vaporized and members of the
audience began talking and shouting to one another, and Mr. Tacy
strode across the room to where Coun. LaBarge was sitting and
made a comment about how he was the person who told Coun. LaBarge
about Eminent Domain. At this point, Dr. Laband announced, "I
will not put up with these outbursts! "
Atty. Melnik then stated, "I ' ll call this a tagalong--a red
herring, " referring to the Site Plan Review requirement. "When
Tacy applied in August, no one asked for a site plan. After 35
days, the Site Plan review is assumed to be granted. " He reads
from the ordinance.
Ch. Buscher asked Asst. City Solicitor Fallon if she had anything
to say. She replied, "If the nonconforming use is wiped off both
lots, he can build as a matter of right. There is a procedure in
place for site plan review. If he pushed the nonconforming use
onto one lot, he needs a Finding. It would be an intensification
on one lot. There are also Flood Plain considerations. If he
does abandon the nonconforming use, we will need a document
stating it will never be resumed. "
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
October 17, 1988 Special Meeting
Page Five
Mr. Brandt stated, "Just so there's no question later, are there
any reasons to deny besides Flood Plain, intensified use and Site
Plain Reviews? Ms. Fallon replied in the negative.
Peg Tacy asked if any building over 2,000 SF required Site Plan
Review. Mr. Smith replied that single-family homes were exempt.
Henry Cabot, 81 North Main St. , Florence, stated, "There ' s a lot
less material up there now than last year. What does Lot #1 have
to do with Lot #2? I 'm confused. " Ch. Buscher replied, "A lot
of zoning gets into technicalities which many people think are
stupid and counterproductive, but the whole engine functions. " -
Marcia Humphrey read from the "Purpose" section of the
Introduction to the Zoning ordinance, and said, "I want to speak
to the nature of the neighborhood. This is a detrimental
change. " Mr. Cabot stated there a lot of apartments in the area,
and the tenants don' t have any rights, just the owner. Helen
McCarthy, 185 Main St. , Leeds spoke up and said, "I am the owner
of that building, and I am definitely opposed. "
Peg Tacy stated, "What Mr. Tacy wants to do is put a building up
in back so he can put some of his machinery inside. It will
enhance the lot. There is not ;going to be a hardware store or
lumber yard. "
A resident of 183 Main Street [whose name was not clearly
enunciated and is therefore not known] said, "I look at the
property every day. My concerns the lot that' s the eyesore.
The building would be a good idea if the equipment were gone. I
thought there was supposed to be buffer build. "
I
There being no one else with statements to make, Mr. Brandt moved
the Public Hearing be closedl and the matter taken under
advisement. Dr. Laband seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously. Ch. Buscher announced to those present that the
Decision will be announced at an open meeting--not a Public
Hearing.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p. m. Also present, in addition to
those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary.
Robert C. uscher, Chairman
` Trial Court of Massachusetts DOCKET NUMBER
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT "+- ,
CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET HAMPSHIRE �9 O 73
. µ
Division
PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S)
---� p---• lding Inspector for The City of
Eugene Tacy and James J."'' .
thampton et al .
ATTORNEY(S) FIRM NAME. ADDRESS AND TEL.) "`F{ .RNEY(S)(if known)
Patrick J. Melnikg A� hleen Fallon
110 King Street ^ FEB 2 4 '1 4� y Hall
Northampton, MA (413 ) 5840 Main Street
Board of Barr Overseers # (Required) DEPL OF BUILDING C'ON Northampton, MA 01060 (413 ) 586-6950
ORIGIN CODE AND TRACK DESIGNATION L
Place an ® in one box only:
I
I
EX 1. F01 Original Complaint ❑ 4. F04 District Ct. Appeal c231, s. 97 (X)
❑ 2. F02 Removal to Sup. Ct. c231, s. 104 (F) ❑ 5. F05 Reactivated after Rescript; Relief from
❑ 3. F03 Retransfer to Sup. Ct. c231, s. 102C (X) judgment/order (Mass. R Civ. P. 60 (X)
❑ 6. E10 Summary process appeal (X)
TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See Reverse Side)
CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE?
CO2 Zoning Appeal , M.G.L. , C. 40A (F ) rx Yes ❑ No
1. PLEASE GIVE A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: (Required in ALL Types of Actions)
The Zoning Board of Appeals has denied the Tacys a building permit on
their property in Leeds , Massachusetts and the Tacys are appealing that
decision. The Tacys are being denied a permit for the construction of
a Construction Supply Establishment .
2. IN A CONTRACT ACTION (CODE A) OR A TORT ACTION (CODE B) STATE, WITH PARTICULARITY,
MONEY DAMAGES WHICH WOULD WARRANT A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT RECOVERY
WOULD EXCEED S25,000:
Received at City Clerk's Office
RTHAMPTON, MASS.
B
f � 1
Daft ��; ,z ,:�,,_,=T/��,7
Tima_
3. PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND DIVISION, ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT. I have previously filed a complaint 88-350 and
an amended complaint in this Court . However, as I have not received a
decision on my amended complaint , I am refiling the entire complaint . There
is a partia]Syhearing scheduled for March 9 , 1989 .
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECO/RD OR PLAINTIFF DATE
='•✓�/LCGIc' /r'l�ls�r'� </�-iCJ —/'tea ��� E,f4 �"��'
OMCE USE ONLY—DO • BEWWTHIS LINE
DISPOSITION RECEIVED
A. Judgment Entered B. No Judgment Entered BY:
❑ 1. Before jury trial or non-jury hearing ❑ 6. Transferred to District DATE
❑ 2. During jury trial or non-jury hearing Court under G.L. c.231, DISPOSITION ENTERED
❑ 3. After jury verdict s.102C.
❑ 4. After court finding Disposition Date BY:
❑ 5. After post trial motion DATE:
pnc_Fiao _..
PATRICK J.MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Telephone 413-584.6
Febuary 22 , 1989_
ri
n�
City Clerk of the 4
City of Northampton ' F8 2 10 1
City Hall
Northampton, Ma 01060 DEPT.OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
NORTHAMPTON,MA.01060
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear Sirs :
Please be advised that I represent Eugene Tacy and James J.
Tacy, owners of property located on Main Street, Leeds ,
Hampshire County, Massachusetts.
They have filed an Appeal of the Decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton which decision is
dated February 3, 1989 . A copy of the Decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals to which the Complaint refers is attached to
this Notice.
This Notice of Appeal to the Decision of the Zoning Board
of Appeals is filed pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts
General Laws , Chapter 40 (a) , Section 17 .
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Melnik
PJM/jn
enc .
Received at City C19W$Office
NORTHAMPTON. 5.
arc+ s 14,
rA1 ' '_ .r....�.........�
c
�:.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE, S . S . DEPARTMENT OF THE
TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION No.
EUGENE A. TACY and ]
JAMES J. TACY, ]
Plaintiffs ]
Jointly seeking ]
one Recovery )
]
V. ) COMPLAINT
)
BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR
� �, '• gyp CY/ F
THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
EDWARD J. TEWHILL, ) "`
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ] s
ACTING THROUGH ITS ) € e FEB 4 i989
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ]
AND ITS MEMBERS, NAMELY ) -°
DEPT.OFC9trtr'o4f.Im' .„3
DR. PETER LABAND OF
40 NORFOLK AVENUE, ] .,.�.. _.,.
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS ]
WILLIAM BRANDT OF 314 SOUTH ]
STREET, NORTHAMPTON, ]
MASSACHUSETTS )
ROBERT C. BUSCHER, ]
54 HILLSIDE ROAD, )
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS ]
AND THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, ]
Defendants l
COUNT I
APPEAL OF THF ZONING_BOARDOF_APP EALS_
OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTNOMASSACHUSETTS
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS , CHAPTER 401A? , SECTION 17
1 . The Plaintiff , Eugene: A. Tacy and James J. Tacy are
residents of the City of Northampton and are the owners of
property located on Main Street , Leeds , Hampshire County ,
Massachusetts , which property is the subject of this
Complaint.
2 . The City of Northampton acting through its Zoning Board of
LawO$ice Appeals and its members , namely Dr. Peter Laband of 40
PATRICKJ.MEI.NIK Norfolk Avenue , Northampton, William Brandt , 314 South
110 King Street Street, Northampton and Robert C. Buscher of 54 Hillside
Northampton,MAO 1060 Road, Northampton and the Building Inspector for the City
of' Northampton, Edward J. Tewhill , are the Defendants
413-584-6750
_2_ j
tof ....r.......,,.... ..�, .,�.
herein. The City of Northampton s t1�R � 1 is
Count and each and every Count in i
3 . The Plaintiffs , Eugene A. Tacy and James J. Tacy, together
with other members of their family, were the owners of a
certain tract or parcel of land which they acquired on
June 1 , 1982 from George D. Tobin. The Plaintiffs and
other members of their family applied for a Special Permit
and a Use Permit to allow the use of the entire premises
for the open storage of raw materials and as a
Construction Supply Establishment at various times
beginning in September of 1984 and continuing until June
of 1987 . The premises are in a Special Industrial Zone in
the City of Northampton and the use of the premises as a
Construction Supply Establishment, the use which is sought
by the Plaintiffs herein, is a use allowed by right in
that Zoning District.
4 . The Building Inspector of the City of Northampton has
denied the use of the premises as a Construction Supply
Establishment as long as the premises are used in
connection with the operation of the business of Tacy
Excavating Construction Company, Inc . as a Contractor ' s
Yard. -
5 .
ard. -5 . The Plaintiffs in this action and their predecessors have
previously used the premises as a Contractor ' s Yard for
the open storage of raw materials and construction
equipment which is a use allowed by Special Permit in this
District. The Plaintiffs have contended through the
Building Inspector and the Board of Appeals for the City
of Northampton that they either have a pre-existing
non-conforming use of the premises for the open storage of
raw materials and construction equipment or that they were
granted a Special Permit for this use as a result of an
application for a Special Permit filed on September 21 ,
1984 .
6 . The merits of the contentions of the Plaintiffs with
respect to the operation of the premises as a Contractor ' s
Yard and the merits of whether or not the Plaintiffs in
this action are entitled to a permit for the use of the
premises as a Construction Supply Establishment on the
entire premises is the subject of a previous Civil Action
filed in this Court , Hampshire County Superior Court ,
Civil Action No. 87-138 . The Plaintiffs have also
LawOffiee contended in Hampshire County Superior Court , Civil Action
PATRICKJ.MELNIK No. 87-138 that they are entitled to the use of the
110 King Street premises as a Construction Supply Establishment only for
Northampton,MA 01060 the entire premises even if they are not entitled to use
the entire premises jointly as a Construction Supply
413-584-6750 Establishment and as a Contractor ' s Yard. The Plaintiffs
-3-
had previously applied for the use of the entire parcel
for a Construction Supply Establishment . This was denied
by the Zoning Board of Appeals and that denial is also an
issue that is the subject of Superior Court, Civil Action
No. 87-138 .
7 . Subsequent to filing the previous Civil Action in this
matter which deals with the use of the premises in their
entirety for use as either a Construction Supply
Establishment only or together with their pre-existing
non-conforming use or use allowed by Special Permit as a
Contractor ' s Yard, the Plaintiffs herein subsequently
divided their land into two separate lots under City
Zoning.
8 . The premises originally consisted of a tract of land of
more than two acres . The Plaintiffs , by a Plan prepared
by Almer Huntley Jr. & Associates , Inc . dated July 22 ,
1987 which is recorded in Hampshire County Registry of
Deeds in Plan Book 148 , Page 88 , divided the large tract
of land into two separate parcels . The Plan was presented
to the Planning Board for the City of Northampton and was
approved as a plan not requiring subdivision approval and
was recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds .
Both parcels of land shown on the aforesaid Plan of Land
are in the Special Industrial Zone . Both parcels of land
have more than minimum lot size , width, frontage and in
all respects comply with the dimensional requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton.
9 . The land that is the subject matter of this dispute is
land that is locatedas the most Northerly lot shown on
the Plan recorded inthe Hampshire County Registry of
Deeds in Plan Book 148 , Page 88 . This parcel of land is
owned by James J. Tacy and Eugene A. Tacy individually as
described in a deed dated September 10 , 1988 recorded in
Hampshire County Registry of Deeds in Book 3261 , Page 243 .
The other parcel of land, which is the more Southerly
parcel of land abutting the Mill River , is owned by Tacy
Excavating and Construction Company, Inc . as shown on a
deed recorded in Hampshire County Registry of Deeds in
Book 3261, Page 242.
10 . The Plaintiffs in this action have entirely abandoned the
use of the Northerly lot for all uses pursuant to the
Law Office request by the Building Inspector for the City of
PATRICKJ.MELNIK - Northampton.
110 King Street
Northampton,MAO 1060 11 . The previous Building Inspector for the City of
- Northampton, William Nimohay, advised the Plaintiffs
;.413-584-6750
-4-
herein that if they completely removed all of their
construction related equipment and materials from the site
on which they wish to construct the Construction Supply
Establishment, that he would, in fact, issue a Building
Permit for the Construction Supply Establishment on the
separate legal building lot.
12 . Based upon that representation and in reliance thereon the
Plaintiffs herein removed all trucks , equipment, supplies
and materials from the site that is the subject matter of
this dispute , excepting only those materials that were
actually going to be used in the physical construction of
the building to be constructed on the premises .
13 . Subsequently, in August of 1988 the Plaintiffs in this
action filed an Application for a Building Permit for a
Construction Supply Establishment on the divided parcel of
land that was now free of all supplies and equipment and
which had been abandoned by the Plaintiffs for use as a
Contractor ' s Yard for purposes of obtaining a Building
Permit as a Construction Supply Establishment.
14 . Use of the premises as a Construction Supply Establishment
is a use allowed by 'right under City Zoning and the lot
upon which the Construction Supply Establishment was
sought to be constructed complied in all respects with the
dimensional requirements of the City of Northampton.
15 . Based upon the application of the Plaintiffs in this
action for the Building Permit , the then Building
Inspector for the City of Northampton, Paul Duclos , issuer,
a Foundation Permit ;for the Construction Supply
Establishment, which Foundation Permit was Building Permit
Number 553.
16 . Based upon the issuance of the Foundation Permit the
Plaintiffs in this action proceeded to pour a foundation
for the Construction Supply Establishment on the premises .
Subsequent to the pouring of the foundation a City
Counsellor for the City of Northampton, namely Raymond W.
LaBarge, filed a Complaint with the Building Inspector on
September 7 , 1988 requesting that the Building Inspector
revoke the Foundation Permit. A copy of the Complaint
filed by City Councillor, Raymond W. LaBarge , is attached
to this Complaint and marked Exhibit "A" .
Law Office
PATRICKJ.MELNIK 17 . Prior to the scheduling of a Hearing before the Zoning
110 King Street Board of Appeals on the validity of the issuance of the
Northampton,MA 01060 Foundation Permit, the Building Inspector of the City of
- Northampton, Paul J. Duclos , met with the Mayor for the
413-584-6750
- r
i
-5-
City of Northampton and Robert C. Buscher, Chairman of the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton, to
discuss the Plaintiff ' s Permit Application. As a result
of that meeting the Mayor of the City of Northampton and
the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals instructed the
Building Inspector for the City of Northampton to revoke
the Foundation Permit that had been issued to the
Plaintiffs . In a letter dated September 15, 1988 the
Building Inspector for the City of Northampton revoked the
Building Permit that had been previously been issued. A
copy of the revocation of the Building Permit is attached
to this Complaint and is marked Exhibit "B" .
18 . Nevertheless , on September 16 , 1988 the Building Inspector
for the City of Northampton reinstated the Building Permit
that had been issued to the Plaintiffs in this action.
Subsequently, on October 17 , 1988 the Zoning Board of
Appeals heard the Complaint filed by Counsellor LaBarge
concerning the issuance of the Foundation Permit for the
Plaintiffs under the provisions of Massachusetts General
Laws , Chapter 40A.
19 . At that Hearing, Robert C. Buscher , Chairman of the Zoning
Board of Appeals , who had previously sat in the closed
meeting between the Mayor of the City of Northampton,
himself and the Building Inspector, at which time the
Building Inspector was ordered to revoke the Tacy permit ,
sat as the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the
determination of whether or not the Building Permit that
had been issued to the Plaintiffs was proper .
20 . At the Hearing the Plaintiffs objected to Robert Buscher
sitting as the Chair7n of the Zoning Board of Appeals or
hearing any testimony, concerning the validity of the
permit inasmuch as he had previously sat and rendered an
opinion at an unpostdd non-public meeting between the
Mayor and the Building Inspector. A written objection to
his consideration on ''.this matter was filed on October 19 ,
1988 with the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals . A
copy of that letter is attached to this Complaint and
marked Exhibit "C" .
21 . Subsequently, at a meeting held on November 2 , 1988 the
Zoning Board of Appeals voted unamiously to uphold the
Appeal filed by Raymond W. LaBarge requesting the Building
Lawoffiee Inspector to revoke the Foundation Permit that had been
PATRICKJ.MELNIK - issued to the Plaintiffs .
110 King Street
Northampton,MA 01060 22 . A copy of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is
attached to this Complaint and marked Exhibit "D" .
413-584-6750
I
1
r
-6-
23 . The Plaintiffs in this action allege that the decision of
the Zoning Board of Appeals dated November 15 , 1988
exceeds the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals and
is erroneous . The Plaintiffs , therefore , allege that the
decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals must be annulled
and that the action of the Building Inspector in issuing a
Building Permit for the Plaintiffs be upheld.
COUNT II
THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
24 . The Plaintiffs restate each and every paragraph of this
Complaint. as if originally restated herein.
25 . The Plaintiffs state that the Chairman of the Zoning Board
of Appeals sat at a closed unpublished meeting at which a
decision concerning the propriety of the issuance of the
Building Permit was decided and the Chairman and the
Zoning Board of Appeals instructed the Building Inspector
to revoke the permit. This meeting was held prior to the
public hearing on this matter .
26 . The Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals who sat at the
public hearing had previously made up his mind as to his
decision as to the propriety of the issuance of the
building permit and participated in the public meeting of
the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 17 , 1988 with a
biased predisposition. His bias and his opinion with
respect to the validity of the issuance of the Building
Permit was apparent in both his rulings and conduct during
the public hearing.
27 . The Plaintiffs in this action allege that the decision of
the Zoning Board of Appeals was actually influenced by the
Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals who voted in favor
of the Appeal filed by Councillor LaBarge and that the
decision of the remaining members of the Zoning Board of
Appeals was influenced by the actions of the Chairman.
28 . The Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive a fair and
impartial hearing with an open minded and impartial
deliberating body at the time that the decision was made
with respect to the propriety of the issuance of the
Building Permit for their Construction Supply
IAWOf0° Establishment.
PATRICK J.MELNIK
11OK;ngScr«c 29 . Therefore , the Plaintiffs allege that the decision of the
Northampton,MA 01060 Zoning Board of Appeals was improperly made , and that they
did not receive a fair and adequate hearing before an
413-584-6750
-7-
impartial deliberating body and that they are entitled at
a minimum to a new hearing on the propriety of the
issuance of the Building Permit to them. The Plaintiffs
also allege that they have lost money as a result of this
conduct for which they should be reimbursed.
COUNT III
DAMAGES FOR EMINENT DOMAIN
30 . The Plaintiffs restate each and every Paragraph of this
Complaint as if originally restated herein.
31 . The Plaintiffs state that they have abandoned the use of
their property for all uses and are seeking a use for the
parcel of land that is the subject matter of this dispute
for use as a Construction Supply Establishment which is a
use allowed by right under City Zoning.
32 . The Plaintiffs state that the Building Inspector for the
City of Northampton, and the Zoning Board of Appeals for
the City of Northampton are refusing to allow the
Plaintiffs to use their property for a use that is allowed
them as of right.
33 . The Plaintiffs , therefore , state that if the City of
Northampton will not allow the Plaintiffs to use their
property for any lawful use which is allowed by right
under City Zoning that they have effectively taken the
property from the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs are ,
therefore, entitled to compensation from the City of
Northampton for the full and fair market value of the
property.
34 . The Plaintiffs state that they have met all of the
conditions and requirements imposed upon them by the rules
and regulations of the City of Northampton the Zoning
Ordinances of the City of Northampton and have met all of
the requests of the acting Building Inspector of the City
of Northampton to allow their property to be used for a
lawfully allowed use under City Zoning. The failure of
the City of Northampton to allow them to use their
property for this lawful use entitles them to just
compensation.
Law ofce
PATRICKJ.MELNIK 35 . The Plaintiffs demand a TRIAL BY JURY on this Count of
uoKingstreet their Complaint.
Northampton,MA 01060
413-584-6750
i
COUNT IV
36 . The Plaintiffs alleges each and every statement of his
Complaint as if originally restated herein.
37 . The Plaintiffs further allege that the officers , employees
and city officials of the City of Northampton are acting
in a concerted effort to force the Plaintiffs to sell to
the City of Northampton their property below its fair
market value for housing for the elderly.
38 . Subsequent to their initial application to allow the use
of their premises as a Construction Supply Establishment
that was filed in 1984 , members of the City Council of the
City of Northampton and the Planning Board of the City of
Northampton filed an application with the City Council for
the City of Northampton to rezone this property to take it
out of Special Industrial Use . The attempt of these
individuals to have the property rezoned and taken out of
Special Industrial Use was defeated.
39 . During this period of time the Housing Authority of the
City of Northampton attempted to take the property from
the Plaintiffs by use of the power of Eminent Domain to
turn the property into use as Elderly Housing.
40 . The Plaintiffs in this action were approached by
Councillor LaBarge and requested by Councillor LaBarge to
sell this property to the City of Northampton for Elderly
Housing. The Plaintiffs in this action refused to sell
the property to the City of Northampton for Elderly
Housing.
41 . The Plaintiffs state that the actions of the Councillor
LaBarge in appealing the issuance of their Building Permit
and attempting to prevent the Plaintiffs from using their
property for a lawful use under City Zoning is an attempt
to diminish the value o.f the property or force the
Plaintiffs into such serious adverse economic
circumstances that they would be forced to sell the
property to the City of Northampton for Elderly Housing.
42 . The Plaintiffs state that the attempt by the Housing
Authority of the City of Northampton to take their
property by Eminent Domain was defeated inasmuch as the
Law Office Housing Authority determined that it could not take this
PATRICKJ.MELNIK property by Eminent Domain for housing purposes . The
110 King street attempt by the City of Northampton to obtain the property
Northampton,MA 01060 by purchase has failed because the Plaintiffs do not
intend to sell the property to the City of Northampton for
413-584.6750
i
_9_
Elderly Housing.
43 . Therefore , the Plaintiffs allege that the actions of the
City of Northampton to prevent them from using the
premises for a lawful use is a concerted action taken with
the deliberate purpose of forcing the diminution of the
value of their property and forcing the Plaintiffs to sell
their property below fair market value . The Plaintiffs
allege that the acts and practices of the City of
Northampton in this regard are unfair and deceptive and
that these actions have deprived the Plaintiffs of the
lawful use of their property which are rights guaranteed
by the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions . The
Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the acts and
practices of the officials of the City of Northampton the
Plaintiffs in this action have actually been damaged.
44 . The Plaintiffs allege that they have been unable to use
their property for any lawful purpose for a period of time
and that they have made expenditures by way of building a
foundation and purchasing a building for construction of
the premises which they are unable to construct through
the acts and practices of the officials of the City of
Northampton.
45 . The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to damages
from the City of Northampton for the loss of property that
they have suffered as a result of the actions of the City
of Northampton.
46 . The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to
compensation from the City of Northampton for the full aid
fair market value of the diminution of the value of their
property as a result of the unlawful acts and practices of
the officials of the City of Northampton.
47 . The Plaintiffs demand a TRIAL BY JURY on this Count of
their Complaint.
COUNT V
48 . The Plaintiffs restate the previous 47 paragraphs of this
Complaint as if restated herein.
Law Office 49 . The Plaintiffs state that the Building Inspector for the
PATRICKJ.MELNIK City of Northampton revoked their building permit , #632 ,
110 King Street for the construction of the Construction Supply
Northampton,MA 01060 Establishment on their property.
�;-413-584-6750
I
-10-
50 . The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the City
Clerk for the City of Northampton on October 20 , 1988
requesting review of the decision of the Building
Inspector revoking the permit . Copy of the Notice of
Appeal is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "E" .
51 . The Plaintiffs state that the Zoning Board of Appeals
heard the merits of the Plaintiffs ' appeal of the decision
of the Building Inspector to revoke the building permit .
52. The Plaintiffs further state that at a meeting held on
January 26 , 1988 the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
uphold the Building Inspector ' s decision to revoke the
building permit issued to the Plaintiffs .
53 . The Plaintiffs file this appeal pursuant to the provisions
of Massachusetts General Laws , Chapter 40A, Section 17
requesting this Court to annul the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals upholding the decision of the Building
Inspector revoking the Plaintiffs ' building permit.
54 . The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals sitting at the
Hearing with respect to the appeal of the Building
Inspector ' s order revoking building permit #632 were
Sanford Weil of 96 Washington Avenue , Northampton -
William Brandt , as Acting Chairman of 314 South Street ,
Northampton and Irene David of 213 Fairway Village ,
Northampton.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand the following:
1 . That the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated
November 15 , 1988 be annulled and that the Building Permit_
for the construction of the Construction Supply
Establishment be allowed.
2 . In the alternative the Plaintiffs demand that the case be
remanded to the Zoning "Board of Appeals for a full and
fair and before an impartial sitting of members of the
Zoning Board of Appeals who have not previously rendered
decision on the merits of their Petition prior to Public
Hearing.
3 . That damages be assessed against the Defendants in this
action for such sum as will be necessary to compensate the
Law Office Plaintiffs for all of the loss of profits , diminution of
PATRICKJ.MEI.NIK the value of their property, loss of use of their
110 King Street property, loss of fair rental value of their property , anc
Northampton,MA 01060 such other damages as the Plaintiffs have suffered as a
result of the unfair and unlawful acts and practices of
413.584-6750
i
r'
the Defendants in this case.
=x` 4 . Attorney' s fees and costs .
5. The Plaintiffs demand such other relief as may be
appropriate.
6 . The Plaintiffs demand a TRIAL BY JURY on Counts III and .of
this Complaint.
7 . That the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals made at a
meeting held on January 26 , 1988 be annulled and the
building permit of the Construction Supply Establishment
be ordered to be reissued by the Building Inspector .
February 22 , 1989
Patrick J. Melnik Esq.
110 King Street ,
Northampton, Ma 01060
584-6750
Law Office
PATRICK J.MELNIK
110 King Street
Northampton,MA 01060
413-584-6750
:Paul Ducla
"Building Inspector
- City of Northampton, September 7
Wallace U- uchalski M : 1988
Northampton, Massachusetts ipal Office Building
010&0
Re: Zoning Complaint
_ Buildingper. DLgU�144« .
Inspector:
Pursuant to our
file a Zoning Complaint
construction of a Plaznt against the over the past weekend
(158 N. Maple St foundation for the
of Buildin ' I would like
(Parcel •: Florence a Construction Su g Permit X553 issued to formally
�7, Map 10D of the �oS84-7114) fox his r AP1Y Establishment for the
for property at 175 Main to Eugene Tacy
I believe thatthe
Northampton Zoting/AsSessor sMaps).
9.3(b•) and in violat on osuatice s Street in Leeds
made on °f this Building Permit is
August 12, 1987 f the.�Decis cbf the North pion o violation of
to which M�'.;,..
Your response to Y has filed an APAealning Board of Appeals
Section
greatly appreciated. this complaint at
Your earliest possible conven1ence wool
d be
Respectfully,
KYmond W. LaB r�
City Councilor-Ward 7 6
PATRICK J.MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
October 19 , 1988 Telephone 419.584-6
Robert Buscher
Chairman of the
Zoning Board of Appeals
•'`"� } h`
Munic
.;t��,';c►:;ai� ipal •:Office Building
Main Street
1. Northampton, Ma 01060
Re . Eu•Lene Tacy - Anpeal of Raymond LaBarge
Dear Mr. Buscher:
As a follow up to my oral objections to your deliberation
s on the Tacy matter that I registered at the Public Meeting on
October 17 , 1988 I am hereby formally requesting that
you recuse
yourself from deliberation on the Tacy matter and that you order
a new Public Hearing to be held which
• you would not participate
in.
The reason for this request is not a challenge to your
personal integrity, which I and the entire community hold in
high rtgard, but rather the appearance of impropriety that is
created as a result of the newspaper articles that have surfaced
.i ',. surrounding the controversy relating to the termination of the
Building. Inspector. The Daily Hampshire Gazette and I believe
,,j_ the Springfield Union have both reported that you have
participated in meetings at the Mayor ' s office where a
discussion and resolution of the Tacy Building Permit was agreed
on P b Y all parties concerned. The Daily Hampshire Gazette and
• ;.;,• u
I believe the Springfield Union both reported that you met in
this non-public, non-posted meeting at which only City Officials
were present to discuss the merits of the Tacy Building Permit
�. `i . Application and as a result of that meeting it was decided that
Eugene Tacy would not be entitled to a Building Permit unless he
removed his contractor ' s equipment from both of his lots and not
just the lot that is the subject matter of his request for a
Building Permit. It also appeared from the newspaper reports
that no
persons representing Eugene Tacy were present at the
-.sl meeting when these deliberations took place and the decision was
made. As I indicated to you in a previous letter, I do not
believe that decision making process was proper and I believe
;. ; that your participating in the proper hearing procedure after
having been a party to these prior deliberations is not
correct.
i
0
9 � �isssAclinsetts
a! ,
DEPARTMENT QP BUILDrNG INSPECTIONS �.
INSPECTOR 212 Main Street ' Municipal Building
. Paul J. Duclos Northampton, Mass. 01060
September 15, 1988
Tacy Brothers
158 North Maple St.
Florence, Mass. 01060
Dear Gentlement:
As of this date the permit dated August 29, 1988, #553, has been revoked
by this office. Construction must stop immediately.
If there are any further questions pertaining to this matter please feel'
free to contact me at 586-6950 ext. 242.
PIJ.
losmmissioner
PJD/lb
pc: Atty. Melnik
Mayor's Office
Legal Dept.
PATRICK J.MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
. 110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
i tlytit L• Telephone 419584-67
,
As you chaired the meeting on October 17 , 1988 it was
�J-V ,, quite obvious that your mind had already been made up and that
you consider both of the lots on Main Street that are in this
Special Industrial Zone are to be treated as one lot for Zoning
purposesoses even though they have been legally
divided and are not
currently ;1n common ownership. I believe that any person who i
s
¢if8`i',p37esident ;of the City of Northampton and comes before the�•;,, iV , , a,
Ti;OTi -TIgi Boa; of Appeals is entitled to a fair hearing before an
� ' '~ ' �, ar•t�al ; d unbiased body. It appeared to me at the meeting
�t nigh"Khat you had already made a decision as to how you
,y �. i , Y Y
R �+ ��y�cc� uld ,ac � a th respect to the Tacy Building Permit and if that
�•'� � ` its `,reached as reported by the newspapers at a closed
.45. ,
att£�he Mayor ' s Office that puts a cloud on the entire
' >Haproce st� E 'shouldtreat all parties fairly. At the very
Myy
f ,, �, 1 st:r F tl e6 4,ewspaper °accounts of your meeting in the Mayor ' s
11 other .;public officials to hear only one side of the
a �4; ?, , vFef :TacyrApplication and then participating as a
�xn V . ,�Caiyrman '3n{;the deC 'sion making process presents an appearance
•,bias that I• believe undercuts and undermines the public
con a.idence� in the integrity of the Zoning Board of Appeals .
yp , X Therefore, I ask you to reconsider your decision to
r+Pk :" participate in the decision making process with respect to the
r° y g you to remove
; merits of the Tac Building Permit and I ask
yourself from deliberations in this matter. I believe that Gene
Tacy is entitled to a Hearing before an impartial, open minded,
7r nb
and unbiased board and there are alternate members of the Board
who could sit and consider this matter in your absence.
—
erely,
41.
'' Patrick J. M lnik
?r Mi1 •4
PJM/j n
a,.;.
cc. Mayor David Musante
.,
cc. Kathleen Fallon
cc. Eugene Tacy +
.ti
a CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
$ g ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
t
NORTHAMPTON. MASSACHUSETTS 01060
1
DATE: November 15, 1988
RE: THE APPEAL OF RAYMOND LA BARGE OF THE ISSUANCE BY THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR OF FOUNDATION PERMIT #553 TO EUGENE TACY FOR
THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY
ESTABLISHMENT AT 175 MAIN STREET, LEEDS.
Pursuant to the Provisions of the General Laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is
hereby given that a decision of the Zoning Board .of Appeals of
the City of Northampton was filed in the Office of the City Clerk
On: NOVEMBER 15 , 1988
Sustaining the Appeal, and finding that the issuance of the
Permit was erroneous.
For Property Located at: 175 Main Street, Leeds.
If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed in
Superior Court within 20 days of the date this decision was filed
in the Office of the Northampton City Clerk.
Robert C. .Buscher, Chairman
""4g11Aa{pl,
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
B ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
$ NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060
February 3, 1989
i RE: EUGENE TACY' S APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR' S REVOCATION
OF ,-BUILDING--PERMIT NUMBER 632.
1
At a Special Meeting held on January 26, 1989, the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to uphold the
decision of the Acting Building Inspector to revoke Building Permit
#632 which the Board felt had been erroneously issued to Eugene
Tacy for the construction of a Construction Supply Establishment
at 175 Main Street, Leeds.
Pursuant to the Provisions of the General Laws of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given
that the Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of
Northampton was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on February
i . 3 , 1989.
If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed in
Superior Court within 20 days of the date this decision was filed
in the Office of .the Northampton City Clerk.
i -
12p
j Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
I
i
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a Special meeting held on January 26, 1989, the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted to uphold
the decision of the Acting Building Inspector to revoke
Building Permit #632 which the Board felt had been
erroneously issued to Eugene Tacy for the construction of a
Construction Supply Establishment at 175 Main Street, Leeds.
Present and voting were Acting Chairman William Brandt, Irene
David, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
The findings were as follows:
The property is zoned Special Industrial. Prior to the
division of what was Parcel 7 of Sheet 10D of the Northampton
Assessor's Maps, the entire parcel was used as a construction
yard. A construction yard use in an SI Zone requires a
Special Permit. Since the construction yard use of the site
predates the Special Permit requirement, it is a pre-
existing, nonconforming use, and as such, is regulated by i
Chapter 40A, Section 6 of the Massachusetts General Laws, and
Section 9 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 40A
states that a pre-existing, nonconforming use may be changed,
altered or expanded only after a Finding by the Zoning Board
of Appeals that the change, alteration, or expansion is not
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
current use. [Section 9.3(b) , Northampton Zoning Ordinance] .
Tacy proposes to build a 60 ' x 60 ' building on the property,
and to use that building to house a construction supply
establishment, an allowed use in a Special Industrial Zone.
Tacy' s original application for zoning relief in 1984, and
the 1987 application, indicated that the building would be
used both for the nonconforming use (repairing and storing
equipment) , and the proposed new use. The application for
which a permit was granted in 1988 indicated that the
building would be used only for the construction supply
establishment. If the nonconforming use is still present on
the lot, the addition of either a building or a new use, even
if that use is allowed, is an expansion of that nonconforming
use and requires a Finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals
that the proposed use is not substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood than the existing use.
The Planning Board did in fact approve an "Approval not
required under the subdivision control law" for the divided
site. The only zoning issue resolved by the approval of such
a plan is that each lot, as created in said plan, has
sufficient frontage for that zoning district. It does not
DECISION OF THE NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN THE I
MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF EUGENE TACY OF THE REVOCATION OF A
BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO HIM.
PAGE TWO
give any guarantee that the lots will qualify as building
lots. Section 6.4 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance states
that, "No lot. . .may be divided so as not to conform with a
provision of this ordinance. No group of lots in a common
ownership may be separated or the ownership of one or more
lots changed so as not to be in conformance with a provision
of this ordinance. " The pre-existing, nonconforming use has i
been shifted to afractional portion of the original lot,
thereby intensifying that use, which is an alteration which
requires a Finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Until the
issue of the intensification of the nonconforming use on one
lot is resolved, neither of the two lots shown on the "ANR"
plan conform to the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board found that the reasoning behind the Decision to
uphold the Appeal of the issuance of Foundation Permit #553
applies identically to this Decision to uphold the revocation
of. Building Permit #632.
William Bra t, Chairman
M� Sanford Weil, Jr. i
' I
Irene David
I
.. I
Decision on Tacy Appeal from Action of Building Dept.
The Applicant appealed the revocation of a building permit issued by the
Acting Building Inspector following the suspension of the Inspector who had
previously issued the permit.
The basis of the appeal was the assertion by the Applicant that the permit
had been issued to build a structure for a Building Supply operation on a lot
in Leeds spot zoned Special Industrial where the construction was permitted
by right.
The building lot in question had been part of a larger parcel which had
contained a pre-existing non-conforming Construction Business. Prior request
for a Finding in order to build a 60X60 foot building on the larger lot and
to conduct a Building Supply operation had been denied by a split vote and
is on appeal .The larger lot was. jointly owned by a',father and four sons.
Subsequently, the larger parcel was split so as to produce two parcels, each
of which conformed to dimensonal ' requirements. For convenience we will
discribe the northerly parcel as lot B and the southerly parcel as lot A.The
Construction operation was entirely moved onto lot B, exaserbating the prior
non-conformity by increasing the density of the operation.- To allow this a
further finding 'Is required, .in accordance with Section 6.4 of the zoning
ordnance. This has never been applied for.
After creating the two parcels the father died and bequethed the Construction
Business to two sons. Then by an exchange of deeds the other two sons acquired
ownership of lot A. . They now claim that they can construct the building on
this parcel by right.
The Assistant City Solicitor has asserted that by increasing the density of
lot B without - a Finding, lot .A has been "tainted" and therefore still
falls under the limit of section 6.4. A use previously denied before being
separated from the balance of the larger parcel continues to be illegal .
Accordingly I find that the reasoning which produced the upholding of the
revocation of permit #553 to construct the footing also applies to the revocation
of permit 632 to construct the structure. I will vote to uphold the action of
the Building Dept. to revoke permit #632.
Northampton ..Zoning Board of Appeals
January 26,°°1989 Special Meeting
Page 'One
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 5 : 00 p. m. in Room
18 of City Hall on January 26, 1989, to announce a decision in the
matter of Eugene Tacy' s appeal of the revocation of Building Permit
#632 by the Acting Building Inspector. Present and voting were
Acting Chairman William Brandt, Irene David, and M. Sanford Weil,
Jr.
Mrs. David moved the minutes of the January 18 , 1989 meeting be
approved, Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.The
Secretary announced that Atty. Melnik, who represents the
Appellant, had delivered an original and two copies of a letter and
an 11-page "Memorandum in Support of Tacy' s Appeal" to the Board
Secretary at 10: 30 this morning. The Board acknowledged that the
documents had been tendered, but Mrs. David moved that they not be
accepted, since the Public Hearing was closed, and it would be
improper to accept testimony from Appellant, when no one else had
an opportunity to do so. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously. The documents were not shown to the Board members.
Mr. Weil opened by reading a prepared statement, a copy of which
is attached and made a part of these minutes. Mrs. David said she
fully agreed. Ch. Brandt said that he found in favor of the
Building Inspector. He stated, "I believe the separation of the
lot into two lots intensifies the pre-existing nonconformancy, and
a Finding is needed. I feel that Section 6 .4 clearly states that
a lot cannot be divided so as not to conform. I interpret that as
requiring a Finding under Section 9.3 . I agree with Miss Fallon
that the lot is tainted, and the Building Permit was properly
revoked. "
Mr. Weil moved that the appeal be denied. Mrs. David seconded, and
the motion passed unanimously.
Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci,
Board Secretary.
William Brandt, Chairman
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, GEORGE D. TOBIN and ,..-----
MARGARET W. TOBIN, husband and wife, 3a
G'3b{;1
both
of21 Kimball Street, Florence, Northampton,
toHampshire County,Maeaaahusetts,
being xxmarried,for the full consideration of
TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($25,000.00) DOLLARS-------------paid
r.+
a
0 grantto EUGENE A. TACY, JAMES J. TACY, RICHARD J. TACY, HAROLD G. TACY
a and HELEN N. TACY, as joint tenants and not tenants in common.
^+ a l l
m of Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts
- a
c
ro with fnarranf$ cobcnasda the land in the Village of Leeds, in Northampton,
x
Massachusetts, situated an the Easterly side of Main Street, bounded
W and described as follows:
4 y
Beginning at an iron pin on the Easterly side of said Main Street in
said Leeds, at the Southwesterly corner of the land of McCarthy, as
shown on Plan recorded in Hampshire Registry of Deeds, Plan Book 17,
e, Page 68; thence Easterly one hundred (100) feet, more or less,• along
►• land of said McCarthy to a corner; thence Northerly along land of the
U) said McCarthy ninety (90) feet, more or less, to a corner; thence
Easterly one hunderd thirty-five (135) feet, more or .less, to land
now or formerly of the New York, New Haven i Hartford Railroad Company;
thence Southerly along land now or formerly of said New York, New
,n Haven & Hartford Railroad Company to the Mill River; thence continuing
in a Southerly direction across said Mill River to the Northerly
'•' boundary of Lot #19; thence Westerly along the Northerly boundary of
said Lot #19 to Main Street; 'thence across said highway following the
bank of the river to Let #20 as shown on said plan; thence
a Southwesterly along the Westerly side of Lot #20 to a point located
ten (10) feet distant downstream below tha dam; thence Westerly across
the said Mill River at a distance of ten (10) feet below said dam to
land now or formerly of Henry Brushway; thence Northerly along land
now or formerly of Henry 9rushway to an•iron pin situated about ten
(10) feet South of an old iron bridge; thence across said Mill River
parallel to the old iron bridge and thence across said Main Street to
an iron pin on the Easterly side of Main Street; thence Northerly
along said Main Street to the point of beginning.
_ >1
Excepting, however, from the above described tract, the highway shown
o. on said plan and designated thereon as Main Street.
0
r w Together with any and all water privileges and water rights appurtenant
to and connected with the above described premises which may have been
used or enjoyed by the Grantor and together with any and all
right, title and interest in and to the dams within the boundaries
a
of the described premises.
Subject to all existing water rights.
Excepting, the portion of the above described premises conveyed by
George G. and Margaret W. Tobin to William E. McCarthy by deed dated
June 2, 1976 and recorded in Book 1890, Page 135 of the Hampshire
County Registry of Deeds, containing 4,372, square feet, more or less.
For our title see a deed dated November 6, 1972 from Leona Daunheimer
to us as recorded in Book 1670, Page 98 of the Hampshire County
x Registry of Deeds.
i .. 7 .
:. s'
i w fa�itAONWFOi MASSACHUSETTS:
_ EDS, ' EXCISE.
'd* _ :;-� - 0 : 5 7: 00-x.
i
i
t
Executed a,a sealed Instrument" first day of June 10 82
Y
M0 410minuittmualtOf lRanrlttkwWa/ 'y
M
HAMPSHIRE, at. June 1, 1982 1982 '
{' Then personally appeared the above named GEORGE D. TOBIN and Margaret W. Tobin'
-- :- z --
r and acknowledged the foregoing Instrument lobe their ! nd deed,
84/orr "se,t tris J. Melnik NoNryPrWfe F
{, My commission expires November 5, tti 82 ,
June 1, 1982 at 1 o'eteek and 47 win PW, He'd Ent'd l Ezagi'd.
y
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE , S .S . O ;, Y OF NORTHAMPTON
EUGENE A . TACY , Petitioner JW 12
BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR
THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Notice of Appeal
Now comes Eugene A . Tacy of 158 North Maple Street ,
Florence , Massachusetts who states that on or about April 15 ,
1987 he filed an application for a building permit with the
City of Northampton for purpose of constructing a construction
supply establishment on his property located on Main Street in
Leeds , Massachusetts . The property is zoned Special
Industrial . A building permit for a construction supply
establishment is allowed by right under the city zoning
ordinances .
More than thirty-five ( 35) days has elapsed since the date
of filing the application for the building permit , and no
action has been taken on the application by the Building I ;
i
Inspector for the City of Northampton .
Eugene A . Tacy therefore says that the application for a
building permit is deemed to be denied and he has a right of '
appeal pursuant to Massachusetts General Law , Chapter 40A ,
Section 15 . This is a Notice of Appeal filed with the City !
Clerk for the City of Northampton pursuant to said Chapter .
Law Office
PATRICK J.MELNIK
110 King Street
Iorthatnpton,MA 01060
i
413-584-6750
w
y
.. ti.�q�
y a .
� .
R .
JM 121%7
-2-
OFPT 0 $ DIiMSPECTIONS
NOMA,,VNt fi i 01060
Attached to this Notice of Appeal is an application for a
zoning permit and the copy of the application for a building
permit filed with the Building Inspector for the City of
Northampton .
June 9 , 1987 Acj'-�
trick J . Melnik
110 King Street
Northampton , Mass . 01060
584-6750
Eugene A . Tacy
.a ed at City Cierk's 0f'ice
'iS-i;,!'-ADT,0N, P.,ASS.
Y.
Dat ZZ9_
Tlr'+ie
Law Office -
PATRICK J.MELNIK
110 King Street
Northampton,MA 01060
413-584-6750
Do Not Write In These Spaces Application Number:
Re Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcel(s)
By Date Amt. Date By Date
APP DE70 THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
DEPT.Of BLUING INSrtk,I I
1 0 N,MA.0 " t b-A. Tacy
Address 158 North Maple Street, Florence, Massachusetts 01060
2. Owner of Property Eugene A. Tacy, James J. Tacy, Richard J. Tacy, Harold G. Tacy and
Address Helen N. Tacy Main Street Leeds Massachusetts 01053
3. Applicant is: 'XOwner; -Contract Purchaser; ElLessee; Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
VARIANCE from the provisions of Section page 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.
OT H ER: Appeal of failure of building inspector to issue building permit for
office supply establishment
5. Location of Property Main Street, Leeds, Massachusetts being situated on
the east side of Main Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 10D Parcel(s) 17
6. Zone Special Industrial
•,.
7. Description of proposed work and/or use;-
Applicant filed an application with the building
inspector of the City of Northampton for a building permit for a contractor's supply
establishment. This use is allowed as right under a special industrial zone under
provisions of the zoning ordinance. Application for a building permit filed on or
about May 15, 1987. No action was taken by the building inspector with respect to
_ the application for said building permit. Massachusetts General Laws provide that
appeal may be taken at the expiration of thirty-five (35) days from the failure of rhe
building inspector to issue permit.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; 13Yes ❑No
(b) Site plan: ❑Attched 1�Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: Construction supply establishment is allowed
by right under special industrial zone in the City of Northampton. The premises are in
a special industrial zone. Building inspector has refused to issue building permit for
a contractor' s supply establishment. Appeal is authorized pursuant to the provisions of
Massachusetts General Laws. This is anotice of appeal and request for permit pursuant
to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Cahpter 40A, Section 15.
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to t est of my knowledge.
Date June 6, 1987 Applicant's Signature
11. List of Abutters: Address Sheet No. Parcel `
Roman Cathoit Bishop 217 Main St. - Leeds 1OB-91
1.�r; fiPld
St. Catherine's Church - Roman
2.Catholic Bishop of Springfield 195 Main St. - Leeds 1OB-92
3 Massachusetts Electric Route 9 - Haydenville Rd 1OB-100
t �
4.Helen A. McCarthy 183-185 Main St. - Leeds OD-16>-
5 Clarence L. Chatfield Main St. - Leeds 1OD-18
6.James P. Doppman 167 Main St. - Leeds IOD-19
Sean R. Lococco
7 Joseph S. Lococco 163 Main St. - Leeds 1OD-20
8 City of Northampton City Hall, Northampton 1OD-22
9 James & Kathleen Ellito 39 Florence St. Leeds IOD-23
10.Heirs of Nora Steidler 41 Florence St. Leeds 1OD-24
,,.Russell J. Myette 182 Main St. Leeds 1OD-33
12.
13.
14.
i
15.
1
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
(Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
PJN P
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS
f OFFICE Of the INSPECTOR 0
Page Piot
Q�'�'" i CAT1 ON FO"
,JUN 1
INSPECTOR 2 1 7 z ILDING
� G PERMIT A
DPT OF
PERMI :
B
IMPORTANT — Applicontt to complete all items in sectrons:
1• AT (LOCATION)__L_[.j_____ DISTRICT
LOCATION AO.} (STREET)
�1 /
OF BETWEEN — C 7r L h AND
BUILDING (CROSS STREET! CRUS sT AEl7)
/bb/al�jcrJ �
Lor
SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK S:zE 3 ylscr•.. ,;
11. TYPE AN-. COST OF BUILDING — All applicants complete Ports A — D
A. TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT D. PROPOSED USE - For"Wrecking" most recent use
1 X f New building ! '
Residential Nonresidential
2Addition(?/ 12 7, One Tamil ��
residential, enter number y 18 �•_f Amusement, recreational
❑
u/ netu housing units added, i/ any, r--�
in Part 0, 1 3) 13 �J Two or more fomily — Curter 19 — Church, other rel.gious
number o/ units— — — — --). 20 *�� Industrial
3 Alteration (See 2 above) ✓�
14 ❑ TramsLent hotel, motel,
4 R+rpair, replacement 21 I.. Parking garage
or dormitory — lirtt(•r number
5 ❑ Wrecking (t/multi/amily rrsidential, u/ units ------- - .-. 22 j Service station, repair garage
* enter number o/ units in buildlrtg in 15 Garoge 23 Hospitoi, institutional
Part D, 13) `-
16 ❑ Carport 24 rj Office, bank, professional
6 Moving (relocation)
r-}
7 Foundation only 17 Other - Speci/y 25 L7 Public utility 4
L J r�
Y 26 L..J School, library, other eaucotionol f.
B. OWNERSHIP 27 U Stores, mercantile
8 Private (individual, corporation, 28 Tanks, towers
nonprofit institution, etc.) 29 �� Other - Specily�•±ai�r'clrl I !'
9 Public (Federal, State, or
local government) �h'
r7'd f 1`'..�.�_7 r.[f'f1^r%Y• ,t j,�r'
C. COST (Omit cents) j 1'
l0. tlt1° i r}
Cost of improvement•,,,,•,,,,,,,,
n he installed but not included
i ) Q L ! S J 1
n the above cost /fr
a. Eiectrical.....................
b. Plumbing ....................
'gib � l � ► i e � ttt� rr° � res -� �1 �1. .
c.Heating, air conditioning......... r 006
d. Other(elevator, etc.)...........,
11. TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT $.
III. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING — For new buildings and additions, complete Parts E — L;
for wrecking, complete only Part J, for all others skip to !V, i
1
E. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF FRAME G. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL --`- -----.
30 C>4 Masonry (waft bearing) 40 Public or private Company
31 ❑ Wood frome, 41 Private (septic tank, etc.) ---
32 ❑ Structural steel
33❑ Reinforced concrete H. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY
.+
34 ❑ Other — Spec?/y 42 Public or private Company
43 Private Private (well, cistern) K. NUMBER OF OFF-STREET
PARKING SPACES 1
F. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF HEATING FUEL I. TYPE OF MECHANICAL 51. Enclosed .......................
35 ❑ Gas Will there be central air 52. Outdoors........................ f
36..X Oil conditioning?
-} t L. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ONLY
CJ37 C7 Electricity 44 Yes 45 Na 53. Number of bedrooms..............'
36 Cool_
i
39 ❑ Other - Speedy W;II there be an elevators Full..........
54. Nu.nber of
46 Yes 47�,No bathrooms
Name Moiling address Numbrr, sirr(-t, czr-,. 7,)a
7
or e-Y1 /C q r)C
rContractor L cans o
-y'
J.
Architect or
Engineer
I hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of record and that I have been authorized by the owner to
make this application as outHorized agent and we agree to conform to all applicable laws of this jurisdiction.
Signal r e applicant Address Application dote
C1/DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
Y. PLAN REVIEW RECORD For office use
Plans Review Required Check T Plan Review Date PI ons By Date Plo ns
By Notes
Fee —Started Approved
BUILDING $
PLUMBING $
MECHANICAL $
ELECTRICAL
OTHER Is
VI. ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED OR OTHER JURISDICTION APPROVALS
Permit or Approval Check Do.te Number By Permit or Ap PI Check Date
BOILER Obtained L1,01, --- Obtained Number T By
f f i?PF4
CURB OR SIDEWALK CUT
ELEVATOR
SEWER
ELECTRICAL
�UN -11dWR BItIL 4ARD
FURNACE STREET GR�02
5
GRADING la —
DEfl, D F 8 LilaF1!PV8 L I C�A R E A S
OIL BURNER J -F-
OTHER OTHER
VII. VALIDATION
Building 'FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Permit number
Building - Use Group
Permit issued -- 19
Building Fire Grading
Permit Fee $ Live Loading
Certificate of Occupancy Occuponcy Load
Approved by:
Drain Tile $
Plan Review Fee
TITLE