10D-017 TACEY (7) Grx� of 'Wart4 Illt ton Z =
� � �Glsssachirsetfs W
b
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR 212 Main Street ` Municipal Building 'a
Paul J. Duclos Northampton, Masa. 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As of this date the permit dated August 29, 1988, #553, has been revoked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.
PJ.
P
losmmissioner
PJD/lb
pc: Atty. Melnik
Mayor's Office
Legal Dept.
1\\-\.C1VC4u ill V1Vj \i1\-1t\ V Vl11liL� a.Vlvaa.aaaatr...vaa� vaa a.VY\.!l\ala�a. 4!� 1JVV
at 2:10 p.m.
CO:v1MONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Superior Court Department of the
HAMPSHIRE, SS. Trial Court of the Commonwealth
Civil Action
No. 88-350
EUGENE A. TACY, AND JAMES J. TACY,
Plaintiff (s)
V. SUMMONS
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON,
0
WN 30198
C >, , Defendant (s)
DEPT.Of BUItOING INSPECTIONS
NORTHAMPTON,Mk 01060
,y c
To the above-named Defendant
_= 3
ry L
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Patrick J. Melnik Esq. ,
plaintiff s' attorney, whose address is 110 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts ,
an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of
this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by
default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You are also
required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Clerk of this court at
y Northampton, either before service upon plaintiffs' attorney or within a reasonable time
c thereafter.
� n n
L
v y Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13(a),your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim
L which you may have against the plaintiffs' which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that
T � .
is the subject matter of the plaintiff s' claim or you will thereafter be barred from making such
y „ •r claim in any other action.
= L
� - v
— Witness,THOMAS ,11. MORSE,JR., Esquire at Northampton, the eighteer�th
s day of November ,in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred
z
z and eighty—eight.
s
CLERK-MAGISTRATE
�- s n
C ' NOTES-
1. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. When more than one defendant is involved, the names of all defendants should appear in the caption.
If a separate summons is used for each defendant, each should be addressed to the particular defendant.
3. Circle type of action involved. Tort— '.Motor Vehicle Tort—Contract—Equitable relief.
a _ g �.:�
>�
S
.�i
��
:���� ��
a
COnMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE, S . S . DEPARTMENT OF THE
TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION No .
�p-3Sz�
EUGENE A. TACY and J
JAMES J . TACY, J
Plaintiffs ]
Jointly seeking ]
one Recovery ]
1
V. ] COMPLAINT
BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR ]
THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON J
EDWARD J . TEWHILL, ]
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ]
ACTING THROUGH ITS ]
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ]
AND ITS MEMBERS , NAMELY J
DR. PETER LABAND OF J
40 NORFOLK AVENUE, 1
I?ORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS '' ]
WILLIAM BRANDT OF 314 SOUTH ]
STREET, NORTHAMPTON, 1
MASSACHUSETTS ]
ROBERT C. BUSCHER, ]
54 HILLSIDE ROAD, J
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS ' ]
AND THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, }
Defendants ]
COUNT_ I
APPEAL OF THE ZONIPIG BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE CITY OF' c'OR"'HAI P 11 H -,S SAC HUSETTS
__.-- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LnQ, CHAPTER 40 (A) . SECTION 17
1 . The Plaintiff , Euaene A. Tacy and James J . Tacy are
residents of the City of Northampton and are the owners of
property located on Hain Street , Leeds , Hampshire County,
Massachusetts , which property is the subject of this
Complaint .
. The City of Northampton acting through its Zoning Board of
Iawoffi" Appeals and its members ,
namely Dr . Peter Laband of 40
PATWCKJ.MELMK Norfolk Avenue , Northampton , William Brandt , 314 South
HO King Street Street , Northampton and Robert C . Buscher of 54 Hillside
Xorthampton,.MLA01060 Road, Northampton and the Buildi na Inspector for the City
of Northampton , Edward J . Tewhill , are the Defendants
413-5844750 herein. The City cf Northampton is the Defendant in this
Count and each and every Count in this Complaint .
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 1937 . 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 . 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
contended in Hampshire County Superior Court , Civil Action
No. 37-138 that they are entitled to the use of the
premises as a Construction Supply Establishment only for
the entire premises even if they are not entitled to use
low Me the entire premises Jointly as a Construction Supply
rWVMCKJMEJWQK Establishment and as a contractor' s Yard. The Plaintiffs
HOKKg&nct had previously applied for the use of the entire parcel
Northampton,MA 01060 for a Construction Supply Establishment . This was denied
by the Zoning Board of Appeals and that denial is also an
413-584-6750 issue that is the subject of Superior Court , Civil Action
No. 27-133 .
7 . Subsequent to fili:-r Previous the p v i ' 1
-.� ous Civ` :ct�cr. _.^.
matter which deals with the use of the premli_s S in thaJ r
entirety for use as either a Construction. Supply
Establishment only or together with their pre-. xis Lina
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.
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
1937 which is recorded in Hampshire County Registry of
Deeds in Plan Book 143 , Page 33 , divided thz large tract
of land into two separate parcels . The Plan was presented
to the Plannina Board for the City of 11crthamnton and was
approved as a pian not requiring subdivision approval and
was recorded in the Hampshire County Reaistry or Deeds .
Both parcels of land shown on the aforesaid Pian of Land
are in the Special Industrial Zone. Both parcels of lard
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 ITorthampten.
9 . The land that is the subject matter of this dispute is
land that is located as the most Northerly lot sheT,,rn Dn
the Plan recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of
Deeds in Pian Book 14S , Page 33 . This parcel of lard is
owned by James J . Tacy and Eugene A. Tacy individually as
described in a deed dated September 10 , 19SS recorded in
Hampshire County P.eaistry of Deeds in Bock 3361 , Pace 343 .
The other parcel of land, which is the more Southerly
parcel of land abuttina th 14-17 River , is o,,•Tned by Tacy
Excavating and Construction Company, Inc . as shown on a
deed recorded in ::a_':)shire COunty Registry of Deeds In
Book 3261 , Pane 343 .
10 . The Plaintiffs in this action have entirely abandoned the
use of the Ncrthierly lot for all uses pursuant to the
request by the Buildina Inspector for the City of
Northampton.
17 . The previous Building Inspector fen the City
ITorthampton, ?Jillian, ITinonay, advised the Plaintiffs
herein that if they completely removed all of their
construction related equipment and materials from the site
law Office on ghich they wish to construct the Construction Supply
PATRICKJ.MELNIK Establishment , that he would, in fact , issue a Building
110 King Street Permit for the Construction Supply Establishment on the
vonhampton,MA01060 separate lagal building lot.
413-584-6750 12 • Based upon that representation and in reliance thereon the
Plaintiffs herein removed all trucks , =quipment , supplies
anal materials from the site that is the subject m.aLter of
d-1 spute e--ccepting only those Magri is that rX_r0
actually going to be used in the ph,,sical cc-s,:.ruczi= ct
the building to be constructed on t1nle pr2misas .
_, s -3 . Subsequently, in August c:ff 19 ��33 t, piajnr4_�.ff� -r. this
action filed an SA-pplication fcr a Building F_rmit for a
Construction Supply Establishiment on the di,74 -;=d parcel of
land that was now free of all sup-pli_s and _=auinment and
which had been abandoned by the Plaintiff's _`-_r use as a
4
Contractor ' s Yard for purposes Of obtaining a Building
Permit as a Construction SuiDniv Establishment .
IA . Use of the premises as a Ccnstructicn 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.
!;Z . Based upon the applic-ation c-f the Plaintiffs in this
action for the Building Permit , the then Building
Inspector for the Cit-,; of iTcrthampton , Paul -nuclos , issued
a Foundation Permit for the Construction Supply
Establishment , which Foundation Permit was Building Permit
N umab e r 553 .
16 . Based upon the issuance of the Foundation Permit the
Plaintiffs in this action proceeded to nour a foundation
for the Construction Supply -Establishment on the pre:!iises .
Subsequent to the -ocuring of the foundation a City
Counsellor for the City of Northamptc-n, namely Raymond W.
LaBarge , filed a Ccmplai-t with the Building Inspector an
Sentember 7 , 1983 that the Building Inspector
revoke the Foundation Permit . A copy of the Complaint
filed by City Councillor , Raymond W. LaBarge . is attached
to this Co ',plaint and, marked Ex.hibit
17 . Prior to the scheduling of a :fearing before the Zoning
Board of appeals or. the validity of the issuance of the
Foundation Per-mit , the 3ui' ding Inspector of the City of
1*,T orthamptcn, Paul Duclos , met with the Mayor for the
City of Northampton and Robert C . Buscher, Chairman of the
4n- Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton, to
o n- t, I- _L L. - 4.
discuss the Plaintiff ' s Permit Application. As a result
of that meeting the 1111ayor of the City of Northampton and
the Chairman of the Zoninc, Board of ppeals instructed the
Building Inspector for the City of Ilortlhampton to revoke
Law Office the Foundation Per-it that had been issued to the
PATRICKJ.-NIELNIK Plaintiffs . In a letter dated September 15 , 1939 the
n.
110 King Street Buildina Inspector for the City of Northampton rev Ked the
Xorthampton,MA 01060 Building Permit that had been previously been issued. A
copy of the revocation of the Buildina Permit is attached
413-584-6750 to this Complaint and is marked Fxhibit "B" .
13 . 1`Jevert1heless , on September 16 , 1933 t__,-e Building Insr)ectcr
for the City of Nort:^.amptcn reinstated the Building Permit
that had been issued to the Plaintiffs in this action.
Subsequently, on October 17 , 1938 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 iassachusetts General
Laws , Chapter 40A.
19 . At that Hearing, Robert C. Buscher , Chair_^�an of the Zoning
Board of Appeals , who had previously sat in the closed
meeting between the Mayor of the City ofT;orthampton,
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 an 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 3uscher
sitting as the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals or
hearing any testimony concerning the: validity off the
permit inasmuch as he had previously sat and rendered an
opinion at an unposted non-public meeting the
Mayor and the Building Inspector. A c--ritten objection to
his consideration on this _:atter was filed on Octcber 19 ,
1988 with the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals . A
copy of that letter attached to this Comnlainz and
marked E:chibit "C" .
21 . Subsequently, at a meeting held on iTovember 2 , 1988 the
Zoning Board of Appeals voted unamiously to uphold the
Appeal filed by Raymond W. LaBarge requestina the Building
Inspector to revoke the Foundation Per-it that had been
issued to the Plaintiffs .
22 . A copy of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is
attached to this Complaint '-=nd narked EXhibit "D" .
23 . The Plaintiffs in this action allege that the decision of
the Zoning Board of Appeals dated November 15 , 1983
e:rceeds 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 th= Buildina Inspector in issuing a
Building Permit for the Plaintiffs be upheld.
Law Office COUNT II
PATRICK .MELNIK i
J DISQJALI7 TCATIQTd OF THE
110 King Street CHAIRI-IATU1 OF THE ZQIII;IG BOARD OF APPEALS
Yorthampton,MA 01060
24 . The Plaintiffs restate each and every paragraph of this
413-584-6750 Complaint as if originally restated herein.
2_ . The Plaintiffs state that the Chairman C= _..e Zcr.inc: Board
of Appeals sat at a clo-sed Unpublished neetln.: at
decision concerning the propriety of the issuance cf the
Building Permit T-,,as decided and the Chairman and t1ne
Zoning Board of Appeals instructed the Building InSpeCtor
to revoke the permit. This meeting was held prior tc the
public hearing on this mar-ter .
26 . The Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals -vi,o sat at the
public hearing had previously made up his :mind as to his
decision as to the propriety of the issuance ^f the
building permit and participated in the public meeting Of
the Zoning Board of :ippeals on October 17 , 19SS ,,,ith a
biased predisposition. His bias and his Opinion '-Tit:i
respect to the validity of the issuance of _h� Building
Per-it was apparent in both his rulings and conduct :luring
the public hearing.
27 . The Plaintiffs in this action allege that th-e decision of
the Zonina Board of Lppeals was actually influenced b,r the
Chairman of the Zonina Board of Appeals who voted i:,, favor
Of the Appeal filed by Councillor LaBarge and that -ze
decision of the _ e-malnln-g members of the Zonina Board of
Appeals was influenced by the actions of the Chairman.
28 . The Plainzi`_fs allege that they did not receive a fair and
impartial hearing 'With an open minded and impartial
deliberatina body at the time that the decision *as made
with respect to the propriety of the issuance of the
Building Permit for their Construction Supply
Establishment.
29 . Therefore , the Plaintiffs allege that the decision cf the
Zonina Board of .Dpea-1S was improperly :made , and that they
did not receive a fair and adequate hearing tiefore an
impartial deliberating body and that they are entit__d at
a minimum to a new hearing on the propriety of the
issuance of _ham Building Permit to them, The Plair._iffs
also allege that they have lost money as a result Of t1nis
conduct for �•rhich they should be reimbursed.
CCUTT III
DAIIAGES rOR r!iI1dEIIT DOIiAI_�.1
La"off"` 30 . The Plaintiffs restate each and every Para-graph of this
PATRICKJ.MELNIK Complaint as if Originally restated herein.
110 King Street -
lorthampton,MA01060 31 • The Plaintiffs state that thev have abal7dCl sd the llS2 CL
their property for all uses and are seekina a use for the
413-584-6750 parcel of land that is the subject matter of this dispute
for use as a Construction Supply Establishment Tahich is a
Ilse allowed by right under City Zoning.
32 . The Plaintiffs state that the Bul' Z�. '�so�
�:. �ctcr for the
Cj Zy of P?orthampton, and the 7onin.q Board of =.c_ -peals for
u1:0a�lo��� the
the City of Northampton are refsing o y
Plaintiffs to use their property for a ase that is allowed
them as of right.
33 . The Plaintiffs , therefore , stat"- zhat if the city_ Cf
Norzham;pton will not allow the P1a11riit5 to BSc Lha.-L_
property for any lawful use c,rhic:, is allowed b_�ri .,,n _
under City Zoning that they have effectively taken
property from the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs are ,
therefore , entitled to comnensaticn from the City of
P1orLhampton for the full and =air market value of the
property.
34 . The Plaintiffs state that they have met all of the
conditions and requirements _:posed upcn them by the rules
and regulations of the City of tort.aampton the Zoning
Ordinances of the Citi, of HorLhampton and have met all of
the requests of the acting Building Inspector of tha City
of florthampton to allow their property to be used for a
lawfully allowed use under City Zoning. The failure of
the City of 11orthampto: to allow them to use their
property for this lawful use entitles them, to just
compensation.
35 . The Plaintiffs derand a i'RIzL BY JURY �Dn this Court of
their Complaint.
COUNT-IJ
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 cf the Cit-,, of ".iorthampton are acting
in a concerted effort to force the Plaintiffs toSci' 1
to
the City of Northam;pt0:1 th it loro1Jerty below its fair
market value for housing for the elderly.
33 . Subsequent to their initial application to allow the use
of their premises as a Construction Supply Establish ;ent
that was filed in IBSa_ , 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
LCK1.Aaw I out of Special Industrial Use. The attempt of these
PATRICKJ.DiELNIK individuals to have the
property rezoned and taken out of
110 King Street Special Industrial Use was defeated.
tiorthampton,MA 01060
39 . During this period of tLm.e the Housing nuthority of the
413-584.6750 City of Piorthampton 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.
—o—
40 . The Plaintiffs in this action sre approached by
Councillor LaBarge and requested by C3uncillcr LaBarge to
sell this property to the Cit,; of iicrthampton 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 fro.,: using their
property for a lawful use under City Zoning is an attempt
to diminish the value of the property or force the
Plaintiffs into such serious adverse economic
circumstances that they mould be forced to sell the
property to the City of Ilort=-a.-npton for Elderly Housing.
42 . The Plaintiffs state That the attempt by the Housing
Authority of the City of Iiorthampton to take their
property by Eminent Domain was defeated inasmuch as r_h
Housing Authority determined that it could not take this
property by Eminent Domain for housing purposes . The
attempt by the City of 'Northampton to obtain the prcp`rry
by purchase has failed because the Plaintiffs do not
intend to sell the property to the City of Ilortha.^^.ptcr. for
Elderly Housing.
43 . Therefore , the Plaintiffs allege that the acti-ons 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 rr.e
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 deceotive 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 Northanpton the
Plaintiffs in this action have actually been da .aged.
The Plaintiffs allege that they have been unable to use
their property for any lawful purpose for a period cf ti^e
and that they have rade e penditures by way of building a
foundation and purchasing a building for construction of
Law Office the premises which they are unable to construct through
the acts and practices of the officials of the City of
PATRICKJ.MELIVIK iIorthampion.
110 King Street
dorthampton,MA01060 45 . The Plaintiffs allege that they ar= entitled to da_"!au-s
from the City Of Iiortha.mpton for the loss cf property that
413-584-6750 they have suffered as a result cf the actions Of the City
of Ilortha.ptcn.
=6 . The Plaintiffs all_�as that t:zey are entitled to k
comr)ensation fro: :'_ City of Northamptcn fcr ale fill and
fair market value. of the diminution of c :aiL`c Ca L_7ei r
property as a result of the unlawful acts an practices of
the officials of the City of Northampton.
47 . The Plaintiffs demand a TEFL BY JURY on t:-:__ Count of
their Complaint.
WHEREFORE , the Plaintiffs demand the following:
1 . That the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals
dated Nove: ber 15 , 1S,33 be annulled and t:-:at the
Building Permiz fcr the construction of -'-a
Construction Supply Establishment be allc:aed.
B In the alternaLive the Plaintiffs demand t'^a7_ the
case be remanded to the Zoning Board of appeals --Fc-- a
full and fair and before an impartial _�ttirg or
members of the Zoning Board of Appeals �aho have not
previously rendered a decision on the rerits their
Petition prior to Public Hearing.
That damaaes be assessed against the Defendants in
this action for such sum as will be necessary to
compensate the Plaintiffs for all of the loss of
profits , diminution of the value of their property ,
loss of use of their property, loss of fair reintal
value of their property , and such other damages as
the Plaintiffs have suffered as a result of the
unfair and unlawful acts and practices Of the
Defendants in this case .
4 . Attorney ' s fees and costs .
5 . The Pla=nL; ifs demand such other relief as mai' be
appropriate .
6 . The Plaintiffs demand a TRIAL BY JURY on Counts II.I
and of this Complaint .
T•tcvember 13 . '_3S8 ___._. -- _. _ --_._. -- ________
Patric!: J. 11eini Esq.
Law Office ;10 Y.ina Sty -°et
PATRICKJ.MELNIK 'Northampton, 1-1a 01060
110 King Street 534-6750
Qorthampton,MA 01060
413-584-6750
Paul Duclos September 7, 1988
Building Inspector
City of Northampton'
Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Office Building
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Re: Zoning Complaint
d
b '1,
OE N�Rn{I,,',l'�C
Building Inspector:
Pursuant to our conversations over the past weekend, I would like to formally
file a Zoning Complaint against the issuance of Building Permit #553 issued for the
construction of a foundation for a Construction Supply Establishment to Eugene Tacy
(158 N. Maple St. , Florence, 584-7114) for his property at 175 Main Street in Leeds
(Parcel 17, Map 10D of the Northampton Zoning/Assessor's Maps).
I believe that the issuaddd of this Building Permit is in violation of Section
9.3(b.) and in-violation of the,iDecision of the Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
made on August 12, 1987, to which Mie., •Tacy. has filed an Appeal.
Your response to this complaint at your earliest possible convenience would be
greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
- *l�R ymond W. LaB rge
City Councilor-Ward 7
(ri#� of Nart4ampten
�` � 1fGiasaacllusetis - = j
o a x
py Offirr of tilt �lnSVtrtox of 70itilbinos y .
* 4 = W
7
!U T
212 Main Street•Municipal Building
Northampton. Muss. 01060 ,
COMPLAINT SHEET
Complaint No. 4J
How received: Telephone ( ) A .;;.
Personal ( ) c
` Date: -7
1
` Time: /L&A.M. P.M.
Letter ( X) 1tlG lt1`•a
584-5561
Telephone No.
Complainant's Name: Raymond W LaBarge;:�CounciJor-Ward 7
Complainant's Address: 24 Writer Street, LeP-1Q_T MA ()1n53
Complaint received by: •,.,�t4cl
2 11
VIOLATIONS OF: Northamptnn. m;jss.
K Chapter 44 Zoning Ordinances, City of Northampton
O Chapter 802 As Ammended Mass. State Building Code
0 Sanitary Code,Art.2
Complaint reported against:
Name: Eugene Tacy _ Tei. .584-7114
Address: 158 N. Maple St Florence,
Location of complaint: 175 Main St. , Leeds, MA Map# 1Q6 Lot# 17
Signature of Complanants:
1/7
Nature of complaint:
Investigation: Yes ( ) No ( ) Investigated by:
� e �Z� II� �QZ>t�t�12t�1�IIlt
q � � �tassRchitsetts Z r
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS �
INSPECTOR 212 Main Street ' Municipal Building
Paul J. Duclos Northampton, Mass. 01060
p
F
y.
September 12, 1988
Mr. Raymond W. LaBarge
24 Water Street
Leeds, Mass. 01053
Dear Mr. LaBarge:
Pertaining to your complaint filed in our office on September 7, 1988,
made against Eugene Tacy, 158 North Maple St. , Florence, on the property he
owns at 175 Main Street, Leeds.
My feeling is that your complaint is unfounded under Regulations, Section
9.3b is inappropriate to the building permit that was issued. This is allowed
by right to the owners under current regu4etions of the Zoning Ordinance for
the City of Northampton.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Duclos
Building Commissioner
PJD/lb
PC: Mayor
Mr. Tacy
City Solicitor
Larry Smith
r
i
r
O�THAMp�O
$ ((�<LZf� of Xort4anipf un z r
�� � �T{assxc(�usctts
T" cs DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR 212 Main Street ' Municipal Building '
1y yV,y
Paul J. Du c l o s 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.
.PJ.
losmmissioner
PJD/lb
pc: Atty. Melnik
Mayor's Office
Legal Dept.
,L
PATRICK J.MELNIK
ATTOR.NEY AT LAW
y
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
October 19 , 1988 Telephone 419-584-6750
k
Robert Buscher
Chairman of the
Zoning Board of Appeals
Municipal Office Building
Main Street
Northampton, Ma 01060
10 F Re : Eucene_Tacy - Appeal of Raymond LaBarge
Dear Mr. Buscher:
As a follow up to my oral objections to your deliberation
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 regard, but rather the appearance of impropriety that is
created as a result of the newspaper articles that have surfaced
surrounding the controversy relating to the termination of the
Building. Inspector. The Daily Hampshire Gazette and I believe
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
�r upon by all parties concerned. The Daily Hampshire Gazette and
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
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
f ` . that no persons representing Eugene *Tacy were present at the
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.
PATRICK J.MELNIK
1 i ATTOffiVEY AT LAW
110 King Street
ry ,y. Northampton, MA 01060
2_ Telephone 419.584-6750
l
As you chaired the meeting on October 17 , 1988 it was
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
' 't- Special Industrial Zone are to be treated as one lot for Zoning
��� : purposes even though they have been legally divided and are not
^i4; currently :in common ownership. I believe that any person who is
psident of the City of Northampton and comes before the
Z-4-in g.; Boa;,d of Appeals is entitled to a fair hearing before an
artial ,, nd unbiased body. It appeared to me at the meeting
n'i.gh, g;,that you had already made a decision as to how you
�activWi-th respect to the Tacy Building Permit and if that
,4 h���,4 y Y jf•Cl Yw`,�Q 4.Zd t
s;t ? d1.'s :QA' �ts .-reached as reported by the newspapers at a closed
t, he Mayor ' s Office that puts a cloud on the entire
cess that 'should' treat all parties fairly. At the very
s r .newspaper-accounts of your meeting in the Mayor' s
M"tth ot=her public officials to hear only one side of the
zrTtii�r mei',i,t+s.,e he ,.Tacy,:Application and then participating as a
�t man' °in t'he decision making `process presents an appearance
Y-3
4 t f
+�� y ids that I believe undercuts and undermines the public
y 1{{y
a r� a: confidences;in the integrity of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
N,w� :y Therefore, I ask you to reconsider your decision to
—participate in the decision making process with respect to the
merits of the Tacy Building Permit and I ask you to remove
yourself from deliberations in this matter. I believe that Gene
Tacy is entitled to a Hearing before an impartial , open minded,
and unbiased board and there are alternate members of the Board
;. who could sit and consider this matter in your absence .
erely,
Patrick J. M lnik
PJM/jn
cc. Mayor David Musante
cc . Kathleen Fallon
r cc . Eugene Tacy +
I
n
� CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
=� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
e NORTHAMPTON. MASSACHUSETTS 01060
uSTm-d
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
OLEEDOF A CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY
ESTABLISHMENT AT 175 MAIN STREET,
S.
Pursuant to the Provisions of the General Laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts , Chapter 40A, Section 15 , notice of
is
hereby given that a decision of the Zoning Board of App
ealthe 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 N220tdays of the
Citdate
erthis decision was filed
in the office of the
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Ilk T_ CIL 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
Inspector of 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 D. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and
William Brandt.
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 vard. 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 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 601 x 601 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.
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
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
I� 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, I
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
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
li Ordinance.
II ii; The Building Inspector' s issuance of the Foundation Permit
( #553 ) was erroneous.
C
I
,i
! Robert C. 8uscher, Chairman
i
1
Dr. Peter Laband
William Brand
I
;Wed <'S ot{icir
MASS,
Date oZ
Time /��