10D-017 TACEY (8) C011110I,1WTEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
TIAIIPSHIPE , S . S . DEPAR.TNEITT OF THE
TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISIOIT
CIVIL T=101T ITo . 89-073
EUGEITE A . TACY and 1
JAMES J . TACY , 1
Plaintiffs 1
Jointly seeking 1
nne '.rCOVEry
1 FIRST t"1IEITDED
1 COMPLAINT
1
KTILDING IITSPECTOR FOR. 1 �}
THE CITY OF ITORTHAIIPTOIT
EDWARD J . TEWHILL ,
CITY OF ITOR.THAMPTOIT
ACTING THROUGH ITS 6 � g�LZOITING
BOARD OF APPEALS 1 /
AMID ITS MEMBER S , TdAt'IEL Y 1 pEPT.(,r Bi1!LDING INSPECSIrJMS €
11. SAITFORD WEIL , JR. OF
96 FTASHINGTOIT AVENUE , 1
11ORTHAIIPTOI1, MASSACHUSETTS 1
WILLIAM BRANDT OF 314 SOUTH 1
STREET , NORTHAMPTON , 1
MASSACHUSETTS 1
IREITE DAVID , OF 213 FAIRWAY 1
VILLAGE , I-TORTHAI11PT0I1 , 1
MASSACHUSETTS 1
AITD THE CITY OF IJORTHAIIPTOII , 1
Defendants 1
(:oTlltT I
APPEAL C? Br_!AP.D OF API=Br.LS
OF THE CITY (-.)F ITr;RTH�,IIPTC>it 11,°;SS ACIIUSI;TTS
t?ITD'FR THF PROVI` 1 ITS
IIASSACHUSETTS GE1?ERAL LilllS , CH ;PTER t0 ( I j _T,C'TIC?TI 17
1__ . T I i e Plaint; ff , E1_T,_T_n: A . T c,v =incl ;?a^ J . 'T 1c-1r ax
rr_cialt-=Ills f the City OfITn1 the pton c!nrl �r th'? YS
?`Y '>p :r ty located. on Ilii n Str _ t , i >_: is , Hampsh?_r�_l County .
Massachusetts , which propc-rty is th—e subject of this
Corplaint .
TT1; City r.f TTortham.pt-I1 _l'_'titl'T `�hr-lv_Th lt!�- Zonin(f Board of
Law OfficeJ ,L)rr2als and its p _-rlb rc , nm,!: 1_V 1'I . q 1llfr)rc1. 1:1,12i.], C;f 9(
PATRICK J.MELNIK 44ashincTton Avenue , ITortll,1fpt ,-)t , 1.1-i 1 11--1r) ?TI-aI-!dt , X 1 4 South
110 King Street Strc-t , ITort.h;-arptoll incl Tr_'n !.13Vi l '�f .21.3 Fa] rwav Vil_lao;;-- ,
Northampton,MA 01060 IT(_ rtha-_ plon and the RIi1. �_i nQ 1_n.�pn c t nr frr th : City of
413-584-6750 ]Torthampton , Ed<,7ard J . TP_,xhill , are thy- D-,�fendants II�2reir! .
y Y
mom,"
F
3 . T?1 _ Plaint iff 'I'a'-v an,i 7 1 ) . racy • t ! ':1 t.h yr
nTI t tl ^t11 r mF p}l ,1"q ''.,f t.11ci. ._ f a",i 1-,. ..i:.). t-h r:..rnc:'i-f-
cr3utaiIi tract (:,r r-*}Lich they a! ')n
J11I1;> 1 , 1982 frr , Lt . T-10i.n . `Fh� Plaintiffs and
,,,-_,, tiers of their f-1171i iy t}:}_ 1 j f„I
an':i a TJr P r,)i t to allo�r the use f the '_astir _ prem.is s
for th•e c,v n St!Draa, of ra-T at2Y 1.a1.S r-11A ns a
n` tY"11rt1C'n Clip 1V FSt 1,-1 h:nit=nt: �t V?i i'.' 1F= t'im s
1�-"cI i n n 1 rl'j i n ^^_I r e vas}• 1 f 1 q^ (-r>T i t 11-111 l 11':1 1-11-1 t-l I Ti 1 I)
-f 19p7 . The Z(:)n%' in
the City cf 1}ortha,peon and the t_1S ,If -11._ prP-t(,.is- Ds as
_'onc tructiOn Sul_)p1y Est`lhi i.r-hrn_:nt th^ t_1C 1 r,rhl h LS 5O1.1CII t
by the Plaintiffs herein , is a use allowed by richt in
char Zonina District .
4 . The-1 Buil'lina Ins}rector of th = (:ity of iTarthar:pton has
d _nied the us cf chr pr ~`.is(: as a Constr)_lction Supply
EstalDli ShI"=nt as for i as the pr,--2- Sc.c are use,l in
-onnOct:ion with rhe- or—ral:ion ^_1= 1:11= 1"1sinn-ss of T_lcy
E;:cavatina CoI7struct.ion Company • Inc . aS a Contra to ' s
Yard.
hl l Plaintiffs in t-h i_c a t]_cn anl their 1 1 c1 r.f c. r.)rs have
l_`r ?Vious-ly used the. I>' ?t'1S S as c1 ! )IIfracfor , s Y'-1 I., for
th c)p;-=n Stor aae- of ral,t arlrl C( n`'--t---11ct,l 'iII
-=!j'_11UmeI7t �,rhicll 1S a Ice a] ]- lr.r.' d L, I 1 11 Per 7.t ].r1 t11i�
District . The Plaintiffs have confenJcd t.hrOuah the
Buildina Insi,ector anr3 t.h= ?3oar,9 of }tp;_a].r for t:ll;. City
of i`lorthampton that the-, either ha,=e a 1>r ---e:_is+-incl
irm-conforming use of the pr :'r i_s °s for the open st oYacre of
Y-,- w -,,n, 11a1S 8n l "On. tY:t.lCt1!-)n i}t-11.�'- ,e ,t. r th.=tt- thev r,r r
Aran-,:cd a Sp<<cial Pea .,--i-t for this ?ISE'_ a` a 1:'�cu1 t Of aI7
application for a C E,,r_i-al P r n.it fit d cn S'e1pT:'"";i, f 1 .
1Q8•� .
6 . I'll =riT_s of_ the contnnticns ^f th= Plaintiffs r it1:
r..cam: t tO the OC>er all I1 ^.f T r j`1 ."•ic ` ,c c1 Coll —ictnC
Y-trc1 -+nd th-- m-rits ^f °'h==th-_r r: nc`t t-hc Plaintiffs in
this 3':'t1OI1 aY_e _nt;_f l 1 r;1 .a p Y"lit f'7r t11>_' -1r-v. ( f t=11•v
P"_ 1S==` ac a ( nr(Srrtl,c'.lon Ct11 i`1v Ecr 117]_ 11 "'.'c_^.t I1 th''
Tlr 11't T)1 ^rnic_r is } r,', cell jai-t r 1 lit c = Clue ri vil X-'- 1oI1
f i 1^d in th 1_ rOur r H,:^•p` }-i7.t �r�)li1C: Stlh _ , ; („ CO11r L
C.'_ '1l iiccl^I1 110 . %- ] Zn The P1,� li?t'ffc haVe also
^nntnmdecl in HamTlchirn' C,-)IInty St.11-,:2Y-ior ( 0111"t ('i.?=i]_ fiction
lio . R- 7-138 that they aro entitle,I to the us-_ of t=h
Law Office
iii :''.iseS as a Conctrur-•ri_on St.1l:,I_)1 -j Est:7ibli�711m.ent Or1.1_',' for
PATRICK J.MELNIK th entire premises =on i f they are not F_lntit.lr-d to USE
110 King Street rh,- entire promises jointly a! a Const1-11ctiOn SuF)ply
Northampton,MA 01060 EctalDl ishment and as a Contractor ' S YarCl . Th i= Plaintl.ffs-
413-584-6750 had prey=iously applied for the use )f tli'_ F=Iltlr '. parcel
N--a
MAR 6 W t i I
f-r a Cons tructi-11 Su.c`r•1.V ''.zthme'nr Thl_s r.,a d e nie,d
})v t}lc Sonlna Board r'f and t11-).t rl=Inia '. 7 �- also all
1-sStic Lhat is Lh!'_ subl:'r'L f lli)E::rlo1 -'�L1Y't i'; C'1 aCt1C)Il
'To . 87-138 .
clthsE:!T11'nr r fi 1�..nCT L}?'_ 1 r`i "1^11 'l_T,'il_ _ 'tIOTl [1 }115
matt e r I^'hlch d=:a1s 7,7ith t}l us'.. c)f th }71" --IliSCP ln., th •ir
rtir tv for use as pith:' a c-n.struct:ion Supply
Establish_"?ent oIlly ':;Y' t^:lether '''ith th•c1Y- pry=`e 1St lila
Ilon`cenforr.in(_T u�7 r 1.15%_ al. ^ ^?t?(t 1)v S-r_ _c,ia1 P r:.)it aag a
Contractor ' s Yard , the Plaintiffs herein s,_1bs- q,_1. nt'ly
divided their land into two s,_Parat. 1,-)ts under cit-7
Zonina.
The, premises originally consisted of a tract of land of
than two acres . The Plaintiffs , by a Plan pi --pared
})v AIm.er Huntley JrsOc'latn-5 . ZnC . d._3t;�Cd Ju D.17 22
1987 which is recorded in Hampshire County P.',_gist.ry of
Deeds in Plan Bock 148 , Paas_ 82 , divide--d the laru tract
,i,f land into tT?o sc-•}_)arat= uarc'els . The Plan !,!as presented
r^ the Plannin,Ct B'-`ard for the ;it'tr of ITorthampton and t!as-
a Lo,Tlrni�fi':� as a T�lan ii,-)t r;_Cqu1ri_nC7 s"}„ 1V1.S1_ )Il t}7}JrC�Val_ and
h7.as rvcr`rded in the '.Ha,npshir-" (you_nt -y Of
Both rarc,-Js of l(anj sho-n oil '-h-_ P1aIl ^f Land
ar- in the STDecial B'_)t}1 pals, is :,f laIld
haT'e more than _ lnl ?Ll" 1'_'t si t.'idt'1 , frc)nLag �md in
ail r_sLecl s co:(!mly 'T-'lth rhe di rnnl 1^C1 .1 7:ecJuirc7)='nts of
the Zonlna Ordinanceof the C ivT 7 of Pertha-!Pt c)" -
7 d c } ctj})a r art cf t}77 S 1:L SruI -- i_5
_ Th _ _. an that 7__ r_1
I-In'l Char is lc)cat='d as t]7:.' ^! c h }T!)rt}l:_1-.ly J_ot 5}7;:)'.'?n oil
r}, P1 1n r oY ,� n t.Tl; } r �r. ,,T_1t , P ir+_ry r,f
In Plan. Boni. 1 /18 , PrcT;= 00 . Thlc- , j ' 1 )t l '1 P.c_1 Ls
r�*.rn d bV 1a_")^p ,1 �1'a'."'y' - n.d E) Ginn; 1�i T'aCY 1'�d1V7.':1t1311'•j _,c
in a derld date Sc-i:ter)..h) .:r 10 , 1913'e, rec„rd.d in
N t7n1)ch11 ( ^1.1ilry F c}lcr1 y f ll= _rj5 1 Bn ,}: 32�il. Faris , ,
Thi T1
oth r arC?1 Of laTld+ , 9'}?lc}7 1.S t'_},; )'^_. S�)tIt11g-1r 1y
Parc e 1 „f 1and. abutti na r1,_: 1i:_11
E-cavatlna and l tljlct',LLI''t1oT1 r01'?})3I1y Ir " . ^c c}lr)'.^I7 oil a
decd recorded in Harpshir-_ County F '>':Tistr'v f Deeds in
Book 3261 , Paa 242 .
10 . Ph=_ Pl iintiff_s in this act.i.on hav _nti]_. 1_ ; ab=andoned th
use of the 1}ortherl.y lat for all us_�s }_)�.1rsLlant. t-) the
rerjuest by the Buildinu Inspector fC`r fh1-- !_7-Cy '_,f
Law Office }Torthar ptoIl .
PATRICK J.MELNIK
110 King Street 11_ Th-e pr_='71011s Build1rcT Insp rtor fr,r rh C'i.t.v of
Northampton,MA 01060 11Tc'`rt,hampton , Wi11la_, }'Taltln}lay . a'IviSc"_ th'= PIalIlti f f s-
413-584-6750 'l -rein that if they :o:n}: let':ly r ln.ov^d all_ r)f their
• }.` k «ro� 4 � rl f E I
2�
b k
)x
MAR 61989
,. jr
Eli . r,
`ns`:luction Ye1at _rle quiern,=n,- and 7-a+ --Yi?1_. fr ,,w rh = i.fi
on r7h_ich they wish to construct:_ t=11 E'. r-)II -t2 uCt i on �t_1p�71y
Establish !ent , that: he would , in fact , issue a Buildina
Permit for the Construction Supply Estahlishme'nt on the
separate leaal buildincr lot .
Pasr.lci upon that r_=pr�_=cen.tation and in r;-iliance thereon t.h�,
Plaintiffs her-in r--noved -lll trucks . e'7fuipment , supplies
Ind )ateri a]_s from th-- sit tI at is th= subir-ct natter of
Alin disp1_lt= .'r T:incT ^n v th0,7 r.aT-eria1I' thlt w ere
actually aoinr�T to b.v ,_ls _ 1. in the T)hysicc construction of
the buildincT to be constr)_lct--don the prer,.ises .
SUbSCI:TuF-ntly , in AurTust of 1988 th; Pl linti fs in this
acti^n fil-':'d an t:r,pl_j_C.atir,i} fe -1 P,_!i 1_din-f Per--ii- for
Construction 'SuT-ply Estahli n :ent "n th;1 divldE:�d parcel of
1 r T rT s t nc, of 1.I_ n)1 , i. 7 =S and � TulnYn='nt and
1 .n_� _hat a..- _l _ fI � T
had ber,n aoaIldoned i?y t I7 _ P1_ lni 1ffS for L1S as a
Cc,ntractor ' s Yard fDl:- T),1.rr oSes "f "1-`talnlIla a tB)11lCTina
Permit as c Const?_uct'.ion Sup- l}'
}1
iF, au� ? it lr.r,, Ci }:'ejr i'l Uht: in'I r City '-Ind th'-� 1 Cit
UTICIIl !17h1Ch thy'
S:ouCTht t'' bC Cc)nstr ,'ct _(J ''',.'i.1)11 '1 in a l 1 r-sr" *,1t}-) t_.7.
di-r,ensicnal reCf'17-Y- :m,'?I7Lc t t}!r i t r of 1%`Y tl: 11",T?tOTl
l_`:, , Based upon the application cF t:h== P11: f F. in this
action for trig_ Bt_Iildinrf D<<rmi_t , th--� t R,1-11dina
1nFT`ector for the City 0f ITo1-tlla_,1T)t`)I1 , Pa1_)T D).!C10S , lcstic= ;r
a Foundation Per—.it f -)r the Construction
Establishment , T,Thich Foundation Pei-mit was- B?Tilciina P=.=r.^it
lTumber 553 .
1G . Based uz)on the issuance cf the Foundation P =r_iit the
:Taintilffs lil this action pro '_"y'1 =d. to T)<?L11' 7 f01.1?-1dctt7.OIl
for the: Construction Supply Frt:thliF,h-, rit 011 th-_ premiS)::s .
Subs_auent to th p^urina of tilt= f.c,un,Jaticn a City
o,�ns-:llor for th., ; j T;r f 1Tc,I ttla ll )r_on . rta n_: 1 Pay o*11 TT .
T.,aBarae ' filed a c—Oplaint TTi th th; Buil.,Hna Inspr-ctor in
tI`!at Lh-^_ BuJ.ldina Ins[ CtCr
reVol::: th Foun&. tioIl P'_1'?' it A ct:'uv of the Complaint
f.il=_d by City Councillor , I'.a yr)ccnd LI. L,aB rcT_: , is a*_-tached
to this Complaint and marked E-hibit "A" .
Law Office 17 Pv-i or ro the S-ChC'_iul i,t1a r`f ? 1I a' i_n'_f l7 fnI"_ tI1 C)ninCT
PATRICK J.MELNIK Board of ppeals on the validity of the issuanc' <.Df t-he
110 King Street Foundation P=r-it , T:h- R,_I_i.1dincf Tnnr =c t, r Cf th_ City of
Northampton,MA 01060 , c 1_r n 1 t_ p*i i_ F n n
ITcrtha:. T✓ron , Paul �7 . J✓ �l__ �,. , � 71 th - May r f�r the
413-584-6750 City of Dortham.pton and Robert C . Buscher ,, Chairman of till,:
�f ^t
:J'�..:
LU�.
�. hwn v.u..r-.•�,til„�v+ln4w......n.,.xw ran:
`'..onina Board of Apreals of rhe City of ITorthamptcn , to
discuss the Plaintiff ,3 P=1'L' 1t fi}?T��_1! I-1C.`I7 . J-is a result
of r_hat- _ -'Cetina rh:_ Mayor -,.F th _ (_' i T' of ITorrhan pton and
t1i Chairrali of th _ Zonina B0- '3 of 'PP als instructed til_
Blil-1di.na TnSp C"Lor fCr tI— C'i +-- of IT^r thampton Lo r-3vo]:
th�gn F:
oc
-5- E
i'
!.I1ST)cctor `? order'?' '"_'VO}':1IlU r`L11 � d1I1CT ] ELr'lt 63? F'er
`=,a.?lf^zd Ilr i _l ^f 9 `' [,laShlnCFr n iV vT1LIe , Por th"i_ J' )tori . I'11111a
Brandt , as Actino (:h�irm.an of 31,x_ South
ITorthampton and Ir--nr-) Da 7ic1 of 2113 Fair�•Ta-,' V -llau =
ITorthampton.
WHEREFORE , the plaintiffs d r.l..and the fcllcwin t :
That-- r_Ile decision of the Zoninu Board of App = is dated
Februar-�,T 3 . 19"9 b-P annulled and that the Bu.i ld inq Ferr..ii
for the construction of the Cc>nstruction SupPIV-
Establishment be allowed .
lurch 2 , 1989
P . rricl, T . Melnik Esq.
110 finer Street
ITarrhamrron , 1-1:1 01050
584-5750
Law Office
PATRICK J.MELNIK
110 King Street
Northampton,MA 01060
413-584-6750
i
...Paul Duclos September 7, 1988
,',Building Inspector
City; of Northampton' ;
;•;.Wallace Puchalski'Municipal Off ice Building
b .r.....,..,. .......o r "9 K
Northampton, Massachusetts. 01060
Re: •'Zoning complaint �. f `( ... .. L
;. f. L
- 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 IOD of the Northampton Zoning/Assessor's Maps).
I believe that the issuatidd of this Building Permit is in violation of Section
9.3(b.) and in-violation.:of the,lDecision of the Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
made on August 12, 1987, to whidh Mie.-.i.-Tact', has filed an Appeal.
Your response to this complaint at your earliest possible convenience would be
greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
i
I .
�4y=mondW. LaB r
City Councilor-Ward 7
I
j
C�iik a# Wartijampf ait _
� � �lsesachnsetta
' ® DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR 212 Main Street ' Municipal Building o '.
Northampton, Mass. 01060
Paul J. Duclos
�Ef S.f�Riilt^i1°S
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
j 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.
i •
PIJ
losmmissioner
PJD/lb.
pc: Atty. Melnik
Mayor's Office
Legal ,Dept.
i
i
i
k
DECISION OF '
k
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ,' _
J I
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,,W,,and,,M.',..Sanford Weil, Jr.
The, ndings, 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
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 maybe 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 API'EALS IN THE
MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF EUGENE TACY OF THE REVOCATION OF A
i.
: �� ii'n;i BUILDINGxPEAMIZ.'ISSUED r TO NIM.
`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
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 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
;, ofBuilding,.,Permit #632.
i
William Bra t, Chairman
M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Irene David