10D-017 TACEY (18) it
DECISION OF 1987i
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALi'
I
At a meeting held on August 12 , 19871 the Zoning Board of
Appeals cf the City of Northampton voted unanimously to uphold I
the refusal of the Building Inspector to issue a Bu.ild.ing
Permit to Eugene A. Tacy, 158 North Maple Street, Florence, MA,
for the purpose of constructing a construction supply i
establishment at his property located on the easterly side of
Main Street, Leeds, MA. Present and voting were: Chairman
Robert C. Buscher, Peter Laband and Sanford Weil, Jr.
The findings were as follows :
S. Weil concurred with the advise from the Legal Department
that a building permit cannot be issued for the expansion of
the pre-existing nonconforming use without a Finding from the
Board of Appeals . He found that in the absence of a division
of the lot or a discontinuance of the nonconforming
contractor ' s yard, and in view of the fact that the Board
denied Mr. Tacy' s previous request for a Finding (which is now
in court on appeal) , that the Building Inspector ' s refusal to
issue a building permit was correct.
P. Laband found Att. Melnik' s argument regarding the
possibility of his client subdividing the lot or discontinuing
the pre-existing nonconforming use after the issuance of a
building permit ingenuous. He noted that the City Solicitor
had reviewed the application and found that this request still
represents an expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming use,
and therefore, requires a Finding from the Board of Appeals .
Because of the reinforcement from the Legal Department on this
matter, he supported the ruling of the Building Inspector. He .
also noted that there are opportunities available to the
applicant to achieve his end.
R. Buscher concurred, finding the petition redundant in that
the applicant has requested to be allowed to put a use on the
property which would expand a pre-existing nonconforming use.
Fie noted that the applicant alleged that if the Board
countermanded the Building Inspector' s decision and ordered him
to issue a building permit, the current nonconforming use would
not continue on site. As there is no evidence that this would
occur, and as the request represents an expansion of a
nonconforming use, he upheld the Building Inspector' s decision
to refuse to issue a building permit.
�( I Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
�,-�- --
Peter Laband
Sanford' Weil, Jr.