10D-017 TACEY (24) -PA'T'RICK ,T. MELNI }
AT AT LAW .t w,,.,.,i• R
110 -Ling Street
Northampton, MA 0106 AM
t
April 2 i , 19 8 7p� MP108, 06100NS Tele hone 413-584-6750
City Solicitor 's Office
212 Main Street
Northampton , Ma 01060
Re: Eugene Tacy - Application for Zoning Permit
Main Street , Leeds , Massachusetts
Dear Attoney Fallon and Attorney Gleason:
Please be advised that I represent Eugene Tacy and his
family concerning his application for a Building Permit to
construct a Construction Supply Establishment on their property
zoned Special_ Industrial on Main Street , Leeds , Massachusetts .
It is my understanding that the Building Inspector has
requested a Ruling and that you will also receive a Request for
a Ruling from the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the
necessity to obtain a Special Permit for the Building Permit
for the Construction Supply Establishment . At this time I
would like to set forth in writing the position of Eugene Tacy
concerning his belief that: he does not need additional approval
in order to obtain a Building Permit in order to construct a
Construction Supply Establishmert on that parcel of land .
Eugene Tacy and his family nave operated a contractor ' s
yard for the open storage of raw materials and construction
equipment on this lot for a period of approximately nine
years . This was a continuation of a use of the prior owner ,
George Tobin , who also used this parcel of land for a
contractor ' s yard . Neither George Tobin nor the Tacy family
had obtained a Special. Permit for the operation of the
contractor ' s yard prior to 1984 and that business was operated
as a pre-existing non-conforming use under the Zoning Law of
the City of Northampton . However , a contractor ' s yard for the
open storage of raw materials and construction equipment is
allowed in a Special Industrial Zone by Special Permit under
current zoning .
In September of 1.984 Eugene Tacy filed an Application for
a Zoning Permit for the purpose of constructing a building for
a Construction Supply Establishment and also in the same
application for a Zoning Permit asked for a Special Permit to
PATRICK,j. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Telephone 413-584-6750
-2-
conform his pre—existing non—conforming contractor ' s yard . A
copy of his application for said Special Permit and a Finding
under Section 9 . 3B are attached to this correspondence . In
September of 1984 a Finding under Section 9 . 3B of the Zoning
Ordinances for the City of Northampton was required in order to
construct the Construction Supply Establishment , because
although a Construction Supply Establishment is allowed as of
right under current zoning , since the pre—existing contractor ' s
yard required a Special Permit that had not yet been received
by the Tacys , the Construction Supply Establishment , "glowed as
of right , was to be used in conjunction with a pre—existing
non—conforming use and , therefore , required a finding under
Section 9 . 3B of the Zoning Ordinance . It is the position of
Tacy that he could have either :
1 . applied for a finding under Section 9 . 3B only , which is a
Finding that his Construction Supply Establishment would be not
more substantially detrimental than the existing use of the
property . That would have been sufficient to allow him to get
a building permit to construct his Construction Supply
Establishment building . In the alternative , in 1984 he could
have :
2 . filed only for a Special Permit to legalize his
pre—existing non—conforming contractor ' s yard . However , to be
prudent , the Tacys filed for both the Special Permit and the
Finding in September of 1984 .
On November 28 , 1984 the Zoning Board of Appeals made a
Decision "to grant the Special Perm_i.t . . . to construct a building
for the purpose of establishing a construction supply business
in conjunction with his existing contractor ' s yard on Main
Street , Leeds . "
Tacy ' s position is that the Decision of the Zoning Board
of Appeals was inar '
-tful . written and should have read that the
Zoning Board of Appeals made a finding that the construction of
a Construction Supply Establishment was not substantially more
detrimental than the existing use of the property and that a
Special. Permit for the operation of a contractor ' s yard was
allowed . In all events , it is clear under Massachusetts
General Laws , Chapter 40(a) , Section 9 that both the
Application for a Special Permit to allow his contractor ' s yard
and the Finding under Section 9 . 3B were allowed , because even
though the Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
—3— Telephone 413-584-6750
unclearly written Massachusetts General Laws , Chapter 40(a) ,
auction . ai a `per.�it granting ..
' , a inAa acts on upo ark a"lgcation for a
SpecPal Pemt` tbgfibtnd adOsbolowing the datke of
1
the` ublic. h ari,,n �`
a glnt of the permit
applied for . ' Therefore , t e on. 1, 4 wad either °a
grant of the permit e is d o� p f h
�� grapt .i�f t. e ' Special
Permit for c`'ont `�ct�ra�' s ya ceii1 < t b" read into the
decision _ off, t o o �d f :A e
. •M -, , d_n P�4 tuber of 1984 , since iL-
was applied for , it was allowe by -right under Massachusetts
General Laws , Chapter 40a , Section 9 .
In October and December of 1986 Eugene Tacy applied for a
Building Permit for the construction of his construction supply
establishment . At that time the Building Inspector declined to
issue a Building Permit and took the position that the Special
Permit that had been issued in 1984 had expired .
It is the position of. Eugene Tacy that the Special Permit
granted in September of 1984 for the open storage of raw
materials and construction equipment could not have expired
after .eighteen months because there is no requirement that any
building be constructed in order to continue the OPEN STORAGE
of raw materials and construction equipment under the zoning
ordinances of the City of Northampton . Therefore , in 1986 when
ugene Tacy applied for his building permit for Lhe
Construction Supply Establishment his contractor. ` s yard , which
prior to 1984 had been a pre-existing non-conforming use , was
by virtue of the Special Permit granted in 1984 an allowed use
by Special. Permit in a Special Industrial Zone . Therefore , a
Construction Supply Establishment , which is alloweri by right
under the current Zoning Law in a Special Industrial Zone ,
required no further action by the Board of Appeals . Even if
the Finding that had been made in 1984 had expired due to the
eighteen month lapse of time , the current application for a
Building Permit by Eugene Tacy does not require a new Finding .
I refer your attention to the provisions of 9 . 3 of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Northampton which provides in part
"providing that if such change , extension or alteration RESULTS
IN ALL USES complying with the zoning requirements , THEN SUCH
FINDING IS NOT NECESSARY . "
PATRICK .J. IMELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Telephone 413-584-6750
Since the contractor ' s yard that Eugene Tacy operates now
isnuse
S
Y P
aBuildflmingiecial Permit under the current zoning ,
the g -
Building a pp to build a construction supply
establishment is allowed by right since all of the uses of the
property will fully comply with current zoning requirements .
Therefore , the Tacys need no further action from the Zoning
Board of Appeals to obtain their permit .
I would be glad to sit down with you and the Building
Inspector. if you feel it appropriate to discuss this matter
•
further . Also , in making a ruling in this matter I would be
glad to provide any additional material or information that you
might require .
Sincerely ,
PJM/jn Patrick J . Melnik
cc . Zoning Board of Appeals
cc . Building Inspector for the
City of Northampton
cc . Eugene Tacy