Loading...
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