Loading...
10D-017 TACEY (15) City of Northampton, Massachusetts Q �p� Tp Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street 1 Northampton, MA 01060•(413) 586.6950 NOV 61 • Community and Economic Development V • Conservation• Historic Preservation DEPT.OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS t • Planning Board• Zoning Board of Appeals NORTHAMPTON,MA 01060 usr Eugene A. Tacy November 16, 1988 158 North Maple Street Florence, Massachusetts 01060 Re: Site Plan Review/Main Street, Leeds Dear Mr. Tacy: At their meeting on November, 10, 1988 the Northampton Planning Board reviewed your above referenced Site Plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 10. 11 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. At this meeting the Planning Board voted unanimously to DISAPPROVE your Site Plan as, due to deficiencies and omissions in the plan, they could not determine that any of the Review/ Approval Criteria of Section 10 . 11( 5. ) were complied with. The Site Plan submitted was not in conformance with the requirements of Section 10. 11( 4. ) as it lacked sufficient information, specifically (under Section 10. 11( 4.b. ) items 1. , 3 . , 4. , 5. , 6 . , 7. , 8 . , 9 . , 10 . , 11. , 12. , 13 . , ' 14. , 15 . , 16. , 17. , 18. , as well as Section 10 . 11( 4.c. ) . The Planning Board' s vote is duly recorded in the Minutes of its November 10, 1988 meeting. You may, of course, submit a new Site Plan for consideration once you have added the additional, required, information. I would like to point out that for Major and Intermediate Projects which require a Special Permit, the Site Plan Review is included in that process. Yours Lawrence B. Smith, Senior Planner on behalf of the Northampton Planning Board cc: w": Tewhill, Building Inspector Atty Melnik DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEA FEB q DEPT F DQW uum N�SPECTm NORTHAMPTON mt 0]060 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. ij Present and voting were Acting Chairman William Brandt, Irene I David, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. 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 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 may be changed, altered or expanded only after a Finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the change, alteration, or expansion is not I substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use. [Section 9.3(b) , Northampton Zoning Ordinance] . i Tacy proposes to build a160 ' 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 I lugs f I 1 i DECISION OF THE NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF EUGENE TACY OF THE REVOCATION OF A BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO HIM. PAGE TWO i 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 i 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 of Building Permit #632. ! G� William Bra t, Chairman 1 M41 Sanford Weil, Jr. Irene David x FEB 3 ! $ v DEPT.OF BUILDING INSPECTIMS NORT}�' 1PTO;Jg MA,ClOz;O I Decision on Tacy Appeal from Action of Building Dept. The Applicant appealed the revocation of a building permit issued by the Acting Building Inspector following the suspension of the Inspector who had previously issued the permit. The basis of the appeal was the assertion by the Applicant that the permit had been issued to build a structure for a Building Supply operation on a lot in Leeds spot zoned Special Industrial where the construction was permitted by right. The building lot in question had been part of a larger parcel which had contained a pre-existing non-conforming Construction Business. Prior request for a Finding in order to build a 60X60 foot building on the larger lot and to conduct a Building Supply operation had been denied by a split vote and is on appeal .The larger lot was jointly owned by a father and four sons. Subsequently, the larger parcel was split so as to produce two parcels, each of which conformed to dimensonal requirements. For convenience we will discribe the northerly parcel as lot B and the southerly parcel as lot A.The Construction operation was entirely moved onto lot B, exaserbating the prior non-conformity by increasing the density of the operation. To allow this a further finding is required, in accordance with Section 6.4 of the zoning ordnance. This has never been applied for. After creating the two parcels the father died and bequethed the Construction Business to two sons. Then by an exchange of deeds the other two sons acquired ownership of lot A. . They now claim that they can construct the building on this parcel by right. The Assistant City. Solicitor has asserted that by increasing the density of lot B without a Finding, lot A has been "tainted" and therefore still falls under the limit of section 6.4. A use previously denied before being separated from the balance of the larger parcel continues to be illegal . Accordingly I find that the reasoning which produced the upholding of the revocation of permit #553 to construct the footing also applies to the revocation of permit 632 to construct the structure. I will vote to uphold the action of the Building Dept. to revoke permit #632. 2LE;FEB 3 198j DEPT. OF BUILDING Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals January 26, 1989 Special Meeting Page One The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 5: 00 p. m. in Room 18 of City Hall on January 26, 1989, to announce a decision in the matter of Eugene Tacy's appeal of the revocation of Building Permit #632 by the Acting Building Inspector. Present and voting were Acting Chairman William Brandt, Irene David, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Mrs. David moved the minutes of the January 18 , 1989 meeting be approved, Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.The Secretary announced that Atty. Melnik, who represents the Appellant, had delivered an original and two copies of a letter and an 11-page "Memorandum in Support of Tacy' s Appeal" to the Board Secretary at 10: 30 this morning. The Board acknowledged that the documents had been tendered, but Mrs. David moved that they not be accepted, since the Public Hearing was closed, and it would be improper to accept testimony from Appellant, when no one else had an opportunity to do so. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. The documents were not shown to the Board members. Mr. Weil opened by reading a prepared statement, a copy of which is attached and made a part of these minutes. Mrs. David said she fully agreed. Ch. Brandt said that he found in favor of the Building Inspector. He stated, "I believe the separation of the lot into two lots intensifies the ',pre-existing nonconformancy, and a Finding is needed. I feel that Section 6.4 clearly states that a lot cannot be divided so as not to conform. I interpret that as requiring a Finding under Section 9. 3. I agree with Miss Fallon that the lot is tainted, and the Building Permit was properly revoked. " Mr. Weil moved that the appeal be denied. Mrs. David seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary. William Brandt, Chairman "'"' FEB 3198 �4 s�msw� i DEPT.OF BUILDING INSP€IiE.��� N�1fiTFih�eNON,MA.01060 Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals January 18 , 1989 Meeting Page One DEPT.OF BUILDING INSPECT ONS � NORTHAMPTON, MA,01060 The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7: 40 p. m.—o'n' January 18, 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, to conduct a Public Hearing .on Eugene A. Tacy' s Appeal of the decision of the Building Inspector to revoke Building Permit #632, which was issued for the construction of a Building Supply establishment on Main Street in Leeds. Members present were Acting Chairman William Brandt, Irene David, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Atty. Patrick Melnik appeared for the Appellant. He referred to the Hearing as "a little bit of a housekeeping matter. The Board heard the LaBarge appeal of the issuance of a foundation permit, but has not heard Mr. Tacy' s appeal of the revocation of the Building Permit. I will be brief. The Board is generally familiar with the case. " He gave a summary of the history of the parcel, describing how the Tacy family; Harold, the father, and James, Gene and Richard, his three sons, bought the parcel in 1982 from one Tobin. In 1984, they applied for a Finding and Special Permit to use a portion of that lot for a construction supply business, planning to construct a 30 ' x 30 ' building. The Board granted the Special Permit, but for reasons not mentioned, the Tacys did not build within the statutory time period, and the Permit lapsed. In 1986, they filed essentially the same applications that they filed in 1984, but the building became 60' x 601 . The ZBA denied that application in 1986. Then Tacy requested a permit for a Construction Supply business exclusively. That was denied, and is in the appeal process now. Subsequently, the lot was divided, when the Tacy' s filed a "Form A-Approval Not Required" plan. The Planning Board approved the plan, and it was filed in the Registry. Then-Building Inspector Nimohay is said to have told the Tacys to "move everything off the lot where they wanted to put the building, and they could build. " They complied with that request, and then-Building Inspector Duclos issued a Foundation Permit in the Summer of 1988 . The foundation was poured. City Councilor LaBarge then appealed the issuance of the Foundation Permit, and the ZBA found that the permit had been improperly issued. Mr. Duclos then issued Building Permit #632, which Acting Building Inspector Tewhill revoked in response to the ZBA finding that the issuance of the Foundation Permit was an error. Mr. Melnik told of Mr. Tacy' s death, when the construction business (racy Excavating, Inc. ) was left to Richard and Gene, this business today being located on the southerly lot [for the purpose of these minutes, the excavating business location will be referred to as "Lot A," and the lot where the foundation is located will be referred to as "Lot B. " ) and James and Gene own "Lot B, " which is abandoned and vacated of everything except for the foundation that was poured. Mr. Melnik went on, "They are looking for a Building Permit to build their building. I don't think you are bound by the Board' s decision on the LaBarge appeal. I ask that this • �"W tYg w a ;' v i! Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals FEB31989s January 18, 1989 Meeting Gz Page Two DEPT OF BUILDING iNSPE10 NORTHAMPTON, MA. 106 Board review Section 6.4. I don' t think the oarthe division of the lot. The change in ownership is not illegal. Lot A is a separate and distinct lot, a nascent piece of life, and deserves a Building Permit. Look at Section 6.4 and see if that' s what you want to rely on. If you read it, you' ll see it has nothing to do with use of the lot. It is only to dimensional criteria. Mr. Brandt asked why there had been a Foundation Permit issued instead of a comprehensive Building Permit to do the whole building. Eugene Tacy replied that this is a pre-engineered steel building. The manufacturer will give out the dimensions of the foundation so a Foundation Permit can be obtained, but the blueprints needed to get the full Building Permit will not be furnished by the manufacturer until the building is paid for. Mr. Weil recounted some of the history, and commented that, after the "Form All was granted, "the impression I get is the people sitting that night felt you tried to circumvent the decision. If you can' t do it on the large lot, you can't do it on the smaller lot. Now you say it was valid to split the lot. " Mr. Melnik replied, "It was direct and straightforward. Look at that lot in isolation--you can' t attribute a violation on the other lot (A) to this lot. These are separate and conforming lots. If the Board wants enforcement action on the other one (A) , they should go ahead. Mrs. David (who has not sat on any of the Tacy matters until tonight) professed confusion, and Mr. Melnik walked her through the convoluted history, and reiterated the differences in ownership of A and B. He repeated, "If the lot where the excavating business is is in violation, someone should enforce the zoning. I 'm concerned with the bare lot--I don't care about the other lot. This is a bare, nascent lot that meets all requirements. This lot (A) is owned by people who have nothing to do with the lot next door." Mr. Weil pointed out that, "When we considered the original lot, it was owned by the father and his sons. How could the father will to his children what they already owned?" Mr. Melnik replied that the property ownership today was done by deed transfers. The Chair asked if anyone else was present to speak in favor of the Application, and Paul Duclos rose to speak. He described himself as a former Building Inspector, and opened by saying, "I never knew there could be so much confusion over a straightforward transaction. He made reference to the State Building Code, Sections 122.0, 122.1 and 122.1(1) and called the rly s Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals b January 18, 1989 Meeting E. Pa_ i LL 3 mg �c e Three DEPT.OF BZAy R Aissuance of a "Stop Work" order by Mr. not meeting the technical requirements for such a posting, he claimed "Tewhill is not doing his job--and hasn' t for ten years. He just told people to stop." He went on, "The lot is big enough--70,000 square feet--for a 60 ' x 60 ' building--need only 20,000 sq. ft. The front and depth are fine. If I wanted to stop that building, I couldn' t. Tewhill told me, 'Don' t touch it--it's a hot potato. ' 'They' told me not to issue the Building Permit. I won't tell you who "they" are. I said to Ted, you show me why this is not proper and I ' ll hold it back. " He alluded to Section 114.8 of the State Code relative to "Approval in Part," saying that the code states such an issuance is at the request of the contractor, and at the contractor' s risk. "I gave the foundation Permit at their (Tacy' s) risk. " He went on, "I reviewed their application and issued a Foundation Permit. Several individuals convinced me I was 'off-the-wall, ' and I revoked the Permit at 6 o'clock that night. I called the State Inspector the next day, and he said, 'You don't do things like that. A Building Permit is sacred." I called the Tacys and reinstated the Building Permit. I told the Mayor and Buscher that I changed my mind. LaBarge came into the picture then, and said, "They're suing the City." Now, they have presented a new, divided parcel--squeaky clean--I could not have refused the Building Permit if I wanted to." Mr. Weil interjected, "If what you say is so, and we decide opposite, Melnik will go ahead and sue. I know nothing of the Codes you cite--they' re your opinion. It' s up to a judge to decide this, not the Building Department. It was improper to issue the Building Permits while this was in the courts." Mr. Duclos responded, "It was my bound duty to honor their application." There was no one else present to speak in favor, and when opponents were called for, Kathleen Fallon, Assistant City Solicitor rose to speak, saying she represented Mr. Tewhill. She opened by saying, "The nonconforming use of the entire lot seems to get lost. They wanted to add an allowed use, an expansion of a pre-existing nonconformity, and they needed a Finding. They got the Finding and didn't build. They came back with a 60 ' x 60 ' building and were denied. They came back with a "Form A,"-- all that does is deal with frontage. Therefore, the Planning Board gave them Form A endorsement. Then, the Tacys moved the nonconforming use to the southerly portion of the Form A lot, and intensified the use on half the area. That is our position. To do that they need a Finding. By doing that without a Finding, they have tainted the other lot. Melnik says it' s 'a clean lot. ' I don' t agree. Section 6.4 to me includes 'use, ' not just dimensions. They could come in for a Finding on the lot, but Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals January 18, 1989 Meeting Page Four haven' t done that. If the ZBA found that the issuance of the Building Permit was illegal, then Tewhill' s revocation is therefore legal. They are legal lots for the purpose of conveyance, but are not two building lots zoned for what they want to do. " Mr. Weil asked Miss Fallon to "please speak to the validity of revoking the Permits. " She replied, "I don' t know what the Codes are that Mr. Duclos is talking about. If an illegal permit is issued, it is subject to challenge for six years. If Tewhill thinks it' s illegal, it' s his duty to revoke it. " There was no one else present to speak in opposition. Mr. Melnik, in rebuttal, said, "A stranger purchasing the lot for value could get a Building Permit. Western Mass. Bus Lines, for instance, could buy the lot and build a bus terminal--that' s allowed. The first suit--can the entire parcel have two uses? Forget it. We just want a Building Permit for the divided lot. " Ch. Brandt asked Mr. Melnik to address the point of "tainting a lot. " Mr. Melnik' s response was, "If this Board finds that lot with equipment on it is nonconforming and excessive use, then the remedy is a Cease and Desist order. No one has ever complained. I don' t think this Board can find that lot is tainted. No one has challenged that lot. Read 6.4 and consider whether the division is improper. " Mr. Weil commented, "No, the impropriety is increasing the intensity. " Mr. Melnik' s response was, "The division does not create nonconformity. The use of the other lot creates nonconformity. " There being no one else present who wished to speak, Mr. Weil moved the Public Hearing be closed. Mrs. David seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. The chair said that a Decision would be announced at the Board' s February 1st meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p. m. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Board Secretary. William Bran , Chairman KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT WE, EUGENE A. TACY, x JAMES J. TACY and RICHARD J. TACY R"6i3261 PASI 0213 Its, I6 aid f of 158 North Maple Street, Florence, Hampshire County,MwschueettaIt , bring unrruarried,for the full consideration of ONE AND NO/100 ($1 .00) DOLLAR------- —pt1Jd grant to EUGENE A. TACY and JAMES J. TACY of 158 North Maple Street, Florence, Hampshire County, Massachusetts witti quitrlatm rournanta the land in Leeds, Northampton, Hampshire County Massachusetts N " A 40.770 square feet of land, moreor less as shown on a Plan of Land u a dated July 22, 1987 Prepared by Almer Huntley Jr. & Assoc. recorded 'n z in Hampshire County Registry of Deeds in Plan Book. 148, Page 88 and more particularly bounded and described as follows: U 16)ov, Beginning at an iron pin located at the Easterly sideline of Main Street, Leeds. Hampshire County, Massachusetts as shown on the aforesaid Plan of Land: thence N. 880 19' 51" E. 150.00 feet to an _ It. iron pin: N. 021 07' 53" W. 85.32 feet to an iron pin located at M land of the Ronan Catholic Bishop of Springfield; thence S. 860 17' id i 41" E. 108.87 feet to an iron pin; thence S. 240 46' 47" E. 110.53 feet to an iron pin; thence S. 490 30' 24" W. 148.82 feet to a I paint; thence S. 880 19' 51" W. 190.00 feet to a point located at z the Easterly sideline of Main Street as shown on said Plan of Land: thence N. 030 15' 55" W. 21.06 feet to an iron pin; thence N. 010 29' 05" E. 98.94 feet the iron pin at the point or place of 61 beginning. T sem. Containing 40.770 square feet of land, more or less. a � a oBeing a portion of the premises conveyed from George D. Tobin and ate. Margaret W, Tobin to Eugene A. Tacy, James J. Tacy, Richard J. Tacy, Harold G. Tacy and Helen N. Tacy, by deed dated June 1, 1982 and recorded in Hampshire County Registry of Deeds in Book 2279, Page 327. Harold G. Tacy and Helen Ti. Tacy are deceased. f i; 88 i F: ruNd as it SSealled lm i nt this tenth day of September 19 88 Eugene A. Tacy ir3dames --Tacy - Richard J. Tacy X98 --- >Eqr aommonwraltq of Rassarkfnartts I HAMPSHIRE, n. September 10, 19 88 i Then personally appearrd the drove named EUGENE A. TACY, JAMES J. TACY and RICHARD J. TACY 'makv and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to he her a and deed, 89 Bda+s u r c clnik Naary/aW6t y commhsiun esplreS October 20, 89 Date'SjjLL1988 at_.�O'Clock anIicc'J,cal'J and acarD'k to x:3�h7.Fri U rrw KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT WE, JAMES J. TACY, EUGENE A. TACY and RICHARD J. TACY A 91i, r, , of 158 North Maple Street, Florence, Hampshire County,Massachusetts, bring unmarried,for the full consideration of ONE AND NO/,00 ($1 .00) DOLLAR--------paid i 6rantto TACY EXCAVATING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. , INC. 5 of Main Street, Leeds, Hampshire County, Massachusetts xith quttrlatm roornants the land in Leeds, Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts a vA 1.37 acre parcel of land, more or less as shown on is Plan of- Land wdated July 22, 1987 prepared by Almer Huntley Jr. & Assoc. recorded in Hampshire County Registry of Deeds in Plan Book 148, Page 88 and V .,ore particularly bounded and described as follows: � P L N V w Beginning at a point on the Easterly sideline of Main Street as shown 1-Z on the aforesaid Plan of Land located at the Northwesterly corner of can . land now or forrrerly of Charence L. Chatfield and the edge of the G •fill River; thence N. 030 15' 55" W. 139.00 feet, more or less to a - w point on the Easterly sideline of Main Street; thence N. 88, 19' 2-) 1" E. 190.00 feet to a point; thence N. 49° 30' 24" E. 148.82 feet j to an iron pin at land now or formerly of the Massachusetts Electric orrpany; thence S. 140 16' 47" E. 235.00 feet, more or less to the lortherly sideline of land now or formerly of the aforesaid Chatfield O and the Southerly sideline of the Mill River; thence in a Westerly direction 380.00 feet, more or less along the Southerly edge of the gill River to the point at the place of beginning. u a, containing 1.37 ecce: of land, more or less. a 0 yBeing a portion of the premises conveyed from George D. Tobin and largaret W. Tobin to Eugene A. Tacy. James J. Tacy, Richard J. Tacy, .aroid G. Tacy and Helen N. Tacy, by deed dated June 1, 1982 and ecorded in Hampshire County Registry of Deeds in Book 2279, Page 27. Harold G. Tacy and Helen N. Tacy are deceased. E } Executed as a sea instent this tenth day of September 19 88 a f James J. Tacy a J 4" " V Eugene A. Tacy / Richard J. Tacy r ?, Qlir�otama+msraii�of�as„arI♦usrits HAMPSHIRE, September 10,1988 Then per,ana!!y apprarrd the shave named JAMES J. TACY, EUGENE A. TACY and RICHARD J. TACY s and acknowledged the fweaafna in,trumeni to tx the4atricg art and deed, °„ ViaJ. Melnik Notary?rbfk 1.ty twrnmi„ioexpires October 20, 1v 89 and-; Dat 198$at.`.,�..o'ctock L M1nutesZ—Nt,Rcc'd,ent'd and ex=* ,a __