10D-017 175 Main St Planningk U JOSEPH MERRiTT & CO. 151 �
� f 7 Checked
o�
N
N
C'7
N
f
t9
2
Z
a]
W A'rt f
IM ILL
Ous E
332 G
.• y 6 WAL c.b. 2" STEEL GAS UAIE
r ein 6.v ALVE W. ALVE
0 - W JfllEt IlAlf
♦ LJATEL LM
c. e. G N &XA,u crJ�
21 � _ E Ac
1 A "l.1A !
T cr oCXCAVA
C a rxu crzam Ca, A/C.
►1
JA .
7 IA16 " n
30't
XA
D"
L
i x,55 p �,N
Laws : 606e A. 7AcY t
JAMES 3. - AcY
SEE Boa& 3ZG1 PA,.;EZ43
PLAM Bbd c 149 1366 68
14ZZtAl A.
M C CAL TV
MEr-IDI,aN Of PcAUaoat 148
P ^6E 68
,?dAAN CAT AOLIc 31s A10P
Df SPC/it/6f /EL b
L EG EAJ D
A WMMOMEA! TEb )D /A/7
0 /ICON PIAI
'O' U TlL / T y PbL E
RV: NyD�L�IAIT
• 3/6AJ
Rb S r
•— (HOOD LA1L fEJVCt
-- -- B01Lb1AJ6 SEI'MCK LIME
A167 A G' FENCE /3 r6 BC 6ZECrEb
ALONG rHE L /AAFS fZ6M Pa /A/ T TO
fb /AlT l e- ~ .
SCETCN OF
A1
(N 7 VILL
PZEPA 6b
606EAle A.
LAAlb /A/
Apt ASSA-HUSETIPS
DF LEEB.5)
F4oz
TAL Y
FIEL w O il K: L. La. M.
COMMITATIG": if a.A
DRAFT IN6:
CHE CK E D:
SCA`IE: " -46
DATE: 0C7Z MZ / 7, / 986 .
Scanned
ALMER HUNTLEY, JR. t ASSOCIATES, INC.
SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
30 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE EAST
NORTHAMPTON, MASS.
-SOH 1V� - �C-10 - 4Z - 8 SHEET: I OF: /
M AlAI sTXEET
i
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
October 18, 4
�i
Y.
Planning Board for the
City of Northampton
City Halle
Northampt4n', Ma 01060
r
DEPT. OF BU111DAG INSPECTIOP
NORTH,'V P`C:P! IvlA. 01060
+,
K� r,
Eu Tac - Application for Building _Perm for
ConSi"truction Supply Establishmen on M Str
Dear Sirs;'
413.584 -6750
It has come to my attention that there has been some
suggestion that Eugene Tacy has not complied with the provisions
of Article 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Northampton relating to Site Plan Review for his proposed
building for Construction Supply Establishment on Main Street,
Leeds. I would suggest to the Planning Board that Eugene Tacy
has complied with the provisions of Section 10.11 Site Plan
Review by filing a proposed layout and site plan of the building
he proposes to construct at his Main Street, Leeds property in
August 1988 at the time he made his application for a
Building Permit. No objection has been made to Mr. Tacy's Site
Plan that was submitted at that time and, therefore, pursuant to
Section 10.11 Site Plan Review Approval Process Mr. Tacy's Site
Plan is deemed approved pursuant to the provision that inaction
by the Planning Board within thirty -five days of submission
shall be deemed approval.
Without waiving any rights Mr. Tacy has with respect to
the validity of any previous submissions for Site Plan Review on
behalf of Mr. Tacy I hereby submit for your approval a Plan
showing the proposed location of Mr. Tacy's building to be
constructed as a Construction Supply Establishment. I believe
that since Mr. Tacy's proposed building consists of 3,600 square
feet of space he would be deemed an intermediate project
pursuant to the Site Plan Review Process. With respect to 10.11
Paragraph 4, ProcedureS, it appears that the application for
Site Plan and Review must be made to the Building Inspector on
.forms provided for that purpose. Also, the procedures of the
Site Plan Review Process provide that the Planning Board shall
adopt specific rules governing the application and fee. I have
found no forms in the Building Inspector's Office that would be
appropriate for Site Plan Review nor have I been able to find
PATRICK J. MELNI 77 s ?
ATTORNEY AT LAW p r
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 010
Telephone 413 - 584-6750
3L;
�y
y ' 1
S
dv"
any rules that have been adopted by the Planning Board governing
the application and fee as provided by the Site Plan Review
By -Law and, therefore, I am hopeful that you will accept this
letter together with modification of the Request for Variance
Form to the Zoning Board of Appeals as an Application for Site
Plan Review. If, indeed, the Planning Board has adopted the
Rules that were required under the Site Plan Review Process or
has approved forms to be implemented under the Site Plan Review
Process I will be happy to fill out such forms or comply with
such rules but after diligent search I have been unable to find
them.
Further, in connection with the Site Plan Review process I
am submitting a Plan of the proposed construction of Mr. Tacy's
building on his Main Street property in Leeds which I wish you
would accept for your Site Plan Review process. Again, the
procedures under Paragraph 4 of the Site Plan Review By -Law
indicates that the form of the Site Plan is to be made pursuant
to the Rules and Regulations that the Planning Board was to
adopt. I found no such Rules and - Regulations concerning the form
of the Site Plan and have, therefore, requested to have Almer
Huntley Jr. & Associates, Inc. use their best judgment as to
what they felt you would be required in connection with that
Site Plan. If you have such rules that would specify the form
of the Plan or you have a request for more detailed plans please
advise what additional material you wish to have on the Plan and
I will have Almer Huntley Jr. & Associates, Inc. revise the Plan
to meet your needs.
n erely,
a trick Melnik
PJM /jn
enc.
. - (Jo Not Write In These Spaces Application Number:
Rec _ Checked Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcels)
gY a "' Oate d Oate Amt. D ; �j BY Oate
U1JT f- 11
' ° I v N %
err iv NSi TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
:f�.
}'?c r�o�, BUILDING INSPECTOR AMID PLANNING
oso
- Name of Applicant -- Tac BOARD
Address 158 North Maple Street, Florence, Massachusetts
;�Qwner of Property Eugene A. Tact' and James J Tacy
' " ICIddress 158 North Maple Street, Florence, Massachusetts
licant is: town r; ❑Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; 13 Tenant in Possession.
;�. 4,
11,cat1on is made'
of Section_pageof the Zoning Ordinance of the
the prq ri gns of Sect ion,___,_____page O f the Zoning Ordinance
ry x•
U pt on, r r «;f •4:
a
ct9on Of Propert Main Street, Leeds, Massachusetts being situated on
East side; n of Mai
«Sheet No. 1QD ,` Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Parcel (s) 17A
ne Special Industrial
r:
ascription of proposed work and /or use; Applicant proposes to construct a
ruction Supply Establishment that is a 60' x 60' buildiM Pursuant to the
hed plans
h.
Sketch plan attached; ❑Yes 0 N
Site plan: CKAttchp,o, ❑ Not Required
forth reasons upon which application is based: _ Constrt��r; �,, St�nnl v FStahl ; chmant ;
10 use ri ht in this district. The lot is a c . ng lot to zoning
tall d_ ion2kl and density requirements of the zoning will be adhered to
,
otters seeft�4, s r ns; list on reverse side of form).
Rt'
� 7 s rr tf iii
a
eb them ormation contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge. .
_o pplicant's Signature
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586.6950
• Community and Economic Development
• Conservation* Historic Preservation
• Planning Board* Zoning Board of Appeals
Eugene A. Tacy
158 North Maple Street
Florence, Massachusetts 01060
Re: Site Plan Review /Main Street, Leeds
Dear Mr. Tacy:
../
November 16, 1988
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.,
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,
C. x
Lawrence B. Smith, Senior Planner
on behalf of the
Northampton Planning Board
cc: T. Tewhill, Building Inspector
Atty Melnik
6AI - e. ep.
N%u.
Northampton Planning Board
November 10, 1988 Meeting
Page Seven
which stands at $20,000."
approval to draw on Maple
Hale seconded, and the
abstaining.
..,,1
Mr. Gare moved that we get the bank's
Ridge L/C for Woodbrook work. Mrs.
motion passed 7 -0 with Dr. Arnould
Ch. Duseau read a letter from Christensen - Howard, Inc. relative
to the Maple Ridge Letter of Credit: "We hereby request that the
Planning Board extend the expiration date of Florence Savings
Bank Letter of Credit No. 32 from March 19, 1989 to September
19, 1989." Mrs. Hale so moved, Mr. Crystal seconded, and the
motion passed 6 -2 (Gare and Arnould).
The Site Plan Review of the Eugene Tacy building at 175 Main
Street, Leeds, was brought up for discussion. Mr. Smith pointed
out that the Ordinance, (Section 10.11) has a "checklist" of 17
items that must be addressed as part of the review process. The
Application at hand addresses only one. Dr. Beauregard moved the
site plan be disapproved, Mrs. Mendelson seconded and the motion
passed 6 -2 ( G °Y° _��-' *,_, .._. ,
Ch. Duseau read a document entitled, "PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN
REVIEW PROCEDURES." Mr. Holeva moved that the procedure as
outlined be approved. Mr. Gare seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously. A copy is attached.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p. m.
+r A
.,
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NORTHAMPTON. MASSACHUSETTS 01060
February 23, 1989
Mr. William Durette
State Ethics Commission
Room 619
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Bill:
Attached is everything you requested, and more, on the Tacy matter.
Attached to this letter is a chronology of the entire matter,
prepared by the Assistant City Solicitor, to help guide the Zoning
Board of Appeals through the thicket of issues. Since that
document was prepared, a couple of things have happened. The May
22, 1987 appeal to Superior Court was won by the Zoning Board of
Appeals. The Court fully upheld the Board's Decision not to grant
relief to the Tacys.
After the October 17, 1988 Hearing on Councilor LaBarge's appeal
(where the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the Building
Inspector had erroneously issued the Building Permit) the Permit
was withdrawn. Tacy then appealed the revocation of the Building
Permit, and the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the Building
Inspector's revocation. That is also on appeal to the Superior
Court.
If I can add }anything, or answer any questions, please call. The
material is separated into four packets, one for each of the files.
So much of it is intertwined, you will likely see duplication, and
I suggest you refer to the chronology to avoid total confusion.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Pascucci
Board Secretary
�• F
- "wo e
TACY PROPERTY
The following is a chronological history of the zoning
issues which have appeared during the Tacys' attempt to construct
a building on their lot on Main Street in Leeds. A legal
explanation of the issues follows the history.
In 1984, Tacy is operating a contractor's yard (open storage of
raw materials used in construction) on the site. That use at
that time requires a special permit in the SI district. The use,
however, by Tacu and his predecessors, predates the permit
requirement so it is considered a pre- existing non - conforming
use.
1. September 21, 1984
Tacy files his first application for
It is a request for a finding under Sei
Ordinance to permit expansion of his
constructing a 40 X 44 foot, one story
a new use, that of construction supply
zoning relief to the ZBA.
-tion 9.3(B) of the Zoning
non - conforming use by (1)
building and (2) by adding
establishment.
2. November 28, 1984
The ZBA votes to grant a "special permit" to Tacy to construct
the building and allow the new use. It appears the ZBA may have
granted improper relief since the application to the board asked
for a "finding" and the board cannot grant relief which has not
been requested. The point is moot, however, since Tacy did not
exercise the permit within eighteen (18) months as required and
so the permit expired by operation of law.
3. January 20, 1987
Tacy applies to the ZBA for the same relief requested in the
September 21, 1984 application.
4. February 18, 1987
The ZBA holds a public hearing on the January application. It is
discovered that Tacy is actually requesting a 60 X 60 foot
building rather than the 40 X 44 foot one previously requested.
The ZBA allows Tacy to withdraw the application.
5. March 4, 1987
Tacy files a new application asking for a finding for the
addition of the construction supply establishment use and the
construction of a 60 X 60 foot building.
`../
6. April 15, 1987
Tacy files an application for a building permit for the 60 X 60
building with the Building Inspector.
7. May 6, 1987
The ZBA denies the March 4, 1987, request for a finding.
8. May 22, 1987
Tacy files an appeal of the ZBA denial of the request for a
finding in Superior Court.
9. June 12, 1987
Tacy files an appeal to the ZBA from the Building Inspector's
refusal to issue a building permit on the April 15, 1987
application.
10. August 12, 1987
The ZBA votes to uphold the Building Inspector's refusal to issue
a building permit on the April 15, 1987 application.
11. August 19, 1987
Tacy submits a ANR application to the Planning Board. The ANR
plan divides the Leeds site into two parcels. Since both parcels
have the required frontage for the zone, the plan is approved.
12. October 6, 1987
Tacy amends his Superior Court complaint to include the August
12, 1987 decision of the ZBA.
13. August 29, 1988
Tacy files an application for a building permit with the Building
Inspector. It requests a permit for construction of a 60 X 60
building for use as a construction supply establishment on the
easterly lot shown on the ANR plan. The foundation permit is
issued the same day.
14. September 7, 1988
Councillor LaBarge files a complaint with the Building Inspector
alleging that the issuance of the foundation permit on August 29,
1988, was improper.
15. September 22, 1988_
The Building Inspector replies to Mr. LaBarge's complaint stating
that the permit was correctly issued.
16. September 23, 1988
Mr. LaBarge files an appeal to the ZBA on his complaint to the
Building Inspector.
17. October 3, 1988
The Building Inspector issues a building permit for the Tacy site
even though he acknowledges he has been told that, at the very
least, the construction requires site plan approval by the
M
Ift..
Planning Board.
_"W0
18. October 17, 1988
The ZBA holds a public hearing on Mr. LaBarge's complaint.
ZONING ISSUES
A. THE ORIGINAL NON - CONFORMING USE.
The Tacy property is zoned Special Industrial. Currently, 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, therefore, a pre- existing non-
conforming use.
Non - conforming uses are primarily regulated by Chapter 40A,
Section 6, of the Massachusetts General Laws and Section 9 of the
Northampton Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 40A states that a non-
conforming 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 substantially more detrimental to
the neighborhood than the current use. This state statute is
echoed in Section 9.3(b) of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance.
B. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.
Mr. Tacy proposed to add (1) a 60 X 60 foot building to his
property, and (2) to use that building to house a construction
supply establishment, an allowed use in an SI zone. Mr. Tacy's
original application for zoning relief in 1984 and the 1987
application indicated that the building would be used both for
the non - conforming use (to repair and to store equipment) and
the new proposed use. The application for which a permit was
granted in 1988 indicated the building would be only for the
construction supply establishment.
If the non - conforming 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 non - conforming use requiring a
finding by the ZBA.
C_ THE DIVISION OF THE LOT.
The Planning Board did approve an "approval not required under
the subdivision control law" for the Tacy 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 give any guarantee that the lots will
qualify as building lots.
Mr. Tacy has stated that he has moved the non - conforming
construction yard use to the westerly lot shown on the ANR plan
and that it is no longer present on the easterly lot on which the
building is being constructed. If this is the case, there are
still two problems outstanding.
First, if the construction yard use has been moved onto a
smaller lot, that is an alteration of the non - conforming use by
intensifying it. This would require a finding by the ZBA.
Second, Section 6.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states that no lot
may be divided if such division causes the lot not to conform
with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, until
the issue of the intensification of the non - conforming use on one
lot is resolved, neither of the two lots shown on the ANR plan
conform to the Zoning Ordinance.
There remains the subsidiary issue of confirming that the non-
conforming use has, indeed, been moved from the easterly lot. It
would seem some sort of written document from Mr. Tacy to that
effect should be required.
rn
September 12, 1990
Jeff A. Erf
119 Water Street
Leeds, MA 01053
Penelope G. Kim
Planning Director
City of Northampton
212 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Dear Ms. Kim:
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter I recently sent to Mr. Frank Sienkiwicz, the
Building Inspector. I think you may find it of interest.
Would you please bring this matter to the attention of the City of Northampton
Planning Board. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
w (�- *
Jeff A. Erf
rMl
September 12, 1990
Jeff A. Erf
119 Water Street
Leeds, MA 01053
Mr. Frank Sienkiwicz
Building Inspector
City of Northampton
212 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Dear Mr. Sienkiwicz:
I am writing you in regards to the Tacy properties located on Main Street, Leeds. I
believe there to be activities ongoing at these two sites which are not in compliance
with the Site Plan as approved June 8, 1989 by the City of Northampton Planning
Board. My understanding is that you are the person responsible for enforcing the city's
zoning regulations. Please act on this matter. I will be referring to the new building
and lot at 175 Main St. as the "Construction Supply Establishment" and the adjacent lot
as the "Contractor's Yard ".
As you may or may not know, there were several conditions attached to the Planning
Board's Decision giving approval to Tacy's development of their "Construction Supply
Establishment". One of those conditions was the "total and permanent discontinuance
of the contractor's yard" which was previously at that site (see page two, item 4,
Northampton Planning Board Decision: James Tacy and Eugene Tacy Site Plan
Review). I interpret that condition to mean no more open storage of raw materials,
finished goods, or construction equipment" on this property (see Table of Use
Regulations on page 5 -13 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance). Presently, the
Tacy's are storing soil (in front and behind the new building), cement blocks, and
several sections of large diameter concrete pipe on this site. I believe this activity is
not in compliance with the order of conditions and, for this reason, the above
mentioned items should be removed from the property.
Another condition which has not yet been complied with is the construction of fencing
and the planting of vegetative screening along the property line of Helen A. McCarthy
(see section 2a and 2b of the "Agreement For Conditions "). In my opinion, it would
have seemed desirable to have had this finished before building construction was
started.
On a different but similar matter, the installation of fencing, planting of shrubs,
addition of loam, and seeding of grass along Main St. also has not been completed (see
section 2c and 3 of the "Agreement For Conditions "). This was to have taken place
"within SIXTY (60) DAYS of the date that Warner Brothers Construction Company
finishes the bridge work currently being done for the City of Northampton in Leeds and
vacates the premises ". The bridge was completed and vacated last summer. By this
time, a six foot high spruce stockade fence should have been erected, with an area in
front of the fence having been planted with grass and shrubs "to improve the look of
the fence". In reality, the fence that presently exists has been allowed to reach a state
of disrepair and the area surrounding the fence has not been maintained this entire
growing season.
'v.► `"r0
The Tacy's "Construction Yard" also appears to be in violation of zoning regulations.
They are storing and carrying out practices which are inconsistent with my
understanding of how the property can be used.
The following is a list of those possible violations:
1. The storing of logs and, the sawing and splitting of those logs (on the premises), for
firewood
2. A pile of tree stumps (behind the stack of logs)
3. Storing of an unregistered vehicle in public view (the car has been there for about
two years)
4. Rubbish and demolition materials dumped in the SE corner of the property
5. Water heater, fuel oil tank, refrigerators, etc. dumped near the SE edge of the
property
6. Sign advertising Tacy Excavating and Construction Co. (not sure of this one)
7. The spreading of fill 2 -3 feet deep in the SE corner of the property (my concern
here is that part or all of this site may be on a 100 year floodplain and
compensatory storage may be required)
When I first heard of the Tacy's plan to put up a building on their Main St. property I
was not against it. The Planning Board, in a decision I agreed with, changed the
zoning of the property so a building could be constructed. Since that time, however,
the site has become more cluttered with "stuff' and no work has apparently been done
to satisfy any of the Planning Board's Conditions. One has to remember that this
property is located in the center of a residential area and that neighbors abut the
property. As it stands now, this site is an eyesore and is not an asset to the Village of
Leeds. I would again urge you to take action against the Tacy's to persuade them to
"clean up their act ". The Tacy's are taking advantage of the neighborhood and making
a mockery of the Northampton Planning Board Decision.
Thank you for you immediate attention in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Jeff A. Erf
cc: Eugene A. Tacy
Penelope G. Kim
Mayor David B. Musante Jr.
Mr. Raymond LaBarge
i V
�v
ON l,��l�r /Op
MIN t y i IF/ V41
11Z 1 0
0
P Ae - 36 q/
' M /71W JAW /,
1pjtfr 66'?17 4 f/
10
1 0
/ON m 67
-4
NO-19-'flzr
177' In
j
p` h A
W
A �l WINPrOW r" 00/ 0 olz �l �l)rT
o
790
N... Zd, 7'.31!7 zk 16Y pZw1---*lmflrfp,) � �, � �3= ._ ;
f.- Z2 AW RE WfA*l - 4 off - 00 - A Y-wv Pz,,^,/ me-mr wf Pmpinor-�, zhonj Or
el P-71 71rw
JWArAel 9 --
"N M
I
0 ONA&P U0.1 4W 411f Zllv-i- C S1kff A49 *wY
AW IM6 -Af6f 4U/,
ip -4 *pf My 60v A0ZIr 0-IC-1 ARIVIV f Ylrpef7-; apwYlyj
%C) AVRO' Z Z1 IW',17 NO MW l
ZI-MieU 40P,00PUYVA
;0 "le 9.fs Aw 511if.
�1 hl _ „ W1
O.A flt1_T71N& ONA146PJIIIP OP l VtO W.*IfYj ifff JAMA1.
................
r g o -sloo** 7, 7174 rrK
d _ �f,P —�.. � .; - ,��.
N de 4 ol
Oz,
Z 40 po
AIA
,0- 645 4f 9
DRAWN... 00 7'
E D: Af lfel A TR / . �
ww
loe
0
CHECKED: AW
XA / 40yt APPROVED. , 4M//
yl 4 rep
SCALE:
. ` . ./tS ;. a il , � � � , � '
11,/ 71 7Z-
DATE.
N�
4f
A 4 ss ALMER HUNTLEY JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC.
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS CIVIL ENGINEER'
238 BRIDGE STREET
NORTHAMPT 10
N MASS.
"AD
v 1 �v
ISHEET OF
4
IC)' - C> 17 Scanned
DigMzed
4
Checked
-
-j
or�
i;o
i V
�v
ON l,��l�r /Op
MIN t y i IF/ V41
11Z 1 0
0
P Ae - 36 q/
' M /71W JAW /,
1pjtfr 66'?17 4 f/
10
1 0
/ON m 67
-4
NO-19-'flzr
177' In
j
p` h A
W
A �l WINPrOW r" 00/ 0 olz �l �l)rT
o
790
N... Zd, 7'.31!7 zk 16Y pZw1---*lmflrfp,) � �, � �3= ._ ;
f.- Z2 AW RE WfA*l - 4 off - 00 - A Y-wv Pz,,^,/ me-mr wf Pmpinor-�, zhonj Or
el P-71 71rw
JWArAel 9 --
"N M
I
0 ONA&P U0.1 4W 411f Zllv-i- C S1kff A49 *wY
AW IM6 -Af6f 4U/,
ip -4 *pf My 60v A0ZIr 0-IC-1 ARIVIV f Ylrpef7-; apwYlyj
%C) AVRO' Z Z1 IW',17 NO MW l
ZI-MieU 40P,00PUYVA
;0 "le 9.fs Aw 511if.
�1 hl _ „ W1
O.A flt1_T71N& ONA146PJIIIP OP l VtO W.*IfYj ifff JAMA1.
................
r g o -sloo** 7, 7174 rrK
d _ �f,P —�.. � .; - ,��.
N de 4 ol
Oz,
Z 40 po
AIA
,0- 645 4f 9
DRAWN... 00 7'
E D: Af lfel A TR / . �
ww
loe
0
CHECKED: AW
XA / 40yt APPROVED. , 4M//
yl 4 rep
SCALE:
. ` . ./tS ;. a il , � � � , � '
11,/ 71 7Z-
DATE.
N�
4f
A 4 ss ALMER HUNTLEY JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC.
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS CIVIL ENGINEER'
238 BRIDGE STREET
NORTHAMPT 10
N MASS.
"AD
v 1 �v
ISHEET OF
4
IC)' - C> 17 Scanned
DigMzed
4
Checked
J
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
filorthampton, MA 01060
September 16, 1988
Mayor David B. Musante
City Hall
Main Street
Northampton, Ma 01060
Kathleen Fallon, Esq.
City Solicitor of the
City of Northampton
City Hall
Main Street
Northampton, Ma 01060
Chairman of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the
City of Northampton
City Hall
Main Street
Northampton, Ma 01060
Paul Duclos
Building Inspector of the
City of Northampton
City Hall
Main Street
Northampton, Ma 01060
Dear Sirs:
Please be advised that I represent Eugene Tacy, the
applicant for a permit to construct a Building Supply
Establishment on his property on Main Street, Leeds,
Massachusetts. As you know, Eugene Tacy previously applied for'``
a permit for a mixed use of the entire three acre Main Street,
Leeds, property for use as a Construction Supply Establishment
and as a storage facility for his contractor's equipment. Thig
permit was denied for the entire
Property previously by the
Zoning Board of A -- -- --
ppeals and whether or not the Zoning Board of
Appeals properly denied that permit is the subject of a current
pending Superior Court Civil Action.
After reviewing the Zoning Ordinance further, and without
s Ic
,a
Telephone 413484.4450
.k.1
:7 '
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
, Torthampton, MA 01060
-2-
t
..01
.f �r
Telephone 41 g{-0`jso
waiving any claims that Eugene Tacy has as to whether or not
was entitled to the permit for a mixed use of the entire'.'
Property as previously applied for, Eugene Tacy discussed the
Possibility of dividing up the parcel of land that he owns in "IF11r�,
Leeds, with the previous Building Inspector of the City of
Northampton and obtaining a Building Permit for the
this land that was not used as a Contractor's Yard. The
previous Building Inspector, William Nimohay, agreed to issue
Eugene Tacy a Building Permit for a Construction Supply
r,•
Establishment provided that he subdivided his p of
into two legal building lots and abandoned the use one the y�k�
building lots for use as a storage facility for contractor's
equipment.
Eugene Tacy took action to have the land surveyed and
subdivided into two separate parcels of land. In fact, the
title to the twb parcels of land has been changed and Eugene
Tacy no longer has any title to the parcel of land on which
contractors equipment is being stored. The parcel of land that
he does have title to is completely clear and free from all
contractor's equipment or supplies and is a valid separate legal
building lot in a Special Industrial Zone under current zoning.
It complies with all frontage, set back and other requirements....__,._
of the applicable Zoning Ordinance and is no longer connected in
any sense to the use being made of the separate piece of land
upon which contractor's equipment is being stored. The other
lot is also a proper lot under current City Ordinances and '
complies with all frontage set back and other requirements.
Mr. William Nimohay agreed to issue to Mr. Tacy a Building
Permit for the construction of a Construction Supply
Establishment as soon as he removed all of the items of
equipment from the lot that Mr. Tacy owned. Mr. Tacy, at great
expense, complied with Mr. Nimohay's request and had all
vehicles, equipment and other materials removed off the site.
Acting in good faith, Mr. Tacy went to the current Building
Inspector of the City of Northampton and applied for a Building
Permit for his Construction Supply Establishment. That permit
was properly issued by the Building Inspector of the City of
Northampton.
To the best of my understanding, although I have not
s
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW .,
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
r
- Telephone 413*5".0750
Participated in any direct way, nor have I seen all of the
letters or other documents that have been circulating among the,.'
City Boards, it is my understanding that one or more elected
officials of the City of Northampton complained to the Building
Inspector that his issuance of the
improper. 2 permit to Mr. Tacy was
presume that the complaint that was made by that
City Official was a complaint for enforcement of Zoning
Regulations pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L.
C. 40(a)
believe up to that point an I•
a Proper procedures were followed and
anyone bein
ST aggrieved by the Building Inspector's enforcement'
action could thereafter appeal any enforcement decision or
granting of any permits to the Zoning Board of Appeals
to the provisions of M.G.L. C. 40(a)$8. Pursuant ,!•
I was deeply disturbed and distraught to read in The Daily
Hampshire Gazette and the Springfield Union that apparently a
Committee of City Officials, consisting of a representative
the Mayor's Office, Zoning Board of Appeals, City Solicitor's $
Office and Building Inspector's Office met sometime on or abou'ti'''' ` '
September 14, 1988 to decide the fate of Eugene Tacy's building-,-,'.'1.',Z,'
I could not believe the report in The Daily Hampshire Gazette so'F'
I reviewed the most current copy I have of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton, Article 10. It still appears
Article 10 that the Zoning Enforcement Officer of the City ,f
Northampton is the Building Inspector only. Further, under ;
Section 10.3 the status of previously approved permits is
determined by the Zoning Act. I, therefore, concluded thato be',, %+�r
there must have been a change in the provisions of M.G.L. C.
40(a) to allow decisions on
p erm i t
Committee without the use of the PubliciHearing to process ss in fr ont
made fr
of the Zoning Board of A ST ont •
Appeals. To my surprise, M.G.L. C. 40(a)
7 and 8 have not changed and still provide that enforcement
action is to be taken by the Zoning Enforcement Officer for the
City and that any complaint with respect to any actions taken by
the Zoning Enforcement Officer is to be taken by appeal process
to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Only after Public Hearing in
front of the Zoning Board of Appeals are decisions to be made.
There is no provision under our current Zoning Ordinance in the
City nor under Massachusetts General Laws that allows decisions
to be made by a Committee of individuals even if that Committee------
consists of Officials of the City. I can not believe that any
member of the Zoning Board of Appeals would participate in a
decision making process and make an offer of compromise on a
j ,t
.I
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
ivorthampton, MA 01060
it
-4-
Case that it may hear before the proper Public Hearing
is held. Therefore, I must conclude that the reports
Daily Hampshire Gazette and The Springfield Union are
rte
rY� �
Telephone 4 18- 58"750
"4
process
in The
in error.
Eugene Tacy at all stages has followed the proper permit
Process, including Appeals to the Zoning Board of Appeals and to
the Court as dictated by Massachusetts General Laws and I trust
that the Officials of the City of Northampton will in good faith
follow the same procedures that Mr. Tacy is required to adhere
to as well.
As to the merits of Eugene Tacy's application for a
Building Permit I would suggest that he has complied in all
respects with the current Zoning Ordinance with the City of
Northampton. The lot that he intends to build on is completely
severed by Plan and by deed from the ownership of the land
abutting it. It has no pre - existing nonconforming uses or any
uses at all existing on it at the current time nor is there any
use planned for that parcel of land except the use requested
under the current permit request. It confounds me how anyone
could suggest that the use to which Eugene Tacy makes of his
land on which he wishes to place a building must be controlled
by the use to which the abutting parcel of land is made. If they
City wishes to eliminate Mr. Tacy's right to build a
Construction Supply Establishment on this separate lot it must`'',
do so either through the procedure of changing the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Northampton or taking of Mr. Tacy's
land by Eminent Domain. A refusal to allow Mr. Tacy to utilize•''
this lot for a lawful purpose that is allowed under the Zoning
amounts, in fact, to a taking by Eminent Domain. Dictating to
Mr. Tacy that he is not entitled to use that lot for any lawful
purpose whatsoever except for a prior non - conforming use is a
taking. Mr. Tacy has invested over $70,000.00 in the
foundation, planning and building, which has already been
purchased, to be placed upon this lot in reliance upon the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton, the Building Permit
that was issued and the representations that were made to him by
the previous Building Inspector of the City of Northampton.
See, for cases in support of Mr. Tacy, Fe11_s__wa�Realty v. The_
Building Commissio of Medford, 332 Mass. 471 (1955), Kenny__v.
The Building_Commissioner _ of Melrose, 315 Mass. 391 (1944) and
..01'
' PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
i4orthampton, MA 01060
Telephone 4134 750
especially, Cas v. T Board of Selectmen of the T lt?
See konk, 15 Mass. App. 711 (--- ow of
In conclusion, I would suggest to you that Eugene Tacy
Will utilize the separate building lot he has for a Construction
Supply Establishment distinct and apart from the other parcel of
land abutting it for now and in the future and will sign any
agreement or representation of that fact as required by any
Proper City Official. The only caveat to this is that if he
Prevails in his current pending Civil case now
Hampshire County Superior Court, he ma pending in the
y
choose to elect to accept the decisZ'r of Superior tive
S
Patrick J. Melhk
PJM /jn \
cc. Eugene Tacy
32 Lake Street
Florence, Ma 01060
•.... -.
WWI,
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS
r CITY HALL
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
P
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
586.6950
Patrick T. Gleason, Esq.
City Solicitor
Kathleen G. Fallon, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
September 12, 1988
Paul Duclos, Building Inspector
Municipal.Building
Northampton, MA. 01060
Re: Tacy permit
Dear Mr. Duclos:
The situation as to the Tacy property hinges on. the concept of a-
pre- existing non - conforminq use.
The property is zoned. S2. Mr_ Tacy operates a construction yard.
on that site, a use which currently re a special permit im
that zone. (A "construction.. yard" is. defined as the open storage
of raw materials and construction equipment. This use-. is- listed
as paragraph 13 under Wholesale Transportation, and Industrial
Uses in Section 5.2_ of the Zoning Ordinance.) Under the Zoning
Ordinance, this use currently requires a special permit in the SI
zone.
However, Mr. Tacy's use was in place prior to the imposition of
the special permit requirement.. Therefore, the construction yard
is a pre-existing non - conforming use As a pre - existing, non-
conforming use, it is subject to special requirements and
procedures as set forth in Section 6 of Chapter 40A of the
Massachusetts General Laws and Section 9 of the Northampton
Zoning Ordinance.
The essential principle to remember in dealing with a non-
conforming use is that any change, alteration, or extension of
that non- conforming use re the permission of-the Zoning
Board of Appeals. The Board must make a "finding" that the
, %We �0 r
change, alteration, or extension of the non - conforming use is not
"substantially more detrimental" to the neighborhood than is the
original use. The following activities, among others, have bee
defined as a change, alteration, or extension of a non - conforming
use by case law: (1) a increase in the intensity of the use; (2)
the construction of a building or an addition to an existing
building housing a non - conforming use; (3) the addition of other
uses even if those uses are allowed by right.
Mr. Tacy applied in 1984 for a finding to allow him to construct
a building on the property and to add as an additional use a
construction supply establishment, an allowed use in the SI zone.
That finding was granted by the ZBA. However, Mr. Tacy failed to
apply for a building permit within eighteen months of the
decision. Since a special permit or finding lapses in eighteen
months if not exercised within eighteen months, the Building
inspector denied the permit when Mr. Tacy finally did apply
nearly two years after the grant of the finding.
Mr. Tacy then applied to the ZBA for a finding identical to that
granted in 1984. During the process, he decided to request a
larger building than that described in the 1984 finding. He was
allowed to withdraw his application and submit a revised one
showing the larger building on March 4, 1987.. On May 6, 1987,
after a. public hearing, the ZBA denied the application for a
finding. Mr. Tacy appealed that decision to the courts where it
is awaiting trial at this time.
Essentially the issue here is that, since the use on the Tacy
property is a pre - existing non - conforming use, Mr. Tacy cannot
expand /alter that use by adding an additional use, even if that
use is allowed. in the zoning district, or by constructing a
building on the site without the granting of a finding the
ZBA. Since the ZBA has denied that finding, Mr. Tacy cannot be
issued a building permit unless the•ZBA's decision is overturned
by the Superior Court.
Subsequently, Mr. Tact' submitted a Form A plan to the Planning
Board showing the division of the property into two separate
lots. Since both portions of the divided lot had sufficient
frontage, the Planning Board was required by law to approve the
Form A plan. That approval does not, in any way, certify that
the lots created are suitable for building. Approval only
certifies that the required frontage exists.
It had been discussed at one time that Mr. Tacy might solve his
problem by dividing the property, moving the construction yard
onto one portion and using the second portion for the allowed
use. However, moving the construction yard onto a smaller lot
would, again, require a finding by the ZBA since it would
change /alter the non - conforming use by intensifying it on that
smaller lot. As of this time, no application for a finding for
that purpose has been made.
.moo
Since the construction yard use is still present on both portions
of the divided property, the situation has not been altered. A
finding by the ZBA is a prerequisite to the issuance of any
building permit.- No building permit should be issued for the
property as a whole or either of the portions shown on the Form A
plan
Very truly yours,
Oen G.. FQlon
s
1 %=W
Northampton Zoning Board
Decision on Application
August 12, 1987
of Appeals
of Eugene Tacy
../'
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of
Northampton met on August 12, 1987 at 7:10 p.m. in Council
Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building to render their
decision on the request of Eugene A. Tacy for an Appeal of the
refusal of the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit for
the purpose of constructing a construction supply 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.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to approve the
minutes of the July 15, 1987 public hearing without a public
reading.
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.
He 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.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously that the
decision of the Building Inspector to deny issuance of a building
permit be upheld.
N a -, I-W r
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision - Tacy
August 12, 1987
The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m. Present, in addition to
those mentioned, were J. Parker, Staff Assistant, and Mr. Tacy.
i
Robert C. Busc er, Chairman
y
DECISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on August 12, 1987, the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to uphold
the refusal of the Building Inspector to issue a Building
Permit to Eugene A. Tacy, 158 North Maple Street, Florence, MA,
for the purpose of constructing a construction supply
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.
He 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.
P-t- L_
Peter Laband
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Sanfor Weil, Jr.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS
CITY HALL
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
586.6950
Patrick T. Gleason, Esq.
City Solicitor
Kathleen G. Fallon, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
July 31, 1987
Zoning Board of Appeals
City Hall
Northampton, MA. 01060
Re: Atty. Melnick's correspondence re Tacy hearing, July 15,
1987
Dear Board Members:
I have read Attorney Patrick J. Melnick's letter concerning
Eugene Tacy's appeal on an application for a building permit.
Attorney Melnick consistently fails to confront the issue which
is at the core of Mr. Tacy's various appearances before the ZBA.
That issue is the expansion of a pre- existing non - conforming
use. As I have stated in my previous opinions to your Board and
the Planning Board, the establishment of even an allowed use on
the same property as a pre- existing non - conforming use is an
expansion of that non - conforming use. It, therefore, requires a
finding by the ZBA under Section 9.3(B) of the Zoning Ordinance.
No building permit can be issued for an expansion of a pre-
existing non - conforming use without the required finding. I do
not find Attorney Melnick's arguments in his letter of June 21,
1987, to be valid.
Very truly yours,
Kathleen G. Fallon
cc: Atty. Patrick Melnick
��y7
4► ,./
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
July 21, 1987
Zoning Board
City Hall
Main Street
Northampton,
Dear Sirs:
of Appeals JUL 2 3 1987
OFFICE OF PLANNING
Mass. 01060 AND DEVELOPMENT
ENT
Telephone 413- 584 -6750
Pursuant to the outcome of the Hearing held relative to
the Tacy Appeal on July 15, 1987, I am writing this letter as a
Memorandum in support of the Tacy request for a building permit.
First, I think it is important to point out some of the
chronology of this matter so that the specific relief requested
by the Tacys can be focused in on.
As you know, the Tacys for some time have been applying to
the City of Northampton for a Use Permit to construct a
Construction Supply Establishment in conjunction with their
existing open storage of raw materials. Specifically, on
February 20, 1987, the Tacys filed an application for a Zoning
Permit with the Zoning Board of Appeals, wherein the Tacys
requested two different forms of relief.
1. They requested a special permit under the provisions of
Section 5 -2 (13) of the Zoning Ordinance to operate a
facility for the open storage of raw materials.
2. They also requested a finding under Section 9.3B of the
Zoning Ordinance for finding to permit them to build a
Construction Supply Establishment in conjunction with
their pre- existing, non - conforming use.
While the February 20, 1987 application was being reviewed
by the Zoning Board of Appeals, one of the City Councilors for
the City of Northampton put into motion a plan to re -zone the
property owned by the Tacys.
Hearing that a plan was in action to re -zone the property,
at my suggestion, Gene Tacy filed an application for a Building
Permit with the City of Northampton for the purpose of only
constructing a Construction Supply Establishment on the Main
Street, Leeds property. The application filed with the
Building Inspector on April 15, 1987 was separate and distinct
4...
.../
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
-2-
Telephone 413- 584 -6750
from the zoning request that was then being heard by the Zoning
Board of Appeals, and in fact, was decided by the Zoning Board
of Appeals on May 6, 1987. The request for a Building Permit
for the Construction Supply Establishment was a request for a
Building Permit for that use only The application for a
Building Permit filed on April 15, 1987 was a separate and
distinct application and is not and was not intended to be
connected with the February application for a Zoning Permit
that was filed by the Tacys.
The Building Inspector for the City of Northampton took no
action with respect to the April 15, 1987 Building Permit. The
Building Inspector neither approved nor denied that Building
Permit. The Tacys filed this instant appeal from the failure
to act on the Building Permit pursuant to the provisions of
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Section 13.
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Section 13 provides
that "any application filed with said zoning administrator as
to which no decision has been issued within 35 days from the
date of filing shall be deemed denied and shall be subject to
appeal to the Board of Appeals as provided in Section 8 ".
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Section 15
provides that "any appeal to the Board of Appeals shall be
taken within 30 days the application is deemed denied pursuant
to Section 13 ".
It is not disputed by anyone that this property is zoned
in a Special Industrial District, that a Construction Supply
Establishment is a use allowed by right in a Special Industrial
District, that the Tacys have met the minimum frontage, setback
and size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and in all
respects have complied with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The Tacys suggest, therefore, that they are
unconditionally entitled to a Building Permit for a
Construction Supply Establishment on this property if that is
the only use to which they intend to use said real estate. The
application for a Construction Supply Establishment only, is
not dependent upon any actions in the Superior Court or any
previous zoning applications requesting a multiple use of the
property. The application for a Building Permit filed on April
15, 1987 was an application for a single use only
�.r .../
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
-3-
Telephone 413- 584 -6750
To the extent that the Zoning Board of Appeals may
consider the application for a Building Permit for a
Construction Supply Establishment to be an attempt to avoid the
effect of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 6,
1987, I suggest to the Zoning Board of Appeals that is not
accurate. In the first place, the Tacys could not have known
on April 15, 1987 that the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 6,
1987 would deny their application for a multiple use permit.
The sole reasons that the Tacys filed any application for a
Building Permit for a single use as a Construction Supply
Establishment on April 15, 1987 was their fear that the City of
Northampton was going to re -zone their property from a Special
Industrial to some other zoing district. As the Board of
Appeals if likely aware, certain benefits derive from the
granting of a Building Permit prior to the time the first
notice of publication of a zone change is made in the
newspaper. If the Tacys had been granted a Building Permit for
a Construction Supply Establishment on April 15, 1987, and
thereafter the City filed the first notice of publication of a
zone change, that first notice of publication of a zone change
would not affect the validity of the Building Permite issued
previously. That was the sole reason that the application for
the Building Permit on April 15, 1987 was filed. Naturally, if
the Building Permit for a Construction Supply Establishment had
been granted on April 15, 1987, and a zone change had been
approved thereafter, the Tacys would have had to make an
election as to whether or not to exercise the Building Permit
for a Construction Supply Establishment only, and abandon their
other operations, or to abandon their Building Permit for a
Construction Supply Establishment. In either case, their
entitlement to the Building Permit on April 15, 1987 should not
be impacted by their pending applications for multiple use
permits.
At this time, the City of Northampton has declined to
re -zone the property, and at least temporarily, the threat to
re -zone the property appears to have been avoided.
Nevertheless the Tacy Appeal that is currently pending in the
Superior Court, may take several months to perfect. In the
meantime, the Tacys have a right to obtain a Building Permit
for a single use only, as a Construction Supply Establishment,
so that they can protect their interests in the event that in
the future, the City of Northampton determines that it will
once again attempt to re -zone this property.
J
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
-4-
Telephone 413- 584 -6750
The Tacys may have other options available to them as well
that were discussed at the Zoning Board Hearing. For instance,
the Tacys may elect to subdivide their property into two
separate building lots and thereafter file an application for a
Building Permit for one lot as a Construction Supply
Establishment and utilize the other lot for their pre- existing,
non - conforming use. While that option may be available to the
Tacys in the future, and they may in fact pursue that course of
action, that should not effect the application for a Building
Permit that was filed on April 15, 1985. That application
filed on April 15, 1985 was independent of any actions then
pending before the Zoning Board and was for a single specific
use allowed as of right for the entire parcel.
With respect to the opinion letter from Attorney Kathleen
Fallon, I agree that on page one and two of her letter she
correctly recites the history of these proceedings concerning
the application for a Special Permit and a Finding that I
previously alluded to in this letter. There is no question
that the issue of whether or not the Tacys are entitled to a
multiple use of that property without further permits from the
City of Northampton is an issue that will be decided in the
Superior Court. There is no place in the letter from Kathleen
Fallon, however, that would indicate to me that she knew that
the Tacys had filed an application for a Building Permit on
April 15. In fact, the April 15, 1987 application for a
Building Permit is not mentioned in her letter. I suspect very
strongly that Kathleen Fallon either did not know that an
application for a Building Permit was filed on April 15, 1987,
or if she did, she did not know that it was the failure to act
upon that application for a Building Permit that was the
subject matter of this appeal. Nothing in her opinion letter
of June 24, 1987 relates to any of the facts raised in the
Notice of Appeal filed by Gene Tacy with respect to the April
15, 1987 Building Permit.
Further, at the Hearing before this Board, I had the
impression that this Board felt that Gene Tacy was perhaps
attempting to obtain relief in front of the Board by sheer
maneuver that he was not previously able to obtain by permit.
Also, it was my feeling that perhaps there is some suspicion
that because Gene Tacy currently uses the premises as a
contractor's yard, that if he was given a Building Permit for a
Construction Supply Establishment, he would in the future
*4..
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
mis
.n/
Telephone 413- 584 -6750
Possibly operate the premises beyond the scope of his Building
Permit.
Again, as I indicated above, the application for the
Building Permit and this appeal to this Board was not a
maneuver. The application for the Building Permit in April of
1987 was made solely for the purpose of protecting Mr. Tacy's
interests with respect to a re- zoning. Further, in spite of
the fact that Mr. Tacy is a contractor, I do not believe that
this Board should presume that were Mr. Tacy given a permit for
a particular use, in this case a Construction Supply
Establishment, that he would thereafter utilize the building or
the use that was allowed for any purpose that was not permitted
under the Zoning Ordinance. Certainly our Zoning Ordiance
under Article 10 gives the Building Inspector ample power to
enforce all the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore,
while I do not believe it is appropriate for a Building
Inspector, or any Board, to deny a permit based upon suspicion
that in the future someone may commit illegal acts, or attempt
to circumvent the Zoning Ordinances of the City, if that were
the case, certainly the enforcement provisions and the monetary
penalty provisions provided therein, should be sufficient to
rectify any such offenses.
Nevertheless, if it is the undefined impression by the
Board that the Tacys may utilize this property for uses that
are not otherwise allowed that is the only objection to the
allowance for the application for a building permit filed on
April 15, 1987, I would propose the following.
Gene Tacy and his family would sign any agreement,
affidavit or other affirmative assurance to the City of
Northampton that if they were issued the Building Permit for a
Construction Supply Establishment, that they would not, in
fact, build that Construction Supply Establishment, or operate
that Construction Supply Establishment, unless one of the
following conditions were met:
1. They would not construct their Construction Supply
Establishment, and operate the same, unless previous to
constructing said building, they completely abandon all
the existing uses of the property for open storages of
raw materials and agree thereafter to utilizie the entire
on
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
MGM
Telephone 413- 584 -6750
property for only those purposes allowed under the
definition of a Construction Supply Establishment of the
City of Northampton. That guarantee and agreement they
would put in writing in any affirmative method or manner
that the City wishes;
2. Or , the Tacys lawfully divide the lot into two legal
building lots and thereafter abandon the use of one of
the building lots for all purposes and uses not allowed
as a Construction Supply Establishment. Thereafter, they
would build such Construction Supply Establishment only
on the lawful building lot and utilize said lot only for
the purposes allowed as a Construction Supply
Establishment;
3. Or , the Tacys would construct the building as a
Construction Supply Establishment only if the current
Superior Court civil action requesting the use of the
premises for multiple uses is decided in their favor.
In short, what I am saying to this Board, is that the
Tacys are willing to guarantee to the City of Northampton that
they intend in no way to subvert or circumvent any of the
Zoning Laws of the City of Northampton. The application for a
Building Permit that was filed on April 15, 1987 was intended
only to protect their interest in the event of a zoning change
of the property. The Tacys are willing to guarantee, in any
method or manner acceptable to the City of Northampton, that
they will hold that Building Permit and not utilize it unless
the conditions specified above are met so that the City's
concerns are protected.
Further, I would suggest to this Board that if the Tacys
make such written guarantee to the City, and in fact do not
exercise that Building Permit until one of the above conditions
are met, then all the rational concerns of the City concerning
the utilization of this property would be met. I would further
suggest there would then be no justifiable reason, and in fact,
today exists no justifiable reason for denying the Building
Permit filed on April 15, 1985.
\J
-.MOO"
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
-7-
PJM /dfk
cc: City Solicitor for the
City of Northampton
Kathleen Fallon, Esq.
212 Main Street
Northampton, Ma 01060
CC. Gene Tacy
158 North Maple Street
Florence, Ma 01060
P y,
el
k J. Melnik
Telephone 413 - 584 -6750
`+.s'
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing on Application of Eugene Tacy
7u4y_1 1987
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of
Northampton held a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on July 15, 1987
in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski.Municipal Building to
consider the request of Eugene A. Tacy for an Appeal of the
refusal of the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit for
the purpose of constructing a construction supply establishment
at his property located on the easterly side of Main Street,
Leeds, MA. Present were: Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Peter
Laband and Sanford Weil, Jr.
The Chairman read the public notice as it appeared in the
Daily Hampshire Gazette on July 1 and 8, 1987. He read a memo
from the Northampton Planning Board and advised those present of
their right to appeal.
S. Weil stated that in his opinion, it
application to be before the Board, a
application for a Finding to build a
establishment was denied and subsequently
that the Building Inspector must follow the
felt that the Board should not entertain
could set an unfavorable precedent.
is incorrect for this
Mr. Tacy's previous
construction supply
appealed. He stated
Board's direction and-
any discussion, as it
Att. P. Melnik, representing Mr. Tacy, argued that the issue
before the Board at this time is different than what was
requested previously. He stated that the Board's decision
(5/6/87) to deny the Finding (in conjunction with a Special.
Permit) request (filed 3/4/87) for the purpose of expanding a
nonconforming use (contractors' yard) was made after this
application for a Building Permit (4/15/87 *), and therefore, the
Building Inspector did not act as a result of the Board's action.
He stressed that this request for a 60 x 60' structure is not in
conjunction with the pre- existing nonconforming use, but for an
allowed use (construction supply establishment) under the Zoning.
ordinance. He argued that Mr. Tacy has the right to either
abandon the pre- existing nonconforming use or subdivide the lot
into two conforming lots, where he could erect a construction
supply establishment by right on one lot and continue the pre-
existing nonconforming use on the other.
Responding to P. Laband's reference to City Solicitor K.
Fallon's letter of opinion, Att. Melnik suggested that.this.
letter relates only to the previous application for a Finding.
P_ Laband questioned Att. Melnik if the lot has been subdivided_
car if his client has indicated that he will abandon his pre-
existing nonconforming use. Att. Melnik answered in the negative.
to bath questions.
*Application for Appeal gives a 5/15/87 date for the building
permit application.
l h%►'
«r
. Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Tact/ App eal - Page 2
The Chairman called on proponents or opponents.
Gene Tacy quoted the Zoning Ordinance regarding abando nment
of pre - existing nonconforming uses.
R. Buscher stated that the Board must have evidence that the_
applicant intends to abandon his pre - existing nonconforming use
or subdivide the lot.
The Board decided to ask K. Fallon for any clarification of-
her opinion and to allow time for Att. Melnik to submit a brief
in support of his arguments.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to close the
Public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Present, in addition to those_
mentioned, were J. Parker, Staff Assistant, and the Tacy family.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
1 -..r .4.►
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: L. Smith, Planner, on behalf of the Northampton
Planning Board
SUBJECT: Tacy - Appeal
DATE:
July 13, 1987
FILE:
At their meeting on June 25, 1987, the Northampton
Planning Board reviewed the application of Eugene Tacy for
an Appeal of the refusal of the Building Inspector to issue
a building permit for the purpose of constructing a
construction supply establishment at this property located
on the easterly side of Main Street, Leeds, MA.
After discussing the matter with the applicant and his
representative, the Planning Board voted 1 -0 -3 on a motion
to recommend denial of the request, as the City Solicitor,
representing the City's interests, has given a legal opinion
that the Building Inspector was correct in his decision not
to issue a building permit.
Two of the abstaining votes were from Board members
attending their first meeting, who felt that they were too
unfamiliar with the subject to make a judgment.
1 *.
CITY of NORTHAMPTON
OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathleen Fallon, Assistant City Solicitor
FROM: Marion Mendelson, Chairman, Northampton Planning Board
SUBJECTTacy Appeal
June 22, 1987
DATE:
FILE:
At their meeting on June 25, 1987, the Northampton Planning
Board will be reviewing Eugene Tacy's Appeal to the Zoning Board
of Appeals (dated 6/12/87) regarding the refusal of the Building
Inspector to issue a Building Permit for the purpose of
constructing a contractor's supply establishment at his property
located on the easterly side of Main Street, Leeds, MA.
The issue appears to be the implementation of a conforming
use on a lot with an already pre- existing nonconforming use. We
would appreciate your opinion and a clarification of the issues
regarding this matter.
`W
E°`
p►;,7,
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
_ , , j , � �� ._
MASSACHUSETTS
CITY HALL
210 Main Street
I: 1 �
Northampton, MA 01060
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
586 -6950
Patrick T. Gleason, Esq.
City Solicitor
Kathleen G. Fallon, Esq. June 24, 1987
Assistant City Solicitor
Marion Mendelson, Chairman
Northampton Planning Board
City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
RE: Tacy Appeal
Dear Ms. Mendelson:
-.01
I have received your request for my opinion on the issues
involved in Mr. Tacy's appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals of
Mr. Tewhill's denial of a building permit for the Tacy property
on Main Street, Leeds. In response, may I submit the following.
Mr. Tacy's property is zoned SI. He operates a construction
Yard on that site, a use which currently requires a special
permit in that zone. (A 'construction yard' is deemed to entail
the open storage of raw materials and construction equipment)
Mr. Tacy does not have a permit since the construction yard use
predates the requirement for a special permit. Mr. Tacy's
construction yard is a pre- existing non - conforming use.
In February, 1984, Mr. Tacy received a building permit for a
storage building on the subject property. This permit was
revoked by the Building Inspector in March, 1984, prior to any
construction. Mr. Tewhill stated that action by the Zoning Board
of Appeals would be necessary since the use on the site was non-
conforming.
Mr. Tacy then applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for (1)
a special permit for the operation of the construction yard and
(2) a finding under Section 9.3(B) of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow expansion of the non - conforming use to include a new use, a
construction supply establishment, an allowed use in that zone,
\.r
and the construction of a 30x30 building to house both uses.
On November 28, 1984, the Zoning Board of Appeals rendered a
decision in which it purportedly granted a special permit 'for
the purpose of establishing a construction supply business..."
The Board made no ruling on the request for a finding under
Section 9.3(B). The relief granted was incorrect and not
responsive to the application. Mr. Tacy requested a special
permit for the construction yard use. The decision granted the
permit to construct a building for the construction supply
business use which is an allowed use in that SI zone.
The request for a special permit was inappropriate and
should have been denied. Since the Tacy business was a pre-
existing non - conforming use, the appropriate method of changing,
altering, or extending that use is through a finding under
Section 9.3(B). Addition of a use allowed by right in that
district is still an extension /alteration of the non - conforming
use. Construction of a building to house either the pre- existing
non - conforming use or the extended use is also an
extension /alteration of the current use and requires a finding.
Since the Zoning Board of Appeals did not act on the request for
a finding on its decision of November, 1984, that request was
granted by default.
However, like a special permit, a finding will lapse if the
rights granted thereunder are not exercised within the specified
time period. The Northampton zoning ordinance requires that
substantial use of those rights commence within eighteen months.
Mr. Tacy first applied for a building permit in November, 1986.
Clearly the eighteen month period had expired. The application
that is the subject of this appeal was also filed after
expiration of the eighteen month period. Since the construction
contemplated would expand and /or alter a pre- existing, non-
conforming use, and the finding granted in 1984 had expired,
further action by the Zoning Board of Appeals is required prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Tacy did try to obtain the required Zoning Board of
Appeals approval earlier this year. He filed an application for
relief almost identical with that filed in 1984. On May 6, 1987,
in a split decision, the Zoning Board of Appeals ruled that the
special permit request was not appropriate and denied the request
for a finding under Section 9.3(B). Mr. Tacy has filed an appeal
of that decision with the Superior Court.
2
`.►
In summary it is my opinion that the application for the
building permit was correctly denied.
Very truly yours,
Kathleen Fallon, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
cc: Edward Tewhill
Zoning Board of Appeals
3
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS
,'. CITY HALL
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
586.6950
May 6, 1987
Zoning Board of Appeals
City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
RE: Application of Eugene A. Tacy
Dear Board Members:
You have requested an opinion as to the application of
Eugene A. Tacy for a special permit and a finding currently
before your board. In response may I submit the following.
The applicant owns and operates a construction yard for the
storage of raw materials and equipment. The yard is located in a
Special Industrial (SI) district. Under current zoning that use,
shown as paragraph 13 under Wholesale, Transportation, and
Industrial uses in Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, requires
a special permit in that zone. However, Mr. Tacy's business
predates that special permit requirement and, therefore, is a
valid pre- existing non - conforming use.
In September 1984, Mr. Tacy submitted an application to the
Board of Appeals which essentially requested the same relief as
the current application, except for the size of the proposed
building. He requested a special permit under Section 5.2 (13)
of the Zoning Ordinance and a finding pursuant to Section 9.3 (B)
to allow expansion of the non - conforming use to include the
additional use of a construction supply establishment as defined
in Section 5.2, paragraph 3 under Wholesale, Transportation, and
Industrial uses, and the construction of a 30' x 30' building to
house that new use as well as possibly to house his construction
equipment. (The 1987 application includes a 60' x 60' building.)
J
-2-
The Board of Appeals in a decision issued in December, 1984,
granted a special permit to construct a building as requested to
house a construction supply business. Certain restrictions were
attached to the permit. The Board did not address specifically
the request for a finding under Section 9.3 (B).
Mr. Tacy's business, as stated above, is a pre- existing non-
conforming use. As such any change, alteration, or extension of
that use is controlled by Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter
40A, Section 6 and Section 9 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant by the addition of a construction supply
business component to his existing operation and by the
construction of a building on his site to serve both the
requested and the existing use, is seeking a change, alteration,
and extension of his non - conforming use. The only appropriate
method of accomplishing this purpose is by a finding of the Board
of Appeals pursuant to Section 9.3 (B).
The request for a special permit on both the 1984 and 1987
applications is not appropriate. The special permit was
requested for the pre- existing non - conforming use. No permit is
necessary for the continued operation of that use. Any change,
alteration, or expansion of that use may be made only after the
required finding by the Board of Appeals.
It is my opinion that the decision of the Board of Appeals
in the 1984 application, although called a special permit, was
actually a finding under Section 9.3 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance.
It was not the special permit requested in the application since
that permit was requested for the pre- existing non - conforming
use. It did, however, grant the relief requested on the
application described thereon as a "finding." Under M.G.L.
Chapter 40A, Section 6, the means used to change, alter or extend
a non - conforming use can be either a special permit or a finding.
The standards which must be met are identical for both. However,
the Northampton Zoning Ordinance has specifically designated that
type of relief as a "finding." The Board's decision of December,
1984, was that "finding. "
However, the applicant has now indicated that he no longer
wants to build the 30' x 30" building proposed in the 1984
application but intends to build a structure measuring 60" x 60
This 60" x 60" building is not permitted by the 1984 action of
the Board of Appeals. It is a change, alteration, or extension
of the pre- existing, non - conforming use, even as that use has
been previously changed, altered, or extended under the 1984
finding, that requires a new finding under Section 9.3 (B) of the
Board of Appeals.
-3-
Attorney Patrick J. Melnick has submitted a statement of the
applicant's legal arguments to this office. I have reviewed that
statement and concur with Attorney Melnick's assertion that the
1984 decision was, indeed, a finding under Section 9.3 (B). I do
not agree that the raw storage use has been changed from a non-
conforming use to a special permit use through a constructive
grant of that special permit. As stated above, it is my opinion
that non - conforming uses can only be affected through actions
authorized by Chapter 40A, Section 6 and Section 9.3 (B) of the
local ordinance. The non - conforming use remains as such.
Therefore, I also do not agree with Attorney Melnick's contention
that all proposed uses on the property are conforming either by
special permit or by right.
Very truly yours,
a Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
KGF:c
BUILDING, NONCONFORMTNG A building,
effective date of this Ordinance, or a
thereto, which does not conform to one
regulations for the district in which
BUSINESS OFFICE: See OFFICE.
lawfully existing at the
ny subsequent amendment
or more of the applicable
the building is located.
BUSINESS SERVICE AND SUP SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT Any building
wherein the. Primary occupation is the provision of services or
supplies to the business, commercial, industrial or institutional
community but not including retail sales to the general public
except as a secondary and subordinate ancillary activity.
CELLAR A portion of a building,
partly or entirely below grade, half
or more than one -half of its height
measured from finished floor to fin-
ished ceiling, below the average
finished grade of the ground ad-
joining the building. A cellar is
not deemed a story.
�S °,�1AN HAr.F �, ��4�EtQ4tiE
t�oQt. �{}1AN pQl-F' I �faiZeD
G i r1 1�,> -1 En F1.otNL
C ERTIFICATE OF USE AND OCCUPANCY A statement signed by the
Administrative Officer, setting forth either that - a building or
structure complies with the Zoning Ordinance or that a building,
structure or parcel of land may lawfully be employed for specified
uses, or both.
' CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT A development undertaken in
accordance with the provisions of Section 11.4 of this Ordinance,
consisting of a variety of dwelling types integrated with each
other and with a significant area of co -anon open space, and developed
at a density not exceeding that which would be ordinarily expected
from a typical conventional subdivision.
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE A vehicle registered for commercial use.
COMMUNITY RESIDENC See HP.T FW HOUSE.
CONSTRUCTI SUPPLY ESTA BL_ISW - ENT: An establishment which sells,
rc_r_ts, leases,_ serv: ces, and or otherwise maintains materials
and %or tyuipm rit___involved,. in construction activities, including,
but not limited to hardware, lumber, and equipment "sales, and mill-
work.
DAMAGE TO THE ENVIROT?MENT Any destruction, damage or impairment,
actual or probable, to any of the natural resources of the common-
wealth including, but not limited to, air pollution, water pollution,
improper sewage disposal, pesticide pollution, excessive noise, im-
proper operation of dumping grounds, impairment and eutrophication
of rivers, streams, floodplains, lakes, ponds, or other surface or
subsurface water resources, destruction of seashores, dunes, marine
resources, underwater archaeological resources, wetlands, open spaces,
natural areas, parks, or historic districts or sites.
2 -3
s
'u
F
J
s.3
. f 4
f i
t�
> C�
e�
N
I UI
0
"u >
H 4 C)
1
i fr7
N
d�
.
cc i �
v f+
I � C=
f
i 4
a
GI T
ro` �
r�
a
a a
Ql
r-i
a
r� R
a a 1 I I I
a I vai KC KC
C/2 �
1 1 1 I 1 1
' a a
1 1 1 1 rn 'n
1 1 1 1 1 1
ra
y
:3
0 • -i
c�
i
_
0 0
44 W
H H ro
ro ro $4
Q1 U a �°
01 rq
,C
r a
W •r�i W
0 N 0
ro 41 ro 4.)
i
a a
0
H (r)
4-d r
- a
G
w
o
`� ro
41 u ro
R. °
.,� to cc+
S•J
C
C
O N
0 r-r 0)
r-I ro 4J
ro
I
I
- a
I
t
1
a
1
1
1
1
1
cry
1
1
1
1
1
H
v
c
1
1
1
I
04
1
1
1
1
4
N
t~ U
0
0 m
•
O (o
o
41 u >4 to
ro 0
Ir. >1
�+
H �4
•ri
ro i~
s~ - r-i
>4
3 �4
a�
H Cn
41
U •r-i 04
m. , 1
41
H
�C7
to
U
!�
u
a tT r.
s4 ro N
a
2
- r-i
E-+
� 0
� mro
- r - i
tos4
� I.1
'V
r4 ro b
o 0
-
H
$4 0
R
b
t 0"
tT
9 f.
Tyy���
UI
V) U)
d Ql
0 U
ro
ro iti 0► i
n
42
>~
0
't
N
4-4
P ..
t3l 4j 41 0)
%
tT
„�i t3) 0
4 r. •r•i
0
r-i
A
•H
14
.0 S4 H
r o I�
'�r
N
0
0
0 ro ro ,C:
C:
EO -,I 4J
0
a) 0
v
H
r-i
•r•i }4 4.)
•r-i
0 k-1 U
U VI
4J
H t3l
b
14
H
ro
N
rO
L4 H (D
H
U
0
ro ro G
ro
I:�4
• ro
>, •�+
rn 3 O
ro
•r i v1
>d r-i
A
1
44
VI r-i -r-i
0)
0
�4
x
0)
w >
�l �4
N o 41
> 4
4J
ro
�
o
Q)
u
to
cv
N
;j
H a
°
H
• ro
U) (1)
1:1 a
s 44 � 4'
w
r 0
0 )
�
ro r--ii
�o
F4 c4
&Ej
a -H
ro •ri
--
U
rn
P4
a
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
y H
N
M
5 -11
ra
y
:3
0 • -i
c�
i
_
0 0
44 W
H H ro
ro ro $4
Q1 U a �°
01 rq
,C
r a
W •r�i W
0 N 0
ro 41 ro 4.)
i
a a
0
H (r)
4-d r
- a
G
w
o
`� ro
41 u ro
R. °
.,� to cc+
S•J
C
C
O N
0 r-r 0)
r-I ro 4J
ro
I
I
- a
I
t
w"n
N
U) u
C: c
u
0 ro
(n
u>
�4
E
�4
1W
Gq
V)
�4
u 0
1 4
.4
41
C:
V)
Q)
�
r o
44
t3l
4 M
�4 (13
rob
d1 1
4J
ro C: -r-i r o 9 0)
0 0 �4 0 rO
41
g U)
b . 0) a)
r-i 0) -W
0 R. 0 -H
0 U)
• U)
-P u
0) u a)
. g 4j U)
-4-
.
-:s
�4 (v 41
44 k�
ro :� 0 w
Q) �4 �4 0
r-i
rO �4
.
0 (1) -H
o w •�+3
0 ro
(1)
0
44 Q
.,1
;j
>
4.)
0 C: 0 U) 4J row
.,j .,1 (13 44
44
0
�4 4J
0
(1) 44 4-) �4 0) �4
F-: 0
M
44 44 4-)
U 4J 0
4J
44 �4
0
U) a)
.,1 rd r o
A
4
0 a)
41
0)
C: 4J
�4 rl (10
0 M �4
rO
4J 4) �4
(10
E
�4 Q) 0
( 0 -(
(13 P--j P-4 r-i
O
�4 0 U) *14 0
(1) u Ir. U) vi * 3:
�4
0 a)
a) rj) Lrl >
• (a 0) (1)
f 4 W > >
-H
-P Ir.
U)
0
ono >
W 4J
U')
5-13
ro
0
5 F--
0 0
p � � �
4-j Uli
-W 4J
r -4 q:j
ro M N
—4 r•4 -r-4 r-
U •,A 0 0
Q) u
roar ro�
CL) 4
�4
44
0
ti4
0
U) M
>
C
—4
� O N
C) r-4
1-4 4
1-4
ARTICLE IV
INTERPRE'T'ATION AND APPLICATION
Section 4.1 - Tn terpreLation . The provisions of this Ordinance
Shall be interpreted to be the minimum requirements adopted for
the promotion of the health, safety, morals, or the general
welfare of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, and except for
Chapter 44, Zo ning O.rdi Ha of the Revised Ordinances of the
CitY of Northampton, Massachusetts, 1959, and all subsequent
amendments thereto, the provisions of this Ordinance are not
intended to repeal, amend, abrogate, annul, or in any way impair
or interfere with any lawfully adopted ordinance, covenants,
Zegulations, or rules. Whenever the regulations made under the
authority hereof differ from those prescribed by any statute,
ordinance, or other regulations, that provisions which imposes the
greater restriction or the higher standard shall govern.
Section 4.2 - Apn lication . Except as herein provided, the provi-
sions of this Ordinance shall apply to the erection, construction,
reconstruct ion, alteration, or use of buildings, structures, or use
Of land. Except as herein provided, any existing conforming use,
structure, or lot sha11 not by any action become nonconforming and
a.zY existing nonconforming use, structure, or lot shall not become
C
urther nonconforming.
Section 4.3 - exist B and Land This Ordinance shall
riot a >ply to existing buildings or structures,
nor to the existing
use of any building or structure or of land, to
the extent to which
it is legally used at the time of adoption of
it
this Ordinance, but
shall apply to any change of use thereof and
Of
to any alteration '
a building or structure when the same would
amount to recon-
struction, extension or structural change, and
a building or structure
to any alteration of
to provide for its use
for a purpose or in a
, aanner substantially different from the use to
before
which it was put
alteration, or for its use for the same
tially
purpose to a substan-
greater extent.
Section 4.4 - Mixed Uses In cases of mixed occupancy, the regula-
tion for each use shall apply to the portion of the building or
land so used.
U
4 -1
13. lire existing nonconforming uses may he PxtPnded or altered
provided that no such extension or alteration shall he
r)ermittPd unless there is a finding by the Loning Board of
t+ that such change, extension or alteration shall not
he substantially more detrimental than the exi3tingrnoncon-
forming use to the neighborhood and providing that if such
change, extension or alteration result- uses u
comp wttlrtne current zo n ng requirements, then su
find.inq l a not necessa
C. Pre-existing nonconforming lot - conformin us
�Nhen a conforming use on a pre - existing nonconforming lot
is changed, extended or altered to a use which requires a
larger minimum lot area, minimum lot width or frontage
and /or minimum lot depth, than is required for the present
use, then a variance must be received with regard to the
pre- existing nonconformity of the lot. When a conformiJng.
use on a pre - existing nonconforming lot is changed, ex-
tended or altered to a conforming use which requires the
same or less minimum lot area, minimum lot width or
frontage, and /or minimum lot depth than is required for the
present use, then a finding (as stated in 9.3B above) would
he required.
�• Pre- Oxistinc► nonconforming` lot - nonconforming use
Pre- existing nonconforming uses on pre - existing nonconforming
lots may be extended or altered provided that no such exten-
sion or alteration shall be permitted unless there is a
finding by the 'Zoning Board•.of Appeals that such change,
extension or alteration shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neigh-
horhood.
F. Pr.A existing nnnconformin gtr ct - change in use
A use in a pre- existing nonconforming structure may be
changed, extended, or altered only if there is a finding by
the Zoning Board of Appeals that such change, extension or
alteration is not substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
Section 1.4 - Sinal,e Lot E XP_ m tion for Sin le and rm- F it Us
Any increase in area, Frontage, w4.dth, yard or depth requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to a vacant lot for single and
two - family residential. use, which:
(a) has at least 5,000 square feet of area and fifty feet of
frontage;
(h) i3 in an area zoned for single or two - family use (a special
permit must he obtained if one is required);
DISTRICTS
?'or the grant
or moderate
toms, protec-
s shall state
'h the special
i or intensity
,granted for
brood would
that such
,tial use, and
or planned
uildings and
om adjacent
A cluster
as a zoning
dimensional
,e otherwise
-tided to the
Irdi,lance or
vent. Such
within the
Z ccepted by
c principal
rporation or
l plot. if
veyances of
the city or
that such
,ti,il use or
of of land
tirnes the
c or by -law
- :al or other
tageous to
(iuirernents
, n space, if
he develop-
as shared
or by-laws
eed a to'...
ary for ti e
be issued
) with the
the city or
CITIES, TOWNS & DISTRICTS 40A § 9
town clerk by the applicant; • and may provide that certain classes of special permits shall
be issued by one special permit - granting authority and others by another special permit
granting authority as provided in the ordinance or by -law. Such special permit granting
authority shall adopt and from time to time amend rules relative to the issuance of such
permits, and shall file a copy of said rules in the office of the city or town clerk. Such
rules shall prescribe a size, form, contents, style and number of copies of plans and
specifications and the procedure for a submission and approval of such permits. Special
permit granting authorities shall act within ninety days following a public hearing for
which notice has been given by publication or , .osting as provided in section eleven, and
by mailing to all parties in interest, provided, however, a city council having more than
five members designated to act upon such a permit may appoint a committee of such
council to hold the public hearing. Failure b a,_= tlal._p-un iL r mting.authority to take
final action upon an application for a sIjZcialyermit within said ninety days following the
date of public hearing shall be deemed to be a .-rant of the permit applied for. Special
permits issued by a special permit granting authority shall require a two - thirds vote of
boards with more than five members, a vote of at least four members of a five member
board and a unanimous vote of a three member board.
Zoning ordinances or by -laws shall provide that a special permit granted under this
section shall lapse within a specified period of time, not more than two years, which shall
not include such time required to pursue or await the determination of an appeal referred
to in section seventeen, from the grant, thereof, if a substantial use thereof has not sooner
commenced except for good cause or, in the case of permit for construction, if construc-
tion has not begun by such date except for good cause.
Zoning ordinances or by -laws shall also provide that uses, whether or not on the same
parcel as activities permitted as a matter of right, accessory to activities permitted as a
matter of right, which activities are necessary in connection with scientific research or
scientific development or related production, may be permitted upon the issuance of a
special permit provided the granting authority finds that the proposed accessory use does
not substantially derogate from the public good.
A hazardous waste facility as defined in section two of chapter twenty -one D shall be
permitted to be constructed as of right on any locus presently zoned for industrial use
pursuant to the ordinances and by -laws of any city or town provided that all permits and
licenses required by law have been issued to the developer and a siting agreement has
been established pursuant to sections twelve and thirteen of chapter twenty -one D,
provided however, that following the submission of a notice of intent, pursuant to section
seven of chapter twenty -one D, a city or town -may not adopt any zoning change which
would exclude the facility from the locus specified in said notice of intent. This section
shall not prevent any city or town from adopting a zoning change relative to the proposed
locus for the facility following the final disapproval and exhaustion of appeals for permits
and licenses required by law and by chapter twenty -one D.
Amended by St1980, c. 508, § 5; St.1982, c. 344; St.1985, c. 408; St.1985, c. 637, §§ 3 to 5.
1980 Amendment. St.1980, e. 508, § 5, an
emergency act, approved July 15, 1980, added
the eleventh paragraph.
Section 12 of St..1980, c. 508, provided:
"It is hereby declared that the provisions of
this act are severable, and if any provision of
this act shall be declared unconstitutional by the
valid judgment or decree of any court of compe-
tent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall
not affect any of the remaining provisions of this
,Let."
19$2 Amendment. St.1982, c. 344, approved
July 15, 1982, inserted the seventh paragraph.
1985 Amendments. St.1985, c. 408, approved
Oct. 18, 1985, in the ninth paragraph substituted
"which shall not include" for "and including ".
St.1985, c. 637, § 3, approved Dec. 23, 1985, in
the first sentence of the second paragraph in-
33
�rMt3' {�,n. � � �'gc * ". � .. �'. _ •. �a, k;; �'� ,
`.. -"00
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision on Application of Eugene Tacy
May 6, 1987
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton met
on May 6, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, Wallace J.
Puchalski Municipal Building to render their decision on the
request of Eugene A. Tacy for a Special Permit under the
provisions of Section 5.2, Page 5.13, Paragraph 13 and a Finding
under the provisions of Section 9.3, Paragraph B of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Northampton for the purpose of
constructing a construction supply establishment in conjunction
with his existing contractors' yard on property located on Main
Street, (Leeds), Northampton, MA (SI Zone). Present and voting
were: Acting Chairman Peter Laband, William Brandt and M.
Sanford Weil, Jr.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to approve the
minutes of the April 15, 1987 public hearing without a public
reading.
The Acting Chairman stated that at the time of the public
hearing, some technical questions were brought up by Att. Melnik,
who submitted a brief outlining these questions. The Board
referred these issues to the City Solicitor, who, in turn,
forwarded her opinion. The Acting Chairman read a memo to the
Zoning Board of Appeals from Kathleen Fallon, City Solicitor,
dated 5/6/87, which stated, among other things, that it appears
that a Special Permit is not applicable and that the Board should
rule only on the Finding request.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously that the Special
Permit request was not applicable in this situation and the Board
would follow the City,Sol- icitor's suggestion and address the request
for a Finding.
S. Weil stated that he took a site view and spoke with
several neighbors. He found that as the site measures 2+ acres
and the proposed building will be situated on the rear of the lot
directly facing a bridge, that the addition of a 60 x 60' (23.5'
high) structure on the rear of the lot will not affect the
atmosphere of the village of Leeds. He added that the proposed
"park" referred to at the public hearing is, in fact, a narrow
strip of land along the bank of the river away from the bridge,
which starts 1/4 block beyond this site. He also suggested that
as those in power chose to zone this parcel SI, the
applicant /owner is entitled to this use. He found in favor of the
finding request.
W. Brandt found that as the request represents a long -term
impact on the conditions of the neighborhood and town, the
construction of a 60 x 60' building would be substantially more
detrimental to this existing residential neighborhood than the
existing use.
I
DECISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on May 6, 1987, the Zoning Board of
Appeals, in a split decision, voted to deny the Finding
request of Eugene A. Tacy, 158 North Maple Street, (Florence),
Northampton for the purpose of constructing a 60 x 60'
building to be used in conjunction with the existing
contractor's yard located on Main Street, Leeds, MA (more
particularly identified as Parcel 10D of Sheet 17 of the
Northampton Assessors' Maps). Present and voting were: Acting
Chairman Peter Laband, - William Brandt and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
The findings were as follows:
1 S. Weil stated that he took a site view and spoke with
several neighbors. He found that as the site measures 2+
acres and the proposed building will be situated on the rear
of the lot directly facing a bridge, that the addition of a 60
x 60' (23.5' high) structure on the rear of the lot will not
affect the atmosphere of the village,of Leeds. He added that
the proposed "park" referred to at the public hearing is, in
fact,a narrow strip of land along the bank of the river away
from the bridge, which starts 1/4 block beyond this site. He
also suggested that as those in power chose to zone this
parcel SI, the applicant /owner is entitled to this use. He
found in favor of the finding request.
W. Brandt found that as the request represents a long-
term impact on the conditions of the neighborhood and town,
the construction of a 60 x 60' building would be substantially
more detrimental to this existing residential neighborhood
than the existing use.
P. Laband found that as this neighborhood is in
transition and is in the process of being upgraded, and as
this single parcel zoned SI is in the middle of the
neighborhood, the expansion of this use with the accompanying
increase in noise, heavy truck traffic and activity would be
more detrimental to the neighborhood.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously that a
Special Permit is not applicable in this situation and is
therefore, put aside,- - following he City_ li tar' a inion.
See-minutes.
Peter Laband, Acting Chairman
William Brandt
M. Sanford feil, Jr.
�%.
APR 2 1937
I- Aj4t4ING
+O1: C D�vELCP ENT
AN D
City Solicitor's Office
212 Main Street
Northampton, Ma 01060
PATRICK J. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
April 21, 1987
Re: Eugene Tacy - Application for Zoning Permit
Main Street, Leeds, Massachusetts
. De.,ir Attoney Fallon and Attorney Gleason:
Telephone 413 -584 -6750
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 Puling 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 writin- 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 Establishment on that parcel of land.
Eugene Tacy and his family have 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.
1.r/
In September of 1984 Eugene Tacy filed an Application for
• Zoning Permit for the purpose of constructing a building for
• 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
-2-
r
Telephone 413- 584 -6750
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, allowed 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 Permit ... 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 inartfully 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
...0
PA i .LACK .j. MELNIK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
110 King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
—3— Tc1cphone 413 - 584 -6750
unclearly written Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40(a),
Section 9 specifies "that failure by a permit granting
authority to take final action upon an application for a
Special Permit within said ninety days following the date of
tho public hearing shall be deemed to be a grant of the permit
applied for." Therefore, the Decision of 1984 was either a
grant of the permit requested, or if the grant of the Special
Permit for the contractor's yard could not be read into the
decision of the Board of Appeals in November of 1984, since it
was applied for, i: was allowed b 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 ].984 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
Eugene Tacy applied for his building permit for the
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 allowed 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 s;;ch change, extension or alteration RESULTS
IN ALL USES complying with the zoning requirements, THEN SUCH
FINDING IS NOT NECESSARY."
`r - -•/'
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE, S.S. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
EUGENE A. TACY, Petitioner
BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR
THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Notice of Appeal
. Law Office
1TRICK J..NfEL NL 1K
110 King Street
thampton,MA 01060
Now comes Eugene A. Tacy of 158 North Maple Street,
Florence, Massachusetts who states that on or about April 15,
1987 he filed an application for a building permit with the
City of Northampton for purpose of constructing a construction
supply establishment on his property located on Main Street in
Leeds, Massachusetts. The property is zoned Special
Industrial. A building permit for a construction supply
establishment is allowed by right under the city zoning
ordinances.
More than thirty -five (35) days has elapsed since the date
of filing the application for the building permit, and no
action has been taken on the application by the Building
Inspector for the City of Northampton.
Eugene A. Tacy therefore says that the application for a
building permit is deemed to be denied and he has a right of
appeal pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A,
Section 15. This is a Notice of Appeal filed with the City
Clerk for the City of Northampton pursuant to said Chapter.
413- 584 -6750
`'' ../
-2-
Attached to this Notice of Appeal is an application for a
zoning permit and the copy of the application for a building
permit filed with the Building Inspector for the City of
Northampton.
June 9, 1987
d at City Clerks Office
JUA S S.
1 L O
Law Office
PATRICK J. MELNIK
110 King Street
Torthampton,,NIA 01060
413- 584 -6750
Dat C \�- / 4 /
A /a. 2,
FUatrick J. Melnik
110 King Street
Northampton, Mass. 01060
584 -6750
Eugene A. Tacy
I S%1111 Do Not Write In These Spaces Application Number:
Rec'd. B. 1. Checked Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcels)
By Date 7 gY Date Date Amt. Date 7 r Date IF I- - I
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
Name of Applicant Eugene A. Ta
Address 158 North Maple Street, Florence, Massachusetts 01060
2. Owner of Property Eugene A. Tacy, James J. Tacy, Richard J. Tacy, Harold G. Tacy and
Address Helen N. T Main Street, Leeds, Massachusetts 0105'
3. Applicant is: 'Owner; El Contract Purchaser; `Lessee; E Tenar,t in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
VARIANCE from the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
"SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
FXOT H ER: Appeal of failure of building inspector to issue -b
office supply establishment
5. Location of Property Main Street, Leeds, Massachusetts being situated on
the east side of Main Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 10D Parcel (s) 17
6. Zone Special Industrial
7. Description of proposed work and/or use; Applicant filed an application with the buil ding
inspector of the City of Northampton for a building permit for a contractor's supply
establishment. This use is allowed as right under a special industrial zone under
provisions of the zoning ordinance. Application for a building permit filed on nr
about May 15, 1987. No action was taken by the building inspector with respect to
the application for said building permit. Massachusetts General Laws nrnvide that
appeal may be taken at the expiration of thirty -five (35) days from the failt,re of t he
building inspector to issue permit.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; CNYes ❑ No
(b) Site plan: ❑ Attched L Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: Construction supply establishment is allo wed
by right under special industrial zone in the City of Northampton. Th premises ar e in
a special industrial zone. Building inspector has refused to issue building permit for
a contractor's supply esta is went. Appeal is authorized pursuant to the provisio of
Massach usetts General Laws. This is a notice of appeal and request for permit pursuant
to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Cahpter 40A, Section 15.
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true tot est of my knowledge.
Date June 6, 1987 A pplicant's Signature
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
9� « MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE of the INSPECTOR of BUILDINGS
INSPECTOR
Page
Plot
APPLICATION FO -.
ZONING PERMIT A(
BUILDING PERM(:
rmr Ur[ t AN t - Applicant to complete ON items in sections: 1, 11, Ill, IV, and IX,
1.
LOCATION
OF
BUILDING
A
AT (LOCATION) ��� /t�� S-f• Q s ZOatVG �' r
I t+O1 15TREETI CL DISTRICT J � JV j.
/ r
BETWEEN — � }c' C h
(CROSS STREET( }}��
SUBDIVISION �O P�0 - 71c (r/ ICROS STREET(
LOT LO i
BLOCK _ S17F
1 Tyr- A`:;_1 L.UJI OF BUILDING — A/
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
1 New building
2 ❑ Addition( // residential, enter number
u/ ncru housing units added, it any,
in fart D, 13)
3 ❑ Alteration (See 2 above)
4 R replacement
5 ❑ Wrecking (11 multi family residential,
enter nurnher of units to builrllrrg in
Part D, 13)
6 ❑ Moving (relocation)
7 ❑ Foundation only
B. OWNERSHIP
8 k Private (individual, corporation,
nonprofit institution, etc.)
9 ❑ Public (Federal, State, or
local government)
C. COST
10. Cost of improvement •••••,
To be installed but not included
in the above cost
a. Eiectricol ......................
b . Plumbing .........•
C. Heating, air conditioning.........
d. Other (elevator, etc.) .............
0 C e ---
06
c sal, library, other eaucatianal I,
27 ❑ Stores, mercantile i
I
28 L J Tanks, towers
29 `:; Other - SpreilyS. .si7t , ?r e c�tA 1 I.
L
C O�' f^ 7'c) Ci.`Y• 5 ..: .rr �Y�r {•
9 " AA F.
V
°6 s��� -M -e ��
11, TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT 1 L Coo _ -
IiI. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING — For new buildings and additions, complete Ports E — L;
for wrecking, complete only Port J, for all others skip to IV.
E. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF FRAME G. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL
1
30 Masonry ( bearing)
40 Public or private compa
31 ❑Wood frame 41 ❑ P ny Private (septic tank, etc.)
32 ❑ Structural steel
33 ❑ Reinforced concrete H. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY
3471 Oth - Specify 42 Public or private company
43 ❑ Private (well, cistern)
F. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF HEATING FUEL
35 ❑ Gas
r
36 _ o
37 Electricity
38 ❑ Coal
39 ❑ Other - .Specify
I applicants c omplete Ports A - D
D. PROPOSED USE - For wrecking most recent use
Residential
12 ❑One family
Nonresidential I
-
13 ❑ Two
1g ". Amusement, recreational
or more family - heeler
number of units - -
19 i 1 Church, other rel
- i
14 ❑ Transient hotel,
20 Industrial
• motel,
or dormitory l:rrlr•r number
21 I.. Parking garage
of units - - - - - - - - i
15 ED Garage
22 i I Service station, repair gars e
- g
i
16 ❑ Carport
23 ! Hospital, instituhonai i
17 ❑ Other - Speci
24 ( ) Of(ice, bank, professional
/y
25 ❑ P ublic utility
7
26 ❑c h
(Omit cents)
�z . Di1
I. TYPE OF MECHANICAL
Will there be control oil
conditioning?
44 ❑ Yes 45 R Na
Will there be an elevator
K. NUMBER OF OFF - STREET
PARKING SPACES
51 . Enclosed .......................
52 . Outdoors ........................
L- rct2-lutNTIAL BUILDINGS ONLY
53. Number of bedrooms .
54. Number of 1 Full..........
y Nome Mailing address — \umnrr, slur•[, rtfN,
•. or cC r' • Y1 f a `� !— > �/ l is i1 C
�
Contractor L•crrsr No. c'f"
s.
Architect or Cl�� �V��`� ,:i� ,in�L17��� "i ^ rrl'1. +3•' S.�
Engineer `~ -
I hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of record and that I have been authorized by the owner to
make this application as' authorized agent and we agree to conform to all applicable laws of this jurisdiction.
Signor re f applicant Address
APPI,cat on dote
�1 00 NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
Y. PLAN REVIEW RECORD — For office use
Pions Review Required
Check
Plan Review
Fee
Dote Plans
$totted I B y
Dote Pions
Approved
BY
Notes
BUILDING
PLUMBING
Is
Obtained
i
I
BOILER
MECHANICAL
s
PLUMBING
ELECTRICAL
I A
^�
CURB OR SIDEWALK CUT
OTHER
ROOFING
VI. ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED OR OTHER JURISDICTION APPROVALS
Permit or Approval
Check
Date
Obtained
Number
B y
Permit or Approva
PP
Check
Dote
Obtained
Number
By
BOILER
PLUMBING
CURB OR SIDEWALK CUT
ROOFING
ELEVATOR
SEWER
ELECTRICAL
SIGN OR BILLBOARD
FURNACE
STREET GRADES
I
GRADING
USE OF PUBLIC AREAS
OIL BURNER
WRECKING
OTHER
OTHER
II. V
Building
Permit number _
Building --
Permit issued _
Building
Permit Fee $
' FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Certificate of Occupancy �^
Drain Tile $
Plan Review Fee $
Approved by:
Use Group
Fire Grading
Live Loading
Occuponcy Load
TITLE
LL'*t1Nb ('LAM 1:1AMlN1 t- Z1 KU t is
(STRICT `
ISE
:RONT YARD
;IDE YARD
REAR YARD
NOTES
SIDE YARD
K. SITE OR PLOT PLAN - For Applicant Use
4. 1 ..r -+-.- . .. .J-.- Fl_+l y..._.'J..r� r- 1 }I�.11+1_..J ,1 .Iy J.•JJ.i.- "1_Ii1Ja•li�J _!_.4 J y
41 l l J 11IT LJ-, ..�,., . I ~ # �: -1•.� LL 1J_. 4+.- .+.+- �._4L.J .����....1... ..4 1J- •11..1 .._LU�1:
. . L 1 � - ' �"'�'� .i. L t.t ._.L: u}i .. � � •-• � � l -v y. . -. H �L.L -4 +.++!
4L. `� • "' 1 .14 - .w 1.., ... u .. 1..i.J.1...- 1 _ ,. I -1. j. t 1 ,. i. . L,1.1...7_i a � � - {
JJ.+,L..
♦1 1. a•1 J+ Y ..hl l_4L :.' _. Jal.. .LI, 1.1 �. IJJJi.L{11J -1 L1 J�.•��
++ • : ..' •.i ±, . JJ y {` y .�. { } L.1 J� �• /l� -1J 4LJ- 1. 1J... 1 , J : L.. J-!l, �LJ., ' ...•J f.:�T• J.I+L
�'1 " L_L4 - / . L... '' L- ✓- J.l._.... f... -_. 1... .4111 ., 1- 1.,.1.1 F - 1 }-!•,- �`, : • .: 1 -,
�l . ,, J1 4 4ht • •�. � j � 1 u LL ,�1� - •�
:� ::�J�L. � � � Jii. _ �. : -�..H�
;�f t. _ '�, rr: , �; :.1. _ 1� a -;
1.' . t...Y 1 rl \Y � lr.. � _J ,•�' . : � �JL 1+1r.iLLL. - -
, , l.r-. 1'-' ur +J- � •.�'JJ✓ -t_ _ ...- 2--"`i "' L.:i L.r - i� y • 4..'.' .�••- � --1H �- ,^sl'.�LL..._,_
.T i 1' µ �l -1 � 1..+ �• +�Lr•3. -' T ayyyl / uil.:� J y 4 - L� "'�� 1�e '. t +IjS. y � �LL:J - _44 .�.{. -,J rji
111..- -1�:1 } J 1� 1 -IL -Z ,-1... _1 �-I.LLI 1+1 +1 �. ..1t. cJ J+ -f� ���a.,. r• ..
•--, •�- #>? t 4,J.i� :1.�1�`�{- is "14t � `� -� }w j.u. J L4Ll _ 1J Jr,J... r.`L. 1�. L1J -L+s. Jl 41..++ .. •
•�.{}aJ. .
+:J� LL+ - LL. JJ u
L.�:y J....
....1• - :::�li �� +fit I y ..,�J: .il ,= 11':;y� 1.T:.� j�j...��...t 1 � 1.J".t'1.::. r.. �•_JJ�u.�: ! ,t•':. i,�, .�.. .J. +,
L_ 1 • J 1 ' � LL ` ' i- L+.- ,.�..• 1 ""1 {+- 11 1.1 .. {JJ.�. .J J � ;. 1 ..JJ 4•
..�.+ L�� ±Lil.� 1 ` i L -.Yr % . .J. .J rI. 1 J-i J1 }..J } Ll l_1J --�J�. y 1 .�.•J..�.IL1 Y+11+ I�uJ
. 1 I I , _ 1 , ♦ # 4� S f .41r a ! at .: 1 , , 1 , : (..,J~±.+ ! t' a1L J.. ; ; l..J L�J-i J LL ��1iJ- -•{ .Lf1 ` w.1 , ,f'�i• 1
\Yl- t aJ• - '++ f� .�: j:4•_1��4.
' .1 , . 1 L, , , • .l 1 i 1 .) 1 ♦ 1 + t • l � � . � ' .. u L I 1 1 } { 1 . , 1.. ; . ♦ . • 1 .. J J , { t 1 t 1 t I l I { , J .1.t 1 JJJ J 4 � J J.i
l:.l 1_,. t14 1>` 11 1 J--! • �L: ( a 1 _J. 1J.1H1 •1.1 ,-• 1., t ' -1. • .
4
`
r�L}�rl
r ` . „1.. _y.aJ�.-J +::J:LJ��:' -=':� '�.ii.i•f:JJ. �'., 1..Jyt�t"r.:�..'L + ty� H�- �.�,�:i t ,.. i �•�'� � L= � 1r,J.i4; :t��4 .,,,1
,y : l 4 �._..•� I J�- . -.l l J i 1 1..1..JS J_, J_..J.. a . .�4,.1 w�• ! . •�,.,1 ., t J.t . r .. 1 t l � -
}J ,J • , �J LL.. 1 #:.:2' J- ,-- t�t .�.J_L�Ji+J
yi '• :..i 1.: L. �$+i yam- � .iiLt :. �.J ...+ -t .1.�S. �i3:.�:- `i. . . + I�.L+- .J+1- +- ++.J aJ.1..•J ' L l: Lt.'i••'�11 :1 +-a-1
r.: - 'J�..J` . f 'J.. _. LJ +. ..+..__.. � ..J..4,.,_,.,.,_ -._L Llu 't i .+.. i.ry. { t�: •' .,- L - �.f; a..i-
1 -�• ;, �y � � � L - . . � - f } *:::r - ��. i - ':;_i 1; J�:+._._...�� ` , .- W..��t. LJ ..L.J. ,�J_. _
�;ii:' �- ' %�J"j.�r: :S"T'" J ` +;' ,,.,.__ : +1,1. Y,,.1.� -:1 :f IJ'#JL+J�ii L.L- ,••�+'- -I -L. . 1- t-Lr•Lr= 't -... ::- J '"j.JJJi� -1.. 14.�It'�1 •.ly/.
,..� -• - IJ H i.f,a 1
1. • ,.} 111 t��, .1 1 i y l tJ-1 I
,N1 Ia " 1 ,, 'J " 1 1 �1iJ 11{�1��-: -•�" J"L.• -•J J-FI J ,J `f {Iy Lt:: i.iJ.I+iJ �LalfyJ K�J.ILLL S
• ' :J ,1 1/1.. L:2 i - J"'. } T+� +-+ �� J"`.•- '�ii- u��- '- :•ly..+.l J.1. -. .. I `.- - � - V -• - u u lJ i • , J .uJ1. J. 4....y- {�J+JI - 1. .11.11J, L JJ
��: W .JJ.1 11-J � ��� ��'� l,.y,. �
.��.1� J L.J h. ..+ 1-.-. L+ -L1J.1 L ..+..+• .JyJJJ. .a.L. J.aJ. �l L�: J11.' 4LL�1 L.1
..L � ,..i ♦1+�.J J i il, it J..S +.+..J. LJJ L...1 !J. . .. u�:11 ... Jy..-i :J.LJ. .J_ �'' 1� F4, �•±+ -}; ii ��'
•!;:i:j1: -t, ..'�:;_S; Jay_ } �.+�}= 4�;� -y-. '.- J +, �..r..,_,_,-, ..J- .....J... L .,.u../ .L,J. {T'.�JJ_. y �.w1.. J-F'
.......i.l�•:1;1.1 -�I ��.L;la l� ----J .4 -. �J.: J .. .J_, r ,- 1 J�- .J, mil. �+.- 2 -,J.. �y I:i1..L...j ••' �u
.. I •. L+.,,, ..Y 1 1J J L l. �..._ u� 1.aJ'� J.. .... �+ ,J
_ 1 r LJ+ 1 J Jam. J t
',; ; ! , 1 �' J (�:: `1 4:1.1- L - Hi +� 4.� ..J..• ..L' �.. � ` L .-- j3iL�u...yl itt "'" -"'"` J. .` .Lr. L.4 .. y i N
1 1 J�J�41J�.+.�J•wJ -• 4_,.. J� � ! '{` �i�� 4-+
. , .. , t y..{ LL, 1... yry L F. � �1J1 J 1- J.1J- .J.�LJ- L!- a.J- a1 -.+a.J U�. L.J_L...� - - ,a.iL1 uJ,.. J.�.�f�.+ { ' .rL4 .•� . 1...!•• -1-IJ till J.LU 1
I ` y1 •'' 1 :1 :. }:... 1+ r+:•J_I - L u L, 1 - r - = J.J .41".. - .Jy+ - ..J... _..L.Ll LL.J_uJr. - .• .
..tt. .. }" by .yl- J +,J -i+•L 1 .J iS +r� .y� y y ul a�}1 ...� �_.��.,
. T ... . ♦ Lj1 a LLl 1 jl: � . L1 - LJ.i. 1J " �.1a•u '1 l,.i L . . •J�.,J1.t. LL.
JrJ n=
• ..+1. � a'3La:1uJ� iu�:JiJ -,N j-1 + �J- 7 _:... tJS� .�.L!�- i {t..u".y�._LU 4:. .:J� + 4: -»J_
• : y: � rr. l , 1.4, + J IJ•. y: �..�. J � , �y._LL..J.� � -• _
"'j .J. ..J- `�a,t LL,� 1i11.J_L4..+J -u.. !- L••J_..1J�. _"'. `.�J :.. �.y,,.1 ,.�J..�� rJJ�J_ -i,-. J.i._I:�1 -_: •- ` +'�t'�'�_'-li...+
.. - .1.. r . +1J . - , , y � � L..� � � �'��..- j iJ_LLL`•.L..L ,�L.1 �J +-"
J .f: L'•ru i. L.. i. . ,. iii- •- .- �f+, • -1 } .��} -•ri .y.L_.�..J.�.L.« Jam L...iLU..L+ :LU�__ l �, ..L�_..yyj }1J� 1. iL....+ .1
JS .waJ 11• -I+4- 1 ....J� �� J +.+IJ.J.... a..JJt•IJJ. .... L. LLLu.I }.•1..J��
:tL. 1+1+ - t•. .. _.1 _.."J -.+aa _Y..J..,� L �i ' . ♦ I. �J ,� r... .1- L..• � .l:..h1 t
- w•+. .'• u L• •1 ,LJ t.1 t . �!' +1 1J 1.... 1_1J:l1 Ll,_L ' HE EE I SLI -,L... �'�1I 1 L. •'
i .� } �•�a r �L 1
411 1 4Y:1.. •, ,.4.�♦ •. ,_ � 1 1... �•+ 4...,
1{ 111 •..L - J- ,+J,.•
• --,l�• :t4 .J., 1J1 �, H . ♦.. l 1+
._1Jr_I IJ• u..... - 1 .. .1JJJ.. .�1..•. 1..1•:1 h� . -' : t! -
�;• ` J �:.a. - 1.� , 1.. 1 {JJI +� i4.r1.�:`� 1 L{{•J la 1: •
t` •1} ' 41_._ J. L" +_yr..�._. � - • +1- .J- I : + -+144 ,1{•1.JJ i,_l�u li.. IJ L. I. .. /f...L 1L114:.,W.it `.: ` •V'�, ,y +y�.yj a,. 1
•iJ.: -: f_: -.,_ - -1. .LL L � La.y ' 11 �. a tl:: . i,-..1
,t' "" rl t11. ��: ri .,..L...- J , •t ..IJ .J 11 11 ,
.t ;;: rtl:ii,.:1 ;::,: L h- i,t `:L J } __St'- :�..t:;� •?'r2� - 1: L i� .J.I.J�lti.;;:i:i. f ,� ,
, ,w t , I f.a ":jJ tJ i 1 ! is ' t 1 1 -1 "t' :t L•» . iti `I 1.:�' iii
1 :I : 1. .]i. 11::;:�; }. •L_1 �' JTT.= J { : . ,•. � 1 `� i :I' - i, i ; ,
_ 1 1. a-4l a.a_ ,l J-1�= all ',i: u�, ,, L{-a: � ' yLJ.: 4 1� t��i, 1i. f_y•.t•�.�+1� -11, J.. 1t:'i.If L: i.+' yj•'I .•.1
-1
;
rt1.. i- i. l1t•1 t
,t 1 :, .t. `:l:lll4•:1 it' :J i; `i fw i •• -•a a: ..1.1 LL. } Lr..l.41.�- HJ+.LL.J.4, +.1 1 • }111.1 1 lii ±t:L.JJ u.L;+J- 44,1•; '`/I. �JJ111ILLLi.:y1J
, }j { Lr , . 1J : � l a � 4 1 1 i.-l� L L...J }-41. IJ.La�.� � � ....+ 1+ -J J.J a L, . 1 r J _�' , . 1 ♦ 1 It, ' 11 ..J ` J
Ii:fi }. ` I _ .J1 4J 1J7 a �`.a 1 1.. •. rJ 1 ' -i�2 iJ+i.�T.IJ1.J1+ t W� , 11 .J., L,
.l � ���. .E `'�, :. :2:7
'l
1
. L. :.�ii { `:�:J1I..i.:.J L t;:.: {u,•..i...'.J ..�.1. 4, J .l.. I J ...1.1�t..J.Ir- .••1 -� -"•{ TI , • �'it;fi:ii `1:.',;u.�}
. . .. •-+%+ jj .1.. 1. ,.. . r Li- 1 1 _ "'1... ' 1 � . : / i � ', ' � ;' � i 11 1 , 1 1 . . i : is
1 11.41 _l .-1 ♦ '� ' �LL ,J 1 1• {{ J11i. �a: :+ 1, ` L. 1 , f t , L.JJ.L{ Jtil lf:
:, : .f1 -.- la.•'4'1t42/1 ,111 �, �J : 4r ,.._1 ` , f.f.L.•�1 ` i.-. tJJ_ ::�•; Ll +�'�'•`L li. .1,.•1, .I ,�LJ�11.1...1�1t,J. a. Lar. J�••
i;; 'tc; •.:1::lttit:: 4.1 �J�,. tri.' ;:: �'::.. -- - T- :- ---' J L::, : ,.� L,f... . , . � ... 1 tt
a J�.4 }.. :' �' JL, �1 yi,.' i irTij.. �t::J..i., 1 ,• :.:i
tt:rl:::;7;:s�; '% ~; ._�� ,J ����?:.;J.. 4.L., L1.. .11•JLL ,�`l �:1. tJJ + :..: ._3
} _ ,JJ1H. J.L.
•± ; i 1 J `:�;- -• ,.,' . , .J..�,1 _...,_�
;r�-r„taJ,_`
.lt • 1,f; /r: LifJ ,., 1� • `'.. 4•,I 1.4111u1. L.1 �lr t+- 4 1.111 r. Ha.I L +Lr 1 .'-/•• J•- r_ -LL_4 �� •, 1 .1- ~,J t•
4L; J.1L4i. _L ::J. ; , 11.-..1;:.,,, +:
"'' .... -•J-, :1 ..: 1�,1.,g`i•�
: -
t- .'':..': i:�-�L.j.:1:2 .,.... �t . t x.J. :.:..
.;• i :I: 1• ;t ,f;:t;1 1 ,��� • iii; l am' 1 , , 1 "• t • ; , ; tl;t• t;�,. . . I,. ..
t y ,,,,1 ::1 „ h. t;!:. t. .1. tit i. r t•• % .:t i il:;:; ]u: .
. . } :i,_1�LLL.
1 4J1 1u� t 1 +'II:'.ii i• i.
J:1.•I. k;a;.f;
:i1 t:i: •�•I;Ci:' �.1- +r'�tL . t ::1_` ..;• �%1 ; l...it 1• i �i;i it 11 ,, � Ill :lt, :.1 .i' ; 1;•'_ u �' ,
` 1;
:111• 111111;,: �• �: :1,. }. .1. �� % ., %1... it • :..f. ' ' %':I: ;1 t:;{1: ' „ , :•�,i'� •. •t:.
........ I.:t..;; f:t 1:y i. i L' _'':' f:�._.,.:L::� ' •'l J4:ti�4L :,
7.
• •t M•'I�.i�.�Ii {11 'r: .I:i•1:J .. '..��'�_`rL2.i�'.+:��'u" �:S.:t.i »::tliL.. ..a- ,..2.' 1 •,, 1
.f .�'� I 1 11.1.'. ,IJ.....1.- �li.•,�•�_ 1�. 1 1'1 {' ` \\ ��T['�
.��-.�^T' 1
MTV
R.'• N; 1.!t `'�t: ° PfiC: #�(= .'14.11 t t.-4 k.' .nlw- .M4a '".'T6f, iY' ft�i w : I JY'i. :': Vf�� e':�rL <f. ,t`t..'r .'•�
awe
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision on Application of Eugene Tacy
August 12, 1987
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of
Northampton met on August 12, 1987 at 7:10 p.m. in Council
Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building to render their
decision on the request of Eugene A. Tacy for an Appeal of the
refusal of the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit for
the purpose of constructing a construction supply 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.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to approve the
minutes of the July 15, 1987 public hearing without a public
reading.
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.
He 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.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously that the
decision of the Building Inspector to deny issuance of a building
permit be upheld.
1"W 14.000,
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing on Application of Eugene Tacy
7uly_ 1987
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of
Northampton held a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on July 15, 1987
in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski..Municipal Building to
consider the request of Eugene A. Tacy for an Appeal of the
refusal of the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit for
the purpose of constructing a construction supply establishment
at his property located on the easterly side of Main Street,
Leeds, MA. Present were: Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Peter
Laband and Sanford Weil, Jr.
The Chairman read the public notice as it appeared in the
Daily Hampshire Gazette on July 1 and 8, 1987. He read a memo
from the Northampton Planning Board and advised those present of
their right to appeal.
S. Weil stated that in his opinion, it
application to be before the Board, a;
application for a Finding to build a
establishment was denied and subsequently
that the Building Inspector must follow the
felt that the Board should not entertain
could set an unfavorable precedent.
is incorrect for this.
s Mr. Tacy's previous
construction supply
appealed. He stated
Board's direction and
any discussion, as it
Att. P. Melnik, representing Mr. Tacy, argued that the issue
before the Board at this time is different than. what was
requested previously. He stated that the Board's decision
(5/6/87) to deny the Finding (in conjunction with a Special.
Permit) request (filed 3/4/87) for the purpose of expanding a
nonconforming use (contractors' yard) was made after this
application for a Building Permit (4/15/87 *), and therefore, the
Building Inspector did not act as a result of the Board's action.
He stressed that this request for a 60 x 60' structure is not in
conjunction with the pre - existing nonconforming use, but for an
allowed use (construction supply establishment) under the Zoning_
ordinance. He argued that Mr. Tacy has the right to either
abandon the pre- existing nonconforming use or subdivide the lot
into two conforming lots, where he could erect a construction
supply establishment by right on one lot and continue the pre-
existing nonconforming use on the other.
Responding to P. Laband's reference to City Solicitor K.
Fallon's letter of opinion, Att. Melnik sug that-this
letter relates only to the previous application for a Finding.
P. Laband questioned Att. Melnik if the lot has been subdivided .
or if his client has indicated that he will abandon his pre-
existing nonconforming use. Att. Melnik answered in the negative.
to both questions.
*Application for Appeal gives a 5/15/87 date for the bui lding
permit application.
°P' 14=000,
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Tact' A ppeal - Page 2
The Chairman called on proponents or opponents.
Gene Tacy quoted the Zoning or dinanc e regarding abandonment
of pre- existing nonconforming uses.
R. Buscher stated that the Board must have evidence that the.
applicant intends to abandon his pre - existing nonconforming use
or subdivide the lot.
The Board decided to ask K. Fallon for any clarification o£.
her opinion and to allow time for Att. Melnik to submit a brief
in support of his arguments.
It was moved, seconded and voted u to close the
public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Present, in addition to those_
mentioned, were J. Parker, Staff Assistant, and the Tacy f amily _
L �
Robert C. Buscher, Cha
-
�o0.znn n CITY OF NORTHAMP
9 MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE of the INSPECTOR of BUILDINGS Page APPLICATION FO
INSPECTOR ZONING PERMIT A,'
BUILDING PE,RMI
IMYURTAHT — Applicant to complete all items in sections: 1, 11, 111, IV, and IX.
I. I AT (LOCATION) / � - ! VA) - � �e -e Cl S p Srp � J/ — I
LOCATION I40.1 ISTREETI
OF / '
BETWEEN .a?�'Ci� AN N n {Yr' Y
BUILDING
( CROSS SiREE') icRos sTREE T,
suSOlvlsloN /Ob/o /71e0/ LOT
l i
-- LOT BLOCK SIZE
A
TYPE Ate COST OF BUILDING — All opplicants complet Ports A - D
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT D. PROPOSED USE - For "'Nrec4ing" most recent use
1� New building I
R
2 f1 Addition(!/ residential, enter number
es,eential
121
Nonresidential 1
u/ ncru housinR units added, i/ any,
I
One family
t 8 i
I Amusement, recreation,;
in fart 0, 1 3)
13 Two o r more family - finger
19 I Church, other religious
r-�
3 i I Alteration (See 2 above)
number o/ units- - - - --3.
20 Industrial
4 �� R.,pai,,
14 TransL nr hotel, motel,
-
--
replacement
or dormitory - linter number
Z1 Par4,ng garage I
5 ❑ Wrecking (11 multi / amily residential,
u/ units - - - - - - - - y
22 Service sraNan, repair
entrrr nurnbc•r o/ urrits to builckrzR in
•
15 Garage
garage
23
Part n, 13)
lr_i
_ Hospital, institutio n ai
6 I Moving (relocotian
_
16 �� Carport
24 Office, ban., profesvar.,l
7 Foundation only I
t `! Other - $peel /
25 Public utility
i
r
26 7 L�] School, librar other a t' I
B. OWNERSHIP
8,5 Private (individual, corporation,
nonprofit institution, etc.)
9 n Public (Federal, State, or
local government)
I C. COST
10. Cost of improvement ,,,,,,,,,,
To be installed but not included
in the above cost
a. Eiec !rical ......................
b . Plumbing ......................
C. Hooting, air conditioning.........
d. Other (elevator, etc.) .............
Y, a ue ,
a ono
f 27 7 7 Stores, mercantile j
28 `J Toolts, towers
29 Other _ Speci /y�- t ;7et,; 1 1 r I
•• '• I �O • YI'f dC "l1i'�^j �' :/'YiY✓✓�r��ja,i
(Omit cents) -
:� _ • � r' -.��_? .� j :.
j /014
G `
o
i e� r• Co r �°� c F- s s �c
o C)
11. TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT Is G
III. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING — For new buildings and additions, complete Ports E — L;
for wrecking, complete only Part J, for all others skip tO IV.
I
E. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF FRAME G. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL I 1
30 0 Masonry (wall bearing) 40 '/ ` Public or private company
31 F-1 Wood frame 41 U Private (septic tank, etc.) I, _
32 Structural steel
33 Reinforced concrete
34 Other - Speci /y
F. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF HEATING FUE
35 u r Gas
36 l7Oil
37 Electricity
38 Coal
39 Other - Speci
H. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY
42'�< Public or private company
43 l_I Private (well, cistern)
I. TYPE OF MECHANICAL
Will there be central air
conditioning?
44 ` I Yes 45rj Na
Will there be an elevators
K. NUMBER OF OFF - STREET
PARKING SPACES
51. Enclosed ....................... I
t 1
52 . Ou tdoors ........................f
L. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ONLY
53. Number of bedrooms .............. :
Full, -
Name
of
RECORD — For office use
I Plan Review
Plan: Review Required I Check I Fee
Date Plans
$tarred I By
Dote Pions
Approved
By Notes
BUILDING
I �S
I (
PL UMBING
IS
I
L.<ense No.
MECHANICAL
, Contractor
e � yid, - 77 , �
SEWER I I
ELECTR
A •rchitecr or
2v _ (� ,j - \ \�
, 1�� � > lZ � CZ l rl I
j
OTHER
I
Engineer
i
-
I hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of record and that I have been authorized by the owner to
make this application as ' authorized agent and we agree to conform to all apolicable laws of this jurisdiction.
$ignatF applican
�
Address L _1 —
Appl cat-on date
A
() 00 NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
V. PLAN REVIEW
RECORD — For office use
I Plan Review
Plan: Review Required I Check I Fee
Date Plans
$tarred I By
Dote Pions
Approved
By Notes
BUILDING
I �S
I (
PL UMBING
IS
I
'
MECHANICAL
i IS
I I I
SEWER I I
ELECTR
IS
i
FURNACE
j
OTHER
I
IS
i
i
I f
VI. ADCITIONAL PERMITS
REQUIRED OR OTHER JURISDICTION APPROVALS
Permit or Approval
Check D °iO Number I y
I Obtained N b B
P C
Permit or Approval (heck
I
Dote
Obtained I Number By
BOILER
I (
PLUMBING
CURB OR SIDEWALK CUT
I I
ROOFING
ELEVATOR
I I I
SEWER I I
ELECTRICAL
I j
SIGN OR BILLBOARD
FURNACE
j
I STREET GRADES I I
GRADING
I I I (
USE OF PUBLIC AREAS I j
OIL BURNER
I f
WRECKING I
OTHER
j I I I
OTHER
VII. VALIDATION
Building
Permit number
Building •-
Permit issued
Building
Permit Fee
Certificate of Occupancy S
Drain Tile $
Plan Review Fee $
Approved by:
' FOR DEPARTMENT USE C,4'—Y
Use Group
Fire Grading
Live Loading
Occupancy Load
i
TITLE
SITE OR PLOT PLAX — For Applicant Use
ILI
. L • -- __ - t J r :� r. J r11 - _- _ - :.. y.._,y.= - � - - � � •T +r•, `uj. i _
..1_•- .y1.a.. -t ..• 1 •. •L..• _ - -4� -u. •_:- •.y.......: r�rr .J -:J J..J_ ..- J_- ..iJ1.- :- 1�•�:J1..r..�w_•a
__+Y'i•. Ll_ ..+..r -.r•. �1:�- •- '-L.• � � 41�L_i• - 11- y��l�'�_:.il.. ......_
i : : i : : 1 �; : r i . - : � ::: � -• - • i -. - • J ' :' w�. • ._.:iia.ri..l i : i:::..l a:: L: r � r - �...i'. �..
a_. --L.. , r. .1- - - �: 1..: • L: , r a�1r1- 1..r. -�L• 1 :.�� t.r•. «.._i F•r_.. I lu.•1.1.•
- _ _ .1 . _ . ....... �- J am ._._ • y-- r,,,, � -! '-'-'- y •j_•� 1 . .- —1 -•�
r _ .� + iJ �.. u - 1 y ., V. • ._. .._ 1.+ ._- ++........- L...+_ ..- - \'L - .j _ L•u . 1
•1_ - - __.�.r! f . I —_. _ _ •. , 'f 1 . 1 .r y -y• . j.t • • i i �.r .L
�r `:!• 1 � . � r' � • �.1 " : �a__� .�iy _ 't om: - i ' �:�- � -+_:�. :.i �r.0 _L��� ;: 1�LL. . :.�•�.1- r}i .r�trl+. -•,a
•�`• •_aL :- •._..+ -.-• �$_ _ __ a ;` ...1
=n= _ _ _u 1.•• _`.L... -� -_•a .•.lr rJ_
�' . rJJyi r,l++ - r Y- r• +lay_._.• a +-- • / ." —.1 _ ._. __+. `� i. • J •. • ._ •.� . u .....
1 , a _ `_.J rl _ L. •L _ - ..aY- y__.- v -. U. i- `.a- 11�_��L. �.:ar •. j�L_�1.L11 �i.r..u�
_ rry -1 �-; - J .�_..� -�-. L ' - _ u _ —a.r,i .' J a ;Lrii• t L L� i LL L� 11 . r-L'• _..�J
i - i • _ J • . . • -... a.•+ -L +; -ay •1.•.• ♦ .. - • _ L..— �•�r��+- l'. L.• -.. L _ l.au .J.Lr...l �•�l_.•_
_.r ' : ~M . ...i/ ..L«•.1• �= - .-. - - `.1� •._..._rya .u• �. {�_i♦J- L_L. -._J L . .� � -� . �. ..i 1. y. .._� 1
—= --:--- __•`_,.r:� `�.` -a`• �': Wi _ - ---�•� _ - _ ..may : _ .i ` ''.. - �,, ,_•_'L :.,. . _ - .{ 1
_ter ; i ; - � ; =- _ ' ��•-._. — - _ � - -`= f •-- .�u ' �-} � , + : + _ +� - •� ' - '{ 1=•�
.J 1.rrl- `_ -�. _-.._. r .tea.. -.-•.y _�� _ - _rl.�.-.._...•-- r- `�__�' -' `! �_.1_� -i' - l.y .�...r _ % -. ._ �
_ . lam.— -_ _r. l . � .•.4 - ` - _. ` ir.. _...:
. l._::' Z'
•�• ::: • �i y � .1 % :... �� •`.... .u.T.._. } _ - :: , . u ' -1 • `-1 "i �i.: :' _��-.� -•si
:T: ._.._i.._ •�', �'- il._ �":.1 .� - " - .i: ?i�•- iii -_.�i f � } ..i• •r
1 - :;,••1: .�� :i�.l.:r: -�}
' t ; a ... . 1 . ,_ 1 : - ` _ � • _• -- ' . r _ . 1 �. • - - ` : t � _ _.__. i 1 : i l 1 " i i • . L:�. ' i • • �� �.�.1. � \.
..:_ �• .�:1 �1 :.1 _.- /. Li .u: re- 'i• - . ii- .•- :a_.�..•�: ,��� - y.. •. ,:r _+ •f.L..1..•_+�: _•. r. -..ii. l 1
:I..t •� .,J1, ::::-':: "�� ". ` : :;., �:iy .._ Nr:.: �1: :1 L:_..1._. -L: _� 1• :i� {
;}yi-': -!' -;:; 1_.: . � . - r •i• ��� ' . +t� _ '` .�._. -.�..� ... .1•- ri_ =,t =.1.L .yam. ``y
-1 :L•- +�+ :_t_: . +�,� �;�:1 __: ; JJ =' :�: i �'. i.f :�r. yl :.. ia_:_.L..1 _-i = : ;i. : -; _,• +{
{i:i ......4 ...... . • ��� :l• .:: •t -• :�::�: ,:;: ; }' ,1� :1.:; tl:: -.: i:.l il� `
— L— ;;: 'i:;i;••::i::i:;l :ii:i:;: :i.t::i: :(: _'t �i;::t�i ..t: 'y_::c._::- .:_...r:.ar .ii,l� iii: ;:: ;,
: :: :: 1 • .t: •�._ - -��' - ,,. �,il :i: :;
:1 •i ( ,�::.
X ' 1 .� ; 1�� - - �'� ilk: ;i�. :i• �;• . 1 � '
jj .1 -te 'l. il. •'• wit .1 ;i ila :1. .1• �1 .1• �1: .; :. .i.
i' 'I:ill :; iili' ,� J , .,. . i .. ` -, t77 7._. - .;1. ... .; :i:1: �
.. : : i'i. :i , ;• .,
(✓ .. ~ :i: ii:: r' i-: �: i''t .+ii
,�F'.7�' bid +twllO.�r..:. , :tv.r. ,, • 1 t'.!: 4f••:.'•�
y
N *mw
♦0po
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathleen Fallon, Assistant City Solicitor
FROM: Marion Mendelson, Chairman, Northampton Planning Board
SUBJECT Tacy Appeal
June 22, 1987
DATE:
FILE
1987
At their meeting on June 25, , the Northampton Planning
Board will be reviewing Eugene Tacy's App eal to the Zoning Board
of Appeals (dated 6/12/87) regarding the refusal of the Building
Inspector to issue a Building Permit for the purpose of
constructing a contractor's supply establishment at his property
located on the easterly side of Main Street, Leeds, MA.
The issue appears to be thitnonconformingousermiWe
use on a lot with an already pre-existing
would appreciate your opinion and a clarification of the issues
regardinq this matter.
`law
Patrick T. Gleason, Esq.
City Solicitor
Kathleen G. Fallon, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
Marion Mendelson, Chairman
Northampton Planning Board
City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
RE: Tacy Appeal
Dear Ms. Mendelson:
June 24, 1987
../
I have received your request for my opinion on the issues
involved in Mr. Tacy's appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals of
Mr. Tewhill's denial of a building permit for the Tacy property
on Main Street, Leeds. In response, may I submit the following.
Mr. Tacy's property is zoned SI. He operates a construction
yard on that site, a use which currently requires a special
permit in that zone. (A 'construction yard' is deemed to entail
the open storage of raw materials and construction equipment)
Mr. Tacy does not have a permit since the construction yard use
predates the requirement for a special permit. Mr. Tacy's
construction yard is a pre- existing non - conforming use.
In February, 1984, Mr. Tacy received a building permit for a
storage building on the subject property. This permit
revoked by the Building Inspector in March, 1984, prior to any
construction. Mr. Tewhill stated that action by the Zoning Board
of Appeals would be necessary since the use on the site was non-
conforming.
Mr. Tacy then applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for (1)
a special permit for the operation of the construction yard and
(2) a finding under Section 9.3(B) of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow expansion of the non - conforming use to include a new use, a
construction supply establishment, an allowed use in that zone,
atK
9
a -
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS
CITY HALL
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
586.6950
1 % .
and the construction of a 30x30 building to house both uses.
On November 28, 1984, the Zoning Board of Appeals rendered a
decision in which it purportedly granted a special permit 'for
the purpose of establishing a construction supply business...'
The Board made no ruling on the request for a finding under
Section 9.3(B). The relief granted was incorrect and not
responsive to the application. Mr. Tacy requested a special
permit for the construction yard use. The decision granted the
permit to construct a building for the construction suppl
business use which is an allowed use in that SI zone.
The request for a special permit was inappropriate and
should have been denied. Since the Tacy business was a pre-
existing non - conforming use, the appropriate method of changing,
altering, or extending that use is through a finding under
Section 9.3(B). Addition of a use allowed by right in that
district is still an extension /alteration of the non - conforming
use. Construction of a building to house either the pre - existing
non - conforming use or the extended use is also an
extension /alteration of the current use and requires a finding.
Since the Zoning Board of Appeals did not act on the request for
a finding on its decision of November, 1984, that request was
granted by default.
However, like a special permit, a finding will lapse if the
rights granted thereunder are not exercised within the specified
time period. The Northampton zoning ordinance requires that
substantial use of those rights commence within eighteen months.
Mr. Tacy first applied for a building permit in November, 1986.
Clearly the eighteen month period had expired. The application
that is the subject of this appeal was also filed after
expiration of the eighteen month period. Since the construction
contemplated would expand and /or alter a pre- existing, non-
conforming use, and the finding granted in 1984 had expired,
further action by the Zoning Board of Appeals is required prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Tacy did try to obtain the required Zoning Board of
Appeals approval earlier this year. He filed an application for
relief almost identical with that filed in 1984. On May 6, 1987,
in a split decision, the Zoning Board of Appeals ruled that the
special permit request was not appropriate and denied the request
for a finding under Section 9.3(B). Mr. Tacy has filed an appeal
of that decision with the Superior Court.
2
1
In summary it is my opinion that the application for the
building permit was correctly denied.
Very truly yours,_
Kathleen Fallon, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
cc: Edward Tewhill
Zoning Board of Appeals
3
W
,.r
- Do Not Write In These Spaces �"''' Application Number:
Recd. B. 1. Checked Filed Fee Pd. Recd. ZBA Map(s) Parcels)
r BY p a1e Dace Cate Amt. Cate BY Oace
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
1. Name of Applicant Eugene A. Ta
Address 158 North Maple Street, Florence, Massachusetts 01060
2. Owner of Property Eugene A. Tacy, James J. Tacy, Richard J. Tacy, Harold G. Tacy and
Address Helen N. Tacy Main Street Leeds Massachusetts 01053
3. Applicant is: 2Owner; ^ Contract Purchaser; `Lessee; Tenant in Possession.
Application is made for:
VARIANCE from the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
SOT H ER Appeal of failure of building inspector to issue building Dermir for
office supply establishment
5. Location of Property Main Street, Leeds, Massachusetts being situated on
the east side of Main Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No 10D Parcels) 17
6. Zone Special Industrial
7. Description of proposed work and /or use; Applicant filed an application with the buil ding
inspector of the City of Northampton for a building permit for a contracto sup12
establishment This use is allowed as right under a special industrial .one ender
provisions of the zoning ordinance. A Dlication for a buildin permit filed on or
about ay 5, 1987. No action was taken by the building inspector wi
the an - 67 1cation for said building perm Massachusetts General Laws 12rovide that
aDDeal may be taken at the expiration of thirtv -five (35) days from the failure of t he
building inspector to issue permit.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; LNYes ❑ No
(b) Site plan: C Attched [� Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: Construction supply establishment is allo wed
by right under special industrial zone in the City of Northampton. The premises are in
a speciai industrial zone. Building inspector has refused to issue building permit for
a contractor's supply establishment. Appeal is authorized p ursuant to the Drovisio of
Massachusetts General Laws. Th is a notice of appeal and request for permit purs
to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Cahpter 40A, Section 15.
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form).
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to t . est of my knowledge.
Date June 6, 1987 A pplicant's Signature
../
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE, S.S. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
EUGENE A. TACY, Petitioner
BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR
THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Notice of Appeal
Now comes Eugene A. Tacy of 158 North Maple Street,
Florence, Massachusetts who states that on or about April 15,
1987 he filed an application for a building permit with the
City of Northampton for purpose of constructing a construction
supply establishment on his property located on Main Street in
Leeds, Massachusetts. The property is zoned Special
Industrial. A building permit for a construction supply
establishment is allowed by right under the city zoning
ordinances.
More than thirty —five (35) days has elapsed since the date
of filing the application for the building permit, and no
action has been taken on the application by the Building
Inspector for the City of Northampton.
Eugene A. Tacy therefore says that the application for a
building permit is deemed to be denied and he has a right of
appeal pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A,
Section 15. This is a Notice of Appeal filed with the City
Clerk for the City of Northampton pursuant to said Chapter.
Law Office
11CK J.1fEL. \IK
.0 King Street
moton,'MA 01060
13- 584 -6750
..r/
IWAS
Attached to this Notice of Appeal is an application for a
zoning permit and the copy of the application for a building
permit filed with the Building Inspector for the City of
Northampton.
June 9, 1987
T,Atrick J. Melnik
110 King Street
Northampton, Mass. 01060
584 -6750
)�-� " - r, '4 1 00. ku
Eugene A. Tacy
Law Office
PRICK J. NIEL \IK
110 Ding Street
iampton, 3L4 01060
,,,,
e at C; 'ry CEarx s C%�:�c�-
c }
y .-Z--jn /��-T L'-Q
no
413-584-6750
DECISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on May 6, 1987, the Zoning Board of
Appeals, in a split decision, voted to deny the Finding
request of Eugene A. Tacy, 158 North Maple Street, (Florence),
Northampton for the purpose of constructing a 60 x 60'
building to be used in conjunction with the existing
contractor's yard located on Main Street, Leeds, MA (more
particularly identified as Parcel 10D of Sheet 17 of the
Northampton Assessors' Maps). Present and voting were: Acting
Chairman Peter Laband, William Brandt and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
The findings were as follows:
S. Weil stated that he took a site view and spoke with
several neighbors. He found that as the site measures 2+
acres and the proposed building will be situated on the rear
of the lot directly facing a bridge, that the addition of a 60
x 60' (23.5' high) structure on the rear of the lot will not
affect the atmosphere of the village of Leeds. He added that
the proposed "park" referred to at the public hearing is, in
fact,a narrow strip of land along the bank of the river away
from the bridge, which starts 1/4 block beyond this site. He
also suggested that as those in power chose to zone this
parcel SI, the applicant /owner is entitled to this use. He
found in favor of the finding request.
W. Brandt found that as the request represents a long-
term impact on the conditions of the neighborhood and town,
the construction of a 60 x 60' building would be substantially
more detrimental to this existing residential neighborhood
than the existing use.
P. Laband found that as this neighborhood is in
transition and is in the process of being upgraded, and as
this single parcel zoned SI is in the middle of the
neighborhood, the expansion of this use with the accompanying
increase in noise, heavy truck traffic and activity would be
more detrimental to the neighborhood.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously that a
Special Permit is not applicable in this s�tuaticn and is,
therefore, put asidR, following heA City S tic tor' o inion.
See-minutes. r
Peter Laband, Acting Chairman
William Brandt v /
M. Sanford ,Weil, Jr.
I G
A true cop
Attest: C C PLC �Slt ,
FA;
Law Office
PATRICK J. MELNIK
110 King Street
Northampton,MA 01060
413 - 584 -6750
..r/
NOTICE
City Clerk for the
City of Northampton
210 Main Street
Northampton, Ma 01060
Re: Eugene A. Tacy, Zoning Board of Appeals Decision dated
May 6, 1987
Dear Mrs. Murray:
I attach for your attention a copy of a Complaint filed in
the Hampshire County Superior Court dated May 22, 1987. This
Complaint was filed on May 22, 1987 in the Superior Court for
the City of Northampton. This Notice is given to you together
with a copy of the Complaint pursuant to the provisions of
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40(a), Section 17.
May 22, 1987
ed at City Clerk's 0i ics
v 0
Time Al 11T r°�
"at� rick%. Melnik Esq .
110 King Street
Northampton, Ma 01060
584 -6750
of
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Law Office
_TRICK J. MELNIK
110 King Street
:hampton,MA 01060
HAMPSHIRE, S.S.
EUGENE A. TACY,
JAMES J. TACY,
RICHARD J. TACY,
HAROLD G. TACY and
HELEN N. TACY,
Plaintiffs Jointly
seeking one recovery
v.
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR
THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, THE
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, ACTING
THROUGH ITS ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS AND ITS MEMBERS,
NAMELY DR. PETER LABAND, OF
40 NORFOLK AVENUE, NORTHAMPTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM BRANDT, OF 314 SOUTH
STREET, NORTHAMPTON,
MASSACHUSETTS and
M. SANFORD WEIL, JR., OF 96
WASHINGTON AVENUE, NORTHAMPTON,
MASSACHUSETTS,
Defendants
DEPARTMENT OF THE
TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION No.
f - �`isI -
COMPLATNT
1. Eugene A. Tacy, James J. Tacy, Richard J. Tacy, Harold G.
Tacy and Helen N. Tacy are individuals residing at 158
North Maple Street, Florence, (Northampton) Hampshire
County, Massachusetts and are the owners of real estate
located on Main Street, Leeds, (Northampton) Hampshire
County, Massachusetts which real estate is the subject
matter of this Complaint.
2. The City of Northampton acting through its Board of
Appeals and its members, the Defendants named herein,
namely Dr. Peter LaBand of 40 Norfolk Avenue,
Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, William
Brandt of 314 South Street, Northampton, Hampshire
County, Massachusetts and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. of 96
Washington Avenue, Northampton, Hampshire County,
Massachusetts are the acting members of the City of
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals that sat at a Hearing
held on May 6, 1987 and are all Defendants herein.
413- 584 -6750
�%r `Wo'
-2-
Law Office
T'R1CK J. MELNIK
110 King Street
tiampton,MA 01060
3. On or about February 20, 1987 Eugene A. Tacy filed an
application for a Special Permit for use of his real
estate on Main Street, Leeds, (Northampton), Hampshire
County, Massachusetts for open storage of raw materials
and construction equipment and also in said application
made an application for a finding under the provisions of
the Zoning Law for the City of Northampton for the use of
the property to build a construction supply establishment
A copy of the application of Eugene A. Tacy dated
February 20, 1987 is attached to this Complaint marked
Exhibit "A" and is made a part hereof.
4. Eugene A. Tacy and his family have owned this real estate
since June 1, 1982 and have operated the premises as a
construction supply establishment and for the open
storage of raw materials and construction equipment since
that date. The Plaintiffs in this action acquired the
property from George D. Tobin who had previously used the
premises as a contractor's yard for the open storage of
raw materials and construction equipment for many years
preceeding the acquisition by the Plaintiffs herein.
5. On or about September 21, 1984 the Plaintiffs in this
action filed an application for a Special Permit to allow
the use of the property for the open storage of raw
materials and construction equipment and also requested a
finding for construction of a building for the use as a
construction supply establishment. A copy of the
application filed on September 21, 1984 is attached
hereto and marked Exhibit "B" and is made a part hereof.
6. At a meeting held on November 28, 1984 the Zoning Board
of Appeals granted the Special Permit for the use of the
property as open storage of raw materials and construction
equipment and also granted the finding that the
Plaintiffs herein could construct a building for a
construction supply establishment.
7. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs herein filed an application to
the Building Inspector for the City of Northampton for a
permit to build the construction supply establishment
pursuant to the permit granted in 1984.
8. The Building Inspector for the City of Northampton
determined that the time period for construction of the
building under the City Zoning Ordinance had passed under
the permit that was previously granted and that,
therefore, the Plaintiffs would have to reapply for a
Zoning Permit for the building of the construction supply
establishment. As a result the Plaintiffs herein filed a
new application dated February 20, 1987.
413 -584 -6750
-3-
Law Office
TRICK J. MELNIK
110 King Street
hainpton, MA 01060
9. In a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on May
6, 1987 the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny the
Zoning Finding Request of Eugene A. Tacy for the purpose
of constructing a building to be used in conjunction with
his existing contractors yard.
10. The Zoning Board of Appeals further voted that the
Special Permit was not applicable and is, therefore, "put
aside ".
11. A true copy of the decision of the Zoning Board of
Appeals is attached to this Complaint and marked Exhibit
"C" and is made a part hereof.
12. The Plaintiffs in this action allege that the use of
their property for the open storage of raw materials and
constuction equipment is allowed by Special Permit under
the Zoning Laws for the City of Northampton as shown on
the Table of Use Regulations, Page 5 -14, Number 13.
13. The Plaintiffs in this action allege that their property
on Main Street, Leeds, (Northampton), is in a Special
Industrial District in the City of Northampton.
14. The Plaintiffs in this action further allege that the use
of their real estate as a construction supply
establishment pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Northampton is allowed by right
without need for a Special Permits or Finding on Page
5 -12, Number 3 of the Zoning Ordinances of the City of
Northampton.
15. The Plaintiffs in this action further allege that in the
decision of November 28, 1984 the Zoning Board of Appeals
allowed the Plaintiffs herein a Special Permit for the
use of their property as a open storage of raw materials
as allowed under the City Zoning Ordinance.
16. The Plaintiffs in this action allege that when a use
allowed by right is used in conjunction with another use
previously approved or allowed by right under the Zoning
Ordinances for the City of Northampton no Special Permit
or Finding is required.
17. The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to a
Building Permit for the purpose of constructing a
building as a construction supply establishment under the
provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance for the City of
Northampton without need for Finding and Special Permit.
18. In the alternative the Plaintiffs allege that the
application for permit they filed in February of 1987 was
the same as the application that they filed in 1984 and
413 - 584 -6750
'*%W
-4-
that there were no changes in the circumstances relating
to this property that would require a different decision
than the one that was made in 1984.
19. The Plaintiffs in this action allege that the decision of
the Zoning Board of Appeals dated May 6, 1987 exceeds the
authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs in this action demand:
1. That the Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals
dated May 6, 1987 be annulled and that the case be
remanded to the Board of Appeals.
2. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs in this action
demand that this Court issue an injunction ordering
the Building Inspector for the City of Northampton
to issue them a Permit for the purpose of
constructing a construction supply establishment on
their premises.
3. Plaintiffs demand such other relief as may be
appropriate.
May 22, 1987
atrick J. Melnik Esq.
110 King Street
Northampton, Ma 01060
584 -6750
Law OIlice
"rRI CK J. MELNIK
110 King Strcct
hainpton, MA 01060
413- 584 -6750
E5
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing on Application of Eugene A. Tacy
April 15, 1987
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton held
a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on April 15, 1987 in Council
Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building to consider the
request of Eugene A. Tacy for a Special Permit under the
provisions of Section 5.2, Page 5.13, Paragraph 13 and a Finding
under the provisions of Section 9.3, Paragraph B of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Northampton for the purpose of
constructing a construction supply establishment in conjunction
with his existing contractors' yard on property located on Main
Street, (Leeds), Northampton, MA (SI Zone). Present were:
Acting Chairman Peter Laband, William Brandt and M. Sanford Weil,
Jr.
The Acting Chairman read the public notice as it appeared in
the Daily Hampshire Gazette on April 1 and 8, 1987. He reviewed
Section 5.2, Page 5.14, Section 9.3 (B), and Section 10.10 of the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton. He read a memo from
J. Roche, Chairman, Northampton Conservation Commission,
recommending that if this Board grants the permit, they place
conditions on it requiring the removal of all illegally placed
fill 100 -year floodplain and Watershed Protection Overlay
District be restored to its original elevation so as not to
displace flood water storage and increase flooding of surrounding
properties. He also read a memo from L. Smith, Planner, on
behalf of the Northampton Planning Board, who voted 2 -2 -1 on a
motion to recommend approval of the request. He advised those
present of their right to appeal.
Att. P. Melnik, representing Mr. Tacy, explained that Mr.
Tacy had previously come before this Board, and was granted a
permit to construct a building for a construction supply
establishment in conjunction with the contractors' yard which is
allowed by right in a SI zone. In the fall of 1986 application
for a building permit was denied by the Building Inspector, as
the time for action on the Special Permit had expired. In
January, 1987, application to the ZBA was made for the same
request made in 1984, however, because of a miscommunication
regarding the size of the proposed building (Mr. Tacy is now
requesting a 60 x 60' building, rather than the 40 x 44' shown in
the originally submitted plan), Mr. Tacy withdrew his application
without prejudice and reapplied.
Att. Melnik stated that Mr. Tacy's business caters to a
selective type of clientele, renting equipment primarily to
contractors, not the general public. He stressed that this type
of business is of benefit to the public and the City (noting that
the City leased a specialized piece of equipment during the
recent flood) and suggested that this use does not generate
traffic of high velocity. He stated that there have been no
changes in the Zoning Ordinance or change in the uses in this
..s/
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing - Tacy
Page 2
area since the decision made in 1984. He stated that Mr. Tacy
fully concurs with the conditions imposed on the 1984 decision.
He presented a petition signed by a number of neighbors and other
residents of Leeds in support of Mr. Tacy's request.
Att. Melnik presented a sketch plan of the proposed 22.8'
high cinder -block building, stating that it would be an asset to
the village of Leeds and a benefit to the site, as it will enable
the enclosure of some rental equipment now in open storage. He
stated that the location of the structure will set on the rear
left of the 2+ acre lot, and will, with the establishment of
selective landscaping, be of minimal impact on the street.
Responding to questions from the Board, Mr. Tacy stated that
he has no intention of running a building supply business or of
supplying lumber or millwork. He stated that the Zoning
ordinance contains no definition of "Contractors' Yard ".
Att. Melnik requested that the Board investigate the
necessity of applying for a Special Permit, suggesting that as
the original application contained two requests (Special Permit
request for the currently operating open storage of raw materials
and a Finding request for the construction supply establishment),
and as one -half of the request (open storage of raw materials)
has continued to operate, that the Finding request for the
structure may be the only relevant issue before the Board at this
time. He noted that the wording of the 1984 decision by the
Board did not conform directly with the application made, and
therefore, some confusion arises. The Board decided that they
would request an opinion from the City Solicitor.
Regarding the memo from the Conservation Commission, Att.
Melnik stated that the fill will be removed, however, he
suggested that the Conservation Commission flag out the
boundaries of the zone.
The Acting Chairman called on proponents.
Carol Shea, 18 Audubon Rd., Leeds, spoke in favor of the
request, feeling that the area should remain an industrial area
and not converted to apartment dwellings. She stated that the
Tacys are a hard - working family, who should be allowed to
construct a building which will enhance the area.
David , 159 Main Street, Leeds, felt that a hardship
would be created to this long- standing business if the
application was denied. He spoke in support of the Tacys as
neighbors and stressed that the proposed building will enhance
the area and will not create a great deal of additional traffic.
^
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing - Tacy
Page 3
James Nark, 159 Main Street, Leeds, found no objections.
Hank Kabat, No Main Street, Florence, felt that the building
would enhance the area by allowing some equipment to be stored
under cover. He also found that the continuation of this small
business would benefit the contractors and other businesses and
would continue to bring revenue to the area.
Bob Moriarty, Prospect Street, felt that as so many spaces
are taken for development, this industrial area should remain and
be promoted for small business use.
Coun. Joan Kochin spoke in support for Mr. Tacy and his
proposed structure.
Jim McRustry, neighbor of Tacys in Florence, stated that
Springfield is the nearest point at which this type of equipment
supplied by the Tacys can be obtained. He stated that the
equipment is well -cared for.
Rick Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald Fence Co., stated that the
continued operation of this business is beneficial to him and
other businesses in the area and spoke in favor of the proposal.
Nancy Mathers, Northampton, spoke favorably of Mr. Tacy's
character and voiced her support for the proposal.
The Acting Chairman called on opponents.
Coun. Raymond Labarge, Ward 7, stated that many persons had
contacted him with concerns regarding the proposal. He presented
a brief history of the area, which was declared a "blight area"
several years ago by the State and which subsequently was the
beneficiary of many grants to improve and refurbish the bridges,
the sidewalks and other improvements in the area. He presented a
photograph of the Hotel Bridge, which has been renovated. These
improvements and the promise of more grant monies earmarked for
the Leeds area have induced the homeowners in the area to upgrade
their dwellings. He also noted application for a grant to clean
up the riverbank area across the street from the subject lot. He
stated that the result of this activity has been a change in the
character of the entire area; an area in which this proposed
structure would not conform to and would detract from. He
questioned Mr. Tacy's claim that the time period had run out for
his Permit, suggesting that the increase in the proposed
structure was the reason for the denial of the Building Permit
and the subsequent reapplication.
Coun. Labarge stated that he has submitted a proposal to
1 4OW ../
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing - Tacy
Page 4
change this zone from SI to URB, upon the recommendation of
Lozano -White & Assoc, Planning Consultants to the City.
Larry Smith, 139 Water Street, pointed out that this parcel
represents a spot zone, as it is a single parcel zoned SI located
in the midst of a residential neighborhood. He stated that
although he was in favor of the previous request, he found the
increased building size and style disturbing and out of character
with the neighborhood. He presented photographs to the Board
taken on this date showing piles of debris and demolition
materials on the site, commenting on the continued deterioration
of the lot.
Mr. Smith pointed out that the business may expand in the
future, in which case the proposed structure would be
insufficient for its intended purpose of storing equipment
currently stored outside. He added that the Board must consider
the impact of any future expansion of use on the neighborhood, as
well. He suggested that the 3 -4' hedge proposed by Mr. Tacy for
screening would be esthetically pleasing, however, would not be a
visually impenetrable screen. He stressed that because the
business is a pre- existing nonconforming use, the lack of a
permit will not put the Tacys out of business, as has been
attested by some. He suggested that some individuals who signed
the petition in support of Mr. Tacy's request were under the
misconception that Mr. Tacy would be out of business if this
permit is not granted.
Regarding Att. Melnik's statements regarding the issuance of
the Special Permit, Mr. Smith suggested that if the applicant is
aggrieved by the Building Inspector's decision, he could appeal
that decision.
Henry Brown, 162 Main Street, stated that he is balancing
his feelings regarding free enterprise vs. maintaining a
residential and scenic area, but is concerned with the increased
traffic that would result from the expanded use and with the
impact on the neighborhood. He stated that he would like to see
the lot properly screened regardless of the outcome of this
permit.
The Acting Chairman read the conditions of the original
decision.
Virginia Simpson, 86 Water Street, stated that although the
City should support its small businesses, it must also protect
the small village character. She found that the proposed
structure is inappropriate for the Leeds village atmosphere. She
also commented on traffic noise associated with the business.
`W, ..001
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing - Tacy
Page 5
Coun. Labarge stated that there are many people who oppose
the request, but are not making their views public. He stressed
that he is not in opposition to the Tacys or their business, but
against the proposed structure in this location.
Coun. Brooks urged the Board to consider the possible amount
of future expansion that may take place. He expressed concerns
regarding the pile of refuse on the site and suggested that the
Board of Health be notified. He stressed that information
regarding height, fencing and sales of material should have been
included the application and requested that the public hearing be
continued so that this information can be available for public
review.
George Tobin, 21 Kimball Street, previous owner of the
parcel, stated that the construction supply use is authorized by
right, which covers a multitude of equipment. He suggested that
the Finding request addresses the authorization of two businesses
to co -exist on one lot (one allowed by prior use and one allowed
by Ordinance).
Leonard , 91 Water Street, suggested that after a
site view the Board will find that the requested use would be
detrimental to the area.
George Marium, Leeds, questioned if this request fits in
with the City's long -term plan.
Responding to a concern by Larry Ench, Water Street, Leeds,
it was noted that the proposed zone change should not affect this
application, as the petition was submitted prior to the
publication of the zone change request.
Responding to a concern by Don O'Brien, Water Street, it was
stated that any alteration other that this application for a
specific building on this specific site would have to be reviewed
through the same process.
Responding to other concerns, the Acting Chairman explained
the process of enforcement of conditions on a Special Permit.
S. Weil read the definition of "Building Supply" from the
Zoning Ordinance.
Gail Creighton, Northampton, spoke in favor of the request,
citing the safety problems associated with outdoor storage.
Jim Parsons, Chesterfield Road, stated that this Board's
decision will affect the future character of the whole area.
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing - Tacy
Page 6
Att. Melnik cited more noxious uses that can be allowed by
right in this zone and stressed that the equities lie in favor of
granting this permit.
W. Brandt cited several different dimensions that were
mentioned regarding the previous structure (30 x 30' and 40 x
44 and questioned why Mr. Tacy originally requested a smaller
building. E. Tacy stated that in studying the size of the
building in relation to his equipment and after he obtained more
experience in the business, he concluded that the smaller
building would not be sufficient for his needs.
Responding to inquiries from P. Laband, Mr. Tacy stated that
he would like to reserve the right to sell such equipment such as
a pump or air compressor, however, no building materials.
Responding to concerns regarding traffic, Mr. Tacy stated
that he does not believe that traffic would be greatly increased
from that which exists presently, stressing that he does not
anticipate large trucks. He noted that his own two 18- wheelers
are off of the lot most of the time.
Responding to an inquiry from S. Weil, L. Smith stated that
the pre- existing nonconforming operation has a right to be there,
as long as it was not discontinued for a period of two years.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to close the
public hearing at 10:00 p.m., to take a site view and to request
an official opinion from the City Solicitor regarding the
previous permit. Present, in addition to those mentioned, were
J. Parker, Board Secretary and many interested citizens.
Peter Ldband, Acting Chairman
wr .woe
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision - Tacy
Page 2
P. Laband found that as this neighborhood is in transition
and is in the process of being upgraded, and as this single
parcel zoned SI is in the middle of the neighborhood, the
expansion of this use with the accompanying increase in noise,
heavy truck traffic and activity would be more detrimental to
the neighborhood.
It was moved and seconded to deny the request for a Finding.
The Board voted 2 -1.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 7:50 p.m. Present, in addition to those mentioned,
were J. Parker, Board Secretary and the Tacy family.
1 it i-'o aa-��
P Laband, Acting Chairman.
M
CITY OF NORTHAMPTO.
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Zoning Ordinance Section 10.2
Owner Eugene A. Tacy
Address 158 North Maple Street - Florence, MA I Address
Telephone 584 -7114
® Non - Conforming Lot and /or Structure. Specify Addition to conforming use to current
no n-conforminiz use
❑ Residential ❑Single Family Unit ❑Multi - Family
❑ Duplex ❑ Other
Tac
158 North Maple Street - Florence, M!
584 -7114
This section is to be filled out in accordance with the "Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations:
(Z.O. ARTICLE VI)
Zoning
Use
Lot
Front
Depth
p
Setbacks
Max. Bld.
Min. Op.
Front
Side
Rear
District
Area
Width
Cover
Space
Construction
%
%
Past S.I.
Existing storagE
acres
360
300
--
--
--
0
100
Construction
%
Present S.I
Proposed supply
acres
360
300
30
30
30
5
95
Mark the appropriate box to indicate the use of the parcel:
❑ Business
• Individual
• Institutional
❑Regular
• Subdivision
❑ Cluster
• Subdivision with "Approval- Not - Required " - Stamp:
• Planning Board Approval:
• Zoning Board Approval (Special Permit 10.9: Variance)
• City Council (Special Exception S. 1 0.10)
ap No.l&) Lot
Received: 4 1987 4LIL. 9 Plan File
Telephone
• P.U.D.
• Other
Watershed Protection D istrict Overlay: (Z.O. Sect. XIV) ❑ Yes E No
Parking Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.1) Required __2_— Proposed __jD_
Loading Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.2) Required 1 Proposed 1
Signs: (Z.O. Art. VII) ❑ Yes 47 No
Environmental Performance Standards: (Z.O. Art. XI 1) ❑ Yes X1 No
Plot Plan
(S.10.2)
2] Yes ❑ No
This section for OFFICIAL use only:
❑ Approval as presented:
❑ Modifications necessary for approval:
❑ Return: (More information needed)
Denial: Reasons: za
Site Plan ❑ Yes E$ No
(S. 10.2 and 10.11
Waiver Granted: Date ❑
Signature of Applicant
Date Signature of Admin. Officer 'date
P , Mf i
- -tR
Do es
I Ch eG
�'
Application Number: YN
Filed Fee Pd. Recd. Z6,\ Map(s) Parcel (s)
Recd. e
gy Date BY
to
Date Amt. ` Dae
/
'.
3tq_✓
3 U
I FAMM iEREBY MADE TO THE CITY OFF NO
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
, A
Name of Applicant Eugene A. Ta cy
Address 158 North Maple Street - Florence, MA
2. Owner of Property Eugene A Tacy, James J. Tacy, Richard J. Tacy, Harold G. Tacy an
Address Main Street - Leeds, MA Helen N. Tacy
3. Applicant is: i�Owner; JContract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
J VARIANCE from the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
XSPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section 5. 2 -13 page 13 of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
MOTHER: Finds ng rhat alteration of existing use to include construction supp
sup �y s 11 sh ent s n t substantially more detrimental than the existing use
5. cca {ion5ot S � p pen�ix �. Main Street - Leeds, MA being Situated On
the pa -, t- side o f Main - Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 10D , Parcel (s)
6. Zone Special Industrial
7. Description of proposed work and /or use; Applicant proposes to construct a constructi
supply establishment on a parcel that is currently being used for open storage ot: raw
ma eriais and construction equipment. e new structure may also be used to store
construction equipment as well as construction supply equipment.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; MYes C1 No
(b) Site plan: ❑ Attched X1 Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: Current use is existing non - conforming us e that
would be allowed by Special permit under existing zoning. The proposed use is .Ilowed by
r`:,'.lt construction supply or by Special Permit (storage of equipment). The use wil not
be more detrimental than existing use and, in fact, will be less detrimental since th
equipment currently being stored in the open will be screened by a fence and the buil
to be constructed. A permit was previously granted. This is a request for a renewal of
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form). with a larger building than pre-
viously approved.
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to a hest of my knowledge.
February 20, 1987
Date A pplicant's Signatur
110 King St. - Northampton, MA 01060
For Eugene A. Ttcy
\..,
..d
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing on Application of Eugene A. Tacy
February 18, 1987_
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton held
a public hearing at 7:05 p.m. on February 18, 1987 in Council
Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building to consider the
request of Eugene A. Tacy for a Special Permit under the
provisions of Section 5.2, Page 5.13, Paragraph 13 and a Finding
under the provisions of Section 9.3, Paragraph B of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Northampton for the purpose of
constructing a construction supply establishment in conjunction
with his existing contractor's yard on property located on Main
Street (Leeds), Northampton, MA (SI Zone). Present were:
Chairman Robert. C. Buscher, Peter Laband and Kathleen M.
Sheehan.
The Chairman read the public notice as it appeared in the
Daily Hampshire Gazette on February 4 and 11, 1987. He reviewed
Section 5.2 and Section 9.3 (b), as well as Section 10.10 of the
Northampton Zoning Ordinance. He read a memo from L. Smith,
Planner, on behalf of the Northampton Planning Board, which was
forwarded with no recommendation, as the applicant was not in
attendance to present his case. He advised those present of
their right to appeal.
The Chairman noted that this request had previously been
heard and granted with conditions by this Board (two of the three
members sitting on this hearing ruled on the previous hearing).
He explained that Mr. Tacy did not commence construction within
the 18 month time restraint, and was therefore, unable to obtain
a building permit.
Att. P. Melnik, representing Mr. Tacy, stated that neither
he nor Mr. Tacy received correspondence informing of the Planning
Board meeting. He stated that his client was under the mistaken
impression that he had up to two years to commence construction
and attempted to obtain a building permit in November, 1986.
Therefore, Mr. Tacy is applying for the same permit that was
issued on November 28, 1984 with the same plan. He noted that
there have been no significant changes in the zoning laws or maps
in the past two years that would affect this property.
The Chairman called on proponents. There were none.
The Chairman called on opponents.
Henry Brown, 162 Main Street, Leeds (abutter), cited
concerns with increased traffic to this area, which has many
small children.
raw, 1.00
Public Hearing - Eugene A. Tacy
February 18, 1987 - Page 2
Referring to Section 10.6, P. Laband questioned why the
applicant never requested an extension on the time restraints and
why the applicant did not commence construction. He stressed the
imposition on this Board.
Mr. Tacy stated that he was under the impression that the
time limit was two years, not 18 months, and that he did not
begin construction because of economic restraints. He noted that
the City has added sidewalks in front of the property, that he
has constructed a fence along the front of the lot, and that he
has purchased a substantial amount of materials for the
construction of the building.
K. Sheehan expressed concerns with increased traffic in the
area of this lot, as vehicles will be using the "Hotel" bridge
while renovations are being done on the bridge in the center of
Leeds.
Mr. Tacy explained that traffic from his operation will be
using Main Street, Leeds, and that the construction of this
building will not generate an amount of traffic that will be
detrimental to the area.
P. Laband concurred, finding that the addition of this
building will generate the same amount of traffic as that which
currently exists.
It was determined that the plan submitted with the
appication was not the intended plan. Mr. Tacy stated that he is
now requesting a 60 x 60' building, which is larger than the
building the Board originally approved (40 x 44
Chm. Buscher noted that although the public notice makes no
reference to the size of the building, the applicant is, in fact,
requesting an additional 2,000 sq. ft. K. Sheehan noted that the
application requests a renewal of the previously issued Special
Permit.
After some discussion, it was moved, seconded and voted
unanimously to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice
and resubmit a correct application.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to close the
hearing at 7:48 p.m. Present, in dition to those mentioned,
were J. Parker, Board Secretary and everal interested citizens.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
C)TY OF NORTHAMPTO.
- ZONING PERMIT APPLICAtMON
Zoning Ordinance Section 10.2
Owner Eugene A. Tacy
Ij V/ 1
RAQ: 0 1987
Dt 'l: Cf PUIt 01i i
rkoplicant
Address 158 North Maple Stree, Florence, MA Address_
Telephone 584-7114 Telephone
ap No. /O/ I Lot
Plan File
Tacy
158 North Maple Street, Florence, M.4
584 -7114
This section is to be filled out in accordance with the "Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations:
17 n ARTIr.I F Vil
Zoning
Use
Lot
Front
Depth
Setbacks
Max. Bid.
Min. Op.
Space
District
Area
Width
Front
Side
Rear
Cover
Construction
0 %
100 %
Past S.I.
Existing storage
acres
360
300
Present S - I•
Constructio
Proposed supply
3
acres
360
300
30
30
30
5 %
95
Mark the appropriate box to indicate the use of the parcel:
if Non - Conforming Lot and /or Structure. Specify Addition to conforming usI. to current
non-con ormin use.
❑ Residential ❑Single Family Unit ❑Multi - Family
❑ Duplex ❑ Other
❑ Business
❑ Individual
❑ Institutional
❑ Regular ❑ P.U.D.
❑ Subdivision ❑ Cluster ❑ Other
❑ Subdivision with "Approval- Not - Required " - Stamp:
❑ Planning Board Approval:
❑ Zoning Board Approval (Special Permit 10.9: Variance)
❑ City Council (Special Exception S. 10.10)
Watershed Protection District Overlay: (Z.O. Sect. XIV) ❑ Yes )CI No
Parking Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.1) Required 2 Proposed 1_
Loading Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.2) Required Proposed
Cron°• 17 n Art VIII ❑Yes NO
Environmental Performance Standards: (Z .O. Art. XI 1) IJ Yes W No
Plot Plan CIcYes ❑ No Site Plan ❑ Yes IN No
(S.10.2) (S. 10.2 and 10.11
Waiver Granted: Date ❑
This section for OFFICIAL use only:
❑ Approval as presented:
❑ Modifications necessary for approval:
Return: (More information needed)
Denial: Reasons: Z6 9 a" a,
__k
Signature of Applicant
•y 13, 1987 Zz Ig z.
Date Signature of Admin. Officer Date
a jwf s
1
G of Write In These Spac Application Number: _
B. 1. Ch d Filed' Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcels)
Date By Date Amt. -.1 Date By Date
I A' ��� / 7.
f
y PPLlCATION J 1 ADE TC CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
r.—RameoTApplicanx --
P�D+F�ri;iF'T081: ene A. Tacy
Address 158 North Maple Street - Florence, MA
2. Ownerof Property Eugene A. Tacy, James J. Tacy, Richard J. Tacy, Harold G. Tacy and
Address M ain Street - Leeds, MA Heien N. ra
3. Applicant is: XOwner; El Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
3 VARIANCE from the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
L.XSPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section 5.2 -13 page 13 of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
F�OTHER: Finding that alteration of existing use to include construction supply
su pl e t jishment is not substantially more detrimental than the existing use
u 9. 1 endix A.
5. Luca io o roo er Main RrrPPr - T.:-arlc� M a being situated on
the East side of Main Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No 10D Parcel(s) 17
6. Zone Special Industrial
7. Description of proposed work and /or use; Applicant proposes to construct a construct
supply establishment on a parcel that is currently being used for open storage of raw
� materia s and construction equipment. The new structure may also be used to store
construction equipment as well as construction supply equipment.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; CdYes ❑ No
(b) Site plan: DAttched C%Not Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which ap plication is based: Current use is existing non - conforming use that
would be allowed by Special Permit under existing zoning. The proposed use is allowed by
right consL ruction supply or by Special Permit storage of equipment). The use will not
be more detrimental than existing use and, in fact, will be less detrimental since the
equipment currently being stored in the open will be screened by a fence and the buil
to be constructed. A permit was previously granted. This is a request for a renewal of
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form). that permit.
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to th est of my knowledge.
4 Date January 13, 1987 a pplicant's Signature n &�=j
1
i
DECISION OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
i
At a meeting held on November 28, 1984, the Zoning Board of Appeals
of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to grant the special permit
request of Eugene A. Tacy, 158 North Maple Street, Florence,(Northampton)
to construct a building for the purpose of establishing a construction supply
t business in conjunction with his existing contractor's yard on Main Street, !
s Leeds. (SI Zone). Present and voting were: Chairman Robert C. Buscher,
William Brandt and Peter Laband.
The findings were as follows:
i
William Brandt commented that when altering the pre - existing
nonconformance, something that is allowed by right now needs a special
permit and found that the proposed use is less detrimental than the
present use. He also found that the building will bear a positive
i
relationship to the public convenience as storing construction
equipment that is now stored outside will be stored inside a building
and be less of an eyesore; that the proposed use will not cause any
undue traffice congestion or impair pedestrian safety; that it will
not overload any municipal systems; and that the proposed use will not
impair the character of the district, as a construction supply business
is allowed in that zone.
R. Buscher concurred.
P. Laband also concurred, stating that all requirements for a
special permit have been met.
The following conditions shall apply:
1. That fencing along the northerly sideline of the lot
be constructed and partial fencing or shrubbery placed
along the front of the lot.
2. That the operation of the retail business be restricted
to emergency only after 1:00 p.m. Saturday and all of
Sunday.
3. That the business be geared towards general contractors
rather than the general public.
4. That the building should in no way exceed the height allowed
in that zone.
I
r ;
Robert C. B Scher, Chairman
Wil I i am Brandt'
Peter Laband
M
+14� ..r/
Northampton 1 , oning Board of Appeals
Public Rearing on Application oI Eugene A. Tacy
November 7, 1984
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on November 7, 1984
at 8:42 p.m. on the special permit and finding request of Eugene Tacy under the provisions
of Section 5.2, Page 5.13, Paragraph 13 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton_
for the purpose of constructing a building for the purpose of establishing a construction
supply business in conjunction with his existing contractor's yard on Main Street, Leeds.
Present were: Chairman Robert Buscher, William Brandt, and Peter Laband.
The Chairman read the public notice as it appeared in the Daily Hampshire Gazette
on October 24 and 31, 1984 and reviewed Section 5.2 and Section 9.3 (B) and requirements
for a special permit. He advised those present of their right to appeal.
The Chairman read a recommendation from L. Smith, Planner on behalf of the Planning
Board recommending in favor of the petition with conditions.
Att. Patrick Melnik, representing Mr. Tacy, suggested that the applicant has interplay
within the zoning law. His principal proposal, that of constructing a 40 x 44' construc-
tion supply building in the northerly portion of the property is allowed by right; he
presently operates a pre- existing, nonconforming use of open storage of construction
equipment and,according to the provisions of Section 9.3, changing the nonconforming use
by adding a conforming use requires a finding. He stated that the building would be used
to store the supplies now in open storage in addition to establishing a construction
supply retail /rental business, limited mainly to other contractors. He will erect a
six foot stockade fence along the entire property line with the abutting church and along
the property line with the adjacent multifamily dwelling owned by Mr. & Mrs. McCarthy.
Att. Melnik stated that for security purposes, Mr. Tacy does not want fencing along
the front portion of the property, but on suggestion of the Planning Board, will add
hedging as a buffer to the residential street.
Responding to inquiries from the Board members, Att. Melnik stated that the proposed
building meets all setback requirements and no fill or leveling is needed.
L. Smith, 139 Water Street, Leeds, stated that the property is spot zoned with all
of the surrounding properties zoned URB. He stated that he had no objection to the
proposal and felt that it would improve the property; however, he cited the concerns of
the Planning Board with the nature of the construction supply establishment and suggested
specific wording regarding retail and rental.
Chairman Buscher questioned if the use would fall under Page 5.10, item 14: Business
Service and Supply. L. Smith felt that Page 5.11, #3 was more appropriate regarding
altering the non - conforming use and 413 regarding the existing nonconforming use.
William McCarthy, 64 Lyman Road, owner of the abutting property, was shown the
plan for the proposed construction and stated that he had no objections.
It was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to take all comments under advisement
and visit the site. The public hearing was closed as 9:15 P.M.
A discussion followed regarding Section 9.3.
Present in addition to those mentioned was J. Parker, Boa d Secretary and
approximately five interested citizens.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
W
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
9 S
FROM: Lawrence B. Smith, Planner, on behalf of the Northampton Planning Board
SUBJECT: Eugene Tacy - Special Permit and Finding Request
DATE: November 7, 1984
FILE:
At their meeting on October 18, 1984, the Northampton Planning Board
reviewed the Special Permit and Finding request of Eugene Tacy for the purpose
of constructing a building for the purpose of establishing a construction
supply business in conjunction with his existing contractor's yard on Main
Street, Leeds.
After discussing the matter with the applicant and hearing the report of
the site inspection subcommittee, the Planning Board voted 5 -0 -1 to recommend
approval of the special permit with conditions and finding that the proposed
use will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use. The
conditions are as follows:
1. That fencing along the northerly sideline of the lot be constructed
and, if possible, partial fencing or shrubbery placed along the front
of the lot.
2. That the operation of the retail business be restricted to emergency only
after 1:00 p.m. Saturday and all of Sunday.
3. That the business be geared towards general contractors rather than the
general public.
AMP
?OP
.PITY OF NORTHAMPTON
7�NING PERMIT APPLICATtO M W � , - I r W ap No. [QC) Lot
•
Zoning Ordinance Section 10.2 iv ?d o. ?�� Plan File
Owner Eugene A. T
A. Ta
Address 158 North Maple Street, Florenc Address 158 North Maple Street, Florence
Telephone 584 -7114 Telephone 584 -7114
This section is to be filled out in accordance with the "Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations:
(Z.O. ARTICLE VI)
Zoning
Use
Lot
Front
Depth
Setbacks
Max. Bid.
Min. Op.
Front
Side
Rear
Di
Area
Width
Cover
Space.
r y .i sra ��
Past S. I.
Exist ings�
acres
360
300
- --
- --
- --
0 %
100
Present S � S '
Proposed j , u , pC
acres
360
300
30
30
30
5 %
95%
Mark the appropriate box to indicate the. use of the parcel:
(a Non - Conforming Lot and/or Structure. Specify Addition to conforming us to current
non - conforming use
d Residential ❑Single Family Unit ❑ Muitl- Family
❑ Duplex ❑ Other
❑ Business
❑ Individual
• institutional
• Subdivision ❑Regular ❑ P.U.D.
,
❑ Cluster ❑ Other
• Subdivision with "Approval- Not - Requlred " - Stamp:
• Planning Board Approval:
• Zoning Board Approval (Special Permit 10.9: Variance)
• Cit Council (Special Exception S..10.10)
Wa Protection District Overlay: (Z.O. Sect. XIV) ❑ Yes ® No
Parking Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.1) Required 2 Propo 10
Loading Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.2) Required 1 P roposed _]—
Signs: (Z.O. Art. VII) ❑ Yes X] No
Environmental Performance Standards: (Z.O. Art. XI 1) ❑ Yes ) E] No
Plot Plan
(S.10.2)
LI Yes ❑ No
OF
Site Plan ❑ Yes 91 No
(S. 10.2 and 10.11
Waiver Granted: Date ❑
This section for OFFICIAL use only:
• Approval as presented:
• Modifications necessary for approval:
• Return: (More information needed)
❑ Denial: Reasons:
September 21, 1
Sig tur of Ap cant Date
4
Signature of Admin.
r tt ��
r Date
Do Not Write In'Tbass.Spsces
'd. `�- ked
by Date BY to Date Amt. jDate/ �� BY Date � I
`%NW ..r�
Application Number: -�
Filed Fee Pd. Rec'd. ZBA Map(s) Parcels)
MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
o ppllcant
EUGENE A. TACY
Address 158 North Maple Street, Northampton, Massachusetts
2. Owner of Property EUGENE A. TACY, JAMES J. TACY, RICHARD J. TACY, HAROLD G TACY
Address Main Street, Leeds, Massachusetts and HELEN N. T ACY
3. Applicant is: ®Owner; 0Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; 0Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
❑ VARIANCE from the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
L SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section 5.2 -13 page 1 o f the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton.
L30THER: Finding that alteration of existing use to include on
su pl es }3s BTntAppenaixsixbstantially more detrimental than the existing
u eider
5. Ma on of ropert being situated on
the East side of Main Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps,
Sheet No. 1 C D , Parcel (s) 17
6. Zone Special Industrial
7. Description of proposed work and/or use; Applicant proposes to construct a
construction supply establishment on a parcel that is currentiv being
used for open storaqe of raw materials and construction equipment
The new structure may also be used to store construction equipment as
well as construction supply equipmen .
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; ® Yes ❑ No
(b) Site plan: ❑ Attched IgNot Required
9. Set forth reasons upon which application is based: Current use is existing non-conform
use that would be allowed by Special Permit under exictinrr �nnin 'P},o
proposed use is allowed by right (construction supply) or by Special P
__(storage of equipment ). The use will not he mnne r9atriman +al *i == --4
and. in f
rmit
ting
being stored in the open will be screened by a fence and the building to be
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form). Constructed.
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the VknIe e.
Date September 21, 1984 a pplicant's Signature
CITY of NORTHAMPTON
OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Northampton Planning Board
FROM: Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
SUBJECT: Tacy Construction Co., Inc.
DATE: June 8, 1989
FILE:
The Zoning Board of Appeals has denied the request of Tacy
Construction Co., Inc. for a Finding that the concentration of the
contractor's yard use on Parcel 48 will not be substantially more
detrimental than when that use was spread over Parcels 17 and 48.
In order for you to allow Site Plan approval for the Construction
Supply Establishment's 60' x 60' building, the contractor's yard
use must be abandoned and withdrawn from both parcels, and
relocated elsewhere.
i
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD
At a meeting held on June 8, 1989, the Planning Board
of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to APPROVE the
Site Plan submitted by James Tacy and Eugene Tacy relative
to the construction of a 3,600 square foot building on Parcel
17, Sheet 10D at 175 Main Street, Leeds. The Site Plan
Review was conducted under the Provisions of Section 10.11
of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. Present and voting were
Chair N. Duseau, J. Arnould, J. Beauregard, A. Crystal, M.
Mendelson, J. Hale, J. Cahillane, and E. J. Gare III.
The findings were as follows:
1. Section 10.11(4)(a) requires a proper locus plan be
filed, and the Board determined that it was. The plan being
approved is entitled, "Sketch of Land in Northampton,
Massachusetts (in the Village of Leeds) prepared for Eugene
A. Tacy by Almer Huntley, Jr. and Associates, Inc., dated
June 8, 1989.
3. Section 10.11(4)(b) requires that a site plan at proper
scale be filed, and the Board determined that it was.
4. The Board determined, by an item -by -item consideration,
that all the criteria in Section 10.11(4)(b)(1 through 18)
had either been met, or properly waived.
5. The Board determined that, under the requirement of
Section 10.11(4)(c) that the estimated peak hour traffic
volume generated by the proposed addition would be eight
cars.none.
6. The Board looked to the Review /Approval Criteria under
Section 10.11(5) and found that:
A. The plan provides for protection of adjoining
premises against seriously detrimental uses by provision for
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, and
preservations of views, light and air. The Conservation
Commission will be asked to review the storm water runoff.
B. The plan satisfactorily deals with the convenience
and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the
site and on _adjacent streets; the location of driveway
NNW-
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING ...�
ING BOARD DECISION
JAMES TACY AND EUGENE TACY SITE PLAN REVIEW
AA r.7 Twn
openings in relation to traffic.' access by emergency
vehicles; and to adjacent streets and, when necessary,
compliance with other regulations for the handicapped, minors
and the elderly.
C. The plan satisfactorily addresses the adequacy of the
arrangement of parking and loading spaces in relation to the
proposed uses of the premises.
D. The plan satisfactorily addresses the relationship
of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape,
existing buildings and other community assets in the area,
and compliance with other requirements of the ordinance.
E. The plan satisfactorily deals with mitigation of
adverse impacts on the city' s resources, including the effect
on the city's water supply and distribution system, sewage
collection and treatment systems, fire protection, and
streets.
The following conditions shall apply:
1. There must be no more than 54o square feet of retail
selling space in the building.
2. The cited plan must be resubmitted to the Northampton
Planning Board with the stamp of a certified engineer
3. There must be nine parking spaces on the lot that meet
the requirements of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance.
4. There must be total and permanent discontinuance of the
"contractor's yard" use on Parcel 17,
5. The "Agreement for Conditions," the so- called
"neighborhood agreement," as prepared by Atty. Melnik's
office, and signed by Eugene, Richard and James Tacy, must
be adhered to.
Nancy P. D au, Chair
John L. Cahillane
4 Dr. 'Jo of Arnould
NNOW
...s
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD DECISION
JAMES TACY AND EUGENE TACY SITE PLAN REVIEW
PAGE THREE -
E. JoP6 Gare III
James Holeva
J` dith Hale
v
Marion Mendelson
Andrew Crystal
Drs 'Joseph Beauregard
.../
Northampton Planning Board
June 8, 1989 Meeting
Page One
The Northampton Planning Board met at 7:00 p. m. on Thursday,- June
8, 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal
Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton. Present were Chair N.
Duseau, J. Arnould, J. Beauregard, A. Crystal, M. Mendelson, J.
Hale, J. Cahillane, E. J. Gare III and L. B. Smith, Senior Planner.
At 8:20, the PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TACY APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL was continued. Eugene Tacy appeared to make the
presentation. Again, the criteria were ticked off. Locus plan and
site plan were on file, and the 18 criteria were all satisfactorily
met. Additional traffic was estimated by Mr. Tacy to be eight cars
a day. Mr. Crystal was concerned about the absence of an
engineer's stamp on the plan. Mr. Tacy asked for a waiver, because
getting the stamp would cost $212, but then asked, "Can I get
approval contingent on getting the stamp ?" The Chair called for
proponents, and Paul Duclos spoke on the Applicant's behalf, and
begged for approval. There were no other proponents, and no
opponents.
A discussion then ensued around the issue of the definitions of
"construction supply establishment" and "contractor's yard" uses.
Mr. Smith suspected that the proposed building was really for the
contractor's yard use; Mr. Tacy denied that, and described the
expensive and exotic equipment he intended to rent. The discussion
continued until Dr. Beauregard broke in saying that he had heard
enough, and expressed a desire to "get on with it." Ch. Duseau
closed the Public Hearing.
Dr. Beauregard moved that the Site Plan be approved with
conditions. Mr. Cahillane seconded. The conditions were listed:
1. There must be no more than 540 SF of retail space.
2. Waive the engineer's stamp.
3. There must be nine parking spaces that meet the require-
ments of the zoning ordinance.
4. There must be total and permanent discontinuance of the
contractor's yard use on Parcel 17.
5. The "Agreement for Conditions" [the "neighborhood
agreement] prepared by Atty. Melnik's office, and signed
by Eugene, Richard and James Tacy must be adhered to.
The vote on Dr. Beauregard's motion to approve with conditions was
5 -3, which means the motion failed, since a 2/3 majority of the 9-
member Board is required. The motion was modified to change
Condition #2 above to read, "A final version of the drawing before
the Board, with an engineer's stamp, is a condition of approval.
Another vote was taken, and the motiorL passed 6 -2 (Mr. Crystal,
Mrs. Mendelson).
Nancy P. Du au, Chair
v... ../
Northampton Planning Board
May 25, 1989 Meeting
Page Three
a GB district (Boyle's strip mall) and ;#Y0 door to GB
(Cahillane's). This is a two -acre parcel. . Al Albano was
present to represent the Mocks. He pointed that the Jane Alden
is now "Mock's Chip and Ale," and the M s' principal residence
is over the sporting goods store. He s ' there is a car - polishing
business on the first floor of a ba at the rear, and it and the
warehouse units are the only use n the property that currently
conform. He would like the c ge to allow the creation of an
apartment over the car -po in use in the barn, and two
apartments over the "Chip Ale." The two conforming uses would
then become pre - existi onconforming. The storage units would
eventually be replac by a non - industrial use. There were no
other proponents o pponents.
Mrs. Mendelso aid that she and Dr. Arnould had discussed this
proposal wi r. Smith earlier, and felt that the Planning Board
should p ose changing the Drozdal parcel to GB, and change
Sectio .2 to allow funeral establishments in GB by Special Permit
submitted (the re now prohibited). She proposed that this be as
a item. Ch. Duseau moved the Public Hearing be closed. Dr.
ould seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Smith
advised A tty. Albano that the car p olishing business nee
At 8:30, the PUBLIC HEARING on James and Eugene Tacy's Site Plan
Review began, with Ch. Duseau reading the Legal Notice, Kathleen
Fallon's letter dated May 17, and a May 10 letter from Paul Hadsel.
Atty. Patrick Melnik for the Applicant explained how "Gene filled
in the gaps with the new site plan." He went on, "The 60' x 60'
foundation is in place, the utilities are shown as are screening
and buffering, all services are on the property -- there's no DPW
impact." The Chair asked about only one curb cut, and Mr. Melnik
said they intended to apply for a Special Permit for the common
driveway serving both Tacy parcels. Mr. Crystal asked how these
plans are different from the ones submitted two weeks ago, and Mr.
Smith told him. Mr. Crystal asked about the absence of a
registered engineer's stamp, and told the applicant "you can't just
Xerox the plan, make additions, and submit it without a stamp. If
this is a major project, as Miss Fallon says, we need full -scale
review. Parking as shown is not adequate." There was some
discussion of parking spaces, with Mr. Smith pointing out that 12
are needed, and the Parking Ordinance requires they be paved. Mr.
Melnik objected, saying 12 is far too many for the little retail
business contemplated, but, "Gene will make 12 spaces." Mr. Smith
asked Mr. Melnik if he planned to request a Variance for the
absence of rear screening as required by Section 6.5, which he
read, and Mr. Tacy agreed to provide proper screening. Mr. Holeva
complained that "it's like pulling teeth" to get you to provide
what we want.
vNew _M000
Northampton Planning Board
May 25, 1989 Meeting
Page Four
Mr. Smith, speaking to the Board, said, "You have some choices.
You want a more detailed plan, screening, three more parking
spaces, and want to know what the plantings are. You can continue
the Public Hearing and get detail, close the Public Hearing and get
detail, or close the Public Hearing and vote." Ch. Duseau
suggested a "checklist approach" to items 1 -18, and there was
general agreement that every applicant had to take that approach,
and the Board can waive any item it feels doesn't apply.
Dr. Beauregard moved that the Hearing be continued to June 8, with
the proviso that the Applicant be prepared to consider the 18
criteria, and have a plan stamped by a registered architect or
engineer. Messrs. Crystal and Holeva agreed. To be sure the
Applicant returned in two weeks with all that was needed, the Board
went through the 18 criteria and found that all were met except 4,
7, 11, 12 "check w/ Hadsel," 13 "OK if DPW says OK," 14 "what are
the plantings," and 18 "Drainage to river." Mr. Holeva moved to
continue to June 8, Dr. Beauregard seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.
At 9:07 the PUBLIC HEARING on the
subdivision
entitled, "St—OF
Ridge Pond," was continued. Gordon
Murphy was
present,
and �rd
he still was not ready. It was moved
to continue
again to
J 2,
and extend the date for filing the decision with
the City
rk to
July 28. The vote in favor was 6 -0 -1
( Holeva) . Mr. Mur
and the
Board signed the appropriate extension
document which 1
be filed
with the City Clerk.
At 9:10, the Board turned to Mr.
By -Laws and Rules of Procedure
Paragraph 9. For other than
general public will be allowed
invitation of a member of the
majority of the Board in atte
during the meeting).
Crystal's pro ed Planning Board
change as ows: ARTICLE II,
public he ngs, members of the
to spe only upon the specific
Boar d with the consent of a
d (u uon a formal vote taken
10. If the Chair feels " a meeting or public hearing is
becoming too unruly to pery conduct business, he /she may
request a motion foZar ss. In add ition, the Chair may ask for
a vote to eject unembers of the audience pursuant to the
General Laws. A si ajority of those present carries.
In the Zabove, underlined passages are the chang es. The
remainins of ARTICLE II will be renumbered 11, 12 and
13. It ed that Miss Fallon be consulted on the use of
the word Mr. Crystal moved for approval of the change,
Dr. Beau nded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Loln Fish of the Hilltown Land Trust was given the floor,
to di cuss a proposal involving a parcel of land on Loudville Road,
,.,/
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Northampton Planning Board
FROM: Zoning Board of Appeals
SUBJECT:
James & Eugene Tacy
DATE: May 19, 1989
FILE:
Attached are the minutes of two Public Hearings held on May
17, 1989. The conclusion of the Board, supported by the Assistant
City Solicitor, is that if the ZBA issues a Finding to Tacy
Construction Co., Inc. that the concentration of the contractor's
yard use on Parcel 17 is not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than when the use was spread over Parcels 17 and 48,
then James and Eugene Tacy's Building Permit should be reinstated
automatically if the Planning Board approves their Site Plan.
14 yo*
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
May 17, 1989 Meeting
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7:05 p. m. on
Wednesday, May 17, 1989 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski
Municipal Building, to conduct Public Hearings on two related
applications: Tacy Construction Co., Inc. seeking a Special Permit
and Finding relative to a contractor's yard use on Parcel 48, Sheet
10D at 175 Main Street, Leeds, and James and Eugene Tacy seeking
"a building permit and Site Plan Approval" for a 60' x 60' building
for a Construction Supply Establishment on Lot 17, which directly
abuts Parcel 48. Present and voting were Chairman William Brandt,
Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
Ch. Brandt opened the Public Hearing by reading the Legal Notice
as published twice in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, the Application,
a memorandum from the Planning Board, a memorandum from Asst. City
Solicitor Fallon, and inserted in the record without reading, the
"neighborhood agreement," a document signed by the Tacys outlining
the primarily landscaping measures they promised to take to satisfy
the abutters.
Atty. Patrick Melnik appeared for Tacy Construction Co., Inc., and
explained that the Tacy's intent is to abandon the use of the
contractor's yard on Parcel 17, and concentrate it entirely on
Parcel 48. The use on 48 will not change, merely intensify, thus
the request for a Finding. Dr. Laband pointed out that a
contractor's yard is allowed by Special Permit (5.2[13]). Mr.
Melnik said he expects this Board to grant a Finding, not a Special
Permit, because "the last decision of this Board said that I need
a Finding." He went into some detail on the neighborhood
agreement, which calls for a 6' high stockade fence set back five
feet to allow for plantings, to screen the McCarthy and the church
property, and for 50' of fencing atop the Mill River bank.
There was some discussion between Dr. Laband and Mr. Melnik over
the status of litigation, Mr. Melnik making the point that if he
is granted a Finding, "we'll drop the suit - -it's moot." Miss
Fallon interjected, "This is the quickest way for Gene [Tacy]- -it's
what we've been telling him to do."
Mr. Weil was concerned about the fact that there is no physical
separation of the lots, and wondered "how do we stop Tacy from
using both lots for the contractor's yard use ?" Mr. Melnik
replied, "You rely on his word to follow the provisions of the
decision, and then enforcement if there's a violation."
There was no one else present in favor or in opposition, but when
general comments were solicited, Coun. LaBarge explained, "I
represent 32 people who originally objected to this. There was a
meeting and an agreement - -all the original objectors agree with the
concept. The church and Mrs. McCarthy are in agreement."
Returning to Mr. Weil's point, Mr. Melnik pointed out that Lot 48
`ftw ..A'
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
May 17, 1989 Meeting
Page Two
does not have a curb cut, and since the City just installed new
granite curbing and sidewalks, he thought they would probably not
allow a curb cut for Lot 48, especially since Lot 17 has two of
them. He said one of the two will be blocked by the fence, and
then both uses will share the remaining cut. Coun. LaBarge pointed
out that the neighbors don't want another curb cut that close to
the bridge.
Miss Fallon was asked for her opinion, and she stated, "If indeed,
the contractor's yard use is abandoned on 17, they need a Finding
for the intensification on 48. If you grant that Finding, then the
Planning Board needs only to grant Site Plan Approval on 17, and
they automatically get their Building Permit. You must condition
your Finding on 48 that the use has been abandoned on 17, and I
would like to review your decision before it is filed."
Dr. Laband and Atty. Melnik then entered into a lengthy discussion
over Special Permit v. Finding, and the Chair cut them short,
saying, "Don't beat a dead horse. We said he needs a Finding and
that's what he's asking for." Dr. Laband then moved the Public
Hearing be closed. Mr. Weil seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.
Ch. Brandt then opened the Public Hearing on the Application of
James and Eugene Tacy for Site Plan Approval. He read the Legal
Notice as published twice in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, the
Application, a memorandum from the Planning Board and a letter from
the DPW.
Atty. Melnik stated, "No Special Permit is sought. A Construction
Supply Establishment is allowed by right. I want a Building Permit
or a Finding. The Building Permit has been revoked, and I need
some relief to get it reinstated. I suggest that this use is
allowed by right, and the other use on this parcel has been
abandoned. Give me a Finding on Lot 17 that the contractor's yard
use has been abandoned, and please order the Building Inspector to
reinstate the Building Permit." Ch. Brandt's response was, "Until
we give you a Finding on 48, we will not instruct the Building
Inspector to reinstate the Building Permit on 17." Mr. Weil agreed
that "we have to act on 48 before we can act on 17."
There was no one else present in favor or in opposition. Miss
Fallon offered, "What you do on 48 determines what you do on 17.
You must deny the contractor's yard use on 17. If you give the
Finding on 48, they automatically get the Building Permit if
there's Site Plan Approval."
Ch. Brandt said he was not ready to decide tonight because he
wanted to look at the curb cuts. Dr. Laband inquired if the
proximity of the Mill River created any Conservation Commission
%.r .../
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
May 17, 1989 Meeting
Page Three
issues, and was told that it did, and they were in the process of
resolution. Dr. Laband said that "we should put a condition on the
Finding that, before a building can be constructed, the Wetlands
Protection Act must be complied with. There was some discussion
about a disagreement whether Lot 17 was in the flood plain at all,
Mr. Tacy saying he had a letter from the ConsComm a couple of years
ago stating that they had no jurisdiction over the building. It
was generally agreed that a condition should be attached requiring
compliance with any ConsComm rulings.
Dr. Laband moved the Public Hearing be closed. Mr. Weil seconded,
and the motion passed unanimously.
Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci,
Board Secretary.
William Brandt, Chairman
NWW
1.00
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS
Patrick T. Gleason, Esq.
City Solicitor
Kathleen G. Fallon, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
Nancy Duseau, Chairman
Northampton Planning Board
City Hall
Northampton, MA. 01060
Re: Claim of Constructive Grant
Tacy site plan review
Dear Nancy:
May 17, 1989
I understand that Attorney Melnik, on behalf of his clients,
James and Eugene Tacy, is claiming that, because the Planning
Board failed to act on his application for site plan review
within thirty five days, there was a constructive approval.
The application in question was ambiguous in the extreme. It
appeared to request a building permit for a construction supply
establishment, site plan approval, and, possibly, a finding under
Sections 9.3(B) and 9.3(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Obviously
the request for a building permit is inappropriate since only the
Building Inspector can issue that permit. The request for a
finding under Section 9.3(B) is applicable only if (1) the Tacys
intend to continue the current non - conforming use of a
contractor's yard on that site or (2) the Tacys intend to abandon
the use on this parcel but the ZBA does not grant a finding
allowing the non - conforming use to be moved in its entirety to
the adjacent lot.
The request for site plan approval was apparently added on at the
last minute. The application fails to indicate whether this is a
major or intermediate project. To qualify as an intermediate
project, the building as proposed must have less than five
thousand square feet of gross floor area and require only nine or
fewer parking places. For a intermediate project not requiring a
special permit, the Planning Board must act on the site plan
within thirty five days or there is a constructive approval.
Attorney Melnik is claiming this has occurred. However, it
CITY HALL
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
586.6950
Nom.
Nancy Duseau, Chairman
Northampton Planning Board
appears to me that
intermediate, project
Page 2
this application
1.00
May 17, 1989
is a major, not an
for the following reasons.
First, the use proposed for the building is a construction supply
establishment. This use contemplates both retail and wholesale
activity. Under Section 8.1, the Table of Off - Street Parking
Regulations, one parking space would be required for each three
hundred square feet of gross floor area. Therefore, at least
twelve parking spaces are required, making this a major project.
Second, the applicants have indicated that there will be a
mezzanine in this building. The gross floor area without the
mezzanine is 3,600 square feet. With the additional area on the
mezzanine, this project may well exceed 5,000 square feet of
gross floor area. However, the applicant has not submitted
sufficient information on which a determination can be made.
As a major project, this application requires a public
hearing under Section 10.11(3)(C). This time limits applicable
to special permits are also applicable here. Thus, those time
limits have not yet been exceeded; so there is no constructive
approval of the site plan. It is my understanding that a public
hearing on the site plan is scheduled before the Planning Board
on May 25, 1989. I would recommend that the Board carry through
with that hearing.
Very tr yours,
thlee� G. Fallon
KGF /ss
..POI
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Northampton Planning Board
SUBJECT: James & Eugene Tacy, Site Plan Review
DATE: May 15, 1989
FILE:
The Planning Board reviewed this application at its May 11th
meeting. Since this requires Site Plan Approval only, there being
no other requests for zoning relief for this particular parcel the
Planning Board has jurisdiction, and has set a Public Hearing for
May 25th. This was never a ZBA issue, and tonight's Public Hearing
should not have been scheduled.
`%. _4W/
Northampton Planning Board
May 11, 1989 Meeting
Page Two
&p4mi;on %Oe%piss F ' lom
pas nimous ly .
The Board then moved to two related Applications; one, from Tacy
Construction Co., Inc. to continue to use Parcel 48 at 175 Main
St., Leeds for the open storage of contractors' equipment, and one
from James and Eugene Tacy, to be allowed to construct a 60' x 60'
Construction Supply Establishment on Parcel 17 at 175 Main St.,
Leeds. Parcel 17 will be hereafter referred to as the Northerly
parcel, and Parcel 48 the Southerly parcel. Atty. Patrick Melnik
appeared for the Applicants. In the past, the Tacy family has
operated a "contractors' yard" on both parcels, which were formerly
one parcel. The single parcel has now been divided, with different
entities owning the divided parcels. Tacy Construction Co., Inc.
wants to concentrate the use that was on both parcels, onto Parcel
48, and seeks a Finding that such concentration will not be
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-
existing, nonconforming use. Coun. Labarge told the Board that the
Tacys had signed an agreement, after negotiating with neighbors,
to provide for a 6' stockade fence, plantings, and a single
existing curb cut to serve both lots. Mr. Smith asked what the
size of the new lot is, and was told it is 1.37 acres, including
the river. Mr. Melnik pointed out that this lot will be used and
occupied just as both lots had been used in the past - -this is
merely a concentration of activity on the Southerly lot. Mr. Smith
pointed out that a Special Permit from the Planning Board is
necessary for the common driveway scheme. After some discussion,
Dr. Beauregard moved that the Board recommend to the ZBA that the
proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the former use. Mr. Smith suggested that
evergreen shrubbery be planted at the top of the riverbank, and Dr.
Beauregard stipulated that the "neighborhood agreement" be
followed. Dr. Arnould seconded. The motion failed 3 -4
(Beauregard, Cahillane and Duseau in favor). Mr. Holeva then moved
to recommend approval, subject to the "neighborhood agreement," and
further conditioned on the Applicant's supplying to the ZBA, Board
of Health and Fire Department, a list of materials /equipment that
is to be stored on the lot, that the parameters of the storage area
be shown on a site plan, and evergreens be planted 30' from the
road along the top of the riverbank. Dr. Arnould seconded, and the
motion passed 4 -3, with Cahillane, Beauregard and Duseau voting
against.
The Application of James and Eugene Tacy for Site Plan Approval was
then discussed. Mr. Melnik asked for permission to construct the
proposed 60' x 60' building, for which the foundation has already
been poured, because of the issuance of a Foundation Permit by a
former Building Inspector. Mr. Melnik said he felt that Site Plan
Approval had been granted by default, since the Board did not act
on the request for approval within the 35 day period cited in the
. Y
Northampton Planning Board
May 11, 1989 Meeting
Page Three
ordinance. Mr. Smith read Miss Fallon's memorandum, and questioned
Mr. Melnik's assertion of "approval by default" based on what he
termed "an incomplete Application." He said he did not want to
allow approval by default, and Ch. Duseau, Mr. Gare and Mr. Holeva
all felt that there was not enough information in the Application
before the Board to do a proper site plan review. At Mr. Gare's
request, Mr. Smith gave "three minutes of history" on the
convoluted history of this site, and enlarged on Miss Fallon's
point that the contractors' yard use must be completely removed
from Parcel 17, and be located entirely and exclusively on Parcel
48. Ch. Duseau felt that elevations, details of lot surfacing,
signage, and the 100 -Year Flood plan be made clear.
Mr. Melnik reiterated his stand that approval had been granted by
default after 35 days had elapsed from the filing date. Dr.
Beauregard and Mr. Gare supported him. Mr. Smith queried Dr.
Beauregard and Mr. Gare, saying, "If you are satisfied that this
is an intermediate project, based on the application itself, not
the oral presentation just heard, then approval has been granted
by default. He reminded the Board that Applications are processed
based on what's on the Application
Mr. Crystal asked Mr. Melnik if he would be willing to come back
and submit a proper site plan. Mr. Melnik replied that he "would
have to discuss that with Gene." Mr. Smith stated that Site Plan
approval is all that's needed, and it is the Planning Board's
jurisdiction, not the Zoning Board. He added, "Once you remove the
contractors' yard use from the left -hand lot, you can build with
site plan approval." Mr. Melnik responded that "Gene will kick
Warner Brothers off the lot so he can build." Mr. Crystal repeated
his question about the Applicant coming back with a proper site
plan, and Mr. Melnik replied, "If the Board so votes, I will. If
you vote that I don't have it by default, then I ask for a two -week
continuance so Gene can get more detail." Dr. Arnould then moved
"that, due to the quality of the clarity of the Application, it is
our finding that it's not clear that they have approval by default,
and the hearing be continued for two weeks." Mr. Crystal seconded.
Mr. Smith suggested that Miss Fallon's opinion be sought on the
merits of Mr. Melnik 's claim of "granted by default," and felt that
the Board should point out the deficiencies in the Application.
Coun. Labarge asked permission to speak, Mr. Cahillane so moved,
Dr. Beauregard seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Mr.
Labarge pointed out that he has "represented 32 objectors to this
project all along. We all met at the site with Melnik and Mrs.
McCarthy. All these people are willing to support this project- -
I don't think that the site plan is that big an issue. Mrs.
McCarthy and the priest have agreed on the fence and screening.
We agreed Friday night that Tacy has to go before the ConsComm and
would comply with their wishes, and then to the ZBA on May 17 and
`%u.. -..i
Northampton Planning Board
May 11, 1989 Meeting
Page Four
comply with their wishes. The neighborhood has accepted this
project." Mr. Melnik agreed that "There is a signed agreement.
The Tacys have agreed to give the ZBA the right to place conditions
on both lots." Dr. Arnould asked Mr. Smith to list the
deficiencies with the site plan as presented. The information
needed is 1) elevations, 2) 100 -year flood plan, 3) proposed
surfacing, 4) drainage runoff, 5) services (utilities) to the
structure, 6) landscaping /buffer, 7) signs, and 8) a traffic impact
study. Dr. Arnould pointed out that the intent of his motion was
not to "block the project - -it's nothing hostile, just let the
normal process happen. The Application is obscure; we need all the
information we can get." The motion passed 4 -3 (Cahillane, Duseau
and Gare.) Mr. Melnik complained that the motion does not answer
the question, "Do I have approval by default ?" Dr. Beauregard
moved that Miss Fallon be asked for her opinion, Mr. Cahillane
seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
ea to zne appiicazion yr
Permit and Finding that would allow him to convert a one- m
efficiency apartment to miscellaneous professional office a in
a building he owns at 54 Old South Street. He des ed the
building as having three apartments on the first floo he one at
the left front being a one -room efficiency. It i 0 SF, and he
wants to convert it to a professional office. H id, "There will
be little or no visible change to the buildin We have plenty of
frontage. The current use creates a nonconf ity (four apartments
require 22,000 SF -we have 15,000 SF). C ing to mixed -use drops
the SF requirement to 10,000 SF, and no a conform. All setbacks,
building coverage and open space re ' ements are met." Mr.Holeva,
a site inspector, was concerned out parking. Mr. Rosenberg
pointed out that now, eight spac are required. With the change,
only seven will be needed. M oleva moved to grant the Finding.
Mr. Gare seconded. A woman the audience asked to be heard, and
it was moved, seconded an oted unanimously to let her speak. She
identified herself as ' vonne Boucher, a direct abutter of a
Rosenberg -owned parc at 175 Jackson Street, who said that Mr.
Rosenberg got a Sp al Permit in the Fall of 1987 to convert a
house o/w
eet from one - family to two - family. She pointed
out thplanted an evergreen barrier between his house
and hes a condition of the ZBA's grant of the Permit,
and was r units, instead of just the two he was allowed.
She had tten complaint with the Building Inspector, and
that wt to all the members as well as a D. H. Jones
Realty " describing the property.
The was some discussion about the need for a Finding. Mr.
Cr tal felt that one was needed, and Mr. Smith ended up agreeing
h him. On Mr. Holeva's motion to grant the Finding, the vote
as 3-
rnould and Beauregard and Cahillane opposed, Crystal
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
g'� a DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
125 Locust Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Paul O. Had 413 -582 -1570
Director of Public Works May 10, 1989
Peter J. McNulty, Sr.
Assistant Director of Public Works
ow ' rl
II f
Robert Buscher, Chairman U �
Zoning Board of Appeals
City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
Ref: Site Plan Review - Tacy in Leeds
Dear Mr. Buscher:
Our office has reviewed the "Site Plan Review" application of the
Tacy Construction Company. The utility information supplied on the plan
is insufficient. Therefore a proper review is not possible.
You uly,
Paul 0. Hadsel,
Director of Public Works
POH /GA /k
cc: Nancy Duseau, Planning Board
i
CNEN
CITY of NORTHAMPTON
TO: Kathleen Fallon
FROM: Bob Pascucci
../
OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Two Applications relative to 175 Main Street, Leeds
DATE: May 2, 1989
FILE:
Attached is an Application from Tacy Construction Company,
Inc. for a Special Permit and Finding on the "right -hand parcel,"
and an Application from James and Eugene Tacy "for a Building
Permit and Site Plan Review" for the Construction Supply
Establishment they propose to build on "the left -hand parcel."
Is this their attempt to do what the City has been urging
them to do in order to allow the requested uses?
These Applications will be reviewed at the May 11 meeting of
the Planning Board, and Public Hearings will be on May 17 before
the ZBA. Mr. Brandt will replace Bob Buscher as Chair for these
hearings, and he has asked me to invite you to be present.
Do you have any advice or direction to offer the Boards?
(�A� ____
`..
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950
• Community and Economic Development
• Conservation* Historic Preservation
• Planning Board* Zoning Board of Appeals
March 20, 1989
James Tacy and Eugene Tacy
32 Lake Street
Florence, MA 01060
ZMMWII
Your Application for a Building Permit under Section 5.2, Page 5-
12 (3) and a Finding under Section 9.3 which has been submitted to
the Zoning Board of Appeals, will be reviewed for recommendation
by the NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD when it meets May 11, 1989 at
7:00 p. m.in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal
Building (the building behind City Hall). You and /or your
representative are invited to attend this meeting to discuss the
merits of your application. This meeting is informal, and the vote
of the Planning Board to recommend Approval or Denial of your
request is NOT binding on the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Approximately two weeks before you are scheduled to attend the
Public Hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals, a Legal Notice
announcing the meeting will be published in the Daily Hampshire
Gazette. You, and all the abutters you listed in your Application,
will receive a copy of this Notice in the mail.
If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Planning
and Development, Room 11 in City Hall, Telephone 586 -6950,
Extension 262.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Pascucci
Board Secretary
cc Atty. P. J. Melnik
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON` -
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Zoning Ordinance Section 10.2
Owner James Tacy and Eugene Tack
Address 32 Lake Street — Northampton, MA
Telepho 584 -6637
No. inn I Lot
Plan File
Address 32 Lake Street — Northampton, MA
Telephone 584 -6637
This section is to be filled out in accordance with the "Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations:
(Z.O. ARTICLE VI)
Zoning
District S . I
Use
Lot
Area
Front
Width
Depth
Setbacks
Max. Bid.
Cover
Min. Op.
Space
Front
Side
Rear
Past
Existing None
40, 770
120
250
150
30
30
10 %
90 %
Present
Construction
ProposedSu 1
0 7 0
- s .
2 50
'
.120
150
3
30
10 %
90 %
Mark the appropriate box to indicate the use of the parcel:
❑ Non - Conforming Lot and /or Structure. Specify
❑ Residential ❑Single Family Unit ❑Multi - Family
❑ Duplex ❑ Other
CXBusiness — Construction Supply Establishment
❑ Individual
• Institutional
• Subdivision ❑Regular ❑ P.U.D.
❑ Cluster ❑ Other
❑ Subdivision with "Approval- Not - Required " - Stamp:
❑ Planning Board Approval:
❑ Zoning Board Approval (Special Permit 10.9: Variance) Proposed structur
❑ City Council (Special Exception S. 10.10) is not in the water protectiondistnict overl
Watershed Protection District Overlay: (Z.O. Sect. XIV) ❑ Yes M No
Parking Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.1) Required 12 Proposed 12
Loading Space Requirements: (Z.O. Sect. 8.2) Required 1 Proposed
Signs: (Z.O. Art. VII) ❑ Yes KI No
Environmental Performance Standards: (Z.O. Art. XI 1) ❑ Yes KI No
Plot Plan
(S.10.2)
JAI Yes ❑ No
This section for OFFICIAL use only:
❑ Approval as presented:
p Modifications necessary for approval:
❑ Return: (More information needed)
Denial: Reason �
Site Plan M Yes ❑ No
(S. 10.2 and 10.11
Waiver Granted: Date ❑
t
12/6/88
of Applicant " J. Mel Date Signature of Admin. Officer Da e
Attorney for the Applicant
r
Application Number:
Do Not Write Ir'i'
Map(s)
Parcels)
Reed. B.I. Che Filed Fee Pd. Recd. ZBA
B M
0.i i.d €
E TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
1. Name of Applicant James Tacy and Eugene Tacy
a e ree - ort ampton,
Address
2. Owner of Property James Tacy and Eugene Tacy
Address
3. Applicant is: [XOwner; ❑Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession.
4. Application is made for:
❑ VARIANCE from the provisions of Section page
of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Northampton.
OSPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance
of th City o ff North V a mi
e $uVA Nor e mi l for Construction Supply Establishment under
)(70THER:Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance.*(Continued on bottom)
/3Z fa ► T 1 D (►l .o �oP P�' DIAL
175 Main Street - Leeds, MA , being situated on
5. Loc t ast of Property a in treet Street;
the- shown on the Assessors' Maps,
side of
Sheet No. ,Parcel (s)
6.
Zone S.I.
and/or use A- licant ro oses to construct a building
-- >,�� bi' hment which is a use allowed b ri ht.
7. D tor ip Constru tion
e
c
work
Supi
orm:
0
� is
and all siz an set ac requirement o the
zonnn or finance wi e met.
8. (a) Sketch plan attached; CKYes O No
(b) Site plan: INAttched ONot Required
The use is a use allo by right.
9. S i forth reaspns upon which application is based:
he lot is a conorming lot. All 2dning requirements will be met any
adhered t o A building permit for the fou ndation was r vi
the 11 of t nrl iax:Ant L
and will be less aetriment d-L t_tL 1 f 1 1
will improve the area.
10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form). -
12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my Paowiedg Melnik, Esq.
December 6 1988 Attorne for the Applicant
Date A pplicant's Signature ing . - or amp on, MA 11
In the alternative, Request for a Finding under Section 9.3B or Section 9.1c
of the Zoning urdirance to allow for Lonstruct?cr 5uppiy r.staDtishment as
Page 5-
questeu., _.._ ..
11
Assessor's Map
3.
Massachusetts Electric
Route 9, Haydenville
10B -100
4
Helen A. McCarthy
183 -185 Main St., Leeds
106-
.;.�
5
Clarence L. Chatfield
Main St., Leeds
10D
6
James P. Doppman
167 Main St., Leeds
10D-19
Sena R. Lococco
7
Joseph S. Lococco
163 Main St., Leeds
IOD-20
8. City of Northampton
9 James & Kathleen Elliot 39 Florence St. Leeds 10D-23
10 Heirs of Nora Steidler 41 Florence St. Leeds IOD-24
11 Russell J. Myette 182 Main St., Leeds 10D-33
12 Tacy Construction Co., Inc. 175 Main St., Leeds IOD -48
13.
14.
15.
16.
17
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
(Attach additional sheets, If necessary)
2 . -Catholic Bishop of Springfield 195 Main St., Leeds 10B
18.
r...
� HoUSE
its r
� 2
4
6.VALY[
W. YALVE •
L
+ "'&ArEL L/AAE 7'9
N
8 "G1ArE,C L/NE
Q
� ' r
♦ M
D
1
J�
aPp SED
' /
Cvw, s1w,
L
0
� -nl-�
' C
-MO
H,aI*N A.
LA
.57`LOL —GAf u -
JfG1Et L/A/E
N L.�CAN /Tf CU"D
FU
�r
.► 0 _.N'�
�.
��d �`h• S h�'i Yl� �J 7
l oi p le-5
�0., a�a
/�c7 C,8a7taN SNo�,) Yl�� /ITT
S all
-PL a�
'� eN•e�.tio.� y1..�e a -t S
- � (r3,,tFoa st y1
-- T�,CS C>r[ -- t&o c s L--6 ou+QaC
%t ek. C-L's - 6d - we R l e-S
icy 600 *v � / Y/ /-Y/ 67
CX�eY 1
W �R -M'Zr I o t a
SAf V /16/ 87
"Ne s -f cwr S
N
HDUSE
33Z G
Z" STEE 6A S UA/f 7
r & VALVE W. Atve
o. W JfG1fl LIAlf
LA tE t LWE
N lr£ Co
- "WAlM L1N r
r
TCr EXGAYAW v6
C6mirtue-ram Ca
W ArE � Sr �EE1
RILL
i
on
r"
N
n
N
lh
N
2
Z
oc
m
o
lob
Z
-ty f 7 .
N 4 /*.4 LO
HEC£,v A
lKL CA,CTHY MEY-ID1aN of PcAU aoac i18
PA66 dB
1
ry 74-
t b
�I
YJrL/iI
• A[EA fR•' , -
` 3w ilt 33/
r0AoW A7
s���VAtt Z aPa SED �h
a0 /L /Alec,- ti
Lal b/A/6 f
mmod
AjgA
o Awl '
PAS
f I
• - ,�� ��� � TLS`
COO"
TXAff /C EST /ht4;re
LaCUS : L UGEAJE Q. TACY t
• JAMES J. TA[.Y
SEE = Boa Mal PAGE Z43
PLAm Bo 149 /3rse 88
LEGEND
� IJNMa!IUMEAlTED 1'bIA/T
0 ACOAI PIAI
-cr u ric rY 16 E
-6- AM C Nl
• 3 /GAJ
)b r
—`—'— W OOD L IL f6VCG lro BE IM M"
--- &1 /L D /AJG SE7MCX LJA16
w oa D S To C-k ADE f�AlCE
ro m E,CEc r n 1. , yiGN )
ilataSfa p ast! r
S CE TCN Of L AA/D IN FIELD WORK: Lla y
A1&j ;rj1,4AA P T,6 AL/ 1 M A SSAc N u S E T TS COMPUTATIONS: a
(X THE VII-LA6 DF LEEI)3) DRAFTING: f 3. 14
?ZC,DA,C AOX CHECK E0: L • �• N.
�E A 7-A(- Y SCE LE: / ' = 46
HUGE
DATE: JUJUE 8, 1989
ALMER HUNTLEY, JR. t ASSOCIATES, INC.
SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
30 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE EAST
NORTHAMPTON, MASS.
JOB N /96 - d 4Z -,8 I SM EET; OF: l
Digitized _ S -
Checked - ��
ZaAulu CA - moue B /3 1op - •
Of SPX1A/6f1,61- b
A Alit! s T