Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Permit Withdrawal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee allows withdrawal without prejudice in Cruise Control towing permit dispute
Summary
The Chicopee Zoning Committee granted Cruise Control Transportation’s request to withdraw a special-permit appeal without prejudice, allowing a Land Court action to determine whether the towing and storage use at 78 West St. is a legally preexisting nonconforming use.
The Chicopee City Council Zoning Committee voted Feb. 25 to allow Cruise Control Transportation to withdraw a special-permit matter for a towing and storage business at 78 West St. Attorney Tom Reidy said he filed a letter requesting withdrawal without prejudice and that his client has asked the Land Court to decide whether the use is a lawful, preexisting nonconforming use.
If the Land Court finds a special permit is required, Reidy said, the applicant would need to pursue the special-permit process; if it finds the use is lawfully preexisting, no special permit would be necessary. Reidy also said his office was not involved with the original application.
Why it matters: The committee’s decision shifts the dispute from local permitting to a judicial determination, which will decide whether the zoning ordinance or a longstanding use governs the site’s legality. Allowing withdrawal without prejudice means the applicant can return to the local process if the court requires it.
The committee handled the procedural motion after returning from an executive session on litigation strategy. Councilor Joel McAuliffe moved to allow the withdrawal without prejudice and Councilor George Balakier seconded. A roll-call vote recorded all five members present voting in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
There was limited on-the-record discussion of the applicant’s operations. Reidy told the committee that the use has existed at the site since at least the 1970s and that parcels were combined in 1996, which factors into whether the activity is a preexisting nonconforming use. Councilors asked whether the business was currently operating and whether it had a business certificate; Reidy said he did not know those details.
The committee’s action was procedural: it does not resolve the underlying question of whether a special permit is legally required. The Land Court proceeding is now the primary vehicle for that determination; depending on the court’s outcome, the applicant may need to apply for a special permit before the city or may be able to continue as a preexisting nonconforming use.
