Village Hill MEPA Certificate 2001 ENF and 2003 FEIR0
D
u
0
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs ■ MEPA Office
I~
Environmental
Notification Form
ENF
For Office Use Only
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
EOEA No.:11047R
MEPA Analyst:
Phone: 617-626-
The information requested on this form must be completed to begin MEPA Review in accordance with
+hc nrrwiclnns of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00.
Project Name: The Village at Hospital Hill
Street: Route 66 (Chapel Street/West Street/Earle Street)
Municipality: Northampton
Watershed: Connecticut
Universal Tranverse Mercator Coordinates:
Latitude: 420 18'40" West
4687000.886 northing, 693927.556 easting
Longitude: 720 38'49" North
Estimated commencement date: 2002
Estimated completion date: 2016
Approximate cost: TBD
Status of project design: 10 %complete
Proponent 1: MassDevelopment
Proponent 2: The Community Builders, Inc.
Street: 75 Federal Street
Street: 322 Main Street
Municipality: Boston, MA 02110
Municipality: Springfield, MA 01105-2408
Name of Contact Person From Whom Copies
of this ENF May Be Obtained:
Stacy Erickson
Firm/Agency: Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Street: 150 Main Street, P.O. Box 700
Municipality: Maynard
State: MA Zip Code: 01754-0700
Phone: (978) 897-7100 Fax: (978) 897-0099 E-mail:
serickson@epsilonassociates.com
Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
®Yes ❑No
Has this project been filed with MEPA before?
®Yes (EOEA No. 11047 ) ❑No
J
Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before?
®Yes (EOEA No. 11047 ) ❑No
Is this an Expanded ENF (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) requesting:
a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) ❑Yes ®No
a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09) ®Yes ❑No
a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes ®No
a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes ®No
Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an agency of the Commonwealth, including the
agency name and the amount of funding or land area (in acres):
Chapter 132 of the Acts of 1993, as amended by Chapter 68 of the Acts of 1994, appropriated $5 million for
the selected demolition, asbestos and hazardous waste removal and abatement, if necessary, as well as for
planning, marketing, surveying, site evaluation and site preparation. DCPO has already spent approximately
$1.4 million of this appropriation on maintenance and remediation of the property. The remaining $3.6
million was granted to MassDevelopment in 2001. DCAM also granted MassDevelopment an additional $2.1
million earmarked for asbestos remediation at surplus state property. Other sources of state and federal
funding will be sought as development proceeds.
t nroo r,___.,+ .,o.-;,.A t;,,,;ro.t V- ;.,f,,,-,,,.,r;,,., ,..,n t ~~i t rnn
r
I
0
0
0
La
J
Are you requesting coordinated review with any other federal, state, regional, or local agency?
❑Yes(Specify ) ®No
List Local or Federal Permits and Approvals:
Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval; Site Plan Approval; Special Permit; Demolition, Renovation and/or
Building Permit; NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit; Dept. of Public Works Access, Trench, Sewer
Entrance, Water Entrance,and Backflow Prevention Permits; Pre-Asbestos Removal Notice
Which ENF or EIR review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03):
® Land
❑ Rare Species
❑ Water
❑ Wastewater
❑ Energy
❑ Air
n ACEC
❑ Regulations
❑ Wetlands, Waterways, & Tidelands
® Transportation
❑ Solid & Hazardous Waste
❑ Historical & Archaeological Resources
Summary of Project Size Existing Change
& Environmental Impacts
Total
Total site acreage 124
New acres of land altered Approx. 16
Acres of impervious area 18.4 11.6' 30
Square feet of new bordering
vegetated wetlands alteration °
Square feet of new other
wetland alteration °
Acres of new non-water
dependent use of tidelands or °
waterways
Gross square footage
880,000
339,300/ 1842,500
503,2002
Number of housing units
Maximum height (in feet)
Vehicle trips per day
Parking spaces
°3
5 stories
Negligible
None in use
Gallons/day (GPD) of water use °
GPD water withdrawal °
GPD wastewater generation/ 0
treatment
Length of water/sewer mains - 0.3 water
(in miles) -0.1 sewer
109/984 207
0 5 stories
3,165/ 7,890
4 7254
State Permits &
Approvals
® Order of Conditions
❑ Superseding Order of
Conditions
❑ Chapter 91 License
❑ 401 Water Quality
Certification
0 MHD or MDC Access
Permit
❑ Water Management
Act Permit
❑ New Source Approval
® DEP or MWRA
Sewer Connection/
Extension Permit
® Other Permits
(including Legislative
Approvals) - Specify:
DEP Air Quality Control
Notification Prior to
Construction or Demolition
Beneficial Use
Determination
'
1. Net change
Approx 300
Approx 610
2. Reuse or new construction total:
Zoo
m
Phase I/ Build-out (beyond Phase 0.
Excludes 75,000 s.f. for assisted
43,300/TBDs
43,300/TBDS
living.
0
0
3. NSH at peak housed > 500 staff
and >2,000 patients.
43,300/TBD5
43,300/TBDs
4. Phase I/ Build-out.
0/TBDs
TB DS
5. Build-out water /wastewater and
utility issues will be evaluated in
the EIR.
~I
CONSERVATION LAND: Will the project involve the conversion of public parkland or other Article 97 public natural
resources to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97?
❑Yes (Specify ) ZNo
Will it involve the release of any conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation
restriction, or watershed preservation restriction?
❑Yes (Specify ) ®No
RARE SPECIES: Does the project site include Estimated Habitat of Rare Species, Vernal Pools, Priority Sites of
Rare Species, or Exemplary Natural Communities?
DIL ®Yes (Specify ) ❑No
The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program has mapped portions of the northern and southern sections of
the site as Estimated/Priority Habitat of Rare Species. According to NHESP, the Dwarf Wedgemessel (endangered),
the Squawfoot mussel (special concern) and the Eastern Pondmussel (special concern) are known to occur in the Mill
River. While the northern edge of the project site abuts the Mill River, there will be a Conservation Restriction and
right-of-way for recreational purposes along the portion of the site adjacent to the Mill River. In addition, the Zebra
l J Clubtail dragonfly (endangered) and the Brook Snaketail dragonfly (special concern) are known to occur in the area.
l J The September 17, 2001 NHESP letter is included as Attachment 3.
HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed
in the State Register of Historic Place or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth?
l-J ®Yes (Specify: Northampton State Hospital ) ❑No
The Northampton State Hospital campus was accepted for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic
Places in 1994.
1 If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or
archaeological resources?
I 1 ®Yes (Specify ) ❑No
U Per the 1995 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed between the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)
and DCPO, some of the existing structures may be demolished as part of the development process. Seven buildings
are slated for removal during Phase I activities, of which five are contributing structures to the NSH Historic District.
In addition, six contributing structures are proposed for rehabilitation in Phase I. A reuse study of the former Main
Building will be undertaken as part of the EIR process. See Attachment 4 for a copy of the MCA. See Appendix B for
additional discussion regarding historic resources.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: Is the project in or adjacent to an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern?
❑Yes (Specify ) ®No
L" PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project description should include (a) a description of the project site,
(b) a description of both on-site and off-site alternatives and the impacts associated with each
IJ alternative, and (c) potential on-site and off-site mitigation measures for each alternative (You may attach
one additional page, if necessary.)
The proposed project is the redevelopment of a portion of the former Northampton State Hospital (NSH), which
now includes approximately SO buildings on 124 acres of land on both sides of Prince Street (Route 66) in
Northampton, MA, west of the downtown area. The redevelopment effort is a public/private partnership, with
public sector participation by MassDevelopment, and private participation by The Community Builders, Inc.
(TCB).
From its inception in the 1850s until the last patients departed in 1993, NSH was a major treatment center for the
mentally ill. At its peak, the campus consisted of 538 acres of land and approximately 970,000 s.f. of building,
housed approximately 2,000 patients, and employed some 500 persons. Since the closure of the facility, the City
of Northampton and the Commonwealth have sought to determine how the site and its buildings might be
reused. The campus/complex is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
Through legislative initiative (Chapter 86 of 1994), reuse planning proceeded, with the establishment of a
Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), evaluation of historic issues, implementation of site cleanup requirements,
and master planning. In 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was entered into with the Massachusetts
Historical Commission, providing for a sequenced evaluation of reuse opportunities prior to any demolitions
taking place.
Opportunities for the conveyance of peripheral lands to be used for agricultural, recreational, conservation,
affordable housing, and municipal purposes were identified, and a process for the transfer of the remaining land
l (126 acres) and approximately 880,000 s.f. of building space to a private developer or developers was laid out by
the Massachusetts Division of Capital Planning and Operations (DCPO), then the owner of the facility. In 1997,
an ENF was filed for the implementation of the above program.
The 1997 ENF requested a waiver of certain MEPA requirements to permit the transfer of parcels to the public for
purposes as described above. As part of the waiver, DCPO agreed that, following designation of a developer for
the remaining hospital campus and buildings, the developer would return to MEPA for the scoping of an EIR and
l completion of MEPA review on the redevelopment.
Since 1997, redevelopment planning has proceeded. In response to a Request for Proposals, a redevelopment
team led by TCB was designated. Working with the CAC, City of Northampton, and state officials, TCB
~J developed a Master Plan that has been accepted as the basis for redevelopment of the hospital. The Master Plan
J envisions a full build-out of approximately 551,000 s.f. of mixed-use commercial space, comprising a mix of retail,
office, light industrial, and research & developmentlmulti media space as well as space for live-work studios, a
child care center, a possible community center/ museum area and the development of a 60-80 unit assisted living
facility for seniors. The Master Plan also includes 207 residential units, 100 of which would be single-family
homes and 107 of which would be mixed income rental housing. Fifty percent of the residential units will be
designated as affordable.
U In view of the size and complexity of the site, the Master Plan contemplates that build-out will occur over a
period of years. Redevelopment will proceed incrementally, with infrastructural needs being met in pace with the
growth of demand. Front-end costs (remediation, utilities, selective demolition) will require use of public funding
l 1 as available. MassDevelopment, which is structured to facilitate state support of redevelopment undertakings,
l 1 has assumed responsibility for the site from the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management (successor to
DCPO), which has a more generalized set of responsibilities for all state-owned land.
in order to move the redevelopment out of the planning process and into the funding and implementation stage,
MassDevelopment and TCB, working with Northampton and the CAC, planned a first phase of the project
including 109 dwelling units and up to 152,000 s.f. of commercial space (86,000 s.f. of general office, 47,000 s.f.
of light industrial, and 19,000 s.f. of specialty retail). It was felt that this level of development was an appropriate
target, taking into consideration lead time for funding cycles, necessary infrastructure improvements, and market
acceptance.
MassDevelopment and TCB request the establishment by MEPA of a Special Review Procedure, under which the
impacts and mitigation for Phase 1 may be addressed in a Phase I Report, after which Phase 1 would be permitted
to proceed. The impacts of the build-out of the project will then be evaluated in a Draft EIR and Final EIR. Under
'I the Special Review Procedure, the proponents ask that the CAC, a well-informed and dedicated group, be
U adopted for MEPA purposes. Concurrently, the proponents recommend that the CAC be expanded to include
U three residents of neighborhoods potentially affected by the project; the City will forward nominations for
consideration by the Secretary. On October 9, 2001, the proponents briefed the CAC on the project approach
l and the attached Traffic Impact and Assessment Study (Appendix Q. Following the briefing, the CAC voted to
J endorse the filing of this ENF and the proposed Special Review Procedure.
~J
More detail on the project is provided in Appendix A, Project Description.
0
i
_a -
I
j LAND SECTION - all proponents must fill out this section
1. Thresholds/ Permits
A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1)
X Yes _ No; if yes, specify each threshold:
Creation of five or more acres of impervious area [301 CMR 11.03(1)(b)2].
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows:
Existing Change Total
Footprint of buildings 7.6 2.2* 9.8
1
-
Roadways, parking, and other paved areas 10.8 9.4* 20.2
J
Other altered areas 6.3 8.5* 14.8
Undeveloped areas 99.3 20.1 * 79.2
Net change
B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last three years?
1
_ Yes X No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with agricultural soils) will be
converted to nonagricultural use?
~
Perimeter properties were conveyed out for agricultural use following the 1997 ENF review.
n
C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use?
l J
Yes X No; if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and indicate
-
whether any part of the site is the subject of a DEM-approved forest management plan:
d
D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in
U
accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to any
purpose not in accordance with Article 97? - Yes _X No; if yes, describe:
E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation
restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction? - Yes _X
No; if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction? _ Yes. _ No;
IL
if yes, describe:
F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental change
L in an existing urban redevelopment project under M.G.L.c.121A? _ Yes _X No; if yes, describe:
L G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an
existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121 B? Yes - No _X ; if yes, describe:
1 H. Describe the project's stormwater impacts and, if applicable, measures that the project will take to
comply with the standards found in DEP's Stormwater Management Policy:
1 All redevelopment will be accomplished in compliance with the standards found in DEP's
Stormwater Management Policy. Drainage controls associated with redevelopment should be a
significant improvement over the current conditions.
1. Is the project site currently being regulated under M.G.L.c.21 E or the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan? Yes - No _X ; if yes, what is the Release Tracking Number (RTN)?
J. If the project is site is within the Chicopee or Nashua watershed, is it within the
Quabbin, Ware, or
_ Wachusett subwatershed? _ Yes X No; if yes, is the project site subject to regulation under the
1 Watershed Protection Act? _ Yes _ No Project is in Connecticut watershed
K. Describe the project's other impacts on land:
J
Impacts on land include typical grading, clearing and site development activities.
III.. Consistency
A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan and the open space plan and
describe the consistency of the project and its impacts with that plan(s):
In 1985, when the process of disposing of and redeveloping the Northampton State Hospital site
started in earnest, a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) was established. In part, the purpose of the
CAC was to ensure that the needs and desires of the surrounding community were an important
r piece of the process for any future reuse or redevelopment of the campus. Since that time, the
Commonwealth and the City of Northampton have undertaken a number of studies to assess the
redevelopment opportunities at the site.
On April 8, 1993, the Northampton Planning Board adopted the Northampton State Hospital Plan as
an element of the Northampton General Plan. The Northampton Planning Board initiated this study
to ensure that the reuse of the campus is consistent with the goals of the community.
In 1994, after the passage of legislation authorizing the disposition of the site, a new CAC was
convened which is made up of representatives from the Northampton Chamber of Commerce (two
seats), the Northampton Development Corporation, the Alliance for the Mentally 111 (two seats), the
Northampton Labor Council, the Northampton Housing Partnership, the Pioneer Valley Community
Development Corporation, the Hampshire Community Action Committee, the Department of Mental
U Health, the City Council Industry Committee, the Franklin/Hampshire County Private Industry
Council, and the Mayor of the City of Northampton. The CAC reviewed, approved, and had
considerable input into the RFP that was issued for the use and redevelopment of the site.
J In addition, the site is subject to zoning overlay districts that encourage a mix of commercial and
residential development and open space preservation. The overlay districts were the result of a two-
year process during which the Northampton Office of Planning and Development and the
Northampton Planning Board sponsored numerous public hearings and forums and collected input
from the Mayor's Office, City Councilors, City boards, the CAC, and from numerous residents. The
City is currently in the process of amending the zoning to create a new NSH zoning district. The
CAC voted unanimously (October 2001) to endorse the zoning amendments under consideration
that would support redevelopment of NSH.
71 B. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency and
U describe the consistency of the project and its impacts with that plan:
The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission's 1997 "Valley Vision" outlines regional goals and
objectives. The current project embodies many of those goals and objectives including discouraging
l suburban sprawl, protecting community character, promoting a balance of jobs and housing,
LJ encouraging mixed uses, redeveloping vacant and underutilized urban buildings and properties,
promoting adaptive reuse of historic buildings, promoting a diversity of housing types, balancing
-1 urban development with creation of parkland and open space, and directing development to areas
U served by infrastructure.
C. Will the project require any approvals under the local zoning by-law or ordinance (i.e. text or map
j- j amendment, special permit, or variance)? Yes _X No _ ; if yes, describe:
A Special Permit will be required for any construction in the area zoned as "Planned Village
District."
D. Will the project require local site plan or project impact review?
X Yes _ No; if yes, describe:
Site Plan Approval will be required for any construction in the "Planned Village District."
RARE SPECIES SECTION
1. Thresholds I Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see 301
CMR 11.03(2))? -Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
iJ
B. -Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? - Yes _X No
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wetlands, Waterways, and
Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
ecies section below.
of the Rare S
p
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts Natural
Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? _ Yes - No. If yes,
1. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat (contact:
Environmental Review, Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Route 135,
Westborough, MA 01581, allowing 30 days for receipt of information):
2. Have you surveyed the site for rare species? - Yes - No; if yes, please include the
results of your survey.
3. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received an
Order of Conditions for this project? _ Yes _ No; if yes, did you send a copy of the
Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in accordance
I
with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? _ Yes _ No
B. Will the project "take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in
accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _ Yes _ No; if yes, describe:
J
C. Will the project alter "significant habitat" as designated by the Massachusetts Division of
r.
Fisheries and Wildlife in accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.30)? _ Yes _
1
J
No; if yes, describe:
D. Describe the project's other impacts on rare species including indirect impacts (for example,
ecies or lighting impacts on rare moth
to contain rare s
d k
tl
n
p
nown
an
stormwater runoff into a we
u
habitat):
WETLANDS WATERWAYS AND TIDELANDS SECTION
1. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and
tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? _Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands,
waterways, or tidelands? X Yes _ No; if yes, specify which permit:
Full build-out may require an Order of Conditions for work in conjunction with roadway
1
improvements. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
J
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands, Waterways,
(1
and Tidelands Section below.
II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits
A. Describe any wetland resource areas currently existing on the project site and indicate them on
the site plan:
No wetlands are known to exist on-site. Work in conjunction with roadway improvements to Earle
Street may occur in a wetland buffer zone. Refer to Figure 12, Conceptual Improvement Plan,
1
included in Appendix C, Traffic Impacts and Assessment Study.
U
B. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and
indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent:
-7-
~ F1
-Coastal Wetlands Area (in square feet) or Length (in linear feet)
Land Under the Ocean 0
Designated Port Areas 0
Coastal Beaches 0
Coastal Dunes 0
Barrier Beaches 0
r
Coastal Banks 0
l l
Rocky Intertidal Shores 0
Salt Marshes 0
Land Under Salt Ponds 0
FJ
Land Containing Shellfish 0
Fish Runs 0
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 0
Inland Wetlands
Bank 0
n
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands 0
L~
Land under Water 0
Isolated Land Subject to Flooding 0
J
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 0
Riverfront Area 0
C. Is any part of the project
LI
1. a limited project? _Yes _X No
-
2. the construction or alteration of a dam? Yes X No; if yes, describe:
3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? _ Yes _X No
4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? _ Yes _X No; if yes, describe the volume
J
of dredged material and the proposed disposal site:
5. a discharge to Outstanding Resource Waters? _Yes _X No
6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? - Yes _X No; if yes, identify the area (in
square feet):
D. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection
I I
Act (M.G.L. c.131A)? X Yes _ No; if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed or a local Order of
Yes X No; if yes, list the date and DEP file number:
Conditions issued?
_
Was the Order of Conditions appealed? - Yes _ No. Will the project require a variance from
n
I~
the Wetlands regulations? _ Yes _X No.
E. Will the project:
r
1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? _X Yes _ No
J
2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state or local law?
Yes X No; if yes, what is the area (in s.f.)?
F. Describe the project's other impacts on wetlands (including new shading of wetland areas or
removal of tree canopy from forested wetlands):
Interim access improvements to be completed as part of Phase I will be accomplished without
j~
alteration to any wetlands. Any impacts to occur during full build will be addressed in the EIR.
J
III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits
A. Is any part of the project site waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands) that are
Yes X No; if yes, is there a current Chapter 91
subject to the Waterways Act, M.G.L.c.91?
license or permit affecting the project site? Yes No; if yes, list the date and number:
-
B.. Does the project require a new or modified license under M.G.L.c.91? _ Yes _X No;
`'.J
-8-
~-l
if yes, how many acres of the project site subject to M.G.L.c.91 will be for non-water dependent
use?
Current _ Change _ Total
l C. Is any part of the project
1. a roadway, bridge, or utility line to or on a barrier beach? _ Yes _X No; if yes,
describe:
2. dredging or disposal of dredged material? _ Yes _X No; if yes, volume of dredged
LF, material
3. a solid fill, pile-supported, or bottom-anchored structure in flowed tidelands or other
U waterways? - Yes X No; if yes, what is the base area?
4. within a Designated Port Area? Yes _X No
a D. Describe the project's other impacts on waterways and tidelands:
Because there are no waterways or tidelands on the project site, there will be no waterways or
tidelands impacts associated with the project.
IV. Consistency: - -
J A. Is the project located within the Coastal Zone? Yes X No; if yes, describe the project's
consistency with policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management:
B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? _ Yes _X No; if yes,
identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan:
i~ WATER SUPPLY SECTION
1. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to'water supply (see 301 CMR
11.03(4))? _Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? _ Yes X No; if yes,
specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply Section
below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in gallons/day, the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed activities
at the project site:
Existing Change Total
Withdrawal from groundwater
Withdrawal from surface water
Interbasin transfer
Municipal or regional water supply
J B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there
is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project? _ Yes _ No
C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water source,
1. have you submitted a permit application? _ Yes _ No; if yes, attach the application
2. have you conducted a pump test? - Yes _ No; if yes, attach the pump test report
D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water suPPIY source C m gallons/day)? Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal?_ Yes _ No
-9-
1 E. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility,
water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility?
_ Yes _ No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site:
Existing Change Total
Water supply well(s) (capacity, in gpd)
Drinking water treatment plant (capacity, in gpd)
r~ Water mains (length, in miles)
F. If the project involves any interbasin transfer of water, which basins are involved, what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed?
lJ G. Does the project involve
1. new water service by a state agency to a municipality or water district? - Yes _ No
2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? _ Yes _ No; if yes, how many acres of
J alteration?
3. a non-bridged stream crossing 1,000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking
n water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? _ Yes _ No
H. Describe the project's other impacts (including indirect impacts) on water resources, quality,
facilities and services:
III. Consistency - Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to
enhance water resources, quality, facilities and services:
Low-flow fixtures will be installed as part of site redevelopment. In 'addition, repairs to leaks in
existing water mains will also be made during site redevelopment activities.
1 WASTEWATER SECTION
~J I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater (see 301 CMR
11.03(5))? _ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? _X Yes _ No; if yes,
J specify which permit: BRP WP 18 Minor Sewer Connection Permit
L
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation - Traffic
Generation Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
IJ of the Wastewater Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in gallons/day, the volume and disposal of wastewater generation for existing and
proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00):
Existing Change Total
Discharge to groundwater (Title 5) 0 0 0
Discharge to groundwater (non-Title 5) 0 0 0
n Discharge to outstanding resource water 0 0 0
LJ Discharge to surface water 0 0 0
Municipal or regional wastewater facility 0 43,300* _43,300*_
L] TOTAL 0 43,300* 43,300*
*Phase 1 only. Full-build wastewater values will be evaluated in the EIR.
I -10-
.I
B. Is there sufficient capacity in the existing collection system to accommodate the project?
X Yes - No; if no, describe where capacity will be found:
r~ C. Is there sufficient existing capacity at the proposed wastewater disposal facility? _X Yes _
No; if no, describe how capacity will be increased:
D. Does the project site currently contain a wastewater treatment facility, sewer main, or other
j 1 wastewater disposal facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? _ Yes _X
1 No. If yes, describe as follows:
Existing Change Total
n Wastewater treatment plant (capacity, in gpd)
Sewer mains (length, in miles)
Title 5 systems (capacity, in gpd)
E. If the project involves any interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved, what is
the direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed? NIA
F. Does the project involve new sewer service by an Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality
or sewer district? -Yes X No
G. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing,
combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings, or other sewage residual
materials? _ Yes X No; if yes, what is the capacity (in tons per day):
Existing Change Total
Storage
Treatment, processing
~l Combustion
of Disposal
H. Describe the project's other impacts (including indirect impacts) on wastewater generation and
treatment facilities:
There are no other anticipated impacts on wastewater generation and treatment facilities.
III. Consistency - Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state,
regional, and local plans and policies related to wastewater management:
A. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive
r~ wastewater management plan? -Yes _ No; if yes, indicate the EOEA number for the plan and
describe the relationship of the project to the plan
N/A, no sewer extension permit required.
I~ TRANSPORTATION - TRAFFIC GENERATION SECTION
1. Thresholds / Permits
l A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301
_J CMR 11.03(6))? X Yes _ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
Generation of 3,000 or more new adt on roadways providing access to a single location
(301 CMR 11.03(6)(a)6].
J B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways? _ Yes
X No; if yes, specify which permit:
(l I Proposed site access is via Route 66, Earle Street, and Laurel Street, which are local jurisdiction
J roadways. However, to the extent that a Traffic Control Agreement (TCA) is in effect for upcoming
MassHighway sponsored improvements to Route 66, the proponent may require approval of access
design and layout by MassHighway. To the proponent's knowledge, no such TCA exists that would
~I
I require state action or permits.
I J C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other
Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out
(1 the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below.
II. Traffic Impacts and Permits
A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site:
j 1 Existing Change Total
l Number of parking spaces none in use -300/610* -910
Number of vehicle trips per day 0 3,165/4,725* 7,890
n *Phase I/Build-out (beyond Phase 1)
l J ITE Land Use Code(s): Refer to Appendix C, Traffic Impact and Access Study
( B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site?
Roadway Existing Change Total
1. Route 66, east of project site 5,590 1,800/2,700* 10,090
2. Route 10, north of Earle Street 19,590 1,115/1,775* 22,480
3.
*Phase I/Build-out (beyond Phase 1)
C. Describe how the project will affect transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities
and services:
The proponent is committed to implementing a comprehensive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan that aims to reduce the dependence on single occupancy vehicle (SOV)
U travel to the site. This plan will include coordination with the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority
(PVTA) to enhance transit accessibility to the project site. The project site is also proximate to a
proposed bike trail to be built along an abandoned rail line. The Traffic Impact and Access Study by
I Vanasse Associates, Inc. included in Appendix C provides further discussion of transit, pedestrian,
L_J and bicycle systems.
I~ III. Consistency - Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with municipal, regional,
state, and federal plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities
and services:
The proponent will design all proposed site driveways to conform to local and state guidelines, to
ensure safe and efficient access to the project site. Access design will be coordinated with ongoing
MassHighway-sponsored improvements to the Route 66 Corridor. Interim corridor improvements
along Earle Street envisioned to support Phase I redevelopment will be coordinated with emerging
(l plans for a rail trail that will cross Earle Street at Grove Street. In addition, the proponent will
J coordinate with the City to mitigate traffic impacts along Smith Street and at surrounding
intersections. Refer to the Traffic Impact and Access Study included in Appendix C for further
discussion of these issues.
!J
ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES SECTION
IJ I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other
transportation facilities (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? -Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative
terms:
! Note: The proponents envision a connector roadway from Route 10 to the project site as part of the
full-build scenario. This roadway will be less than '/a mile in length and will be fully addressed in
the EIR.
B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation
facilities? _ Yes X No; if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you
J -12-
~ answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Roadways Section
I _
i below.
II. Transportation Facility Impacts
A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities at the project site:
Existing Change Total
Length (in linear feet) of new or widened roadway
Width (in feet) of new or widened roadway
n Other transportation facilities:
~J
B. Will the project involve any
1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)?
2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)?
3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)?
III. Consistency - Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local plans
and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services, including
consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP),
the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan:
-J ENERGY SECTION
1. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy (see 301 CMR 11.03(7))?
Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? _Yes _X No; if yes, specify
which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you
U
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section below.
n II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site:
Existing Change Total
Capacity of electric generating facility (megawatts)
L_J Length of fuel line (in miles)
Length of transmission lines (in miles)
r-_ Capacity of transmission lines (in kilovolts)
B. If the project involves construction or expansion of an electric generating facility, what are
1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)?
L~ 2. the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)?
J C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line, will it be located on a new,
J unused, or abandoned right of way?_ Yes - No; if yes, please describe:
D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services:
III. Consistency - Describe the project's consistency with state, municipal, regional, and federal plans
U
and policies for enhancing energy facilities and services:
J -13-
n
AIR QUALITY SECTION
_I
1. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR
11.03(8))? _Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? _X Yes _ No; if
U yes, specify which permit: Notification of Construction or Demolition
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste
U Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Air
l J Quality Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project involve construction or modification of a major stationary source (see 310 CMR
7.00, Appendix A)?_ Yes X No; if yes, describe existing and proposed emissions (in tons per
j day) of:
Existing Change Total
Particulate matter
U Carbon monoxide
l J Sulfur dioxide
Volatile organic compounds
(l Oxides of nitrogen
LJ Lead
Any hazardous air pollutant
Carbon dioxide
B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts:
Demolition and construction phases of the project will generate dust and noise. However, standard
U measures to minimize these fugitive dust emissions will be employed. As required by state and
U federal regulations, abatement of all asbestos-containing materials will occur prior to.
commencement of demolition. A waiver from these requirements is sometimes necessary to
demolish buildings that have been deemed unsafe for entry by abatement personnel. In these cases,
demolition is conducted under strict dust control and air monitoring requirements to minimize the
potential for off-site migration of asbestos-containing dust. Any impacts are expected to be minimal,
temporary and occur only during the demolition and construction phases of the project. When the
project site is developed, potential sources of air contamination will include additional traffic and
heating equipment. All applicable regulatory requirements will be met.
l III. Consistency
1 J A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan:
The project is expected to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Any air quality
impacts will be addressed in the EIR.
U B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and
local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality:
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION
1. Thresholds I Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see
301 CMR 11.03(9))? _Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? _X Yes
-14-
i
~.l
No; if yes, specify which permit:
t C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological
n Resources Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
j A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing,
combustion or disposal of solid waste? _ Yes _X No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons per day)
of the capacity:
Existing Change Total
J Storage
Treatment, processing
Combustion
Disposal
B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or
l J disposal of hazardous waste? - Yes X No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per
l J day) of the capacity:
Existing Change Total
L J Storage
L J Recycling
Treatment
Disposal
C. If the project will generate solid waste (for example, during demolition or construction), describe
alternatives considered for reuse, recycling, and disposal:
During the demolition process, several solid waste streams are generated. In most cases,
demolition contractors seek out all available reuse and recycling options to reduce their overall
disposal costs. The waste streams and typical reuse and disposal outlets follow:
1. General Debris - including drywall, insulation, broken and/or obsolete furniture and
furnishings, glass, etc. This material generally is disposed of in a municipal solid waste
J landfill.
2. Wood Waste - Wood debris from framing and sheathing lumber is typically taken to
processing facilities in New Hampshire and Rhode Island for conversion into fuel for power
generation facilities. Large beams or planks often have substantial value for use in historic
(l remodeling, and are typically bundled and sold.
U 3. Metal and Steel - Metal and steel are segregated and brought to metals recycling facilities.
4. Asphalt, Bricks and Concrete can often be crushed and used for on-site structural fill. If the
l 1 material is coated, or if on-site crushing cannot be allowed, then it is typically brought to a
J recycling facility where it is crushed and processed.
D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos?
X Yes _ No
J
E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts (including indirect impacts):
J Solid and hazardous waste generated by the project will be handled in a manner to minimize
and/or avoid impacts.
III. Consistency - Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste
rl Master Plan:
0 Structures to be demolished will be remediated of hazardous material before and during demolition.
The hazardous materials generated during remediation will be disposed of at appropriate facilities.
l Demolition and construction solid waste will be processed and removed by private licensed
U -15-
commercial haulers and disposed of off-site at approved landfills and recycling facilities.
LJ HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION
1. Thresholds I Impacts
A. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either
case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological
l Assets of the Commonwealth? X Yes _ No; if yes, does the project involve the demolition of all
or any exterior part of such historic structure? X Yes _ No; if yes, please describe:
The property was listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1994 as a
contributing complex to a Multiple Property Submission nomination of state hospitals and state
1, l schools throughout Massachusetts. In 1995, the MHC and DCPO entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) outlining stipulations to assure that preservation of character defining features of
the facility was incorporated into future planning and disposition efforts. A copy of the MCA is
l l included in Attachment 4.
l 1 Phase 1 involves the demolition of seven structures, including five structures that contribute to the
NSH Historic District. In addition, six contributing structures are proposed for rehabilitation in
Phase I. An analysis of reuse of the former Main Building will be undertaken as part of the EIR
process.
B. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places
or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? _ Yes _X No; if
yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? _ Yes
X No; if yes, please describe:
a C. If you answered "No" to all parts of both questions A and B, proceed to the Attachments and
Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes" to any part of either question A or question B, fill out
a the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below.
D. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? _X Yes _ No; if yes,
attach correspondence.
The MHC and DCPO have consulted extensively since 1992 regarding the National Register
eligibility and listing of NSH and its ultimate disposition. As noted above, the MHC and DCPO
entered into a MCA in 1995. Subsequent consultation has taken place, most recently in
U September 2001. See Appendix B for a more detailed discussion of historical issues.
U E. Describe and assess the project's other impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried
historical and archaeological resources:
As detailed in the Project Description, the proposed project will entail both the rehabilitation and
lJ the demolition of contributing elements to the NSH historic complex.
II. Consistency - Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state,
regional, and local plans and policies related to preserving historical and arcnaeological resources:
The proposed project is consistent with the City's zoning overlay districts that encourage a mix of
commercial and residential development and open space preservation. In addition, the project is
consistent with the "Northampton State Hospital Plan - An Element of the Northampton General
~J Plan. "
n The project proponent will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as required.
-16-
LS
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions of the project site and its immediate
context, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, rail rights-of-way, wetlands
and water bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and major
utilities.
2. Plan of proposed conditions upon completion of project (if construction of the project is
proposed to be phased, there should be a site plan showing, conditions upon the completion
of each phase).
3. Original U.S.G.S. map or good quality color copy (8%Z x 11 inches or larger) indicating the
project location and boundaries
4 List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance
with 301 CMR 11.16(2).
5. Other:
CERTIFICATIONS:
1. The Public Notice of Environmental Review has been/will be published in the following
newspapers in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(1):
Daily Hampshire Gazette oe_-Vo ke-- I~ 2$ 00
2. This form has been circulated to Agencies and Persons in accordance with,3"CMR 11.1 (2)
0
'n
r~
Date' Signature of Responsible Officer
or Proponent
Name (print or type): David Webster
Firm/Agency: MassDevelopment
Inc
Street: 75 Federal Street
Municipality/State/Zip: Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 451-2477
10/11/6'1
Sigr
or P
Officer
Name (print or type): Gerald Joseph.
Firm/Agency: The Community Builders,
5 O )
ck.J U
Date
of person preparing
ENF (if different from above)
Name (print or type):
Samuel G. Mypatt
Firm/Agency:
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Street:
P.O. Box 700
150 Main Street
Municipality/State/Zip:
Maynard, MA 01754
Phone:
(978) 897-7100
Street: 322 Main Street
Municipality/State/Zip: Springfield, MA 01105-2408
Phone: (413) 737-0207
C - ~ •v ua . r w~' v
j{ 1 j :~St "y/yaryl 0/ : ;J ° ~>b
t~ • 1 ;f(f I~,'~~ ( 1 `•I C/enl ~'y S' • °C %j'=`~'~ t~, 1 \ \~d\ '~'C '
jl ' ('CONhAi ~ ~ Gra~Je1 1, r v.tJj, 71, "on
Q I Lr~r yl d
~4MY III
140-1, w -t~ ` Caivl'
C Fire°la J S~~ u o r r .4 ` 1~ 9! s~ BYtd -
fi11 ~8 .4 nnriih~u(~hn ~ S~:a~~ I ~,wl~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ §`~~"~~'\~r~ ~ ~~ii ' md~ 11i ~ ~1 t~_'.l~;o~~, ~ ~
lnstit~te vii F a l 1 a ~ • i r' r
NE l ^ A.g~riC(11 YS(1/% / / Q / 1) .sue 1I ~I f
G ~T;,~j ~ s; '~srr"',~7 .:i t~~~,~,-~ c r ~ `~~`~j a F~~~gn •4%~~ T ~ ~ I / J ~.'J c 91
~ ` ~ a • ~ 'r~~'~' \ , o•-~ r ' ~V o a I h r ~ h ~Y •.Sho i n i' ' ~ A ~
Cen tern
d~\' ~ J ~ ; ~ ~ ^~t ~ ~~,~J~ ~L.' • ~ C V ~ ~r ~ ~i!Cepk o ~ II I • ~ ' / Meld-obi, 1?\.
~ , Y. t t ° f~ ~ ~ o ~ r ~ v19~i~, ctlk • I J , FielrY
S Y~'Mai~e h p 1~.• •rl~
Field $ r'IIII ~~h ( ~d ! ~~l ~A it r 9~ f~~~ r
.q. !-I(U~~~~ I ' i ~--lV 1 ~ "DU LV O °~o' ti_~• 6_ - _ 9.11
h r J N 8~ I!
/ o n .II ua 0, P
H} h S ~Faiground
i gL
ik \ a
I) ~ r 1
~~V~~ A~ / ~JG~ I, -_i ! i ~ .ter i ~ PIN 4 r z ti .r+ .
, r ~ n r _ ~j ~,P •
a 'S y 1..,<
P, "Ti = _ ~ 3 r i ~ J Y 1~ ii ~ / li r ~ ~•n
~r..~ :r~ Soh `f.. -aJ Ord -*J/'~ V l~Iiclt;rr,ls: • 1G1'1,~r~ I1 C'att QC+E ~A
C
11", TnP
-SL
J ` <?~a I'' I a 7~/ h ( t` \ r t lJd` or ~liampton
rLO
i r l l l ` /~J~~ I ~ti j 1~ ~r + %~~I(v ~l ~Uqrt u5p.~ 4ta ~~SNcJ, for Girls"
V --.-~1: ' 1 ~~-~~>r~ (`C.•~.;?el ('q'ry111}.lri`tl i, _
• 1 / l \ 4 { _ y5` i Q~ i ii 1 t3 5 PQ 0l'7 1 X" I
1x i~ 'l st
C 1 i ,";)y • or ,~~.lJ 1 11 1~ ~ Athletic A ~~f ,.cr \ ~ P
F1 d
i rr( J •ri O 66 r I,.- y , 04 U hl'`- JY
'.i~ ~ j ~ - i ~ ~ I'll _ ''',,,(((I/ t r'~ ou LirS'~-c i ~ ,Y~ 91
ti ?
~ 4i1`(' ` 9ti- Qr c ~'r % Pr 9tat
lS
1L "~,~J1 rave(
- Rock flail1 " r ! = f tit ~~I
f, c:♦
r P~Zu1ti1 r, ~ I. ~ r • ~ ' ~ /0' ~ Q~
(
1/. °1 4'% 5 k ~J C,_ - f } "4~ Fri: r
IDL~CHANGE~~
91
r`r ro
a Pi `Grove
r
i cy ~2~ -v~ Il 8 • ~
•~,o=~_ ~ r.! ~ X11 ~.A ~ P `;_i
olCur§,. ECG 'cl ~ Pj~ncho Mead ovGs~
/~I
r
~?s-~•, alt\~\ ' j ~ ~ - j(~ ~ ~ i, -J D~~,I'~~ r `
e4t
+f / ~ F
\ . ~ ' . /,'o ~ (1.,~~ --~1 ~:::-::c5i~~I •`i»Tj p , ~ • L2;1;!
d ~:J i•~\'° ~R r-~~`{
:
ill fG11
1. .l rf'rA•N a, ini~~,' lk : ! - yan-~ ry ,e~Ldvws
l-1 N
Approx. Site Outline
w E Figure 1: USGS Locus Map ®
s 1 inch equals 2,000 feet The Village at Hospital Hill
! Northampton, Massachusetts
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 mPS' L®NFeet , ASSOCIATES INC.
® Engineers n Environmental Consultants
Norffiampton 1766011 L ocus. mxd
IJ
ll
l_ J
D
LJ
D
D 4,1D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I ID
D~ Y
d
~
ti
m v c O C
O
c,
6
m N N v% S V
¢
v E N~ z
~
[
ti u
~ r c i _
6
g ce o< H v 3 a v o 3
c
o
v
1 -~s
t .
Q
m~
°r
'X
rl '
D
C V
Vii
r~4
~d
f2
~a
gz
I
W~
a
y~
0
E'er
VU
(C
G
F•
0 CO
V) o
xcrj °
o
H
v
W N
co
ti
d
a)
ca
a
~.c
w -
o Cq
H
O
a'
W Z
r
°
v U
x
,
'
30cv,
E'°
O
G
.
E 0
•y
C
V Q ti
n
n
i
0
0
Y:
~S
r
~a
r~
7
n
i
r r`
S/ r
r a r f , fa ~ . J --J
r
c
i~
I
ZF
O
v
0
U
Q)
v
0
47
O
N
v
c
W
b
p
Ii~O
Gal
G
d
.
~ c
i
V
rr
~
i
T7
WO
~ •C
f--~ d
i
Q
N
0/
O
r, m
w w D
w
,
~
~ ~
W
v
oo
v
~
mcn~
o
F
0
~
W
CC
L
0 r
N N o h
d N N ID
O
N
A
U
~
O
O~
z
®J
A
a
FW ~
x~
a~
H ~
crj
O o
x~co
eN.
N
F~ co
wz
H
N ~
~ 41
b
a
41
U U
N
d
N
N
4 cb
tVE .g
N
R
o m
R
a`°i U ^,°o
~ o
o ~ a
E °O
R
U 0
J
Memorandum of Agreement
Regarding -the Northampton State Hospital
By and Between
The Massachusetts Historical Commission
and
(l Division of Capital Planning and Operations
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT entered into as of the I o T" day of
qv ~s r , 1.995 by and between the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), the Division
of Capital Planning and Operations (DCPO), and the City of Northampton (City).
WHEREAS, the Northampton State Hospital (NSH) has been listed in the State and
National Registers of Historic Places;
IL WHEREAS, Chapter 86 of the Acts of 1994, as amended by Chapter 307 of the Acts of
1994 (as so amended, the "Act") authorizes the disposition of the NSH property by DCPO, some
portions of which will be marketed and other portions of which will be disposed of to the
recipients identified in said Act;
WHEREAS, the City has proposed a plan for the NSH as an element of the Northampton
~l General Plan, which includes the possible reuse or demolition of historically significant buildings,
U. new construction, and preservation of agricultural lands and open space under city zoning;
WHEREAS, the City has been consulted by DCPO and MHC and has been invited to
concur in this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA);
r WHEREAS, the Act authorizes or directs DCPO to convey ownership or interests in the
following land or buildings to specified parties:
(i) Easement to Smith College on Parcel K.
J (ii) Halligan and Daley Monument to the City of Northampton
(iii) Parcel D to the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture
(iv) Conservation and right-of-way easement to the City of Northampton on
l Parcel A
J (v) Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the Northampton Housing Authority
(vi) 91 Grove Street to the City of Northampton
(vii) Parcel C to the City of Northampton
J (viii) Parcel G (community gardens) to the City of Northampton
(the above-listed parcels are referred to as the "named disposition parcels"); and
Page l
r}
r"l
1
DCPO will be conveying these parcels pursuant to the Act and the applicable stipulations of this
MOA, but will not be marketing these parcels pursuant to Section II of this MOA.
r NOW; THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that the following points of agreement will be
followed in order to take into account the affect on historically significant properties of the disposal
of NSH in accordance with M.G.L. Ch. 9, ss. 26-27C (950 CMR 71).
Stipulations
DCPO, the City, and MHC will ensure that the following stipulations are implemented:
i, The Northamuton State Hosyital Campus
A. For the purposes of this Memorandum of Agreement, it is understood that:
1. The MHC, following the guidelines of the National Register criteria (36 CFRthe 60),
has determined that the Northampton State Hospital Camp (hereinafter,
Campus) is eligible for listing as a historical district on the National Register of
Historic Places. The MHC voted on June 8, 1994 to confirm the eligibility of the
Campus for listing on the National Register and sent this nomination for listing to
n the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. The Keeper of the National
Register of Historic Places listed the Campus on the National Register on July 25,
n 1994.
II 2. The MHC regards the buildings and landscapes at the Campus listed as Status "C"
in Attachment A as properties contributing to the historic character of the Campus.
i The MHC regards all other buildings and structures as non-contributing. This list
of contributing buildings and landscapes is a part of the Northampton State Hospital
Historic District, which is itself a part of the State Hospital and State Schools of
_ Massachusetts Multiple Property Submission.
1 3. The MHC regards the following attributes of the contributing buildings and
L
landscapes on the Campus (all of which address exterior areas only) as character-
defining elements for the purposes of re-use planning:
Building and structure exteriors;
• Fenestration;
• Scale;
• Color,
• Use of Material;
Mass;
J Organization of the landscape;
• Views from, to and across the landscape;
• Curvilinear circulation system conforming to the hilly terrain;
• A campus-like organization of buildings among predominantly mature
landscape, in particular, the relationship of the dominant historic building
massing at the crest of the hill to the smaller scaled and sized structures of
heterogeneous building type sited along the slopes of the hill;
• The use of masonry, particularly red brick, as exterior building materials for
those buildings at the crest of the hill; and
~J
Paize 2
rl
• The use of wood frame and cladding nearer the perimeter locations of the
campus.
Interiors of the buildings and structures are not character-defining elements.
l 4. Nothing contained in this MOA constitutes concurrence by the DCPO with any of
J the MHC's determinations or opinions concerning the historic character of any
portion of the Campus. Nothing contained in this MOA constitutes an agreement
by, or binds, DCPO to seek legislative authorization to dispose of the Campus (or
any Part thereof) or otherwise, with or without legislation, to proceed with
disposition of the Campus (or any part thereof). The decision whether and when to
make or pursue any disposition respecting the Campus or any part of it is in the sole
discretion of DCPO and the Legislature.
5. All parties to this MOA acknowledge that the uses to which the Campus has been
put in the past may change in the near future as new uses may be found for the
buildings formerly used for mental health purposes. These new uses may
themselves change over time, according to the market and the goals of the
community.
pr d take into
DCPO and the City are encouraged te Cam to inhistoric corporate historic preservation show
process. Options for reuse Pus which
account the following principles in reuse planning:..
buildings and
1. Preservation of the character-definin features of
be encouraged if feasible.
landscapes of the Campus should
2. If it is determined that it is not feasible to preserve all of the characters the feasibility
features of the contributing buildings and landscapes of the campus,
of preserving the character-defining features of portions of the contributing
buildings and landscapes of the campus will be examined, and encouraged where
feasible.
C 3. Rehabilitation of contributing buildings and new construction on the Campus
I] should be consistent with the recommended approaches in the Secrete of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
} Buildings (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1990,
hereinafter "Standards").
II. Marketing Plan
A. Notwithstanding any provisions of this MOA, DCPO has full marketing authority for the
Campus and will make all final marketing decisions. In the event that DCPO plans to implement a
marketing plan, DCPO will consult with the MHC and the City in the preparation of such
marketing plan for the Campus (other than the named disposition parcels, interests or ownership in
which will be conveyed as provieded in the Act) which shall include the following elements:
J 1. An appendix prepared by MHC for submission to DCPO on or before thirty (30)
days from written notice from DCPO that explains what MHC regards as the
rl
I~
1
significance and the character-defining elements of various buildings and
landscapes, and information concerning potential tax benefits. DCPO will have the
right to reasonably approve such appendix within fourteen (14) days of submission
and prior to its inclusion in any marketing materials. If DCPO and MHC cannot
agree on the appendix, DCPO shall amend the appendix if necessary to state that it
j~ contains MHC's opinions only and may then at DCPO's discretion proceed with the
l1 marketing plan.
DCPO will include a photograph and a parcel map of the campus.
J DCPO will make reference to the points listed under I.B. and any plan developed
based on these points. The information package and the marketing plan as a whole
will make a good faith effort to generate interest in the preservation of what the
MHC has defined as the historic character of the property.
2. DCPO will such list initial distribution list as part of the any contact offered by MHC and the City. marketing package and
will include on
3. DCPO will prepare an advertising plan and schedule.
4. DCPO will prepare a schedule for receiving and reviewing submissions.
Q B. MHC and the City will have 30 days to review and comment on the draft marketing plan. If
MHC or the City does not find the draft marketing plan acceptable, DCPO will make reasonable
efforts exercised in good faith to accommodate the concerns of MHC and re-submit a final
marketing plan. Before implementation, MHC and the City will have 21 days to review and
comment on the portions of the final marketing plan which address issues of historic preservation.
In the event that MHC does not provide its initial comments on the draft marketing plan within 30
days or its comments MC. the marketing
marketing plan shallnotl quire
that the content of the days,
acceptable t to the the
approval of MHC or the City.
C. The marketing effort shall be continued for no less than three months from the date of the initial
U implementation of the marketing plan subject to any contrary requirements of legislation which may
be enacted. Implementation shall occur when the marketing package is distributed to the initial
L~ distribution list.
D. If, after consultation with the MHC for a technical review of duration no greater than thirty
(30) days with regard to the applicability of the "Standards" to the submissions, but, in its sole
determination, DCPO receives no acceptable submissions that are feasible and acceptable to DCPO
for an individual parcel or for the Campus as a whole that provide for rehabilitation or new
construction in conformance with the recommended approaches in the "Standards," it will convey
(1 these conclusions to the MHC and the City.
J 1. For all such buildings and landscapes for which there was no preservation
submission that is feasible and acceptable to DCPO, in its sole discretion, then
DCPO or any buyer of the property or any other person can proceed with
demolition of buildings or rehabilitation or new construction that does not conform
to the "Standards" following completion of photographic recordation and
documentation as stipulated in Section V.
Ili I
D-. A
II
2. Unless prior to the expiration of MHC's marketing review period [as outlined in
Section II (A)(1)], MHC notifies DCPO in writing that MHC considers the
marketing plan to materially fail to encourage preservation, MHC will provide its
written opinion that any such demolition permitted under Section II(D)(1) does not
_ constitute anticipatory demolition, as this term is used in federal Section 106
1 review. MHC shall provide this opinion promptly upon request by DCPO or any
1 Buyer of the property.
E. In the event that a building or landscape that does not generate preservation interest in the initial
marketing effort and is not demolished prior to the commencement of a subsequent formal
marketing effort, DCPO will make reasonable efforts exercised diligently to support the
development of the property in a manner consistent with the principles listed in I.B.
III. New Construction
S A. DCPO shall encourage new buildings and landscapes that are sympathetic or compatible to
what MHC has determined to be character-defining attributes of the contributing buildings and
landscapes on the Campus, including a campus-like organization of buildings in predominantly
D mature landscape; the curvilinear circulation system conforming to the hilly terrain; the relationship
of the dominant historic building massing at the crest of the hill to the smaller scaled and sized
structures of heterogeneous building types sited along the slopes of the hill, the use of masonry,
particularly red brick, as the predominant exterior building materials for these buildings and
masonry or wood frame and cladding for buildings at perimeter locations of the campus. It is not
necessarily desirable, however, for new buildings and landscapes to mimic construction styles or
materials of the a brick exteriors ootherwise use the same materials or construction as were buildings
~J1 need not have red
on the existing buildings.
Other Design Guidelines which vary from the Zoning Code also would be acceptable, provided
that requirements relating to materials, siting, and massing are addressed. MHC and the City will
have 30 days to review and comment on the final draft of any such additional design guidelines
which vary from the zoning ordinance or this MOA. DCPO shall have design review authority.
U
IV. Exempted Activities
A. The following construction activities are unlikely to affect what MHC regards as the character-
defining attributes of the Campus and are exempted from further review by the MHC, including
comments in any environmental review process:
Resurfacing, maintenance, repair or improvement of existing parking lots, roads, and
driveways.
• Repair, replacement or improvements to infrastructure, i.e. heating and electrical
systems, sewer, water, ventilation systems, or plumbing.
i.. I
L_J
T3___ c
n
I~
• Maintenance work such as painting, repair or replacement of substantially in-kind
architectural elements.
i
• All interior work.
• Maintenance, repair, or replacement of substantially in-kind landscape features.
i
• Demolition or alterations of non-contributing structures.
• New construction on parcels C, D, and E. (See Attachment B, the parcel identification
map).
• New construction of 40' or less in height, excluding mechanical systems, on Parcels F,
B (south of Grove Street), K (the eastern half), and J.
_l
V . Photo ra hic Recordation and Documentation
A. Prior to demolition of any contributing building, disposition of any part of the Campuuss,sriall
substantial new construction or other major change to the landscape of the Campus,
require that the buildings, structures and designed open spaces of the Campus are documented by
photographs and narratives in accordance with a "recordation plan" that satisfies all of the
following:
1. Provides for documentation of the historical processes that shaped the organization,
design and history of Northampton State Hospital. (The nomination of the Campus
to the National Register prepared by MHC is sufficient documentation.)
2. Contains photographs and documentation of the character-defining attributes.
3. Includes but is not limited to elements listed in Attachment C.
1
4. Is reviewed and commented upon by MHC.
5. Provides that copies of the resulting documentation are made available to the MHC,
the City of Northampton, and, if any federal funds are used, the Library of
Congress.
V1. Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits
1 A. In order to ensure that rehabilitation of buildings that MHC believes contribute to the historical
significance of the Campus can qualify for applicable tax credits, DCPO shall encourage any
designated developer to consult with MHC and the National Park Service for the purpose of
meeting tax credit standards in any work to be completed.
+J
D...ro ~
n
VII. Coordination with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy
Act
s
A. If any state or federal agency funding, license, or permit is contemplated or required for the
rehabilitation or demolition of any contributing building or landscape on the Campus, or for new
construction on any contributing landscape, DCPO shall provide a copy of this MOA to any project
proponent which is hereby on notice that notice and review procedures under the National Historic
_ Preservation Act, 16 USC 470 et. seq. (including sections 106 and 110) (36 CFR 800), the
J National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and/or the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA) may be applicable to any such project, requiring notice and review by the appropriate
federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) and/or the
MEPA unit, as applicable, as early as possible during the planning stages of the. project to the
cd extent required by such laws. A copy of this MOA shall be included in the documentation
submitted to the federal agency, the Advisory Council, and/or the MEPA Unit, along with MHC's
n written comments concerning the project, which shall be used to document a good faith effort to
consult with the MHC concerning historic preservation. MHC, DCPO, and all parties interested in
the project agree that if the procedures in this MOA are fulfilled in compliance with this MOA,
MHC's comments will provide that, even if there is an adverse impact or effect on the historic
1 1 resources, all reasonable, prudent and feasible means and actions required to mitigate such adverse
impact or effect on such historic resources have taken place under said laws and this MOA and that
it is in the public interest to proceed with the project.
IJ
Execution and implementation of this Memorandum of Agreement evidences that DCPO has
afforded MHC reasonable opportunity to comment on the re-use of Northampton State Hospital.
L9
D
PaQP I
VIII. Modifications
Any party to this MOA may request that it be amended or modified whereupon the parties will
consult in accordance with 950 CMR 71 to consider such amendment or modification.
Executed as of the date first above written.
Division of Capital Planning and Operations (DCPO):
By:
Lark Jurev Palermo
Commissioner
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC):
By:
nough
McDo
fith'
tor
City of Northampton (City):
By: ~
Mary- .Ford
Mayor
pave R
r
0-
E-4
a]
w
x
:n
al
x
E-1
U
x
w
z
H,
W
A
:'a]OU1W WPQCUPQWf~-1WPQa1PQW
uuzuc.~uuuuzuuuuu
m0QQflImmCQPQ0.1PQPQPQP m m M W M MCQ MM m0cQ
u u u u z u u u u z u z u u u u z u u u u u u u u
~i
-i
U
WI
a
s~
H
M
0 E-
Q
G
O
li
n
3 cj'
AAAA
~
~
~
w AAA.
aaa
_
Qa a
~4 Z: 65 z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-0 10 ro a 10 'O 10 ro
- _
U =
14 ~4 ?i S4 ?4 f4 ~4 ~4
O
~
-4-10 C7C~C~ 0000
>
>
y U
v v
~
mo
v
0
-
i rl ~ -1 r-i r1 r-i r-i r-4 ri
•i • r
co
a)
co
Y31
c ,
v
r1 r
>
> > (d Id (0 M co (d Id co (
o
co li o Q)
Q .u >
Ix P4 '
O O O
O 0 >
> > >
> > > > > > > > > >
O 0
u U
JJ
O v U U
W
S; -r-1 v v v v v v v v v v v
0
1)
r
-
u > U uzQ Pz 4Z ZLZfxlZ
~ (
b zs
2srl~
-
Id (d -1 r-q r-4 r-i r-1 r-1 r-i r-1 -4 co rQ (i)
~4 Cr
Cam' f-"
> O (d rl i~
(6 ~ a) N N
rl ~
N v co
r-I r-I }4
co rd N co ~
, .
C1 m ul (o rd co cd ad (0 co (d (15 1l .y,
co
v v
I I
te
.
,
U N Ul -,--I •r( •rl 'r{ •rl -4 'rl •'1 (15 (Z
--I
v v
y. v v v
.
a) v S
~4 -ri 1
r. S
.ri r
,--i -H •ri •rl Ci r, r, Fi 1-i i
n~ (d co O O O O O O O O O H r-1 li
-
1-1 -4
r
O U ri ri -4 r-1
>
r-1 r-1 O
~
O O (1) -1
co
co co -4 -1 -1 -4 r-i -4 -4 -4 -1 co f
0 0 0 0 aJ J :d
Q Q
rd rd -
i S-i aJ rd rd (d
-r
O O O O y 0
CO (d
U ~U U~~D C
O w a) 0 0 0 0 0
UUUUUUUUH iw
0) >sr,
44 AH 0) 0) 0)
U) M r
0 ~tZ IZU
U) ul
CD o o
n
0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
'
lfl M M CC
n
co cn (Y)
Gl Ol 00
d+ l0 Ln In lD m M c-1 r-I ~
m000000 m mO7mmrnm
ry
r-i a--I
r4 1-I ,--1 1-4 ri r4 -1 -1 r4 -1 1-1
c) O
O N Lr) lD k-0 w
I I I
m N M co M 00
~NNC)~CqNNLC1N 04N 0000
O m
.N .C .
.~~11~4 MMML-r'•
o cd (d CT Ol Ql 01 Cn Ol co G,
O O O N N M M
•
co co 00 CO Cl is Ql 61 01 m Ol Ol co co 41 Ol co rd co 00 00 co (d rd co d> co CO co co co c
U U U r'i u r•i u U U U U
U r-i r-1 r{ r--1 r-I ri U U ri U U ri U
~ C71 ~
~
i
ri a
•
}-1
v r
01
3 3 41
~
~4
o
) 41 gwUwFC
b
o
is W
-L
o o x v v
U a1
75 - xx
0
.u
~
J JJ 1J
w
U) b
v Z ~
k
N
-
41
v
v
ai W
(0
1J U
i M
~ r-ii r-i-i r ii r 4 -4 N ~ JJJ 71 S
~
) (1)
a
) Q) a) a
(1)
~
W
~M
a
- t31 ~r9R99F v v 'o Oa
)
~ ~
v4J ~ 44J 4 vw
041-
v
-
o~ ri 0 0 o o o 'o :v.
0 0 0 0 f ~ Ln u1
4-1 .u
rn m _0 .u cn to co to
is cn cn is vi
v
u
~
-ri s-.I ~ -ri •r, 0 0 0 0 0
u u u u u
Q)~ M 3
v
v
~ o~~ v~ r-i S 4 -
~ r-4 r-i u v
CO (1) o Z
i 11
h
04 04 M
~-1
.X -1 o
14 •rl U J:: -r4 -ri ri ri r-1 1-1 r-1 f~ r. aJ S4 M
JJ J..) 1J
u)
(d r--1 v v rd v rd 4J
to P > O b1 ~4 01 f-1
rd v v (d U
01 Qr l71 S"-+
S4 1) -rl r•
(d f: aJ 04 >y -ri -ri
a
0 75 0 ~5 ~J co co co (d (d W W - 1J v M Ln
rd u1
°
4
(1) 4
Q)
(d CP
W
PCD
uu
p a)
:1
a
~ •ri -r1 ~ r, O O O O O 11 cn v •ri i -Li
Q) a) a) a) 0 ~ H r1
LC)
H
0u a
m CN 00
r-
d~ lD L~
04 a1 O (d O m
~
ci co li > (d (d rg
o cd (d v v v v v O 0 O ~j (d W
M M
-i 1-1 -4 N M
-i N N
n m
N ri M
CI7 P: Pa a C1
7
co co • ri c
c 1
1--1 r-1
,
(N L
W
r~
00 M C:) -H N M,zP Ln lD r- 00 M
Ori c,4 M -,~i
In k.0 I cO mC) -I
L4
non, rn cn rrl u)
'J
v
C
Mu
04
n
n
U
WI
C4
r~ p
O
r ~
H
U
W
H
H
l~1H
J14
WW
xW
n~UN
N H
. H
z~
I'Ha
P4 p
H
Q
O
a~
w
z
c~
H
W
A
WI
a
E-4
m
v
a
G
L
Li
1 -0 .ri
uuu f~ W C1] W W W CL1 0 W W W CA W W CA W t~ W CA PU W W W CA al P=1 Ul U1 U~ u1 U1 0.1 W P~
U U U U 2 Z Z U U U U U U r+ U U U U U U U U U z z U U U U U U U U
n•
P: P; a
ro10 ro
1-I ~4 14 Ul
O O O 1.1
C7 C7 i.7 r, .
r-i
v
^ (0 (0
> > > > A
ai°~a~xa
~0aa a a (o U
-ri
S-1 $4 r--i r-I ~i ~4 ~a! }4 ~4 ~4 S-( ~4 ~4 ~4 ~i ?-1
fd co (d fd N (d p d W (d M 0 M (o CO (0 M Z
-L) 1-3 41 41 -ti 43 .1-1 41 -u 41 -L) L) li -L)
r.( -r( G G O .ri .r-( •ri •ri - r-i •r.( -r-j •r-( •ri _ i - ri -ri -ri
r-i r1 o O N N O O r I r-i r-i r-i r~ N r-♦ r-i r- i r-i --i r i r-i r-I r i
• rl • ri r -4 ro ri~ co 0 to •Ij 1.1 4j (d .1-1 ~ •1J •41 1-1 JJ -1i •l --0 41 (0 (0 (0 -
l1 1J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U1 U1 U)
O O O O 1 D 0 0 0
O CD Ln L(1 I- M M M m CD 00O N O 601 m Ol + + CO
mr
S r i 1 mOlm
pp -4 1--1 C) Ul U) -4 LO co (n ri 1-4
ri ri
O CD r-IriOco -4 ko m 000 O O ( O o
c- (N L ,o ry) ,zv • (,1 1O lO 1D M • 1D M 0 0 r-i Ln 10 Q) (Y-) L n
(~rnrnrnrnrn cdm (00) 00 0) 00 rn (o MM CO (0MC)M (d 200 00 ~4 rn00 U Z U
U U r••I H r-1 H r-i U H U r-I r1 r'i .-I r-I U r--I r-I U U -1 1--1 -4 U U H H Q4
~ O
r~
Sri
`0 ~ ~ a -4 ro
rd o O C7 x -
rd S I i 41 li N bl Ul S (d
rd ro r. 04 fd W J-1 .U -4 ~4 ~i S4
_ as a,a~ ao
X 0 0 O ~ d p, 0 -1 li 41 °
(d ul ro r 0 ~4 W r- ~ pi ul ~ 01 1l v Ul ~ 0 ~ 00 r i ~ r
Q ~ -ri Sri r-1 r-i (d U N P7 (d :j o (d ~ ~i Q) 4( U 4 (d r-i O o O
. O O r I (d (d U) G Q4 W O 0 N $4 bl O H U U U
H 014 CA W ~ ri • 4 ~ H (d O ~ O O x ~ C7 Ri W ~ (d x ~
~4 r, 09009 wU~011-1U)41U •r, p+~400c~UU
] O N -ri •r-( CO fj r-. 1•i C: 01 1J l•i P CO 3 6 rd i4
~i (d Z: (d (1) (1) (d M-xamQxr UZW(Y4U0P4ucoCQz
NCr1C(Lf11OL mMCD -i N (*l "*M' DC- MM(:Oc--C, "o "olD 1~D co 1D 10 ~ 0 r- r- d+ L(l
d C* v C C d Cr d L) Ln u-) Ln Ln m Ln m m M 10 1D 1D 10 LD 1D
v1
y
ti~
0
U
ti~
O
M
Ul (1)
M ~
,-j .u
b u
ri S4
J 11
O O
J U
.4
oz
z
N r-I
r1
Ul
U) Q1
~n o:
U1 U U
..i 1J 1-( 'M
~:j -ri 1-1 .Q
W Ul co O
0) 0)
~ G A t~
1~ ~2 A .f2
•r1 -ri •r-( -ri
li Li 1J 1>
Q- i~ r~ Q
O O O O
U U U U
N M M c1
L(1
1J
A
O
U
N
w
U
O
W
x
a
E-(
O
E4
N
L14
O
N
U
pA
i,
n
I~
I
L~
U
Li
i
I
,I
II
J
I
III
I
I
I
111
I
- G <
W-- LJ
Al ILF
-O
N i I•
Y W ° -r L- I
0 4 . l
e ~ is , _
7
a vii
I ~
O 5
I 3
N
14,
l
M
O ~ I
~ p
J N
U
~ 3
G
'T^^
vI
Gr1
1
a ?
~s
x ~
[9 I
\ O I
•3 r
p ~ ~ LO
Z ~ O
CL
U)
O O
i T
iS
/ C W
Q
1. ~
1
IY
O
Z
fi
ATTACHMENT B
o
D i h
DFA Land _
0 0' a OI n^ d\ o
_ ~~S ~ \O( v O O p r o
Smith Colleg
n ' ` ~ I //t Pakndise'P2i+h3:'~\
NORTHAMPTON
STATE HOSPITAL
NORTIIASt"ON, MA
C.a....~..l.l Mu.. k-..,. • Di-i.,.. -1 4po Io0
n ATTACHMENT C
SCOPE OF RECORDATION
1. Written Documentation
A narrative summary shall be written for the overall District which
describes the architectural, historical, and cultural significance at the appropriate national,
state and/or local levels. The narrative overview should be followed by individual
summaries of the individual buildings. The National Register nomination form shall be
referenced and utilized to the fullest extent possible.
II. Graphic Documentation
IJ
LJ A series of 8 1/2" x 11" historic site plans, showing key periods in the
evolution of the District shall accompany the narrative summary. This should include the
current plan, showing the location of the District and each documented structure within it.
L.
III. Photographic Documentation
A. Indices to photographs for the overall District and for each
individual building being documented.
F1 B. Photo keys to show locations of overall views and those taken of
large, multi-faceted buildings.
C. Exterior views of each individually documented building:
1. General views of structure within setting.
~l 2. Elevation views. More than one elevation may be
shown at a time.
3. Architectural details.
4. Engineering details.
J
D. Historic Views
A thorough search should be conducted, and photographic copies made of
~J
a sample of historic photographs of the overall District and of each
i
J
mate
individually documented building: if available. A source and approx
date should be given for each original photograph.
E. Any original or other historic floor plans, photographically reduced
to 4" x 5", 5" x 7", or 8" x 10" format, of all individually documented
structures.
ble
t
ll
hi
.
a
y s
va
F. All photographs shall be black and white, arc
IV. Historic American Buildings Survey (NABS)
U
If any federal agency funding, license or permit is used for demolition or new
construction, the National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic Region, shall be contacted
J
regarding the scope of the HABS recordation.
APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Site History
Northampton State Hospital (NSH) was a major treatment center for the mentally ill and a
major employer to the region for over a century. From its origins in the 1850s the hospital's
campus grew significantly, both in terms of buildings and patient capacity. By 1970, the
campus consisted of 538 acres of land, approximately 970,000 square feet of space, and
housed over 2,500 people. Most of the buildings constructed since 1857 remain standing
today. During the 1960s and 1970s, a nationwide trend towards de-institutionalization of
mental health treatment, accelerated by a series of court decrees advocating community
based treatment programs, rendered large institutions across the country such as
Northampton State Hospital obsolete. Throughout the 1980's, the client population
declined dramatically and by August 1993, the last patients departed the NSH campus
leaving the site and buildings abandoned.
I
Concurrent with the closing of the facility, the Division of Capital Planning and Operations
(DCPO), now the Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM), was consulting with the
Massachusetts Historical Commission regarding the historical and architectural significance
of the facility. In 1995, following a lengthy consultation process, the MHC and DCPO
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) outlining stipulations to assure that
preservation of character defining features of the facility was incorporated into future
planning and disposition efforts. Subsequently, in 1996 the property was listed in the State
and National Registers of Historic Places as a contributing complex to-a Multiple Property
Submission nomination of state hospitals and state schools throughout Massachusetts. A
copy of the MOA is included in Attachment 4.
1.2 Redevelopment History
There have been discussions among the State, City and interested parties concerning the
redevelopment of the site for many years. In the summer of 1997, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, acting through the DCPO, initiated a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to
designate a developer to redevelop the site. The RFP's disposition scope comprised
approximately 124 acres of land and roughly 880,000 square feet of abandoned space in
over 50 buildings. With the benefit of considerable local input, the RFP outlined
redevelopment objectives that are expected to impact Hampshire County for many years.
Following the RFP process, The Community Builder's (TCB) development team was
provisionally designated the developer of the site by DCAM in 1998. TCB proceeded to
prepare a Master Plan for the facility entitled Hospital Hill Village: The Redevelopment of
Northampton State Hospital Master Plan Submission (TCB 1999). The master plan sets forth
a reuse program that addresses a wide variety of community objectives and creates a mixed-
use village. In developing the master plan, TCB conducted an active community outreach
program, meeting with abutters, community leaders, city government, the business
community, human service providers and housing advocates. The success of these efforts
76601 /ENF/Appendices. doc
A-1
Historical Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
can be judged by the fact that the Northampton Community Advisory Committee (CAC)
unanimously endorsed the TCB Final Site Plan. In 2000, MassDevelopment was brought
onto the project team as co-developer with TCB and was also designated by DCAM through
an interagency agreement with the responsibility of on-site building demolition,
environmental remediation, and infrastructure improvements.
I__l
0
i
i.1
1.3 The Master Plan
The Hospital Hill Master Plan at full build out incorporates commercial and residential
development (see Figure 2). The development will have the capacity for approximately
551,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial space. It is estimated that this program could
generate up to 889 jobs at a floor area-to-jobs ratio of approximately 500 square feet for
each job. This is a relatively conservative ratio by industry standards. Included is a mix of
retail, office, light industrial, and research & development/multi media space as well as
space for live-work studios, a child care center, a possible community center/ museum area,
and the development of a 60-80 unit assisted living facility for seniors. The plan also
includes 207 residential units, 100 of which would be single-family homes and 107 of
which would be mixed-income rental housing. The housing goal will be roughly 50
percent market rate and 50 percent affordable to create a diverse, mixed income
community.
1.3.1 Village Center
The master plan envisions a Village Center that would be located at the intersection of
Route 66 and the present entrance to the campus. The site's southern part, known as the
Memorial Complex, represents predominately commercial uses including: office, research
and development, light industrial, and retail. These uses are most appropriate for this site
based on their need for easy accessibility and proximity to Route 66 and Route 10. Build
out is expected at a pace driven by local real estate market demand. Buildings would range
in size from 5,000 - 30,000 square feet, and would be targeted to serve both single and
multi-tenant needs.
The southern part of the main campus, closest to Route 66, will have a more mixed-use
character. This part of the development will include new construction plus the
rehabilitation of several existing buildings to serve as office space and 23 apartments. There
will also be 44 new multifamily rental units (both market rate and affordable), 20 single-
family home lots, and the site for the assisted living facility. Depending on market
conditions and final assisted living design, it may be possible to create additional
commercial space along the Main Street.
1.3.2 Northern Residential Hamlet
The northern portion of the main campus, where the former Main Building now sits, will be
primarily residential. The Final Master Plan calls for 58 single-family home sites, 40
I Historical Resources
76601 /ENFIAppendices.doc A-2
Epsilon Associates. Inc.
r
i
multifamily rental units, community buildings, commercial activity, and active links to the
extensive community open space system and park system that abut the property. Twenty-
one larger "estate" lots, facing onto the Mill River open space system will provide highly
attractive housing sites, and 37 lots of various smaller sizes will provide housing
development opportunities for a mix of income levels. Although additional analysis must
be undertaken, the Master Plan contemplates the retention and rehabilitation of
approximately 25 percent of the historic structures - those in the best condition and which
lend themselves to reuse. TCB is also committed to fully evaluating the preservation of all
or a portion of the former Main Building ("Old Main"). A feasibility analysis, including
structural, mechanical, and financial, will be undertaken as part of the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) process.
1.3.3 Ice Pond Area
The Ice Pond area is located approximately one mile west of the main site. This site will be
developed as a 20 building lot cluster development for single-family homes. There will be
a mix of market rate and affordable homes. Similar to all new development at Hospital Hill,
construction will include design covenants to ensure coherent and complimentary
development.
U
L
i
J
r-1
1.3.4 New Roadway Connector
Prior studies of the NSH redevelopment have recognized the need for a connector roadway
between Route 66 and Route 10 to alleviate traffic pressures on the downtown area and
surrounding residential streets, and to support additional traffic associated with the
development. As part of the master planning effort for the NSH redevelopment, a new
connector roadway is envisioned that would bisect the southern campus, creating a link
between the Route 10 and Route 66 corridors. Future development of this roadway
alignment will be refined through the EIR process for this project.
1.4 Phase I Development
The current Phase I plan is for approximately 152,000 square feet of commercial
development and 109 residential units; see Figure 3. The area north of Prince Street will be
developed as a mixed-use area and will include multi-family housing, single-family housing,
some retail, and at least one moderately sized office building. Two of the existing hospital
dormitory buildings, the former Nurses' Home and Male Attendants' Home, are
programmed for historic renovation into office space and apartments. The area south of
Prince Street will be developed for light industrial use and office space. This area will
include the redevelopment of the existing Laundry and Power Plant buildings, the G
Recreation Building, and one of the Memorial Complex cruciform buildings, Building F.
Two single family housing sites, one office building, and one light industrial building will
also be developed south of Prince Street.
~J
7660 11ENFIAppendices. doc
A-3
Historical Resources
Epsilon Associates. Inc.
r- - I
U
1.4.1 Roadway Improvements
Roadway improvements associated with Phase I of the NSH redevelopment are focused on
the Earle Street corridor and on improving existing deficiencies along this route.
Specifically, mitigation efforts focus on the intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street.
The existing alignment at this location contributes to safety deficiencies, which are
compounded by bridge abutments that reduce sight distance from both Earle Street
approaches. Potential improvements at this location entail realigning the northbound and
1 southbound Earle Street approaches to create a standard four-way intersection.
Another important focus of improvements is the Route 10 at Earle Street intersection. A
traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted, which indicates that a traffic signal is currently
warranted at this location. The results of the capacity analysis indicate that under future
conditions, the intersection will operate with long delays for turns onto Route 10.
Signalization of the Earle Street and Route 10 intersection will address existing and future-
year operational needs of the Earle Street corridor, which will serve as an important link to
Route 66 for general traffic, as well as the hospital site. Signalization may also have the
added benefit of reducing travel speeds along Route 10 north of Earle Street.
Other traffic mitigation being considered in the vicinity of the project area is a signal
enhancement project currently being pursued by the City of Northampton for the
Downtown. In addition, the City is studying potential Route 10 corridor safety
improvements including enhanced pedestrian crossings, speed/radar signs, curb extensions,
1 and a bike lane. The proponent is working closely with the City to identify opportunities to
cooperatively realize proposed improvements to the Route 10 corridor.
0
f~
A-4 Historical Resources
766011ENFIAppendices. doc
Epsilon Associates. Inc.
APPENDIX B DISCUSSION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
1.1 Project History
Northampton State Hospital (NSH) is listed in the State and National Registers of Historic
Places. The National Register listing was the result of a long and thorough process by the
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to document and nominate historically and
architecturally significant state hospitals and state schools throughout Massachusetts. The
MHC consulted with the Division of Capital Planning and Operations (DCPO, now the
Division of Capital Asset Management [DCAM]) and the City of Northampton extensively
on the nomination, commencing with a meeting with City officials and business
representatives in November 1992. This was followed by multiple meetings and
consultation efforts over the next two years, culminating with the hospital being listed on
the National Register on July 25, 1994 as a contributing complex to a Multiple Property
Submission of state hospitals and state schools.
0
0
Concurrent with the National Register listing, DCPO was in the process of closing the
facility and considering reuse options for the historically and architecturally significant
property. By August 1993 the last patients departed the NSH campus and the DCPO
commenced consultation with the MHC to draft a Memorandum of Agreement (MON that
would assure that historic preservation was considered in future planning and disposition
efforts. The negotiation of the MOA, commencing in May 1993, was followed by two years
of intensive meetings, consultation, and multiple iterations of the MOA. The extraordinary
efforts of DCPO and MHC resulted in a final MOA, ratified on August 10, 1995 (Attachment
4 to this Environmental Notification Form).
1.2 Overview of Memorandum of Agreement
The MOA outlined seven stipulations intended to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate adverse
project impacts to NSH. The stipulations are summarized below with a description of the
status of DCPO's compliance with each.
Stipulation I Northampton State Hospital Campus
I
U
Stipulation I does not specifically outline tasks to be complied with, but rather outlines
DCPO's and MHC's combined understandings about NSH and describes broad historic
preservation planning principles to guide redevelopment of the campus.
Stipulation I is comprised of two parts, A and B. Part A outlines DCPO's and MHC's
understandings regarding the campus, including what constitutes contributing and non-
contributing properties, a listing of character-defining elements, and acknowledges that the
past uses of the campus may change in the near future as new uses may be found for the
buildings formerly used for mental health purposes.
76601 /ENF/Appendices. doc B-1
Historical Resources
Fnci(nn 4ccnriatoc In`-
~l
II
Part B outlines three historic preservation planning principles to be incorporated into reuse
options for the campus: 1) preservation of character-defining features of the contributing
buildings and landscapes is to be encouraged; 2) if it is determined that it is not feasible to
preserve all of the features, preserving portions of the character-defining features of
contributing buildings is to be examined and encouraged; and 3) rehabilitation of
contributing buildings and new construction should be consistent with recommended
approaches in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
i Stipulation II -Marketing Plan
r~ Stipulation II defines a detailed process for development, review, and distribution of a
J
marketing plan for the campus by DCPO. The marketing plan was to include, among other
( things, a description of character-defining elements of the campus and information on
potential tax benefits. The stipulation provides opportunities for review and comment by
the MHC.
J DCPO did develop a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) in 1996 and a draft marketing plan in
1997, both of which were provided to the MHC for review and comment. The final RFP
1 and marketing plan were amended in response to MHC's feedback and were distributed to
1 a wide mailing list, including contacts offered by the MHC.
J Eight proposals were received in response to the RFP in October 1997, copies of which
were provided to the MHC. After extensive review of the submissions by DCPO, The
f Community Builders (TCB) team was provisionally designated the preferred developer of
the campus on December 7, 1998. TCB's proposal called for the retention and
rehabilitation of approximately 25 percent of the buildings on the campus.
l~ Stipulation II of the MOA notes that following consultation with the MHC, for buildings or
landscapes for which there was no preservation submission that is feasible and acceptable
to DCPO, then they or the buyer of the property can proceed with demolition of buildings
or rehabilitation with new construction that does not conform to the Standards, following
completion of photographic recordation and documentation outlined in Stipulation V (see
~l below). The stipulation also notes that if a building or landscape does not generate
J preservation interest in the initial marketing effort and is not demolished prior to the
commencement of a subsequent formal marketing effort, DCPO will make reasonable
~-l
s efforts to support the development of the property in a manner consistent with the
principles listed in Stipulation I.B.
DCPO has marketed the property with a marketing plan and RFP reviewed by the MHC.
The marketing plan and RFP established a good faith effort to encourage historic
preservation principles. While the designated developer does not propose preservation of
J 100 percent of the contributing buildings and landscapes, TCB's proposal was considered
J B-2 Historical Resources
76601 /ENF/Appendices. doc
Fncilnn ~ccn(-~rnc In-
n
r~
} by DCAM and the CAC to be responsive to the historic preservation principles outlined in
the RFP.
Stipulation III - New Construction
Stipulation III directs DCPO to encourage new buildings and landscapes that are
sympathetic or compatible with the character-defining attributes of the campus, and
provides specific guidance to that effect. This stipulation also endorses the Design
Guidelines provided in the City's Zoning Code.
The NSH site is subject to zoning overlay districts that encourage a mix of commercial and
residential development and open space preservation. The overlay districts were the result
of a two-year process during which the Northampton Office of Planning and Development
and the Northampton Planning Board sponsored numerous public hearings and forums and
collected input from the Mayor's Office, City Councilors, City boards, the CAC, and from
numerous residents. It should be noted that the City is currently in the process of amending
the zoning to create a new NSH zoning district that would eliminate the overlay districts.
Stipulation III provides for review by the MHC of any design guidelines that vary from the
zoning code or the MOA. The stipulation provides DCPO with design review authority.
_l Stipulation IV - Exempted Activities
a Stipulation IV provides a detailed list of construction activities that are unlikely to affect
character-defining attributes of the campus and are thus exempted from further review by
the MHC. These activities include, among others, demolition or alteration of non-
contributing structures, new construction on Parcels C, D, and E, and new construction 40
feet or less in height on Parcels B (south of Grove Street), F, J, and the eastern half of K.
To date, no demolition, construction, or other exempted activities have been undertaken
that fall under this stipulation.
Stipulation V - Photographic Recordation
Stipulation V provides guidelines for recordation of the campus, prior to the demolition of
any contributing building, substantial new construction, or other major changes to the
landscape.
IU DCPO undertook the recordation project in consultation with the MHC in 1999 and 2000.
The final recordation package was submitted to the MHC in 2000.
Stipulation VI - Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit
Stipulation VI directs DCPO to encourage any designated developer to seek the
rehabilitation investment tax credit.
7660 I/EN F/App en di ces. do c
B-3
Historical Resources
Fncilnn Accnrintac Inr
'1~
TCB is currently exploring use of the tax credit for rehabilitation of contributing buildings
on the campus. TCB will continue consultation with the MHC regarding this issue.
Stipulation VII - Coordination with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
I
Stipulation VII provides DCPO with direction to coordinate State Register review with other
state and federal review requirements. DCPO is directed to provide a copy of the MOA to"
any project proponent, which is then on notice to comply with review procedures under
I
the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and/or the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The MOA is to be included in any documentation
submitted to any federal and/or state agency along with the MHC's written comments
concerning the project, which shall be used to document a good faith effort to consult with
c
the MHC regarding historic preservation. The stipulation notes that the MHC, DCPO, and
h
interested parties agree that if the procedures in this MOA are fulfilled in compliance wit
the MOA, the MHC's comments will provide that, even if there is an adverse impact or
effect on the historic resources, all reasonable, prudent, and feasible means and actions
ILI
required to mitigate such adverse impact or effect have taken place under said laws and this
MOA and that it is in the public interest to proceed with the project.
Per Stipulation VII, a copy of the MOA has been included with this ENF (Attachment 4). It
was also included with the ENF filed in 1997 by DCPO. The MHC comment on that ENF,
dated March 18, 1997 is included at the end of this Appendix (Appendix B, Attachment 1).
1.3 Proposed Project
l
The proposed project is divided into two phases for the purposes of this environmenta
Phase I and the Full Build. A detailed description of the proposed project can be
review
ICI ~
,
found in Appendix A of the ENF. This section summarizes feasibility studies undertaken to
j
date, describes the proposed rehabilitation and demolition to be undertaken under Phase I,
and outlines further studies to be completed as part of the current environmental impact
analyses.
1.3.1 Feasibility Studies
In the spring of 1999, TCB commissioned Dietz & Company Architects, Inc. to undertake
an analysis of the complex, to further understand the feasibility of retaining and
rehabilitating the existing NSH buildings. The complete analysis is included in the Hospital
Hill Master Plan (TCB 1999) and is summarized below.
Initially, Dietz & Company conducted a survey of the site. The purpose of the survey was
to identify buildings that were the most likely candidates for retention. The survey resulted
in a preliminary recommendation of key buildings worthy of further investigation. The
76601/ENF/Appendices.doc 8-4 Historical Resources
Fncilnn Accnriatnc Inr
r.
n
!l
1 0
0
J
J
J
I
J
~J
recommendations from the initial fieldwork are summarized in a table included as
Attachment 2 to this Appendix.
Dietz & Company then toured key buildings and prepared schematic layouts for three
typical buildings, following which a general contractor prepared preliminary construction
cost estimates for alternative office and residential use. The survey also identified several
residential structures on the grounds which might lend themselves to reuse, but whose
current location conflicted with the emerging Master Plan. Several area house movers were
contacted and TCB obtained preliminary cost estimates for relocating the structures to a
more suitable residential location within the Hospital Hill development. TCB also
consulted with other developers who might be interested in purchasing a portion of the
property for renovation of existing structures. An assisted living developer with historic
renovation experience and several commercial retail and office developers and non-profit
community groups looked at the site. With the exception of a few structures on the south
campus (the G Recreation building, the power plant, and the former laundry building),
outside developers did not find the Hospital Hill offerings to be attractive candidates for
reuse. Redeveloping the structures, even utilizing historic tax credits, was unanimously
rejected by these companies as being cost prohibitive given the buildings' level of
deterioration.
An important task of the feasibility study was to consider a number of criteria in identifying
buildings suitable for reuse. The first criterion was the suitability of a building for
conversion to modern, non-institutional uses. Many of the Hospital Hill buildings,
especially the ones in the main complex to the north, and the Memorial complex to the
south, are massive masonry structures that do not lend themselves to easy reconfiguration.
Load-bearing interior masonry walls prevent the large, clear span interior spaces preferred
by modern office layouts, and severely inhibit the efficient layout of the spaces for
apartment use. Eliminating these interior walls, and providing alternative structural support
to meet building code would be prohibitively expensive.
A second criterion was building condition. Many of the structures within the complex are
severely deteriorated. Roofs, windows, and even some structural elements exhibit serious
neglect and decay. Replacing these elements, and meeting modern building code and
historic rehabilitation standards, would add significantly to the cost of redevelopment.
The third and most important criterion was economic feasibility. To test this criteria, Dietz
& Company and an experienced rehabilitation contractor examined the redevelopment
costs for three prototypical properties: Building 14 - Nurses' Home; Building 15 - Male
Attendants' Home; and Building 8 - Memorial Complex Building E. In each case the
architect and contractor toured the building. Then the architect tested several prototypical
designs for apartments, office and mixed use, and the contractor prepared detailed
preliminary cost estimates for redevelopment according to market standards. The cost was
then compared to a rule of thumb construction cost estimate provided by the contractor to
determine how rehabilitation would compare to new construction.
76601 IENFIAppendices.doc
8-5 Historical Resources
Fncilnn Accnrinfnc (nr
D
1 The 1999 analysis concluded that, without taking into consideration the additional costs
associated with demolition and site preparation, the cost of rehabilitation might be
uncompetitive compared to new construction. These cost estimates, based on prevailing
wage and union labor rates were significantly above comparable market costs on a square
foot basis for both rehabilitation and new construction. According to the 1999 analysis,
construction costs would be approximately $120/s.f. for rehabilitation and would nee to
be in the range of $75-$80/s.f. in order to be able to produce a cost competitive product.
Following preliminary review and analysis, a number of structures at Hospital Hill were
identified as worthy of further, detailed consideration for retention and redevelopment. The
structures are summarized in Table 1.3-1.
Table 1.3-1
1
MHC
Building Name
Possible Reuse
Building No.
Building Retention
7
Memorial D
Office
8
Memorial E
Office
10
Memorial F
Office
J
14
Nurses' Home
Apartments
15
Male Attendants' Home
Offices
38
39
Power Plant
Laundry
industrial
industrial
40
Store House
Mixed Use
48
Recreation/Kitchen
Retail
58
Coach Barn
Mixed Use
Possible Structure Relocation
31
24 Chapel Street
Residential
32
16 Chapel Street
Residential
34
37 Prince Street
Residential
51
39 Prince Street
Residential
52
10 Chapel
Residential
1.3.2 Phase I Development
The Phase I development program, as described in this ENF, includes 109 dwelling units
and up to 152,000 s.f. of office/R&D/light industrial space. The Phase I program calls for
the retention and rehabilitation of six existing buildings, all of which are contributing
structures to the NSH National Register district. Phase I proposes the retention and
redevelopment of:
J ■ Building 10 -Memorial Complex, Building F
76601 /ENFIAppen dices.. doc
B-6
Historical Resources
Fncilnn 4ccnr;~fnc Inr•
~I
1
FJ
~J
0
J
■ Building 14 - Nurses' Home
■ Building 15 - Male Attendants' Home
■ Building 38 - Power Plant
■ Building 39 - Laundry
■ Building 48 - Memorial Complex Kitchen/Recreation Building
In addition, Phase I proposes the demolition of seven existing buildings, of which 5 are
contributing structures to the National Register district. Four of the contributing buildings
are wood frame structures and are in extremely poor condition (Buildings 22, 23, 42, and
56). The remaining building (Building 13) is proposed for demolition, based upon the fact
that it would be very difficult to adapt the building for reuse in an economically feasible
manner and it sits on the campus in a location where maintaining it would be incompatible
with the overall redevelopment program.
■ Building 11 - Memorial Complex, A.P. (non contributing)
■ Building 13 - South Employees Home
■ Building 22 - Residence
■ Building 23 - Residence
■ Building 42 - Storage Barn
■ Building 47 - Memorial Group G Building (non-contributing)
i
J
,
■ Building 56 - Grounds Shop
1.3.3 Full Build
The boundaries of Phase I of the project have been carefully chosen to avoid the former
Main Building (Buildings 2-3) and its subsequent additions (Buildings 5, 6, 41, 44, 45).
While preliminary analysis has concluded that the reuse of the Main Building is not
economically prudent or feasible, the project proponent is committed to undertake further,
more detailed analysis to determine if all or a portion of the structure can be feasibly
reused. This structural, architectural, and economic analysis will be undertaken as a
component of the full build Environmental Impact Report process.
J B-7 Historical Resources
766011ENF/Appendices. doc
Fnciinn 4ccnr~iatcc Ins
n
a
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
March 18, 1997 William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Massachusetts Historical Commission
Secretary Trudy Coxe
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202
ATTN: MEPA Unit
nI RE: Northampton State Hospital Site Disposition/Redevelopment, Northampton, MA; EOEA No. 11047
.
Dear. Secref ..ary CoAe.
j Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the Environmental Notification Form
l you submitted, received February 20, 1997, regarding the proposed project referenced above. The
Northampton State Hospital is listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
MHC staff understand that the proposed project involves the conveyance of the former State Hospital site,
in parcels, to the City of Northampton, the Northampton Housing Authority, the Massachusetts
Department of Agriculture, and Smith College, and the conveyance of approximately 154 acres to a
private developer(s) through the public bidding process. The MHC, DCPO, and the City of Northampton
have consulted extensively regarding the proposed surplussing and redevelopment of the former hospital
site and have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA, a copy of which is included
~l as an appendix to the ENF, outlines stipulations to ensure that State Register properties are marketed,
J preserved, and reused, to the largest extent feasible. The MOA also outlines provisions for the
photographic documentation of contributing State Register properties proposed for demolition, and for
MHC review of proposed new construction.
The MHC anticipates continued consultation and cooperation with DCPO and the City of Northampton
regarding the marketing and redevelopment of the Private Development Parcels and, ultimately, in the
sensitive and successful redevelopment of the historic state hospital complex. The MHC supports the
j 1 waiver request.
These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800), Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 9, Sec.
,J 26-27c, as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988 (950 CMR 71.00), and MEPA.
If you have additional questions, please contact Allen Johnson of this office.
~
Sincerely,
'M 6.- icJe"k--o 140,
u th B. McDonough
cutive Director
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
J cc: Northampton Historical Commission
Penelope Kim, Office of Planning & Development, City of Northampton
j j Dan Hughes, Office of Real Estate Management, DCPO
U Will Donham, EARTH TECH
DEP/DWPC
1 (r T
l~
l
i
J
Pi
0
' l
N
O
W
Q
F-
Cn
Z
0
T
Q
= O
LL >
Z U
OLL cc
1L~" L
r
0
J •v
W -
E
Z
O 00
(f) U
Lu j
f •u L
O r Q
C)
Z or-, v
V
C
N
a.+
Q)
M
L O
Q ✓ -
v
d V) Q
E Z
O U v -Z
a u
czs E e=
D ^ Ln
U
v
r
= o
0 0
G
U
C)
V >
C, o
U
N
O
u 0
.U U
U
O >
c7j
V 0
C L
~ G
U v
~ N
O
a, - U
L r:• u
C
C C C)
r ~ E
O n
L
C, C)
E u
O -0
N r
U
-u >
r O
C1
(Z
r r
>
U W O
J
Z
O co
rZ i
= O V,
J
N O
w
Z > :L.Lj
w
LLJ F- N a o
V)
r
(7
Z
I-
Q
d
W
D
J
Q
1-
Z
W
O
CL
LL
Oc
L
p
LL
(A
CO
TQ
1
W
Z
U
U
N
U ✓
~ L
uU
U
(7 n.
G d
c .n
L ✓
O
E
r -0
`o c
r
CQ
~U
N
Li
N 0
U~
Tc d
L
>
L 0
r. a
N ,n
~ r
~ a)
C r
N
Z a,
t0
O
_ 2
7 N
m L
✓ r
N
LL- to
0
Z
_ CR
u c~ c u
V V V V
U C, c/ 1 ,
OOOO
C EIE E E
- N ~ :
O0.
N N • O0: 001 00;
00 I
C'
00 O O
CCC
I I ~O! O
iCJ
C),
M LO 'o
•C)`'
O!'
Lr)
iN:
Ln
I
C.
-q- C> 01 C) co
0
M•M M.rn
! I t ! .
i
I
:I 1 I
V
V iUUiU:U~Z2U:U
I N 1
I
;
0
j
f
C: j
I
O i
O
C
L
y
W:
L
r
U
-
"
O.
0 0 O
C--
r:
U
C C r C•
0: 0; O! 01 0:
^
E
E
Z
o: o o o;
•
,
I
E Ei Ej E E:
OE O 0' O:
a): a)' c: N '
NI N:
N
I
;
'
El
N.
v
'.0
; 0
U
2~IG' C`:r~l
:
J.J :J ~C3LiG C=
c
NQ
LJ...
✓
N .
✓
N
p W U ti :E
i
,
v:
a)
X. X C
X X X X
G
r• ; u:
G
G. G G G GI Gi v ' y
,
'
a) .
a)
W
t a,
E: E. "
E E E; E
ui LI
_
L
a+
; N .
C
V)
V) .
Q
:Ui : c L
U U'U!U = ;
U
n
✓
X
:
Li L:
L: L
h'
'
L°
L
oI
r
'
•
00
C7
L
1
r
.
L:
vIW
O' O O' O: O; O: a1
'
r
U,U,
U
ya
-
r:U
r
p
3;
E E P' E: E. 2
m.
-
J
w0 u a, c), u.
al' O: rn - '
- :c
lj
°
L
O
_
Z
Z~
C
_
~1
C
I
J
~ •O
C
O
,
•O'
F
p
-j
`
Lul
CO 00 c-4
O
rn a
'
9
V'f
/1
d
C
:_:r I-w IM'M.•N
rcc. c
N.M
~~l
f~
(A '
W
Ini
D
r
Z
111.1
O
CL
!
'
In l
✓1 :
u
U U CI U
u
N :
C
uI
u: uI
`t`.`i I
C
Cf :
01 0
6: 6:6
,
CO CO r, 100
-
,
i 'O CO N
j ' ~'~1~~
:
4
i 10 C
In ; .
010,
V'1
~
~C4 :O O •o
I Ib --.'C'!N,
~~'N
:vi• iN•N =
I
In
•
v
iN:.^D, :aD O `n
.
;
i 1
i
i
:
1
1
t
I
i
I
:N'O
O~
Co
co -D
-4
c
-4 r- co
!r C:o
Ln
C) CD
•ct•
u1 : v-I I C~ ; '
! '
Lrl
J : - ' In
rn
I O
.
-4 rn
,
, r,..!
I
Q'
r
utulu
:
u:uiu~u
uuzuu'uu
U
uu:u'uU
.
Uiu'U u u,U U'ulu z
C:;
I
O
0
v E-o I-a 1-'
CI. U i d I QI i
p'
I
I
s
.
L
I
_
C)
J IOLI
I
W
LL
a
UJ
j
2
E
0
-I ~
l r1 O L, ri~l
•
cl'
U'
F"'
. al
i r
W
I cu col CII! O L~ BI L' C•
a, y!
!
U!
v:
,
.
v
a
U I U i U L• L
i I
-r'
i
C-
CI
U
L
0i L i p U L) U i
u
'
U;
.
L
C• O: p U o UI o
:d
Q
'
m M
M'rM M .
•-'M
r) ['•'1'M
.
n O'i~ I
i
a i
!v
vI
T
i
bD
CI r p:p, ! !
O,
bll
:tnl
N a c
!
I
;
.
-0
O!
O
e!
NI
03 N
! CII C !
u.
N.-0
C ! fJ •
C
0
I
CI t/ I
N
:
O
to = N . M
W
C T
0. >1
:
L : ca °6 co
'
U : m • C U
.
Z7
.
;
C : 00 .
7
t- : .n
U
O
L .
: o o " I 'OC:
E ?
d: O
N -z
L- N
: C! fJ ' v'
I
N
I
C7 U
Q
Z
,
L
p
`
ti
. N . u . r
° lL
U
O co
' U
u
C U
. CO S:
C] f:.
rz `r.
=O
y
d
y
r
v. as
p
. C
r
: W
0
r
.91-
.
U
w
U
•
U
1
L
-
M U
U
~ ` • = L - L'
cL c . O r_. O! M
r. r.
O
d u p
U
0/ Cl =
7
n co
L7
of ' U O
Il U z I I
C
U L-
,
L N Z,~ o
p
Z Z
V Q
'
lVI ~'vI C
v
i
.
t
r,
I~
14 C) O.O
'C.GA
'O O
' O '
•
4
-
.
M...
_
_ _ ~
.
CO: CY
C)
~ c•-
'N M
.T icn:
„
..c•In.vi
Ln. In '0 -o -o
.
J
;v -
l
v
-
M,M
C
co
'3 - i N ! r-4 Lr) ~ .
u
t,L
co
F?
li
1J
J
'Jl
J
iJ
~I
U
I
~J
_I IJ
PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL CAMPUS -
PHASE I REDEVELOPMENT
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Prepared for:
MassDevelopment
September 2001
Prepared by:
VANASSE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Transportation Engineers & Planners
10 New England Business Center Drive
Suite 314
Andover, MA 01810
Copyright 0 2001 by VAI
^1
it
Il
f~
I
l~
II
U
II
li I
it
~ U
II
I~
r~
1
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l
Mitigation .......................................................................................................................2
Non-Project Related Mitigation ......................................................................................2
Project Related Mitigation ..............................................................................................4
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................6
Proposed Project .............................................................................................................6
Study Methodology ........................................................................................................6.
Study Area
EXISTING CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................................8
Study Area Roadway Network 8
Existing Traffic Volumes ...............................................................................................11
Existing Public Transportation .......................................................................................13
Safety ..............................................................................................................................14
FUTURE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................15
Planned and Ongoing Roadway Improvement Developments .......................................15
Background Traffic Growth 17
Site-Generated Traffic ....................................................................................................18
Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................19
Build Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................19
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................20
Methodology 20
Analysis of Results 22
r~
n
i
n
i
U
U
U
l~
I-
i
I
i~
l_
I~
I
l_J
CONTENTS (Continued)
MITIGATION
Mitigation
Non-Project Related Mitigation............
Project Related Mitigation
Conclusion
...........26
...........26
...........26
...........29
...........3 0
l FIGURES
i
l_
r
~
1
Number
1
2
3
lJ
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
Li
12
JL
I
13
IJ1
II
~l
i 1
Title
Site Location Map
Study Area Locations
2001 Existing Weekday Morning Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
2001 Existing Weekday Evening Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
2006 No-Build Weekday Morning Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
2006 No-Build Weekday Evening Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
Residential Trip Distribution
Commercial Trip Distribution
Weekday Morning Project-Generated Trips
Weekday Evening Project-Generated Trips
2006 Build Weekday Morning Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
2006 Build Weekday Evening Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
Conceptual Improvement Plan - Earle Street at Grove Street
1.1 TABLES
L~
0
q
r~
U
J
L
J
it
Number Title
1
Existing Roadway Traffic-Volume Summary
2
Intersection Accident Summary - 1997 through 1999
3
Trip-Generation -Northampton State Hospital
4
Trip-Distribution Summary
5
Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
6
Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
7
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary -
Weekday Morning Peak Hour
8
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary -
Weekday Evening Peak Hour
9
Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary -
Weekday Morning Peak Hour
10
Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary -
Weekday Evening Peak Hour
11
Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary -
Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road with Mitigation
12
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary -
Earle Street at Route 10 - Build Condition with Mitigation
l l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (VAI) has conducted a Preliminary Traffic Impact and Access Study
(TIAS) for the Phase I of the redevelopment of the Northampton State Hospital campus in
Northampton, Massachusetts. The Phase I development program calls for the construction of
152,000 square feet (sf) of commercial space, consisting of a mix of office, light industrial, and
ancillary retail uses, and development of 109 residential units consisting,of a mix of single-
family homes and apartments.
VAI has analyzed the proposed development and its impacts upon the study area intersections.
L J This report documents existing operational and safety-related characteristics of roadways serving
the project site, projects future year operating characteristics of these roadways without the proj-
ect, estimates project-related trip generation, and identifies incremental impacts of site-related
traffic in the study area. Mitigation actions are also identified that address existing operational
lJ and/or safety-related deficiencies as well as incremental project-related impacts. The nature,
timing, and implementation of specific mitigation actions needed to support Phase I redevelop-
ment will be refined through a consultative process involving the City of Northampton, Citizens
Advisory Committee input, and the Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway). This
preliminary assessment of Phase I impacts and associated mitigation package concludes that the
Phase I redevelopment traffic can be adequately accommodated within available roadway
C l capacities. Implementation of Phase I redevelopment and associated mitigation will be such that
L. it facilitates, but does not constrain mitigation for future build-out of the.Northampton State
Hospital site.
U This evaluation focuses on roadways and intersections that are expected to accommodate the
lJ majority of project-related traffic and that represent critical locations by the City of Northampton
based on prior traffic studies of the Northampton State Hospital. In summary, the study area
includes the Route 9, Route 10, Route 66, and Earle Street corridors adjacent to the project site
and the following intersections:
•
Route 9 (Elfin Street/Main Street) at Route 66 (West Street)
j-l •
Route 9 (Main Street) at Route 10 (South Street) and State Street
( •
Route 10 (South Street) at Old South Street
•
Route 10 (South Street) at Earle Street
•
Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road
Grove Street at Laurel Street
•
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Grove Street
•
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Laurel Street
•
Burts Pit Road at Prince Street and Laurel Street
•
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Prince Street
•
Route 66 (Prince Street) at Earle Street
•
Prince Street at site driveway
Il
l • Route 66 (Prince Street) at site driveways
• Earle Street at site driveway
Capacity analyses were conducted for study area intersections to quantify existing and future
year operations with and without the project for two critical time periods: weekday morning and
evening peak hours. These times represent the critical impact periods for residential and com-
mercial developments due to the concentration of commuter-related traffic. The capacity analy-
ses indicate that under existing conditions, the majority of study area intersections operate at
acceptable levels of service with acceptable delays and associated queuing. A notable exception
is the downtown section of Northampton at the signalized intersections of Main Street at South
Street and State Street and Main Street at Elm Street and West Street. These locations experi-
ence near capacity operations with associated queuing and delays. Programmed improvements
by the City of Northampton Department of Public Works (DPW) will enhance operations at
these locations and will create additional capacity.
Incremental traffic increases for Phase I redevelopment are estimated based on industry standard
trip-generation rates for commercial and residential land uses published by the Institute of
n Transportation Engineers (ITE).l On this basis, Phase I traffic is estimated to range from 289
l (194 entering and 95 exiting) vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour to 344 (121
entering and 223 exiting) vehicle trips during the weekday evening peak hour. On a typical
weekday, a total of 1,583 new vehicles (3,166 vehicle trips) per day are estimated. These esti-
mates do not reflect the likely role that walking, bicycling, and transit modes will play in reduc-
ing traffic generation for the development. Census data for Northampton indicate that these
modes of travel account for a substantial proportion of work-related trips within Northampton.
n Capacity analysis of future Build conditions (i.e., Phase I redevelopment in place) indicates that
l J incremental delays at study intersections are nominal and will be accommodated within available
capacities, assuming programmed improvements (by others) are in place in the downtown area.
n In a limited number of locations, physical mitigation is required to offset project-related traffic
J impact and/or to address safety-related deficiencies. These include the Earle Street intersection
at Route 10 and the Earle Street, Grove Street, and Texas Road intersection. These locations will
be addressed as described in the mitigation section.
MITIGATION
j 1 Measures are identified that address existing transportation deficiencies, as well as projected
U deficiencies resulting from general background growth and project-related traffic increases.
These measures are categorized as non-project-related mitigation (measures that address defi-
ciencies that exist independent of Phase I redevelopment) and project-related mitigation (meas-
ures required to offset project-related traffic increases). The nature, timing, and implementation
of specific mitigation actions needed to support Phase I redevelopment will be refined through a
consultative process involving the City of Northampton, Citizens Advisory Committee input, and
MassHighway.
NON-PROJECT RELATED MITIGATION
U Based on the results of the transportation analysis, a number of existing transportation deficien-
cies currently exist within the study area. Future growth in area traffic, independent of the pro-
posed development is expected to further exacerbate these existing deficiencies. In an effort to
L enhance the existing transportation system, a number of possible mitigation solutions are identi-
fied to improve traffic operations and/or safety within the study area. The proponent will inves-
tigate the feasibility of working in conjunction with the City of Northampton in order to imple-
ment and/or advance these mitigation measures, as described below.
Trip Generation, Sixth Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, DC; 1997.
Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road
n The results of the transportation analysis indicate that safety deficiencies currently exist at the
JI intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street and Texas Road. This condition is attributable to
the substandard roadway geometry at this location, principally the offset of the northbound and
southbound Earle Street approaches. In addition, bridge abutments at this location, which previ-
ously housed an elevated rail line across Grove Street, results in limited sight distance from both
1 Earle Street approaches
Potential improvements at this location entail realigning the northbound and southbound Earle
Street approaches to create a standard four-way intersection. The existing bridge abutments
would be removed as part of this design. The northbound approach would be realigned to the
west by approximately 30 feet, while the southbound approach would be relocated approxi-
mately 70 feet to the east. Both roadway approaches would provide a 30-foot cross-section
f allowing for one 15-foot lane of travel in each direction. The northbound and southbound Earle
Street approaches, as well as the westbound Texas Road approach would operate under STOP-
sign control.
Based on discussions with the Town of Northampton DPW, a future bike path is planned along
the former rail line, which would bisect the realigned intersection of Earle Street with Grove
r Street and Texas Road. The realignment of Earle Street, including removal of the existing bridge
abutments is consistent with the preliminary design of this bike path, which envisions an at-grade
bike path crossing.
The realignment of Earle Street and removal of abutment structures will vastly improve sight
lines within the intersection and will facilitate truck movements. The improved alignment will
foster Earle Street as a primary access to the hospital site. These improvements will also address
interim needs for traffic diversion from the Route 66 corridor once construction begins by
MassHighway in the near future. As such, implementation of these improvements is envisioned
as a joint effort by MassHighway, Mass Development, and the City of Northampton.
Route 10 Corridor Enhancements
In an effort to enhance both vehicular and pedestrian safety along the Route 10 corridor, traffic
calming measures and/or transportation enhancements along the corridor are identified, as
described below.
• Vehicular Speed Reduction. In order to reduce vehicular speeds along the Route 10 cor-
ridor, appropriate speed control measures are recommended. These measures may
include installation of additional speed limit signs at various locations along the Route
10 corridor and/or use of speed detection/display equipment in order to alert motorists of
the posted speed limit, and their travel speed.
• Pedestrian Safety. In order to enhance pedestrian safety along the Route 10 corridor a
number of measures have been identified. It is recommended that crosswalks be
installed at select locations to facilitate pedestrian crossings. In addition, the possibility
of providing curb extensions to shorten the crossing distance at these crosswalk locations
should be investigated. Advance warning signage would be installed to alert motorists
of crosswalk locations. The feasibility of placing reflective barrels at the center of the
crosswalk with corresponding signage alerting motorists to stop for crossing pedestrians
1 should also be evaluated further.
• Vehicular Safety. A concern raised by Northampton residents who reside on Route 10,
or local roadways the intersect Route 10 is that a number of side streets do not have
appropriate traffic signage and or pavement markings at their junction with Route 10. In
order to improve vehicular safety, installation of appropriate traffic signage and pave-
ment markings to enhance safety at such locations is recommended.
~l
Earle Street at Route 10
A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted, which indicates that based on preliminary
information, a traffic signal is warranted at this location under existing conditions. A more
definitive analysis will be conducted upon collection of additional data at this location. The
results of the capacity analysis indicate that under future conditions, independent of project
related traffic, the intersection of Earle Street with Route 10 will operate at LOS E, with peak-
hour delays occurring on the eastbound Earle Street approach at this location. Under fixture
Build conditions, traffic operations are projected to worsen, with eastbound traffic on Earle
Street experiencing excessive delay. Signalization of Earle Street at Route 10 will address
existing and future-year operational needs of the Earle Street corridor, which will serve as an
important link to Route 66 for general traffic, as well as the hospital site.
PROJECT RELATED MITIGATION
The following section describes specific mitigation measures, which are recommended to offset
project-related impacts on area roadways. The measures include a combination of transportation
design elements and transportation demand management (TDM) techniques, aimed at reducing
the number of single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) traveling to and from the project site.
r~ Site Drivewgy Design
The proposed Phase I redevelopment calls for construction of a number of driveways onto the
Route 66, Prince Street and Earle Street corridors. All site driveways will be constructed to
provided necessary corner radii to accommodate emergency vehicles turning into the site drive-
way. In addition, all site driveways will be designed to ensure that the required sight distance to
and from the drive location is maintained in both directions. Existing and proposed vegetation
should be regularly trimmed to ensure that adequate sight distance is maintained at all times.
Finally, it is recommended that a STOP sign and painted STOP bar be installed to control exiting
vehicle flows at driveway locations.
Transportation Demand Management
In an effort to reduce the number of SOVs arriving and departing the site, the proponent is com-
mitted to implementing a package of TDM measures to reduce dependence on SOV travel for
I employees and patrons of the project. Several potential measures include, but are not limited to
the following:
Transit Information. The project area is serviced by a number of bus routes that provide
connections to downtown Northampton. The proponent is committed to working with
the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) to distribute transit-related information
including bus routes and schedules to employers and residents of the development. The
proponent will also explore the possibility of having the Northampton State Hospital
campus incorporated into an existing bus route, thereby allowing for a direct transit con-
nection between the project site and surrounding communities served by the transit
service.
• Bicycle Racks. The proponent will provide bicycle racks on-site. The PVTA provides
bicycle racks on their buses allowing for multi-modal travel by their patrons. If bicyclist
demands exceed this initial supply, the proponent will coordinate with PVTA to provide
J additional racks.
• Carpool Incentives. The proponent will encourage the use of carpooling by prospective
employees within the facility. As an incentive to increase the number of employees that
carpool to the site, preferential carpool parking will be designated on-site.
'J
i~
I
e Flexible Work Hours. The proponent will encourage employers to allow for flexible
work shifts that allow employees to arrive to and depart from work outside the typical
commuter peak hours.
CONCLUSION
As documented in this study, at the majority of study area intersections, project-related traffic
will be adequately accommodated within existing area infrastructure. On the basis of capacity
along area roadways, no specific mitigation measures are required to accommodate project-
related traffic.
Proposed mitigation as described above is recommended in order to enhance pedestrian and
vehicular safety within the study area. Overall, this mitigation plan addresses the incremental
impact of the project, as well as identifying appropriate safety-related design improvements that
may be implemented by others to address existing deficiencies. With these improvements in
place, safe access and egress to the development can be provided and the development can be
safely constructed with minimal impact to the surrounding transportation system.
0
01~
i]
INTRODUCTION
This report presents a transportation impact and access evaluation for the proposed redevelop-
ment of the Northampton State Hospital campus in Northampton, Massachusetts. The evaluation
includes existing traffic operations in the project area, assesses incremental impacts on area
roadways under future year conditions with and without the project, and identifies physical
roadway improvements that address project-related traffic impacts.
F ( PROPOSED PROJECT
The Phase I redevelopment of the Northampton State Hospital consists of a mixed-use develop-
ment comprised of residential units and commercial space. Specifically, the residential portion
of the development consists of 22 single-family homes and 67 apartments, the majority of which
u are proposed on the northern side of the main campus. Two single-family homes are also pro-
posed on the southern portion of the campus, with direct access onto Laurel Street. An addi-
tional 20 single-family homes are proposed on a parcel located further west of the main campus
u along Route 10. The remainder of the Phase I development consists of 152,000 sf of commercial
space, including office, light manufacturing, and ancillary retail space, all of which are located
on the southern portion of the campus. The project site is displayed in Figure 1.
Phase I access is proposed via three driveways onto Route 66, with single driveways onto Prince
Street and Earle Street. The main driveway serving the project site will be located in the general
vicinity of the existing four-way intersection of the main campus driveways and Route 66. The
northbound and southbound approaches to this location will serve as the principal commercial
and residential access points to the redeveloped campus. A third driveway is proposed on Route
66, east of this location which, under Phase I will serve a single commercial use. The Prince
Street driveway will serve the single-family homes proposed under Phase I of the development.
The final driveway, located on Earle Street will serve a number of commercial uses at that loca-
tion.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
This transportation impact and access evaluation is conducted in several stages. The first phase
JJJ documents existing conditions in the transportation study area including an inventory of roadway
geometry, observed traffic volumes, and historic accident characteristics. Next, future year traf-
fic conditions are forecast that account for other planned area development projects, planned
transportation improvement projects, normal area growth, and project-related traffic increases.
The third phase quantifies operating characteristics of study intersections to identify existing and
fixture year deficiencies for which improvements are warranted. Specific attention is given to the
I~
I incremental impacts of the proposed projects. Finally, mitigation measures are identified to
address specific deficiencies and project-related traffic impacts.
STUDY AREA
Prior transportation studies' of the reuse of the Northampton State Hospital have focused on
roadways and intersections that have been identified as critical locations by the City of
Northampton. This TIAS focuses on the same critical locations, as well as proposed site drive-
ways. The study area includes Route 9, Route 66, and Route 10 adjacent to the project site and
the following intersections:
•
Route 9 (Elm Street/Main Street) at Route 66 (West Street)
•
Route 9 (Main Street) at Route 10 (South Street) and State Street
I' •
Route 10 (South Street) at Old South Street
1 •
Route 10 (South Street) at Earle Street
•
Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road
•
Grove Street at Laurel Street
•
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Grove Street
•
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Laurel Street
•
Burts Pit Road at Prince Street and Laurel Street
•
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Prince Street
_ •
Route 66 (Prince Street) at Earle Street
•
Prince Street at site driveway
•
•
Route 66 (Prince Street) at site driveways
Earle Street at site driveway
0
0-
2 Impact and Access Study; Northampton State Hospital Campus, Northampton, Massachusetts; Earthtech, Inc.;
1 February 1997.
I
n
EXISTING CONDITIONS
i1
As a basis for quantifying the transportation impacts of the project, the existing roadway system
and the existing traffic operations of study area roadways were reviewed. This chapter describes
the existing traffic characteristics and operations of roadways and intersections within the study
area. Sections of this chapter present an overview of the data collection program, existing traffic
volumes, and safety issues.
STUDY AREA ROADWAY NETWORK
The study area roadways and intersections are described briefly in this section. A general
I description of the physical roadway and intersection features is provided. The study area
I includes roadways under jurisdiction of either the City of Northampton or MassHighway, as
noted below.
Roadways
Route 9 (Main Street)
Route 9 (Main Street) is an arterial roadway that runs in a general east/west direction through
Northampton from the Hadley town line in the east to the Williamsburg town line in the west.
Within the study area, Route 9 is under jurisdiction of the City of Northampton. In the study
area, Route 9 consists of one 12-foot travel lane per direction. Additional turning lanes are pro-
vided at signalized intersections. Metered parking is provided along both sides of Route 9, east
of Route 10. West of Route 10, on-street parking is prohibited. The posted speed limit along
Route 9 is 25 miles per hour (mph) within the study area. Sidewalks are provided along the
northern and southern sides of the roadway. Land use in the vicinity of the study area is a mix of
commercial, residential, and religious uses.
Route 66 (Chapel Street)
Route 66 (Chapel Street) is acity-maintained local arterial that generally travels in an east-west
direction and is the principal travel route to the site, bisecting the Northampton State Hospital
i campus. Within the study area Route 66 provides one approximate 12-foot lane of travel in each
direction. The posted speed limit along Route 66 varies between 25 and 30 mph. Land use
along the corridor is primarily residential, institutional, and agricultural. As noted under Future
Conditions, the Route 66 corridor will be upgraded in the near future through a MassHighway-
sponsored contract.
r-,
1
i
r~.
I
Route 10 (South Street)
Route 10 (South Street) is a north-south arterial roadway. South of Earle Street, Route 10 is
under MassHighway jurisdiction; north of Earle Street, Route 10 is under local jurisdiction.
Route 10 provides access between downtown Northampton and towns to the south including
Easthampton and Southampton. In the study area Route 10 provides one travel lane in each
direction with curbside parking available along portions of the roadway. The posted speed limit
varies between 25 and 35 mph within the study area. Land use in the vicinity of the study area is
a mix of residential and commercial uses.
State Street
State Street is a local roadway that travels in a north-south orientation between Route 9 in the
south and Stoddard Street in north. State Street is often used as an alternative travel route
towards the Route 5 and Route 10 corridors north of the downtown area, via local east-west
roadways north of Route 9. State Street provides one lane of travel in each direction. In the
vicinity of the Route 9 corridor, State Street provides metered parking on the westbound side of
the roadway. Land use along the corridor is primarily commercial and residential uses. A side-
I walk is provided along the eastern side of the roadway.
Earle Street
Earle Street is a local roadway that generally travels in a northeast-southwest orientation between
Route 10 in the south and Route 66 in the north. Earl Street provides one travel lane in each
~ direction. At the intersection with Grove Street and Texas Road, there is a jog in Earle Street
J which accommodated a rail line crossing, resulting in a dog-legged intersection. Earl Street
abuts the southern boundary of the Northampton State Hospital southern campus.
Grove Street
f Grove Street is a local roadway that east-west orientation between Texas Road in the east, and
Route 66 in the west. Grove Street provides one lane of travel in each direction. Land use along
1 the Grove Street corridor is entirely residential. The posted speed limit along Grove Street is 30
mph.
Laurel Street
Laurel Street is a local roadway that travels in a north-south orientation between Grove Street in
the north and Prince Street in the south. Laurel Street provides one lane of travel in each direc-
tion. Land use along the Laurel Street corridor is entirely residential. The speed limit along
Laurel Street is 30 mph.
Intersections
Route 9 (Main Street) at Route 66 (West Street)
Route 9 (Main Street) meets Route 66 (West Street) to form a three-way intersection under traf-
fic signal control. The eastbound Main Street approach consists of one through lane and a shared
through/right-turn lane. The westbound Main Street approach consists of an exclusive left-turn
lane and one through lane. The northbound West Street approach consists of an exclusive left-
turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. The traffic signal operates as a fully actuated three-
phase signal. Sidewalks are present along both sides of Route 9 and Route 66, with a crosswalk
provided across West Street.
} Route 9 (Main Street) at Route 10 (South Street) and State Street
Route 9 (Main Street) meets Route 10 (South Street) and State Street at a four-way dog-legged
intersection under traffic signal control. The eastbound Main Street approach provides an exclu-
sive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right-turn lane. The westbound Main
Street approach provides an exclusive left-turn lane, a general-purpose lane, and an exclusive
right-turn lane. The northbound South Street approach provides a shared left-turn/through lane
i 1 and an exclusive right-turn lane. A delta island separates northbound travel flows. The south-
bound State Street approach provides a shared left-turn/through lane and an exclusive right-turn
lane. The traffic signal at this location operates as a four-phase, fully actuated signal. Sidewalks
are present on both sides of Route 9 and Route 10, with a sidewalk provided along the eastern
side of State Street only. Crosswalks are provided along all intersection approaches.
Route 10 (South Street) at Old South Street
Route 10 (South Street) meets Old South Street at a three-way intersection under traffic signal
control. The northbound South Street approach consists of one through lane and an exclusive
right-turn lane. The southbound South Street approach consists of an exclusive left-turn lane and
one through lane. The westbound Old South Street approach consists of an exclusive left-turn
lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. The traffic signal operates as a fully actuated three-phase
signal. Sidewalks are present along all both sides of all intersection approaches, with crosswalks
provided across every approach. Traffic signs along South Street direct motorists to use Old
I,_ 1 South Street to access Route 5 and Interstate 91 (I-91).
Route 10 (South Street) at Earle Street
L. Route 10 (South Street) meets Earle Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection. The
northbound South Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The southbound
South Street approach consists of a shared through/right-turn lane. The eastbound Earle Street
approach consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under STOP-sign control.
l Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road
J Earle Street meets Grove Street and Texas Road to form a four-way, skewed, unsignalized inter-
section. The northbound approach of Earle Street is offset from the southbound approach by
approximate 70 feet to the east. Both the Grove Street and Texas Road approaches provide a
general-purpose lane, and are under STOP-sign control. Two abutments that previously held an
J elevated rail crossing are present in the northeast and southwest quadrant of the intersection,
resulting in constrained sight lines from the Earle Street northbound approach.
' i Grove Street at Laurel Street
Grove Street meets Laurel Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection. The eastbound
n Grove Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The westbound Grove Street
~J approach consists of a shared through/right-turn lane. The southbound Earle Street approach
consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under STOP-sign control.
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Grove Street
Route 66 (Chapel Street) meets Grove Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection. The
I eastbound Chapel Street approach consists of a through/right-turn lane. The westbound Chapel
Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The northbound Grove Street
approach consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under STOP-sign control.
l
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Laurel Street
Route 66 (Chapel Street) meets Laurel Street to form a four-way, unsignalized intersection.
Both the eastbound and westbound Chapel Street approaches provide a general-purpose lane.
The northbound and southbound Laurel Street approaches provide a general-purpose lane and are
under STOP-sign control.
I
Burts Pit Road and Prince Street at Laurel Street
Burts Pit Road and Prince Street meet Laurel Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersec-
j
tion. The eastbound Burts Pit Road approach consists of a through/right-turn lane. The west-
bound Prince Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The northbound Laurel
Street approach consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under YIELD-sign control.
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Prince Street
Route 66 (Chapel Street) meets Prince Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection. The
eastbound Chapel Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The westbound
t I
Chapel Street approach consists of a through/right-turn lane. The southbound Prince approach
consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under STOP-sign control.
1
Route 66 (Prince Street) at Earle Street
Route 66 (Prince Street) meets Earle Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection. The
eastbound Prince Street approach consists of a through/right-turn lane. The westbound Prince
Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The northbound Earle Street
approach consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under STOP-sign control.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Traffic volumes were recorded at various study area intersections and along study area roadways
t
t
l t
i
f
ll
d b
ng movemen
coun
s
manua
urn
y means o
ecte
in September 2001. Traffic data were co
(TMCs) and automatic traffic recorder ~ATR) counts. This data was supplemented by counts
'
, for other area developments. In all instances, mainline
conducted as part of prior traffic studies
traffic flows along study area corridors have been calibrated to reflect observed growth within
J
the region, and balance with data collected in 2001. Traffic counts were scheduled to occur sub-
sequent to the opening of the temporary Oxbow Bridge, across Route 5, south of the project area.
Prior to this opening, traffic volumes were diverted from Route 5 to Route 10, within the study
area, resulting in increased traffic along this corridor, as discussed in subsequent sections. The
traffic count locations are shown in Figure 2.
Daily traffic volumes were collected along Route 10 (South Street), north of Old South Street
and Route 66 (West Street), west of Earle Street. A summary of existing daily traffic volumes is
provided in Table 1.
3Summary of Improvement Scenarios - Signal at Main Street/South Street/State Street; Fuss & O'Neill; July 7, 2000.
4Traffic and Access Study Northampton State Hospital Campus; Earthtech; February 1997.
i
I
~i
I
1
oRV~
W
1-
e
H
c
0
v
Ci
,
-
y
w
V
O
N
Q.
ojj~
y.
w
~
G
o r
~
s
^
N
O Q
J
P T
a
do
N
b
N
~
O O~
M
Il
l J
ble 1
T
a
EXISTING ROADWAY TRAFFIC-VOLUME SUMMARY
Weekday Weekday Morning Peak Hour
Weekday Evening Peak Hour
Daily Percent of
Percent of
Volume Volume Daily Predominant
Volume
Daily
Predominant
Location (vpd) a (vph)b Traffic` Flow
(vph)
Traffic
Flow
Route 10, north of 19,586 1,370 7.0 52% NB
1,505
7.7
61% SB
Old South Street
Route 66, west of 5,591 490 8.8 79% EB
525
9.3
65% WB
Earle Street
Source: ATR counts conducted in September 2001.
'Two-way daily traffic expressed in vehicles per day.
bTwo-way peak-hour volume expressed in vehicles per hour.
`The percent of daily traffic that occurs during the peak hour.
dNB=northbound, SB=southbound, EB=eastbound, WB=westbound.
As presented in Table 1, daily traffic flows along Route 10 are approximately 19,600 vehicles
per day (vpd) on weekdays. Traffic flow during peak hours is approximately 1,370 vehicles per
hour (vph) on a weekday morning and 1,505 vehicles on a weekday evening. Peak-hour direc-
tional flow is approximately 52 percent split northbound during the weekday morning peak hour,
and 61 percent split southbound during the weekday evening peak hour.
L; Daily traffic flow along Route 66 is approximately 5,600 vpd, with peak-hour traffic-flow
approximately 490 vph during the weekday morning peak and 525 vph during the weekday eve-
ning peak. Directional flow during peak hours ranges from 79 percent split eastbound and 65
r 1 percent split westbound during the weekday morning and weekday evening peak periods,
lJ respectively. This directional split indicates heavy directional flow towards the downtown
Northampton and regional commuter routes during the morning peak, with opposite patterns
exhibited during the evening peak.
Seasonal Adjustment
In order to determine whether seasonal adjustment factors should be applied to data collected in
J
September 2001, MassHighway continuous count data were examined. MassHighway collects
continuous count data at a number of counting stations within Northampton including:
• Station 11: Route 5 and Route 10, South of the Hatfield town line
_
• Station 2405: Route 1-91, North of King Street interchange
• Station 2425: Route I-91, between Route 9 and Damon Road
• Station 2436: Route I-91, between Route 5 and Route 9
Based on a review of the most recent years of traffic data available for each location, September
traffic data, for all four locations exhibited traffic volumes that exceeded average annual condi-
tions. September traffic volumes ranged between 1 and 6 percent higher than average annual
J
conditions, with the four locations exhibiting, on average, September traffic volumes 3 percent
higher than average annual conditions. This may be due in part to lower traffic volumes during
summer months when college related traffic is not traveling area roadways.
J
While MassHighway data indicates that September 2001 data is likely higher than average
annual conditions, no seasonal adjustment factor had been applied to reduce observed traffic
volumes, in order to allow for a conservative evaluation of existing and future traffic operations.
I~
L j Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
Manual turning movement counts were performed at study area intersections during the weekday
morning peak period (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and the weekday evening peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00
PM) in September 2001. These time periods represent the critical impact periods associated with
both residential and commercial activity due to the concentration of commuter related activity.
Existing peak-hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The study area is served by a number of public transportation bus routes operated by the PVTA.
Each of these routes stops at the Academy of Music bus stop located at the intersection of Route
9 and Route 10 in downtown Northampton. PVTA buses are equipped with bicycle racks as part
of the PVTA Rack & Roll program, allowing passengers to use the PVTA service to transport
them to an area more conducive to cycling. The majority of bus routes that serve the downtown
area do not charge a fare. Fares on routes that charge are one dollar or less, with some fares only
in place during summer months when school is not in session. The following describes specific
site routes, peak-hour headways, and service availability. Complete schedule and route map
information are provided in the appendix of this report.
~l • Route 39: Smith/Hampshire/Mt. Holyoke. The PVTA Bus Route 39 provides service
U between downtown Northampton, Hadley, and South Hadley. Stops are provided at
Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College, and a number of residential complexes
along the route. Peak-hour headways are approximately one hour, with more limited.
service provided on the weekend.
• Route 40: Minuteman Express Northampton/Amherst. The PVTA Bus Route 40 pro-
vides service between downtown Northampton and the University of Massachusetts at
U Amherst. Peak-hour headways area approximately one half-hour. Weekend service is
not provided along this route.
• Route 41: Northampton/Easthampton/HCC. The PVTA Route 41 provides service
between downtown Northampton, Easthampton, and Holyoke via the Route 10 and
Route 141 corridors. Connections are provided at the Easthampton Town Hall, Williston
Academy, Riverside Industries, and Holyoke Community College. Peak-hour headways
L l are approximately one hour, with weekend service provided on Saturday only.
0
ul'
• Route 42: Northampton/Williamsburg. The PVTA Route 42 bus route provides service
between downtown Northampton and Main Street in Williamsburg. Key stops along the
route are the VA Hospital, Cooley Dickinson Hospital, and Smith College. Peak-hour
headways along the route are approximately one hour, with more limited Saturday and
Sunday service.
• Route 43: Northampton/Hadley/Amherst The PVTA Route 43 bus service provides
service between downtown Northampton and downtown Amherst via Route 9. Service
is provided to a number of stops including the Hampshire Mall, Amherst College, and
the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Peak-hour headways are approximately
twenty minutes. More limited service is also provided on Saturday and Sunday.
• Route 44: Florence Heights via King Street and Bridge Road The PVTA Route 44 bus
service provides connections between downtown Northampton, Florence Heights, and
the Hampshire Plaza. Peak-hour headways along this route are approximately one hour,
with service also provided on Saturday and Sunday.
~J
I
l~
~I
I
~i
~I
I
Ll
F1
I ~
L.,
_J
I ~
III
ri
ICI
` I
~ i
z
a
0
orno°
Nl~
133b1S 20.5
130---►
31VIS 100-x.
~L
MPVE o
DR N 5 ~
W
0
-V)
o. cn
r\)
i
U~
2
~ a
0
hh
sz to r
o LNe9•
20
i } LAUI
00 / STR
h
Q
J~
m
a
z
II
Z
v
Z
O
E
O
'O
may'
N G Y
X O
W -a =
N d
w
R3
Q
vI:
a
w
a °
m
M N
m~
s~
N
m
of
an
~o
N
~O
M O
r •P-
~ w
Z w
N
N
H
O
O
s~
0 o L195
'o 'o
L215
4-305
° M C4 4-115
x'270
320,"
251
605--l'
133 15 175-+ 0 0
31'd1S 1t5 Z °M~
c
d to
-4- 2 N
1 08£
~s
00
00
W
O
V
C
_ F-
W
X > O
W -a =
~ Y Y
0 W
cl a
v
z
z
z
0
N F, Lse
1 r°`
w
W
l
~ ~ YN
0
rl
~5
r Ne9•
CA A--
Ne9
\ \ 4
a~ i
t-
\
a~ i ~R
y
O
S
MR ~E Ne9
s
019
~
4
r s
s
c
y
40
0 9
o! h
~
u
lkj z
Cl)
01 R
0
,0
S[z h r
rns o '!-Neg.
0 CA 4-35
i
45
R 401
51 h \ ~ Neg.--i,
LAUREL
s
p
STREET 25z o 0
~ ^M
vN
~ oy~ ~ y
J
10
00
.d
w
O
y
Q
w
m„
n
o ¢ ~
T
a ~
N ^O
~ O
N
M
b
N T
I
,l
I~
SAFETY
1 In order to identify accident trends and/or safety deficiencies in the study area, accident data
were requested from the City of Northampton Police Department and MassHighway. At the
time of this reports preparation, accident data were obtained from MassHighway, which is a
compilation of data received from the local level. This data has been utilized in this analysis.
I Accident data for each location were researched to determine the type of accident, severity, and
roadway conditions for each incident. In addition, accident rates were determined for each loca-
tion. These rates quantify the number of accidents per million entering vehicles and provide a
basis for comparing reported accident rates to statewide averages. MassHighway statewide acci-
dent rates for signalized and unsignalized intersections are 0.89 and 0.67, respectively. A sum-
mary of the accident data is provided in Table 2 and is described below.
Based on the results of the analysis summarized in Table 2, the location that experienced the
greatest number of accidents over the three-year period was the intersection of Route 9 (Main
Street) with Route 10 (South Street) and State Street. A total of 16 accidents were reported over
the three-year period. The majority of accidents were either rear-end or angle type, resulting in
property damage only. The crash rate analysis indicates that this location exhibits an accident
rate below the state average.
{ Three of the eleven study area locations exhibited accident rates that exceeded state averages:
-_I Earl Street at Grove Street and Texas Road, Route 66 at Grove Street, and Route 66 at Laurel
Street. All three locations exhibited accident rates that exceeded 1.00. Based on a review of
accident data at these locations, each location averaged between approximately 1 and 3 accidents
per year. However, the relatively low number of vehicles processed through these locations
results in accident rates that exceed the state average. The majority of accidents at these loca-
tions were of the angle type, indicating collisions between vehicles turning from the minor
(q approach onto the major roadway.
L As described in more detail in Future Conditions, MassHighway is currently planning to upgrade
the Route 66 corridor, including the intersections of Route 66 with both Grove Street and Laurel
Street. These improvements will entail improvements to both locations, including the realign-
ment of Grove Street to allow for a standard T-type intersection at its juncture with Route 66.
These improvements are expected to enhance safety at these locations.
The intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street and Texas Road exhibits safety deficiencies
due to the substandard roadway geometry at this location. The presence of bridge abutments at
two intersection approaches results in the northbound and southbound Earle Street approaches
-1 being offset by over 100 feet, and compromises sight lines from both locations. As part of the
J proposed mitigation package for the Phase I development, the proponent is committed to
designing improvements to enhance safety at this location as discussed in subsequent sections.
For the remaining study area intersections, there were significantly fewer accidents reported over
J the three-year period. In most remaining instances, 1 or less accidents per year were reported on
average, with corresponding accident rates less than 0.50 in all instances.
Q1
O~
rVr--~
F~
H
O~
!'N
z
AW
1~1
U
U
z
0
H
U
N a
~ H
of
1
00
N
f`1 O OIN
O^ ^ OIN
O ^ 01 r4
N OOO OIN
00 NIN
N
O
W
`D 0
O
00010
000010
000010
0000010
00010
U
=
O
O
'l1N^IW
ISCD ^CA OO
<t d'OOI oo
~O•^•--OIW
M VI 00
Y ~
7
y
~p
r. Vl OI ~D
N O MI ~O
'~t N O OI ~O
N N N O OI ~O
Y
a
a
o
0 0 0l o
0 0 0 0l o
0 0 0 0l o
0 0 0 0 01 o
0 0 0l o
7~
o
7
0
cn~
o
Ooolo
oooolo
ooCD Olo
ooooolo
ooolo
0
0
C7
o
\cn
OOd'IV
'7000Id'
NNCD OIct
^MOCD OIV
cq ^17
V] O
p
cd
^
W ~ ~
o
o of
o o ol
o o o ^I
^
o^ o O of ^
o o ^1 ^
ai I
q
W
o
o
O
O
~
N N X11 0`
O 10 0 MI C,
M 'n O ^I P
'O M O 0 01 C,
^ M vll G,
CL .o
O
0
'nom
r-
d'7 M•--
1 ^
00.-•O NIA
00 MOOI^
cl^CD O^1
N 001^
N pj
~
O
N
'7 yr 01 ^
r- 00 O ^1 ^
O o O OI
O d' N O Ol
N M =1 ^
~y
O
C
O
.c
~ ~
Q 0. wo
0 0
O
v
cl
c
Q
o o
O\1b
=
a,W°
E
^
r
= o
m
00.E
oo E
-
C
oorn
C\ D\
I
Y
~
t
on m
= O O=
O
a° d~_
y' a) c1
0
°
0
o .
on
is = O C
UcGcnu 0
O
E
O O a)
~va
O
E-
b
^
F
~Q~xa
F-
~a0.LT.
~
~
U
o
q
~
U
h
N
A
R
Q
b
U
Q
3
m
y
i
0
O
00
°rn
0
b
O
. FUTURE CONDITIONS
Evaluation of the project impacts requires the establishment of a future baseline analysis condi-
tion. This section estimates future roadway and traffic conditions with and without the project.
To determine the impact of site-generated traffic volumes on the roadway network under future
conditions, baseline traffic volumes in the study area were projected to a future year condition.
Traffic volumes on the roadway network at that time, in the absence of the project (that is, the
No-Build condition), would include existing traffic, new traffic due to general background traffic
growth, and traffic related to specific development by others, and currently under review at the
local and/or state level. Consideration of these factors resulted in the development of No-Build
traffic volumes. Anticipated site-generated traffic volumes were then superimposed upon these
~I No-Build traffic-flow networks to develop future Build conditions.
ICJ' The following sections provide an overview of planned roadway improvements in the study area,
the future No-Build traffic volumes, and projected Build traffic volumes.
PLANNED AND ONGOING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENTS
l Based on consultation with the City of Northampton's Planning Department and DPW, as well as
iJ MassHighway's District 5 Office, a number of proposed and ongoing roadway improvement
projects were identified within the study area. Each of these projects is described below.
Downtown Northampton Traffic Signal Improvement
The City of Northampton has approved traffic signal improvements that would modify the
existing signal timing and phasing at a number of intersections along the Main Street corridor.
lJ These improvements are intended to allow the existing traffic signal equipment to operate more
efficiently by coordinating the existing traffic signals to operate as one interconnected signal
system. Within the study area, the intersections of Main Street with South Street and State
J Street, and the intersection of Main Street with West Street and Elm Street would be affected.
Proposed signal timing and phasing modifications were obtained from the traffic impacts
assessment prepared for these improvements.' These improvements are funded and are expected
to be in place within the next several years. Future No-Build and Build condition traffic analyses
assume these improvements are in place by year 2005.
r~
5 Ibid.
l
li
~l
I
1 Oxbow Bridge Improvements
MassHighway is currently replacing the Oxbow Bridge, located on Route 5, south of the project
site. Phase I of the project, which entails construction of a temporary bridge adjacent to the per-
manent bridge is complete, with the temporary bridge opening in late August 2001.
Prior to the opening of this bridge, traffic destined for I-91 to the north was diverted from Route
5 to Route 10, within the study area. This increase in traffic heightened resident concerns related
to increased traffic volume and vehicular speed along the Route 10 corridor. The proponent is
committed to working with the Northampton DPW to identify and implement measures that will
enhance both vehicular and pedestrian safety along this corridor, as discussed in subsequent
sections.
Based on consultation with MassHighway, it is expected that the construction of the replacement
Lj Oxbow Bridge will be advertised in the winter of 2001. It is expected that this project will be
complete prior to completion of Phase I of the development.
j Route 66 Improvement Project
1.
MassHighway will be constructing roadway improvements along the Route 66 corridor within
r the study area. Improvements are scheduled to occur in three phases. Phase I entails improve-
ments to two bridges, and installation of a traffic signal at Florence Street. Based on conversa-
tions with MassHighway, traffic flow will be maintained along Route 66 throughout the con-
struction schedule. Phase I construction is expected to be complete by the end of 2002.
Phase II of the Route 66 improvements involved reconstruction of a portion of the Route 66 cor-
ridor, between Wilson Road and Main Street in the center of Northampton. The overall goal of
the Phase II project is to upgrade the alignment of Route 66 in this area to MassHighway design
~l standards, and to enhance pedestrian amenities, including provision of sidewalks and crosswalks
U at select locations. The project entails widening the existing roadway to maintain a 32-foot wide
roadway section throughout this stretch of Route 66. A number of intersections will be realigned
r during Phase II of this project as follows.
} Within the study area, the intersection of Route 66 with Grove Street will be modified.
Specially, the northbound Grove Street approach will be realigned to meet Route 66 at a
J typical T-type intersection. Northbound and southbound traffic flows along Grove Street
at this location will be separated by a proposed granite curb island.
• The intersection of Route 66 with Laurel Street will be upgraded to provide pedestrian
(i walkways along both sides of Laurel Street, south of Route 66 and the east side of Laurel
Street, north of Route 66. In addition, sidewalks will be provided on the south side of
Route 66.
• The intersection of Route 66 with Prince Street will also be realigned to allow for a typi-
cal T-type intersection at this location. Northbound and southbound traffic flows along
Prince Street would be separated by a granite curb island.
• The intersection of Route 66 with Earle Street will be modified. Earle Street currently
splits approximately 120 feet south of Route 66, with a large delta island separating traf-
fic flows to and from the east from traffic flows to and from the west. As part of this
improvement project, the northbound Earle Street approach will be realigned to form a
standard T-intersection. Separate left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes will be provided
from Earle Street.
Phase III of the Route 66 project will involve upgrading the corridor between Wilson Road and
the Westhampton town line.
J
RAFFIC GROWTH
l_ 1
BACKGROUND T
Background traffic includes demand generated by other planned projects in the area as well as
demand increases caused by historic area growth trends. Area growth trends account for general
increases in traffic not attributable to a specific development and are determined using historical
data. Both planned development projects and area growth trends were used to develop future
(1
year traffic volumes.
i_
Historical Area Growth
I
Determination of an appropriate annual growth rate in area traffic over the five-year planning
horizon was achieved through examination of historical traffic data for the region. In order to
gain a comprehensive understanding of growth trends in area traffic, data from three different
sources were examined as described below.
l -
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission - Daily traffic volumes were obtained from the Pioneer
Valley Planning Commission for a number of locations within the City of Northampton. Traffic
data was available for the last twenty years at a number of locations within the City. Based on a
O
review of traffic data at count locations proximate to the study area, little to no growth was
observed. Average annual growth at all locations proximate to the site was below one percent
per year.
at five locations
Hi
h
M
d b
ll
d
way
g
ass
ecte
y
ata co
MassHighway Count Data - Continuous count
in Northampton between 1991 and 2000 were examined to determine the average rate of growth.
n
Based on a review of daily traffic volumes at all five locations, all but one location exhibited an
I J
annual growth rate of less than 1 percent. On average, the five locations actually exhibited. a
minor decrease in traffic volume over the available years of data.
Prior Traffic Studies - While daily traffic volumes collected by the Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission and MassHighway allow for direct comparison daily traffic volumes between avail-
able years of data, a more reliable estimate of background growth can be achieved through com-
parison of peak-hour traffic volumes. Traffic data collected in 2001 as part of this study were
compared to data collected as part of prior area studies. Peak-hour comparisons were made for a
~J total of five of the eleven study area intersections. Based on a review of this data, during the last
five years peak-hour traffic volumes have exhibited a minor decrease during the weekday morn-
) ing peak, and an increase of less than 1 percent during the weekday evening peak.
Based on a review of these three data sources, little to no growth in area traffic has been
observed within the study area during the last five years. However, in order to account for gen-
eral background growth, a 1 percent general background growth rate has been applied to area
traffic over the five-year planning horizon.
I~ Site-Specific Growth
u Based on consultation with the City of Northampton Planning department, there are a number of
small residential developments proposed and/or approved within the study area. Due to the size
of these projects, which vary between 8 and 34 units, traffic studies were not prepared for any of
J these developments. The peak-hour trip generation for these subdivisions is expected to be on
the order of 1 vehicle trip every two minutes, or less. Any additional traffic associated with
these subdivisions is expected to be captured within the background growth rate.
~ The Planning Department also indicated that an 87-unit condominium development is proposed
J
off Burts Pit Road, north of the project site. A traffic study was also not prepared for this devel-
opment. However, given the proximity of this development to the study area, and the number of
units proposed, traffic increases that could potentially be generated by this development were
specifically incorporated into future No-Build conditions.
r~
I
l
No-Build Traffic Volumes
t _ 1
F
The 2006 weekday morning and weekday evening No-Build traffic-volume networks are dis-
played in Figures 5 and 6. These volumes were derived by adding background growth (historical
area growth and development-related growth) to the existing traffic volumes.
SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC
The proposed Phase I redevelopment program consists of 109 residential units (42 single-family
homes and 67 apartments) and 152,000 sf of commercial space. The proposed commercial space
is comprised of a mix of office, light industrial space, and ancillary retail space. The traffic gen-
erated by the proposed development was estimated using trip rates published in the ITE Trip
Generation manual' for LUC 210 - Single-Family Detached Housing, LUC 220 - Apartment,
LUC 110 - General Light Industrial, LUC 710 - General Office Building, and LUC 814 -
Specialty Retail Center, the most appropriate categories for this development. Table 3 presents
the trip-generation estimate for Phase I of the development.
Table 3
TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT - PHASE I
n
Single
b
Total
J
Family Homes'
Apartments
Commercial`
New
Weekday Morning Peak Hour:
Entering
12
6
176
194
Exiting
36
31
28
95
Total
48
37
204
289
n Weekday Evening Peak Hour:
J Entering
33
37
51
121
Exitin
19
18
186
223
Total
52
55
237
344
Weekday Daily 494 536 2,136 3,166
Source: ITE Trip Generation manual, Sixth Edition, 1997.
'ITE LUC 210 trip equation applied to 20 on-site and 22 off-site single family homes
J BITE LUC 220 trip equation applied to 67 apartments.
°ITE LUC 110 trip generation applied to 47,000 sf of industrial space; ITE LUC 710 trip equation applied
to 86,000 sf of office space; ITE LUC 814 trip equation applied to 19,000 sf of retail space.
J
The trip-generation estimates for the project are provided for the weekday morning and weekday
evening peak hours, which traditionally correspond to the critical impact periods for residential
I l and commercial-related developments due to the concentration of commuter-related traffic. As
J indicated in Table 3, the Phase I development program is expected to generate 289 trips during
the weekday morning peak (194 entering and 95 exiting) and 344 trips during the weekday eve-
ning peak (121 entering and 223 exiting). On a daily basis, the proposed Phase I development is
I expected to generate 3,166 trips (1,583 entering and 1,583 exiting).
J-
6 Ib1.
i._
l
i!
I~
L!,
U
0
~l
~l
i
1.
LJ
i
L ,
I
I
I i
Z
a
L
L
~LO
0M't
201
1 T L
1331115 135--*
31d1S 105-1
m
d N
1 7-001
1 ~ 1
Z
Z
z
O
O
c o
z -a=
a~
3 a
CZA
N 0 tqg
r
1 ~ ,~-q
N
w
f~~
1
n
to
O Y
~S
~ ~Ne9• W
o°'
~
4
y
\
L
N
tl/
MP~N ~o o~
x
R~vE Ne
s s
F ~
06
r
on
O
W U
5~
S
o
H
ss
ss h
O
~4
44j,L 2 "
t1.
Q~~ p
yw
rn
O
2,1 /&(7 CO
N
"w o ~1 ca
v
0
s
r
y
s~
NM
o 0w t5
Q
o v -Neg• d i4 r5
0
w
2
y R 401
LAUREL Neg.1 h \ 0 Neg.-y
VN(p
<
N
o ~o STREET 35---*
5-i o
o
U+W
V'
\
Q
~ 0 O
. h y N
o>
m
~o
0
ip N
°a
'
r~
I~
r~I
l 1
rl
1(
LJ
~I
~l
i
L
Z
I'`'I
Y
N
F
p
cn
o
LO LO
N
L 205
!t 225
4 4- 320
M M
f--120
`f 1 4
`285
335
25
L
I
635--+
1332J1S 185-►
0
0
31d1S 120-
~ M F)
C"
d N
s8
z
II
z
v
z
N
Q
bA v
r
R
m W s.
ono
Z _
c,~e.
0
N I, LSc
W
V N
awl
~5
9• W ~>~b~
o ~Ne
A--N 9. y
s s 4
y
S
o
i
~
N
h
Mp.\P1 ~0 J, s ~
s8 u
x
°
o
,n ~
y
~o
o<<
s h~
~
w
.~!1/gyp h w° ~
O
o~ J,
y
n O '-Neg. fJ /
Q.
c`y 4-50 1 10
m -Neg. 5
60
r
w
av
r
R
o~ Ne9 Z
/
STREET 25
0
2
Q
N
m
Yo
C N
'
~sN
v
N
~
5
a
I
100% 100%
aSource: U.S. Census Journey to Work data for residents and employees of the
City of Northampton
Using the trip-generation and distribution estimates project-related trips were assigned to the
roadway network. Figures 9 and 10 display the project-generated trips at each study area inter-
section approach for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours.
j BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Future Build condition traffic volumes were determined by adding project-specific traffic to the
2006 No-Build scenario. Figures 11 and 12 present the 2006 Build networks for the weekday
morning and weekday evening peak hours.
U
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Development of the Build traffic-volume networks requires that site-generated traffic volumes
previously described be assigned to area roadways based on projected regional distribution pat-
terns. Two separate trip-distribution patterns were formulated for Phase I of this project, to
account for the residential and commercial-related traffic. The directional distribution of resi-
dential traffic arriving to and departing the site is a function of a number of variables, including
the employment characteristics of the towns surrounding the development, existing travel pat-
terns along area roadways, and the efficiency of the roadways leading to the site. The trip distri-
bution patterns for the residential portion of Phase I of the project is based on U.S. Census
Journey-to-Work data for residents of the City of Northampton, and is displayed in Figure 7.
Trip-distribution patterns for the commercial portion of the development were also based on U.S.
Census Journey-to-Work data for employees of Northampton. Trip-distribution patterns for the
commercial component of the Phase I development are displayed in Figure 8. Trip-distribution
patterns for both the residential and commercial components of the Phase I development are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4
TRIP-DISTRIBUTION SUMMARYa
Residential Commercial
Trip Distribution Trip Distribution
Route (To/From)
Route 9, east of the site
Route 9, west of the site
Old South Street (to I-91)
Route 10, south of the site
Route 66, west of the site
State Street
40%
21%
20%
- 27%
23%
17%
6%
20%
2%
11%
9%
4%
TOTAL
I- -
._1
O.
cc
c
0
~ y
'a D
~ 1=
1w , .
1i:
V
0
W
N
Q:
w
~I _
M W
~v
N y
O N
O Q
~
m
3
a a
ao
~ N
i0
N O
M
~ w
00 t
n S'+
C.
ca
c
O
V ~
V.
V
0
y
o.
. a
N
O
~ N
M O
~ L
O rn
r ~
z LO N
Q ~ O U1
N
E
i 4 t43
iiii >
to C
9
31d1S .O
F=
ED (D
C" :2 O
cV Z 'g
C\l 4) (D CC
Q~
4 1-91 4-
'1-21
z tl1 O.
1z
Al
N
n
1 rZ9
W
r
W
M~
RC\P~
r.N
MMp
k-5 pp pR~~E &Z~
8z9
aO-i
/-A
14 W <
,o
L Ne9, G O
~F6
co
L4
!
J h~~
s 1'
M
V
3
-
1~'
M
d
~
pR
E
2
~
y
.
10
o h
o,
\
4til,
j
V
co
co
o j co
a
r
y
N
~
10"
~
► 13
-
/
22 ~
O
a v
LAUREL 11
y
STREET
Q
~s
~ r
Q yj N
-
>
v
I
~ T
~
,
10 N
d
Y \
fO 2
f? LO
N t
I
~I
rl
i~
133~11S
3J,ViS
s, 10
Z
w
N
o
cn
o
s
M
4 t74
i
77
~T
ON
m
O
CV
4 ~~S
1
04
S
z
z
6
z
N
O
E
O
bA V
Cc > E=
W
Q _ c O
0 2
4) (D
v~ 3 a
1 r«
w
r
N
~
W
1
I
cL
~
N
00
r
r N
GOOER~\P~
O
co r
4 41 a~
z
t
-
a
~Ne9• GO
Ss
r SF,
LLI
~
i
~ M F\N 5o J ~
04 co'
N
y OR\VE ~o
x
CA
2TY
O
JS'
w
Zi
r
y
M
N h
r '-13
rv '10
1
°
w
a-10
LAUREL
13
a v
M H
s STREET
y
o t
2 vrN
f
~n
O
J~
N
co
t
\
~ w
LO r-
O rn
V
a
Z
Q
w
Ld
o
Ytl~
p
o~
°
~Ln
c°V r~
4-295
f-125
4-384
a-560
1 4
`330
4301
201
1
~ I
o
255--
133815 135-►
1d1S
Co
~
3
1142
:
N °
cn
j 13~~~5
<Sl
To 't-se
r 99
~
W
Y
N
W
e bb
?
I
Y
cm to
In
M N Y
C
O
-1
k- 5 CO OR\vE sd",9
N d• 1~\ ~ ~
a
~ 4 RR
LV o
.0
N GAP
)db
S
O
cn
~
~~e9 Gp~~O~~
~s
S
GL8
`
\N 42 J s
N
6
F
~
S'9 u
~LO
644
CUB Z
h
co
c0
s t
s `j v~N NM
x-13
° i
X20 r5
611
Z LAUREL Neg' h~ 'o Ne9'~ z
6aN ? r~. STREET 45Z
l~ VYIJI
Q
m
Z
Z
ti
z
O
bA
C V
•i Cc
O R O
mom=
(D -e
O O ~
3 a
cl
V
w
V
O
y
o
°
w
a v
~Y.
N K
015
\a
rn
3a
~o
0 N
O
N
r .t
r
Z
Q
W
N Y
O N
G)
r-
o Lo ^
n M 04
L205
120
o~
N~ L299
x-320
285
3351
O
>
25,
133215 185-+
}
I
o
635---',
'`cu
r
u
31'd1S 1282 ;:,Ti
> H
W L
Q
0 U-)
C,4
z
(D
CV a
1
r
a
l
I,
13~b~s
Z
-
r
11) LO g2
N
CO LO
N
r
N ~
M G\PU
M 6R
C~
o
Lg8 G OR1vE
~ r t
ti~~ IQ
W o~
N~
GAP
KS
N
rn d' 1ye9 O Q
A~
o
M
^
N
ORV~ P1e9
CO
I I
20
G~
t
1
441~
r I
CO h
L
it
y~oo ILJ1
0
L13 j
~
Q
f-60 j
ry v ,LNeg Zc,
4-10
r5
~
J
j
52~
t N!
-
a v
`
1
i 2
g J` LAUREL 311, h \ Neg.
STREET 5-Z
r
6a
N
t0
° ;
M
N
n h
Rf
sa
v
l~
m °o
I
b
LJ
Ill
l_) TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
J
Measuring existing and future traffic volumes quantifies traffic flow within the study area. To
assess quality of flow, roadway capacity analyses were conducted under Existing, No-Build, and
Build traffic-volume conditions. Capacity analyses provide an indication of how well the road-
way facilities serve the traffic demands placed upon them.
IF1
METHODOLOGY
S
LJ
Levels of
ervice
A primary result of capacity analyses is the assignment of level of service to traffic facilities
U
under various traffic-flow conditions! The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative
measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motor-
ists and/or passengers. A level-of-service definition provides an index to quality of traffic flow
in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, com-
U
fort, convenience, and safety.
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility. They are given letter designations from
j
A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst.
Since the level of service of a traffic facility is a function of the traffic flows placed upon it, such
a facility may operate at a wide range of levels of service, depending on the time of day, day of
week, or period of year.
Signalized Intersections
The six levels of service for signalized intersections may be described as follows:
D
• LOSA describes operations with very low control delay; most vehicles do not stop at all.
ib
ti
ith
l
ti
l
l
t
l d
l
H
hi
l
• LOS B d
e
owever, more ve
es opera
ons w
re
a
ve
y
ow con
ro
ay.
c
es
escr
stop than LOS A.
1I
• LOS C describes operations with higher control delays. Individual cycle failures may
U
begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although
many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
I~
-
7The capacity analysis methodology is based on the concepts and procedures presented in the December 1997 Update
J
to the Highway Capacity ~Ytanual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 1998.
• LOS D describes operations with control delay in the range where the influence of con-
gestion becomes more noticeable. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
• LOSE describes operations with high control delay values. Individual cycle failures are
frequent occurrences.
LOS F describes operations with high control delay values that often occur with over-
saturation. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing
causes to such delay levels.
I
J
n
F1
I
Levels of service for signalized intersections are calculated using the operational analysis meth-
odology of the 1997 Update to the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual.' This method assesses the
effects of signal type, timing, phasing, and progression; vehicle mix; and geometries on delay.
Level-of-service designations are based on the criterion of control or signal delay per vehicle.
Control or signal delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, and fuel consumption, and
includes initial deceleration delay approaching the traffic signal, queue move-up time, stopped
delay and final acceleration delay. Table 5 summarizes the relationship between level of service
and control delay. The tabulated control delay criterion may be applied in assigning level-of-
service designations to individual lane groups, to individual intersection approaches, or to entire
intersections.
Table 5
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA
FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa
Control (Signal) Delay per Vehicle
Level of Service (Seconds)
A
<10.0
B
10.1 to 20.0
C
20.1 to 35.0
D
35.1 to 55.0
E
55.1 to 80.0
F
>80.0
aSource: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Third Edition;
Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 1998; page 9-7.
Unsignalized Intersections
The six levels of service for unsignalized intersections may be described as follows:
• LOSA represents a condition with little or no control delay to minor street traffic.
• LOS B represents a condition with short control delays to minor street traffic.
• LOS C represents a condition with average control delays to minor street traffic.
• LOS D represents a condition with long control delays to minor street traffic.
• LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity level, with very long control
delays to minor street traffic.
'Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Third Edition; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC;
1998.
I'
~I
11
U
1
U
U
• LOS F represents a condition where minor street demand volume exceeds capacity of an
approach lane, with extreme control delays resulting.
The levels of service of unsignalized intersections are determined by application of a procedure
described in the December 1997 update to the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Level of service
is measured in terms of average control delay. Mathematically, control delay is a function of the
capacity and degree of saturation of the lane group and/or approach under study and is a quanti-
fication of motorist delay associated with traffic control devices such as traffic signals and STOP
signs. Control delay includes the effects of initial deceleration delay approaching a STOP sign,
stopped delay, queue move-up time, and final acceleration delay from a stopped condition. Defi-
nitions for level of service at unsignalized intersections are also given in the December 1997
update to the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Table 6 summarizes the
relationship between level of service and average control delay.
Table 6
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa
Average Control Delay
Level of Service (seconds per vehicle)
A
< 10.0
B
10.1 to 15.0
C
15.1 to 25.0
D
25.1 to 35.0
E
35.1 to 50.0
F
>50.0
'Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report
209, Third Edition; Transportation Research
Board; Washington, DC; 1998; page 10-25.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Level-of-service analyses were conducted for 2001 Existing, 2006 No-Build, and 2006 Build
conditions for the intersections within the study area. The results of the intersection capacity
analyses are summarized in Tables 7 through 10, with detailed analysis results presented in the
Appendix. The following is a summary of level-of-service analyses for the intersections within
the study area.
J Based on the results of the capacity analyses, the majority of study area intersections operate at
- LOS D or better during the weekday morning and weekday evening peak periods. The one
exception is the intersection of Earle Street with Route 10 which currently operates at LOS E
during the weekday evening peak hour. Under future Build conditions, this intersection is pro-
jected to operate at LOS F. Specific measures intended to address project-related impacts are
described under project mitigation.
Signalized Intersections
The signalized intersection analysis was conducted using the SYNCHRO computer model,
which is based on the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual procedures and is officially sanctioned by
the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs/Executive Office of Transportation and
Construction (EOEA/EOTC). The results are summarized in Tables 7 and 8 below.
ii
Table 7
l SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY -
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
2001 Existing
2006 No-Build
2006 Build
Location Approach
V/C'
Delays
LOS`
V/C
Delay
LOS
V/C
Delay
LOS
I
j
Main Street at South Eastbound
0.71
28
C
0.80
31
C
0.83
34
C
Street and State Streetd Westbound
0.89
52
D
0.80
52
D
0.84
54
D
Northbound
0.97
44
D
0.95
46
D
0.95
46
D
Southbound
Intersection
0.70
0.81
36
38
D
D
0.73
0.85
47
41
D
D
0.73
0.86
47
42
D
D
L_1
Main Street at Elm Street Eastbound
0.70
18
B
0.48
18
B
0.53
20
B
and West Streetd Westbound
0.62
10
A
0.74
13
B
0.80
15
B
I
Northbound
Intersection
0.38
0.60
14
14
B
B
0.56
0.58
36
21
D
C
0.60
0.63
36
22
D
C
South Street at Westbound
0.67
25
C
0.63
25
C
0.86
38
D
Old South Street Northbound
0.88
26
C
0.93
32
C
0.94
34
C
Southbound
0.88
26
C
0.92
32
C
0.93
35
C
l
Intersection
0.85
26
C
0.88
31
C
0.92
35
C
_
iVolume-to-capacity ratio.
bAverage stopped delay per vehicle (in seconds).
`Level of service.
42006 No-Build and Build analyses reflect planned signal tim
ing and phasing improvements.
Table 8
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY -
WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR
n
2001 Existing
2006 No-Build
2006 Build
LJ
Location Approach
V/C'
Delayb
LOS`
V/C
Delay
LOS
V/C
Delay
LOS
Main Street at South Eastbound
Street and State Streetd Westbound
0.79
1.03
45
71
D
E
0.77
0.88
44
59
D
E
0.89
0.91
49
62
D
E
Northbound
0.99
52
D
0.96
52
D
0.96
52
D
Southbound
0.88
48
D
0.91
60
E
0.91
60
E
Intersection
0.72
54
D
0.90
51
D
0.90
54
D
Main Street at Elm Street Eastbound
0.73
19
B
0.55
20
C
0.62
24
C
J
and West Streetd Westbound
0.63
10
B
0.71
11
B
0.76
13
B
Northbound
0.36
15
B
0.52
36
D
0.65
36
C
Intersection
0.64
15
B
0.63
21
C
0.67
23
C
South Street at Westbound
th Street Northbound
Old S
0.79
0
73
21
20
C
B
0.83
0
77
24
22
C
C
0.91
0.78
30
22
C
C
ou
Southbound
.
0.79
17
B
.
0.83
20
B
0.85
22
C
Intersection
0.72
19
B
0.76
21
C
0.80
24
C
~J
°Volume-to-capacity ratio.
bAverage stopped delay per vehicle (in seconds).
`Level of service.
12006 No-Build and Build analyses reflect planned
signal timing and phasing improv
ements.
J Under existing conditions, the all three signalized study area intersections operate at LOS D or
better. Future signal timing and phasing improvements at signalized locations results in little to
no reduction in overall level of service between Existing and No-Build conditions. Project-
related impacts at signalized locations are minimal, resulting in no change to overall level of
service, an overall delay increases of four seconds or less.
Unsig_nalized Intersection Results
The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used to evaluate the unsignalized study intersec-
tions. The results of the analysis are presented in Tables 9 and 10 below.
ll
j Table 9
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY -
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
lJ
2001 Existing
2006 No-Build
2006 Build
Location
Approach
V/C°
Delay'
LOS`
V/C
Delay
LOS
V/C
Delay
LOS
L l
Route 10 at Earle Street
Eastbound
0.39
23
C
0.52
31
D
0.88
>80
F
Northbound
0.06
8
A
0.06
8
A
0.10
9
A
Earle Street Northbound at
Grove Street and Texas Road
Westbound
Northbound
0.01
0.15
7
10
A
A
0.01
0.16
8
10
A
A
0.01
0.28
8
11
A
B
Earle Street Southbound at
Eastbound
0.00
8
A
0.00
8
A
0.01
8
A
Grove Street and Texas Road
Southbound
0.05
10
A
0.06
10
A
0.10
11
B
Route 66 at Earle Street
Westbound
0.03
8
A
0.03
8
A
0.04
8
A
l_.
Northbound
0.13
11
B
0.13
12
B
0.17
14
B
Grove Street at Laurel Street
Eastbound
0.00
7
A
0.00
7
A
0.00
7
A
_
i
Route 66 at Grove Street
Southbound
Westbound
0.03
0.00
9
8
A
A
0.04
0.00
9
8
A
A
0.07
0.01
9
8
A
A
-
Northbound
0.04
11
B
0.04
11
B
0.05
11
B
Route 66 at Laurel Street
Eastbound
Westbound
0.00
0.00
7
8
A
A
0.00
0.00
7
8
A
A
0.00
0.01
7
8
A
A
Northbound
0.03
11
B
0.04
12
B
0.05
12
B
Southbound
0.04
11
B
0.07
12
B
0.10
13
B
Laurel Street at Burts Pit
Road
Westbound
Northbound
0.00
0.02
8
9
A
A
0.00
0.02
8
10
A
A
0.01
0.03
8
10
A
A
Route 66 at Prince Street
Eastbound
0.00
7
A
0.00
7
A
0.00
8
A
Southbound
0.17
12
B
0.18
12
B
0.20
13
B
n
Route 66 at Main Drive
Eastbound
0.01
8
A
0.01
8
A
0.01
8
A
l J
Westbound
0.00
0
A
0.00
0
A
0.05
8
A
Northbound
0.00
0
A
0.00
0
A
0.02
11
B
Southbound
0.02
11
B
0.03
11
B
0.15
15
C
I
Route 66 at Commercial
Westbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.04
8
A
~
~
lU
Drive
Northbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
12
B
Earle Street at
Eastbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
9
A
Commercial Drive
Northbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
7
A
o
Prince Street at Site Drive
Eastbound
0.01
7
A
0.01
7
A
0.01
7
A
Southbound
0.01
9
A
0.01
9
A
0.01
9
A
Bunts Pit Road at
Eastbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
7
A
West Site Drive
Southbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
9
A
°Volume-to-capacity ratio.
'Average stopped delay per vehi
cle (in seconds).
`Level of service.
r, Based on the results of the capacity analysis, the majority of study area intersections currently
U operate at LOS D or better and are projected to operate at LOS D or better under future No-Build
and Build conditions. The one exception is the intersection of Earle Street with Route 10. Under
existing conditions, eastbound traffic at this location operates at LOS E during the weekday eve-
ning peak hour, with the movement projected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours under
future Build conditions. Specific measures to improve future traffic operations at this location
are identified under project mitigation.
J,
ICJ
Table 10
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY -
WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR
U
2001 Existing
2006 No-Build
2006 Build
-
Location
Approach
V/C'
Delay"
LOS`
V/C
Delay
LOS
V/C
Delay
LOS
~
Route 10 at Earle Street
Eastbound
0.59
36
E
0.68
48
E
>1.2
>80
F
Northbound
0.05
9
A
0.06
10
A
0.08
10
A
Earle Street Northbound at
Westbound
0.01
8
A
0.01
8
A
0.02
8
A
l
Grove Street and Texas Road
Northbound
0.16
10
A
0.18
10
B
0.28
11
B
-
Earle Street Southbound at
Eastbound
0.00
8
A
0.01
8
A
0.01
8
A
Grove Street and Texas Road
Southbound
0.11
10
B
0.18
10
B
0.28
12
B
Route 66 at Earle Street
Westbound
Northbound
0.05
0.06
8
10
A
B
0.05
0.02
8
10
A
B
0.06
0.12
8
14
A
B
Grove Street at Laurel Street
Eastbound
0.00
7
A
0.00
7
A
0.00
8
A
Street
t
66
t G
R
Southbound
Westbound
0.14
01
0
9
8
A
A
0.05
0.01
9
8
A
A
0.06
0.01
10
8
A
A
rove
e
a
ou
Northbound
.
0.07
11
B
0.07
11
B
0.10
12
B
n
Route 66 at Laurel Street
Eastbound
Westbound
0.01
0.01
8
7
A
A
0.01
0.01
8
7
A
A
0.01
0.01
8
7
A
A
LJ
Northbound
0.07
12
B
0.10
12
B
0.14
12
B
Southbound
0.06
11
B
0.06
12
B
0.07
12
B
Laurel Street at Burts Pit
Road
Westbound
Northbound
0.00
0.05
7
10
A
A
0.00
0.07
7
10
A
A
0.01
0.28
7
10
A
A
Route 66 at Prince Street
Eastbound
0.00
8
A
0.00
8
A
0.00
8
A
Southbound
0.11
11
B
0.13
11
B
0.14
12
B
Route 66 at Main Drive
Eastbound
Westbound
0.00
0.00
8
0
A
A
0.00
0.00
8
0
A
A
0.02
0.02
8
8
A
A
Northbound
0.00
0
A
0.00
0
A
0.09
10
B
Southbound
0.03
11
B
0.03
11
B
0.20
16
C
Route 66 at Commercial
Westbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
8
A
J
Drive
Northbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.06
10
B
Earle Street at
Eastbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.04
9
A
Commercial Drive
Northbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
8
A
o
Prince Street at Site Drive
Eastbound
0.00
7
A
0.00
7
A
0.01
7
9
A
A
Southbound
0.03
9
A
0.03
9
A
0.08
Burts Pit Road at
Eastbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
7
A
O
West Site Drive
Southbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
9
A
'Volume-to-capacity ratio.
'Average stopped delay per veh
icle (in seconds).
`Level of service.
0
I
U
P, MITIGATION
U
0
MITIGATION
The final portion of the analysis process identifies measures useful in improving existing trans-
portation deficiencies, as well as projected deficiencies resulting from general background
L~ growth and project-related traffic increases. Measures intended to improve existing and pro-
jected transportation deficiencies are categorized as non-project mitigation (measures that
address deficiencies that exist independent of Phase I redevelopment) and project-related miti-
gation (measures intended to offset project-related traffic increases) The nature, timing, and
implementation of specific mitigation measures intended to support Phase I redevelopment will
be refined through a consultative process involving the City of Northampton, Citizens Advisory
a Committee, and MassHighway.
NON-PROJECT RELATED MITIGATION
Based on the results of the transportation analysis, a number of existing transportation deficien-
cies currently exist within the study area. Future growth in area traffic, independent of the pro-
posed development is expected to further exacerbate these existing deficiencies. In an effort to
a
enhance the existing transportation system, the proponent has identified a number of possible
mitigation solutions to improve traffic operations within the study area. The proponent will
investigate the feasibility of working in conjunction with the City of Northampton in order to
1
implement and/or advance these mitigation measures, as described below.
U
Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road
J The results of the transportation analysis indicate that safety deficiencies currently exist at the
intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street and Texas Road. This condition is attributable in
part to the substandard roadway geometry at this location, principally the offset of the north-
bound and southbound Earle Street approaches. In addition, bridge abutments at this location,
I I which previously housed an elevated rail line across Grove Street results in limited sight distance
U from both Earle Street approaches
Potential improvements at this location would entail realigning the northbound and southbound
Earle Street approaches to create a standard four-way intersection. The existing bridge abut-
ments would be removed as part of this design. The northbound approach would be realigned to
the west by approximately 30 feet, while the southbound approach would be relocated by
j approximately 70 feet to the east. Both roadway approaches would provide a 30-foot cross-sec-
tion allowing for one 15-foot lane of travel in each direction. The northbound and southbound
Earle Street approaches, as well as the westbound Texas Road approach would operate under
STOP-sign control. Conceptual improvements at this location as displayed on Figure 13.
i
/ TFrF~ <
V/ PROPOSED EDGE OFK
(-.PAVEMENT
R&R U P.,- (6Y~O-Ti*Ej r!=~'
(-STORY
tivIETAL BILL
YLIFUEL
STOf'AGT I jSTO?AC~ j\
C_O iAlI? tJ TA(iK TA
EARL--_
pYCL-
0 FAST
D'ix
NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN IS FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
2. BASE PLAN INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE
ONLY AND SUBJECT TO FIELD VERIFICATION.
scale in Feet Figure 13
I
s Conceptual Improvement Plan
Transportation Engineers & Planner
Earle Street and Grove Street
] Northampton, Massachusetts
__ii I II C:\Progrom Files\Lond Desktop R2\TEMPLATE\nelborders.dwt 07/12/01 11:44:28 AM EDT
Li copyright 2001-by M. AII-Right.-Rsssmed.
~J
(1 Based on discussions with the Town of Northampton DPW, a future bike path is planned along
the former rail line which bisects the realigned intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street and
Texas Road. The realignment of Earle Street, including removal of the existing bridge abut-
] 1 ments is consistent with the preliminary design of this bike path, which envisions an at-grade
bike crossing.
n The realignment of Earle Street and removal of abutment structures will vastly improve sight
J lines within the intersection and will facilitate truck movements. The improved alignment will
foster Earle Street as a primary access to the hospital site. These improvements will also address
interim needs for traffic diversion from the Route 66 corridor once construction begins by
MassHighway in the near future. As such, implementation of these improvements is envisioned
as a joint effort by MassHighway, Mass Development, and the City of Northampton.
Capacity analyses were performed for the realigned intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street
and Texas Road under future Build conditions. The results of the analysis are summarized in
Table 11. As indicated, under future Build conditions, with proposed roadway improvements in
place, this location is projected to operate at LOS A during both peak periods.
Table 11
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY -
EARLE STREET AT GROVE STREET AND TEXAS ROAD - WITH MITIGATION
0 Earle Street Northbound at
2006 No-Build 2006 Build 2006 Build w/Mitigation
Location Approach y/C° Delayb LOS` V/C Delay LOS v/C Delay LOS
Grove Street and Texas Road:
Weekday Morning Peak
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Weekday Evening Peak Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
0
L
Earle Street Southbound at
Grove Street and Texas Road:
Weekday Morning Peak Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Weekday Evening Peak Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
NA
0.01
0.16
NA
NA
0.01
0.18
NA
0.0
NA
NA
0.06
NA
0.00
0.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
A
0.01
8
10
A
0.28
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
A
0.02
8
10
B
0.27
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
A
0.01
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
A
0.10
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
A
0.00
8
10
B
0.28
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.18
8
A
0.03
8
B
0.32
10
NA
0.09
8
NA
0.13
8
A
0.04
8
B
0.31
10
NA
0.27
9
A
0.18
8
NA
0.03
8
NA
0.32
10
B
0.09
8
NA
0.13
8
A
0.04
8
B
0.31
10
NA
0.27
9
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
bAverage stopped delay per vehicle (in seconds).
`Level of service
Route 10 Corridor Enhancements
In an effort to enhance both vehicular and pedestrian safety along the Route 10 corridor, traffic
calming measures and/or transportation enhancements along the corridor are identified, as
described below:
• Vehicular Speed Reduction. In an effort to determine whether vehicle speeds along the
Route 10 corridor typically exceeded the posted speed limit, a twenty-four-hour speed
study was conducted along Route 10, north of Earle Street. The posted speed limit in
this location varies between 25 and 35 mph. The results of the speed study indicates that
'
UI
average vehicular speeds along the corridor ranged between 37 mph in the northbound
direction and 38 mph in the southbound direction. The 85`x' percentile operating speed,
which is often utilized for design purposes was 44 mph in the northbound direction and
l 43 mph in the southbound direction, nearly 10 mph greater than the posted speed limit.
1 In an effort to reduce vehicular speeds along the corridor, appropriate speed control
measures are recommended. These measures may include installation of additional
speed limit signs at various locations along the Route 10 corridor and/or use of speed
detection/display equipment in order to alert motorists of the posted speed limit, and
their travel speed.
• Pedestrian Safety. In order to enhance pedestrian safety along the Route 10 corridor, a
number of measures have been identified. It is recommended that crosswalks be
installed at select locations along the Route 10 corridor to facilitate pedestrian crossings.
J In addition, the possibility of providing curb extensions to shorten the crossing distance
J at these crosswalk locations should be evaluated. Advance warning signage should be
installed along both Route 10 approaches to alert motorists to crosswalk locations. In
n addition, the possibility of placing reflective barrels at the center of the crosswalk with
corresponding signage alerting motorists to stop for crossing pedestrians will also be
investigated.
~Il
• vehicular Safety. A concern raised by Northampton residents who reside on Route 10,
lJ
or local roadways the intersect Route 10 is that a number of side streets do not have
appropriate traffic signage and or pavement markings at their junction with Route 10. In
order to improve vehicular safety, it is recommended that appropriate traffic signage and
U
U
pavement markings at such locations is recommended.
Earle Street at Route 10
a
In order to determine the feasibility of signalizing the intersection of Earle Street with Route 10,
a signal warrant analysis was conducted. The signal warrant analysis was conducted based on
existing peak-hour traffic volumes collected along the Earle Street approach, and will require
further refinement subsequent to collection of daily traffic flows along this route.
L
The traffic signal warrant analysis was performed in accordance to industry standards to deter-
mine whether installation of a traffic signal is justified at this location. Traffic control signals
should not be installed unless one or more signal warrants, as specified in the Manual on
U
U
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)9are met. The MUTCD provides eleven warrants to
determine the need for traffic signal control. The most relevant warrants for the location exam-
a
ined are:
• Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume (an eight-hour warrant)
• Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic (an eight-hour warrant)
• Warrant 8 - Combination of Warrants
Ll
• Warrant 9 - Four-Hour Volumes
• Warrant 10 - Peak-Hour Delay
• Warrant 11 - Peak-Hour Volume
J Based on the results of the warrant analysis, under existing conditions the intersection of Earle
Street with Route 10 meets all of the above warrants except Warrant 10 - Peak Hour Delay.
Detailed warrants analysis is presented in the Appendix.
J
As previously indicated, under future conditions, eastbound traffic from Earle Street onto Route
10 is projected to operate at LOS E independent of project related traffic. Under future Build
conditions, this movement is expected to operate at LOS F during peak commuter hours.
Capacity analyses were performed to determine the potential benefit that installation of a traffic
U 9Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Federal Highway Administration; Washington, DC; 2000.
signal would have on the intersection of Earle Street with Route 10. The results of the analysis
indicate that under future Build conditions, installation of a traffic signal would result in an over-
n all LOS C or better during both the weekday morning and weekday evening peak hour. The
results of the capacity analysis are summarized in Table 12.
IL Table 12
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY -
EARLE STREET AT ROUTE 10 - BUILD CONDITION WITH MITIGATION
2006 Weekday Morning
2006 Weekday Evening
u
Build (Signalized)
Build (Signalized)
Location Approach'
V/C' Delay` LOS'
V/C Delay LOS
Earle Street at Route 10 Eastbound
0.54 18 B
0.75 29 C
Northbound
0.85 16 B
0.92 28 C
Southbound
0.46 6 A
0.86 17 B
a
Intersection
0.76 13 B
0.87 22 C
aResults displayed for critical movement of each approach.
'Volume-to-capacity ratio.
'Average stopped delay per vehicle (in seconds).
dLevel of service.
PROJECT RELATED MITIGATION
The following section describes specific mitigation measures, which are recommended to offset
project-related impacts on area roadways: The measures include a combination of transportation
design elements and TDM techniques, aimed at reducing the number of SOVs traveling to and
from the project site.
Site Driveway Design
The proposed Phase I redevelopment calls for construction of a number of driveways onto the
Route 66, Prince Street, and Earle Street corridors. All site driveways will be constructed to
provided necessary corner radii to accommodate emergency vehicles turning into the site drive-
way. In addition, all site driveways will be designed to ensure that the required sight distance to
and from the drive location is maintained in both directions. Existing and proposed vegetation
should be regularly trimmed to ensure that adequate sight distance is maintained at all times.
Finally, it is recommended that a STOP sign and painted STOP bar be installed to control exiting
vehicle flows at driveway locations.
~l Transportation Demand Management
In an effort to reduce the number of SOVs arriving and departing the site, the proponent is com-
mitted to implementing a package of TDM measures to reduce dependence on SOV travel for
employees and patrons of the project. Specifically, the use of existing transit services will be
promoted as a means of reducing the number of SOVs traveling to and from the site. Future
redevelopment of the Northampton State Hospital campus will likely increase the effectiveness
of proposed TDM treasures as the employee base for whom these programs are offered will also
increase. Several potential measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Transit Information. As previously indicated; the project area is serviced by a number
of bus routes that provide connections to downtown Northampton. The proponent is
committed to working with the PVTA to distribute transit-related information including
bus routes and schedules to employers and residents of the development. The proponent
will also explore the possibility of having the Northampton State Hospital campus incor-
i
J porated into an existing bus route, thereby allowing for a direct transit connection
between the project site and surrounding communities served by the transit service.
• Bicycle Racks. The proponent will provide bicycle racks on-site. As previously indi-
L J cated, the PVTA provides bicycle racks on their buses allowing for multi-modal travel
by their patrons. If bicyclist demands exceed this initial supply, the proponent will coor-
dinate with the PVTA to provide additional racks.
• Carpool Incentives. The proponent will encourage the use of carpooling by prospective
employees within the facility. As an incentive to increase the number of employees that
1 carpool to the site, preferential carpool parking will be designated on-site.
• Flexible Work Hours. The proponent will encourage employers to allow for flexible
work shifts that allow employees to arrive to and depart from work outside the typical
commuter peak hours.
CONCLUSION
As documented in this study, at the majority of study area intersections, project-related traffic
will be adequately accommodated within existing area infrastructure. On the basis of capacity
along area roadways, no specific mitigation measures are required to accommodate project-
related traffic.
Proposed mitigation as described above is recommended in order to enhance pedestrian and
C vehicular safety within the study area. Overall, this mitigation plan addresses the incremental
impact of the project, as well as identifying appropriate safety-related design improvements that
may be implemented by others to address existing deficiencies. With these improvements in
n place, safe access and egress to the development can be provided and the development can be
Li safely constructed with minimal impact to the surrounding transportation system.
D
0
J
J
11 ,n
m
ca
C
m
Environmental Notification Form
~ i
41
0
Northampton. state Hospital
0
L Northampton, Massachusetts
0
0
08
L February 18, 1997
CD
s
v
a~
Submitted To:
MEPA Unit
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street - 20th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
r-
0
t Submitted By:
0
CL
N
i Commonwealth of Massachusetts
by its
Division of Capital Planning and Operations
a~
E
Prepared By:
U
N
T
E A R T H E C H
°
a~
7
C
N
IJ
o
February 18, 1997
WILLIAM F. WELD
r
GOVERNOR
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
CHARLES D. BAKER
SECRETARY
LARK JUREV PALERMO
COMMISSIONER
1
Secretary Trudy Coxe
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Attn: MEPA Unit
~iLGeGJ,/iI t. (01P,e At, e Yll./,J/JYI.t//9161416(16(wl and - XVwlnlce
One. I'ZLA1116411 t, y1 e
5od,l n, ~l~a u~~u~eLl 02408
Tel: (617) 727-4050
Fax: (617) 727-5363
Re: Approximately 226 acres of land formerly known as the
Northampton State Hospital campus, Northampton, Massachusetts
Dear Secretary Coxe:
This project consists of the disposition and redevelopment of approximately 226
acres of land and buildings formerly known as the Northampton State Hospital campus in
Northampton (the "Site"). Pursuant to Chapters 86 and 307 of the Legislative Acts of
1994 (the "Legislation"), the Division of Capital Planning and Operations ("DCPO") of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is directed, and in limited instances authorized, to
convey a total of approximately 70 acres of the Site (the "Public Conveyance Parcels") to
the City of Northampton (the "City"), the Northampton Housing Authority ("NHA") and
the Department of Food and Agriculture ("DFA") and to grant certain easements to
Smith College for uses specified in the Legislation. The Public Conveyance Parcels are
to be used for agricultural, recreational, conservation, affordable housing and municipal
purposes (collectively referred to herein as the "Public Conveyance/Project"). The
Legislation also directs DCPO to convey the remaining 154 acres of land and
approximately 880,000 square feet of building space of the Site (the "Private
Development Parcels") to a private developer or developers (the "Private Development
Conveyance/Project"). The disposition and redevelopment of the Private Development
Parcels will be accomplished through the issuance of a Request for Proposals ("UP")
which has been endorsed by the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Site.
it
Secretary Trudy Coxe
February 18, 1997
Page 2
The Public Conveyance/Project and the Private Development Conveyance/Project
are subject to the use and development restrictions set forth in the Legislation; the
_ Memorandum of Agreement between the City and DCPO (the "City MOA"); the City's
_l zoning regulations for the Site, which were adopted following a full public re-zoning
process; the City's Planning Board's Northampton State Hospital Plan for the Site (the
"Site Plan") which also was adopted following a full public process, as described in
Section IV of the Environmental Notification Form ("ENF" the recommendations of the
Citizen's Advisory Committee (the "CAC"), different compositions of which worked and
held public meetings for over 15 years on the reuse of the Site, as described in Section IV
of the ENF; and certain historic preservation guidelines pursuant to a Memorandum of
Agreement (the "MHC MOA") between the City, DCPO and the Massachusetts
Commission (collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Guidelines"), all as discussed
~l further below. A complete listing of the conveyances, the transfer recipients and the
expected land uses is provided in Table 1 to the attached ENF. The Legislation, which
directs uses of the Site and the recipients thereof, embodies the collective wisdom of
these public processes in which the CAC, the Mayor, the Conservation Commission, the
Recreation Commission, the Office of Planning and Development, the Planning Board_
D and many other agencies and community members participated since the early 1980's:.
Pursuant to 301 CMR 11. 18, for the reasons and subject to the conditions
specified below, the proponent hereby requests the following waivers of the requirement
to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"):
(i) With respect to the Public Conveyance Parcels, the proponent requests a full
waiver of the requirement to prepare an EIR and authorization for the
immediate disposition, remediation and renovation of the parcels; and
(ii) With respect to the Private Development Parcels, the proponent requests a
waiver of the requirement to prepare an EIR for the conveyance of certain
parcels at the Site to private developer(s), subject to the imposition of a
contractual obligation in the Land Disposition Agreements that the
developer(s) fully comply with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
("MEPA") process prior to undertaking any construction work on the Site.
Background
A. Public Conveyance Parcels. Under the terms of the Legislation, which is
I~ the culmination of approximately 15 years of public process to determine
appropriate uses of the Site, DCPO will convey certain parcels and easements
on the Site totaling approximately 70 acres to the City, NHA, DFA and Smith
College. The Legislation directs that these parcels be used for a variety of
beneficial uses, including open space preservation, recreation/conservation,
Secretary Trudy Coxe
February 18, 1997
Page 3
l
community gardens, agriculture, municipal uses (e.g., school, public safety
I)
facility, or athletic field), affordable housing and housing for Department of
Mental Health ("DMH") clients. A 100 foot conservation restriction and
n
public right-of-way easement running parallel to the Mill River will be granted
I__1
to the City for public use of foot trails for fishing, hiking, winter sports and
nature study. DFA will receive an Agricultural Preservation Restriction on
approximately 36 acres of the Site (Parcel D) to ensure that its agricultural use
is preserved. In addition, Smith College will be granted an easement for access
roads and other utilities serving its athletic fields. As stated above, a complete
C
listing of these conveyances; the transfer recipients and the expected land uses
J
is provided in Table 1 to the attached ENF. The Public Conveyance/Project
will not pose significant environmental impacts, as the current uses of these
parcels will be maintained; and although the Legislation permits the use of
Parcel C for a range of municipal uses, the City's current and foreseeable plan
is to use Parcel C for recreational purposes. The Public Conveyance/Project
L,
will provide immediate, significant benefits to the City, the Commonwealth
and the environment, without significant negative impacts, and, thus, should.be
D
undertaken as soon as possible.
B. Private Development Parcels. With respect to the Private Development
Parcels, DCPO will issue a RFP for their disposition, reuse and redevelopment.
u
LJ
The RFP will specify that the reuse of the Site is subject to the Guidelines,
which set forth specific objectives for the redevelopment of the Site, including
(i) preservation of open spaces and agricultural land, including conservation
U
1
restrictions; (ii) preservation of the historic buildings and landscapes in
accordance with the MHC MOA; (iii) job creation and economic growth; and
(iv) the development of affordable housing and housing for DMH clients.
These Guidelines are the result of numerous studies and public review
r }
u
hearings, discussed further below.
C. Guidelines for the Site. The entire project has been subject to numerous
and extensive public review processes which have spanned over 15 years.
Interested parties have had notice and multiple opportunities to comment on
the project and its impacts. These include:
• In 1980 the City authorized the preparation of a reuse study of the Site.
• In 1982 a final reuse study of the site was accepted by the City.
• In 1984, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Center for
Economic Development prepared a study for the reuse and
redevelopment of the Site.
• In 1986 a Citizen's Advisory Committee was created to study the reuse
and redevelopment of the Site. The CAC is made up of members of the
Secretary Trudy Coxe
February 18, 1997
Page 4
li
City's Chamber of Commerce, Development Corporation, City Council
Industrial Committee, Housing Partnership, and representatives from
the Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and DMH, among others. All CAC
ll meetings are open to the public. Shortly after the passage of the
I Legislation, the CAC commenced an extensive review of the proposed
uses for the Site and adopted Development Guidelines for the project.
All of the CAC meetings are open to the public. In addition, the
' Legislation requires prior review by the CAC before commencing
development.
In 1992 the City adopted the Northampton State Hospital Plan (the
"Site Plan"), which is the result of a lengthy review by the City's
Planning Board and community input, as further described in Section
IV of the ENF.
In 1993 the Planning Board proposed rezoning of the Site, which was
ultimately adopted, after public comment and review. The zoning for
the Site, as described in the ENF, is the result of a two year study
process during which the Northampton Office of Planning and
Development and the Planning Board sponsored numerous public
hearings and forums and collected input from the Mayor, City
Councilors, City boards, the CAC, and from numerous City residents.
The Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Recreation
Commission, Partnership for Economic Development, and Greater
Northampton Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors all voted
unanimously to endorse the zoning.
• In 1994 and early 1995 the Governor signed legislation authorizing and
directing the dispositions described in the ENF. The Legislation
incorporates the results and recommendations developed with extensive
public participation by the Mayor, the Conservation Commission, the
Recreation Commission, the City Council, State Representatives, the
CAC, the Northampton Office of Planning and Development and the
Planning Board, among others.
• In 1995 DCPO signed a Memorandum of Agreement with
Massachusetts Historical Commission and the City memorializing their
agreement regarding the effort to preserve the historic structures on the
Site.
• In 1995 DCPO also signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the City
in which the City and DCPO agree to use their best efforts to
implement the directives of the CAC guidelines and the Site Plan.
• In 1996 the CAC approved the final draft of the Request for Proposals
regarding the reuse and redevelopment of the Private Development
Parcels.
r~
f
Secretary Trudy Coxe
February 18, 1997
Page 5
All of these conditions are the result of a balancing of the positive impacts and
insignificant other impacts of the project, which have been discussed in detail throughout
the public review process.
The project provides a unique and important opportunity for redevelopment of the
Site to advance the Commonwealth's and the community's goals of economic
revitalization while preserving areas of open space and, where feasible, historic buildings
and landscapes. In addition, the project will advance the Commonwealth's goals of
providing affordable housing and housing for the clients of DMH.
Waiver Request
The standards pursuant to which the Secretary may grant a waiver are set forth in
301 CMR 11.18. The Secretary may waive any provision of the MEPA Regulations if
she determines that strict compliance with the provision or requirements would result in
undue hardship and would not serve to minimize or avoid damage to the environment. In
addition, for projects that are categorically included, pursuant to 301 CMR 11.25, a
waiver of the categorical inclusion regulations may be granted based upon one or more:
circumstances listed in 301 CMR 11.18 (2), which are :
FJ
(i) the impacts of the project are insignificant;
(ii) aspects of the project which cause it to be categorically included are
not within the subject matter jurisdiction of MEPA;
(iii) ample and unconstrained infrastructure exists to support the project;
and
(iv) the terms agreed to as a condition to the waiver will bring about
environmental benefits in excess of those that could be achieved in
the absence of the waiver.
Where a proponent seeks to proceed with the first phase of a project pending preparation
of an EIR, the Secretary may also determine that strict compliance with the MEPA
Regulations may be waived, based upon additional considerations listed in 301 CMR
11.18 (3), including:
(i) the project is severable, and the first phase does not require the
implementation of future phases or restrict the ways in which impacts
of future phases may be mitigated;
(ii) the impacts of the first phase, taken alone, are insignificant;
(iii) the proponent commits to a schedule for completion of an EIR for
future phases, also addressing impacts of the first phase; and
(iv) the project is conditioned, by permit restriction or other evidence
satisfactory to the Secretary, such that MEPA compliance is assured
Secretary Trudy Coxe
February 18, 1997
Page 6
before later phases are commenced.
The conveyance and development of the Public Conveyance Parcels would not be
l categorically required to complete an EIR under 310 CMR 11.25, nor would it trigger any
- ENF MEPA thresholds except for 301 CMR 11.27(5)(a)1 (disposition by a state agency
of more than 25 contiguous acres). While the Public Conveyance Parcels contain
buildings listed on the State Register of Historic Places (301 CMR 11.25(20)), DCPO
I-~ understands from the Northampton Housing Authority that it does not currently plan to
demolish any of these buildings. However, in the event the condition of any of the
L J buildings on the Public Conveyance Parcels are determined to be in such disrepair that a
t building must be demolished, the Site is subject to the MHC MOA, which specifically
sets forth the concerns of the MHC and the procedures recommended or required by the
MHC prior to the redevelopment of the Site or demolition of contributing buildings.
Hence, as MHC has made its specific requirements regarding any demolition of buildings
F contributing to the historic character of the Site (MHC MOA Section V), no benefit is to
be gained by requiring further review through the MEPA process in the event any of the
buildings must be demolished. The MHC MOA also provides that MHC has had a
"reasonable opportunity to comment on the reuse of Northampton State Hospital."
l__1
The conveyance of the Private Development Conveyance Parcels alone would not
u be categorically required to complete an EIR nor would it trigger any MEPA thresholds
u except for 301 CMR 11.27(5)(a)l and 4, (relating to the transfer of State lands).
} A. Public Conveyance/Project Waiver Request. The Public
l_I Conveyance/Project meets the requirements for granting a waiver for the following
reasons:
(i) Requiring the preparation of an EIR would unnecessarily delay the
realization of environmental improvements, municipal uses and affordable
housing and housing for DMH clients. The proposed uses for these
conveyances, with their potential for long-term environmental, public and
economic benefits for Northampton, will be unnecessarily delayed without the
!J waiver, causing undue hardship to the City, NHA, DFA and Smith College.
Delays in the Public Conveyance/Project could jeopardize commitments of
j 1 resources for the proposed uses, as scarce resources could be reallocated to
~J other public needs if they are not applied promptly to this important project.
(ii) No environmental benefit is to be gained by requiring an EIR. The entire
project has been subject to numerous public review processes, as described
above, giving interested parties notice and numerous opportunities to
comment on the project. The Public Conveyance Parcels are currently used
for agriculture, recreation, public gardens, parks and low-density housing. All
-1
Secretary Trudy Coxe
February 18, 1997
Page 7
of the uses will remain the same after the conveyance, as specifically
designated by the Legislation. Many of these uses are overwhelmingly
beneficial to the environment including open space, recreation and agricultural
uses. With respect to the single family residences, NHA is currently using one
for single family housing and one for sheltering the homeless. The other
residences being conveyed to NHA were previously used by DMH for staff
residences and DCPO understands that NHA intends to renovate these homes
for affordable housing, housing for DMH clients and shelter for the homeless.
As explained above, while the Public Conveyance/Project does not trigger any of the
categorical inclusion thresholds, additional circumstances that the Secretary might
consider in her review of this project include:
(i) The Public Conveyance/Project will provide net environmental benefits to
the environment and any impacts are insignificant. The proposed conveyances
to the DFA and much of the conveyance to the City will enhance the
environment, as the agricultural, recreational, conservation and park uses are
U
the types of uses that often comprise mitigation measures. The creation of a.
walking path along the Mill River will also make the property more accessible
to the community for open space and recreational uses.
IL
(ii) Because the uses for the Public Conveyance/Project will remain the same
after the conveyance and are low-density, noncommercial uses, the Public
Conveyance/Project does not create significant impacts on the existing
infrastructure. The only proposed redevelopment for the Public
F
L~
Conveyance/Project involves the renovation of the existing 5 single family
houses for affordable housing and homeless shelter. (The Legislation permits
the use of Parcel C for a range of municipal uses, but the City's current and
t-
foreseeable plan is to use Parcel C for recreational purposes.)
(iii) Allowing the Public Conveyance/Project to proceed without further
MEPA review does not preclude the Secretary from reviewing the impacts and
proposing mitigation for the Private Development Conveyance/Project, as
further discussed below.
Li B. Private Development Conveyance/Project Waiver Request. With
respect to the Private Development Conveyance/Project, the proponent seeks to proceed
'j with the first phase of the project (i.e., conveyance subject to a contractual obligation to
J fully complete the MEPA process prior to on-site construction) pending preparation of an
EIR for the following reasons:
(i) There would be no environmental impact from the conveyance of the
Secretary Trudy Coxe
February 18, 1997
Page 8
Private Development Parcels. Full environmental review will be required
before any construction is undertaken on these Parcels and there will be an
early and ample opportunity to formulate mitigation measures and adjust
development plans.
(ii) The disposition of the Private Development Parcels is severable from the
development phases of the project and will not restrict the manner in which the
impacts of the project can be mitigated. DCPO will include in its Land
Disposition Agreements ("LDA") a requirement that no construction work may
occur on the portion of the Site subject to the Private LDA's until full
environmental review under the MEPA process has been completed so that any
open issues will be resolved by the private developer(s). Any open issues will
be resolved during the preparation of the Draft and Final EIRs for the
development phases of the Private Development. In addition, it will be
stipulated that any demolition or remediation shall be subject to all applicable
requirements for asbestos, lead paint and hazardous materials removal.
(iii) Requiring the preparation of an EIR for the conveyance phase of the
Private Development Conveyance/Project would unnecessarily delay the
realization of the objectives of the Legislation, including prompt disposition of
the property.
Conclusion
j In summary, with respect to the Public Conveyance/Project, requiring the
preparation of an EIR would delay the realization of environmental, open space and
~ housing improvements, and could jeopardize commitments of resources for the proposed
uses, causing undue hardship to the City, NHA, DFA and Smith College. No
environmental benefit is to be gained by requiring an EIR for the Public Conveyance
j Parcels, as the entire project has been subject to numerous public review processes and
L} the current uses of the Public Conveyance Parcels, which include agriculture, recreation,
_ public gardens, parks and low-density housing (uses that are overwhelmingly beneficial
to the environment), will remain the same after the conveyance, as specifically designated
{ by the Legislation, and will have insignificant negative impacts on the Site. With respect
to the Private Development Conveyance/Project, preparing an EIR for the conveyance
phase will unnecessarily delay the initial conveyance phase of the project and would not
serve to minimize or avoid damage to the environment. Further, there will be a
contractual obligation imposed on the private developers under the LDA, to complete the
full MEPA review process prior to undertaking construction work on the Site and any
open issues will be resolved during the preparation of the Draft and Final EIRs for the
development phases by the private developer(s).
Based upon the significant environmental and economic benefits of this project,
Secretary Trudy Coxe
February 18, 1997
Page 9
I
IIr~l
L_1
C1
;J
J
the conveyances required should be undertaken as soon as possible. Therefore, DCPO
respectfully requests (i) a waiver of the requirement of preparation of an EIR in
connection with the conveyance, remediation, renovation and reuse of a portion of the
Site to the City, NHA, DFA and Smith College (the Public Conveyance/Project); and (ii)
a waiver of the requirement of preparation of an EIR in connection with the first,
conveyancing phase of the remainder of the Site to a private developer(s) selected
through the RFP process (the Private Development Conveyance/Project).
Respectfully submitted,
On behalf of the Division of
Capital Planning and Operations,
Jamie Lewis Keith
Assistant Commissioner
and General Counsel
cc: ENF Distribution List (attached)
4
CIRCULATION LIST
i
III
f--
1 ~
1 '
MErHCaeT
CHURCH
/
~l
~F--DCSY4Z
vi st
T
Rti%
ROUTE i D
M~uaHT HZGI-
Ing Girt
RHODE
COMECIMUT ISLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
CITY OF
NORTHAMPTON
LEGEND
0 PARCa DESICN1noN
sums
COIIELE AN1HAME FOR DISPOSMON
/I NOT AVAILABLE FCR DISPOSMON
C3
AVAIUBLE PARCELS 42
Parcel A 19 Acres
61 Acres
Parcel N I9 Acres
Parcel 8 24 Acres
Parcel 83 10,500 Sq. Ft.
} Parcel 84 13,000 Sq. Ft.
Parcel 85 39,000 Sq. Ft.
5 e~ Parcel E 39.Acres
~E5 'z Parcel K1 10 Acres
Parcel K7 1.6 Acres
PRO
srAl[ ' ,TO°'
300 0 ,T00 e00
DISPOSITION MAP
of State Lands at the Former
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
Northampton. Massachusetts
Apr% 1996
- CCMNKMMfALRr OF n
DM119gV Q'' CAPITAL PIANNAC ArM7 a1V% 0W LARK ,AWY PALERMO, CCA#ASpp&R
MAPPAP61 ROBOW ASST T-M - RWVF M, AW NRPRW - &W&naD. WSS10V/SETTS
'l-,- ,
Canuuem
aurow
~s 9~~ R~NC
Northampton Housing
Authority
City of Northampton
® Private Development
Department of Food
and Agriculture
q
Mary L. Ford
Mayor
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS
CITY HALL
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
OFFICE OF THE MA YOR
(413) 586-6950
FAX: (413) 586-3726
April 1, 1997
Secretary Trudy Coxe
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Attention: MEPA Unit
100 Cambridge Street, 20"' Floor
Boston, MA 02202
EOEA 11047 Northampton State Hospital Disposition/Redevelopment (DCPO)
Dear Secretary Coxe:
I would like to support the Northampton State Hospital ENF, a full waiver of an EIR for the
Public Conveyances and a Phase 1 waiver of an EIR for the Private Development Conveyances.
I would like to request, however, that you issue a Scope of Work and time schedule for the EIR
for the Private Development Conveyances.
The ENF describes a redevelopment process consistent with Northampton's planning and
consensus building efforts. We are confident that the legislation, DCPO's Request for Proposals,
our planning, our zoning, and our Memorandum of Agreement with DCPO and the
Massachusetts Historical Commission will create sustainable redevelopment that meets our
community's goals and objectives.
We agree that you should grant a full waiver of the requirement for an EIR for the Public
Conveyances. As directed by Chapters 86 and 307 of the Legislative Acts of 1994, DCPO will
transfer several parcels to the City of Northampton, the Northampton Housing Authority and the
Department of Food and Agriculture. The environmental impacts of the transfers and the uses
allowed by legislation are negligible and clearly positive.
We support a Phase 1 waiver of the requirement for an EIR for the Private Development
Conveyances if MEPA issues a Scope of Work and a time schedule for the EIR at this time. A
Phase 1 waiver is appropriate because all the impacts of the redevelopment of the Private
Development cannot be evaluated until a campus developer has been selected and a
redevelopment scheme adopted. We believe, however, that developing a Scope of Work and
time schedule at this time is critical so DCPO can immediately begin preparing the necessary
background studies.
0.ZtUHpT
2,0 +n oy
9 ' N
# ck d
N`,dEy
The Scope of Work should reflect that our zoning, the legislation, and the MHC/DCPO/City
Memorandum of Agreement ensure that any development at the Northampton State Hospital will have minimal impacts on the human and built environment. Our zoning has strict performance
standards that ensure that development is in keeping with the character of Northampton's built
environment, preserves historical buildings to the extend possible, minimizes traffic impacts, and
limit all types of emissions. DCPO has already commissioned a detailed traffic study and
DCPO's consultants are working on the redesign of one difficult intersection. As required by the
legislation, DCPO has commissioned a preliminary site evaluation adequate to determine the
magnitude and the cost of cleaning up all hazardous materials from the campus. As required by
the joint Memorandum of Agreement, DCPO is preparing to photo record all historical buildings
on campus.
We believe that you should encourage DCPO to identify and begin any further studies which are
needed for the Private Development EIR. We therefore request that your Record of Decision
will include a Scope of Work for the EIR. We have the following comments on the Scope:
Build-out Assumption: The Northampton Citizen's Advisory Committee established a
goal of the number of jobs and housing units that should eventually be developed on the
campus. Although this goal is higher than market conditions will currently support, the
goal should be used in determining build-out. This goal is consistent with all the
planning that the City has done.
2. Traffic Analysis: DCPO has completed a draft traffic study showing the effects of build-
out (as defined in paragraph 1 above) on area roads. The EIR should consider ways to
mitigate or minimize these impacts.
3.. Municipal Fiscal Impacts: If it is within the scope of your authority, we believe any
development of this magnitude should include an analysis of municipal fiscal impacts.
The base line for this analysis is a tax-exempt property which requires almost no
municipal services.
4. Environmental Impacts: Any required environmental analysis should be based on the
understanding that this is a redevelopment project, not a new "greenfield" development.
The legislation ensures that most of the open space at the campus remains open and that,
except for one 24-acre suburban housing area, redevelopment be limited to areas there
were historically developed. Any analysis of runoff, traffic, noise and other impacts
should be comparing new development to historical development, not to pristine
conditions.
Sincerely,
Mayor Mary L. Ford
a
The Convnonwealth of Massachusetts .
March 18, 1997 William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Massachusetts Historical Commission
-Secretary Trudy Coxe
Executive. Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202 C11AR 2 0 !997
ATTN: MEPA Unit - -
RE: Northampton State Hospital Site Disposition/Redevelopment, Northampton,-MA;.EQ- No. 11047
Dear Secretary Coxe:
Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the Environmental Notification Form
you submitted, received February 20, 1997, regarding the proposed project referenced above. The
Northampton State Hospital is listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
MHC staff understand that the proposed project involves the conveyance of t the former State Hospital site,
in parcels, to the City of Northampton, the Northampton Housing Authority, Massachusetts
Department of Agriculture, and Smith College, and the conveyance of approximately 154 acres to a
private developer(s) through the public bidding process. The MHC, DCPO, and the City of Northampton
have consulted extensively regarding the proposed surplussing and redevelopment of the former hospital
site and have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA, a copy of which is included
as an appendix to the ENF, outlines stipulations to ensure that State Register properties are marketed,
preserved, and reused, to the largest extent feasible. The MOA also outlines provisions for the
photographic documentation of contributing State Register properties proposed for demolition, and for
MHC review of proposed new construction.
The MHC anticipates continued consultation and cooperation with DCPO and the City of Northampton
regarding the marketing and redevelopment of the Private Development Parcels and, ultimately, in the
sensitive and successful redevelopment of the historic state hospital complex. The MHC supports the
waiver request.
These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800), Massachusetts Genearal Laws, Chapter 9, Sec.
26-27c as amended by Charter 254 .of the Acts of 1988 (950 C1VM-- 71.00). and MEPA.
If you have additional questions, please contact Allen Johnson of this office.
Sincerely,
M Q. W
u *th B. McDonough
cutive Director
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
cc: Northampton Historical Commission
Penelope Kim, Office of Planning & Development, City of Northampton
Dan Hughes, Office of Real Estate Management, DCPO
Will Donham, EARTH TECH
DEP/DWPC
MHD
220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 • (617) 727-8470
Fax: (617) 727-5128 TDD: 1-800-392-6090
r
CIRCULATION LIST
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street - 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202
ATTN: MEPA Unit (2 copies)
Executive Office of Transportation and
Construction
10 Park Plaza - Room 3510
Boston, MA 02116-3969
ATTN: Mr. James Kerasiotes
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
ATTN: Mr. David Struhs
'I
Department of Environmental Protection
Western Regional Office
1
State House West - 5th Floor
436 Dwight Street
-
Springfield, MA 01103
ATTN: Mr. Steve Ellis
Department of Food & Agriculture
100 Cambridge Street
21 st Floor
u
~l
Boston, MA 02202
_
ATTN: Mr. Richard Hubbard
I
Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission
10 Park Plaza
1
Room 6620
Boston, MA 02116-3966
ATTN: Mr. Richard Doucette
Massachusetts Highway Department
Environmental Department
10 Park Plaza - 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
ATTN: Mr. Greg Prendergast
Massachusetts Highway Department
District #2
811 North King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
ATTN: Mr. John W. Hoey, Jr.
Massachusetts Historical Commission
Massachusetts Archives Building
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02125
ATTN: Ms. Judith McDonough
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
26 Central Street
West Springfield, MA 01089
ATTN: Ms. Natalie Bozarth
City of Northampton
Conservation Commission
City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
ATTN: Mr. Mason Maronn
City of Northampton
Planning Board
City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
ATTN: Mr. Andrew Crystal
City of Northampton
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
ATTN: Ms. Penelope Kim
City of Northampton
Mayor's Office
City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
ATTN: The Honorable Mary Ford
Northampton State Hospital CAC
c/o Claire Higgins
106 Laurel Park
Northampton, MA 01060
9924/esp/circlist i Circulation List
ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall - 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 - (413) 586-6950
FAX (413) 586-3726
• Conservation Commission • Historical Commission
• Housing Partnership - Parking Commission
• Planning Board - Zoning Board of Appeals
March 24, 1997
Secretary Trudy Coxe
ATTN: MEPA Unit
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
RE: Northampton State Hospital ENF
Dear Secretary Coxe:
On behalf of the Office of Planning and Development, the Planning Board and the Conservation
Commission, we would like to support the Northampton State Hospital ENF and the related
waiver filed by the Division of Capital Planning and Operations for the Northampton State
Hospital.
The ENF describes a project that is the culmination of over fifteen years of local planning and
consensus building. Our agreements with the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the
Division of Capital Planning and Operations, and numerous city and commonwealth planning,
environmental and traffic studies have identified the impacts of redevelopment and identified
how to minimize or mitigate and adverse impacts.
This project will allow development to proceed in accordance with Northampton's
comprehensive plan and our state hospital zoning. Please contact me or Wayne Feiden, Principal
Planner, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Penelope m, Ph.D.
Planning Di ector
ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
1. SUMMARY
A. Project Identification
1. Project Name Northampton State Hospital Site Disposition/Redevelopment
Address/Location Route 66 (Chapel Street/Vest Street/Earle Street) I
City/Town Northampton I
2. Project Proponent Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of
Address Capital Planning & Operations; 1 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108
3. Est. Commencement 1997: , Est. Completion 1997-1998 (conveyance phase)
Approx. Cost $ * . Status of Project Design 0 % Complete.
4. Amount (if any) of bordering vegetated wetlands, salt marsh, or tidelands to be dredged,
filled, removed, or altered (other than by receipt of runoff) as a result of the project.
0 acres 01 square feet.
5. This project is categorically included and therefore requires preparation of an EIR.
Yes X*.*- No ?
* Minimal costs are associated with the conveying the properties. Development costs will be determined during
the RFP selection process. -
It is anticipated that the future redevelopment of the project site will exceed one or more categorical inclusion
thresholds._.__ _
B. Narrative Project Description
Describe project and site.
0
U
The project involves the approximately 226 acre parcel of land located in the City of Northampton and
formerly known as the Northampton State Hospital. The site is currently a closed Department of Mental
Health facility owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Pursuant to Chapters 86 and 307 of the
Legislative Acts of 1994, the project involves conveyance of approximately 70 acres of land to the City of
Northampton, the Northampton Housing Authority, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and Smith
College, and conveyance of approximately 154 acres of land to a private developer(s) through the public
bidding process.
DCPO is preparing this Environmental Notification Form to initiate review of the project under the.
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). DCPO will require in its Land Disposition Agreements
for the portion of the project site to be developed by the private developer(s) that said developers comply
fully with the MEPA review process prior to undertaking construction at the site. Hence, in accordance
with 301 CMR 11.18, and as discussed in more detail in the attached cover letter, the Commonwealth is
requesting the following waivers: 1) With respect to the Public Conveyance Parcels, the proponent requests
a waiver of the requirement to prepare an EIR and authorization for the immediate disposition, remediation
and renovation of the parcels; and 2) With respect to the Private Development Parcels, the proponent
requests a waiver of the requirement to prepare an EIR during the first phase of the project involving the
conveyance of the parcels to private developer(s).
A more detailed description of the project is included as Attachment A.
Copies of the complete ENF may be obtained from (proponent or agent):
Name: Fran Dowling Firm/Agency: Earth Tech
Address: 450 Bedford Street, Lexington, MA 02173'. Phone No. (508) 371-4000
1987 THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE. COMMENT PERIOD IS LIMITED.
For Information, call (617) 727-5830
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT SUMMARY
1. Narrative Project Description. This project involves approximately 226
acres of land located in the City of Northampton (the "City") and formerly known as the
Northampton State Hospital campus (the "Site"). The Site is currently a closed
Department of Mental Health ("DMH") facility, owned by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (the "Commonwealth"). Furthering the Administration's initiative to
stimulate the productive economic reuse of closed State hospitals, in 1994, the State
Legislature approved Chapters 86 and 307 of the Legislative Acts of 1994 (the
"Legislation"), directing, and in limited instances authorizing, the disposition of the Site
by the Division. of Capital Planning and Operations ("DCPO") for reuse and
redevelopment by public and private entities. A complete listing of the conveyances, the
transfer recipients and the expected land uses is provided in Table 1 attached hereto.
Pursuant to the directives of the Legislation, the project involves:
1~ (i) conveyances to each of the City, the Northampton Housing Authority,
("NHA"), the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture
("DFA") and to Smith College for reuse and renovation for open-space,
recreational, conservation, agricultural, affordable housing and
municipal purposes (collectively referred to herein as the "Public
Conveyance/Project"). The Public Conveyance/Project encompasses a
I- total of approximately 70 acres of the Site (the "Public Conveyance
Parcels"); and
(ii) conveyances to. a private developer(s) through the public bidding
process to be redeveloped for recreational, open space, commercial,
institutional, light industrial, retail, residential, and/or other similar uses
(collectively referred to herein as the "Private Development
Conveyance/Project"). The Private Development Conveyance/Project
encompasses approximately 154 acres of land and 880,000 square feet
of buildings at the Site (the "Private Development Parcels").
I J As discussed below, this ENF addresses the potential impacts of the Public
Conveyance/Project. The impacts of the Private Development Conveyance/Project will
be addressed after completion of the public bidding process and will be reviewed through
the MEPA process during the development phase of the project.
This project provides a unique and important opportunity for redevelopment of
the Site to advance the Commonwealth's and the community's goals, including: (i)
preservation of open spaces and agricultural land, including agricultural preservation,
conservation restrictions and an historic park; (ii) preservation of the historic buildings
and landscapes in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement between the City, the
Massachusetts Historical Commission ("MHC") and DCPO; (iii) job creation and
economic growth; and (iv) the development of affordable housing and housing for DMH
clients.
2. Background. The project has been subject to numerous public review processes
which have spanned over 15 years. Any development at the Site must adhere to the
following use and development guidelines, which are the result of numerous studies and
public review hearings (collectively referred to herein as the "Guidelines").
a. The Citizens Advisory Committee ("CAC"), comprised of
representatives of the City of Northampton, local residents and other concerned
parties, was originally established by DCPO in 1985 to ensure that the needs and
concerns of the surrounding community would be incorporated into the reuse or
redevelopment of the Site. All CAC meetings are open to the public. The CAC
has adopted Development Guidelines for the Site and has approved the RFP for
the Private Development Parcels. Further, pursuant to the Legislation, any
developer(s) of the Site must consult with the CAC regarding planning,
development, construction and management decisions relating to the Site.
b. The Site is subject to the Legislation, which directs and, in limited
Iinstances, authorizes the conveyances described in this ENF and specifies the
Ll limitations on uses for the parcels, among other things. The Legislation embodies
the collective wisdom of numerous public review processes in which the CAC,
i the Mayor, the Planning Board and many other agencies and community members
participated for over the course of approximately 15 years.
c. The Site is currently subject to the "Northampton State Hospital
Plan" that encourages a mix of commercial and residential development and open
space preservation at the Site, as more fully described in Section IV of this ENF.
1
The rezoning of the Site is the result of a lengthy study process during which the
Northampton Office of Planning and Development and the Planning Board
sponsored numerous public hearings and forums and collected input from the
I
Mayor, City Councilors, City boards, the CAC and numerous Northampton
residents. The Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Recreation
Commission, Partnership for Economic Development and the Greater
L3
Northampton Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors all voted unanimously to
endorse the zoning. Reuse and redevelopment of the Site will be subject to these
j1,
zoning guidelines.
d. The Northampton State Hospital campus was listed on the National
Register of Historic Places on July 25, 1994 in response to its nomination by the
MHC. Reuse and redevelopment of the Site will be subject to guidelines
described in a 1995 Massachusetts Historical Commission Memorandum of
Agreement (the "MHC MOA", included as Appendix 2 hereto).
During the RFP process, DCPO will abide by the provisions of the MHC
MOA. The MHC MOA establishes that any development proposed for the
campus must preserve the historic character-defining elements of the campus, if
feasible, while providing developers with significant flexibility to propose new
construction activities.
e. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and
DCPO, the City and DCPO agree to use their best efforts to implement the
directives of the Northampton State Hospital Plan, the zoning regulations and the
CAC guidelines.
3. Public Conveyance/Project. Under the terms of the Legislation, DCPO will
convey certain parcels and easements on the Site totaling approximately 70 acres to the
City, DFA, NHA and Smith College. The Legislation directs that these parcels be used
j
for a variety of beneficial uses, including open space preservation, recreation,
conservation, community gardens, agriculture, municipal uses (e.g., school, public safety,.
facility, or athletic field) and affordable housing. A 100 foot conservation restriction and,,
I
public right-of-way easement running parallel to the Mill River will be granted to the
City for public use of foot trails for fishing, hiking, winter sports and nature study. DFA
nI
will receive an Agricultural Preservation Restriction on approximately 36 acres of the
lJ
Site (Parcel D) to ensure that its agricultural use is preserved. Although the Legislation
permits the use of Parcel C for a range of municipal uses, the City's current and
foreseeable plan is to use Parcel C for recreational purposes. Smith College intends to
use its easements for access roads and utilities serving its athletic fields. Six parcels
_
within the Public Conveyance/Project are being conveyed to NHA to be renovated for
affordable housing, housing for DMH clients and homeless shelters. One of the single
family residences and one homeless shelter are currently in use. The remaining
residences were previously used by DMH for staff residences and DCPO understands that
NHA intends to renovate these residences for affordable housing, housing for DMH
clients and shelter for the homeless.
4. Private Development Conveyance/Project. With respect to the remaining
approximately 154 acres of land and approximately 880,000 square feet of building space
comprising the Site, DCPO will issue a Request for Proposals ("RIP") for the
disposition, reuse and redevelopment of the Private Development Parcels. The RFP,
which has been reviewed and approved by the CAC, specifies that the reuse of the Site is
subject to the Guidelines which set forth specific objectives for the redevelopment of the
Site. As stated more fully in the RFP, these objectives include (i) preservation of open
spaces, including agricultural land preservation, conservation restrictions and an historic
park; (ii) preservation of the historic buildings and landscapes in accordance with the
MHC MOA; (iii) job creation and economic growth; and (iv) the development of
affordable housing and housing for DMH clients.
I
5. Waiver Request. Pursuant to 301 CMR 11. 18, for the reasons, and subject to the
conditions specified in the attached cover letter, the proponent hereby requests the
following waivers of the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report
(i) With respect to the Public Conveyance Parcels, the proponent requests a
waiver of the requirement to prepare an EIR and authorization for the
immediate disposition, remediation and renovation of the parcels. Requiring
the preparation of an EIR would delay the realization of environmental, open
space and housing improvements, and could jeopardize commitments of
resources for the proposed uses, causing undue hardship to the recipients. No
environmental benefit is to be gained by requiring an EIR for the Public
Conveyance Parcels, as the entire project has been subject to numerous public
review processes and the current uses of the Public Conveyance Parcels, which
are overwhelmingly beneficial to the environment, will remain the same after
the conveyance, as specifically designated by the Legislation, and will have
insignificant impacts on the Site; and
(ii) With respect to the Private Development Parcels, the proponent requests a
waiver of the requirement to prepare an EIR during for the conveyance of the:
parcels at the Site to private developer(s). Preparing an EIR for the
conveyance phase will unnecessarily delay the initial conveyance phase of the
project and would not serve to minimize or avoid damage to the environment.
Pursuant to the Land Disposition Agreement, upon the transfer of the Private
j j Development Parcels, private developer(s) will become the proponent(s) of this
J project and will be required to complete the full MEPA review process prior to
_ undertaking any construction work on the Site and any open issues will be
I resolved during the preparation of the Draft and Final EIRs by the private
developers.
4
P.2
C. List the State or Federal agencies from which permits or other actions have been/will be sought:
Agency Name Permit Date filed; file no.
SEE ATTACHMENT B
D. List any government agencies or programs from which the proponent will seek financial assistance
for this project:
Agency Name Funding Amount
Chapter 132 of the Acts of 1993, as amended by Chapter 68 of the Acts of 1994, appropriated $5 million for the selected
I
demolition, asbestos and hazardous waste removal and abatement, if necessary, as well as for planning, marketing,
surveying, site evaluation and site preparation.
n.
E. Areas of potential impact (complete Sections II and III first, before completing this section).
1. Check all areas in which, in the proponent's judgment, an impact of this project may occur. Positive
impacts, as well as adverse impacts, may be indicated.
Construction Long ,Term
Impacts Impacts
Inland Wetlands
Coastal Wetlands/Beaches
Tidelands X
Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Open Space/Recreation positive
Historical/Archaeological X X
Fisheries/Wildlife
Vegetation/ Trees
positive
Agricultural Lands .
Water Pollution X
Water Supply/Use X
Solid Waste X
Hazardous Materials
Air Pollution X
Noise
ff Wind/Shadow
i Aesthetics . X
Growth Impacts X
Community/Housing and the positive
!l Il Built Environment . • • • • • • • • • •
Other (Specify)
Positive long-term impacts with regards to: 1) local economic activity/new taxes; 2) new
!L permanent jobs; 3) Commonwealth economic activity/new taxes
1 2. List the alternatives which have been considered.
SEE ATTACHMENT C
r-~
rl ATTACHMENT B
C.List the State or Federal agencies from which permits or other actions have been/will be sought:
At the present time, the proponent has no plans to take any action at the site except for the disposition of the
properties. For the Public Conveyance Parcels, it is anticipated that the permits listed below may be required
for the reuse and renovation of the parcels. Permitting requirements for the Private Conveyance Parcels will be
determined during the development phase of the project.
Agency Name
Permit
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Pre-Asbestos Removal Notice
• NPDES Permit(s) for Stormwater
Discharges from Construction
Activities*
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Section 404 Permit, if required
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
• Pre-Demolition Notice
Protection
• Pre-Asbestos Removal Notice
• Sewer Connection/Extension Permits
• Tier I Permit, if required under the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP)
(310 CMR40.00)**
Massachusetts Historical Commission
Determination of Effect on State Register
Properties
Massachusetts Highway Department
Curb Cut Permit
Department of Labor and Industries
Asbestos Removal Permit
* Permit requirements for operations will depend on specific uses
* * Site is not yet classified under the MCP
ATTACHMENT C
2. List the alternatives which have been considered.
1
Reuse plans for the Northampton State Hospital site have been explored periodically since the process of closing the
facility started in the mid-1970s. In 1985, DCPO appointed a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) made up of
representatives of the City of Northampton, local residents and other concerned parties that has been involved in the
redevelopment process for a number of years.
Since that time the Commonwealth and the City of Northampton have undertaken a number of studies to assess the
1 redevelopment opportunities at the site. These include: Northampton State Hospital Re-Use Plan (Lozano ite.
Associates, 1982); Northampton State Hospital Plan (Northampton Office of Planning and Developmen 1982-1983
Northampton State Hospital Redevelopment Strategy (Center for Economic Development, 1984); Northampton State Hospital Re-Use Project Background Report (DCPO, 1986); and the DCPO Portfolio Review Report (RKG Associates,
Inc., 1992).
These studies and the CAC have considered a number of uses for the site including residential (both single- and multi-
family as well as elderly housing), open space, research and development/light industrial, and office. Future uses for the
site will be prepared by respondents to the RFP to be issued and will be reviewed through the CAC and MEPA processes.
Any users of the site will be subject to the Re-Use Plan, the Legislation that authorizes the disposition of the site, and the
applicable zoning for the site.
J
P.3
F. Has this project been filed with EOEA before? No X Yes EOEA No. -
P
L_I
G. WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS
1. Will an Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act (c.131s.40) or a License under
the Waterways Act (c.91) be required?
Yes - No X
2. Has a local Order of Conditions been:
a. issued? Date of issuance ; DEQE File No.
b. appealed? Yes ; No
3. Will a variance from the Wetlands or Waterways Regulations be required? Yes
No X
Note: With respect to the Private Development Parcels, the need for activities in or around wetlands will be determined
during the development phase of the project.
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
D
A. Map; site plan. Include an original 81/2 x 11 inch or larger section of the most recent U.S.G.S.
7.5 minute series scale topographic map with the project area location and boundaries clearly
shown. If available, attach a site plan of the proposed oroiect.
The section of the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map, scale 1:25,000, which includes the site is attached:as: Figure 1 in
Appendix 1. A site disposition map is included as Figure 2 in Appendix 1.
226 acres.
B. State total area of project:
Estimate the number of acres 1(to 00the nearest 1/10 acre) directly affected that are currently:
1. Developed acres 6. Tidelands 0_ acres
2. Open Space/ 7. Productive Resources
82 acres Agriculture acres
Woodlands:`Recreation 44
_ 0 acres
3. Wetlands 0* i acres Forestry _
-.=O=*,,,, a c r e s 8. Other 0 acres
4. Floodplain
5. Coastal Area 0 i acres
* A potential wetland and/or 100 year floodplain on Parcel E may need to be delineated through the''
development process. -
C. Provide the following dimensions, ii applicable: Existing Increase Total
NA
NA
NA
-
th in miles
L
'5*
~
eng
Number of Housing Units
1-5
-
Number of Stories • • • •
_
880,000
-
-
Gross Floor Area in square feet
- NA
Number of parking spaces
- _ -
Total of Daily vehicle trips to and from site
•
< 100:
(Total Trip Ends)
d A ra a Daily Traffic on road(s)
Estimate ve g
serving site
1. West Street (North of Earle)*** 5,682
13,197
2. Route 10
3 Earle Street' 2,413
* The site contains two single family homes which have been converted into homeless shelters. The remaining single
family dwellings will be used for affordable housing, homeless shelters, and housing for MM clients.
The development program for the Private Development Parcels will be prepared by the private developer(s) during
the development phase of the project and evaluated in the EIR.
Source: P-ioneer.Vallcy Planning Commission, 1993 _
D. TRAFFIC PLAN. If the proposed project will require any permit for access to local roads orr
state highways, attach a sketch showing the location and layout of the proposed driveway(s).
PA
Ill. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Instructions: Explain direct and indirect adverse impacts, including those arising from general
construction and operations. For every answer explain why significant adverse impact is
--1 considered likely or unlikely to result. Positive impact may also be listed and explained.
J Also, state the source of information or other basis for the answers supplied. Such
environmental information should be acquired at least in part by field inspection.
A. Open Space and Recreation
1. Might the project affect the condition, use, or access to any open space and/or recreation
area?
Explanation and Source:
n SEE ATTACHMENT D
~l 2. Is the project site within 500 feet of any public open space, recreation, or conservation land?
Explanatiq^ ^•nd .Source:,.
Yes. ' Tiie site is adjacent io approximately 280 acres of land actively farmed by the Department of Food &
Agriculture. This DFA property includes walking and running trails throughout. The project site is also
n bordered to the east by the Smith College campus.
I _J
Source: Earth Tech
B. Historic and Archaeological Kesources
1. Might any site or structure of historic significance be affected by the project? (Prior
consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission is advised.)
Explanation and Source:
SEE ATTACHMENT D
2. Might any archaeological site be affected by the project? (Prior consultation with
Massachusetts Historical Commission is advised.)
1 Explanation and Source:
U No, There are no known archaeological sites that may be affected by the project.
Source: Earth Tech review of MHC files
u C. Ecological Effects
1. Might the project significantly affect fisheries or wildlife, especially any rare or endangered
species? (Prior consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program is advised).
I~ Explanation and Source:
SEE ATTACHMENT D
ATTACEDUNT D
A. Open Space and Recreation
1. Might the project affect the condition, use, or access to any open space and/or recreation area?
Explanation and Source:
Yes. The project will enhance open space and recreation/conservation interests. The Public Conveyance
portion of the project includes conveying land to the City of Northampton for uses including community
gardens, a historic park, and one parcel for use as either an athletic field, a school, or a public safety building.
Parcel D, comprising a total of 36 acres, will be conveyed to the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA)
for preservation of agricultural land. In addition, three easements will be granted to Smith College for access
roads serving athletic facilities. Finally, development of the Private Development Parcels will require
compliance with the Re-Use Plan and review by the CAC, and several of the Private Development Parcels will
be subject to Conservation Restrictions.
Source: Earth Tech; Chapter 86 of the Acts and Resolves of 1994
B. Historic and Archaeological Resources
FI 1. Might any site or structure of historic significance be affected by the project? (Prior consultation with
iMassachusetts Historical Commission is advised.)
Explanation and Source:
Yes. In 1994, Northampton State Hospital campus was accepted for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places.
As described previously in the Project Description, DCPO has signed a Memorandum of Agreement:with..the
J Massachusetts Historical Commission (the MHC MOA). With respect to the Public Conveyance Parcels, the
MHC MOA recommends certain guidelines to be taken into account in the redevelopment of the parcels or the
demolition of any contributing buildings, if necessary. With respect to the Private Development Parcels, the
MHC MOA establishes that any development proposed for the campus must preserve the historic character of
the campus, if feasible, while providing developers with significant flexibility to propose new construction
activities. DCPO will demonstrate a good faith effort at marketing the campus for development which will
n preserve the existing buildings and landscapes. If DCPO does not receive acceptable proposals in response to
J a Request for Proposals, it may accept proposals that call for the demolition, rehabilitation and/or construction
of new buildings that do not conform with the preservation standards. DCPO will consult with MHC before it
1 accepts any such proposal.
Source: Review of Massachusetts Historical Commission files; Chapter 86 of the Acts and Resolves of 1994
C. Ecological Effects
U
1. Might the project significantly affect fisheries or wildlife, especially any rare or endangered species? (Prior
consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program is advised).
Explanation and Source:
There are no known rare or endangered species identified on the project site. However, according to the
Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, the Walker's Limpet has been documented
to occur in a portion of the Mill River. In addition, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
federally-listed dwarf wedgemussel and the state-listed squawfoot mussel and eastern pondmussel are known
to occur in the Mill River. while the northern edge of the project site abuts the Mill River, there will be a
Conservation Restriction and right-of-way for recreational purposes along the portion of the site adjacent to
the Mill River.
Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program; United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service;
Earth Tech
P.5
2. Might the project significantly affect vegetation, especially any rare or endangered species
of plant? (Prior consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program is advised.)
(Estimate approximate number of mature trees to be removed: Any tree removal will be determined
Explanation and Source: during the development phase of the project
No. According to the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, the project will not
adversely affect any rare or endangered species of plants, or any ecologically significant ecological
l community. The number of trees to be removed, if any, will be determined during the development phase of
the project.
Natural Heritage and
Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Fisheries & Wildlife,
Endangered Species Program
3. Agricultural Land. Has any portion of the site been in agricultural use within the last 15 years?
If yes, specify use and acreage.
Explanation and Source:
Yes. As part of this project, eight acres of the project site currently being used as community gardens will be
transferred to the City of Northampton for permanent use as community gardens. addition, approximately
36 acres will be transferred to the Department of Food & Agriculture for permanent protection as agricultural l
land.
Source: Earth Tech; Chapter 86 of the Acts and Resolves of 1994
D. Water Quality and Quantity
C 1. Might the project result in significant changes in drainage patterns?
Explanation and Source:
If demolition of any existing buildings takes place, site runoff in anticipated to decrease significantly.
n However, assuming that the future development is of similar density as the existing buildings, it is anticipated
LJ that the amount of impervious surfaces will be restored to approximately the same as the existing conditions. j
Any changes will be analyzed and quantified and appropriate mitigation measures will be employed to!,
minimize potential water quality impacts. 1
Source: Earth Tech
2. Might the project result in the introduction of any pollutants, including sediments, into marine
j 1 waters, surface fresh waters or ground water?
LJ Explanation and Source: -
- When the project site is developed, mitigation measures will be employed to minimize potential impacts to
surface fresh water and groundwater. Drainage controls associated with redevelopment should be a
significant improvement over the current conditions.
Source: Earth Tech
None
3. Does the project involve any dredging? No X., Yes Volume . If 10,000
J cy or more, attach completed Standard Application Form for Water Quality Certification,
Part 1 (314 CMR 9.02(3), 9.90, DEQE Division of Water Pollution Control).
P.6
4. Will any part of the project be locatedin flowed or filled tidelands, Great Ponds, or other
waterways? (Prior consultation with the DEQE and CZM is advised.)
Explanation and Source:
No. The project will not be located in flowed or filled tidelands, Great Ponds, or other waterways, and is not
under the jurisdiction of M.G.L. Chapter 91.
Source: Earth Tech; MassGIS (data supplied by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, November
1995)
5. Will the project generate or convey sanitary sewage? No Yes X
If Yes, Quantity: gallons per day
Yes No X
Disposal by: (a) Onsite septic systems .
(b) Public sewerage systems (location; average and peak daily flows to
- treatment works) Yes X: No
Explanation and Source:
Yes. It is expected that the project will generate sewage. The municipal sewer system for the City of
l_ Northampton includes a treatment plant on Hockanum Road. According to treatment plant personnel, the
average daily flow is 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd), the peak flow is 6.8 mgd, and the design capacity is
r - 8.65 mgd. The project site is served by a 12-inch line along Route 66 and a 14-inch line along West Street,
and across the Mill River, a 36-inch line is maintained.
Source: Northampton State Hospital Re-Use Project, Background Report, DCPO, January, 1986; Earth Tech;
City of Northampton Department of Public Works
L l 6. Might the project result in an increase in paved or impervious surface over a soles source
L) aquifer or an aquifer recognized as an important present or future source of water supply?
Explanation and Source:
a No. The project site does not lie over a sole source aquifer or an aquifer recognized as an important present or
future source of water supply.
Source: Earth Tech; MassGIS
7. Is the project in the watershed of any surface water body used as a drinking water supply?
Explanation and Source:
No. The project site is not in the watershed of any surface water body used as a drinking water supply.
Source: Earth Tech; MassGIS
r- 8. Are there any public or private drinking water wells within a 1/2-mile radius of the proposed
)J project?
Explanation and Source:
There are no public drinking water wells within a'/z-mile radius of the proposed project. Although there are
private drinking wells in the City of Northampton, these should not be impacted by the future development of
t
the site.
r-l
I Source: Earth Tech; MassGIS; City of Northampton Department of Public Works
P.7
9. Does the operation of the project result in any increased consumption of water? unici l
Approximate consumption gallons per day. Likely water source(s) M Pa
Explanation and Source:
It is expected that the project will result in some increased consumption of water. The municipal water system
supplies water to the project site and had met the needs of Northampton State Hospital when the facility was
fully operational. The site is served by a 12-inch line along West Street leading to six-inch lines along both
Prince Street and Earle Street, as well as by a six-inch line which enters the campus from the north along
Washington Avenue.
Source: Northampton State Hospital Re-Use Project, Background Report, DCPO, January, 1986.
E. Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials
1. Estimate types and
sewage sludge, construction debris from demolished structures. How/
domestic, hospital,
where will such waste be disposed of?
Explanation and Source:
Demolition will only occur after DCPO makes a good-faith effort to market the site "as-is," and after
consultation with MHC. If demolition does occur, the material will be removed by private licensed
commercial haulers and disposed of off-site at approved landfills and recycling facilities. At this time the
amount of demolition debris cannot be estimated. The redevelopment of the site will generate solid waste,
which will be defined once a redevelopment plan is formulated.
Source: Earth Tech
2. Might the project involve the generation, use, transportation, storage, release;;or disposal
of potentially hazardous materials?
Explanation and Source:
If demolition of the buildings is to take place, asbestos and asbestos-containing-materials from the buildings
will be disposed of as "Special Waste" in accordance with applicable state regulations. In addition, if any
additional materials are found that require disposal as hazardous waste, they will be disposed of as such.
Source: Earth Tech
3. Has the site previously been used for the use, generation, transportation, storage, release,
or disposal of potentially hazardous materials?
Explanation and Source:
SEE ATTAci-R LENT E
F. Energy Use and Air Quality
1. Will space heating be provided for the project? If so, describe the type, energy source, and
approximate energy consumption.
Explanation and Source:
The specific space heating methods for each component of the future development of the project have not yet
been selected. The site is served by Bay State Gas Company and the Massachusetts Electric Company.
Source: Earth Tech; Northampton State Hospital Re-Use Project, Background Report, DCPO, January, 1986.
ATTACHMENT E
3. Has the site previously been used for the use, generation, transportation, storage, release, or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials?
Explanation and Source:
Yes. When the Northampton State Hospital was in operation, potentially hazardous materials were used and
stored at the site. The site was formerly listed as part of the Clean State Initiative. However, as further
described below, DCPO understands from DMH that the site has been de-listed. Although a recent site
assessment found a number of containers of oil and hazardous materials, including transformers containing
PCBs, batteries, cleaning agents, and dried paint cans, DCPO understands from DMH that, with the exception
of the transformers, all of these materials have been removed to Department of Environmental Protection's
(DEP) satisfaction in accordance with applicable state regulations and pursuant to walk-throughs with the
Office of Technical Assistance and the DEP. DCPO will require the transformers to be removed in accordance
with applicable laws, as well. .As part of the ongoing site assessment, no reportable releases of hazardous
materials have been discovered. In addition, many of the buildings contain lead paint, asbestos and asbestos-
containing-materials, which will be removed as described in subsection 1 and 2 above. Finally, the Site
contained nine underground storage tanks (USTs) which have been removed by DCPO and from which no
releases of petroleum were detected.
Source: Earth Tech
P.8
2. Will the project require process heat or steam? If so, describe the proposed system, the fuel
1
type, and approximate fuel usage.
Explanation and Source:
. After the specific tenants and uses for the future development of the project site are selected, further study will
':be conducted in order to determine whether process heat or steam is required.
Source: Earth Tech
3. Does the project include industrial processes that will release air contaminants to the
atmosphere? If so, describe the process (type, material released, and quantity released).
Explanation and Source:
At the present time, the specific tenants and uses for the future development of the site have not yet been
identified. After the specific tenants and uses are selected, further study will be conducted in order to define
the levels of air emissions and appropriate mitigation measures.
Source: Earth Tech
4. Are there any other sources of air contamination associated with the project (e.g. automobile
traffic, aircraft traffic, volatile organic compound storage, construction dust)?
Explanation and Source:
Any future demolition and construction phases of the project will generate dust. However, standard measures
to minimize these fugitive dust emissions will be employed. The impacts are expected to, be minimal,!
temporary and occur only during the demolition and construction phases of the project. When the project site.
is developed, potential sources of air contamination will include additional traffic and heating equipment.
Further study will define the levels of air emissions and appropriate mitigation measures.
Source: Earth Tech .
5. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g. hospitals, schools, residential areas) which would be
u affected by air contamination caused by the project?
Explanation and Source:
The project site is adjacent to low to moderate density residential areas to the northeast, east and south.
However, due to the size of the project site, the natural buffer between the project site and the surrounding!
neighborhoods, and the employment of construction mitigation measures, the project is not expected to create
significant or permanent air quality impacts on any sensitive receptors.
Source: Earth Tech
G. Noise
1. Might the project result in the generation of noise?
(Include any source of noise during construction or operation, e.g., engine exhaust, pile
driving, traffic.)
Explanation and Source:
Temporary increases in noise levels within the site boundaries will occur during any potential demolition and
construction phases of the project. These impacts are expected to be minimal, temporary and to occur only
during the demolition and construction phases of the project. Operational period noise impacts, if any, will be
addressed in the EIR.
Source: Earth Tech
P.9
t
2. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, schools, residential areas) which would be
affected by any noise caused by the project?
1 Explanation and Source:
The project site is adjacent to low to moderate density residential areas to the northeast, east and south.
However, due to the size of the project site, the natural buffer between the project site and the surrounding
neighborhoods, and the employment of construction mitigation measures, noise from any future development
is not expected to create significant or permanent impacts on sensitive receptors.
Source: Earth Tech
3. Is the project a sensitive receptor, sited in an area of significant ambient noise?
Explanation and Source:
The former use of the site as a hospital for the mentally ill, was a sensitive receptor. Future redevelopment of
the project site could include residential areas. The project site is not in an area of significant ambient noise.
Source: Earth Tech
H. Wind and.Shadow
1 1. Might the project cause wind and shadow impacts on adjacent properties?-
Explanation and Source:
No. Due to the size of the project site, and the natural buffer between the project site and the surrounding
neighborhoods, any new development is not expected to cause wind or shadow impacts on adjacent properties.
Source: Earth Tech
I
j j 1. Aesthetics
L_J 1. Are there any proposed structures which might be considered incompatible with existing
adjacent structures in the vicinity in terms of size, physical proportion and scale, or
significant differences in land use?
Explanation and Source:
At the present time, no new structures are being proposed. Any future development will be designed to be'
l compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and land uses, and will be subject to review by DCPO, MHC, I
J the City of Northampton and the CAC.
Source: Earth Tech
2. Might the project impair visual access to waterfront or other scenic areas?
Explanation and Source:
No. The project will not impair visual access to waterfront or other scenic areas. It is anticipated that as part
of any future development scenarios, a portion of the project site might be set aside as protected open space.
Source: Earth Tech
Discuss consistency with current federal, state and local land use, transportation, open space,
recreation and environmental plans and policies. Consult with local or regional planning
authorities where appropriate.
SEE ATTACHMENT F
Il
LJJ
P.10
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH PRESENT PLANNING
V. FINDINGS AND CERTIFICATION
A. The public notice of environmental review has been/will be published in the following
newspaper(s):
j
Daily Hampshire Gazette;
(NAME) (Date}
February 20, 1997
B. This form has been circulated to all agencies and persons as required by 301 CMR 11.24.
za zis(
Date Si ature o Responsible Officer Date Signature of person preparing
or Project Proponent ENF (if different from above)
Christopher Lane, Director Willard Donham
Name (print or tvoe) Name (print or type)
Office of Real Estate Management,
Address Division of Capital Planning & Operations Address Earth Tech
100 Cambridge St., Boston, MA 02202 450 Bedford St., Lexington, MA 0217=
Telephone Number (617) 727-8090 Telephone Number (508) 371-4000 i
ATTACHMENT F
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH PRESENT PLANNING
Discuss consistency with current federal, state and local land use, transportation, open space, recreation
and environmental plans and policies. Consult with local or regional planning authorities where
appropriate.
In 1985, when the process of disposing of and redeveloping the Northampton State Hospital site started in earnest,
DCPO established a CAC in anticipation that a majority of the land would be declared surplus. In part, the purpose of
the CAC was to ensure that the needs and desires of the surrounding community were an important piece of the process
for any future reuse or redevelopment of the Northampton State Hospital campus.
As mentioned previously, since that time, the Commonwealth and the City of Northampton have undertaken a number
of studies to assess the redevelopment opportunities at the site.
In 1994, after the passage of legislation authorizing the disposition of the site, DCPO convened a new CAC, which is
made up of representatives from the Northampton Chamber of Commerce (two seats), the Northampton Development
Corporation, the Alliance for the Mentally Ill (two seats), the Northampton Labor Council, the Northampton Housing
Partnership, the Pioneer Valley Community Development Corporation, the Hampshire Community Action Committee,
the Department of Mental Health, the City Council Industry Committee, the Franklin/Hampshire County Private
Industry Council, as well as the Mayor of the City of Northampton. The CAC reviewed, approved, and had
considerable input into the use and redevelopment of the so-called Public Conveyance Parcels and the RFP that is being
- issued by DCPO for the reuse and redevelopment of the so-called Private Development Parcels, consisting of 154 acres
of land and approximately 880,000 square feet of building space.
In addition, the site is currently subject to zoning overlay districts that encourage a mix of commercial and residential
development and open space preservation. The overlay districts are the result of a two-year study process during which
the Northampton Office of Planning and Development and the Northampton Planning Board sponsored numerous
public hearings and forums and collected input from the Mayor's Office, City Councilors, City boards, the CAC and
from numerous residents. The Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Recreation Commission, Partnership for
Economic Development, and the Greater Northampton Chamber of Commerce Board all voted unanimously to endorse
the zoning.
As a result, on April 8, 1993, the Northampton Planning Board adopted the Northampton State Hospital Plan as an
element of the Northampton General Plan. The Northampton Planning Board initiated this study to ensure that the
J reuse of the State Hospital campus is consistent with the goals of the community. The Executive Summary of this
document outlined the Northampton Planning Board's goals and objectives for the site.
These include:
1. Any redevelopment should insure that the unique resources [of the campus] are protected.
2. The main hospital complex, including the Historic Main Complex, Haskell Building, and Memorial Complex
should be rezoned to create a mixed-use village-center.
3. Areas well suited for housing in existing residential areas should be maintained at a density in keeping with
surrounding residential areas.
4. The School Department should determine if the future school needs can and should be met on Parcel A or other
parcels.
5. The vast majority of the existing open space should be protected for farmland, recreation and conservation.
6. The Conservation Commission and the Department of Food and Agriculture should attempt to acquire open space
and agricultural lands, mostly on the west side of the complex.
7. Traffic, including pedestrian traffic, and infrastructure issues, must be addressed prior to any significant
development in Northampton, including the redevelopment of the main complex.
8. Every effort should be made to preserve and reuse existing structures of architectural and historical significance,
but unrealistic historic preservation requirements that will impede or prevent development should not be adopted.
APPENDIX 1
Figures
w
U
Q
s
112
J
Z
o0
O ~
v ~
0
o
~
Y
a
e C~
Y
~
cf ~Y Yr
zS~Y~~
O
~
i
Y^
~ryn
g
ry~
~
w
j
I
g
<t Clm m~WYY
~
U
°
aa
n° a8N
c
a
E-
P-4
o O
o
Z
m
m
O W
H C/)
p
H
co zw6
O
y
x
O
z
APPENDIX 2
Memorandum of Agreement between
The Massachusetts Historical Commission,
The Division of Capital Planning & Operations, and
The City of Northampton
Memorandum of Agreement
Regarding the Northampton State Hospital
By and Between
The Massachusetts Historical, Commission
and
Division of Capital Planning and Operations
r ` THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT entered into as of the day of
1995 by and between the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), the Division
of Capital Planning and Operations (DCPO), and the City of Northampton (City).
WHEREAS, the Northampton State Hospital (NSH) has been listed in the State and
National Registers of Historic Places;
I WHEREAS, Chapter 86 of the Acts of 1994, as amended by Chapter 307 of the Acts of
1994 (as so amended, the "Act") authorizes the disposition of the NSH property by DCPO, some
portions of which will be marketed and other portions of which will be disposed of to the
recipients identified in said Act;
WHEREAS, the City has proposed a plan for the NSH as an element of the Northampton
General Plan, which includes the possible reuse or demolition of historically significant buildings,
J new construction, and preservation of agricultural lands and open space under city zoning;
WHEREAS, the City has been consulted by DCPO and MHC and has been invited to
concur in this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA);
WHEREAS, the Act authorizes or directs DCPO to convey ownership or interests-in the
following land or buildings to specified parties:
(i) Easement to Smith College on Parcel K
.11•
1, 1 (ii) Halligan and Daley Monument to the City of Northampton
} (iii) Parcel D to the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture
` J iv Conservation and right-of-way easement to the City of Northampton on
Parcel A
v Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the Northampton Housing Authority
(vi) 91 Grove Street to the City of Northampton
~ a.
(vii) Parcel C to the City of Northampton
(viii) Parcel G (community gardens) to the City of Northampton
(the above-listed parcels are referred to as the "named disposition parcels"); and
Page 1
DCPO will be conveying these parcels pursuant to the Act and the applicable stipulations of this
MOA, but will not be marketing these parcels pursuant to Section II of this MOA.
NOW; THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that the following points of agreement will be
followed in order to take into account the affect on historically significant properties of the disposal
of NSH in accordance with M.G.L. Ch. 9, ss. 26-27C (950 CMR 71).
Stipulations
DCPO, the City, and MHC will ensure that the following stipulations are implemented:
I. The Northampton State Hospital Campus
A. For the purposes of this Memorandum of Agreement, it is understood that:
6
1. The MHC, following the guidelines of the National Register criteria (36 CFR 60),
has determined that the Northampton State Hospital Campus (hereinafter, the
Campus) is eligible for listing as a historical district on the National Register of
Historic Places. The MHC voted on June 8, 1994 to confirm the eligibility of the
Campus for listing on the National Register and sent this nomination for listing to
the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. The Keeper of the National
Register of Historic Places listed the Campus on the National Register on July 25,
1994.
2. The MHC regards the buildings and landscapes at the Campus listed as Status "C
in Attachment A as properties contributing to the historic character of the Campus.
The MHC regards all other buildings and structures as non-contributing. This list
of contributing buildings and landscapes is a part of the Northampton State Hospital
Historic District, which is itself a part of the State Hospital and State Schools of
l Massachusetts Multiple Property Submission.
I,.,1J 3. The MHC regards the following attributes of the contributing buildings and
landscapes on the Campus (all of which address exterior areas only) as character-
defining elements for the purposes of re-use planning:
• Building and structure exteriors;
• Fenestration;
• Scale;
• Color,
• Use of Material;
• Mass;
• Organization of the landscape;
• Views from, to and across the landscape;
• Curvilinear circulation system conforming to the hilly terrain;
• A campus-like organization of buildings among predominantly mature
landscape, in particular, the relationship of the dominant historic building
massing at the crest of the hill to the smaller scaled and sized structures of
heterogeneous building type sited along the slopes of the hill;
• The use of masonry, particularly red brick, as exterior building materials for
those buildings at the crest of the hill; and
Page 2
• The use of wood frame and cladding nearer the perimeter locations of the
campus.
Interiors of the buildings and structures are not character-defining elements.
4. Nothing contained in this MOA constitutes concurrence by the DCPO with any of
the MHC's determinations or opinions concerning the historic character of any
portion of the Campus. Nothing contained in this MOA constitutes an agreement
by, or binds, DCPO to seek legislative authorization to dispose of the Campus (or
any part thereof) or otherwise, with or withoui legislation, to proceed with
disposition of the Campus (or any part thereof). The decision whether and when to
make or pursue any disposition respecting the Campus or any part of it is in the sole
discretion of DCPO and the Legislature.
5. All parties to this MOA acknowledge that the uses to which the Campus has been
put in the past may change in the near future as new uses may be found for the
buildings formerly used for mental health purposes. These new uses may
themselves change over time, according to the market and the goals of the
community.
B. DCPO and the City are encouraged to include historic preservation in any redevelopment
process. Options for reuse of the Campus which incorporate historic preservation should take into
account the following principles in reuse planning:
1. Preservation of the character-defining features of the contributing buildings and
l~
landscapes of the Campus should be encouraged if feasible.
2. If it is determined that it is not feasible to preserve all of the character defining
features of the contributing buildings and landscapes of the campus, the feasibility
of preserving the character-defining features of portions of the contributing
buildings and landscapes of the campus will be examined, and encouraged where
feasible.
3. Rehabilitation of contributing buildings and new construction on the Campus
should be consistent with the recommended approaches in the Secretary of the
TT'_-__
B~iildinas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1
hereinafter "Standards").
II. Marketiu Plan
A. Notwithstanding any provisions of this MOA, DCPO has full marketing authority for the
Campus and will make all final marketing decisions. In the event that DCPO plans to implement a
marketing plan, DCPO will consult with the MHC and the City in the preparation of such
marketing plan for the Campus (other than the named disposition parcels, interests or ownership in
which will be conveyed as provieded in the Act) which shall include the following elements:
An appendix prepared by MHC for submission to DCPO on or before thirty (30)
days from written notice from DCPO that explains what MHC regards as the
Page 3
significance and the character-defining elements of various buildings and
landscapes, and information concerning potential tax benefits. DCPO will have the
j right to reasonably approve such appendix within fourteen (14) days of submission
and prior to its inclusion in any marketing materials. If DCPO and MHC cannot
agree on the appendix, DCPO shall amend the appendix if necessary to state that it
contains MHC's opinions only and may then at DCPO's discretion proceed with the
- marketing plan.
DCPO will include a photograph and a parcel map of the campus.
I
DCPO will make reference to the points listed under I.B. and any plan developed
based on these points. The information package and the marketing plan as a whole
j will make a good faith effort to generate interest in the preservation of what the
MHC has defined as the historic character of the property.
~j 2. DCPO will develop an initial distribution list as part of the marketing package and
l will include on such list any contact offered by MHC and the City.
3. - DCPO will prepare an advertising plan and schedule.
4. DCPO will prepare a schedule for receiving and reviewing submissions.
i. B. MHC and the City will have 30 days to review and comment on the draft marketing plan. If
-1 MHC or the.City does not find the draft marketing plan acceptable, DCPO will make reasonable
efforts exercised in good faith to accommodate the concerns of MHC and re-submit a final
marketing plan. Before implementation, MHC and the City will have 21 days to review and
comment on the portions of the final marketing plan which address issues of historic preservation.
In the event that MHC does not provide its initial comments on the draft marketing plan within 30
days or its comments on the final marketing plan within 21 days, the plan shall be deemed
acceptable to the MHC. It is understood that the content of the marketing plan shall not require
approval of MHC or the City.
C. The marketing effort shall be continued for no less than three months from the date of the initial
~_5 implementation of the marketing plan subject to any contrary requirements of legislation which may
be enacted. Implementation shall occur when the marketing package is distributed to the initial
distribution list.
i
D. If, after consultation with the MHC for a technical review of duration no greater than thirty
(30) days with regard to the applicability of the "Standards" to the submissions, but, in its sole
j determination, DCPO receives no acceptable submissions that are feasible and acceptable to DCPO
for an individual parcel or for the Campus as a whole that provide for rehabilitation or new
construction in conformance with the recommended approaches in the "Standards," it will convey
these conclusions to the MHC and the City.
1. For all such buildings and landscapes for which there was no preservation
~-submission that is feasible and acceptable to DCPO, to its sole discretion, then
DCPO or any buyer of the property or any other person can proceed with
demolition of buildings or rehabilitation or new construction that does not conform
to the "Standards" following completion of photographic recordation and
( documentation as stipulated in Section V.
Page 4
2. Unless prior to the expiration of MHC's marketing review period [as outlined in
Section II (A)(1)], N4HC notifies DCPO in writing that MHC considers the
marketing plan to materially fail to encourage preservation, MHC will provide its
written opinion that any such demolition permitted under Section II(D)(1) does not
constitute anticipatory demolition, as this term is used in federal Section 106
review. MHC shall provide this opinion promptly upon request by DCPO or any
Buyer of the property.
E. In the event that a building or landscape that does not generate preservation interest in the initial
marketing effort and is not demolished prior to the commencement of a subsequent formal
marketing effort, DCPO will make reasonable efforts exercised diligently to support the
development of the property in a manner consistent with the principles listed in I.B.
III. New Construction
A. DCPO shall encourage new buildings and landscapes that are sympathetic or compatible to
what MHC has determined to be character-defining attributes of the contributing buildings and
landscapes on the Campus, including a campus-like organization of buildings in predominantly
mature landscape; the curvilinear circulation system conforming to the hilly terrain; the relationship
of the dominant historic building massing at the crest of the hill to the smaller scaled and sized
structures of heterogeneous building types sited along the slopes of the hill, the use of masonry,
particularly red brick, as the predominant exterior building materials for these buildings and
masonry or wood frame and cladding for buildings at perimeter locations of the campus. It is not
necessarily desirable, however, for new buildings and landscapes to mimic construction styles or
materials of the existing buildings with twentieth century materials. For example, new buildings
need not have red brick exteriors or otherwise use the same materials or construction as were used
on the existing buildings.
L_ Other Design Guidelines which vary from the Zoning Code also would be acceptable, provided
that requirements relating to materials, siting, and massing are addressed. MHC and the City will
have 30 days to review and comment on the final draft of any such additional design guidelines
` I which vary from the zoning ordinance or this MOA. DCPO shall have design review authority.
I_ I IV. Exempted Activities
A. The following construction activities are unlikely to affect what MHC regards as the character-
defining attributes of the Campus and are exempted from further review by the MHC, including
`Jr comments in any environmental review process:
F_ Resurfacing, maintenance, repair or improvement of existing parking lots, roads, and
driveways.
• Repair, replacement or improvements to infrastructure, i.e. heating and electrical
systems, sewer, water, ventilation systems, or plumbing.
Page 5
• Maintenance work such as painting, repair or replacement of substantially in-kind
architectural elements.
• All interior work.
• Maintenance, repair, or replacement of substantially in-kind landscape features.
• Demolition or alterations of non-contributing structures.
• New construction on parcels C, D, and E. (See Attachment B, the parcel identification
map).
• New construction of 40' or less in height, excluding mechanical systems, on Parcels F,
B (south of Grove Street), K (the eastern half), and J.
V . Photographic Recordation and Documentation
A. Prior to demolition of any contributing building, disposition of any part of the Campus,
- substantial new construction or other major change to the landscape of the Campus, DCPO shall
require that the buildings, structures and designed open spaces of the Campus are documented by
photographs and narratives in accordance with a "recordation plan" that satisfies all of the
following:
1. Provides for documentation of the historical processes that shaped the organization,
design and history of Northampton State Hospital. (The nomination of the Campus
to the National Register prepared by MHC is sufficient documentation.)
f 2. Contains photographs and documentation of the character-defining attributes.
3. Includes but is not limited to elements listed in Attachment C.
4. Is reviewed and commented upon by MHC.
5. Provides that copies of the resulting documentation are made available to the MHC,
the City of Northampton, and, if any federal funds are used, the Library of
Congress.
V1. Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits
A. In order to ensure that rehabilitation of buildings that MHC believes contribute to the historical
significance of the Campus can qualify for applicable tax credits, DCPO shall encourage any
designated developer to consult with MHC and the National Park Service for the purpose of
meeting tax credit standards in any work to be completed.
Page 6
VII. Coordination with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Massachusetts Enviro=ental Policy
Act
A. If any state or federal agency funding, license, or permit is contemplated or required for the
rehabilitation or demolition of any contributing building or landscape on the Campus, or for new
r construction on any contributing landscape, DCPO shall provide a copy of this MOA to any project
proponent which is hereby on notice that notice and review procedures under the National Historic
Preservation Act, 16 USC 470 et. seq. (including sections 106 and 110) (36 CFR 800), the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and/or the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
- (MEPA) may be applicable to any such project, requiring notice and review by the appropriate
federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) and/or the
r~ MEPA unit, as applicable, as early as possible during the planning stages of the project to the
i extent required by such laws. A copy of this MOA shall be included in the documentation
submitted to the federal agency, the Advisory Council, and/or the MEPA Unit, along with MHC's
written comments concerning the project, which shall be used to document a good faith effort to
I consult with the MHC concerning historic preservation. MHC, DCPO, and all parties interested in
the project agree that if the procedures in this MOA are fulfilled in compliance with this MOA,
MHC's comments will provide that, even if there is an adverse impact or effect on the historic
resources, all reasonable, prudent and feasible means and actions required to mitigate such adverse
impact or effect on such historic resources -have taken place under said laws and this MOA and that
it is in the public interest to proceed with the project.
Execution and implementation of this Memorandum of Agreement evidences that DCPO has
f~_T afforded MHC reasonable opportunity to comment on the re-use of Northampton State Hospital.
r Page 7
VIII. Modifications
Any party to this MOA may request that it be amended or modified whereupon the parties will
-.l consult in accordance with 950 CMR 71 to consider such amendment or modification.
J Executed as of the date first above written.
(-I Division of Capital Planning and Operations (DCPO):
By:
' Lark Jurev Palermo
Commissioner
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC):
By: l~ U4t,0H
McDonough
D~tor
City of Northampton (City):
By:
Mary L. Ford
Mayor
i
%I
IJ,
Page 8
',-_1 ATTACHMENT A PAGE of 3
wi
i UI
a
pi
O
W
r it
C-1
:Z1
:4
j j
l ~
I
L-11
JI
H
~I
E-I
UI
WI
E-4
H
UI
al
~I
a
WI
t:.
~i
WI
al
W
a
E-
M
._:JOU]wgq W gggqr,-a' PgCAq _~.:~G:gggqqqqq q q qq ggCgqqu~qG._'.
U U U U
"..'Ur,;:JUUUUUZ000UU UUUHUUUU2UZUUUUZUUUUUVU:J
J
nr~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.3 0
-j 17~
-I i4 i4 ~-4 i-I N rl
0 0 0 O O C.
r-v
r-i
CJ
0 r r r r lV (V
'll Q) > > > v >
_
(n uz.~.~_~.~.~.~.~.~•~ r
_
r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri
-
tU fl),_ O O C O O O O O 1
-
.-.UUC: UUUUU I--I
V
•J
_ 1J
r L
L
U7
UQ 1J
>
>
D O
0
0
(D
0 0
>
U U
0 a) U
U
= U
fD
'll Q)
C
- 'J r; J
J..1 TS
7J
v
V ro
(1) G)
r Sl. r. Q)
a)
(i
J (1)
r
Q) (0 -
• H ti) TlJ
( 4 . Q)
a)
)
(i) Q)
r.
• r I _
(1) U r! r-1
r-1
r--1
rl rl
0
O O
Q)
- r
~4
r CO
O
~'D O
O
D (D ; ul
Ul r•l 0 CD (Z) C7 CD Z) C7 C^ 0 0 C
_ =1 Ql M rn -V I'D Lr) Cl- 'I_n 'J M M r-' :--i C
Gl Gl cc of co CO Cb it , co C. G) C) C%
WI 1 N C•1 Ln Ln co oo N Ul N co N ~ O 7l 0 0 0 N Ln to
E-+ D000`1NMMLn NM :D COCA l~l C. .'C' Q'c* M~MC~.-•-
mOJCT01CilGlC1CTmCT r rQlm r Z (`c co co r r r (0m (0 00 r (0 (0 (d (0 ral G)mm mm CO G`.
A r-I r-( r-I .-I -4 --I :-1 r1 r-i U U U U U U ri u r-1 U U U U U U r-
>s as L
C G ~
r
Q)
s 3 3 w Q) m r;
'O -LJJ1~.1Q WU449 F- E 0 (1) Q) ( 0 t 0 0) Q)
r1 or. m X X X X X , ~4 J-) ro 44
q r rl Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) (!1 U1 Ul• ul •rl 1J J 1J Q) .u -0 Q) (1) .u Q) (1) Q) r--I (0
3 r rl r1 r-I r-1 rl Qn)~ a) y ~ ~ Ul q) a) Q) a) Q) a) Q) 11 Q) Q) Q) L
as 0) Ol a a a a a Q) (1) a O a Q) . Sa a) Q) ~l }4 rl S4 S4 ~4 r".
n C. .u a) r I~ E F- F, I; ~4 m ) 14 ~4 .!J a) -0 Q) a Q) -LJ 1, m -L) (1) q s~
a • i 71 E -rl •r{ 0 0 O O O 0 0 1~ r0 Lv -Li is Ul 11 .ll m 0) U) Ol to U) U) iT cn a) rd u
Ul 1 " G S
Z 1) rO " ro 'a u U U U U r-♦ -1 O Ul M a) Ul Ul (0 U) U) it 10 Ul (d co
C)
X rl 0 -1 r--I a a x Q) I Q) }-1 Q) Q) }•4 r-I S4 - }4 r•--I r--I ~4 r Q) 0 (d
C7 S4 .r.( U •ri •ri r-1 r-1 r-1 -1 r--1 E~ F 4J S4 M J l1 11 (0 r-1 Q) (1) > (0 Q) (0 1) (0 (L) N (0 U ~4 a.) -11 -1 ~ u
2 0 0 ~:J ~J (d (0 (d (0 (0 W W - 1.1 Q) M L() (0 Ul Ul 0) ~4 > > 0 U) S-( 01 ~4 }M a a -~j w r(
H QQ r71.,i rQ q -rl •rl •r-I •ri •r-I Ul Q) U ? 3 0 0 0 ~ ~ :I (d CQ 'S" (d S~1 }~1 (0 I 4 a(d w rO
-rq 0 0 0 O 0 1J 1J Ul 'Q) •r'( I Gi C7 (D U U a Q) ~4 Q)
H • rI ~-4 > 1~ a~ i i i i r ~4 :J ~4 r-I U) M ri c- Ln m N 03 a U 3 ~:j ri
m (_+~4 9 P4 z z z z z Z~E: Z Ul Z Z W r-iZH-i NLnmr-1 N N Nc--I C*1 Ul Qa Q4 W Z
xk
r•i
P4
d O :--I N M Ln to r- CO CT O r-1 N M -v m to C,- of a) O rl c,4 M -p Ln lD C- co m c)
M o m LD C-- m m r--1 -i H ri ,--I r-1 r-1 r1 -4 (11 N N N N N N N N N M M M ('n M M M M M rn
v+
0-
ATTACHMENT A - PACE 2 of 3
I 1
C1~
C-4
E•4
w Ei
~ W
~ W
x x
U ~
Q
Q
. 2 H
~ U
• E4H
P4
r Ea
ax ~
H
R:
0
-z
W
U
a
D
O
W
cY ]q mmCQ W O0.1 mm mm m co C*- mcaCQP' ca p]m m mco UIU)cl, ~ C]co
E-4 1 U U ~j
vl V U U U /ti /-y iCy U U U U U U H U U U H U U U U U U r=r H U U ~./J U U U L/
E4
U
W
E4
H
x
U
C
WI
HI
Ull
WI
al
al
~I
Ei
W
WI
ELI
A
0
z
H
A
a
H
x
al
Q1
~i
cl.
,D O O
C C ~
J ~ :J
r n L
N r 0 C r
i0 r0 C C CC. C r0 m u rz~
.r-i H r, .h -,..I .,..I .ry -ri C •-1 .H •-i •ra •-i -r; .r; •.-i
~4 14 --I --i r-! ;-4 14 1•4 ~4 ~4 G ;4 ~4 }4 ~4 )4 ;4 1-d S4 ;4
r6 r r rr (0 03 N z c0 co co rr < 60 ris r0 r3 r0 m ru m m
L L •ri •r-i rl -n' •-i 1 J-" L -1 J-0 L L J J J J 1J
•-r •-i C C". '4 :•-i U •-i .,A .ri --i •ri C •ri - -i -r-i -r-; --i -r-i
-i r-1 O O .J OJ O 7 -1 --i N --i --1 --i -4 --1 i -
-ri - r-I --i -r' V --i r0 r-i rr.. •ri --i -r-I iJ -ri -r-i -r-i -ra •r-i - r-4 - r-I .r-I --f ro Cu- - : i>✓ v _
-L) O O O O O O (0 y 0-L) Ll y U li -L) L)
41 _u
U: (A
O o o c c o 0 o c o C
O t- N _ C' Cl '1T c In U'l rn ("1 r"
Gl OJ x m Gl Gl = - _ - G-1 Gl c:'.
Ln Gl t- k o O 0 -4 Gl O C (Z-1 -'J O C
• Cl c`l U'l 110 rn .-.I 1'.0 \D lD r) k0 rn ,-D O Ln i'D Ul .
-
Oa)in ,c"i 0m m mmcca) m0) r3 0c1~.^, rrco cc
--I - U e-i --t ri --i ri U - --1 U U U U
tT
N
• -I • ri r--I N O
N 3 ::I U 0 Ul N U)
1a N A u u E ro rO >
0 (0 (0 a) ul co Q) m -75
ro 14 ~4 1.1 it s~ 44 U) ~4
}
0) Q) N }l O
W N N rid ro 1~ I~ (0 N i) -L-) r-4 M ~ S4
: ~ y4 •ri M (D O O O -'1 01 r^d ~ O O O
O s~ O O N .1.1 I) ro 0 . rC O M ~ Id )2i O --1 .U li 1J
~4 -r-1 ?4 ~4 b1 cn cn N Ul 3rd U) •-i U) t0 U U U
rd N ro r» 0 0 r0 -I C+ N U) N v N S. ~4 ~4 N N N
~4 N --1 ~j ~-4 U!1 ~:l t71 41 U) ~4 O !-1 O s~
•-i •-i - 1 - I r0 U N'~ W r0 ~ O r101 s~ G N ~ N ~i r0 O u S~
N O ~ ~ --1 r0 r0 b) O Q4 >1 M O x H N ?4 U) O y w U 4-4 CO --1 O O O
0) CA as --i •r-1 -r-I S4 •-I r0 ~i ~4 ~4 x ro E UO U0 ~4 x q -H ~l U U U
c0 N ~i s4 N S4 N N N N 0 a CQ -Hl PQ N^ ~--I _ }4 U
r, a W N 1~ o --i
s4 N O o a U s~ tr r-l U l N U r4 W
O N -11 . ri Ul E E ~4 q Ol -IJ ~4 S4 r0 3 rCS ~4 ~4 f4 F4 •-I --1 •-i E ~-4 U U U
1.1 ~4 M 0 r0 N N M M CD N •ri O O •-i O N N b X r0 r0 (Z 0 z rd a) b) .
i (DZZ r~r~xwPQ xwUzWx(J OwC)MPQ X ~
cV rnarml0 immcD --IN Mcl+ll),oC-mmO--INMCv U1lO1-00m0 -iN rr)l m
lczr "clr 10 'Ili d+ 'IT d+ m m m m In m m m m to 1'0 1,0 l0 l0 lD "D lD lD w lD C- C- t- C-- C- r-
N
~4
~ a
• ri :-J
-.1 U
^-1 O
- r-i
1
:4
O
U
N
1-0
c!l
W
U
a
0
U1
W
C
a
Fl.
H
0
E-+
n
lj
•D
C ill U)
7Zj)G)G)
• n • r-1 • ri • -I
J J J .J
J 1.7 L 1.1
O O O O
U U U U
Ln
N
J
ti)
r
c.
I41
_ ~
ATTACHMENT A --PfJi--- - - -
I
' r.
G
I!
M ~
7,
l
1J
l I%
J
vI ~
~j
JI
`I
Z- m
~ki), _ i
lop
O ~ r
L
c N
5
I,
ti
i
I
I
i
Nn
i J
!C
c
~i
G
0
Z
F-'
G
1
cr-
O
Z
-l
ATTACHMENT B
_I
r7'
i
Li
it
l
1M
j
~r o
DFA Land
91 Gib
Power P 1 rec'e o°
v o
0
a a d a `dinR' Old hlai ' ooz.p cz
1 . y o v ~ i
S,e
Iauet~ Smith Collcg&`\ t 00 ° o
Pakaclise •~tNici,\
NORTHAMPTON
STATE HOSPITAL
C•~a..~••iri Mu•.••,...ru Di.,.,...( C.„ul Nl..n,n( .n~ 0~..•..••• 40° Ia0
_I\
r(, ATTACHMENT C
SCOPE OF RECORDATION
I. Written Documentation
A narrative summary shall be written for the overall District which
describes the architectural, historical, and cultural significance at the appropriate national,
state and/or local levels. The narrative overview should be followed by individual
summaries of the individual buildings. The National Register nomination form shall be
referenced and.utilized to the fullest extent possible.
II. Graphic Documentation
A series of 8 1/2" x 11" historic site plans, showing key periods in the
evolution of the District shall accompany the narrative summary. This should include the
current plan, showing the location of the District and each documented structure within it.
III. Photographic Documentation
A. Indices to photographs for the overall District and for each
individual building being documented.
B. Photo keys to show locations of overall views and those taken of
large, multi-faceted buildings.
C. Exterior views of each individually documented building:
1. General views of structure within setting.
2. Elevation views. More than one elevation may be
shown at a time.
3. Architectural details.
4. Engineering details.
D. Historic Views
A thorough search should be conducted, and photographic copies made of
a sample of historic photographs of the overall District and of each
individually documented building, if available. A source and approximate
date should be given for each original photograph.
E. Any original or other historic floor plans, photographically reduced
to 4" x 5", 5" x 7", or 8" x 10" format, of all individually documented
structures.
F. All photographs shall be black and white, archivally stable.
IV. Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)
If any federal agency funding, license or permit is used for demolition or new
construction, the National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic Region, shall be contacted
regarding the scope of the HABS recordation.
-1
Ii1
F W
0
~ GBH SJey`~
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
February 6, 1997 Massachusetts Historical Commission
Daniel P. Hughes
Office of Real Estate Management
Division of Capital Planning & Operations
100 Cambridge Street, Room 1611
Boston, MA 02202
RE:. Northampton State Hospital Redevelopment, Northampton, MA; MHC No. 3230
Dear Mr. Hughes:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the final draft of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the
proposed project referenced above. The Northampton State Hospital is listed in the State and National
Registers of Historic Places.
The Massachusetts Historical Commission is pleased that the RFP reflects the terms of the Memorandum
of Agreement between the-MHC DCPO, and the City of Northampton and encourages the marketing,
rehabilitation, and reuse of State Register properties The MHC looks forward to working with DCPO
and the City of Northampton in the sensitive and successful redevelopment of the former state hospital
campus. MHC staff anticipate additional consultation with DCPO regarding preparation of a draft
marketing plan for the campus.
These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 9, Sec.
26-27c, as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988 (950 CMR 71.00).
If you have additional questions, please contact Allen Johnson of this office.
9
Sincerely,
e~th McDonough
Director
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
cc: Northampton Historical Commission
Penelope Kim, Office of Planning & Development, City of Northampton
Wayne Feiden, Office of Planning & Development, City of Northampton
220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 • (617) 727-8470,
Fax: (617) 727-5128 TDD: 1-800-392-6090
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PROGRAM
PRELIMINARY PROJECT ANALYSIS
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Table of Contents
1. Project Description
1
2. Need for Public Investment
2
3. Minimal Funding
3
4. Economic Impact
4
5. Job Creation
5
6. Open/Blighted Finding
6
7. Low/Moderate Income Residents
7
8. Match
8
9. Private Investment
9
10. _CD/ED Experience
10
rt?`:`
11. Secondary Economic Growth
11
41
12. Potential Property Value
12
-13. Current Unemployment
13
14. Site Ownership
14
15.. Permits Required
15
16. Local Elected Official Certification
16
App„er%d~x 1 Sources and Uses
AppendiX-2: Match Documentation
Appendix 3. Project,Description.,Phase One Report
Appendix :4 Phasing Plan
,Appendix 5 -Market Study`
Appendix 6:. Comprehensive'Economic" Development Strategy
Project Proposal Listing Form
Prepared by:
Ws DEVELOPMENT
75 FEDERAL STREET • BOSTON, MA 02110 • PHONE 617-330-2000 • FAX 617-330-2001
'n
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
1. Project Description
Northampton is a culturally and economically diverse community located within the heart of the
five-college area of the Pioneer Valley in Western, Massachusetts. Home to Smith College,
Northampton also serves as the county seat for Hampshire County. It is located at the intersection
of a major east-west state highway (Route 9), which links Amherst and the University of
Massachusetts with Northampton and the hill towns to the west.
Northampton is comprised of a lively and vibrant downtown and several village centers, which are
focal points for outlying residential neighborhoods. The community has a diverse economic base
consisting of a strong retail and commercial sector and a manufacturing sector, featuring a mix of
traditional manufacturers and innovative new industries.
Situated on a prominent hill west of downtown, Northampton State Hospital (NSH) has been a
significant landmark in its community since its opening in the late 1850s. Since the 1960s, societal
changes have rendered large mental health institutions like Northampton obsolete. The closing of
the hospital was viewed as an opportunity to address housing and economic development challenges
facing the community. An ambitious reuse plan developed by the community includes an office and
light industrial zone that provides much needed employment to the area; child and elder care; and a
diverse range of residential types which are all dynamically tied together by a traditional "main
street" within the mixed-use village center.
The Village at Hospital Hill is a joint public-private redevelopment project, resulting from years of
effort by the Commonwealth, the City of Northampton, the Massachusetts Development Finance
Agency ("MassDevelopment"), The Community Builders, elected officials, advocates and concerned
citizens, to provide a forward-looking, economically viable use for the core campus of NSH.
Phase.I of the project comprises the redevelopment of a portion of the former state hospital, which
now includes approximately 70 buildings on 124 acres of land. This phase includes the development
of 109 dwelling units, by private partner The Community. Builders, and up to 152,000 square feet of
commercial space by MassDevelopment, the quasi-public partner. Future phases will add
approximately 325,000 square feet of commercial development and another 98 homes. The mix of
residential and commercial uses is key to the success of the overall redevelopment project.
Community Development Action Grant funding is sought to pay for the portion of site preparation
needed to initiate the commercial and mixed-use development in this first phase. It includes
construction of 3,620 linear feet of roads and walkways, and installation of sewer and water lines.
Also included is demolition and disposal of 210,000 square feet of existing structures and a network
of tunnels on the section of the NSH property planned for commercial use. While two other
buildings are earmarked for reuse, the four to be demolished are obsolete and decayed.
Phase I access is proposed via three access roads onto Route 66, with new roads connecting with
Prince Street and Earle Street, respectively. The northbound and southbound approaches to this
location will serve as the principal commercial and residential access points to the redeveloped
campus.
L
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
42. Need for Public Investment
Capital costs to ready NSH for redevelopment are projected to exceed $20 million. These costs
include planning and permitting, on-site infrastructure, environmental remediation, off-site
infrastructure required under the Massachusetts Highway Department's Section 61 permit, and costs
associated with building demolition.
It was determined early in the planning process that the private sector would be unlikely to take on
the replacement of obsolete infrastructure and the substantial demolition and environmental
remediation which would be required to make the property redevelopable. A variety of public users
were assigned property at the site, ranging from a homeless shelter administered by the local
Housing Authority to 282 acres of land transferred to the Department of Food and Agriculture for
use by the Smith Vocational-Agricultural High School. The remaining land was earmarked for a.
mixed-use development featuring approximately 200 units of housing and 476,000 square feet of
commercial space, with the assumption that this too would require significant investment of public
funds in order to be feasible.
Overall, the project represents a significant investment of public funds, and therefore is consistent
with the clause in the CDAG legislation which encourages use of the program to "provide
reinforcement for other housing or other community development-related investments by the
commonwealth."' Over the life of the project, $14.3 million in grant funds will be needed to
support the phased infrastructure improvements.
A complete proforma showing sources and uses of funds is included as Appendix A, and a
summary, addressing only the phase for which CDAG funding is sought, is shown below.
Table 1. CDAG-Funded Project, Sources and Uses
Phase I Infrastructure Uses
Roads and Utilities
Type D roads
Walkways
Sewer
Water
Clerk of the Works
1,169,575
251,350
228,375
305,950
409,172
Total Roads and Utilities 2,364,422
Demolition and Abatement
abatement
103,410
Demolition
2,673,345
Total Demolition and Abatement
2,776,755
GRAND TOTAL, PHASE I INFRASTRUCTURE
$5,141,177
Funding Sources
Community Development Action Grant
2,000,000
DCAIMNI (Planning, Permitting, Development)
1,200,000
DCAIV 1(Environmental Remediation)
2,000,000
GRAND TOTAL, FUNDING SOURCES
$5,200,000
Theron-site infrastructure improvements will be owned and maintained by the city of Noithampton.
1 Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 121, Section 57A.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 2
'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
0 NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
Minimal Funding
The significant infrastructure costs associated with this project preclude its being undertaken solely
by the private sector. Further, plans for the redevelopment have been repeatedly modified to reflect
an increasingly complete understanding of the complexity of the project. Within the context of the
original master plan adopted by the City in 1992, alternatives were evaluated on that basis of impact
to historic resources, traffic, wetlands, and the objective of creating a campus-like mixed-use
community.
Most recently, a Market Study prepared by Crowley and Associates, Real Estate Appraisers and
Consultants, recommended against an early plan for a hotel/convention center, against reuse of
most existing historic buildings, and against marketing the commercial property primarily to
technology-based uses. Even with these scaled-back plans, the Crowley study projects that
absorption of the commercial space will occur over a decade, not the "several years" originally
anticipated. This market analysis assumes the property will be delivered in developable,
environmentally clean condition.
The cost to make the entire property development-ready exceeds the projection for available funds
by some $5. million. Phasing will permit MassDevelopment to use revenues from property leases
and sales to offset development costs, and The Community Builders to do the same for the
residential portion of the property. In addition, it is anticipated that the City will return to some
public funding sources to complete these future phases.
\,"R • 1:
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
~n
T: 4. Economic Impact
Since the 1980s, when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts began the process of consolidating and
closing state hospitals, the city of Northampton has recognized the opportunities and the challenges
that the state hospital property represents. The redevelopment plan, adopted by the Northampton
Planning Board in 1992 as part of the town's master plan, culled components of four major studies
and input from numerous public meetings. A mixed-use development was selected as the preferred
alternative.
Generally, the 1992 plan recommends economic expansion and diversification within the context of
neighborhood development patterns, replicating the evolution of other parts of the community, and
the need to preserve the unique historic and agricultural resources present at NSH. The Village at
Hospital Hill willretain businesses by creating space for'existing, expanding companies in the region,
and attract new businesses through the proactive marketing efforts of MassDevelopment, the state's.
economic development authority.
Planning for the NSH redevelopment has occurred within the context of a regional economic
development strategy, 1994's "Plan for Progress," which features specific, tangible goals to foster
private investment and economic development. The plan is updated annually by the Pioneer Valley
Planning Commission as a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). Among its
goals is to develop regional business incubator and technology transfer programs. With nearly $1
million in funding from the Economic Development Administration, Springfield Technical
Community College (STCC) established the Springfield Enterprise Center, a first-class incubator
facility sited in one of Springfield's more economically distressed urban neighborhoods. Now, the
prospect of a satellite campus, at NSH, is being contemplated.
Also within the regional plan's context was the selection of industry sectors for MassDevelopment
to target in marketing the new commercial space: technology-related media in particular, and
technology and manufacturing in general.
A Phase One Report prepared pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
for the NSH redevelopment project and released on April 30, 2002, documented the evaluation of a
"no build" alternative as follows:
The need for the proposed pr ject is, quite simply, that NSH represents an enormous opportunity for moving
forward, and conversely, an enormous risk in not moving forward.... NSH has the potential to be a
singular engine for economic development, centrally located in Massachusetts with good access to the major
economic centers of the New England states.... Conversely, without a coherent andpragmatic development
plan, NSH will become increasing blighted, its assets will deteriorate and decay, and it will become a public
safety ha.Zard.'
The synergy resulting from strong public support, backing from the municipal government, and
participation by a respected quasi-public economic development agency and equally respected
private non-profit housing developer assures the project's success.
,aa1 N,` .
The Village at Hospital Hill Phase One Report, EOEA #12629, Epsilon Associates Inc., Maynard, April 30, 2002, p 3-3.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 4
v
hG
r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
5. Job Creation
Overall, the redevelopment of Northampton State Hospital is expected to result in the creation or
retention of 800 jobs.
Phase I, with a total of 152,000 square feet of commercial space, is projected to create or retain 410
jobs, ranging from managerial and technical to retail sales jobs. Kollmorgen will retain 200 jobs in
the City and potentially create 50 more as a result of their expansion.
Projections by use are shown below.
Table 2. Job Creation Projections, The Village at Hospital Hill
A\ cra.-cA-miti ll -
Square Fcet
Johs
Salary'
Tutiil Pa\rO11
Light Industrial
80,000
170
$28,550
4,853,500
Retail
n nnn
3n
1.51n
R 9a5.n(1 '
Total
152,000
370
529,737
S 10,754;300
All planning documents and local economic development strategies which reference the NSH
redevelopment project cite two different types of jobs that will be located at the site: new jobs, and
jobs which will be retained in the region but would otherwise be lost because of a lack of suitable
commercial space. "Limited inventory of industrial land readily available across the region with
essential infrastructure services" was one of 10 "threats" to economic development identified in the
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission Comprehen ive Economic Development Strategy Annual Report.'
An example of this type of user is Kollmorgen Electro-Optical, a Northampton currently occupying
70,000 square feet on King Street. The firm recently won a new Navy contract for telescopic sights.
The base contract and an option for additional sights is worth $25 million. Kollmorgen was also
recently awarded a $9.6 million contract to build 12 submarine masts for the U.S. Navy.
Another "threat" was the gap in availability and affordability of high-speed broadband Internet and
telecommunication infrastructure in the region. Given the strength of the service sector in
Hampden and Hampshire counties, and the growth in the new media sector, it is considered key to
the health of the local economy that new media and service companies be supported. The
commercial development at NSH is designed to do that.
2 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2000 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for
11tassachusetts.
s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Annual Report, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, June, 2002, p 51.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE5 i
r' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
titl,a.~
6. Open/Blighted Finding
An open and blighted area determination was completed for the site of the former state hospital in
2001, allowing CDBG funded activities in this area of the city to be classified under a slums and
blight criteria rather than exclusively economic development. The open and blighted. determination
was prepared by the Office of Planning and Development and will be considered at regular intervals
as redevelopment of the former hospital proceeds. Full redevelopment and build out at the site is
anticipated to take up to 20 years.
The blight analysis, adopted by the Northampton Planning Board on June 14, 2001, complied with
the Massachusetts General Laws and HUD regulations. Generally, the 538-acre site was found to
have deteriorated infrastructure and buildings, and infrastructure of insufficient capacity to support
reuse.
A copy of the vote on blight is shown below.
I ',t 't l tl yr 17 t
~ J l
J
s tr~~ s r
lN,
J_ '.rapt
-
SLa . . Jam..
and uJrm~.h n dov .1 m! .n.S...... rl
c nu-alu u~s>_.iYprr c n ntt aru ccof,m (l4(~-H1IS[r~.A rr 'S!~u hd
u:
nr:al
h"i 61 Irh.!-'!... LCIJ.... "IP.
il._
J.Ln, _m~no[.,a JUS
d,_ ~oc..all td IsJ>_~.;
J r-C)i umu, 2:1 Pa- ol e=r;b cl_J io.s_..r_ned 11 t.., .,a.j__ to ue -
`-nak it t
1tJcl' 4"o' --2V0: 1 .1 ...mmn,
Ls,
I i c ct~.~,.,Cam 1 «t.._r;t; Iln s cc -
~.mJ.. '1i .,L--
tL Rio n
G"rnld WAIsmofWh 'bmi Way,
1. . C
r
L~l w 7L I;
L n c' 'hat h 1 r1i mr t a u1tJt.is Ius. a J b'ht
T.uv ond.d LS. J.,u,i ➢1..S~~llT lent
;la
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 6
Kl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
7. Low/Moderate Income Residents
This project will benefit low- and moderate-income residents in two ways: by improving a blighted
area in a neighborhood where a significant percentage of low- and moderate-income persons reside,
and by providing jobs for such persons. Beyond the CDAG-funded project, the overall.
redevelopment will result in additional housing for low- and moderate-income persons..
Census Tract 8219.02
With 37.4 percent of its population having a low to moderate income, Northampton ranks 271St, in
the state's lowest quartile, according to DHCD's calculations based on the 1990 U.S. Census.
According to Northampton's One-Year Action Plan for Year 19, of the City's 11,151 households, 39
percent, have very low or low incomes. Four tracts, including the one in which a portion of
Northampton State Hospital is located, exceed the city-wide average.
Demographic data clearly reflect the dominant presence of recent college graduates in the vicinity of
NSH. Twenty-four percent of residents in Census Tract 8219.02 are between the ages of 22 and 29,
according to the 2000 US Census - more than twice the rate of persons of that age throughout
Hampshire County. More than half of adult residents have a bachelor's degree or higher, compared
with a third statewide and 38 percent in Hampshire County. Yet the median household income, at
$32,311, is 64 percent of the state average.'
Job Creation/Retention
Kollmorgen employs a full spectrum of engineering and manufacturing disciplines to design a
variety of sensor and weapon systems for submarines, surface ships, combat vehicles, and other
defense platforms. With facilities in Massachusetts and Vermont in the US as well as Bologna, Italy,
Kollmorgen is an experienced developer of integrated and stabilized, high-peiformance optronic
sensor, antenna, masts and weapon control systems for defense applications. The firm, acquired in
June by the publicly traded Danaher Corp., is particularly proud of its family-oriented employment
practices. "We want your talent, not your life," its recruitment web site states. "We recognize the
importance of your life outside of work, and provide the flexibility in your job that enables you to
strike that all-important balance."
In preparing a master plan for the site development, The Community Builders hired Mount Auburn
Associates, Inc., to examine the potential for bringing "new media" companies to the NSH site.
The term refers to companies engaged in web page design, Internet publishing, digital recording,
software development, video games, and other related functions. Efforts will continue to attract this
type of business, which employs persons with a broad range of skills and experience.' In addition,
the City and the developers received inquiries from other technology and manufacturing businesses
about possible sites at the Village at Hospital Hill.
4 Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3).
An Assessment of the New Media Sector for Business and Job Development at the Northampton State Hospital Site,
< { j y ~ Mt. Auburn Associates, Inc., July, 1999, pp 1-2.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
8. Match
MassDevelopment and The Community Builders intend to pursue all available sources of public
funding for this project. Funds that will be pursued for the public improvements to support the
cominercial component of the project are shown below.
Table 3. Grant Solicitation Plan
PROGP-1-N rL NDI NG AL T HORTTY NMOUNT
~iiu~~uluz~ Deg=elopmeii.Department~of Housing and.CoininwJ t5r . ' 000 000
CT,' lit Development
Pul)JI, L:C(d7 ~CCLII L' )1 llt'i' F!r 1 i,ILl"~~ I( :1I ,III
f _11(111 ill!I!
ICSCi~ ~1 ~IllC1l I ~ r ~11~T11 l~ lli ,11
Historic Landscape Program p "Dei,.ll-tine i of Envirom-ental Nlanatrement 100;000
1'ecreatlonalTia>l L~~paru 1~nt~',~ E n,-n „t1>~i~i it l 3n cln~r~t 50'000-
T Trl)2r) Forest,-~T P1 narair Department of Environmental Management 10`;000`
C'Liilim;~. P~n~t~_~ De~elciptl~ent D(
F- ~ 1IC,n711CPr~~ 11e~ ~C(~LcL~.ll D~ ~ ~l_'.1 ~ I I! ~I) I li II I
TOTAL 860000;
Preliminary discussions have been held with the Public Works Economic Development program
staff, and with the state Executive Office for Administration and Finance regarding overall statewide
economic development goals of which this project is a part. Additional funding, totaling $5.7
million, has already been allocated by the state Division of Capital Asset Management and
Maintenance (DCAMM), and will be used as the match for the CDAG project.
Projects in Northampton are not currently eligible for funding through the US Department of
Commerce Economic Development Administration. However, preliminary discussions have been
held with EDA's regional staff, and the Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Agency has identified the
NSH project as a priority for regional economic development in its most recent Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategy. EDA relies upon the regional planning agency network to
perform an initial screening of projects.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002 .
PAGE 8
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
9. Private Investment
Upon completion of the infrastructure improvements, MassDevelopment will market the
commercial property to light manufactuing and other businesses identified as prospects worth
pursuing in a Market Study prepared by Crowley and Associates.
Projections regarding private investment are based on interest to date, industry averages. and
MassDevelopment's experience with seal estate in other parts of the Commonwealth.
Table 4. Private Investment
Fit-taut ~knd
Total PriN-alc
Purcha""e
Contitruction Equihyitcnt
Inl°c"tn]cilt
Asstimhtiorls~SF
$60' construction
Light Industrial $ 336,000
4,800,000 1,600 000
$ 6,736,000
X20 fit-out
7-1 Tl
1,061-1 )CH)
k f=i ~i 1
cC>nSt 1 C rio I
_
Retail 150,159 ` $ 2,090,000 380,000 $ 2,620,159 11 construction
$20 fit-out
: ~<y Total $-,-,49,504 S 11,130,000 ti 31040,000 $ 1'xM19,504
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 9
;i;;;. 5
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
10. CD/ED Experience
This grant will be administered by the City of Northampton's Office of Planning and Development
in conjunction with the Mayor's Office of Economic Development.
Northampton is an entitlement community which receives in excess of $900,000 annually from
HUD in Community Development Block Grant program funds. With these funds, Northampton
last year provided support and administration for 29 different projects.
In addition to CDBG administration and general planning, the Department provides staff support
for the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Historical Commission and Historic District
Committee, Northampton Housing Partnership, Northampton Redevelopment Authority, Zoning
Board of Appeals, and other special organizations.
The Mayor's Office of Economic Development provides the following services applicable to this
project:
• Marketing and development support for economic development initiatives in the City
• Business assistance to existing and new businesses in the City
• Management of the Massachusetts Economic Development Incentive Program in the City
• Staff support and liaison to the City Council Industrial Affairs Committee and Northampton
State Hospital Citizen Advisory Committee.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 10
' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
7
11. Secondary Economic Growth
While nearly 400 permanent jobs will be created or retained as a direct result of this project, more
are expected as an indirect result of the project.
Table 5. Direct/Indirect/Construction Job Creation
Perm:~t,cr~t
Direct Indirect
Gmstruct](M `
~~1~?}i1 ~ilCtllU'1',li
l II
iflll
-~-(I
Office
170,
270
90
R, L, t
4i)
Infrastructure
0
17
Total
370 "
610
207
Sources
Direct job creation was based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers' projections per square foot for
building construction in different categories.
MassDevelopment utilizes the Bureau of Economic Analysis' RIMS II Multipliers, based on 1997
benchmark Input-Output accounts calculated July 2001, to estimate secondary job creation impacts
from projects.
Construction job projections were derived from two sources. For infrastructure construction and
demolition, we utilized the Federal Highway Administration's "Direct On-Site Employment Rates
on Federal-Aid Highway Construction Projects." For building construction employment, we used
job projections (Burchell, 1994) adjusted for inflation. In each instance, the number of jobs cited
represents one for each 1,600 hours.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 11
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
12. Potential Property Value
State and local tax revenues will also increase as a result of this project, as shown below.
Table 6. State and Local Tax Revenues
NewStatO_TaX Total Private "(1111ated
Squaw Feet Rcvcnuc, : Iriscstnlcnt Propcrty flc%
Light Industrial 80,000 253,400 $ 65736,000 $ 102 620
ttfc~ HI lil 0() •Retail 19,000 $ 45,600 2,620,159 $ 42,480
Total 15?,00U S 5 62,4UU s I-,019 ~O4 S 234,497 An Economic Opportunity Area application for NSH was approved by the Economic Assistance
Coordinating Council (EACC) on October 31, 2002. This designation will permit the City to
authorize the granting of local tax incentives, and applications for state tax credits. The city of
Northampton is part of the Greater Franklin County Economic Target Area.
Sa Estimated by The Community Builders.
7
Based on 2002 tax rate of $15.91 and total project cost, which typically exceeds the assessed value.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 12
` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT-PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
13. Current Unemployment
As the table below shows, the unemployment rate for the Franklin/Hampshire Service Delivery
Area consistently falls below the state and national averages.
Table 7. Unemployment Rate Comparisons
_
Franltilinj
1
II:tYll)Slll1'C SDA-
IatiS
j)s
August 2002
3.7
5
5.7
i
4.
_
June 2002,
3.4
- 419
6.0
4.2
4.1
April 2002
3.1 '
4.5
5.7
"4:Lrc1" a)()-
4:
N
.
Februai7, 2002
.
3.4
4.7
6.1
;y
2001 Annual Average
2.9
3
However, the challenge in western Massachusetts is underemployment rather than unemployment.
The traditional correlation between educational attainment and income does not apply in Hampshire
County as it does elsewhere, although the presence of higher education in the region certainly has a
statistical impact. Although 25 percent of the adult population in Northampton has a master's
degree or higher, the median household income is lower than the state or national median, in part
because of the young age of the population. Fifty percent of Northampton residents work in one of
four industry sectors that tend to dominate college towns: eating and drinking establishments (10
percent), health services (18 percent), educational services (15 percent) and social services (7
percent). Nationally, only 21 percent of the population work in those four sectors combined'.
$ Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
i
NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 13
i
1
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
14. Site Ownership
The NSH property is currently owned by the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management.
DCAM has agreed to convey the property to a limited liability corporation comprised of the
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, the state's economic development authority, as
managing partner, and The Community Builders, a private non-profit agency, as the selected
developer. This conveyance was expected to occur on November 21, 2002.
Under an agreement with the City of Northampton, MassDevelopment will manage the
construction of infrastructure improvements, then submit the improvements for acceptance by the
city.
k`~1,81
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
15. Permits Required
The table below shows permits required and their status as of October, 2002.
Permit/Permitting Agency
Status
MEPA Certificate
Phase 1 Report submitted April 30, 2002. 30-day review period
concluded June 7. Special Review Procedure established by the
Secretary of Environmental Affairs permits the development of
Phase 1 to proceed following the issuance of a certificate on the
Phase 1 Report. A subsequent Draft/Final Environmental
Impact Report must address the cumulative effects of the
development. Notice of Project Change filed and approved.
Section 61
Draft findings included in the Phase 1 Report.
Massachusetts Historic
Memorandum of Agreement executed between Massachusetts
Commission
Historical Commission and Division of Capital Asset
Management on August 10, 1995. Note that it is anticipated that
federal funds will be utilized for a portion of the project
development, invoking the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended.
Planning Board Permits
Preliminary and definitive subdivision plans, site plan approval,
and special permit all required. The special permit for Phase I
has been issued.
Conservation Commission
Order of Conditions required under the Wetlands protection Act
Approval
and local ordinance. Determination of Applicability issued.
Local Public Works Permits
Trench, sewer entrance, water entrance and backflow prevention
permits all required from the Northampton Department of
Public Works
Demolition, renovation and
All required from Northampton Building Inspector.
building permits
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 15
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
1 NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL
f 16. Local Elected Official Certification
To the best of my knowledge, all information in this preliminary project analysis packet is true and
correct.
Signed
Name and Title Clare Higgins, Mayor of Northampton
Date
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON NOVEMBER, 2002
PAGE 16
to
O
O
M
'
CO
00
N
O
o
O
G
v
N
i
Q
co
°l
^
~
W
N
r
r
n
V
'
O
v
Ol
H
n,
ffl
V3
EH
f9
ffJ
(f3
EA
fR
Ef1
W
•FPr
.L/}
. tR
V+
~R
HT
iPr
iR
V}
V}
iM
N
O
O
Ln
°Ol
001
m
O
o
to
m
ti
co
O
16
LO
ti
O
r,
m
CD
N
M
+R
V}
Vt
V}
V}
iR
iif
VT
4A-
-V•
+R
iff
b4
!R
fPr
i&
!Pr
vv
kPr
th
'w'
i
i
t1DO
f+l
,
,
O
to
ID
In
,
n
a
O
Nl
H
O
O
,
,
,
,
,
,
i
MrLnvl
p
o
ko
ry
rn
co
~y
m
M
{fr
iff
fPr
V+
aff
-W,
Vt
V}
iiF
iPr
Vi•
V~
Vt
N}
iR
f!f
ifY
{ii•
fR
iR
'
L
^
O
o
O
O
m
O
M
t
n
N
d
t
ll
O
,
,
O
• r
-11
C)
r,
m
Ln
V-
C,
Ln
10
m
m
m
ti
O
0%
of
'
'LA'
tfF
iff
•FPr
V)-
.L(}
VT
iA
iR
.vi•
.vL.
.vL.
.fr
tPr
vt
4A-
ttr
yr
vt
yr
.
o
O
m
O
'
<P
Ln
O
O
O
m
Ln
co
,
o0
m
v
•-I
o
O
O
O
V-
m
O
m
N
co
LT
L
O
O
C
N
O1
O
O
d~
Ol
.-I
N
O
M
r~'1
O
tlj
O
L7
Ol
'41
O
O
n
co
O
O
O
N
O
m
o m
e-1
r-1
n
t0
Lf1
Ln
n
Ln
N
'i
to
Ol
rl
O
O
lT
'-I
N
Ln
~
L°
~
N
fV
M
N
0
n
n
_
M
M
W
'Lfl'
•Vf
V!
V}
fPr
Vf
iPr
V}
iH'
+R
fPr
tPr
H}
iR
fPr
V}
iR
V}
A&
+Pl
KY
.
Z
O
o
o
o
LO
o
N
N
0~1
0
o
N
N
W
u
1
O
O
O
m
M
LT
O
O
O
n
mM
'
p
^
O
M
pN
N
Ln
DO
O
N
M
O
0o1
O
a
{yL
N
.•L
CO
to
L
N
.-L
co
O
v
Ln
Ln
O
i
W
{fl•
Vf
Vt
Hf
{R
iPr
iPr
iPr
iA•
Vf
V!
VY
VI•
iPr
b+
vi.
tPr
*FF
i{!
V}
Vl-
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
U)
~
co
O
O
co
V,-
.-L
O
O
N
O
N
m
N
O
O
lD
al
00
0
o
rn
co
6
Ln
L°
to
Cl
co
to
O
i
to
m
.-i
o
i
Ln
co
'i
L
W
a
n
Ln
O
o
N
LD
0
Ln
L"
M
L"
O
N
a
N
N
m
^
-
00
n
Lf
N
co
.
.
Lri
a
•
N.
o
I
D
Lo
C,
a
Ln
}
{l.
lH
tt1
N
1.1.
Q
ZZ
Vf
ifT
ifF
fPr
'L!•}
Vi•
V}
ifr
VT
iR
HT
V+
isr
iR
iR
+R
tR
iPr
4A-
'
'
O
•1:•:t`
)G
n
M
N
n
O
o
On
L
N
O
o
mm
Iq
N
N
J
~
V
rt
f
°l
m
~
n
o
O
~
O
O
,
,
l0
i
t0
,
,
,
,
N
O
O
W
O
N
-
d
to
f
n
o
.-1
6
O
N
t
N
V
7
n
M
O
N
ID
O
t0
10
UJ
N
t!1
O
m
y
N
n
t+i
t0
m
m
m
LO
N
l0
^
ti
N
o
W
to
N
a
ID
o
m
co
m
Q.
w
m
L
'Ili
L
o
cc
,
N
,
.
r '
l
N
O
N
M
co
N
co
M
M
too
M
O
O
W
Q
iPr
iF}
VT
ii}
V}
Y}
V}
-W
-W
4A-
i/+
tPr
y}
V}
H
A
<Pr
t/}
t/}
V}
V}
U1'
C)
0
C)
°
L
CD
O
,
0
O
LLn
tD
,
t~D
L
p
Z
lNA
m
N
N
O
N
CD
O
>
a'
N
O
N
~
Z
W
O.
O
=
c
°
o
o
n
o
rn
Ln
a
In
o
o
O
o
O
o
0
0
o
r
a
n/
I,
ti
. -I
m
V
rl
M
O
LIZ
o
Ln
Ln
NL
C'
C
m
I~
b
-
t0
Irl
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CA
N
d)
E
0
O
J
m
o
N
o
O
H
V
co
~D
- I
V-
m o
Lo m
Ln
rl
r,
I~
f~
O
O
~
O
Ln
O
to
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
t?
Z
¢
n
01
O
o
m
o
n
V'
N
Ln
.--i
N
ti
tD
O
O
O
tD
O
n
N
N
p
ti
(V
ti
M
lD
.--1
N
M
N
IV
fV
.ti
ti
N
M
C
e
O
O
F
N
N
~
V
O
~
N
y
t-
~
o
'
+Pr
{fi•
VT
ii}
fR
'LA'
i!}
+Pr
VT
iPr
iPr
af}
il}
Vt
t4
V}
iPr
V}
{A
y}
An-
G
L
U
Q
N
L
d
L)
LT
E
3
m
r_
F
-2
a
yf
m
M
°
=
Q
co
Ln
'o
0
a
N
m
°
_
a
i
°
d
r
Q
o
V)
U.
~
y
c
m
Y
E
LL
E
-.a
p
cu
i
i
d
L
.
LL.
O
C
W
N
o
rli
E
w
E
y
o
°
L
L
~.*M~
E
7
y
V
O
E
J
0
h
O
UL
v
O
O CL
E
. E
b'
c
O
W
U)
N
d
d
d
C
Z
c
m
w
L)
to
o
¢
c;
aj
V)
v
m
°
m
°
m
Ln
10
a
d
o
U.
C
E
N
M
O
O
L
O
O
d
a'
o
a0i
O)
OL
y
O
I`
+
C
C
N
y
0
=
:0
LO
F
4]
f0
J
=
K
2
2
k
V
'E
IS
\
0