Loading...
DEF. PLAN copee yoke th Hadley nby iy Republican LOCAL DECEMBER 17., 2,006 'ublic hearing slated on boiler bl By DAVID REID dreid_@a repub corn_ !OLYOKE - The Board of ilth will hold a public hear- on Wednesday on a propos- ban outdoor wood-burning lers. 'artier this year,the board is- d a moratorium on any new :alration of the devices nigh June 30. Neither the e or federal government cur- ly regulates the devices. ut Board Chairman Dr.John 1cHugh and Health Director del B.Bresnahan have cited ant scientific studies showing boilers present significant th risks because of particles other gases they emit. he public is invited to attend hearing, which begins at 6 , will be held in the fourth- conference room at the Hall Annex.After the hear- is closed, the three-member d will decide when to vote on whether to adopt a total ban of the boilers 1f a ban is adopted, it will force Robert S.Allen,of 25 Pine- hurst Road,to shut down a boil- er that he has been using since summer to heat his home and produce his hot water. Last month, a state Housing Court judge gave Allen a condi- tional OK to continue burning wood in his boiler through Jan. 20.Court action was initiated by the city's fire depth huent under state nuisance statutes. Also this week,the City Coun- cil's Finance Committee will meet tomorrow to debate two financial measures relating to wastewater treatment plant fi- nances. One measure would shift $1 39 million in sewer en- terprise fund free cash to bal- ance the fiscal 2007 sewer department budget.The budget, whose revenues come from fees charged ratepayers, will help pay for$24 million in upgrades to the Berkshire Street treat- *�entplant The other measure"a re- quest from the Board of Public. Works and Mayor'Michael 7 Sullivan to horrowitroullion of those construction costs for on- going plant upgrades and mod- ernization. City officials say issuing municipal bonds. at 4 percent would save ratepayers $1.3 million over the 20-year life of the borrowing.The city is cur- rently financing plant modern- ization with a 6 percent loan. The Finance Committee's 6 p.m. meeting will take place in the council chambers at City Hall. On Tuesday, the full City Council will consider a transfer of $168,000 from free cash to balance the city's$120.3 million operating budget. That amount is far less than the $1.16 million Sullivan esti- mated in May would be needed from cash reserves at this time to plug a structural deficit in the operatingbudget . ..: - -The staff . . balance.ihe s`ew"er-` arsel generaf fetid budgets ita3tfniatlrelbout 1 , liminary property tax 1 IIls;,.on4 Jan.1. The full council meets at 7:30 p.m.in City Hall. Also on the council's agenda is a proposal to expand the boundaries of the Interstate 391 and High Street gateway Eco- nontic Opportunity Area.'That proposal was recommended last week by the council's Redevel- opmentCommittee. Hadley board says it can regulate wood boilers By SCOTT MERZBACH ronmental Protection Agency or I-- "+{. - ^y� 1#' 'hT` .. Staff Writer the state Department of Environ- Ri' `' �/"G mental Protection,which means '+xvili Wil. : xx..t p l • # , k. HADLEY — Regulations goy- it has fallen onto towns to estab- erning outdoor wood boilers may lish regulations. not be established immediately Budding Inspector Tim Ney- by the town's health board, but hart said since they are not eon- + + to members are assuring residents sidered woodstoves, which fall ;Yt that they already have the power under his jurisdiction they can't t to deal with any that are causing be regulated in that way /x a nuisance. "The unfortunate problem, as During a public hearing on the we all know,is that the EPA has k , .. rna growing use of outdoor wood boil- not regulated these," Neyhart m..i{ og ers in Hadley Thursday night, said + . . 1 1 ;id about 25 residents provided feed-. Board of Health Chairman Da- RIG"4i1 "'e .!, k . back to the Board of Health in- Ad Farnham said one idea may 1} - eluding those who use the devic- be to only allow the outdoor wood il i fit# �. ci „ s'. es to heat their homes and those boilers where homes aren't clus- i t r who say they are affected by the tared together Neyhart said so 1�7 smoke they generate. far there seems to be only one ' a n < '• Board of Health member Greg area affected, and it may relate (A ?`a!?r 1 `y r} t �, •' Mish said the board will likely to topography and proximity of first try to get a list of residences the homes as much as use of the ` +h r .:4,. d t that have outdoor wood boilers by device. 7r .e, requiring would of the tde- vices. nera ed by theses, the smoke ° Y, d�A'C This would come before the generated by these outdoor wood ) � �^*k'f: B ' board imposes any rules or tem- boilers, even if minimal wherry T S , porary bans on new installations being used properly, could pose because Mish said the health problems for people with asthma { ,, + ,a - " _ board already has the authority and using oxygen tanks a ; ` y'�5r s Si s "� �� w. x ' to shut down problem boilers, JohnMiller of 15 Sylva Heights "q,' + n. d 'z "There maybe a way to accom- said 14 homes are located within iduya^ ° tg+, modate both sides without caus- 400 feet of Hanscom's wood i s v <. boil- ing further problems,"Mish said. es. ` M: y 1 immnnoft a should have an Eleanor said id shela of 4 Sylvia inventory a ue arose Heights l em she dome matter the ,'k; g The issue arose after several boiler will emit an odor no matter + :r�w,i•"I residents on Huntington Road what season it is used. Hadley took up the issue of wood boilers this week. Health board members say they have the and Sylvia Heights complained "Isn't it secondhand smoke necessary regulations to govern them.Other area communities are looldng to restrict their about smoke being generated by you're breathing in." Niedbala use because of environmental and health concerns. an outdoor wood boiler recently asked. installed by Doug Hanscom of 87 Margaret Miller of 15 Syl- Huntington Road. via Heights suggested that the respectful of their neighbors,for farmers. boilers on a ease-by-case basis. Hanscom acknowledged state's DEP examine whether sure,"Moriarty, Burning properly seasoned Jay Panniello,a representative Thursday that he started firing the boilers are emitting carom- Yet he opposes regulations wood should make the boilers vir- from Wood Doctor, a company up the boiler in October, which gene such as building higher smoke- wally invisible. that manufactures these boilers, may have been the reason for it But George Moriarty of 22 stacks or mandating setbacks "People who throw garbage in said there are several different causing problems, Ohmura Road said he has been from other homes. Instead, he them deserve to get a ticket from generations of the wood boilers "In hindsight,I think I started it using his boiler for more than 20 said the health board need a you guys,"Moriarty said in existence and the newer ones a little too early"Hanscom said years and understands the need comprehensive look at all smoke- Dan Regish of 16 Newton Lane tend to be cleaner. He said stud- Mish said the problem for town to be conscious of neighbors. producing items,from wood and said with no standard testing of ies have shown that most boilers officials is that there are no regu- "I think that people who gave pepet stoves to the practice of emissions, it might be best for pollute no more than a fireplace lotions set by the federal Envi- these wood boilers have to be burning agricultural fields by the Board of Health to look at the or woodstove. i Chicopee 1 Holyoke 1 South Hadley' LI Granby The Republican THURSDAY , DECEMBER 21 , 2006 SECTION B -i • Physician cites danger of boilers By DAVID REID lungs - contribute to severe In October,the board issued a 'McHugh, a physician, said the "We can see it.We can smell it. dreid @repub.com health problems. moratorium on the installation board will debate the topic and We can taste it." "I find no way this device can of new boilers through next take a vote in January. Board member Robert S. HOLYOKE-One after anoth- be acceptable in this neighbor- June, although the only one on Robert Allen told the board he Mausel, a physician, said he is er, neighbors of a 25 Pinehurst hood," said Freedman, whose record here is the one owned by is willing to work with neigh- also concerned about other gas- Road outdoor wood boiler told report was prepared for Kim- Robert S.and Mary Jo Allen,at hors to reduce health concerns, es emitted by the boilers,includ- the Board of Health last night berly A.and Todd L.Aubrey,of 25 Pinehurst Road. and submitted a study he said ing carbon 'monoxide and how smoke-filled air from the 11 Pinehurst Road. - The devices are not regulated shows his particular stove emits carcinogens. device has irritated eyes,aggra- Teacher Kelly C.Morrison,of by the state or federal govern- particulate levels well below "So there's a multitude pf vated breathing problems or 6 Pinehurst Road, said the ment, and efforts to adopt oper- federal standards. problems,"said Mausel. . caused homeowners to think smoke has been so bad she's of- ating restrictions appear years But Daniel Doherty,who lives Leonard L.Larivee,of 143 St. their own houses were afire. ten kept her kids from using her away. with his 74-year-old mother, Jerome Ave., said he is con- And engineer Curt M. Freed- yard or a neighborhood park. Locally, only the Chicopee June, at nearby 20 Dunn Ave., cerned for his wife, Diane,who man,hired by the closest neigh- The Board of Health heard and Longmeadow ,boards of said she has a breathing disor- has severe health issues and bors, cited scientific studies, those and similar comments health have issued bans, al- der that has been aggravated needs oxygen to help her state statutes and governmental from a dozen other neighbors though numerous other commu- since the boiler started up last nee xyg p reports indicating that massive during last night's public hear- nities have passed moratoriums summer. breathe. amounts of fine particulate ing on whether to issue a city- or are considering bans. While talk of particulates is "My wife has had breast can- emissions from the outdoor boil- wide ban on outdoor wood- No vote was taken last night. important, Doherty said, neigh- cer twice,and l don't want her to ers -small enough to penetrate burning boilers. But Board Chairman John E. bors don't need scientific data: get it again,"Doherty said. A6 Daily Hampshire Gazette • gazettenetcom Monday,November 27,2006 Wood boiler dilemma Northampton's Board of Health has just adopted regulations that create a virtual ban on outdoor wood boilers. In thg same week,across the river, members of Hadley's Board of Health told residents at a hearing that,while In our the town has no specific opinion regulations for wood boil- .. ers, they do have the au- thority to deal with any that cause a nuisance. Not everyone present felt assured. These are two of the different ap- proaches popping up around the state as health agents confront the potential for air pollution created by wood boilers. The boilers,which are increasingly popular as home heating devices,are located in a shed built away from the house.The fire heats a tank of water which is piped underground into the. home's heating system. Hadley estimates about 10 homes have such wood boilers and so far neighbors have filed a dozen com- plaints about smoke this heating sea- son. The state Department of Envi- ronmental Protection also reports a growing number of complaints.More than 1,100 wood boilers were sold in- Massachusetts last year and sales` are expected to quadruple in the next four years. In addition to being a nuisance, smoke from the wood boilers can pose health hazards.A report earlier this year by the Clean Air Association of the Northeast States found that wood boilers emit more particulate matter than other residential wood- burning devices, including indoor wood stoves. State and local health agents say the wood-fired boilers can emit high quantities of soot and noxious fumes, especially when chemically treated wood or trash is burned.Because the vent stacks on wood boilers are not as high as the typical house chimney, and because the smoke is thick, it stays low to the ground. Meanwhile,manufacturers and re- tailers of the heating devices say the new models are much cleaner than their predecessors and pollute no more than a fireplace or wood stove when used correctly Currently oversight is left to local health boards, and a patchwork of regulations is developing. Northampton's new rules require wood boilers to be 60 feet from the home they services,750 feet from any other.residence ,and the vent stack must be two feet.higher than the peak .. of the nearest roof. The permit pro--' cesswill require the owner to demon- strate that they know how to install and operate the system. Easthamp- ton calls for a 400-foot setback from the nearest residence. Other towns have setbacks of 200 feet.Some cities have banned them outright. In our opinion, it is time for the state Department of Environmental Protection to draft model wood boiler regulations based on sound research that can be adapted and adopted by communityhealth boards.In absence of a model, individual communities must do their own legwork on what can be a complex issue and set stan- dards based on a number of compli- cated factors, including topography. In the absence of established stan- dards, regulations are likely to vary wildly,as we are already beginning to see in Hampshire County. Given the growing popularity of the heating de- vices, the sooner health boards can have a model regulation to follow the better. rage t cur Ernie Mathieu From: Ernie Mathieu Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:10 PM To: Carolyn Misch Subject: The Village at Hospital Hill MEMO CO: Carolyn Mish Office of Planning and Development FROM: Ernest J. Mathieu,R.S., M.S., C.H.O. Director of Public Health DATE: December 13,2006 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan Review—The Village at Hospital Hill Please be advised, that acting on behalf of the Northampton Board of Health, and with the power vested in me as the Director of Public Health by the Board of Health,that I have reviewed the application and the Preliminary Plans for the proposed project titled"The Village at Hospital Hill" subdivision plans. The project is to be serviced with the city water supply and the city sewer system. At this time there appears to be no Public Health Concerns and there are no objections to the preliminary plan. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Thank you. 12/13/2006 Section No. ATTACHMENT 1 Village at Hospital Hill Phase 1 Definitive Subdivision Approval Conditions January 22, 2004 Approved Waivers 7:01.5.a ! Request temporary cul-de-sac for Type II Subdivision (Phase One). Cul-de-sacs not allowed on Type II subdivisions. This is only for phasing construction. 7:01.6.a Less than required roadway width and including on-street parking lanes along the Type II roadways 7:01.7 1 Type I Subdivisions - 50 ft. instead of 60' Type II Subdivisions —88.5 ft. instead of 70' 7:01.8.b Type I roadways - 22'. 1_7:01.8.d:01.8.d O — j Type 11 roadways - 22'-30' (plus on-street parking) ffset required along "Road A" . 01.9 Street Standards— Grades cannot exceed 5% 1 7:10.1 Tree belts requested to be eliminated in area where on-street parking is planned. 1 7:18.1 Two horizontal to One vertical in some areas 7:23.4 Underground utilities located under the sidewalk where no grass strip is provided L 7:24.16 F Distance between inlet and outlet pipes in drain manhole to be greater than 1 foottH 7:26.3 Waterline covered in 5.5 7:26.7 Temporary dead ends for water line for Phase 1 Covenants: 1. Prior to endorsement of the definitive plans, a performance guarantee that conforms to Northampton Subdivision Rules and Regulations§6:06 (4) must be posted. The developer may place a covenant not to sell lots or, in lieu of placing a covenant, post a Letter of Credit in accordance with the standards in the Regulations. If a Letter of Credit is posted it must be in accordance with the Regulations, two lots must still be covered by a covenant not to sell, must be adequate to cover the costs of the city completing the project, at prevailing wages and with a 15% inflation factor, and the Letter may not be reduced below$100,000 until the project is complete and has been accepted as such by the Planning Board. 2. An $12,000 escrow account shall be established in the Owners'Association (OA) name taxpayer identification name an d (appearing first)with a signature line for the City, prior to the first lot sale as an assurance that the OA will perform required capital improvements and/or maintenance. Funds withdrawn by the OA require a signature by Planning Board agent after approval by the Board. Funds withdrawn for such improvements shall be replaced by the OA through assessments as to be spelled out in the OA covenants, within three (3) months so that the $12,000 base is permanently maintained. The City may draw on this account, without signature of the OA, if it determines that required capital improvements, maintenance, or inspections are not being performed. The Permanent Covenants must clearly state that the City will have a right to place a lien on any or all properties within the subdivision or shall provide some other equivalent, in the opinion of the Planning Board, level of protection for the city, in order to recover the cost of maintenance for stormwater facilities. PLAN`i'-NG A?, `��'z�v=v'a E i - CITY Y OF NORTHAMPTON Cirri F3a((- 2r o',vain Street Room r 1 • Northampton)MA or m6o-5198 • i4 r 31587-1166 •Fax:587-1x64 Wrn)ne Fei den,Di rector pia nni ng @n orth am prom pia n ping.079 - WW rv.rmrc{a;n pto rip fan n i ng.org January 30, 2004 Date FORM F NOTICE OF DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL To: City Clerk The Planning Board on January 22, 2004 APPROVED with Conditions{see attachment 1) the following subdivision plan: Name or description: Village at Hospital Hill New street names: Village Hill Road and South Campus Drive Submitted by: Hospital Hill Development, LLC Address: 1441 Main Street, Springfield. MA 01103 On February 4, 2004 pending termination of the statutory twenty day appeal period. Signed = — \1 Chair Northampton Plannirtlg Board This vetelof the Planning Board-is_duLyzeetided in Police tminutes Department of their meeting. c.c.. Applicant Building Inspector Board of Assessors Board of Public Works Register of Voters Fire Department - File Conservation Commission After twenty (20) days without notice of appeal, e Register endorsed Voters-- 1 blueprints, i�approved, will be transmitted to'. Applicant-- 1 mylar City Engineer-- 1 mylar Police Department--1 print Assessors 1 print Fire Department-- 1 print Bldg. Inspector-- 1 print File-- 1 print p(anHdgboard-CO nservation wmmissi or ' zoning tarifa of,:ppeas • loomding partnersbro •re{evelonmen t authorir a nortpam pto n G:S economic development•cmnmu mg9 development-historic:iiserct corn mission-}pstoricnd commission•central.b bless architecture, idptai prinLcd on rzc➢deepawr ATTACHMENT 17. Prior to connection to City sanitary sewer lines, the applicant must receive approval from Massachusetts DEP for sewer line extensions and said approval must be submitted to DPW prior to any request for sewer availability to tie-in to the City sewerage system. Infrastructure: 18. None of the existing infrastructure shall be used, except as specified and noted herein, and it shall all be removed or capped within the street right-of-way as part of the subdivision construction. The same treatment shall be required on private property as it is developed. All existing tunnels onsite. except for the tunnel under Prince Street and Earle Street, must be demolished. Asbestos must be removed and clean fill utilized to fill the voids left by the demolished tunnels. 19. All water, sewer and drain lines leading from existing buildings that will be preserved must tie into new water, sewer and storm drain lines, respectively. All existing roof drains must be eliminated or redirected. 20. All underground utilities must have warning tape installed a minimum of 3' above the pipes. 21. The plans and road cross-section detail must show cable on the same side of the street as electric and telephone. 22. Plans must show a minimum of 18"of vertical separation between private utilities and water, drainage, and sanitary lines or, if less than 18", prior to installation the applicant will submit sketches at utility crossing to detail less separation, which shall be utilized only if approved by DPW. 23. Tie cards showing location of all water, sewer, and drainage must be submitted to Northampton DPW prior to requesting street acceptance or release of performance guarantees. 24. Construction plans and as-built plans must be revised to incorporate final Route 66 utilities once Route 66 as-built plans have been completed. Detention Ponds, Stormwater, Erosion Control and Open Space: 25. All detention ponds shall be constructed prior to road construction and shall act as erosion control devices during construction to prevent sediment from entering wetlands or the river. The plans must be revised to show management of stormwater and erosion control during construction prior to beginning of construction and must include dewatering and spill prevention plans identifying any and all potential catch basins that may receive stormwater and/or contamination. 26. The Owner's Association (OA)Covenants shall not prohibit irrigation systems that draw from the stormwater system and the detention ponds on OA or common land. 27. The Planning Board and DPW will review stormwater flows on each lot as applications for site plan approval are reviewed. 28. Because catch basins are not being provided at Prince and South Campus Road, prior to acceptance of any street or removal of performance guarantees, drainage problems at this intersection, if any, must be corrected by the developer by connecting to the Route 66 drainage system in a manner approved by DPW. 29. Because the project is subject to NPDES Phase II requirements, a copy of the detailed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ad EPA Notice of Intent(NOI) must be submitted to DPW prior to the start of construction. 30. DPW and OPD shall be notified once all erosion control barriers have been installed prior to any construction adjacent to those barriers. ATTACHMENT 1 3. Prior to the construction of the road, the applicant must record all covenants. The covenants shall not require financial payment from the owner of the open space areas. 4. All maintenance of the roadway infrastructure and sidewalks will be the responsibility of the OA until or owners' ssoc action and streets. 11 be part of the covenants. This includes the paved walkways of walkways bordering and within the open space. 5. OA shall be responsible for all snow removal on sidewalks that are 10'wide and those that border open space. Roadway, Traffic& Pedestrian Safety: 6. Prior to the final release of the performance guarantee, 100%design of the best solution to accommodate four pedestrian crosswalks at the Prince Street Nillage Hill Road/South Campus Road intersection shall be submitted to the Office of Planning & Development and the Northampton Department of Public Works. The analysis of appropriate solutions shall include a full assessment of a round-about option. 7. If a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of Prince Street Nillage Hill Road/South Campus Road, the signal must have a pedestrian phase. 8. All internal crosswalks shall be raised crosswalks, part of a raised intersection, or true cobblestone. Revised plans shall show complete design, details, and necessary drainage. 9. The cross-country multi-use trail from Earle Street to the road in the southern campus shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the subdivision. Revised Multi-Use Trail exhibit with the corrected scale must be submitted.The plans should contain a statement that the trail will be built to AASHTO or some other standard/ADA specification; 10. Prior to the release of the performance guarantee, an easement shall be accepted and recorded for the multi-use trail that allows the public to pass and repass along its entire length. Alternatively, may convey a fee simple transfer to the City. 11. Street signs, in accordance with city standards, must be shown on the plan and placed at intersections prior to the issuance of the first building permit for structures on Village Hill Road or South Campus Road. 12. Sidewalks shall be continuous with no breaks for curb cuts. All driveway entrances shall constructed so that traffic"ramps up"to sidewalks. 13. The street in the southerly campus shall be named South Campus Road. The street in the northerly campus (phase I) shall be named Village Hill Road. 14. A license from the Northampton Recreation Commission is required for the necessary regrading shown on the plans of their Prince Street property prior to construction of the road on the south campus. A copy of any request for a license shall be provided to DPW and OPD concurrent with a submittal of the request to Recreation. Sanitary Sewer 15. Roots ,te v former Hospital Laundry must bremoed by the applicant prior to additional sewer use. 16. All b existing in place a and cap and combined ac sewer overflows (CSO) DPW standards must plans approved by abandoned in place and capped prior to implementation. ATTACHMENT 1 39. If a waterline loop is determined by Northampton DPW prior to street acceptance not to be feasible, then the waterline shall be dead-ended at a hydrant. 40. Construction sketches of all typical crossings of waterlines greater than 5.5 feet deep shall be submitted to and approved by the Northampton DPW. 41. Plans must show a minimum 10'separation between water and sanitary sewer lines. 42. Plans must show no conflict between private utility lines and hydrants, shut-off valves, and gates. 43. Any existing fire hydrants that are proposed to remain must be inspected and approved by the Northampton DPW Water Division or, if not approved, must be replaced with new hydrants. 44. The note in front of Building D, "connect to existing water'should be revised to read "connect to existing 10"water line." 45. Easements for any existing or new cross-country waterlines shall be provided to the City, with the waterline centered in the easement. 46. The plans must note that all hydrants must be American Darling, Kennedy, or such other hydrant as approved by the Northampton DPW Water Division. 47. The plans must show detail for the connection to the 12"water line entering the site at Route 66 showing the use of solid sleeves. Landscaping: 48. Sheet 22 shall be revised to show one new or existing street tree every 30' along all the common elements fronting on Prince Street and Earle Street. 49. Revise landscaping plans to include the text of the methods to be used to preserve trees on the plans. Other: 50. A school bus shelter at a site approved by the School Department shall be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 10th residential unit. 51. Prior to final endorsement, mylars and all electronic submittals required in the subdivision rules shall be submitted with all revisions detailed in these conditions shown. 52. Except as waived herein, all aspects of the subdivision, including construction materials and methods, easements, inspections, plans, and process, shall conform with the Northampton Subdivision Regulations. 53. Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, restrictions on transfers shall not limit transfers between the two primary development partners (MassDevelopment and The Community Builders Inc., and related entities). 54. In accordance with the subdivision rules, as-builts shall be submitted prior to the final release of performance guarantee and shall include detention basins and multi-use trail. 55. Because the site plan approval portion of the special permit for the Planned Village was deferred, all residential and commercial construction projects require site plan approval regardless of size or type. An applicant may apply for one overall site plan or may file in phases. 56. All curb cuts will be approved as part of site plan approval except for those shown on the plans. ATTACHMENT 1 31. Maintenance of all stormwater structures outside of right-of-ways shall be the responsibility of the owner's association. 32. Maintenance shall be in accordance with those plans submitted and shall be included in the OA covenants with the following modifications: • Outlet control structures shall be Inspected once per year by a qualified person. Any silt and debris build-up must be removed from the riprap surface area. • The maintenance plan shall spell out in detail the OA responsibility for maintaining the sediment forebay of Basin#5,which shall be revised for easy maintenance. • Sweeping of paved areas shall occur four(4)times per year. Sweeping of streets shall be included in this requirement until such time as the City accepts the streets. • Sediments from the infiltration basin and detention basins shall be removed every five (5)years. • A report of all inspections and maintenance performed shall be sent to the Office of Planning &Development(OPD)yearly, no later than May 151". • Any modifications to drainage structures must also be reported to DPW. • A copy of the plan providing specific directions relating to sediment removal must be provided to OPD and DPW. Water. 33. The water line looped to the Federal Street line must contain double gates at its connection to the existing system at Federal Street and at its connection to the new Village water system The City will not take over the portion of this existing water line. If any such existing line fails, the City will simply close the gates. Hydrant flow tests in the Spring 2004 must confirm the applicant's presentation that fire flow and pressure requirements can be met with the Federal Street line disconnected. The developer may not release covenants-not-to-sell lots for any lots which DPW determines that adequate fire flow or pressure is not adequate until this work has been successfully completed, or if adequate water pressure and fire flow is not met until the developer receives an amended subdivision approval of an alternative method to provide adequate fire flow and pressure without the Federal Street line. 34. The developer may not release covenants-not-to-sell or any other performance guarantee until: a. cross-country water line from Grove Street satisfactory to adequate for DPW DPW, that theelinel,existing g DPW's discretion; or b. The developer shows that they have adequate fire flow and pressure without the line; or c. provide adequate receives iv flow and prdeduru p without this of an alternative method to 35. All other existing waterlines within the street right-of-way and adjacent to the Federal Street and Grove Street cross-country water lines must be abandoned,filled with cement, and capped accordance with DPW standards or must be removed. The same treatment for water lines on private property is required as those parcels of land are developed. 36. All gate valves must open right and close left. 37. All gates for hydrants must be connected directly to the main utilizing hydrant restraining tees. 33 service'stubsoat the property h line valve at the main located within a grassed area (not underbpavgement)All ATTACHMENT 1 Any field changes must be approved both by the Department of Public Works and the Office of Planning and Development(OPD) and determined to be field changes by OPD. More significant changes which do not alter the basic character defining features of the project or the conditions contained herein may be approved by a simple majority vote of the Planning Board at any regularly scheduled Planning Board mee emenden moreisignisubmicha ng s that requiire,amendments to the subdivision plan and shall require PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON City EA• xio Main Street/Room 11 Nmthampron MA 01 060-3198 .14x3)587-1266 •Fax587-1164 Wayne Feiden,Director www.Nmtbampton Ma.gov NOTICE OF SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT APPROVAL To: City Clerk The Planning Board on December 8, 2005 by 5-0 APPROVED with Conditions the following subdivision plan: "The Village at Hospital Hill Amendment to the Phase One Definitive Subdivision", prepared by Beals and Thomas Inc for Hospital Hill LLC. Dated May 27, 2005, Revised November 8, 2005. Sheets 1-10. Submitted by: Signed Hospital Hill LLC. c/o MassDevelopment 1441 Main Street Springfield, MA 01103 maws-alma as. V e air orthampton Planning Board Date: 12/12/05 Appeal Deadline (20 days): Jan 1, 2006. CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to plan endorsement and recording of this amendment, the applicant must submit a statement signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer to the Department of Public Works indicating that the modifications and the slight increase in impervious surface will have negligible affect on the overall stormwater management system already approved. 2. All other conditions from the original approval stand. This vote of the Planning Board is duly c.c. Applicant Building Inspector Board of Public Works Fire Department Board of Health recorded in the minutes of their meeting. Police Department Board of Assessors Register of Voters File Conservation Commission After twenty (20)days without notice of appeal, Register endorsed Voters—llue blueprints, 1 prf approved, will be transmitted to: Applicant-- 1 mylar City Engineer-- 1 mylar Police Department-1 print Assessors— 1 print Fire Department— 1 print Bldg. Inspector— 1 print File-- 1 print planning board•conservation commission•zoning board of appeals •hemming partnership •redevelopment authority•nortbamptnn GIS economic development•community development•historic district commission •historical commission•Central 6msine55 arChlteetme Origina printed on recycled paper 100 Cm*-it4 SE SFe 7oo &)5T-o dzly4 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MEPA Office NPC Notice of Project Change For Office Use Only Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MEPA Analyst: Phone: 617-626- The information requested on this form must be completed to begin MEPA Review of a NPC in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations (see 301 CMR 11.10(1)). i,Na In 25 words or less, what is the project change? The project change involves . . . SEe RTTorcu D See full project change description beginning on page 3. Date of ENF filing or publication in the Environmental Monitor: Was an EIR required? Etes was a Draft EIR filed? was a Final EIR filed? was a Single EIR filed? Have other NPCs been filed? ON(); if yes, 3Yes (Date: 9I zI Da ) DNo Yes (Date: ) ❑No ❑,(Yes (Date: ) ONO MYes (Date(s):SI+) ❑No MAY 7 ,2.003 If this is a NPC solely for lapse of time (see 301 CMR 11.10(2)) proceed directly to "ATTACHMENTS & SIGNATURES" on page 4. May 2001 Project Name: T HE Vll.Srai,E RT NOSP'TRI- HILL, IEOEA it: Ia(2(1 Street: ?P COLE s-126Er Veit Municipality: }Jp+R7Ity4YAPTJt--) Watershed: COPPeCV CUT K t Universal Tranverse Mercator Coordinates: q?r (oclts 'Map Latitude: Longitude: Status of project construction: %complete less thwr s'% 041n®1 ea Proponet:1.4nspVIAL- I+IV- 9bVElAPh1cr-T :LAC Street: Li. vr\RssVC•1Eu0yyf1 CFA- -FEMvr-1kL 31"9-6Er 111S Municipality: B ford I State. Mfl I Zip Code: 02_110 Name of Contact Person From Whom Copies of this NPC May Be Obtained: vJNe0Y S\I• TO'3 Firm/Agality: Avt; 01,10 yr1R\jJ Street: P. t ,Box 6 at+� Municipality: f1- ot,,,nw nil_ nGgn ovtENCE ( +I11 IFax: uw State: »i A. Zip Code: plb (,a I P E-mail: Twstvito na CCaKgS i,Na In 25 words or less, what is the project change? The project change involves . . . SEe RTTorcu D See full project change description beginning on page 3. Date of ENF filing or publication in the Environmental Monitor: Was an EIR required? Etes was a Draft EIR filed? was a Final EIR filed? was a Single EIR filed? Have other NPCs been filed? ON(); if yes, 3Yes (Date: 9I zI Da ) DNo Yes (Date: ) ❑No ❑,(Yes (Date: ) ONO MYes (Date(s):SI+) ❑No MAY 7 ,2.003 If this is a NPC solely for lapse of time (see 301 CMR 11.10(2)) proceed directly to "ATTACHMENTS & SIGNATURES" on page 4. May 2001 In twenty five words or less, what is the project change? The proponent will: • demolish more than 38 structures. • has submitted false information on traffic • lost a key tenant for whom NPC was filed. PERMITS / FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE/ LAND TRANSFER List or describe all new o modified state permits, financial assistance, or land transfers not previously reviewed: (y{1 Are you requesting a finding that this project change is insignificant? (see 301 CMR 11.10(6)) DYes ®No; if yes, attach justification. Are you requesting that a Scope in a previously issued Certificate be rescinded? Yes ONo; if yes, attach the Certificate Are you yes, Certificate Certicate and describe the change you previously are requesting: Certificate? Yes Flo; if a change to a Scope in a Summary of Project Size &Environmental Impacts Total site acreage Previously reviewed Net Change Currently Proposed Acres of land altered Square feet of bordering vegetated wetlands alteration Square feet of other wetland alteration Acres of non-water dependent use of tidelands or waterways GPD water withdrawal GPD wastewater generation/treatment No cNAU,Ge Does the project change involve any new or modified: 2 1. conversion of public parkland or other Article 97 public natural resources to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97? ['Yes [21 No 2. release of any conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction, or watershed preservation restriction? DYes No 3. impacts on Estimated Habitat of Rare Species,Vernal Pools, Priority Sites of Rare Species, or Exemplary Natural Communities? DYes No 4. impact on any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? OYes ON°; if yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or archaeological resources? gYes ❑N° 5. impact upon an Area of Critical Environmental Concern? DYes ®No If you answered 'Yes' to any of these 5 questions, explain below: PROJECT CHANGE DESCRIPTION (attach additional pages as necessary). The project change descr ption should include: (a) a brief description of the project as most recently reviewed viewed, (b) a description of material changes to the project specific ep a redly rev to the factors listed (c)the significance of the proposed changes, P 301 CMR 11.10(6), and (d) measures that the project is taking to avoid damage to the environment or to minimize and mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts. If the change will involve modification of any previously issued Section 61 Finding, include a proposed modification of the Section 61 Finding (or it will be required in a Supplemental EIR). 3 Project Change Description (a) A bief desepoiption of the project as most.ecently Previewed. , The Community Builders(TCB) signed a land disposition agreement with DCAM on the 5th Day of September,2002. MassDevelopment, as managing partner,has agreed to be bound by the terms of the agreement. The agreement essentially says that the developers bought the land on an"as is" basis, with no obligation inferred that the state would assist any further with demolition costs or remediation. . The agreement under Section 4: "Default :remedies" binds the development group to a number of objectives, or else the state can terminate this agreement and exercise its right of reverter ie: the land can go back to the state. The developer has until September 2007 to "convey to third parties with the expectation of commercial development,25,000 square feet of commercial space. " Ten years from the date of the agreement,the developers must deliver to buyers 100,000 square feet of commercial space. • In the summary of impacts and mitigation,(section 1.9 of the EIR),the proponent committed to rehabilitation of buildings as feasible ultimate build-out of 206 residential units and approximately 476,000 square feet of commercial space.The proponent agreed to pursue rehabilitation of 9 contributing buildings and portions of the contributing landscape and specimen trees. Lesser impact figures on area traffic and changes in the streets were approved as a result of the Kollmorgen company building on Earle Street (B) Some time in 2004, paid security details were pulled out of the north campus. Since then, there has been incidents of vandalism, notably breaking all the windows in the modern garage(building 59 ). Only two buildings havebeen rehabilitated, and plans are now underway to demolish all of the un-renovated buildings in the north complex save one, the 1870 Carriage Barn, a 15,000 square foot building. Kollmorgen Industries, seen in 2002 as a key tenant is not coming. Preparations were made,the power plant demolished, and preparations were made to demolish laundry building(Building 53), and significant changes in the traffic flow and road design were approved.Kollmorgen, as it tumed out,was not coming and never made a firm commitment to the project even though substantial changes were made in the project to accommodate them. Indeed, the Vice President of the corporation denied that they ever planned to come in on the project. There is some reason to believe that the"Kollmorgen Affair" was generated with the intent of influencing the ongoing MEPA review and laying the ground for convincing the State that the land had significant commercial potential and had an anchor tenant. Four years of marketing have yet to produce a single commercial tenant.The firms listed in the private match for the CDAG grant are falling away, one by one. Goggins Real Estate recently moved into a new building in Florence. In June of last year Paul Basile and the Bay State Machine Company signed a contract to acquire a building in Easthampton; they expect to move in February. An administrator at Nonotuck Resource Associates, said their plans are up in the air because it has gone on so long, and MassDevelopment has,to date,been unable to deliver a site with road access and utilities. VCA,a custom furniture shop in Easthampton might still come,but is looking elsewhere. C.The Significance of the proposed changes ,with specific reference to the factors listed in 301 CMR 11.10(6) A number of factors make these changes relevant to the law. 11.10.6c (Change in expected date of commencement of coastruction,completion of the project,ow schedule of worth on the project.)The project was supposed to have 25,000 square feet under lease by September of 2007. Now it appears that demolition and road work on the south campus will not commence until 2007.There is evidence that the initial developer,The Community Builders,misrepresented markets and value of the land in order to sell local taxpayers and the State on the project.There is some evidence that TCB and the appraiser knew that the markets did not exist, and that appraisals commissioned by DCAM in 2001 were not provided to MassDevelopment or shown to the CAC.The Commercial and Industrial lots cleared are not selling.The failure of the developer to sell any of its lots has relevance to the problems in the master plan, the economic underpinnings of the project, and the ability of the developers to be a good steward of the historic buildings and the beautiful grounds on the North Campus. Many of these buildings are sound structurally and were designated for reuse by the 1999 Dietz report: . In Section 3.5 of the Final Environmental Impact Report,Epsilon Associates asserts that the project is in full compliance with Executive Order#385,which mandates" resource protection" through" interagency coordination" Section #5 mandates that "all agencies shall promote, assist and pursue the rehabilitation and revitalization of infrastructure, structures, sites, and areas previously developed and still usable for economic reuse" Six buildings in the north complex, most of them built in the same era and in roughly the same condition as the two buildings rehabilitated by TCB, could be reconverted to housing, small industry, or offices . Four of these buildings were designated by the 1999 Dietz&Company survey as buildings capable of reuse. The North Employees Home The Farm Workers House The North Infirmary The South Ward Rear Wing (North) Sq. feet 14,579 25,747 34,605 34,000 Date Framing 1930 Concrete 1870 panel brick 1905 Concrete 1925 Concrete 1924 Reuse per Dietz Offices Offices Offices Offices Then there is the Rear Kitchen Dining Room 55,000 square feet. This building was first constructed in 1936, and extensively remodelled in the 1950s. It is steel framed, features high ceilings and broad spans, and contained a large dining room,bakery and laboratory. It could be artists studios, or a conference area The record, as shown by(A)the responses of agencies concerned with historic preservation, such as the Northampton Historical Commission,Historic Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Historic Society to EOEA 12629,has established that the Developers have not been responsive to requests for rehabilitation of contributing and buildings other than those 1930 WPA buildings in the "gateway" area,when the real intent of the agreement: was to save "Old Main" and as much as possible of the 19th century cluster of buildings on the crest of the hill. The developers were sold the land for$1,00 because they made a commitment to live up to the MOA signed with the Massachusetts Historic Commission, and the commitments made in EE12629 to preserve and rehabilitate 9 buildings. (D) measures that the project is taking to avoid damage to the environment or to minimize and mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts. If the change will involve modification of any previously issued Section 61 finding, include a proposed modification of the Section 61 Finding We argue that it is unconscionable for the proponents to push ahead with demolition of the landmark north campus for housing when the project was originally designed to be an economic development project. We feel it is appropriate to ask the developers to step back and take a fresh look at this project via the MEPA Project change process. They were obligated to file change orders when the Kollmorgen deal fell through, and when they failed to rehabilitate the seven buildings promised in the EIR 301 CMR 11.10 states: If the Secretary determines that a Proponent has, either knowingly or inadvertently, concealed a material fact or submitted false information during MEPA review,or has segmented the project, the Secretary may consider the determination to be a Notice of Project Change. We ask that the Secretary investigate to see if material facts presented during the MEPA review (appraisals, traffic figures etc), the Kollmorgen NPC filed by the proponent or the Northampton planning board's determination of the project area a"blighted area" in 2001 does constitute reason to order a Notice of Project Change. attachment(5) Since this NPC is not being filed by the project's proponent, this is not relevant. ATTACHMENTS &SIGNATURES Attachments: 1. Secretary's most recent Certificate on this project 2. Plan showing most recent previously-reviewed proposed build condition 3. Plan showing currently proposed build condition 4. Original U.S.G.S. map or good quality color copy (8-1/2 x 11 inches or larger) indicating the project location and boundaries 5. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the NPC, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.10(7) Yf- 1 1 Date Signe ,re ofRespor ible Officer Date Signature of person preparing or Proponent NPC Of different from above) rh ttrt1E- y . vt-\'(-Wt Name (print or type) p\fE Ol P VY Wt tJ Firm/Agency PA :19OK 60487 Street - L0`�-W Vny , blob M un ici pal ity/State/Zi p 5s6-g7 ati Eci1�� Phone Name (print or type) Firm/Agency Street Municipality/State/Zip Phone 4 Comments on the traffic impacts of Phase 1 The Village at Hospital Hill January 9, 2003 revision An earlier version of this report was submitted to the Northampton Planning Board and the Citizens Advisory Committee By Mike Kirby 17 Summer Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Personal Notes I set off,several months ago, to try to understand and report on the traffic data generated by Vanasse& Associates for MassDevelopment for the Hospital Hill development. Vanasse are transportation engineers and planner;they are being paid by MassDevelopment. I'm a layman,with no special expertise in the area. I was initially skeptical of their conclusions, but I was determined to have an open mind. Whether or not the data. served my ends, I would report it. I am aware that people who oppose a development tend to exaggerate its impact and see the end of the world drawing nigh. Those, on the other hand,who are emotionally and financially invested in a development will minimize its negative impacts. Its the way we humans behave. When Vanasse argued that traffic in the community was static or declining, and their figures on impacts were based on factoring in a 1% yearly growth, I said whoa there. Is this true? Is this Northampton they are talking about? I think it is not. MassDevelopment provided members of the CAC with the master plan and maps, and copies of the ENF. They informed them that they could find backup information and source material in the appendices to the master plan and the ENF. Well, if you read the master plan and the ENF, and then go to the appendices,befuddlement ensues. You may wonder, as I did, if they are talking about two different projects. The people who authored the master plan and the ENF were selling something, and, one assumes, technical or advertising writers. Most of the people doing the appendices were people with processional licenses, like real estate appraisers, architects or traffic engineers. They want to keep their licenses. So the appendices contain more truth in them, although ferreting it out was not easy. The Vanasse traffic study was tough to read and sometimes impossible to interpret'. A lot of it was just computer readouts from automatic traffic counters. Its conclusions were the basic foundation for the developers assumptions that the project, as designed, would not harm the commmunity. The ElvIF approval of Phase One was, 1 feel, based on bad data. Since neither the developer(s)nor the municipality wanted to commit the resources to make the project work well, Epsilon and Vanasse manipulated the data to make the impact of the development seem minimal. The project had no gateway engineered and designed to clear traffic generated by the development. In order to go forward with few mitigation measures,it seriously understated background traffic in the community. Mike Kirby 17 Summer Street Northampton,MA.01060 'The HCM Intersection Capacity Analyses had blanked out the lane identification data so you can't tell which lane was which. 2 Summary of My Conclusions *Unlike most industrial parks,the Village at Hospital Hill has no dear gateway or link Wto hen the Interstate.gfirstarted for full build, the agencies involved taods. about he ne ing involved iaiked aboui the need for a connector road utilizing the old Easthampton/Northampton rail bed, and a so-called inner connector, Ridge connector off South Street seems to be off the negotiating ating table2tewav" * Most of the major intersections that traffic uses to get to the Hospital Hill Development, or exit from it, are characterized by congestion and delay. Most lanes of traffic in the State street/Main Street/West Street intersections are LOS C,D. E, and F 2 Most traffic engineers consider"E" level as all the intersection can stand.When it goes into"F", is dysfunc;oral. While the ENF cites no changes in levels because of the development, the HCM Capacity Analyses in the appendices' indicate otherwise:substantial increases in waits and significant increases in queuing lengths, even without the development. The tables in the ENF distort the situation. * The 2001 Vanasse Associates study of background traffic assumed that traffic was declining slightly in the Northampton area. When new development projects coning on line were factored in, a growth factor of 1% was assigned. To get that conclusion,Vanasse essentially picked and chose what .numbers worked for them. Actual annual growth of arteries running through the project area averages about 4%. Turning rates and peak volumes at the intersection of route 9 and 66 indicate sizable growth. Finally, there is the increased pace of development in upstream areas, people coming into the center of Northampton from Florence, Sou llampton, Easthampton, and Westhampton. * The positioning of the Kollmorgen plant on Earle Street will worsen congestion at the Route 66/Route 9 intersection, and will probably mean that morning east-bound traffic on Route 66 will avoid the trouble ahead by exiting on Grove Street and cutting over to Route 10. Likewise, a certain portion of in-bound Burts pit traffic will tend to utilize either Clements Street or cut over on Laurel Street toward Route 10.In any case, there will be impacts on these small streets and established neighborhoods. 21hc Village at Hospital "`n Environmental Notncffitron Ecrm, EOEA#11047R prepared by Epsilon Associates,October 15,2001 Tables 7 and 8 State Hospital Campus Phase 1 Redevelopment,prepared t MassDevelopn+ent General Background On November 30, 2001 the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs(EOEA)issued an ENT certificate requiring an Environmental Impact Retort (EIR) for Phase 1 of the Hospital Hill project. This was a big deal, a big hurdle for the project to go through. Beginning in the winter of 2001, and continuing through the spring, the project's Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) met numerous times to review the first phase of this project for the MEPA review process. Communitty, Builders and MassDevelopment submitted plans and drawings by Calthorpe Associates, a California "New Urbanist" architectural firm. The CAC endorsed the phase one plan. On June 14,2002, the Secretary of the EOEA signed off on the Phase 1 report. The state concluded that with the proposed mitigation measures, Phase 1 "safe egress and egress to the development can be provided and the development can be safely constructed with minimal impact to the surrounding transportation system." The Community Builders hired Michael F. Crowley of Crowley Associates of Springfield to look at the market for their proposed development. The master plan quotes Crowley when he was sunporting their thesis that the full build-out is feasible and marketable,but fails to note his cautionary notes. Buried in the appendices of the plan were the following observations. "The.subject's competitive advantage is its Northampton location and ability to benefit from artisan and entrepreneurial demands of that micro- market. The competitive disadvantage is that the subject lacks the highway access and modern garden, garden park setting of a typical market industrial park. "The nearest I-91 interchange is two miles southeast of the property via Routes 5 and 10 ..."the access routes from the 1-91 interchange are congested with above average traffic counts and pedestrian activity." "As stated, the travel to the subject location from the Interstate is congested and slow. The location would be well suited to local tenants and solicitors, however, the location is clearly inferior to the modern (Class A) locations that have been the focus of the market's recent development activity."4 4Hospital Hill Village:The Redevelopment of Northampton State Hospital Part IV appendices,July 28,1999 Community Builders,Inc. Crowley sees the project site as isolated. Unlike most modern so- called "Class A" industrial parks,it has no direct access to the Interstate, was surrounded by residential neighborhoods, and served by congested roads. There was not really a substantial market for the many thousand square feel of office space originally planned for. The efficiency of the signalized intersections that would handle the new growth of traffic was declining, even before the new growth was factored in. The Vanasse Study I don't think anyone ever trudged through these appendices except me. Some pages were in upside down, and badly numbered. The appendix materials for the traffic study was more than a hundred pages of undigested reports that computers spit out on the studies the engineers did of many intersections. I took a couple of them around to qualified traffic engineers and they confessed their inability to interpret them because of missing data and lack of knowledge of the specific computer program these people were using. Finally, 1 called Vanasse and found out the guy who did the study is working somewhere else. They promised to send me their reports that a bad printer had made errors on,butt«ey never arrived. So this whole process is not user-friendly. You start to feel that the developer and his people want to keep the whole business of impact analysis shrouded in mystery. At meetings, you sit down back and listen to these traffic engineers show charts and tell everyone that there is nothing to worry about. But I still worry. The Revised Plan radically shifts changes in circulation The original Phase One plan by the Calthorpe architects approved by MEPA showed considerable sensitivity to the problems that arise when a major industrial park and new housing is surrounded by an existing neighborhood. Three out of the four access/departure roads run off Route 66, a road now being reconstructed to state standards. Driveways and parking lots are built to industrial standards and are, for the most part, in back of the industrial and commercial buildings,meaning that the pollution and noise is buffered. There is only one access road that runs off an existing street, the driveway onto Earle Street. Under the Calthorpe plan, about 98% of the traffic entering city streets was going to enter and exit off of Route 66, and only 2% would enter Earle Street. Most of the commercial development came off driveways on the top of the hill, relatively isolated from existing neighborhoods.movemen (1 think)for the revised Tighe and turning on plan,tbut big changes available changes are obvious. Two driveways now channel Kollmorgen traffic onto Earle Street, and the commercial one driveway, and a lot less traffic ust on using it. The impact from the commercial/industrial traffic will shift from Route 66, which is engineered for it, to Earle Street, which is not. The 2006 build figure for the old phase 1 sees a 65% increase in peak traffic on Earl Street. With all of Kollmorgen's traffic entering the narrow street during peak hours, extensive of Route 66 and Earle, at thelRoute 9/66 intersections,changes at Earle intersections Street/Route 10. There are significant impacts, and the impact will probably be the most substantial downstream, at the large and troubled intersection that is the gateway from the project to the city and Route 91 north. Here Route 9 meets State Street and West Street, and it is the natural exit for project traffic going downtown, going the commercial belt of stores on Street, traffic growth were critical n the assuming that the project would not overload existing arteries and intersections. The ENF argues that "the majority of study area intersections currently operate at LOS "D" or better under future no- build or build conditions" with the exception of Earle Street/Route 10. This might be true in a literal sense, but ignores the fact that exiting Barth-bound traffic must clear that Route 9/State Street/West Street intersection, and both build and no-build tables show that there are lanes operating at an "E" level, and has an aggregate delay of 44.9. In 1994, that would have been an "E" level, which they describe a delays "conditions at or near the capacity of the facility". . "very long may result for side street motorists." 7 Due to the convoluted way the Hospital Hill project was approved and funded, the project drawings were done before wetlands were delineated. In the late summer of 2001,Epsilon field staff informed Northampton planning' staff that there probably was an areas of wetlands in the meadow behind the Memorial complex where the Ridge Street connector was slated to go. On December 1, 2001,Epsilon visited the area. On December 20, 2001 Dr. Peter L. Veneman did the determination for Epsilon. On June 7,2002 Epsilon staff revisited the determinations on June 7,2002 and "finalized" the determination in light of vegetative growth patterns evident during the growing season. The city had 3 or 4 months to start planning for rerouting Ridge Street. Epsilon staff and City staff knew that Ridge Street would probably either have to be moved or eliminated. The MEPA process formally started with the October 9th meeting of CAC, it proceeded through the winter and spring of 2002. There was no notification to the CAC that the wetlands had affected the access road. Some time in December of 2001,Patrick Goggins, representing Kollmorgen Corporation, approached the city and MassDevelopment. Mr. Goggins is a former member of the CAC, and a former President of the Northampton City Council. MassDevelopment is represented by Edward Etheredge, former member of the CAC, officer of the Northampton Development Corporation, and former Assistant District Attorney and city solictor. During the time this process was going forward, the Northampton City Council was also considering a so-called "Big Box" package of ordinances. Pat Goggins, President of the Chamber of Commerce and commercial real estate broker, opposed the changes. After it was clear that they would pass in some form, and pose some limitations ions and special conditions on large commercial subdivisions, Goggins Etheredge, representing the Pearson Corporation, Kollmorgen Corporation and the Hill& Dale Mall filed an application for a subdivision, literally at the last minute,winning the right to build with the old rules. It was widely publicized that Horne Depot was interested in bulding on the site where the factory and the mall are today. So the Kollmorgen move came in the context of the current speculative fever in Northampton real estate. The Kollmorgen factory site is near the corner of King Street and Damon Road, and with the empty Hill & Dale mall, poses almost an ideal site for a large retailer or group of retailers who wanted to move to Northampton without worrying about 'Source, Carolyn Misch, Northampton Planning Department 12 the new package of"Big Box" restrictions. Kollmorgen was probably convinced by parties unknown that they could reap big profits from the land sale, and be the key tenant that the Hospital Hill development was looking for. The verbal agreement to buy was concluded in early July. a After the MEPA public review had concluded, and after MEPA approval of Phase 1,the Development group and city staff announced that they were coming in with a project change. At the CAC's July meeting the project staff announced that they were going to the Northampton Planning Board with a request for a Special Permit for the first commercial project being proposed, a 100,000 square foot structure for the Kollmorgen Corporation. Inherent in the new project and revisions of the master plan were two new developments. Calthorpe Associates was out, and Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers were now in charge of the project. The connector road was out because of"topographic constraints and the presence of a wetland resource area, and in its place was a looping pedestrian path linking Earle Street and the office buildings on top of the hill. " The topographic constraints alleged behind the elimination of the connector road were its excessive grade (8% plus) and the need for deep cuts in the hill. Is the grade too steep for a connector road? Route 66, with an eminently manageable grade,starts at its base at the corner of Earle and Rocky Hill Road at an elevation of about 140 feet, ascending in a little more than 1000 feet to the top of the hill at the hospital main entrance. The elevation there is 200 feet. At the intersection of Earle and Grove Streets, the elevation at the base is a bit higher, about 142 feet, and the summit slightly lower, at 198 feet. There's no grade problem unless the road has to go straight up the hill from Earle Street. A modest amount of filling to raise Earle Street close to the level of the bank would mean that a re-engineered Ridge Street, in the upper portion following roughly the path of the existing road between the laundry building and the Memorial Complex, would involve no deep banks or excessive grade. There was plenty of room to relocate the road further east of the wetland if the Kollmorgen plant wasn't there. The road was sacrificed for a quick deal that would keep the plant in the city, help the Mayor out politically, and to make it possible for the City and MassDevelopment and Community Builders and politically connected brokers and other facilitators who stood to make a profit off this deal. With the Tighe and Bond plan ( figure 1), all the traffic entering and exiting from the 100,000 square foot facility goes onto Earle Street, a aEmail from Teri Anderson. Economic Development Coordinator,City of Northampton. September 232002 13 narrow road without sidewalks never designed for industrial or commercial traffic. The building setback is minimal. In some aspects, Kollmorgen represents the ideal tenant for Hospital Hill. They have an educated workforce,and at their new building the manufacturing done would be minimal,mainly involving assembly of parts manufactured elsewhere. According to Mike Wall of Kollmorgen, the plant is running on flex time,allowing most employees to arrive between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM. and leave between 4:00 and 5.O0pm. They have no more than two or three big trucks coming in every month, and their other vendors are not numerous. At present they have 215 employes, working on one shift. Most of them commute in from the other communities (see attached). Their move is motivated, at least in part, by the corporation's need to have room to grow. In viewing possible impacts, the city should probably assume some level of growth in Kollmorgen employment. The challenge is the limits that Earle Street and its connectors place on travel. The site immediately abuts residences and the Smith College equestrian facility. Hospital Hill's stated purpose to meet modern industrial and commercial park standards,but access remains problematical. It is served by two two-laned roads, and traffic-choked roads that run through residential areas. Positioning the Kollmorgen plant at the southeast end of the development puts it where the traffic congestion will be a real problem. The two following maps are a rough depiction of traffic volumes: as can be seen, West Street volumes grow as it gets closer to downtown: Earle Street has the highest traffic growth rate of any road in the complex. Kollmorgen employees will be arriving and leaving at the site during peak travel times, and at present their employees are not big on alternative transportation. Many of them live well away from work. We counted the number of bikes on their bike rack during work hours, and never saw more than one bike parked there. The developers assume that if the developer and park tenants and the city promote PVTA and foster bike travel and walking they can significantly ameliorate the project's impact. This is probably wishful thinking,and a way to justify building this project without spending money for access roads and signalization. The Executive Summary of the ENE' said "Census data for Northampton indicate that these modes of travel (walking bicycling, and transit) account for a substantial proportion of work-related trips within Northampton" Yes and no. Quite a few Northampton people do walk to their Northampton jobs,but only 2% take buses and taxis. Americans and Northampton people love their cars. i°The EarthTech study polled 9The Village at Hospital Hill,Environmental Notification Form, EOEA#11047R prepared by Epsilon Associates, October 15, 2001 10Traffic and Access Study, Northampton State Hospital Campus,Earth Tech Inc. 14 Northampton people in 1993, and found that 85% of Northampton people either used their own car or carpooled to get to work. 12% walked, and only 1%biked. Northampton's fast-moving traffic, lack of bike lines,and lack of 4-way stops to mediate and moderate traffic flow means that commuting by bike is probably seen as a high-risk enterprise. The Revised Plan radically shifts changes in circulation Figure 2 and Figures 3 are rough diagrams showing where the entry and exit points are for traffic. Figure 2 is derived from the Phase one master plan, and figure 3 represents where traffic will enter the neighborhood under the latest revision to the master plan. The Vanasse study (Figure 11-2006 build for weekday mornings) estimates the following, assuming phase one is in operation without Ridge Street. Traffic entering driveway Traffic leaving driveway Entry Point Traffic A. 59 B. 25 C. 151 D. 5 A. 61 B. 60 C. 63 D. 38 Under the Calthorpe plan, about 98% of the traffic entering city streets is going to exit onto Route 66, and only 2% will enter the project via Earle Street. 83°A of the traffic leaving the driveways comes off Route 66, and 17%via Earle Street. Pre and post-development turning movement figures are not available for the revised Kollmorgen plan, but big changes-te t are obvious. Two driveways now channel Kollmorgen traffic onto Earle Street, and the commercial development on top of the hill only has one driveway, and a lot less traffic using it. The impact from the commercial/industrial traffic will shift from Route 66,which is engineered for it, to Earle Street,which is not. The 2006 build figure for the old phase one sees a 65% increase in February 1997 15 morning peak traffic on Earl Street. With all of Kollmorgen's traffic entering the narrow street during peak hours, extensive delays will probably occur at shift changes on the intersections of Route 66 and Earle, at the Route 9/66 intersections, and at Earle Street/Route 10. In October of 2001, Vanasse &Associates did a preliminary traffic impact and access study for phase 1 of the Hospital Hill Project, and this report was bundled with the other reports and constituted MassDevelopment's Environmental Notification Form (ENF). They certified that with their proposed mitigation measures,Phase 1 "safe egress and egress to the development can be provided and the development can be safely constructed with miminal impact to the surrounding transportation system." We would argue that data clearly shows there are significant impacts, and the impact will probably be the most substantial downstream, at the large and troubled intersection that is the gateway from the project to the city and Route 91 north. Here Route 9 meets State Street and West Street, and it is the natural exit for project traffic going downtown, going the commercial belt of stores on King Street, and going North on route 91. The assumptions that the engineers made about background traffic growth were critical in assuming that the project would not overload existing arteries and intersections. The ENF concluded in 2001 that "little or no growth in area traffic has been observed within the study area during the last five years." Indeed the statistics that Vanasse Associates e . . .re a_,..-creases bin"1`e F. The following was submitted as data from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission indicating declining traffic. /PC Traffic Count Data - Growth Rate Determination I F cI1, nog, ._, N9 J' 1 '556 1n8 r p v CA 1pelSt S/OWest 33001 3,93 4 11 3719 3842 5 3942.31; IS,'. 200T kYHll Rd WO Grove 3600 1 319501 39° .-b.1fe,or ate between earliest and la lest data a lade Fo for cal lon .3.e co,n. :- _ Prmuz,1 GOFll 1" The actual data line on Rocky Hill Road was the following. Vanasse Associates pulled the data out of the Northampton Transportation Plan that suited their agenda. 1101 t11d1IIF1IUlI tidily 11AIM; l t)UILL f Ibt41y . Dr.,,rlra 1nue' LOIB 37037 ^r 1919 1980 1981 1982 1983 . 1964 1985 1986 ' 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1 1999 2000 WAImmsburg /own lime 07 016 11541 North ro nn'i 543Slonewan. 73 11734' Nam]wng 51 1at/old /my,l me Da 9360 10238 10610 10914. 10447, 10110 10134 12027 1 16684 11039 108521 11009 1168311 1 No no King s1 w o K1ng 04 94001. 20000 l. ' Noun rcnq 5l Nm1.9, n1 0 On 93001 11643 tin.. din WO p 0na9e 1 03 17666 Nonin Main [ $ID Bodue Ra 03 1 108001 Nunn Maple iit NIO PrA9e IDo 1 1 934 Non bapr 3,0 Bridge D3 3758 Noun s EIO Rte s 02 - 1 1 7114 Pan.1, R w/o wn ner 1E4 _ 1 1 937'', 1 ' P s w/O South Ma, 1E3 zznl 1 • P _ s Nro Dike Fa 13650 192001 15000 1 16162 18695, 170001 16000 180001 1 1 Ficosonii 4 W/0 Slate 1E4 ' 1045 1300 14591 837 12781 13741 1275 River RI Williamsburg Tow/.Line IA2 1 1 _ 680 • 101 1 R rsae D S/0 Elm Sleet I__ p 3634 Rocky Hill Re W/OG F3 2600 F FFFFFF ROCky 361/Rd E/0 Florence Po F5 1 ]870 1 360 1 Ryan RO /O W M Inew S• I 96011 �o Rya RO 3/0 Clark 1H2 5403 1 i 6576, Rsar od Wit Florence Road , 6026 S N on . £.O Florence Road 2106 6 Spring S .F/0 Gn ert1010 1A2 1 2546. miring Si WO Meadnv, 82 2025 1 spring niii.i., SOY ASCII !# 800 1400 12501 1 1298 1404. 1 1873 15841 S _. W/O:Prom IEn 12200 7481 54 55/ 8693 10377' 1 95051 SlateSI N/OMam -Ed 1 390& • Slam 5, Nit Pr Dec i £d 1291. 6800 5000 7900', 9400 • i yr ns ii I 5/0 Ryan RII 3068'. Wes!SI W/O Rte 9 F3 9144 1 W. n I 'ry 2 /0 Florence F3 1 3322 1 • m 1 zo WO)Glendale E4 25351 1 VVecrhamplon c Westhampton Town uln ICI /5D i Whiner,I N/O Pa .04 301 1 I .• ms, N/0 EIm T 1, soccl 1 3808 Wnoamw,.tie N/a NMn 04 - 214 The conclusion was that traffic on Rocky Hill Road had declined 3.9%, but the actual data line on Rocky Hill Road was as follows: facility location 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1991 1992 1993 1994 Rocky Hill W/o 2600 3150 3435 3600 3200 Road Grove The typeface and layout of the PVPC study and the Vanasse data were identical,leading one to suspect that Vanasse took the Northampton Transportation Plan disc and edited out the data that didn't suit their agenda, like the data line on Burts Pit Road, which shows dramatic travel growth. facility location 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 1998 Burts Pit e/o 1907 3633 Road Florence Road Burts Pit w/o 1771 2651 Road Florence Road The Northampton Transportation Plan covered counts at 130 data points from 1979 to 2,000.Vanasse takes just two of these counts and gives us only 8 years of data. There is data in the study from six relevant points. Daily Traffic Counts on Arteries Serving the project areal 1984 1997 Chapel Street at West 2600 3718 1 Northampton Transportation Plan,Pioneer Valley Planning Commission,May 2002 The Northampton Transportation PI covered counts at 130 data points from 1979 to 2,000. Vanasse takes j st two of these counts and gives us only 8 years of data. There is data in the study from six relevant points. Daily Traffic Counts on Arteries serving the project area" 1984 1997 Chapel Street at West 2600 3718 1993 1998 Burts Pit Road E of Florence 1407 3633 1986 1998 Burts Pit Road at Florence 1771 2651 1981 1988 Route 10 at E'ton town line 8660 13,692 1983 1994 Rocky Hill Rd W of Grove 2600 3200 1986 1996 Rocky Hill Rd E of Florence 3370 3603 Yearly growth varies .uit_ , . an.,. w of 1.1 per cent to a high of 10.6. Other data bearing on estimating what the background traffic might be is the number of cars registered in Northampton and the commuter towns to the west. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Northampton 18800 19000 19200 19500 19500 20000 20000 Easthampton 16224 17467 Southampton Westhampton A quick look at the tables that Vanasse uses to display intersection data all bear the marks of some effort to simplify, distort and position "Northampton Transportation Plan, Pioneer Valley Planning Commision, May 2002 information so that the performance of downstream intersections appears better than it actually is. Delay levels for many of the worst turning lanes do not seem to be on the chart. The impression that things are ok is aided and abetted by the National Research Council having changed LOS levels three times in the last ten years, so that intersections rated as "C" by Earthtech in 1994 are rated 'B" today. They are not any better, but the rising national levels of traffic congestion were evidently making it hard for developers and their consultants to push projects through. In 1994 an "F" rating was when delays exceeded 60 seconds, today the threshold is 80. Another indicator of the real background levels affecting intersections is the April 2000 Fuss & O'Neill study of the Route 9 and West Street intersection. When we contrast their figures, with the Vanasse study done 18 months later, we see that the traffic going through the intersection had increased about 15%. Turning Movements on morning rush hour Traffic exiting on Route 9 Traffic entering West Street Fuss & O'Neill 302 227 82 52 Total: Vanasse Total 384 279 349 255 90 65 439 320 Then there is the Northampton developments west of the development that have started in the approval process: To be detailed The following graph looks at Route 9 and 66 at PM. It is fairly consistent; turning traffic experiences longer delays and greater difficulty from 2001 existing conditions, to 2006 no build, to 2006 build. Lane 5 actually drops two levels in functioning, from "C" to "E " X7 4--r∎v0 ems . q Y 00 gj,c,o aces. Lett. lihet The report narrative essentially flies in the face of our experience as motorists who live and work in the community. Our experience, particularly with downtown area traffic,is of steadily Lengthening waits at lights, and problems making turning movements. Two intersections that will carry the bulk of traffic offsite are particularly troublesome. Traffic on Route 10 is heavy and fast at Earle Street, and if you are exiting from Earle Street to go north or south on Route 10, the turning movements are difficult to make. There is no light, and the bridge blocks your view of oncoming traffic. All of the Kollmorgen employees exit or enter the development, they will do so via Earle Street. The 1997 study of traffic done by Earth-Tech' pointed out that in 1993, the intersection satisfied the traffic requirements for being signalized. Almost every Northampton residence has experienced the rush-hour snarls where State Street meets Route 9 (Elm Street) and West Street. West Street is the obvious exit point for Kollmorgen Employees and employees of the other office spaces going north on Route 91, and for the residents in the 108 units of housing to go to Stop & Shop and Big Y. It is also the obvious entrance point for fire and ambulance apparatus to enter Hospital Hill. At it stands now, Fire Department response times to this area is the worst in the city, and the Chief told us that he foresees the need for an auxiliary station on Hospital Hill should the development go to full build. Calthorpe's layout scattered the commercial development into many small buildings and provided buffering between the development and surrounding neighborhoods. It provided an internal connector that channeled project traffic off-site. Now we have most of the commercial/industrial component in one building sited on an existing residential street. The developers have used Calthorpe's cachet and "Village" concept to sell Phase 1 to the community, when they had their approvals, they brought in their plan and their architects. If it was eventually built and occupied, the development's impact on our traffic will be substantial. Phase one has 152,000 square feet of commercial space and 109 residential units. Their traffic engineers estimated that phase one will generate from 289 vehicle trips per the morning weekday peak hour to 344 in the evening peak hour. On a typical weekday,there would be a total of 1583 new vehicles (3166 vehicle trips per day. ) The Lozano-White study was written twenty years ago, when traffic was considerably lighter, but it foresaw congestion at the point at which travel trips went above 1,000 trips. 'Traffic and Access Study, Northampton State Hospital Campus, Earth Tech Inc. February 1997 The study on phase one traffic impact by Vanasse & Associates" assures the reader that "incremental delays at study intersections are nominal " "Nominal" in Websters means "insignificantly small" or "trifling" Looking at their own data on the two arteries that serve as entrance/exit to the project, the total weekday morning peak hour is 1860 vehicles per hour in the morning,and 2030 vehicles per hour in the evening. That translates into a 15% increase in the morning,and almost a 17% increase at night. This is a significant amount of traffic to pump onto two lane roads. The tables in the appendix are from the Vanasse study done to measure existing traffic, and the traffic generated by the phase one development to see how the development affected the Route 9/Route 66 intersection. In 2006, after development, two of the lanes where turning movements need to be made, either off site or coming on site, have dropped a level. Volumes of traffic are increasing, and the performance of the intersection is getting worse. The delay for a West Street car trying to exit north on Route 9 goes from 33 (existing conditions) to 46.8 (build). The functioning of the intersection is dropping because of the press of traffic. The aggregate of queuing (lines of waiting traffic) has increased dramatically, from 288 to 631. Cumulative delay for the 5 lanes of traffic entering and leaving the West Street/Route 9 intersection 2001 existing 2006 no-build 2006 build 19.3 turn lane 21.4 3.8 turn lane 23.8 turn lane 13.6 Total: 81.9 20.1 29.4 1.2 48.7 33.0 23.9 30.7 1.8 50.3 29.9 132.4 136.6 The Route 9 and State Street intersection really functions as part of a larger and much more troubled intersection, the combined Route 9/State Street/West Street intersection. This is the arena where we approach gridlock every night during the school year. The levels drop even below the route 9/route 66 intersection, and delays average in the mid-"E" level. In one turning lane, in particular, the decrease in service is striking between 2001 existing conditions, and 2006 build.�le 1 goes frotn 39.9 seconds to 65.9 seconds,a 65%increase: °The Village at Hospital Hill,Environmental Notification Form, EOEA#I 1047R prepared by Epsilon Associates. October 15, 2001 * tL4 Vanasse Associates also studied the Earle Street/Route 10 intersection. The following are the 2006 build/no build statistics. Earle Street is the East/West street, Route 10 is the north/south artery. The changes are quite dramatic for the traffic attempting to exit the development and turn onto Route 10. Finally, we should note that we have just been discussing Phase 1, and not full buildout, which will impose much more in the way of impact on the community, from the tax base, to fire protection, to traffic. Full buildout under the 1999 master plan was supposed to take 15 years and will mean 476,000 square feet of commercial space,207 units of housing, and 60 units of assisted living space. The traffic impact will increase porportionally. The phase one projection by Vanasse & Associates is for 3,166 vehicle trips daily, in and out of the project area. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to project 10,000 trips daily in and out of the fully built up project area. In their due Diligence Investigation that Vanasse did in February 2001, they estimated that hill buildout would generate approximately 8,023 daily vehicle trips, or approximately 906 peak hour trips on a typical weekday. And their full-buildout does not factor in possible reuse of the historic buildings on the hill. Apartments and condominiums in the older buildings could be permitted despite the cap of te 25 208 units. A new "vilage" incorporating the historic buildings as the nucleus for a surrounding subdivision might double the figures. Any way you cut it,hill buildout means gridlock at the congested West Street/Elm/State Street intersection,which backs up today at peak hours, and bumper-to bumper traffic on South Street. Even with the projected improvements straightening out the Earle Street/Route 10 exit, the logical gateway to Hospital Hill from downtown and Route 91 north is still West Street. The EMF study of Phase One done by the State of Massachusetts was based on bad data. The level of development envisioned would have posed too high an impact Since neither the developer nor the municipality wanted to commit the resources to make the project work well, the data was cooked. The project had no gateway engineered and designed to clear traffic generated by the development. So the data was manipulated to make the development seem as it was compatible with its environment. In order to go forward with few mitigation measures,it seriously understated background traffic in the community. The Kollmorgen plant and how it was sited represents a major change in the project, not a minor one. EMF approval should be rescinded. is 13) v(tUU (.o NU 6 ' ' t_ I-) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR LR v (vph) v (vph) 75 204 150 C (m) (vph) C (m) (vph) 1185 232 288 v/c v/c 0.06 0.88 0.52 950/0 queue length 95% queue length 0.20 84 3. 12 \ 30.9 ) Control Delay 8.2 102.6 LOS A A Lr (10 Approach Delay Approach Delay Approach LOS -- 102.6 D HC.S2000T? Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved - luf D ersro ice Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane LT LR Configuration v (vph) 112 204 C (m) (vph) 1122 232 v/c 0.10 0.88 950/0 queue length 0.33 84 Control Delay 8.6 102.6 LOS A Approach Delay -- 102.6 Approach LOS -- -- HG52000T" Copyright © 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserve z3 ersion • Appendices 0,1 Buildings on campus of Northampton State Hospital,ranked by age 0.2 "Buildings of Interest" to the developer, 1999 maps relating to the developer pulling away from preservation 0.3 1998 Calthorpe plan showing "Old Main" at center of plan 0.4 1999 Calthorpe plan showing "Old Main" gone 0.5 cover page, Master Plan submission to DCAM dated July 28,1999 0.6 MassDevelopment project library list 1.0 June 16,2003 letter from National Park Service Refusing Tax Credits 1.1 May 28, 2002 letter from the Northampton Historical Commission to Robert Durand 1.2 October 1,2002 letter from the Northampton Historical Commission to Robert Durand 1.3 May 19, 2003 Letter from the Northampton Historical Commission to Robert Durand 1.4"Kollmorgen Relocating to NSH" Clipping from Daily Hampshire Gazette, July 20, 2002 1.5 "First Big Box shelved, Lot owners ask for time" Clipping from Daily Hampshire Gazette,August 26, 2002 1.6 Statement of Michael A.Kirby r_oyb: �� =,zi oSbl 9 e `� � _ �c51 - 91b �� Qi bt—Q68 Ob 9L� // oL a$9 rs+1/l 64 2`) ij 41141611OG `55 is, Lx .,bl = j� _--_,_------1A, y---. v.„ I/ i�. t7 U ��� ` Ce 1\71:. �� �T sy t ../C--.).),k),t1±/(., , 5--- c rrte� , a „.��, "' ' �n� / �� i L L k� � I . _. -- - f1Q �iLL e : O ' . /' = 7-V c+'P [071 � � p A 3 er/NdJv —P € I,x 1 y ,l/ ✓ ma- [r I LT—`L si 0a s ti . 00 -'G ../ e._. . � n of iteu1`pMY4 N TY T�J r�1 - D — . 149 �, — YJ mHG /a f .-_( 0..7 __ r85o-70-_.— Iy3o IA 10— i4 3e, lG -,) i—ri•-- [4 7b— 07 ative Site Plan lage at Hospital Hill EB �� \-I1 V L1[! \ uO ldure,In qpio N d 1"- ig •® �A . ® l` V 1a id �1 IiI ., >_ tl I amid ���. - � � 6 i. 1 o' 1ilia i flIasc4d 14A� . J_ __ gi:_*.is4s4 ____ - //a (,,„.... �l_� Ni` �� �� N,N a? a NdJ ii,1 kil r��� tailll I j a 1e1tr --alrararin 8 Mil oo ♦ fat". I : atlai lcD 41!a+$ 0 :OW 9tRh` ^�� . . Y.._PI i mra Ill amgd Alt \S Q — nl,"lid ✓ �Y. i�f gp✓�����'�i� _• , amrivaii%... • •..., a.•• itt - .• wrotts son • HOSPITAL HILL VILLAGE: THE REDEVELOPMENT OF NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN SUBMISSION TO THE MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PART IV APPENDICES Juw 28 , 1999 The Community Builders, Inc 322 Main St. Springfield, MA 01105 (413) 737-0207 tel. (413) 731-9790 fax NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL i 6 7 Northampton State Hospital Reuse Plan • "Results of an Inspection for Asbestos Containing Building Materials and Lead in Paint at Rimier Laundry Building" • "Results of an Inspection for Asbestos Containing Building Materials and Lead in Paint -Power Plant Building" • "Inspection for Asbestos Containg Building Materials and Lead in Paint" • DCAM letter to TCB RE: "Demolition and Asbestos Abatement Cost Estimates" • "Northampton State School Asbestos Abatement Demolition" "Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment for Northam.ton State Hospital" Appendices to "Preliminary Environmental Site Assessmen for Northam on State Ho .ital" "Environmental Site Assessment,Northampton State Hos.ital" "Traffic and Access Study,Northampton State Hospital Cam.us" Technical Appendix for"Traffic and Access Study, Northam.ton State Hospital Cam us" • "Environmental Notification Form" fo Northampton State Hospital" • EOEA Final Record of Decision"Northampton State Hospital Site Disposition and Redevelopment DCPO(DCAM) "Request for Proposals,Redevelopment unit , Northam on State Hospital' X:\Admirangineering Library Index DOC 05/09/05 Lozano White& Associates Covino Environmental Association Date March 1982 Oct 1998 — Sept 2000 VHB,Inc for DCAM Sept 1993 VHB,Inc for DCAM Earth T" h Earth Tech Earth Tech Earth Tech DCPO Sept 1993 April 1997 Feb 1997 Feb 1997 Feb 1997 — May 1997 April 1997 [ASTER PLAN -Part 1. "Hospital Hill Village: The edevelo.ment of Northam.ton State Hos.ital" Tospital Hill Village:The Redevelopment of Northampton tate Hos.ital -Part 111 Financial Plan" tatement of Qualifications-Northampton State Hospital [NF/EIR The Save Old Main Committee Report"Prepared for the :.A.C. 'Installation of Barriers on Windows and Doors at Vortham.ton State Hospital" 'Asbestos Abatement Building 16,17,&27 "Phase One Report-The V illa:e at Hospital Hill' Demolition of Residential Structures of Northamp ton State Hospital 5.ecification "Demolition of Residential Structures" "The Village at Hospital Hill -Request t for Determination rmination of Applicability" to Northampton Commission "The Village cial Permit Feb 2000 July 2001 Save Old Main Committee July 2001 Sept 2001 Ti: e&Bond E.silonrt Nov 2001 A.ril 2002 July 2002 Ti: e &Bond at Hospital Hill A..lication al Invento and Evaluation" "Traffic Sty "T-Building Reuse Study" -.Scope of Work/Fee Proposal and Feasibilit Stud "Draft Environmental im.act R h.ort - EOEA#12629" "DEIR - The Village at Hospital Hill -Appendix.A - Trans.ortation Data" "Phasdl - Environmental Site Assessment for Ice Pond Parcel" Jul 2002 July 2002 ecial Permit A lication lementa Filin Ti: e &Bond Jul 2002 Ti: e &Bond Au: 2002 Oct 2002 E.silon Oct 2002 Oct 2003 A.ril2003 April2003 "Abatement &Demolition of Bmldins 8,15,26AP,26G "Phase I - Environmental Site Assessment for Northampton State Hospital" "Final Environmental Impact Report -The Village at Hospital Hill" "Planning Board Application for Major Site Project Site Plan A s.royal - South Campus -Tier I Review" "Infrastructure Assessment Technical Memorandum" Application for the Phase I Definitive Subdivision Plan A p Villa•e at Hospital Hill. Proposed&Easthampton Road)at Earle Street-Functional Design Report X:Indmin\Engineering Library Index.DOC 05/09/05 GZA Geoenvironmental Beals &Thomas Ti: e &Bond GZA Environmental June 2003 Jul 2003 Au: 2003 Sept 2003 Sept 2003 Tighe &Bond/Beals & Thomas Beals &Thomas Beals &Thomas Sept 2004 June 2003 Nov 2003 Nov 2003 Nov 2003 Vanasse Associates Jan 2005 Strate Environmental Notification Form Demo of Laura. and Power Plant lementahon at NOHO Vanasse Associates E.silon e&Bond Mar 2003 Au: t 2002 NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL PROJECT FILE DRAWER Prepared By DCAM letter to/from DCAM listing documents from DCAM files sent to MassDevelo.ment "Des i: Guidelines for the Villa:e and Hos.ital Hill' Copy of Legislation-House Bill#4857. Chapter 86 of 1994-"Disposition of Certain Property at Northampton State Hos.ital" Northam ton State Hos.ital -Notice of Pro ect Chan_e Villa:e at Hos.ital Hill -Notice of Pro ect Chan:e Certi icate on the "Final Environmental Im.act R ort" City of Northampton Endorsement of TCB's Master Plan from "Office of Planning and Development" and the "Citizen's Adviso Committee." Prelimin• Roadwa and Utilit Cost Estimates XdAdmin\Engineering Library Index.DOC 05/09/05 Date July 2000 TCB E.silon EOEA March 1999 Au: 2002 Nov 2003 my 1999 6 REPLY REFER TO )(2255) e 16.2003 United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1849 C Street,NYC Washington,D.C.20240 David Slatery ;pital Hill LLC c/o Massdevelopmcnt 'ederal Street ;ton, MA 02110 JPERTY: Northampton State llospital (Male Attendants'Home) (Nurse's Home) (South Employee's Home) (Memorial Kitchen) OIECT NUMBER: (11513) XPAYER ID NUMBER: Pending ar Mr. Slatcry: National Park Service has reviewed the Histonc Preservation Certification Application --Part 1 for the project ;el above- The Northampton State Hospital is currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It rs ntified as a historic district,but for purposes of the tax credit program it is a"functionally related complex" :ause the buildings within the campus were designed and functioned historically to serve a common purpose- r functionally related complexes, the entire complex is considered one"property"and NPS must evaluate any obligation projects for their impact on the entire property under one ownership. The Northampton State Hospital stained 75 resources(62 contributing and 13 non-contributing)at the time of listing in the National Register- We derstand that 3 buildings have since been demolished. There are three distinct zones within the complex, the Main ,mplex,the Memorial Group and the Agricultural Area. The campus of the state's third "insane asylum'retains an usually high level of integrity. "Together,the buildings,siting and landscape of Northampton provide one of the !em's clearest reflections of early treatment programs for the insane" Even though the detailed photographs were t submitted for each building within the complex, the National Register nomination p tvides sufficient cumentation for us to concur with the attached list of contributing and non-contributing resources with one ception We concur with the Massachusetts SHPO that the Memorial Kitchen does contribute to the complex. is our understanding that 59 resources within the complex are"under control"of Hospital Hill LLC- Of these only will be retained and rehabilitated. Only 7 of these resources are buildings and only 4 will be seeking the tax credit. ae Main Building is one of the oldest and most important buildings in the entire state system and is slated for :molition. The tax credit program cannot determine whether the remaining buildings would sustain the National egister listing of Northampton State Hospital or whether the four buildings referenced above would he individually igible for the register. This is a question for the state to pursue with the National Register directly. However,the iteria outlined in the Massachusetts State Hospitals and State Schools MPS nomination address the factors that feet integrity of this property type. "Factors that affect integrity-related development, sale or leasing of all or pan f the campus. and neglect of contributing landscapes- may be sufficiently detrimental to integrity to preclude :gistration of this property type" Demolition of all but 7 of the contributing buildings and the rehabilitation of 4 uildings that were not major components of the complex would senously compromise the integrity of the property. erefore,NPS could not certify the rehabilitation of the four buildings because the demolition of the majority of the nributing resources,not to mention the impact of new construction on the historic landscape,would not meeathe tretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. /ou have any questions,please call the State Historic Preservation Office or me at(202)354-2026. werely, Ellen Hensley :chnical Preservation Services Branch IRS MA SHPO Taya Dixon, 150 Main Street,Maynard,MA 01754 r FY HALL Fenno Pratt _t,1849 tU NORTHAMPTON HISTORICAL COMMISSION CITY HALL 210 MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON,MASSACHUSEI IS 01060 RECEDED JUN_5 2112 • lEP A Secretary Robert Durand May 28, 2002 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Affairs 251 Causeway Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Re: Phase One Report EOEA #12629: The Village at Hospital Hill Dear Secretary Durand; On behalf of the Northampton Historical Commission, I wish to submit these comments regarding the preservation of historic buildings at the Northampton State Hospital Campus during Phase One of the redevelopment plan: Buildings Slated for Demolition 1.) 219 Earle Street!.When the building was first evaluated by Dietz and Company Architects (1999), it was rated number 1, meaning that the 'building should be saved, due to potential for rehab and reuse. Unfortunately, since the Commonwealth took no steps to secure the building from further deterioration, the Commission concurs that this structure should in fact be demolished. This is a contributing building to the National Register District. 2.) 51 Grove was also given a #1 rating by Dietz and Co. AI`dlough the wood frame portions of the structure are severely deteriorated, the brick main building is sound. The Commission requests that this building be moved and rehabilitated. This is a contributing building to the National Register District. 3.) Buildings 11 and 47 of the Memorial Comdex The Commission has no comment on the non-contributing sections of the complex. Both are non- _ contributing buildings to the District. 4.) Building #42, the Storage Barn has already fallen down and should be removed. This was a contributing building to the District. NHC.01 - 5.) reused. Structurally it Grounds ound and,is dose to other bluildings that should are not proposed for demolition. It seems the building has the misfortune merely to be in the wrong location, which is not reason enough to justify demolition. This is a contributing building to the National Register District. In the Epsilon Associates submittal, (pg. 5-19) is states"The reuse of the barn is not compatible with the proposed small lot single-family residential development that surrounds it." The stance of the Commission is that the developer should make the surrounding development compatible with the reuse of this building. There are creative solutions that could be pursued here, such as a common garage, a community center, other neighborhood uses found in the current new urbanism language. This building could have a new life amongst these single family homes that would secure linkage between the existing urban village and the one proposed. 6.) 10 Chapel Street! If the land where the house is located needs to accommodate a new use, the Commission recommends that the building q be moved to an alternative location on the campus. Otherwise, it should be offered for sale and rehabilitation where it stands. This is a contributing building to the National Register District. . 7.) 16 Chapel Street/ see #6 above. 8.) Memorial Complex/ Section C has been added to the demolition list. This section was originally deemed worthy of rehabilitation, now it supposedly needs to come down. The Commission doubts that deterioration to this structure has been that severe since 1999, so the fear isinat it also simply is in the wrong place, not a reason to justify demolition. The configuration of these structures, sitting at the top of the crest overlooking the Pioneer Valley to the south, would be severely altered symmetrically were this entire section to be removed. The layout, views and footprint are conducive to adaptive reuse. The Commission a recommends reconsideration of this section, which is a contributing building to the National Register District. 9.) Power Plant This building was slated for rehabilitation until very recently. It plays a major role in telling the story of the urban village that was the State Hospital for over one hundred years. The Commission is concerned that if too many of these prominent structures are removed, there will be no evidence of that original urban village. The Commission recommends that demolition of this building be delayed until a more exhaustive search for potential tenants is undertaken. This is a contributing building to the National Register District. 10.) Ox Barn/ Although this is yet another building that depicts the agricultural activity that took place to support life on Hospital Hill, the Commission agrees that rehabilitation would not be financially feasible and that demolition is justified. It is a contributing building to the district. Buildings Slated for Rehabilitation The Commission is pleased, certainly, to see that Building 10 at the Memorial Complex, Building 14, the Nurses Home, Building 15, the Male Attendants Home, Building 39, the Laundry, and Building 48, the Memorial Complex Kitchen/Recreation Building are scheduled for rehabilitation as part of Phase One. We are particularly pleased that Building 13; the South Employees Home that was slated for demolition was re-examined and will now be rehabilitated for residences. • Old Main The Phase One report speaks to (pg. 5-17) additional work to be undertaken by Arrowstreet to delineate work needed to restore all or a portion of Old Main for reuse. The Commission requests that the funds that would be used to fund that work be used to stabilize the central section of Old Main now. ltiere is discussion about saving some of the additions, but the Commission feels strongly that it is the original 1856 Kirkbride building, the central section and two wings that embodies the heart and soul of Northampton State Hospital. The Commission is not aware of the details of the marketing study but would hope that this effort is far-reaching and comprehensive. Finding an end user and stabilizing the structure are more important activities than having Arrowstreet do work to see what it would cost to reuse it. The end user will want to undertake that work for their own purposes anyway. The building could be sold as is, for minimal or no fees. NHC.05 NHC.06 NHC.07 The report (pg. 5-9) outlines two outcomes for the study currently underway ... "either a viable reuse program can be identified for all or part of Old Main and a targeted stabilization program can be put in place while regulatory review is completed and financing is arranged, or, no viable reuse program can be identified for any of Old Main, and the responsible action will be to proceed with plans for demolition..." As far as the Northampton Historical Commission is concerned the former strategy (as opposed to the latter) is the only one to be pursued. Page 5-13 goes on to say that most of the building failures are localized conditions and that the roof of the central building is leaking substantially. The Commission requests, that at a minimum, now, that the roof leaks are fixed so there will be a building that can be subject to a discussion about reuse. This portion must be kept from further deterioration by the most expedient means possible. Additional delay will result in further deterioration. The roof leaks in the central building must be addressed. This building, the central portion and two wings of Old Main, is what must remain, above all else, on this campus. This building is the manifestation of all that occurred here and is the true representative link to the past. The architecture is tremendous. The view spectacular. The building must be presefved. The redevelopment of this, the original urban village, will be hollow without the Kirkbride to stand at the crest for time to come. General Comments In Section 5.2 Epsilon Associates summarizes the Memorandum of Agreement with Mass. Historic. The Commission urges MEPA to refer to the original memorandum and not rely on the summary fot the full flavor of the document. For example, the summary of Stipulation 111 stops before listing the examples of the character defining attributes of the Campus. One attribute listed in the agreement is" "the relationship of the dominant historic building massing at the crest of the hill to the smaller scaled and sized structures... sited along the slopes of the hill...". Again, the Commission reiterates its strong request that Old Main itself be the mass that retains that balance. No new construction could ever communicate the elegance and history that is embodied in this structure. e. 5 In reviewing the list of buildings to be demolished, it became clear that each building made its own contribution to the Northampton State Hospital and that this campus was truly an urban village. The collection of residential, commercial and agricultural activities manifested in the structures.The proposal now is to create an urban village by in part, dismantling the original village. There seems to be a sad irony to this. But in order to maximize the past, present and future potential here, the Commission urges the developer to maintain a cross section of different types of buildings, in order to keep alive the original villageas'much as possible. I thank you on behalf of the Commission for the opportunity to comment. Respectfully, 2.c/$t4 We/a - SusaryWell, Chair Northampton Historical Commission Members: Tristram Metcalfe Louise Bloomberg Norman Winston Valerie Lavender Kimball Howes Chris Kennedy NHC.10 CITY HALL Wit tam Fenno Pratt Architect, 1849 NORTHAMPTON HISTORICAL COMMISSION CITY HALL 210 MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON,MASSACHUSETTS 01060 October 1 , 2002 Citizens Advisory Committee Village at Hospital Hill City of Northampton RE: Adaptive Reuse of the Kirkbride Building Dear Citizens Advisory Committee; Pursuant to the goals set forth in the establishment of our Commission under Article XX, Section 2 our purpose shall be the preservation, promotion, and development of the historical assets of the city and it is to this charge that we address the Citizens Advisory Committee today The Kirkbride building has met all the criteria for and is a conforming building included in the National Register of Historic places. More than an element in it, the, Kirkbride building embodies and represents the defining Historical characteristics of the former Northampton State Hospital. it is important for what it has provided our community over the last century and a half in terms of jobs, relationships, and an overall sense of identity to our community. Viewed nationally, it is important in the context of a of a pioneering concept on how the mentally ill are treated. Further, as a cultural artifact within the lineage of the built environment, this building is an important 1857 gem of an architectural style defining the emerging commercial style of the Victorian era. Acknowledging that your committee has been charged to represent the diverse interests of our community and as community leaders we as as the Historical Commission request that all efforts t:.a employed to find a feasible reuse of the Kirkbride building. At he worst case we would ask that the Kirkbride building be stabilized and not razed to allow for time to accomplice a workable scheme within the changing tax codes and desirability that the Village at Hospital Hill represents. The Kirkbride building represents a non renewable historical resource that once lost will be forever gone. We would further ask that the CAC request Community Builders not to adapt the stance of either or in relation to the Master Plan but explore the possibility of reconfiguring the arrangement of the 109 residential units to allow the Kirkbride to coexist in addition to those units as new condominium feel t City severe budget constraints and cut backshatthe addition oThieen point Five Million in new taxable income would provide a much needed income stream to our community downstream. In conclusion we as a commission ask the Community Builders and Mass Development to address Understanding and not merely the lettee irit in the Memorandum of of it. Sincerely, Christopher Kenne Chair, Northampton i• on 1 Commission Lf} NORTHAMPTON HISTORICAL COMMISSION A It CRY HALL 210 MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON, CM HALL on Fenno Pratt itect,1849 Secretary Ellen Roy Herzfelder Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Unit 251 Causeway Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 RE: . Northampton State Hospital Draft EIR Comments EOEA#12629 May 19, 2003 Dear Secretary Herzfelder: On behalf of the Northampton Historical Commission I would like to submit these comments regarding Section 8, the Historic Resources analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. First of all, please allow me to communicate our disappointment in the evolution of this historic preservation project that is resulting in the demolition of almost MI of the buildings on site. Calling this endeavor an historic preservation effort is a misnomer in our opinion.The original proposal submitted byThe25 o r the Builders called for retention and rehabilitation of approximately buildings on the campus. By our count, roughly 7 out of 50 structures will be retained. All but one ofth eco msien owe made e duatign Phase se I w the ignored, the uring response being only' development of the Master Plan". We have seen no evidence of any creative thinking that would adapt or revise the Master Plan to reuse more than a handful of the existing structures. The early work described in the Project History section (page 8-1) may well have been for naught. The efforts to research, document and nominate the property t� the National Register were undertaken with the hopes that the buildings NHC.01 would be reused and the developer could utilize the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. We thought the goat was for the developer to preserve the character that made this institution unique and integral to the history of Northampton and recognize the nascent concept that the mentally ilk 9treeY tedshan ideal and professionally in a bucolic, peaceful community should in some small way be acknowIedgect for posterity through,retention of the i. historic setting t the site oint not to think that solely those another esearch efforts were only to development. It is disappointing document what once was. To quote page 8-5," Specifically, due to the proposed removal of a substantial number of the functionally-related buildings, the historically self-sufficient quality of the Hospital which caused it to be listed on Nati Therefore, ubl2, displayed in its architecture and landscape, will lost of the rehabilitation tax credit at N5H is unlikely at this time/This occurrence has generated little reaction from the Citizens'Advisory Committee. We find this regrettable. The fact is, the Citizen's Advisory Committee focused on economic development (the benefits of which we do not debate) and any attempt to save Old Main or some of the other contributing buildings were seen early on as impediments.The developers were never given a strong mandate to preserve the buildings and the sanctity of the campus. What became more important was complying with a process, as evidenced on page 8-6. To quote" Of the process is followed)... the MHC's comments will provide that, even if there is an adverse impact or effect on the historical resources, all reasonable,prudent, and feasible means and actions said laws and the Memorandum of Agreement and have t is in taken place the public inteerest to proceed with the project" For reasons unknown to us, Mass. Historic became party to this Agreement, the local Commission was given minimal authority and local comments were generally disregarded. By the time a historic preservation representative was appointed to the CAC, all the major decisions had been made. To continue,we would certainly postulate that not all reasonable, prudent or feasible actions were taken to save more buildings. There was some discussion about offering some of the smaller residential out buildings to private purchasers. We are not aware that this happened. Now they are gone.There was some early discussion about moving buildings to one area to recreate a smfi village, or a street. This would have created a permanent.reminder of life on Hospital Hill, with a cross section of the dormitory, residential, agricultural and commercial activities that took place there. We are not aware that this was ever given serious consideration or encouraged. We would like to acknowledge that the lack of building maintenance from the time the Campus was dosed is.not a reflection on the current Developer, but the Commonwealth'.The fact thatthese buildings were leftto deteriorate made any' discussion of their financially feasible reuse more difficult The State totally disregarded its role as a caretaker of the built environmentthatdep'icts our NHC.02 NHC.03 NHC.04 NHC.05 history as a society. We find that shameful and diametrically opposed to our values. The first sentence in section 8.3.3, pg. 8-7 summarizes the problem.To quote, " Each structure within the Al Build project area was evaluated based on its existing condition and possibility for rehabilitation and reuse in the context of the Master Plan..." . The Master Plan should have been developed to include NHC.06 reuse of more of the structures. Instead, the Master Plan ignored nethe locations of many existing structures. As a result, if they happen way, they will be demolished, regardless of their physical condition. One would have Plan would thought, be have been this eaated to historic mbrace existing buildings.that was aster certainly not the case here. For example, the two brick structures on Prince Street were extensively renovated by the Department of Mental Health just prior to the closing of the Campus. Unfortunately, they are in the way of a proposed assisted living complex. Also, Building 56, the Grounds Shop, and 51 Grove Street are sound, but in the wrong place and are slated for demolition.These few examples indicate the overall absence of creative thinking that could have led to the saving of more buildings that tell the story of Hospital Hill. Despite the overall dismal result of this process, we would like to acknowledge the Developers positive response to our comments that resulted in the retention and reuse of the South Employees Home in Phase 1. We wish the same fate for the North Employees Home slated for demolition in the Full Build phase. It is our understanding that they are in similar physical condition and the North Horne does not appear to be in conflict with other Master Plan elements. In closing, we, the members of the local Historic Commission, charged with the preservation, promotion and development of the historical assets of the aty (Ordinance dated April 19, 1973) are the ones who must look into the eyes of our fellow residents and try to answer the question, how did this happen? How did we allow Old Main and 86% of all the existing-structures on be campus of what was a state of the art institution, the design of which signified and embodied a world wide transformation in treating the mentally ill, to disappear? This is not a legacy of which we are proud. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. NHC.07 NHC.08 NHC.09 Northampton Historical Commission Membership Valerie Lavender,Vi No an Winston Barbara Blumenthal LMORGEN RELOCATING TO NSH S ...07/20/2002 ly Hampshire Gazette Gory: News fished: 07120/2002 is Al words' 07-20 Al t0 NSH site Ilmorgen relocating inNorthaatPton for 52 ine: JUDITH 8. CAMERON _. ., ---_e.. ..,tdch has been making periscopes ton State Hospital ed to the city,speculation gre • it the fast industrial tenant on the 124-acre site. i we - rnut to reuse the ,osp 100,000-square-foot building t wee ,when a spec ' O ical Division would occupy a 100,000-sq .. Kolhrmrgen's Eledro-Opt a West Springfield commercia posed for Earle Street. said Pearson Systems Inc., uare-foot r press release Friday, the company in exchange for Kollmorgen's 95,000-sq felopment firm,would build the new facility also were riding at 347 King St• be reached for comment Friday night City officials ilhnor � , � t' '.... begin in the fall L rick Go. ens realtor said construction on the new building may g1° Brick Goggins,K°1hn°rg ons are favorable. good for the may . " `' ton after-a lot of thought. That's very g is exciting.They decided to stay in No needs approvals from the Planning ty," Goggins said. eat Hospital Hill" he plan for what being called the Then lion Commission is scheduled to review the lod and Conservation Commission The Conserve and July 31. imposed development Thursday and the Planning kept the Elk Conlmunth'Builders and MassDevelopment are the developers. 3oggins said local officials must be congratulated on negotiations that in the end have in the city. ton making periscopes,°ptroNCS,masts and other ugh technology company s o le in Northampton for the Department of and other and weap o systems employs urf people s and combat vehicles,mostly weapon systems for surface ships steadily declined.in 1989, U.S. allies. o in Northampton, employment has the firm has a long history Though date future growth 500 people ig worked for the company.s the new,larger facility is needed to accomm° According to the press release, and more employees. Judith B. Cameron can be reached at: kameron@gazettenet.com AGAINST H AMEL ••• 07/20/2002 Daily Hampshire MOUNT a Gazette Category: News Daily Hampshire Gazette :ategory: News Published: 07/2612002 Page: A3 Keywords: 07-26 AS First `big box' plan shelved, Lot owners ask for time to iron out proposal Byline: JUDITH B. CAMERON NORTHAMPTON_Plans to combine two parcels of land on King Street_the old Hill and Dale mall and the adjacent Kollmorgen property that are exempt from the"big box"prohibition zoning codes_have been scraped for now,but developers have until December to come back to the city orney Edward Etheredge,representing Kollmor told the Planning Board Thursday night o owners Bement to create a parcel that would be big enough to accommodate a super-sized store. Etheredge and Mark Tanner, who represents the mall owners,both requested that the three preliminary subdivision proposals be denied. With a unanimous vote,the board denied the proposals,but the owners still have time to submit plans for the development of a large retail chain stores such as Home Depot, long-rumored to be interested in locating in the city. seven years the In order to preserve their rights under the old zoning codes for the nee is rejected Thurso owners night must submit detailed subdivision plans by December. The plans ropogals and did not include required information,such as a traffic study A were pr......_ ,- needed before new buildings are constructed. t�cal Di n and Hill and Dale The proposed combined lot,the site of Kollmorrg f E1ecctr°-OP a� 11 • ran e exempt from Mall,both located on the north end of King , .mild' on King city zoning codes. The new codes are designed to preventtlarge re aade -l.feet. Street b y imposing restrictions such as a cap on building a e at 112,000 square feet. building. The two The proposal for the combined lots calls for constructing Feiildin . The director of lots are needed to satisfy size requirements of the big-box retailers,said Wayne city planning and development. The proposed combination of the 5.4 acre Kolhnorgen site and w e s erHill e�Dale urse, which are adjacent to each other, are grandfathered because plans before the City Council was expected to vote in April to adopt the new codes. The new codes were adopted May 2 after two years of study and spirited public debate. Besides the proposal to create one large lot, subdivision plans for each individual property were submitted. old,developers of the Kollmorgen Etheredge said that the Pearson Enterprises oof West possible.Sprifi site,intend to comply with the new zoning mre ci manufacturer that Pearson Enterprises plans to build a new home for Kollmorgen, a longtime it ma ,on the produces military equipment such as periscopes and other high technology P grounds of the former Northampton State Hospital.In exchange for the construction,Pearson would acquire the building at 329 King St. Etheredge said after the meeting that one of the hurdles in complying with the new codes is a fee aposed on buildings more than 30,000 square feet,which could total as much as$250,000 if tree new, rugs are constructed on the Kolhnorgen land. resenting Hill&Dale Nominee Trust, Sandra A. Glass,trustee, said plans to build separate commercial buildings at 327 King St.may not happen. There is no certainty that we will ever build these plans,"he said. Ie said the preliminary subdivision plan was submitted so that the site can be marketed under the ess restrictive old zoning codes. Judith Cameron can be reached at jcameron@gazettenet.com LARGE-RETAIL ORDINANCES NOW IN ••• 06/07/2002 Daily Hampshire Gazette Category: News Published: 06/07/2002 Page: A3 Keywords: 06-07 A3 Large-retail ordinances now yin effect ted to table indefinitely the two most NORTHAMPTON On ningsordi controversial"big box" zoning ordinances aimed at regulating the development of large-scale retail businesses,particularly on King Street. On May 2,the council voted to approve the other eight,with an eye towards p revent sprawl in preventing sp the city. The eight ordinances which became law will: n encourage developers to build retail stores close to the street to make storefronts more appealing to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic; n change the definition of"substantial improvement" for new developers, incorporating concerns rpo g about development's effects on floodplains; n define the difference in zoning language between an automotive service station and a repair station, and combine the definition of buildings used oopersonagland ndret the in-lieu of n remove the requirement for special permits for types parking fee for buildings that are built close to the street; ordinances;the other n char seta-per oot fee forbi ildiings over in 30,000 ssgquuare�that do not meet the design n charge a per-square-foot criteria established by the other ordinances; n create a maximum setback from the street of 50 feet for retail stores over 10,000 square feet; and n prohibit the development of retail stores over 90,000 square feet. COUNCIL OKS 8 ORDINANCES TWO ... 05/03/2002 Daily Hampshire Gazette Category: News Published: 05/03/2002 This is a statement of Michael A.Kirby, made of my own free will.This is my recollection and is the truth, so help me God. In the fall of 2005, I called W. Michael Wall,President of the Kollmorgen Division and he said to me that "Kollmorgen never had any intention of moving up onto Hospital Hill" and that "It was a beautiful story,and everyone wanted to believe it." It sounded as if be was chuckling at that point. In January of 2006, representatives of Old Main met with Representive Kocot and Senator Rosenberg. Representative Kocot,commenting on the Kollmorgen affair, said that there was "never anything to that business but a phone call.' March 13,2006 _= The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. idscape Architecture it Engineering inning nd Surveying November 7,2006 Planning Board Northampton, MA 01060 RE: The Village at Hospital Hill Dear Board Members, On behalf of TCB Hospital Hill,please accept this application for approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the next phase of development at the Village at Hospital Hill. This includes the development of 115 residential units. Enclosed please find(16) copies the application,plan and associated materials, (7)reduced scale plans, a digital copy and a check for $6918.75 payable to the City of Northampton. This filing fee includes a 25%reduction for affordable housing. As part of this submission,we respectfully request the following waivers. Note that some of these were requested and gra listed d i here prior submissions for various parts of the campus,but again for clarity and specificity to this project phase. ' • ..- - - Provide a simplified Location Map,including abutting p arcels ke ed to an abutters list per discussion with OPD Not show all future roads,pe Allow no rounded ROW comer(south side of'Olander' at Village Hill Allow less than 100ft straight centerline in some cases,zero ft.in others l o radii Allow pavement centerline offset from ROW centerline for the souther) rtion of 'Olander Allen Place Northampton,Massachusctrs 01060 Telephone(413)582-7W0 Facsimile(413) 582-7005 E-mail bdg@ beckshiredesign.com VI-114 Preliminary Subdivision Planning Board November 7,2006 Page 2 of 2 We look forward to presenting this project to the Board at your next available hearing. If you have any questions regarding this submission or require additional information prior to then,please do not hesitate to contact our office at 413-582-7000. Sincerely, The$erkshi gn Group, Inc. G. Jay in y,RLA Project Man ger APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAN--Form B File with the Office of Nanning and Development,City of Northampton, Massachusetts 'de sixteen completed forms and plans and file seven additional copies,showing wetlands,which may be l l"x17" T02. MI plans,with be fold City a Clerk opy of this application aattached accordance plan.All submittals must Section iccompanied with a disk showing the entire filing in DjVu or TIFF format. The undersigned herewith submits the accompanying Preliminary Plan of Property located in the City of the Planning Board: Northampton for approval as allowed under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the Planning Board in the City of Northampton.We further grant the Planning Board and its agents the right to enter our property for the purpose of evaluating this application. I. ApplicantTCB Hospital Hill, LLC c/o The Community BldrsSignature 95 Berkely St., Boston, MA 02116-6240 Phone 413-737-0207 Address 2 owner Hospital Hill Devlpmnt, LLC c/o Mass Developmentsignature Address 33 Andrews Parkway, Devens, MA 01432 phone 976-784-2917 3. EngineerMark Damoldl The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Signature 41 562 7000 Address 4 Allen Plane, Northampton,MA 01060 Phone 4. Surveyor Paul Lussier/The Berkshire Design Group,Inc. Signature 5. Deed of property recorded in op h or Land Court(circle one), Book 6925 Page 302 6. Location and Description of Property: d.),off Prince SLNillage Hill Rd. Former Northampton State Hospital property no #of Commercial Lots: 0 #of Residential Lots: 10 7. Assessor's M P ID: 38A Lot(s): 008 , 104, 110, 111 31C Date su fitted to Planning Boaz 00 Date Decision Filed: rnp,7 City Clerk: City le iCO/r,4/ t`7C'1' (form created 5/8/2003) (Signature) Northampton Subdivision Regulations PAGE 48 ABUTTERS TO 31C-017,38A-087(3009 City State Zip Code Owner Address Parcel - Location RTPIT DEPT OF FOOD &AGRICULTURE 30A-264-001 BURTS SIT RD COLLEGE HALL 4 NORTHAMPTON MA 01063 31A-265-001 DRYADS GREEN SMITH COLLEGE COLLEGE HALL 4 NORTHAMPTON MA 01063 31A-266-001 DRYADS GREEN SMITH COLLEGE COLLEGE HALL 4 NORTHAMPTON MA 01063 31A-267-001 DRYADS GREEN SMITH COLLEGE COLLEGE HALL 4 NORTHAMPTON MA 01063 31A-267-001 DRYADS GREEN SMITH COLLEGE 47 DRYADS GREEN NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 31A-269.001 DRYADS GREEN VAIN JAY A&SUSAN 43 DRYADS GREEN NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 31A-27 -001 DRYADS GREEN R MICHAEL&JUDITH A COLLEGE HALL 4 NORTHAMPTON MA 01063 31A-271 1-001 DRYADS GREEN SMITH W W H COLLLEGE 23 DRYADS GREEN NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 31A-282-001 WASHINGTON GREEN ON AVE KORFF E FFR PETER 31A-282-001 WASHINGTON A KORFF JEFFREY M &STEUER SHELL 100 WASHINGTON AVE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 112 WASHINGTON AVE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 31A-283-001 WASHINGTON AVE BARNETT MICHAEL J &JOANNA V 106 WASHINGTON AVE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 31C-04-001 WASHINGTON AVE BLOOMBERG LOUISE 31C-00B-001 WARD RD AVE AFRANCIS MILLETTE FRANCINOIS P&BRENDA E 24 WARD AVE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 31C-009-001 WARD AVE MANWELL EDWARD J &CLAIRE 62 MAIN STA#303 NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 TATLOCK HUGH &ANNE F 62 WARD AVE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 31C-011-001 WARD AVE FUTTER THOMAS 31C-011-001 WASDNG SMITH COLLEGE COLLEGE HALL 4 NORTHAMPTON MA 01063 31 C-012-001 WASHINGTON AVE BLOOMBERG SANFORD &LOUISE 112 WASHINGTON AVE NORTHAMPTON MA 0 31C-013-001 PARADISE RD SMITH COLLEGE COLLEGE HALL 4 NORTHAMPTON MA 01063 31C-016-001 WEST IS SMITH COLLEGE COLLEGE HALL 4 NORTHAMPTON MAA 01063 31C-017-001 PARADISE RD PUSHKIN MICHAEL A 2 BURTS PIT RD NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 31C-017-001 PRINCE ST LOT A HOSPITAL HILL DEVELOPMENT LLC 160 FEDERAL ST BOSTON 38A-004-001 BURTS PIT RD KIRK DAVID R 62 LAUREL ST NORTHAMPTON MA 01062 38A-005-001 LAUREL ST p O BOX 60392 FLORENCE MA DUDA JACQUELYN 52 LAUREL ST NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 38A-006-001 LAUREL ST REMICK SCOTT W & 38A-007-001 LAUREL ST BLUMENTHAL JOSEPH III & 39 CHAPEL ST NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 38A-008-001 CHAPEL ST SO DEERFIELD MA 01373 38A-009-001 PRINCE ST HOLDEN JAMES W &STEPHANIE 151 RIVER RD NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 FRANK MARIE A 37 CHAPEL ST 38A-010-001 PRINCE ST D W CORPORATION INC 149 GLENDALE RD SOUTHAMPTON MA 01073 38A-011-0O1 CHAPEL ST D W CORPORATION 149 GLENDALE RD SOUTHAMPTON MA 01073 38A-012-001 CHAPEL ST D W CORPORATION INC 149 GLENDALE RD SOUTHAMPTON MA 01073 38A-013-001 CHAPEL ST FRANK MARIE A 37 CHAPEL ST NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 38A-014-001 CHAPEL ST NORTHAMPTON GRANGE 138 PATRON 37 CHAPEL ST#37 112 NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 38A-015-001 CHAPEL ST 1=The nerksiSe Design Inc. Group, 7Hizt/*Hill Hospital H NowniAm?T° ,„TTS N mAssAcHu''' 38A-017-001 RUST AVE ELLIOTT CHARLES 1-I & ESTELLE B 7 HUDi 7"'cDAVID A 13 RUST AVE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 38A-020-001 RUST AVE FOSTER MARION R PAINE 01060 38A-010-001 RUST AVE 29 RUST AVE NORTHAMPTON MA 160 FEDERAL ST BOSTON MA 02110 38A-052-001 EARLE ST LOT B HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT LLC 4 FRANKLIN ST EASTHAMPTON MA 01027 38A-071-001 LAUREL ST 38A-072-001 LAUREL JO EL ST RAY JOAN 13 RUST AVE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 RUST PAINE DAVI D A 2 BURTS PIT RD NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 38A-075-001 BURTS PIT RD PUSHKIN MICHAEL A PAINE DAVID A 13 RUST AVE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 38A-085-001 RST AVE E 38A-087-001 PRINCE ST&WEST ST NORTHAMPTON STATE HOSPITAL NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 38A-088-001 PRINCE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON 210 MAIN ST 38A-088-001 BURTS PIT IT RD 38A-105 to 112 No record pIADRV ING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Ci[y Ei2• 210 Man 5t t Room 11 • Northampton MA or o6o-3198 ' 4131587-1266 •Fax:597-1164 www.Norttiampton Ma.gov Wayne Feiden;Director FORM F NORTHAMPTON, MA December 20?06 Date NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL To: City Clerk The Planning Board on December Date 2006 by J4 Vote APPROVED with Conditions {see attachment 1) the following subdivision plan: Name or description: Village at Hospital Hill(phase II north campus) New street names: Ford Crossing, Musante Drive, Moser Street, Olander Drive Submitted by: TCB Hospital Hill, LLC Address: 95 Berkely St, Boston. MA 02116 Signed hampton Planning Board This vote of the Planning Board is duly c.c. Applicant Building Inspector Board of Public Works Fire Department Board of Health recorded in the minutes of their meeting. Police Department Board of Assessors Register of Voters File Conservation Commission Manning board •conservatbon co mmission .=On)surd of apneais Oust ership redevelopment authority •nor economic a'evelopment-community deveionrnent•mstoric:(istnct onmisswn niscoricai commission central husiness &10-(9/ (r ATTACHMENT A Village at Hospital Hill Phase II North Campus Preliminary Subdivision, As Approved by the Northampton Planning Board December 14, 2006 Conditions: 1_ Waivers will only be granted at the definitive stage if: a. Turning movements for the Fire Department ladder truck can be accommodated. Turns should be illustrated on definitive plans. b. Department of Public Work signs off on the technical standards for waivers relative to street design. 2. Hydrant spacing shall conform to Nat' fire standards. 3 Curb cuts for commercial lots should be shown in accordance with subdivision regulations for the definitive filing. 4. All other rules in the subdivision standards shall be incorporated unless a waiver is specifically requested. 5. A 10'wide pedestrian access abutting lot 1A should be built prior to the marketing of any of these lots and a sign should be posted at"Olander Drive" indicating that public access is located at that point. 6. Sidewalks shall be on both sides of the street along "Ford Crossing". 7. Formal waiver from providing a sidewalk along west side of'Musante Drive" must be submitted. 8. The Definitive Plans shall show an additional bicycle/pedestrian connection in an east- west direction to connect from the open space on the east edge of the campus to the west boundary with the Community Gardens in a direct as possible manner. This should be by a 10'wide sidewalk along"Moser Street'across the property or a 10'paved path extending from the TRG path along"Glenda" going west and cross-country to "Musante Drive". 9. A crosswalk meeting ADA standards shall be designed to cross"Musante Drive" to enable safe crossing for the bicycle/pedestrian path onto the Community Gardens parcel. 10. The applicant should study whether a round-about at the intersection of"Ford Crossing" and Village Hill Road or"Moser'Nillage Hill Rd. is an appropriate traffic calming mechanism as discussed in previous reviews. This approval does not rule out the future possibility that a round-about-or other traffic calming structure should be designed for one of these intersections if there is a future subdivision phase. The rights-of-way in this phase of design should be large enough to accommodate such structures. 11. Future build-out of"Olander Drive" should be designed with traffic calming or other design features to minimize speeds. 12. As part of the submission of the definitive plans, the applicant shall look at making a safe intersection of Prince/Burts Plt/"Musante"/Laurel Street. Three options shall be considered and one selected. They are: lining up"Musante" St with Laurel, closing Laurel between Prince and Rt. 66, or making Laurel a one-way street northbound and making"Musante' one-way northbound.