18D-058 (21) NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD DECISION
PETER J. SULLIVAN SITE PLAN REVIEW 11
PAGE TWO
1:
openings in relation to traffic, access by emergency i•
vehicles; and to adjacent streets and, when necessary,
compliance with other regulations for the handicapped, minors
and the elderly.
i
C. The plan satisfactorily addresses the adequacy of the
arrangement of parking and loading spaces in relation to the
proposed uses of the premises.
D. The plan satisfactorily addresses the relationship
of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape,
existing buildings and other community assets in the area,
and compliance with other requirements of the ordinance.
E. The plan satisfactorily deals with mitigation of
adverse impacts on the city's resources, including the effect
on the city's water supply and distribution system, sewage
collection and treatment systems, fire protection, and
streets, but a condition of this approval is that the
Applicant fully and satisfactorily respond to the concerns
expressed by the Director of Public Works, in his letter to j':•: `
the Chair dated May 1, 1989, a copy of which is attached and
made a part of this decision. r,
Naiicy P. D au, Chair r'
j"
!.r
John L. Cahillane Dr Jos f Arnould
{�
E. Joh Gare, III
ft,
James Holeva Marion Mendelson k:
Andrew Crystal r J'J seph Beau gard
i`.
July 27, 1989
II, Christine Skorupski, Assistant Clerk of the City of Northampt n
hereby certify that the: a.bove Decision of the Northampton F'..•
P'l'anning Board was .filed`.3n the Office of the.City, Clerk on
J1ne 23, 1989, that twenty days have elapsed since such filing
4 ,. that no appeal has been filed in t 4 matter.
y
Atte s tdl�A ,. ,
+f risti.Fie korups i
w � Assistant City Clerk•
City of Northampton
A
014161
RECF1',' f�
DECISION OF 1,�QDC� '0170E0
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BG#3 T
13EGI;; Ty
ryy�?S
At a meeting held on June 8, 1989, the Planning Board j
of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to APPROVE the i
Site Plan submitted by Peter J. Sullivan relative to
i additions to the Norton Co. building located on Industrial
Drive in the Northampton Industrial Park. The Site Plan
Review was conducted under the Provisions of Section 10.11 i
of the Northampton-Zoning Ordinance. Present and voting were f
Chair N. Duseau, J. Arnould, J. Beauregard, A. Crystal, M.
Mendelson, J. Hale, J. Cahillane, and E. J. Gare III .
The findings were as follows:
1 . The existing building is 22,900 square feet in size. The �.
i proposed warehouse addition at the rear is 13,500 square
feet and the i
proposed office and plant addition at the front
is 9,000 square feet.
I
i 2. Section 10.11(4) (a) requires a proper locus plan be
filed, and the Board determined that it was.
3 . Section 10.11( 4) (b) requires that a site plan at proper
scale be filed, and the Board determined that it was. The
plan being approved is "Schematic Site Plan" , Dwg. #CDA528
L1 prepared by Commercial Design Associates, and undated.
4. The Board determined b item-by-item Y an -
y-item consideration,
that all the criteria in Section 10.11(4) (b) ( 1 through 18)
had either been met, or properly waived.
5. The Board determined that, under the requirement of
Section 10.11( 4) (c) that the estimated peak hour traffic
volume generated by the proposed addition would be an
increase of approximately two cars.
6. The Board looked to the Review/Approval Criteria under
Section 10.11(5) and found that:
A. The plan provides for protection of adjoining
premises against seriously detrimental uses by provision for
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, and
preservations of views, light and air. The Conservation
Commission will be asked to review the storm water runoff.
B. The plan satisfactorily deals with the convenience
and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the
site and on adjacent streets; the location of driveway
Northampton Planning Board
June 8 , 1989 Meeting
Page One
The Northampton Planning-Board met at 7: 00 p. m. on Thursday, June
8 , 1989 in Council Chambers , Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal
Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton. Present were Chair N.
Duseau, J. Arnould, J. Beauregard, A. Crystal, M. Mendelson, J.
Hale, J. Cahillane, E. J. Gare III and L. B. Smith, Senior Planner.
7 : 30 PUBLIC HEARING, APPLICATION OF PETER J. SULLIVAN FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL of a building addition in the Industrial Park. The Chair
read the Legal Notice, the minutes of a Northampton Redevelopment
Authority meeting, and a letter dated May 1 from the DPW. Mr.
Sullivan said he has replied to the DPW on their concerns. He
showed a plan of the existing building, and the additions which are
to be done in two stages. This is the Norton Co. , a 22 ,900 SF
building. The warehouse addition at the rear is an additional
13 , 500 SF; the office and plant addition at the front equal 9 ,000
SF. Ch. Duseau turned to the ordinance on p. 10-9 , and went
through the criteria. A proper locus plan and site plan were on
file. Of the 18 criteria, all were met or waived. As to traffic,
only two new hires were anticipated, in addition to the current
workforce of 7 or 8 . Mr. Crystal was willing to move on Phase I ,
but Mr. Cahillane wanted to approve the entire project, subject to
approval of the DPW and the Industrial Park management. Ch. Duseau
closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Cahillane moved as above. Mr. Gare
seconded. Mr. Smith suggested the ConsComm review the storm water
runoff. The motion passed unanimously.
Nancy P. D,,�eau, Chair `—'
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD DECISION
PETER J. SULLIVAN SITE PLAN REVIEW
PAGE TWO
, openings in relation to traffic, access by emergency
vehicles; and to adjacent streets and, when necessary,
compliance with other regulations for the handicapped, minors
and the elderly.
C. The plan satisfactorily addresses the adequacy of the
arrangement of parking and loading spaces in relation to the
proposed uses of the premises.
D. The plan satisfactorily addresses the relationship
of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape,
existing buildings and other community assets in the area,
and compliance with other requirements of the ordinance.
E. The plan satisfactorily deals with mitigation of
adverse impacts on the city' s resources, including the effect
on the city' s water supply and distribution system, sewage
collection and treatment systems, fire protection, and
streets, but a condition of this approval is that the
Applicant fully and satisfactorily respond to the concerns
expressed by the Director of Public Works, in his letter to
the Chair dated May 1 , 1989 , a copy of which is attached and
made a part of this decision.
Nancy P. Du8bau, Chair
John L. Cahillane Drr Josdf Arnould
E. Joh Gare, III .X d i t h Hale
James Holeva Marion Mendelson
Andrew Crystal,'\ �17r, Joseph Beauregard
Now
1
spa
DECISION OF DEPT OF INSPECTIONS
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD NORTHA N,falA.01060
At a meeting held on June 8 , 1989 , the Planning Board
of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to APPROVE the
Site Plan submitted by Peter J. Sullivan relative to
additions to the Norton Co. building located on Industrial
Drive in the Northampton Industrial Park. The Site Plan
Review was conducted under the Provisions of Section 10 . 11
of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. Present and voting were
Chair N. Duseau, J. Arnould, J. Beauregard, A. Crystal, M.
Mendelson, J. Hale, J. Cahillane, and E. J. Gare III .
The findings were as follows:
1. The existing building is 22 ,900 square feet in size. The
proposed warehouse addition at the rear is 13 ,500 square
feet, and the proposed office and plant addition at the front
is 9 ,000 square feet.
2 . Section 10 . 11( 4 ) ( a) requires a proper locus plan be
filed, and the Board determined that it was.
3 . Section 10 .11( 4) (b) requires that a site plan at proper
scale be filed, and the Board determined that it was. The
plan being approved is "Schematic Site Plan" , Dwg. #CDA528-
L1 prepared by Commercial Design Associates, and undated.
4 . The Board determined, by an item-by-item consideration,
that all the criteria in Section 10 . 11 ( 4 ) (b) ( 1 through 18)
had either been met, or properly waived.
5 . The Board determined that, under the requirement of
Section 10 . 11( 4 ) (c) that the estimated peak hour traffic
volume generated by the proposed addition would be an
increase of approximately two cars.
6 . The Board looked to the Review/Approval Criteria under
Section 10 . 11 ( 5) and found that:
A. The plan provides for protection of adjoining
premises against seriously detrimental uses by provision for
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, and
preservations of views , light and air. The Conservation
Commission will be asked to review the storm water runoff.
B. The plan satisfactorily deals with the convenience
and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the
site and on adjacent streets ; the location of driveway