Loading...
23B-046 (228) NORTHAMPTON ZONING HOARD OF APPEALS DECISION THE COOLEY--DICKINSON HOSPITAL, INC. APPLICATION PAGE %( southerly edge of the "upper parking lot" to screen it from the Drinkers" view. A reasonable number of plantings are to be placed on the Drinkers' property, if they wish, to provide add4* 'onai screening. Robert C. Buschor, Chairman r Dr. Peter Leband f 1 �t (j� 1 t1 � 1� i� s i � k i Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals October 3, 1990 Meeting F-894 three have reached an agreement in principle with the hospital. Site PlaLn Review will be at the Planning Board on October 11. The plans will be revised to show the parking lot pulled back." Dr. Laband stated, "As a practical matter, Site Plan Review must take place before we decide on the Finding. It is fruitless for u2 to get into the nitty gritty until you reach an agreement and get site plan approval." Mr. Etheredge replied, "1 wanted you to reach a decision tonight subject to site plan review. The hospital faces very tight timelines." He gave November 2 as the hospital's "drop dead date" to begin site preparation. The Board was unwilling to render a decision prior to site plan review, and on Dr. Laband's motion, seconded by Mr. Brandt, unanimously agreed to continue the Public Hearing until 5:oo p. m. on Monday, October 15 in Council cbambers. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci, Beard secretary. Robert C. Ruscher, Chairman - r n IHiI 4NI...4. t LILT` II_I y`_�I :_ 12 P,!_t. . R Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals October 3, 1990 Meeting past e o Air. Etheredge referred the Board to Section 6.8(6) on Page (5-10 and commented, "There is no height problem." Mr. Etheredge and ch. suscher then had a discussion, relative to the "213$" figure referring to total roof area of all the buildings, or just the West Building. Mr. Etheredge claimed that the total, existing hospital is only one building. Ch. Busch�er then urged Mr. Etheredge to address the concerns of Dr. and Mrs. Henry Drinker, who live in the only residential dwelling on Donniston Place. They were present along with their attorney Timothy Washburn. Atty. Etheredge told the Board that there were several issues, among them; 1) . The DPW wants to discontinue Denniston Place, the layout of which runs under the existing emergency room. "Denniston Place belongs in the hospital campus. If the city got rid of it, the hospital would have to maintain it. The Drinkers water and sewer comer off Elm Street, where they have frontage. We have been trying to work out an easement with them." 2) . The impact of the parking lot extension on the aesthetic properties of their lot and their view. New parking lot lights will be low, with directed light, and will not have more impact than what's there. The hospital has agreed to move the planned parking lot some 25 ' back, away from the Drinkers. " 3) . The traffic issue. "We are not expanding the use, so the traffic will not substantially increase. The employees and physicians will now Park in what is considered the main lot Off .Locust Street. "I don't think traffic on Denniston Place will increase. The hospital will prevent people from leaving via Denniston, which is one of the Drinkers' major issues. The Drinkers are the only neighborhood. " The discussion then turned to the subject of parking. ch. Husscher commented, "You are adding 65,000 more square feet. The zoning ordinance Says you must provide 1.5 parking spaces for each bed ,Lt desigD 9A ty. " Mr. Malin replied that today's capacity is 211 beds, and that will not grow. He added, "No new beds are being created--just new spaces for the beds we have." Ch. Buscher countered, "The square feet are increasing dramatically. You are logically increasing your capacity to have more beds. The ordinance refers to the number of beds you cud have." Mr. Malin pointed out that there are presently 507 parking spaces, which will grow to 734, less the 11 being given up to satisfy the Drinkers. Atty. Washburn, representing the Drinkers, said, "They are the neighborhOOd, and this has a substantial impact on them. They have legitimate concerns about the project, especially the extension of the parking lot to Denniston Place, and an exit from the lot to Denniston Place, which does not exist now. The hospital now agrees to pull back the lot some 25 ' away from Denniston Place, and ut up "Do Not Enter" signs to keep people from exiting the lot via Denniston. Georga Andrikidis told us that 'The SPW will net discontinue Denniston Place until the Drinkers are s'atisfied. I We Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals QCtaber 3 . 1990 Meeting The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 8:100 p. M. on Wednesday, October 3, 1990 in Council Chambers, wa ace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, Northampton, to conduct a Public Hearing on the Application of The Cooley-Dickinson Hospital, Inc. for a Finding under the Provisions of Section 9.3{b} of the Northampton Zoning ordinance that the construction of a 63,000 square foot addition to the existing hospital will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the hospital as it exists today. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt, and Dr. Peter Laband. Ch. Buscher opened the Public Hearing, and Atty. Edwavd Etheredge appeared for the hospital. Also present were Craig Malin, hospital president., 'perry Kenyon, the architect, Jerry Brown, landscape architect, Judy Schumacher, Director of Devalopmant, and Liz Weisbaah, Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Malin pointed out that the $12.9 million project has received state approval, which will allow the costs of construction to be reflected in rate increases to patients. It was stressed., repeated and reiterated that "the number of beds will not increase." Mr. Malin said that people who have a choice, e. g. maternity patients, are going elsewhere because CDH's facilities ara outmoded and inadequate. He warned, "If this doesn't get done, look, for the demise of the hospital. " Mr. Brandt commented, "There's a gun pointed to my head. If -we don't approve this, the hospital will go out of business." Mr. Malin tried to soften the effect of his statement, and said, "People need better than what we now have. " Mr. Brandt continued, "This addition creates no new violations'?" Mr. Etheredge quickly replied, "Correct. It complies in all respects. " Mr. Kenyon, the architect, when questioned by Ch. Buscher about the "huge size of the penthouse, " stated, '"We. will be higher than the existing height of 64 1/2 feet." -Mr. Brandt, referring to Section VT of the ordnance, commented, 1040 ' Is the max in UPS." Ch. Buscher added, "TO the extent that the existing building exceeds 401 , the now addition is OK. The new addition can only go as high as the current building." Mr. Kenyon explained, "The penthouse eaves are the same height as the existing elevator shaft Penthouse. " Mr. Brandt commented., "The new elevator shaft is too high. " Dr. Laband opined, "If you create a new violation, you need a variance." Mr. . Kenyon responded, "Typically, the eaves are the measurement. " Ch. Buscher added, "What is the true measurement of height? The now penthouse appears to be huge." Mr. Brandt thought that clarification from the City Solicitor was needed. At Ch. Buscher's request, Mr. Kenyon gave the following dimensions: EXISTING building, height of roof deck is 64 1/2 ' . EXISTING elevator shaft height, 79 1/2 ' . FROPOSM structure, eave of penthouse is 79 1/2' . PROPOSED structure, tjgU of penthouse roof is 94 1/2' . PROPOSED elevator shaft, 94 1121 . NORTHAMPTON ZONING HOARD OF APPEALS DECISION THE COOLEY-DICKINSON HOSPITAL, INC. APPLICATION PAGE THREE southerly edge of the "upper parking lot" to scream it from the Drinkers' view. A reasonable number of plantings are to be placed on the Drirkers' property, if they wish, to provide add?} :.anal screening. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman i� Br. Peter Laband lam R. B t tj �t s i; i NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION THE COOLEY--DICKINSON HOSPITAL, INC. APPLICAT10N PAGE MAQ S. The plan before this Board is a nine-sheet plan entitled, "COOLEY-D I CKINSON HOSPITAL, 30 LOCUST STREET, NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS, " prepared by Rothman--Rothman-- Heineman Architects, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts, consisting of sheets entitled "L-1 Revision 2 , October 10._3. Q, L-2, A-1, A-1, A-3, SU-1, SU-2, SE--1 and SE-2.41 The Findings are granted with the following conditions: 1. Thirty-five (35) parking spaces sha3.1 be removed from t_he "Upper Parking Lot" as shown on Plan L-1, Revised �1 October 10, 1990. The spaces are to be taken from that area closest to the Drinkers' home. 2 . The Conditions attached to the Northampton Planning Board' s Site Plan Review Decision made at the Board's October 25, 1990 meeting, approving the Site Plan for this project, are hereby made a part of this decision, and attached hereto, " 3. if Venniston Place is discontinued at some .future date, the hospital shall petition the City' Council to maka the private way, Denn`.Ston Place, one-way from North Eli Street in the direction of the hospital."Dv Not Zrtern signs shall be placed on Danniston Place, facing westerly, at the intersection of the two parking Lots, to discourage traffic from exiting via Denniston Place to Route 9- 4. The concerns of the Department of public harks as expressed in a 'letter dated September 20, 1990 fro$► Samuel B. Brindis, P. E. to Dr. Joseph Beauregard are to be The citd satisfactorily dealt w of of thec FOSp and is attache letter is made a pax hereto. g. The concerns of the Northampton Conservation Comi.ssion as expressed in a letter dated September 27, 1990 from Wayne M. Faiden to Dr. soseph Beauregard are to i be satisfactorily dealt with by the Hospital. The cited letter is made a part 0.6 this decision and is attached hereto, g. A sight buffer of trees is to be planted at the DECISION OF NOR ON ZQNTt�G BOARD OF AP 1MLS BOarci of At a meeting held on October 4n 2 , unanaou.sly to GRANT Appeals of the City of Northampto the request of The Cooley-Dickinson Hospital, Inc. for Findings under the Provisions of Section 9.3(a) and 9.3 (b) of the Zoni.rq Ordinance of the City of Northampton, that the construction of or addition of approximaately 65,000 square feet to the existing hc�spita, building would got be a*bstanti structure and use iodated to the neighborhood than the existing at 30 Locust Street. Present and voting were chairman Robert C- Buscher, Dr. peter Laband, and William R. Brandt. The Findings wera as fo110wss 1. The existing Cooley-DiClcinsOn hospital ComPlex is because the height of the pre-existing, nonconforming building exceeds what is allowed in the URA District. 2 . The e�sistirg Cooley DSe kib�cauges hospit.acomplex ar is na� pre-ex'_sti allowed in tae orMiDg District. currently and (b7 of the Northa�mptOn Zoninq 3 . Sections 9.3 (a) structures Ordinance provide that pre--existing nonconforming and uses may be charged, extended or altered proov%t such there is a Finding by trio zoning Board of Appeals Chang extension or alteration shall not be substantially m«re detrimental to the neighborhood Haan the existing nonconforning E structure and use. r( 1990, at ' 4. This Public Hearing co�ncad an octaber 3 , which time mach testimony eras taken; ft was continued to it -Y36 October IS, 1990 w,i" additional testimony takeaagain Witt continued to and concluded tan October 24, leqAl,abutters whn substantial testimony being taken. The n sessions _ spoke at any of the Public Hearing only res dent al building He; zV-�* Drinker, who Live in th e Denniston Flare. The GQynment s*thate "The Drinkers Ue_ the course of the public Hearing neighborhood." Dr. Drinker test�it is."I Theo Drinnkkers concerns want the hospita� to get their p " were that far tae much parking V&s er ifl front t of their h metal project, and traffic could rocs to hospital visitors used Denniston Place as access or eg and from the parking 3ots. e' . r e 7 . .. `w a �_ .. .' :. r � .s .• II J L-27-1995 0" ------- Jb ,, r I T V OF N 0 R Ti H A M 41 � NG 60AP0 7 C CF APPEA - S AV N 0 RE: -DICKINSON HOSPITAL, INC. .c OR A FINDING T-f�T FQtjSS#r cF TAI: COOLEY To TILE HOSPITAL IS NOT %T THE PROPOSED ADDITION MORE I)MyMMrr.AL To THZ NEIGHBOR11:D10D THM T"iZ mol.rMONFORMING BVILDIN-G AND USE. xe , aws of t-he Commonwealtb 1-,t. to the Rrovi;sions of the. Caneral of Cliapter 40A, section 15, notice is here try given that -a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals Of t-tle Ci�Y at NorthamPton was filed in the office of the City Clerk on the ataovv cp-ktjTIMG the requested Finding. If Y:)u w' sh to zP�3ieal th.4.s action, ymir appeal must be fil I saparior Curt wjt�bjll 20 days of the date tt,�s decision was f J.n the Office of the 5or-thallptcn City C14rk. Buschar, :71jairm-a11 TOTH L F.02 JUL-227-1995 '0 9 t,j,�I�!Tr-�4��1 EtEF T FROM.- Cooley .Dickinson Hospital Northampton, AfA 01061 U)//v z Mv, Name L�AL4 ► MY Department FXC, k1 ZS ► My Far Number - (413) 582-2959 Date TO o. Your Name AX /V ► Your Organization 's 14Tame 9 -C c A ► Your Fax Number ► Total Pages Senthicliuling ,lease Confirm Reeei t By "l ii 413m%, 6,2-2313 _ -1'j'j .-. - FAXv FROM Cooley Dickinson Hospital ?4orthamptort, MA 01061 ► MY iVame— _ -__—_ EP.NEST M. MARGESON .may Department DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES --- _ ► ltfy Far Number - (413) 582-2959 P Date 7/28/95 TO • . Your Name Frank Sienkewicz - Attention: Linda io. Your, Organization 's Name_Bu.lding Inspector, City of Northamiton e Your Far Number :585--8912 �► Twal Pages ,Sent Including Cover—___ 30 If you have aa.7 questions, lease call Bunn at the telephone essay _ I _ �_: number below. ,'l ease Con .eve Receipt By 41.3-582-231'3 -UL D3 7 DFFT. Therefore, the Northampton Conservation Commission hereby finds that the following conditions are necessary, in accordance with the Performance standards set forth in the regulations, to protect those interest-3 checked above- The conservation commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with said conditions ons and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following ccnditlons modify or differ from the plans, specifications or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the ccnditions shall control. General Conditions i. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modi-fy this Order. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or Invasion of private rights. 3. This order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state or local statutes, ordinances, by-laws or regulations. 4. The work ai:.thorLzed hereunder shall be completed within three years from t*-e date of this Order unless either of the following apply: (a) the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for ir. t.W-_ Act; or (b) the time for completion has been extended to a specified date ciore than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance and both that date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth in this Order. S. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days pr-'or to the expiration date of the Orde7. 6. Anv fill used in connection wirb this project shall be cleat" fill., containing no-trash, refuse, r-4bbish or debris, 31 ncludLng but nor- limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing. The applicant is prohibited from using demolition materials, asphalt, large chunks of concrete, tree stumps and limbs, and general refuse; 7. No work shall he undertaken until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed or, if such an apps I has been filed, until all proceedings, before the Department have bpz?completed. S. No work shall be undertaken until the Final order has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. in the case of recorded land, the Final order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work Is to be done. In the case of registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. The recording information shall he proposed work is to be done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Commission on the form at the end of this order _prior to commencement of the work. The commission usually will record the order in the Registry of Deeds. It is the applicant's responsibility to insure the order is properly recorded. page 5-2 (rnemorex\wp\ccnscom\crder-cc) TOTAL F.04 t'i�ItJEINHt CE DEPT. T7 310CMR 10.99 DEP File No. 246- Dry (To be provided by DEP) Form 5 City/Town Northampton Applicant Coolpv of Rassachusetts Dickinson Kcsz�ital Co�nwealth Map # 2373/d_-6 k Nap # 24C/21 & 41 Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act G.L. c. 131, 540 and the Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance From Northampton Conservation Commission Issuing Authority To: Cooley_Dickinson Hosnitil Cooley Dickinson Bosoital Name of property owner Name of Applicant 30 Locust Street, Northampton 30 Locust Street, No_rt_h_amn_ton Address Address This Order is issued and delivered as fcllows: ( 1 by hand delivery to applicant or representative on `(date) [XXI by certified :nail, return receipt requested on Jul - 1995 (date) This project is located in Northampton at_30 Locxist Street The property is recorded at the Registry of Hampshire County Book 1799 Page 335 Certificate (if registered) N/A The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on 6 26 95 (date) The public hearing was closed on _July 10, 1995 (date) Findings: The Northampton Conservation Ccmmiss _cn as reviewed the above-referenced Notice of intent and plans and has held a public hearing yin the project. Based on the information available to the Conservation Commission at this time, the Commission has determined that the area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following interests in accordance with the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the Act (check as appropriate) : r ( Public water (Xj Flood Control s Land conta-,ninq shellfish ( ) Private water supply (XI Storm damage prevention ( j Fisheries [ ) Ground water supply [XI Prevention of pollution [ a Protection of Wildlife Habitat Total Filing Fee Submitted S 525.00 State Share §-_150.00 City Share X275.00 (1/2 fee in excess of $25) Total Refund Due S City Portion $ State Portion $ (1!2 total) (2/2 total) page 5-1 (memcrex\w-p\conscom\order.cc) JI_'L -19 i=D _= FP--J-1 D.H. f'l i?HTE AH 11-7E LEr T. T! , a7 1� FD.1l City of Northampton, A®aswchusLstts SAM Off= of Planning and Development City Hall a 210 Main Siren Nanhampton,MA Ci060• (413)SM-6'934 •Commodity and Fxonono c Devwopm w '� s •C"Servauca • Kstode Pr of F%nning Board a Zoning Sasrd of App •manhamPton Pamng Cor"isaiao September 27, 1990 Dr. Joseph Beaureg-ard• 'f,bairman Northampton Planni..aq Board City Sall, 210 Main street Northampton, MA 41060 Dear- Dr. Beattregard: At their meeting on September 24, 1990 the Northampton Conzervation comiasion voted to issue an Order of Conditions to the Cooley Dickinson Hospital for the %mrk described is their plans. The Commisaion included the following conditions: I. Before any other work occurs, t'ae applicant must complete the detention pond (but not including the fiaal gradiaq in the bottom of the pond and the placement of stone). 2. The pond must be built with a cou txvetion sad:.mentation pond, dug at least two feet deeper than the final pond grade. 3. After ocapletion of the detention pond and before any other work ours, the applicant must build the replacement wetland, maviag hydrie soil and plant material front the wetland which wi.11 be filled. A31 work must be r•- dcne is accotdaave with the watland segulatl= and IMP standards. 4. The contracttir stust inspect all exosion control Measures after each rain and repair as necessary. S. Catch b"ins must be cleaned out at toast- ance a year. 6. The permanent access raad to the detention pond toast have enough x,i l t y support grave. It must iacorporate watext4 s/ water dioez Lon dltc tes at the arena shown oa the plans as the 190 feet and 200 feet elevation.. 7_ All soil stockpiles mat be placed in flat are and bay bales mast be staked on their down-gradi.ent sides. 8. Grates Seeding and mulchistg and jute meah must be placed as all disturbed slopes steeper than 1 on 4 by December 1, 1994. Sincerely, ' ''� Wayne M. yeid*4 Suvirvrm ental P1 4usnex TOTAL P.23 ENMEMENUMOMW J '" CITY OF NORTHAWTON,MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 125 Locust Street Lit Northampton,MA 01060 413-582-15ro Samuel 6.Brindls, P.S. D1MVtar,City Epgoeer ... Peter J. McNulty, Sr. �,�. .��► AS -swt bb'B W of Public Works ii ' September 20, 1990 SEA r 1 � Dr. Joseph Beauresgard, Chairman Northampton Planning Board City Hall Northampton, MA {)1000 Re: Cooley Dickinson Hospital - Site Plan Review. Dear Dr. Beauregard: our co f ice has reviewed the plans and documents regarding the above referenced "Site Plan Review" appiication. we have the following comwnts: 1. Our department recommends that the Cooley Dickinson Hospital petition the City for the discontinuance of Dearuston Place. Said discontinuance will allow the applicant to (a) accomplish the proposed improvements and (b) maintain the roadways and utilities which serve the hospital exclusively. 2. The proposed addition will fall within the bits of the right-of-way which was retained by the City following the recent discontinuance of a portion of Denniston Place and Hospital Road. The successful discontinuance of Denniston Place as mentioned above will negate the City's need to retain said right-of-way and the hospital will be able to construct the proposed addition as shown- 3 . our records show that portions of the proposed parking lot located to the south of the Denuiston Place Extension will be built on land owned by the Smith Vocational School, 4. The proposed drop-off areas located in front of the •hospital entrances do not channel traffic flow efficiently. s. Erosion control measures should be installed at the outlet of the c,.ilvert to be constructed under the proposed Denniston Place Extension. understands the BPW's position on Denniston Place, and rakes a condition that the hospital must- address the issue of the propOSed Denniston Place out of the city layout." Mrs. Bale moved that the Public Hearing be closed. Mrs. Duseau seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. At 10:55 P. m. , Mrs. gale moved for site plan approval., subject to the DpW's concerns. Mrs. Duseau seconded. Further conditions were added: 1. Denniston Place be discontinued ink. 2. The existing right-of-way on the discontinued ,portion of Denniston Place be extinguished. 3. The hospital grant an easement to the City to use Nospital Road for a turnaround. 4. "Do Not Enter" signs be placed on Denniston Place at the intersecii.Qn of the parking lots to discourage traffic from exiting via Denniston to Route 9. 5. The concerns in the Sept. 20 DPW letter and the Sept. Conscom letter be conditions. G. No Building . Permit is to be issued until the right-of-way issue is cleared up and Denniston Place is legally discontinued. 7. Approval is subject to the agreement between the Drinkers and the Hospital. Ch. Heauragard went through the Section 10. 10 criteria hr d h found them to be met, and went through the Section 10.11(5) ( g criteria and found them to have been met- The vote on Mrs. Hale's motion to grant site approval was unanimous in favor. os�eph Beaux rd, Chair TCTHL F. 11 -71 L-26-1 1'=a'zic� kTmr Fi'OP^ C.D.H. ['iHICdTEhlald=E LiEPT. T'= '? '='1L P. 1tt Northampton Planning Board october 11, 1990 Meeting Page one The Northampton Planning Board met at 7.08 P. m, on Thursday, October 11, 1990, in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Pu.cha,lski Municipal Building, Northampton. Present were Ch. J. Beauregard, N. Duseau, J. Hale, W. Larkin, A. Crystal, D. Welter, J. Holeva, P. Kim and W. Feiden. COOLEY-E I CKINSON HOSPITAL, SITE PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING: Atty. Etheredge handed out a revised site plan landscape drawing showing 12 fewer parking spaces closest to Denniston Place. Craig Malin, hospital president, exp ai.nead the project, the reasons for doing the project, and the anticipated costs. Jerzy Brown, the landscape architect, reviewed traffic circulation and parking. There was an alzaost interminable discussion over the number of parking spaces relative to the number of beds in the hospital. The ordinance calls for 1.5 spaces far each bed "at design capacity,O and the total number of "beds" as defined by the Coxnonwealth is planned to be 211. The issue of the number of beds "at design capacity" was never fully resolved, but Mr. Etheredge insisted that "It meats the requirements of the ordinance. There is more than sufficient parking to satisfy de-sign capacity." It Was agreed that there are presently 589 parking spaces, with 821 proposed. Mr. Etheredge was asked to address the issues around Dr. and Mrs. Drinker, and their property on Denniatan Place. He told the Board that "the hospital and the Drinkers have been working on lessening the impact of this project on their property." He explained that the hospital is reducing the parking area by 12 spaGes�► will plant trees for a buffer, and will even put plantings on the Drinkers' property if they wish. "Denniston Place will be discontinued, the hospital will maintain it and give. the Drinkers an easement. The lamps in the parking lots will be different, and less intrusive to abutters." He concluded, mWe have, however, failed to reach an agreement with the Drinkers, so we propose to do all of the above, . discontinue Denniston place and post "Do Not Enter" signs. Atty. Mashburn, representing the Drinkers, told the Board, "If Z could have two minutes with 1-tr. Etheredge and Mr. Malin, my remarks would be. verb- short." A brief recess ensued, the Dr. Was shb rn .. returned saying, "We aw have an arrangement satisfied with. They now have no objections. These agreements will be formalised. Denniston Place will now be discontinued and we will put up "Do Not Enter" signs. Mr• Feiden tirade one last comment on the parking issue, concluding, "It 0e like there may be enough parking, but you have no way of evaluatinq. Ch. Heauregard read a Sept. 20 letter from the DPW, and a Sept. 27 letter from SFr. Feiden on behalf of the ConsCom. y-r. Etheredge added that he wrote: the DPW on sept. 27 addressing all their concerns] that he would like an answer tonight; "and if Kathy Fallon says we need a Finding on the height issue, we'll get it." Mr. Andrikidi.s made it clear that he wants "tai be sure the Board I _- C i.H. iH?PdTEhdHFU:_E DEPT. TCI NORTON PLA."ING BOARD DECISION THE COOLEY-DICKINSON XOFITAL, INC. SITE PLAN REVIEW PAGE TWO 4. The concerns of they Northampton Conservation COMMissiOz) as expressed in a letter dated September 27, 1990 from Wayne M. Feiden to Dr. Joseph Beauregard are to be satisfactorily dealt with by the Hospital. The cited letter is made a part of this decision and is attached hereto. f � r f s pb eaur ard; Chair Dane Walter Andrew Crystal ,Tv.Uth Hale Nancy a N Mendelson William J. Larkin �6 1' J s Holeva t j 3 4 � f °i �1 FrIJ D.H. f1HIflTEhJHhJt.E L?EF'i. TO E;_; ^1 F. DECISION OF NORTFIAMPTON ,FLA. TNG BOARD At a meeting held on October 11, 1990, the Planning Board of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to APPROVE the Site Plan submitted by The Cooley-Dickinson Hospital, Inc. under the Provisions of Section 10.11(3) (c) of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, for an addition of approximately 63,000 square feet to the existing hospital compl®x at 30 Locust Street, Northampton. Present and voting were chairman J. Beauregard, A. Crystal, N. Duseau, W. Larkin, D. Welter, J. Hale, and J. Holeva. The Findings are as follows: 1. The plan being approved is a nine-sheet plan entitled, "COOLEY DICKINSON HOSPITAL, 30 LOCUST STREET, NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS," prepared by Rothman Rothman Heineman Architects, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts, consisting of sheets entitled "L-1 R-evisiort 3 . t3ctob&r 10,,, 1990, L-•2, A-1, A-2, A-31 SU-1, SU-2, SE-1, and SE-2. " i 2. The Board finds that the requirements of Section i 10.11(4) (a) (b, 1 through 18) and (c) of the Northampton ` Zoning Ordinance have been net; the criteria of Suction 10.10 have been met; and the criteria of Section 10. 11(5) (A through < EF) have been met. lE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY: i 1. If Denniston Plane is discontinued in its entirety at some future date, or the city I s existing right-of-sway over the presently discontinued portion of Denniston Place is extinguished, the Hospital shall grant the City of Northampton an easement to construct, maintain and use a turnaround at the end of the City's layout of Hospital Road f nearest the hospital. 2. If Denniston Place is discontinued in its entirety, the ij Hospital shall petition the City Council to make the private Way, nenni.ston Place, one-way from Worth Elm street in the !► direction of the hospital. a 3. The concerns of the Department of Public Works as s I, expressed in a letter dated September, 20, 1990 from Samuel a. i '' Brindis, P. E. to Dr. Joseph Beauregard are to be ;i satisfactorily dealt with by the Hospital. The cited letter lE is made a part of this decision and is attached hereto. l: FP'OP1 _..D.H. fHH?h,TEHAHCE DEPT. TC P 858"1� P.07 Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 1990 Meeting RlFive increase. Parking is tight, but are 232 more spaces needed? Decrease that by 75 to 157. 1 think the Drinkers could live better with that, and the hospital can live with it. " Ch. Buscher added, "I can live with that." Mr. Brandt concurred. Dr. Laband stated "Let's sake it a condition that parking closest to the Drinkers be reduced by 75 spaces." Ch. Buscher requested, °Be More specific. Reduce by 75 spaces, taken from Lot "A" and the upper lot, but Specifically take out the eleven from the upper lot, plus the 75 in combination from the both lots. Take the spaces from where they most affect the Drinkers." Mr. Etheredge commented, "71 of the new spaces are in the upper lot. " Mr. Brandt suggested, "Cut 35 from the upper lot, plus the 11. I can't see digging up spaces in the "A" lot that are already there. " Dr. Laband opined, "Taking 35 from the upper lot is unreasonable. Take out one row of Lot "A" Closest to the Drinkers. Mr. Brandt strenuously objected to that suggest ion, calling it "immoral. It just adds cost to the project. "A" lot has been there fox years. " The Board memaers ultimately agreed that, in addition to the 13. 9PAcess the hospital already agreed to take out of the upper lot, 35 more be taken from the upper lot, from the point closest to Denniston Place. " Mr. Brandt moved that the two Findings be granted, subject to the conditions he stated earlier, and the removal of 35 more spaces from the 'upper lot. Dr. Laband seconded, and the action passed unanimously. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Paacucci, Board Secretary. Robert, C. Buscher, chairman T4 1L- -199- F19: FF7=11 i =.11.H. MR I W EHAH E DEFT. T IJ F.t Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 1990 Meeting Page Four hospital, were it not adding this addition, could put in as Bauch parking as they wanted until they reached the Zoning ordinance limit on open space. on the other hand, in seeking a Finding, 'substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood' is the standard. I think it is within the purview of this Board to regulate parking with an eye to the neighbors. 'is the parking more detrimental to the Drinkersi' Tt seems to me that it is. Applicant states they are lunderspaced' now, and also states that the addition will generate only 11 more trips per day. Applicant states there is a movement toward outpatient activity, which means traffic generation. I think there are too many parking spaces now- -507 is 1 1/2 timers what the Ordinance requires. 734 will be 110 more than the Ordinance requires. T think they need 624, but not 734. I'm not averse to what the hospital is doing, but I want CDH to cut down their propcsed parking by 110 spaces." Mr. Brandt said, "I object. They aren't adding parking for the fun of it. They are adding what they think they need. Usually people before us try to skate by with not enough parking." Messrs. Brandt and Buscher then engaged in a colloquy over the number of spaces, and Dr. Laband injected, "I tend to agree with Bob. Get parking above the legal maximum, but not as much as they are requesting. The impact on the Drinkers is enormous. Possibly by reducing the parking somewhat, we can alleviate the effect on the Drinkers, and the project can still go ahead." Ch. Buscher reminded all that "CDR has the affirmative duty of proving they need more parking." Arr. Brandt suggested that "we add the test of common sense. I can never find a parking place when I go to the Hospital. " ch. suscher countered, "I can always find a parking space. Cutting 110 is not unreasonable. 211 beds = 325 spaces. They're 200 over now. They're adding space, but not beds, and they want 200 more spaces." Dr. Laband commented, "These are two issues--the Zoning ordinance parking °requirements, and the rem parking requirements. The Zoning formula might not take into consideration the special needs of the hospital. I wouldn't cut 110, but could an extra buffer zone around the Drinkers help? Can we compromis+a at reducing the number of spaces by 75" Ch. Buscher replied in the affirmative. Mr. Brandt objected, "we're being shortsighted." Ch. 8uscher tried to get a handle on the various parking space numbers being pest on the table. ~They propose 734 total spaces after you take out the 11. 624 is the number the ordinance ' requires. 211 beds now, plus 56 more as the 'design capacity' of the addition —267, x 1.5 = 400 spaces. 624 was wrong. 400 is the Zoning Ordinance requirement--they have 589 and want to go to 734. [to Mr. Melin} I keep getting evasive answers. How many beds would 'design capacity' be? I newer got an answer." Mr. Stheredge replied, "589 is the total spaces now on the entire campus. The plan is 821 total spaces. Dr. Laband offered, "That's a 232 C19: r :9 FR=P1 E .H. rl1�IHTEHAHC-E DEFT. TO 95F315,8__512 r Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 1990 Meeting Pgae ree down the tube. Buying out the Drinkers seems like a logical. solution. It seems ludicrous that CDH and the Drinkers can't reach a buyout agreement, when $2.1 million rides on one day. I'd ask you to take a recess and try to agree, or we close the Dearing and take it under advisement. " Mr. Brandt countered, "That's inappropriate. Let's close the Public Hearing and make a decision. Let's do iti " Dr. Laband replied, "I'm not ready to decide tonight. ' The proposed office building is in the works. It's not a place where I'd want to live. If they can't get together, we'll make the decision. " Ch. Buscher injected, "I feel that I would not be averse to giving them five minutes to try to agree, but I want to make a decision tonight. It's absurd to string people along." Mr. Brandt agreed, saying, "It's our job to make the decision." Ch. Buschor added, "They've had plenty of time to reach an agreement. " Mr. Washburn declined the offer of a shirt recess, commenting, "The Drinkers want a decision." Dr. Laband Suoved that the Public Hearing be closed. Mr. Brandt seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Brandt opened by saying, "For this Soard to allow this project, we must find that the planned addition to the hospital, which is a pre-existing nonconforming use and structure, will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing hospital. In my opinion, many red herrings have been introduced--a secret agreement and a proposed office building. I am in strong support of the project. CDH has done yeoman work trying to satisfy the Drinkers. I'm in support of the increased parking and reorganization of the lots. CDH has acted responsibly to the Drinkers' concerns--they've moved back the parking lot, will .2lant trees, etc. The hospital can, by right, increase parking- If Denniston Place is discontinued, the Drinkers must have easements, and there must be 'Do Not Enter sick• The new taddition has a positive effect. I'll vote in favor, but I'll �. ` accept the Planning Board's recommendations, except the one about discontinuing Denniston Place in tato, holding up on the Building Permit--that's not fair, and there should be no condition about the . Drinkers' agreement with the hospital. I'll accept all the other . Kanning Board conditions." Dr. Laband said, "I too will vote for the two Findings. We need conditions in addition to Bill's. 1) No agreement should ever deprive the Drinkers of their right to speak out on the future building. 2) consC<m and DPw conditions should be part of our Finding. 3) Sicps. 4) Screening. S) Denniston Place remains a city street from North Elm to where Parking Lot "A" begins. " Ch. Buscher added, 'Z agree with Bill [Brandt] in a couple Of regards--there were issues raised that were not relevant to these Findings_ Certainly the medical office building has nothing to do with this project. Mr. Etheredge implies, and I inferred that the C.D.H. t$1 I NTEH ANI_.E DEFT. Ti=! 9 C1C .51 P.04 Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 1990 Meeting Page One The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 5:05 p. m. on Wednesday, October 24, 1990 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski. Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, to continue the Public Hearing on the Application of The Cooley- Dickinson Hospital, Inc. for a Finding that the proposed addition to their facility at 30 Locust Street will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing hospital. campus. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and William A. Brandt. Ch. Buscher opened the hearing by noting that prior public hearings had been held on Cctober 3 and 15. Dr. Laband noted, for the record, receipt of three items of correspondence, from Messrs. Melin, Washburn and Drinker. Atty. Etheredge, representing the Applicant, told the Board that Dr. John Parsons, suzgeon and Trustee of CDH, and Dr. Ellen Kaufman on the OB-GYN staff, wished to address the Board. Dr. Xaufzan said she was speaking without knowledge of the parking issue. She went on, "As an obstetrician, our OR facility is terribly outdated. People receive excellent care, but the facility is unattractive and depressing. People shop for maternity care, and are turned off by CDH's old, drab facility. Providence and Franklin have new maternity facilities. It's difficult to recruit new physicians with our facilities. I do think it's imperative to quickly get a new maternity unit. " Dr. Parsons added, "I'm in favor of the entire project, fngudinar parking. In the last 18 years, CDR has grown and has attracted well-qualified physicians. in order for CDR to continue to grow, this addition has to go on. To say we don't have a parking issue at the hospital is to say you haven't seen the hospital lately. Fire trucks probably couldn't get close enough to the hospital to fight a tire. " Mr. Etheredge gave the Board six photographs taken on October 18th, showing cars parked in all the fire lanes, with Parking Lot A completely filled. He went on, "As to the urgency of getting this project underway, I have the VP of Finance for the Hospital here, who will toll you that if this project is completed and occupied by Sept. 30, 1992, versus one day later, October 1, 1992, it means a difference of $2.1 million to the hospital in reimbursements. Finally, swerve applied for two Findings, because we are a pre- ' existing nonconforming use and structure. The expansion is not substantially more detrimental. The use and height are not objected to by Dr. and Ides. Drinker. Their concern, as I understand it, is that the hospital wants more parking nok than it needs, to avoid an issue if and when a new medical offices building becomes a reality. €10 we need this much parking, or ore? I can't answer that definitively. This Board is to deta=ine if the _TT_iL.- -1' 95 09: It, FFICIM _.1).H. MP 111TEHP[A_E DEFT. [I 95EII 161 J I F.07-, Northampton Zoning board of Appeals October 241 1990 Meeting Page Two proposed parking is adequate and reasonable for the hospital today. The Drinkers feel if there are more spaces, it facilitates this medical office building. But for the Finding, the hospital could have built all the parking they wanted. 2s this enough parking? Too such? The landscape architect and the hospital people say the proposed parking is needed now. We can't build a new office building , without permits from you. Denniston Place can't be discontinued without the drinkers' approval. I ask for your approval of the two Findings." Dr. Laband commented, "we're back to the same old sticking point. 'Impact on the neighborhood' means impact on the Drinkers. Let's hear from Mr. Washburn. " Mr. Washburn said, K11m. not going to rehash all this, but Henry {Dr. Drinker] wants to speak. " Dr. Drinker addressed the Board, "I've sat here for a month now with many conflicting feelings--a real conflict of interest. Ky house on Denniston place has never been occupied by anyone but a loyal member of the CDH staff. This project " necessary. Ky issue has nothing to do with my role as a staff member. I'm here as a homea*ner. My issues relate back to two and a half years ago when T made overtures to prior hospital management to discuss expansion issues. I have asked the present administration to discuss them, and no one wanted to until a week before this hearing began. I wonder why, in a project that has taken two and a half ears to develop, why do I feel there's a gun to my head? My wife and i feel the same way. why are we at this point? Why didn't the hospital come to the Drinkers as abutters long ago? There are parking issues, the discontinuance of Denniston Place. why did the plans have no indication that an abutter exi.stsd? Why did this hospital administration wait until the to bring g this up? Why is Parking Lot "A" only half-filled the majority of the time? we don't increase convenience to physicians by doubling the size of Lot "A" . Why an additional 250 parking spaces, when they sa there will be only an additional 10-11 trips per day? Why eliminate all that green space? Because it's a lot easier to get parking for the medical office building D+, than later. I'm not convinced we need 250 more parking spaces now. Mr. Melin is not cutting his teeth here in Northampton. The answers to these questions are left to you. My stand is: I favor the project and want Malin to get his permits, but I see no reason to convert 90% of what's green around the hospital to parking spaces.* The Chair asked lair. Etheredge if he wished to respond, and he replied, "Y have no response." Dr. Laband commented, "The Drinkers and Melin refer to an agreement for COH to purchase Drinker's house. The hospital must grow or go =, r Cif1 _.L'.H. f'4HIhaTEhdHha:_E DEFT. �0 ?c;3SFi^12 F.3= Noamlaton zonfn Soard of ApAeals Dctober 115 . ,,l V im Page Three progeny is their problem. With the entrance by McCallum ncwf people don't really use Denniston Place." Dr.' Laband asked, "if there were no 'future building site' on the plan, would the proposed screening plans be acceptable? It seems to me your client is signing array a lot. I want y,Qu_ to hammer out an answer. I was surprised wren Ed said you didn't have an agreement. we can't make it for you. " Mr. Brandt asked, "You don't want Denniston Place discontinued?" Mr. Washburn replied, "Probably not---no--keep it a public way. ' Mr. Brandt commented, "Etheredge said if you don't want it discontinued, then the BPw won't discontinue it.° Mr. Washburn reiterated, "We were hoping to get an agreement where we would have no objection. Parking and traff is are the issues, not the project itself. We are here trying to lessen the impact to the extent that we can, " Mr. Brandt continued, "In a perfect world, how would you decide this?" Mrs. Drinker responded, "We object to the size of the parking lot--it is being done now for a future building, so they don't have to ask for it later. Parking is too big at this time. We want to have some say over the discontinuance of Denniston Place." Mr. Washburn added, n1f they agree to discontinue Denniston Place, then the hospital 'owns the street, ' and can do what they want. " Mr. Itheredge commented, "There has to be an exit on Denniston Place for emergency purposes. The main entrance will be signalized. The hospital believes that the parking shown on the plans is more than we now need, but some of that lot will be used over the next two y ears for staging, s le out project,of we'll be back here." Dr. Laband suggested, "Suppose we the agreement an agreement not to object to future buildings?" Ch. Buscher co=ented, "This is one of those 'but for' situations. But for the .fact they are putting up an addition, they could make the lot as big as they want by right." Dr. Laband said, "We are not going to resolve this here. We thought this would be a short meeting." Mr. Brandt added, "The Drinkers' concern is the future building. The Drinkers Will have a forum then." Dr. Laband concluded, "Either we run roughshod over the hospital, or the Drinkers. I don't think ve can write conditions tonight. It,& too sticky. We need an hour or two more. I move are continue the public Hearing." ch. Buscher added, "I agree with Peter. I don't object to making the hard decision that's needed. if they can't reach an agreement, we'll make the decision. I'm not convinced that all that parking is needed now." Dr. Laband moved that the Public Hearing be continued to 5:00 P. M. on Wednesday, October 24th in this room. Mr. Brandt seconded, and the motion passed unanimouslY• - : aTEfJ � r.� � i�H HT L- Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals October 15, 1990 Meeting Pages Two 6. "Traffic on Denniston Place. The hospital will propose to discontinue Denniston Place in its entirety, with easements to the Drinkers. 'Do Not Enter' signs will be placed to keep cars from exiting via Dennistan to Route 9." Dr. Laband questioned the Denniston Place discontinuance. Mr. Ftheredge said that "if the Drinkers don't want Denniston Place discontinued, we will discontinue only that portion on hospital property. " Atty. Timothy Washburn, representing the Drinkers, told the Board, "When we met With the Planning Board, me, Ed, Melin and my clients had discussions and reached what everybody thought was a satisfactory arrangement. After sleeping on it, the Drinkers decided they were not happy. There are issues around a proposed medical office building to be built an the 'Future Building Site.' shown on the drawing. The agreement the hospital wanted included the Drinkers foregoing any objections to this future building. The Drinkers' house " the neighborhood. The Drinkers favor this project, but have traffic and parking ccnee:rns. Ky clients feel this parking lot is being expanded to serve the potential building. The Drinkers do not lake Dennistan Place access to the parking lot closest to the hospital, and now there will be incxeas*d traffic from North Elm down Dennistan to the new parking lot. ingress to the parking lot and traffic/expanded parking are the Drinkers' main concerns. We tried very hard to work something out, but last week's agreement prevented the Drinkers from objecting to the future building. The Drinkers feel that the substantial traffic impact is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood." Mr. Brandt asked, "Wouldn't the new building require perm.i.ssloan from us?" Mx. Washburn replied, 'Yes. " Ch. Buscher asked "is 'Parking Lot A' there now?" Mr. Washburn replied,- "Yes, but only about half as big." Ch. Buscher inquired, "Does the upper lot DMj connect to Dennistan Place?" Mr. Etheredge replied, KYes it does now connect to Dennistan Place on the discontinued portion near the McCallum Building. All we are doing is moving the exit." Mr. Washburn continued, "The discontinuance of Denniston Place-- that has an invact on their home. we are exploring what that means to them. ThiLs proposed addition and the possible new medical building can not he separated in my clients' minds. The hospital has tried to be cooperative, but the Drinkers feel the traffic increase will be substantially more detrimental. I have seen no data to support the claim of 'only eleven more daily trips. '" Mr. Brandt inquired of Mr. Washburn, "If the upper parking lot had no connection to Denniston Place, would that be the Drinkers' preference?" Mr. Washburn replied, "The entrance so near their MW 90"d 7Hio, Edward D. Ether,cige ,AW 64 Gt-,r;-C.STT 13 584-10�)C, July 261 Susan MOns-lud Cooley Dickinson Hospital 30 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 Re: Northampton Conservation Order of Conditions Comnission, Cooley Dickinson Hospital, Early Site Work Dear Susan: I enclose a copy Of the Northampton Conservation Co Order of The appeal mm Condition, issued by Period will ex-Vire'ssiOn and entered on a certified copy of July 24, 19 ' 95 . the o on August 41 1993 and I Will obtain not recorded Order from the CitY Clar Order in by the Conservation k on that day. If the Ham Y., Commission, with the recordina Shire County Registry I -4ill record the conditions and you information so that, Of a eeds and provide y., U may begin work. the PPlicant may s4gn the If You have any question., please give me a call . Ve r-Y .truly yours, , EDE/kap the edge Enc. cc: Paul Davis, Ph.D. Ernest Margeson T 1 J L -1'=?- t_9 FF'i] t, =.U.H, f'iHIhJTEhlHhl:_E LiErT. TLI I t=1� Issued By Northampton Conservation-Commission signat:i s: I J 4 1 This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. On this 4..1 day of � 1995, before me personally appeared �� Jr !� _�lY�'!n� to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and deed. � rI i ctary Public 1 �,' �� My commission expires The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this order, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the City or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the Department of Environmental Protection to issue a Superseding order, providing the request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7), within ten days from the date of issuance of this determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and the applicant. Detach on dotted line and submit to the Northampton conservation Commission prior to commencement of work. PLEASE NOTE---THIS IS NOT REQUIRED IF THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY RECORDED THE ORDER, AS IS THEIR USUAL PRACTICE, UNLESS LAND IS REGISTERED IN LAND COURT. To Northampton Conservation Commission: Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the protect at 30 Locust Street File Number 246-,3JO has been recorded at the Registry of Hampshire County and has been rioted in the chain of title of the affected property in accordance w vh General Condition 8 on 19 If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is if registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is Signature "� �. Applicant page 5-6 (memorex\wp\conscom\crder.cc) FF'Lt'1 D.H. P^H?h TE^dHhli_E DEFT. TO F.E14 Y 26. An "AS Built" plan shall be submitted upon completion of the project. 26. When final revisions have been made to the drainage plans, a plan and report shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission for review and approval prior to the beginning of construction. 27. Drainage shall be sheet flow for 23 car parking lot. If feasible, drainage into the detention basin. If it is not feasible to include run- ff in detention area, then the applicant must document why it is nct feasible and submit information to the Conservation Commission for review. page 5-5 (memorex\wp\conscom\order.cc) ErIE B'i F.C1TIIL- =-1 q'a� _^ FF'O'1 L .H. t 1HI fTEl hdC:E LEFT. J ' Y 17. Areas of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. Erosion controls shall be inspected at this time, and maintained or reinforced to meet specifications in the plans and this order; 1S. All construction areas shall be restored to original condition or better upon completion of the project, including replanting of vegetation; 19. The Commission and its agents shall have the right to enter and inspect the property at any time for compliance with the conditions of this Order, the Act, and Wetlands Protection Regulations: 310 CMR 10.00 and Chapter 24 of the Citv's Ordinances: "The Wetlands Protection Ordinance" . They shall have the right to request and receive any data or documentation that is deemed necessary for evaluation of compliance. 20. This order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control; 21. The contractor is 'as responsible as the applicant and property owner for any violations of the Orders of Condition and penalties under -the law, while all activities regulated by this Order are being performed. A copy of this order and associated plans shall remain on site during all construction anal/or building activities. The project manager and all equi pment operators shall be familiar with the approved plans, and shall be informed of their location on the site. This location shall be accessible to all contractors whenever work is occuring on site. A copy of the plans and Order must always be on-site and in all excavating machinery when work is being performed; 22. 11 required permits must be obtained from the Planning Board, Zoning Board, Department of Pub14C Works, and Building inspector prior to the start of projects involving fill within any wetland resource area; 23. The owner of the property described in this Order. must advise any potential buyer of the property that any construction or alteration to said property, including brush cutting or clearance, may require action by the Northampton Conservation Commission. Any instrument conveying any or a'-' of the owners' interest in said property or any portion thereof, shad contain similar language as follows: "This property may be subject to the Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Wetlands Protection Act, an order of Conditions, and/or a Determination of Applicability from the Northampton Conservation -_ Commission"; 24. Upon completion of the project, the Applicant ►all submit a statement , that all work has been done in conformance with the provisions of the order of Conditions and request a Certificate of Compliance. If checked: 25. Certification shall be by a Professional Engineer. If checked: [XY.I YES page 5-4 (memorex\wp\conscom\crder..cc) JUL -=-1='? t' +:t=�r rF'C!P'' C.I .H. P1�IhJTEtJHhI:_E DEFT. T1 Zsue! 1_ P,F1 9. A sign shall be displayed at the site -not less than two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the works, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, File Number 246- Wl . 0. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to make a determination and to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before the Department. _�. Upon completion, of the work described herein, the applicant shall forthwith request in writing that a Certificate of Compliance be issued stating that the work has been satisfactorily completed. 12. The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions: PLANS TITLE DATED SIGNED & STAMPED BY: Figure 1 USGS Locus Mao Figure 2 Soils Survey Mao, Hampshire county Figure 3 Existing & Proposed Conditions within 100' buffe- zone to wetlands _Resources - June 1995 Exhibit 1 Existing Conditions - 5/!0/95 Exhibit 2 Project 2000-- Site Work - 6/6/95 Table 11 Vegetative Inventor All Plans on File with Northampton Conservation Commission Special conditions: 13. The applicant shall notify the Commission, in writing, as to the date that the work will be commencing on the project. Said notification must be received by the commission no sooner than (10) days and no later than. five (5) days prior to the commencement of the .approved activity; 14. No area within the 100 year floodplain, any wetland, or area within 100 feet of a wetland or 40 feet of a 100 year floodplain, as defined in 310 CMR 10, and City of Northampton_ Ordinances - Chapter 24, shall be permissible disposal sites, unless such areas are specifically approved by the Commission; 15. Excavated material and topsoil stockpiles shall be located and stabilized so as to minimize washing into wetland area or waterways; 16. Adequate measures shall be taken to prevent erosion and siltation_ of all disturbed areas, and shall be implemented prior to any construction. . Sedimentation and erosion control devices shall be placed according to standards set in U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, "Guidelines for Soil and Water Conservation in Urbanized Areas of Massachusetts". Placement of sedimentation and erosion control shall be directed at the site by the project engineer in order to accomplish maximum control of erosion to ensure that no eroded materials will enter wetland resource areas. Fray bales must be staked. Silt fencing must be installed in a dug trench with sufficient Porosity to allow detained water to pass through while trapping suspended sediments; %alE' S-3 i,lre?iCrex�wt\^_tZn3cr�m\cr3a. rr \ r _' ! L'.i-. :HIIi,t,;Hr!_t Ltl`'I _,_. _ 4_ll Xorth&mpton Zoning Board of Appeals October 15, 1990 Meeting Page one The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 5:45 p. m. for a meeting scheduled for 5:0o p. m. on October 15, 1990 in Council. Chambers, Wa2wace J. Pucbalski Municipal Building, Northampton, to continue the Public Hearing on the Application of The Cooley_ Dickinscn HosP4tal, Inc. for a Finding under the Provisions of Section 9.3{b} of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance that the caristruction of a 55,000 square foot addition to the existire, ftQsPital will not be substantially more detrimental to the- neighborhood than the hospital as it exists today_ Pr"ent and vOt-Ing were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, William Brandt, and Dr. Peter Laband. Dr. Laband moved that the minutes of the October 3, 1990 meeting be approved without reading. Mr. Brandt seconded, and the motion Passed Unanimously. Atty. Edward Etheredge appeared for the hospital, and said he wanted to cover the issues raised at the last meeting: 1. "This project is enormously Important to the hospital. The facility roust be upgraded to survive. 2. "The height of the new facility. The City Solicitor says a Finding is required because the current structure is nonconfo-, aing because it is hig-Ier than is allowed in UPS. He asked the Board to allow hint to modify his Application to include a request for a Finding under section 9. 3 (a) as well as (b) , and said his research says that the legal notice as publisbed is adequate to include tb,s addition. 3. "Parking and 'design capacity. ' The Ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces for every bed 'at design capacity. , We had a M=21 more detailed discussion at the Planning board. Presently the hospital has 211 licansed beds, No new beds are being created by this addition. There are 17 beds in CB-G)rti now. After, the addition, there will be 13 private rooms and two doubles, for a total of 17. `Design capacity' would allow 55 more beds thaq the 211, for a total of 277, times 1.5 equals 415 spaces required. 821 are proposed. 4. "Dr, Laband raised the issue of Site Plan Review and the Drinkers' concerns. We reduced the parking lot by 12 spaces, will have screening plantings, deciduous trees and low pines, and will Plant them at the edge of the parking lot, not the edge of the road. We have also agreed to provide plantings on the Drinkers; property, in reasonable quantities, as they wish. 5. "The parking lots will have lower .Lights, non-diffuse, "footprint" type lights, which will be Drinkers' home. less visible from the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAMPSHIRE, SS . A .�...L�r=-o?G , 1990 L�� Then personally appeared the above-named �AVi� �• /�}�Sgn/T JR', and declared the foregoing instrument to be tti-)y free act and deed. Notary Publi My Commission Expires: dr/jJ/V COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS s'quvai'y 3 19 q/ HAMPSHIRE, SS . NQ +--fie Then personally appeared the above-named 6016 !1/ REzI ✓ and declared the foregoing instrument to be hi,17 free act and deed. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Mqy' Z, /99/ ti 2 r . � 0 � LICENSE AGREEMENT License and right of entry agreement, made the 30th day of November, 1990 , 'between the City of Northampton, Grantor , and the Cooley Dickinson Hospital, Inc. , Grantee in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth 'herein. WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of an estate in fee simple of a parcel of land described as "Parcel B" consisting of 2 .903 acres adjoining Hospital Road in Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, as marked on the plan annexed hereto; and WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of a parcel of real estate described as "Parcel E" consisting of 5 .371 acres on Elm Street in Northampton, as marked on the plan annexed hereto; and WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee have agreed to "swap" certain lands including portions of "Parcel B" and "Parcel E" and are awaiting final survey plans and approval of the Hampshire County Probate Court; and WHEREAS, Grantee has given Grantor a Lease for the use of portions of Parcel E and Grantee now requires the right to use and occupy portions of Parcel B for the expansion of its parking areas; now THEREFORE, Grantor hereby grants to the Grantor, its heirs and assigns , for a period of one year: Full and free license and liberty for Grantee, its tenants , servants , vistors and licensees , in common with all others , the right with or without vehicles of any description, for all purposes connected with the use of Parcel B for a parking lot and roadway and all such other use and enjoyment of said land. In witness whereof , the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written. r Dated: By: / I Grantor y City of Northampton , Dated: X0,q,ey 3, /mil By _ G ante Coole Dickinson Hospital, Inc .