31B-159 101 King St Appeal of DecisionLaw Offices Of John J, Egan Senior Counsel
Theodore C. Brown William C. Flanagan'
Egan,. Flanagan and Cohen, P.C. Edward J. McDonough Jr. Mary E. Boland
Thomas J. Donoghue
May 17, 2011
By Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
City of Northampton
c/o Clerk's Office
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
RE: Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield
v. City of Northampton Planning Board, et als
Hampshire Superior Court — Civil Action No. 2011-0085
Dear Clerk:
CD- C,E���� 11
t�
M AY 1 9 2011
CITY CLERICS OFFICE
NORTHAMPTON, N/IA 01060
Enclosed please find a Summons and Complaint tendered pursuant to Rule 4(d)(5) of the
Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the above referenced matter.
Very truly yours,
Maurice M. Cahillane
/j or
Enclosures
0417-110336\218715
Maurice M. Cahillane
67 Market Street
Robert L. Quinn
Of Counsel
Joseph Pacella*
David G. Cohen
P.O. Box 9035
Joseph M M: Pacella
Stephen E. Spelman"Springfield,
Massachusetts 01102-9035
Paula C. Tredeau°
James F. Egan
Katharine Pacella Costello
(1896-1986)
Kevin D. Withers
Edward T. Collins
Phone: (413) 737-0260 • Telefax: (413) 737-0121
Richard J. Kos
Chaarlesrses S.. Cohen
Chicopee Office: (413) 594-2114 by appointment only
Joan F. McDonough
(1-931 -2004)
Web site: www.efclaw.com
Katherine A. Day"
Thomas E, Day
Also admitted in CT
'Also admitted in DC
'Also admitted in FL
°Also admitted in TX
'Also admitted in NY
May 17, 2011
By Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
City of Northampton
c/o Clerk's Office
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
RE: Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield
v. City of Northampton Planning Board, et als
Hampshire Superior Court — Civil Action No. 2011-0085
Dear Clerk:
CD- C,E���� 11
t�
M AY 1 9 2011
CITY CLERICS OFFICE
NORTHAMPTON, N/IA 01060
Enclosed please find a Summons and Complaint tendered pursuant to Rule 4(d)(5) of the
Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the above referenced matter.
Very truly yours,
Maurice M. Cahillane
/j or
Enclosures
0417-110336\218715
0
0
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE, SS.
Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield
a Corporation Sole
,Plaintiff (s)
V.
The City of Northampton Planning Board, Stephen
Gilson, Debin Bruce, Andrew Weir, Katharine Baker,
Francis Johnson, and Mark Sullivan as they'are
members of the City of Northampton Planning Board
and the City of Northampton
Defendant (s)
1 ,.
Superior Court Department of the
Trial Court of the Commonwealth
Civil -Action
No. 2.011 0085 f
SUMMONS
! r !
MAY 1 9 2011 I
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
N0FIT HA1\ rTON: I,_LC_ 1`JC0
To the above-named Defendant City .o.f . Northampton._
Maurice M; Cahillane
You are hereby.summoned and required to serve upon ,
plaintiff `5 attorney, whose address is P.O. Box 9035, Springfield, MA 01102-90:35
an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of
this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by
default will be taken against you for .the relief demanded in the complaint.. You are also
required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Clerk of this court. at
Northampton, either before service upon plaintiff's attorney or within a reasonable time
thereafter.
Unless otherwise provided. by Rule 13(a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any
claim which you may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transactioli or occurrence.
that is the subjectmatter of the plaintiff claim -or you will thereafter be barred from making such..
claim in any other action.
Witness, Barbara J. Rouse, Esquire at Northampton, the S even t e en th-
day of May. , in the year of our Lord two thousand E 1 even.
CLERK -MAGISTRATE
NOTES:
1. This. summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. When•more,than one defendant is involved, the names of all defendants should appear in the.caption_
If a separate summons is used for each,defendant, each should be addressed to the particular defendant.
3. Circle type of action involved. Tort — Motor Vehicle Tort — Contract — Equitable relief.
HAMPSHIRE, ss
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS f
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO.
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
SPRINGFIELD, a Corporation Sole
Plaintiff
W"
THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING
BOARD, STEPHEN GILSON, DEBIN BRUCE,
ANDREW WEIR, KATHARINE BAKER,
FRANCIS JOHNSON and MARK SULLIVAN,
as they are members of the City of Northampton
Planning Board and THE CITY OF
NORTHAMPTON,
Defendants
NOTICE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO C. 40 X17
Please be advised that, pursuant to c. 40 § 17, this document shall serve as notice to all
defendants that the above entitled action was filed in the Hampshire County Superior Court on
May 16, 2011, as set forth in the attached complaint.
May 16, 2011
0417-110336\218597
r
The Plaintiff, Roman Catholic Bishop
Of Springfield
Maurice M. Cahillane, Esq.
EGAN, FLANAGAN and COHEN, P.C.
67 Market St., P.O. Box 9035
Springfield, MA 01102
Phone: (413) 737-0260;
Fax: (413) 737-0121.
BBO# 069660
=c(@eganflanagan.com
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE, ss
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
SPRINGFIELD, a Corporation Sole
Plaintiff
V.
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO.
THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING
BOARD, STEPHEN GILSON, DEBIN BRUCE,
ANDREW WEIR, KATHARINE BAKER,
FRANCIS JOHNSON and MARK SULLIVAN,
as they are members of the City of Northampton
Planning Board and THE CITY OF
NORTHAMPTON,
Defendants
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal of conditions attached to a permit and site plan approval by the City of
Northampton. The plaintiff brings this action under G.L.c. 40A, § 17, 42 U.S.C. §2000cc, et.
seq., and under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and The
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
PARTIES .
1. The plaintiff, The Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, a corporation sole ("RCB"), is
a non-profit corporation established under Acts 1898 Ch. 368. RCB is the owner of
property located at 99 King Street, Northampton, Hampshire County.
2. The defendant, City of Northampton, is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts located at 210 Main Street, Northampton, Hampshire County.
3. The defendant, City of Northampton Planning Board ("NPB"), is the permit granting
authority regarding the property in question located at 210 Main Street, Northampton,
Hampshire County.
4. The defendant, Stephen Gilson, is an individual residing at 29 Pomeroy Terrace,
Northampton, Hampshire County, and a member of the NPB.
5. The defendant, Katharine Baker, is an individual residing at 11 Kensington Avenue,
Northampton, Hampshire County, and a member of the NPB.
6. The defendant, Debin Bruce, is an individual residing at 46 Columbus Avenue,
Northampton, Hampshire County, and a member of the NPB.
7. The defendant, Francis Johnson, is an individual residing at 669 Westhampton Road,
Florence, Hampshire County, and a member of the NPB.
8. The defendant, Mark Sullivan, is an individual residing at 83 Maynard Road, Hampshire
County, and a member of the NPB.
9. The defendant, Andrew Weir, is an individual residing at 23 School Street, Northampton,
Hampshire County, and a member of the NPB.
FACTS
10. " RCB filed petitions with the City and the Planning Board for the demolition of three
buildings and the creation of a new building, a parish center on its property on King
Street, Northampton. The property is part of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish. The
property is on two different districts under -the Northampton Zoning ordinance.
Accordingly, the first petition (PLN -2011-0001) sought demolition of a building and the
second petition (PLN -2011-0007) sought demolition of two buildings and the
construction of a new parish center.
11. Both petitions were approved with conditions. (Exhs. 1 and 2). Even without the
conditions, the project complies with the requirements of the Northampton Zoning
Ordinance.
12. Among the conditions were the following ordered pursuant to zoning ordinance § 350-
11.6(B)(2):
6. In order to provide separated, safe non -vehicular
access for parishioners to this site, a 6' wide
bituminous connection from the parking lot to the
rail trail shall be installed. Construction materials
and specifications shall be in accordance with
Office of Planning & Development standards for
rail trail construction. The connection shall be made
either on the applicant's property or, at the property
owner's choice, on abutting property prior to
completion of any portion of the parking lot.
7. Approval of the layout of the parking lot and the
two curb cuts is contingent on the rail trail access
being provided. At the applicant's choice, if they
.find the rail trail connection impossible, they can.
2
request an amended approval from the Planning
Board showing no rail trail connection but instead
showing only one curb cut and improved pedestrian
and bicycle connection on the site.
8. These approved plans include a traffic waiver
based on limited weekday use of the new building.
If the days of the week in which the building is used
changes to functions that occur during the PM peak
periods Monday through Friday (for at least 50% of
the functions), traffic mitigation will be required in
accordance with the increase in peak trips generated
as described in the zoning.
13. Upon information and belief, the rail frail is a bike trail on property owned by the City of
Northampton and the cited conditions would require the RCB to construct an exit ramp
that starts on the City's property -and continues onto RCB property. The exit ramp
extending onto the RCB property constitutes a taking of property by the City from the
RCB.
14. No procedures for the taking of property have been followed by the City and no
compensation has been or is proposed to be paid to the RCB for the taking.
15. The conditions cited create a substantial burden on the RCB by requiring additional cost
to the project and creating unsafe conditions on the property.
16. The RCB and St. Elizabeth Ann Seton are religious institutions and the plaintiff will
utilize the property.for religious purposes.
17. The conditions imposed are not reasonable regulations within the scope of G.L.c. 40A,
§3 and restrict the use of the land for religious purposes.
18. None of the other land owners or businesses in the area surrounding the plaintiff's
property have been required to construct any exit ramp for the rail trail/bike trail as is
;
being required of the plaintiff.
COUNT I
G.L. e. 40A, W7 and 3
19. The plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in the
paragraphs above.
20. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the decisions of the Planning Board and seeks judicial
review under G.L.c. 40, § 17.
21. The actions of the Planning Board in approving the project only with certain conditions
and, in particular conditions 6, 7 and 8, are based on legal error for the following reasons:
3
a. the project met all requirements of the zoning ordinance without the conditions at
issue;
b. conditions 6, 7, and 8 violate §3 of G.L. c. 40A as they are traffic regulations
which are not permitted under §3 and they are unreasonable within the meaning
of §3;
22. The actions of the board was based on reasons not substantiated at the public hearing, not
supported by the evidence, was unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and exceed the
authority of the board.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the court:
a. enter judgment in its favor;
b. annul the decision of the Planning Board and approve the permits without
conditions;
C. grant such other and further relief as the court deems just.
CUNT II
Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
(42 USC 42000cc, et. seq.) .
23. The plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in the
paragraphs above.
24. The defendants have violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000, 42 USC §2000cc, et. seq., because their acts:
a. place a substantial burden on the RCB's flee exercise of religion;
b. discriminate against the RCB by treating it on less than equal terms than a non-
religious assembly or institution by imposing and implementing a land use
regulation that discriminates against them and unreasonably limits the RCB's
religious assemblies, institutions and structures;
C. impose and implement a land use regulation that unreasonably limits religious
expression.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the court:
a. enter judgment in its favor;
b. annul the decision of the Planning Board with respect to the conditions imposed f
and grant the permits without the imposition of conditions; f
4 I
c. award the RCB full costs and attorneys' fees incurred in bringing this litigation;
1
d. grant such other and Ru-ther relief as the court deems just.
COUNT III
Violation of the United States Constitution Free Exercise of Religion and
Establishment Clauses: First and Fourteenth Amendments
(42 USC X1983)
25. The plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in the
paragraphs above.
26. The defendants acting under color of state law have deprived and continue to deprive the
RCB of its right to free exercise of religion as secured by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, made applicable to the United States by the Fourteenth
Amendment, by the imposition of conditions 6, 7; and 8 in the granting of the permit
which places a substantial burden on free exercise of religion by the RCB, and which by
virtue of compelling the RCB to build a public way on public property violates both the
free exercise of religion and creates an entanglement of state and church in violation of
the First Amendment. The actions of the defendants do not have a secular purpose and
their principal or primary effect inhibits freedom of religion and fosters excessive
government entanglement with religion.
27. The defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's
constitutional and legal rights.
WBEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the court:
a. enter judgment in its favor;
b. award compensatory damages against the defendants in favor of the RCB for
losses sustained by violation of its constitutional rights;
c. award the RCB full costs and attorneys' fees incurred in bringing this litigation;
d. grant such other and fiu-ther relief as the court deems just.
COUNT IV
Violation of the Massachusetts Constitution Freedom of Religion and Conscience and
Establishment Clauses: Article 46, &1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights -of the
Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution
28. The plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in the
paragraphs above.
5
29. The defendants under color of law deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of its right
to freedom of religion and conscience as secured by Part the First, A Declaration of the
Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth, Amendment Article 46, § 1 by the
imposition of conditions 6, 7, and 8 on the granting of the permit which places a
substantial burden on free exercise of religion by the RCB, and which by virtue of
compelling the RCB to build a public way on public property violates both the free
exercise of religion and creates an entanglement of state and church in violation of the
First Amendment. The actions of the defendants do not have a secular purpose and their
principal or primary effect inhibits freedom of religion and fosters excessive government
entanglement with religion.
-WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the court:
a. enter judgment in its favor;
b. award compensatory damages against the defendants in favor of the RCB for
losses sustained by violation of its constitutional rights;
c. award the RCB full costs and attorneys' fees incurred in bringing this litigation;
d. grant such other and fiu-ther relief as the court deems just.
COUNT V
Declaratory Judgment — G.L. c. 231A
30. The plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in the
paragraphs above.
31. The plaintiff for the reasons alleged submits that the court should declare defendants'
actions are unlawful and contrary to the constitutions of the United States and
Massachusetts.
32. Pursuant to G.L. c. 231A, §8 the.Attorney General of the Commonwealth has been given
notice of this suit.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the court:
a. enter judgment in its favor;
b. enter a declaration that the actions of the defendants are unlawful;
C. award the RCB full costs and attorneys' fees incurred in bringing this litigation;
d. grant such other and further relief as the court'deems just.
6
COUNT VI
Declaratory Judgment — Taking of Property G.L. c. 231A
33. The plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in the
paragraphs above.
34. A dispute exists between the parties as to the power of the defendants to condition the
granting of a permit for the. project they propose on the plaintiff building an exit ramp for
the defendants' bike path onto its own property thus giving the city the use of the
plaintiff s property at that portion of the exit ramp which enters onto the plaintiff s
property.
35. The actions of the defendants in asserting these conditions are in effect a taking of .
property from the plaintiff without due process or compensation.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the court:
a. enter judgment in its favor;
b. enter a declaration that the conditions imposed with respect to the bike path
cannot be so imposed without compensation to the plaintiff and/or that the taking
of property be declared null and void;
C. award the RCB full costs and attorneys' fees incurred in bringing this litigation;
d. grant such other and further relief as the court deems just.
May 16, 2011
0417-110336\218581
7
The Plaintiff, Roman Catholic Bishop
Of Springfield
Maurice M. Cahillane, Esq.
EGAN, FLANAGAN and COHEN, P.C.
67 Market St., P.O. Box 9035
Springfield, MA 01102
Phone: (413) 737-0260;
Fax: (413) 737-0121
,BBO# 069560
mmc(aDeganflanagan. com
Punning - Decision City of Northampton
Hearing No.: PLN -2011-0001. Date: April 26, 2011
APPLICATION TYPE: SUBMISSION DATE:
Central Business Arch. District Perm 7/2/2010
iicant's Name: Owner's Name:
NAME:
NAME:
ROMAN CATH BISHOP OF SPFLD
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SPRINGF_IEL
ADDRESS:
ADDREPS:
3 Elm st
KIN(; ST
TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE:
TOWN: STATE ZIP CODE;
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060
'NORTHAMPTON MA
PHONE No.: FAX NO.:
01060
PHONE NO,: FAX NO.:
EMAIL ADDRESS:
EMAIL ADDRESS:
site Intormation:
_
X5/2610
STREET NO.;
SITEZONING:
91 KING ST
CBHOO)/
TOWN:
ACTION TAKEN:
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060
5H7/20i1
W30/2010
Apvrovad with Canditions
MAP: BLOCK: LOT: MAP DATE:
SECTION OF BYLAW;
378 792 007
156: CENTRAL BUSINESS ARCHITECTURE
Soak
age:
4/26/2011
REVIEW
Name:
NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK;
i�nuuntes; -�
Demolition ofbuilding.
HAROSNIP:
CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1) Two landscaped islands shall be added to center parking area. At minimum, the dlmehsdon of each of
these Islands shall be the width of one parking space and the length of two parking spaces (8.5'x 36').
2. Four additional streettrees shall be planted along
Northampton Tree Committee list the frontage. Trees shalt be selected from
FINDINGS:
The Committee based Its approval for the demolition ofthe structure within the Central Business Distrletbased upon the plans submitted
with the appilcatlon as follows:
1. St: Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish Revised Site Plan Submission, dated Manch 31, 2011 by The Berkshire design Group, Inc. Plan Sheets
EX, f, 2, 3, SL-fB, Al.
The*CB
providing
determined that because the buildings on the church "campus" function as a site, demolition of the bulialing for the purpose of
providing an adequately landscaped parking lot not detract from the character of downtown. The use Is being "9 or th while
mainfalning� the function/use, Allowing'recon/iguned parking, facl/Itates'the'Churches' ability to build a new function hall, arguably results
in greater usage and vibrancy of the project site.
Specifically; 156-6(D2c) "In the event elements of the project or the projectln its entirety does not meet the above standards, the
Committee can waive some or all of the standards !f such WRIWng will clearly preserve and enhance the Pedestrian -scale character,
culture, economy and•welfare of downtown Northampton by preserving historic and architecturally valuable buildings and features, and
by encouraging compatible building design,"
COULD NOT DEROGATE BECAUSE:
0/30/2010
_
X5/2610
"^ `u ulu�e uAlt
4%!'{/2011
FINAL SIGNINQ BY;
'
APPEAL DEAL
FIRST ADVERTISING DATE:
HEARINGDATE
VOTING DATE
4/28/2011
5H7/20i1
W30/2010
7/14/2010
4/14/2011
DECISION DATE
SECOND ADVERTISING DATE;
HEARINQ TIME
4/26/2011
7/7/2010
7:1 b PM
VOTING DEADLINE
DECISION DEADLINE
MEMBERS PRESENT;
5/29/2011
5/29/2011
Barry Steaves
VOTE:.
Votes to
Greet
GOO.
TlUIS® 2011 Des Laurlers Municipal Solutions, Ina.
Aelan Tierney^'--'--
MINUTE5 OF MEETING:
Available In the Office of Planning S Development
!. Carolyn Manas hitheArchitecture
that
this
blthe
centr ess Architecture Committee certify that a copy of his and all plans been fled with the Board and the CityCekon
the date shown above.
1 carilfy that this decision has been mailed to the Owner and Applicant.
Any Issuance or denial of a permit by the Committee may be appealed to the Northampton Planning Board, by an applicant or other
aggrieved party, provided such appeal has been flied within 21 days of the filing of said decision with the City Clerk. The Planning Board
shall limit its consideration of such an.appeaf to considering errors of the Committee and shall need a two-thirds vote of its members to
overturn the action of the Committee.
�II
GeoTMSS 2011DesLauriers Municipal.Solutions, lnc, _
City of Northampton
Planning - Decisidn
Hearing No.: PLN -2011-0001
Date: April 26,-2D11 .
Aelan Tierney
votes to
Grant
Bruce Kriviskey
votes to
Grant
Bob Walker
votes to
Grant
Joseph Blumenthal
votes to
Abstain
SECONDED BY:
voTE COUNT;
,_4
DECISION;
AnDrovef With Conditions
MOTION MADE BY;
Aelan Tierney^'--'--
MINUTE5 OF MEETING:
Available In the Office of Planning S Development
!. Carolyn Manas hitheArchitecture
that
this
blthe
centr ess Architecture Committee certify that a copy of his and all plans been fled with the Board and the CityCekon
the date shown above.
1 carilfy that this decision has been mailed to the Owner and Applicant.
Any Issuance or denial of a permit by the Committee may be appealed to the Northampton Planning Board, by an applicant or other
aggrieved party, provided such appeal has been flied within 21 days of the filing of said decision with the City Clerk. The Planning Board
shall limit its consideration of such an.appeaf to considering errors of the Committee and shall need a two-thirds vote of its members to
overturn the action of the Committee.
�II
GeoTMSS 2011DesLauriers Municipal.Solutions, lnc, _
Planning -•Decision City of Northampton
Hearing No.: PLN -2014-0007 Date: April 26, 2011
APPLICATION TYPE: SUBMISSION OATE:
PS Mgjor Site Plan WIV2010
Anniicanf'= Name• n,..�__+_ u_�__
NAME;
NAME
Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish
ROMAN -CA THOLiC BISHOP OF SPI PlNrFIE;L•
ADDRESS:
ADDRESS:
3 Elm Street
KING ST
TOWN:
STATE: ZIP CODE:,
TOWN:
STATE;21P CODE
NORTHAMPTON
MA '09060
NORTHAMPTON*
MA '01060 •
PHONEND:
PAX NO.:
PHONENO.:
PAX NO.:
EMAIL ADDRESS:
EMAIL ADDRESS:'
Site Information:
91 KING ST
TOWN:
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060
MAP: BLOCK: LOT:
310 1 192• •001
ACTION TAKEN:
SECTION OF BYLAW; . •
ChpL 330.1f: Slte plan Approval
0
NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK; EMAIL ADDRESS;
Demolish 2 buildings and construct now 94,000 sq. it parish center building with associated alta Improvements Inciduing 140+ space
parking lot with two 24' wide curb cuts.
HARDSHIP;
CONDITION OF APPROVAL'
1) Final plans Incorporating conditions herein shall be
site, stamped and submitted prior to any work on the
2. To. meet the criterla in 350-8.9F;. two landscaped islands shall be added -i0 center parking area, At
minimum, the dimension of each of these islands shall be the width of one parking space and the
length of two parking spaces (8:8' x 3B'),
3, Four additional street tram shall, be planted along
Northampton Tree Committee list the fivntage: Trees shall be selected from
4. Tree protection measures shell be Installed prior to.any site work for trees at the entrance,
P. Water and sewer line connections shall be made in accordance
with Department of+PUb/lc Works
S. In order to provide separated, safe non -vehicular access for parishloners to this
bltutninous cennecttart from the parking lot to the rail frall shall be Installed sh
Conal All
and specifications shall be In accordance with Office of Planning & Development rtj
star
trall construction, The connection shall be made elther on the applicant's property of
owner's choice, on abutting propertyprioe16
completion of any portion of the parklnl
7. Approval of the layout of the parking dot and the two curb cuts is contingent on the
being'proyload. At the applicanVa.choice, If they fled the rail( trail connection Imposs
request an amended approval from the Planning Board showing no rail trail connecth
showing only one curb cut and Improved pedestrian and bicycle connection on the al
8. These approved plans lnclude•a traffic walverbased on limited weekdayuse of the
the days a!"the Week in which the building is used.changes to functions that occur du
periods Monday through Friday (for at least 5o% of the functions), traffic mitigation vi
with the increase In peak trips generated as described In the zoning.
•9. Upon completion of parking, applicant shall submit a stampedlighting pian showin
light levels comply with zoning and plans shown for CB. - -
-a- 1 M55 20i 1 Des Laurlers Municipal Solutions, Inc.
i, a 6' wide
(tion materials ,
fords for rail
at the property
/of.
All troll access
)le, they can
I but Instead
ew building. if
Ing the PM peak
fl be required in
r
fhafinatalled
Planning --Decision City of Northampton.
Hearing ado.: PLN -2011-0007 Date: Apr1126, 2011
10. Snow shall be plowed to the rear of the alto.
11. Lights off within one hour after the last function. No more than 4 pole lights shall remain on during
the night
FINDINGS:
The Planning Board approved the site plan for the layout of a now 14,000 square foot function hall and associated site development by a 3-
2 vote of eligible planning Board members present The Board based Its decision on the following plans and Information submitted With -
the application:
1. St Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish Revised Site Pian Submission, doted March 31, 2011 by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Plan Sheets
EX, 1, 2, 3, SL -18, Al.
A. The requested use protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses. if applicable, this shall Include provision for surface
wafer dralnoge,'sound and sight buffer: and preservation of views, light, and air; Stormwater management will be contained on site and
plantings will be added between the new building and the residences to the north.
13. The requested use/sife will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent
streets, minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads In the area. Through condition, the connection to the bike path will accornplfsh
compliance wtth this standard. if applicable, this shall Include considering the location of driveway openings In rotation to traffic and
adjacent streets, access by public safety vehicles, the arrangement of parking and loading spaces, and provisions for persons with
disabilities; The Planning Board granted the relocation and widening of two curb obis based on separatlon'ofpedestrian/blcycle and
vehicular traffic.
The project; including any concurrent road improvements, will not decrease the levef.of service (LOS) of all area City and state roads or
intersections affected by the project below the existing condttlons when the project Is proposed and shall consider the inerementaf
nature of development and cumulative Impacts on the LOS. Given the off-peak trips anticipated and noted In traffic letter and assuming
the rail trail access condition recommended, sieff believes this criteria has boon met
C. The requested use wilt promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings
and other community assets in the area; Landscaped islands to break up the mass of 02 parkins spaces will meet this criteria.
D. The requested use will not overload, and will mitigate adverse Impacts on, the City's resources, including the effect on the City`s water
supply and distribution system, sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, ffre protection, streets and schools. The
construction materials and methods for water lines, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, fire protection, sidewalks, private roads, and other
infrastructure will be In accordance with Department of Public Works standards.
E. The requested use meets any special regulations set forth in this chapter. There are none specified in the zoning.. The Board did
approve a waiver from the standard 16' pole heights to 10' and 20' due to the limited space available for Installing new poles. The lights
will be on the south side of the new structure and generally screened from the residences.
F. Compliance with the following technical performance standards;
(1) Curb cuts onto streets shall be minimized. Access to businesses shall use common driveways, existing side streets, or loop service
roads shared by adjacent lots when possible. More than'one curb cut shall be permitted only when necessary to minimize traffic and
safety impacts, The Board approved the widened double curb cuts based an the condition that safety Improvements for non motorized
access wilt be created at the rear of the site along the rail trail.
(2) Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic movement on site must be separated, to the extent posslbip, and sidewalks must be provided
between businesses within a development. Adequate separation and accommodation for bicycles/pedestrians will be met through
conditions.
(3) Major projects, except In* the Central.Business District, must be designed so there Is no increase In peak flows from the one- or two -
and ten-year Soil Conservation Service design stone from pradevelopment conditions (the condition at the time a site plan approval fs
requested) and so that the runoff from a four- to ten -inch rain stone (first flush) is detained on site for an average of six hours. These
requirements shaft not apply If the project wilt discharge Into it City. storm drain system that the Planning Board finds can accommodate
the expected discharge with no adverse Impacts. in addition, catch basins shall incorporate sumps of a minimum of three'feet and, If they
will remain privately owned, a gas trap. A Department of Public Works stormwater permit was Issued.
COULD NOT DEROGATE 9ECAUSE
FILING DEADLINE:
MAILING DATE:
HEARING CONTINUED DATE:
DECISION DRAFT BY; APPEAL DATE:
2010
9/10!2010
10/14/2010
4/29/2011
eREFERRALSIN DATE:
HEARING DEADLINE DATE:
HEgWNG CLOSE DATE:
FINAL SIGNING BY: APPEAL DEADLINE:2010
1011 OD10
4/14/2011
4/28/2071 5/f.6/2011
FIRST ADVERT13IND DATE
HEARING DATE:
VOTING DATE
DECISION DATE:
9/20
9/23noto
4/14/2011
4/2001f
OND ADVERTISING DATE
�9/16/210'1
HEARING TIME:
VOTING DEADLINE
DECISION DEADLINE
0
s/30nott
7/13/20ti
memseRS PRESENT: VOTE
Andrew Weir votes to Deny
GeoTMSO 2011 Des Laurlers Munlclpai Solutions, Inc.
Planning - Decision
City. of Northampton
Hearing No.: PLN-2011-POO7
Date: April .26,'2011
Debin Bruce
votes to
Grant
Katharine G. Baker
votes to
Deny
Stephen Gilson
votes to
Grant
Mark 3ulllvan
votes to
ineligible to Vote
Francis Johnson
votes to
Grant
Deb(n Bruce Francis Johnson 3-2 Approved pp ved with Conditions
MINUTES OF MEETING:
Available in the Office of Planning d Development
1, Carolyn Misch, as agent to the Planning Board, certify that this is a true and accurate decision made by the Planning Board and certify
that a copy of this and all plans have been flied with the Board and the City Clerk on the date shown above.
1 certify tha�opy of this ec(slon has been mailed to the Cwnet and Applicant.
Notice of Appeal
An appeal from the decision of the Planning Board may be made by any person aggrieved pursuant to MGL Chapt. 40A, Section 17 as
amended within twenty (20) days after the,date of the filing of the notice of the decision with the City Clerk, The date is listed above. Such
appeal may be made to the Hampshire Superior Court with a certlfled copy of the appeal sent to the. City Clerk of the City of Northampton.
GOOTM83 2011 Des Lauriers Municipal solutions, Inc,
CIVIL ACTION
Docket No.(s)
Trial Court of Massachusetts
COVER SHEET
Superior Court Department
County: Hampshire
PLAINTIFF(S)
DEFENDANT(S)
Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield
The City of Northampton Planning Board and Its Members, Stephen
Gilson, Debin Bruce, Andrew Weir, Katharine Baker, Francis
Johnson and Mark Sullivan, and the City of Northampton
ATTORNEY, FIRM NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE
ATTORNEY (if known)
Maurice M. Cahillane Egan, Flanagan and Cohen, PC
67Market Street, P.O. Box 9035
Springfield, MA -01102-9035
(413) 737-0260
Board of Bar Overseers Number: 069660
Origin code and track Destination
Place an x in one box only:
X 1. F01 Original Complaint ❑ 4. F04 District Court Appeal c.231, s. 97 & 104 (After trial)
❑ 2. F02 Removal to Sup.Ct. C.231, s.104 (Before trial) (F) ❑ 5. F05 Reactivated after rescript; relief from judgment/Order
(Mass.R.Civ.P. 60) (X)
❑ 3. F03 Retransfer to Sup.Ct. C.231,s.102C (X) . ❑ 6. El Summary Process Appeal (X)
TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See reverse side)
CODE NO, TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE?
C. 02 Zoning Appeal, G.L.c.40A ( F ) ( ) Yes ( ) No
The following is a full, itemized and detailed statement of the facts on which plaintiff relies to determine money damages. For this
form, disregard double or treble damage claims; indicate single damages only.
TORT CLAIMS
(Attach additional sheets as necessary)
A. 'Documented medical expenses to date:
1. Total hospital expenses......... ....... $
............................
2. Total Doctor expenses, , , , , , , _ . , . $
........................................
3. Total chiropractic............... $
....................................
4. Total physical therapy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , $
5. Total other expenses, , . , . , , . $
............................................
r Subtotal $
B. Documented lost wages and compensation to date........................................ $
C. Documented property damages to date...................................................... $
D. Reasonably anticipated future medical and hospital expenses ........................... $
E. Reasonably anticipated lost wages .............................. I .................I ............ $
F. Other documented items of damages (describe) ...........................................
G. Brief description of plaintiff's injury, including nature and extent of injury (describe)
This is an appeal of conditions attached to a special permit by the City of Northampton Planning Board
pursuant to G.L.c. 40A, §17. $
TOTAL N/A
CONTRACT CLAIMS
(Attach additional sheets as necessary)
Provide a detailed description of claim(s):
TOTAL $
PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND COUNTY, ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
"I hereby certify that I have complied with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Supreme Judicial Court Uniform Rules on Dispute
Resolution (SJC Rule 1:18) requiring that I provide my clients with information about court-connected dispute resolution services
:and discuss with them the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods," -
Signature of Attorney of Record 'n Ge.l� I ,' Com^', DATE: May 16, 2011