31B-159 101 King St Appeal Site Plan CBACLaw Offices Of
Egan,' Flanagan and Cohen, P. C.
67 Market Street
P.O. Box 9035
Springfield, Massachusetts 01102-9035
Phone: (413) 737-0260· Telefax: (413) 737-0121
Chi~opee Office: (413) 594-2114 by appointment only
Web site: www.efclaw.com
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
Johnl Egan
Theodore C. Brown
Edward 1 McDonough Jr.
Maurice M. Cahillane
Robert L. Quinn
Joseph A. Pacella'
Joseph M',Pacella
Paula C, Tredeau{\
Katharine Pacella Costello
Kevin D. Withers
Richard J, Kos '
Joan F. McDonough
Katherine A. DayD
Thomas E. Day'
May 17,2011
Senior'Counsel
William C. Flanagan +
Mary E. Boland
Thomas J. Donoghue
O/Counsel
David G. Cohen
Stephen E. Spelman'o
James F. Egan
(1896-1986)
Edward T. Collins
(I 902-1995)
Charles S. Cohen
(1-93J -2004)
• Also admitted in CT
+ Also admitted in DC
o Also admitted in FL
, .) Also admitted in TX
o Also admitted in NY
I~LM~Y ~ : ~:1 j~
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
NORTHAMPTON,MA01060
v. City of Northampton Planning Board, et als
Hampshire Superior Court-Civil Action No. 2011-0085
Dear Clerk:
Enclosed please find a Summons and Complaint tendered pursuant to Rule 4(d)(5) ofthe
Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the above referenced matter.
/jor-
Enclosures
0417-110336\218715
Very truly yours,
Maurice M. Cahillane
COMMONWEALTH OF MASS.ACHUSETTS
~SEmRE,SS. .
Roman Catholic B.ishop of springfield
a Corporation sole
, Plaintiff (s)
v.
The City of Northampton Planning Board, Stephen
Gilson, Debin Bruce, Andrew Weir, Kathflrine Baker,
Francis Johnson, and lVIark Sullivan as they 'are
members of the City of Northampton Planning Board
and the City of Northampton
,Defendant (s)
I r
Superior Court Department of the
Trial Court of the Commonwealth
civil ActipJ,1
No. 2011 '0085
SUI:v1JvIONS
To the above-named Defendant. . : . City of .Northampton ...
" ,. .
'; Maurice M; Cahillane
You are hereby.summoned and required to serve upon ,
plaintiffi S attorney, whose addre.ss is P.O. Box 9035, Springfield, MA 01102-9035 ,..
an answer to the complaint· which is herewith s.erved 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 pla~ntiff' 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 transaction or occurrence.
that is the subject matter of the plaintiff claim'or you will thereafter be barred from making such.
claim in any other action.
Witness, Barbaral Rouse, Esquire at Northampton, the Seventeenth-
day of May ,in the year of our Lord nyo thousand Eleven.
k-5'~~/~.
CLERK·MAGISTRATE
NOTES:
1. This· summons is issued pursuant to Rul~ 4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure ..
2. When·morethan 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.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF )
SPRINGFIELD, a Corporation Sole )
Plaintiff )
)
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, )
Defendants )
CIViL ACTION NO.
NOTICE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO C. 40 §17
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.
The Plaintiff, Roman Catholic Bishop
Of Springfield
-".~
May 16, 201l
0417-110336\2185.,97 f .
n~ }K.CaLJh~
Maurice M. Cahillane, Esq.
EGAN, FLANAGAN and COHEN, P.C.
67 Market St., P.O. Box 9035
Springfield, MA 011_Q2
Phone: (413) 737-0260;
Fax: (413) 737-0121
BBO#069660
COJv.[MONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPSHIRE, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF )
SPRINGFIELD, a Corporation Sole )
Plaintiff )
)
~ )
)
THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PLAI\TNING )
BOARD, STEPHEN GILSON, DEBIN BRUCE, )
ANDREW WEIR, KATHARINE BAKER, )
FRANCIS JOHNSON and MARK SULLIVAN, )
as they are members of the City ofN orthampton )
Planning Board and THE CITY OF )
NORTHAMPTON, )
Defendants )
COMPLAINT
CIVIL ACTION NO.
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 SpJjngfield, 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,
N orthampton,_ Hampshire County, and a member of the f'JPB.
6. The defendant, Debin Bruce, is an individual residing at 46 COlunlbus 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, NOlihampton. The propeliy is part of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish. The
propeliy 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 oftwd 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 bfthe 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 connec;tion from the parking lot to the
rail trail shall be installed. Construction materials
and specifications shall be llHiCcordance 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 applicant1s choice, if they
find the rail trail connection ll:npossible, 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 infonnation and belief, the rail t,rail is a bike trail on property owned by the City of
Northampton and the cited conditions would require the RCB to constmct 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
ReB.
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 religiou's institutions and the plaintiff will
utilize the property for religious purposes.
17. The conditions imposed are not reasonable regulations within the scope ofG.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 sunounding the plaintiffs
property have been required to COl1Struct any exit ramp for the rail trailibike trail as is
being required of the plaintiff. .
COUNT I
G.L. c. 40A, §§17 and 3
19. The plaintiff hereby repe~ts 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 proj ect only with certain conditions
and, in particular conditions 6, 7 and 8, are based on legal enor 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. grantsuch other and further relief as the court deems just.
COUNTll
Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
(42 USC §2000cc, 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 ReB's free 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
and grant the permits without the imposition of conditions;
4
c.
c. award the ReB full costs alid attorneys' fees incurred in bringing this litigation;
d. grant such other and further 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 §1983)
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
ReB 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 ReB, and which by
virtue of compelling the ReB 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 ReB's
constitutional and legal rights.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the court:
a. enter judgment in its favor;
b. award compensatory damages against the defendants in favor of the ReB for
losses sustained by violation of its constitutional rights;
c. award the ReB full costs and attorneys' fees incurred in bringing this litigation;
d. grant such other and further 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 oftJ:t.e permit which places a
substantial burde(n 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 arid' 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 attomeys' fees incurred in bringing this litigation;
d. grant such other and further 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 GL. c. 231A, §8 the Attomey 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 attomeys' 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 pennit 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
plaintiffs property at that portion of the exit ramp which enters onto the plaintiffs
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 pat4
cannot be so imposed without compel1sation to the plaintiff andlor 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 '
b~~,,~
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
V'.,B]?Q# Og9660
, mmc<$eganflanagan. com
,
li..-ry Ii
Planning. DecisIon
Hearing No.: PLN·2011~0001
APPLICATION TYpe:
Central Business Arch. DistrIct Perm
, N APpllcants ame:
NAME:
ROMAN CA TH BISHOP OF SPFLD
ADDRess:
3ElmSt
TOWN: STATI!: I Zff' CODE:
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060
PHO~ENO,: FAX NO.:
EMAIl. ADDRESS:
Site Information:
SlREETNO.:
91 KING ST
TOWN:
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060
MAP: I BLOCK: J LOT: I MAP DATI!:
31B 192 001
aook: r-Qe:
NATURE OF PROPOSED WOR!(;
Demolition of building.
HAROSHIP:
City of Northampton
Date: April 26, 2011
SUBMISSION I?Aie:
71212010
Owner's Name' .
tWdE: ROM~N CA THOLIC BISHOP CJF SPRINGF.1EL
ADOREpS:
KlN(,1 ST
TOWN: S~ATI!: I ZIP CODE:
'NORTHAMPTON MA ,01060
PH,ONlaNo.: FAX NO.:
EMAIL ADDRESS:
SlTEZONING:
CB(10QJ/
A.CTION TAKEN:
Approved With Condlflon,
SECTION OF BYlAW:
156: CENTRAL BUSINESS ARCHITeCTURE
REVIEW
I N Surveyors ame:
COMl'ANYNAMI!:
ADDRESS:
TOWN: STATE: lZiPcooe:
PHONE NO.: FAX NO.:
EMAIL ADDR.EllS;
CONomON OF APPROVAl.:
1) Two land,scapad Islanda shalf be added to canter parking ares. At mInimum, thl$ dimension of EIach of
fhe$fJ Islands shall be thli width of one parking space and the length ofiwo parking spaces (8.5' K 36').
2. Four addltlomfl.,streeHrns shall be pllnted along the frontage. Tree.s shill" be selecled from
Northampton Tree Committe. Jist.
FINDINGS:
The Committee based Its approval for the demolition of the sfrut:furs within the Centr.l BU$lness District based upon the plans SUbmitted
wIth fhe appllcatJon as follows:
1. Sr. elizabeth Ann Saton Parish ReV/,ed Site Plan Submission, d4ted March 31, 2011 by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Plan Sheets
EX, of, 2, 3, SL·fS, A1.
The' CBA C determined Ih.ilt because thl buildings on the church "campus" function liS If slle, demo/Won of -the building for the pUrpose of
providing an adequately landscaped parking fotdoes not detract from Ihe characfer of downtown. The use Is being reconfigured while
maintaining the function/use.. Allow/nr/reconflgured parking, faciDtatelithe'Churches' Itb/Iltyto build a new function hall, arguably results
In greater USlJge and vIbrancy cf thl proJect stte. . .
SpllcfllcsllYi 156.6(D2c) "In the event element~ of the project or 'he project In Its entJrety does not meet the above s'lfndards, fhe
Committee can waive some or .,1 ,of the standardS If such walvlnl1 will clearly preserve and enhance fhl pedestrian-sas'e character,
culture, economy and'welfare of downfown Northampton by preseiVIng historic lind architecturally valuable buildings and features, and
by encouraging compatlblfl buIlding design, "
COULD NOT DEROGAiE BECAUSE:
FI~ING OEADUNE;
4/28/2011
REFERRALS IN OATl!::
6130/2010
FIRST ADVeRTISING DA:re.:
6Il0/2010
SECOND ADVERTISING D!:TE:
Tfl12010
MlaMilERS PRESENT;
Barry Steeves
" MAILING DATe: HEARING CONTINUED DATe:
7n12010 , Bl3/2010
HEARING DeADLINE DATI!: HEARING CLOSE DATI!:
91512010 411412011
, HEARING DATE: ¥PiiNG DATI!:
711412010 411412011
HEARING TIME: VOTING OEADUNE!
7:16 P'M 512912011
VC1f&.
votas to G1'IiIInt
GeoTMS® 2011 Des l.aurlel1l Municipal SQJutlons. Inc:. >
, n.t . "
oeclSIOIHlRAFT BY; 412B120i1 . IIPPEAL DATE;
FINAL SIGNING BY; APPEAl. Ol!AOl.ll'IE:
412812011 511712011
DeCISION DATE:
4/26/2011
DECISION DeADUNE:
5/29/2011
L ______________ --------~~~~~-----
Planning -Decision City of Northampton
HearIng No.: PLN·2()11·()001 Date: April 26,20,1
Asian TIerney
Bruce Krlvlskey
60bWBlker
Joseph Blumenthal
MOTION MMlE II,\,:
Aelan TierneY
MINIJTES OF "'SenNG:
.votes to
votes to
votes to
votes 10
SECONDeD BY:
Btny StlUPves
Available In the ?'fIce of Planning 8. Development
Grant
Grant
Grant
Absfaln
DeCISION:
Approved with ConditIons
t. Carolyn Mlsch~ liS agent to the Central Bus/nass Archlfacture Committee, certify that this Is II frue a"d accumte decision made by the
Central Business ArchItecture Committee and certify-that it qopy of thrs and all plans have been flied wIth the Board antI the City Clerk on
the elate shown above.
r. carUfy that this decision has ~n mailed to the Owner and ~ppJ/cant. L«~~ .
Any Issullnce or denial of a pennn by the Committee may bit appu/ad to the Northampton Planning Soard, by IlI1 applicant or other
aggrieved party, provided such llPPNl hiS baen 'fled within 21 days orthe filing of $ald decision with the Olty Olerk. The Planning BaIrd
shalf limit fts cc:mslderaflon of such an.appell'to considering errors o(the Committee and shall need a two-thirds vote oflts mambers to
'overturn the action of the Committee.
'-
-GaoTMS® 2011 DDS Laurier& M~l,1lclpa!Solutlons, .Inc.
I lOt
Planni'ng -' Decision
Hear\ng No.: PL.N-2011-0QP7
APPLICA nON TYPE!
PB Mlijor Slfe Pilin
APmicant's Nama:
NAM~ •
$alp! E;1!;".I"lfh .. Ann §.(on Parish
ADORESS:
3 ElmSfrerl!'
TOWN:
NORTHAMPTON
STATE: JflP COOe:
MA :010GO
I'HONI!NO.: FAX NO.:
eMAIL ADDRess:
Site Information:
STREET NO.:
91 KING ST
TOWN:
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060
MAP:
City tlf Northampton
Date: April 26, 2011
, SUBMI&8tOll DATE:
811212010
, Owners Name:
.NAME:
ROMAN ,CATHOLIC S/SHO!' OF $PRINGPIEL
AODI¥iSS:
KlNGST
TOWt<
NORTHAMPTON'
PHONE NO.:
EM~L ADORESI!:'
sm;. ZONING;
0811(0)/
ACTION TAKeN:
STATE: I~P C0017
MA 01080
FAX NO.:
Approved WIth Condlllol'l$
SEC'TION OFBYLIIW:
S r' N urveyo ,s arne:
COMPANY NAMe:
?
I\ODReSS:
Illl.OCK: IL:~ I MAP DAn;
318 192· Chpf. 350.11: SIte Plan Approval TOWN: STATE: I ZIP COOE:
. Book: (,9.e: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.:
EMAI~ AIltlRESS:
/'lAW RE OF PROPOSI\D WORK:
Demolish 2 buHdlngs Imd conslrucf new 14,000 .q. ff. P«rlsl! olnter buIldIng with assoo/.ted ~II" Improvaments Ina/cluing 140+ space
par/dng 101 with !WP 24' wide curb cuts. '
HARDSHII':
, CONOITION OF M'PFl.r:NAt:.
1) Final plans Incorporating c:ondlUons hereIn, ahall be stamped and submlt(ed prior to any work on the
.lIfe. .,'-. -<,
:z. To meet the crIteria In 350-8.9F, two landscaped Illand. shiH h,a aJded:~cenfar par/dng llrell. At
minImum, the dimension of eitch of th&&f! Islands shall be the wldfh of one parking splice end the
length offwo parking SPliCes (8.1' x 3~·).
,3. Four additional stnIet trees shall be planted i1long the frtmfltge; Trees shall be sa/ected from
'Northampton Tree Commltte.'ist. .
4. Tree protectIon measures shall be Insfalled prior ~ ,any site work for lreN at the entranca. . . ;."
S. Water and .nwer line connRrtons shalf be matt. In at:DOrdance with Depllrtment 0 PublIc Works '
Standards. "
Ii. In oider ~o provide Slparated, SIIa non.ve~/aI11a" access for p~rlshloners to this sl I a 6' Wide
bituminous connecffon from Ihe parking lot to fhe rail trafl shsll be Installed. Constru Uon materia',
and IIpac:ll'icaf/on.s ah.1I b. In at:~onJllnoe with Office of Planning" Development .Ita dards for rail
trail CO/lstnJcUon. The connection .hall be made either on the applIcant'. prpperty 0 at the property
owner's cholc8, em abutting property. prior-fo compleClon of any portIon of Che parkin laf.
1. ~pproval afthe layout of thl parkIng 'lot andtha two curb cuts /.s conllngent on tire II fr.rt locess
" beIng ·provl~.d. At the appIlCllnt'II,r::holce, If fhey find the ntll frall connection Imposs ie, they can
-requ;,~t an amended approvel from fhe Planning Soard showIng nq r." tral' i::onneafi n but Instead
showin!1 only one curb cuf al1~ Improved pede.strian and bicycle conneoffon qn the 5' e.
"
8. ThlSe approved Plln$lnolud~'1l frafflc waiver based on lim/feel weekday. use of the ew building. If
the aays offJul week in which the buIlding Is used.chflllges to runeUons thlt occur du 'ng Ute PM peak
periods Monday throrigh Friday (for at lea.Jl~ liD% of the funoUons). traffic mlflg~tl(m w " be required In
.,"orr/ance with the l~crf/Ua In peak trips generafed IS described In fh. lonlng.
'9. Upon campleUon ofp.Tlrlng, applicant sh.1I submit a st.mped.I'ghting plllnshowin fhlft Inst.lled
Ilghf l,I!vels oomp,~ wIth lCr:mlni II1Id plans shown for CB.
Ge()TMS® 2011 Des t.aurlers MunlclplIl SolUtions, Inc;
/
Planning -DecisIon
Hearing No.: PUI-2011-0007
City of Northampton,
Data: April 26, 2011
10. Snow shalf be plowed to the nllfr of thd Il{te~
11. Ughts off within one hour at'tur the last function; No more than 4 pole lights ahall remaIn on during
the night.
FlNDINGS: ' The Planning Board approved the .lIfe pl.n for tha layout or II naw 14,000 square foot function hall and associated site development by II 3-
2 vote of eligible planning Board mIJ/l'ibers present. The Board blJsed lis decisIon on the following plans and Inform~tlon .submlffed wIth,
the application:, ' 1. Sf. Ellzabeth Ann $efon ParIsh RevIsed Site Plan Submission, dflilld March 31, 2011 by The Berkshire Desll1n Group, Inc. PI.m Sheets
EX, 1, 2,3, SL-1B, A1.
A. The requeste9 u.lre profects adjoining premls,es ~galnsf serir1Usly detrimental uses. If !!Ippllcabie, this shallinciuda provIsion for surface
water draInage, sound and sIght bufferi and preservation of Views, lIght, Bnd air; Stonnwater management wllf be confalned on site Ifl1d
plal'lt/ngs wlfl be added between the new building lind the resldenceR 10 the north.
B. Therequ8sfed use/slfe wJ/l promofe Iha ~nven/ence end aaillty of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site anti on adjacent
streets, minimize traffic Impacts on the streets and roads In the araa. ThroJ)gh condition, the connection to the bike path wI/( accomplfsh
compliance with this Sfflnd!!lrd. Ifappl#cabl!, this shall include consIdering the location ofdrlvewilY openings In relation to trafflc .nd
ad)aoent slrests, fltlOSSS by public safety vehicles, Ibe arrangement of parklnil and loading .sp!!Ices, and proVisions for persons with
disabilities; The Planning Board granted the ralacatlon and wIdening of two curb cufs based on separatIon 'of pedestr/an/blcyo/e and
vehicular traffic. ,.'
The proJec~' Inaludlnf/oIny concurrent tOld ImproV/fment~, will not decrease the lever of service (LOS) of.1I area CIty lind state roads or
Intersllct;ons affected by Ibe proJeot b.,ow the existing condlClons when the project Is propolled lind shall consider the Incrementa'
nature of development !!Ind cumulaf/velmpactB en thel.OS. Given the off-peak klpsantlo/pater/ and noted In traff/o lefter and as,umlng
,the rail trail aCCIIS$ condIUon recommended, "taft believes this erlteril has been met.' , .
C. Tne requested use will promote .II harmonious relaUonshlp of structures .tid open spaces to the natur.'landsoape, existing buildings
and other community assets In the ares; I.Rndsl:.ped Islands to bre.k up the ma" of S2 parking spaces wl/l meet this criteria.
D. The requested use will net overload, and wilt mlflllfltllJ adverse ImrraClls on, the CIty's resources. Including the affegt all the CIty's water
supply and distribution system, sanitary and storm sewage collecUon !ltd treatment aystems, fire protection, streets and schools. The
oonstruction materials lmd methods for Willer lines, sanitary sewers, liform sewers, fire profection, sIdewalks, private roads, and other
Infrlrstructure will be In accordance wlfh Dep.rtmenf of Public Work$ strlnd/Jrds. ,
E. The requesfed use maets any specIal regulations set fo1'f:h in fhls chapfar. There are none specified In the zoning •. The Board did
approve II waiver from the standard 16' pole heights fa is' and 20' due 10 the IImlfeci spacIIIlJvallable for Installing new poles. The lights
will be em the .south side of the new structure and generally screened from the resldencls.
F. CampI/face wIth the followIng technIcal performance standards; , , '
(1) Curb cuts onto slreets shall'be minimized. AccNs to bU$lnesses shall US8 common driveways, exlsflng side struets, or loop service
roads shared by adjacent lots when posslblG. Mar. fhan' one curb cut shall be permitted only whan necessary to mlnlmln trafflc and
safety Impacts. The SOlrd approved the WIdened double eurb ,cuts based on the cond/tkm that s.fety Improvements for non-motorized
access will be eraated .t the rear of the 'fie along the .11I11 tra",
(2) Pedestrian, bicycle and yehlcu/ar traffic movement on site mulif bt separated, to the extent poss'bI~, and sidewalks must be provided
between buslnass., within a dave/opm'Snt. Adequl/tv .separetlon and IIQoommod.tion (or b/ayc/eslpedestrisns will be met through
condltiQns. .' , '
(3) Major projegfS, exoept In'the Centra/Business DI.strlc~ must be designed so there Is no Increase In peak flows from the one-or two-
and ten-yellr Soil Consarvatloll Service deSign storm from pNtdevelopmenf cone/Illons (the Clondlilan at the tIme a site plan approval Is
raquesl.ed) and so Ibat the run off from Il'our-to ten-/neh rain storm (first flush) Is datalned on s/feiqr an average of six hOLlrs. These
requirements shari not apply If the proJeat will dlsl:hll1T1B Into a CIty, s/omi drain sysfem that the Planning Soard finds can Boeommoda',
the expected dlscha1T1e with 110 adverse Impac:.la./n addition, catch basins shall incerparate sumps of a minimum of three 'feet and, If they
will remain privately owned, a gas trap. A Dl'lplrtment of Pub"o Works stormwater pllnnlt wu Issued.
COULD NOT OEROGATIi IlECAUSE!
FILING DEADLINE:
9/212010
ReFERRALS IN DATE:
9l9/201fJ
FIRST ADVERTISING DATI:!
919/2010
SEOOND ADVERTISING DATE:
911612010 -Mct.ASIi!FtS PReseNT:
Andrew Wafr
MAILING D,I,TE: HEARINtl CONTINUED OAiE!
911612010 10/1412010
HEARING DEMll.lNE DATE; IHe.l.RING CLOSE DATE:
10(16121)10
HEARING 0A1E:
912312010 ,
HEARING TlME:
411412011
VOTING DATE:
411412011
VOTING OI!ADUNE!
&'3D/2011
VOTe:
voles to Dltny
GeoTMS® 2011 Des LautieraMunlclpal SolUtions, Inc.
DECISION DAAFT BY; APPEAL Oil Tr!:
412612011
FINAl. SIGNING BY: APPEAL OEADLINE:
412812011 511'f'j12IJ11
oeCISION DATE:
4I26/2(}11
DECISION PEADLINE!
111312011
*' T :: E
Planning. Decision
H.~ari~g No.: PLN~~011-()P07
Debln arUCEf
Katharine G. Balfer
Stepnen Gilson
Mark sulllvln
Fltlnc/s Johnson
IIIcmOt/ !.lADe. BY:
DeblnSruce
MINUTES OF MEe:TlNG:
votes 10
votes to
voles to
votes \0
votes \0
seCONDED BY:
City. of Northampton
DatE!: April·26; 2011
Grant
Deny
Gran!
IneligIble to Vote
Gral)t
FrancIs Johnson
VOTE COUNT:
3·2
Available In the Office Dr PlannIng &. Develapment.
DeCISION:
Approved wffh Conditions
I Carolyn Misch, as agent to 'he Plllnnlng BOlrd, certify thaf this Is e true and aacurate decision made by the Planning Board and certify
that II CIlPY of this and IIIf plans have been filed with the Soard lind the City Cleric on the date shown above.
eclslon has bHn mailed to the Owner and Applicant. . ,
~ffceofApp~ .
An appeal from the decIsion of t~ Planning Board may be made by any person aggrieved pur;uanf to MGt. Chapt. 40A, SecU,:m 17 as
amended withIn twenty (20) day ... after fhe'd." affhe filing of the notIce of the deals/on wlth·the City Clark. The dllte Is listed above. Such
appell may be made to fhe Hampshire Superior Court WIth I certlflea copy of fhe appe.'sen! to the. Cfty Clerk of thll City of Northampton.
GeoTMS® 2:011 De. Laurlera Municipal Solutions, Inc.
--L CIVIL ACTION
, COVER SHEET
Docket No.(s) Trial Court of Massachusetts
Superior Court Department
County: Ham shire
i l'LAlNITFF(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, FranQis
Johnson and Mark Sullivan, and the City of Northampton
ATTORNEY FIRM NAME ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE , , ATTORNEY Ukn ) 1 own
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. FOI Original Complaint D 4. F04 District Court Appeal c.231, s. 97 & 104 (After trial)
D 2. F02 Removal to Sup.Ct. C.231, 8.104 (Before trial) (F) D 5. F05 Reactivated after rescript; relieffromjudgmentlOrder
(Mass.R.Civ.P. 60) (X)
D 3. F03 Retransferto Sup.Ct. C.231,8.102C eX) D 6. EI0 Summary Process Appeal eX)
TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See reverse side)
• CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE?
CO2 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 t~eble damage claims; indicate single damages only.
TORT CLAIMS
(Attach additional sheets as neoessary)
A. Documented medical expenses to date:
1. Total hospital expenses , •• ~~ ••••••••• ", •• ~ •• f "' t •••• ~ ••••• ~s ••••••••••••• ,$
2. Total Doctor expenses •••• ~ w • ~ •• f .. ~ • , , , ••••• I I •••• I •• , , ................... $
3. Total chiropractic . ............. ,' "" ............ "" , ............... $
4. Total physical therapy , $ ••••••••••••••••••••• f •••••••••••••••••••••••••• , ••
5. Total other expenses • •• , ....................... , ................ , I •••••••• , $
t 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 ................................... : .......... ' ............. $ -,
F. Other documented items of damages (describe) ...........................................
$
G. Brief description of plaintiff's injury, including nature and extent of injury (desoribe)
This is an appeal of conditions attached to a special permit by the City of Northampton Pla~~ Board
pursuant to G.L.o. 40A, §17. $
TOTAL N/A
CONTRACT CLAIMS
(Attach additional sheets as necessary)
• Provide a detailed description of claim(s):
-
TOTAL $
PLEASE IDENTIFY. BY CASE ~UMBER, NAME AND COVN'IY. ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEP ARlMENT
"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 'Yl1~ yY1. GMJjp~ DATE: May 16, 20lL