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