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 .