Loading...
16A-002 Look Park Garden HouseCITY OF NORTHAMPTON ©� L/] U U PLANNING BOARD APPLICATION FOR: L _. 1. Type of Project: SITE PLAN APPROVAL: Intermediate Project ( i e Plan)' 0& Major Project (Site Plan Special Permit) OR X SPECIALPERMIT: Intermediate Project (with Site Plan Approval) X Major Project (Site Plan Special Permit) 2. Permit is requested under Zoning Ordinance: Section: Pat*_e: _ 3. Applicant's Name: Garden House at Look Park, Inc. Address: 300 N. Main Street, Florence, MA Telephone: 584 -5457 4. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map # 16 —A Parcel # 2 Zoning District: URA Street Address: 300 N. Main Street, Florence 5. Status of Applicant: Owner ; Contract Purchaser ; Lessee Other X ; (explain) subsidiary owner 6. Property Owner: Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park Address: 300 N. Main Street, Florence, MA Telephone: 584 -5457 7. Describe Proposed Work/Project: (Use additional sheets if necessary): Renovation and addition to existing pool house, new parking and walks, brick terrace with tent area, drainage and landscaping Has the following information been included in the application? Site/Plot Plan X List of requested waivers X Fee X Signed/Denied Zoning Permit Application X 8. Site Plan and Special Permit Approval Criteria. (If any permit criteria does not apply, explain why) Use additional sheets if necessary. Assistance for completing this information is available through the Office of Planning & Development. See attached Narrative A. How will the requested use protect adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses? See attached Narrative How will the project provide for: surface water drainage: surface water to be collected and piped through underground means and connected to existing drainage system. sound and sight buffers: screen plantings will be used to provide buffers to adjacent streets the preservation of views, light and air: views over the park will be maintaine outdoor Qatherine spaces will have exposure to sun and air 4 on D N-.00` How will the requested use promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets? walks are arranged to safety bring pedestrians to gath ering snares and are away from parking areas How will the project minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area? all traff wi ll use existing drives through the park and users of this new facility will have controlled access and egress points. Where is the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets? No new driv are proposed to city streets. What features have been incorporated into the design to allow for: access by emergency vehicles: will be allo wed adjacent to building and pedestrian R *.Yrelra-� the safe and convenient arrangement of parking and loading spaces: e d behind the building spearated from pedestrians, parking s ar an e� away from nedest jan gathering spaces provisions for persons with disabilities: handicapped parking and access is p rovided throughout the project. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to: the natural landscape: All large trees are proposed to remain, the proje will be nestled into existing landscape. to existing buildings: Existing building to be reused without major exter changes; an addition will be built that matches character - of exist other community assets in the area: This project will enhance the offerings of FBI nark by adding a service that will be used by man N\' measures are being taken that show the use will not overload the City's resources, including: water supply and distribution system: See attached. sanitary sewage and storm water collection and treatment systems: see attached fire protection, streets and schools: Gee att How will the proposed project mitigate any adverse impacts on the City's resources, as listed above? see attach E. List the section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance that states what special regulations proposed project (flag lot, common drive, lot size averaging, etc.) building the fired for the J U L - 6 2000 CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 How does the project meet the special requirements? (Use additional sheets if necessary) F. State how the project meets the following technical performance standards: 1. Curb cuts are minimized: No new curb cuts are proposed Check off all that apply to the project: use of a common driveway for access to more than one business X use of an existing side street use of a looped service road (existing park roadway) 2_ Does the project require more than one drivewav cut? —_ NO YES (if yes, explain why) 3. Are pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic separated on -site? — YES NO (if no, explain why) FOR PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE INTERMEDIATE SITE PLAN APPROVAL ONLY , SIGN APPLICATION AND END HERE. 9. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. The undersigned owner(s) grant Planning Board permission to enter the property to review this application. G rd House t Lo ark, Inc. Date: 6/30/00 Applicant's Signature: By� resident a ew al L Memorial Par Date: 6/30/00 Owner's Signature: By r,/d vC — Superintendent (If not the same as applicant's) OR PROJECTS THAT iREQUIIZEA SPEGIAI.!PERMT3' OR W.HICHA'RE A. MAJOR PROMCT, pphcants MUST also:coriiplete;the.following . F. Explain why the requested use will: not unduly impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining zones: The use is a continuation of the Park's mission to provide community facilities for recreation, parties, meetings, functions and community events. not be detrimental to the health, morals or general welfare: The facility will provide function, party and meeting facilities to the community in a three – seaso be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance: Look P meeting place for community, family and group activities and the Garden House will allow the Park to expand its s 6 , eptsR n M 1^. J U L 6 1 12 �;,;� , CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAN AAA 01060 M ° tom' .0,00 G. Explain how the requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and will not adversely effect those objectives, defined in City master study plans (Open Space and Recreation Plan; Northampton State Hospital Rezoning Plan; and Downtown Northampton: Today, Tomorrow and the Future). Look Park is one of Northampton's destination sites for tourists and visitors as well as a community resource for group activitie recreation parties and other functions 9. 1 certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. The undersigned owner(s) grant the Planning Board permission to enter the property to review this application. ar On House att L00%qftrk, Inc. Date: 7/6/00 Applicant's Signature: By: D. Et e g esident Date: Owner's Signature: �r lf not the same as applicant's) MAJOR PROJECTS MUST : ALSO .COMPLETE THE MAJOR PROJECT APPROVAL CRITERIA: Does the project incorporate 3 foot sumps into the storm water control system? Yes No (IF NO, explain why) Will the project discharge stormwater into the City's storm drainage system? Yes No (IF NO, answer the following:) Do the drainage calculations submitted demonstrate that the project has been designed so that there is no increase in peak flows from pre- to post - development conditions during the: 1, 2, or 10 year Soil Conservation Service design storm ? Yes No (IF NO, explain why Will all the rnnoff from a 4/10 inch rainstorm (first flush) be detained on -site for an average of 6 hours? Yes No (IF NO, explain Is the applicant requesting a reduction in the parking requirements? Yes No If yes, what steps have been taken to reduce the need for parking, and number i _�= 7 LL NO CHAMP ONSMO p pS0 ..r' SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS REQUEST FOR WAIVERS APPLICATION The application MUST include a site plan containing the information listed below. The Planning Board may waive the submission of any of the required information, if the Applicant submits this form with a written explanation on why a waiver would be appropriate. To request a waiver on any required information, circle the item number and fill in the reason for the request. Use additional sheets if necessary. A. B. B -1 Locus plan Site plan(s) at a scale of 1 "=40' or greater Name and address of the owner and the developer, name of project, date and scale plans: B -2. Plan showing Location and boundaries of: thelot See Assessor's Map and List of Abutters adjacent streets or ways all properties and owners within 300 feet all zoning districts within 300 feet B -3. Existing and proposed: - buildings - setbacks from property lines _ - building elevations -all exterior entrances and exits (elevation plans for all exterior facades structures are encouraged) B -4. Present & proposed use of the land buildings: B -S. Existing and proposed topography (for intermediate projects the permit granting authority may accept generalized topography instead of requiring contour lines): - at two foot. contour intervals - showing wetlands, streams, surface water bodies - showing drainage swales and floodplains: - showing unique natural land features B -6. Location of: parking & loading areas - public & private ways - driveways, walkways - access & egress points - proposed surfacing: B -7. Location and description of: n `� - all stormwater drainage /detention facilities U q � water quality structures � J public & private utilities /easements _ 8 CITY CLERFS OFFICE NORTHAMP MA 01060 sewage disposal facilities water supply facilities B -8_ Existing & proposed: - landscaping, trees and plantings (size & type of plantings) stone walls, buffers an d/or fencing: B -9. Signs - existing and proposed: No signs visible to public ways, interior direct Location signs in accord with section 7.2.4. - dimensions/height color and illumination B -10_ Provisions for refuse removal, with facilities for screening of refuse when appropriate: FOR MAJOR PROJECTS ONLY: B -11. An erosion control plan and other measures taken to protect natural resources & water supplies: Estimated daily and peak hour vehicles trips generated by the proposed use, traffic patterns for vehicles ind pedestrians shows adequate access to and from the site, and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site. Y�r /,Li . ✓Pi/I�/�i� Site Plans submitted for major projects shall be prepared and stamped by a: Registered Architect, Landscape Architect, or Professional Engineer J JUL - OU 6 LV I T CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAMP MA 01060 7 NARRATIVE Garden House at Look Park, Inc. Site Plan Review Application The proposed Garden House at Look Park is a Community Center under Sections 2 and Table 5 -1 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton. The proposed facility requires a special permit and site plan approval under Sections 10.10 and 10.11 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. The proposed renovation of the pool building is designed to preserve the pool building and enhance Look Park's ability to provide community meeting, picnic and function facilities to the community and its residents. As with the park, there will be a discounted resident's fee for the use of the building and facility. A. The proposed use protects adjoining premises from seriously detrimental uses. As the plans show, the entrance and Route 9 side of the premises will be extensively landscaped. There is an existing wrought iron fence between the facility and Route 9. B. The proposed use promotes the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement. As shown on the plans, a new traffic lane will be added to expedite traffic flow into the Garden House parking lot. Loading and deliveries will take place via the new rear access road. C. The proposed use promotes a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape and preserves the existing pool building. D. The proposed use mitigates adverse impacts on the city's resources and meets a demand for meeting and function facilities. E. The proposed use meets any special regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. F. The proposed use is consistent with the park's use, purpose, and mission and will be a positive impact on the adjoining park and community as a whole. The use is in harmony with the present use of the park and the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. There are no new curb cuts. The project separates vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the extent practicable and the project is designed to relocate the Garden House parking area entrance adjacent to the current entry booth. JUL 6 CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 File No. ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION 0 10.2 Please type or print all information and return this form to the Buildin A As - 6ffl c f 'witth jhe $10. filing fee (check or money order) payable to the City o pto j ' 2000 1. Name of Applicant: Garden House at Look Park, Inc. 1TEPT V 3Ji- ; Address: 300 N. Main Street, Florence, MA 01062 Telephone: Nh PTON7R0 ?? 2. Owner of Property: Trustees of Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park Address: _300 N. Main Street, Florence, MA 01062 Telephone: 584 -5457 Su sidia 3. Status of Applicant: Owner XX ntract F&chaser Lessee Other (explain) 4. Job Location: Area to north of Main Park e ntrance at Pool House Parcel Id: Zoning Map# A0 It Parcel# District(s): In Elm Street District In Central Business District (TO BE FILLED IN BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT) 5. Existing Use of Stmcture/Property Park and recrea 6. Description of Proposed Use /Work/Project/Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary): Renovation and addition to existing pool house; new parking area and walks; t errace with tent area landscaping and drainage n � ( R Q 1'l R lln�l[ 011 (overall plan)YYpp 7. Attached Plans: Sketch Plan Site Plan X Engind/Su e r TA WKS OFFICE 060 8. Has a Special PennitNariance/Finding ever been issued for /on the site? NO DON'T KNOW X YES IF YES, date issued: IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? NO DON'T KNOW YES IF YES: enter Book Page and/or Document # work site 9. Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO X DON'T KNOW YES X ove rall site IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission? Needs to be obtained Obtained , date issued: (Form Continues On Other Side) 10. Do any signs exist on the property? YES X NO ' IF YES, describe size, type and location: Main entrance and wood park signs located throughout Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property? YES X NO IF YES, describe size, type and location: Garden House identification sign with smaller di rPCti onal si gnage and handicap parking signs I. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION. This column to be filled in by the Building Department 12. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained her ' is true any Gard House at I Date: G) Applicant's Signature B E t ere NOTE: Issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve an appli t.'s burden to comply I all required permits from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Hist Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities. Yo cc at o the best of my knowledge. k Inc. r rest en th all zoning requirements and obtain oric and Architectural Boards, _ EXISTING PROPOSE? "! REQUIRED. BY :> ZONING:. Lot Size 112 acres no change Frontage 5,676 ft. total no change Setbacks Front 70' 68' 3v Side L: 15' R: 400± L: 15 ' R: 400± L• J5 R• Rear 200+ 200+ 30 Building Height to 20' no change c.� J Building Square Footage 34,995 SF total 1,460 SF additional % Open Space: Out area minus building & paved 98.57 98.47 v p arkin g # of Parking Spaces 900± 30 additional spaCES # of Loading Docks N/A 1 loading area Fill: N/A (volume & location) 12. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained her ' is true any Gard House at I Date: G) Applicant's Signature B E t ere NOTE: Issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve an appli t.'s burden to comply I all required permits from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Hist Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities. Yo cc at o the best of my knowledge. k Inc. r rest en th all zoning requirements and obtain oric and Architectural Boards, _ File # MP- 2001 -0005 APPLICANT /CONTACT PERSON GARDEN HOUSE AT LOOK PARK INC – ED ETHEREDGE 584 -1600 ADDRESS/PHONE 300 NORTH MAIN ST (413) 584 -5457 () PROPERTY LOCATION 300 NORTH MAIN ST - LOOK PARK MAP 16A PARCEL 002 ZONE URA THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST ENCLOSED REQUIRED DATE Building Permit Filled out Fee Paid Typeof Construction: RENOVATION & ADDITION TO EXISTING POOL HOUSE;NEW PARKING AREA & WALKS•BRICK TERR W /TENT AREA.LANDSCAPING & DRAINAGE New Construction Non Structural interior renovations Addition to Existing Accessory Structure Building Plans Included: Owner/ Statement or Licens 3 sets of Plans /Plot Plan THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION: Appro as presented/based on information presented. enied as presented: Z s pecial Pe it and/or Site Plan Required under: § 4; /d• PL ANNING BOARD ZONING BOARD Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed /n ea�G' J�3'•9r�./ /O laxo�xt( s /ArES Finding Required under: § — w/ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclose Variance Required under: § — w/ZONING BOARD OF Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed JUL - 6 2000 i Other Permits Required: L-- CITY CLERKS OFFICE Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer A rlablla lva . THAMPT0N, MA 01060 Septic Approval Board of Health Well Water Potability Board of Health Permit from Conservatio mmission Permit from CB Architecture Committee .7 14a l z,406� Sign a of Build' fficial Date Note: Issuance of a Zoning permit does not relieve a applicant's burden to comply with all Zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Department of public works and other applicable permit granting authorities. OR • r— r— — — — — — — r— — r— — r— — — — — O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A O N N W N N N O 1p 00 O lh O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z n —,-rl a r cn p a O z cn cn z a o y cn c H an an an an an an an an an an an an an v) v) v) v) v) d H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H a w r y H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Y �H � Z a d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn v) cn cn cn H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H T i m - O O a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a y y S O cn H C C t C17 C C C C C C C C C C C C O O r n7 y cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn U) U) U) U) U) U) cn Z Z �y H a b t7' y tz tz tz tz tz t 7 7 t 7 t� 7 tT1 t 7 t 7 tT1 t 7 l� tT1 lT7 l� t 7 t 7 t 7 l 7 ��i7 t 7 p t 7 t ���� ����� � oC 6 NZ> y cn cn cn cn cn U) U) cn U) U) cn cn cn cn cn cn� r o c,tz�� (-) zzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZWt Un a H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H � d r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r-' r Z r r r r r� tztztz tztzMmmMmmmmMtztztzOtztztztztz tz M tz tz d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o y 0 0 0 0 0c7l O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O v0 vi O N N 1 0 fo O A r O a O. O. rA A z fo A a o. o. fo H W1 f fo N b b A , O Q IZ O ON N O 0 0 O m C O y 0 x iv O b z N O O_ O O O II �O J P fD l' Ir A O cn H r d c cti D H 0 C'! M \..r • n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O O p� W p� rr r Vi r- W O �' �O J N .- A N D1 � J N O O A 00 — — r- r r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J 01 lh lh 7J 00 J — 00 00 N 00 Z Z Z Z z O V] V] cn x 0 r W a N N N O D1 N v� H H H trJ b7 z O Fi7 Fri Fi7 > H '� 7y 7y 7y 7y 7y a r O r O O, trj O O r n O zo o : t"Tl Ox y 0 5 � ° yn H r cnUz�y��n �nono�y��r��Z�Z tr1 H CrJ H H CrJ Cr1 Cr1 r rn vn vn vn vn vn y H H H "� "� y y `C y H H CrrJ y H H H H H cn �y H b p r r r x ����� d n n w >> r�a o td b7 d o ors r r�� cn> 2 y yy �aax ~~~~~~ 7� H H H H H t" p a i7 t17 t17 O t" p r �� O ti7 t17 t17 t17 t17 r��nzddt7ddd r s O n 7y o o a CxrJ �1 v� z d N ° J r `" a H H H H H H H Y O a o d ° z °z y a y d y b m m m cn cn r ; m o d d z o a x 1p Z cn x y d d a a o o r FC �c 0 cn o r v, �• A .� J rn v, v, 00 00 1 00 — (A 00 (A N 00 z z z z z N r-• CD 1 .0 w N y N N N "o N A vi H ,°� H H t b7 °y 7d r, y O C O O O O O O t7 0 t7 0 ° y ° ° ° O x x cn Z r Z r r a z p z H z r z cn cn cn M m H C17 H H cn cn cn M cn tz c O O C17 H M r'' Cn Cn Cn U) U) cn a H H H c H H F H H H H t74 y H H H H H H ti7 �1 a H C7 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r a �r��������������������������� cn r n d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d r d d d d d d d d d d d d � �n �n �n Sn Sn cn Sn Sn Sn Sn Sn Sn Sn �n �n �n P, cn Pn Pn Yn Pn Sn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 1 � Fd fo O A r O a H 5 fo z fo fo H H n f fo N Fa 00 00 O O O O rn G) 0 lC OD v (D U) d c m o n li O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 .0 O 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � `1 W w � N OO A O C%, O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O N N N N W N z z z z z z A J vi A W 01 z z z z " 7y cn 0 0 0 0 cn cn � � � z � r Z Ci a a a O z z H H z r H H H H H H H H m y H y H H cn cn cn cn H H H H H H rr - G n n> zzzzzzzz4N H v n v )vnvn po po po po b Z a Z Z Y >> n° o C�J C�J w r y C " r y cn C7 C) � a i v H H H H H H H O° tt r l p �' N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �izt�"CJCJ zzzzzzzz z� z cn cn cn r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z tz a� a a a z n o x xyyaz N N N N W W t j z z z z z z z z 'b 4, vi vi D1 D1 O A vi N Vi O y x z z z z H H H H r r T1 z zy r b7 p Coco H H H O O 0 c H r t. H �y cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn r tz tz c cn c H cn tz H H C 7 7 y cn H H �i ITI �t ITI �t ITI 'TJ 'TJ �t r r r r r r r r r Cn r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r M M r M r� M M r� r� r� b r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d d o d d d d d d d d O O O O O O O O O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W W O W W W W W W W W W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o CD O O N N J w b O A t" 0 i O A R 4 fo fo z fo A H W f fo N b r op- LJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 A N� o0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a 0 A A N z �p O� b7 b7 J W O c H y C7 C7 cn qy qy cn cn cn H H H a W C C p o� � 4 4 r r t7'> aa� cn ul ddr" �y tz cn r r cn CA C H cn Z r r r o y cn cn t7' x r I'd �� z � W o t7' y C7 C7 7y C7 cn H H O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 z P t P n n n n n n C) C) n n n C17 C17 C17 C17 C17 C17 PO lT1 C17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 N N N N N N N N N O O 00 00 N N , A i r O a O. fo R fo fo z fo We 5 C fo fo H �e f fo N b Exhibit "A" Planning Board - Decision s City of Northampton File No.: PL- 2001 -0001 Date: September 13, 2000 APPLICATION TYPE: SUBMISSION DATE: Major Project —Site Plan Special Per 7/6/00 Applicant's Name: Owner's Name: Survevor's Name: NAME: GARDEN HOUSE AT LOOK PARK INC NAME: NORTHAMPTON CITY OF COMPANY NAME ADDRESS: 300 NORTH MAIN ST ADDRESS: 210 MAIN STREET ADDRESS: TOWN: FLORENCE STATE: MA ZIP CODE: 01062 TOWN: NORTHAMPTON STATE MA ZIP CODE: 01060 TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE: PHONE NO.: (413) 584 -5457 Q FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: F i - - -I Site Information: STREET NO.: SITE ZONING: NORTH MAiN ST URA TOWN: SECTION OF BYLAW: NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 55 MAP: BLOCK: LOT: MAP GATE: ACTION TAKEN: 16A 1 002 I 001 Approved NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK: Site Plan Special Permit for renovations and an addition to the existing pool house to convert it to use as a community center /banquet facility. HARDSHIP: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: FINDINGS: in Granting the Site Plan Special Permit, the Planning Board found: A.The requested use (renovations and an addition to a former pool building for use as a community center /banquet facility) protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses because the use is allowed by Special Permit in the zoning district, and the applicant has made provisions for stormwater management landscaping, etc. as depicted on plans and information submitted with the Special Permit application. B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area. The applicant presented that they would coordinate events so as not to schedule large functions on the same evening as concerts at the park. Mitigation measures include creation ofa stacking lane along the entrance drive to accommodate vehicles turning into the new banquet facility. C.The requested use promotes a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area because the renovated building'has been landscaped to help It blend with the natural environment D. The requested use will not overload the City's resources, including the City's water supply and distribution system, sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, fire protection, streets and schools. E. The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance under Section 10.11. F. The requested use bears a positive relationship to the public convenience orwelfare because it will make available additional rental space for private and community functions. The use will not unduly impair the integrity of character of the district or adjoining zones, nor be detrimental to the health, morals, or general welfare. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. G. The requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and will not adversely affect those objectives, as defined in City master or study plans adopted under M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81 -C and D. In addition, in reviewing the Site Plan, the Planning Board found the requested use complies with the following technical performance standards: 1-Curb cuts onto streets are minimized because no new curb cut is requested. 2-Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic are separated on site to the extent possible. GeoTMS ®1998 Des Lauriem & Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL- 2001 -0001 Date: September 13, 2000 3. The project has been designed so that there Is no Increase In peak flows from the one- (1), two- (2) and ten- (10) year Soil Conservation Service design storm from pre - development conditions and so that the runoff from a 4110 Inch rain storm (first flush) is detained on site for an average of six hours. Catch basins will incorporate sumps of a minimum of three (3) feet COULD NOT DEROGATE BECAUSE: FILING DEADLINE: MAILING DATE HEARING CONTINUED DATE: DECISION DRAFT BY: APPEAL DATE: 8/3/00 8117100 votes to 912100 Paul Diemand REFERRALS IN DATE: HEARING DEADLINE DATE: HEARING CLOSE DATE: FINAL SIGNING BY: APPEAL DEADLINE: 8110100 919100 8124100 8124100 10/3/00 FIRST ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING DATE: VOTING DATE: DECISION DATE: 8110100 8124100 8124100 9113MO SECOND ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING TIME VOTING DEADLINE: DECISION DEADLINE 8/17/00 9:20 PM 1218/00 12/8/00 MEMBERS PRESENT: VOTE: Orlando lsaza votes to Grant M. Sanford Well, Jr. _ votes to Grant Paul Diemand votes to Grant Daniel Yacuzzo votes to Grant Kenneth Jodrie votes to Grant Anne Romano votes to Grant Andrew Crystal votes to Grant MOTIOtt MADE BY: SECONDED BY: VOTE COUNT: DECISION: Anne Romano Andrew Crystal 7 Approved MINUTES OF MEETING: SEP 13 2000 ` CITY CLERKS OFFICE NoPTH;'r+PTON. MA C1050 i GeOTMS ®1998 Des tauriers & Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL -2000- Date: August 24, 2000 Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws (MGL), Chapter 40A, Section 11, no Special Permit, or any extension, modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has been filed, or if such an appeal has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Hampshire County registry of Deeds or Land Court, as applicable and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant. It is the owner or applicant's responsibility to pick up the certified decision from the City Clerk and record it at the Registry of Deeds. (Please call the City Clerk prior to picking up the decision.) The Northampton Planning Board hereby certifies that a Site Plan Special Permit has been GRANTED and that copies of this decision and all plans referred to in it have been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that this decision is filed with the Northampton City Clerk on the date below. If anyone wishes to appeal this action, an appeal must be filed pursuant to NIGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, with the Hampshire County Superior Court or the Northampton District Court and notice of said appeal filed with the City Clerk within twm , days (20) of the date of that this decision was filed with the City Clerk. Applicant: The Garden House at Look Park, Inc. - 300 North Main Street DECISION DATE: August 24, 2000 DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY CLERIC: September 13, 2000 C-3 G v I � U SEP 1 „ 2000 CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAMPTON.NA 010 . K I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE- Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 11, I, Lauara Krutzler, Board Secretary, hereby certify that I caused copies of this decision to be mailed, postage — prepaid, to the applicant and owner on September 13, 2000. ' A true copy ' • Al"eL• Citv Clerk %ftW11 0 Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL- 2001 -0001 Date: September 13, 2000 On August 24, 2000 at 9:22 p.m., Yacuuo opened the Request by the Garden House at Look Park, Inc. for a Site Plan Special Permit for renovations and an addition to the existing pool house to convert It to use as a community centerlbanquet facility under Sections 5.2, 10.10 and 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 300 North Main Street (Look Memorial Park), also known as Assessor's Map 16A, Parcel 2. Improvements will include new parking and walks, a brick terrace with tent area, drainage and landscaping. Yacuzzo read the legal notice. - Edward Etheredge, Esq. presented the application on behalf of the Garden House accompanied by members of the design team, including Mike Liu and Rick Klein of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc., Tom Douglas and Joseph Krupczynski of Tom Douglas Architects, and Chuck Bowles. The application Is for a Site Plan Special Permit for a community room and also for Site Plan review, he clarified. The trustees have been looking for some years for a way to reuse the pool building at the park. For some time the demands on the park's facilities have been growing, particularly on the park's sheltered facilities, so that It now takes a year in advance to rent the larger facilities, he related. In recognition of that demand, the trustees came across the idea of turning the pool house into a facility to host community events, private functions, etc. He noted that it was done on the model of the carriage house in Forest Park. Etheredge clarified the project's need for permits. The project requires a Special Permit; and because it requires a Special Permit, it also requires Site Plan Approval under the Zoning Ordinance. Because the Building Inspector determined that ten additional parking spaces were required, it also became a majorprojec4 so they were also seeking approval for that. Etheredge said. The facility is served by one hundred and one (101) parking spaces, Etheredge advised. The building will accommodate two hundred and twenty -five (225), and this requires seventy-five (75) spaces, so they were already in excess of the parking requirement; he noted. They were expanding the current fifty-space parking area to eighty-plus spaces and adding rive more somewhere else, so they were providing an additional eighty-seven parking spaces. Etheredge noted that they had provided a traffic study done by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) and had been working with the city to redesign that intersection. They had asked The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. to prepare a site plan for a facility to be used as a community centerlbanquet facility, he concluded. Site Plan Details. Klein described proposed changes to the site. Plans call for widening the entrance drive to create a complete stacking lane for people who maybe going into functions at the new facility. (They were trying to keep existing large trees and work around them, he noted.) They would be creating a new driveway to come up along the edge to a drop -off area at the front of the facility. They were adding landscaping; also there will be lighting along the front of the facility, he presented. The addition to the front of the building will be forty by thirty -six feet (40 x 36) and will be comprised of bathrooms and an office, Klein said. He said there would also be aatent put up in the spring and taken down in the fall. To protect this area, the entire landscaping area is intended to be mounded up and heavily planted with luxurious flowering plants. This will provide photographic opportunities and also a physical barrier for people who might wander out of the function, he suggested. He pointed out that they were proposing screening along Route 9 in the form of evergreen trees and rhododendrons and that they would extend a driveway behind the bumper boats for delivery access to the facility. The entire [pool] building will be renovated, and there will also probably be a tent connection from the building to the tent, Klein continued." They were rerouting a walkway to come by the front of the building, but all [other] pedestrian walkways within the park will be maintained,he assured. Douglas explained the proposed renovations to the inside of the building. The banquet hall will seat one hundred and fifty people, he noted. He drew members attention to specific design features, including a fireplace and plans to enclose part of a porch and install french doors opening onto the porch. The addition will accommodate bathrooms and an office, he confirmed. Weil asked designers how they expected to accommodate the service drive? Klein said the driveway would be outside of the fence following the contours going down. Douglas explained that they were trying to create an enclosed courtyard to contain any loud functions. Etheredge expressed his opinion that the project did meet the criteria for a Special Permit under Northampton's Zoning Ordinance. He briefly reviewed the project's compliance with each criteria, confirming that it protected adjoining premises from any detrimental uses and met all other special regulations, etc. He requested approval. Member Questions. Romano asked what they expected to have besides weddings? Etheredge said the same type of functions as the carriage house - service groups, community group meetings, retirement parties, weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc. He said he understood there was some demand - since news of the project had been in the newspaper, they had receive so phone calls expressing Interest, he related. GeoTMS® 1998 Des Lauriers & Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampt File No.: PL- 2009 -0009 Date: September 13, 2000 Romano expressed concern about several different events going on on the same evening. Etheredge noted they did have a security force that dealt with handling traffic to an event He pointed out that there would be no backing up due to people coming to a function because they would not need to obtain a sticker. He said there would be signage marking the stacking lane. Traffic Concerns. Diemand commented that he thought it was a tremendous project, and on -site parking seemed to be good. However, he said he was curious, with the dangerous intersection getting a lot of attention, what was being proposed that would mitigate some of the circumstances? Etheredge said he had had conversations for a number of years with the Department of Public Works (DPW), etc. As they knew, the Intersections were offset, and squaring them up wasn't necessarily the answer, he observed. There were concerns about traffic, he acknowledged. He said they would not schedule large functions on the nights that they had a band. They already were handling large traffic due to concerts, and they were handling that so all they had to do was make sure they didn't schedule a large function on the same night, he suggested. Upwards of three thousand (3,000) people come to the park on the weekend for a concert and they handled that traffic, he pointed out Misch said she talked to [Acting DPW Director] George Andrikidis this afternoon, and there were a lot of issues to be addressed relative to that intersection, but he was confident that this project would not [interfere with the long -term solutions to problems at that intersection]. in response to a question about drainage, Klein explained that they were using an infiltration pipe underground in a certain location because they didn't want a detention basin, but they were adding impervious surface. They were able to accommodate [the increase in run -off] without using a basin, he concluded. Public Comment. Yacuzzo asked if anyone wished to speak in favor or in opposition? Edwin Warner of Bridge Road, Florence, said he was speaking as a neighbor and as a part-owner of the property together with other city residents. Warner expressed concern about what he described as 'a trend toward a business operation.' For many years, the park directors had operated a fine, safe, clean facility for family picnics, for mothers to go down there with their kids, etc., he commented. The pool was now gone, and the pancake house was gone, and his concern was with the direction now being taken by the park operation. He noted that two years ago they introduced concerts - noisy, loud concerts that disturb the neighbors. Warner said people parked over at the Kennedy school, and up to 3,000 cars went in, with promoters ending up with a gross of near $100,000. He suggested that this was in contrast with the stated intention of Mrs. Look in establishing the park. Warner continued by reading prepared comments. Among other things, he stated that the fact that park trustees now were seeking a Variance (sic) was a signal to him that the park intended to keep operating as a business .... The proposal to remodel the pool building would mean spending a huge amount of the trust fund established by Mrs. Look for the sole purpose of maintaining the park and park - related activities. Granting of this could impact the will, he suggested. Warner recommended that members consult the will regarding Mrs. Look's intention. She stated she was giving the land to the city for park purposes and recreation and that the land should be used forever as a park and for no other purpose, he maintained. This did not suggest that the park could become a location for business entrepreneurs. To place full responsibility on the trustees for insuring that her wishes were faithfully carried out, Ms. Look stated that if they did not, ownership of the park would revert to[]. It would be a sad mistake to jeopardize their permission to satisfy the park's pursuit of [additional income], Warner cautioned. Warner maintained that there were other uses for the building that would be consistent with her intentions and that would not jeopardize the provisions of the will. He made several suggestions, including a senior center, etc. Yacuzzo clarified that the applicants were seeking a Special Permit not a Variance. He asked if anyone else wished to speak? There were no further comments. Romano asked if lighting plan issues, maintenance issues, had been addressed? Klein posted a photometric plan and described proposed lighting. Light poles are fourteen- foot -high glass period fixtures, some with cut- off features, some without, he presented. There will be period bollards along the walkway, he noted. In all cases lights will have cut- offs protecting not only the street, but the park area as well. Referring to the photometric plan, he said the area beyond the yellow - shaded areas was .025 foot candles. Mike Liu submitted a drainage plan including a maintenance schedule. He briefly reviewed the maintenance plan. Crystal commented that for a community asset, they had done a tremendous job of upgrading the property and putting it back to functional use again, and they should be applauded for it. Isaza aske i f The Garden House at Look Park w as non - profit or for profit? GeoTMS® 1998 Des Lauriers & Associates, Inc. 05 Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL -2001 -0001 Date: September 13, 2000 Etheredge said it was for profit, and the sole shareholder of the corporation was the trust He said he didn't expect it to make a profit but It was a for - profit corporation. Yacuzzo asked if there would be any times that the facility would not be rented that it would be available to the community and if there was any sharing with the community? Etheredge said a fee schedule with different fees for residents as opposed to non - residents would be In effect Non - profits and seniors would receive a much - reduced rate for the use of the facility. Whether It could be used for free was another story, he remarked. They did have to maintain things, replace things and take care of the property without a single dime from the city, he noted. They did have to have some sources of revenue to provide services such as security, maintenance, etc., and they were hoping that this would be such a source, he submitted. Crystal moved to close the hearing. Romano seconded. The motion passed unanimously 7:0. Romano moved to approve the request of the Garden House at Look Park, Inc. for a Site Plan Special Permit for renovations and an addition to the existing pool house to convert it to use as a community centerlbanquet facility under Sections 5.2, 10.10 and 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 300 North Main Street (Look Memorial Park), also known as Assessor's Map 16A, Parcel 2, because It met the requirements of zoning. Members noted that no' waivers were requested. Crystal seconded. The motion passed unanimously 7:0. i tirtta copy • • e City Clerk F 13 2000 CITY CLERKS OFFICE 11 MA 010FO GeoTMS ®1998 Des Launers & Associates, Inc. 4 , l �.. ! the Commontvea fth of 39assubusetts Examiner William Francis Galvin Secretary of the Commonwealth One Ashburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 -1512 ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION (General Laws, Chapter 180) Name Approved ARTICLE I The exact name of the corporation is: GARDEN HOUSE AT LOOK PARR, INC. ARTICLE 1[ The purpose of the corporation is to engage in the following actividec To restore, preserve and use the Pool Building- at Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park. To provide and operate a public facility for meetings, community functions and events and a facility for private functions and events. To provide an attractive indoor and outdoor three — season community center facility for functions and events which cannot now--be-served--­ by Dow'Pavillion and other park shelters and pavillions. To provide a community center for public use in furtherance of the mission of the park as a community meeting and recreatior� space. The corporation shall have the power to own, lease or mortgage real estate and personal property and: be a partner or joint venturer with other organizations or governmental.entities to fulfill its purposes or to participate in private grants or government grants. The corporation shall have all powers conferred by law upon c. 180 'corporations. C ❑ P ❑ M ❑ RA ❑ ! �� APR 0 2401 C- __-- __ - - -- NS moo. Note: 1f sbe space provided under Any Article or item on skis form it insue�jt4 additions shall be set forth on one rids only of separate 8 112 n 11 skeet of paper risk A /eft marlin of At !eats 1 inch. Additions so mom than one Article may be P.C. made on A simsle sheet to Jong as each Article requiring each Addition it elearly indieatel 18004 4X= S.J 0 ARTICLE III A corporation may have one or more classes of members. If it does, the designation of such classes, the manner of election or appointments, the duration of membership and the qualification and rights, including voting rights, of the members of each class, may be set forth in the by-laws of the corporation or may be set forth below: The sole member of the corporation shall be the Trustees of the Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park or its successor, Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park, Inc. ARTICLLIY "Other lawful provisions, if nay, for the conduct and regulation - of the business and affairs of the corporation, for its voluntary dissolution,., or for limiting defining. or - regulating -the powers of the corporation, or of its directors or members, or of any class of members, are as follows: See Continuation Sheet IV —A. ARTICLE V The by -laws of the corporation have been duly adopted and the initial directors, president, treasurer and clerk or other presiding, financial or recording officers, whose names are set out on the following page,- have been duly elected. *1f then are no provi$fow, $tote Noble Note, The proeeliwt fiw (4) arelele$ on considered to be permanent and may only be eiaxsed by ftUxt appropriaa Artleloe of AmonAwmt- ii Continuation Sheet IV -A 4. Other lawful provisions, if any, for the conduct and regulation of the business and affairs of the corporation, for its voluntary dissolution, or for limiting, defining, or regulating the power of the corporation, or of its directors, officers, or members, are as follows: (a) In addition to the powers granted to the corporation by General Laws, Chapter 180, the corporation shall have and may exercise in furtherance of its corporate purposes each of the powers specified in Sections 9A and 9B of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 156B. (b) The directors may make, amend or repeal the bylaws in whole or in part except with respect to any provision thereof that by law or the bylaws requires action by the members. (d) (e) Notwithstanding anything else herein provided, the corporation is organized and shall be operated exclusively for educational, charitable or literary purposes, as said terms have been and shall be defined pursuant to Sections 170( e ) and 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. All powers of this corporation shall be exercised only in such manner as will assure the operation of this corporation exclusively for said education, charitable or literary purposes, as so defined, it being the intention that this corporation shall be exempt from federal income tax and that contributions to it shall be deductible pursuant to said sections of said Code, and all purposes and powers herein shall be interpreted and exercised consistently with this intention. No part of the net earnings of the corporation shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributed to its members, directors, officers, private shareholders or individuals, except that the corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services actually rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the corporation's purposes set forth in Article 2 of these Articles of Organization. No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall consist of the carrying on of propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation ( except as otherwise provided in Section 501(h) of the Internal Revenue Code), and the corporation shall not participate or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements ) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. Except as may be otherwise required by law, the corporation may at any time authorize a petition for its dissolution to be filed with the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts General Laws by the affirmative vote of a majority of the directors of the corporation then iu} office; provided, however, that in the event of any liquidation, dissolution, termination or winding up of the corporation (whether voluntary, involuntary or by operation of the law), the property or assets of the corporation remaining after providing for the payment of its debt and obligations shall be conveyed, transferred, distributed and set over outright to one or more educational, charitable or literary institutions or organizations, created and organized for nonprofit purposes similar to those of the corporation, which qualify as exempt from income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as a majority of the total number of the directors of the corporation may by vote designate and in such proportions and in such manner as may be determined in such vote; provided, further, that the corporation's property may be applied to charitable or educational purposes in accordance with the doctrine or cy pres in all respects as a court having jurisdiction in the premises may direct. (f) No officer or director shall be personally liable to the corporation for monetary damages for any breach of fiduciary duty by such officer or director as an officer or director notwithstanding any provision of law imposing such liability, except that, to the extent provided by applicable law, this provision shall not eliminate or limit the liability of an officer or director (i) for breach of the officer's or director's duty of loyalty to the corporation (ii) for acts or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation `of law or (iii) for any transaction from the officer or director derived an improper personal benefit. No amendment or appeal of this provision shall deprive an officer or director of the benefit hereof with respect to any act or omission occurring prior to such amendment or repeal. ARTICLE VI The effective date of organization of the corporation shall be the date approved and filed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. If a later effective date is desired, specify such date which shall not be more than thirty days after the date of filing. ARTICLE VII The information contained in Article VII is not a permanent part of the Articles of Organization. a. The street address (post office boxes are not acceptable) of the principal office of the corporation in Mauachusettr is: 300 North Main Street, Florence, MA 01062 b. The name, residential address and post office address of each director and officer of the corporation is as follows: NAME RESIDENTIALADDRESS POST OFFICE ADDRESS President: Edward D. Etheredge 128 Baker Hill. Road, Northampton, MA 01062 Treasurer: Clerk: Asst. Clerk Directors: (or officers having the powers of directors) Richard B. Covell Sharianne Walker Brian R. Elliott Franklin King,.III Nancy Reeves William Brandt 72 Fox Farms Road, Northampton, MA 01062 61 Fern Street, Northampton, MA 01060 300 North Main Street, Florence, 01062 99 Blackberry Lane, Northampton, MA 01060 31 Franklin Street, Northampton, MA 01060 591 Kennedy Road, Leeds, MA 01053 c. The fiscal year of the corporation shall end on the last day of the month ofi December d. The name and business address of the resident'agent, if any, of the corporation is: None I/We, the below signed incorporator(s), do hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that I/we have not been convicted of any crimes relating to alcohol or gaming within the past ten years. Me do hereby further certify that w the best of my /our knowledge the above -named officers have not been similarly convicted. If so convicted, explain. IN WITNESS WHEREOF AND UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I/we, whose signature(s) appear below as incorporator(s) and whose name(s) and business or residential address(es) are clearly typed or printed beneath each signature, do hereby associate with the intention of forming this corporation under the provisions of general Laws, Chapter 180 and do hereby sign these Articles of Organization as incorporator this —Z-7, filly of a ril .20 01_ Richara - B. coveii See above for addresses Noter If an existing corporation is Actin: at incorporator, type in the exact name of the corporation, the state or other fnrisdiction trhem it vat incorporated, the name of the person si=nins on behalf of said corporation And the title belsbe bolds or other Authority by trbicb inch action it taken. • THECOMMONWEALTH OFMASSACHUSETTS ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION (General Laws, Chapter 180) I hereby certify that, upon examination of these Articles of Organiza- tion, duly submitted to me, it appears that the provisions of the General Laws relative to the organization of corporations have been complied with, and I hereby approve said articles; and the filing fee in the amount of Z having been paid, said articles are deemed to have been Z,: filed with me this day of 20 , Effective date: f :✓ VVEUJAM FRANCIS GALVIN 6 Secretary of the Commonwealth 64 .$ba t N..ri{.e.r.wb.w r MA 01060 Telephone: N13) 58 /6� CONSENT TO USE OF NAME At a duly noticed meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park held on April 12, 2001, at the Park's offices at 300 North Main Street, Florence, Northampton, Massachusetts 01062, at which a quorum was present and voting, upon motion made and duly seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: To establish a separate not for profit G.L. c. 180 corporation to be known as the Garden House at Look Park, Inc., of which the Trustees would be the sole member. VOTED: To consent to the use of the name "Look Park" by the corporation. VQTED: To dissolve the G.L. c. 156B corporation known as the Garden House at Look Park, Inc. CERTIFICATE I, Sharianne Walker, certify that I am Clerk of the Board of Trustees of the FrAnnk Newhall Look Memorial Park and that the foregoing is a true account of the votes taken at the meeting, and the votes are of full force and effect and have not. been altered, amended or rescinded Date: Ia Drf 1 12, 2001 .: Sharnanne Walker, C ecretary ih ,Jan 17 02 12:39p Etheredge a Steuer 413- 585 -8406 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAMPSHIRE, 9s. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. W220 EDWIN WARNER GARDEN HOUSE AT The plaintiff, Edwin Warner, filed this action Firsuastt to G.L e. 40A, § 17, appealing a decision by the Planning Board of the City of No ( "&e Booze-) 8rantiag a ypccial permit to the defendant, the Garden House at Look Park, Inc_ {"the Garden Housel to con�stntct a commuWly/banqvet facility at fool: Part_ The Garden House motes to dismiss or for summary judgment on tbc ground that the plaintiff lacks standing and that the Board's decision was supported by sufficient facts. Alftcr a hearing and considmtion of the Parties' submissions, the motion is &nicd BACKGROUND Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park ( "Look Park "), which is comprised of 107 acres of land in Northampton, was conveyed to the City of Northampton in 1928 by dtOC! of Fannie B. Look. On July 6, 2000, the Garden House, then a for - profit a corporation controlled by the Trustees of Look Park. applied for a special permit pursuant to the Northarnpto, Toning Ordinance, sections 10.10 and 1 0. 11, to construct and operate a community center/banquet p.3 The City of Northampton, and Orlando Isaza, M. Sanford Weil, Jr., Paul Dievvmnd, Daniel Yacuazo, Kenneth Jodrie, Anne Romano, and Andrew Crystal, as they are members of the Pluming Board of the City of Northampton Jan 17 02 12:40p Et:heredge a Steuer 413- 585 -8406 facility at the pool house at Look Park. The Northampton Zoning Ordinance adopted the "community center" use classification in May of 1998, with the goal of encouraging "community programs, educational uses, arts and cultural events, and related uses." A "community center" is defined in Section 2.1 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance as: "A facility operated by a religious, non -profit or municipal organization primarily to provide public facilities for meetings, classes, teen centers and similar uses. A Community center may include artists' space and offices for non-profit organizations if such uses are clearly secondary to the primary use of the building and do not include any residential or overnight components." Only one other facility in Northampton has received the "community center" use classificati the renovation of the former Florence Grammar School, which is now the site for meetings, classes, and artists space. The proposed facility is intended to be used for functions such as weddings, parties, bar mitzvahs, as well as community group meetings. The Garden House hopes to rent the facility 7 days per week, for eight hour periods, with no event continuing past 12:30 a.m. The improvements, which will cost an estimated S1.2 million, entail addi offices and bathrooms and otherwise entirely renovating the existing pool building, increasing available parking from 50 to 97 spaces, and adding walks, a brick terrace with a tent area, drainage and landscaping. The total capacity forany event in the proposed facility is 225 persons_ The site contains no small function rooms, but only the banquet hall, which is designed to seat 150 guests, and the seasonal outside tent, which will accommodate approximately 200 persons. The Garden House has obtained a liquor license in order to sell alcohol at events where it is requested. Look Park's superintendent, Brian Elliott, anticipates that bands will play in the tent area. The park has p. 4 2 Jan 17 02 12:40p Etheredge a Steuer 413- 585 - 8406 11 %.� • Fannie S. Look to the City of Northampton and the Trust Indenture which governs Look Park; (3) the proposed use of the site also violates the terms and conditions of the same deed; and (4) the Board exceeded its authority in granting the special permit. After the plaintiff commenced this action, Garden House formed a non - profit corporation bearing its same name. On April 26, 2001, on request of the Garden House, the Board transferred the special permit to that non -profit corporation. DISCUSSION Garden House moves to dismiss or for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff (1) lacks standing to challenge the grant of the special permit because he is not a party in interest or an aggrieved party, and (2) the Board's decision was amply supported by sufficient findings, as the application to use the Garden House as a "community center" is consistent with the former use of the building as a pool and luncheonette and other uses in the park since its inception in 1928. Because the Court considers the parties' affidavits, depositions and other summary judgment materials, it shall treat the motion as one for summary judgment rather than a motion to, dismiss. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the summary judgment record entitles the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. QU %1;O v. Comm'r. of Correction 390 Mess. 419,422 (1983); Mass. R. Civ. P. 5qc). The moving parry bears the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact on every relevant issue. ede n v. Tim -- � . 404 Mass. 14, 17 (1989). A moving party who doss not bear the burden of proof at trial may demonstrate the absence of a triable issue either by submitting p.6 4 Jan 17 02 12:40p Ethmredge & Steuer 41 -585 -8406 affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's case or by showing that the nonmoving party has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of its case at trial. Flesncr v. Technical Comtn tiniest ions Corn. 410 Mass. 805, 809 (1991); u-MMvacilis v. General Motors Coty , 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991). 1. Whether the Plaintiff Has Standing In order to challenge the Board's decision, the plaintiff must be an aggrieved person. See Rinaldi v_ Zoning Board of Anneal of 1QWQn 50 Mass. App. Ct. 657.659 (2001). The Garden House concedes that `Parties in interest" as defined in G.L. e. 40A, § 11, have presumptive standing to challenge the decision of a zoning board of appeals. See HrvAd Square Defense Fund Inc v. Planning Board of Cambridge 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491.495 (1989). The Assessor's map shows that the plaintiff is a 'Marty in interest," as an abutter to an abutter within three hundred feet of the park's property line. See G.L. c. 40A, § 1 I ( "' jpjarties in interest'... shall mean...abutters, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the petitioner....'). "A plaintiff is a 'person aggrieved' if he suffers some infringement of his legal rights ...The injury must be more than speculative, ...but the term person ag2rieved' should not be read narrowly... Abutters entitled to notice of zoning board of appeals hearings enjoy a rebuttable presumption they are `persons aggrieved. Marashli v. Zoning Board of A2= ilk of NeWhU , 421 Mass. 719, 721 (1996) (citations omitted). p.7 Moreover, the City of Northampton identified the Plaintiff as an abutter and on that basis notified him of the hearing on Garden House's special permit application. This bolsters the Jan 17 02 12:41p Etti­redge & Steuer 46585 -8406 ` conclusion that the plaintiff enjoys a rebuttable presumption of being a "person aggrieved_" See Marashjian v. Zoning Board of Appeals_ of�lew�utynorr 421 Mass_ at 721; Va court v.Z n Board d of Appeals of Swansea 48 Mass. App. Cc. 124, 127 -128 (1999). "If standing is challenged, the jurisdictional question is decided on `all the Evidence with no benefit to the plaintiffs from the pFesumptior,.'. - -T11e plaintiff must put for it credible evidence to substantiate his allegations- in this context, standing becomes, then, essentially a question of fact en tti twsi ,.a.... Marashlian V. Board of Appeals of Newb = o rt , 421 Mass - at 721 (citations omitted), A review of standing based on `all the evidence' does not require that the factftader ultimately find the plaintiff s claims meritorious. a Accordingly, the plaintiff must now substantiate his allegations by coming forth with credible evidence —by direct facts and not speculative personal opinion --of a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or a private legal interest that is different than that suffered by the community generally. Rinald ' v. Zoninne Ord of Appeal of Boston 50 Mass. App_ Ct. at 659, citing tttig jai v. Zoning Board pf _Appeals of Gloucester 429 Mass. 55I, 554 (1999). An abutter's "fear [ increased traffic and decreased parking availability... fare] concems Q legitimately within the scope of the zoning laws." Maras liar, supra at 7I9. The Plaintiff has satisfied his burden. The ultimate merit of the claim aside, based on the evidence submitted, the ,anticipated use of the subject site for large -scale fumfions sufficiently demonstrates that the plaintiff's concerns about increased noise and traffic are not merely speculative. Given the large size of the banquer hall and tent area, the hope to rent the facility seven days a week, and the current demand for and interest in park rental areas, it is not difficult to envision the renovated pool house being used close to or at capacity, at least during the p.8 6 Jan 17 02 12:41p Etheredge & Steuer 413585 -8406 p.9 Is C V V p warmer seasons, in the years to come. The likelihood of bands playing in the outdoor tent ama for large functions into the late night hours would generate additional noise and traffic congestion which would likely infringe upon the plaintiff s enjoyment of his property in a manner different from others in the community. On this record, the Court mast conclude that the Plaintiff has standing to pursue this action. 2. Whether Genuine Issues of Material Fact Eiist as to the PiaintiWs Claims The Garden House further argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed material facts support the Board's decision. In reviewing the Board's decision pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 17, the Court "is required to hear the matter de novo and determine the legal validity of the decision of the board upon the facts found by him for her]." IoEg hs v. Board of Anneals of Brneklinr 362 Mass. 290,295 (1972). However, when considering a motion for summary judgment, the judge should not weigh the evidence or make findings of fact. Aile-Y v. Prespel, 409 Mass. 239,244 (1991). Contrary to the Garden House's contention, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the banquet halt and tent area, designed for grand functions such as weddings and bar mitzvahs, truly qualify under the Northampton Zoning Ordinance as a "community center." Accordingly, Look Park is not entitled to summary judgment. 7 Jan 17 02 12:41p Etheredge & Steuer 413-585-8406 `1d p. 10 Y vva CONCLUSION For reasons stated herein, I find that the defendant has failed to establish both that the plaintiff lacks standing as a matter of law and that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Accordingly, the defendant's motion is DENIED. a D. Josep Justice of the gi1nPA.A C,!_ Dated: January W , 2002 Jan 17 02 12:42p Etheredge a Steuer 413 - 585 - 8406 0 It is hereby ORDERED that the Defcudant's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment be DENIED Q _ Josephson Justice of the Superior Co Dated: 7anu - 7 W , 2002 Entered: January 17. 2002" P. 11 .Jan 17 02 12:40p Ether -edge & Steuer• 413- 595 -9406 p -S received hundreds of inquiries from the public regarding rental of the proposed banquet facility_ At the hearing on the special permit application, Garden House's representative stated that the demand on the park's other rental facilities has been in increasing demand, with a year long wait to rent the larger facilities_ The plaintiff resides at 20 Bridge Road in Florence_ The plaintiff's property is located within 300 feet of Look Park, in the same Urban Residential -A zone, and is the second closest residence to Look Park. The plaintiff, as a property owner identified on the City of Northampton's list of abutters to Look Paris, received a notice that the Board would conduct a hearing on the application at its August 24, 2000 meeting_ According to the minutes of the meeting, when one Board member asked - whether there would be any times that the facility would not be rented that it would be available to the community and if there was any sharing with the community," Garden House's representative, Attorney Etheredge, replied that "a fee schedule with different fees for residents as opposed to non - residents would be in effect. Non- profits and seniors would receive a much - reduced rate for the use oFthe facility." The Board found, Direr olio, that "The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance under Section 10.1 1," and granted the special permit. The plaintiff is concerned that the proposed renovations will generate noise and traffic which the plaintiff believes will adversely affect the value and enjoyment of his property. The plaintiff filed this appeal from the Board's decision, asserting that_ (1) the Board failed to make sufficient findings of fact as to the exact nature of the anticipated use of the premises by Garden House; (2) the proposed use of the site for commercial, for -profit activity, and the Garden House's then - status as a for - profit corporation, violate the terms and conditions of the deed of 3 11 ``✓ • COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT HAMPSHIRE, SS. . EDWIN WARNER Plaintiff V. GARDEN HOUSE AT LOOK PARK, INC., THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, and ORLANDO ISAZA, M. SANFORD WEIL, JR., PAUL DIEMAND, DANIEL YACUZZO, KENNETH JODRIE, ANNE ROMANO, and ANDREW CRYSTAL, all as they are members of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, Defendants SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION C.A. No. 00 -220 AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE M. FEIDEN I, Wayne M. Feiden, being duly sworn, upon oath depose and say: 1. I am the Director of Planning for the City of Northampton. I have been the Director of Planning since 1997. Prior to that time, I was the Senior Planner for the City of Northampton. I have worked in the Office of Planning and Development for the City of Northampton since 1988. 2. I received my B.S. in Natural Resources from the University of Michigan (1980) and my Masters in Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina (1988). I am a Certified Planner with the American Institute of Certified Planners. I am a member of the American Planning Association and the Massachusetts Association of Planning Directors. I am on the Board of Directors of the American Planning Association, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, and the site visit pool of the Planning Accreditation Board. I have attended over 60 planning conferences and workshops, with 20 presentations at conferences and workshops. I have five peer- review or other research publications. I have taught semester - length planning related classes at the University of Massachusetts and Westfield State College and numerous workshops for citizen planners. 3. I am responsible for overseeing all of the activities of the City of Northampton Office of Planning and Development, including comprehensive and strategic planning to guide growth, conserve natural and built resources, and provide for multi -modal transportation, community development and affordable housing, economic development, geographic information system, regulatory and permit granting activities, including related record keeping, and integrated implementation of planning, community development, economic development and regulatory programs. 4. I have reviewed the records in the Office of Planning and Development relating to this case, including: a. The application by Garden House at Look Park, Inc. for a Major Project — Site Plan Special Permit. b. The Site Plans, Traffic Study, drainage and engineering plans filed with the application. C. The September 13, 2000 Decision of the Northampton Planning Board and minutes of that meeting. d. The City's zoning maps, assessor's maps and other maps. e. The Northampton Zoning Ordinance. 5. I have examined the City's maps to determine the distances between the Plaintiff's property and the property where the Garden House is located. The distances are as follows: a. 155 feet, more or less, in a straight line from the nearest edge of the Park's parcel on the west side of North Main Street to the nearest edge of Edwin Warner's property n the north side of Bridge Road. b. Approximately 630 feet, more or less, in a straight line from the Garden House structure to Edwin Warner's house. 6. The City is planning an extension of its bike path from the current terminus on Bridge Road, across from Mr. Warner's property, northwest toward Haydenville and Williamsburg. Brian 2 i� Elliott, the Park's Superintendent is on the Planning Committee and the Park and the City are working together to design an extension of the bike path into Look Park and develop a safe crossing of Route 9, North Main Street. 7. The Traffic Study filed with the Application was done by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in cooperation with the City to develop a plan to make the Bridge Road — North Main Street intersection safer. The Garden House plans and proposed use of the facility only a minor impact on this heavily trafficked intersection and are part of the City's long term plans to improve the intersection. 8. On April 26, 2001, the Northampton Planning Board voted to amend and transfer the Site Plan Special Permit to the c. 180, not for profit corporation of the same name, Garden House at Look Park, Inc. A copy of the minutes and vote of the Northampton Planning Board are attached to this affidavit. 9. Look Park is classified by the City as a park or municipal use under Table 5 -1, Table of Use Regulations, of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. The Building Commissioner denied the Application for a Zoning Permit for the garden House based upon determination that the proposed use of the Garden House would be as a "community center" and that 10 additional parking spaces would be required. (Denial, attached). 10. The old Florence Grammar School is permitted as a Community Center in a URB Zoning district within the City of Northampton. It is operated as a "community centers" within the definition of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. Among the activities at the Florence Community Center are meetings, classes, parties and other functions. 11. An application was filed with the Northampton Planning Board for Special Permit and site plan review under Section 10.10 and Section 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of 3 i Northampton. The Special Permit and site plan review were unanimously approved by the Northampton Planning Board. 12. On October 6, 2000 the Northampton Planning Board was served with notice that Ted Warner had filed an appeal of the Planning Board's Decision. 13. The Northampton Planning Board believed that because not - for - profit, Section 501(c)(3) Look Park was the sole shareholder of the Garden House at Look Park, Inc., that it was a non -profit entity within the meaning of "Community Center" in the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. 14. The non -profit Garden House at Look Park, Inc. applied to the Northampton Planning Board for a transfer and amendment of the Special Permit from the "for- profit" Garden House at Look Park, Inc. The Northampton Planning Board approved that amendment and transfer of the Special Permit. The facts set forth in this Affidavit are upon my own knowledge, information and belief, and so far as upon information and believe, I believe those facts to be true. July )3 , 2001 Wayne M. Feiden M REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT To: Northampton Planning Board Northampton Planning Department From: Edward D. Etheredge, Attorney for Look Memorial Park and President, Garden House at Look Park, Inc. Brian R. Elliott, Superintendent, Look park Date: April 25, 2001 Re: Transfer or Assignment of Site Plan Special Permit PL- 2001 -0001, September 13, 2000 The Trustees of the Frank Newhall Look Memorial park and the directors of the Garden House at Look Park, Inc., holders of the above - referenced Site Plan Special Permit, request that the Northampton Planning Board vote: "to approve the transfer and assignment of the Site Plan Special Permit issued September 13, 2000, No. PL -2001- 0001 from the Applicant Garden House at Look Park, Inc., a G.L. c. 156B corporation, to the Garden House at Look Park, Inc., a G.L. c. 180 nonprofit corporation." Respectfully submitted, By: ')U dward D. Ethered e Attorney for Applicant and Transferee Etheredge & Steuer, Pc. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 64 GOTHIC STREET NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060 EDWARD D.ETHEREDGE SHELLEY STEUER' Also Admitted in New York and California (413) 584 -1600 4/25/2001 HAND DELIVERED Daniel Yacuzzo, Chair Northampton Planning Board 212 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: File No. PL -2001 -001 Dear Mr. Yacuzzo: r FAX (413) 585 -8406 I enclose a copy of the Major Project — Site Plan Special Permit issued to the Garden House at Look Park, Inc. As you know, the Garden House at Look Park, Inc. was formed as a G.L. c. 156B corporation, of which the Look Park Trust was the sole shareholder. You may also know that Ted Warner has appealed the Planning Board's grant of the Special Permit and Site Plan Permit. The Site Plan Special Permit was issued based upon the facility's use as a "community center." Under the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, a "community center" is defined as "A facility operated by a religious, nonprofit or municipal organization primarily to provide public facilities ... ". While all of the stock of the Garden House at Look Park, Inc. was held by the nonprofit, §501(c)(3) Look Park Trust, the corporation was a c. 156B corporation which is not a nonprofit corporation. This distinction is problematic for two reasons. First, even though all of the stock (hence profits) is held by the nonprofit trust, the corporation does not technically meet the definition of "community center" in the Zoning Ordinance. Second, the plaintiff, Ted Warner, has suggested that the stock of the corporation is owned by the individual Trustees who are making a profit off of this endeavor. Ted has even asked if he could buy stock in the Garden House. No evidence has silenced the defamatory claims and the trustees wish to put this issue behind them. April 25, 2001 Page 2 The Trustees have, therefore, formed a c. 180 nonprofit corporation named "Garden House at Look Park, Inc." and will dissolve the c. 156B corporation of the same name. Before dissolving the c. 156B corporation, the Trustees would like to transfer the Site Plan Special Permit from the c. 156B corporation to the c. 180 corporation of the same name. The Trustees, as the sole shareholders and the directors of the Garden House at Look Park, Inc. request the Planning Board's approval of the transfer. I have enclosed a filed copy of the Articles of Organization of the c. 180 Garden House at Look Park, Inc. Very truly yours, dward D. Ether ge EDE/kap Enc. cc: Carolyn Misch, Senior Planner Brian R. Elliott, Superintendent 0 CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF THE CITY SOLICITOR Janet M. Sheppard, Esq. City Solicitor VIA HAND DELIVERY October 18, 2000 Hampshire Superior Court 15 Gothic Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Warner v. Garden House at Look Park, Inc. et al Civil Action No.: 00 -220 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed for filing with the Court, please find Defendant City of Northampton's Answer in the above captioned matter. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very trl}t ours, Janet M. Sheppard, Esq. City Solicitor, City of Northampton JMS:msg Enclosure cc: Mayor Mary Clare Higgins Wayne Feiden, Planning Director John Fitz- Gibbon, Esq. 76 Masonic Street, Northampton MA 01060 (413) 585 -5889 FAX: (413) 586 -2937 rl COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAMPSHIRE, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 00 -220 EDWIN WARNER, Plaintiff v. GARDEN HOUSE AT LOOK PARK, INC., THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, and ORLANDO ISAZA, M. SANFORD WEIL, JR., PAUL DIEMAND, DANIEL YACUZZO, KENNETH JODRIE, ANNE ROMANO, ANDREW CRYSTAL, all as they are members of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, Defendants ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANTS, PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NOR THAMPTON TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendant Northampton Planning Board hereby responds to the enumerated Paragraphs of the Complaint of the Plaintiff, Edwin Warner, as follows: 1. Defendant neither admits nor denies the averments contained in paragraph 1 of the complaint. 2. The Defendant neither admits nor denies the averments contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. The Defendant admits the averments contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. The Defendant admits the averments contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 5. The Defendant admits that the Court has jurisdiction of Claims arising under Chapter 40A § 17. - 1 - I %.- • 6. The Defendant neither admits nor denies the averments contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint but says that the Deed and Trust indenture speak for themselves. 7. The Defendant admits the averments contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8. The Defendant admits that an application was filed by Garden House at Look Park, Inc. and neither admits nor denies the other averments in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 9. The Defendant admits the averments contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint 10. The Defendant admits the averments contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 1 1. The Defendant neither admits nor denies the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint and further answers that its findings as attached, speak for themselves. 12. The Defendant admits the averments contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 13. The Defendant admits the averments contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 14. The Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 15. The Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 16. The Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 17. The Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. - 2 - 1 1%y 18. The Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. And further answering the Defendant says as follows: First Defense The Plaintiff is not entitled to recover as the complaint does not set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. Second Defense In further answering, the Defendants say that the Plaintiffs claim is frivolous and not made in good faith, and the Defendants, therefore, demand their costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to G.L. ch. 231 §6F. Third Defense The Defendant, Planning Board of the City of Northampton, at all times acted within the scope of its authority in reaching its decision and issuing its finding and its actions should be upheld. Fourth Defense Plaintiff has waived or should be estopped from asserting some or all of the claims set forth in the complaint. Fifth Defense The Defendant, Planning Board and the Building Commissioner of the City of Northampton, complied with all of the Laws of the Commonwealth and Ordinances of the City of Northampton. Sixth Defense The Plaintiff is not aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Board, nor with the decision of the Building Commissioner. - 3 - `., Seventh Defense The statutory cause of action does not provide for a trial by jury. Eighth Defense The Defendants say that the Plaintiff s Complaint must be dismissed on the grounds that the service of process against them was insufficient. Ninth Defense Plaintiff has waived or should be estopped from asserting some or all of the claims set forth in the Complaint. Tenth Defense Plaintiff s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. Eleventh Defense Any actions taken by the Defendants were privileged and justified and Defendants are not liable to the Plaintiff. Twelfth Defense The Complaint was not filed and served within the time and in the manner provided by Law. Thirteenth Defense The Plaintiff has been guilty of laches and unreasonable delay in bringing this action. Fourteenth Defense Plaintiff is not a party in interest and has no standing in this matter. - 4 - WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that this Court 1. Dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint; 2. Order that the Plaintiff pay to the Defendants costs, expenses and attorneys fees pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 231 §6F; 3. Order such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF NORTHAMPTON / PLANNING O (ARD / Dated October 19, 2000 By: Janet M. Sheppard` City Solicitor for the City of Northampton 76 Masonic Street Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 585 -5889 BBO #: 457820 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Janet M. Sheppard, Esq., certify that on this 19`'' day of October, 2000, I served the foregoing by mailing a copy of same, first class mail, postage pre -paid and also by certified mail return receipt requested, to Plaintiff's Attorney, John H. Fitz - Gibbon, Green, Miles, Lipton, White & Fitz - Gibbon, P.O. Box 21A Northampton, MA 01061 -0210. - - --`� r lane M. Sheppard, Esc. I\, - 5 - City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586.6950 • Community and Economic • Conservation • His Preservation ent r • Planning Board Zoning Board of Appeals Special Permit Issued by Planning Board Map I . D 1G&* c-fca_ File # Date Submitted 4 -2 6 0 OPD Staff Review for fee ✓ and for completeness and for B.I. signature ✓ Planner Review Set up public file folder / Legal Notice Gazette + S� (Notice 7 and 14 day's before hearing) Legal Notice Posted Agenda Posted Letter to Owner - Z�/(6Uoib Letter Copy to Copy to Copy to Copy to Copy to Copy to to Abutters /Towns BI DPW 7i�0 BOH � C. C. Fire Dept. ZLIO P.B. members O�ce �l�o�ao Planning Board Hearing L,����aacb Planning Board Decision V2 V,04 Decision filed with City Clerk *t0lcyl Decision mailed to: Owner /Abutters /Towns 9ri3 Decision to DPW 9d Decision to BI Q /j Permit entered on computer ?hs Decision.filed O.P.D. ioj3 (Memorex: PLAN.BD\PBINSTRU 4/3/92)_ 11.� 0 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Department of the Trial Court Hampshire, ss EDWIN WARNER, Plaintiff 0 GARDEN HOUSE AT LOOK PARK, INC., THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, and ORLANDO ISAZA, M. SANFORD WEIL, JR., PAUL DIEMAND, DANIEL YACUZZO, KENNETH JODRIE, ANNE ROMANO, ANDREW CRYSTAL, all as they are members of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, Defendants OCT 2 Z'��0 CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 Please take notice that the undersigned has this day filed the attached Complaint pursuant to the provisions of General Laws c. 40A, §17 on behalf of Edwin Warner, Plaintiff herein. Respectfully Submitted, The Plaintiff, By his attorney, Dated: October 2, 2000 superio6wamer\notice Superior Court Civil Action No. C:0- 220 NOTICE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT John 41 Fitz- Gibbon, Esquire GREEN, MILES, LIPTON, WHITE & FITZ- GIBBON 77 Pleasant Street, Post Office Box 210 Northampton, Massachusetts 01061-0210 Telephone: 413-586-8218 Facsimile: 413 -584 -6278 BBO# 168570 AOTC -6 mtco05 -11/99 A.O.S.C.1 -2000 DO 7 7 NO.(S) AF — Court of Massachusetts CIVIL ACTION uperior Court Department IF COVER SHEET 00- 220 County: PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S) ED {VIN WARNER GARDEN HOUSE AT LOOK PARK, INC., et als ATTORNEY, FIRM NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE 413 -586 -8218 ATTORNEY (if known) John H. Fitz - Gibbon, Esquire Green, Miles, Lipton, White & Fitz - Gibbon P.O. box 210, Northampton, MA 01061 -0210 Board of Bar Overseers number: 168570 Origin code and track designation Place an x in one box only: ❑ 4. F04 District Court Appeal c.231, s. 97 &104 (After ❑X 1. F01 Original Complaint trial) (X) ❑ 2. F02 Removal to Sup.Ct. C.231,s.104 ❑ 5. F05 Reactivated after rescript; relief from (Before trial) (F) judgment/Order (Mass.R.Civ.P. 60) (X) ❑ 3. F03 Retransfer to Sup.Ct. C.231,s.102C (X) ❑ 6. E10 Summary Process Appeal (X) TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See reverse side) CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE? CO2 Zoning Appeal G . L . c . 40A(F ) ( ) Yes ( X ) No The following is a full, itemized and detailed statement of the facts on which plaintiff relies to determine money damages. For this form, disregard double or treble damage claims; indicate single damages only. TORT CLAIMS (Attach additional sheets as necessary) A. Documented medical expenses to date: 1. Total hospital expenses ........................................ .................$............. 2. Total Doctor expenses ......................................... .................$............. $ ............. 3. Total chiropractic expenses ....................... ............................... $ ............. 4. Total physical therapy expenses ................... ............................... $ • 5. Total other expenses ( describe) ................. ............................... • • • • • 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 (describe) $ ............. TOTAL $ ............. CONTRACT CLAIMS (Attach additional sheets as necessary) Provide a detailed description of claim(s): TOTAL $ . ............ PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND COUNTY, ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT "I hereby certify that I have complied with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Supreme Judicial Court Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution (SJC Rule 1:18) requiring that I provide my clients with information about court- connected dispute resolution services and discuss wi and disadvantages of the various methods:' 1theth6 DATE: Signature of Attorney of Record AOTC -6 mtco05 -11/99 A.O.S.C.1 -2000 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Department of the Trial Court Hampshire, ss EDWIN WARNER, Plaintiff V. GARDEN HOUSE AT LOOK PARK, INC., THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, and ORLANDO ISAZA, M. SANFORD WEIL, JR., PAUL DIEMAND, DANIEL YACUZZO, KENNETH JODRIE, ANNE ROMANO, ANDREW CRYSTAL, all as they are members of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, Defendants Superior Court Civil Action No. 00 -ZZ0 COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO GENERAL LAWS C. 40A, §17 PARTIES The Plaintiff, Edwin Warner, is an individual who resides at 20 Bridge Road, Florence, Hampshire County, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff s property is adjacent to that of Look Park on North Main Street in Northampton, Massachusetts owned by the City of Northampton which is the subject of this complaint, and he is a "party in interest" to a zoning application filed by the Defendant, Garden House at Look Park, Inc., within the meaning of General Laws c. 40A, § 11. The Defendant, Garden House at Look Park, Inc., is, upon information and belief, a for - profit Massachusetts corporation having a usual place of business at 300 North Main Street, Florence, Hampshire County, Massachusetts. 1 -✓ • Complaint page 2 3. The Defendant, City of Northampton, is a duly organized municipal corporation having a principal place of business at 210 Main Street, Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts. 4. The Defendants, Orlando Isaza, M. Sanford Weil, Jr., Paul Diemand, Daniel Yacuzzo, Kenneth Jodrie, Anne Romano and Andrew Crystal are the duly appointed members of the Planning Board of the City of Northampton. Their individual addresses are as follows: Orlando Isaza, 671 Kennedy Road, Leeds, MA 01053; M. Sanford Weil, Jr., 96 Washington Avenue, Northampton, MA 01060; Paul Diemand, 153 Franklin Street, Northampton, MA 01060; Daniel Yacuzzo, 88 North Elm Street, Northampton, MA 01060; Kenneth Jodrie, 21 Fruit Street, Northampton, MA 01060; Anne Romano, 71 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060; and Andrew Crystal, 51 Fairview Avenue, Northampton, MA 01060. These individuals are sued in their official capacity as members of the Planning Board of the City of Northampton. JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to the provision of General Laws c. 40A, § 17. FACTS GIVING RISE TO COMPLAINT The Defendant, City of Northampton, is the owner of a parcel of land consisting of approximately 107 acres on North Main Street in Florence, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, known as the "Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park" ( "Look Park "). Said property was conveyed to the City of Northampton by virtue of a deed by Fannie B. Look dated June 4, 1928 and recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds in Book 846, Page 532. The Park, as required by the deed and a subsequent Trust Indenture dated October 15, 1028, is to be governed by a Board of Trustees of the Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park, which includes, ex officio the Mayor of the City of Northampton. The conveyance is expressly conditioned upon the use of the land "forever as a park and for no other purpose." 7. Look Park is located in an Urban Residence -A (UR -A) zone as that term is defined by the zoning ordinance of the City of Northampton, as most recently amended. Complaint Page 3 8. On or about July 6, 2000, the Defendant, Garden House at Look Park, Inc., filed an application with the Planning Board of the City of Northampton, for a "Major Project -Site Plan Special Permit" pursuant to §§ 10.10 and 10.11 of the zoning ordinance of the City of Northampton to construct what was termed as a "community center/banquet facility" at the Park. 9. Community facilities are allowed to be constructed in a UR -A zone upon the granting of a special permit by the Planning Board according to the zoning ordinance of the City of Northampton. 10. A "community center" is defined under §2.1 of the Northampton zoning ordinance as "a facility operated by a religious, non - profit or municipal organization primarily to provide public facilities for meetings, classes, teen centers and similar uses. A community center may include artists space and offices for non -profit organizations if such uses are clearly secondary to the primary use of the building and do not include any residential or overnight components." 11. Upon information and belief, the Garden House at Look Park, Inc., a for - profit corporation, intends to operate the "community center/banquet facility" and a large part, if not the majority of their proposed activities are to host and conduct wedding receptions, bar mitzvahs, and retirement parties, all for profit. 12. On or about August 24, 2000, the Planning Board held a hearing on said application of Garden House at Look Park, Inc. 13. After hearing presentations from the proponents, the Defendant members of the Planning Board of the City of Northampton unanimously voted to grant the request of Garden House at Look Park, Inc. for a site plan special permit for renovations and addition to an existing pool house to convert it for use as a community center/banquet facility. A copy of the Planning Board's decision, bearing the date of filing, as certified by the City Clerk, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A ". • 14. The Defendant members of the Planning Board failed to make sufficient findings of fact as to the exact nature of the anticipated use of the premises by Garden House at Look Park, Inc. Complaint Page 4 15. In fact, the proposed use of the "community center/banquet facility" by Garden House at Look Park, Inc. does not comport either with the spirit or letter of the zoning by -lave regarding community centers in that said operation, operated by a for - profit organization, is clearly designed to be a commercial, profit- making activity, which activities are not allowed in a UR -A zone within the City of Northampton. 16. Said activities further violate the terms and conditions of the deed of Fannie B. Look to the City of Northampton and the Trust Indenture which regulates the governance of Look Park. 17. The Defendant members of the City of Northampton Planning Board failed to make adequate findings to support their decision as required by General Laws c. 40A. 18. The decision of the Planning Board of the City of Northampton in granting the site plan special permit exceeds the authority of the Board. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court: a. annul the decision of the Planning Board of the City of Northampton granting the Garden House at Look Park, Inc. a site plan special permit for the renovations and addition to an existing pool house to convert it to use as a community center/banquet facility; b. that the Court grant such further relief as it may deem just and equitable, including an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the Plaintiff. Respectfully Submitted, The Plaintiff, By his attorney, Dated: October 2, 2000 John H. Fitz - Gibbon, Esquire GREEN, MILES, LIPTON, WHITE & FITZ- GIBBON 77 Pleasant Street, Post Office Box 210 Northampton, Massachusetts 01061-0210 Telephone: 413- 586 -8218 Facsimile: 413-584-6278 • BBO# 168570 superio r\wamer\compint Exhibit " A " Planning Board - Decision t City of Northampton File No.: PL -2001 -0001 Date: September 13, 2000 APPLICATION TYPE: SUBMISSION DATE: Major Project —Site Plan Special Per 716100 Applicant's Name: Owner's Name: Surveyor's Name: NAME: GARDEN HOUSE AT LOOK PARK INC NAME: NORTHAMPTON CITY OF COMPANY NAME: ADDRESS: 300 NORTH MAIN ST ADDRESS: 210 MAIN STREET ADDRESS: TOWN: FLORENCE STATE: MA ZIP CODE: 01062 TOWN: NORTHAMPTON STATE: MA ZIP CODE: 01060 TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE: PHONE ND.: (413) 584 -5457 0 FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: Site Information: STREET NO.: NORTH MAIN ST SITE ZONING: URA TOWN: SECTION OF BYLAW: NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 55 MAP: BLOCK: LOT: MAP DATE: ACTION TAKEN: 16A 002 I 001 Approved NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK: Site Plan Special Permit for renovations and an addition to the existing pool house to convert it to use as a community centerlbanquet facility. HARDSHIP: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: FINDINGS: In Granting the Site Plan Special Permit, the Planning Board found: A. The requested use (renovations and an addition to a former pool building for use as a community center /banquet facility) protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses because the use is allowed by Special Permit in the zoning district, and the applicant has made provisions for stormwater management landscaping, etc. as depicted on plans and information submitted with the Special Permit application. B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area. The applicant presented that they would coordinate events so as not to schedule large functions on the same evening as concerts at the park. Mitigation measures include creation of a stacking lane along the entrance drive to accommodate vehicles turning into the new banquet facility. C. The requested use promotes a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area because the renovated building has been landscaped to help it blend with the natural environment. D. The requested use will not overload the City's resources, including the City's water supply and distribution system, sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, fire protection, streets and schools. E. The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance under Section 10.11. F. The requested use bears a positive relationship to the public convenience or welfare because it will make available additional rental space for private and community functions. The use will not unduly impair the integrity of character of the district or adjoining zones, nor be detrimental to the health, morals, or general welfare. The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. G. The requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and will not adversely affect those objectives, as defined in City master or study plans adopted under M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81 -C and D. In addition, in reviewing the Site Plan, the Planning Board found the requested use complies with the following technical performance standards: 1. Curb cuts onto streets are minimized because no new curb cut is requested. 2.Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic are separated on site to the extent possible. GeoTMS ®1998 Des Lauriers & Associates, Inc. i Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL- 2001 -0001 Date: September 13, 2000 3.The project has been designed so that there Is no Increase In peak flows from the one- (1), two- (2) and ten- (10) year Soil Conservation Service design storm from pre - development conditions and so that the runoff from a 4110 Inch rain storm (first flush) is detained on site for an average of six hours. Catch basins will incorporate sumps of a minimum of three (3) feet. COULD NOT DEROGATE BECAUSE: FILING DEADLINE: MAILING DATE: HEARING CONTINUED DATE: DECISION DRAFT BY. APPEAL DATE: 813100 8117100 votes to 917100 Paul Diemand REFERRALS IN DATE: HEARING DEADLINE DATE: HEARING CLOSE DATE: FINAL SIGNING BY: APPEAL DEADLINE: 8110100 919100 8124100 8124100 1013/00 FIRST ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING DATE: VOTING DATE: DECISION DATE: 8110100 8124100 8/24100 9113100 SECOND ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING TIME: VOTING DEADLINE: DECISION DEADLINE: 8117/00 9:20 PM 12 1218/00 Andrew Crystal votes to Grant MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: VOTE COUNT: DECISION: Anne Romano Andrew Crystal 7 Approved MINUTES OF MEETING: SEP 1 3 2000 .� CITY CLEPM OFFICE NORTHAMPTON. M 0 050 GeoTMS ®1998 Des Lauriers & Associates, Inc. VU i t:; Orlando lsaza votes to Grant M. Sanford Weil, Jr. _ votes to Grant Paul Diemand votes to Grant Daniel Yacuzzo votes to Grant Kenneth Jodrie votes to Grant Anne Romano votes to Grant Andrew Crystal votes to Grant MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: VOTE COUNT: DECISION: Anne Romano Andrew Crystal 7 Approved MINUTES OF MEETING: SEP 1 3 2000 .� CITY CLEPM OFFICE NORTHAMPTON. M 0 050 GeoTMS ®1998 Des Lauriers & Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL -2000- Date: August 24, 2000 Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws (MGL), Chapter 40A, Section 11, no Special Permit, or any extension, modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have elapsed after the decision has been filed, or if such an appeal has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Hampshire County registry of Deeds or Land Court, as applicable and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant. It is the owner or applicant's responsibility to pick up the certified decision from the City Clerk and record it at the Registry of Deeds. (Please call the City Clerk prior to picking up the decision.) The Northampton Planning Board hereby certifies that a Site Plan Special Permit has been GRANTED and that copies of this decision and all plans referred to in it have been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that this decision is filed with the Northampton City Clerk on the date below. If anyone wishes to appeal this action, an appeal must be filed pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, with the Hampshire County Superior Court or the Northampton District Court and notice of said appeal filed with the City Clerk within twenty days (20) of the date of that this decision was filed with the City Clerk. Applicant: The Garden House at Look Park, Inc. - 300 North Main Street DECISION DATE: August 24, 2000 DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: September 13, 2000 1 ��f u' SEP 1 32000 CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 ��, . � * � , Q_ IJ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 11, I, Lauara Rrutzler, Board Secretary, hereby certify that I caused copies of this decision to be mailed, postage — prepaid, to the applicant and owner on September 13, 2000. .A true copy � • • AM"t: Citv Clerk '%� 0 Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL- 2001 -0001 Date: September 13, 2000 On August 24, 2000 at 9:22 p.m., Yacuzzo opened the Request by the Garden House at Look Park, Inc. for a Site Plan Special Permit for renovations and an addition to the existing pool house to convert It to use as a community center/banquet facility under Sections 5.2, 10.10 and 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 300 North Main Street (Look Memorial Park), also known as Assessor's Map f6A, Parcel 2. Improvements will Include new parking and walks, a brick terrace with tent area, drainage and landscaping. Yacuzzo read the legal notice. Edward Etheredge, Esq. presented the application on behalf of the Garden House accompanied by members of the design team, including Mike Liu and Rick Klein of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc., Tom Douglas and Joseph Krupczynskl of Tom Douglas Architects, and Chuck Bowles. The application Is for a Site Plan Special Permit for a community room and also for Site Plan review, he clarified. The trustees have been looking for some years for away to reuse the pool building at the park. For sometime the demands on the park's facilities have been growing, particularly on the park's sheltered facilities, so that it now takes a year In advance to rent the larger facilities, he related. In recognition of that demand, the trustees came across the Idea of turning the pool house Into a facility to host community events, private functions, etc. He noted that It was done on the model of the carriage house In Forest Park. Etheredge clarified the project's need for permits. The project requires a Special Permi4 and because it requires a Special Permit, it also requires Site Plan Approval under the Zoning Ordinance. Because the Building Inspector determined that ten additional parking spaces were required, it also became a major project so they were also seeking approval for that, Etheredge said. The facility is served by one hundred and one (101) parking spaces, Etheredge advised. The building will accommodate two hundred and twenty -rive (225), and this requires seventy-rive (75) spaces, so they were already In excess of the parking requirement, he noted. They were expanding the current fifty -space parking area to eighty-plus spaces and adding rive more somewhere else, so they were providing an additional eighty-seven parking spaces. Etheredge noted that they had provided a traffic study done by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) and had been working with the city to redesign that intersection. They had asked The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. to prepare a site plan for a facility to be used as a community centeNbanquet facility, he concluded. Site Plan Details. Klein described proposed changes to the site. Plans call for widening the entrance drive to create a complete stacking lane for people who may be going into functions at the new facility. (They were trying to keep existing large trees and work around them, he noted.) They would be creating a new driveway to come up along the edge to a drop -off area at the front of the facility. They were adding landscaping; also there will be lighting along the front of the facility, he presented. The addition to the front of the building will be forty by thirty -six feet (40 x 36) and will be comprised of bathrooms and an office, Klein said. He said there would also be a tent put up in the spring and taken down in the fall. To protect this area, the entire landscaping area is intended to be mounded up and heavily planted with luxurious flowering plants. This will provide photographic opportunities and also a physical barrier for people who might wander out of the function, he suggested. He pointed out that they were proposing screening along Route 9 in the form of evergreen trees and rhododendrons and that they would extend a driveway behind the bumper boats for delivery access to the facility. The entire [pool] building will be renovated, and there will also probably be a tent connection from the building to the tent, Klein continued. They were rerouting a walkway to come by the front of the building, but all [other] pedestrian walkways within the park will be maintained, he assured. Douglas explained the proposed renovations to the inside of the building. The banquet hall will seat one hundred and fifty people, he noted. He drew members attention to specific design features, including a fireplace and plans to enclose part of a porch and install french doors opening onto the porch. The addition will accommodate bathrooms and an office, he confirmed. Weil asked designers how they expected to accommodate the service drive? Klein said the driveway would be outside of the fence following the contours going down. Douglas explained that they were trying to create an enclosed courtyard to contain any loud functions. Etheredge expressed his opinion that the project did meet the criteria for a Special Permit under Northampton's Zoning Ordinance. He briefly reviewed the project's compliance with each criteria, confirming that it protected adjoining premises from any detrimental uses and met all other special regulations, etc. He requested approval. Member Questions. Romano asked what they expected to have besides weddings? Etheredge said the same type of functions as the carriage house - service groups, community group meetings, retirement parties, weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc. He said he understood there was some demand - since news of the project had been in the newspaper, they had received some phone calls expressing Interest he related. GeoTMS ®1998 Des Lauriers & Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL- 2001 -0001 Date: September 13, 2000 Romano expressed concern about several different events going on on the same evening. Etheredge noted they did have a security force that dealt with handling traffic to an event He pointed out that there would be no backing up due to people coming to a function because they would not need to obtain a sticker. He said there would be signage marking the stacking lane. Traffic Concerns. Diemand commented that he thought it was a tremendous project and on -site parking seemed to be good. However, he said he was curious, with the dangerous intersection getting a lot of attention, what was being proposed that would mitigate some of the circumstances? Etheredge said he had had conversations for a number of years with the Department of Public Works (OPK9, etc. As they knew, the Intersections were offset, and squaring them up wasn't necessarily the answer, he observed. There were concerns about traffic, he acknowledged. He said they would not schedule large functions on the nights that they had a band. They already were handling large traffic due to concerts, and they were handling that, so all they had to do was make sure they didn't schedule a large function on the same night he suggested. Upwards of three thousand (3,000) people come to the park on the weekend for a concert, and they handled that traffic, he pointed out. Misch said she talked to [Acting DPW Director] George Andrikidis this afternoon, and there were a lot of issues to be addressed relative to that intersection, but he was confident that this project would not [interfere with the long -term solutions to problems at that intersection]. In response to a question about drainage, Klein explained that they were using an infiltration pipe underground in a certain location because they didn't want a detention basin, but they were run -off] without using a basin, he concluded. adding impervious surface. They were able to accommodate [the increase in Public Comment. Yacuzzo asked if anyone wished to speak in favor or in opposition? Edwin Warner of Bridge Road, Florence, said he was speaking as a neighbor and as a part-owner of the property together with other city residents. Warner expressed concern about what he described as - a trend toward a business operation.' For many years, the park directors had operated a fine, safe, clean facility for family picnics, for mothers to go down therewith their kids, etc., he commented. The pool was now gone, and the pancake house was gone, and his concern was with the direction now being taken by the park operation. He noted that two years ago they introduced concerts - noisy, loud concerts that disturb the neighbors. Warner said people parked over at the Kennedy school, and up to 3,000 cars went in, with promoters ending up with a gross of near $100,000. He suggested that this was in contrast with the stated intention of Mrs. Look in establishing the park. Warner continued by reading prepared comments. Among other things, he stated that the fact that park trustees now were seeking a Variance (sic) was a signal to him that the park intended to keep operating as a business .... The proposal to remodel the pool building would mean spending a huge amount of the trust fund established by Mrs. Look for the sole purpose of maintaining the park and park - related activities. Granting of this could impact the will, he suggested. Warner recommended that members consult the will regarding Mrs. Look's intention. She stated she was giving the land to the city for park purposes and recreation and that the land should be used forever as a park and for no other purpose, he maintained. This did not suggest that the park could become a location for business entrepreneurs. To place full responsibility on the trustees for insuring that her wishes were faithfully carried out, Ms. Look stated that if they did not ownership of the park would revert to []. It would be a sad mistake to jeopardize their permission to satisfy the park's pursuit of [additional income], Warner cautioned. Warner maintained that there were other uses for the building that would be consistent with her intentions and that would not jeopardize the provisions of the will. He made several suggestions, including a senior center, etc. Yacuzzo clarified that the applicants were seeking a Special Permit not a Variance. He asked if anyone else wished to speak? There were no further comments. Romano asked if lighting plan issues, maintenance issues, had been addressed? Klein posted a photometric plan and described proposed lighting. Light poles are fourteen- foot -high glass period fixtures, some with cut- off features, some without, he presented. There will be period bollards along the walkway, he noted. In all cases lights will have cut- offs protecting not only the street, but the park area as well. Referring to the photometric plan, he said the area beyond the yellow - shaded areas was .025 foot candles. Mike Liu submitted a drainage plan including a maintenance schedule. He briefly reviewed the maintenance plan Crystal commented that for a community asset they had done a tremendous job of upgrading the property and putting it back to functional use again, and they should be applauded for it. lsaza asked if The Garden House at Look Park was nonprofit or for profit? GeoTMS ®1998 Des Lauriers & Associates, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton File No.: PL- 2001 -0001 Date: September 13, 2000 Etheredge said it was for profit and the sole shareholder of the corporation was the trust He said he didn't expect it to make a profit but it was a for - profit corporation. Yacuzzo asked if there would be any times that the facility would not be rented that it would be available to the community and if there was any sharing with the community? Etheredge said a fee schedule with different fees for residents as opposed to non - residents would be in effect Non profits and seniors would receive a much - reduced rate for the use of the facility. Whether it could be used for free was another story, he remarked. They did have to maintain things, replace things and take care of the property without a single dime from the city, he noted. They did have to have some sources of revenue to provide services such as security, maintenance, etc., and they were hoping that this would be such a source, he submitted. Crystal moved to close the hearing. Romano seconded. The motion passed unanimously 7:0. Romano moved to approve the request of the Garden House at Look Park, Inc. for a Site Plan Special Permit for renovations and an addition to the existing pool house to convert it to use as a community center /banquet facility under Sections 5.2, 10.10 and 10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 300 North Main Street (Look Memorial Park), also known as Assessor's Map 16A, Parcel 2, because it met the requirements of zoning. Members noted that no were requested. Crystal seconded. The motion passed unanimously 7:0. A tam copy . �0 A City Clerk �1u SEP 13 2000 CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORMAMPTON, MA 01060 GeoTMS ®1998 Des Lauders & Associates, Inc.