[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6199374,"mediaKeyId","3836326-1f7cc7913d700492f88296cc5d8bc3e9","parentId",3836326,"title","Planning board continues review of 16,000 sq. ft. Industrial Drive warehouse pending stormwater and conservation reviews","audioSeconds",2978,"startMs",416625,"endMs",3395099,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3836326-1f7cc7913d700492f88296cc5d8bc3e9&start=416&end=3395","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3836326-1f7cc7913d700492f88296cc5d8bc3e9/thumbnail_416625.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6199374/Massachusetts/Planning-board-continues-review-of-16000-sq-ft-Industrial-Drive-warehouse-pending-stormwater-and-conservation-reviews","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6199374-180668645466542a8fa6bedd00133c74/orig.mp4?Expires=1770651713&Signature=X1NPBIUaWzJ~WzhsSCkHRKCaBdLQ5vIFsUkjG-MdKGUDTjNj70UqvtDXGD~2HaW1TLiRKZooa0NE73fn4mLeHWkosocqP33Wk4rxh9FY5LXh4QL3cmidAGyTZ6Rr~wuR1mi25vf5BRxIhtYmSTtP86i5roLOKririTqUKGtoozhC60YuvolWNecBW~LPJnfKCZKlShP7Vr8tP1fmrLsII~Miv0y6hv0AGsEUAckTu~NV5fmTaIAkddTpPxX6jHEgbE-Do9qsD0PB-uo4XN7zKwxQ~SkCVzkpQcgUTBV4l0pFol4iGG4EhI0wsvDzcqQmJXfKaOrj8Jq0~LD7fr9TRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Northampton City, MA","date","2025-06-15T20:00:04Z","article","The Northampton City Planning Board on Thursday continued a site-plan review for a proposed 16,000-square-foot industrial warehouse at 106 Industrial Drive so city Department of Public Works staff and the Conservation Commission can finish reviews of stormwater, wetland buffers and related permits.

Mike Schafer of Huntley Associates, representing High-tech Park Properties, presented the proposal and described the building as “just under 16,000 square feet” to be placed behind the existing facility on the lot and accessed from the same curb cut. Schafer said the proposal includes about 16 new parking spaces (21 total after counting existing spaces), upgraded stormwater treatment, additional landscaping and a new fire hydrant to support a sprinklered building.

The board’s continuation request followed questions from staff and members about stormwater permitting and the project’s proximity to mapped wetlands. Schafer told the board the proposed building footprint stays outside the 10-foot no‑build buffer established for the industrial park but encroaches into a 100‑foot buffer, and that the team is pursuing a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission. He also said there is “no wetland alteration proposed in this project.”

Environmental consultant Mickey Marcus, who has worked on the site previously, told the board the property “has always been a cleared site” as part of the industrial-park development and said plantings could be phased to avoid exceeding the federal/state disturbance threshold in a single work period.

City staff and DPW raised two technical issues the applicant must address before the board can act. First, DPW told the board that the city code requires a separate stormwater permit when a site disturbance exceeds one acre, and staff asked for final DPW review because the submitted disturbance area is close to that threshold. Schafer said his calculation keeps disturbance under an acre; he reported two alternate estimates he provided to DPW (0.91 and 0.96 acres) and said he can revise the plan to remain clearly under the threshold. Second, DPW asked the applicant to revise the stormwater treatment to meet current TSS removal and recharge expectations; the applicant proposed a four-bay treatment system and said they are prepared to substitute hydrodynamic separators or other devices requested by DPW.

Board and staff members also requested clarification on street‑tree planting along the Industrial Drive frontage, final lighting specifications (applicant proposes downcast door lighting only), and a plan for handling additional refuse capacity if future operations require it. Schafer told the board the project will include an enclosed dumpster area and proposed paver sidewalks that could provide some infiltration.

Formal action at the meeting was limited to schedule and process. The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to June 26 at 7:16 p.m., directing the applicant to return with DPW responses, final disturbance-area calculations, any Conservation Commission feedback on the Notice of Intent, and revised plans showing street trees or a justification for any variance.

The continuation means the board will not close the hearing until DPW completes its stormwater review; planning staff said an unresolved dispute about the one‑acre threshold could trigger a separate stormwater permit that must be decided before a building permit is issued.

Next steps: the applicant will revise plans per DPW and Conservation Commission comments and return to the board on June 26. If DPW confirms the project remains under the one‑acre disturbance threshold and is satisfied with the stormwater treatment, the board may take final action at that meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Northampton Planning Board | June 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Northampton City Planning Board on Thursday continued a site-plan review for a proposed 16,000-square-foot industrial warehouse at 106 Industrial Drive so city engineers and the conservation commission can complete stormwater and wetland‑buffer reviews.","taxTitle","Northampton City, Hampshire County, Massachusetts","taxId",68541,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6199364,"Planning board approves 8-unit Holly Street housing project, with conditions on culvert, stormwater and design",1697,3762030,5460020,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3836326-1f7cc7913d700492f88296cc5d8bc3e9&start=3762&end=5460","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3836326-1f7cc7913d700492f88296cc5d8bc3e9/thumbnail_3762030.jpg","/articles/6199364/Massachusetts/Planning-board-approves-8-unit-Holly-Street-housing-project-with-conditions-on-culvert-stormwater-and-design","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6199364-cdbdbfe0248e1021fc010d25c6d8d5bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770651713&Signature=HIWqw5PaqXPkZ0NM0t0HE-q3EZz3wIyMXow7VVCFwe1zChy~C4Ql-PuCiz04VEqVZKdhqXIaHGdTCbv4Dg7o9DwozYyK59TyrQlsbViux5-Mnc9b1xMQweLXbH1pSTZQBXnNVSWS4dzFLke1xjP1IygzeDppt36qG3ppUf0N7bH4z5EnpdH1bqnVhhFcBrw4FmkSfyHWrv2sMmNN~p04ZDeRFkHzGL2XB1gy~7u0TE7-i3avSkPgWVVdh-vDZT28-H46IeaFOLaQvD6lKZgDrafvUxDTgBslW9qSK0Nw9z8w6oP-k-BmuquPXD29EJJbQYn-biCG1O3oJb4NT3LPuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Northampton City Planning Board on June 12 voted to approve a site plan to redevelop 111 Holly Street into three buildings containing eight condominium units, subject to conditions addressing stormwater connections, a historic culvert running beneath the lot, and final plan adjustments.

Doug Searle, a landscape architect with Berkshire Design Group, presented the project on behalf of Norwich Properties, LLC and described the site as a 0.55-acre cleared lot with an existing 2,200-square-foot commercial building. Searle said the proposal would remove the existing structure and build one two‑story, four‑unit building fronting Holly Street and two smaller, two‑unit buildings behind it. The project provides two parking spaces per unit (one garage stall and one driveway space) plus four overflow spaces, for 20 spaces total.

Architect Scott Laidlaw said the design follows the city’s character-based guidance for the Central Business Side Street district by placing buildings close to the sidewalk, adding front porches and breaking facades into human‑scale elements. He said exterior materials would include painted LP SmartSide siding and board‑and‑batten accents; windows are a mix of fixed and single‑hung units, and the applicant said it will consider divided‑light muntins if the board desires more traditional window profiles.

Planning staff and DPW raised technical issues tied to an existing brick culvert that carries Market Street Brook under the parcel. The board learned the culvert dates to the mid‑19th century and that DPW has requested the owner create a formal easement and wants to inspect the existing structure during demolition. DPW also asked that stormwater discharges meet the city’s TSS requirements; applicants said they currently show deep‑sump catch basins but are prepared to use hydrodynamic separators or other devices DPW requires to meet an 80% total suspended solids (TSS) removal target.

Searle told the board the project has been laid out to avoid disturbing the culvert and that roof drains and paved runoff would be directed into a revised treatment system that discharges into the existing culvert via manholes. DPW asked for confirmation of pipe depth where water and sewer lines cross the culvert; staff said connection permits will be required before construction.

The board heard public comment from a nearby property owner, James Krasinski, who praised the project’s porches and asked that exterior materials and window styles be consistent with the neighborhood. Several board members and staff also asked the applicant to show final street‑tree details with structural soils and to provide tree‑protection fencing for an adjacent maple tree.

Before voting, the board considered several waiver requests and staff recommendations. The board granted waivers for the First‑Floor height (zoning guideline of 12 feet; proposed just under 11 feet for this residential design), for a photometric property‑line cutoff (applicant proposes building‑mounted downcast sconces rather than site poles), and for a full traffic study based on the site’s prior commercial use and the limited trip generation expected for eight units. The board also accepted a waiver request related to stormwater reporting because DPW indicated the system appears to have capacity but required DPW confirmation.

The board approved the site plan unanimously after a motion to close the public hearing. Conditions recorded in the approval include:
- Final DPW sign‑off on stormwater treatment and on any connection to the Market Street Brook culvert, including a recorded easement if DPW requires access.
- Use of hydrodynamic separators or other devices to meet an 80% TSS removal requirement if DPW specifies them; final devices to be noted on construction plans.
- Submission of final construction and civil plans at least 15 days before issuance of building permits; recorded stormwater maintenance agreement before permits issued.
- Structural soils for street‑tree plantings and tree‑protection measures for the adjacent maple demonstrated prior to construction.
- No utility equipment (electric/gas mechanicals) mounted on the street‑facing building facades; rooftop or screened locations to be used.
- As‑built lighting report and final photometrics before certificate of occupancy; damaged public sidewalk panels repaired if damage is attributable to construction.

Board Chair (unnamed) said the approval reflected the board’s interest in increasing housing supply while protecting the subsurface culvert and ensuring DPW and Conservation Commission concerns are resolved before permits are issued. The decision authorizes the applicant to proceed to final design and building permits after satisfying the listed conditions.","The Planning Board approved a three‑building, eight‑unit townhouse development at 111 Holly Street with waivers for first‑floor height and lighting spillover, and with conditions requiring DPW sign‑off on stormwater connections to a historic culvert and several final documentation steps before permits.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6199369,"Resident tells planning board it improperly ‘rubber‑stamped’ upzoning and flagship project approvals",188,57890,246280,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3836326-1f7cc7913d700492f88296cc5d8bc3e9&start=57&end=246","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3836326-1f7cc7913d700492f88296cc5d8bc3e9/thumbnail_57890.jpg","/articles/6199369/Massachusetts/Resident-tells-planning-board-it-improperly-rubberstamped-upzoning-and-flagship-project-approvals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6199369-94ab0d3a148ca04f5f9ddab924064856/orig.mp4?Expires=1770651713&Signature=fjT-7zBL5zVrjbMEXsmOHHxEjFSk8sFMfNoNJM1lJR5X3CAALD7-k9jXZQQIF-ehjyRLQhrtyIrq78q0rPeRQmDharlTu~5qQlIGogyaMfBmPXQVeNxwP6UwscujERgq15AfJYiMcm9RBxEV7AJ~KQNa3fI34nf3-jdHXUyKWMZVR-c2dkY4nf4Jz~lWundvIhpFZYCjKpakX8qNXnbdD0pwxZwbWKIcfivwMfd5tc3xMFwTMyiFSqjtMHJ-y~z7rizujMIhTwEIwpCT1P8OUd1BTBAKE4D2byoWEVMkOXb1yE0YF7nnOxza-W-KW85AMEQaqhPrV2bUY2m6JuNWsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the Planning Board’s public-comment period on June 12, a resident on Zoom sharply criticized the board’s recent rezoning and a large nearby project, saying the board acted with insufficient deliberation and that the public was left with limited options to appeal.

Daniel Brindell, who identified himself as a resident, said the board approved what he called “one of the biggest buildings in the city” on a lot he described as historically residential and noted concerns about a rezoning the city adopted in 2022. Brindell alleged that the rezoning was “pretty ambiguous” and that the project’s supporting studies were conducted during the pandemic and may not reflect current traffic or neighborhood conditions.

Brindell urged the board to “deliberate more” and to ask more questions of property owners, saying he believed the board relied too heavily on planning staff and on the form‑based code adopted in 2022. He also said appealing such decisions is difficult for residents because appeals typically require posting a large bond and retaining counsel; he added that large developers “used every lawyer in town,” creating a practical barrier to legal challenges.

Brindell also accused a board member he named in his remarks of providing an untruthful disclosure during a prior proceeding. The board did not take formal action on the comments; the remarks were taken under the public‑comment item that precedes the evening’s agenda.","A Zoom commenter accused the planning board of inadequate deliberation and improper rezoning in a lengthy public comment before hearings began, urging the board to exercise more oversight and warning of legal and financial hurdles to appeal.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board continues review of 16,000 sq. ft. Industrial Drive warehouse pending stormwater and conservation reviews

Planning board approves 8-unit Holly Street housing project, with conditions on culvert, stormwater and design

Resident tells planning board it improperly ‘rubber‑stamped’ upzoning and flagship project approvals