July 30, 2007
BY HAND
Members of the Planning Board
City of Northampton
Office of Planning & Development
210 Main Street, Room 11, City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
Re: Roundhouse/Development of Hotel and Parking Garage
Dear Planning Board Members:
I write on behalf of Robert Curran, the owner of the Roundhouse.
During the hearing on July 19, 2007, there were several issues raised, both in the public hearings and in your closed session, which I would like to address on Mr. Curran’s behalf.
First of all, I want to be clear that Mr. Curran has no objection to either a hotel or a parking garage, on the site next to the Roundhouse. He would, in fact, welcome an appropriately sized and sited hotel and parking garage. I am authorized to publicly confirm that if the City and the Pioneer Valley Hotel Group choose to amend their land acquisition contract to allow for construction by the Pioneer Valley Hotel Group of a smaller hotel and garage, Mr. Curran will not use that amendment as the basis for any court action against either party. Nor will he object to any hotel or garage which is sited in a manner not to fully obstruct the views from, or natural light entering, the office space on the western side of his Roundhouse building.
Secondly, the question was asked by one Planning Board member as to what would be an appropriate setback between the Roundhouse and the hotel. Mr. Curran, who formerly ran a substantial engineering company, agrees with Joel Russell, who opined in his letter to you of July 20, that 40′ would be the minimum appropriate between two windowed walls; however, Mr. Curran has authorized me to inform you that as a compromise he would support a 30′ setback between the Roundhouse and the proposed hotel, provided that the parking garage is not sited in such a way as to completely obliterate the view from the western wall of the Roundhouse, and that there be some greenery between the buildings. We wish to call to your attention that the latest proposed hotel site plans not only provide for a narrow 14′ alleyway between the Roundhouse and the hotel, but have moved the site of the parking garage eastward in such a way as to close off the view and light at the southern end of that alley. To add insult to injury, the northeast corner of the garage, which now blocks the exit to the alley, has an elevator tower on top which even further obstructs the view and light to the western wall of the Roundhouse. The end result of a hotel and garage built according to these proposed site plans would be to totally darken what are now sunny office spaces in Mr. Curran’s historic building.
While the developer stated at the July 19 public hearing that his parking lot consultant has informed him that no garage smaller than one for 296 spaces is possible, we dispute that. There are many smaller garages in the world and there is no reason why one can’t be constructed here, so as not to obstruct the light and views of either the Roundhouse or abutting apartment tenants. We applaud Tris Metcalfe’s July 25, 2007 site plan drawings in that regard.
Thirdly, I most respectfully offer you my legal opinion on the issues addressed by Mr. Bobrowski in his July 13, 2007 letter responding to the two questions posed to him by Mr. Feiden.
As to the first question posed by Mr. Feiden, Mr. Bobrowski opines that the Special Permit granted by the Planning Board is valid. We are not disputing this. However, I do not know what relevance this fact has to the question of the Planning Board’s site plan approval discretion? While the Special Permit was apparently granted improperly because it preceded site plan review, as I indicated above, Mr. Curran has not challenged, and is not challenging, the use of the site for a hotel, he is only challenging the manner in which that use will be carried out on the site.
The Special Permit you granted itself states:
The Planning Board granted the special permit only based on the proposed use and reserved the right to address site plan issues of layout, circulation, building elevations and other technical details as required in section 11 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinances until such time as the formal site plan is submitted as a separate application to the office of Planning and Development.
and;
Further site plan analysis and review will be undertaken by the Board during the formal site plan submission and review.
Just as the overall granting of the site plan was not appealed by any interested party, so did the Pioneer Valley Hotel Group not appeal the above portions of the special permit, which was noted Approved With Conditions.
I do not read Mr. Bobrowski’s opinion as concluding that because it granted the Special Permit to the Pioneer Valley Hotel Group, the Planning Board no longer has any authority whatsoever to review, and approve or disapprove, the site plan for the proposed hotel project. If that is in fact what Mr. Bobrowski is saying, then I believe that he is wrong. If the City Planner believes that Mr. Bobrowski was indeed saying that because you granted the special permit you no longer have any legal authority to review any aspect of the proposed site plan, then perhaps you will ask Mr. Feiden to request that Mr. Bobrowski put that opinion in writing.
After 30 years of practicing law, 26 of which are here in Northampton, one thing I’ve learned is that it’s not hard to get the answers you want if you frame the questions so narrowly and specifically that only those answers are possible. While this technique applies to the first question asked of Mr. Bobrowski by Mr. Feiden, it even more applies to the follow up question from Mr. Feiden.
Mr. Bobrowski was asked if the Planning Board has the authority under site plan review to increase the setbacks otherwise required in the CB district.
I don’t know that anyone has ever proposed that the Planning Board has the right to mandate changes to the setbacks contained in the proposed site plan, but an inability to mandate changes to such setbacks does not mean that the Planning Board absolutely must approve any site plan which contains the minimum setbacks required in the CB zoning ordinances. Under our zoning ordinances, the Planning Board has the right to disapprove the proposed site plan if you find it deficient in “the preservation of views, light, and air; access by emergency vehicles; the arrangement of parking and loading spaces; and the harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings, and other community assets in the area.” For goodness sake, isn’t that exactly to what the community has been objecting in connection with this project?
If you are concerned about this issue, I suggest that you request that Mr. Feiden ask Mr. Bobrowski for his written opinion on the following question:
If a majority of the Planning Board believes that the proposed site plan for the hotel does not adequately allow for “the preservation of views, light, and air; access by emergency vehicles; the arrangement of parking and loading spaces; and the harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings, and other community assets in the area,” and the developer refuses to change the plan in order to alleviate those findings, may the Planning Board legally reject the proposed site plan for a combination of those reasons?
I hope that by the time of the continuation of the hearing on August 16, you will have been able to sufficiently think through these issues so that you can approach your difficult task by focusing on the simple question as to whether the current proposed site plans are, in your opinions, in the best interests of Northampton, or whether the site demands better? If the developer refuses to do better, then your choice is clear, and we hope that you will make the one favored by the overwhelming number of Northampton citizens who have weighed in on this proposed hotel site plan.
Several of the Planning Board members asked what would happen if the Board rejects the site plan. While I am not sure that this is a proper concern of the Planning Board, I will offer you my insights, for whatever you deem them to be worth.
- The developer and the City can revisit their agreement and amend it to allow for a smaller hotel, and/or a hotel with less parking; or
- The developer can give up the project and terminate the contract.
- If the contract between the developer and the City is terminated, as the enclosed September 22, 1983 article from the Daily Hampshire Gazette shows happened with Mr. Curran’s father’s contract for that site, the city can revisit the entire issue of what should happen on that site, with greater public participation and awareness, and restart the RFP bidding process. If a hotel is what the city wants for that site, it can make that a condition of a new RFP. My expectation is that there would be several interesting hotel proposals which would be submitted for the City’s approval, and we might even see the price for this valuable land rise above $1.
Respectfully submitted, Frederick U. Fierst
