Battle over two Somers Road self storage proposals heats up

Oct. 20, 2021 | Sarah Heinonen
sheinonen@thereminder.com

HAMPDEN – The battle over two proposed self-storage facilities in town continued to rage during the Hampden Planning Board meetings on Oct. 12 and 14.

Questions around the legality of a roof-mounted solar array and the ability to remove the solar portion from the special permit application for 16 Somers Rd. had been reviewed by Hampden’s Town Counsel Rose Crowley since the Planning Board’s previous meeting. Interim Chair of the Planning Board John Matthews told the petitioner, Raipher Pellegrino, “We cannot unduly regulate solar,” under M.G.L. Chapter 40. The board would, however, insist on conditions, such as 100-foot setbacks and an on-site cistern to put out any fires related to the electricity generation. Instead, Pellegrino voluntarily withdrew the solar portion of the application. The board unanimously voted to continue consideration of the rest of the project.

Pellegrino submitted the latest letter from the town’s consulting firm, Tighe & Bond, showing that several previous issues had been satisfactorily addressed. The remaining issues include an easement plan, an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant parking drawing, construction-level drawings, a land impact plan, spot grading, emergency vehicle turning plan and a plan for the entrance gate. Pellegrino said that all of these items would be addressed.

Planning Board member Jason Barroso probed the applicants regarding their plans in case the permeable asphalt, which is designed to allow water to drain through it, failed. He asked what the warning signs are that it needs to be torn up. A member of the architectural firm Berkshire Design Group (BGD) explained that if there is “ponding,” or pooling of water after it had stopped raining, they would know something was wrong. It was also noted that there is a built-in low-lying area built into the plans to allow water to pool, rather than run off into abutting properties should the permeable asphalt stop draining correctly.

“This is the perfect soil for this application,” the BDG representative said, adding that it will drain at a rate of roughly 2.4 inches per hour.

Matthews asked how the asphalt would hold up under heavy vehicles. While BDG hasn’t seen any damage at schools with the permeable pavement, despite buses coming and going, the representative did note that on very hot days turning heavy vehicles can scar asphalt of any kind. He agreed that older versions of the permeable pavement were flawed but said that the formula has “gotten a lot stronger” over the years.

Planning Board member Heather Beattie asked about the lifetime of permeable asphalt as compared to standard pavement. BDG told her the lifetime was roughly the same.

Regarding security, there will be a keypad entry for users. There is also the option to require people to have a dongle on them to open the gate. The facility would be staffed on weekdays and the user contract would prohibit explosives or other hazardous materials from being stored on site. There would be periodic inspections to ensure compliance.

Planning Board member Christina Brodeur requested line of sight drawings from the street. Pellegrino told her that the units will be two feet lower than the top of the 6-foot fence and the arborvitae will grow higher than that.

Pellegrino explained to residents that auctions for abandoned items are hosted off-site and security cameras deter people from bringing in vehicles or other large, prohibited items.

Pellegrino recapped the pitch for the facility, saying that they are maintaining the historic feel of the area with a low impact by preserving the house and street-adjacent trees, as well as taking steps to obscure the facility with fencing and arborvitae.

2 Somers Rd.

Two days after Pellegrino presented his proposed facility, Petitioner Daniel Garvey of Hampden Self-Storage and Joseph Peznola, of the engineering firm Sherman & Frydryk, came back to the board with their self-storage project at 2 Somers Rd.

Garvey submitted to the board the photometric plan, operations manual, as well as the location of the well on abutter Dawn Gurski’s property. He said that they had shifted the location of one of the retention basins as a result.

Barroso informed Gurski that, despite a resident saying at an earlier meeting that a well cannot be within 100 feet of an infiltration basin, he could find no regulation stating that.

Peznola reiterated to the board that the system being used on the property removes 95 percent of total suspended solids (TSS). The state currently mandates only 80 percent be removed.

Garvey addressed the position of the retention basins within the 50-foot setbacks at other properties around town, including at Polish National Credit Union, Rediker, Bethlehem Church and the Hampden Veterinary Clinic. Despite this, Barosso objected to the infiltration basins within the setbacks at the site. He reasoned that none of the businesses Garvey had cited are next to homes. Barroso asked that the setbacks be kept natural and the arborvitaes and fence be set 50 feet further onto the property.

Garvey considered this and noting that it would be very expensive to redesign the plans, asked for a vote on the project contingent on the setback change. Barroso recognized that the change would require the stormwater system be overhauled, and the Planning Board moved on to hear the rest of the proposal.

Barroso also asked for a baseline water quality testing on neighbor’s wells. Should there be issues in the future, the tests would offer a basis on whether the facility was at fault.

Moving on the visual aspects, Matthews asked Garvey to change the gate from chain link to the same white vinyl that would separate the facility from the abutting neighbors because, Matthews said, he wants to “minimize visual impact.”

Garvey informed the board that the height of the units had been reduced to 9-foot-4 inches, which should be hidden by the 10-foot-tall arborvitaes.

Considering security, Garvey told the board that the cameras and lights would both be triggered by motion sensors. Generally speaking the lights at the facility would turn on and off with the ambient light level.

Save Hampden

Seth Wilson of Wilson Legal Group, the lawyer for the citizen’s group Save Hampden, presented his clients’ objections to the projects at each of the meetings.

“Plunking an urban sprawl scenario in the crossroads of the town,” would hurt the nature of the town, Wilson said. “However they’re trying to camouflage it, that’s not Hampden.”

He claimed that the facilities would drive down property values, but did not have appraisals showing this because, he said, he didn’t want residents to have to pay for that.

Wilson repeatedly mentioned that Rediker, a software company across the street from the proposed site, is against the project and he presented a letter attesting to that. Wilson asserted that people wouldn’t want to do business in Hampden if the facility was approved and that the fences obscuring the facility from the street, “convey an impression” to people while driving through town.

The lawyer also argued that approving the project would “set a precedent,” making it more difficult for the board to use the town’s character as a reason for denial in the future.

“You folks have the discretion,” to “make judgments about what is in the best interests of the town.” He stated that the board can deny a project even if the plans and paperwork are in order, but all factors must be in place for an approval. He made the case that approvals are more frequently overturned in appeals court than denials and the board should err on the side of caution.

He also said that reading between the lines of the Board of Selectmen’s recommendations to the Planning Board, it was clear that they were against the project.

Resident Joe Sibilia told the Planning Board that the self-storage projects were “the most important decision,” they would ever make and asked the board not to “carry on the legacy of the scarlet letter of self-storage.”

Resident Tad Brown said that the combined size of the two facilities was similar to seven football fields. He said he was concerned with unintended consequences and the possibility that users may store hazardous materials without the owners’ knowledge. He also expressed concern that the units would be there after the facilities go out of business.

Wilson went back to Barroso’s request to leave the setbacks natural and said that conditions cannot be placed on the permit, but instead that board must vote based on the current plans.

“I’m giving you all the grounds you need,” to win an appeal if the board denies the permit, Wilson told them.

Conflict

Sibilia stood and told the other residents, “Something is going to happen there unless we do something.” He proposed that the town buy the land. At that point, Matthews cut in and asked him to sit down. Both Matthews and Barroso explained that the option of another buyer for the land wasn’t relevant to the substance of the proposals. This received boos from the audience.

Garvey asked the board to consider his proposal based on its merits. “We’ve listened to your feedback, we’ve incorporated the town’s feedback in our plans,” he said and listed changes to the fence, office building, height of the units, hours of operation, vegetative cover and elimination of vehicle storage. If reference to Wilson mentioning an appeal, Garvey responded “The board should not feel threatened by litigation.”

When the crowd began to shout and yell, Matthews told Wilson, “Counselor, if you can’t control the crowd...,”

Wilson responded, “They’re not my crowd.”

Matthews told him, “Then, sit down. I’m done with you.”

Wilson insisted that Matthews could not close the meeting and that he was legally entitled to equal time, but Matthews stated he was the chair and equal time was not a requirement. Wilson pivoted, saying the other board members deserved to hear all of his points. B

arroso interrupted the back and forth. “I’m pretty sure we’re going to have some sort of litigation no matter what is decided.”

After a five-minute recess during which Matthews left the auditorium, the hearing was continued to Nov. 10 at 6 p.m. The hearing on 16 Somers Rd. was continued to Oct. 27 at 6:15 p.m.

Share this: