Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 9/26/2023
LUDLOW — At its Sept. 14 meeting, the Planning Board continued its discussion on a proposed self-storage facility and appeared ready to disallow the project.
The proposal for a self-storage facility at 590-596 Center St. was first brought to the board at its June 22 meeting by Rich Kowalski from JLL Real Estate LLC, Tom Reidy from Bacon Wilson, P.C. and Lucien DiStefano from Bohler Engineering.
The proposal includes adding a development with six storage containers located at 590-596 Center St. in the Agriculture Moderate Density Overlay District, where self-storage facilities are allowed with Planning Board site plan approval and a special permit.
In July 2022, JLL Real Estate LLC applied for, had hearings on, and was denied a special permit for a similar self-storage facility proposal at the location. The board determined the proponents failed to meet or exceed the Ludlow Zoning Bylaw requirements.
JLL appealed the ruling with Hampden County Superior Court and have made changes to the proposal after hearing comments from the Planning Board and the neighborhood.
Residents have voiced their concerns at meetings, especially because they recently approved article 29 at the May Town Meeting, allowing self-storage facilities to be put on industrial zoned property in order to keep them out of residential areas.
Residents’ concerns include a potential increase in traffic, having to look at the facility every time they walk out their door, the hours of operation and how it might decrease their property value.
Over the last couple of months, the Planning Board has examined over 50 items on the business in the agriculture moderate density overlay district checklist and special permit criteria checklist to narrow down their own concerns with the proposed project.
Meeting by meeting the board had less items remaining and at its Sept. 14 meeting, the Planning Board was able to narrow down the list to four items after nearly an hour discussion.
Those items that are still flagged by the board include the proposal will be located near uses similar to the proposed use or the nearby uses will be the ones likely to benefit from rather than be damaged by having proposed activity nearby.
The board also said that the proposal is not suitably located in the neighborhood in which it is proposed as deemed appropriate by the Special Permit Granting Authority and might be a substantial inconvenience or hazard to abutters, vehicles or pedestrians.
The final flagged item is that the proposal is not in general harmony with the general purpose and intent of this bylaw.
The next steps include the town counsel drafting a motion that the Planning Board would vote on at its next meeting with the reasons for the denial of a special permit.
The Planning Board voted 3-2 in favor of the four findings for denial.
“If there is criteria that it has not satisfied that have not been waived by this board, then it is obliged to meet those criteria and if it does not then I would assert that the correct course of action to have a vote to deny based on those specific criteria,” Planning Board Chair Raymond Phoenix added.
Planning Board member Chris Coelho questioned why there is no motion made at the meeting if the decision seems to be in favor of denying the permit.
Phoenix responded, “It would appear to a reasonable observer that whatever decision we make, there are people who are parties and have interests that would disagree with that decision and whether we vote to approve or deny, we need to make sure that all of the appropriate reasons are included in that motion so that when it does, possibly, probably end up in front of a judge, that person is presented with the actual beliefs and assertions of the Planning Board.”
The Planning Board will meet again on Thursday, Sept. 28.
Phoenix added, “It sounds like, unless people think about it more in the intervening time and their minds change, it sounds like denial is the general consensus of the board at this time. When we make the motion, if there needs to be amendments to it, we certainly handle those at that time so hopefully we can find something that four of us agree on so that we do have a decision that comes out of all of this.”