Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 10/11/2023
LUDLOW — The saga with the Planning Board and a proposed self-storage facility has added another chapter to its story after it was denied by a 3-2 vote at its Sept. 28 meeting.
Planning Board Chair Raymond Phoenix said, “While this has not been the most outrageous proposal that we have had since I have been on the board, I think this certainly rates in at least the top three most emotionally charged things that have been in front of me while I have been on this board.”
The proposal included 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.
After a public hearing over the summer and multiple meetings to discuss different special permit criteria and checklists along with required site plan content to see if the project satisfies all these areas, the Planning Board narrowed down over 50 items to four for denial.
This was not the first time the Planning Board has seen this project.
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.
It was then brought to the board again 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.
Residents 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 included 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.
During the board’s discussion on Sept. 28, Phoenix read aloud separate emails from Kowalski and Reidy that mentioned how they are willing to work on correcting the four findings for denial.
The discussion lasted close to an hour including a 10-minute recess.
In the letter, Kowalski added, “Should the board vote against the project, and not as a threat but as a reality given the current pending litigation, I intend to continue with the formal appeal of the decision. This appeal would leave the town of Ludlow in the position of defending the decision to reject the project and cost the taxpayers of Ludlow tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees.”
Members of the board and audience present expressed that they viewed this letter as a threat and the Planning Board should not change their mind based on it considering the public hearing has been closed.
Planning Board member Joshua Carpenter said, “I have a few issues with this. Our residents have trusted the process the entire time. When we closed this public hearing, we have not discussed it with anyone else but our board members. I have a real problem with Mr. Kowalski circumventing that process by sending this letter in the 23rd hour before we are going to vote on this.”
Even after the remarks against the emails, the Planning Board voted 3-2 in favor of looking to host another public hearing to hear from the public and applicant.
Many audience members began to leave the room and loudly expressed displeasure with the decision on the way out.
Ultimately, the board could not come to an agreement to host another public hearing and shifted to reading the motion that town counsel prepared for denial that include the findings and rationale for denial.
The Planning Board agreed with the prepared motion and voted 3-2 in favor of denying the proposed self-storage facility.
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.
If the board did not decide, the proposal would have been automatically accepted by Oct. 12 according to Massachusetts General Law that the Planning Board has 90 days from the public hearing to act on the special permit.
Kowalski was also present at the meeting and said, “The purpose of that email, I am not here to piss off the neighbors, I am not here to create lost sleep or problems with you, I want to come up with a plan and have a conversation that makes the neighbors happy.”
He added that he has reached out neighbors to have a conversation with them to work on his plan, but the neighbors have refused to talk.
“You want something, please let me know and I will be happy to include it in a plan, whatever it is. I would be willing to include it,” Kowalski said.