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.