The planning board asked the city solicitor is they could re-open the public hearing that was closed May 10. Watch video
View full sizeA southerly aerial view of Parsons Village from the Valley CDC's special permit application, filed December 28, 2010.EASTHAMPTON – Although a vote on the controversial Parsons Village project is scheduled for Tuesday, it may not be that simple.
At the final special permit public hearing May 10, the board heard from attorney Mark Beglane, who represents more than a dozen abutters who oppose the planned affordable housing development. He said several aspects of the design violate the city’s zoning ordinance, a charge the developer denies.
The board closed the public hearing and delayed the vote to seek the opinion of city solicitor John H. Fitz-Gibbon. He was asked primarily if the public hearing could be legally re-opened, which he said it can. Beglane’s comments were secondary, he said, but he will not have a response before the meeting.
He said the board sent him Beglane’s findings and asked their questions last week.
City planner Stuart Beckley said the delay was because the board wanted to present Fitz-Gibbon with the most important of Beglane’s assertions and it took time to narrow them down. They also needed time to type Beglane’s hand-written notes, he said.
The board could also reschedule the meeting for another day and keep waiting for his opinion, or vote on the permit regardless.
“I certainly wanted to respond before the meeting, but I wasn’t given a deadline,” he said. He did not know the meeting was scheduled until contacted for this report, he said.
A lawyer for the developer, Northampton-based Valley Community Development Corp., has written a response to Beglane’s findings, but Beckley said the board had not received it as of Monday. Beglane said that since the public hearing is closed, the board cannot consider it, anyway.
That could change, though, if the hearing is re-opened.
Valley CDC executive director Joanne Campbell has declined to discuss attorney Edward Etheredge’s report, saying they needed time to review it. Both lawyers have acknowledged that some sections of the ordinance are open to interpretation.
The board must vote by August 8, 90 days after closing the public hearing. If no action is taken, the permit is granted.
Fitz-Gibbon said “it is unknown” if re-opening and closing the hearing would automatically reset the timer, but the applicant and the board can reach such an agreement.
Campbell did not respond to requests for comment for this report.
The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Municipal Building at 50 Payson Ave.