Attorney John H. Fitz-Gibbon recommends the board look to precedent for guidance. Watch video
View full sizeAn aerial view of the lot at 69 Parsons St. taken from Valley CDC's special permit application.EASTHAMPTON - The city’s attorney has issued a mostly favorable opinion of the proposed Parsons Village affordable housing development.
Northampton-based Valley Community Development Corp. applied in December for a special permit to build the 38-unit multi-family housing complex at 69 Parsons St. In May, some opponents retained Springfield attorney Mark Beglane to fight the permit, which has still not been voted on.
The Planning Board in June asked city solicitor John H. Fitz-Gibbon to review Beglane’s objections and the response of Valley CDC’s attorney Edward Etheredge and give his opinion.
Beglane has said, among a host of other complaints: one apartment building is too close to the property line, the community building is too tall and in the wrong spot, the stormwater management system is doomed to fail, there will be too many parking spaces at 76, the price of the property is $105,000 over the appraised value and Valley CDC has not given the city a performance bond.
Valley CDC has declined to share Etheredge's response with The Republican.
In his six-page opinion, Fitz-Gibbon points out the zoning ordinance contains “inconsistencies (and) ill-defined terms and provisions” and says that the board can use “sound discretion” when it is unclear.
There are words omitted from the ordinance, contradictions and at least one typo, which says certain buildings cannot be more than “ten (12) feet” high. The ordinance also says the same buildings cannot be taller than 25 feet.
Fitz-Gibbon Re Parsons Village
(Note: The project's name and Edward Etheredge's name are misspelled in this document.)
He recommends the board look to precedent for guidance. City planner Stuart Beckley could not be reached to comment on whether the board has handled these issues before.
Fitz-Gibbon dismisses most of Beglane’s assertions and says the board can interpret the ordinance in Valley CDC’s favor in many cases. He agrees with Beglane, though, that one building is too close to the street and that each parking area can have only 14 spaces, whereas the plans show more. But parking areas could be added by dividing the existing ones with buffers, fencing or trees, he said.
He did not discuss Beglane’s complaints that the project is too dense and that the city's community development strategy calls for more owner-occupied affordable housing.
David Boyle of Autumn Properties owns the two parcels at 69 Parsons St. and is asking Valley CDC for $675,000 based on an appraisal that expected 45 units, Beglane said, so the most recent 38-unit plans should drop the price to $570,000. Fitz-Gibbon said a performance bond is required, but the board can decide if the price is a problem.
Fitz-Gibbon tells the board to use its “common sense and experience ... and generally, the Planning Board’s interpretation will be upheld” if either side appeals the eventual decision in court.
Beglane said he had not seen Fitz-Gibbon’s opinion until contacted for this report and did not provide comment by press time. Valley CDC executive director Joanne Campbell did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
The board will hold another public hearing about Parsons Village on Tuesday, July 19, at 6:05 p.m. on the second floor of the Municipal Building at 50 Payson Ave.