The changes come in the wake of an opinion written by city solicitor John H. Fitz-Gibbon, who found parts of the design that did not conform to the ordinance.
View full sizeOne page of the new design for the proposed Parsons Village affordable housing development in Easthampton.EASTHAMPTON – Abutters of the proposed affordable housing project Parsons Village are still not appeased after the developer presented a new design that squares better with the city’s zoning ordinance.
The original 38 units were reduced by one, the buildings were shuffled around to meet setback requirements, the parking lots have been broken up with buffers and plantings are planned to better screen the neighbors from the development. The number of bedrooms is the same.
“The overall concept has not changed much at all,” said Peter Wells of Berkshire Design Group, which designed the project spearheaded by Northampton-based Valley Community Development Corp. He spoke during a public hearing Tuesday held by the Planning Board.
Board members, deciding they needed more information, did not vote on whether to issue a special permit for the project. Another public hearing has been set for Aug. 23 at 6:05 p.m. on the second floor of the Municipal Building at 50 Payson Ave.
The design changes came in the wake of an opinion written by city solicitor John H. Fitz-Gibbon, who found parts of the design that did not conform to the ordinance.
In May, the board asked for Fitz-Gibbon’s help after Springfield attorney Mark Beglane voiced opposition to the plans on behalf of about a dozen abutters who are challenging Valley CDC’s special permit application.
Although Valley CDC and its design team say the new plans meet or exceed the provisions of the ordinance, abutters and other neighbors still showed up in droves to Tuesday’s public hearing and challenged the development they say is far too dense.
“They’ve tweaked their plans a little bit to make sure they can squeak by the zoning issues, but they haven’t really addressed the issue that we’ve talked about all along, (which is) this is just too dense,” said David Strong of Pepin Avenue.
In 2006, the board approved a special permit for an elderly housing project at the same location, 69 Parsons St., that had a similar density, but it was never built. Valley CDC officials have pointed to this many times as proof that Parsons Village can be approved with its planned density.
Emily Baillargeon of Parsons Street sees a potential for density problems in the future. If the permit is granted, she said, “Not only are you approving this project, but you are creating a precedent.”
The plans call for apartment units ranging from studios to three-bedrooms.
Valley CDC executive director Joanne Campbell said her team is not willing to reduce the number of units any further because the development would no longer be “financially feasible.” The $10 million project has been in the permitting phase since December, when the designs showed 45 units.
“I’m not satisfied. I’m still not happy with the density,” said Amy Heflin, a member of the New City Neighborhood Association, which opposes the development. “Cut the density in half. ... Figure it out.”
Beglane said the project will encroach on the neighbor’s properties. Valley CDC’s attorney Edward Etheredge said that is a non-issue until someone wins a judgment against the encroachment in court.
View full sizeAn aerial view of the lot at 69 Parsons St. taken from Valley CDC's special permit application.The abutters still object to the devegetation of the 4.3-acre lot and what they are calling inadequate plans to replace the trees and screen the development from view. The ordinance states that the developer must guarantee a “dense (vegetation) screen year-round. At least fifty (50) percent of the plants shall consist of evergreens.”
The new plans show 89 shade trees and 92 evergreens. Beglane said that won’t make the vegetation dense enough to meet the requirements, which say the screen must protect against noise, as well.
Heflin said abutters are still reviewing their options if the permit is granted, but Beglane has threatened to appeal in land court. Heflin said she’d fight for years if she had to.
“I think this is going to be a long journey,” said Heflin. “We’re going to leave no stone unturned.”