Subject: FAR-22301 - Notice: FAR denied
Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
RE: Docket No. FAR-22301
DENNIS LEE HELMUS & others
NORTHERN AVENUE HOMES, INC.
Land Court No. 08 MISC 374551
A.C. No. 2013-P-0017
NOTICE OF DENIAL OF F.A.R. APPLICATION
Please take note that on April 2, 2014, the above-
captioned Application for Further Appellate Review was denied.
Francis V. Kenneally, Clerk
Dated: April 2, 2014
To: Alan Seewald, Esquire
Michael Pill, Esquire
What is missing from this zoning package are design standards, regulations that ensure that when development occurs it adheres to our urban streetscape and neighborhood sensibilities. Such regulations are even more important for larger projects. Roadways should not be in setbacks. Structures should be not built on parking lots. Walkways should be required. City blocks should be encouraged. Northampton urban development should look like the Northampton we love, not a collection of townhouses on parking lots in anywhere USA.
Our Office of Planning and Development has had its opportunity to allay citizen concerns but has chosen to minimize impacts rather than present real solutions. Instead of learning from past infill mistakes, this zoning pretends the problems never existed. Approving this package as it stands will invite a new era of contentious residential development from downtown to Bay State, Florence, and Leeds. The discord that accompanied the North Street development will be coming to a neighborhood near you.
Mayor David Narkewicz will speak in favor of the override and Ward 7 City Councillor Gene Tacy will speak in opposition. The forum will begin with each speaker having up to five minutes to make an opening presentation. For the next hour, the speakers will answer questions from the audience, with each speaker getting two minutes, in rotating order, to respond to the issue raised. During the last half hour of the forum, audience members will be given two minutes to discuss why they either support or oppose the override, with alternating "pro" and "con" statements. The president of the Association, Jerry Budgar, will serve as moderator for the forum. The vote on the override proposal will occur on Tuesday, June 25th.
To the editor:
The new zoning proposed for Northampton's urban residential neighborhoods may well give flexibility to owners of one- to four-family homes, but it also gives too much latitude to developers of larger projects. Bad infill can permanently disrupt historic neighborhoods — as residents in Houston, Denver and San Diego have learned to their dismay.
Sad experience has spurred cities like Knoxville, Portland and Toronto to specify in detail what makes for good infill. The North Street Neighborhood Association explores these issues in depth at northassoc.org.
One particular trigger for conflict between residents is inadequate off-street parking. Northampton's proposed zoning would cut parking requirements by as much as half. The Zoning Revisions Committee was not nearly so aggressive in its recommendations, and its caution should be heeded.
The city’s planning staff rightly points to Graves Avenue as an example of successful density that looks good, but the reality is we'll continue to get many less inspiring developments unless our zoning affirms what we really want. Jim Nash, former member of the Zoning Revisions Committee, is absolutely correct when he says, "Moving forward with this zoning package without inserting strong regulations for multi-unit developments is a breach of the public trust from when the infill discussion began, that our neighborhoods would be protected.
"In this zoning package I find such safeguards severely lacking and ask that you not approve them as written."
My name is Adam Cohen. I live on North Street.Comments by Jim Nash
I understand that EDHLU [the Economic Development, Housing and Land Use Committee] recommends that Special Permits be required for developments of 7 units or more.
I support this and encourage you to lower the Special Permit threshold to 5 units.
Larger developments have often been controversial, and it seems clear that residents want more input into these projects, not less. It serves the purpose of Smart Growth to accommodate this.
When residents are ignored, when big, ugly projects spring up next to them, you can't blame them for wanting to sprawl out to the suburbs, using large lots to insulate themselves from adverse change.
This new zoning is not simply about ratifying neighborhoods that were laid down a century ago. For most people today, cars give them critical access to jobs, shopping, and resources in the region. Scarce parking is already an issue on some streets downtown and in Florence Center.
The final report of the Zoning Revisions Committee called for no change in the off-street parking requirements in URA, B and C with respect to 1-4 family homes. These requirements are one space per 500 square feet for each unit.
By contrast, the proposal before you calls for one space per one thousand square feet of Gross Living Area. So in some cases, the off-street parking requirement would be cut by as much as half. This is overly aggressive. It would be better to reduce the off-street parking requirement gradually over a period of years, so the process could be paused if problems arise.
More generally, I'd be reassured if I felt the city was advancing the pro-resident parts of the Sustainable Northampton Plan with as much zeal as the pro-developer parts. In particular, we need more attention to expanding the tree canopy in the infill receiving areas. To me, that means measuring this canopy by ward every year, passing a Significant Tree ordinance to protect the city's old and large trees, protecting the trees that currently buffer properties, and committing to planting a specific number of new trees every year.
Hello, my name is Jim Nash of 18 Montview in Ward 3.
During my time on the Zoning Revisions Committee, I heard a common theme from the citizens of Northampton. People were open to infill development as long as the character of their neighborhood would remain unchanged. Citizens were generally okay with neighbors adding a room, an apartment, sub-dividing a large home, even building on an empty lot.
However, many people voiced a worry that easing our zoning regulations would invite projects that did not fit our neighborhoods, more specifically, multi-unit developments shoehorned into lots without regard to neighborhood layout.
This proposed UR zoning package provides insufficient safeguards around the design and dimensions of multi-unit developments. Furthermore, should this proposal pass as written with decreased frontage requirements, the number of infill opportunities for multi-unit developments will increase markedly. Controversial developments such as that which polarized the North Street neighborhood will soon be coming to neighborhoods throughout the city.
You have undoubtedly heard the analogy that our current zoning would not allow us to build infill models like Cherry Street or Graves Avenue as they are today. This is true. But it is also true that the zoning proposal before you falls well short of this goal as well. Were Graves Avenue an empty 2.5 acre lot, no developer would be required to create the public street we enjoy today.
So what will we get?
In Ward 3, we live with the results of lax design and streetscape regulations. We have multi-unit developments with no sidewalks, that face parking lots and driveways, that have backyards where the side-yard should be, that have front-yards that face neighbors backyards, that have homes on one side of the street and a wood fence or retention basin on the other. Where public space ends and private space begins is anyone’s guess. This is poor urban design. We know this and yet this package does not regulate it, it promotes it.
There is much to like in these proposals. The majority of UR property owners, those who own one to four family homes, will enjoy greater latitude with their investments. However, moving forward with this zoning package without inserting strong regulations for multi-unit developments is a breach of the public trust from when the infill discussion began, that our neighborhoods would be protected.
In this zoning package I find such safeguards severely lacking and ask that you not approve them as written.
Respect neighborhood character & identity. "Lack of identity or a negative identity makes increasing neighborhood density difficult. A development that challenges or changes a community’s identity architecturally or in terms of land use can undermine the very thing that attracts residents to the neighborhood. Diversity of land uses is good but incompatibility is not. Preserve historic resources and urban fabric." Amen to that.