Letter re BUFFER- Gross May 23, 2016
Dear Carolyn,
We would appreciate your forwarding our e-mail of April 24th 2016 as well as this addendum to the Planning Board and Historical Commission.
While we are grateful for assurances that lighting issues will be resolved and a buffer created, we are concerned by the site plan’s strong suggestion that a buffer will not materialize
until after work has been completed on the parking lot, Checkwriters, the boiler plant and cottage. Why else is there suddenly a new 4th parcel consisting of land south of Checkwriters—whereas
in 2012 there were but three parcels—the east and west sides of Round Hill Road and a third, Bell Hall? The buffer between our property and the development’s southern drive cannot
be an afterthought.
For nearly three years we have endured hundreds of very heavy trucks going up (particularly loud—once they struggle after encountering the steep grade just south of our property) and
down Round Hill Road. When the swim “school” was operational, it was difficult to overlook the many speeding vehicles that not only whizzed past our front windows but then turned to
speed down the development’s drive to our north—not once but twice since drivers inevitably reversed their route to return to Elm Street. Needless to say, construction on the western
parcel will be particularly intense with even more heavy trucks coming and going both on Round Hill Road and the development’s drive. We would strongly prefer our quality of life not
be compromised for years by the developer’s failure to address issues raised in our letter of April 24th in a timely fashion—noise, unwanted trespassing, exhaust and visual pollution.
We add that all mowers (some with advertised specifications of 90 decibels) and blowers launch from and return to the development’s southern drive and run for hours on end since workers
rev up equipment on the drive and return with equipment still running. That the lawn company also services Bell Hall only adds more cacophonous and exhaust-filled hours. Perhaps the
arrival of tenants in the apartments to the east will result in some changes….
Our 1860 house is particularly vulnerable to the development’s impact (we can’t help but recall Virginia Lee Burton’s “The Little House”) and trust the city won’t sacrifice the future
of an historical neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Janet and Nicolas Gross
April 24, 2016
Dear Carolyn,
At last month’s Historical Commission meeting (March) Tom Douglas presented plans for the west side of the Picknelly development on Round Hill Road (a further refinement of plans presented
at a neighborhood meeting on 12/7/15). In describing the impact of the new curb cut, drive and parking lot, Mr. Douglas took great pains to explain that shrubs would provide a buffer
by day and appropriate lighting would ensure the absence of harsh glare at night. At the same time Mr. Douglas mentioned that the lawn in front of Gawith would be used for “events”
and the drive on the south would be retained for “emergency vehicles,” no matter that large fire trucks cannot maneuver the sharp curve—we’ve watched them back out and now wonder whether
police and fire departments have been consulted.
At the conclusion of his presentation, Janet asked if there were plans to remove the parking spaces south of Gawith, now used daily by Clarke employees and others, and for the creation
of a green buffer on the south side of the development, especially critical for us now that our property is soon to border a business park. She also stated that the drive, approximately
50 feet from our house, is used by the lawn maintenance company to park their vehicles and launch their equipment—alas, we’ve just endured a weekend and more of “spring clean-up”—hours
and hours of near ninety decibels and higher as mowers and blowers blasted their odious cacophony to our north and east (yes, the same workers also maintain the grounds at Clarke)—our
only option is to leave the house. Mr. Douglas, however, said there were no plans to remove the parking spaces, which will be designated “emergency parking,” or for a buffer, but perhaps
they could install a fence—Janet informed him that erecting a fence would violate historic district standards.
Admittedly a green buffer will do little to protect our hearing (and we question whether Northampton’s noise ordinance was meant to apply to a 12+ acre property); however, a buffer will
provide some relief from fumes as well as spare us the sight of parked trucks and vehicles. It would also shield our view of “events,” employees and construction workers—and their
view of us as well. As the buffer matures it may well block the harsh lights created by inappropriate LEDs that trespass into our yard and bedroom from a distant building and excessively
tall lamp posts—surely the owners must realize that given their location atop a hill…. The inconsiderate lighting also violates historic district standards.
Lack of a buffer makes us vulnerable to trespassers—individuals who wander down to “see” our yard, women from the swim “school” who liked to walk their dogs “among the flowers,” the
young man we discovered opening our trash cans (he said his father worked “there” and pointed to Coolidge), another young man found wandering in our drive on Valentine’s day claimed
to be looking for a florist and then walked toward a waiting car in one of the parking spaces to the north. And not to pass over the man wandering down our drive who claimed “up there”
as his lunch spot, etc., etc. Such incidents happen all too frequently and will only increase as the business park’s employees and clients grow.
Since we’ve lived in Northampton, we’ve planted fourteen arbor vitae and other shrubs to shield our view of the parking area behind our property. We’ve also planted twenty arbor vitae
plus additional trees and shrubs to extend a green boundary begun by Clarke so it now shields us from the site of a large, Clarke-installed electric generator to our north. And while
we’ve planted trees and shrubs along this northern border eastward toward the street, we did so years ago—before anyone parked in the spaces above and when the Clarke grounds crew worked
unobtrusively. Our deciduous trees and shrubs
require ever-green plantings to back them up in the winter (yes, this means the development’s dying black birch, whose debris we gather almost daily, will have to come down to provide
adequate sunlight for new plantings). Clearly neighbors to the north are being treated more courteously, we ask only the same—and we’ve completed most of the work.
A buffer is critical to our quality of life which has decidedly declined since we purchased our house in 2007—one could argue we will soon have a factory directly to our north (the “product”
is payroll statements) as plans for the business park unfold. We’ve contributed far more than our share of greenery to shield our property from multiple eyesores. The ordinance seems
clear, and we seek the relief it provides:
§ 350-6.5 Screening and buffers.
Screening and buffers shall be required on any lot in any industrial or business district and for any industrial or business use where it adjoins a lot in a residential district and
shall be required on any lot in a planned business park where it adjoins land not in the planned business park, including collector streets which exist when a business park is proposed,
and on any nonresidential lot in a planned business park district where it adjoins a residential lot as follows:
(1)
This strip shall be at least 30 feet in width (100 feet in width in a planned business park). It shall contain a screen of plantings of vertical habit in the center of the strip not
less than three feet in width and six feet in height at the time of occupancy of such lot. Individual shrubs shall be planted not more than five feet on center, and individual trees
thereafter shall be maintained by the owner or occupants so as to maintain a dense screen year round. At least 50% of the plantings shall be evenly spaced. Whenever possible, existing
trees and ground cover should be preserved in this strip, reducing the need to plant additional trees. Trees may not be cut down in this strip without site plan approval. (See § 350-11.)
(2)
The Planning Board may issue a site plan approval (See § 350-11.) allowing for a ten-foot reduction in the required width of the landscaped buffer strip, provided that the Board finds
that a sight-impervious wall or fence is erected of appropriate materials and sufficient height to screen abutting properties and will provide at least as much noise mitigation as the
vegetated barrier described above.
B.
In all industrial and business districts, except Central Business and any General Business building built with 0 foot front yard setback, and for any other industrial or business use,
street frontage shall include shade trees, and there shall be one tree planted an average of every 30 feet of street frontage, using trees no less than 2.5 inches caliper at the time
of installation. Trees may be placed within the City right-of-way instead of private property with the permission of the Department of Public Works. In the case of an uncleared site,
existing vegetation can be preserved to achieve said objective.
C.
In all industrial and business districts and for any industrial or business use, when a parking lot is located adjacent to a public right-of-way at least a ten-foot wide landscaped area
between the right-of-way and the parking lot shall be provided. This landscaped area shall include shade trees, and there shall be one tree planted an average of every 30 feet of street
frontage, using trees no less than 2.5 inches caliper at the time of installation.
D.
All landscaping required by this chapter shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition, neat and orderly in appearance, and free of refuse and debris. All plantings shall be arranged
and maintained so as to not obscure the vision of traffic. All landscaping must be conform to § 350-6.8, Other general dimensional and density provisions.
We’re well aware Northampton is desirous of more revenue. Despite the current fiscal environment, it behooves the city to exercise a responsible degree of foresight and to recognize
that locating a business park in a residential and historic neighborhood can only be accomplished successfully if all residential owners are granted equal and adequate protections.
Thank you for your consideration.
Janet and Nicolas Gross