Bercuvitz LetterDear City Officials:
I am reaching out to all of you because I don’t actually understand who is responsible for what pieces of the issues at handfor the project at 170 Federal St.and I have specific questions
that I would like addressed.
I am also reaching outwitha requestfor a broad community discussion about a) whether the infill regulations are working to achieve their goals b) how infill might impact neighborhoods
inequitably, and c) whether additional regulations need to be enacted that afford adequate protections for affordability, equity, environmental sustainability in its many facets, trees,
the historic fabric of Northampton, and yes, neighborhood character which is part of what makes Northampton special.
I am deeply concerned about projects currently underway and in the pipeline by NuWay Homes, owned by Mr. John Handzel, and more importantly what they represent. In a sense, Nu Way Homes
is merely a signpost for a city at a crossroads. The projects aredramatically changing the nature of Bay State Village, with no apparent checks in place. As you must know, this developer
is currently planning to:
Build 3 houses at the corner of Warner and Federal (and now with a possibility of his razing the current house and rebuilding
Demolish the house at 61 Warner and build three houses there
Demolish the house at 39 Landy and build three houses there
Build on a lot at 25 Baker Hill Rd
Nu Way Homes’ owner is actively soliciting people in the neighborhood to purchase additionalproperties. He has already built three houses after separating out the yards in Bay State
Village (this is the homeowner’s way of thinking about their open space, rather than a developer’s way of seeing space as a building lot) at 12/14 Winslow, 19/23 Lexington Ave, and 36/40
Landy. In almost every case, the houses being built are two to three times the size of the neighboring ones. And they are of the same design regardless of the site. Houses that are more
affordable and accessible to the average household income in Northampton are being replaced by houses in at least the $550,000-$600,000 range, making Northampton even less accessible
to current residents and to a more diverse population.
There are an additional 7 Nu Way Homes projects in Northampton, a number of which have involved demolition of existing houses. The projects have evolved from single house projects to
numerous houses on one pre-existing building lot. This scale of development is not adequately addressed within current zoning regulations. And we are seeing the unfortunate results of
the infill legislation that I personally supported, never expecting that the affordability, sustainability, climate readiness, and open space goals of the city, along with the well-being
of existing taxpaying residents would take a backseat to massive personal financial gain by a single developer with apparent full city support.
Concerns about 170 Federal St. project
While I greatly appreciate the Planning Board’s service to our city as well as the Assistant Director of Planning, I was stunned by the lack of conversation in the Planning Board meeting
on June 11, 2020 about a project that could and should have merited any number of questions and concerns.Not a single question was asked. And, while I am very new to understanding the
planning process for projects, I was struck by a number of things related to the project at 170 Federal St. that seem problematic.While I might be incorrect about the letter of the law,
for which you are responsible, I can’t imagine that I am totally incorrect about the spirit of the law.
Permit for Special Site Plan
When I reviewed pending applications on the Pending section of the Northampton website, I see that applicants provided narrative responses to the questions in order to provide appropriate
information that should inform permit approval. These questions are there, it seems, to protect the residents of Northampton and ensure certain standards. Answers to questions 1, 3,
4, possibly 5, and 6 all would have been challenging for the developer to compose given the impacts of this project. If I am correct in what I am looking at in the attached document,
the applicant did not answer almost all of the questions. And yet his permit was approved. If so, how did this happen, and who approved it missing all of this critical information? If
in fact this application permit was approved without the appropriate information beyond the site plan, what responsibility do the Planning Board and the Building Commissioner have to
address the situation?
40% open space
There is nothing harmonious about the relationship between structures and open spaces on the corner of Warner St and Federal now. And that is with the addition of 2 houses, each of which
is almost 3 times the size of the abutting houses. The developer is intending to add a third house, and potentially a fourth one as he just notified a neighbor that he intends to demolish
the existing house and rebuild on the site. This developer appears to have made a legal workaround (certainly not in the spirit of the zoning regs) by subdividing a lot. I wonder if
this affected the open space calculation. In terms of 40% open space, there is a very differentexperience when the 40% of remaining space is flat and not steep slopes. On this site,
the buildings take up the vast majority of the flat space, leaving tremendous building density. In addition, the houses were built on a very high hill, intensifying the impact of the
houses. This project has such a severely detrimental effect on at least 7 neighboring houses that a number of taxpaying residents who have lived in their houses for decades literally
can no longer see the sky on that side of their houses. One resident is just looking at a wall of vinyl siding almost the length of the lot. Did the Planning Board consider the elevation
when approving the permits? Does the 35’ height limit take into consideration not only the elevation of the lot, but of the lot relative to the other lots that abut it? This lot is unusual
and seems like closer attention should have been paid to the height issue when permits were issued.
Drainage
I am not an engineer, but I am curious about the site plans that only seem to require additional drainage for the impervious surface of the driveways. What about the tremendous loss
of pervious surface from the open space being covered over with houses and garages? Was this also somehow related to the developer cleverly subdividing a lot so that the whole project
wasn’t considered in its entirety?
The remaining pervious surfaces are steep slopes. Warner St and Nutting Ave. already have tremendous rainwater issues—flooding, torrential movement of water, and overflowing storm drains.
It is hard to see how the construction on the site is not going to add to this problem if the only drainage accommodation is to address driveways and not the loss of all of the open,
flat pervious surfaces thatformerly absorbed the rain. Will this not potentially overload City resources? Given climate change, and the fact that Northampton is just going to be getting
more rain, it seems irresponsible for the Planning Department and Board not to be considering the infrastructure’s ability to handle both current and future drainage challenges.
Permitting
I know there are a number of concerns about the permitting process, the order of permits, and whether or not all permits were properly granted for this project before construction began.Other
residents are addressing these concerns.
I think that the residents who are being so dramatically impacted by this project, as well as the neighborhood as a whole, deserve a delay on the driveway permit which, if granted, will
permit the building of one and perhaps two more houses on this property. There are many questions that still need answering, including questions that members of the Planning and Building
Departments, and the Planning Board should perhaps be asking internally. I would also request that before tomorrow night’s hearing, people visit 170 Federal St. and 61 Warner to understand
what the zoning regulations and permitting has allowed and will allow.
This project has done nothingto protect the general welfare or promote the intents of infill. It is of a scale inappropriate to the neighborhood. And, when 61 Warner St. is demolished
by the developer and three large houses are built on that site, one block of Warner St. will have had almost 40% more houses added, with at least two cars per household. This with no
consultation with taxpaying residents who have been here for decades, no design standards for what are in effect a micro-subdivision, no additional requirements to promote affordability,
open space, walkability, or environmental sustainability, and absolutely no regard for the historic, affordable, open land aspects of Bay State Village that have been valued by its residents
for close to 200 years.
Sincerely,
Debra Bercuvitz