Albert LetterKenneth and Nora Albert
27 Olander Drive
Northampton, New Jersey 01060
Email: Kga9east@aol.com
Phone: (413) 727-3577
February 3, 2017
via email: CMisch@NorthamptonMA.gov
Carolyn Misch
Senior Land Use Planner
City of Northampton
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Dear Ms. Misch,
I am writing to you because I was troubled by some of your comments in our brief
conversation last week. I understood that you had not yet reviewed the ServiceNet
plans so I didn’t expect immediate resolution of my issues but I did expect that you to be
more responsive to the concerns I was raising so we could have a productive dialogue
early in the process to avoid unnecessary delays in the implementation of the project. As
my wife and I approach 70 the height of plantings and the degree of screening is very
important to us and we were led to believe that the Northampton Planning Board would
be very supportive of our needs.
One of the most important concerns I raised was the proposed height of the plantings
especially the proposed Spruce that would border the Hospital Hill trail. I further noted
that proposed 7 ft height of the evergreens would not be in compliance with the Design
Guidelines written jointly by MassDevelopent and Northampton. Those Guidelines call for
a 10 to 12 ft. minimum planting height for evergreen trees.
Your response was (1) to support the idea of 7 ft. trees because bigger trees would be
“shocked” and (2) 3 foot shrubs would be preferable so that the parking would be visible
to allow for “observation.” You went on to say that “too much density would be
dangerous because it could hide someone” and that stated that the proposed 3 ft.
height “should be sufficient screening for vehicle headlights.” You further stated that
you rely on the landscape architect hired by the applicant when reviewing site plans.
I was left speechless by your perspective as it was contrary to everything I had observed
and practiced over a 40-year career advising municipalities, counties, states and other
public entities about site plans. As a former State Planning Commissioner for the State of
New Jersey, I have worked with some of the best planners and architects in the country.
The role of a Planning Board is to work with developers, residents, businesses, and other
stakeholders as opposed to solely relying on the applicants. As we move forward I
expect that we will have productive and mutually respectful meetings.
Just to be clear, we are very supportive of ServiceNet and their mission and welcome
them as our neighbor. It remains, however, that their site plan should be as good as one
can reasonably expect. Understandably we would rather the parking lot not be
located so close to our house. We recognize that moving the project to the south may
carry with it considerable cost because of the topography of the site. As a point of
information Design Guidelines referenced below state that “buildings shall be positioned
as close to the Route 66 right-of-way as physical constraints allow.
With regard to the landscaping, people who use the trail would clearly prefer to have
trees bordering the trail. All of the rail trails in the area have dense vegetation wherever
possible when in proximity to commercial properties. It is an important part of the
attraction of the rail trails. The people in the apartments facing the parking lot also have
a stake in their view.
When a parking lot is in such close proximity to a residential building, it is generally
agreed that it is important to screen the parking lot - not just the headlights - from view.
Towards this end, we made a considerable investment in plantings on our property and
each year we do additional plantings. ServiceNet has also proposed evergreen
plantings in support of this objective.
Without even reviewing the plan, you made a series of statements that were contrary to
every accepted planning concept that I am familiar with. I believe that the following
principles are more in line with sound planning:
1. Screening a commercial parking lot from a neighboring residential property is
desirable.
2. Density of plantings along a rail trail that is adjacent to a commercial property is
desirable. No one would choose to hide in a densely populated spruce cluster.
3. Sound attenuation is important to a residential property bordering a parking lot
and the sound attenuation is directly related to vegetation density and sight lines.
4. Planting of evergreen trees at a minimum height of 10-12 ft. is not only desirable
but is also recommended by the “Design Guidelines” developed by Beals and
Thomas and Vanasse & Associates in 2003 to “provide a framework for the
development and guide the review of the projects by the Northampton Planning
Board.”
5. Landscape architects representing an applicant often have a bias. Relying
completely on their perspective does not serve the public interest.
In my work representing public entities, I was often called upon to reconcile competing
agenda. You seem only interested in representing the applicant, not the town and
definitely not a neighboring property owner. This is short sighted as can be seen by the
incredible lack of landscaping at the Fazzi building and the alignment of the driveway
that guarantees the loss of three additional 150-year-old Alaskan Cedars. The lack of
proper landscaping is not the fault of the property owner. The building is a wonderful fit
for the neighborhood but it is the planning board and more importantly your function to
review the landscaping and insure that the town, the neighborhood and the next-door
neighbors are protected (the next-door neighbors are tenants in the case of the Fazzi
building and generally they do not appear at Planning Board meetings). What a missed
opportunity!
With regard to the Fazzi Building, you also recommended at the Board hearing that the
height of the light poles be 18 ft. high instead of a preferable 14 ft. high when next to
residential buildings. The lower height may require an additional pole but the 14 ft.
height results in almost no glare being received by an adjacent property owner. The 18
ft. Fazzi poles produce far more glare than a lower height.
In the coming days, I ask that you give more consideration to our concerns. It would be a
ridiculous waste of resources for us to spend considerable funds in hiring professionals to
address our concerns as opposed to investing our resources in plantings. We also have
no desire to delay ServiceNet in their important project.
From our perspective, you are in a very powerful position with respect to this application
and we are seeking a collaborative relationship moving forward. Nonetheless, we do
insist that you honestly and openly consider our view as well as the applicants in your
deliberation. After all, we are Northampton residents and we are deserving of some
consideration when a neighboring property is developed. It is disconcerting to hear you
state a series of facts in defense of a proposed application without even reviewing the
plans.
It is odd that Beth Murphy of MassDevelopment has been helpful, that ServiceNet has
been cordial and open to suggestions and that we find our planning representative,
Carolyn Misch, dismissive of any reasonable suggestions.
I am certain that you are someone of considerable talent and expertise. I would simply
ask you reconsider some of your ideas in light of our concerns. Please forward me your
review letter when available.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Albert
cc: David Narkewicz, Mayor, mayor@northamptonma.gov
Wayne Feiden, Director of Planning, wfeiden@northamptonma.gov
Debin Bruce, Chair, Northampton Planning Board