Chierichini LetterJuly 2nd, 2020
Request to visit site at 36 Hampden St.
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
my name is Claudia Chierichini and I am the owner of 32 Hampden Street. My property and the parcel under review lay longitudinally adjacent to one another at the end of the street: hence,
I am one of the abutters more directly impacted by this development project.
I have concerns of publicand private interest at heart about this project, and I am writing to kindly ask you, please, to visit this site to personally assess their soundness.
I know you have site drawings available, and I know you have no obligation to do site visits. Especially since you volunteer on the Planning Board. But for the sake of civic fairness,
let me please urge youto consider visiting this site.
I am mainly concerned with the negative impact of overloadon existing narrow streets, and neighborhoods that have been historically characterized by a recognizable ratio between dwelling
units and open space on each lot.
What means do we currently have available to fairly and objectively establish a difference between infill and overload?
Let me state thatI understand the need for infill in urban spaces. We need to accommodate change, allow development of some projects, and provide additional housing for homeowners and
renters alike, while protecting the environment: I agree. I also understand that a city needs to expand its tax base in order to carry out a vision that benefits the whole community.
That’s fine.
But how can we come to an agreement as to when a development project crosses the boundaries of fairness, and from infill steps into overload?
Pioneer Development LLC describes this project as “a small infill” at the end of Hampden Street.
Converting a 2-family unit overlooking Arcadia into a 5-unit property may read as “a small project”, and it may have a limited impact on City resources.
But looking only at dwelling-unit numbers and total URB acreage, in the case of this ‘small’ project, is deceiving.
In fact, the new three-family structure “tucked into the hill overlooking Arcadia” is “clustered mostly on the upper lot, Lot 11, of the four lots (Lot 11, 12, 13 &14)” that make up
the parcel at the end of Hampden Street.
Currently, the developed area of our street ends with the existing 2-family structure, perched on the hill, that already occupies a significant part of the upper lot mentioned above.
And that upper portion of the property land is all that can be seen on the same plane as the street. The rest of the land slopes down with a steep hill into the flood plain, the wetlands,
and the forest.
In terms of density, the lot-to-dwelling ratio currently existing on the upper lot at 36 Hampden compares to that on mine, at 32 Hampden (Lot 10). It also compares to that which may
be observed all along our street.
But the kind of density proposed by this project for 36 Hampden cannot be found anywhere else on the street.I kindly ask you again to please verify this on site, yourselves.
Let meoffer you some numbers, to further clarify my point.
My lot measures 7,782 sq ft. My house (a small two-story farmhouse built probably at the beginning of 1900), makes up for 1506 sq ft.
In terms of density, that means a 5.16 lot-to-dwelling ratio (7782 : 1506 = 5.16).
There is a garage at the back of my property, attached to the existing garage at the back of 36 Hampden.
There is open space along over 66 ft between the back of my house and my garage.
Between the end of the existing 2-family at 36 Hampden and their garage, there is a longer stretch of open space - all overlooking the forest.
This project shows13 ft of space leftthere and fill the rest with a new 3-family unit. Each unit will be 992 sq ft. That means 2,976 sq ft (992 x 3 = 2,976).
As to the existing 2-family, each unit will be expanded to reach 1,680 sq ft. This means 3,360 sq ft (1,680 x 2 = 3,360).
So together, the existing 2-family and the new 3-unit will total 6,336 sq ft (2,976 + 3,360 = 6,336).
Now let’s look at lot size.
Lot 11, the upper lot where the new three-family structure would be mostly clustered, and where the existing 2-family structure mostly stands, measures 8,978.7 sq. ft.
Lot 12 is partly in the Flood Plain, but part of it is zoned as URB, for 6,245 sq ft.
The two lots combined amount to 15,223.7 in URB (8,978.7 + 6,245 = 15,223.7).
So, the proposed expansion of the existing 2-family would bring about a 4.5 lot-to-dwelling ratio (15,223.7 : 3,360 = 4.5).
And in terms of density, that’s similar enough to the 5.16 lot-to-dwelling ratio in place on my property, which is in turn similar to the situation on the rest of the street.
But by adding the new three-unit to the existing and expanded 2-family, this project will produce a 2.40 lot-to-dwelling ratio (15,223.7 : 6,336 = 2.40) at the end of Hampden Street.
This means that this development would bring down the actual open space on the land zoned as URB at 36 Hampden to about half of what it could be if the developer only expanded the existing
2-family, and less than half of what it tends to be in the rest of the neighborhood. In other terms,density would be more than double.
Again, the kind of density proposed by the project for 36 Hampden is to be found nowhere else on the street.
And on the basis of this evidence, I argue that adding a new three-family structure mostly on the upper lot of the property at 36 Hampdenamounts to overload on that lot.
Thisoverload will have a negative impact on the entire area at the end of Hampden Street.
That final stretch of the street is particularly narrow. This project provides 8 parking spots for 5 townhomes totaling 12 bedrooms.Parking overflow on the street is likely. How is parking
overflow on a narrow street going to affect snow plowing for DPW? Where will the plowed snow go? How are immediate abutters and other street residents going to be daily affected by these
issues?Snow plowing and snow disposal are already an issue there, further complicated by the proximity of the area to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands.How will potentially quadrupling people
and traffic there help with snow issues? A difficulty with providing adequate on-site parking is behind the developer’s application with the Conservation Commission to extend into an
area subject to protection.The site also lacks sufficient space to protect and replace some of the existing trees.The documents submitted by the developer include an Arborist’s recommendation
to remove one 29” Black Locust - also because of its location on the same “steep hill” where the 3 new units would be built. Actually, the site drawings show an entire area made of several
different trees that are going to be removed. The developer proposes no new plantings, though.I see a proposal of “new planting areas (beds and planters) for gardening by future residents”.
As shown in the Site Drawings, these areas are extremely tiny.I also read that new plantings are not proposed, since “new trees would interfere with solar access, snow storage and views.”Views,
indeed: mine and my neighbors, in fact, are going to be permanently interfered with by this development.And snow storage: the drawings show snow storage locations uphill from the units
“tucked in the hill”. How is that additional water infiltration going to interfere with foundations, and the safety of potential new owners and their property?The developer also claims
that new plantings along the northerly line of the lot (that would be me) are “no longer shown on the site plan as they would be on the neighbors’ property, not the subject property,
if desired by the neighbors”.I appreciate the good will offer, but I think it is the developer obligation to provide both adequate screening to abutting properties, with provisions for
it not be removed by future residents without appropriate substitution, and adequate space for said screening. Is there actually enough viable space for as much development as proposed
at 36 Hampden?
Let me alsoinvite you to please consider the history of the area at the end of Hampden Street.
As I learned upon purchase, my property at 32, with its two-story farmhouse built at the beginning of 1900, used to be an undivided property with the parcel at 36 Hampden. In 1971, this
undivided property came to be owned by the Deyette family. At some point between the 80s and the 90s, the Deyettes divided that property, applied with the City for a variance on 32 Hampden,
and created two non-conforming lots (32 and 36 Hampden), in connection with construction of the existing 2-family structure perched on the hill.
On the basis of this history, I suggest that the area at the end of Hampden Street be considered as already filled in. An ‘infill’ of sorts has already happened on that land when the
existing 2-family structure has been built there.
How much additional development is the City going to authorize in that area, which borders vegetated wetlands, and already has issues with drainage,infiltration, erosion, and snow plowing
and storage?
This project would not even be possible, without the recent zoning change regarding frontage of non-conforming lots.
But a “small” project of this extent on that particular site will have a long-lasting negative impact on the daily lives of current and perspective residents.
The developer – who won’t live there after closing on this investment – seems to offer mitigation measures to several constituents. I see the following:
a payment in lieu of improvements as a way to address incremental traffic impact;
1 parking spot more than strictly required by code, in lieu of potentially 5 additional residents’ vehicles in that area;
a donation to the city tree fund of any (if any) unspent budget for new plantings on neighbors’ property, in lieu of tree replacement;
an application to the Conservation Commission for a Special Permit,to extend parking “into the buffer area, and repair the pipe and rip rap erosion protection measures in the wetland
protection area”.
I am incidentally confused, here, as to the repair(s) to which Pioneer Development is committing, exactly.
In connection with a municipal pipe outfalling in the wetland I see a reference to Northampton DPW informing that “the collapsed drain will be repaired in the future”.
In connection with the replacement of an existing private basin, I read that “a private basin exists on the property and is owned by the property owner not by the City.”
And the Stormwater Narrative Summary mentions a collapsed outfall of a Municipal stormwater pipe located on the west side of property, and a privately owned storm drain; a seep that
I never noticed is mentioned to exist on my property, to the east of the lot at 36 Hampden; my property is also included in the Hydraulic analysis and the drainage mitigation for 2 and
10 yr storms, “since it drains primarily to the inlet location existing and proposed”.
I am not sure as to what all of the above means, and I also ask who is going to be responsible for what,when, and why?
The developer mentions also a proposal for donating land to Arcadia. I wonder if Arcadia has actually declared that they intend to accept that donation.I recently inquired about this
with Arcadia’s Director, Jonah Keane. I have not received a response yet, but last January over email he expressed surprise at the donation, and disagreement with its beingoffered as
mitigation. He also expressed Arcadia’s intention to write to the landowner and the city to express their opinions on this.
I wonder, in any event, whether any or all of the measures of mitigation just mentioned can counterbalance the negative impact of this development, if authorized to the full extent it
proposes, on current and perspective residents of the neighborhood.
Thus I respectfully ask you again to please visit this site, before making your decision on this development project.
Thank you,Claudia Chierichini