Chierichini - Second Letter to Planning BoardSeptember 10, 2020
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
I am writing to reiterate my concerns about the project at 36 Hampden Street.
I won’t repeat the considerations that I expressed in my previous letter to this Board: but please know they do still stand.
As a matter of fact, my concerns multiply in light of the extensive comments provided by DPW to this project, in connection with stormwater, electricity connection, water line connection
and sewer line connection. The latter in particular raise questions about leakage, conflict, damage, and the need for an easement or relocation.
In the revised plans submitted last week, the developer indicates that DPW comments have been addressed, and I understand that DPW is likely to issue an updated memo. Did DPW have sufficient
time to do this, in order for the Board to take said memo into consideration before their pronouncement?
Timing is indeed another serious concern of mine. Has enough time been granted to the possibility of an accurate evaluation of this project, and all the implications it carries?
It appears that new documentation from the developer is reaching the Board, the public, and myself in close proximity to this hearing date.
An email about screening, with the new plans attached,has reached my inbox at 9:41pm last Friday, September 4th. I was able to respond by Tuesday, September 8th. In the meantime, the
developer had submitted a ‘Summary of Site Plan Changes’ indicating that she had not yet received a response.
My response, for the record, indicates my preference for a full privacy fence, in order to ensure as much privacy and as clear boundaries as possible, especially in light of the multiple
invasions of space, and the highly unusual production of noise and light especially at night time, that I experienced while the developer managed her rental property at 36 Hampden.
I would also like to ask what is the status of the developer’s application with the Conservation Commission? I see that the DEP has issued a file number, though indicating that the application
is still incomplete.
Since Conservation issues might be offset by the proposed donation to Arcadia, I wonder whether the Sanctuary has clearly indicated their acceptance of said donation.
I understand that the Tree Warden expressed a different opinion than the Arborist consulted by the developer as to the status of the Black Locust that the developer proposes to remove.
Hence, mitigation comes from a donation to the City Tree Fund, and the two new trees included in the new Planting Plan will provide some softening to the site and the streetscape.
Still, five parking spots appear to be wrapping around the existing two-family. This seems like a dramatic change to the neighborhood’s existing conditions. So does the building density
on that property lot.
Several of these issues might be somewhat mitigated by a downscaling of this project to two additional small units instead of three. The developer claims that this option would not work
financially. If that were indeed the case, let me just ask whether the developer is under any obligation to undertake this project at all.
I have already expressed my openness to a project that would make the property at 36 Hampden look better,whilesolving existing drainage issues and allowing for some development, if that
really needed be, and actually could be allowed by regulation.
But this project, to me, looks like an attempt to stretch any and all possibilities given by existing regulation, in order to fill beyond reasonable capacity a pretty sensitive lot,
while using the concepts of building sustainably more or less affordable units in order to disguise a plain pursuit of the maximum possible profit, without a concern for the multiple
points of detriment brought upon existing neighbors in the meantime. And I insist that that is just not fair.
Thankyou for yourconsideration,
Claudia Chierichini