Lefko letter 2022
To the Planning Board,
I’m writing in opposition to the proposed plan for 107 Williams St., a house just a few doors from mine at 40 Valley St. I’m writing in opposition to the demolition of the small house
and double garage/barn and to the development plan for eight (market rate) condominiums and pavement that would cover some 90% of the property.
I hope the Planning Board will walk in our neighborhood, to see the status of the infrastructure and take note of the preserved architecture of the neighborhood—the restoration rather
than demolition/replacement of existing houses and buildings, before making any decisions. I’m attaching a map showing the number of multiple family and single family houses as well
as photographs of historic houses/buildings on Williams St.
Below are excerpts from the 2011 Report of the Zoning Revisions Committee. I’m including them so you can see that the proposal as it stands is not only opposed by many in our neighborhood,
but would be opposed generally by people in the city—both historically and currently. The report is dated, but I think the attitude of the people in downtown neighborhoods such as
the Montview Neighborhood, has not changed, based on media reports from Bay State and from Warfield Place.
Public Feedback: (I’ve highlighted relevant notes)
The Zoning Revisions Committee held three general public forums that addressed the issue of infill. The first, held at Northampton Senior High School, was attended by 100 to 150 people.
The second, held at the Florence Civic Center, was attended by approximately 40 people. The third, held at the Bridge Street School in Northampton, was attended by approximately 30
people. Those in attendance expressed general support for infill as long as it does not affect the existing character of our neighborhoods. Major concerns that were voiced include traffic,
parking, intrusions into views or solar access and loss of “green space
Residents were most likely to be sympathetic to: owner-occupants who want to add units; conversions that revert a structure to its historic number of units; additional units that
help maintain affordability for owners, as well as renters to a lesser degree.
Residents expressed concern about infill projects that: are out of scale with the neighborhood in terms of height, bulk or number of units; add new houses on existing streets (especially
through subdivision of lots); create multi-family housing on predominantly single-family streets; affect land that neighbors feel a “sense of ownership” over such as privately owned
woods or fields that have been used informally by neighborhood residents; result in the demolition of “loved” structures; consolidate lots for larger projects
Acceptable infill according to feedback: accessory units within houses and accessory structures (owner-occupied) lot; additional units within existing structures with no external changes
to the building or lot; additional units within existing structures with minor changes to the building or lot; filling gaps in a street with new buildings that match the scale of the
neighborhood;
Less acceptable: additional units within existing structures with major changes to the build or lot (large additions, large parking lots, major demolition and rebuilding); filling gaps
in a street with new buildings that are larger than the building in the existing neighborhood; large new projects (new neighborhoods, multi-unit town homes, etc.)