Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 2/13/2023
EASTHAMPTON – After a request for a continuance at the Planning Board’s Jan. 3 meeting, representatives from the Tasty Top Development met with the board during their Feb. 8 meeting to discuss the proposed site during a public hearing. During the meeting, the board approved a request for proposal (RFP) for a peer review of the traffic study conducted on the site.
Background
The Tasty Top Development, as presented at the Planning Board’s Dec. 21 meeting, will run from 93 to 97 Northampton St. and is set to include a gymnastics and daycare facility, 10 three-story apartment buildings with 176 apartment units, two restaurant pad sites, two mixed use retail and office buildings with 26 apartment units above, one retail building and two commercial storage buildings.
The project was also issued an enforcement order from the Conservation Commission in June of 2022, which is available for perusal on the city’s website. It states that at the commission’s June 13 meeting, it was determined that a Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) violation occurred “due to activities which include, but may not be limited to, the removal of vegetation and ground disturbance (associated with the installation of a crossing) to bank, land under waterbodies and the 100-foot buffer zone associated with a tributary to the Manhan River without the review or approval of the commission.”
At the Conservation Commission meeting on Jan. 23, commission Chair Julianne Busa noted that the order was not being followed because a crossing over a stream was requested to be removed and had not been.
The Feb. 7 Planning Board meeting
To begin the Feb. 7 hearing, Luke Showalter, one of the engineers working on the project, went over some of the changes to the site plan since the last meeting. The updated plan includes additional sidewalks connections, bike racks, more trash container locations, photometric plans for the site, two electronic vehicle stations at each multi-family building, chain link fences around the stormwater basins near the multi-family buildings and a “significant” reduction in the number of parking spaces throughout the site.
Showalter explained it would result in a reduction of 169 spaces and the spaces removed will remain as green areas but are marked for additional parking if necessary. The work since the prior meetings also included updated traffic counts. With the reduction, there are 560 proposed parking spaces.
Showalter added that there were changes to the stormwater management system, but those changes did not cause any “major” changes to the site.
One request from the Planning Board was to bring the entrance more in line with Mountain View Street but this was not done. But Frank Dimarinis, president of the Tasty Top development, said they were advised not to by their traffic engineers.
“It hasn’t been moved to align with that, it’s a private way and the property line is in the center of the right of way and it’s undetermined who owns that piece. By moving that entrance there, it makes a worse traffic condition because it is pushing closer to Starbucks. It’s like placing an intersection across from a driveway, it’s not necessary or required,” he said.
One part of the project that was further elaborated on was two, eight-unit commercial buildings.
“Those are commercial units, they are for rent for an electrician, painter, a contractor shop, we’ve considered it. It’s for landscapers, electricians, plumbers, they rent it out to get out of there own garage at home and grow their business,” Project Engineer Bryan Balicki said.
Keri Pyke, a traffic engineer working on the project also highlighted the updated traffic study.
“We did recount the intersections as well as do an ATR [automatic traffic recorder] on Northampton Street, and we recounted for three days. Compared to our 2021 ADT count, the volume was actually lower in 2023 than it was in 2021 and we also had a slower speed in that data as well,” she said.
Pyke added that traffic was counted on Jan. 4, Jan. 17 and Jan. 18.
Based on his own experience with the traffic on Northampton Street, board member James Zarvis said the traffic study was “optimistic.”
“I personally would feel better if there was a peer review of the traffic study, I think it would alleviate a lot of my concerns to get another professional view,” he said.
Board Chair Jesse Belcher-Timme added that he was “skeptical at the conclusion that it’s going to have a minimal impact on the road just traffic-wise.” Other members of the board and representatives agreed with doing a peer review of the traffic study.
As part of the peer review, the Planning Board also agreed to put out a request for proposal (RFP) to hire a second company to review the traffic study.
“What we’re talking about is we would authorize the Planning Department to put out an RFP and then authorize the Planning Department to select a person with the idea of completing the review by March 21 and attending a hearing that night,” Belcher-Timme said.
City Planner Jeffrey Bagg detailed what determinations the RFP could include, including the area of the traffic study,
“This is the Planning Board’s opportunity to ask the peer reviewer to review what’s been submitted and provide some guidance to the Planning Board,” he said.
Bagg explained that the review would simply look at the process and data that was collected by Tasty Top Development and ask for additional data if what has been submitted is deemed insufficient.
One wrinkle Bagg noted in the RFP is that the applicant can choose to fund or not fund the reviewer the city selects.
“If they do not, then they can withdraw the permit application within five days or they could appeal the decision to City Council. We want to work cooperatively, and we ask for a competitive price, a fair proposal, based on the scope that’s laid out here,” he said.
Belcher-Timme added that this type of peer review has happened previously on other projects and deemed it “essential to get a second set of eyes.”
During the public comment section around the RFP, several of the residents that spoke suggested looking at a larger area for the traffic study in the peer review, which Belcher-Timme said should be included.
The board unanimously approved the RFP for a peer review on the traffic study.
Following the approval of the RFP for a peer review of the traffic study, the board opened the floor to public comment for the entirety of the project. Many residents expressed concerns over the project, including the entrance into the complex and the way the traffic study was conducted. Other residents also expressed concerns about changing a large green space into a complex with the facilities proposed for the site.
Other residents spoke in favor of the project, specifically looking at more childcare options, economic development opportunities and providing additional housing for the city.
Ultimately, the hearing was continued to the board’s March 21 meeting.