Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 12/21/2021
EASTHAMPTON – The Planning Board and City Council’s Ordinance Committee hosted a virtual joint meeting on Dec. 14 to continue discussions through a public hearing on changes to the Smart Growth Overlay District.
The special zoning district, permitted by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40R, is designed to encourage the development of and access to deed-restricted affordable housing. Working essentially as an incentive program, 40R allows a developer to create more housing than zoning would normally permit provided at least 20 percent of the units are affordable.
The city’s current 40R district includes the Pleasant Street Mills, Main Street, Union Street and Cottage Street. Much of the discussion surrounding this district was focused on the expansion of this district to include the Center-Pepin Elementary School property and a significant portion of the Highway Business district on Northampton Street.
District 3 City Councilor Thomas Peake, a member of the Ordinance Committee who has been working on the proposal, described the goal for the town in adding this expansion within the district as a way to set up an incentivized creation of affordable housing.
“This is supposed to be for places close to public transit, jobs, grocery stores, places where it makes sense to put more people,” Peake said.
He continued to describe some of the changes within the language for the Smart Growth Overlay District, telling other members of the council that he was proposing a trade off of small projects – four units or fewer – are exempted and on the other side projects can be up to 100 percent affordable. He explained further on the affordability requirement changes.
“Previous zoning had at least 20 percent but not 50 percent affordable housing to be eligible. The low end can cause something like a triplex, 20 percent then becomes 33 percent. I would exempt developments of four or fewer and allow up to 100 percent affordable housing,” Peake said. “Exemption of small projects may help in the middle and development on small lots to help add to overall housing stock.”
Peake also mentioned another change being some minor changes to the design standards that mostly are focused on newer green initiatives as well as an updated map that includes the Center-Pepin property.
“The amendment initially only expanded the map to include the Center-Pepin property. The thought is that smart growth might be an option. By the time we had our first meeting there was property owner interest,” Peake said. “Rather than choosing parcels here or there, the Ordinance Committee elected to designate the Highway Business District up to Florence Road and Highland Ave. for the overlay district.”
Peake said they felt it would be best to get this sorted out now but not to be surprised if by next summer other parts of town are being discussed as areas of town that would benefit from smart growth. He also clarified to all that this was not the approval of any specific project, just making the parcels in question areas to use for growth in the future.
These discussions between the Planning Board and the City Council Ordinance Committee were to make a few more tweaks before bringing it to the council for approval.
Owen Zaret, council member who is also working with Peake for the Ordinance Committee, raised one concern about language and the protection of planting on the parcel.
“I think that the guidelines and some of the notes about renewable energy and pursuing certification of planting, a lot of that is good,” Zaret said. “I want to make a plug for some really simple language around the types of planting that should be required. I don’t think it would be unrestricted. The beauty of native plants is they are native.”
Zaret said through his own research he saw other design standards throughout the commonwealth that many had in the standards that all plantings shall be native species.
“There’s a lot of stuff in here that if we required all this it would be difficult, but being forward thinking and being respectful of the environment, I don’t think its asking a lot or would cost more to say native plants only and no invasive species,” he said.
While there was plenty of support for the notion of protecting the community’s environment, there was small pushback from Peake who felt a ruling like this to be put in place should fall on broader shoulders than just the Smart Growth Overlay design standards.
“I love the idea of requiring native plants,” Peake said. “My only objection to this at all is the idea of specifically putting that into the language that is the Smart Growth design standards. I wonder if there is a better place to put it for a wider range of projects.”
Jessica Allan was in virtual attendance on behalf of Valley CDC, a development group that seeks to empower low- and moderate-income people and under-served populations to manage and improve the quality of their lives though affordable housing, economic opportunity, and encouraging community leadership. Allan said her concern was not the actual ability of making sure there was only native planting, but how changing the language could halt the momentum the town has in getting this project done.
“I get a little concerned on the level of certifications. There’s enough paperwork to make these projects work that to add another level of certification and requirements adds another level of complexity,” Allan said. “If we get stuck in a long permitting process it takes a long time and costs more money.”
James Zarvis, vice chair of the Planning Board, seconded the concern that this should be handled on a broader scale for town projects, but still felt having well defined language for native planting was important.
“I wanted to add it’s a good thing overall, but maybe this is too narrow of a focus,” Zarvis said.
“If you want to make a policy impactful my recommendation is that the conversation is had somewhere else and focus on specific restrictions on 40R and those restrictions be targeted,” Peake said. “It should be something that applies to the whole community and not just an affordable housing parcel.”
City Planner Jeff Bagg was on the same page with the concerns and urged those involved against making this a part of the project now.
“The work focused on has been incentive-based. We have had the Smart Overlay District for 11 years and have one project. At this time, financing and putting the project together seems tedious,” Bagg said. “We need to be careful adding requirements. We don’t know what could stop a project.”
Ultimately, Zaret withdrew his request to put these requirements in, saying that Peake’s plea made sense and that it seemed like there are already a lot of requirements for this.
The other amendment proposed was focused on multi-family dwellings with the idea to make another potential zoning type a developer could use if they come in with a small lot but some multi-family, single family and open space that were affordable, they would receive permitting flexibility as an incentive.
The council had a brief discussion on this amendment before closing their meeting with a vote to come back to their meeting on Jan. 25. This will give Peake and Bagg time to compare their notes and work on some of the feedback given during the meeting.