EASTHAMPTON — Two new housing developments are on the horizon in Easthampton that will bring 26 new apartments to the city.
The Planning Board is reviewing requests for special permits for a 14-unit condominium complex spread across three duplexes and eight single-family homes at 132 and 134 West St., also known as Fat Frog Farm, and for a three-story, 12-unit apartment building at the intersection of Main and South streets. The projects are unrelated.
The board starting reviewing the plans for each project at its meeting last Tuesday, though neither was approved with members requesting developers address several issues.
The condo complex would create a private road ending in a cul-de-sac, which will be managed by a resident association that will “effectively self govern” and “maintain their own properties,” said Bucky Sparkle, the project’s civil engineer.
One of the two project applicants, Mindy Cotherman, said the proposal comes “after a full year of working diligently” on the project, planned to be called Fat Frog Condominiums.
“We had three goals in mind,” Cotherman said. “One is to make the houses and the entire complex aesthetically pleasing; two is to make sure there was plenty of green space for each individual owner to enjoy, as well as within the complex for group activities; three, to build a sense of community in the overall development.”
Considerable changes will be made to the site if approved. Sparkle said there are currently two barns on the property, one of which will be kept and renovated to provide a gathering space for residents, with the other to be destroyed. The project will also include a 13,200-square-foot pollinator meadow.
Approximately 50 trees will be removed, half of which are near-dead apple trees, Sparkle said. However, 132 new trees and shrubs will be planted and there will also be 186 different plants installed. Sparkle said there is going to be dense vegetation planted on the north side of the property to provide a screen between the abutters and the new homes.
“There’s actually going to be a substantial increase in biodiversity after the project as opposed to the current conditions,” Sparkle said.
There are neighboring wetlands to the property, including Hannum Brook, which Sparkle said will not be impacted, confirmed by the Conservation Commission. As for traffic, the development expects to generate 13 vehicle trips during peak travel hours in the morning rush hour, Sparkle said.
The project asks for two waivers from the board to adjust the size of the new roadway and cul-de-sac. Sparkle said he is waiting for approval of a plan that will outline how vehicles will be able to move safely at the new site.
Before making a decision, board members asked that the applicants come back with more information about how the resident association will operate, since it will be responsible for maintaining the road. They also asked for additional details for stormwater management and for the waivers requested.
The board is expected to revisit the request at its Sept. 15 meeting.
Main Street proposal
Plans for the apartment building at 336 Main St. where it intersects with South Street call for demolition of an existing building that is in “disrepair,” according to engineer Terry Reynolds. The applicant is Naresh Patel, of Mahadev LLC of Easthampton.
The building would include 25 parking spots, two of which will be handicapped. Reynolds said that there is very little parking at the neighboring College Highway Variety and plans don’t include creating a sidewalk on Main Street, which is a state highway known as Route 10.
Reynolds said the complex anticipates adding 80 vehicle trips a day from residents, a point of concern for several members of the public. Abutter Amy Markham is worried about adding more traffic to an already busy and dangerous area.
“I think everybody in this room probably knows that that intersection is a bad intersection,” Markham said, noting that there are frequent car accidents at that location and students of Mountain View School often walk by there.
While there are plans to install a 6-foot fence on the southern side of the parcel, along with vegetated buffers, neighbors also raised concerns about the height of the building, which they said would cause “visual pollution.”
The Planning Board requested that the applicant get another review of the stormwater drainage plan, which was reviewed by one of the city’s staff but not the city’s official engineer, who is currently on leave.
The board also asked the applicant to wait until October for the engineer’s return or find a third party to review the plan. Reynolds said that is possible, but notes that the request is “a very basic” stormwater plan.
Planning Board Chair Jesse Belcher-Timme said while there are pros and cons to every development, members love when applicants make every effort to get neighbors and the community to “buy-in” to various projects.
For more information, visit the Planning Board page on the city of Easthampton’s website.
