I watched the South Hadley Planning Board meeting on July 14, and was surprised by some of the comments from board members and the incomplete renderings of proposed rezoning and construction in the Routes 202/33 area.
The Routes 202/33 Report issued in January 2022 had extensive resident input obtained via public meetings/workshops, questionnaires and submitted comments. Residents repeatedly expressed their desire to limit building height to three stories or 35 feet and protested the 45-foot limit suggested by Innes Associates, the consultant. Yet, somehow, a 45-foot height is included in the final report when it should have been deleted.
The Planning Board currently promotes a height limit of 55 feet for mixed use and 45 feet for residential buildings, making rezoning recommendations explicitly contrary to the wishes of South Hadley residents.
Residents’ opinions should not be ignored. At the July 14 Planning Board meeting, a board member said that the difference between 45 feet and 55 feet is “negligible,” as if the difference would not be noticed.
That height difference might not be noticed in an urban setting, but South Hadley is not urban. The Routes 202/33 area is largely residential, with mostly one- and two-story homes. A height limit of three stories/35 feet keeps all within the look and feel of South Hadley.
The artist’s rendering of cluster housing did not include garages, driveways, parking areas, etc. With the additions, the illustrated 23 units (approximately 1,500 square feet each) on three acres (equals 7.7 units/acre) would realistically be more crowded and less appealing to potential residents. The suggested maximum of 12 units per acre would be extremely undesirable.
Everything in such artist renderings must be complete and to-scale so that the public is getting a correct view. Transparency to the public means the proposed development along Routes 202/33 should include to-scale superimposed images/photos of business, residential, mixed use zones and proposed setbacks. Without knowing the overall appearance of the completed design, the public would be poorly informed and misled. At the November special Town Meeting, the members would be voting blindly.
Lastly, if members of the Routes202/33 Advisory Committee are developers or involved in the construction industry, they should recuse themselves from voting on issues such as the corridor rezoning recommendations. Conflicts of interest are problematic and unethical. The town’s public deserves information that is unbiased and factual.
Stephen Frantz
South Hadley