Planning Board continues hearing on proposed 5‑story, 71‑unit mixed‑use project at 3 Elm Street

The Northampton Planning Board opened a lengthy public hearing Feb. 13 on a proposed five‑story, mixed‑use development at 3 Elm Street, then continued the hearing to Feb. 27 to allow the applicant time to respond to detailed design, stormwater and circulation comments.

The proposal, presented by Jeff Squire of Brookshire Design Group on behalf of Sunwood Builders LLC, together with Charles Roberts of Kuhn Riddle Architects, would demolish surface parking on the 1.5‑acre parcel that includes St. Mary’s Church and its rectory and construct an approximately 88,500‑square‑foot building with 71 residential units, ground‑floor commercial/café space and a 37‑space garage. The project also proposes renovation of the rectory into a 17‑room short‑stay inn and unspecified future reuse for the church building.

Why it matters: the site occupies a prominent gateway at Elm and State Streets in downtown Northampton, inside the Elm Street Historic Overlay District and the Central Business Side Street district. The project would add significant housing near downtown but raises questions about how new massing, ground‑floor treatments and curb cuts would affect pedestrian comfort, historic context, vehicle circulation and parking availability for adjacent uses.

What the applicants presented: Squire and Roberts described a two‑building composition—a shorter Elm Street “head” building with restaurant/café space and a longer State‑Street‑facing block that contains the garage at ground level and residential units above. Proposed streetscape elements include stepped planters and small plaza space at the corner, rain gardens and tree‑filter bioinlets to treat roof runoff, two relocated curb cuts on State Street (one two‑way serving the garage and service areas; a second for limited ingress), bike parking, and an emergency access curb cut on Elm Street coordinated with the fire department. The team said they coordinated concepts with the city’s Picture Main Street project and that the rectory renovation has already advanced; future church use remains undetermined.

Public comment and board concerns: more than two dozen residents, planners and architects spoke. Common themes were: the State Street ground‑floor façade is dominated by garage openings and would create a long, uninviting pedestrian wall; the building’s length and height create a canyoning effect at sidewalk level and do not sufficiently match the historic character of adjacent buildings; inadequate parking for 71 units plus the rectory and potential uses of the church; operational details for loading, trash removal and off‑hour deliveries; and tree replacement and streetscape buffering.

Several speakers referenced the zoning character district standards (ground‑floor transparency, pedestrian entrance spacing and human‑scale design) and argued the proposal did not meet the stated intent. Designers responded that material choices, fenestration, and brick detailing were intended to break the mass into smaller perceived bays and that they had adjusted colors and a brick corner treatment in response to Elm Street Historic District comments. The applicant proposed 12 new trees at 3‑inch caliper and said they could increase caliper on select plantings to meet the 40‑inch replacement requirement; staff asked for further coordination on specific species and caliper choices.

Stormwater and traffic: the design team described a layered runoff approach—tree box filters, rain gardens and a subsurface detention system—to improve water quality and attenuate peak flows compared with the existing surface‑drained site. DPW review was ongoing; staff said the hearing would be continued to allow DPW comments to be incorporated. On traffic, the team presented a trip‑generation summary and said most restaurant/café trips would be pedestrian; they proposed 37 garage spaces and said the central business district has no minimum parking requirement, relying on nearby public parking and a walkable downtown. The fire department accepted the Elm Street emergency access configuration but requested the Elm cut be limited to right‑in turns for safety.

Board direction and next steps: the planning board asked the applicant to return with revised materials addressing (at minimum) ground‑floor facade treatment along State Street (ways to break up the garage façade and add active uses or smaller storefront modules), a clearer trash/loading plan and circulation for deliveries, demonstration of bicycle storage capacity, clarification of the number and management of parking spaces for the rectory and potential church uses, tree replacement details (species and caliper), and final DPW comments on stormwater. The board continued the public hearing to Thursday, Feb. 27 at 7:30 p.m., to give staff and the applicant time to respond.

Proponents and opponents: public commenters ranged from local planners and architects who urged stricter adherence to urban design standards to residents supportive of adding housing near downtown. Several speakers urged the board to require the applicant to preserve options for reuse of St. Mary’s Church, or at least to demonstrate how the project would not foreclose future reuse of the church and rectory.

What’s next: the hearing will reconvene Feb. 27. DPW comments, revised facade and streetscape drawings, a clarified loading/trash plan, and additional tree‑replacement commitments were specifically requested by the board for the next submission.