Northampton Planning Board continues 213 Park Hill site-plan review to await ZBA variance

The Northampton Planning Board on Feb. 27 continued a public hearing on a site-plan amendment for 213 Park Hill Road, postponing a final decision until the board meets again on March 13 at 7:00 p.m.

The proposal by Wright Builders, represented by Jeff Spire of Berkshire Design Group, would add a fourth lot served by an existing shared driveway that currently serves three houses. The Conservation Commission approved a separate curb-cut that required wetland replication but conditioned its approval on the applicant seeking a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to allow a fourth lot on the common drive. The Planning Board agreed to continue its review until the ZBA rules on that variance.

The continuation followed extended technical discussion about wetlands, drive access and grading standards. Spire told the board the approved Conservation Commission work required wetland replication and culvert extension; the original plan would have disturbed about 152 square feet of wetlands with 308 square feet proposed for replication and about 63 linear feet of bank work. Spire said the alternate plan for a fourth driveway entrance would avoid additional wetland impacts by aligning the entrance north of the property line and using the existing drive alignment.

Planning staff and board members pressed the applicant on site details. Staff noted the town’s zoning limit that normally allows a maximum of three lots to be served by a single common driveway; that limit requires a ZBA variance for any fourth lot. Caroline (planning staff) explained the shared-driveway limit is intended to prevent driveways being used to circumvent subdivision rules and to preserve emergency access. Board members also queried grade limits: the proposed driveway includes segments with a 12% grade. Spire said the site’s topography and a water-main easement on the north edge constrained options; staff reminded the board there is a provision in the ordinance that allows up to 12% on south-facing slopes subject to administrative review and fire-department requirements, including a sprinkler system for the house.

Public comment included a question from resident Joe Cantalini, who asked whether the grade would have differed if the lot had a curb cut directly on Park Hill Road; Spire and the project team said the grade would be similar once on the parcel and that the variance for the fourth lot would be the central zoning issue regardless of curb-cut location.

Board members also noted on-site work already under way under a Conservation Commission permit: staff observed at least one significant tree was removed; the plan set listed two significant trees to be removed, while grading suggested a cluster of four could be affected. Spire said he would visit the site, confirm what was removed, and work with the board on replacement planting and tree-protection measures.

After discussion, the board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to March 13 at 7:00 p.m. The motion was made by the Planning Board chair (unnamed in the record) and seconded by Rich Baker. Roll-call votes recorded Stacy Dake (yes), Rich Baker (yes), Jenna (yes), Melissa (yes) and George (yes).

The board’s action is procedural: it did not approve or deny the site plan. If the ZBA denies the requested variance, the applicant indicated it would pursue a by-right curb cut on Park Hill Road and withdraw the planning-board application; if the ZBA grants the variance, the Planning Board will resume review, address outstanding site-plan conditions and vote on any required site-plan conditions and tree-replacement measures.