The Northampton City Planning Board spent much of its Oct. 23 meeting discussing potential amendments to the 2022 form-based Central Business District (CBD) code, including possible changes to the Side Street and Gateway subdistricts governing building heights, step-backs, buffers and site-plan triggers for solar canopies and parking structures.

Carolyn Mich, planning staff, reviewed the 2022 code structure: “We have Central Business Core, Central Business Side Street, and Central Business Gateway,” and then walked the board through map extents from the bike path, Main Street, Pleasant Street, King Street and the Conn Street/roundabout area. Mich said the core permits the greatest height (up to 70 feet) and requires review by the Central Business Architecture Committee; outside the core, planning-board review is the jurisdiction for expansions.

Board members raised recurring concerns from neighbors about the visual and privacy impacts of taller buildings that abut Urban Residential C (URC) districts. Current code requires a 10-foot step-back at 50 feet and a 10-foot minimum side setback in URC; board members debated whether to start step-back requirements at 40 feet, add a second step-back at higher elevations, increase side setbacks from 10 feet to 20 feet where buildings abut URC, or require step-backs on building sides that abut residential parcels as well as on street-facing facades.

Several members questioned whether allowing a reduced buffer in exchange for a fence still made sense. One board member observed that a fence “is not meant to mask the building” at higher elevations and argued trees and landscaping might provide a more effective long-term buffer. Staff said the fence provision is largely a carryover and recommended considering replacing the fence-for-buffer option with a requirement for a landscaped, treed buffer.

Members also weighed trade-offs between stricter step-backs and housing capacity. One member noted that increasing setbacks could reduce net units in projects and asked staff to estimate unit impacts citywide; another asked the planning office for examples and analysis to inform a balanced approach.

Other topics included special-permit language and footprint thresholds. Mich said the existing 10,000-square-foot special-permit trigger was intended to dissuade large single-user retail (for example, big-box stores) and that the code should be clarified so multifamily housing footprints do not unintentionally trigger special-permit criteria intended for single users.

Design standards for structured parking and solar canopies were discussed. Staff recommended developing design criteria for covered parking garages so they integrate better with pedestrian-friendly street design, and suggested eliminating a site-plan trigger for solar canopies located behind buildings (while retaining review for canopies visible from sidewalks or public ways). Board members asked staff to prepare model language and examples.

Finally, members asked staff to clarify which design guidelines are mandatory versus advisory and to tighten waiver language to reduce public confusion when projects proceed because uses are allowed but aspects of design are ministerial or non-discretionary.

Next steps: staff will prepare draft ordinance language and illustrative maps showing where parcels abut URC for review at a later meeting; board members requested an analysis of potential unit loss and examples of alternative step-back schemes before formal drafting.

Proper names and terms discussed include the Central Business Core, Central Business Side Street, Central Business Gateway, Urban Residential C (URC), Valley Community Development Corporation (Valley CDC), Phillips Place/Holly Street project, and references to a Trumbull Road canopy project that prompted the solar-canopy conversation.