Northampton planning board continues review of 52 Woodbine site plan amid runoff, parking and bike‑path concerns

The Northampton Planning Board opened a 7 p.m. hearing Dec. 11 to consider Lewis Builders’ proposal to add three detached condominium units at 52 Woodbine Avenue, and members heard detailed questions from neighbors about stormwater, parking, emergency access and proposed bike‑path connections.

Dan Lewis, the builder presenting the project, said the proposal would add "3 condo freestanding condo units" arranged along the left perimeter and rear of the lot, each with a one‑car garage and about 1,400 square feet per unit. He said the plan retains three existing parking spots tied to the existing three‑family building and adds exterior bike parking "for at least 9 bikes," with additional in‑garage storage available.

Neighbors pressed the board and applicant for specifics. "We are concerned for several reasons," said resident Connie Fender, who described chronic standing water near the bike path and asked how roof and parking runoff would be managed, whether basements would require sump pumps and where pumped water would discharge. Rosalind Tory, an online commenter, urged the applicant to consider non‑paved surfaces for the new parking area to reduce runoff and to add plantings for privacy.

Staff clarified regulatory limits and next steps. Carolyn, planning staff, told the board the project disturbs less than one acre so it does not trigger a full stormwater analysis, "but the standard, for any project is the water has to may be stay on‑site" and "roof runoff can't be directed to the abetting parcels or to the street." She also noted zoning language that requires a firm, ADA‑accessible connection to an abutting bike path and reminded the board that any physical connection will require permission from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).

Residents asked about parking overflow and emergency access. Steve Kane, who lives on Woodbine, asked whether new units would generate curbside parking and how emergency and delivery vehicles could maneuver in the rear units. Staff said the proposal meets the minimum parking required by zoning and that deliveries are typically made from the public street; large fire apparatus generally do not enter private driveways.

Board members requested more technical detail before acting. The board asked the applicant to return with clarified open‑space calculations, a planting table with species and planting sizes, a more detailed arborist report addressing preconstruction root protection, and stormwater/utility diagrams showing how roof leaders and any pumped water will be handled. The applicant said an engineer and an arborist are preparing those materials.

A motion to continue the hearing to 7 p.m. Jan. 22 was moved by Sam and seconded by Rich; the motion carried on a voice vote. The board listed the items it expects at the next hearing: updated utilities and stormwater information, a detailed tree inventory and protection plan, clarified open‑space figures and a revised site plan showing any required fence setbacks and sight‑distance adjustments.

The board did not take a final vote on the application at the Dec. 11 meeting.