Northampton Planning Board approves duplex at 296 Ryan Road with conditions after drainage and tree concerns

Northampton City’s Planning Board on Jan. 8 unanimously approved a site plan to demolish an existing single‑family house and build a two‑unit duplex at 296 Ryan Road, attaching four conditions intended to address tree protection, final setback dimensions and traffic mitigation.

Jeff Squire of the Brookshire/Berkshire Design Group, representing Sovereign Builders, told the board the project would replace a 750‑square‑foot house with two units that each have about 1,500 square feet of living area plus porches and single‑car garages. “The proposal … is to redevelop the site with two single family homes, a duplex effectively,” Squire said during the presentation. The applicant described a driveway from Gilrayne Terrace, two garage doors offset behind porches, and the need to remove one white pine to accommodate the new drive alignment.

Neighbors and Ward 6 Councilor Chris Stratton raised concerns about longstanding drainage problems on Alamo Court and Ryan Road, the project’s scale, and parking. Paula (surname appears inconsistently in the record) of 11 Alamo Court described repeated flooding near her driveway and said, “I have not had water in my basement, and I don't want water in my basement,” urging the city to address local drainage. Stratton said the units would likely be occupied by two‑adult households and warned that single‑car garages could increase on‑street parking pressure.

Staff clarified technical triggers and jurisdictional limits. Planning staff explained that the 2,000‑square‑foot threshold referenced in the staff memo is a procedural trigger requiring Planning Board review — “it’s really just a marker saying, okay, this is this size, therefore it gets this other level of review” — and not a presumption of denial. Staff also said the project is in a Watershed Protection (WSP) district and that compliance is evaluated against impervious‑area limits rather than building size alone.

On tree issues, the applicant said a public shade‑tree removal application had been submitted but a hearing had not yet been scheduled. Staff noted that public shade‑tree replacement calculations and approvals are handled by the tree warden under separate regulations and that the site‑plan review typically includes a condition requiring a certified arborist’s recommendations and installation of tree protection before building permits are issued.

The board approved the site plan subject to four conditions discussed during the meeting: proof of completion of required public‑shade‑tree procedures, work by a certified arborist to specify and certify tree protection for trees at the rear lot line, payment in lieu of on‑site traffic mitigation, and a plan revision to show the Gilrayne Terrace front setback (and associated updates to the dimensional regulation table) so the administrative record reflects the existing nonconforming condition.

George (board member) moved to approve the site plan and the motion was seconded; a roll‑call vote recorded unanimous approval. The board’s roll call during the approval returned all “yes” votes.

The board’s action is limited to site‑plan technical compliance; staff and DPW will separately consider drainage maintenance and any DPW‑level remedies requested by residents. The applicant will also proceed with the tree‑warden process for the removal/replacement request. The board did not require additional discretionary waivers beyond the listed plan revisions and conditions.