MassDevelopment wanted a bright and bold sign at the entrance to its blossoming construction site on Hospital Hill.
At the planning board meeting on June 12, Beth Murphy, vice president for real estate development, presented MassDevelopment's plan for the sign, which was to be situated right on Route 66, at the crest of Hospital Hill. It looked a bit like a traditional New England town sign—a white rectangle, arched at the top—with the development's name in bold and underneath, the housing development's slogan: "Community. Commerce. Culture." Only, unlike the understated signs usually masked by trees outside charming New England hamlets, this sign was super-sized, standing outside a construction site.
Hospital Hill residents who were at the meeting took the opportunity for public feedback to declare that the sign looked to them like a "billboard," and they had no desire to see it every day on their way into and out of town.
Murphy countered that the sign was no bigger than the real estate signs already there. After a lengthy discussion, planning board members decided they weren't certain they had any say over how the sign looked, just whether it conformed to code. Not being familiar with the site or the code, they delayed judgment until the next meeting.
On the July 24 planning board agenda, the item for 7:15 p.m. read: "Continuation of a hearing on installation of a sign at Village at Hospital Hill. Applicant is requesting withdrawal without prejudice."
When the board reached this agenda item, no one from MassDevelopment stepped forward to explain, although Robert Kaye, senior vice president of planning and development, sat in the audience taking notes. When a member asked Frandy Johnson, the head of the board, what the story was behind this decision, he explained that since the last meeting, it had been decided MassDevelopment had the right to put whatever kind of sign they wanted on their development.
The sign was erected the next day and stands there now.
*
Also scheduled for 7:15 p.m. that night was a request from a current resident for a special permit to build a new home on property that abutted environmentally protected land. The applicant was present with her two sons, and the board dove into this topic directly.
The applicant's engineer presented the planning board with diagrams illustrating how he had reconfigured the site plan as instructed by the planning board during a previous encounter. Since then, the engineer said he had discussed the project with several city officials, including the mayor and city planner, Wayne Feiden, who, the applicant said, had already approved the plan. He felt confident all conditions had been met for the special permit.
Though scheduled to last only 15n minutes, the discussion became heated and lasted more than an hour. Though many on the board appeared ready to approve the permit, a few were concerned about the site's proximity to the protected land, and they wanted to place further restrictions on approval. For a while, they discussed whether boulders or granite markers would be more effective to delineate the property line. An abutter to the proposed new home voiced his concerns; city councilor Marianne Le Barge spoke emphatically for the permit applicant's character and good standing; and the applicant herself voiced frustration at feeling strung along by public officials.
Finally, the engineer returned to the podium, exasperated. He felt it was unfair that the board was introducing new stipulations so late in the process, and he asked that they focus on whether or not the new plans he'd worked on represented the changes they'd requested.
To this, board members pointed to the new Sustainable Northampton Plan; They cited Goal EEC-3 and several of the environmental conservation objectives listed there. When the authority of the Sustainability Plan was questioned, Frandy Johnson assured everyone, "The document has teeth."
If this is true, the plan appears to be selective about whom it bites. Apparently, the document has a taste for single mothers, but turns its nose up at development organizations.
Goal LU-2 of Northampton's Sustainability Plan is to "create and preserve high quality, built environments in downtown and village centers." Among the "Strategies and Actions" to implement this goal, the document states: "Develop a public signage and wayfinding program that… ensures private signs conform to downtown and village aesthetics and design criteria." Listed first under responsible agencies is the planning board.
*
As the fate of the family in Florence was being decided, Beth Murphy and a lawyer joined the MassDevelopment senior vice president already in the audience, and they patiently waited for their organization's second scheduled interaction with the planning board that evening. The special permit for the new home was eventually passed by one vote, with several restrictions added, and as Murphy and the executive sat silently in their seats, their lawyer stepped to the podium to address the planning board.
He was apologetic about the tedious list of small items he needed to get the board's approval on, but in the interest of due process and transparency, he begged their forbearance. The head of the planning board suggested he read the whole list, they'd ask questions as needed, and then they'd vote on them all at once.
Many of the items presented were requests for deadline extensions. Circumstances had changed and MassDevelopment asked that new deadlines for their projects be set. The planning board had no objection to most of the requests and asked for addition information before making a decision on a few issues.
After nearly a half an hour of the promised tedium (and several more apologies for how dull he was being), MassDevelopment's lawyer ended his list with something that made everyone in the room sit up.
Given the likelihood that over the next few years there would be many more adjustments to MassDevelopment's agreements with the city, the lawyer argued, perhaps it would be easier for all concerned if not every little thing needed to be presented at a public session? Maybe MassDevelopment could bend the planning board's ear in private, just to save the public from all the tiresome technicalities.
The planning board weighed this question only briefly. They said no.
Since its decision to grant the Hilton Garden Inn a special permit to build in downtown Northampton without having seen so much as a sketch of the future building, the planning board has been under public scrutiny. They've received heavy criticism for appearing to avoid public discourse over critical issues. They appear eager to change that perception.
If they'd have to wade through the catalog of minutia every month anyway, the planning board reasoned with the MassDevelopment lawyer, what benefit would there be in excluding the public?
How will MassDevelopment deal with being forced to do all its business in front of the public? If the sign on Hospital Hill is any indication of things to come, the taxpayer-funded MassDevelopment may simply bypass the planning board—with tacit approval from the city.
