The meeting, led by Planning Board Chairman Paul Deman, centered around discussions on the 40R overlay district, a concept aimed at promoting mixed-use development, primarily residential buildings of two or three stories, near Red Rock shops. This proposal leverages the proximity to Eastampton’s sewer system, a infrastructure component that has historically posed challenges for the town. Past efforts to advance the 40R framework stalled due to lack of engagement with Eastampton regarding sewer services, a point emphasized by Deman.

Ken Comia, Deputy Director of Land Use and Environment at the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC), and Kyle Fel, a senior planner at the same organization, contributed their expertise. Comia reflected on Southampton’s planning history and ongoing efforts, while Fel highlighted his work on revising the town’s water supply protection district bylaw.

A significant portion of the meeting addressed the 2011 comprehensive report by the PVPC, which identified three potential development areas under the 40R framework. The report’s focus on mixed-use development and the need for sewer infrastructure was revisited. Historical sewer studies along Route 10 had revealed high costs and feasibility challenges, raising questions about pursuing sewer connections given past experiences.

The ongoing sewer study, contracted to analyze the feasibility of connecting to Eastampton, emerged as an element in the discussions. The study is expected to provide clarity on options for improving sanitary services in the area, aligning with the town’s redevelopment goals. The necessity of thorough planning and collaboration with Eastampton was underscored as critical for future 40R proposals.

As the conversation progressed, statistics on potential residential units were discussed. The minimum number of units in a two-story building could range from 338 to 371, while a three-story building could yield between 428 and 561 units. These figures raised concerns about the town’s aquifer limitations, which may restrict permissible housing units per acre. Environmental considerations, including wetlands and sensitive areas, were also deemed significant in these calculations.

The existing soil conditions in the proposed development areas, described as “excessively well-drained,” led to concerns about effective on-site septic system management. The need for a more robust wastewater solution was highlighted.

Capital improvements and associated financial burdens were also discussed. Suggestions were made to bundle these improvements to leverage state and federal grants effectively. This strategic approach aims to secure funding.

The meeting included a detailed presentation on Chapter 40R of Massachusetts General Laws. This voluntary program encourages compact and mixed-use development by streamlining permitting processes and offering financial incentives. The review covered minimum density requirements and the potential for substantial housing growth in designated areas with existing infrastructure.

Attention was given to qualifying locations for 40R zoning, with areas like Red Rock and Midtown identified as potential candidates. However, concerns about the lack of transit options and their impact on meeting state criteria for concentrated development were raised.

Affordable housing aspects of potential developments were discussed, with suggestions to aim for higher affordable housing goals. The financial implications of zoning changes, including payments to assist with capital costs like sewer infrastructure, were emphasized.

The complexities of the 40R zoning process were explored further, including the need for thorough impact analyses, local maps, and proof of public meetings. The delineation of the district on maps often causes community friction, necessitating careful planning and calculation. The total area designated for a 40R district cannot exceed 20 to 25% of the community’s total land area.

The discussion revealed urgency in charting a course for the community, with a sentiment that the middle often gets overlooked in favor of more developed locations. The incentive payments structure, unchanged since the early 2000s, was noted as outdated given rising development costs.

The possibility of establishing a 40R district before submitting an application was confirmed. The planning board could create criteria for setbacks, design standards, and densities using a model bylaw provided by the Executive Office of Housing and Community Development (EOHCD). This model would need adaptation to local circumstances.

Further inquiries about the application process highlighted its burdensome nature. Key components include a zoning bylaw, impact analysis, local maps, and proof of public meetings. The delineation of the district on maps often causes community friction, necessitating careful planning and calculation.

The meeting also touched on the redevelopment of existing facilities, notably older condominium facilities like Hampton South with failing septic systems. Conservation efforts, particularly regarding the Manhan River’s sensitive habitat, were emphasized as important factors in gaining public support for redevelopment.

The feasibility study contracted with Ty and Bond to evaluate sewer capacities and connections to East Hampton was outlined as critical. The supportive stance of East Hampton’s mayor regarding sewer capacity was noted, with expectations of adequate capacity for the entire district once built out. Concerns about design and financial implications of concurrent projects, such as the public safety complex and senior center, were discussed.