Next Thursday (October 17th), the Easton Planning Commission is likely to approve a townhouse development project which will undo more than 30 years of effort to preserve the character of the town.
The proposed Silo Square project is located just south of the Easton Historic District along the Rail to Trails. It consists of 28 rental townhouses. These are laid out surrounding parking, typical of a suburban development. The architectural design – supposedly inspired by the corrugated metal grain silos now on the site – is contemporary, with no pediments, no shutters, and no traditional elements typical of the 100-year-old homes on the adjacent blocks.
The neighborhood objects to the architectural design, which goes against the words of the town’s Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines. Yet as it supports the town’s laudable goal to build more “workforce” rental housing, the Planning Commission is tearing up the playbook for keeping Easton, Easton.
The Town of Easton, through several revisions of its Comprehensive Plan, has embraced historic preservation and promoted the “New Urbanism.” You can see this in the newer subdivisions which have streets and alleys, not cul-de-sacs. You can see this in the design of those newer houses, which use traditional architectural elements to express the concept of “home.”
The problem at Silo Square is not just the developer’s choice of a contemporary architectural aesthetic nor the Commission’s failure to see how this project will set a future pattern for the redevelopment of the “industrial” area south of Brookletts Avenue. The problem is the Planned Redevelopment Overlay District process. Unlike the Planned Urban Development (PUD) process, the PRD developer is not obligated to provide additional “public benefit” other than to bring their land back to life. And, unlike the PUD process which requires approval by both the Planning Commission and the Town Council, a Planned Redevelopment project needs only approval of the un-elected Planning Commission. Under the PRD process, the public’s only input is at the Commission’s approval hearing, AFTER the developer has back-and-forth with town staff on how to meet the MINIMUM requirements and after it has expended significant design fees on detailed plans required for Commission approval. This makes it very difficult for the community to have any meaningful input.
In some of its more recent actions, the Planning Commission has shown a lack of consistency when it faced a disgruntled community. It rejected a planned apartment building project because it would increase traffic to a street lined with single-family homes. It was opposed to the high density of proposed a new subdivision. And it approved a very dense and architecturally impressive project in Easton’s downtown. Why is this project, which will bring more traffic to narrow streets in the Historic District and construct homes that will clash with the character of our neighborhood, allowed to proceed as proposed?
Many in the neighborhood now expect the plans to be approved. The Commissioners may surprise us and “do the right thing.” But the need to reform the Planned Redevelopment Overlay is clear. The next major project in this area – Easton Crossing – should not proceed without meaningful public input and sensitivity to its context in the Town of Easton.
Maury Schlesinger – Registered Architect
Easton
Glenn Baker says
So it’s rusting silos as neighbors over townhouses?
Or just NIMBY for anything.
Currently the area is an eyesore. But you like that?
Maury Schlesinger says
The issue isn’t to keep the grain bins instead of town houses. Indeed, myself, and most of our neighbors are very much in favor of redevelopment of that site. And more attainable housing is desperately needed in the town. The issue is the town has over the past many years been successful in retaining a traditional character and aesthetics. This project does not meet those standards.