Planning Board Approves Kendrick Park Playground Equipment, Continues Discussion On 40R Overlay Zoning

Report on the Meeting of the Planning Board (12/16/20)

The meeting was held as a Zoom webinar and was simulcast on Amherst Media Channel 17. A recording of that meeting will be posted in the future on the Amherst Media site.

Participating
Planning Board: Jack Jemsek (Chair), Maria Chao, Thom Long, Doug Marshall, Andrew MacDougall, Janet McGowan, and Johanna Neumann 

Staff: Town Planner Chris Brestrup, Assistant Planner Nate Malloy, and Assistant Pam Field-Sadler

Kendrick Park Playground
Assistant Planner Nate Malloy presented the final plans for the playground to be built at Kendrick Park. The playground equipment has already been ordered to meet the PARC grant timeline of completion by June 2021. The equipment will be similar to that at Groff Park, with muted colors and a variety of activities. There will be one area for 2- to 5-year olds and one for 5- to 12-year olds. As at Groff Park, there will be a rubberized surface and areas accessible to wheelchairs. Malloy stressed that the equipment was designed with safety in mind.

There will also be metal seating with benches and three or four round tables with attached chairs. Trash and recycling receptacles will match the black ones in the rest of the downtown. Around the site will be granite curbing. A naturalized play area to the east will have mulch ground covering and boulders, stumps, and logs for climbing. The Planning Department is working with the Tree Warden to determine the best and hardiest plantings, hopefully with a pollinator garden. The only water on the site is the fire hydrant.

Neumann asked about safety from North and East Pleasant Streets, which border the site. Malloy pointed out that there are no barriers on the site now, and he thinks the granite curbing will clearly demarcate the play area from the surrounding park.

A committee is discussing signage, debating whether to choose a sign between granite posts, like at the Amherst Golf Club, or a kiosk as is planned for the Dog Park. The sign design will need to be discussed at the Design Review Board before being presented to the Planning Board.

In public comment, Pam Rooney, a landscape architect, questioned the new walkway across the park ending at East Pleasant Street in the middle of a block with no provisions for crossing the street at that point. Malloy pointed out that the walkway meets the existing sidewalk at the east side of the park. Brestrup thought a raised crosswalk might be a good idea to consider.

The plan presented was approved unanimously by the Planning Board, with the design for the sign still outstanding. 

Master Plan Implementation
Over the past couple of months, Marshall and Brestrup have met to go over the implementation matrix in Chapter 11 of the Master Plan. The Master Plan was approved originally in 2010 and then again earlier this year. Although there was to have been a Master Plan Implementation Committee appointed by the Select Board, no members were ever chosen. However, in going over the many goals put forth in the Land Use section of the Master Plan (Chapter 3), Marshall and Brestrup realized that many of the aims had already been met. Brestrup noted that the Town is due for a new flyover to establish a GIS base. The last flyover was in 2009, so some of the land use area data may be out of date.

After Brestrup presented the first ten points in the Land Use matrix (LU1A through J), the Board members discussed what to do with the information. MacDougall wondered if they should resurrect some of these goals to work on. McGowan spoke in favor of a Master Plan Implementation Committee (MoPiC) based in the Planning Board. Jemsek worried about taking up too much of Brestrup’s time, given her work on zoning with the Community Resources Committee (CRC) of the Town Council. Brestrup said she is happy to talk through strategies, although she does not want to do a lot of report writing. Marshall pointed out that a lot of this information resides in Brestrup’s head. For instance, she knew that the Opportunity Zones and Transfer of Real Property mentioned in the Master Plan did not really work in Amherst. This would be valuable information to take into account when a new Master Plan is formulated.

Brestrup pointed out that the document is not finished. She is still gathering information. Chao thought that working on these goals of the Master Plan aligns with what the CRC is proposing for zoning and housing, and should be considered when the CRC memo is discussed later in the meeting. However, Neumann wanted to move ahead with 40 R zoning and not spend so much time on the Master Plan now. The discussion will be continued at the January 6 Planning Board meeting.

40R Overlay Zoning
During public comment at the beginning of the meeting, Katherine Appy, Matt Blumenfeld, Sarah LaCour, Kent Faerber , Ginny Hamilton, and Erika Zekos all spoke strongly in favor of the Town adopting 40R Overlay zoning, which would allow dense development downtown in exchange for developers adopting some design guidelines and providing some affordable units. Appy said she thinks that a 40R District would create a more vibrant downtown and broaden the tax base while minimizing sprawl. Former BID Director LaCour said the program is working well across the state. She is currently working with it in Ludlow. Faerber said that, as a 43-year resident here, he sees the town struggling to afford the amenities it values because of heavy dependence on residential property tax. Hamilton, who used to be a Smart Growth Alliance board member, said that 40R Overlay would align with Master Plan goals. She said she appreciates design guidelines that reflect the Hastings Block. Zekos mentioned that some affordable housing would be required.

Brestrup noted that the plan as it exists contains inconsistencies that prevent it from being a usable document. She also said that she has heard some positive comments about a 40R district since consultants made their October 14 presentation. Chao said she feels that time is “of the essence,” that this is a tool that would help fix issues, and that she would like to adopt it even if it is “not perfect.”

McGowan pointed out that the zoning of downtown Amherst needs to be revised and that design guidelines need to be set, with or without the 40R proposal. She also pointed out that there have been many more comments against 40R from the public than for it. Marshall also expressed concerns. Chao, Neumann, and Long will work on a 40R proposal to discuss at a future meeting.

Members of the public participated at this point. Jennifer Taub said she is distressed that the Town would push for maximum density — and that the Town would relax design standards. She said that more than 63 residents have expressed concerns about the issue of a 40R Overlay but they do not feel they are heard. She thinks that the five members of the Community Resources Committee (CRC) have some extreme views. She also pointed out that no one on the Planning Board lives near downtown. 

Jeanne Hardy echoed these views, pointing out that the members of the Planning Board are not the ones with five-story buildings “ten feet away from [their] homes.” She asked the Board to listen to members of the public who attend meetings. Although the Business Limited zone is supposed to be a transitional zone, she said, 40R does not treat it as such. 

Suzannah Muspratt expressed her concerns that 40R eliminates review of projects by the Design Review Committee and Historic Commission to protect the downtown area. In addition, she said, she is concerned that small shops are being driven out by big buildings.

Elizabeth Vierling voiced her strong support of a vibrant downtown, increased density, and affordable housing but said that the new buildings of One East Pleasant and Kendrick Place do “nothing” for downtown Amherst. She also said that the consultants recommending 40R did not speak to any residents of the downtown and only made changes to their proposal after a great deal of push-back from the public.

Pam Rooney said she feels that an articulated vision of what the look and feel of the downtown should be — and what the ramifications of the proposed zoning changes would be is needed.

Amherst Hills
Brestrup said that the developer, Tofino Associates, has reported that the roads in the Amherst Hills subdivision are finished. This was mostly confirmed by the Town Engineer; some aspects of the drainage still need to be completed. Tofino requested that the Town rescind the current restriction of building permits for the four lots held by the Town. Brestrup said she will get an estimate of the cost of the remaining work.

James Masteralexis, representing the homeowners of Amherst Hills, urged the Town not to release the lots until the work is completed. He pointed out that it took 15 years for the developer to do the recent work, and without the current hold on building permits, there is no incentive for him to finish the job. This discussion will continue at the January 6 meeting

Zoning Priorities
The Planning Board discussed the memo proposing zoning priorities written by the CRC. This contains their recommendations for a 40R overlay zoning and the basics for a Comprehensive Housing Policy. The CRC is continuing to work with the Housing Trust to revise our housing policy. 

McGowan noted that there has not been an impact study for the proposed changes and that there has not been input from residents who would be affected. Brestrup said the Planning Department staff will draft suggested zoning bylaw changes and bring them to the Planning Board, which will decide whether they are ready to present to the CRC and the full Council. A public hearing is required for proposed zoning changes. A two-thirds vote of the Council is needed to approve them.

Brestrup announced that the appeals period for the Amherst Media Project had passed without the decision begin appealed.

Jemsek announced that Doug Hall of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission will come to the January 20 Planning Board meeting to talk about the effects of COVID-19 on planning issues.

The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.