Council Refers Proposal For Temporary Moratorium On New Downtown Buildings To Planning Board, GOL, And CRC

A proposed 180-day moratorium on the construction, within the downtown area, of buildings containing three or more dwelling units occupied most of the evening’s discussion at the Town Council meeting of March 22.  All councilors were present for the discussion, as were Town Manager Paul Bockelman, Planning Director Chris Brestrup, and Building Commissioner Rob Morra. The meeting can be viewed here. The remainder of  the Council meeting is presented in another article in this issue.

With the Planning Board, Planning Department, and Community Resource Committee (CRC) in the midst of a discussion of possible zoning changes to the area near downtown, with a professed aim of increasing the number of housing units and the density of development, and with the possibility of two more large mixed-use buildings being built downtown in the near future, Councilors Cathy Schoen (District 1), Dorothy Pam (District 3) and Darcy DuMont (District 5) introduced a proposal for a temporary zoning amendment which would halt the granting of building permits in the downtown (BG, Business General), limited business (BL, Business Limited), and general residential (RG, Residential General) areas for at least six months (see here and here).  This proposal would allow time to evaluate and complete zoning changes and create design standards for which a consultant was just hired, before permits for new buildings with three or more dwelling units could be issued downtown and in the neighborhoods surrounding it. It would not include permits for new duplexes, accessory dwelling units, or commercial properties.

Because the Council is not obligated to take up a petition introduced by Councilors, the three sponsors collected signatures from residents. According to the Charter, Section 8.2b, the Council is required to hold a public hearing within 65 days of the filing of a petition signed by at least 10 voters. The three Councilors collected 238 signatures in the three days leading up to this meeting, so the matter must be referred to the CRC, Planning Board and Governance, Organization and Legislation Committee (GOL). A notice of the public hearing must be posted for 14 days, and the hearing must be held no later than May 26. The Council will then have 90 days to approve or disapprove the proposal.

The three Councilors gave their rationale for drafting the temporary zoning bylaw. Schoen noted the importance of good planning to encourage the type of development that the Town wants. Pam stressed the need for a reason for people to go downtown. The new buildings, One East Pleasant Street and Kendrick Place, encroach on the sidewalks and make it hard for someone with a stroller to navigate. DuMont said that when she was canvassing in her district for the Council election, two common themes were an almost universal dislike for Kendrick Place, One East Pleasant, and the then-proposed Spring Street mixed use buildings and the need for more parking downtown, which none of these buildings supply to any significant degree.

At Griesemer’s request, Building Commissioner Rob Morra and Planning Director Chris Brestrup had prepared a presentation on the moratorium and its possible impact on current and proposed housing projects in town. They noted that two projects, one by Archipelago for 55 apartments at 11-13 East Pleasant Street and one by Barry Roberts at 37 North Pleasant Street, are likely to come before the Planning Board in the next few months. Neither application is complete, although preliminary plans were presented for the Archipelago project. Any new downtown building proposal requires review by the Design Review Board, site plan approval and possibly a special permit. Parking and affordable housing are not currently required except under certain circumstances. 

The presentation listed several projects which are currently in development and would not be affected by the moratorium. These are:

26 Spring Street: Archipelago, 58 studios and one-bedroom units (no parking) under construction

462 Main Street: John Wrobeleski, 24 apartments, under construction

One University Drive South: Barry Roberts, 45 apartments, five affordable, nearing construction

133 and 143 South East Street: Amir Mikhchi, 57 one-bedroom apartments, permitted

132 Northampton Road, Valley CDC 28 studio apartments, all affordable, permitted

408 Northampton Road: Breckinridge Group, 88 apartments, 11 affordable, under construction

Also, they noted that UMass plans to construct 800 dorm rooms and 120 family housing units for students, creating a PPP (public private partnership) to do so.

Not counting the planned housing at UMass or completed apartments at North Square and 70 University Drive, 200 apartments are currently under construction or have already been permitted. 

Since the citizens’ petition for the moratorium is required to go to a public hearing and be voted on by the Council, Schoen, Pam, and DuMont withdrew their own petition in support of the citizen’s petition. (The proposal from the Councilors could have been rejected outright by the Council without referral or any public hearing.) 

There were several Councilor comments and many comments from the public in attendance.

Shalini Bahl-Milne (District 5) wondered if anyone had consulted the developers and asked their thoughts of inclusionary zoning and other proposed zoning changes. They have the money to build now, she said “[but] if we change the bylaws, it might backfire and they might build in Hadley.” She proposed sitting all stakeholders down to talk about what they think is best for the town. She said she was talking with developer Cinda Jones about creating affordable housing and Jones “pulled out a carton of folders with plans to build starter houses using local builders.”  (No such development has been publicly proposed; Jones’ recent proposal for student apartments in the Cushman area, called The Retreat, was withdrawn in response to local opposition). Bahl-Milne then asked whether the petition for the moratorium could be withdrawn. Brestrup said it cannot, unless every one of the 238 signatories agrees. 

Alisa Brewer (at large) charged that the three Councilors who brought the petition had more than a week to garner public support while “the rest of us” just had a few days to answer the concerns voiced in it. She said the town already has inclusionary zoning, though it has not been particularly effective. She noted that two design standard proposals had been turned down by representative Town Meeting. In addition, she said that Town Council has done nothing with zoning since its members were elected. (Actually, the Council  proposed the zoning “priorities” now being considered, though none have been passed). The existing five-story buildings downtown, she noted, were permitted under the current zoning laws.

Steve Schreiber (District 4) said that “zoning is always changing” and  the fact that zoning changes are being proposed now is “no reason” for a moratorium. Kendrick Place was built on a vacant lot, he said, “and Boltwood Place on a parking lot.” He continued, “The Carriage Shops were substandard construction and needed to be replaced.” He also said that people “are always talking about the shadows cast by Kendrick Place and One East Pleasant on the street, but that is impossible” since the buildings are on the east side of the street, so the only shadows possible would be cast at sunrise.

Of the 23 people in the audience commenting on the temporary moratorium, all but three spoke in favor. Here are some of the comments: 

Alex Kent noted the culture of “grabbing and going,” exemplified by One East Pleasant. The rents are sky high and there is no affordable housing. He supports zoning that promotes density, (but) with limits. 

Ira Bryk supports the moratorium to give time to study what the community wants. He pointed out that building the new Kendrick Park playground and then surrounding it by student housing would not promote its usage by families, and suggested that it could easily be “an attractive nuisance” for young adults.

Mary Sayer supports the moratorium. She has heard we have a housing crisis, but hasn’t heard what kind of housing is needed here. At North Square, she said, the affordable apartments were rented quickly, and the rest are rented to students and grad students who can afford to pay higher rents. 

Kitty Axelson-Berry wondered what vision we have for Amherst. After Covid, what will be the student population here? She added that she used to be able to get groceries and more downtown, but now it is mostly restaurants. 

Suzannah Fabing Muspratt said it made no sense to approve more permits until we settle the zoning issues being discussed. She also pointed out that the design guidelines consultant doesn’t start until June.

Susan Cummings wants the area for a building moratorium to be extended to Route 9.  She said  the “dizzying rate of construction” of residential units in that area will result in too much crowding. She proposed a nine-month moratorium, rather than a six-month moratorium, so that candidates running for the Council can state their visions for the town. 

Pamela Rooney said, “Plan first, build later.”

Jayne Pearl spoke of the need for more affordable housing.

Janet Keller is concerned with supporting small businesses year-round, and wants to allow time for the consultant to give guidelines on how to do so. 

Sandy Muspratt pointed out that the 2010 Master Plan contains many laudable goals. Although  quite a few permits have been granted over the past few years, he said,  most of the projects have not brought about the diversity in housing referred to in the Master Plan. 

Jeff Cobb also supports a moratorium until the proposed zoning can be reviewed. He feels the town should have a dialogue with UMass about creating more housing on campus. 

Bob Tancredi spoke in favor of revitalizing the downtown and expanding businesses there, and felt the town needs to assess recent development and its effects before building more.

Anne Scarff lives in one of the condominiums built on the site of the former Amherst Funeral Home by Barry Roberts,   and said that this is the type of development that should be supported — one that uses older buildings and fits in with the neighborhood. She also said she doesn’t see why the town is trying to solve the university’s housing problem. 

Carol Pope, Adrienne Terrizzi, and Jesse Mager also favored the time for consideration that a temporary moratorium would provide.

Claudia Pazmany, Executive Director of the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce, felt the moratorium would be detrimental to the economic development of Amherst and would hurt tradesmen and those in the construction industry. The Chamber sent a letter to the Council voicing their concerns. She said that a moratorium on new permits would send the wrong message to businesses.

In response, Jennifer Taub said she “can’t see how the moratorium sends the wrong message to businesses.” “The new buildings downtown have displaced numerous businesses, and no effort has been made to encourage new ones.” She said that 14 downtown businesses that she regularly frequented have disappeared in the 10 years she has lived in Amherst. 

Kristie Stauch-White agreed. She said Amherst has a lot of bubble tea shops, but not many interesting and diverse businesses.

Gabrielle Gould, Executive Director of the Amherst Business Improvement District [BID], said that businesses are suffering now because of  the lack of students. Town residents alone, she said, cannot support area businesses. Eighty percent of sales occur during the eight months that the colleges are in session. The BID is trying to encourage small businesses and supports many with grants raised from public donations, but they will need state help to fully recover. She also wanted to note that the businesses in the Carriage Shops were failing even before One East Pleasant had been constructed. The Carriage Shops building was deteriorating. She said that One East Pleasant Street brings in $1 million a year in property taxes as compared to the $60,000 that the Carriage Shops paid. And she added that those attending this meeting are privileged, and that many  Amherst residents were exhausted after a day at work and were busy feeding their families, so they did not have the luxury to speak at this meeting.

Frances Goyes-Flor, a new member of the Amherst Municipal Affordable Housing Trust, said that although she has design concerns with the two large buildings that were recently constructed, ample planning has been done. She said, “Don’t let those who have had the privilege of living here to not allow others to have that same chance” and added that “Change is difficult. Amherst needs more housing. Even if not affordable, it is increasing the supply of housing in general.” 

Janet Keller said  that it feels very hurtful to hear Goyes-Flor’s comments (about privilege and not allowing others the chance to live here). Keller has personally put in thousands of hours into helping low income and people of color become homeowners here through Amherst Community Land Trust. Community is very important to her, she said, and she is upset that concerns being raised about the new projects are being portrayed as self-serving.

A public hearing on the temporary moratorium must be held by the Planning Board before May 26, and the date will probably be set when the Board meets on April 7. DuMont requested that the public comments and the emails to the Councilors regarding the moratorium be made public and that they also be sent to the Planning Board members.