Bylaw Update Will Clarify Which Structures Are Historically Significant

Reports On Revision Of Demolition Delay Bylaw Public Hearing and Community Resources Committee Meeting, April 14, 2022

The meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present  
Mandi Jo Hanneke (Chair), Pat DeAngelis (District 2), Jennifer Taub (District 3), Pam Rooney (District 4), Shalini Bahl-Milne (District 5)

Staff:  David Ziomek, Assistant Town Manager; Christine Brestrup, Planning Director; Rob Morra, Building Inspector; Ben Breger, Planner.  

Also: Jane Wald, Chair, Amherst Historical Commission

Public Hearing on Demolition Delay Bylaw Revision
The Community Resource Committee (CRC) held a public hearing on plans to revise/update the demolition delay bylaw and move it from the town’s zoning bylaws to the general bylaws. The hearing lasted 15 minutes. No members of the public offered comments or questions. There was a brief discussion of the reasons for pursuing this change followed, after the hearing was officially closed, by a broader discussion among CRC members, and a unanimous vote by the CRC to rescind the existing demolition delay zoning bylaw with the effective date being that of adoption of the new general bylaw, if approved. 

CRC will not propose any formal changes to the draft of the new bylaw prior to the next meeting of the Historical Commission on April 20, but started a discussion that was intended to offer input to the Commission. CRC will take up the discussion again and propose final changes at their meeting on April 28, provided that the Historical Commission has completed its deliberations.

Jane Wald introduced the rationale for rescinding the demolition delay zoning bylaw and creating a general bylaw to cover demolitions. She noted that this effort goes back to 2015 when the Historical Commission was receiving a large number of demolition delay requests. Under the current bylaw, demolition of any property or significant portion of a property 50 years old or older must be the subject of a public hearing before the Historical Commission. The revised bylaw is intended to: make the preservation intent clearer to applicants by clarifying issues of historical significance which may expedite the process of adjudicating proposed demolitions.

Wald said that the Historical Commission had reviewed bylaws of about 25 comparably-sized towns in Massachusetts, held a workshop on bylaw review best practices, and has worked closely with the town’s planning staff.  She said that the process of developing this revision has been thorough and comprehensive.

Breger offered a Power Point presentation, reviewing the rationale for the changes and the highlights of the proposed new language.

Why Is An Update Needed?
Breger listed the problems with the current bylaw as follows:

• It offers insufficient guidance to the building commissioner
• It offers a vague definition of “demolition”
• It creates a high caseload for the all-volunteer Historical Commission
• It does not allow staff to efficiently determine the need for a public hearing
• It requires two different application processes for two different permits

Breger also noted that, according to the Town Attorney, most towns in the Commonwealth regulate demolitions and preservation under general bylaws and not under zoning bylaws. This is also consistent with the recommendations of the Massachusetts Historical Commission. 

What Changes Are Proposed?

• Move bylaw from Zoning to General Bylaws
• Create a new certificate that will separate Historical Commission and Building Department reviews and timelines
• Clarify definitions of demolition (see here)
• Create a two-step review process
  • Step ONE – SIGNIFICANCE – determination of whether a building is significant would be made by one representative from the planning department and/or the Historical Commission. (If more than 2 representatives were involved the group would constitute a “subcommittee” and be subject to open meeting laws and the requirement for a public hearing.
  • Step TWO – PREFERABLY PRESERVED – If a structure is deemed to be of historical significance, the Historical Commission holds a public hearing to determine whether the “significant” building should be preferentially preserved.

Much of the discussion centered on how to determine what is historically significant. Both Pat DeAngelis and Shalini Bahl-Milne expressed concern about the current 50-year building age threshold for requiring a hearing to consider demolition of all or part of such a building. DeAngelis said, “that only takes us back to 1972.” She noted that the Garcia’s Restaurant building, which formerly housed Bertucci’s Restaurant and, before that, a car dealership, does not seem to be particularly historic and would require a hearing under the 50 year threshold.  Wald cautioned that the building was actually built in the 1920’s and its design was somewhat unique for Amherst at the time so its historical significance is not as clear cut as it might seem. She noted that this is an example of how determination of historical significance can be complicated. She said some 50-year-old architecture in town clearly merits preservation protection.

The committee also discussed the pros and cons of designating a single person to make the determination of significance, which would obviate the requirement for a public meeting and reduce the backlog of cases to consider. Jennifer Taub, who previously chaired the Local Historic District Commission, pointed out that this prevents the town from taking full advantage of the expertise that resides within the Historical Commission. Taub suggested that maybe for expediency, .the update could limit consideration of demolition requests to buildings 75 years old or older (which would reduce the number of cases) but require the whole commission to make the determination, rather than allowing a single person to make that determination. Breger pointed out that the proposed bylaw includes language allowing the designee to request that the determination be sent back to the entire commission.

Mandi Jo Hanneke  wanted to know how much work it would make for the Historical Commission  if they didn’t go with a single designee.

Councilors also asked about which of these decisions can be made quickly and which require more deliberation and involve more complexity.  Taub asked, for example, about garages built in the 1960’s and whether their demolition really requires any deliberation. Pam Rooney noted that there are many split level homes built in the 1960’s and 70’s in town and that, under the current bylaw, a demolition request for these buildings would be subject to a public hearing.  Wald noted that the Historical Commission has had applications to take down 60’s and 70’s garages, and they have never been denied.
 

Rental Permitting Bylaw
The committee discussed its goals for the revision of the rental permit bylaw, which has been discussed previously by the Town Services and Outreach Committee and by the Town Council.   Rooney, one of the sponsors, provided the committee with a memo enumerating the problems that the revision is intended to address.  She noted that the current system doesn’t work, that inspections are complaint driven, that revenue generated by permits is insufficient to support a more rigorous inspection program, and that there are health and safety issues that require more oversight than the current system allows.  Much of the ensuing discussion centered on neighborhood quality of life and safety concerns.

DeAngelis and Bahl-Milne expressed concern that the revision might include discriminatory practices that disadvantage students. They objected to occupancy limits that restrict the number of unrelated renters in a unit to four and claimed that removing occupancy caps would likely result in lower rents.  But Taub said data indicate that raising or eliminating occupancy limits has no impact on rents. She notes that violation of occupancy limits exacerbates all the other problems and increases complaints coming from neighborhoods dense with student rentals.  DeAngelis and Bahl Milne objected to characterizing student renters as problematic or their behavior as a nuisance and expressed concern that the proposed bylaw could stigmatize student renters and promote discrimination against them. Taub justified the need for language addressing problems unique to student renters saying ” those of us who live near the University have experienced lots of problematic student behavior that makes the neighborhood very unpleasant at times.”

Bahl-Milne again raised her desire to see the town adopt a differential fee structure, arguing that the new fees would be an unfair burden for small holding landlords.

Brestrup cautioned against adopting a differential fee structure based on building size, noting that larger developments tend to be less problematic than the smaller units.

Planning Board Vacancies
The committee has received six applications for two vacancies on the Planning Board (which will open up on July 1). By unanimous vote the committee determined that this was a sufficient applicant pool to continue with the process. Applications are still being accepted.  For more information or to apply for a position look here. There are also openings on the Zoning  Board of Appeals. For more information or to apply, look here.