Planning Board And Public Continue To Express Doubts About Hanneke-DeAngelis Proposed Zoning Changes For Multifamily Housing  

Report On The Meeting Of The Amherst Planning Board, April 19, 2023

By Maura Keene

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded and can be viewed here.

Present 
Doug Marshall (Chair), Bruce Coldham, Thom Long, Karin Winter, Janet McGowan, Andrew MacDougall, and Johanna Neumann. Absent: Thom Long. Neumann left the meeting at 8:15 p.m.

Staff: Chris Brestrup (Planning Director) and Pam Field-Sadler (Assistant)

Also: Mandi Jo Hanneke (Town Councilor, at large) and Pat DeAngelis (Town Councilor, District 2)

17 members of the public were in the audience.

Reservations Persist Regarding Hanneke/DeAngelis Proposed Zoning Changes
Discussion continued on the zoning changes for multifamily housing proposed by Town Councilors Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) and Pat DeAngelis (District 2). Since the proposal was last discussed at the March 1 Planning Board meeting, Hanneke and DeAngelis met with Town Planners Christine Brestrup and Nate Malloy and Building Inspector Rob Morra to try to iron out some of the most problematic aspects of the proposal. As a result, some  of the deregulation measures were reversed. The revised proposal that involves changes to Articles 3, 4, 9, and 12 of the zoning bylaw can be viewed here. Changes made since March 1 are noted in yellow.

Under the amended proposal, owner-occupied and affordable rental duplexes in the general residence (R-G) and neighborhood residence (R-N) zones will have to adhere to as-yet-undeveloped design guidelines and will still be permitted at the discretion of  the building commissioner. Non-owner occupied duplexes will require special permits from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which includes notification of abutters and the possibility of an  application being denied if the project is deemed unsuitable in some way.  Triplexes will require a special permit and will not be allowed in the low density residential (R-LD) and outlying residential (R-O) zones. Developments of more than four units also will  require a special permit. Townhouses, which will continue to require special permits, and are not allowed in the R-LD and R-O zones. In general, single-family only zoning is removed throughout town.

In her April 19 memo to the Planning Board, Brestrup expressed concern about the possible proliferation of different “use” categories on a single parcel. This has been allowed in the past — for example, with the mixed-use building  Boltwood Place and the former Judie’s restaurant, a duplex and four townhouses at 32 North Prospect Street, three non-owner-occupied duplexes and three apartment buildings at 164-174 Sunset Avenue, and a duplex and single-family home at 1147 North Pleasant Street. Although the above uses were deemed complementary by the appropriate permitting authority, either the ZBA or Planning Board, Brestrup explained that this type of development should continue to require a special permit, which includes a review to determine if it is appropriate for the location. She also pointed out that a developer could obtain a permit under the site plan review process, which usually must be granted, to build several owner-occupied duplexes on a site, and then turn them into separate condos. Requiring a special permit for a development with more than four units would provide added scrutiny and a possibility that it can be denied a permit unless satisfactory changes to the plans are worked out.

Planning Board members still voiced concern about the complex, often confusing, proposal. Bruce Coldham said he would prefer to divide the proposal into sections, rather than  keeping it as an omnibus proposal. He suggested first dealing with duplexes and triplexes, for example. Janet McGowan pointed out that according to the Master Plan, design guidelines should be developed before housing density is increased, not the other way around, as the proposal mandates. Also, she said that  it is unclear how the proposed changes would achieve the goal of creating more housing that is affordable for  non-student residents. Andrew MacDougall also pointed out that the design standards referred to in the proposal do not exist at present. Co-sponsor Hanneke argued that there are no design standards for single-family homes. Brestrup said that the Planning department in conjunction with the Planning Board and ZBA will develop standards for multifamily homes soon. In defense of the proposal, DeAngelis asserted that “there is a housing crisis in Amherst” and these changes will increase infill. “People,”she said, “should  not be afraid of change and should take some risks if it means that it could   help with that.”.

Public Still Not Convinced Of Merits Of Proposal
Hilda Greenbaum noted that this proposal  is taking up a lot of Planning Board time. She said that in her experience, there isn’t a market for owner-occupied duplexes. She added that the proposal before the board was created “by two people with no experience in the market or with zoning”, and suggested that a professional be brought in to develop a proposal that would not only increase housing but be more acceptable than this one. 

Fred Hartwell objected to a part of the proposal that eliminates the subdividable dwellings category. He said that being able to subdivide his home has allowed him to remain in the same house, as his circumstances changed, and this provision could promote stability in neighborhoods.

Janet Keller, who lives in cohousing in North Amherst, observed that there is no evidence that the proposed changes will make housing more affordable, despite loosening permitting. The only thing that is increasing affordable housing in Amherst is the Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw (Article 15), she said, noting that the proposal  further weakens the town’s boards. Furthermore, she observed, it eliminates notification of abutters about plans in the works, in several categories. 

Susannah Muspratt pointed out that Amherst’s housing crisis is largely due to the number of students needing to be housed in town. She felt that the town should deal with that problem before changing zoning, and suggested that it look at what works in other university towns. Elizabeth Vierling also spoke up for devoting more time to the problem of the lack of housing for students here. 

Hettie Startup, who serves on the Historical Commission, advocated dealing with the problem of design guidelines  before adding density to the housing supply.

John Varner agreed with several Planning Board members that the proposal was too complex, and said it would be better to deal with it in sections. He worried  about how loosening some permitting would diminish the voices of abutters.  Freddie Manning noted that a family who rented a place across the street from her had to move because a new property owner raised their rent so much, and urged the town to honor its permanent residents more.

Planning Board Discussion Will Resume on May 3
Brestrup recommended that board members continue to review the changes that have been made in the proposal, and that the discussion be continued on May 3. Coldham suggested starting with a review of duplexes in the different zones. Marshall said he liked that the revised proposal does not allow triplexes in R-LD and R-O zones, and agreed that increased density should be encouraged near downtown and the village centers. 

Karin Winter felt the Planning Board should deal with the need for more student housing. Marshall encouraged her to prepare a plan that the Town Manager can propose to the university. 

Amherst College To Build A Gazebo At Book And Plow Farm
Amherst College plans to construct a 20- by 32-foot pavilion at 425 South East Street that will serve as a distribution point for the farm’s 75-member CSA one afternoon a week and will also allow for classes and workshops to be held in a shaded spot on the farm. The structure will be built on a slab, and will be wood framed and open sided. There will be ceiling lights, but the exterior will not be lit. A portable restroom will be placed nearby.

Johanna Neumann noted that the pavilion was well-sited for solar, but architect Tom Hartman said that solar panels and a metal roof were precluded for the time being due to cost. Several board members were concerned about handicap access to the pavilion. Because only five parking spaces were planned, an accessible space was not required, but Assistant Farm Manager Kaylee Brow pointed out a suitable area near the site of the pavilion. The Planning Board voted 4-2 to require a handicap parking sign to be placed there. (Winter and Coldham voted no.)

Marshall questioned whether a portable restroom would be adequate for the long-term. He thought plumbing should be required, but Hartman said that the plumbing inspector has approved the plans. The Planning Board voted 6-0 in favor of the project.

Parking Has Not Been An Issue At Center East Commons
As required by his 2020 permit for a mixed-use building, Center East Commons, at 462 Main Street, John Wrobeleski reported on an 18-month review of parking at the site. Because the permit allowed for fewer parking spaces than required, Wrobeleski was to report whether parking was a problem for residents. He said that, in general, only half of the available spaces were in use and that many of the building’s residents relied on bicycles, walking, or public transportation. There have been no problems with unauthorized cars or large parties at the site, he said.

As far as the construction of a similar mixed-use building at 446 Main Street, he intends to use concrete instead of blacktop for the sidewalks. The landscaping plan will be finalized after the site work is completed. Because this building has a parking situation that is similar to 462 Main Street, the board requested that he report on the adequacy of parking for residents in another 18 months. The second building is expected to be completed and leased in September 2023. 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for May 3.