Plan For New Duplex On North Pleasant Street Spurs Neighbors’ Opposition
Architect's rendering of a proposed second duplex at 798-800 North Pleasant Street. Photo: amherstma.gov
Report On The Meeting Of The Zoning Board Of Appeals, July 27, 2023
This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. The recording can be viewed here.
Present
Steve Judge (Chair), Craig Meadows, Everald Henry, and Hilda Greenbaum and Sarah Marshall (Associate members).
Staff: Rob Watchilla and Christine Brestrup (Planning Department). Dave Waskewicz (Building Inspector).
New Duplex Proposed For North Pleasant Street Property
David and Thomas Casey plan to add a new duplex with eight bedrooms to their property at 798 to 800 North Pleasant Street. The property already contains a duplex with seven bedrooms. They purchased the property in 2004 and recently spent $600,000 renovating it after squatters caused extensive damage when the student tenants suddenly moved out during the early pandemic. The new duplex was designed by Kuhn Riddle Architects and is designed for eight residents, four in each unit. Amherst zoning limits occupancy to four unrelated tenants per housing unit.
Aside from the damage caused by the former tenants, the property has been the scene of several large parties and noise complaints. The property is located in the R-N zone (neighborhood residential) just to the north of UMass and is surrounded largely by single-family homes. Of the 72 parcels in the neighborhood, 28 are non-owner occupied and six are two-family homes. There is also a fraternity two blocks to the south. The Caseys plan to charge $5,500 per month for each four-bedroom unit.
Because the town has decided to move the nearby PVTA bus stop to the corner of North Pleasant Street and Old Town Road, directly in front of the property, a redesign of the parking lot was necessary so that both exit and entrance are on Old Town Road, a narrow street without sidewalks. The current driveway is on North Pleasant Street.
The parking lot will be expanded to 11 spaces, nine for residents and two for guests. Tenants will be required to pay extra for a parking space, and this will be stated in the listing for the property and in the leases. There is a UMass parking lot across the street, but it is unclear if this will be available to student renters of the property.
The Caseys live out of town, one in Medford and one in South Boston, but both graduated from UMass. This was the first property they purchased for their realty company. They said they plan to use Eagle Crest to manage the houses, and pledge more supervision than in previous years. They said they also plan to put curbs and possibly boulders around the parking lot to prevent residents and their guests from parking on the lawn.
The plan is for mini-split heat pumps augmented by propane or natural gas heat. The new house is well oriented for solar panels, but the plans do not include them at this time. According to ZBA member Craig Meadows, the size of the property means an EV charging station is required.
Many Neighbors Voice Concerns
The ZBA received letters from Thomas Randall, Ira Bryck, Eileen Wood, Rebecca Curzon, Dorise and Adi Heller, Jim Turner, Josna Rege, Michele Miller, and a five page letter signed by 19 Farview neighbors. Most letters voiced concern about the extra traffic on Old Town Road and the safety of both cars and pedestrians on the street. Although the Caseys plan to retain all but three trees on the property and agree to plant screening vegetation along the property border, neighbors said they still worry about noise and traffic from the increased number of residents.
Several ZBA members and residents were concerned about the poor visibility at the corner of North Pleasant Street and Old Town Road due to overgrowth of vegetation. District 1 councilor Cathy Schoen, ZBA member Hilda Greenbaum, and Christine Gray-Mullen were among those who questioned the adequacy of nine parking spaces for the anticipated 15 residents. Because the plans have a lot coverage of 29%, with the maximum allowed being 30%, the parking lot cannot be expanded beyond what is already planned. Several neighbors objected to the moving of the bus stop, which necessitated the placement of the driveways on Old Town Road. However, the bus stop placement was decided by the town, not the property owners.
Public Hearing Continued Until September 28
The ZBA asked for clarity on the lot coverage and also for more detail on trash dumpsters and snow removal plans. Also, they wanted a reexamination of the parking plans and access to the parking lot to ease the concerns about the safety on Old Town Road. This would require communication with the Town Engineer, Jason Skeels and the Fire Departments. A sidewalk connecting the new building to the sidewalk on North Pleasant Street was also suggested, but this would increase lot coverage.
Most importantly, the board wanted a more complete management plan to assure that the problems of overly large parties and property damage would not recur. The Caseys said they are willing to work with the ZBA and the neighborhood to make sure the property is well managed. They said they require a “hefty” security deposit and will make frequent visits to the property in which they have invested a large sum of money.
The project will next be discussed at the ZBA meeting on September 28.
ZBA Modifies Permit For Dental Office At 650 Main Street
The 2008 special permit given to Fred Perry for his dental office on Main Street included a condition that the permit will expire with a change of ownership. Perry now plans to sell the building and would like that condition modified so the new owner can continue to operate a dental office at the location. Perry said that requiring ZBA review and approval of the new management plan could add uncertainty and delay the sale. Perry’s attorney Tom Reidy of Bacon, Wilson asked if the initial review of the new owner’s management plan could be done by the Building Commissioner as long as the use of the building was remaining the same.
There was general consensus of the board that this change was acceptable. Staff liaison Rob Watchilla will revise the conditions on the permit.
I’m very confused: how can a single residential lot support TWO houses, each of which is a DUPLEX?!
Plus 11 paved parking spaces and two driveways (with how many more cars parked there during parties)?!?!
And if the this outrageous proposal is somehow allowed to go forward, wouldn’t it be simpler to NOT RELOCATE the PVTA bus stop instead of squeezing a driveway with NO SETBACK alongside an abuttor’s home?
The detailed letter signed by dozens of Farview neighbors is a must read. A major concern they raise is the precedent-setting aspect of allowing this under the almost-Orwellian “compatible use” provisions of the Zoning Bylaw, which means this project may not only affect this neighborhood, but similarly-zoned neighborhoods all over town.
As far as the PVTA bus stop (re)location: the current stop is a block away, just north of Fairfield; and the next stop is on the North Pleasant St. side of Lederle GRC just a couple blocks to the south. If the current stop were to be moved, wouldn’t a more logical place be just south of Fairfield, where a proper bus pull-off could be located?
This proposed exemption to Amherst’s zoning is a perfect example of the metastatic creep of student housing into residential neighborhoods around town, abetted by real estate investors willing to disrupt the social fabric of the town to make a buck off students. (Although, in this case, it is not “a buck”, but a usurious $1300/month/bedroom.) It also illustrates that housing students is a business, and the need for Amherst to track and regulate it as such.
Zoning should be a contract between the town and its residents and potential investors, a contract that is clearly defined and not easily amended to accommodate the avarice of developers large or small. For most people, owning a house is a major part of their personal wealth. For most home owners, cramming two duplexes full of students onto an abutting small lot would diminish their peace of mind, their safety, and the potential resale value of their house. It is not fair or just to pull the rug from beneath abutters simply to allow a landlord to make more money by granting zoning exemptions.
Amherst zoning regulations need revamped. Student housing should be recognized as a separate category of housing, a commercial enterprise to be clearly tracked and regulated. In most neighborhoods, there should be rules governing the density of student housing by establishing a minimum distance, lot line to lot line, between student rentals. Rules governing student housing and behavior should be enforced rigorously through the combined efforts of the Town and the University, for the protection of students and residents alike.
The situation in the Fairview neighborhood is about a requested variance. It is also a bell weather, an indicator of how seriously the Town takes zoning and its commitments to its residents.
Correction: I, Christine Gray-Mullen, did not “questioned the adequacy of nine parking spaces for the anticipated 15 residents” but feel the 11 proposed parking spaces are adequate for the 4 units with the owner implemented parking controls, the many alternative transportation modes available and such close proximity to campus. This proposed parking lot will also incorporate curbs and boulders to further control additional unwanted tenant and visitor parking. The current car situation at the property is terrible as the yard is one giant graveled parking lot where uncontrolled parking often exceeds 15+ vehicles for the existing 7 residents. The proposed parking would offer an improvement to neighborhood aesthetics, reduce vehicle traffic, and be a more environmentally friendly with stormwater capture and fewer cars than what has existed for decades. What I do have concern with is the two outlets onto Old Town Road, line of sight at the intersection and a lack of pedestrian walkways from the proposed units directly to the North Pleasant St. sidewalk.
“Confused” is a good word to characterize this situation, and the confusion appears to arise from the use of “complementary” and “compatible,” both of which appear in the Zoning Bylaw. However, these words do not mean the same thing, and they speak to different situations.
I saw the first invocation of “complementary” when Archipelago Investments presented their application for Boltwood Place, the first of their five-story buildings. I was a member of the Planning Board at the time. To override the limit of only one dwelling or one Principal Use on a lot, they invoked the principle of “complementarity.” The lot on which they wished to build was already occupied by Judie’s Restaurant — a Principal Use.
I don’t remember at this point what the argument for “complementarity” was; I do remember discussing it with someone, who stated matter-of-factly that, “Well, you have to eat, and you have to sleep, so that must be what they are thinking, and that’s a Pandora’s box.”
Complementarity implies a completion of some sort, by something that is different. Two duplexes are not complementary, in that they are the same thing, and the same Principal Use. The Zoning Bylaw clearly states in 3.01: “The development or operation on a single lot of more than one dwelling or more than one of the Principal Uses described in Section 3.3 [the Use Chart] is expressly prohibited except where the Principal Uses are clearly complementary to each other.”
The design of this proposed duplex may be “compatible” with the neighborhood, but that is not the point. It is the exact same Principal Use as the first duplex, and cannot be seen as complementary, and is therefore prohibited by the Zoning Bylaw. To argue otherwise is not only specious, but dangerous, in that it sets a precedent that will open the town’s residential neighborhoods to the same type of argument and more intense development.
@Denise Barberet
Boltwood Place was permitted as “mixed use”, which actually requires more than one principal use on the same site. I don’t remember why Judies wasn’t considered one of the “uses”, which would have enabled One Boltwood to be entirely residential.
Steve Schreiber
Simple question: Does the ZBA have the authority to simply deny the developers request to go through with this project at all in the first place? A outright ban on these type of developments must be considered if we want to provide housing for middle income families here in Amherst. Thank you in advance to the person who is willing to answer my somewhat naive question.
Back to Boltwood Place for a minute: What I remember is that all-residential buildings (i.e., apartment buildings) were not allowed in the B-G (General Business) district. That’s why all the five-story buildings in the center of town have commercial space on the first floor. The idea is to have space for businesses in the center of town, and support for them from those who reside on the upper floors. It’s a good idea, but not when no effort is put into attracting businesses (remember “Rufus King”?). Archipelago seems to have complied with the letter of the law, but not the spirit, and apparently draws enough income from residential use to leave most of its commercial spaces fallow.
As to complementary uses, I found this article from last year: https://www.thereminder.com/localnews/amherst/amherst-property-owner-applies-for-additional-spec/ This is a good example of a new project that “complements” an existing building on the property. (I don’t know if this application was approved or not.) But note also that this appears to be a somewhat unique situation, and that there are questions from the Planning Board and the Planning Director as to how it will be possible to add another dwelling to this property.
In the case of the new proposal for North Pleasant Street, if one can argue that if a property already contains one duplex, then another duplex is “complementary,” then what is to stop someone from arguing that the same principle applies to properties with single-family homes on them? One could argue that we already have this happening when single-family homes become “duplexes” by having what is essentially a second single-family home trucked in and attached to the existing building (see, for example, 79 Taylor Street and 42 Shumway Street). Given the current housing situation in Amherst, is this really a precedent that the town wants to set?
Thank you for drawing attention to this important issue, and to its far-reaching implications. For a response from residents in the neighborhood of the proposed project, please see our letter: https://www.amherstindy.org/2023/08/02/letter-defining-second-duplex-on-single-lot-as-complementary-use-sets-a-dangerous-precedent/