Planning Board Reviews Carriage House Plans for Emily Dickinson Museum. Hears Criticism of Triplex for Fearing Street
Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Planning Board, May 1, 2024
This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. It can be viewed here.
Present
Doug Marshall (Chair), Bruce Coldham, Fred Hartwell, Janet McGowan, Joanna Neumann, and Karin Winter. Absent: Jesse Mager
Staff: Chris Brestrup (Planning Director), Nate Malloy (Senior Planner), Pam Field Sadler (Assistant)
17 members of the public were present.
More Information Needed on Planned Carriage House for the Evergreens
Chris Chamberland of Berkshire Design presented plans by the Emily Dickinson Museum to build a two-story 1650 sq.ft. carriage house near the Evergreens. The museum is in the jurisdiction of the Trustees of Amherst College. Chamberland said that historical research has indicated that a building once stood at the proposed site, and a photograph has been found that shows the appearance of the building. The project has been reviewed by both the Amherst and Massachusetts Historical Commissions, as well as the Local Historic District Commission.
Chamberland admitted that the museum site has long had an issue of flooding, and extensive work has been done to divert stormwater away from the structures. Because of the bordering wetlands, the museum has applied for approval from the Conservation Commission. There is also a large pin oak tree at the site of the proposed carriage house that will need to be removed.
Although the museum intends to recreate the appearance of the carriage house as it originally stood, the purpose of the building will be to serve as a welcome center. It will include needed restroom facilities. It will eventually provide educational space. Because the pipe for the sewer system at the Evergreens is probably blocked, the plans are to have water and sewage pumped uphill to connect to the sewer for Marsh Hall, an Amherst College building
The proposed structure will be wood framed with a metal roof. Architect Tim Widman said the plans were for vertical siding using borrel, a durable fly ash composite product, that will be painted to match the Evergreens and have six-foot barn doors. It will meet the passive house standards for energy efficiency. The dirt driveway will be widened and extended with ADA compliant drop-off space and a turnaround. The driveway will have a gravel surface.
Planning Board members asked why lighting approved in a plan in 2020 has not been completed. Chamberland said that renovations at the Evergreens had necessitated the delay. There were more concerns about fire department access and about the accessibility of the entire museum site. Chamberland admitted that the sloped site proposed challenges for both accessibility and accessible parking, and that the museum is working to improve both. The board requested a more detailed evaluation by the fire department as to the adequacy of the driveways for fire department vehicles. The Planning Board also wanted to consider the recommendations of the Conservation Commission
Because of these questions, further review of the application was continued until the May 15 Planning Board meeting.
Public and Board Members Pan Additional Triplex on Fearing Street
Plans to construct a three-unit, 10-bedroom building behind an existing three-unit building at 98 Fearing Street were discussed at the April 29 Local Historic District Commission (LHDC) meeting. An associated 12-space parking lot was also planned for the site. According to LHDC and Planning Board member Karin Winter, the LHDC considered the proposed new building “shockingly large” and were stridently opposed to the project. The existing building transitioned from an owner-occupied multi-family dwelling to a nonowner occupied student rental, and has had a disruptive effect on the neighborhood. Winter said that people in the neighborhood are panicked as to what may occur if the new building is constructed.
The LHDC was not favorable to the project and continued discussion until June. Winter was not sure if the applicant will modify the plans or withdraw the proposal entirely. She hypothesized that the owner was enticed to purchase the property with the possibility of creating more units. A plan for building two additional triplexes submitted last year was already withdrawn. If submitted, any plan will need approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), as well as the LHDC. The Planning Board does not have jurisdiction over this project, but can make recommendations to the ZBA.
The board received eight written comments on the project, including one from board member Jesse Mager, who is an abutter to the property and would need to recuse himself from the board’s discussion. Several residents commented about the detrimental effect this project would have on the neighborhood, which is already under stress from the dense student population and limited parking.
Ken Rosenthal noted that the additional three units proposed means that 24 students could occupy the property. Melissa Farris and Graham Caldwell worried about the drainage problems that would be created by the additional hardscape created by the building and enlarged parking lot. The property is adjacent to the Tan Brook. Priscilla White lamented that she is planning to sell her long-term house because she is surrounded by students, who are often disruptive.
It is unclear if the applicants will move ahead with their application to the ZBA. Planning Board Chair Doug Marshall proposed that the board withhold its recommendation until it is clear that it will move on.
Planning Department Welcomes New Member. Watchilla Will Depart to East Longmeadow
Planning Director Chris Brestrop announced that a new planner was joining the department on May 6, but Rob Watchilla is leaving to become the Planning Director for East Longmeadow. Watchilla was the department’s liaison to the ZBA and Design Review Board. He joined the department in 2023.
The Planning Board will next meet on May 15.
Many thanks for this article!
A couple of corrections should be noted:
~ the proposed plan shows a parking lot with 14 spaces, not 12 ~ while the plan has a label stating 12 parking spaces, it shows 12 “regular” spaces, plus an additional handicapped space, as well as an additional unlabeled space next to the garage ~ i.e. a total 14 spaces.
~ last year’s plan was not for “two additional triplexes”, but for three additional duplexes, which necessitated demolishing the historic garage (which remains in this year’s modified proposal)
Many thanks,
~ Rodger
Amherst