New Downtown Housing Development to Become an Amherst College Dorm

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Planning Board, October 16, 2024

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Doug Marshall (Chair), Bruce Coldham, Fred Hartwell, Lawrence Kluttz, Jesse Mager, Johanna Neumann, and Karin Winter

Staff: Nate Malloy (Senior Planner) and Pam Field-Sadler (Assistant)

14 members of the public were in attendance

Amherst College to Lease New Mixed-Use Building as Student Residence
Developer Barry Roberts and his attorney Tom Reidy of Bacon, Wilson returned to the Planning Board to modify the site plan review approved on April 10 for a 22-unit mixed use building at the former Hastings store at 45-55 South Pleasant Street. The ground floor is already an Amherst College store, and Roberts is constructing 22 dwelling units with 63 beds above and behind the store. With Amherst College planning to lease the entire building as a student residence, it has requested some modifications to the exterior design and management plan.

Lawrence Kluttz recused himself from the discussion because he is employed by Amherst College.

Public and Board Have Misgivings
In public comment, Ken Rosenthal stated that he recently was contacted by two retired Amherst College professors who wanted to downsize from their single-family homes and move to an apartment close to downtown. Rosenthal thought that 45-55 South Pleasant Street would be an ideal location for them, before he learned of the current plans. He said he has known Roberts for over 50 years and respects him as a developer, “but this is the wrong project for the wrong place.” Rosenthal stressed the importance of places for year-round residents to live downtown, adding that there are already Amherst College students who live in several dormitories near downtown, and he objects to adding another 60 units for students instead of year-round residents. 

The Planning Board members were sympathetic to Rosenthal’s views. Chair Doug Marshall stated that, although he too would like more people living downtown, the board could not deny the application because it was a site plan review and not a special permit, which can be denied.

Bruce Coldham also agreed with Rosenthal. He suggested that perhaps the five units on the floors above the store could be rented separately and made available to nonstudents. He said that his former architecture office was located there and it is  a “lovely space overlooking the Common.” He did note that the new construction behind the store seemed designed for student housing, with multiple bedrooms of the same size and a small shared space. Jesse Mager also thought that, from the outset this project was going to be for students, not for the general public, and stated that that is why the Housing Subgroup of the Planning Board is working on a University Drive overlay “and other opportunities for year-round residents.”

Karin Winter said she only found out that Amherst College was taking over the building shortly before the meeting. She stated that this was a prime location in town, with the north end of downtown already having several large student-occupied buildings. Marshall added that when the Planning Board is presented with a project aimed at UMass students, members can argue that they are keeping students from occupying single-family homes in family neighborhoods;  but Amherst College students all live in campus housing and do not usurp homes in family neighborhoods, so no such protection of neighborhoods is being gained by this project.

Reidy replied to Coldham’s suggestion of excluding the front units from the Amherst College lease, saying that they are included in the lease that the college has already signed. He defended the project, saying that it is a positive sign that Amherst College is “investing in the downtown area,” and claimed that Roberts has plans to develop other sites near downtown for other populations.

Requested Modifications to Site Plan Review Accepted Unanimously
Amherst College requested that the block of 22 electric meters on the north side of the new construction be replaced with two meters at the rear (west side) because they intend to pay the electric bills for the entire building. If Roberts wants to rent each unit separately when the lease eventually ends (the length of the lease was not made public at the meeting), he would have to include electricity in the rent, since this arrangement precludes each unit paying their own bill. 

Eversource required that the transformer be moved to a more accessible position closer to South Pleasant Street and that screening vegetation at the front be reduced to less than a foot in height to improve access to the transformer. This change necessitated moving the bicycle racks behind the transformer. Planning Board members were disappointed at the reduced screening, but Johanna Neumann suggested that perhaps the transformer could be painted with a mural as several others are around town. Reidy observed that most transformers in town had no screening.

Other exterior changes were the removal of the date from the Hastings Building sign on the original building. Reidy said this was requested by the Hastings family. Also, the small vestibule at the main entrance was removed as required by building code.

Modifications were made to the management plan to note that residents may park in any of the Amherst College surface lots. Also, the college’s residential life staff would provide supervision for the residents as they do for all Amherst College dormitories, and the college would be in charge of trash and snow removal. However, ultimate responsibility for building maintenance would remain with Roberts. 

The Planning Board accepted that while the college leased the building, the residents would not have individual leases, but members did not feel it was their prerogative to exempt the building from the new Residential Registration Bylaw, which  Roberts had requested. Planner Nate Malloy said that dormitories owned by educational institutions are exempt from the bylaw, but he did not feel this building qualified because it is not owned by an educational institution. He suggested that the Building Commissioner make the determination.

The modifications to the site plan review were accepted by a 6-0 vote.

Change Granted to Valley Lane—Berkshire Terrace Lots Would Allow Duplex on Valley Lane
The owner of 40 Valley Lane requested approval to purchase a 40-by 10-foot section of land from the owners of an adjacent lot on Berkshire Terrace. The additional area will make the Valley Lane lot 26,000 square feet, which is large enough for a duplex. Both lots currently have single-family homes. A public hearing is not required for this change in property ownership.

Planning Board members questioned why the town engineer had not yet approved this change in ownership, since the land in question is adjacent to a sewer easement. Malloy explained that the time limit to sign off on the  new property lines e will expire at the end of the week, at which time the change would go into effect by default. Therefore, the board agreed that Marshall can sign the agreement, pending approval of the town engineer. 

Kluttz Will Be Planning Board Representative on the Community Preservation Act Committee
With the Community Preservation Act Committee beginning to evaluate applications for CPA funding in the next few weeks, the Planning Board needed to select its representative to the committee. Marshall served on CPAC last year, but did not wish to continue. Kluttz volunteered to serve and was elected by a 6-0 vote (Coldham had left the meeting by this time).