Letter: Planning Board Should Reconsider Its Decision on Downtown Dormitory
Architect's rendering of a new residential building to be constructed at 55 South Pleasant Street, replacing the ell of the former Hastings Building. Photo: amherstma.gov
The following letter was sent to planner Nate Malloy and the Amherst Planning Board on November 5, 2024.
I am writing again to ask that the Planning Board reconsider its decision to allow Amherst College to open a dormitory building in the B-G zoning district and to reopen the hearing on the project. I think it essential that the Planning Board engage in a detailed discussion of the issue of whether dormitories — and sorority and fraternity buildings are allowed in the B-G district. I don’t quite understand the legal reasoning that would allow prohibited residential uses in any Mixed-use building in the B-G, or in any zoning district that allows Mixed-use buildings. (Section 3.325) This is a question that would greatly benefit from input from the Town Attorney and full discussion by the Planning Board.
If this current interpretation is applied to future Mixed-use building projects fraternity and sorority buildings could be allowed in the B-G and in any other zoning districts that allow Mixed-use buildings. Mixed-use buildings are allowed in the R-VC, B-L, B-VC, B-N and COM districts, as well as the B-G district. Dormitories and frat houses will now be allowed in all these districts, so long as they have some business activity that meets 3.325 requirements. This interpretation also allows any currently prohibited residential uses in these zoning districts. For example, single family homes and duplexes would be allowed in the B-G and several business districts. Other uses, such as motels, apartment buildings and townhouses, also will be allowed where the Use Chart says they are not allowed. This legal interpretation upends many of the controls in the Use Chart and future impacts alone merit more discussion by the Planning Board.
It’s also hard for me to imagine that Town Meeting meant to allow all these changes —without any floor debate or discussion. I recall that when the R-F district was created, it was specifically stated by the Planning Director or the Planning Board, that R-F was the only district in Amherst where dormitory, and sororities and fraternity buildings were allowed, other than at the colleges or university. I also recall that during permit hearings for several Archipelago buildings, Kyle Wilson repeatedly stating that these buildings were not private dorms. A local resident argued against the permit for the Kendrick Place building because it was a dorm or similar use not allowed in the B-G, an argument rejected by the Planning Board.
So I believe that the Planning Board needs the advice of the Town Attorney before adopting this legal interpretation of Section 3.326 and Section 3.325 that will result in such widespread changes. The Planning Board’s reports to Town Meeting, created documents, and Town Meeting floor discussions on the vote to adopt these two zoning changes are readily available and need to be examined. The timing of these zoning amendments also is important to a correct legal interpretation.
I would ask the Town Attorney 2 questions:
1) Does Section 3.325 (Mixed-use buildings) allow otherwise prohibited residential uses in the B-G, R-VC, B-L,B-VC B-N or COM districts?
2) If the answer to the first question is unclear or ambiguous, can the Planning Board reasonably interpret the 3.326 and 3.325 to deny a permit for a Mixed-use building that includes a fraternity and sorority house, a social dormitory (or similar use) in the B-G, R-VC, B-L,B-VC B-N or COM districts? That is, does the Planning Board have the discretion to so?
Planning Board members are free to call me of course, since this will not violate Open Meeting Law. I will be sharing my thoughts with others in Amherst. This issue is so important.
Janet McGowan
Janet McGowan is a resident of Amherst’s District 5 and a former member of the Amherst Planning Board
I could not agree more with all that Janet reveals and explains here.
It is a useful question to ask “what’s the worst that could happen?” in a given situation.
For example, “now that the President is immune from prosecution, what’s the worst that could happen?”
Or “now that dorms can be built in so many zones of Amherst, what’s the worst that can happen?”
If the Planning Department and Planning Board cannot easily foresee what worst could happen by allowing dorms all over the place, you’re in the wrong business. I don’t know your right business, but town planning isn’t it.
I have to wonder when this plan to make this building into a dorm was in the works. This possibility was was not mentioned when I sat on the Planning Board and this project was first presented and we reviewed it. If I had any idea it would become an Amherst College dormitory, I certainly would have raised Section 3.326’s prohibition on student dorms downtown–and pointed out the consequences of allowing dormitory, fraternity and sorority buildings throughout Amherst’s business districts. The Planning Board could have had a full discussion and input from the Town Attorney on the legal issues. But the possibility that the college would rent this space as a college dorm was never presented. So read this excerpt from the article in The Amherst Student, an on-line newspaper which says the college was in discussions after it leased the college store. “The developer who owns the building, Barry Roberts, had originally told town planners he would rent the renovated units above and behind the store to students, likely from UMass. The building was approved as a mixed-use property, not a dormitory, this summer. Thomas said the college asked about leasing the units earlier this year after securing the lease for the college store.”
Another comment: The Planning Board was not briefed on this issue and indeed had almost no information that the building was going to be a dorm for Amherst College until shortly before or at their meeting. I think few members had time to consider the legal issues and ramifications. PD needs to do better and make sure a citizen board of volunteers have the information they need well before a meeting. So I strongly recommend that the PB vote to re-open the hearing and collect all the information they need and get a full discussion of the legal issues and their discretion to deny the permit from the Town Attorney. And then take time to talk together and come to a decision. This is a very important issue for Amherst.
It was an intentional strategy by the Developers team to have the decision making process at this meeting rushed . Some members of the PB were unaware of this being taken up until the meeting .
Then presented with a scenario where the leases were already signed , etc . Done deal ..
The Planning Board was put in a corner for a hasty decision. Kind of like a “ full court press “ They should have deflected this, but didn’t .