Planning Board Continues to Discuss University Drive Overlay District and Accessory Dwelling Unit Guidelines

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Planning Board, November 20, 2024

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Doug Marshall (Chair), Fred Hartwell, Lawrence Kluttz, Jesse Mager,Karin Winter, and Bruce Coldham. Johanna Neumann joined for the ADU discussion

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

Uncertainties Remain on University Drive Overlay District
The Planning Board continued its discussion of creating an overlay district on University Drive between Amity Street and Northampton Road in order to allow for dense housing while still maintaining some commercial activity. Senior Planner Nate Malloy stated that the board had received several letters from the public generally supporting the overlay district, but many asked that the Big Y Plaza be excluded from the overlay, fearing that the stores there would be lost if more profitable student housing was allowed to be built there. There were also concerns about the effects of increased density on surrounding wetlands and stormwater control capability.

Malloy said that the owners of the plaza (known as the Big Y Plaza) have expressed support for the overlay, adding that it could bring more patrons to the shopping center. He said he is hoping to talk to the owners soon. Planning Board member Bruce Coldham said he had a discussion with Town Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large), who questioned the Planning Board’s recommendation that much of the ground floors of buildings in the overlay be devoted to commercial use as in mixed-use buildings  and said that those areas  would probably remain vacant. Coldham acknowledged that it often takes longer to fill commercial space than apartments, but believed that businesses would eventually gain traction there. He suggested incentivizing developers who are proactive in finding tenants for their commercial spaces.

Board member Jesse Mager agreed with Coldham. He stated, “As long as I’ve been here, once things [businesses] become student rentals, they don’t come back.” He thought the Big Y Plaza could be excluded from the overlay zone, and that the two properties on the corner of University Drive and Northampton Road [Ginger Garden and the auto supply store] could be included in it.

Planning Board Chair Doug Marshall said the Big Y plaza did not even come into the discussion of the overlay until it was brought up at the September 23  council meeting, and said that although town councilors voiced concerns, representatives of the Big Y or the property owners did not.  He and Planning Board member Lawrence Kluttz went on to express concern about the fate of the Cooley Dickinson Hospital medical facility across the street. They were reassured by Jonathan Slate, representing the hospital, who said that the hospital has no intent to change the use of the property, even if the overlay district proposal passes.  In fact, he said, they  hope to eventually  acquire the adjacent property on the corner. However, he repeated concerns that he has voiced before about the effects of new development on wetlands and stormwater runoffs there.

Kluttz also wondered if the town could specify the allowable uses of the non-residential spaces in the overlay district. Malloy replied that if the regulations are “too specific,” no one will use the overlay provisions. He reminded the board that creating an overlay district would not  force developers to use the new zoning regulations; they can use the original zoning regulations. “We’re not saying, all of a sudden you have to build a mixed-use building,” he said. “If someone voluntarily decides they want to use the overlay, they can use the overlay for mixed-use buildings only. If someone wants to put an office building in, they have to follow the base zoning. The concern is that the market in Amherst is so heavily skewed to housing, and housing is very profitable, that it could attract a lot of developers.” He estimated that removing the Big Y Plaza and the CDH property from the overlay would reduce the amount of land available for housing by about 30%.

However, Marshall said he thinks that most of the buildable land is in that section of University Drive, since the northern end, closer to Amity Street and UMass, is largely wetlands. He suggested that the actual reduction in available land might  be higher if those properties are not included in the overlay district. 

Fred Hartwell suggested following Malloy’s suggestion to move the southern boundary of the overlay 400 feet north to protect the Big Y Plaza. Coldham wondered about keeping the plaza in the overlay, with housing being built over the supermarket; Malloy said that the owners of that property operate several shopping plazas around the state, but no residential or mixed-use properties, so most likely would not redevelop it as housing.. 

Public comment
In public comment, two residents of Greenleaves,Elissa Rubinstein and Louise Colligan, pointed out the importance of the Big Y and CVS to the 300 units of senior housing located across Route 9. Rubinstein said that many of those residents have limited transportation, so those stores are “extremely important to our survival.” Colligan noted that University Drive is an important hub, with many services available that serve a large population of students, residents from the center of town, and those living in senior housing.

Changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit Bylaw Continue to Be Complex
The Planning Board’s efforts to put limitations on the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in order to conform with the state’s new housing law, continued to raise complicated scenarios. Most impactful is the state’s prohibition against mandating owner-occupancy of either the primary dwelling or the ADU, as the current Amherst bylaw requires. 

Sate law permits ADUs of 900 square feet or less, and up to half the area of the principal dwelling,  to be built on the same lot as the principal dwelling in all zoning districts that allow single-family dwellings. An ADU cannot, however, occupy a lot with a duplex or apartment building on it, nor can it be constructed in a zoning district that does not allow single-family homes, such as in the downtown district. ADUs can be inside a single-family home, attached to it, or detached in a separate building. Each unit must have its own entrance, and contain a place for  sleeping and cooking, and sanitary facilities.

The board worried that eliminating the need for owner occupation will open the floodgates for increasing student housing in single-family neighborhoods. Investment companies would be able to purchase a small family home and build an ADU on the property to accommodate another four students, although an ADU would still need to comply with the dimensional standards of the town’s  Zoning Bylaw in regard to setbacks and lot coverage. Board members were unable to devise a provision that would limit the number of students or the amount of parking that complies with the new state law.

Hartwell said he wants to make sure the board stays up to date with the interpretation of the law being developed by the state attorney general. He spoke for the need to address “what

is going to be the outcome of ADUs with unprincipled ownership. That is a massive and serious and very present problem, and we need to be really working [on] that.”

An idea of asking the state for special dispensation regarding the law due to Amherst’s large student market, but Johanna Neumann countered, saying, “Maybe this is obvious, but the reason why the state passed this is because they feel like there’s a need for housing, and there’s been too much local opposition for more housing. And so now they’ve kind of taken action into their own hands and circumvented local boards like ours.

The thought that we would somehow say, ‘Oh, we’re a unique and special snowflake. We need different consideration,’ I think would be like, ‘Yes, and that’s exactly why we preempted you at the state level on these kinds of actions.’ So, I don’t know, I think, like we should do what we can to make this work as well as possible for Amherst, but not put ourselves in the crosshairs of a potential lawsuit or a big political battle in my opinion.”

Nate will continue to monitor the state attorney general’s recommendations for other towns  in an effort to  figure out  what local municipalities can still require. The housing subcommittee of the Planning Board will continue to discuss the subject, including establishing a definition for a “student home.” The topic will be discussed at a future Planning Board meeting. The new law goes into effect on February 2, 2025. 

Issues Raised About Parking Around Kendrick Park
Karin Winter raised the issue of people using the parking spaces at Kendrick Park for long-term parking, so there are often no spaces for those coming to use the playground. Kluttz and Mager agreed that the spaces are often entirely occupied. Winter suggested that time limits be placed on those spaces to allow for people who want to use the playground. Malloy said he would bring this up with the DPW.

No Planning Board Representative on CPAC this Year
Kluttz is unable to serve on the Community Preservation Act committee this year due to family obligations. No other Planning Board member was able to fill in for the deliberation of proposed projects for FY2026. Since the committee has already started to evaluate the projects, a new member would have to review the meeting recordings and applications, so the board decided not to be represented for this year’s round of funding. Coldham said that he would like to be a representative next year.

Downtown Dormitory Discussion Not Settled
Coldham, who missed the previous two Planning Board meetings, wondered whether the approval of Amherst College using Barry Roberts’ new building at 45 to 55 South Pleasant Street as a dormitory sets a precedent for having dormitories where they had not been intended. The board felt that the permit for the South Pleasant Street building was valid as a mixed-use building, but agreed to return to the topic of what constitutes a dormitory in future meetings.

Archipelago Receives Final Approval for Second Dormitory on Olympia Drive
Archipelago Investments, LLC had received preliminary approval to construct a second apartment-style dormitory on Olympia Drive, which is near UMass. The company was required to present final landscaping and lighting plans before receiving a building permit. Kyle Wilson returned to the Planning Board to present those plans. He noted that the photometric plan was developed to prevent spillage onto neighboring property while adequately lighting service areas for safety. He said all power lines will be underground, but the company has no jurisdiction over the wires for the nearby streetlights.