Greenleaves Eliminates Community Building in Favor of Community Areas in Each Building

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals, March 13, 2024

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Steve Judge (Chair), Hilda Greenbaum, John Varner, David Ahlfeld, and Rizwana Khan.

Staff: Jacinta Williams (Planner) and Dave Waskiewicz (Building Inspector)

When Greenleaves Condominium Complex received a special permit in 2004, its plans included five condominium buildings and a community building. With the last of the condominium buildings nearing completion, AHMAD Development Corporation has asked to forgo the community building and replace it with smaller community spaces on the first floor of each building. Manager Sue Mongeon stated that a 2023 survey of residents showed that 82% preferred the smaller community areas in each building. The area intended for the community building is intended to be paved for a 12-space parking lot. The area is currently dirt, but is still used for parking. 

When the fifth building is completed and occupied, the ownership of the complex will be turned over to a homeowners’ association. The complete complex will have 44 one-bedroom units, 124 two-bedroom units, 20 three-bedroom units, and five suites used as community rooms, for a total of 188 dwelling units and 232 parking spaces. 

The plans for modification of the 2004 special permit generated numerous complaints from current residents regarding deteriorating staircases, long walks from parking to accessible entrances, incomplete landscaping, poor location of trash bins, unfinished storage units, erosion of the slope near the planned new parking, and lack of adequate parking. Resident Susan Cummings presented photographic evidence of the problems. The upkeep of the complex is currently managed by Kamins. 

Other residents stated that when they purchased their units, they were expecting a community building to be built, as was advertised on the website for the complex. Mongeon stated that when she realized that the community building was still on the website, she removed it.

The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) members sympathized with the residents about their complaints about the upkeep of the complex, but stated that the current application to amend the previous special permit is narrowly framed on the specific issue of the community building. If some of the stipulations of the original permit are not being met, the residents should discuss it with the developer or, failing satisfaction, with the Building Commissioner to enforce the previous permit.

Regarding the requested special permit modification, Hilda Greenbaum said she wanted to be sure that there was adequate lighting for the new parking lot to ensure the safety of the residents parking there. Project Engineer Dave Robinson said that there was downcast lighting on each of the buildings bordering the lot and that residents did not want additional lighting that might shine into the end units on either side. He did not have a lighting diagram to show the amount of light at each location in the parking area. Building Inspector Dave Waskiewicz suggested that motion control lights might be a solution, because they would only be on when people are present. 

John Varner felt that the residents who purchased their units with the expectation that a community building would be built had a rightful grievance, but it was not within the ZBA’s jurisdiction to determine if there was a contract violation. David Ahlfeld agreed, but pointed to the survey that showed that most residents supported having community space in each building.  

Greenbaum suggested that with the concerns of residents and the lack of information regarding lighting of the parking lot and landscaping, it might be prudent to postpone a decision until the property management had a chance to talk to the residents and resolve some of the issues. However, Rizwana Khan said she wanted to move forward to a vote. She stated that the development has already taken too long to finish, and most residents seemed to prefer the plan for the modification.

The ZBA voted 5-0 to approve the application to modify the original special permit with the condition that there be improved drainage in the parking lot and improved landscaping to be approved by the Building Commissioner before an occupancy permit is issued for the new condominium building. Chair Steve Judge regretted that the board did not have much leverage to improve the relations between the residents and the developer, but that eventually the residents will be the owners and they will then have responsibility for managing the complex. He acknowledged that the amount of parking seemed insufficient at 1.2 spaces per unit.

Mixed-use Building on Amity Street and University Drive Receives Variance for Increased Height
Everald Henry replaced John Varner on this panel.

Barry Roberts’ proposal to build a  78-unit mixed-use building at the corner of Amity Street and University Drive received a variance from the ZBA to allow for a height of 89.5 feet, as opposed to the 87- foot height originally approved. Attorney Tom Reidy of Bacon Wilson stated that the added height was needed because the building needed to be raised about a foot to allow for the space between the stormwater system and the high groundwater table to permit an adequate drainage slope. Also, with the town’s new stretch code necessitating that all new building meet passive house standards. This requires extra ducting between floors, which will also add to the height of the building. He pointed out that if the proposed University Drive overlay district passes, the allowable height in the area will be 70 feet.

Reidy said the building received approval from the Conservation Commission and is slated to be approved by the Planning Board at its March 19 meeting. The change in the design from the two- building complex originally reviewed by the ZBA to the current V-shaped building with parking behind is due to the high cost of steel making the original plan financially unfeasible. That plan had covered parking on the first floor which required building with steel. In the current design, all parking is surface parking, and the entire first floor is commercial space. Some of the 160 parking spaces will be reserved for residents and others will be shared with the commercial tenants—with residents being able to use them outside of business hours. Planned occupancy is August 2026.

ZBA member Henry voiced several concerns. He wanted to know why the drainage and high water table were not recognized when the project was first presented to the ZBA last year. Reidy said that the issues with the water table came to light when the Conservation Commission required test pits at the site. Also, new stormwater management and passive house standards recently took effect. 

When Henry asked if the development will have solar panels, Reidy was unsure. He said the stretch code requires that 40% of the roof space be available for solar panels and the building would be built with that in mind, but he was unsure if the panels would be added at the time of completion or later. He felt rooftop solar was more likely than canopy solar over the parking lot. 

The new design has seven fewer units than the original design and one less affordable unit. There will be nine affordable units, with two or three being reserved for residents earning 60% or less of area mean income. When Henry said he was concerned about the development becoming a UMass building, Reidy noted that Roberts’ other nearby buildings at 180 Fearing Street and 70 University Drive have a mix of tenants, with students and nonstudents. He said that 422 Amity Street will be rented by the unit, not by the bedroom.  He noted that the first-floor businesses will not want to be in a student building, and that the key was good management.

Greenbaum said that it would be hard to justify the variance because of economic hardship, because the developer should have known about the drainage and high water table before purchasing the land, but Reidy said that there was no time to do structural engineering prior to the purchase date.

The ZBA voted 5-0 to approve the variance in height due to financial hardship and other factors. The Planning Board is expected to issue its approval on March 19.