Debate Continues Over Hanneke/DeAngelis Multi-Family Zoning Changes

Report On A Public Hearing At The Meeting Of The Community Resources Committee, April 27,2023

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present 
Mandi Jo Hanneke (Chair, At large), Pat DeAngelis (District 2), Jennifer Taub (District 3), Pam Rooney (District 4), and Shalini Bahl-Milne (District 5)

Staff: Christine Brestrup (Planning Director)

Five members of the public were in the audience

The oft-discussed zoning changes proposed by Councilors Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) and Pat DeAngelis (District 2) had another examination at the Community Resources Committee (CRC) meeting of April 27.

The proposal suggests changes to the following Zoning Bylaws:

Article 3, Use Regulations, Article 4, Development Methods, Article 9, Non-conforming Lots, Uses and Structures and Article 12, Definitions (continued from March 2 and April 6, 2023) To see if the Town will vote to amend Article 3, Use Regulations to change the permitting requirements for owner occupied duplexes, affordable duplexes, non-owner occupied duplexes, converted dwellings and townhouses to create more streamlined permitting pathways for these uses, to remove the use category “Subdividable Dwellings”, to add a use category Three-family Detached Dwelling (Triplex), to add a permitting pathway and standards and conditions for triplexes, to modify standards and conditions for other housing use categories, to amend permitting requirements for housing use categories in the Aquifer Recharge Protection Overlay district, to amend Article 4, Development Methods to add three-family dwelling, where appropriate, to amend Article 9, Non-conforming Lots, Uses and Structures, to add a reference to three-family dwelling, to amend Article 12, Definitions, to add Three Family Detached Dwelling Unit (Triplex) and to delete Subdividable Dwelling.

The latest version of the proposal includes many revisions, the result of a series of meetings with Planning Department members. The nine-page proposal would continue to ease some permitting requirements, but will retain others. It would allow duplexes in all residential zones throughout town, including the town-identified aquifer recharge zone.   All non-owner-occupied duplexes will require approval by special permit. Owner-occupied and affordable duplexes will  be approved by the building commissioner, but design standards will be developed and used for all duplexes (and triplexes).  Planning Director Chris Brestrup said that if an owner-occupied duplex becomes non-owner-occupied, the building commissioner can enforce requirements for management and parking through a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).

Triplexes will be in a new category, instead of being considered townhomes or apartments. Townhomes will continue to be allowed by special permit in the Neighborhood Residential (R-N) zone. The definition of “converted dwellings” is refined in the proposal.  Conversion to multiple units must take place within the existing footprint of the structure. If there is more than minimal new construction, the structure will be considered a duplex or triplex, depending on the number of units..

In a memo sent to the Planning Board on April 19, Brestrup recommended that more than two owner-occupied or affordable duplexes on a site in General Residence (RG), Neighborhood Residence (RN), or Residential Village Center (RVC) zones require a special permit to determine if the larger development is appropriate for the neighborhood. These multiple structure developments need more detailed management and parking plans than smaller ones. In the Limited Density and Outlying Residence (RLD and RO) zones, any structure  with more residential units than a duplex would require a special permit.

Public Comment: This Proposal Will Not Increase Affordable Housing
Although one of the primary aims stated in the Hanneke/DeAngelis proposal is to increase the affordability of housing in Amherst, public comment focused on what is seen as a mismatch between the laudable goals and what the realities of the proposal would mean. Janet Keller said she appreciates the huge amount of work that went into this zoning proposal, but doesn’t think it will produce affordable housing, pointing out that virtually all affordable units have been created because of the efforts of nonprofit community development corporations  and the Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw. She expressed concern about discontinuing the town’s policy of  notifying abutters and said that people who have put their life savings into their home should have some knowledge of and input about what structures are planned for adjacent property. Rani Parker put it differently, saying that the proposal amounts to a way of bypassing community-based problem-solving, which under current regulations that takes place in discussing special permit requests at ZBA meetings. 

CRC Members Have Questions
CRC member Jennifer Taub (District 3) agreed with the public commenters that it was Important for abutters to be informed of changes near their property, and spoke up for maintaining the existing permitting processes. She cited the process that resulted in  approving the townhouse complex being constructed at 164-174 Sunset Avenue, which involved discussion between the Zoning Board of Appeals, community members, and the developer and resulted  in a much-improved project. She said that, in the context of a million-dollar project,  the cost of permitting would not hinder construction and should not be avoided because of the possibility that the developer would charge higher rents. Meanwhile, the new Fieldstone housing development at UMass was built without any permitting expenses, since it is on the UMass campus, yet it will be the most expensive housing in town. “Developers will charge what market will bear,” she said.

Shalini Bahl-Milne (District 5) asked about whether the special permit process is necessary, rather than the  site plan review process, which she said is used  by the Planning Board for “most” multi-family housing. Brestrup explained that “site plan review” means that the project is already considered appropriate for the site, and  is limited to considerations of exterior elements, such as landscaping and lighting, as well as size. The “special permit” process involves more scrutiny, as well as notification of and input from abutters. She said that when the category of owner-occupied duplexes was approved by Town Meeting about 10 years ago, the construction of multiple buildings and multiple uses on single properties was not foreseen. Several cases have since been approved with success, but all with special permits and careful scrutiny.

In defense of the proposal, DeAngelis pointed out  that ”zoning has been used to keep people out. We talk about socioeconomic diversity, and drawing families into the community,” she said, “but we are losing families. Why is it OK to have design guidelines for duplexes [in residential zones] when developers can build ‘bunkers’ downtown?” She added, “People are scared. I’ve seen so much resistance to socioeconomic differences in our community, and none of you are addressing it. You are addressing what you want to protect.”

Allowing duplexes in outlying areas will densify already-developed areas, Christrine Brestrup explained, “[but] we really don’t want housing on farmland, open areas, and forests—we don’t want to become New Jersey or Northern Virginia. We want to protect our outlying areas for hiking and admiring beautiful vistas.”

Brestrup again provided perspective. She said that Amherst has only concentrated on building more housing for the past 10 years, with the 2013 Housing Production Plan and the Inclusionary Zoning bylaw amendment. Wayfinders and Valley Community Development Corporation have built several affordable complexes and are planning more. There are a total of approximately 9,000 housing units in town, and about 800 of them have been built in just the past six years.

She added that the Master Plan recommends concentrating development in the downtown and village centers. Allowing duplexes in outlying areas like Echo Hill, as this proposal does, will densify already developed areas. But, she added, “We really don’t want housing on farmland, open areas, and forests. We don’t want to become New Jersey or Northern Virginia. We want to protect our outlying areas for hiking and admiring beautiful vistas.”

Hanneke questioned whether  requiring a special permit if more than four units are planned for a site respects the Master Plan. Brestrup answered that this is a broad proposal, allowing owner-occupied and affordable duplexes throughout most of the town to receive approval (simply) through the building commissioner, but when you consider neighborhoods, such as Orchard Valley or Echo Hill, the Planning Department feels strongly that larger developments should require more scrutiny. Even in the village centers, where larger developments are allowed, this expedited approval has not been tested. 

DeAngelis said, “How are we going to address the high rents in town?” Pam Rooney (District 4) pointed out the national trend of increased investments in real estate, especially noticeable in university towns, where the rate of return is high. She pointed out the high number of  Amherst property owners who do not live here and have “no qualms about raising rents if the market will bear it”. Taub noted that the townhouse development being built on Sunset has many family-friendly amenities (and there are two affordable units), but rents are slated to be about $4,300 for a four-bedroom unit. 

The discussion concluded, with the CRC realizing that more discussion is needed. The hearing was continued to May 11 at 4:35 p.m. CRC members were encouraged to submit their comments to the chair.