Letter: Multiple Duplexes On Single Lot Degrades Neighborhood
Architect's rendering of proposed second duplex 798-800 North Pleasant Street in relation to adjacent home. Photo: amherstma.gov
The following letter was sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 24, 2023.
I am writing in regard to the application for a Special Permit for 798 – 800 North Pleasant Street. As a former member of the Amherst Planning Board (2007 – 2010), I am frankly quite surprised to learn that the Zoning Board of Appeals is even considering this proposal.
Article 3 of the Zoning Bylaw (Use Regulations), Section 3.01 clearly states that with certain exceptions, only one dwelling per lot is allowed: “The development or operation on a single lot of more than one dwelling or more than one of the Principal Uses described in Section 3.3 is expressly prohibited except where the Principal Uses are clearly complementary to each other, or where otherwise provided by this Bylaw.”
The word in this section that appears to create some ambiguity is “complementary.” This should not be confused with “compatible” – to exist in harmony or agreement with. Something that is “complementary” enhances or improves something else by the addition of a new – and presumably different – element. Simply adding a second duplex that is similar in appearance to the existing one may make it “compatible,” but it does not make it “complementary.”
Also at issue is the term “Principal Use.” Section 3.32 of the Use Classification and Standards chart lists a variety of Principal Residential Uses: One family detached dwelling, two family detached dwelling, town house, apartments, hostel, lodging or boarding house, etc. A duplex is a Principal Use. Adding a second duplex – the same Principal Use – to the lot would be adding another dwelling, which is “expressly prohibited.” It is not a second, or different, Principal Use, but the same Principal Use, so while each duplex may be similar in appearance, and compatible with other buildings in the neighborhood, they are not “complementary to each other.” This is why one cannot build a second one-family home on a lot that already has a dwelling, even if that lot contains sufficient square footage to do so.
The prohibition of more than one dwelling on a lot seems obvious. I doubt that anyone would propose building a second one family detached dwelling on a lot by attempting to argue that because the second dwelling looks like the first, and like the rest of the neighborhood, it is a Principal Use that is complementary. If one studies the Bylaw carefully, the implication is that physically, a duplex is essentially a one family detached dwelling that should as much as possible mimic the appearance of a standard single-family dwelling. Exceptions to this appearance (the second paragraph of Section 3.321) seem designed to accommodate and allow the New England vernacular of additions to what was once a single main house; such exceptions, however, are not guaranteed, and must produce a result that is “compatible with the architecture and building and site layout of other residential buildings in the surrounding neighborhood.” If, by extension, a duplex is essentially a single-family dwelling whose interior can accommodate two families, I do not see how it can be treated as otherwise, and how it can reasonably be argued that it is not subject to the same lot restrictions as are single-family dwellings.
If the board approves this project based on the interpretation that the second duplex is “complementary,” they risk opening the door to the contention that other lots can therefore support a second – and perhaps even a third, dwelling if a lot contains enough square footage, simply because the proposed dwelling looks like, or “complements” the existing dwelling and the neighborhood. A quick look at lots along North Pleasant Street shows what could happen if this door is opened.
It is approximately one mile from the location of this proposed project to the end of North Pleasant Street. In theory, it would be possible for 16 properties along that mile-long route to accommodate similar developments. This is how I arrived at that number: In the R-N district, the Basic Minimum Lot Area is 20,000 SF. To add a second two-family dwelling, 12,000 additional SF (Additional Lot Area/Family = 6,000 SF x 2) is needed. There are seven properties along this section of North Pleasant Street that are more than 32,000 SF. I qualify this number and the following one as “in theory” because there are additional requirements such as lot and building coverage, setbacks, frontage, and other conditions that must be met. At 1102 North Pleasant Street, R-N changes to R-VC, and so does the lot size that is required. In R-VC, the Basic Minimum Lot Area is now 15,000 SF; the Additional Lot Area/Family goes down to 4,000 SF (4,000 x 2 = 8,000 additional SF). In this zoning district, assuming all other conditions are met, this type of development could happen on lots that are 23,000 SF in size; nine properties along this stretch of North Pleasant Street are 23,000 SF or larger.
This is what could happen along a short distance of just one street in the town. If the addition of a second duplex on the same property is considered to be “a complementary Use to the Principal Use,” as Berkshire Design Group asserts on behalf of the applicants, and such interpretation is accepted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, I do not see how future projects that might include the addition of a duplex to a lot containing a one-family home, or even a second or third one-family home could be rejected. A precedent would be set, and it would be difficult to deny future applications that utilize the same interpretation.
It is unfortunate that Section 3.01 uses the potentially ambiguous term “complementary” to provide an exception to what should be an otherwise clear prohibition of more than one dwelling on a single lot. A project may be compatible in appearance with other structures of a neighborhood because of how it looks, but that does not mean that what it is used for complements said neighborhood – in the sense of enhancing, completing, or improving it – especially if its actual use creates an increase in conditions that degrade the quality of life for those who live there. I would urge the board to think carefully of the future consequences of opening this door to similar development proposals.
Denise Barberet
Denise Barberet lived in Amherst for 34 years and is a current resident of Chicopee
Just a bit of clarification: My point here is not so much about the impact of this particular project and the very dangerous precedent it will set for residential neighborhoods in Amherst should it be approved; it is that I believe that a careful and logical reading of Section 3.01 and a full understanding of the terms that it uses indicate that this type of project is simply not allowed, and should therefore not even come before the ZBA for consideration.
Also note that the ZBA – if it decides a project is compliant, but is detrimental – MAY give a permit, but not MUST give a permit. They are given some ability to subjectively and discreetly decide if a questionable project is approved.
On Thursday, September 27, the ZBA approved a “withdrawal without prejudice” of the application for two duplexes at 798-800 North Pleasant Street. Without prejudice means that another application can be resubmitted before two years, if an amendment to 3.01 is passed by the Town Council allowing the use. The Board debated the meaning of Section 3.01 for one and a half hours because what seems like a “no brainer” is a very complicated issue. An even bigger issue is what is the ZBA’s policy going forward with similar projects that are under development now for other neighborhoods without clarity.
This is not the only puzzling section of the zoning bylaw and they aren’t apparent until a case comes before the board for a Special Permit. Many contradictions arise as amendments accumulate without a thorough deletion of conflicts caused by the amendments. Also times change, semantics evolve etc. such that we don’t know what the Planning Board had in mind when “complementary” was inserted into the bylaw probably in the 1964 huge revision when UMass began its rapid growth. We need housing now, a given. But what kind of housing and the need for $5500/month rents proposed for 798-800 North Pleasant Street is debatable.
Did the author choose or endorse the headline, “Multiple Duplexes On Single Lot Degrades Neighborhood”? The author’s concerns may be reasonable in this particular case. (I am not informed about the case.) But for both ecological and social reasons, I am concerned about the apparent generic hostility to multiunit dwellings. Would it be possible to clarify?
Why can’t we have affordable, moderate-density housing for low-and-moderate income families without (a) handing over neighborhoods to annoying student party houses or (b) making the enrichment of developers the main driver of public policy and process? Much of the current elected and appointed town leadership throw up their hands and fall back on “the market” as an explanation and “nothing can be done (except accept)” as the policy response. We can and should do better.
For Michael Ash: No, I was not involved in choosing the headline to my letter. My main concern about this project was that it sought approval under what I saw as a misreading and misinterpretation of Section 3.01 of the Zoning Bylaw. But as Hilda Greenbaum has rightly pointed out, the more one looks at this paragraph, the less one can really say with certainty what exactly it allows or prohibits. I think that the first clause is fairly definitive in what is allowed — one lot, one dwelling, one Principal Use — but what follows “except” is less clear, and the wording of the clauses that follow invites ambiguity. I would argue that precedent clearly does not allow more than one single-family dwelling on a lot; logically, one can infer that this would prohibit more than one two-family dwelling on a lot, since that would be an intensification of use of the lot, and might well result in a “substantial impact” on its surroundings.
I don’t believe that there is really a generic hostility to multi-family dwellings, at least in principle. In Amherst, there have been two factors that concern residents when this type of development is proposed for their neighborhood: scale and intensity of use. Developments with dozens of units bring an increase of traffic and noise, simply because of the increase in numbers of residents. Developments targeted to students bring the same, often to a much greater degree, and can indeed seriously degrade the quality of life in a neighborhood.
This is not to say that density automatically equals noise and disruption. My street in Chicopee, developed between 1906 and 1924, has small urban lots, and has a mix of single- and three-family dwellings. The residents are owners, renters, and different family types and ages — and we even have wildlife on the street. For an urban location, it is surprisingly quiet and peaceful, especially during night-time hours. If increased density in Amherst could be achieved while still maintaining the peace and quiet that so many of its neighborhoods have enjoyed, I doubt there would be as much objection as is currently raised.
For D.B.: thank you for the clarification and the thoughtful response and expansion.