Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 9/15/2021
AMHERST – Changes could be coming to the landscape of housing in the town of Amherst.
With the ongoing housing crunch and the need for increased residential density being a major factor in the discussion, the Planning Board voted at its Sept. 1 meeting to support changes to the town’s zoning bylaw that would lift the cap on the number of apartment units in a building. Previously, the town’s bylaw capped the number of dwelling units at 24.
No more than 50 percent of the total number of dwellings can have the same bedroom count, except for those with less than 10 units. This may be waived or modified for affordable housing developments. Parking on the first or ground floor must be at the rear of the building to reduce visibility from the public streets and sidewalks.
While the 24-unit cap has been lifted, developers would still be beholden to unit limits based on the size of the lot being developed. According to information provided by the Planning Department, in the general business zone downtown, for example, a total of eight parcels could currently be developed as 100-plus unit buildings. Another eight would quality for 75 to 100 units, based solely on parcel size.
To avoid the proliferation of apartment units in the downtown area, however, the latest revision of the bylaw states that a proposed apartment building fronting East Pleasant Street, North Pleasant Street, South Pleasant Street, Main Street, Amity Street within the general business zoning district cannot be located within 500 feet of an existing apartment building. Those projects would be subject to special permit approval.
There is an existing three-unit apartment building on Main Street next to The Black Sheep Deli and based on the spacing required, Pollack said a maximum of five apartment buildings with frontage on the main corridors could be situated within the general business district.
“We want to encourage mixed-use buildings along our main corridor but we know that we need to encourage population support for businesses along the main corridors as well so we feel that the maximum of five apartment buildings that face the main corridors would not hinder the streetscape of our main corridors,” Town Planner Maureen Pollack told the board, adding additional apartments could be located on the same parcel behind a building facing the main streets mentioned. “It’s OK to have apartments in the court downtown, but we don’t want to have a [proliferation] of apartment buildings, particularly on the main corridors where we do want to activate the streetscape and have a vibrancy of mixed uses.
She added, “We do feel that this mixture of uses will help support a population for businesses and that housing within walking distance of downtown and our main streets is vital to the success of downtown, especially after peak hours for shops and offices, cafes and restaurants and so on and so forth.”
Member Janet McGowan, who issued the only dissenting vote in the 6 to 1 decision, questioned the need for a zoning change for downtown altogether.
“It seems to me the downtown has had the most robust development of residential units. It’s been able to do that with first floor businesses and it seems to me by giving this option of sort of unlimited apartment units without anything on the first floor, it’s just going to push out all the benefits we see in mixed-use buildings,” she said, adding she feared the measure would push out local businesses situated downtown.
She also expressed concerns that the language regarding frontage on main corridors would push high-density apartment buildings onto “lesser” secondary streets and toward residential neighborhoods. She named Pray Street, Triangle Street, Lessey Street, Kellogg Avenue, Boltwood Avenue and Spring Street among those that could be impacted.
Member Doug Marshall said he did not share fears of proliferation of apartment buildings downtown because the Planning Board would have the right to deny a special permit.
Member Thom Long called the bylaw’s language with distance and special permit requirements a way to restrict the way apartment buildings are developed downtown, noting current zoning has no restrictions on smaller apartment buildings, which are solely subject to site plan review.
Member Maria Chao concurred, stating, “I feel like this is pretty safe without totally eliminating [the potential for apartments] because I feel like designers, architects, developers, they’re a creative bunch and they could come up with a solution that actually works pretty well for the street edge. You just never know and to eliminate that possibility entirely might be shortsighted.”
McGowan, however, called the idea of a special permit being denied “a fantasy.” She said she didn’t know of an instance in her two years on the Planning Board in which a special permit was denied and therefore that could not be seen as a viable solution.
“I think we should realize that opening the doors to unlimited number of units in apartment buildings will lead to many more apartment buildings and we know that the property owners want that,” she said. “We haven’t heard from the small businesses in these conversations, but we know that the property owner is less and less ground-floor retail, business, professional … It’s a small downtown; we need to keep it open for businesses.”
Planning Director Christine Brestrup clarified that the special permit would be for use, meaning approval would be under the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals, not the Planning Board.
Pollack, who also serves as the staff liaison to the Zoning Board of Appeals, said that board hasn’t denied a special permit in her four years in that role. She said, however, there have been times when the board has indicated during the public hearing process that it would likely not approve a project. In these cases, the applicant has withdrawn the project without prejudice, giving them a chance to revisit the proposal and decide whether to continue to resubmit a revised application.
While most of the debate revolved around the downtown area, the Planning Board also discussed whether to require a special permit for apartment building developments in the Residential Village Center district. The proposal before the board called for special permit but ultimately the board determined that site plan review would be acceptable.
Pollack explained the special permit requirement was included in the proposal because members of the public and board members had expressed worries about the possibility of apartments being approved without one. Chao said she was disappointed and concerned about the prospect of a small number of public comments swaying that decision. She said allowing projects by site plan review in that district made sense because “that’s the ideal place to build more housing.”
“We get these handful of emails and I’m not really sure that’s the voice of the town; I don’t know if that’s the population speaking,” she said. “I just want to make sure that we’re not moving backwards from this big push that we’re doing to increase housing and increase more affordability and increase our housing stock.”
Brestrup said the recommendation on site plan review for the district came from staff after it was a focus of public comment, calling it essentially a concession to make the bylaw “as a whole more acceptable to people.”
Marshall and member Johanna Neumann agreed with Chao. Marshall questioned the overall lack of site plan review as an option for apartment projects in town, suggesting it goes away from the notion of increasing the possibility of construction that isn’t currently taking place. Neumann suggested only requiring a site plan review would help steer housing toward the village centers.
McGowan and fellow member Andrew MacDougall opined that mixed use as opposed to apartments could increase residential density in a more productive manner. McGowan suggested sending the entire issue back to the Planning Department and stressed her belief that individual planning for various districts must take place as opposed to a blanket zoning amendment. MacDougall, despite voting in favor of the bylaw changes, suggested looking deeper into the subject moving forward.