AMHERST – On July 21, the Amherst Planning Board and Community Resources Committee met to discuss four new zoning bylaw amendments for the town.

The amendments were proposed by Maureen Pollock and Nate Malloy of the Amherst Planning Department. The amendments covered apartments, mixed-use buildings and parking, as well as accessory dwelling units.

Apartments

In section 3.323 of the zoning bylaws, apartment buildings can contain no fewer than three and no more than 24 dwelling units. The Planning Department proposed removing the maximum number of units allowed, diversifying bedroom counts per unit, and enclosed parking. They also discussed the idea of having more apartment-like buildings in the Amherst business district. Dorothy Pam of the Community Resources Committee (CRC) pointed out, “This isn’t an apartment zoning amendment, this is an apartment in [business] areas amendment.”

The amendment was attempting to place apartments in village centers, something that would require special permitting. “Part of me finds it strange that in the business area you’re going to have the most residential,” said Pam. She also expressed her concerns that while they’d be putting apartments downtown, none of them seemed accommodating to families with children.

Once the hearing was opened to public questions and comments, residents also voiced concerns about the amendment. Resident Pam Rooney asked, “Councilor Pam pointed out that the one case of minimum landscape or open space is required, happens to be in the B-N. Ironically those are the parcels of the greatest size. I just want to clarify that we’re not requiring any set aside open space or landscape area for most of these districts, that it’s just for the B-N.” Pollock responded saying, “I agree that the B-N has additional open space requirements, I believe 40 percent  is required.”

Local Hilda Greenbaum added, “I’m concerned about making it easier to put in apartments. It’s a big incentive to tear down some of these wonderful 19th-century houses to put in apartment buildings if you make it that easy for them and I think we want to preserve our historic village center since they’re a national historic site.”

Greenbaum also stated her disdain for Footnote A, claiming it to be a massive loophole. Footnote A states, “Requirement may be modified under a Special Permit, issued by the Special Permit Granting Authority authorized to act under the applicable section of this bylaw. In applying the criteria established in Section 10.395, the Special Permit Granting Authority shall consider the proposed modified dimensional requirement in the context of the pattern(s) of the same dimensions established by existing buildings and landscape features in the surrounding neighborhood.”

However, Pollock explained there are added safeguards in place for historic buildings. “If there were to be a building 50 years or older it would have to go through the Historical Commission for their review and approval of demolition,” said Pollock.

While there were mixed feelings toward the amendment between both board members and residents, the real back and forth came when attempting to close the hearing. Some members were ready to close the hearing, while others felt there was more to deal with.

Member Tom Long said, “I’m on the fence because I think we have a lot of items to go through, but I think there’s a lot of questions. I would love to close the hearing today.” Board Chair Jack Jemsek added, “I think that’s where I’m at as well.” Janet McGowan said she found it odd that they would move to close a hearing when there are more questions than answers.

After several rounds of voting, the hearing on section 3.323 was closed.

Mixed-Use Buildings and Parking

Malloy then presented the amendments for mixed-use buildings. He proposed that the definition of mixed-use buildings should be altered to “a building containing one or more dwelling units in combination with permitted non-residential uses.”

This amendment also suggested that a maximum of 60 percent of the gross floor area on the first or ground floor should be a combination of residential use and enclosed parking. Then, a minimum of 40 percent would be for permitted non-residential use.

Pam said, “Last I knew people were counting parking as business use and that was allowing them to meet their mixed-use term. Now, parking has become its own thing.”

A general consensus, from both the board and the public, was that if these mixed-use buildings were to be in retail and business districts that the roles should be reversed. That 60 percent should be for non-residential use and the other 40 percent for residential.

Malloy advocated why the roles weren’t reversed, “I think the difficulty is that the rent that would be expected from a square foot basis for a commercial space, there may not be uses right now that could meet the expected rent that a developer would charge.”

He continued, “As it is now, the residential uses are subsidizing the commercial and non-residential spaces.”

With parking being difficult to find in the Amherst area, the Planning Department proposed to amend the number of spots per dwelling unit.

The current bylaw states, “For dwellings, including apartments, two parking spaces for each dwelling unit.”

The proposed zoning would state that the amount of parking given should be determined by things like bedroom count, analysis of traffic impact reports, proximity and connectivity to town, public transit, or public parking, among others.

However, McGowan believed that parking should be based on tenants’ needs.  

“Why can’t we just alter the current waiver requirements to get to where we need to go? The waiver requirements focus on the needs of tenants, she started. “I don’t think it meets the needs of tenants to say by lease ‘you can’t park here’ or ‘you can’t have a parking spot.’ That focuses on the owners of the properties to maximize profit and provide as little services as possible.”

Accessory Dwelling Units

The final amendment on the agenda was in regards to accessory dwelling units. They proposed changing the title from supplemental units to accessory dwelling units along with increasing the square footage for each type: contained, detached, and attached. Each would have a maximum of 1,000 square feet and would vary in required permitting.

Contained units would be by right with requirement, attached (which once required special permits) would also be by right. Detached, however, would be by right if it was 50 percent or less of the primary dwelling and if it was 50 percent or more it’d require a special permit. The general notion was ADUs were okay and that neighbors should be given notice if detached ADUs are being placed on a property near them.