AMHERST — Town Meeting members last week rejected an affordable housing measure and delayed a decision on streamlining the zoning process for mixed-use projects.
While a large majority of Town Meeting members agreed that a town bylaw should mandate that developers provide affordable housing in projects in which they are granted special permits from the Planning Board, the measure did not reach the two-thirds threshold necessary to adjust the bylaw’s language.
The 100-61 vote in favor was eight votes short of the needed two-thirds.
It was the second time in three years an inclusionary zoning bylaw, including a Planning Board–sponsored overhaul at the May 2015 annual Town Meeting, was shot down.
At issue is whether a clause in the current inclusionary zoning bylaw, adopted in 2005, is being properly enforced. The Planning Board, bolstered by legal advice from attorneys at Kopelman and Paige, has interpreted that only when a special permit is issued for use, and not for dimensions, such as height of building or lot coverage, can a developer of a project with 10 or more units be forced to set aside 10 percent of the units for low- and moderate-income families.
This means developers of projects allowed by right which receive special permits are not subject to providing affordable units.
Vincent O’Connor of Precinct 1, who brought the petition article, said projects like Kendrick Place and One East Pleasant have cost the town much-needed affordable housing. “Time has run out on all those people who want this put off to the future,” O’Connor said.
An estimated four of 36 units at the Kendrick Place, one of 12 at Boltwood Place and nine of the proposed 76 units at the under-construction One East Pleasant would be affordable under O’Connor’s interpretation of the bylaw language.
Maurianne Adams of Precinct 10 said the article would be an interim measure until the Planning Board crafts new language.
“We must wait no longer for this,” said Adams, who brought a similar measure to Town Meeting in fall 2014. Though it received a favorable vote of 111-79, it fell short of the needed two-thirds by 16 votes.
Adams said that the adoption by the state Legislature last year of a home-rule petition that provides property tax relief for up to a decade to developers interested in having affordable housing in projects should reduce concerns about the added costs to include affordable units alongside market-rate apartments.
But changing the special permit decisions would likely mean getting no development in downtown and village centers at all, said Geoffrey Kravitz, the town’s economic development director.
Meanwhile, Town Meeting referred an article outlining revisions to the zoning rules designed to improve the permitting process for development of mixed-use buildings back to the Planning Board for more study.
The measure also calls for the creation of design standards for town officials to apply to such projects.
Representatives from the business community, which supports such projects, and those with concerns about mixed-use developments becoming off-campus dormitories, spoke against adopting the changes.
Among the adjustments raising concerns were allowing parking areas for vehicles and bicycles to be counted as a non-residential use on the ground level, which otherwise must be mostly occupied by commercial groups, and requiring these buildings to have a certain appearance.
“It would require nonresidential uses to predominate on the main floor and be located on the street front, with ‘ample’ windows and entrances to enhance the utility and interest of the public space,” the Planning Board wrote in its report to Town Meeting.
Jerry Guidera, interim executive director of the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce, said there was a feeling that the bylaw would not work, and would instead make it harder to pursue these developments.
“We like the idea of mixed use, but not this particular product,” Guidera said.
In a memo to Town Meeting members, Guidera wrote that developers want to see new provisions that encourage work/live spaces for both short- and long-term tenancies, and additional hotel capacity to draw tourists to downtown Amherst. The proposed changes would not promote either.
“These changes wouldn’t simplify our complicated set of development and densification options in the downtown; they would have the opposite effect, discouraging mixed-use projects,” Guidera wrote.
Sarah la Cour, executive director of the Amherst Business Improvement District, agreed that the bylaw language changes need to be fixed and that referral to the board was appropriate.
“That’s fine with us. That’s a good outcome,” la Cour said.
Geoffrey Kravitz, the economic development director for the town, told Town Meeting that the amendment might discourage some development on lots with steep grades because it creates uncertainty for developers.
Projects like Kendrick Place and Boltwood Place in downtown, and the Trolley Barn in the Mill District of North Amherst, have both retail and office on the ground level and apartments on the upper floors.
The bylaw changes would have allowed parking to be considered a non-residential use on the ground level. Denise Barberet of Precinct 9, a former member of the Planning Board, made a motion to delete this clause. No vote was taken on her amendment once the article was referred back to planners.
Barberet said she remains concerned that such an approach would bring residential projects at the expense of retail in downtown Amherst and village centers.
“By essentially watering down the definition of mixed use and by not mandating retail or office uses on the first and maybe even second floors, we could conceivably see just another residential enclave, which could work, but again, we shouldn’t get it through a de facto process of bait-and-switch,” Barberet said.
