Those of us trying to pay attention to zoning changes being discussed for Amherst are engaged in a game of “whack-a-mole” as proposals morph, but do not solve the problems they are supposed to address. Rather, they promise to supply more undergraduate student housing, degrade neighborhoods and remove any reason to visit the Amherst business district.
Since I moved to Amherst 10 years ago, I’ve seen half of the “amenities” that I enjoyed in downtown disappear. I am not expecting Amherst to revert to last century, but we are losing even compared to 2011. The northern end of “downtown” is now a “desert” for residents and visitors. We got Kendrick Place and One East Pleasant Street, with one restaurant and horrendous streetscapes. Now the retail establishments between those two buildings are shutting down. Will infill be other super-sized, super-expensive apartments?
It is ironic to discuss having more housing close to downtown amenities with no plan to preserve and attract the amenities that make Amherst an appealing place to live and visit. All of which begs the question – is there a plan to bring retail establishments to our town center? What are town government’s plans for our general business district?
Let’s also consider the evolution of proposals to “unlock” the limited business districts, which are intended to provide a transition between downtown and adjacent general residence districts.
A grant-funded, consultant report proposed a “40R overlay” covering the downtown and the limited business district. The Massachusetts state website describes 40R as facilitating “smart growth” to promote affordable housing, mixed use, attractive communities, open space, and community participation in the decision-making process. Who wouldn’t support those ideals?
Regretfully, the consultant report incorporated few of these lofty goals – and interviewed no residents in preparing their report. They made presentations to the Planning Board, but how would an average resident know that the agenda item “40R” referred to a discussion to completely revise central Amherst development guidelines?
The initial proposal envisioned a canyon of four- and five-story buildings right up to residential neighborhoods, replete with extensive asphalt for parking. Residents pushed back, not because they were against smart growth, but because they were for creating a livable space that someone might want to call home. In response, the consultants managed a few cosmetic adjustments that did nothing to create an inviting neighborhood, and the revised proposal remained objectionable.
Not only were recommendations a problem for abutters but, as it turns out, owners of some “developable” properties thought 40R had too many restrictions and not enough carrots – the proposal was shelved.
Importantly, although the 40R district covered the general business district (bringing lofty goals to downtown), it would have done nothing for the district, as a developer could use the existing underlying zoning, which right now allows five-story buildings up against the street. No developer would choose to follow 40R in the general business district.
Whack, whack. Two proposals down for “unlocking” the limited business district, and no help for the general business district.
Next, Town Council asked the Planning Board to make it possible to add housing to the limited business district by removing zoning “footnote b.” How is an educated resident supposed to know what that means? Fortunately, even the Planning Board balked at how that would impact limited business density and character. Whack again.
That brings us to the current “zoning overlay.” Alas, it has been recognized that people need sidewalks that are not just squeezed between a sheer building wall and a foot of grass abutting the road. Though proposed building height in the limited business district has been decreased from five to three stories and some affordable housing required, the financial incentive to build apartments catering to students prevails.
When the few remaining stores are forced out during construction of new apartments, the north end of downtown will be further desertified.
I say WHACK to the “zoning overlay.”
Then there is “Footnote m,” which limits density in the general residence districts. Surprisingly, more densification is already allowed than one would think; currently six units on three-fourths of an acre and nine units on a bit more than an acre. Removing Footnote m, as proposed, would allow nine units and 14 units, respectively. We’re talking about covering 40% of a lot, more than half of which would be parking.
This is not a change that promotes workforce and family housing. It will be more student rentals that erode neighborhoods and more backyards paved over with parking lots and dotted with trash bins.
Students need housing and so many are aspirational to give back to the community. Can’t we better integrate student housing with the needs for affordable family and workforce housing, stable neighborhoods and a vibrant downtown attractive to all?
I regret that I am not a developer or a planner, nor do I have expertise in economic development. But I expect there are those who do and could summon the wisdom, resources, subsidies and incentives to plan something better. What I have seen is not creating workforce and family housing, is not making the town a destination, is not the Amherst that anyone would want if they had time to keep abreast of all the proposed zoning changes coming at us all at once.
Residents are just trying to get through this pandemic. But show them a picture of Amherst in 20 years with what has been proposed, and I assure you, 90% would cringe, or rejoice that they have their acre plus on the outer edges of town.
Elizabeth Vierling lives in Amherst.
