AMHERST — Zoning changes proposed by members of the Town Council to increase housing options for people of various income levels, through easing of municipal permitting for duplexes, triplexes, townhouses and converted dwellings, are not being recommended by the Planning Board.
Though Planning Board members at a June 21 hearing said they appreciated many aspects of the proposal brought forward in the winter by District 2 Councilor Pat DeAngelis and At Large Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke, they voted 7-0 against recommending the Town Council adopt the zoning amendments.
Planning Board member Bruce Coldham said he liked that the councilors were looking to address the problem of Amherst not having enough housing. But Coldham said a broader and more focused approach is needed to achieve this.
“This is an important problem, but this is not the way to deal with it,” Coldham said.
Planning Board Chairman Douglas Marshall said he worried that the board, in voting against the proposal, is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but that zoning changes may not be the most effective way to provide more housing.
Still, Marshall said there was merit in the councilors’ proposal. “If this resulted in 200 more units of housing in town, that would probably be a good thing,” Marshall said.
In its vote, the Planning Board also committed to study how to produce more housing for moderate- and low-income residents, as well as college students, with “clear and feasible” planning solution concepts to be unveiled by the end of the year. There would also be at least three in-person meetings to discuss potential zoning changes related to housing.
The proposal from DeAngelis and Hanneke led to a petition opposing it, out of concern that it wouldn’t meet the objectives of providing more housing options. Though the proposed zoning largely requires new units to be owner-occupied, a concern was that investors who make money off student rentals, characterized as an industry in town, would find ways to work around this restriction, and more neighborhoods might see an influx of rental housing.
The councilors, though, said that their ideas would lead to construction of more duplexes, triplexes and townhouses, and more conversions of existing buildings in Amherst, providing housing opportunities for what they term the “missing middle,” including families with public school students, retirees, service workers and college students. The zoning changes would have required more comprehensive conditions in some cases, such as design guidelines.
Planning Board member Andrew MacDougall said the zoning proposal was too important to reject entirely and that he was impressed the councilors took the initiative in proposing such changes. “I don’t feel comfortable just saying we should let this go,” MacDougall said.
Similarly, board member Thom Long said he commends the councilors, but wondered whether it was efficient to do such a breadth of changes that would have unknown impacts.
Though she saw many positives in the the package, Planning Board member Johanna Neumann said it was not a panacea to the housing problem. Even so, she said, “It’s a comprehensive nudge that’s townwide that would make it easier to add housing.”
Planning Board Karin Winter said the problem of student housing always comes up, because investors snap up houses for this market.
“How can we address these needs and still come up with zoning which is going to make it possible for other low-income, middle-income, everybody, faculty who need to work at the university and staff, to be able to live here?” Winter asked.
Before the Town Council makes a decision to enact or reject the zoning proposal, it will receive a report from Planning Director Christine Brestrup, who said the memorandum will incorporate information gleaned from Planning Board conversations over the past five months.