Letter: Proposed Zoning Priorities Ignore Town’s Master Plan

[A copy of this letter was sent to the Amherst Town Council, Planning Board, Planning Department, Community Resource Committee, and Town Manager.]

You may intend to improve downtown Amherst, but the plans you are creating will, in my view, horribly ruin the look and feel of downtown. The development of two downtown apartment buildings (Kendrick Place and One East Pleasant Street) do not include any affordable housing and lack adequate parking and setbacks. 

Ten years ago, the town’s Master Plan found that “about 53 percent of renting households and 18 percent of homeowner households are financially strained by housing costs” (meaning they pay over 30 percent of their monthly income on housing costs). Only slightly more than 10 percent (11.2 percent) of Amherst’s housing stock is affordable and eligible for listing on the state’s Subsidized Housing Inventory.” How many more residents this year are financially strained, even before the pandemic? 

The current 40R plan, which will relax regulations, seems to veer severely from the Town’s Master Plan in ways that will further impede low-income families from finding affordable places to live. The 2019 “Planning for Housing Production in Amherst” report states that the goals of Amherst’s proposed Chapter 40R regulations are to, among other things, “protect and enhance the character and quality of life in Amherst,” incentivize the development of affordable housing in Amherst (which the report says would incorporate affordability requirements of at least 20%), and incentivize development of more housing in Amherst — to bring down costs.

Really? The two five-story buildings the town approved, waiving existing regulations, have had the opposite effect. Kendrick Park and One East Pleasant Street, where (as of this writing Dec. 26th) studio apartments rent for more than $1,500 per month, contain NO affordable housing. This is unconscionable. How will future buildings, if the relaxed 40R regulations pass, be any different? Moreover, one of the proposed building designs, on page 50 of the 2019 report, includes only an eight-foot setback instead of the 15 feet considered adequate for pedestrian foot traffic. The diagram, “40R Incremental Development 2039,” in this report that envisions how downtown might look in another 19 years, includes multiple tall buildings. How is this protecting and enhancing our small-town character and quality of life? In addition, the 2019 report promises to promote greater walkability and allow “municipalities to establish Smart Growth Overlay Districts” and promote “carefully planned guidelines developed with community participation.” In reality, the proposed 40R violates many of its own tenets. In lieu of adequate community participation in setting these zoning priorities, the January 4 meeting, where the vote is slated to be taken, will apparently not allow  public comment 

However one feels about the two large buildings that have already been built, it is clear that the process violated many aspects of the 2010 Master Plan, allowing waivers of regulations in force at the time (flat vs. sloped roof; 8-foot vs. 15-foot setbacks; zero vs. 36 parking spots; and NO affordable units vs. some unspecified percent or number).

I beseech members of the community to flood the inboxes and voice mailboxes of members of Amherst Town Council, Planning Board, Planning Department, Community Resource Committee, and Town Manager with strong objections to 40R and future buildings that violate Amherst’s 2010 Master Plan and the 2019 “Planning for Housing Production in Amherst report.” 

Jayne A. Pearl

Jayne A. Pearl is an Amherst resident