Proposed Development at Atkins Corner Raises Concerns About Size and Traffic
Architect's rendering of a proposed three building mixed use development at Atkins Corner. Photo: amherstma.gov
\Report on the Meeting of the Planning Board, May 7, 2025
This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.
Present
Doug Marshall (Chair), Johanna Neumann, Bruce Coldham, Fred Hartwell, Jesse Mager, and Karin Winter.
Staff: Nate Malloy (Senior Planner) and Pam Field Sadler (Assistant)
There were 45 attendees in the Zoom audience.
Hearing Reopened on 140-Unit Mixed-Use Development at Atkins Corner
With the scheduled April 16 continuation of the public hearing for the 140-unit Archipelago mixed-use development at Atkins corner canceled, a new hearing was held for a special permit and site plan review. Kyle Wilson, representing Archipelago, again opened his presentation by stating that there is a need to increase housing in Amherst by almost 50% in the next ten years and that the only means of accomplishing that is through multi-family housing.
The proposed development on 4.9 acres off Gould Way and Lannon Lane adjacent to the Atkins Market would have one, two, and three-bedroom apartments and 12,000 square feet of commercial space spread over three four-story buildings. The proposal calls for 45 one-bedroom units, 68 two-bedroom units, and 27 three-bedroom units. To comply with the town’s Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw, there will be 17 affordable units: six one-bedroom, eight two-bedroom, and three three-bedroom. Most of the commercial space would be in the building closest to West Street (Rt. 116). Because of extensive wetlands on the property, the central portion of the site would be undeveloped. 187 parking spaces are planned, 140 for residents and 47 for the non-residential space.
The site is zoned Business-Village Center, which is one of the few Amherst zoning districts that allows a density of more than 10 units per acre. Because this site was previously an apple orchard, the soil is contaminated with lead and arsenic. The top foot of the soil must be removed before the residential development can be built. The high ground level and steep slope of the property also present challenges to development. Because of the associated wetlands, the plan requires approval by the Conservation Commission. A public hearing before that body is scheduled for Wednesday, May 14.
Wilson said the proposed buildings will meet passive house standards with the use of hybrid mass timber construction, solar panels on the roof, and all-electric utilities. Each residential unit will have a small balcony. Sidewalks will be constructed along Bay Road and to connect the property to Atkins Country store. A drive of pavers will connect to Rambling Road and the Upper Orchard.
Archipelago is requesting a waiver for 1.5 feet increased height of the buildings to 49.8 feet, largely due to the slope of the site, and for an increased setback from Bay Road to allow for the stormwater drainage system.
Concerns Raised About Adequacy of Parking and Costs of the Units
Planning Board member Bruce Coldham said he worried that there was not enough parking on the site and that the slope and wetlands would preclude adding more parking at a later date. He suggested that an arrangement might be made with Atkins to allow parking in the store lot after hours. Abutters voiced concerns that residents of the complex would park along Rambling Road. However, Wilson said he was confident that he would be able to lease the units with the available parking, and that there would be no need for occupants of the apartments to park at Atkins or on Rambling Road. “Our intention is to have all parking on site,” he said.
Karin Winter noted that the rents in other Archipelago buildings in Amherst made them unaffordable to families and that these high rates encouraged other landlords in town to raise their rents. Rents at 11 East Pleasant Street are listed as $3,570 per month for a two-bedroom apartment. Wilson maintained that the average home in town costs $5,000 per month in mortgage, fees, and taxes. He stated that these apartments will be rented by the unit, not by the bedroom, and that each of the other Archipelago buildings have a mix of people in them, except for the private dormitories on Olympia Place.
Jesse Mager advocated for more commercial space, but Wilson said that the area facing Bay Road was not appropriate for commercial development because of the amount of traffic at speed, and the steep grade along Gould Way limited the amount of space that could be made accessible by ADA standards. He said it was difficult to achieve the 30% nonresidential space required, and that the residential units would be subsidizing the commercial because of the high cost of new construction. Also, more commercial space would require more parking. Winter suggested consideration of small shops, such as those at Thorne’s Market in Northampton, rather than trying to find a few large tenants. Wilson said that this could be considered.
Major Public Concerns Regarding Size of Development
In public comment, people living in the area stated their support for developing housing on the site, but thought the proposed design was too large. Sherri Wilson said that this corner is the most rural part of Amherst, and that four-story buildings are inappropriate. She said that increased traffic was also a major concern, because it is already hard to turn onto Bay Road from Rambling Road during morning and evening commuting times, with traffic often backed up to Rambling from the roundabouts at West Street.
Paul Juris said he was in favor of the project, but had concerns about the increased density and what it will do for the quality of life for residents in the area. He noted that Rambling Road was badly in need of repair for both the road and the sidewalks.
Maria Kopicki noted that people living in this part of town will need a car to go anywhere other than Atkins or the Eric Carle Museum, and that one parking spot per unit was not enough. Gustavo Oliveira said that, with 32% of the units being one-bedroom, the proposed buildings are not addressing the need for family housing.
Ken Rosenthal said he hoped that the project would be marketed to those who want to live in town year-round and that rents would be adjusted to appeal to full-time Amherst residents.
Jennifer Hixon encouraged the Planning Board to listen to those who will be most affected by this project. She questioned whether the high-water table would support buildings of this size and voiced concerns regarding increasing traffic in the area.
Support for the project was expressed by Jerah Smith, who identified himself as a professional housing affordability consultant who works with towns across the country to make housing more accessible. He said, “I cannot express my stronger support for this project. There are so many communities I work with where I would beg to see a development like this come in. This is an exceptionally good project.”
Hearing Continued Until June 4
Town Planner Nate Malloy agreed that the existing traffic impact study needs to be improved to show the amount and speeds of traffic on the surrounding roads, not just on Gould Way and Lannon Lane. He wondered if the town could improve the traffic situation. Bruce Coldham asked Wilson if he would consider making the connection to Rambling Road one-way, so people can enter the property from Rambling but must exit on Gould Way. Wilson agreed to consider this option.
Planning Board Chair Doug Marshall said he had originally suggested that Archipelago consider erecting five-story buildings at the site, but he now feels that four stories is the most that the site can accommodate.
The board agreed to continue discussing this proposal at the June 4 meeting.
Preliminary Subdivision Plan Approved to Freeze Zoning for Shutesbury Solar Project
Attorney Tom Reidy of Bacon, Wilson LLC, representing W.D. Cowls presented a plan for a four-lot subdivision off of Shutesbury Road in order to freeze the zoning in case a solar bylaw is approved by the Town Council that would affect the plans to put a large-scale ground-mounted solar installation at the site. This is a provision under Massachusetts General Law (MGL) that protects developers from having to redesign projects if the zoning changes. The plan presented is the same one approved by the Planning Board last fall, but the applicant did not submit a definitive subdivision plan within seven months, as required by Massachusetts General Law. Therefore, Reidy is submitting an identical plan of four large lots with frontage on a cul de sac. WD Cowls has no intention of actually building this subdivision.
The plan asked for waivers on the sanitary sewer and water supply, since public utilities are not available at the site. Also, wetlands would need to be clearly delineated on a definitive plan, and a final plan would need approval from the fire department and Board of Health.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to accept the preliminary plan.
Planning Department Working on Many Zoning Issues
Malloy outlined the many zoning amendments and provisions that the Planning Department is working on. Some are also under consideration in the Community Resources Committee of the Town Council:
- Modifying the Accessory Dwelling Unit bylaw to conform with the new state housing law
- A solar bylaw for large-scale solar installations
- Changing three properties on Main Street from residential to neighborhood business to allow them to expand. This is especially important for the Amherst Inn, which would be allowed to have eight guests, as opposed to being limited to four.
- Creating a category for fraternities and sororities that have lost their affiliations with a university or college to set conditions to protect the surrounding neighborhoods (Two of the 10 fraternities and sororities in the general residential zone have already lost their affiliations).
- Creating a provision for temporary use, especially of farmland. This would allow for special events.
Other zoning changes under consideration are a potential overlay district in East Amherst, possibly using the provisions of 40R zoning, regulations for battery energy storage, a North Amherst overlay district, the results of the ongoing downtown design standards study, and modification of the inclusionary zoning bylaw to increase the required number of affordable units.
This planning board is a “ rubber stamp “ for big box student housing projects . I have yet to see them get in the way, of the over saturation of these projects, and listen to the public . In fact , they go way out of their way to accommodate student housing . Like allowing a dormitory in downtown Amherst .
Claiming that 140 parking spaces is adequate for a 262 bedroom apartment complex in this area of town is ignoring reality. The project as proposed could house upwards of 500 people, who would also presumably sometimes have guests visiting who would also likely be using cars. There is simply no way that this very difficult site can accommodate the parking needed, which means that it WILL spill out along Rambling Road (where many people are forced to walk on the pothole-ridden street because of the dangerous and impassable sidewalk). Additionally, most of the apartments/people will be at the two buildings in the northwest parcel while the vast majority of the parking spaces are in the southeast parcel, requiring people to park far from where they actually live.
This arrangement was also part of a previous plan that was rejected by the Zoning Board of Appeals last year and this was one aspect that was sharply criticized at that time. In addition to seeking a special permit for an additional floor/height and requiring variances for the woefully inadequate parking, this plan also seeks a BIG variance of the town’s wetlands bylaw. About half of the site is located within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone and the project would violate both the “no work distance” within 50 feet of the wetland (about half of that area would have construction) and would greatly exceed the allowable work in the 50 to 100 foot buffer zone (80% of this area would have construction). The Conservation Commission plans to open its public hearing on this issue as well as the stormwater management plan next week. Many of us who live in this area have been trying to get the developer and town boards/staff to understand that the project as proposed is simply too big for this site. We welcome development of this property and understand that Hampshire College has financial motivations to sell it. We are simply asking for the project to color within the lines of zoning and wetland laws, which are there for good reason. We would also like to see a more thoughtful approach to creating an actual village center, with more than a minimal nod to the commercial potential for this busy intersection that connects several towns. Hopefully, a more collaborative, respectful process will unfold and result in a project that will benefit all involved.
Sadly, this article and comments come across as typical useless objections by neighbors unfamiliar with how to oppose a real estate project.
First and foremost, read the special permit criteria in Section 10.38 at pages 103-105 of the Amherst Zoning Bylaw (online at https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/67932/Zoning-Bylaw-Jan-2023). Then study the project plans and application documents to see where those criteria may not all have been satisfied. Generalized objections not based on those special permit criteria are a waste of time, meaning you will be listened to but not heard and then you will be ignored by the Planning Board.
Second, hire experts. If you object on wetland grounds then hire a professional wetland scientist to plead your case before the Amherst Conservation Commission. If you have traffic concerns, hire a professional traffic engineer. You may need a civil engineer to study stormwater management; for example, did the project engineer use outdated precipitation data that may satisfy state stormwater standards but fails to consider increased precipitation due to climate change? Be prepared to spend thousands of dollars for experts, which likely means that you will need to get organized to raise the necessary funds.
Third, if as indicated in a prior comment a variance is needed, then study the application documents to learn if that can be granted by the Planning Board as part of the special permit proceeding or requires a separate permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. If the latter, opposition stands a better chance of success.
Thanks for the guidance, Michael Pill. They sound like good suggestions on how to oppose a real estate project and underline why low income, unempowered communities often lose out. You don’t have to disparage the advocates while doing so, though.
I still feel that the Planning Board is a “ Rubber stamp” to developers . I don’t really feel
that they have the backs of the Amherst Citizens.
I am an expert on observing how they have conducted themselves to the public ….
They did not allow further public discussion on the dormitory in town, when the we first became aware of this going down , after the vote .They didn’t feel that is was necessary.
One would think the planning board would understand the need to reinforce this idea: If you want more units than an apartment building, so you propose a mixed use, and then complain that you can’t include the 30% commercial on the ground floor (already reduced from the whole ground floor) that mixed use requires, then you didn’t earn a mixed use, and the planning board should say no. And if you want to develop a property that is largely wetland, so large portions of it aren’t buildable, so you need to jenga more floors onto the precious bedrock on the property, the planning board should say no. That’s how it should work, Amherst Planning Board!! It should not only work right when citizens spend thousands on paid experts! And people lucky enough to own a lot of developable land in Amherst should better respect the zoning that has been developed to keep the town balanced. It is now quite unbalanced, largely because the planning board doesn’t respect our zoning bylaws enough to stop distributing variances like candy.
One possibility is amending the Charter to provide that the Planning and Zoning Boards are elected rather than appointed by the Town Council. Then we would have members who represent Amherst residents.