Kyle Wilson presenting to Amherst Planning Board
1 East Pleasant Street, the mixed use mega project proposed as a new anchor for the north end of downtown, jumped a major hurdle late last night with the Planning Board approving two Special Permit applications: allowing the structure to climb an extra five feet to a total height of 60', and modification to side and rear setbacks allowing the building to sit closer to neighboring property.
Each of the 3 sessions has drawn a large, mostly hostile, crowd
Complaints about the proposed development ranged from the aesthetic, branding the building overly institutional, or not having to provide parking for all 84 housing units, with none of those units set aside as "affordable," to the real underlying concern that has dominated any mention of any development anywhere in town: rowdy student behavior.
The ambitious project must still pass Site Plan Review at the November 19 meeting, but it's a safe bet now that Special Permits have passed muster.
There is however a 21 day appeal period for the Special Permits which begins after the permits have been signed and filed with the Town Clerk (sometime in the next 1-3 weeks), so the bulldozers will not be starting up anytime soon.
Archipelago Investments already built Boltwood Place, a 5 story mixed-use development in the downtown a few years back and currently have two other projects underway: 36 unit Kendrick Place, almost adjacent to this proposed 1 East Pleasant Street project, and Olympia Place, a 75 unit housing-only development near UMass specifically targeting, gasp, students.
29 comments:
I was a little startled to see staff from the Planning Dept handing out copies of the Bylaw to members of the Planning Board during the hearing.
Don't they have their own copies and wouldn't they bring them to a hearing?
Hi 6:43
I do have a copy at home.
I didn't bring it on Weds., because I didn't come from home.
Sorry to startle you.
--PB member
Yes, we all have our own paper copies, except for the board members that prefer to use the online version.
-- Another PB member
Hey PB Members -
Do any of you have your own opinions or do you just sit around and nod at each other? All those unanimous votes must get monotonous after a while. Parking problem? There is no parking problem! You are a joke.
I always wondered who was responsible for paving the bike path with glass. I also wondered who was responsible for putting up a power plant at Umass that never went online one day. I also wondered who was responsible for Umass football to go division one. Now I know who is responsible for ruining our town of Amherst. All for the profit of Archipelago. I will think of them the town manager,planner and planning board for pushing this project through. We will have to live with this travesty for a lifetime.
Yes, you will. So get used to it.
Dear 1:47
We work hard to reach consensus. That's not monotonous.
And apparently many of us read this blog.
--Another, another PB member
I won't tell.
PB members should be required to memorize the Bylaws so we don't spend precious tax dollars on paper copies.
What good are Bylaws anyways you just amend them and give variances at will.
Also a bit startled at the speed at which the PB members digested the conflicting legal opinions given at the hearing and came to a decision. Maybe it's just me but I'd need more time to sort it out.
The PB waived special relativity in Amherst; only general relativity holds now, and the payoffs pass through wormholes faster than the speed of light….
Actually they didn't give any "variances" to 1 East Pleasant Street, which have stricter requirements for enactment.
The Planning Board gave the project two "Special Permits". A third one was voluntarily withdrawn by the developers because they didn't need it.
A "Special Permit" to get around a zoning requirement sounds like a variance to me. A rose by any other name sounds like BS to me.
The PB had 10 hours to read Greenbaum's lawyer's opinion
I'll finish the sentence of 6:56; and one minute to make up their minds. In fact for all involved their minds were made up before this project was ever presented to them. They have been fed a lot of BS.
Dear Another Another PB Member -
Yeah, must be exhausting to rubber stamp everything that comes your way. Way to be outraged on the public's behalf by Archelago's misrepresentations that building isn't designed for student housing when its own contractor and architect advertise it as such.
Way to demand modifications to protect the public trust.
I repeat - you are all a joke.
The architect's and contractor's references are for Kendrick Place--that's a different project.
In any case, to quote Abe Lincoln:
"Don't believe everything you read on the web"
Finally, the PB was prepared to unanimously say "no" the Retreat's special permit requests--bet you liked the rubber stamp then?
I believe the Retreat project had more issues with some of the issues being environmental. The opposition had also hired lawyers and were more organized. This project hasn't had the scrutiny that it has should. Push it through deal with the problems latter approach.
Hi 10:37
I actually agree with you about the
scrutiny issue.
The problem is that the airwaves are cluttered with the usual cranks ranting about the "parade of horribles". It makes it hard to discern what the real issues might be.
Wrong, anon 1005 am
It was for One East Pleasant. Have the screen shots. If it no longer states that it's because it was just taken down.
Dorms have RA's on each floor. Thanks to the PB's incompetence, this is going to be dorm with zero adult supervision or accountable.
I repeat. PB is a joke. The process a sham.
1:22
The screen shots that you sent are for Kendrick Place.
There is no contractor for the carriage shop project, so I doubt One East Pleasant is on a contractor's web page.
Sorry that this seems like a joke and sham to you. I felt the same way about a project that was proposed for my neighborhood--and said so to the ZBA-- but the project ended up not being like "Clockwork Orange" after all.
Put some serious cash from CPA toward making 10 of the units affordable family housing; expect Richie Bob and his pals match that with their (tax deductible) private money. Contract with them and UMass and BID to pay those families as well, in exchange for the needed adult supervision. Not all students are problems, so this could tilt either way, but be sure there's a real adult on every floor, which 10 units between the two building would accomplish. Such measures could accomplish a variety of positive things for the benefit of the greater community - just letting it go in as private downtown dorm (frat house?) may make Phillips St look like heaven….
7:16
Those are really excellent ideas.
My personal favorite is the elitism among the NIMBYs. For example more than one of them said nobody is willing to live in a house without a "master bedroom" with "en suite" (sic) bath. Everybody I know shares a bathroom with their kids. So these people are all high and mighty with their big master suites and anything "less" impactfull should not be built. These are the same people saying "raise my taxes, I can afford it." Well, I can't afford it. And neither can 90% of the rest of Amherst.
***It's time for a new charter and knock these idiots off their high horses and out of town meeting. ***
And by the way the planning board has my full support in permitting this project. I hope that more projects come along and they ram them down the throats of the NIMBYS. Enough is enough.
Wanting a master bedroom is elitist? Not. Try you are a loser.
At $2900 per apartment, the least they can do is offer a room large enough to fit a double bed.
Hey Mr Elitist, suggest you target your venom at the developers. Only rich out of state students will be able to afford to live at One East Pleasant and Kendrick Place with the rents Archipelago plans to charge. And the so-called NIMBYs you detest are the same people who are trying to get affordable housing.
Wow. That's three times the mortgage on my house. 8 rms 2 baths.
Post a Comment