When NIMBYs Attack

Proposed mixed use development would replace closed saw mill (top center)

In Amherst no building project bigger than a dog house is safe from coordinated attack by concerned neighbors worried about the destruction of their neighborhood, even though some of them have not been living there long enough to really know the neighborhood.

In South Amherst, Butternut Farm, a "friendly 40B" 26-unit initiative, was bitterly opposed by neighbors, including a failed lawsuit that only served to delay the project an extra half-dozen years and increase costs to the non-profit developer, HAPHousing.

 Clark House, 100 subsidized units.  About to be sold to a "qualified Preservation buyer"

And the Clark House, the first six story building in town center,  was also fought over almost 40 years ago and would never have happened if not the for Amherst Redevelopment Authority, a quasi state agency with the power of eminent domain.

So I'm hardly shocked the usual suspects in North Amherst are now sharpening their pitchforks and fueling up the turbo charged torches to oppose the badly needed subsidized housing mixed-use proposal to help complete the Mill District vision.

Beacon purchased Rolling Green for $30.25 million ($1.25 million of town CPA $)

Ironically if not for Beacon Communities purchasing the 204 unit Rolling Green Apartments in East Amherst our Subsidized Housing Inventory would have fallen below 10%, so a Chapter 40B in the Mill District -- build whatever you want as long as it's 25% affordable housing -- would now be a slam dunk.

Mill District May E-X-P-A-N-D

(red) Trolley Barn left, Atkins North top center Cowls Building Supply foreground

Atkins North and the Trolley Barn could get some company in the near future in that large lot on the south side of Cowls Road behind Cowls Building Supply, currently home to the saw mill that closed in 2009.

Beacon Communities, who purchased Rolling Green Apartments with $1.25 million in town assistance in order to keep it on our Subsidized Housing Inventory, is considering a mixed use, mixed income rental development with commercial space on the ground floor.

Beacon would manage the residential component and W.D. Cowls would maintain control of the commercial space.

The town's Master Plan calls for development exactly like this in Village Centers and the last two housing studies done for the town indicate an across the board shortage of housing -- especially affordable housing.

Since Atkins North opening last year the Mill District has already established itself as a destination spot.

Ye old saw mill will be demolished

The infusion of more potential customers within walking distance of the current amenities can only add to the vibrancy of North Amherst.

Beacon Communities is still in the planning stages and will no doubt do community outreach before any shovels hit the dirt.

Mill District is within easy walking distance of North Amherst center

A Barn By Any Other Name ...

134 Montague Road, North Amherst aka The Mill District

Over the course of its 100+ year history almost everything made of wood -- which is to say the entire post & beam barn -- has been repaired and/or replaced on the big structure that's impossible to miss in North Amherst.

So is it still an original historic structure worth spending many times over new construction costs to preserve, protect and maintain the iconic view it provides to travelers passing by?

Over a year ago the Amherst Historical Commission thought so and ordered a one-year demolition delay, which expired back in mid-July.

But that is the extent of their power to preserve the barn at other people's expense -- in this case -- W.D. Cowls, Inc, the largest private landowner in the state.

Interestingly at the Historical Commission meeting last week discussing the last remaining carriage house contributing to the South Amherst Common Historic District, much was made out of the fact that over the years most if not all of the original structure had been replaced piecemeal.

The Commission decided not to even bother holding a Demolition Delay Hearing, thus the structure can be vaporized at any moment.

As could the historic old red barn at 134 Montague Road.  But that's not going to happen.  At least not before trying to come up with an economic reuse that justifies the high cost of maintaining the iconic image that so dominates the landscape.

Click photo to enlarge

 Barn (right)  is close but not attached to new Atkins North (note roof damage)

According to Cowls Vice President for Real Estate and Community Development Mollye Wolahan:

The demo delay has been over since mid July. We have no plans to remove the barn at this point. On the day of expiration we removed a dangerous window and a couple pieces of siding that we were prohibited from removing during the year-long demo delay. Barn is still being used as a commercial structure as it is warehousing company equipment and materials (though not on the leaky south third so much as before) as it has for many decades now. The barn is leaking profusely on the south third and an interior beam has fallen, a couple others are about to. The south third is structurally shakey. With the opening of Atkins, we have put a fence around the perimeter of the barn to keep the public at a safe distance from the structure.

Ms. Wolahan concludes optimistically:  "My hope is to start the public process this month — sharing information with the neighbors and starting the zoning process that can allow the barn to be reconstructed, retaining the same iconic image that is there today with an exciting new use to further support our neighborhood and the Mill District."

Barn currently hosts art project

North Amherst: Can't Stop Progress

 The sun also rises over entrepreneurial rebuilding

The renovation of a former cow barn for Atkins North is moving along at flank speed and may actually see satisfied customers before the end of August, in time for when the swallows, err, students return to Capistrano, err, Amherst.

Not that a chic operation like Atkins needs to rely on students.

 Helpful that Cowls President Cinda Jones husband can operate an excavator

Large windows are framed in the south wall

South east corner needed the most work

Adjacent abandoned barn is almost contigious

The immediate neighboring barn, however, may not be as fortunate as the cow barn.  Last July 22nd the Amherst Historical Commission placed a one year demo delay on the ancient structure, but no plans have been forthcoming for its revitalization.

W.D. Cowls President Cinda Jones would like to save the barn and is willing to lease it for $1/year for 20 years to anyone who can renovate it with a business plan that's complimentary to the The Mill District.  

 Roof is starting to collapse

And has plenty of holes

Otherwise, in the interest of public safety -- especially Atkins North customers -- the building will come down.  The clock is ticking.

Currently the barn screens the Mill District from neighbors along Montague Road

Atkins North Delivers

134 Montague Road

The shopping experience at Atkins North, a proposed bookend satellite operation of an iconic South Amherst mainstay business, will be a tad more pleasurable -- not to mention safer -- thanks to the Amherst Planning Board, who voted unanimously last night to allow commercial use of the driveway at 134 Montague Road for deliveries.

 Amherst Planning Board 12/17/14

The Site Plan Review, Special Permit permission applies only to Atkins North and limits deliveries to smaller type vehicles (no 18 wheeler semi-trailer trucks), so it's not a carte blanche approval for all future businesses opening in The Mill District.

Those businesses will still have to come before either the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals to get the same permission to use the more convenient access via Montague Road for commercial deliveries, something W.D. Cowls, the current owners, have done for centuries.

 Atkins estimates only 10 deliveries daily 

According to Planning Board Chair David Webber:  

This is a great example of two highly successful Amherst businesses, Cowls and Atkins, creating economic growth by providing much-needed services in North Amherst. Hopefully Atkins North will serve as an “anchor” tenant for further redevelopment of the Mill District. 

The Planning Board also voted (mostly) 6-1 to allow around a half-dozen Mill District commercial signs (some of them illuminated)  for the convenience of the general public being able to more easily find their destination. 

Cinda Jones President W.D. Cowls, Inc largest private landowner in Massachusetts

Mr.  Webber also pointed out the business signs may slow traffic as drivers will realized they are coming into a commercial zone and may watch more carefully for pedestrians and other vehicles entering or exiting the 12 acre emerging development.

Montague Road current traffic is 5,712 cars per day

As this is only the first step in the commercial revitalization of North Amherst, the former "dirty hands district."

 A not overly happy Louis Greenbaum

Building With A View

Looking north from above The Trolley Barn, North Amherst

The Trolley Barn, Amherst's newest mixed-use building, is ready for (full) occupancy after only one construction season, although many hurdles were overcome before first breaking ground.

Kuhn Riddle design, Integrity Development construction gurus

The $2 million 12,000 square foot three-story building will provide 4,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor hosting up to three small businesses.  

The upper two floors are divided into a total of four 4-bedroom apartments, two per floor (although Cinda Jones said she is in negotiation with a party who may rent the entire top floor).

 

 Recessed sprinkler (right), smoke detector (left)

Full sized $70,000 elevator, ready to handle furniture move in

 Since the building is greater than 7,500 square feet it has an elevator and a nifty sprinkler system that provides both form and function. The sprinkler heads are retracted flush with the ceiling until needed (should the beast come calling), and they then drop down to douse the fire.

Without the sprinkler heads sticking out, tenants cannot use them as clothes hangers, which drives the Fire Department crazy.  But it doesn't come cheap, as the cost for the entire building was $85,000.

Since Town Meeting did not approve zoning tweaks last year the building is limited to only two units per floor which means l-o-t-s of room (2,000 square feet) per apartment.

 Kitchen common area

 Each individual bedroom has its own private bathroom, with four bedrooms per apartment.  Rent is $800/bedroom.

Double Vision:  two bedrooms side by side

What light through yonder window breaks?

First development of many in The Mill District

Amherst's Donald Trump?

Cinda Jones, W.D. Cowls, Inc President testifies before Historical Commission 7/22

Leaving aside for the moment the dramatic difference in age, gender and, well, overall looks (especially hair), will The Retreat -- after it finally happens -- make Cinda Jones the "Donald Trump of Amherst?"

Umm, no.

Cinda Jones is the President of W.D. Cowls, Inc, admittedly the largest private landowner the entire state of Massachusetts -- but most of it is undeveloped woodlands.    The Cowls family kind of put the C in Conservation.

Her company has a purchase and sale agreement with Landmark Properties for $6.5 million to acquire 140+ acres in northeast Amherst, a small piece of their overall holdings.

Yes, if Landmark is successfully stopped by a swarm of angry NIMBYs chances are all but guaranteed the $6.5 million deal goes away.

But if The Retreat is built, it will have nothing to do with Cinda Jones.  Landmark, or one of their subsidiaries, will do the actual development (using local goods and labor when possible).

Yes, she -- or I should say her company -- is indeed a, gasp, developer:  The Mill District is an ambitious project that happens to include land the Cowls company already owns and wishes to recycle.

Ironically some of the same folks who packed the Town Room Wednesday night for the Planning Board hearing on The Retreat were also instrumental in the Historical Commission ordering a one year demolition delay on the Cowls barn at 134 Montague Road, at the gateway to the proposed "Mill District."

Resolving the "historic" barn issue is going to be an expensive proposition, and without that $6.5 million from The Retreat property, harder still. 

Nancy Gittleman at Planning Board hearing 7/30

Interestingly Ms. Gittleman posts her property on the UMass Off Campus Housing and Community web page but told the Planning Board, "I don't rent to anybody under 30."

North Amherst rental property (don't apply if under age 30)

Barn Blast

Ye old (125+ years) barn, 134 Montague Road, North Amherst

Another "historic" barn owned by W.D. Cowls, the largest private landowner in Mass, is destined for the dustbin due to age, disrepair and the arrival of Atkins Farms Country Market in a refurbished building only 35 feet away.

The Amherst Historical Commission could enact a one-year demolition delay but that's the extent of their power.

Three years ago the Commission did restrain Cowls from demolishing their trolley barn on Cowls Road,  but six weeks after the expiration of the one-year delay the barn came tumbling down after an attempt to shore it up using a backhoe. 

Rotting floorboards

The shortlist of reusing the (non rotting) barn boards include:  Donation to Emily Dickinson Homestead for a project to recreate a historically accurate barn that was once on site; donation to the Porter Phelps Huntington House in Hadley for a similar historic project; or simply reuse the materials in the upcoming development of "The Mill" all along Cowls Road. 

 

The Mill as envisioned by Kuhn Riddle Architects

Green Developments

Trolley Barn, Cowls Road, North Amherst

Resembling book ends, two three-story developments are almost in the same stage of completion. Amherst Office Park in South Amherst sports a new 30,000 square foot building and the 12,000 square foot Trolley Barn in North Amherst (on Cowls Road) both show off their vibrant green Zip system insulation on this perfect Spring day.

Amherst Office Park, West Street, South Amherst

Can You Hear Us Now?

Atkins Farm Country Market deep South Amherst

Since the founding of our country the "right to petition our government"  under the vital protection of the First Amendment has been a cornerstone of American freedoms.

The infamous -- some would say sacrilegious -- cancellation of West Side Story at Amherst Regional High School in 1999 started out with a petition circulated by an attractive 17-year-old that garnered 158 signatures in one day.

Of course a year earlier that same High School had 300 kids sign a petition to Superintendent Gus Sayer demanding reinstatement of off campus privileges so kids could smoke (presumably cigarettes).

The ancient tried and true petition approach has, unlike newspapers, transitioned brilliantly into the digital age.  MoveOn.org, a somewhat (sarcasm) left leaning organization sponsored by gazillionair George Soros, has made it as easy as eating apple to pie to start an online petition.

And you can tell it attracts a broad spectrum of petitioners -- not just uber liberals -- because currently Cinda Jones, a somewhat Conservative, has one gaining steam.

Her (naturally) business oriented petition seeks  to entice Atkins Country Market in South Amherst to open a satellite operation on the other side of town.  More specifically, in her about-to-be-built Trolly Barn, a mixed use 12,000 square foot commercial/residential building. 

Not one to take chances, the petition originally had a goal of 50 signatures which was attained within hours of going live, then reset to 100; and after that goal was quickly reached, reset again to 200.  And probably will be reset once more to 500 when that milestone is reached.

Interestingly North Amherst neighbors staunchly opposed to Ms. Jones other endeavor -- selling land for 175 units of student housing known as The Retreat -- have signed the petition.  So it must be a good idea.

At the very least each petition signatory should get a coupon for a free cider donut.  Or, perhaps, a used "Stop The Retreat" lawn sign. 

The North Will Rise Again

Trolley Barn:  12,000 square feet 3 floors, mixed use (Kuhn Riddle Architects)

North Amherst is on economic roll these days with The Retreat a high end 190 or so unit student housing enclave finally starting to move forward, and last night's unveiling before the Conservation Commission of the new-and-improved Trolley Barn, a three story, 12,000 square foot, mixed use commercial building set where a trolley barn once stood.

Original Trolley Barn Cowles Road North Amherst, built 1897

And yes, a trolley barn is where you store a trolley (or two), long since vanished from the Amherst landscape. Well, except for those imitation ones in the downtown.

The 4,000 square foot first floor will be commercial/retail, and management is hoping to sign up a breakfast or coffee shop,  or Atkins Farm type operation -- something that helps to build community.

The other two floors will be residential although since Town Meeting shot down a zoning density tweak, the individual units will each be 2,000 square feet, fit for a Donald Trump.

Location, location, location

Since Town Meeting did pass zoning allowing for greater height the building was redesigned, removing dormers along the roof thus saving costs and providing more usable space.

North Amherst, because of its industrial past, was once dubbed the "Dirty hands district."

Cleaning up quite well in the modern era.  

 

Previous design with stricter height limits (Kuhn Riddle Architects)

 New banner Rt. 116 North Amherst

NIMBY Backpedal

 What, no Frisbees?

UPDATED Friday morning with Cinda response to Anons

Now that the first eminent domain article failed on the floor of Amherst Town Meeting, mainly due to Finance Committee advice,  socialistic NIMBY zealots are getting a tad nervous with the other -- even more controversial -- eminent domain article, coming up for discussion Monday night.  Also unanimously opposed by our fiscal watchdogs, the Finance Committee. 

Amazingly they are trying to back away from the heavy handed use of eminent domain.  Since most red blooded Americans believe passionately in property rights (even in Amherst), they probably should have thought of that before placing the article on the warrant.

Note opening sentence

  Gerry Weiss Can we have a sane discussion about right of first refusal? I could be wrong, but I believe that when land is taken out of 61, the Town has the right of First Refusal. It's the law and it's not personal. And if my memory serves me, it's not even Town Meeting that decides on whether to buy the land, it's the Select Board in consultation with various committees and the Town Manager. So, no one can take this land against your will via the right of first refusal. As far as Town Meeting goes, again, they can't take your land. They can give authorization to the Town to commit a certain amount of money toward a purchase. That's what Town Meeting does as far as land deals goes - it is the money authorizer; the Town (Musante and the SB) has the final say on making an offer or taking by eminent domain a property. I'll bet a lot of money that the Town of Amherst will not take your land by eminent domain.

4 hours ago · Like

o  

Cinda Jones There are two questions on the table, Gerry Weiss:
1) Does 2/3 of Town Meeting support Article 43?; and
2) Does the Select Board, after receiving community input and advice from the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board, want to advantage its Right of First Refusal (ROFR) under Mass. General Laws, Chapter 61?

These are two completely different questions.

(You say this is "not personal," but Save Cushman supporters have made this very personal by making groundless complaints to the Department of Environmental Protection and Amherst Conservation Commission on our logging jobs approved by the MA Department of Conservation; engaging in daily public harassment of our young forester; making anonymous public personal attacks on me; and committing vandalism at my brother's retail store.)

The Save Cushman group's Warrant Article 43 http://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22485) asks if the Town will vote "to acquire from WD Cowls, Inc., or their successors by Eminent Domain, purchase, gift, or otherwise in fee simple as a conservation restriction, easement, or other interest therein..."
Regardless of what Warrant Article 43's supporters now claim they meant, Article 43 expressly authorizes the town of Amherst to take land by eminent domain against the will of the owner. If its advocates do not want that legal authority, then the eminent domain language should be stricken from Article 43.
Unlike in Article 43, under ROFR the town has the option of, within 120 days, taking over a Purchase and Sale Agreement. The purchase and sale contract being considered by the town today as a bona fide offer has an immediate $50K deposit due and a purchase price of $6.5 million, with a closing within 2 years. This contract is for purchase of the land. It’s not for a CR.
Under the ROFR the town can't do what the Warrant Article 43 asks unless it uses Eminent Domain. If the town uses its ROFR to buy the property under the contract terms, it can't say, "we want to buy a CR" (a CR is not for sale) or "we want to fund raise for a while and then buy 70% to conserve and 30% when we get that money and then on 30% we will develop something the community wants but not student housing."
In conclusion, Gerry, to answer your questions, yes the town can authorize the expenditure of $1.2 million, but the only way Save Cushman can do what they want is through a hostile Eminent Domain taking of Cowls' land. I'm not a willing seller and I will not under any circumstances sell a Conservation Restriction when I have a contract to sell the entire property for $6.5 million, providing much needed student housing in a cluster development that permanently preserves a large portion of the property.

Response from Cinda to Anons 5/30 4:47 &  3:59

Here are some facts that should help answer your questions a paraphrase as:  Would we be seeing the Retreat proposal (for a student-occupied residential subdivision in the woods) at this time if we had we passed some of the several recent Village Center zoning change proposals that would have allowed more units in existing already-built areas? 

According to the just-released Amherst Residential Market Demand Assessment Amherst’s household growth has lagged behind other Pioneer Valley towns with less than 1% growth between 2000 and 2010 but during this same time period the town’s population increased nearly 3,000 people – all college students.  The report states that “the lack of new residential development (particularly to support the increase in student population) has led to” several serious problems including neighborhood home to rental conversions and serious affordability issues.

According to the March, 2013 released Housing Production Plan for Amherst:

-        In the 50 years between 1960 and 2010 Amherst’s population grew 176% and our housing only increased 125%. 

-        59% of people living in Amherst are college students. 

-        Student competition for scarce rental units is driving up costs and making Amherst unaffordable for families, seniors, and town employees.

-        More than half of our housing units – 54% - are renter-occupied.

Way more than half of these - 3,300 of 5,400 units - are occupied by students. 

-        Amherst’s Master Plan was quoted in the Housing Production Plan, identifying as a key objective: “supporting the creation of taxable student housing that will lessen the pressures on residential neighborhoods.”  The Master Plan directs the location of such housing to existing village centers, on town water and sewer. 

People have said “UMass students should be living on UMass land.” 

Well… UMass tried to gift the town the Gateway corridor for private development of student housing on what’s now UMass property.  But we said no.

Folks have said “Cushman is the wrong place.”

But we said no to JPI building 400 units on the Hadley side of Route 116 and then “No” to the Hope Church building on land near the University and existing multi-unit rentals. 

We said “No” three times to re-zoning proposals that encouraged infill at the town’s existing village centers of Atkins Corner and North Amherst. 

Amherst is at least 10% below its housing needs.  Our recent and future growth have to go somewhere.  Where do we want it?  If we don’t decide, the market and existing conditions will.

Antidotally, I can tell you that over the past 12 years I’ve had at least a dozen student housing developers approach me looking for appropriate sites for well-managed student housing developments.  Their models were all apartment style or high rises.  There is no place in Amherst that’s not already built where we allow this. 

In October 2012 I received my first call from Landmark.  I was just getting out of my mouth “yes I know there’s huge demand and need for this housing, but there’s no place available that’s zoned appropriately in Amherst and zoning change requests prove impossible lately” - when Jason said Landmark’s model is a gated residential subdivision of cottages – that he was looking for land zoned for residential homes.  I thought “Holy cow.  Somebody finally figured out how to do it.” And the deal was made pretty quickly. 

My answer to your question is “Yes.”  Had the Village Center rezoning passed, or had we zoned some place in town appropriate for more units, and specifically some places appropriate for student housing, there would be a lot less demand for residential subdivisions in the woods. 

Demographics are changing.  Seniors (the likely fastest growing population after students) want to live in Amherst’s Village Centers where they can walk or bus to restaurants or shops.  Young folks starting out in the work force enjoy a more in-town experience too.  We can’t change the fact that more than half of all renters in Amherst are students, but allowing more units of housing in Village Centers will generate a healthy mix of seniors and professionals as well.

Until Amherst stops saying “NO” to every Town Meeting zoning change proposal that would allow more units in sensible locations, there will be development people question in locations where it’s allowed.  

Cinda