Overpowering Symbol

Kendrick Place: 5 story, mixed use (mostly residential) building opening by September

If the pro-development warrant articles #21 & #22 fail and the anti-development articles #24 & #25 acquire a majority vote (shy of the two-thirds required for passage) on the floor of Amherst Town Meeting Monday night, the shadow cast by Kendrick Place will have loomed large in that nightmarish outcome.

At the moment the building, unfortunately, is still ensconced in its protective exterior winter coat -- so it indeed looks a lot less inviting than it will two or three months from now.  Critics will argue it's downright ugly.

Those same critics point to perceived insider concessions bequeathed to the local developers, Archipelago Investments.  The Planning Board granted Special Permits that allowed an extra 10 feet in height and lot coverage pretty much out to the public street.

Since Kendrick Place is located in the Municipal Parking District no off street parking is required for the 36 units which will house 104 tenants. Such a building outside the MPD would require 2 parking spaces per unit. 

And since it is a "mixed use" building (some commercial on the 1st floor) the town's Inclusionary Zoning bylaw, mandating 10% of the units being "affordable," doesn't apply.

Throw in the recent $1.5 million state grant the town acquired for burying ugly above ground utility wires in and around Kendrick Place and you have a full blown conspiracy theory worthy of a Hollywood movie.  

Of course the other way to view Kendrick Place -- which will be a lot easier to do a few months from now -- is it represents the derring-do of the private sector, who were willing to risk the expensive development costs and work with local boards and committees to bring a desperately needed project to fruition.

While the beleaguered downtown businesses, who could use the walk-in traffic from those 104 tenants, will see Kendrick Place epitomizing the most powerful symbol of all:  hope.

NIMBYs Cast A Giant Shadow

53 acre Old landfill on Belchertown Road is nothing if not wide open

About the only interesting thing to come out of last night's Amherst Media live coverage of the local election was the interview of the Town Manager, who is not known for his extemporaneous public speaking skills, by former Select Board member Judy Brooks.

Bricks and mortar media reporters who cover the Town Manager should take notes.

When she grilled him about the proposed solar array on ye old landfill the Town Manager, finally, admitted the project is "dead."

Killed of course by nearby neighbors who filed a lawsuit against the town for violating an old provision with the Department of Environmental Protection not to allow anything on the cap of landfill except for passive recreation.

The state legislature, in order to stimulate the sprouting of solar arrays on old landfills, passed legislation to nix such provisions but it came too late for Amherst.

 Solar array on Allard Farms Hadley, just over the Amherst border

The Town Manager explained last night that the solar market had since changed and tax incentives were no longer as advantageous, thus making the multi-million dollar green project unworkable.

This after spending $64,827 for contract negotiations with BlueWave Capital.

Score another one for the NIMBYs -- at the expense of the common good.

Amherst Woods neighbors were a tad too close for comfort

If You Get Permission To Build It

Butterfield Terrace property impacted in oval,  Pokeberry Ridge underlined

A cluster of four properties on Butterfield Terrace, sandwiched between UMass and Amherst town center, could see an increase in housing density IF -- and that's a BIG if -- Town Meeting approves a citizen's petition article requesting a zoning change from the current RN (medium density) to the higher density RG.

Even with the zoning change, which requires a two-thirds Town Meeting vote, any development to increase housing units (up to 18 are possible according to town Planning staff but the petitioner put the number at 14) would still require a Special Permit.

Petitioner Mike Alpert told the Planning Board last week that most people in town don't even know Butterfield Terrace exists and the nearest neighboorhood street, Pokeberry Ridge, is 100 feet higher up, so their "scenic vistas" will not be impacted.

But that didn't stop neighbors from speaking out against the zoning change, citing of course the impact of noise from renters presumed to be, gasp, students.

Half the current housing on Butterfield Terrace is owner occupied.  Units requesting Zoning Change:  35,43,51,61

The petitioner was forthright about wanting the zoning change to allow for development, but did say they could end up owner occupied or senior housing.

 Only one of six housing units on Pokeberry Ridge is a rental

The Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend the zoning change to Town Meeting.

Planning Board Chair David Webber

Although, with the batting average the Planning Board has had with Town Meeting of late, that recommendation could do more harm than good.

A Debilitating Delay

Carriage Shops (bottom), Kendrick Place (top) both now owned by Archipelego Investments

This morning's Sunday Republican printed the breakdown for the $4,599,962 sale of the Carriage Shops, 233 North Pleasant Street, in the north end of downtown to Archipelego Investments.  The lions share of it ($2,812,300) went to original developer Jerry Gates, aka Carriage Shops LLC.

Glazed Doughnut Shop former location sold for $468,754

Loose Goose Cafe (rt) sold for $432,667 and Bob Ritchie Legal practice building (left) sold for $525,693

At the November 5 Amherst Town Meeting NIMBYs tried to sabotage the One East Pleasant Street 5 story mixed use development by changing the rules about Inclusionary Zoning via Article 5, which would have required 10% of the 80 or so rental units be set aside as "affordable."

The developers would probably have 1) walked away from the deal and/or 2) filed a lawsuit for an illegal taking.  Interestingly Bob Ritchie, who owned one of the outbuildings (sold for $525,693) told Town Meeting that if the poison pill zoning article passed the Carriage Shops would become a "broken tooth on the face of Amherst's downtown."

Now after Planning Board approval for the project and Town Meeting rejecting the Inclusionary Zoning "citizens petition" article a disgruntled nearby housing competitor filed a lawsuit against the town for allowing the badly needed development.  A sour grapes tactic that will cause another six months of delay.

Carriage Shops parking lot was plowed this morning, but no businesses remain

The Carriage Shops were already looking looking long in the tooth when One East Pleasant Street mega-development first started jumping over regulatory hoops last year.

Another six months of deterioration is an assault on our sensibilities. 

Damn Developers!

Kendrick Place, north town center (before the snowstorm)

The backlash over Planning Board approval of Kendrick Place, a 5-story "mixed use" commercial building with 36 units of rental apartments, and the much l-a-r-g-e-r One East Pleasant Street (80 rental units), which is already delayed by a nuisance lawsuit filed by a disgruntled competitor, has now taken a more ominous form:

Two poison pill zoning articles filed yesterday by Mary Wentworth designed to prevent any such projects from being approved in the future.

 Proposed One East Pleasant Street (also north town center)

Since both projects are located in the downtown "Municipal Parking District" they are not required to provide any parking, although the proposed One East Pleasant will have 36 onsite spaces available.

 Article #1 strike "residential" from parking exemptions in downtown

Under Ms. Wentworth's zoning article #1 developers would be required to provide parking for every single resident, and zoning article #2 gives a higher threshold of commercial space required (thus dramatically reducing rental housing units) for a "mixed use" designation and would require a harder to get "Special Permit".

 Article #2: increase % of commercial, require Special Permit from ZBA

Since these two Archipelago Investments, LLC projects are already approved, they would of course be grandfathered. 

A zoning article requires a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting, so the chances of these articles passing this coming spring are not all that good.

Most of the rational pro-development zoning measures that have come before Town Meeting have failed because of the high hurdle of a two-thirds super majority, but they almost always attracted a majority vote.

Now at least, the shoe is on the other foot. 

1 Is NOT The Loneliest Number

1 East Pleasant Street, a new downtown anchor on the north end of town center

5th time was the charm for the proposed mixed use five-story building with 84 residential units located on the north end of downtown, as the Planning Board last night, finally, gave Site Plan Approval with waivers for 1 East Pleasant, Archipelago Investments 4th commercial Amherst development in just the past few years.

 Kyle Wilson, Dave Williams (behind)

Determined opposition had switched tactics for this final meeting suggesting the Planning Board hold off giving final approval of the project until September of 2015. That way, they reasoned, nearby Kendrick Place with 36 rental units would be open and clientele demographics could be ascertained.

 Kendrick Place under construction next door

Only in Amherst do NIMBYs micromanage private developments right down to the target customers.

The vote to approve was 6-0 with 2 abstentions.  Since two members were not present at the original hearing that started w-a-y back on October 1st, they could not legally vote on the project.

 Building abuts sacred West Cemetery

The approval comes with a boatload of conditions but the developers thus far have been overly attentive to details so it's unlikely they will not keep up their side of the agreement.  The developers are also pursuing LEED-Gold certification, which also comes with a great number conditions.

 A couple dozen residents showed up for "public comment" period

The Planning Board showed extra concern for how the new building would be managed.  Archipelago responded that they are "developers not property managers," and they were in the final process now of picking a management company that would handle all four of their Amherst developments.

1 East Pleasant will have an on-site manager living in one of the units and a front desk will be operational during peak hours.   The lease will not allow rental by the room, only by the unit, and anyone not on the lease will be subject to sanctions.  

The specter of rowdy student behavior clung to this project like a wet blanket.  Fortunately with the town and UMass joining forces to reign in such bad behavior that concern is getting less and less valid.  Although hard to convince neighbors of that.

Wilson and Williams in the not-overly-hot seat before Planning Board last night

Kyle Wilson repeated stressed this building would be well-managed ... something to make the town proud.  The Planning Board unanimously agreed.

Noise & Traffic & Safety! Oh My!

 Atkins North, anchoring The Mill District to the east

Spouting the usual complaints the usual suspects showed up to the 11/19 Amherst Planning Board meeting to take on their usual target: developer Cinda Jones, President of the W.D. Cowls Company, the largest private landowner in the state of Massachusetts.

Fresh from their victory of helping torpedo The Retreat student housing project to the east of North Amherst center, costing the Cowls company over $6 million in lost revenues, this time they are waging guerrilla warfare against the other development on Cowls Road, The Mill District. 

After years of concerted lobbying Ms. Jones managed, finally, to convince iconic 100 year old business Atkins Country Market in deep South Amherst to open a bookend operation, Atkins North.  In a former 4,200 square foot cow barn no less, so you would think she gets extra PC points for recycling. 

The barn sits at the outskirts of a sprawling 13 acre tract of commercial space that was once served a 14,400 square foot sawmill.  Like everything else associated with W.D. Cowls, the sawmill was historic -- having been in operation for over 250 years.

 134 Montague Road with paved driveway.  Cow barn in red

The Planning Board is discussing Site Plan Review for the conversion of the cow barn to a new retail operation and the applicant is requesting allowances for live & pre-recorded music, seasonal outdoor dining, placement of a few signs identifying businesses in The Mill District and continued use of a paved driveway at 134 Montague Road for commercial deliveries.

 Cow barn renovation will maintain many of the original overhead trusses

Cow barn renovation will maintain pointy overhang

Virtually all the speakers at the Planning Board public meeting (continued until December 17) spoke against continued use of the driveway for commercial deliveries to Atkins North, even though it has been used for commercial operation for the Cowls forest related empire for hundreds of years.

Since Atkins North will be more of a satellite operation the only delivery trucks coming and going will be service vans and small box trucks making "just in time deliveries" from the main operation in South Amherst.  In other words, no big ol' 18-wheelers.

 134 Montague Road (which is Rt 63) farmhouse near Summer St and Cowls Rd

Neighbors, worried about safety, noise, unsightliness and blah-blah-blah, want the delivery drivers to go 75 feet further down the road and access the site via Cowls Road.  But anyone who knows truckers, knows they love shortcuts.

Cowls and Montague Road intersection 75 feet down from 134 Montague Rd farmhouse

And anyone who knows business -- especially small business -- knows how important signage is to getting customers conveniently to your front door.

Ms. Jones describes the small signs requested for Montague Road (one saying "Deliveries only"at her driveway entrance and the others -- on both end of Cowls Road -- for identifying businesses in the Mill District) as being "Critical for the success of the businesses in the Trolley Barn", a mixed use building just down the road from Atkins North.

The Trolley Barn, 68 Cowls Road, an apple throw away from Atkins North

Having such an iconic high-profile business like Atkins being one of the first to come into a new development is a double edged saw:   Should it fail, the message sent would be nothing short of catastrophic for the entire Mill District.

Amherst already has a well earned anti-business reputation.

Rather then rolling in stumbling boulders to appease squeaky wheel neighbors, town officials should be doing everything in their power to help ensure success.

These minor concessions requested for the Mill District, a commercial area that predates the founding of the town, are the very least they can do.

Well, besides shopping at Atkins after it opens.

Miss Emily Renewed

 Miss Emily and Lavinia

Although I'm sure it will not stop NIMBYs from attending the December 3 Planning Board meeting for one final pot shot at 1 East Pleasant Street, a five story mixed use (but mainly residential) development that will rejuvenate the north end of downtown, the last potential stumbling block seems to have been surmounted.

At last week's Historical Commission meeting the guardians of Amherst's historic past did not vote to oppose the (temporary) destruction of the Amherst Community History Mural attached to the Carriage Shops rear wall overlooking sacred West Cemetery.

Mike Hanke, Chair Amherst Historical Commission

Of course the mural will be reborn via the original artist, David Fichter and a crew of professionals  to assist, unlike the original that used citizen volunteers.  And this time he will not have work around ugly air conditioners jutting out from his "canvas".

 

The destined for demolition Carriage Shops abut West Cemetery to the south

Since Miss Emily was a bit of an introvert in her later life she would probably be amused at the turnout the Planning Board hearings have generated over the past four sessions on this age old controversy concerning growth and renewal.

 Amherst Community History Mural (The sun also rises)

Economic Czar Required?

Amherst property tax base is only 10% commercial, 90% housing

With the recent unanimous endorsement for Amherst to hire an "Economic Development Director" coming out of the year long Town Gown Steering Committee project, combined with the Town Manager's strong endorsement in his Letter of Transmittal to the Select Board for the FY15 budget year (which starts 7/1/15), safe bet the position will make it into the town budget in the next year or two.

Of course with the NIMBYs specifically targeting development, the position will be a hard sell at the annual Town Meeting.

While members do not have line-item veto the usual scheme is to move to reduce the budget by the exact amount of the targeted item and then in your speech say specifically what position it is you want cut if Town Meeting approves the $77,100 reduction in the Operation Budget.

Something like that requires a majority vote to pass, rather than the much higher hurdle of a zoning article, which requires the super-majority of a two-thirds vote.  

After the 11/5 Town Meeting, where more than a majority of members voted for a hastily crafted,  ill conceived zoning article to saddle developers with a deal killer "affordable housing" requirement, I'm not so sure anything associated with "development" can safely pass Town Meeting with a majority vote.

Members are also going to say the position is unnecessary because Amherst already has both a  Chamber of Commerce and a Business Improvement District.

And everyone knows, "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

#####

How they voted:  

1st Tally Vote was to refer the affordable housing article back to the Planning Board (A polite way of killing it).  That failed 83 "Yes" to 107 "No".   Thus the 2nd vote was an up or down vote on the article as presented.  That failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote, BUT did garner a majority vote 110 "Yes" to 79 "No". 

And yes, Town Manager John Musante (unlike previous town managers) did vote.  The right way even.

Inclusionary Zoning Zapped

Amherst Planning Board

After an hour and a half of somewhat contentious discussion, including a failed motion made by the Planning Board to refer the inclusionary zoning/affordable housing article back to them, Article #5, a citizens petition signed by 150 residents failed to garner the required two-thirds vote.

Although it did gain a clear majority 111 yes to 79 no.  The previous motion to refer, which would have only required a majority to pass, failed by a tally vote of 83 yes to 107 no.

Supporters described it as an "interim" measure just to cover the next six months while the Planning Board works feverishly to craft their own long promised inclusionary zoning bylaw. Opponents swore their allegiance to affordable housing but warned about "unintended consequences" whereby developers take a walk and no housing gets built.

 Select Board and Town Manager unanimously endorsed referral back to Planning Board

Article #5 would have had an immediate impact on the proposed One East Pleasant Street mixed-use project in the north end of the downtown. That 84 unit project is still before the Planning Board and they are seeking two Special Permits, one for extra height and the other for increased lot coverage.

Had article #5 passed any Special Permit, even for minor concessions, would trip the affordability clause, requiring them to provide 10 affordable units.

The Town Attorney suggested such a requirement could be considered an eminent domain "taking"  thus exposing the town to liability. Retired attorney and proponent of the measure John Fox told Town Meeting there's "always the risk of a lawsuit."

Amherst Town Meeting, via a dedicated minority, has turned down a bevy of zoning measures over the past ten years out of fear and mistrust over development -- especially if it involves student housing.   Which is why Amherst housing market is so overpriced and exceedingly understocked.

This time the high hurdle for passing a zoning article worked against the anti-development folks.

 Carriage Shops:  Proposed site for One East Pleasant Street project

Lipstick On A Pig?

One East Pleasant (most recent rendering)

After 30 years of attending countless public meetings, some of them somewhat heated, I can honestly say the Planning Board hearing of 10/22 was the most vitriolic in my long experience.

 10/22 Planning Board hearing crowd, mostly NIMBYs

Although I did miss the "neighborhood meeting" a few years ago concerning the now dead solar farm installation on ye' old landfill.




The letter written by Steve Bloom of Lincoln Avenue was particularly biting.  Interesting that he was not present to read it himself, which may have contributed to the overall nastiness.

That kind of rhetoric would never be allowed on the floor of Amherst Town Meeting (can't question the motives of individuals) so maybe Planning Board Chair David Webber will consider using his gavel when the hearing continues ...

 

David Webber (ctr) PB Chair at 10/22 meeting

Conditions Of The Deal

 North end of town:  Red headed bastard stepchild?

Mary Wentworth, who made her name in a losing battle for Congress 30 years ago, complained last night to the Planning Board about the recently announced $1.5 million grant from the state to bury utility lines in the north end of the downtown.

 Town Manager Musante extolling the virtues of development to Governor Patrick

She told the board, in speaking against a mixed use mega-development (1 East Pleasant Street) immediately adjacent to the proposed improvements,  "No one else had approved the deal, which is a BIG help to those who wish to profit off our town."

So I can imagine this new information -- that the "deal" has a string attached -- is NOT going to go over well with those who are concentrating fire at the 1 East Pleasant Street project and pretty much development of any kind.

Apparently the condition is the town has to "match" the grant by doing improvements at the adjacent  East Pleasant/Triangle Street intersection, which has been targeted for improvements for a quite a while.

Over the summer the Public Works Committee did vote unanimously to approve the idea of a roundabout at that intersection, but "only if it does not cost town money."

Triangle/East Pleasant Intersection (circled in red)

Last spring Amherst Town Meeting (who never met a development it liked)  turned down an easement proposal to take slivers of land to allow for the roundabout. 

Affordable Housing Hand Grenade?

 Boltwood Place, 12 apartments all market rate

Over 100 residents signed a citizen zoning petition that was handed in late this Friday morning before the high noon deadline for placement on the November 5 Amherst Special Town Meeting.

 Click to enlarge/read

The petition article would simply add 16 words to the current Inclusionary Zoning bylaw which would make it harder to develop irregular shaped commercial property for housing, especially in high rent districts like town center.

Currently a developer who owns property with a "by right" development capability can simply ask the Planning Board for minor concessions via a Special Permit (relaxed height limits or setback requirements, increased lot coverage, or waiving of traffic study requirments) and still be exempt from the inclusionary zoning requirements placed on developments of 10 units and up.

The problem with closing this "loophole" is the development cost of the project can exceed the profit potential and the devleloper simply walks away.

 Kendrick Place, 36 units all market rate

A project with nothing but market rate (or even above market rate) units still helps lessen the demand for housing in an overall sense thereby making it less likely for greedy speculators to buy up and convert old single family units to packed in student units.

And a market rate project would have a higher value assessment, paying the town more in property taxes and Community Preservation Tax Funds.

Had this wording been in effect three years ago it would have impacted Boltwood Place and the current project, Kendrick Place, now under construction. 

Carriage Shops proposed redevelopment, 78 apartments all market rate

Or, neither of them would have broken ground.  Which is quite possibly what some of the signers of the petition article have in mind.  The article will require a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting to pass.

The really interesting question is will this petition article impact the King Kong sized redevelopment of the Carriage Shops right up the street from Kendrick Place?