AMHERST — A proposed moratorium on construction of new multi-tenant buildings in downtown and a series of zoning changes aimed at protecting neighborhoods from the impact of homes rented to college students will be studied by the Planning Board.
Even with several members of the Town Council vocalizing skepticism toward the contents of what citizen petitioners are calling “Bylaw Proposals to Protect the Downtown and Our Neighborhoods,” Articles 18 and 19 are being forwarded to planners.
“I believe the residents of our town have been after something like this as long as we have been on this council,” said Council President Lynn Griesemer, who voted with the majority of councilors on Monday to send on the zoning proposals. “As much as this may not be the perfect thing, at least by referring it to the Planning Board, we put it with a public body, and that public body must deliberate in public and have a thorough discussion about this.”
The moratorium, which would be in place until revised design standards for the downtown are in place and a housing production plan is adopted, was forwarded by an 8-0 vote, with four councilors abstaining, while the other zoning changes, strategies to zone for livability, affordability and balance, were forwarded by an 11-1 vote, with only District 2 Councilor Pat DeAngelis opposed.
The petitions were presented by resident Kitty Axelson-Berry, who said Amherst has reached a tipping point, a “staggering and delicate imbalance,” because it is down to about 13,000 year-round residents.
“We’re asking you to prioritize housing for all people, both downtown and in our neighborhoods,” Axelson-Berry said.
She said that the pause on multi-unit buildings is needed until 5,000 more beds are brought to the University of Massachusetts campus, student housing is defined as it is in State College, Pennsylvania and the town can disincentivize limited liability companies from turning owner-occupied homes into rentals.
Of the 5,200 single-family homes in Amherst, 680 are rentals, and 137 are clearly student rentals because they are owned by real estate investors, she said.
District 3 Councilor George Ryan said the freeze on new construction should be “DOA,” adding that it’s a terrible proposal.
“It’s still a bad idea, it’s still entirely the wrong message we want to send,” Ryan said, citing the recent Way Finders and UMass Donahue Institute report that housing production across the region needs to ramp up, rather than be paused, and Amherst shouldn’t be responsible for a slowdown. The new mixed-use developments have also helped the town avoid a Proposition 2 1/2 tax-cap override, he said.
At Large Councilor Ellisha Walker, though, said the sentiment of the proposals resonates with her since a mass exodus of low-income families has occurred since the 1990s, and these will give time to shape the town to be more welcoming and friendly for families.
“It’s just about intentionality, and so I don’t think it’s a bad idea at all,” Walker said.
DeAngelis said the petitions usurp the master plan that involved hundreds of people.
“I’m trying to understand why you want to stop building large-scale developments, of
four units or more, and we need housing, we need density, we need to build where we can,” DeAngelis said.
District 1 Councilor Ndifreke Ette said he worries that the proposals are antagnositic toward students.
“I am saying that what I have seen and what I’ve read is not a welcoming community in Amherst for students,” Ette said.
Some aspects of the concepts, such as using the Hastings Block as a model for what buildings in the commercial districts should look like, bothered At Large Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke.
“This proposal basically says ‘throw that out and use the Hastings Block,’ my reading, of course,” Hanneke said. “Complete disregard of everyone who participated in the design standards public participation methods for the last two years.”
Hanneke also wondered about whether fair-housing laws would prohibit defining students.
District 4 Councilor Pam Rooney said she acknowledges that constituents have a right to bring forward the petitions, and understands a lot of work needs to be done.
“I’m very pleased to see action from the citizens,” Rooney said. “What it tells me, however, is we, the council, have not been bringing forward appropriate modifications of our bylaws and zoning to deal with the issue that is growing in town.”
“These bylaws, their time has come for the town to address this,” said District 4 Councilor Jennifer Taub. “So I appreciate that they have come forward.”
Taub said she believes people are desperate for getting a handle on student houses, and that all zoning changes in recent years have led to more student apartments.
“All multi-family that has been built with private money since I’ve been on the council and before, is priced for students,” Taub said.
Hanneke said she has crafted housing proposals and the council should be discussing how to amend bylaws to encourage year-round residents.
“This council has not been very receptive to councilor-written zoning proposals,” Hanneke said.
Axelson-Berry said the petitioners are open to friendly amendments throughout the process.
Prior to the council discussion, several residents submitted comments, both in writing and orally, advocating for the zoning changes.
“We cannot solve the problems created by students’ demand for local housing without taking steps that actually address the problem,” said Janet McGowan, a former Planning Board member. “Doing nothing means street after street will lose year-round residents.”
“In order to overcome the decades-long failure to build affordable housing throughout the country means we’re going to be under more stress than ever, and means that year-round residents are going to decline unless proactive steps are taken,” said downtown resident Barbara Pearson.