AMHERST – For the second time in three years, a large majority of Town Meeting members agreed that a town bylaw should mandate that developers provide affordable housing in projects in which they are granted special permits from the Planning Board.
But like previous efforts to amend the inclusionary zoning bylaw, including a Planning Board-sponsored overhaul at the May 2015 annual Town Meeting, the vote on the change did not reach the two-thirds threshold necessary to adjust the bylaw’s language. The 100-61 vote in favor was eight votes short of the needed two-thirds.
At issue is whether a clause in the current inclusionary zoning bylaw, adopted in 2005, is being properly enforced. The Planning Board, bolstered by legal advice from attorneys at Kopelman and Paige, has interpreted that only when a special permit is issued for use, and not for dimensions, such as height of building or lot coverage, can a developer of a project with 10 or more units be forced to set aside 10 percent of the units for low- and moderate-income families.
This means developers of projects allowed by right which receive special permits are not subject to providing affordable units.
Vincent O’Connor of Precinct 1, who brought the petition article, said projects like Kendrick Place and One East Pleasant have cost the town much-needed affordable housing.
“Time has run out on all those people who want this put off to the future,” O’Connor said.
An estimated four of 36 units at the Kendrick Place, one of 12 at Boltwood Place and nine of the proposed 76 units at the under-construction One East Pleasant would be affordable under O’Connor’s interpretation of the bylaw language.
Maurianne Adams of Precinct 10 said the article would be an interim measure until the Planning Board crafts new language.
“We must wait no longer for this,” said Adams, who brought a similar measure to Town Meeting in fall 2014. Though it received a favorable vote of 111-79, it fell short of the needed two-thirds by 16 votes.
Adams said that the adoption by the state Legislature last year of a home-rule petition that provides property tax relief for up to a decade to developers interested in having affordable housing in projects should reduce concerns about the added costs to include affordable units alongside market-rate apartments.
“It is time to get this change made to our inclusionary zoning bylaw,” said Ruth Hazzard of Precinct 3.
But changing the special permit decisions would likely mean getting no development in downtown and village centers at all, said Geoffrey Kravitz, the town’s economic development director, describing the article as “rigid and unrealistic.”
Planning Board member Gregory Stutsman said that modifications requiring special permits are often needed for developments on the irregular lots in downtown and other areas where so-called “in-fill” development would occur.
In its report, the Planning Board wrote that this bylaw change “may discourage development that the zoning bylaw and master plan otherwise seek to promote, and could even prompt a legal challenge.”
The defeat came after Town Meeting voted not to refer the proposal to planners for more study.
Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.
