AMHERST — Continued concerns about the number of accessory dwelling units being constructed and permitted in recent months primarily for student housing are leading members of the Planning Board to explore whether Amherst could be exempted from aspects of the state law.
At least three dozen so-called ADUs are currently in some form of development in town. While some members are interested in limiting that development, the board is also renewing its examination of possible rezoning of land next to the University of Massachusetts that would be appropriate for developments to house college students.
The concerns about the state ADU bylaw were raised at the Sept. 2 meeting by board member Jesse Mager.
“These recent events are making it crystal clear to me that exactly what we worried about is happening: the ADU by-right is not being used for the purpose of the state law in our town,” Mager said.
Mager said the point of the law is to give housing opportunities for middle- and low-income residents and for workforce housing. That, he said, is not happening in Amherst, which is unique in the state in being a community where water use goes down in the summer months.
“It’s not thought about our situation, where every single thing built right now is student occupied,” Mager said.
Planner Walker Powell confirmed that staff is working on revisions to the town bylaw that will come to the Planning Board this fall. Those are aimed at ensuring that developers are in compliance with size limitations. ADUs are supposed to be limited to 900 square feet of living area for those that are non-owner occupied, while these can grow to 1,200 square feet if the owner is living in the ADU or the principal dwelling.
“I completely agree with this approach, and the approach can be made in such a way that doesn’t discourage ADUs,” said member Fred Hartwell. “It seems to me that there ought to be a way to get a little more control over this bylaw in terms of the unique population profile that we have in Amherst.”
Board member Bruce Coldham said the primary mechanism would be to ask the state for rules around owner occupancy.
“I think the lever that would make a difference for us would be to allow owner occupancy to be a stipulation,” Coldham said.
The town had previously asked state officials that this remain a condition, but now has to go directly to legislators to reiterate this appeal, Coldham said.
Others doubt there is any chance the state will adjust the law.
Board member Angus McLeod said he is open to looking at revising the language, but said his preference is larger by-right ADUs without owner occupancy, but also recognizing there is a great deal of frustration around town with what is happening.
McLeod said his problem with ADUs is that they are “incredibly inefficient” to build and supply the necessary housing. Instead, developers could be constructing much larger buildings and accommodating many more tenants.
“But it’s frustrating to me that many people who are opposed to ADUs are also opposed to other options, and essentially want UMass to solve the problem,” McLeod said.
UMass officials have repeatedly indicated expanding the number of beds on campus is not a priority, and McLeod noted that even if they had this commitment, any development on campus provides no property taxes for the town.
McLeod said he is also skeptical that the state would allow Amherst any exemptions.
Planning Board Chairman Doug Marshall said an owner-occupancy requirement would reduce the number of ADUs significantly.
“It’s unclear to me whether the reaction that I’m hearing in town is because they are larger than people expected, or it’s just the sheer number of them happening,” Marshall said.
Marshall said planners need to find more areas where student housing would be available, and possibly rezone more land. It could be easy to list parcels that could be used for fraternity use that would allow larger developments, similar to how the fraternity and sorority zone on Olympia Drive allowed the construction of Olympia Place, which had more than 200 beds, but was destroyed in a fire last November.
The ideal locations, Marshall said, may be along North Pleasant Street north of Fearing Street, including the Phillips Street neighborhood, and the east side of the UMass campus along East Pleasant Street, from Strong Street to Village Park.
Mager said campus-adjacent housing is appropriate and that developments could happen without affecting quality of life.
Old Amherst Media building
In other business, Powell told planners that the new owner of the half-acre lot at 420 Main St., Emerald Land Holdings, Inc. , which acquired the property from Amherst Meida in June, is interested in developing the vacant site.
The vision, which has yet to be submitted though conversations have been happening with planning staff, is for townhouse-style development, which would require a special permit.
The Planning Board and Local Historic Distirct Commission would both get a say on the development due it being in the Emily Dickinson Local Historic District.
