AMHERST — Zoning changes proposed by two town councilors would allow construction of more duplexes, triplexes and townhouses, and more conversions of existing buildings in Amherst, providing housing opportunities for what they term the “missing middle,” including families with public school students, retirees, service workers and college students.

For some residents, though, such a rezoning proposal, even after being modified following presentations to municipal committees and discussions with town staff, should be scrapped. A petition that has been circulated by and endorsed by various groups in town, including the Progressive Coalition of Amherst, calling for the Town Council and Planning Board “to reject the current slate of zoning bylaw revisions that seek to relax/weaken permitting processes, and eliminate abutter notifications, for duplexes, triplexes, town houses and converted dwellings.”

“We believe that Amherst residents want the town to be vibrant, welcoming, and diverse, that housing for residents of diverse ages, incomes, lifestyles, and educational levels is critical, and that zoning revisions need to be sensitive, logical, and fully understood in order to minimize negative unintended consequences,” the petition reads.

At Large Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke and District 2 Councilor Pat De Angelis recently wrote an opinion piece for the Gazette saying the petition paints an “inaccurate picture” of their proposal and pushes back against it, noting it “mistakenly argues that if revisions can’t guarantee the fulfillment of the desired goals, they shouldn’t be done at all.”

“Wanting to address the missing middle, as well as historically racist and exclusionary zoning practices, we recently proposed sensible zoning changes with the goal of creating more opportunities to build owner-occupied, affordable, and attainable housing,” De Angelis and Hanneke write.

At its heart, their proposal would streamline permitting. For instance, the first owner-occupied or affordable-restricted duplex on a property would be permitted exactly as are single-family homes, which don’t require a public hearing. Converted dwellings, such as garages or basements turned into accessory dwelling units, would undergo a site plan review instead of requiring a discretionary special permit — although the new rules would require abutter notifications.

The zoning changes would require more comprehensive conditions in some cases, such as design guidelines.

Despite the fact the proposed zoning largely requires new units to be owner-occupied, opponents say investors who make money off student rentals, characterized as an industry in town, will find both ways to work around this restriction, and means to turn more houses, and whole neighborhoods, into rental housing.

Hanneke and De Angelis, though, are aiming to add housing that people in Amherst have long said they want, although they add: “Unfortunately, zoning legislation like this can only encourage particular types of housing over other types; it can’t force someone to build what we want them to.”

A critic of the proposal is Elizabeth Vierling of Cottage Street, who said that if market forces alone drive development, the most profitable housing to build will house students, with no gain for those economically in the middle. That has been the case with the mixed-use buildings that have been constructed downtown for the past decade or so.

“The market will build where the profit is, and that is not housing for the ‘middle,’” Vierling said. “The proposed zoning changes are at best wishful thinking — hoping for ‘trickle-down’ housing,” she said, adding that councilor and staff time would be better served on other matters.

Influential business adviser Ira Bryck of Strong Street is among those who have signed the petition, arguing that what is being proposed is deregulation. Bryck said if adopted, existing problems would worsen, as there are outside investors paying above market costs to turn houses and whole neighborhoods into overpriced and under-maintained rental housing.

Bryck observes that there are already paths for owners in single-family homes, by right, to build a 1,000-square-foot accessory dwelling unit in their yards, but these are virtually nonexistent.

The sheer size of the off-campus college student population means that allowing market forces to drive development will only lead to more student housing, and no gain for those in the middle, Vierling said.

Hilda Greenbaum of Montague Road, a close observer of town planning, said she hasn’t signed the petition, but noted it would likely be cost-prohibitive for anyone to pursue construction of duplexes and triplexes due to the zoning change. But she also believes there is an enormous loophole for conversion of properties to non-owner occupied dwellings which haven’t goe through public scrutiny, noting that when she was on the Zoning Board of Appeals requests were made by duplex owners to amend their approvals so they could sell their properties and move from town.

Hanneke and De Angelis acknowledged that there is no guarantee their proposal would reduce pressure on housing stock or have unintended consequences, but that it does meet the master plan’s call for varying the available housing in town.

“What we do know is that our current zoning has unintended consequences of its own,” the councilors wrote in their commentary. “It does not encourage the creation of owner-occupied duplexes, affordable duplexes, triplexes and converted dwellings.”

Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.]]>