HELP STOP THE THANKSGIVING COUP!

Dear Neighbors in District 3!! (This is a slightly amended version of what was sent out this morning, which had a draft-letter from Jennifer Taub as opposed to the actual letter (below) that she sent to the Town Council this morning.). Please delete the prior message and use this one.

HELP STOP THE THANKSGIVING COUP!

PLEASE.  We need to SHOW UP NOW.  All residents need to SIGN ON to the ZOOM MEETING TONIGHT (link below) and RAISE YOUR HAND TO MAKE A (short) COMMENT. (Submitting comments on the website doesn’t hurt, but they are buried and likely not read, especially not by the people who need to hear them.)  Come and show up in force at the Town Council meeting Monday November 29th at 6:30. All are needed to sign up for and join in the public comment to prevent zoning measures from being passed without the proper review, sign offs, and public process. 

Can we get 50 people there (waiting around till Public Comment is allowed!!!?)

 Extra meetings have been jammed into our schedules between now and the end of the year—taking away family time during the holiday for both Town Staff, Town Councilors, and concerned citizens. No concern has been given to due process.

AND WHY is there no time for standard procedures, sign-offs, and proper review?

Is it because the Town Councilors proposing these measures were voted out of office by their districts? Is there an attempt to make an end-run around representative government?

We must stop the attempt to push these through before the newly elected Town Council is seated on January 3rd.

Read the messages below (from me and other neighbors) which give you the facts and details that are being ignored. Let concerned and informed residents be heard and not pushed aside. The Town Council is supposed to serve the best interests of the people of Amherst, not just a self-selected few.

 Sincerely,

Dorothy

Pa…@amherstma.gov

================================================

 Virtual Meeting: https://amherstma.zoom.us/j/89736838094 

More comments from Dorothy (followed by written comments by 5 neighbors, also in the attached file)

Each amendment has appeared in so many shapes and sizes that it actually is impossible to keep track, the aim is to confuse and intimidate the public.

New reports have been rushed and added to the meeting materials in the middle of the Thanksgiving Holiday leaving Town Councilors no time to read or digest them.

Planning Board reports have been filed that have not been seen in final form or signed off by the Planning Board.

Extra meetings have been jammed in the middle of family time and this one is scheduled during Hannukah.

One major push is to get the Zoning changed for a Parking Overlay on the the town owned part of the CVS parking lot to allow a garage that would not be allowed there in the present residential zone (RG), would not occupy all available space if it were rezoned business light (BL)–an appropriate transition area between a major business zone and a residential area. No parking studies or traffic studies have been made of this present proposal, yet we could get a four-story garage with no set back on 3 sides, open 24 hours with noise and lights destroying the sleep of the residents feet away.

This new planned structure is so disliked by local voters that the town councilors proposing it were both voted out of office by their districts. That’s what representative government if about.

The proposed garage is handy for the new downtown dorms that provide almost no parking because of the Municipal Parking District, so that it is likely that many spaces could be rented to long term tenants who live in those new buildings, and in reality, provide less parking for the town than exists now in the underused town owned part of the CVS parking lot.

Historic buildings, the Local Historic District, the narrow one way street are not suited for in and out traffic from a large parking structure; all are being ignored as all protections are being removed. Is the next step the destruction of historic residences on the street? Or is it just the destruction of the character and ambience and history of Amherst that the Charter promised to honor?

We are told to ignore all this because the garage will not be built with town funds. As Homer says, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” BEWARE OF THE TROJAN HORSE!!!  It did not bode well for the Trojans, and it won’t turn out well for Amherst.

This is just one of the many zoning items on Monday night’s agenda. Among other zoning amendments is one parking in general, and one on a part of the mixed-use building bylaw. This has been a moving target on one part of the bylaw, a part of what I call the slice-and-dice approach—break amendments up into little parts, change one here, another there, and end up with Frankenstein of stitched together parts. This part is not ready.

I REPEAT:  If we are going to stop this rush to bad judgement, we need as many people as possible to speak up and stop these items from being pushed through before the new Town Council is seated. Read the messages below which give you the facts and details that are being ignored. Let concerned and informed residents be heard and not pushed aside. The Town Council is supposed to serve the best interests of the people of Amherst, not just a self selected few.   –DSP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Town Residents’ Comments: K. Rosenthal pp 1-2; Rani Parker pp 2-4; Muspratt pp 4-6; Taub pp 6-8; McGowan pp. 8-11. (appended here and in attached file–scroll way down)

Amherst’s Own “Phantom Tollbooth”

Kenneth Rosenthal – November 28, 2021

<kenrosen…@comcast.net>

 Norton Juster, Amherst’s late, great author, is famous for his fantastic story, The Phantom Tollbooth.  It would amuse him to know that now Amherst has its own phantom tollbooth. Well, not exactly a tollbooth.  It’s a phantom parking garage.

This North Prospect Street garage does not exist in real life. Nelson/Nygaard, the planners whom the town paid to study Amherst’s parking needs, didn’t see it.  Their 2016 report of more than 90 pages concluded that Amherst has sufficient parking, just lacks good public messaging to let people know where to find it. They said Amherst “actually has a surplus of 1,200 spaces at peak demand”. (Emphasis is theirs.)

The Downtown Parking Working Group didn’t see a parking garage, either.  They were so pleased with Nelson/Nygaard that in January 2019 they asked the firm to continue working on a parking management plan for Amherst.  The DPWG’s November 2019 report based on N/N’s Parking Implementation Strategy never mentioned a parking garage in its parking recommendations to the Town.

A new parking garage does exist in virtual reality, in the minds of a couple of expiring Town Councilors, recently voted out of office.  Actually, at first they would not admit to seeing it either, asking for the rezoning of a single plot of land just in case.  They never asked for a study to determine if a garage were needed and where in Amherst would be the best place for it.  But then they had a vision and now see it on North Prospect Street, fronting a neighborhood of historic residences.

The Amherst Planning Department didn’t have a new garage in its sights, either, when the year began. Now, pressed by the Councilors, it seems to suggest that a parking garage on North Prospect Street might be okay, but admits it never studied the matter.  The Minutes of the Town Council’s Community Resources Meeting on October 26, 2021 show that, when asked what sites for a parking garage the Planning Department considered, Senior Planner Nathaniel Malloy said “looking at other sites is not what [the Town’s planners] were asked to do”.

The two Town Councilors whose proposed rezoning led to their election defeat want the lame duck Council to rush rezoning before the new Council takes office in January.  But there’s no evidence to support their proposal, and certainly no hurry to do so.

Norton Juster’s phantom tollbooth is a gateway to the imagination and to endless possibilities.  Our Councilors’ phantom garage will only lead us to traffic congestion and the deterioration of a valuable neighborhood. The fate of Amherst’s phantom garage may be resolved before Christmas.

###

Kenneth Rosenthal lives on Sunset Avenue in Amherst.  He was Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals and of the former Development and Industrial Commission, and a member of the Select Committee on Goals for Amherst.

 ==================

From: Rani Parker <ranip…@gmail.com>

Date: November 28, 2021 at 2:21:43 PM EST

Subject: Meetings planned for December

November 28, 2021

To Members of the Town Council

I am writing to express my concern about rushed meetings regarding the matter of the proposed zoning change to accommodate a garage on North Prospect Street. However, it’s not just the North Prospect Street parking lot. There appears to be an aggressive effort to push through a number of zoning changes over four meetings of the Town Council during the month of December – an important period for religious reflection and family connection for many of us. During December we celebrate Hannukah, Christmas, Kwanza, Bodhi Day, the day of Immaculate Conception, Day of our Lady of Guadeloupe, Zarathosht Diso, and likely others represented among the residents of Amherst. This aggressive agenda forces us to choose between our religious and family obligations on the one hand, and our commitment to engagement in local policy on the other.

We have not yet been presented with any data supporting the proposed changes as beneficial to the citizens of Amherst. We have not heard anything of other experiences, such as Northampton’s garage, which remains largely empty while complaints persist about the lack of parking. There is no urgency for any of these issues that are being voted on in a hurry. No lives are at stake. I am appealing for this aggressive schedule to be cancelled and letting the new Town Council, including those newly elected, have the opportunity to take up these issues with full and proper study and review.

Some of the small pieces do concern me. The proposed parking garage will be right next to the second oldest house in Amherst. It will abut a historic district on a small street with homes recognized on the national register of historic homes. It will take away the opportunity for mixed income housing in a prime part of downtown, or for a green space, or maybe even the library extension, which would protect the existing old trees and garden and create a green pathway.

The proponents of this agenda have been voted out of office and should be holding transition discussions with the newly elected, rather than pushing through an agenda that is not well-studied or reviewed. All the changes proposed are small pieces that are not connected to a vision of Amherst, and if they do, the vision is not clear to anyone, or is simply not shared in public.

Why is all this happening? I have no idea. What do they want to achieve? Who is “they?” What is this overwhelming goal that requires bending procedures and running over the people whose interests they should be representing? Why aren’t we talking about mixed income housing? About conservation? About green spaces and a walkable downtown? Why is the accommodation of cars more important than our youth, or our housing needs or our physical environment? I confess that after months of discussions and hearing many theories, I don’t know why.

In the public meetings there has not been any discussion of any facts. There is no discussion, no debate, no information. I have watched citizens come forward and make informed comments, but consistently, there is no response. We have a right to transparency. That means information should be made accessible to us in a format that is understandable and that enables us to participate effectively in civic processes. We expect our elected representatives to be responsive to our comments and questions – we don’t need agreement; we need factual information and rationale for decisions.

My perspective is one of a relatively new resident. I moved to Amherst in early October. Since July I have been participating in public meetings on the issue of converting an area zoned as “residential” into an “overlay zone,” which means that all zoning restrictions such as setbacks do not apply. Why? To build a 4-level parking garage in a residentially zoned area. My expectation was that my elected officials at the time, one of whom was a proponent of the garage, would email me back with information about why this is needed. But he never responded. Neither did any official at any public forum.

To minorities like myself, this type of response is very familiar. We know about being made invisible. A non-response, non-engagement, not acknowledging a person in the presence of others, is an old and nasty strategy. But this is not about me alone. In this case residents of Amherst are being made invisible by not being listed as present while on a public zoom call, and not being able to be seen when we speak. We are all invisible when our comments, questions and other input goes unrecognized, as though these comments were never made to begin with. Still, we have spoken with our votes.

Please use this month of December to inform and prepare the newly elected representatives so there can be a smooth transition of the functions of government. Consider changing procedures to make us visible. For those who’ve had their time, note that the voters have spoken. Please respect that. Mr. Ross issued a press release where he expressed his confidence in the newly elected members. That spirit is what we expect, and I hope he and others will use this transition period to orient and assist new electees to do their work with whatever information and perspective they have to offer. That is the purpose of transition. Please let us celebrate our holidays with families and without distraction by matters that can wait. As for the Amherst of the next few years – we will not be defined as a “destination parking structure.” Amherst is already a destination historic town, listed in travel books for its history, natural beauty and academic institutions. That’s the Amherst I’m happy to support and help make even better.

Rani Parker

===============

From: Suzannah Muspratt <suzanna…@gmail.com>

Date: November 28, 2021 at 3:47:33 PM EST

To: “Citizens for Better Planning (CBP)” <citizens-for-bet…@googlegroups.com>, Dorothy Pam dorot…@gmail.com & the Town Council

Talking Points: problems with the Parking Overlay Zoning Amendment (proposed overlay to permit construction of a parking garage on the town-owned lot next to the downtown CVS parking lot)

1)     The need has not been demonstrated.  Parking studies by consultant Nelson/Nygaard in 2016[1] and 2019[2]concluded that Amherst does not have a shortage of parking downtown, although they acknowledge that there is a “perception” of a parking shortage.  They recommended a number of steps to address this perception problem, which have not been pursued.  They stated that building a parking garage should only be considered after these other measures had been tried and utilization rates routinely exceed 85%.  Use of the town-owned lot next to the CVS parking lot (Parcel 14A-33) has been documented as declining each year since 2015.  No new studies of parking needs have been conducted post-Covid.  (The Nelson/Nygaard parking studies have not been included in the Packet for the Council meeting on Nov. 29)

2)   It allows too big a building.The proposed overlay zoning would permit a parking structure  with zero setback on the two long sides and the rear of the lot.  It permits 95% coverage of the lot.  It would allow a building that is 40 ft. tall to the top of the parapet along North Prospect (taller than that by several feet at the far end of the lot, which slopes downhill).  No other zoning district in Amherst allows no side and rear setbacks. Stair and elevator towers and solar panels on the roof would not be counted within the 40 feet, meaning that the structure overall could approach 52 feet in height along North Prospect and close to 60 feet at the North Pleasant Street end of the lot.  This would permit construction of a four-level garage (despite assurances from the sponsors that only three levels would be contemplated) that would potentially be taller even than the new buildings in the B-G zone.  Such a massive structure would be out of keeping with residences in the Local Historic District along North Prospect Street and the historic rectory of St. Brigid’s Church, which abuts the lot to the east.

3) Traffic impacts have not been considered.  Access to Parcel 14A-33 is by a tight passageway from North Pleasant Street or via small residential streets like Cowles Lane, Hallock and North Prospect Streets, two of which are one-way, and all of which currently offer street parking that might have to be removed to handle the increased traffic to and from a parking garage (reducing the net benefit of a garage).  The parcel is adjacent to the parking lot for the CVS store (Parcel 14A-34), which receives multiple daily truck deliveries and houses dumpsters that must be serviced.  Currently, the egress from Parcel 14A-33 crosses the CVS lot, and the two lots share a single curb cut.  Big trucks can turn around, using the two adjoining lots.  No analysis has been undertaken of the impact of a garage on the residential neighborhood, the CVS store’s parking, or downtown traffic patterns.  Other potential sites such as the town-owned lot on Amity Street and an expanded Boltwood Garage, have not been studied to see whether they offer easier access and fewer adverse impacts on neighboring properties.

============

TO:                 Members of Town Council

FROM:           Jennifer Taub, 259 Lincoln Avenue

DATE:            November 29, 2021

SUBJ:             Map 14A, Parcel 33 Rezoning, North Prospect Street

In response to the following agenda item on Town Council’s November 29, 2021 agenda – Official Zoning Map – Map 14A, Parcel 33 Rezoning, North Prospect Street – I would like to respond to some of the assumptions upon which the siting of the proposed parking garage is premised; assumptions which are not borne out by the facts on the ground.

The surface parking lot at Map 14A, Parcel 33 is under-utilized, especially at night

At the October 20th Planning Board (PB) meeting, in response to a N. Prospect Street resident expressing concern about late night noise and car lights from a parking garage on a narrow residential street, one PB member commented that residents are already dealing with car lights and noise, since they live across the street from a parkinglot.

The PB member’s response reflected an assumption that pedestrians and cars are regularly going in and out of the Town owned lot behind CVS (Map 14A, Parcel 33). In fact, that parking lot rarely has more than a handful of cars (many spaces remain empty), and almost no cars park there at night. Which begs the question of why the need for a parking garage at a location where the existing surface lot is under-utilized.

Maintaining a “transition zone” between residential and commercial districts

At the November 16th CRC meeting, Chair Mandi Jo Hanneke stated that she doesn’t consider N. Prospect Street residential, but rather a “transition zone.” Personal perception aside, as a matter of record, N. Prospect Street is in a district zoned General Residence. With the exception of the CVS lot and Map 14A, Parcel 33 (neither of which house any structures), every address on N. Prospect Street is a residence. North Prospect may be in close proximity to commercial activity, but it is – in fact and in function – a residential street located in a General Residence district.

If one is receptive to Map 14A, Parcel 33 serving as a transition zone, then it should be rezoned from RG to B-L (Limited Business). In fact, some residents on N. Prospect Street (as well as the surrounding neighborhood) were open to changing the zoning designation from RG to B-L to allow for a transition zone between the residential neighborhood and the General Business district. In response, we were told that – for the purposes of a parking structure – parcel 33 could not be rezoned from RG to B-L, because the lot coverage required for a garage exceeds the permissible lot coverage in Limited Business districts. Which is exactly the point – municipal parking garages do not belong on residential streets or in transition zones between RG and BG districts. For this reason, Amherst determined that the dimensional requirements in Limited Business districts would not allow for municipal parking garages since both residential (RG) and transition (B-L) districts are not the appropriate locations for such facilities.

A Parking Facility Overlay District allows for greater lot coverage than is even permitted in the General Business District

The sponsors of the parking garage claim that by creating a parking facility overlay district they are being responsive to the neighborhood’s objections to permanently rezoning the N. Prospect Street parcel from RG to BG. However, since an overlay district is exempt from the constraints of every other zoning designation, it can be assigned whatever dimensional requirements are deemed necessary to erect the structure for which the overlay district is being established. For this reason, the proposal currently before Town Council allows for far greater lot coverage (on a residential street) than would even be permitted in the General Business district. (So much for the “transition zone” referred to above.)

The proposed overlay district permits a four-level parking structure with 95% lot coverage and zero setback on the two long sides and the rear of the lot. No other zoning district in Amherst allows for no side and rear setbacks.

 Additional Concerns

The urgency to designate Map 14A, Parcel 33 a parking facility overlay district defies logic since, over the next two ormore years, the location will be the staging area for the new library. Therefore, construction of the proposed garage can’t even begin until after the library is completed.

How Many Parking Spaces Will Ultimately Be Gained?

From what I understand, some portion of the parking spaces in a new garage will be leased on a monthly basis to tenants of downtown apartments. Once those spaces are deducted from the total, what will be the net gain in parking spaces available to patrons of downtown businesses, including the library? (Net gain taking into account the elimination of all the parking spaces on the current surface lot on Map 14A, Parcel 33.)

Conclusion

In January of this year, Town Council referred an unprecedented 15+ zoning bylaw amendments to the CRC and Planning Board (a list that eventually grew to 19). In this blizzard of proposals, there was no listing or mention of the garage as a priority. Taking the time required to study, deliberate, and fully analyze the ramifications of nineteen different zoning bylaw amendments in a single year is an extremely tall order. To add a parking facility overlay district to the mix almost guarantees that this latest proposed amendment will not get the scrutiny and careful vetting it deserves. In view of the fact that construction of a parking garage on the proposed parcel cannot begin for at least twoyears, the rush to rezone seems especially confounding.

Please refer this ~20th proposed zoning bylaw amendment to the incoming Council for further review and deliberation.

==========================

From: Janet McGowan <janetmc…@comcast.net>

Concerns with Town Council pushing forward on four zoning amendments

Town Council meeting of Nov. 29

Why is Council not following State Law and its own procedures?

Consequences of the zoning amendments aside, proper procedure – the sequence of a hand-off of zoning amendments from Planning Board (PBd) to Town Council (TC) – has been circumvented.  Town staff are creating the reports and passing them along to TC under the name of the PBd, but without sign-off by the Board itself.

This lack of proper procedures is counter to the intent of State law requiring zoning bylaw reports to come from the Planning Board (PBd), to spell out their recommendations for Town Council (TC) consideration. All four (4) reports received for TC consideration have not gone through PBd process. They cannot be considered as being endorsed by the PBd. Of these reports:

·       the PBd has not seen a draft of the 22-page Rezoning of Parcel 14A/33 – Parking Facility District.

·       The PBd has not commented on a report on Mixed Use Building sent to the Board on Monday afternoon, Nov. 22nd.

·       The PBd was sent a short draft Planning Board Report on Article

14, Temporary Zoning on Friday, Nov. 19 but has not seen the finished product.

·    The fourth report, on Parking, has not been seen by the PBd at this time.

Why does this procedural process foul even need to happen when only Article 14 (Temporary Zoning) is time sensitive? 

·       None of these amendments were on the January 2021 TC list of Zoning priorities.

·       Zoning should not be done piecemeal, yet here is TC considering Mixed-Use buildings without having clarified the Apartment definition. Or considering Parking bylaws without studying the needs of Apartment and Mixed-Use building tenants. Or reviewing how the Municipal Parking District is working in light of the fact that many tenants have cars, park illegally, and use cheap town permits.

 Issues with each of the zoning amendments:  Verifiable data collection, study, discussion, and comparison with other towns are all needed.

Temporary zoning – Article 14 to facilitate covid accommodations – no issue.

 Parking Facility Overlay zoning – to allow construction of a parking garage on the Town-owned lot on N. Prospect St.:

1)    The need has not been demonstrated.  Parking studies by consultant Nelson/Nygaard in 2016[3] and 2019[4]concluded that Amherst does not have a shortage of parking downtown, although they acknowledge that there is a “perception” of a parking shortage.  They recommended a number of steps to address this perception problem. Town has not yet implemented the many recommendations for improving parking access in the town center.

2)    The studies stated that building a parking garage should only be considered after these other measures had been tried and utilization rates routinely exceed 85%.  Use of the town-owned lot next to the CVS parking lot (Parcel 14A-33) has been documented as declining each year since 2015.  No new studies of parking needs have been conducted post-Covid.  (The Nelson/Nygaard parking studies have not been included in the Packet for the Council meeting on Nov. 29)

 3)    It allows too big a building. The proposed overlay zoning would permit a parking structure with zero setback on the two long sides and the rear of the lot.  It permits 95% coverage of the lot.  It would allow a building that is 40 ft. tall to the top of the parapet along North Prospect (taller than that by several feet at the far end of the lot, which slopes downhill).  No other zoning district in Amherst allows no side and rear setbacks. Stair and elevator towers and solar panels on the roof would not be counted within the 40 feet, meaning that the structure overall could approach 52 feet in height along North Prospect and close to 60 feet at the North Pleasant Street end of the lot.  This would permit construction of a four-level garage (despite assurances from the sponsors that only three levels would be contemplated) that would potentially be taller even than the new buildings in the B-G zone.  Such a massive structure would be out of keeping with residences in the Local Historic District along North Prospect Street and the historic rectory of St. Brigid’s Church, which abuts the lot to the east.

4)    If N. Prospect Street is considered by some as a “transition” zone, then let it serve that purpose.  If the parking areas were to be zoned B-L, that would in fact be a true “transition” zone. B-Ls are intended to buffer close-in, R-G residential areas from the density and taller construction of the B-G. Not surprisingly, B-L height and setback requirements were considered too restrictive for the desired parking structure needing its 95% lot coverage.  If a 4-level garage with 95% lot coverage does not belong in a transition zone, then it does not belong in an overlay district either. Where is the protection of the buffer zone – the transition from B-G to R-G?

5)    Traffic impacts have not been considered.  Access to Parcel 14A-33 is by a tight passageway from North Pleasant Street or via small residential streets like Cowles Lane, Hallock and North Prospect Streets, two of which are one-way, and all of which currently offer street parking that might have to be removed to handle the increased traffic to and from a parking garage (reducing the net benefit of a garage).  The parcel is adjacent to the parking lot for the CVS store (Parcel 14A-34), which receives multiple daily truck deliveries and houses dumpsters that must be serviced.  Currently, the egress from Parcel 14A-33 crosses the CVS lot, and the two lots share a single curb cut.  Big trucks can turn around, using the two adjoining lots.  No analysis has been undertaken of the impact of a garage on the residential neighborhood, the CVS store’s parking, or downtown traffic patterns.  Other potential sites such as the town-owned lot on Amity Street and an expanded Boltwood Garage, have not been studied to see whether they offer easier access and fewer adverse impacts on neighboring properties.

Mixed-Use Buildings definition:

1)    Planning staff acknowledges that Apartment buildings in the B-G will not enhance the vibrant retail streetscape. Yet, these Mixed-Use buildings requiring only 30% real commercial space – most anywhere in the building – will not guarantee vibrant retail streetscape. Almost every building in the downtown and village centers have nearly 100% commercial space on the ground floor.

2)    No other town or city studied had such a small % of commercial space required. With Amherst residents spending hundreds of millions in the surrounding area, the Planning Dept. offers no data or factual support for proposing such a small percentage of commercial space in mixed-use buildings.

3)    If Town Council does not require at least 40% if not 50 or 60% in mixed use buildings, little commercial space will be available for any future small business growth in town.

4)    This Mixed-use definition is hardly different from an Apartment building. Adoption of this amendment could result in fewer and fewer commercial spaces as current buildings are torn down and these apartment-like buildings are constructed.

Parking Amendment

1)    No one has shown that there is a problem with the bylaw’s parking space requirements for different types of buildings.  No data was collected to show the current 2 spaces/residential unit is not working well at apartments, homes and ADUs in Amherst. We have over 20 apt complexes and dozens of smaller buildings. Parking lots appear to be full. Is excess parking a problem?

2)    Section 7.00, notifies applicants, early, they may have to provide even more parking.  But the amendment actually deletes the “in at least the following minimum amount” helpful language.  Section 7.0 also states early on that there is a waiver section at the end, to alert applicants.

3)    There is no evidence that the waiver Section 7.9 and its factors aren’t working well now. The real problem is the lack of information about parking need.

4)    The Transportation Plan calls for parking studies in different areas of towns needed before making bylaw changes.  This has not happened yet.  So, ZBA and PB permit hearings will continue to get longer without that a base of data and parking studies, or knowing what factors influence parking need in Amherst.

5)     Most other towns and cities base parking requirements on a single factor, such as square footage, zoning district or bedroom count, not a grab bag of factors.  None use the vague term “adequate parking”.

6)    Counting on-street parking and allowing property owners to provide less parking by restrictive leases pushes the burden of providing parking onto town streets. This was not well evaluated by the Planning Board.

7)    Simpler, less confusing language can be drafted that works within the current bylaw structure. Requirements of transportation management and shadow parking which helps retains green space for any parking growth, should be added to the waiver provision.***

[1] https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/40997/Nelson-Nygaard-Parking-Study-and-Presentation-November-2016?bidId=