The board’s decision to accept the payment rather than require affordable units to be included in the new development was a focal point of the meeting. The Amherst Municipal Housing Trust had previously recommended a higher fee than what the planning department proposed, leading to a debate on the appropriate amount. This recommendation came amid concerns that the bylaw-specified amount might not reflect the true cost of replacing three affordable units in the area. While some board members were uneasy with negotiating the amount, others underscored the necessity of adhering to the bylaw. Eventually, the board voted in favor of the payment, with six members supporting the motion and no objections or abstentions recorded.

The board also discussed a friendly amendment that suggested the applicant consider increasing the payment to more closely represent the cost of creating three units of affordable housing in or around the downtown area. Discussions included the adequacy of the proposed payment, with some board members concerned that the amount might not be sufficient to build the affordable units, based on input from staff and the Housing Trust. The board explored the possibility of the applicant making a larger payment in lieu of taxes, discussing amounts around $1.5 million or $1.6 million.

In tandem with the affordable housing payment, the board scrutinized the findings and conditions for the project. They addressed the requirements for the project to be built and managed according to the plans submitted, landscape installation and maintenance, and the use of dark sky compliant exterior lighting, among other stipulations. The conditions also included the submission of plans for exterior signs and amenities, and a condition for on-site management was discussed in detail.

The requirement for an on-site manager, particularly given the percentage of student tenants, was a topic of considerable debate. Some members expressed concerns about enforceability and suggested amendments to the proposed condition, eventually voting in favor of specifying the requirement for an on-site residential manager or 24/7 supervision.

The discussion extended to the design and management of the site, where the board reviewed the site plan, including the design of parking spaces, bicycle racks, drive aisles, loading areas, and sidewalks. The board considered the impact of the building on steep slopes, flood plains, scenic views, grade changes, wetlands, and traffic. They also examined erosion control measures, utilities, parking, and the layout of the site, emphasizing the preservation of historic buildings, adequate facilities, landscaping, and stormwater management.

The redevelopment project’s proposed exterior lighting drew attention due to concerns about brightness levels and potential impact on residents’ ability to sleep. Board members debated the location and design of the lights, proposing the use of downcast lighting to minimize the impact on adjacent properties. The applicant had determined the lighting levels in consultation with a vendor to ensure adequate illumination while minimizing impact.