The proposal from Archipelago Investments LLC drew attention due to its scope and potential impact on the Amherst community. The development aims to include three buildings, each four stories high, featuring a mix of residential units and about 12,000 square feet of commercial space. The project also plans for 180 parking spaces and requests a special permit to modify building height and setbacks within the Business Village Center zoning district. During the meeting, Kyle Wilson, representing the developer, emphasized the need for more housing units in Amherst, citing the town’s current stock at around 11,000 units and an estimated need for an additional 5,000 units to meet demand. He highlighted the housing crisis in Massachusetts, noting the state’s low rental vacancy rate and high housing costs.

Wilson argued that the town’s future housing development should focus on multifamily units due to the limited capacity for single-family housing. He pointed out that Amherst’s zoning bylaws restrict multifamily development to a small portion of the town’s land area. Historical aerial views were presented to illustrate changes in South Amherst, noting infrastructure improvements that enhance development potential. Despite these arguments, the project faced public scrutiny, particularly regarding its environmental implications and alignment with community needs.

The environmental aspects of the project were a focal point of discussion. The site analysis revealed significant soil contamination from lead arsenic, a legacy of the site’s history as an orchard. Plans for remediation involve removing contaminated soil to create a safe residential environment. The development will utilize mass timber construction and incorporate energy-efficient designs, including solar generation. However, concerns were raised about stormwater management due to high groundwater levels, necessitating strategic planning for drainage systems.

Public comments during the meeting reflected mixed sentiments about the development. Some residents supported the project for its potential to increase housing availability, while others criticized it for insufficient parking and its focus on smaller units, which might not cater to families. Concerns about traffic congestion, particularly on Rambling Road, were prominent, with calls for a reassessment of the project’s parameters to better align with community standards. The board acknowledged these concerns, engaging in discussions about traffic studies and the project’s compliance with zoning requirements.

Parking adequacy emerged as a contentious issue, with the proposal allocating one space per residential unit and additional spaces for commercial use. Some board members and residents questioned whether this allocation was sufficient, given the site’s constraints and the potential for additional vehicles from residents and visitors. The developer argued that the parking plan meets bylaw requirements, but skepticism remained regarding its practicality.

The board’s deliberations also touched on the demographic profile of potential renters and the project’s ability to meet family housing needs. There was concern that the development might predominantly attract students, which could exacerbate existing rental market pressures. Suggestions were made to include ownership options like condominiums to attract families, though the current proposal focuses solely on rental units.

In addition to the mixed-use development, the board discussed potential zoning amendments, including changes to the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) bylaw. The proposed amendment aims to align local ADU regulations with state guidelines, allowing larger units contingent on owner occupancy and streamlining administrative approval processes. The board also considered a draft zoning amendment related to fraternity and sorority classifications, intending to provide oversight for non-affiliated organizations operating in non-conforming buildings.