Town of Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals
A 270-unit development on Wehrle Drive already had its variances. It came back for four more — setbacks, density and a trash enclosure — because its bank needs the site split into two parcels, and that paper line creates boundaries where none existed. Nothing about the plan changed. Approved 3–0, with two of five members absent.
Joe Young[*] of Young Development did not come to the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday to change anything. He came because a lender needs a line drawn through the middle of his site, and the moment that line exists the town's dimensional rules start measuring against it.
The project at 2190–2200 Wehrle Drive is roughly 25 acres zoned MFR-5, and it is substantial: 270 units in exclusively two-unit, townhouse-style buildings, each with an attached garage and its own entry. A community building near the front carries a fitness centre, pool, pickleball courts and dog park. Young told the board the site is over 44 percent green space, and that against a parcel with “barely any trees at all” today the landscape plan puts in more than 700 trees across about 30 species.
None of that was in question. The parcel was rezoned from OB to MFR-5 on March 9, 2026, the town issued a negative declaration under environmental review, three informational meetings were held with the public, and the board granted five variances at the time.
What changed is the financing. “Generally a bank isn't going — one bank isn't going to finance a transaction of this size,” Young said. So the site must become two parcels: phase one at roughly 17 acres and 150 units, carrying all the amenities; phase two at roughly nine acres and 120 units. The lender attaches to the parcel it is actually lending on.
That internal boundary is now an exterior lot line for zoning purposes, and it generated four fresh requests. Side-yard setbacks for eleven buildings against a 54.6-foot requirement, at proposed distances running from 55 feet down to 12.72 feet. A second setback variance against a 40.95-foot requirement, with building 500 proposed at 20 feet. A density variance — the proposed density would require an 11.7-acre parcel and the parcel is 8.34 acres. And a trash compactor enclosure sitting close to the new line.
A member put the test to him directly, and the exchange is the whole item: “If you didn't have to have that artificial boundary of phase one, phase two, you wouldn't be needing these variances, correct?” — “Correct. Nothing has changed. This is the same site plan. The only thing we changed is this property border.”
Young was candid on the fifth statutory criterion, which asks whether the difficulty is self-created. “Technically, it is self-created, because we're proposing it. But again, there's no way around it for us. This is how we have to build the project.”
No member of the public spoke. The hearing closed and the variances carried 3–0.
Zoning measures setbacks and density per lot. A building 40 feet from its neighbour is complying with nothing in particular while both sit on one parcel; draw a lot line between them and that same 40 feet becomes a side-yard setback that must satisfy the code. Density works the same way — units are counted against the acreage of the lot they stand on, so halving a parcel can put the same buildings over the limit without anyone adding a unit.
This is why the board's questioning mattered more than the numbers. If the only cause is an internal boundary, then granting the variances restores the status quo the board already approved. If something else had changed, the same numbers would mean something else entirely. The board established which it was on the record before voting, and the applicant conceded self-creation rather than arguing it away.
The practical consequence is worth noting: phase two carries 120 units on nine acres with its amenities sitting on phase one's side of the line. Whatever is built first, the second parcel depends on the first for its pool, gym and dog park.
The board took item F out of order and heard it first, and it lasted ninety seconds. Ralph Larigo[*], appearing for the petitioner on 102 Fairwood Drive, 38 Glen Meadow Drive and 44 Glen Meadow Drive, told the board the application was being withdrawn because the parties had executed a settlement agreement.
The terms he gave were specific about timing: the building permit will be issued within 24 hours, and the certificates of occupancy within 24 hours as well, contingent on the application being in proper order. Then the sentence that defines the limits of this brief: “There's more details to the agreement that weren't put on the record, but that is our general understanding, and it has been reduced to writing.”
The chair thanked him and moved on. No board member asked what the other details were, and nothing further about the agreement is on the recording.
A variance application withdrawn on the strength of a settlement is an ordinary and often sensible outcome — it means the applicant got what they needed without the board having to grant relief from its own code, and it spares everyone a hearing. It is not irregular.
What is worth recording is the shape of the public record it leaves. Three properties came to a zoning hearing; a written agreement now governs them; the agreement commits the town to issuing permits on a 24-hour clock; and the only portion of it that exists in public is the part counsel chose to summarise aloud. This brief reports what was said and makes no claim about what was not. The agreement itself, and whatever the town conceded or obtained in it, would be the subject of a records request rather than a meeting recording.
Three signs that cannot stand 15 feet back. Mike Berger[*] of Sutton Architecture, appearing for 3D Alberta LLC[*], sought setback relief for three matching ground signs at 3140 Sheridan Drive, 315 Alberta Drive and 331 Alberta Drive — one per site. Size and height comply; only the 15-foot setback from the right-of-way does not. The two Alberta signs sit less than a foot off the right-of-way line and the Sheridan sign 11 feet off. The reason is that the parking and buildings are already there: at 15 feet the signs would stand in the drive lanes and block circulation. The project had been through Planning Board coordinated sign review. Approved 3–0.
A corner lot, a gas line, and the applicants who corrected themselves. The homeowners at 146 Bridle Path — who gave their names as Ellen and Michael[*] — asked for two variances: a six-foot wooden privacy fence along the Dogwood Road side, and an 11-by-7-foot shed on a 12-by-8 pad near the garage. Three existing conditions drove it: the corner lot subjects their side and rear yard to front-yard setbacks; their property line stops about seven and a half feet short of the sidewalk; and a high-pressure natural gas line crosses the rear, limiting where a shed and pad can go.
Their presentation was unusually thorough for a residential appeal. They listed comparable street-facing fences on nearby corner lots — 156 Bridle Path, 6 Heathwood Road, 67 Dogwood Road, and 35 and 41 The Village Green — and said they had personally spoken with the three most affected neighbours, at 140 and 156 Bridle Path and 98 Dogwood Road, none of whom objected. They conceded the numerical relief is significant and argued the actual impact is not.
Then they volunteered a correction. While measuring for the hearing they found a discrepancy: the fence is 27 feet from the start of the house, not the driveway — only 22 feet from the driveway — and they would rather align it with the rear corner of the house. The planning department told them to put the update on the record. The board established it does not change the variance, because the fence remains seven and a half feet from the sidewalk. “We just wanted to be up front with all the plans.” Approved 3–0.
The ninth pole barn on the street. Ron Sheer[*], of 120 Schoelles Road, wants a 1,200-square-foot pole barn about 200 feet back on a lot 536 feet deep. He has four cars, two of them classics, and the classics occupy the garage while his daily driver sits outside. He already has an attached garage and a pool house, and it was the pool house that produced the evening's most human argument: he has been keeping his lawnmower in it, beside the pool heater, and does not like it. “If it leaks gas or something, that heater is not going to know it.” His other point was simple precedent — “there's eight of them on the street right now.” No one spoke against. Approved 3–0.
Six inches, for a generator. Brian Lux[*] of Zenner and Ritter[*] sought relief at 514 Tiburon Lane to install a standby generator in the rear left corner at 6.63 feet. The three-foot rule measures to openings; the glass-block window behind it will have its vent removed so it is no longer an opening, leaving the request at roughly six inches. Everywhere else is ruled out: bay windows across the back, the driveway to the right, gas and electric at the front left corner, and a finished basement that makes running services through it impractical. Approved 3–0 in under two minutes.
And one that will wait. 25 Chateau Terrace was adjourned to the next meeting on a communication received earlier the same day. No reason was stated on the record and no discussion followed. A note for readers who have followed this publication's coverage of that street: the demolished garage before the Historic Preservation Commission on October 6 was at 22 Chateau Terrace, a different property. This brief draws no connection between them, and none is evident from the record.
Three of the board's five members sat: Chairperson Brian Bray, Ellen Parker and Erik A. Goergen. Vice Chairperson Ronald Shubert and the board's fifth member were not called in the roll and are recorded here as absent. Every vote was announced 3–0, which is this board's practice and which a reader should weigh: three members is the minimum that can act, and a single different view would have changed every outcome below. No recusal or abstention was stated. Addresses are the official agenda's throughout; the recording renders several of them unrecognisably.
Side-yard setbacks for eleven buildings against a 54.6-foot requirement, proposed at 55, 54, 45, 42.9, 39, 39, 38, 35 and 12.72 feet among others; a second setback variance against 40.95 feet, with building 400 at 40, building 500 at 20 and building 1500 at 25 feet; a density variance, the proposal requiring 11.7 acres against a parcel of 8.34; and a trash compactor enclosure near the property line. All four arise solely from splitting the site into two parcels for lender financing — phase one ~17 acres and 150 units with all amenities, phase two ~9 acres and 120 units. The site plan is unchanged from the version for which five variances were granted in March 2026. Applicant conceded the difficulty is technically self-created. No public comment.
Counsel for the petitioner withdrew the application on the strength of an executed settlement agreement, stating that the building permit and the certificates of occupancy will each issue within 24 hours, contingent on the application being proper. He said explicitly that further terms “weren't put on the record” but have been reduced to writing. No board member asked what they were; no vote was taken, because a withdrawal requires none. 102 Fairwood Drive is the agenda's spelling; it is not in this publication's Amherst street index, which carries Fair Woods Drive, Harwood Drive and Parkwood Drive — the agenda governs and the index may have a gap.
Three matching ground signs, one per address, complying on size and height but not on the 15-foot setback from the right-of-way: the two on Alberta sit less than a foot off the line, the Sheridan sign 11 feet off. Existing parking and building locations make compliance impossible without placing the signs in drive lanes. Went through Planning Board coordinated sign review. Petitioner argued the commercial corridor makes signage unremarkable in character, and conceded introducing the signs is self-created while the siting constraint is not. No public comment.
Corner lot, so the Dogwood Road frontage is subject to front-yard setbacks; the property line stops ~7.5 feet short of the sidewalk; a high-pressure natural gas line crosses the rear. Fence proposed immediately inside the line rather than 10 feet further in. Applicants cited five comparable street-facing fences on nearby corner lots and reported canvassing the three most affected neighbours, none of whom objected. They disclosed a measurement discrepancy at the podium — 27 feet from the house, not the driveway — which the board established does not alter the relief sought, the fence remaining 7.5 feet from the sidewalk. No public comment.
A 1,200-square-foot pole barn roughly 200 feet back on a lot 536 feet deep. Existing accessory structures are an attached garage and a pool house. The applicant's case rested on storage — four cars, two of them classics, with the classics occupying the garage — on the fire risk of keeping a lawnmower beside the pool heater, and on precedent: eight pole barns already stand on the same street. No public comment.
A standby generator in the rear left corner at 6.63 feet. The three-foot separation is measured to openings; the glass-block window behind the unit will have its vent removed so it ceases to be one, reducing the request to about six inches. Alternatives ruled out by bay windows across the rear, the driveway to the right, services at the front left corner and a finished basement. The shortest item of the night. No public comment.
A communication received earlier the same day asked that the item be adjourned. The board so moved without discussion. No reason is on the record. Not to be confused with 22 Chateau Terrace, the demolished-garage matter before the Historic Preservation Commission on October 6 — a different property on the same street, with no connection evident from either record.
Moved, seconded and carried without discussion as the first business of the meeting.
The agenda governed every address in this brief, and it had to. The official agenda was retrieved from the Town's CivicClerk portal along with a 45-megabyte agenda packet, and the recording renders several addresses unrecognisably: “whirly drive” is Wehrle Drive, “shawls road” is Schoelles Road, “to bern lane” is Tiburon Lane, and “bridal path” is Bridle Path. Without the agenda this brief could not have named a single one of them correctly. One address differs between two town documents: this ZBA agenda reads 2190–2200 Wehrle Drive while the Planning Board's agenda for the following night reads 2190–2220 for the same project. Each is reported as its own board's agenda has it.
The transcript was screened before it was trusted, and it passed. Of 323 segments, 319 are distinct; the most-common segment accounts for 1.24 percent of the file against a roughly 10 percent failure threshold; the longest run of identical consecutive segments is two; and coverage is 27.7 of the recording's 27.8 minutes.
Three of five, and what that means. The roll called only Chairperson Brian Bray, Ellen Parker and Erik A. Goergen. Three is a quorum and three is also the minimum that can grant anything, so each of the six approvals below rested on unanimity among the members who happened to attend. That is not a criticism of the board — a five-year-term appointed board will have absences — but a reader comparing a 3–0 here with a 5–0 elsewhere should know the difference. The ZBA roster is verified against the Town's own board page; the two absent members are Vice Chairperson Ronald Shubert and the fifth member, whose name this brief does not print because the roster entry was not re-read for this meeting.
Two Ellens, kept apart. Board member Ellen Parker voted on every item; the applicant at 146 Bridle Path also gave her first name as Ellen. They are different people, no relationship is suggested by anything on the record, and the applicant's surname — rendered only once, indistinctly — is not printed.
Names carried from audio alone, and flagged. Every petitioner and representative here appears on no document available to this brief: Joe Young of Young Development; Ralph Larigo, counsel on the withdrawn item; Mike Berger of Sutton Architecture, appearing for 3D Alberta LLC; the homeowners at 146 Bridle Path; Ron Sheer of 120 Schoelles Road; and Brian Lux of Zenner and Ritter. The agenda lists addresses, not applicants. Verify any of them before use.
What this brief does not claim. The settlement agreement behind the withdrawn application is reported only as counsel summarised it aloud. He said plainly that further terms exist in writing and were not placed on the record, and no board member asked for them. This publication has not seen the agreement and makes no claim about its contents, nor about why three properties were resolved together.
Other checks. The interests-watchlist screen was run broadly against the full transcript: 37 terms, zero matches. The ZBA roster required no review gate. Street-name validation was run and returned two exact matches and one ambiguity, discussed above. No scanner address cross-reference was performed: these are variance applications on private residential and commercial property, not incident addresses.