Planning Board Recommends Keeping Two Classes of ADUs. Increased Apartment Density for North Amherst Still on the Table

Report on the Meeting of the Planning Board, September 3, 2025

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. 

Present:
Doug Marshall (Chair), Bruce Coldham, Fred Hartwell, Angus McLeod, Jerah Smith, Johanna Neumann, and Jesse Mager

Staff: Nate Malloy (Senior Planner) and Pam Field Sadler (Assistant)

Board Recommends Keeping Two Classes of ADUs

Board Recommends Keeping Two Classes of ADUs
The Planning Board finalized its recommendations to the Town Council on the amendment of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) bylaw (Article 5.011) by unanimously voting to have two classes of ADU: a “protected ADU” with a maximum area of 900 square feet and few restrictions and a “local ADU,” which can be up to 1,200 square feet but must conform to dimensional standards and have owner-occupancy of either the ADU or the principal dwelling. The town is required by the new state housing bill to allow protected ADUs with minimal restrictions, but members felt it was important to preserve the option for a larger unit, especially for older family members or children who need to live close to their parents.

By allowing two types of ADUs, there is a potential for two ADUs (one of each type) on a single lot, but members thought that situation would not be common and were assuaged that one unit on the site would need to be occupied by the owner. Planner Nate Malloy advocated for allowing only protected ADUs, while encouraging other types of infill by modifying the definitions of apartments, townhouses, triplexes, and quadplexes in the Zoning Bylaw. However, Planning Board members favored keeping the flexibility of the two types of ADUs and monitoring how the bylaw was being used. Jerah Smith stated that he did not want concern that the bylaw will be taken advantage of or Malloy’s concern that it will be challenged in court to be a reason for limiting what homeowners can do on their property. The proposed bylaw change states that if a property has a protected ADU, a local ADU must apply for a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals rather than be permitted by right. 

Either ADU type may be completely contained within the Principal Dwelling, attached to a Principal Dwelling, detached as a separate building, or constructed within a detached structure (e.g. above an existing detached garage). Any ADU may be within an existing building or new construction.

“I truly do not believe this bylaw will achieve what the state wants it to achieve in Amherst. It will not increase housing for year-round residents.” -Jesse Mager, Amherst Planning Board

Another change to the state bylaw is how the area of the housing unit is calculated. Amherst previously used “habitable space” to determine the area of a structure. The state requires that it be calculated by “gross floor area,” which would mean an unfinished basement with a compliant ceiling height would be counted in the area of the structure, as would a partially finished attic with a normal ceiling. This provision essentially means that ADUs will be constructed over a crawl space or on a slab to attain the most usable area within the allowable size of 900 or 1200 square feet.

 “I truly do not believe this bylaw will achieve what the state wants it to achieve in Amherst. It will not increase housing for year-round residents,” said board member Jesse Mager. He pointed out that  the large number of college students in Amherst would mean that the eased requirements for the protected ADU will mostly encourage the creation of more student housing.However, the proposed bylaw amendment passed unanimously.

Board Still Positive About North Amherst Overlay Proposal Despite Public Criticism
The Planning Board has received lots of concern from North Amherst residents who worry about the consequences for traffic, public safety, utilities, and existing wetlands for possibly tripling the density of the North Amherst apartment complexes. The two town councilors representing the area, Cathy Schoen and Freke Ette, would like to have a public hearing to discuss plans in late September or October. The Planning Board discussed how they would conduct the public hearing, to prevent it from becoming, as Johanna Neumann termed it, a “hate fest.”

Coldham said that he had a good rapport with many North Amherst residents from his work with the North Amherst Community Farm. He suggested conducting the hearing as a listening session — presenting the plans and then inviting feedback, without getting into a back-and-forth with participants. He advised just recording the statements for and against the proposal.

Angus McLeod advised stressing that the board wants to increase density in areas that are already serving primarily as student housing areas, and thereby free up housing in neighborhoods, including North Amherst neighborhoods. He asked why the board was considering overlay zones instead of crafting townwide policies for  apartment complexes, which he thought would draw less “geographic ire.”

Malloy pointed out that the town attempted to create a townwide policy for multi-family housing in 2013, claiming that it was deemed “too scary” and never went anywhere. He said that most of the affected apartment complexes were built in the 1960s with special permits, but when the zoning subsequently changed, they became nonconforming and can only expand by applying for a new special permit, which he noted is “a cumbersome process.” The overlay would allow additional units to be constructed by a simple Site Plan Review. 

Planning Board members wanted to stress that the board is also looking at other parts of town to increase density, such as East Amherst, Pomeroy, the Gateway Region, and Atkins Corner. Malloy added that, in the proposed overlay district in North Amherst, the generous setbacks from North Pleasant Street and Pine Street would mean that taller buildings would minimally impact the streetscape and the fact that the land slopes to the west could encourage taller buildings to be at the rear of the property.

The housing subcommittee of the Planning Board will use a framework of important points, devised by Malloy, to refine the overlay proposal prior to the next Planning Board meeting on September 17 and will present it to the full  board at that meeting. 

Planning Board Officers Remain Unchanged
The Planning Board unanimously decided to continue with its current officers: Doug Marshall will continue as chair, Neumann as vice-chair, and Coldham as clerk. Coldham will remain as the Amherst representative to the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. McLeod had been chosen for the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) at the August 20 meeting.

There was some confusion over the Planning Board representative to the Design Review Board (DRB). Malloy stated that Karin Winter’s term on the DRB runs until June 30, 2026, even though she is no longer on the Planning Board. Marshall and Mager questioned this, but  said that Winter should submit reports on DRB meetings to the Planning Board if she is the representative. Marshall stated that he would be willing to serve on the DRB, but that would mean terminating Winter’s appointment. Malloy said he will clarify the situation with the Town Manager.

McLeod will join Mager, Coldham, and Hartwell on the housing subcommittee. , which will now add zoning issues as needed in addition to housing. Hartwell especially pointed to the need to revisit the definition of “owner-occupied,” since many properties in town are now owned by corporations who are not residents.