Citizens’ Zoning Petitions Referred to Planning Board

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, October 6, 2025, Part 1

This was a hybrid meeting held in Town Hall. It was recorded.

Present
Lynn Griesemer (President, District 2), Andy Steinberg, Mandi Jo Hanneke, and Ellisha Walker (at large), Cathy Schoen and Freke Ette (District 1), Pat DeAngelis (District 2), George Ryan and Hala Lord (District 3), Pam Rooney and Jennifer Taub (District 4), and Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5). Absent: Bob Hegner (District 5)

Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager) and Athena O’Keeffe (Council Clerk)

After a prolonged discussion, the Town Council agreed to refer two zoning proposals submitted by 19 residents to the Planning Board for further discussion and recommendations. The amendments to existing town bylaws were filed under Massachusetts state law (Chapter 40A, paragraph 5), which allows a group of 10 residents to request additions or changes to a zoning bylaw. When filed, the bylaw must be referred to the Planning Board within 14 days, which must hold a hearing within 65 days and then return a recommendation to the Town Council. Despite Town Manager Paul Bockelman’s assurance that there would be “no consequences” for the council if it did not refer the proposals, the referrals were passed, following strenuous objections from Councilors George Ryan, Mandi Jo Hanneke, Pat DeAngelis, Andy Steinberg and Freke Ette.

Downtown Building Moratorium Panned by Councilors
The two proposed bylaws, Articles 18 and 19, were presented by Kitty Axelson-Berry. Article 18 proposes a temporary one-year moratorium on construction of residential buildings with four or more dwelling units in the general business and limited business districts, pending completion of design standards currently under development and adoption of the Housing Production Plan. The proposal states that the temporary pause in new construction will give time for the town to come to agreement with the University of Massachusetts administration that the University will provide housing for 5,000 additional students on campus so as not to continue to put a strain on the livability of Amherst for its approximately 13,000 year-round residents. Axelson-Berry stated that the temporary moratorium would protect affordable housing and benefit students who are currently paying high prices for units rented by the bed. 

The proposal to delay building downtown met with resistance from several councilors. Pat DeAngelis stated, “Not all rental housing goes to students. It goes to graduate students, undergraduate students. It goes to faculty. It goes to staff. It goes to workers at Stop and Shop. We need housing. We need density. We need to build where we can.” George Ryan was more blunt. He said, “Article 18 is a very, very bad idea in the time of a widespread housing crisis in the state. We are going to put a freeze on building permits in our downtown and the buildings in it that have enabled us for the last almost 14 years to avoid overrides. I would urge my colleagues to vote against it, to send a clear message to the Planning Board that this is a terrible idea.”

There was confusion about the opinion from the Town Attorney Lauren Goldberg who was not present at the meeting about the requirement to refer the proposal to the Planning Board. Several councilors interpreted Goldberg’s communication, which was not included in the meeting packet, as allowing the council to deny the referral. Ryan said, “The Town Manager has said that, at least his understanding is, there are no consequences. I’m going to vote no, no matter what. I’ll pay the fine. I’ll go to prison. I don’t care. If there’s an administrative decision and the vote is just a sham, then why are we having the vote?”

In the end, the council voted 8-0-4 to refer the proposed temporary moratorium to the Planning Board. Ryan, Steinberg, Hanneke, and DeAngelis abstained. Steinberg stated that, since there are no pending multifamily projects for the downtown, he didn’t see that the moratorium accomplished much. Also, he said that providing more housing on campus would require a much longer timeframe than the one-year pause.

Proposed Limitation on Student Housing Conversions Receives More Favorable Reception
The proposed Article 19, entitled “Protecting Neighborhoods,”states “The Town shall preserve and support single- and two-family housing owned or rented by year-round residents, prioritize locating student housing on our Amherst campuses, and disincentivize the sale of single- and two-family homes to LLC real estate investors.” The proposal recommends a definition of a student home, with a minimum distance of 700 to 2000 feet between student homes in residential neighborhoods. It also recommends consideration of rent stabilization and concentration of student rentals along arterial streets. 

Axelson-Berry noted that several towns with large universities, such as State College, Pennsylvania, have successfully limited student rentals in residential neighborhoods. She said that 137 of Amherst’s 680 rental houses are owned by LLCs and that rents in Amherst are comparable to those in Somerville. She added that the balance of year-round residents and students has changed over the past 20 years, with many families moving out of town and the Amherst population now being two-thirds students. She asserted that the proposal was not anti-student, but meant to encourage affordable homes for diverse long-term populations.

Council president Lynn Griesemer said, “I believe that the residents of our town have been after something like this as long as we have been on this council. And, as much as this may not be the perfect thing, at least by referring it to the Planning Board, we put it with a public body, and that body must deliberate in public and have a thorough discussion about this.”

Hanneke criticized the proposal as not being “fully fleshed out,” and not ready for a public hearing. The Indy notes that Hanneke’s own 2023 zoning proposal with DeAngelis regarding duplexes and triplexes, consumed seven Planning Board meetings, three Community Resources Committee meetings, one Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and many hours of Planning Department employee time before being withdrawn. She was also concerned that the proposed amendment may violate fair housing laws, which prohibit discrimination in family housing. She stated that some student housing may be for families. However, Jennifer Taub countered, “We all know what a student house is.” She agreed that the zoning proposal is not in final form, because residents do not have a staff to help construct a final bylaw. Ryan suggested that residents be required to work with Planning Department staff before bringing another zoning proposal forward. 

Ana Devlin Gauthier had several concerns about the proposal, namely that some of the most affordable single-family homes may be located on the arterial streets that would be most vulnerable to conversion to student homes under Article 19. Also, she cautioned regarding the definition of student homes that “we aren’t accidentally creating our own version of redlining. We need to make sure we’re not accidentally creating a net that is so wide that we’re catching people that we don’t intend to catch.”

The most vocal  concerns came from Freke Ette who said, “Frankly, I’m troubled by the scapegoating of students and what they represent within the community. When I came to Amherst, I lived in what would be called student housing, even as an assistant professor. According to this definition, I still would live in student housing. Students are part of this community.” He further criticized the proposed amendment, “Citizens who bring a petition are not the public. Once it gets to the Planning Board, those who have other ideas are going to bring it forward. Students come here, they live here, and they can carry memories that are good or not good about the town. Words matter, and what I’ve read is not a welcoming community for Amherst for students. I am part of that category of those that Amherst would want to bring to this town.”

Taub countered, “Of course, we are a college town. The concern is not with the students, it’s that our non-student population is declining so considerably that we should be concerned. We need at a certain level, a long-term community of families that send children to our K-12 schools to have a viable community.”

The council voted 11-1, with DeAngelis voting no, to refer Article 19 to the Planning Board.

Public Voices Support for Zoning Amendments
In the public comment period, Allegra Clark, Barbara Pearson, John Varner, Jill Brevik, Ira Bryck, and Darcy DuMont voiced support for the two proposed zoning amendments. Varner pointed out that Amherst is the smallest town in the country to host a flagship university. He advocated getting more data on student housing and making the names of LLC’s owning housing public. Bryck asserted that the trajectory of the town population threatens the very fabric of the town. He said that people don’t feel like their voices matter and that the council majority skews heavily in favor of more development. Brevik stated that we should look at where our tax dollars are going and prioritize projects before we sacrifice livability, affordability, and sustainability.