North Amherst Residents Share Thoughts on High Density Overlay District

Report on the Planning Board’s Listening Session at the North Amherst Library, October 29, 2025

Presenters
Doug Marshall (Planning Board chair), Bruce Coldham, and Jesse Mager (members of the Housing Subcommittee of the Planning Board). Moderator: Cathy Schoen (District 1 Town Councilor)

For the first time in many years—if ever—members of the Planning Board and its Housing Subcommittee met with residents while a proposal was still in its formative stage.The room was packed, with approximately 45 District 1 residents in attendance to hear their presentation on potential overlay zoning for North Amherst apartment complexes that would allow increased density and building height for student housing. Planning Board chair Doug Marshall emphasized that this meeting was not a public hearing but rather a listening session to present plans underway for a higher density overlay district that includes the area from Brandywine apartments and Towne House condominiums on Meadow Street south through Puffton Village and Presidential Apartments on North Pleasant Street. 

Marshall presented the rationale for an overlay district similar to the one newly enacted on University Drive. He said that 90% of the rental units in Amherst are transient student rentals that result in neighborhood volatility. UMass houses about 16,000 students with 11,000 living off-campus, of whom about 9,000 want to live in Amherst. This leads many to seek housing in neighborhoods from investors who buy up formerly owner-occupied houses  and convert to student rentals. Marshall said that one option for easing stress on neighborhoods was for the town to specify a minimum distance between rental units in residential neighborhoods, as has been done in State College, Pennsylvania. However, Housing Subcommittee members prefer the option of creating high-density overlays in various parts of the town, which would not require changes to the zoning bylaw. Subcommittee member Jesse Mager also stated that the subcommittee’s ideas for another overlay district are pro-student, not anti-student, and that the changes would not be likely to happen all at once.

North Amherst was chosen to study because there are large, deep lots that are a walkable distance from UMass, with only a few owners, since they are mostly apartment complexes. The area is zoned Residential Neighborhood (RN), in which apartments are not allowed. All the existing properties were built before the current zoning and are nonconforming, but an overlay district would permit development of taller buildings and increased density without the owners needing to apply for a special permit. 

The land slopes from east to west, so, in the model currently under consideration, three-story structures would be located along North Pleasant Street and increasingly taller ones (up to six stories in the current plans) would be located to the west, toward Route 116, where they would be set back considerably from the street. Another access to Route 116 might alleviate some of the traffic congestion along North Pleasant Street if such access were possible. Other areas contemplated for higher density housing were Belchertown Road and South Amherst, but those had been rejected for now due to the possibility of significant impact on traffic congestion downtown. A bicycle/pedestrian route to UMass on the west side of the proposed North Amherst overlay might be possible—although, as residents pointed out, it is in the flood plain, so construction there may not be permitted.

If expanded, the buildings would need to include affordable units under the town’s Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw. Currently, the subcommittee plans for the affordable units to be located in the three-story buildings along North Pleasant Street rather than being distributed throughout the complex. It was felt that family and student housing units often don’t mix well. The presenters noted that new construction need not be restricted exclusively to students, although, the motivation for the overlay is to create more student housing.

Next, the audience was given an opportunity to ask clarifying questions and offer their input. Vincent O’Connor, candidate for a District 1 council seat, questioned whether Marshall had a conflict of interest due to his position as planner for UMass. Marshall responded that he “closes his life to UMass” at five o’clock each day to become a citizen of Amherst. 

This reporter asked whether the existing sewer and water systems, among other infrastructure, had the capacity for an increased population in this area, given the aging pipes. The answer was, “That’s not the Planning Board’s job.” The board  has not yet sought  input from the DPW or any other town department, although the questioner noted that infrastructure and the costs to improve it to accommodate greater density should be ascertained first in order to develop a feasible plan. 

Several members of the audience emphasized that there is already heavy traffic congestion in the area, and asked how a significant increase in traffic could be accommodated. With regard to the affordable units, some questioned how their costs  would be met while others asked what “affordable” meant and how it would work in practice. One person noted that clustering the affordable units in one area does not work sociologically, and it is better that they be integrated among market-priced units. Puffton IV was such an area when the complex was built originally.

Another local resident asked what would become of the current residents of the complexes during construction and afterwards. Others asked how many people live in these complexes now and how many more are contemplated in the overlay proposal? District 1 Councilor Cathy Schoen replied that fewer than 2,000 live there now, a number which could be doubled or tripled with the creation of the overlay to provide a financial incentive to expand.

The bicycle path connection to UMass, previously contemplated, was never completed due to the high-water table close to route 116. Planning Board members acknowledged that they had yet to consult with the Conservation Commission about the potential for a bicycle path connecting to the university. A member of the audience underscored  the importance of including safe ways to walk or bicycle, saying that design details matter. 

An owner of one of the four owner-occupied houses in the abutting North Amherst Historic District reiterated the existing problem of traffic congestion and said that it was folly to think that students don’t have cars that need parking spaces and are driven on Amherst roads. He said that without a solution, the area was doomed to gridlock. This remark was greeted with cheers of agreement, saying, “The infrastructure is broken now! Fix it now; don’t make it worse.”

Meg Gage reminded the planners of the summer that the District One Neighborhood Association (DONA) spent studying the Master Plan and how it could be applied to North Amherst. She stated, “We have a thriving village center already with the library, the Mill River Recreation Area, walkable nature paths, and stores, yet we are already compromised in that we lack design guidelines for future development.”  She said that District 1 wanted planned development for improving the quality of life for the people who already live there. This too drew spontaneous applause for the crowd. Gage added that on warm spring and fall weekends and particularly during the annual Blarney Blowout, police from four or five different towns are here in North Amherst for crowd control. The ambulance runs are overwhelming and problematic if some other resident is in distress and in greater need to get to the hospital quickly. This raised the issue of costs in terms of public safety and first responders. Amherst already is stretched thin by such events.

Other questions followed: 

• Has the housing subcommittee talked to the owners yet? (The answer was No.)
• What would happen to the present occupants of the apartment complexes? Would they be able to return to the new units? 
• If these high-density student units were to be constructed, what would happen when/if the student population declined? Would the units be easily convertible to senior or family units?
• Has the subcommittee considered the “unintended consequences” of massing so many students in one area? Would they be “manageable”? (The Southwest dormitory complex at UMass was built in 1965, just as sociologists were learning that tenants have a much better regard for their homes when there are garden apartments and smaller townhouse units as Puffton Village was designed to be.)

Schoen raised the issue of affordability for students. She didn’t believe that this zoning amendment would take pressure off neighborhoods: first, because rents in the existing complexes are half what they are in the newer, much smaller units in town.. There are currently vacancies in some of the new buildings. Although much less expensive, the current apartment complexes also have larger living units, open space, and outside areas for recreation. Schoen shared a table of rent comparisons with the presenters. Another attendee pointed out that the high costs of new construction give an advantage to older projects that are close to, if not entirely debt free.

One participant liked the idea of an overlay if the design made sense from a human scale and if there were improved bicycle and pedestrian access.

This was a very successful meeting for speakers and audience alike. There was time to speak and expand on comments and to be heard at an early stage of planning. Planning Board members listened closely and carefully. They took notes to capture questions and issues to bring back to the housing subcommittee for discussion. The proposed overlay district plans will continue to be discussed at future board meetings. The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 5.