Where Can Housing Density Be Increased in Amherst?

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Planning Board, September 17, 2025

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Doug Marshall (Chair), Bruce Coldham, Fred Hartwell, Angus McLeod, Johanna Neumann, and Jesse Mager, Jerah Smith joined at 7:30. Staff: Nate Malloy (Senior Planner) and Pam Field Sadler (Assistant)

With Archipelago Investments requesting a continuance until October 22 for its proposed 140-unit mixed-use building at Atkins corner (see also here) while it seeks approval from the Conservation Commission, the Planning Board devoted its September 17 meeting to a discussion of how to increase housing in Amherst. The board did not come to any decisions, but suggested areas around town that could accommodate more housing with minor tweaks to zoning or creation of overlay districts. The board has been debating the creation of an overlay district in North Amherst, which could triple density in the apartment complexes along North Pleasant Street and Pine Street, but elected to discuss other areas of town at this meeting.

Senior Planner Nate Malloy said that other areas that have been mentioned for more development in the past have been East Amherst, the Gateway area immediately north of UMass, the east side of North Pleasant Street, and Olympia Drive. He said that there is also a lot of land belonging to Amherst College, Hampshire College, and UMass that could be developed. Development can be limited by the lack of public sewer in outlying areas, he stated, and, other than projects designated as senior housing, there is no legal way to exclude students from developments.

Planning Board chair Doug Marshall stated that, even though students cannot be restricted from certain areas, expanding the housing potential around the university could hopefully limit the amount that the rest of the town changes. Board member Jesse Mager agreed and noted that the apartment complexes in North Amherst seemed like the next logical area to increase density, and the Housing and Zoning Subcommittee imagined that more construction there would not change the physical look of the majority of North Amherst neighborhoods. However, Malloy said there are still concerns about traffic and safety among North Amherst residents. He suggested considering smart growth (40R) development in East Amherst (from the lumber store on College Street to Rolling Green), perhaps granting developers an extra floor or increased density in exchange for providing more affordable units.

Planning Board members admitted that new developments could increase rental costs. Marshall stated, “I think any new construction is going to set the benchmark for the town, because if there’s plenty of demand and somebody has to pay that amount, the other landlords are going to adjust their rent. I’d rather see more capacity in town, even if that means the rent goes up a little bit for student housing, at least.” However, Angus McLeod and Johanna Neumann suggested that alleviating supply issues could drive rents down. The board agreed to gather information about current rents.

Malloy warned that changing density standards for whole residential districts could dramatically change the town, which is why overlay districts will work better. Marshall noted that most business areas, which are zoned for more density, are surrounded by residential zones and the Planning Board gets a lot of push-back on expanding those areas into the residential neighborhoods, but he thought changing only a few parcels might be preferable. He also suggested decreasing lot sizes to allow more units. He noted that allowing townhouses or row houses in neighborhoods around village centers would increase density, and he thought that would be supportive of family ownership, whereas large buildings were “going to be rental units pretty much forever.”

The idea of townhouses or row houses was favorably received by several board members. Mager suggested allowing them in the Gateway area north of Fearing, and McLeod thought they should be considered along College Street in East Amherst. He also thought that the zoning should be changed to allow larger apartment buildings in certain parts of town. Currently, apartment buildings are capped at 24 units. Bruce Coldham expressed support for townhouses, but noted that they would create a different streetscape that may engender resistance from residents.

Coldham thought an area of single-family homes along East Pleasant Street between Strong Street and Olympia Drive would be a good place for more dense housing. However, some of the land is in conservation, and Marshall thought that one of the houses is historic. Coldham suggested that that house could be moved.

Neumann and McLeod stated that development and zoning should be directed by the 2010 Master Plan, which emphasizes increasing density in already developed areas while preserving historic areas. Neumann said, “We have this beautiful park [Kendrick Park], and then we have this weird, incomplete, disjointed streetscape. It just doesn’t hang together conceptually.” She thought additional development in that area, as well as the area north of Fearing or the east side of North Pleasant Street seem like “great” spots to add student density. Marshall noted that East Amherst development should be more geared to families, because putting 10,000 students there would create huge traffic jams going through town.

Malloy pointed out some of the contradictions in the Master Plan, which is due for an update around 2030. For instance, the plan lists goals of preserving community character and also increasing economic vitality through growth and change. He asked how the town would balance those two goals, especially in regard to local historic districts. The town is now considering creating a third local historic district in East Amherst, the oldest part of Amherst, in addition to the Sunset-Fearing local historic district and the Dickinson district. 

McLeod, who is a historian, stated, “Historic designations like this do tend to decrease density and tend to put up roadblocks for developers. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it would happen here, but at least across the country, that tends to be what happens when you create a historical designation.” However, Coldham, long a member of the Local Historic District Committee (LHDC), maintained that the LHDC is not opposed to new development, but wants new buildings to conform to the feel of the district. This includes accessory dwelling units that may be built by right in many areas, but must have their designs approved in the local historic district. 

Malloy suggested that the Planning Board choose some zoning changes that the Planning Staff could work on and then perhaps bring to a joint meeting with the Community Resources Committee and the Amherst Municipal Affordable Housing Trust to determine which ones have potential to be enacted.