Revised Accessory Dwelling Unit Bylaw Approved. More Questions Raised About Public Urination Bylaw

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, November 17, 2025, Part 2

By Maura Keene

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

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

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

Amendments to Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Bylaw Defeated
The change in state law allowing small accessory dwelling units (ADUs) of a maximum of 900 square feet to be built on any residential parcel with enough space meant that Amherst had to revise its ADU bylaw. The resulting change contained the “protected ADU” permitted by the state as well as a “local ADU,” which allows it to be up to 1,200 square feet but requires either the principal dwelling or the ADU to be owner-occupied. The draft of the new bylaw was presented at the October 20, 2025 Town Council meeting. Two amendments were offered at this meeting, but both were defeated. The revised bylaw passed unanimously.

The first amendment was suggested by District 4 Councilors Jennifer Taub and Pam Rooney, who wanted to limit the number of additional parking spaces for each ADU built in the General Residence (RG) zone to one, rather than the two spaces allowed in the draft bylaw. Their reason was that parking near the center of town is already limited and new ADUs housing up to four students  will result in many more cars parked on the streets and properties there. 

Mandi Jo Hanneke pointed out that the council has posted restrictions on daytime parking on Lincoln Avenue and High Street in the RG (Residence General) areas and that the number of parking spaces allowed on each property would still be governed by the town’s 40% maximum lot coverage in the RG, and Planner Nate Malloy pointed out that parking can extend to the lot line. According to Hanneke, the Planning Board recommended allowing three additional parking spaces per ADU, which the Community Resources Committee (CRC) reduced to two at Taub and Rooney’s suggestion. The state law restricts  towns’ abilities to require any parking for ADUs close to public transportation, but does not specify a maximum number of spaces.

Ana Devlin Gauthier added that limiting parking could decrease an ADU’s appeal to nonstudents, if a family with more than one car wanted to occupy it. 

Rooney and Taub’s amendment was defeated by a vote of 4-6-2. Rooney, Taub, Lynn Griesemer, and Cathy Schoen voted yes. Bob Hegner and Ellisha Walker abstained. 

Devlin Gauthier introduced an amendment to Section 5.0115 b of the proposed draft, which requires that “the appearance and scale of [a detached local ADU] is compatible with the Principal Dwelling” because she felt it was “too constricting.” Instead, she wanted the ADU to be free from such standards and simply be “clearly accessory” to the principal dwelling in terms of site massing and layout. Alternatively, she suggested, the whole section could be deleted, and the ADU’s appearance including scale  could be left up to the Building Commissioner, or the Zoning Board of Appeals if a Special Permit was required.

After a brief discussion, the amendment was defeated by a vote of 5-7. Walker, Devlin Gauthier, Hanneke, Hala Lord, and George Ryan voted in favor. The Council passed the full unamended bylaw by a vote of 12-0.

Questions Raised About Proposed Public Urination and Defecation Bylaw
Steinberg, chair of the Town Services and Outreach committee (TSO), stated that Police Chief Gabe Ting has requested a bylaw enabling the police to impose a fine for people caught urinating or defecating in public. As it stands, they can only issue a warning or impose a criminal citation, nothing in between. He was hopeful that a fine would do more to discourage the behavior without giving the offender a criminal record. The UMass Dean of Students office was  supportive of the idea.

TSO developed a bylaw with a $300 fine and referred it to town legal counsel KP Law, who rewrote it as a single sentence: “Persons shall urinate and defecate only in designated facilities designed and permitted for such purposes.” 

Devlin Gauthier thought the wording was too broad, especially when there are few public restrooms downtown, and said that this would make it illegal to urinate in a public swimming pool or in the privacy of one’s own yard; she suggested that the bylaw prohibit urination in public view. 

Rooney asked if the town could require bars to supply Porta Potties on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights, when the most offenses occur. Town Manager Paul Bockelman said that the town could suggest but not require it. 

Councilor Pat DeAngelis noted that this ordinance would adversely affect homeless people who have no alternative places to urinate and defecate, and cannot afford to pay the fine, and that the fine is larger than the $200 fine for illegally discharging a firearm. Lord worried that a person who could not pay the fine would be charged with a criminal offense.

Steinberg said that TSO members had addressed these concerns with Chief Ting, who replied that although the bylaw would apply to all, the town should trust the police to use discretion in applying it. He said that officers are skilled in the proper approaches to people who are homeless or have disabilities, for example.

There was some discussion about a tiered fine for first and subsequent offenses. It was decided to have Chief Ting attend the Council meeting when the bylaw will be discussed again,  probably on December 1.

The Town Council will meet every Monday until December 15 to complete its business by the end of the year, when the new Council will be seated.

Library Fundraising Still Short on Details
Ryan gave his report on the Jones Library Building Committee (JLBC), saying: “The building is actually ahead of schedule and everything is copacetic.” However, when Rooney and Schoen questioned him about fundraising for the project, especially with the roof costing more than budgeted, he replied that there had not been any information about it in the November 10 JLBC meeting packet. 

Taub then asked Town Manager Paul Bockelman if the Council will receive a report on the Capital Campaign by December 31 “Sure,” responded Bockelman, adding, “I think we gave you one a few weeks ago. But I can get you an updated one. There’s one in the Town Manager’s report — I think it was October 1… I can resend it.”

Taub pressed him for information about how much money has been received,   how much remains in pledges, and how much has been spent on fundraising. Bockelman replied, “I can [find that information]. It came from the Capital Campaign. I can send what they sent to me. I already gave it to the Council, but I can resend it.”