Planning Board Rejects Resident-Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Planning Board, November 19, 2025

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

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

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

There were 23 attendees in the Zoom audience.

Although most Planning Board members said that they appreciated what the two zoning amendments proposed by a group of residents in October, they declined to recommend them to the Town Council, citing the possibility of legal barriers to their enactment and adding that they would not necessarily increase the supply of housing for year-round residents as intended.  

The board did recommend the rezoning of three parcels on Main Street to allow the Amherst Inn to expand the number of guests it could host.

Residents’ Zoning Amendment Proposal
The residents’ first proposed zoning amendment requires a pause in issuing building permits for residential structures of four or more stories in the downtown area (BG/ General Business and BL/ Limited Business) for up to a year, pending completion of design standards and a Housing Production Plan (HPP) that prioritizes opportunities for year-round, mixed-income residents. The proposal also notes that the pause would give time for the town and UMass to agree that the university will house 5,000 additional  students on campus to reduce the strain on Amherst’s 13,000 year-round population.

The second proposed amendment was intended to increase livability, affordability, and balance in single- and two-family  residential neighborhoods in Amherst by creating “a reasonable balance between housing for year-round residents and for part-year residents that favors maintenance of family neighborhoods and disincentivizes LLC real estate investor ownership of student houses.” The Town would have established disincentives to sales of single- and two-family homes to LLC real estate investors by establishing a range of minimum distances between student homes in family neighborhoods (700 to 2,000 feet on local and collector streets) and concentrating new student housing on arterial (main) streets. The proposal used the Planning Board’s 2024 definition of “student home.” Darcy DuMont and Kitty Axelson-Berry presented the petitioners’ two proposals.

Planning Board Chair Doug Marshall was asked by Ken Rosenthal to recuse himself from discussing the proposals due to the possibility of a conflict of interest. Marshall is the Capital Projects Manager and Planner for UMass.  Marshall responded that this is not the first time this issue has been raised, and that an attorney at the State Ethics Commission has told him there is no reason to recuse himself. He added that he filed a disclosure with the Town Council President and the Town Clerk.

In introducing the two proposals, DuMont said, “Residents need help from the Planning Board and Town Council. We’re asking you to prioritize housing for year-round residents because we have an interest in maintaining our very diverse family neighborhoods, have a personal investment in the future of our neighborhood schools and communities [and] have a high need for workforce housing and housing for families, seniors, and low- and middle-income residents. And we need a robust year-round population for a year-round economy and thriving town.”

DuMont and Axelson-Berry stressed that Amherst is rapidly losing year-round residents, and that student housing is crowding out family housing, especially in neighborhoods of modest homes. Investors can and do outbid families and other would-be residents and then rent out the property to students for as much as $1,000 per bedroom, DuMont said.

Some Planning Board members felt that putting a moratorium on building four-plus story residential buildings downtown would be contrary to the need for more housing emphasized in the 2024 draft Housing Production Plan. Angus McLeod said, “I think there is a misalignment with the priorities the Planning Board has set forth through endorsing the HPP that said we want to increase housing for all kinds of residents, and that includes families, low-income residents, middle-income residents, [and] students. This proposal explicitly states that they want to change the HPP to ‘not prioritize student housing’.”

Board members conceded that it would be nice to have more conversations with UMass regarding its long-term plans for on-campus housing and how the projected demographic cliff of a smaller college-age population is affecting the university’s plans. 

The members were also critical of the second proposed amendment, expressing doubts as to whether defining and regulating “student homes” would be enforceable both practically and legally. Bruce Coldham, who had a conversation with officials in State College, Pennsylvania, noted that State College has had a “student home” designation with minimum distance requirements since 2013, but noted that Ohio did not allow a similar plan. It has not been tested in Massachusetts and Nate Malloy of  the Planning Department indicated that it would be labor-intensive to develop and implement in Amherst. 

Marshall worried that concentrating student housing on arterial streets could result in the loss of many older homes on those streets, such as Main Street, South Pleasant Street, due to  construction of modern student housing. He said, “My neighborhood wouldn’t have any [students] in it — but I’d be in sort of schizophrenia when I drove to work every morning [feeling as if I’d] left New England [when I] drove to campus.” Several members felt that concentrating student housing on arterial streets would have the effect of dispersing it rather than concentrating it to the areas closest to the university, which is where students want to live. 

Most Public Comments Viewed Proposals Favorably
Those commenting publicly found more to commend in the zoning proposals. 

Debra Utting said she moved to Gray Street three years ago, and in the short time since, a large number of houses have been bought by real estate investors and rented out to college students. She indicated that she and her husband feel like they are now “in the minority.” She added that the owner-occupied houses nearby, including those with  rental units, are not problematic.  She hoped the town would find some plan to maintain a balance between year-round residents and student renters. Her husband, George Utting, pointed out that Amherst residents pay one of the highest tax rates in the state, and that they pay twice what they paid in Fairfax, Virginia for far fewer services. “What do we want this town to be like?” he asked.

In response to a statement that UMass doesn’t have funding to house more students, Pam Rooney stated that Narragansett, Rhode Island, has created 1,100 more units for students through public/private partnerships, which UMass could do too, even if it was at its borrowing limit. 

Rosenthal spoke up for workers who would like to live near UMass, noting  that even though there is an almost infinite demand for housing from university students, there are also faculty and staff who want to live in town, and stressed that housing plans should consider them as well. 

Janet Keller agreed that the town should explore ways to accommodate a variety of residents, not only students.

Mindi Sahner, a long-term resident, remarked on the change she has seen in the town over the past 35 years. She lives and works near downtown, and emphasized that people can no longer buy their groceries downtown, except during the summer and autumn when the Farmers’ Market is open. And she noted the “hideous” new buildings that house students and are already not holding up well.

Jennifer Taub noted that although rent stabilization (which the proposals direct Amherst to study) is not currently legal in Massachusetts, the state legislature may take it up in the near future. She thought the minimum distance between student homes would mean  lower rents here because the owners wouldn’t be able to charge the $1,000 per month per bedroom rents that students pay.

A contrary view was expressed by Josh Lewis, a 2023 UMass graduate who lives in Newton and works in the real estate industry, who noted that students have a hard time finding housing, often “commuting for hours or cramming into apartments.” He was certain that limiting “market-rate student housing” would not help families. Rather, he stated, it would accelerate incursion of student renters into single-family neighborhoods. According to Lewis, who spoke several times, only by building more student housing would rents come down. Furthermore, he stated, the second zoning proposal “intentionally discriminates against students” and “is exclusionary suburban politics dressed up as neighborhood protection.” He termed the creation of a buffer zone between student homes as “redlining” and said that the real solution would be to build more apartments near campus. He did, however, add that UMass should not admit too many students. 

Axelson-Berry disputed Lewis’ argument that increasing the housing supply will bring down prices in Amherst, saying that while that works in large cities, Amherst is not a large city, and that  housing the large number of students here is overwhelming the rest of the population. 

Public comments that were submitted by email can be read here.

Planning Board Rejects Both Amendments
Planning Board members discussed whether to refer the amendments to the board’s Housing Subcommittee or continue the discussion to the next board meeting on December 17. Some  members of the Housing Subcommittee felt that they are already dealing with the issues raised and are exploring how to deal with the shortage of housing and the encroachment of student rentals into downtown and family neighborhoods, such as through overlay districts near campus (see also here).

A vote to continue the hearing to December 17 failed 3-4 (Jesse Mager, Angus McLeod, and Fred Hartwell voted yes), and Johanna Neumann was quick to propose closing each hearing and not recommending either  proposal to the Town Council. That vote passed 6-1, with only Mager voting no. Mager stated that he will raise the issues discussed if a proposal for another large multi-family building in General Business or Limited Business is brought before the Planning Board.

Planning Board member Jerah Smith said to DuMont and Axelson-Berry, “I want to commend you both and your co-signers for the initiative that you took and the courage that it takes to put yourself out there. And I hear that you are looking for solutions to reduce the competition for homeownership between those seeking to have student rentals and those who are seeking to set their roots down in Amherst. I absolutely understand that and sympathize with that. And I would love to try and figure out ways to make that happen. I’m skeptical that these are the ways to do it, but I think that that goal is shared.”

Marshall concluded, “Thank you all. I hope you’re not discouraged by the actions we’ve taken this evening. I think you’ve prompted a conversation that the board has been having, but I think we got a little more attendance this evening than usual—a wider group of people present. And we’ve brought up some topics that some of the newer members were not aware of. I think it’s been a productive meeting. So, thank you.”

“Thank you, too,” responded Axelson-Berry. “We aren’t discouraged. We’ll keep on.”

Three Parcels on Main Street Zoned from Residential to Business
Building Commissioner Rob Morra asked the board to rezone three parcels at 229, 257, and 285 Main Street from General Residence (R-G) to Neighborhood Business (B-N). The parcel adjacent to 229 Main Street is already in the B-N.

The impetus for the change is to allow the Amherst Inn at 257 Main Street to have more than the four guests allowed in R-G under its 1997 permit. A recent routine fire inspection noted that the inn needs to add a sprinkler system and fire alarm system, because it was licensed for up to six residents (the owners plus four guests). There are eight finished rooms at the inn, but the owners are not allowed to rent most of them due to the restrictions in the R-G. A change in zoning would enable them to increase the occupancy and make the cost of repairs viable.

The two other properties proposed to be rezoned are a six-unit apartment building at 285 Main Street that has been recently fully remodeled after a fire and has no more room on the lot for more building. The owner-occupied duplex at 229 Main Street does have some potential for more development on the lot, which is 20,536 square feet. The Amherst Inn has no intention of more construction on its 35,000 square foot lot.

Morra said all abutters were contacted. The proposal received a letter of support from a staff member at the Emily Dickinson Museum, which is located across the street.

John Win, who owns the Amherst Inn with his wife, said that the establishment complements the museum, and that their patrons visit the museums in town, shop at the downtown stores, and eat at the restaurants. He said that the inn is an “excellent adaptive re-use of a historic building without changing its character, ” and added that maintaining the restriction on capacity would kill the business. 

Mindi Sahner, who is an abutter, stated that the inn is a “wonderful addition to the neighborhood.”

All three parcels are in the Dickinson Local Historic District, so any modifications to the exterior of the buildings visible from the street would have to be approved by the Local Historic District Commission. Morra added that the Planning Department wants to re-evaluate the B-N and general business district boundaries, but is waiting until the downtown design standards are finalized to tackle a general redistricting. 

Planning Board member Fred Hartwell voted no, wanting more reassurance from the Emily Dickinson Museum that the increased capacity at the inn would not be detrimental. McLeod abstained because he is employed by Amherst College, which owns the museum. The rezoning passed the Planning Board 5-1-1. It will now come before the Town Council, where it will require a two-thirds vote to pass.