What Zoning Changes Would Promote Housing Growth in Amherst?

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Planning Board, February 4, 2026

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

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

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

Senior Planner Nate Malloy presented the Planning Board with a new list of zoning priorities derived from the 2024 Housing Production Plan (HPP) recently adopted by the Town Council. This list differs from the town’s October 2025 list and the one developed by the Housing and Zoning subcommittee. Malloy hoped that, over the next few months, the Planning Board could meet with the Amherst Municipal Affordable Housing Trust and the Town Council’s Community Resources Committee to reach consensus on which zoning changes to prioritize over the next year.

The top vote getters in the new list, with three votes each, were: upzoning residential districts (see also here) for high-density residential use and encouraging the development of more student and workforce housing.

Malloy was curious as to why no one on the Planning Board supported 40R zoning, which offers expedited permitting in designated areas for projects that adhere to design standards and offer 20 to 25% permanently affordable units.

Planning Board Chair Doug Marshall replied, “I have never gravitated to 40R or the other 40s frankly, because they feel inflexible and cumbersome.” He expressed a preference to upzoning selected residential areas to achieve more density, not upzoning every residential area in town. Like others on the board, he was surprised to be presented with a new list of priorities, not the one discussed at previous meetings.

Angus McLeod stated that his preferences and those of the Housing and Zoning Subcommittee included modifying the zoning bylaw to refine mixed-use building requirements in outlying village centers and updating the definition of apartments to provide an option for medium- and larger-sized apartment developments. He also recommended upzoning to facilitate infill development around major thoroughfares. He noted that the latest list was missing the student housing component but was not sure the board had a clear sense of what action it could take beyond increasing overall housing supply.

Bruce Coldham stated that he liked the subcommittee’s priorities better. He said, “This list is a collection of phrases and half-phrases that are somewhat repetitive. The obvious thing that we have to deal with is student housing, because we’ve got data that says that we are trying to accommodate 9,000 students in a town that has 13,000 residents. It seems to me that dealing with student housing one way or another—I know that the general consensus is that it is a waste of time—, but the problem is so great that it can’t be a waste of time. It has to be the essential solution.”

Jesse Mager also wanted to deal with student housing. He noted that student and workforce housing are distinct and shouldn’t be combined under the same priority. He added that owner occupancy keeps coming up in various contexts, but never goes anywhere. “I never hear us getting actual information about what we’re allowed to require. How can we design things that lead toward ownership for the missing middle, for a low starter home?” he said, “We haven’t even got to a place where we have a model for encouraging starter home ownership. There has to be a mechanism for non-student homes.”

Marshall suggested, “We could upzone areas near the university for greater development of student housing. We have a serious problem with student demand, and we should not let workforce housing slow us down from solving the student demand.”

However, Mager insisted that the priorities are out of order. “Figure out cluster development subdivision and traditional neighborhoods, cottage-style zoning. Fantastic! But we have to admit, if they get built tomorrow, they will be student rentals. And I don’t want us to spend a lot of time imagining how to zone to get small homes that someone could buy and move in, a new family, staff, a new faculty, whatever, when I think the reality is that’s not what would happen next year or in two years. Student housing is at the bottom of the list, and we don’t know how to address it. That’s what we need to do first. I don’t feel like there’s a lot of desire to actually address it. That’s my frustration.”

Malloy explained that traditional subdivisions of small lots are typically on new roadways, while cottage-style developments are small houses clustered around a central courtyard on a single lot.

Coldham also pushed to continue pursuing the North Amherst overlay district, even though the new Planning Director, Jeff Bagg, did not think the property owners of the apartment complexes involved would take advantage of it. “We need to fail before we drop it—at least be seen to be trying to deal with it,” Coldham said. “Maybe we can learn something about how we can succeed in persuading the town that high-density student housing needs to be both on campus and off campus.”

Malloy said the Planning Department does not consider the North Amherst overlay viable, but the recent study has identified new ideas for rezoning in East Amherst that may target different groups and demographics. Regarding North Amherst, he suggested that changing the zoning for apartment complexes, so that they could add a larger apartment building by site plan review, rather than by special permit, which can be denied, might encourage more development in the North Amherst complexes, and not require the proposed overlay that met with resistance from residents.

The board then discussed the possibility of using 40Y zoning, which allows smaller lots to support denser housing. However, Malloy was not sure it would lead to smaller, more affordable homes, given the Amherst market. He said that there would need to be some way to prevent these from becoming student housing, maybe by capping the percentage that can be student rentals, but he noted that it is a complicated problem legally that may be better handled through a general bylaw or the rental permitting program, rather than zoning changes. He proposed that the subcommittee come back with some suggestions at a future meeting. He admitted, however, that there isn’t a lot of vacant land in Amherst that could be developed into new subdivisions.

The subcommittee’s priorities are: updating zoning for traditional subdivisions and cluster development, modify mixed-use building standard in outlying village centers, enabling cottage-style zoning, and one priority from the HPP.

Johanna Neumann stated, “Big picture, I think the way that we solve a lot of our problems is by increasing supply. That helps with both affordability, student rentals, all of the things, so I still think that should be our top priority.”

The board remained stymied on whether a definition of “student home” with limitations on density or location would be enforceable. The previously proposed measures were not well-received by the Affordable Housing Trust and were rejected by the Town Council. Mager suggested exploring areas for increased density through smaller lots and reduced frontage near the center of town and in North Amherst, where there are many rentals and perhaps a quintupling of student beds.

Malloy suggested that the Planning Board draft a memo to the Town Manager and Assistant Town Manager expressing the “kind of issues, challenges, and opportunities around students,” and the ideas that have been discussed.

Discussion of housing issues in town will continue at future meetings.