Opinion: In Beacon’s North Amherst Project, Community Engagement Did What It Was Supposed to Do

One concern I have about the Planning Board’s proposal to rezone the professional research park zone (PRP) for housing is the precedent it sets.

I have never believed Amherst should stop building housing. My concern has always been that we build the right housing in the right places, through a planning process that residents can trust.

The Land Court case of the Mitchell property was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Beacon Communities withdrew its proposal, making the litigation unnecessary. But the broader questions that prompted many of us to become involved did not disappear. They were about where large residential developments belong, how infrastructure and environmental constraints should be weighed, and how significant changes to land use should be made. Now, instead of asking whether housing is appropriate under the existing zoning, we’re discussing changing the zoning itself. That is a major policy decision that deserves a broad community conversation, not simply because of one property, but because of what it means for every area residents have long understood to serve a different purpose.

I also question the assumption that Amherst must continually shoulder a disproportionate share of the region’s housing growth while many surrounding communities have yet to meet the state’s affordable housing goals. Housing is a regional challenge and should be addressed as one.

At the same time, Amherst has opportunities that few neighboring towns have. We are home to the flagship campus of UMass, whose enrollment has grown substantially over the years. Expanding on-campus housing, encouraging more students to live on campus, and increasing financial contributions toward the roads, public safety, and infrastructure that support the university deserve to be central parts of Amherst’s housing strategy. Those approaches could reduce pressure on the existing housing market without requiring every undeveloped parcel or specialized zoning district to become a candidate for residential development.

Zoning is more than a collection of regulations. It represents a long-term understanding between a community and its residents about how different parts of town should evolve. If entire districts can be repurposed whenever priorities change, residents naturally begin to wonder how much confidence they can place in the town’s planning framework. I hope this discussion focuses not only on creating more housing—which Amherst does need—but also on creating the right housing, in the right places, while pursuing every available strategy to reduce demand and sharing responsibility fairly across the region.

I would also like to address the comments I continue to see raised regarding the court case we brought against Beacon and the Town of Amherst – now that I, as a plaintiff, can speak more freely about it.

Community Engagement Did What It Was Supposed to Do
The withdrawal of Beacon Communities’ proposed 140-unit development at 246 Montague Road has been framed by the developer and some others, as another example of “anti-development” sentiment standing in the way of affordable housing. That framing is not only inaccurate, but it also risks undermining the very kind of civic participation communities are supposed to encourage.

From the beginning, many residents approached this proposal with serious, legitimate questions about infrastructure, wetlands, traffic, fiscal impacts, neighborhood scale, emergency services, and long-term planning. These were not abstract concerns. They were grounded in the realities of North Amherst and in the responsibility communities have to balance present needs with future consequences.

What is striking is that residents raising these concerns were repeatedly portrayed as obstructionists rather than participants in a functioning democratic process.

In public comments reported by the Daily Hampshire Gazette, Beacon Communities described legal action by residents as an attempt to “intimidate” decision-makers and suggested that community opposition is a direct driver of the national housing crisis. Shortly afterward, Beacon withdrew from the project, citing “significant neighborhood opposition” and an unwillingness to engage in “protracted anti-development litigation.”

But community engagement did exactly what it is supposed to do. Residents reviewed the proposal, attended meetings, researched zoning and infrastructure issues, consulted legal counsel, and organized around concerns they believed had not yet been adequately addressed. Questions were raised about the extension of sewer infrastructure, traffic impacts on Route 63, stormwater and wetlands, firefighting capacity, fiscal impacts on taxpayers, and whether a four-story, 140-unit project was appropriate for that site under Amherst zoning and state law.

Those questions were not irrational, nor were they anti-housing. In fact, Amherst is already a leader in affordable housing. The town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory exceeds the state’s 10% benchmark under Chapter 40B. Amherst residents have consistently supported affordable housing initiatives over many years – including here in North Amherst. The issue here was never whether housing is needed. The issue was whether this particular proposal, on this particular site, represented good planning and an appropriate balance of competing community needs.

There is also an important distinction between opposing all development and insisting that development withstand scrutiny. Large-scale residential projects have real implications for municipal budgets, schools, roads, water systems, emergency response, and environmental resilience. Across the country, communities grapple with these questions because the costs and impacts of poorly planned development can last for generations.These are precisely the kinds of issues local planning processes are intended to evaluate.

Equally important, the suggestion that resident engagement somehow “prematurely” disrupted the process overlooks the extent to which the process was already underway. The proposal had been publicly presented, discussed with staff and committees, and supported by a town manager letter submitted to advance the project into the state eligibility process. Residents did not interrupt an abstract idea before it entered public view; they responded to an active proposal moving through the early stages of review.

Reasonable people can disagree about housing policy, density, growth, and land use. But we should be cautious about dismissing civic participation as obstruction simply because residents ask difficult questions or pursue legal clarity.
A healthy planning process is not one in which residents quietly accept every proposal placed before them. It is one in which projects are tested against zoning, infrastructure realities, environmental constraints, fiscal impacts, and long-term community priorities. Sometimes projects move forward after that scrutiny. Sometimes they change. Sometimes they do not proceed.

That is not failure. That is the process working as intended

Robin Jaffin is a long-time resident of North Amherst and co-founder and managing partner of the digital media partnership Shift Works Partners, LLC.