Letter: Will Advocates for More Housing in Amherst Support Eliminating Single Family Residential Zoning and Reducing Minimum Lot Sizes?
Photo: istock
Please note the just-released report by the State of Massachusetts by the Unlocking Housing Production Commission entitled “Building for Tomorrow: Recommendations for Addressing Massachusetts’ Housing Crisis” (February, 2025). With recommendations that include essentially eliminating single family residential zoning and reducing minimum lot sizes, it may stir up some controversy.
One interesting question is whether folks in Amherst who are very concerned about lack of affordable housing would support elimination of zoning districts limited to single-family houses. Another is whether folks in surrounding towns would support reduction of minimum lot sizes (currently far beyond what is actually needed for a private well and septic system).
Michael Pill
Michael Pill is a former resident of Amherst, and a current resident of Shutesbury. His law practice is based in Northampton.
Analysis of Amherst Housing Zoning Proposals by perplexity.ai, prompted by Ira Bryck, who is too busy and/or lazy to write it himself:
The recent letter by Michael Pill in the Amherst Indy raises important questions about Massachusetts’ new housing recommendations and their potential impact on Amherst and surrounding communities.
In his February 27, 2025 letter, Pill highlights the recently released “Building for Tomorrow” report from the Unlocking Housing Production Commission, which includes controversial recommendations to essentially eliminate single-family residential zoning and reduce minimum lot sizes across Massachusetts. Pill, a former Amherst resident now living in Shutesbury with a law practice in Northampton, poses two key questions: whether Amherst affordable housing advocates would support eliminating single-family zoning districts, and whether surrounding towns would accept reduced minimum lot sizes beyond what’s needed for private wells and septic systems.
The Right to “Quiet Enjoyment”
“Quiet enjoyment” is a fundamental property right that guarantees residents the ability to peacefully possess and use their property without interference. This legal concept protects homeowners from unreasonable disturbances and intrusions while ensuring residential areas maintain a certain quality of life.
Many homeowners specifically purchase in single-family zones to secure this right, forming part of the implicit contract between municipalities and residents who invested in communities based on existing zoning expectations. Dramatic zoning changes could potentially undermine this right for existing homeowners who purchased properties with specific expectations about neighborhood density and character.
Potential Unintended Consequences
The state’s housing plan identifies a need for 222,000 new homes by 2035, but sweeping zoning changes often lack thorough exploration of unintended consequences:
• Infrastructure Strain: Rapid densification without corresponding infrastructure improvements could overburden roads, utilities, and public services
• Fiscal Challenges: Local government might face insolvency if tax revenue doesn’t match increased service demands
• Demographic Imbalance: Without targeted housing policies, new development might not serve diverse population needs
• Educational Institution Impact: With the “enrollment cliff” already affecting Amherst’s three higher education institutions, housing policy should consider the changing student population
• Family-Friendly Housing: Continued decline in school-age families could be exacerbated if new housing doesn’t meet family needs
• ADU Economics: While Governor Healey has legalized accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with claims they’ll unlock 10,000 housing units, these often don’t provide the expected return on investment
• Environmental Concerns: Reduced lot sizes might impact green space, stormwater management, and local ecosystems
Development Motivations and Community Impact
The Healey-Driscoll Administration has implemented several measures aimed at increasing housing production, including the Affordable Homes Act, implementation of the MBTA Communities Law, and increases to tax credit programs. However, there’s legitimate concern about whether these changes will primarily benefit profit-driven development rather than addressing community needs.
The state’s housing plan aligns housing policy with economic development, transportation, and sustainability goals, providing what it calls “a coordinated and effective approach to solving the housing crisis”. But questions remain about whether these policies will preserve what makes communities like Amherst desirable places to live.
A Nod to Michael Pill
Michael Pill, the author of the letter, brings an interesting perspective as an attorney with experience representing diverse clients. According to search results, he serves as Habitat for Humanity’s attorney, showing his involvement in affordable housing issues.
Over his career, Attorney Pill has represented both NIMBYs and YIYBYs* with equal vigor. In fact, when asked if he prefers working with YIYBYs, he reportedly said, “Well, they’re certainly more enthusiastic about having me in their backyard for the consultation!” **
But seriously, attorneys like Pill who can see multiple perspectives are valuable in these complex community conversations. Housing policy requires balancing competing interests, and understanding both preservation and development concerns is essential for solutions that truly serve Amherst’s future.
*YIYBY = Yes, In Your Backyard”
** jk 😉
Thanks Ira for the thoughtful essay. With an M.A. degree in Urban & Regional Planning, and having taught the history of planning to grad students, I learned about increasing urban density with its accompanying competing interests and political battles. With building lots in Amherst now costing well in excess of $100,000, being able to build on vacant portions of previously developed land becomes an important financial issue. As close as Northampton, and in at least a couple of instances in Amherst, single family houses on larger lots have become the sites of multi-unit developments, often over vigorous neighbor opposition. That takes advantage of existing infrastructure (i.e., streets and utilities) and reduces urban sprawl, preserving farm land, forest and open spaces.
What residential zoning district in Amherst is limited to single family houses? I don’t know of any. Every residential zoning district allows multi-unit housing and Amherst has more “missing middle” housing than most towns. Time to stop making this inaccurate claim.
In response to Janet McGowan’s comment above, please see the Amherst Zoning Bylaw, online at http://www.amherstma.gov/476/Zoning-Bylaw-Map.
Section 3.3 at pages 27-31 of the Zoning Bylaw states in Subsection 3.32 “Residential Uses” that only a “One Family Detached Dwelling” is designated “Y = Yes. The use is permitted by right in that Zoning District” in the following five (5) Amherst Zoning Districts: Outlying Residence R-O; Low Density Residence R-LD; Village Center Residence R-VC; Neighborhood Residence R-N; General Residence R-G.
All other residential uses (e.g., duplex, town house, apartments) require either a special permit (“SP”) which can be denied at the local board’s discretion or Site Plan Review “SPR” which either can be denied outright (Zoning Bylaw Section 11.2501) or made subject to conditions (Section 11.2502) that can kill the project.
If a dormitory can find its way to our downtown , anything is possible these days . I wouldn’t rule out what either of you are saying .
I have seen that the interpretation of our bylaws, by the planning board , to be subjective .
I think Mr. Pill has supported my point-all those forms of multiunit housing can be allowed in residential neighborhoods. If you look around you see them in all types of neighborhoods. Also Amherst has allowed ADUs for years before the recent state law change. Also allowed are rooming houses. It’s progressive town when it comes to housing. I don’t think there is any town nearby that has built as many housing units-over 1000 – in the past ten years. To me the housing crisis is the high rents landlords are charging, not the zoning regulations of our town.
Our planning board have been big supporters of increasing our capacity for student housing . They supported a hardship exemption for university drive , when no hardship existed .A dormitory in our downtown They continually bend our standards .The cost of rents,is a byproduct of the cost to build . What purpose does the student housing build out serve ?
Why not have the council and town manager and our state reps put more pressure on UMass to build more dorms ON campus or immediately abutting campus? Allow for these dorms to be a joint private-public partnership as many public universities do to alleviate costs to the university (ie, taxpayers and students). That would go a long way to reducing rents in Amherst and opening up spaces for families and working folks.
It is a shame in my opinion that university drive is going to be increasingly used for housing vs. business incubation. We need more job and entrepreneurial opportunities in the area to capture the brain power of graduating students and incentivize them to stay here.