More Density for North Amherst Apartment Complexes?

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Planning Board, March 5, 2025

This meeting was held on Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Johanna Neumann (Acting Chair), Bruce Coldham, Lawrence Kluttz, Fred Hartwell, Jesse Mager, and Karin Winter. Absent: Doug Marshall

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

Planning Board Considers North Amherst Overlay District for Apartment Complexes
The town’s Planning Department and the Planning Board’s Housing Subcommittee have been exploring ways to increase housing density in already existing apartment complexes, particularly those in North Amherst. 

Senior Planner Nate Malloy suggested creating an overlay zone  to allow complexes that were permitted  in the 1960’s and ’70s but would not be allowed to expand today. The area involved is south of Meadow Street along the west side of North Pleasant Street (excluding the newly constructed UMass North Amherst Village family housing). This area includes Townehouse, Brandywine, Presidential Apartments and Puffton Village. Malloy said that there are 650 apartments over the total 140 acres in these complexes and that the overlay would probably need to allow two to three times that number to be financially feasible for developers.  He noted that most of these complexes consist of one- or two-story buildings, and that the increased density could be attained by allowing them to be five or six stories.

Planning Board member Lawrence Kluttz appreciated that the proposed overlay district excluded existing farmland, but he wondered about existing older homes along North Pleasant Street. Malloy stated that all of these houses are rentals, but might need to be preserved. Karin Winter noted that two historic homes were relocated to make way for the Sunset–Fearing apartments (now called 180 Fearing) near UMass, and Malloy said that that is a possibility for the North Amherst homes as well.

Johanna Neumann thought that the proximity of this area to bus routes and to UMass should allow for fewer parking spaces than exist currently. Malloy pointed out that an expanded bike path is also being planned along North Pleasant Street. 

As for affordable units in the overlay district, Malloy thought that the town should require that 15% of the units created be affordable as opposed to the 12% in the current inclusionary zoning bylaw. Planning Board member Bruce Coldham suggested that rather than having the affordable units spaced throughout the complexes, it might be advantageous to have them concentrated in one building to avoid having families interspersed with undergraduates. Malloy suggested that it might be possible for a different developer, a nonprofit with experience in affordable housing, to build the affordable units, so that the affordable units are not designed to be rented to undergraduate students. 

Winter expressed her support of “the multifamily overlay” zone, calling it a “win-win.” Further discussion will take place at future meetings. Planning Board members were encouraged to submit their comments to Malloy.

Decision on Revised Accessory Dwelling Unit Bylaw Deferred
Because of  stipulations regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the new housing bill passed by the state, Amherst’s ADU bylaw must be revised. However, Malloy said many towns (including Amherst) are unclear about what limitations they can put on ADUs. He said that the state is holding a workshop with a model ADU bylaw on March 11. He suggested that Amherst defer adopting new provisions until after the workshop. 

The Planning Department developed a draft bylaw incorporating some of the provisions put forth by other towns, such as permitting ADUs only on lots with single-family homes and not figuring the square footage of unfinished spaces such as basements or attics into the area of the principal dwelling due to the fact that ADUs are limited to no more than half the size of the principal dwelling. The draft bylaw also specifies that a detached ADU must meet the setback and dimensional requirements of the principal dwelling, all exterior lighting must be downcast, and trash containers must be inside or shielded in some other way from the street. Some ADU bylaws proposed by other towns specify a minimum number of parking spaces for an ADU;  Malloy thought that specifying a maximum number of parking spaces might be more relevant for Amherst.

Amherst’s draft bylaw contains the language suggested by the Housing Subcommittee that the principal dwelling and the ADU cannot both be “student homes,” defined as a unit “occupied by 2 or more persons who are unrelated by blood, marriage, or legal adoption and are attending undergraduate or graduate programs offered by colleges or universities (including those on a semester break or summer break from studies).”  Both Neumann and Kluttz voiced reservations about this. Kluttz worried that the provision was not enforceable. “Personally,” he said, “I wish we could explore a way to do this that doesn’t involve applying separate rules to a class of people just by virtue of how they’re choosing to spend their time or pursue education. But I totally understand the goal.” 

Jesse Mager replied that enforcement would be analogous to enforcing the bylaw that states that no more than four unrelated individuals can occupy a unit—it sends a message to landlords and also gives the town an avenue to respond to complaints of noise and code violations. This definition of “student home” has been in effect in State College, Pennsylvania for many years, he noted.

In public comment, Hilda Greenbaum said she was also bothered by the concept of student homes. She stated that it is illegal for a landlord to ask potential tenants whether or not they are married to determine if they are unrelated according to the proposed bylaw, and that there are few problems with renting to students if they are selected well.

Malloy noted that many towns have questions about what provisions are allowable under the new law. He hopes to learn more at the March 11 webinar. So far the town has received many questions from developers about the new law, but no one has yet submitted an application for an ADU. He suggested that Planning Board members send their comments and questions to him in advance of March 11.

Once a draft bylaw is recommended by the Planning Board, it will go to the Town Council, where it will be reviewed by the Community Resources Committee (CRC) before coming before the full council for approval.

Canopy Solar Approved for Jewish Community of Amherst Parking Lot
The Planning Board unanimously approved an application for the Jewish Community of Amherst (JCA) to install solar canopies and associated electrical service to their parking lot. The approval required amendments to site plan reviews from 1998 and 2001, which allowed the construction of the parking lot and an auxiliary building.

Ian Tapscott of PV Squared presented the plan for a 110 kilowatt 30-by-40 foot solar canopy system, a new electrical line, and a transformer pad. The plan will not expand the parking lot or increase the impervious area, and will not reduce the number of parking spaces, although a few spaces will be slightly smaller. According to the fire department, it will not interfere with access in case of a fire. Snow removal is not expected to be hampered by the canopies.

Bruce Coldham and Fred Hartwell visited the site and said they did not see any problems with the plans, although Hartwell suggested that, in the future, snow should be piled to the north to protect the wetlands to the west of the site. The Conservation Commission has already approved of the plans. The Planning Board’s conditions state that an attempt will be made to save the mature tree near the area for the new electrical line. The trench for the line will be made as far from the tree as possible.

The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for March 19.