The most prominent topic of the meeting was the board’s efforts to revise the ADU bylaw to align with state laws, particularly around the owner-occupancy requirement, which would become void. This necessitated the introduction of a definition for “student homes,” intended to regulate the number of students living in ADUs, a move that elicited mixed reactions from board members. Concerns about enforcement and potential legal challenges were voiced, highlighting the complexities of balancing the needs of a college town with regulatory measures.

Nate, a staff member, explained that the revised draft bylaw proposed one unit with 19 general requirements, including size limitations that adhere to state laws. An ADU could not exceed half the size of the primary dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller, to maintain its accessory nature. The role of the Building Commissioner in assessing neighborhood character and compatibility of ADUs was discussed, drawing parallels to experiences with the Historic District Commission. There was consensus that a clear list of criteria should be established for the Building Commissioner to exercise authority in these matters.

The board explored the urgency of adopting the new ADU bylaw by April 1, with some members linking it to the housing subcommittee’s proposal for defining a “student home.” This definition sought to limit the number of student homes per property, promoting long-term residency while addressing housing stability amidst Amherst’s large student population. The proposal suggested that only one dwelling on a property could be a student home, raising questions about its enforceability and potential impact on housing dynamics.

Parking emerged as a concern, with Jesse noting that excessive parking could detract from neighborhood appeal. The board acknowledged the lack of regulation for parking on single-family properties and discussed the challenges of managing parking spaces associated with ADUs. The conversation extended to the inclusion of both undergraduate and graduate students in the student home definition, sparking debate about whether behavioral issues associated with undergraduates warranted such inclusion.

The high school track and field project also featured prominently in the meeting. The proposal outlined plans for a synthetic turf track and natural grass field, with a focus on enhancing usability and reducing event downtime. The project, a collaborative effort between the town and school district, received positive recommendations from advisory committees. Concerns about protecting the Tan Brook culvert during construction were addressed, with assurances of post-construction inspections and specifications to minimize disruption.

Lighting and accessibility were key considerations, with plans for a four-pole LED system capable of dimming based on usage needs. Questions about potential nuisance lighting and accessibility for drop-off spaces were discussed, with the board emphasizing the importance of complying with zoning bylaw criteria and ensuring universal access to the facility.

In addition to these major topics, the board touched on the University Drive overlay district, exploring mixed-use requirements and building setbacks to accommodate density growth. The conversation included discussions about affordable housing requirements, with some members advocating for a modest increase from the current 12% threshold. The board decided to continue the public hearing to gather additional input from the community and property owners.