A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing zoning regulations and potential changes to accommodate increased housing density, particularly in relation to student housing. Members noted that approximately half of Amherst’s land is unsuitable for development due to conservation, agricultural preservation, wetlands, and institutional grounds. Despite these constraints, the board acknowledged the need to increase housing supply to stabilize rental prices. One member suggested that tripling the number of available apartments could reduce rents, emphasizing basic supply and demand principles. However, the introduction of higher quality units was noted as potentially pushing existing landlords to raise rents to remain competitive.

The potential for zoning changes in North Amherst, identified as a suitable location for student housing due to its proximity to the university, was a focal point. Discussions highlighted the challenges of zoning specifically for students, given legal limitations on restricting occupancy based on tenant type. The board considered options like mixed-use developments to accommodate diverse demographics while maintaining the character of residential neighborhoods. Concerns about traffic, noise, and increased living costs resulting from new developments were also raised, particularly regarding existing affordable housing units like those at Puffton Village.

The conversation extended to the notion of eliminating single-family zoning throughout Amherst to allow for more flexible multi-unit developments. However, skepticism was expressed about the likelihood of such a proposal gaining council support. The board recognized public sentiment against altering Amherst’s character and proposed concentrating new housing around the university to preserve other neighborhoods.

The board also debated the feasibility of modifying conservation designations to allow for development in certain areas, such as East Pleasant Street, which contains buildable upland. While some saw this as an opportunity to align with broader land use goals, concerns were voiced about the potential impact on existing properties and resident opposition.

Discussion about the town’s master plan and specific zoning priorities continued, particularly the concept of expanding the Residential Village Center (RVC) to include townhouses and smaller apartment buildings. The board noted the importance of updating the master plan by 2030, using the existing land use policy map as a guide for decisions. Suggestions were made to reassess underutilized zones, like professional research parks, for potential residential development.

Members also considered the implications of relaxing zoning regulations in historic districts, which might promote density but conflict with preservation goals. Design guidelines for areas like the north side of Fearing Street were discussed.