The conversation opened with an analysis of UMass’s housing policies, noting that the university accommodates approximately 16,000 of its 28,000 students on campus, a higher percentage than many public universities. This leaves around 9,000 students seeking rentals in Amherst, a town with a permanent resident population of about 13,000. The board acknowledged this ratio as a unique challenge, emphasizing the complexities in addressing the housing shortage without over-reliance on UMass’s actions. A member remarked, “the thing is still that we can’t just say the answer to all of our problems is that the university should do more,” underlining the need for a comprehensive approach that includes but is not limited to UMass’s responsibilities.

A key issue discussed was the aging infrastructure of UMass’s high-rise student housing, originally built in the 1960s, raising concerns about their current state and the potential exacerbation of the housing crisis should these buildings become obsolete. The board noted that while UMass might upgrade these facilities, the broader housing problems in Amherst require innovative solutions and strategic planning beyond the university’s campus.

The board touched on a proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) bylaw, poised for its first reading in the town council. Concerns were raised about whether permitting additional units would align with state intentions or exacerbate the availability of student rentals.

The possibility of simplifying duplex approvals through site plan reviews instead of special permits was debated, questioning if such changes would genuinely diversify housing options or perpetuate existing trends. The board also considered reducing minimum lot sizes to facilitate construction and consolidating certain zoning classifications to promote mixed-use and denser housing developments, particularly in village center areas.

In addressing these zoning issues, the board recognized the historical resistance to commercial development from town meeting attendees and community members, often citing concerns about maintaining Amherst’s character. This was illustrated with a recounted instance where a proposal for commercial development on Sunderland Road was rejected. Environmental considerations, such as wetlands, further complicate development efforts, particularly in areas like North Amherst’s Planning Review Process (PRP) zone.

Amherst’s unique zoning situation was discussed in comparison to other towns, acknowledging frequent regulatory changes driven by both community needs and land use challenges. The board contemplated modernizing zoning classifications to accommodate contemporary developments like clean manufacturing, thus encouraging diverse land use.

The board also broached the subject of inter-town collaboration, particularly with neighboring Hadley, in addressing regional housing needs, given the proximity to UMass. Despite political and logistical differences, there was a consensus on the importance of building connections between towns to facilitate joint planning efforts.