The most pressing topic at the meeting was the proposed North Amherst overlay district, designed to increase housing density. This initiative aims to facilitate development in areas with existing multi-unit properties currently deemed non-conforming. The overlay district seeks to streamline development processes, encouraging investment and easing housing pressures. However, it faced resistance from residents who voiced apprehensions about increased density and its implications for local infrastructure and community character.

A key aspect of the overlay proposal is the inclusion of height and density allowances, with plans for three-story buildings near streets and six-story structures in core areas. The board discussed whether to allow social dormitories as part of the overlay, highlighting concerns about managing density and community impact. Inclusionary zoning was also debated, focusing on how to maintain affordable housing thresholds within newly developed projects. The board considered the distribution of affordable units, weighing whether to disperse them throughout developments or designate specific areas.

Bruce, a district counselor, emphasized the urgency of addressing the housing shortfall, estimating a need for 5,000 additional homes out of a projected total of 11,000. He noted the importance of community engagement. Angus echoed the need for thorough assessment before proceeding with community gatherings, advocating for a more feasible timeline.

Residents expressed concerns about North Amherst being treated as a dumping ground for developments unwanted elsewhere. The board debated potential consequences, considering a cautious approach to height and density limits to prevent extreme buildouts.

Inclusionary zoning amendments also featured prominently in the discussions. The proposed changes aim to allow project-specific determinations of fees in lieu of constructing affordable units, granting the planning board flexibility to decide appropriate fees based on market conditions, unit sizes, and project locations. Gaston Deos Reyes, chair of the housing trust, explained that the amendment would establish a fee range from four to ten times the median family income, allowing for adaptation to market dynamics.

Board member Angus raised questions about the rationale behind the proposed fee cap, querying whether alternative methods, such as the affordability gap or production costs, were considered. The lack of distinction between rental and purchase properties in calculating payments also drew scrutiny.

The board’s deliberations extended to the potential economic motivations behind developers’ decisions to seek exemptions from including affordable units. Members discussed the impact of cash payments versus unit construction on affordable housing supply, with suggestions that developers might opt for payments if fees were perceived as too low.

The meeting also covered changes to the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) bylaw, necessitated by recent state legislation allowing ADUs by right in residential zoning districts. Proposed updates include provisions for both protected use and local ADUs, with size restrictions and owner occupancy conditions. The board considered removing requirements for management plans and freestanding structures.

Members debated the necessity of design standards and their implications for affordability and architectural integrity.