The primary focus of the meeting was the ongoing refinement of the ADU bylaw, with attention given to the definitions and classifications of ADUs. The board discussed how to incorporate state recommendations into local bylaws, particularly the term “single-family residential zoning district,” which could lead to misinterpretation in Amherst’s context. The board reviewed recent updates to their documents, noting the importance of defining “gross floor area” to ensure consistency in what constitutes habitable space. The conversation highlighted the challenges applicants face, especially when dealing with unique property configurations like finished attics or basements.

A key point in the ADU discussion was the distinction between protected use ADUs and local ADUs, which affects requirements such as lot size and owner occupancy. Protected use ADUs, which align with state mandates, have no minimum lot size requirements, and their construction can utilize less restrictive side setback allowances. Local ADUs must adhere to more detailed dimensional standards and require that either the principal dwelling or the ADU be owner-occupied. Board members expressed concerns about potential increases in occupancy and the necessity of clear language to guide applicants.

Another topic was the proposal to include a pre-application meeting requirement for developers, enabling early feedback from various departments. This initiative aims to integrate design considerations into the planning phase, potentially easing future concerns.

The board also examined potential development areas, such as College Street, the Gateway area, and north of Fearing and around UMass, all identified for their redevelopment potential. The conversation acknowledged the distinctiveness of each area. Instead, tailored standards regarding density and setbacks were recommended to suit the unique characteristics of areas like Colonial Village and Puffton Village.

The idea of overlay districts emerged as a solution to encourage development while maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods. The board considered modifications to allow increased density, particularly in stagnating apartment areas requiring a special permit for redevelopment. The potential to transform areas like Puffton Village into communities with clusters of smaller apartment buildings was discussed, with the hope of attracting families.

Traffic and environmental concerns were also raised, with participants emphasizing the need to address congestion and the impact of new developments on local traffic patterns. There was a consensus on the importance of aligning proposed developments with the town’s master plan, particularly in maintaining lower densities outside of designated village centers. The board highlighted the proximity to the university as a rationale for focusing on certain locations, with the potential for encouraging pedestrian and bicycle access as a means to mitigate traffic concerns.

Finally, the board acknowledged the necessity of further community engagement and expressed a commitment to transparent communication with the public. The possibility of organizing a district meeting to delve deeper into these concerns was discussed, with an emphasis on inviting feedback and facilitating discussions in accessible venues.