At the heart of the debate was the necessity of establishing a precise and functional definition of “student rental.” One participant underscored the importance of having this definition ready for future relevance, noting, “if it ever becomes an important or a relevant thing we don’t have to start from… the back mark.” The need for clarity was amplified by references to the 2021 town housing plan, which included goals that could support such a definition.

For example, a rental unit housing “three students and one’s not” could still be categorized under this definition. This nuanced scenario highlighted the need for a clear and inclusive definition that could handle various living arrangements.

Complicating matters further was the ongoing rental registration initiative aimed at collecting data on student occupancy. Participants voiced concerns over potential biases in this data due to guidance from the Landlord Association, with one describing their stance as a “legal fantasy.” This skepticism was illustrated through an anecdote involving a graduate student with a family, emphasizing the real-world implications of these definitions.

The dialogue transitioned to the role of a housing study group tasked with revising the town’s housing production plan. It was noted that several counselors had been invited to participate, whereas some planning board members had not. This group was gathering insights and feedback on the housing production plan, which was deemed critical for the planning board’s efforts. One participant expressed cynicism about past town plans, stating a desire for the upcoming plan to prioritize the housing needs of regular residents and affordable housing rather than focusing on student accommodations.

Further complexities were introduced with a proposal to consider the definition of a “student home” from State College, Pennsylvania. This definition included specific criteria about living arrangements, but concerns arose about its limitations, such as the exclusion of housing forms like triplexes or townhomes. The metaphor of “dragging cookies out of a cookie jar” was used to describe the challenge of crafting a definition that was comprehensive yet not overly complex.

The board also deliberated on potential exclusions from the student rental definition. A consensus emerged to consider removing “town homes” and “rooming houses” from the exclusion list, as rooming houses are only permitted by special permit and have occupancy restrictions. Mixed opinions were expressed on whether multiple-family dwellings should be included in the restrictions. Zoning implications were discussed, particularly in areas like University Drive, where restrictions might hinder the town’s goal to encourage student rentals.

A motion was made to recommend the proposed definition of student rental to the planning board for consideration. There was interest in examining definitions used in other towns, such as Cambridge, Massachusetts, to inform Amherst’s approach. The subcommittee agreed to proceed with the motion, resulting in unanimous support to move forward with the recommendation.

In addition to the student rental debate, concerns about neighborhood maintenance and housing conditions were raised. Specific references were made to the lower end of Meow Street in North Amherst, where properties have not been well maintained. A proposal for a bylaw called “demolition by neglect” was put forth to prevent houses from falling into disrepair. Questions about “grandfathering” existing student rental houses led to a dialogue about the flexibility of zoning bylaws and their application.

Concerns were also voiced about the lack of support from town planning staff, with one participant expressing frustration that the housing market study did not adequately address issues. There was a proposal to elevate the discussion on inclusionary zoning, emphasizing its importance in relation to development goals, which was met with general agreement.

The meeting also touched on the Community Preservation Act (CPA) allocations for affordable housing, with participants seeking clarity on whether the 15% allocation should be calculated before or after debt payments. A consensus suggested that allocations should occur before debt payments, although confirmation from town officials was needed.

Public engagement strategies were another focal point, with proposals to use a website and newsletters to gather community feedback. Concerns were raised about the nature of feedback from broad outreach efforts, emphasizing the need for a structured approach to ensure constructive input.