The meeting opened with a discussion about the proposed North Amherst overlay district. Board members emphasized the need to consolidate student housing within this area while maintaining accessibility to amenities. The overlay aims to provide clear guidelines for developers, encouraging investment in student-dense areas by establishing design standards and criteria to facilitate approvals. A significant part of the conversation revolved around the need for inclusionary housing requirements within the overlay. Members debated methods for integrating inclusionary housing, with a shared understanding that prioritizing student housing should not undermine the needs of other community demographics, such as faculty and young families.

The board also addressed the potential for a multi-use path along existing wetlands, previously considered by the town and UMass. Participants discussed past challenges related to liability and property ownership but expressed optimism that increasing density might reignite interest in implementing this path. The idea of using grant funding to support this initiative was proposed, with suggestions that developers could contribute to infrastructure improvements in exchange for increased building height or density.

The conversation on building height and density in the U Drive overlay highlighted the importance of considering topography and architectural design. Members discussed the potential for a staged increase in height, transitioning from two stories near North Pleasant Street to six or seven stories further back. The concept of using recessed top floors with balconies to enhance aesthetics was supported, along with proposals to limit floor heights to control overall building height. Discussions on mixed-use developments emphasized the need for amenities within buildings, such as laundry facilities and bike storage, especially for student-oriented residences. The board considered encouraging commercial spaces on the first floor, with one member suggesting that a 30% commercial use requirement could balance residential needs with public service provisions.

The meeting included a review of the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) bylaw draft. The proposal sought to replace the current ADU section with a local definition and regulations, allowing for larger units under certain conditions, including owner occupancy requirements. A proposal to increase the size limit for administrative approval to 1,200 square feet aimed to incentivize homeowners to opt for this type of unit. The discussion included the existing definition of “four unrelated” individuals living in one unit, with one member arguing for its inclusion in the bylaw draft to align with community needs.

Public engagement played a role in the meeting, with residents expressing concerns about the Housing Production Plan (HPP) draft. One public comment suggested the town collaborate with local banks or Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) to develop a specialized loan product for missing middle housing. Board members reflected on the need for proactive long-term planning, emphasizing the importance of envisioning broader goals for the town’s development rather than reacting to developer proposals.

The inclusionary zoning proposal to increase the affordable housing requirement to 15% was also discussed. Concerns were raised about the feasibility of this increase, with some members questioning the effectiveness of dispersing affordable units throughout the community. The conversation highlighted challenges in filling affordable units at the 80% Area Median Income (AMI) level, with members acknowledging the need for insights from developers and property managers to understand why some units remain vacant.