By Allison McDonald

The East Amherst Local Historic District cleared the Planning Board on Wednesday, with members voting 4–3 to recommend adoption to the Town Council after months of revisions to the proposal’s boundaries. The board also spent the first half of its meeting on the Hampshire Campus Zoning Study, receiving a briefing on the fast-tracked effort to guide future reuse of the roughly 630-acre former Hampshire College site.

East Amherst Local Historic District

In the second half of the meeting, the Planning Board revisited a revised proposal for an East Amherst Local Historic District (LHD), ultimately voting 4–3 to recommend adoption to the Town Council.

The proposal, advanced by the Local Historic District Commission, would establish a district of 22 individually designated historic properties in the East Village area, all pre‑Civil War and many already listed within a National Register district. Also included is the entire East Amherst Common across from the new Amethyst Brook elementary school. Unlike the earlier, broader LHD map the board rejected in June, the current version is narrower in scope and excludes some properties in response to board concerns and property owners’ request.

The board’s split reflected a tension between historic preservation and housing/planning flexibility around one of Amherst’s few commercial nodes.

Board member Angus McLeod praised the commission’s research and said he looks forward to using the documentation to “help people understand this area better,” but argued now is “not the right time” to lock in an LHD. He pointed to the area’s overlapping zones (RVC, BVC, RN, RG), its location on a PVTA bus route, and proximity to one of the town’s only commercial strips and the new elementary school

Given that context, he called the neighborhood “ripe for infill” and said he wants the board to think “more intentionally” about zoning and a long‑term vision before adding another layer of regulation that “could hinder” those goals.

McLeod also noted that while the properties are already in a National Register Historic District, that status carries no regulatory effect, whereas a local district would trigger local design review.

Board Chair Doug Marshall echoed his earlier skepticism. He supported the original funding for the study as a CPAC member but remains unconvinced about expanding the share of town under local historic controls, saying he has seen the commission add time and cost to projects even if it can improve esthetics.

Jerah Smith aligned with McLeod and Marshall, saying he would be “willing to consider this proposal down the road” but felt “right now is not the right time,” given ongoing work to rethink zoning and housing in the area.

On the other side, Board member Bruce Coldham, who also is a member of the Local Historic District Commission, strongly backed the district, while acknowledging McLeod’s work digging into preservation‑and‑development literature. Coldham argued that most studies that critics cite are drawn from very large metropolitan areas and are of limited applicability to Amherst, and that the LHD commission’s authority is “quite narrow” and unlikely to materially block needed development or infill.

He also warned that the proposal has a “limited shelf life,” given commissioner turnover and the substantial work already invested: “This amount of effort doesn’t get redone… If we don’t do it now, it’s not going to happen.”  

Fred Hartwell framed his support in personal terms as a resident of an 1868 house nearby. Citing the risk of losing irreplaceable architecture, he said, “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone,” and called the proposed protections “very mild”.

New member Roy Johnson said he was moved both by the case for preservation and by the presentation from local historians, and, despite being “on the fence,” ultimately leaned in favor: “I would probably feel different if the owners of those buildings came forward and said” it would harm their property values, he said, but he viewed the 22‑property district as reasonable. (At least one owner, Cinda Jones, submitted a written objection; her letter was noted in the packet.)  

Member Jesse Mager said he opposed the original, broader district in April but supported the scaled‑back version, drawing on his experience living in another LHD. He does not see local designation as “a big barrier to development or infill” and believes significant redevelopment can proceed while still protecting a limited set of named properties.

Public comment

Public comment was overwhelmingly in favor of the district, with several longtime preservation advocates speaking.

Nancy Ratner, chair of the Local Historic District Commission, reminded the board the town’s Master Plan “enthusiastically” calls for local historic districts and argued that national listing “does not protect the historical properties; it only identifies them.” She said the 22 pre‑Civil War houses include some of the town’s most important early buildings and urged the board not to “ignore the tremendous amount of work” behind the proposal.

Hetty Startup described the 22 buildings as containing “some of the most interesting architectural styles and history and materials that we have in our town” and tied them to a broader regional story of early New England architecture.

Kitty Axelson‑Barry, who lives in Echo Hill and shops and uses services in East Amherst, argued the historic houses provide essential “texture” and diversity of architecture, and warned against repeating downtown’s experience of large, monolithic student buildings displacing smaller‑scale fabric.

Janet McGowan, of South East Street, submitted written public comment supporting the proposed East Amherst Local Historic District. She argues local historic districts don’t stop development but shape it, preserving character while allowing density increases in a way residents are more likely to accept. She cites district successes elsewhere in Amherst and notes the East Amherst proposal directly implements the Amherst Master Plan and Historic Preservation Plan, which call for expanded protections for significant historic resources.

Cinda Jones, new owner of a property on North East Street, opposes the revised East Amherst Local Historic District proposal, arguing in written public comment it has shifted from a contiguous district into a shrinking, negotiable list of parcels—down from 51 buildings to 22. She points to the historic Kellogg House’s exclusion at its owners’ request and a carve-out for the Way Finders project at the East Amherst School property as proof there’s no consistent standard, writing that “once the town concedes that a property can be removed from the district because designation might burden the owner’s economic interests, it has abandoned any pretense of objective, uniform criteria. Inclusion has become discretionary.” 

Hilda Greenbaum, a longtime North Pleasant Street resident and restorer of historic houses, recounted decades of work rehabilitating Main Street properties she said were once “a slum,” and argued that historic preservation there has increased values rather than depressed them. Greenbaum also criticized some of the Planning Board members: “We’ve got two people on this board that have no idea about this town. They’re newly here within the last couple of years, and I really resent the fact that they’re deciding very important issues about which they know zero.”

McLeod responded later that he welcomes argument on the merits but finds personal attacks regrettable, emphasizing that the Planning Board’s role is to balance multiple Master Plan goals, with local historic districts as one of several preservation tools.

After extensive debate, Coldham moved that the board recommend adoption of the East Amherst Local Historic District; Mager seconded. The motion passed 4–3, with Coldham, Hartwell, Johnson, and Mager voting in favor and McLeod, Smith, and Marshall opposing the measure.

Town Planner Walker Powell will draft a formal memo summarizing the board’s recommendation and the split vote for Town Council, which will make the final decision on establishing the district.

---

Hampshire Campus Zoning Study

The Board devoted the first half of its meeting to a detailed briefing on the Hampshire Campus Zoning Study, a fast‑tracked planning effort to guide future reuse of the approximately 630 acres of Hampshire College land in Amherst. Consultants Nate Kelly and Peter Flinker of Horsley Witten Group, working with planning director Jeff Bagg and real‑estate firm U3 Advisors, outlined an aggressive schedule aimed at delivering draft zoning by January 2027 for Town Council consideration.

The study is driven by the Town Council’s June 1, 2026 resolution identifying three top priorities for the site: housing, small‑business development, and new tax revenue, while still protecting sensitive habitat and farmland. Kelly described it as a “once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity” to provide a wide range of housing types and a walkable mixed‑use center on land that has historically been tax‑exempt.

Process and timeline

Flinker walked the board through an intensive fall public‑engagement process: a multi‑day public design charrette in mid‑September, followed by focus groups with nearby residents, Hampshire College stakeholders, town staff and officials, and a second community workshop in early November. U3 Advisors will run fiscal and market analyses on alternative development scenarios in October and again in December.

On a parallel track, Horsley Witten will test zoning frameworks—overlay districts, a new base district, and possible master‑plan approval requirements—to balance predictable permitting with flexibility on a large, complex site. Kelly stressed the need to “sweat the details” to avoid well‑intended but counterproductive limits on density or building reuse.

Preliminary GIS analysis suggests at least 200 acres of developable land on the Amherst portion of the campus, largely on a “high and dry” central plateau where the existing academic core sits, with wetlands and steep slopes limiting development toward the brooks to the east and west.

Relationship to Hampshire College and UMass

Bagg emphasized that the town is not deciding who buys the land or what Hampshire College ultimately does with it. Instead, the town is “creating a menu of options” through zoning so Amherst is not “behind the curve” reacting to a private sale after the fact.

He noted that educational uses remain protected under state law (Chapter 40A, Section 3) regardless of the zoning, so the study does not foreclose an educational future on part of the site.

Hartwell asked whether UMass had been approached about using the site for student housing, which could relieve pressure on the town’s rental market. Bagg replied that any such outreach would be Hampshire’s role, and cautioned that a UMass acquisition would likely leave the land off the tax rolls, undermining one of the council’s core goals.

Board priorities: housing, density, village center

Several board members urged the consultants to be ambitious on both housing and tax base. Mager called the site a prime place to finally use tools the town has talked about but not deployed elsewhere, such as Chapter 40R/40Y smart‑growth districts, and said his top priority would be “workforce starter housing”.

McLeod suggested exploring a new grocery store or other everyday retail to create a true village center and new tax revenue, noting the lack of sites in town that can accommodate such uses with adequate parking.

Marshall argued strongly for compact, ownership‑oriented housing—referencing developments like Amity Place—rather than scattered small single‑family homes, which he called less land‑efficient and more maintenance‑heavy for families.

Coldham said the opportunity should be used “to consolidate density,” arguing that South Amherst is currently more dispersed and that the campus is the right place for more, not less, density.

On affordability, Coldham floated whether the town could raise the inclusionary zoning requirement from 10% to 12% on such an attractive site, at least enough to “ask the question” of feasibility. Bagg responded that staff already see inclusionary policy as a live topic for this project; he suggested alternatives such as carving out specific parts of the site for larger, predominantly affordable buildings, potentially achieving more affordability than a blanket percentage requirement.

Existing buildings and farm parcel

Both Bagg and board members stressed the need for zoning that facilitates reuse of existing campus buildings rather than inadvertently making it harder. Bagg used the Red Barn event venue as a touchstone, saying, “it would be a shame if we can’t figure out a way to allow that to continue easily and quickly” once the land is no longer owned by an educational institution.

Marshall also raised the future of the farm parcel along Route 116 at the north end of the property. While acknowledging it contributes to South Amherst’s rural character, he described it as a largely livestock‑focused “relic” with uncertain economic viability for a future owner and said he “wouldn’t be all that disappointed” if it were zoned for new housing along with other open land, a point Coldham linked to the town’s broader struggles to keep APR and farm properties active in North Amherst.

Throughout the discussion, Bagg pressed the urgency of acting while the town still has leverage: “Let’s not talk about this never getting passed. Let’s talk about making this happen… and push this forward so that the opportunity doesn’t get missed.”  

Board member Jerah Smith urged the team to “be bold and creative within the world of reality,” and said he looked forward to seeing ideas “we haven’t seen in Amherst before” while still delivering a package that can actually secure adoption.

---

An artificial-intelligence tool assisted in the making of this article by summarizing a recording of the meeting which was reviewed and adapted by the writer.