Planning Board - Regular Meeting

meeting of March 4th, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Ammeris Planning Board, I am calling this meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available livereamed via Amoris Media. Minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023 and further extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2025. This planning board meeting will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is listed at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and return to mute. I'll start with Bruce I am here.

All right. Uh, is Fred Hartwell here? I do not think so. I don't see or hear him. We'll go on. Uh, Jesse Major present. Thank you. I, Doug Marshall, I'm present. Uh, we believe Angus Mloud will be a couple minutes late, so I'm not seeing him yet. Uh, Johanna Newman here.

And Jara Smith is not in evidence yet. So we have four members present. We have a quorum and we can proceed. Board members, if technical issues arise and the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment and I will call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remmute yourself. to the general public. The general public comment agenda item is reserved for public comment regarding items not appearing later on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can typically express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. All right, time is 6:37. We'll go right into our first agenda item and Zoom just dropped minimized on my screen. So, that was a surprise. All right, we have the minutes from September 17th of last year. Uh, members, are there any comments on those minutes?

All right. May I have What's that, Bruce? I move to adopt the minutes as presented. All right, let's see. Johanna, you got your hand up. I second the motion. All right, you beat Jesse. So, um, we have a motion to accept a second. Uh, does anybody want to make any further comments before we go ahead and vote? All right. All right, we'll go ahead. Uh, Bruce, we'll start with you. I have an I. All right, Jesse. I. Johanna,

I have an eye as well. That's four in favor, three members absent. The motion passes. All right, we'll go to public comment period. And at this point, I read. Okay. So, members of the public, this is your chance to speak about something that's not later on the agenda. Um, we have three members of the public who are uh in evidence at the moment. They are Mara Keen, Sarah Bar, and Walker Powell. So, do any of you want to say give a public comment? All right. I'm not seeing any hands raised, so I think I will just move on. Time is 6:39. East Ammerst Zoning Redevelopment Review the draft consultant scope of work. Nate, why don't you give us an intro here?

Yeah, we're going to have Walker Powell join us as a panelist. She's a planner with the town and she'll be working with this project. Um, I'll just say quickly, you know, the town applied for a community planning grant. We received $70,000 to study East Ammerst. You know, it's a pretty big geographic area and then uh we have until June 30th, 2027 to complete the work. We're hoping it would move along faster. The idea is to study East Ammeris, right? Focus in on an area and then determine ways to increase density to allow, you know, multif family housing or, you know, different kinds of uses there. Um, you know, there was some some things in the in the press saying, you know, this is the local historic district. And I want to say that it it is separate from the local historic district process. So, there is a local historic district being studied in East Ammerst. Some of these areas may overlap, they may not, but it's, you know, this isn't the East Ammeris local historic district. This is a, you know, a planning study. And you know what we're hoping is that the planning board becomes the venue and involved you know as a stakeholder and works with a consultant to do outreach and work with property owners and really you know can be part of the project and the planning for this village center. So you know we're in the scope that we can talk about a timeline at some point but the idea is to really you keep the board involved in this process. So I can turn it over to Walker.

All right. Thank you. Welcome Walker. Thank you. Um I mean I don't have a ton to add. I think that was a pretty good overview that Nate gave. So, um, have you all had a chance to review the scope of work that was sent out? Well, uh, I'm seeing a few heads nod. Okay. So, I think it would probably be useful, at least for the public, for you to give us a little bit of a overview of what's envisioned.

Yeah, I'll just do a quick synopsis basically. Um, so as Nate said, this is going to be for the East Ammerst Village Center. Um, and there was a map included with the sort of potential focus area that we're looking at considering um, as part of the packet as well. Um, not the common so much as just south of that where there's more businesses and the commercial district is there already. Um so the hope is to look at zoning that would increase housing specifically affordable housing and um one of the main ways of doing that is a 40R district that we'd like to have the consultant look at but we're not committed to that. So the way the scope was written is um they their sort of first task is to look at the initial conditions and assess what's there and what would make sense and then at the end of the first task they uh at the end of the second task um which is looking at specific housing details and like market analysis and whatnot. They propose what the best strategy would be for the area and then once the planning board and the town staff have decided which strategy they want to go forward with whether it's 40R or something else then the consultant will also be tasked with helping implement figuring out how to implement that writing the language for the zoning bylaw if there's going to be a zoning bylaw change um figuring out exactly where the district boundary would be how it would impact the existing zoning and um how the affordability would work and identify issues that might arise in implementing this and then come up with the final language needed so that it could go straight to town council um or whoever else would need to approve it at

the end of this process. We're hoping that the process will not just lead to a study, but also lead to actual implementation of something that will make change happen sooner than later. And the consultant will work with town staff and then our hope was that the planning board would be the primary venue for public comment um public meetings. The consultant would attend several planning board meetings and give presentations and answer questions during those meetings. And the planning board would be an active participant in giving feedback and looking at the drafts. Um, that's kind of an overview. Does anybody have any questions about the idea or the concept or specific parts of the draft?

All right, I see a couple of hands. Thank you, Walker, for that introduction. Um, I know I have a question, but we'll go with the hands first. Jesse, why don't you start? Thanks, Doug. Uh, thanks, Walker. Couple questions. Um, one is on the map. Is that everything on the map is what you're considering East Ammerst or it's just or something some subset of what's actually shown and in our conversations about East Ammerst sort of center. It's really a much smaller region. Jesse, there were several pages. The first page is just an ex an aerial without any boundary on it. Oh, okay. Sorry, maybe I missed that. I'll Yeah, there's one with a proposed focus area drawn.

Apologies. I was sending that question then. My my I'll take a look. My second question is more about Ah, thanks Nate. Oh, yeah. I totally blew. So, that's the existing that's the existing zoning, right? That helps. Yeah. So, I just just to you know, sorry to interrupt quickly. So, you know, here's the railroad tracks. Uh here's Dickinson Street. So here's Hamshaw Lumber. Yeah.

College Street. Here's the intersection. And then, you know, Belchuretown Road heading out of town. And so, you know, this is a big map. The idea would be, you know, with the planning board and consultant and staff, you know, what is the focus area within here? So, you know, we're generally saying, you know, East Ammeris is in here, you know, and then it's kind of defining, well, what is the actual study area? So is it you know closer to route nine and you know how you know how you know how big how long it is along the road whatever. So that's kind of the part of the first task is doing this analysis of existing conditions and saying okay what what makes sense for a study area.

Yeah great thank you. Um then my second question was about I guess the language and the way the scope of work is written because it talks about increasing density and also affordability affordable housing and and those three are not necessarily the same at all. Um, and just to clarify, we're talking about affordable housing as defined by some actual number, not the way it's used in many other of our conversations just about rents not affordable kind of housing. Right? I just want to be clear that's what we're talking about. and and is there a way to make the scope of work have you know maybe some specific more specifics on each of those fronts rather than sort of lumping them together because they're very different purposes in my mind in some of other conversations. Mhm. Yeah. I think that ca that language came from the concept of the 40r district is a way of increasing the housing density in that would also support affordability. You know, rents would actually be restricted. Um, and then the density is kind of coming from the fact that there's business and commercial uses there, but they're they're not, you know, the the setbacks and the building structure size and the amount of floors allowed and whatnot are not allowing the use the area to be used effectively. So, it is kind of two different goals, but they're both looking at ways to use the area more efficiently in ways that benefit the town. Um, but I think yeah, I'd welcome some feedback on how to make that more clear or you know ways to rephrase that.

Okay, I I'll give it a little more thought maybe send some suggestions. Thanks. All right, Johanna, I also had a question just about the study area. A bunch of that forested land I think is owned by Ammerst College. How much correct me if I'm wrong about that. Um, yeah. And if it is, how what's the interplay there between the residential and the, you know, the town's ability? Sorry. Yeah. Between the academic and the town's reach. Yeah.

In the proposed focus area map, I took out I left off most of that forested area because it is owned by Ammerst and it's also um mostly wetlands. But um I think that is part of what the consultant would be looking at is is there a feasible you way to use that land in concert with the college or is that something we're just going to totally leave out of the study in the end. Um and we can kind of have that discussion as we go I think. Right. Or maybe somehow enhance it and protect like if if those are valuable wetlands that the town maybe there are opportunities to enhance it in ways. Yeah. And I think some of that area it might already be protected. Um, yeah. Okay. Thanks.

All right. I'm seeing Fred's hand. That means he's arrived. Um, yeah.

Yeah. I don't know what is going on. and I could not get any of the links to work and so I joined as a member of the public and I was promoted to a member of the group which is why my name is up there but uh I my camera is not connected apparently. Uh so uh Pam if you can maybe resend uh some credentials I could try to log in again but that's That's why I'm there uh with just my name and not my not my camera operating.

All right. Thank you, Fred. Um I guess Nate, um you showed a map of the zoning in that area, but there was another page in the packet that had a boundary on it that was just sort of, you know, penciled in, so to speak. That that's that's the one. All right. Good. So, I just wanted to be sure uh the public got a chance to see this. Um this is the boundary walker that you had referenced where you said you you left out most of Ammeris College's forested land.

Yes.

All right. So, um I guess Jesse, I do see your hand, but I'm going to make one comment and then we'll come back to you. Um, I guess I was a little bit uh or I guess I'm a little concerned I suppose I should say that the almost the exclusive focus of this seems to be housing. Um, and the reason I'm a little concerned is that the section of Route 9 that's west of that's between the railroad tracks and the sort of center intersection of of of the of East Ammer Center there at the intersection with uh what is it? East East Street. um that's commercial now and we could in fact reszone that so that it that commercial was more um feasible in that area. Um and and we know how little commercial tax base we have in this town. So, I guess I would just be very concerned if we were doing something that would squeeze commercial further out of town and and and and I would hope that if we're going to reszone this area that we would do something to to try to make it easier for zoning for commercial to happen um along at least the area west of the intersection with East Street, the area east of where it turns into Belchuretown road. You know, I do I can understand that being more residential. Um there is some commercial along there and I don't know if we want to stop the commercial at East Street or let it continue. So, I hope we can have that conversation, too.

All right. Yeah, I think that's that's a good conversation to have. And I think the hope was that mixed use would be um something that would be encouraged so that we're not squeezing out commercial in favor of residential. Okay. All right. So, Jesse and then Bruce,

thanks. Um, in reading also the scope of work, uh, again trying to parse these differences, I'm all for more affordable housing, actually affordable with limits. At the same time, as I think everybody knows, I'm all for more student housing and and the the term student doesn't show up once in the scope of work. And so I feel like if we are trying to hire someone to look at this and give us suggestions in my mind that should really be part of the conversation very upfront because that's at least on the subcommittee how we've often talked about trying to think about East Ammeris and is that a good place for higher density really thinking about student appropriate housing. So yeah,

I would I would love to see that just included in part of the problem we're trying to solve here. More housing stock for for that population. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. Thanks.

All right, Bruce. Um, and I agree with most everything that's been said to date uh with Doug with your concern about um the possibility of squeezing the the present commercial rather than augmenting it if possible. When I read the uh the the the RFP, it said it acknowledged that this was a a gateway to the town. And I have said I've thought for quite a few years that it was the least auspicious gateway that we have and it would be good if that could be made it could be more auspicious. So I think I I was quite happy that that had been mentioned. But I think perhaps I should firstly like to augment to amplify that that this is that that that we should not just recognize that it's a gateway but that we should recognize I think that it is the least auspicious gateway and that it's somewhat embarrassing and it would be nice if not only that it is a gateway but that we could be augmented in its prestige. I don't know word.

Grand grandeur.

Grandeur. I like that word. Yes. Thank you, Doug. Um, so, uh, agree with Jesse that I noted that the student the word student was missing from all of the housing. I know that we've discussed student housing a fair bit and we haven't felt that this corner of town was optimal because the university is on the diametrically opposite uh side of the center of town. So not optimal but given that um uh the the the the demand for housing seems to be nine out of 10 rentals seem to be student interests or stuff. I don't think that's right. Although that's the data that I have although I and it and it seems to be accurate from all of the sources I have but it doesn't doesn't feel right. So, I haven't quite got to the bottom of that, but nonetheless, there is a huge demand for a huge unmet demand for student housing in so far or so long as this the university doesn't uh add more than it currently has. So, I think it should be there. I agree with Jesse on that. Um, uh, there was one other thing that I forgotten. Um, and the last little piece was that in reading the uh the the RFP uh on the bottom of page uh one, it's there's a an error that took me a while to figure out what was going on. But basically, South Pleasant and North Pleasant should say Southeast and Northeast and then it makes sense, but otherwise it's quite confusing.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Bruce. Um I guess um you know for that area, particularly the housing that's on the south side of uh Belchuretown Road, that has always felt to me like it had a fair amount of graduate students and probably more graduate students than undergraduates. Um, and so, you know, the having graduate students there isn't necessarily a problem. I mean, there is reasonable bus service with the Belchuretown Road bus. Um, you know, obviously if we put 5,000 people there, that would be certainly an impact on the bus system. Um, but I think it but I know I mean the only person I've ever known that lived in that area was actually a staff member at UMass who uh h had a fairly low income job there and um that was where she and her family lived for a number of years. So it is serving more than just students. Uh Nate, you're next. Yeah, I was going to thank the board for their comments and this is, you know, the kind of things we want to receive. So, you know, I hear what you're saying and I think staff can go back and look how we could adjust the RFP, you know, in terms of say describing the different housing types or tiered approach to income levels. Uh, even Doug, what you said. And so, I'm, you know, I think that's important and that's what we wanted to hear. So, I was just going to say thanks. Um and I think you know uh just I just want to say Jesse quickly to your point right I think we have to probably spell it out a little bit too that affordable housing my guess here is you know there's capital A affordable right that's a certain income and on the shi and then there could be you know what's typically called workforce housing and was redefined with the affordable homes act by the state and it's you know up to 120 AMI and mass

housing publishes it and there's programs for that so I think you know some of these suggestions are great we can kind of clarify what we would want the consultant to do. So we you know we provide a little bit more guidance in terms of you know right what kind of housing what kind of affordability and maybe what they consider in different parts of this village center. So you know let's not right um preclude any new commercial development maybe it's the idea of if it's mixeduse buildings what are uses that we would want to have in our non-residential space that aren't allowed today. And so, you know, kind of getting that thinking out of the consultant rather than, you know, saying, "Let's just do apartments and not any any commercial opportunity." So, I think we can try to, you know, you know, incorporate that into the RFP just so it's clear so we're not having to, you know, dis discuss it again or try to, you know, backtrack if they propose something else. We can at least kind of lay it out a little more clearly. Uh Nate, Nate, speaking of things that aren't allowed, would this potentially um have the conversation about whether an apartment building could have more than 24 units?

Yeah. So, I think I think as part of the study, they could say, "Okay, here's what we see in your zones, and here's maybe our thoughts." And so, you know, we re we reference 4DR, which is an overlay, which could work because, you know, the commercial has some barriers in other zoning districts, too, um, to housing, or they they could come back and say, you know what, what if you here's what I'm seeing in your zoning as part of their existing analysis, right? There's a number of things, and it could be that that's the apartment piece. And I think it's then, you know, what is the strategy they recommend? And is it a combination of things? Is it kind of this overlay tool or is it restructuring our base zoning with you know whatever it is say six different idea six different changes maybe it's the apartment thing maybe it's the additional lot area maybe it's some other piece you know some other pieces and that's their recommendation is you know modify zoning in that way so we haven't I mean I'm envisioning they might say that and they might not you know it's if they if they really feel strongly about it then yes you know it's something we'd have to consider

and isn't it true that 40R basically says you shouldn't have any parking associated with the building because it's really for transit oriented sites. Not necessarily. You can you can have a 40R be for housing or mixed use. Um you can kind of have a a theme and then there's just a minimum density. And so the hope would be that you don't you know have such rigorous parking requirements that you limit development. But in even right now in our bylaw, the way we've written our parking section, you know, it's two spaces unless a developer can prove otherwise through a number of criteria. And so we don't, you know, the pling board has been pretty flexible on that. So I I see that that's not in conflict with 4DR.

Okay. All right. Uh Bruce and then Jara. Looks like Jara's here. The time is 7 o'clock. I'll give him five minutes of grace. And I let's let's assume you arrived five minutes ago. Jarro, go ahead, Bruce.

I remembered. Well, I forgot. Um, in this zone, I think, well, of course, it depends, I guess, on how the zone is defined, but perhaps the zone will include the uh Maplewood Farm. And that has been a thorn in the side uh for well for a generation or more. And uh it would be nice to maybe make a specific request to see how that um oddity can be uh reconciled. I guess it's going to depend on whether the owner is still the owner or whether they're intimately imminently going to disappear. But short of uh that, it would be it would be nice to be able to figure out how to make that uh be more useful, be actually what it wants to be.

Well, Bruce, if we adjust the zoning and permit a lot more different things to happen there, wouldn't that probably uh induce a little more activity on that site? I think so. I just I'm raising it as a as a as a particular I mean a consultant driving through there wouldn't necessarily know that there's 30 years of angst associated with that pro that that parcel. And I think it's worth pointing that out to them and saying that um you know there's a there's a there's a there's a treat in store if you can do something to make this idiosyncrasy go away or to reconcile it in some fashion. That's all. Okay. All right.

All right. Um, any other comments from the board at the moment? All right. I will ask our members of the public if there were any comments they wanted to make about this draft RFP for studying East Ammer Center. Okay. All right, guys. I don't see any hands from the public and I don't see any from the board. So maybe we'll go on to the next topic. Time is 7:03 on my clock. We'll go on to general housing discussion starting with a report of the housing and zoning subcommittee. And the second item will be discussion of possible memo regarding student housing. Uh Nate, do you want to introduce this or is this Jesse?

I hope I hope it's Nate. Which one am I introducing? Uh Doug, why don't you start with the uh report of the housing and zoning subcommittee?

You know, I think I'll you I'll give an intro and then you know, Jesse, your members can take over. Um so, you know, the subcommittees met since the last meeting. We looked at the priority list. There was, you know, a few um both zoning and other measures that were discussed. And you know I think the the idea would be to keep moving them forward and bring them back to the board for review and then also maybe have you know other other you know guidance and direction from the full board. So you know in the packet there was an explanation for changing mixeduse buildings. So that's something the subcommittee would like to keep moving pretty quickly. You know there is some ideas about student home regulations and so in that you know in the packet there are questions and we could talk about that. I think you know we've heard staff has heard the planning board and others mention you know what you know what can be done about student housing in terms of you know defining certain things or regulating it and so staff's generating you know questions taking down what you said having our own and then you know the idea is we're going to start reaching out to council and you know really looking at it so Bruce thank you for your state college piece that was also very helpful and um you know then you know like we're looking at other staff initiatives so some of it really is just you know keeping things moving knowing that there's a timeline in all of this. Uh the subcommittee still likes North Ammerst and so it's something they're looking at, you know, working on not involving staff as much in terms of my time, but then also bringing it back to the board. So I think that's something to also consider. Uh and then just quickly the letter, you know, Jar, I'm glad you're here. It's just, you know, a few meetings ago there was discussions about, you know, what's happening in terms of say leadership or other things. And I don't know if I said at first or someone did, I was thinking that well, if there are certain thoughts about how the town could interact with the university or colleges or whatever, you know, would an open letter from the board to the town manager saying, "Well, here's what we, you know, maybe what we see as issues or here's what we'd like

to see or I'm not even sure how the letter would be formed." But, you know, maybe that's a way just to get the planning board's thoughts to the town manager's office because, you know, although this is a public meeting and we have minutes and everything, I'm not sure how much gets relayed. And so, that was just an idea. Uh, and it's something that the board could consider. I don't, you know, to me it was just maybe an idea stemming from one of those meetings. I don't, you know, I don't even know how strongly it was represented or discussed. It's just something I wanted to put out there. So, so this was just to follow up and see if we wanted to pursue it,

right? Okay. Well, there were a number of pages in the U packet uh regarding the housing and zoning subcommittee. Um I guess uh does anyone have any comments on those who either is or isn't on the housing and zoning subcommittee? Um Nate are I mean you're this is basically some of these are dated May of last of this year some some of this is October of this year so I assume the date in the upper corner is the target it's not the date of the document clearly

right no in that list the idea would be to try to have some you know language in a zoning amendment form and in you know maybe in that month the planning board would refer it to council to start the official zoning amendment process, whether that's, you know, hearings or something. And so those those dates were, you know, just target dates. They could, you know, move, but it was just to try to understand, you know, what the timeline could be. Uhhuh. And I can share my screen if there's a document someone would like. I'm just trying to get Well, uh, let's see. We've got Jesse's hand. Why don't you go ahead, Jesse?

Thank Thanks, Doug. Before we maybe talk about these documents, sorry I didn't get my hand up quick enough. Just two other points for the full board from our conversation at subcommittee. Uh really about the North Ammerst idea, overlay idea and about student housing, defining it, regulating it, etc., etc. We had a discussion of the subcommittee following up on the sort of points I clumsily raised, I don't know, two point two times ago with the full board. Um, and we were hoping to bring something a little more defined through the full board to gauge if we have full board support to move things forward because the conversation was if there's not, which is fine. Obviously, we all need to vote how we vote. We don't want to spend a lot more time on these things, right? So maybe for the next meeting or the one after we can prepare some materials that we'll send around obviously we get in the packet for actual agenda items to discuss and maybe vote on not necessarily yes we want this vote on yes we should spend more time on this more or less. So just putting that out there for anyone else to

Jesse um as you mentioned that the the the primary thing that I can remember where that kind of question about whether the board is interested in pursuing it or not had to do with limiting student housing and whether we were as a whole interested in that. Correct. and vers and at that point in that conversation it was sort of versus trying to ex expand opportunities for housing in general. Correct. And I would I would phrase it slightly differently as not necessarily limiting but figuring out if there are levers we can pull to limit where it might be and other places where there could be more.

So I think we all we need more student housing. I'm not trying to reduce the number, but maybe the location and the density, etc., etc. Anyway, yes, that general topic. Okay. All right. Correct. All right. So, uh, let us know when you're ready. And yeah, we'll we'll bring something back. Put it back on an agenda, assuming that it's not full of Yes. downtown design standards and East Ammeris resoning. Right. Thanks. I I foresee we're going to have a busy spring. Okay, Bruce, you're next. Yes.

Uh, I'll be in Europe for a month of that. Uh, but that's not why I put my hand up. Um, I just wanted to say that part of the uh the deliberations or the conversations on the North Amist uh and student housing uh focus and so forth. Um uh was that we should proceed as as Jesse has mentioned. Um, what I offered to do in that conversation was to um put together a a longer, more general narrative uh in making the case as to why this is a good idea and why the town should embrace it. And uh and and um and what I also offered to do and or maybe just committed to myself to do was to break that down into a series of uh uh pieces of about 8 or 900 words long which uh might appeal to the uh the bulletin gazette bulletin as uh to be published. It seemed to me that a good starting point would be to put this broad argument out uh publicly. Um I would be doing it um under my own name or or Jesse and I would Jesse is contributing to this if he chooses to be a co-author. That would be um appropriate. it it he may feel for various reasons that I'm a big fat retired uh fellow who's fat, dumb, and happy and nobody can really do much to me anymore. So I'm I'm I'm easy at doing these kind of things. So that's the plan of the moment with me and with us is to develop this broad argument which basically um makes the point that Amist

is uh in a particular situation you know unlike most towns and uh and it turns and so that we've looked at many towns. What have we found? Uh we found that we are essentially unique we think. Um what are these other towns doing? They're doing one of three things. um these three things are um two of these three things are limited in various ways. The option that seems to be the ripest for us is the uh the overlay approach uh that we are thinking of. So it puts it in a broad context. it makes the broad argument. Uh and uh and we hope that that kind of uh approach will help folks appreciate that this is not uh um a knee-jerk reaction from some people on the planning board that just think that North Amist is yet again to be inflicted with uh carrying the can for the rest of the town which was a little bit of the reaction that we got from folks when we did our September presentation. So, it's trying to get around that and and it's it it it may be a heavy lift. It may not work. But this we thought was the best way to proceed, the most most strategically intelligent way to go about this. And if we go down, we go down, but not because we didn't try hard. And hopefully we will have made some kind of impact on the town and uh uh that will be constructive. So that is in process.

Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Nate,

sure. Thanks. Yeah, I think, you know, I'll share the screen and we can go through the priorities. I think, you know, the first one is the mix building change. And so, you know, the subcommittee feels like it's, you know, could be close to being ready in terms of zoning language and other things. And so then it's, you know, really we can talk about it tonight and then, you know, the board wants to talk about it again. Sure. But I think the idea would be right to change the calculation of the mixed use space and maybe some other piece in terms of some dimensional standards. It's not difficult in terms of changes to the bylaw. You know, I guess the considerations be what are the implications, but it could be that that moves forward faster. And then, you know, North Amoris is something that is right being worked on in the meantime. You know, there's a few other priorities of the subcommittee. And you know, I'll mention the student piece. I think it's really important. So, you know, we just had this discussion about East Ammerst and I think Jesse, you mentioned, well, you know, could it be student housing? And, you know, I think what what's you know, what happens is everyone gets afraid of zoning because it will just become off-campus housing. And so, I think it's a really important question to ask. Are there ways to could it be limiting it or offering avenues where it could be, you know, could you for instance have an apartment building where you say a certain percentage of units is not for students. I'm not sure if that's legal or not. I'm not sure it's the best approach, but we just we don't even know if we can. And so, you know, Bruce has done his research on State College Pennsylvania, and they have had things on their books for a while. And you know, in a conversation he had recently, they they feel pretty comfortable defending it. And so it seems like they, you know, there's state law and then there's federal law, there's fair housing, there's things at the federal level. And we've always been cautioned, well, it doesn't meet a number of things, but you know, around the country there are communities doing something. So it seems like if they can do it and it's not violating fair housing and federal things then is it a state law in Massachusetts or you know

what exactly is the barrier or reasons why and so I I think it's so if you you know as a planning board if you have other questions you know we're developing a list I can share it at some point you know I think it's it's good to know we're trying to get the answers to it whether it's through our legal counsel or talking with other communities like what what are some tools here and you know for instance you know could if it's a special permit use typically. So in zoning, you know, if there's something allowed by right, but then there's something through special permit, you know, it can be a little more restrictive in terms of possible uses, it's hard to get into who the user is like the but you know, some places will say a student house is a use is a zoning use like a land use classification and not a who lives there kind of use. And so, you know, maybe that's a way to do it. And those are the questions it's could be helpful to explore. Um and it goes to the minimum distancing or some other things. Is it a licensing program? And those are things the subcommittee has been discussing. I think you know feel free for the plane board you can always email myself questions and we can share information out. So Nate, um, you know, at one point when this came up last fall, Mandy Joe had brought up the, uh, I forget what the legal phrase was, but that she was worried that that kind of thing would run a foul of treating everyone in a zone the same way. And you know, so I have I I would support us putting together questions like that and any of the other ones that people have that are legal and sending them off to KP Law and saying, you know, we want we need your advice. We're trying to do something and we we're not sure what we're allowed to do. So then, you know, assuming that the answer is yeah, you can do whatever you want from a legal point of view, then the question is what do we want to do?

And I think that's that's a harder, you know, it's it's it's it's a harder conversation, but it's a more honest conversation. And um so I'd be fully supportive of doing that even though I don't really like the idea. Um so Jesse,

thanks. That that's really what I was getting at. You said it much more clearly. Let's say we can legally define a student home, which means we can then legally decide where we some strategy for distancing or density, whatever. My question for all of you is do you would you support that? I know that's very open-ended, right? Like if you're just opposed to the definition, if a majority of the bo board is opposed to the definition, period, I don't want to spend any more time trying to convince anybody. That that's my point. Understood. Um, Bruce,

um, what I learned and Nate's picked it up, uh, from NL clear last Friday in in State College is that, uh, State College doesn't have it student home as a definition. They have it as a land use classification and Nate seems to understand the difference to that, but I just reported it. Um, the second thing that I noted, which I didn't mention in the state college report, uh, but I noted it elsewhere in my notes from other conversations, Nate, is that apparently, and I can look this up again, but I apparently Newick, Delaware found that they were um running a foul of state uh, law. So, it's goose, you know, good for ganders and good for geese and so forth. It may be that what's good in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not good in Delaware, but maybe okay or maybe not okay in Massachusetts. So, I think uh I would hopefully that we would I mean I suppose when you ask a lawyer a question, you you expect that they will do due diligence and not just take a an overly conservative reaction. I hope we can get a thoughtful strategic response to that question and not uh an answer that suggests that it's too much trouble.

Well, I have heard KP Law say their primary task is to keep us out of court,

which which suggests they're they're highly conservative. Yeah, I think No, but I think the conversation, you know, it's it's been going on for many years. So, I think it's finally to the point where be nice to have some, you know, clarity and it could change, right? I mean, you know, it could change in a few years if there's court cases, but for now, what is, you know, what's reasonable, what's legal, um, you know, what I, right, I agree with Mandy, things are supposed to be treated equally. And so a few years ago when I was reading some articles and talking to an attorney, out of town attorney, they said, "Yeah, the idea would be that it's any student, so graduates or whatever, and it's kind of a blanket a term and you'd have to apply it very uh, you know, consistently across that term." And the recommendation was not to do it, but you know, it wasn't that you couldn't, it was just that there was, you know, you have to be careful with nuances. And so I mean those are the kinds of details we'd like to have KP Law or someone examine, right? So how do you apply it fairly and what does that mean if you can? And so um and yeah, I think State College for whatever reason they've seemed to kind of thread that the needle there and they it seems to be working. I will say that they have some rules. They also have a lot of you know bigger buildings in their downtown in terms of taller buildings. their zoning allowed it and now they're trying to catch up with saying well actually we uh there was an article Jesse had for poured to the subcommittee they hadn't done a a job of having say design guidelines or what's allowed in mixeduse buildings and on the ground floor and certain things so although they're getting the density I think they're now saying well are there other things we can tweak and modify and so I actually think that they're the consequence or the impact that maybe was planned was to get people to live in downtown and have you know more people in the center which is good so they're not crowding in the neighborhoods and now they're saying well how can we still manage that in other ways so I you know

I actually feel like you look at their dashboard and how they do things it seems to be working in terms of where they have density and other things so it is it is having an effect I'm assuming that's what they intended but I'm not sure all right uh I see Angus you're next with your hand I assume you arrived maybe a couple minutes ago so the time now is 7:22 yeah I think I arrived 7:15. Um, yep. 7:14 I noted. Okay. Thanks, Bruce.

Um, and sorry everyone for being late. Um, I think to to specifically answer Jesse's question, I think I would be less inclined to investigate this as a strategy. It it feels to me like um we can try to corral students, but it's it's unless we find places for them to live, we're going to run into the to other kinds of problems. Um, so to me, I I I would investigate it, but um, we've heard from from people in the public who are really interested in this strategy. So, I I think I would support getting trying to get some kind of a legal opinion so that um, not so much because I'm I'm interested in pursuing it. Um, once we got to legal opinion, I would probably state similar similar things, but I think it would be helpful for us in communicating with the public to let them know that we we've gone down this path to get some leg legal advice. Um, I think we're probably not going to get a clear yay or nay from the law firm. It's going to be, you know, degrees of liability. Um, but that would be clarifying to have have some information that we can share with people who who would like to like us to really be investigating this strategy. So, I think that's kind of my dual. Personally, I'm not I'm not wild about it. I don't think it's a great approach to to coming up with student housing, but um but I'm open to the legal opinion and I think it'll be worthwhile.

All right. Thank you. Uh we've got three hands. Bruce, you're first again. Um I'm somewhere between I was I put up my hand because I uh propose of your comment Doug about KP Law's job was to keep us out of court and that immediately uh got me uh jonesed a little because I I and Bob Mitchell years ago when Fred and I were first together you on the planning board that that's that was essentially Bob's job. He felt that that was keep our noses clean was the way he phrased that and and generally I think that's a good move and I can understand the KP law might have that uh modus operande but sometimes you want to be the client who decides whether or not you want to keep dirty your nose a little. Um this is a uh an issue about whether you can um do what something must tend to what state college has done is is is is a solution that's kind of uniquely apt to towns like us. There's very few towns in the country and I'd say none of in in the state of Mass in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where this so I think that we would want KP law to give some opinion as to uh that would involve how much effort it would be take to defend this rather than just saying that you would have to def you can't do it because you'd have to you would have to prevail in the court of law. I'd like to have a sense of how difficult it might be to do that because it may be that in certain specific parts of town or in some point in the future uh it would be good to know uh how hard of a fight it would be to prevail if that was necessary and it's not just something that we could assume we would be able to do.

Okay. All right, Fred. Uh yeah, one uh I I agree with Bruce that uh one thing that we don't want to uh lose track of is is um well for one thing we do have a definition of student home. We did the heavy lifting on that when we were trying to get it into the uh accessory dwelling unit discussion and we found out that the nature of state law wouldn't allow it in that context. But uh we do have a good definition to start from. The other thing is uh somewhere in this mix uh let's not lose track of there is a there's a pretty good way uh and the town I think has the data to support this in terms of um frequency of complaints that end up you know drawing the attention of the police force uh and that is uh whether or not the building is owner occup occupied uh because that makes a huge difference.

Okay. Thank you, Bruce or Fred. Uh Jerry, you're next. Thank you. Um uh I was just going to say that I think you know uh it makes sense to ask the lawyers getting a legal opinion. I think yeah, I I'm absolutely in support of that. Um, but as a as a strategy, I I don't think it's the most effective and it's not something that I personally will be investing any time working on, but that doesn't mean that that isn't what the board can work on.

Okay. All right. Um, Nate, I guess, uh, one question I I think I need to ask you. I think at least three of us have have expressed that we're not particularly enthused with that approach. If that's the case and the board is unlikely to want to proceed if it is if we got the legal opinion that it was in fact legal for us to go that way, would you in fact want to spend the money on an attorney to get the answer? I mean, I I think several of us have said it would be perhaps helpful to have that answer even if we didn't support it. But how do you how do you how does the town view that kind of situation in terms of spending its money?

So, you know, like there's a report, you know, back from like 1991 and there's one before that, right? So, it's like Michael Dukakus funded a study, you know, co housing and college communities and it's the same conversation we're having today. It's like it hasn't advanced much at all. And so whether it's about housing in general or student housing, I think it would be really important to have some of these answers clarified.

And so I think it's worth it. And so some of it would be um whether or not we actually have a definition of a student home. Some of it would be like, okay, well say we do, can it be used in a licensing program, you know, if if for nothing else to have better data than say the rental program we have? You know, can it be a use classification in Massachusetts? That's kind of interesting. What are the degrees of liability? I like that, Angus. Right. So, it'd be really important to understand to me if we if we nudge the needle a little bit what what's kind of reasonable and what what goes beyond reasonable. And and I you know, some of it what staff is saying and we hear you is that if we can regulate it, to me it's also we can allow it. And so if we, you know, I I I hear that there are certain neighborhoods that, you know, we don't want to have the balance tip to become investor owned rental properties. Could we prevent that? But then say, you know what, here's areas where we actually want density. Say, and it and it could be, you know, we did that in University Drive. It wasn't specifically students. It's mixed use. But could there be other areas in town where maybe we say we actually want student housing if that's a defined term in multi-unit buildings and properties. And so we're not even sure we can do that right now, right? We would just say, "Oh, that's an apartment building." But right now, we limit apartments to so many units and it has to have a certain bedroom mix and it's not allowed in any of these zoning districts where we think it might be appropriate to have this kind of density. And so, yeah, I think it's kind of worth it. Um, and you know, it might be that they come back and they're, you know, they they have a few ideas and then we, you know, we can bring it back to the board and staff can decide, okay, how do we pursue this? I think we still need more housing of all different types for different demographics. And so I to me that would still be a goal. Um, you know, I, you know, I think there's some staff, you know, I think North Ammeris, it's interesting. It the b the overlay we have is really big. I think if you

look at the town and its proximity to UMass and what it's already developed, is there a way to allow that to be redeveloped? Maybe the idea of three times the density is a lot and it's too much because that's what a consultant said it would need to take to have this reinvestment, this redevelopment, but you know, is there an opportunity to still allow some increased density in North Ammerst and maybe it's not this wholesale? you know, that was the maximum in the overlay anyways. But what if, you know, you could allow apartments with more than 24 units in that area or you allow mixeduse buildings along the street or whatever it is just so there could be some some increase and not have it be a static thing that you know those units just stay what they are. They can never change because it requires a special permit and most people don't want to go that route. And so, you know, to me those are interesting things and that way we're not actually zoning and calling it students. we're just saying, you know, it's multi-unit development. So, I do think Doug, though, I you know, I think there are some there's some nice points brought up tonight. There's ones that staff have already listed in, you know, from previous planning board meetings. And so,

yeah, I think it's just kind of interesting. You know, you hear other communities across, like I say, across the country are doing things and it's like, well, why why has it not done in Ammerst?

And I Bruce, I do think there are other communities in Massachusetts, right? Worcester had 10 I don't know if it's like eight or nine colleges and universities. You know there's different you know UMass LOL is pretty big. So I think that some of it could be I think Ammeris is um is unique in terms of its proportion ratios and I think the housing production plan really highlighted that in some ways and there's a new wayfinders data the Donghue Institute report. So I think there's a probably a case to be made that Ammeris and maybe a few other communities in the state could benefit from some of these ideas or tools. Okay. All right. Well, that's good. And I I was going to say we could turn to mixeduse building. So, I'll share my screen. I think that Yeah,

you know, one of the first priorities was changing the mixeduse building standards and the the document it's um the goals, intent, and purpose. I think that's visible for everyone. Uh or maybe I'll go here. This was kind of the first one. You know, could we bring this forward this spring? And the idea would be in outlying village center zones allow mixeduse buildings, you know, change the calculation of the non-residential space. And you know, there was a number of questions that the subcommittee and staff had. And what that really led to was this this statement in this document here. You know, the the goal is to really encourage it. and you know um outside the downtown so four zoning districts RVC BBC commercial and BN and you know there's kind of two approaches to the strategy to incentivize mixeduse buildings in these both centers um you know change the proportion of non-residential space and we already have a separate standard or calculation it's on University Drive and so the idea would be to take that standard and apply it in these four village in these four village center zones So in rather than 30% of the gross floor area, it's 75% of the facade length along a street to a depth of 24 feet. And there's a few other kind of standards and conditions that would be applied there. Uh and then in thinking about it, in a lot of these zoning districts, there's an additional lot area per unit. So if it's a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size, every unit would then need an additional so many square feet. So in the commercial, it's 4,000 square feet per unit. So, if you have an acre property, you're limited to five or six units on that entire property because of this 4,000 square feet for additional

for each additional unit. And you know, it's a it's a you know, so that's a kind of a density factor, right? that's it might you know there and so there's different ways to do density but the subcommittee said well that that metric right that additional lot area should be changed or modified or something needs to change to you know even if we do the proportion of non-residential space this additional lot area is still going to be a disincentive especially in these outlying growth center zones

and so you know what this document is saying well in here's the dimensional table It's four zones. It's 4,000 square feet in RVC, 4,000 in COM, 2500 in BBC, and 1500 in BN. And then there's these little footnotes A and B. The RBC and BBC and COM don't have it. And so essentially, this 4,000 square feet can't be modified or waved. It is what it is. And you know, the thoughts would range from, do we even need this additional lot area at all? um you know the the um I mean the additional lot area per unit because we have these other coverages that could you know could justify um you know you still can't build over a lot because of the mil maximum building and lot coverage or you know there's a footnote um within the table that says you know these can be modified through a special permit by the permit granting authority and so you know I think the the subcommittee likes the idea of changing the calculation of first floor space I think there's a there's a discussion of what's happening in these four outline village centers. And just to show you some of the idea about if you change this in these zoning districts, here's how the residential uses are allowed. And so mixeduse building is here. So you know in RVC it's a special permit. We're not proposing to change any of this. It's site plan review in these other zoning districts. And so the thought would be if we can change the the first floor calculation, this lottery calculation, mixeduse buildings would actually be incentivized in BVC, BN and commercial. Um, you know, the other ones, apartments and town houses, if we change that lot area, it does impact the other residential uses. So these are all the residential use classifications in the bylaw. And so if we change the 4,000 to 2,000, it not only applies to mixies buildings, it apply to these other uses.

So in the RBC for instance, apartments are site plan review. You know, if we change that additional lot area, you know, would there be more apartments because, you know, now you you know, you could get more units in a building. You know, those are considerations. Just scrolling down, you know, there's a few areas in town where this these zoning districts are located. And so in North Ammerst, you here's the intersection of Pine Meadow uh and Montigue Road, Sunderland Road. And so there's RVC along the streets and there's BVC just right around the intersection. And then there's commercial up above. Here's Koh's Road. So you know, here's the survival center and everything here. So the changes to mixed use would apply in these areas in North Ammerst in Main Street along Dickinson Street. You know, there's BVC, commercial, and BL. It wouldn't apply to the BL here, but here's BN, BBC, and Commercial. Here's Hamshaw Lumber in East Ammerst. There's a long strip of commercial along College Street, and then there's RVC, BVC up here, actually by um on the Main Street. And then there's some little areas of BVC and then RVC. And so, you know, mixeduse buildings are allowed in these districts. We haven't seen a lot of development of them. Um, there could be a number of reasons, but perhaps changing those few few factors could help. And then in Palmory Village intersection, there's a lot of BVC surrounded by some RVC.

Well, Nate, I assume that as part of this, you we might consider altering the map. a little bit.

So I I haven't considered that. Um I think you know that that's another to me that's you know so if we go back to East Ammerst I think what the consultant would look at they might say well here's our study area and maybe the simplest solution is to make all that BVC and then now within the within the BVC we think we should have these few changes you know maybe the lot area do something with mixeduse buildings and parking or something um that could be for instance a strategy but in terms of what we're looking at now for mixeduse buildings. We're not saying well now East Ammer should be all BVC. We're just saying let's change that calculation. Yeah.

And additional lot area to do a map change becomes a much bigger discussion in terms of say visioning for each village center. Uh why why is that a much bigger issue? Well, what so I guess the question would be I guess that what what are you thinking like um

Well, I guess um you know I haven't thought I haven't got specific parts of town that I'm thinking about, but I've always thought it was if if we have these seven or six or whatever village centers that the I guess it's the BVC really ought to be kind of a circle around the center of that geographic zone. and that you know the RVC can be a concentric ring outside of it. And um so that right now the village centers feel very fragmented and sort of uh I don't know maybe illogical from a sort of ideal point of view. I mean, I understand that some of the like the BBC is probably where the businesses were when that zoning was created. And so, is that static fact something we want to maintain or are we open to expanding that area? you know, um that's the kind of thing that I'm I would think we would want to talk about, but maybe that is too big a conversation and would bog down the the mixeduse conversation, you know, beyond beyond a a palatable length of time. I I I so I agree with you, Doug, that right there's this kind of hierarchy or this, you know, succession of say density or zoning. It seems odd especially here we have RVC and then there's BVC up here when you think that the kind of denser area is all here which could be better served by BVC and then this actually would be RVC. So I'm not you know I think there's ways to look at that. Um I'd be curious to hear from the board. To me it seems like it's a little beyond what we were considering. I don't know if we want to roll it into it. Um but

Okay. All right. Well, I mean, there there there have been times that I've been thinking that uh we really just don't have enough zoning districts. Like, we really ought to be saying, you know, what do we want to see on North Pleasant Street, you know, between this street and that street and zone it as a as an area. And maybe that's similar to some other part of town, but it's like having like having making a change in the BBC and having it apply all over town to sort of disperate physical conditions, you know, feels like it keeps us from making changes to those zones because oh, you know, in one of the seven places where there's BBC, uh, it's going to be an undesirable outcome. Well, okay, let's split that area out of the B BVC and just zone that the way we want it to be zoned. So, I don't know.

All right. Uh, thank you for listening. Uh, Jesse, you're next and then Angus. Uh, great. Thanks, Doug. Generally, I agree with you that we should have that conversation. Also, I don't think that should prevent us thinking about this change because I think this could be a pretty well say a swift change that could make some impact in some projects over the next year or two versus I think a changing in zoning which in my view would probably take a substantial amount of time not because we couldn't agree just because that's what would Okay, Angus.

Yeah, I would I would agree with Jesse that I I I think the map should be left as it is. I'll just say changing all four of these zones with the additional lot area requirement would actually change all of the all of this these two major intersections, right? It's it's changing BBC, RBC, and commercial. So, without changing any map lines, you'd be able to change a fair amount all at once. Um, generally, just to your point, Doug, about kind of spot by spot um, zoning, I would generally not push for that. Um, I think I would, uh, on the one hand with infinite resources, I think that could be a great way to to run development. But I think, um, I think it would make it very challenging for people who are trying to get projects approved when they think about different parts of town to have to go through bespoke zoning for every part of town. So I think my inclination and what I'm trying to think through with the office park and PRP is actually combining zones and shrinking them um to make the system a little bit more manageable. I mean, I think it's it's I think uh interesting that a town of of, you know, roughly 15,000 yearround residents has uh six different residential zones um for instance, and then five separate business zones. That that seems to strikes me as a little bit excessive, but that might be a difference of opinion that's neither here nor there.

All right. Thanks, Angus. you know, at at a different moment in time, I'd completely agree with you. You know, I like simplicity, too. So,

so just just quickly on the calculation, to me, the zoning change would look something like this. We're not removing any language. We're just whatever is in bold is new. So, we'd say that in the general business and BG, this applies. So, this is already in the bylaw. We're just adding kind of this this lead in. And then we'd say in the village center RVC, the ones we just followed, these are the conditions that now apply. And these are taken from the University Drive overlay. So they're not, it's nothing new. Um, you were saying 75% of the facade to a depth of 24 feet should be, you know, non-residential use. To the extent feasible, a majority of the street facing facade should be built along the width of the lot frontage and located along the front setback line, right? So that, you know, you're not getting the the small end of the building, narrow end facing the street. you're really trying to build out across that the lot. Um, you know, after accounting for the depth of 24 feet, parking can be on the first or ground floor and a additional mixeduse buildings are permitted on a single lot or more than one. Uh, and they can have less um ground floor space, but then it has to be, you know, compensated for in the first building. So, you're not losing any of that non-residential space. And then in all zoning districts, these other uh conditions still apply. And this would be the chance to change this if we wanted. Um you know this 50% you know sometimes people say well really like what does that mean? The idea is to try to get you know some variation and they can kind of accommodate it without too many problems but you know so this so to me this would be the changing that first floor space. I think the next question would be how do you address that additional lot area and so you know I can share my screen in a second there and so you know to me it's like okay planning board if we kind of like where this is going you know maybe we bring it back to me it would be like okay let's talk think about it tonight bring it back at the next

meeting we talk about it and then are we actually comfortable saying this is ready to be referred to town council and you know maybe we preview it with the CRC this in March or we let them know what's happening but you Even to me it's like so even if we think this is moving forward and we like it it goes to council in April it gets referred back you know we could play out the timeline well it's in hearing for a few months goes back to council for first read second read maybe it's voted on in October or November right so there is there's a process here that we'd like to you know factor into some of these things so um you know that's why in my in my my um in this one Doug I had may

maybe in some of the other ones you know it's like Okay, maybe this would have been in October and then we're scrolling down, you know, this cottage style October. So, how do we, you know, while this is moving forward through the hearing process, the subcommittee and the board can maybe be talking about one of these other ideas and then that gets forwarded at the end of near the end of the year so that we have, you know, kind of this these overlapping zoning things. Uh, I know it's a lot of work for staff and you, but otherwise, if we just propose this for just this year, we might only have one zoning amendment voted on this year. And maybe that's okay, but I'd like to try to have a few more. Okay, Jar.

Thank you. Um, okay. So, I just want to like think about I'm thinking about the timeline here. So, we just got the downtown standards um published today for comment. Then we have the East Ammerst uh village study going over the course of the year and we'd be passing this bylaw either I guess mid mid year or later at the end of the year. I'm just like thinking I don't want to wait for the study to necessarily make these these bylaw changes but um in terms of sequencing I'm just wondering I don't know if you have any thoughts related to that like if there are any particular strategies that would be better suited waiting for the study which ones would be better suited to advance um because we we have enough information

and that's a question for Nate Yes. Uh, no, it's it's a really good question. You know, at the previous u one meeting, I think Jesse said, you know, it's hard to always keep waiting for studies because there's so many. So, I think the downtown design standards don't apply in East Ammerst. I've always thought though, if we like what the standards are showing, you know, we can adopt them and apply them to East Ammer. So, okay, wow, now we've incentivized mixeduse buildings. Maybe the board adopts some of those standards and it's rules and regulations or design guidelines and we use it as part of our permitting, you know. So, that could happen kind of quickly. Um, right. Okay, that makes sense. In terms of the East Ammeris piece, I think yeah, I think you know, so as this is moving forward to the changes to mixeduse buildings,

the consultant could say, well, actually, I think maybe there needs to be some other changes, but you know, we're asking them to look at specifically East Ammerst. And so these other zoning districts are, you know, North Ammerst, Main Street, Pomemoroy, and others. So I think the mixeduse building can happen, can move forward. I don't think that there would be any, you know, if there needs to be changes, I'd say, well, maybe we can pivot quickly and do that. Um, but I don't see that we're changing mixeduse buildings in such a way that it's so radical. It's not like we're, you know, changing we're not changing like dimensional standards. We're not saying, you know, seven stories or 100% buildout. We're just saying this first floor piece and it's only a minimum right now. Instead of saying 30%, we're saying it's 75% of the facade length. Really encourage it along the street.

Yeah. Uh, and then we're maybe going to change this additional lot area. So, I don't see it as like radical changes that the study may have something different. Great. Thank you.

And so, just to I just want to share my screen again. I just just to um illustrate some of the changes. Uh, here's um um Southeast Street Common. So, it's the one behind Florence Savings Bank in East Ammer. So, it's uh It's it's this uh project right here. And you know what? This was before there was the some standards in the mixeduse uh in the bylaw. So they have, as far as I can tell, a really small existing mixeduse portion here, what's shaded in. And then, you know, in the blue would be what 30% looks like. And then the red in Southeast Street is right along here on the bottom. And the red is what 75% of the facade length along the street would look like to a depth of 24 feet. And so you know if right now there's 1,200 square feet, 30% is about 4,700 75% of the street facing is about 3600. So it is less. Um you know in some instances it wouldn't be um you know sometimes this is more comparable depends on the shape of the building, right? So if you have a bigger building, 30% is bigger even if it's not along the street. Uh so you know five University Drive down um on the corner of AMD University Drive, you know, currently they were proposing 44% of the ground floor be non-residential. So again, typically zoning sets a minimum or a maximum. So they went beyond the minimum. Uh and then in the red is what you know the what the un what the overlay actually requires. So you know 75% of this length to a depth of 24 feet which is much much less than the um it was proposed and 30% is outlined in blue. So just to show you that you know depending on what how the building is

designed and the shape you get you know different space allocations. Um I think you know the subcommittee felt pretty comfortable with putting this forward as the standard in these outline centers though. I think the next question really is, you know, so here's what this would look like in the use chart. I think the next question is really what happens with um sorry for the scrolling the dimensional the dimensional piece here. These boxes got moved a little bit. You know, do we have you know a footnote? You know, we have an A, B, an M in the in this dimensional table. I mean I could proceed proposing you know footnote C that says you know it could be as simple as for mixeduse buildings this condition may be modified by the permit grading authority and you know if it's a site plan review use then the planning board modifies it if it's a special permit use it's modified by the zoning board you know there's probably a number of ways to approach this and so I think some of it would be you know planning board you know what do you what do you think the subcommittee had said do we just eliminate it and have no additional lot area in these zones because these zones are kind of protected based on how uses are allowed. So in the BVC, you know, town houses, apartments, subdividal dwellings are all special permit, mixeduse buildings are sight plan review. So even if we got rid of the additional lot area in BBC, someone's going to come and propose, you know, some dense town housing, it's a special permit use to the zoning board. So there's already, you know, some safeguards there through that special permit use. and it can change the density because they could say, "Wow, that doesn't really match what we want to see." Same within BN. A lot of the, you know, um, multi-unit development is special permit. We're not changing that. So, you know, I think if we change that first floor calculation, I think we'd still have to figure out how we address

this additional lot area. And I guess, you know, you know, I'd have my ideas, the subcommittee might have theirs, and I don't know, planning board if you have some suggestions as Are you Well, I mean, you're looking for suggestions at the moment. Yes.

Okay. Well, I guess I would say I I I would be comfortable eliminating them in those areas. I mean, I I suppose that's probably at the extreme end in terms of the option or the sort of approaches you were uh describing. Um, but you know, I'd like to see a few things change. So, you know, if the pendulum swings a little bit far and a few things happen, that's that'd be fine with me. Uh, Angus.

Yeah. And the housing and zoning subcommittee, we we talked about this as well, and I think, you know, I think more of us I I know I I came down on just eliminating the additional lot area uh per family requirement. And I think adding uh the alternative of adding more footnote um material accomplishes the same thing but in a more complicated way. So I think it's just simpler to to simply eliminate it. Well, you I suppose you need the the footnote if you're going to keep some sort of number, right? So whereas if you're just going to eliminate any sort of additional lot area, then you can just take this off and not have a footnote,

right? So in BBC for instance uh it's 2500 but then there's a footnote A and B. So what A is saying that through a special permit through the permit granting authority. So you know how the planning board will issue a site plan review it would then be act as a special permit granting authority. So in BBC you know pling board can modify this 2500 down to however they whatever they you know works with that project. Okay Bruce

I I also agree with you Doug and Angus. uh the uh taking out the number uh and and and and not trying to keep the number with some footnotes for two reasons. Uh one is that it's demonstrabably clearer uh about what we're trying to achieve which is to get get more opportunities to build more housing in places that we think it's appropriate. So having discretionary uh giving boards discretion and so forth is not as um overtly invitational uh to people thinking to develop or taking development initiative as as having uh uh no number there at all. It means that uh it's it's a it's a it's a clearer and stronger invitation to go in the direction that we think we want to go. Uh Nate's pointed out that there is still you know over overview by by permit granting authorities and so forth. But the other thing that would happen is that in the course of uh public hearings on this um we could probably get a lot of we would got we probably get more valuable information if we did the more radical move. Um we might find out for example that there are particular parts particular districts or places in towns with in these districts who are abuting and so forth where we might think golly you know um it really isn't a good idea to take these numbers out or if it is to it would be better not to keep them but to reduce them or something but I think that the public uh uh hearings around this would be more interesting if we were to proceed with uh taking the numbers uh taking the numbers out and

proposing it that way. All right, Jesse. Yeah, I I agree. That's all. Well, I don't know. We're approaching a majority of the board that's agreeing with that. Nate, you might actually get a clear indication from us out of this meeting.

Okay. Um, you know, Nate, one other thing that probably muddies the water for your effort uh that comes to mind though is if we took take them out of these three uh areas, it kind of begs what are you going to do you really need them in the BG? You know, do you really need the additional lot area in the BL? Um, and maybe it's just out in the sort of outlying and less dense residential zones that that's where that that that applies. Yeah. I mean, so, you know, right now in the BL, it is a a limiting factor of why there hasn't been a lot of development because the lots are small. So,

you know, with the 4,000 square feet in the BL, again, there's no provision for a waiver. So, you have a 20,000 foot lot. you know, the um this B footnote means that the 20,000 doesn't apply, but really you're only left with getting a few units on a property that's half an acre. So, well, like I said, that probably muddies your your effort. You know, I think for this round, you might be better off just ignoring the BG and the BL. Yeah, we haven't that that's going to stir up a different hornets nest. And I think to Jar's point, you know, that's also part of the downtown design standard area. So, Yeah,

you know, there has been development in the downtown, so we feel like the the zoning is working a bit. So, you know what? Well, you know, we haven't seen it in the development in the BG, but not in the BL. Not the BL. Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, so Nate, does have we uh talked enough about general housing this evening? Yeah, I think we have. I just want to bring up the letter idea. Okay. Yeah.

And I, you know, so I don't, you know, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. It just felt like after, you know, when Jeff came to the planning board and then after he left, the discussion, you know, kind of carried on and it seemed like, okay, maybe the board felt strongly enough to, you know, put something down in writing. And so I I just wanted to circle back to that and ask if that was the case because, you know, um, like I said, it it's an opportunity to do that. If not, you know, we can just we'll I can we can let it go. So I just wanted to make sure that the board member, you know, that the board feels like, okay, if we wanted to write a letter and, you know, highlight these points, we can. That's all.

Okay. Well, I mean, my memory of the letter is that some of the early conversations of the letter was that maybe it should go to UMass or, you know, somewhere somewhere other than the town manager. Um, you know, I think it was also or I at least felt like some of part of the issue was that some of the things that we thought maybe should happen were things that wouldn't really be able to be done through zoning. Uh, you know, some of the sort of behavioral things that are uh undesirable about houses rented by undergraduates. um at least weren't something that were going to be covered by zoning and maybe could be covered through the general bylaw. You know, you know, you can't have any car parked on your grass. Um you know, that kind of thing. Um so, I don't know. I mean, there was a point where I felt like I mean, I know I said I didn't think it made sense to to write a letter to you, Mass because we don't really have any direct influence or communication with them. Um, and that I I hope I think that's why we ended up talking about the the town manager because he has that relationship with UMass, Jara, and then Jesse.

Thanks, Um, well, I know at least from from my perspective that my tirade that evening was just me speaking on my behalf and I didn't feel compelled to like write a letter on on on behalf of the board or um but I appreciate the idea, Nate. And um but I'm I'm not sure a letter would be the most uh the most effective way to go about this. But are we still are we still planning on having like a joint session between us, ZBA, Affordable Housing Trust, CRC sometime this spring? Because like that would be a wonderful opportunity to invite the town manager and UMass representatives to be a part of that conversation. um rather than painstakingly committeebased letter writing.

Yeah. So um yeah, you know, I was going to mention it later in the meeting that you know, the trust meets next week on March 12th and you know, we're trying to find time on their agenda for the planning board to discuss the housing production plan and what you know, planning board is working on for 26. And so, you know, I was going to ask if a few representatives wanted to go or we could have it as a, you know, combined meeting, but that would be the first conversation and my thought would be that could, you know, be then a series of conversations. Start small. at this point we can you know go over to this really just kind of understand because the housing trust um is really working on a few things and so I just want to get the board to have you know some understand what their CRC has in mind. So yeah I I still plan for that for the month month of March and April and really see lands. Um and you know some of it would be you know maybe the board you know does this and the trust does this but maybe there's opportunity for collaborate can help work I don't you know I think there's a lot from the plan to have a conversation

Nate I'll say you are breaking up at least for me and I think some other people as well so oh not that you should stop talking but uh you might want that's great might want to turn off your video, you know, when you talk. Uh, okay. So, Jara, there, you know, there's this meeting next week that Nate was thinking we might introduce ourselves. Um, and then it sounded like maybe there would be more opportunities after that. That sounds great. I'm happy to attend next week's meeting. Okay. I believe it's on next Thursday night. Okay. I

believe I don't know what time, but uh yeah. So Nate will let those of us that are interested know. Am I audible now? You are. Yep.

All right. Yeah. So I think I I don't know if it's at 6 or 7, but it would be Thursday in the evening. And you know, if more than four members of the board want to go, we could just post it as a dual meeting. Um like I said, this I envision it's probably the first of a few meetings. Um, but really this would be to outline, you know, the zoning priorities we looked at, you know, what the trust thought of the housing production plan matrix and just kind of hear what, you know, is there something else that the trust might want the board to work on or vice versa? And, you know, are there opportunities for collaboration? All right. Uh, Jesse,

thanks. Uh, couple points I'll try to be quick. Uh, Doug, something you said about behavior stuff. I I don't think we should ever talk about that in zoning terms. It's not something we can deal with,

right? Just want to state that it's not part of what I think about at all. I mean, neighbor-wise, yes, but zoning regulation, no. Um, I do think there's legs for uh dilapidated properties for the town to do something, but that's also a different issue, not for my thinking here. on the question about the letter. What I took away from that conversation and unfortunately again comes down to what we as a majority feel in my time involved with planning board in my time living in town which is 20 years in my time I spent looking at past conversations which is probably far too much time from old planning board town meetings old subcommittee meetings there's there's never been anything actually done as a result of the found trying to pressure UMass to do more about housing. As far as I can tell, there were lots of study or at least two studies which said very clear things and nothing's ever come of it. So, I as an individual would certainly feel strongly about writing to the town manager and the council to say, "Hey, why not pull every lever you can? We're in a crisis." I would support us as a board doing the same thing, but I don't know if we all feel that way, right? So, that's where I left that conversation about maybe drafting something as a planning board because that's a very significant could be a very significant piece of a solution if UMass were to take some action. I'll stop there.

Okay, Johanna. I don't I I appreciate the concern, Jesse. I don't think it's the right tactic just because the town has its like whole town gown process and um you know, we've heard the university say that they feel kind of comfortable and proud of how many people they house on campus. So, um yeah, I don't think it's the right tactic.

Okay. Uh Bruce Frankly, I think we should try our best to make the university not feel comfortable. They can feel proud uh limited, but I I think we have a situation here which they can't uh the university can't feel proud of being uh above average, which is all they are. Okay, Jesse, sorry, one more quick point I left out. If I recall correctly, two years ago when we did meet with Tony and Nancy and Paul, I think was actually at the meeting also,

we as a board were actually sort of told, "No, don't communicate with UMass." So, a letter to UMass from us seems not appropriate at all. So, the only other option is to the manager and the council maybe.

Agreed. and Jesse. Um, you know, just I'm not sure it really matters in terms of our conversation, but uh I I feel like the Fieldstone project is the result of the uh town, what was it called? the the UTAC, University Town of Ammerst collaborative process that that came after the U3 the joint study about, you know, where UMass could put some more housing. Um, I feel like there there actually is a pretty direct line from that U3 report to Fieldstone. Okay.

So, so we have one I have one data point on that side, right? But it doesn't change your argument. Okay. Uh Nate

Sure. Yeah. If the you know if a letter isn't written I do feel like you know you know your your voice has been elevated right. I think you know with Jeff and you know with you know with more conversations with staff I think you know the town manager is hearing it. So you know whether or not you know you know that'll lead to certain actions I think you know um you know we are looking at you know the rental registration rental permitting a little bit more you know how can we you know improve it and you know how do we change zoning and you know there's another um committee with UMass and housing. So there are things that are happening um and I think that you know a letter could just formalize the funding board's view or some statements. I do think they're making their way to the town manager though. So, you know, it's really, you know, do we want to reinforce it with a letter or not? And, you know, Jarro, I wouldn't say you're on a tirade. I just thought, you know, from that meeting from all the board members, there was a lot of good discussion and, you know, was it worth trying to summarize it in a memo just so others could hear it and, you know, because I do think it's important. I think the student housing is important. Um, and I think they're hearing it. I think it's, you know, not just from the planning board, right? I think, you know, there's a citizen petitions. You know, it's been discussed at other boards and committees in town. So, I think it's finally something that people are talking about, uh, you know, in different perspectives and different places.

All right. Um, Nate, are we done with general housing? I think so. All right. Time is 8:12 on my clock. We usually take a break around this time. Let's take a

Do you want to take a public comment on this before we break? Uh happy to do so. Sure. There are still three attendees. Uh members of the public, do any of you want to make a comment, excuse me, about this uh general housing discussion you listen to? I am not seeing any hands raised. So let's let's break and come back in 5 minutes. Uh I I have 812 now. So that would be what? 817 17.

All right, let's see. We are all back, I think. Oh, no. Angus is not here.

Actually, it looks like Fred is not back either, although his videos on Y There's there's Fred. Uh while we're waiting, um did u did you is the I I saw the downtown standards um the invitation to attend the meeting at the Unitarian Church. Is the document itself uh in draft available?

Yeah, I was going to mention that, but it is. So, if you went to the the link the down if you go to the planning department under projects and the downtown design standards there there's three volumes for them and they're uh the public can download and view them. They're okay. Thank you. And we we're all here now.

Yes, we are. Okay. All right. So, time is 8:22. We'll go on to excuse me. The next item uh is old business starting with site plan review 2026-02 with Ammeris College on 40 Dickinson Street. Review final landscape plan with additional plantings along Dickinson Street in accordance with condition number 18 of the site plan review decision for that property. Nate, um you want to put that on the screen? Jay from Emeris College is here. He'll be joining us as a panelist shortly. And yeah, this was a condition that they returned, you know, and pre uh provide a revised landscape plan. So that's what they've done.

Angus, I see you have your hand raised. Oh, yeah. I'd like to um abstain from any decisions here and also be moved to being a panelist because Amoris College is my employer. We'll wait for you then to be Yeah. How come I'm having a hard time? I mean, Angus, it would be fine with me if you just muted and turned off your video and Sure. I'll change your role to attendee and then we can bring him back. Okay. Okay. All right. So, um Jason, welcome.

Hi. Good evening all. How's everybody doing? Fine.

Good. All right. So, I think this will be a pretty quick one. Uh I will share the last comment for the condition which was at the west corner of the building. Adding one more tree which at this lot here you can see which was originally pavement. Then we created a a grass area. And now we are adding one more uh lace um lace leaf Japanese maple. Same caliper as approved elsewhere in the plan which will shade this area from the sidewalk. Okay.

So it open up there. That's the only change is the one additional tree.

Correct. Yep. That was the only last request for other condition. All right, board members, are we okay with this uh this planting plan? I see a couple of heads nodding. If you if you object, please raise your hand. All right, I don't see any objections. Nate, do we need to take a vote on this or can we simply observe that the applicant returned and we heard what he did? Yeah, I can say that there was a, you know, consensus agreement that the condition was satisfied.

Okay. All right, Jason, thanks for taking some time out of your evening and I guess you are free to go. I appreciate everybody's time. Have a good night. What's the estimated uh schedule for construction and when will we see that tree? Uh so the construction for the parking um and the road work, it's going to take place starting in June. It's about a one month schedule and plantings since it's going to be in the summer, we're going to wait a little bit closer towards the fall planting season. Okay. So we'll see the most of the work this summer. Correct. All right. Thank you. All right. Thanks all. Have a good night.

Good night. All right. Okay, now we can bring uh Angus back, I guess. There he is.

All right, welcome back, Angus. Thanks so much. All right, so uh we'll go on with old business. Uh did we have any other old business on topics not reasonably anticipated? 48 hours. Oh, Jesse, I see your hand. Thanks. I had a procedural question about old business and if there's a way to not make someone like Jason wait two hours for two minutes if if that's anticipated that something that quick. Is there a way to put that at the front of the agenda? Uh I suppose we could try that. Yeah. Yeah. He he he wasn't waiting long.

No, no, he was in I thought he was he was waiting for a while. Yeah. Yeah, it's not that important. It's just Yeah, you're right. I mean, good comment. We'll see what we can do. So, uh Pam and Nate, no other old business? No, for me. All right. Uh what about new business? Any new business? Not unanticipated. Actually, Angus, and now I see your hand.

I'm sorry. I I don't I don't really know who's allowed to talk during old business, but um I guess I I had a question for Nate about something that was that was old business a long time ago, which was the East Ammeris Historical District. Um my understanding is it's it's going to be going to the town council. Is that is that the next step in the process? I'm just wondering if there's any information on where that stands.

Sure. Yeah. So the uh you know the study committee which is also the local historic district commission finalized the report. They voted on it in February. Mass historic had minor comments so they reviewed it. So essentially it's the report's finalized. I think the map boundaries finalized and so yeah it's just kind of in the queue to get um before town council. So, I think the idea is, you know, I'm not sure, maybe April it would be try to be brought to council or sometime in the next month or two. Uh, and then, you know, I don't know if council would refer it back to the CRC or others, but right, I mean, it's it's kind of in, you know, it's it's ready to move forward in terms of that respect.

And Nate, um, it's it won't come to us, right? It No, it's not required to. So the board had you know you had your one I mean you could always um if you wanted to discuss it and write a letter to council at some point we can keep you informed of that but it's not required to come back to the funding board at all. Okay. Well I think it would be you helpful probably to us as individuals at least to to know when there will be opportunities for the public to comment on it.

And if I could just ask a clarifying question. It appears to me that a significant portion of the historical district overlaps with the East Ammerst zoning area that y'all are considering. And so I guess I'm I'm wondering I know that the town manager proposed this historical district and encourage the historical commission to look into it. Um and yet the and the town manager is also pushing the East Ammerst or or at least the planning department is pushing the East Ammerst change. So, I I guess I'm trying to get a sense of what the town's position is on both possibly increasing density on in an area that I think is right for increasing density while simultaneously pushing a historic district over a significant portion of that area.

Yeah. I mean, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I know there may be differences of opinions, but East Ammeris is the oldest village center in town. It is a historic town common with some of the oldest Exon structures in town. So I don't you know if we were to have redevelopment along that town common and along that area of Main Street to me it would be guided by the design guidelines and review of local historic district commission. You know even now the zoning allows for changes that you know haven't you know happened or been proposed. So I think some of it would be with ACMR study. I don't know how far north of Route 9 we'd go. you know, are we really going to, you know, I think that's something for the board and the consultant to look at, like, do we really want to have um denser multi-unit development around the common or do we want to keep it residential in nature? And so, I don't, you know, I don't necessarily see a conflict there. I think, you know, like I said, others may disagree, but I think that they can both work together. I guess one of one of the questions that I'm struggling with is it it seems like we're kind of holding off on thinking about East Ammeris too much until this decision is made and yet they're moving they're potentially going to be moving forward with a historic district before that's done. So I guess that that's where I'm I I I take your point that they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, but at the same time I guess I'm a little unsure about the order.

Well, local historic district isn't zoning, right? It's in the general bylaw, so it's not a land use regulation. And that's this is something that's taken over a year to get to where it is. So, you know, the town manager didn't say like exactly where to have the boundary. There was a demolition that occurred on a very old house in East Ammerst. And afterward it was kind of like well you know there really are no protections here you know and the suggestion was oh could this be you know the the historic district commission was looking at could there be a local historic district maybe near downtown or in a few areas and at a meeting was suggested that east is actually appropriate to look at and that's what end up you know rising to the top and so you know that's h that's already gone through its process and so I don't you know the it could wait a few months but I I think it would be you know my guess is in the next three months it's going to be brought to town council. I don't think it's like I said I don't think it's inconsistent with changing the zoning. It's not a land use regulation. It's it's a general bylaw. But

thank you. Okay. All right. Any any other Let's see. I had started to get to new business. Um, Nate and Pam, no other new business? No, I don't think so. Okay. How about form A&R subdivision applications? No, not tonight. Nope. Nothing. Nope.

And upcoming ZBA applications? the um I don't know if I mentioned this last time up on Koh's uh road there's an arcade going in in the um the big red barn. So Tilted Orbit is its name. I think it's an arcade and something else, but uh it's a special permit use. So that's something that is is uh moving forward. I'm not sure. Yeah, I think there's, you know, there's other projects that are kind of in the queue, but this is one that's, you know, just starting. So, okay. I guess it's an arcade with a bar.

Okay. And where where is it in the is it in that sort of strip little tiny strip mall that's across from the Mson Library or where is it? No, no, it's actually in in the Mill District. It's in what was Atkins North. So, it's in the Okay. The barn building, I should say. Okay. Yeah. I did. That didn't mean anything to me. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Where we had coffee, Doug. Yeah. Okay. Nearby.

Nearby. Nearby. Right. Okay. Um, let's see. Upcoming SP, SPR, SUB applications. Anything to give us a preview of? Uh no. So you know there had been the mixeduse building maybe uh in East Ammerst and that's going through the conservation commission right now and there's some pure review there. And so you know the decision was to not bring it to the planning board until it went through the conservation commission just because it'll be a number of months and it could result in some changes. And so, you know, that had been actually submitted and filed with the town clerk and before it was advertised as a public hearing, which we would have had the other meeting, we, you know, we the applicant had the ability to withdraw it. So, essentially that is now tabled until it gets further with the conservation commission. Uh there's a few others around town, but nothing that's getting ready. Uh so there's like three or four where property owners are thinking about doing something and you know my guess is that we probably see them in the next few months if they move forward.

Okay. All right. The time just for the record is 8:35. We'll move to planning board committee and liaison reports. Bruce, anything for PVPC?

Yes. There was the uh meeting last week. Um uh a bunch of business has done but but but what's interesting about these meetings mostly is the presentations and there was a particularly uh interesting one. I thought that the uh combination of wayfairers and particularly Mike McN of the Donahghue Institute. Now I think I sent a link to this and and so forth. So, uh, I've already kind of reported on that, but I thought it was the the, uh, the links to the the the the dash data tables and so forth are actually on the Wayfinders website, but it it looks like there's just a a great deal of data on housing uh, in various towns uh, in Western Massachusetts. This one actually included Berkshire County as well. So, it's a 4count study that the Donahghue Institute did, but uh um it's a resource and uh um potentially quite useful. So, it's mostly Nate, you're probably familiar, but just in case you weren't, uh that dashboard looked like it would have lots of stuff. There isn't there's a couple of couple of links on the the on the on the wayfinder site that gives a lot of information. So, um quite valuable, quite interesting. Um that's it from me.

All right. Thank you, Angus. CPAC.

Yeah, we wrapped up our final meeting at the beginning of February. Um and we made recommendations uh for amounts and voted on them. Um you can go to the um uh CPAC uh page on the town website and if you go to the packets um I haven't seen a final report. Our chair uh Katie Zobel is supposed to I think write one to the town council but I haven't I haven't seen a copy yet. You can at least in our last meeting packet for 2025, you can see the recommendations um for uh affordable housing. Uh we did the full $450,000 request for AMD Street redevelopment. Um so um that was our recommendation there. We voted to fully fund a part-time planning and housing coordinator for three years um at $90,000. And then um the affordable the municipal housing trust asked for $575,000. We uh granted $325,000. So about $250,000 short of what they were asking. Um but we had to trim in a lot of different places because we had a huge number of requests um and a huge numerical amount of requests for a limited amount of money. Um, I can talk to other things on on the CPA if people are curious. Um, I think the most contentious thing was pickle ball courts and the Jones library. Um, and I'm happy to talk about either of those or anything else that people might be curious about.

All right. Thank you, Angus. Anybody want Angus to talk about anything else on CPAC? No, I don't see any hands. Angus, I guess you're you don't need to say anymore.

All right. And then for design review board, uh I see my name after that, but Nate, I haven't seen any correspondence uh about that from anyone. Yeah, it was um in preparing for this meeting, I made a note to myself that you know the town manager uh was made aware that you were um you know voted by the planning board and I I you know I think I I need to circle back to say what you know the question was what's the next step? Yeah. And it was never quite understood. Um so okay well I I'm standing by. I I guess that's all I can report. Sure.

Yeah. I don't know that they they're meeting in March on March 16th, but I don't think they've I'm not sure what you know I think they met in February and reviewed one uh one sign application. Okay. All right. I guess that's it for planning board committee and liaison reports. Uh next item is report of the chair. I really don't have any report this evening. Uh report of staff. Nate Pam.

Sure. Yeah. I just have two things. On March 11th, there will be the open house for the downtown design standard. So, Dodson and Flinker and staff will be at the Unitarian Universal Society starting at six o'clock. And there'll be a presentation maybe an hour long from the consultant outlining the three volumes of the standards and then an open house that has three stations, one for each volume where there can be maybe more in-depth questions or discussions with the consultants about those. And so, you know, that's, you know, uh the idea would be we're hoping to film that and then put that uh the the recording at least of the presentation online. The standards are available. There's a project web page on on online. Uh and thanks Pam and Walker for doing that. So, you know, it's a really nice web page. There's a lot of information. There's a public comment form. So, we're asking the public, you know, board and committee members alike to submit uh forms electronically with comments. Um and then you know the idea would be that after the 11th the consultant is going to go to various boards and committees. So the planning board we're anticipating March 18th the Dodson will come to the planning board and we'll have an hour or an hour and a half with the planning board. Uh and then you know in the month month of March and into April we'll also go to you know a few other boards and committees. Uh and then that process you know there'll be time for the board to discuss the standards with staff and we can relay any comments to the consultant. But you know there's probably six months or more of public comments and discussion on the standards and then you know the idea would be that by the end of the year it gets brought to town council for you know for um just for their review. So there is you know a public input process starting. Um I was going to mention March 18th for the planning board. So, you know, that night we'll have the downtown design standards and also uh you know, the CRC's been working on what was previously the solar bylaw. It's now the clean energy uh

bylaw. So, it's for solar and battery energy to match what the state's doing in terms of new regulations similar to ADU. So anyways, a staff person, Stephanie Chicarella, the sustainability director, will be here on the 18th after Dodson to share the draft clean energy bylaw. And so that'll be in your packet. It's a pretty, you know, it's a pretty uh dense document. It's it is, you know, mid 20 pages, I don't know, 23 25. The idea is that it would be a new section of the zoning bylaw to regulate clean energy. Uh and is also trying to align with what the state's doing at their level. And so the planning board right now doesn't see a lot of uh solar installations because of the way they're permitted. In the proposed bylaw, the planning board, you would be the permit gring authority for for a number of, you know, um size solar installations. And so when it comes your way, you know, this will be the one of the the idea is to try to get to the planning board before it actually becomes an official zoning amendment is referred to town council by the CRC. So the idea is to have the planning board look at this clean energy bylaw on March 18th and April 8th and have any comments or recommendations that would go back to the CRC in April. The CRC was is sponsoring it this, you know, from the council as a zoning amendment and then it would come back as a public hearing, but the idea is to try to preempt you know kind of a longer public hearing by having the board look at it ahead of time. And so that's what, you know, next meeting will be. So there's a lot to it. If you have any questions, you know, please email me ahead of time, even, you know, even after the 18th. You can email me questions. Um, and yeah, so there's a lot to it. There was the meeting last night that uh KP Law put on for the conservation commission and zoning board and that will be available online. I'll send you a link when it's available about, you know, clean energy and solar sighting. And again, there's all, you know, there's things happening at the state level that we then have to comply with at the local level. Uh, and so we're, you know, we're in the process of

doing that. But Nate, is is that bylaw ready for to share with us? Because because if if it's as beefy as you say it is, um, you know, and they really want us to get all the way through it by April 8th. Um, I' I'd say send it to us as soon as you can, right? You know, right tomorrow.

Yep. the uh the um it's almost ready. So, the CRC's been meeting on it and there was just some clarification questions that staff answered today. So, I think that's going to get incorporated and there might be a kind of it's still a draft form, but have that be finalized by the end of the week. So, I can share that out. I think that for the 18th, it's really just a kind of anformational overview. We can dive into it as much as you'd like. Um, and maybe we can't get all the way through it, but just to give the planning board a sense for what it is, so when it comes back at a public hearing, you know, you'll have heard about it. So, it's not like we're starting from from the beginning. You'll, you know, you'll be familiar with it enough to, you know, maybe be more comfortable asking questions or making suggestions or changes.

Okay. Any other report of staff? Oh, Jesse, I see your hand.

Thanks. Uh probably this is a question for the 18th and maybe can you can answer it then because I haven't seen the document at all on the solar piece. I'd be I hope there'll be some instruction or gu you know some boundaries about what planning board is supposed to get into when we're approving zoning uh solar projects like what level of technical detail are we going to deal with because certainly I don't feel equipped to do that. So, are there going to be some guidelines if this is going to become a planning board thing? And are we going to end up spending three hours talking about the I couldn't even imagine what technical pieces around solar installations and I I would hope not, but anyway, we can discuss after we look at the document.

Yeah. So, um that's a good point. I I I agree. So I think that it's a you know it's a going to be there'll be site plan review uses and in the bylaw proposed bylaw there's you know kind of setback requirements there's screening there's certain things and so we're asking the applicant to do a lot of work upfront to what they're doing and so in my mind if they're meeting a lot of the criteria in the bylaw and the states you know the CMR you know I'm not sure that the board has to get into all those details about some of those things so it's a good question um Jesse if you could ask on the 18. I I'm making a note. I think it's that is a really important question. So, um yeah, to me, if we say it's a site plan review use, we I don't right I don't want to be spending, you know, three meetings and, you know, 12 hours over three meetings looking at things that maybe the boards, you know, outside of our purview or expertise. And so, it's a good point. I mean, I would hate to have say every site review hearing now is going to have a peer review to determine something about the solar piece. And so, uh,

and it'd be nice if it could come to us with, yes, it's met all these criteria. Yeah. Here are the here are the pieces you need to consider only, not any. Thanks. Good point. Let Nate finish making his note. Yeah, that's a that's a really good question. I mean, there is there is the provision for peer review, right?

There is. I think what we're trying to do though is right now, um, you know, the state saying any like any any really big installation. I mean, but I think it's probably like a 100 acre solar field goes right to the state to a state board. So, anything smaller the municipalities can regulate locally. You can determine each municipality can determine how they do that whether it's special permanent site review is it you know how what are your parameters and criteria and so what we're proposing is a tiered approach based on size and possible impact and so you know what to me what site plan review are size installations and in certain districts that are you know to me reasonable and if they're more impactful they're special permit so uh you know that's something that can be discussed during the process But the idea would be that what's coming to the planning board is not going to be, you know, something that is so controversial, but you know, maybe we haven't thought of everything. So, um, you know, the idea would be that something's on that's, you know, could be more impactful is going to be a special permit, uh, review through the zoning board, which they do now anyway. So, the zoning board hear those those permits. Um, but yeah, no, it's a good point. I um, yeah, something we can talk about.

Okay. Anything else from anyone else? All right, time is 8:49. I guess we are adjourned until March 18th. See you then. Thanks, Doug. Thanks. Good night. Good night. Good night, Pam. Recording stop. Good night, Mr. Marshall. We'll talk to you soon. All right.