Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I don't see how we could move it up.

Yeah.

I mean, we could do it before the general housing discussion.

Yeah, we can move it up a little.

But we're not going to move it in front of the bylaw. So hi, Roy, and hi, Bruce. Angus will not be with us, of course. And Jesse has said he won't be with us unless we need him for a quorum. So, I'm hoping that at least Jarrah or Fred can show up. Yeah.

I missed last time, of course. Angus is a father, I assume, again.

Yeah, yeah, he, they had their child before the last meeting. So probably, probably two weeks ago now.

Okay. Well, I'll congratulate him when he appears here. Rather than clog up his email box. make him a homemade card bruce what's that will you make him a homemade card like out of little wood or something but i various bits and pieces that i found down in the nacf barn i will either staple weld glue or nail together and then i'll uh If there's a bicycle courier with a trailer, I'll get it delivered.

Here's Brad.

Yay, we have a quorum.

And Jarrah just texted me, said he's having some challenges with bedtime. Okay. And he'll be with us as soon as he can.

Okay. One, two, three, four. Jarrah.

That's interesting because the two, I wasn't at the last April's discussion about the local historic district committee. I was in Europe, but I have looked at the meeting. So I, and so it seems that Angus and Gerard, the two representatives who would probably be most appropriate to be part of this meeting.

Yeah. Yeah, I think I, um, I, I told Jarrett to come as soon as he can.

Okay.

So I think, I think we should go ahead, Pam. Um, you know, it may be that this evening's discussion is mostly to hear from the historic commission people and we'll, we may continue our discussion when at least, uh, Angus can get back with us.

Okay. All right. I'll take just a few minutes and get us going.

And we'll just let Jesse do whatever he wants to do tonight.

Yeah.

Roy, it looks like you're home tonight.

You're muted, of course.

Looks like a nice office, Roy.

Roy, you are muted.

Okay, Mr. Marshall.

Roy had some trouble getting unmuted once before, didn't he? Do I recall correctly? Does he know the space bar technique?

Yeah, now we've got two windows for Roy.

Oh, boy.

I suspect that's Roy. Now I've got three. Now I've got two windows.

Two windows. Roy, can you turn your camera off for a second? And I might be able to figure out which one of those you're using and which one.

Yeah, we have two windows for you, Roy, at the moment.

OK, now there's one. OK. All right. Fingers crossed. I'm going to try and ask this one to leave us alone.

Can you hear me?

We could hear you with all that reverb.

You're getting a lot of... Well, the reverb is because you've got feedback from having two systems operating in the same room.

I'm going to remove this one. Gosh, I hardly dare, but here we go. Remove. That's fine. Don't report. Okay. Roy, can you hear us? Can you hear me? Can you see us? Can you unmute?

I'm asking him if he can hear us and nod his head.

He can.

Okay. Okay.

How's that?

That's good, Roy. That's good. Sorry about that. I'm still figuring out this technology. I tried to open up another screen and didn't work. So I get it now.

Yeah, it seems to work best with just one. Okay, Pam, are we good to go?

We are good to go. Let's see. We have attendees coming. We have Amherst Media with us. And you have a form of the board. Yes, we're good to go.

All right. Okay, welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting of August 5th, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Amherst Planning Board, I'm calling this meeting to order at 637 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst Media. and minutes are being taken. During the Planning Board's public hearing for Zoning By-law Article 18, Clean Energy Infrastructure, some members of the Community Resource Committee of the Town Council may be available to join the discussion. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, extended by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, and further extended by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this 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. 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 our 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 you hear your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and return to mute. Bruce Colden. Thank you, Bruce. Fred Hartwell.

Present.

Thank you. Jesse Major will be absent this evening. I, Doug Marshall, am present. Angus McCloud is also absent this evening. Roy Johnson. Present. Thank you, Roy. And Jarrah Smith will be with us as soon as he is able. It should be just in a few minutes. We have four members of our seven-member board present, which is a quorum, so we will proceed. During the meeting, 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 remute yourself. To the general public. Please indicate you wish to make a public comment by clicking the raise hand button when solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine 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 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 first item on our agenda is the public comment period uh the time is 6 40 and um I will say that the public comments are now solicited for items that do not appear later on tonight's agenda. So if you have a comment about the East Amherst Historic District or a comment about the Clean Energy By-law or anything else that appears later on our agenda, this is not the time to make that comment. So members of the public, if you want to make a comment at this time, please raise your hand. This is also the time when I usually read the names of the public attendees that I can see, just so everybody knows who else is in the virtual room. So while I'm reading, please raise your hand if you want to make a public comment. I see Andy Churchill, Elizabeth Sharpe, Greenbaum, Hetty Startup, Jennifer Taub, Ken Rosenthal, Maura Keane, Samuel Bedry, Steve Bloom, and Tom Reedy. And I'm well aware that several of those people are here to be brought in as participants or panel members when we talk about later items on the agenda. All right, so I don't see anyone raising their hand at this point, so I will I'm now concluding that no one wants to make a public comment about anything that's not on tonight's agenda later. All right. So time now is 6.42 and we'll go to the next item on the agenda. This is the East Amherst Local Historic District proposal. Review proposed revisions for the East Amherst Historic District. So Pam, could we bring over... The I think at least the chair of the commission and anybody else that you're aware of needs to be part of this.

Definitely definitely Steve bloom. And I think it was just. I think Elizabeth sharp and maybe heady or maybe not heady.

So I see a little bit of sharpen and Steve had raised their hands so maybe maybe bring over Elizabeth to.

She's been invited. Let's see. Here she come.

Steve, I see your hand. I'd ask you to turn on your video if you have any.

I don't know how to. Oh, here it is. Sorry.

And welcome, Elizabeth.

There I am. Okay. Thank you.

All right. So welcome to our meeting. And I guess I'd like to know, would you like to make a presentation of any sort of, you know, the proposal and introduce the topic?

Yes, I would if I could, please. Okay. So Walker, if it's possible, is there any way to put up the list of the core properties in the map?

Yeah, give me just a second. I can share my screen.

Thanks. Yeah, thanks for putting us first. I have a lot of respect for you guys after listening to the last two meetings. My hat's off to you. Anyway, I'm going to, I wrote a statement. It's pretty long. And I'm going to assume that you guys have read it. So I don't have to, like, go through it. You know, the bot, the most of it was, you know, kind of addressing Mr. Smith's memo. Kind of questioning, you know, LHDs as a concept, but I don't want to go there. I just want to deal with, you know, what we've done. So I'm just going to limit myself to the last part of my statement, which I would like to read. So anyway, in retrospect, as the planning board correctly pointed out, the original boundaries of the proposed East Amherst LHD were probably in overreach. Many of the properties, although among the oldest in town, have been altered beyond recognition and at this juncture are irredeemable. In our defense, as with the other two LHDs in Amherst, the commission was guided by the boundaries of the already existing National Register District, which is a significant but mostly honorific designation. And in fact, it was Tom's staff who advocated for the LHD to include a few more properties along the perimeter of the National Register District. The proposed East Amherst LHD is a different kettle of fish than the other two LHDs in Amherst. Both the Dickinson and North Prospect Lincoln Sunset LHDs were initiated by the residents of the district It was bottom-up, so to speak. While this one is top-down, this is not a case of nimbyism. None of the Commission members live within or have any interest in the proposed LHD. The study was initiated at the suggestion of the town manager, who expressed concerns about the increasing vulnerability of Amherst's oldest and most historic existing structures. This was not an endeavor which the LHD Commission sought. but one which it undertook somewhat trepidatiously. It is the culmination of three years of research and deliberation. Listening to the planning board's concerns, we've narrowed the proposed LHD down from 55 properties to a core group of 22, not including the East Amherst Commons, which is owned by the town. Walker, can we actually see the map? I just see the list of the properties. Okay, thanks. Except for one property, the East Street School, which was erected in 1894, the properties selected date them before the Civil War, for a date all the way back to the 1700s, before the country even existed. They exhibit contemporaneously architectural styles to one another and possess great historic significance. The selected properties are close together, most of them situated around a single intersection and comprise a compressed area. If you look at the map, you know, it speaks for itself. The blue on the outside is what we originally proposed. The blue colored lots are what we're proposing now. We've excluded non-conforming properties and open spaces as much as possible, particularly the empty lot on the northeastern corner of Northeast and Main Streets for future modern development. I don't know if you can identify that big lot. Walker, there you go. That's it. Okay. We feel this is a good and fair compromise, which serves the best interest of the town we all share and love. While we don't need the planning board's stamp of approval to proceed, we believe securing it will set an excellent example of how governance should function. Before closing, I'd like to add that there's a lot of talk these days about destination Amherst. We contend that a town's history and historic character matter. especially the character of a town's core. Because of its association with Emily Dickinson and Amherst College, Amherst is lucky enough to have a nationally and internationally known brand. History is a major part of our brand and appeal. Character, charm, and uniqueness, the cool factor attracts prospective residents and visitors alike. An LHD dedicated to preserving and protesting our historic legacy at such an important location, the gateway to our brand new elementary school, is very much in the economic interest of Amherst. This is not a wide swath of properties, but a small pocket, surely not an impediment to town-wide growth. Again, it's the oldest part of Amherst. Life will go on if the proposed LHD, modest and old as it is, is not ultimately approved, but the character and fabric of our town will be irreversibly diminished. Our living and ever-evolving history is what makes this place this place and not like every other place. So anyway, we did, you know, some of these property, you know, um, we limited it to like properties that are in good shape that haven't been, haven't been significantly altered. Every single property that we've selected, um, is, is historically significant and, or architecturally, um, very significant. So we, you know, we've listened to you guys and, um, and we think this is a very fair and reasonable. proposal, which is in the best interest of the town. Thanks.

All right. Thanks, Steve. Elizabeth, was there anything you wanted to say? By the way, I'll mention that Jarrett Smith has now joined the meeting. He meant he joined at 6.47.

Yes, I would like to speak. What I'd like to do is make four small points about why this region is, why this section of town is significant and why it should be preserved in this way. So the fact that the East Amherst Historic Area is still intact and looks the way it does is pretty remarkable. And it's unusual for most towns. So it should be celebrated and embraced. Now, two of the buildings were built before Amherst was even Amherst. So that's 1754 and 58. And they should be definitely considered part of this district. As Steve said, it's the first village settlement, the first post office, and it's a town common, which still exists in its original shape. So a second point is that the what is now the Jewish Community Center was the Second Congregational Church. When the church was first built, it was, oh, Steve is telling me I should identify myself as a historian, both in training and in practice, that when it was first, when the Second Congregational Church was established, it was the Patriot Church. It was a break off from the church on the West Common, which held most of the Loyalists in town. So 1784, that was the Patriot Church. And among them was Ebenezer Mattoon, Jr., who had fought in the Revolution. So this is the third point. This is where, really, in effect, where Shays' Rebellion was hatched. I think of it as close to the room where it happened as we could possibly get. And so what happened is that when Shays and some of his compatriots came down the hill from Pelham and met at a tavern, which no longer exists, which was about where Fort River School is, that's where they were hatching it. And Ebenezer Mattoon was among them. And his house is still intact. It looks very much like it did. And that is also on the East Common. So in Amherst, 113 men had to take the oath of allegiance to the United States because they were involved in this. So Amherst was really one of the biggest players in this. And just by comparison, Northampton had no one. So and fourth thing I will add is that the layer of industry in Amherst coming in the early 19th century is really sort of laid right on top of it and in between the various sites of it. And so I think that's kind of remarkable that in this time period that some of these still exist. So to repeat sort of what Steve said, some of the house forms are original. They're still there. They're on their same sites. And this is very unusual. And we should celebrate it as all these different things happened right here. And I think it's pretty easy to create a small historic district around them because the properties are still in such good shape. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right, board members. Let's see. Steve, your hand is up again.

Yeah, Elizabeth, I just wanted to mention who Elizabeth is. Elizabeth is the co-head of Historic Northampton, a trained historian, the author of an acclaimed book on the Mill River flood, and also literally the author of the book, Amherst A to Z. So I just wanted to put that, to mention that. Thank you.

Sure. All right. Well, I see. Walker, was it back in the spring that we deliberated about the first proposal?

Yes, it has been a bit. I think April, maybe.

And so we've we've had one member leave the board and we've had one new member join it since that discussion. Bruce.

I guess I should identify myself as also being a member of the Historic District, Local Historic District Commission, and I was not present at that April meeting, though I have looked at the recording of the meeting, so I know what happened and what the discussion was and so forth. Um, uh, mostly I just wanted to do that. I, uh, so I've been a part of the, uh, thought process that Steve mentioned for the past, for the three or so years, um, that this has been, uh, uh, incubating. Um, I was disappointed that I wasn't part of, able to be part of the conversation because I was in Europe. Um, but actually, um, I think, uh, that it was possibly just as well that I wasn't part of it because I think the trajectory has gone well, both with what the outwash of the earlier board deliberation and the response and the reaction from the local historic district commission. I think this is a good sound solution. My sense is that, well, I'll say it differently. I would be hopeful that Angus particularly would be supportive of this, but he's of course not able to be attending being a new father and so forth. We might consider, this is not a move to do so, but we might consider continuing this so that we could get unanimous vote of the board on this. I think that would be to the benefit of this project. That's something that we could bear in mind. But maybe I should hear from Jera on that because you were there, Jera, and you've had thoughts on this as well. But this seems to be one of those times when DELIBERATION, COLLABORATION, REFERRAL AND SO FORTH HAS YIELDED A BETTER PROJECT, A BETTER PRODUCT.

I DID WANT TO SAY THAT WE PLAN FOR THIS EVENING WAS TO HAVE THIS TOPIC IN DISCUSSION UNTIL 7 15, AT WHICH POINT WE WOULD, IF WE NEEDED TO, continue the discussion at a later meeting. And particularly with Angus's absence, I think that would probably be a good practice anyway. And I guess, Walker, would you be able to, say, shrink the view a little bit down to maybe 50%?

Yeah.

Okay, so it doesn't really, let's see, it doesn't show the proximity to Belchertown Road and College Ave, which are just off the bottom of the, of this map.

Yeah, I don't think there's really going to be any overlap, though, between this and the East Amherst zoning study.

Okay. Um, Jared, you've got your hand up.

Great.

Thanks, Doug.

Uh, and I really want to thank the local historic district for, um, coming back with this, this, uh, alternative proposal. It's very clear. You listened to our feedback and, um, I just, I genuinely really appreciate it. So thank you. Um, I think that, uh, uh, I've been doing some reflecting on this in particular, and I've been thinking about why this really piqued my interest. And so I kind of want to just enlighten everyone who's listening on why this particular issue was a sticking point for me. And it's because it's really, really hard to raise a family right now financially. particularly in Amherst. And I'm only able to do that because of an extraordinary amount of privilege. And so it is my prerogative as a member of this planning board to make it easier for people who are not as privileged as myself to be able to sink their roots here and grow a family here. These regulations relating to local historic districts, invariably add a layer of time and review. I'm not saying that it's a good or a bad thing off the bat right there, but they add those things that make it more challenging to redevelop properties. It makes it more expensive to redevelop them. So they are less likely to be affordable, especially because nonprofits like the ones that I work with are less likely to go after riskier projects like that. And so when I saw this, I became frustrated because I felt like the people that I, my peers are not being represented in this particular policy. And I know that that's not the purpose of this policy, but that's why I'm just trying to help, help illuminate my perspective for you all. And it's just that there are, there's so much evidence of how challenging it is to rent a home, to buy a home, how we need more homes for all incomes everywhere right now, and for us to prioritize adopting a regulation that makes it more challenging for people to access a life here in Amherst feels counterintuitive to what we should be doing right now. That said, I obviously see the merit of a local historic district. I actually, maybe it's not obvious. I want to make that statement very clear and obvious. I do wonder though, and I would love for you to help me understand like why this particular policy and why now? Because one of the thoughts that I have is what, I'm glad that we're already having this conversation about postponing because of Angus. But I'm wondering if we could wait to revisit this until after the East Amherst study, because I think that that will help inform the merit and the validity of this proposal as well. And that way we're kind of thinking both about the supply challenges and what opportunities are available for East Amherst in the village center area. But we also have this additional policy to protect the East Amherst Historic Core in our back pocket that we can pass simultaneously because really it's it's a it's i i i really i'm i'm really it it uh i i don't mean this with with judgment but it's a little tone deaf when we prioritize something that makes it harder to build your life here over an abundance of other options for things that we can do to make life easier for people here so I think I really appreciate the restraint that the committee showed with this renewed proposal. I really appreciate it. I really think it's a great proposal. But I do wonder if the committee would be open to waiting until after the East Amherst study. And I would ask that you help me also understand the urgency of this and why to prioritize this. And I ask that with genuine curiosity, not in any way with judgment. So thank you.

All right, thanks, Tara. Steve.

Yeah, with all due respect, 22 properties is not going to stop anyone from moving here. In fact, preserving the character is going to get people to want to move here, because this place has some character. And, you know, I don't.

You're telling me you didn't listen to me at all. You're just like completely negating everything that I just said.

No, no, no.

So you're just telling me that you didn't listen to me whatsoever.

No, no, first of all, you need to raise your hand. You need to raise your hand. I'm sorry, Mr. Smith. Please let me. I waited until you were finished. No, I feel like I listened to you very closely, actually. Your main point was that LHDs prevent, you know, affordable housing and that we're tone deaf. And I don't think we're toned up, and I don't think we're preventing affordable housing. Most of these structures are actually not residential, or a lot of them aren't. And all we're trying to do is we're not trying to prevent infill. ADU is by right. Anything that can't be seen from the public way can be erected, like that big lot, which I didn't realize existed. was such a big one. I wish I could point to it. In terms of making it more difficult, I read your memo about how it's a burden on the town. And I just honestly, when I read it, I was rolling my eyes because I didn't understand what you were talking about. We have one staff person. We meet once a month. And, you know, the only material that we ever weighed in on was vinyl siding. So all the stuff that you were saying when I was reading it, I honestly didn't know what you were referring to. And like I said, this is not going to inhibit infill. It's just going to preserve some historic buildings. That's all our concern is. Like I said, this is not a, you know, I've read things in the Amherst Current that this is like another homeowners association. No, it isn't. None of us live there. This was something that we were asked to do, and we're doing it to the best of our ability. We've listened to you. We've reduced it as much as possible. So when I hear this, that it's like creating impediments for people moving here, I am honestly at a loss. Okay, now you can respond.

Okay, thank you, Steve. The next hand I see is from Bruce.

I think, Gerard, there's simply no evidence to suggest, to support your argument. So I would say that your case is based on an assertion. I've been on the district commission now for almost eight years I mean almost an obscenely long time and I'd be happy to get off but it requires an architectural presence or someone with an architectural background and those people with that background are thin on the ground and so that's why I've stayed but in that eight-year period I've seen a lot of hearings And Steve's right, this precious little expensive accuracy that we've perpetrated, the maintenance of existing wood clabbards over vinyl siding is probably the single regulatory act that we've, or a single act within our purview that we've pushed. But it's not just on the experience of our own operations over the past years. there are studies and so forth that have been made of these districts by others across the state don't show that there is a significant concern in terms of their inhibitions to what you're talking about, helping people make their home. It just doesn't seem to be a connection, a serious, solid, consequential connection between those two I'd be happy to be persuaded on the basis of data otherwise, but at the moment, there's no evidence to support what you're saying.

Bruce, I guess I have a question for you. I have a vague memory that there was a project maybe off of Fearing Street. That was proposed and the local historic district commission rejected it. I've heard that it may have been architecturally too big for the neighborhood and had some undesirable characteristics anyway. But is it true that that that that project was essentially denied by the commission?

No, it's not true that it was denied, Doug, but it is true that the Commission expressed a strong concerns about it and I believe it was withdrawn. The concerns were that this site was being developed with multiple housing and what was consequent was that we had a parking area that I think hold about 20 vehicles and that caused us to be concerned about parking structures and that in turn caused us to be concerned about whether the commission had the power to consider parking areas or structures, not structures because that would be a thing. It expanded our analysis of what we were empowered to use as a basis for denial of a certificate of appropriateness. So that certainly came up in discussion. But this project was, I believe, withdrawn. And I think it might have had trouble with other regulatory bodies. But of course, it never came to that. Okay.

All right.

Steve may have, I'm not sure whether Steve was there when that was on, but he may have something to say on that too. But that's my recollection of the situation. It was somewhat complicated and it's the only project in the eight years of my... experience that went that way. We had a similar strong reaction, negative reaction to the original proposal for the Amherst media and that resulted in them coming back with a far more appropriate structure. So I think we had the net benefit there. And we certainly had a strenuous engagement with the housing on sunset and fairing. But that always was headed in a good direction. And we engaged and I think made it a little better. And also, the other thing that the District Commission does in some respects is give people a first opportunity to voice opinions that are typically well beyond our purview and so forth, but we don't discourage or we don't stop folks from saying and expressing concerns about all sorts of other issues that are well outside our domain. It's an opening of the sequence of conversations around land use.

Right. Okay. So, I mean, I brought that Fearing Street project up just because it was, I hadn't realized it was withdrawn before the commission actually issued or denied a certificate of appropriateness. I think it was. I'm working on my memory. Be clear about that. That's fine. It doesn't really matter. But it was an instance where sort of the the absolute power, let's say, of the district commission has in areas that are designated as such was evident. And so, you know, I think that's the thing that gives me pause is that, you know, we never hear about the projects that don't. actually get proposed because the people that might propose them don't want to have to run the gauntlet with an entity that's got absolute power over whether it goes forward or not. So I've always just found it, you know, I think I said back in April when we had the first conversation that I'd like to have a sense of where in Amherst should we have historic districts because know the next one i would probably do is the one on the on the common for all those brick buildings that everyone loves and you see in the real estate listings um for downtown amherst um you know those buildings what what if somebody proposed replacing one of those buildings um so i i just feel like we need to kind of be cautious about adding property to historic districts in town. And so I was at best sort of lukewarm about this. And maybe not as vocal as Jarrah and Angus were. And then Johanna, you know, I think she was kind of skeptical too, but she's no longer on the board. So Anyway, those are, you know, it's that absolute power that is of concern to me. Now there's a whole lot of kind of bylaw, design guideline, you know, guidance for somebody to know whether they have a good shot at getting through it or not. Go ahead, Steve.

Yeah, I don't even know where to start. In fact, I'm Sort of, in terms of that project unfaring, all we did was we did our job, just like you're doing your job. Everything that comes to you right away, you don't approve. The people that submitted that plan, we gave them our comments and they had every opportunity to come back with another plan. That's what we're here for. That's what we do. Your comments seem to question, once again, like Mr. Smith's memo, the very validity of a local historic district. In my experience with you, you seem like a very decent person, but your philosophy personally to me seems to be if you've seen one old building, you've seen them all, and there's absolutely no utility. So it really bothers me. I've tried to get a local historic district downtown. I worked with the town. There's no way that would ever happen. So your comments I find to be very disingenuous. and this is the oldest part of town so i don't understand what is more worthy of preservation than this these buildings are from the 1700s you know to me this whole thing is just so distressing i grew up in the suburbs and we had no history there okay so that's why when i moved here this really means a lot to me uh because it's so unique and i think we all take it for granted But don't criticize us for doing our job. Those people on fairing could have come back. There was another project on fairing, which was before my time, that is like, I don't know, like 20 or 30 structures now that the LHD worked in good conscience with Mr. Roberts, the developer. And they came up with something that everyone likes. There's no complaints. No complaints by the residents. No complaints by the developer. Joel Greenbaum came in with a property on McClellan. The property was 200 years old. We judged that it was not historically significant or historically significant. It was in bad shape. And we gave him right away a certificate to demolish it. Okay, so we do use our, it's not blanket. And then he put up a house that everyone likes. No one complains about it. And now he's putting up an ADU. We're not inhibiting development, which is what you guys seem to think. We're trying to preserve the character of this town. And they're two very different things.

All right. Thank you, Steve. All right. I see three hands in the public. I'd like to let them speak with apologies to the members of CRC that are waiting in the room outside. So we will get the public comment on this topic now, and then we will end this conversation and go on to our clean energy bylaw. We will continue discussing this at a future meeting. All right. We'll start with Ken Rosenthal, and we'll give him three minutes. Thank you, Pam.

Thank you, Mr. Marshall.

Hello, Ken.

I'm Ken Rosenthal. I live on Sunset Avenue. I live in a local historic district, and years ago, I lived on Northeast Street, close to the wonderful old houses that are part of the proposed district, which I fully support. I've submitted my statement in writing, and I trust you've all read it, so I just want to add a little bit to it here. too few people realize that east amherst is really early amherst where the amherst community flourished lived and worked and prayed before it was severed from hadley in seventeen fifty nine it must be identified as such recognized not frozen and preserved in ice because an lhd does not freeze change as my sunset avenue neighbors and i can testify but recognized and well managed as Amherst LHDs are. So I hope if you haven't read my statement, you will read it. And I hope you will vote to approve this recommendation. Thank you again, Mr. Marshall, for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Ken. All right, Pam, can we bring over Samuel Bedry? And you'll need to restart the timer. Please give us your street address and you have three minutes.

I'm from Hampshire College. I'm here to finish the Teach Out, but I was here 12 years ago. I did my Div 2, but I wasn't at a stage in my life where I could finish my Div 3, and here I am to come here. So I just had to jump in. I really was talking about the other item that you're going to get to, but I just feel like I had to try to diffuse the tension in the room because I feel like I sort of understand both sides, but I very much am in Steve's camp. You know, in Cincinnati, we have not a French quarter, but we have a German quarter. And from all the German immigrants that left before when Germany was unifying and It's all we have. And when I graduated high school, we knocked down most of them in saving them. And I guess what I would just say is, you know, if you're going to build new housing, I just don't understand for the life of me why the housing that exists isn't the deferred maintenance isn't done. I mean, if all the deferred maintenance is done on the existing housing, then it makes sense to build new. um but but furthermore just not not not to uh make mr smith feel like he's i understand why he's making the point um but down on southeast street which uh the way you guys feel about buildings sorry about the noise um i feel about land um and that where the school is i mean that's so interesting that that's where um shay's rebellion was and but if you go a little bit down further on um southeast street that's truly where most of the housing is and you know, if you're going to put a new thing, put it down there or fix those first so that, you know, and put a sidewalk or, you know, or an extra bus stop, you know, that I know there'll be another study, but, you know, I just wanted to say, there's no reason why everyone can't win here. I mean, the town definitely has to be given the historic district. I mean, there's, it would be foolish to do anything else, but fix the buildings. And then, when you do need to build the new buildings, well, I don't want to talk about the elephant in the room with Hampshire, but I mean, that's the real opportunity. And if you go with the town's design team, they're going to, you know, I've seen how it goes in Cincinnati. They're going to leave you an asset that they're going to make off with the money. They're going to leave you an asset within, you know, 15 years will be a burden to maintain. You know, I've, I've heard just anecdotally, you know, Seniors want not tiny, tiny homes, but they want smaller homes to move into that are climate controlled, warm in the winter, cool in the summer. And then people want triple deckers, like the old school triple deckers where you can have, I don't know, siblings all living together. Anyway, so I'm going to relinquish the rest of my time, but I don't think everyone has to be, you know, we don't have to be in conflict. I think there's a way to work this out for everyone. Sorry. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Samuel. Dave Kuntz, All right, and can you move can and Samuel back to the attendees. Dave Kuntz, And then the next person would be eddie startup.

Hello, Doug, can you hear me?

Hello, we can hear you.

Okay, great. My street address is North Pleasant Street in North Amherst. I just stepped down from a second term on the Amherst Historical Commission. I am an architectural historian by training. And I'm very much in favor of Amos being a place where families can live. God, I hear you. It really concerns me. And it's not just Amos that's having this problem. It's all over the valley. But I also, like Samuel who just spoke, think that we can have both we can be an and a both and community in amherst we can have affordable housing i know the town has been working to develop some with the east street school and we can have we can have our history preserved it's not everybody's history um now that some of the buildings have been removed from the initial proposal But it's a really important part of our history, especially this year, in the year of the 250th anniversary of the country. You know, Betty mentioned Shays' Rebellion, and that's Western mass. That's the little guys, you know, stepping up and saying, we want our rights. We want representation. We're struggling to... pay for things with no paper money, you know, and no one's listening to us. So there are lots of voices in this town that need representing and Steve Bloom is right. We are, All the committees and commissions are doing their job to take care of Amherst and make it as inclusive and representative for as many of us as it possibly can. It was very interesting to me with the demo delay process on the Amherst Historical Commission that we were often being asked to let small single-family homes get demolished. So the fact that there are still a few of them that came before us that wanted to be demolished that have survived is testament to us doing our work and for people maybe reconsidering and realizing that they can work with us. a historic structure and go forward from there. So I'll finish there, Doug. I know this is going to be continued, so I'll just finish right now and let other people have the floor. Thanks.

Thank you, Hattie. All right, Pam, our last hand is for Andrew Churchill. And if we could bring Andy in and Andy, you'll have three minutes and let us know if you're speaking as a counselor or as a private citizen.

Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I guess I'm speaking as a counselor, but it's hard to separate the two. But I guess I have... I appreciate the the focusing of the historic district that I did go and actually drive around and look at at the properties and you know a lot of it makes sense to me. There are some beautiful places in that in that area that the old whatever that building is on the corner that looks very old and and looks worthy of preservation. David Ensign, And I understand, I appreciate that we're not just sticking with the old outline and we've actually looked at specific houses, I have questions about two of the. David Ensign, Of the. David Ensign, included properties and I watched your previous the previous local historic Commission meeting or one of them, and I saw that the common was added sort of at the end of the deliberations. And so I have a question about that and about the E Street School. The E Street School is, as I think you know, is planned to be redeveloped for affordable housing. And so I guess I would have questions about whether this designation of that property would have any negative impact on the ability of the nonprofit that's trying to redevelop the property to, have more housing if that would negatively affect that the ability of that to happen and then the common you know the common downtown is very clearly a gathering place and a and and uh important uh center of town the the older common that's the strip of land between the four river school and the and the rental houses in the East Street School behind it is it may have been an important or a starting point for Amherst. But some of that land, we're going to have to figure out traffic for the elementary school. And that might require or one of the better solutions might require taking some of that land so that we could have a traffic flow that doesn't you know, tie the town up in knots with all the folks coming into the school and commuters going to UMass. So I guess those are my two concerns. Otherwise, I'm fairly supportive. So I'm curious whether those are really important to the proposal or whether they could be removed and whether I'm worrying too much about this E Street School and whether that would be preventative of affordable housing. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Andy. um

Can I just address that real fast? We've actually already discussed the South East School project and it's clear in the state law that projects that are already permitted would not undergo additional review if the district is formed after the permits are approved. So that project will not be impacted either way by the district. And as far as the common, as the rules and regs are currently written, the commission doesn't actually have purview over ground level, like parking or roadways or landscaping, anything like that. They only have purview over structures. So unless there was a plan to put a structure on the common, it wouldn't come before the commission in any case, if there were changes to be made.

All right. Thank you, Martha. All right, there's one more hand from Jennifer Taub. Can we bring over Jennifer? Jennifer, you'll have three minutes. If you can distinguish between your remarks as a counselor and as a private citizen, that would be helpful.

Yes, my name is Jennifer Taub. Like Andy, I am speaking as a resident, and I guess I'm in part responding. I was just speaking about the E Street School. I was the counsel, so I guess I am in part speaking as a counselor. I was the liaison to the Affordable Housing Trust when Wayfarers was established. spending a lot of time developing or doing the architectural renderings for the E Street School and again I guess as Walker just said that wouldn't be included but at that time this was maybe three years ago the renderings that Wayfarer did and this and the E Streets there's no historic local historic district there now but they had actually kept the current brick structure intact and added on to it um there was in a way that was really very architecturally interesting, blending the old and the new. So again, on their own, the developer that, at least at the time, was working on the E Street School had decided to leave the building intact and add considerable square footage onto that. And then as long as I'm speaking, I guess I would just add that I'm also a resident of a local historic district and probably a neighborhood that has had more new development, more ADUs and a lot of houses purchased by the or several houses purchased by the Amherst Community Land Trust. So we are having a lot of new development in this local historic district. And I would say we're one of the more, maybe the most active residential neighborhood because we are an RG neighborhood. So we are zoned for all kinds, you know, you know, single family houses, duplexes, triplexes, apartments, and we have had a lot of development of new buildings, new housing, and ADUs being built in the local historic district. So it by no means impedes development. Because again, it just so happens that one of the two local historic districts in town has probably had more development than almost any other residential neighborhood in town. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right. So I think with that, we will end this discussion for tonight. Walker and Pam, can we put this on, you know, either the next meeting or the meeting after that to try to make sure that Angus can join us and we'll resume the discussion then.

Do you need a motion for that, Doug?

What's that?

Do you need a motion for that?

This is not a hearing, Bruce.

Oh, thank you.

So we don't need to vote. Steve and Elizabeth, thank you for joining us tonight. I appreciate you taking the time to do this, and I also appreciate your coming back with this revised proposal.

Thank you.

Dave Kuntz, Okay. Dave Kuntz, All right, so it's time is 732 will now turn to the clean energy by law hearing this next on the agenda. Dave Kuntz, So i'll do the introductory open the hearing. Dave Kuntz, All right. Dave Kuntz, um. All right, this is a continuation of a public hearing for Zoning By-law Article 18, Clean Energy By-law or Clean Energy Infrastructure. continued from May 20th, June 3rd, June 17th, July 1st, July and July 15th. All of this year to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting Article 18, clean energy infrastructure and associated amendments to zoning table three dimensional regulations, five point one one renewable energy accessory solar photovoltaic installations slash battery energy storage systems uses 6.2 fences and article 12 definitions all right so this hearing is now open um Let's bring it. Yeah, we've got Andrew. And Pam, is there anyone else from CRC that's joining us? Is Jennifer on CRC? Or? Oh, here's Mandy Joe. Good. Hello, Andrew.

Jennifer is on CRC. And this was noticed as a CRC meeting. So all CRC members should be in.

Okay. So why don't we bring Jennifer over? Is Pam Rooney joining tonight?

She was unsure, but as it was noticed as a CRC meeting, once Jennifer joins our vice chair, Andy Churchill should call the meeting to order.

Okay. Pamfield Sadler, can you remove Steve from the panel? Thank you.

Yes, I thought I had.

Okay, he's now gone.

Okay.

All right, Mandy Jo, do you want to open your meeting?

We still need Jennifer Tao in, and it's Andy Churchill, who's our vice chair, that should be chairing the CRC meeting.

Yeah, I can open it once we have a quorum.

All right.

You will, I think. She's been invited.

You want me to try to do it, Pam?

You can. Mm-hmm.

I don't, doesn't look like, oh, promote to panelists.

Yeah. Could she have stepped away?

Maybe she wasn't planning on being here. I don't know.

Well, she's still an attendee.

She declined. Hmm.

So if it's just the two of us, then we don't have a quorum. So we would just be participating as contributing, you know, what we've talked about in our meetings, but we would not be part of the hearing.

All right. So should we proceed, Andy?

I would say let's go forward.

Okay.

All right. Mandy and I were here mostly to able to answer questions about how the bylaws been reorganized and Mandy did most of that work and we had we had a meeting to discuss it so it's considerably I think more user-friendly than it was good so yeah Mandy Jo then I mean certainly I'd like to have somebody kind of go through what

how it was reorganized. The copy that we received has a few yellow highlights and has a few comments, mostly starting on Section 1805, but kind of the overall strategy is not really clear.

So if I may, I will share my screen and share an earlier version and go through the big changes. And then we will go back to the cleaner version, which is the version, I believe, 15 that you received. Although you should have received the marked up copy, but it's easier to show the changes and the reorganization in the marked up copy. So if that's okay with you, Doug, I will do that.

Yeah, that would be great.

Let me find that. So everyone should be able to see this. And now that I'm sharing, I'm not sure I can lower my hand. So just ignore the hand.

I can lower your hand.

Since I don't get a hand thing when I share.

There you go.

Thanks. So this is the marked up copy that then became essentially version 15. And then, well, version, I don't know what I called it at some point, 14A or something. And then CRC took that and went over the marked up copy and made some changes beyond that. But I'll go through this one fairly quickly to just talk about All the reorganization and what what went where things went and all of that. It's really hard to read, though, which is why I'm going to go through it quickly and why you might not have gotten this one, because it's really hard to read. So we changed the title of the bylaw, the recommendation of the attorney to special. Positively say, um, it's also deals with consolidated permitting for clean, small, clean energy infrastructure facilities. Um, in in this version, let me just say red is everything I did blue is what the attorney wrote. So, if you see blue, that was suggested by the attorney.

Okay.

The next thing I did is deal with the applicability section. This is one that we have all talked about for a while that said, oh, we don't have this written well. It was very hard to understand. And so now there is a new way of dealing with taken at the suggestion of the attorney in terms of language on what parts apply to what. The highlights are simply for me tracking references to sections. This becomes very helpful, for example, when I reorganize everything to know what I also have to change section wise with a quick, easy scroll through to fix the section. So these are the new sections that do not apply. I moved a couple of things into this section. So it's actually a new section. And all beyond that, there's not a lot of substantive changes to this. I created the section. I moved things into that section, but basically everything that was already included in the section is there. Administrative approval was fixed as the technical term. And then... Andy, could I just interrupt?

Sure. If you want to just go back to that red section with... Yeah. David Ensign, This is the point of this section is that it basically says for different uses which parts of the David Ensign, Whether the article applies at all. For example, with building integrated best or consumer grade plugin modular SP eyes or for agrivoltaic or non-agrivoltaic canopy or ground mat. It just basically, we had talked about how do people know, is there a way that people can home in on what parts they have to focus on? And this basically says, if you're agrivoltaic, you don't need to look at sections 18.07 through 17 and similarly with the other ones. So that was a major cleanup, I think.

Yeah. It used to be this crossed out stuff that everyone agreed was not working. So that's what it did. In definitions, you'll see resolved comments mean I dealt with the attorney's comment within something, so it's been addressed. The attorney recommended not referencing the specific definitions in here and saying all capitalized terms used in are defined in 12 except those noted below so i took her language i got rid of that it shortens this bylaw a little bit because it gets rid of a couple of lines which is always good all of this changes to her blue are just referencing the shortened reference to the climate act it's not changing anything it's it's simply um keeping things consistent So the only thing I added to the definitions in this section were the definition of a local government representative. The attorney recommended we define that term here and then designate who it is later on, but define it here. So that is a new definition within this. And nothing else substantively changed in that. Compliance didn't change really at all substantively. You'll see some minor changes, but we didn't change it substantively. Then I added a new section. It doesn't look new because it stayed 05. I split the, well, it's not really a new section, I guess. It's a group section. This is the consolidated local permitting section that the attorney at the last hearing talked about in terms of clearing up what complies. So this is, if someone's doing a consolidated local permit, here are things they need to know. So separate from all of the sort of land use for SPI and BESS. And so you'll see a lot of this is new or modified local government representative. And then I defined who the local government representative is. So this is this part here. is added to this section but it's basically moved from other parts of the bylaw and i couldn't tell you right now exactly where but um some of them are moved from the submittal requirements into this because they would only apply to people using consolidated permitting so i added that there it was recommended by the attorney to do that and this one um HAB-Juliette Boone, is sort of that explanation saying if you're going to choose the process consolidated permitting process. HAB-Juliette Boone, You gotta comply with 229 cmr. HAB-Juliette Boone, So that's what this is it it's not. That's what it did. That was what recommended per the attorney's recommendation. I deleted the site suitability assessment one. She had recommended we just make them submit the score report. um so that's where that went from so the rest of it got deleted um and then this part is also part of it here the sep the fee section it was a separate section but it really only applied to consolidated permit fees and so i put it into this consolidated permitting 8.18.05 section it's a new section that relates that includes all of the stuff that was only consolidated permit applicable which is what the fee rewrite was. So then I created two submittal sections in order for our goal to make the exclusions to the small SPIs and BESS and canopies and agrivoltaics to make that easier to read of what sections don't apply. Certain submittal requirements did apply to those items up there in the first one we talked about, but the big section didn't. The problem was some of these were at the beginning before the big list of submittal requirements and others were at the end of the big list. So instead, I just created a new section that applies to everyone and then a section of just the big list that applies to the big stuff. So in some sense, it's not a substantive change. It's an organizational change. And so then I had to come up with a title and all. Yeah. And then substantively, the submittal requirements didn't change, dimensional standards didn't change. We accepted a lot of that. You'll see this one was left here. CRC dealt with that one. So when we get to the next one, you'll see changes related to that. Basically, if the attorney didn't talk about it, I didn't address it and change anything here. We took the language for hazardous. The next big change is within herbicides and pesticides and emergency response. herbicides and pesticides you'll see this is deleted it was essentially a intro statement that did nothing that described 333 cmr 11. so in in the goal of making this a little more direct and short i deleted the intro section the substance of it is They still have to comply with 333 CMR 11. We just don't have the intro section anymore. You'll see this deleted here. I created a new agrivoltaic section. So herbicides and pesticides now appears twice in order to, again, make that upper very first section of what applies to agrivoltaics really easy without... Citing some parts of sections, I ended up splitting this into 2 sections, this herbicide and pesticide section and another 1, I'll point it out when we get down there. The attorney recommended for emergency response that it just be. Referenced down below an emergency response plan. So that's why it's deleted here and. That's why that is added below so it didn't get deleted. It just got moved. Building permit and building inspection. Walker asked if it was necessary. It seemed duplicative, so I deleted it. And then moving on to through all of this, this is where we'll start seeing 18 was 11. It had two sort of sections. It had a BESS section and an agrivoltaic section. I split them into a BESS section for Big Bess, And down here, I added a section for agrivoltaic and anything on prime farmland and soils. Again, the goal was to make that top part very streamlined in what applies and what doesn't without having to reference subsections of things. But substantively, neither of those sections changed. And then I added an agrivoltaic section because that was... Up here, the prime farmland and soils applied not just to agrivoltaic, but anything put on prime farmland. Whereas we had some things throughout the bylaw that applied only to agrivoltaic canopy. So I added a new section for agrivoltaics and put all the stuff there. You'll see the herbicide and pesticide section here. The MDAR moved up to the very first thing said. So it's up there. but it didn't, substantively nothing changed. It just looks different. And then that finishes it. Other things that changed, we made sure there was a, I think it's down here, less than or equal to, because there was nothing that equaled 25 kilowatts in any of this. So we corrected just a reference there. We added the introduction here. I think That CRC, I think, added that at some point or gave me the language. I think Pam gave me the language. And then down here, I added a definition for small clean energy infrastructure facility. Basically, all I said was that's defined as it's defined in the regulations. It's a long definition. I didn't want to repeat it. If they change the definition, we don't have to change the bylaw this way. But the attorney had recommended that. So that is the brief overview of The reorganization.

Good, good.

I can answer questions on that here or I can move to the clean one if people would like to see the clean one and the further things CRC talked about to resolve comments.

Board members, do you want to keep looking at this or shall we just go on to 15? Anybody object to going on to version 15?

I vote for the clean one.

Uh, and Walker, can I ask you before we get too much farther, um, with Roy as a new member, is he eligible to vote on our recommend recommending this or, or not?

Um, I think so. That's a good question, but I'm, it's not a regulatory permit, like a site plan review. So, um, I believe it's fine.

Okay. Great. All right, Mandy.

Okay. So this is the one that everything you just saw was accepted and produced a 14A. It's now called 15 because then CRC looked at that and resolved some of the comments that were left and had some other questions and did some stuff. So there's some tracking in here to show those changes. I think it's some tracked and you'll see that I constantly see some stuff that isn't fixed, so I will fix them as I go through. So this is the clean version. It basically looks the same. We had some questions when we had moved into consolidated local permitting for site suitability. We had the attorney had recommended we just, if they're doing consolidated permitting, put the site suitability requirement to put that report and scores into the application. CRC asked, well, if they're required to submit that anyway, we don't have to report it here. So I did look up the final regulations. I did that while I was waiting here during your last presentation. discussion earlier tonight. And this section of the CMR does require that an entity applicant submitting a consolidated permit submit their site suitability report scores with their consolidated permit application. So while we haven't changed it, because we haven't had a meeting yet. I am happy if everyone is agreeable with that to delete that part of this.

Yeah, it looks like it could go away.

Because it's duplicative of applicable, comply with all of it and submit all, submit everything because they have to submit everything. everything anyway um so if everyone's okay i will do that and simplify it a little farther so that was one of these questions um and then we had a question for um the planning board who's more expert at this than we are um and the planning staff when we were looking at waivers and modifications of the submittal requirements um We also reworded the language. This was one where I had left a question from the attorney. The attorney had asked what compelling is and potential rewording. So CRC worked out a new wording of it. But then the question was, given the fact that 1822, which I'll page down to, here, allows waivers, and we added the language and submittal requirements to it to be sure, but with these requirements, do we need the waiver section up above of submittal requirements or not? It was a question we thought was better answered by the planning board and the planning staff than CRC, so it is one that I'm hoping you guys can determine on whether this whole section is needed or not.

Well, am I right? I may not have fully digested this, but section 22 had sort of specific reasons we would be allowed to grant a waiver, right? Yes. And it did. The earlier reference that you had the question about, is that broader or not?

Let me find it. Has provided a compelling reason for a waiver from submittal requirements and the PGA agrees.

It's probably, it's a little bit broader.

It's a little bit broader, probably.

Well, as the authors of this, how does CRC, how much latitude does CRC want to give the planning board?

So, I mean, Andy can, I'll try and summarize my thought. Our thought was if we're trying to reduce this, if If Section 1822 sufficiently covers 1806, we don't need 1806. CRC was happy to leave 1806 in with the modified language if the planning board thought it was helpful to have it in both places, which is why we left it up for sort of your discussion instead of ours. Andy, did I summarize that correctly?

Yeah, I think so. What Doug said is, I think, true. I mean, the language down below is a little bit more specific, but this is waivers and modifications of submittal requirements. I guess it's for any reason, right? And the one at the end is, I don't know why the waiver section, couldn't we just have this be the waiver section or... I don't know.

Yeah, I mean, I mean, it does seem a little bit weird to have it show up in two places so far apart from each other. I mean. I mean, my my self-interest as a planning board member is that it's useful to have a little more. Leeway to allow a waiver. From the submittal requirements, and so I like this language. being because the one down below on 22 that is more than submittal requirements right yes it is to everything yeah okay so that's the reason why they're separate um i mean i guess at the moment i would vote to keep it but i'm just one perspective anybody else uh board member

I'm looking for the right. Oh, here it is. Go ahead, Bruce. What was I going to say? I spent so much time trying to find it. I've forgotten what I was going to say. That kind of been very important.

Okay. I will just mention there's one member of the public that has his hand raised, and when we get to the right moment, I will call on him. All right. Mandy, did you have other questions? Oh, Bruce, did you think of it?

Yes, it had to do with compelling. I suppose, ultimately, whether it's compelling or not is resolved by us thinking it's compelling and the applicant either agreeing or challenging it. And if there's a successful challenge, the understanding of compelling is gradually established. But is that too cumbersome a way? I mean, I don't see any other way of really establishing it.

Yeah, we didn't know what to do with it as CRC, so we came up with this language that sort of is essentially an establishment by how the PGA's whether they agree or not. And then historically, you'll get a couple of parameters around that in a sense. You know, we did use the language that the attorney sort of recommended and the local government representative agrees. Someone may grant it. We changed it to, and the PGA agrees. So we did go with for the compelling, the language the attorney provided.

I feel like it just puts us and it puts everybody on notice that this is not an easy request. We need to have substantive reason for it to happen. And I assume it applies not only to us, it applies to ConCom and anybody else that's part of a consolidated permit. Because we're not the PGA for all of the consolidated permit.

For the permits, sometimes the PGA is the ZBA. Sometimes it's you. I think sometimes there's some yeses where it might apply to the building commissioner, too. So each board will come up with its own sort of parameters of compelling.

Right.

Bruce?

So I agree and just put my hand up to register support for retaining it because I think it gives, there is some logic to having it in there. And so for the moment, I'd say keep it.

The next big change is, We had some questions which are farther down on this list. They were under hazardous materials, I think, regarding PFAS, where at one point we had said no PFAS at all, and the attorney had some questions as to how that would be determined. So we added it into the submittal requirements in the technical specification section. If that part of it to try and address the attorney's The question's down farther, so I can't pop the question out for you. The attorney asked on this one, why do we know who's paying for the improvements? So CRC believed deleting that question, that statement was the best route that you didn't need to know who was paying for it. So that is one of the things that was changed. And then... see. We referenced table three dimensional regulations, I think we'd made that change to sort of the there was a question about fence line. And we tried to, we got rid of the word compelling here. And we cleared up fence line question from the attorney and table three dimensional regulations. That's just a consistency change there that we had noticed when we were going through it. Um I'll keep going unless there's questions. We resolved the comments here from the attorney without making any changes. Um So this is the comment where she talked about PFAS. She asked, how would we require documentation to demonstrate compliance to PFAS? And that's why we added up above in the submittal requirements, the PFAS containing materials or releasing materials within this technical specifications to address this comment down here. And then I think.

Yep.

We had a smoke detection, fire control suppression, and explosion control in the emergency response plan. I think that might have been for something earlier on. But we added that into that. And then a compliance section there. fixed owner operator to applicant for consistency there. And oh, this is where we got smoke detection, fire control suppression. She asked, should the emergency plan be modified? So that's why we added that language up above in the emergency plan, again, just sort of consolidating Andy Miller- duplicative sections into the same section, instead of having things in separate sections.

PB, David Ensign he, he, she, she, noted there, I think we all noted that there may not be a lot of staff on site so the the the notion of having training for facility staff was not really. PB, David Ensign he, he, she, relevant, it was more than one have a an emergency plan for the types of outcomes that were listed there yeah.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, So that's why we moved it up there, thank you Andy. And then we changed the word material to significant. And then we did a include but not limited to, so it is not a the comment here was material might be open to interpretation we didn't necessarily want it all modifications. But we were trying to describe what the big modifications are um. So we changed material to significant, thinking that might be a little bit better of a descriptor of big. And then we included a list but said this is not a complete list, but here's a description of what we believe significant are. There could be others that we didn't think of because complete lists are hard to make.

um so that was the change there to address that um we talked about the submittal requirement change there i think mandy oh yep just a question on that last one it says significant modifications include and then we say significant alterations i don't know if you want to say substantial alterations or something it seems seems kind of redundant or circular planning board

The editor in me would agree with Andrew.

Done. Down here, Walker had had questions about why these why why the smaller unit is a no of a Something about the smaller is a no, but the bigger is a special permit. So we made the smaller site plan reviews. So that was a change there to sort of equalize. It didn't make sense to say in an office park or an RVC. that you can have a tier two massive standalone best, but not a tiny standalone best. So, um, as a no, um, and this was just fixing and that was it from what CRC did from the big reorg version.

Okay. All right, so I think I'll call on our public commenter and then we can talk in terms of what you need from us tonight to maintain your schedule to get this enacted by October. So Pam, I think Mandy, you can stop the share. Pam, can you bring over Samuel Bedry so he can make his comment? David Ensign, Samuel if you could give us your name your street address, and you have three minutes.

Sam Badry again. Sam Badry, hampshire college i'm. Yeah, no, I have the whole thing prepared, but I really do not feel comfortable with these changes. I mean, I'm trying really hard to imagine this is not at the request of the people trying to do this very thing at Hampshire right now. And for the matter of editing, I mean, is this legalese or is this not? Because redundancy doesn't matter in legalese. I mean, these are either terms of art or they're not. I mean, changing a word from substantial to whatever you said, I mean, that doesn't if substantial means something then repeat substantial and and same thing with the material i mean you define what material meant and i you know i don't also there's some line very quickly about the manager can appoint a designee in place of them i i i don't like that but anyways that's just me so good evening um I'm here representing a growing coalition of registered Amherst voters, local residents, community stakeholders. Our grassroots group has officially initiated the petition framework under the Amherst Homeroom Charter to establish an emergency 24-month zoning moratorium on all educated designated parcels belonging to Hampshire. We're putting this joint committee together. And while you consider amending dimensional regulations for utility scale solar or voltaic installations and battery energy storage systems, you must recognize that Hampshire's private trustees are actively attempting to manipulate these specific clean energy zoning expansions to execute unvetted commercial land lease and liquidate local agricultural parcels to satisfy external wind down creditors. Instead of allowing industrial solar monetization to permanently Mara community's open landscape, we propose a direct agricultural remediation plan. Any solar array footprint on these properties must ultimately revert to active pasture and agricultural use to support our local dairy and food ecosystems, preserving the open fields for operations like Cook Farm. We all like flavors and we all value that. The town must implement a unified municipal consolidation plan using existing campus infrastructure. The town should immediately pivot from the costly Jones Library expansion project, relocating all those capital funds directly to the Department of Public Works to address their urgent $50 million deficit. The existing underutilized Hancher College library space can be seamlessly repurposed to house Amherst Media and the public archives. Furthermore, the town's heavy vehicular fleet can be efficiently housed by constructing temporary low-cost Quonset huts on the campus bases bordering Bay Road and West Street. This layout preserves capital, eliminates lost sunken costs, and allows structural shells to be easily rotated or repurposed once permanent operations stabilize. Our coalition has also step forward to handle immediate social and infrastructural needs in town. We are volunteering our collective labor to clean Crocker Elementary School. I know you didn't have money for that study.

Sammy, you're under 30 seconds.

Okay, and to coordinate traffic guard flows at the intersection for the new school opening. Currently, we're willing to do that. Currently, because we can't help Hampshire because it's all lawyered up. Currently, our group is organizing an active grassroot volition initiative directly to help the Banks Community Center, which is where I was for the health board meeting. They need rides and we can do that. And we're also trying to do that with the homeless people to help them get their identification or certificate and get them on SSI, education, temporary employment. Anyways. This must be governed by a public democratic community review, not by back channel shadow forums with private corporate trustees. We are moving these proceedings under the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law to ensure absolute transparency, and we invite all local families to join our upcoming Hampstock Coalition on the South Amherst lawn to protect these spaces. Sorry, but that was so terrible. But I'm done. I'm sorry.

Okay. Are you all set?

Yes, I'm sorry. I'll come back.

And am I correct to understand that the main thrust of your comment had to do with Hampshire College as opposed to solar bylaws?

No, this consolidation permitting, I mean, that's what they're doing. They must have read this and said, oh, this is too hard to read. We can't do our thing. Please make, I mean, I don't know who this attorney is, but if you guys don't have an attorney to review this, I would highly recommend reaching out to someone who's an attorney and assessing their, I just don't feel comfortable about it. But that's just me, you know?

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I, it sounds like we'll be hearing from your grass roots coalition soon. Okay. I guess we Pam, I guess you moved him up back out of the, out of the panel. All right. I guess I'm a little bit unsure what to do with that comment. It went kind of all over the place for me. Thank you, Mandy Jo and Andy, for coming. Mandy Jo, or I guess Andy, do you need us to do a recommendation tonight?

I think Mandy is the keeper of the timeframe. So I'll defer to her.

Not sure which of you I should be addressing these questions to.

So I can speak as president of the council, but also as a CRC member. And I think CRC as a whole is hopeful that the planning board will close their hearing tonight and vote a recommendation tonight. CRC has moved its meeting that would normally be the 13th to tomorrow in hopes of that such that we hope to be able to put this on the August 17th council agenda for our first read that would then get a second read on September 14th for a second read and a vote which would put it effective as of September 28th when consolidated permitting goes into mandatory effect on October 1. So that is the hope that you guys will feel ready with this redo and the reorg and all of the questions resolved to be able to close the hearing and vote a recommendation tonight. The CRC, it's my understanding CRC is ready to, if planning board closes and votes tonight, to close their hearing and vote tomorrow.

All right. So, Bruce, hold on a second. Let's talk about the motion. So you would be looking for a motion from the planning board to recommend this draft bylaw to council. This draft bylaw being version 15 with the edits that we made this evening. And that's how we should characterize it. We're not as version 16, I assume. And then we would close the hearing. Um, did I miss anything that would that would be the whole motion, right? Anybody think I missed anything. I'm kind of looking at Pam and Walker to make sure I didn't that that's. That seems complete enough to me.

My only question is, is. So you're saying to recommend the draft bylaw to town council version 15 with amendments made tonight for approval, for review, what are you recommending they do with it?

For adoption, I believe is the word that I would use to incorporate it into our bylaw. Got it. Okay, so I'm going to ask now and then I'll ask after Bruce says his piece. Does anybody have a comment about what we've heard from Mandy Jo this evening that you need to know more before we would ask you to vote up or down on this? We've certainly been talking about it for a while this year. Dave Kuntz, And some of us have been dealing with it earlier too. Dave Kuntz, So i'm not seeing any hands from board members Bruce you dropped your hand, you want to bring it back and say your piece.

Yes, I'd basically move the motion as stated, but I wanted to just preface that, particularly in the light of the previous public comment, that this process has been going on since before I joined the planning board, which was four years ago or more. So this is a culmination of four years of on and off deliberations by this board. So hardly something that's being uh pushed through by god knows who at a short notice no this has been um thorough deliberation so understanding that i'd move that the board adopts the board recommends to the council for adoption uh version 15 with the uh agreed amendments discussed this evening and that we uh close the public hearing all right thank you bruce

I second the motion. All right. Thank you, Jarrah. Any further discussion? All right. Hold on. I see Samuel. Let's bring Samuel back. Samuel, I'd like to give you one minute, okay? And I'd like to preface any remarks you want to make by saying, you know, in addition to the long history of this discussion, we are responding to state legislation that is essentially forcing us to adopt a local bylaw in advance of this october deadline at which point if we don't the state will just take over uh approval i believe of all the clean energy infrastructure projects that come come are proposed in town okay samuel you've got one minute

No, I mean, I'm not going to I understand you have that problem with this. I'm just worried that arbitrary deadline is being gained in some ways. And I appreciate four years is a long time. But I mean, I was there 12 years ago when they made these decisions and we were all very clear. Don't. Do it. Don't put the voltaics there. Don't build the Kern Center. Reinvest in all your deferred maintenance. And they did not. And now that's why the school is failing. And with this land, you know, if it's a farmer who wants to do it, fine. But this land is... You're going on about these historic places or whatever. This land is the most valuable farmland in all of New England. And when I was here, there was this terrible reality where the sustainability report came out and it said, oh, New England can't feed itself. You have to import food. And it was hugely demoralizing sustainability movement. And what they do, they just take this prime land and put voltaics on it. And whatever they're going to do when they do this development they want to do, they're going to expand it. And you can't even walk through there anymore. Terrible.

okay now i get it i get it uh thank you very much samuel uh pam can we uh move samuel back to the attendees all right all right last chance for comments from board members All right. We'll go through our vote on this motion of Bruce's to recommend adoption of this bylaw to council and close the hearing. Starting with you, Bruce.

I have an aye.

Thank you. Fred? Wait.

So, can you hear me?

Yes, we can, Fred.

Good. I vote aye.

Thank you. Roy? Aye. Thank you. Jarrah?

Aye.

And I'm an aye as well. That's five members in favor, two members absent. Motion carries. We recommend adoption by council and the hearing is now closed. Thank you, Mandy Jo and Andy. Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a good meeting tomorrow night. Thank you for joining us. And I'm sorry we were late getting to you.

Oh, it was interesting. It was gripping.

More to come. Thank you. All right. It's 20 after seven or after eight rather. We usually take a break at eight. Why don't we take a five minute break and come back. I have 21 minutes after the hour. I'll try to come back by 26 minutes after.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we need to have something that goes with right here.

Hello.

Dave Kuntz, ham and Walker i'm thinking we should go ahead and move to the. Dave Kuntz, nr application next so that Tom we minimize the length of time Tom needs to sit waiting for it.

Pam Haynes, yeah that seems like a good idea okay.

So when Pam's back, I'll ask her to move Tom over.

Great. I already did. I'm here.

Okay, thanks.

Do we see him yet?

I see him down here.

Okay. There he is.

Coming into focus, I think. I don't know if he's sitting in his car or what he's doing.

I am actually, Doug. Yeah, I'm sitting in the car. Okay.

Okay. Sorry. Sorry that we couldn't bring you any sooner.

Not a problem at all. I understand.

All right. We got everybody but Jera back. Actually, Fred isn't back. Here he comes.

All right.

Walker, do you want to pull up the A&R plan? If Tom's in his car, it might not be easy for him to do. Yep. Okay. What number is that? Okay.

You. You.

All right, we've got Jera back. So we're back to full strength for tonight. Time is 829. And we're going to move to item seven on the agenda, which is the form A and R subdivision applications. We have one A and R. And here to talk about it, I believe, is Tom Reedy, one of our local attorneys.

Thanks, Doug. Hi, everybody. For the record, Tom Reedy, attorney with Bacon Wilson out of Amherst, here to seek endorsement of a pretty simple subdivision at 100 University Drive. And really what's happening is taking the full parcel and dividing it into two lots, a lot one that meets the dimensional requirements, it will contain 100 University Drive, the building, and then a second lot, lot two, that contains the rest of the land. And so just somewhat really simply, it is being done to allow the conveyance of 100 University Drive and the retention of the surrounding land so that that surrounding land could potentially be redeveloped in the future. As you know, this is its office park. Probably should be BL, but that's another conversation for another day. And also University Drive overlay district. And so this is Barry is buying it and then he's selling lot one, but he wants to retain lot two to give himself the potential to do some additional potential development along University Drive. So the request is simple, just an endorsement of this ANR.

Okay. Walker, I have a question. What are the parking regulations around office buildings? Because it looks like lot one is not going to have very much parking for that building.

And if I could maybe Walker before you do so. So Doug, part of the deal is to ensure that 100 University Drive lot one has a total of 90 parking spaces. So there will be some on site and then they will also have an easement a perpetual easement over parking spaces on lot two uh that easement will be subject to barry's ability to relocate them should he ever um redevelop that rear portion of lot two and want to put up a structure with some units above it he could relocate that those parking spaces so we've tried to think forward a bit but we've talked with the building commissioner about that and he's fine with that approach so 90 parking spaces is what's uh being provided which i think is beyond what's required under zoning okay

It's 3.3 parking spaces per 1000 square feet gross first floor area. Which I'm I'm not sure when it be a want to try to calculate off top of our heads right now, but if the building commissioners. Happy with the plan. Probably meets that requirement.

All right. So board members, the question is whether you agree that this does not approve, require approval as under the subdivision bylaw. I'm seeing lot one, it has adequate frontage, right? It's got 100 feet, which must be the minimum that's required. Correct. Okay. So we've met the frontage requirement. Mark Warren, Walker. Do you, I mean, you, I guess it sounds like the building inspector has or building Commissioner hasn't seen any issues with this. Are you aware of any Walker.

Walker, I am not aware of any issues. It seems fine.

Okay, Bruce

Having the building commissioners having reviewed this and be supportive of it is helpful. It'd be nice if it was communicated in writing. The only difference between, as far as I can recall, all of the ANRs that I've had seen come before the board over the years that I've been on it, currently and previously. This seems to be the only one where we have the possibility of creating a nonconformity, which I guess, Doug, was your concern when you asked about parking, right?

Yeah, I was worried that we were creating a nonconformity That lot one was going to be out of compliance with the parking regulations.

Yeah. And so I guess due diligence would suggest that we should be cognizant of all the other regulatory requirements that attach to a building on a lot and we're changing the lot size. And in doing so, not creating a non-conforming structure. I guess Maybe this is a question. Are we empowered to create non-conforming, non-conformities with ANRs? I've never had that. I never thought of asking that question before.

I don't know that it would be considered nonconforming because for office park, it just says that parking spaces are required to be located within the district.

I wasn't thinking just about parking. In fact, I was thinking about building coverages and impervious coverages and all of the other setback requirements the building has to be. My guess is that it's probably been thought through, but as I say, unless we're empowered to create non-conforming structures through A&R, it would be nice for us to know that the appropriate analysis that would determine that we aren't creating non-conformities Would be would have been done and it looks like it's been done by the building commissioner But this is that but it would be nice as we often have, you know when we're looking at Site plan reviews and so forth to have a report from the fire brigade to have a report from the town engineer why wouldn't we want to have a report from the building commissioner on the matter of conformity to the um and maybe we could ask tom i don't know whether i'm being this is i'm just thinking about here because we haven't i haven't had i haven't i haven't we haven't had an a and r on commercial office space that i remember or one with a building on it yeah or maybe we had one with a building on it but it's been a farmhouse in south amherst usually right this this just looks like a different animal

So, Bruce, two things. One, I'll answer the specifics for this, and it's that everything complies, right? So... we went through the trouble of ensuring that frontage setback lot coverage, you know, front, rear side, setback, et cetera, building coverage. That's why the lot is the size that it is, is because it's in the office park, which, and I don't have the bylaw in front of me, but requires a certain, it has a maximum building coverage that the, Limited business does not. And so if this lot was in limited business, it actually would be smaller, but it has to be larger in order to satisfy all the dimensional requirements. So to say to you directly, this does satisfy the dimensional requirements. And then I'll back up and say, the board you know there's there's underneath your signature if you look in the left side of uh where your endorsement is it's a planning board's endorsement uh should not be construed as either an endorsement or approval of the zoning requirements and so on a technical level uh and i've dealt with this i mean years ago particularly uh in sunderland but um Your endorsement is really only to subdivision and not to zoning. That said, a lot of boards ensure that there is that frontage and area that it meets those dimensional requirements. But your endorsement isn't you affirmatively saying that this complies with zoning. So just to take a little off for you, but I will tell you my representation is this does comply. That's why we brought it forward the way we brought it forward.

Okay. Tom, are you under high schedule constraints?

Very high schedule constraints. So there's a closing happening next week on this parcel, next Wednesday. Okay.

Would you be willing to send us or come back with the calculations for the lot coverage, for the building coverage, for the setbacks, you know, to demonstrate to us that we have not acted recklessly?

After endorsement, certainly. And I, I probably have some, I mean, you can look in, if you, if you zoom in or if Walker zooms in, you can see the, uh, the, so you see frontage is obviously a hundred feet. You see the setbacks hauled out, uh, particularly where it's close would be in teal, which meet the dimensional. You got it in the front. So that's the front yard setback in the office park. And then you've got the 30 feet on that rear. And I think we just did it to the back of the parking lot, the North and South side, the right and left side are fine. And then I'm sure I have an email from George cook to survey or showing lot coverage being fine as well.

Yeah. Well, yes, I can get that too. I think we would be reassured to have that information. All right. I'm going to go to Fred, and then Roy, and then back to Bruce. Fred?

Yeah, I shared Bruce's concern. But I think in view of the larger picture, namely, this coming Wednesday, I'll support this and I will be very anxious to read the review that will be forthcoming.

All right. Thanks, Fred. Roy?

Yeah, I have two questions. This is the former Lincoln building, if I'm correct to say. And then this is the first I've seen this. Has anybody seen this before?

No, we have not seen this before. I mean, what we're experiencing is how these approval not required requests show up. We usually have a survey that shows the division of land or the combination of land. some level of dimensional information that usually shows that the parcel is able to be subdivided. When it has frontage, we don't really, you know, it isn't really subject to the subdivision bylaw. So the A&R is pretty straightforward.

So it took me a little while to even figure out where it was. And so You know, I don't feel comfortable having it put like this and without studying it. I just want to let everybody know that.

Okay. Bruce.

Doug, I think the salient action here is your signature. So, and I'd be, and I think if I understood Fred, that he shares the opinion, that I would vote to approve this for your signature. Let's say, what we could say conditional upon you receiving or conversing with the building commissioner to confirm what we've been told, that the building commissioner has reviewed this and finds it fine. And that could simply be a phone call from you to him or him to you tomorrow morning and then you could sign it later in the morning so it doesn't have to hold up the proceedings if what we've been told is correct it's just that we're taking it on trust no we're not taking it on trust it's a second hand reporting and I think it would behoove us to have a direct statement from the building commissioner that he's comfortable with this and that takes the onus off Tom, so forth, because he's apparently already done this with the building commissioner. It's the only link here is would be the building commissioner communicating with you. And if you're comfortable signing it, having received that from the building commissioner, I would certainly be comfortable voting to authorize you to sign it conditional upon getting a satisfactory confirmation of what we've been told that the building commissioner has concluded. That would be a motion.

Dave Kuntz, yeah okay. Dave Kuntz, Well, we generally I mean we generally don't do motions, but we certainly could yeah and. Dave Kuntz, yeah I think I mean I just want to close the loop with rob mora and. Tom, if you have information on the, I think it's the lot coverage and the building coverage percentages that we're missing from this drawing. I do see the setback front and rear. If you can provide those, that would probably, between that and hearing from Rob, I think I would be fine.

And I've got a plan. I mean, I know it's 20% building coverage. I could show the plan, but it doesn't have lot coverage on it. So I can talk to George Cook and have him update this plan to show what those coverages are, lot coverage, building coverage, and then obviously you see the setbacks. So... I can get that to you. George is, I think he's in the office. He didn't respond to me today, but he's usually really responsive.

Okay. So Tom, you could send that to Walker and Walker can pass it along to me.

Sure. I will send George an email tonight.

Okay. And so, you know, it usually takes me a day or two to get into the office to do the signature. So if you're able to do that tomorrow, that'd be great.

I will thank you okay.

All right.

Could that be circulated electronically to the board members.

I don't know why it couldn't. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, that's fine by me. I'll get it to Walker, hopefully tomorrow, and then she can circulate it. And then I'll just wait to hear from Walker or Pam as to when the Mylar is signed. And then we'll record it and we'll say thank you very much.

Okay. Dave Kuntz, Walker just for for roy's benefit. Dave Kuntz, You know my understanding is that most of these. Dave Kuntz, have been reviewed with staff before they get to us. Dave Kuntz, and Dave Kuntz, The the most critical aspect of these are is usually that there is frontage on a public road. And that if there isn't adequate frontage, or in the case of a residential property, if the dimensions of the lot are inadequate for the circle that's required to fit on the lot, those are sort of the two main issues that we usually think about when we're looking at these. Does that, do you agree with that or are there other aspects of this that you would encourage us to think about when we look at these?

Yeah, so the way I learned it was that the planning board is essentially looking whether there's frontage or not because what you're really considering is whether this is an A&R or needs to be a subdivision. You don't have to look at whether it conforms to zoning or not because that's not your job in this specific um situation in orange the planning board made a habit of um making sure that they had talked to the building commissioner and that they were they could inform the applicants if the lot was not going to conform to zoning but i don't think it's required um but yes it does get reviewed by the building commissioner and the town engineer and staff, planning staff, before it comes to the planning board. So if there are issues other than the subdivision issue, then they usually get raised and dealt with even before the planning board sees the plan.

And it's generally the frontage that...

It's usually the frontage or, like you said, the circle. Make sure you have enough space within the lot for a building. Sometimes... Yeah. There might be a few other things but that that's generally what it is okay right.

So you're just because I haven't a chance to really look at I guess my question is a procedural when the planning was put and given to the building inspector wouldn't have been appropriate to give it to the planning board at that time. So that's your copy and in you know when the last minute.

I guess that's not how ANR is. I've never done them that way. Because the plan is really just looking at such a specific and limited set of things that you don't really need a ton of time to look at it, I guess, is the idea. You're just looking at the frontage essentially and whether the size of the lot is appropriate.

Yeah, Roy, on a technical level, these are... almost mandatory approvals that have to happen within 21 days of submission. Non-ministerial is what they call them. The way the statute's written is that the planning board shall endorse as long as it shows that frontage. So, you know, I can appreciate where Walker's coming from, but I can also appreciate this... you know, getting to you guys a little earlier so you can actually contemplate it a little bit. But that's what the law provides.

Right. Well, I mean, we did get it on Friday in the packet. So... But, you know, this is the way they've always been done, I guess, is all I can say at the moment. And they're usually not very, not really controversial. I think this is one of the more complicated ones just because it's an office commercial property and, you know, it's got a pretty odd shaped lot you're cutting out. Tom, I will ask. You know, our packet also had an email from you, between you and David Jondreau. And I was just curious why that email was needed to be included.

So David Jondreau is the current owner. Yeah. And so, oh, I'm not sure if it was asked.

So you're doing A&R on property you don't own and you want the current owner's approval.

Precisely.

Okay. Yes. And so Barry is buying the entire lot and then subdividing it?

You've got it, precisely.

Okay. All right. Well, Roy, your hand is either up again or it's back up. Okay, good. I don't want to cut you off if you wanted to talk more. All right. So I'm going to take... I'm going to conclude from this conversation that I have at least Fred and Bruce and Jarrah's approval to go ahead and sign. Roy has some concerns, but I'm not going to let that outweigh the going ahead and signing. And I would like to get the material, Tom, from you tomorrow. And Walker, should I email Rob Mora, or do you want to do that and ask him to communicate with you or copy me?

I can do it.

Do me directly, however you want to do it.

Yeah, I'll have him reach out to both of us.

Okay. And Tom, your closing is next Wednesday, is that right?

That is correct.

And you would like my signature by then?

Yes, otherwise there's no closing.

Okay. Okay. So noted.

Thank you. Please. And thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Tom. And thank you board members. All right. That was an interesting one. Time is 8.53. We'll go back to our regular scheduled agenda here. The next item we had earlier was the general housing discussion. Bruce or Fred? um is there anything from the housing subcommittee that you want to talk about tonight I know we don't have um we don't have another member Jesse well we don't have two we don't I don't have my brain

Without Angus, who's got the current topic, and without Jesse, who's the chair, and without having met, I would say the answer is that we don't really have anything useful to bring to the board.

Okay. Well, I know that on next meeting agenda, we're going to have Roy coming back, having talked to some landlords, and... Brett KenCairn, And Walker having talked to rob more about the proposed. Brett KenCairn, By law that Angus drafted so that's our next our next meeting agenda. Brett KenCairn, All right, then we'll move on. Brett KenCairn, Old business not reasonably anticipated do we have any.

Bruce. Doug, I wonder whether I'm thinking about the ADU situation and the recent appeal to the zoning board, and I don't know what their decision or even whether they have yet made one. But what I have, as we all have, found is a degree of frustration with this ability to have finished attics become habitable spaces and not count to gross square footage. It's a quirk that we hadn't encountered or hadn't thought of in the whole of the year or so that we were deliberating on this. And I said to you in an email, Douglas, I just couldn't diagnose, fathom Rob's rather arcane explanation as to why this is the case. But it seems to me, having thought about it more in the interim, that the essence is that the common sense response that we've all had to this is that the gross square footage definition includes, well, it says that it doesn't include crawl spaces, attics, porches, garages, and similar spaces. And I've always thought that that kind of defined what an attic was. But I think that where Rob's coming from is that he's saying that we can't use that definition of gross square footage to define attic. And so he comes with a different set of definitions of attic. And it seems to me that we will have to, unless we want to accept ADUs, which are 1200 square feet instead of 900 square feet, which frankly, we didn't think we were approving when we approved this by law. And I think when I say we, I don't just mean the planning board. I think I mean the whole town, but I may be wrong. But I think we should deliberate as to whether one, we want to, creates a definition or an understanding or clarity in the bylaw that has 900 feet mean 900 feet. And two, whether we can do that and how without running afoul of the state, because that seems to be a part of the rigmarole that we've ruptured ourselves on here. And how we go about doing that if we want to do it. So I would like to register that that seems to be a piece of unfinished business, unfinished old business for this town.

Bruce, I think Walker... isn't somebody on council thinking about this? Isn't CRC thinking about this and coming up with an amendment to the bylaw?

There are a couple of council members that have proposed an amendment to the bylaw that is going to be referred to CRC and the planning board in the near future. So you will be seeing one proposal at least for a way to amend this.

Okay. That's good enough for me.

And so Bruce, I think that'll, that'll get the ball rolling and it'll come to us fairly quickly.

Indeed. Thank you.

Okay. Fred?

Yeah, I just wanted to echo that, and I'm delighted to hear that that is being picked up. This is a major issue in town, and it has, I can tell you in my own neighborhood, it has resulted in several people electing to sell their properties and move out of Amherst. This is a major, major issue.

All right. Thank you, Fred. All right. I guess that's the only old business that people wanted to bring up. Any new business not anticipated? Pam or Walker? Or Bruce. All right. We've done the Form A and our subdivision topic for tonight. And upcoming ZBA applications. Any new applications that we might want to hear about before they get to ZBA?

I don't have a report, Walker.

I think there are a couple, but the way the ZBA is being handled right now is a little haphazard and I'm not up on the latest of what the projects are that the ZBA is looking at. But I can try to check in with Jeff at least before your next meeting.

Well, that is something that we like to hear about so that we don't get too far behind the curve if they're doing something interesting.

Yeah, it's been a bit of a hassle to try to staff the ZBA at the moment. But yeah, I'll talk to him.

Okay. Well, do your best. Upcoming SPP, SPR, SUB applications. Anything on the horizon that we want?

Nope.

All right. Okay. So it's 9 o'clock. We're up to Planning Board Committee and Liaison Reports. Bruce, anything for PVPC?

No, no meeting.

Okay. Roy, have you had any action on CPAC?

No meetings.

Okay. And I'm still listed for design review board, but as far as I know, I'm still not on the design review board. And given that I only have a year left on the board, I'm not sure it's worth waiting for me to get on the design review board for just a few months. So we might want to think about whether anybody else wants to take this role and then they can stay with it a little longer. Walker, do you have any sense of why it's taking so long to get me appointed?

I think it's the same. DRB was also being staffed by Jacinta. So Jeff's trying to also figure out what to do about DRB and it's just, he's been very overwhelmed. I know he's aware that you are, should be on the list. It just hasn't quite moved to the next stage yet. Okay.

All right. Well, I'll leave it up to you and Pam as to whether to leave my name on these agendas because I can check with him about that too. It's a little misleading at the moment. And I don't know that we really need to talk about why I'm not on it every month or every meeting. Okay. I don't have a report of chair. Anything in terms of report of staff that you want to talk about? I guess I could ask, when do you think, is it still September that you think the East Amherst study consultant will be ready to come to us?

I think so, but we do have a We are planning an August site visit where they're going to come out and walk around the site. And I was going to invite you, Doug, and you, Jera, because you had expressed interest in being a little more involved in the project. And I'll be there, and I think Jeff might be coming. So they'll have an opportunity to ask questions and kind of just see the area before they start their process.

All right. Anything else on report of staff?

I don't have anything.

Okay. Anything else from anyone? Nope. All right. Time is 9.02 and it sounds like we are adjourned. Thank you all. Our next meeting is the 17th at 6.30 as far as I know.

I believe it's the 19th, but yeah. The 19th?

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. It's too late for me to add 14 to 5, I guess.

I only knew that because my kid's birthday is on the 17th, so I knew it was Monday.

Okay. Happy early birthday.

Thanks.