Planning Board - Regular Meeting

So Roy's not going to be with us, and Jarrah's going to be late. So if Angus doesn't show up in the next three or four minutes, then we'll just start.

OK.

I see that Amherst Media is already here.

Mm-hmm.

Whoa.

I'm going to take this and mute myself since we're waiting.

Jesse, what happened with the bear in your yard the other night? Did he just wander away?

It was actually the largest bear we've seen ever. And it like lied down in our neighbor's house and lazily licked up all the bird seed that it had pulled out of the thing. And then it came through our backyard and checked out our chicken coop and then just wandered away. Yeah.

I don't know. Isn't it something? Yeah. Yeah. Up where I live, you know, they wander through kind of like all the time. And I actually haven't seen one in my yard this year. My neighbors have seen them at the apple tree. But last year, I was out working in a flower bed and went to get up and do something. And there was the bear, like six feet away from me. And I was like, oh, hello.

I often wonder where they actually live because, you know, I'm right in the middle of town. So I wonder if it's Sunset Farm or there's a bunch more wooded area. I don't know.

Yeah, well, I've been told by the much more wiser bear people in my neighborhood that they have about a 300 mile radius.

Oh, wow.

Yeah, that they will wander around. But if I remember correctly, at the beginning of the year, I feel like I, or not at the beginning of the year, but in the summer, I feel like I heard a story that they actually had to tranquilize and remove a bear from the UMass campus. That's right. So maybe it's the same bear. Could be.

I mean, it wasn't doing anything bad. They just didn't want it on campus.

Yeah. Yeah, I can believe that.

Yeah.

But it could be the same one. South Hadley was also reporting that there was a really huge bear.

All right. I guess I'm ready to go, but I think we should wait for Bruce to finish his conversation.

Yes.

And then... This may be a fast meeting. I don't know. I hate to say that and jinx it, but with Roy absent, we're not going to probably talk very much about the PRP. And neither Angus nor Jarrah are making it. Well, Angus, I was expecting Angus. He's obviously got a lot going on at home still. Yeah. All right. Bruce is off. So Pam, why don't we just go ahead?

Okay. Recording in progress. Okay, Mr. Marshall, let's see. We are recording. Amherst Media is with us. We currently have no attendees in the attendee audience, and you do have a quorum of the board, so I think you're good to go.

All right. Thank you, Pam.

You're welcome.

Welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting of September 2, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Amherst Planning Board, I'm calling this meeting to order at 6.35 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live streamed via Amherst Media. Minutes are being taken. 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 any reason, 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. Please unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and put yourself back into mute. at when you're finished speaking. Bruce Calden.

I am here.

Thank you, Bruce. Fred Hartwell.

I am here.

Thank you, Fred. Jesse Major. Present. Thank you as well. And I, Doug Marshall, am present as well. That's four members present for our quorum. Angus McLeod has not arrived. Jarrah Smith has told us he will be late if in fact he arrives at all. And Roy Johnson has indicated he's not gonna be able to make this meeting this evening at all. All right, so board members 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, the public comment item on tonight's agenda is for comments on topics not appearing later on the agenda. Please hold comments on these later specific topics until we get to those topics. When public comment is solicited, please indicate you wish to make a public comment by clicking the raise hand button. 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 typically express their views for up to three minutes If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, they may be disconnected from the meeting. All right, time is 638, and we'll start with minutes, approval of the minutes. We have for tonight, we have approval, we have the draft May 20th minutes available for approval. Oh, I'm seeing that Angus has just arrived. Yep. Hello, Angus. Brett KenCairn, Hello, thank you i'll add you to the attendees. Brett KenCairn, And we are just talking about the minutes, so the may 20 minutes are available for approval and any comments prior to that I see bruce's hand.

Only that on page two, the second paragraph, third line, I don't have them open, Pam, but I imagine you do. It's the word encourage, which I think probably we were basically concerned about it, discourage. The concern was that the context is that what we were looking at back then in May was the first impression was this is a complicated, elaborate, perhaps overly elaborate set of restrictions. And would it discourage developers because we want to encourage them? And so I thought that the sense of the meeting was better. conveyed by using the word discourage. And so if that's what people if folks agree, then I would suggest we change the word.

Bruce, I will say that I thought that word was appropriate. I thought we wanted to promote solar development in town and that we hoped that this bylaw would. I mean, it's full two sides of the same coin, but I thought it was fine. Angus.

Well, if you thought it was fine, then I'm good because it was your concern that I was thinking wasn't properly represented. So I guess your concern is better judged by you. So withdraw my proposal.

Well, I mean, we asked if the document would encourage, but... Yeah.

My concern was that it would discourage because of its weight and so forth.

Maybe that the minutes just didn't indicate we were concerned that it might discourage it.

That's correct, yeah.

Okay. Angus, your hand is up. Did you have something on that particular wording?

Yeah, I mean, we could just rephrase it to, and worried that the document would discourage solar development.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Because, I mean, what Bruce is describing, it's just a matter of how you're interpreting what we were asking in the current phrasing. So making it clear what we were getting at wouldn't hurt him.

All right. Thank you both.

Can I ask a question?

Yeah.

Are you saying that that should be additional, the and worried that the document would discourage solar development?

I think Angus was proposing that we replace the wording that starts with ask Karen Hollweg, Asked and. Karen Hollweg, So, and are worried. Okay, so instead of the wording that's here on that sentence.

Karen Hollweg, Beautiful I got it, thank you.

Karen Hollweg, All right, Pam don't mean to repeat what I said earlier.

Karen Hollweg, I think I got it and. Karen Hollweg, The document would discourage solar development, am I correct. Karen Hollweg, yeah yes Okay, thank you so much.

Hal Hallstein, All right, any other comments.

All right, Jesse. I would move to accept the minutes with that adjustment.

Second. Thank you, Angus and Jesse. All right, we'll go ahead and vote on that. I don't see any comments or hands raised. Starting with you, Bruce.

Aye.

And Fred.

Aye.

Jesse. Aye. Angus. Yay. And I'm an I as well. Thank you all. That's five in favor. Two members absent for this vote. All right. Time now is 6.43. We can go to our second item, which is public comment. However, we have no public attendees at the moment. So we're not going to get any comment from the public in this meeting.

Are you going to read their names?

There are no names for me to read, Bruce.

That's the first time in three years.

It says attendees zero. That's a record. Zoom doesn't say anything else. All right. So we can go on to our third topic, which is the general housing discussion. And the one item under that that we've got listed is to continue the discussion about the PRP zoning district and adding housing to it. So, last time we kind of needed some board member assistance to get the recommendation letter put together for CRC and council. do believe that Roy had volunteered to take the first pass at that. But I guess with his absence, it doesn't look like we're going to really have gotten very far. But I would like to find out, Angus, did he talk with you? Did you guys get together and that step is taken or not?

Yeah, I did meet with him. I haven't seen anything involving whatever the language that needs to go to council would be. So I don't know if Walker and Pam have shared what that's looked like in the past with Roy, but I think that was the next step. And then he could start making adjustments and I could help with beefing up the memo that I currently wrote. I met with Roy and we talked mostly about, I was explaining to him Nate Malloy's idea for an overlay in PRP and explaining to him that the subcommittee went in a different direction, but that I tried to incorporate some of the things that Nate was doing in that overlay in the language changes in PRP. And he had a few specific questions about that overlay. And so I explained, that the changes I generally made to PRP that were different from what Nate had suggested in the overlay were to make things a little bit looser to enable more housing construction. So smaller setbacks from residential areas, that kind of thing. So that was most of our conversation. He said that he was going to try and talk to Mr. Bag again and think through you know the prioritization of this I think it's a priority for us I think the town has a lot on its plate and is balancing other priorities and Walker and Pamp can speak to that more so I think you know it's going to be imperative on us to move this forward on our own so yeah that's pretty much what I've got it was nice to be with him though he's a nice guy

Yeah. Okay. So Walker and Pam, did one of you share with Roy the, essentially the template for the previous letters that have gone like that?

Yeah, I shared with him a few examples of previous town council memos for zoning amendments. So he does have that.

Okay. All right. So those two steps have been taken and the ball's in his court. You know, I guess I'm not sure what he needs to get from Jeff. Angus, you mentioned something about the priorities, but, you know, I feel like we've... kind of touched all the bases that Jeff has asked us to touch base with. We've kind of slow walked this so far.

Yeah, I told Roy that he should run with it and not that I don't think another meeting with Jeff is necessary. I don't know if he will

In the email where he told us that he couldn't be here tonight, he said he was hoping to meet with Jeff again. And I'm unclear what that... I mean, I can talk to him about it.

Yeah, I think as the chair, it might be useful to shoot him an email, Doug, just saying, you know, if you want to talk about other things, but I don't think there's anything that Jeff needs to contribute for the PRP discussion. Unless Walker or Pam, you all think that... Jeff would enjoy another meeting.

No, Jeff and I were talking about this and we were also of the opinion that he probably has the information he needs at this point to move forward with the memo. So, I mean, we can talk to him again after he's got a draft if he wants.

Right.

Yeah, I mean, I'll shoot Roy an email just saying if he has questions or needs help with it, I'm happy to step in. I just don't want to take point on it at this moment.

No, that's fine. I'm just pleased that you're able to join us for our meetings, Angus, at the moment.

I will have to go put down my daughter because she's too heavy for my wife to lift over the crib now.

Okay, good. Okay, so let's just figure that's where we're at with the PRP and unless somebody objects, I think that's probably all we can talk about this evening on that topic. I would actually like to talk about what the next thing would be. And maybe some of you that are on this housing subcommittee want to offer ideas too. So I'll open up the floor for that. Jesse, you've already got your hand up. Go ahead.

Thanks. I was hoping to have. two quick conversations about ADU stuff while we're here. The first was really just to ask Walker where any potential bylaw change stands, because I know there's some legal action happening. But in my mind, if the council agrees to change the bylaw, regardless of the outcome of that, it could still prevent some of this funny business, whatever you want to call it, from happening again. That's my first question.

Yeah, it's in the works. I'm not the point person on it, so I'm not sure. It's definitely going to be coming to you at some point in the next month or two, but we're not exactly sure the timeline on it.

Can I ask, before you go, your second item, Jesse. Walker, is whoever's working on that got it as a priority because if they don't, I think the planning board may want to usurp that.

That's really what I was getting at. Sorry to interrupt.

I believe it is definitely a priority at this point. Everybody would like to get this settled and get to a position where the town isn't facing this issue again.

Okay, so you're sure we don't need to jump in?

I am fairly sure. Let me, if I hear anything else in the next week or two, I will let you know.

A lot of applications can happen in two months.

So, you know.

Okay, go ahead, Jesse.

Okay, sorry. Second point I wanted to raise, and I was kind of hoping Jera and Roy would be here for this also. I'll remind those of us who were here, when the state law changed about the ADU by right, what are we, 16 months ago now, 18 months, however long ago it was, I raised a conversation at planning board about AMR seeking basically exemption from the state. on a few different grounds, one of which there was precedent, right? The Cape and other islands have exemptions from the short rental bylaws that are treated differently. The point I was making was that Amherst is pretty unique. Bruce has done a lot of that work. I, at the time, pointed out this fact that in Massachusetts, we're the only zip code where water usage goes down in the summer. as a clear indication that we are a different situation than most towns. And while I think you all know I am not anti more housing in any way, these recent events are making it crystal clear to me exactly what we were worried about is happening. That the ADU by right is not being used for the purpose of the state law in our town. And so I wanted to raise this idea again and just gauge if planning board members and staff, what you thought about it. Because when I raised it before, there wasn't even a majority of planning board who would agree with me that that was a good idea. And at the time, staff was also pretty much a hard no. We're not going to do that. So I just wanted to raise the conversation again. because staff has changed on multiple levels, planning board composition has changed. So again, I'm just curious what your thoughts collectively are about this idea, not necessarily to end the ADU, but to basically still allow owner occupancy requirement. And then again, we're already thinking about certain parts of town where we want to encourage more density, more development, maybe in different ways in ADUs, maybe with ADUs, you know, that's to be determined. But what I'm seeing is, again, the ADU situation is exactly what we were worried about.

So, Jesse, you're I mean, I guess you're asking if Planning would recommend that the city or that the town advocate through its representatives to get the legislation amended to include Amherst as an exempted municipality from the law.

Correct. And I'm wondering if you all would share that sentiment that that's a good idea for us to try even.

All right. So I'm going to go to Fred, then Bruce, then Angus.

Well, I completely agree with this approach. And the approach can be made in a way that does not discourage ADUs, but simply encourages in the unique population profile that Amherst consists of, And this is documentable. Bruce Colden has done a lot of work on this. We have a population profile that is unmatched anywhere in the 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth. And it seems to me that there ought to be a way, I'm sure there is a way to get a little more control over this bylaw in terms of the unique, population profile that we have, I'll put it that way, in Amherst. And I think it merits the kind of concern and adjustment that the legislature was plainly willing to make for the islands that could make something work for a town with the flagship campus entirely within its boundaries.

All right. Thank you, Fred. Bruce, I think you were second.

I agree with both Jesse and with Fred as the argument is stepped by each of them, proposed by Jesse, stepped by Fred. My add to this would be that the mechanism I think that we could pursue would be to allow for an occupancy stipulation. The Cape and Islands haven't asked for the abrogation of the law. They've just asked for a a component, a lever to be introduced or what have you. And we should do the same. And I think the lever that would make the difference for us be to allow us, allow owner occupancy to be a stipulation.

All right. Bruce, it sounds like you are certain that The other municipalities are not fully exempted. They are, there's some, it's just a requirement for owner occupancy in those towns. I don't know. And so I'd want to be clear on what they were, what their conditions were.

I would too. I understand that the argument, the concern on the Cape and Islands was the Airbnb, that kind of use, the B&B use for places that would have very transitory rentals. So probably they've got some requirement that limits the transitory nature of rentals, which is their concern. I don't know what the mechanism is. I don't even know for sure that it's been approved, because I'd heard some time ago that it hadn't been.

I'd want to be really clear about what the other conditions were.

Well, if it's a precedent, yes, we would. If it's not a precedent, I wouldn't say that wouldn't be a reason for me not to support proceeding and establishing, being the first to establish a qualification in the law. It would be easier, obviously, apparently, for us to achieve some kind of qualification to the law if someone else had done it in some fashion before. But if they haven't, that doesn't discourage me from supporting Jesse's proposal.

Okay. Angus, you're next. And I suspect Jesse's doing a Google search of what's going on in the other towns.

I mean, yeah, my preliminary research didn't seem to find any exemptions except some exemptions around year-round housing for tenancies with seasonal employees. But then on the FAQ page that describes that, the next line says, can a city town restrict who lives in a protected use ADU such as prohibiting college students? And it says, no, the ADU regulations do not allow a municipality to regulate who can live in a protected use ADU. So if the planning board wants to explore this, I'm open to what the language could look like. My preference was to do larger by-right ADUs without owner occupancy. So I think I'm probably not aligned to the same degree with what we're hearing here. But I also recognize that there is a great deal of frustration in town around these ADUs. And I also appreciate Jesse, you know, noting that, you know, we've been working on trying to find how to push students into better housing options because it is incredibly inefficient to build a bunch of small ADUs all across town to house a handful of students here, a handful of students there when we can build much larger buildings. But it's also frustrating to me that many of the people in town who are opposed to ADUs are also opposed to other options and essentially just want UMass to solve the problem, which would be good in some ways if they did, but also bad because they don't pay property taxes. So anyway, we've talked all about all of that. So I'm open to what the language could look like. I'm skeptical of it, that the state would allow it. But if that's something that the community really wanted, I think I'm open to sending it and seeing what happens.

All right. I'm going to just say I was probably pretty skeptical of this idea before. I think I was probably one of the naysayers. You know, it's unclear to me whether the reaction that I'm hearing in town is because they're larger than people expected or whether it's just the sheer number of them that are happening. And I'm not sure. I guess one way, one thing that I thought you might be headed toward, Jesse, was how can we get the state to recognize that these things should only be 900 square feet, not 1,200 or whatever. And If we got, you know, we could ask for permission to make sure that they're only 900 square feet. Um, as as opposed to owner occupancy, so that's just a different approach. Um, and it probably. Is less it would result in. Just as many to use, but smaller ones. rather than owner occupancy, which I think would actually reduce the number that were built actually pretty significantly. And then the last thing, well, okay, I'll hold that until Jesse, go ahead.

Thanks. Yeah, let me clarify. My understanding of what happened in the Cape and Islands, they were not exempt from the ADU by right, but they did have some additional requirements. And I've just found a chart by town that has some different requirements. So there is by right in some way, but there are minimum rental duration requirements in some towns. There's all variety of things, somehow town by town. And when I was raising, not that we want to match what they did, but it's an example of the state recognizing a unique situation in a town or towns and saying, okay, we need to consider you differently. So make your case and then we'll decide. Because when I raised this before, the majority sentiment from staff and the planning board was, oh, we don't wanna seem too special. We don't wanna do that. Like we don't even wanna have the conversation. And that's what I kind of object to. Now to the actual issue, Do I think we, my first choice would be as a town, we don't have ADU by right, because that doesn't allow us to try and intentionally direct where student housing is going. The point of this law is not for student housing. The point of the state law It's for more housing opportunity for workforce, middle, low income, et cetera, et cetera. It's not thought about our situation, which is every single thing that will be built right now is just going to be student occupied. We know that. I hope none of you would argue with that. It's very obvious over and over and over again. And so I see this as a possible mechanism for us to be more intentional and plan how this plays out in our town because that's what we're tasked to do. with the planning board. I don't think we need, to your point, Doug, I don't think we need to ask the state to help us enforce 900 square feet because that's just in the law. I mean, if this doesn't go away legally, I don't know what I'll do. I'll just give up a lot of things because it's so ludicrous in some ways. But the bylaw changed. obviously we should be able to cap the 900 square feet thing. I mean, it's just crazy. So yeah, I'll stop there.

Thanks. Okay. Well, I'm not convinced we're going to win that argument yet.

Well, I'll eat my hat. I don't know what to say. Okay.

All right, Angus.

Yeah, I was just going to say, I think it's absolutely worth having more conversations about this. And I agree, Jesse, that it'd be good to hear Jera and Roy and their thoughts on it as well. I'll just say my interpretation of the state law is that it's trying to alleviate housing pressures across the state, period. And that includes here that actually the primary housing pressure is the students. And so I agree with you that most of the ADUs that are going to be built are going to be being built for students will be housing students. I also think that that's better than nothing and that that does alleviate housing pressure elsewhere in the system. So I don't know if that necessarily alleviates a ton of housing pressure in Amherst. So I'll just say that I am sympathetic to what you're saying. I think it would be great for us to discuss it, but I still see this ADU option as The, I guess, worst of the available options, but it's still an option for alleviating housing pressures.

All right, Bruce.

Just a minor point. You said, Jesse, that everything being built is for students. And just for the record, so that people know that we know, for example, that this 30-unit housing development that I went to, ribbon-cutting today, is definitely not for students and neither is that... thing on Amity Street that I recuse myself from, but we all approve. So there's a small amount of housing that's being built very specifically not for students. But that's only just to make sure that we don't get random people saying, you guys don't know what you're talking about. We do, and Jesse knows what he's talking about. And I've got a very tasty hat, Jesse, but I hope you don't have to need of it.

All right, Walker?

I'm also doubtful that the state would listen to this request, primarily because it's a Dover amendment use. And traditionally in case law, Dover amendment uses are pretty much widely allowed. The state has really not listened to any appeals in that case. ADUs are a little different than religious or educational uses. It is something new. I don't think it hurts anything to try. I'm just not super optimistic. And also it's my understanding that regulating short-term rentals is allowed statewide. So I don't know enough to say whether there's a difference in how the CAPE deals with that or not, but I'm pretty sure that's something any municipality is allowed to do.

Brett KenCairn, Well Walker. Brett KenCairn, I think what part of the issue is would it would you and your supervisor, I guess Jeff. Brett KenCairn, You know, and even Paul be willing to expend staff time to help put together the case to advocate for this.

I mean, I can't speak for what Jeff would be willing to do. I think that to me, it makes sense to wait for the ZBA appeal on that issue to be resolved so that we're dealing with one thing at a time rather than overlapping the issues, but they may feel differently.

Dave Kuntz, Okay, well I you know I think one out one note, I would take if I were you is to just bring it up with Jeff and take his temperature on it so. Dave Kuntz, Maybe at the next meeting, you could let us know whether you're getting sort of you know support or whether we're totally swimming upstream.

yeah I can talk to him.

Dave Kuntz, Okay Jesse. Thank you. Two more things, then I'll rest for tonight on this issue. One is if the board is not interested, I'm fully prepared to raise this issue just as a non-board member, as a citizen. I thought I'd write a letter to Jeff and Paul just to put that out there. I'll probably do that anyway.

Or bring it to town council.

Sure. But just one comment in response to Angus. I agree, ADU is kind of a good option, maybe the worst of the options. In my mind, it's also a one-way option, meaning it's one of these things that, so it's happening in my neighborhood in three places. There's already a rental in an older single-family house. That's a rental. In my mind, that never comes back as a single-family house. An ADU gets built on the same lot. It's another barrier to that becoming flipping back to a single owner-occupied residence or even an owner-occupied residence with an ADU because the chances that someone can afford to buy that property that now has two lucrative rentals on it just gets lower and lower and lower. And so again, it just seems like the one-way path that was never going to come back. Even if the demographic cliff happens, even if our pressure gets reduced, there's always going to be student need here. UMass is never going to go away. And so that's the urgency I feel about some of these things is the one-way decision-making. And yeah, there are a few examples here and there of things getting bought by the land trust and maybe returning, but for the most part, that's not what happens.

Thanks. All right. Bruce and then Angus.

It seems to me that I'm not so supportive of convincing Jeff and Paul Bachman that we should ask KP Law to go and talk to God knows who. That seems like a waste of money because I don't think the passion is going to go down the line. What needs to happen is Jesse and I need to drive into Boston with Mindy Dom and go with Mindy to the right people. I think if we went that way, I'd be happy to do that. Otherwise, I think it's not going to happen.

Brett KenCairn, I was doing Bruce yeah Bruce I was, I was assuming that you know, whatever case we put together would be. Brett KenCairn, we'd probably take it would be taken to mindy first. Brett KenCairn, And so I wasn't assuming that she would be out of the loop unless you and Bruce got in a car with her. Brett KenCairn, Alright, so. Angus, go ahead.

Yeah, just, I mean, I guess one question I have in response to what Jesse is raising, and this is why I'm eager for us to talk more about this, because it's raising interesting concerns that I think are important to think through. Could those properties that have an ADU built on them, could in the future there be a subdivision of the property into two?

Yeah, if we reduced our lot size requirements,

Okay. So I think this is like, what are the odds of that happening? I don't know. I think it's a really valid concern to bring up, Jesse. And you're right. I mean, converting these kinds of properties to permanent investment properties is not great for long-term single-family housing. So on the other hand, they increase density. And if they lead to subdivision, then that could lead to benefits in other ways. But that's a different process that we certainly haven't seen in the evidence of yet. But this is why I think talking about this more would be really useful. The only other thing I'd say is Based on what Walker is saying and what we think town staff have said in the past, I would doubt, I'd be surprised if Jeff and Paul want to spend a whole lot of time on this. But if the planning board votes and thinks this is like a worthwhile thing to pursue, then we should pursue it. And, you know, I don't think we need tons of town staff support to do things like bring this to town council or just vote. you know, recommend the town council consider it, especially if there's people on town council who would be interested in it, talking to our state rep, you know, yeah, our state senator, great, great ideas if we think this is a good thing to move forward with.

All right, Jesse. Just some data I have, which I can dig up. A year ago, I got in touch with, I think it was the county clerk of deeds or whatever the title is. And I got, I don't know, 20 years of sales records for Amherst. And I was trying to ask the question, how many times did a rental get sold back to someone who lived in town? It was a difficult question from the data I had, because I really could only look at LLCs and that kind of stuff as clear rentals. And I didn't find any out of 30, 40,000 transactions. And so just to make the point that that direction, that's what convinced me it's really a one-way direction. No, I totally agree. If we change the subdivision, I mean, if we allow that kind of subdivision, that changes the situation. And I think that's something we were starting to talk about at subcommittee also is like, where in town can we start to consider smaller lots? And I think that's a great idea. So yes, but for the future.

Okay. So to talk about this next time, Walker, we're hoping you can talk to Jeff and report back. And then would it be you, Jesse, or who would actually try to get what actually is the permission that the Cape and Islands got? Sure.

Sorry to interrupt. I'm happy to figure out what that actually is. I can try and write something for us to look at also about what I think the argument would be.

OK. Great. Brett KenCairn, All right. Brett KenCairn, Does anybody have anything else on general housing discussion i'm actually going to throw something out because because it's been on my mind. Brett KenCairn, I had a couple conversations with Council to couple of counselors earlier this summer and they both emphasize the need for more revenue in town. and that we needed to improve our tax base. And one way to do that would be to allow more areas where larger housing is available. And since we know that student housing is the primary demand at the moment, we have talked in the past about maybe rezoning land near UMass. And so I wanted to actually throw out a couple of areas and just because it would be a pretty easy thing to just list the parcels and say these are now zoned from, you know, RG to, you know, fraternity use or or even or or some use that would allow larger development. So the two areas that I was going to throw out and where the area north of Fearing Street which includes Phillips and some of those other small town, small, small streets. So the north side of Fearing between that and the university. And then the east side of campus, there's a strip of single houses, Kind of along where the water tower is from strong street. North, let's say. To, uh, is it Olympia place? Maybe is the next 10 street that goes off to the east. Um, there's a whole string of maybe 6 or 7 houses along there that could be. If if they were rezoned for more intense development, they would. Get flipped and turned over and, um. Provide. very convenient housing to students, but still be part of the tax base. So I just wanted to throw that out, see if anybody is supportive of that. And, you know, I don't want to usurp some of the priorities that the Housing Subcommittee was talking about, but I thought that was a fairly expedient proposal that we could send to town council and just see how badly they actually want revenue. So, Jesse. Yeah, you're still muted.

Thanks definitely supportive of that idea, I was actually in my mind and then a couple emails to some people started calling a campus adjacent zone as a as a new possibility for his own. That would have different requirements or different allowances rather. I totally agree the north of fearing is. an obvious choice to me. For a lot more density, it's where the students want to be. It's good for the town. Students would go into town. And I also agree, east side of North Pleasant is pretty good. It could also be north of campus as well, all along North Pleasant. All those properties along North Pleasant, I don't see them as any different. So yeah, I'm definitely supportive of thinking about that. What's nice about that idea also is it's not A lot of the response we got to the North Amherst overlay was from those residents and actually other non-residents of that area saying, oh, you're pushing everything into North Amherst. You're making us the brunt of the problem. But if it's a campus adjacent, as the logic, it's going everywhere. It's a logic to it, not just a neighborhood. So yes.

I had sort of shied away from the north end of campus just because the neighborhood up there is a little more cohesive. Not right along North Pleasant Street, but west of further in, kind of. on the west side?

Yeah, I mean, I was saying North Pleasant until Pine Street, sort of.

Oh, really?

I mean, bus lines, already rentals, you know, and we don't have to do it all at once. We could start with North Pleasant. It could be different pieces converted at once.

Okay. All right. Bruce and then Angus.

Yeah. supportive as you may recall Doug I was interested in trying to imagine how the orchestral properties which are along that line could be somehow the upland portion of them could be extracted from the conservation easement of course all these things like that are really difficult to do and of course it's Probably impossible, but you then pointed out that there are other properties. And so, yes, I think I'm, as with Jesse, I'm supportive of both of these. And I think that they seem to be low-hanging fruit in a way. In other words, they're fairly straightforward, easy to understand. I think we could try those without necessarily yet thinking about expanding them. Let's just see what the reception is to these two examples. And then if it flies, then we've got a mechanism for moving forward. Say, let's do, why don't we do the same here and here? So I like that idea. I think it's something that we should spend some time on in the near future.

Okay, Angus. Agreed with everything Jesse and Bruce have said. I'll just add, I would love the idea of including those like Pufton Village in the North Amherst area that we were looking at for the overlay. But I also, I think Bruce might be right, that limiting it to the south and eastern portions could be good, especially considering how much closer they are to downtown. And we're also reconsidering, you know, redesigning downtown, including that northern portion, right? And the planning board expressed to the consultants a lot of desire to see increased density along that park on North Pleasanton Triangle where they intersect. So that would kind of create a kind of merging of the UMass area with the downtown area with greater density, which would help all of our problems, tax-based problems, housing UMass students problems, and getting more people in downtown.

Okay.

Jessi. With your permission, can I share my screen briefly?

Yeah, yeah. Fine with me.

I can see my PowerPoint.

Oh, yeah.

So if you recall, I sent this around or I shared maybe a planning board eight months ago or so. And I intentionally drew these blocks as independent blocks. So like, Doug, I think this is what you're talking about. You see my mouse, right?

Yeah, that's the one on the south side. And then the east one I had just from Strong Street north.

That's up here.

Strong Street. Yeah, that's what it was.

And to me, these are all adjacent in the same beneficial way. And then I had also included, this is the neighborhood west you're talking about of North Pleasant, which I agree is still kind of a neighborhood. So I have mixed feelings about that. But then all of these are really rentals for the most part anyway. Yeah.

I guess the question is, would we want to take a big bite? Right. Or just try a couple of areas that are sort of the no-brainers without...

without causing too much hassle.

With probably the least objections.

I totally agree. And so maybe something like that, or maybe just this one. I think I counted in this little area. I mean, I don't know for certain. I think there are only like four owner occupied and everything else is rentals. There's some very skewed percentage.

I wasn't assuming, I mean, I was assuming it probably would need to be an overlay so that the existing single family use can remain. or come back if it needs to, but I don't see that happening.

Yeah, I agree. So anyway.

Okay. Well, you know, I mean, since I brought it up, I'm quite happy to take a draft of this. One question I would have for all of you would be, you know, the existing fraternity sorority zone allowed up to maybe five stories. Would you be comfortable with that or would you be uncomfortable with that? And we ought to be trying to keep it a little bit lower. So, Jesse, you're nodding your head more or less.

No, I would keep it lower and figure out other higher density ways. So lot coverage. I don't know what the other mechanisms are, but I would think three stories, maybe a step back, fourth story. I think it would still be nicer to stay somewhat low. I don't remember. Does anybody know offhand what height Fieldstone is? Because I don't think it's five.

Fieldstone is actually six.

But that's down at the corner, right? At the bottom of the hill. And then it's only maybe four.

I think it steps back to either four or five. I don't think it goes to three.

Yeah, maybe it's four.

Easy enough to go look at it.

I mean, it's nicely designed because it goes up the hill and gets shorter. And so somehow respecting that a little bit is nice. I think if, in my view... a lot of five story things happened in that it would, it would be too, too much. Okay.

All right. Bruce.

I agree with Jesse. I think so far as the fearing is consent, but not so far as the East Pleasant street one, because that is on a downslope. And I think that's a really good place to put six stories because when you were driving along East Pleasant, it would look less than that. So I, I think the two sides are different, Doug. I would treat them in that respect differently. So the same basic strategy of overlay and so forth. But if possible, recognize that there are different opportunities in each of the two sides.

Okay. All right. We have no public attendees. We have no more hands raised at the moment from the board. Are there any more? So I'll go ahead and take a take a pass at some sort of draft of something for those for those two areas and we can talk about it. Well, Jesse, you've got your hand up.

Thanks. I was just gonna back up and ask, when do we think we'll have Brett KenCairn, This discussion again, so I can give myself a deadline to prepare something for the other.

Brett KenCairn, lady i'm I was hoping it at our next meeting.

Brett KenCairn, Okay, so that is.

Brett KenCairn, The 16th 16th okay. Brett KenCairn, Okay angus.

Doug, are you thinking of just drawing on the university drive overlay for language and then like adapting it?

I don't know. I, you know, when I, when I threw this out, I was hoping it was simply, we're just going to move those two areas into the fraternity sorority zoning and I wouldn't have to do any zoning changes, but where we've ended up is a little more complicated. So I haven't, I haven't thought about it yet.

But does the fraternity sorority allow five stories?

Yeah, because I think so. Because because the developments down on Olympia that burned, at least one of those was five stories. I mean, the one that was completed and occupied. I think that's five stories.

Yeah, they were fine.

Yeah. All right, so I'll think about it, but I'll try to have something in a couple of weeks.

Well, I mean, so how does that, do they not have, I'm just, I'm reading it more closely. I mean, it's a use.

Yeah. So it's been interpreted as allowing student-only housing development, regardless of whether, kind of irrespective of whether it's a part of a Greek system.

But, but I guess I'm not. Yeah, I understand that. You know, it's allowed by site plan review and our But our rep has height limits. So I shouldn't everything in RF apply to fraternity or sorority housing.

Now there's a zone.

I'm showing it as a as a use on them use tables like mixed use building or apartment. And then, but I think you're right that there is, so it's not on the use table, it's not listed as a zone itself, but on the map, you're right, there is a zone, isn't there?

Yeah, well, there's an RF zone, fraternity residence.

What does that mean? If it's not on the use table, then how do we

Well, what is the chapter three in the front?

Chapter two, article two.

And is it is it on the dimensional? It's not on the dimensional table, so what what what applies to it?

Um.

I'm sorry to take us down this.

No, that's fine. I think Pam is right. Section 2.02.

It is on the dimensional tables.

Yeah. It is?

Yeah, right next to RG.

It goes RG, RF. So RF is the fraternity. Yeah, that's five stories. Okay. I'm sorry, I missed that. That's all right. I would not be opposed to trying to rezone some of that as RF as a much simpler solution to writing an overlay, just as an aside.

I was trying not to make any existing single-family houses that are owner-occupied non-conforming.

Right.

That's what an overlay will allow. You know, because it's, anyway. Okay, anything else, Angus?

You're going to think about it.

Yeah. Well, I think the other challenge is like that, you know, any of these zoning decisions get frozen in amber for a long time. And so I appreciate, you know, Doug, what you're trying to do is weigh the expediency of this moment and the ease of making a change with keeping as many options open for the future. But part of me is also like, I don't know how many times those kinds of decisions were being made in the past. If in the future, that area wanted to revert back to single family dwellings, that could be a zoning change that a future planning board makes. But I take your point about the overlay and more power.

Okay. But, you know, Angus, in general, I totally support your desire to simplify our zoning code. It's tricky.

Can I just add that since I joined the planning board, the zoning bylaw has grown by like 20 or 30 pages.

Well, and we can blame you for that, right?

And it's about to grow by another 20 or 30 pages.

Yeah. From the solar bylaw. OK, so I'm going to assume that that's enough for general housing discussion for this evening. And we have some of us have some homework to do for the next meeting. And and Pam, please include this on the next agenda for the meeting on the 16th. I will. OK, old business, anything not anticipated 48 hours in advance. We've already talked about ADUs, which we sometimes have talked about under this topic. Okay. Any new business not anticipated? Okay. Form AA and our subdivision applications, anything? No. All right. ZBA applications, anything other than the ADU?

I did talk to Jeff about that. We are going to start making sure that I'm part of the ZBA transmittal so that I'm seeing what ZBA is reviewing ahead of time. He said at the moment, there's a couple like very small projects that just impact a single family home, but there's nothing, no big projects right now before the ZBA, no upcoming projects that he's aware of except for I think I told you this last time, maybe that the lot next to the like in front of the Women's Club kind of next to the Dickinson Museum that's empty on Gray Street and Main Street. Someone bought that and is talking to the town about putting townhouses on that lot. And that will be a special permit.

Oh, the one that used to be that was was owned by Amherst Media?

Yes, the old Amherst Media lot.

Okay. So that that might become townhouses. Hmm. Okay.

Yeah, that's the proposal. He's, he hasn't put anything formal to the town yet.

Okay. That'll be a historic local historic district commission. Nothing as well.

Yeah. And he's aware of that too.

Okay. That'll be interesting.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. Actually, I haven't listed the time lately. The time is 733. Upcoming SPP, SPR, SUB applications. Anything on the horizon? No? No. All right. Things must be pretty quiet there in Town Hall.

What do you think? It doesn't feel that way.

Okay, we'll move on to planning board and committee and liaison reports. Bruce, anything for PVPC?

No, nothing to report.

All right. Roy is absent, so we don't have a CPAC report. I can report that the only news on design review board is that the September meeting is canceled because we have nothing to talk about. um otherwise i guess we'll go to the last item or last few items uh report of the chair um i don't have anything i'm trying to think if there was something i thought i might want to just ask about. But I can't think of it at the moment. So I'll move, let this go on to report of staff. Walker, could you at least mention where we're at with the East Amherst zoning study that the consultants are coming to us at the end of this month?

Yeah, be coming to the planning board on the 30th with their existing conditions survey and their like kind of first steps and like next steps for the planning board to be involved in the project. We're also working on trying to plan a community engagement session in the next month or two.

Are they going to be bringing also sort of their first impressions? That's my understanding, yeah. Okay, because I'd like them, you know, I'd like to get their take on what that area could be.

Yeah, I don't think they want to limit it just to existing conditions because that's not... They want to have more of a conversation with that, within that and have, or spend your time more usefully.

Okay. Anything else on report of staff?

We are interviewing for the last planner position right now. So we will be hopefully, fingers crossed, fully staffed. relatively soonish. In the meantime, we're still prioritizing the bigger ongoing projects, being the East Amherst Zoning Study, the Hampshire College Zoning Study, and I believe that Pam sent out to you the Tuesday and Thursday night engagement, public engagement sessions. Jeff was hoping that at least some members of the board would be able to participate in those, one or both of those, later in the month. And then, of course, the design standards were going to be what we took all the comments and everything that came back and they've been revised and they're going to be going back out for another round of discussion on how they're going to be implemented. And the next steps for that as well. So Those kind of are the priorities for our department right now.

I'm going to ask just, Jeff had also talked about doing a study for the Wildwood site.

They haven't heard anything updated about that. I know that's been something that's been discussed, but I don't think there's anything concrete that I'm aware of.

Okay, because I've been under the impression that might be something that was done sort of in-house by your staff.

If so, it's going to be a bit. Okay. I mean, we're also working on the VFW site as the request for proposals went out for that to be a shelter slash supportive housing

location in town um and then there's you know the usual day-to-day stuff but okay all right um anything else walker i i see bruce has his hand up i i know i i need to let him speak soon yeah that's that's all i could think of off the top of my head okay bruce go ahead

Question for Walker, really. I'm thinking about the staff positions and so forth. And I'm kind of aware that Jeff replaced Christine, but Jeff's also got economic development as well as planning director in his title. And then there's... So I'm wondering whether there's a replacement for Nate, because I suppose you're interviewing a replacement for Jacinta. I think you replaced... Somebody. When you said once we get this final person in, we're back to fully staffed. So that seemed to leave a Nate position open, but maybe I don't understand how it works. So if you could tell me how it operates in that respect.

Yes, so Nate's position, the assistant director of planning, the position they created and promoted him to shortly before he left, that position has been filled. Alexis started last month. She's been just kind of shadowing Jeff and trying to figure out She hasn't been a planner in the state of Massachusetts before, so she's catching up on our zoning regulations and whatnot. She's going to start taking on more responsibilities as she gets more comfortable. But the position is a little different than what Nate was doing. It's supposed to be more of a day-to-day director of the planning department, where Jeff is big picture, working directly with the town manager, economic development, he's not doing as much of the day-to-day or he's not going to be planning like management. That's what Alexis is going to be doing along with, she might support me in staffing the planning board. She might support the new planner and staffing the ZBA, but she's not going to be directly staffing any boards either, as far as I'm aware. And then the position we're interviewing for is just a disposition, which will be the ZBA staff planner primarily. And at that point we will be fully staffed.

And I think I was, my recollection is that Walker, you had said that at some point, Alexa may just, would come to our board and just be introduced at least.

Yeah. And I, I think Jeff's just been too busy to think about that. Maybe I should ask her if she just wants to come with me. Like, I don't think Jeff has to be the one to introduce her. It would be good for you to meet her and for her to meet all of you, I think.

Yeah, that'd be great. Anything else for Bruce? OK. And anything else from staff, Walker?

I don't have anything else.

All right. And Pam, you're good too?

I am good.

OK. All right. All right. So we still don't have any attendees. We had one for a little while, but they came and went. Anybody have anything else for this evening? No hands raised. A bunch of heads shaking no. All right. The time is 741. And I will say that we are adjourned. We'll see you in two weeks on the 16th of September.

All righty. We'll see you then. Bye. Bye, everyone.

Good night.