Can um Stephanie, you're you're the you're the host. Is that correct? Um or is it Athena? Athena's still here. Should be the host. Athena, do you want to make um someone else a host?
Yep, I'll do that. Thank you. I'm trying to open up my participant. There it goes. There it goes. Good afternoon. It is October 9 and this is a regular meeting of the community
resources committee of the town council. Pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 which extends through June 30 of 2027, the ability of public bodies to meet in a remote or hybrid manner without a quorum of members in person. This meeting will be conducted via
remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public is possible, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via
technological means. We have a quorum. We have started recording and I'm going to go around and see if everybody can be heard. Pat, yes. Mandy Joe, present. Kathy Shane here.
Jennifer Tub. Yes. And Pam Rooney's here. Great. Uh just for folks who are listening that we intend to spend about the first hour on solar bylaw and then we'll switch over to housing production plan
and uh we'll probably see a few more staff people at that time, close to four. So we have one person in the audience. Uh there are no public hearings. This is an an opportunity for general public comment if the if the attendee
would like to make a public comment. Feel free to raise your hand and um you can speak for up to three minutes on topics related to the CRC. I don't see any hands.
Okay, we will close the public comment period. So, moving into action items. Solar bylaw basis is uh is version 16 that we um uh that we cleaned up or we
added to from last meeting which was on the 25th of September. And I think um I'm going to ask Mandy if she is um does such a good job would continue to help edit as we go along.
Um I'm happy to, but I was wondering if we could talk about what's going on at the state level first as it relates to our work here. Sure. Um Stephanie, do you want to say something and then and then councelor Hani? Sure. So, I just attended um a state
information session about the new um smart guidelines. Actually, they're calling smarty guidelines now because they include um social justice and environmental justice as part of the new regulations components to that that um
revised regulation. and they are um doing an additional information session uh where they're going to I think present the regulatory package and that is being held on Tuesday October 21st at
2 p.m. I will be happy to provide 2 p.m. 2 p.m. Thank you. Um I will be happy to forward that um that link to you all. I think this one um I got this information from Allison
Gage who has been working directly with municipal staff. So I know some of their um information sessions were kind of geared towards staff but it's certainly absolutely appropriate for um board and committee members to be and governing bodies to be part of of these sessions
as well obviously. So, um, so that's happening on Tuesday the 21st at 2 p.m. And then they are also going to do another session um next Tuesday, the 14th, 10:14, October 14th at 3 p.m. And
that is going to be specifically um uh there's going to be one on the on the um solar bylaw. I'm sorry. I believe the one on the uh one of the one of these is going to be specifically on the draft of the solar bylaw and also the draft um bees
bylaw. Uh they have been posted now on the DOER website. So you can actually go to the DOER website and and check those out. Stephanie, thank you. If you if you send anything out, could you kindly send it to everyone
just to make sure that every everyone here sees it? Yes, I will send and I apologize. I think the general session is on the 14th and the one about the bylaw is on the 21st, but I will send that um that email that I received. I'll just forward it to all of you.
Great, Council Hani. Yeah. Um I I feel like a broken record because I'm going to reiterate some things I've said for the past year. Um, but as we
get closer to this, um, the model bylaws came out yesterday or today. Um, they were not on the website Tuesday. They were not on the website when I looked yesterday. Um, this law was passed a while ago and we've known the regulations and guidelines are coming. They've been out for a little bit. Um,
the information session tonight and next week are on those regulations and guideline. There's a public hearing on the regulations next week. And as Stephanie said on the model bylaws that just came out, there's an information session on the 21st. Um I was at a
policy committee meeting of the MMA on Tuesday. Um where they were very clear that and the regulations, draft regulations seem to be very clear that the towns will must um follow as we knew
regulations and guidelines. Um, and we're not we're not going to be able to have anything that conflicts with those regulations and guidelines. and the regulations and the law create this comprehensive permit that what we're
currently working on right now doesn't even address a lot of the stuff that we will need to address and choices we'll need to make about um the local regulatory authority that's in charge of receiving the comprehensive house the comprehensive permit application the one
that does the issues the decision the one that does um any appeals and stuff like that um just a brief reading a quick reading of the regulations last night. Um, and so I'm going to say it again. I'm don't
believe we should be spending staff time and our time on drafting this right now when we haven't had a chance to look at the model bylaw because I think what will be most efficient for us is to do what we've to move what we've done into
a model bylaw as long as it doesn't conflict and really look at the model bylaws both best and solar there's two of them um to see you know and and take from there and start our work there and put in some of the stuff we've done, but
I don't want to be working on potential language that is going to conflict with those models or with the regulations. In fact, um to then have to redo the work. um we aren't going to have a lot of
time. In in other words, what I'm seeing is if we don't comport if we continue this work and it doesn't comport with what comes out, there's no point in holding hearings on what we've done because we will have to redo it all to comport with
what comes out and make sure it does it and hold hearings on that to adopt a new bylaw. And so I'd rather see us spend our time doing other things and working towards making sure we don't conflict with that model, making sure we are in compliance
with it and maybe importing some of the stuff we've done, but not doing new until we can see and digest what the model is and what the draft regulations and all are. so that we're not working futily in conflict with things
and and drafting a lot of language that we're going to have to throw out because it potentially because it ends up conflicting with the guidelines. And I have I will say right now I have no idea if any of what we've done actually conflicts. There's so much to digest
that I can't say right now. I do actually know some does. some of the setbacks that are in our our current draft will conflict with the guidelines. Um, but beyond that, I have no idea how much we're going to have to modify, how much we can import and all. I'm just
saying I'd rather not work on something that in the end we have to throw out because it does conflict. Yep. Thank you. Um, did just a quick question. Do you do you get a sense that they are focusing on a on a particular scale of of construction?
So this is everything for solar everything below 25 megawws. The state will the state will look at everything below 25 meg. These guidelines apply to everything below 25 megawws for solar. They also
apply to storage of certain sizes. And I could look up the guidelines and all at this point, but the law was anything below 25 megawws, which is directly where we're dealing with anything above 25 megawws is completely controlled at the state level. Now, we have it is a
stateisssued permit. It is a stateisssued process. Our town will never see any applications for anything above that size. They're calling anything below a small scale solar in uh clean energy infrastructure or something. I'm still trying to learn
the language they're using, but but yeah, what we're doing now is exactly what they're the guidelines and regulations will apply to. Cathy, um I'm just going while Mandy was talking and saying where to find it, I
quickly scrolled through. So, it it's quite comprehensive. So that uh that has a section on large scale, but it also does medium scale and it has um on medium and smaller, but Mandy started saying on dimensional they have it look
at your dimensional table and whatever the accessory uses dimensions are. So how far away from a border then for large scale it gives you more flexibility. So it uh it what we've been drafting isn't as comprehensive as what
they've done and it will take some time to go through when they move and there's a lot of you know when we were going through definitionals what is this what they have a system definition versus just a photovoltaic array definition and then they have a you know completely off
the grid where you're not trying to connect to ever source but you're connecting directly. So, it's it's a longer list of things before I even got to whether battery storage is part of it. So, there there two documents there. Um, and as I
just said, I literally took the two minutes that Mandy was talking to scan this. So, this is not Kathy didn't know they were there, so I didn't read them. So, you're now you're now an expert. Okay. Well, no. I I'm I'm a pretty quick read. So I was scanning the scope you know because I was wondering whether it was
just large scale or not. Um the other thing that they've given that it's similar to what they gave with ADU is guidance the the guidance material goes here's where you've got flexibility and here's where you have to do exactly
what we're we're saying. So it's also a useful document to be looking at because it's not that everything has to be a cookie cutter and and I just did again looked at that it's ADU was very similar and they did something even nicer with
ADUs was once they actually had a model rather than a proposed mo model they said on this one you can be flexible but in these directions they did little comment bubbles so it's very helpful for
comparing where we are to what they are and someone of one or several of us would need to do that. It's not possible to do it quickly um because it's not aimed at the same it's not as focused as
the focus that we had um on it. So I'm I'm thinking as we as we look forward to what work is on the table oh Pat go ahead please. Uh I would I wonder I want to say something but I also asking Kathy uh you said large scale
gives more flexibility. Could you clarify that a or expand it a little bit? I know you. So, as I said, this Pat, this is me four minutes worth of reading, but yeah, when No, I appreciate that. When it No, when it went to dimensional setbacks and side and back, it was very
specific for medium that go to your dimension table and wherever accessories. So, we ran into this with ADU that an accessory can be closer to. Yeah. No, I understand that. With large scale, they started to go into what are the dimensions for that. So they were more
Okay. So you're talking specifically about flexibility and dimensional standards. Yeah. So in other words, that's that's all I needed to know. Then the other thing they do, Pat, and then I didn't look at what their definitions, they go um where these
large ones can be located or not. So they specifically looked at that. Um yeah, that's fine. I agree with Mandy that um trying to continue this work right now without this body really
looking at those would be a waste of time. Much of what we've been doing is a waste of time, which is terribly sad. Um but I think that I have to agree with Mandy here. Uh and I'm trying to figure out I know we can't have um two people's
three people's aquarium, right? you know, that's majority. So, it would be good if um I would uh love to either work with uh probably work with Mandy because we don't always agree and that's great. Um about looking at this and maybe trying
to bring back some cohesive presentation of it for the next meeting. Is that something you I thank you Pat. I was going to ask if people would be would be willing to um form a small group and and sit down and
actually do a what do we have what is what is the model saying that we ought to do and highlight um highlight where we're where we're off. The question I have in all this and it's obviously none of us here is the expert on on the
answer is what can we keep that is important for for instance um areas of town where there is no um town infrastructure for water for instance. Is there some flexibility
where um where that and I having read Shootsberry um having having a water supply is is a key predative of is critical right uh Jennifer and then and then councelor Hannaki
and then and then Stephanie yeah so I think it's I think it's a really good idea to have a small group work but I've always haven't we always been told that even if two people meet together. Maybe they can do it in a
public, you know, it could be a public meeting like um I was just going to speak to that, Jennifer. I'm pretty sure if we're not rigid, two people doing a crosswalk with what we've got and where flexibility
would be okay. You know, they're not forming an opinion. They're not writing a document. I think that's okay. We've done it before. Yeah, I would I would agree. We've done it before. You know, that's okay. Three would not because then we're
we are a quorum, but two two would be okay. Work on a word. Okay. I I shouldn't be one of them, but that I think that's great. Then, uh, councelor Hani and or Stephanie, you
had your hand up. Um, I did, but I think were you going to recognize someone else before me or are you okay? Oh, okay. Councelor Hanaki. So, if this committee assigns any work that's going to come back to the committee to two or more people, it's a
subcommittee that is required to comply with open meeting law. Uh, even if it's just a crosswalk, if it's assigned to one person, it's not. Um, I think doing a crosswalk is absolutely essential. Um, and
I might be willing to start that work. Um, but I will tell you right off the bat, there's no way I can do it in two weeks. And part of that is um, it's going to take a while to digest. It's not just the model bylaw we have to stare at. It's the guidelines and the
regulations and things are changing. Um but but I would not want to do it before or have it done before that info session on the 21st regarding the model bylaws because I think that's going to be I attended portions of the info session on
Tuesday. I'm going to go to the one tonight. Um, I know the MMA is working hard to come out with, they're discussing it in policy committees and they're trying to come out with essentially their own guidance to try and distill all of this hundreds of pages of information that is very
technical so that municipalities can figure it out and do something with it. Um, that I've got an idea that that might be something in the next month coming out. But um I at minimum I think we need to go to
the info session on the bylaws because the info session what they talked about last Tuesday and what they'll talk about tonight was quite helpful in getting an idea of where things are going um and where they're looking for comments and what might change um between drafts and
finals um where they're looking specifically know they they have some work to do sort of thing um to to go to I Pat's question and Cathy's point before the model bylaws come out, which I've got I'm scrolling down, but I can't take any of it in in in the middle of a
meeting. The info session stated that the model bylaws would deal with different three different sizes of solar installations. Um, up to 25 kilowatts, between 25 kilowatts and 250 kowatts I
think it was, and then 250 kows to 25 megaww. Three different sizes. and Kathy alluded to that. So, so we still have to figure out what all is going on with that. um where things are a little more flexible and all, but but we have to I do think we
have to start with some sort of crosswalk that is um completely like notated and in words so that we know what was the language like what the
language in the model is and what we did. and then a note that says we think it comports we should go one way or the other or it completely conflicts you know um and is there options and all um it's going to take a while it's it's it's much more the model by law is 18
pages long and that's not best at all that's just solar um the guidelines were 17 pages no the reg ours are 19 Ours ours are 19 so we're no ours aren't our bylaws though that's that's some other stuff too but you know um the regs were
the guidelines are four different documents. So, it's a lot to take in and Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Um Stephanie, so as um Councelor Hanki just pointed out, they are still in draft form and
they are looking for comment. So, one of the things that I would encourage you as a municipal, you know, governing committee, I would maybe suggest looking for things where you think it might be missing or where you think you need sort
of local oversight to get that feedback to them because I do think that's something they're looking for right now. Um, I attended the session today. To be honest, it was the first time I've really been able to uh sit and review what was being presented and it is it is
very overwhelming. I mean, I've been doing regulatory work for some time. Um, and I just find it um very cumbersome. I think Ammerst will be fine. I'm more concerned about smaller communities that don't have
staff capacity, honestly. And I know they're saying they're going to fund supporting that, which says to me, why are you making it so complicated? But um I I I just encourage maybe looking at what you have where you do see the differences, but also where you
think maybe the state needs to address some of what you want to maintain as local control. Like I just think that's a very important thing to sort of talk about. One of the points that somebody made today was that uh it references public waterways but it doesn't you know reference private wells. So that's a
very important topic in Ammerst certainly. So maybe those are things you want to look to or maybe those are the things that the Amoris bylaw can really you know look to focus on you know those kinds of topics and um relevant issues. So I just wanted to offer that as just
maybe some guidance. Thank you Pat. Yeah, I want to uh after what Mandy said, and I realize that's true, the two best minds uh and processors for doing this would be Mandy and Kathy. Um and I'd be happy
to support that work, but I if they would be willing to do that, it would be quite beneficial, I think, to us as a group. And and Kathy, you've been named. Yeah, I've just I've just been named but I think
the sequence that has just been re recommended also makes sense. Oh yeah, it's first and uh first is take a look at what is missing or what is vague or where we have an
actual difference of opinion with what they've got in the draft to be able to provide comments to it. And Pat, I would imagine that some of the original solar working group might be useful. We don't have to do a single set of comments from
Ammeris. It can be submitted by individuals. So that would be worth doing since these are still in draft form. And then after that, I'm completely willing to try to do the crosswalk. And if Mandy thinks that even
doing a crosswalk, sitting down side by side is a subcommittee, I'm willing to do it as a subcommittee, you know, it just means we have to post it and someone has to watch us reading two documents and talking to each other, which which which is fine with me, you know, which which is fine with me. I
mean, we we do it on Zoom. Um, and and uh she and I actually work well together in terms of the way our minds organize things. So if we organized a report back to everyone in a way that made sense to
both of us, it would probably make sense to everybody in terms of, you know, not just a, you know, a grid, but really more insightful. So I So I'm just hearing the timing though. So the these the it's in draft for how long, Stephanie? Before it goes
to final. So it's in draft and you've got discussion of it on the 21st. So, at what time does it make sense to sit down with what we've got drafted? Um, it's it seems like after the 21st and
then, you know, our meetings, we've got one on the 23rd of October. So, the next one after that is November 6th. You know, just in terms of um I actually have do we have do we have one on the six or is it the 13th? My my calendar shows 13.
Okay. So, I I may just have an old list. Yeah. So, I had a November 13th suggest the sixth. But in any case, I I don't know which one. But anyway, whatever. I have a six, too, and not a 13th. Okay. I had a six. I have a list that
says second and fourth. And then it was uh Oh, yeah. Because of the holidays. So, it may be six and six and 20. It was six and 20 because Thanksgiving. That's what I have. That's what I have. I have six and I
have six and 20. So, I'm just looking at, you know, Mandy, in terms of when it would make sense to sit down together, you know, is it before the 6 or is it just after the 6th to be ready by the 20th? That's I'm just looking at a time frame on I don't want to
I think we could we can come back to this. Um, we don't have we don't have our folks here. We don't have Nate or Greg to talk about housing production plan yet, but um so actually we have another half an hour. We can talk about a little bit. Um I I would I would make
a very strange suggestion and that is that there are a number of AI programs out there that that actually do an excellent job if you take the two documents and say what what are the
differences? what is what is missing in the in the Amoris document from the state or vice versa where um where are their conflicts and and you may not catch everything but you catch a whole lot. I did a comparison of um six
different solar bylaws across the state and it it made a nice table of comparisons of the of the six ones. So, it's a really it's a really cool tool. uh councelor Hani and I would do that before you sit down
together and actually work you know item by item with it. So I was just going to clarify if the committee assigns it to two people it's an open meeting and a subcommittee. If the committee assigns it to one person and that person chooses to work with
someone else but that person's in charge of the final report back it is not a subcommittee. Let's do it. You're you're wants to be the person. No, make Mandy the lead. But I just gonna say, Pam, um I'm totally willing
to try something like that. Ours right now has so many strikeouts and comets in the side that AI would be finding interesting things. It's easier if we took Shootsbury compared to um what the
state's proposing. So, um, so it's it's uh it it was Mandy. One of the finance committee people sent me the AI analysis of the Mars reports and it was amazing. It gave a quick
summary of what they said. It was great. Um, but but it can do that. So, um, anything that would shorten it. So, Pam, I'm not unwilling to do it. I'm just thinking that what that we've got is is in um is an interesting
OB obviously use use your discretion but it's it's an incredible tool to sort through a whole bunch of stuff and I have a just I have another so so Stephanie would know this if the state
is stepping in on less than large scale the way we've defined it um but on the medium Would those automatically, since we haven't been talking about doing those at all, would those be automatically codified in
Ammer spy law somewhere? So if you know, you know, just lifted it, it's been expanded is what I see is the way they defined it to three groupings. And so would we
do we as a town need to look at the subgroups beyond the large is a better way to ask the question. Uh yes. I mean anything below 25 megawws will be under your jurisdiction,
right? I mean to a degree. There's still you're still going to have um some guidance that you have to follow at the state level, but it will be under your jurisdiction. I mean, I think the complication now is that it all has to be under one permit. So there's, you
know, there's also that whole process, too. I mean, in my head, it just felt like it I was I just thought of a comprehensive permit. It just seems like the similar process to the comprehensive permit process and maybe it makes sense to just sort of follow that kind of guidance. I
haven't talked to anybody in town about that at all. It was just what came to me today that makes the most sense. But um yes, I would say you know it's all anything under 25 is going to be under your purview. And if the state has sort of categorized it in three categories,
then you would sizes then you'd have to sort of look at them as well. Um so that you're sort of looking at apples to apples. Thank you. I I thought I in fact I wrote down that the state the state guidelines will apply to everything below 25
megawws and and then but Stephanie you just said that anything below 25 megawws is is local jurisdiction. So that's that's contradictory. No, no. The state the state is the ruler above above
above. Okay. 25 megawws. That's what that's what I thought. Basically one permit from the community above 25 megawatt is at the state level. Yes.
Yeah. But under 25 megawws, while it's still a local comprehensive permit, it must comply the issuance of that permit and all of the um conditions and things like that and application standards must comply with
the state regulations, the guidelines they'll adopt and and not necessarily the model bylaw. The model bylaw is helpful to distill everything that issuing that permit and the process that goes through
must comply with and cannot conflict with. So while it is still a local permit, it is in some sense if you want to think about it as comparable to the ADU. We could still adopt our own ADU bylaw, but it had to
comply with the state guidelines. Uh we can still adopt our own solar bylaw, but it has to comply with the state guidelines. And if we do not adopt a solar bylaw or a best bylaw, the state guidelines, they have written in that the permits are issued with standard
conditions that the state decides. So I would agree. I would also just point out that it was noted in the meeting today and I' it's been my experience. It's similar to the wetlands regulations, right? Because the wetlands the state's wetland regulations are very
very specific. Um and our local bylaw has to comply with those obviously but can go you know to afford more protection. Um so so it's true but I I think it's not unprecedented that there hasn't been the structure. It's a very
similar structure to the wetlands regulatory framework and I still think there's opportunity for the town to afford more protection. Again, I'll bring it up again, but you know, as in private private wells and private water supply, and there's probably other um
you know, other areas that the state doesn't really sort of get into. You know, I was thinking about signage and all those other sort of zoning issues that are things that the town's going to want to look at and and have um specific to Ammerst. Yeah, signage is the least of my
concerns. I realize that I was just I'm thinking in terms of filming and the kinds of things that you can, you know, obviously bring up. Yes. So, this feels like we've we've talked about this. Um, to wrap up, uh,
my understanding is that there will be a couple of different events that will be very informative on the on the 10th, excuse me, 10:14 and 10:21. There's something tonight at um at UMass
and um either Zoom or in person and um that that prior to the the 21st doesn't feel like we should spend a lot of time and energy trying to make comparisons with with what's uh in our
books or on on our drafting table already. Um, are we all in agreement that that either councelor Hanaki or Kathy Shane is the is the point person? Do we do we want to
nominate somebody to be a point person? Who Why don't they choose? I nominate Mandy and then she can have Kathy volunteer to work with her. That's fine, but it will not be ready by next meeting. I know.
That's fine. make it ready in January so I can be rid of this poop. Yeah, that you can come off. But think of the hours you've spent with us working on solar bylaw.
I spent hours before you guys even got here. So this the other recommendation that I would just have. So Mandy, sorry to cut you off, but I'm just scrolling through. Here's an example um in the scan on
this. The following are not addressed in the existing site plan review. This is for mod medium-sized L. The community may wish to include them. Locations of active farmland, prime farmland, location on flood planes, inudation. So
they're they're flagging areas where local might want to address that we stayed say silent. and this was just a so I think all of us should just scroll through this and say okay they're they're they're explicitly saying we
didn't address this and then that cross so the the more and this is really readable I I must say because they have green highlighted the areas where they're saying oh by the way you've got some flexibility here
it's not addressed um so that's a a friendly way friendly way to to draft a draft. Good. Good. Okay. It's worth it's worth scrolling. So, even though it's long, it's it's
partly long because the indentation is sometimes three or four inches from the left margin, you know. So, it's So, I'm going to make I'm going to make a comment and then and then go to councelor Hani. Um, we were sent and I
put in the packet a a public comment uh that was sent to the conservation commission and it is a very strongly worded um letter from a man in Shootsbury who was on the planning board
there. They got sued by Pure Sky and it is a an incredibly eyeopening um letter just describing what some of the what some of the concerns are with
basically with with Bess. Um, so I think that's something that I if as we turn over, you know, some of this to the state or whatever, um, the concerns that were raised in that kind of a letter, I think are first and foremost on my plate
as we try to transition and still meet the guidelines, but have something that works for the protection of Ammerst. Councelor Hani. Yes, someone was asking about the potential timelines. Um the
comments for the guide the regulations are being accepted through October 17th. So I believe they were talking about the regulations being finalized in January or February. The guidelines would be finalized sometime after that and then the model
bylaw would be finalized sometime after that. Um the model bylaw is open for comments until it says on here November 14th. So um they won't finalize a model bylaw till certainly sometime 30 60 90
days sometime after that is my guess. That's that's a guess, but certainly not before November 14th if they're accepting comments until November 14th. Um that what they talked about was trying to have everything in place potentially for the spring town meeting
season, but most definitely by the fall town meeting season so that all the towns that are towns could hold a special town meeting before the regulations take absolute effect December one of next
year. um there'll be this like transition period, but they will have to be complied with by everyone. December one of next year is the current date in the regulations. So, they're looking at acknowledging that these guidelines,
regulations, and all will affect mostly western Massachusetts and smaller towns because that's where the land is that's not built per se. um that they are keeping in mind the town meeting
schedules that many of those towns are typically on in in trying to get everything done. That's great. Okay. So, um again, I don't see anyone here yet from staff to talk at four
o'clock about the the housing production plan. So, let's um I think we're good. We're gonna we'll get some feedback and maybe um Cather Hanniki, you can you can send me an email when you decide that you're going to meet and that you're
going to meet with somebody named Kathy perhaps to go through the the documents. So, that'll be good. We'll look forward to that. Um let's just talk through We have no minutes. I'm looking at action items. We
still have no minutes. Um, I I think I think that's just a it feels like a very lost cause and I know it's a problem getting somebody to sit there and do it. Maybe
we could maybe we could ask for transcripts from CRC meetings and just get a transcript, you know, somehow into the record. That would actually be okay with me in thinking about it. Pat, you
started AI. Your idea about AI. Let AI type up the transcripts. I don't know. Jesus Christ. That's a good idea. We could generate our own little meeting minutes.
Is AI capable of listening to voices? Right. It could listen to the meeting. So I I've never used the tool, but um there that was if Athena figured out with tech people how to do that, boy
would relieve. Uh even Well, so I don't know who I'm going to take my dog out to poop. Yeah. Okay. So the answer on minutes is we don't have them. Yeah. Yeah, we do not have minutes. Can we do carryover?
Yes. So, let's talk about carryover. Do we have any carryover items that I think we now have solar bylaw? We're going to have the solar bylaw because at least my my personal thought is until
that model bylaw or the guidelines are finalized, we definitely shouldn't recommend anything back for hearing because you want to know what you've got to comply with before you go through the hearing process, right? I feel I feel good about the time
spent in a way though because we have all learned a lot and I think that's important when we go to see a state you know it's just like the ADUs there were some things that were okay but really needed clarification Jennifer.
Yeah. No, I was just going to say the first thing that we talked about when I came on to the council was the solar bylaw moratorum proposal. So, the wheels of government move slowly and Stephanie gets to spend such quality
time with us. Um, so carryover. Yes. Solar is there. So, the the uh citizen petitions were not referred to CRC. So, those are not on our plate. I don't know if um if or when
they might get sent over to us, but for right now it's it's not with us. Um housing production plan. Again, we have we we don't have a real sense of what
um is expected of the CRC and what what they are looking for in terms of um process. So I that's one of the questions that we want to ask. So housing production plan may or may not we have a couple months
in the in the in the year hopefully we wrap up with that. Um, did I just ask is the version that's marked June that is you had a link to it, Pam, but that is the I didn't cross check it with what the council had, but I'm assuming because there was a May
version and a June version. So June is the Okay. I I hope I hope that's the right one. Yeah, but I was told that June was the current and that there's it's not much different if at all from May. No. Okay.
I suppose we could ask Greg today what is specifically different if anything. Well, I don't need that as much. It's just um I'm I'm I started to type up my notes and realized they weren't well organized for anyone else to read them
and I have to read through it. So there, let me while we're on it and they're not here yet and this is you're going to get a sense of Kathy's compulsiveness. Um, and Mandy, I think way back when you question whether our census numbers were
right, right? You know, whether the census really does a good count of and I know we cannot change. It's the 2020 census. That's it. But if I use the census proportion of people in different age brackets and turn that into numbers, it doesn't match what we think the
student population is, it just doesn't match it. Um um and then if I do the census population that they think you know so when I say who do I think is not student meaning college student you know uh if I take anyone out under 18 and
anyone from 45 to 65 and 65 older um I get a different number than if you just start with the census number and subtract UMass Ammerst Hampshire and you know so I just get a different
number. Kathy, I'm going to I'm going to put you on pause just for a second. So, I don't think we want to get into the details. I'm just I'm using it as an example, Pam. I don't know what you said. Where does CI CRC jump in on this? This is me
reading it the way I would read a research report and if I was a reviewer of a technical document and that's the way I and then I go from that to do the conclusions follow the data. So whatever I think I do a here's the information
and and so I don't know to the what extent we're supposed to read it that way or not. It's a qu it I'm using it as an example of you know statements um because that's the way I was trained to read this kind of a document not not in
a town like this but more generally. Um yeah I think I it sounds like a very rational process to me. It's kind of how I look at data. Uh Jennifer, yeah, I was You muted yourself when you said
I'm sorry. No, I guess we should talk to them about this. um to the consultants, but the I didn't get the sense that actually the numbers that they were using to analyze necessarily came from that the
census data, but it came from knowing what the un what the colleges and universities make, how many are living on campus, how many are living off campus. Are we talking about the housing production plan right now? Yes, we are. I think we should wait and ask the consultants. So all all I'm saying is
that if I start reading it that way, is that one of the things we're supposed to be doing? Um yeah, I think yes. I think we're supposed to be asking what doesn't make sense to us and and it's and and
con the consultants then do they try to reconcile that or they just try to acknowledge it. So this is what I'm trying to be constructive, not destructive on it. But to me, I should be doing doing that. Um, so so that's a
question that I think you said, what is our how at what level of a close read should we be reading it? And then I know Pat, you originally had said we don't have to or Mandy, none of us have to say we like these strategies versus those
strategies. I wasn't going there at all. Yeah. No, I understand that. Yeah. The 2013 housing production plan obviously was passed, right? And most of those strategies weren't implemented part which is probably part of the
reason that we are in the crisis we're in now. You can have anything in that thing. It's a requirement by the state. It does not determine policy and um the hoo-ha about it and about our
neighborhoods and all that other stuff really shouldn't be filtering into this. But but I felt very differently about the 2013. I read that carefully and I thought it made fewer leaps Pat and it it put out a number and I've actually
been curious you know it put out a target number and I've been curious on how close did we come in five years or even did we achieve it in 10 years which I think that's a good question but you know it it it was so I like that because it said 250 or whatever the number was and did we if we weren't
there in five years were we there in 10 years um because a lot happened after 2013. So Pat, all I'm asking is it is a statement and they start the whole document with because we are at more
than 10%. We're already a safe harbor, you know, so we're we're supposed to do this, but we don't have to do a lot more. And I love that's what I'm saying. I love the data they gathered. So that's where I wanted to start. And uh there
were some things that weren't carried over to it's not until page 18 that they start with the data. So there is a lot of words that happen before we get to page 18. And so that's the way I'm reading it first from the body back to
it. And so it's a statement that we're making as a town. It's not supposed to be just a consultant document. And so I think needing some guidance on the level and I'm willing to do it on a you know just a on that kind of read if that's
part of what we're supposed to be doing. That's my Okay. So that's so this is a good opportunity for you to sort of get your thoughts clarified so you can succinctly ask Nate and Greg those questions. Right. And I don't believe from seeing the planning board discussion of it
anyone read it that way. They didn't they didn't read it. I don't think Jennifer. Okay. So what when this was referred to CRC
were we asked to do to recommend it to the council to adopt? I mean is that what is going to happen with this? The the council will vote to adopt it. We were asked to make a recommendation on whether to adopt. Um Okay. So that's what CRC is tasked with doing.
Yeah, I have comments on that, but yes. Okay. Do you want to save your comments for when Nate and I I'm not sure I need to. Um because it's more about our committee. Um we were
tasked with making a recommendation to the council on something the planning board already adopted. Um but you know and and I understand some of these comments might be somewhat contradictory but I think if
our role then is to to come back to the council and say yes we recommend adopting asis or no we don't recommend adopting asis because we would like the planning board to consider xyz and beyond and then give the council the
option of adopting or not um based on that recommendation or sending it back for further consideration for X Y and Z. I'm getting I guess I'm I'm I'm saying I'm getting more and more uncomfortable with our committee saying we need to go
back to the consultants and bring the consultants in to change a document. Um without the council saying yes, that's what we should be doing versus just making that recommendation to the council that says, "Hey, you know,
whether we're, you know, I'm I'm clearly on the I'm comfortable with this. I would recommend to just adopt it, but but letting the council weigh in on whether it's in such a form that it should not be adopted and more work by the consultants or whatever should be
done and what that is because I don't necessarily think it's our role to go directly to the consultants and say, "Hey, you need to change this because we can't send to the state two different versions,
you know, and they've already adopted one of them. Um, the planning board has. So, some somehow if there's a change, it needs reconciled somehow. And that's not I think that's for the council to make
that decision, not us. Uh, Kathy and then Jennifer. Thank you. Um, Mandy, I I agree with what you just said. So I you know I think when I was raising this um it would be to the extent and I and I haven't gone
I haven't gone through it and to say where is it just these these two things and they can't reconcile them to you know that kind of thing. So I think what you're suggesting is to the extent we as a committee get to a point there's some
areas that we're not comfortable with we go back to the council. This is I'm paraphrasing what I think I heard you say with a we think the planning board needs to relook at the following areas. So we're not you know um we're otherwise
fine with certain pieces and the council would be voting on that recommendation where the alternative would always be to adopt as is because we got a document marked draft. That's why he asked it says still says marked draft. It doesn't
say final with the the clerk's sign, you know, signia on it that the planning board has said this is a perfect document at this point and they clearly started working from some of the numbers in it. You know, the subcommittee did um
and with some of the pieces. So that you know, Nate, what I was what you're coming in on is how close a read are we reading? And my my training is to start with the whole data section and then say
do are there conflicts within the or did it not go far enough? Are there conflicts? Does the conclusion section follow the data section? That's the way I read a document like this. And if the conclusion section went further than what was in the data, I would recommend
deleting those areas. I'm just that's the kind of that is the way I'm trained to read a policy document like this. Um and in my past life people used to read my documents like that and I had to go back to the drawing board because no I
took a leap you know um I took too big a leap from certain information. So, I didn't know whether we were supposed to try to read it that way with a um you know get to a comfort level and I wasn't proposing Mandy bringing the consultant
back in to do a rewrite but but to the extent we have concerns um uh assembling them in a way that it would be easy for the consultant to say, "Oh, that's an easy one. I agree with that. You know, that could be a change. you
know, I wasn't doing, you know, on line X, you know, wasn't doing a line edit, wasn't a copy edit. Yeah. So, Nate, I didn't know whether the expectation is um Mandy's suggestion is we either accept it or don't accept it. If we
don't accept it, we're sending it back to the planning board with with some pointed comments about areas of concern or areas where we think it needs to be rethought. Is that the level we're supposed to be reading it at? Yeah, I mean I was thanks uh name Malloy
everyone a planner with the town just for anyone listening. Um I don't you know unless there's changes I don't the planning board isn't the the one to recommend those changes so they you know they've already moved it forward and recommended it. Um, and so I think if I
I think what I would what I was hoping to say in the next meeting, this one and the next one of CRC would be to say um what are the areas that really need possible revisions and you know Greg and I have been in contact with Judy Barrett and her team and they would be willing
to make some changes uh depending on you know where it is. We're hoping they were going to be here today and they won't. Um and so you know I I I would like to then actually explore what does that mean for those changes? Um, and so really it's a recommendation to council. Does the council adopt it as is or not?
Or is are there changes that we'd want to be made? And if so, then it would go back to the planning board and they would have to look at it again. But it doesn't necessarily need to go back to them. Um, and you know, I think some, you know, we were trying to Greg and I were trying to have a framework for the comments. You know, is it say outside
the scope of the document? Is it uhformational? Is it something that is really necessary? um you know there's a fra you know the state has guidelines for the housing production plan and so when they look at this document they're not you know they're going to make sure that it follows the guidelines in terms of what
it has you know does it have the right sections was there needs assessment you know the data you know what they use for their data sources you know are there strategies uh are there production goals and I'm not sure they're going to actually have any comments about the substance of what's in there what the
recommendations are it's really just does it follow the form and then they'll say your plan is approved D. Um, and then we have to get a plan certified. And so communities will, you know, u produce a housing production plan because they're not at safe harbor. So, you know, they're not at 10% or they
don't have their land area uh for in terms of affordable housing. And so, they'll have a housing production plan and they'll work really hard to get certified, meaning they'll produce the minimum number of units needed, which is a half of 1%. It's in state regulations. It's not based on the actual number of units in a community. So every community
it's half of 1% is your bit minimum. And so communities will work really hard to get there. And if they do that then they can get certified and then they're at a safe harbor for a time. Um you know so they could have better negotiations with a comprehensive permit. So some
communities might jump start a housing production plan thinking oh well we might have a comprehensive permit in a year or two. We're going to try to fasttrack a housing production plan in some units so then we can you know better manage a comprehensive permit application and you know in amorous we don't need to do that. So we like the
idea of a housing production plan just because of the framework it provides and it is a state tool. So it's something that if we do have it approved it helps us apply for grants. We're eligible as a housing choice community and so it's you know in some ways it's necessary to have a housing production plan even though we're at Safe Harbor. um because it
provides a nice you know it's to me it's a nice data source it's consolidates information um you know I think some of the things that were discussed at the last CRC meetings are things that to me would be talked about after the plan's adopted um so you know if there's strategies like I
said that we don't think are worth pursuing we don't pursue them so this plan isn't a legally binding document that says well we're going to pro you know we're going to pursue all 27 strategies or whatever is in there Um, you know, I think some of it would be though, are there things that are
really, you know, we'd want qualified? Um, so for instance, like the student housing piece to me would be if we want that strategy qualified, would it be that we have a paragraph that could say that, you know, right, so the students really influence the housing market in Ammerst. Um, and so, you know, the
consideration is we need more student housing. It doesn't say where or who builds it or what it is, but maybe there's, you know, some something that could be added to the plan that explains that a little bit that, you know, and also that it's a regional problem. It's a, you know, there's, you know, Ammeris can't solve it all. I mean, I don't, so,
you know, I'm just kind of just putting this out there. Is that, you know, is that the kind of change we'd want? because I don't think to me removing the strategy um it doesn't directly create affordable housing but I think we have to address that part of that market you know the housing market because it really influences our our pricing and so
to me I think a shortfall of any plan would be not to mention students at all so Hadley recently completed a housing production plan or a housing study and I think they mentioned students like three times the whole document and there was one line that said students really influenced the housing market but to me it's much more than just they
influence the housing market and so we asked the consultant to actually talk a lot about the students because the last one didn't as much because I think it's really important to know you know some of the metrics there and what does it mean um you know really in terms of like what kind of housing would the students need you know what's their income how do they influence the housing market in
terms of pricing and demand and so um you know most communities have maybe some kind of market that is stronger than the other we just have a really prominent one um yeah and I think Kathy like your read of like how does everything flow sure Um, it could be that the consultant is,
you know, they, you know, Judy's done a number of housing production plans her firm and so they might just have a lot of strategies they like to they say are useful and it may not flow right out of the housing needs assessment. So, you know, they might think that, you know, certain types of financing mechanisms are a good strategy to try to get a home
ownership. Uh, and maybe it could be like, well, you know, the needs assessment talks about home ownership and then the strategy might be talking about, you know, generically how to, you know, finance something. It's like, well, is it really tied to this demographic? But to me, that's something that we would do after the fact and say,
okay, how do how do we make that strategy work for Ammerst? Because they're not we don't ask them to, you know, get down to that level of detail. Yep. Uh, and so, you know, same with like senior housing. Uh, it mentions it a little bit. Typically in amorous the seniors are not income eligible right so
they're most senior households are not wouldn't be qualified as affordable housing that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look into it and so I think it is an important piece so if we think well let's how could we provide affordable senior housing and if the plan doesn't do a good job on it I mean we still could pursue it as a priority
um you know it's just I think overall that our that you know segment of the population isn't typically income eligible um so they didn't spend a lot of time talking about it thank Thank you, Jennifer. And then Kathy, I had initially raised my hand to get
clarification on the planning board. Did the So, did the planning board adopt it or the planning board is recommending that the council adopt it? No, they they um I'd have to go back. I think it was they recommend Do they recommend or did they adopt it? I think they adopted it as they adopted it.
So, if they adopted it, does the council have to adopt it? They adopted it. whether the council does or not apparently. Well, the yeah the state regulations want the two votes. So they want the planning board and then the way that you know it's phrased is like the chief
chief executive officer or and then you know they say whether it's council or select board and so they to me in the regulations we had some guidance from a state official and they said yes you we'd want to vote by town council. So really you have two separate votes. So, it's by planning board and by council and then
and the two documents would have to be the same. Like if the council were to make some changes, it would have to go back to the planning board and they'd have to agree. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Um and then you know what that enables the town to do is then to submit it to the state. And so
if the votes don't occur then the plan you know we still could use the plan locally. it just doesn't move on to be approved by the state and then get cataloged as something that we completed. So, you know, some communities actually create a housing production plan and it does live locally. It seems strange to go through
the effort and then not try to get it to the state for approval. Um, yeah, I think it should go to the state for approval. I just would want to see some changes. Absolutely. A housing production plan has to discuss the pressure that not enough onampus housing
is is creating in our off-campus housing market. My issue and is we don't when the plan says we should go out and encourage the building of more off-campus student housing. I just don't see why we even have to do that. We know
it's coming to us. there's they there's no um seemingly end in sight to the appetite to build more off-campus senior housing here. We don't need to go out and it's not affordable housing. So if this is about affordable housing, why
would be we explicitly want to go out and bring in make sure we bring in more housing which we don't they don't we don't need to cultivate that. it's coming to us that is actually not affordable and yeah so that's a and when we they talk
about upzoning which I have you know again I live in a neighborhood that is zoned for everything and it's great but if you know we can't have our heads in the sand if we're going to change the zoning and there's no particular
incentive for non student housing It's just going to be more student housing priced by the bed. So, I just, you know, I don't see so I I have I think a lot of the plan is excellent, but and to Oh,
this was to say, well, we don't need to do it just because it's in the plan. Ever since I've been on the council, people they talk um they people point to what they like in our plans and say, "How can we not do that? It's in our
master plan. It's it's a they will say how can we say we should not be going out encouraging more off pricey off-campus student housing. It's in our housing production plan. So I feel very uncomfortable allowing certain language to be there. It's like signing a contract and then you know say we'll
negotiate the terms after. So I like you know 98% of the plan. I don't know that but I the way it is actually written now I you know that's what I would like to address but I I don't feel comfortable saying we should adopt it and then you
know try and worry about what we don't like after Kathy I I am I'm doing my best to just stay away from the strategies now so I have a view on the strategy list I also have a
view on some of the conclusions these paragraphs as I said we don't get to the base until page 18 so so these are questions Nate um in other housing documents that I've seen even the smart
developer documents there's always a discussion of with housing comes infrastructure costs so you have to be aware of them in terms of you know and this is often in the context of you
expect it to uh support the local budget um and infrastructure, sewer, water, schools, police, fire. I don't think there's much of a discussion of that in this report. So, it's a that's a comment. The second
comment I had and the reason I I made I sent you a list on seniors. So I don't think this some people in housing in the larger world. So I just I forget what I read a week ago and the
the consultant was saying we've all been hoping for what he called the silver tsunami that that people who had aged in place and children had left their house would decide to downsize and so the h there
would be a smaller unit. And I look at my road and I say, "Yes, all the way down to Palent Street, every house had two to three children in it." And now sometimes there's one person left in it. Um, so the issue of senior housing isn't
so much affordable housing, but any housing that you would move into, you know, condos or something that are age 65 and older. We've got Applewood with a 10-year waiting list in it. um you know that that talks about uh rejiggering the
housing supply. So I'll I'll I'll try to read it more carefully, but it was it's an observation and so it's um and I'm not sure they can get it out of the census data. So a friend of ours looked once at how many households have any
children in them and over time the answer was fewer and fewer. And so we've we've got these biodal piece and an earlier housing strategy when we first were elected as counselors where we are an incredibly attractive site for
seniors to move into um because of the universities. It's, you know, so if we think of the kinds of people that uh uh want to buy into our market and it's the universities and so this was more on a
uh development and uh Pat it was sort of a development you know what makes us an attractive uh yearround community that seniors and Hampshire was going to build those at one point on their campus and they
didn't because the price they didn't have the money. So, so I'm looking for things like that and that might be a strategy rather than a conclusion. But I think we have a lot of what I would call aging in place which
implies a need for support services. Um but it also says we don't have any place for people to move. So this analyst said we were all hoping for it and we realized we never built any place there wasn't any place that people could move to. So there's no people aren't going to move out of their house. Um that there
isn't that missing middle. There isn't we've got Amity Place, we've got a few clusters like that, but there aren't cluster cottage kinds of environments that people would give up their own private home and move into a a more communal. So, I was I'm going to go back
and read through the data section and and then the point they make at one point. They do a really nice job of looking at how much developable land we have that doesn't have something built on it that's not wet. Um, and I was
hoping we would get these overlay kinds of maps. Here's land, but then put something on it that says wetlands, flood planes. Um because sometimes you look at the lots and half the lot would not be buildable the with in terms of
what so this uh how much land do we have that doesn't have something already built on it that we could build build more on so that's the kind of read I want to go all the way through because they gathered a lot of that data and people loved it and I went to three or
four of the meetings they had with these transparencies um and I asked them that they could do this. And let me see if they did do it because they I gave them an example of years ago when I worked on a cancer when CDC worked on a cancer map of New Jersey
and each cancer got its own color and as they put down yellow for liver and then something else for heart. The places that had all of the cancers turned out to be these black holes. um you know and and so I was looking for you know non-developed land how much we have and
then overlays of wetland and things like that. So let me reread it to see whether they did that because I think we often have the impression there's a lot that could be built on and I'm not sure there's as much as we think that's not already conservation or protected
farmland. You know you know we we have beautiful open spaces. So, so I just want to go back and read the presentation of information because I thought they did a fabulous stop job of pulling a lot of information together
and I know you all worked hard with them to point them to where to go for it. Um, so I want to do that and then as I said look at the beginning to see where they stretch concluding kinds of comments beyond what they could see in the data that was because someone made a comment
somewhere and it turned into a whole paragraph. But no, that wasn't that wasn't in the information they were looking at. Just someone said it. Um, and it was represented as if 50% of the people think this way. Um, so I wanted to quite a remove some of that. And
those are a lot of those bubbles. I called them the little bubbles. You know, a bubble shows up. Um, so, um, I'm willing to to I said I would do this before, write this up in a way that wouldn't go on for volumes
that's not page by page, but bigger items and I think that's what you said and my understand and Mandy, you may think these are all too small to even worry about. So, you know, we may have disagreement among the five of us, and I'm going to try to come back to
strategies at the end of my thinking rather than at the beginning. Um, because I do think it's a guidance document, Pat. And what I'm hearing is that technically we don't really need to do it because of what we've done, but it gives us targets, which I think are
good, you know, gives us aspirational goals and we can disagree on how we might want to get there. um the word affordable is used, but they do point out that anything you build that's new is very expensive. And so it tends to be
even the little houses tend to be pretty expensive unless someone subsidizes their building. They're the duplexes up here are extraordinarily expensive, but I think that's some somewhat the state overlay on what it takes to get state grant funding that
there's a lot of time and effort to just get the money, but they're really expensive. So each half of the duplex is out of that median income range. Um it's 6 to7,000,000
each each unit is 6 to $700,000, you know. So I saw some up in Sunderland that were more like 450 to 500 for each of the halves, you know. So it's not an easy lift unless you're doing a whole cluster of them and that someone has the
initial financing. So, so it does produce more housing. I'm not saying it's bad to build that because we do have families that would like to live in those. Um, we just don't have very many of them. Eye, I'm going to go to I'm going to go to uh Councelor Hani and then I actually wanted to say something
as well. Thanks. So, I I will state in the public meeting that I think a lot of Kathy's comments are too specific and get more down to a format of a report that you just don't agree
with than the actual content of the report. Um, at least understanding them, Kathy, and I could be misunderstanding, but but it sounds like something like on page 41 of the PDF, there's a bubble that says 31% of households with disabilities think their home's
accessibility for current and future household members needs work or is a major problem. And it sounds like you would say, "Delete that bubble." But if accurate, why delete it? Um, it's it's an accurate comment. and that's what the
consultants chose to pull out. Maybe you would have pulled something else out, but that to me is too in the weeds for what we are asked to do. Did you look at the source for the 41%? That's the only thing I'm objecting to, Mandy. Sometimes
it is the census data. Sometimes it was a non-representative survey that was done. So, I tried to figure out where those bubbles come from. even if it's the non-representative survey, it it's still an accurate comment based on the data they got. That doesn't mean the
data is complete. But I guess that's what I'm saying is that's a disagreement in in um how the report is presented. not necessarily something that I person I guess it's not something I would be tasking the council to ask the
consultants to change and spend more money on to change because the report look and the data they decided to pull out is not to my liking. Okay. So we would and and the actual results of the survey aren't in the
report by the way you know so that I can't even see where it came from. Um, so it's a trust me. So yes, we would we would read those. I don't mind anything that pulls it out of a table that I can find somewhere in the report. I
um you had a survey a couple years ago where people were pulling out one comment out of uh a report and I didn't feel it was a representative comment, you know. So, I just I just think it's it weakens their report because so much
of it is is drawn from really solid presentation. I think it weakens it and I think they thought it made it more user friendly. Um, I didn't think that, but yes, we could disagree about that and I'll just make a list of them. And where do I think those numbers came
from? How many seniors are planning to move out of town, for example? Um, how many? They didn't ask me. Correct. So, um, I have a couple questions. You didn't fill out the questionnaire because the questionnaire asked that question.
I think I did. I did answer that. I did do a questionnaire. Um, Nate, I had a couple of items and and I think one of one of the areas that I would like some closer scrutiny um is the the projection of units
needed. And I think it was it it felt I think our our our target based on on the sort of the state values was something like 250 units over the next five years. And yet our
our trajectory was aimed at 700 to 900 units over the next whatever the period was. And my my reaction to that, yes, I mean more people certainly could move to
Amoris. That's not the issue. Um but Kathy touched on one of the items and that is um for 700 to 900 more units. What what is our infrastructure capacity today?
Do we have the capacity um for that growth? And and that's an important one because we're going to be spending almost 3/4 of a million dollars just doing the the the sanitary
um infrastructure survey. You know, that's we're going to be faced with some big bills. Does our infrastructure support that? The the trajectory for 700 to 900 more
units feels like it was predicated almost entirely on the number that was used for students that are off campus who don't currently live in Ammerst but are just
dying to get in here. And that was the the number of 9,000 additional students beyond the 9,000 that already live in town. Where did that number come from? I don't every every time I have done the math,
it's more like it ranges from like 2500 to to three or 4,000 at the very most of students who who don't live specifically in Ammerst.
The numbers of based on enrollment at UMass is like 32,000 students. We have been told time after time from Nancy Buffone that
the active students on campus are only about 85% of that number. So of all the enrollment because those that the 15% are completely offline online I mean um
so the the 27,000 active students are the ones that want to be somewhere within the commuting area of Ammerst. 14,000 of them live on campus. So now you're down to 13. 9,000 live in town.
What's that leave us? 4,000. Another thousand something live, call it 2,000, live in the immediate surrounding town. So, so now you're talking about 2,000 additional students that are clamoring to get into the Amorest area.
That is very, very, very, very different than 9,000. And I don't think that a Amoris itself should be the ones on the hook to provide the housing for those
2,000 additional students. Um, and it certainly shouldn't drive our housing production numbers that strongly. Nate, sure. Thanks. the um you know the the questions about say the mapping that Kathy had and you had Pam about
infrastructure to me that's beyond the scope of the housing production plan. So they do have maps to talk about water, sewer and the extent of all that but I think there's too many variables to say can we actually handle an extra how many other units right so it all depends on you know the water usage now what is
predicted what's happening with the institutions you know I mean you know energy conservation measures you know individually so I I to me that's that's well beyond the scope I um uh you know and so I think uh you know if if we want to we could say yeah Sure.
How do we make our systems work for an extra thousand households? I don't, you know, but that's something that to me is beyond the scope. The target range of 7 to 900 has nothing to do with students. It it it's from a table um on the previous page and it, you know, what the report is saying is that there's
actually, you know, a few thousand households that are costburdened at different AMI levels, 30%, 50, 80, 100, and 120. and maybe there's some students in there, but it's not, you know, really the idea of that 7 to 900 is housing
that's attainable and affordable to different demographics. So, some of it's capitalally affordable, some of it might be, they mentioned up to 120% AMI. And so, that 7 to 900 is addressing what they determine as the housing need, the gap of, you know, what's cost burdened
here. um and based on you know these different income levels and so you know it's not saying like oh let's build 900 new units for students it's saying actually we you know we've determined that there's I think it was like 2600 households are costburdened and we think
there needs to be more housing to try to you know have you know different housing opportunities and price points. Um I will say Greg is here too. I don't know he's not visible but um he's he emailed me. I I do see his name. I don't know if he's Yeah. Let's see if we can Yeah, I'm here.
Yeah, I've been on since before. So, it's kind of interesting. We actually, you know, we staff had a discussion about this community target number because, you know, typically, right, you just have this formula and it's, you know, 265 units based on the state. And I think Barrett Consulting felt that, you
know, I think they often do this. it seems like they must provide this other range because they're like well the state's number doesn't it's it's you know it's just a fact you know something that's been in the regulations you know for 50 years or 60 years and so you know they wanted to come up with what they thought was you know it's they they say
an ambitious goal right but here's what they think based on the need um you know what they think you know the housing what who would want to move here you know all these factors in Amoris here's what is you know a possible range um and so You could say that actually it's more
um you know if they're saying that there's you know 1670 households are costbururdened 829 are severely costburdened and so what they're saying is well there's a lot of need for more housing at different price points. Um and that's to me that's what the community target is. I I think you know
Kathy asked earlier like how well do communities do and how did well did Amoris do with housing production numbers and it's actually really um Ammeris did really well in the late 201s um I think you know a lot of it was you know mixeduse buildings downtown or
different things but we had we permitted a lot of units um and we had some affordable units I think a lot of communities you know it es and flows with the economy and and and it's cyclical And so, you know, it's I think it's really hard to have a steady
production of say 50 affordable units every year. And so that would mean that, you know, you'd have our Wayfinders project is, you know, years out and that means you'd have to have another one already in permitting and going through financing and maybe another one. And so what the state, you know, to me that's, you know, the 265 number is actually
affordable units in 5 years. And that's a really difficult thing to achieve. Um, you know, it's it's a really big number. And so I think it's it's you know um you know if we did 30 affordable units a year that's to me fantastic. Um doesn't
mean that we shouldn't try right or we shouldn't come up with different ideas. And so um so so it's thinking about ball lane those are affordable. They're very very expensive but they're they're going to be affordable units but that takes five
years to do. So you you know you're going to do what? six a year on on if you average it out. Yeah, Bane's affordable to the end user, right? So that the way it's subsidized, you know, the a homeowner uh can afford, you know, I think they wanted the sale prices to be, you know, 150,000 to like
225. So you're getting in at a very, you know, your purchase price is is is uh is reasonable because of the subsidy. Um but right, so you know, I think Bane's a really nice project. um you know that's you know that doesn't you know that we
need a lot of those and you know what I think was really unique about is it's a nice home ownership opportunity. we don't see a lot of home ownership opportunities and so yeah I I think you know these goals would you know the housing trust had their strategic plan too they updated the other year and they had some numbers too and I think it's
you I think it's it's really more of a measure of you know if we had the ability maybe we could do this right but I think there's you know between the financing and the construction market and you know all the other variables and factors in the real world it's really hard to get there um I will say some
communities out in eastern Mass you know they would do a housing production plan because they, you know, around the 495 belt even now sometimes they would get they get like, you know, a 500 unit project, right? Or a 300 unit project. And so, you know, for them that's like that's a really, you know, that's impactful. Uh, and they can have
affordable units in there and they can maybe get their plan certified. In Amoris, I don't know that we would see a project that big. Um, that would be lever. Just kidding. Yeah, I think that was 700 units. So,
Kathy and then Jennifer and that Nate what you just said was very helpful um including Pam focusing on that number you know so I also want to go back and look at the math so I I think the answer to this is they can't really do it but I
was curious on the cost burden number that comes out of census um since North Ammerst we happen to be had this virtue of being the right census track because We rank really high and we always were when there were still those tax credits
to build in a in a povertystricken, we we were one of them. And when we looked around, we thought it was because of these huge apartment complexes we have that house um people who are currently
students at UMass and that the students incomes while they're in college are very low. Do you have any notion on whether they can split that number out by uh just by you know uh above 25 age
25 and below age 25 you know just something on what the household unit is because I was just curious I it's not that I don't think it exists all over town but I think we all we have fortunately the units we have up here because Puffton was built built so long
ago um they really look affordable compared to what you see in the downtown, the new buildings. Um, so they're much lower, but I just thought that the the student population is
stretching their budget enormously in some of the new buildings and they're clearly they've been filled it filling up. Um, and so I don't doubt that they're high stressed. Um, and you pull in a particular demographic of students
um that that's families can afford it. Um, and this is this is purely Mandy where I said I don't like observational data. I'm just watching the cars that people are driving and the coffee they're buying up in Beacon and you know
these are they're they're the students are clearly have some family support behind them. So I just don't know whether you can split it that I was curious on how many people are costbururdened there are above age 25 you know not the little kids and I don't
know whether they Kathy excuse me I'm I'm having trouble following your question are you are you asking are students affecting the cost burden numbers yeah absolutely so if we have 39,000 or
40,000 people living in Amoris and we say and whatever number of household units those are, we get a percent who are cost burden and that's all out of census and I really trust those numbers a lot. I was wondering how much of that is in an age demographic that's likely
student as opposed to the rest of Ammerst, you know, our 35 and older or 65 year olds. And I don't want it broken. We don't have good enough data out of census to go into ever smaller just to pull one group out. I don't know whether they
Yeah, I can I can speak to that a little bit and and you know that is sort of just a a limitation of the census data um as it pertains to Amoris, but it is broken out um in various places by by family households versus other households. Um so a family household,
you know, uh would, you know, would would imply like a non- studentent household. Um, and you do see a couple different po places in the uh in in the plan where the family and households have higher average.
Okay. No, that's helpful. I'll just look at it. I was But you know, but then there's Yeah. Yeah. I think the Greg, you're cutting out too. Oh, sorry. Um, sorry. And and can you hear me okay right now?
Yeah, I can. Maybe I'll shut up then if Okay. Um, yeah. And just think just included in households are are off-campus students. Um, but but onampus students are are not included in any of
the income numbers. They get categorized separately in the census. Okay. But yeah, no, I think Kathy, to your point, it's really hard to kind of dissect that data and pull it out. you you can do it by you can do it by age.
Um so the in the table they do have um household type so they have like family non-family and they're trying to find ways to break that down a little bit. Um but I do think you know the I think that what they're saying though is what's reported on the census and then also based on what the housing costs are
here's what is cost burden. So, actually, I know that students have family support, but to be spending, you know, $2,000 a bedroom, I think will cost burden a lot of families, too, right? Um, and so Oh, yeah. These are, you know, so I think it's but I think to your but
I I agree. I think it's the the numbers are really hard to parse out. No, I I agree. It's just been kind of stunning. We had someone who wanted to come up here from New York, an older guy, and he was going to rent one. And he said, "Oh my god, you've got prices
that are starting for rental starting to approach New York." And in in um if I wanted a two-bedroom unit, you know, he that's what he was looking for. And it didn't come with a yard, you know, he thought if he came out of Manhattan, he could get a yard. Um but
yeah, I think the the rental prices are stunningly high. Um yeah, so there's a yeah there's a chart cost burn by household type. Um and they describe what's a you know they have an elderly family, elderly, non-family, large family, small family, and other non-family. And then they describe what
those are based on HUD and census. And so okay um yeah it but I think the um the whole census thing is interesting. you know, the 2020 format changed from previous. So, the long form wasn't as detailed. And so, some of the information too that you could have used comparatively for historical information
is not as easily cross-referenced. Um, that's not, you know, that's a that's the census. It's not anything the consultant would do or could do. And so then we use, you know, the American Community Survey and some other data points to try to then get more accurate or more recent um um, you know, survey
ranges and and things. So then, you know, some of the, you know, I I feel like if it was probably a similar form that they used in 2010 and 2020, you might have a you'd have a few different charts here um in the housing production plan, but that's just not the way the data was collected.
Thank you. That I'm going to go to Jennifer. I'm gonna go to those were both very helpful. Thank you. Yeah. I mean some this just to comment. I mean that's the you know when you talk about it's the home ownership opportunities and then the affordable
housing seems to all come through more public and grant that kind of money. It just doesn't get seem to be getting built with private money. you know, the private developer money is really all going to housing,
expensive rental housing, and priced for households where expenses are split. So that's we're so challenged to build more ball lanes or I would say amnity place that's not even affordable anymore. But
um so you know again with our we're we're now I'm sorry I'm forgetting the term but we're housing choice community because we have built so many units of housing. Unfortunately really all those 99% of those units are not affordable. I
mean they we we know who we we we know what they are and how they're priced. Um but just as I mean I I know that there are more important issues in the you know housing production plan but my concern with the report is there's some
editorializing and I maybe it's even if not editorializing but it's some of that is what Kathy said that some of their conclusions or their recommendations or their opinions don't jive with their own data. So they say on page 137 that the
way we can manage shifting demographics is if we made the students feel more welcome, then they would stay here after graduation and that would be a way for us to grow our community of families and
young workers. Did I freeze? Yes. Yes. But your voice we heard your voice. We heard your voice. My voice didn't. Okay. I can see myself freezing on the screen. So it would be great if more students who graduated stay here. But
the reason they are leaving after graduation isn't because you know we're not make making them feel welcome. I mean frankly I don't think you know I'm very friendly with all the students on my block but they didn't come here to hang out with me. I could be their
grandmother. So then on but that statement that we should be more welcoming so they'll stay after graduation does not jive with their own table 2.15 on page 41 where they list what the employment categories are in
the pioneer valley and basically you can work in educations like 66% and then I think the next highest is health services so if you want to work in law business advertising communications media the accounting, you you know want
to work for a bank in finance, you need to leave the Pioneer Valley. That's why they're not staying after graduation. We're not Boston or New York or, you know, I don't know, even a Philadelphia, we don't have jobs here. And then I've started to hear people repeat in the
community or on the council and, you know, well, if we're more welcoming, the students would stay. And that's I mean, there's just a dis a logical disconnect there. So, I don't understand why the housing production plan is kind of um offering those kinds of opinions and
recommendations that again don't jive with their own data. So, I would one of my suggestions would be taking out some of the editorializing. Yeah, my kids would come back if they had jobs.
Yeah. Uh, Councelor Heni. So, this is at least the second time we've talked about the housing production plan and I'm not sure how this conversation is helping us get to a recommendation. I guess I'm sitting here
very confused as to I I've heard Jennifer, you know, you talk about these issues, but you never talk about a page. You never really talk about here's things I need changed in order to recommend it. I just mentioned I'm not done yet. I'm not done yet. I know you just talked
about that, but but in general, you just say this isn't this. It was an example. Um, and I So, I don't know what we're moving towards. Are we moving towards a list of changes that individual counselors on this committee want to see
in going into a motion that says, "Hey, um that presuming a motion that maybe Kathy would make that says we recommend the town council not adopt this housing production plan unless these specific changes are made or it or or where are
we going with this conversation?" cuz I'm not sure what the end goal of everything that was just said is. Is it actual changes to it? Is it line item changes? Is it just a statement that says, you know, we're not really happy with it, but we're
going to recommend you pass it anyway. Um, so that's number one. Number two, um I do want to point out in response to some of this conversation on page one, I think it's 129 of the PDF, um there is a cost burden by household
income and type that shows that if and this is a very generalized if you assume every non-family household is a student and I will say you cannot say every single one of them is, but if you do, there are still 1,600 00 households that
are costburdened and 800 households plus that are severely costburdened and the numbers talking about of the production plan of 200 and some uh SHI housing in the next 5 years is to address those at
a minimum that still doesn't get us to those households move all of those households moving out of cost burden shipped or close to that. Now you you would hope that if there are you know um 260 say house SHI houses built that um
that are created that are minus under 50% imi or for under 30% IMI then some people that might be in market rate housing that can go into that that market rate housing might be a little lower so that those that are living at 80 to 100% AMI might be able to move to
something cheaper and there be therefore become uncostbururdened. Um so that there might be some sort of downflow effect of creating these to reduce even other households from being costburdened. But we still need the production even if we the point is even
if we take out the student non-family households 263 SHI units in 5 years is still not enough. And I guess the question I have is, do people have a problem with that number? Or is it really some of these
line item specifics because you don't like how this is dealt with or that is dealt with? But is the conclusion that is in this document the problem or is it specific line items outside of the conclusion? And how I asked this to the the chair, how are we going to get to a
vote? Because at this point, I'm ready to just make a motion to recommend the council adopt the housing production plan as presented or as adopted by the by the planning board. I have a feeling given the makeup of this committee that that that motion would fail. Two in favor, three against, but I don't know
where the three against that I'm guessing are three against are aiming for. And that's what I would really like to hear. It's a very valid question. Yes. Um uh so Jennifer and then Kathy.
Yeah. Just so you know, I June 1st when we were asked to submit, I submitted three pages and I cited page numbers specifically and charts that I had an issue with. I would like and I can go through it. I don't, you know, need to go through it. I think there's, like I
said, some editorial comments that I think are just not appropriate for this report. Um, I didn't I would like to see a recommendation that UMass that the university build more. I
didn't see I I saw an explanation of why the university can't and they don't expect the university to build more onampus housing. I would like to see that as a recommendation and I would actually like the recommendation that we go out and encourage more off-campus
student housing to be built. I would personally like to see that not included because that's the lowhanging fruit. We don't need to go out and seek that. It is not affordable housing. Um and I'd like to see encouraging at least saying
we would like to see I would like to see more onampus housing. So that would be a start I can I can add to this but I turned this in in June before I think on June 1st and I sent it to Nate. So this is
so those those comments though were not incorporated. Is that right? No, I don't think that the report was changed after I mean that's just what I was told. Thank you. So those that's good. Those are two sort of very specific categories. Um Kathy,
so Mandy, I think that was a fair criticism um that unless we're specific, what are we talking about? So I haven't I don't have Jennifer's comments uh in front of me. um she didn't send them to me so that she submitted to the planning
board. So my suggestion would be uh she submitted excuse me she submitted them to the consultants as we were told to do. No no I I'm just I'm just saying that I'm not looking at her page specific comments and no one has seen mine because I haven't written them. Um so it
would be fair to point their f your finger to me. So to move us forward, we didn't have a very long discussion. I sent Nate a series of comments and questions, but I don't want him to have to just address the more generic. So if
we get Jennifer's specifics and if I do specifics having seen hers, um that uh that don't try to get to line edits, but just get to try to get to substantive pieces. Um, so I also thought what um I
can commit to I think I can't get it October 23rd, which is two weeks from now. I ought to be able to do it by October 23rd and get it in our packet, if I'm allowed to do it in our packet to
everybody. So the second thing that I just heard Nate talk about Mandy in terms of the cost burden, the reason I was asking for getting specific is if without considerable state money, it's a
stretch to get even uh so Nate said uh 30 a year might be doable, you know, or whether it's 30, 40, whatever the number um having this document explain why that
is difficult to do to at least quantify what we're talking about because to move you would have to have and it's it's not I don't think the big apartment buildings well I don't know but they're clearly pricing them in a way that they
don't lose money but new construction is expensive and so whatever it is you're building and I think the apartment buildings per unit are less expensive than anything that's smaller. Three, three units, four units, those are more
expensive per unit than the biggies. Um because you get all sorts of efficiencies on the biggies. Um so just giving a sense of if we do stretch goals, I'm fine with a stretch goal, but a stretch goal that's potentially achievable and achieve something we
want. Um, so I'm going to go through the document just on that because I don't think there's enough of an emphasis. If if Mandy, you're using the cost burden. If we want to move people out of cost burden, we have to be producing something at a price point that they're
not cost burdened. You know, either because because we've expanded how many affordable units each new building has to do. And so it's and that's why I asked developable land. Um, so I also think who are we building for and what
is the master plan vision of what kind of community would we want to be at Amoris? So I will commit to not speaking so generally and getting to page specific um where I think it's stretched beyond um the issue we we have a huge
issue on jobs for people um on on on what the job market is in Ammerst. So we have people who live in Ammerst who commute quite a distance to their job somewhere else. Um, so I do
think you need to build for people for the workforce to the extent we can and I think we need to be thinking a bit more regionally. I know we're supposed to do it just in Amoris. we're supposed to just be focused on but we are a region um and thinking so I'm going to be as
specific as I can and then where Mandy was pushing to are we saying you know if these are specific areas either say more or delete a thing or use this in a use draw some conclusions off of this data
if we go through those and two of the people think that's getting way too specific and they don't want to include clude that in a report from CRC. Some of us like them. If we can get to a point we agree to disagree and take a
vote on it, I'd be fine. But you can't do anything if we haven't given you specifics. So, I thought that criticism on which page are we talking about, which comment are you talking about, what other pieces? Um, thank you. Thank you Kathy. I'm going to cut you off. Um, Nate, I'm gonna ask you
a question and that is so you get three things from, you know, Jennifer and a comment from from Mandy and you get five from Kathy. What are you and Greg in a position to actually do with this report? Unless it is an appendix that
says here were the concerns raised by a committee. Are are you staff in a position to actually make changes to create this? Yeah. No, thanks. I I don't know. We would work with the consultant. So, you know, we've you know, when we you know,
there you know, it's their plan. And so, if they you know, so we discuss some of the comments that were submitted previously. We we'd send everything to them. So, everything that's been submitted in the last, you know, since June. So, Jennifer, your comments, Pam, your recent ones before the last CRC meeting, those have all been sent to Barrett Consulting. we haven't met with
them to discuss the some of them the more recent comments and so all the comments that we'd receive which I think is a good idea to get we would send to them and I think it's a conversation with staff and with them about you know how would they change the plan and so where would we see it and so you know I
think the conversations are you know at this meeting and the last meeting right I think there's some points that some CRC members would like to change and I think that so yeah I think to get it in writing is really important and I think we would work with the consultants so we wouldn't we we don't have the ability to change the plan. Okay. And I wouldn't recommend doing it. It's,
you know, I think for Barrett, too, they would say, well, it's our plan, and so they want to figure out that's fine. You know, how would they where do they want to do it? Um Yeah. And I think that's I think that's fair. And um and and and I'll just add that it may be
it may be acceptable to council members if there are some, you know, an addition of a paragraph that explains some of what has been heard that you're not going to change tables, you're not going to change data points,
right? It's it's trying to tie in a knot what some of those key points are. Um right. Yeah. So, sorry, just for instance, Jennifer, based on your comment, I know you you think there should be more, you know, and I think others think there should be more students on campus, but the consultant could say, well, realistically, that's a
difficult thing to achieve. I think and it's I think there's also it's good to have students off campus, you know, closer to downtown and village center. So to me again if if we if we don't like kind of the thrust of what what's in you know inferred in the document is it like I said qualifying language or some other
a change in a paragraph to kind of contextualize it a little bit better. Um, and so I think it's new to me. I'm sorry on on that comment though, I'm going to finish up with my comment and that is in our walking about town, I
would say every every second person that we talk to says, why doesn't UMass build more housing on campus? I mean, this is this is a theme that is not just coming from the two of us or three of us in this committee. It is something that we
hear all the time. So ex having at least one strategy that says, you know, encourage you that to be a P3 to do some additional housing for their for their faculty, for their staff, for their
students. That really needs to be in there and it's it's okay to do it. It's okay to say that. Yeah. I Yeah. I mean, they do have, you know, to me, um, you know, they say encourage the development of student housing while preserving home ownership and rental opportunities for year-round
residents, um, as a strategy. Um, you know, and they have a few others. And so, to me, you know, revamping the dialogue around student housing to me is not a bad thing. And, and so to me, it's like, okay, if we just take those strategies, to me, it's like, well, then what we're talking about is where do we put them is what we do after the plan
has been adopted. And I, you know, so it's not like, let's go change the language now. to me, I feel like they've left it general enough that it's now a conversation we have locally. Um, right. And so I'm not, you know, but if you feel like that's you want to have that
be part of the comments, have that be part of the comments and we can talk to Barrett and see how they want to change it. But I for, you know, for me it's like, you know, maybe the strategy needs to be tweaked a little bit or something. But I just want to I'd like to see what what we get in, what we receive, and then how they respond. Thank you. Okay, I'm gonna go to Greg
and then and then councelor Hannicky. Um yeah, and I just kind of echoing Nate echoing following really Nate um on on the the sort of um academic strategy. So one there there is a strategy in there as I think I think it is phrased as
something like um identify one or two discrete partnership opportunities with academic institutions. Um um but you know and I I would envision that you know as you know you know perhaps some sort of land commitment or something along those lines. Um
maybe for affordable housing specifically. Um but I think part of one of the things to navigate around um sort of UMass's role or like what UMass should do is I think putting a strategy in that just
says well we should tell UMass to do this right isn't it's not really something we can put our hands on right it's not something like sure we can we can do that now we don't need a housing production plan to encourage UMass to to build more housing but to name it as a strategy I think what's tricky about
that is beyond saying like you know send a letter you know or something it's hard to know like exactly how strategies could conceivably be intimate implemented by the town and so so that's a structural sort of process
thing but I I think it is important I think most of the strategies in there the town can actively participate in or some component of the town can participate in in some way um but giving you giving UMass directives is is more of a passive thing. So, I think it would have a different
Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I think I think the I think something like this plan sends can send a message to the um to the town manager who is in fact the only person that can speak with the university to ask specifically that they
do a larger share. And so I think having that kind of specificity in the plan is not a bad thing. Uh, councelor Hani, but it is kind of there. Uh, listening to Jennifer who said she wants to remove
the strategy of encouraging off-campus housing and adding a UMass housing. But strategy D1 that Nate just read, encourage the development of more student housing and workforce housing doesn't say where that housing is. That can be development of onampus housing. It doesn't say it has to be off-campus.
Um, so it can include and devel and and strategy D3 identify discrete housing and strategies with academic departments directly talks to about talking to UMass that you guys were just saying about housing and stuff like that and onampus housing and P3s and all of that. So
they're there. They might not be worded exactly as you want, but they're there. And maybe that's the one we start with. I think as Nate has been saying, these strategies are well open-ended. So that you can then say, okay, if we want to
identify discrete housing strategies with academic partners, are we talking about student housing as P3s or are we talking about workforce housing as a P3 for people who are employed at UMass? What what's the next goal? This housing production plan isn't meant to get to
that level of specificity exactly what the zoning bylaw might look like or what the financing plan might look like. Um, so I feel like there are and then I the other thing I wanted to say actually is I would object
to at this point Barrett making any changes to a document and presenting those changes to us because without us seeing exactly what they are because the planning board has already adopted this document. So if any changes need made or
get made, we have to send it if the council adopts it with those changes, it has to go back to the planning board. So we need to know exactly what those changes are. Um if there's there if there are coming from what the planning board adopted, we
have to be able to see the line changes, right? Um right. The other question I have for Nate is are Barretts still within their retainer and the the stuff or is every time we go back to them costing the town more money
because we're asking them to do something outside of the scope of the work they've already completed and been paid for. Um because I'm not comfortable with conversations happening because a counselor, whether it be me or Pat or
any of the other three of us, went and said, "Well, they didn't initially change during the comment period from all the count of all the people in town. My comments weren't incorporated, so we need them to incorporate mine only." um
because I did have comments that may or may not have been incorporated between the May draft and the June draft. Um but that doesn't mean they didn't consider them and then look at all of the information and say actually that comment isn't on point with X Y or Z and
so we're not as experts as the consultants going to recommend changing the plan and the draft based on that one comment because of all the other things we've heard. So, I guess I'm getting again more and more uncomfortable and I want to make sure we're not going above
the scope of what they were hired for and what they Let's let's good. Let's ask let's ask them that question. Oh, no. Sure. This would be a change order to their contract. And so, you know, it'd be an extra amount of money for them to do this. Um, and that, you know, and you know, we have some funding
for that. Um, so, you know, what I would say is right. So, you know, we have all these comments. I'm hoping by the next CRC meeting and it's then it's a conversation with the CRC again right of how we want to present or how these comments move forward to the consultant and I I agree Mandy that you know my vision was that if there were changes
made and Barrett makes them it's very clear what they are so that you know if it goes to council it's kind of like the zoning amendment it's like here's what was originally proposed and here's what is recommended you know with you know whether it's you know some different text right it's very clear what the changes are so it's not just like a an
integrated plan that you can't tell. It's we call it out by page or whatever, right? We we we're clear on how it's different. Um and that's and that could be the recommendation, right? So the CRC recommends the town council this housing production plan with these modifications and it's you know what what what they
are. I'm not sure. Right. But that that's to me how though could be the process or what what the upshot is of this. Um you know if there's a few things that just really you'd want to see changed and it like I said I don't I agree I don't see them changing data tables. I mean all this, you know, it's
um maybe it's like I said qualifiers or it's, you know, how they're how they, you know, how what they use the data for. So Cathy's point like, you know, are the strategies following through with the needs assessment? Are there is there are there is there an overreach or is there something else there? Um but
yeah, thank you. That's and that's so this is very much in line with the parallel track with say the ADU bylaw between the planning board and CRC and it went back and forth and then we ultimately had a few changes to their recommended document that went to
council. So I'm I'm comfortable with that Pat and then we're we're looking at it's 503 and we're going to try to wrap up. You're muted Pat. This committee wastes an enormous amount of time over and over again. Here we
have a document that is pretty open-ended actually uh that could have been voted on and moved on. You know, looking at the planning boards, I I keep hearing things um some CR me some CRC members want
specific things because you said something we want. who are we building for? Didn't listen when when Nate was saying the conversation is general enough and meets this criteria says these things. Town manager goals will
tell the manager what to do about UMass, not the housing production plan. So, we're building for the community of Ammerst. I know you don't want to listen, Pam, but you're going to have to. No, no, I was just We are building for the community of Ammerst. And the community of the
Ammerst is extraordinarily diverse. And I'm really really tired of hearing assumptions made over and over again about people. Uh I believe one comment by counselor was, "Well, if you look at
the kind of cars they drive, I've been volunteering at the survival center since 2017. You can't tell jack about a person's economic status or what economic pressures they're under by the car they are driving.
This is a document that should have already gone out of here. And I'm really because you don't like it, Pam. Because you don't like it, Kath specifics. Because you don't like it, Jennifer. You're wasting the community's time.
You're all sitting here making little campaign stakes. I know, Jennifer, you're going to tell me I'm a bad person. I don't have to worry about that again for a few months. I am so tired of how this group
tries to manipulate the work of the community. I appreciate your thoughts, Pat. I don't happen to agree with them, but I appreciate them. Um, I'm going to wrap it up. I think we don't need to add any more fuel to the
fire. We have a meeting coming up on the 23rd and um it sounds like there has been some pretty specific information exchanged and I would appreciate
from town staff um any kind of indication as we come to that next meeting of how some of those concerns um have been addressed and and hopefully
it's in a very simple way and that acknowledges some of the concerns that some in the community feel about um the housing crisis. So,
we all have a little homework to do. Um Kathy, you said you had some specifics. Jennifer, you had some specifics. Um Nate and Greg heard my specifics about estimating the number of students that really want to come to AM need to live
in Ammerst. It is not 9,000 and how that ripples down into um some of the conclusions. We have covered um carryover items. We have no meeting minutes and we have
already talked about the preview of next uh the next meeting. Uh we had solar bylaw on it. I think I would like to keep solar bylaw only as a as an update of has anybody attended meetings? Is
there any feedback from any other sources? Um there will be it can be a five minute conversation but it's on there. um housing production plan will get discussed and and I think there are no carryover items but we can leave that on
the agenda just in case. Kathy, just quickly to address Pat's concern of time wasted and I do apologize that I haven't written mine. If we could focus just on housing production plan and have the goal to have a vote at the end um on
whether there's anything substantive and put it to rest. So we have and solar I don't think we're going to be ready for much more uh to do. So I would really like just just to really focus to move this off so this isn't a continue. And
so Jenn I request that Jennifer just submit the others of us can see whatever she submitted to them. And I don't expect Mandy I think you're right. We shouldn't be asking for changes unless there's consensus about these changes. I don't think they should be idiosyncratic
to a few of us. So if some of the things that bother one or two of us don't resonate with others, um I wouldn't want to spend town money on a consultant making changes. I I am I am particularly
conscious of not wasting time and or money um on it. And I actually didn't understand that I was supposed to as a counselor read and submit comments in June. And I I missed I missed that that
this would be a point that I could express an opinion. Um so I I would like pan to just have it be a focused discussion if we can. Yep. Um I'm actually not going to be able to attend that meeting. Uh Jennifer
has agreed to um chair that. Good luck. We don't all It doesn't have to be a unanimous vote. Yep. Okay. I'm uh making a motion to adjourn. Second.
Let's go around. Pat I Kathy. Yes, Jennifer. Yes, councelor Hani. Hi, Pamuza. Yes, thank you, Greg. Thank you, Nate. Nate disappeared. Um, really
appreciate your time. Thanks very much. Thank you all. Bye. Bye. Bye.