Great. Thank you, Athena. Uh I see a quorum. Uh it is September 25, 2025. This is a 300 PM regular meeting of the community resources committee.
Um, pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of 2025, which extends through June 30, 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 meetings. Members of the public
who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by tele by telephone. No inperson 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.
Um, I'm going to go through the uh we have a quorum. We've started recording and I'll just see if everyone can be heard. Kathy, yes, here. Councelor Hani, present. Jennifer, yes.
and Pam is present. Pat D'Angelus is not going to be here today. Um we also just as a note um Stephanie Chorello staff for uh discussing the solar bylaw is not going to be here today. Dave Zo is out
of the office and so we will we'll work on the solar bylaw as planned, but we'll be doing some editing without the without the input from staff. Uh, our next item is number two, public hearings. There are no public hearings.
I'm looking at the attendee list. Our item number three is general public comments open to the public for up to three minutes, but I do not see anyone in the audience. If we see someone in the audience later, I may um ask
permission to open it up for their comments um since we did not have anybody at this time. So, we're going to move to action items, which is item number four, and we'll talk about the solar bylaw.
Um is there anything I needed to say about it? I don't think so. Um, Mandy, are you going to be able to share your screen or do you want me to? I got it.
Okay. Uh, we have we have Nate Mallaloy coming, but as I said, we thought we would be talking about the housing production plan right around 4, and that's when I invited him to come as a as a panelist. So, if I see him, that's great. Um,
we may We just said that there were folks that may want to attend may need to attend a meeting at 5 in person. So that as best possible we'll try to wrap this all up by quarter of quarter five.
Okay. Um there's one person in the Oh, Nate Mallaloy is the person in in the audience. So Nate, if you would like to make a public comment, public comment period is open, but we'll come back to your topic at about 4.
So noted, let's take a look. Let's take a look at the uh text. So as we talked about, we were going to start with section 12. So, while while we're pulling that up, I
have a comment and a question. Um I saw in the gazette that the shoots uh solar bylaw which was challenged in what was there was a challenge to it. Uh
the state found it complied with what what they would want to see in a bylaw and didn't go overboard in the restricted areas. So my that's my comment. My question is um could we put that in our packet just so people can
look at that and I'm not asking that for today. Um I requested a copy of it so as we go back and look at our bylaw um you know their wording that was taking health safety um environment kinds of
things that that's where the challenge was and it withtood the challenge. Um, so I just thought we should look at the wording of it. Um, where we have similar wording. Um, and just and that was my
question. So, I didn't want to ask you to put it in the packet till people knew why I was putting it in the packet. Okay. Yep. That's great. Um, if you if you have it, then I won't have to go look for it. If you want to email me that, I um Well, actually, do you know how to
put something in the packet? I I think I think if I if I am an authorized member of CRC, which I wasn't for a long time, the answer are we talking about SharePoint? Just just email me. Just email it to me.
No, I do know how to put things in SharePoint, but um you know, until recently, I wasn't one of the entitled people, but I will send it to you. I mean, I'll I'll send it. Pat Pat D'Angelus has it because I asked her first if she had it and then she got it.
But I'll send I'll send it with a copy to the five of us and then you can put it on. Okay. Thank you. Great. So the section we're starting with is reporting general reporting requirements and there have been a number of comments
made um from previous from previous meetings. Um the first being that we should include a specific time period such as the first 12 to 24 months, not less than annually. Require report after heavy rain events
and include recipients. So I think we upgraded this to include some of that. Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped down to I skipped down below. Um,
can we start with section 12011 at the top of the page? Any comments before I make a comment? So, I can't raise my hand other than Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. And I'll keep it thing that share that Zoom does now. If
you're sharing your screen, you can't raise your hand. It's ridiculous. Um so I um you know large storm events don't exist. They are heavy rain events I believe under the definitions. So we
should change that in that section. Stephanie indicated that we should delete the PGA from this section. Um, and weekly reports. That seems a bit overkill to me, I must
say. A weekly basis during construction for what? Um, shall submit a report on a weekly basis and after heavy rain events to these people. What's this report for? Um
so again it doesn't indicate a report on what? Um and just another um terminology question operator of an LGPI. I think our
definition should actually reference the SPI, a solar votic photovoltaic installation, not an LGPI. But I'd have to go back. This these are notes from like 12 versions ago. Um, but I I I guess I
just ask is LGPI the right reference versus a solar instead of large scale ground mount photovalttaic. don't we use solar photov voltaic installation or or something? So I I just asked let's look at the reference. I don't want to scroll
through and have you guys have to stare at a scroll through. Um but yeah, what report what are they reporting on is the big question I have here. And is weekly too much?
Um I'm gonna I'm gonna add my two cents. Uh, I also thought that weekly was was pretty heavy duty. Um, a report is different than site inspection. And I think um, even at at
Hickory Ridge, there was staff going down or someone was responsible for going down and and looking at activity at least weekly. Um, but that's different than a report. So, um I I agree that it would it would want to be
clarified what the report was for and and that also weekly is pretty heavy duty. Um and then also large storm events does need to be corrected and turned into heavy rain events.
um as far as uh LGPI that that kind of surprises me because we've we've designated LGPI as sort of the topic for the bylaw. I would be I would be
surprised that we would use any other terminology unless we used new terminology throughout the entire um document instead of LGPI. I I guess my question is the solar volta
photovoltaic installation seems a little bit more um comprehensive than LGPI. But we're only regulating LGPI. We aren't we aren't doing a bylaw for small scale.
That's true. Jennifer, I was just going to say what you said. I'm trying to take my hand out. Yeah. So, we'll Can we make that note about what are we actually reporting on? Yeah. Um and then and then to the comment
about uh delete PGA. So if I if I think about who who is involved at this point, it is a it's essentially a a construction project. The building commissioner is the point of contact for
that office. But yet we've been bending over backwards to try to change everything to PGA throughout the bylaw so that we um so that we recognize it could be
flexible and I don't think in this case if the PGA is so the building commissioner is not the granting authority the granting authority would have been the ZBA I can't you know Mandy um but this is during construction. So
this is after all the permits have been granted. Yeah. Right. And so the PTA has nothing to do with this project at this point. Right. Right. And I think that was the point here is that
the PGA doesn't revert over to building commissioner. The PGA at this point is out of the picture. Which is why I think Stephanie said delete it. Yeah, I guess I'm okay with that with deleting
the building commissioner is is mentioned in there as an entity. And I guess again we have to make note what report because that would depend on whether I'd agree with the rest of the stuff. the rest of the reporting places.
So during construction often what is reported on is the number of vehicles on the site, the number of personnel on the site, um you know sometimes the the weather and temperature and the uh the
extent to which construction proceeded or you know achieved in that past week. It's typically um just sort of track tracking where decisions were made. Um
it may not be it may not be ownorous, but on the other hand, it's it's unclear why the fire department needs to know that there were 10 10 trucks on site or something. So, so our our job here is to figure out
what we're reporting on, clarify that. Okay. Can we move on? 0.012. Post construction. Um the owner operator shall submit a report with photographs within a 48 hours a of a heavy rain event which is
fine uh erosion sedimentation condition of ground surface soils etc. Any any issues? The comment here is reports by third party inspector paid for by the owner operator selected by and acting under the direction of the
building commissioner. So that's the person reporting. again. Oh, this one did get changed to heavy rain event. Okay. Yep. Yep. So, I think Stephanie wanted it by a third party, not the
owner operator. I I think that's right. I I believe that it was that. Yes, that's correct. So, we should instead of the owner operator shall submit it's uh a third party inspector.
So, then I have a lot of questions of how that would work. Do you have to is is it the same inspector selected at the time the building permit is issued for the rest of the
well is this forever right post construction for how long? Um, and if it's selected after each rain event, how the heck are you going to agree to one?
Um, or se how's I I just have a like how do you agree to one and get the person out within 48 hours? Like cuz they're on call. there. I mean, that's their job is to monitor
different sites, but this is post construction. This is there's no construction going on. The LGPI is operating. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. This particular paragraph is this paragraph is post construction
heavy rain event only. It doesn't say how long that these reports how many years after construction they need reported on. Um, and how you know like does the building who who I've I've had this question about heavy rain events. Who picks it?
This one says if we modify it direction of the building commissioner, so does he pick a new one after every heavy rain event? Does the town contract who pays? Like I mean it's paid for by the owner operator
but not selected by them who negotiates the cost. like I just have so many questions about this. Um that's that is negotiated when the inspector the third party inspector is selected and they'll just say
and not the owner operator according to I'm sure I'm sure there's a I'm sure there's a normal operating range for for salaries and you know pdium or whatever whatever the and that's built into their shity
that's built into their the costs that they cover. So, how long is this going on? Um, good question. Should we have a time a time frame of five years? I mean, given what this report is asking
to describe, is it logical? Well, I I would just get rid of this report, but um would it be logical to have it until vegetation is established? That could be a year. That could be right. I mean, the
goal here is storm water ground control. Make sure the sedimentation hasn't run off, which is during the growback, I presumably. So, once it's established within a year, you don't need this anymore in theory.
in theory, but sometimes you get a you get a flash flood and and it overruns its banks and that's probably, you know, the the worst case scenario. Okay. But we don't ask for those reports to other places near flash flood areas.
So, let's just make a note and say uh period of time question mark. Um, I you know what? If we keep doing that, excuse me. You know, if we keep doing that, Pam, we'll never get through this. I think we could make a decision
here. Um, unless everyone is in disagreement. I think I think this is I think it's very heavy-handed. Um, and I have no idea what we do uh with other kinds of installations. Like for
example, the one that exists up here on the uh high side of Cherry Hill Golf Course. Um so I think this would be one. Double check if Shootsbury has anything like this and what the reporting is is the
way I would do it. I mean I I um you know I I I I think the an annual report seems like a burden. Um unless we are I certainly you know think some if
we ever get to best uh if we ever get to the batteries we'd like them regularly looked at to make sure they're still operating safely. Um, so again, I just would like to know that we're not imposing a regulatory
burden that feels unreasonable for what we're looking for here. Can I make a suggestion that we table this particular section? Um, I would like some feedback from
particularly Dave Zomac and Aaron Jacques who have been sort of tracking the construction and installation of Hickory Ridge. Um, because I think they're the ones that are going to be receiving the reports and let's just
find out what what it is that they actually need. The idea of going to Shootsberry and see what it's reporting, that's that's a great idea as well. Okay. I'm fine with that and just uh and such would just if it has reporting it's been found to be reasonable is was my
point you know if it has no reporting it won't be helpful you know right right can we skip to 12.02 O2. This is for Agra Voltaics. Um, in in there it says uh report on the
agricultural performance and crop yields. To me, that just is not necessary. Um but but it does if if we read if we took out that sentence and just said LGPI developer applicant or landlord
shall submit to the PGA an annual report consistent with state DOER for qualified ASGU for the first five years. Apparently do DOER requires something like that and we just say consistent
with Sandy, do you have your hand up? Um, I'm trying to figure out. Stephanie said, "Receive a copy of the report report required by DOER for a qualified ASTGU." So, I think that's how we word it that
that submits a copy of the report. And this is owner operator, right? not developer, applicant, or land owner. We're using owner or operator, right? Uh does it matter who submits it? Well, the developer is different than
the applicant that's different than the land owner. So, do they all have to submit? You should really just say one person has to submit, one entity. So just some wording Great.
Great. Good. Um, the next item 0.022. I question why we need that. It's It's already covered if we It's already covered up in
021. Whatever Whatever DOER requires is already covered. I'd be happy to delete The next section is is modest this modifications. Um, but I'm thinking about the
transactions that happen at Hickory Ridge and just the fact that um the, you know, the developer is sort of coming back with little changes here and there. Can we do this and can we do
that? It's it seems important to say if you know if there are some substantive changes that could be well we're going to move the location of the bests or we're going to we're not
going to build things in the order that we said we were going to build them in. Those to me are pretty substantial changes. Um, I wouldn't mind adding the word it says here she'll require submission to and approval by the PGA
and commissions, you know, like concom might be needed to be part of that. But I guess maybe the question is does PGA include concom? So Stephanie recommends deleting it and I support that recommendation.
Oh, that whole paragraph. Yeah. Her comment is already a requirement in other PGA review process. Delete this language would would be included in a special permit condition. Okay. If it's if it is in fact included in permit condition.
Any other anyone else disagree? Okay, we'll knock it. So Stephanie recommends deleting 14 18.14.01. So is there any is there any other location? Um, just that 14.01. Okay.
Well, I think there's other things she recommends deleting, but she says delete all of 14.01. Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. We're not we're not getting rid of section 18.14. We're just getting rid of that paragraph.
That paragraph. And then there's some other things. Got it. Anyone have any concern about 14.02? The recommendation to delete failure to notify within 30 days shall be considered abandonment.
I support that deletion. Yeah, I do too. um the 14.03. So just a a um this is the this just says installation. Should this just just should this refer to LGPI
LG in O2? Well, installation covers LGPI and B. Okay. Right. As long as we've defined it somewhere to include them both. We haven't defined the word installation.
So, do we have to go back and add LGBI and best to all these? Well, we don't reference installation very often. We normally say LGPI. Yeah. So, it would be easier to just use LGPI there instead of putting a new word in
and having to add it. Yeah. Yeah. And and while we're at it, I just want to make sure that if if we should be including and best in every single one of these paragraphs, we may need to go
back and look at that specifically. I don't want to do it now. Yeah. So, sometimes we said and associated best. Yeah. Right. I feel like we should have some kind of umbrella statement saying when we say
LGBTI, we also intend that it covers any associated. We could just add that to the definition. Oh, that might help. Yeah, maybe if not stated specifically, then it's implied.
We could look at it later though, probably. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Um, the suggestion to to get rid of this next 1.03. Um, I I was um asking why we
would want to get rid of it. Um, so if it's voided, that means the land use is completely illegal versus if there's just fines for not saying. That's that would be my
guess. Like if you void a permit, then that LGPI on that property is completely illegal. And this is just a change in ownership here. I think you just would want to make sure there's fines
if you don't notify the town of a change in ownership. So would you rewrite it, Mandy, to say failure to provide notification shall carry a fine of X.
We you know, right? So So I think you could think about that in 14.02. I don't know how um I I don't know how fines work for zoning
bylaws. Well, we had deleted that it is abandonment, but but there might be able to be something that constitutes a fine or something. I just don't know how it works for zoning bylaws
cuz it might just be a violation of the permit and once you're violating the permit you just get to tack on monetary violations, right? Because presumably some of this will be in the permit. Well, that that's a question to ask then. So, we don't really have any
equivalent. uh large apartment buildings, if they change ownership, do they have to tell the town? Uh you know, they would never lose the permit altogether for the apartment building. But if you want to know who who the owner is or
you have to get a rental permit every year is that I mean, you know, in the rental, find out who the owner is. You know, in the rental permit, you have to say who the the rental, you know, but it's Yeah. So I think just it's both of these
feel more draconian than uh just forgot to tell you that the owner changed. So you have to uh timely try to find out what would be uh a carrot a carrot or as well as a stick you know I mean it says
you have to notify within 30 days what happens if you don't right Jennifer sorry I'm just speaking yeah no go ahead no I'm just asking I mean wouldn't that or I'm asking if this is something that
would be in the in the permit I mean is it pretty standard that if ownership change you have to notify I mean the permit was given to the owner or is or is that true or was it given to
the project so it's given to the land owner which may not be the operator in this case uh well you know again Hickory Ridge is installing and there is the operator
on land. So, does the operator who who do they notify and what happens if they fail to notify? I think we just should ask this because it's the new owner is the one you want to hold accountable for. That's the reason you want to know who the owner is, right?
So, if anything goes wrong with it, you don't want to have to go back and search. So, it sounds like owner and operator is not interchangeable. And that wording kind of implies it is. Yeah. Right.
Let's make a note then just and then move on. Are we leaning towards deleting like Stephanie recommended 03? I added the question about what happens if you don't do 30 days. Yes. Yeah. So I would delete it. I would delete it. And then as you I
think you're right Mandy that it naturally falls in O2 if there is you know failure to notify shall you know unless you want to make it a separate thought. So it's either a new 03 or it's combined in because the the original
failure to notify would be uh we take over the property. So that's really draconian. Yeah. So if we changed O2 to say something like failure to notify within 30 days transfer um um fines will be assessed or something and I don't know
if we could if we can say that for now and then get building commissioner response to that. I would just yeah failure to notify within 30 days shall blank blank blank and we could just make it a you know and figure out what we want to put there. Yeah.
Yeah. But it does reference the abandonment section of this bylaw. No, no, she's taking it out. That's gone. Yes. So Mandy is artfully put artfully putting in Kathy's blank blank blank. Yep. And then the the Jennifer's
question of this one is transfer of ownership, but the the failure to notify, but the rest of it refers to owner or operator or operator. Okay. Well, it's either I mean it could be a new owner, it could be a new it could be
a new land owner, it could be a new operator. So maybe having Well, that's see it's Pam. It's it goes with the first sentence. a new owner or operator shall notify and now it's fail failure to notify transfer of ownership
or operator. So it's it's parallel the way the whole it wasn't parallel before yep that I can't read the small text. So should the final paragraph the new
owner or operator must abide by see the last sentence of 05. Yes. Okay. Great. And now we actually get to the abandonment section.
picking out the town clerk, the PGA makes sense. I had a question about the last sentence here. Any proposed changes to the project shall require approval as described in the modification section of this bylaw. I
know we were going back I I think we skipped over modifications. Um, should it just be shall require approval of the PGA? Yes. I don't know whether we've gotten to modifications yet. I think we
Yeah, I can't remember. Well, we had a little we had a little sentence in there and we took it out. Oh, we took the modifications out completely. Yeah. Yeah. Which um if it is in fact a requirement then
hopefully it's still covered. Okay. Um, moving down to where um, so we we just said, let's see, we've taken out the owner or operator shall notify we've taken out town clerk P and
PGA. That makes sense. That makes sense to me. Okay, we're at abandonment. Yep. So in 1501 removal requirements. So the only person being notified is the
building commissioner. Anybody disagree with that? No, I I agree with it. Should I take the words out? Can we accept that? Yeah. Give me a second. I'm trying to figure out this update on my word that I
got. Okay. So, that's out. Item C of that same se of sections 15.02. Um the recommendation is the building commissioner rather than the PGA. Oh, I had a question about 01. Sorry, I
have to mod I have to like deal with separate screens. And I'm not sure anyone can answer this one. Does removal require a permit? Because if it does, 150 days is probably too quick.
to not only get through the permitting process but also actually physically remove I don't think it I'm speaking just for my my my own thoughts um the the submitt at the very beginning one of the
submitts I think was the was demolition removal plan so theoretically it's all approved as a package when they give the permit but that's a good question to ask. I would hope they would not need a
permit to remove. Since since my memory and attention to this is uh not as great as it should be, do we have in the original part that they have to submit a plan for what
they're going to do if they stop running it? That's what Pam was just saying. Yeah, I think so. I think they do. Question is, no, if we do, are we duplicating any of it with what is in 1815?
Okay. So, here's what you have to submit site plans. And so what I'm looking for, Mandy, if we originally asked them to say if they discontinue, this is what they have to submit. And I'm not seeing a detail. I don't see it,
either, Pam. So I don't think it's part of the original permit then. Um, that makes a lot more sense to me to have a basic decommissioning plan, you know, basic decommissioning plan. It
could be fairly generic, but it doesn't feel like they Well, it just No, if we don't have it up, I mean, if if we want everything that is in this 1815, that's way too much to add to something that's already
long at the beginning, but the beginning part should say, see 1815 for what you're agreeing to on decommissioning. I mean, just should reference something that's coming because we're saying that
they're agreeing to do the following. They're agreeing to do the following at the point they got the original license to run the thing, but should they stop running it, they're agreeing to this. Isn't that how we're we've we've we've structured it that way? We Yeah. The
current version Uh it says right here the hold on the owner operator shall notify of the proposed date and plans for removal. It almost it almost feels like that's where the plan for removal occurs rather
than at the beginning. Yeah. Which makes sense because if these are there 20 25 years, a plan 25 years in advance is worthless, right? Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm okay with it being here as a
plan for removal as part of the discontinued operations notification. I think we leave it like this for now with just the question of whether there's a permit needed because if a permit's needed we just have to change the number of days or it's not after
date of discontinued operations it's after permit for removal is issued or something. Um we just need to know. Yep. So, a removal shall consist of do we need to say Bess or or if we try to do a
more generic inclusion of best as part of an LGPI installation. There we go. I'll put in there to remind us um didn't have any problems down with C
the PGA recommending build building commissioner. That seems good to me. Great. Um in this section E there's a sentence that so it says any site that was deforested for the installation shall be restored and native tree growth to re
reestablish including the planting of seedlings. A plan for restoration shall be submitted to the tree warden for recommendations and to the PGA for review and approval. to me that a plan for approval sentence really ought to go
up into um 1804 which I think is um I think that was in submitts. Oh submitts but again you're 25 years ahead when you're submitting something. You can't move that way up there. It has
this this is also a weird paragraph because it ends if you're not really discontinuing then you don't have to do anything. So that sentence doesn't belong there. I mean if they're going to reuse the site as a solar array, they don't have to plant the trees, right? Or if they're going to do it an
agricultural use, they don't have to do it. Yeah. And Stephanie says tie this into submittal requirements. I assume what she means by that is, and this is just a guess, um, native, you know, native tree growth
reestablished, you know, I would think she might be referring to based on the plans, the submitted tree cover, whatever we have up at the top, right? Mhm. One of the site plan submissions was
um characteristics of an extent of land cover type. Yep. So I assume that's what she's referencing there of Yeah. So the question is do we take that sentence of plan for restoration? I mean
that it says shall be submitted. Um that to me sounds very much like a submitt and and your your comment about well we don't really need to do that 25 years in advance. Um
it sort of puts something on the table at least for um you know the target to be to be met. There we go. external. Great.
Um, I'm just making stuff up here. Um, so the plan for restoration can go up here and plans for removal for removal and restoration of site. Yep. Great.
Okay, Mandy, remove the last sentence of that. This requirement may be waved. It doesn't fit here. If they're not, but where are we putting it? It's already up above. Um
minute. I don't see it somewhere else. There was a Okay. May. Okay. D says, "This requirement may be waved at the PGA by the building commissioner if the land owner submits a plan for reuse of the site as a solar
array." That's D. Okay. So, we've just said you're not required to remove anything if you're going to keep operating it. So, reforesting. So, so why do you have to say that sentence again? That same. But you're
reforesting it. You're not removing it. I mean, you are removing, you know. So, I would move see D. I would move D. I would move E before D.
Okay. So, the the rework D says you've got to reforest it. And then the final sentence there should be these requirements may be waved if the landowner submits a plan for re I see what you're saying. Yeah. You know, that's the concluding if you're not removing it.
Yep. I'm just making Yeah. So, you're you're replanting it if you're removing it. And then and then you can say these requirements. Yeah. Do you see what and the structure is, you know, if you're going to continue to
someone else is going to continue to operate it. Okay. Yeah. I'm glad you to see you do that, Mandy. I do that all the time. And it's then by the building
commissioner also. Yeah. By by the So 1503 I like it a lot. I'm not sure the wording is perfect but my question is um you absolutely need assurityity. You need a financial you know otherwise
the town is going to bear the cost of removing it. I think Stephanie changes every PGA to building commissioner. Building commissioner. Yeah. So I I'm sorry I jumped to 18 1503.
But yeah, so all the PGA's become building commissioner. And I had a question about um um some of the wordings of
um installation. Yeah. Versus LGPI versus I think one place used solar energy system, but maybe that's not there anymore.
Yeah, there's a solar energy system. Oh, um that's where I think it should reference the solar SPI solar photovoltaic installation
that like where and we need to add that to the to the definitions, right? Well, no, the definitions have that in there. That that that's why let let me find the definitions. So we use solar photovoltaic array and
solar solar photo photovalttaic installation and I think the SPI is what we want to use. But does that include the best? Well, we could say SPI and associated best.
Can we say SPI includes associated ve? No, because it won't because it won't always have a bass and any associated best. So, Mandy, you're literally going to put
SPI at the end. So, okay. I don't mind writing out whole words when it's five pages later and I have to go find out what an SPI is. Sorry. My guess is that term is known by solar installers that it's not.
Okay. Okay. If that's a standard abbreviate, that's my guess. And I think that's why whoever wrote this draft originally had solar energy s installation. They just felt everyone would know what that is rather than a
PBI. So Stephanie says the May financial shy is not bylaw language. And then we've got a new financial charity section. Yes. So, I lost I lost my place. Where are we?
Was she questioning the may and wanting to make it shall Well, I think she just said it's not bylaw language because shall be, but you don't have to, right? Um, I think we should look at the financial shy section because we might be able to delete this whole sentence depending on what
financial sh says. Well, what if it says that? If it includes this, I mean, you don't want to leave the town on the hook for removing this stuff. So, you want to make sure the financial security. Um, so I'd be happy with changing the
word to shall if we have financial security. I I don't think we need to say it because it I mean, in this sentence, it says as stipulated in the financial security section. So, I don't think we need to repeat it. Where do you see?
Okay, wait a minute. I missed that. The la very last sentence in 15.03. No, but she's she's taking taking out the whole If we take out the whole sentence, that goes away, right?
Why wouldn't you not say the noun shall use the financial security as stipulated? Why wouldn't you just say shell? Change the bay to shell. I just assume that we would cover it into this the sur the shity section.
Here's the new shity language from Rob. Okay. It definitely includes it held. It's held by the town of Ammeris to cover the cost of removal. Yeah. So, it definitely includes removal. So, I'm not sure we need the sentence above.
Okay. I I agree that last Yeah. We don't if especially if this is the next thing that happens, if 1816 follows it, I'm happy. Right. Right. Um there's now now the topic of the town retains the right to enter and remove
um a system is where is that? It's it's in the middle of it's in the middle of 15.03. It's right after 150 days. The town retains the right to enter and remove an
abandoned hazard decommissioned LGPI. So in that sent we could and we could just say decommissioned LGPI instead of spelling it all out. for one thing and associated this
um in the in the old in the old shity section. The very last sentence in that was um as a condition of approval, an applicant shall bind itself to grant the necessary license or
easement to the town to allow entry to remove the structures and stabilize the site. The town shall have the right but not the obligation to remove the facility. that feels like it wants to go up under the abandonment section
since in fact Rob is suggesting that we shrink the shity. Yeah. And and I don't know if a condition of approval means anything but
it's the So these three sentences now are very similar. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We should pick one. Maybe maybe the one that follows the new associated best could go.
But what Mandy is saying is the first one the town retains the right to enter. Oh, I see that. And the last one says that the applicant has to give the town the right to enter. If we say the town retains it, we don't need the last sentence. That's Yep. Yep. That's good.
Yep. That one can go right. So, as a condition of site plan approval or special permit, the applicant shall agree to allow entry. We Sounds like we don't need that one either. Well, that's the same as the one we just deleted here.
Yeah. No, that's Yeah, those two are the same. They're just differently worded. I actually kind of like the one we deleted better than Well, this is written in a way that you would see this three times, so you
probably would know. We only want to say it once. We only want to say it once. Yeah. So, I would delete this one. It's okay.
Yeah. It's more you like it, Mandy, because it's more legalistic. Shall bind bind itself to grant. It's much stronger wording. Right. Yeah. Great. Good. And we'll get rid of the other sentences.
Financial shity. Um I feel good with what was um provided by Bill Rob Mora. Yep. Uh the only the only thing I thought I
might add to to Rob's um section, if we could take a very quick look at that. Yeah, it's the almost next to the last sentence. Project uh applicant shall submit a fully inclusive cost associated with removal. And I said
removal and restoration. I'd like to add the words and restoration. Anyone want any other changes in section 1816? Nope. Um, just a time check. We've got Yep. I'm exactly what you I was going to
say I think this is where wings and it's just Yep. Thank you for the reminder. Um it is it we are ending but I think the next one Stephanie recommends deleting all of them or most of them.
Severability uh severability she recommends deleting and appeals she recommends deleting. That'd be fine with me. I was okay with that.
And payment in lie of taxes recommends deleting too. We don't do it anymore. They don't do it anymore. Okay folks. So 18 17 18 and 19 go. Go. And that takes us to the end.
Amen. But we still have those sections we skipped at the be in the middle. But yes. Yep. So, we will make note of where we pick up next time. Pick up at um
So, Mandy, did you just do a red strike through or a strike through? This is all strike through. I'll clean it up and send a version 18 out or 16 or whatever it is. Yeah, 16. Yeah, I'll clean it up. Okay, great.
Great. Thank you. Appreciate it, Jennifer. So, so what is the timing for having this hopefully approved by the council before the end of this council session? So, if we if we recommend it at the next
can't happen. So, my question is, are we an hour away from getting through all of this or are we four meetings away from We haven't even done a second run through of this. That's what I'm thinking that I I'm just looking at such a scrolled over. There's all sorts of uh
comments bubbles all over the place. Personally, I think the goal would be potentially it's possible to maybe send something to the new council mostly complete. Yeah,
it depends on do and the new regulations from the state law for local permitting, but we might be able to send something complete pending those permitting regulations. So, if we send something to
council for it will be a referral to CRC for public hearings potentially and and a planning board because they both have to. But I think it depends on what the do is doing with its new with
the new what they call smallcale solar um which is the municipal covered solar versus the state regulations. Now so we're still on those regulations. What I recommend, Pam, is look at how many
meetings we have left for the end of the year and send us a get through these sections in the following section. I'd be happy to do that. Yep. And if Mandy remembers, do you remember the agonizing process we went through
with the rules of procedure? uh yeah where to take control of it we just said we will get through these and we had a timeline of you know with a goal to get to a a decent draft you know we weren't going to get it over the hump
because it still had to go further but if you just look at the meetings and say we've got two hour meeting I will do I will lay it out I will lay it out by meeting and um recognize that we're going to try to split our time each each week with solar and whatever else is on the plate late.
Um, so that said, um, thank you everybody. Uh, just a quick review forward. It's just just about 4, a little after 4 and Nate's been patiently waiting. So, we are going to transition to the housing
production plan. Um, just for for everyone's notice, there are no meeting minutes. Um, and I want to reserve time if we can at the end of the meeting for carryover items, but I know um we're actually targeting a closure of about
quarter of five so that um Kathy can go to the meeting in person. So Nate, thank you for we were only six minute we were only six minutes behind me
and and Nate, thank you for thank you for being there. Um some of the some of the the broader questions for the housing production plan, Nate, are um you know just in terms of overall process,
what if there are amendments and additions and what is the overall timeline that you're looking at? So that's sort of what I'm trying to grapple with here. Sure. Hi everyone, Nate Moy. I think the um
Can we see Nate? Well, only if he turns his camera on. No, I'm I'm I'm in the audience. I'm not a panelist right now, so I'd have to be proud. I promoted you to panelists. Well, let me try that again. Oh dear. Can I also ask with process,
do we adopt it, recommend it? The council adopt it? I'm still not totally clear on that. So, Mandy, I brought him in. I thought it's panelist, but if I bring him in just with allowed to talk, he's Do I have to take him out again and then bring him back in? Yeah, you have to say promote to
panelist. I know, but I don't know whether I can do it now. Um, yeah. Yeah, you should be able to. I'm trying. I The little my little uh arrow won't go on the two little bubbles above her. I'll try I'll try it myself. I'll
promote panelist. It's working here. And also, Greg, I see it. Greg Rashane. There we go. That should work. Yay. Thanks. Hi everyone. And Greg and Greg. Um, hold on.
You might Yeah. All right. I promoted you also. There he is. Yeah. I think to answer the questions the um so you know the CRC would recommend uh you know action by the council you
know whether that's you know um on the plan and the the motion is to adopt the plan as the town's housing um affordable housing plan and so you know that step is necessary to then send it to the state to have them approve the plan saying that it meets the you know the
structure and framework for a housing production plan and so the state's review of it is just to make sure that it has all the right components. Not I don't think they necessarily look at, you know, the details. Um it's really just to see that it, you know, it meets the required formatting and has the
necessary elements in it. Um and so yeah, for process, I mean, we'd love to get it the council to vote before the end of the year, right, on this plan. And so, you know, thanks for the comments. I mean, so I guess you know what I to me like a lot of the comments are
um discussions we'd have after the plan has already been adopted. So, you know, for instance, if we don't like the idea of building more um housing for students off campus, I I'm not going to recommend to the you know, I don't think the um the plan should change and say that
because that's what the you know, for instance, the consultants thought was a strategy. We don't have to then follow through with it. So, I'm not envisioning that we're going to follow through with every strategy in the plan or every uh and meet everything. It's, you know, I think there's a lot in there and I think we the town afterward would um work with
the, you know, with you, the council, the housing trust, the planning board and staff to determine, okay, what are the priorities and how do we approach this? Um, you know, if there's some, you know, points that we want to have clarified, uh, the consultants said that they would be willing to, um, look at
the plan and look at the comments. they couldn't make it today just given the notice um but they you know we have spoken with Judy and her team and they're you know willing to make some changes um you know they did look at the comments previously in June and so I think they saw some and then you know we
staff met with them and said okay are these comments enough to actually change the plan or are they things that are part of the discussion after the plan so like I think you know the question about the number of off-campus students you know the census isn't as accurate you mass reports it different ways I don't
think we're actually gonna get like the right number for off-campus students. If we think that the numbers, you know, you know, in the comments it seems like, oh well, if you go if you take one approach and add numbers up, we get here. If we go somewhere else, we get here. And and and so maybe the to me the
recommendation might be there has to be some qualifying a bit more qualifying language say in that part of the report about you know the way the numbers are derived. um it's difficult to you know to get a um you know the most accurate number right or something just and and
so you know is it you know is it that it's wrong or is it just that I think the reporting of students is really is really a tricky thing um you know and if for instance like the density in um residential zones they don't tell us what the density is they might say infill and to me the conversation is if
the plan's adopted well what is the right density what do they mean by that and so that's where there's the conversations afterward to say okay well we think um you know in these districts we we like these ideas and we think this is what the appropriate density is for Ammerst. Um and so the plan doesn't get into some of those you know those those
critical details. They're just saying overall here's you know let's look at infill and I think it's then on the town locally to say what does that mean for us? Um okay thank you. I'm gonna just let me call in Jennifer and Kathy first and then and then back to you Nate. Thank
you. Um okay I don't know where to begin. So if this plan is an affordable housing plan that we need to submit to the state, it addresses a lot more than affordable
housing and to vote for a plan. What I one of the main takeaways is they do they want us to encourage more student off-campus student housing. We know that will happen. We don't need to encourage it. That that's the lowhanging fruit.
and for the council to adopt a plan that says we encourage the building of more off-campus student housing that will be pointed to as we adopted it. So to adopt it, it's like signing a legal document and then say, well, we'll change some of the requirements after. I don't feel
comfortable with that. And if why doesn't the plan just talk about affordable housing? Um, so I, you know, we were a housing choice community because I think we built 482 units. Most of those units were probably not
affordable. They were for student housing, which by definition is highriced because it's based on unrelated people sharing the rent. It's not priced for families. So, you know, I submitted comments before June 1st when we were asked to submit comments and
then I was told in correspondence after that. Well, as you just said, you know, most of the comments weren't incorporated. So, it feels like this now is our only chance to and it may be too late to have them incorporated, but I can't I fully
support all the affordable housing goals, but as articulated as strongly as the affordable housing goals is to build more off-campus student housing. And then it gets frankly, which I said in my comments a little condescending. I think they took out the word nimi. That might
have been one one change that they made. But to say we need to change what is it our attitude or around or perception of student housing, you know, that's not that's not the issue. I mean, the issue is our year- round population, our non-
studentent population is plummeting. New student housing will be built because that's what the it's the most profitable housing to build. We don't need to encourage that. And again, I don't know why it's in an affordable housing plan. And I would have wanted to see more
incentives for if we're going to upzone. It should not be it should be I don't know if we have I don't know how we do that if it's owner occupancy requirement you know even if you're building you know um multifamily housing but there's nothing in this plan that is going to
ensure we build more than more off-campus student housing. And I there's many parts of the plan I do support, but I can't vote to approve a plan that is actively encouraging saying we need to go out and encourage the building of more student housing when we
we don't have to do that. It's it's going to come our way anyway. So, I'm just Yeah, I I feel very uncomfortable with well, we can approve it and then sort of negotiate it after. That doesn't feel comfortable. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, Kathy. Um,
well, I I sent Nate I sent you some comments in advance and as I said, I I didn't see my role when the piece was in motion as weighing in because I thought I would have a chance now. So, I have a
set of issues on the actual presentation before they get to the strategies and then I share Jennifer's concerns about the strategies. And that that to me is there the there two parts of the report. Um I loved a lot of the information they pulled together. I think they did an
excellent job doing that. But I'll just I'll I didn't share these with the rest of you because I don't think I'm supposed to. But um when you read the report, one of the things that jump out at you are these bubbles. I call them little somebody said something. This, as
far as I can tell, was in a very small survey. Some people said this and it makes it look like a finding that people are moving out of town because of the costs or whatever. And I would just remove all the bubbles. Um because when
I looked at what the survey was, it was very small. Um only some people, it wasn't random, and it's non-representative. So, I would just stick to the data tables. I would just get rid of them. It makes it a nice it's it's a stylistic thing. Um it's not
clear to me that there was a lot of effort to look at the predictions of population growth over the next five years for the region for the whole region. You know to me you have a shortage if there are more people living where you are than houses. If the population is
not growing very fast it's not clear to me you have quote a shortage. You do have a quart of of affordable. I'm seeing a lot of vacancies right now, including the new buildings. There new buildings down on Chanel has vacancies.
Some of the buildings downtown have vacancy notices and we're in high season for students. So, I think what we're seeing is that the rents went to a level and I don't know whether the new university housing on University Drive, but as the close of last year, they had
vacancies. So I don't know exactly what the status is but I'd like to see a a better job on just population growth for the region you know on how we compute uh so on the numbers you just addressed the
number of UMass students but I don't think we have a projection of whether UMass is planning on growing or not and from what I can see is they may not grow they may even shrink to move more courses online it's more profitable for them and so what happens if it goes the
other way. And so a little bit more talking about it may not grow. It has been growing, but it may go the other direction. Um, you know, so the the new growth I my fourth point was this. We've got vacancies around town. Um, you know,
that that we have been building. Ammeris has been building a lot. So um, it it may be just that we we're hitting kind of a ceiling on what the market will bear. Then I found I thought they would at some point start with our master plan
and talk about densities in the center, what is a village center, start saying we haven't ever delineated what a village center is. That discussion is not there. And you said that you know talking about what kind of density we're talking about. Um we seem to point to
like Kushman has a market in it or there is the Atkins market and somehow there's the village center. you know, how is it a radius around here and should we be focusing on those areas because they're near to transportation hubs? You know, where would be the focus of if we were
going to talk about changes, missing middle, um there's a discussion of this is missing middle housing sizes. Um the counting was very odd. The picture shows condos, town houses, duplexes, triplexes, but then the count
doesn't count all of those. And I'm not sure they counted Puffton Village. Um, so I'd be it's a question to ask them, Nate, because Puffton Village is clusters of two and three units. The kind of triplexes you were looking for, Mandy, they're all over Puffton Village.
You know, three apartments and then there's green space around them. and it houses, 1100 people. So, it's not an insignificant uh group of middle. So, I just didn't know how they when they counted did Puffton come up, did the town houses
come up as townous? Um, you know, so it's a question. Um in the groups in terms of feedback from groups in the groups I attended there was a strong preference for redoing converting
existing for cluster and cottage village or purd type developments. Um and I was hoping because I went to an early session with them. I was hoping we would get a map that would say how much land is available in Ammerst that's not
wetlands. uh where where such developments could occur. You know, just a a map that said removing conservation land, APR land, wetlands, how much land do we have that doesn't
have anything on it? Um and so then the other one I heard quite a bit of discussion on, you know, and it's use of town property. So we I went to the southeast school thing and everyone liked that potentially for senior housing. There's a discussion of
Wildwood comes online. So, just a little bit more on the town has an opportunity. Senior housing if we had more could free up other housing for families because seniors could move out of their house and into senior housing. And that was
discussed in at least two of the meetings I went to. And those preferences, which ones we liked, then affordable. So, Jennifer mentions the word affordable. I'd like um I have to go read it real carefully. As far as I can see, as soon as we get new
construction, whether it's a single family home or an apartment building, it's expensive. That new doesn't come in. So, the only way the price tag on that becomes affordable is if we're bringing in the state subsidies and town
subsidies to it. That knew I was looking at the duplexes up in Sunderland and what they're selling for. each half of them was really expensive. And so if we're talking about affordable, we have to talk about construction, which is a combination. The cost of construction is
way up. And the state building code and the Amoris building code is really tough, you know, so we're asking for a lot more in a building than we used to. Um so if there any evidence that we've got some trend um you know there I just
saw um probably all of you read the same news somebody's fig figured out a way to build a house out of a 3D printer um lit literally they print a house out of liquid cement or some other kind of thing and lowers the cost of
construction. I don't know whether there's any kind of innovation on it. Um, so that that then I'm ending rattling off and I did all of this with the the land maps. I got really excited by the maps when I first saw them and I was hoping they would overlay them with
how much is left that's not built on, you know, and where is it when we look around. Unless we're talking about reszoning all of South Ammeris and the RORO areas to not have the same lot sizes. Um, unless we're talking about
and even some of those lots when you get up here, some of the properties look like they have a lot of land, but it is full of water. You know, where the house isn't is water. So, a little bit more. And then the final numbers, um, you know, how much we need to build, Nate,
you know, and what our goals are. Um, I think we're in a region. We're not just Ammeris. So, does Ammeris need to build all of it? So, I'd like that at least raised as a question in the report. Um, I'm also looking at even our schooling systems. You know, we've got lots of
little tiny schools around the edge of us, but we've got a bunch of abuing neighborhoods where our workforce lives because it's a shorter distance to downtown than where I live to downtown or to South Amoris. So talking a little
bit about the region um and some of this is what the state wants in a production code in a production plan but we've been doing really well with our production. So it's a what's a vision of where we want to go and how much does Ammeris has to build as opposed to region. So, I
sent you all those and what I don't need know what would be helpful is do you want me to go through page numbers and then get to the strategy side because then I'd like to have a full CRC session to go through all the strategies that
were listed because as far as I could see every possible strategy was listed rather than rather than um let's talk about some that seem to fit the Ammeris master plan the best And I know Mandy's going to weigh on those, but but on some
I just wanted the original text to be tighter, you know, tighter with stick to the data as they found it where they have, as you said, some we got two data sources, but we don't have a really good number on this stuff. That's fine. So
that people wouldn't have the impression that we're not doing something. I think Ammeris has more of this middle than any of the surrounding region. We're we're you know and some of it might have been they said used to build a lot but not much. I looked at the two rates they
were within a tiny percentage point of each other. It wasn't that we used to build them and now we don't build them. So they were exaggerating some numbers and I'd be happy to do it by page numbers but I thought this would just be an easier dump um than writing an
extended piece. So that mine and I should have done what Jennifer did and got you these in June, but I didn't because I didn't. No, because I didn't think I was supposed to weigh in with a strong opinion. Okay. They weren't Nothing was incorporated. What? Right. No. It didn't count.
So, thank you. Yeah. So, I just want to say to everyone, I wrote these and I sent them to Nate, but I couldn't share them with you. These are literally what I sent to him. You're free to share them now. Okay. Um, and and Nate, I'm going to go to Nate and then and then councelor
Hanni. Thanks. Any general responses by Nate or Rick or Greg? Yeah. Uh, I mean, maybe, you know, I think that, um, you know, there are some things they didn't look at. You know, typically in a
housing fraction plan, you won't look at the region um because it's focused on Ammerst. I you know I you know I and I to some of the some of the points I really think some of the questions are really about um you know what do we do with this plan
say if after it's adopted. So you know yeah they included a lot of strategies but I'm not going to say well let's just let's take away half the strategies because maybe some other groups think it's a really good idea. Maybe the housing trust is like we actually like some of these financing things that are really difficult but we'll try to tackle them. And so, you know, this was the
consultants work saying here's what they think and what they recommend as strategies. So, I'm not, you know, we can go back to them and ask, but to me it's like, well, you know, we, like I said, it's a the plan doesn't obligate the town to do everything, but I think it offers, you know, a lot of ideas that
then we get to decide on. And so, they're not we're not asking them to delinate village centers. If we think that, you know, from this plan, we're like, "Wow, from the master plan, from, you know, the work of the planning board and others, we're like, okay, we do need to work on our village centers. That's not this that's not in this plan. That's
what we do after." But but Nate, I don't understand why that wouldn't be a recommendation of theirs. I mean, I'm just saying that, but it's not but that's not that's not really the part of the that's not the scope of what a housing production plan is. And so, we're not asking them to say, you know, delinate your village centers. So I to me that's something we
would do as a result of this plan. Right? So if if if they're talking about infill of missing middle of different housing types now we're equipped to say okay let's have this conversation. What are the what is the outline? You know what is the North Ammeris Village center? What is East Ammeris? And so the planning board is already starting to
have those conversations to talk about different zoning ideas. But to me that's not that's typically not part of a housing production plan. Right. And so that um and you know I you know Yeah. I mean, I don't want to defend all the, you know, I don't want to have a rebuttal or I mean, I think, yeah, there's some things we could ask for
changes. I think, you know, to me, I will say though, the student piece and um, you know, say seniors, it's interesting because you can't typically you're not zoning for ownership or or user type. And so, you can have affordable senior housing, but
just saying we'll build for senior housing. Most of the seniors in Amoris are not don't qualify for lower and moderate income. And so to me, if if the strategy is a build more senior housing, part of it would be well then to free up the homes they're in so that maybe you can get, you know, um some some mobility
in the housing and you're getting people moving in and backfilling the housing, the units they're in now. Um so just saying senior housing to me means well if it's part of the strategy would be well is it affordable senior housing or not? And to me building student housing is important. So whether or not we have to we want to put it all in Ammerst I
think we know that they drive it drives the market and so I'd rather say well where do we want to put students and have a you know discussion about that because maybe we can relieve pressure for the other types of housing we want um and you know it's a it's a you know I think we have to involve Hadley in the region it's a you know housing is a
bubble big bubble right for our region but I I think that you know to me they're not saying we'll build student housing um precluding anything else I think I think it's good to say that Right. And so now we have the conversation of, well, where do we want it to be built? Um, and I think the
I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to hold you there and then and then go to councelor Hani. Thanks. Thank you. Um, I want to thank the consultants for producing this draft housing production plan. Um
it is sobering to see how many of our residents, non- studentent and student residents together are um houseburdened, cost burdened, severely costburdened and cost burdened. And
this is a plan that says if we want to reduce those cost burdens, here are some potential ways to do so. I don't like them all. Um, but I like a lot of them, right? But it gives us from a neutral
party that is a expert in housing and producing housing and how to reduce the costs of housing to say to us, hey, here's what you can
do. So, I want to thank them for it. Um, you know, the question I have for Nate is is sort of more of a conceptual. It's not really conceptual. Um, it's my understanding that the planning board has has approved this, adopted it. So, I'm curious
what the discussion at the planning board was for those that don't necessarily agree with the strategies and what the vote at the planning board was because I assume knowing the planning board members that not everyone agrees with all of these strategies. And
so if they got and I don't know whether they got to a unanimous vote, but if they got to a unanimous vote, can can you summarize or or give us some information as to what people that might not have agreed with all these strategies said and
potentially indicated why they would still vote to approve the plan? Let's go to Nate and answer that. and and actually one of the people that might have had issue with some of the strategies got voted off and was not was not um returned for a second term.
Yeah, the plan the plan board looked at the plan a few times. So they um we brought the needs assessment to them and then maybe a draft maybe they saw two or three times. Yeah, they you know they questioned kind of like what you know some of them said do we even need this plan? We're above 10%. You know that
kind of asking kind of generically like well how does this guide us? Um same thing they might not like all the strategies or what they're saying. Um a few planning board members really felt that their role was you know that they that you know the there's a few land use strategies that the board was more kind
of relevant to and so they you know for instance a lot of the fi say the financial strategies or certain things they said well they felt it was outside of their kind of their purview in a respect because they don't influence that part of it. Um so they you know some of them felt that well let's just keep our focus to what we could control and what kind of recommendations would
be good for us and so I forget the vote but there was you know there was a few you know there was a discussion over a few meetings and I think there was um you know not everyone liked everything in the plan but I think they liked it as a general framework and so I think for them they understood that you know if if they didn't think
a strategy was worth pursuing they just wouldn't pursue it or it's then it's a kind of a local decision to say well what does missing middle mean right or what does cottage style development and what's the right density for different zoning districts. And so, um, you know, from that and from discussions
they've had in the last year, they've, you know, they've said, well, let's they like the idea of cottage style development, for instance. And some of it now is researching what does that mean? Is it really small lots? Is it a per unit, you know, is it a per unit per acre formula? Is it a floor area ratio?
Is it um design guidelines? You know, what is it? And so they they kind of understood that as a kind of a general framework, it's okay. It's not obligating us, the town, to anything. So they, you know, they felt comfortable with that. They thought the targets were kind of high. Um, but, you know, they
said it's good to have a goal, right? I mean, it knowing that it takes so long to build housing, especially affordable housing. You know, the idea is that this plan, the state just came up with this number, it's been in the regulations for a long time, that a half of 1% is your target. It's not based on need. So if
you had 10,000 housing units, you know, half of 1%. And so what the plan tried to get at was based on the needs assessment, here's where there's gaps based on demographics and income levels. And so, you know, the idea is that it could be much bigger or smaller than this half of 1%. The half of 1% is kind of like just, you know, some rubric,
right, the state came up with. Um, so that, you know, I think the plan board understood that if we don't reach it, it's not we're not wrong, right? It's not like we're doing bad. We're we're still going to try to move uh move the needle a little bit. I think they like the idea is that I identify different demographics and housing types. And to
me, it's like the start of a conversation like, okay, if we want to have say more senior housing, what does that mean? How do we get there? If we want to have certain kinds of infill, what does that mean? Um, do we look at our apartment and townhouse definition and our bylaw? Um, because it's like a
one-sizefits-all and in most it's by special permit in most zoning districts. So, do we have to, you know, investigate that? So, I think, you know, I get it. They asked questions about the off-campus piece, but they kind of reasoned that it's a really difficult number to pin down. We know it's really
big. Uh can we work with it? Uh so they, you know, they I think they um you know, they take an approach that if they didn't agree with something, it wasn't enough to say no to the plan. It's just that maybe it' be a future discussion of how to address it. Uh let's go to Greg. Thank you. Thank
you, Nate. Um good afternoon, everybody. and and thank you for your feedback. I apologize. I'm joining from the car um uh because I'm I'm usually off at this point, but um um yeah, you know, I wanted to highlight, you know, a few things in
response to Council Member Sean's um uh questions and and comments. Um Nate mentioned the sort of the uh the town center or the you know the village center concept around you know like the the plan recommends
you know increasing density or upzoning and then leaves it to us to say okay where where should that happen? So I reiterating that um regarding affordability of new construction and um the you know the the relationship to d-restriction versus open market stuff
um uh it's absolutely correct that um you know brand new um non um non- capital A affordable homes uh you know tend to be uh more expensive um uh you know than you know than older stuff. That's, you know, that's true, you know,
uh, worldwide basically. Um, but there's an increasing amount of really good research around filtering and around, you know, the sort of occupancy chains, tenency chains where, you know, if we add a high-end, uh, you know, fairly expensive apartment. um we you know you
know it hasn't been documented in Ammerst but lots of parts of the country there's lots of examples of there's an occupancy chain that happens that when we add a higherend apartment then somebody moves in there and they don't move into the slightly more affordable apartment they in turn don't move into
the slightly more affordable apartment and so on. So really what that means is where you know by adding student housing um that's new um you know the idea would be relieving pressure on existing homes especially single family homes um you know which you know many have observed
are getting you know are getting you used by students as rentals um and the other thing I wanted to say regarding the uh you know regarding ideas around bringing cost down of new stuff you know and it also kind of relates to regional leadership this is kind of a specific
idea But I think it gets into how, you know, some of the stuff is in the weeds that's there. But, you know, one thing in there is doing, uh, pre-approved plants. Uh, so, you know, one potential path towards that might be, for example, coming up with a um, you know, a a
couple cool duplex designs. Um, and, you know, and and having the, you know, the building department and the planning board really get into those, find a way to approve them, um, broadly. Uh so that and and then make the plans available uh for free. Um so that could you know
bring cost down on the building side, not on the demand side. Um but you know but over time what that might do is make marginal development more viable where before it was not. Um it could fill a gap for somebody and get more units in the pipeline. Um and it also to the
regional point, there's no reason that if we pre-approve a few really good designs, they couldn't be exported to other communities around the region as well. Um, so just kind of a bit more in the weeds there, but um, kind of what we're thinking as far as ways to bring the cost to missing middle down and also
sort of play a regional leadership role as well. I'll stop there, but thank you. Let's see. Uh, Kathy, you've had your hand up and then Jennifer, I just want to I just want to note that we've got about 10 minutes before we
want to close. And um you know I I think it I think what I'll do is what I've been putting off since early July is writing up my page by cage comments. So Mandy, when you said cost burden, we show up in North Ammerst as cost burden
and it's because we have all these students up here and their income gets counted. Their family's income doesn't get counted. So we we pull the whole average down because we've got all these student apartments. Um, and we are targeted. We got state, it helps us. So,
we got state money for the new housing that's being put in because we're one of these targeted census tracks, but if you pulled our students out, you would get, we would look more like Pelum and the surrounding area. So, we're not an outlier. Uh there's some statements in
here and I just have to uh come back Greg you know that I think in the very executive summary and I'll go page by page that exaggerate some of the findings. Um so I understand it's a housing production plan but we have
produced a huge amount of housing in the last five to six years much more so than the surrounding regions. So to say we've lagged behind for decades, which isn't an opening sentence is overblown. So I think what I'll do is I'll just give you
page by page comments with flagged. And then I very much like what Greg was just saying. Yes, if there are some innovations where the actual price tag was lower, but I think the affordability issue is the stuff that's coming on the
market is not taking for student back to you Nate and I know we're talking about the overlay too. The student housing that's the preferred housing right now are gobbling up all these small buildings houses because they are
cheaper than the big buildings that are being built. It's not taking pressure off of the neighborhoods at all. It's not taking. And so one of the fears up in Puffton Village, Brandy Wine Town houses, these are the older apartment buildings. They have among the lowest
student rents of any of the buildings in town. They didn't follow the market the way some of the older buildings did. So they are the preferred places for affordability for students. So I want to go back to Jennifer's. I don't think our goal town's goal needs to be the
students. that should be pushed right back on UMass. Um UMass if it's growing, you know, but it should be absorbing more on campus. They chose to build the new family housing just two floors. They didn't build it bigger. They could have built more. There was a lot of land they
could have filled in on their own property. So, I think coming back to some of the strongest recommendations and then I'm going to go through the facts. just I'm okay with a laundry list at the end, but I don't think uh a
consultant should editorialize if there is a pattern that is somewhat different when you look at the take a hard look at the data. So, I'm just going to try to be really careful to flag those. Um I don't think they probably meant to do it and it makes for a much more exciting
report to read when you hear fallen behind for decades. But if we didn't fall behind for decades or we're exceeding the growth of all the surrounding towns, we should be be making those statements. So I will do what I should have done while ago. Yep. Yep. That would be great. And I
think at this point at this point if if that material is uh is sent to me or to Nate, copy me, I will put it in our packet as comments, Jennifer. And then uh Greg's got his hand up. So, John, I just need to respond.
Since I've lived here for 14 years, there have been thousands of beds added off campus. As Kathy just said, it has not relieved the pressure on single family houses. I mean, that's just it. It it it's and that narrative keeps
putting being put out there and it's just not the case. This housy production plan talks about thousands of UMass students living off campus, not in Amherst that they suggest that we build so they can live in Ammerst.
This is so far trickle down housing. I mean, we can keep building houses for these thousands of students, housing units to live here. And that's not going to, you know, it's going to be a long time before there's enough units in multifamily housing that is expensive to
house all the students that the housing production plan says are living want to be living here and are living off campus, not in Ammerst before it's going to impact single family homes and investors are no longer going to be purchasing single family homes to rent
to students. I mean at some point it's just it kind of sounds good on the surface but it's not an accurate or authentic narrative. Um and I even found and again back to editorializing I mean I think there's a lot of excellent for the consultants a lot of excellent
research and excellent statistics and I support all their encouragement and their recommendation that we try and find funding for affordable housing because they acknowledge it's not coming through the private sector. it's going to be publicly funded. We need to bring
in public funds and nonprofit organization funds to build affordable housing. But when they say, "Well, we need to be more welcoming of the students so they'll stay here after they graduate." I mean, that's like really, if you want, we're a very tiny town. The students are not leaving because they
don't feel welcomed. um there if you want to go into advertising, communications, media, you want to work for a law firm, you want to go into business, there's a whole range of, you know, professional sectors. If you want to get jobs in those sectors when you graduate, you have to leave the
Pioneer Valley. So, there's there's comments like that that I think are not um helpful and not accurate. But, I will do what Kathy did and go back through more page by page. And I just have to say I'm leaving right now not because I love this conversation but I have to be
somewhere in 10 minutes. So thanks everyone. So that that's my rant. Okay. Thank you. And and the rest of us also need to attend that meeting. So uh Nate, you want some final words and then I'm going to wrap it up and just go to next agenda preview.
Yeah. No, Jennifer, I agree with you that the scale and, you know, the issue with the students is is is really big and it's hard to say, well, you know, how do we build our way out of it? And I think the planning board, you know, um, you know, that's why they looked at University Drive, that's why they're looking at overlays. I think they really
are concerned about the loss of non- studentent households and what's happening with, you know, different, you know, single family homes and the conversion to student rentals and what's happening elsewhere. And so I think you know the housing and zoning subcommittee they've talked about well what are some longerterm approaches and what is what are some immediate things that the town
could do and it's it's really difficult to have whether it's policies regulations or bylaws in place to you know prevent those conversions right there's some you know there's you know there's communities have done minimum distancing or whatever and so the housing and zoning subcommittee kind of you know has been talking about this and so I think they're trying to look at it
from a few different perspectives longer term more immediate and how do we how do we approach it um so I agree I I think it's a it's a really it's a really big issue. And so to me, send us your comments on the plan. You know, I think what I what I like about it is it's starting a conversation and it's
something that we can try to work through. So what are some strategies to address this? And so, you know, if the plan doesn't have the strategies in there, we still can investigate it, right? I mean, it's not an exhaustive plan. And so it's what the consultants put forward. And like I said, if you know, if we really think some things are really need to be changed so you can
recommend it to council, sure. Uh we can get provide that feedback. But to me, it's like, you know, if we come up with other ideas that are in there, I think and we think they're worthwhile. I'd still pursue them. You know, it's not like we're beholden to this plan. I think to me, it's maybe it's getting us talking about things and finding
solutions. But that's that's Yeah. Um so, if we have specific comments and questions, we could send them to Nate and and Greg. Um, I didn't say anything because we ran out of time,
but I also have comments. Um, if we're if we're in the clear, I think I'm going to wrap up that topic and just talk about uh I'm not going to talk about end of year carryover right now, but next looking at next time solar
bylaw, housing production plan, and carryover items. Hopefully, we won't have a five o'clock drop dead uh deadline to get that done. The next CRC meeting will be October 9, 3 o'clock. Nothing anticipated
uh 48 hours in advance. And thank you, Greg. Appreciate seeing your face. For sure. Thank you. Thank you. Well, yeah. Um so, I'm going to make a motion to adjurnn. Is there a second? Second.
Uh, Jennifer, yes. Councelor Hanni I, and Pam Rooney is an I. So, thank you, Nate, for hanging out with us and answering those questions and Greg for joining us by car. Thanks very much.
We'll talk again next time. Thank you. You must be happy we have a hard stop. Byebye. Bye, staff. I keep going. I think it's great. I would, too. Thanks. I better I better stop the recording though.
Bye. Baby's dinner till 5. All right. See you.