It is It is May 14th. This is a regular meeting of the Community Resources Committee of the Town Council. Pursuant to chapter two 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 member this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or telephone. No in-person
attendance of members of the public is also possible, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. We will call the meeting to order. I'm going to go around and see if you can be
heard, Mandy Johenke. Present. Jennifer Taub. I'm present with shorter hair than Mandy. >> [laughter] [clears throat] >> Andy Churchill. Yes. And Pam Rooney is present. Alicia Walker
wrote and said today she has a conflict. It is her very last exam and I think then she will be done. So, [clears throat] we wish her good luck. Um there are no public hearings today
and there are no attendees, so any any in the audience who wish to speak will be given the opportunity to do so. Perhaps if folks show up later, we can have public comment at that time.
So um we can jump right into the downtown design standards. Um I saw Jeff I I want to acknowledge that Jeff Bagg is here, director of planning and economic development, and
Stephanie Chicarello is here opening the meeting for us. Um thank you, Jeff. Do you have anything you wish to actually say to the CRC at this point? We've had a nice presentation from um
you and actually from from Peter Flinckart. Yeah, I'll say a little bit briefly. Um you know, we're halfway through. I you know, this process [snorts] so that's it's been a long lead-up so there's been at least a year and a half
of stakeholder meetings and groups who have convened to create the document and then our approach was to publicly share the like the working draft of the of the whole um set of
standards volumes 1, 2, and 3. And our target really is between really like April like it was a March and April kind of like releasing the the information until around July 1st
to get feedback. Um that's that's the main thing that we're looking for is you know, >> [clears throat] >> um comments, questions, um things you like, things you don't like, where where you have questions. Um you know, this is the opportunity
especially for the for this group, the CRC. Um if you have those, we want to try to gather that before July. And then um I'm just looking online. We have everything posted online. Um and then we have a timeline kind of a
schedule where you know, we want to compile all the feedback we can get um and then use really kind of like July and August to to work back through with Dotson and Flinckart to find out
you know, what type of feedback did we get. Um they're going to categorize it and catalog it, so we'll have all the feedback accumulated. And then the I'm just going back to my notes here. Um the approach would be in August or
September to come back out and say here's what we heard and here's what would likely change or not change as a result of that. And so you know, that's a process that we want to go through together as a as as a community and then ultimately we have
the final we have the final set of design standards that we would bring to town council. And that's a little bit vague at this point. Like we have to work out how that would work. But we would send it to town council. A few things would be
under the jurisdiction of town council. Some might be the planning board. And that sort of thing. So that's the general overview. But right now we're in the process of trying to gather feedback. So glad you got the presentation from Dodson Associates. Um, we did the community meeting
um back in March. And so yeah, I didn't know um I kind of Athena kind of invited me to this just to find out I guess if you guys have questions or if you need any other guidance, I'm I'm available to do that. Thank you.
I didn't I didn't actually know who was going to to be here if we were going to have somebody. Um I took the time to look at the volume one and that's primarily the maps and um some just some of the descriptions of
the different zones and I wondered if it would be appropriate to just walk through some of those. I I think I can um I'm going to see if I can share. Um actually before before we dive into that, I just want to say um
at least by at least by um two like 2:30 at the very latest, I would like to switch over and talk about ZBA and planning board appointments. So, if we can keep an eye on that, we may not need to talk that long today, but anyway.
Before [clears throat] I went further, let's see if I can Let's see if I can share. Can everybody see that? Does it show the whole Yes, now I'm seeing it. Tell me when it's Tell me when you can actually see it.
I think if you zoom out a little bit more, you we we can't see the whole map just yet. That's good, I think. Okay. That pretty much covers it. Do Do Does anybody within the CRC Do you
have any um comments or thoughts about the the districts that are being described? Do they appear to be uh appropriate in their um in their description, in their placement, et cetera? Mandy?
Yeah um I've got I [clears throat] I know there will be disagreement on on this body with this, but um I have concerns about the um downtown neighborhood designation for
North Pleasant Street by Kendrick Park, um and wondered why it wouldn't be a downtown village uh designation. And then I also had a similar concern about the four properties on Kellogg Avenue
that are trying to be designated proposed downtown neighborhood. Um They're across from They're They're sort of surrounded by a proposed traditional Main Street. Um and I don't quite
understand why we wouldn't either why we're plan proposing to offset them sort of surrounded by a traditional Main Street. Um Where could they go to a downtown village or even the traditional Main
Street? And I understand why, given what they are, you might not want a traditional Main Street there. Um But why couldn't they be a downtown village? It seems a a jarring difference between being surrounded on basically
three sides or two sides by Main Street and then going all the way down to downtown neighborhood um instead of downtown village. So those were the two main concerns I had about the the proposed zones. I've got some
concerns about um the the I think this one's got commercial proposal on this one. Is that Is that the sheet that's up right now? The proposed commercial. Um I would require commercial ready on everything that that
borders um Kendrick Park to the west. Commercial? Commercial ready. Not not actual commercial, but commercial ready. Um on that whole strip. Um that that along the the proposed downtown neighborhood on on
Kendrick. And then similarly, um I would want to see medium-size sidewalks along Kendrick Park at a minimum. There's that one side, which I think is the next page, that has a proposed small sidewalks for Kendrick on
the sides of Kendrick Park. And I I feel like if we're going to surround a park, we want wide enough sidewalks for lots of strollers to pass and everything and I don't understand why we wouldn't require a medium width sidewalk not a instead of the small that is proposed
for that border of Kendrick Park. Thank you. Uh Jennifer. Um yeah, I just wanted before I comment, I guess to respond to what Councillor Hennessy some of her comments. So that area
um that you were questioning why that would be part of business neighborhood um that's it's So I would say that when you are there on the ground, that very much is much more a part of the residential
area to the west of it. So it's really it has uh limited business to the east and to the south, but the street that it's on is not a wide thoroughfare and it's really
the feel is part of the RG neighborhood. So and as is So that's McLellan Street and McLellan is a it's literally probably the width of your driveway. It
is a tiny It's not a I guess what I'm saying it's not a main street at all. It's it's a barely passable narrow little street and on the other side of it well, particularly behind um where those
buildings are, the residences are a North Pleasant across from Kendrick Park. Right when you get behind that on McLellan, I mean, that is a residential neighborhood. It it I think it absolutely has to be um
downtown neighborhood because it is not the look or feel of downtown. Um and then in terms of having those buildings on North Prospect be commercial ready, I mean if we're saying that we're
hard-pressed to have commercial tenants in the areas that are already zoned commercial, um I just I mean that's I could see putting more housing there, but that I just don't see why we would I mean I'm
open to discussion, but it doesn't feel like we would ever necessarily have commercial there. I mean it's just a very residential feel. It it doesn't even Yeah, cuz when you're on that side of Kendrick Park, you're
downtown adjacent, but you don't feel like you're to people that live here that you're downtown. I don't know what you're saying. I mean cuz you're live Um I just want to respond. The
you were focusing on McClellan Street and the three or four properties that do that that that attach to McClellan, but this this whole section goes all the way up to Fearing. It goes to North Pleasant Street that is very much not necessarily residential. I mean I I I see I think
Pam is trying to show a thing. The top of Kendrick has massive apartments and lots of parking lots and a an old hotel across the street. Like that's not a residential-ish area and it's the exact the spot that I think early on before I
moved here part of that nearby area was being considered for um uh the I don't know what it was called um some sort of connector business type section between downtown and UMass.
Yeah, and it was turned down. >> so I I I I'm not going to argue that it was turned down, but it was instead of speaking. Okay, but we're talking about different places. >> No, I was speaking and you're not allowed to interrupt. Those are the rules. >> [laughter] >> You have to wait your turn. Um I get my
time. Um you know, and so if we're looking at revitalizing a downtown, I think we need to be prepared and we have to accept some change and I think generalizing and and codifying this into
a residential area when I I I will always disagree with you, Jennifer, in terms of downtown adjacent. Kendrick Park is downtown and if you are next to Kendrick Park, you are downtown. Um I I will maintain that forever. Um that that
is not an adjacent to downtown. That is downtown. Um and so we have to be willing to consider um changes and zoning that will it live into the future as potential uses and
that's why I say I'd like to see it even if it stays downtown whatever this one's called um neighborhood, that we should consider requiring larger sidewalks um cuz people do walk those those areas and at minimum commercial ready if you're
going to rebuild there. Um that that you know, like we are for and commercial ready is being required for downtown village, too. And and I think for that particular area, you need to consider commercial ready at a minimum and I'm I'm still going to
just disagree with North Pleasant Street up at the top of Kendrick Park is residential. It is not. It's it's it's much more of a um denser residential into village center
downtown village than it is residential. Jennifer and then Pam. Okay, so there's the Cottage Street triangle. I don't know if it's Cottage Street, but there's the triangle where Kendrick opposite where the Kendrick Place apartment is. That is different
than the area to the west of Kendrick Park, which is zoned RG. I mean, it's not zoned Central Business District. There are no commercial properties there. I mean, I I I walk that like every day. Those are you know,
two and maybe three-story old residential buildings. There's a single-family home. Um that hotel is all I mean, it's not a hotel. It's a residence. It's It's all residential. I mean, there's there's no and it's Again, you can say it's downtown adjacent, but it is a different
zoning district because it's not downtown. And I really I know that when you live far from downtown, it all seems downtown, but when you live here and you know each block, there's a is a huge difference between the RG and then the BL and then the Central
Business District, the General Business District. So again, there's no commercial on that west side of Kendrick Park. Okay, my hand is raised, but but I can't get to it. Um I have always thought about this strip
along Kendrick Park as the buildings aren't necessarily beautiful quality, but from from the top of Kendrick Park all the way down to um Hallock Street really is sort of representative of what I would expect
around a town common in New England. The the spacing is such along here and it is it is I have to I have to agree. It is entirely residential except for this one building at the corner that was that was
revamped. Actually, it's residential, too. It just got It just got renovated. Um But um this So, this is the AT&T building or whatever it is, and this is a UMass building. So, we'll just discount them for now, but but it felt, I guess,
logical to include them in this zone. Um I'm going to talk a little bit about buffers. And I appreciate that there's some indication of something special happening between
a new dense zone and and I'll just say the encroaching residences. This downtown If you look at the share, coffee place, if you look at all these buildings along here, they were previously um they were residences. I think a
friend of ours lived in what is now Hair by Harlow. She grew up in that house. Um I just learned that the two houses that were on this corner where the the beautiful BayBank I'm excuse me, BayBank, that was a throwback. Um
Bank of America kiosk is uh where there were two houses that got moved out and relocated across town. So, the down the the neighborhoods came right down to Triangle Street. It is the is the sort of the the growth
of this downtown area that that has, you know, bumped up against residences. I feel very strongly that we need to take a close look a closer look than was given in this in this proposal of how
the treatment between a new zone and an adjacent neighborhood actually happens. And And that goes to the setbacks and the heights of buildings allowed immediately adjacent to um
to the existing residences. So, that's one of my concerns. Um in terms of commercial ready, uh you know, this is this along Triangle Street is shown with commercial ready. This section between um McClellan and
Hallock is shown as commercial ready. They are They are used commercially now. That doesn't seem like a huge leap to me. Um I I do agree that sidewalks could be more spacious.
Uh I had to chuckle that I guess I could go to the sidewalk map. I had to chuckle that the sidewalk narrows down right here at One East Pleasant Street because in fact they squeezed it and there is very little
sidewalk there. So, it made a a a logical but inappropriate decision to narrow the sidewalks from that point going north. Um Mandy's point about this sidewalk should perhaps be wider makes some sense, um
but I think they were actually talking about well, it's it's now going to be right up against the the roadway because um space was taken to put it put angled parking in along Kendrick Park, which by the way works really well and it's completely
filled with folks who live in the on-street parking permits that you know, that live here. Um let me go back to that other map. Any um So, those are just really general comments for me, but more details to follow.
Uh can I go to Andy first? Andy? Yeah, I um I've seen the presentation twice now and um uh I'm just reacting more to the vision um
than to any particular specifics, but I it feels to me like you know, some people feel like it should be denser in some areas, some people feel like it should be less dense in some areas, and so to me that means that it's a it's it's a pretty good compromise. Um
I like the I like the way that it's um that it handles the downtown by not having one monolithic zone. Um and to me the sort of
distribution of types of um you know, the vibe in these various areas feels roughly appropriate. Um So, I don't you know, I I've heard from some folks and you know, that that it could be denser, you know, on the left
side of Kendrick Park. And I sympathize to a certain extent, but I think you know, even with the uh downtown neighborhood, I think that it'll it'll allow some densification and
and in a way that you know, feels appropriate to me um adjacent to the park. Um So, in general, I'm impressed with the effort and I was impressed with the diversity of opinions on the committee
that worked for all this time and the fact that uh Dawson and Flinco were able to come up with something that that sort of you know, split the difference or got general approval from that group is impressive
to me and I think it's a really good start. So, I'm just I'm I'm to happy to learn more, but but I I think it's a I think it's pretty impressive. Thanks. Um Mandy and then and then Jennifer. >> [clears throat]
>> Thank you. Um I do have to respond again if it in in a comment that was made that says I don't know what downtown is or can't feel like what downtown is similar to what um people who live down there are because I don't live down there. Um
our downtown belongs to the entire community and everyone has their own views of what downtown is just because I don't live in downtown now doesn't mean my view of the what encompasses downtown is any less valid than someone who lives
closer to downtown or as I would call it in downtown. Um and I will remind people that I actually did live in what I call downtown. Um at Jennifer, I know you disagree with my definition of downtown but I lived about the same distance from downtown that you
do and when I lived there at that time I considered that part of Kendrick Park part of downtown. My view of downtown is not any less valid than yours as to what it accomplishes a
encompasses simply because I no longer live in the area. We have to get away from um just because we live in different parts of town means our views of what various parts of town are are less valid because of how far away we live from
there. We are all Amherst residents and all of our views about what downtown is or what South Amherst is, my view of where South Amherst ends is totally different than someone else's that lives in South Amherst and probably is totally different than yours but I don't
discount it because you don't live in South Amherst or that I I live in North Amherst and so I can't say what North Amherst is. We're all residents. We're all representing residents of our town, and all of our views are valid. Right.
Jennifer. Yeah. Well, I guess to respond to that, there is a downtown. There is a central business district. So, yes, I may say South Amherst is, I don't know, Jeffrey Street, and I could be wrong, but there I'm sure there's there are borders of downtown. I mean, there are different
zoning districts. So, when I say I don't live downtown, it's because I live in a general resident district that between the general resident district and the central business district is a limited business district. So, I literally don't live downtown.
By not my definition, but by the zoning definition. And yes, everybody, it's everybody's downtown, it's everybody's town, but zoning changes, there are certain areas of town that never have zoning changes.
So, but that's another conversation. Um so, I do have a question about commercial ready. What exactly would that be? Would that mean that you couldn't have a residential space on the first floor? Because that kind of for that the
for the western side of um Kendrick Park, I I so, it's not that I oppose there being commercial there at all, but I'm just it seems like there if there's would we be sacrificing residential space where
there may not be a demand for commercial space? That's really my question. So, I guess my question to Jeff is what would commercial ready look like there? And I see Jeff put his hand up. Yeah, I can try to answer that. I mean, uh it's not a technical a formal technical response, but I think
the idea is future future focused. So, more thinking about if there were new buildings in the future, it's about how they were designed during construction. So, a lot of the a lot of the conversations about the ground ground
ready uh yeah, design and ready for commercial uses the height of the ceiling and some [clears throat] of the structure that goes around that. So, I think the requirement in the future would be that a new building gets constructed so that
it can be either it can be cuz as I like residential is like a uh lesser standard to meet. So, you could if you build it to commercial standards which are more strict, higher ceilings, you could you could always have the residential on the first floor, but it's the ability to to convert it.
So, you know, with their with a larger shift in the economy, for example, like there could be a a residential unit on the first floor, but in the future it might actually be better as a commercial and so they can they do a lot less renovation to change it back to commercial. So, that's the idea of the
the making it ready is more like for future construction. Yeah, I I'm not opposed to those to there being commercial there. Yeah, and I think I'll just one other thing cuz I think it came up in the initial presentation that happened at the in March was
just trying to acknowledge that right now um you know, commercial first floor commercial is a little tricky, tough. Uh it's harder to fill the first floor commercial. So, the the difference between the the bigger darker dashed lines
are where like first floor commercial is totally viable. And then as [clears throat] you go a little bit further from that the the core downtown or on a side street, we we want to move away from requiring that first floor commercial because it's it's a lot
harder to fill, um just given a lot of the economic things that are out there, but so hopefully that's a good explanation of that that thing, that element. Yes, thank you. Uh Andy and then Pam. Yeah, I guess just uh
on the uh commercial ready, does that What kind of What kind of commercial are we talking about? I mean, uh the And how much cost Does that add a lot of extra cost to the the residential building? Uh if you're trying to make it
commercial ready, are you putting in you know, potential ventilation that the a restaurant could go in there or is it more like, you know, a store or or something? It's a good question, you know, and that's >> [snorts] >> the type of question that through this
next couple months, you know, with [snorts] your uh any other future discussions, like if you can articulate that question, that would be good to get the dots in Flinker to make sure that they give give that answer back. Um but my understanding is this wouldn't be like
fitting out like the ventilation for a restaurant. That would, you know, it would be like this There There might be like And I'm just kind of I'm not uh an architect, but for example, if there was like a steel beam, you know, that created the the ceiling in that first floor
commercial, like the steel beam would be in place and everything else would get built up around that. And if if it was residential for a couple years and then they wanted to switch it to restaurant, they would have to remove some of that. They would have to vent all it. Like, they would then put in the ventilation
system for for the tailored use. Uh I think presumably it would add a little bit to construction costs, but I think in the long run, it's it gives [clears throat] that property owner the flexibility to potentially change with changing demographics and things like that in a lot less expensive
way in the long run. Um so, hopefully that's another answer to that, too. I was thinking about the the commercial ready as well and recognizing that we have seen the planning board permit a number of
mixed-use buildings, even some down along Main Street and closer to the to the railroad tracks. Um Those are I mean those are pretty much
designed with a minimum of retail space. Um I think perhaps because it is expensive to set up and you don't know you don't know what the demand might be. Uh I think it's it's easy to say let's make
it commercial ready. But I I look at the place like um um What is it? The 11 East Pleasant Street with the IR restaurant and then protocol and then the new building 11 East
Pleasant Street, excuse me, that um that has still not opened. The lobby space has not opened and there is no commercial activity on that ground floor. It's going to be it's going to be kind of a uh
a major call for a developer to decide how much space um should be commercial. And and if you can somehow if I think about 11 East Pleasant Street cuz I walk that way a lot and I face
that building, I face the north side of the building. The entire lower level um except for the doorway and the the door opening to the north, there aren't there aren't windows along that stretch. It's
it's not very conducive to having residential um units. And I think that's where they put most of their, you know, their workout space and a couple other things. Um uh they also did put their affordable
units on that lower level with windows to the south, I believe. Anyway, so it takes some real planning to to create commercial ready or mixed-use space, I think. Yeah. Can I add one thing to that? Just I cuz I think, you know, I think it is
an important reminder that you know, this like this this map that's up now like is from a landscape architecture kind of approach where based on, you know, walkability and the current buildings and then like envisioning future buildings. This is
this is where they would project like at least having the option, but not requiring it. Um, where the implementation comes in, so things Pam, like you were talking about like the amount of first floor commercial that would come, I think it's in volume two.
Uh, that would come That's going to come later like in the fall or the, you know, the winter when when actual zoning gets created to implement this. So, this is the this is still on the the vision side. This is the This is what they This is what we all see as
like potentially viable in the future and then there are future discussions about how much retail and how would this get implemented over time and that would come in the actual zoning amendment, which hasn't crafted yet. So, even this is kind of a two-step process, which is this is the vision plan and then we go to that volume two to
um, in volume two plus like so coming back to actually create some zoning around this. Yeah. Um, I was going to make one more comment and then maybe we we can move on. Um, I could go to the actual different zones. So, I also
Hold your Hold your hats for a minute while I scroll. Okay, this is the this is the one that um, I was going to focus on. These are what they're calling the business I mean, excuse me, residential village, downtown village. So, we have
the what are currently the the limited business districts in the downtown. Um I consider these pretty pretty key to the to the safety. I'll just say safe. That's a bad
word. To the the protection of the neighborhoods surrounding this this downtown. [clears throat] In that um I'll I'll point out my house. I mean, I'm I'm clearly in this in this mix. So, here's
my house and here's the limited business district. So, when I think of the example from the Ruger's, the Hanyan Bakery, Share Coffee, this block right here is very different topographically. It starts low at North
Pleasant Street. It climbs the hill to North Prospect Street. In this example, the houses that remain along North Prospect Street sit at the top of the hill. You could very easily have a four-story
building here or in the middle of this block and it would not dramatically affect the people living the top of the hill. Conversely, the Triangle Street Limited Business District or
downtown village, it's very flat and what we saw in the 40R proposals were four-story buildings immediately adjacent to story and a half or two-story
townhouses, two-story homes, and the the shadowing that is cast by four-story buildings is is really awful. Um I sit in an upst- I mean, this is all about me right here, right now.
I'm just going to go through this. I sit in my office in this building right here, the shade from this building 400 ft away cuts off my my evening light in the winter by half an hour. And it's a long
ways away. This a four-story building along this edge would affect, you know, six rows in of housing. It's a sure-fire way to complete the drive of
a place like Cottage Street into rental units and and seeing people homeowners just leave because it's no longer it's no longer a viable place to live in the manner that they have. So, does that sound
Anyway, um, I just want to make sure that to Jeff's point or to Jeff specifically, I think we need cross sections shown of every proposed dimensional standard that
is being suggested so that we have an an opportunity to say, yes, we understand what business or what downtown village really means. This is how it could be built out. And this is how it will drive its relationship to the
surrounding homes. And that's something that I will ask for is is more, um, cross sections. Jennifer, oh, sorry. Um, Andy and then Jennifer. Yeah, I I guess I was just sort of reflecting on the conversation about,
you know, what downtown has been, you know, has been zoned at and versus um, you know, what it might be zoned at. And I I think that this is an attempt to be forward-looking, right? So, it might be that there's never been
commercial alongside Kendrick Park. And I And I did I think I heard Jennifer say she wasn't against commercial there. So, uh but I'm just I'm thinking that, you know, with the university further up the road there, uh up uh North Pleasant,
you know, there there may be an opportunity to expand what the historic uh size of downtown was in appropriate ways, um you know, directing traffic down there rather than through neighborhoods. Um
and so I'm I I I guess I'm just sort of thinking that we should be looking at this as not just addressing areas that have been zoned strictly downtown previously, but but that we might be looking forward to cer- you know, certainly some
densification and and in a way that might um you know, change a little bit the the location of downtown. So, I'm just sort of looking forward rather than um at what's been in the past. Thank you. Jennifer.
Yeah, like I said, I'd be happy I'd love to go get a coffee cup of coffee on the west side of Kendrick Park, but I just again, for context, why we don't want downtown expanding into
the residential neighborhoods that are zoned differently and are not part of downtown, but are in walking distance to downtown, is that is actually, you know, I feel like a lot of District 4 are still places where the kind of
households we want to live here, you know, the teachers, the nurses, the there are like Mcclellan Street, Beston Street, Page Street. Those are small houses on small lots. And they're houses that are still
relatively affordable. Um, there's a lot of there's year-round residents. There's a lot of houses rented to students. There's lots of infill. I mean, Mcclellan is if you want to see infill, that's it. And unfortunately, there's
way too many cars for the street, but these are not We don't want to lose these neighborhoods cuz these are fragile neighborhoods and among the few neighborhoods where our workforce can live. So, um,
so it's you know, one thing to look at ex- extending downtown in the areas that are already downtown. I mean, you know, changing what's there, but we don't want to have what are stable, long-term
residential neighborhoods with working families in small houses on small lots also living in a in a neighborhood that's zoned for multi-family housing and has lots of student housing. We don't want to lose that neighborhood. And again, those are the people who
use downtown 12 months a year. And I know when I've for a while I was literally every time I'd be in Easthampton like I I think at the um, I'm forgetting the name of it. The ice cream shop there. You know, when I go to other towns, I'm always like, "Why don't you know, why don't you open the
ice cream you know, an ice cream shop in Amherst?" And you know, the the response I would usually get is, "Well, you know, it's only viable as a commercial place, you know, seven or eight months a year. And so, we really don't want to lose more of those residents
who really actively on a daily basis use downtown all year round. Uh thank you. Any other comments? This is This topic um and these zones, Mandy.
Yeah, I I want to echo Andy's comments. You know, I I think you know, I've got some concerns with some of the design things, you know, if we're in this volume one or whatever that's the overall vision, the overall vision
I think is as Andy said, a good compromise, even if I would like it to go a little farther, and I know some people don't want it to go as far, right? I think that's probably the definition of a good compromise. Um I do like that they did find some way to
to acknowledge sort of our different parts of the the the current downtown area. Um
you know, I as I've said, I have a different expansive view of what downtown is. Um I would like to see our commercialish section maybe be [clears throat] able to be expanded. I think that's what Andy was saying. I think anything we look at here, we must
consider the future. Um which is why I I suggest things like we should have that even if it stays this downtown residence or whatever they called it, um the green that I was talking about on the east side of the west side of Kendrick Park, I think we
have to be forward-looking and consider zoning in Amherst is hard to change. So, anything we do is likely to be stuck for 50 or 60 years before we fight it out again, in a sense. Um and and we have to look forward to
forward-looking in time to what that means and we don't know what that means and so it could be that people swing back to doing a lot of stuff in person that they aren't doing now. Um and we need more commercial for that purpose, but we don't need it now, hence
the commercial ready, which I really do like the proposal for commercial ready around a lot of the downtown having been through a tough conversation six or seven years ago about the mixed-use building necessity and what
that looks like and we've had some of those recently too regarding University Drive. So I love the move to instead of absolute commercial required that might end up either with empty storefronts, which we don't want or stopping redevelopment completely,
um moving to a more flexible type of of permitting and building process. Um I do worry though that some of this proposal and recognizing those zones and
some of this conversation is trying to um keep Amherst not what we love about it, but in the past as a a thinking that any type of change is bad.
Um Times evolve, times change and I think we need to recognize that a look or a place or a building can
change without changing what makes our town lovable. And I think we have a a a hard time as a community accepting that premise that people disagree with
that premise, but I really do believe that you can maintain your connection to the parts you love of what makes a town or a building or a area lovable while
also making it work for not just today's generations and today's people that are living here, but future generations. Um People used to love buildings that didn't have any electrical or any modern
plumbing or anything like that, small windows. And over time they get updated to increase the light, to add modern electricity, to changing from gas lighting to that. That changes the feel of a building, but it makes it more
usable for today's and future generations. Adding the plumbing in so that you don't have the outhouse outside. You know, I think sometimes we get too fixated on on preserving because of sentiment while not
recognizing that we need to be able to be useful for future generations and their needs. And I do worry that some of these proposed zones are too backwards looking
instead of forward looking for what future residents and generations need. Uh Jennifer. Did you want to speak Pam? Um I did, but I can go after you. Okay, in in
thank you. Um I was thinking about the the historic character if uh I I was so chuckling because if I think about visiting a city of you name it, I typically go to their historic
districts and I appreciate the detail on the buildings. I appreciate the uh you know, sort of the the qualities of the architecture, that kind of thing. Um it's not a nostalgia per se, but it is an appreciation of
um really often the scale of how I feel as a human being walking around in those districts. If I go to Amsterdam, I do not go to the mid-century, you know, flats. I go to I go to the sale. I go to the you know, the the historic center. Um
I think I think uh the town has evolved. I understand where you're where you're talking about the town needs to evolve. I think of all the the houses that I mentioned, you know, along along here that were in fact homes and um
somebody threw a porch on the front and it became Herby Harlow. Um somebody somebody threw a uh uh you know, a connector roof between between one building and the next and it became the bakery. Um
so there's clearly been a fair amount of of um modification as we go. So, we're being we're being challenged to think about you know, if Amherst grows larger, where would we where would we focus the energy
of of housing and commercial and make it an attractive place. Um sometimes you can uh you can grow and and lose the qualities that that make it the fun,
funky college town, which is that sort of organic look of yeah, we added the porch, we added that back wing, we turned this this house into a professional building cuz we built on the back. Those to me are the adaptive reuse
of some of the the actual historic towns um is an appropriate way to keep what we like, but also allow um for some modernization, you know, behind
those buildings. So, I'm I'm supportive of of that concept of of adaptive reuse and and somehow perhaps um incentivizing that to allow additional square footage beyond, you know, what the zoning would
allow. Jennifer and then Andy. Yeah, I guess I was going to kind of speak to the adaptive reuse in that you know, you don't need to change the zoning. Um you know, when we went, you know, to go from not having electricity to a
electricity or when we, you know, when the internet came about, we didn't have to rezone so we could have Wi-Fi. So, I think that we can keep up with future changes in technology or building you know, whatever without you don't have to
rezone. And I do So, I do think these different zones that came out of the downtown design center work um you know, does allow it keeps I think where we are historic I agree with everything Pam said. I think, you know, whenever I see pictures of Amherst
whether it's on the internet or in pictures, it's usually that area around town hall. It's the oldest part about by the common cuz it looks like a charming New England town. And then as this zoning map shows, there's, you know, where we acknowledge
that there's an area that coming more modern and it that can keep happening. But I I think, you know, when we talk about changing for the future, I mean, of course you want people have different perceptions of what that is, but you want change that's good change. And at
the point at which you may be changing so that the people that you know, like when Pam mentioned Cottage Street, if the change is going to be if you're asking people, yeah, you have to plan for the future and that's going to mean you're essentially going to have to leave your neighborhood, that
that's a step too far. I mean, if people leave Amherst, they don't have a stake in what Amherst is in the future. But again, I think that this is basically is a good effort to keep a historic part
of downtown that I think most people do value and then say what we have different parts of downtown, which are going to reflect different periods in the growth of the town. Andy. Yeah I um I I just
that that sounds good to me. Um you know, I I I think that that's how I thought about it, too, is that that it's a good faith effort to recognize that there's the beautiful old section that everybody loves and then there's a a modern section that could be better and that there's and then in the other
sections, I think the goal or a goal is to enable more people to live downtown, which would then enable more viability of commercial activity, too. Um you know, you have more customers living
close to places that can then serve them. So, um you know, so I I I think that's what this attempts to do in a in sort of a moderate way and um
so so I think that the viability the commercial viability um will be enhanced by having you know, uh a a greater population living in in in in the downtown area and
um you know, that that may and again, some of the traffic patterns of students, you know, if you look at where Southwest is and you look at where the the spoke is, the straight shot is through through neighborhoods. But if if you start to develop um
you know, maybe some more things along North Pleasant, maybe North Pleasant becomes more of a you know, a a thoroughfare for people rather than be cutting through neighborhoods. I don't know, but so in terms of thinking about the benefits of having some ability to
put some things along that strip, um that might be one, but overall, I I you know, I I I like the approach and I think the devil will be in the details, but I hope we can get some of this through. Jeff, and then and then we're going to do a quick wrap-up.
Great. Um thanks. I I mean, I think this is a great discussion. I think um it's not it's not really a surprise and I think there's that certain area that I think a lot of people have focused on and so that's okay. Um I just had a couple quick things I just wanted to
mention and kind of remember like how to where to couch this in terms of the process. So, um this stage isn't I I have some notes. I'm just reading from notes I was just trying to gather. Uh it isn't necessarily solving all the
issues right now. It's more it's more important right now for this group and other groups to identify identify you know, things that you agree on or like and then areas where there are disagreements. So, just just remember over the next month or so, it's not necessarily solving the problem yet,
but it's identifying where you think and it it might boil down to each member having a different position. Like I don't see how the CRC is just going to say it was all great. So, there'll be a itemized list and I think that's okay. I think cuz you're really involved and you're really knowledgeable and you're really thinking about it. So, I think
each one of you identifying where you think there's a question or a concern and and kind of articulate what your question or concern is. And this is an opportune time where we still have dots and then Flinker on board is we want to get them all the
comments like yours and others so that they can digest it, synthesize it, and and look at it. And some will be solvable. Um some will find where there's agreement. And so like maybe like check them off the list. Like that's okay. But
and then examine there's definitely going to be some things that are going to have to be more closely examined. Um it's like a feedback loop. And so that revision will take place and it comes back to town council. So, you're you will get another
opportunity to really vote on something a little bit later down the road. So, just think about this is like informing, you know, these consultants with the specific things. Um So, I'm saying that uh
the I just two more bullets I just wanted to kind of touch on, you know, um really important is the vision. You know, like don't don't forget to look at the vision and statement cuz if there are things that people are agreeing to with the vision, that's great.
This obviously seems like something very specific and important in terms of the zones and where things are in the park. First, so it's an area of focus. Um and I just want to reiterate that um the third volume is the public realm. So,
you know, I went to the um Commission for Persons with Disabilities. They got their presentation uh yesterday, I think it was. And you know, it's really from the curb on the road like the curb in the road to the front of buildings. So, that's where
you have like the walkways and you have the bike racks and trees and stuff. So, I do want to make sure that the group gets to that and looks at the public realm volume because you know, we have a lot of deferred maintenance on especially North Pleasant
Street that we have a DPW who is who's gearing up and kind of starting to say, "If we know what we need If we have design standards, we want to like start pursuing funding and start improving the public realm portion." So, um
last thing is kind of volume two, which is a lot of the kind of like conceptual zoning amendments. You know, that's clearly going to be the most challenging part of this. Um carefully considered. But, I do think that if
we as a community can't get through that um when it comes back you know, in the fall when it comes back to town council if if the zoning is just really too much to accomplish right now, we we will need to pivot to the public realm and try to get some agreement on the streetscape
improvements and and things cuz that's easier for people to agree on Mhm. Because we have a DPW who is who's growing more eager to to pursue upgrades of crosswalks, sidewalks, you know, that sort of thing. So, I just wanted to kind of put it in a little bit of perspective that this is a really great time for you
guys to provide the detailed input and then we have the design professionals still on board to help digest and they can help make sense of certain changes and and kind of comprehend what people are are providing for input. So, we want to get that to them in July. So,
that was just my big reiteration. I think a lot of this is normal and expected to have as discussion. So, um it's okay. Um just focusing on don't forget about the public realm side. Thank you. Uh Jennifer and then Andy.
Um all right, this is a little in the weeds, but it has to do with the feedback form on the website for the design center guidelines. Um I don't know how many residents are are, you know, going to submit written comments, but a couple of mentioned to to me that you put them on a
Excel sheet. That that was a little challenging. So could I mean, residents send you an email? Or >> Yeah, I think I think we had uh I wasn't here for that part of it, but I think we had high hopes that
things would be concisely and neatly put into those categories, but we will accept any kind of written comment, and then it'll get digested and it'll kind of get put into it'll have to kind of manually go into categorical groups, so that so we can try to make sense of all that, but yeah,
if uh we've been getting emails, so Okay. maybe it's worth making a note on the website that, you know, we can just accept general comments, too, but so yeah, I I the answer is yes, people can just email, and and at this level of
discussion, I think the way you guys are all at, I mean, I'm not expecting necessarily to have you put it in the form. I don't know if that's what you guys are planning to do, but um notes on maps, you know, emails with bulleted items, like as specific as possible is key. Yeah, I just heard that from from
residents, and then when we get to the next volume, um I would concur, you know, echo what Pam requested that maybe we could see some drawings of what the build-outs actually look like. Right. So, I think if we get that as
feedback in this between now and July, you [clears throat] know, we'll have to make sure the consultants can do that. They may not be able to do every single one, so we'll have to we'll have to navigate that, but I think that's a reasonable request, and then we just have to figure out how they can do that. Um but yeah, that's that's the idea, for
sure. Thank Right. Andy, then I'm going to put my hand up, too. Andy, Mandy, and Pam. I'm curious the um thinking about Kendrick Park and how it's become more of a center or more of
a gathering spot for families. Um and Jenny said that you know, it would be great to be able to walk from Kendrick Park and grab a cup of coffee or an ice cream or something. >> for the kids. Yeah, so
I I can see that then that strip that's proposed downtown neighborhood there. Um would that preclude having like some little shops that might serve the the interests and needs of families who are
at the playground or or would would that would somebody who wanted to open a cafe there or or a sandwich place or something be able to do so? I'll weigh in. It's it it's looks like it's strictly residential.
The the uh Now downtown neighborhood there >> this blue zone with the little dots of of commercial um is where Silverscape is now. Um you know, and and these are these are definitely commercial type buildings
now. They're office space. Um but this is the I mean, theoretically, this is where you might fill in between some of these historic buildings and provide some of the shops because it is if it became this village zone um
it would be perfect. Mandy. Yeah. >> Are you finished Are you finished, Andy? Yeah, well, I get I guess that was my question. Would would would it be beneficial to have some of the the uh the strictly spot, you know, space on the east on the
western side of Kendrick Park be able to allow those kinds of you know, servicing the people on the who who you know, that the cafe kind of things or and I don't know what does that mean making that more of a downtown village? I don't know.
Good question. Yeah, that would be a good question to ask. Mandy. So, um right now mixed-use in that green section is proposed to not be allowed according to volume two's use table. So, I the use table of volume two doesn't talk about anything
strictly commercial. It starts with it it it talks about the the use table for residential buildings within our our zoning bylaw, not the commercial side of it. But, if they're proposing a no for downtown neighborhood for mixed-use
buildings, um then my guess is there's a lot of no's then for anything that is non completely non-residential. Um but, we don't have the full proposal in front of us. So, it it is it's part of why I don't like that downtown neighborhood,
that particular part of downtown neighborhood um being downtown neighborhood, and I think a downtown village is a lot better. I wanted to comment on the need for um visuals for build-out. Um there are
visuals in volume one. We just paged through a number of them of what things could look like based on everything proposed in volume two and three. Um so, I'm not sure what you want more than those visuals that you paged through. Um I I find
visuals tough um because everyone's looking for something else, and a visual a lot of times is is visualized for a complete build-out, and then people look at that and say, "Oh my god, that's what's going to happen in 3 years."
The minute we change zoning, that's what's going to happen. But, zoning is iterative. Zoning is time. Zoning is decades. And whatever that visual shows might not ever occur, number one. Um and number two, even if it does, it might
take 50 years or more for it to occur. Think about when when downtown when town meeting changed and allowed five-story buildings, it was nearly a decade before the first one even went up, I believe. Um I I I don't know the timing, but it
was a while. It was not immediately. I will tell you it was not within 6 months was the permit issued. It was a while. Um and and the whole downtown has not transformed to five-story buildings. We haven't lost every single building that a visual would have shown being lost to
five-story buildings. If you ask for a visual of it changing the entire BG to allow a fifth story, the visual that people are asking for would show a visual of every BG plot having a fifth story. And we're not
there, and we may never be there because the church may never go away. You know, like some of these might not ever go away. So, I always worry that visuals are unrealistic. Um because it assumes complete build-out
near immediately and complete build-out to complete ma- maximum. And that is almost never happens in zoning. Um and so, I I think what is provided in volume one for visuals is good enough at
this time. I'm I'm going to respond to that if I could. So, when I asked for um additional information, the the illustrations that that Flinker produced are wonderful. They are a uh you know, I
used to draw these layouts. This is what a great you know, cluster neighborhood might look like. It's got lots of trees and what what um what it doesn't show is if you if you take the
dimensional standards that are proposed just like you could take today our you know, our BL dimensional standards and say if you if you could max out um the a construction of building X, how
far from the property line would it be? How tall could it be? And and actually show that in a cross-section. So you show what an existing building looks like the property line, the setback and then
the the the four-story um edifice, you know, next to it. What what The illustrations that were given were are beautiful. They show tree buffers between um for instance,
uh up here along North Prospect Street. It showed wonderful tree buffers between the high-density village and the neighbors. Along along here, it showed some some vegetation between the proposed
buildings and the neighbors. But it also it also illustrated buildings that were not the maximum. And if a developer has the opportunity, this all this is one owner. This is one
owner. If the developer the owner sells and a developer comes in, there's no reason that they would provide extra green space between the edifice of a new building and the property line. They don't have to.
Um, that's what I want people to be able to see is that visualization of what does this dimensional standard mean in terms of actual building. And it's it's appropriate to ask for it is
what could be built. Jennifer. Um, yeah, so I've lived here 14 years and in that time they uh they changed the zoning to allow for cuz I was on town meeting then five-story buildings downtown and three or four have been
built. So it hasn't been that I mean buildings went up fairly quickly. I mean if they re-zoned because a developer wanted to put up a five-story building. So I would say that those the Archipelago buildings downtown are an example that when they went up, I'm
not saying everybody and this is anecdotal, but a number of people were surprised they could be so close to the street, you know, that there was not more of a setback. So I think that would have been helpful. It would be helpful to be able not to see
you know, you don't have to show build out going all the way down Pleasant Street from you know, the B of A building to um Triangle Street, but I I think you know, again because there may not have been a visual, a lot of residents were
surprised that those buildings could loom the way they do over the sidewalk. So I think that's where I think the visuals are helpful. I would like to wrap up this conversation. It's been a really good one. Um,
I am I am sort of grappling with how the CRC puts its hands around this document um and I would be uh open to ideas. I see Mandy has an idea already.
Um but going forward, I think um certainly certainly council will look to the CRC for some sort of report or feedback on um
characteristics of this plan that seem doable and appropriate. Um but obviously we don't have we don't have member-for-member, you know, alignment necessarily with with um
let's see here. So looking for looking for some way to start thinking about packaging up what CRC might in fact do. Mandy and then Andy. Yeah, I'm still struggling with this visual. Um page 61 and 62 on the PDF. They're they're pages
57 and 58 of volume one numbered. Um if you could go to that, I'd like to know what what isn't what what that is that isn't what you're asking for. Um on page 61 and 62 for a downtown
village buildout. Um 60 61 and 62 of volume one. PDF page numbers so that you can just type them in. Because that sounds exactly like what you've asked for. Um it shows the current Bruegger's
Bagels and it shows a possible buildout. And then it shows the current Bruegger's Bagels with a different possible buildout. And um yeah, to Jennifer's point, it's been at least 15 years since the zoning changed in downtown to allow five-story
buildings and there are five of them. It's not fully built out. Yet what you want to see is a full buildout. 15 years later, it's not going to be fully built out. That's one building on average every 3 to 4 years. Um so, a full
build-out, you're asking for something in 50 or 60 years. Um not not anything in in a time period you could actually guess. So, I I just don't understand how pages 60, 61, and 62
don't don't give you what you're saying you don't have. Okay. I will I will take a look at that, Mandy, and I will reply um when I have the opportunity to. I'm not going to struggle to try to find that document
and put it up on the screen right now. But, I will I took notes of the location. >> This this? Haven't you shared volume one? Um Isn't this from volume one? This is a This is a snapshot. I took it and pasted
it and pasted it on a Word doc so I could actually get to it. I thought you were showing a screen uh sharing volume >> am not technically uh no, I'm not. But, I will look up those things. Um the term that I am trying to use is a
cross-section rather than just an illustrate than a perspective drawing. So, the beautiful drawings that they put in there are perspectives. What I'm looking for is that actual transition from cutting across the grain of
showing the the hill dropping down to the to North Pleasant Street, the height of buildings, the height of houses on North Prospect Street, the height of what is proposed adjacent to this property line as as allowed with the dimensions that
they're proposing. So, a cross-section starting from North Pleasant Street and a line cut right down to North Pleasant Street. Or a a line here on Cottage Street cut right down to Triangle Street. What does that look like in terms of what a
building mass could look like um per those standards that they're recommending. Again, I'm trying to wrap this conversation up with Andy and then Jennifer. Yeah, my my question I just basically
have a question about what will who will be approving this down the road? What will the council be approving? What will the planning board be approving? What you know, what what are we what are we looking at in
terms of the approval process or the or is there one? But I assume there is. It's it's reminding me a lot of the housing production plan which um ended up being a document that
wasn't necessarily um meeting everybody's expectations, but it it got approved. Um Jennifer. Uh yeah, I I just followed up on what you said. That's I think I said I didn't need to see a build out from Bank of America to
Triangle Street, but um yeah, also like on that northern um Kendrick Park to the west of Kendrick Park what that would look like because the line goes all the way down to the backyard of the little houses on Beston
Street and that's pretty flat unlike North you know, North Prospect to downtown which is sloped. So that's also what I meant by um you know, what it would look like. You know, and I would say in the 15 14
years I've lived here downtown looks looks very different. Um and I'm not even commenting better or worse. It just a lot did happen in in those 14 years. And I realize 14 years isn't overnight either. Mandy.
So, Okay, I think I'm starting to understand what you're asking for, but you're not asking for the non-zoning change ones to also show a max build out, are you? Cuz you should. Because Pam, I'm not sure the house that you would want to see on Cottage Street is fully to the height of
the dimensional or close to the road as it can be and as close to the side setback as it can be and covering the full amount of lot coverage as it can be of the houses that are on Cottage Street in the RG. Shouldn't we if we're going to ask for a cross-section make sure the RG sections
that are currently there show their max build out, too? This is my problem with a max build out because those buildings are not max built out, either, and you want them to show what they are now, not what they could be, yet the new zoning to show only what they could be at its
maximum, not what they're potentially likely to be. You're asking for two different standards of showing. And so, if you're going to show all of the cross-section, I think you have to show the current zoning and RG at its max build out, too. Because otherwise,
you're showing two different sets of things. Yeah, I mean I I hear your point. Um, the the the reality being that you know, a parcel this large is certainly a uh
uh a desirable parcel and it is much more likely given given these let's just put it this way, given these zoning proposals the RG is not changing. Given these proposals, the BL
is changing. And and it's it's basically are you um is there an acknowledgement of of what that looks like on the ground? And and the sketches are great, but they're not I mean, I looked at the
dimensional setbacks versus what's being shown. And for instance, the row of there's this nice row of looks like townhouses that are shown on the backside of of this parcel. Well, that's all good, but in fact,
it's it's it's not what could be allowed to be built. What could be allowed to be built would be four stories. And instead of a two-story townhouse. So, it's just, you know, what is do we need to craft the dimensional
standards just like in every other um, table in our in our bylaws to just make sure that it is the result that you you're looking for. I'll have to spell it out more more carefully, but that's
Okay, folks. We have spent some good time and we're actually just about at the point where I thought we would end up. Um, I would like to switch to our next action item. And and Jeff, thank
you for for hanging with us. Uh, we do obviously have some more conversation about what what is what is a being approved? What form does it take? And and how do we how do we share CRC input
as a as a council committee? And what value is that? I'll work on trying to get a little more clarity on what's going to be approved, but I just think in terms of like zoning would go through the typical town council process. So, any actual zoning amendment would go through that process. There's a little bit of a question about
these districts here. You know, that's something I want to figure out who would approve that. We did have a conversation that there's the vision and statement and that was something that was picked kind of like with the planning board. But I'll try to iron that out for your next meeting just a at
least an outline of what we see is who would approve what including the public realm part. But I would just my last little thing I I would just say as you discuss it's fine. Just I think you know, one option would be for each individual member to have something in writing. Um just remembering that the comments
right now are not necessarily going back to town council as the whole body. It's going back to the consultant. So just something from each CRC member would be really helpful at this stage. It it begs the question of later when you're when you're formally reviewing something. I don't know I'm not sure how
that process is going to unfold, but for now it's just your feedback. Um written would be this the best way for the consultant to get it and then it'll come back. It'll come back it's not like final in any way. It's just going to Yeah. See what's what. Okay. That's good. Awesome. Good. So so I can see the CRC
having a good discussion about the streetscapes, the the public realm and just having that the topic of a meeting and saying yeah, these look basically good. These are some changes that we might make. Um and and then there
because in effect we would be supporting these essentially as overlay districts. Unless unless it was clear that the zoning like every every dimensional change um
proposed for each of these districts would be applied and um you know, so that's the kind of conversation we have to have. Is it an overlay district? Is it uh simply a concept and people build to it as they come and and and make make that
the ZBA is aware that the intention in the green zone is that it be, you know, so many stories and covers this much of the property. I mean, that's the kind of thing that Yeah anyway. Okay.
>> I'll see I'll seek some clarity on that for you and then just >> Sure, that would be lovely. Okay. That would be lovely. Great. Okay. I'm going to turn over to Andy for action item B, which is our discussion of the sufficient pool of
candidates for planning board. I wonder if you could help us out, Andy, with what Sure. you've been tracking. >> the the Sarah the screen share? >> Yeah, I can take this Yes, thank you.
Oh, there you are. Hi. So um we um are in the process of gathering applicants for the planning board and zoning board of appeals. The first one is planning board and we're scheduled to do interviews
on May 28th and then ZBA would be couple weeks later on June 11th. So, the first uh question is do we have a sufficient pool for the planning board interviews that will be on the 28th? So,
we invited um Well, there was there were 14 people who were either invited or who applied on their own. So, there were we re-invited anybody who had put in a CAF over the last couple years. Um and we also had some people who just
expressed interest and sent in their own CAF. So, there were 14 of those. Uh 14 people who were invited um and then we received a total of eight um CAFs. So, eight people who
uh basically applied for to Uh Jennifer, I can't You're muted. For both CBA and planning board? No, this is just planning board. Okay. So um we got eight calves for for planning board.
Um actually let me let me double check that. I think we got we got nine. Um Let me just send you. Um And while he's looking that, I'll remind people that it is in the CRC folder
under ZBA and planning board appointments. Yeah. We actually did get we got 50 we we reached out to or heard from 15 people and encouraged them to send in a calf. We received nine calves. And then, um
three of those people who submitted calves but chose not to apply one of one is somebody who was appointed to the finance committee. Another person said they just didn't have to time to apply at this point, although they're still interested for the future.
And a third one once um he realized that these were Zoom meetings, he preferred non-Zoom meetings. So, um So, we received six statements of interest and um So, that that's the pool that we're
looking at to do in to to do interviews with on the 28th. And to refresh everyone's memory, there are um All right. There there is one fully Well, there there are three vacancies.
Two people who have served um one term and a third person who is off after two terms. Andy. I'm having a hard time understanding this spreadsheet. Um Am I supposed to be looking at lines 56
to 64 on the planning board applicant comprehensive to understand who the current applicants are to make a determination if the pool is sufficient. I I'm having trouble getting to that
folder. I'm in the CRC I'm on SharePoint for CRC. And what I'm seeing is 2021 for ZBA. Is it in that even if it says Really? So I've had actually had some trouble
occasionally when I've when I've added a name or something and it then tells me that I that I I don't have edit capability or something like that and so I like I'll make a change and then it won't save it.
If you go to search >> got to it. I just got to it. Sorry. >> Okay, so it's documents community resource and then it's um ZBA and planning board appointment procedures then the first the first document not in a folder is active
applicants list. And there are two tabs. >> there's 64 names basically. And I'm trying to figure out which ones are because it hasn't been cleared out for the non-active applicants. That's that's why I'm trying to figure out which lines we're referring to. >> [laughter]
[clears throat] >> Okay, you're right. Okay, you're right. So that's you know, it's past years of of this process. Go to the bottom. So it's lines 56 to 64. Yeah, and and I'm I can't edit it. It
It's telling me it's locked. When I tried for edit workbook it says the this file is locked for editing but um So but basically those are the those are the those are the candidates. The two in gray are are two of the ones who are not
um who will not be applying and then the third is David Deal. So Jeffrey Roberts is on the finance committee. Eugene Wesley Westling doesn't want to do zoom meetings and David Deal didn't have the time to apply this time. Can I caution we're not supposed to be
revealing names at this point? Okay. >> [laughter] >> Thank you for that reminder. Um Okay so Three of these are are have withdrawn. Right. So
So 66, 60 and 61 are not are not in the pool. So the others are in the pool. I have to ask a question. What I'm seeing, I'm sorry, are lines 33 through 38 and there's six names in those lines. Are you looking at the ZBA or the planning board?
>> you're on the ZBA tab. If you go down to the bottom there are two tabs, ZBA and then planning board. I'm not Oh, you know what? I'm Okay my I didn't have them pulled up to the top of my screen so I wasn't seeing the
tabs. Okay, I'm there. Sorry. So I just grayed out if that if that took effect, I just grayed out line 61. Okay. So we have we have two times the number of applicants as we do spaces.
Um Mandy. Uh I think I'm going to say the same thing I always say. >> [laughter] >> Which is um about the only thing that makes this pool sufficient is the number of applicants, but it is not the diversity
we look for in a pool um on a on nearly any other ground other than number. Basically, it is not diverse at all. Um it it it
Yeah, it whether you're looking at age, gender race languages district you you name you name the the thing that's in our any of the items that are in our sort of how we determine a pool being sufficient, and the only one it matches
truly matches is the number that age sufficiency kind of, but >> [laughter] >> um that's that's the next best, and I can the best I can say about that is kind of. Um yeah, so but at the same time, as I say every year, um at some
point we have to move on because we cannot leave either of these boards unstaffed, um especially if there are on a planning board of seven, three upcoming openings. That That really means we have to make our appointments
on time. Um So, I I absolutely worry about this because one of our goals as a council is to have our planning board um represent the wide diversity of um
residents and their views, and this will if I'm correct, potentially automatically result in a board that does not do that on one main
on at least two grounds. Um and a non a board that does not represent, is not diverse similar close to or near or at least a
little bit like our residents is a board that does not um that has a much harder time representing and of the the residents as a town as a whole. Um so, I mean, if it comes down to it, I will reluctantly
vote to declare the pool sufficient, but um I do it sort of out of protest of we can't leave the board open, but but we've got as a council, we have a real problem with attracting
a pool of candidates that represents our town. Um which means So, so noted. Yeah. I reached out to three people that might have brought some different composition and no go.
Yeah. Yeah, I I for instance, I don't see a single female. >> [laughter] >> You know, this is not a male this is not a male task here. This is you know, this is not Totally. So, I heard a reluctant
uh motion to declare the pool sufficient. Is there any reluctant second? I didn't actually make the motion. >> Yeah. I said if a motion was made, I would vote for it, but I didn't make them. I was I was pushing you a little. Jennifer.
So, if we don't declare it today, that brings us Oh, so that So, it's the next meeting that we want to have the the interviews. Mhm. Now, we could have both interviews for ZBA and planning board in June. We've
done that before. Um so, I'm just saying, do we have the option not to declare it sufficient today? I will just say that there are even slightly fewer people who have applied
for the ZBA and then the planning board. So, um I don't know that that would help us necessarily. It would also mean that we might logically think about adding
another date, another meeting date to our calendar if we pushed it off till June. And frankly, given the joint meetings that we're having with the planning board, I personally am not excited about that.
Mandy, I saw your hand's up. Um it's hard to talk about this one without talking about the ZBA, so I'm just going to say it. It It is nice that the pools aren't nearly different. >> [laughter] >> Sometimes we have near complete overlap
on those two pools, which makes it even harder to to which is why I say it's hard to talk about these two pools separately a lot because sometimes when you're facing two or three planning board positions open and two or one plus four on the ZBA, which
is is always something plus four, um and the pools are ident- identical, um it's really hard to say then they're sufficient because once you do one, you don't have a sufficient for the other. Um it looks like this one has very little overlap, um which makes
>> [snorts] >> the consideration of sufficiency a little easier for both of them, I would say. With the ZBA, is it just one opening plus the plus the um plus the associates? It's two plus associates this year? No, two openings plus associates.
>> Two plus associates. Some some years it's only one plus associates, [laughter] that's why I was asking. It It's two this year. Um all right, um yeah, I mean doing them together would uh
a allow us to to make it more efficient, but it would be a very long meeting um because it takes even at six or seven, it takes a while to get through them and then to discuss. Um so,
you know, I I wouldn't want to do them I don't think it's great to do them separately. So, I I would I would hedge towards um um declaring today if possible. Thank you. Um and we're talking planning
board actually because we do not have statements of interest from any of the ZBA yet. They've not been asked for that yet cuz they are out two or three weeks later. Andy. Yeah, I I
um I'm skeptical that we would get a lot more diverse applicants if we delayed it by a week or by by a couple weeks. So, I think you know, it could be that we make our decision um for the planning board and there
might be one or two of these people who aren't chosen who who might be interested in the ZBA, which would help our pool for the ZBA. So, um I would be inclined to um declare this pool sufficient and then
look at and then do our interviews and make our decisions and then after that decide whether any of these people who aren't chosen would like to be included in the ZBA uh pool because we have fewer people for
that at this point. Even though that wouldn't help our diversity, but No, I agree. I don't think we're going to get we're going to necessarily be successful. Yeah, I think the recruitment is something we're going to have to figure out how to do a better job of in the future and and
you know, we I I need to speak I need to I need to speak to Andy's comment though about about perhaps if someone isn't successful in the planning board that they might be interested. The timing is a little weird if you look at your calendar.
The planning board interviews would be on the 28th. Um at that same meeting I am I am expecting I have a woodpecker at my window. >> [laughter]
>> At that same meeting I would hope to uh have a vote to talk about the sufficiency of the ZBA pool. Which means that we need all the statements of interest for the ZBA in by
the 27th. So it doesn't give us unless we simply said we'll we'll do the interviews for the ZBA on the 25th of June. That is 5 days before the end of terms and there
would there would just be maybe be able to squeak in on the 29th of June, the town council meeting to vote those appointments, but that's really tight. It doesn't give the applicants any time to
Although if they were confirmed yeah, the first council meeting in July. We've done that before. That they just serve. We would ask the current members to serve an extra 2 weeks and they usually do. Yeah. Yeah.
I'm looking at Mandy. Yes, good. Her hand went up. I mean we can, but that requires extra motions and all too and it's not like it's undoable, but um I will make them There is an emotion on the floor right now, is there?
No. So I will make a motion to declare the pool of candidates for the planning board sufficient for moving to sounds like you already did statements of interest but we're supposed to declare the pool sufficient before we do that under under the thing but to to move to
a statements of interest and interviews. So motion to declare the pool of candidates sufficient. The planning board pool of candidates sufficient to move to statements of interest and interviews. Oh, I thought we had to have statements
of interest in hand in order to declare the pool sufficient. No. Ah. We wouldn't we wouldn't have had we would have had a pool of nine then and we would have found out that the pool was six so it makes more sense to have the statements of interest because then you actually know it's a pool.
It's it's [snorts] what the policy is though that you declare the pool sufficient and then you move on and you always risk getting lower and then you might declare it insufficient anymore but [laughter] but yeah. That's interesting okay because I thought we
my fault I thought we had to lock in the appropriate number of statements of interest to confirm that we had enough pool. Okay, maybe we want to do that. Someone can always propose a change to the policy and bring it to the council
redline version. >> [laughter] >> I second that motion. Let's take a vote Andy. Yes. Jennifer. Yes. Mandy. I. And Pam's a yes.
Um okay so we we have voted to declare the pool of candidates for the planning board sufficient and we will move to reading the SOIs and moving to interviews on the 28th of June of May,
excuse me. Sorry. Jennifer. So, the SOIs will be we can look for them in SharePoint. Yes. SOIs will be in the same CRC block. Um Andy, do you have that up right in front
of you? Um Let's see. Um They are They're in the CRC and then you go into ZBA and planning board appointments procedures. And then there's
planning board selection processes and then there's 2026 planning board process docs and then you have the SOIs of the 1 2 3 4 5 6. I see them. Good. Thank you. And so all the all the documents that we
approved and and adopted this year are in that same folder. Andy. So, just a reminder that all SOIs need to be in a public packet and released to the public by a week before the interviews. Um so, they need to be posted by next Thursday, I believe. Um as well as all the
interview questions and uh stand the criteria for appointment and and basically every document we've sent the candidates all have to be in the packet a week before the interviews. Um a a note should I I know Athena's on
here, but she's probably only got one ear to this meeting. That should be noted um when sending everything to Athena to post so that she knows that the deadline for posting's earlier than typical um for this particular meeting. Um I have a
question about the ZBA um, applicant list. It's missing someone that submitted a CAF on 5/4. On May 4th is not listed. Z- You're talking ZBA now? >> ZBA. Yeah. Has not listed someone who submitted a
CAF 10 days ago. Ooh. Um, so we're looking back again at the active participants list. Um, so Andy, you and I need to go back
through So we split up We split up the workload. I'm I I just want to make sure when I was checking that that I noticed that that one was not listed here, um, and it needs to be listed even if they eventually withdraw from this round
because they get back in contacted next time too. Um, but but they need to be on the list and contacted and it might have fell through the cracks as when things were coming through, but just to point out that go back to your CAFs and make sure you're not missing anyone.
Got it. And And this may be one of those situations where something got entered and then wasn't able to be saved. Yeah. So Andy Andy, I think you should reach out to Athena and say, "Hey, we I can't I can't not have edit
capability. That's really weird." Okay, we will double check. >> Yeah, it begins with a B, last name. I see it here. Okay. So um sort of recapping then, we do not have
to wait. I was going to send out notices for statements of interest uh, either this Friday, tomorrow, or early next week. It sounds like I don't want to delay it any further cuz we're talking about the 11th of June.
Um Andy, you and I can chat a little bit about when to reach out for them. But we would it make sense to declare sufficient pool for ZBA at this time, which would allow us to
officially seek their SOIs? There are 1 2 3 4 5 6 and with this other one there'll be seven. Okay. Mandy Yeah um I'm I'm working on on managing It It looks like I'm the
owner of that document. So I will see if I can And Andy, it says you're you've got edit access. Um Yeah, right now it's when I click on edit work it says we opened this workbook read only from the server and then it says edit workbook and I click on that and it says
this file is locked for editing by Rooney Pamela. >> [clears throat] >> Oh, so Pam's got to do something to to unlock it. Uh I don't He didn't She didn't even know how to lock it. I don't think she intended that, so I I don't know.
I'm actually only seeing six CAFs in our in our CAF folder for for ZBA. I'm going to forward this one, but Would you? Thank you. I'm I just was able to edit it, Andy, so I I
think try reopening it somehow. Yeah, I just did, but Yeah. We'll We'll work on it. So, I I will ask again, well, if we have if we have the seventh person we could We have seven people.
We have a similar slightly slightly different mix of people in terms of distribution of age. Um is anyone willing to declare the pool sufficient and then we would not have to
do that at the 28th at the end of the interviews for the planning board. I would I would move that it's sufficient so that we can move forward with collecting SOIs. I'll second. >> a second? Okay. Any discussion?
Mandy. I count seven for six positions. If we don't have to move forward now, I would wait because seven for six positions really is not sufficient in my mind. Um and if we can wait 2 more weeks
to see if anyone else comes in, um I think it's worth it. Can we still accept more people if they come in even if we declared the pool sufficient? We can under the policy. Um but I I always worry in a situation like
this where we declare it and and and this is where if not everyone submits an SOI, we've got problems. Um it always looks bad to interview people when you have six openings because we technically have six openings and then not want to appoint someone to any of those openings because then we're
leaving something completely open and that's that's a tough situation as as an appointing authority and recommending authority to be in. Um Um yeah, I I understand the timing of it. I would rather at this point declare it
sufficient only for the um for the uh main members, the non-associate members. I don't know how we we declare that. >> The the full members >> um instead of all six openings
giving us because when we interview, we could still potentially appoint to the associate members, but we have a you know, it doesn't preclude us from appointing the associate members, but it it allows us to acknowledge that this pool really is only sufficient for the
openings we have for full members, not for everything else. Can I'm going to amend my motion? Uh or did Andy did you make the motion? You made the motion, you amend. Um I defer to you as far as how you want to
amend offer a friendly amendment to my motion. Um I would suggest that we make a motion that we have a sufficient pool to address um the two positions for full members.
Okay. Second. Can I second my own my own I guess I can't. >> [laughter] >> Jennifer, would you like to >> before. Yeah, I'll second. Okay. Okay. And with the Any any any further discussion? And just
a question as far as the associate members, it's up to four, right? I mean so we don't have to appoint four if we don't feel that they're appropriate. Okay. I've actually reached out to the the former um
chair and and said, "What is the What is the benefit of having four associates?" I said, "I don't see them being used very often." And he said "I don't think we really need four." He said, "It's handy to have a couple
who because that gives them actually more of an opportunity if you're having to split you know, time share with four people, nobody gets much experience. Um I don't know who
corrects the um the number. Can the CRC recommend that the ZBA only ask for two to three additional associates? The CRC would need to propose an
amendment to the zoning bylaws. I think it's the zoning bylaws that declare the number of associates there are. So it's a bylaw change, I believe. >> Okay. I think that's a good idea cuz we're so challenged.
We'd still be challenged to get four. Two associates. And and frankly, it would allow a little more selectivity, I guess, if you if you were really looking for two associates as opposed to four and it's like winner take all
which is not the intent at all. Yeah. So it is zoning by law section 10.01 that uh includes up to four associate members and it just says up to four. Mhm. So, it doesn't say has four um serving for 1 year.
Uh 10.02 actually says the planning board um that the town council can appoint two associate members to the planning board. Oh. Which we've never done. Yeah. >> and and I think part of that we've never
done because the planning board has a lot less strict rules on hearing attendance than the ZBA does. Um the real reason for ZBA is if they miss a single hearing um they can't you can't replace that person and they
can't vote, which means you need all five members to really be at every single hearing on a project that might last seven, eight months sometimes um or you run into potentially quorum or inability to actually approve a special permit at that point and the planning board doesn't have as strict
requirements about that is my understanding. Yeah. So, up to four um I don't feel the need to change that by law. Okay. Are we ready for a vote?
Sufficiency of pool. Okay. Um Jennifer. Yes. Mandy. Yeah. Uh did you say Mandy or Randy? >> [laughter] >> I said Mandy but I'm but said Mandy. Okay. Did you Andy wants to do This is like Sam and Pam.
Yeah. You're a yes. Mandy. I'm going to eye. It It was the same thing on finance when both Andy Steinberg and I were on finance. >> [laughter] >> And Pam is a yes. Okay, good. So, we have declared uh a similar wording.
Um the motion was to declare the Zoning Board of Appeals pool of candidates sufficient for full members to move to statements of interest and interviews. Good. Okay, thank you very much
everybody. That was that was perfect. Um, we are moving to the next item, which is meeting minutes of April 23. Those were in the packet available for review.
Any motions to adopt or otherwise not? >> to adopt the minutes of April 23rd, 2026 as presented. Second. Any discussion?
If not, a vote. Man- Mandy. I. Jennifer. Yes. And Andrew. Me? Yes. And Timothy, yes. Thank you. >> [laughter]
>> That was 257. I know. I know. Um, you all got my memo about the the upcoming meetings. I don't need to go through that now, but but it helped me sort of clarify what what the heck is going on in the next couple of weeks.
Um, the next regular meeting agenda preview, obviously, will be on the 28th. That will be our interviews for the Planning Board. Um, I will sit and work with Andy on just the questions that we've already developed, who's going to ask each
question, and um, um, guess work I guess we work with Athena to set up the panelist um, invitations to everybody. Um,
and then the announcement for the public who are not listening here uh that the next CRC meeting will actually be our our presence will be at the joint public hearing with the planning board on article 18 clean energy on May 20th at
6:30 p.m. There was nothing that popped up within the last 48 hours and I'm going to make a motion to adjourn. Second. Is there a second? >> Second. Thank you. We'll go around uh Jennifer.
Yes. Andy. Yes. Mandy. I. And Pam's a yes. Thank you everybody for your focus. Thank you. >> Take care.
>> Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye.