So, we are recording and I'll turn it over to you, Pam. And then Thank you. It is August 14, 2025. This is a regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council. Pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of
2025, which extends through June 30 of 2027, the ability of public bodies to meet in a remote or hybrid manner without a quorum of members in person. This meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via
Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public is possible, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. Um, I'm going to go around the room and
see if everyone can be heard. Kathy, yes. Uh, Councelor Hani, present. Jennifer, yes, here and Pam is present and can hear everybody. Um, tonight we have two today
we have two public hearings on the uh agenda and we will start with the first one being article 15. I see Nate Mallaloy in the audience and um could someone bring him in to be a panelist?
He's here as a panelist. Okay, there he is. Hi, Nate. Hi, Pam. Hi, everyone. Um, yeah, I was going to say Greg Rashane, a planner with the town and then Gaston, um, the chair of the housing trust will be here to join us as well.
Oh, good. Excellent. So, um, it is it is oh, not quite time to start our public hearing. It's not quite 3:05. So could Gustoone uh also maybe introduce himself if he's available and also Greg Rashine if you would like
to introduce yourself that would be helpful. Greg you're muted. Pardon me. Uh sorry I think Gaston uh is uh joining the uh a new link as we speak. So I'll start um uh just briefly. I'm Greg Rashine and I am uh an associate planner with the town um
working exclusively on affordable housing stuff and uh a big chunk of my time is dedicated to staffing the Amoris Municipal Affordable Housing Trust with which most of you most of you are probably familiar. Um and uh yeah um so
that's kind of my my quick thumbnail. Um thank you. Yeah. And I see Gaston now. Now Gaston, not not two Nates. Thank you. Uh I uh have been serving as chair of the trust since um last fall
and have had the chance to talk about this amendment and so uh would be happy to uh share some some slides and bring it into focus if if that would be useful. Great. So the the structure we're going
to read through it but um uh let's let's just open it up then uh still not time. So I'm going to tell you what's happening. So, um, we'll we'll talk about article 17, inclusionary zoning, and we will have the the, um, public comment period or the comment
public process. And I'm looking to see if there is anyone in the public weighing in. We have one attendee. Uh, that looks like Rob. Rob Mora. So I I don't unfortunately see
anybody in the public who might be commenting, but the process would be um any disclosures of our affiliations, uh applicant presentation, which is the three of you folks, questions from the board, questions from the public, public
speaking to the proposal, any responses, and then questions from the board and the committee, and then deliberation on the topic. So it is now 3:05. we can open this public hearing. Um it is article 15 inclusionary zoning. In
accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 48, this public hearing of the community resources committee of the Ammeris Town Council has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard
regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw. zoning bylaw article 15 inclusionary zoning to consider amending sections 15.171 of the zoning bylaw by adding new text that would allow for project specific
determination of the fees in lie of value for affordable units to be made by the permit granting authority. So uh are there any disclosures or any disclosures from board members com from committee
members? I see none. So, let's go to a short um presentation from the planning staff, Greg and Geston. Uh wonderful. I I am not quite planning staff, but I am very pleased to be
collaborating with the the planning group uh in town. And I think it will be useful for for you if uh we can put some some slides in front of you because uh we can highlight the exact language that we're proposing to add. So the amendment
is just adding this language in red. Everything in black is the current uh bylaw. And you can see that what we're recommending is opening up a range in order to give the planning board as
the typical uh board in in question the discretion to find the right number if a developer requests to exercise their option. There's no right to uh pay money in lie of developing the affordable
units that may be required by the bylaw. However, developers are given the opportunity to request the opport, you know, the leave to uh make this payment. And so what we are recommending is that if a developer wants to get into that option zone, the number be open-ended in
the bylaw to allow the the town to make its case, the developer to make their case, and the planning board as a usual uh board in question to uh find what they consider to be the the right number. The developer can always withdraw and say, "Actually, we'll just
go ahead and develop the units." But this gives um uh creates a space for uh in effect the town and uh therefore the trust being appropriately compensated by skipping out on building those units to
create the capacity for the trust in the town to uh substitute and and hopefully multiply the the units that were not developed by virtue of such a payment. And so we specify um the following factors. market conditions. You know, we know that prices have doubled in the
last four or five years. So, uh market conditions are are are you know, always fluctuating. What what are the unit sizes in question in this particular project? What is the location? And really an open-ended list of of considerations. Um the the background to
our proposal is that we uh received one of these requests, the first and only exercised uh so far in relation to the project in the downtown um uh above the the uh the Ambrose College store. And what we uh
realized is that the town's position was actually that the amount provided by the bylaw was low given the location and nature of the project. And so uh we inferred the town's position to be that you know the planning board can in
effect deny the uh request at the amount set forth in the bylaw and could agree to a higher number. So we recommended in fact to uh grant the option and we recommended to the planning board to consider whether the amount should be
higher following the the um arguments made by the the town. the the planning board did not feel they had the discretion to actually deviate from the number in the bylaw and in fact requested us in the trust to come back with a bylaw amendment and that's
exactly what we've what we've done here. Um uh we we want to support flexibility tailoring to project specifics. We want to recognize that um uh you know inflation is uncertain, development costs are uncertain, etc., etc. And so
we want to allow um uh the the capacity for the town to get this right if a developer would like to go outside of the standard requirement of developing the units. And so I I can leave this language up here as long as as is useful for you. And uh we'd be happy to answer
any any questions, of course. Thank you for for giving me the chance to present. Thank you. Uh Greg or Nate, do you want to add something to that? Kathy, can your question wait? Yeah, they'll be up. Absolutely. Sure. I was going to say that the
planning board opened the hearing last week and discussed this and they they thought that the minimum amount at least four times. They thought that should be five times. Uh and they recommended or they considered adding another
um criteria. So in addition to market conditions, unit sizes, project location and similar factors after project location, they would add cost of delays. So, you know, their their reasoning was that, you know, if someone's already in
a permit process with a development, even if they make a payment in Lou, there's no project ready to receive that money typically. And so to then, you know, wait a year or two to get the payment and then build a unit, there's delays there and there's a cost to that
both in, you know, as guest said, whether it's inflation or the cost of a new property, whatever it might be. And so they, you know, that was kind of where they left their discussion. they continue the hearing until next week. Um, but they, you know, those are the two points that they would probably have
changed with this bylaw. Thank you. Uh, uh, Greg, do you want to add anything? Is it Greg? Sorry. It is. Thanks. Um, and no, I think Gaston covered all the key, uh, points. I think there's some discussion. I I can
weigh in on some of the particulars, but I think that's the big picture was covered by Gaston pretty well. Super. So, I'll open this up for committee questions. Kathy, you have your hand up. Yes. I um thank you for the summary,
Nate, of the planning board discussion. I did listen in and so I'll I can be fairly brief. I agreed um of raising the four to five. The other thing that several people mentioned, which I think I agree with, too, is making the range
uh smaller. So instead of going all the way up to 10 and and there wasn't a specific but that seemed like a very large range. So it is it 5 to eight. So I don't have a specific but narrowing the range. I didn't completely understand the discussion of cost of
delay. Um and that is right now the payment is supposed to happen just before the certificate of occupancy which would be um you know that it's as I understand what that means is the
building's ready to be occupied and that's the point at which there either are affordable units or there aren't. Um so I wasn't sure what the cost of delay was. um you know whether you'd want to hire you know they're not ready to you know
instead of they thought it was going to be September now it's going to be a year from now um was it that kind of adjustment you know that the you know the negotiation over this so that's a a question you know the the the point that was raised there is that even any kind
of range leaves this as negotiable and I think that's a good idea so it was just a question of narrowing it. So, I'll stop on that, but I just wasn't quite sure what cost of delay actually meant. I can understand what it might mean.
Thank you. And I I I think per our list of um steps and procedures for this public hearing, if we could try to limit this to questions to the to the the presenters rather than necessarily spelling out what our what our
deliberation is at this point would be helpful. Mandy Joe. Thank you. Um, a couple of questions. Um, I I'm with Kathy on this cost of delay of and it goes to another question
I sort of have in trying to understand the goal of any payment in lie of and how you come up with the multiplier. Um, is it is it delay in it sounded like your explanation was a delay in getting
an SHI unit. Um, so that if it was in the development, it would be there immediately, but if you need to replace it, it takes time from the time you get the payment to create and find and do
another SHI unit. And that's what the cost of delay is. So that that is sort of an inflationary factor maybe. Um, but one of my questions is what are we trying to get out of a fee in lie of? Is
the fee in lie of supposed to be enough to build an entire SHI unit or 10 or whatever it would be depending on the size of the the um development that is paying the fee in lie of the unit. So if
if there's if a development was supposed to have 10 SHI units, um is the fee in lie of supposed to be able to fully fund 10 new SHI units somewhere else? Is it supposed to fully partially fund it?
what what is the goal of this payment in lie of and how does the multiplier and and this whole thing relate to that goal and that's a question in trying to figure out whether a multiplier is
correct or based on the correct thing and things like that. Um and then my other question is what at what point is the multiplier determined? Is it determined at the beginning, middle or end of the hearing process? not when it's paid, but when it's determined. And
does that affect how long and how much additional time is added to a permitting process if once it's determined, an applicant says that's not something I can build this project with if I have to pay that number if it's too high, say, or
something. And as um the chair of the housing trust just said, they can always go back to just putting the units in, but that might require a different redesign of the project. It might require different things. I I'm not a builder, so I don't know what it might require, but but how does that
determination affect the hearing process? If an applicant determines they do need to go back from fee in lie of to including the units in the process, what kind of delay or time is are we looking at adding to the process if that
happens? Great. Thank you. And I'm going to add my question and then I'd love to hear back from the staff. And my question is why isn't there some consideration of cost of construction? Um it seems that every project will be able to calculate
cost per unit, cost per square foot. Frankly, the question comes to my mind, what does what does someone's income have anything to do with the cost of construction of of a building? And so, let's add that to
the mix. And then I look for some feedback from from staff and and you folks. Sorry. I um councelor Hani, do you still have your hand up? Thank you. I'll put mine down, too. I I'd be happy to respond to these
questions um uh you know, before or after Nate Nate or Greg. Um so I I'll um but okay, I I'll go ahead. Um yeah, the Nate, are you sorry? You ready to you're ready to give your replies or shall I go?
Uh Gaston, you can go. I I'll Yeah. So I think cost of delay Nate emphasized the inflationary quality and I think there the consideration. I mean I'm I'm interpreting the planning board. I I thought there were there were interesting remarks and I I I would label them as the sorts of comments that
I I can't speak for the trust because we hadn't met, but I suspect we would consider this to be a friendly amendment to our proposal. And the um the cost of delay certainly could amount to realizing if we don't actually go ahead and build affordable units now, but wait
until the payment in le is produced and then something is done with that money because of inflationary factors. uh we're going to get fewer units and that's going to tie into councelor Henkey's question of course in just a minute. So I understand cost of delay has both qualities. Uh in other words
we're missing out on having affordable units for two years that we would have had otherwise is one part of it and the other part are we going to have fewer units because of inflation and cost of construction increases. Okay. Second question what is the point of the fee in
lu? I understand that the point of the fee and Louu is to overcome the very strong presumption that what the town needs and wants and what the trust would want and support is for these affordable units that are required by the bylaw to
be built. So given the strong presumption in favor of the affordable units that are given by the bylaw, the fee in new is has to be attractive enough to displace that presumption. And
so I understand that that's the the point of of the um of the fee and new is to put the town better off in terms of advancing our goals for affordable housing than we would have been had the option not been exercised and and so
that is I why I see the number so important to be variable uh according to the details of of projects. Um uh what should the multiplier be and why income as the multiplier? We had a long and arguably academic
discussion of this with the planning board. My my sense is that what we need is a range and that range should be based on something that adapts automatically to the economy in some meaningful way. The world of affordable
housing is structured around uh you know area median income. So, it's a natural automatically adjusting statistic to use as a way to calculate a monetary range. There are other ways that could be done. I don't see that as the most significant
issue here because I think it's critical for the number to be fluid. So, I see this just as a workable way to set a financial range. That's my own interpretation of of of that. Um, when is the amount determined? Um uh my
understanding is that from the very first time an inlue case is being made to the trust or any other town board, the the town itself is going to have a view. The developer is going to have a view and
that information is going to be apparent from the beginning of the process whether or not there is a consensus among the parties what that final figure ought to be. Um and I guess the only
other um uh thing I I would add is that it's I think critical to understand why such um an option can work to recognize that the developers need to um you know
pencil their project for financing based on the affordable units that are required. uh I you know I'm I'm I I'm open to learning about the process but my understanding based on my uh I guess reading of the world is simply that a
developer can't show up at the inloo hearing having only pencil their project based on their aspiration to get the option and so I understand that we're talking about a process that is an alternative to what the developer must have budgeted for and planned for are
there ways of being um less economically wasteful in the process. May maybe I think that that's what councelor Henki's remarks were going to. Um but I I I don't know of the workable bylaw that doesn't work in this way that there's a a presumption of building the units.
That's what the developer needs to pencil for and then they can make the request and make the case that it's better for the town all things considered to not have to build those units and pay this other amount that's determined by the planning board. Thank you. Thank you, Kathy.
Why don't you go to Jennifer since she hasn't had a chance? Um this is a basic question I should probably know the answer to but the developer goes to the housing trust first to negotiate the fee or to the planning board or goes to the planning
board and says I would like to um pay the fee in lie of and then the you know instead of building the affordable units and then the planning board uh proposes or negotiates what that fee will be. Greg,
um I think the the latter is is the correct the trust doesn't have a formal role in uh in negotiating or approving a fee in lie. Um uh however, we are the recipient of fees in lie when when they are when they do occur. Um you know so
in the instance that uh one did transact uh the the trust was encouraged to weigh in um by both in this case the planning board and the developer um you know to just get get our our take as a housing focused body or the trust takes housing focused body um you know and um
and I also wanted I had a thought regarding the cost of construction question too is okay if I just kind of circle back on that a little bit. Um, you know, I think one of the, uh, and that was council member Hanaki's question regarding the cost of
construction, um, and why it's not in there. Um, and the reason being that at a very basic level, as Gaston mentioned, the, um, annual AMI data is, uh, is is reliable in its publication. uh and uh is something that you know we hope um
will in some form you know you know persist you know in in perpetuity as much as anything will from the federal government right now. Um uh you know and so it's just reliable you know we know it's a marker that will uh increase you know in a not a predictable increment
but in an increment it won't remain fixed um you know and then we're adding this window to it. So there's a fair amount of flexibility in the proposal. Um the and then as to the cost of construction, the realities are really that there
aren't um in the regional level, there's not as reliable indicators that we can uh we can expect to exist um you know annually every year on cost of construction. And when we narrow it down to Ammerst, um the the range of
construction costs between um you know, a question would arise, are we talking about the construction of uh market rate, uh apartments or condos or um subsidized homes? If they're subsidized, are they using tax credits or mostly local funds? Um you know, Habitat
financially can produce a unit uh you know, much more affordably than other developers, but they have other obstacles. So, you know, the construction cost questions, uh, you know, there's not enough data out there to really, uh,
you nail it perfectly. Um, especially anticipating the outy years. So, yeah, thank you, Kathy. Um, so, thanks Pam for telling me not to come to conclusions, but to focus on questions. So on median
family income, um to the extent there's been any experience with people asking for this, what family size do you use when you do that? At least the word family means it's not just a household. So and family
income whether it's a two, three or four varies. Do you just medium family income four? So it's just a question on how has this been interpreted? Um and and if I'm assuming it's around a 100,000 u because I just looked up median family
income um for two to three then four times would be uh 400,000 and I see the one of the reasons for allowing the range is um if it's a twobedroom unit versus a one-bedroom unit and you have that down below is one of the things it
would vary with uh the unit size would vary. Great. And that goes with Mandy's question on it. Is the goal to come close to that if the housing trusts got um 400,000 for a bunch of one-bedroom
work efficiencies, 10 of them, then you would have 4 million. Could you build anything with it? So is that what you're trying to tie it with that or that that money would be available to subsidize another complex that uh wants a project
and the town could do some matching. So is that the and then my final question is why would a developer want to pay pay it? And at least I think part of the answer to that is I have heard that at
times the affordable unit is there and for various bureaucratic reasons that I don't understand uh there are people that are eligible but no one is placed in the unit. So you lose rent and so you can't really calculate your um budget
for a year if there's not an instantly a person put in it. So, you could calculate you've got a subsidized rent, but has is that a problem? Are we not able to um the minute the building opens
allow someone who's qualified income-wise in the unit? So, that you would rather pay and be able to have everything be market rate rather than lose money on an empty unit. So, is that is that a problem um in in our area?
Um, sure. I mean, I think, you know, speaking, you know, specifically just generally about developers and, you know, kind of the opening of your question, uh, you know, council member Sean was the why why they might pursue it. Um, you know, and I think, um, especially in the, you
know, in one scenario, in a case of, you know, especially where there's a limited number of units and, um, and beyond a certain number, uh, there is not an option for fully inloo. uh as an aside. Um but with a smaller number of units, um there are unlike um sort of market
rate units. Um there are fairly uh prescriptive uh affirmative fair marketing obligations um on uh the developer which uh they agree to when they sign uh you know when when they receive a special permit um and you know
which are overseen by both the town and uh and the state. Um and those uh you know those especially for folks who are in the market rate housing world especially in the market rate housing world in Ammerst um uh which is um operationally somewhat different uh
really it's quite different than u than managing affordable units um they may see or perceive potential losses in um you know in those marketing uh obligations which are are not insignificant. uh you know uh usually
they're hiring a consultant to do an initial marketing plan, run a lottery perhaps um and then um and then an ongoing management of of these units. You know, they're required to maintain a list um uh and for a variety of reasons, you know, lists for these units can be
tricky because lots of folks get on lots of lists but then might not be responsive when they get a call. Uh just without getting too deeply into the weeds there. Um, so that's a reason why they might pursue this option and why they might see uh more value in just avoiding the the administrative
responsibilities. If I can add to that, I mean there's any number of reasons why um the vision for exploiting a property may be inconsistent with affordable units. My understanding is that the units being built downtown now are being leased to
Ammeris College. maybe that wouldn't have worked so well if they had affordable units there that couldn't be leased to Ammeris College. So, there's any number of reasons why a developer might prefer or think they can do better without those units. Uh your question
before about the cost of construction. I do think that costs of con construction are very relevant to setting the in new amount. And I just want to clarify that I read the word market conditions to refer not only to market conditions for
rent and property value, but also cost of construction is is something that also varies with with market conditions. And it's very relevant for the reasons I said before to understand what the trust thinks we could spearhead with the money
coming in in order to do better for uh the town's affordable housing portfolio than if the option was not exercised. Thank you. And I was going to follow up. So one question hasn't gotten answered
yet and that is at what point in this process is it anticipated that the discussion will take place and and the amount might be get might be set and then secondly going back to the construction cost um I think about a an
entirely affordable development ball lane the units and the total project is coming in at around $600,000 per um per unit in in a duplex, which is even less expensive than in a single family home. Um, so when I when I think
about construction cost, whether whether there was a subsidy added to the to the bucket or not, the actual cost of construction is is an incredibly important element. Um, if we're getting $400,000 from
another um buyout, I'll just call it a buyout. Um, can we assume that that a buyout somewhere else on some other project uh should not shouldn't should that not carry its own weight in an ongoing
program for instance Nate? Sure. Thanks. Hi. Uh, I'm Nate. Just for everyone again, the um I was going to mention the median family income. You know, HUD determines that. And so, you know, they there's a formula if you go
online, you know, they take um census data or American Community Survey data, they aggregate it, they have multipliers and factors and they generate it for the Amoris Northampton area. And so, you know, to me, it's a it's a base number that's used, as Greg mentioned, it's
reliable. We don't have to calculate it. there really is no construction price index that's really reliable, you know, like it isn't, you know, so the reason why Ball Lane is expensive is there's a lot of um soft cost and carrying costs with affordable housing, whereas maybe a private developer could build those
units at 350,000 a unit and not 600,000. And so the cost of construction varies a lot based on to me how it's financed and who's developing developing it. Um medium family income does adjust every year. It can go up, it can go down. Um, and when this gets, you know, discussed
at the permitting process, it's usually at the end. So, usually the, um, it could be at the beginning, but usually it has to get through the permit process. Does, you know, does the project, can it get through its land use permit? And then, you know, it's a special permit uh, request. So, it can
be a site plan review use. So, essentially, you know, a buy, right, use with conditions. And then this is an additional special permit request. So, there's an application for a special permit to the permitting board. So, you know, upfront that a developer is asking for it. Um, and they have the option of either doing off-site affordable units or
payment. And as Greg mentioned, if there's six or more affordable units, at least half the units have to be constructed and then half could be either um, you know, have a payment in L or be provided off-site. So, in a small project, you know, six or fewer, they could ask that all the units, you know,
they pay out all the units, but the permit granting authority would know that right away because they've applied for a special permit for it. uh when that comes up during the hearing process, you know, it may be at the beginning, it could be as they're, you know, approving the project. And so with the current project, the one project
that had happened with um you know, it was toward the end of the discussion and it created an extra meeting where the developer went to the trust and then came back to the planning board to talk about what is the right cost of of a payment. And the planning board felt that the way the bylaw is written shall
be four times the current median family income. there was no ability to to you know to ask for anything different. Nothing more, nothing less. And so as Gaston mentioned, right, this you know there was a discussion afterward about saying wow, it would have been great if we could have asked for more um given
the location of the units and you know they're nice units, right? Say they're threebedroom units. or just the you know all the factors that went into play with that um project. And um you know it is a discussion at that point with the with the developer, the applicant and the
permitting board. And as the planning board member said, you know, the more efficient thing to do is just provide the units and to, you know, and the board felt it was okay if during the hearing process for the special permit that there is a discussion. And if it takes an extra meeting or two, well,
that should be expected because you're asking for a special permit for something that, you know, really is, you know, is a discretionary permit and, you know, you could have just provided the units in the first place. And so, um, you know, I haven't seen, you know, it's only happened once. I to me it wasn't an
arduous process you know it was a multi-hering um mo most of these projects will require more than one evening maybe you know so at some point um you know we would factor that into the notice requirements okay they're asking for a special permit for include for affordable units we would you know
try to schedule a meeting with the trust to happen at the same time as a you know the land use permitting and so we you know we you know staff would coordinate it so it's not you know we're not going to drag it out um and then staff would be involved with trying to determine what is a good range You know, right now a developer doesn't have to provide anything, just meet the
four times. And to me, this opens up an opportunity for a developer to say, "Here's what I think is reasonable." And, you know, it can be a discussion with the permitting board and the housing trust. Thank you, Jennifer. Um, I'm sorry. I just had a question, Nate. I think I didn't understand
something you said in that very um informative explanation, but you said something about six or more affordable units must be built right away. Oh no, sorry. If there's six or more I got that right. Yeah. If there's six or more affordable units required in the project, at least
half of them have to be provided in the project. So, you know, if if it's a big enough project and they required to provide seven affordable units or eight, they can't ask for a payment for all of them. You know, half of the units have to be provided in the project. So, if it's eight affordable units, four have to be built as part of the project and
then the developer could ask to do something with the other four, for instance. Okay. Thank you. Uh if there are no other specific questions from the committee, um I'm going to turn to the public and see if
there are any questions from the public. We have one Mora Keen in the audience and I'm going to ask Mora if she would like to ask any questions on this particular topic. If do if so, just raise your hand and
we'll have you come in. I'm not seeing any hand. So I think we can go on to um uh any let's let's just go right into the deliberation. If there are folks
that um if there are considerations that people want to have discussed, let's do that now. Councelor Hani, isn't the public also offered an opportunity to speak for or opposed to this after they have questions? Um,
yes, but I blended it into one. It's public questions from the public and then public speaking to the proposal. Um, it does not bother me to have to separate people who are speaking in favor of something or against something.
It's all one bag. I I understand that. It's just it sounded like you were asking if there were questions and then it never offered if you just wanted to speak about the proposal. That That's all. So, I was just clarifying that there's an opportunity to speak, not just ask a question.
Yeah, the attendee is welcome to ask questions and if there are questions, great. Um, I would then I would then ask if there are any comments and I don't see a hand. Oops, I see no no attendees in the audience.
We lost the We lost We lost Mora. Um, so I'm I'm going to move on to just deliber deliberation from this from this committee. Any thoughts? Councelor Hani.
Um, I I don't have many thoughts. It seems fine. I just am not sure that we know what we're trying to get the fee to be. And
that concerns me. Um, you know, like if there was an a better understanding of what the fee is meant to cover, not necessarily replace, you know, is it meant to the replace the full cost of creating
the SHI units in that development in perpetuity for 10 years, for 20 years? Is it that's meant to be the difference between the market rate rent they'll get by not putting the SHI units in there versus the SHI units for rent? So, I I guess I don't quite understand
how a board determines what the appropriate amount is if there's no guidance on what the amount is supposed to truly represent in the end. Um, I
don't know if that really affects this language per se. Um, but I think it might affect where that range goes. Um, and I I'd still like more on the answer of current median family
income that um I think Kathy or Jennifer or some someone asked about um Kathy asked about um because yes, it's generated. Yes, there's one for the Springfield area, but there's about 10 for the Springfield area. As Cathy said, there's the one person, there's the two
person, there's the three person, there's the four person, there's the 10 person household. Um, is it is it area current medium family income for the household that would fit in the units being not shi? Is it so that for each
unit it's a different number, you know, as the base number? So, if there's one-bedroom units, it's one base number. If there's two-bedroom units, it's a different base number that they're multiplying at three. I I think I'd like if if we're men amending this right now,
um clear up some of those those questions that we had that we weren't sure were clear enough at the same time. Uh I think is something I'd like to consider doing. Um, I guess I trust that others know more about what that range,
if there's a range, needs to be, but I'd still like more clarity as to what the goal of the final amount is meant to do. Um, so
thank thank you. And I'm I'm going to add to that before Nate answers. Um, thank you. It it feels to me that the trust um perhaps needs to give us uh what I would consider sort of a congressional
record. The the goal of it, the the um a little more detail on the process of of configuration, like Mandy just said, are we matching um family size to the unit being proposed?
Uh these are these are questions that certainly would have some weight in the deliberation of the value of a unit not being produced an SHI unit being produced for us at this time. Um,
is there some means for uh the trust to provide such a discussion and essentially a record of the basis the basis for decision. Nate, you had your hand up.
Sure. Thanks. Yeah. Um, HUD develops the median family income. It it, you know, it factors in it's not for household size. So if you go to the HUD data sets, they they produce a median family income number every year. So it's 119 right now for Ammerst and then they have, you know, have it broken down by income
levels and household sizes, but median family income is a defined data, you know, point that's calculated. So we're not, it's not based on household size. It's just a number that HUD generates. And so that's why the range comes in because, you know, in the factors that were added, unit sizes. So, you know,
what isn't taken into account with the four times in the median family income is what type of housing, size of housing, you know, the unit, all those things. And that's why this additional language the um when the town looked at changing the inclusionary zoning bylaw a
number of years ago, we had a consultant who looked at the different um um kind of payment options and what are the options of not providing the units. And that's where we came up with these two options in the bylaw, you know, and at the time the consultant said the idea is to almost really discourage the use of the payment by making it not so ownorous
but not so, you know, so cheap really, right? That's a developer is going to go to this every time and just get a payout that's less than the cost of a unit. I think it's really hard to get at what is the cost of a unit. I really think it does change whether you're an affordable housing developer like Beacon and you're
doing a 40B and you're getting tax credits or you're a private developer who's building strictly market rate housing and you know you you you don't do affordable units. And so I think some developers, as Greg mentioned, if it's a small project and they're not familiar with an affordable unit, they might opt for a payment just because they don't
they've never done an affordable unit before. They don't know what it means in terms of marketing or income restrictions and they just maybe don't want to have to do with deal with that. Um, and so to me that's the discussion point at the time with the trust and the permit granting authority and the
applicant. You know, hopefully the applicant is willing to say, "Here's kind of what I think is an appropriate number given our financial picture for this project." And then, you know, it's a discussion with the permit board and staff and the trust. Okay, well, how how can we leverage that? If you know, if they're saying if we say it's four times and
it's 480 right now, is that really enough to get a unit built? um you know if it's a unit in downtown it might not be if you have to then buy a property develop the units build new or rehabilitate a building is 480,000 actually enough to get the number of
units they're pay making the payment in lie of and so the statement says the value for each affordable unit not provided and so to me it's you know it's really how much is it going to take if it's not part of this project that's already been designed and going through permitting to get another affordable unit comparable affordable unit and if
you know with these factors added market conditions, unit sizes, and location. You know, to forego an affordable unit in downtown, what does it take to get another affordable unit downtown? Um, you know, whether that is new construction or rehabilitation, whatever it is, it's probably a bigger number than if it's an affordable unit
somewhere else in town. Uh, and and I think it's it depends on the project type. You know, a a 50-unit apartment building might have economies of scale that the perunit cost is cheaper than a 10-unit townhouse project. And so, it's really variable. I think it's really difficult to say it's going to be this
number every time for a unit. And you know, and to me that's why it's a discretionary special permit, right? It's something that a developer has to opt into. They decide to do it because they don't want to provide the units in their project. Um and they they they're not
Thank you. Sorry. Sorry to cut you off. So, if we are um it what we're what we're saying in the in the wording in red at the at the bottom of this page is these are all the factors that that you should consider. Whatever factor you
come back come back come up with is going to then be linked to sort of the closest comparable 4x 5x 6x times the the family income. So the family income is is really just the
marker. It is not going to be the determining factor for this value. I'm going to come back again to the construction cost and and ask if um just as we the assessor will go to a business and
say you know what's your net operating income? The business has to or a commercial building the the business has to show their income. It has to show their costs. Why is that any different or why is this
any different? Where you say, "Okay, builder, what are your costs for the square footage of this particular unit that you want to that you want to replace or or not build? Um,
they certainly would have that information. they they will have that on the back of their napkin at least when they go to uh develop the project. That shouldn't be and that would be totally project
specific. So the value for a unit in project A is is going to be a certain value. Um so I keep coming back to it feels that construction value uh has a lot more
weight than is being given here. Uh councelor Hani trying to figure out how to word this. So if AM or if median family income is 120K
and we're trying to modify this to up to 10 times that, which would then be $1.2 million for one unit. If the permit granting authority tried to demand that
and there's an alternative method to putting the unit in the building of putting a unit somewhere else in town, why wouldn't that just encourage an applicant to buy a single family home
anywhere in town um and declare it the SHI? um like even at 550,000 that's about where our median
single family home price is. So um what are we actually are so is there a point in time where this number is so high that it would behoove the developer to still not put
the unit in the building because they want a building that doesn't have SHI units say but just simply purchase a current single family home and then permanently SHI it with,
you know, Valley CDC managing it or something. Um, and if if that is that something we would want because because doing that would be cheaper than payments in lie of um, and is that
something we want a developer to be able to consider doing because that is more cost-effective than either paying the amount or including the units in the development they're seeking the permit for.
May I try to address a few? Sure. Sure. Yep. Yeah. I mean, I think the underlying question, what's the point of the number? The point of the number, as I understand it, is that the town should be at least a little better off in its
prospects for affordable housing with the payment in le than it would be without. And so it's not the cost of construction for the developer units that matters as much as the cost of construction for seen as uh for
development of new units that is that is critical. So, does the town does the trust is there the capacity to um put the town in a better position by doing something with that money than just
letting the units be built in the building or as councelor Heny just suggested you know somewhere nearby. um I I don't really see any issue between those two um alternatives. And so I see that as the as the fundamental purpose
here and I understand that that's why the trust is uh heard from first because we're the conscience of is this going to be better for the town's affordable housing prospects portfolio, however you want to put it. Um, so that's I guess
the the the touchstone and the the the the um yeah, the the the median income. I mean, look, the number now, yes, is would be up to 1.2 million. We've seen the cost of construction go from somewhere in the 300 to somewhere um
towards 700 in just a few years. So the flexibility is meant to just um not require updating every uh every year um uh in in fast inflation uh times.
Thank you Kathy. And then Nate, um I just I guess I want to build on Mandy's question on do you have if you go too high, do you have an unintended consequence? Um and what she was looking
at was not and I had so thank you Mandy for raising this. We've got the provision in the bylaw that you don't have to provide it at this place as I remember it. You can provide it somewhere else. And uh one of the things
that the inclusionary zoning bylaw was trying to do is get mixed income. So not put all the low-income people in one not segregate low income into just low-income housing. It was supposed to get result in some mix. Um so it's I'm
you know the four maybe need to be higher than four is a question you know because four times um and I looked up native of course is right if you link it link it to HUD HUD puts out one thing
AMI and it's the confusing thing is to call it family because it's at kind of a median income and they just slice the whole distribution in the middle. Um, so it's and then for each family size when you figure out the rent they vary it. But but if four is too low, is the range
too high is my question that you get this um completely opting out um of not the trust isn't getting the money and the unit is not in the new building. The
unit is over in um another place. Um, and then you're that that that developer presumably has the other place on their hand and they're going to have to manage as a rental. Um so does do are we worried about the range going too
high you know wherever the starting point is because of a unintended consequence that the trust fund does not get the money the unit is not in the building but they identified another place that they would uh put put
affordable units in that they have space somewhere you could put them and I can't remember Nate you may not know how this works I don't know whe anyone's used that option because it's got some provisions like they can't say, you know, I'm building in the middle of town and way down out in a whole another
neighborhood. I've got a place where I can put someone. I think it's supposed to be somewhat near. I'm just not remembering even though I was around when this was passed. So that's that's my question is can you just avoid this avoid building and then Mandy's point of
put put this affordable unit say here's the affordable unit I'm designating Nate sure yeah I was going to just clarify that the off-site units are for projects located in only a few zoning districts and then the the offsite units have to be within those same zoning districts or
within 500 ft of the project. So, you couldn't do a project downtown and then purchase a unit on Bay Road. So, the, you know, the bylaw says off-site units may be allowed for projects principally located in the BG, BVC, BN, and BL districts abuing the BG district. Um,
off-site units shall be located within the same zoning district or within 500 ft of the premises. Okay. So, so it's you're answering it's it's extremely limited. you can't just uh jump in and buy buy something very far away, but it's those um and those
are going to be pretty pricey, Mandy, the particular uh places that are listed here. Um it could it could be that say for instance, if a developer is proposing something downtown and they've owned another property for 30 years, a two family house within 500 ft, the cost of
transitioning that to affordable housing isn't much for them because they've owned it for so long. And so, you know, and you know, as Gaston said, well, we're getting the units anyways and it's within a it's it's proximal to the project that that's that's probably fa that's favorable. Um, you know, so it's not like they're going
to then, right, put them miles away from the project location. So, then the range is not a concern here because because of this other restriction on it or presumably it's not a concern. Yeah. I mean, you know, I would say that right now if if if someone came in and and you know, and they and this were in
place, I don't think staff would jump jump right to 10 times the amount, right? I mean, I hope we're going to have a reasonable um approach to this. And so, some of it would be the developers have to say, here's what they think is also reasonable. And so, they have to have be a part of the conversation. And right now, we don't really have that uh given the structure
of the bylaw and what what happened with the one case where it um where it was used. And so, you know, you know, whether or not the range is too high or too low, what it to me, what it's doing is it's it's opening a conversation that isn't we don't have any we don't have now. And so, even if we said it was
seven times the amount and we didn't allow it to be waved at some point, seven times might be too high and it might be too low, but that's just what the amount's going to be. What we're trying to build into this is something that's a little bit more um appropriate and can change to the project that's being reviewed. So it's, you know, it's kind of sensitive to each application,
not just one number. And and as I guess Stone mentioned, it allows for changes. So, you know, hopefully we don't have to then change this bylaw in three years because the cost has changed and our multiplier is wrong. Um, it's, you know, can adjust for all those factors. Okay. Thank you, Jennifer.
Yeah, I I mean, I don't you know, it it's not a bad thing. I mean, it's reassuring to know that a downtown project, you can't acquire a house, you know, far from transportation where someone would have to have a car. But a
families might prefer to live in a house that's permanently affordable, then yeah, I'm just saying I don't think that's in and of itself a bad alternative. If somebody does have a house that might actually, you know, I know a family living in affordable unit
in the sunset fearing apartments and you know they're sort of contending with students playing basketball upstairs at night and you know there's a lot of houses for rent in the adjacent area. They might be very happy to be in a a house that the developer provided or
purchased in lie of a unit in you know in that particular development. If I may say, the the developers made this sort of argument when they came to us. They told us, you know, um this is not a great place for a family. Uh you
can't get to a grocery store. Uh and so on. And so in effect, they were arguing that we shouldn't give that much value to affordable units in that building. And you know, we we had to cons we considered that. We thought about that. And then I'll just add that that in all
likelihood as we look at the development of the downtown uh I'll just call it the Henyan the Henyan block even though that's not its official name um share coffee block. Uh there there would be
very likely uh an application of this sort in that area. If if a development occurs, um housing nearby might be designated as the affordable units for in lie of um
something being produced in a in a new construction. Uh I think that would be entirely plausible if that's if that scenario uh came came about. Um and I think just in looking at this this range
um it feels like it feels like most of the um bases have been covered in terms of considerations. Um I guess I would I would pose to the
committee are there is there any particular wording that you might feel more comfortable with or are there provisions such as uh what councelor Hani was asking for in an explanation or
clarification of goal and where where where would that occur if there are thoughts on that? I don't see any hands on that. Councelor Hani, thank you. Yeah, I was just going to say I I think I got
the I I I my questions and and sort of iffiness on should we be doing anything else to clear this up have been answered. Um my understanding though is that the planning board has not closed their hearing. Um, and therefore I would
suggest that we do not close it even if we feel like we would be ready to close it simply because of the state law that surrounds all of this. Um that that we continue it to sometime after the next time the planning board will hold their
hearing their continued hearing. Um even if we're basically ready to close and vote it the timeline doesn't work if they haven't closed their hearing. Great. Thank you, Kathy. Um, just for my, as you all know, I haven't been
through this before and I'm finding it odd that we can't be meeting at the same time the planning board did. So, I do agree, Mandy, if the planning board comes up with um a five to 10 as a range, for example. I'd be fine with that, but I wouldn't want us to take a
vote on changing this wordy just among the five of us before I knew where they were going to go with it. It just seems like a an inefficient is I guess my best my best thing. And uh the more than 10 as I now understand it
actually more clearly when I heard the discussion. you know, if you're replacing three a threebedroom unit, it should it shouldn't be just four, you know. So, that's where some of this driving is. And I have no idea what the
range should be. So, why not four to 10? You know, you're going to have it this be negotiated anyway. So, I'm I don't think there's anything unclear about this. Um, now that I know there is only one median income, so we're not talking about which one. and that market
conditions includes the cost of construction. So I agree and Mandy just on if we don't close and then they continue can we just quickly close then with whatever they they've come up with as a change so that we go in a unified
way to the council. How I just want to know what the logistics the process on that is. Councelor Hanaki. Um if I may I'm sure Pam could answer this too. So we don't close because once we close our hearing the council must vote within is it 90 days 65 days some
number whether or not the planning board has held the hearing. If we don't vote within a certain time of our close date we have to rehold and notice a hearing. The other benefit of not closing it till the planning board is is exactly what you said. we know what they voted on and
so then we can either vote on that exact same thing or vote on something with amendments to what they voted on. So it's it's cleaner for the council that way because it's likely in this place we may end up agreeing with exactly what
they come up with, but if we voted on this today, we'd end up with two different things probably given the conversation at the planning board. Um so th those are the two reasons. The main one though is we don't want to have to publish a new notice of hearing and hold another hearing.
Then I'm I'm totally comfortable with continuing then. That makes sense. Thank you. Yes, Nate. Yeah, I think the planning board you know they they wanted to continue it just in case you know you had some some some uh you know some big changes. I do
think that they're leaning towards uh five replacing the four so having increasing the seal the floor so at least five times and no more than 10 and whether or not they put in the cost of delay as an additional um factor to consider but they you know they seem
pretty ready um to you know to to recommend those changes uh to the to the bylaw um and they meet next week and so um you know I think that you know the ADU discussion we'll have next. I don't think they're ready, but I think with this one, they were ready to possibly
recommend, you know, five times in the additional factor. So, you know, um Kathy, to your point, the planning board makes recommendations and the CRC makes recommendations both back to council. What we've tried to do is have them be the same, but they might not be in some instance. It might be that, you know,
there's a zoning amendment that goes to town council and that's what's before you and the planning board comes back and they recommend a bunch of changes and the CRC recommends different changes and then the council then has to reconcile what those two different recommendations are. And so it that
hasn't happened. We staff tries to manage the process so that both CRC and planning board can understand what um you know the questions and comments from from each other. Um, and so, uh, that, you know, usually we try to have a similar document. It may not work out that way, but so what I'm saying is at
least for the planning board for this one, they'll probably say five and they might put the cost of delay in next week and then take a vote. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I I had one final thought that I I like the fact that somebody thinks that
cost and construction cost is part of market conditions, but I know that I would personally feel a little more comfortable if it said something like shall account for market conditions and project costs and because again every
project has its own cost basis and it's just a a reminder of that as a factor uh which I think as important as some of the other elements. Um, so am I hearing a motion for uh continuation of this? This is a
very good conversation. Thank you everybody. Uh, councelor Heni. Um, I move to continue this hearing to August 28th at 3:05 p.m.
Second. Second. Okay, thank you. Uh, let's see. All in favor? Um, Kathy Shane, yes. Pam, yes. Councelor Hani, hi. Jennifer Tob. Yes.
And Pat D'Angelus is absent. So it is 41 absent. Um we will continue. We will continue on the 28th of August. Thank you everyone so much. Uh thank you Geston. Thank you Greg. Uh
and I don't know if you're going to stay with us for the ADUs but of course you're welcome to to hang out in the audience. Thank you all. Cheers. It is it is 409. Um I got to write that down so I don't
forget. And we are discussing zoning bylaw article 5 accessory uses in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 4A. This public hearing of the community resources committee of the Ammeristown
Council has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw.
Article five, accessory uses to consider amending the zoning bylaw by rescending section 5.011 011 accessory dwelling units ADU and replacing it with a new section 5.011
that includes provisions for a local ADU and for the protected use ADU which are permitted by right in accordance with the Affordable Homes Act. I'm looking to see if we have attendees. We do not have any attendees, but I'll
go through this again anyway. Uh any disclosures, applicant presentation, questions from the board, questions from the public, public speaking to the proposal, uh any responses from the planning
staff, and then deliberation from the board, followed by deliberation. Did I just say that? Maybe. Um and then a motion and a vote if we decide to continue or to vote on it. So, I'm turning to Nate. It is. So
it's let's take a quick check. It's about 10 after 4 and um the remaining agenda is not extensive. So I think we have some good time to to delve into this project. So Nate, floor is yours.
Thank you. Sure. Thanks Pam. Um yeah, so you know this was presented I I guess I'll back up. you know, the state um you know, passed new legislation and then rules and regulations earlier this year u that were effective that you know, you can have a protected use ADU. Uh Amoris has
allowed ADUs. We called them supplemental apartments and other things going back many years. Uh and so, you know, what we had hoped to do was then come up with a bylaw that match the state legislation and rules and regulations. Um and we have this zoning amendment here. You know, it's a
changing it's it's a changing landscape. So, the attorney general is still reviewing um both fall and spring town meeting articles that are submitted to them and issuing determinations and they post them online. And so, you know, since this was initially presented to town council, there's been some changes.
So, there's a draft dated July 18th. Uh and there's even some more changes. So, as the attorney general keeps reviewing uh you know, articles submitted to them by different towns, they post their legal decisions online. And so, you know, I feel like it's you know, I I have some ideas to change these. And so some of the changes that were made since
this first was referred by council is to, you know, kind of be consistent with what the attorney general is saying to different communities, you know, what they would like to see in a zoning bylaw, a local bylaw. And um, you know, so what the state has said is that um,
in a they call it a single family residential zoning district. So in any zoning district in a community that allows a single family home, whether it's by special permit or by right or by building permit or by site plan review, you know, whether that's in a residential district or commercial a commercial district, uh you have to
allow a protected use ADU um on that property. And so in Ammerst, we um have allowed uh single family homes just in our residential zoning districts. But for instance, there are some communities that allow single family homes in their industrial districts. And they've said to in their zoning bylaw, they don't
want to have ADUs in those districts. And the attorney general has come back and said, well, you allow single family homes in your industrial district by special permit. And so you have to allow protected use ADUs in those districts. um as long you know and so any property that has a principal dwelling which
includes at least one dwelling unit is then allowed a protected use ADU. So it's not just a single family home, it could be a duplex, it could be a triplex, it could be an apartment building is a principal dwelling um as long as it has one dwelling unit. And then if you're in the a zoning district
that allows a single family home, you're allowed to have a protected use ADU. Uh and the state changed their legislation. So, a protected use ADU is part of um protected uses. You know, there's a bunch of them according to state law. So, you really can't deny it
and you have to have reasonable regulations um local regulations. And so, you know, the the crux of the matter in a lot of these local bylaws is what's reasonable. So, you know, limiting the number of bedrooms is has been considered unreasonable. you know, requiring parking space if you're within
a certain um distance from a um a bus stop is is actually, you know, prohibited and also unreasonable. Having occupancy restrictions is unreasonable and prohibited. And so communities have have tried to take different approaches to regulate ADUs. And the attorney
general has often said, well, according to the regulation, this is how we're interpreting it. And no, that's unreasonable. And so, um, you know, at first the planning board thought, well, let's have some owner occupancy or come up with a student home definition. And honestly, that would be unreasonable and prohibited. And so, you know, in my
mind, the state is really saying, allow ADUs. Allow protected use ADUs. What we proposed in the bylaw is a local ADU that's bigger than a protected use ADU up to,200 ft, and then a protected use ADU that meets the state definition. And I I I'll walk through and share the
screen uh in a minute. Um, and so what we're saying is that you could have two ADUs on a property. Um, just so we're clear. And so Kathy, thanks. She was at the planning board. There's been some questions asked and since then I've spoken with KP Law, an attorney at KP Law, and had a few few more um, you
know, thoughts and clarifications. And so the way the bylaw was presented to town council, it was this local ADU, which is bigger than a protected use up to,200 ft that has an owner occupancy requirement. And then a property also has a protected use ADU um or protected
use ADU. So, you know, we can't we can't deny a protected use ADU. Um so if someone did a local ADU first, then they could get a protected use or vice versa is what how we've written it. Uh just so everyone's clear. Um and then we have these standards and conditions or general requirements for a local ADU and
protected use ADU and then specific requirements for the local and for the um for the protected. Uh, and we've really tried to simplify the bylaw, uh, in terms of, you know, what it says. Um, I think the one clarification I've I've had since we proposed this to town
council is that, um, if you have a protected use ADU on a property and we allow a local one, so it's a second ADU, it has to be by special permit. So, in our bylaw where we say it's an administrative approval, that can only happen if it's the first ADU, but if
it's the second one, it has to be by special permit. Um, and so, you know, I, you know, the rules and rags say that it's been interpreted differently in different communities. Um, I think it's been clarified with an attorney general determination and through KP law. So,
um, that kind of changes my opinion on the local one. It's it would seem strange that we'd allow it. maybe it'd be okay that it would be the, you know, so our B would have to change and say, you know, if it's comes after the protected use, it's by special permit. Um, so that's some language that would
have to be added into our bylaw. Um, the other one is, uh, if we've permitted a number of these ADUs already, um, you know, uh, it could be over 30. It's probably over 30. Um, and a number of them are over 900 square feet. So, they
don't meet the definition of a protected use ADU. Um, and and then there's a lot that do meet the definition of a protected use ADU. And in our minds, those are going to, you know, those are just automatically protected use ADUs. And so, um, if those have permit
requirements on them, um, you know, certain conditions that are now unreasonable, we can't we won't enforce them. And so, you know, if they have an owner occupancy requirement and it's now meets the criteria and definition of a protected use ADU, you know, we were the town can enforce that owner occupancy
requirement. If it's an ADU that doesn't meet the definition of a protected use because of its size, then it's still regulated by the permit or whatever, you know, conditions that were associated with it when it was when it was um permitted. So, you know, I think, you know, KP Law mentioned when I spoke with
an attorney today that a lot of communities are trying to figure out what to do with these pre-existing ADUs. What does it mean if they a lot of communities are allowing a second ADU, a local ADU, how do you permit those if it, you know, if you still have to allow a protected ADU? And so, uh, you know,
there haven't been a lot of answers. Um, I think it's more to come as more communities adopt their zoning bylaw and either it gets litigated and there's case law or the attorney general keeps reviewing town meeting articles which will happen for the next month or two
and I I can stop there if there's any questions. I see. Yeah, let's start. So, let's start with um Oh, we forgot to do any member disclosures. Any shake your head if there are no member disclosures. Okay, good. Let's go ahead. So um
questions from the members Jennifer and then Kathy. So uh the question I want to ask if there is an ADU already there that's 900 ft. So now it becomes a protected no
reversed there's an ADU there it's 1,000 square ft. So it's not doesn't become a protected use. Then they want to build a protected use. If the is are there any dimensions of the lot that they have to meet for a third like I'm thinking of
few doors down from me on Sunset and Fearing they're building an ADU be behind another house. The two almost touch cuz the lot is so small. Could a third go there? Let's say the first let's say there was already an ADU
there that wasn't protected use part of the town by what the town allow allows and they wanted to put a protected use. Could you require that it be a certain number of feet would have to be there? Yeah. So the dimensional standards so lot coverage setbacks
still apply and so you know in an instance where someone built a local ADU first and then they said oh I'd like to do the protected use now they'd have to meet the dimensional standards. um you know and it and and they might not be able to right they may have the lot size
or shape or the way they've designed their ADU their first one doesn't allow them to get a second one um and so you know that that becomes you know um you know maybe they can't get to the 900 but maybe they can do a 400 foot ADU or a
600 or maybe it can be you know addition to the house or they could you know it doesn't have to be a standalone structure it could be right within the existing dwelling it could be adding a or there's a different you know it can be a number of solutions to create an ADU but they can't create you know they
can't create a non-conformity by getting too close to the sid setback or you know something like that y uh Kathy um if if we did not include local ADUs in
this and we just did protected use and we have an ADU that's 1,000 ft square feet. So, I understand it's non-conforming and that we have a lot of non-conforming stuff throughout town. So, I'm not that concerned about that.
What I was wondering is does the local ADU that's a,000 ft that came in on the with the deed restriction that one of the two buildings either principal or ADU must be owner occupied. Does that still
remain? So that's question number one, you know, so it's the non-conforming one, the bigger and uh not a new local one existing. If we have an ADU that's under 900 square ft and that for
whatever reason, do they now become protected use and the deed restriction that they agreed to where one or the other is owner occupied? Does that get nullified? So it's, you know, with So I'm looking at just the body of you said
there are 30 of them and let's say not all of them are a thousand, but some of them are or most of them are. So, it's what happens if we don't have local ADU in this bylaw. We just focus on
we just focus on protected use. And then I have a question about why include that. But I'm I'm just going to stick with Yeah, let's let's Yeah, let's hear from Nate. Thank you. Right. So, um a community can be more permissive than the state regulation. So, we could allow a protected use ad
you know up to a,000, you know, 1,200, however big we wanted it. It doesn't, you know, the state sets a kind of a minimum standard and we can be more generous. So, say we're not and we just have we don't do a local ADU and we just meet the basic definition from the state
and you have, you know, you're 900 square feet or smaller, then the ADUs that are pre-existing that are that don't meet the state definition, say they're the,000 square feet or they're more than half the the floor area, those are non-conforming. And so that property is still allowed to put a second
protected ADU on it. But that was my question is does the owner occupancy for that one still prevail? Does the I I understand that. Yes, it still does. So So if if we didn't open up the door to more and we stayed with N 900, if you
were larger, that would still prevail. If you're meet the definition of this protected use, that goes away. Right. Is that correct? That's correct. It's a qu It's a question and I'm I'm trying to Yes. Yeah. No. No. Yeah. And that's I asked the attorney today this question. So,
for instance, we have a lot of permits on properties in town, whether it's special permit or site plan review that require owner occupancy. So, you know, you have a special permit for a duplex and we and one of the conditions of the permit is one of the units has to be owner occupied. That property is still
allowed a protected use ADU, but it doesn't nullify or wipe out that special permit or the owner occupancy requirement. So that you know the special permit for that use is still in place with all those conditions. The they're allowed a protected use ADU. We can't put an owner occupancy requirement
on the ADU but you know the special permit conditions for that duplex still remain. So it's similar to what you were saying Kathy. They have these pre-permitted ADUs that have some other conditions on them and if the that property wants to then put a new
protected use ADU because their existing is bigger than it doesn't qualify as protected any conditions or things associated with that um previous ADU and that permit still remain on the property. The I will say yeah the difference would
be if we allowed a protected ADU up to a thousand square feet. So, say we only have one ADU in our bylaw and we say we don't want to have any non-conforming ADUs. We want them all to be protected up to a thousand square feet. Then ad any ADU we've permitted so far, um the
owner occupancy requirement is, you know, essent is gone then, right? We can't enforce that. So, you know, of the however many we've permitted, those all become protected and any conditions we have on those that are unreasonable can no longer be enforced. Okay. I I think you've answered my
question um on the large one and then we can come back because I see Mandy's hand. So, what I'm uh I'm not talking about putting a second ADU on, but let's say I have a home and I built an ADU that is 800 square feet. So, it's well
within this. But I agreed to have owner occupancy on one of the two properties. Does that still stand or does because it meets the definition of protected does that restriction have to be revisited?
It's I know it's a peculiar question so I'm not talking about another one. I know your question. Yeah. No. So the way um you know our attorney and the way a lot of communities are interpreting the regulations is that if you have an ADU that meets the criteria and definition of a protected use ADU, it's
a protected use ADU. even though it may have been permitted by special permit at the time and has all these other requirements like owner occupancy or four parking spaces, whatever it may be, it it it's automatically a um protected use. Yep.
Okay. And and in this case then we do a new protected use. The um a second protected use one couldn't be built on that lot unless we decided to allow one by by special permit. it it would no longer be a protected use. So only one
protected use is allowed on a property. So if it you allow a second one, you know, it has to be something different. It could be the same, it could be the same size, but you know, you're going to call it a local ADU or a second ADU or whatever. And I'll come back to some when we get
to content discussions. Um Mandy, just I wanted that one because I thought of what if we didn't do local in this at all? What happens to the larger local? And I wasn't talking about going up a 900. I was talking about keeping it 900. Thanks. Thank you, uh, Council Henneck.
So, I I had some similar I have a lot of questions um a lot of concerns about some of the um language in here um and questions about that. So, I don't know how you want me to go through them, whether we're going to go section by section at some point. Um, gauge,
but I I I had that concern that Kathy was having. I'm I'm not sure where to start with all my questions because I have so many, but um So, let me let me ask, are they sort of organized by by category or would it be they're just I I've just added them into
the document. So, they're by technically section, I guess you would say. And I have the same thing, Pam, but I just decided to focus on one. So, go Mandy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, we're So, what we're trying to do is just sort of get all the questions out there and then hopefully
we'll get some responses from Nate. Um, and then may maybe once we've done that, we could go through section by section to see if you know if those things still drive. So, do you want me to ask all the questions I have? There's like
25. There's there's there's close to 20. Okay. Well, well, tonight is the night we're talking about this. Let me let me ask Jennifer then if she has something ask before you start. Oh, what I want to ask is if
so if you have I'm kind of forgetting my question, but it had to do with Oh, if you're having a second unit on the property and it's meets it's 900 square ft or below, you could because you need a special permit. You could impose an
owner occupancy as part of the special permit. There's already a protected use. So, this is not protected use. I guess I'm asking Nate. So, uh, so you're saying there is a pre-existing ADU that was built before
the legislation and No, no, I'm saying there's a protected use ADU and they want to build another ADU, right? Um so it's 900 square feet or above or below 900 the special permit could require owner occupancy
right so right now we we define local ADU as big being bigger than the protected use up to 1200 square feet or 90% of the habitable space so there's a size differential so you couldn't have essentially two ADUs of the same size on a property because you know the state's been clear if you're not you know if
you're if you're if you don't really define it that way then what is really the protected use or the local ADU. I guess what I was ask you only have one protect you only yes only one protected use and so the second one no matter the size you could impose an
owner occupancy if on the special permit if you chose to right it would apply to that ADU it couldn't apply to the protected use right um I guess you know my question for the CRC is I mean I I'll be honest I'm kind of leaning towards getting rid of a local ADU
knowing that if you have the protected use first then the second one is a special permit. If if if we could have done it administratively. Sure. And you know, at the same time, if we did that, then someone could take a a one or two unit property and get two more units. I think the better approach
would be um say coming up with like a triplex definition or another use a residential use classification or zoning bylaw. And so if you know I'm going to recommend this to the planning board probably and one of the planning board members asked like couldn't we just do a protected use up to,200 square feet. A
lot of the planning board said no because then you don't have the owner occupancy requirement on all the ones that have already been permitted and you don't have it going forward on large ADUs. I would say that we haven't had any issues with 1,000 square feet. Granted, we have conditions on them, but I would recommend if we just do a
protected ADU, let's make it 1,000 square feet. We lose the owner occupancy requirements on the ones we've already permitted. But what we found is that, you know, 900 feet actually isn't that big. a thousand square feet, you know, in terms of number of um tenants is not going to make a difference in term of
number of occupants on in that unit. You know, the 100 square feet is not like you're going to go from, you know, we have a four unrelated, but it's not like you're going to go from five to 10 occupants because of 100 additional square feet. Um, but if anyways, whether or not we agree on the square feet, if we think we're going to get rid of the
local ADU provision or recommend that back to council, then we don't have to um we don't have to look at any of those sections of the proposed bylaw. And the CRC would recommend to council to eliminate the local ADU option. Um, and then, you know, only stick with a
protected use ADU. So, I'm I'm kind of leaning that way. That's that's that's a good that's a good starting point. And I see people nodding. Um, but before we actually deliberate, let's let's see if we can tackle uh Council Hanaki's questions,
unless Kathy has a very short question. No, no, no. Since I focused on just one question, I want to hear Mandy's because I have a lot of very specific, but what she said on every page, I have uh organizational questions. I have
specific questions about some sentences um in terms of one on parking, but Mandy, why don't you go? Thanks. So, to answer Nate's question, I've been advocating this for a while. I think our definition of protected use
ADU should include as many as of the current ADUs that have already been built as possible because it gets complicated to try to do two different ADUs as Nate just said. And I think that complication is unnecessary and seems to
create more potential problems and questions, including in just drafting the bylaw, than we solve. And a number of my questions actually go to some of that, I think, as I go down here. But to start with the questions, the last sentence of the
purpose is not comprehensive. Um, and if we're going to say what ADUs enable, we either should be comprehensive about what they enable. Um, or we should just delete the sentence. Um, okay. Well, hold on just just a moment. Sorry. Um, uh, Council Hani, we're going
to get definitely get into substance here. So, let's let's move let's just kind of go through and just make sure that there are no uh attendees asking questions. We'll sort of wrap up the question section and then let's just dive into the section by section and
Nate can probably pull that up on the screen. Um I see no people in the audience and so there is nothing to respond to. Let's go to um let's just speak to the proposal.
And Nate, do you want to bring your material up? To be clear, I have questions and that was one of the first ones. Why is that sentence in there? Because it's not comprehensive. If you want it phrased as a question, why is it in there when it's not comprehensive? You either make it
comprehensive or you delete it because why would you put an uncomprehensive sentence in there? Um, if you want questions, let's try to do it that way then. Okay. Um, and maybe we'll get answers. So, so um I
just talked about why are we doing two a protected and a local um the um let's see in the definitions um why are we not putting some of these
just into article 12 um and why are we not defining ADU specifically? Um, we're defining a local ADU and a protected use ADU, but the everything
else, most of the bylaw refers to just ADU. So, why are we not defining ADU? I don't believe I saw an ADU definition within the definition section of article 12 when I looked, but I I could be mistaken by that. And and then why are
they in here? Why are a number of these definitions in here instead of article 12? Um um should we include a statement that all the article 12 definitions also apply? Um because the statement here is
the following definition shall apply. Is that comprehensive enough I guess is the question on that one. Um, within the local ADU definition, item two appears to have
two different definitions of how to determine the size. Um, am I correct on that? um larger than a protected use ADU but
shall not be larger than 1,200 square ft or 90% of the habitable space of the largest principal dwelling whichever is smaller. So, it seems to have two different definitions of determining size,
including I'm not sure whichever is smaller what that is. Um, referencing is that referencing. So, so yeah, it's it's a confusing definition and I'm not sure why we would
have two um two different ways of defining it. um protected use ADU. Why is the definition of a protected use ADU beyond the size number um particularly within
section little two not follow the regulation definition exactly? And does that create any problems for our definition? because the regulation definition uses gross floor area, not just floor area, doesn't include
habitable habitable space because it's gross floor area. Um, so why are we not following the regulation definition exactly within our protected use accessory ADU definition other than the square foot number which
I know we'll be discussing later. Um, why in the general requirements have we just chosen not to prohibit short-term rentals of ADUs? That is one allowable prohibition. And have we considered whether we should do
that? And if so, why? What was the conclusion as to why not to do that? Um, if there was a consideration and if there hasn't been, should we be considering it? Um and and to go along with that, has the AG
um talked about any or discussed any town's attempts to define what a short-term rental is. I know during the de development of the regulations, there was a lot of question about how the state was referencing it
that didn't really talk about a definition. Has there been any clarity in what an ADU can define, what a town can define as a short-term rental for ADU regulation purposes? Um,
for I think I'm on to 50113 section B. um that rewarding at least doesn't pro doesn't object to and this may become un
irrelevant. It it doesn't now violate the regulations. So, I'm happy about the rewarding in that way, but if I read it correctly, it allows two ADUs on every lot, no matter the order built. And is that something we want to do or intended
to do with this new regulation considering our current bylaw prohibits more than one ADU on a lot? Um in in D uh regulations for protected ADUs cannot
be more specific than allowed for single family dwellings in that zone. And so I was curious whether D if single family dwellings are allowed to curb cuts by right and if so how does D not violate
the regulations? Um E um section 7.102 and section 7.103 103 of our by zoning bylaw
do not apply to single family homes. So, how can those sections apply to protected use ADUs? Again, because the regulations say you can't be add regulations that aren't applicable
to single family homes. So, I was concerned about the parking plan section. Um um Council Hani, I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna pause I'm gonna pause you. Just a second. There were a lot. I know, but that that's good. That was
that was a pretty cohesive group. I'm going to go to Athena, though, who's had her hand up for a bit. I'm so sorry to interrupt. I have a charter review subcommittee at 5. So, I was just asking if you could please wrap up at 5. Yes. Or we can close the meeting at 5 if
that would help you. Thank you. And just just let us know. I'm happy to we will try to close at five. Yes. But um but either myself or Dave Zomec can also close it.
I can't run the other meeting while this meeting is running because they're both on my account. So they're on the same Zoom. They're on the same Zoom account. Pam. Got it. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. I just want people to know Mandy is hitting what I call she's turning my
comments into questions. She's hitting most of them. So I will be very short once she gets through with her very long list. Oh, thank you. I have I think three more. Okay, let's let's hear them and then and then we're going to look to Nate.
Yeah. So the new H the storage of waste management again the question is is that storage requirement applied to single family residential dwellings? Um again for the same reason I asked the question about how the regulations refer
to what we can regulate. um uh questions on um J and K. I haven't seen it in the regulations, but I remember at some point and so the question is at some point the regulations from the state were going to prohibit sort of that
requirement of frontage or placement of ADU within the plot. And so the question is, is there any statement from the AG or not that would affect items J and K about entrances, exits, placement because these really do prefer
something? And I had thought the regulations prohibited that. So has that changed or has there been clarity from the AG about those sort of design standards? Um, and then the spec I I'll skip the
specific to local ADU. There are two questions I have with specific to local ADU, but if in the end we end up getting rid of that, I don't have to ask them, so I'll skip them for time concerns at this point. And then that's it. I'm going to go.
Okay. Thank you. And I'm going to go to Jennifer who's had her hand up and then Kathy to see if Kathy's gonna re rewalk the same path. Sorry, just I'll let you know. I'm sorry. Sorry, Jennifer. I'm uh writing
or making notes in my word document as Mandy was going. So, Jennifer, if you have questions about specific sections, I'll just make notes of in it and then I can share my screen. Um, okay. Yeah. No, mine might it was mine might be more a comment, but um no, I was just responding in part a question
uh when you said have the protected use ADU be a thousand square feet. It won't really make a difference. I mean it it I think it could make a difference. You know, according to state law, you need 125 ft for the first tenant and 100 for
each additional. So, you could have another person. It just makes it we can't you're there's going to be a lot of houses rented to four unrelated people that are now going to have an ADU. And if we can't place any limit on how many can live there,
you know, we're easily going to have seven, eight people living in close quarters. And if we allow it to be I don't know why we'd allow it to be larger and invite the possibility of more tenants. I realize we're certain, you know, it
doesn't it won't be an issue in areas that have much more land per house. So if you have a larger ADU, but when I think of the one on two, you know, three houses from where I am, allowing that ADU by right to be another 100 square ft
would have a real impact. There's already going to be probably eight residents living very in a very small lot and or maybe seven and allowing one more. Um, you know, we'll have a real impact on the neighborhood.
Thank you. Uh, I'm going to go to Kathy. Uh, well, Kathy, do you want to express all your questions and then we go to Nate for response? So, especially because he's he's scrolling through and putting them in. So, I took a careful list of what Mandy
had done. She, as I said, she hit most of them. So just Mandy, I didn't hear her the and it's going to under 113 little e there's a parking plan required and then later there's no more than three on site. Did you hit both of those already,
Mandy? Um because later uh little J, little I no more than three provided for and this is under protected. My reading of protected is you can't require more than one and you
and when you do it, it has to be in a place that's a half more than a half mile away. So, shouldn't shouldn't we just simplify the parking? So, that's my question on there's not a larger parking plan. Um, and I guess at the discretion of the site review, if you already have
plenty of parking spaces, you could wave the need for one more if they're more than a half a mile away. But if they're less than half a mile away, you can't require one anyway. So I would just question both of those clauses. Then um the okay she hit the others. So
under local but not under general and I am going to push for getting rid of local altogether. On the last page on E under local E it says all dimension standards found in the zoning law shall
apply. So you know and we already said ex and it's except for that extra lot and family. Shouldn't that sentence be moved up because you already said that. So under C it says these are exempt from that. But shouldn't we just say all
others will apply? So people un understand that so it's all other shall apply would be in C then um again under then specific requirements for protected use I think if it's a general as Mandy
said my reading of the law is anything we have that exists we have to do so if we have a more per permissive for something it it has to also apply so Do we need that sentence at all where
you know it's what if we make some existing dimensions shall apply rather than nothing so we can't do so I'm looking for both simplifying and where do we just not need the words at all so it would be a question on that that's the final
sentence in uh the third page or fourth page of this it's little B the more permission the principle shall apply you know so it basically says anything we agree agreed to um for the main thing
shall apply to this that we can never be more restrictive is the way I read it. So, so it's a few places. Why the extra wording? Um, and that's it. That's I had the same other questions Mandy had. And just so everyone knows, I would keep 900
as the definition. And that's why I was asking what happens to the non-conforming ones. I just would get rid of local. It gets so simple. Then we have some definitions. And I do think under definitions we need to add our definition of what short-term rental is
because later I want to put in we we prohibit it. So we and we have will our section 5015010 will that fly as short-term rentals because that's the one we already refer
to in the existing ADU and that's got lodging borders rumors bed and breakfast. So will that our current Mandy if you look at our current one it cross references um you can't do any of these the five period zero. So does that
pass muster? So if we sh short-term as defined under section 501501. So that's both a question and trying to say can we provide that answer and test it because we do have that in the
existing law already in our thing that's about to be replaced. We do look over at that long list where we have all these little things. So, okay, thank you. Thank you for your list. I have one one short question to
ask. Um, and that to add to the question list is um because we have reasonable we're not supposed to do unreasonable requirements, but we already have in my mind very reasonable requirements
through the implementation of our rental registration bylaw. Can we rely on our rental registration bylaw in fact to cover trash management to cover some of the parking issues?
Do we dare rely on that uh to cover up for the sins of of being um less restrictive in these by right uh developments. So that's my question, Jennifer. And then I'm looking at the
time and I'm thinking that I think what would be very helpful for me is to actually see this document with the markups that have been made uh during the course of this meeting today to get a chance to think about them um
before we and we can and we can go into deliberation for sure but uh just in terms of a matter of timing Um, let's let's just talk about that for a second. I'm going to call in Jennifer first. Uh, thank you. You have another question. You have
another question to add. I just, you know, in terms of the short-term rentals, I know that for the Cape Islands, they had some exemptions for short-term. So, does that mean that other municipalities in other area? No, only applies if you're located there.
Yeah, only Boston the Cape didn't have a they didn't have an exemption. they were able to get the short-term rental into the bo into the legislation that they can regulate it. So, um Boston is the only place that was exempt because they already were working on some zoning from short-term rental. So, anyways, we we
can't we can't come up with like, you know, so sorry. Um we can't like say we, you know, have our own idea of what short-term rental is. We have to follow the state definition and the regulations that are provided and manage it accordingly. So,
Okay. So, we've got six or seven minutes left. Um, yeah. So, um, yeah, just quickly I, um, I'll send you the document and as the track changes, it's the 718 version. All the comments made today will be highlighted in yellow. So, are you doing them as comment bubbles?
I'm just going to highlight them in yellow. They're going to be text within the document, and you can see all the highlights. Um, and yeah, I think that, you know, and feel free to email me um directly with questions or comments. I
will say, Mandy, to your point about the um in the applicability or the purpose and to yours, Kathy, at the end, that statement um that the AG's office and the model bylaw in the state is encouraging communities to put statements in there to clarify things even if it's redundant. So, the more
permissive regulations, um, the AG has told a lot of communities, put them in there because it could be that, you know, an applicant, a homeowner, the staff in two years may not know, you know, um, I agree. Typically, we wouldn't um, repeat
state law because it could change. And so honestly, if we're just going to allow a protected use ADU, I mean, like the easiest thing to do would be just to remove our bylaw altogether and just say one statement, we allow ADUs according to state law, period. And we just follow
state law and regulation. Typically, typically there's some interpretation that happens within that and so you want to have some things that clarify it. But if we are going to go to we're just going to follow what the state says, our section 5.011 011 accessory dwell units in our bylaw could
just say we will allow protected use ADUs according to state law you know MGL chapter 378 and se CMR71 whatever and that's it and we just will then interpret whatever that is and apply it. Um, a local bylaw
usually adds more adds more clarification, maybe a little little redundant, but really it's it to me it's a it helps an applicant, a homeowner understand what is expected of them and it helps staff administer it and permitting boards. So, I don't see it I I get I get it. Um, some of your questions, Manny, too, I feel like are
things that are somewhat redundant, Pam, about the rental registration, the parking stuff. You know, it's to me it's clarification. You know, can it be removed? Maybe. Does it lose something? Maybe. But I don't, you know, doesn't hurt necessarily to have it in there. Um, but yeah,
I'm happy to have it in there. I I just wanted to know if it had to come out if we were still covered. So, I didn't mean to digress there. Cath Kathy, you have your hand up and then I'm going to move on to the but we'll we'll need to continue obviously if someone wants to
and and so Nate if if you put them in not as comment bubbles I I've itemized them so I'm I'm fine you know so um there was one more and I was just thinking about it um if well it's it's a drafting issue so it's it's less you
know if if we take out the second type I'm not sure the the applicability section is needed. It's redundant and then we can just go right to definitions. Um, so I'm just looking at ways of just making it easier to read and that. So, so Kathy Kathy, I'm sorry to cut you
off. We don't we don't have enough time. So, you're going to write to you're going to write to Nate your comments. C uh council Haniki is going to write to Nate her comments and then whatever he didn't capture during you know while he was listening um he can add in as as
track change track changes from today's meeting and that document which should be labeled as whatever version he wants to call it dated 814 is what we will discuss next next time. Does somebody want to make a motion to continue this?
That's what my hands up for. You You go for it, Mandy. And I'll second it. Yes. Okay. I move to continue this hearing to August 28th at 3:10 p.m. Is there a second? Second.
Let's go around in order. Jennifer. Uh, yes. Uh, Kathy, yes. Mandy, I. And Pam is an I. So, we will continue to 828 310. Thank you. Um,
Athena's waiting. Uh, next agenda preview. We just talked about those two items, so we will be talking about them. We may be able to get to the solar bylaw. There was a very good uh list from uh Councelor Hani when she sent out
version 15 of the solar bylaw of where to start, where to think about continuing. And I will write that up. I think that was a good suggestion. Um there the next CRC meeting is August 28th.
There was nothing anticipated uh 48 hours in advance and I would vote to adjourn. Second. Second. Yeah, we'll go around. Kathy, yes. Thank you everybody. By the way, uh Jennifer, yes.
Pam is a yes. Councelor Hanaki, hi. Thank you everybody. Thank you, Nate and Dave always for being there. We got you two minutes to spare. Athena, I appreciate it. I appreciate it. Have a good night. Have a good night, everybody. Make it.