Okay, we're all set. Please go ahead. >> Okay, so um we're expecting one member to join us, but it's 302, so I will call the me the October 23rd, 2025 meeting of the community resources committee to order. Um, pursuant to
chapter 2 of the acts of 2025, which extend through extends through June 30th, 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
technolog via technological means. Okay. And with that, um again, we'll call the meeting to order and u make sure everyone can hear and be here he heard. Uh starting with Pat >> present
>> and councelor Hani >> present >> and I Jennifer am present. Okay so um let me see if there's any part participants.
Okay, there is uh one participant um in the audience and I will ask if there are any public comments. So I will call the general there are no hearings at this meeting and I will call the general public comments portion of the meeting.
We will begin if uh any members of the audience have a comment and no one is raising their hands. So, we will move on to the next agenda item, but first ask Kathy Shane if you can hear us. >> Yes. Sorry.
>> Great. It's okay. We're just starting. >> Um, so the first and we have with us today Dave Zomac and uh Nate Mallaloy. Um, and we will start. The first item is um the item that was just referred to
CRC at the council this week and that's a proposed zoning change uh zoning map change for parcel three parcels on Main Street um relating to that we would um the request is to have them become part
of the neighborhood business district where they're now part of the general um residence district. So, oh, and we have Rob as well. I'm sorry, Rob Mora. Um, Rob, were you going to take this portion? Should we >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, I will turn it over to you now. >> Sure. So, um really the only um thing we're here to talk about today is the scheduling of the uh public hearing and the CRC's availability. As an update, the planning board will be holding their
public hearing on November 19th. Um so um you know looking at dates with Athena if a if the committee agrees uh a possibility for a hearing uh with the CRC could be November 20th and I guess
that's what um the discussion point is today if that's possible and that you know that would uh leave opportunity for go and uh you know um possible return to the council uh in December.
Okay, thank you. >> Thanks, >> Councelor Hanicki. >> Um, I mean, that's the earliest meeting we could do it at. So, in that sense, unless we're scheduling a meeting the week before, we need to do it then. Um,
I don't see how it gets out of G by the December 1st meeting where it needs its first reading though because the next week is Thanksgiving. Does go have a meeting the week of November? because the first reading needs to be December 1. So, does go have a meeting
on either the 24th or the 25th or the 26th of November with Thanksgiving on the 27th? Do we know? >> I can look at your calendar, but I need >> They have a go has a meeting on the 25th. >> Okay. Oh, okay.
And I know this was a question Kathy asked during the council meeting. we cannot have a joint hearing with the planning board. >> I don't think that's going to happen uh this time. Um it it's you know we have a a November 19th meeting where the the
planning board is dedicating their entire meeting to zoning articles now. Uh so they will be hearing the petition request as well as this one on the 19th. >> Oh, Athena. Just another quick note, it it sounds
like this has already gone to uh legal for review, so we don't anticipate having a long delay before go can take it up if CRC has their hearing 20th >> but shouldn't be in this case. >> That's helpful, Councelor Hani.
>> That is very helpful, Athena. So, thank you. Um, just a note, if we do the hearing on the 20th, um, next week is when the notice probably has to go to the paper. And I don't know when our chair will be back, but Jennifer, it might be wise for you
to work with Rob and Athena to make sure that notice goes out next week because it would need published on the 5th of November. Um, the first. >> Okay. Thank you. Because um, >> need a week lead. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I believe our chair is coming back on the 30th, so I
will work with >> Yeah, cuz that's probably too late. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> We usually use the the same or similar wording as the planning board notice, so we should be able to put that together quickly next week. >> Okay.
Thank you. So, there's no further discussion of the substance of the referral today. Okay. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um well, thank you, Rob. >> All right. Thank you all. >> Yeah, we don't need to vote on this.
We'll just Yeah, we'll be um aiming or having the hearing on November 20th. >> Yeah. In a couple weeks. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And we we usually notice the hearings at um 3:05 rather than 3:00 on the dot so that you can open the meeting and so on.
So that's what we'll plan for as long as there's no objections here. >> No objections. No, that sounds good. Okay, thank you. >> So, Rob, I don't think there's any other items for you. Is this the shortest you've ever had to
stay at C CRC? >> It Well, I'm going to listen for a little bit, but Nate's taking it from here for the other items. So, I'll just turn off my camera. >> Okay, thanks. Um so the next item yeah on the well agenda
is uh any updates on the solar bylaw looking draft regulations looking to start to think about incorporating the state's regulations and with our bylaw and with that I will turn it over to councelor Hanniki and and Kathy for an
update. >> Yep. So, it was assigned to me and I am not going to do it all myself. I'm just gonna say that. So, I I've reached out to Kathy and and we have a plan in a sense. But, um, the
first thing I did was and and this Pat I I forwarded it to Pam this morning, forgetting that Pam wouldn't be here and so then forwarded it to Jennifer asking for a document to be in the packet. But the first thing I did was create a document that puts our current draft
bylaw in one column basically on one side of the paper and then I went through the regulations, the guidelines or most of the guidelines um that are in draft form and then also the model bylaw and put anything that related to any
particular section of that bylaw of what we've done. So like the model bylaw has a purpose for both best and solar. And so those are in a column, you know, the same was the purpose for our bylaw. >> Sounds good. >> Yeah. And so that document will be in
the packet um whenever Jennifer Pam get to it. It is 40ome pages long because you know there's a lot and there's a lot of overlap. There's a lot of um just information in that. But then it puts everything sort of in one section. It's
not really readable. It's not completely usable, but it gives you an idea of where things are and the status of drafts. Um Kathy and I met and we think it wise to sort of take that and
actually do the opposite of that in a sense, which is to draft a bylaw to present to the committee that uses that that sort of takes those individual sections and just just merges them or
picks one or then notes where when we've picked some language, whether it was the current language or the language from the model or the guidelines or whatever it be. Um, and say this is where the changes are or this is what we needed to choose and things like that and then come back to the committee with
basically a a full draft bylaw that would comply with, you know, the model bylaw. Um, makes some decisions that the model bylaw has, complies with the current drafts of the guidelines and all of that. Maybe potentially adds some things in and says, "Hey, we saw these
things. maybe they need to go in things like that. Um I can't describe it much better than that because this is really a work in progress of how to best present it in a sense. Um but the goal after looking at it the model solar and
the model best have very similar um formats and sections. And so one thing we thought to do was to try and just combine them into one bylaw so that you're not or one article basically one one full bylaw so that you're not having
to um if you're doing a solar project that happens to have a colloccated best on it which many do you're not referencing five different articles or two different articles they're all in the same article and many of the conditions are the same between the bylaws. So instead of essentially
doubling the length of the article, we'll shrink some of it and and present it all as one so that we don't have sort of the same purpose reiterated twice practically or the same applicability section reiterated twice in two different bylaws. So So the goal is sort
of to tackle both. Um we will be ready to present something in two weeks for whatever Kathy and I have each gotten done. Um, we've sort of split the sections out. Um, it probably won't be fully ready for
full discussion, but hopefully in two weeks we can have a good discussion on whatever Kathy and I have have made it through. Um, I will not be at that meeting, so Kathy will take the lead at that meeting um on what we've done. Kathy, do you want to add anything?
>> Uh, no. I just um I just want to underscore some of what Mandy said. I mean what this very long side by side that was all Mandy's work uh shows you in what I saw is in some cases we already have identical language in the
draft we've been working on you know um the organization in some cases is extremely similar u the exception would be we have just done placeholders for best so the nice part of what the state
has given us is um what's the purpose of best what's the language? So there's some new wording that we've gotten. Then the other thing uh that's notable when you look at what the state has done, they're defining some things that we've never defined and it's partly because
Ammerst doesn't necessarily do things. So the example would be consolidated permit. We do that when we do a a 40B housing thing. But the consolidated permit concept, as near as I could
figure it out, is that all the different entities, Dave, the conservation commission, the planning board, and others, whoever is in charge of the main permit for the solar installation, uh, gets all of those together for one
permit p, you know, with the sub pieces rather than you go here for several months and you go there. So it it tries to coordinate in some way. That's the concept that had the state has embedded in it and then they left it for the municipality to figure out how how one
might do that. But it's it's it needs to have a the state is insisting on a consolidated permit. So we have to define it and figure out, you know, so there's some audit they're not oddities, but there's some oh what does that mean?
um for Ammerst uh types of areas. Um so I think that's the main thing I I saw when I was independently looking for it. And then as I mentioned last time when two weeks ago when it was the first time
I was looking at these, the state has in the draft model and I think maybe we should just post those the rags and the draft model to the extent others want to look at them has put large green
paragraphs in for permissive language. we didn't do something but you might want to and that's where we've already done some of those things you know we've addressed them um so I think that was it what I'd add to Mandy I mean there's an
interesting section an agrovote voltaic that they think of anything that has uh on the ground a solar array and something underneath it as a canopy you know whether that's in your backyard
or over a farm. Um so you know sort of wrestling it's it's just purely definitional and then they have an >> then they have an agravoltaic that's big and one that's small. I mean so they in
if they thought they were streamlining they've gone to many more details than we would have had in ours. Um, so trying to just figure out how to incorporate that in um to not uh to do what the planning staff had to
do on the planning ads some terminology is if it's in the regs we used need to use those terms um and then things we can do that go beyond what the state said we've just got to identify them. So that's all I was seeing that that's one of the reasons this document got so long
that Mandy did because there were just terms that we don't even have definitions of things we we haven't defined. Um so so it's some in some cases you don't have to include everything like what is site plan review? They've defined everything in
theirs. What is a site plan review? What is a special permit? What is a blah blah blah blah you know. So, so it's it's going to I think I think it will work if people like the proposal that we would kind of take it and mush it together
with a clean draft of something that complies with the state rags and retains everything we've done so far to the extent we have to otherw than tweaking words with a comment section that indicates the idea with a comment
section that indicates this is completely the language we already agreed on. This has been modified in a a way. So that that's that what that's what the product goal is. >> Yep. If I may add one thing and and that
product goal will have some some questions. You'll see it in the document we created. There's like a section of like here's some explanation of stuff and then here's some things we have to answer. Um, canopies is an interesting one with agravalttaics being considered a canopy because the model bylaw treats
canopies as a yes in a use table no matter the size. Um, unless if it's up to whatever the towns can regulate, it's a yes in the use table. So, it could be as big as a farm field and it would just go to a building commissioner in the model bylaw. And clearly, that's not
what our plan was. So, one of our tasks is to, as Kathy was saying, figure stuff like that out and and present something to you all that matches the two plus years of conversations we've had, but doesn't do that. So, we hope to get
something by certainly by the end of the year. We hope we can have something that sort of just sits there until the final rags are adopted and we can revisit it then. But um we we should we'll we'll get something next meeting.
>> Thank you. >> That's what I was going to say. I should let Pat have a comment. Thank you. I'm so glad it's you and not me. But um yeah, thank you. That's >> Well, both of them love doing this, so we're giving them something they enjoy. Think about it that way.
>> I will. But I I'm glad you enjoy it because Yeah. Thank you. Um, so like when you say that about the canopy that means that has to be that that's requirement of the >> well they've defined something Jennifer
so when we said agricult that's exactly what we were thinking of and so it's like that's that's a term we could use but what was at least notable to me I said what is agriculture and they didn't say you know a farm
that's been farming for x number of years. So, could you do a large solar thing and plant one thing underneath it and come in underneath that category? So, they they made it uh you could do those all over
the place. Uh, you know, as opposed to only certain designated zones, you know, or or it's a farm a thing that's been a working farm for at least x years, >> you know. So, it was just an interesting
way they tackled it. Uh, and it's and then you could have a large solar installation ground mounted over parking lots like UMass. I mean, I'm not sure how many kilowatt hours the UMass is, but they're so extensive on some of them
they probably meet our definition of large. Now, we don't we don't have any jurisdiction over UMass. Um, and I doubt the Well, we've already permitted the new school, but most of the solar is on
the roof and so only part of the parking lot is covered. So that canopy probably. But in any case, the state went to that level of detail of large, not large, canopy, big, large, canopy, both agriculture, not agriculture. They they
were like looking at all the possible variations of where a solar array might be. >> Yeah. >> You know, so Pat out on on Hickory Ridge, if they planted something underneath it, would it suddenly become aggravaic? Not clear. You know, >> that may not have had to go to any
public hearing at all just to rob for approval to meet things, right? So that's not what we were thinking in our conversation. So that's where we have to try and modify what they defined and how they were splitting stuff up and work it
to what we were because we can we don't have to follow the model bylaw exactly but but those are not easy onetoone transfers is is part of the point. >> Yeah. Um, so I have a I get don't know if this housekeeping question, but when you
asked that uh what you prepared for today be posted, is that in the public um would have to be in the public packet, not just SharePoint because we can't look at it at the public. >> Yeah, it should it should go to the public packet and it doesn't matter if it's today's meeting or two weeks from
now's meeting. Um today, since we talked about it, it should probably end up in today's. It could end up in two weeks, too. Okay, I'll leave that to Athena, too. Yeah. Um, make that call. Okay. So, is there any other, you know,
questions or discussion we want to have on on this? We I really appreciate the update. >> Mandy, I don't think I have the copy. If you wouldn't mind forwarding it to me, that way I can post it. >> I'll forward it to you, too, to Athena. I >> Thank you. >> went to Pam and then forgot Pam wasn't going to be here. send it to Jennifer
>> and I just got it, but yeah, >> I'll I'll send it to you to Athena. >> Thank you. >> Oops. >> Okay. Um, so, uh, then we can move on to the next agenda item, which is the housing
production plan, and Nate is here to join us for that. Hi, Nate. >> Hi, everyone. Yeah, I um I guess we can pick up where we left off or you know I could talk a little bit more about you know the timeline and what we're hopeful
for today and maybe the next meeting but >> I I think that would be helpful because I even asked you if you know there was an expectation of an action today >> right and so you know when this went to town council and was referred to the CRC you know there was discussion about when
it should come back uh to town council and and in the motion it really was until you know their second meeting in November. And so, you know, the council would probably wait until that meeting to take any action on the housing production plan. You know, I think staff would like to encourage, you know, a recommendation if not today, then the
next meeting of the CRC. Um, you know, really the CRC is making a recommendation of town council to adopt the housing production plan, not adopt it or possibly adopt it with um, you know, amendments or things that you'd want to see changed. You know, the hope really is though that this plan would be
adopted by the end of the calendar year by the by the council term. And so most of the most of it was written a long time ago and so, you know, at some point it just see, you know, it seems like it's, you know, we're working off a completed document and are there things that are so critical that need to be
changed that it can be adopted, I guess, is where I'd like to get to. You know, are there something that is just not, you know, we'd want the consultant to change? And so right now it's the consultant's plan. And so, you know, if we wanted changes, staff would work with them to make those changes. We wouldn't
have that ability to change the plan. Um, but we've we've discussed that with them that it may come back. And so, you know, really, we have one or two more CRC meetings to discuss, you know, what where we would want that recommendation to go. Um, you know, how it would go back to town council.
>> Thank you. Um, Pat, your hand went first. >> Yeah. Uh, thank you. just quickly uh you said adopt not adopt adopt with amendments and we had we got consultants they did all kinds of public process and everything and they've written up the
report and I'm trying to understand and maybe this is for everybody on CRC why we're not just adopting it this is it basically we're saying there's been a public process this is the report on it and now we're going to change it because
we have certain opinions um whatever they are and I'm I'm feeling like that's a waste of time and energy when basically this document you know we have it from what 10 years ago or or more and some of it was
implemented much of it was not because we have choices it doesn't lock us into anything I I really feel like this could have been taken care of in one meeting so that's where I am >> thank you >> maybe there's a question in there, Nate.
>> No, I mean I I can reiterate that. >> No, that's fine. I can reiterate that with you. >> Yeah, I mean I think some of it was right. The language that the state wants to see is that the town adopts this as the affordable housing plan and so the planning board has already done that >> and then would council be willing to do
that? >> Um and it doesn't obligate the town to do everything in the plan. You know, we we could sit on it. Um, and so really what when if this moves forward to the state, they'll look at it and see that to form it's good, right? So there's two steps with the state. One is that they
approve your plan so that it meets, you know, all the outline and requirements from the general regulations of what needs to be in a housing production plan. And most plans get there. The second step would be to certify it, meaning you produce the number of minimum number of units you need to in a 12-month period to then be at safe
harbor from a comprehensive permit. So some communities use this housing production plan as a way to try to get to safe harbor, you know, rather than produce the units or, you know, they they can do a plan and try to work that way. Amoris, we're at Safe Harbor now, so you know, really has a nice framework
and it doesn't obligate the town to do everything or anything in the plan, >> right? Yeah. So I feel like we waste a lot of time in this committee. Kathy, >> it's possible Pam Pat that we have in
the past wasted a lot of time and I've only been here as you know since January, but the amount of time we've focused and discussed this has been minimal. So my I have a broader it's similar to your question. I don't read
this as the Barrett report. I read this as the town report to and and set of recommendations. So the um I have unfortunately just finished uh a half hour ago my comments. So if I had to say
where my main concerns are on it, I don't think there's enough documentation. There's not a rationale for the number of units that the report recommends um that we produce, you know, both as feasible. Uh the data section is
fabulous. uh and I think it it has produced an amazing amount of information. The executive summary doesn't summarize some of the findings of the report. I expect an executive summary. It more it's often an
expression of opinion um rather than an executive summary. Um, and then in some of that you miss the context that the report is incredibly rich in, including it's got a paragraph that talks about
Ammerst as being a leader in everything we've done. And that paragraph is is on a page six of the body of the report, but you never see it in the executive summary. So, so your question Pat is and then Nate,
do we amend it here since I may be the only one who's concerned about any of this and you know we could take a vote and I would lose. Do I then do at what point do I express it's it's the nuance
rather than the bulk of the report? And I'll give you, you know, so I can I was page specific in the comments I just sent Nate and I didn't think I was going to be asking the consultants to do a lot because I thought this was our report.
So I may be wrong about whose report it is. If I think of it as our report, meaning the council plus the planning board, I doubt most people had the time to go through every page and cross do it. Um so so that's all that's all. So
it is with your thing Pat do we have a longer discussion on whether anyone shares my specific concerns and if no one shares them then we vote send the the report back as it was presented to us because clearly u I
wasn't there when the planning board adopted it. In fact, I was not physically in Ammerst for a month and I missed that period. But I did go Pat, I did go to multiple of the sessions they did where people were expressing strong
preferences for um what you and Mandy have talked about missing middle smallcale clusters and various things like that. This report also advocates for large apartment buildings. I didn't see that supported by this, you know, on
it. It it just did density per se. So, those are the kind of nuances when it talks about missing middle to just do one data point uh and says there's been a decline. I don't see a decline in production. What I see is an increase in
production of large because we've had a decline in production of single family. So, we've got the two ends, uh, large going up, single family going down, and that middle group saying about the same, and we're much higher than the
surrounding areas, you know, and the re the data in the report, they say that Ammeris compared to any of the region looks great on duplex, triplex, ton houses, condos, you know, all this cluster purd. So, it's it's tone and if
it's supposed to be our report versus a consultant report, I would like to change some of the wording. If no one shares those concerns, then I can be outvoted and they think the report is great as is. And I've only completely
finished this today and I'm happy to put it in the packet so others can read what I saw. Um, and if nobody agrees with most of it, then I think we should take a vote and move the report on. But I didn't think I could share this till I a
till I finished it. And Nate, I just sent you a there's no way you could have read this. Um, so I tried to be as specific on it. So I would say uh 85% of this report which is the guts of it on
data and then even most of the strategy lists um I thought were interesting and I found them interesting. I just didn't think some of the problem statements were as strongly supported as they could have been. Um so that's it. um you know
and I think you know in terms of the projection and our targets I didn't go back and read the earlier report but they they have given us very big targets that aren't um I think the uh that I
would like to address and they note that one of the ways you get more affordable units is subsidies. So we can only grow the subsidized by either a share of the new units that are being produced with the rise, you know, that we get 10%
every time we produce a big one or we build more. And we're we're maxing out, I think, in a good way with CPAC and all our resources to anytime there's an opportunity to build more that has more affordable units, we're doing it. So
we've we've I think a target around the affordable units and the you whether it's you know an increase to 20% I think those are reasonable and I want I wanted to know Nate how many have we produced we don't you know in the last 10 years
and less I can't find that in the report you know I think we've done a pretty amazing job and I just don't know what they count and I think we could set a target that say reproduce what we've done over the last decade in the next
decade. So I would find those to be reasonable targets um so that we could measure oursel up. So um I I did have some higher level and then page specific and some of this is a change in minor
change in wording. Um so that's that's the question you know does this go up to the state Nate with the town of Ammerst says this is ours and we commission consultants but we endorse the wording the language the lists and the targets
or do we and if we don't want to have the consultants do a lot of work do we just do some amendments to it and finally if everyone like everyone but Kathy likes the targets likes all the wording or but Kathy and a minority then
the report would go forward. So Pat, I agree. You know, if uh you you think all the data is well done, you think that the concluding findings match the data, which is where I'm questioning some of the including findings, I don't think match the data. I don't think producing
more housing, for example, reduces the number of cost burden. The new housing that's being purch built is very expensive. So if the target is reducing cost burden, what East Hampton just said is we're having wealthier people move
in, they bed it up, we lose the middle because there's no way for the middle the housing that's being built. We've got a lot of expensive housing being produced in Ammerst. Um it's just that middle group and the report says that the banks won't finance an ADU. They
won't finance some of the smaller one. I think that's a major finding that there's a financial barrier to some of the smaller. It's not highlighted. So that's that's I I so I found the report incredibly interesting and but I have some problems with the conclusions and
the executive summary and I have no idea if this is our report of the consultants report. I'm finished. >> Thank you. So before I are you comfortable um before I call on councelor Hani for Nate to respond to
that question about whose report like how will it when it comes to the state will it even have Barrett consulting? Well, yeah. I mean, it's the town's housing production plan, right? So, like I said, we we would adopt it, but it's Barrett is the one producing it. And so, you know, right now, like, you know,
physically, like we don't have the ability to change the report, right? We don't have that document to make those edits. And, you know, when this was going through public comment, we were asking Judy, you know, we staff would meet with them and say, well, what, you know, what do we think is worth changing? Like, you know, how do you view this? And really, it's, you know,
it's the consultant's expertise. That's why we selected them through, you know, a public procurement process. Um, and so, you know, if the CRC likes, you know, if we if the CRC votes and recommends certain changes, we would then go back to Judy and ask them to
make those changes. I would not make the changes to this report because, as Judy said, then they would just take their name off of it, right? It's not uh it's not no longer their report if we're adding our own language, right? This is what they provided and what they, you know, said, here's the here's our work, right? here's the consultant's work. And
so, um, it's really their work that we're adopting. And so, if we, you know, to Kathy's point, if there's things that she really wants to be changed, then we can, you know, I think it's worth discussing with the CRC and taking a vote to see if it's worth, you know, if, you know, if it moves forward that way.
Um, it's not something that staff would change and, you know, and then pres present it to the state. So, if you, you know, looked at the report now, I mean, the first page it says, you know, Barrett Consulting, right? Bear Planning Group, you know, it's prepared by Bear Planning Group. And so that's who who
prepared it. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, councelor Hanicki. >> Yeah. A couple of things. Um, Pat makes a good point. I I think we should
vote today um, however that motion turns out. Um, but thank you Nate for that description cuz I looked at that first page too and it makes a lot of sense to me that we hired a consultant. The consultant's producing it, the consultant is the one that's standing by it and we either say
we're adopting it or we're not, right? You know, um, if if we don't want to adopt what the consultant and their expertise says, then we produce something else to adopt, right? um you
know if I if I make something for another organization they either accept it or not but but my name doesn't stay on it if they change it to something that me as an expert say doesn't agree with right um so so I think in some
sense I think our options then are recommendations to adopt or recommendations not to adopt in a sense um to address Kathy's point I keep going back to the essay hi units. So, so the community need target range and all
because you you you the rationale for that. I actually see the rationale in here. Um, and it's very confusing and I will say it's very confusing when it says 7 to 900 total units, Kathy. You know, it does make me think, oh, total housing units, but they're actually
referencing state subsidized state inventory, SHI units, 700 to 900 SHI units, not market rate. These are state subsidized housing inventory units. Um, so so a an Olympia place, and Nate, I'm
sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but an Olympia place, the building that's going up there wouldn't count towards any of these 700 to 900. They all have to be state subsidized housing inventory qualifying units to go to the 7 or 900.
Um the the initial 265 is clear in the report that that's what the EOHLC tells us like there's the rationale for that 265 over the next 5 years. That's what EHLC says is your minimum target,
right? We don't we can't change that number. That's your rationale. the 7 to 900 um SHI units is shown because essentially they identified 1670 households that contain family or
elderly members that are costburdened either regularly costburdened the 30% or severely costburdened. An an estimated about half of them are severely costburdened. So 1,600 total split 50/50 between cost burdened and and severely
cost burdened. And what they're saying is in the next 5 years build approximately a number of units that would potentially move half of those households out of cost burdening. That that that makes sense to me, right? Like if we're if our goal for a an
affordable housing plan, which even though it's called the housing production plan and makes you think about all housing, is really focused on subsidized housing and affordable housing, big A affordable housing. Your goal should be to be minimizing the
number of people that are costbururdened. And so you take the households that are costburdened and say some percentage of that is what we should be aiming to build. So, and and this one looks like it's at about 50%. That's a lot. And I'm not going to say
it's not a lot. It is a severe am, you know, a large increase in our I mean, I think it would basically double if I am remembering my my numbers right and reading reading reading this. Um, we
have 772 incomerestricted units right now and they're asking us as a really high goal to double that number in 5 years. That's a huge goal. Um, but if we talk about aiming to address our
affordability crisis in town, I think it's a worthwhile goal to have. Um, and that our goal should be very ambitious. So, I think the supports are in there, Kathy, for where those numbers come
from. And this is producing housing that would be big a affordable. >> Okay, thank you. Uh Dave, >> hi. Thanks everybody. Um I think this is a great discussion. And I apologize. I I have to jump to another meeting uh off
off out of town hall at 4, but I think it's a great conversation. I too, you know, urged the CRC to vote on this today. I guess what I was going to add to the conversation was that I think Kathy, you and and and others have
brought up interesting, you know, questions and and discussion around this plan. And I guess what I'm urging is that that that can carry through as part of the public record of adoption of this report. So whatever CRC
talks about, if there are questions about the report, that can carry through to the vote by the council. And there's going to be more discussion at the council level if and when this is adopted by the council. and that becomes part of the public record that we can then uh use and study and the planning
department can can explore after the plan is adopted. So that's all I really wanted to say. I I don't think your concerns even if the council chooses to adopt it as is, which I think um uh is our hope. Um the public
record will still reflect that the council shared the following concerns about data, about X, Y, and Z, whatever those concerns might be. And then it's incumbent upon the planning staff to to have that have the plan move on, but for those those concerns to be explored as
we as we move forward with trying to uh uh you know achieve some of the goals outlined in the in the plan. So that's all I wanted to say, but um I've enjoyed the conversation and I I I too hope you uh vote on the plan today. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Kathy. Um just uh you know responding to Mandy um I agree I'm looking at page 118 and 119 where they set the part targets um and I read it as I read it as 265 SHI units meaning the
actual unit itself was affordable and I didn't read 700 to 900 as every one of those units were so let me just start with I didn't read it that way but when I looked at cost burden as near as I could tell with the math I could get out
of the thing of the cost burden. I my guess is about half of them are students um just because they they they give you a single person household they give you a non-family person h I have no idea if
that's true. So I think in Ammerst we've always been all of our actually all of our units that open up um open up for families and long-term residents. Um the
UMass students don't qualify for the heavily subsidized units that we have in town. Um they may qualify for HUD vouchers if they're a long-term resident. So, I I just think it's I
think I I've been curious on how well we did on the last goal. The report talks about what the last goal was and how well we did. I think setting a stretch goal is fine, but we should not set a stretch goal. That's so that's just a comment on that number. Mandy, I I did
see that what they done I was interpreting as just this many more units and somehow cost burden would go down and if the new units are expensive then the cost burden doesn't go down. Um it's it's they're just more units in
town. Um, and the concern that I hear regularly is that we're pricing the middle out, but that more affluent families coming in from a Boston, New York, and other places that see Ammerst property as relatively cheap um can come
in and some of that. So, it's not just students are displacing, but and you know, so that that's the concerns. So, I I understand what everyone just said. If we can't change the report, and this is the author's report, it's not ours
report, then what I will do, um I I may say no if we vote today because of my concerns on some of the wording. Um you know, we have there's some incredible wording in here. For example, Ammerst has emerged as a model for progressive
housing policy in the region. The town has actively worked to diversify the housing stock and increase affordability through zoning reform, building capacity, and targeted development. The town has embraced partnerships with regional planning bodies, academic institutions, nonprofit developers to
create affordable housing, especially for low-income and moderate. That is in the report. It is not in the executive summary. If you read the executive summary, you would think we've not been doing very much. This is on their report page six but page six happens to happen
many pages in. I don't write executive summaries that way. When I write a report I I write an executive summary to summarize. So it's a style issue. That's that is a statement that I think is very true about what Ammerst has been doing
and you don't get that flavor. So, I am comfortable with putting my way too late uh set of concerns into the public record first at CRC and then I will ask Athena to also put it in the package for
the council. But it's that kind of nuance that positions Amoris in a different way than I think what we've been doing. We have innovative zoning on our books that other towns don't have. So, it's, you know, and Pat, you can
shrug inside, but I think uh not everyone knows how much Ammerst has been doing. You know, there's a there's a sense that we just haven't been doing very much. And it's pretty remarkable what we've done, including the partnerships with Valley CDC and WFarers
and using public land. Um we we have an inventory which is why we're high you know that we're we're we're at the target rate or above it already. Um and we have financial constraints on I guess
we could get to using almost all of the CPAC money. We're getting some years we're at 80% housing. Um we could use more but we don't have municipal ability to give out loans. So I it's a tone that that has me feel that it doesn't
represent Amoris as well. And then some of the statements I think just aren't borne up by data. But that's a lesser concern. It's it's more this tone. Um it's missing any point of saying UMass has some responsibility for housing
their students for as an example. It just doesn't say that anywhere. It could, but if we can't change it, then I'm voting up and down on this report as representing the Ammerst Council view. This counselor will say it doesn't. From
my perspective, it doesn't. And I'm willing to be outvoted and that's fine with me. And I just will put my comments in today's record because no one has had a chance to read it. and then I'll make sure Athena puts it in the council
packet since I will have expressed those in public in writing. Um, and I'm not going to read off of my overly long set of comments. I'm finished. >> Thank you, Kathy. Councelor Hanniki.
>> Yeah. Um, so one thing I appreciated about the housing production goals, Kathy, is that um, when they identified the cost burdens, they actually pulled out that 1600 households cost burden that I f mentioned pulls out what they assume are the student households. Um,
so otherwise, as you said, it's over 4,000. So they're they they've created a production goal that is approximately 50% of the current non- studentent households that are costburdened. recognizing that. So, so that is one of the numbers I actually appreciate
because I agree if it was 50% of the 4,000 total um cost burden households um that's a different conversation to have um because cost burdening with it. There is a different conversation to have when
a household uh for student households that report as costburdened than non- studentent households that report as costburden. That's not to say we shouldn't also look at student households that report as cross burden, but I think it's a different conversation and a different
way to look at the data. So, I did appreciate that they pulled those 2400 houses that they suspect are mostly occupied by student households um out of what they determined were their um their their production goals, their very
ambitious production goals. So, I'm I'm happy to make a motion if if people want a motion at this point or whenever they want. >> Um, I'll call in Nate before I make my comment.
>> Sure. Thanks. Yeah, I was going to say, uh, just Kathy, you've asked a few times about kind of how did we do with the last plan and, you know, though we've produced, you know, a fair number of affordable units, it's over a hundred. it's, you know, it doesn't meet the goals and it doesn't meet the needs of
the community. And so, you know, it's it's it's a it is a slow it's a slowmoving process. So, we have our inclusionary zoning which can be 10% of of certain developments and then there's comprehensive permits where it could be 20 or 25% or more of the units, a minimum of 20 or 25%. I think the town's
done a pretty good job of encouraging those public private um you know kind of partnerships on town owned land and we have market rate development. But I think to me uh what when I read that report and kind of what the planning board has been discussing is you know how we've been
missing housing production for different household types, income levels and you know different housing types. And so to me that's the conversation you'd have after you adopt it. But plenty was already kind of talking about okay how could we maybe change zoning or regulations to encourage different kind
of housing in Ammerst. So if we you know if we don't want you know if the concern is well we allow a lot of apartment buildings well is there a way to allow smaller apartment buildings or is there a way to allow smaller lots to maybe get zero lot line town homes that could be
owned in a fe simple structure as opposed to condominium you know whatever. So, the housing and zoning subcommittee have been talking about at the planning board, but there, you know, I think to me what the report has shown is that there's a need for different income levels and different housing types in town. You know, to me the
should UMass house more students on campus, that's a value statement that I don't think the consultant would make either way. I don't think they'd say they should house more or less. It just is what it is. I think the reality is that the UMass, right, puts a lot of pressure, the number of students in Ammerst in the region puts a lot of
pressure on the housing market. And so, you know, they don't tell us how to manage that. They have some ideas. They say we have to, you know, address that kind of demographic in that part of the housing market. And there's probably a few different ways to do it. And one may be encouraging more housing on campus.
But, you know, that's the discussion I think we'd have after this plan gets adopted is how do we address that part of the housing market? Then how do we address the other parts of the housing market? How do we address senior housing? How do we address that missing middle? You know, there's attainable housing. So, you know, there's capital A
affordable and there's lowercase A affordable. I think both those need to be addressed to have, you know, different household types in town. And and again, Ammeris can't do it all, right? It's a regional problem, but the plan focuses on Ammeris. I think, you know, as conversations move forward, you
know, Hadley has a pretty recent housing production plan and and, you know, it could be worthwhile. There's a a regional housing meeting through PVPC that meets once a month. uh and it's hit or miss who attends but you know Beluretown attends I attend for Ammeris Havie will sometimes attend and you know maybe we have to have ha you know have a
more concerted effort about what are we doing uh you know in certain housing markets but that becomes a regional conversation and it's really hard to have regulations and a plan that addresses that so this is the amorous plan but I think it can then talk to what we do as a region or with other
constituents >> um can I just make a not as the chair but as a member just uh to make a comment but thank you Nate. So my question is so are you saying that we really have to just vote up and down? I thought we did have an opportunity for
some comments for myself personally. I tried to get them really pare it down to just a couple and they and my concern is where I feel like there's editorializing happening um that I don't
know needs needs to be there. So, but one more um that's not editorial, but like on page 28 of 32, this is like one of I got it down to like three. It says encourage the development of student housing. Um,
and then it, you know, goes on to talk about home ownership and rental opportunities for year-round residents. Could it just say encourage home ownership and rental opportunities for year-round residents? I just my concern about encouraging the
development of student housing. I've said this before, but I don't understand why it's in a report about affordable housing. I mean, it's like having our head in the sand. We know that's not affordable housing even for students many times. Um, and we don't need to
encourage the development. I don't I just don't know why it's there. Like if those I'd feel better if those three, you know, whatever five words were taken out. And then there's just a couple of other pretty minor but where I thought there was editorializing
um that wasn't appropriate. So that's just and I I guess my question is is there any opportunity to for that to be communicated and then I would I would like to personally I would like to see Kathy's comments but I think then
the vote today we move on to do we want to wait till the next meeting to see Kathy's comments that just came in before we vote to refer to adopt or not adopt or adopt with amendments. So, I think we have to vote on whether we want to
see what Kathy submitted or if we just want to vote go proceed to a vote today on adopting or not adopting. But my question to you, Nate, is there any opportunity for any word changes? Yeah, I think at the last meeting, you know, Manny suggested it,
you know, it would say it could be a vote of the CRC in terms of the recommendations or, you know, do we include them as part of the record to town council and then they can look at them as well. So, Jennifer, if you had, you know, those other additional comments, you know, it all gets can be forwarded on to town
council. So, you know, Pam had um had submitted some previously and so to me all that is part of the public record, you know, or do you take them and say, "Okay, here are the five comments we want changed, you know, to me to change the tone of the report is a pretty big deal." And I, you know, and the
consultant might be like, "Well, that's, you know, that's that's that's how I write. I don't I don't know." um you know the student piece I think you know they could say you know to me it's like I don't want to have to be you know defending their work but I feel like they could say well the students are a really big part of the market why would
you just not mention it and not mention that you need more student housing as well as other types of housing and so you know to me that's a it doesn't really say anything about who does it or where or how but I think it's a really I think it's important to mention that staff actually told them to save to mention the students right so in Hadley
they kind of were silent on student housing and South Hadley talked about it. They have a really nice housing production plan and they talked about some of the other markets there, but to me it's just part of the market. It's they're not necessarily capitalally affordable housing, but it's part of the housing market. So, I think it's important to acknowledge what kind of
pressures, you know, that demographic puts, you know. So, I it, you know, if to me it would be does the CRC want to vote up or down or do they want to vote up or down with possible um amendments? And so some of it would be what do we you what what does the CRC
think are those possible amendments? You know um is it the tone? Is it you know certain data points or pages that need to be changed? And you know I've taken a few notes but we I feel like we'd have to kind of solidify those those amendments if that's what we want if the
CRC would want to vote with those. Right. So, you know, page like you said, like maybe specific pages or right improve the executive summary by adding, you know, kind of a better synopsis of what Amoris has done, you know, and what we, you know, where we are and then, you
know, pulling in a few more data points. So, maybe the executive summary needs three more paragraphs to make it a better executive summary. I mean, I'm I'm just, you know, I don't I'm not saying either way, but that's to me what the CRC would need to if if you want to do, that's how the process could work is
those are the amendments that could be part of the recommendation. So, again, my question encourage the development of more student housing, which is not like that will h I mean, my concern is that they are in that will not be
affordable housing. So I I I think that could have been maybe couched differently because that means every time an a large apartment that's priced for students go up, we can say we're fulfilling the mandate of our housing production plan, which is supposed to be
building more affordable housing. So that that's my concern. we can point to that and say, you know, we're doing what the housing production plan said even though we're building way more units of what's really not affordable and and we're carrying out the mandate
of a plan that's supposed to help us get more affordable units, but I will move on to you've heard me say that before to Kathy. >> Okay. So, I have just another one topic to ask about, Nate. Nowhere in the
report does it talk about the infrastructure cost implications of housing of expanded housing. Um whether it's police, fire, roads that um that you need to have a municipal capacity to
support densification um and more people because I think the report is saying wants to be bigger than 40,000 people. I mean that's the way I would read this. We we would love people to move into Ammerst and there's one point it even says make it an attractive
place for all the surrounding towns for people to come even though the population projections are flat for the whole region. So we we would like to be attractive. Um, and I have a problem with that type of
wording because part of the reason people aren't living in Ammerst is that the tax rates are lower and you can have a house, same kind of house at a lower rate if you live just outside us and still come and work in Ammeris. But in any case, does the mention of
infrastructure costs ever come into a housing production plan? I just found it absent when they talk about capacity that the town has restricted budget and municipal capacity uh to support
even densification. Um is that usually never mentioned? So it's a question it no one ever mentions that housing comes with associated municipal costs. It's certainly an issue in New York um and others that have densified and they didn't necessarily
densify and get more affordable. They just they densified and got more public things. So, is it always is it always absent is my question and I see Greg's hand is up because that was a concern I had and maybe it's just never in one of
these reports. >> Yeah, Greg can answer too. I was going to say that's that's outside the scope of this is really looking at kind of that those costs. So it does reference you know infrastructure capacity and you know if there's the ability of Amoris to you know um accommodate more units I
think the cost of that is just it's just it's it's really not typically a part of this and so um you know that's to me again that's like next level okay we're thinking about increasing density in this part of town what does that mean you know is the water and sewer infrastructure in place does it have to
be replaced is it not big enough um you know do we need a pump station all Those things are just are outside the scope of this plan. This plan is really, you know, looking at, you know, numbers and saying here's what we see and then really then it's the town's decision of how where do we put it, right? So it does say it's cheaper typically to put
it near existing infrastructure, but you know, maybe that infrastructure is old and outdated, but it doesn't there's no way we'd maybe even hazard a guess at that, right? You know, that's just but it's something that right I think as part of the conversation it's worth having, but it's not something we would ask the consultants to to put a metric
on. Were you speaking, Kathy? No. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Um, Greg. Yeah, I I think um just referring to the report, the consultants did speak with you know folks in the DPW about um uh
what what we might think of as sort of the capital side of of infrastructure, you know, so things like sewers and roads and especially really sewers and water capacity um and got a you know largely a green light um on the whole
right like you know there wasn't you know the folks at DP did not express that like you know we're constrained on you know on these core utility services the you know I mean as far as the cost of you know of um you know more program
oriented services whether it's policing or fire or whatever I mean I think that's as Nate said it's kind of outside the scope um you know but I think you know certainly on the production side that would you know the the hope would be that you know that new growth would come with the revenue as well and pay
for it and I think specifically when you know the sort of general process that I understand most communities use with this is and getting into some of these strategies that's probably where a lot of those conversations will become more in depth you know so if there's you know a
strategy around you know pick a selection of town to upzone you say okay I think when at the juncture of that strategy discussion I think then it becomes okay where what are the districts where we have existing infrastructure capacity versus where
might it be sure infrastructure and I think that's a more detailed conversation strategy by strategy. Um it's kind of hard to sort of address the whole thing. I think >> thank you councelor Hanniki. I find it strange that there's an
objection to the goal of encouraging the development of student housing while preserving home ownership and rental opportunities for year-round residents. Um because many people in this town want student housing development in certain parts of the town, i.e. on the
university campus and we can debate where it should go, but there are a lot of people arguing for student housing development on UMass's campus in order to preserve home ownership and rental opportunities for year-round residents.
Um so you know that goal and it is listed as a goal is under managing shifting demographics um with a problem of the demographic of make makeup of the town is evolving with a declining number of family households with children and a growing housing
demand among senior residents and off-campus students. And so it makes perfect sense to me to in within that category mention a goal of the the juncture of
student housing development for preserving home ownership and rental. Because at in my seven years on the council, a number of council counselors and also residents that don't agree with me have
argued for exactly that, development of student housing in a particular area. Add that parenthetical in order to preserve home ownership and rental opportunities for year-round residents. So I I don't understand the objection to
that goal. I do understand if that object if that goal said something like encourage the development of student housing in downtown while preserving home ownership then I would absolutely understand a portion of this community objecting to that. I really would. But
the generalness of this goal that does not indicate where to develop student housing, which is really the the the debate in my mind that has been going on in town, is the location of developing student housing. Um,
but this goal does not say a location yet. Otherwise, without that location, to me, it actually accurately depicts the goals of nearly everyone that I've talked to regarding
housing in this town. So, I guess I don't quite understand the objection to having that as a goal when you read the entire goal. So could I respond actually just because I think you make a good point.
So could on page 28 of 32 literally I would be just fine if it said encourage the development of student housing three words including on campus. I mean I think because I I've actually heard from a number of residents I don't think they I think they do when you read it just
assume it's talking about not on campus. So if it could say including on campus or include you know however three words I think that would really I'd be just fine with that because I think that's not how it's being understood. So I that's a fair
point. Does that we have that kind of a change or or ask the consultants? I guess I'm directing. So, can I ask a question from Jennifer because you >> I'm sorry, I just went off. Would something like that be appropriate? >> Yeah. >> Can I just ask a question so I can see
what you're referring to? I was on page 116 of the document, which was like 130 something of the like full 215 because, you know, the numbers don't match up. Where are you referencing? >> Oh, okay. I'm actually Well, it's in the
report, but you're right. I'm referencing what's in our packet. I guess it's the slideshow that >> Oh, okay. Because I was like 28 either 28 doesn't have that at all. So, it's that is what I'm referencing. >> It probably is the goal that I found on
116. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I think those three words would make a difference. >> Not not saying it has to be, but just including. >> Yeah. I mean, so the report references student housing in a few sections and, you know, on page 101, they have a
student housing section and they talk about, you know, that many residents, you know, argue the university has a greater responsibility to have housing on campus and there's some barriers to that, but, you know, that that that is a um that is a part of the conversation.
I mean, if the CRC really thinks it's worth asking the consultant to change that goal, you can vote on it. To me, I think it's splitting hairs and that's something that we would do after if you know like to me that's part of the conversation. What do we do with student housing? It's, you know, I don't, you know, the consultant might say, "Well,
why why don't you want them off campus? There's benefits to having them off campus. There's benefits to having them on campus." So, like I said, I don't I don't I don't think it's a a reasonable thing to say that either way. I think that's part of the conversation the town needs to have about where we want to
house students. It's not it's a value statement that the consultant, you know, they haven't said either way, right? Because I think they're agnostic to that point. They just think we have to address student housing as part of the housing market. And so, um, that's the conversation we have locally about what
we want to do with the students. I can call myself I mean, I can make that suggestion in the council. I don't I don't I don't think that's how that is. in interpreted when it says encouraged student housing and I'm not saying it it
has to say only on campus just including on campus but I can raise that in the council also. So, are we um so I just throw this out here. Is it do we want to move to a vote to approve or approve or vote on whether
we want to I just want to see if we need this the step of voting on whether we want to wait another week till we can see Kathy's comments or vote on that first and then vote or just go directly to a vote on whether we
want to take a vote for the council. Councelor Hani, >> I'm gonna make a motion. Um, I move to recommend the council adopt the June 2025 housing production
plan that was prepared for the town of Ammerst by Barrett Planning Group LLC. >> Second. >> Is there any discussion? Okay, then we will move to a vote. I'm just going to do it as I
see as you appear on my screen. Pat. >> Hi, >> Kathy. >> Okay. I have a question to our parliamentarian. If I abstain because I like part of the report and don't like part of it, does that reduce the voting
members to three? Andy. >> So I think in recommendations it's just a >> I mean I think Athena would would know better. I think for recommendation motions it's a a vote of those present
in voting not just present. It's still just a recommendation though. >> Then I'm going to abstain. Councelor Hani >> I >> Well, I'm going to throw a red wrench. Um, I'd like to see Kathy's comments.
So, I will vote no. So, where does that leave us? That leaves us two in favor, one abstension, one no. And Athena's not here. So, Mandy, Councelor Hani,
is that a majority? I think it passes. >> I do too. >> Yeah. And and the reason I'll I'll have explained the reason I did it. I don't think a longer discussion at this committee will be productive um given what I've heard. So to the
extent we want to even include a cover memo on the report that we cannot change as a council that could be discussed at the council level and um I can click the button and share my comments. Um and I
have sent them to Nate and now to Greg which I understand are woefully late. I just didn't find the uh bandwidth to do it sooner. So Mandy, that's what I was thinking that two to one with an
absention means this is moving out of this committee. >> And I figure that's what it meant too. >> And and I'm okay with that. That is the re that is actually my motivation for abstaining as opposed to I don't have an opinion. I do have an opinion, but it doesn't look like I can do anything
about my opinion. So I will move it forward so we don't have to have we don't have to look at this again. >> Councelor Hanicki. >> So I wonder if I don't know what's going to happen on the November 5th meeting, but um
normally reports are just drafted by the chair and sent in um without coming to committee. They sometimes depending on the report get sent to members for comments before the chair finalizes it. Right. Um, it's been a a good conversation, I think, but I think
there's a lot of nuance to some of the results of the conversation, I would say. You know, things like that that Nate and Greg and Dave said about whose report is it, what happens if we change it, then it's not, you know, like then Barrett might, you know, things
like that. um but that the council would benefit from hearing or having a report that includes that nuance as well as some of the specific comments that you Jennifer and Kathy and even Pam have had um to the whole thing. Um, so I don't
know whether that means that it would it be logical for that report to sort of be discussed or or presented to the the committee at the next meeting or, you know, I I'm I'm just throwing
this out there um before it goes to council um or or just make sure that the report is sent to all committee members for comment before it's finalized. by the chair or vice chair, whoever is actually going to draft this report. Um,
you know, I know sometimes they do get sent, sometimes they don't. Um, and I normally don't have a problem either way. I'm not I'm not criticizing the sending or non-sending of reports. When I was chair, I rarely sent them to the committee. Um, but this might be a case
where giving the committee a chance to comment before finalized would be helpful. Kathy, >> I just Mandy, I like what I understood to be your second option, not to bring
it back to the committee to focus on the report, but to do just so everyone knows what we have always done in finance, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the report gets changed. Is we said here's the draft. Everyone sends any comments to whoever wrote the draft and that
person incorporates those. Um, and sometimes you get them from, you know, someone is just as factual, but does a good faith effort to bring them in in terms of you didn't capture this right or you misstated and then that final goes out. So, I like that version,
Mandy, rather than having to have a a formal discussion of a draft. And that and since Jennifer is here today, the burden goes on her shoulders to draft a report that tries to capture some of what we heard from both Greg and Nate.
And and it can be as simple as Jennifer had one specific or something else and Kathy submitted a report on comments that none of us had a chance to read. you know, it can be, you know, in other words, it can be an honest version of
you're getting this report from us um with this vote. And I think that for me that works because um everyone gets a chance for the nuance if if other people are with it. And it's so explicit. It it comes as draft and
then and then it and it gives people a time to ponder what the report says to be it should be neutral. It's a chair report on our discussion, right? Including >> Yeah. And Nate and Greg's contribution
that we heard from staff, right? >> Yeah. The TSO chair always sends the report and actually asks us to give him his blessing. you know, before it's posted, but I I would not feel comfortable submitting that without all of you seeing it. So, I
will get it to you um a week before it goes to the next council meeting. Um yeah, so I think it was a good discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Greg and Nate. So we just have um minutes so you can we
can give you back your time but thank you very much and thank you for being here through the whole discussion. >> Yeah. So I'd say this would be the start of the discussion. So you know as I mentioned I'd like to have you know future meetings with the planning board
CRC and housing trust whether it could be you know combined meetings to really talk about how we move some of the housing goals and strategies forward. So even different things that aren't say mentioned in the plan. But you know I think in the next few months I'd like to have some of these conversations that the planning board started and we
have here. So >> yeah. Well you've been good diplomats between the Barrett and us. >> I like that idea Nate of bringing the three together. It would make more sense to bring whatever the new CRC constituted committee is so early next
year. But I I really like that idea of all three maybe being able to talk about which strategies to focus on. Yeah, that would be great. Okay, thank you very much, Greg and Nate.
>> Thanks everyone. Have a good night. >> Night. So, our next item is to approve minutes which weren't in the packet. So I I'm assuming they have been there in past packets. Pat,
>> if they're not there, then we can't approve them. >> We can't. So >> So that's done. >> That's that because there are actually four minutes here. Okay. Um, and carryover items we discussed last week and I will leave that I think till the chair comes back
>> and and I think we're we're attempting not to have solar be a carryover item. >> Well, I I think solar will be a carryover item, but it will be a holding until the guidelines are final the regs are finalized, but but not a like big lift carryover, I
think, is the goal. But um you know Mandy, I do appreciate what you said about the student housing because guess I it helped me clarify my concern and at least we know this won't be on the carryover the housing production plan won't be on the
carryover items. Okay. So with that um our next meeting is our November >> I think it's November 6th. November just >> Oh, that's right. Because Kathy will
come back with the solar bylaw report. Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? Oh, we're ending early. >> I'll move that. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh Pat, >> hi.
>> Uh councelor Hani. >> I >> Kathy. >> Yes. >> And I'm an I. Okay. Thank you. We're adjourned.