recording, >> excuse me. >> Okay, Mr. Marshall, um, we have a quorum of the board. You are the co-host to this meeting. Nate Mallaloy is with us tonight. Amoris
Media is with us tonight. Um, if I didn't say it, this meeting is being recorded. I think we're good to go. >> All right. Thank you, Pam. >> You're welcome. >> Welcome to the Amoris Planning Board meeting of April 8th, 2026. My name is
Doug Marshall, and as chair of the Ammeris Planning Board, I'm calling this meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available livereamed via Ammerst Media. Minutes are being taken pursuant to
chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 and further extended by the chap by chapter 2 of the acts of 2025. This planning board meeting will be conducted via remote means using the
zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is listed at the top of the page. No
in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic hardship or despite our best efforts, we
will post an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website. Board members, I will take a roll call when I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and return to
mute. Uh, Fred Hartwell. >> Fred is present. I, Doug Marshall, I'm present. Johanna Newman, >> present. >> And Jara Smith, >> present. >> Uh, members Bruce Colum, Jesse Major,
and Angus Mloud are going to be absent this evening. So, we have four B board members uh attending and that is a quorum. Board members, if technical issues arise and the discussion needs to pause, it
will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment and I will call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remmute yourself. To the general public, the general public comment item on tonight's agenda. It is
reserved for public comment regarding items that do not appear elsewhere on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during the general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when
deemed appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star9
on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by making your full by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board
chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. All right, done with the preamble. The time is 6:43. We will go to meeting minutes. We have
one set of minutes that are uh for up ready for our approval tonight from December 17th. And um Johanna, your hand is up. Are you you ready to go? >> I move that we adopt the minutes from December 17th
>> as drafted with no changes. Right. >> I read them and they looked fine to me. >> Okay, good. Uh anybody else want to second them? I don't see any other hands, so I'll just second it. Uh, and we'll go ahead to any comments or any or
if not, we'll go right to the motion to the to the vote. Anybody have any other any comments other than that? They look fine. Nope. All right. Uh, we'll go ahead to our
vote. Starting with you, Fred. I >> All right. Thank you, Johanna. I >> Jara >> I >> and I'm an I as well. That's four in favor, three members absent. The motion carries.
Great. All right. Looks like we have one member of the public who is here as an attendee or as a listener. Uh this is the time for public comment. So I will invite
that one member who is Mora Keen. If uh Mora wants to make any public comment this is the time for you to raise your hand. If not we will move on. I am not seeing Mora's hand raised. So
we will move on. Time is 8:45. We'll go to the third topic on the agenda, which are the design the downtown design standards. All right. So, this is not a public hearing. We're not at that stage if we
ever get there. Uh for the standards, um Nate, uh did you have any particular purpose for our conversation of for those standards uh on tonight's agenda? >> Thanks, Doug. Uh, can folks hear me or
is Yeah, great. >> I'm in I'm in I'm in a different place so I wasn't sure. No, I mean I think you know Dodson um you know went over the standards last meeting. They've been available online and so you know I just would want to give the board and if the public was here a chance to comment on that. You know I'd encourage the board
to still use the comment forms we have available >> just so that you know the feedback goes to Dodson in that in that structure. But you know this is a chance just to to comment on it. So, you know, just let you know, the CRC is looking at it tomorrow. Dodson's presenting to them. The commissions for persons with disabilities and the historical
commission will be given a presentation next week. And then, you know, we haven't received that many comments. And so, some of it would be, you know, planning board, we want to, you know, speak to it, you know, have another meeting or two. Um, it could be specific things or just general things. Um, you
know, I think for instance, there might be comments about, oh, we like this area or not. And so it could be um you know waiting to see what actually happens with them. And so you know there was an idea that they could be adopted in stages or it could be adopted all at
once. I mean I think as the process moves forward I think it you know I'd like to hear from the board about what you think you know because I think you know in in phases it might you know take like two years to actually get get something that the the consultants showed. You know Jara asked some
questions. Jesse had some and so, you know, the consultant was here. I followed up with them in an email just to clarify some things. Um, and so, you know, I think they're working on it. I think, you know, they're just going to wait to hear see what what they hear from every every board and committee and then have a kind of a synthesis of all
the comments in a few months. >> Okay. So, um, you know, I remember I made at least a couple of comments and managed to get on the front page of the Gazette with those comments. Um and uh Angus made made similar comments and he got on an on an interior page of the
gazette. Um you know those were some those were a couple of general comments. Um but you would like us to use the comment forms uh rather than talk about it here in the meeting. >> I know I think we can do both. I think like you know if you're looking at it
and you're spending time uh independently and you you know really think that something on page 30 of volume two >> mh >> you know you could sit that submit that as an individual and then I think there's the board comments >> um okay >> you know that we can >> um you know aggregate over a number of
meetings and send to them. So you know this is >> you know if you have individual comments great you can always bring them back to the board. I think tonight, you know, it can be anywhere like you said kind of the bigger comments like policy questions because of these details. >> So, um,
are you thinking that the board will have a sort of consensus set of comments that we as a body will give to the process or are you just looking for individual? >> Um, Johan, I saw your hand up just a minute ago.
>> Come back to her. I guess, you know, if the board has a consensus, I think that would be great. You know, it could be like a kind of a cover memo. >> Um, you know, and it could just, you know, could have half a dozen points, but I, you know, I'm anticipating that at some point people be like, "Oh, I'm not, you know, they might push back against some of the ideas or have a lot
of questions. Maybe the board does too, or maybe you support some of it." And so it could be that, you know, the board likes what the consultants prepared for these districts or these areas. you know, has some questions about this or like the idea of having, you know, the setbacks and having wide sidewalks. I mean, it could be just something like
that to reinforce those ideas. Um, like I said, we've had very few public comments, so it's it's hard to gauge where, >> you know, where people are leaning right now. >> Okay. Well, obviously everybody loves them, right? >> Yeah, maybe. >> Okay. Uh, so Jerry, you've now got your
hand up as the next speaker because we lost Johanna and she'll have to be behind you. >> Uh, can I seed my time to Johanna? >> You may. >> All right, go ahead, Johanna. Well, in the spirit of us as a board just
discussing this again, I wanted to share that I continue to support the idea of developing downtown design standards and I hope we don't get too bogged down in it because I think it is a chance to signal to the market what we want downtown. I continue to, you know, kind
of wish that they were a little bit more ambitious. Um, so specifically I'm thinking the area around the park is such a great place to live and it's currently underutilized and I so you know, but we've we've made that feedback
to the consultant already. So, you know, I guess I'll just echo that sentiment that I I'd love to know why they're not thinking more ambitiously about bringing housing and families and like a more vibrant streetscape around the park. Um,
>> so how do you how do you feel about the existing houses uh particularly along the west side? >> I don't I am not nostalgic for those houses. I feel like yeah that's how I feel about that.
>> All right. I mean I think that's my sort of perception of how they arrived there was that there were there were some fairly vocal members of the sort called call it stakeholder groups that they
interacted with that uh felt like that that those were valuable let's say and um and there was a lot of concern about the fact that that stretch really backs up to the residential area to the west of it. I mean, my p my personal opinion
is that's a those are very deep lots. So that you're not right next door to the houses if you build at the front of the lot. But but anyway, um >> if these are the standards that are guiding how our town is growing in the
downtown area for, I don't know, the next 20, 30 years, you know, I just think more people should have the opportunity to live on that awesome park. Um walkable to the downtown. It feels Yeah, I think the current
proposal feels underutilized there. And I'd like to come back to the idea of increasing density there while being sensitive to the neighborhood behind it and you know considering that um graduated heights approach. Okay.
>> So, yeah. And then I, you know, I think I echo the idea that four zones feels like a lot um for the downtown, but you know, if I imagine there's a there's
a good reason why they arrived at those four zones. So, um you know, if the final plan is these four zones, it's not like I would say, "Ah, scrap it. It's too precious." >> You know? M >> well I mean they their analysis of our
existing downtown yielded that perception of four zones. So, so if we're fine with maintaining that, the four zones make sense. if you you know if you're open or if you're
advocating change that some part of it should change you know it may be that fewer zones would make sense and that you know the fourth zone the lowest zone ought to move north or you know I mean I I sort of an assumption of this whole
exercise is that that was the boundary of downtown and I would say if you know if we're thinking that we our population should increase and that downtown should get bigger. Well, there might be an expectation that there's
some of downtown that creeps outside of that area. Okay, I've pontificated enough. Um, Jara, >> thank you. Um, uh, Johanna, I I agree with everything
you said. Um I'm thinking uh and Nate and Pam I want your thoughts on this that maybe what we do and and I know even in the last meeting I was pretty adamantly against like group uh letter writing but perhaps there are some
pointed areas of feedback that we can agree on as a board that we can explicitly provide for um Dodson and Fininkle like as it relates to either you know specific areas number of zones, dimensional
recommendations, if there are any big bucket ideas that we want to more explicitly cuz like I I I don't think I need to understand why the recommendations are the ambition level that they are. I would like to say
this is what they are and and this is our feedback for what it how it should be improved. Um, so that's one thing that I just wanted to and maybe that's do do we ever set up like an ad hoc
downtown design standard subcommittee for the planning board or something like that? Um, >> uh, I have other points, but actually I'll just stop I'll stop there and just get my colleagues thoughts on that. Jar, it's not uncommon for for Nate in
particular to take the feedback he gets and put it into a memo that, you know, sort of synthesizes the what he's heard and um sometimes it's sometimes it's it's coming from me and I buy you know I look
at it before it goes. But we've had, you know, like when we get a bylaw to, you know, that we hold a hearing on that's proposed, we send a letter to town council with the board's recommendation regarding that proposed
bylaw. >> So, that's a format that we could easily do. Um, and you know, would we need to do a subcommittee? I'm not sure we would. I I mean, >> yeah, >> one of us or Nate could draft it. And
I'm sure he's got nothing to do nothing else to do. And I do want to before the night's over, I want to know when we're going to lose Nate. So, uh, wait, Nate, you've been warned. Um, because, uh, I heard you got another job. >> That's not official yet. The, um, but to
Jar's point, yeah, I don't I wouldn't want an ad hoc committee. I think that's why it's on the planning board agenda. So, I'd want the board to discuss it, you know, and we can summarize them, you know, you know, after the next meeting, have it on here as an agenda item and we can bring the points back and yeah, I
think so then there is that, you know, kind of like the summary memo from the planning board and I think that's helpful. So, if you have more points to discuss here, I'd bring them up now. This would be the time, you know, Fred other and others. And then you know we were missing a few members but um you know my guess is right the CRC I know some of the members I I previewed this
with them at one of their meetings and they had a fair number of questions and so my guess is they're going to have individual questions and then maybe maybe write a uh maybe like a a memo right from the CRC or they have like a consensus agreement on some points and so we haven't really decided on how those
would get to the consultants but I do think you know I can provide a cover memo and I think that's a way to go. So, so do you think this the feedback I mean you've said it several times and I guess I'm will the feedback go directly to the consultants and the consultants will be
invited to change the guidelines or or the guidelines are what they are and the and the feedback and the memos go to town council to say here's what we think you should do to change it before we
you know put it into the hearing process for approval, >> right? I think no, it's a good question and we haven't determined the the process for that. And so, you know, for instance, I think that there's going to be some people who say they don't like actually what's happening around the
park. They want it to be less dense. And so, here the planning board is going to say we think it should be more >> and then others are going to say it should be less. And then maybe what we say is, well, what the consultants propose is the happy medium >> and that's what works. And so
um you know >> council says that not the consultants. >> So I think you know I think the consultant had the working group. You know Doug was a member as was Bruce and you know there was a lot of members I think maybe only like less than 20 came
um consistently. I I didn't go. It was really meant for the you know these stakeholders to meet with Dodson. And so there's about 40 you know and by the time they were done it was maybe a dozen went all all the time. In any event, I think Dodson what they came up with, they called it like reasonable design solutions, right? So, they think what they proposed takes different
perspectives and achieves something that is is workable. You know, if if the planning board doesn't think it goes it actually brings enough housing downtown, I think that's a really important point to make. I'm not sure, you know, if we're going to ask Dodson then to scrap what they've done or is the planning
board's recommendation really that, you know, whatever we call it, you know, whatever district just should apply to this other area. And Doug, as you mentioned, maybe their other district is a peripheral peripheral one that goes further along North Pleasant Street. And so I think
that's that's something that could happen after the process and maybe that's a recommendation, you know, it goes to the consultants now and then it can also then go to town council or others. Um because you know what we have to decide is what how these would be adopted or implemented. And so um you know I think what's going to happen you
know the idea is that by July we're going to have all these comments staff and the consultants will sift through them and see okay what are the themes are are there things that can be addressed or are some of these bigger questions like are being discussed right now. Um, you know, some I know there's been some comments like, "Oh, could the
upper floors be stepped back more?" And, you know, maybe the consultants could say, "Well, actually, if you step it back too much, you basically lose that floor. Structurally, it's difficult and is it really necessary because we're proposing wide enough um, you know, front setbacks and widths of sidewalks,
so you don't really need any, you know, anyway." So, I feel like there's probably some that could be rationalized and explained and then there's these bigger ones that I'm not sure, you know, it might take a little bit more discussion with staff and and and you and others. What do we do with that? You know, what do we do with changing a zone?
>> Yeah. All right. So, Johanna >> Doug, if this is too much minutia, stop. But um Nate, I feel like I had my head wrapped around this when I read the standards a few weeks ago. And then but
can you just differentiate for us the green zone? So the proposed downtown neighborhood zone that includes that area around the park and then a couple of other, you know, spots kind of like where Stamall Strings is and um I guess
kind of behind the like kind of behind the library, right? Um. >> Mhm. >> How does >> prospect >> right off of prospect? Um can you just differentiate like what
does the what do these proposed standards make possible in that proposed downtown neighborhood that is different from what's there now in terms of how much housing could we get? How much like more density could we get in
that you know in that downtown space? what's proposed. Now >> Jarro asked that and the consultant said it's really hard because you know what would actually be built is different than what the standards show and so you know and I talked to Dylan a little bit about this. He said other communities
they've said this and then you know if it doesn't actually come to fruition everyone's like oh it was misleading you know so the what they're showing in some of their renderings is almost like max buildout and so I think what you know in some of those zones you referenced right now the you know the building coverage the lot area coverage the additional lot
area per unit really restricts um density and housing and so in some of those areas you know you might only be able to get two or three units and so to me what Datson is proposing is you three stories with, you know, pretty flexible um some flexible standards increase in
building and lot coverage. So, you know, I don't know what that means necessarily, but you know, it could be that you get, you know, instead of three units, you could get 20 um you know, and so it isn't, you know, um you know, and it it also is if someone really builds out kind of to the
maximum. Um but I think what they're proposing is increase density and I I've asked them to kind of quantify that a little bit. So, I think they're working on it. Um, just, you know, kind of like what you asked, kind of kind of some rough numbers and it is difficult. I,
you know, like right now in the BL zone, you know, the additional lot area u per unit and some of the other requirements, but really you don't get anything. I mean, I think if the zoning doesn't change, you know, you're probably not going to see much. The owners might invest in their in their properties, but
not it's just not worth the effort. You know, maybe they'll add a unit or two, right? But to me it's like if these standards were in place and maybe a property owner would aggregate a property or buy another one or maybe with a partner they say wow we could do you know 30 town houses now or something
on two you know combine two properties and it becomes a nice development. I just don't know that what we have in place incentivizes that and I think the standards do but I again I yeah I'm not sure enough right how what developers would say
>> right >> and it might be that we you know like this is one step but hearing you just like articulate that this would potentially create threetory buildings where there are now onestory and twostory buildings
gives me at least a sense that this is a step in the right direction and that it's incremental progress and um I I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Well, and I'll say that it is proposing
enough that some people are opposed to it, >> right? That they think it's too much >> and um so so it's it isn't just reinforcing the status quo.
Uh Jara Um, I'm curious. So, I also I feel reassured, Nate, hearing you talk about it more because that's the the gut of the question that I'm trying to understand is, you know, we have
existing standards in place, existing zoning in place. We have not seen meaningful redevelopment on most of the parcels in downtown. So therefore, something in these design standards needs to meaningfully change what we
currently have in order to incentivize redevelopment. Right? And so what I'm trying to understand is looking at at heights, looking at lot coverage, looking at setbacks, it didn't look like there was a or and looking at process like it didn't look like there were
significant changes where um but but then and I I could very well be wrong, but that's why that's what was my concern. And so if there are particular parts of of downtown that would really benefit from these changes, it would be
helpful to know where that is occurring. Um because like right now I see the one-story buildings, you know, off North Pleasant and they could be six stories, but they're not right now. So what about those design standards could make them
be that max buildout potentially? Um, and they very well may be great at doing that. I just I just don't understand or haven't seen the evidence for it. Um, um, I'm also curious like have we
thought about any like for outreach, has there ever been thought about like a literally like a banner downtown? Like has it just been advertised on the town social media or how have we been marketing this to people?
Uh yeah. So I think you know we've there's been you know through the town's multime media there's been some you know the bid and chamber have been you know putting it out there. I think the consultants will actually um you know in addition to the board and committee meetings u maybe meet with the chamber in the bid. Um we have talked about and
we we we talked about it. We haven't um putting up flyers with like a QR code that could get to the the downtown design cent's page. So something we talked about last week, we just haven't we said we were going to do it. We were waiting actually to see maybe after um you know next week with the board and committee meetings once maybe there's
more you know public um kind of coverage to then to car then to have another media push and kind of outreach push. So I yeah um I think it could be better. Um you know I mean I feel like I I've emailed you know before the open house the other month you know we contacted every board and committee chair. We did,
you know, different um by putting on different calendars, people get alerts on their phones and so I feel like it probably went to, you know, a few hundred people. It's just a matter of these are pretty big documents and, you know, is it just is it is it not imminent enough to have people be interested, right? So, is it still kind
of like an academic exercise like, oh, we're proposing this and then actually when we go, you know, if it's like later this year and we're like now we're actually going to do a zoning change, is that when people are really going to be like, oh no, what's happening? I need to understand it more because right now, you know, who who knows if it'll be implemented. Um, and so that could be
the case. I'm not sure, you know, or as Doug said, I I like to think that people really like it. Um, but, uh, Jared, to your point, yeah, it's a good question and I'll I think I want to dig into it a little bit too about what how does it incentivize development? And so, you know, what we've heard, what they've actually said
is that in the BG, they're actually kind of reducing kind of buildout with their their their um front setback of like two to five feet and their step back of the upper floor. So, essentially in BG, we give it all away. Some of it with waiverss or modifications. And so, with
the footnote, you know, what we've heard, you know, over the years that developers don't like having a special permit to modify the height. Um, and if things are a special permit use, it's difficult. And so to me, in addition to, and Dawson, I think it said this in the reports, some of the dimensional pieces,
is actually changing the permitting of uses. And so, >> you know, if we have a height, don't have a special permit to go five feet or two feet above the maximum, which we have now, just set a maximum so we know we get what we want, and then just make it site plan review. And so, to me, it's like all those little changes together
could add up to be meaningful. It's I'd have to I'd have to like, you know, I almost have to like go through like you did and mention all these things and go through again and be like, "Okay, does it work on this property, >> right? What do we get?" Um, I think it's a yes, but I'm not sure. >> Great.
>> And also, I just want to say like I or sorry, Doug, go ahead. >> No, that's Go ahead. >> Uh, I just, you know, well, I was just going to say, you know, of course I wasn't implying that the town has done anything inadequate as far as marketing is concerned. I'm just thinking like I
am constantly bombarded with digital information and believe it or not it's the analog that catches my attention. And so if we had a banner that was hung across downtown going, you know, north, south, and east, west that said, "Did you know that we're talking about
changing downtown? Visit this website." I think I would be curious to see how much more hits we get. You know, so uh just a just a thought. No, thanks.
>> Um, what I was going to say was, um, the thing that I'm I guess I'm worried about with proceeding because I advocate for more housing along that northern end of town. Um, if it gets built out at three stories,
I'm worried it'll never get any higher, right? Um, kind of like what we ran into with North Ammerst where it's built out, the landlords are happy, they've paid off their mortgage, and the likelihood
of us creating a situation where it's it they're induced to actually change things are so low that it's that's just what it's going to be for the for, you know, the imaginable future. And so that's why
I think it's worth pushing as hard as you can now. Um because you know even if you push for a lot you may not nobody may want to build it anyway but um at least give make it possible.
Okay Johanna you're there you go. >> I'm gathering my thoughts. I really appreciate what you just said, Doug. And um and like a slice of bread is better than a whole slice of bread that gets voted down. So that's in my mind a little bit
of the tension here. And I don't quite know if right now is the time to push or you know and say by golly Dodson and Slinker you need to be more expansive with how you're thinking about density on the north end of this versus
the planning department wholeheartedly supports these design standards. Let's move forward. Let's get go like let's you know let's move the process along. let's adopt these like on the timeline that they're on or even faster and like
let's start realizing this vision. Um and then if it, you know, doesn't do what we want it to, we can in five or 10 years, you know, revisit and figure out why are they not unlocking the potential that is seen here. So in my mind, it's and I
guess maybe it's even a it's a strategic decision that we need to make, >> right? Um, speaking of, you know, how quickly or slowly things happen, Nate, um, has our university drive overlay had any
noticeable reaction from the development community? >> It has, you know, there's been interest um, and there's, um, yeah, it it has nothing, you know, nothing that will, you know, may lead to permitting later
this year. um you know I think it's also been maybe a tough time uh in the development world >> with prices and things but I think there has been interest so you know both from local developers and um regional developers and so they've you know they've they've taken notice um you know
kind of Doug what you mentioned you know about North Ammeris not that it's the case on University Drive but right I mean a lot of the property owners now could say oh well what you know what's the value of my property and are they then um you know do they want to hold on to it or you know do they have a certain
price in mind or they or they want to do the be the developer themselves right so I feel like there's a few property owners who have been developers in the past and maybe they're thinking about it but I yeah I think it's I know I've heard from um different staff that they've had inquiries I've had some and so people are definitely you know just
kind of learning you know they've heard about it and they've asked questions and now they're kind of doing some you know research about it so yeah >> okay all right well I mean you know the buildings that are downtown that have been built in the last few years.
I think it's safe I think I'm right to say that in each case for those three big buildings on one-story development turned into fivetory development. And so that was a that was a that was a
sufficient inducement to to tear down one story to give them five stories. And maybe, you know, maybe I don't know if three stories is enough, but we we'll we may find out. Um and Jara as far as the you know what
exactly is the the green zone you know proposing if would it be helpful to you if like over a series of three or four meetings we we sort of talked about each of the zones and what
the uh what the physical proposal is. I mean I think I think that would be very informative. I do wonder if that is too exhaustive considering other things
that we have on our plate. Um but I don't know but I I I that's just I'm of both minds. Um I'm also you know trying to think what is going to be the best uh you know is our feedback is the audience for our feedback Dodson and Finkele or
is it the town council? Um and what do they what can we as the planning board uh do to answer those questions? >> Um sorry. >> All right. All right. Um,
I guess neither of you have your hands up. None of you. Um, haven't heard from you, Fred. Um, we have one the the one member of the public has changed from who it was before to somebody new. So, I'll just uh
invite that member of the public. If you want to make a public comment, this would be the time to raise your hand. Okay. All right. Um, Nate, did you tell me you needed to leave about 8? >> Yeah, I mean somewhere around there. I
I'm >> Okay. >> You know, we can I'm I'm waiting on a you know, it could be 8:30, but earlier, you know, I will probably won't be able to stay till 9. Um, >> yeah. Yeah. And then you know so I was going to I was going to share the screen in a minute possibly but yeah I think
you know um I think Doug Johan you've mentioned it right that the consultants try to be respectful of the neighborhoods. I think right around downtown I mean the the right so what the I think if the planning board is like look our downtown can be more than one property off of North Pleasant Street like we can be two properties
deep then maybe you know that the green zone uh doesn't need to be there and it goes three because you know the idea is like do we really need to be buffering you know 200 feet off North Pleasant Street or can we actually get a little bit more development downtown and is it
okay if we have four stories facing saying North Prospect Street on one side for instance instead of three you know is that you know and maybe uh if that's the case you know the planning board can say we like that and you know the consideration would be a different you
know setback or whatever right there's a few maybe some ways to kind of mitigate that because I think they did a really I think DOSA did a really good job right of the existing conditions assessment I think their analysis was really thorough and well done um and then it's a good question I think Doug maybe you asked like but is that what we do we just want
reinforce that those conditions or do we want to say, "Wow, we like what they've done and let's maybe apply that blue zone where all the green is and then that would actually lead to like a really vibrant kind of bigger downtown." And that that might be a really, you know, that could be a really strong
recommendation. And if if this doesn't move forward now, I think it's something that, you know, I'd want to like put on the list of zoning priorities. You know, we had the list of a lot of things and just put it there and, you know, revisit it uh next year, right? or keep it keep it keep it as part of the discussion because I think you know I'm also
hopeful that some of the things Dodson came up with in terms of both the right of way and private development we can apply those standards and the rules and rags of the board or others to other village centers you know if we like what they're doing in terms of breaking up facads and roof lines and things like
why you know I think they could be applied to North Ammeris or East Ammerst and incorporate them into other parts of the bylaw or you know rules and rags are just part of permitting review and So, you know, Bruce has said that a few times, and I I like that idea of, okay, we like, you know, the downtown village
standards, and we think that's going to be great for Pomeroy, for instance. I, you know, um, as opposed to like right now, we wouldn't really have much design review in those areas. If someone came in and said, "Oh, we want to do a big development like around Atkins again, you know, it's a BVC. We don't really
have design guidelines. Can we adapt some of these from the downtown and apply them there? Okay. Uh, as a side comment, maybe Nate, just a note for you, you mentioned the Atkins area and that village center
zoning. Given what the proposed that proposed archipelago project down there on Hampshire College land, uh given the obstacles from in terms of wetlands down there, should we be thinking about
whether that should even be a village center? And if it should, where should what parts should be zoned for BVC and should they change in some way? Because obviously what we've got seemed very problematic.
>> Yeah, I think again we could add that to the list. It may, you know, it may >> because there was a development proposed there, you know, Hampshire I think's interested, it may come back, but I I do I think it could be on the list. I mean, even East Ammeris where we're having a consultant, you know, this year look at it. There's a lot of wetland around East, you know, I feel like Ammeris has
a lot of wetland resource areas and so >> I think it is a a valid point. So even if we're looking at East Ammerst, you know, what are kind of land use constraints? So even if we like the idea of you know density and multi-unit development and things you know maybe part of the review is like okay do we
need to modify you know I'll say at the wetland regulations in some areas or you know what what do we do to have development in these areas we call village centers because agreed >> we need some other to find some other part of town where we could actually
build a village center because we can't really do much with a lot of what we thought we could do Right. Right. I mean Atkins yeah that's a you know that that is a difficult site right given the topography the wetlands and the arsenic in the soil that is a difficult area. Um so agreed it's like you know although it
was studied you know almost 30 years ago now you know I don't I don't I think the idea was like oh we would have you know like four quadrants of the intersection or the roundabouts be developed but really there's limited potential uh given you know the there's riverfront down there there's a lot of wetland
resource areas topography. So, >> okay. Okay. Um, anybody else want to say anything else about the design standards tonight? All right. I'm seeing heads shake. Uh,
clean energy bylaw. Time actually is 7:21 for those that want to keep track on this when we get have a recording. Um, uh, clean energy bylaw. Um, Nate, I saw you put into the packet the
comments that I had made. Um, I guess uh others, how do you feel about these generally? I mean, are you fine with them and we should just uh move forward or are do we
want to investigate them anymore? or or well I guess I'll just stop and call on Nate since you raised your hand. >> Sure. Thanks, Doug. Yeah, I was just mention the timeline. So, you know, the
CRC is meeting tomorrow. I was going to relay any, you know, additional comments from tonight and then the idea would be they'd want to then refer it to council uh later this month to come back, you know. So right, you know, the idea is to try to get it to, you know, to get it into the pipeline as a zoning amendment.
It has to be in place. It doesn't, you know, the goal is to have it be in place by October of this year when the state state regulations will be effective. And so, um, you know, Doug and I have met with the CRC and others and tried to map out a timeline where maybe the there'd be a
a joint a combined hearing of the CRC and planning board when it does get referred back um in maybe late May. Uh and then you know the idea is to have two to three months of public hearings and then refer it back to council for a vote to have it be um ready in time. And
so we'll come back to the board. Um and there's a lot there. I I agree. So you know again this this can be on you know if we don't have anything too specific tonight we can always have it on another agenda. I've already relayed to the CRC. You know, I think the board has some questions about kind of the technical
expertise and how much is expected of the board to verify everything that's required in the bylaw in terms of submitts. And so really, we'd rely on staff. uh there could possibly be peer review but the idea would be that the applicant would have to certify and then through like engineering and fire and
others conservation we'd rely on their you know transmitts during the hearing process to know that the say the battery containment system is is good that their you know their soil erosion plan uh meets the standards or you know is what we need need it to be um because you
know I think the planning board will become the permitting board for you know a fair number of solar installations where it isn't now So right now it's either just a yes if it's smaller or it's a zoning board of appeals permit. So it'll be it is a different permitting path being proposed. Um, you know, and I
think, >> yeah, >> yeah, >> I mean, I had a lot of concern about the fact that I had to >> go and look at at least two different Commonwealth of Massachusetts regulation sections on online to to even, you know,
first of all to understand what the 527 CMR reference was. um you know and and it felt like I was kind of edging into concom world where I know
I'm not an expert in that and um you know I mean I think that was part of why in the last meeting where we had uh Stephanie with us um you know I said we at least need a checklist of who's responsible for certifying
these different sections because it shouldn't be the planning board or all of it. Um, unless there's some way for us to get, you know, engineer attestations, certifications for everything that's
outside of our kind of comfort zone. >> Yeah. Know, I think it's a good point. And so, um, >> you know, I almost wondered whether this really ought to be a general bylaw, you know, just because it's not really a
sort of usual planning board bylaw, >> right? >> Um, I guess I' I've had, you know, I've continued to think about it. I have a couple of other comments that I could pass along at some point. Um,
I mean, one of them is, um, I I could I mean, we just bought an electric car and, um, I've wondered whether I could put a few solar panels in the backyard and have them just
direct feed my car so that I could charge it while I'm doing other things, doing yard work or whatever. But given the 50-foot setbacks, my my my lot is completely unbuildable
from a ground source solar perspective. And the you know the submission list for ground source solar is so ownorous that you know it would add probably tens of
thousands of dollars to my costs. So, I know that this was really geared toward controlling industrial use on a large scale and but there's absolutely no provision for me to put, you know, two panels in the backyard. And um I don't
know whether that's even cost-effective. I don't even really know what's involved because I haven't really investigated it. But is that something that we want to, you know, prohibit? So that's one one sort of thought that's been bouncing around in my head. And the
other one is um the sort the sort of premise of the whole bylaw is that a ground source I mean I'm I'm focused on ground source solar and I know that there was battery involved and and I acknowledge that
battery has uh a lot more sort of toxic and fire dangers. Um, but the but the premise for solar also seems to be that it's a highly hazardous use and requires a whole lot
of control. And I guess I just I mean and I know that our bylaw now is actually pre you know reasonably following the model bylaw that the state put out. So what I'm what
I'm saying what I'm gonna say is actually criticizing both or questioning both I guess um and that is is that really such a such a hazardous use that it needs huge amount of control. I mean,
I know that right now I could go buy some solar panels. Maybe let's say they're de decommissioned solar panels because they're, you know, they've been doing their thing for 25 years and they're no longer as efficient.
I could put those in the backyard on metal poles and as long as I don't plug them in, I can put them, you know, I've got a lot of flexibility on where I put those. But it's the moment I plug them in and connect them to somebody's grid
that all these requirements kick in. And somehow that just doesn't seem intuitively necessary. That plugging them in actually prompts them become to become a public hazard that that that should be highly
controlled. Um because at the same time as we're putting all these controls on ground ground mounted, hey, if I put two solar panels on my garden shed, no problem. So
why is it so different? And you know, I'm I'm I I I'm sure there's some explanation for that, but I'm not I haven't really heard it yet. So, uh, >> that's the other thing that's been bouncing around in my head.
>> No, thanks, Doug. Yeah, I mean, we do have a provision for accessory ground mount. And so, in your in your example, I'd like to think that that would be just a Yes. >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, if it's behind the meter of your house, uh, then you can run it, you know, to charge anything and it's just a Yes. Um, you know, what we we
what, you know, staff proposed were these tiers of ground mount, bigger ground mount. So you know the idea would be that it's a certain size and given its size and there's an impact possible impact and then in battery storage. So you know the state essentially when it
goes to the state at that point you know the size is like 100 or 125 acres or greater. So it's a really big solar ground mount solar installation. Anything less becomes a local jurisdiction. I think what you know what the I think the you know what with the
CRC and before that you know was the solar bylaw working group. I think you know the pro you know the I guess the difficulty is in some instances I agree that they're not impactful but what if it's going on a steep slope that was forested and now you're you know you know it's actually also a great place to
have solar but you know there could be a lot of impacts by cutting down those trees and then the solar panels do you know can cause you know say a fair amount of runoff and so I think it's hard to I think it's hard to have a bylaw that would um you know say try to
capture all those variables and have it seem like it's not too too ownorous. And so to me, you know, in some of the smaller ones, we've tried to exempt a lot of those submitt requirements, say for uh installations on a home or for accessory uses.
I agree it's a little confusing. Uh an applicant can always ask for waiverss. Uh it'll be interesting to see what actually happens. So, you know, someone comes in and they, you know, there's a flat farm field and they want to put eight eight acres of solar in. They might say like, you know, do I need to do half of what's proposed here or can I
still apply and then ask the board for a waiver from some of these things because I, you know, I don't think it's necessary. I >> But, you know, I think it's just hard to capture all the variables in a bylaw, right? So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, I mean I I mean on the
subject of of the tree clearing, you know, it does I mean if I if I had 125 acres and I was thinking of doing a solar farm, I would clear my land, create the new date baseline and then
then put in the application, right? I mean, because it's clear once I've if I do the application while my trees are still there, I'm going to be held to a different standard. >> Agreed. Right. There's there's ways to
manipulate, you know. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The process. Well, but it, you know, when that when it's that obvious, it's like, don't we want to address or structure the regulations to acknowledge that that's a workaround and maybe we
shouldn't be requiring that or something. I don't know. That's Doug's thoughts for the week. Um, Jared, Johanna, uh, anything you want to say about those, Fred? Yanna? So, I'll admit I missed the
meeting where Stephanie was here because I was sick and I have not gone back and watched it. Um, I have read the bylaws and I would say, you know, I should probably go back and watch Stephanie's presentation, but my initial
reaction is we are putting se 20 pages of regulations on a technology that society desperately needs. And I worry that
this bylaw will just throw a wet rag on solar development in Ammerst and we should absolutely be a solar leadership community. So, um I guess Nate, my question to you is,
is that your read of this bylaw or do you feel like there are parts in this where we are actually like creating the space for roof for solar to flourish in Ammerst or is it or is it just the punitive approach? And if you could
point me towards some of the areas where you think it'll actually unlock solar, I would really appreciate that. >> Yeah. No, I think it's um it's a good question. Um you know, it's kind going back to what I said. I think it's really hard to, you know, so I think some
communities will have a different approach, right, in terms of what they think the solar buildout will be and they're, you know, so like Planefield right now, right? There's been articles in the paper. They're, you know, they're like for whatever reason like a hot bed of solar even though it's highly forested, right? I they must have like the right orientation and slopes and so you know, I think they're worried that,
you know, cutting down trees isn't an obstacle for solar developers. So like, wow, what's happening? what could happen to our community? Um, yeah, I mean, I think what we're asking for is, you know, there's so what, you know, the state has set up a number of guidelines. So, you know, there's a
pre-application submitt an applicant for a large project has to do. Um, you know, they have to do a lot of site suitability assessment and certifications. And then >> that's at the state level already without us passing this bylaw. >> Um, yeah. And so, what I was going to
say is what we we do need a bylaw in place. So what the idea is that the state is calling this a consolidated permit. So all permits from land use to electrical, fire, building I have to occur within a year. So you know right now we don't really have a a a good we
um the way we permit it uh we don't clarify you know it's either just a yes because it's it's on someone's roof and it's accessory or you know it could be one solar panel on the ground or 100 and it's the zoning board of appeals. And so what we had tried to come up with was was a structure to guide those. And so I
think what's important is the tiers, you know, the use chart. We have tier one, tier two, tier three for ground mount. And it's based on the size. So, you know, like anything under, you know, a few acres is a yes, you know, a little bit bigger site plan interview, and then bigger is special permit. Um, and so to
me, um, you know, we still a lot of the submittal requirements are required. And so I don't know if it's a deterrent. I think that most most projects have to go through such so much permitting and so much regulation at the state that you know there's a team that can do that. I
think, you know, it might be that, you know, the twoacre solar uh that, you know, a homeowner wants to do might be kind of tricky because they they're not familiar with it. Whereas, you know, you know, I own 100 acres. I'm going to I'm going to have someone else come and take care of it and they're going to
know how. They're going to have the team. And so, that's always kind of been the case even, right, with land use permits and the zoning board. You know, we find that the bigger companies, project manage management companies come in and they get a special permit really well. They know how to write the management plan. They have responses. They have they're, you know, they're
great. And then you have the mom and pop rentals and they're like, "What do you mean? I have to know who what do I what I have to have someone on call at 11:00 on a Friday night?" Like, and no, it's just me, right? But the management company's like, "Yeah, we have a 24-hour call line. Like, no big deal." So, I think, yeah, I think again, it's I think
it's really hard to gauge that. What we try to do is have the tiered approach in terms of permitting so that things that we don't think are impactful are yeses or site plan review or as impactful or site planer review. So what we try to do is the size. So anything building mounted is a yes. So you put it on your roof, Big Y wants to put it on the roof,
it's just a yes. Um you know, if it's an accessory use that's pretty small, it's a yes. Um you know, I it's difficult to say, you know, you have 100 acre, you know, you have 40 acres of forested land. Is our bilap punitive or is it just
really comprehensive? You know, I think what we're trying to do is make sure everyone knows that there could be possible um if there are impacts, you have to prepare for it. So, it could be that it's an easy site and the applicant goes right through the criteria and is like sure, you know, here it is. Or, you know, it's a tricky
site because there's steep slopes and they have to figure out how are they doing erosion control. So, I don't I don't know if it's punitive. I think it's trying to be comprehensive. All right. Um, so Nate, yeah, as you mentioned, we'd
talked about at some at uh having some combined hearings with CRC. Um, what kind of con what kind of uh feedback do you want from us between now and the time this thing gets recommended
to town council? >> Well, I'm I'm attending the CRC meeting tomorrow and I can just relay some of this. You know, I think there's some good points being raised and I think some of it would be just, you know, for planning board members, you know, if you have questions, email staff. If I don't know the answers, I can, you know, email Stephanie or others. You know, the idea
would be we it'd come back probably in a little over a month. And so it just be for the board to be familiar with it so that at the time of hearing you know some of these questions could be asked again or if you have specific questions like you know why is this detail in here and what does that mean? Um so yeah I
don't I don't have any I think you know what we're been talking about is fine. Um, okay. >> Yeah, Johanna. >> Well, I was just going to say I really appre I think Doug sent in more than three pages worth of notes on the bylaw, which >> seven >> seven pages almost as long as the bylaw,
Doug. Um, >> but I'll uh I'll try to get you some annotated notes on it as well, Nate, of just like things where um I don't know where it either raises flags for me about like >> Great. I mean, a lot of my comments were sort of channeling something that Angus
talks about, and that is how can we simplify the the bylaw. >> And so, I was in I was questioning like, hey, this requirement, won't that show up when, you know, you go for the building permit and the electrical
inspector is looking over documents, why do we need it in this bylaw? um or um you know, isn't that something that Concom would would regularly include in their permitting process? So, why do we
need it here? Um so, you know, I was trying to sort of push out things that were duplicate of some other part of the process. Um, I think Stephanie uh said last time that they wanted to be very comprehensive in this bylaw so that the
applicant was aware of everything they were going to need to get through the permitting in the town of Ammerst. So, it was sort of a, you know, everything in the kitchen sink uh kind of approach. And I I get that perspective and maybe
that's the right way to do it. But but it just felt like gee, do we need to say this again because you know we have I mean at the beginning of the draft there's this paragraph that says this project has to you know has to
comply with all the federal and state and local standards. Well, so you caught it all. So, I mean, you know, it was it was a lot of that kind of thing and a little
bit of word smithing and, you know, partly the fact that I'd just been waiting for this for a couple of years and I needed to work out my uh my uh anticipation. Okay. Um, we now have a different one member of the audience. Um, so we're up
to our third single member of the audience. Uh before we move on, I'll just ask if the if that member wants to make any public comment regarding the draft clean energy bylaw. Not obligatory. Okay. So I'm not seeing any uh hand from
that person or from anybody on the board. Um actually I'm going to ask one more question Fred. Uh I'm going to ask you a question before we leave this. Um there were a number of
uh parts of there were there was a number of regulations related to electrical systems let's say in the clean energy bylaw. And I just wondered if you had looked over that and if you had any any
comments about those sections and the need for them or whether you know whether they were appropriate, whether they were likely to become dated and we ought to have a more general reference rather than the specific reference. Um or maybe you you haven't gotten there
yet. So putting you on the spot and Uh yeah. Um there's a there's a number of things that are electrical here that um uh involve
things that are actually beyond the scope of the Massachusetts Electrical Code, believe it or not. >> Oh, really? Uh yeah, the uh Massachusetts electrical code is uh
I think it's chapter 143 section 3L is the enabling statute and uh if you if you look at that um and you look at a large solar farm, what
you discover is that uh the uh the mass electrical code is uh is more limited and the uh the mass electrical code as a general matter simply incorporates the national electrical
code. However, uh the National Electrical Code includes um a uh an article, it's article 691
on very large solar uh uh installations. And if you if you study that, you quickly discover that it is basically a uh a an energy source that is directly
connected to a utility. And that makes it beyond the scope of the enabling statute of the Massachusetts Electrical Code, which is why I actually wrote a a proposal. This
is a number of cycles back now. When article 691 came into the Massachusetts electrical code, I immediately wrote a proposal for the the relevant addition of the Massachusetts code and that propo
that uh which passed and uh is still there which deletes that article in its entirety. And the reason it deletes that article in its entirety is that it's a it's a a very large uh typically a
medium voltage application that directly interfaces with the utility and as such uh it is not it is it is something that is addressed by the National Electrical
Safety Code which is an entirely separate code that is about how utilities do basically do their transmission. Uh and uh I what I was very worried about at
the state level and and this is now this worry has disappeared because we've removed article 691. I was very worried that the utilities would would step in and challenge the
mass electrical code in court probably successfully as something that uh violated their uh enabling statute and their uh their interface with the Department of Public Utilities.
Um and uh that's the uh the kind of installations that are addressed in this state enabling bylaw on the electrical level. They definitely involve uh a direct there
there are article 691 type things that are beyond the scope of the Massachusetts code. uh and they involve uh utilities direct utility standards. Um so this is uh it's it's it's a very
problem in terms of the electrical regulations here. It's it's very problematic. Uh it's and it's something that uh we are very careful on the state level and the Massachusetts electrical code to make sure that we stay out of the
business of attempting to regulate what is a utility function. So that's a that's a that's an issue. It's it's something that I'm watching uh to make sure that we don't uh inadvertently
get embroiled in uh what is a very settled uh regulatory framework in in the Commonwealth and that involves the Department of Public Utilities and their interface through the National
Electrical Safety Code with uh utilities. All right. Um, thank you, Fred. All right. Um, time is 7:48. Uh, maybe we should move on to, uh,
the next item on the agenda, East Ammeris Local Historic District. Um, I know Angus was going to be uh sort of presenting I think on this and he is not here to do so. Uh, he had suggested that
maybe we postpone this. Jar, I see your hand. Go ahead. >> I was going to motion that we postpone this to a future a future planning board meeting. >> Okay. I'm not sure we need a motion uh and a second and an official vote. >> That's my first time motioning and I
blew it. That's so upsetting. Well, I'll indulge you. I can second the motion. You want to >> There we go. Thank you. Just yet. >> Humor me. >> Not a problem, Jared. The motion passes. All right. So, uh, so why don't we go
ahead and move on. Um, general housing discussion. Similarly, the first item there, we were going to talk about the research park zoning proposal. Um, again, uh, Angus was the one that was spearheading that, so he
was recommending we postpone that one as well. Um, Nate, go ahead. >> Sure. Yeah, I was going to just say quickly in the packet there was some information and so the housing and zoning subcommittee spoke about this. You know, staff had originally proposed
an overlay that would cover the PRP zones, you know, and and it would do a number of things. um the housing and zoning subcommittee thought well could could we do it without an overlay and then modify the bylaw accordingly and so what Angus had proposed and worked on
and it was in the packet you know there's a number of articles then of the bylaw that need to have modifications to kind of do the same thing and that's what was there so you know there's like seven parts of the bylaw that that need to be changed and so you know the overlay was provided and then the other
sections were provided the idea is that they they're trying to get to you have the same goal um so for next meeting, you know, if you look at both and have questions that, you know, that's that's great. Um, you know, the overlay can achieve things a little differently. Uh, I still have some questions about parking and some other pieces there, but
really it was, you know, an exercise to say, okay, could we do this without having another overlay zone and just modify the zoning so we can, you know, that's that's kind of the two kind of routes and the subcommittee like the idea of trying to modify the existing zoning without an overlay.
>> All right. Do would you mind uh telling us whether staff has any preference or whether you see both as viable and equally effective or you may wait you may not want to comment and prejudice us or you know get into that tonight.
>> Yeah, I mean I think they both have their benefits and drawbacks. Um you know an overlay can be specific to a use you know so the difference is um you know in the overlay I could you know
my proposal was to lift the number of uh units in an apartment building so there's no cap on the 20 um the way Angus has structured it is to you know I'll say the subcommittee is to allow apartments in the PRP but still keep the cap right because if you change the cap then and it might apply
everywhere apartments are allowed and it may be that within the use chart you have a condition that says well in the PRP zone the 20 unit doesn't apply and so there's ways to do it without having an overlay it's just you know finding the right place to put that text so that
it you know an applicant or staff can find it so sometimes in an overlay right you can condense it all into one place and say that this takes precedent or supersedes other sections of the bylaw and then you have these cross references in the bylaw So if someone's reading the use chart, they know to go to this overlay article.
>> If it's not in an overlay, you just have to be familiar with, oh, you know, in this zoning district, here are like the caveats maybe in the bylaw. And there's a few of them, you know, in the use chart and then in the, you know, dimensional standards. It's not I don't know if staff has a preference. I think it's just, you know, what are you familiar with and how, you know, does it
say what you need it to? Um, and I think the subcommittee found that without an overlay, it still says what it needs to. So, >> okay. All right. Um, so time is 7:52. We've gotten through all the specific be
you uh sort of unique parts of the agenda. Um, I'm wondering whether this would be a good time for our five minute break. Um, Nate, uh, what's your sense of how long you can stay with us tonight? >> I mean, I could probably stay a little
bit longer. I mean, I I there's not much else. I don't know if we just want to >> maybe we should just power through it and try to finish it up before you leave. >> I think so. >> Okay. All right. In that case, we'll move on to um I I mean there's nobody
here from the housing and zoning subcommittee. Is that isn't that right? >> Uh Fred's here, but I think we can postpone. >> Okay. Fred, is there any sort of report you want to make on behalf of the committee? Uh you're muted. You're still muted, Fred.
>> Fred, you're muted. >> There we Yeah, I um I uh don't have that much to add other than to express my agreement that uh I think the best way to handle this is to
change the underlying zoning and not uh clutter up with another overlay. >> Okay. >> So, I I agree with that. >> All right. Thank you. All right. In that case, uh we'll go ahead uh to the next item. Any
old business? Not anticipated, Nate or Pam? >> Nope. >> How about new business? Anything there? >> Nope. >> Uh form a subdivision applications?
>> Not this meeting, but uh it looks like the next meeting. >> All right. Um upcoming ZBA applications. anything we should be aware of? >> Nate, do you I do not
>> I think I mentioned, you know, there's Tilted Orbit proposed in North Ammerst in the Mill District. So, it's an arcade uh that also serves alcohol and it's going through the permitting the zoning board. Um other than that, I don't I don't you know, I don't have anything specific.
>> All right. Uh upcoming SP, SPR, SUB applications, anything on the horizon? Um >> not nothing imminent. >> Okay. All right. Um committee and liaison reports. Bruce is not here for
PVPC. Angus is not here for CPAC and I am not appointed for DRB. That's going to be easy. We'll we'll move on to the report of chair. Um, the only thing I was going to say, and I think I'd sent an email to
Nate and Mo and and Johanna about this, is that I will not be present for the first meeting in May. I think that's May 6. So, I'm hoping that Johanna can preside in my place. >> That's the plan.
>> Okay, good. All right. Um, moving on. Report of staff. Nate, >> um, you know, I think we covered some big topics tonight. There'll probably be a few more, you know, coming to the board just in terms of, you know, initiatives and possible zoning
amendments. Uh, you know, we're trying to keep keep a, you know, a process of things um, moving forward. I don't, you know, nothing like, you know, you know, we had the the list of priorities earlier in the year and I know the subcommittee is looking at, you know, housing in the PRP. They're still
talking about cottage style development, you know, student home regulations, and so, you know, those might might um might move forward later this year. >> Okay. Okay. Uh, anybody have anything else? We've lost our one attendee. Johanna, go
ahead. Then Jara, this might be a good time for you to make a motion that would pass. >> I have two quick questions, or I hope they're quick. Um, my first is uh Nate, when are you do you have any sense of when you're transitioning into your new
role? Um, and then my second question is Pam, how much have you thought about using the like AI notes transcribe tool in Zoom to help shorten the amount of time you spend on minutes? >> Yeah, I I think about it and what ends
up happening is I don't have time to explore it. So I just keep going as quick as I can. Um I have been trying to minimize them as we go along here. it um it the content
of the minutes if it is just conversation dialogue like we had tonight can be much briefer than if we are having public hearings um with either zoning amendments or or
permit review. So yes, if somebody knows one to use that that says Pam push this button, you're good to go. Yeah. >> Well, Pam Pam, I know that Zoom has an AI companion feature.
>> Is is that more so than getting the transmitter? >> I I mean, it's integral to Zoom in some way. So, >> yeah, >> that might be one that your IT people could help you with. >> You know, I've used Microsoft Copilot.
>> Yeah. using a Zoom transcript and it, you know, it does a pretty good job, but you still then have to go through it. It is a little quicker, but it's not, you know, there's not really a silver bullet. Um, >> my wife uses Rev and I've used it before. You have to pay per minute and it's actually pretty expensive now
>> and it creates really great pros out of a Zoom transcript, but again, you know, it could be like p tens and tens of pages for a meeting and then someone still has to synthesize it. So, you know, I feel like there isn't there is AI software that can make the transcript
look kind of like nicer pros, but it's doesn't really great generate great minutes. Um, you know, unless you want them to be really brief, you know, if we're willing to have like a sentence per topic, but like Pam said, if you, you know, when we're having a hearing and we need some really nice minutes and
and, you know, more than just a summary, I feel like there isn't a software right now that can achieve that. I mean, maybe there is, but not not not free, right? Not like, you know, not something that the town subscribes to, but >> Okay. >> I have to say, too, like when I really
learned how to write minutes um for a select board and for a board of health and now the planning board, it's been drilled into me that I'm creating documents that need to stand up in court. Um, and so I I keep that in the back of my head when I'm trying trying
to do it. And and the other thing I will just say is minutes is just one of my responsibilities. So I do it as as quick and as fast as I can. Um but yeah, it it just takes time. It
takes time and thank you for asking. And Johanna, to your question, I'm I'm not sure. So you know, I'm still, you know, working with Hy to figure all the details out and hopefully more more will be known in the next, you know, week or so. Yeah.
>> Well, congratulations, Nate. >> Thanks. >> We'll be sorry to lose you. >> I'll still maybe come by on Zoom once in a while. >> No bomb. >> Drop in at 10 o'clock at night to see if we're still here.
>> Well, you're welcome. >> All right, time is exactly 8 o'clock and unless anybody has anything else, I think we can adjourn. This has been a record record short meeting.
Okay. So, the next meeting is what? Uh the 22nd. >> 22nd. >> Yeah. All right. >> Yep. >> Okay. We'll look to see you all then. >> Thank you everyone. >> Good night. >> Bye.
>> Good night, Pam. Good night from