Wonder what it looks like without that off. I'm going to need this. See? Okay. Okay, Mr. Marshall, it is 6:35. You have a quorum of the board. Um, you are the
co-host of this meeting. Amoris Media is with us. I do believe you're good to go. Thank you, Pam. You're welcome. Welcome to the Amoris Planning Board meeting of May 7th, 2025. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Emmeris planning
board, I am calling this meeting to order at 6:34 PM. This meeting is being recorded and is available via live v available live stream via Ammerst Media. Minutes are being taken pursuant to
chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 and further extended by bill house bill 62 as amended by senate bill 256. 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 adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event we are
unable for reasons of hardship of economic hardship or despite despite 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
websites. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and return to mute. Bruce Colum, I am here. Fred Hartwell, I'm here. Jesse Major,
present. I, Doug Marshall, I'm present. Johanna Newman, here. And we do not have Karen Winter with us at present. When she arrives, we will try to note the time that she arrives. Board members, if technical
issues arise, we may pause to address the problem and then continue the meeting. If 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 is reserved for public comment regarding items not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during 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 stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can generally 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. Okay, time is 6:37 and we'll
start off with the minutes uh for approval. We have minutes from just February 19th of this year. Uh Johanna, your hand went up quickly. Quicker than I reviewed them. They look great. And I wanted to move to approve the minutes.
You do? Okay. Thank you for that motion. Bruce, well, I'll second, but I have a question uh of clarification and then I'll my second stands. It's uh on the first page, I think. Anyway, it's the uh
the first part of the uh UD drive review and item number 14 uh where it said uh it says the breakout of the office commercial safe is unchanged. I think it's probably meant to say space. Um and
if that's correct, then I suggest we change that to the right word and then the second stands. Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Thank you. I'm good with that friendly amendment. Okay. Any other comments from the board?
All right. So, we have a motion and a second to approve as drafted with the one edit that was just discussed. All right. Uh Bruce, we'll start with you. I approve. And Fred. I I approve. Thank you Fred. Jesse I
Johanna I and I'm an I as well. That is five in favor and we have one absence. Okay. We will now go to the public comment period. Um, we have
uh a number of attendees tonight from the public. So, this is the time that I usually read the names of the people that I can see, I will do so. Um, while I am doing that, if you want to make a public comment about a topic that does
not appear later on the agenda, this is the time to raise your hand and we will entertain those comments now. Okay. Ken Rosenthal, Charlotte Tad Jackson, Charlotte Mullen, Christine
Breastup, Corey Mccandas, David Kelly, Donna Mard, Douglas Adler, Dylan Dylan H. Barstow Mance, Elizabeth Davis, Elizabeth Perkins, Eric
Bachrock, Jennifer Susman, one iPhone and then a second iPhone and then a third iPhone with 66 in parentheses after it. James from WAMC, Jan Jennifer Hickston, Jara Smith,
John Armstrong, Kathleen Woods, Masalaki, Msalki, Mski, Kathy Melly, Katie Nton, Kyle, Lisa Jurus, Maria Copeki, Matt Moyan,
Mora Keane, Michael Gilbert, Michael Leinsky, Paul Jurus, Rene's iPhone, Sandy with an I, Sherry Wilson, Tom Rei, and a Zoom user. All right, so we're we have 39
attendees and at the moment we have one person who wants to make a comment about some uh general topic which is not later on the agenda. Let's bring over Ken Rosenthal. [Music] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just
tell you that your member Karen Winter just left my house. She was having trouble getting online and she came here to try to do it. She's on her way home. So, she will be shortly online. Um, and I hope you and she are able to connect so that she can participate in the
meeting. That's the only thing I wanted to say now, which is to explain to you that she was having difficulty your your member Karen Winter was having difficulty connecting with you and now she's heading home and we hope that she'll be able to do that now. Thank you. Thank you,
Ken. Any other public comment of a general nature now? Okay. Okay, I don't see any other hands raised and so we will move on.
Um, so time is 6:42. Uh, Pam, am I correct that this next public hearing was advertised for some time after 6:42? Yes, it was actually advertised for 6:35. So, we're good to go. I'll bring
over Mr. Rei. Okay. Thank you. All right. This is SUB or so in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law Chapter 48, this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is
being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding SUB 2025-03 WD Kohl's Incorporated Shootsbury Road. Request approval for a
four lot preliminary subdivision plan under Mass General Law, Chapter 41, sections 81L and 81S located at map 9B-11, 9B-12, 9D26, and
9D27 all in the RO zoning district. So, are there any board member disclosures at this point about this uh topic? All right, welcome Tom. Good to see you
again, Mr. Chair. U for the record, Tom Rei, attorney with Bacon Wilson out of Ammeris here on behalf of the applicant for a preliminary subdivision plan approval. As the chair noted, um this was in front of the the board
last fall and in its exact uh form that it is now, the board approved it. Um as you know, this is to freezing. What happens is from the filing of that preliminary plan, you've got seven months to file a definitive
plan. it did not seem like the zoning bylaw for solar was uh imminent at that point and so we didn't file the definitive plan and so I think as Miss Breastrop did a tremendous job in her application report as she always does.
We're restarting the clock. Uh so we refiled the exact same preliminary plan. We're hoping for the same approval. This one we will follow up within 7 months with the definitive plan. we'd accept an approval with the same conditions that you put on it back in I want to say
maybe September of of last year. I'm happy to answer any questions. I'm happy to show the plan. Uh I don't need to glaze over it. I know at least uh Bruce is disdain for this process. So I'm trying to accelerate it. All right. Thank you. Uh Bruce uh
Bruce's opinion notwithstanding, I would like you to bring the uh plan up so that we can at least incorporate it into the recording for this meeting and people who watch it subsequent will have a complete picture of what we're talking about, of course. So we've got Shootbury
Road, if you can see my screen and my cursor. So we've got Shustbury Road on the left side of the screen. The property uh as it currently exists is outlined in this darker
line. We've got some topographic features on there. We've got uh wetlands on there. And then you'll see that this is the proposed new roadway which will provide the requisite frontage to the four new building lots being proposed.
So here's that roadway. Culde the sac lot one 24 acres, lot two 30 acres, lot three 37 acres, and lot 4 35 acres. And so that's the plan. And uh that's the roadway. And it's really what you're
approving is the roadway, which then gives the requisite frontage for the building lots to exist um uh as building lots. Right. Okay. Thank you. Uh I think you could uh stop
sharing at this point. Thank you. Um board members, uh most of us were on the board last year when this came before the board the first time. Um it doesn't appear to have changed in any way.
Um any questions, any discussion, any uh new opinions about this? Uh um I think I would like to probably review the terms and conditions, the findings and conditions that we uh
required last year just to make sure we're in line with those and nothing has changed. Uh Nate, I see your hands. Sure. Thanks Doug. Uh Tom, I just want to make sure that you know you've taken into account wetlands. You know, I spoke with Aaron and she mentioned there's,
you know, a fair amount on the property. So, you know, is it feasible that the road layout would remain pretty relatively the same if it was with a definitive or is there you know, would you expect a big changes to actually, you know, I don't know how that um I haven't looked at the property close
enough to see? Yeah, it's a great question. I don't think we'd expect it to change. Yeah. Um, if it does, I would suspect that we would know prior to the definitive and so the definitive would likely reflect that updated wetland.
Let's put it another way. Yeah. I mean, there's no wetland crossings on the road, right? As far as I can tell, no, there's there's an existing um along the current Woods Road that accesses the property. There's a culvert that goes under that actually takes the drainage from it's all the sheep flow from
Shootsbury Road and it goes under that Woods Road. I think technically on the southerntherly abuing parcel that's deemed a local jurisdiction wetland and so if we were to ever build this definitive sub this roadway we'd have to go through conservation commission in
likely maybe a limited project or a notice of intent to get that approved. So but I don't believe that there's any road I don't think there's any crossings. Okay. Okay. Um Pam I see that Karen Winter is in the attendees. Oh okay. Yeah, bring
her over. The time is like 6:48. So, why don't we bring her over in onto the panel? Yeah, Fred. Uh, yeah. I'm just uh obviously this is waiting for the uh the solar uh bylaw and I'm just
wondering if we have any prognostication from uh town staff as to where that is and it's in process. Uh Nate, um anything you'd want to say about CRC, right? Yeah, it's with the um
community resources committee and it'll I think the idea would be in the next you know maybe three months to try to get it in shape to be a zoning amendment to be um sent to council then referred back to go through the official process. So, you know, if it if that's the case, then, you know, I you know, there could
be a vote, you know, at the end of, you know, this year, you know, closer to November, December. It really depends on how, you know, kind of the timeline to get it to become a zoning amendment. Um, but, you know, something in the next six to seven months likely.
Okay. Um, Fred, any other questions? Okay. All right. Um, so no more comment from the board. Correct. Bruce, before you don't make a motion.
No, I just was waiting to hear the answer to your question about the the findings from last time. Uh, you asked whether what they were and whether uh there was anything different, whether we would choose to add or subtract. and I'm
interested in the answer to that question. Okay. Well, Pam, I assume you have the findings and conditions. Well, I don't know if you've seen me shuffling paper over here, but I don't seem to have them. Nate, can you go on to the S drive and and pull it up? Or Tom, do you
have the decision handy? Yeah, I've got uh in the packet. So, I can Let me just enlarge this so I can share my screen. I also Oh, for a minute. I had a hand up. uh from Christine Breastrop on the
uh attendees. Maybe she was just gonna tell us where to find the findings and conditions. If they're in the packet, I have them, but Tom has them now. If you see this quoted material screen
right now. Yep, there they are. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, we approved the the two waivers. uh to to have the 1 in equals 40 ft scale
and for the provision of a public sewer line and then Tom is that the only condition the one at the bottom there that is correct. Yeah. And and just to be clear there were technically three waivers sanitary water supply and then
the contents one. Okay. Yeah. But you combined. Right. Right. Right. Okay. Okay. Um, so I guess let's see. If we were to make a motion, we would probably be
saying we approve the uh preliminary subdivision plan. uh and we appro we approved the the three waiverss that uh were previously approved and we impose the one condition
that is listed here and then we would like to close the hearing. Would that cover the basis here, Nate? Uh we could also take public comment. Good point. Good point. I I had that in
mind and then I lost it. Okay. I can stop sharing if that's Yeah, why don't you so we can all see each other. Uh Pam, why don't you bring over Mike Leinsky? Hi, Mike. Hello. Uh Mike Leinsky, 167 Shootsbury
Road, Hammerst. Just have a couple questions. The The first one is um just to make sure this is clear. um the applicant saying that there was absolutely no work done on a definitive plan over the past seven months. Is that
true? Um Tom, do you want to comment on that? Sure. Um we have not advanced the plan to a place where we'd be ready to submit at this time. So we
went with the preliminary plan. Okay. Uh, Mike, any other I think that that really answered the question. I'm just wondering if any work was done on the definitive plan. Um, I guess I'm not sure how that's relevant. Um, well, it's it's relevant in the
sense of whether this is just going to be something that just keeps happening every seven months or so with with no real uh, you know, final definitive plan that comes out of it. Um, well, I mean, we can't control the
applicant's behavior. Um, one thing the town could do would be to enact the new solar bylaw or decide not to, um, one way or the other. Um, that brings up my second question then. It sounded like Tom was saying they would actually be
working on the details of a definitive plan this time. Is that true? He did state that they intended to submit a definitive plan within the seven month. And then my my followup would be based on the timing that Mr. Mallaloy said for
this solar bylaw actually being passed, it seems like the sevenmonth period for this particular preliminary plan might actually run out again before the solar bylaw actually is passed. And if that's the case, if that's the
case, will they actually be working on a definitive plan since the whole purpose of doing this is to find out, you know, whether they want to be under the solar bylaw or not? Well, I I think that um when Mr. Rei said that they intended to
submit a definitive plan this time, that they understood that they would do it within the seven months and that that could easily be before the solar bylaw was passed or not. Exactly. And would that involve actually
going to the conservation commission too as part of that process? Um, I don't know the answer to that. Uh Tom or Nate, do you either of you want to comment on that? Nate, I'd have to look at the subdivision rules and regulations to see what the I know there's there's a line in there about
conservation commission, but I don't know how uh where you have to do that in the process, right? Yeah. Yeah. I was going to say that, you know, Mass General law allows property owners to do this and so, you know, if you want to call it gaming the
system or whatever, it's legal and it's done a lot. And so an applicant or a property owner, you know, can wait until they determine that a zoning amendment is actually going to a place where it could become an action and then they file another preliminary subdivision plan to start the clock. So, you know,
if if the applicant decides in five months from now they want to submit a different preliminary subdivision plan, they could. That's allowed. Um, and so we're not, you know, we respond to what's submitted and we're not, you know, if they had worked on a definitive and it was never submitted, we don't know that they had worked on it and
that's not really part of our review. It's really what's submitted. So, you know, we'll wait and see. I mean, you know, I'm sure the applicant and property owner will will do the same with the solar bylaw progression. And if they think they need to file a definitive to have the zoning freeze, they will. If they don't, they could
wait and then resubmit a preliminary again. And that's that's totally legal and that you know that happens all across the state. All right, Mr. Leinsky, have we given you have we answered your questions? Yeah, to a certain extent, yes. Thank
you. Okay, thank you. All right. Um, I don't see any other hands raised uh from the public. Um, so Jesse, thanks. I was going to move that we
approve the plan with the conditions and close the hearing if I got all the points. All right. So, Bruce, Bruce, you're you're muted, Bruce. Second the motion. Sorry. All right.
Thank you. Pam, do you think you have the motion adequately recorded? I sure do. Okay. All right. We'll go ahead and vote on that. Uh, start with you, Bruce. I'm an
I. And Fred. I. Jesse. Hi. Johanna. Hi. And Karen. That was an
I. Thank you. All right. And I'm an I as well. That's six in favor. No, no opposed. Motion passes. Tom, we hope to see you in seven months or less. Wonderful. I look
forward to it. I'm sure you'll see me in seven months or less, whether it's for this. Good luck. See you. Okay. All right. Time now is 6:58 and we will move on to
the fourth item on the agenda. So before I start reading this intro, um I want to say that this is a new public hearing. Um we had a couple of we had at
least one hearing that we participated in earlier this spring on this same topic. We had at least one second hearing that we advertised for this topic. However, due to some technical issues with the Zoom platform, that
hearing was cancelled and we never continued that hearing to any other date certain. So, we are starting a new series perhaps if this goes more than one night um for this topic.
So with that prelude, in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law, chapter 48, this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for
interested citizens to be heard regarding SPR 2025-08 and SP2025-01, Archipelago Investments LLC. C Gould Way and Lannon Lane request site
plan review approval under section 3.325 of the zoning bylaw to construct a new mixeduse development with three buildings including 140 residential units, approximately 12,000 square feet of commercial
space, 180 parking spaces and associated site improvements and requests a special permit under Footnote A of table 3, article six of the zoning bylaw to modify the front setback beyond the maximum required building height to
exceed the maximum allowed and the number of floors to exceed the maximum allowed. This is in the BBC Village Center business zoning district. Parcel is map
25B, parcels 52 and 58. So, do we have board member disclosure for this uh project? All right. Um, in that case, I believe we have Kyle
Wilson here with us to describe the pro to introduce the the uh the project. Welcome, Kyle. Good evening. How are you? Uh, just fine. Great. I could hop on and share and
start the uh with a new public hearing. Start over. Please do so. Sorry guys. Getting there. Okay. Um, can everybody see my screen? I believe so. So, I've got some intro slides and then I'll get right into the project. Um, you
guys have all heard this before. I'll try to be as brief as I can while still getting the point across. Um, this project is in South Ammerst. It's in a BBC lot uh zoned parcel, two parcels actually. It's around Atkins. Um and it
is new housing in via a mixeduse uh three mixeduse buildings. Um the first slide shows New England. Um shows the cost of housing and the lack of affordability in New York and Boston and our little Ammerst uh 3 hours from New
York and two hours from Boston. on the right half of the slide shows uh a post of the 50 largest metros and the inflows or outflows of people moving into or out to out of those municipalities and uh New York City is uh has the most people
leaving. Boston is is uh close by. Uh New York City has between 150 and 350 pe 350,000 people a year leaving and Boston has between 10 and 40,000 people a year leaving. Again, we're 3 hours from New York City and 2 hours from Boston. Uh, a
couple of recent posts that show that all of New England has a housing crisis. Uh, this value of single family homes has spiked um and has doubled in many spots looking at Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. And then below is uh the previous 30 years
between 1960 and 1990 and the last 35 between 1990 and 2024. uh between 60 and 90 900,000 homes were uh built and 868,000 residents and yet in the past 35 only 490,000 homes have
been built and a million1 residents have added while the average home size has dropped. Uh 23 Mass had the lowest rental vacancy of any state out of all 50 in the country. We're at 2 and a half% much lower than everybody else and we're way lower than the average of 6 and a half%.
uh it inhibits movement and mobility and uh creates problems for pricing. Uh same guy um similar post uh talks about some of the issues that uh uh municipalities across the Commonwealth deal with as they uh
attempt to increase housing production which everybody agrees we uh we very much need. And those things are zoning regulations, new energy codes, prolonged community processes, inclusionary zoning, and other policies are all well intended um but do create barriers to
new housing. Uh a recent realer.com post which graded states on their affordability and home building, Massachusetts gets an F. Uh Massachusetts is the number one most expensive state out of all 50 to raise a child. The number one
contributing factor is cost of housing. Massachusetts is the second most expensive state to raise a family of four behind Hawaii. Again, housing. Uh UMass Ammerst poll from uh earlier this year uh end of last year uh
asking what the most important political issue in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is and the big word in the middle is housing. And uh with that uh Governor Healey has released two reports in the last couple months. So, these are both from February. Uh, a home for everyone, which was the state's very first
comprehensive housing plan for the entire Commonwealth, and unlocking housing production. Um, and those two reports are put out because housing is the biggest word in the middle of uh the political uh poll. Governor Healey was in Ammerst uh in November of 23. She was
here to talk about uh democracy and the threats to it, which we're dealing with currently, and also housing. uh cost of housing in Ammerst from 87 to 2024. So um uh assuming most of us moved to Ammerst at some point, maybe it's on
this list and when you moved here, what was the average home price and what is it now? And what it's showing is a huge uptick uh in the past 10 years, especially postcoid and the average home price is now over $600,000. A single family home of
$600,000 is roughly uh $5,000 a month. So those are the table stakes to get into our community in a single family home. Uh we have 11,000 housing units currently. Uh that's gone up from
7695 back in 1980 to just under 11,000 back in 2020. Um and uh there is broad agreement with all the housing uh conversations that are being had around town that we need 5,000 new housing units. So we need to increase the number
of housing units by almost 50%. 5,000 housing units, a lot of housing units. Um it's also a lot of potential tax revenue. And the question is where do we where could we or where do we build that housing? Uh the reality is single family housing has been built
out in Ammerst. We're 99% built out roughly. Um so our housing future is multifamily. So um multif family the benefits of multif family it's is more dense and more sustainable. There's more units per acre and there's more tax revenue per
acre. The housing future of Ammerst is multif family. This is our bylaw. Uh this is table three within our bylaw with some edits that I put on there and it talks about multif family being apartments and mixed use. Both of those terms are
defined in our bylaw and those building types are only allowed in certain uh residential or certain zones. That's RVC, BGBL, COM, BBC and BN. Those are highlighted in the blue box and the pink box. Uh the total number of acres in
Ammerst is just under 18,000. And if you look at the acres in each of those zones that allow multif family, it is less than 2% of the total land mass of Ammerst. And in a number of those, the density within that is limited. So
in RVC, NBL and comm less than 10 units per acre are allowed uh per the additional water per family. This is a map that could have more contrast, but it shows our overall 17,800 acres and the areas that are
zoned for m for multif family, which is apartments and mixed use. So, as I said, less than 2% is apartments or mixed use and less than.7% of Ammerst is owned for mixeduse by right at density greater than 10 units per acre, which is the project we're talking about. So in the very
bottom right underneath Hampshire College, you can see Atkins and you can see uh the two parcels that we're discussing here tonight. Uh this is uh the last 5 years in Ammerst and the number of residential housing units that have received a
building permit in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. Um as you'll see, the total is 483 units over five years. So we average under a 100 units a year. If we need 5,000 units, we have a very long
time horizon to try to affect the cost curve or the cost of housing inverse. And uh under the multifamily description at the bottom with the future being multif family, you'll see there's blue highlights and yellow highlights. The yellow highlights are those projects that were uh by right, meaning they were
mixed and they were zoned accordingly. And the blue were projects that were not by right. So those were all through the ZBA. So those are places where our bylaw actually states that we don't we're not looking for housing. Um and so it's clear here that uh 5,000 units are a
very long time out and our zoning bylaw makes new housing production extremely difficult. Uh and this is confronting municipalities across the state. It's why we've got our first comprehensive housing plan that the governor's just put out. And um a couple things are
noted that this housing crisis didn't appear overnight. It's decades in the making. Uh the shortage of homes is the root cause of the issue. And the number one thing to be recommended in this report is increase as of right zoning capacity for multif family housing. So if we're looking at our zoning map,
having less than 7% of the land mass dedicated to uh mixeduse by right at a time when we have a housing crisis is suboptimal. So, the report calls for 222,000 new housing units in Massachusetts by 2035, which means they
have to be permitted now. They have to start construction soon in order to do that. And this talks about where those uh additional 222,000 housing units need to go and who they uh could uh provide housing for. Uh the other report that was put
out was the unlocking housing production. It talks about the number of housing units permitted annually and seeing the downward curve uh from 1960 to 2020. And then the number one recommendation in this report is eliminating parking minimums. So off- streetet parking uh is expensive and
drives up housing costs and uh takes away land that could go to housing. Uh so looking at our site, uh this is a Google aerial shot that uh we're the star in the middle of of frame here. Uh to the left is Atkins, to the right is Applewood, to the back is Hampshire Village, and in the foreground
is uh Hampshire College, in the back is uh the seven sisters and the notch and uh the gravel pit. Uh and our site is in BBC. BBC is the second most dense district in our in
our zoning uh bylaw. And the purpose of the BBC is to provide areas within the village centers of Ammeris that allow for a mix of uses including retail, commercial office, and housing of moderate to high density. Back in 2010, uh after many decades of work, uh the town of Ammerst
and the Commonwealth of Mass and Masdot uh went and uh performed a huge renovation to the intersection adjacent to this site. uh put in the two roundabouts uh to the east of Atkins and installed Gould and Lannon, the two
streets that this property has frontage on. And this property, there's a couple aerial shots that show the history of this property. Um as of a lot of South Ammerst, it was an orchard uh for uh 100 years ago. So in 1952 when this shot was taken, you can see the outline of the
site. You can see orchards uh occupy most of Ammeris Hampshire College land, all of Atkins land, all of Applewood's land, all of the various iterations of Hampshire Village. 62 was very similar.
85 uh the introduction of Hampshire College and the introduction of the first phase of uh condos uh south of the site and uh Atkins Market and then 2012 uh subsequent construction of Applewood
and Eric Carl Museum, Yiddish Book um and the remainder of uh Hampshire Village and the condos. So this is our uh uh survey. So there's two parcels, 4.9 acres, 2.7 acres, just over 7 and a half acres. Um,
and you can see the edge of the vegetated wetlands. Uh, this project is currently before the conservation commission as well. And those wetlands uh form the hub and are on the the line between the two parcels. You can see the new Gould way that was installed by the
town and the new Lannon lane that was installed by the town when Mass Dot did the roundabouts uh east of Atkins. And you'll see Rambling Bay and West Street as the other uh streets that this project has frontage on. Uh this is a analysis that we did.
Uh we checked for groundwater. We checked for soil contamination. This was checking for total metal analysis and a pesticides analysis. Uh what was found is that the site as with a history of an orchard has lead arsenic um in the soil.
uh that lead arsenic is uh throughout the site. It is um in outside of the wetlands and it's also been tested subsequently inside the wetlands. So there's lead arsenic everywhere. Probably if we go back to 1952 aerial shot, you can see an apple
tree. Uh that lead arsenic uh the cleanup of that lead arsenic is is determined by the future use. Uh if we're proposing a gas station, it's one thing. If we're proposing residential, it's another. uh in that we're proposing residential. Uh the cleanup is to remove
the wet arsenic 12 inches of soil. The wet arsenic stays in the uh upper 12 inches of soil and take it off site. So uh in order to redevelop this site and create a uh a use that the zoning calls for in BBC,
uh an extensive amount of soil and site remediation has to occur. uh and that soil and site remediation has to occur uh within close proximity to the wetlands. Uh and then here are uh uh the plans architectural uh landscape and
civil uh a couple renderings that we have and um we'll quickly take you through those. So Atkins is in the foreground. Uh this is facing south. We have building one that is uh along Rambling and Bay which is L-shaped. We
have building two that's in the middle that is along Gould that reconciles all the grade that is along Gould. And then we have building three which is along West Street step back so that it aligns with the front of Atkins and has parking uh between the street and uh the
building. Each of the buildings has a ground floor non-residential component. Uh building three along West Street has the largest percentage. um uh from a tenant standpoint uh and no residential units on the ground floor. Uh building two has uh the second largest percentage
also includes the lobby and the leasing um and fitness and some amenity space for the tenants on the ground floor. And building three has uh a portion of uh the ground floor non-residential and then residential units on floors 1 2 3
and four. Each of the buildings are four stories high. Each of the buildings have flat roofs with solar generation and uh the all electric uh mechanical systems on the roof. Each of the buildings will be with the new building code uh and energy codes uh in Amoris will be
passive house certified uh will be all electric including domestic hot water being created by a CO2 based all electric hot water heat pump on the roof of each of these buildings. Um there is parking shown on the west of building three. There's one, two, three rows of
parking here. Um, that would be residential parking. There's a wounderf which is a drive aisle where we're taking the extension of L and Lane and taking that out to Rambling uh approximately here uh where uh in the foreground of
Applewood. Um and there's parking along that wound as well. And then there we're showing parking in the town right ofway uh along Gould uh as along frontage of the commercial on uh building 2. We have a rendering that is from that
section. The Wounderf and the connection to uh Rambling is to the left and looking straight ahead is looking uh down the parking on Gould and down towards the intersection between Gould and Lannon. Uh the building is uh mass timber uh hybrid mass timber on forest
two, three and four and a full mass timber on the ground floor to go along with all electric passive house. Uh the mass timber glue lamps are exposed where there is commercial uh non-residential uh creates a colonade uh creates shelter uh for inclement weather like we've had
recently. um and uh allows us to uh work with the grade which is uh pretty tricky to deal with in a number of spots on this site. So you'll see the Luna wood siding that we've proposed up above the triple pane windows. Uh every unit has a balcony where you can see these recessed
uh shadowed areas that have some are painted, some are left natural. Um, and then you can see the retail space on the corner of building 2 that has 7 6 and 1/2 ft of grade change between the east side and the west side. And you can see the commercial in the distance here on
building uh one. Here's the site plan uh showing the two lots together as one. showing the wetlands uh between uh all the buildings on the south, showing building one L-shaped uh along Bay Road, building two
along Gould, and building three along West Street. Um sidewalk connections that uh complete the sidewalks that the town has started to install when they did the roundabouts. Um create a pedestri a connection that is both
automobile and pedestrian between Lannon and Rambling. um that will be open to the public and allow for pedestrian circulation from Rambling to Atkins without having to go on Bay Road. Even though we are showing also a sidewalk along Bay Road, which we would work with
the town and Ever Source uh to uh execute, there's power lines that are on the property line. They jump across in front of the solar, etc. And some of the uh storm water retention uh along the street is a little tricky down here, but we can get a sidewalk in along Bay Road. Um, building one has a fourcourt in
front of the parking lot of wound. There's another fourcourt here which is uh serves two prop purposes. One to allow us to get the trash out of building one and two behind the screen uh handle that in the morning and the other is to handle uh uh provide an outdoor space for the commercial areas that are on that corner. And then you
can see there's two parking areas uh on building 3. One to the east which is more commercial, one to the west which would be residential. And that shows here. So, um, this is slightly different than what we showed you back on March 19th, our first hearing, uh, which is,
uh, 140 parking spaces for our 140 apartments. So, every apartment will have one parking space. All the residential parking, all 140 is shown in the blue bands and the commercial parking uh, is shown in the pink or red bands. Uh, 47. Uh, we have roughly
12,000 square ft of ground floor non-residential retail. uh per the bylaw that's roughly three or well it's not roughly it's three parking spaces per thousand. So we'd be uh looking at 36 parking spaces. We're showing 47 including uh those spaces on the town
right away along Gould. This is the first floor plan for buildings one which is L-shaped and building two which is in the middle. Uh you can see we have two bed and three bed units on the ground floor of building one. We also have commercial on the uh east side. We have commercial on
the south side of building 2 along with a lobby, lounge, gather, and fitness areas. Um there's a number of there's stairs and elevators. There's stairs here because we're reconciling a great deal of grade across this site. The intersection of Rambling and uh Bay Road
is up at 293 in terms of elevation. The intersection of Gould and Bay is down at 269. So there's uh 25 feet plus of grade change along that street. So the slab heights of each of these buildings step down as they go from west to east across the site uh in order to accommodate
that. And uh a steep section of grading along the south side of the commercial is where if you go to the site currently you pull up and it's the dirt patch where uh people park uh to reconcile the grade and make all the grade and the accessibility work uh across the site. You can also see in building one,
there's a mechanical and trash area that's on the south side that would allow for pickup to come out of this area here. And on building two, there's a trash and stair area which would allow for the same uh and could be done off hours relative to commercial. The upper
floors show all the residential um a mix between one bed, two bed, and three bed units. There's also a couple one bed and office uh that fill in the gap. Um and the same thing on building two uh mix of one bed and uh two bed units um on the upper floors and those all stack for
floors 2, three and four. Uh the roof plan shows the mechanical system uh the roof screen which is proposed as photovoltaic panels um and the heat pump systems for the heating cooling and domestic hot
water. Building three is along West Street. Uh it's perpendicular to Atkins. Again, we tried to align that with the front of Atkins. Uh keep the circulation uh vehicular circulation aligned. Um and you, as you can see here, the ground floor of building 3, the vast majority
of that is non-residential. Um as we mentioned last time, we're um looking for a tenant for this space. Uh we would love to try to make this and we've tried to design this accordingly for a child care tenant, which is a big need in this
community as is housing. Um, we don't have a tenant yet. Um, we have not gone through all of the, uh, potential requirements for that potential tenant, but we are looking at the ability to potentially provide outdoor play space on the south um, in the sun off of that space that would be accessible
underneath the colonade that we've created that would be a secure way of getting out to that site. Uh, the parking in between the building and West Street would be for commercial uh, use even though it's beyond what we would need to provide. there's an opportunity for potential overlap uh on uh times
when the commercial does not need the parking and the parking to the west of building three is all residential. So there's three rows of of parking and um the drive aisle between those uh you'll see trash out of building three on the south side that would be aggregated and
collected at the hammerhead on the back side of this and allow for the trash and also fire to pull in and back up and and get out of the space. The upper floors of building three are all shown on this plan which shows a mix of one bed, one bed office,
two bed and three bed units. Uh as I mentioned previously, every unit in this development has an outdoor um balcony. Um and the rooftop equipment, all the electric rooftop equipment and elevator penthouse, etc. is shown on the roof plan.
Uh this is a plan that we have put together to show and clarify height as it's measured in the bylaw and with a unique site that has so many different frontages and so many different streets and so much grade. So, we've shown the
elevations that are uh that we do break out uh from a height standpoint in pink and try to show how those relate to uh rambling, how they relate to bay, how they relate to Gould, Lannon and West Street, etc. So, it's a key for these following elevation slides that show uh
the four-story buildings, what the average grade is at each of those elevations in order to define it for the bylaw and uh how the buildings stack up relative to uh the grade that obviously changes across the site. You will see uh in the middle row
C1, you'll see uh most of that grade shown off. This is the north side of building one and the north side of building two. You'll see the grade that really drops off between Rambling and uh Gould. Here are the other elevations on
uh building three uh that show the street view facing West Street which has the glazing on the ground floor underneath the colonade and uh the other elevations around the building. Uh we were requested to show a sightseection that cuts along Bay Road.
um which we've provided. Uh there's three different photos on the bottom. There's the Gul Bay intersection, there's the Rambling Bay intersection, and then there's a shot of Applewood as it sits on Bay Road. Uh we're trying to show this building between Atkins and Applewood. Obviously, Atkins is is
lower, closer to the roundabout where the grade's down at 260. Atkins is much higher. Um and the first floor of Atkins is up at 320. Um, so you can see how this these three buildings would sit between Atkins and Applewood. And then
we u showed the you know the uh Holy Oak Range in the background uh units uh as they are currently in terms of a one bed, an office, a one bed, a one bed, an office, a two bed and a three bed. uh just showing how each of
those units interacts with the balcony and a basic bedroom uh kitchen, dining, living, bathroom layout. And then materiality uh as proposed. So as as stated, a mass timber construction that uh transitioned to
hybrid mass timber on the upper floors. All the units will have exposed wood ceilings. Um the siding as proposed is uh Luna wood which is a uh Nordic uh wood that is treated thermally uh to
elongate its life and provide for um um a more solid uh stain color for an extended period. So it shows thermally modified ash as it's raw after 12 months and then when it's fully weathered. So it goes from the brown to the uh gray.
And then a couple of material shot that show uh how we'd like to express those glue amp timbers uh on the exterior um and how we would treat those with uh they'd have exterior rated glues and exterior rated
finishes. Uh this is a quick uh uh representation showing the depth of the facade. So uh we have uh each building has a uh corridor. When you come out of your unit, you look at either end. It's glass at either end so you can see outside. Breaks down the scale of the
units into individual volumes and then use the integration of the balconies within that volume and then a layered uh set of cladding systems um that are also a result of our energy codes that have a lot of exc uh in insulation outboard the
sheathing uh to create a varied pattern and depth in the facades. And then this is the landscape plan um as it stands showing the connection between Lannon and Rambling here with parking on the north side, parallel parking on the south side. Um building
three with the parking on either side and then the planting around the periphery uh with the wetlands between here uh between the two parcels and the three buildings and then also the retaining walls that are required in order to support the storm water
infrastructure. So as I mentioned previously the uh groundwater here is very close to the surface. Uh the site is currently undeveloped. Uh the mass rags require no additional outflows uh through development. So the amount of
belowgrade storm water retention that's going to be required for any redevelopment of the site is extremely extensive. And in a site with high groundwater the locations available to do that are extremely limited. So, we're limited to this portion in between buildings two and three, which you'll
see uh a little later on the civil and then underneath the parking uh to the east of building three. Those are the only spots on these two sites that can take belowgrade storm water retention that will be required for anybody to redevelop these sites. This is a uh just a blowup of the
landscape plan uh on the between buildings one and two with the outdoor amenity space which is a fence long dog run and and play structure area terraces going down and the planting along the parking in the woundf. Uh this is the landscape plan uh on building three and
showing the paving uh along Lannon and uh the planting around the perimeter. Uh the civil drawings I'll try to go quickly. Um again this is showing this is the civil plants showing the flagged wetlands showing the two different sites all as a key. It'll break down into individual sites. This
is existing. You can see all the topo all the grade from west to east drops down extensively especially in that corner between Bay and Gould. Um, and you'll also see here there's existing gas uh Birkshire gas infrastructure on the northwest site uh side of the site
which influences our ability to place the building and how close we can get there. And there's also existing utility poles uh that are on the property actually uh without easement. But uh the ability to move those across the street is extremely limited if not impossible based on electrical uh needs and costs
associated with that. Uh you'll also see the wetlands and then on the land on the ghoul on the landing side, excuse me. You'll also see the existing topography as it pitches from uh west to east down towards the existing Atkins uh sign and the intersection with West Street. Here
are the buildings and the site coverage shown on site for the uh gold side. Um it also shows the uh approximate locations of the below grade infrastructure for storm water. Again, same thing with uh building three and the landing side with the parking uh the
paving and the rough layout of the uh below grade infrastructure. Here's the actual culetss and the number of of devices that will be required. Uh how we're going to get the below grade uh get the storm water to the infiltration to the treatment and infiltration uh
areas. Uh same thing on building three on the landing side. uh where the catch basins are going to be, how the piping takes place, and how we handle all the grades and groundwater and etc. to make to try to make that work. Um, and back to the rendering that we have above. And
as you can see here, we've got uh the parking that is to the west of building three. That is where our storm water would go for that portion of the site. And then this whole corner where we've got uh retaining walls and plantings and a bunch of fill that we're going to have to bring in after we remove all the lead
arsenic soil is the other location where the uh storm water below grade retention will fit in. And um this is the last rendering and I will try to stop there and be able to answer any questions that uh board may have.
All right. Thank you Kyle. Why don't you uh stop the share for the moment? Okay, board members. [Music] Um, so we have at the moment 41
attendees in the public. I'm sure that most of them want to make a comment tonight. So, um, what I think I'd like to do is start off with board questions about the proposal itself.
So not talking about your opinions about it uh but just what questions you need to know to understand the proposal and um once we do that
uh then we will go to public comment. um given I mean we'll see how many people raised their hands but it's quite possible that I will ask for maybe two minutes of comments rather than three minutes comments just to so we're not
here too late tonight. Um I will also say uh Kyle you have not completed your uh conservation commission review and the hearing as far as I know. Um, so I don't
expect us to vote on this this evening. I think we will be continuing this hearing. And uh, and just, yes, I was just we we had a site visit with Concom. Our previous site our previous concom hearing was not able to go forward
because they didn't have a quorum. Uh, so we've been rescheduled to next week. So our hearing with Concom is next week. Okay, great. All right. So, is everybody okay with that approach? All right. So, questions about
the proposal itself? Anybody on the board have questions? Jesse, thanks, Doug. Uh, Kyle, maybe you said it and I missed it. Um, did you show us the split of proposed unit sizes?
Uh, I did not show you that. Um, and I'll have to pull that up in terms of number of units and one, etc. Yeah. Yeah, I can I can pull that up and get that, too. And likewise, I guess I'm wondering, do you have rents in mind at this point or no idea like what we're
talking about? Uh, we don't have rents, but I can definitely get you the numbers. Quickly, just to jump in, the unit counts are in the development application report. So there's 45 onebedroom, 68 twobedroom, and 27
3bedroom, unless that's changed. That's what that's that's correct. And then 17 of those are affordable. So there's uh six one beds that are affordable. There's eight two beds that are affordable, and then there's three three
beds that are affordable. All right, you all set, Jesse? Okay, Bruce. Bruce, you are still muted. Um, in the development application report on that, uh, just as Kylo was stating the number, I think,
uh, the development application report, uh, double states the number of twobedroom units at 800 ft² and 60% of AMI. Um, so I think one of those lines should be uh uh
eliminated. Um, I think um I'm trying to think of the questions that for for for clarity here. I think that um K you you gave us a a drawing that
showed in detail how the uh building heights were calculated on each facade. Um, and you've asked for a uh through uh footnote a that uh we uh that we would approve uh a height of uh increase to
49.8 uh feet. Can I can we uh therefore assume that the the calculated maximum height from all of what you did is 48 is 49.8. In other words, the number that's
in the development port is correct. I just want to make sure of that because of the complexity that uh we know is associated with figuring out what the actual height is here and I guess what the maximum average height is and therefore that's the number that you are asking us to look at. I think we should
be very clear that that's the correct and I don't know whether it's a question for you Nate or whether it's a question for Kyle but I want to be sure that that's the right number. Kyle. Yep. Real quick on the units on the two beds, uh Bruce, there are 60%
AMI and 80% AMI. So, um there should be four of each. Uh just to be Yes, correct. That's correct. and and uh there there are two lines in in this is in our development application report from the staff and there are two times
is the statement that there are uh four two-bedroom units at 60% AMI and I think only one of them needs to be there one's 80 and that was double counted there is an 80 there as well it's not a it's not a typo it's just a it's just okay an extra line that doesn't need to
be there okay and Then as it relates to height, I uh we put a lot of time in to try to get it correct, Bruce, as best we could. I would defer to Nate if we've not done that correctly. Um trying to work with the average height on each of the facades as it relates to the bylaw,
which is the average height of finished grade on the street side of the structure. Um so I believe the 498 is correct, and I would obviously defer to uh Nate or somebody else if uh they knew better.
I I I will take the answer, Nate, that it is okay and that I just want to make sure that uh because I know it's a it's a it's an issue. It's a special request of of a based on footnote a and it's complicated. So, I just want to
highlight that 49.8 is what we've been asked for and and that's the right answer. Um if I could go on with a couple more questions, Doug. Sure, Bruce. Um I'm this this site is uh is concerning for
parking um only because it's we've asked to reduce it. I think I understand why because we've had this discussion before but um there's a couple of uh considerations related to parking. Well, there's three of them. first is that I
think we're inclined or I'm inclined to uh figure that the applicant is making a bet on the amount of parking which is uh the bet is that this is the optimum amount. The concern of course is that on this site um you can't just build more
parking because it's such a difficult site to work with. So the two followup questions would be um do we know what fraction of Hampshire College students are housed on campus? In other words, um there's a sense that if this is going to
serve as uh to some degree of housing Hampshire College students, then it's a reasonable assumption that they might not have a car or if they did it would not not be more than one. So that would that kind of use would validate the the
the lower uh allocation of parking. And the second is the uh the willingness of the Abata Atkins to accept what I know Ron Leveria has uh done in uh South Amist fairly constantly for quite a few
years is is is combining um a fair amount of uh commercial uh with retail and uh expecting that the parking gets kind of double used so that there's some daytime parking uh some nighttime time parking of what would be uh commercial
use parking. And you're not proposing that so much on this site, I don't suppose, but we've got the uh Atkins site right next door. And and I know that you've had at least uh 10 iterations of your 30 uh involving Atkins. So I guess the question is do
you have any sense that the Abata is willing to act as a kind of a contingency or a fall back and do you have any arrangement or prospect of arrangements with the that Abata to um give some safeguard to uh your bet as to
this is the right amount of parking for your development. I think I'll stop there Doug. Okay Bruce Kyle parking question. Sure. Um, so we've got 187 parking spaces on site. We've got 140 units and
we've got 12,000 square ft of uh non-residential commercial. Um, so we've got 140 of those parking spaces which are allocated to the 140 uh apartments. So every apartment gets a parking space which we feel very confident in will not
affect leasing of these apartments. Obviously if we don't lease them, we can't pay the taxes and pay the mortgage. Um, so we're confident that one parking space per unit is sufficient to lease the units. And, um, we also have the ability for another 47 spaces
on on the proposed property to look for things like Bruce mentioned, which is some overlap between commercial without having to go to Atkins uh, and uh, and ask them about similar. So our our proposal was to take care of all parking
on site and to manage it accordingly. Um and as we put in the management plan uh every residential space would be rented uh at a fee to be determined and uh would structure our enforcement so that if uh there is a resident in a non
residential space, they will be towed. Um and we wanted to make that very clear to Atkins. We don't want to impose on Atkins in any way, shape, or form with our parking. Um, we don't want to impose on rambling. Um, and so there's enforcement mechanisms for uh parking
outside of the site. And I think we would be open to looking at uh using our commercial spaces on site for both commercial and residential if we saw the need arise. All
right, Bruce. Um, are those Oh, I'll let uh Karen go. Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Karen, I was just informed by uh Ken Rosenthal who called me that the Hampshire College students are 100%
required to live on campus. So, they would not be tenants. And I think that uh from the comments of everyone that that I've read that were excited about this that the need of housing is for families or workers or staff who have to
go far away and have long commutes and because they can't find appropriate housing uh in Ammerst. And so my question is Kyle um I know it's impossible to know the rents but judging from the other buildings that
archipelato has built I know when they came up the uh rent and of course it's a new construction but they were higher per square foot than anything that Ammerst had seen and consequently people landlords raised
their I mean I think that the rents in Ammerst significantly went up once your buildings were built and that's a concern that I have here at my concern also is so so Karen what's your question about about the proposal question is if
the marketing or the uh the approach of design in this building is going to be significantly sort of more inviting to uh a population of families and workers
ers uh than than the other buildings or is this going to be pretty much the same approach? All right, Kyle, do you have a Yeah, I would I would I would first take issue with uh a analysis that says that adding
new apartments increases the cost of apartments in a municipality. Um so I I do not believe that is the case at all. Um, and I think that if Archipelago disappeared um and had never built the
buildings downtown, the average home price in Ammeris would still be $700,000 if not higher. So, um, from, uh, uh, our bylaw is has created a situation where
the average home price requires $5,000 a month in mortgage and taxes. Uh we don't have any apartments that rent for that much. So we're operating in a place that is housing starved and the origin of the high home prices are
our bylaw, not the developers. Um I appreciate Ken Rosenthal giving notes. Um Ken Rosenthal has uh expressed some of those same things to me. Um, as I've said to Ken
and as I will say to any person, if you want to find an apartment in Ammeris, there are many, many, many ways to find that apartment on Ammeris. The vast majority of our tenants find us online and we are advertised and we are available to find online. If any one of us on this call was a were the people
that are contacting us now to rent apartments because they are recently placed in a grad program or have taken a position at one of the schools, etc. um and they hit in the spring, they absolutely confined our apartments. Um our apartments, other than the Olympia
Place projects, have a mix of people within each of them. Um and as I said to Ken, and I'll say it to everybody else, the uh I've always encouraged people to go to one of our downtown parcel properties and watch the people that
come and go uh in the buildings and point out to me which ones you'd rather not have living in your community. um because I think that's where this type of language uh kind of leads us. So um I think that uh this project will provide
housing as the other 11,000 units in Amoris provide. um 55 to 60% of those units have always been uh non-owner occupied rental because of who we are as a community in Ammerst and who we are started back in the 1800s and quickly
thereafter had Ammerst College here and quickly thereafter had Mass Aggie here and has the largest five you know higher ed consortium in the country uh most established and created a fifth college uh out of four back in the 70s. So, our our lifeblood is higher education in
this community. Um, and um I think that this project will rent to people as the other 6,500 non-owner occupied rentals in Townwell. Okay. All right. Um, we'll move on to Fred. Questions about the content of the
proposal? Uh, yeah. I just uh I was interested in Karin's uh statement that uh Hampshire insists that all of its students reside on campus. That would be
a change. I can tell you as a landlord for 53 years that I have rented to uh Hampshire College students on numerous occasions. So um if that is it if that's
if they now have changed their policy then that is a significant change. All right thank you Fred Bruce clarify that uh it said unless they are married or uh have children
they are required this this is what I've just heard from Hampshire College. Oh, okay. Listen, we're not talking about the proposal right now. Let's uh the reason for that question was I wanted to see it had parking parking implications.
I thought um my next question would be the uh commercial space and I remember from uh our last uh go around and I think you mentioned it briefly here Carl but we discussed it a little more previously. Um I think I understand that
the aggregate of the first floor space uh achieves the 30% uh minimum uh in the three buildings on average but for various
reasons which I think I understand and uh appreciate you've decided that you would prefer to concentrate greater than 30 in some spaces and less than 30 in others. And it gives the impression that we've actually got one of those three
buildings uh which is actually an apartment building because it has almost no commercial space. Um I think I'm okay with the notion that uh the this is achieving the bylaw requirement because
it averages over three buildings. But and this is a question for you Nate I think or between the two of you Carl and Nate I want to be sure that that this is the intent and secondly Nate that um as a board we are able to approve a
mixeduse building with this kind of average as opposed to lit literal uh 30% in each of the buildings. Um, I'd like to know the answer to that either now or before we close the hearing so that we
can uh make sure that u if we are approving this that we are not approving something that is in contravention of the bylaw no matter how um obliquely. Yeah. No, the the bylaw allows this as
part of the standards and conditions for mixeduse buildings. And so the way the building commissioner would interpret it and apply it and how it would has been applied is in this scenario. So um you know there is no apartment building if there was no non you know it's really three mixeduse buildings in aggregate
the 30% is met. So that's that meets the bylaw. Thank you. All right. All right. Um not seeing any more hands from the board. And
we're if I may ask one more. Oh, go ahead, Bruce. Um, thank you. This is another question that was asked last time and and then therefore we should put it back for the record. There's going to be a bunch of these questions, I think, but the uh fire department
report is the kind of report that says uh the fire department would require and then it lists a lengthy uh set of uh expectations that the fire department has and I think but I can't absolutely recall Kyle that I asked last time that
you could commit to satis. First of all, have you seen the report of the fire chief? I've seen it and we've met with Chris Bascom to discuss. And so can you tell us that you can commit to satisfying all of those requirements or that you there
any that you can't you can anticipate convincing the fire chief to change his report? I think we were able to satisfy anything that Chris Baskin needs on site. Thank you. All right, Jesse. Thanks, Doug. Uh, so I
guess Kyle, I have a question about the commercial percentage and the question is what's what's the barrier to doing more commercial? So you're clearly sort of going through contortions to
meet just the 30% minimum. That's what's required in a bylaw. So if we are to grant you this fourth floor, is there a financial barrier? Is there some other issue where you couldn't do 60% commercial to truly make it a town center? I mean, your your
whole pitch was about family housing, which I'm not sure agree fits Ammeris so well, but if that's the real goal and if we want to develop this as a town center, which is possible at this site, what what's limiting you from doing more commercial? Is there a limit from your
perspective? Uh, it's a good question. I would say that this there's a couple different layers to this. The first is the site itself. Um there's so much grade even along Gould that we can't put any handicap parking spaces there because
they have so much cross slope. Um, so the reason we've taken the path that we've taken by having a vast majority of building 3 be non residential on the ground floor, uh, half of building two be non-residential and a portion of building one be non-residential is
really related to the grade and where we could effectively have grade that is in and out and works with uh, a standard, you know, commercial setup. Um, and then trying to look at where we would want to put that commercial so it has visibility. Obviously, Bay Road and West
Street have have traffic. Golden and Landon do not have a lot of traffic. Um, so if you and I were partners in some retail business, where would we want to put our business and put up a sign and make sure that people saw us and knew to come shop with us? Um, which is why we
wanted to make sure we turned the building and faced West Street, uh, 116 as much as we could to give that visibility and then do the same thing along Gould um, to give as much visibility to that street. Uh, what happens with Gould is that as we do that, the building starts to fall off on
on the grade on as you get towards Gould and Bay, which results in, to Bruce's point, the highest elevation, the 49 foot8. It's on because we're fighting the grade over there. Um and at that end we run out of spaces where we can go out from uh the ground floor out to parking
and out to the sidewalk. It starts to get wrapped up into the retaining walls. So uh the first answer to your question is the 30% was an effort to get the 30% just with the restrictions of the site assuming that
uh the new new construction for new retail would justify the rents that we would get out there. Um, as people know, we went before the ZBA a year and a half ago to seek a hardship waiver uh to look at 10% retail instead of 30% based on
the history of the bylaw and how it's kind of was intentionally downtown based and this is obviously a different setup um out next to Atkins and Atkins is a wonderful retailer as it is um and that was denied and uh the other part of this is it's a subsidy as it is right the
ability for us to generate the rents out of new retail sale relative to cost of new construction is underwater. So, um the the rent that we would have to charge in order to justify new construction is quite high. Um so,
outside of the grading, it's also the market demand and market rents that lead to uh either support or not support the cost of new construction. All right, all set. Jesse, I do see that we're coming up on
8:00 and it might be we may want to have a break at some point. Karen, Kyle, I I we really all hope that this succeeds and we're we're pushing for a successful and and so many things about
this are positive. I wonder if you've thought about commercial, which is a little bit different than what we've seen so far in your other buildings, and that is that it's just uh something with lots of little shops that people maybe
share so that you'd have booths like kind of like Thorns Market. Have you thought about uh something where there's a flexible I mean the people in that area want are are excited about having lots of different businesses and we miss small shops that sell music or health
food things and and I'm just wondering can you instead of one big thing at the bottom or some of them uh consider having something you walk in and then there are just a lot of uh small little booths that can share that and that
might make it commercially uh viable. So could this be divisible? I I appreciate that and absolutely. Um each of the spaces as shown are not divided. Um the grade inhibits the ability to to divide the retail space in
building two because there's a 7 foot grade change between the slab heights. But building three could be divisible in so much as additional storefront doors or occupancy as it relates to bathrooms and egress distances etc. uh would come
into play. So the um our we would we would like to have a a singular tenant that maybe hits a bigger need that is very complimentary to Atkins. uh we could see this turn into something where we have a number of small tenants um that also are
complimentary to Atkins. Um so we could divide uh particularly uh the space in building three and building two potentially we could split it in half and then the space in building three is already you know uh small enough to support uh a small business. You mean
building one? Sorry, I mean building one. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Uh not seeing any hands at this point from board members. Um we are right at 8:00 and so why don't
we take our five minute break now and we will come back and come go to public comment. So members of the public stay with us. We'll be back after a short break. [Music]
Sorry. Mhm. [Music] All right, the time is 8:06. Please turn on your camera at least and let let us know you're back when you when you come on back
to your desk. [Music] Okay, looks like most people are back. We've got at least one left to come into view. There we
go. Okay, so uh Bruce, I see your hand. Let's go ahead and get your question out of the way and then we'll go through public comment. Yes. Is this is a clarification of something or a repetition perhaps a
clarification of something that was said before, but I think it might be relevant before we head to public comment. Um, the last time Fred noted that the lease had provisioned for a rental by room and I think uh Kyle acknowledged that that was a hold over from a previous project
and so forth and that that would not be the case. I think as I have read some of the public comments that we've seen in the last month or so that people are concerned about this. I think it might help if we can dispel that that's not indeed an intention and it was misstated
in the original lease document. If that's correct, Kyle, you could tell us and we could uh avoid having people having those concerns. That's correct. Yep, that's correct. And uh all these units will be leased by the
unit. Great. Thank you, Bruce. Okay, members of the public. Uh I'm seeing 45 members of the public at the moment. Now is the time to raise
your hand if you would like to make a public comment during tonight's hearing uh for this project or about this project. Um depending on how many of hands I see
I may shorten the uh allotment of time for each commenter. So please do think about how to how to make your point efficiently. Um many many we have received many uh
written public comments and um I can assure you that I that I read them all. Uh I hope all the board members do. So now is the time to put your hand up. So far I have six hands.
Mr. Marshall, can I ask a question please? Yes. Um, I'm hoping Nate that if you could bring people in, I will manage the time clock. Are you able to do that tonight?
Yeah, no problem. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. All right. So, just so everyone's clear, uh, I do not expect us to vote and close the hearing tonight. So, there will be an additional hearing. Um, so if you don't
if you think of some other comments to make or you want to make another comment in the next hearing, that will be a possibility. Um, so I'm hoping that we can get through the public comment within say an
hour this evening. And um, thus far we have seven hands up. [Music] Um, and I guess why don't we just go ahead and start. Um, and I'm going to I'm going to
say why don't we start with three minutes as the maximum. Um, I'd like to keep us to three minutes. I will would like to cut everyone off after three minutes and but you don't have to spend three minutes. If you can make your point in two
minutes, please try to do that. Okay. Uh Nate, would you bring over Gustavo [Music] Oliviera? Gustavo. Would you give us your name, your street address, and your comment? My name is Gustavo Lea. I live
at 68 Country Corners, which is right behind Hampshire Village. And I want to thank you, Mr. Marshall and the other members of the board for holding this other hearing and also for holding back on the vote for now until we hear from uh other
concommen. Um I also want to begin by stating very clearly that I am in favor of developing our uh village center um uh as a true village town center. I also
want to state that I am in favor of um addressing our housing crisis. Uh especially focusing on the need for families um families afford you know the cost of raising a child the things that
Ken pointed out in the beginning of this presentation. However, based on my understanding of this project, and I've been accompanying it very closely since before I went up to the ZBA, this plan does not accomplish these goals. In fact, it
makes it worse. I am uh concerned about the the distribution of units. um 32% are just onebedroom. Only 19% are threebedroom and there's 0% of
fourbedroom units. Thinking about cost of raising children a family of four and such um it is not addressed by this in response to questions by Mr. Bruce by Miss Karen Winter Mr. ary major. You
know, K admitted that this is not really going to be rented primarily to working families, people that might need to address this cost of raising a child, of having a family of four in our
town. Um, it does seem to me um concerning that the response to Mr. major's question about why is there a restriction on more commercial on the site? I imagine a a qu a response to a question like why not have more larger
units versus smaller ones will be in part because of um you know the the market rents. Um this is very very concerning. You know what families that are going to come here, stay here, raise their children
here need is not just to rent year in year out one-bedroom apartments. is to be able to purchase and live in a place much more for our long term. I'm also concerned about the explanation that the very topography of the site creates this kind of hardships. We heard this
argument at the ZBA meeting and it turned out that actually we could put a building off by West Street after all unlike the previous plan for ZBA. Um, so I'm I'm concerned that if the board were to approve the fourth floor going above
the size uh without putting conditions on units for sale on larger units, we'd be really not working towards our goal of developing the village center and addressing the housing crisis. Thank you, Gustavo. All
right, Nate. Uh, let's bring over Jara Smith. Hello, Jara. Please give us your name and your street address and you have three minutes. Great. Hi, everyone. Uh, my name is Jara Smith, 15 Alyssum
Drive. Thank you board members for having this hearing tonight. Um, I am a uh I'm a resident. I'm a homeowner. I'm a dad. Um, I'm also a professional housing affordability
consultant. Um, I work across the country with towns and counties and really neighborhoods of all sizes to figure out ways to make housing more accessible for people. And so I so it's it's my it's my job being
able to try and identify what makes a good project and what makes a bad one. And I cannot express my stronger support for this project. I it there are so many
communities where I would that I work with where I would beg to see a development like this come in. Um, I I'm I I I had something else I was planning on saying tonight, but after seeing the renderings and after seeing the thought
put into it, I this this is an exceptionally good project. It is an exceptionally good development. It offers 140 new housing opportunities for people in Ammerst wouldn't be able to live here otherwise, 17 of which are
below market. the parking qualifications, I think, are more than adequate to accommodate those apartments, especially the ones that are onebedroom. Um, I certainly understand the desire to
see more larger uh unit sizes, you know, but think about it in another way in terms of a four bedroomedroom apartment would take away four individual units. And frankly, that four-bedroom apartment would also probably be astronomically
unaffordable for parents. I just have I just want to express my fullthroatated support for this project. If we believe in economic diversity, if we believe in racial diversity, if we believe in generational diversity, this is the kind of project
that you want to see going up in your community. Um, so with that, I just want to thank you all for giving me the time to speak and uh, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Jara. Uh, Nate, our next speaker is Janet
Keller. Hello, Janet. Please give us your name, remind us of your address, and you have three minutes. Sure. My name is Janet Keller. I live um in North Ammerst on Pulpit Hill Road. Um
and um I'm pleased to see that Kyle has shown um some flexibility here both in terms of uh the variety of the uh kinds of units. Um, I too would love to see at
least one or two um larger uh four bedroomedroom units tucked in there um if possible, but um I also appreciate um the uh retail on the lower floors. Um
and there I would hope um that an effort would be made to attract uh a tenant that would um offer the kinds of convenience products uh dishwashing liquid and uh uh
clothing uh uh soap and uh Kleenex and that sort of thing that um that uh the other door does not offer that Atkins does not offer. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Janet. All right, Nate, let's bring over Sherry Wilson. Hello, Sherry. If you could unmute, give us your name and your street address. You have three minutes. Okay. I'm Sherry
Wilson. I live at four Macintosh Drive, which is in Upper Orchard. Um, I support the concept of mixeduse housing and commercial at
Atkins Corner. I do not support this particular project primarily because of its size on a site that has so much wetlands and the height.
Um before Aripelago started building apartment buildings downtown, the standard height of buildings in downtown Ammerst was three stories. Uh which seemed
appropriate. All of the archipelago projects downtown are four stories um according to permit from planning board. Uh, Atkins Corner is located in the most
rural section of Ammerst and it is not downtown Ammerst. It is supposed to be a village center, not a downtown. And four stories is
inappropriate. Three stories would be fine. Uh, it's just too darn tall and too darn big. I'm concerned that the um traffic study that was done
concentrated in the analysis on West Street. I live on a street that goes onto West Bay Road. It is very difficult
during um commuter times to get on to West Bay Road and the back up from the rotary can be substantial. It can be almost to rambling road and the traffic has been
so increased in recent years that this summer the town is going to have to spend a million dollars ahead of schedule to reconstruct West Bay Road because of the traffic on
this street and any project at Atkins or will add to the traffic. Um I'm also a bit confused by what seems to be a wonderful
idea to have a child care center. Um, but Kyle admitted at the last hearing that they really hadn't done much research on what was required to open a
child care center. And it seemed to me that they decided to propose a child care center to make it seem that this was going to be family housing.
And I am very skeptical that this will be family housing. Hampshire College needs to sell this property. I understand that. I support them. They do not need a housing for students. The
only students in town who needs housing. Sherry, I'm sorry. I think your time is up. Um, Nate, can we bring over Maria
Copeki? Hello, Maria. Please give us your name, your address, and you have three minutes. Hi, Doug. Thank you. Maria Copeki, 65 Country Corners Road. Uh, I too, as as other people have mentioned, support development of this property, but this project is simply not
the right one. It is too big. And there's a couple of reasons for that. There is going to be the number of vehicles that this project would generate is going to be more than this area can handle. Certainly 140 parking
spaces for 140 units is inadequate. Even by the the zoning standards, it says you're supposed to have two for every for every unit. And that's 262 bedrooms. There's going to be apartments that where there are more
than one drivers, more than one cars, people are going to have visitors, you're going to need a lot more spaces for that many units, that many bedrooms. The other problem is the distribution. As the ZBA noted, uh, when the the
proposal came there last year, the building was in the northwest corner and all the parking was in the southeast corner. This is doing the same thing in in a way. There 70% of the bedrooms are in the northwest parcel, 113 units, but
only 35% of the parking spaces are there, 60 spaces. So, it's completely reversed. That doesn't make sense. You're going to have people if half of the people who live in buildings one and two are going to have to walk all the way down to building three across a
parking lot to get there. That's not going to work. Um, you've got a very difficult site and you've got a footprint problem. Half of the acreage that the 7 and 12 acres that Kyle
mentions is taken up within 100 ft of um wetland border. I mean, if you look at the map there, there is very little buildable. You also have the problems that you've mentioned about grade. Um,
and what it means is that you have to dial back the building that you put there. I would love for there to be apartments there. I would love for there to be commercial, but it is this project
is trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. It's just not going to work. Um, a lot of the the thought and the how this has been approached has been to kind of treat this as a space as
if it's downtown. Part of the the the the uh traffic study showed that they were talking about, oh, there's 30% of the folks that live here are going to be do using basically public transportation. Anybody who lives in this area can tell
you that you are far from things and if you are going to need a vehicle to get there. Um and uh even the the sample lease that we talked about the did it did it say oh is it going to rent by the room or by the the unit? That's all well
and good but if you look at that it it kind of it belies the thinking that you're not thinking about the area that it's in. This is a specific area down here in South Ammerst and I wish you would please listen to the people who live here that to tell you this is what
you can do to make a successful project. Um, for example, in that lease, it talks about um uh it refers to have getting downtown parking permits and metered parking. You got to think differently about this location. We could do
something really great here, but it's not this project. It has to be modified. Thank you. Thank you, Maria. All right, Nate. Um, next person is Ken Rosenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I am Ken Rosenthal. I live at 53 Sunset Avenue. This project needs to serve the people we want to live in village center. People who want to live and work in Ammerst year round. And that would be people who work at the university at Hampshire College at
Ammeris College in town hall. Police department and fire department folks and people who register their cars in Ammerst and like me, someone who first came to Ammerst to work at Hampshire College and rented an apartment. I would love to rent that one and then walk
across the street to my office. And like me, someone who came back to live in Ammerst after I finished my work and came back to retire. And I have Hampshire College alumni who have talked to me about wanting to live back in Ammeris where they went to college. So
this place could serve those people and it should be marketed only to those people, not to students. So, one of the things I hope the chair I hope the uh planning board will do is require and review the marketing materials including the website and see that this is
marketed not to students in any way but to those who we want to live yearround in Amoris, live here, work here, register their cars here. I think you need to review that plan in 6 months and a year and 18 months and make that a requirement of the permit. as the
question about rents has come up and surely Kyle knows what rents he's going to charge or is likely to charge. He knows what rents he's going to charge in September for his existing buildings. They would be the same here. There are three elements of costs that he has to deal with. One of the current expenses
like trash and electricity and property taxes. The other is the amortization of the costs of the money he needs to have to pay for the construction. And the other is profit. Profit is a variable number and so is amortization because it
depends on how long and how short you want to have your amortization period go. So there are opportunities for Kyle to adjust the rent accordingly to meet the needs of the people who we want to live there. people who will be living here year round, working here, might be
our policemen, might be our firemen, just as it was 50 years ago when Hampshire College was founded and police, fire, and Hampshire staff and faculty all lived in town and weren't driven elsewhere. We can do this if Kyle is reasonable about the profit he
expects to take and the amortization period he expects to use. And I hope the planning board will find a way to review this with him and make sure that his objectives are the same as ours, which is property for year round. Folks, I want to just add a correction to the
question about Hampshire College. Hampshire has more than enough units now for the size of the college it's going to be when it reaches full size in a few years. It expects its students to live there and pay rent there because it needs the rent. The students at Hampshire who will not live there are
older students, married students, students with disabilities that require them to live elsewhere, but otherwise they will all live there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me speak. Certainly, Ken, thank you. All right, the last person is uh
Jennifer Hick Hixon. Hello, Jennifer. Uh, good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak and having this hearing. Uh I'm from 12 Autumn Lane at Hampshire Village. Uh I've been in a butter for uh over 25
years to this property. So um you know I think it's great for the board to listen for the perspective of the people that will be most affected then and actually live here. Um, I do know that zoning laws were created for a reason, so that buildings become
appropriate for the size, space, and location where they're going to be. Um, I know that uh our property manager is very concerned uh and has spoken to a DPW worker about the water table and
actually the uh area being able to support uh such a large building. It's just interesting that Kyle even talked about struggling with site restrictions because of the grading of the property and you know wasn't able to add more
commercial use because of the unusual grading that's required and uh I think that's just an illustration of this building is not appropriate uh for this space. I'd like to address a traffic study. So, I walk my dogs every day and
I assure you that uh there is a traffic problem uh on all of the streets surrounding this property. Uh no matter which one you pick, uh and if a study said otherwise, um there is uh that is a
faulty study. Uh the conservation area, so we have uh wetlands, bear, deer, fox, birds that will be decimated by a project of this size. um Hampshire College if they need housing. I think there's a lot of property uh on many
sites surrounding uh the university that could house some of their faculty and uh people that want to live in town. Uh not forcing uh somebody else's words, a square peg into a round hole, which seems to be what's happening uh at this
corner. Um so um I would like to say that um development of that land is eminent and I think you know a partial use project would be fantastic to have the end of
our street um with the proper fit, proper parking, proper use. not a big building um that uh is struggling from the beginning to find its way. Uh so thank you very much for the time um to
speak this evening. Thank you Jennifer. Um had two new hands show up. Nate, let's bring over Paul Jurus. Uh thank you. I'm Paul Jurus. I am at uh 22 Macintosh Drive. I'm also the chair
of the board of managers at Upper Orchard 2. Uh we've had a lot of conversations obviously in our community and I think I can speak for most of our residents when I say that we are in favor of a project here. We think it's
the right thing to do for the town of Ammerst uh and the community at large, but we really feel that the surrounding communities, everyone who spoke here and we all know each other frankly, um we
are stakeholders in this pro in this project as much as anybody and our concerns really revolve around the increased population density that is projected because of the extra floors on
the buildings um and what that's going to do to the quality of life of the people around here. You know, Rambling Road is challenging as it is. Our community has submitted multiple letters to the town to try to get them to repair
Rambling Road. Those letters have largely been ignored. We're concerned about the additional traffic along Rambling Road given that many of the residents along the street are elderly. They're already walking in the street
because the sidewalks are broken up um and almost unpassable. And so now we expect to see increased traffic on the street. And evidence of that is, you know, the unfortunate recent accident which occurred on um the other side of West
Street over the notch forced traffic on Rambling Road and it was backed up from Bay Road all the way back uh to 116. Uh it becomes untenable. The traffic along Bay Road is sometimes scary. We know
that there's a flashing light and crossing across from the Carl. Um, I walk my dog across that path almost daily and it's remarkable how many drivers ignore the flashing lights and
just drive through. So when you have this much more automobile traffic passing on Bay Road, um running through these lights with elderly people walking across the street, uh I'm concerned that it's going to take a tragedy for the
town to understand the potential risks of building a project of this magnitude. would ask the town to really reconsider the density of the population that is going to be built into this or wedged into this as it seems to us. And
I would also ask that you reconsider putting a cut through onto rambling because I think that would be devastating to the community. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Uh Nate, how about Peter Straley? Hello, Peter. Hi there. Can you hear me?
Yes. Great. My name is Peter Staley. I'm at 66 Country Corners Road. My wife and I have submitted extensive comments to you and we hope that at some point you will respond to each and every one of them. I'd like to just highlight one or
two right now. uh recognizing that there are many that need to be addressed. First of all, Kyle has done a great job of speaking about the need for housing
in Ammerst and in Massachusetts. However, this project does not in any way address that. This project, first of all, has numerous non-family housing units. And
if it had family housing units, it would recognize that the rest of us who live here in this community, all of us have at least two cars. So parking for 140 people is wful woefully inadequate. Secondly, family housing for
single family units makes no sense at all. This is not family housing. Also, the traffic impact study, which I'm sure you may be asking more questions about, talks about access to Rambling
Road. And the town engineer reviewed the study and said access to Rambling Road should be allowed. That is absolutely absurd. There's nothing in the study that says it should be allowed. And as Paul just mentioned, the Rambling Road is a
disaster. and access from Roundling Road to West Bay Road is a mess every morning. And just as he said, he walks across the road, we do as well. So, we would ask that given the the the Sorry, you're breaking up,
Peter. Can you try that again? It must just be my in South Ammerst. Um the there's a difficulty of fitting the necessary financial return on this development into this particular study.
We recommend that it be dialed back to be something within the existing parameters of the planning board. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Okay, so that was all the public comment that
uh appears to be happening tonight. Um I want to just uh clarify a couple of things I heard in those comments. The first is that it most of uh one woman uh said that most of the
archipelago projects downtown are five are four stories. And u I think it's accurate to say that most of them are five stories if not every I guess Spring Street may not be five stories but uh
all the rest are five stories. So that's just a point of clarification. Um one of the recent commenters was uh hoping that we would respond to each of the letters and I hate to disappoint him but I don't believe we're going to be able to do
that. Um, we will address as many of the issues raised in those comments as we can get to or that board members feel are worth discussing, but we will not be responding directly to any of the
writers of those uh comments. Um, so one question for Nate, uh, that has been a theme through, uh, all these comments and is the level of traffic down on Bay Road in particular,
um, is the are the is the town engineer aware of the heavy traffic on Bay Road? And you know I don't want us to be penalizing this project for a situation that exists you know irrespective of whether
this project happens. What's the context for how the town is thinking about traffic down here? Sure. Yeah. So, you know, the the public works is aware of um you know, the traffic and what you know, the disrepair of West Bay Road. And so, you know, they're they've allocated funding to fix
it. And so, you know, the prompt, you know, they've received the transmitter for this project. And I've emailed them a few times. And so, the response from Jason Skills, a town engineer, saying, you know, to keep the connection to Rambling Road, it wasn't prompted by the traffic study. It was prompted by me
asking, is that a necessary connection? And so, you know, in in his email, the way he worded it was, you know, kind of responding to my my question, um, knowing that there's there's concerns there from the neighbors. And so, you know, the, you know, public works is is
aware. I've asked if there's any concerns with the traffic study. You know, the engineer commented that he didn't appear to have any. Um, you know, I, you know, in my development application report, there's some questions about whether or not it did take into account the wound of connecting Gold Land to Rambling and,
uh, you know, if there's some other, uh, questions about did they take into the traffic speed on West Bay Road in terms of safe stopping distances. And so, I think there are some areas where the traffic study, you know, could could actually be um, improved. It's not clear
that they, you know, they took a few things into consideration that I think would be important given the size of the development and and you know what we've heard. You know, they took traffic speeds for instance on Golden Landon, but we know that people travel on Rambling West Street and and West Bay
Road. And so, you know, those speeds necessarily weren't taken into account knowing that residents from this project are going to be pulling out onto those streets. So, I think, you know, there could be some areas where the traffic study to me would need to be expanded. Um but public works has been asked to
look at it and you know so they haven't expressed any concern right they yeah I guess I guess the context or my question is really more about has has the town thought about you know do we need to widen Bay Road to you know two lanes in
each direction or do we need to somehow uh at the boundary with Hadley you know create a bunch of speed bumps that tell people you've come to Emerston, you need to drive 35 instead of 50. Um, you know,
are there things that the town is thinking about doing for that area to address some of the traffic issues that the residents have mentioned and um don't have anything to do with the project, but you know, they're clearly
uh influencing the reaction that gee, we don't want any more people down here because it's just going to get worse. So I'm not aware that they they are you know with the repaving you know I've often thought that there could be right some traffic calming measures you know whether it's splitter islands or other
things you know clearly an off streetet sidewalk um a different kind of shoulder so you know I'm not sure what you know what the plans will have um so I you know I can't say if they have or not okay all right so there's nothing that's going to change the
traffic situation from the town? Not that I'm aware of. Okay, Bruce. Uh, two questions uh both for Kyle. Kyle, the first is um and I think I get this from uh perhaps a suggestion or a
question or an issue that was raised in the planning uh development application report prepared by planning staff. Uh but I think it was a suggestion that would you consider u making the um
the the the the vehicular passage along the Woff uh single directional so that uh you basically enter from Rambling but you're not allowed to exit onto Rambling Road. So that would typically I
think reduce the likely amount of traffic on Rambling Road. If you could uh if we if if that was a a requirement, would that be uh a requirement that would work for you?
Uh, I think we've proposed the extension because we think it would uh it's it's the best planning move we could make. Um, I think if it if there was a suggestion that we put up big signs, I'd say, you know, enter only,
uh, no exit. Um, that, you know, uh, I think would be suboptimal from our standpoint, but it wouldn't we wouldn't, you know, stop that. I just don't uh I think that
the, as I said, I think from our standpoint, it would be better to have it uh have traffic go both ways. just from a planning standpoint. Okay. But it sounds like it's not a non-starter and we could think about whether for some reason that might be a workable arrangement and and so I'm just bearing
that in mind for the moment. I think it would be signs and enforcement would be the question of how that's enforced. It would be, you know, basically it would be a one-way street. And you know, oneway streets happen. North Prospects is a one-way street. People know when you leave CBS, you don't turn the wrong direction. It's it's a learned, it's an
acquired well acquired taste. It's it's a quiet habit. Um second I also park on a one-way street this other out here by the Hammers College dorms and there's a lot of vehicles going the wrong way on the oneway street. Uhhuh. Um Yep. One
more question. Um yes, the uh this was a question I was going to ask last time, but I never gotten around to it. And it's it has to do with the uh the screening for your mechanicals, which you said were going to be vertically uh uh oriented. I mean vertically mounted
uh PV panels and that you using PV panels to screen and I guess uh the you know vertical is not optimal I know but these days uh the price of that stuff is lowering and the effectiveness of them
is increasing and so I could see perhaps uh on the west and the south and the north um it might work but are you serious about putting uh PV uh panels to screen the north side of uh vertically
on your It seems a it it seems like not a terribly good idea and and and uh and rather than have you come back and change that. I mean, is is wouldn't you want to put something that looks like a PV panel but isn't on the north side or is is there something I don't know about
the economics of all of this? Uh I think there's definitely the panels that will be on the south side will get more light. uh the panels further north and on the east and west side and on the north side will get less uh it wouldn't be zero and what we're comparing it to is the cost of perforated metal siding
as an alternative to the PV. So the PV cost has dropped so low that it's comparable to the cost of what we would provide that obviously would not provide any uh electricity. So from an ease and from a uniformity of look um we would
propose the PV panels on all sides and none of which are you know cardinal direction and uh due north uh necessarily. So we would expect that each of those panels will get some light and it's better than uh perforated metal panels that get no uh that don't
generate any electricity. Oh well the world has changed I guess that's it for now doc. Okay thank you Bruce. Board members, other questions? I guess um I'll jump in then with a question. Kyle,
um some of the comments both writing and tonight have have sort of uh predicted the kinds of people who would rent the units that you're showing. um whether they're one bedroom, one
bedroom with office or two or three bedrooms. Um have you in in your previous proposals perceived any sort of stereotype that you know this kind of
person is renting all my one-bedroom units or this type of person is renting all most of my two-bedroom units. Is that something that you have observed and something that we could we could all
use as a rule of thumb? Um, you're muted. Yeah. Um, I don't think we've observed that. I think that the, as I tried to state earlier, um, the majority of our housing units are non-owner occupied rentals in
our entire community. Um our community is built around uh our higher education. Um and higher education is from uh students to faculty to staff to grad students to administration to uh all the
folks that uh work so hard to support all the higher education uh institutions. Some of those have uh spoke on the last hearing. Um, and so we are looking to provide, and I think this is the future of all housing conversations in Amoris because the future of housing, new housing
production in Ammerst is inherently multifamily. Inherently within multif family, they are, we're talking about one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units. Um, so I think that the vast majority of all the housing that we build in this community from this day forward uh will be in a similar
situation. And I think that uh I think uh property management uh our property management company has done a wonderful job managing our properties. Um I think they're good neighbors. I think they support the community in in a lot of ways and I would expect that this
project uh does the same. Okay. Thank you. Uh Bruce, you're you're back. Yes. I I'm thinking about uh how to move this to a continuation but uh there are a lot
of questions and they were shall we say second order questions might be rather technical rather detailed important but many of them in the development application reports they and and I'm thinking uh to ask whether Kyle has seen
that development application report or if not could he be made to see it and then if he could respond to those questions, then it would save us a lot of time here if it uh if it if he could respond
um to to the bulk of them. Anyway, are you are you thinking uh during the hearing or or respond in writing so that we can all see that before we meet? I was I was thinking of the latter. Okay. Respond in writing. We look at it and
then questions arising. I assume Kyle, you have you are in possession of the development application report. Yes, and we could do that. All right. Right. We just got rid of a arrow chat.
Uh come on, Bruce. Um Jesse, thanks Doug. Um I guess I have a few just comments to share with my colleagues on the board and Kyle. [Music] Um, I guess I'll start with I I do agree, Kyle. You gave a
great introduction about Massachusetts and the housing need, but in that introduction and basically in all your responses, you're clearly very intentionally not using one word, which is student. And that's fine. I understand
that. I I believe this will be majority student rentals. And I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but I think that's the reality. That's the reality of our town at the moment and I think a lot of us are working hard to figure out how to make more family housing. And so yes, your introduction fits perfectly aligned
with what we want to happen, but I don't think that's realistic right now and not for this proposal and not at the rents that you're going to have to charge to make it work. Um, and that's really why I'm when I
look at this project, I think it's it's a great place to have density and to lean towards a new potential town center. And that's why I'm asking about the increased commercial space. Uh, and my thoughts at this moment are if we're
going to consider allowing the fourth floor, we really need to get more of that commercial opportunity out of it. Uh because I agree with many of the comments that were made both this time and the last hearing that you know having Atkins there plus one or two other places maybe a restaurant who
knows what they'll be are not sufficient for people to live there and not need a car and not need to travel far distances to get what they need for daily life. Um, so I would really encourage you to think about if there are ways to
increase that goal of making more of a village center with more opportunities for commercial uh development. Um, I also think the I do think that I
know we've heard from a number of residents about traffic concerns. I also think that probably the traffic study maybe is inadequate, needs to be revisited or there need to be some mitigation matter matters put in place. Maybe that's after the fact once it gets built. I'm not sure, but I I think as it
stands that's a little inadequate. Overall, I do like the design. I do like the concept. Um, but those are my main concerns and I'd love for my colleagues to to have some more conversations about this as well. All right. Thank you, Jesse.
Um, hey Bruce, before you go again, I'm gonna I want to res just say something, Jesse, back to you. Um, you know, we did hear from Kyle earlier that the residential basically has to subsidize
the commercial at the moment. and and you know without knowing anything about the financial model required to build what he's showing I could imagine that to put more commercial in would
require more residential and that you know rather than you know yeah I understand he would he need another floor to make another building 100% commercial I I understand I again I can't remember who said, I think it was one of the
commenters, maybe it comes down to how much profit you're trying to make. I mean, I don't, again, I don't know the financials either, but what I've seen in town is buildings get built, the commercial sits vacant for years. It's clearly not a priority. So, if it is a higher percentage, it becomes a priority
to fill it. Okay, that's part of my logic. I want someone to convince I want someone to convince me why that logic's wrong, right? I I don't know. Um, I also think like many of the other projects we've talked about, it's a
one-way decision. If this gets built and it's only 30% commercial, that's never changing. Never, ever, ever. And this is one of the few places in town where we I could imagine a real commercial development happening. That would be somewhere with
a dozen shops, a couple restaurants, whatever. Right? There there not a lot of places like that in our town. So, I think I I do think we need 5,000 more units. I totally agree. But I think we need to be careful about where we say
great as much density as possible versus more intentional how um mixeduse town center type of development that we as the planning board envision is appropriate for the location. All right.
Uh obviously we've been involved in the 30% conversation for a long time. Um we were involved when it was first proposed and our Lebanese Pleasant project was kind of the basis of that. Um that conversation was really about downtown uh Jesse and 30% being relevant there.
Um the 12,000 square feet that we proposed as retail is effectively a a Walgreens, right? So Walgreens are 12,000 square feet. Um Walgreens have quite a bit of parking around them. Um and they're one story. Uh so uh in
addition to the retail and the cost of subsidizing new construction, there's a parking component that goes with the retail. Um and I think that we're all of us have a cell phone. All of us order things from that. Um things have changed
a great deal um in the last 15 years as our downtowns are evidence that as downtown Northampton uh looks at right now. There's a lot of empty storefronts. We're our own tenants at this point. Um I'm sorry it looks like we're not working hard to fill those retail uh
spaces, Jesse, but we are. Um and it is a very difficult uh place to uh the retail environment is not a very forgiving place right now. And um so and that is on the other side of of the
ledger is a massive multi-generational uh housing crisis. So um when we look at this last BBC parcel parcels um in South Ammerst, we look at those needs and try
to uh tailor a project that would meet both of those. Um, so to your point about in addition to 30% Jesse, it's it's also where does that space have frontage? How how would that space be something that if you were the owner of that business that you would make sure
that your sign saw that and and uh people would walk by and you'd have the uh the the footfall that you would need in order to pay your rent um to these spaces. And with a site like this where the wetlands are the middle of the site and all we've got is Lannon and Gould,
you can't really put uh uh commercial facing Bay Road, right? That that traffic's going fast as we're all talking about. There's not a lot of pedestrian footfall. Nobody's stopping there and pulling off. So, it's really Gold and Landon and we tried to do everything we could to fit as much as we can and focus it on places where we
thought it would be best, which is that corner where Gold and Landon meet facing south. and uh the entirety of building 3 uh along West Street. So, we've tried to do as much as we can um while really balancing the need for uh the housing.
Yeah, I appreciate that and I gra I know it's clearly not easy, right, to to to meet all these needs. Um but yeah, that that's just my gut reaction. Sorry, one more one more point I wanted to make about the um inclusionary housing. Uh I think it
would there's also an opportunity to think about putting those together and making trying to build a community that those I can imagine might be more family tenants than the if it is going to be primarily student rentals. So I don't know if there's a scheme you
can come up with to where where those are placed so that they're uh potentially grouped with some amenities more geared toward families occupation. Just another Thanks Kyle. you have a fair amount of flexibility on that, don't you? In terms of uh which
units you make the below market rents. Uh in the past, what we've done and been advised to do from the town is to disperse them as much as possible. Okay.
Nate, do you see that advice changing or being flexible at all? It's the way the bylaw is written. um in terms of having units be you know proportional in bedroom size to the overall count and then disperse through the development. I think you know we the
building commissioner and staff can can examine that. I know the housing subcommittee the planning boards talked about that and the consultants for the housing production plan have also noted it as part of their goals and strategy to revisit that. I think, you know, some of that language was put in originally
when the inclusionary zoning bylaw was proposed, you know, just to make sure we followed, you know, fair housing and, you know, weren't discriminating. So, there were cases where, you know, you're essentially segregating the affordable units, creating their own entrance, which is, you know, in violation of fair housing. Um, and so, you know, there's
this language in there and the question is, you know, how how flexible is that language? uh you know and so again if in this development you know it might make sense to have the units be grouped you know just because um you know there you we've heard in other projects when it's
dispersed you know the neighbors you know the affordable units sometimes might actually not feel as much of a community as some of the other units and so I think it's something I you know I noted and can talk to the building commissioner about okay yeah I mean on the one hand you don't want to
stigmatize those folks and have that be the wing where they all live. Yeah, I I guess I was imagining like, oh, there's the playground out back there. So, that's where these three-bedroom units are that are more affordable for families to get into. So,
yes, I I totally see the issues, but maybe there's some middle ground to find. Great. All right. Uh Karen. Yeah. I just again want to just urge that you do as much brainstorming to see
what is really going to attract the families that that we're trying to have stay in Ammerst to fill our schools. And um and as far as the commercial space, it's true that people aren't ordering so much, but there's been a more and more
greater need to have a community, a place to gather. So if the commercial could be thought out to be the kind of thing where there's a gathering place and maybe little places that fulfill the needs, if you could rethink that, that would be really great.
All right. Thanks, Karen, Bruce, and then Fred. Um, Kyle, the one of the uh items in the development application report is a concern or a question related. Is the facade of the building interesting enough, blah blah blah, and so forth.
And I think it is actually I disagree with the concerns that are expressed in that. I think you've done a very good job on that. But um when I was looking at the renderings as you were running them through, I looked at the balconies and all of the balconies have got uh their what we might call the reveal
walls. Those sidewalls, they're all dark green or some nice color of green. It occurred to me that you'd have an opportunity to have a palette of five or six different colors and you could really enliven the facade of that building by having different balcons for different balconies and
different units. And I wondered I I I think that would be a very nice touch from uh viewing from uh the parking lot and coming by and uh I wonder whether you wouldn't agree and if you do whether that might be something that you would
uh enliven the facade by doing. I appreciate that and we'll discuss that with the folks at Modus. Kyle, am I right? You I I thought there were at least two colors. There were some white sidewalls and there were some green sidewalls. There's two. And I
think that Bruce's point about that becoming more than two is is valid. And I'll discuss that with him. All right, Fred. Uh yeah, I just uh I I seem to be the one that leads the charge on this that
uh I I think dispersing the uh uh affordable housing throughout uh and I understand why, but I think it is proving to be counterproductive and it's it's
certainly something that we're looking at in the housing subcommittee about you know, looking at a modification to the bylaw because uh it it really uh makes these less attractive for the
market that you really want to reach. So, uh, and I never would have thought that until we watched what happened, uh, at North Village, the old design and the the
subsequent design that now that UMass has managed to destroy something that should not have been destroyed. All right. [Music] Um, I don't see any more hands at the
moment. Um, Nate, we're we're going to be waiting for the Conservation Commission. And uh Kyle, we've we've heard a number of comments, let's say, about the traffic
study. Uh including some hopes that you could expand that or elaborate a little bit more. U is there anything else that we are waiting for, Nate? There there isn't a lighting plan yet.
um you know no you know no photometric um you know I think there's no sign plan which you know doesn't necessarily have to be um you know in the development application report we talk about the amenities so there hasn't been discussion about what you know if there's any outdoor seating what it
looks like the gabian walls um you some of the more detailed aspects of it just to understand kind of what it you know um what that looks like you know I think the uh you know the the conservation commission will review the storm water and everything
and so you know you know they're meeting next week and I think some of it would be just to see where you know where that discussion goes um you know Kyle's you know the site's proposing you know essentially an engineered solution which works you know if there are changes to it could change the site plan for
instance if there's bio retention areas or something else and so Um, you know, someone was kind of, you know, working with the conservation commissioner, continuing this until we know how they review it. Um, by the way, um, I'm
sorry, Nate. Pam, can you bring Karen back into the panel, right? Somehow, somehow she bounced out. And I think you know what you know what um you know so you know in terms of the parking you know the bylaw says too unless the an applicant you know um you
know justifies or shows that the demand can be met with what's there so the parking ratios work. And so you know that's not a traffic study it's something else. So I think if we need more information to understand how why onetoone parking works I think you know
whether that's a narrative or some other explanation I think that um you know would be important for the board uh to grant the special permit for the height you know in the you know there's three sections in the bylaw that are that will be used and so I want the you know make
sure the board understands you know how that height is being looked at and is it you know appropriate and reasonable and not detrimental and you everything else that's in the development application report and in the bylaw. I think those are big ones. Uh, you know, there's a lot of retention or
retaining walls. And so, I just would want to make sure that everyone understands kind of the site from the civil uh civil plan set. I think the architectural renderings are helpful. And I think the floor plans, I think the the general site layout is to me understood. I just want to make sure that the board and everyone understands
that. You know what Kyle showed when he went through the plans, all those kind of bold lines on the site were actually retaining walls at varying heights. And so, you know, what looks like a flat plane in in in the rendering, the landscape plan is actually, you know,
terraces and there's a lot of plantings. And so, you know, just if we need to spend more time on that, I just would want to make sure that everyone, you know, kind of understands what the site will look like, right? It's going to be stripped of top soil. all the trees and vegetation will be removed and then it
will be developed and replanted and you know there'll be structures there and parking but you know the grades will change a bit uh and you know you know and then then you know what we're seeing is you know different so if we need a cross-section you know from the wounder
to bay road to show the you know the buildings and the the lawn area and the retaining walls and the sidewalk and road you know if that's something some you know the board needs to understand that project, you could let me know or we could say talk about it tonight.
Yeah. All right. One question that I what I that I had for you, Nate, was how long has this site been zoned the way it is now? In other words, how many years has it been since a developer actually
proposed to develop this site? Right? And so, you know, this there were studies going back to 2000. We had Dodson and Flinker do a village center study here. We had looked at a few other um opportunities and so the zoning designation I think happened in the um
201s. I think there was uh a previous zoning amendment and then to get to where it is today it's been you know 10 years 11 years uh before that it was another designation and so you know I think some of it is there just nothing had happened with it. it was owned by
the essentially Hampshire College. You know, the trustees of Hampshire have owned it for a bit. Um, but you know, zoning is an opportunity and if the opportunity doesn't arise, it doesn't get used. And so, you know, this is kind of the first iteration of something that
maybe um, you know, came forward on this site. Others may have looked at it, but given I actually I I think that the site is very complicated given the soil, the wetlands, the topography, if you realize that there is lead arsenic. And so, you
know, we may not have heard of other developers or people being interested in it. It's just, you know, they never they never made it far enough to an application, right? So there has you know there have been questions asked over the years but really this is the first time that you know a serious
effort was made to develop this. Okay. Thanks Jesse. Thanks. Uh I guess it's sort of a procedural question for you Doug and Nate maybe. Um and out of respect for the work that
Kyle's put into this and might go off and put more work into some of the stumbling blocks on approval seem to be the special permit requests mostly around height maybe at least from my perspective and so I'm wondering I know there's tons of details because it's a really big complex project like
Nate you were just bringing up many of those details but if we as a board have concerns or not inclined to approve it as it is wouldn't it be better for K to know that now try and rework it versus addressing all these other things and then coming back and having us say,
"No, we don't want to give you the fourth floor." So, I'm just, you know, wanting maybe think No, I mean, we had a we had a short conversation like that back in March when this first came. Um, got a kind of quick straw poll from, I
think, pretty much the same group that's here tonight. Um, and it seemed like there was generally support for the project in the direction it was heading. So, we we didn't tell Kyle to go away.
Uh we asked him to keep working. Um and here we are. So, um, you know, but I'm happy to, you know, to ask, hey, everybody, are you guys are you feeling are you still feeling positive about this if we work through some of the
details or are, you know, are there some of these u permits that that are going to be fatal blows to what to what he's proposing? Um does anybody does anybody
feel like they are um you know adamantly opposed to the uh extra height um and I'm I'm blanking on the other waiverss that uh you know yeah I think the other ones are just given the
site um you know the zoning and then the the site layout the setback so the essentially the you know in the BBC we actually have a minimum and maximum setback And so it exceeds those. To me, those are not, you know, if we like the site layout and the site design, those
are, you know, those are to me easier to look at than the the height, right? I mean, I can say I was the one that asked for Kyle to do that big section that he where he had the holio
range behind. Um, you know, it was kind of hard to see on the screen, um, because it's so elongated, but, um, you know, I was interested in how much does Applewood,
uh, sort of loom over this site. And um you know to me the the buildings that that Kyle's proposing were not uh particularly prominent in their height as you come down that slope. So So it
felt to me like you know not I guess the word that's coming to mind is they kind of nestled into that slope in a way that was not gonna feel gonna gonna feel particularly out of character. Um, so you know, so I'm I'm personally inclined
to to agree with that with the request and um, you know, but I'm just one vote. I agree. And and I I sort of threw out the question, Jesse, and I haven't seen
other than you, your yours is still the only hand that's up. Um, so I'm I guess you know I guess I'm interpreting that the rest of us are more or less on board. Um, I I you know earlier I had
sort of thrown I had I had thrown out well gee why didn't we why didn't you make it five stories? I don't feel that way anymore. Um I think you know four is probably all we should allow and it's more than it's all that Kyle should ask
for. So um but given the challenging you know the environmental conditions to the site you know it feels like you need to build something relatively large to to be able to con to do those other things
but I don't know the finances. Yeah I mean that's part of the problem I have too. I think the fourth so I went I spent some time down there. I think fourth four stories visually massing I think is fine. My concern is more the functional
part that I raised before and so that's leading me towards wanting to see better. Yeah. Well, Nate well Nate um there has there been ever any discussion about having other parcels down here zoned for BVC.
Yeah, I think you know some of it is you know what what's the ownership? What was the plans for Hampshire College? But when you know when this was designated a village center right so this has been a village center concept for a long time the idea is that you know it'd be more than just the Atkins you know parcel
right there's you know all quadrants of the intersection whether you you know around the double roundabout so you know what is the potential for development of some of those I mean there is wetlands across the street uh you know now Kestrel owns the property um you know there's some great connections to uh you
know the range and So, you know, there's there's some ability to possibly develop more. Um but you know not nothing you know I'd say there's been ideas and conversations and there's you know there's possibility but
but there really you know it'd be up to us to propose some more parcels BBC you know I mean because one of the things that's a little bit challenging is that if this is the only parcel BBC you know like Jesse said you know is the onus on this
particular development to create from scratch a village center. And I mean that seems kind of unfair. Um, and what's to keep us from, you know, encouraging other parcels, you know, around the roundabouts to to do
that? Karen Kyle, could you This is just another question. What what does a two or threebedroom rent for in the middle of town right now in one of your buildings? Um, I could look online and find that
out, Karen. I'm sorry. Um, I could tell you that through Alex does all that through Ammerst Innovative Living. So, I know it's posted. I know it's it's live right now um on apartments.com. Might have to look to tell you. So, is it is it out of the question to
have part of these uh could you have any part of this be a possibility for for owners to buy an apartment so that we could really steer this in the direction of uh families.
Uh ownership in multifamily in my mind uh is a condo. Um a condominium requires condo docks and homeowners association etc. Um the I have not done that. Um I
haven't built and sold condos in the past. Um as as you guys are aware there's not a lot of new condo development coming to the board or getting built in Ammerst currently. Um, and I think there's a lot of reasons for that. So, um, we are only proposing
rental, not for sale on this project and to be frank on on on all of our projects. So, we have not proposed or considered any of these apartments being sold as condos. It would really change uh a great number of things about the
project. Okay. All right. Um, sorry. Two bedroom. Two-bedroom is 3500 to 3570 at 11 East Pleasant. [Music]
Great. So, it's 20 after 9. Um, Karen, do you want to do you want to say something else? No. Okay. Well, I don't want to prolong this evening unless uh you know, unless there's something for us to to
talk about. Kyle, you have agreed to go through the development application report and respond to the issues that are raised in that. I think that would be that would be great. that would help us uh you know get a lot further before
we meet again and and maybe the next hearing won't be have to be um as lengthy. Um in that case uh maybe we should continue this hearing at this point.
Um Nate or Kyle uh when do you think you would be through the conservation commission? when what you know are we talking if we should we continue to two weeks from now or should we wait for a month?
Uh I think it's a good question. Um I imagine that we uh conservation and planning won't both you know end at the exact same time um or in perfect order you know with quorums and technical difficulties etc.
Um so I'd be open to either a meeting in two weeks or a month. Okay. Well, we usually like to have conservation completed so that your approved site plan reflects whatever they are asking for.
Okay. I would say a month then absolutely and as the first next meeting. All right. Unless Nate disagrees. Yeah. Nate, do you what do you think? No, I I would say suggest June 4th then. Um you know that gives you know uh you know the conservation
commission they'll have reviewed. I don't know. I don't know if they'd have another one before then, but if there are any proposed changes or ideas, it gives Kyle and his team enough time to have any, you know, any possible changes to respond to the development application report, possibly update the
traffic, uh, study. And so that could, you know, lead to a, you know, a good meeting. I think it was the 21st of May. It's just too soon. Essentially, we'd want documents next week almost for the packet. So I don't you know and I think waiting till later in June isn't isn't necessary. I think
there's enough to talk about whether or not the conservation commission is through. I you know I we go June 4th and then the other meeting in June have two have this twice in June and by then the conservation commission will have seen it at least twice as well and maybe be in a place where they're comfortable
with it and we can move forward. All right. Uh Bruce and then Fred. Bruce, you're still muted. I I muted myself because I was already open. Sorry about that. Uh I just wanted to say that I won't be here for the
21st. So I want to really uh encourage the June 4th thing because we're only six at the moment and uh it would be good not to lose members. Yes. So I'm uh I'm happy about June.
All right. Uh Fred, uh yeah, I think June is the uh minimum. I think it's going to be longer, but it's that's not really a problem because if it needs to be longer, then on June 4th, there'll be a prefuncter motion to
continue it for another two weeks or whatever is required. So, okay, great. Okay. So, I think [Music] um let's see, Pam, do we have uh any agenda items on the June 4th meeting
yet? Uh Nate, we actually have potential for the Mson library. So, I just don't know which one you would want to go first, Kyle's or or that other um
possibility that we learned about the one we're not going to mention. Is that what you're saying? No, that's not what I'm saying. It's a ramp and a it's a you know, improve it's accessibility improvements to Mson Library with a grant. It's a town
sponsored project. Usually, I'd say we'd want the town to go after an applicant, but given the length of discussion for this project, I'd almost want the town the Mson project to be first to be honest and um be second, but that could be that you know, Mson's at 6:35 and
Kyle's is scheduled for 6:45. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, um Bruce, you want to make the motion? So, moved. I was going to say uh move to continue the hearing uh to
6:45 on the meeting of June fourth fourth fourth. All right. Thank you. I'll second it. Don't see another hand. Any more conversation this evening about this
project? No. No hands. All right. Motion to continue. Uh why don't we start with Karen this time? I agree. All right. Thank you, Johanna. Did we lose Johanna?
All right. I'll skip her for the moment. Jesse, hi. Fred, I Bruce, hi. I'm an I as well. Nate, that's five in
favor. One stepped away from the camera. So, the motion passes. Johanna, we wanted to your vote to continue to June 4th. I Thank you. Sorry. Solo parenting and freaking out kids because of the Celtics. Well,
thanks for stopping back in. Thank you for your time, Kyle. We'll see you in a month. Thank you. Yep. All right. Moving along. New Let's
see. All right. Looks like the next item on the agenda is new business, upcoming zoning initiatives. Nate, something you want to talk about? If Rob Moore is here, he we were going
to have uh Rob uh discuss it. This is something that was provided to the CRC as well. It's just to keep the board kind of up to date with some some you know kind of more shortterm ideas for zoning amendments and then you we can always
have a discussion about that and others. All right, Rob, welcome. Uh thanks. Hi everybody. uh Rob Mora and yeah, I'd just like to give a little update on the work the planning department staff uh will be focusing on for the rest of the year. And if Pam, if you don't mind, uh
I've got a a small uh set of slides uh that I'll briefly run through. Uh and and this this particular set of slides was is developed to um aid in a discussion with the community resources committee. Uh that'll be happening
tomorrow. Uh so you'll you'll very quickly see that there are items here that the planning board is very much familiar with and I won't spend time on those uh those items. Uh Pam, if you can go to the next slide. Um so here's a list of uh items uh zoning amendments
that the staff are committed to working on this year hopes uh in hopes of bringing to uh the council. and I'll talk about each of those uh and I'll focus on the items the planning board may not be familiar with in more detail. Uh next slide
please. And I see that ADUs is on your agenda for later on. So I'll leave that alone and uh I know you've all been working on that quite a bit for for the last couple of months and I know you'll be discussing that later. So I'll move on to the next slide. uh which is also
uh something that I heard Nate give a little bit of an update on earlier. Uh there isn't much more to say uh to what Nate had added. Uh the planning or the CRC is discussing this again uh continuing to work on this uh
through their their meetings regular meetings and is also on tomorrow's agenda. Uh so we're following along with that uh providing staff support along with uh the susta s sustainability director uh to aid in uh completion of the proposed solar bylaw. Um next slide,
Pam, please. So here's a new one. Um and uh we're just calling this a BN extension uh on Main Street. Uh and this is uh just a map change. Uh it affects just three properties that I'll show you in a moment. uh changing from residence
to uh business neighborhood district uh and um you know supporting some goals uh for the local businesses in that area are definitely a key factor in this proposal. Uh if we can move to the next slide,
Pam. And here's just a an image of the U mapping for that area. Uh all the way over to the right kind of falling off of the image is the BBC district along Dickinson Street. Uh and then we've got this um kind of odd piece of BN that is
just a spot uh piece there uh 319 to 321. And what we're going to talk about are the the three properties to the left uh shown on the next slide. Pam. So we've outlined the three properties that will be subject to this change. Uh
229 uh is a existing two family dwelling. Uh 257 is the Ammerst Inn. Uh and I'll talk a little bit about more about that in a moment. And 285 is an existing sixfamily
u multifamily property. Uh next slide, Pam. Um so 229 is is an existing owner occupied duplex. Um we've you know no specific thoughts about that particular property. Um and
uh you know but do see that there's a potential for maybe a little bit uh more expansion of the property. It can accommodate a little bit more building footprint, possibly a little more off- streetet parking with a development someday in the future. Uh 257 the
Ammeris Inn and this is really kind of the the the driving force behind this uh proposal at this time. Uh it exists there as an accessory use uh bed and breakfast to an owner occupied property.
Um I was surprised to actually learn that uh getting into the permit history. Uh it's limited to only having four guests on the property at any time along with the owner uh that must o uh occupy
the uh the building as well. So there's an opportunity here to uh support this business in a way that it it really needs to uh to be sustainable for the future. Uh and you know the building I I had an opportunity to tour the building
recently and it has eight very nice guest rooms. Uh there's a a space that is uh has not been restored that has the potential to be a ninth guest room. Uh but the current zoning permit as an accessory use bedding breakfast would
not allow any of that to happen. Uh and just limiting to four guests uh is is very restricting for uh a building of that size to to function and operate the way it needs to uh hopefully long into the future. So um unfortunately there
isn't any other opportunity in the RG district to um to accommodate this type of use. So, uh, changing it to the BN would give the opportunity to, uh, convert the the not the owner occupied,
uh, accessory use to a principal use in, uh, the owners of the inn have absolutely no, um, you know, plans to expand or alter anything. uh simply use the the property as it exists and take
advantage of uh all the the guest rooms and having those available for uh for short-term rental. Uh 285 uh is a existing sixunit apartment building. This is a property regulated by special
permit. It was uh recently damaged uh in a fire a few years ago, rebuilt uh you know, fully renovated, improved with all new systems. Uh it's a very large footprint, very large lot coverage. Uh
there's really absolutely no, you know, no really opportunity to do anything more with this property. So, I don't I don't see um any concern about or any uh effect of this bylaw change on this property uh except that it would be
incorporated in the BN district. Um if we can move along, Pam, uh to another uh potential zoning amendment having to do with sororities and fraternities. I'm sure you're aware our current bylaw has a use classification
uh that includes fraternity, sororities, social dormitories uh or similar uses. Um what we're uh thinking about doing is presenting a bylaw change that will separate uh and create uh two uh
categories of fraternities and soror sororities. uh you know one that would be recognizing those affiliated with the university and those that are not. um from what I uh am learning is that there's um not only locally but across
the country there's um instances where fraternities are uh in particular fraternities are uh disaffiliating with their university or college um and continuing to exist um and and operate
as a fraternity uh but perhaps not uh subject to the uh guidance that's provided by uh the university or college. Uh so what we'd like to do is create a a separate category with some standards and criteria where uh it'll
allow for a review and consideration by uh most likely the zoning board when a fraternity or sorority loses its affiliation and wants to continue to operate uh and function in a house that
is a pre-existing non-conforming uh building. uh in all of the 10 cases that we have in this town. Rob u Sure. Jesse has a question about that. Sure. Yeah. Uh thanks. So what what's the motivation of that? Is that what you
just said? So that if a fraternity authority loses their affiliation from UMass that they could still exist because we'll let them. Is that what you're saying? No. So there there are actually two uh fraternities that have lost their affiliation uh from UMass.
And um I guess it was probably a surprise to some to learn that the fraternity doesn't necessarily have to stop operating if it loses its affiliation. Um our zoning bylaw uh is
uh structured in a way that every use must be provided for in some way. uh it's very different than most bylaws in the state where if it the use is not specifically uh identified in the uh bylaw it would
be prohibited. That's not the way our bylaw works. So a uh a fraternity that is operating you know under the watch of the university and connected to the university that exists today can lose its affiliation and still be a
fraternity. uh you know uh operating under the national organization and fulfilling its missions and goals and and still functioning and if they do so uh our zoning bylaw has nothing to say about it. It it remains and that's the determination that's been made in in
those couple of cases. Um but there's a desire to perhaps have the opportunity to review the use in those situations through the special permit process and you know have have again the opportunity
to add conditions or understand you know a little bit more about the use and uh you know build in some permit um protection to the neighborhood for those uses to continue or in some cases maybe even not allow
uh you know would would be certainly an outcome that could could happen. Uh so we we don't have that ability to even have that you know consideration now. Um a change would provide that process for any future uh fraternity or sorority uh
of that would lose its affiliation. Now, there are, like I said, 10 properties that we're talking about here uh in in RG districts uh that would be affected by potentially affected by this um if there were to be a change in the future.
And two of those have already um you know, lost their affiliation with the university, may be electing to not uh you know, become affiliated again. Uh and if that's the case, they would be protected, you know, as a non-conforming use as well and not subject to any
change uh that this bylaw would would. Sure. And if I can if I can follow up, so so I'm sure there's many reasons why fraternities or stories would lose their affiliation with the university. But the cases I know of are
for misconduct or some, you know, dangerous or or something outside of the norms of university behavior most of the time. And so in those cases, is that going to be part of the discussion that you imagine? So currently there's two that aren't affiliated you're saying
they would then have to come to ZBA I guess to get this special permit, right? Or somebody and is that going to be part of the conversation is really what I'm asking. Yeah, I think it would be if there was, you know, and not not the two particular, you know, existing situations, but say, you know, if there
was to be another if this bylaws in place and there was a another fraternity that was having that kind of trouble or effect on the neighborhood and they lost their affiliation, they would have to go to the zoning board. And I think that would absolutely be part of the
discussion. Now, keep in mind that there's probably I think there's two of the of the 10 properties that are regulated by special permit and has a set of conditions. The others are pre-existing non-conforming with absolutely no set of conditions or
oversight uh by a permit uh for the property. So that would give an opportunity to, you know, yes, have the discussion, understand what those those concerns, those situations are, and look for ways to possibly mitigate it or um
develop management plans and improve the property and look for better performance. And I think there'd be, you know, multiple parties involved in interested in that discussion. Parties is the key word. Thank you. Yes. All right.
Uh Rob, I see Fred's got a question. Okay. Uh yeah, I uh I'm all for regulating uh something like that. I'm just wondering if uh you make the change in the bylaw now, whether they simply
continue as uh a nonconforming. Uh, I don't know if you actually accomplished what you're in attempting to accomplish. Am I missing something?
No, you're absolutely right. I've been pretty clear about this that you know that the the this is not targeted to the two currently unaffiliated uh organizations. you know, it those those uh would continue to exist as
non-conforming uses uh and not be subject to this. Any future uh organization that became unaffiliated would be subject to review or perhaps if the two that are currently unaffiliated
now regained affiliation and you know something happened differently down the road. Um and we also have the situation where different organizations come in and out of the houses. Uh so you know things could change in the future but you're right it would it would not have
any effect on the existing condition until something changed. All right proceed. Okay. Uh if we can move on Tam we can skip the next slide. We talked about that and go right into
the next item which is temporary uses. This you might remember some of you if you were around in discussions from four or five years ago. Uh we were interested in establishing a temporary use provision in the bylaw. It doesn't exist
currently. Uh we did have a um an opportunity to touch on this a little bit and and utilize it uh during COVID when we did some some short-term measures to uh deal with some of the changes uh that were needed to to get
through that time. Uh we saw some good success and and uh ways we could you know accommodate temporary uses. So you know we wanted to pick this back up again. We actually were um recipients of
a a grant a few years ago where the PVCP uh ha had helped us develop a draft regulation. So we have we have quite a bit of work done on this and ready to um you know pick it back up start working on it again uh and uh hopefully present
something soon. Uh like I said we don't have any criteria in the bylaw for temporary uses. We kind of work our way through um situations where there are either seasonal uh events or special events. And uh what we often get asked
uh you know how to use agricultural land differently. And you know, it could be anything from uh you know, a maze like we see in other communities to um you know, caterers partnering with the agricultural entity to have uh an event, a dinner or some
other type of uh activity on the site. Of course, food trucks are very popular right now. We get a lot of requests for that. Uh so we're just looking to move that forward uh and talk more about that. Uh the next item, Pam, um this one we
can go right by, but um you're working on this. In fact, you've voted to recommend and I and I understand that'll be going to council very soon for consideration. That's the uh increase in lot area for additional unit dwelling
units in the RG district. Um otherwise known as footnote M. Um and then you know we have this list of of things that we hope to uh move on to. Um we and some of this is dependent on funding. We do
have a capital request in to aid with uh some study uh of the east village uh but for potential overlay. Uh we expect the CRC will continue their work after the solar bylaw is complete for battery storage. Uh I know all of you are
working on uh some ideas for North Ammerst. Um and then we expect with the downtown design standards um to have some recommendations come out of that work that might result in some proposed uh zoning bylaw amendments. Uh
and I think you heard maybe a little bit earlier that uh there could be some changes to inclusionary zoning proposed by the housing trust that uh might come forward this year. So that's all uh Bruce has his hand up.
Okay. Yes. In reading this actually is an item further later tonight the uh housing production plan uh goals and strategies. Uh one of the recommendations is we
consider I think uh a 40R zone. Um and and maybe that's um upcoming later in not 25 but maybe 26. But it it seems like something that we should be considering. So maybe that's something
that's not quite on the 25 list but perhaps uh um banging around in the entry uh for 26. Yeah, thanks Bruce. And I you know I think that is definitely um from staff's
perspective a very viable option for East Village you know so as we get into that exploring that you know that could be one of the solutions uh proposed uh and there's some things that obviously are not on this list and this list can
can certainly change and as the housing production plan gets completed and you know we are always looking at those parcels those isolated parcels throughout town that, you know, wouldn't it be great if there were other opportunities there? They really, you know, fit fit well for some type of
development, uh, but the zoning just doesn't, uh, doesn't work with what would need to be done there. So, um, we're identifying those and, you know, we'll probably continue to talk about those, uh, later in 25 and into 26 as
well. Uh, Johanna has her hand up. Okay, awesome. Thanks so much for this preview, Rob. really appreciate it. Can you expand just a little bit more on the battery en energy storage systems and what direction y'all are thinking about
going there? Um, we're not, you know, I I don't have any I don't have any particular information on that. I know that it's been um, you know, a a subject that's come up through the solar bylaw development, you know, whether or not to incorporate it, keep it separate. I you
know I expect that there'll be continued conversations once the solar bylaw is completed. Um but we don't you know I don't have any more information other than that. That is um you know something that rests with the CRC right now. It
was uh referred to the CRC by the council and I'd expect they will you know discuss that and decide what to do with it after they finish their work with the solar bylaw. Okay, Fred.
Uh, Rob, just this very quickly in the solar bylaw, there's u boilerplate language about compliance with the uh Massachusetts electrical code and that is technically incorrect. It should be
the National Electrical Safety Code. they got the wrong code identified and uh I just want to make sure that that gets considered. I I'm happy to discuss that with somebody. I you may know I'm the
secretary of the Massachusetts code committee and I'm also the senior member on code panel 9 which is the high voltage panel uh in the national electrical code committee. Uh, so I I do
know uh uh what is covered here and it it they're pointing to the wrong code. Great. Thanks for pointing that out. And if I've got any follow-up questions on that, Fred, I'll get in touch with you, but I'll make sure and I'm sure probably
most likely Chris Brushup is listening right now, but she is the primary staff working on that with the CRC and we'll make sure that that is updated properly. Thanks. Okay. Anything else, Rob? That is all. That is all I have. All right. Well,
thank you for coming. Okay. Thank Thanks for the time, everyone. Thanks, Rob. All right. Time is 9:49. Let's see if we can finish up the rest of this. All right. Um, any
other not reasonably anticipated new business topics? Oh, Johanna Doug, I need to go. I've got I got to get kids to bed. It's too late. Okay. Sorry to leave early. Bye.
All right. Uh, Pam and Nate, any of the any not anticipated new business? No. All right. How about old business? I'm aware of not anticipated. No. All right. Um, general housing
discussion, Nate. Yeah. We have three things on the agenda. Really, two of them are, you know, I mean, we could spend time talking about all of them, but, you know, in the packet, there's essentially a a draft zoning amendment for accessory dwelling units. I'm going a little out
of order here and the idea would be to, you know, vote on it and refer it to council and move it along. You know, the state is now putting out determinations uh on their municipal law uh website in terms of how the attorney general is reviewing town meeting actions from the
fall and changes in bylaws. And so they're starting to, you know, put out determinations about, you know, ADU bylaws. Um, and so I think what what we have what's in the packet, you know, is a definition for a local ADU, you know, the protected use ADU, and then
requirements for both, and then some additional requirements for the local ADU. You know, I feel pretty good that, you know, almost everything there is workable. I struck out uh one one of the conditions the state just recently last
week defined that a principal dwelling is you know any structure with with at least one dwelling unit. So, you know, we had framed our bylaw as allowing accessory dwelling units to only single family homes and they're saying that's that's wrong and they've they've made
the case in two different uh in response to two different uh zoning amendments and they've you know written a pretty lengthy decision about that and so we you know we can't now we can't move forward and say that it's for single family homes knowing they've made that determination. Um, so what so I updated
that for the pack what's in the what's in the packet right now I can share my screen is a you know a three-page amendment that would essentially replace the current uh 51011 for accessory dwelling units in
the bylaw. So it's essentially remove and replace with this one. you know, everything we have in there for accessory dwelling units would now just be framed as a local ADU. I'm proposing that it can be up to,200 square feet or 90% of the, you know, habitable space of
the dwelling. Uh, you know, has to have owner occupancy. But the idea is that, you know, we we would want something that's somewhat incentivized to have if someone wanted to have a bigger ADU or doesn't want to have a protected use ADU, you know, go larger in size, they can. Um it's administratively
approved has to follow the process outlined in the bylaw. So there is an application and a basically a decision made by the building commissioner in consultation with staff and then it has to be owner occupied with a covenant reported at the registry. Um but the hope would be that you know what we've already permitted
and maybe others would take this route uh and then we have to allow the protected use ADUs as the state says. So I attended a webinar yesterday put on by the state again about adus as a topic and really they just want to have it be permitted the way um it's written you know they don't
really want many regulations so there was a lot of questions about design guidelines and standards and the answer although not a legal opinion but by UHLC was no don't do that don't do that and so you know we I feel like our bylaw what I what's in there
um you know has, you know, a few definitions and a dozen or so requirements is all pretty in line with the legislation regulations and, you know, and my thought would be if we move this on a council, they pick it up, they
give it, they refer it back, and in that time, if there's more determinations by the state, we can adjust it, but at least it gets the ball rolling. My idea for the timeline would be if this gets to council, they pick it up in late May or early June. By the time it comes back through the planning board and CRC hearings and goes to a vote, it's going
to be November. So, you know, we can take action now. We could wait a few months, but then it's going to be like, you know, February before we have a new ADU bylaw on the books. I feel like it's just I think the housing subcommittee is feels like it's, you know, ready to move on and we can, you know, modify it as
needed throughout the hearing process. Nate, I thought uh the last we talked about this, I thought we all agreed we were we wanted to send the draft to the attorney general with the student house
information, you know, stipulation and see what they said. So, what happened about that? Yeah, the housing subcommittee discussed it. uh you know the AG's office I' I've asked them a I've asked them a few times
and they haven't um responded I feel like they're very busy and my understanding of some of these determinations that have been posted online the student home definition is really a non-starter and so um I think if they if they come back and say yeah you could do this I think staff might
say well it's it's something that wouldn't really be enforced and is it worth having in the bylaw if it's you know something that we're not going to go in and So, so in the in the packet when I looked at those three pages, that text was read, right? And so I didn't
know how to interpret that. What do you mean by including it if it's not proposed to be included? So those two the right that what's in red are things that I would recommend not including. So it's in there now and I would recommend not including it if we referred it to council.
Were you hoping we'd do this tonight? Yeah. or the next meeting. Um, I think it's, you know, well, why don't we put it on the agenda for the next meeting? This seems kind of hasty to me to to pass it tonight. And I know I'm sure Jesse has some opinion about whether we
include it or don't. Um, Jesse, you've got your hand up. Yeah, thanks. Just to give you the you're the only one who wasn't at our subcommittee, Doug, so I wanted to give you the little bit of the backstory. So yes, Nate sent the question
to the AT's office about a couple student home and a couple other things. And what came up in our conversation was our current bylaw on for unrelated and whether that applies to ads or not because in the protected use adu that
came from the state it was there's no language like that in there and we thought we were justified as a town to include that even on the protected use ADU and so that felt important to try and get in our bylaw as soon as we
could. And so we agreed to just drop the rest of it for now, maybe to revisit the student home definition later. Um, and to try and put that in and get it to council. As Nate said, it has a lengthy timeline anyway. So that's why so
of the six of us here, I'm the only one who wasn't at the subcommittee meeting. Uh, well, yeah, the four of us are the subcommittee. Oh yeah, that's right. We lost you. Okay. So anyway, I just want to let you know that was part of the
conversation. And so I Nate, correct me if I'm wrong. What's in the current draft is basically what the state put out plus the four no more than four unrelated, right? Yeah. I mean, essentially that's
different. Yeah. It's the, you know, we we had a memo that the planning board looked at at a previous meeting and I essentially took the standards and conditions we've been talking about and formatted it as if it were a zoning amendment. So, you know, I I put it in a format that would actually look like a zoning amendment. And this has been sent
to the state, you know, three times. I'm not sure the when they will respond. And, you know, what I'm reading based on the determinations put out there, they're, you know, if communities are taking a, you know, kind of their interpretation of the regulation u
because, you know, for instance, we said the principal dwelling was defined as having at least one dwelling unit. So, a number of communities said, well, it doesn't have to have more than one. it only needs to have one. And the AG's office is saying, well, elsewhere in the regulations and the legislation, here's why it's really referring to more than
one. And so, you know, they're, you know, they're they're when they're going through their determinations, they're using the whole set of regulations to support their interpretation. And so, if we said, you know, they're saying any occupancy restriction or is not allowed on either the principal dwelling or the
accessory dwelling. Uh, and so that's not the way the regulations to me read, but that's how they're writing their determinations. And so, you know, if we want to start saying we'll have a student home definition, but it doesn't apply, it doesn't have to apply to the ADU, it can apply to the principal dwelling. I think they're going to come
back and say, "No, the way we're reading the bylaw is that the legislation is this, and it's just that's why it's in red. But, but just right." So, that comes out. Just to clarify, that's not going to be included in this. All right. Well, the the red text didn't, you know, I didn't know
what the red text was. Yeah. So, take that out. Take out the line Nate struck out about uh Yeah. single family. And then Nate, am I correct that really the only thing that differs from what the state put out is the one line about no
more than four unrelated. Right. I think everything else we have in there to me would be reasonable and follows the state legislation and regulations. Um, I see there's still some language about uh located behind the front
building. Yeah, it says to the extent feasible. And so to me, that's enough of a qualifier. All right. All right. Well, I mean, we can wait. I just, you know, I mean, that's fine. I mean, if if if the zoning
subcommitteees I mean, do you guys want to vote this tonight? I I I I would, but you know, I think we were hoping it wouldn't be 10 o'clock and we could have a little discussion about it. I understand you feel rushed, right? Um I would totally respect you, Doug, if you want to wait. I think much
in it. I don't know how much I'm going to contribute in two weeks if you know this is this is where it's at. Well, if you look, I mean, I think the local ADU is a really interesting idea, you know, so we're allowing up to,200 square feet with a few conditions, you know, do we allow smaller, do we allow bigger? Some
of it would be, you know, uh to try to incentivize its use. We don't have to have a local ADU at all. Um it's something that, you know, has been discussed. And so I think that's, you know, it's a discussion point. And so, all right. So, so why don't we just talk put this on the agenda for two weeks and
then we'll plow through it then. Pam, do we have a full agenda already for two weeks from now? Um, we have room. I believe that we have room. Okay. I'm just a quick
look on paper. Oh, I think that we can for sure. Mhm. Okay. Good. All right. Nate, do you want to talk about any of the other of the other two things? Yeah, I think the housing production goals and strategies, you know, you've had the document for a bit
and so I would ask, you know, if not tonight, but by the end of the week, send me comments and so Bruce already has, you know, they can be, you know, um, you know, simple comments. They could be, you know, written on a on the document. uh you know I will say that the consultants then plan to come to the
planning board at the next meeting and present the whole plan or maybe the in June and so you know they're working their way through the planning board has to vote to essentially adopt or accept the plan and so we just wanted to keep the board you know up to date with where
it was so you looked at the housing needs assessment you've looked at the goals and strategies and so you'll have a time to comment on again I just want to make sure that you know board members have reviewed it and you if there's, you know, I've gone through it. I have some comments. Other staff has comments. So,
if you have ideas or comments, just you can send them to me. Okay. All right. And uh we we're not going to talk about the overlay tonight. No. Although the housing subcommittee, you know, did meet and talked about met and talked about it. We'll be meeting
again to talk about it. and you we'll have some ideas and maybe some graphics to help show that for the next meeting. All right. Okay. Moving on. Time is
10:03. Uh form a subdivision applications. Anything, Pam? No, not tonight, but um I believe it's possible that we might have one at the next meeting or the meeting after that. Okay. How about ZBA applications?
I don't have anything to report. Nate, do you? Not really. Yeah. Okay. SBP, SPR, SUB applications. There's that MS in library project. Oh,
yeah. It's a doozy. That's it. Yeah. There. Uh, yeah. I think there's one other one. I'm blaming on what it might be, but the um yeah, it would just be a site plan review application. Okay, Bruce, why are you guys laughing about
the MSON library? Is there a joke that I don't know about? No. No. Uh it's just that we as staff, we tried to get it in front of the planning board sooner. We couldn't make we missed the legal ad deadline by three minutes and so now it's coming on June 4th. And no, we have
a we have a a grant to do this. is to take the south entrance and put a ramp on it and then a walkway to make it fully accessible with the door openers and everything. It's actually a really good project. Um it just it needs site plan review. That's all. It's just, you know. Okay, that's enough.
Okay. Board uh committee and liaison reports. Bruce, anything for PVPC? Uh no, nothing. Jesse, anything we haven't talked about already with housing subcommittee? Nope, we've covered it. Karen, anything for design review board?
No. All right. I have uh no report. Oh, Karen, go ahead. Your hand is up. Okay. Um I don't really have a report of chair bru. Uh Jesse. Yeah. Sorry, Doug.
We are meeting next week at this time in case you want to join us. The main topic overlay. Just want to let you know that. Okay. Thank you. No report of chair from me. Nate, anything from staff? No, you know, I always mention the, you
know, housing production plan is trying to wrap up. The open space and w plan will be coming back to the planning board probably over the summer. Um, you know, Dodson is is trying to get out a draft downtown design um guidelines. And as Rob mentioned, I think they would lead to some zoning changes. And so, you
know, Dodson isn't necessarily recommending zoning changes, but what, you know, from what they might present, we'll have to consider, you know, do we change setbacks in the downtown, I think what they're showing cannot, you know, you know, what they previewed with staff is, you know, their ideas for where the BL
zone is can't happen at all with the zoning right now. And so, is there an overlay or do we completely change BL? And so, um, I think it's, you know, I think they're big discussions. I think I like what they presented in some of their ideas even for along Prey Street.
And again, to me, the zoning doesn't really get you there. And so, it's, you know, not necessarily having a prescriptive uh bylaw, zoning changes, but saying having more flexibility in terms of setbacks or height or design
some design, you know, then using the design guidelines themselves. And so, you know, for instance, in the BL area, if we want to have four floors, maybe it's only under a roof or essentially it's three and a half floors. You know, if we want to have articulation in the facade, we need to have varying um front
setbacks. And so, right now, I feel like when someone comes in in the BG, we can allow we can have a zero setback. And there's really no case to say, well, no, you need you should actually have a 15 foot setback. But I'm hoping through these design guidelines, we'd say, "Well, here's what we'd want for a sidewalk width, curb to facade or
whatever." And it helps the board review projects uh to have consistency, say, in terms of, you know, public realm and and design standards and things. So, um, but like I said, I think what they what they might show in their their guidelines
might not be achievable at all with the zoning. And so, then the question is how do we make that if we will if we like it, how do we make it happen? Um, okay. All right. I think that's that's it. Time is 10:07.
Anybody have anything else? It is earlier than town council gets out sometime. So, you know, we're doing pretty good. Look on the bright side, right? Yeah. But they're paid more than we are. They start later than we do. Jesse. Yes.
So, you did say to Doug that we were meeting this time next week. That's not 10 o'clock, right? The meeting starts at 9. All right. All right. It's now 10:08. So, I think
we're adjourned. Thank you all. Goodbye. Bye. Good night, everyone. Bye. Bye. End the meeting. the web. Okay, good night everybody. See you soon.