Okay, Mr. Marshall, um you are the co-host of this meeting. We are re uh you're not the Yes, you are the co-host. We are recording. We have one attendee with us. You have a quorum of the board. Nate Mallaloy is with us
in the house tonight. Um my phone says 6:34. I think we're good to go. >> Okay. Thank you, Pam. >> Welcome to the Ammeris Planning Board meeting of November 5th, 2025. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the
Ammerst Planning Board, I am calling this meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Ammeris Media. Minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of
2021 extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 and further extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2025. This planning board meeting will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom
meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is is listed at the top of the page.
No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic
hardship or dispite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website. Board members, I will take a roll call.
When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and return to mute. Bruce Cen, >> I'm here. >> Brad Hartwell, >> Jesse Major, >> present.
>> I Doug Marshall, I'm present. Angus Mloud, >> present. >> Johanna Newman, >> present. >> And I don't see Jar Smith yet. He had informed me earlier that he would be
arriving around 7 o'clock. So, thank you all. We do have a quorum, so we can proceed. Board members, if technical issues arise and we need to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make
a comment and I will call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remmute yourself to the general public. The general public comment item on tonight's agenda is reserved for public comment regarding items that do not
appear later on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comment 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 typically 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 discontinued from the meeting. All right. So, the time is 6:37 and we'll start with our with approval of minutes. We have the minutes from July
16th in the packet. Uh, did anyone have any comments on those minutes? >> Uh, Jesse. Oh, thanks. Only one minor typo. There's one misspelling of my name under the planning board committee. That's fine.
Happens all the time. Under >> which page? >> Page seven at the bottom under the leazison reports uh under the motion. Mr. Major made the motion blah blah blah. And then the the line right under
motion, it's spelled with m a j o r. >> Okay. >> I am so sorry. I will fix that before posting. >> No problem. >> Thanks, Jesse. Anybody else have any comments? Johanna, >> I was just going to move to adopt the minutes with the amendment suggested.
>> Okay. Thank you for that motion. Does anybody want a second? Bruce, you've raised your physical hand. Let let it be known that Bruce has seconded the motion. >> Okay.
>> All right. Uh any further comments anybody? All right, we'll go ahead and vote. Uh Bruce, we'll start with you. >> Hi. >> And then Fred. >> Hi. >> Angus. >> Hi. >> Jesse.
>> Hi. >> Johanna. >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. I have six in favor, one member absent. Motion carries. Minutes from July 16th are are approved. Thank you, Pam, for another
good set of minutes. >> Thank you. >> So, at this point, we'll go to the public comment period. Uh, we still have one member of the public, and I will read her name while she thinks about whether she wants to make a comment. Uh,
her name is Mora Keane. So Mora, if you want to make a public comment, now's the time to raise your Zoom hand. Okay, I guess the time now is 6:40 and we will consider that we have offered a time for public comment and no one has
taken us up on that. All right, we'll go to item three on our agenda, the general housing discussion. Oh, by the way, Jara Smith just arrived. The time is 6:40. Jara is earlier than anticipated, but your timing is perfect. We just got
finished with public comment period and we're going right into our general housing discussion. >> Excellent. So Nate, um the first item we had on the agenda was a review of the zoning priorities list.
So and there was a set of uh priorities listed in the in the packet. Do you want to start off with that? >> Yeah, thanks everyone. Uh I'll share my screen in a minute. I think the idea here is the staff in the housing and zoning subcommittee have, you know,
developed a bunch of ideas for zoning initiatives and try to categorize them things that the subcommittee could work on staff and then maybe others. Um, you know, and then as we move forward, the housing production plan has yet to be approved, but I think, you know, in the
coming months, we could meet with the housing trust and the CRC and talk about some of these as well as they relate to housing. Um, I think the goal for staff would be to get, you know, a few zoning measures ready in the spring to bring to council at one time. So,
um, we're trying to get, um, you know, Rob Mohead mentioned the change to the neighborhood business zone, which we'll be discussing later this month, ch, you know, reszoning three properties on Main Street. Uh, but the town has been working on others, a few others. And you know, from this list, I'd like to, you
know, maybe set some time frames and and have the planning board discuss what are some some of the priorities and what what we think, you know, could we have three or four ready, you know, in the next six months or something. Um, and you know, they don't have to be, you
know, some of the ones can be a a simpler change, some are more in depth and take time. You know, it also relates to North Ammerst. Um, you know, I think that's something that could take more time. uh you know there's you know discussions about where else in town we could reszone and so you know some of it could
be as we're looking at this property list you know maybe there's some targeted things we could do and then like we discussed last time you know is it changing a zoning district so changing something from like RORO to something else or is it changing a development method or a use classification so you know do we like
for instance how the town um permits and allows town houses or apartments and maybe we don't um you know or do we want to allow you know different kinds of development methods like you know cottage style in some zones and so you know the list has uh planning staff looked at what was done a few years ago
we updated it with a few new things and so you know we haven't done this in a while I think we have some time now with the planning board to look at it and you know keep the list going so you can always email me with other ideas um
and I'll start sharing that in a minute what happened to All right. And so if that's visible for everyone, you know, there's just, you know, there's five items under the subcommittee.
um you know nine under staff and then unassigned you know there's about you know there's seven um and so they sometimes they some might relate to other ideas or initiatives staff's been looking at so for this subcommittee you know identify areas for new development
you know um I will say you know we've applied for a grant to look at East Ammerst um possibly with a 40R or increased density or change zoning and so we're waiting to hear but it's something that you know we think that East Ammerst first after we maybe look
at North Amoris as a place to focus. Um, you know, Bruce has mentioned the open space conservation development. So, that's similar to a cluster, traditional cluster. It's a little has a little different parameters. Um, but, you know, could that be updated a little bit? Um,
a tiered approach to apartments. So right now it's like you know all or nothing you know a maximum number in a building um multiple on a property but you know in most places it's no or site or special permit and zoning districts change to PRP so we have some
professional research park areas in town and then modified mixeduse building standards and outlying village centers. So do we still want the 30% or something else? So those are the ones that the subcommittee said that they could look at. You know, I'm not I these aren't necessarily in a a ranked order. Um
they're just numbered. And so this is, you know, we could just jump off from there. >> All right, Nate, I see Bruce's hand. >> Um Nate, just for clarification uh on item number two there, you say look at community homes plan. Is that the Ball
Lane uh development that you're referring to? >> It is. It is. Yes. I I think it might be helpful to put in parenthesis uh B Lane North Amist uh u development and maybe use the word scheme instead of
plan because plan kind of in indicates a plan. >> You're saying there's no plan. >> That's that's that's good. That's all. Thank you. Yeah. Um, you know, just to go down the list, staff items, you know, you know,
there are the downtown design standards moving forward. Uh, you know, those would be complete and that hopefully in the next few months or getting to a point. And so, do we uh do we look at what, you know, implementing some of those through uh changes in the downtown? I will say that, you know, from what staff has seen
to get to what the design standards um are suggesting or would like, it's, you know, there's a lot of zoning changes that would need to happen. You know, from dimensional standards to even just changing, you know, downtown zoning, whether it's overlays or, you know, changing um zoning designations.
The sign bylaw is something that the staff has talked about for a while. it's, you know, kind of complicated. Um, and so that's something that staff can look at, you know, allowing multiple principal dwellings on a property. And so this is something that, you know, in
the past, the way the bylaw and a few sections references buildings, we could say, oh, well, we allow multiple single family homes or duplexes on a property. More recent interpretation is not that that's not allowed. And so I think that you know that could be something that is you know we could figure out how to
modify um with you know little change to language possible big bigger impacts what that actually means um limited site plan review. >> So Nate on the principal dwellings
don't we need to decide whether we want want that or not first? >> Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm just saying like to actually make that change in the bylaw isn't, you know, a big lift in terms of language, but the impacts could be. So, do we right? Do we want that? >> Yeah. I mean, I I I wouldn't work on it
before the board had talked about whether it was something we wanted to do, >> right? And it and it could be that we want to modify it or have some, you know, you know, allowing say single family home and another type of use or, you know, single family home and a duplex, you know, whatever the
combination might be. But right now um you know it it doesn't necessarily allow for that limited site plan review or administrative approval for protected uses. So a number of communities are looking at this. So you know 4DA section three you know has protected uses
according to zoning. So like ADUs are a protected use and then there's you know um religious and educational and agricultural and so actually a fair number of um planning board hearings are these uses. So you know when we looked at the Dickinson Museum is one excuse me
for instance the if we look at group homes so 20 Belturetown road and then there's one further in South Ammeris the conversion of a home to a group home um you know and maybe is there to me there's a way to develop some thresholds where if it's some minor changes it can
be handled administratively if it's bigger it can go to the planning board but I think you know essentially we you know the uses are allowed by right we can modify them through site plan review but we can't deny them because they're protected according to state law. So, I think there's ways to to work on those.
Look at the definition of owner occupied in the bylaw. Throughout the bylaw, we used to refer to the ZBA or planning board or permit gring board or authority. So, there's inconsistency. They have different meanings, but you know, is that could be
a change throughout the bylaw. Cannabis is something that staff is looking at now. A 40y zoning overlay. So that's this is a tool the state has put forth you know small lots and smaller sized homes. There's a few other requirements in there. Um and then you know another
one administrative approval thresholds for site plan review uses. And so Jesse's kind of mentioned this and you know not you know and it it might change from time to time but you know could we for instance have some thresholds in in in the bylaw you
know if it's even like minor changes in lot coverage or even like a smaller new building that the staff could look at and if it's beyond that then you know it goes to a hearing. So, for instance, um you know, there's a hearing coming up and there's a few sometimes that happen where it's like, oh, they're putting in
a new building like the shed say at PL at um by Ammer Soccer, right? It's a new structure. So, according to the bylaw that needed a site plan review to put in a, you know, a shed that's small enough that it doesn't need a building permit. Do we do we need to, you know, does the planning board is that would you be okay with that kind of project just being
handled administratively? And we could write parameters into that. So, what does that mean? if it's a new building, you know, we could write in things about lighting, screening, um different kind of setbacks, what have you. Um so, you know, some of those to me would be then sending really what's
impactful to the board and what we think is not as impactful as can be handled with staff. So, anyways, those are the things that staff could look at. I feel like there's three or four of these. I' love to keep moving. >> All right, we got a couple of hands here, Fred.
Uh yeah, I want to give another an example of uh what uh Nate was talking about. Uh I can give you a real world example in my own property where uh it's a three family house and we added a
mudroom to uh one of the uh apartments. Um and we did so in a way that is almost invisible uh from outside the building. It blends
so perfectly and uh but we you know uh the staff agreed that it was dimminimous but still had to uh go to the zoning board of appeals and have them agree at a
business meeting that yeah it really was dimminimous and to go ahead and uh this could have easily been handled by staff. All right. Um, Jesse, >> thanks. I had a quick comment on the same point and then another question.
The comment is several of the committees that I'm involved with for UMass that are sort of government regulatory required have a mechanism by which the members can have a chance to look at something and decide if they think it needs to
come to the full committee. And so that's a way that that could pretty quickly be implemented if we all agreed. Meaning staff sends us all here's the thing. Here's the shed at Wine. Do you think this needs to come to full committee?
If we all don't know, then it doesn't. Anyway, it's a a streamlined way to sort of establish some of that. But mostly I was really curious and it's too tantalizing not to ask. Number seven, just cannabis. What does that mean for staff for zoning?
Yeah. So, you know, in our bylaw, we have a whole, you know, section for medical marijuana or marijuana use. And since we've put that in place, you know, a few years ago, the regulations around it has changed. So, say whether you know, like on-site consumption or say
delivery, whatever, you know, all those things, we >> we could just um update it to be compliant with the updated regulations. >> Understood. Thanks. And as for the other point you made, Jesse,
I I guess I I I would be concerned that if Nate sent something out to all of us and we were supposed to reply to and make decisions that we'd be subject to open open meeting law and that would defeat the purpose of,
you know, we that we couldn't do business like that outside of a meeting. >> Yeah. So, you know, the historical commission and the I'll just say the demolition bylaw, which is, you know, now a different one. It's a general bylaws, but there, you know, when it was
updated a few years ago, they said the, you know, a designate of the commission with staff. So, you know, they it's only one person, and that's been effective. Um, I think some of it would be with this administrative approval for site plan review uses, so it wouldn't be
special permit uses. We could do it for that as well, too. But um you know we'd want to we'd want to make sure that it you know the idea would be not even to get to a planning board public meeting because that means we still the applicant would have to come to a public meeting to determine if it needs to go
then go to a hearing and so you know and we could we could have this be done incrementally you know so like you know is it a certain percentage increase in lock coverage that below that you know if it's an addition to an existing building and it doesn't change the footprint by a certain amount or if it's
a new building under so many square feet. Uh you know, maybe it's an accessory structure under so many square feet. So, you know, I think there's ways to categorize it so that yeah, I mean, you know, it's pretty clear. And then maybe we do have this designate option so that staff could work with a planning
board representative to determine if it's not clear. It's already in the bylaw. If it's not clear, it goes to a hearing. So, I just, you know, maybe we just come up with these thresholds and we see how it works and we could run through a few different scenarios with, you know, staff and the building commissioner and others. Um, anyways,
you know, I just these are some ideas. Unassigned items, some of them are bigger. >> Hold on, Nate. I Bruce, you had your hand up at one momentarily there. >> Uh, I decided that my suggestion was not a good idea. >> Okay. All right.
You know, changing zoning and village centers. So you it's a bigger item but you know we have a lot of different zones in town and try they tried to respond to what was you know on the ground you know so we have RVC BVC neighborhood business and you know and do we could we simplify zoning in
certain village centers whether it's all becomes BVC to allow for different kinds of development. Um the housing production plan has mentioned cottage style development. I like it. You know this idea of multiple dwelling units on a property meeting some design standards and maybe whatever
else. It's just a different development method than what we allow now. There could be other ones as well. It doesn't have to be cottage style. >> Uh Bruce >> Nate, how does cottage style development differ from 40? Is it essentially
similar the same? It's just a mechanism is >> 40 Y is a mechanism for cottage style development. Is that the relationship? >> Yeah. So the way when I um when I'm thinking of cottage style development, it's multiple units on one property and
so you know it would be um you there could be like a ground lease or condominiumiz whereas a 40y is really really small lots. So it's a be simple structure. So, you know, Mansfield, I I have some information. Um, they were
going to Falltown meeting to adopt a 40y and the idea was that they had three properties that, you know, say could be developed with maybe 10 or 12 uh properties, you know, large lot zoning. And they said, well, let's put a 40y
here and allow 8 to 12,000 square foot lots. and they're getting 80 80 small lots on the on these three properties instead of what would have been 12, you know, twoacre lots. And so it's, you know, it's just a different way to get, you know, they call it a starter home
overlay is maybe what it a common name is. And so, you know, you're limited to how big the home is. I think you can't have any more than like 1,800 square feet and like three bedrooms. And you can uh, you know, I think to me it would be that's the difference. Cottage style is you know like planned unit
residential development which we have in the bylaw but on a property scale so that you know you could allow essentially you know number of single family homes or duplexes on a property under cottage style. >> Okay I think I got it but it'll come
back and we'll talk more. uh senior housing, you know, I don't, you know, not sure what, you know, what that means, but um uh site plan review conditions. And so this is something again kind of going back to this administrative approval above. Could we
clarify what we want in the bylaw or in the rules and rags? Um you know, that needs things that need to be met in the application process. um you know staff has talked about working with the conservation commission
to look at where where are their developable areas in town and so you know so we make all these changes we like oh let's go change a village center and then you know maybe a lot of it is in flood flood plane or has wetland resources and so you know maybe looking
at that together with the conservation agent and other staff and then you know this one is combine RVC and BBC going back to the simplified village center zoning I guess it could be combi, you know, different ways to do it, but one was actually, you know, condensing and collapsing our zoning
districts. So, reducing the number of zoning districts, which may not be the same as change zoning in village centers, but um you know, that was just an idea that's been discussed. >> Hey, Bruce. >> Um number seven is is uh Doug, you might
be able to answer this as well. uh is the the downtown uh design standards uh meeting the other night. We had a discussion about uh uh merging uh what was uh in Dodson Plinker's notion uh
something similar to this is this uh does this bear relationship to the conversations and the discussion and thinking at the design the down the design standards or or is this something completely different?
Um, I guess I would defer to Nate. I mean, when we don't have RVC or BVC downtown, so I would think it would be different. >> Oh, thank you. Yeah, I mean I guess for this would be you know there are differences in RVC
and BBC in terms of say building height and what say multi-unit developments allowed but you know I guess the you know someone would be looking at it and you know is there really enough of a difference and is it necessary to say okay well you can have you know so for
instance for instance in east Ammeris we have some BBC we have some RVC right next to each other BBC allows mixeduse buildings RBC is more restrictive and you you know, is there was there really a a a good rationale for having some of
these zoning districts across the street from each other? Um, you know, and it might be that there is. And so someone would be just looking at it in some areas. Well, Nate, um I mean, one way to approach that that would be perhaps a
little bit simpler would not would be not to to eliminate both of these, but just rethink where they are, >> you know? >> You know, I mean, we we could change the
zoning map to eliminate RVC and still leave it in the code. I mean I mean I'm not sure that's smart but um >> right or >> yeah I guess I'm just saying I wouldn't
just automatically unilaterally combine them. >> Right. There might be three village centers where I'd say, "Oh, yeah. Let's make those all BVC." And then there might be another two somewhere else where I'd say, "Okay, let's make them all RVC."
And then the others can stay mixed or, you know, I mean, I don't know. >> Right. Right. Or if you consider it like a you know a hierarchy or a spectrum of density it's like would like Pomemeroy would we say let's have all let's make all the properties around the roundabout BVC and maybe then you know the you know
that next ring is RVC or something right like >> um yeah yeah I mean right I think there's different ways I just you know these are things that have been discussed over the last say year between different board members and different boards and staff and so I was just kind of getting it in writing I think we can you know now talk about what do we think
are some priorities And really it's also you know helping the subcommittee you know do we want to prioritize some of these for the housing and zoning subcommittee you know are there like two or three the planning board is like these sound great and then for staff as well like okay let's you know take a
number of these and you know set some time frames for getting back to the board with new information >> so that so that the full board kind of makes sets the priority for the subcommittee >> right yep >> all right Jesse I would
get to some of this later, but um I would vote to move the discussion you just had to the subcommittee, meaning the RBC, BBC, and the somehow it's combined in my mind with cottage style cottage style potential rowhouse development, that
kind of conversation to the front of our to-do list for the subcommittee. Just a suggestion. All right. Um Jesse, I'm glad you mentioned row houses because
um when I think about trying to do denser housing that is affordable for a family and you know I think of row houses as the sort of quintessential solution to that. you know, I mean, when
you look at the worker housing of 1880 and it's those are prized houses now and uh can we not do that anymore? You know, I just can't believe we can't figure out how to build a roadhouse anymore. >> It's awesome.
>> I would love to see somebody say, "Here's some areas, you know, you'd probably be doing it in areas that are currently single family houses. So, you're going to engender some resistance probably, but you know, they're so dense
they they foster walkability, but they're temp typically, you know, before they become Backbay, they're affordable and and they're a single family unit. So, you know what what's wrong with all that picture?
>> So, I'd love to see that thought about. All right. Uh, okay, Jesse, you're done. Um, Jara, >> thank you. Um, well, Doug, I actually I just I wasn't planning on saying this, but I totally agree with uh your point
about row homes. Um, I I'm a big fan and and think that they promote a lot of home ownership opportunities, build community, you know, are not nearly as disruptive as some other housing types might be, especially in primarily residential neighborhoods. Um uh so I'm
I'm fullthroated uh in support of of that. Um I uh but my question or the reason I raised my hand was Nate I was curious if the development community has asked for any
particular zoning reforms like our has anybody come to us like has valley CDC said like if you had more um you know OSCD in in town we'd love to build more or you know some other developer said if
to, you know, combine the the the RVC and BBC into one zone that would make it simpler and would make it more appealing for me to build a mixeduse development um or project in that area. Like, have we heard from the people who are actually using the code building these
buildings where their ideas or interests are for for reasoning? >> Yeah, that's a good question. I we've heard a little bit um you know one or two developers would say we need you know six stories in all our village
centers and all of downtown. So >> you know I'm not sure that's you know the right approach but you know maybe there is a way to have more density. Um you know I think the mixeduse building so right now you know we limit the number of apartments in number of units in an apartment building but we don't in
a mixeduse building. So that's why we see mixeduse buildings a lot and so but then we have the 30% and so you know there's been discussions about do we really need 30% in every mixuse building in every every place it's allowed or could we you know so we have heard from a number of developers saying that 30%
say in outlying build centers is you know really a hurdle or that they'll build it but you know they really can't fill that space. Um, you know, I think that sometimes developers also would say, you know, they look at what they can do and so
we've had, you know, a few developers say, "Oh, maybe I'll do, you know, two smaller apartment buildings on a property." And then you could tell that they, you know, they've kind of said, "Well, you know, that's what I can do." But I think if they were given the option to do, you know, maybe a different kind of configuration, they would, right? So we
don't we don't have a really nice balance of allowing, you know, larger town houses or row houses, you know, in a certain way. And so we, >> you know, it's like, like I said, it's sometimes it's almost like all or nothing. So you're going to do a 80unit mixuse building because that's what you
have, but maybe some other combination could work. But we, you know, our zoning doesn't really offer that middle ground sometimes. Um, you know, we have inclusionary zoning. Sometimes developers say that, you know, could we, you know, it's it's a cost. Um, but I
think because we offer, you know, this piece with mixeduse buildings, they get a fair number of units, but, you know, maybe if we're modifying apartments, maybe we have some trade-off between affordable units and more density or something, which we have it now in our bylaw, but could it could it be reworked? Um and there's one other piece
you mentioned um or as you're speaking J I was thinking they sometimes um yeah it's it's hard to say exactly you know what um you know how to change this but um you know we don't have really
prescriptive standards and it's really hard to capture all that and so you know I don't want to say the cost of permitting in general but you know if a developer comes and it's like oh well you know what really would the board look at whether it's a zoning board or planning board I think it's a really
difficult thing to to pin down right so you know sometimes we have we have applicants who want to try new building techniques and different looking buildings and you know is the concern you know the users of it is it the actual architecture does really matter
or whatever but it's really you know our bot doesn't really address that sometimes headon um and I think really the student population in terms of housing market is a big one. So >> yeah, >> I think we have to figure out if we kind of to Doug's point and we talked about it, you know, that's why the 40 Y is
kind of interesting like is there zoning that can actually help get out an end user and it's really difficult to do that. Zoning really doesn't get shouldn't I shouldn't say shouldn't but you know in Massachusetts it's difficult to actually regulate users and occupants through zoning. Um but you know if we
were like oh sure let's just allow sixtory buildings everywhere. I think there's enough student um demand that it will, you know, fill a lot of those. It won't be all of it, but you know, is there a way to generate some other types of um users through zoning?
>> Right. Great. Okay. Well, so the reason I ask is just because I'm trying to figure out like where where can we actually capitalize on interest and momentum like where, you know, where can we meet the development community where they're at to get the housing production
that we need? um in our town. And of course, I'm not saying like, you know, let's do whatever developers want, but just trying to meet them where they're at, see where their interests are, where they're excited about, and try and build some momentum there so we can Yeah, I
guess that's that's the point. That's why I brought it up. So, thank you, Nate. >> All right, Jara. Thank you. Fred, you're next. And then Angus. Uh yeah, I think that this another piece of this in terms
of public policy uh and this is where uh I find the ball lane project so encouraging. Uh I think that this kind of of of a construction
pattern should uh basically involve condominium ownership so that we move the people who the the families who come into these move them where into a
situation where they're accumulating equity. uh and that's how long-term you you uh bolster the income position and the participation
uh in uh in society. So I I see some uh public uh benefit to looking at that. >> All right. Thank you. I think those are some of the same reasons I thought rowouses were a good idea.
Angus, you're next. And then Johanna, you can decide whether to put your hand back up or not. >> Thanks. Yeah, our our the only reason we are able to buy a house in Amoris is because we bought a row house in Philadelphia. And the only reason we were able to buy a house there is
because row houses are affordable. So, I I agree with with things that people are saying here. Um, I'll just say I I met with um Ron Leverier who owns um some properties in the PRP and OP um uh parks
and uh asked him some of the questions that that you're you were curious about. Jera, I didn't get a whole lot of specifics on uh zoning preferred zoning changes. Um he uh I mean he said that anything that can be moved from uh a
special permit to site plan review would be better um and and even better would be yeses as opposed to site plan review but which which makes sense um because that drives up their costs and unpredictability but um you know his his feeling was uh so I was talking to him
primarily about the PRP and OP zones and his feeling was that um they're too far away generally ly from UMass to be useful as student housing. And so he kind of sees them, which I think maybe could, you know, could be could be
contested, but but that's that's how he sees it. Um several of them are on um major streets with pretty good PBTA connections. Um but uh so he was imagining it more trying to think about targeting like modern income housing.
Um, so, uh, families who who can't get on the kind of housing ladder because Ammerst is pretty expensive might be able to at least live in town, but but he was also saying that the costs of building um, apartments that are, say, two or
threebedroom units that are big enough for a family push the rent up high enough that a lot of families just wouldn't be able to afford it. So he's kind of like he he was, you know, saying he'd like to provide more of that kind of housing. He obviously can't in the PRP because it's
not zoned for that. But if we were to try and allow more housing in those spaces, that's one of the challenges that he and I think other developers would run into in order to actually, you know, service the debt that they would need to take out to build the the properties. Um they'd have to charge
pretty high rents. And um and his opinion was a lot of the student housing is able to kind of do that because the units are so small and they pack them in so tightly. Um and so but families aren't as interested in that. So I I still think it could potentially be
worth looking at at changes to PRP um because I and I think those would be lighter lifts, but I'm not sure that they're going to yield a ton um as opposed to some of these other ideas of thinking more about kind of you know um entry points for people into the housing ladder.
Okay, Jesse, >> I guess I just wanted to say out loud something I think about all the time and it's not unique thought for me. In our current moment, I feel like no matter what we build, it's primarily going to be students who move in there
unless it's somehow zoned or restricted. Unless we have a minimum distancing, a percentage property rental, unless there's something else in place right now, tomorrow, whatever gets built will be rented by students almost regardless of the shape, size, price, whatever.
That's my current assessment of our town. Um, so I I'm all for these other goals. Absolutely. Again, that's really why I got involved in Planning Board in the first place, but I think we have to keep that in mind. Um, and yes, we
should be thinking long term. What do we want? But that's that's a really important balance to me at the moment. Um, yeah, that's all. >> Okay. Thanks, Jesse. >> Uh, Johanna, >> I was just going to echo the interest in
rowouses. We also had the experience of buying our first house, you know, small row house in Baltimore City gave us the equity that when we moved to Ammerst, you know, we rented for a couple of years and then we're able to buy a place cuz we sold the row house. So, um, and
you know, we all have informal conversations around town and I definitely hear people say, "Yes, we need more housing and yes, we recognize that a lot of it is driven by students and so we need to create that, you know, that middle section of housing and I
hear rowouses come up a lot." So um I think we've talked about the area opposite the water towers at UMass at being you know potential areas for that. I think East Ammerst Village Center could be there are reasonzoning opportunities there for row houses. I think that's the kind of thing we could
also consider along some of the major thorough affairs which are in this proposal. Um so just want to nud nudge that up. Uh >> okay. All right. Thank you, Bruce.
>> Um, I have to say I'm I'm uh pretty much supportive of everything everybody said, which is um why I've been so quiet. Uh because everybody's saying, well, we're not saying, well, I'm thinking I hadn't got that far yet. But one thing that has
occurred to me is the uh the the um uh petitioner uh zoning amendments that we've seen some time ago now. Um I'm thinking that particularly that minimum distancing suggestion, we probably should add that to the uh the
list. It's probably on somewhere on the list. I mean, even if it's uh my guess is, but I may be wrong. My understanding I guess is that that that goes to the council first and they decide whether they want to uh refer it to the planning board or is it coming
directly to us? >> They've been referred from council to us. They're they're going to be on our agenda at our next meeting. >> Okay. Well, in that case, the uh the the proposition is that we have another couple of things on that list of yours,
Nate. >> Yeah. when we get later on in the agenda. I could mention that or I can mention it now, right? Though so the two citizen petitions, one is a moratorum on um four plus unit multi-unit buildings in the BGBL
um you know for a year and then the other one has a number of pieces to it. Some you know some of it's minimum distancing, some of it is a student home definition um and other pieces. So that'll be heard on the 19th as well as the change to the
neighborhood business along Main Street. And so I think from those citizen petitions, you know, I was right. I was thinking that the board as part of the hearing could say, okay, well, what are some strategies embedded in this? Do we want to add this to the list? Um, and so yeah, you like I said, this list can
keep, you know, we can keep adding things. You know, like I said over the next meeting or two, it'd be great to have, you know, even even tonight if there was some direction for the housing and zoning subcommittee if there's one or two that we think are really something they could keep looking at. Um and for staff as well to try to
prioritize those. Um yeah, I think um Angus, what you said is funny. Uh just make everything a yes. I think that's what most developers would say. I don't um you know sometimes hearings can go on
for a long time. So you know it's interesting like a comprehensive permit you know it's called you know the 40B permits from the state. The idea is like oh here we can roll roll all these local you know um zoning and even general bylaw waiverss into one permit and it's
easy. but are, you know, they do get through and they're approved typically, but a comprehensive permit can take, you know, six to eight months of hearings with the zoning board and you go through, you know, 10, you know, 10 nights of hearings and it's a pretty arduous
process. And so what we've heard from some developers is, you know, in other communities it doesn't take nearly that long and do we really need to spend that much time doing it? And so, you know, that's where say like a 40 Y or a 40R or certain overlays essentially. It's like
if the town puts the work up front and says here, yes, we like a site, you know, like like the University Drive overlay, right, is an example. We said, okay, we'll be pretty flexible with our dimensional standards. We have some kind of general design standards and it's a site plan review use. You know, we spent the time doing it so that if a developer
comes, they know that if they, you know, meet what we've put out there in terms of our mixeduse standard and have some variation in the facade and keep it along the streetscape and have the multi-use path, you know, it's a site plan review use and then, you know, they'll get there pretty quickly.
Whereas if we, you know, didn't have it that way and maybe they could still do it through our zoning, but they needed a special permit to increase the floor to get the extra height and they needed to get a waiver or two from our bylaw for these things. You know, that's a lot more work on a developer p from a
developer point of view. Um, and so, you know, I think we do, but we want to make sure that we have, you know, we we can't capture everything, right? We can't anticipate all what what might might come. So, even on new drive, right? someone could come in and propose something like oh geez maybe that's not
exactly what we thought but so it's really hard to allow to be that gracious and say sure let's just make everything site plan review I don't know if that's the right approach either but maybe where we do want it like maybe the PRP right or these other areas in town we're looking at we're saying okay to me
zoning provides an opportunity it may or may not happen so like north amorest overlay whether or not that would be utilized right away it could just be another opportunity if you know a a developer or partner wants to come in and work with one of the owners. And so the PRP, right, is one where it's like,
okay, Ron, I'm not sure we're going to say yes, and you can just go build, you know, big buildings with a building permit. But maybe there is a a way to have some site plan review uses um that, you know, make it better than, you know, right now it's not allowed or, you know,
a special permit. So, >> all right. Um, Jesse, >> thanks. Um, I was going to save this I think for later, but most of these pieces of this what I'm going to say have already come up, so I thought now I'll just throw it out there. And it's sort of halfway in between this. Yes.
Yes. To everything and several degrees above I think the approaches we're currently taking. And is over the weekend I started jotting down ideas about a more sweeping I don't know if it's going to be zoning or overlay whatever but I was looking at our map of identified areas right that
that we used the other day and then I was thinking also about some of the comments about like Johanna just mentioned and in the petition about the our major thorough affairs and like couldn't we develop for all of those spaces
a single change to allow Cotter style rowousing whatever increased density as we're defining it, not necessarily six stories, but to get three or four x density on single lots all in one move, right? And is that maybe a simpler way
to think about this? Uh, and obviously we have to think about what the consequences are. Obviously have to go to get lots of input, but that's where my head's at with a lot of these issues that we're discussing right now at the moment. and partly because of what happened last week at the North Ammeris
meeting, but again, we'll get to that later. Um, so I'd be happy to maybe at the subcommittee or whatever. That's definitely on my mind to think in in that way. And again, I don't know if an overlay makes sense or if it's merging some of the zoning that that I need
staff and others more knowledgeable than me to to think through. >> All right. I confess that the uh phrase that went through my ad as you described that was we could irritate a whole lot of people all at once.
>> Yep. Is that maybe that's better than different pockets one at a time, right? I don't know. >> All right. Uh Angus. >> Yeah. I just wanted to I I I think what Jesse is proposing is a great idea and a great idea for the subcommittee to look
at and I think it combines several of the ideas that we're that we're thinking about on that list. Um and and I mean for instance like a bunch of those areas that we've identified because they're kind of major intersections of major uh thoroughares are already zoned BVC and
RVC. So, I I think there's a way we could think about it maybe not as an overlay, but just as a reszoning um for for like four different areas across town. And so, that would be both maybe some, you know, changes to whatever that zone is that we want to call it. Maybe
it's BRVC, I don't know, but um and then also um changing some of the contours so that for instance, Puffton Village and some of the places we're thinking of in North Hammers are reclassified or reszoned. I mean, into this new idea. Or it could be
just that we do the overlay across, you know, four or five different sites. Um, I think there's different ways to do it, but I I think that's a a good idea. [Music] Um, since I don't see any hands, I'll just mention two things that I think are
related to some of the topics we've touched on here. One is uh that row houses typically depend on a back alley that is parallel to the frontage to for vehicular access and we don't have a lot
of rectalinear street grids to enable that. So I think uh you know we'd need a mechanism to if to to to create that and then the second thing is
um one of this one of the dilemmas of our master plan is that we say we want to build up our village centers but at the same time we're very attached to the existing buildings in our village centers.
And so, how do we build up something that's already built out? Um, I almost feel like we should have identified three or four other village centers that are completely empty at the moment. Um, that we could have built, you know,
built up from from nothing. Um, so you know, the historic preservation versus, you know, upzoning and replacing is just a a a tension that seems
built in. And I'm I you know, I haven't figured out how we do that, but it's always a dilemma on are we really attached to what we have or are we ready to replace it with something larger and more modern. All right. So, I don't uh Nate, go
ahead. >> Yeah, I'll share my screen again with the list. Yeah, I think Doug, to your point, it's interesting. You know, when when the board talked about those areas around town, you know, and you end up looking at the map, there's really not, you know, there's still so much of the
town that isn't included. And so, it's kind of interesting. It's like, well, you know, are are we willing to write allow new streets and a conversion of these areas to something different entirely to allow for new growth while,
you know, while keeping some other areas unchanged or do we want to have, you know, something more gradual? And I, you know, for instance, like we don't, we don't see a lot of nice new neighborhoods being developed, right? There's like, you know, some culde-sacs and then these big apartment buildings or mixuse buildings. And it's like is
there just a different way to have development happen? And you know I think it's it's hard given how you know the town is already developed and there's already these layouts. And so you know to me like the 40y for instance would be if we wanted to do this you know I'd want to change our subdivision
regulations to allow really narrow streets. You know no we don't need the 40 foot wide rightway and you know 12 foot lanes or 15 foot lanes and shoulders. I'd want to go down to like, you know, an 18 foot wide road and you don't, you know, maybe only one sidewalk. And so you get these 7,000
5,000 square foot lots and you can start creating, you know, some density that way as opposed, you know, it's a different density than say a big building. But maybe that's a way to look at it. Um, so like I'll, you know, in in
Mansfield, if this is visible, >> here's their what was the proposed 40 Y. So you can see um you know here's what the lots are normally this big and here's their 40 wy you know they're 7,000 square foot lots and so they have
80 lots here um you know with some open space still around them but otherwise you know it would be you know you know one here's one lot normally typically allowed and so you know they're like you know you can get seven of the 40 Y lots in one of their house lots right so they're
>> you know proposing a whole building lot coverage is allowable on these tiny little parcels. Can you do party walls and you know zero setback on the sidewall side? >> Yeah, you might be able to. And so what they were envisioning if you don't mind the schooling was this kind of you know
just small single families and I think they had some duplexes. So but that was the idea is to have you know really small lots and a different kind of density. Um >> and how does the fire department feel about this kind of thing? you know, we haven't approached them
yet. Uh, you know, this is, um, you know, Mansfield, like I said, was going to town, follow town meeting to get this adopted. So, you know, they must have worked out that, you know, you know, they had some, you know, also they have septic and other things. But, >> you know, they I you know, obviously it would work. I think, you know, the fire
department likes, you know, a certain width, at least stabilized sides. I mean, this is still a two-lane road, so it's wide enough. You just have to make sure that the, you know, they can make all the turns and curves, but >> Okay. All right. because a lot of the, you know, a lot of the sort of historic
Beacon Hill type sorts of neighborhoods, you know, you could never even lay that out to meet the fire department requirements now, right? >> And um so that's always felt like a constraint that would be pretty difficult to get over
um you know, without a lot of reassuring or some you know, some way to get around some of the current fire codes, >> right? I mean so yeah you know the civic academy occurred last Wednesday so I wasn't able to attend the north amoris meeting so you know we you know there's
you know 25 students that have um enrolled in this class you know a number of communities are doing it around the state where they learn about different parts of municipal government whether it's different departments the budgeting and so last week it was you know planning conservation uh inspection services and sustainability and you know
I said right so Amoris has had that zoning in place for hundred years but you know a lot of the nice neighborhoods people like in a lot of communities it was built before zoning and it probably couldn't be built now. And so, you know, we got zoning in place in 1927. >> We did, you know, kind of an overhaul in the 50s. We did it in the 70s after
UMass expanded. And really, the zoning has been kind of stagnant for like 50 years. And so, you know, some of a lot of our zoning is still reminiscent of what, you know, the 1973 big update. And so it's like, well, you know, maybe now people are saying, well,
yeah, zoning can be exclusionary, or it maybe didn't get to where we wanted it to go, or wow, we're actually losing, you know, the demographics we thought we we wanted because and maybe we didn't really know why for a long time, but now we're saying maybe it is some of the land use. So, I think it's really difficult though because we have all
these development patterns and how do we create say new neighborhoods and they're really big questions. I, you know, it's kind of the exciting part. Um, we have time to talk about it. So, you know, maybe Jesse, the housing and zoning subcommittee does look at like row houses and do we make some changes or
rec, you know, start that conversation. Um, I'm going to share the list just so maybe we identify one or two to keep working on as priorities. Um, and I' I've added some at the end here. Row houses, minimum distance, and other
road, you know, density on certain roads and right subways. probably should put student homes in quotation marks. >> Uhhuh. Okay. Uh Fred, I think you're next.
>> Yeah. Uh a couple things. Um one thing, Nate, is that uh I I'll take issue with you. I uh as you know I did an analysis of
North Whitney Street uh which uh Walker uh shared with the planning board. Um every single uh parcel on North Whitney Street from Main Street up to Clifton
Avenue. And I think almost, in fact, I think every single parcel all the way out to Redgate Lane fully complies with the current bylaw. Uh and
so I and uh if you look at uh uh Lincoln Avenue and Fairing Street and so forth, uh most of those properties comply with the current bylaw. I will also tell you that
in my first two terms on the planning board at the end of the 90s, one of the things I prided myself on was uh I can't think of a single zoning change that would made it through town meeting that
uh created nonconformities. Uh that's something that I looked at very carefully when I was uh on the planning board the the last couple times that I've been on the board. So I I think this is a smaller problem than you
think. I will also say in regard to the uh the Amoris base map that you circulated, I think that's very useful and there are a number of uh sections on that that uh
are uh amendable to the kind of uh uh infill that we've been talking about here. uh uh if you know they're they've been developed and we'd have to do something that is that would attract the
interest of current ownership. But that's true no matter where. Um so uh that and none of no no development I can think of in those areas
uh threatens uh the uh general uh standards to the extent they exist in the current bylaw uh I I don't think anything there uh threatens that. So, uh, I think it's possible.
>> All right. Thank you, Fred. Bruce, >> um, Doug, I I was thinking about your comments about the Mansfield uh, example that uh, uh, Nate showed us. I think that in town and probably in Mansfield
and other towns as well, the uh the building uh provisions of the building code could be used to assuage the concerns of fire departments. I think most specifically um requiring these buildings to have a 13D fire suppression
system in them which certainly adds a cost to the buildings but I think it should be outweighed by the uh by the um offsetting of the smaller lots and the smaller land costs and the and the other benefits that come with this uh
mechanism for increasing significantly increasing density. So I I would be a little more optimistic uh that uh that we could satisfy the various interests um and and conservative forces and so
forth in in our town on that regard. >> All right. Thank you. Sorry for coming across as pessimistic, Bruce. I was just uh >> No, not at all. >> I just wondered how how how how fire departments feel about that kind of layout.
>> Yeah. No, I I think it's not pessimistic at all. It's quite realistic. Uh as is the width of the streets and various other things. All of those are going to encounter quizzical reactions from these organizations. But I think we can help them assuage their concerns and so forth
uh responsibly by um perhaps these other uh regulatory uh devices that exist. >> Great. Uh, Angus. >> Uh, thanks. So, Jesse, it sounded like
you were suggesting that we should, um, try to prioritize like two or three of these for the next, um, housing and zoning subcommittee meeting. >> You're addressing that to Nate, right? >> Uh, no, to Jesse. >> Oh, okay. I think Nate felt that way,
too. >> I could. >> Go ahead. >> Sorry. Go ahead, Jesse. I was going to say yes. Okay. I have some thoughts, but we can talk about that later. >> Yeah. So I I was just going to suggest maybe I mean it seems like there's a lot of energy around the idea of um both the
um this 1A you know density on the main corridors and that I think that that we could put under that as well um the RVC BBC uh possibly
um sorry mixeduse building standard and outline village centers all the things that are kind of the same set of, you know, considerations. Um, poss I think there was something on the ones you added at the bottom as well, Nate. Um,
but all of those house density along certain roads and rightways, all all of those could be one like a a top order thing for us in the housing and zoning subcommittee. >> Okay.
All right. Um, go ahead, Jesse. Then I'll make one comment. >> Thanks. I would also suggest maybe we could split our time into two buckets. One is exactly what you just said, and the other maybe is working on identifying 40 Y areas because I'm
thinking about how we're presenting to the larger talent. And I feel like that's a really nice parallel to work on. Meaning, yes, we're looking at higher density, which we expect to be students, and we're looking at starter homes because everybody agrees that's sorely missing from our town.
>> Great. Uh, I was just going to say, um, most of you were not on the board back when, a couple of town counselors had proposed that we allow that we eliminate single family houses all the
way through town. and and allowed uh two homes on two primary homes on any parcel. Um, and I I just remember that uh the board did not recommend that, but during that conversation, I certainly or
I I had felt like I would like to see more more development along our uh main corridors and then less develop as you move less development as you move away from that.
So that rather than a blanket solution that covered the entire town that we uh concentrate development along some of the main roads and let the rest of the town remain more rural or undeveloped or
you know New England uh as a as a preferable development pattern. Bruce, you're next. >> Um Doug, I agree. that that when Mandy
Joe and Pat proposed that uh that but that was that was part of a much larger suite of changes. Um and it was I I think I remember being in favor of some
uh neutral on some and and uh uninterested or or not in favor of others and then of course the the whole discussion every time we had it there was changes. So, I think that that um you're right, we we did uh decide not to
endorse that proposition, but I think it's probably not accurate to um say that that did that doesn't mean that there weren't some things in there that some of us mightn't have uh been quite supportive of. And the example
that you mentioned is one that I was more in favor of than some of the others. Okay, thanks. Thank you for that clarification. Or uh what? Yeah, I I probably did oversimplify the the proposal.
>> Angus. >> Um so I guess I'm wondering if we should I think those those two things seem like that could be a fair amount of work for the housing and zoning subcommittee. Um those two buckets of things. I guess I'm wondering if there is uh if we should prioritize things for to help with the
staff. Um uh Nate, I don't know if the staff has any thoughts on their what they would ideally like to prioritize, but it seems like it's probably incumbent upon us to also help think with y'all about what should be
prioritized in that list. >> All of them? No. Um, you know, it's interesting the um, you know, like the administrative approval uh, for protected uses or for site review uses, I like that just because that could give the board time
to do, you know, have discussions like we're having now. Um, at the same time, if we're looking at changing um, you know, standards or or development, you know, like a tiered approach to apartments and, you know, owner occupancy or
multiple dwellings on a property all kind of work together. And so, you know, kind of looking at that, I think, so you know, um, for Angus and Jara, right? So, two counselors a few years ago said, "Oh, let's change how we permit, you know, single family homes, duplexes,
added triplexes, I don't know if they had a, you know, like a forplex, but then converted dwelling and subdividable dwelling." And they basically took like, you know, almost everything that was a special permit, made it site plan review, made a lot just yeses. And so, you know, it
looked somewhat straightforward. Oh, let's just make these changes these kind of um you know just you know we're not we're not going to change definitions very much. They added just the triplex but you know let's just change how we permit them. But you know it there's
there's a lot to consider and how did it actually work? But it did, you know, the idea was, okay, do we really need to have, you know, why do we have all duplexes by special most duplexes are special permit, right? Or we can't really get a good threeunit project on a residential property because it's
considered an apartment or a zoning bylaw. Maybe it's a townhouse, but again, that special permit in a lot of areas, it's not allowed. And so, you know, I think when I think of like tiered approach to apartments, it'd be like, okay, you know, is there like a three to 10 unit apartment building
that's a site plan review use in areas? So, you know, maybe there's some other limitations on it, but that way, you know, it's not like, oh, I can't do it anywhere except for these few zones and and oh, and if I want to do it in a residential setting, it's a special
permit. Um, so you know, try to get to like a site plan review allowance for that. Yeah, I mean I don't, you know, I don't know if there's any people have ideas. Um, I think 40y is interesting. I think that can be a, you know, conversation you between the housing zoning
subcommittee and staff. Other staff's looking at it. So, you know, some communities would take, you know, if they have large municipal properties, could they just do like an overlay of, you know, if they're not contiguous, right? would say, "Okay, here's a bunch of 40 Y areas." The town doesn't really
have, you know, kind of those holdings, right? It's not like we have, you know, just enough acreage, but I think a 40 Y is an interesting um idea. Anyway, so, you know, those are the ones I had said, right? A few um you know, like four,
eight, six, and you know, nine and 10. So, there's a few there. I don't know if there's others or planning board members have ideas. >> All right. six. >> Not seeing any hands, >> Jarrett. >> Um, well, I just I I'll reiterate my
interest in well, maybe state for the first time. The 40 Y zone uh does sound very interesting. I love Jesse's idea of that kind of being a dual track where we're looking at places for multifamily rentals, but we're also figuring out how
to support starter homes, which is something that I think we're all very passionate about and we hear time and time again is really difficult for people to find in Ammerst. Um, uh, I, uh, I'm curious, Nate, do you do you just
like from a when I'm thinking about these these modifications, right? I'm thinking about them in terms of the the technical revisions that need to be made like to the code or whatever the case may be, but then there's also the, of course,
the political side of it. um what's what's realistic to get passed and all that, but I would I'd like to take the political side apart for a second. And I'm curious from your perspective, do any of the staff items or even any of the housing
subcommittee items have a relatively low lift as far as like the technical changes that would need to be made. I'm trying to think of like what is what is the best like biggest bang for our buck. Um, and so if
there's anything in here that would be like simple politics aside, I'd be curious to hear your your expertise and thoughts on that. >> Um, you know, I don't Yeah, you know, so um,
>> that's not an easy question. >> Yeah. >> Not not necessarily, >> you know. So, for instance, like right now, if we said, "Well, we want more multi-unit buildings and village centers." We could look at the zoning there and say, "Well, we don't really do it great with RVC. Let's just make apartment site plan
review and RVC." That seems like an easy fix, but maybe there's that's not, you know, maybe there's some unintended consequences or impacts there that were, you know, >> maybe the lot sizes aren't really big enough. So what you really So you don't really get you know maybe you actually
don't really maybe it's not even useful because of the way the properties that are there. So I yeah I mean it's I I I kind of you know I know what you're asking. I don't really you know for instance allowing multiple dwellings on a property like I said that could be a really simple language fix
>> right >> we you know >> but >> section 3.01 1 and then does that just change everything because now you know you could do three duplexes on a property as long as you meet the dimensional standards and law coverages. Is that a bad thing? I you know I mean
>> Yeah. >> Right. >> Um so you know I think Fred I was going to say you know Fred said well you know some of these older pro um air uh neighborhoods comply with zoning. I think some of it was the way they were permitted. But say say today to build a
three-unit building like Fred lives in that might be considered an apartment and maybe that wouldn't be allowed but the way it was built as a say converted dwelling or subdividable dwelling it was. Or you have a duplex and you know it's there and you can say oh yeah duplexes are allowed but you know it's a special permit if it's not owner
occupied. And so to get to to say, okay, let's have this kind of variation or this kind of development right now, I don't think we make it easy to have some of these neighborhoods or like those homes on Lincoln are really big and you know, some of them could support a four-unit building or four units in that
building in the structure, but to do that right now, we could say, "Oh, well, they could convert it or they could do something." But if you were to build it fresh and new, we would say, well, that's, you know, that's an apartment building or townhouse and those are special permits or actually in some
zones it's not allowed. So, you know, to me, that's where I'm thinking, okay, well, if we want to have kind of this, you know, kind of different, you know, kind of a spectrum of density in different neighborhoods, how do we approach it? You that's kind of like
this tiered approach to apartments and we could even say town houses. um you know and it's just an exploration right of like what does it mean? So we do have an additional lot area per family um that gets to a certain density
uh you know and but sometimes then we we have all these different residential use classifications and they have different permitting and so sometimes I think like if we think six units an acre is good then let's just say that and I don't care whether it's an apartment or townhouse that's just a site planer view
use but and the way our zoning bylaw works is we categorize them differently have different standards for all those different uses And if we don't, you know, so then it doesn't quite we don't quite get there. Um, so, you know, I'm not, you know, I think
some of these I'll continue looking at. I do like say the limited site review for protected uses. Communities are starting to ask more about that. And like I said, I think it'll free up a lot of planning board time, right? So, if we don't have to spend a public hearing talking about something that's um
allowed by right that we could maybe modify a bit. Um >> I mean your number six there looks like just some text changes >> it does. I think the you know it's interesting in the past uh we defined
that the permit um the ZBA is the special permit granting board that the planning board can be and then we have this permit granting authority which also allows for administrative approval so that you know if it is not if it
doesn't you know trigger a full site plan then staff could could make those changes and previous some other members and different boards and different iterations of you know legislative bodies were like we don't want we're not sure we want to give that administrative ability to staff
and so that's kind of where this stalled making a bigger change but I think it is something to look at so like I mentioned like you know um sometimes even parking so change article 7 so if there's like minor changes to parking right now there's no
administrative approval review there and it just always it will get kicked to a board for public hearing and it can be a really small change and So, I agree. I think that's a really easy technical fix. We can go through and figure out where we want to make those changes. Um, and it could, you know, in the end it
could actually be meaningful because now there's an administrative approval process for a bunch of things where there wasn't before. [Music] >> Uh, Fred's got his hand up. >> Uh, yeah. Um they I
absolutely would agree that and I think this is a comparatively minor change and it's lowhanging fruit and that is um rem removing the conflation of the term
apartment with an apartment that is part of a uh certainly a two and I would think also three maybe four family dwelling. um
you know I I don't think that's an apartment complex and uh the uh uh existing uh bylaw in terms of the uh area the
minimum area table in terms of the uh uh lot area I think sufficiently regulates the overall density. So, I think that is lowhanging fruit and we could go after that fairly easily.
>> All right. So, Nate, if I have a single family home and I build an attached ADU on that, have I turned my single family home into a duplex or is it still a single family home? I mean, I think there's two answers
there. >> I I just feel like, well, you know, okay, we've got single family, we've got duplex, we've got triplex and quads, >> but then what happens with ADUs, you know, it it's like it's not even that simple anymore, >> right?
>> Yeah. No, I think realistically um you know with the protected ADU, you know, you're now allowed, you know, two units on on most residential properties. >> Yeah. >> You know, whether you know, say if it's
a single family home, you could have two units. So, I don't want to say it makes the duplex thing irrelevant, but um you there are some differences, but >> yeah. All right. Um, we're coming up on 8 o'clock when we
usually take a break. Um, Nate, have you gotten what you need from this conversation? Do you think there's a little bit of direction for the housing subcommittee? >> Yeah, I think, you know, I've highlighted it and I think, you know, from the conversation, it's, you know, maybe like a, you know, like a um, you
know, two approaches and investigations and assessments and I think we can go from there. It doesn't you know you know I think we can try to the the housing subcommittee was trying to meet more frequently housing and zoning subcommittee and staff can start looking at some of these as well you know I think would just be you know we can try
to say we'll report back you know at least at every other planning board meeting and try to get some you know we can always send the board you know staff in the zone housing zoning subcommittee can also send the board you know things and we can share them back with staff to make edits. So if for instance, you know, I was going to have, you know,
look at some of this and get together a document and have, you know, we can always share that with you before a meeting. Um, so yeah, I think there's things to keep looking at. >> Right. >> Great. Bruce, >> one last thing, Nate, before you bring
this to the uh subcommittee and then and then any further, um, I would really like this to be written out in proper English. Um, so that it's we know actually what these mean because many of these uh are not even complete
sentences. They're um they're they're they're shorthand for something that you understand. Um, but I think we should you should take the trouble to expand this a little bit so that it's clear to everybody what we're talking about and
also in the conversations we've had tonight try and connect and and and concatenate uh some of these so that we have fewer um items uh uh that are
fewer items. reorganize it so that it it um is a better list uh that we can all understand cuz at the moment it's it's it's a it's it's become too much of a dog's breakfast. I think I
know that we we it's a ninth and so forth, but I'm not going to I'm not going to know what this means next week. So, I implore you to uh put it together in a in a in a in a in a in a more organized uh condensed form. That would
be helpful. >> Thank you, Bruce. >> All right. So, it's uh almost 8 o'clock. Why don't we take a fivem minute break and we can come back and talk about uh North Ammerst and our overlay district that we've been talking about.
>> I have 757. So maybe just uh what's that three three minutes two minutes after 8 come back. Thanks. All right, please turn on your cameras as you return.
All right, looks like we've got everybody but Nate and Fred actually is not visible in the screen. All right, we've got everybody but Brad. >> Pam, you are not muted. >> Okay, thank you.
>> All right, we are back. All right. Next on the agenda was to talk about the overlay that we've been uh thinking about in North Ammerst. Um Bruce and I and Jesse were at the community meeting last week with
District 1 with Kathy Shane and um they it was well attended. There were probably what 40 45 people there. Um, we filled that community room at the new >> I counted 35, I think. >> Is that right? Okay,
>> just a minute. Let me I wrote it down on one of my cards. >> Okay. >> 30 people. >> 30, not counting the four of us. >> Okay. Um,
you know, I I think I don't know how you guys felt. I didn't feel like we got uh a lot of new comments that we wouldn't have anticipated. Um you know, as I I think I I was we had one guy who was was saying that the
traffic up there on Meadow Street is already just absolutely terrible. Um I know Bruce, you've said that you're not quite as convinced of that. So, you know, I not my not my issue to deci
decide, but uh um you know, I think everybody appreciated us coming and having the conversation. Um and Jesse and Bruce, anything you want to add?
>> Uh yes, I'll uh agree. It was um uh it was well moderated. Uh um Kathy cued people so that people weren't constantly trying to get the attention of the facilitator. They would therefore
sit and listen and waiting their turn knowing that they were two or three down the line. Um it was quite an interesting turnout. I mean, we had the two pe two of those 30 were people
from the Black Walnut Inn. Another was uh at least one was one of the property owners on North Pleasant Street. Um there were Jill Breivik was there who I think has been elected uh to the council
along with Kathy now. Um and uh there were uh two owners of Puff two of the at least two of the consortium or the ownership structure of Puffton Village.
Um and probably so there were there were people like that that were there. So this this was not a crowd that were coming there to um disrupt. this was a a crowd that was interested uh and had uh had serious interests uh at stake and
and and they also said things the the one of the two owners uh made three two or three comments. I think it's it's very common for owners and developers to attend these meetings but to say something is u um not always common. And
so it was successful from all of those kind of reasons. I think um Doug's right. There wasn't a lot of new information, but the strength of which some of it was expressed was new. particular it was Pine Street Doug that he was saying that was backed up all the way to the eastern end of um
>> okay >> uh Simple Gifts Farm and and I see that that backup end out of my kitchen window and maybe it's if it happens before I get up at 7:30 in the morning or 8 then maybe but that's the only opportunity
that it would happen where I wouldn't be able to see it. So I think it's I I don't understand that kind of nonsense that some people these days seem to think that they can state without any uh evidential basis for it. It's uh um so I think we have to be careful to not
dignify some of that stuff with uh uh that hasn't been properly researched. It's um it's it's just volcanic outbursts and so forth. There wasn't much of that. That was probably the singular um outrageous example. Um, rest of it was pretty level
and uh and and Kathy Shane and others made the case their point that new housing costs more to rent than existing housing. And we, she and I had both independently done research on this matter and she found that it was quite a
bigger increment than I had found, but we both found the same thing. that somewhere between 30 or more percent of the uh the the new stuff is 30 or 40% more uh in rental rates than so that
that's a concern because the argument is we've already got affordable uh rental housing there uh we're going to lose that if we redevelop uh those 300 plus units in Puffton. So those are the kind of things but it was a it was basically
a um oh the other thing that's worth saying is uh that um people um were very appreciative that in their experience the first time in their memory that uh that this kind of a
um an event had been uh initiated conducted uh so early in a process >> that was that was noted and uh and favorably commented upon. I think that's enough for me. >> All right, Bruce. Um, Jesse,
>> thanks. A few quick takeaways from me. Um, I largely agree. I'll try not to be too redundant. Um, the big takeaways I have are what Bruce finished on, how appreciated it was that we were there having the conversation. So, I think as we approach these other changes, we
should do that as often as makes sense. Um two that maybe not surprisingly there's a lot of misunderstanding of who does what meaning we were there as planning board a lot of the conversation was about infrastructure which we can't really
address directly obviously we need to interface um so somehow I think moving forward and particularly with this north amorest idea I think we even though it's very premature we need to be careful about presenting an idea without having
some of that knowledge or some of that discussion already in hand. The conversations about sewer, fire, police, traffic, all that stuff, which isn't stuff we really deal with, but when we're going to go to this kind of meeting, we either need to say very
clearly upfront, we're not going to talk about these things because it's not our purview, or we need to say, you know, yes, we've had some limited conversations just to help things along. Um, I agree there was not too much new that we weren't expecting. There was
limited there was not a lot of heated anger. A little tiny little bit here and there. Uh, but I thought it was quite productive honestly. Um, but my main takeaway for us moving forward with this idea, I still think it is probably the lowest hanging fruit and
could have the biggest impact. But I do think it might be time to think through some of the infrastructure issues and whether this is realistic at all to accomplish. Um, and that's I think we really need direction from staff about that. Uh, and I am thinking
about traffic. I I know it's an issue. I don't know how much of an issue. Bruce, you know more than I do. But if we are adding x hundreds of individuals with that many cars potentially, I think we need to have that well very
well considered. And I know we've we've played with a few ideas about new roads and new traffic patterns, whatever. But I think that might need to take more a more important presence in anything that moves forward with this area. Uh
because I think without that there's I see very little chance it would get very far outside of this crowd right here. I have some ideas but we could talk later. But yeah, those big takeaways from the meeting. I thought it was a great idea and we should keep doing things like that.
>> Okay, great. Thanks Jesse. Um I see Fred and then Jara. But before we go there, Nate, um the question about DPW and traffic and infrastructure
is that you know should we ask I don't know Guilford or uh you know some the should we have should we meet with the what what is it the transportation advisory board or you know how do we
what would be appropriate for us to do as opposed to doing nothing and just starting at the meetings and saying we're not going to talk about that. >> Uh Doug, can I get in be on this because this is exactly what I was going to discuss.
>> Okay. All right. >> Yeah. Um Nate, uh the uh the mention of Meadow Street that um rang a bell with me because
as I think a lot of you know, I retired as the uh division director, the electrical division director uh in the department of public works. And one of the things
that I did was for example program intersection light you know traffic lights at intersections. And one of the things that I know this is the
potential design was put together be just before I left and retired from that position. But um a very welldeveloped redesign of the Meadow Street, Pine Street, North Pleasant Street
intersection that the and the traffic lights that that are there. Uh I have seen that redesign. it it it the the a lot of engineering has has has
been done and I sort of thought when I left which was I think 2001 that uh sometime in the not tooistant future that that intersection was going to be rebuilt and obviously it has not
been and so Doug you're you're spot on. Uh, I think we need a discussion with with Guilford about because if you if if you rebuild that intersection, you're going to solve a lot of the traffic problems.
>> All right. Thank you, Fred. Jared, why don't you go ahead and then we'll let Nate have a word. >> Um, okay. I'll just say one thing quickly. um uh because you all have already answered my questions that I had for um
the event for the most part. But um I appreciate the concern about losing the 300 existing naturally occurring affordable rental properties, but I do want to remind uh or state for the record that presuming
there's significant density increase, those buildings would also be covered by inclusionary zoning requirements and we could very easily make up the difference in theory. But I'll I'll stop there. >> All right. And uh Jesse, I see you.
>> Yeah, sorry. Just clarify last comment in response to that. >> Yeah, sorry. Just clarifying from the meeting. There was I meant to say this. There's clearly a lot of confusion about using that word affordable housing also. Right. The main sentiment was not actually about affordable units. It was
that these rentals are lower than other rentals. >> So, it's it's very different. And and again, whenever we talk outside, we need to be very clear about what we're talking about. That's all. Thank >> Okay. All right, Nate.
>> Yeah, you know, when we, you know, I think it's difficult to um reach out to, you know, say police, fire, public works and say, "We have this idea, you know, can we do a full analysis of the, you know, infrastructure." Um, but I, you know, I did reach out to them. you know, police
had said, you know, this is a while ago when we first talked about this. Police said, "Yeah, I think you want to make sure that it's, you know, you want to have site design in a way that you could discourage large gatherings, right?" Um, but they didn't say no. They were just, you know, just like a simple two-line
email saying, you know, it could probably be managed. You know, Guilford said water and sewer, you know, said water is fine. sewer. The main on North Pleasant Street isn't big enough, but that there's capacity in the system, but for a distance, you'd have to, you know, create a new, you know, upgrade some of
the sewer infrastructure. You know, it's a cost, but not a barrier. And so, you know, or, you know, doesn't preclude development. So, you know, the answers were sure, yes, that's that's all it can all be done. Um, you know, traffic's been acknowledged. You know, I think the idea was to try to create more
multimodal options with another bike path or multi-use path and, you know, manage traffic that way. And so, you know, I think if we, you know, sounds like we'd want to continue moving this forward, I think some of it then becomes do we like the idea of what we
have for density or is it something different? you know what are we kind of what is the purpose and target and then how do we you know how could we manage some of these potential impacts or some of these ideas so we do have to you know I think traffic is really important um
you know I don't think that it's realistic to say we'll get a new entrance onto 116 easily maybe it would come but not you know I think if this were in place a development would occur before that so you know is it limiting parking is it doing something else um
but yeah Nothing was, you know, nothing was saying like, you know, it wasn't like we don't have enough water or, you know, we can't handle it with our wastewater treatment. It was all like it can be managed. And so, you know, it's, you know, if this becomes a little bit, you know, if this keeps moving forward
and we get more refined, you know, I'd go back to all those different, you know, interests. I think, you know, our fire department is pretty well equipped. So, you know, we're not proposing, you know, high-rise buildings or things that wouldn't work. And so we'd still have, you know, they still have to meet, you know, fire, you know, what the fire
department would want. And so I don't think we've envisioned a density that would make it difficult for, you know, emergency services. Um, you know, I could be wrong, but maybe, you know, that's something we could, you know, they have to meet anyways, but we could
write it in into, you know, some provisions if we move this forward. Nate, one question I had about sewer in particular was if a developer shows up and says, "Hey, your zoning would allow me to build 5,000 beds and your sewer
line doesn't isn't big enough." Is it something that the town would build or would this developer be required to upgrade the town sewer or does it is that just a negotiation on a project by project basis?
Yeah, to me it's more of a negotiation. I don't think we can require a developer um to to do it, but I think you know it it becomes a a discussion and negotiation. >> Okay. All right. Uh Angus and then Bruce and
Jesse. >> Yeah. I just have three quick questions. Um one is um maybe a clarification um or asking for clarification. I've I've heard a lot of people in town say that
they are concerned about sewer and water. Um and and but um some of those people have also called for more housing on UMass's property. Um and I'm just trying to
understand does UMass pay the town of Ammeris for um water and sewage? >> Yeah. So it's the it's the same infrastructure. So, you know, >> right, >> if you know, they use the town water supplies and they use the town
wastewater system. So, you know, >> they and they they pay they pay, you know, they're they're a user, right? But, okay. >> So, for instance, if there really was a concern like, well, we're going to drain our reservoirs, it doesn't matter if there's housing off campus or on campus, it uses the same drinking water supply.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um and then the the second question I had was about parking for the university drive overlay. We have different parking requirements, right? So we we could feasibly I mean like I was looking at um you know like
the Puffton Village currently has tons of parking. Um, I mean, clearly every unit could have multiple parking uh spaces, but the building that just got approved um in the in University Drive did was not was I think what one parking
space per unit. Um, and and a lot of the units were two or threebedroom. So, um, so no, I just wanted to flag I think there's there's ways to actually we would be increasing the density but trying to perhaps even reduce the parking. Um, and that's the whole point
of that location because it's within easy walking distance of UMass. Um, so anyway, I just wanted to flag that. And then I had one other thing. Oh gosh. That I was going to ask about. Oh, about the event. The the um people related to some of the ownership of these
apartments, current apartments, uh, came. Did they say anything at the event? >> Yes, they did. >> What? Uh, >> if you'all remember. >> No, I do. I Okay, I can I talk? I >> They didn't They didn't identify
themselves as the owners of, you know, Puffton or Brandy Wine or whatever. So, I don't know which ones were which ones. Go ahead, Jessie. >> So, I know who was who, or at least I don't know everybody who was who, but Barbara Puffer was there. She didn't say
anything. uh one of the other um ownership owners did. Uh I think that was the person who was uh for example asking about uh or questioning the wisdom of distributing uh
uh um the affordable inclusionary zoning units in in and around and we had a bit of a conversation about that. um uh he felt that uh had what I would characterize as the as a somewhat
old-fashioned view that uh it's proper and and so forth not to ghettoize that was my word not anybody else's. Um, uh, we didn't typically argue or respond, which is why I let
that outrageous comment about traffic back up in Pine Street float because Doug was very clear at the beginning that this was a listening session. So, we we answered questions, particularly questions of clarification where people didn't understand something that we were
saying. We wanted to have we wanted to make sure people understood. So clearly we were answering those kind of questions but we weren't speaking to the things like the sewer capabilities and the traffics and so forth. Um but I could have I mean uh the the the
the sewer line for example that runs in out in that direction is uh a candidate to receive flows from uh a sewer extension into lever to support the kitridge property which would be of similar scale potentially or comparable
anyway. Um so there are uh various forces that are going to be driving the increase or the loading on the infrastructure. And if we are publicly talking about a deficit of um
is it 900 homes or 900 dwelling units in town? Um uh clearly we are committed to trying to uh or is it 9,000? No, it's not 9,000. it must be 900. Um, we're already talking
about u expanding the housing uh capacity or the housing availability in town. So the the this these these the traffic, the water, the sewer has to um has to keep up. I mean that's
so I agree with Doug's statement of earlier that we said that that's not really our concern so much. It's not our primary concern. Um, so I I I think that we we should be mindful of this and there probably are
places in town where it would be easier to build housing from a sewer and services point of view than others. Maybe we should know where those areas are. Even if we don't follow that knowledge because there are too many other contrary reasons why we wouldn't
do it where it's easy to add to the sewer. Um, Fred, I was interested in your comments about the North Amist intersection and the lights because I've been watching that happen. I'm also um interested in your statement that you
said that if we rebuild that intersection, we will solve a lot of traffic problems. When you say rebuild, uh, do you mean a different traffic light system or are you talking about the roundabout type of rebuilding, some
reconfiguring of the actual traffic flow? >> Um, this is this is 20 years ago. Uh, 25 almost 25 years ago. Um, and I
I kind of want to take another look at it, but um >> Oh, okay. Actually, let me inter interrupt you because those traffic lights were reconfigured about three years ago. So, I I thought you were part of that, but you're clearly talking about something else. No, the what I was
talking about involved a substantial yes, it involved uh re working the traffic lights, but it was in that the context involved
uh reconstructing that intersection and in significant ways and the details escape me at this point, but I I have seen the engineered plan and it's it it's
very significant and um there's only so much you can do with the traffic signals themselves and uh there was there was a fair amount of asphalt involved and as well as the uh reconfigured traffic
lights. >> Uh I'm I'm sure that Guilford would have a quick answer to that. >> I think he would. That's the problem. Um the there is a discussion that's been going for a couple of years now or more about uh configuring a roundabout in
that town in that intersection. And I think if we were to have resistance to an overlay in North Ammerst, we would find that the resistance to a roundabout would be tfold greater than what we might encounter if we were trying to propose an overlay resoning.
as as best I recall uh I I may regret this statement, but I don't think it was a roundabout. I'm aware of that concern, Bruce. >> Good. >> Um there was
Well, >> I think I I think I will um I'll I'll contact Guilford. I think he'll talk to me. Okay. Um, Angus, you were
you were you were asking two or three. You had two or three comments. >> Did you have anything else to say? I think Bruce was initially was responding to you. >> Yeah. Just asking about the Puff and um if any you know what people who own any
of the apartment complexes if we learned anything new from them. No, we didn't learn. Uh, oh, Jesse's got a comment, so maybe I'll let I'll defer to Jesse. >> So, Bruce and Doug, correct me if I'm wrong, I think the dark gentleman was
also got really fixated on the cost of doing such a thing of the redevelopment. And I think I learned after the fact that he was involved. He was a manager or part owner or something at Puffton also. But he many times came back to this idea that it just didn't seem worth
it to him. >> Yeah, I think it had to do with the con, you know, interrupting >> stopping the current income and so but that's an N of one, but as is the response to your question, Angus. >> I wonder if that was Steve Walzik. I
I've talked to Steve many times. Um, but I've never actually met him. like he he's been he's made on two or three occasions $5,000 contributions to the North Amus community farm and I always tried to handdel my thank you note but he was always out but if that was Steve
I should find out um we should bear in mind that Steve has got a a a terrific practical understanding of how to manage the property that's there at the moment
uh and his senses as as reported uh that it's uh um it's at its capacity. So u so the the the the management structure and mechanisms and resources and so forth that Steve brings to bear on managing
Puffton village are adequate for Puffton but would not be adequate for a two or three-fold increase in density and and I've been quite prepared to hear from the Puffton management uh repeatedly the truth that but I think we should
recognize that if you u you know if you build a a Ferrari Uh that's probably let's just say a some higherend vehicle uh that can go faster. you need to have the brakes designed to manage the uh capacity of
the new uh improved uh device. And so I think is uh the analogy would be for if we were to increase the scale and density of something we would expect that we would uh have a a comp a capable
and commensurate management plan and I don't think the limitations of the pre of the current situation necessarily um u speak to what's possible in a biggerized situation. But I certainly think we would need to learn
from what this uh gentleman what this uh development has to uh teach us. >> Right. Thanks Bruce. Jesse, you still have your hand up. >> On a on a related note to what Bruce just said and Angus something you asked before also or or brought up. I did
bring up the idea of limiting parking spaces to try and mitigate a little bit and it was the one moment where I felt like I was almost booed out of the room because the response was don't be ridiculous. Every student has a car and like whatever it's opinions. Uh I will
agree something else someone said there that I witnessed and had the same thoughts with the new construction in town that does not have parking. seems like the response by the town was to allow more permit parking or at least not pay attention to where all kinds of parking happens in my neighborhood currently. So, I do think there needs to
be attention to it. Uh side note, I'm also surprised the town doesn't want to make a lot more money by ticketing more aggressively, but that's a different topic altogether. >> Okay, Nate. >> So, it sounds like you know the North Amoris idea can move forward. You know,
I do think, you know, Jerry, you had brought up kind of what's, you know, politically feasible. You know, as an overlay with housing, it might only need a majority vote of council. I think, you know, but we can be aware of that. Um, you know, as this keep, you know, if we keep discussing it, um, you know, like I
said before, it's an opportunity. You know, we've talked to other property owners and they kind of said the same thing about, you know, their multi-unit property owners that they're comfortable where they are and they don't it's a it's a big hurdle to, you know, have this if to do a redevelopment in terms of financing and
loss of income. And so that's where, you know, we had three times the density. That's when we did the comprehensive housing market study. the consultant said for someone to undertake this you have to offer a lot more to make it worth you know that loss of income or the the kind of complexity of doing the project. So but you know I mean it's not
a magic number or ratio. It could be different. Um and maybe an outside developer that partners with the owner doesn't necessarily need to get that achieve that three times the density because what the overlay could offer would be worthwhile anyways. Um you know whatever the number is. So, you know, it
it was just an idea of, okay, what, you know, when we first mapped this out, I said, okay, well, it's like, you know, a dozen north squares could fit in the overlay and that is rough whatever it was, like that's three times the density given, you know, the building footprint and size of North Square. And it worked
just, you know, kind of really generically. And so, it seemed like, okay, this could be a place to have this density. I think all the considerations that you know were discussed probably last week and we've talked about in terms of traffic or site design and you know just kind of the livability of it
you know what hadn't you know hasn't been considered. So, um, you know, Bruce did some kind of concept designs for a site, but that's not to say a developer would want to do the same thing. And so, he had, you know, I think his had, you know, nice space between buildings and parking and, you know, I I think if we
want to keep continue moving this forward, I think we would say, okay, well, what what are the guidelines we'd want to have in place for this overlay? Um, you know, and does it, you know, do we limit parking? Do we, you know, what, you know, we've kind of talked about
what is the purpose? what kind of housing type do we want in terms of use classification and you know what what what are we really trying to emphasize here? Um you know and I do think I think I think in the map the planning board identified other areas that could have a
similar overlay like Olympia Drive the first the idea you know a number of decades ago was that could be where Greek life was located and it could have higher density and there's been a few you know private developments there. the university owns some land and maybe there's a way to get the zoning change
to allow it there too and maybe somewhere somewhere else right we've talked about north of fearing or revisiting areas to say okay here are some areas where we'd have different kinds of density than say in other village centers I don't think any I think any idea that the board has or you
know changes are you know it'll be a long conversation I don't you know I think people might I like the idea in theory and it makes sense but I think then getting it right and getting it approved is something different. So, um, you know, I still think this North
Ammerst area, you know, is a good area. I think there's staff and others and, you know, council members and probably a lot of the public are like, "Wow, that I they have a lot of questions about it." And so I'm not sure, you know, I'd like to try to talk about next steps and say, okay, do we just continue working on putting, you know, the framework
together and trying to really scope out what it means, like what what, you know, what is the right density and what are some of the parameters and guidelines of this overlay? Uh I mean I guess I can say from what I
heard last week I don't see that we need to substantially change course. Um we need to be thoughtful and in you know as as inclusive as we can be and
and then uh you know put it put it forward. I mean, take a shot at this area and then move on to some other areas if it regardless of whether it flies or not. Uh, Bruce or rather Jesse and then Bruce.
>> Thanks. Yeah, I I agree with Doug. No reason not to progress uh and try and move it to council if that's where we go next. I do think unlike University Drive, we we might want to craft a narrative addressing some of these other
concerns. which we didn't really do for the other one because I think it was very different people and issues around university drive and I'm of course happy to work on that. Um I also I meant to say earlier that's a little bit I mean maybe just because you weren't there at
the meeting Nate because you could have commented on the infrastructure piece that yeah you were told it would be fine. So any we should include stuff like that as much as we can. All right, Bruce. >> Um,
I think uh I'm I'm I had some comments prepared for this discussion. They may be better uh directed or developed in the uh in our subcommittee. I'm not sure. But for example, I think uh I would like us to look uh a little closer
at the uh how the um the overlay [Music] demarcation line runs through the properties of the houses on uh the big houses on North uh Pleasant Street. Um I
I I just I just want to make sure that we've thought about that and and how they affect those houses and what we think is going to happen or could happen and so forth. So I think there's a there's a little bit of um scenario thinking uh uh related to that
particular edge otherwise I think the the the the uh the divi the delineation is is is good. Um I also think that we should think about um require figure how we can uh how and
whether we should or could require the affordable housing uh fraction under article 15 to be um uh to to have street addresses or something like that. in other words to drive that particular
fraction of the housing quite differently from the rest which we assume will be predominantly students and so forth. So I I think it would be appropriate for us to think about generally two different types of uh um
resident residential clientele in in in this uh space. Uh I've got a few thoughts on that which I won't add right now, but I think that that those two topics would be uh appropriate and I
think uh um I think the the the uh that we should give some more thought to the traffic and and this multi-use path. Um I for example wonder whether it's a good idea to
um make it not a multi-use path but a a dual use path. I mean dual carriageway path, one for cyclists and one for pedestrians and to separate them in some agreeable way. um and uh and think about
how that how we can encourage that to um perhaps take the route that uh a large fraction of the people in that meeting on last Wednesday felt that well we've already tried that and there's wetlands there and you can't do it and uh so I
think we've known that but I don't think that we just because somebody tried it once before under circumstances that we don't know anything much about um whether what may have been concluded uh
x number of years ago is still um will drive the bus today. So those are some of the things that I think that we can refine the um the general framework document. Um uh we can add to Nate's general framework document. I think
expand some of the items and add a couple more related to those topics and one or two others that I have in mind. >> Well, should we refer this to the housing and zoning subcommittee to you know I mean the the Nate's June 18th
uh draft was in the packet and I assume that's the basis for what we would do next. Um I mean at the moment it feels you know I don't know it's quarter of nine. I'm not sure we're going to get too far into the details tonight. I mean, it
seems like the main outcome of this evening's conversation is that yeah, we want to keep moving forward and we can do that either in the subcommittee or we could do it at one of our meetings uh sometime in the future.
>> Okay. >> Um am I am I right? The June 18th draft is pretty much the most recent articulation of what this might be. Yeah, there was a framework document that's more recent and then there was actual, you know, text of what, you know, trying to get
out to be, you know, language of the zoning amendment and that hasn't been updated in a while. >> Kind of step back >> and kind of did the framework document. So, >> um, yep. >> All right. Oh, yeah. >> No, I agree. I I mean, I think even for the zoning priorities list, you know, it
was nice to have a conversation and, you know, now we can work on some of those and bring things back to the board and and the subcommittee. Um yeah and I you know I don't want to you know I think for North Amoris I like the idea of yeah let you know could we set a time frame
and say you know so many months from now we you know and work you know we want to have a draft bylaw and we work backwards and really try to keep momentum um you know and if it doesn't work then we right we have other ideas. I just you know we spent a long time on university
drive. I'm glad it worked out. I you know maybe we try to keep the pace you know >> good pace on this one. >> Okay. Uh Jesse. >> Yeah. Just quickly um just a general
comment for all of us to think about because something that came up repeatedly at the meeting also was about was expressed as this idea that we're gonna change. We're gonna put in the overlay and it's all going to happen overnight. And I think whenever possible in our conversations, we need to make it really
clear we're just allowing the possibility. And now we can even point to university drive and say, "Yeah, look, nothing's really happened yet." But anyway, it was it just surprised me and it was a lesson for myself to like add that into the communication,
including wherever this goes next. >> Yep. >> Um and >> just allowing more possibilities. >> Yeah, that's all. Thanks. >> All right. Um, so maybe that's that's good enough for
the housing discussion this evening. Uh, if unless anybody objects, we'll go on to the rest of our agenda. Time now is 8:46. Um, Pam, any uh old business or or Nate,
not reasonably anticipated? >> I say no. Nate. >> Uh, not yet. I agree. I don't have any. >> All right. What about new business? >> Not for tonight. >> Not for tonight. Okay. Form a ANR
subdivision applications. Excuse me. >> No, >> there uh upcoming there is the um I think it's the third time around where is the preliminary subdivision for a shoot road where the solar project had been proposed. And so it's the same
preliminary subdivision plan the board has seen twice before is uh it is expired. So the owner has resubmitted that and that'll be heard uh in December. >> Okay. All right. Um
ZBA applications anything we should be we might be interested in? Uh, no. I mean like that solar project if they they know if they if they submit that can come back you know the planning board had looked at it and so you could you could look at it again but I think that's um a ways away.
>> Okay. All right. Uh SPR SUV applications >> on the horizon. >> There's you know there's one or two that you know there's one scheduled for a hearing in early December as well. Um it's it's I think you know >> and there's and then there's uh a few
projects going through the conservation commission that if they get through would be um you know a site planer view with the board. So down in East Ammerst, Amir Mikchi, you know, there's the new building 133 143 South East Street is behind the bank building. Uh the
property owner owns across the street and is going through conservation commission now to build you know a mixeduse building with you know some parking there. Um it would be a new new three to four story building and if it you know depending on the conservation commission review then they'd follow it
up with a site plan review to the planning board. So that you know that'll be a bigger project that may come forward in the next month or two. >> All right. All right. We're up to uh committee and liaison reports. Uh Bruce, anything for
PVPC? >> No, nothing. Thank you. >> Uh Jesse, anything on housing subcommittee? >> No, we could not meet last week largely because of my jury duty. Um, I did want to ask the members and Nate if we could stay on for five minutes after this to
try and reschedule the next one quickly uh just while we're all here. >> All right, Angus CPAC. >> Yes, we have our first meeting tomorrow. Very exciting. Um, I so I I uh I don't
really know how this normally works. Um we have gotten the 16 applications um for CPA funding. Um and uh we asked a bunch of questions
um as a committee of all the applicants. Um we just got back their um responses today. So my job tomorrow tonight and tomorrow will be reading their answers to our questions. Um there's a lot of really exciting things. Um I can tell
you all 16 if that's if that would help. Um or I can not. Um it kind of depends on what you all would like. Um there I do have a question for the group. Um and I think I'll have more questions once
we've actually had our first meeting and started to kind of think about priorities. Um, but what would the group prefer? >> Bruce, your hand went up first. >> Um, curious Angus. Uh, of the 16, how
many of them, uh, is the applicant essentially an instrument of the town. Um, and I'd include the library in that as opposed to, shall we say, um, unaffiliated local nonprofits who, uh,
would like to, uh, get some funds to do some local initiative that they feel pleased and uh, what's the what's the fraction? Uh, can you do you have that in your head? Uh I don't have the exact number but the I would say the vast
majority of them are town uh come from the town and different guises um or from things like the housing trust which is >> I say that >> um on part of the review I think at least 10 of them are from the town.
>> Yeah. And I think the majority of the funding that's being requested, the vast majority because of the the town hall and Jones Library, big chunks of money. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I um there's a a group of staff
that helps with a CPA and I'm one of them. And so, yeah, this is actually, you know, this year there's over $6 million in requests and 16 proposals. So, it's pretty it's it's really competitive. you know, typically there's a $1.5 million available, give or take a
bit, and then there's debt service. So, uh, this is probably, you know, one of the first years where the CPA committee, you know, really has to make some decisions about what what to fund. Um, because it really is, you know, they, you know, there's the there's borrowing ability, but really, are we going to borrow? Would the CPA committee
recommend borrowing $5 million or, you know, there might be some projects that aren't funded? And so, this is usually the CPA committee tries to fund and honor a lot of the requests. I think this year is a difficult one in terms of, you know, some might not be recommended at all to council. So, you
know, the CPA committee's role is to recommend to determine products are eligible and then make recommendations to town council for for a vote uh and then it moves forward that way. So, yeah, Angus, if you have questions of staff, you could ask me or you know, Leah. Uh, and then if the planning board wants to hear more, uh, the CPA
committee web page is usually updated. It isn't yet, but usually all the proposals and meeting packets will get up there. So, if the board is interested, you could find them on the CPA committee web page. >> All right. Great. >> One question that I do have for the board that that might help me kind of
think about what we think are priorities. There are two different um requests for funding um that have to do with affordable housing. Um one is for uh a specific property on Amity Street.
um I think just down the street from from Joan the Jones library. Um it's a house that's currently I think it it maybe is three units, two or three units. And there's a plan to basically turn that house into three units and then build an ADU um of some kind or
another dwelling next to it that would also house several units. They'd all be affordable. Um, and it's kind of time-sensitive because the seller is wanting to sell at substantially below market rates um to the um
uh the Emirates Community Land Trust. So, that's that's one project. The other project is from the affordable housing trust and it's kind of um a big chunk of money that they're
they're putting towards kind of you know development equity to housing ecosystem innovation um and then kind of a rapid response fund. Um so I guess one question is you know is it is a targeted investment that will yield several units you know a better use of and and they're
pretty comparable in in their requests. Is that a better use of funds than something that would just be kind of putting money into the affordable uh housing trust that they could use for a variety of purposes? So, I' I'd love to hear if anyone has any thoughts on on that.
>> Anyone? Bruce then? I I'm just going to say I'm not going to comment because I'm associated with the uh the 174 AMD project. So, just for the record, uh I I won't be uh saying anything about that
in this uh >> forum, no matter what we're doing. >> Okay, Jared. >> Um I love affordable housing trusts. I love how flexible their financing
options can be. Um, all that being said, uh, if there's a project in the pipeline, then take the bird in the hand, not the two in the bush. >> Yeah. >> All right. I don't see any other hands. Angus, you're going to have to figure it
out on your own. >> Okay. Um, I think the only other thing that I would that I would just um ask the group is that um
the Jones request is pretty substantial. It's for $1.3 million. The town's roof request is for a million dollars. Um, so I think the the other question that I might have for the group is
thinking about those two, and Nate, correct me if I'm wrong, those are the two biggest requests, correct? Um, thinking about those two, which would either one would kind of eat up almost all of the funds available. Does the planning board have any kind of
thoughts on priorities? >> I mean, neither of those feel like planning types of projects, you know, to some I mean to so to some degree I feel like you're just asking our personal opinion
because we're all together. >> Well, as the representative of the planning board, I kind of it's helpful to hear that like the planning board doesn't think that any of these things are that that those two things are relevant to our our purview. That's a helpful thing that I can, you know, transmit to the that's my opinion. I
don't know. I I did see a hand for a moment that came up and then dropped. So, >> it's too personal. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think Angus it's a good question to ask. I mean, even over the CPA committee, too, because I know there's a
request for the pool building at War Memorial and then pickle ball courts and, you know, there's just a lot of big requests. And so, um, you know, usually the CPA committee asks if there's other funding, you know, is it leveraging other funding, >> right?
>> All those things. Um, yeah, I don't I think they're I think it's a it's a difficult thing. Um, I think most of the projects are eligible. You know, they fall into one of the categories of CPA. you know, it's historic preservation, recreation, open space, or community housing. You know, is it the highest
priority for this year or could it be, you know, funded in phases? You know, those are all interesting questions. >> Yeah, that's all that I've got. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Angus.
Um Nate, any word on DRB? >> Yeah, Karen and I have been emailing. She, you know, she said if someone wanted to take over, she wouldn't be opposed. At one point, she said she likes doing it, but I think, you know, sometimes she said they've only been looking at a lot of signs and so, you
know, Vera Cruzana is moving its location downtown and they looked at a sign there and they looked at another sign for a restaurant. Um, and that that was it. So there hasn't been any, you know, they haven't looked at anything beyond really just kind of, you know, like you said, mostly signs and a little
changes to facade treatments, but not nothing substantial. So >> Okay. All right. Well, I haven't seen or heard of anyone on the board who is eager to to take her place.
>> Once we solve all the housing problems, I will. >> Oh, good. Good. So that'll be sometime next year, Jesse. >> Well, Bruce mentioned the the Kitridge estate housing project. That that's that'll solve all the problems,
>> right? Oh, and that'll be an easy sell in in Leverit. Um, so I think we're done with those committee and liaison reports. It's 8:59. Uh, report of chair. Uh I have one thing
I was going to just say to you guys and that is I wanted to recommend to you a an article on uh housing development in Ammerst that w that appeared in the Ammerst Current yesterday.
Um, it's written by someone named Evan Naymith and uh uh frequently there are articles in both the current and the and the Ammerst Indie and this this would seem like a
particularly good one. So you might want to check that out >> and comments sometimes. >> Yeah. Uh is that the one about uh re possibly going back for another look
at formbbased uh development? >> No, not not really. It's not really focused on form-based. It's it's really more just about um housing and how it
it Well, I'll stop there. >> All right. There is a I I haven't appeared yesterday really look at it but there's another article >> about looking at
>> uh and possibly the article advocates going taking a serious look at form based development and >> okay and that was in the current or the >> well it it was in some amorest uh widely
circulated my wife told me she had seen it. So, I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I just wanted to put that out there. I thought maybe this was it, but I guess it's something else. But that that's also out there in a very recent past.
>> Okay. All right. That's all I had uh for report of chair, report of staff. Nate. >> Yeah, I have a few things. You know, um if you haven't heard, the town manager appointed a new planning and economic development director. So Jeff Bag, he
had worked for the town. He left in 2016. He'll be coming back in December. So he'll be the new director. Um you know that you know there could be some changes there in terms of you know what's happening with the board and you know other directions. So um we can just
wait and stay tuned. Um, a few other things, form-based code, you know, Burlington, Vermont, uh, is looking at actually doing they it's going for vote, uh, in their in Burlington, Vermont, a pretty comprehensive reszone using formbbased code. Uh, so that's there's a
pretty thick PDF that you can find online, but it's it's really nice. um you know the downtown design standards I don't want to say it's form based code but the working group's been meeting more frequently and I think the idea is that there'll be um draft design standards
um available you know for review later this month and the the hope would be that then the consultants will come to the planning board and other boards and committees and seek input you know in the next three to four months and so you know I think we'll work with the board it'll be at one of the regular meetings
but there'll you know, there's a there it's a pretty big document. There's a few kind of different documents, but um we'd want to give the planning board enough time to look at it and make comments. And so, um you know, right now it's considered design standards.
It gets into zoning as well. And so, um you know, when it come when it's available, you know, feel free to provide, you know, as many comments as you'd like to the consultants and staff. And so, you know, we'll we'll try to get that you know, have it, you know, I think the idea is to try to get to the the board to look at it twice. Um, you
know, one one once and then if there's, you know, a new iteration um and refinements to look at it again. So, I think that could happen in the next four months. Um, oh, the other one is uh hasn't happened yet, but similar to ADUs, you know, the
state has come up with new regulations regarding, you know, clean energy sighting, so and battery energy storage. And so next um in March of 26 there'll be regulations and then it'll be effective next spring in terms of how
communities can permit um you know certain clean energy. So solar, wind and hydro um probably solar is most appropriate or relevant to Ammerst. Um the difference you know the one big one will be that um all permits
from land use permits to building permit and electrical permits all have to be wetlands have to be issued within a 12-month period. And so there's a lot of upfront work that an applicant will need to do and you know we'll have to establish new zoning and other regulations. So, there was a a solar
bylaw working its way through CRC and staff. And so, the director of sustainability for the town is working with CRC on that. Um, you know, at some point it'll get to the planning board. It'll, you know, it'll probably be a little bit, but you know, that'll be something that'll be a a zoning
amendment that'll be um coming forward in the spring that the board will need to look at. And so, uh, it there's a lot happening at the state with that. I think locally um there's a there's still a lot of questions about what that means. The
size of the array is really small for solar in terms of kilowatt out what it what it produces. So, you know, almost any array now would have to come under this review and kind of I don't want to say expedited permitting. Um, but anyways,
you know, as as it becomes, you know, as there's more workshops and more information I'll share with the planning board, I think I'm kind of waiting for it to, you know, this it's still in the comment period. So, I know local officials, I think maybe the board may have received a comment through the
online form about it. Um, and so, you know, I'd say give it a month or two and then we could talk about it again. Hopefully there's some, you know, some new, you know, iterations from the state level. So, >> all right. >> But that'll be something we we'll have to pick up in the spring.
>> It it from staff. >> That's it. >> All right. Brad, you had your hand up. Is it was that a legacy? >> Uh, well, yeah. Um, I was thinking that it
might apply. It might the It might influence, I'll put it that way, uh what's going on on Shootsbury Road. It it won't literally because the way they're handling it, the zoning
is frozen on it. But um it it nevertheless, I suspect, will um have some influence uh even if it doesn't directly affect it. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh, Angus.
>> So, Nate, will you still be joining us in December or will you have your Wednesday nights? >> No, I I think the idea is that I'd still be the staff leazison to the planning board. So, >> Got it. >> Yeah. Yeah. The director may come once in a while, may come with, you know, different ideas and proposals. So, um, I
think the idea is that they would not be, you know, a direct leaison to the board, but as needed. >> All right. I see no more hands. The time is 9:06. I guess we are adjourned. Our next
meeting is November 19th, right? And so on the 19th, it's, you know, three zoning amendment hearings, right? The two citizen petitions and then the neighborhood business map change. And so, you know, we might have, you know, housing discussion if we get to it. But, you know, as public
hearings, there might be a lot of comments for the zoning petitions. And you know, I think we can just allow that evening to unfold and um you know, I don't I don't know how, you know, how how much of a discussion there'll be on each amendment, but it could be a fair amount. >> So, we'll just open those three hearings
and continue them most likely. >> The I think the hope would be that the BN could be wrapped up and referred back if it's if if the board thinks it's as straightforward as, you know, it seems. maybe the citizen petitions, you know, there's a few different, you know,
there's many different options, but if we think that those, you know, they can be continued or wrapped up or recommended, but yeah, I I think um it really depends on how the board, you know, what you think at the hearings, but >> okay, >> we're not putting anything else on the agenda that evening, I just because
there could be, you know, two or three hours of discussion. >> Yeah. All right, Bruce >> Nate, on those citizen petitions, um, do I imagine or understand correctly
therefore that the citizen who's presenting who's drafted this would be presenting and arguing and answering the questions much like Pat and Mandy Joe did uh, some years ago. Is >> that the proponent? Yeah, let the
proponent know. They can make a presentation and also bring, you know, additional persons if they want. So, it could be a team approach where, you know, they have, you know, there's two or three people here to present those citizen petitions and help answer questions. >> Okay.
>> All right. And then Jesse, I know, wanted to convene with the subcommittee state, please >> schedule your next event. >> Yes. Thank you. >> So, okay. So, time is 9:08. I am uh going to say that
we as a planning board are adjourned. So our meeting is ending and I'm going to sign off and uh Pam you and I are both hosts. >> I'm I will stay here. What I'm going to
do is I'm going to stop the recording. >> Sure. Yeah. It'll be quick. So >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Good night everyone. I'll see two weeks everyone. So we are scheduled to meet