Okay, Mr. Marshall, you have a quorum of the board. We have Mr. Mallaloy in the house with us tonight. The attendees are coming on in and Ammeris Media has joined us. you are a co-host of this meeting. My phone says it's 6:36. I
think we're good to go. >> All right. Thank you, Pam. >> You're welcome. >> Welcome to the Ammeris Planning Board meeting of November 19th, 2025. My name is Doug Marshall, and as chair of the Amoris Planning Board, I am calling this
meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available livereamed 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's website's calendar listing
for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is listed at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can access the
meeting in real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic hardship or despite 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 am here. Fred Hartwell.
Oops. I am here. >> Okay. Thank you, Fred. Uh, Jesse Major, >> present. >> I Doug Marshall, I'm present. Angus Mloud, >> present. >> Uh, Johanna Newman informed us she would
probably be a few minutes late and I do not see her present at this moment. Jar Smith, >> present. >> Thank you all. Board members, if technical issues arise and the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the
raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment and I will call on you to speak after call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remmute yourself to the general public. Ah, this is about the general public comment item and I
guess we do have one of those. So, the general public comment item on our agenda is reserved for public comment regarding items not appearing later on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at
other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you
wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can 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 disconnected from the meeting. All right, so the time is 6:39
almost 6:40 now. Um, first item on our agenda is a review and hopefully approval of the minutes. And we have the minutes from May 21st of of this year available for review and approval. Did anyone have any comments
on these minutes? Any edits or corrections? I do not see any hands from board members. All right. Um would anyone like to u make a motion to approve the minutes as drafted by our staff? Bruce
>> moved. >> Thank you. Anyone want to be on record as seconding? I see Jesse raising two fingers. >> Sure. Second. >> Seconded by Jesse. Any other discussion on the minutes from May 20 21st.
>> Jesse, >> just that I was not present, but I did watch the meeting a while ago and just want to make sure it's okay for me to vote on the minutes. >> Yes. Great. All right. Uh, we'll go right into that vote. Uh, starting with you, Bruce.
>> Hi, >> and Fred. >> Hi, >> Angus. >> Hi, >> Jesse. >> Hi, >> uh, Jara. >> I >> And I'm an I as well. Johanna is not
present. So, that's six in favor and one absence. Motion passes. All right. Uh we'll go to the second item which is our public comment item. Uh public comment period. This is for public comment about items that do not
appear later on tonight's agenda. Do we have any members of the public who would who are here to make a comment about something we were not expecting to talk about later uh on the agenda. While you are thinking about whether there's anything you want to tell us uh uh off
topic let's say uh I will read the names of the people who are appearing as the attendees tonight. They are uh there's 23 at the moment. Abel Lent, Kathy Ackles, Kathy Axelson,
Barry, Clement Seldon, Darcy Dumont, David Bossy, Deborah Uting, Just George, Hetty Startup, Ira Brick, Jamie Gruber, Janet Keller, Jennifer Ta, Joel
Greenbomb, John Wyn, Ken Rosenthal, Mora Keane, Mindy Ser, maybe who has two uh connections to our meeting tonight. Uh Pam Rooney, Rob Mora, Sarah Bar,
Susanna, and Yannik Nichols. All right. Uh we still have 23 members of the public. I And I do see one hand from a members of a member of the public. Uh Pam, can you bring Ken Rosenthal over? And Ken, you have uh 3
minutes to talk about something not related to our later items on the agenda. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman Doug Marshall. I appreciate it. And I also want to again thank you for telling us who are present from the public at these
meetings because you are the only chair who does that and I think that should be more widely done in town. So thank you again. I bring a subject uh that is not directly related to the two matters coming immediately after. Uh I have been advised by the town council uh president
Ben Lyn Greimemer that you have inquired of the state ethics commission whether it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself from those two meetings matters that are coming forward because they intimately involve uh consequences for for UMass student residences in the
town on the campus uh and uh I have not seen a response from that. I have not seen whether you have inquired of the commission in writing or what their response may have been in writing. I would wish you would tell us when uh you
can whether you uh did inquire of the commission what you provide us with the um written request that you made. We had no opportunity, at least I did not, to comment to the commission about why I thought you should be recusing yourself
from that those matters. Uh so I don't know that any other others of us were able to uh comment to the commission too and I would like to see what their result is and I would hope you would tell us. More than that, I hope you will recuse yourself from those matters
because of the important consequences for the University of Massachusetts where your planning role is very well known. Thank you, sir, for taking my comment. >> All right. Thank you, Ken. Um
well on the one hand I just said the board is not going to respond to public comments and actually on the same hand I was going to bring up that subject at the beginning of our hearings. So I think I will just let you um ask
you to be patient for another few seconds probably and when we start the next topic we will I will uh talk about that. All right. Um let's see. I don't see any other public
comments any any hands raised from the public in order to make a public comment. So maybe we should just consider that finished and the time now is 6:45. We can go on to the next topic. Uh the first of three
hearings and this is a proposed article 18 advertised for 6:35. So we are past that time. We can start. I'll note that Johanna Newman has joined us. Uh I don't know if it was within the last minute or
maybe a little bit earlier. proposed article 18 temporary one-year pause on building permit applications to construct multi-unit residential buildings to consider amending the the zoning bylaw by adopting article 18
whereby the town would not accept new building permit applications for construction of any residential buildings with four or more dwelling units in the BG or BL zoning districts for a one-year period or until the town
council's adoption of design standards and a housing production plan. All right. So, uh this is the point where I ask for board member disclosure and um I so I invite other members of
the board to let me know if you want to make a disclosure. Um I will now respond to Mr. Rosenthal. Um, I did receive an an email from the president of the town council asking me to check in with the
state ethics board. Um, I have done that on several occasions when a similar uh concern, let's call it, was raised. Um, the protocol for that is to call them and talk to the attorney of the
day. Um, I did so on Monday. Um their response was um that there was no obvious uh conflict that I would require me to recuse myself from this from tonight's conversation.
Um they said I would ought to uh file a I believe it's called a 23B3 uh disclosure statement um which is named after the section of the mass general law. Um so I have done that. I
submitted that to the president to uh to Lynn Griezmer and the town clerk yesterday. Um, in that I described um the the two articles uh that have been proposed. I uh uh said that I work
for the University of Massachusetts in campus planning. Um and I said that I don't have any uh information, let's say, about whether UMass would care one way or the other how this conversation goes. I will say um many of the topics
we're going to talk about tonight are similar topics we've talked about during my tenure on the board. Um early in my tenure there was a proposal to have a moratorium on building permits for residential buildings and um I
participated in that. Um, this past summer I participated in conversations about some zoning bylaws that the board was proposing and eventually sent to the town council and um some of those uh
conversations included some of the provisions that were that have been proposed for article 19. So um and and I also will mention that um over the you know I've I've been appointed to this board three times um in 2020 initially
in 2021 and then again in 2024 and the objections or the concerns about my uh apparent conflict of interest uh have long predated at least 2024 if not 2021. and uh the council has repeatedly
appointed me to this position. So um I feel I can be you know fair and objective. Um you know I have opinions about this topic but I don't believe they are influenced by my employment. Um so um that's where it stands. Um I do
intend to participate tonight and um I guess I'll leave it at that. Sorry for going on so long. Um, do any other board members want to
uh make a disclosure at this time? Okay, I don't see any hands for that. So, in that case, we'll go to the presentation from the applicant. Um, uh, Miss Axelson Barry, welcome to the board.
You are muted at the moment. >> Thank you. Welcome. >> I'm gonna turn this over to Darcy. >> Okay. Well, uh, you had a little bit of an echo there on your audio. Um, Pam, sounds like we should bring Darcy Dumont over.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm trying to. She actually declined. >> Is she in the room there with you, Kathy? >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> So, you guys need to to cut the audio on at least one of your laptops. >> Oh. because you've got two microphones
going. >> If it's a laptop, it's usually at the top left of the keyboard. Uh, and Darcy, you need to come into the meeting. There we go. >> Okay.
>> Connecting to audio. >> Okay. Oh. Oh, let's see. Now you we've got your video. There you go, Darcy. You're still muted, but you look like you've joined us. There you go.
>> All right. One second. Okay. Um, good evening. I'm Darcy Dumont. I'm uh here speaking on behalf of the 19 resident signers of the uh the
bylaw proposals, articles 18 and 19. Um I'll just uh present about article 18 to start but um as just a short introduction we just want to say that uh
residents need help from the planning board and town council. We're asking you to prioritize housing for year-round residents both downtown and in our neighborhoods because we have an interest in maintaining our very diverse
family neighborhoods. Have a personal investment in the future of our neighborhood schools and communities. Have a high need for workforce, especially for town and university staff housing and housing for families, seniors, and low and middle inome
residents. and need a robust year-round population for a year-round economy and thriving town. Um, we just um to note this at the very beginning of the presentation, we want to put our our
request out there is that we are going to respectfully request that you refer these two bylaw proposals to your subcommittee on planning and zoning for full consideration. ultimately give both proposals favorable recommendations.
Um, and we want you to as you're listening realize that uh the proponents are open to hearing about any requests for friendly amendments. A little background about the proposals
in general is that uh that kind of um refer to both proposals is that um Ammerst is reaching a tipping point. Uh the balance of year- round residents and students has changed over the last 20 years with both the year-
round population reduced and the student population increased dramatically. We still have a population of about 40,000, but now we have 18,000 students living on our three campuses and 9,000 students
living on c on camp, pardon me, off campus here in town. That leaves only about 13,000 yearround residents. Uh many year round residents have left and we have a huge imbalance now. We've
seen 859 new student style units in multi-story buildings. Many are rented by the bed. And in the neighborhoods, an increasingly larger percentage of single and two family homes have been bought as student rentals, often by corporate
investment entities. Some of the buyers are nationwide corporations that specialize in student housing investing. We need a new look at our plans in light of these demographics. and a U and UMass can help tremendously by housing
significantly more students on campus and on nearby university properties. So, uh, with regard to article 18, >> don't forget to say next slide. >> Oh, next slide.
>> We're not seeing any slides, Darcy. >> Darcy, I'll put it up now. All right, Pam, we're seeing your Zoom. Uh, >> yeah, >> your your internet browser. >> I know
that won't go down. Okay, here we go. Nate, if you can put it up quicker than me, please, by all means. Not sure. >> There it is. >> Here it is. Here we go. We're on page three. >> All right.
>> Um, okay. So, uh, uh, the first bylaw is about protecting the downtown, article 18. Next slide. Here's the text. Um, the first three slides
here, I I'll just be talking about the actual text of the bylaw uh proposal. Article 18 says that the town will not accept new applications for building permits for residential buildings with four or more units in the downtown business area, that is the BG
and the BL districts, for a year or until the town council approves. Next slide. Design standards such as sidewalk widths, screen spaces, and climate resilience criteria for new multi-unit
developments with building heights and setbacks required in in the zoning bylaw dimensional table and with special consideration of the Hastings block model and a housing production plan which is already in process. The proposed
amendment requires the plan to prioritize housing for year-round residents over other types of housing. Next slide. Uh the proposed bylaw goes on to state that the pause is also needed so that
the town has time to um meet with UMass, negotiate an agreement to provide more housing for its own students. 5,000 beds on campus is the number that is in the bylaw
proposal to relieve the strain on Ammeris year-round residents. Finally, the proposal states that if the town can't accomplish the design standards and amended housing production plan and an agreement with UMass within a year, there can be a 90-day ex
extension. So, we have some details about the purpose of these articles. Um, article 18 lists Oh, next slide. Right. Um, article 18 lists three
conditions uh that are needed uh to lift the proposed moratorium on downtown building. The first condition is design standards. The town is already in the process of analyzing our downtown building design standards so that it can
make good uh good recommendation to the planning board and town council. And in the meantime, uh, temporary pause on applications for additional large multi-unit apartment type buildings downtown is needed to allow time for
discussion and adoption. Uh, all of these conditions are actually sort of cart before the horse type of thing where we we need these before we can uh build and don't want to have a oneoff
process. Um, condition two, the council is studying a housing production plan that at this point encourages, supports, and justifies a dramatic expansion of the housing for students, not only in the downtown area, but throughout the
community's neighborhoods. This production plan needs to be discussed in light of the population shift that the plan itself documents. a decrease in year- round residents accompanied by a related increase in mostly undergraduate college students. As noted by one of
your members at your last meeting, new housing will always go to students if no restrictions are adopted. Although dense dormlike student housing is most lucrative for developers, we believe that buildings designed for non- studentents as in cities and towns
elsewhere in Massachusetts are sufficiently lucrative and healthier for the town so that it does not become even more unbalanced. Next slide. Again, I think we might be one slide ahead.
Let's see. Condition two. Slide nine. >> Slide 10. >> Yeah. So, uh, hi Darcy. This is Nate. So I don't I don't know what um after condition two I have this slide and then
the next one I don't know is there are we miss am I missing something or >> uh no actually slide 10 is correct sorry >> okay >> um again our year- round population is now about 13,000 less than a third of
the population according to the proposed production plan if downtown is to be used and enjoyed by everyone the plan needs to prioritize yearround housing especially for low and middle inome residents instead of favoring student
rentals. Next slide, please. It's reasonable to say that UMass needs to house at least 5,000 more of its students, most of whom are only here until graduation, rather than leaving them on their own, having to find places to rent by the bed for a lot of money,
and simultaneously draining the town of housing for families, seniors, workforce people, and so on. Many UMass students who live off campus in Ammerst and in more distant towns are in agreement and have been protesting because they want
to live on campus. Students need reasonably priced, safe, and well-maintained living quarters on campus. The UMass campus is about450 acres with another 2005 or so acres in surrounding towns. The university has
publicized that renovating older buildings on campus as well as building new on Massachusetts Avenue on campus would be feasible for housing many of its students. Next slide please. Um that is basically it on article 18.
>> All right. Thank you Darcy and thank you is it Kitty I think. Um so um board members just thoughts discussion Jesse
>> thanks Doug um thank you Darcy for for the presentation um I guess I'm wondering if you could share how you came up with the number of 5,000 that you do you think is the right number was that based on something or is that sort of half what's needed like
what went into that thinking? I'm just curious. >> It it um it is partly based on the the additional 9,000 who um are in the housing production
plan that live outside of Ammerst, a couple thousand in towns near Ammerst and others farther away, maybe in their hometowns or working online. Um, so it was it was a guesstimate of what could
uh potentially handle the numbers that want to who who have said that they want to live on campus or closer to campus. We don't have figures on that other than the ones in the housing production plan. >> Okay.
>> Now, we didn't think that that probably 9,000 would need housing on campus. All right, Jesse. Uh, Bruce, you're next. >> This is a hearing, so I'm not going to express opinions at the moment. I'm uh
that can wait until future meetings perhaps, but I am interested in a question of clarification, and that has to do with the reference to the uh uh with special consideration of the Hastings block model. I don't understand what that means. Um, but you you've
clearly got something in mind. So, I'd like to know what that means. >> Uh, it it means and we we got some comments about this from the town council also um uh suggesting that a number of of you know
the town has has been surveyed um about uh design standards for the downtown. The Hastings block model is basically just um it's it is a model that has been
discussed at length um and it is the Hastings block basically the black block that where the Hastings store was formerly which has a certain type of look a certain type of materials that
the buildings are made out of certain uh amount of set back between the buildings and the street um and other dimensional requirements that seem like they are a good model for Ammerst and a model that
is pictured if you Google Ammerst that is what you will come up with on the internet it will be the picture that you will see of Ammerst um and that is the the >> street across from the department.
>> So, it's what it's what you think or what you think you know or what will come out. It's it's a rel it's relative to what you think should be the design standard. It has a design standard reference. >> That's okay. I think I understand that >> and it we're not saying that it has to
be that model. We're just saying with special consideration. >> All right, Bruce, you all set? Yep. All right. Um, anybody else have any comments or questions, uh, points of clarification
or shall we go to, uh, public comment, Jara, and then Angus. >> Uh, thank you for for coming and and presenting this information to us today. Um, I'm curious. Could you I have two questions. One, would you mind telling
us if you consulted with any renters uh while designing this article? And the second is I'm curious how you get from constraining a supply of housing benefiting moderate and
lowincome families to from in my experience constraining an already limited supply of housing will drive prices up rather than down. in which case this may inadvertently uh
impact low and income low and middle inome housing families more. So if you could tell me did you consult any renters in the creation of this uh article and um and if you can help me understand a little bit more about how this how this moratorum benefits low and
moderate income families that would really appreciate it. Yes, there there's at least one renter in our signitories. Um we we did not do outreach to to renters. Um
um why don't why don't you um >> okay pipe up. >> Okay. So, one one of the one of the assumptions there that that uh you were sharing, Jara, is that if you build more, then there will be more housing
for low-income people and workforce people and seniors. That might be true in a large city. Um but it has not been found to be true in university towns where rather than that wonderful scenario, um the more that's built, the more um
it's rented by students. It's specially designed for students. Most of the housing or almost all of the housing that's been built in Amoris over the last five or six years has been special designed for students only. They're not
welcoming to families lowinccome or middle income and instead they're pushing those people out. Um in terms of we've we do speak to lots of renters. I mean neighbors I live in Echo Hill South. I have neighbors who are renters. They always complain about
having a really hard time finding a place to live and they would like to live on the university campus. That's where their social life is. That's where their classes are. That's where they eat. They don't want to have to go back home um to to change their clothes. They
want to live on campus. So, yes, we have spoken to a number of renters and consulted with them about what they want. All right. Is that it, Jara? >> Sure. Okay, Angus.
>> Thank you. Um, so I I have I guess two questions. One is I think a simple question, one is maybe more complicated. Um, the first question is uh about the statement in the um I guess elaboration
of the design standards. Um the the quote in the proposed bylaw is streetscape, sidewalk widths, green spaces, and climate resilience criteria for new multi-unit developments. Um I guess I'm just wanting clarity either from from y'all or from uh the members
of the design review um committee that's working on these standards. Are those things all things that are going to be in the design standards? Are all of those being discussed? That's a good question. Um, I
don't have the answer to that right now. Um, but it is I think that if they are not there, they should be there. Um, it's not, you know, it's not at a point now where it can't be amended or
changed in whatever way the planning board and the town council wants it to result. And now I'm assuming that there's going to be more about um, safety. >> Um, okay. Thank >> Angus. Um, yeah, I I'd like to give Nate
a chance to answer that since he's I think managing those consultants. Bruce and I have been exposed to those standards, the draft. But Nate, do you want to go first? >> Sure. Thanks. Yeah, the consultants are coming up with, you know, standards for the right of way. So, what's in the
road, you know, and all the way from like curb to building facade, what's happening with the building facade in terms of setbacks, materials, and height. You know, they're not specifically addressing climate resilience design. So they're not getting into energy efficiency in that way. Um you know it's more about the
aesthetics and what's visible from the public way. So you know not necessarily you know energy efficiency in terms of heating, cooling or other things. Uh you know the town does have in Massachusetts has you know different building code and other code requirements and we're not getting into that level of detail in
terms of the building. >> All right. Thank you Nate Angus. Go ahead. >> Yes. Thank you. That that that helps. Um, and then I think the other question that I have um about the proposed amendment is I I guess I'm I'm curious
about the inclusion of discussion about the housing production plan um which seems like u connected in many ways but also a separate document that the town council is working on that the planning board has has considered. Um, and so I
guess I I'd like to hear a little bit more about the justification for including it seems to me to be uh the the uh proposed bylaw is advocating for changes to the housing production plan um to shift from um a strategy of
looking to increase housing for many different kinds of residents to um I mean I guess it says prioritizing opportunities for year-round mixed income residents instead of additional housing intended for students in the downtown or in our neighborhoods. So, I guess I'm just wanting to learn a little
bit more about the inclusion of the housing production plan. >> Um, well, the housing production plan obviously has not yet been adopted by the town council. So, that it right now it is it has gone through the CRC uh and
it is uh I think going to be at some point fairly soon going to be voted on by the town council. Uh there are a few sentences in there who that that really um commit the plan to
uh expanding all types of housing. Um and as I think many of you know that when housing is expanded without having any
prioritization process or restrictions then in Ammerst it has gone most of it to students student housing. So, um, and that as a result, we're
losing our year- round residents. So, that's why we want the housing production plan to recognize that fact. It does actually. That's where we got all of our numbers. Um, the numbers about losing year round
residents. Um, and so that's why we feel like there needs to be a redirection in favor of making sure that your own residents have adequate housing. >> Can I ask one clarifying question and
maybe this is for for Doug. Did the the planning board has endorsed the housing production plan, has it not? >> Yes, we recommended it to council. >> Okay. as as it's currently written, not with these changes. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right.
>> That preced that preceded our proposed bylaws though. So, >> right, >> Jara and then Jesse. >> Thank you. Um, sorry, I had one other question. Uh, are there currently ongoing
conversations with UMass to house 5,000 students? I'm curious, you know, if there's a history of that conversation. I don't know actually if frankly if this is a question for Doug or for Nate or for the presenters, but um I'm curious,
you know, what's the what's the history of that and the feasibility of of that kind of agreement coming together in the next year? >> That's Nate, do you want to talk about how uh how the town interacts with
UMass? Sure. Yeah. I mean I I don't you know know the answer Jara. So I know the town manager and the town manager's office meets with UMass quite frequently discusses various topics whether you know it could be housing, economic development, you know a range of things
and so um you know I I don't know what is you know what kind of conversations they've had. You know UMass did put out a request for interest or I'm not sure exactly what it was to look at housing on campus. um you know have someone assess the housing and the needs and I'm not sure
where you know the status of that or what the you know what that would lead to in the future terms of conversation. So um yeah I don't know I mean I'm you know housing is a a hot topic in town. I'm assuming it's part of the conversation terms of actually committing to a certain number. I'm not sure there's you know what kind of
conversation there is around that. >> Go ahead. >> All right. Uh Jared, >> we >> or Go ahead. >> Well, we we would we would really like to see more open conversation about UMass's plans and it's um how many
students it's planning to accept for, you know, the near future. um what they see whether they think that there's going to be a demographic cliff in which case a lot of housing that would be built special design for students would
then be um you know potentially renovated into housing for other people except that the designs that they're using are not not easily converted into housing for families or seniors or
workforce people. They're really designed for students. Um, we would love more con open conversation and my understanding is that UMass has identified several buildings on campus that they would be able to renovate into
housing. A some of them are old dorms, but we don't know anything about it. We would like to know about it. and also that they've identified Massachusetts Avenue as a prime place for more new housing, but if they're the kind that Fieldstone is, nobody can apparently
afford to live there. Um, yeah, so we we agree with you. We'd like more information, too. >> Can definitely agree on that. Thank you, Darcy. Thank you, Kathy. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thanks, Jer Jesse.
Thanks Doug. Um what's my question? My question is about this idea of uh designing for specific populations. Uh as I think you all know is something we often talk about a lot certainly on the subcommittee often at
the full board. And what the often the conclusion of that conversation is it's nearly impossible to to design to put in zoning that gets a specific use. Right? And so if you have if you all have come up with examples of that suggestions
about that I guess I'm asking you to send them our way uh to be part of our conversations. Uh while that's come up and there's a big audience here I'd also say the subcommittee is happy to have input uh and our schedules on the web as well. So I'd encourage any of you to to
join when you're able. Thanks. Okay. >> Nice. >> All right. Jesse Angus, >> thanks. Um, so I'm sorry, I have one more question about the housing production plan. Um, so if I'm understanding this the the bylaws that's
currently written, um the um no building would be allowed in the BG and the BL zoning districts for either a year or until both of the conditions are met um about the design standards.
But then also that that the change there would be a change to the housing production plan. Cor correct? >> Yes. And and uh and meetings with UMass about housing more students on campus.
>> So I guess that that that maybe is a is a question that the two bullets seem to imply that those are two conditions um >> yes >> that must be met. But the the UMass section seems to read differently. It
doesn't seem like it's a requirement. It seems like it's a justification. Is everything after the two bullets but before the purpose part of the requirements that must be met in order for the temporary pause to be lifted?
>> My answer to that would be yes. Um it is it is it's part of the bylaw. Uh it yes it's not a bullet. So that does make it seem a little different. This is a really good question and um
this is the kind of thing that causes us to want the housing and zoning subcommittee of the planning board to really examine these things because you guys are much more expert than we are and um yeah
and you can consult more easily than we can with the with the planning department and other professionals. We would appreciate that very much. >> And like I said earlier, uh we are very interested in working
with that subcommittee and um you know having you bring to us possibilities for friendly amendments um because we are very open. But just to clarify, the intent is that
that the the um there would be an agreement with UMass but um in order to lift the the pause on building in the BG and BL. >> That's that is what it says. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's that's helpful.
All right. Any more board questions for the moment? All right. Uh why don't we take a round of public comment? Um we have a whole lot of people in the audience. I see one hand up already.
Um members of the public, if you would like to comment on this proposal. This is article 18. Uh would you please raise your hand? I'd just like to get a sense of how many people we have that want to speak to it.
If it's a huge number, we may just go down to two minutes of comments. All right. So, at the moment, we have five hands up. Um, I will say, um, since we have three, uh,
hearings this evening, um, I'm intending to try to parcel out our time roughly evenly between all three. Um, if we assume this is a a three-hour meeting, which is kind of part for the course for
our planning board meetings, uh, my hope is that we can finish this up say by quarter of or 10 of 8. Uh, and then go to the second topic uh, which may be a little bit shorter I or maybe longer.
Uh but I want to save time for the last one since uh staff is interested in us making sure we have a reasonable amount of time to discuss that. All right. So there are now just four hands up to be making comments. Why don't we limit
ourselves to two minutes each? Um I think that's enough to get your main point across. Pam, would you start with Josh Lewis? And Josh, when you come over, would you give us your name and your street address in Ammerst?
>> Pam, do you want me to bring the attendees in? Is that >> Oh, I thought you were going to do that. And I've got the timer. Yes. >> Okay. Y, you can unmute yourself. >> Hello, John. >> Hi. Uh, how you doing? I actually uh do not live in Amherst, but uh I am a
former UMass student. I uh graduated in 2023 and honestly I I heard about this and I thought it was so ridiculous that I just had to come back because I've spent hundreds of hours um researching this housing issue. It's something I'm extremely passionate about and you know
I was someone that was actually um lucky to find affordable housing at UMass because I was persistent and I knew people but at the end of the day like that's not not everybody can can do that. A lot of times there's people that are comm commuting for hours and people
that are cramming into apartments that you know they're they're really not meant for. Like you know you think that banning or not allowing student marker rate housing will somehow help families.
It won't. What will happen is is that students, they'll go and they will rent um single families in neighborhoods that would be going to families, right? And so this this will especially harm
low-income families. And past couple years, this just keeps getting worse and worse. And this is seen as the vacancy rate is less than 1%. I believe, quote me, correct me if I'm wrong. And I believe a healthy vacancy rate is much higher.
Um, additionally, I actually asked when I was at UMass, I asked Chancellor Subwami directly why they did these uh this public private partnership of privatized dorms and he said that they reached their borrowing limit and I believe they've only built 1500 new h new housing units, sorry, beds in the
past 10 years. So, you you want them to build 5,000? I mean, I want them to build new housing right on campus. I I agree, but it's just that I don't think that's something that's financially feasible for them. And now you're you're trying to make it worse. Like you're you're really you're screwing over. I'm
I'm sorry. I'm like, you know, a little bit like worked up here, but this is, you know, I'm very passionate about this and I I've you know, I've met a lot of people that were very negatively affected by like, you know, by this. So, you can't say that like you're progressive when you support exclusionary zoning when
um Sorry, my time up. >> Yeah, your time's up. You can finish your sentence. You can't say you're progressive, you're socialist, you know, and you you you can't say you support working people when you oppose housing because the at the end of the day, you know, another
housing unit built as another place for for people to live. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next, uh let's bring over Deborah Uting. Hello, Deborah. You can >> Okay.
>> And your street address? >> Yes. My name is Deborah Uing. I live at uh 32 Grey Street in downtown Ammerst. Um my husband and I moved here about three years ago. We love Ammerst. Um we
are retired federal employees and um we've just um we bought a beautiful house. We but our neighbor our street is just now um the houses are being bought up by investors and students we feel like we're in the
minority the the full-time residents permanent residents and it's just becoming every year just in the three years we've been here um all the houses are being bought up and um the prices are quite high actually um and we don't
know who the owners are we just know that it's very noisy and we don't want to have to move and I think a lot of families have been in this position. So, I'm talking about existing houses in neighborhoods that, you know, I think
traditionally have been mixed with students and families are now being um, you know, just taken over by students. And I agree that there's a shortage of housing and I can I understood what the student was saying, but I think that
there needs to be a plan for um either owners occupying. I think there was something in the works at one point where an owner occupied the residence so that you know these houses were were not just being neglected where parties were
not happening constantly because it is hard for families or retired people to live here when when the neighborhoods are just being changed over. Um so I think there needs to be some kind of um plan in place to to maintain
a balance And that's all I have to say. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Deborah. All right, Nate, let's bring over Pamela Rooney. >> Pam, give your name, your street
address, and tell us whether you're speaking as a counselor or a private citizen. >> Hi, Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. I am speaking with both hats. Uh I wanted to um first of all support referring this
for more discussion to the the housing subcommittee. Secondly, I would like to um let everyone know that being a counselor or not does not give us any additional
information on what UMass is planning for its future development. The only piece of information that I've heard recently is that UMass is going to focus its um upcoming efforts on housing to
focus strictly on renovation and replacement of existing dorms. So I would I would speak to Josh's point about um public private partnerships and ask really and truly what is the cost to
UMass for a P3 project? They give the land yes maybe some some utilities that should not affect the borrowing capacity of the university. Interestingly, in Rhode Island, the town of Naraganset,
um there recently has been an effort by the university there to do a a P3 project and build,00 more beds on the campus, which uh is bringing great joy to the residents of Naraganit who feel a very similar
pressure to the overwhelming uh number of students in their community. So, thank you for uh continuing to discuss this. Um there's a lot wrapped up in in what's going to happen here. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you, Pam. And finally, Janet Keller. Let's bring her over. >> Hello, Janet. Oh, we lost Janet. >> Um, Nate, I guess there's Janet again. You
want to bring her try her again? Hey, Janet, can you unmute yourself? Tell us whether you can hear us. Hey, Janet, you're unmuted. We can't hear you. >> Janet, we'll we're gonna um disable your talking and you can try again in a minute.
Yeah, why don't we go ahead to the next person? Looks like it's Ken Rosenthal. >> Hello, Ken. >> Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. We're asking you to refer this to the subcommittee so that there can be more opportunity for public involvement. A two-minute comment
in a meeting like this really doesn't give us a chance to present evidence or have a reasonable back and forth discussion, especially since you're not allowed to comment on our comments while we're making them. I just want to make a couple of factual points to the first
person who spoke. It turns out that the notion that building more apartments in town uh would bring down the u rental prices for everybody has been proven to be absolutely false. In fact, what happens practically is because those
buildings are expensive, the developers who set the uh rental prices have to set them higher because of the current building expenses of of of construction. And once those renters rents go higher, all the other absentee landlords in town
look at those rents and raise their rents, too. That's what's happened in Ammeris. So, it brings the prices up, not down. Second of all, let's recognize that there is a practically and I use that word practically infinite demand from students to live in the town of
Amoris because there is not enough room on the campus and there are so many students who live elsewhere and would like to live closer to where they go to school. The fact is that there are faculty members and staff members of the
university who also want to live in town. And it's those people that we would like to see have the opportunity to be able to afford to live here in town, to live here year round, to register their cars in town so that the excise taxes come to the town. These are arguments that we'd like to make and
discussions we'd like to have in more detail. And that's why we'd like you to refer these matters to subcommittee so that there can be more and extensive com conversations over time. And a moratorium for just a year or a little more than a year is hardly a delay in
construction these days. So very much for giving me the chance to comment. >> Thank you, Ken. All right, so hands have continued to pop up. Um, as I mentioned, I do want to try to parcel out our time this evening. There
are now another four hands. >> Um, I guess we'll continue with two minutes, but uh, I want to after these four, I probably will cut it back to a shorter period of time. Okay. You Nate, you want to try Janet
again? Janet Keller. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead. >> Thanks. Um, I just want to support the recommendation um to refer
uh the proposal to the housing subcommittee and to expand the opportunities that we have for exploring
um in a more um open way um the ideas that would create more housing for uh a variety of people, not only
students but um couples, families, individuals, uh non- studentent individuals. Um and so I think the moratorum could help with that. Thanks.
>> Thank you, Janet. Uh, Nate, how about George? Hello, George. If you can unmute yourself, give us your full name, your street address. >> Yeah, my name is George. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> George Uting, u TT IG. Same as Deborah.
>> Okay. >> 32 Grey Street, Ammerst 010002. And um we've been here for three years, as Deborah said. I sort of want to uh echo to some extent what she said and then also follow up a little bit on what Ken Rosenthal was pointing out. I think
more discussion is needed. There's a whole complex of issues that are uh coming out in this conversation and uh there's no simple solution to them, I don't think. Um so there's that. Uh so I think more discussion is merited and and
really needed. Um, my observation as a now three-year resident of this town is that the neighborhoods in this town are overwhelmed by the students. If you listen on a weekend night in the fall and in the spring, you can hear um loud
music noises, yelling people, you know, at 1:00, 2:00 in the morning. I don't know if all of you live in town if you hear all of that, but I can tell you it goes on and it's not just we're not just on our block, but it is on our block. So, there's that. And the other thing is we have some of the highest property
taxes in the state um as a rate and um you know I paid we pay twice the property tax we paid where we lived in Fairfax County and we get half the services. So I think that um there needs to be a look at what is this town who is
the town for and what do you want to do um and what kind of vision do you have for moving forward? If there are only 13,000 permanent residents in this town, um there needs to be some sort of sense of how those residents are included in making decisions about what goes on
around us um on a continual basis year in and year out and and how that's being managed. So, I think um I appreciate the opportunity to um to be able to attend this meeting and and hear what you all have to say about it. Thank you. >> Thank you, George.
Um, Nate, let's I guess Josh, let's bring you bring Josh back, but Josh, would you please limit yourself to one minute? >> Uh, yes. I just have a I just have a couple more points uh I I would like to make. Um, I just have it in a note here.
So, uh, someone said, "Disagree my argument that building more lowers prices, but I actually have, uh, there's 50 studies which say that building houses of all kinds, um, lowers, um, prices and, uh, you know, slows rent growth. Look up New Relle. Look up
Minnesota, sorry, um, Minneapolis. But anyways, the simple solution is to build baby build. Honestly, people, you know, you might not like it. It's might be it might be kind of uncomfortable for you, but that's what the data does support. Um, >> 30 seconds.
>> And yeah, if you allow for more more development, there'll be more tax revenue for services and uh and taxes can be lower. Uh they in Watertown, look up in Watertown, Massachusetts, they just did a ton of development, especially commercial taxes went down by $1,000 a year and they had like a $5
million surplus. And also it's just like I don't know this is is kind of like a rough maybe slightly just like one thing to say if you don't want to be around students don't live in Ammers like I don't know what to say. >> All right thank you Josh thanks for listening in
Mindy Ser welcome Mindy give us unmute yourself give us your street address and you have two minutes. Hi. Um, I live on 20 Dickinson Street and I own a dance
studio on 20 Dickinson Street. The zoning there is uh business village center and I also own an interior design business. My office is located on Main Street in downtown Ammerst. I actually
sit in my office every day looking out at the town common in downtown Ammerst and I walk into town every day looking for maybe buying some food uh which I cannot do.
You can't buy food in downtown Ammerst. Um, I go to the farmers market every Saturday that only operates through December. They don't have a permanent place
um to run the farmers market in the winter. So, there is no farmers market. So, those things bother me as someone, excuse me, who's lived here for 35 years. Um, I've seen
just um a diminishing of what one can accomplish in the downtown and I've seen um a lot of really, speaking as a designer, hideous buildings being built in the downtown
um that do not use uh New England vernacular architecture. Uh they're not holding up very well either. So they're getting more hideous. Um so I'm agreeing with Ken Rosenthal, Pamela Rooney. I'm
agreeing with taking a look at um design standards for the design for the downtown, excuse me. and for um and for more examination by the housing
and zoning subcommittee so that the any additional housing can be analyzed. Um and you know that this should really we need a town plan a fully examined town plan that's what I would like to
advocate. >> All right thank you Mindy. All right. So, that was the last hand for public comment. Time is 7:43. Um,
so board members, uh, we've heard a lot of comment about referring this, um, about the need for a lot more conversation. Um, I guess seems like there there are a couple ways to think about this. one, we
can simply continue the hearing and continue the conversation at another meeting. Uh we could um you know refer to or recommend to town council that the that the proposal not
be enacted on and simply agree that it should be discussed these topics be discussed in um in the housing subcommittee and the rest of planning board uh as long as it takes um or some other proposal. Let's see,
Bruce, and then Angus. >> Well, I'd like to propose what many of the uh um comments suggested, which it refers to the housing subcommittee. Um uh there was a thought expressed by one
or more um that that would allow for more two-way conversation. And it is true that public attendees at the housing subcommittee meetings that we've been having uh we do typically invite them to join in the discussion but that's typically because there's one or
two people there whether if if if we had a a showing like this or even 10 or so it wouldn't necessarily uh mean that a reference to the housing subcommittee would uh guarantee a a dialogue but it might be a little more so also I would
probably uh like to express my views which are rather skeptical as to the wisdom of this and even more skeptical as to the need um and see whether um any of the petitioners can persuade me that I'm uh
missing something and I don't want to do that tonight because we don't have time but I I think that uh I just don't see the need for this. I think it's unnecessary and I think it's taking up time. However, the big need or the one need that might uh actually uh be worth
uh the effort and trigger is uh if uh this con discussion can somehow loosen the uh the decision-m of the UMass to uh engage in some kind of PPP uh uh initiative that I think would be a positive
development and it might especially be positive if the uh if our proposed overlay for North Amus which is essentially trying to do something similar but not on UMass land uh fails in which case uh there would be uh
reason to pursue this uh route even further. So I for those reasons I would argue uh I would argue I would encourage that we agree to um um discuss this continue this in discussion at the housing subcommittee but Jesse I'd defer
to you if you have a good reason not to. I would uh be interested in knowing uh whether I should withdraw the motion. So, we we do have the option to refer this to to recommend something to town council. Um, and we've opened this
hearing. So, we will need to either continue this hearing until the housing subcommittee is ready to come back to us and talk about how we should recommend to town council >> or
>> or we don't just leave it perpetually, you know, long-term open. we close it and we continue the conversation separately. But so um >> well the motion could be I could me take that as a friendly amendment Den that
the motion could be to continue the meeting and to refer it to the housing subcommittee. >> Okay. So if we were to continue I think we would continue to the middle of to the second meeting in December um which is an open un unagended meeting
at the moment. Um Nate, am I right? That's the 17th of December, >> correct? Right. There's time on the agenda to continue this hearing. So, you know, it' be a full board hearing, you know, continued again until that evening. >> So, if we did, if we continued to 6:35,
we could do that. And in the meantime, the housing subcommittee could meet uh once or more and um we could see where they're at. And you know those who want a more transparent conversation I
do invite you to come to to our meetings. Um and I will um I want to correct one thing Ken Rosenthal said earlier. Um the the comments that are made during general public comment period the board doesn't respond to. But
the comments that are made during a hearing like this, the board is entirely uh able to comment and have a conversation about. So um feel free to come to these meetings.
>> So Bruce, uh why don't we come back to your motion however it forms. Um or do you want to just keep that? Do do you want a second to continue to 6:35 on December 17th? And
>> well, I' I'd invited Jesse to second uh giving him therefore the opportunity to uh explain why it was not a good idea. >> Okay. Well, then we'll go we'll leave that on the sitting on the table, Angus, and then Johanna, and then Jesse.
>> Yeah. I I I um I'm a little bit uncomfortable with uh pushing this to the housing and zoning subcommittee um in that I'm I'm particularly concerned about the the parts of this proposal
around requiring UMass to take action and and the town to come to an agreement with UMass. I I'm not sure that's something that a bylaw should specify. And then I'm also uncomfortable with the just kind of circumventing and changing the housing
production plan, especially when at least based on what the plan itself says. They had four public meetings with the Ammeris Municipal Affordable Housing Trust, two with the planning board, four stakeholder interviews, two sets of community meetings, tableabling at at
the Amoris Block Party, a public survey, a scenario planning workshop, and then a public comment period. Um, so I I guess I'm it feels like we are trying to this proposal is is attempting to circumvent
a set of priorities that it seems like we we've established are important to this community. Um, so I I I think the I'd like to see the article 19 referred to the housing and zoning subcommittee. I think there's a lot to discuss there,
but I I feel like this is not um a sound use of our time. And at least based on the conversation before the town council, it doesn't sound like there's any pending um building permits in the BG or the BL,
unless I'm mistaken. Nate, >> that certainly was what was that was the answer during uh the town council meeting. Is that is that still the case? >> Sure. So um just quickly on that yeah
you know there's no you know permits or projects in that I am aware of but you know the mortorium would be for a year. So just you know who knows what would happen you know within that time frame but there's nothing imminent >> okay >> that I'm aware of.
So, I I I I don't think that this is a great use of the subcommittee's time, but I would also defer if the board votes otherwise, then, you know, I'll happily consider it. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, I'll just remind you guys, we're getting toward 8:00 and I'm already behind the schedule that I
was hoping to follow. So, Johanna, >> thanks. Um, I don't think we should refer article 18 to the housing subcommittee. I think a moratorum on building new housing actually runs counter to our housing production goals and I think there's a real opportunity
cost to spending time on this proposal as opposed to spending time advancing some of the solutions that actually will expand housing options, drive down costs and alleviate the pressure that existing neighborhoods feel with regard to student housing. So, um, I'd actually like to propose a motion that we close
this public hearing and recommend to the town council that they don't adopt Article 18. >> All right. So, we have a motion on the table from Bruce. And >> do we? Okay. >> Yeah. And it hasn't been seconded, but uh let's give Jesse a chance to talk
before we uh you know have too many motions on the on the on the floor. Jesse? >> Great. Thanks. I'll try and be brief. Um I'm open to the idea of subcommittee
discussing this. I think we can carve out a small amount of time. I think there are some in my view sort of non-starters if it I don't think it's ready to go for council. I don't think that will go anywhere there as it is. Um in large part the UMass piece. Uh
that being said, again, I think we can find a an amount of time to discuss if we think that's important to flesh out a little more. Um I also definitely agree there's a lot of things in both of these articles that we have discussed that I
hope we continue to discuss. I I do think article 19, a lot of the content is very appropriate for us to dig in a bit more to make some friendly amendments as it was proposed. Um and the other general comment I would say just for all the commenters we just
heard from a thank you for your comments and I completely agree this is very complicated. There's not a simple solution. That's why all of us are on the board trying to work on this and uh again if you can't make our subcommittee meeting send me an email. We are open to
all ideas and want all of the input. >> See what comes out of that. So, for the motions, uh, I think I would second Bruce's motion to bring it to the subcommittee. I think we can do a good job of keeping it concise.
>> All right. So, we have a motion on the floor with a second. Uh, any any discussion about the motion to uh continue this hearing to the middle of December? and in and and I
think you had some language about inviting referring the matter to the housing subcommittee in the in the interim. So, uh Bruce, your hand is up. >> Um let me just ask you, Jesse, would you
would you be more favored to uh keeping the motion as a a continuation to the uh to the December meeting and not the reference to the housing subcommittee? My reason is I I I don't want to take time now to uh engage in the kind of inquiry that I had and I'm just looking
for so um because I think we need to explore as a as as a as a board how we feel about this and we've begun to do that but we don't have time to do it now. So I'd be happy to to to defer. We could we could vote to why don't we vote
I'll I'll keep my motion. we can choose to spend uh five or 10 minutes at the housing subcommittee meeting if we decide to. So there's no there's no this is not a commitment to a prolonged discussion. Uh the motion stands. Thank you, Doug, for helping me figure that out.
>> Okay. All right. Um All right. I don't see any other hands. Uh why don't why don't we uh go ahead and vote on the motion to ref to continue this hearing on article
18 to December 17th at 6:35 with uh expectation that the housing subcommittee will deliberate in some manner or or not about it in the interim.
All right. Uh Bruce, you can vote first. and Fred. >> Hi. >> Angus. >> Nay. >> Okay. Jay. Jesse. >> Hi. >> Johanna.
>> Nay. >> Jara. >> Nay. >> And I'm actually a nay. Um, so the motion fails. All right. So, some some of those who
voted nay may want to offer a different uh motion for consideration. All right, Johanna, you got your hand up first. Um Angus is right behind you, just so you know. >> Sounds good. Um yeah, I'd like to propose a motion that we close the public hearing and recommend to the town
council that they don't adopt Article 18. >> All right. Thank you. Angus >> second. >> All right. Um any any any conversation, comments,
questions, >> Doug. Jesse has his hand up. >> Oh, thank you, Jesse. Go ahead. >> Thanks. Um, I guess I would just point out to my fellow board members, both at the subcommittee and in full board, we have had discussions about
wanting there to be standards for new big projects. Um, I'm not I don't necessarily agree with everything in this article as it's written, but I view it as an opportunity to raise that topic before other large projects get
commenced in a way that might not happen if tomorrow some application comes in. >> Thanks. >> Okay, Bruce. Um I guess I'll just go on record as believing that uh the because I've been a part of the design consensus
discussion for the past two years uh they in that I think the planning board and presumably the zoning board is well suit to be we are well able to uh deliberate uh and be guided by those standards. I don't understand uh the
need for a formal uh decision by the town council to promulgate these uh whether it be the housing production plan or these design standards. They exist in all uh essentially um and we uh
can use them. We don't need to uh uh uh uh declare a moratorium in order to get them promulgated in order to make them more useful. that delay isn't going to in my view make uh enough difference or probably any difference uh because we
know what we're dealing with. Uh uh I mean it may well be that uh many people in town who haven't been engaged as we have for the past year in the production plan and the design standards perhaps I can understand that they might be concerned and think that they might need
a year uh to to catch up but I don't believe that the permit granting agencies do and I think uh it it demonstrates a lack of confidence in uh in in in commitment that uh in in in these town boards. I don't think we need
this moratorum in order to do our job and in order to do essentially what the uh uh the petitioners are proposing because if they if the petitioners had been listening and many of them have to our deliberations over the past year or two they would know that we share
everyone everyone of these concerns these goals these objectives. There's no daylight between our our aspirations and the petitioner's aspirations. So we don't need this disciplinary action in order to help us do our job.
So uh um I would uh probably not support uh probably support a motion to uh not recommend but I but I'm I'm uh perhaps uh ready to have this discussion at a continuation but I don't think we have
time to do it tonight. That's uh >> All right. Thank you Bruce. I will mention Bruce that the design standards has not been a public process. Um the the portion of the discussions that you and I have participated in as part of a
working group that was uh convened by the consultant. Um so we're farther along on understanding where those are at than other members of this board and certainly the public. >> Well, that's true. Although I believe
that the they the the drafts will be becoming public soon. >> Yeah. >> Um Nate's shaking his head. Yes. >> Exactly. >> Um you know they're they're about ready to be released but I you know you and I are farther along.
>> Yeah. We don't need a moratorum >> right >> to achieve the objectives of the petitioners. >> Right. Okay. Uh Darcy uh go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh, I just want to mention that the the bylaw proposal doesn't
require doesn't require a one-year moratorum if the conditions are met. So, it could be a one-mon moratorum. It could be a very short time. It's just the leverage needed to fulfill the
conditions. That's all. It's it isn't necessarily a year. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Angus. >> Yeah, I just wanted to say one one thing in response to to what Bruce said. I I agree with almost everything you said, Bruce. I think there's there's one thing
that I would disagree on which is I think there is a misalignment in the priorities that the planning board has set forth and the intent behind the the at least the this article 18 and that is that the planning board through endorsing the housing production plan
has said that they we believe that we want to increase additional housing for all kinds of residents and that includes senior citizens, it includes families, it includes low-income residents, it includes middle-income residents. that includes students. So I I I do and this
article explicitly states that they want to change the housing production plan to not prioritize student housing in any capacity. And so I I do think that's a misalignment in goals. Um and one of the reasons why I'm uncomfortable with um pursuing this.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Angus. All right. I I'm afraid in the interest of time I'm gonna call the question. Um, so we have a vote or a motion on the table to recommend to town council that
this not that this mot that this proposal not be pursued and to close the hearing. Um, can we go through with the vote starting u, why don't we start again with you Bruce?
>> Well, having had my say, I vote yes. I was >> Fred. >> I >> Angus. >> Hi, >> Jesse. >> Nay. >> Uh, Johanna,
>> hi. >> Jar >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. So, we have six in favor, one opposed. That motion passes.
All right. Um, time is 8:04. We customarily take a five minute break at this time. >> Uh, is everybody comfortable doing that? Realizing that we have two more hearings to go when we come back.
All right. I'm seeing heads nod. So, certainly be back here by 10 after 8. Uh, sooner if you can manage it. Thank you. Let's All right, the time is 8:09. Hope I'm speaking to anybody that can hear me. If
you're ready to come back into the meeting, please turn on your camera. Let me know you're back. Still have a couple of board members who have not returned. All right. Uh, Kitty, I do see your hand. I will
wait until we're all back before you speak. >> It's just that it's just that um Darcy isn't on. Pam. Uh, did Darcy get removed? You are muted. Okay. She's not removed that I'm aware
of, but let me look. >> Well, I see her in the attendees and I don't see her on the panel. So, >> okay, >> we'll want to bring her back again. >> All of our board members are back as soon as we have the technical
issues resolved. There she is. So, Darcy, >> there you go. >> Thank you. That was my fault. >> Not a problem. All right, looks like everyone's back. Time is 8:11
and uh we'll go ahead with the next hearing on the agenda. In accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law Chapter 4A, this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing
the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding proposed article 19 zoning for livability, affordability, and balance in single and two family home neighborhoods. to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting article 19
whereby the town shall preserve and support single and two family housing owned or rented by yearround residents. Prioritize student housing located on Ammerst campuses and disincentivize the sale of single and two family homes to
investors by defining a student home adopting minimum distance requirements and consider rent I'm sorry consider rent stabilization and limit student housing in single and two family homes to arterial streets in all zoning
districts. All right. Um, board member disclosure. I I I simply am going to say that I have filed a 23B form. Uh, and I did talk to the state ethics board as I said earlier.
Um, are there other disclosures from anyone? I don't see any hands. All right, Darcy, we'll go ahead and you can make your presentation on this proposal. >> Okay. So, we're on uh the same presentation, slide 13.
>> All right, Nate, thank you for bringing that up. And I think you're good to go, Darcy. >> Okay. All right. So, the second bylaw amendment is article 19, and it is pro is entitled protecting neighborhoods.
are article 19 says that the town should zone for livability, affordability, and balance in those neighborhoods that consist of single family and two family homes, both owner occupied homes and renter homes.
Year-round residents should be prioritized with more undergraduate students housed on campus. The town should disincentivize selling single family and two family homes and neighborhoods to limited liability real estate investors. and it should do so by
taking these steps. So, um, slide 15. First, we don't want to have me on both of these. First, adopt a definition of student
housing. The definition in the proposed bylaw is that which was passed last year by this body, the planning board. It states, "A student home is defined as any dwelling unit within a one family dwelling, a one family dwelling with an apartment or a two family dwelling
that's occupied by persons who are unrelated by blood, marriage, or legal adoption and are attending undergraduate or graduate programs offered by colleges or universities, including those on a semester break or summer break from studies. The residents of a student home
typically share living expenses and may live and cook as a single housekeeping unit. Student homes include living arrangements where the property owners or their family members are residents of the dwelling unit. Student homes do not include fraternities, sororities, or rooming houses. So, I'm sure that sounds
familiar to all of you. Next slide. So after defining a student home, the proposal requires that the town disincentivize the sale of single and two family homes to real estate investors by adopting three tools.
First, it would require minimum distance requirements between student houses on local and collector streets. Second, it would require the town to study the possibility of rent stabilization. Third, student rentals of single family houses would be limited to main streets.
Principal arterial streets like College Street, Main Street and North Peasant Street. There are 11 in total of the principal arterial streets. Next slide. So now we'll talk about the reasons the purposes.
Slide 18. The purpose of this is to create a reasonable balance between housing for yearround residents, residents who put down roots in their community and for students. If we want to maintain and improve our public schools, municipal
services, civic participation, and develop a more robust downtown for all ages and incomes, we need to maintain our long-term neighborhoods. And that means we need to disincentivize LLC real estate investor purchases of and
ownership of so many student houses in these neighborhoods. Next slide, please. A little background on real estate speculation. Ammerst has about 5,200 single family homes, 680 of which are
rented and 137 of those are student rentals owned by LLC real estate investors. Uh times four for the number of students are in who are in these houses. Ownership of homes for the purpose of profit drives up the cost of
ownership and the cost of renting and changes stable neighborhoods into studentoriented neighborhoods that lack diversity of age and civic engagement. Ammeris rents are now comparable to rents in Somerville. Next slide, please.
Adding a definition of student home to our zoning bylaw is the only way to keep track of our actual housing data and to regulate student housing. It's necessary for the town to be transparent and accountable about student housing and to be able to regulate it. State College
Pennsylvania has had a licensing program for student homes since 2013. Town residents and leadership were recognized they recognized that an imbalance between housing for students and housing for full-time or what they call lifelong
residents was damaging the town's economy and livability. State College recognized the need to regulate off-campus student housing so that both students and long-term residents would thrive. First, they had to define what a student home is in the context of
dealing with them. We do, too. And just an additional note, it's uh the planning board did intentionally use uh this language. They made some changes to address concerns of non-traditional
families and households. Next slide, please. The disincentives listed in article 19 are tools to steer LLC speculation away from our captive student rental market here. There are other tools, but the
majority on the council has not adopted any zoning protections for our neighborhoods. It's time to do so. We know that there have been discussions in the past of some of these topics and of the overall issue of UMass responsibility for providing housing for its students that are enrolled but
without housing as as you mentioned in the last hearing. We we realize that you've all talked about all of this a lot. Next slide. Um, some of the advantages of adopting the tools to disincentivize real estate
investment in our neighborhoods are they preserve the diversity and stability of family neighborhoods. They bring down the cost of housing in general. They reduce nuisance issues. They encourage investment in properties by missiondriven developers like community
land trusts and other nonprofit developers as well as private developers who focus on neighborhood stability and see housing as a right. This last bullet is especially so with uh rent stabilization. Next slide please.
Uh our first tool is minimum distance requirements. Like other approaches, they mitigate nuisance issues, preserve and promote diversity and stability, and reduce pressure from speculators competing for an advantage. Requiring some distance between student rentals
helps prevent the town from reaching the tipping point, where a street shifts from mostly people and families establishing roots and long-term connections to mostly transient students who don't call Ammerst their home, but the place they live, they live until
graduation. It also reduces pressure from real estate investors. This is not anti- studentent. It is pro-stable yearround community. Specific distance requirements vary by the density in the residential
districts. Next slide, please. Slide uh 24. Rent stabilization stabilizes neighborhoods. As a college town, Ammerst neighborhoods are subject to studentification, which again happens when the tipping point is reached and
large swas of family homes are converted into student housing. By controlling the rate and timing of rent increases, rent stabilization can help preserve the residential nature and economic diversity of community neighborhoods. I think there's there was some
misunderstanding with the language of this particular uh bullet in that um we when we when we added the word consider uh we meant study.
Um so next slide. The third tool is limitation of student home rentals to principal arterial roads. Uh the housing production plan under discussion names the Orchard Valley and East Ammeris neighborhoods as those with
the lowest median home values. Neighborhoods with low home values are naturally targeted by LLC investors as financially desirable for student house rentals. Expensive homes in out of the way places are not as desirable for speculators. Limiting new student
rentals to principal arterial roads, is one way to consolidate student rentals on main streets, specifically the 11 principal arterial streets classified as such by the DPW. Existing rental homes would be allowed as student homes for a period of 10
years. Um and we were advised to not use the term grandfathering in um because of what it means in history. Um in some these proposals are offered to encourage stable affordable homes for
diverse long-term populations rather than seating control to market only student housing solutions or to benefit the university and colleges. Expansion of a university such as UMass can intensify speculation and result in displacement in the adjacent
communities. Next slide. Uh, one we had to we felt we needed to mention um in a final note that it's really not possible to avoid the connection between
the recent devastating fire at Olympia Place and these zoning proposals in particular the request for a moratorum on new buildings downtown until we've adopted design guidelines, a housing plan prioritizing housing for year-round residents, an agreement with UMass to
house more students on campus. We asked the planning board and the town to rethink your plan to fasttrack additional housing for UMass students in dorm-like buildings and to take a new look at those that are planned or already built in the downtown. Do they
have adequate infrastructure for fire safety, water, sewer, roads, transportation, and climate resilience? We ask that you redirect your efforts to building new sustainable, safe housing for seniors, town and university staff, and low and moderate income residents
who need it to stem the flow of year-round residents out of Ammerst. Um, this next slide is just a a section of the housing production plan
that's has a statement about our water supply. The water department manages and maintains the town's public drinking water infrastructure, pumping an average of three million gallons of water per day. The water treatment system has enough capacity to meet the current
demands of the town population and any growth in the foreseeable future. DPW asserted that current water usage is far from reaching its capacity and that new developments will unlikely strain its existing infrastructure or reduce its ability to treat and distribute water to
the public. So, um, we just felt we needed to express that connection. And next slide. Again, we respectfully request the planning board to refer proposed article 19 to the subcommittee on housing and zoning and to ultimately
give uh 19 a favorable favorable recommendation. We are very amendable to discussing friendly amendments to the proposals during this process. Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you, Darcy. All right, board members,
questions of clarification for our um presenters. Jesse, thanks Doug. Um, thanks RC uh for the presentation. Um couple questions and a couple comments I
think. Uh first question and this is came up briefly previously also. Uh the one of the last points you made was you're asking us to stop uh fasttracking of higher density student design buildings. As I think you
know we've spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out where might be appropriate for those options. Um, and what also came up earlier with some of the comments is there's clearly disputing opinions about how to solve the problem. And I don't
think there's one solution, but I think everyone would agree more housing is part of the solution. Um, hence I think the resistance of the moratorum. And so I'm I'm curious about if you all are suggesting we should, you
know, you don't support the overlay idea of identifying specific regions near UMass that the subcommittee or other groups think would be a good solution to put higher density housing that is designed for students because that's how
I read that section. Um, so I'm I'm I'd love to hear why you're opposed to that, but you are supporting on UMass land that's right next to one of these areas or two of these areas we've identified. So I'm surprised by the resistance
there. I'd love to hear a comment. Um, and then also just I guess a comment on the numbers. I don't think LLC's are the only concern. uh data might be a little outdated, but a couple years ago I pulled out all the rental permits and maybe I can talk more
about this later, but a large number, I think 400 or so of our rental properties are owned by individuals, not LLC's that have five or more properties. >> So, it's not just an LLC problem. If
we're going to think about this kind of regulation, individuals have to be part of the conversation, too. So, just a comment there. Thanks. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, Darcy, did you have any comment to Jesse's
first question? >> All right. It sounds like you have two microphones on again. How about Yeah, maybe that works now. Darcy, >> I don't think you can. Can Can you hear me? >> Yes, now it's working without a reverb.
>> Oh, good. Um, okay. Sorry. Some of us are not too techsavvy. Um uh the first question was about fasttracking building and I think that that uh I think are you referring Jesse
to the final note that I stated at the end of the presentation? >> Um I think it showed up earlier also just the seems like there's a request to stop thinking about overlays intentionally meant for student housing. And so that surprises me because at least in our conversations that's got to
be part of the solution also. I agree with a lot of the points you're making. But I feel like it's got to go hand in hand. >> Yeah. I think that that um the the piece at the at the end of the uh proposal was
about basically taking a pause around fire safety. >> Sure. >> No objection to that. Of course, >> not fasttracking. >> Okay. Never never never never. >> All right.
>> Um, uh, I would have to consult with I, you know, I I feel a little uncomfortable speaking for all of the residents. Um, but I think that yes, we're assuming that there is still needs to be student housing. We're
hoping that the the majority of new housing can be on campus or very near campus or on UMass land. Um, but that we look when we're planning new
housing that we prioritize non- studentent housing because that's what we need first and foremost. We need that to keep residents from moving away. Um,
so it we're we're more we're more interested in that than monetizing student rentals. >> Sure. Thanks. >> All right, Angus and then Fred and then Bruce.
>> Thank you. Yeah, I have a couple of questions and and I don't know if this is um something that that Darcy y'all y'all can answer or something that Nate might have insight on. Um I know when this was uh proposed to the town council
um and in some of the comments we got there's questions about um legal enforcement of this um and so I guess one question that I have is does this proposal particularly the distancing requirements or limitation on rentals to
to principal arterial roads um are there issues with uniformity in in zoning in applying zoning zoning regulations um differently to different parcels that are in the same zoning district.
>> Good question. Uh I don't think we know the answer to that. We we attempted to apply it to all arterial principal arterial streets in all zoning districts. Um,
so we were hoping that that would handle the problem, but I think that's something that would have to be worked out. >> Nate, does has the town had any legal consultation about this? Do do we have a sense of any kind of because I I guess I'm I'm I'm interested in this in
talking more about this article, but if if it's kind of a moot point because it's not legal to establish these kind of distancing requirements or limitations within a zone on different kinds of on different property owners. I I don't want to spend too much time
debating something that that's legally not going to hold up in court and and and cause litigation for the town. >> You're saying minimum distance requirements Right. So if if one house on a block has student housing, right? And then the house next door wants to do
a student home. If we had minimum distancing requirements, that wouldn't be possible. But those houses would be both be located in the same zoning district. So I think there's worries that it's, you know, causing non-uniform enforcement mechanisms for properties that have technically the same zoning.
>> Right. >> Angus. Um, I'm going to I'm going to interject myself to just say I don't think that the town has had a legal opinion about that yet. Um, and Nate,
looks like you're nodding your head that that's the case. Um, I think if we want to pursue that kind of thing further, we would certainly want to ask town council to uh to weigh in on on whether that's something that would fly in this state.
It sounds like it's been in in place in Pennsylvania for a while. Um, and u, you know, maybe the legal background in Pennsylvania allows it and it doesn't in Massachusetts or maybe it'll work.
So, I think at the moment we should just say, is this something we want to think about more? >> Um, and and then if so, we can start to have a more serious conversation. >> Yeah. No, I I was thanks. So, yeah, I
was going to say that I think, you know, everything from the actual definition to how it's permitted to the distance would need to be looked at. And so, that's something we haven't done to know whether it's legal, right? Right. I mean, I think, you know, Massachusetts has its own enabling legislation and statutes and regulations. Every state is
different. So, what could be done in New York or Pennsylvania may or may not be able to be done in Massachusetts. And that would just take um, you know, some examination. And it could just be that it hasn't been done yet. Not that it's illegal, it's just that it's not a common practice. So, you know, there's a lot of, you know, it would take a little
bit more research if that were something we wanted to do. >> All right. Angus, you're set. Okay, Brad. >> Yeah. Um, couple things here. One is, uh, I'd like
to just offer the observation that it is indeed possible to chew gum and walk at the same time. Um and uh I certainly uh and I think the planning board generally is entirely
supportive of uh uh multigenerational housing. Um and uh the uh there there is a mechanism now in place the 40y mechanism
uh that uh works in that direction and uh I think it's pretty clear as a member of the zoning and housing subcommittee this is something that uh we're taking a very close look at that uh does not
require require uh this particular amendment to go forward and that would uh certainly uh create something that we would like. The other thing the other observation I wanted to make was about rent stabilization.
Uh, I want to point out that uh that's another uh uh name for rent control and uh it's illegal in Massachusetts. uh
uh what uh I think it was about 30 years ago the uh people of this state in an initiative the the legislature didn't do this the people of this state uh
created a uh by initiative and by vote of the people. It never went to the legislature. uh a uh provision in the general laws that makes it absolutely illegal for any
municipality to do this. That is absolutely flagrantly illegal. It's a non-starter in Massachusetts. Uh so that uh that is not something that we should be spending time uh uh
exploring. All right. Thank you, Fred. Bruce, >> um, as I think uh, well, certainly members of this board know, uh, I spent when I joined the board, uh, three, four years ago,
uh, I I spent a year uh, not every day, but uh, off and on time looking at uh, how towns like Amist uh, so handled these problems. these problems being all of the ones that the petitioners are raising.
Uh I thought uh it's a pretty typical research uh approach to uh find out uh who's done what you're interested in understanding before and go and ask them what their answers were. And I thought that's a good technique. I'll do it. Uh
I took some time to identify 15 or so towns like Amist. uh I have a tabulation of the criteria by which I picked from 150 or more the 15 that fit best to be towns like Ammerst. And then I made it
my business to talk to planning directors. I got up to eight conversations. Um, and I did speak to uh uh the planning director of State College Pennsylvania, Ed Lllair,
and uh they are the only one of the eight or so that I spoke to who were solving their student housing problem. I mean and it's and because they were towns like Hammerst I they had similar problems similarly scaled towns with
similarly scaled uh tertiary institutions embedded in them and and nothing much around them. Um the the minimum distancing approach and the student housing the student home definition at the time appealed to me.
Uh it was one of three broad solution concepts that towns like Ammeris were pursuing. One of them was to successfully uh have their uh host uh organization, host institution build more housing. Charlottesville was at the time rather successful in that regard,
but uh it was a standout. Um the other was minimum distancing. Um and State College Pennsylvania was villainova I mean the the Newark New Jersey knew Delaware had moved away from that leaving state
college as the only uh community that was really successfully practicing that and I spoke at length with the clear about how he was going about it and they were pretty successful and I think they're still doing it. It's a longterm thing. It took them years to build it up and to get it running.
um they were concerned because a federal court in Ohio had struck down this provision federally in Ohio and he thought eventually it might go to the Supreme Court in which case it wouldn't be possible but it hadn't at that stage and state college are continuing. Uh it
may be that this state has a a provision independent of the federal statutes that would prevent this and I certainly agree with uh that we should uh uh cross that bridge first. There's no point in pursuing this if it is not a possible if
if it's legally constrained in a way that we can't do it. But it is an interesting approach. And so um I should say the third approach was doing what we're trying to do in North Ammerst uh and most of the towns that I spoke to
were pursuing some version of that. Um but state college had successfully pursued this this concept and and I thought it would be interesting. So I spoke to I think probably Rob Mo at the time. Um, as thelair had told me and Rob
was clear as well, this is an in this is a staff inensive uh process. It really requires a lot. So, you have to figure out how to price this cuz it it it costs uh student student homes uh state
college have a at the time and it's probably gone up now. $1,000 you have to register a student home. It's a and they defended that very high price uh in court and proved that it was indeed uh a real cost to the town to to develop a
student a definition of student home. So there are considerably uh challenging bridges to cross on this route. Um it's also uh a market situation where you are essentially creating scarcity by um
limiting these houses. That's something I don't fully understand, but was very uh clear with me about you have to re you have to recognize that and understand it and deal with it. So this is not an easy uh solution concept to uh
um to enact. And I also uh question the petitioner's numbers um because it seems to me that the actual number of student housing if we if we are intending to solve this our student housing problems solely by this means we would possibly
end up distributing um student housing all over town because the minimum distancing requirements would uh achieve that. It's hard to know for sure because there's many of these are already there and they would be uh
put put in place. Um but they but they would continue for 10 years and then suddenly after 10 years they disappear. That also seems to me to be a a very interesting uh explosive situation that would happen and what the hell would how that would be controlled. there is a a
very large amount of challenges associated with uh making something like this work and uh so I'm curious as to whether we could do it but I kind of gave up thinking that this was the best way of solving our problem for those
various reasons um 2 years ago or more. I'm not averse to continuing to see whether it could be figured out, but this is not something that hasn't been thought about certainly by me and I think in certain discussions with other members of this board.
>> All right. Thank you, Bruce. Johanna, then Jesse, then Jara, >> thank you. >> And then and then we will go to public comment. >> Great. Um, I appreciate Bruce invoking those conversations that we had in person at town hall where we explored
those different scenarios. Um, and I think coming out of that process, we decided, you know, let's really focus on increasing supply and figuring out where we can do that. Um, uh, and then I I guess I had one question for the petitioners, which um,
and I'm sorry if I missed this in your presentation, but can you talk a It seems like this is really geared towards prospective future flipping of houses. Can you talk a little bit more about the potential impact on existing houses that are currently rented to students in
town? >> Which are you talking about? >> I'm talking about like, you know, the neighborhood that I live in. There are a bunch of residences for full-time residents and then there are a bunch of places that are occupied by a bunch of
students. And h how would this proposal impact like how how do you envision it impacting places that have already flipped to student houses? >> Um the the
limitation to arterial streets if you you do not live on an arterial street right? No, I'm like I'm thinking about Willow and Tamarak which are in the Misty Meadows development that are opposite us and there are quite a few student houses in there.
>> Okay. So they if they were were not on a um principal arterial street then they would be able to continue as a student rental for X amount of time. whatever ends up being the, you
know, if I'm I'm envisioning that they'll probably if this were referred to the zoning subcommittee that there may end up being some amendments to the numbers of in in these um provisions.
But um say if the if the number of years was 10 um then the the the house could transition to be rent would stay a rental if that was what the owner
wanted but they would rent to non- studentents. It would not be a student house anymore because the they would we would be trying to transition the student houses to the principal arterial streets. And then families could rent those houses.
>> Darcy, if you're on a street with five houses in a row and they're all student rentals, they are all going to have their 10-year allowance for students expire on the same day. How are you going to decide which of those five houses gets to keep
renting to students because the other ones are within 700 feet >> if they're not on a principal arterial road? uh then they wouldn't be continuing to be student houses.
>> Um so well you have a art you have an arterial requirement or allowance and you have a 700 or 2,000 feet allowance. I thought those distance allowances applied throughout the zone.
they would they would apply uh until the the period of time when the house would have to transition to a to a family. >> So at the end of the 10 years there
would only be student houses available on the arterials and there would be none available in the on feeder streets or small neighborhood streets. >> Right. Yes. And I heard you say in the very last planning board meeting that
that you thought that was a good idea. Or that you had thought about it anyway. >> I have thought about things like that. Yes. It's nice to find a point of of confluence every now and then. Uh Johanna, did you get the answer to
your question? I guess one more clarifying question then is in the on the feeder streets there would be no student homes and on the arterial streets is that where then there would be the spaces or the the
>> Yeah. >> Yes, there would be. And in 10 years then that would be where the student houses would be located and they would be subject to the minimum distance requirements.
And and like we said, we are completely open to friendly amendments. You know, it might be that it makes more sense to you to put the minimum distance requirements only
immediately adjacent to the to the university. It you know, like I said, we're open to friendly amendments. >> Okay. All right. Uh Jara and then Fred.
>> You um well, first I just want to say I I absolutely sympathize with your desire to see stable, tight-knit communities that welcome families, diversity, people across the income spectrum. um and
absolutely sympathize with the desire to uh combat the growing trend of LLC's or bad faith landlords collecting single family homes and converting them into um rental properties and taking those home ownership opportunities away from first
term first-time home buyers. Um, I'm curious, uh, I'm not so sure though that these proposals are the best mechanisms to achieve those goals. And so I'm curious, you know, what other um
have you explored any other like options like changing like nuisance ordinances or an alternative enforcement mechanism for noise in the evenings or I'm curious like what what led you to these set this set of proposals as opposed to some other ways
to deal with um undesirable student behavior. I I actually I don't know if I think Kitty would probably agree with me here that um the motivation of the the signitories of this petition really
doesn't have anything to do with uh or very little to do with student noise, student behavior, or anything nothing anti- studentent really. It's
only about um maintaining our our neighborhoods so that they don't tip. Um and because you know, for example, in my neighborhood, I have um many more uh
student houses than there were 10 years ago. Part of that is that the original owners that bought up in the neighborhood are moving out now. Um there the the fact that the LLC's can
offer cash and they can offer much more than what a first-time home buyer would offer means they get the house. Um, and you know, I now I now have a huge
student house next door. Um, and what you know, my concern is that that house doesn't have a family with kids that are going to Cracker Farm School that can play with the kids across the street and and they don't
have any investment in the neighborhood and they don't talk to any of the neighbors and they, you know, that is more what we're looking at than noise, parties, whatever. people downtown are absolutely looking at that.
>> And Kitty would like to add something. >> Yeah. Um, okay. Hi. >> The other part of this is that we really feel that we would like more businesses and commercial enterprises, especially
in downtown and the village centers. And without a year round population, I do we don't think that we're going to get there. um as it is the business community has really shrunk as far as I can see throughout town
because we don't have people to um to use utilize them right um and because the students are like they're going home and doing their you know they're they're when I've gone to the farmers market I say do you vote here and they say no I
vote at home do you register your car here no I register my car at home and um I understand that cuz I used to be a student too. But we're looking for ways in which we can have something other
than a bedroom community, something other than a monoculture in Ammerst because and I mean I think that you would agree that we want diversity in our town and not a
monoculture. Right now, the median age in Ammeris is something like 21.3 years of age and in other places in the area, Northampton, Hadley, I think those are the ones I looked up
most recently. Um, it's 47 is the average age. I mean, we really have a very different setup in Amoris and we're looking for ways and that's why we're taking it to the planning board. Um, we really want to motivate
you people to think of ways that we can um have a thriving business district and and and um expand our tax base not just on student housing but in many other
directions also. >> So the I hear you >> granular details we we we haven't worked out a lot of these granular details. We're we're we're trying to we're trying to get you all
>> Yeah. >> as others to um I don't want to say to do something because it's it's often worse to just do something um without thinking it through, but I think there's really a necessity and this is like feet to the
fire. Let's let's figure something out. um something that other towns have tried and this seems like reasonable ones, >> right? And I do want to I want to commend you both and your co-signers for the initiative that you took and the
courage that it takes to put yourselves out here and put out some ideas. Um uh I really do I really do admire that and I hear that you are looking for solutions to reduce the competition for home
ownership between those seeking to have student rentals and those who are seeking to set their roots down in Ammerst. I absolutely understand that and sympathize with that. Um, and I
would love to try and figure out ways to uh to make that happen. Um, again, I'm I'm a little skeptical that these are the ways to do it. Uh, but I I think that that goal is shared and um and I I think it's worth a discussion.
>> And I just I just want to add one thing. I don't understand um the mechanism I mean the thinking that only having students only building for students is is is more profitable profitable than
building for a mix of people. You you all pointed out that the um housing production plan does mention building for lots of different kinds of populations. I ju I don't believe that we need to have only student housing and be a bedroom community in order to have
housing for all people and to to build up the tax base using housing for families, housing for workforce, you know, all those other categories besides special design student housing. >> All right.
Thank you, Sharah. All right. Uh Fred and then Jesse, we are coming up on nine o'clock. >> Uh yeah. Um I also want to commend you. I there's a saying that I live by and that is earn
the right to complain. And uh you've earned the right to complain by taking the time to generate this uh petition. Um I uh I have issues with it. Um
you're you're quite correct in looking at the median ages of people in Amoris. And unfortunately this is a consequence of having the flagship state university entirely within the boundaries of the
town of Ammerst. Basically a little bit of it is in Hadley, not much. And uh there are consequences to that. And there are and these are market consequences. And uh
this is uh this is a very complicated and difficult uh thing to take into account. Um as I said the the rent stabilization that is a non-starter that is simply unlawful.
uh and uh the uh the other I I think there is a significant issue here that we we need to encourage and the the ZBA is systematically encouraging this by
favoring owner occupancy. Um, and uh, owner occupancy has uh, it it has behavioral objectives, but it it's more than that. Um because a
uh a multifamily building that is owner occupied, the owner can be someone of considerably lower means than someone who was simply buying a single family house because
they have rental income uh that uh offsets part of the mortgage. And uh and uh I I say this as someone who has lived in an owner occupied
multifamily house now 53 years in Ammerst and which is not on an arterial um and uh the number of complaints uh regarding behavior of tenants from this
address in the mechanisms that the town has available. able to it total in that 53 years exactly zero. Um and uh but uh we have nevertheless
seen issues that you've that you've raised as uh the number of owner occupied dwellings have gone down. Uh there's still a lot of them. Uh the uh there was a special permit proceeding in
a in a budding parcel and the uh uh town uh building department actually did up a uh uh a map uh that they they put it on screen of the owner occupied buildings
uh that were in the area of this particular one which uh as I said it's it's an abuing property m to mine. and and it was really surprising that there were a lot of multifamily uh dwellings
that were owner occupied around it. And uh that's the uh in terms of behavior that is the uh the best way to uh approach this. Uh but we certainly uh
are looking at uh these uh these issues very actively in the housing subcommittee uh and uh we we'll continue to do so. >> All right. Thank you, Fred. I'll just add that the whole board has been looking at a number of those issues as
well, Jesse, and then we'll go to public comment. I see one hand already up. uh think about whether you want to make a public comment for this proposal this evening. I I think it's likely we'll be continuing this hearing.
Go ahead, Jesse. >> Great. Thank you. Um yeah, thanks for that segue both Fred and Doug. Uh really just a comment that a I very much appreciate you all bringing the conversation. Um, I do need
to recognize that the conversation can't just be here. Uh, in addition to the monumental effort that Bruce spent a couple years ago to gather all the data on most of these ideas that you've included, uh, the housing, the planning board and the subcommittee has spent tons of effort
over the last couple years that I've been involved trying to bring some of these things forward and they don't go anywhere. So, I think my point is the conversation can't be just with the planning board. I appreciate you tasking us to do something. I agree. But the conversation has to happen all around
town, not just here, in order for it to take the next step. So, thanks. >> All right, Jesse. >> All right. Uh, why don't we go to public comment? Um, I see two hands.
Um, I don't remember Pam or or Nate, if one of you could bring over Josh Lewis. Yeah, I I'll take care of that, Doug. >> Okay. Hello again, Josh. >> Hello again. >> Tell us what town you live in now. >> Oh, uh I I live in Newton.
>> Newton. Okay. >> Yes. I'm I'm very familiar with uh a lot of these different zoning fights and all that. So, let me be direct. >> I'm going to give you two minutes. Go ahead. >> Thank you. >> Let me be direct. So, Article 19 is intentionally discriminable against students. It is exclusionary suburban
politics dressed up as neighborhood protection. The proposal to create a a 700 to 2,000 foot buffer zones between student homes. It bans um is essentially redlinining by and segregation by not allowing you know students near
residential homes just cuz you know you think they're desirable. And so that's just going to it's going to take it's going to just like move it's probably going to move um students away far farther away from campus and make it so that they can't it's going to create a
really really weird market effect and I don't know and um sorry yeah I just want I also want to mention about how I think using the Olympia fire to justify this is uh kind of disturbing you know uh 230 students
lost their homes and uh yeah I Actually, I actually hung out used to hang out there. I had a friend that lived there. It was uh it was quite nice and um I think we probably need to build build more now since since it's gone. And um
sorry, I'm I'm blanking. Uh I think you know the real solution would be to let you know build more apartments near campus, near bus lines and near downtown so students don't actually have to go into these single family neighborhoods cuz the the reason why they continue to encroach on these single family
neighborhoods is just there's not enough near campus and obviously you know the school doesn't build enough. I think that the school does need to like not let in as many people because I think they're just kind of they're kind of greedy as well. But yeah, at the end of the day, um I think that it is
discriminatory and it would actually make things worse. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Josh. Um Nate, if you could bring over Jennifer Tab. >> Um can you hear me? >> Yes. Hello, Jennifer.
>> Hi. So, I'm Jennifer Tab, a resident of um I live on Lincoln Avenue. Um I am mostly speaking in my capacity as a resident but at the end I will tell you when I'm making a comment with my council hat on. Um so I did want to um
in terms of you know rent control and rent stabilization I did want to acknowledge that yes of course right now it is not legal in Massachusetts that there is discussion that the legislature may you know take that up but for now
that is at the current time um not an option in Amherst or anywhere in the state. So, what a minimal distance requirements would accomplish or limiting student houses to arterial
streets does mean that property owners who want to rent their dwellings if not located on an on an arterial road could do so, but they would, you know, have to rent to non- studentent households. And
since most non- studentent households in Amherst cannot afford dwellings that are priced at $1,000 or more per bedroom, then those dwellings could still be rented, but they would have to be priced um in a range that families and members
of our workforce and retirees and other non- studentent households could afford. And I can't really see another way that we can incentivize rental housing that is not priced at the
highest point the market can bear. And that is renting to students who share the rent. It's still very expensive for students, but they unlike a family, you know, have the they they split expenses. You know, if you're a single parent with
three kids, you're paying for all the bedrooms. your kids are not you know sharing it with you. So what limiting putting some limitations on where student houses can be would create some
pressure for those houses and you know multifamily dwellings that can't be rented to students to be priced again at a at at a point that non- studentent households couldn't afford. And I guess with my
council hat on, I just want to say that I do um agree with I think it was Jara may have raised it earlier that are there conversations happening with the university. I would love for the council and the university to be able to have a
conversation together and perhaps Mr. Marshall in your capacity with the planning board or in your role, you know, between 9 to 5 could help to facilitate those conversations. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you, Jennifer. All right. I don't see any more hands from the public. >> Uh I will just remark that it is nine seven minutes after 9. Um board members, how are you feeling about this? Is this something we want to
continue the conversation? And um I'll stop there with my sentence. Angus and then Bruce. >> Yeah, I guess I I get I have a question an question to the board as well. Um, it was helpful to hear Bruce talk about how
the board before I arrived, um, was thinking considering different options for for trying to, um, essentially, you know, house students in in different places uh, that aren't in, you know, uh, single family neighborhoods. I guess I'm I'm just
wondering, it sounds like the board uh and the housing subcommittee thought about that as an option and decided to pursue other options. And so I I worry now we are pursuing other options. I guess I I worry about going back to that
discussion if the planning board and the housing subcommittee have already discussed that. So I guess I'm I'm wanting to hear from members who were here at the time a little bit more about that. Um I I mean maybe I'll say just a couple
of things and then Bruce and and Jesse you can add on. Um you know I feel like it was this just last summer uh that we that the housing subcommittee came with a proposal for a
student house uh proposal that you know I I mean it was the night there were five of us at the board. I was the only one that voted against it. The four members of the housing sub commmittee voted in favor of it. It passed. It went to the town
council and they elected not to act on it. Um so Jesse, when we get to you, you can tell me if I just mischaracterized it. I'm working from memory here. So, that was a
conversation about student homes and um you know, I know um Darcy, wasn't it you that brought the sort of duplex proposal to everyone? Um maybe it wasn't you. Um but we had it. Oh, Bruce, you're you're
saying no, it wasn't. >> It was Pat D'Angelus and >> it was Pat D'Angel, right? Okay. So Pat D'Angelus had that proposal with council that was referred to us that was saying let's allow duplexes everywhere that we
now allow single family homes. And that was actually the conversation where I thought gee I'd be willing to do that along arterials but I wasn't sure I'd be willing to do it everywhere. Um, so those are just a couple of the
conversation points that come to my mind about some of the things that have been involved here. Um, I'll I'll now go to Bruce and then Jesse. >> Well, um, uh, if I were to continue discussing this, the first thing I would
do would be to clarify what's actually being asked for. um for example eliminate the uh the the consideration of rent stabilization clearly and then try and work out I'm looking at page one not of the presentation but of the uh
the memorandum and uh this is all very confusing um and I'm not going to try and pass through it now it's just not clear and it needs to be uh reformulated it needs to be written in a way that's uh basically says what the petitioners are
trying to say in uh distrib contributed through the rest of the document. Um, but I don't think anyone should uh put effort into that until we find out whether this is uh possible, whether the state whether the Commonwealth
um whether whether the MGL Mass Generals has some prescription over this. So I would uh probably move something I'd be inclined to move continuation to a date
uh by which time uh uh town council has rendered an opinion as to whether this is something that is uh we are >> you mean spending time. >> Yes. if we can't do that. Uh I mean we
we uh proposed to the the council a definition of student homes because we thought goodness we're a university town half so many people in town are students we should at least have a definition of what a student home is if we want to move forward with anything or all sorts
of things. So it wasn't just specifically geared towards minimum distancing but we did take the uh the state college definition. So, you know, we weren't in we weren't ignorant of the possibility of one course of uh of
utilization of a of a of a of a student home definition. But um there's really no point in putting effort into this if uh it can be clearly um uh determined that we are not able to do it in the Commonwealth. So we should first of all
find out whether we can and if we can then I'm think we should continue the discussion just in case we miss something the first time around. >> We we've we've talked about this. >> This is not new to us. >> All right. Thank you, Bruce.
Jesse, >> thanks. Um yes, Doug, your recollection is my recollection as well. Uh just a couple more comments about that in addition to what Bruce said. Yes, we spent a lot of time trying to get the right definition
to propose and the whole point of that was so that we could begin to think about some of these other ideas that you all including the ones you all have brought and that's really was my comment about the conversation has to be elsewhere also. Um
we can put forward anything we want. If there aren't receptive ears, the next step is not going to matter. And so I think that's the hesitation to take up some of this again. Personally, I'm up for it. I think we need to I think we need to keep beating
this drum. Um I'm definitely open to considering these things again. Uh I think what's definitely slightly new here is the arterial idea, although the subcommittee we had a couple not so distant ideas recently also. So I think
that is definitely of interest to myself and probably others. Um on the what's legal and what's not legal, my general view is it's with these kinds of things, it's maybe not possible until it is.
>> And again, this is another place where I've been a little frustrated by some of our recent thoughts that never went anywhere. Uh just one example, you know, there's clear around the ADU bylaws. There are other places in Massachusetts
that have exceptions for various reasons. I argued um with some others that I thought we should try and make that exception as well, but we didn't we didn't convince enough people that we should move forward in that direction. So, I'm personally not opposed to considering things at least trying to
consider things that may be legally murky at the moment. Long story short, I think we should consider some of these ideas uh at least with discussions with staff if not the subcommittee. >> All right. Well, I will say one thing
that occurs to me that would get around the possible legal prohibition on the uh distancing. Um, now that I understand that Darcy and uh Kitty's intent is that there really
are only student rentals uh along Arterials. Um, you know, we could have we could set zoning. We could have uniform so zoning that's just one property deep along arterials
and you know regulate the kinds of buildings you could have in that zone and um now let's suppose you did that and and you did allow the buildings to be big enough to actually meet the
demand that would mean some of those old houses along ong route, you know, South Maple Street or um, you know, I mean, South Pleasant Street, uh, you know, might be torn down and
then instead of driving along and seeing old New England, you would see new student housing. Well, my neighborhood wouldn't have any kids in it, but I'd be in sort of schizophrenia when I drove to work every morning. I left New England and drove
through campus to get to campus or something. So, you know, there's there's different ways that it can play out. So, anyway, I'll stop there. Um Nate, um you know, I think we there sounds like
there's some stuff we'd like to investigate and would you be willing to work with us on it? Yeah, I was going to just say to Angus that, you know, the 2015 comprehensive housing market study, RKG Associates completed that and they looked at, you know, other communities
uh in the in the US, mostly on, you know, like Mid-Atlantic, and they referenced having more stringent requirements in neighborhoods, but also as a, you know, correlary measure allowing student housing and density in other parts of town, right? So, it's not like one or the other. They both have to
work in concert. And so I think when you know so some of the ideas was okay what's allowed in Massachusetts and how could we have say restrictive zoning if you want to call it that and then be flexible in other areas and we've never quite had both achieved at the same time
and so when um a proposal was made to change how one and two families and the addition of a you know a triplex was proposed a few years ago the planning board discussed it quite a bit and said maybe this isn't the right approach. Let's step back a bit and say what are
how can we achieve you know relief of market pressures uh differently than trying to go at it by you know a unit type and a zoning district type and so that's why we didn't approach some of these strategies at that time because you know we were trying to step back and
say what are some other ideas to look at it so I think you know we can explore this I think part of me is like okay if we do this then we still should really push for more you know denser housing around the university campus in other parts of town. If I look at this amendment right now, in the end, we're
saying we could only allow student rentals of single family homes and two family homes on 11 streets in town. That doesn't make much sense to me. We're going to we say we can we want student rent we'll allow student rentals on Bay Road, but not someplace closer to campus. And so I you know, again, I
think the there's ideas here that we could work on. I don't know if this is ready as a zoning amendment. So typically a zoning amendment would be the form that you could then make tweaks to language to adopt it. To me, these are ideas that are can be discussed to maybe become a zoning amendment, but
this isn't a zoning amendment yet. And so we can continue the conversation, but I don't think this is a zoning amendment that, you know, we I wanted to spend time on for next seven meetings to try to get to bring it back to council. I think this is something that is part of a bigger discussion the board's been
having for two years. And I think we still need like Jesse said, we need to keep having these conversations and it, you know, we have to decide if we like the student home definition. I think it's worth looking into. Is it legal? Then the question is, would it be passed by town council and what do we do with it? And that was always the question
when we were looking at it. And so, you know, staff has talked about that. You know, is there a way to try to, you know, how do you discern, you know, what's an undergraduate student versus another student? What's this or that? And it's really difficult. Um, other states can do it. Other communities
maybe can do it. I agree with Jesse. It's it's, you know, maybe we do it until we get a lawsuit, right? That's kind of the leap we might have to take because no one's going to come out and say yes or no sometimes because it might not be really clear legally. And Massachusetts is a case law
state. The state law might not really say it clearly. There's not case law to define it. And so, you know, are we going to be, you know, willing to be one of the first communities that has a student home definition and has regulations that for it? Maybe,
you know, but I I, you know, I think that's something we put it on our priority list and we continue to talk about it and maybe it becomes, you know, part of the, you know, priorities we talk about sooner than later, right? We have quite a few the housing and zoning subcommittee are looking at that staff want to look at and so you know I think
this is something that we add to the list. Maybe there's a few ideas we add to the list um because of this conversation. Um you know but maybe we still continue this hearing to another meeting but knowing that you know if we really want to work on it it's going to be more than you know to me more than
like a few weeks. It's a pretty big conversation. >> All right. Thank you Nate Angus. Yeah, I'll just keep it brief. I I I I think in the housing and zoning subcommittee, we're clearly trying to
think through strategies to help with this problem. I guess I'm I'm concerned what Nate just described is um a lot of administrative time. Setting up a program like this is also going to require an enormous amount of administrative effort. Um, and then on top of that, we we at least based on
what what Bruce was describing, it sounds like State College is waiting for a lawsuit, and it sounds like we'd be waiting for a lawsuit as well. And so I guess I'm I'm just a little bit concerned about putting a a lot of emphasis into this
particular zoning amendment as opposed to doing what a version of what Nate is suggesting, which is incorporating more of these discussions into the housing and zoning subcommittee and and inviting the petitioners and other commenters to to talk more with us about how we can incorporate this into our multi-pronged
strategy as opposed to a single strategy that's one article to the zoning bylaw. when other things are are working more holistically. >> All right. Uh I don't see any more board hands raised. Uh I there was a hand
raised in the public. Um are there any members of the public? Josh Lewis. Let's bring Josh back over. Josh, if you can keep it under two minutes, that would be great. >> Uh yes. Um, I believe that there was
potentially some misinformation um about the State College Pennsylvania. I just was pulling up some notes here. Um, yeah, apparently I I I haven't done a deep dive on this, but minimum distance uh student home laws have been
challenged and struck down in federal court in similar ca similar cases. And um basically what this state college did is they built thousands of new new beds in high in tall highdensity student housing developments and that actually
reduced pressure in single family neighborhoods which lines up with my line of uh argumentations. And it seems like uh they did do the student home restrictions that they did push
demand into new areas which worsen scarcity uh elsewhere and it didn't doesn't seem like their um uh what they did was actually that effective. So, I would um encourage you guys to look closer into that into
really what's going on there before, you know, basing your policy off of what they're doing. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Um don't see any other hands from the public. No hands from the board.
Um all right. I'm going to I'm going to throw out a motion to continue this hearing to uh December 17th at 6:35 period. Anybody want to second that?
No. Okay. Jesse Jesse I will second that motion. All right, >> Doug. Was article 18 continued to 635? Should we say >> article 18 was defeated?
>> Oh, that's right. You're right. Yep, >> Bruce. >> Um, I just want to know to what end? Well, it seemed like we had it some we were at least some of people on the board were willing to
entertain reconsideration of some of the ideas in their proposal, many of which we've talked about before. Um, it seemed like the housing subcommittee might be willing to have some conversation with the petitioners.
Um, and I thought rather than just shut it off this evening that it would be worth uh at least giving them the courtesy of a continuation. Now, >> that's I could second that. I mean, I >> I don't you know,
I think I agree with Nate. This is really it's really not ready as a actual zoning bylaw proposal. So, you know, how we want to proceed is I'm I'm open to it, but I I
>> well, the the the invitation for the petitioners and and supporters to join uh and engage in a process would seem to be because this I mean I I I know this is it's it's hard to put all the effort
into this and so forth and and and the petitioners have and as we've seen we we understand that And but but good lord, we do the same. You know, we do it every every week, >> right? >> Uh hours. And uh this feels somewhat
like uh you know, you're having a deep conversation with somebody over the dinner table. you're 45 minutes in and the phone rings um and you answer the phone and your conversation is interrupted by someone who's just broken in with whatever the hell they want to talk about which may or may not be
relevant to the conversation it's been having. But it feels it's got it's got that um it's got that about it would be much better if that instead of calling uh they knocked on the door and joined the conversation at the table. That that
would be a preferred outcome for me. But I'm not opposed. I won't vote against continuation. I just want to know why we're doing it because we we've got, you know, we've got business here. We've got lots of things we're we're thinking about and we've got an order, an agenda, and so forth. And it's just it's it
doesn't sit extremely well with me that suddenly the agenda is bumped out by somebody who parachutes in. Am I being too elitist here? Probably. I usually am. I'm sorry about that. Well, I'm I invite you to oppose the motion.
I'm I'm not hellbent on continuing if but I thought that was where we should start and I got a pretty reasonably quick second. So, Angus and then Jesse. >> We do have a motion on the table.
>> So, speaking to the motion, I I I don't think that's a good idea. I think that this zoning amendment as proposed needs a lot more work. Um but but more importantly I I don't think that a zoning amendment is the way to go especially when the planning board is
has discussed and proposed changes which the town council has not acted on and that this has been going on for a couple of years. I think there are other ways we can try and tackle this in the housing and zoning subcommittee and I I think that's the place to be talking not
about a zoning bylaw necessarily but about other ways that we can achieve these goals. And so I I just don't think that more talking as a whole planning board on this subject. If this was a new subject, I'd agree, but but since it's it's something that the planning board has spent a lot of time on, I just don't think it's a good use of our time as a
collective. >> All right. Thank you, Jesse. Yeah, I think I've been convinced similarly, but what I would also offer is that I do think there are some new thoughts here that have not come up, at least in my time with the planning board, and I
do think they're worth consideration, and I do think they can be incorporated into certainly the subcommittee conversations at some point. Um, but I kind of agree in its current form, it's not something I think any of us would vote on to pass to the town council for
consideration. So, >> so Jesse, since I since I made the motion and you seconded, should we withdraw the motion? >> Yeah, I I think so. >> All right. So, we need another motion. And I I'm not going to jump this time. >> I see.
>> Anybody want to make another motion? We I suppose we don't have to make a recommendation at all. We could just close the hearing. U Nate, is that true? Do you agree with that? Yes. So, you know, the Mass General law
requires that in order for a zoning amendment to be adopted or, you know, voted on, it has to follow these processes. And, you know, what isn't clear and what, you know, the council wasn't clear when the council referred it is, you know, what if there's no action and it just, you know, just
doesn't h doesn't, you know, never moves forward and, you know, that could happen, right? So that the plan board takes no action, then the council can really the council then has to wait longer, right? So if the pl doesn't make make a recommendation but closes the hearing, the council has a prescribed
amount of time where then it could pick it up again or it could not. It just lengthens the, you know, the council then has to wait so many days after the hearing whether or not the planning board has submitted a report. So if you close the hearing tonight, a few weeks pass, the council can take action whether or not the planning board has
made a recommendation. >> All right. Thank you for that. So, I see four hands starting with Johanna. >> I was going to move to not recommend article 19 to the town council and to close the public hearing.
>> So, that is to take no action versus recommending against. >> No, I was going to say recommend against this draft. >> All right. I just Yeah. In in the spirit of giving clarity to the town council on
the upshot of our conversation tonight. >> All right. Second. >> All right. So, Angus, did you want to say anything else before we move? Well, all of the hands on the board just disappeared. So,
um All right. I see one hand from the public which just dropped. Eddie startup. Can we bring her over? >> HDI, you should be able to unmute yourself. >> Hello, Hetty.
>> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh I was one of the people who signed on to these um proposals and I think in the back of my mind it was really to try and just have this kind of
conversation that we've been having tonight and I'm fairly new to Ammerst unlike Bruce. So I I hear his frustration. Um I and and I also know that over overlaying this is the overlay
proposal. And I just I just wish that there was a little bit more caution in in how we arrive at these decisions. Um I speak not from a position of having a
lot of involvement with the town in its um administration but I have been on the historical commission and I can think of a number of occasions when the fact that there isn't a kind of consensus
um around housing that the production plan is not completed that the design standards um that that um uh what's the name of the company? Nate, help me. Um
anyway, the these rolling around and and the moratorum does it's a very loaded word, but it it does provide a kind of breathing space. And um I I don't I
don't want to bring up Olympia Place because it's a terrible tragedy, but because that kind of thing should give us more pause when we consider um issues of you know village centers or downtown so that
so that we just give ourselves some breathing space. Um so that's all I really want to say. So I'd like to hold off. I I hope you I hope you keep talking about this rather than just throwing things out. >> Thanks.
>> Okay. Thank you, Hetty. Uh, Jara, >> I was just going to ask, can we like can we add on to this motion re-examine our previously submitted student house
definition or something like that? Like in lie of moving forward with this article, do the other thing that we >> always go back to things we've talked about before. Yeah, we can. >> Well, I guess I don't need to complicate the motion. I mean, I think I don't
think it needs to complicate the motion, but you can certainly ask to have something on the agenda for a meeting. >> Okay. >> And we can pull out the minutes from whatever meetings, you know, that was or the proposal that was sent to the town
council. >> Yeah. All right. I don't see any hands at all. Um, let's see. I'm trying to remember Johanna, you had made the motion
>> to not recommend to recommend against to town council for this bylaw proposal and to close the hearing. Jesse, >> sorry, I have a question about the
motion. If we close the hearing but don't send a recommendation, council then has to address it or they can choose to address it. >> Nate, >> right? So, if the um you know, planning
board recommends it, then the council can take it up quickly. If the planning board doesn't take an action, they have to wait longer before they could pick it up again. So, you know, it's like it's like 21 days after the close of the hearing, the council could do something. If there's no action, they just they have to wait longer. So, they can always
pick it up at some point. It's just, you know, the time frame is lengthened. >> And if we vote to not recommend, >> they >> that that would be a communication to council and >> they still could >> it could be Yeah, they could still adopt it or whatever. >> Just right.
>> Yep. >> Okay. All right. Uh I see another hand from Janet Keller. Janet, >> give us your 30 second elevator speech. >> Janet.
>> Oh dear. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, we hear you. >> Okay. Um, I I just want to say that I've been haunted um by the um the the Olympia Place
um fire by something that is related to zoning which is that tall buildings should not be uh have flammable uh materials like wood on them. So, um
perhaps that's simplistic, but um I think it's an example of what we do, what what decisions we make have consequences. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you, Janet.
>> Okay. So again, we have a motion to recommend against adoption to town council and close the hearing. I'm going to go ahead with the vote now and I'm just going to go with the usual order. Bruce,
>> I'm an I. >> So a yes vote is against adoption. Just just to be clear to everybody. Bruce, go. Thank you, Fred. Hi >> Angus. >> Hi >> Jesse.
>> N >> uh Johanna. >> Hi. >> Jara >> I. >> And I'm an I. The motion passes. Six in favor, one
opposed. Thank you all. Thank you, Darcy and Kitty. Um, I hope you're not discouraged by the actions we've taken this evening. I think you've prompted a conversation um that frankly the board has been
having, but I think we got a little more uh attendance this evening than usual. Uh, a wider group of people present and uh we've brought up some topics that the board has talked about before, but some of the recent newer members were not
aware of. So uh I think it has been a productive evening. So thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> We're not discouraged. >> Okay. >> We'll keep on.
>> You're not going anywhere either. >> That's right. Come to the subcommittee. >> Yeah. Watch for the next subcommittee meeting. >> Okay. >> All right. The time is 9:39. Um, Nate, why don't uh let's see, it
looks like I've got another hearing I need to introduce. All right. In accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law, chapter 48, this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted. It is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for
interested citizens to be heard regarding proposed zoning map change. Main Street BN District to consider amending the Town of Ammerst official zoning map to reszone three parcels on Main Street known as 14B-29,
14B30, and 14B31 from the general residence district RG to the neighborhood business district BN. All right. Any board member disclosures? No
applicant presentation. Is that you, Nate, or do we have somebody else? >> Yeah, Rob Moore is here. We can bring him over. >> Oh, okay. Rob, thanks for staying with us to this point.
>> Hello, Rob. >> Uh, good evening. Thanks, everyone. uh Pam or Nate, whoever can help me bring up the uh presentation, please. I have a I have a quick presentation to to go through. All right. Okay, I got it.
>> Okay, thanks Pam. If you can go right to the next slide, we'll get started right away. Uh so this is the um proposal to expand a portion of the B and the neighborhood business district on Main Street. Uh
this is a very uh simple proposal because it only changes the map. There's uh no language change to the bio law at all. Uh and it affects three parcels uh three parcels that are currently in the general residence district. uh and those are uh known as numbers 229, 257, and
285 Main Street that I'll talk about in a minute. Um there is a current uh single parcel uh in BN district on the corner of Dickinson and Maine currently uh standalone uh parcel 319 to 321.
That'll be uh you know the the area that we're looking to expand from. Um all parcels are located in the local historic district uh as well just for um note. Uh next uh slide please.
Uh so this is just uh you know why we are doing this. There's a couple of uh reasons that support our overall goals, but I think the one in the middle is the one that, you know, we really want to talk about when we get to that parcel is uh how this proposal can affect uh the
future of a a business that is is uh impacted by uh the current zoning in in the district. Um, next slide, please. So, we've uh we've done a few things here. We've been talking about this proposal for most uh pretty much since
the early summertime. I I did give an overview to the uh planning board at that time. I know not everyone here tonight was was there for that meeting uh to hear the the initial overview and and idea to move ahead with this proposal. Um there's been a lot of
discussions with uh property owners uh both those that are affected by the property and the ones surrounding uh the properties where the the change is being proposed. Uh this is a amendment proposal being brought that was brought to the council by the town manager. So
developed by staff uh but presented to the council uh by the manager and ultimately referred here. Uh next slide please. So again, uh just a reminder, we're we're talking about two just two zoning districts. The general residence uh with
its uh purpose uh to provide medium and higher density uh uh near the town center between the university and town center and services and employment and etc. Um next slide please. the the proposed district uh neighborhood business uh similarly has
moderate density uh standards uh but also uh incorporates some non non-residential uh opportunities and can provide for a good transition between the more dense areas and the residential neighborhoods uh which we can see on the map that this
is what we're talking about here in this proposal. Next slide please. So, here's an image of our current map. Uh, Pam, if you're able to, um, if you can point out Dickinson Street in Maine, the intersection, uh, that is right at
the one, uh, down below. Yep. Main Street and, uh, Yep. Main Street is right there. Dickinson is the first parcel right there. Uh, that is in white. Uh, is the is the BN district. And we are looking
to expand uh to the three parcels to the left on the map that uh Pam is pointing at. Uh and if we can go right ahead to the next slide, Pam. >> Yeah, >> those par parcels are shown there outlined in blue. Uh so uh from the left
uh all the way to the left 229, the larger parcel in the middle 257, and the small one uh next to the current piece of BN 285. Next slide, please. So, starting with 289 or 229, I'm sorry,
229, we've got a 20,000 square foot parcel. It is a currently a pre-existing non-conforming use of an owner occupied duplex. Uh, and this is a parcel that with the change uh could potentially see some de some potential development,
modest uh development, but uh certainly could see some some potential uh development here. Now, none of these properties are proposing uh any type of physical change to the properties. Uh but I do want to point out that with the
with the lot area of 20,000 square feet and only two units on that property, there's there's certainly possibilities whether it be a couple more units or it could be maybe a a larger home occupation type of a use uh that's non-residential component uh could also
be uh considered for that parcel. Uh, next slide please. Panel 257. This is the Ammeris Inn. So, this is a fairly large parcel for the area, 35,000 square feet, and it exists with a special permit from the zoning board of
appeals uh issued in 1997 to allow for an accessory use bed and breakfast. Now, our accessory use provisions uh have have a few limitations. uh the property needs to be owner occupied and uh most importantly I
think to the uh the limitations on on this use is that there cannot be more than four to six guests. Um this uh certainly was fine you 30 years ago. Uh the owners applied for a permit uh took
on an ambitious restoration of uh the historic home and ultimately what they have today are uh eight uh very um beautiful uh guest rooms that have been refinished in the building. Uh however,
they have this limit on the number of guests. That's number of people that's not number of rooms. Uh so I think you can see quickly how that can be very limiting to uh to the the operation of a of a of a bed and breakfast. Um the uh
potential change uh would allow for a change of use. So if we were if we were to put these parcels into the neighborhood business district, uh the owner of the inn could seek to change from an accessory use in to a primary
use. uh in or bed and breakfast and uh ultimately not have the limit of guests uh before to six. Um there's also further um complications with the property in its current form uh related
to fire and building codes. Uh and that's kind of what generated this discussion and motivated uh staff to look at this this option uh and significant improvements that will be needed for this building. But they really only make sense if uh the use is
able to operate with the full full use of the eight rooms that the the current property the current building has. >> Uh next slide please. >> Rob, are you saying that >> for instance maybe they need to install sprinklers but that expense would be un
unsupported if they didn't have have bigger occupancy. Exactly. So, this came to my attention following a routine inspection from the fire department. And the fire department uh when they were there noted that uh there's mass general
law when there's a uh lodging or boarding uh facility that houses that offers rooms to more than five individuals. No, not five rooms, five again, five people. Five guests could be two in a room that counts as two.
uh and and they uh brought it brought to my attention that this property did not have the required uh systems to operate in that way. And that would be uh the big ones are sprinkler and fire alarm that would need to be uh upgrades to
this building. And that of course was uh you know uh conveyed to the owners. They are very much interested in making the improvements. They are very much uh hoping to um be able to to fully use the property, but they couldn't make they
cannot make that kind of investment if they're really limited to four four guests essentially because they count as one. You know, if if a owner has to live there as an accessory use, then they can have four, you know, that one owner
living there could have four guests and that would be the maximum use at one time in that property under the current laws. That's that's what we're telling them. Uh so I think you can see how how difficult that is uh for what they're you know what they're trying to do there
with that property and what they have done to restore it into its condition. There could be other things. Um, we haven't fully examined it. Uh, they have engaged an architect that's looking at the property, but, uh, because of the, you know, the dollar value and other things that might be required, uh, we
could see things like accessibility improvements. Uh but again, anything that's a proposal to the exterior of the building would both be subject to site plan review if it didn't qualify for administrative approval and uh review through the local historic district
commission. Uh next slide, Pam. Uh the last parcel in the uh in the proposal is 285 Main Street. Um this is a another pre-existing non-conforming use and it's apartment building with six
units. Uh it's a smaller parcel. It's uh extremely um built out for uh coverage, building and lot coverage. And it a few years ago was uh entirely remodeled following a fire uh bringing it up to
current standards, life safety systems, uh structural improvements, uh new parking lot. So, significant amount of work that it really makes it unlikely that anything would ever change with this property, I guess, is the point that I'm trying to make. Uh there's no opportunity to expand anywhere. Uh and
it's it's uh in in very good condition following the recent uh renovation. Uh so, last slide. Um this is uh what the map would look like should this proposal move forward and get adopted. Uh again, taking that one BN parcel,
that one spot we have uh on the corner of Dickinson and Maine and stretching it over the next three parcels. Um intentionally leaving the uh the the church property out for for further discussion someday. Uh I think when we
talk downtown someday, uh that parcel will be part of that discussion. And uh and right now I think it's best to just leave it leave it there until we get to that uh that level of discussion. >> Thank you.
All right, board members questions. I guess I'll start with one until somebody else raises a hand. Um, you said that the owners of the the center parcel, the inn, who have the
greater capacity than they're allowed to uh utilize or rent. Um, did they realize like did they just do that whole whole building renovation and create eight great bedrooms because they love the
building or were they sort of counting on getting that limitation changed? >> I don't know if I've had that exact discussion. You know, I mean, this goes back to again 1997. Uh and I know uh from speaking with the
current owners uh who one of them is the original owner from 1997 who was granted the permit. You know, it was a um it was a large undertaking uh and and one room at a time. And from my understanding is
that the uh accessory use uh permit probably worked well for many years as they brought one new one room available then a second room available. Uh and and here we are all these years later and you know it came to their attention that
uh you know there is this limitation in the zoning bylaw. And I think what was probably more uh of a surprise to anybody is that there isn't actually a path to resolve it. So uh you know usually we have we have something to offer a business owner or a property
owner on how to get to uh accomplish what they are hoping for and the bylaw in in the RG district just doesn't offer anything. We cannot we cannot ex expand the four to six under the accessory use
and a primary use is simply a no in the district. >> Okay. Um contract zoning is that an option >> very much discouraged. Um so we we try not to do that. We have a couple in town. they don't work well
uh and and generally is not uh not the path we want to take. Uh and and this you know although I would say that this you know the the the situation for this property owner motivated uh this discussion moved it up on the priority
list for staff to look at. Um this is exactly what we've been talking about for this area. You know we're we're kind of we're taking just a little piece of it. Uh but the overall um thought for transitioning out of the BG district to
the BN to the BVC down to the R our district RG district is exactly what we would want to do if we were you know approaching this in a bigger scope. Uh so we we've had those discussions in recent years on these parcels in particular uh and just thought we were
ready to move this forward uh you know at this time in this very small piece. >> Okay. All right, Fred and then Jesse. >> Uh, yeah, I have some sympathy about to the argument about the the
transition between zoning districts. Uh, on the other hand, this is across the street from the Dickinson House, which is an incredibly important resource uh for the town. And I'm wondering
uh do we have any comments from Amoris College on uh their take on this uh the uh because uh uh I am I I understand the logic for
this but I also am very very cautious about moving forward with this given the uh very possible impact that it would have on the Dickinson property and I I would want to
hear from uh Amoris College on this. >> So we >> Yeah, we we don't have Yeah, we don't have anything from Ammeris College, but we do have in your in your packet there is a uh a letter of support from a member of the Dickinson Museum. Um, we
do, you know, we did send out notices to all abuing property owners. Uh, we're not required to do that, but we made it a point to make sure that all all parcels within 300 ft of the affected parcels were noticed of these hearings.
Uh, there may be some in the audience that that will speak one way or the other. Uh but uh you know I think we see this uh and believe this is in support of uh and and not in any way detrimental to the uh Dickinson Museum.
>> All right, Jesse. >> Great. Thanks. Thanks, Rob, for the presentation. Uh I don't think I'm opposed to this at all. I guess I'm wanted you to expand a little on what you said that you would imagine this going wider in this area but you didn't
feel ready for that. So I guess why not given the conversations the last three hours and some of the other >> bigger conversations. So why not just do more now? >> Yeah, I'm not sure the more would be BN. So, what what we want to do is um and I
know the it's on your list with the subcommittee and and as a planning board priority list to look at start looking at the downtown both BG and BL and I think having those design standards in place really will move us into those discussions and and perhaps the BG
district boundaries are changing would be changed or uh you know part of that discussion and you know we just weren't ready without having the design standards finalized. We weren't ready to creep that direction any further uh at this time. Uh I didn't think it was
necessary. I didn't think it was, you know, uh appropriate until we have uh have that study completed and those recommendations. >> Okay. And last comment maybe is if you've already you and staff have already thought this through like a bigger plan, I think we'd love to see that even if it's not ready like what
kind of boundaries are you thinking about would change? >> Sure. We we have all kinds of ideas for both BL and BG uh that that uh have been around for quite a while. So we we certainly are are eager for that discussion when when it's uh you know uh
up on the list for your discussions at those uh those subcommittee meetings. >> Great. Thanks >> Angus. >> Yeah, I was just going to say um that uh Amoris call I just wanted to disclose that Ammeris College is my employer. I
don't think that this will have any kind of an impact on on the Emily Dickinson Museum property which is owned by the trustees, but um I'll be abstaining from the vote. Thank you. >> And Jared,
>> thank you Brad. This is this is me asking genuinely what what concerns would you have for how this could impact the Dickinson property? when I saw these like I thought oh these will you know
more people will be staying at the end who or at the yeah at the inn who can visit and there might be other businesses or I'm what uh what are you concerned about might impact how this might impact the Dickson property?
Well, uh this is the uh the property that is existing on the corner of uh um Dickinson Street and Main Street that is is is kind of
famous. I remember in my first uh six years on the planning board some this is back in the 1990s um discussions about this and uh that uh was a uh if I
recall the history that that was a nonconforming use and uh it could continue by special permit and it was kind It was kind of famous as uh an example
of Yeah. uh it was it was commercial before we had zoning and it was so it's an existing nonconforming and uh the ZBA kept very careful uh track of it because of the sensitivity
to uh the Dickinson house across the street and uh this this has had a lot of visibility at the uh planning board level uh when I was on the board previously
and uh this proposal now would extend that to uh three other parcels and uh yeah I uh
I I think we need to be have our eyes open here that this Uh by changing the underlying zoning here uh to a business zoning uh we ultimately
could change the character of uh what is opposite the Dickinson property. And I'm I I I I'm still uh partly because of I
remember the discussions from 25 years ago. Uh I I'm having a little bit of trouble getting my head around this. That's really helpful. I was asking, you know, uh if I was curious if it was
parking or if it was um you know, a a business moving in that doesn't complement or if that would somehow create speculation of the Dickinson property, which I assumed is not an option. But um uh I certainly I
certainly appreciate the and understand the concern over changing the culture. So, thank you. Yeah. Uh the uh see the the one on the corner is is clearly a commercial use and it kind of
doesn't belong opposite the Dickinson house, but it was a commercial use before Ammerst had zoning and so it can continue by special permit. But the other three, this opens a door.
Uh, and it's I'm I'm reluctant to open that door. Uh, I understand the hardship with the the sprinkler requirements and so forth. I
yeah, I understand that there's a hardship here, but uh I I think that's better regulated through special permits than changing the underlying zoning. >> Rob, I see your hand. Do you want to respond to that or
>> I just want to clarify one thing about the property that uh Mr. Hartwell's referring to on the corner of Dickinson and in Maine 319 to 321. that zoning district did change uh you know in the last 10 12 15 years I don't remember the exact date but uh those uses in there
are not regulated by special permit they are regulated by site plan review and often change under administrative approval which are all recent changes that we've made in our zoning bylaw to uh make it more flexible for those properties or that property to have
business activity uh you know survive there. Okay, Bruce. >> Um, I I don't I was on the board when Fred was on the board uh 25 years ago as
well. I don't share his concerns, but also Fred's uh role at the time would uh make him more focused on these sort of things than I was because of the the of our respective roles. But I think uh
that although the design standards that are being uh generated u the study area to which they will initially be applied doesn't extend this far. It will create
um a a regulator a regulatory structure that could be applied here. And so I would uh um encourage that we this seems to be a logical um um change to the
zoning map. I I hear Rob Mora's um case and so forth has been put. It's sound as far as I can see and that I would be inclined to address Fred's concerns by um deploying be we imagine soon to be uh
promulgated design standards u to include uh uh this part of town as well. I mean they're they're designed for this sort of thing. So I I think we can look to um the concerns to safeguarding
Fred's concerns by using that strategy. >> Uh Rob, >> and just to add to that, um this is the local historic district. So, you know, there's a a pretty high level of design standards that would be applied to any
proposal that happened to a very uh very significant and thorough review of any proposed change uh that uh wasn't code related uh as a result of of um maintaining these uses at these properties as they currently are.
What are the limitations on the type of business that would be avail allowed in the the BN? >> The the BN does permit uh you know office space uh small commercial activity. U the limitations probably
would be more on what's available on the site for you know it would be subject to off- streetet parking. So, you know, that's why when I looked at this, you know, potential buildout on any of these properties is really minimal. And it it truly is, I think, 229, the property all
the way to the west that uh is is the most unknown. You know, I think that the Ammerst doesn't want to change. Uh they don't have uh they don't have the ability to expand that building. Uh they would be, you know, installing elevators and other things that they're just not
interested in. Uh but a two family property on 20,000 square feet, yeah, it could be four units or it could be, you know, two units plus some some kind of non-residential use. That property 80 years ago was the the home and office of
a physician, you know, so there's just that type of potential in the BN district. >> Okay. Um, Nate, I'm going to I want to ask you to remind me of the timeline that you were
you were your target was to try to get this to council by the end of the year as I recall. Um, >> and I have that information if >> Okay. Um, >> I mean, you know, I'm I'm actually
feeling like, gee, if we need to talk about expanding the the downtown business district, you know, that's that's kind of a big conversation. And so I'm I'm I'm feeling sympathetic with
Fred actually on uh on you know gee I don't want to rush this through at at 9 minutes after 10 just to just to do it. Um, and
you know, especially if we're about to talk about, oh, you know, expanding the BG and you know, do we want to expand the BG across the front of the Dickinson homestead? You know, gee, when that building when the homestead was built,
there was pasture on this on these parcels, as I understand it. Um, but I, you know, I don't know. Um, I'm just one voice and I'll defer to the majority on this. I don't know how
people are feeling, but uh, I know Nate Nate at least in his preface this evening wanted to uh, try to get this through tonight, >> right? Or yeah, just quickly the idea would be if the planning board could you know make a recommendation to council um
you know given the change in council at the end of the year the idea is that then you know if there is a zoning amendment or anything that would be acted on it would be a few months before the new council may be ready to vote on it. So you know it would just you know prolong something if the planning board
felt ready. >> Yeah >> that's all. Okay, Jesse. >> Uh, I guess is there urgency for the Amoris in in any way? Like what what's the rush besides you guys feeling it's ready? Is there an
actual timeline that we need to consider for the properties? >> So, yeah. Yeah. Um, I mean, we feel it's ready because we we think in the long the big picture it's the right thing for these three parcels. Um but the urgency specifically for the inn is that they're
under an order and you know we've been holding off the fire department's enforcement. you know, it's it's not a it's not a good I didn't want to, you know, I don't want to emphasize that situation for the purpose of trying to get this, you know,
support for this. Um, but it's not good for the business owner and I don't know if there's a future for the business owner with the limitation of three to four guests with the two owners that live there and having to install all of
the life safety systems that are needed. >> Got it. Thanks, Okay. Um, we are in a hearing, so I'm going to offer the public a chance to uh comment about this proposal.
I know it's late and um there's a hand. Uh Nate, can you bring over John Wyn? >> Hi John, you could unmute yourself. Hello, John. >> Good evening, gentlemen.
Um, I apologize if I'm uh a little bit uh I'll try and keep this uh as as tightknit as possible. It's been a long night. Um, >> so my wife and I took over the running of the inn from um the uh other owner of the property, Anne King, who's been
running it for the last 30 years at the beginning of the year. And it's really been a dream come true. It's a fantastic property um that complements the Dickinson household very well. We actually have a guest here tonight who said he came to visit the Dickinson Museum two years ago and walked out at
the end of the tour and looked across the street and said, "I have to come back and stay there." So, here it is two years later. He came back and he's staying here. He visited the museum again along with the Amherst Carl at the Eric Carl Museum and uh patronized a couple
restaurants in town and shopped at Amherst Books. So that's kind of the uh the typical guest that we have here on any given night. Um that being said, the restriction on the capacity really would kill the business. Um we would not be
able to continue long into the future at that rate. So, we do hope that you consider this when making your decision. And um the more that I've studied uh what um the town is trying to do and a
lot of what you uh the uh the board as well as the town council are trying to do going forward into the future. Um, to paraphrase some of what I've seen from the master plan, this this really is an excellent opportunity for kind of an
adaptive reuse of an historic building without changing any of the neighborhood character. Um, we have would have no plans to ever change the outside of the house, much because of the reason that I just said with the uh guests that we had
here staying tonight. Um, so I we do appreciate your time and your consideration on the matter. Um and uh we hope you uh vote favorably on this. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um let's bring over Mindy Sonner.
>> Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Hi. Um I live around the corner from the Ammerst. It's been a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and entirely appropriate across the street from the Emily Dickinson house. Um, why does that
have to be tied to the other two parcels? Can you not just uh change the zoning for that parcel? That's my question. >> Well, I'll say that we we don't like to do what we call spot zoning.
>> Yes. to have uh individual parcels be different from their neighbors. >> Right. So that so the um the place on the corner, the odd business building on the corner that is currently a dance studio. That's BN. Then the next
building is a large apartment building or a medium apartment building. The one that had the fire and got rebuilt. That that could be BN. And then the Ammerst in could be the end. And then the next building is simply a house. So
maybe maybe that's a less clear example. Uh whereas the apartment building in the Ammerst in you would just be extending BN to two parcels that are really kind of already BN. You could
argue. Anyway, that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. All right. Um I don't see any more hands raised. Uh Bruce, >> um I think I've heard enough uh to be
confident that we should move forward and support the proposition. Um, so I think I would move uh support of the proposal and uh I guess we have to also close the hearing.
>> So we would recommend to town council that this be adopted. >> Correct. Sorry, that's the wording that I was should have used. >> That's all right. Thank you. Thank you, Bruce. Jesse, >> I second that. >> All right. Thank you, Cher.
I was going to second it. So, >> okay. So, you'll third it. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, any further comments? Any further discussion? All right. Um,
just for fun, we'll start with Jara. Vote in favor >> or against? Hi >> Johanna. >> Hi >> Jesse. >> Hi >> Angus.
>> Samstein. >> Uh Fred. >> No. >> Okay. And Bruce >> I. >> I guess I'm an I as well. That's one, two, three, four, five in favor, one
opposed, and one abstension. The motion passes. Thank you all. Thanks to the public that have stayed with us all evening. The time is 10:18.
The next item on our agenda is adjournment. Does anybody want to speak before we adjourn? Jesse, >> just a comment. In the two and a half years I've been on the board, this has been the most v mixed voting ever.
Non unonymity. So, I applaud that. That's all. >> Okay. All right. Thanks everyone for staying with us. We'll see you in December, I guess. >> Good night. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Bye.
>> Happy Thanksgiving. >> Same to you. Bye.