Okay, Mr. Marshall. Let's see, there's a quorum of the board here. There's also a quorum of the CRC joining us tonight. Emerson Media is with us. Uh we have attendees voting in over in the attendee group. Um I do
believe we are good to go. >> Okay, thank you, Pam. >> You're welcome. >> Welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting of July 15th, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Amherst Planning Board, I'm calling
this meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst Media. Minutes are being taken. During the Planning Board's public hearing for rezoning bylaw Article 18,
clean energy infrastructure, the Community Resources Committee of the Town Council will be available to join the discussion. 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 meeting will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting.
Or go to the Planning Board webpage 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, 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 Coldham. >> I am here. >> Fred?
>> I am here. >> Thank you. Roy Johnson. >> Present. >> Jesse Major. >> Present. >> I, Doug Marshall, am present. Angus McCloud is not with us yet, and Jara Smith is our last
>> Present. >> member. Thank you, Jara. So, we do have a quorum. During the meeting, if technical issues arise and the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment, and I will
call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remute yourself. To the general public, when solicited, please indicate you wish to make a public comment by clicking the raise hand button. If you have joined the Zoom meeting
using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine 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 express their views for up
to 3 minutes, or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines, >> Mhm. Doug, we lost you. Oh, there you are. >> For public comment. Um
we This this public comment uh so invitation is for uh members of the public to discuss subjects that are not later on tonight's agenda. So, I see that we have six members of
the public and I will read their names as I usually do. While I'm doing that, if anyone wants to make a public comment at this time, please raise your hand and we will bring you in to speak. Uh we have Felicity Hardy,
Linda Slakey, Mara Keen, Renata Shepherd, Richard Grows, and Stephanie Chicarillo from from the town. All right. Uh one last call for for public comments. I don't see any hands raised at this point.
Okay, we'll go right into the second item in our agenda. The time now is 6:38. This was advertised for 6:36 35, so we can proceed. This is a resumption of a planning board public hearing
on a proposed zoning amendment uh Article 18 clean energy The hearing is continued from May 20th, June 3rd, June 17th, and July 1st of this year to consider amending the zoning bylaw by
adopting Article 18 clean energy infrastructure and associated amendments to zoning table three-dimensional regulations 5.11 renewable energy accessory solar solar photovoltaic installations {slash}
battery energy storage systems uses. 6.2 fences and Article 12 definitions. All right, so we do not have we have the members of CRC with us tonight for this conversation. However,
it's my understanding that this was not advertised as a hearing for CRC. So, we Pam is it Pam Rooney? Is it correct that we are not you are not convening your meeting?
>> I'd like to convene it. Since we're here and we're attending. We we are participating in this public in this joint meeting. >> Okay. >> I don't know if it's if it's absolutely required or not, but but let's do it
anyway. Mandy Joe Haneke. >> I'm I'm present. I would say it's required if any CRC member wants to talk substantively about this cuz we're quorum, but I'm present.
>> Andy Churchill. >> Here. >> And Pam Rooney is here. We do make a quorum. I don't see Jennifer Taub was not able to be here tonight and I do not see our fifth member Alicia Walker who may may come in
later. Thank you. >> All right, in that case Pam, would you like to start us off? >> I would be delighted. I first want to recognize attorney Murray who represents KP Law and who
supplied us with some really good information. Regarding the structure and content of Article 18, which we have in some shape or form been working on for 5 years. This is uh
and thank you. And we probably should have contacted you back, you know, on version eight or nine, but we really wanted to get it in good shape before it went to you for consideration.
That said, um I would like to open the floor for Attorney Murray to basically walk us through her general comments. Um, I will ask if there were any questions that were generated by
planning board members that were submitted to KP Law. There were two uh sets of questions from the CRC members. I just want to make sure that we cover everyone's points. >> So, uh Pam, I don't believe there were
any questions submitted from planning board. Um, and just uh just for your information, we didn't see the questions that you posed to Attorney Murphy or Murray. >> Okay.
Um, I had thought maybe they might be shared. And I apologize, Andy Churchill also sent in questions. Thank you. So, Attorney Murray, um would you like to walk us through your considerations?
>> considerations and >> And and I don't know if And I don't know if it's Okay, now I'm getting reverb. I'm getting reverb. >> Yeah, the echo is back. >> If Attorney Murray wants to address questions that were
raised in the process of her explanation, she may want to incorporate it in that manner, but that's up to you. And then I'm going to go on mute so I don't reverb anymore. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, as you said, Carolyn Murray from KP Law,
and we serve as your town council. And I very much appreciate that this is a bylaw that has been in the works for several years because I know certainly with some of my other colleagues at the firm, I know you've been discussing some of these issues.
And um I am happy to go through the comments as well as some of the questions. I know just before the start of the hour, I was saying informally before the meeting was convened,
I didn't receive the questions until very late this afternoon and was skimming through them just prior to the meeting to sort of gather some thoughts. So, um my apologies if I haven't got a complete answer for every single one of them. But um
I want to just start with I think this is a very good beginning of a bylaw. Um and I get the sense based on some questions that perhaps maybe I struck a nerve or maybe raised a few too
many questions that that um maybe put you back on your heels feeling like, oh no, we have an awful lot more work to do than is necessary. And as I was looking at this, you have to remember I haven't been a part of your conversations for the past 8 years,
so I don't know what the intent was or whether the words on the page capture your full intent. Um but I think the best way I could perhaps summarize this is I now seem to understand that the intent
here it was twofold. One, to um establish submittal application requirements for I'm just going to refer to them as solar and BESS applications, should they come
in under what I'm going to call conventional zoning, meaning your local zoning. And to also address the provisions from the 2024 Climate Act, which allows for this consolidated local permitting
process. At times, the And And I also recognize that I think your bylaw was very much modeled after the state's model bylaw. Um and again, I recognize that a lot of
work goes into that model bylaw, but it doesn't always clearly delineate when are we talking about what's required if we just if an applicant chooses to pursue just the local permitting process versus
if an applicant chooses this consolidated local permitting process. Um and this has been something that has been is still kind of evolving at the state level. But I think to sum it up, I think the bylaw
would work. And the way my I'm sort of envisioning this is certainly have the applicability and we have the definition section. Then I think we need to take all of the submittal requirements that you would require for solar,
all of the submittal requirements that you would have for battery energy storage systems. Maybe we also have to address when um those particular uses might only be subject to special permit site plan review versus the administrative
approval process. And then I think separately perhaps it would be easier to have a separate section called the consolidated local permit process. And and I'm going to take a step back for a moment and forgive me if this is
ground you've already covered with each other previously. But with the 2024 Climate Act an applicant for certain small clean energy infrastructure facilities. Um and you've got them defined with it
consistent with your proposed amendments to the use table that below a certain threshold for solar, wind, battery energy storage even anaerobic digestion facilities if you ever chose to include those
they have the option of applying directly to the town as as they would as if this consolidated local permitting process had never been adopted by the state. So if it required a special permit from
the planning board, if it required a variance from the zoning board they could still go ahead and pursue those separate procedures at the local level. The 2024 Climate Act then adds this option and it is at the applicant's
option, not our option. But they could instead submit what's called a consolidated local permit. And the consolidated local permit requires that an applicant submit everything that they would otherwise be required to
submit under your local bylaw. Plus. So there are some things So for example, one of the things that jumps out at me in this draft is um at times we talk we make references to
uh 225 CMR, you know, the regulations for consolidated local permitting. But, those are only going to apply to those who seek a consolidated local permit. We have references to the minimization and mitigation um
guidelines or site suitability scores. Again, those things only pertain to a consolidated local permit. So, I think we just want to reorganize this a bit to make it clear that we have one permitting process if an applicant still
chooses to come before the local boards under our standard, you know, conventional process, then the consolidated local permitting section can basically say, "You have to submit everything that's otherwise required as
if you were going through the independent um local boards for your various approvals." Plus, you shall also comply with 225 CMR 29. Um we don't have to repeat all of
the provisions of that regulation here, but I think we do want to make it clear that we're we're delineating between the two. The other thought that came to mind was these uses are going to be allowed either by special permit or site plan
review. And you do have very extensive special permit and site plan review provisions of your bylaw now. The only question I would ask is sometimes solar battery energy storage systems
sometimes they have some unique characteristics that maybe not everything that is otherwise laid out in your existing special permit or site plan review provisions um
would address say some special concerns that you might have. Um So, those are kind of what I'd say are the the big threshold questions or or thoughts in the back of your minds. Um
And and I don't know, Madam Chair, I know you've got other things that are on the agenda this evening. Um I don't know if it's helpful to go through sort of section by section or to go through the questions. Um I certainly don't want to monopolize your entire meeting this evening. So,
um What what would you prefer in terms of addressing and for sections or the questions? >> I'm looking at Doug's since this is since this was um a planning board meeting
at least the planning board meeting time frame. Um Doug, do you have comments? >> Well, my comment is that I was expecting this to be a fairly uh in-depth discussion of this topic.
And um you know, when we've met with CRC in previous meetings this year um you've we've we've devoted a substantial portion of the evening to this discussion. Uh if we don't need to do that, I have
no desire to extend the discussion unnecessarily. Um you know, from our from our from my perspective uh CRC has been taking the lead on this initiative uh at least since uh solar bylaw work years ago that was.
So, CRC, if you need us in the room to continue um we're here to meet with you this evening. >> I would certainly appreciate making our way through as much as we possibly can while we have Attorney Murray with us. I
see Bruce and then Stephanie have hands up. >> Um am I recognized? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um I don't know whether I was the only one among you who was um kind of perplexed when I read this cuz this is
not at all what I was expecting to receive. Um Carolyn, I'm an architect or at least I used to be before I retired. And this has uh all of the hallmarks of changing the brief after the design has been building
has been designed. Um and uh and so it it certainly seems like one's reconstructing or reconsidering the basis of this bylaw and um and so
um my question I guess is I'm trying to think of what you which of the many possible questions, but I think the one that is most close to the top of my pile is uh you said this was a good beginning and you said indicated that uh uh
um let me preface this also by saying we've recently, we being the planning board, has recently spent a lot of time dealing with uh the ADU bylaw in town which was another uh adjustment to our bylaw or addition to our bylaw based on
the state um uh act uh and it was clear as we were beginning this that it would have been better if we had awaited because while we were deliberating the state was uh changing the goal posts,
moving things around, becoming clearer and all of this sort of thing. Um the other intention that we have, maybe the primary intention for most of us on this uh was to encourage um clean energy uh particularly solar because I don't
you know, not being a farming community, I don't think there's much call for uh digesters in town. Maybe there's one farm that could possibly even be thought of as being interested. And and of course, because of where we are, we're not a wind site either. There's no There's no real wind sites in town. So,
I don't think wind and anaerobic digestion are here. But, um uh it it it seems to me that therefore, that if we were to start trying to chase the the way that
what you're suggesting, a reconstruction of all of this, while the the understanding of this bylaw is emerging, that we'll be in the same boat again with shifting sands while we're trying to basically turn the good into the perfect. So, essentially, the question
at the top of my pile is are we here about to spend a lot of time trying to make the good perfect in the way that the enemy of good is the perfect, or could we conscientiously proceed with this bylaw knowing that if we can spend
this time uh uh because we don't even know whether we've got anybody who's interested in in in supplying this. Let's find out whether we've got uh interest here yet. We won't So, so long as this bylaw that we've got uh the bird in our hand at the moment is
not discouraging, um uh clean energy development number one, and not fundamentally flawed from a legal or a procedural prospect, uh my question is, why wouldn't we continue with what we've got
and uh and and and make the uh perfect the improvements once we find out uh more about what's happening on the ground? >> Thank you. Um Stephanie had her hand up for a moment. Do you want to speak, Stephanie?
>> Um I I can wait, actually. I I saw that Councillor Hanaki has her hand up, so I would rather >> Thank you. Mandy Jo Hanaki. >> So, I I guess it's it's part question and part observation. Um
the observation is Well, I guess the question is to to Carolyn is if you looked at this and ignored the 229 CMR or 239er, whichever CMR it is for the consolidated permit. Um if you
ignored those references and our attempt to sort of address that change in um the law that that we attempted to do while the regulations were out after they've been finalized and all of that,
um and looked at this as sort of just a solar siting and best siting bylaw. Um ignoring those sections that that we we brought in for consolidated permitting. Um what are your thoughts on that?
And then you you addressed this earlier. It sounds like if that seems good and and doable and workable, what we need to be doing here from my understanding of what you started with is adding
or moving some things that talked about um 225 CMR and all of that to it's a sort of stand-alone section within this bylaw or a completely different section within the zoning bylaw and pulling it out of say a solar
siting bylaw, um and then maybe adding some stuff to that. Um and so I guess that's that's that's sort of is is that doable and workable? if if we say is the solar sighting part of this
bylaw pretty good and any comments on the solar sighting part of the bylaw and then if we look at the MED way you provided and what we've gotten in here for some of the consolidated permitting the local representative the site suitability comments um
move that into a different section is that a workable bylaw um and does the rest of the solar sighting can it all apply to either permit pathway? >> Attorney Murray >> Um so
I maybe I'll start with the last question first because I think um this does go a little bit to to Bruce's comments. Um when I suggested this was a good beginning I didn't mean to say we've got a long road ahead of us. I actually do think your solar provisions
and your battery energy storage system provisions are good as is. I I think I think what is confusing is where we start to conflate when we're talking about the consolidated local permitting and then we go back to um
provisions where it could apply to any solar or or best application. So I think uh answering the question could we take out all of the provisions or all of the references to the consolidated local permit and have a
good workable best in solar bylaw? Yes, I think you absolutely could. Absolutely. Um and circling back a little bit to to Bruce's comment about you know analyze anal analogizing this to the ADU experience that uh you know Amherst was
not alone a lot of communities if you were ahead of the regulations then you adopted bylaws, and then you had to go back and backtrack when the final regulations came out. And it very much feels like we are in that exact same
system once again with the state saying as of October 1st of this year, we must start accepting consolidated local permits. But it's without regard whatsoever for our own schedules of town meetings.
Um and the folks at DOER, they're they're very much aware of this. Um and they have taken the position that towns do not need to amend their bylaws or their ordinances in order to accept
the consolidated local permit. And I I do have to say I agree with that in so far as the the way they have rolled out the the guidelines, the regulations, my god, they have more guidelines for every
different category. Um the application is 20 pages long. And uh then there's a two-page checklist. You know, when I step back from this and I think if I could use another analogy,
there's an entirely separate statutory scheme governing affordable housing projects under Chapter 40B. Yet cities and towns did not rush to adopt 40B bylaws. We just simply recognized that when a
40B application would come in, our traditional rules and procedures and timelines would set aside, and we'd all operate under the state statute and the state regulations. You could do the exact same thing here by
calling this down to a solar and a best bylaw, take out all the references to consolidated local permitting or site suitability and minimization and mitigation, take all of that out, and if an applicant comes along and says,
"I want to file um for a solar project that is going to be subject and I and I want to invoke the consolidated local permitting process." They can just go ahead and do it. Now, the flip side of that is
that that often it often is difficult for folks at the local level who you find out perhaps maybe they're not really aware of what the consolidated local consolidated local permit process is, maybe they're
not aware of the different time frames that are associated with it. Um you know, so is there some advantage to having some provision or a subsection in your bylaws that at least makes people aware of the
consolidated local permit? Sure. And I know I shared um the Medway sample with you and I I I I did that for two reasons. One was to my knowledge at this point, Medway is the only community that rushed
to adopt a consolidated local permitting bylaw. I had a lot of conversations in you know, February, March and April with a lot of communities who were thinking about adopting a bylaw and most of them to Bruce's point said, "We're going to take a step back and
we're going to see how this really rolls out at the state level and see if we really need to do this because we don't want to rush to adopt a bylaw only to then come back 6 months later and amend that bylaw to be consistent with whatever it was the state ultimately came up with."
So, I think I've answered your questions there, so I I will pause unless there are more hands up. >> No. I put my own hand up. Thank you very much. I put my own hand up because I actually went through our bylaw uh
section by section titles, and I compared it with the material in Medway's actual solar and best siting bylaws. And then I can And then I looked at also what they uh what they covered in their
consolidated um uh example that that was sent to us, and that was 3.6. And of all the items in our in our bylaw, each of our headings, each of our
sections, is the same as that Medway's basic bylaw or their consolidated permit information. The only categories that I couldn't find in their documents were
a couple of ours. One was um hazardous materials, and and herbicides and pesticides, um building permit and building inspection category, and waivers. And so that's
three out of 22 of our sections that didn't seem to have a correlation with Medway. So I'm I'm feeling a lot better thinking that we actually have the material we need
if we wanted to pursue uh reorganization of it, um rather than a reworking or complete separation of the two items. It it To me, it just makes more sense to reorganize,
but I'll let other people speak. Andy. >> Yeah, I was just going to say that I think that in some of our previous editing sessions we had talked about the possibility of reorganizing the material in there so that there's one section that's the basic requirements no matter what you are and
then there's a section that's if you want to do the consolidated process here's what you want to do or something to that effect. So I guess I'm just sort of reiterating what what I think I was hearing um from both attorney Murray and from you Pam
and I believe Andy Joe, so. >> Thank you, yeah. Mandy. >> Thank you. Um two questions that that came out of that. Um one I I had this question last week and I didn't add it to my questions for you
for the attorney, but we are in CRC's not in its hearing right now. Our hearing was continued till next week, but but both bodies are in their hearings for this particular bylaw proposal and it would we need to restart the hearing
process if we decided to separate out this proposed article 18 into say a proposed article 18 and a proposed article 19. One that is solar siting and best siting and one that is
consolidated local process. Would we need to redo the hearing process or is the current hearing process sufficient for that? Um cuz that may make a difference on whether we try to
keep them in the same article or not. Um and and then um if if we were looking at you know I think one of our priorities as at least CRC we initially started this with a solar sighting and best sighting bylaw, not
anything with consolidated and then they passed the law and then the regs came out and all of that and we were like, we should deal with that. We're in the middle of this. Um, but if we were to go back, in some sense go back to, let's just make it solar sighting and all, what would be the
absolute minimum of consolidated permitting references or stuff or sections somewhere in our zoning bylaw you would say we need to add. Is it Is Is the absolute, you know, I'm just going to
give you example. Um at least when I last read the regs, which were not finalized, I have not read the hundreds of pages since they finalized them, they were defaulting to, I think, the town clerk as the local government representative if the towns
did not define their own. Um It's not necessarily who we want to be our local government representative. Um, is that something you would say, while you're in this hearing process, while you're here, absolutely take the chance to define local government
representative somewhere in your bylaw, wherever it is. Um, and if that's the case, what other things would you say, do it now, while you're here, while you've got this process going versus, eh, wait and see. >> Um, so to your first question of
do we have to restart the process? No, you do not. If you told me tonight that, oh, we want to do a standalone solar and best and a standalone consolidate consolidated local permitting or maybe it's an
article 18A and 18B, whatever. Um, no, you have already put everyone on notice that this is exactly what you're talking about, how to regulate solar, how to it battery energy storage systems and also how to address the consolidated local
permitting process under the state's new requirements. So, all of that is here. And if you suddenly break that into two articles or an A and a B, I don't think that makes any difference because anyone who had any concerns
is has been put on notice by virtue of your your public hearing notice. If you were to tell me, however, you know, I hear that, you know, Amherst isn't really a town that feels the need to add wind and aerobic digestion
facilities to the bylaw. Um but if you were to end tonight and say, you know, just in case, you never know, you know, we get a lot of wind in the Pioneer Valley and off the Berkshires. Maybe we maybe somebody will want to put a wind turbine out here, right? Um
if you were suddenly to say we want to add wind and and other types of clean energy facilities, I would say those would have to be advertised because no one had any particular knowledge of that. Um as for the bare minimum of what you
need, um so, you're absolutely right. Your memory's correct that the draft regulations identified the town clerk as the local government representative. And I suspect that the town clerk's association had an absolute uprising and
made it perfectly clear to the state that, oh no, you don't. You're not putting this on us. And so, the final regs identified the chief administrative officer or designee, whoever that may be. So, I see in this draft, you've
designated the town manager or designee. Um at a bare minimum, I would suggest that, um we identify um you know, the consolidated local permitting process could literally almost be like a single paragraph
that just says in addition to seeking a special permit or site plan review as enumerated in article 18 applicants have the choice under the 2024 climate act of submitting a
consolidated local permit if an applicant chooses this process they shall comply with and we plug in the regulations or the guidelines and I think the only thing we really need to worry about would be identifying who the
local government representative is because while I appreciate that we've plugged in the town manager I doubt the town manager is going to want to really issue these permits as well. I I I think it is going to be ultimately the town manager's designee
whoever that may ultimately be and if we have a sense now that you know a lot of communities that are doing this sort of like informally um they are having the select board take a vote to say make the planning director
or comparable title be the person who actually coordinates the consolidated permitting process and issues that consolidated permit. >> Carol just for your information we actually did ask staff who the most appropriate person would be and they
said town manager or designee. Which is how we came to that conclusion. Um that's encouraging. Um Bruce >> Uh just let's first of all make sure that none of you has follow-up questions related to what
attorney Murray just said or hearing none um Carolyn I was interested in the analogy to the 40B um and that uh uh we uh basically allow
uh or expect that our zoning works until it doesn't and then uh 40B is allowed to take over. Um and uh but the the the the the question is uh or the observation is that um 40B has a has a kind of an
insurance uh capability, if you like to call it that, which is if you have over 10% of affordable housing in the SSI uh then you're you you get to choose and you can say no to a 40B uh which, you
know, we would call them a hostile 40B and we could choose. But we frequent not frequently, but yeah, actually on the greater scheme of things fairly we frequently do engage and embrace friendly 40Bs and we look at this 40B. So I I really understand at least I have
an understanding of what you're saying that that we could embrace the uh the the the the the the state part of that um as need arose, shall we say. But the question then is in the absence of
being able to choose, which we can with 40B because we happen to have and have for as long as I've been here, which is 40 years, um above the 10% threshold. So we have negotiating power, we have choice. Um but that doesn't apply, I don't think, uh
in in your analogy uh as far as the clean energy bylaw is concerned. So the question is um would we have any concern or should we have any concern about the uh um the absence of a
of a kind of a filter, if you want to call it that, um such as the 10% analogous to the 40B. The absence of that in relation to the clean energy bylaw, is that in any way um in would cause any invidious circumstance so far as our town was
concerned in which case then we would be moved perhaps to be more proactive but if not your analogy sounds very helpful and very reassuring. >> Carolyn, Carolyn, I'm sorry. The the short answer to the question is that unfortunately,
you know, unlike 40B where it where you were alluding to, there are safe harbors where we can say no. Um, there is no similar mechanism here. It is no if we have a certain number of solar
installations or a large battery energy storage system that we are somehow saved from the next application that comes along. That that unfortunately does not exist. Um One thing however to also bear in mind
is that solar and related infrastructure for the storage of energy um, as a result of recent case law over the last, you know, five years or so coming out of the Massachusetts appellate and and Supreme Judicial Court,
they're treating solar as um, many are calling them Dover protected uses and I don't you know, Dover to a true purist means no. We're talking about religious and non-profit educational institutions
but chapter 40A section 3, which is the so-called Dover amendment, has expanded over the years to include other uses and we're now at a point where um, solar cannot be prohibited
and it cannot be unreasonably regulated so as to ultimately prohibit it. Um, and with solar, some courts are starting to also sort of tag along
battery energy storage systems in that same vein of having some protection from zoning. Um I will say that, you know, as a footnote, um the model
uh solar bylaw that the state issues makes reference to a town of Duxbury case. That was actually our case where a land court judge did say that battery energy storage systems are entitled to the same protection as solar arrays.
Um that was appealed to the appeals court because the town absolutely put their foot down and said, "No." Um and unfortunately, before it ever got heard by the appeals court, the applicant withdrew. So, we haven't quite got a higher court level yet telling us
how to deal with battery energy. But, you see from like the Tracer Lane decisions and um a Walpole Kearsarge um decision, that if you don't allow solar in a fairly
uh you know, in in a somewhat a there there is no hard and fast number or percentage. But, we know from Tracer Lane in the Kearsarge case that only allowing solar installations on what amount to 2% or less of a town's land area
is deemed to be basically a prohibitive bylaw. You know, that there's no place in town that these things can go. Therefore, you're effectively uh not reasonably regulating them. So, I'd say that's sort of the corollary in a
way to 240B and and safe harbor is that we could face a legal challenge at some point if we don't put something out there that shows we are trying to reasonably regulate solar and battery energy storage systems.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um actually on on Bruce's correlation with 40B, I think perhaps what we're dealing with here is more of the process where in fact there is the same kind of 12-month timeline
and all of the uh all of the boards and committees who weigh in on a project must do so in a consolidated fashion in order to process um things in a fairly timely manner. Um I was actually going to go back to
Mandy's question about their submittals. Um in looking at the Medway bylaw itself, which is their 8.1 or 8.1 8.11 and then um all of the basically all of the same requirements that we have in our bylaw
our draft bylaw are there. Um you know, we may be more specific about a distance to a um a water supply. They probably get their water from the Quabbin. They don't have to worry about this. Um but so those are the kinds of additions that we have in our in our
draft that seem very reasonable. Um in looking at our own zoning zoning board rules and regs, you know, they talk about um they talk about uh evaluating impacts from traffic etc.
etc. It's it's all essentially there. Um it's just that at as we pulled all this material together, it felt like because it's such a complex thing and if a permitting board um
was being required to handle this in a timely manner within that 12-month period, it made more sense to have everything at your fingertips. All of the submittals required, all of the plans, all of the
reporting requirements laid out in one place so that nobody had to go fishing through, you know, the ZBA rules and regs, which are, by the way, hard to find, to pull the pieces together. And I think that's where we um
I think that's the tact that we took. At some point after Doug asks his question, I wouldn't mind showing this um just the comparison that I did with with Medway in terms of just so people have a sense of it. If people are okay with that, Doug.
>> Yeah, just two two uh quick things. One, I just want to recognize that Angus McLeod arrived at 7:13. So, for the record, he is now with us. And um I guess I'm finding the
comments from Attorney Murray to be pretty clear that we need to just go back and move some pieces around and reorganize a little bit, and um then we can proceed pretty much with what we have. So, I'm I'm feeling like we have a
pretty clear path to get to a final product. I'll stop there. >> Do people mind if I share this document that that's highlighted? I just want to see yeses or I mean noes.
It'll be quick. Let me Let me just show it right here and see if I can pull it up. >> Quick, because I think Doug is right. Uh >> Can you see Can you see what I have here and is it large enough to read? >> Yes. >> For me, yes and yes.
>> Okay, it's essentially midway their their basic solar and and best bylaws are in green. So, that and so our material is is comparable to theirs for section 1801
purpose, 1802 applicability, uh 1803 definitions, 1804 compliance with laws and ordinances, um section 1808 submittal requirements, 1809 dimensional standards,
1810 design requirements, 1811 additional design requirements for specific types of installations, uh stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control, facility maintenance and modifications.
Those are two more sections, reporting and monitoring they cover, and financial security surety and decommissioning fund, and lastly abandonment or decommissioning. So, those are all things that they have in their basic bylaws that we have here.
The items in blue are what are found in their consolidated permit, and that includes 18 our 1805 pre-filing requirements, which only applies to consolidated permits. Uh 1806 site suitability
assessments, which also only applies to consolidated. Um fees, maybe they have fees elsewhere. I didn't see it. Uh an emergency response plan, which they cover in the consolidated document, but not in their bylaw.
And finally, transfer of ownership. So, those are things they covered in their in their 3.6 um consolidation I'll call it consolidation bylaw. So, that And again, the only ones that they didn't include either anywhere were the
hazardous materials, building permits, building inspections, and waivers, which may have been there in a you know uh as a subheading under something else. So, I will stop sharing. But, that I just wanted to illustrate that it didn't seem as onerous as
>> And, did they have anything that we didn't have? >> Not that I noticed. But, maybe I wasn't looking at it from that perspective. So, if we were to talk about next steps um I'm I'm summing up what I think I've
heard, and that is that if if we determine that we keep it as one document we could work to um be clearer in our in our introduction of the consolidated
permit process. And, essentially list, you know, the following sections are going to be covered for those applying for our consolidated permit. The remainder of this document applies to everything, including consolidated
permits. um I mean, that's in a nutshell. We're done. We're all We're done. Here we We got an answer. Andy, uh he's going to throw cold water on that. >> No, no cold water, but um
I'm I'm just trying to remember we had talked about reorganizing anyway because there were some sections that applied to everybody and some that didn't apply to everybody. And so, was that sort of a if you're a smaller operation, here's what you need to do.
If you're a bigger operation, you also need to do these things. And then if you want to do consolidated, then here's the process for that. Is that sort of what we were thinking cuz we were already talking about trying to make it you know, it's it's 18 pages long and if
you're just a small operator trying to do something fairly small, it would be nice to make it clearer you know, that they don't have to do everything. So, is that what we were talking about doing anyway? >> Yeah, Mandy.
>> Yeah, um I I think after this conversation, I think we need to reorganize it. Um as Andy was just saying what we were talking about, I think it's time that we need to see that reorganization um so that we can really discuss
We still have blanks in what I think one of them what will apply or won't apply to one set of tiers. Um so, we we have to make those decisions before we can vote on this. Um So, I think it's time to reorganize. If we don't have to hold
a separate hearing process, I think I would probably prefer if we split out all of the consolidated permitting into a separate article. Um whether it be a separate article or some section of the bylaw that it makes sense to put it in
and I couldn't tell you now whether there is. I know we have site plan review articles and we have special permit articles, so maybe we just need a consolidated permitting article, too. Um because I think that makes it easier for the reorganization because then you
you're talking about two different things. You're talking you're not combining two different things into the same article. I I I think I was really only for keeping the two together because we really are talking about citing and what application process you're using. Only I I was a
little originally leaning towards that if we had to hold a whole new hearing process. But since we don't, I think it's cleaner and clearer if we split the two out. And we've got you know, solar infrastructure and best infrastructure. Solar and best
infrastructure is one by one article and um consolidated permitting process for clean energy and small small clean energy in whatever it's called um energy facilities in a different one. Um
I think it'll make it easier to review, too. >> Doug. Yeah, I guess um uh Mandy, I'm going to take I'm going to argue in the opposite direction. Uh that you that we have a a
section called process somewhere at the beginning of Article 18. And that it delineate that there are two paths. And the first path it, you know, is pretty straight forward. It's
subject to all the requirements elsewhere. And that and what wants to go through a consolidated permit, they should follow follow these special things. And the reason I don't think we that I would argue
the reason I would not separate them is that this consolidated permit process is only applicable to solar and best projects. So, it belongs in that area.
Uh if that was a new process that could happen for any kind of project in town, I'd say yeah, do it as a separate article. But, that's my two cents, basically off the top of my head. And I'm not I you know,
whenever you whoever whoever revises this can take that into account. Thank you. >> Well, Doug, just as a quick follow-up to that, so if there was in fact some kind of consolidated process section somewhere,
would that not also apply to 40B's, 40R's, um 40 whatevers that come down the pipe? I'm looking at Attorney Murray. I don't know, uh you know, is that >> I haven't I have personally haven't had
enough experience with those and studied those processes enough to know if it's identical. >> Mhm. Mandy. >> Mhm. I wanted to ask uh Attorney Murray uh a question with something Doug just said
because I don't think it was accurate. Um we are only addressing and we've only talked about solar and vest, but because as as Bruce said, we don't necessarily expect a wind project to come in or an anaerobic
digester project to come in, but our our um our zoning bylaw, the way it's written, does not prohibit those projects from coming in, just like they didn't prohibit solar even though we didn't have a use category for solar. We are not an exclusive use category only
zoning bylaw. We are find the closest use category if there's not a specific one bylaw. Um so, I think that means that the consolidated permitting process under 225 CMR 28, I think that's what this one is. Um
if there was an an applicant for an anaerobic digester facility could choose the consolidated permitting process even though we don't have a use category for that in our town and they they would have to follow it. And so, the consolidated permitting process that
we identify, however we identify it, whether it's within this article or as a separate article, would apply to that process. Right? Or or could we I I mean, I I would think we would want it to if we wrote it. That we wouldn't want to write a process
that only applies to consolidated permits for BEST and SPI even though an anaerobic digester applicant could apply because we don't have an no exclusive we don't have an exclusive bylaw. We have sort of an inclusive bylaw. Is is
that correct, Attorney Murray? >> You make a good argument and and I think it could be done either way. Whether whether you did this all as Article 18 that you know, let's also remember your your current title, should you choose to stay with it, is clean energy infrastructure.
So, even though we're really only talking about solar and BEST, if an applicant for, you know, a a wind farm were to come in, um you know, it would likely also look to Article 18 for, you know, some guidance
as to what would be required. So, could we could we do Article 18 clean energy infrastructure all of the submittal application requirements um if you choose to go with the local
permitting process, have a separate paragraph subsection um that is that refers to the consolidated local permitting process that that says you have to submit everything up above, the only difference being you now also uh follow the
provisions of 225 CMR 29. And oh, by the way, your local government representative is the town manager designate. You could do that. You could separate them out into two entirely different bylaws, you know, 18 and 19 or whatever numbers you you
assign to them. Um, one thing to bear in mind is the way uh the statute was written in the regulations, they only identify solar, battery energy storage, wind, anaerobic digestion facilities at the moment, but
they also say they open the door for other clean energy, you know, infrastructure facilities that have yet to be identified. So, there there could be a possibility in the future um for something else that
we don't even have the vocabulary for yet that could come along. Um Again, could you then address that under your clean energy infrastructure bylaw? I think you could. So, I guess that's my way of saying
whatever your preference happens to be. I I do I do have a little bit of sympathy for um you know, I spend an awful lot of time doing like zoning rewrite projects for a lot of our towns and when you do have something like
a separate consolidated local permit um bylaw, you know, that's let's just say it's number 25 is the number it's ultimately assigned to. Sometimes it it it really does feel like a complete disconnect, not just in terms of the numbering in the bylaw, but also
substantively, where someone flipping through pages says, "Well, what the heck is this all about?" So, you know, what whatever your preference may be, I just think that for the consolidated local permitting section, whether it's stand-alone or a subset of
Article 18, I just think we want to be clear that it relates to these types of small clean energy infrastructure facilities, however you choose to to structure it. >> Any other thoughts on this dilemma?
I think I'll weigh in then if nobody else is speaking. Um I am I am intrigued by the idea of being able to direct um an applicant to the
consolidated process in in the text of of this article. Um for the reasons just stated, it doesn't even if it's sequential, um the the regs may change in the state.
We're still we're still referring people to those regulations. Um that seems to make more sense than than perhaps in looking at the Medway um the Medway example, which is very great, but that's you know, that's four
or five six pages of material that in many cases is um it's just kind of well, I'll just say it's sort of process. There's an application review. Well, we already cover application review process
for a ZBA and for the planning board. We we probably don't really need to repeat that. Um you know, how do you deal with modifications or um it it just seems like there's a lot of
material in there that I wouldn't necessarily I mean, ours is pretty overbearing to begin with. Why would you would you put put somebody through that again? So, it seems to me that we could certainly we could certainly glean from that
example and craft a couple a paragraph a couple sections the blue sections that I highlighted are the ones that that pertain, you know, to the consolidated process. Maybe um I I'd
be certainly happy to tackle that. Andy. >> Yeah, I um I mean other folks in this group have been working on this a lot longer than I have. But so, coming in fresh and talking to it about people, it's
you know, the question that comes up is it's it's a pretty long bylaw and people will ask are we trying to encourage solar energy or discourage it? And um I think we want to encourage it, you know, and encourage good projects, you
know, and so the more we can do to make this as clear as possible and not just, you know, you need to hire an army of lawyers. Sorry, Carolyn. Um you know, so that you have it to to even think about applying, I
think that's better. So, so if we can add a paragraph that sort of you know, says here's the process piece, you got this process or this process. And if you do that process, it's all outlined in the state regs or whatever.
I you know, and then if you're a small you know, smaller you know, in a in a particular tier, you have to these requirements. If you're in another tier, there's some additional ones. Just allowing people to move through the bylaw as easily as possible
I I think would be helpful. >> Bruce. >> Um and Doug may be about to do the same thing that I think I might be trying to do. Um it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you, Pam, Mandy Joe, uh that the CRC is prepared to
um uh do this reconstruction, rearrangement, uh uh take this initiative that you've described and that you seem to have a a better handle on certainly I do. And indeed, you have done this work, the CRC has done this work prior and and and
it's and it's come to us for review. But I'm aware, I think, that that this hearing, this is the hearing of record, and that what seems to be required here, because Mandy Joe has made it clear that we can operate or it was clarified that we can operate as a
on a basis of a continuation. And so, I'm uh thinking that is it not time for us to uh move for a continuation. Is that what you were going to do, Doug, or have you got something else? Because if you weren't, just let let it be said that uh if you
come back to my hand, I'll be moving for a continuation. Um and I'll stop there for the moment. >> Doug. >> Uh thank you. Um what I was going to say was uh you know, kind of as a follow-up to
Andy's comments about the level of encouragement versus discouragement that the bylaw draft uh conveys. Um the
as you know, you did not uh CRC, you did not attend our last meeting, uh but we did talk about how we might recommend the bylaw to council uh when we closed our hearing at our
last meeting. And at that at that meeting, uh I think there was probably a majority of the board that felt that we were supportive and we could recommend it, but that we did not feel it was
as encouraging as we hoped it would be or as we would like it to be. And so, I would ask CRC to keep that in mind if you are going to be going back over it again. >> Carol.
>> Thank you. Um yeah, I just want to echo what Doug said and what Andy shared. Um you know, one of the things that we have brought up uh in previous planning board meetings is the importance of running this by an actual solar developer. So,
Carolyn, I'm wondering like if you ever work with solar developers who could take a look at, you know, what our bylaws ends up looking like because to to their point, like we'd like to encourage good projects and we have one idea of what that might look
like, but uh it might look different to somebody who's actually doing the project. So, I'm curious, you know, what are your thoughts of involving them at some point in this process? >> I would I would certainly never say no to that because of I you know, I'm I'm
certainly mindful of the fact that there's always something that, you know, folks that are on, you know, the the the industry side of this that they look at it and say, oh, well, you know, this is um it doesn't really work that way it or,
you know, this this needs to be a little bit needs to be tweaked a little bit or maybe this is really something that becomes a a deal breaker for for many of them. Um So, I would never say no. Um
The only caution I would have is remember who they're representing. And uh so as much as I always appreciate the view from the other side, um this is the town of Amherst bylaw. It is
designed to protect your unique characteristics as a beautiful community. And I know uh just from from listening to you all tonight, you're not going to let somebody just run right over you. Um but you know,
a little bit of healthy skepticism where in that regard is always a good thing. Um so I like I said, I wouldn't discourage it, but just uh recognize that we don't have to accept every comment or criticism that they might provide. >> Yes.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Certainly folks will come with their own agendas. Um but I mean, I guess more from the from the user experience, just like understanding, being able to navigate the bylaw clearly, you know, less so
you know, we'd prefer the setback was a little bit less or something, but more just like easily interpretable, but um thank you. >> I wanted to come back around to how this might get restructured. Um actually I want to respond to to Jared's
last comment. The Medway bylaw has significantly larger setbacks than we show in our in our version. Um in terms of the applicability, I was
um I was appreciating Medway's approach to their very, you know, their opening salvo if you will. And they described four or five categories of app- which we tried to get at
um with our tables, but they actually uh call them out. And so, category one is roof-mounted facilities um do not need to comply with other sections of this bylaw. Number two is
small-scale ground-mounted uh accessory to residential require site plan review under section X. Third category was solar um canopies accessory to residential. Those are
allowed in certain districts and are subject to the requirements of this bylaw. Uh item four is all other small-scale and large-scale installations subject to the requirement of this bylaw. Um and are allowed in the zoning
districts only as specified in the table that they reference. And then lastly, that it's just their planning and economic development board that's the special permit granting authority. So, it seems that in applicability section itself, we
might be clearer. It's also where we got really muddy with the following sections apply, the following sections don't apply. This might be a very clean way to call out the different levels of action.
And perhaps in that, I'm looking at Attorney Murray, perhaps in this applicability portion, we can refer consolidated permits to um you know,
we send them in the right direction in this applicability portion. And I'm asking if that makes sense. >> I I think it does, um especially if um it if we're going to have um say a separate subsection or a
standalone bylaw, however the reorganization um actually plays out, I think it does make sense to to include whether it's category number five or six, whatever you're up to there, um to also include um consolidated local
permits pursuant to 225 CMR uh 29 or 28, which whatever it is. Um I I think that makes perfect sense. >> And then we could still have several sections that are specific to to the consolidated permit, like the ones that
we identified, which were the the pre-filing and the site suitability sections. >> Yes. >> the question. That was the question. >> Yes. Or or you could like I say, or you could
decide we're not going to repeat all of that here. Um you know, um one of one of the things that that I see a lot um
in bylaws is this there is a tendency to and and Medway was one of them. Um there is a tendency to want to regurgitate an awful lot of what is in in in state law.
And of course the danger to that is the state changes something and we're constantly amending our bylaw to be consistent with it. Um so you know, like the the um site suitability scoring section that you've
currently got in this draft, if if we whittle down consolidated local permitting to just a paragraph that says an applicant may add it, you know, on its own choosing submitted a consolidated local permit
pursuant to 225 CMR, in which case all of the above submittal requirements um shall apply. We don't need to worry about whether or not you're one of those projects that a that has to have a site
suitability score or whether you're exempt under the state. Um we don't have to worry about the process for challenging the site's suitability rating. We don't have to include provisions for, you know, um minimization and mitigation.
It's all all there on the state side of things. It it it might be that you want to make it somewhat easier user-friendly and maybe you do want to at least provide references to the titles to
those other documents so that folks realize there's this, you know, every time I visit DOER's webpage on on clean energy, it's gone from, you know, about three or four bullet points to a page and a half
now. Um it can be a little daunting, but we don't have to repeat all of it here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Any other comments? And I'm looking specifically at our CRC members.
Since we have a meeting on the 23rd, we will be talking about this again. Mandy. >> So I mean, I think what I've been hearing is we need to do the reorganization. We need to clear up the applicability section. Um
and we need to at least draft some sort of move everything that relates to the consolidated permitting process into one section instead of throughout the whole bylaw um and then we can debate whether it stays in this article or not. Um
I'm happy to take a attempt at that um for our next CRC meeting. Cuz I think I've got an idea of what that might look like. Um but did I summarize where people are going and and what people are accurately?
>> Yes. And I would be greatly appreciative of that effort. Can we vote on that? Bruce. >> Uh I I don't need I don't think we need to vote on it. Uh I think >> kidding. I was actually kidding.
>> Good. Um Doug, I was I would move that continuation for uh and I know we have to put a date certain. So, when it's uh say uh a month from now, um what are we? The the second meeting in August.
Um because it would seem to me um that you all wouldn't have uh moved that the ball forward enough for us to be contemplating anything at our next meeting. Um at the first of the first uh
Wednesday in uh in August. And and but we don't need to put it out too long because we can always just to perfunctorily continue the continued meeting. Uh is that correct, Doug? I mean, it's like >> know that we are operating under this uh
October deadline by which towns need to have the bylaw in place. So, I would uh ask Pam, um do you would you like us to put it on our agenda for the 5th of August in case you guys are ready for us with something
for us to you know, to to >> Yeah. >> say we recommend version 14. Um so that we you know, it's sort of a static document at that moment. >> And if that's I think it would be very I
think it'd be very appropriate to have it on your agenda. Yes, thank you. >> August 5th. So, >> Well, in that case, move to the continue the hearing to August 5th at um 6:35.
>> All right. Pam Field Sadler, do we have other items on our agenda already for August 5th? >> We have some small things, but at this point there's room for that right at 6:35. Okay. Clean energy. Mhm. Thanks for asking.
>> Doug, I noticed that Carolyn's got a hand up and if it's a if it's a if it's a point of order uh comment, we should take before we vote. >> Carolyn. >> Carolyn. >> Thank you. I I I just wanted to uh clarify one thing. We don't actually
have to have the bylaw in place by October 1st. >> Huh. >> But we do have to be prepared to accept a consolidated consolidated local permit application if um a would-be applicant out there
um chose to submit one by that date. >> May I ask that? >> Yes, I >> I'm getting reverb again. >> Go ahead, Pam. >> I'm I'm going to try. Um if if an applicant plans to submit
a project is it the act of submitting the the project or having gone through the full site suitability analysis and pre-filing process that they go through before they submit the
project. So, in other words, do we have a lead time of 3 or 4 months while a a project is getting fleshed out at the state level, meeting all the pre-filing requirements before it hits our
front desk? >> Yes, all of these pre-filing requirements are supposed to be done before they submit an application to you. >> So, we would know Mhm. Sorry.
>> Go ahead. >> I'm not sure when I trigger it. >> I I actually think it has something's going on with Carolyn's microphones. Like she's getting the reverb. It seems to be happening when
she's unmuted. >> So, that makes me feel a little better that that we will know in advance before someone comes knocking on the door requiring a consolidated permit.
Is that true? >> Yes, and apologies if the microphone is causing it. It doesn't appear on my end to reverberate. So, um but yes, because one of the pre-filing requirements is I think the the community outreach meeting, and they would have to coordinate and contact
members of the town to coordinate that meeting. >> Nonetheless, we need to we need to keep going on this. But maybe the the coals aren't quite as hot as we walk across them. >> Okay. So So, Pam, I'm going to go ahead
and second Bruce's motion that the planning board continue its hearing on this topic to August 5th at 6:35 p.m. So, planning board members,
uh let's take a vote on that. Uh I guess I'll ask first, is there any further comment from board members? All right. All right, I'll just um I guess I feel I I really ought to ask for any public comment before we do
this. Uh so, I see we still have six members of the public present. Do any of you want to comment on the discussion uh tonight on this topic? Okay, I don't see any hands raised, so
we'll go ahead uh planning board with the with our vote. This is the vote to continue. Bruce? >> I. >> Fred? >> I. >> Roy? >> I.
>> Angus? >> I. >> Jesse? >> I. >> Jara? >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. That's unanimous. This hearing is now closed or continued, rather. Closed for
tonight. Um uh CRC, thank you for joining us. Uh Attorney Murray, thank you for joining us. Uh are there any concluding comments before we bid you adieu?
Mandy? >> I was just going to I think we're done, so I was going to move to adjourn, CRC. >> Yeah, thank you. I'll second it. Let's take a vote. Andy. >> You're muted, Andy. >> I was just going to make a a quick
comment before I voted, but is that okay? Is that >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> I just wanted to say that I think it's a really good thing that CRC and the Planning Board are doing these things together in this way, um rather than making staff and everybody all and and
citizens run through it separately. So, uh I appreciate the collaboration. And I uh vote yes to uh remove ourselves from this collaboration right now. >> Uh Mandy. >> I'm an I to adjourn. >> And Pam is an I to re- to to adjourn.
Thank you, Planning Board, for letting us join you and staff for supporting us both. And um Attorney Murray, thank you very much. >> And CRC, thank you for accommodating our schedule. Accommodating our schedule.
>> We're going to leave. We're going to leave. Bye. Bye. >> Okay. Um time is 8:00. We often take a break at this time. Why don't we take a 5-minute break and come
back at 5:05 a.m.? Please turn on your cameras when you return, so we know you're back. >> Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. >> Hey Pam, I wondered if you could bring back take off the uh
the break slide and just let us see everyone again. Thank you. You are muted. I I know what you said. >> Angus, can I assume from your presence that you do not yet have a new child?
>> Correct. And still we wait. >> Okay. Well, I'm glad you could join us. Well, we'll see in the second half of this meeting whether we have any reverb or not. >> I know.
>> I I'm not sure I'm not sure who it was, but I that was my best guess. >> I Dad, I I think you are right. >> Yeah, I thought I mean, it was either Well, I anyway, I don't know. I wasn't sure, but I
had a pretty strong suspicion. >> It was great that you could see a pattern, cuz I couldn't see a pattern. >> Well, I'm not 100% sure about it, but she was the only one who wasn't in our previous meetings
>> Mhm. >> when we didn't have reverb. >> Mhm. Mhm. >> Well, I wondered if it had anything to do with with the air, the energy in the air, you know, and internet like with the internet. >> we had a Comcast truck out front of the
house working on internet this afternoon and uh I've had intermittent messages on my screen that my connection is unstable. >> Mhm. >> I don't know, maybe it was me. I don't know. We'll see whether there's more
reverb in the rest of this meeting. But we're all back. The time now is 8:09. We can proceed with our uh >> Mhm. >> with our agenda. So, >> Let's start bringing some people in.
>> Yeah, why don't you start bringing people over? >> Okay. >> All right. So, the this third item on the agenda is a public hearing. It's continued from July 1st of this year. SPR 2026-04 Amherst Community Land Trust
project is at 174 Amity Street. Request site plan review approval under sections 3.3212 and 3.01 of the zoning bylaw to construct an affordable duplex complementary to a three-unit townhouse
on the same lot with parking and associated site improvements located in the RG General Residence Zoning District on map 14A parcel 332.
So, we are this hearing is now underway. And I'd like to welcome Felicity Hardy and Linda Slakey again representing the applicant. Um Bruce Coldham, I assume you are going to recuse yourself again
from the board for this >> Uh yes, I was just about to uh propose that. Um I I will um in in so far as I've the technical design uh documentary and so forth uh
person for this project. Um I will do the same as I did last time. I will uh assert for the record that I have no financial interest in the project and I'll ask if the board is prepared to uh with my screen off, allow me to uh
remain in the uh in the room to answer uh specific questions of uh of matters of fact and that alone. >> All right. I That's acceptable to me. Any other board members object to that?
Okay. We'll proceed on that basis. So, Felicity and Linda, welcome and I believe we have some updated drawings. If if uh one of you or actually Linda, I'll start
with you. You've get Well, Linda and Felicity both have their hands up. So, >> Yeah. >> you guys can decide how to introduce the project again. >> It's Felicity that will make the presentation. I just wanted to let you know that in line with the other communication problems you've had
tonight, my camera is for some reason unstable. Every time I attempt to turn it on, it turns itself off. So, that's why you're seeing my library footage there, but I'm very much paying attention. >> Thank you very much.
All right, Felicity. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Uh thank you uh again for this opportunity to present this uh project to the planning board. Um my recollection um uh from our meeting on
July 1 was that there were a couple of open issues uh the board asked us to uh return with an updated site plan to address those issues and that was filed with Ms. Powell. I think a day or two
before. My copy of that plan is it has a revision date of 2026 07 13 so July 13 of 2026 revised if it's
possible to bring that up. I'll just walk the board through the changes that have been made. >> Felicity, do you have that is those drawings yourself? >> I I have a PDF of the of the
drawing that I downloaded. Would it be easier for me to share? >> It would be easier for you to share rather than Pam. I just noticed last time that you know Pam was taking notes about our discussion and then we had to interrupt
her now and then to get her to change a slide or move her cursor. So I think if you Felicity shared that it might be easier for for Pam and that way you could highlight
anything you wanted to highlight with your cursor. >> Sure, I'd be happy to. >> Okay, I'm going to stop mine. Did you see mine? >> We do. >> Yes. Okay, so I'm going to stop mine. >> And you should be able to share your
screen Felicity. >> Okay, can you see that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So the principal um, concern of the planning board last time was, uh,
the location of the electrical transformer. You'll remember that this came up as kind of a last-minute issue. That's why it wasn't on the plan that we had uh, submitted previously because,
uh, in the course of, uh, organizing ourselves for, um, getting a construction contract, we learned that Eversource requires the, uh, electrical conduit to be coming in underground, which requires a
transformer pad. I'm going to try to try to manipulate this. I'm not that great with, um, with this kind of stuff, but you'll see, um, at least in my on my, um,
plan, uh, that we are showing the transformer pad, um, sort of midway between the two structures, um, screened, um, with evergreens. Um,
this location is really dictated by the requirements for Eversource about where the transformer, uh, must be located. So, uh, Bruce took those, uh, requirements,
um, and kind of sussed them out, and Bucky Sparkle has put them on the plan, uh, in this location. That was the first, uh, set of concerns. Second set of concerns had to do with
the accessibility of the accessible duplex to the trash enclosure. And you will see on this plan, we've made some changes so as to make, um, the pathways more accessible to somebody who is
mobility impaired. When we um were in front of the board on the 1st, we talked about the fact that there was going to be a single trash enclosure here, which I'm circling with my cursor. Um and the board suggested
that it would be appropriate to um to install instead of a like a stepping stone walkway or something like that to have a have something that would be easier for somebody who is uh in a wheelchair to
um or otherwise mobility impaired to access the trash enclosure. So, you will see on this plan that we have uh converted some of the walkways to bituminous uh a bituminous walkway, and that walkway goes right to uh up to the
ramp on duplex. Um one thing that we also dis- that that our group also uh discussed in connection with the uh trash um and the making it easy for somebody who
um had a disability to kind of get rid of their trash, um seemed to us that, you know, maybe uh get you know, having them come all the way over to here to access the trash enclosure was uh uh somewhat onerous. So, we've also added a
new smaller trash enclosure up here at the edge of the parking for uh for the duplex um for additional uh trash. So, just that's just sort of an additional
feature that uh we've put on the plan um to make it maybe a little bit easier for the people in the duplex um to dispose of their trash. We've added um screening uh along the in the corners of the um parking for
duplex. So, um I'm I'm kind of showing that here. And for in in both the parking area for the duplex and the parking area for the townhouses, we've we've added uh bollards for
possible future electric vehicle chargers. So, you can see that identified here. Um and also down here. Um
there was a comment from Ms. Rooney at the end of the hearing last uh on the first, which frankly, I have to confess went over my head a little bit. Um and it had I think it had to do with
the um the development of swales. She said something about scouring. And honestly, I didn't understand the comment, but uh I believe whatever that comment was,
it's been addressed in this plan, and I'm going to leave it to Bruce to answer those questions if they arise. Um >> Well, Ms. City, I see that Bruce raised his hand. He may want to elaborate.
>> Uh yes, the uh the the the toe or the core of the low point of the swale as it was shown originally in Bucky's drawings coincided with the edge of the paving, and Pam thought that that would cause scouring. So, what we've done is just pull the essentially
the bottom of the swale, the the the drain channel of the swale has been pulled back a foot from the road. So, the scouring has been taken care of. I mean, there won't be scouring. It's It's It's It's lawn there, and it'll stay grass, we think.
And And I the the extra trash enclosure is really an option. Um the the habitat fraction of of the clientele would prefer to have a separate trash enclosure. The question
is whether What is the economics of having the trash haulers make two stops instead of one, and what's the financial difference? The other has to do with how frequently the pickups are. We don't yet know whether that's weekly or biweekly.
Um I mean, every 2 weeks. So, however the trash contracts materialize or figure out in terms of economics and and and the available frequency, the we have in these in the arrangement that we show
now, we can accommodate any any contingency. And the the the the the note about the screening enclosure is really the screening was already shown there. The question last time was are these existing trees
or is it new planting? And we've just clarified that it's always been intended to be new planting. And the we show that the existing pathway, that's the the the pathway that runs around the
eastern side of the existing townhouse, that was originally shown to be on the just to maintain the existing. But, as with these trenching and so forth, it became apparent that we were and the water and so forth. And that is the the
other it became apparent that we're going to be digging up a lot, so it was decided that it would be prudent to uh redo that pathway at least up to the porch uh of the uh of the first uh portion of the townhouse if not for the last leg, but again uh
we've uh would like to give ourselves the option depending on how excavation and and disruption happens to be able to renew uh all of the existing uh pathways there as well as uh uh build the uh proposed new ones. So, that's what is currently shown. And then
we have shown the waterline which we pretty fully described uh last time, but now it's on the drawing. >> All right. Um I'd say I guess um Felicity, I assume that's the that's the extent of your narrative. >> Yes, unless you have any specific
questions for me. >> All right. Um so I guess I I have a question that just just popped up into my mind. Um I the the question of of having the tr- the trash truck stop at both properties came up last time and and at the time
you were preferring a single location. Um I guess uh I'll start by asking could you remind me is are the primary entrances to the three duplexes on the east side
toward the new duplex or I'm sorry, to to the to the to the triplex units. Is that um on the east side or is it on the west side? >> So, it depends on what you mean by the
primary entrance. So, for the for the townhouses um we're assuming that um our the the the homeowners are going to access the units
uh mostly from the west side because that's where they're going to be parking they're going to be parking their cars and you know, taking their groceries in or you know, having the kids get out of the car whatever. It seems a little unlikely
that they would park and then walk all the way around to the um to the east side. On the other hand, the east side of the building does have existing entrances which are nice and I think uh lend a sense of community to
the entire project. And in addition, if you were uh if you didn't have a car, um and you know, some of our uh our homeowners might not have a car. It might be more uh natural to access the
property on the west side. >> Okay. All right. Um to access the property on the west side, you said. >> Yes, because you've got the porches right there. If you're coming from the
center of town, let's say you're coming from Amherst Coffee, seems to me you'd you'd uh it would be more likely if you were or if you were at the Jones. Okay? You're at the Jones Library, you come home. >> side.
>> The I'm sorry. Yes. >> Okay. >> Sorry. With right. >> All right. All right. Well, um I guess where I was headed was, you know, if if basically the west side uh where the parking lot is
is basically going to be used virtually all the time. Um could you could you essentially have one trash enclosure over where you're showing the the new one that's close to where the accessible unit is
and just reduce some of the paving that's running around the north end of the triplex. Uh but I that sounds like that's that you want to have this less extensive paving and you don't mind having two trash
enclosures, so um I guess I will not pursue that. Uh board members, any questions from you all or have we uh ha has the applicant taken care of our previous comments adequately and we're prepared to go
ahead with this? Anybody have any comments about that? Uh okay, not seeing any hands raised. You're going to make me keep talking. Okay. Um
All right, so I'm not seeing any comments. Uh we still have a few attendees from the public, so I will ask members of the public, uh do you have any comments on this project before we vote on uh approval of
their site plan review? And no one has raised their hands from there. In that case um Walker you have prepared some draft findings
and conditions for us for this project. >> I have. >> I wondered if you want to lead us through them or do you want one of the others of us to to do that reading of them? >> Yeah, I can go through them. >> Okay.
>> Do you have them, Walker? >> Pam Field Saddler, do you think you can put them up? Or maybe I don't know. I don't care whether it's Walker or Pam. >> I um yeah, I've got them. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> That way you can scroll them while you're reading or
>> Yeah. >> and keep them coordinated. >> All right. Everybody see that? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. So, um do you want me to go through the findings and the conditions?
>> Well, yes, eventually. Let's start with the findings. >> Okay. Um I don't have the actual site plan review bylaw in front of me, but um I did have making the findings, so >> Typically, we have uh
you know, the our our our planning staff have read these or other members have read it if if they were extensive. Um and we just went through each one and if there was any wordsmithing or comment
conversation about them, we had a chance to do that. >> Okay. So, do you want me to just read them then? >> Yeah, I think so. >> All right. Um All right. 11.2400, the project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning
bylaw as long as the construction of a second principal use on this lot is found to be complementary to the townhouse conversion approved for the existing two-family home. >> Looks good. >> Uh 11.2401, town amenities and abutting properties
will be be protected because of the conditions of the site plan review approval. >> Um I guess wouldn't Do do we not think they are protected? Or that there aren't uh impacts on town amenities and
abutting properties properties because of the of the design. >> It could potentially be stormwater um impacts if there wasn't stormwater thing that's a little bit more in the conservation commission
side but um >> Uh-huh. >> I guess I was thinking that this was more of a catch all just in case there could have been a >> It just feels a little funny for us to have a finding that depends on a condition that we haven't >> Mhm.
>> yet gotten to. >> Uh okay. I did Yeah, I haven't done findings before. I did get this from a previous one that I found from a previous project. >> Uh-huh. >> Um this wording was in there. Um but it may have been changed in the meeting at that time. I don't know.
>> Uh-huh. Um >> We could also say we do not anticipate any negative impacts on town amenities and abutting properties. >> Yeah, I think it's something you know, like the the design
Actually, I assume this is not a word document. >> No, it's a PDF. Um >> Okay. All right. Well, I uh >> And a note >> Just a note for in the future, we've always found it helpful to do this as a word document. >> Yeah, I'm realizing that now. >> So that we can edit as we go.
>> Yeah. >> Um so why don't you just make a note that this this one I think is more would be better worded as something to the effect that um the existing design will not
uh impose you know, adverse impacts on town amenities and abutting properties. >> Okay. >> All right, next. >> Doug, can I ask a question? >> Yep.
>> Um so I can we I guess I'm trying to understand how would we how would we guarantee that? >> Well, we're depending on the applicant uh him building this as as
in conformance with the design that we've approved. >> Yeah, I mean the phrasing you used before was like do not anticipate >> Uh-huh. >> um as opposed to will be protected. >> Oh, okay. >> Um, so I like to me I would take a a softer phrasing. Uh Walker, it's really
helpful to hear that this is used this has been used in other um uh findings. I I haven't seen this wording before in in my year on the board. Um but I I would prefer something a little a little softer. But I don't want to split here.
>> No negative impacts are anticipated could be a better way to >> Yeah. >> phrase it. I mean it's not meant to be a guarantee that there aren't going to be it's just that meant to be re- you reviewed the plans and you didn't see anything that would cause an impact reasonably. >> That makes sense.
>> Okay. >> Um, so the next one is a little bit similar. Abutting properties will be protected from detrimental site characteristics resulting from the proposed use because of the conditions of the site plan review approval. So it might be that we want to reword that one
kind of in the same way. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um for 11.2403 I had not applicable. 11.2410 unique or important natural historic or scenic features will be protected.
And that's only relevant in this case, I think, for the historic house. Um >> Mhm. >> 11.2411 methods of refuse disposal will be adequate. The management plan explains the use of private contractors to service the dumpsters located in
front of the townhouse, and maybe we can with the new plan say um located near each of the buildings or the dumpsters located on the property if we don't want to specify. >> Right. Well, you already could just end with dumpsters.
>> Yeah. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Oh, yes. >> Uh yeah, I have a similar >> Yeah. I have a similar issue with 11.2400. Um it says the project is in conformance
as long as the construction of a second principal use is found to be complementary. It's our job to determine if it's complementary. Uh is that um I uh
>> No, all that >> something like the the the the the board agrees that the uh uh use is complementary or something like that. We are the finders in this case, uh not someone else yet to be determined.
>> That's a good point, Fred. Um and that should be one of our findings. >> Yeah, okay. I had it as >> It's in the conditions. >> conditions, but uh >> Yeah. >> We can move it up there. >> Yeah. Thank you, Fred.
>> So, all right, moving on 11.2412, the ability of the proposed sewage disposal and water supply systems within and adjacent to the site to serve the proposed use are adequate. Again, I guess the one that I was looking at for reference used this phrase a lot.
Um, but we might just say that they are adequate. >> Mhm. Yeah, I'm not I mean yeah, I guess >> Mhm. >> Pam Field Sadler, um, do these strike you as different than some of the ones we've used in the last
couple of years? >> Um, they they do strike me just a little bit different. I'm I looked at the zoning bylaw and what it says is
what you're ensuring is that when you evaluated the site plan that you used this criteria. So, the planning board is finding. I think I think Walker that
we we don't have to, um, reference the conditions. Like those will also, you know, they will be present as part of this. And back to Fred's question about 11.2400, we also will need to vote
to to make that determination about the complimentary use. That has been part of the application and the noticing, um, for this project is that the applicant is asking us to make that determination.
>> Mhm. >> So, I think >> And so, Pam, you're going to want a separate vote for that as opposed to approving the findings and conditions. >> I think that it can be all part of the same vote. Um, I think that we just want to make
sure that we remember that it's said and included. Mhm. What Rocker, do you agree? >> Yeah, I think that's correct. It's a different portion of the zoning bylaw, but it's still it's still part of your findings and conditions.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Fred? >> Uh, yeah, I uh I hate to do this, but I I this approach seems to uh constantly come through this
and I'm wondering if it makes sense to uh uh postpone an action on this to our next meeting. I think it will take all of about 5 minutes to uh uh accept this
uh if it is simply recast by staff uh in the ways that we've discussed so that uh there are actual findings here. >> All right, thanks Fred. Um, Angus. >> Uh well, I I guess I I have
a question and then a a comment. The question is for the applicant um because I know that they were kind of um pressed for time um and uh the comment is I I was looking back in one of our earlier um findings and conditions and the
findings for an earlier project um simply said the board finds that the project complies with the relevant criteria of section 11.24 of the zoning bylaw. Um, there are a couple of things here that I that might be worth spelling out, but most of this is just kind of pro
forma saying basically that that the project complies with the 11.24 and I'm wondering if we could just say that once and not and not repeat all of this. Um so that that's I guess a comment. So, a
question and a comment. >> Okay. Well, it does look like all of the findings that have been drafted are from that section. So, um So, Walker, would you be okay with we if
if the way we voted the findings was was simply that that brief, that we simply said we find that the project is in compliance with the with the requirements of section 11.24?
>> As long as you're sure that they fully are and that none of these extra comments are that you don't need to reference the >> Uh-huh. >> Conservation Commission order for instance. Um I think that's fine.
>> Okay. Well, I don't want to dismiss your work without >> I mean, again, my first time doing it, I looked at one previous reference from your I think the most recent site plan review. Um but if that's not the way that you want to do it, that's fine.
>> Okay. Uh further comment? >> Well, I was just going to add I mean, the only thing that I that I saw that that might be worth spelling out is uh a mention
of the additional curb cut. But that's that's to me the only thing that that isn't basically just saying everything conforms with 11.24. >> Mhm. Okay. Fred? >> Uh yeah, I'm just wondering if we can
uh kind of uh change the a a a verb in some of these so that it's we find. >> Mhm. >> But I don't know. I can be persuaded either way.
>> Yeah. Well, um okay, so Felicity. Um how impactful would it be if we delayed our approval to August 5th? >> Um
>> close by the end of this month, I thought. >> The closing is scheduled for July 31st. Um I do think that uh the board you know, should have
the decision in the sort of manner that it thinks it is most appropriate. Um I had uh heard that maybe I'm mistaken, that because
there are like uh three Wednesdays in July, that it would be po- is it possible to just have one I like a are you meeting on July 29th?
>> Well, that's a good question and that had been in the back of my mind. Um we when when there are five Wednesdays in a month, we keep the fifth Wednesday available as a possible meeting. Um
to date, we haven't discussed meeting on that date. But I guess um I can ask at this point, board members, are you available and would you be willing to meet on the 29th for one this one topic as a relatively
brief meeting? I'm seeing a nod from Jer Jesse's not sure he really wants to. Oh, thumbs up. Okay. >> I would. >> Fred would. >> I don't think I'll be able to. >> You you probably okay.
But we are likely to have a quorum. Let's see between Let's see between Fred was a yes. What about Roy? Roy, are you available on the 29th? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So four of us, Fred, Roy, Jesse Doug and Jer, are you available? >> Yeah, I'm available. >> All right, great. So that would be five of us.
So that'd be a quorum. We could do that. All right, so in that case um Why don't we can So why don't we plan to meet on the 29th? Felicity um will
hope we can finalize our approval on the 29th. And um Walker uh why don't you lead us through the rest of these so that we can talk about
you know, if there's things in here that we really want to make sure we talk mention specifically or whether they can just be part of the catch-all phrase that was talked about that the project's in conformance with 11.24.
Are there other things that that you feel like maybe we may want to mention specifically? >> Um we've got the storm water water management systems are um appropriate because they were approved by the conservation commission.
>> Yeah. >> Landscaping is adequate as shown on the plan. Adequate soil erosion controls. No nuisances are anticipated. Um the lighting will be This one is also referenced as a
condition, but the lighting won't lighting won't be an issue. >> Yeah. >> Um project has been reviewed by the conservation commission and the wetland will be adequately protected because of the order of conditions. Um, meets the the setbacks, parking
location etc. >> Okay. >> Um, avoids impacts to wetlands, relates to existing building, adequate screening is provided for dumpsters. Um, means the safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement is been provided.
We did have this one additional curb cut has been determined to be necessary to the function of the site. Um and so maybe it doesn't totally meet the requirement that the location and design minimize turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances except that because
it's necessary, I would say that that probably is the minimal required. Um the parking spaces, driveways, and sidewalks are appropriately located. Waving the requirement for traffic impact statement.
>> Yeah, again, uh Mr. Chairman if could you go back to that one? >> The traffic impact? >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh Yeah, uh the that's got to have an an affirmative the
the board waves the requirement for a traffic impact uh study because it is unnecessary. or Mhm. Something like that. Again, it has to be a firmative statement. >> Right. More more a a definite rather than it will be waived in
>> Yeah. >> some ambiguous way. >> Thank you, Fred. >> You might just try is waived. Just just a suggestion. >> All right. So, that's If no other comments on the findings, I think you're correct that probably uh
a statement that the the project meets the requirements of section 11.24 would be sufficient in this case. And then a statement that the traffic impact statement that the board has waived the requirement for traffic impact statement because it is not necessary. >> All right. Why don't we go to the
conditions, Lynn? >> Um So, again, I mostly took these from previous projects. Um it seemed like there were a lot of conditions that have been used frequently. Um so, this the site plan
rep- the site plan prepared by Bobby Sparkle um dated these dates um I think I need to add >> we I thought we had drawings that were dated the 13th of >> Yes, I have not updated this since we got the new >> Oh, okay. >> So, I'll add those. >> All right.
>> And that re- represents the new site plan for the property. I'm going to run away for just 1 second. My dog needs to go out. I'll be right back. >> Okay. >> Project shall be built substantially in accordance with plans submitted to the planning board and approved on
um tentatively July 15th, but we'll presumably have July 29th. >> Yep. >> And again, I will add the additional updated plans we received. Management plan has not been updated. And the duplex plans and elevations have not
been changed, so those are still accurate. Um substantial changes to the project and/or substantial changes to any approved site plans shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval for the work taking place. I think um yeah, the purpose of the submittal shall be for the planning board to
approve the change or determine if the changes are de minimis or significant enough to require modification of the site plan review approval. That's pretty standard. The approval shall expire within 2 years of the date that it is filed with the town clerk. Unless it has been recorded with the
registry of deeds and substantial construction or use has commenced within that period. And all work associated with project shall be completed within 24 months from the date of issuance of the building permit or they can request an extension. Those are the standard ones. Um the
affordable housing conditions are a little more specific and a lot of these are the same or similar wording to the special conditions in the or the conditions in the special permit from the ZBA and I was trying to be consistent between the two.
>> Okay. >> The proposed second principal use of an affordable owner-occupied duplex shall be considered complementary to the existing residential principal use. So, either we leave that here or we make that a finding. I'm not sure. Um
the duplex shall include two dwelling units. The unit sizes shall be one ADA accessible two-bedroom, one bath and one three-bedroom, one and a half bath. The duplex units shall be permanently affordable in compliance with the definition of affordable in Article 12,
Section 12.24 of the Amherst Zoning Bylaw. Uh which is then given. This is the This is just the definition. Um A certificate of occupancy shall be granted upon approval of the following documents. EOA shall seek approval of
the local initiative program local action unit application and affirmative fair housing marketing and resident selection plan by the appropriate state agencies. The affordable units shall be available and the homeowner selection process shall be complete at the time of any
full or partial certificate of occupancy for finished units. However, at the discretion of the building commissioner, a certificate of occupancy may be issued and exclude the affordable units until the owner selection process has been completed and inspection service has been provided documentation of the completed selection
process. The affordable units shall be owned at all times only by qualifying homeowners in accordance with the regulatory agreement. When the units are sold, they will be eligible for inclusion on state subsidized housing inventory or SHI. The SHI application it should say will be
submitted by town staff. >> Mhm. >> A violation of the affordability requirements for any units shall require modification of the special permit um the site plan review permit, I guess, and be accompanied by a written recommendation on any changes from the
Amherst Municipal Affordable Affordable Housing Trust or its successor. The affordable units are to remain affordable in perpetuity, term of 99 years, subject to EOA Chelsea approval. This requirement shall be included in the permanent regulatory agreement.
Affordable units shall be marketed and sold income eligible households in accordance with EOA Chelsea regulations and guidelines for the local initiative program, which require the approval by a EOHLC of an affirmative fair housing marketing plan. The cost associated with
the development and implementation of the marketing plan, including advertising and processing for the affordable units, shall be borne by Amherst Community Land Trust. And subject to the approval of ACLT and EOHLC, a qualified agent shall be engaged by the applicant to administer
the initial marketing and lottery for the affordable units in compliance with the income eligibility requirements for the homeowner of the affordable units. >> Madam Chair, I >> And I should say that uh right quick that these >> Fred, if I missed you again, I'm Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Yeah, it's uh I I'm Well, on item 12, it says this special permit is this not a site plan review? >> Yes. >> Yes, it >> That is not a special permit. >> Correct.
Okay, I'm I'm sorry. I had my my view of people's hands obscured. So, Felicity >> wanted to add that these particular conditions were um provided to the applicant ahead of time and were reviewed by Felicity and Linda and that they
provided comments and approved them the wording that we have here. >> All right. So, I see and Angus and maybe Fred or maybe that's a legacy hand from Fred. So, Felicity, go ahead.
>> Um So, I I I I I got the couple of things. I got these actually from Bruce right befo- like this afternoon. So, I haven't I haven't
really done a deep dive on them. >> These are Sorry. These are the same ones that the ZBA proposed like we went through them when you were doing the ZBA. >> Oh, okay. >> I I went through them, yeah. >> I misunderstood. okay. The other thing I was going to mention is um
does the site plan review uh decision, is that recorded? Because I thought that was not recorded, but if it I'm happy to do it. I just I didn't that I thought that I recorded the special permit but not the site plan review.
>> Um I believe you're correct. Does it mention recording in here somewhere? >> Yeah, yes it did. >> Um >> Condition number four. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Oh. Up above. Oh, yeah.
Okay. So, we can take out the unless it has been recorded at the registry of deeds and just say unless substantial construction or use has commenced. >> All right. Um I guess I'm going to call on Linda next and then you. >> Sure.
>> Linda? Linda, I see your hand up. You are muted at the moment. There you go. >> Thank you. When this was uh the conditions that were written for the special permit were explicitly for the
townhouse conversion. Uh it it also added the complementarity of the two buildings, but they did not review um the uh intend the um timeline to mean that the whole
project including the habitat duplex would be finished. The actual um plan is that we will begin construction this summer and we hope to have families in place in the fall of uh 2027 and time
to start the school year, Habitat will be just starting their construction and although they the timeline calls for that to be complete within a year, uh this is to actually say the whole thing. When you're looking now at the site plan, then you're basically acting
on the whole project including two separate constructions. Um 2 years is doable, but it's tight if if they can't begin promptly which sometimes happens because they have multiple projects going and
have to do things when it's possible in various cases. I'm a little concerned that we're setting ourselves up to need to ask for more time before than 2 years. >> Mhm. Well, would you be comfortable with three?
>> I would think so. Bruce can comment on that. He's very experienced in working with Habitat. >> All right, Bruce. >> Yes, I I think three because three also is the amount of time that we have to complete the uh the the the the work in the order of
conditions from the Conservation Commission. So, we'd put those two together and if we have to apply for more if if it does take longer, then it's not just the Planning Board that would be come back to. It would be the ConCom. So, I think three is a good uh uh a good number and it's true that
Habitat has had some delays on projects and we've got 10 projects in the offing uh because two of about six or eight of these houses have been waiting for legal res- resolutions on complex site issues for the past 2
years. So, it's created a logjam for Habitat. So, 3 years is a very good thing to do. I would hope that uh you would agree to do that. >> Um Angus, I'm I'm going to call on you and then we'll come back and I'll just ask for a consensus about whether 3 years is
acceptable to the board. Go ahead, Angus. >> Sure, 3 years sounds great to me. Uh my question is about uh condition number six. And that's just asking uh uh Lyndon Felicity if that if that phrasing shall be considered
complimentary is is fine for what what they need from us. >> I think so, but I'll defer to Felicity what the what the legal custom is in the use of that verb. >> I would suggest um First of all, this is um
this is the Is this the finding of that complementarity? Because if this is the finding about complementarity, then we should not use the phrase shall be considered. We should say the planning board finds that the second principal
use of an affordable owner-occupied duplex is complimentary to the proposed I I would say to the Well, to the existing residential principal use um as modified by, you know, this you
know, the special the the approved special permit. >> As approved by the >> Yeah. >> By the special permit. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And I think it actually belongs under findings. >> All right, I'll move it to findings and
re- word it. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. Um Let's see. I I don't see any hands, um but um board members are you Is there any objection to us for
I think it was conditions four and five uh using a time or just just number Well, it probably is both four and five. Um, because we're to to use the the three-year period. So, it's be two
years, three years under condition four and 36 months under condition five. Bruce? >> And not to shoot myself in the foot because I'll probably be the construction for this, but the 24 months
uh, period in number five starts with the issuance of the building permit, which is unlikely to happen before two years from now. So, I think 24 months there is fine and and probably appropriate and certainly appropriate. So, I would only suggest you
>> um, aren't there going to be two building permits? >> Yes, they will be. >> And uh, the way that So, this site won't be completed until the second
building permit project is finished. >> That's correct and and that's why the uh, um, the the the uh, the conversation that was had with Rob Mara that allows the certificate of
occupancy uh, to be issued on the townhouse can be issued prior to the completion of the uh, full project. But basically in the case of the townhouse it was the the site work. So, uh, we've established
that we can get a CEO uh, for the townhouse prior to the completion of the entire site work and this duplex. So, the duplex is fine, but the we're we're good for the townhouse because that's been separately dealt with. >> Okay, so in that case I'm I'm to suggest
that for condition four, we use three-year time period. And that condition five, we leave the 24 months, but we add after the words building permit on the second line,
um the building permit for the duplex for the the duplex, um something that describes that we're talking about the duplex building permit rather than the
townhouses. All right. Um and I guess I'll just ask again if anybody has any objection to that. Uh not seeing any hands, so uh I hope that'll get incorporated into the the next round.
Okay, so uh Walker, let's go back to where you were. >> And furthermore, Ernie, are there were there any other comments on the affordability conditions? >> Yeah, I think the main one was to change
the word special permit in number 12. >> Mhm. Okay, so building exterior and site improvements, we don't need this one because that was going to be a condition if you didn't get the updated plan. >> Right.
>> Um so we can skip that one. Um landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the site plan, and once installed shall be continually maintained. Um and all disturbed areas shall be loamed and seeded unless otherwise specified. There shall be no more than 10 cars
parked on the property as shown on the 2026 2026 site plan. Uh I think that should have the 7/13 date on it. All parking spaces shall be delineated. No excessive parking spaces shall be >> I interrupt?
>> Yes. >> First. >> Uh that was the only thing I wanted to ask whether you might consider deleting the section about all parking spaces shall be delineated. That sentence, the last sentence, all parking
This is a a stone permeable paving and it really can't be delineated. That's why we we're actually using You may not have noticed it, but we're actually using the bollards with the charging
conduits and charging heads on them as the essentially the delineation, if you like. But I would prefer if if possible for that sentence to be eliminated because it it might be construed that it should be striped
and that would be basically impossible. on a gravel driveway >> So it's a gravel surface? >> Yes, it's a permeable surface. It's a It's a It's a very specifically very specific
driveway treatment that satisfies the Conservation Commission. >> Cuz cuz I'm familiar with a permeable sort of asphalt. And that's I guess what I thought it was.
>> No. >> And okay. >> No, it's pretty clearly shown on the on the drawings that the revised version of which was submitted uh yesterday, I guess. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I must have missed
that. >> I mean, it's delineated by implication because as I said by the location of the bollards, that will kind of regulate the the way in which the parking is done. >> Yeah. Okay.
Angus? >> Yeah, I think it should be eliminated. >> Okay. All right. Um if unless anybody objects, we'll take that out. >> All right, the new accessible parking spaces at the duplex shall meet ADA
standards and shall be provided shall we just stay say signage here rather than or striping? Um >> Yeah, we're not it doesn't look like we're going to be able to do any striping. >> Yeah. All exterior mechanical equipment associated with the duplex shall be
screened. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded in order to be dark dark sky compliant. And the new parking lot shall be screened from view from Amity Street and the adjacent property with evergreen plantings that are a minimum of 3 ft at time of planting in accordance to
section 7.112 of the zoning bylaw. >> All right. I um >> Any other exterior building exterior comments? >> And I most of the rest of this is probably
sort of uh standard. >> Yeah, work in the right of way will be approved by the DPW. Um any town amenities or town crosswalk, sidewalks, etc. shall be reconstructed to match rematch reconstructed to match
existing. They will the project shall comply with and be managed in accordance with all terms of the management plan. Um trash and recycling shall be kept in containers I I said in the enclosure by the stepping stone path as indicated in the management plan. I will
take that specific phrase out. >> Yeah. >> And containers shall be returned to the storage area by the waste hauler immediately after collection. As indicated in the management plan, the two storm water surface storm water detention basins will be cleaned out to remove any accumulated sediment or
debris. I don't know if that needs to be a separate condition since we already say that they're managed in accordance with the management plan. >> think there is some I I do have some question about some of these about whether they really need to be repeated again. >> Yeah.
>> You know, some of the ones just above it's like you know, I mean like the dark sky compliance. I mean, we've we've approved the plans and lighting and you know,
it ought to be dark sky compliant that we in the plans and then since we've said we it has to be built the way the plans are, so do we need to say that again? That's but I don't remember what we usually do. Okay. All right. And then the construction I assume
>> Construction ones are all standard. >> All standard. Yeah. >> Yeah, I don't think I put anything different or new in any of those. >> Okay. All right. So, um >> And then there's completion of work is also all standard. >> Right.
>> Yep, that's it. >> All right. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, um I guess I'm going to move that we continue this hearing uh
to 6:00 to July 29th. Uh Pam, is 6:00 Is there any reason not to do 6:35? Or should we >> Not that I am aware of.
>> Should I do like 6:32 cuz we're not going to do anything else? >> Would you like to say 6:30? >> Yeah, let's say 6:30. >> We can say 6:30. >> All right, so I make a motion that that
we continue this hearing to July 29th at 6:30 p.m. >> Mhm. >> Second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Angus. All right. Um
Anything else, Felicity, from your team before we continue? >> Not at all. Just our hearty thanks for all the time you've put into this. We really appreciate it. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh I don't Are there any public comments on this project? I think I asked that earlier,
so don't see really anyone raising their hand. Okay. Um we'll go ahead and vote to continue. Starting in the reverse order. Jer Jer
>> Aye. >> And Jesse. >> Aye. >> Angus. >> Aye. >> Roy. >> Aye. >> Fred. >> Aye. >> And Bruce. Not Bruce. Bruce is
>> Right. No Bruce. >> Bruce >> All right. So, six in favor, one member recused. The motion carries. This hearing is continued. >> Okay. Thanks very much.
>> Okay. Thank you, Felicity and Linda. We'll see you in another 2 weeks. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The time is 9:11. Uh fourth item on our agenda Is Bruce back in the room? Yes.
Okay. Fourth item on our agenda is planning board elections and reorganization. We started talking about that last meeting. Um we we have the three officers and then we have the three
uh boards that are we are have liaison representation on. Uh so, I guess I want to just start by saying Bruce, you asked me last time if I was willing or interested to be
uh chair again and I think I wasn't really as positive as I've ended up feeling like I should have been. So, um I'd be happy to be chair again if that's what the board would like. And I'll just stop there. So, um
with that, I guess I'll I I guess we ought to go through each each uh office one by one. Um does anybody want to make any nominations for or volunteer for four positions? Jesse?
>> I would nominate Doug Marshall to be chair. >> All right. Are there any other members who want to make a nomination or volunteer to be chair? Bruce, your hand is the second one up. >> Yes, I was seconding the nomination. I
wasn't sure whether that was the process. I assumed it was, but maybe that's happens later. So, uh I'll just do what >> them one by one and start with the chair so that we know who's left to do other things. >> Well, since I've got my hand up, I'll do
what you did and say that I will uh uh happily continue in the uh in the role of uh clerk, but I will also uh accept any other role that the board is interested in. >> Okay. >> But the
uh assigning >> All right. Um >> let's see. Does any Would anybody like to volunteer to be vice chair? As I said last time, there are basically no responsibilities unless uh, the chair does not show up
or is unable to preside at a meeting. >> I've interest. >> Oh, Jesse. Sorry. >> Who Who said that? Oh, Jared. >> Jared I Jared Yeah, but also Jesse. >> Well, I was going to nominate someone else. So, I nominate Jared for vice chair.
>> Well, never mind. >> I'm sorry, Jesse. Who did you nominate? >> Jared. >> Oh, okay. All right. Um, well, I think we are going to probably need to vote on these one by one. >> Yes.
>> although I'd be perfectly happy to do it as a full slate all at once. Um, Pam, do you agree we need to do them individually? >> Um, I mean, I think that the the preference is to do them individually if you
because it if you do it all together, then there's no opportunity for somebody to refrain from voting. >> to one or the other. >> Right. Yep. >> All right. Well, it's only 9:15, so
>> Only. >> All right. So, let's go ahead and do the three votes for the >> Okay. >> for the the three officers. Chair, vice chair, and clerk. Uh, was there anybody else that wanted to be clerk? I mean, should we have any
Do we Do we Are we going to have any contested votes? Um, okay. Um, All right, so I'll go through uh we'll we'll we'll start with the chair. Um
So, um members, let's I will ask you to vote in the affirmative for or in the negative for Doug Marshall for chair for the next year. Uh we'll start with you, Bruce. >> Doug, before we do that
>> sorry. >> I kind of I need like because these are motions and individual motions, we need a one and a two and Okay. So >> All right, so Bruce made a motion to make to nominate Doug Marshall as chair.
>> I actually >> Jesse >> Jesse's Jesse's second. >> Okay. >> And then on on I seconded the motion. Or at least I was ready to. >> Okay. >> So, I took the >> We have the chair.
We have the two names associated with the chair. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, let's go ahead and vote on the chair. Bruce >> I. >> Fred >> I. >> Uh Roy >> I.
>> Angus >> I. >> Jesse >> I. >> And Jerah >> I. >> All right. >> And Doug? >> And uh I'm going to abstain just just cuz I don't feel like voting for myself tonight.
Um so, that's six in favor, one abstention. That passes. Doug's the chair for the next term. Um vice chair, we had a motion for Jerah. Um both from Jerah and from
uh Jesse. >> I'll second that. Take it easy. >> Okay. So, Jer nominated himself and Jesse seconded. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll go through again starting with you, Bruce.
>> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Uh, Angus. >> I. >> Jesse. >> I. >> I mean I and Jer.
>> I'll follow your lead and abstain. >> Okay. All right. And then for clerk Bruce, you you volunteered. >> I second. >> Angus will second. Okay, great. All right. Starting with Uh, I'm going to start with Jer this
time. >> I. >> And uh, I mean I Jesse. >> I. >> Angus. >> I. >> Roy. >> I. >> Fred. >> I.
>> And Bruce. >> Well, I'm going to flow with a dignified difference uh, that seems to have uh, abstain. >> All right. So, we have our three officers for next for the coming year. >> Nice.
>> Moving on to our committee and liaison reports. So, we have the three committees, the planning, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Community Preservation Act Committee, and the Design Review Board.
And um, so, is any uh, let's start with PVPC. Um, is who is is interested in doing that? Is anybody interested in
>> I'll continue. I'll offer to continue if >> Okay. So, we have Bruce who's thrown his hat into the ring. Anybody else? All right. Um for CPAC, Angus, you've been doing
it, but I think we're hoping we can find somebody I'm hoping we're we can find somebody else. >> Me too. >> Since you're going to be pretty occupied. Roy, I see your hand. >> Yes, I would be interested.
>> You would. Excellent. Excellent. >> I second. >> Angus seconds. Okay. >> And Roy, just to let you know, they're they're they're going to hold meetings a little earlier to kind of onboard the committee members because there was there were a
lot of applications last year and I hope this year there won't be as many. But they're they're Normally, they don't start meeting until October and November and I think they're going to try to meet earlier. So, it'd be good to if you if we vote you in in, it'd be good to get you
sworn in sooner rather than later. >> Okay. Roy, your hand is still up. Do you Do you want to say something else? >> No, I forgot to take my hand down. Sorry. >> Not a problem.
>> No cam- No campaign speech here? >> All right. So, that's So, we have one nomination for CPAC and then Design Review Board. Um I had
volunteered to fill the empty seat earlier this calendar year and haven't seen any action from the town manager. So, um I'm willing to keep my hat in the ring, but I don't I don't know if it'll ever happen.
Um does anybody else want to want to do that? I I've you know, I'm I'm not highly uh committed to it. All right, I don't see any other hands. So, that would be Doug. >> Second.
>> Or DRB. All right. Pam, do you feel like you've got a motion a nominate a nominee and a second for each of these three? >> I do. >> Okay, good.
All right, so we'll run through uh Pioneer Valley Planning Commission vote for Bruce. Starting uh with Fred. >> I. >> And and Roy.
>> I. >> And Angus. >> I. >> And Jesse. >> I. >> I'm a I and Jerah. >> I. >> And Bruce. >> I'll abstain. Let's keep it wholesome here.
>> Okay. For Community Preservation Act Commission Committee, we have Roy Johnson as the nominee. Uh starting with you, Bruce. >> I.
>> And Fred. >> I. >> Roy. >> I'll abstain. >> All right, thank you. Angus. >> I. >> Jesse. >> I. >> Jerah. >> I. >> And I'm a I as well.
And then for DRB, we have Doug uh Marshall. Starting with Jerah. >> I. >> Thank you. I'll abstain. Jesse. >> I. >> Angus. >> I.
>> Roy. >> I. >> Fred. >> I. >> And Bruce. >> I. >> All right. All of those were six in favor and one abstention. Thank you all.
>> Well done. >> Our agenda. Number five. Time is 9:24 by the way. Um number five was old business topics not reasonably anticipated. Um the one topic that I thought I might
mention is for those of you that are interested in the ADU discussion and the hearing that the hearing for the one ADU that's been protested
at ZBA is next week on the 23rd. Um Walker or Pam, do you know what time ZBA meetings usually start? I think it's 6:00 from what my wife >> I think it is too. Um but we could confirm that and let
everybody know. It's actually it's posted on the website, too. >> Okay. >> Um yeah, I did I think it's 6:00. I actually did all of that stuff and I'm sorry I'm just drawing a just drawing a blank, but I can be sure to let everybody know.
>> Okay. Any other old business? Uh Walker, you're muted. >> Right. I have the calendar open right here. It is 6:00. >> Okay. And is that the first item on the agenda? >> Um Yes.
>> Yes, okay. >> Aside from minutes, you know. >> Mhm. >> It's not anticipated. >> Okay, so I'm not going to email everybody. 6:00. >> Okay, thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> Any other old business? >> Mhm. >> Pam or Walker? Okay, any new business not anticipated? No? Form A, A&R subdivision applications?
>> No. >> All right, ZBA applications? Other than >> have any to share. It was just the ADU discussion. Walker, do you? >> No. Okay. SPP, SPR, SUB applications?
>> Anything >> coming down the pike? I mean, you've mentioned a couple of projects that are out there. I think there's one on Southeast Street that is is lurking. >> You know, we don't have any actual
submitted applications. Um and none with an expected submittal date. >> Okay. All right. All right, planning board committee and liaison reports. Bruce, anything for PVPC?
>> No. >> All right. Angus, anything for C-PAC? >> No, I already said my piece. Roy, it's a fun committee cuz you're dispensing money, so I hope you enjoy it. It was a lot of work though, and I hope there's
not a Jones Library project again. >> All right, and I don't have anything for design review board. Uh I have nothing for report of chair. Walker, uh, anything for report of staff? >> Yeah, just a couple of things. Um,
Pam added to the packet uh, what was it this morning at the last minute? Uh, the update about Hampshire College, the project going on at Hampshire College. There is going to be a virtual information session on July 21st from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. If any of
you are interested in attending, there is now a website, um, available. A web page specifically for the Hampshire College project that you can register for. So, that is in that update that Pam sent out and you can also find it on the town website. It's currently like one of the bulleted
news items. >> Mhm. >> Um, and then that process is going to continue on with more opportunities for public engagement through They're predicting January 2027 is when they want to have their final deliverables done. Okay.
Um, the design standards design standards are closed for comments, but if any of you have any that you forgot to submit, this would be your chance. Otherwise, we're going to start compiling the comments and get a final draft of those ready to go.
And then, um, the East Amherst zoning updates, the RFP the proposals came in. We had a meeting um, on Tuesday with the committee and, um, a consultant was chosen. Um, so
we're going to be notifying them and awarding them the contract next week. And then we anticipate that they will be coming to the planning board probably in September once they have their first round of existing conditions and sort of preliminary information gathered so that
you can start to get an idea of what the project is about and what direction they're thinking of going and, you know, be involved in the process. Um, if anyone's interested in being involved earlier than that, let me know. There are opportunities.
And um, yeah, I think that's all I had. >> All right. Um, I've realized I I I also meant to bring up um, Jesse's interest in advancing some of the topics that the housing subcommittee was
uh was working on before essentially we suspended that group. Um Jesse, um, you know, we had a couple of emails back and forth. Uh, would it make sense for
you know, I mean, we could put it on to just have you guys one of you show up and say these are the things we've been working on and have it have discussion at least with, you know, that people like me can at least listen to and
subcommittee members discuss where they want to go next. >> Yeah, I mean I mean that's fine. Uh, you know, what I was raising was sort of the pre-discussion of the pre-discussion discussion which is what would often happen subcommittee about things we
think are worth pursuing. And we can do that as a full board. Uh, but then again, I don't know when the I was wanting to find how we can start to shape things up >> Mhm. >> cuz there's not going to be a lot of planning board time to do it. >> Mhm.
>> And so yeah, of course, if we block time, that's great. Um >> Well, I mean, let's at least try it on the 29th. We don't have anything else on the agenda. Um I mean, Angus won't probably be with us, but life will
>> Sure. >> Let's let's try that. So, Pam, could we put on as a second agenda item um you know, I I don't I don't know if we ought need to call it housing subcommittee topics or potential housing
uh building initiatives or something. >> On the subcommittee, we always just sort of listed general housing discussion and then it was open or not. >> And that's that's what we've had on the um
on the planning board agenda and I actually gained that idea from Nate too, of course was the liaison to the subcommittee. So, we've had a general header of um general housing discussion and then
under it we just kind of bulleted what we knew was going to be there. So, somebody is going to come like from the subcommittee and kind of give us a report whether that be Jesse or whatever. Um >> Well, I think for this one let's just
say general housing discussion and and leave it at that for the moment. >> Okay. Okay. >> Because I mean, I think Jesse and Bruce and Fred will initiate the conversation and then we'll see where it goes.
>> Yep. And then I also for August 19th on my schedule for some reason I put down PRP because Angus were you doing some work on PRP and thinking you might have something ready for
August 19th? >> I think what we're waiting on is me and Roy to do the next steps on that. >> You and Roy, okay. >> And Roy has his hand up. Uh I think he was going to do some research or something. >> And Roy, okay. >> All right. Uh did did you want to say
something? >> Yes, I started working on the project and I was able to get a hold of uh all the owners except for one parcel and I got a real positive um response from everybody. They're really interested in working with us and trying
to figure out how uh how their properties would best help the town. Some of them were housing, 55 and over, mixed use and things like that. So, I think maybe for the next meeting I could have a kind of a more full report. I'm going to
meet with a couple of them. But, their response was really really exciting that they're really interested in working with us. So, that was great. >> All right. That this prob- that probably should have been an old business
conversation, but I forgot about it. >> Next time. >> Well, August 19th, right? I mean, that's when we're scheduled to talk about it again. >> Right. >> So, it it will be it will be under the general housing discussion for that night.
Okay. >> All right. >> All right. >> All right. Uh is there anything else I missed that we want to talk about before we adjourn? All right. Is he Is your hand still up or is it
You want to say something else? Okay. All right. Time is 9:34 and we are adjourned. We'll see you July 29th. That fifth Wednesday. Good night. >> All right. Thanks.
>> Night. All right. End the meeting. Oh, wait. Let's stop the record. Stop the recording.