Hulka. >> Hey, Mr. Marshall, you have a quorum of the board. Um, Ammeris Media is with us here in the house. Nate Malloya is with us tonight, too. Um, you are the co-host of this meeting. It is in and around
6:33. I think we're good to go. >> All right. Thank you, Pam. >> You're welcome. >> Welcome to the Ammeris Planning Board meeting of February 4th, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Ammeris Planning Board, I am calling this meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. This
meeting is being recorded and is available live streamed via Ammeris Media. Minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 and further extended by chapter 2
of the acts of 2025. This planning board meeting will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go
to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is listed at the top of the page. No inperson attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can access the meeting in real time via technological
means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's
website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and return to mute. Bruce Cen, >> I am here. >> Red Hartwell, >> I am here. >> Jesse Major,
>> I am present. >> I Doug Marshall, I'm present. Angus Mloud, >> present. >> Johanna Newman, >> here. >> And Jar Smith has told us he is under the weather and probably will not be
attending. He is not here at this point. Board members, if technical issues arise and the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes, please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment and I will call on you to speak. After speaking,
remember to remmute yourself. To the general public, the general public comment item on tonight's agenda is reserved for public comment regarding items not appearing later on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will
not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during this meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when
public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute
when finished speaking. Residents can typically express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from
the meeting. All right. Uh I guess that took three minutes. We're up to 6:36. Uh we'll start with the uh minutes uh for approval from past meetings. We have two minutes to discuss tonight. Uh it
looks Bruce, you've raised your finger as though you want to say something before we get to the minutes. >> No, I was uh I thought there was only one and I was raising my comment hand to comment on the one, but I didn't see a second there. >> Oh, okay. Well, I saw August 6th and
November 19th. >> Okay. Maybe I got in early or I don't know. Anyway, whatever. >> I will comment when appropriate on the August minutes. >> Okay. Well, we will start with the August 6th minutes. Are there any comments, Bruce?
>> Uh, yes. Simply, uh, Kathy Shane is mentioned twice as making a public comment and her name is spelled Kathy with a K and in fact it's Kathy with a C. So that's um on the first public
comment on page three and then that's the very top on page five. Those are the two instances where her name is not properly spelled. Otherwise I had no further to say. >> All right. Thank you. >> Got it.
>> Anybody else? Any comments? >> Jesse. >> Oh, I was just going to move that we accept the minutes. >> All right. Um, all right. Great. Johanna, >> I second. >> All right. We have a motion in a second.
Any further comments. >> All right. Uh, we'll guess we'll go ahead with a vote. Starting with you, Bruce. >> Hi. >> Uh, this is a motion to accept as amended by this comment by Bruce's comments.
>> All right. Thank you, Bruce. You are in favor. Fred, >> I >> Angus. >> Hi, >> Jesse. >> Hi, >> Johanna. >> I as well. Six in favor, one member absent.
All right. Second set of minutes. Uh, November 19th. Did most people see the see those that they were in fact in the packet? So, all right. Good. Johanna >> was going to move to adopt these minutes.
>> All right. Thank you, Fred. >> Uh yeah, the uh um uh adder is that paragraph that uh was put in at the at the end. And uh I just wanted to say at this moment that
uh uh regarding Mr. Mora's challenge. I did research this and u it appears that Amoris adopted zoning in uh 1925
and this parcel took its uh current form in 1922. And uh so that's my story and I'm sticking to it. It doesn't change the outcome in any way. >> All right. Thank you. Um, would anybody
like to second Bruce second the motion? I It was Johanna's motion, I believe. >> Y >> Jesse, you wiggled your fingers. Maybe I'll recognize you as second. >> Yep, I'll second. >> Okay, thank you all. No other comments.
Fred, I assume your hand is a legacy. Great. Okay, we'll go ahead and vote. Uh, this time I'll go in the opposite order of the alphabetical of your last names. So, starting with you, Johanna, >> I approve the minutes. >> All right, Jesse,
>> approve. I >> All right, Angus. >> Hi, >> and Fred. I >> and Bruce >> I will go and I uh despite my initial
declaration of uh um theirction haven't read them. >> I did actually because I realized when I saw them that it was the minutes we've already reviewed and I knew what was going on at the end. So >> okay, >> I'm good. >> Okay. And I'll I'll vote I as well.
That's six in favor, one absent. That motion passes. Both sets of minutes are approved. All right. Thank you. Uh time is 6:41. We'll go to the public comment period. Um at this point, so I see two attendees
among the public. Uh and this is the time for either of you to raise your hands and let us know that you want to make a public comment. I uh the names that I read or that I see are Andy Churchill, I assume, the town counselor,
and Rob, which is probably Rob Moore, I would guess. So, I don't see hands from either of them um to give public comment. Um so, I guess we will go ahead and move on.
All right. Third item. Um Nate uh housing production plan review and discuss the implementation matrix. I'll give you the floor. >> Sure. Yeah. Thanks everyone. I'll share my screen momentarily. I think you know
this was an opportunity for you know plan board members just to identify priorities they might want to or strategies from the production plan they might want to prioritize. And you know, my thought would be over the next meeting or two, the planning board could refine this and then, you
know, offer, you know, recommendations to the housing and zoning subcommittee to work on work on something. Uh, I'm still hoping that, you know, in the next few months, we we could meet with or, you know, representatives of the planning board or maybe it's the subcommittee can meet with the housing
trust and with the CRC. Excuse me, >> Nate. Who who are the CRC representatives uh in this term of the council? >> Um um Andy Churchill, Mandy Joe, Hannah Key, Alicia Walker, Jennifer Tob, and
Pam Rooney. >> Okay. >> And so, um and then I I couldn't name all the trust members unfortunately. There's some new members. Uh but I think you know the idea would be just to coordinate efforts. And so, you know, for instance, you know, if the if you
know, if from tonight we're like, "Oh, we like the idea of planning boards. Like, I like the idea of infill in residential neighborhoods." You know, we might need to then work on what that means. And then we could go to the trust and explain that and see what they what they might think. Maybe they have some ideas to help with this effort or maybe they would pick up some outreach and
education component or, you know, something else. And so, just to kind of coordinate that. Um and then with the CRC as well, you know, again, what you know, kind of what's the next six months, 12 months look like, you know, there's so many strategies in the
housing production plan and you know, it take a long time to implement them all. So um with that, I'll uh share my screen if this is visible for folks. >> This is uh you know kind of the number of votes for each strategy. you know,
there was, you know, a few that had three and then here are the strategies below. I guess, you know, so most of the planning board members stuck with the theme A, which is kind of the land use priorities. I guess one question I had for members, no one selected um the
strategy that uh would be a 40R and so most people didn't select that one. And I guess I I I'd be curious to know why or if there are any questions about 40R or why that you know why other strategies were selected. Um
you know and then you like we can see A2 had the most votes and you know it's upzone residential districts and redefine apartment uses. Um and D1 was the next one encourage the development of more student and workforce housing. And so,
you know, these strategies offer, you know, kind of a a broad kind of vision but not the details. And so, you know, tonight I was thinking we could just have a conversation about what what is some what are some of the first do we agree on one or two of these as a priority and then what what exactly does
it mean? Um, you know, A1, you know, some of these are somewhat uh are similar, right? So A1 is upzone residential districts townwide to create missing middle housing. And so it's slightly different, right, than A2, but
you know, sometimes it's, you know, I think if we say missing middle, it's like, well, then what is it? And how do we get there? Through zoning or what if it's not zoning, what what does the board, how does the board want to get there? Is it through other bylaws or other recommendations, whether it's to
town council or, you know, or some someone else? Uh is it like some financing mechanism? >> Do you want us to answer you now or later? >> Uh maybe in a minute. I guess I was just going to go through like A3 and A5 where the next high you know highest uh vote getters you know facilitate infill
development and adaptive reuse were appropriate >> and amend the cluster development method to increase subdivision density and flexibility which I think we've already identified as kind of this new traditional subdivision method. So I think you know that's something that we
could continue to work on. Um, and I guess I'll leave it at that. You know, I guess I I'd be kind of curious to hear why or why not 40R and maybe it's that some of these other strategies could be a 40R, but it wasn't explicitly identified as as a priority. So,
>> all right. Um, I guess, uh, since I don't see any other hands, I'll I'll just start. Um I didn't I have never gravitated to the 40R and the other the other 40s frankly um just
because they feel uh inflexible and cumbersome and a little bit of a challenge to really understand what they are and how they would work. U maybe I just need to spend more time studying it. But, uh, you know, to me, um, you
know, up upzoning residential districts was probably my first, uh, one of my first two. Um, A2 and D1 were probably the first two that I listed. Uh, A1, I didn't like that one because, uh, I
don't want to upzone every residential area in town. I would rather upzone selected areas for missing middle where I think missing middle might belong. So that one didn't, you know, if I I couldn't accept that the way it was
written at least. Um and I, you know, I in general I would say I limited myself to um topics that were identified as the planning board could have an impact on
them. I didn't see any point in, you know, wasting our effort uh on advocating for somebody else to do something that's something they should do and not us. Um, you know, I think I will say, although I did say it in the email to
you, Nate, um, you know, I thought we were going to pick from the list of zoning things that you had prepared rather than this list. So, I was a little bit surprised at that. Um, but you know,
that's that's where I came down. I don't remember what what the third one was, but you know, I thought we should deal with things that are we can flexibly zone in response to an objective. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the idea of this,
you know, if we identify one or two priorities here from the plan, it would go on that zoning list, right? And so, you know, do we and then we we identify one as like a short-term thing to work on in the next six months or are they a little bit bigger things that take a year? Um, and so that's kind of where I,
you know, start here and move it over. Um, yeah, you know, it's interesting with 40R. I think the, you know, we, you know, we tried it in the downtown a few number of years ago and it didn't work because we had already upzoned downtown. So there
wasn't really any incentive to give to a developer. Um you know unless we were gonna that you know they could already do a pretty big buildout and and bigger buildings. And so, you know, you do a 40R typically over an area where you can't do much right now where maybe you can't even do apartments or town houses
or commercial, you know, or mixeduse buildings and then you put a 40R over it and what it says is that, you know, it's a site plan review with design guidelines and, you know, 20 or 25% of the units have to be affordable. So, it's basically like a comprehensive permit district. So a developer would come in
and if you have a 40R they'd say oh I'm going to do you know if they use the 40R district and they meet your design guidelines it's pretty much a yes right you can't say no but it's the idea is that we would have identified that area as an appropriate place for say more
density and affordable units um you know >> yeah I mean I was here when we tried that you know at the at the north end of downtown and um you know I I guess I'll I'll confess that uh I'm I'm I've always been kind of
ambivalent about the uh the uh of the affordable housing uh requirements. Um you know, I I understand that it's a it's an a worthy objective and it's a you know, it's a state uh program that can do that. Um
the fact that it's open-ended and you're basically guaranteeing forever that you're going to have a affordable unit and it and but it that it comes with all this state sort of uh you know the the framework where you have to be assessing
people's income and that kind of stuff. it just felt like a very cumbersome program to me and um you know I' I'd rather focus on how we can enable the market to devel to produce more housing
and um so you know it just doesn't has never really appealed. All right, we have three other people who'd like to talk. Uh Angus, you're next. >> Sure. Um, so yeah, I think this is a um
it's helpful to see where other people kind of are are thinking about priorities. Um, and I think there's a lot of echoing on this Excel spreadsheet that we've got in front of us with the zoning priorities that we're thinking about in this subcommittee and that the
staff are thinking about. Um, and I'll just point out a couple of things that that I I think are really promising. Um, you know, we I'm just looking I'm looking at both documents right now. And um, in addition to what Nate already mentioned about cottage style zoning and
thinking about kind of, you know, changing the cluster development approach that we have in the zoning bylaws, um, and and increasing both density and flexibility for some of that development. Um we're also thinking about um modifying mixeduse building
standards and outlying village centers which is upzoning residential districts for higher density residential use. Um in uh the staff line they've got update apartment definition which I think would be great um to create you know an option
for medium and larger apartment complexes. Um we've and then we've got a couple of other points you know where we're thinking about trying to upzone um and you know create facilitate infill development around major thorough
affairs in town which I think is is also great. So to me that we're we're already thinking in these terms with with a lot of the zoning uh priorities that we've been contemplating. I think the the piece that is missing that Jesse and
others have have mentioned is really this the student housing piece which is is on the zoning priority list but I'm not sure that we have a clear sense of what action we can take apart from trying to increase supply which is one thing within our capacity. Um and I
think this goes to Jesse's you know question about trying to create limits or regulations on spacing of student housing that kind of thing. um which is something for us to discuss later. >> All right. Thanks, Angus. Bruce, >> um like you, Doug, I uh um thought that
we were being asked initially that to look at the um the priority list that Nate at at Al have put together and to work on that. uh this uh because we already had our priorities. So, we seem to be zooming back out to somebody
else's list and and I'm vaguely aware that that might be useful, but it didn't strike me as being a good use of time because this is a this is a big broad list that's made by somebody else who who talked to us among other people, of course. Uh and the uh it's a list that's
made by somebody else. So I don't know what half of these comments mean and we've already kind of found that out in here as we say what does upzoning residential districts mean and all this kind of stuff. Our list is got uh more specific statements in it that we've
made and we know what it means. That's where we should be spending our time, I think. And I've been encouraging Nate or trying to for for quite a few weeks or months now to actually get that list into a into a a tight uh u um nicely uh
written uh list rather than just a collection of phrases and uh and half phrases uh that are somewhat repetitive and so forth. I think it that's where we should be spending our time. I think Nate, I want your list to be made into a good list. uh I want it to be properly
written, properly edited, and then we can look at it and then we can prioritize it. But this doesn't work for me because I don't understand what half of it's about in enough detail for me to make sense of it. Um, so, uh,
but overall it seems to me that the obvious thing that we have to deal with is is student housing because we've got uh data that says that we're trying to accommodate 9,000 uh students, which
maybe is over four 2,000 houses in a town which has got um 13,000 residents. It seems it just seems to me that dealing with the student housing one way or another, whether it's trying to build it uh on off campus or exercising
whatever um uh influence we may have to get the university to um to take a a different to rep prioritize their efforts in that regard. I know that that the general consensus is that that's a waste of time. I don't think it is
because the problem is so great that it can't be a waste of time. it has to be the essential solution I think um along with whatever we can do. Uh so that's where I my priorities are and uh and and
I don't know that I felt that this was a terribly useful exercise. >> All right. Thank you Bruce Jesse and then Fred. >> Thanks without being too redundant. Uh, Angus and Bruce basically just summarize what I would want to say. I'm realizing
when I see this list, I was remiss in even sending my votes here because I did pick some priorities and I got to the same po point in my brain that those two gentlemen just expressed, which was nothing here addressed what I see as the main problem
and that's what I it has to go in parallel. I agree with many of these things. I also agree what Bruce said that these are sort of vague aspirations and nothing really concrete. But I do agree that we need several of these points and probably I would have ranked them in similar order if in parallel
we're also really working on the student home student housing issue and it's just it's just missing from the conversation. So So >> yeah. Okay, I'll start. Well, well, so you'd be D1 would be your preference in this list because that's the one that
mentions student housing. >> Yes. But at the same time, student and workforce housing are very different. What keeps coming in the conversation in various ways is owner occupancy. >> Yep. >> And that never goes anywhere. Like I'm
never hear us or getting actual information about what we're allowed to require. How can we design things that lead towards owner ownership for the missing middle for low starter home for all these kinds of things? It never goes anywhere. And that's different very
different from student housing. And yes, we need both. And I think we have to try and attack them in parallel and think about which parts of town we might try and encourage different developments. But we haven't even got to a place where
we have a model for encouraging starter home ownership, right? That I see as a real problem. I agree we should rethink uh apartments and you know different types of density. But also as you all know I think critical in that is defining a student home so we can
intelligently talk about what we're talking about because without without naming it how do you plan for it? Okay, I'm gonna stop. >> All right. Uh, you know, Jesse, I guess I'll comment on
a couple of things that you said. One is, um, you know, we have had conversation in the last few minute minute meetings about the sort of tiny little subdivision model, which I view as basically targeted at workforce
housing and starter homes. So, we have done that. Um, and then, you know, I think any any any area that we decided to upzone for greater development near the university would would almost de facto become
student housing. >> So, we we could do that. We could say, you know, any parcels within, you know, a thousand feet of the university's main campus, we're going to upzone for six stories, whatever. I mean, pick pick
your details. you know, if we did that and actually proposed that, you know, the chances are most of anything that happened in there would be targeted at students and maybe they'd be maybe there'd be a little bit for junior faculty or something. But, you know,
>> if I may, you know, reply, I totally agree. We've had those conversation. What again what I think is missing is the ability to figure out how to to separate some and have it not be student
rented because I agree anything anything in any of our town right now that gets built will be student rentals. I feel like there's no question about that. I think most of us agree with that just because of the moment we're in. And if we want to encourage
or design things allow somehow zone for things that would be starter homes. There has to be a mechanism for non- studentent homes. And that's the piece that's missing. That's what I'm trying to express. And the subcommittee tried that went nowhere. And that's what I was
trying to ask last week or sorry, last time we met if the planning board felt >> similar to me or not. >> Okay. Um, I guess I'll I'll say in response to that, you can bring you can unmute
again. Um, you know, I personally feel like we should we have a we have a serious problem with student demand and that we should not let the other the workforce housing slow us down from solving the
student demand. So whatever we think we can do for student demand, let's go ahead and do it and and not and not let the workforce, you know, issue slow >> imped Yes. Totally agree. Totally agree. But then let's call it what it is.
>> Okay. >> Let's not say we're going to try and have more student and workforce housing because that's not what we're going to do, right? Have more housing. I'm fine with that if we call it what it is. Okay. All right. Great. All right. Thank you, Jesse. Um, Fred,
>> well, I was the one vote for D1 and I was the one vote for D1 because I agree with uh Bruce's arguments and I agree with Jesse's arguments. And I thought that's what I was voting
for when I voted for D1. I guess this is all in how you structure the uh uh language of the choice. Um uh >> well Fred, there were three of us that
voted for D1. I know I was one of them. >> Oh, I I thought the >> So under number number of votes there on >> Oh, yeah. There was three there. There was three. Okay. Yeah. Well, that was why I voted for D1.
>> Yeah. And my D1 is number one. D1. All right, Fred, are you all set or you you're thinking? >> Yeah. Um the uh the my the the one where I was one vote was A7. I was the one
vote on A7 on uh uh >> available land. And I uh I don't know how you're going to uh solve these problems without looking at that, but anyway. >> Mhm. >> I'll let it go with that.
>> Okay. Thank you, Fred. Nate, so I don't see any more hands at the moment. You've heard a little conversation. What would you How do you want to go from here? >> Yeah. No, I mean, I you know, thanks for all your comments. I mean, Bruce, I hear what you're saying. However, I'd say
that, you know, kind of analogous to what Angus said, you know, the we're already working on some of these and I think what we just had as a conversation about a few things that if we could distill from that, you know, what are the priorities? I hear, you know, like student housing issues. So, to me then it's like, okay, if we keep drilling
down, what does that mean? Is it is it allowing student housing places? Is it then also regulating them or regulating student homes from other parts of town? You know, I hear um kind of like uh being able to get modly priced fee
simple home ownership units. And so, okay, maybe we're already doing that with this new kind of cluster style subdivision. And so, to me, this is a fruitful exercise in that, right, these are just kind of generic strategies presented by the consultant. But then it's to me it's on us then to say, okay,
what do we mean by this? What do we mean by upzone residential districts for highdensity residential development? So they don't give us a metric for high density. Is that you know 10 units an acre? Is it six? Is it 30? You know and then where is that appropriate? And so then that's where we take, you know,
have a conversation and say, "Okay, really we're going to look at maybe BVC and RVC and we already allow say threetory buildings, but we think we should allow apartments without an unlimited number of units at in four stories in those districts,
right? I'm saying for instance, and that that is to me the high density residential thing and we redefine apartments or we kind of focus on this student and workforce housing and talk about it a little bit more. I think it's a you know staff ever since the you know
when Jeff come on board and then since the last planning board meeting it was nice to you I think it was a really great conversation last meeting I think there was a lot said and it's kind of like you know taking all that and figuring out what are some action steps from it and it's still we're still
trying to figure that out. I I I hear you about um student homes and then owner occupancy is different and I just want to make sure we you know it's it's really hard to zone for for some and for the others and so
yeah I don't you know I like we've been having conversations with staff and with different officials and trying to figure out what what's the kind of right approach or what are some ideas and so I think we you know I think the conversation is is going to keep coming back and I think we are aware where it's a priority. So I feel like it's
something. So, so Nate, Nate, are you trying to redirect us >> because because I do kind of share some of the feelings that Bruce expressed and and in that we already have that other
list of what we've been talking about and we have, you know, we were working on the North Ammerst District and, you know, I heard Jeff last week that maybe that's not the most fruitful thing for us to set to to work on at the moment,
but you know, we're we're kind of in the middle of a lot of another conversation that had to do with some of those other things and and and so yeah, the housing production plan has arrived. Um do are you trying
to get us to refocus in a different way? >> No, let me share the um and Angus, I saw your finger there. Do do you mind if I just interject briefly, Doug? Sure. >> Yeah. >> Um I just I I think one of the things
that I think is useful about what Nate is is doing with us here about the HPP about the housing production plan is it's it's in part creating a link between these zoning priorities and the document that the town council and that lots of other stakeholders have already
approved, right? Like they have approved the housing production plan. They have not approved anything on this list that we're about to talk about. Um, now what in the approving the housing production plan, it's a it's a menu that we're supposed to draw on. And so to me, the valuable thing of what we're doing here,
and I agree that it's good to shift over to the zoning priorities, is when when we type up or when Nate and and the planning department type up what Bruce is asking for, a more detailed version of this zoning priorities document, I hope that that it'll mention which of
the housing production plan priorities they link up to because I think that that helps us establish kind of where we're coming at these problems from and build support for our interventions. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Nate.
>> Oh, yeah. No, I think what I you're right. I also want to be realistic like how much can staff and the planning board and subcommittee take on. But so that's why, you know, I shift it to this list. So really, I'm trying to, you know, give us time a timeline. So if we
like this new subdivision method, you know, planning board give the direction to the subcommittee and really work on it and goal try to get a draft zoning amendment in draft form by May, you know, and then staff is going to be working on, you know, all these other
things for May. At the same time, the subcommittee could be working on these few other things that we want to then get into zoning amendment form by the end of the year. And you know perhaps the one priority from the HPP I mean these are already priorities from the HPP it was just is there another one
right that could be something that the subcommittee is working on or the full pling board is working on with the reality that even if say we get all these things ready the planning board recommends them to the council in May they might only want to refer a few of them back and it just it you know
there's a process right so we can start talking about it now these might not get voted on even if they get to the council in like June, they might not be voted on as a zoning, you know, to get in the zoning bylaw until the, you know, December. And so I think what staff has realized that sometimes it's over a year
before there's any zoning amendments adopted or really brought to council. And so we want to try to create a little bit more of a workflow for that. And maybe it's just maybe we have to pair this down even more. But the idea is to like let's prioritize a few things that we can really push. And Bruce, to your
comment about writing this up, again, I'm not going to write any more than this. If if if someone is unclear what this means, I would rather just jump right into the zoning language. And part of that is we have an intent, a purpose, a goal statement, and it'll come out of the zoning amendment. I don't want to
spend more time writing a document to summarize this. Like if we don't know what, you know, mix build modify mixuse building standards is, you know, someone could someone else can do it, right? To me it's like what does that mean? We had a different standard in new drive. We've
heard what we want less than 30%. If we think this is a priority planning board tell the zoning subcommittee or the board you want to work on this right for October. What does it mean to have modified mixeduse building standards? I feel like in the last few months I've heard from a number of property owners
and developers 30% doesn't work. They have trouble getting financing. Space is going to sit vacant. Is that you know what do we do with that? you know, do we change it? Do we keep it 30% in BG or BL? Do we have it, you know, so to me it's like I think
that's something that would actually be beneficial. Um, you know, and these are going to be really big downtown design centers and East Ammeris 40R. So, those are things that we hope the planning board will actually, you know, dedicate meeting time to this year to keep them
moving forward. uh clean energy bylaw. It was the solar bylaw. It's now clean energy because it talks about battery battery energy storage systems. The state is saying just like ADUs, we have to have something in place this year. It's going to be a really big lift. Um it'll come
to the board at some point. And then here's all these other things. Housing and the PRP. I'd love to kind of keep that moving. We have these temporary uses um which we've talked about. And then we have these technical amendments. That's kind of a lot to do in the next say four to six months, but I'd like to
try to keep some momentum. At the same time, maybe we're, you know, looking at these other things for later in the year and it's a lot, right? And the studenting housing, student housing issues, I'm not even sure what limits and regulations are right now, but I think it's something that we've heard, you know, you the board's
mentioned it enough. we've heard it from the public and so it's starting to try to figure out okay right how do if we have this new subdivision method for instance do we have some kind of owner occupancy requirement or something right like that could fulfill that kind of
goal and I you know I don't really know how it how it could work sometimes legally it's a little tricky um but anyway so this to me this list is trying to give us a shape for the next year because you know it does take a while and I also want to maybe be more efficient. I heard
the board say that Udrive could have gone faster, which is really interesting. And so now it's telling me, >> well, no, because during in during the process that, you know, I wasn't sure. I mean, I was going to CRC one meeting, one week, planning board next week, and that was like months of my time going to meeting after meeting. And so if we
think it could be more efficient, I'd love to hear it. Staff has kind of talked about it. >> Say we get this kind of to a zoning amendment form, you know, do we go to CRC? Some of the ideas is like do we go to CRC early this year and say hey here's what we're working on. We don't
really have much to it but just so you know and we keep them more periodically updated so when they actually this becomes a zoning amendment it's not like you know it's totally new for them. They've kind of been following along. Um anyway so to me yeah I don't you know maybe we already have enough from the
HPP. I just wasn't sure. Um you know because it's a big document as Angus said it was just adopted. It has a lot in there. you know, is there something we thought we want to peel off of from there? And maybe we're already doing it, so I, you know, we don't have to go back to it if we don't think it's useful. I just, I was kind of curious to see where
board members might, you know, push, right? What if someone is like, I really like this strategy, and it wasn't anything we were considering here. I say, "Okay, let's talk about it a bit more, you know?" But ironically, it wasn't, right? It was like the things that we're already even talking about. So,
okay. >> All right. uh Jesse and then Bruce. >> Thanks. Um so, so as you just went through the list you're showing now, again, from my view, the priority is just a little out of
order. I love these things for our town. Figure out cluster development, subdivision and traditional neighborhoods, cottage style zoning. Fantastic. But we all have to admit if they get built tomorrow, they will be student rentals. And I don't want us to spend a lot of
time imagining how to zone this to get small homes that someone could buy and move in a new family, a staff, a new faculty, whatever, when I think the reality is that's not what would happen tomorrow or even next year or in two years. And Nate, you even said the
student housing issue is way on the bottom of the list and we don't know how to address it. That's what we need to do first. Like that. I mean, that's my perspective is staff and council and town manager and planning board need to figure out how we can address this if we want to address it
because I don't feel like there's a lot of desire to actually address it. That's that's my frustration, right? Again, I like all these ideas. I'm happy to work on them, but we also have to call out what it is that's the priority.
And I think this is out of order. And I tried to ask Jeff that directly last time also and he didn't have a good answer either. He kind of talked around the question, are we going to work on student housing? Well, eventually, but that's what's been happening for 30 years here, right? And and here we are.
>> Bruce, >> um substantially agree with Jesse, but Nate, this this is a bit of list. I uh uh this this is clear and it's and it's it's it doesn't have items mixed the way the other one did. Um and I can see the
order and so forth. I don't entirely agree with you that uh that each of these couldn't have a paragraph that uh or a short or a long sentence that described essentially what the goal or objective was or or described it a little clearer. I don't think you need
to write more than that, but I I think it would help. But but I can I can live with it the way it is. That's fine. But what I find frustrating is exactly what Jesse said that uh we seem to have decided apparently that the North
Amistiti that we had put so much time and effort into uh is no longer on this list. Um as I said some time ago, I think we need to fail at that before we drop it. um uh because it's it's overwhelmingly the thing that the
problem we need to it's the most challenging problem and uh putting our head in the sand is not a good way to deal with it. I think it should be we we need to die on this hill. Um uh at least and be seen to be trying to deal with
it. And if uh we go down in flames in North Ammerst, at least uh it wasn't because we ignored the problem and we can maybe learn something um uh about how we can how we can succeed in persuading the
town that highdensity student housing um if it's not going to be off-campus on campus, it has to be off campus and in my general sense, it has to be both. So I think number one on the subcommittee is is uh is um some version of pursuing
the North Amist uh uh overlay and otherwise I'm I'm I'm good with everything else. >> Doug jump in. >> Sure. >> Yeah, thanks Bruce. So yeah, I think the goal purpose for each of these I think it would be great for say I can start
working on the ones for staff and if the subcommittee wants to you know if we reorganize this work on them for the others and so to me that goal purpose statement is then part of the the zoning amendment. So I agree I think it would be good to have that but I don't want to duplicate it and have it be say a
narrative. I'd rather have it be part of say the zoning amendment form itself where we have a goal or purpose intent applicability and kind of just write it as if it would then be part of that zoning amendment. >> Um yeah, the student piece I mean I think the idea is that this although
it's low on the list, it's something that would be working on this year. It's also on the agenda for later. I I hear you. I um yeah, it's interesting Jesse. I uh you know sometimes I I wonder right if
we say did this traditional neighborhood subdivision method right really small lots 5,000 square foot lots we could do zero lot lines and someone comes in and they develop a property and they do like a 30 lot subdivision you know
what who would the end user be you know is it you know by the idea it's like it's you know it's akin to the 40 wide the idea is that because the slots are small homes would be smaller so they're in essence more affordable but I I don't know given the market in Ammerst and so
I think you know um you know I've spoken with Jeff and staff the student thing is it is it is tricky I feel like I we're getting ready to I feel like we're you know you know trying to get some ideas going it it's a really difficult thing through zoning typically
um you know and it it's like you don't want to say owner occupancy on everything because that it has it could you know you could have you know non- studentents rent units and so the the occupancy can help say with like a duplex or certain things um so yeah not
you know like I said I feel like we've had we've talked about different things on this issue and maybe we elevate it on this list and maybe you know we we move it up to the subcommittee or something um I just don't know that it would generate a zoning amendment say by I mean could we I mean maybe that's a goal
like do we try to have a zoning amendment by the end of the year related to the student issue. And we we get rid of this thing because we're already doing it. And you know, we could put like, you know, student housing here. And it's, you know, and those are the four things that the subcommittee works
on and we can always reorganize this list, but it's like, okay, you know, that gives us some structure for this year because a year will go by fast and um yeah. So anyways, I yeah I just you know like I I you I know I don't know um you know like the minimum
distancing do we like look at that again or do we look at whatever it is um you know bunch of things at the subcommittee level and then we you know the idea would be we subcommittee does some homework we bring it back to the subcommittee then back to the board and say okay here's like four strategies we looked at can we move one forward uh in
any way whether it's a general bylaw is it through the rental permitting program you know gets amended to that is it a zoning amendment So I feel like if we think that's a priority to me after the this meeting this would be the chance to say yeah let's put it here tell the subcommittee to work on it subcommittee
meet supposed to meet I think next week or in a week and a half they can pick it up they come back to the planning board in March and we try to start you know keeping it moving a little bit or the subcommittee talks about it for two meetings and comes back at the end of March and presents the planning board with here's kind of the research we've
done what do we think um so we don't have to get down to the details tonight unless we want to. But the idea is to try to get kind of the framework here. Uh and maybe this is the change we want, right? We want to see. >> Well, it certainly sounds like at least the subcommittee would like to work on
that. >> So I can Can you tell me what the difference is between the cottage style and the traditional neighborhood? >> Yeah. So it Yeah, I know. I was trying to >> look awfully similar to me. >> So this is a subdivision method, right?
where you're creating, you know, new lots with roadways, right? So, it's like, you know, I was just say a 5,000 square foot lot, 50 by 100, you know, do a 20 foot wide road and you can get, you know, nice small lots. Cottage style zoning
in the housing production plan or other um kind of uh planning documents. Cottage style would be you have one big property and you put multiple units on that property whether it's you know eight tiny homes around a center courtyard or you kind of minimize a big
house and you have a few other smaller houses or you you know something like that. So it's typically cottage style. I mean, we could put housing is, you know, is on one property. It it could be fee simple, but it's really difficult and it's not a subdivision method. It's not
trying to create new lots. It's taking existing lots. Say you have a acre property on Lincoln and we like this and we say, well, you know, you can get eight units on that property if they are this style. Maybe it's, you know, townhouse style with design guidelines
or it's, you know, a mix of something. So that's what the cottage style to me means. Um, >> so has has the subcommittee talked about that very much or how did how did that get on this list? >> It's been talked about at various times
and it's just never been researched enough. And so, you know, is the housing production plan mentioned it, we've talked about the infill and increased density in residential neighborhoods. And so to me, this is like, okay, is this is this kind of what it means? um you know because it's not we're not
trying to create new lots. We're trying to figure out how to have infill. And maybe that's maybe this changes. Maybe this is just you know maybe it could maybe the housing subcommittee is like we'd rather see town houses more and that or row houses like we talked about and that becomes this but um you know
this was a unique style that has been mentioned a bunch and it's just >> okay Angus. Yeah, I don't have a comment on the cottage style housing. I was going to echo what Bruce had said about North
Ammerst and I wanted to maybe ask uh Nate a more pointed question. Is the planning department's view that the North Ammeris overlay is unlikely to be viable like politically viable and so we
should stop working on it? >> Yeah. So, yeah, I think I think there's a um possibly right. So it may not get the votes and I hear what Bruce is saying. I think some of the idea would be like at the subcommittee we talked about Jesse too said right like maybe
when East Ammerst moves forward if there's new zoning amendment out of the study this year we bring back North Ammerst at the same time and that's kind of what I've been thinking is that we don't necessarily give up on it. I think there was a lot of good work that was put into it. And so the idea would be if we're come back, you know, you know, we
have this consultant we're going to select in the next few months, spend, you know, 10 months looking at East Ammerst. And what if next year the idea is, oh, we have some new ideas to reszone East Ammerst. Well, let's have a a parallel track and come back with North Ammerst or areas around campus. And so it's a balancing act of like
different approaches to allowing housing. So maybe East Ammeris is a different, you know, target at a different group and demographics. And then we have these overlays for students. I think if we do it on its own, I think there will be a lot of questions and opposition to North Amoris right now. You know, um Bruce said he
had talked to Cinda and there were some ideas about could you allow density on parts of the property because a lot of owners may not actually want to tear down their development. Um you know, it's complex and financially and so to do the three times density might not actually work. And so
we talked to I talked to another owner and it was kind of the same sentiment. And so if an outside proper uh partner came in maybe, but these owners are not, you know, they're saying it's just too much for them to have this phased approach to financing and possibly lose
two or three years of rent on a third of their units and then do the next third. And so North Ammerst to me, I still think if you look at the town, it is a logical place to have increased density. There's already a lot of density there. I think there's questions about what is too dense, you know, traffic and other
impacts. I think that could all be discussed. So, I don't want to give up on it. I think, you know, Bruce had said, you know, do we have write letters to the editor in terms of trying to be persuasive in terms of why reszoning around the university is is a good is a
good strategy. And I think that's really interesting. I think it's something to look at. And so, um, yeah. So I I think for now maybe North Ammeris is you know I think it could still be discussed by the subcommittee you know is it does it shrink does it do we modify it do we
allow parts of parts of those places to be redeveloped at a really high density but maybe not the others and so and it could go on this list but maybe it's not going to be a priority that we try to push for May of this year that's all >> yeah I think that's fine I just want to
say you know the the previous people on the subcommittee have have worked really hard on that And I would it and it's it's not quite at a stage where I to me it's ready to go on a shelf for later. I think it it would be nice to get it a little farther along that way when we
pull it off the shelf if we want to pitch it, you know, a year from now, it's actually ready to go. And I feel like putting it completely away is going to make that a lot harder um for us to return to completely cold a year from now. So, I I would support
Bruce's idea of trying to push it and I I I would love to push it this year. I mean, the changes to the PRP, the PRP is located in three different parts of town. Um, and so increasing h, you know, allowing housing in the PRP alone would be trying to distribute housing and pull
it away from the center of campus. So I I you're right that I think it would be easier to sell with the East Ammer stuff as well, but um but I think there's a way to pitch it as even this year. >> Okay, Jesse,
>> thanks. Um I guess maybe it's too in the weeds for right now about North Ammeris. a little confused by the conversation you're reporting, Nate, because I thought all the work we're doing on this idea of an overlay, just like University Drive, is just changing the
maximum allowable. There's no requirement to get three times as dense. It's just allowing up to that much. So, I'm I'm confused when people say, "Oh, meeting that target doesn't work because of these reasons."
Like, I just I don't Again, maybe obviously I wasn't at the conversations, but I don't understand that position. If someone if the owner is just saying, "No, we don't want to do anything because we're making a lot of money." Fine. I understand that. I don't understand someone saying, "Uh, well, we
have to do it that we have to reach three times, so we can't do that." Uh, but anyway, maybe we can talk more about that after the subcommittee. >> No, no, it's a good question. I think so. for the owners, right? A lot of the owners are making money and they're comfortable and the three times might
not even be enough to incentivize them to use the overlays is what is kind of what it's getting at, right? Because it is, you know, one of them was saying it's a really complex financially to, you know, to get make that work with vacant units
and all these things. And so it was almost like they just didn't even want to, you know, maybe it was like five times or something they would have been like, "Great, I'll do But at three times they just thought it was too much work to figure out how to do it. >> Got it. Thanks. Maybe I misheard what you said. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I agree. It's not it's a
it's a you don't have to do it that much. Um so yeah, I I don't you know I agree. I think it's I think the North Ammeris one is is tricky. Um, and I I feel like if we want to move it forward, like I said, I like the idea of Bruce of Bruce's idea of like editorials or maybe
getting more public about it because I think when it first came out, people were really surprised like, oh wow, what does all this mean and a lot of people in North Ammeris were if they were if they weren't upset, they were confused or wanted to know more. And so, like I said, I don't want to like have that become a lightning rod for all these
other things the planning board or staff is working on and have this reflexive kind of reaction from everyone being like, "Oh my gosh, you're just trying to identify do off-campus student housing." At the same time, we're trying to do other things. And I agree with Jesse that it's hard to balance that and say, "Well, we're going to create more
housing over here that that's typically not going to be students." And someone will say, "Well, how is it not going to be for students if the market is the market?" Um and so um yeah I I you know I think there's different ways to do that. So the PRP
Angus I will say quickly staff started looking at it and you know for the board you might you know I think I mentioned this but a lot of the PRP they're big areas zoned in town there's three areas and say they're like 50 60 whatever 70 acres you know say the one in East
Ammerst that's off Belchuretown Road in Larksburg Drive you know you know it looks like roughly maybe there's like 10 to 15 acres at most out of that whole PR RP that could be developed
that isn't already developed because it's all wetland or riverfront or whatever, right? Steep slopes. And so I think 10 or 15 acres is still worth it to look at it, but it's not like you're going it's not like I look at that I'm like, "Oh wow, we're going to have like
new neighborhoods and streets." It might look like that because it's undeveloped right now, but once you start putting all these these different land use constraints on there, it quickly shrinks. Uh, North Ammerst is the same way and the one in East Ammerst or um on
Route 9 by Green Leaves is the same way. There are pockets of areas that to me would be worth allowing housing in PRP because some owners have said, "Yeah, know I've tried doing something, you know, nothing's been going on, right, for years on those on those say 10 or 15
acres." And so the idea would be we wouldn't we wouldn't take away what the PRP allows. We would we would add housing to it. Um, and so, you know, some of the question now would be, well, if you can't do these neighborhoods or do this kind of nice subdivision, new subdivision method and you only get a
threeacre area, to me, that's then like, you know, really dense cottage style housing or it's going to be a multi-unit building like an apartment building because otherwise, no one's going to, you know, three acres, no one's gonna, maybe someone will do three frontage lots, but
I think we want to do more or something different. Uh, and so anyway, staff's looking at that like, okay, what does that actually mean in the PRP? Um, so I I think, you know, maybe it can happen quickly, maybe it doesn't, but my goal is to try to work on it, you know, bring it to the board, shop it around with staff and
say, here's, you know, here's kind of where we are with it in a few months. Um, you know, >> can I just ask one follow-up question? Yeah. >> Um, for the Puffton Village uh people, I mean, if they wanted to build an
additional building that's exactly like one of their current buildings, that's currently banned by the by the zoning that that falls under. Correct. >> Uh, they would be considered um they could do it through a special permit. >> Okay. >> So, that I think the difficulty right now is a lot of those apartment
complexes after they were built, we change the zoning. So, they're pre they're considered pre-existing non-conforming through a special permit process. They can modify their properties. It's just that most owners and most developers will not go through
a special permit process because, you know, it could be denied. >> And so, >> when this was first examined years ago, it was townwide at every multi-unit apartment complex that became non-conforming. And it was a there's a lot. And it could be as simple as trying
to make it say that any changes could just be by site plan review. I mean it could be you know it doesn't have to be this massive kind of thing like triple density but I think as staff when we heard from consultants they said well to really incentivize redevelopment you
want this increased density. But it could be that we create this kind of overlay and all it says is that you know we can make it really simple like some of the changes are just site plan review and is that then enough to say maybe Puffton Village will come in and say oh
I'm going to add 40 units because right now they don't even want to do the special permit to do anything because it's just it's too much right and so there could be like these extremes of what the overlay is or kind of you know um you different kind of levels of it
and So, you know, again, maybe that's part of the discussion the subcommittee still has like what what could be something. Um, I think everyone got scared when you said three times the density, but that's what the comprehensive housing market study said. That's what you know a few consultants said is like the minimum you would want
to do to kind of have a whole redevelopment of that property. And maybe maybe that's one approach, but maybe the other approach is we allow you know um you know we could allow new apartment buildings by site plan review in this overlay and we change the
definition of apartments in the overlay. We don't cap it at you know 20 units and maybe someone will come out and say oh I want to do an apartment building here on my property and they don't have to tear down their whole site. they just, you know, maybe they on a few units and they put an 80unit apartment building and maybe that's just a new, you know, I
haven't really, you know, I think the overlay was going to allow all of that anyways, but maybe we just have to see, you know, you know, how does it really and and is there a way to, you know, make sure it it can be used that simply, right? Like as opposed to,
oh, wow, we're tripling the density. Maybe Puffton just says, I want to do a 50-unit apartment building here and that's good enough. Um, >> all right. I mean, Nate, that sounds like an interesting line of inquiry.
>> Um, you know, I assume you would you would include some sort of limit like, you know, residential units up to five stories in height and 200 units could be added with site plan review.
Yeah, I think there's Yeah, and you know, even with the North Amoris, you know, I found other communities, especially if it's an overlay, you can do um um like a prerequisite meeting with staff and they have to come with even concept plans. And so, you can really kind of have a focus conversation about
this. So, if they were to use the overlay, it's voluntary to do that. You have to come in and have like a pre-application filing and meeting. And so, you know, we're, you know, staff can help guide that conversation. and someone might come in and just do, you know, something that just doesn't work, right? Or and we can kind of guide that
before it gets to a full application. And so, you know, like I said, I think there was a lot of work that was put in North Amoris, I still value it. And so maybe we modify it or we apply it, you know, if we do, if we're going to do East Ammerst, we can apply some of those same lessons learned in East Ammerst when it comes time.
>> All right. >> And so, yeah, I mean, if we're looking at this list, I'd be curious to know what, you know, reorganize it, move it. Do we like the subcommittee items, staff items? You know, I mean, some of it would be right, like I said, I want to um you know, maybe this is ambitious, but just how do
we how do we pick a few things and really focus in on it? So, you know, start putting, you know, pen to paper and mapping it and, you know, collectively how do we, you know, push push this forward. We subcommittee talked about this a few times. you kind of have parameters and so you know next
time subcommittee meets like if we like this like we start you know right getting a framework for zoning and you know is it I emailed the Mansfield one it was kind of simple our cluster development bylaw is really messy in my mind it's kind of a lot do we just come
up with a new subdivision development method that is simply written you know and that maybe that's conversation for the subcommittee right and same with mixeduse buildings but I kind of want, you know, planning board, right? Do we like kind of this direction of these priorities for staff and the
subcommittee? Uh, and then we can move forward on it. >> Why don't you go ahead, Bruce? >> Um, two things, Nate. First of all, I I I want to go back and beat my pony just
one more stripe. Um, I know this is your list. I acknowledge that. and you're resisting wanting to put any uh um uh uh explatory paragraph associated with these. But I
will say that um Doug a moment ago asked you what's the difference between one and three and if there was a sentence relate following each of those that question would not needed to been asked and that's essentially my concern or my my aspiration here. Um, and I'm
wondering whether perhaps the problem is that you see this as you see yourself as the audience for this um and and not anybody else and and maybe that's um maybe maybe that because
to the extent that I'm the audience I I need more than you're giving but I can I can function without it. It just makes it a little more difficult. Uh and this is actually is a better list and it works for me. Um the um
but but back to this u what you mentioned just a moment ago about number one that the subdivision uh method and so forth and whether that's uh updating the cluster development is more trouble than it's worth. I know we had a bit of a discussion. I think it was at the last board meeting because we haven't had a a
housing subcommittee meeting in the interim. Um, and it was uh I was suggesting that we uh think about how we could uh uh skirt the 40 Y or achieve the 40 Y uh objective within the subdivision by putting a limit on on
size. And uh there was some discussion that that might be difficult or that might even not be legally possible in this state and that we could uh perhaps do the same. In other words, to limit size by doing it with setbacks and so forth.
And um I did a little um bit of um back of the envelope sketching on that and and the my my conclusion is that I don't think we can because even with a 5,000t lot which is probably pretty small um and uh and having a front yard set back
of 25 ft and a rear yard set back of 30 and 10t on either side, you still get a footprint, you know, in the in the 13,400 square foot. And uh if it's a two-story house, you're back into the 2500 square ft house, which is bigger than we want
to u to satisfy the the the uh the starter home buyer. So it it seems to me that I I agree with you that this might be uh difficult and maybe the uh the 40y approach that we um
initially thought was going to be a bit clumsy or for some reason wasn't as perhaps as uh easy to implement or to move forward as um simply making the uh a 40 wire equivalent ourself using
something like this. Uh oh, my dog just fell down the stairs. Oh well. Um using this uh method here. But it does seem as though if we aren't able to do what 40 Y does and to um defensively limit the uh
the size of an of a house to something in the order of 15 14 or 1500 square ft then um u then we would be better off going with the 40 Y approach. And so this uh first item probably should
incorporate some uh evaluation of the states uh 40y option versus uh the homegrown version which is expressed here. >> All right, Nate, any response to that? >> No, I I think Moose I think I agree. I
think having a clarifying statement I was just worried that that would grow into paragraphs for each of these priorities. And so I think if for instance if the sub you know when the subcommittee meets next you know I think the task would be to have a purpose or goal statement for each of these and I
can have a draft statement and the subcommittee can then you know work on it and then staff can do that for these. I think what I what I what I was hoping to do is just have kind of this concise list just for easy viewing because you know if we start having paragraphs we might not be able to see this in one one
glance and so if we like this list then I think I can start expanding the items. I just before there was so much on the list. There was like 30 items. It just felt overwhelming to try to, you know, expand them. Sometimes I'm not even sure, right? Like I I I have I have
an idea of what I think cottage style housing is. So I can put a purpose and then maybe the subcommittee, you guys have different ideas of what that means. >> Yeah. Well, keep the keep the uh the title the the subject titles there and put the explicatory paragraph in in in a
font that's two sizes smaller than that. So, uh, you know, you you you keep the you keep the the fundamental list and and then you but you have a but I'll probably keep badgering you about this, but I'll try not to be
annoying more than >> I'll tell you to keep emailing me every week, Bruce. That's what I tell people. Remind me by emailing me, and that's okay. >> Okay. >> I could I could try and write this myself, but I don't know that I know enough. But maybe that's not the point.
Um just quickly about the housing size. Yeah, I think through these conversations the board's had in the last few months even about students and about the housing size. Yeah, I have questions myself and I feel like I'm getting to the point where I want to, you know, it's like I want to
ask the state or attorneys like can we in this if we do the subdivision method like a 40y say you cap the size of a dwelling unit at 18850 square feet. you know the state can do it because they are implementing this you know this 40y and their new regulations they might say
oh community you can't do that you have to do the 40y >> yep that's the same question say about um students or other things like why couldn't we say and you don't you know you know it's like students aren't a protected class you don't it's hard to go down this route the board's talked
about this before but could you say in apartments with x number of units you know students can only occupy by 50% of those units. Can we say that because students aren't a protected class? You know, I've read attorney I've read articles. I've talked
to an attorney years ago and they're like, "It's pretty ugly." Uh, you have to then be really consistent with how you apply it. Graduate students, undergrads, blah blah blah. The notion was just don't do it. >> But the question keeps coming up and
it's like, well, I don't know. Do I know I've never really gotten a great answer recently. And so, you know, if we upzone some of these neighborhoods in East Ammerst, could we say that half the unit only a maximum of half the
units can be students? I don't know how you do that, but for instance, >> well, this is why you have to define a student house or a student home, >> right? >> Because you define the entity, you you can't police it. And then there's maybe other ways to do it like you increase the inclusionary zoning percentage but
you go to a higher AMI because students don't qualify say for those units. So you could do like up to 150% AMI. So it's like a you know roundabout way to try to get at it. I don't you know so but I but through these conversations in the last six months year I have some of these
questions that you know typically we're like zoning can't do this zoning can't do this but it's like well all of a sudden 40y comes out and says you know they say you can the most you can have is a threebedroom one and a half bath house at 1850 square feet like I didn't think zoning could say that but now all
of a sudden it's saying it. All right, Johanna, >> thank you. Um, I'm sitting here trying to synthesize everything that's been said and share a little bit of my thoughts. So, you know,
big picture, I think the way that we solve a lot of our problems are by increasing supply. Um, that helps with both affordability, student rentals, and, you know, kind of all all other things. So, I still think
that should be our top priority. When I look at the housing production plan stuff, Nate, I'm like, you got three things got three vote or two things got three votes. So, that gives you a sense of the priorities. So, it's A2 and D1, which is let's increase density
in the in some designated areas and um let's make sure we're dealing and with student stuff. And then when I look at this list, I see the
certainly the mixeduse building standards in the outlying village centers would kind of fit under A2, the cottage style potentially, especially if it includes town houses. So, I guess I
in so far as the subcommittee is working on the cottage style housing and the traditional neighborhood subdevelopment, I would just keep in mind the master plan that we don't just want to build housing everywhere, but we want to direct it to our downtown and our village centers kind of smart growth
principles. Um, and then what I don't see in here is actually like some kind of concerted effort to identify areas of town to upzone. I mean, the North Ammerst piece
a little bit, although um the comments last week gave me some pause around whether that's the best use of our time. Um, and then on the what the staff is prioritizing, like my hope is that the downtown design standards get to a place
where we can really add a significant number of units to our downtown once we have those standards in place. So, I see that as fitting, you know, pretty squarely in both priorities, but primarily the A2. And then the East Ammeris study also strikes me as like,
all right, that's a main thoroughfare. we think it makes sense to add density there. So that's me kind of synthesizing. So I think you know a lot of this stuff is heading in the right direction um as far as I'm concerned and
I mostly just want to see us like yeah make some progress and I love your idea of creating a cycle of things to bring before the town council because not every idea that comes before the town council is going to succeed. So,
you know, having an iterative approach like and giving them different things to react to, I think could be really helpful. Um, and then I do, um, I liked Bruce's idea of in so far as we are prioritizing
things, let's make sure we tag the relevant parts of the housing production plan or the master plan. Um, you know, so that it's kind of like, yeah, we're following the road map. That is the vision that we've adopted. Okay, that's what I have. Thank you.
>> That was Angus. >> Oh, that was Angus. Sorry, Bruce. >> All right. Thank you, Johanna. >> Yeah, thanks, Johanna. Yeah, it's interesting areas of town to upzone. Uh, that is interesting. Um, you know, we don't really have it explicitly in this
list. You know, I think the downtown design standards, you know, the idea is that they will be made public next month. You know, there'll be a series of meetings with, you know, the planning board and other boards and committees public. You know, I guess I'm, you know, I'm not
sure where how that where that will go, right? So, to implement the design standards, uh there's a lot of pieces to it. Some of it zoning, some of it could be maybe in the planning board rules and regs, but to really do it could take a lot. And so, you know, it depends on how kind of the reception of what happens say in
the next six months. You know, are people excited by it and think it can work and could we like really try to move it fast pace or is it something that's going to be, you know, implemented in phases and really then it's going to take, you know,
two years to get the stuff, you know, the regulations in place to implement the design standards. you know, I'm not even sure, right? Like kind of, you know, it seems like, you know, there's some positives. People like it, people might not like it, you know. So, I'm just kind of curious to see how that roll out, you know, what kind of the
reception is in those six months. Um, so yeah, I do think that the idea was to to me have some predictability for downtown and also allow more infill. I think it's the right place for it, right? As are some other village centers and other
areas. And so, you know, maybe not everyone likes some of the standards. You know, then does it get tweaked a little bit, but can it then be implemented kind of quickly, right? So, I, you know, to me, I see what happens downtown if we have buildings, you know, everyone, you know, people will complain
about say the new modern buildings. I know is it, it's hard to say is it like, you know, what exactly is it about it? Is it the setbacks? Is it the window pattern? Is it the material? And maybe these standards will be a way to address that. So it's actually predictable for a developer, for abuters, for the board
and can get through easy permitting. But the I will say the downtown design standards, right, is more than just that. It's kind of like this vision of what what could happen downtown. And so when it rolls out, I yeah, I'm hoping it can go smoothly. It may be that it, you know, is a protracted process and needs
more discussion. So it's ongoing. Like I said, it's hoping to get public next month. Um, yeah. And, uh, emer same thing. the idea I'd love to have it be kind of concluded within you know if we have someone on board um in a few months give you know
10 months and have this study they're going to assess the existing zoning in East Ammerst we kind of have to work with the board to find this geographic area and then the the point of the grant was to um then uh suggest ways to increase
density and development in that area whether through a 40R or through zoning changes or through different ideas and develop, you know, some some concepts of what that might look like in East Ammerst. Uh, and so it could be, you know, it we're hoping it'll be kind of
a, you know, a truncated process in that area that would, you know, result in some zoning changes and it could be that it simplifies the zoning. Sony Sam Mercer is commercial, there's RVC, there's BVC, and there's a lot of others. And maybe the maybe the
suggestion is everything just goes to BVC and you increase the height in the BVC and you allow these uses differently. And maybe that's what comes out of the ESMR study and then it's then on the board, right, and staff say, "Okay, we
like that. Let's try to move it forward and adopt it." But um but anyways, areas of town to upzone. Yeah, I I kind of, you know, I write that down. It's interesting. It's to me it's is it it could be cottage style. It
could be, you know, we apply it in in certain zones. So, we allow this kind of infill of multi-unit on a property in these zones. And I think that's something that hasn't really been discussed, right? Like what does that actually mean? um you know this traditional
neighborhood subdivision I agree we don't want sprawl everywhere but when the sub committee talked about it we had some parameters in terms of say property size and the idea would be like right now in these outlying residential districts someone would come in maybe they do a subdivision and they get these you know acre acre and a half lots and
you get you know 10 lots on 20 acres but maybe through this method you could either do the whole lot or you do half of it and you get 30 lots on 15 acres so that, you know, you could preserve open space and you get more density and less
area than what we our current subdivision methods allow. And so I think the subcommittee saw it as something that, you know, it it's, you know, it increases density in that in that area, but it's not, you know, contributing to sprawl and it's also hopefully getting to be, you know, more affordable homes in a a different way
for fe simple home ownership, you know. Um again, you know, and m maybe the idea would be that it applies in certain zoning districts kind of like these other we have development methods in our biolic cluster development, open space conservation development and so this would be a
development method in that applied in these zoning districts and we have kind of these parameters on how it works. >> So Johanna, I see your hand. Yeah, I just um I'm coming back to we talked for a while about the rowhouse idea and that
there are some spots in town where that could be really appropriate. Where does that fit in here? >> I'm not sure it does or if it does it, you know, that you know, we could talk about it and you know, is it part of the East Ammerst study? Um some of it is like, you know, how much do we actually
research and study? And it could be it could be an ongoing thing for the subcommittee. I just feel like, you know, all of a sudden the list keeps growing again and I, you know, it's like I don't where do we where do we it's not off the list, right? We still have that other zoning list. I just wanted to kind
of, you know, shrink it and have it here and then if we really like that rowhouse idea, do we take something off? Because I want to be realistic like all of a sudden now we have five things for the subcommittee, we have, you know, 10 things for staff. That's a lot. Um, and so I I still think
it's a worthwhile thing. Um, you know, maybe as we talk about cottage style housing, if the subcommittee talks about it, it's like, oh, maybe row housing is it and maybe that gets modified and tweaked a little bit or something. Um, and it changes. But, you know, to me, this would be the placeholder where we
talk about some of these kind of medium density things and what does it actually mean? Uh, you know, subcommittee can talk about it. You know, I'll try to get a statement written for each of these and we can kind of, you know, flush it out a little bit more.
>> Nate, do we have a lot of vacant developable land? >> Um, not really. >> Okay. That that's that's what I thought. So both number one and number three I
view as relatively low yield. >> Oh. >> Unless people are going to, you know, buy five or 10 houses in a sim in some subdivision and, you know, assemble a big parcel that they
can use to densify the area. So, you know, I'd put student housing at the top and maybe mixed use number two because, you know, I'd like to be able to build up our downtown or our village centers a
little bit more. So, you know, and North Ammerst, I mean, it might as well be up there, but, you know, both the both the 40y both number one and both number three just don't feel like they're going to be very
impactful, I guess. And you know, if we were, you know, if we had a whole lot of farmland in Hadley in in Ammerst, maybe, you know, we would have people that could had 20 acres they could
develop, but we don't have very much of that. So, I'm I'm kind of with Johanna. I think you know where are we going to where are we willing to upzone with the possibility that people might tear down what's there and make it denser.
So I but I haven't been in the subcommittee meetings. I don't know maybe you guys have spent a lot of time on one and three and it's seems fruitful. Angus. >> Yeah I I you know I'll speak a little bit on behalf of the subcommittee. I
think uh both number one and number three we're imagining with much smaller parcels of land than are traditionally than we traditionally think of for subdivisions. Um especially number three. I mean like number three I think we're imagining you could actually do on a fairly large single family lot
potentially. Um but but I take your point that they are both probably lower yield in terms of getting a bunch more housing quickly and they're also more complicated. So um I at least you know the idea of moving number two the modify
mixeduse buildings um I mean I think that's something we could actually aim for for May even I mean that's not that complicated. um changing a few definitions around that to to make maybe make it easier for people to build more mixeduse buildings
that have more housing but also you know facilitate the kind of life of the community. I think that's great and that that's a lighter lift than developing an entire new subdivision method. So, student housing, I think we we as a committee, as a planning board, maybe
need to talk a little bit more about, and I I don't know if now is the time, but I I wonder if it if we need to talk about what Jesse was trying to get us to kind of um commit to last week, which is do we do we as a planning board feel
that it's worthwhile to pursue limitations or spacing on student housing separate from the supply issue of trying to find, you know, and build more student housing. >> Well, maybe we should put that on the agenda next time and just have a a
designated conversation about that topic. >> I think >> can I can I just add one other thing, Nate? >> Sorry. Sorry. >> Sorry. Um I I just wanted to to say I mean I I don't know if it's possible to uh that conversation might go very
differently if we had legal advice on whether it's possible to to do spacing. So, I don't know what that process could look like, but I I would I would imagine that it would be a different conversation if we know it's legally possible than if we don't know that it's
legally possible. >> Nate, is that something KP Law could advise us on? >> Yeah, I think I can talk to staff about, you know, how So, I think later on the agenda under housing, we do have, you know, limitations on student housing, the memo possibly. to say if it's the
town manager's office. Um, yeah. No, I I I have some of these questions myself and so like I said, it's almost getting to the point where we need kind of some direction. Uh, because, you know, we can keep talking about this
or we can, you know, be told that, you know, it's just not really going to work >> and we have to then figure out another solution. So yeah, I think it, you know, I think it's something I can follow up with, you know, my supervisors on about how how do we get some some assistance
there. >> Okay, Jesse. And then I noticed it's 8:00. Maybe we want to break. >> Thanks. On on just on the legality question, just reminding us and Angus, I don't think you were on the board. I think this came up two or three times where I think Nate, you did ask KPL
certain questions and my recollection is the responses were always, well, it could be challenged. Never. You can't do that. It's illegal. And we've had differing opinions about how to interpret that. My own is if we think that's what our town needs to do,
we should do it. And maybe it gets challenged and maybe it's withheld, upheld, and maybe it's not. But the fear of litigation to me on something that's so substantial shouldn't convince us not to try and do it.
Am I remembering correctly? >> No. Yeah, you are. And you know, you know, the town attorneys are going to have the town's best interest in mind, right? And so do I, right? I mean, I >> Yeah. Yeah. Um Yeah. No, it's it's one of those things where,
you know, is it worth like that risk, right? like are we willing to try to try something and see if people push back against it? You know, do we propose something and then the developers start pushing back against it? And maybe that'd be a good thing because then they could actually tell us what they think. Um because, you
know, they it's really hard to get them to the table sometimes. So yeah, I I you know, I I think that there's some validity there. Just quickly about Dr. comment. I agree that there there's might not be a lot of unit yield with these methods, but I think they're
important because they provide a different housing type than what we've been allowing. And I think think that's where the subcommittee was kind of excited by this traditional neighborhood subdivision method is that it's a fe simple ownership structure as opposed to just big multi-unit buildings and cottage style cottage style housing to me
>> could be allowing you know four to eight units >> in uh RG and Rn on an acre where we don't now. And so it doesn't, you know, we could say that under the cottage style zoning, you know, you could have a
mix of one, twos, and you know, town houses on properties. And we come up with kind of this flexible infill method. And we figure out how to apply it. And so, yeah, you know, it might be used like five times and you end up getting 18 units or, you know, whatever,
but it's a different kind of unit than a 60unit building. And so there's to me there's some you know there's some validity in having kind of a parallel approach for those kinds of um measures. >> Okay. Well I guess you know the thing that comes to mind when you talk about
trying to encourage more fe simple properties you know that of lower value that could be uh created you know rather than coming up with something that's kind of requires a blank slate. you
know, let's just take the minimum lot size and cut it, you know, by a quarter and and and allow me to split my half acre into two quarter acres and, you know, sell off the ADU that I that I
built, you know, not that I did, but, you know, um, you know, so that we we actually do it allow it through infill rather than out at the edge of the development in town wherever the farmland is.
All right. Um, we've got Bruce and then Jesse. >> Um, Nate, if we are going to uh um entertain a discussion about this minimum distancing uh concept, which I
uh which is what um State College in Pennsylvania does, but I don't think anyone else that I know of in the country has actually got something on the books for that. Would it be uh best then to give KP law um the the state
college uh the portion of the state college town bylaw that enables this uh so that they've got something that they can express an opinion on or or is would that be helpful in this case
this situation? Yeah, I think I think yeah, I I it would and I think I would um you know talk with Jeff and Dave and others and you know probably have a few questions I'd want to ask and then I you know I might reach out to you Bruce or Jesse or others and say can you provide some some helpful information
and so to me it's not just minimum distancing. It's like you know say the definition of a student home or >> oh yes you can't do one without the other. you have to reg you have to know what you're regulating >> and then even you know are is there ways to limit student housing through zoning
could be a general question but and then get more specifics and kind of have a series of questions because um like Jesse said I think the answer will be maybe you know if not no you know could be likely to be
challenged legally and so >> you know it's right so you know I think it is hard when you look at other states you know, planning board, you probably know this, right? But there's different, you know, legal different enabling legislation, different statutes and laws. And so, it's hard to look at Pennsylvania or Colorado and then say,
"Oh, well, let's apply it in Massachusetts because Massachusetts has different laws." So, even though, you know, it might be similar in terms of, you know, it's a college community, but legally it's a different it's a whole different >> Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Of course it is. But that's why you're not saying can we use
this law but can we use this concept and and it's and the state college draft is used to more specifically explain the concept right >> um and and so therefore this a legal question which goes to KP law and then there's another question which is the
how it's in enforced and so forth and and what I think I know about it is that it it it takes a a significant leap in uh in staff u administrative time to enforce minimum distancing. I mean considerable and so
the the other way in which the other question to ask is um would we be able to do what they've done which is the enable which enables this just from a an economic standpoint which is to charge a th000 or $2,000
um uh as a as a license for a student house. So once you've got the student house, you charge it's like a medallion in the, you know, in the in the New York taxi situation. You you can't you can't drive the taxi unless you buy the medallion. You can't um operate a
student house unless you buy the the entitlement. and and that uh and that fee uh which may or may not be a onetime fee uh is what funds the two or three more staff people you need to be uh circulating around and and u and
managing this whole thing. It's cumbersome u but it's it seems to be working according to someone's standards in one other place at least. So it's not entirely uh crazy but it's it does seem to be a a
stretch and which is why I gave up thinking that it was a useful way. But if we want to have a discussion about it, I think we need to know those two things. Can we charge a premium on a on a student home and are we allowed to uh enact a minimum distancing uh uh type of
uh uh bylaw in this in this state? Once we know the answer to those two things, then we can have a useful discussion perhaps, or at least it won't be a useless discussion necessarily. >> I like the idea of a golden ticket, a golden medallion. It's a commodity then
that is valuable if we limit them. >> Commodity was the word that was used in uh in when I was discussing this with folks in other states. They it creates a commodity. Yes, exactly. Nate, I was trying to remember the the
zoning amendment that the board recommended to town council, I think last summer that went to council and then they just refused to recommend it. Didn't that include some student housing provisions?
>> It did. It was, you know, in like a definition and I think there was, you know, some push back about, well, what is a student? Is it, you know, um, continuing education students? Is it adults? >> Yeah. >> With one of the household may, you know, one of the, um, you know, caregivers
going back to school. And so, uh, yeah. So, I think there was concern about that it it would it could it could be have, you know, kind of unintended consequences and impacts. And so, you know, it it to me it was like, well,
then we'd have to refine the definition a bit more. >> Yeah. >> Um, so yeah, I think there was concern about that. And I think, you know, we'll be honest that, you know, if we right if we come up with the student home definition, the idea is we'd want to use it somehow. And I think there's always been some concern about is it a negative
or is it a positive? And I think, you know, to me it's like, well, if we can if we think we can do it, then let's figure out how to use it in a number in a few different ways. You know, maybe it's limiting it, but then we maybe we come up with a place where we actually say we want student homes, right? So,
it's like you can't have student homes here, but you know what? We're going to say in this area, you can have as many student homes on a property as you want and you can have big apartment buildings and it's going to be student homes. And it's different than what we do now and saying it's an apartment building. And
so maybe by having that definition, it gives us the ability to do a few different things, you know. Um, so yeah, I I you know, I think there's >> Yeah, I guess I to me the the council's rejection of that was is kind of a cautionary thing as we talk about trying
to do, you know, take another take another run at this. Um, so I guess uh you know I at least am having trouble remembering exactly what that how that proposal read. Um, so it might be useful to just share that with
everybody. >> Um, if you don't mind. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I I was gonna say just quickly to something Johanna had said earlier and you know I think the you know when I first you know 10 years ago I saw your hand Jesse you know we
would the town would propose zoning amendments there was a zoning subcommittee in the early 201s and up until the teens and there we get these ideas going staff would get ideas with a subcommittee and maybe they go to town meeting or not but then we just like keep moving on to something else and we
never really kind of had a a nice running list to reflect refct back on. And so what I'd like to do with the longer list, say like every year, bring it back to the planning board and say, "Okay, here's where we are." Because, you know, this this the overlay for apartment complexes was discussed in
2013. It got a little complicated and then basically it just no one picked it back up again for years. And I feel like it, you know, it probably should have been looked at again and maybe and it it could have been then adopted in 2015 and been in place for 10 years and actually been useful. And so, you know, it's been
10 years where this idea was first discussed and then it lost traction and we kind of just everyone just kind of moved on. And maybe that's okay, but I'd like to have a better way of cataloging things because, you know, maybe like this this doesn't move forward right
now, but maybe in two years we're like actually could we modify it and tweak it and bring it back again in a different form as opposed to just abandoning things the board and subcommittee talked about, you know, for a number of months or something. And so we never really kept a good list. Um and so I like the
idea of right trying to have this iterative process of learning and then you know kind of remembering where we were. And so you know we could always say okay here's where we were the last two years. Here's what we've done. What do we think you know it informs us in year three. And maybe we do all new
things but at least we have that ability to look back. Um I I just think that's important like we hadn't really been doing that. And so, um, yeah. >> Well, you know, I will say I would support doing that, but I think you and staff are the people to do that because
of the way the board rotates on and off, >> you know, and um it's just it's just hard for us to keep track of things. >> No, agreed. Yet, I think staff's trying to get better and kind of more systematic about some of this. >> All right. I don't see any hands at the
moment. Um, you know, we kind of I think we kind of melded several of our housing agenda items into this conversation. So, >> why don't we take a five minute break, come back at let's say 20 after 8, and
we'll uh I think we've covered most of the housing stuff. Nate, I think the last item, the memo, you might want to talk about when we come back and then we can move on. Um, I will also at that point ask for any of the members of the the three members of the public if any
of them want to make a comment about this before we leave it. All right. Thank you. See you in five minutes. All right, I have 21 minutes after 8. If Please turn on your camera as you come on back. Doug, I wanted to share I am solo
parenting tonight and there's a chance I might need to drop off a little bit early to just manage stuff here on the home front. >> All right. Well, >> I will let you. Yeah. >> Hope everything is going all right. So, >> thank you.
>> Okay. Well, stay stay or or go away and come back. >> I'm good for now, but in like 10 or 15 minutes, I might drop off. >> Okay. >> All right. It looks like we got everyone but Nate. Sorry, time goes by too fast.
>> Yeah. Yeah, it doesn't take long to get through that five minutes. >> It does. >> So, Nate, it looks to me like we've gotten through most of agenda items three, four, and five. Um, and you know, the last item was the
possible memo. That's the one that I don't think we've really touched on at all. Maybe if if you agree that we've gotten through most of the rest of that. Um should we just talk about the memo for a minute and then move on? >> Yeah, I Jesse, I see your hand. I will
say, you know, it was some of it was based on what Jarro had said at the last meeting and he's not here. I still can put it out there and we can, you know, talk about it at the next meeting as well. But I know Jesse, if you want to >> I don't Jesse. >> Sure. Thank you. Um, I was gonna comment on some of this before. I thought I'd
wait till after the break these other agenda items, but if we're skipping, if you allow me, Doug, I'd like to hijack for like four minutes to address some of these things. Um, the first was just to add some memory about the student home definition that yes, did go to council. Um,
um, we had proposed it simply as a definition with no purpose. And I think that was our intent to say we just need to define so we can start having the conversations. But clearly that didn't work. And I think if we were going to revisit it, I've certainly thought a lot
about how else we could approach this as a thing to have on our books. I think it it might need to have some purpose. Uh the other piece of that I want to remind everyone, I think the affordable housing
committee uh got wind of this idea and asked me to come meet with them and share what we were talking about, which I did. And I was heartily vilified at even the suggestion that we might think about having a student home definition. And I've thought a lot about that too and happy to share more details some
other time. Just wanted to put that out there. >> Um >> okay. The second thing I was going to sort of mostly say save this for subcommittee but if I'm permitted to share my screen I'll just I'd like to share something with you all strictly for food for thought for future
conversations because it touches on a lot of what we just discussed for an hour. Um so am I allowed to share? I am great. So I'll just do this really quickly. Again not the idea is not for a ton of input right now. You all can see my
screen I hope. Right. Yes. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Um, so this is Oops. This is UMass, right? We all know that roughly speaking, not fancy tools like Nate could do for us. I started thinking if we're not going to have to find student
homes, if we're not going to have small overlays, if we're going to try and think about things with big impact, thinking about the petitions that came to our the the uh resident petitions that came that we discussed briefly, what kind of things can make big impact? So coalesing a lot of ideas, I thought
about what's close to the university. Uh sort of sketched out here. I counted more than 300 single family lots. I believe about 50% of them are rented. Full disclosure, this touches my house. It touches Bruce's house. So it's definitely in my backyard. It's not at
all not in my backyard. But I started thinking about what if we took an approach of just saying here's all these single family lots already mostly rented. How do we increase density on these? And it touches on all the things we just talked about, right? So obviously tons of things to worked out. I don't know how we would accomplish
this, but right now rental maybe has four people per lot. If we could increase that to four or five units, these are the kind of numbers we generate in one swoop. And we could allow lots of different types. Could be small apartment buildings. It could be
rowousing. It could be cottage style. The point is to get to that density on small one at a time. We have lots of standards so that we still maintain some town feeling however that plays out. Things like generous frontage, maximum
number of cars visible from the street, uh setbacks, etc., etc. Uh but it potentially is a way to get a pretty significant impact. probably not very quickly, but if this were adopted by these single lot owners over the next four to 10 years and they could
quadruple quintuple the density, it could make a pretty big impact on the student beds available because again I think this would largely be student housing. Um, lots of ways to refine this, lots of ideas we just talked about. Uh, this isn't at all original
from my brain. It's coalesing just a lot of things that have been talked about. Um, I already know many people have strong objections to touching many of these neighborhoods in this way. Uh, just things to think about. Um, and yeah, so I'll just stop there and putting that out there for all of us to
to ponder. >> Okay, great. >> Did you do that with Photoshop? >> Uh, mostly PowerPoint, honestly. >> Oh, okay. Great. >> Yeah, though they're nice graphics, Jesse. I think you know staff had talked about this you know we have this four
unrelated limit and kind of you know when we started with the rental permitting and now there's a bylaw you know could we actually allow more than four unrelated if it's based on a certain size of the house and if they meet you know standards of living conditions right and
you can regulate parking and a few things does it really matter if you have a 5,000 foot home and you have 20 people living in there if it can legally house those people safely according according to building code, fire code, and other things. It actually is a much more efficient way to house someone. I mean,
20 is an exaggeration, but >> well, I agree and it's already happening to a large extent anyway, >> right? So, so >> we can make it safer. Great. >> What you just said is kind of interesting. you know to me I wrote like could we do increase for unrelated in certain areas and so that you know there
are areas where you can have a multiplier effect um kind of like what you're just showing because you know the the structures can allow it. It's not like you know you don't even have to add any anything. You don't even have to add any more footprint. The structures allow it and
so if through safety you know building code rental permitting we can allow that. Is that a good thing? Um, we kind of shied people shied away from it when this was discussed two years ago or whatever. But I don't know after this it's just kind of interesting based on your analysis jog my memory. It's like
why could we look at that again? >> Yeah. I mean I was mostly working on the idea of you know some some distance from campus and you know as a town we just have to agree that this is the right place to allow this kind of density. I like that idea too Nate. I mean yeah. >> Yeah.
Um Angus. Yeah, I was I that's really helpful, Jesse. And I I um you know, at a minimum, even just changing some of those thoroughares to like RVC would open up a lot of options that are not currently possible that would get us
closer to that. Um changing Puffton Village and these other parts of North Amoris Overlay that we're considering into RBC would open up more options under site plan review. So, like I think there's there's some very simple things that we could potentially do that would
um that would help that. So, that's great. >> But NodeM comes to mind, too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. I guess um not seeing any hands. Um we're down to one member of the public. Uh that member of the
public, are you do you want to make a public comment? I do not see any hand or that person's hand uh in response to my offer. >> Mora is probably here for the indie. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I realize that. >> Just quickly, Doug, I just want to
mention I think I'll wait on the stu the memo until Jar's here. we have a full board. But, you know, after the last meeting with Jeff, you know, there was a lot of comments about, you know, transparency and leadership and other things around student housing. We've talked about it tonight. And so, you know, one, you know, I don't know if I
mentioned it then, but I think maybe an action item for the board is, you know, write a memo to the town manager and the assistant town manager, you know, expressing, you know, kind of issues, challenges, and opportunities around students and what you'd want to see. And
so, uh, you know, because I think we could you could take the information we've talked about and and put it into, you know, a page or two memo and just have it be succinct. And so, um, that that's all it was. And so, I think, you know, to me, Jar seemed like he he had a lot of those ideas. And so, I, you know,
I want to just have him, you know, I was actually going to ask him if he'd write the memo, the draft for the board to look at. And then, you know, the board could endorse it and send it off. And so, you know, I'd want to make sure it's, you know, it's a it's a um, you know, has, you know, has a few different things in it, but really it's kind of
the board's memo just kind of taking off of what we I heard last meeting. I just thought maybe it'd be important to encapsulate that in a written document more than just the minutes that get sent to a few people. That's all I, you know, it seemed like it was important enough. And so, that's that's where it came
from. >> All right. Okay. Okay, time is 8:32. We'll go on. Are we done with housing? Every anybody? All right, good. Um, so old business Pam, any old business not reasonably
anticipated? >> Iate, >> but Nate, >> I don't I don't think so. >> And similarly for new business, >> nope, >> I don't have any there either. >> All right. Form ANR subdivision
applications. Nothing. >> No. >> Up. Upcoming ZBA applications. Anything new? I know you've mentioned at least one in the last couple of meetings. >> I know. Nate, is there anything new? >> I don't, you know, I don't think so. You
know, I will say that there's um you know, with the new ADU legislation in our bylaw, there's been a few property owners, you know, the town had allowed ADUs for years as a supplemental dwelling kind of as a converted dwelling.
Um, and there's been a few property owners who have called who have special permits on their property who said, "Oh, like right now it's required to be an owneroccupied u uh, you know, unit because I have the supplemental apartment, but the
supplemental apartment qualifies now as a protected ADU." And I think there's been a few of those, two or three that have called and said, "Well, what do what do I do?" Um, and so, uh, they, you know, there's a few things they can do, but, I think some of them are going to go back to the
zoning board to try to remove some of the conditions of their permit or something related to that as a special permit use. So, I think there's a few of those that are happening. It's not I mean, I was kind of expected, I guess, once that legislation and our bylaw were in place, the state legislation. So, you
know, I don't know if there's anything else really. I mean, I think there's a few more things kind of coming that will be coming up with the ZBA, but just just let you know that that's kind of happening related to ADUs. Um, because we had permitted them mostly through special permit for a number of years. So,
>> okay. Upcoming SP, SPR, SUV applications. There's still the one down on Southeast Street, right? >> Yep. Yeah, that will be we're hoping to have the hearing open um at at the next meeting or um on February 25th. So,
there's a proposed mixeduse building on um it's like 128 one I forget the addresses, but it's three properties. It's behind the Cland Farms on the east side of Southeast Street across from you know Mir Mitchi had done a building a few number of
years ago. It's across the street from that and it's a proposal for a 80 unit mixeduse building. Um, and so we're going to open the hearing. It's going through the conservation commission as well. Uh, you know, we might have a hearing or two on it and then continue
it uh for a bit of time while the conservation commission can um just solidify some of their review of the project because there's a lot of drainage impacts. But um the applicant really wants to move forward with the board. Uh it's a special permit as well
because they want to have an additional floor and height and fill on the property. So it's a site planer view use as a mixeduse building and then it's a special permit for additional height and fill of land. So that'll likely be open on the 25th. Uh and then you know probably be a few
hearings on that. >> Is our next meeting on the 25th and not the 18th? It is on the 25th. >> Yeah, it's a >> um there's a holiday. >> Okay.
>> And I can't remember exactly what it is. >> All right. >> Ash Wednesday. >> Ash Wednesday. Thank you. >> Oh, okay. All right. Um planning board committee and liaison Bruce PBPC. Anything?
>> Nope. >> No, nothing. Angus, any update on CPAC? >> Yeah, it's been a lot. Um, there have been so many meetings. Um, >> enthusiastic. That's great. >> Yeah, it's good. I mean, it's a great
committee, but um and they they make uh the uh panel members uh take minutes and so I took minutes the last one which was all the deliberations. So, it was a big commitment. Um, >> and it made me so re remember realize
even more how much I appreciate what what Pam does for us. Um, but uh yeah, the CPA uh we're we're having our hopefully final meeting tomorrow to kind of hash out and vote on all the proposals. Um the good news for especially the community housing related
ones is that um I think we're we're there seems to be a strong consensus around the um land trust application um for the Amity Street um house that's that's being sold at a at a steep
discount. Um so um and they're partnering with Habitat for Humanity. It's a great project. Um there's also a desire to fund at least some of the municipal housing trusts ask which is great um not the whole thing um but a significant portion of it and then um a
significant portion either two years or three years of salary for the part-time staff member who's helping out the trust. Um so so that's actually pretty good considering how overs subscribed um the CPA is. So clearly like people on
the committee really care about community housing and um I tried to express the views of of the board as best I could and I think people also really appreciated that. So >> all right. >> Yeah. Thanks Angus. I know it's it's a lot. I mean the CPA committee just for
everyone they have basically been meeting weekly right for like two months or more. So it's it's a it's a big commitment. >> Yeah. Thank you Angus. Um DRB Nate.
>> Yeah, there's, you know, two things on this. You know, Karen is still the representative and they had a meeting the other week and they approved, you know, it's been a lot of it's been signs in the downtown. So, you know, two restaurants are one is moving and there's a new one and they just, you know, they approved um signs for those
those restaurants downtown. Um there hasn't been a lot of big projects lately or, you know, big changes. So um you know it's it's been that uh part of this update was also to say that you know the chair of the
designer review board you know said oh could there be you know could would the planning board discuss having a rep a representative you know an active member be a representative and we had looked at it a number of months ago last fall there wasn't an opportunity members seemed like there wasn't time so you know I just wanted to ask again if there
was someone who' be willing to serve as the DRB rep so technically Karen could serve until June She said if you know she'd be willing to serve. She was she kind of wants to be on the DRB as part of the downtown design standards but if the planning
board elected a rep she still could attend the DRB meetings. Um so anyways I just you know want to put that out there that you know there is some you know typically we'd have an active planning board member be on the DRB uh not a you know a former planning board member but
>> she's been willing to go and and you know volunteer our time. Okay. Is uh is there anybody that would be interested in taking that on? And I guess I I have some interest in it. So if no one else does, I won't.
Um All right. Um, no one is moving. So, uh, >> I move that we appoint Doug Marshall to the designer review board. >> All right. Um,
Johanna, >> I'll second that motion. >> All right. You guys want to vote on it? Any other comments before we vote? Bruce. >> Hi, >> Fred.
>> Hi, >> Angus. >> I >> Jesse >> I and thank you. >> And Johanna, >> I >> All right, that's five in favor, one abstension, and one absence. And the
motion passes. All right, Nate, you can Is it Is Erica still the chair? >> She is. Yes. Y >> All right. You can tell her to email me with >> when the next meeting is, I guess. >> Yeah. And I'll I'll follow up though.
You may actually then have to get um >> you know, get appointed appointed by Paul and >> Yeah. >> Phil go down and swear that I'll be impartial and all that stuff. >> Yes. >> Okay. Just let me know what to do. >> Sure.
>> All right. Anything else on uh committee and liaison reports? Sometimes we've had the the housing subcommittee in this report, but it sounds like you guys haven't met. >> Correct. We we were not able to meet last week, so we're meeting next week.
>> All right. All right. Um time is 8:41. Um I really don't have a report. Nate, any report from staff? >> I don't have anything. Pam might I just, you know, I want to thank, you know, board members for your your time. I think the last two meetings I you know I
really enjoyed the conversation and I think you know it's laying a nice foundation for you know the year to come and so you know it's something that it's important to have. I know it takes time but I'm glad we're doing it. And so you know sometimes I feel like sometimes we get so busy the board gets so busy say
just reviewing projects or doing things we don't have this time to kind of reflect and talk about priorities or bigger picture. And so I'm glad we're having that conversation. uh and you know um subcommittee I'll will work on you know some of those tasks and the idea would be that we can
bring them back to the board and like right keep this momentum going on a few items. So thanks >> time is 8:42. Does anybody have anything else? Sounds like our next meeting is February 25th. So that's
>> three weeks from now. Jesse, >> just logistical question. Pam or Nate, did you send the 2026 meeting dates and I just missed it? I realized they're not on my calendar. And if not, could you could you send them all in an email? >> Sure.
>> I may not have. I was thinking >> I think you did. I think >> I can probably find it. But if it's handy, if you can reforward it, that be a >> I can no problem. >> I thought you did, but I have the 18th as the next meeting. So maybe I'm maybe I didn't look at it closely.
>> Maybe the maybe the preliminary schedule had the 18th until we realized it was >> maybe I said the wrong thing. I've done things like that before. >> Yeah. I mean I think what we do typically, right, we meet the first and third and we'll set out that schedule
and then we kind of, you know, verify it against holidays and other things. And so I think originally we probably had it as the 18th and then realized it wasn't a good meeting date. And so >> Okay. All right. So, time is 8:43 and we are
adjourned. See you on the 25th. Good night. >> Bye. Record. Recording. Make sure