Yeah. Hey. Hey, Jesse. We'll need to wait for Angus to have a quorum. So, >> yeah, I was thinking about what we should do about that given that Bruce is out for six weeks, a month. What did he say? >> A bit of time. about him.
>> Um I was wondering I had a few thoughts but um because I think when we when we brought this up month ago about the numbers sounded like it was pretty simple for the planning board to add and remove members to this
subcommittee. Right. >> It could be vote. So, >> maybe we want to remove Bruce for the two months he's away and that way if it's just two of us, we could meet, >> right? >> Yeah. So, you know, the um you know, Angus had sent some things around about
the housing and the PRP. I had sent something. I think it's worth pursuing and maybe, you know, I I was thinking even on the next plane board agenda, there's time to even just have this have it be a discussion point. >> Yeah. Great. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I don't know. I thought Angus um I thought he would be here. >> Yeah, I think it was planned to be. thought it was a reasonable article about the uh design standards in the gazette. I don't if you read it. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. >> Didn't didn't say a whole lot, but it
was, you know, is what it is. >> Yeah. And there's pretty good attendance at the um at the open house. You know, I think the planning board, you know, I had a good review. Other um the CRC and historical commission uh and the commissions for persons with disabilities that they're not going to see it until midappril, but
>> um the DRB seen it. Yeah, I think I don't know. I don't know. I kind of I'm curious to see how it goes. I feel like Dodson did a pretty good job of balancing a lot of different perspectives and can we just move the whole thing forward as a >> so so I was wondering I was wondering process about that uh just for one
example the point Doug raised I also feel very similarly about uh the west side of Kendrick Park >> right >> um and like if we didn't want to adopt the whole thing what's the process for that does that have to go through all the boards like if we wanted to say well
we don't agree with this piece let's change this zone to whatever, >> right? >> Who who has to approve that? >> Yeah, I think >> and I mean we not just we the planning board like >> Right. That's a good question. I you know I I it's almost like um I think the
planning board should develop its recommendations and then it's really you know up to say staff and and Dodson to determine how much would they change the standards or would they note that there's you know the planning board has you know say these you know these strong recommendations
and maybe the so they provide us the document and then it's right up to the town however to you know to move it forward you know so >> or could could the town sort of adopt it as a not as >> the letter of the law, right? >> Yes. >> So that sort of like a master plan like
we we refer to it as the guidance but not you know necessarily have to do every single thing. >> Right. No, I agree that that could that could happen or it could be like well we really want to actually change the zoning districts and we're going to really try for that. Um I actually think that parts of it could be adopted you
know uh relatively depending on how much we think it would change but say later this year or summer uh into the planning board rules and rags. >> Yeah. >> So you know the pling board could say we like you know this these parts of the volumes and >> you know if they haven't changed much. Oh Angus is here as a um
>> so yeah I think there's a few different ways I do think to achieve you know everything they want. It is a you know there's a lot of different zoning changes. >> Yeah. And so, >> you know, it's not just the dimensional standards, it's, you know, maybe some uses and >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. We were just chatting as not official. Now that you're here, we can start the meeting. Uh, so we need to click a button, right? Um, >> sorry, I was already live. >> Oh my gosh, I shouldn't have said all
those things. Yeah, I'm just kidding. >> All right. Uh, welcome everybody to Thursday, March 26, 2026 meeting of the housing and zoning subcommittee of the Amir Planning Board. It is 11:38.
Start with a roll call attendance. Um, uh, let's see. Angus Mloud, you go first. >> Present. >> Fred Harwell. >> Fred Harwell is present. >> I, Jesse Major, I'm present. And Bruce
Colum is absent as expected. Great. Um, announcements. One thing I just brought up uh that I want to discuss a little further was about our committee membership. Since we know Bruce is out for a while, uh, I was going to suggest
that maybe at planning board we asked for a vote to remove him from the committee membership. That way, if it's just two of us, we could still have a meeting and just temporarily. And obviously when he comes back, we could vote him back onto the meeting because I think it's some good number of weeks
he's out. I think it will cover the next two or three of our meetings. Um so unless we all are sure we can make it, then it doesn't matter. Um either of you have thoughts about that? I mean, are you planning to make the meetings? If you are, then maybe it
doesn't matter. >> I think it's a good idea just to give some flexibility. Um, you could also see if Jarro is interested in being temporarily on it because I know he's been interested but then had a baby and >> Yeah. >> then, but now the baby's older. So, >> yeah, it's a whole two months older.
>> Yeah, no problem. >> Um, okay. Well, let I'll pull up the dates and I'll check with Bruce about when he's actually gone and we'll we can decide maybe add plenty more if it makes sense or just through an email or something.
Um, I once again failed to send around minutes for review, so apologies on that. No minutes to approve, but the drafts are still there uh for the public, even though there's no public here. Um, okay. So, unless anyone else has
announcements, we can just dive in. Um, don't see any hands. Uh, so maybe Nate, you want to just guide us what would be most useful to talk about first? Maybe the PRP pieces you two sent around. Um, you tell me if there's something some
other order you'd like to go in. >> No, I think that's good. Um, you know, we I um didn't include the, you know, we had the zoning priorities and I took off the student piece. You know, I feel like between the subcommittee and the planning board and
staff discussions, we have a lot of questions. And so, you know, we're, you know, we are reaching out to town attorneys and we're trying to do a little research on our own. You know, Bruce reached out to state college um PA. So, you know, I think that's it's been helpful to have that, you know, that feedback in some of those questions
and scenarios. So, you know, I don't know, you know, it might take a while to get a response or get some some traction, but at least we, you know, we have big picture ideas and then specific questions which I think are helpful. So, um, that's great. Um, you know, I think
we could go right to housing in the PRP and jump the other ones for now. Oh, I will say I think the I think there's, you know, my in our in the planning board kind of timeline when that was looked at was trying to get some housing in the PRP zoning amendment moving um
you know maybe try to get it referred to council by the end of May and I still think that could be possible and you know there's a few different ways to do it. So, you know, I had proposed an overlay um which had been sent around and you know, kind of modeled a little bit after the structure after the university drive overlay with different,
you know, uses and a few things. Uh there's still a lot of questions there. I shared it with the building commissioner, you know, and Angus had taken a different approach of saying, well, we need an overlay. Could we, you know, it's it, you know, achieves that could achieve the same thing, but then go through different sections of
the zoning bylaw and make changes. And so you know I just quickly like you know the overlay doesn't change the base zone and you know it's consolidated as one section in the bylaw and so you can kind of say well like any you know this supersedes any other sections in terms
of say dimensional things if fits the uses in the overlay and then you can do things like remove the cap on number of apartment buildings so it doesn't apply elsewhere just in the overlay. Um you can kind of do that without having an overlay. So you know I think there's probably a few different approaches
there. Um and then so what Angus has done is you know it is it's kind of tedious. It's like you have to change you know like a dozen different sections in the bylaw because we reference the PRP zoning you know and you know every article.
>> Um and I think you know just quickly for um everyone Angus you have also recommended combining office park which >> I think the only office park properties are on university drive. I think there's maybe two properties >> and I so I think as part of this
discussion, you know, staff would probably recommend actually changing that to BL >> limited business because there's limited business >> um just north of it and maybe even adjacent to it and then also on the other side of University Drive. And so >> we think that in terms of it's you know where it's located geographically, the
BL makes more sense. Um, and then the PRPS are, you know, the way they're positioned like North Amoris, East Ammeris, and I call like West Ammerst. Um, a little different kind of character there. And so, um, I think that maybe moving forward, it's like if we like
housing in the PRP, maybe it's not an overlay, but maybe as part of this, you know, now there's this other amendment to do a map change like what happened with the BN on Main Street. You know, there's two properties on University Drive. if you could say as part of it we looked at making it PRP but we actually
think maybe another approach would be BL and so then there's these two um two these two amendments that could move forward as part of this. >> Yeah, I would I was thinking about strategically also um I would tend to lean actually to Angus'
>> work if all else were equal in terms of getting getting it through to the next step and potential approval. Um, I'd lean on you for helping us make that decision. Meaning, if there's 18 documents to look at, even though they're minor changes, is that going to
delay the process simply because all the stakeholders would want to pick at all the documents or have you seen things in the past where that's not happened and everyone understands? It's just like this little language change that's repeated over and over again versus the overlay because overlay just complicates
our zoning in some sense, right? Uh my other big thought about it was well are we a year away from the big the the the whole uh thoughts and flinker potential changing zones and then does it not matter either way for the moment we just
do whatever is quicker because then that's an opportunity to make the actual bylaw changes if there going to be other changes. Um I think I said that correctly. >> Yeah. I um I don't you know I think I
think both you know strategies have will have a lot of discussion um you know when I went through Angus your documents like a lot of it was just it was really minor you know so it's necessary um but I think it could be explained and
so um you know even if we had the overlay some of it would be we might still have to go to those other sections and still remove text because all of a sudden it'd be confusing someone would be looking section five and then say, "Oh, I see this lock coverage or this accessory use
here." And then what we what we what we may have to do is then if we say had the overlay, you might have to be, you know, either we remove it or we'd say like see section 19 or more information or something and then you know it's like
so I I feel like we'd have to cross reference enough to >> Right. So then I would I see your hand Fred. Give one second. So I would lean towards doing all of pieces and then maybe just assembling in the justification document here's a list of all the documents here's the very
specific language that's changed so that >> whoever council member doesn't have to open every document >> right >> just looking at the summary to see all the changes >> go ahead >> yeah I'm uh on balance I'm in favor of simplifying
the bylaw so uh I think the the best approach is to actually change the language and not deal with another overlay. So, and I I think that it can all be part of a single discussion. I this does
not seem like uh heavy lifting. >> Yep. And I just quickly Jesse to other point I think we should like I said I I think this can try to be moved quickly. I think the Dodson piece, you know, you know, we're asking for public comment into into July and then, you
know, some revisions and then maybe another round of kind of public um engagement. And so, you know, like I said, if I, you know, in my ideal world, this gets reviewed by the planning board in April and maybe early May, and it maybe gets voted to be referred
>> in May. Um, just so that, you know, I think Angus has done, you know, started the work. And so to me it's like it's not necessarily hard technically to change the language. It's like okay well what exactly do we want to do does it make sense you know is it defensible or you know what are why the reasons why and so it's kind of getting all that
information. >> Yeah. Oh I didn't I didn't mean to leave this alone until the >> right I just meant is the overlay a lot easier to accomplish >> and be quicker but I don't I think we just said it's not. So >> right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
>> Only matters. >> Okay. Um, do you want to look at what you put in the overlay because I assume some of that will even if we use the idea of changing all the language or or what or should we just look at Angus' language? Did you guys collaborate on that or yet or not?
>> Uh, I most of the changes that I made to the overlay were trying to figure out or changes to the uh bylaw itself were based on things that Nate did with the overlay. So there's there's a few things that I think would be challenging to do
that Nate was trying to do in the overlay that would be hard to do in the actual zoning, but most of it would be able to be accomplished. And so I changed the language to try and accomplish those overlay goals. >> Yeah. I think I'll share my screen with
the overlay just to show um where am I the uh I'll make this a little larger. You know, I think what I had done is have a just a general description and purpose. And so really it was to allow you know u kind of you
know three residential use types. So apartments, mixeduse buildings and cottage style housing and then you having some dimensional standards and design guidelines that you know like I said I kind of use some of the ideas from university drive overlay that can always be changed. I think the
um you know the purpose was taken from parts of the of the bylaw and you know we could even again said take some of this and put it into what we're proposing in the different sections that is relevant. So this could go into like the article three and we don't need to establish new district. I think one of
the points that Angus had mentioned is um you know with apartments the really the only I don't want to say the only but the one big change is that I wasn't um having a cap on the number of units in a building. So, you know, taking the definition we have and just saying it's
a one building containing no fewer than three dwelling units and then just saying, you know, this is clearly saying we could have more than one building on a property and then this is already part of the definition. Uh, and clarifying that parking may be allowed on the first floor. And so, you know, with
uh without an overlay, if we change this definition, then that changes anywhere apartments are allowed >> and there may be ways to qualify it. So, that's, you know, that's the thing to look at. um mixeduse building. You know, the big one was um I was trying to get down to a I I kind of
preferred this a minimum of 15% of the first or ground floor would be the mixed use piece given the nature of the PRP zones in the kind of the small development area given like wetlands and topography. I'm not sure there's actually going to be many new roads. And so if we said
like 75% of the street facing facade, there's actually may not be a lot of street facing facades because they're going to be kind of, you know, development that's internal to these weed problem just like driveways or access road. So I was thinking some percentage would be better. Again, that could be accomplished by changing the
conditions within the existing bylaw. The big one was this cottage style housing. Uh and this is something we have discussed elsewhere in town, you know, applying it elsewhere. And I was thinking to myself, well, what if we what if we just try to get it going here? And so I, you know, this is, you
know, something that we can always discuss, you know, a combination of single family um units, duplexes, and town houses on a single property up to, you know, 15 units an acre. Um, and then I had some examples around town like 180 Fing, Olympia Oaks, uh, community homes in North Amoris are similar.
>> Do you mean do you mean this has a way to get this definition on our in our bylaw? Is that what you're suggesting >> in in the overlay? It just this would have only applied in the overlay. >> Right. Right. But but that's not is it in the bylaw currently? >> No. >> Right. That's what I mean. Are you just seeing this as a way to get the diff
definition in there so that if we bring it back, it's not and here's a new thing. >> Yeah. I'd be curious to hear thoughts. I mean, it could be that we define it and we say it's allowed and now in the PRP >> and then maybe it goes somewhere else elsewhere. I I don't know yet. So, it's
just, you know, I don't know if we like the definition. And I was just trying to come up with um you know a different housing type. So you know apartments in mixed buildings we might just see you know 20 30 40 whatever how many units per building here it's just a
different housing type you know maybe then it's geared towards different you know demographics or audiences or end users. I don't I'm not sure. Just >> you know it's just an idea. >> What what's the 15 unit per acre? What I I have trouble visualizing that. Is that
a standard elsewhere? Like what's that based on? >> It was um so like a 180 fearing if you like take the whole property because it's more there's more open space than property. Yeah. >> You could say I think it was like 11 units an acre. If you actually take what was their developable area, I think it's
around that number, you know. Same with Olympia Oaks is >> you say it's like 40 two units on five acres or, you know, whatever. And so I was just looking um I found some other projects um you know elsewhere in other communities where it was anywhere from
like 15 to 20. I thought 15 was reasonable to get enough density to make it attractive because you know someone could say well I can put in an apartment building I could do 40 units an acre >> and so >> yeah one comment and then I guess I see
your hand. I'd be curious to know, as I raised a couple meetings ago, I think, you know, idea of changing things around the perimeter of UMass properties. >> I'd be curious to know if that standard or I'd like us to get to a standard that
maybe could then be just allowed in those areas, too. That wouldn't be too much for those spots, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think at one point I was debating having 20 units an acre, for instance, and it's a maximum and you may not get there. So, you know, I don't this can be this can be reworked or
ground truth a little bit. Y >> sure, I guess. Go ahead. >> Yeah, this is um I I noted to Nate when I sent this over that this is this cottage style housing is the thing that I I can't do through the regular zoning change unless we actually create a new
uh use. Um I I think what I did do is I changed the townhouse um to or town houses to uh instead of being no in the PRP to being site plan review. Um but I'm actually not sure that we should
want to encourage single family or duplexes in the PRP zones. I think my inclination is we we can go denser in those places. Um and and they're all well served by different bus routes. Um and and the one in North Ammerst is also
well served by um is really close to UMass. So, you know, I I I would encourage us to I I like the idea of thinking about cottage style housing. I think we should be thinking about that. I think that's a bigger question um that we shouldn't try to shoehorn in here.
Although, I like that Nate's thinking creatively. >> Oh, okay. So then what if it's a separate amendment right just to put this definition in their bylaw maybe without without tying it to a purpose right now that won't >> no I I think someone would be like I I'd
want to then where do you apply it um and maybe this may you know we we're already looking at it so maybe we just you know this this gets carved off and this is you know another piece um I was I know I I kind of tend to agree with you Angus that um you know do we want to
that's why I was trying to get the units per acre. So yeah, so what if you did have a few single family homes, but then you also have quadplexes which are can be town houses and so you have a mix of like one, twos, and fours and sixes or something. Um uh but maybe that's more appropriate in other areas. Uh so Angus, I guess, you
know, I thought I guess could you describe how you changed your uses because when I looked at the use chart, the Excel document, it was really hard. I couldn't I feel like it the changes were I couldn't see them very well in >> using Yeah, I did it through track changes and on Excel track changes is a
nightmare. So you have to you have to go it's not like Microsoft Word where you just show displayed track changes. you have to go through this uh kind of convoluted process that maybe I should have sent you an email about um that where you uh individually approve or
decline the track change and that's the only real way to see the changes. So I can can I share my screen? Is that a possibility? >> I think so. Yeah. >> Uh >> if you can't just let me know. >> Let me pull it up.
>> Let me see if I can. So um share sharing is not turned on. I just sent a request. >> Okay. Should be all set now. >> Okay. Uh desktop one.
Okay. Can everyone see the Excel document? >> Yes. >> Okay. So the goal here is to eliminate entirely the whole column of OP. Um, is there a way to Sorry, just want to make it across. Okay. Um, and uh, so
then we just have PRP. Um, so let me see if I can uh, so it's under attract changes then accept or reject and then so the first one is here under mixeduse
building change to SPR. Um, oh, I I'll either have to accept or reject it. >> I just close it. >> One second. Let me let me uh just >> Next one is >> I'm going to duplicate this so that um
>> I've got it. >> Let me stop sharing because that's just confusing. >> Yeah. So, I think you know, so you know, we had just modified the mixeduse building standards, right, for outlying village centers. And to me it's like well if we want to do it this way we might then want to modify it in the PRP. So you
know we have like kind of the sub you know we you know we we still have the use category and then it's like now we could say in the PRP and maybe we have a new um condition about first floor space or whatever else we want to put in there if we want to make that those changes.
>> So hopefully no one's like sick yet. Okay. So, um, only so much you can fit on a screen. Okay. So, yeah. So, >> if you change, sorry, if you change the view from like you're in print layout >> Yeah. >> to normal, >> it'll just make it back to a regular
table view. Uh, where is that? I think it's under >> window maybe. >> Sorry. I think it's because I'm >> You have to close the dialogue box. I think uh Uh, so sorry. Which one do you want? You want normal? >> Um,
>> normal usually >> the page layout. >> Yeah, >> that does it. >> Yeah, right. Okay, >> good. >> Great. Uh, tools changes. Okay, >> if you zoomed in maybe like 90%. >> You don't like the tiny? Okay. I mean,
if you're going to be demanding that I just I just prepared like a recording of a presentation for bit for an audience. assuming we'd be in a big room together, but then it got sent around for everybody to watch on their own computer. And so my slides were I'm sure
they were ridiculous because they're so small. It's really annoying. >> So, as you can see, there's only 14 changes that I made to this use classification, and I didn't have the new language that we're using for mixed use building. So I I couldn't >> like part of part of in order to
accomplish what Nate was trying to do with the overlay, we'd have to have a separate definition for mixed or a second explanation of how mixed use is different in in PRP. Um but that wouldn't be that hard to do. We're already making changes to to mixed use in these other village centers. Uh
right. So it's mixed use to uh site plan review. >> It's apartments to site plan review. It is uh okay >> townhouse to site plan review. >> Y
>> can I make this smaller? There we go. Um it is and so then then the other changes that I made was um things that are allowed in the OP which is this red column but are either basically trying to harmonize OP and PRP which I I think
is small potatoes. So, nonprofit human use to site plan review, uh, for-profit hospital, we wouldn't have to make these changes. If if Nate's idea of just eliminating OP by moving those two properties into BL, then we
wouldn't actually have to make these changes. It this was to try and make it so that anything allowed in OP >> would also be allowed in PRP. But all of these, I think, are consistent with our vision for PRP anyway. Um, set site uh special permit special permit for
theater, motion picture house, bowling alley, dance hall, arcade, or other indoor commercial amusement or assembly use. Anyway, um, office uses, site plan review, medical uses, medical office site plan review, site plan review for medical
group practice, medical center, and clinic or emergency care facility. So, this is all the stuff that is currently the office park. Right. Um, which is weird um to me at least. Uh, medical marijuana treatment center would be
special permit. And then off-site marijuana dispensary special permit. And then this one is craft marijuana cultivator cooperative and marijuana cultivator. And I think that's it. Those are the only changes. But again, we would
probably be doing a change for uh uh how we're describing mixeduse building so that we're allowing these smaller commercial percentages on the ground floor in PRP. And then we may
want to change apartment uh as well to allow for larger apartment complexes in the way that Nate was trying to do um in the overlay. If we change departments, that would need to be like a new definition just for this.
>> That's one option. I think the other option, and we've talked about this, this I think goes back to the cottage style housing, too. Yeah, we've talked about making a larger zoning change to apartment definitions and a creating a use classification for cottage style
housing. Um, but those are maybe two two separate things. So, we could also leave the apartments unchanged right now and revisit trying to raise the cap in in a bunch of different zones all >> I was just thinking the same thing because
>> yeah, >> this feels like >> no one's going to object to this, >> right? >> And so, why not present it as this? I mean, Nate, you you know better than we do, but like feels like there won't be a very lengthy discussion or
objection to what Angus just showed us. It's really just simplifying things that are not used at all. >> I mean, the other thing that I'll just show you all, let me see if I can pull it up that Nate. Oh, that's the wrong document. Um,
so the other thing that I did and then and then of course there's you know minor language changes to the actual bylaw itself mostly like eliminating office the words office park everywhere that I can um I mean everywhere it exists. >> Uh there's also
>> why can't I this is the dimensional regulations >> and so you can see I eliminated everything in the OP column here. Um, I'm sorry I can't make this bigger, but um, and then changed the PRP to reflect
what Nate was trying to do in the overlay. So, increasing the maximum floors, increasing the building height, lot coverage, building coverage, all of these are changes. Um, there's no additional lot area currently because there's no residential allowed, but so
leaving that as is. and then dropping the basic minimum lot area to 12,000 square feet which is uh pretty pretty small. So, and the only difference here from what Nate did
Nate tried uh there's a special requirement in the PRP about encroachment on residential areas. So, there's like a 75 foot buffer currently. Is that right, Nate? It can be bigger, but yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Right. A minimum buffer of 75 ft. So I I uh left that uh I shrank that well. So Nate Nate's idea was making it actually a bigger buffer than it currently is because we'd be adding residential.
Um but I left the buffer that is currently in the PRP language there, but that that's not on this document. But >> yeah, so elsewhere in the bylaw, we say, you know, at one point the idea of what was happening in the PRP might not be, you know, harmonious with the residential uses nearby. So, we're
trying to establish a minimum sided rear yards and then like these buffers, um, which may or may not be necessary still. So, I, you know, I think, um, you know, those are, those are, you know, in like, like I said, four different sections in the bylaw. So I think um
Jesse to your point I think what Angus has done yes I think um my notes were um for the mixed use you know having a different kind of condition of the uh first floor percentage in the PRP so I've talked to a few developers and
property owners and they you know like 10 or 15% or something like that again it's a minimum it can always be more uh and then they still you know I think we would want to change like you did Angus some of the uses allowed now in the PR PRP. So, for instance, if you did a mixeduse building,
like the retail uses aren't allowed in PRP and so, you know, you're not you wouldn't be able to get, you know, you'd have to do like some other kind of office space. >> Yeah. But we do want them included. >> We do um for apartments, you know, I don't know if you could have a condition that lifts the cap. It's um it's in the
definition. So, if we just allow apartments, I mean, it's as e I don't want to say it's easy, but essentially you could, you know, have some kind of separation so that it might look like one building, but by building code it's two. Um,
so maybe that's not a concern. For town houses, right now we limit the number of units in a townhouse to 10. So that, you know, if you have a like a row of town houses, you can't have more than 10. And maybe that's okay, too. Um, uh, and so then,
um, yeah. I so then you know like what Angus what you've done is you know we're not changing and maybe that we don't change the definitions we change the condition for mixeduse buildings and then we change some of the dimensional standards. Yeah. And I agree Jesse I
don't think that's a I think it's a it's there's a lot of changes places where it's changing the bylaw but the kind of it's pretty simple to explain. >> I I would say people would agree with it. I don't know. I met you know >> the other way other way to think about it is
okay yeah that's so maybe we go with a simple plan we don't try and change don't try to change apartments we don't try and change add cage style as a proof let's imagine it's going to take 18 months until we can change apartment definition and cottage style someone
comes along and they want to do this with with the simple change version the maximum that would be allowed Is that really limited on these properties? Like would it would it hamstring a developer would it not be attractive because it's
really not enough density to make it worthwhile or or the potential for these lots is really what I'm thinking about. >> Right? >> So if that's true that without these other changes it wouldn't be very much incentive maybe maybe we need to go at it al
together. >> Yeah it's a good question. I mean, um, you know, for instance, if we lift the cap on apartments, like, are we willing to say we're okay with an 80 unit, 50 unit, I don't know, 100 unit apartment building, or is it okay that, you know,
maybe they do a mixeduse building and then they could still do some smaller apartment buildings? >> Yeah. Um, you know, because I I you know, I don't I know North Square has had difficulty filling the commercial, but I could see where, you know, say there's five to eight acres of space in
a few different PRP areas. It's like, could that be a a development that actually has, you know, a few mixeduse buildings and has some, you know, some space that is could be used by the public. Um, you know, I think what we've, you know, what we, when we talked
with North Amoris, you know, Bruce has said, "Oh, if we really had this density, it'd be great if there was like a yoga studio and a coffee shop." And, >> you know, if it serves like the residents of the building, we can kind of say it's, you know, an accessory to the apartment building, but if it's something more open to the public, it essentially becomes a mixeduse building
the way we define it. Um, and >> sorry, I have to take us on a little tangent because it's relevant for conversation. what I was asking and flinker about Nate I'd love your opinion and or if you know how we can get more educated opinion about this which is the
why is it difficult to fill the commercial spaces I mean my naive take on it is because they're new they're expensive and they're big and the other piece I see which I said at the planning board was we lost 15
small businesses which were just fine So where did they go? Did they all just fold? Is there really The question is, is there really no market for small commercial spaces? Because that's what they were sort of saying in response to my question. Do you have insight into that? Does
anyone have insight into that? How do we educate ourselves about that? >> Yeah, I think there's probably a number of reasons. you know, the the businesses at the carrot shops. I know, you know, the carrot shops was the rent was, you know, held low by the owner because this, you know, I think they acknowledge
that the spaces weren't, >> you know, new. So, I I do think there's a cost to new construction. Um I I I you know I don't I I'm also realize though if you have a mixeduse building and everyone says well the
rental units will subsidize the commercial space then then you can charge very little for your commercial space >> if you want if you're willing to. Yeah. if you're willing to. >> Mhm. >> Um and it maybe it's that you know with these new buildings it is harder to design these little
spaces because um you know maybe it's more to change to a big space and so they don't want to actually build it as these smaller spaces. >> Well like the rents so the rents in the new buildings for example how do they compare to the other rents on in the middle of town >> right?
>> Are they much more per square foot? I I just have no insight into that. Do you have any idea? I I don't know. I've I've heard that, you know, I think it varies wildly. I think in downtown it can actually be very expensive. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But, you know, if you're if you're say in the East Village Center, which isn't too far away, I think it can be quite a
bit lower. Um except for new construction and all of a sudden the building is, you know, more expensive. I think it's, you know, maybe they don't want like, you know, someone builds a new building, they don't want seven different small stores. That's maybe not the image they want. You know, that's not the kind of businesses that
they want. Um, >> right. But I think that's what Well, I would hope that's what that is what we want for our town. But that that's a broader discussion, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I don't I don't have a great answer. I know, you know, with Jeff on board, we're trying to actually do some more kind of analysis like you're just asking Jesse kind of baseline data information and then kind
of looking at trends and things. Um, you know, like I've even thought if you have a bigger building, a big mixeduse space, first floor space, like could it just be almost like a consortium space where it could be a number of businesses that use it? >> Yeah. Um, >> last comment I'll make and then we can get back to the topic at hand. Uh,
colleague of mine was talking about, I think it was in Seattle, they had pretty aggressive, I don't know if it was zoning or other tax incentives or something to help small businesses get into new buildings and it was basically subsidized by the city.
>> It was a very successful program. This is what I was told. I don't actually know any details, but it really made me think, does that would something like that have legs in in the in the valley in in Ammeris specifically? Maybe the answer is no, but just putting it out there. >> You said, yeah, that was Seattle.
>> I think so. I can they sent me a link a long time ago. I'll dig it up and I'll send it to you. >> You know, it's great. Just quickly, yeah, because the article you sent, Jesse, about um State College, you know, they they're it's like the regulations were effective, right? So now all of a sudden they have these taller buildings downtown. But in the article they kind
of said well we hadn't really thought of like how to actually build out the mixuse space or dimensional standards and so I think everyone's surprised that they're getting you know like 10tory buildings. >> Yeah. >> Um I think it's probably because they hadn't had much development so they didn't really have um great you know
criteria or standards and so now they're trying to put those in place. Um, yeah. I I don't, you know, I've always been a little surprised actually when you have existing businesses and then you have a new building that they don't come back. And I think it I think
it is the cost. Um, some just move. I know say some of the smaller ones with the um carriage shops, they may moved out of Ammerst or maybe they're a homebased business now, which we allow. So, you know, if they don't have to go rent a space, but they can convert something that they already have or maybe rent a smaller space, you know, in a
>> outside of the downtown. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Anyway, let's let's circle back to where we're talking about like the the mixed use building and if we want to change that or how can we change that >> requirement? I think >> I think it's relevant and so that's
where I think like a 10 or 15% >> in the PRP would make sense. Um, you know, and I wouldn't want to waiver or anything. It's just like have a a minimum. So, you know, someone does a 15,000 foot building. If you have 10% I don't I don't know actually what the
right number is, but you know, 5,000 foot building. I'm just trying to think about what what is kind of >> Yeah. Um could it be I mean you're what the issue you're bringing up is about frontage not being in place.
>> Yeah. Could it be something like you know if frontage is x% is only is less than x% then you need to meet this other percentage >> or is that over complicating it maybe what you're saying is better just minimum 15%. Yeah, I think some of it
would be that um say for instance the PRP off Belchuretown Road and Larksburg Drive, the Belturetown Road isn't really great frontage and the Larksburg Drive maybe has a little bit, but for instance, if you had a development on Larksburg Drive, it might be okay, but I don't know if
you'd actually want buildings say that have quote frontage facing Belturetown Road to have the front the shops facing Belture Town Road. Maybe better. Yeah, like if the if the site design was at, you know, like the buildings are like, you know, the gable ends are on Belchuretown Road and they face each other. So there's more like a central
courtyard. Uh that um that's where it gets tricky saying the requirement facing the right of way. But >> okay. So yeah, then I'd be in favor of just doing a percentage a lower percentage >> and maybe we maybe we have some qual you know additional qualifications like
right if feasible face a you know develop a courtyard or you know I don't you know there's probably ways to there are probably will be way language we could use >> um yeah >> but this will need to be a specific now for
PRP and add that in in our simplified approach for are go with all the small changes. Would we include that or this that would be a separate piece? >> It would be um
a separate piece. So um I'm just pulling up the uh >> so first first amendment of the bylaws is what Angus just showed us, >> right? Second amendment, maybe we could get it done as quickly is in PRP to change the definition of or a new definition for mixed use building,
right? >> I I think I think it would be something like this. Whoops. Jumped it. Um, you know, here this is what the change had been. So we say in the general business these conditions apply and we say in these districts
you know these apply and so then we have another few lines right in between right in here and we say in the PRP zoning district >> yeah sure >> whatever and then we can say in all zoning districts if we want to keep these or not. So you know I think that's how it would work. It wouldn't um the
reason why we can do this is the definition of a mixeduse building in article 12 is really simple. It just says um a mixeduse building is a building containing one or more dwelling units in combination with permitted non-residential uses. And so, you know,
we don't have any other standards in that definition. And so, that allows us to put them in the use chart here. >> Yeah. Great. >> Yeah. Um All right. And then apartments. So, we're okay. We would just allow them. I like site planner view. We don't change the definition of unit count or anything. And we keep town houses the
way they are as well. >> Yeah. I would leave that for a next round, you know, bigger picture thinking maybe. >> Um, all right. I I think Yeah, I mean I think that is all makes sense. I think the dimensional standards will be something Angus we can you know I
propose small lots. I don't know if we need that actually in the PRP. Um >> smaller is always better in my opinion. >> Yeah. And so, you know, if we like this, it's like, well, you know, I think we could, uh, Angus, I think we would probably
take your documents and we would include them in the planning board packet for um, April 8th. And, you know, then I >> I I do think you should make a summary. >> Yeah. >> You know, of the changes in one word
document, >> Nate, is it possible for me to meet with you to talk through this briefly? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um because I there's like there's just a few things from the overlay that I'm I want to make sure that I'm not missing.
Um and then and then I I'm happy to type up an overview of what I did. And then it also sounds like Nate, you you'd like to chat about um a few other use classification changes that I didn't include um around retail and stuff. >> Yeah, possibly. I think if we're
allowing mixed use buildings in the PRP, for instance, if we say, "Oh, it'd be great if we had >> this kind of development or we would want a coffee shop." I don't think that's allowed right now. >> Yeah, for sure. No, I was looking at it. You're right. It's there's like nothing >> is I don't think it's If you're ready for that conversation, I think it's fine to do that now.
>> If you're not ready, we could you guys can meet separately. >> Well, I don't know. Is it a good use of the committee's time? >> I I feel like it is in this theme of trying to move things quickly. Um I don't know. What were the other pieces, Nate, you felt like we should spend some time on today specifically?
>> You know, we had the cottage housing, the traditional neighborhood subdivision, the North Ammerst overlay, which I think we've talked about. I don't think they're as um I don't say urgent, but um I think this would be something I'd want to try to actually, like I said, have the planning board bring >> Yeah. >> You know, in the next two meetings, get
them really comfortable with it. I'm very much on board with your idea of trying to get pieces moving small pieces quickly. So yeah, I I think it is fine use of our time. >> Yeah, I mean I guess if you want to share your screen in the sub look at a few pieces a few areas.
>> Okay. >> So the I mean the first one is the uh what I was just Oh, for God's sake. Uh what I was showing you all earlier around the use tables. So the um the
thing that would be helpful I think it's down here um uh oh and it's still in the okay there >> like what kind of uses would be allowed
>> yes so this is um asking you all for thoughts on changing oh here we go so retail business and consumer this is for PRP so that would be a SPR Right. Yep. Okay. Um then
convenience stores SPR SP. >> Yeah, I'm just looking at the actual um >> Sorry, this is this is literally what I had to do. So, >> no, it's fine. So, so what you know what what this
isn't showing is that you know in this um there's those there's text in the right after the the >> definition down here. So we have these conditions and I think what we could do is um for like instance the I think all these
could be site planer view and then we can have a condition and we'd say I feel like we could say something that like in the PRP this use would be allowed only in a mixeduse building. So someone couldn't just come in and do a retail store.
And so that's what we would say for all of these I think you know so if someone wants to do like a little deli sure it's a site plan review now you know with the condition that it is um you know part of a mixeduse building.
This would essentially say, "Oh, >> yeah, I know." So, I think Angus has just realized is that we have um you know, 25 different documents that make up our zoning bylaw, a few Excel charts and word documents that staff then combines every time we
make a change. Um >> so I think for the retail even for personal care establishments we have like barber and beauty shop hair salon laundry dry cleaning shop tailor garment maker milliner cobbler other shop for the repair manufacturer of sale or clothing or footwear. So that's like the
next section. Uh, and then the next section is food and drink and the balot like restaurant, cafe, which maybe would be site planner view, but I think like I think the retail establishments like personal care and then just the first restaurant to me could all be site planer view in the PRP
with a condition that it be part of a mixeduse building. Um, I mean that's just my suggestion. I don't you know >> is this the language that would work? Yeah, like sh would sh will be allowed or should be shall be allowed sh you
know something. Yeah. Or I'm sure the staff will have other ideas with um in the because right now right we >> but is Nate is this use an okay phrasing
as opposed to retail stores? Like do I need to actually say what the use is each time? The way we have our conditions is after each subcategory. So it's like you'd have to add a line, >> right? But what I'm asking is can I just copy and paste this same line multiple times?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Or do I need does it need to say the actual use? >> No. No. Yeah. I'd have this generic line repeated like seven times now, you know. >> Okay. >> You know, for personal care establishments and for the first restaurant. >> Okay. So, if we can just then I'll I'll
go back in later and make the changes, but you're saying do it for convenience stores, grocery. >> Yeah. >> Barber. >> Mhm. >> Laundry. >> Yep. >> Taylor, >> and then that first restaurant. Yep. >> Okay.
>> And then >> not these. >> No. >> Okay. >> And then an office use is further down. We have like a bank, loan agency, real estate office. >> I mean, >> or I don't know. Do we want those? What do you >> It's currently site plan review. >> Uh, no. It's currently no in the PRP.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I changed it to site plan review. Sorry. >> Do we want to encourage kind of more of the kind of pedestrian consumer business, you know, um, as opposed to say like an office? >> I I don't know. I I'm mixed about that.
>> All right. So, maybe highlight that too, Angus. That can be >> Okay. >> Um, yeah. No, I think so. You know, this would be the start, right? So we would say okay we're going to allow mixed use buildings now in the PRP and those as part of this we're going to change those you know um seven
uh use classifications. So we're going to change their permitting in the PRP with this footnote that really it only is these are only allowed in as part of a mixuse building in the PRP. So you know now they're going to be site plan review uses. Y right.
>> Um okay great. So then that that gives me a sense of what to do there. Um the other uh let me stop sharing. Then this document has uh
the things that I was struggling to do. So this is this is Nate's overlay document that I was using as the model for making changes to the actual zoning. So, uh, I don't think that this would this
wouldn't matter, right, Nate? >> No, not anymore. Yeah. >> Great. Okay. Um, then definitions. I wasn't sure about this. More than one apartment building may be located on the same lot. Is Isn't that current is that currently allowed, Nate?
>> It it is. I was just trying to be really clear. So, it's that's kind of a moot point. >> Okay, great. Um, okay. I don't think we need to deal with that. Um, and the same thing is true of this mixeduse building thing.
Um, more than one mixeduse building may be located on the same lot as well. Um, let me just now that you said that. So the reason why apartments works is we say in the definition like one or more buildings and so it's clear that it could be more
than one for mixeduse building. I think it's like the semantics of it. Um you know how do we how are we calling mixed use We do allow more than one mix building on a property. I just um
and it's because >> if we do that's fine. I don't I don't think we need that. >> We do. Yeah. >> I just trying to I was just trying to like emphasize it so that there isn't a question. Um >> and so then I the only thing that I can't do Nate is I I can't make the changes to the mixed use stuff because I don't have that. >> Sure.
>> In in the Excel document, but that's the only thing that that here I can't do. >> That's all right. Yeah, >> the cottage style we're not we're not doing now. So, I'll delete that. But I did change the town the townhouse thing. >> Mhm. >> Um and then I made all these dimensional
change standards which I already showed you. Um uh and I I uh kept the these side um
sections. I I didn't change them. Um, >> yeah, I think that's okay. >> And then we're not worrying about that outage style. Um, that we already said that that's possible, so we don't have to worry
about that. Um, and I think the big one is like now the um kind of in article 5, we have some of these accessory uses allowed in the PRP. So we you know I think that might just be something that um you have already attempted Angus and I think we
can maybe it doesn't matter anymore because um you know are we okay with that like someone can do a you know an accessory dwelling in a building or a research and development facility or childcare facility. I think the idea was originally with the PRP it's like you
might have this big office building and you'd actually need a childcare facility as part of the office building. as we wrote in that you could have this childcare facility as an accessory use in the PRP. >> Yeah. My my opinion when I was trying to make changes was to leave every everything that is currently allowed in
PRP still to be allowed in PRP and only broaden what can be allowed. >> Okay. >> Um so none of those need to be worried about. I wasn't sure, this is where things get a little more confusing. I wasn't sure h where or how these could
be changed. And I don't have, let me just double check. I don't think I have Well, I do have article 7, but I I couldn't see where I would make changes to it around. Sorry. Let me just pull
back up the Oh, good lord. in order to make these changes in parking regulations. And I think this is the last bit. Yeah, this is the only other thing that I wasn't sure how to do. Yeah, I was just looking.
Um, yeah, so I think the big piece there is we already don't allow, you know, we've have a flexibility in terms of residential uses. So we don't need two parking spaces that you need to provide. You know, we have listened the bylaw some other criteria. I think the bigger one was like shared or leaseed parking.
Typically, you have to have like 120% of your required minimum to do that. But I I think we're okay. Actually, I think um I think we could be okay if we um you know, this was taken from university drive overlay where we basically said
it's like there's no standards. And so what we tried to write in was a few things that they needed to provide in the overlay. So this is where this came from. But if we're relying on the bylaw, we we have standards already in place. So I'm not sure it's I have to worry about it. >> Okay. That was the only thing that I I
was unsure of how to what what to do with that. So if if nothing here actually requires changes in the bylaw, then that's that's it. >> Yeah. I don't Yeah, I think you know, I think staff can look at it again as this moves and you know, matures a little bit. We can say, okay, how does the parking work? I think so for instance if
someone is proposing an apartment building we say two spaces unless the applicant can show that you know um that you don't need that and then we we say such as you know a traffic impact report or parking utilization studies or you
know access to public transit and we get we list like you know a dozen things in the bylaw already that they can use to try to show why they don't need two spaces per unit. So yeah. >> Okay. Then yeah, the parking thing is the only thing that I think um would
need the staff to look at again. >> All right. And I think we you know I put in at the end there was like part uh design standards. Do we you know we were talking about the downtown design standards earlier. Do we like some of those pieces and do we apply them to
this now? So for instance like would it be that if we like the one zone in the downtown design standards? I don't even know what they're called, but like, you know, say call it, we'll call it just like village downtown or whatever. And we said, "Oh, we really like the way Dawson described the roof lines and the
different changes in the facade. Do we, you know, we can actually just take that language and put it somewhere um for this or not? Um, you know, it's and then, you know, so that's one. And then inclusionary zoning to me would still apply here." Um, and
one of my questions was, would we try to in the overlay? I was thinking we'd encourage um that some of the units get up to 120% AMI. That's a bigger discussion. So, you know, I was trying to throw a lot in there at one time, but but I think the design standards might
be something worth talking about. Um >> I haven't haven't thought about in this context, but it's pretty I mean, it's pretty small pieces we're talking about, right? >> It is. I guess some of it would be, you know, like based on >> Yeah. But but you know, say someone comes in and they're like, "Oh, I'm just
going to do a big box." You know, >> right? >> Is that okay? Or do we want to see like a little more articulation in terms of roof line facade stuff? I don't >> Yeah, I would be in favor of having some standards like Yeah, I I want to look at
the those zones again, I think. And I I do think it would make sense to start stealing pieces of that where appropriate. I think yeah I I think my preference would be to see what the planning board the whole planning board thinks if if that's something we want to
do. I I worry about starting to draw on that material when it's not been approved in any capacity. Um >> sorry, go ahead. >> No, I was just going to say and these three regions are so in such different parts of town
>> um and and kind of in different ways outlined. I mean, the one on Route 9 is actually not very outlying at all. It's kind of in the thick of things, but then the other two are kind of on the outskirts. So, I don't know which one I choose. >> I was gonna say, what about the standards we have for the university
drive overlay? >> Yeah. So, I mean, it could be something like that where we, you know, we say like if a sod length is so long, it has to be broken up by like stepbacks. And so, it wouldn't be necessarily taking um just to clarify with the Dodson piece, I was thinking that you we wouldn't take like the whole section.
And it might be that we like four of the standards say within the village downtown. So if we like the idea that fourth floor is under the roof or you know you can't have a certain high tall parapit or your roof has to be a certain something and you know um and so then we would just take that and make it like a
oneliner kind of a condition here. So in the PRP the following design standards apply and it's like you know 1 2 3 4 like kind of like what Jesse said. That's what we did with the university drive overlay. We didn't have like extensive design um um standards. We basically said, right,
if you know, a lawn facade has to be broken up with stepbacks. Um, you know, there has to be a change in material above the first and upper floors and, you know, just a few things that would help guide the permit, you know, which is the planning board, the permit granting authority. And so I'd, you know, I'd kind of consider agree Jesse
kind of something similar in the PRP. So maybe some standards that could help. I mean, maybe for now the strategic play is to literally take what's in the drive overlay since everybody's agreed to that. So, you know, I mean, it's nothing new,
>> right? >> Where where in the normal bylaw are design standards? >> Uh, it's well in in article 3, they reference the designer view principles. So, that's where it would be. >> Okay. And then in article 17, the urive overlay, you know, we say things like
um overhanging awning and projected canopies are encouraged between the first and second floors and mixeduse buildings as is a horizontal signband. You know, the street facing facad variations in architectural detail, change in plane or other treatment to break down the scale and mass of large flat facades.
You know, so that to me it's like, you know, they're not hard and fast. So it's not like, oh, you have to have a certain pitch roof. It's enough to me if someone came to the planning board on University Drive right now and had, you know, a building that was 200 feet long and it was just one big flat facade, we could say, actually, you know, according to
some of our design guidelines here, we want to see some different, you know, we want to see the massing broken down a little bit and allows the board to do that. the design the designer review principles don't necessarily I think you can use them to say that but I think the
board has felt that they're not actually you know it's more about like proportions and things but if you have nothing around it no context >> so I think I I don't really I'm not sure how I would go about doing that so maybe Nate in addition to looking at parking you all could look at design guidelines language for the PRP
>> Sure I have four quick things that I could show you all about other changes that I made. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um let me pull up this one first. Oh, not raise hand. Share screen. Okay.
Uh great. So this is um article one and two and this is the definition. I cut the definition of office park and this is the new definition of PRP. Um, purpose of the PRP district is to provide an open and attractive environment for office, research, and
lowintensity industrial activities, mixeduse buildings, and medium-density housing. The standards and regulations are intended to limit the types of uses and to provide for a clean, open, and quiet environment that allows for professional work, limited commercial use, and multif family housing. So, it's basically just adding housing
and then also pulling in more of the office stuff from office park. >> Yeah. I mean, I the logic of what you did makes sense. It now sounds very uh uh schizophrenic, you know, it's like quiet office space and residential living. Like we're I mean I I agree that's what we're
creating, but yeah. So So that's that. Um uh okay, then article three, there was one question I had. Let me see if I can pull it up.
Uh I think it's down towards the bottom. Um this is for the aquifer recharge protection zone. So that that's so this is only applying to the PRP land that's
on off of old Belchuretown Road. Um there are maximum lock coverages that are different from what's normal for PRP, but my understanding is that this area now has sewage and water. So, I don't know if if it we need
these limits on on land coverage. Nate, >> I think you're muted right now. >> Um, I don't think we do. I think we could remove these and and explain why. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, let me just delete comment. delete
comment and then >> sorry I was pulling up a map just to see it too. Um, >> okay. So yeah, >> so and again I'll I'll type up you know an explanation of these different things. Uh, great. That's that article
five is the next one. Yep. The issue here is um um Yeah. about this is about man manufacturing activity. I think we would need to provide an opt
out for the PRP because we're allowing some some limited manufacturing in PRP currently and if we're adding housing that that could be inconsistent. So the idea is here that we would have them both potentially able to happen closer
to each other. Um or we could what we do down here is um uh may be permitted under a special permit granted by the special permit granting authority authorized hack blah blah blah. So we could just kind of put
that up in uh 5.0711 know 711 if we wanted to give an option or or or I don't know maybe this isn't an issue but but it's it's covering the PRP so that's
why I flagged this no I think it's good because what if someone has an apartment you know say we this the changes are um happen someone puts in an apartment building and then they want a manufacturing use um so let's um
yeah I is replicating that language of like however >> I think yeah I don't know if I'd want I maybe that would just um I don't I'm >> maybe you and the staff can take a look at it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I wrote that down. Um
>> okay 5.0711. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. So I'm just gonna uh that's that. And then the last one is article six. There's one thing which is flag lots. >> It currently includes office park. I think we could just if you're moving if
your proposal is to move those two properties >> from office park to BL then this isn't an issue. We I just cut the OP designation. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yes. Yeah. I think out of this discussion is um the OP to BL and the
these you know number of changes throughout the bylaw to allow housing in PRP. So I think um I Jesse I like what you've said is you know it's almost like Angus you take you know we have the purpose we have like a intro paragraph and it's like and here are the changes you know in section three we're changing
>> the purpose of the p district and you know if there's another change in section you know section three and then it's like in section four we're doing this section five and then >> you know that might be a page page and a half summary but that way people aren't like you know having to scroll through these documents
>> but I'll actually put you know change one. >> Yeah. >> Page this 3.2 point whatever the old the new language. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So that nobody needs to go through the whole document is is the point. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. That'd be really helpful. The um
>> Okay, I can do that. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, you know, I think like um you know, Jesse, when I said I'm not sure everyone would agree with this, I think, you know, there was I've received actually a lot of um kind of, you know, a few emails and calls saying people like the idea of housing in the PRP when I brought it up to the planning board a number of meetings ago. I hadn't
said what that housing would look like. And so now, you know, people would be like they might think that it was going to be small compact subdivisions. I think the reality is that so much of the land is not developable. You know, it's almost like the trade-off is, well, if you have 50 acres, but you only have 10 acres that you can actually build on,
you know, if if you allow single family homes, you're not going to get the density that might even incentivize development. I >> mean, maybe that point should be in the justification, right? >> Yeah. >> Whatever. I'm sure you have the actual number or estimate.
>> Yeah. No, it shrinks a lot. Um, just >> Okay. Um, great. This feels very productive. >> I I actually have to go in a couple minutes, I'm afraid. >> Thank you, Angus, for doing this work. Good.
>> Um Okay, then then maybe let's just strategize together or maybe Nate, you just tell us what's the next thing that we should think about for the next subcommittee meeting. Yeah, I think um uh I think the cottage style or the small lot subdivision or smaller lots in
general dog are kind of thrown out like what about if we just change the lot size throughout town, but maybe those two are kind of have you know are intertwined and um I think this housing the PRP like I said I try to get out on the planning board uh uh April 8th agenda and actually have it be a you
know have some discussion time for it and then that might this may come back too maybe there's tweaks but really um I think the next two things would be the cottage style in the um whether changing lot size or having a new subdivision method.
>> Okay. Um sorry those first things in the agenda next time. >> First two things I'm just looking at my calendar. Do we not have another meeting scheduled? Let me find that email. Maybe I didn't go past March in which case I will send
out more dates. Yeah, I actually don't see anything eco. >> Yeah, I I'll make sure I do that today or tomorrow. >> All right. >> Uh so we can all be on the same page. >> I'm assume I'm gonna assume this time block generally still good for everybody the Thursday 11:31.
>> All right. Fantastic. Uh I guess we're adjourned unless no send. >> Thanks y'all. >> Great. >> Thanks everyone. >> Bye.