actually see any members of the public here yet? Uh, and do we have Oh, we don't have any attendees, >> right? >> Okay. Um, um, I was just sure looking at the the
the uh the the council uh discussed um the overlay uh and I didn't see that I didn't attend that but I I I I wanted to find out whether it's yet uh available as a recorded uh session or or if not
when will it be? >> Um typically the meetings get posted on the f on Fridays to the town's uh YouTube channel. Sometimes it's a little delayed, but I think if we wanted I could just I mean
I could just make sure that you know this is the housing and zoning subcommittee of December 18th. I think we should just do a roll call attendance. >> Okay. Make sure everyone's here. Um Angus >> present. >> Fred >> present present.
>> Great. Bruce >> here. >> All right. There's no attendees at this time. >> All right. >> Yeah. for for the agenda, you know, we have no minutes. I don't know if there's any announcements from anyone. Not
that I can think of. Brad, have you got anything to to promote? >> Not for um Nate, do you have items that you would like us to deal with? No, I mean
the two items I had, you know, shared with Jesse and I I thought I'd emailed this out, maybe I didn't, was just kind of discussion of the housing production plan and general zoning again and then, you know, any any further discussion from the citizen petitions. Um, and I
think, you know, we had discussed at the last meeting, you know, the 40y and some of the other priorities. We could talk about those. I don't you know have um not anything in particular you know I think I was just at a functional area
meeting with our the second floor and you know just in light of the planning board and we just talked about it last night a bit in terms of being ambitious but I do think it's I think it's worth it. So you know this morning I was looking at the PRP zoning and re and looking at what kind of uses
could go there um you know in terms of say allowing housing And so, you know, it's something that the planning board's discussed, staff's discussed, and so, you know, you know, it's like, do we allow apartments, mixeduse buildings, and hotels or motel,
or, you know, what what are the other uses? You know, the PRP zoning has been in place for a while, and it's we've heard from a few owners that they, you know, they don't, you know, there's just not a lot happening there. And so for instance, you know, I it seems like,
oh, that could be something that's easy and it's just isolated to the PRP zone. So it would just be allowing some new uses there in addition to what's already allowed. Um, >> I say that, but you know, I know it always gets more complicated, you know, but that's something that, you know, for
instance, if I I think it's a good priority and so I'd like to, you know, staff would like to move that forward and I can always bring it back here. But um that's something I'm you know working on. >> Okay. Is that uh so we can uh we can put
that up. Uh anything else? Um the uh the um we discussed the I can't remember the 40 wide discussion happened at the last uh >> right >> subcommittee or was it a planning board uh meeting?
>> Yeah the subcommittee. Yeah, because I think Angus, you said that you had looked at uh that and and and subsequently I read it. Uh do we do um >> Yeah, I think it's still worth talking about to >> Yeah. Well, let's let's concentrate on
those two things um uh for the for this meeting and uh uh unless there's anything else that is uh um so Angus, what have you got? Yeah, I
guess one of the questions I have um that I was thinking about I I was reading in the in the paper about um the new planning director said something about PRP. >> Um and I wanted to ask so there's
there's essentially um I think there's three PRP zones in town, right? One is off Belturetown Road in South Amoris. The other one is off Route 9 close to the Hadley border just below the North Amoris overlay. And then the other one
is far north um in on the way to Sunderland. Um I guess I'm wondering Nate uh the the planning director mentioned possibly like reszoning some of that to light industrial for instance. Um, so I
guess one one question I have is those are certainly the North Ammerst and the South Ammerst one are are pretty big chunks of land that both have a bunch of wetland issues. Um, the one off of Route 9 seems actually pretty developed already um or or somewhat more more it
doesn't have as much open space as the other two. And I guess I just wanted to ask um you as the kind of town and the planning department as a whole, you know, we could we could change the
PRP to allow for housing, for instance. Um at the same time, the PRP and and frankly the OP zoning designations are not doing what they're supposed to do. They haven't ever done what they're supposed to do. and it seems like they're not going to because both are
kind of predicated on office space and and a research park model that seems like it doesn't really make sense for a town like this. So, I guess I'm wondering we on the one hand we could open up those zones to more options, right? Uh the other option is we could
change the zone, you know. Um and and I'm thinking about this in particular with the North Ammerst one. That's a big chunk of land. You know, on the one hand, zoning to light industrial would promote that kind of use. On the other hand, we also said in thinking about 40
Y or 40R, there's not a ton of giant, you know, big old parcels out there that we could potentially zone for those things that North Ammerst one is a pretty big chunk. So, I mean, does the does the planning department have any preferences
in in thinking about PRP and OP andor, you know, is it just is it our job to to set those preferences and who cares what the planning department thinks? >> Yeah, I don't think there's any preferences yet and I think um you're right that the different PRP zones could
be, you know, changed individually, right? So, you know, although I said, "Oh, we could make an overlay over them, you know, maybe we just focus on housing on the one off Belchuretown Road >> near Larksburg Drive." >> And that, you know, and then the one in North Amoris, we we we look at it for it
could be something else. I will say the one in North Ammeris does there's a solar field on one already, existing solar. Um, and I, you know, all the PRP, even the one off Belchuretown Road does have a lot of wetlands. So I think kind of what the property can actually, you
know, what the capacity of that land is might not be as great as what it looks like on the map. So you know if you look at North Amoris you're like wow this like there's 50 acres there might only be you know 20 acres that are easily accessible and developable. Uh
but yeah, I think you know, for instance, the one off Larksburg Drive, we've I've heard we've heard the town's heard from a number of um owners and you know, even prospective developers, buyers, and they've they've asked like, "Oh, what could happen there?" And often
they might want to do some residential or mix of something, even mixeduse buildings. And right now that's not allowed in the PRP. And I agree, you could change the zoning altogether. The idea of the overlay though is that anything that the PRP allows now could still be allowed and so
not totally shutting the door on you know say research and development facilities or something. Um so yeah I I I guess the question is they are somewhat um you know they're not quite in village center. So you know I
the idea for instance is if we said oh let's make it we want to have some kind of development you know is it is it like oh is it now BVC and is that really the right the right zone whereas an overlay we could say the overlay is really only for these three uses and it's really narrow so
that you know or one use or something and you know and it's and that's that's you know it's something that um you know staff's been looking at more say the Belchuretown Road one for housing I think the idea that others might be zoned differently in North Ammerst, you know, maybe it is light industrial or
something. Um, but I think, you know, the housing uh production plan consultant also said, "Wow, you know, there's I don't know if it was exactly in the plan, but when you know, as through meetings and as they just, you know, toured the town, they said, "Oh, what are these, right? What are some of these zones?" Right? you know, like, oh,
the PRP, they totally understood what it was, but right, is it really serving its intended purpose, or is there ways to now update it and modify it? And so, um, it's just interesting to have someone else also point it out, you know, and maybe other people think maybe there's other ideas what could happen with the
PRP, but you know, the idea right now is could there be some housing uses or some mixed use allowed? Um um Angus, you want to follow up? >> I mean, I I guess um
I I uh the personally I don't I don't see them as all that useful. Um, and I think uh the the at at a minimum the North Amoris
location um I mean it's it's like almost entirely a flood plane. At least that's what it looks like on the map. I don't I don't know if I'm if I'm off on that. Um but it looks like it's a FEMA a FEMA flood plane runs through about half of that
property and then the road runs through the other another portion. Um, so if I were building a professional research park, I wouldn't put it there. Um, it's also very close to a a pretty
dense set of housing, shopping. Like that's a very there's a lot of development happening right around that is is the mill mil river or whatever it's called. >> Mill district. >> Mill district. Um, so like so there is
there is possibility there. Um, and I think it makes more sense to to think of some kind of greater development there than light industrial, right? Since it's right adjacent to that. Um, but I guess, you know, to me, I I was
thinking of of having another meeting with um I met with Ron Lavardier, who owns the Amoris office park. Um, and I was thinking >> South Ammeris. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. and and the I think the PRP some portion of the PRP office
park in off Belchuretown Road. >> Um so I was thinking of having a meeting with him to kind of get more information about what would be useful. I mean he he he said that the office park in PRP is not a useful designation for for his
properties or as he's thinking about development and that it's only an obstacle. Um, I don't know if if Nate there are other property owners of the North Ammeris parcel or the the PRP parcels off of Route 9 that would be worth talking to, but I'd be happy to
like talk with some of these people to get a sense of whether they think it would be more helpful to say just open up PRP or OP to to more uses or if it would be more helpful to actually do a zoning redesignation or to do an overlay
on top of them. Yeah, I mean I think from you know staff's met with a few owners and representatives and they've all kind of said about Ron but you know that kind of you know Ron was one of the one of the folks we've heard from and you know it he said the same thing right that he's
you know he's eager to actually do something and he's been kind of stymied by the zoning and you know he's even said that the existing development off the Emmeris office park 2 or however we we call it you know in the PRP
you that in the last so many years the tenants have changed and you know what it was even built for and they're not that old you know it's been changing so even like 19 research drive has undergone a lot of changes say in 20 years in terms of the ability to fill
it with what you know then kind of what they thought would would be there and so you know and I'm not sure the reason for that you know there's you know bigger market trends right in terms of say remote work or where people are working or how they do work and So, um, you know, there's still offices there, but,
you know, at one point, say it was a 15 person office and now I think it's like there's a few people because, you know, I I I think the the the company still might have the employees, but they're not all coming into the office on such a regular basis. And so, um, I I still
like the idea of the overlay. I just I feel like what we'd be difficult would be to say, well, what I guess we could look at, but what are the what zone replaces the PRP? And so I still think the uses in the PRP still might come might you know still might be able to
come to town. Um and the idea would be well could we offer a few more? Um >> could I could I make a a strong push to instead of doing an overlay just changing the PRP then because I feel like adding or is that is that what you're saying when you say overlay? >> I'm saying I'm saying an overlay. So
we'd have like you know in in this one PRP zone we would now you know the overlay would be say for whatever we want to say like say residential development and then we'd have allow we'd allow a one or a few types of residential uses there as opposed to reszoning the PRP to like
RN or something. Um >> yeah. >> Yes. I I think so. I mean uh 40 30 or so years ago when we were talking about these this creating these zones seemed to be important. Uh we were the
conversation was all focused on u creating a more robust tax base than it is now where it's focused on housing. Uh and prior to that as I've said it was focused on it on open space in the 70s
and 80s. the the the primary um the consciousness shifts. So in the '90s when it was uh there was a sense that we wanted to uh enhance the tax base and having these uh opportunities were important and and
they were somewhat cherished and so forth. I think when you look back and you say well we've had 30 30 years and and there's been at least on North Ammeris there's been an attempt uh one attempt to uh to use that uh parcel or that zone
for its intended purpose and it founded on uh the extent of wetlands and so forth and as you noted uh Angus and and and the part of that site that is essentially upland in North Amist is pushed over uh toward the residential
end you know, it's not on the the side of the property where it's would be most logical from a purely planning common sense point of view, which would be say push push the push the buildings close to the road so you can get in and out quickly. Well, that's where the water is. That's where the
wetlands is. And so it you're you you're pushing the pro the development area to the opposite side of the parcel to the eastern side, most remote from the Sunderland Road, and you've got to cross a stream in order to get there. So it doesn't seem to be uh um
it's it's it's not delivering. And so I probably personally would uh think well we've we've given it a chance. I think we shouldn't discount eliminate the zoning um that's there. So we shouldn't discount the future possibility that something could happen there in god
knows how many in the future. But uh but uh but I I'm now persuaded that opening up to housing, which is something that uh is currently the uh perceived as the important thing to be providing in town, um I think that's an argument that I
could support. >> So there's just a couple of I guess things that we we'd probably have to talk about. In addition to changing we'd have to change the dimensional regulations if we wanted to open up to housing. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, in addition to obviously changing the the use the uses that are
allowed, >> right? >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean it could be, you know, sometimes when we've done an overlay like University Drive, it's um a specific section in the zoning bylaw and other times we've then
you can do an overlay, but then you just change pieces within the existing bylaw and then you call it out, you know, with in a you know, in section three in our zoning by we say, okay, now here's this new zoning district and we can reference the sections, but essentially, you know, we wouldn't
um you know, we would change change the use table the dimensional table in a few spaces but it wouldn't be like it's you know section 18 is now the PRP overlay it could be embedded within you know within was already the structure of the bylaw and so you know mixeduse buildings
become a site plan review instead of a no right and it could be like >> you know I think hotels and motel maybe that's an interesting one because that that becomes a site plan review you know and we we can always change it or add conditions or something but >> sure >> you know I was thinking about it kind in
that way as opposed to developing a kind of a whole new set of um you know like a whole separate overlay kind of section of the bylaw but >> okay >> yeah and you know and um
yeah so I know I know you mentioned the 40y I mean I I'd be curious Bruce to see what you think you know I've done a little bit more read reading on 40y what we've heard from um from one person is that the cost of infrastructure and
getting a site to be developed, developable is so expensive that they weren't sure that even like a five 5,000 square foot lots were would work. And so, you know, and you know, and it's always interesting like how much do you rely on that, you know,
there it seems like most people like a a multi-unit building, right? like an whatever it is like some apartment kind of style building as opposed to say really small lots that could have single family homes to duplexes or triplexes. And so just because the the
infrastructure costs like to actually build out that neighborhood is so expensive that it's not something people are inclined to do. They'd rather do you know a multi-unit development. So I don't I don't know. I mean I still think
40 is interesting. And but I'd be curious to know what others think if you know if we want to have an area in town and kind of develop it and see if there's you know we could try to do that. Well, it seems that the when I read through that and I did it a week or so
ago, so I um but it's a it's a state enabling legislation. Right. >> Right. And uh and there are quite a few seemingly
somewhat draconian provisions that you need to or bases you need to touch in order to um legitimate to to be a legitimate candidate. And it seemed to be um pretty ownorous.
And I was wondering whether we uh couldn't um whether it's possible to extract the uh the some of the beneficial provisions from that 40y concept and enshrine them
in a um uh probably a separate additional article of our zoning bylaw where we we just allowed it uh um without having to uh use the state enabling legislation.
Um, is that a fatally flawed uh idea or is it what's wrong with approaching it that way? What's wrong with trying to get a solution somewhat like Mansfield example that you uh showed us without
having to go through the uh the 40 wide tunnel that just do it ourselves? No, I I think the building commissioner Bruce had the same thoughts >> that that the 40y to to to get a 40y adopted. There's a
lot of steps and a lot of um you know, kind of control or check checkpoints with the state. You know, I guess what I've what you know what the 40y does allow is it caps the size of homes in terms of square feet and bedrooms, which is something typically zoning can't do.
Um, but I think all the other a lot of the other provisions could just be changing in our zoning. I think, you know, maybe communities are excited by the fact that if they take a what is a low density area and then they say we can triple or quadruple the density,
they get this one time, you know, they get a payment, right? They get a a I don't know if it's a th000 or $2,000 an extra unit, you know, extra property. And so I don't know if that's enough of an enticement, but um I agree. I think there's probably pieces of it we could
extract and then say do we apply it in a certain zone and you know what I I guess but you know maybe the other thing is as a for as an overlay or however people are implementing it it's really sight specific or small in terms of its geographic area so it's like okay well in this area where we'll allow really
small lots and have some control but that it doesn't change say for all their you know say outlying residential district they're not saying now let's have 5,000 square foot lots it's only in one small area. So >> yeah, >> I think that's the benefit. I Yeah, I I don't I haven't um
>> I haven't figured out what's the right approach, you know, but I I kind of had your similar thought. Um >> well, what I remember, say for example, with the farmland protection overlay, which uh obligates a developer in those
overlay zones to deploy the cluster approach. So this the the building sites are half as big and that happened in the Bakowski parcel in the about 20 plus years ago uh which is up here in North
Amist. It's a an old farm that's about a mile long and about 300 ft wide. Um or that's what it was. And uh ultimately uh the bylaw prevailed and and the developer Jones Patterson um uh did uh
concentrate the 18 odd houses that were entitled to cross the full extent of the parcel into about a third or or so of the eastern end of the parcel. and they were uh done according to uh
cluster but um the houses that arrived there were just as big as they would have been if they were on lots twice as big. So as you say uh um there is a tendency to be build the house you can make small lots but people will uh
there's nothing apparently we we we can't or didn't uh successfully restrict the size of the houses so they look a little bit odd. Um, I'm kind of getting used to it, but still it would be nice to be able to um because if the the 40 Y
lots would be, I don't know, half or a third the size of those lots that are created in the Owen Drive area as a part of that clustered the uh uh concentration of the farmland protection overlay. Um, and so if you were to uh
make sites that were um maybe it could be a condition um or or if we if we took a parcel, let's just say for example the parcel that I was talking about that's on the north
side of the uh um cemetery on East Pleasant Street. There's a farmland there which I think extends through into the forest and goes up to the railway tracks. I think it's quite a big parcel and that's undeveloped. Um, if we could identify a parcel or parcels, a few
parcels like that and and uh and then uh say that this overlay applies to these specific parcels. Um, and in return for allowing a developer to build five times as many or multiple times as many create
multiple times as many lots in the subdivision as they would otherwise be able to do that. they agree to restrict the size of the units that they construct. Um, and uh that that wouldn't be a taking. I don't know if taking even
comes into this, but I would imagine that someone might say that the reason you can't restrict the size of a building that someone can build is this kind of a somehow depriving them of uh potential revenue, potential profits, however way it's construed, it's
ultimately becomes a taking. But there is a giving associated with that taking and that is you can build twice or three times the number of houses more but you can only build them uh a certain size. Uh do you do you think
that that logic would uh um uh stand the test of a land court or something like that? >> Angus, I see your hand. Um yeah, it's interesting Bruce. I feel like um when the ADU legislation came out, you know,
I read a number of state, you know, um reviews of town meeting articles and they're like, "Oh, here's what zoning shouldn't do and blah blah blah." And then the 40y is doing things probably because it's from the state and they say they can, you know, right? Getting down
to the size of of units. But I I like your I like what you're saying and it's like right that one property I was just looking at. It's like, you know, almost 20 acres. And it's like, okay, well, you know, is this a place to have, you know, allow a really narrow subdivision road,
you know, like an 18 foot road and really small lots and create a neighborhood of 20 homes as opposed to, >> you know, having four lots on it given their zoning or whatever it ends up being, you know, like maybe one frontage law and two flag lots or something on 20
acres. So I you know I think it's worth I think it's worth looking into and maybe right identifying a few so you know one developer um was a some stakeholder meetings a developer kind of said this um was like oh you know some
communities are looking at or was like a workshop about housing and someone said oh some communities are looking at just like you mentioned a few properties coming up with a 40y or similar 40y standards and then applying it to these you know it's are, you know, they're not
contiguous necessarily properties, but AC around a town saying, "Here's we we actually want almost like traditional neighborhood development. We want >> And so to me, it's like that property you mentioned and maybe a few others become this other type of overlay or this other type of development method that we want to
>> candidates who who owns that parcel. Can you tell me since you have it up?" >> You know, I thought I think the um Yeah, hold on one minute. It's coming up as an LLC. Okay. >> I don't Yeah, >> somebody waiting for an opportunity
perhaps. It sounds uh Well, anyway, that's that's that's a parcel that I've had in my mind for this kind of uh use for a while because I drive by it. Anytime I'm coming into town, I drive by
it. So, that's often >> Bruce, what what's the parcel? Uh, it's on the north side of the north of the cemetery which is on East Pleasant Street. It's the cemetery. I'm not sure what the name of the cemetery is, but it's it's midway down East Pleasant Street. It's on the east side of East
Pleasant Street and then immediately north of that cemetery is a long uh parcel that extends from East Fleas Street I think into the Woodlands and probably all the way to the railway line. So it's and and Nate who's just
looked at it says it's about 20 acres. So it's it's I knew it was big. 20 acres is perhaps a little bigger than I thought it might be, but um you know that's a substantial amount of land. Um and and the the Barcowski parcel was
probably about 30 acres and that yielded 18 um units or maybe 16. So, uh, that's 2 acre or so. And so, this one could probably if if we if we
apply that crude rule of thumb and and and speculative uh guessing on the numbers, that's um, you know, 10 units. But if it could be 50 units instead um by having um small lots and maybe only
having zero lot lines and things like that and and probably uh requiring a park or two or some open space that could be integrated because it's it's a it's got a fairly long east west axis and a fairly narrow north south axis.
>> Right. So, um it's uh it it's it's it just seemed like a good uh lot to test out uh the you know as a as a kind of a prototype the whole idea on and then
also see are there other lots similarly uh available. I don't think there's Oh, there's probably wetlands in in and around. There seems to be wetlands wherever you look. So, I guess we kind of expect that there, but it's it's not
obviously wet, >> right? Um yeah, I I think the thing that I was um I I am with I think both of you in in your beginning comments saying that 40 Y
does seem like a pretty like a lot of work, a very heavy lift. Just looking at the Mansfield documents, it's remarkable. And it's for a single parcel. I mean, it's a big parcel, but it's not not insanely huge. I mean, it sounds like it might be comparable to the parcel y'all are talking about. Uh
maybe a little bigger, but um it feels like it's maybe worth looking into longer term if we can find a landowner or a developer who's interested in it. But it just feels like an enormous
amount of work for a like, you know, the North Ammerst overlay is a hypothetical. Nobody may take advantage of it. But it's not we're replicating an already existing overlay, right? Making tweaks to to fit the site and then it's just wait and see, right? Like the PRP and
the OP, does anything happen or not? And if it doesn't, then we revisit. But the 40 Y thing is is an enormous amount of work or potentially very little gain. So, I'd be inclined to I like this idea, Bruce, of maybe look targeting one place
and thinking about and and testing the waters to see if people would be interested. >> Yes. Just doing a even taking some time to do a I don't know you with the planning students or how public to go with this, but to have somebody look at
uh solution concepts around this idea on a given lot. Nate. Yeah, as you're speaking Bruce and I say, you know, I was writing right like what are kind of the benefits of say 40y and I think what the state is hoping right that it's kind of a fee simple
ownership. So it's not a development method per se like a purd or a cl you know um you know I mean it could be like a cluster but I think they're even trying >> essentially a subdivision basically >> it is a right it's really a subdivision with really small lots. >> Yeah that's that's that's the way I'm thinking of it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But I I like the idea of fe simple. I think you know Doug and the plane boards kind of talked about like oh is there a way to try to encourage say home ownership or a different type of kind of enduser and is it right through something like that that is like you could allow small lots and zero lot
lines and is it just a you know that if that was taken advantage of does it attract say a different kind of owner buyer renter whatever than say like a right a multi-unit apartment building like you know we could say oh this we could allow you this is either could be
a 20 lot subdivision, small lots or a 20 unit apartment building. I think the who would move in and live there might be different between the two. And so that's what I I don't know. I was writing down kind of like what are the benefits of 40 Y and kind of what the purpose was from the state. And um but yeah know I like
that idea. I I I feel like we should probably identify I think there's maybe a few other properties I can think of where this would be an interesting approach. whether we call it a 40 Y or 40 Yish I don't you know but >> the idea of a new >> uh yes we it'd be good to come up with
our name for it it's one of my early mentors uh said you should also you should al always name your children um so if you're generating some idea um
the notion was that you should brand it certainly try before others do because they may not have the same benevolent interests. >> Uh so we should find a nice name for this uh or at least a good functioning name rather than
a series of you know prototype number three or something. >> Right. And I think Yeah. >> Like I mean you missing middle housing. >> Right. Right. Right. And so I guess what I say is that what's different than this is say you know the the consultants for
the housing production plan meant it mentioned you know cottage style development which to me this is and this is too big of a property but to me that could is it it could be really small lots but it gets really tricky in terms of how do you configure those to me that's more almost like >> you're allowing multiple multiple units
on a property that are then kind of minimized if say there were different types of ownership and so >> but I mean so long as you have a subdivision road that goes in and so forth and comes back and if to say maybe for this kind of uh um um you know cottage style subdivision.
>> Yeah, >> let's say that's it. That's we call it cottage style subdivision. >> Um that that uh the there's a there's a book from 30 years ago um
uh in Davis, California, Village Homes. That's Michael Corbett. Michael Corbett Village Homes. >> Um, and Corbett and his wife Judy um developed this uh village homes in Davis and uh and you know they did all sorts
of things that were difficult at the time which seemed purely logical like narrower streets, they curve streets, they put trees there um and village homes would probably still even 30 years later be a good uh um functional
prototype for this. So we would try and with our uh cottage style subdivision prototype or or or whatever overlay cottage style subdivision overlays that we enable a specific number of attributes smaller
streets and so forth of course uh uh and and smaller lots, smaller front uh smaller frontages, zero lot lines. Uh we might ask that there for every certain number of lots created there be a open
space you know a pocket park uh of a certain size which you know maybe is 10 20% of the of the size of the lot or we could figure out what the formula is or what but basically the object would
be distribute uh uh uh for every five or 10 houses there's a small arc that comes along. Um, and things like that that we could uh use as descriptors of this. And as you say, I like the idea like the
notion that we were talking about last night where we maybe we get into the habit of um developing these ideas um in
in in schematic or conceptual um to a to a a limited level of sophistication so that the idea is clear and then uh we uh send it to the zoning board. uh sorry then to the town council and because
you're right we're not asking the council to vote to approve we're asking the town council to vote to refer it back to us and to the sibling committee which is the CRC. So we only have to get the uh council interested enough to say
this is worth pursuing. So I think that we should think about developing these ideas with that goal in mind, not thinking about how we have to touch every tea and I in order to get them approved. And I think that it'll mean that we only spend
10 or 15% of our time um outlining these uh these uh solution concepts, these schematic propositions for um zoning improvement or what have you. and then we send them to the council and we could
uh we could we could uh we could produce a lot more of these um propositions to the council if we approach it that way. I think >> yeah I yeah I mean I I think which and also I guess I think some counselors you know we can always put more more into it
if they want it. Um but I think yeah I mean I think you know the university drive took a long time and then by the time when it when you know the plan board discussed it and went to council then we spent a lot more time talking about as official zoning amendment. So, I I think we could have a framework for zoning, have things filled
out and have these concept ideas because I think what we haven't, you know, and I maybe we can work better with the CRC. I you know I'm thinking the planning board and CRC will also have a meeting next year to talk about the housing production plan and kind of discuss right how do we get some of these ideas bring how do we bring them forward in a
way that everyone feels like they understand it so it's not like the planning board's talking about it all by themselves and then all of a sudden it's like it's so new for everyone it takes another eight months to get people comfortable about it. Um >> yes, >> if we if we if we develop them as important
fully descriptive schematic propositions, >> right? um then a they're easier to understand I think because the detail isn't there and b it's uh inviting the other entities the council and the
particularly the CRC and and and public engagement to to uh join in filling in the details because we did spend so much time on uh on the uh you drive overlay and in retrospect probably we we we could have sent it to the council
earlier than we did Okay. Okay. >> Have you got anything to You've been quiet. Do you want to chime in on any of this? >> You're mut. >> Yes. Uh yeah, I
>> You don't have to, but I just >> Yeah. I uh the uh uh North Ammerst one uh I vividly remember that. Uh I was on the planning board at that time and uh the uh
>> you mean the Bowski uh um Meadows thing? >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh and uh we we had a developer that was willing to pay to extend out of his own pocket to extend the sewer all the way down there. Uh but
uh uh the uh people in North Ammeris strongly opposed it and it failed in town meeting finally. Uh >> oh, you're talking you're not talking about Powowski Meadows then you're talking about something else. Yeah, it's
on the uh it's the one there's a a solar array on part of it now. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. Um but uh
yeah, I uh I think probably the u best way to approach this is is what Nate was talking about with a a limited uh overlay. Uh Nate, you're muted. >> Yeah, I was as you were talking to us, I
was on Google, you know, street view and looking at Right. I um >> what you mentioned in terms of um village homes, I you know, I feel like it's something like, oh yeah, I know that. And um I love the idea of like the pocket parks. And so yeah, I do think if
we, you know, we had said we'd investigate 40y and perhaps we we glean things from it and we try to come up with a right what if we want to call it like a cottage subdivision, but some some you know something that we can um I I you know a few there's a few you know
even like the Maplewood property maybe off Route 9 Belttown Road. Um but you know what are are there some you know a few that we could look at and then there's the PRP. So I think those are um some really interesting ideas.
I I had said I would work on the North Ammerst overlay too and I want to start getting kind of fleshing out that the framework there and I still think it's a you know I think I think it's a nice place for it. Uh there'll probably be a lot of questions but I think we could you know it's a different kind of
development right? That's the different kind of development method we're looking at an idea concept there. But um and so we have these different things moving. Um you know like I mentioned last night some of the think other things staff is looking at are trying to
um some of them are procedural in the bylaw. So even right now the bylaw has like four terms for the permit granting authority. Sometimes we say zoning board, sometimes we say planning board, sometimes we say permit granting board or permit granting authority. At
one point we had changed it, but we never really cleaned up the bylaw. And >> when the ADU piece was going through some of the council um CRC members asked and said, well, why why is it even within one section we have different references and >> and they have different meanings. They're defined in the bylaw, but it's
like, oh, even changing that uh could be useful. And it's, you know, it doesn't have to, it's not necessarily >> that doesn't rise to the level of being interested interesting to us, I don't think. >> No, it doesn't. But it's something that staff, you know, deals with because um
>> depending on what part of the bylaw, you know, it can't be administratively approved or referred to the building commissioner. It has to go to a public hearing to the zoning board or planning board. And so it's like, oh, you know, like kind of Jesse's been asking, why does the planning, you know, why are some of these things coming to hearing if they seem,
you know, not unnecessarily um, you know, complicated and it's like, oh, well, the way the bylaws are written, you know, it has to. So, >> yeah, not interested, right? I don't think this group would need to spend time with it, but it would be something that we, you know, it get to the board. >> Good. I I guess Angus then Fred unless
uh unless either of you feel that you're what you have to say is uh related to the current topic and you're about to change it or not. >> I'm going to change it. So Fred, if if you want to say something. Well, only I was just gonna ask Nate whether uh there
was any progress getting a hold of the uh uh traffic engineering that was done on the uh uh main north Ammerst intersection from uh uh Guilford.
>> No. And I I made a note actually yesterday after a meeting to follow up with that again. Um >> Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, thanks for the reminder. Even at the planning board meeting last night, I made another note. I need to um uh cuz Jeff was asking actually the new
director too was like, "Oh, what's happening in North Ammeris? Weren't there some studies done?" And I we found some stuff online, but it's you know, I think it's this might be um something that has to be uh located physically, not I don't you know, not
anything electronic right now. Okay, Angus changed the subject. >> Yeah, so I I I was just looking over the, you know, use classification and standards on the dimensional table. um thinking about I'm sorry to take us all the way back to PRP and OP but um I have
a maybe a proposal to run by y'all but I wanted to kind of gauge interest looking at the commercial zone and then the office park and professional research park. They're real similar.
There's like a few uses that are allowed in commercial that are not allowed in the other two and a few uses in the other two that are not allowed in commercial. The dimensional standards are also not that different.
And we're also thinking of trying to um allow housing um in the commercial zone. So I guess the proposal that I have that I could look into and bring back to the
group for larger discussion is to kind of do a study of these class the classification and use table and the dimensional regulations table to see what it would require if we were to just reszone the current PRP and OP
sites as commercial and possibly change a a little bit of what's allowed in the commercial to allow for some of the uses that we're thinking about. And Nate, I know that you're like
working with a cons or you're you know, you're planning to work with this consultant to talk about the commercial zone on uh College Street, right? >> Right. And I think right now um some of the limiting factors in commercial are
the additional lot area per per family per unit and then how we restrict >> the number of units in a mixeduse building in commercial. So, you know, there's some details within the use chart and um by elsewhere that would need to be changed, but I understand
what you're saying. U >> so basically, you're asking whether they would be cons whether those three zones could be consolidated into one, >> right? Yes. which would which would still again retain all of the options that are currently allowed in PRP and OP
um while essentially opening up those parcels and the two commercial parcels. I think there's two maybe there's three. >> Yeah, I I mean I'm not you >> to more options.
>> I'm not going to say no. Don't do some research there. I I think it is interesting to have a comparison of of the uses and the dimensional standards and say okay what what are what makes them so different and is
there a way to allow what we want you know what what's already allowed and continue it with maybe some extra um and so yeah I think that's a I think you know it's probably I think um Jeff and the plan Herman and others
would appreciate that kind of analysis and you know I think what we the consultant for East Sammeris the idea was maybe not just the commercial but a bigger area and say okay what what does the zoning allow and doesn't allow and then if we wanted to increase
density or have a different kind of development what what's necessary and you know we're say we're looking at a 40R possibly right in eammeris has been mentioned and right now there's not a lot of um incentive to redevelop in commercial because of some of these
standards don't allow the density to make it worthwhile. So, you know, there's not a lot of incentive. A 40R would, you know, is an overlay, but the incentive would be, okay, well, there's no more, you know, we have a reduced lot area requirement or we have greater height. And so, the idea is that the
underlying zoning is actually doesn't incentivize development, but then the 40R does. And so when we looked at a 40R downtown, the reason why, one of the reasons I think it didn't move forward enough is that our downtown zoning and the BG is really generous and so there wasn't really a lot of
incentive to use the 40R because you could already get five stories and pretty big buildout. So, you know, I think but I think that I think it's worth looking at. You know, staff has mentioned the same thing, the commercial zones. Um there's, you know, there's some uses there. Uh there's a few few of
those in town, but you know is say the East Ammerst or the North Ammeris commercial zone is that could that be changed a little bit? I think it'd be interesting to see to me kind of what those differences are between PRP, OP and COM and you know, is it worth keeping those
distinctions or could they be combined somehow? >> So could I ask a clarifying question, Nate? Do do y'all have a um like an a Microsoft Word version of the bylaw or specifically of the dimensional table? You do?
>> Is that Do we have access to that? >> I can email I I can email it to you, Angus. It's a It gets um >> every uh chart is its own document and every section of the zoning bylaw is its own section. So >> uh it's not like it's one kind of smart document
>> with you know headers and footers. It's really just But I I can send that to you for manipulation and >> Yeah, that'd be helpful because I because otherwise it's going to it's going to get real ugly if I'm doing this like on a PDF. >> Sure. Could you email me actually what sections you'd want or what you'd like to see and then I can respond. That way it's um
>> Yes. >> It's easy for me. Yep. >> Yep. I mean, I don't want to derail like, but I'm I'm just I'm as I'm as we're, you know, sitting here talking about different options and like looking at as I was looking at those those three districts, it's like that's that's at
least one option maybe for for thinking about this and also thinking I guess about that College Street strip like would that make more sense as BG? I mean, like what you're describing, like, you know, why a 40R doesn't doesn't make sense downtown. It's like,
well, what if we just extend BG down College Street, but that's that's beyond maybe what we're doing. >> It is beyond what we're doing. Let me rephrase. >> Well, you know, the way I it is and it
isn't. I think they're like complimentary ideas. So, you you know, some of it to me is like looking at, okay, how can we have compact residential development in some areas of town and how then do we have multi-unit or mixeduse development along busy streets and village centers. And
so, you know, it'd be nice to have proposals that or, you know, be thinking about some of these strategies, you know, in parallel fashion so that >> yeah, >> you know, maybe they don't all move forward to a zoning amendment, but you know, you know, the housing and zoning subcommittee is thinking about it and the pling board is thinking about it and
we keep it on the list, right? So maybe, you know, some of these ideas don't get moved forward, but it's things I'd like to revisit. So like this idea of like I'll call it the cottage subdivision is something that, you know, might take a little time to explore. We'd have to change our subdivision regs in terms of
roadway widths, but I think it's probably worthwhile to do that. You know, so that you could take a 20 lot, a 20 acre lot, instead of getting just some flag lots, you could actually get a nicel looking development, you know, that's still fe simple. Um, right
now our zoning doesn't really it doesn't accommodate that very well. So, um, it's we've been going an hour or so. Have we uh have we got what we want from this meeting? Yeah, I think the one thing you know the
planning board you know we haven't talked about and maybe you know at the next at this next subcommittee meeting would be and Bruce I know you had talked to maybe Kitty and Darcy after the hearings you know are there >> um ideas or elements from those petitions that we'd add to the list I
think I've actually added a few but you know are there other ones that we'd want to just discuss and say okay these are things that are worth looking into like you I don't for instance I don't you know student home definition I don't really know but minimum distancing or some other kind of regulatory framework
>> um >> well you you can't do minimum distancing without a student home definition that's the fundamental building block upon which you can build that idea I think what I was going to say I hinted at last night but didn't get into and which I've sent to Jesse and is my uh my piece that
I put together what I've I've done following that uh that hearing where we had Kitty and Darcy with their two uh citizen petitions that they put forward where we Jesse and I subsequently met
with them where I think we've they've essentially rekindled the interest that I have in pursuing the the the conversations that I had years began years ago. What I've done is um uh is I've written a piece which might be
about uh three or four pages long which is um essentially trying to understand I've I've I've expanded the thinking about the three basic options that towns like Amos seem to be
uh that are available to us and and and looked at that in more detail and uh and and try to um help us understand help me and and others perhaps understand is of these
three strategic approaches whether it's pushing the university to do more whether it's spreading the uh the the the the student housing um throughout the town in smaller uh existing or new buildings or whether it's um doing as
we're trying to do at North Amos with the overlay to a a consolidated dense uh accommodation close to campus. looking at each of those uh solution concepts and um trying to and writing a piece
about the pros and cons or sustaining what what what the what what each is um evaluating each in in in in terms of uh the pros and cons of each and so that we
can have somewhat of a I' I'd like to get my thinking around that and and I it It also could be, you know, a piece that the bulletin or gazette might choose to publish. Um but uh but mostly I I that
conversation that Kitty and Darcy opened at least for me and is an expansion of the way in which we've been thinking because I had uh and I expressed this in the meeting and I think that various people counselors and so forth have some
inclined to castigate me for saying how I was distressed that we pling new ground and so forth. Um but uh but in some respects, yes, we were. But uh but but
but that conversation has caused me to want to think um rethink uh that notion of the the ground that we think that I'm thinking we're plowing. So I wanted to spend a little bit more time and and uh be able
to make the case, strengthen the case of whichever of those three approaches we are either supporting or not supporting and and be uh defensible, deliberate, open, and uh and clear and hopefully
convincing in respect of each of those because there there are arguments for and against each of those three approaches. And I don't think there's and they're fundamentally different. Um and different towns in across the country are approaching saying well we're choosing one or other of those
three as their preferred uh option. And uh and maybe they're shifting. You know, we don't know that just because they were committed in uh 2018 that they're still committed in 2026. Uh, and so, uh, D, we're trying to we're
going to go back and see if we can figure that out and so forth, but I'm I'm I've put some time over the past couple of weeks into writing this up and I and I I want to review it with Jesse first and then I'll I'll send it. So, I think that is the outwash, the principal
outwash from my point of view about uh Kitty and and Darcy's engagement. I think ultimately it's probably very constructive and if if for no other reason than that we've got them um understand their energies and what they
know and what they don't. I also had a longish uh not long but 10 minutes conversation with Ralph uh um uh Colstrom who lives on fairing um with Paige Wilder, the two
of them together and they have uh um spent a lot of time. I think they were deeply engaged in the UTAC. Was that what Doug was talking about last night? I think they were deeply engaged in that uh those initiatives and were
distressed to see that what came out of it was the consolidated construction of housing right in their backyard rather than in other places that uh the conversations um seem to indicate that it could have happened. So they've got very
informed and developed opinions uh about what's the right way to go. And I think I'm also would like to um invite Carl to uh come and talk to us about the strength of his convictions about which is the right uh and which is not the
right way to go about this uh because he's over the years they've thought about it a lot and uh they may even have been categorized as troublemakers in some quarters I suppose but but they're um
you know they're the Pete Seager type of troublemaker. They're people who've got big hearts and come to it with a with a constructive approach and have for whatever reason come down on a side that isn't perhaps widely shared. We
don't know. But I'd like to hear Carl respond. Ralph respond comprehensively to this piece that I'm writing because I'd like to know what he thinks is right and what he thinks is not right and why. I think that would be helpful and I think it might be helpful to us as a a
subcommittee to hear uh to participate in that conversation. Angus. >> Yeah, I I think there's a lot of uh uh great ideas there, Bruce, and I think we should be hearing from from um these
people. I think there was um it's clear there was a lot of uh deep appreciation for the event that y'all did in North Ammerst around the overlay >> um among the community and a feeling that the planning board has not done that kind of kind of outreach in the
past um at least based on the comments that I that I saw on different you know both to to us directly and then also um on on reporting about the event and that's I think really great Um, and so I I just wanted to, you know, commend you
all for that idea, for executing it, um, for for listening. Um, I think one the only thing that I would I would kind of say as a note of caution is that I don't think that that these people necessarily
hold hold this position, but this is just something that I' I've picked up within the community. In addition to the the comment I made last night about um there seemed to be some voices who were really treating UMass students as um >> problems
>> as not only problems but like but also using the language that's that's particularly hostile. Um, I think there's there I've also been hearing things in the community around, you know, UMass just needs to solve this problem. And I think I think I love your idea,
Bruce, of getting UMass more involved in the conversation and we should be applying pressure where we can and talking constructively with them about how we can work together to to push things. I don't think UMass is going to solve this problem by itself. and and I think it's unlikely the town is going to
either which is why you know it's a good idea to to think of a both and strategy as partners. Um but I I think there's some of the frustration that I have and I guess it's embodied in the citizen petitions themselves. One was a moratorium on building >> y >> and the other was a focus on trying to
preserve you know family neighborhoods um as opposed to turning them into student rentals. And I'm sympathetic to that second one. The first one I'm not sympathetic to and I think that that kind of a moratorum the the idea of limiting building across town as a
solution to these problems is I don't want to spend a whole lot of time entertaining that those kinds of conversations. That's my only point of caution. >> I think we should hear from these people >> um and and think with them about how to how to how to push these different
strategies. But but there's there's a a fourth strategy kind of you know that that you didn't outline Bruce that's kind of the um get UMass to solve the problem basically and we don't need to build anything. Um and that I
>> that's the first strategy >> I guess. So I mean yeah that that >> it's not that they should do it's it's it's the strategy isn't the the strategy is the strategy the the the version of that strategy which would be the solution is that strategy number
one is uh the only one that we pursue that uh so it's not a fourth one the fourth the fourth one is a solution not a strategy >> so and I agree and I also you know I I I I don't uh of the two positions that we
discussed that were presented to us. The one that was by far the most useful, the one the only one that was useful to me was the uh the one on the minimum distancing which was partially thought out. You know, we picked up all sorts of uh well we various of us had parts of it
that they found severely problematic uh as well as other parts we could understand and so forth. But the moratorium part, I agree. I didn't think that was a a is going to be a useful uh uh solution concept to anything that we
have anything you care about. Um uh so I'm going to, as I said, I'm going to uh I've already got ideas. I want to reconstruct this thing that I've written. I'm going to share it and discuss it with Jesse because I I I want to
um tunnel in with with one because I think it'd be more useful before I share it with all of you because I I want to I want to just get it into a a good solid or what I think is a good solid useful place and then I'd be very much interested in seeing whether you all
think this is useful uh whether it's helpful. Um but I I want to be able to approach this North Amist um proposition from a a very broad-based uh um
introduction which says here's here's here's the big picture and and then and here's how our thinking have got us to the proposition that we're discussing in North Ammerst. um it didn't come out of
nowhere. It's not um selectively uh applied. It's uh and I would like to know or like know as best as possible that this big picture analysis brought down is
compelling, defensible, accurate uh and fully explained. And that's where you all will, I hope, come in to add and and and improve and so forth, Nate.
>> Yeah. Um, yeah. And I think Bruce having that your document and you know it to me it also um I'm thinking you know the idea of having strategies and looking at this as like a you know challenge we're trying to solve. To me also I hope it can change the language being used
around the housing piece. So whether it's separating out the students or not but it's to me it's like oh this is a kind of a fun challenge or this is a fun planning challenge and so the langu you know if we just if we frame it differently and we have some of these supporting documents and ideas then the you know the kind of the framework for
the conversation might be a little different and so I I like that approach. Um and so you know what whether you know I I just think that's a you know to to change that a little bit. Um because when the council discussed the petitions
again the other week, you know, some of the language was I it was kind of harsh. Um and I don't think it's I think I I think it's totally you know I really don't think that there's animosity towards you know students. I think it
just it's you know how like Doug was saying there's certain you know certain factors and things but I I just you know I think having a different kind of language would be is really helpful. So, you know, kind of these ideas and moving forward with that, like, okay, here's how we want to move forward together, say, with the university or with other
partners, and here are some strategies. And so, it's it's to me more about the strategy and these ideas and not um, you know, and we're focusing on that, not like, oh, just the students. It's like, oh, here are some housing ideas like let's move the housing idea forward.
>> So, I I'm glad, you know, we can have all this backup information. and we can synthesize it and have a nice kind of right like a nice framework for the discussion. >> Oh well, I think we should be about done. We're coming up to an hour and a half or at least an hour and 20 minutes.
Um, as far as notes of this meeting is concerned. Uh, is there some automatic generator? I don't know how Jesse has been doing it, but I think he'd had AI operating. >> Yeah, this is this is being recorded. I can work with Jesse and get minutes out of this, so that's not a problem.
>> Good. Uh, are we done? >> I'm all set. >> I was just going to say one other thing, which is I'm I'm I'm going to work on looking at that commercial OP, PRP stuff, and I'll bring it to the next housing subcommittee to see if there's any legs there. And I'll try to I'll try to send it ahead of time. That way,
people have a chance to see what it might take to consolidate those zones and if that's a worthwhile thing. >> Good. And I'm interested in this 40y uh no, not what we going to call it, cottage style subdivision idea. Um, so I'll uh but but I' I've got my other
piece. I'm focused first of all on the North Amist and then I would probably seek to um be interested in thinking through a um a solid conceptual version of that uh idea that could uh
we could send on to the council. Okay. Um nice to see you all. Happy holidays and uh whenever Oh, we I think we have scheduled the next meeting. I just don't know when it is. >> Yeah, I think right now on the counter it's January 15th. So that's um time.
>> Yeah. Okay, good. >> Thanks everyone. >> See you later. Thanks. Bye bye.