This meeting is being recorded. >> Okay, Johanna. Um, we are live. We are recording. The attendees are coming in. You have a quorum of the board. Ammeris Media is with us in the house. We're good to go. >> Thanks so much, Pam.
>> You're welcome. >> All right. Welcome to the Ammeris Planning Board meeting of May 6th, 2026. My name is Johanna Newman and as the vice chair of the Emers Planning Board, I'm calling this meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Emerse
Media. Minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023, and further extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2025. This planning board meeting will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom
meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town's website calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is listed at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is
permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure that the public can attend and access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or
video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and return to mute. Um,
Fred Hartwell. Present. [clears throat] >> Jesse Major. >> Present. >> Jara Smith. >> Present. >> I Johanna Newman and present. We've um gotten notification from Angus Mloud that he will be joining us late today.
And Bruce Coldum and Doug Marshall are absent from tonight's meeting. So we have a quorum. Board members. If technical issues arise and the discussion needs to pause, it'll be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment and I will call on you to
speak. And after speaking, remember to remute yourself. To the general public, the general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda. So, please be aware that the board will not respond to comments during the
general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when determined appropriate by the meeting chair. Please indicate your wish to make a comment by using the raise hand function when public comment is solicited. If
you've joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your telephone. When called upon, please identify yourself by saying your full name and address and put yourself back
into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to 3 minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from
the meeting. All right, with that, we're going to get into our agenda. And our first agenda item is minutes from February 4th, 2026. Board members, I hope folks have had a chance to review the minutes.
Jesse, >> thanks. Um, I I had a question uh about the minutes. I've noticed the last few times the minutes have shifted from naming individuals with they thing say things to in many cases saying a board
member noted such and such. Is that an intentional shift? Is that an AI shift? I'm just curious why that changed and I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I'm really it's really justformational. >> Good question. I'm going to uh see if Pam can answer that.
>> It's definitely not an AI shift. um we haven't been provided a software that's um you know we haven't been guided to a specific software to use AI. It is a bit of a shift as we have I've been taking a
hard look at our minutes and trying to bring some brevity to them um without being alarming. So that was a step in that direction. >> Got it. I mean, I'm all for lightening your workload on the minutes, especially since everything's recorded.
>> Um, sometimes I do feel in a conversation it's useful to see who said things, but again, I'm happy to defer to your discretion. So, >> thank you. >> Uh, with that said, I'm happy to uh move to accept the minutes as they are. I had
no substantive comments. >> Thank you, Jesse. All right, we have a motion on the table. Can we get a second? I'll second it. >> Great. Second from Jara Smith. Um, all right. We'll take this for a vote unless
are there other comments. Okay, let's bring it up for a vote. Um, and Jesse, we'll start with you. >> Uh, I approve. >> Great. Fred,
>> I approve. Jara, >> I approve. >> Great. And I, Johanna Newman, also approve. So motion passes unanimously and the minutes are approved. Um, all right. Our next agenda item is the
public comment period. So, uh, generally we'll start this by saying the names of the attendees present. Um, and today we have Aaron Evans Jains joining us, an attendee by the name of Glenn, Mora
Keane, Pam Rooney, and Steve Roof. [snorts] And [clears throat] I see that Aaron Evans James has raised his hand to make a public comment. Um, so Erin, uh, just a quick reminder that public comments are for items not related to items on our agenda and you'll have three minutes
to speak. So go ahead, Erin. Erin, can you unmute? >> Can you hear me? >> We can hear you. Thank you. >> Great. Um I um to uh >> And if you wouldn't mind just saying your full name and your address, that would be helpful.
>> My my name is um Erin Evans James. Uh I'm on um uh um A8 Tuck Tuckerman Lane. Um and um uh I I did not see this on the agenda, although it may be um added
afterwards, but um uh I just wanted to um express um uh an interest in the the board or in the um planning board to consider um uh
after college um closure and um how the town can possibly um uh work with other members of the public in um crafting a plan that is
something new um and not it's not just like selling off the property to the highest bidder, but it's um something that that will like really um help Amoris um uh grow and um and not just um
be um like another land aotment that gets um uh like protection off and sold. So yeah, that's just my um two cents and um and that's
it. >> Great. Thank you very much, Erin. Any other public comments at this time? All right, then let's move on to our third agenda item, which is the downtown design standards. Um, so Walker,
or I think it makes sense to turn this over to you to just provide a little bit of shape and what you're looking for from the planning board at this moment on this. >> Um, that's something that I do not know. I'm [clears throat] I hadn't had a chance yet to listen to any previous
discussions you had about the design standard. I'm not sure where in the process you are. Um, but I'm assuming that we're looking for feedback, comments, um, suggestions, >> that kind of thing. >> Yep, I think that's right. So, um, we've
had a number of iterations of discussion about this, including, I believe, at the last two meetings. So, um I guess this is just a reminder to planning board members that if you want to weigh in and have comments,
um the best way to submit those comments is, um by using the online form on the downtown design standard, so they go to all the relevant parties. Anything else on that, Pam, that we
should touch on tonight? Um, I don't think so. I mean, you can certainly also send if you have overall comments, they could be sent to staff, either myself or to Walker. Um, but Dodson and Flinker are definitely
looking for people to use the public comment form. Um, so that comments can be made more specifically to section. I I think that's correct. Am I correct, Walker? >> Correct. Yeah. And if you have a lot of comments and you don't want to fill out
an individual comment form for each section, you can. There is a downloadable Excel spreadsheet you can fill out and then re-upload. >> Yeah. Great. And I think in our last meeting, Nate provided some good guidance in terms of what kinds of
comments are most useful at this point in the process. And um I'll just have make sure that the minutes uh reflect that at 6:45 p.m. Angus Mloud joined the meeting. >> Got it. Nice to see you, Angus. Welcome.
>> All right. Any further discussion on Oh, Jesse. >> Thanks. Uh maybe someone can remind us. Are we going to vote on this at some point as a planning board or is this really just a feedback forum? Like at some point does the pling
board want or ask to tell council what we think about this or again is it really just feedback? >> I think there needs to be a discussion about how the design guidelines are going to be adopted whether there's going to be zoning updates or they're
going to be included in the rules and regs and what parts are adopted by which um committee or board or body. So, the planning board may end up adopting some of the design guidelines, but then some may be adopted by town council. Um, so I think that that discussion still needs
to happen probably before you do anything specific, but I I think a memo about your general support or dislike of the guidelines is probably appropriate once you get done with your discussion. >> Okay, that that if I may, Johanna, that prompted another question, which is
they've proposed these four zones basically, right? Um who's so then that would what what you just said suggests maybe that's then up to planning board to decide we want to adopt those zones and change the bylaws
that would then become uh bylaw change that we would put forward to council is am I understanding correctly the process that >> yeah I mean I think town council and the CRC still have to discuss it um staff's going to be discussing it I think it may end up getting referred back and forth a
few times final decision Um but yeah, I think if it comes down to this council is like, "Yeah, we want to make zoning amendments," then you would probably be the ones finalizing what those amendments. >> Yes, that's Yes. Thank you. So even if
council says, "We love this, do it." >> It still needs to come to us to have changes to go back to council for approval or finalize. Right. Okay. Just want to make sure I understood the process. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Great. [clears throat] Any further questions or discussion on the downtown
design standards tonight? >> Yeah, Jesse, >> sorry. Is there any particular timeline because I need to block time to like really, you know, commit to reading it and making some comments. I know soon is always great, but like when are we going
to try and bring this something to council or >> the public comment period is open until you can remind me the exact date, Pam, but I believe it's the end of the summer. >> I believe it's July one. >> So, we have no real action before then. Got it. >> It's not a super urgent rush.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Cara, >> thank you. Um, did my question is Walker, do you know or Pam, do you know if uh like I sent a question to Dodson and Fininkler uh a while ago about some
estimations for dimensional changes and I'm curious if they've gotten back to to anybody about that. >> I'm not aware of any response from them and I'm not sure what their next step was going to be as far as incorporating the comments and responding to them.
Pam, I don't know if you know anything more about that. >> Um, Jar, I think are you referring to the fact that you were you were hoping to have some sort of buildout I ideas? >> Yeah, a little bit. Yes. >> Speaking of >> Yeah,
>> I know that um Nate did some followup email with him. I'm not at all certain as to what the outcome was, but I will make myself a note and see if we can um
um figure out like if they came to a conclusion about that. I do know that during the meeting that night, they were saying that that was going to be a really difficult thing. >> Totally. Yes. >> Um so I'm not sure if if anybody has heard anything different than than that.
Um, yeah, >> but I'm making myself a note on yellow sticky paper to follow up and and get a much better answer than what I just provided. >> That was great. Thank you, Pam. >> You're welcome. >> All right, last call on downtown design
standards comments. Great, then let's move on to the clean energy bylaw. Um, so the purpose of this, um, I guess I'll just say that our next meeting, I
believe, is a public hearing together with CRC to discuss the clean energy bylaw. And so, um, this is really an opportunity for us amongst ourselves uh, to share any review and discussion of the proposed bylaw. And I know we
talked about this at our last meeting as well. and um board members had some thoughts and comments and concerns. Um I I guess I'll open it up at this point and just see if um folks have additional
thoughts and comments beyond what we talked about last week um that we should make sure gets addressed at next week's meeting or next not the meeting in two weeks. And I'll share one thought that I have
had um just as I was reviewing it and I have a little bit more homework to do on this, but um our initiation of this bylaw actually came before the most recent state regs. And so one question that I have is
what is the interplay between the updated state regs and this bylaw and are there things that yeah either are duplicative or you know like how do those two policies work together if we were to adopt this?
That's one question that I have. Um, the second question that um I need to do a little bit more homework on, unless either Walker or Pam know it tonight, is I'm curious to see how the setbacks proposed in the clean energy bylaw
compare to and specifically I'm talking about setbacks from abuing properties and also from wells and how that compares to other development and whether you know it's consistent for
solar or whether there's a difference there. Um and then I'm also, you know, I continue to just be really interested in hearing how um the, you know, any potential solar developer would receive this. And I'm
interested to know whether in the development of this proposed bylaw, those stakeholders had an opportunity to participate. So those are my key things. Um I see two additional comments. So, uh, let me go to Jesse and Jara and then, um, we can
also see if any of the members of the public have questions or comments at this point, too. So, Jesse, let's go to you. >> Great. Thank you. Um, I kind of raised this, I think, when we talked about it last time. Uh, I would like if if [laughter] it's coming back to us for some discussion,
again, I don't know if we're going to be expecting to approve it or not. I'll be completely transparent. This is so far out of my realm of knowledge. I'm a little confused why planning board is asked to evaluate this or vote on it. If there are interactions with town design
standards or construction standard whatever sure but I really hope this ends in a place where we aren't tasked to consider this when we consider site plan review or whatever because it's another thing to me which we don't want
to prevent. We don't want to gum up the system and it's it to be frank maybe Johanna you're the exception I think but but it's not in our area of knowledge for the most part and so I'd hate for this to become another thing where every time
there's a proposed solar we spend three hours at planning board talking about the minutia of how they're installing and what the distance is from this that the other thing because it just doesn't feel like our task. Um, and yeah, I would reiterate what you
said, Johanna. I hope it's not duplicative or making it more difficult interacting with state law or anything else to get projects done. And that again, in my mind, there should be some kind of checklist that staff this project meets all these things. So
great, no other boards need to deal with it. Anyway, that that's my two thoughts. Thanks. >> Thanks, Jesse. Gerald. Jesse, you make a really interesting point that I hadn't really thought about until just now. Um,
uh, although, uh, before I get into that, um, Johanna, I I, uh, will join you in going back to like look looking at the two different origin stories of the bylaws. I think one thing that I'm going to do is look at the goals of them. like what is the initial goal and
objective of each of those initiatives? Excuse me. Because like if the goal is to make it easy to develop solar, if the goal is to make us less reliant on fossil fuels and to make renewables more accessible, then we should look at the bylaw as one
way. If the goal is to do something else, then we should look at the bylaw that way. Um, I'm also curious, so to your point, Jesse, like could we set up a different authorizing board that has people who actually know
what they're doing with solar um, be the approving entity instead of the planning board or ZBA or any of the existing ones? I mean like I hate to create a committee for the sake of committee but to your point like it is not my area of expertise and so I don't feel great
commenting on this in minutia. I I feel okay making broadstroke comments but like um I wonder if there's a different way to do this. Lingus. >> Yeah, I was just gonna add um you know,
a lot of what I'm seeing in the in the bylaw is effectively just cribed from the state guidelines. Um so there's there's things added, but for instance, like the purpose section of this is, I think, a verbatim copy of the draft by
law that the state has, which is interesting. And the state has two separate bylaws for battery and clean energy and photovolta solar photovoltaic installations. Um [clears throat] they're each about 20 pages. So pretty similar to what this is. Um although
they have a bunch of like spaces of like you you can fill in. So um so it's it's interesting to me. Um [clears throat] I have expressed in the past kind of worries about overregulating this. Um,
that being said, the state is recommending this degree of regulation essentially, it seems. So maybe maybe I shouldn't be as I mean, but we could do we could do less, we could do more. Well, I don't know how much less we can do, but anyway. Um, the other thing that that we brought up in a previous
planning board meeting is asking um I can't remember if it was Johanna or someone else asking maybe Jara um asking a solar uh installer um or developer who's done this and I know there's a bunch of projects in
Hadley and a few in town as well what they think of this um because I think to me that would be really helpful. None of us except for Johanna have this kind of background and it would be nice to know if a solar for a solar developer reading through this they're like oh yeah this
is like what we're seeing in a lot of communities it's actually going to make things much more streamlined. The more you hue to the state standards the easier it is for us because we're already doing this in other places. So that kind of a thing for me at least would would allay concerns. But similar
to other people, I'm I'm probably going to be deferring to Johanna and and I know Doug also did a a careful line line by line review of it and so I'm I'm probably going to be deferring to y'all in this process. >> Cool.
Any other comments from the board? >> Yeah, Walker. not on the board, but >> but um I just had a couple of followups to that which is one is that the state system is designed to be equivalent to a
comprehensive permit a 40B comprehensive permit. So it's the idea at least is to streamline the process for solar developers and also it will be consistent throughout the state because towns are going to be adopting the state
guidelines. Essentially Amoris is going a little above and beyond but >> [clears throat] >> um you I don't think you can do less than what the state is proposing and I'm working on this bylaw specifically so I don't I'm not personally familiar with what goes beyond if anything from the state guidelines but that's our basis.
that's what we're working from. And then uh just to briefly touch on the idea of someone else reviewing the plans. Um you'd have to you'd have to change the the zoning bylaw to specify a different group because right now it says permit
granting authority which in the zoning bylaw is generally the ZBA or the planning board depending on what kind of permit and the draft currently has site plan review and special permit both in different sections. But um because it would be like a comprehensive permit, you wouldn't be
expected to look at the electrical side of this or the whether the solar panel is making the right amount of energed appropriately. Does it match the setback set in the guidelines? Just like any regular site plan review, you're you're
assessing you the area that you have knowledge about rather than trying to assess the entire thing. There would be the fire department would be involved and you know other town departments would also be involved in reviewing it. So it wouldn't be just all falling on you to so suddenly understand everything
about solar. [laughter] >> Yep. Thank you Walker Jara. >> That's a relief Walker. Thank you. Um uh but I actually you pointed out a really great um point uh and it's that I'm I'm wondering
if I'm if this is kind of I'm likening this almost to like the common app for for um college applications, assuming that's still a thing. um that it's like if this is uh I I I see the the voluminousness of
the bylaw which gives me trepidation but if it is in fact a universal language that developers understand across communities then that makes it less scary because the there's less risk from what I understand and actually Joan I
would love to hear from you on this like in terms of whether or not you're going to move forward with the project the risk is much more in the availability of the land and like the actual approval process than the complicated nature of the actual bylaws because they have
attorneys or people who can figure out that kind of stuff. And so if this in fact improves the if this improves the process even though it makes it look like the process is more complicated by virtue of just the number of words in the bylaw
then I I that is helpful to understand. Um because if this can be done expeditiously despite this appearance of level of regulation or whatever um yeah then that that that changes my ability
to or that that changes my perspective of it. So, um, >> yeah, and that's that's my understanding of the state's intent was to make this more streamlined and more cohesive across the state for developers so that it would actually be easier >> and great. >> Towns will have less ability to just
flatly deny application as well similar to >> Great. Okay, that's really helpful. Thank you, >> Jesse. >> Thanks. Uh, common app still is a thing. I'm not in favor of it, but that's a different story. Um, having two kids
just gone through it. Uh, I hear you, Walker, and I appreciate that very much. At the same time, the number of hours in the last 3 years I've spent with this board discussing the number of lumens and the shape of a cone of light and all these kinds of things,
I'm worried we're going to go in that direction. And so, again, we're just commenting. So my comment is if this gets approved, if it gets through, it'd be great to have some really clear definition in a site plan review, here are the things to consider.
Here's a list of things that are not considered so that we don't get so deep in the weeds on all these things, but I'll leave it there for now. Thanks. >> Thanks, Angus. Yeah, I was just that that just makes me think one of the
things that Nate has said is that there's been a desire from um the the town side, the town government side to put more into the bylaws as a means of um
uh streamlining administrative approvals for different things. Um, and uh, and NA said that that Rob Moira and and and people who approve building projects would would appreciate that. And on the one hand, I totally that makes total
sense to me. On the other hand, if it's in the bylaw, then it becomes more likely that we're going to spend time interrogating it. And already with some of the things just in the year that I've been on the board, we've interrogated some things that are technically in the
bylaw. um foliage for instance that are not really clear to me that they're part of of what of um what should be what conditions should be attached to a site plan review. Um and so I guess I'm I'm just a little bit
concerned about the idea of adding in a lot of things that maybe we wouldn't be the people making decisions about, but we could be. Um, and I understand that the the um, you know, town town staff
has been great in helping us to kind of channel our energies and yet at the same time we sometimes don't channel our energies in ways that I think are as productive. >> Great. Okay. Other board member comments. If not, um, are there Pam? Is it
appropriate for me to ask members of the public in attendance if they have comments on this at this point? >> Absolutely. If you'd like, >> I would like to. Are there any members of the public who want to comment on this? All right. I see Steve Roof raising his
hand. So, Steve, um, if you could unmute yourself, say your name and your address, and you have three minutes. >> Uh, excuse me. [clears throat] Good evening, um, planning board. I am Steve Roof. I live on Southeast Street in Deep South Ammerst, and I am also a member of
the town's energy and climate action committee, and we will also be reviewing and providing comments on this proposed bylaw. But I I for the planning board, I would love to know from your experience as I looked at this bylaw, the draft
bylaw, whether the elements in this are consistent with what is required for other um projects, for other land development projects. Um or if they're unique and unique things that are not
typically required. Um this is flipping through it here. Um there's um impact analyses required for um where's the list here? noise and vibration, impact on farmland, impact on
forests, and I'm curious if those are things that are typically asked for in other types of land developments or if these are new um and are how will these be evaluated if planning board becomes the authority to assess a impact on
forests? Um how will that impact be assessed? what criteria exist to say it's a acceptable impact or an unacceptable impact. Um there's another one is a glare analysis is required. Um
but there's no specifications in the bylaw as to what does the PGA do with a glare analysis and how will they assess it to determine uh acceptability or not. So, I think it'd be great if planning board, you guys could look through the proposed bylaw and highlight those
elements that are sort of different than what is typically involved in um other required um proposals, highlight those for CRC and the town council and perhaps ask these questions like how will the PGA assess a glare analysis or impacts
on forest as written in the bylaw. So, good luck. We'll um probably be crossing paths in the near future as we evaluate this u this bylaw. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Steve. >> Yeah, and I was just looking at the dimensional standards and it does seem
like some of the setbacks are more are larger for the in the solar bylaw than they would be for example for building a house. So, um,
I like that's a that's a good homework item. I don't know, uh, Pam, is that something that staff could take on or is that something that you would need planning board members to parse through? Um, Walker, I'm going to defer to you to
answer this question. I I mean I I only know what Nate has said in the past, which is, you know, he can relay such questions to people who have a better understanding of the clean energy bylaw. Um Walker, you may have a a a different
thought or you may be being guided in a different way that I haven't heard at this point. I kind of agree with Nate in that um Stephanie's been working on this more than anybody else and I think she's probably the person to answer a lot of these questions. But as far as comparing
it to other planning board reviewed projects, I think that's something that um I would feel comfortable doing. Um but if she could point out for instance which of these regulations are uh set by the state or what sort of flexibility is
there in things like setbacks? Is the state getting that detailed? That's stuff I'm not sure I know, but she might already know or have looked at, >> right? And I'll just say for myself, I think I'd be interested in knowing the comprehensive landscape, not just the
ones for the planning board specifically. >> Um, so probably it would fall under Stephanie's purview to do that comparison. >> I will. Yeah, I'll I'll make a note to talk to Stephanie. >> Thank you, Walker. Angus. Yeah, I was just going to add in [clears throat]
response to the comment from um the member of the public. Um I think that's a great encapsulation of some of the things that we're struggling with here. Um you know, as I was looking through the bylaw, a lot of it seemed familiar
from other parts, but none of it co none none of it uh it felt like was all in one place with with specific building projects. So we have like little bits here and there like in the aqua for recharge protection zone there's like you know some specific things um there's
some specific requirements around like traffic studies and parking analysis but like you know the idea as as we have that there's an impact analysis for noise and vibration impact on farmland impact on forests impact on carbon sequestration impact on environmental
ecological services impact on scenic views like all of that all of those impact analyses that's a lot Um, and again, it feels like there's a lot that's being pulled in here that actually is more relevant to the building commissioner than to us. And
again, that's fine, but I think it would be helpful to have a sense of what we're actually going to be needing to give our two cents on versus what is just kind of proforma checklists for the building commissioner or or you know, whoever in in the town is in charge of looking over
the project. Angus. All right. Additional comments or discussion on the clean energy bylaw. Great. Well, we'll have a great uh joint meeting with CRC in a couple of weeks and get into it even further.
>> Is that at the same time as our normal meeting? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Great. All right, the fifth item on our agenda is the general housing discussion. Um,
this is a little bit of a legacy agenda item. Uh, so why don't let's see. Walker, would you be up for kind of contextualizing this section and your thoughts on how we should handle it
at this point? Um, yeah, and I think that Jeff is going to be coming in with a memo sort of from the higherups of how they kind of want the planning board to approach topics like this going forward just as as long as we're going through this transition
period where we're down a staff member. Um, personally I am trying to set aside time to go back and review minutes and meetings so that I can kind of catch up on what has been discussed um, and looking through what we have in the
files because I don't want the discussion to get dropped. I want it to continue and I think that we could probably come up with a way to continue it in smaller bites within planning board meetings rather than having a separate subcommittee meet and still feel like we're making progress. Um, and
I'm open to suggestions from members obviously about what maybe is the best way to do that or what we should talk about first. >> Great, Jesse. >> Thanks. Uh, since we are on record now, I feel compelled to state a couple
things. Uh, I completely respect staff limits. At the same time, I, as I said last time, I do not agree with the need to slow down. I think housing is our town's
number one priority and or should be given the current moment. I certainly feel like that should be planning board's number one priority. Um I think the last few months we've been
given different direction or first time I've been on planar we've been given direction what you should consider what's the priorities what the priorities are and that did not align with how the subcommittee had been thinking about things or what the subcommittee had been working on.
So uh yeah maybe we need to have that conversation again. I'm fine with suspending the subcommittee obviously until staff can help support it. Again, that's totally fine. But I think if we are going to continue that at some point, we need to evaluate what's the
purpose. Because if the town is giving us direction what we should put forward or not, it's not worth all of our time to work on things that are not going to go anywhere because someone decided or wants to
decide that's not viable. U so yeah, I'll just leave it there. We don't need to debate tonight. Thanks, >> Walker. Do you have any sense of when we might expect that memo from Jeff in terms of >> He's aiming to have it ready by next
your next meeting. >> Terrific. Thank you. >> All right, Angus. >> Yeah, I keep not getting things done with the PRP. So, um, but my last papers
are going to be returned to students soon. So, um, I'll have some time before the next meeting. I think I I'm hoping for aiming for next week to, um, finalize a memo about PRP changes and, um, and get the documents updated so
that we can have them sent out um, before our next meeting. Um, and Pam, you usually like to get things by like the Thursday before the meeting. Yeah, even the Wednesday before if I can have them. Um >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm not sure. Um >> I'm not sure how much will be on the next agenda considering that it's the joint public hearing. >> Oh yeah. I'm sorry. I should just say that's my it's my aim to get it done by then. Whether we actually talk about it
then. Yeah. I just I need to set a harder deadline for myself and follow through. >> Okay. So, Wednesday, Thursday, it's all good. Thank you. Great. Okay. Um,
moving on. Agenda item number six. We're on to old business. And, um, we have three topics of old business. The first one being the open space and recreation plan. So, Walker, can you provide some context here and what you're looking for from the board?
>> Yeah. Um, I'll give a brief context for the plan itself. The state requires that towns complete a new one every 7 years. The requirement has been 7 years. That would have been 2024 for Ammerst, which is when this process started. Um, it's taken a long time because it's being
conducted by staff rather than hiring a consultant. However, they've switched it, so now they're good for 10 years. Um, so this one will at least last a little longer. And this is we finally got to the final draft. We did all the public engagement and now it's going out to various committees. The consom is
discussing it and we're just looking for again comments, feedback um on things that feel relevant to the planning board. Particularly the last section, the action item section. There are some objectives that are um potentially
linked to things the planning board might be looking at. So you could kind of skim through there and see what feels relevant to you and then refer back to that section if you don't want to read the entire plan page by page. Although I will say we've haved the length from the
last plan. We got it a lot more concise. Um and it's this is a draft but it's pretty close to the final draft. Essentially we're just waiting on maps and charts and things. >> Great. And um I know this one is 68 pages. So nice job getting it down from
what must have been like 130. >> It was >> great. So mostly you're looking for feedback from the planning board on the proposed action items that relate to planning board business. Yeah, I mean you're welcome to give feedback on any
topic, but I think that might be the most helpful targeted feedback is if there are things that we might be the town might be looking to implement that would take input or uh collaboration with the planning board. We would want to know your thoughts on whether that's feasible, whether that's the direction you want the town to go in, that sort of
thing. >> Great. And what is the timeline for comments on that? Um, I don't have a specific timeline, but we kind of are trying to push it out the door as fast as possible because we're already two years late. >> Um, and the sooner we get it, the sooner
we're eligible for the grants that are tied to this particular plan. So, um, it would be nice to have it if you want to put out a memo for it maybe by if not your next meeting because that's the joint meeting, the meeting following that would be ideal, I think. >> Mhm.
>> Or have me want give me comments and have me write the memo. >> Yep. And does the planning board formally ratify or vote to adopt this plan or is it more like we send a memo kind of
saying >> um I'll double check. I'm pretty sure the planning board is on the list of committees that do vote to approve the plan >> before it goes to town council. Um but I can double check that. >> Okay, great. So in so far as planning
board members, you have a homework list. Uh, please review the open space and recreation plan and submit thoughts and comments to staff. >> Thank you. >> Great. >> Okay. Um, Angus.
>> Yeah, I just had a quick question about the um water and sewer section. Um, and maybe is this too in the weeds? Should I just save this until a later time? >> I mean, if it's quick. Let's find out.
>> Okay. >> I'll let you know. >> Um [clears throat] Okay. Um my my question is just my understanding is that there's been expansions in water and sewer and there and I know there's mentions of of expansions as uh projected expansions as well. And
so I know there's there's a couple of mentions of extensions, but I'm curious if that's changed if adding more parts of the town to water and sewer has changed how um the whoever made this uh is thinking how the town or or the comm
or different committees are thinking about protecting water um and and water tables. Um, quick answer is that we I've been working with uh Aaron Jacques, the conservation agent on this, and we've
reached out to the water and sewer department a few different times about this plan to get some updated information from them and haven't had a lot of luck getting any details back from them. So, that section is only as good as we can make it with what we
know. Um, and I don't think there's been a sort of a larger level consideration. I don't as far as what how that might impact conservation land or wetlands beyond what what what might already be being considered. >> Yeah. I guess I'll I'll just explain
maybe where I'm coming from, which is when when uh Jar and I were uh when the town council is voting on me and Jara's appointment to the to the town council, several counselors noted that we lived in a in a part of town that is restricted from any kind of greater density because it's in the aquafer
recharge protection zone. Um, and uh I know that I've been doing some research and it seems like that was that uh recharge protection zone was put in decades ago and um and portions of that protection zone are now covered by water
and sewer. Um, and so I'm I guess I'm wondering if there's and and I didn't see it anywhere in here, but if there's any thinking about how the extension of water and sewer changes the need for land to be, you know, categorized under the aqua recharge protection zone.
>> Yeah, that isn't something we'd considered, but that is an interesting thought. And if you could email me your questions, I'll talk to Erin about it and see if we want to try to include a little something about that or if it even maybe just a quick action item that someone looks into it. Um because you're
right that could have changed things. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Angus. >> Anything else on open space and recreation plan? Okay, then let's move on to our second item of old business, which is the East
Ammerst Local Historic District. Um at our last meeting, um this board voted not to recommend moving forward with that. Um, but I believe there is now discussion of potentially drafting a memo to the town council from the
planning board. Um, but there's also another proposal that's, you know, working its way through the process. So, Walker, can you speak to this? Mhm. So, one of the commission members has made an alternate proposal of um a different
a slightly different approach to the local historic district that might be more um in line with some of the comments from the planning board and um that's going to be discussed at their meeting on May 18th and then they will determine how to move forward from
there. Um we can choose to make a change now. We're still in the draft stage. Um it hasn't been approved by anybody. So we it's not like we have to restart the whole process or anything but they could say alter the boundaries or um consider you know things like that without
without too much of an issue and then they'll reapprove the plan if that's what happens and you'll probably see that draft as well if it does get significantly changed. So that's that's all I know that's all I can say. And then can you talk a little bit more
about the draft memo and whether staff recommends, you know, planning board drafting a memo now or waiting until that historical commission comes back with their new proposal? >> Yeah, I think my preference would be to
wait because um the memo is [clears throat] not going to be relevant anyway if they make big changes. So why spend the time drafting it? Um and if it comes back to you then you can have the option to revise your comments in any case.
Okay. Questions, discussion, comments on that? >> Great. >> Any topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours prior to this meeting? Nope. Okay.
Then, um, moving on to new business. Anything else that's come up in the past 48 hours that was not reasonably anticipated in terms of new business? >> No. Great. All right. Then our eighth agenda item is um form a ANR
subdivision. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Angus. I don't know if there if there's going to be any any space for us to talk at all about Hampshire and I don't know if this is a new business, an old business, or a no business, but um uh there's increasingly a lot of talk
all across town about how Hampshire is needing to liquidate everything uh as quickly as possible. And uh and I know the town is and so maybe this is something that that Walker can speak to. I know the town has issued some statements on this and and is looking into things. the town council has has
discussed it. Um, but at the same time, I mean, it seems like, and I don't know what developer is going to buy properties that are zoned ED. Um, you know, so anyway, I I I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. And I know there's many, many more conversations,
but I don't know if there's just anything to to share about where all of that stands. >> Thank you. I think that falls under new business, so we'll go back on the agenda. >> Yeah. Walker, do you want to respond? >> Yeah, I can what I can say is that the discussions are still at town council
level um and an executive session level and that the best resource right now for whether what the town is thinking about is the presentation that was given to the town council at their last uh I think it was the last meeting but um if you go
I have it here actually I think I add it up here. That's right. Anyway, if you go to the presentation that the council gave April 27th meeting um and you go to about 50 minutes in,
you'll get to the point where they discussed it and then there's also slides available on related to that April 27th meeting. Um and that's that's about the level of discussion right now. It will obviously get more detailed and come down to the planning board at some
point. I'm sure that there will be zoning decisions to be made. Um, but they're not quite not quite there yet. >> Fred, >> Fred, you can go ahead, but you'll need to unmute yourself first. >> Yeah, I know. [clears throat]
Um, in concert with that, um, I'm curious to the extent to which the, uh, proposal that was in, I think it was yesterday's paper, possibly today's with a bunch of
Hampshire County, uh, New Hampshire College alumni, uh, who apparently have a lot more money than I do. Um anyway, uh seriously proposing uh raising at least $10 million uh to
get the college back on track. And I'm just curious whether there's been any discussion about whether that that there is any credibility attached to that or not. >> I'm not aware of any discussion in like
with town staff about that idea. I'll just add what I what I have heard is that it's more about how to close Hampshire in a just way rather than to keep the college going. >> Okay. So, at this point in terms of
where the town is at, the slides from the April 27th town council meeting are the best summary. >> Yes. Yeah. I know that is unsatisfactory to many people, but that's where we're at. Sarah, your hand is up.
>> Yeah, I guess um uh I will I I will go back to minute 50. I will look at the slides. Um so if you need to refer me to that then I that's perfectly fine. But I'm curious like can you can you reassure us that folks at the town
whether it's town counselors or you know the higherups are in direct communications with Hampshire. I guess like I'm what I'm worried I just I just want to know we're part of the conversation and that we're not being boxed out and that this is going to
surprise us, you know. Um, so can you can you offer any >> I can I can tell you that the town has been meeting directly with people from Hampshire. >> I don't know the details about that anything beyond that but >> that's of course that's just reassuring
in itself. So thank you Walker. >> Thanks Tara. Anything else on that or other new business? All right. Um, then let's move on to the form A ANR subdivision applications. Pam, do we have any?
>> No, ma'am. >> All right. Upcoming ZBA applications. >> Um, I don't have any that I'm going to talk about, but do you, Walker? >> Um, did you want to bring up 174 AMD Street or are we waiting on that one?
Because I think they're going to the ZBA soon. >> I'm not sure exactly when. I know I don't know much about this project. Um but if if you want to I know that they're they're going to go to the ZVA and then also come to the planning board. So
>> yeah, I can give a very brief overview. Um and some of you might be familiar. It's the ACLT is um working with the homeowners at 174 AMD who have offered to sell the house to them at a significant discount to be used as permanently affordable home ownership
property. And um ACLT is also working with Habitat for Humanity to put an additional duplex on the property. So there will be um a total of five units. They're going to convert the current house into three units and then add two more as in the form of a duplex. So they
will be getting a special permit from the ZBA, but they will also need a site plan review for the duplex portion of the plan. and they're trying to get it kind of done syn synchronously, but I think they're going to go to the ZBA first at least for a meeting or two.
>> And Walker, for members of the public who might not know what the ACLT is, can you >> the Emerst Community Land Trust? So, the model will be that they will own the land and that they will um sell the houses specifically and then it'll be like a permanent lease basically of the
land and it'll be affordability restricted. Thank you, Fred. >> Yeah. Um could you clarify uh Walker? Is would that afford the uh occupants of these uh
um apartments to uh accumulate equity? >> That's um not part of the project I'm familiar with. Um, Greg the housing man housing planner in town is working with ACLT on how the actual affordability restriction will work. So, he would be
the one to ask about that and I'm sure that that's going to be discussed more too as the project goes on. >> Then I think we have some expertise on the board on this too. episode. >> Uh yes, Fred. Um the equity that they're able to appreciate is limited because
they're not able to get the equity appreciation from the land that is owned by the CLT, but they are able to gain equity from the structure when they're when they resell it. there is a usually a some kind of limit or cap or some kind of restriction placed on what that
resale value can be in order to ensure its perpetual affordability. But the idea is that it it reduces the barriers of entry into affordable home ownership, but it does allow you to build equity just not as as significantly as you
would if you owned the land as well. >> Thanks, Jarro. Angus. Yeah, I was just going to say this is one of our CPA projects um that we funded um which is very exciting and uh and Jar's right that's that's built in. So there's a a cap on how much the actual property can
appreciate and uh that keeps the property when people resell it, it'll be it'll have to go to to people who meet certain income thresholds um or fall below them. And that's one of the ways that they keep the property affordable, >> right?
Yeah, that's uh that's very much appreciated and uh I I would fully support that. Thank you. >> Great. All right.
Any upcoming SP, SPR, SUB applications? >> Just that one for 174 Amity Street that we just talked about. >> Got it. >> Okay. I thought that was a ZBA. So, sorry. >> It will be a site plan review as well. >> Great.
>> Um, okay. Um, we're on to planning board committee and liaison reports. Um, Bruce isn't here, so we'll skip PDPC. Um, CPA Angus, you still meeting or are you all done for the season?
>> I wish we were all done. I mean, we kind of are all done. Um, but the the town just rejected the CPA's appropriation for the Jones Library. Um, so that that's done. Um, and there was lots of mixed feelings on the CPA about the
Jones Library request. So, you know, I think we knew we we wanted more information. We wanted a legal opinion. None of that we had during the actual process. Um, I I don't know if Walker, you or you or Pam know about the other requests we made. Um, I don't know if
they've been approved as as is or if the town council made changes, but um >> everything was approved as is. I'm pretty sure. Um, I was looking into that. >> Okay, great. So, that that's all that I have to report. >> And then what happens to the allocation
that had been kind of set aside for the library? Does it just go back into the kitty for pre for the next round of CPA funds or >> my presumption would be they'd use it for the borrowing that we requested to to reduce the amount that we need to borrow because we authorized a big uh
like I think one over a million dollars maybe 1.5 million to fund the war memorial pool renovation. So I would I would think the town council would just use that money to reduce the amount we'd have to borrow for that project but I don't know. >> Yeah. I'm not sure.
>> Okay, Doug's not here, so we'll skip the design review board report. I don't have a report from the chair. Do we have a report from staff?
How's the transition going? It's it's it's going well. Um, I'm glad to be here, glad to be seeing all of you, and uh glad to be working with you. And definitely contact me with any thoughts or comments or anything um anything you want feedback on or want me
to be doing differently. I would love to hear it. Thank you so much Walker. Um, so before we adjourn, just a couple reminders uh for members. Comments on downtown design standards, comments on clean energy bylaw, comments on open space and
recreation plan, um, PRP, if you're working on that, uh, get those recommendations in so that they can be part of the record as we advance. And it is 7:37 and we are adjourned.
Thanks everyone. Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> Bye. >> Bye. >> Have a good night. Bye.