Okay, Mr. Marshall, let's see. You are the co-host of this meeting. You have a quorum of the board. The panelists are here. The attendees are arriving. And I do see Amoris Media is with us in the house. I think you are good to go.
>> All right. Thanks, Pam. >> Sure. Hey, welcome. >> Welcome to the Ammeris Planning Board meeting of July 1st, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Ammeris Planning Board, I am calling this meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. This
meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Ammeris Media. Minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 and further extended by chapter
2 of the acts of 2025. This planning board meeting will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to a planning
board 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 the public can access the meeting in via real in
real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic hardship or despite our best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on
the town's website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and return to mute. Bruce are you present? >> I'm here. >> Thank you, Bruce. Brett Hartwell,
>> I am here. >> Jesse Major, >> present. >> I Doug Marshall, I'm present. Angus Mloud, >> present. >> Uh, Roy Johnson, >> present. >> And Jar Smith has informed us he will be
arriving sometime around 7:30. So we have six members present we have a quorum and we can proceed. Board members if technical issues arise and the discussion needs to pause. It will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a
question or make a comment and I will call on you to speak. After speaking remember to remute yourself. To the general public. The general public comment item on our agenda is reserved for public comment regarding items not
appearing later on the agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make
a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full
name and and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can typically express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted
time, they may be disconnected from the meeting. Okay, time is 6:37 and we'll start with meeting minutes. We have the minutes from April 8th, uh, 2026. Uh, board members, uh, any comments on those minutes? Anybody other than that?
Another exemplary job from our staff putting the minutes together? Uh, Jesse? Uh, no. I thought they were fine. I'll move to approve the minutes as they are. >> Thank you. Does anybody uh want to second those?
>> Not seeing a hand, I'll second the motion. Uh any further any further comments? Okay. Um we'll go ahead and have a vote on the minutes. Um, Roy, you are welcome to vote. Uh, you are also welcome to abstain if you
wish. Um, so, uh, we'll start for approval of the minutes with you, Bruce. >> Um, there are six here, so I'm going to abstain since I wasn't at the meeting either. That was part of my time away. >> Okay.
Uh, Fred, I >> I support the minutes as written. >> Okay. Thank you, Angus. Uh, does it matter? I also wasn't there, so I was going to abstain, but are we
going to be able to pass them? >> Uh, I think we need a majority of the board, and since there are seven of us, we need four. >> I'll vote I. >> Okay. Thank you, Angus. Jesse, >> I
I'm an I. Chair is not present. and Roy. >> I'll abstain seeing I wasn't there at the meeting. This is my first meeting. >> All right. Thank you very much everyone. So, we have four votes in favor of
approval and that is sufficient to approve the minutes as drafted and uh we'll move on. Um second item on the agenda is our public comment period. So, members of the public, uh, if you want
to make a comment, now is a good time to raise your hand. Um, before we do that, uh, I wanted to just welcome Roy Johnson to the board. Roy is uh, a new member for for three years,
recently approved by town council. So, welcome, Roy. And Johanna Newman has left the board, just for the record. Okay, members of the public, anyone want to make a comment? And at this time, I usually read the names of the public
that or the public attendees that I can see. Uh we have five at the moment. Uh they are Deborah Gro Gross, uh Felicity, Linda Slaky, Mora Keen, and uh Rob.
So none of them have raised their hand uh indicating they want to make a public comment. So uh I guess we will move on from that. Time is 6:40.
Third item on the agenda is our first of our two public hearings. This is a new public hearing advert advertised for 6:35 p.m. So we have passed that moment. This is SPR 20264.
Applicant is Ammerst Community Land Trust at prop. The property is 174 Amity Street. Request site plan review approval under sections 3.3212 and 3.01 01 of the zoning bylaw to
construct an affordable duplex complimentary to a three-unit townhouse on the same lot with parking and associated site improvements located in the RG General Residence zoning district on map 14A parcel 332.
Are there board members who would like to make disclosures? Bruce? >> Yes. Uh I'm recusing myself from this portion of the uh uh the the meeting recusing myself from the hearing the SPR
portion. Um however as I mentioned earlier um I am functioning as the architect designer document documentarian and so forth for this project and uh and I'm acting in the sole
sole capacity. So there's nobody in my so-called office who's able to cover for me and answer questions. So the the the likelihood is that some of the information that you require will not be
uh able to be answered by any of the four people who all of the four people in the uh uh Felicity. What happened to Felicity? We have uh Linda and Felicity should be brought over. >> Yes.
>> And is is uh your engineer available at all, Bruce? Uh Bucky Sparkle could be, but he his his uh expertise and and knowledge on this project relates more to the wetlands uh and the concom business and
not so much to the design of the building and and so forth at the end of the property that's outside of the uh the 100 foot buffer. So there there have been questions and probably will be questions that Bucky wouldn't
necessarily be able to um be helpful with. Um, so that's why we uh we I'm suggesting that uh I be able to do as you say, Doug, and simply answer matter
provide matters of basic factual information and uh and that alone that's of course up to the board. If the board is willing to allow that, then I can stay in that capacity, not in the capacity of a member of this
deliberating group. >> All right. Um, Walker, >> Bruce, can you just confirm that you don't have any financial interest in the project? >> I have no financial interest in the project. >> Okay, I think it's I think it's perfectly fine then if you answer
questions. >> Thanks, Walker. All right. And uh you know I'm going to Bruce just to try to minimize uh sort of the potential for any sort of problem with this arrangement. Um I'm going to
suggest that we direct our questions to Felicity and Linda and if they cannot answer the question that then we turn to you. >> I entirely agree and if you if you'd like you could put me in the attendees and bring me over when and if and as
such event may arise. Well, maybe maybe uh we can ask Bruce if you just uh I don't know. I mean, we could ask you to turn off your camera and mute yourself and you can still hear us and if we need to bring you in, we will.
Let's let's try that. So, welcome uh Felicity and Linda. Um I believe Felicity, you are the attorney representing the land trust and Linda, you are an official with the land trust.
>> That's correct. >> That's correct, Mr. Board. >> Thank you. >> So, welcome to our meeting. And um which of you was going to be sort of introducing the topic or Walker? Was there anything you wanted to say before
we got in had the applicant? >> I don't think so. So unless anybody had had any questions for me about the uh report the D or anything that you were provided >> well would it might be helpful I don't know whether it's you Walker or someone
else Felicity or Linda just to give a little overview of how we got to this point because I know this project has interacted with the town in a number of ways on its way to this moment.
I think that would probably better come from Felicity because I haven't been involved in all of the different aspects of this project. >> Okay. >> Happy, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, welcome applicant and if you want to introduce the project.
>> Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, my name is Felicity Hardy. I'm an attorney. I represent Ammerst Community Land Trust and I live at 53 Iduna Lane here in Ammerst. I'm pleased uh to be able to present this project to the board. Um as
the chairman has noted, it has uh been reviewed by a number of other um boards in Ammerst. And this is our final stop, so to speak, uh before we have all the land use permits that we need to
construct this project. Um the project uh is a five unit affordable home ownership project that consists of uh the existing structure on 174 AMD um
with the addition of a duplex that will be constructed to the east of the existing structure. um from a land use perspective. Um here's kind of an overview of the uh permissions and consents that we needed
to get to this evening. Um we um received um a approval by the Ammerst Historical Commission regarding a partial demolition of 174 AMD. Um this
relates to a part of the structure in the back which is not in very good shape. Um and we'll be uh reconstructing that on the same footprint. Um with uh attention to maintaining the existing
architecture, facades and the like. Um and the Ammerst Historical Commission was satisfied that we could proceed. Um the the building 174 AMD is not in and of itself an historic building but it contributes to an historic uh
neighborhood. So it was appropriate for the Ammerst Historical Commission to take a look at that. Second was um a review by the Ammeris Conservation Commission uh with respect to a notice of intent uh that we filed
uh to undertake this uh construction. That notice of intent was required because there is a small isolated wetland in the rear of the parcel. Um and that that um wetland was created not
organically but rather because of runoff from our butter directly to the east. Um the runoff has been kind of unmanaged for a long period of time and because of
this situation it's created a wetlands that needed to be reviewed by the conservation commission. Uh the commission issued an order of conditions. uh we've recorded that and um we have supplied what the the the
plan that the order that the conservation commission approved. So they made some minor changes to the sort of the demarcation of the bordering vegetative wetland and so forth. So that is the plan um that uh is before you
this evening. Third, we needed a special permit from the Amoris Zoning Board of Appeals. The reason that was required was because we are intending to convert the existing
structure, which is a single family home to uh three townhouse units. The building's big enough to allow that. And we wanted to uh create
um family housing that would be owner occupied. Um and um we wanted to leverage the footprint of the existing building um to the extent that we could.
Um and so uh the application for special permit was heard by the zoning board of appeals I think two weeks ago. Um and they approved the special permit. That special permit has uh a number of conditions, but I will just say that the
ones that may be most material to uh the planning board this evening is the requirement that we maintain the um units, the three units in the townhouse as affordable in perpetuity. And that in
fact is part of our general model um is to Ammeris Community Land Trust has a model of uh obtaining uh parcels um identifying uh qualified um uh first-time home
buyers and ground leasing the land to the um homeowner, selling the structure uh but retaining an interest in the and um and um that's kind of the model that we're using here, although we're
applying it in a kind of a multif family situation. That leaves uh our application for special permit uh special uh sorry site plan review this evening. Um, so one thing I forgot to mention just a moment ago is that in order to constru uh to
have the townhouse um on the parcel and the duplex that we're proposing this evening, uh both the um ZBA and the planning board need
to make a determination that the two uses are complimentary to one another. um and the ZBA has made that um determination because the uh use of one of the existing
structure will be residential and the duplex of course will be residential too. Um I also would just sort of point out that uh this uh kind of arrangement um is uh also exists on a property on
North Prospect Street just a couple of hundred yards away from this one. So um that um I think is also a kind of a model uh for the kind of um the kind of development that we can do with
affordable housing in uh such a prime location. So that's just sort of an overview of kind of how we got to uh the planning board and I'm happy to provide some more information, answer questions, whatever
the chairman, however the chairman would like to proceed. All right. Thank you, Felicity. Um I think um is it correct also to say that this project came before the um the CPAC
uh for funding from uh from the town? >> Yes, Mr. Mr. Chairman, it did actually. We're getting we have two sources of funding uh for the project that are municipal in nature. Um we have a CPAC
grant which is applicable to the construction of the three town houses. We also have received a grant from the Amorest um municipal affordable housing trust. I always sort of fumble on the number of words in the name of that
trust. Um and we'll be using um the money from the municipal trust for acquisition of the property. >> All right. Great. Um, so we we did have a site visit. Well,
um, we had a site visit last week and Angus and I were there along with Bruce who was who was representing and Bruce and Felicity and Linda were all there for the for the land trust. Um, Angus, anything you want to say or should I
give a what I remember from the So, uh, we met at at the property. Um, we saw the existing 1830s house and the, uh, sort of uh, back house and barn on on the rear of it
that will be replaced. Um, we saw stakes in the ground where the corners of the proposed new duplex would be located. Um, we walked uh over to the adjacent property uh to the east and saw the
uh let's say just the driveway that is creating the runoff that's creating the wetlands at the rear of the property. Um, we did hear about the fact that the some of the utility connections have not been
completely resolved. Um, I think it was the per it was at least the electric if not the water line as well. Um, Angus, anything you want to add to that? >> Uh, not not really. I I have a few
questions. We didn't have the plans before the site visit, >> right? um which was challenging. Um so I I I think I have a few questions now about that, but no, nothing to add. >> All right. All right. So why don't Pam
um why don't you bring up the site plan? >> Sure. >> And um Felicity or Linda, would you like to walk us through kind of an overview of what we're seeing? >> I'd be happy to. Okay.
>> Okay. Um, >> Miss Field Saddler. Yeah. if you could maybe scroll down because I probably will want to start on the west which is at the bottom of the plan. Great. Thank you so much.
>> So, um on the west side um you can see uh the existing structure um and the uh parking spaces that we propose that will serve the existing structure. My recollection is that there are uh eight
spaces there and two spaces um next to the duplex. Um they won't be assigned uh because um it may be that u the uh residents of
the duplex may need to to uh use these uh these parking spaces on the west side. although I kind of anticipate that most of their parking will be adjacent to the duplex. Um in the uh corner you
see a detention basin that um will be uh constructed and has been approved by the um conservation commission. And then all the way to the south um is the uh wetland area.
Um, >> so this and the south is to the right. >> The south is to the right. Correct. So west is at the bottom of the plan. East is at the top of the plan.
>> It's over here somewhere. >> All right, Felicity. Uh, should we scroll up a little bit and look at that? >> Yeah, why don't we do that? So, um although it's not >> completely pertinent to what the planning board is doing, I just point
out that um with the redesign of the uh existing structure um we're going to have um egress on both sides of the three town houses. So, the town houses are two
stories each. Um at the site visit, uh Mr. Marshall and Mr. Mloud. You may have noticed, you probably noticed the porches on the east side of the building, but they will also have entrances on the west side that are adjacent to the parking because we
anticipate that when people come to the site, they'll park in that area and then they'll want to access their units on that side. But it's it's worth it seems to me it's worth keeping the porches on uh the east side because first of all, they're already there. So, they've
already sort of sort of established a little bit of a pedestrian flow. Um, and we don't want to interrupt that. The other advantage to having the porches um on the east side is one of the central
uh goals of Ammeris Community Land Trust is to develop community um both uh sort of in the broader sense in Amorest but also among the um among
the owners who are benefited by the uh program that we are offering. ing. So, uh, having the porches on the east side also, it seems to me, um, promotes the community, uh, between the people, the
families who are living in the the town houses and the, uh, families who are going to be, uh, living in the duplex. Um the structures on the south side um
are uh again to address uh the runoff both from the structures and from the property next door. So the the the easterly abuter doesn't have to do anything. We are taking care of that um
through the um the structures that you see on this plan. Um Mr. Marshall mentioned this question about utilities. We discovered um very recently that
the uh electric utilities will have to come into the units underground. um and uh because they're coming into the uh buildings underground, we will need to
um construct a transformer pad on the plan. It's not shown here because we've been scrambling for the last couple of days to figure out where the transformer pad should be and uh Bruce has some
words about that. Um but my understanding uh our current thinking is that it would be uh that the transformer pad would be um to the east of one in between the two buildings sort of more
towards the AMD street side. So he has some ideas about uh where to put that pad um that he can share with you a little bit later. I we've just we've just been kind of talking about it recently. Um, our builder, um, Seth
Lawrence Salvis from Wright Buildings has been in touch with Eversource. Um, and there's some complexity to the location of this transformer pad, including the fact that Eversource needs
a lot of things before they'll approve the location of the transformer pad. And we're working very hard to get Eversource those things. So, um, but I just I'm kind of putting that sort of to one side for the board's questions later
on. Uh, finally on the east side, you see, uh, the duplex. Uh, the duplex is going to be constructed by Habitat for Humanity. Um, it will be, uh, permanently affordable, both units. Um the one thing we're not quite sure about
right now is how deeply affordable they will be. Um ACLT's units, the units in the town, the townhouse units will be affordable to persons up to 80% of uh area median
income. Um, Habitat is trying in its financially in its financial modeling to make its duplexes uh uh affordable to persons families with up to 60% AMI income, but we're not
entirely sure of that. What we do know is that all of the units will be affordable within the meaning of the town of Ammerst uh zoning bylaw. Um the other thing I would point out on the east side of the plan is a new curb cut.
Um we are proposing that because um the duplexes uh will be affordable as excuse me accessible and so it made sense to us to uh propose uh closer access for um
vehicles uh that would be uh serve you used by residents uh on that uh in the duplex. Um, and I think that's uh it in terms of my overview. If you have some uh other
questions about the plan um or that I can't answer, uh, of course, Bruce is here to to answer those questions and Linda also has more, you know, may have more kind of technical information that I can share with you. >> All right. Thank you, Felicity.
Um, so maybe uh Pam, could you show us the renderings and the the rest of the material that we were provided from the applicant and maybe shrink it down so that we can
see the whole page at a time. >> That's good. Is that the whole page? Okay, >> I think so. >> Okay, >> so this is a view from the east slightly to the from the northeast. Amd Street is
on the right, I believe. Uh the two cars in front are in front of the new duplex that uh is the subject of our discussion tonight. Um, from the plans that were in the packet,
I gather the twotory volume in the foreground is one unit and the onetory unit or the one-story volume behind it is the accessible duplex unit.
Um maybe and and then of course the existing building of the existing house is in the in the background on the right hand side. All right, why don't we go to the next page unless I'll let Felicity and Linda chime in
here if you want to add anything else. Um so we have the floor plans. Um, I believe that the if you look at the floor plan in the lower left corner, it shows the two volumes and the yellow
volume is the twostory duplex. Amity Street is to the right, I believe. So that the main front facade of the building is is at the right hand side of
that floor plan. Um, >> yep. >> Pam, if you can bring your your cursor and just put it along the front edge. No, the opposite side on the right hand side of that. Yeah, there. >> Yeah.
>> So, that's the front of the building. So, there's a front door along that wall, and then there's a side door along the west side up at the top. And there's looks like a storage shed kind of at the end there.
And then moving to the right is the or I'm sorry, moving to the left is the accessible unit that has an entrance along the top edge, which is the right edge.
And that's the front door with another little shed unit. And that's entirely on one floor with the with the kitchen at the entry and the dining and living and then looks like two bedrooms. Um, let me know if I've said anything
false, Elicity or Linda. Um, and then the separate plan that's on the in the upper right is the second floor of the front two-story three-bedroom uh non-accessible
unit. >> Yes. >> All right, then. Why don't we go to the next page? All right. These are the elevations. So in the upper left we have the sort of
the front view as faces Amity Street with the front door of of the twotory. And um then to the right of that in the upper right we have the
west elevation which is facing the existing house. Below that we have the east elevation that's facing the butter to the east. And then uh in the lower left we have
the rear elevation facing south which is where the wetlands are. And that's showing a door one of the doors into the accessible unit. But I don't believe that's an accessible door because it doesn't have a ramp.
All right. Uh, is there a third page? >> Oh, yeah. Then there's the rendering or the the probably a a computer model of it. This is from the south. Let's see. From the from the northwest.
So, in this instance, Amity Street is to the left. And that's most of the elevation that faces the existing house. All right. Um All right. So, so we are not being
charged to really think about the existing house with the three the three units that have been approved by the zoning board of appeals. That use has been approved and is essentially a feta comple at this point. So, we're being
asked to look at the site and the impacts of the new duplex going onto this site. So, with that, I guess I will we'll open it up to questions from the board. Um,
why don't we bring bring the site plan back up onto the screen since that's probably >> going to be the most uh pertinent drawing. And Pam, if you can shrink it just enough so that we can see and scroll up a little bit so that
we can see the whole site on our screen. There we go. That's good. Perfect. >> That's good. Okay. >> All right. So, um, just to start it off, um, so, uh, I'm I'm interested in trash. Uh,
I see Pam if you can bring your cur cursor if in the lower left hand part of the screen just above the colored new parking along the bottom
right there. There's there's a what looks like a dumpster or a storage container or shed maybe for trash. is is in in in fact is that the trash collection spot that'll be
uh where the dump or the toaders will be stored before the trash collection happens. >> Yes. >> All right. And how how do I if I'm an accessible person, if I'm if I'm in a wheelchair and I or I have accessibility
challenges, how do I get to that? So it's on the same level as the entrance to that unit. >> Okay. >> So is the >> I mean if they if the person is mobility
impaired, they're obviously going to need to um you know use whatever techniques that they would use to take the trash out, but we have to have exterior storage for the trash. Um and it doesn't it has no doors. it's kind of
open on one side. Um but um we think that um you know having it on the same level should make it available to them. >> All right. Is is the sort of curved walkway we're seeing um that is adjacent
to it. What's the paving material of that? >> That I don't know. Um, so I'm gonna ask Bruce or Linda to resp. >> Uh, Linda, you are you are muted. >> I think um I think actually I was
deferring to Bruce. I think he's he'll be more on top of exactly what the materials are in there. >> Okay, then Bruce, why don't you come on in and answer that question about the walkway? Uh I can I can stay that way. I think um
the the trash shed as has been described. It it holds four um uh large bins, trolley bins that get wheeled out onto the street uh to the in that western south northwestern corner. Two
of those will be trash bins. Two will be recycling. the uh Doug, you pick up a the the the path there is intended to restore an existing pathway, but it's uh it's it's basically
slated to stated to be a a stepping stone path. So, it really doesn't provide uh um what you might call an acceptable level of accessibility and neither is there a pathway across the lawn area. Um so that
may ne that may be uh necessary if the person who's if the if the person in that uh uh if we have somebody in that flat who is in wheelchair bound number one and number two if they're living alone and
they haven't got a partner who can handle that. So there would be a couple of conditions that would uh um need to be um come into play for us to find the need to upgrade that um to make
a pathway. It may be that Habitat will ask to change that. I'm not sure. This is the first time this has been raised. Uh so I can simply say that the answer to your question is as noted on the plan there. um convert existing footpath to
stepping stones path and it uh it says it doesn't give a width but it's not 4 feet. >> Mhm. Okay. All right. So, I guess I'm also you know I mean I was worried a little bit about the accessibility and
how that might work. Um but also um just wondering is that an attractive object? Um you know and um you know are there any other places that
it could go? It looks like you're envisioning that there'll be one trash collection point for all five units. >> That's >> and and that you wouldn't be asking the trash collector to come into both driveways, one for each building.
>> That's correct. And and it it's a two-bedroom accessible unit, so the likelihood that there would be other people that could uh t take this task on is quite high. But uh the answer is that there is no accessible route uh yet
anyway between the accessible unit and the trash. Although it would only require widening that path because there is an existing uh asphalt path that that kisses the uh the um the new path.
>> Mhm. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, with that I'll I'll turn it over to the board. Angus, you mentioned you had some questions. Um, I'm >> Yeah, I can lead off with a few. >> Sure. >> Um, the first question is so uh about
the it's about screening. Um, is there any kind of screening for the for that enclosure? And I realize this is this enclosure is partially connected to the other development, but but since it is also connected to the one that we're under consideration tonight, just wondering about screening there. And
then also wondering about any other kind of uh screening apart from what's shown as the evergreen screening by the parking lot on the top left corner on our screen. Um, is there any additional screening around that parking lot or
around any part of the property? Um, but that apart from that. >> So, let me start. I mean, Linda and Bruce may have more to say about that.
Um, we're showing the new screening. There's we're leaving some existing trees, so that's going to provide some screening. We haven't proposed like a hedge or anything on the east side of
the uh duplex in part because it's fairly close to the lot line. I mean, it is it conforms with the dimensional requirements, but it's it's close. I mean, I've seen projects where, you
know, either the applicant or the planning board or the developer or whoever, you know, wanted to put up a like a privacy fence. We weren't proposing that. Um, that's not to say that we couldn't, but that that's not
really what we're thinking about. Um, and there isn't screening around the trash enclosure. And in terms of tree plantings, um, are are the trees shown on this diagram existing trees that are being preserved or trees that that y'all are
trying to plant? >> They're existing trees that we're pre preserving. You may remember from the site visit that there are a lot of mature trees there. Um, and we're trying to u maintain some of those. Obviously, some of them have to go because the the
area where the duplex is going to be constructed is quite wooded. Um, some of the woods is not particularly nice. It's kind of weedy, but um so we're trying to keep uh the mature trees.
>> Uh I also see Bruce has got his hand up. I wants to add to that maybe. Uh firstly I think the intent is that they would be new uh um arbavati type uh low screening bushes. The the existing
trees wouldn't do much in the way of screening and I think they'll be gone by the time we have completed the driveway. We wouldn't be able to keep the existing trees uh and do that driveway. You you would have to take them out in order to to do that. So that that note that says
evergreen screen per zoning bylaw owner's preference u I think it would have to be new because just from a the point of view of how construction processes uh proceed and it's quite
common that we would uh we we we we see this sort of thing uh regularly uh around town. So I think it would be new screening bushes. But Linda, if you have a different sense
of this, but uh I think it's always been the intent of the design process that that those would be new. >> That's correct. That that was my understanding. >> Okay. And the chess screening is not
done with vegetation. It's done with a hidden with with board. Uh it's a it's a screened enclosure. >> Then I have two other questions. Um one is about lighting. Oh, I'm sorry. >> Did someone Okay.
>> Uh the the first question is about lighting. Um there's a new light fixture or there's a light fixture on the proposed uh two-unit building at the front. So, this is um on the the document uh with the uh pretty rendering um with
the yellow trees in the background. >> Um and it's the >> first page Pam >> and yeah, it's it's actually the third page of that document. Um uh where it says north elevation, that top left um there's a light fixture
there. Um, and I guess I'm I'm wondering uh again thinking about about conformity. I don't I don't recall seeing a light fixture on the front of the other building. Are there plans to install more um exterior lighting on the outside of of that building? And can you
talk a little bit about I guess the rationale for installing lighting there? >> Shall I take this question? Yes, please. >> Um, Angus, you're correct. The light fixture shown at the gable end of the new duplex unit is a a light fixture
motion sensored uh downcast and so forth, which will act as uh illumination for the parking. The remaining exterior lighting for the duplex is under the porches. Uh, so there'll be three other light fixtures
uh that will be uh or maybe four if you put one on the one on the back of the building, but all all of the rest of them are under under the porches on the duplex. So far as the uh the the townhouse is concerned, there are three
similar exterior wall-mounted light fixtures along the west side of the townhouse. each of them illuminating the uh the portion of the parking lot that is um
allocated to uh one or other of those three units. >> And then again, the the porches on the front side have got light fixtures outside, but they're under the porch. They're recessed into the porch roofs, I think.
So verse the three on the existing building would be in the vicinity of the new entrances to the three units on that side of the building. >> Correct. >> So in each case the park the lighting is
it seems like you've your strategy is to provide lighting where sort of to to to illuminate the path from parking to the entrance to a unit. to did you say eliminate or illuminate?
>> Illuminate. Ye. Yes. Yes. The the the three parking space the two parking spaces that will be uh used allocated to the duplex will be the two parking spaces closest to the street where the residual lighting is uh uh from the street lighting and so forth is is uh
considered sufficient. Uh and then as the you get further away down the uh the the parking uh the the the remaining uh six parking spaces on the west side of the townhouse will be
eliminated from the buildings themselves. Uh is is is there a is there a portion of your question that I haven't answered? >> No. Um, the other question that I had was about snow, um, which was mentioned
in the site plan review. Where is snow meant to be stored, um, when it's removed from the parking lots? >> You put up the uh, site plan. >> Hey, could >> the answer is that for the western side, it'll be pushed all the way down to the
southern end of that. uh >> um the southern end of the of the um area. So basically toward the uh toward the detention pond and and basically in the area between the shed uh or I'm
answering for the townhouse because that was a general question. Um, so there's a there's an area between the property line, the shed, and that detention basin, which is where snow would accumulate. >> Um, >> in here.
>> Yes. In that area. Well, not there. No. At the end of the part, at the end of the driveway. >> Oh, yeah. >> At the end. Yes. So, all of all of that area between the property line, the shed, and the detention basin. There's quite a large wide area there all the way up to the shed as well. And then in
the uh on the duplex side, it'll be pushed into the uh area um to the uh it actually won't be pushed, it'll be pulled. That's not a an easy thing to do, but that's where it'll have to be put into the area to the west of that
double parking area. It it depends a little bit on whether this is handled by snow, you know, hand blowers and so forth, in which case it could be blown into the uh up toward the end of the parking area. But but but generally speaking, the answer, I think, would be that that big open area to the west of
those two parking units. No, down >> down >> that. No, no, head to the western end of the parking area. this parking >> the the the parking area is the gray area. So the western end of it
>> down at the bottom of it the bottom of it Pam. >> So that just just around there is where the snow just immediately below your arrow. Stop. Don't move your Keep the arrow right there. >> That is where the snow would go there and to the right of that over toward the
uh the the the back end the turnaround. >> Yeah. >> Great. Um, the only other thing I was going to point out, um, uh, when we were when we were there at the site plan, the, um, the neighbors
driveway, um, is really encroaching on this property. Um, which was mentioned by by the applicant, and I just wanted to to note that that's um, really frustrating and seems unacceptable to me. Um, and I think that y'all have done a really admirable job of trying to work
around that. Um, and the only other comment I was going to make is I was on the CPA committee that approved funding for this project. Um, and I relayed um that uh this was a really high priority project for the planning board. Um, when
we were kind of doing our ranking because this was a project that was going to yield immediate affordable housing units. Um, >> you mean it was a priority for CPAC? >> No, it was a priority for the planning board that I relayed to CPAC. Um okay.
>> So I I had asked um you all uh the the board at that at that time what was a high priority in terms of the housing related uh projects and this was the highest priority um of the three or four projects that were brought to the CPA. Um so I just wanted to remind the the
planning board of that and that um other members of the CPA found that perspective really helpful. It changed their voting behavior. Um, and so this is uh I just wanted to express my appreciation for the the work that was done here and and excitement about this
project and getting to see this happen. It's great. Those are all the questions and comments I have. >> All right. Thanks, Angus. Um, I'm going to pick up on what you just said. Um, I was also dismayed to to see that the
Abutter's driveway was over your property line. And I was dismayed to hear that the Abutter's failure to implement the storm water management that they had been directed to do some many years ago had caused you
to incur the costs for the storm for the wetlands on this plan. And so my question um I realize you guys are trying to be good neighbors and not get into
litigation with the a butter. Um would there would there be any ad would there be any advantage for you if this board uh asked that the you know the pavement on your property
over the property line along the east edge be removed or for the fence that you've you've probably set back from the edge of the property to be actually put along the property line. And if if we we
imposed that condition, would that be helpful to you in your uh you know in your management of your property or would that be a problem? Felicity. >> Mr. Chairman, I I I truly appreciate the
sentiment. Um and um it is frustrating that uh we have uh these issues with um the butter to the east. Um I I think we have a strate I hope that we have a
strategy to deal with that but it doesn't involve um conditions or uh requirements in in the context of site plan review. Um we we've been we've been working
extremely hard over the last 6 months to pull together what is a reasonably complicated project. And I will say from my own point of view that from a legal perspective this is a particularly
complicated project. Um affordable housing is always challenging to do. I love love love doing it. I love the clients um and I love the results. Um but right now our focus is on getting
this done and we have a closing coming up at the end of July. Um we want to focus on kind of our eyes are on the prize which is you know doing this
project and there will be time later on once construction has begun to have a uh more full and frank discussion with the abutter about uh the issues that uh the uh encroachments uh present to our
property. >> All right. So I'm interpret. Okay. Go ahead, Linda. >> I was just going to add uh to what you shared, Felicity, that um you've pointed out to us that we can't leave things as
undocumented as they are now. So part of our approach uh is that um documentation of the easement that they've been allowed will be properly filed and that will present an opportunity to reinforce
what the effective boundary has to be. They've been mowing well over their property line, reasonable tidying, you know, and so they run a big mower so it mows a big stretch on what is actually the land associated with 174.
Um so we are going to have to address how we're going to manage the boundary and and uh Felicity has urged us to do that by way of documenting a specific easement that ex that makes explicit what's allowed and what's not allowed on
that line. >> All right. So I guess so I'm my takeaway is you'd rather we didn't impose a condition that caused any change to the to the conditions of that o of that uh
um that boundary at this point. If I can just speak from my own experience of the shared driveway, um I suspect that one reason for the creep is
that a full-size modern snow plow going down that driveway probably wouldn't fit within a strict enforcement of the boundary, particularly if we put up a mechanical
uh barrier, a big snow plow pushing a big load of snow after a heavy snowfall can probably just about make that driveway. It's not that wide. It's probably the minimum legal width for the cars.
>> Okay. Um Bruce, I guess I see your hand as well. Um, I'm asking Felicity and Linda whether they think that an a formal expression of dismay by the planning
board uh wouldn't be um potentially to our benefit. It uh it I don't I can't see how it would be to our detriment. Um I'll say that and nothing else.
Linda, >> that's a good point, Bruce. A statement, a statement from the board of sort of their view of the matter without ex saying explicitly a certain condition
has to be met. I think it would be useful to have the documentation record that you've taken note of the degree of encroachment and are concerned about it and and how ACLT plans to maintain an
appropriate boundary to safeguard their houses something like that. >> Okay. So, um, so that might be something we put in our findings as opposed to in our
conditions. >> Um, I one thing just occurred to me and I I'll just ask, um, have you ever considered entering the accessible parking spaces from the Abutters curb
cut? Yes, we didn't consider that actually the um I don't remember the technical answer to that. Um, Seth Lawrence Lavos discouraged it having to do with what um
with with the te with the technical challenge that would present to actually have uh an ad there an entrance into the accessible lot off of his driveway. >> Do you remember the actual conditions
for thinking that wasn't a good idea, Bruce? >> Yes, I do. >> Yeah. Uh it was not only me Seth that most especially it was Bucky Sparkle in the civil engineering and the principal uh problem is that the driveway you see
there is not a a two-way driveway. It's a one-way driveway because the driveway actually goes down the other side of the building as well. And it's a kind of a U-shaped driveway. And if you look at the uh some of the site photos, you'll see that uh there's a directional sign applied to that driveway. So, we would
be trying to uh navigate a two-way uh activity at the head of a one-way driveway. And I think uh the realization of that pretty much sunk the ship in terms of that idea, but we did we did think about it and it seemed for a moment in time to be
a clever idea. >> Yeah. especially if they're encroaching on you and you've got some leverage >> to uh >> you know to to give you something in return.
>> Okay. Um so I wanted to ask um and and I guess it's it's probably just a point of of information. So you you retain the land and you sell the unit to someone with a particular
uh percentage of the average income. And so they've bought the unit and you know these people could be there for 40 or 50 years. um over time is it important that their income continue to be no more than 80% or if
they win the lottery does that fine? >> We we're happy if they just get a promotion at work. you know that we don't want people to stay poor that um the the house however stays affordable in perpetuity and we're very careful to
explain to potential owners and to they have their own attorney and we tell them that that attorney should walk them through the lease to make sure they actually understand the the long-term implications of its conditions. So there are two conditions. One is that they
have to live there. So if they choose if their life changes so they choose to live elsewhere they can't run it as a rental and the other is that its value can rise only in proportion to the rise in incomes. It doesn't track market
value. So if they're there 40 years then their base price is recorded and they can ask a price which represents an increase proportional to the rise in area median incomes over that time. The idea being that it's it's forever
affordable at the same level. >> All right. So you you essentially have to demonstrate your um your compliance with the income level at the point of sale. >> At the point of sale >> and then it's not an issue beyond that.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. Felicity, I see your hand. uh it's only an issue to the extent that the uh ownership of the property changes. So if if the if the family won the lottery, likely they would probably
want a larger place, they'd you know, they'd try to sell this and then we have to income qualify the next property owner. >> Okay. All right. Um, let's see. I'm just checking and I do
not see Jara yet. So, he has not arrived. The time is 7:39. So, um, so so we we we think we're going to need more information on on the transformer.
And so I'm I'm going to propose that we continue this meeting, continue this hearing rather. Um, uh, Felicity and Linda, do you think or and and Bruce, do you think that, uh, is
July 15th enough time? >> Oh, go. >> Uh, I think it has to be. um the um the the the whole process here would want this to be resolved
before ideally before the uh closing which is at the end of this month. Um the I do have a diagram which I'm not sure whether I need to bring up but uh we do we have been in consultation with
the Eversource u I spent a bit of the afternoon reading a very lengthy document that Eversource produce that states uh constraints and so forth associated with um transformers. We know the size that it needs to be. Therefore,
I we know the consulting this we know the setbacks. So there's a there's a it has to be a transformer has to be set back 10 ft from the property line and 5 ft from a building. And if you draw a diagram that has this property line set
back coming in from the property line uh on the on the amate street side, you draw a 5ft set back from the building, you get uh a triangle that closes uh at the uh down basically at that fresh shed
and opens uh uh to the point where it becomes apparent that the the transformer location uh that's most workable is on the eastern side of the path that goes out from the uh town
houses to the mailbox and uh I think it's pretty clear that that's where the transformer has to go. So I think in two weeks we can we can we can uh expect to clarify that with
sufficient uh um sufficiently that we can come back on on before the 15th with a a plan showing the transformer location, the size of the pad and sorry the size of the pad and the location. As far as the water lines are concerned, we
know what we need to do there. They just need to be put on the drawing. Um and I won't go through that. I'm less I'm less worried about the water lines because they're subsurface and >> you know >> so and it would mean that we would take the uh uh in the location that I've just
described the uh the uh the power would be sourced from the pole on the eastern side of the further to the east. Um the currently the the power to the
townhouse comes from a pole on the northwest corner and and and comes overhead to the northwest corner of the townhouse. So this would redirect the uh power into the property. But this uh is good from the point of view that it puts
the transform also more or less equally between the two buildings the existing one and the new which means that there would be less trenching to get back up to where the duplex is. So I think all parties the the Habitat whom you haven't heard from here who will be building
this duplex uh and and will be paying you know basically the financial package associated with construction of the duplex will be handled by Habitat. Um so they were interested in having it closer. I think that's the way it's going to sugar out and I think uh two
weeks from now should be uh enough time to uh have obtained uh clarity on that matter. All right. Thank you. I think we will probably want to see some screening at that transformer. It seems like it's a could end up in a pretty prominent location from the point.
>> Yes, I I think the residents would as well. So, it'll be screened with lower bushes. I can take a photograph of the transformer at Pine Street Co-ousing which is in the middle of the community which is screened similarly and has been for 30 years. So,
>> um yes, screening would be expected. >> All right. So, and then we had some conversation about the ADA path to the trash enclosure. Um, I guess I'm wondering, do you intend to
revise that and make that more accessible or are you saying you don't do that until there's a need? I'll ask uh I'll ask Megan Mcdana who's the director of Habitat what she would uh uh
I'll ask her that question. I'll basically relay your question to her. We'll be having a a meeting next week. Uh we so we'll have that discussion a week from today which will be uh quite timely enough for the uh any any
adjustments to the plan to be made. Um, and I guess Bucky will be making those adjustments because he's Bucky Sparkle because he's the he's basically got the the cluster of electrons that is the
site uh design and he will also look at anything we're proposing to see whether there's any coverage or impact so far as the concom is concerned. It's everything we're discussing is well outside the 100 foot buffer, but there are coverage
consequences and so forth. They're microscopic, but Bucky seems to be tra track tracking these very small uh changes in permeability and impermeability. >> All right. Thank you. Um I'm going to ask now if there are any public comments
on this project. Um, so members of the public, if you want to make a comment on this site plan review application, now's the time to raise your hand. Pamfield Sadler, can we bring over Pam Rooney to
>> speak for no more than three minutes? >> Hello, Pam. >> Hi, Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. This is a wonderful project. I'm delighted it's moving along. I do have about four questions or comments about the site design. Um, there was a good
conversation about the access to the trash container or the the trash storage area. And whatever is done should be a very simple um, but very smooth. Something that you could actually roll a bin along. I think
a a paving stepping stone is not a good idea. You can't shovel it. You you and you It's not easy to walk on. So, an easy three- foot wide concrete walk connecting the duplex to the system of
walks by the existing house really seems to be appropriate. Um, I'm looking at the layout of the parking for the new duplex and it appears to be extra long. There may be a reason for that, but normally a parking spaces only need to
be, you know, eight or nine feet wide by 20 feet at the most in length. And it looks like you've got an extra 8 to 10 feet of length of of permeable parking. and it so certainly um
shortening that up would save a little money and it would also provide a little more area for whatever buffer you're trying to build along the east park uh property line. Third thing is that the contours for the drainage are uh a little problematic on the east
side. They really the as drawn they are forcing all the runoff from the building to the very edge of the pavement which unfortunately is on your property. Um so there's going to be scouring along that very edge where you're actually also
trying to put your fence. So unfortunately it looks like you need to have the the center of the swale closer to the building in order to direct um it away from the part the pavement itself. And then lastly,
uh question is is there or what is the need for the split rail fence all along the south border? Um as long as they are not mowing within the wetland buffer, is there any reason to fence it off? That
seems like a huge expense and and really visually constrains the site. Thank you. Those are my four comments. >> Thank you, Pam. So, I see Felicity and Bruce, you can decide how you want to respond to those.
>> I'm gonna let Bruce handle this one. >> Okay. Uh, I wasn't at the Concom hearing because but I have read the order of conditions. Uh, we proposed that there be and I'm speaking now to your last
question, Pam. uh the uh the the there is a requirement from the concom to delineate the 50T buffer and uh and we knew that going into the meeting and we proposed that we put uh boulders along
that every 10 ft. Uh there would be I would expect if I had anything to do with it they would be partially buried so they didn't look like golf balls uh sitting in the landscape but they would look a little more natural but nonetheless boulders at 10 ft. the concom um order of conditions added the
split rail fence as being uh as it turns out an option. Uh it may be their preferred option but it's not as condition. So um I am will advocate uh that to the to my colleagues that we uh
hold to our uh boulders and and and uh and and and abregate on the split rail fence. However, I'm not sure that uh my colleagues would agree with me. So I think therefore Pamley general answer to your question is that split file fence
exists as a uh an express preference of the conservation commission but it's only a preference. The requirement is that some barrier be there. It could be a split row fence. It could be um a series of boulders at 10 ft.
>> And what about the parking the length of the parking spaces Bruce? I'm I'm I I have to have the plan up. I It never It didn't appear to me to be unwieldy in length, but if it is certainly I have no particular
>> Well, it does give you give you some room to store snow if you want to just push it to the end. would uh it does appear to be rather long, but I think that um it might be I mean some respects the the the
driveway cut should be p pushed east. Um uh also the driveway is actually permeable. So it it actually any any paved any driveway area is actually a mitigating uh element from the point of
view of the conservation commission. I don't think that's why it would be longer. So I think uh the answer therefore Pam is that um I don't know. I'll ask uh Bucky Sparkle the uh civil and designing engineer and I have so
noted on my notes here. >> Okay. I mean there will be a turning radius to get in and out of those spaces and I'm wondering if that's part of it particularly the one that's nearer to Amity Street. >> Yeah. Uh, and then I the third or the first
comment that Pam made was about just the ability to roll the towers from the trash enclosure out to the street or out to the parking area. And you know, I had con had concerns about the accessibility for the a tenant who might be in a
wheelchair, but I think Pam's comment is actually even more uh appropriate for changing the material of that walkway between the two properties and that that
goes past the trash enclosure. So, >> um that would be well worth considering. >> Agreed. So noted. >> All right. And um at the moment I can't remember Pam's
fourth comment. >> I'm sure the recording will show it. >> Oh, it was the uh the swale. Uh um >> yeah, the swale and potential scouring along that edge. And uh uh because the
driveway is close to um this drawing doesn't show the western edge of the above driveway.
>> Well, right right at the >> Maybe it does. >> I think it does. And it's right for most of its length. It's under the under the >> under the swale. >> It's right next to the fence just just east of it. >> Yeah, that's not a fence. That's a an
erosion. What do you call it? Control. Um but uh again, I should ask Bucky whether it wouldn't be prudent to pull that swale uh west. >> Okay. >> As as as Pam suggests. Not surprising
because I know Pam's background and she's not looking at this as a town counselor. I can tell that. >> Right. >> Thank you, Pam. That's very helpful. All very helpful. >> All right. Um I don't see any other
hands from the public board members. Um as I said, I think I I think we should continue this hearing. Um, Walker, I would I would I assume that for the next iteration of this, um, will you have
draft findings and conditions for us to review? >> Yeah, I I did draft some for this prior to this hearing, but I think we'd be better off reviewing them at the next hearing when I can incorporate the comments from tonight.
>> Okay. Yeah, I didn't see any in the packet, but you you have you have some other >> great uh Felicity, I see your hand. >> So, uh just a reminder, Mr. Chairman,
that I I haven't seen any drafts, but we will uh need to have a finding that uh the duplex use is complimentary >> to the uh townhouse. Thank you. >> Yeah, that one is in my draft. Thank you.
>> Great. Okay. Um All right. In that case, I guess I I'm going to make a motion that we continue this hearing to July 15th, our next meeting.
um at let's say 6:35 p.m. is uh Pam Field Saddler, do we have any other business that we've already penciled in for 6:35? >> Um are we doing clean energy bylaw on 7:15?
Are we back to a joint? >> I believe we are bringing back the town >> discussion with them. So they are at 6:35. >> Okay. So it would it would have to be 6:45. >> All right. Then then I'll make the motion for July 15th at 6:45 p.m.
>> Okay. >> Second. >> Thank you, Angus. Uh any further comments from the board or information from the applicant? >> I just have one other thing. I I probably will not be present for that
because we'll probably have a child by then. Um but I if I am able to make it I would vote um that they're you know complimentary um and and very excited about this project. >> Thank you Angus. >> Okay. In that case uh we'll just run
through uh voting for the continuation. Uh I will skip Bruce because he is recused from this vote. Um, Fred, >> hi. >> Thank you, Angus. >> Hi. >> Jesse,
>> hi. >> I'm an I as well. >> And, uh, Roy, >> hi. >> Thank you, Roy. And Jara has not arrived yet. So, we have five members in favor, one recusal
and one absence. The motion carries. Thank you, Felicity and Linda and Bruce. Uh good luck tying up loose ends in the next couple of weeks and we'll see you again. >> Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.
>> Uh Bruce, are you coming back as counselor at this moment? >> Board member. Yes. >> Yes, I am. uh um hearing uh uh Angus and knowing his situation and knowing my situation
and uh there and also now knowing Jar's situation which is that he hasn't been able to see this um I guess we should encourage uh Jara to um watch the video watch the recording of this so that he's
in a position to uh >> vote to vote because Oh, we still have four. I'm sorry. I somehow missed, >> but you know, things happened. So, we'd like to make sure we have a quorum. >> Walker. >> Yeah, actually Jira just emailed saying
that he wasn't going to make it tonight, but he would watch the recording and plan on participating at the next meeting. >> Okay, great. All right. Uh time is 7:58. We usually take a break at this at 8:00. Um,
counselors, would you like to go ahead and do that or should we postpone it or cancel that? Anybody object? All right, take five minutes to walk around and get yourself ready for another hour or
so. Thank you. Sure. All right. Please turn on your camera as you return to let us know that you are ready to resume the meeting. Excuse
me. All right, it looks like we have all the board members back. I can see Pam Field Saddler just walked away for a moment and Walker is still
>> I'm here. I just my internet connection's poor so I'm leaving my video off so that I don't get dropped. >> Okay, good. Thanks for letting me know. >> All right, looks like we're ready to resume. Uh time is 8:06.
Next item on the agenda is a public hearing. Um it's a continuation of a previous hearing. So this is concerning a zoning bylaw proposal for article 18 clean energy infrastructure.
This hearing is continued from May 20th, June 3rd, and June 17th of this year to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting article 18 clean energy infrastructure and associated amendments to zoning table 3 dimensional
regulations. Section 5.11 renewable energy accessory solar photovoltaic installations slash battery energy storage systems uses and 6.2 fences and article 12
definitions. So um we had in our packet uh new version of the of this proposed bylaw. I think we're up to version 13B.
So, I'm not sure why we went started adding letters as opposed to just going to article number 14, but anyway, not my decision. Um, so this is a I mean board members uh with the exception of Roy um
you all participated in the last two meetings with the CRC about this and um this is our chance to discuss this bylaw without CRC uh directly involved. Although I know that one member of CRC is is still in
the attendees list. Um uh my question for you is how are you feeling about this bylaw? You know, we're under a time deadline or the town is under a deadline from the state to have a bylaw in place or risk having the
state take over approval of these kinds of projects. Um, are you feeling positive uh about recommending the bylaw in its current form to council for enactment?
Uh, or do you have concerns that we probably need to convey to CRC uh that you know would need to be addressed in order to recommend it? So that's my basic question for the board. uh happy to talk about anything else
related to this uh but I would like to hear from you all. So Jesse, >> I guess my my only concern is that certainly I'm no expert in these things and I feel like several times in the
very long discussions we've had points have been brought up where no one in the room was knowledgeable and so that makes me somewhat uncomfortable and it makes me wonder a about our process but I think that's a different conversation but I just hope
someone who is knowledgeable is looking at these points and changing it appropriately and like I mean at this point I just have to trust that that's happening. So I guess I just wanted to comment just make that comment. So that's >> yeah Jesse I think that came up or that
was obvious in the last meeting. Yeah. Um, and I would and I and I said to myself, um, gee, I guess this is what it's like to be a legislator because >> yes, >> all those guys in the legislature, they're not experts about, you know,
much of anything except for legislative procedure and they have to rely on, you know, the, you know, everybody else that's trying to whisper in their ear about how things should be. >> Yeah. So I guess I guess my real comment then
I would make is for the planning board which is when these things happen if if there's a way to curtail the conversation to say oh quickly say okay we shouldn't talk about this for 20 minutes because none of us really know >> and move on. Well, I mean, worst case, you know, we'll we'll we'll enact
something and then the next person that wants to do something will say >> correct >> stupid or take us to court or >> something will cause us to to realize we made a mistake. >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks,
>> uh, Angus. >> Yeah. I I have a clarifying question and then I guess a couple of thoughts in response to the question you posed to us, Doug. Um we have not this is what's been sent the the version that we're seeing is the one that's been sent to KP
Law but not the one we we have not gotten their thoughts on it yet. >> That's right. That's right. You know my question or you know tonight's discussion is just about what we have before us. Um we do hope to get the KP law reaction
you know between now and the 15th. uh because you know CRC is hoping that we can recommend this to council on the 15th to kind of keep up with the timeline that they have for getting it through council and and enacted.
>> So you're right. We haven't seen anything but I'm assuming and Walker maybe you can confirm this. um as soon as we get answers from from KP Law that can be distributed to us uh you know I
don't think we need to wait for the packet uh but and I hope it comes at least in time to go into the packet if it's not sooner um >> that's my understanding I can that's my understanding is that it will be sent directly to everyone as soon as it's received
>> good so I guess my my only thoughts in response this this has been a long and drawn out process and I know we're only coming in at the very tail end of what's been a much longer process. So so kudos to the CRC for how much they've they've done on this. Um I'll just share what
I've basically shared throughout this process which is that I I'm concerned I've been concerned throughout about the length of the bylaw. I understand that the state uh model bylaw is also lengthy um but we have added additional requirements particularly around
groundwater that seem excessive to me and we've uh limited um placed more limits on where these kinds of projects are allowed in the use table um at the
end of the document that are um much greater than what the state recommends. Um, and we have stated that our goal with this bylaw is to ensure that we're able to have uh to streamline the
process and to allow for more so more clean energy construction. Um, that's done safely and in keeping with our community's values. I think that's a great goal. I worry that this bylaw, as it's currently written, um, throws up more impediments than is
necessary if the goal is to actually create more clean energy. Um, so I appreciate that. >> Are there specific things you would, you know, either change in that table or strike? You know, I I was surprised that
there were there were no, you know, no nowhere in town would a tier three installation be allowed without special permit, right? And I brought that up and um that conversation did result in a
slight increase in the category of of tier 2, but it didn't, you know, I mean, you know, to really power our society with electrical. solar power. We need a lot more than just a few tier twos
around town. Um, you know, if we're going to consider ourselves self-sufficient, and I'm not sure that's really an objective, but, you know, are do we are we really, you know, are we okay with that? >> What What were the things that you might
tweak if you had a chance? >> It was a number of the things that that we brought up in the in the lengthy meetings. Um and and similar to what what you just said, Doug, I I think the consensus from the CRC um was greater resistance to some of those things and that's fine. Um this is
a deliberative process and ultimately the town council makes the call on these things. So I would have reduced some of the more of the distances or eliminated the distances around private wells um and reduced them around public wells. Um any and most of the requirements that
are specific to clean energy installations especially the solar installations that would not apply to any other kind of um industrial use including fossil fuel uses like gas stations. I would try and remove from
the bylaw. um that was not wellreceived um or I mean at a certain a few points we we made changes right but but we compromised so those are the things that I would I would be looking forward differently um but this you know we we live in a democracy it's a deliberative
process and so I also respect that you know the the CRC and the town council have other priorities that they're also balancing apart from the ones that we as planning board members are prioritizing >> well we can certainly put those kinds of things into our letter of recommendation to council. You know, um we don't have
to say that we're accepting the current draft wholesale. Um we could say that we, you know, have reservations about some of those distances and that the bylaw is not quite as uh
supportive uh as we would like it to be. Um, you know, I'm certainly comfortable working with Walker on that kind of language if if that's a consensus feeling of the board. All right, Angus, you muted yourself, so I'm going to assume you've you've
finished what you wanted to say at this moment. Um, I will say I've I was very disappointed in the state's model bylaw. uh it gave people who are opposed to development of solar power
uh you know a a leg to stand on in terms of hey look the the the model bylaw says you know you don't need to have any you know you can be relatively restrictive and um you know and so why should we be
more liberal than the state bylaw or the state model? So, um, yeah, I'm surpris I I' I'd like to know how that model by got promulgated because,
uh, it doesn't seem like there were any real advocates in the room. Bruce, I broadly agree with Angus and and with you as well, uh, in your general, um,
statement about what are we trying to achieve here? who are we trying to support, which team do we want to put our money on and and and so forth. I think uh I I agree that that that we should a letter uh I mean I'm I'm
supportive of the bylaw. I I know that we've had now considerable discussion on this um and that we this bylaw has has been changed um based on the advocacy
that Angus and and I have made and on the drinking water side distancing things and and on on in other ways by others Fred's for example yours uh um Doug But so I but I think the letter
should say we've we've engaged, we've noticed it, we've been able to persuade to some degree, but uh that doesn't represent uh a full uh um reflection of the the views of several members of this
board. um uh particularly from my point of view on the drinking water uh setbacks uh for wells private well particularly uh from solar arrays I'm less concerned about best partly because I don't know enough about it partly because I think we all
know that we know enough to know that it's a small concentrated area and not a broad um distributed area as the arrays we certainly know of so less concerned about the best much more concerned about setbacks from arrays so broadly speaking
Uh I think uh we should uh be prepared to write a letter of conditional support. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh Fred, any thoughts from you? Uh and Roy, I'm going to offer you the
opportunity to comment on something you haven't spent much time with. So, um either of you want to say anything, >> Fred? Well, I I would just uh I
am struck uh the uh Bruce has made some very uh I think interesting analysis regarding uh the uh uh amount of space required for
uh the the boundaries of and the edges of these installations and the way that they count and uh That's something I'm uh thinking a lot about as we go forward with this.
>> All right. Thanks, Fred. All right. Um Roy, I'll give you one more chance. If you want to say anything, you can just say you don't have anything to say. Are you looking for where you unmute? If
you are in the lower left corner, lower left corner of your screen, you should see a little microphone symbol that you Yeah, there you go. You're clicking it on and off. I can see that. But right now, it's off. Uh, you got it on. You had it on for a
moment, but uh now it's off. So, we cannot hear you. Actually, let me see if >> can Pam unmute him or can you? >> Yeah, I was we heard Roy at the beginning of >> ask him to unmute but I can't unmute him.
>> Right. There's a microphone down in the lower left hand corner like an old time an old time microphone. It should say audio underneath it and you click it. >> You have to bring your cursor over there for it to show.
>> You can also just hold your space bar down. >> Oh, really? Hold the space bar down. That'll do it. >> I didn't know that. Good information. Jesse must be a power user on >> I know Zoom
>> gets the gold star today. >> All right. Well, it doesn't seem to be working for Roy. So, Roy, I'm not gonna hold you hold. >> There we go. >> There you go. >> There was technical difficulty. I could
not get that to switch out. Um I I've read it over. I probably need to study it a lot more. Um and I I'm interested in maybe in if we're not going to be voting on anything to pass tonight, I I'd like to talk to someone that actually installs the uh some of these
solar arrays to see what they think, too. >> Yeah. And that that's something or your comment along with Jesse's reminds me, you know, this project this process started with a solar bylaw working group
probably four years ago and I assume that group had some contact with the solar industry, but I don't know. So, >> when Jesse brought this up before, it
didn't seem like there had been conversations with um solar industry representatives because I think Jesse asked a similar question at one of our meetings. >> Yeah. So, we'll go with what we know or and assume everything else is
right because of somebody else's input. Okay. So, um, unless you know, well, I guess I guess I'll ask for public comment if there's we have two members of the public remaining. Um, do any either of you
members want to say anything at this moment? Um, we will we will be continuing this hearing to July 15 at 6:35. Um, okay, let's bring over Pam Rooney.
Hello Pam. >> Hi. Uh, I'll speak as a CRC member. uh in terms of input from the development side of solar bylaw, I mean the solar construction
um on the working group was a member uh who was also on the concom um works for solar development and she was she was viewed as sort of the um subject matter expert and so had both
concom com hat and solar solar development. I I can't speak beyond that. I just happen to know that particular fact. Um they did an extensive review with agravtaics with
farming with um a number of of elements but I do not know if they actually brought in people who do the construction. Sorry, I don't have that information. Okay, that's fine. Thank you.
All right, I don't see any other public comment. And board members, um I I appreciate this conversation tonight. I think that gives us enough uh for for Walker and me to uh to draft
some sort of uh recommendation letter to council or we could get started on it. You know, we'll see where we end up on the 15th. All right. So, um, without further ado, I guess I'll make a motion to continue this hearing to six to July 15th at 6:35
p.m. Uh, may I have a second? >> Doesn't it need to be later than that, Doug? >> No, I think we kind of already agreed. >> Oh, right. Sorry. >> Do that this one at 6:35 so CRC can show
up. Then I second. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Board members, any other uh conversation about the clean energy bylaw? Okay.
Then we will vote on that. >> Starting again. I'll start with you, Bruce. I >> thank you Fred. >> I >> Angus. >> Hi, >> Jesse. >> I
>> uh Roy >> I >> and I'm an I as well. So that's six in favor, one member absent. Thank you all.
All right, next item on our agenda for this evening. The time is 8:26. Uh is a conversation about the East Ammerst local historic district proposal. Um Walker, you want to make an introduction here?
>> Well, I can, but also I got a request from the members of the local historic district commission to be moved to your next meeting. Um they were some of the members were not unable to stay this late into the meeting. So, they were they were going to request being put on
the agenda earlier next time. Um because >> well, you know, we already are gonna we're already going to have the clean energy bylaw and then >> 174 Amity Street next time as our first two substantive topics.
>> Yeah. Will they will they be able to stay late enough next time? that the lateness seems to be the problem. But um I mean I can explain to them that we are still going to have those two hearings. >> I mean we could have a conversation
without them. >> That is also possible. Yeah, I can present. >> Is this time is this time sensitive? I guess is maybe the question. I I Jesse I do see your hand. >> It's not particularly timesensitive. I don't think there's enough urgency that we need to talk about it tonight
specifically. >> Okay. All right. Uh, in that case, Jesse, what would you like to say? >> Thanks. Uh, just to add that both last meeting and then in between the meetings and then tonight, I've had some interactions with some of the uh historic commission members who wanted
to be present. Also, I think the issue is not just how late it gets, but not knowing when. So, I know there was a significant frustration from two weeks ago of basically waiting through whatever it was three hours and then not happening. >> Yeah. So my guess is if if possible, if
we can make a time for them and try and be close to that, I think that would solve the issue. >> So if we said, "Oh, we're going to do this at our as the first substantive item in at our first meeting in August." >> They'd be fine with that.
>> I I mean, I can't speak to that, but my guess would be yes. >> I think that would probably be preferable. We had an arrangement where I was supposed to let them know when they were going to be on the agenda tonight so they wouldn't have to wait so long, but they still felt that it was getting too late. So, I think they would rather wait till you have a meeting that maybe doesn't have as many hearings so
they can be earlier. >> All right. So, >> August, >> Pam and Walker, what do we know about August? How does that look? >> Do we do we have anything's on the horizon?
>> No. August 5th is wide open in my book. blocker. Do you >> Yeah, the only thing I know of is the um East Ammerst zoning RFP is going to be a topic of discussion at that point, but that's not a public hearing. Um >> and we could make that the second item. >> Make that the second item. Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. Well, that's fine with me. I don't need to draw this out tonight. Um >> and if this is not a particularly time-sensitive thing, then why don't we do that? Okay, I will let them know
that. >> And Pam, I've just pencil this in for 6:35 on on August 5th, I guess. >> Yes. Yep. I made a note here. >> And then, right,
>> Walker, can you say with certainty that we're going to do the East Ammeris RFP on that night, too? Well, actually, this was going to be one of my topics when we get to the staff report section, but um I do have kind of a timeline
>> that we're going to be running on. >> Okay. All right. >> Okay. >> Well, I mean, we could make it later. I mean, we could tell them we're not going to do it until the first one in September. I mean, but I'm not sure we
need to do that yet. >> Yeah. Why don't Why don't we just Why don't we just plan on August 5th and as things as we get later in July, we can see whether we need to adjust. >> Okay.
>> All right. Um general housing discussion. um review potential zoning amendments that would allow housing in the professional and research park zoning district. We've had this on a couple of uh agendas and Angus is here.
Our I think you're the author of this, are you not? >> I am. >> All right. So, um I actually I don't see that proposal in my packet that I was given as a hard
copy by Pam, but uh is that something we're ready to actually discuss tonight or should we hold off? >> It's in the online packet. >> It is. Okay. Well, well, let's >> And it's been in I think it's been in previous packets as well. Yeah. So, it
might have been You got an earlier edition. Um, if there was if there was something new, Angus. Okay. Even I didn't get that. So, Doug, when I asked you last time if I needed to reprint it, you were like, "No, no, >> I I have it."
>> I remember saying, "Okay, that's fine. I could have pulled it out." So, >> so I didn't. That That's fine. Let's go ahead. >> Um, >> so Angus, uh, or or Pam, do you want to bring this up? Bring up the document. And uh
>> Angus, do you want to do it so you have control over it or would you like me? >> Uh, no, you can do it. Just just the memo. >> Okay. >> It's it's pretty simple. Okay. Can you see it? >> Yeah. >> Make it a little bit larger so we can
>> maybe read it. >> Okay. How we doing? >> Great. >> Okay. Um so I can I can just give a brief orientation to this. Um so the goal is we we've heard from um different developers. We've heard also from the
planning department that um it could be useful to allow housing in the PRP, the professional research park zone. Um and uh so the uh what I then have done over the last few months is kind of met with different developers to talk with them.
Um the housing subcommittee had a number of conversations around different strategies for um how we could allow housing in the PRP. There's uh three PRP zones in the town of Ammerst. Um and uh so what you have here is kind of the
attempt to to create opportunities for mixeduse buildings and medium density housing outside of downtown in the PRP. the PRP are these three outlying districts um that have not seen the kind of development that they were um
designed to foster um to the degree that we were hoping for when they were created um in previous decades. So um all of these changes are meant to be consistent with different housing priorities and the the production plan um as well as the master plan. Um, and
if you scroll down um to the components, there's basically three things that I'm that I'm proposing. Um, one is uh reszoning uh a few properties that are currently in the office park designation. There is only one part of
town that is uh zoned office park. Um it's where the the I think it's the Kulie Dickinson um branches. Um and uh this was at instigation of the town staff. it would be reszoning those properties to limited business BL. Those also all are currently in the University
Drive overlay. So, um the the changes to to that I'm suggesting here for for PRP don't really apply in the same way there anyway because of the overlay. Um and uh the office park designation is doing very little for the town otherwise. So then the second proposal is to eliminate
the separate office park district um with those few properties having been moved to limited business. Then third is the more complicated thing which is to change PRP to allow all office park uses. There's only a few places really where that that
that means anything. And then to allow town houses and apartments um with no dwelling unit ceiling and mixeduse developments in the professional research park district. And so everything else that follows in this memo is outlining uh the specific
changes across the bylaws um as a result of those three components. Um and you can find them in the in the um uh other documents that were attached. Um it's complicated. Um it turns out that I was expecting that the bylaws were like one
word document and town staff helped me understand that it's each um article is a separate word document. Um, and then there's also the Excel with the use table, which is pretty complicated. Um, so anyway, so I've tried to outline all of the the changes here, so you can then
quickly reference where those changes are in the actual bylaw. A bunch of them are just semantic. It's deleting Office Park verbiage across the bylaws. Um, uh, and then a few of them are the more substantive of allowing specific, um,
kinds of uses in the PRP. um changing uh lot coverage um maximums um and building coverage in the PRP, that kind of a thing. Um so happy to to answer specific questions if anyone has them, but that's
kind of the the goal here. >> Thanks, Angus. Angus, um Oops. >> You mentioned that the apartments would have no dwelling unit limit. Why is that? I I I thought our apartment definition
had a limit of 24 units. Is that And why would this be different? >> Um it would be a way of trying to increase the the cap on apartment buildings. We have a bunch of non-conforming apartments that h that are in excess of that cap. Um and so
this would be trying to give the option of creating larger apartment complexes that would follow those non-conforming units but be conforming. I see. Okay. >> And this this these are some of the few areas there's there's a bunch of issues in these ERP zones with wetlands. I the
way I perceive it and I haven't gone back and done the historical research to see if this was true when they were created. They seem like uh to me kind of leftover lands that the town was trying to do something with. And so they are not ideal building lands. Um, so I don't know what could actually be built here,
but they're clearly not good for subdivisions um or or kinds of uh uh uh I think concentrated housing seems like it would be one of the only things you could fit on some of these parcels when you're dealing with the wetlands issues that that they're going to have. So they look
on the map like they're oh it's big chunks of land, but as um Nate has pointed out in our housing subcommittee meetings, a bunch of them are not developable. So, I think it's trying to to kind of jump over that like, you know, smaller density housing and just
jump straight to medium density housing. >> Okay. All right. Um, so I assume Angus and Jesse and Bruce and maybe Fred, uh, the members of the housing subcommittee
that that you all are are in support of this. Is that true? true of me. >> What's that? >> Uh, I'm supportive. I I congratulate Angus on a very thorough job. I don't
know how he does it with all of the other things he's got in his life at the moment. Um and uh I'm pleased that we're picking up it tonight because uh this has been something that we discussed um
probably in the in the in in the in in February plus or minus and and in Angus' run with this ball and and this is what we see this elaborate uh carefully prepared document. uh and I'm uh I'm supportive uh and and
I guess the question would be is is this the uh format in which we would send this uh to the um to to the uh council for a referral
>> we expect to make all of the changes to the bylaw before we actually got their general thought that this is worth pursuing. >> Yeah. Well, we'll get to that question. >> Um, Brett, I actually Walker and then Jesse
and then Fred. >> Um, I do have some thoughts and questions that we can go to me after you've heard from the other board members. I also did map them out just so we could see the wetland issues and kind of like the feasibility of some of the development on these properties if
anyone's interested in seeing the maps. >> Okay. Well, well, let's come back to that. Um, and so Jesse and then Fred and then we'll come back to Walkers. >> Thanks. Um, excuse me. Uh, definitely supportive. Bruce took a lot of the
words out of my mouth. I'm also very Yes, I think it's a fantastic thorough job. We've been talking about it for a long time. >> Uh, thumbs up. Okay. Curious to see how this proceeds as well. >> All right. And then Fred. >> Yeah, I am also fully supportive of this approach.
>> Okay. Thank you all. So, Walker, yeah, why don't you bring up your uh your graphics >> and Pam, I guess you'll need to stop sharing. >> You should have You should be able to just grab it from me, Walker, as a >> Oh, as a
>> Okay. Well, anyway, >> that's okay, though. Thanks for telling me. Um, so here's I did them each in their own kind of like bubble. Um, this one to the left of the screen is the one that's by
um, Northampton Road into Hadley where Green Leaves Drive Apartments is. Um, the one area that I thought had significant potential development potential is the one that's on Green Leaf's Drive. Um, one of my questions I
had is I don't know, Angus, you said you talked to some developers. Did you reach out directly to the property owners in any of these areas? >> Uh, yes. I reached out to property owner on the PRP off of um Old Beluretown Road. >> Mhm.
>> Um, but I haven't reached out to other people. Okay, I know that there have been discussions with the property owner here about reszoning this area because at the moment he really can't do anything with this empty empty spot. And also, this is an example of units that
are currently non-conforming because they have 39 units per building instead of 24. So, raising the cap on apartment buildings would make sense um for this area in particular. I don't I'd like to hear more about a discussion about why
you're proposing removing the cap rather than just raising it enough to make the existing buildings conforming. Um, but that might be a discussion for another time. And the one to the right is over by Sunderland Road. There is a pretty
significant usable area here in the middle. It's supposed to tell you how many acres and it doesn't, but it's almost 7 acres. I'm not sure if there's access to that spot though. And then there's this solar field down here and a small lot kind of in the middle here. Uh Angus, did you have a comment on that
one? >> Yeah. Well, I was just going to say, isn't isn't the southern portion of this uh PRP zone also where the proposal was um to build senior housing? >> Possibly. I'm not I was not super familiar with that project. It was it
was the proposal that a a group sued over and the developer pulled out and part of that lawsuit was saying that they were suggesting building apartments in PRP which doesn't allow apartments. >> Okay. Yeah, I'd have to do more research on that. I think this southern lot also
has some potential. A lot of these are currently single family homes, I believe. Um and then this one is the one on Belttown Road. It probably I think it's the only one that actually has office
uh like research or office style development in it. I don't know if that's as a result of the PRP or if that pre-existed it. Um there's some potential here as well. I believe this is another this might be the property owner you talked to and I believe this is another property owner who has previously discussed with the town some
options for this particular piece of land. So just a caveat, this is obviously GIS information. These wetlands aren't accurate. It also includes buffer zones which sometimes can be more developable than the actual resource areas. But I did want to just
have give people a chance to see the districts and see where the resource areas are within here. >> This is great. >> So um you know so we so if if the board is generally in favor of trying to move
this forward. It seems like from the conversation we had with Jeff Bags uh maybe six weeks ago that it would be kind of the next step before actually recommending it to town council would be
to informally or or formally, I don't know, show show this to CRC and see if they would be on board uh before we actually try to start a time clock with town council. So,
Walker, are you a liaison to CRC? >> I am not. Um, but I I'm actually not sure who is, but I can me and Jeff can discuss who would be best to bring this to them. And I'll send this to everybody. This is my list
of things that I had thought of that I'm not sure since I wasn't part of the original conversation if these were considered or not. Um, so I'd just be interested in seeing uh any thoughts on this. And then um we will also need to run it by Rob or should run it by Rob before
>> you make any recommendations >> right okay Bruce I see your your hand >> I think that we in the in the Jeff Bag discussion I think uh Rob Mora was also a a comp someone or that we thought
should uh prudently look at this and uh just to make it make sure we this we haven't forgotten anything. >> Yeah. So maybe maybe Walker um let's see you you have this document
that we're looking at which I guess has these two pages. >> This is I have one page that's a word document with some questions um and thoughts on it and then I have a separate document that has the maps on it >> and I can send both of those to everybody. >> Well, I mean do you want to show us the
word document at the moment? Is it not showing up? I thought I'd switched over. >> No, we're still seeing the plan. >> Might have to stop and then restart. Okay. Is that >> great? Yes. Now we see it. >> Great. So, it's just a few questions. Um, and
again, these might already have been discussed. And I put number four here, but I do think that this is probably a worthwhile change. It seems like a positive change to me. So, um I think there's enough enough uh potential here.
>> All right. So, I see three hands, Jesse, Bruce, and Angus popped up in that order. Uh, I'll leave it to the three of you to decide how who wants to talk first. >> I would defer to Angus because I'm basically interested in whether he would
have time to review this uh list >> before his child is born. >> Indeed. >> I mean, yeah, I can I can just say jump in with with a few thoughts. Um, for number one, I I I think that's great. Um, I think reaching out to I I I'm not
going to have time to reach out to to um more owners in the next few weeks, but I think I think that's useful. Although, frankly, I I don't um for both one and four, um I think the the way that I view the the the zoning the proposed zoning
change, um and I guess this also goes to five, um is that it's only opening up options. All the old options for PRP remain. Um, so the the the people that I've spoken to indicate that professional research park, office park developments are just not going to happen and especially not in a market
like Ammerst. So, um, I think it's great to allow all of those uses still and just to create new opportunities for these lots that have largely gone undeveloped. >> Um, in terms of the density, >> can I comment on that real quick? I think I agree with you. I think my
thought with number one is more like >> are people interested in apartments? are they interested in like what type of use are people really looking to develop so that we can make sure that the zoning changes are going to accommodate that most effectively um and that you're not missing something that someone's going
to want to do. >> Yeah, I mean I think that makes sense. I think also if you're if you're trying to um you know for for instance Nate talked a lot with us about uh the potential for different smart overlay um districts or for small house overlay districts. I
think those are all great. I think those are a lot more work. And so part of what I'm also trying to keep keep in mind is number four that this is I think a pretty light lift um that would allow some options and push towards higher density housing that would um generate a
lot more units for for people. Um but but other options that might produce um you know starter homes or that kind of a thing is going to require more work on our part. and this housing subcommittee looked into some different options around starter homes and it was
challenging for us to envision that in an a a quick and orderly fashion. Um but but I hear you Walker and I think it you you know you're bringing up good points. Um and I'll just also add >> um I was just going to add on on the memo itself on the final page there is a
comment that I left >> um around dimensional regulations which is basically that we could also increase maximum building or lot coverage percentages. we could increase floors and and building heights. Um, so I I didn't want to do all of that because I
don't know what the planning board would be comfortable with recommending and what and to the third point about impacts on housing densities in these areas, they're outlying. So apart from the one on Route 9, they're pretty lowung areas. Um, and so it would be a
departure. Um at the same time we we've we've departed in other areas as well and they all have great metro um connections through PBTA bus stops. So um so you know the these are some of the things that I'm I'm thinking about in response to to the things here. And in
terms of of uh you know what what's realistic on the maps that that Walker showed us because because Nate showed us these maps too. That's tough. But I'm I'm I'd like to see what developers can come up with is I is I think what my response would be and I don't think it's our job to, you know, determine well
that it was zoned PRP to promote development. And so I think our goal should be to try and promote development um of other kinds of buildings even if the office park research park isn't going to work. So those are just some initial thoughts. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh, Walker, do you want to
react to that or should we go on to >> Um, just to say that I think those are all also good points and I think that um we we can keep talking about it, but I think we're on the right track with this. So, Walker, um,
you know, given that that Angus is about to become much less available, um, would is this is this is this particular proposal something that you would be would have the time to kind of
pick up and maybe try to contact a few of the owners and think about what would be reasonable dimensional reg uh, parameters to inor incorporate into the proposal. >> To be totally honest, I'm not probably
going to have time in the next couple weeks. Um, I've got a bunch of grant stuff due because of the fiscal year and also >> I don't know how many of you are aware, but our other planner, Justinta Williams, resigned. >> So, >> oh gosh, >> we are down another staff member at the moment. Um,
>> and but I would like to keep this going if anybody else was willing to try to do that or I can come back in a couple weeks and take another look at it. Okay, so we've got that on the table and we'll see if anybody wants to pick it up. All right, let's go to Jesse and then Roy.
>> Thanks. Um, I was going to ask sort of about next steps, but I'll ignore that for now because you did that, Doug. Um, I guess it's a question about this and other potential things that might come up in the future. On that first point, do we actually have what's the what's
the town's responsibility to contact owners when zoning is going to change? Is there any actual requirement? Is it just courtesy that staff has always done? Like what is there actual requirements for these things? Yeah,
>> I I mean you can answer that if you know or I can answer it, Doug. >> Go ahead, Walker. >> Um I think there's two layers here. One is that out of courtesy, we can reach out to specifically building owners who would potentially be interested in developing or have vacant lots or lots
with room to develop just to have a conversation with them to make sure that we're working with them and see what they want to do. And then in order to pass the zoning, we have to have a public hearing in which case we are required to um send notice to everybody who lives within the impacted district. So they everybody will get a public
hearing notice. Thanks. >> All right, Roy, you'll need to unmute. Oh, there we go. Yeah, three points. This is on the right track, like Walker said, and thank Angus uh for putting
this together. Um, I'd be interested in contacting the owners and um, need a little help to get started on that. Um, and then my third question or point is it looked like one of the areas I was looking real quick. It looked like it's
where the dog park uh, was put. Is that true? One of those sites. >> Yes. One of the lots down by Belchure Town Road is the old landfill. >> Not developable. >> Okay. So, it was one of the sites that it looked
like we could look at, but we can't develop the dog park. We just spent a lot of money on that, right? >> Yeah. And we can't develop the landfill as housing. >> So, Roy, it's it's within this zone, >> but it's not going to be something that's actually feasible for
development. >> Okay. But I'd be interested in helping uh and maybe Walker could get me started on contacting the owners. Yeah, we can work together on that. >> That would be great.
>> Thank you, Roy. >> Thank you. I might I might have to lean on you, Angus, a little bit. So, >> all right. Thank you, Roy, for volunteering there. So, uh it sounds
like we've got a little more work to do with this. Um, Walker, I think at any point you could talk to Rob Mora or you and you could figure out how to kind of get this in front of CRC.
>> Okay. Yeah, I'll work on the next steps. >> You know, I mean, this doesn't have a particular deadline and but it is something we've spent some time on. The board supports. Um, so I think you don't need to make it your priority in the next couple of weeks, but uh, you know,
if you can keep it kind of uh, in the mix of things that when you have time you can get to, that'd be great. >> Okay, sounds good. >> And in the meantime, we can figure out how to get Roy going with owners and um, you know, I probably have time to think
about dimensional regulations if no one else wants to jump in on that. Um, Roy, is your hand still up because you want to say something else? >> No, I I didn't know I had to lower my hand. I'll lower >> Well, I can lower it for you, but I don't like to do that unless I'm sure
you're done. >> No, lower my hand. >> Okay. And then you can remute yourself. Um, so then we'll go to Bruce and then after that, Angus. Um, on the subject of uh, communicating with CRC, I can't help but notice that
the chair of CRC is listening to this conversation. >> That's right. I I agree. >> You want to talk to her? >> Well, I mean, happy happy to have Pam uh, raise her hand if she wants to have
a conversation, but uh, it seems like we're not quite ready. you know, we don't really have all of our loose ends tied up and I think Rob Mora probably would be good to talk to before we start to take time from CRC.
>> Yeah, I certainly agree with that. But but I think we've also agreed that we don't need to or we shouldn't expect to do a a definitive job before we then pass it off. I think it's I think that what Angus has prepared is exactly the
kind of synopsis more than a synopsis um conceptual proposal solid conceptual proposal for a change and I think it's definitely ready uh to for the for for for other entities such
as the CRC and and Rob Mara but let's put it in the reverse order to comment. So I'm not sure that uh what Royy's doing and so forth is something that needs to be done before we move forward with the concept to see whether the uh
adjacent entities are are are interested. I think I think now's the time. >> All right, that's a reasonable point. All right. Um Angus, >> yeah, I would I would agree. I I think it'd be good to to send the memo to CRC
and try to see if I know they're busy, but to try and and have something about it on their agenda just so that we can get a sense of is this something they're interested in exploring or is this something that they are completely uninterested in doing. They feel like PRP is working just fine as is because
we should not spend more time on this if they are not interested. Um, and Roy should not be spending his time. Walker should not be spending her precious time on it. Um, and I'll just add for for Walker, um, I met with Ron Leverier, um, who owns the Ammerst Office Park and,
um, I think the, um, doctor's offices over on Old Belchuretown Road. Um, so he was the property owner that I met with. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Hey, Jesse. >> Thanks. Yeah, just to remind us at least my memory of the conversation with Jeff
Bag where he basically told us to slow down was that we need to have things in better shape before they move forward and this the work Angus has done is I mean in my view farther along than a lot of other things in the past two years we've tried to move along. So I don't
see why we wouldn't do that for all the reasons you all just stated about not continuing effort if other parties are not interested. >> Okay. All right. Um, Walker, would it make sense for us to just put this on the agenda, say, in the
middle of August? >> I think that seems reasonable. Yeah. >> Just just to get an update from you and maybe from Roy and, you know, um, just kind of to touch base on where we're at. >> Okay.
have a hand up. >> I'm sorry. I see Jesse's hand. >> Yeah, thanks. Maybe if it's going to come back in August, could we have Rob look at it by then or get it in front of him or maybe he could join that meeting for this purpose? >> Yeah, my hope was to get it in front of
Rob um and work with Roy and take another look at it before that meeting. >> Good. Great. All right. All right. The time is 9:01. We'll move on to old business. Do we have any
topics not anticipated, Pam or Walker? >> Not from not from Nade. >> All right. None. And then any from new for new business? Angus.
>> Yeah, I I I um I the comment that I made earlier about the development over on on Sun off of Sunderland Road. Um can anyone speak to um I so my understanding is a lawsuit was filed
against the company who had developed a bunch of the um previously developed a bunch of that the um housing in the the mill district. Um, and the plan was for to for this developer, Beacon Hill, maybe to to develop housing um,
partially in the in the PRP, but this lawsuit led them to pull out. I I don't know if anyone else has any comments about that, but um, I I just wanted to spend a moment talking about it. I think Jara might have spoken about the project
at at another board meeting as well. Um, I know he's not here tonight, but um, it's a it seems like an unfortunate loss of a lot of senior housing. Um, which is a a shame. So, I I feel like it's something maybe we should talk about.
>> Um, Bruce, >> this project is up was the project in question is up in my end of town. Uh, and I think I I attended one of the public meetings associated with this and
there was a strong opposition to it. Um, I don't know whether there was a an actual lawsuit or the the threat of a lawsuit. Um, and I think and this was a a 40B or would have been a 40B so it wouldn't it would have been outside of
our u zoning. Uh and the question in the meeting and I guess to the town was whether this was going to be a friendly 40b or not. And I think the general consensus was it wasn't going to be friendly enough. And I think Beacon who've got opportunities all over the state probably uh took the temperature
of the waters and decided that there would be better fish to fry in other places. That's my understanding. Uh it wouldn't it's not terribly authoritative, but I think it's more or less correct. I did find an article about it just now.
Um it does it was going to be affordable housing. It was going to be a 40B. Beacon chose to um withdraw because of the amount of local opposition from people, but they could have done it through the zoning because it was going to be a 40B
potentially. Jesse. >> Yeah, just to add, I mean, I learned about it through watching meetings and reading also the articles. My main concern, honestly, was the effect it's going to have on any future possibilities like this, too. If that's
the that's what developers are seeing happening here. I think that's that's not great. >> The other issue that it mentions is that there's no sewer to that location yet, which does limit development. Um, I know the town has talked about putting a grant in to get sewer down to that part
of town, which would I think encourage developers. Um I guess it should be said that uh although that I was at that meeting and there was a I was almost the lone supporter of uh in concept or in principle of this uh and I questioned
the um I don't know the the good uh sense of everybody in the room and and a number of people responded that that this that it wasn't that the neighborhood was anti-development and so
forth. And they brought the Ball Lane project across the road from this as a quest as an example of a project that was universally supported by the neighborhood and it was um so it it got a little complicated in the sense that the type of housing, the scale of
housing was what was at issue. Um Ball Lane is quite dense but it's low rise. This one was going to be four stories. I think the learning that you we could take from this is that four-story developments on the outer uh limits of town are likely to be frowned upon.
twotory developments are generally fine and the the the the jury's out on whether three stories I think it's a matter of design and I think people saw the designs that Beacon had produced for the north square and they're pretty clumsy and I think
they put that all together and the general sense was um not in my backyard. All right, Bruce Angus. >> I guess the the two things that I would say say in response are just I think
it's a shame, at least from from what the news coverage indicated, there was a lawsuit that um was filed before any of the documents had been brought forward by the developer. um which is clearly meant to
freak them out um and forestall any of the actual democratic processes that we have in place for trying to consider developments like this. And I think it's great that the developer proactively had a community listening session, but also
um that's not everyone who would be affected by this. um all of the potential people who would live in that kind of a development who are now going to have nowhere to live, they probably didn't come to that meeting and having a single meeting that that you know determined things anyway. So I just I
you know I and I I think that that's a shame. Um I think it's also a shame um at least based on again on the the Daily Gazette's reporting. It seems like one of the members, current members of the or former members of the ZBA was a party
to that lawsuit. Um, which also sends to me a a a pretty disappointing message around the town's um view of these of of different kinds of developments, especially around affordable housing. So, I I hear what you're saying, Bruce,
and I and I appreciate that you were there and that and that you offered some perspectives and also that um that there is not uniform hostility to affordable housing. Um but but to me, this is part of what's animating my my push with PRP. I'd like to create more options that
allow for these kinds of of things to happen in many different parts of town, including in in the area near where I live. >> And just to be clear, that meeting was not convened by Beacon or anything. It was a purely local initiative.
>> Okay. Well, I will say um I I remember that the town manager expressed dismay at the way that whole process went too and I think there were a lot of people who were disappointed that it got uh shortcircuited so quickly.
Um, so you know, we just try to have a positive attitude and keep pushing. All right. Um, I think I asked Oh, Jesse, go ahead. >> I switched topics as long as we're
having other business. >> Yeah. Um, in other potentially contentious town news, uh, next question for staff or anyone else in the room who knows, any updates on the ADU size issue,
>> Walker, we were expecting a ZBA hearing in July. Has that been scheduled? >> I'm not sure. Um, now that Justinta's resigned, she was staffing the ZBA. So, we're trying to work on how that's going to be handled. Um, Pam, I don't know if
you know anything more about that project. >> I I don't know a lot about the project. I do know that there was a public hearing scheduled for July 23rd. It was actually posted today on the town calendar. Um,
>> sorry, that's ZBA on July 2. CBA. >> Thank you. And >> followup question, have there been like dozens of more ADUs put in since then? What's what's the status on that? Do we know anything about that? >> I only see them if they come through the
local historic district. Um, which I haven't seen any in that area. Um, I don't I'm not aware of any if there have been any others anywhere else in town. >> Thanks. Hey, Bruce. I guess this is probably something that
you could speak to as well, Doug, but um I guess the way to phrase my question or my my confusion and so forth would be am I the only member of this board or any other board that has jurisdiction in these matters or that is confused as to
why the uh the the word attic in our bylaw is deemed to be habitable or even any possibility of being habitable. when it is put in a sentence that starts with crawl spaces,
attics, garages, or similar spaces. And I think we can I think that's pretty close to a quote. So when you couple attics with crawl spaces and garages, I think it's pretty damn clear, even to a bloody lawyer, that it's not intended to
be habitable. So the question is, why are we in this situation? Why is the building commissioner believe that somehow or other an attic is in this sense of the AD habitable? It makes no sense to me at all. It seems to me that
the bylaw the way it's written should be clear and should be unequivocal. And why isn't it? and and and what do we need to do to help uh a clear understanding of how the English languages and sentences and so forth are put together so that we can
have some consistency here. I am absolutely perplexed as to why we have a problem with this and why we are how these have been building. Maybe this will be sorted out in the ZBA meeting. Um but if not it
should be sorted out pretty soon by some other means. >> Request or you know recommend another bylaw change to uh ex you know exclude addicts from the possible 900 square ft or whatever. Um >> yeah I suppose so we shouldn't need it.
It seems to be already that way. I just don't understand how it can be deemed habitable. attic in the sentence in the bylaw is clearly not intended to mean habitable space.
I mean is how can that not be clear? Well, I could use a an example from a recent Supreme Court decision that I could also say that what looks like a straightforward sentence doesn't seem to always get interpreted that way. But
let's not go there. Bruce, I don't know what to do other than just say we need to see how that ZBA hearing goes. >> Okay. Oh, >> I mean, short calm down short of scheduling a meeting with Rob >> prior to that or,
you know, proposing a bylaw change >> outside of that, I don't know what else to do. M I mean of course the frustration here is that we spent almost a year on this thing and and we get blindsided by something that's completely uh uh outside of the fence.
>> Yeah, I think it's a building code interpretation. I don't think it's a bylaw issue. All right. Um I'm going to assume there was no other new business that we needed to add to our agenda.
Pam, any form ANR subdivision applications? >> No. >> No, we're all caught up on those. >> That is correct. >> All right. Uh, we've talked about one upcoming ZBA hearing. Are there any other ZBA applications coming?
>> Um, not that I know of right now. >> Okay. And it sounds like that body's agenda may be slowed by the loss of their staff support. Is that right?
Um they just did resign although Jeff himself has stepped in um to work on ZBA. We have another staff person from the town hall I think is also going to
help support that. I'm helping to support it in some ways. Um, so I I honestly don't think things will get really slowed due to staffing. >> Okay. Well, that's great news. I'm so
glad you guys are red redistributing. >> We're trying. >> Okay. Um, upcoming SP, SPR, SUB applications, anything? >> No. No.
>> All right. Quiet is good. >> Okay. Planning board committee and liaison reports. Bruce, anything from PVPC? Did I I think we did have a meeting and then uh we didn't get to it the last
time. So the there was a meeting. uh the the the uh structure of these meetings as I mentioned possibly for Royy's benefit mostly now is that there there is a certain amount of business but there's usually one solid presentation of interest of general interest to the
uh 30 odd towns in the and this one had to do with the uh the the the rail connections and so forth. Uh so I I don't think it has a great deal to specifically to do with Amos, but it was speaking about the prospects for the
east west rails and for augmenting uh Amtrak and various things of that sort. So uh it's it's it's uh it'll be at the PP PBPC side if anyone's interested. That's what was discussed at that last meeting.
>> All right. Thank you, Angus. Anything for CPAC? >> We had our what I hope is final meeting of uh the last year. Um and uh approved um some additional funding for um the
Goodwin Memorial Church. Um which was kind of our last outstanding thing. They they needed to kind of overhaul their proposal. Um but I think town council has approved the different funding that that we've recommended. Um nothing else.
I um we probably at some point need to talk about who who would like to serve on the CPA um for the the coming session. Um >> I might be able to, but if someone else wants to take it over, I wouldn't wouldn't be hostile to that. Um
>> and I know Jarro is maybe interested. I don't know. But >> yeah, and we'll see what Royy's interested in doing, too. >> I I I think you shouldn't be quite as optimistic that you'll have time to do it myself. But >> agreed
>> we should look elsewhere first and uh yeah. So okay. So then the next item was the design review board which I had volunteered to do but uh I assume Paul
Bachelman is still kind of thinking about that so because I haven't heard anything about that moving forward. So um I have nothing to say. Nothing else to say. Um so next item on the agenda was the
report of state of chair. Um the main thing I was going to say is that with this being the be the first meeting with our new um complement of board members, we need to have uh a new election of our
officers. Um so we will need a chair, we will need a vice chair. I think the third position is clerk. Um and um so
I don't know whether we'll have room on the next meeting agenda to include those activities, but if you are interested in having one of those positions, uh you should start thinking about that.
Um you've uh everybody but Roy has been uh you know has seen how things have worked in the last year. Um, so they Roy, for your benefit, you've you've seen what I've been doing tonight
as the chair. Uh, the vice chair generally has no responsibility unless I don't show up. And in that case, they need to kind of step in and moderate the meeting. And then the third position,
the clerk, is simply the third person in line. If the first two don't show up, the clerk uh you know, if we didn't have our excellent staff support, the clerk might be responsible for minutes,
but in the way it's been working, the clerk has not been responsible for really anything. Um and um so the it's all a pretty light lift. Um, and um, I guess that's all I'll say at
the moment, but I think we should try to get that into the agenda, Walker and Pam, for sometime in the next few meetings. Bruce, >> well, I didn't put my hand up to campaign for continued services clerk, although that's uh, I simply Doug wanted
to ask you, are you prepared to continue as chair in your final year? Uh, I guess I'm I'm I'm willing to do that. I'm I'd be uh it's been it's been several years that I've been chair and
um you know, I I mean the the thrill is gone, let's say. You know, all the powers that come with being chair. Uh I've gotten so used to that. Um but uh you know, if that's what the board wants to do, that's fine. Um,
>> well, I simply wanted to know. >> Yeah, I'm not I'm not adamantly saying I'm not going to do it anymore, although I've had, >> you know, moments where I've been like, you know, I don't really have to do this next year. >> Okay. So, really, that's all I had for
reportive of staff. Angus, go ahead. >> All right. Just one quick question. Um, it might be worth um uh seeing if someone um I mean this is your this is this next year is your final
year on the board. >> It is. Yeah. >> So, part of me >> I've got one more year left on my three-year term and I'm not going to I'm probably not going to renew after that. So part of part part of me wonders if it would be wise to see if someone else would be willing to step up so that you
you'd still be on the board to kind of help them through things, but um but it's not going to be me. >> Okay. Well, that's a that's an that's a good thought. >> All right. Um Walker, report of staff.
The only thing I wanted to mention was the RFP for the East Ammerst zoning study. Um, it is out. The bid opening will be on July 7th and um, I'm going to try to get the information out to the
committee, the RFP uh, review committee the following day. So, we've determined four members of the review committee. myself, Jeff, Doug, and Rob are going to be the review committee. So, on the 8th, I will send out um the packet and like
all the proposals receive and a sort of a um chart/check checklist of the criteria. And then um there will be a meeting of the committee, we're thinking July 14th to review everybody's rankings and decide who to award it to. And then
we're hoping the award can happen within the next couple weeks. So, um, all of that to say that I think potentially at the July 15th meeting, um, if there's not too much stuff, I wouldn't mind going over some of the project timeline and expectations with
the planning board and how that's going to work. Um, and then we would want to schedule a kickoff meeting with the consultant as soon as the contract was awarded. That's the one I was thinking might be August 5th. We're going to kind of have to wait and see how long the contracting process takes. Um, but as
soon as we get the contract, we want to hit the ground running because it's taken a little bit longer than we wanted just to get the RFP out and they only have till next the end of next June to get the project done. >> So, um, Walker, you're saying
the selection of the consultant is likely to be on the 14th. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Okay. I'll put that on my calendar. Mhm. Yeah. And I will when I send out the email on the 8th, I'll confirm that date and make sure it works for everybody.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Uh, anything else from from staff? Pam, do you have anything? >> I do not. >> All right. >> Uh, are folks uh, you know, is there
anything we need to know about folks vacations this summer? Um, are there, you know, absences from meetings that you already know that you might be able to tell us about so that we, you know, if we, if it becomes clear we're not going to have a quorum, we can just not
schedule anything, that kind of thing. So, if you have any constraints like that, you know, you know, meetings you're not going to be at. Uh, if you could send that information to >> me, >> Walker and Pam and me, I guess. Angus,
we know you're gonna disappear. Uh, go ahead. >> Yeah, I don't I don't know. I mean, it sort of depends on things. I'll try to let y'all know week of if I can't make it, but I probably won't know until, you know, things are are closer and then it'll just depend on how my wife and I are handling things. But I hope not to
miss more than a couple of meetings, but but we'll just see. >> All right. Well, we wish you and your family the best. >> All right. Uh time is 9:25. Does anyone have anything else? All right, then I guess I will say that we are adjourned. We'll see you all uh
June 15th. July July 15th. >> July. >> Thank you. >> Bye. >> Good night. >> Night. >> Stop recording. Stop recording. Yeah.