 There are 248 town meeting members. 125 constitutes a quorum. The constable informs me that a quorum is present. The seventh session of the 260th annual town meeting will now come to order. The auditorium has been reserved for five additional dates beyond tonight if needed. If I could have quiet in the house, please. It is a tradition to remember former town meeting members and public servants who have passed away. Since our first session this spring, we have lost Merle House, a longtime town meeting member, and Selectman from 1965 to 1975. Please rise if you are able and let's have a moment of silence to remember our friends, neighbors, and public servants. Thank you. The seats on the floor of the auditorium may be occupied only by town meeting members except for the front row, which may be used by members of the press and by members of town committees and town staff participating in the presentation or discussion of articles. Such persons must wear non-voter stickers which are available at the check-in table. Spectators and town residents who are not town meeting members may be seated in the bleachers to the rear of the auditorium. I respectfully ask that all town meeting members seat themselves in the front section of the auditorium. If for health or other reasons, town meeting members prefer to stand or to locate themselves in the back section of the auditorium, I will not require them to move. It is permissible to vote with your electronic device from anywhere in the auditorium. I will only recognize town meeting members to speak if they are in the front section of the auditorium. New information for town meeting members can be found on the back table to my left, old information on the back table to my right. Amherst Media provides gavel to gavel coverage of our proceedings on Public Access Channel 17 and I again would like to thank their staff and volunteers. If you wish to speak, you must raise your hand and be recognized. You must hold up a card to indicate your position. Green indicates yes, red no, and a white card indicates that you wish to speak without advocacy or to ask a question. When you're called on, please first state your name and precinct, if you forget, I will interrupt and ask you to do so. If you need more than three minutes or more than five when speaking to your motion, you must request additional time before speaking and town meeting will vote on your request. Non-members who wish to speak should stand at the rear of the right hand aisle, the aisle in front of me. Any registered voter of the town of Amherst who is recognized by the moderator may speak without special permission. Others may speak with the permission of a majority. Please stand when you speak if you are physically able to do so. If you are speaking from the floor, please speak into a microphone that will be provided once you are recognized. This will allow the viewers outside of the auditorium to hear you. The microphone will be on when it is handed to you. Please hold it close to your mouth when you speak. If you're making an amendment to a motion, an amendment must be presented in writing with four copies submitted to the following people or groups. Town clerk, moderator, town manager and staff, chair of the finance committee or whichever board is seated to my left. Procedural motions such as a motion to refer or a motion to dismiss do not need to be presented in writing. If you make any motion, it must be the first thing you do after you have been recognized and have identified yourself. You cannot speak first and then make a motion. If you haven't already done so, please check your cell phone and make sure it is silenced or off. If at any point in time you're confused about proceedings, it is appropriate to call a point of order and ask for clarification. It's also always okay to phone me, send me an email or see me anytime if you need an explanation. We're now gonna test our electronic voting devices. Everybody should have their device and you should see your device number on the LED screen in front of you. Anybody who does not see their number on the screen. Okay, one equals yes, two equals no, three equals abstain. We will now do a test vote. We see yes, 51, no, 86. Shame on the 51 of you because the highest elevation is in the South along Mount Norwatak. Tonight's agenda. Tonight's agenda, we begin with Article 25 free cash and then follow that with Articles 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38. I now call on Ms. Teilman to make a motion. Actually, before I call on her, Article 25 had a Scrivener's error in the warrant. In the warrant, it reads fiscal year 2018 budget but indeed we are balancing the fiscal year 2019 budget and I ruled this a Scrivener's error so Ms. Teilman, you can now make your motion. Can we have the motion on the screen first, please? I move to appropriate and transfer the sum of $75,000 from free cash in the undesignated fund balance of the general fund to balance the fiscal year 2019 budget. Motion's been made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. That is the result of adding the 15,000 to the after school programs in the elementary school and 60,000 to community services. I'd like to give you a little background on community services and social services. Back when Larry Schaefer was the manager, which seems like many, many years ago, there was, kind of on a cyclical basis, some hard times in terms of funding. So he suggested to the finance committee and I believe the select board and we agreed to move the money that the town was appropriating for social services to the CPA grant with the understanding that if we could no longer do it through grant funding, the town would appropriate the money. The town has kept its share of the bargain. It has been in CPA money and we've done well. So let me just show you what we are spending this year on social services. Some of you ask for the CPA information. The Emmer Survival Center. Sorry. I hear point of order. Microphone's right there. Marron Blausdine? If you can, it's better to stand. If you can't, that's okay too. Marron Blausdine precinct six. I believe it's CDBG, not CPA. Yes, you are right. I'm sorry. Thank you. The Emmer's Community Connections, 40,000, Family Outreach, 35, Literacy 30, the Center for New Americans 20. In addition, the town budget has $20,000 that it uses to help people who are having difficulty with rent and utilities. And we added another 60,000 at town meeting. So we are at 245,000, slightly less than a quarter of a million in social services, and that's very good. So I wanted people to know that. We sometimes think that, not that we wouldn't want to do more, but we have done a nice share. So that's before you. I will have for the town meeting website the list of since 2011, the CP CDBG or whatever, the money that has been given to or funded to those various agencies. So you can look on the town meeting website and that will be available after tonight's meeting. So right now, we're urging you to vote to transfer that money to the budget for 2019, so it's balanced. And what was the finance committee vote on that? The six, zero with one absent. Thank you. Mr. Slater for the select board. I guess it's been. Select board unanimously recommends this to you. Thank you. There's a majority vote for passage. Is there discussion before we come to a vote? I see no hands. We'll vote up. I see a hand in the front right there. Red card. Carol Gray, precinct seven. It was my understanding that free cash was what was left over from the prior year's budget and that the recommendation is that 5% of the annual budget remain in free cash at any given time. If this is essentially putting away the money to save what is left over from last year, I would like to vote no on this because I think that saving money in the face of a great need. We talked about in the prior town meeting about preschool children who will get no preschool and who will start two years behind their peers because they are poor. That money could be used perhaps in reconsideration of a regional high school budget to fund their continuance of that preschool. I'm gonna vote no. Mr. Schlatter. Just to clarify a couple things relative to free cash. So free cash itself is an account that contains reserved money. Money we have not spent, but is available for use, which is, and it can be used for pretty much any purpose, which is why the word free is applied to it. How we accumulate money in free cash, which is one account, we have stabilization, which is the other large reserve account that we have. How we accumulate money into that account is generally by virtue of money's unspent from a budget from previous year. If we get revenues higher than expected, they might revert to free cash. In other words, if we do not spend money that's been appropriated, it often refers to free cash, if not reappropriated for some other purpose. So free cash itself is just a savings account. How money gets into that is a number of different ways. The primary one being unspent budgeted appropriations. Further discussion before a vote? I see a hand over there. Amy Middleman, precinct five. I do intend to vote for this, but I just want to say as a legislative body, we have a right to decide what the priorities of the town should be. And town meeting felt that we needed to spend more money on both social services and other things. Then we have that right. Thank you. Further discussion before a vote? Yes, right at the back of the aisle there. Are you a registered voter or an Amherst? I'm a registered voter. I'm not a town meeting member. Okay, microphone please. Hi. Are you a registered voter or an Amherst? I'm a registered voter. I'm not a town meeting member. Okay, please identify yourself and you may speak. Sorry, I'm Krista Osterling-Rising and I live in precinct seven. I also want to address the issue of preschool. I was very concerned about the vote in the last town meeting. I worked hard to try to save town meeting and I was really concerned about two things. One is that the gentleman who had his hand raised the entire time, who was representative of one of the populations most likely to be affected by this was not called on and with the purpose of that. I'm going to interrupt you and ask you to limit your remarks to the pros and cons of the motion that is before us, okay? Okay, so I too would like to see preschool restored in whatever way it can be restored and so I wouldn't like the funds to go back in the budget. I think it's really crucial fiscally in the long term as well as morally to allow these children not to start school two years behind their peers. If they do start school two years behind their peers, I've talked with friends of mine who are teachers. There will be more special education costs. There's more likelihood that they would later skip classes, drop out of school, become involved in further problems that could have way more costs to Amherst than just allowing them to have preschool. If most of the kids did not. I need you to tie your discussion into free cash or end it please. This is not a discussion about preschools. Okay, so the purpose of my discussion is to say that I would like the funds to stay available for the preschool so I would like them not to be transferred back. Mr. Slaughter. So the purpose of this article is to balance our budget. In other words, town meeting is voted to appropriate two different chunks of money, 15,000 of which is for vouchers for the preschool program currently in the elementary program. So this is how we're paying for it. So this is actually appropriating money for the purposes that town meeting expressed the other night. Further discussion before a vote. I see a hand in the back corner there. Vince O'Connor, precinct one. There were actually, in addition to the stabilization fund and free cash, there's actually another essentially reserve of the town and that's unspent balances from both capital and other appropriations which have yet to be a zeroed out. The operating budget at the end of the fiscal year when all the bills have been paid is zeroed out and any leftover funds do go into free cash but capital items are stay there. And I remember at one point maybe in the 1990s where we had to zero out maybe over a million dollars worth of unspent balances at a town meeting. So the other question I wanna address is the need for doing something about anything to do with preschool at this town meeting. I think one of the things that we should be aware of is that the chapter 70 funds that are. Mr. O'Connor, as I said to the previous speaker, I need you to tie your remarks into pros or cons of the free cash motion before you and we are not discussing funding for preschool here. Well, I'm actually advocating a yes vote on this and I'm trying to explain why people should vote yes. One of the reasons that we should vote yes is that this vote does not preclude the regional schools from spending additional funds because their chapter 70 money does not go through us directly it goes directly to the regional school. If they don't spend additional chapter 70 money that they receive from the state, they are in fact that money goes into what is called an excess and deficiency account. So in fact, the Senate budget is being debated this week. The likelihood is that the Senate budget amount and the final amount coming out of the legislature will be larger than the governor's amount, which is what both of the school budgets are based on. And so there is a possibility that the regional schools will get additional funds and that at that point, I think the appropriate venue is the regional school. For those who are concerned about the continuation of the regional school preschool appropriate forum at that point would be to go to the regional school committee and ask them to in light of any additional funds that they may have gotten under chapter 70 to use that money to fund the preschool program. That will be then up to the regional school committee but I don't think a vote no on this article would accomplish any useful purpose at this point. So I'm in favor of the article but I do think there is an alternative venue where I think the very worthy goals of some of the speakers can be accomplished. Thank you. Yes, right there in the fourth row. Cameran precinct four, I call the previous question. Motion of the previous question has been made and seconded. If two thirds of you vote yes, we will come to an immediate vote on the motion before us under article 25. All those in favor of the motion for the previous question say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator, here's two thirds. We now come, someone has requested an electronic vote so we will do it. Only requires one person, town meeting made the rule. The vote is 127 yes, seven no. Motion of the previous question has passed. I hear a point of order. Jennifer Page, precinct eight. Mr. Moderator, when we hear from someone on the select board that a vote was unanimous, am I right that that could mean there were abstentions or that could mean there were no abstentions because abstentions don't count? Yes, I don't know but the select board can answer. That's not how we report our votes. We report our votes exactly as to whether or not there were abstentions or absences being separate things. We do not follow a rule that some people follow that say abstentions don't count. We will tell you it was a five zero vote unanimous. If we say unanimous, it means all who were present voted in that direction. If there's an abstention or an absence, we will tell you that. Thank you. Okay, that's not a discussion here so I think you got your asked and answered there. We are now coming to an immediate vote on the motion before you, I think. Yes, on article 25 which requires a majority. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator, here's a majority. Whether you like somebody's comment or request or not, there should be no audible response. If any one person requests an electronic vote, we do an electronic vote. We've just wasted 15 seconds of me being annoyed at somebody so let's not do that, let's just have an electronic vote. We have 150 yes, three noes. Article 25 has passed. We now move on to article 34 and the planning board will replace the finance committee at the front table. Is there a finance committee member who uses device number 65? I now call on Mr. Caner to make a motion under article 34. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I move to amend article six, dimensional regulations of the zoning bylaw for the properties in the RO Outlying Residence Zoning District that are above 425 feet in elevation above mean sea level, NAVD 88, and are not connected to town sewer and water. That these properties shall comply with the dimensional requirements of the RLD, Residential Low Density Zoning District. Your motion's been made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. You have five minutes. I'd like to request three additional minutes. Mr. Caner has requested three additional minutes for a total of eight. Without objection, you may continue. Thank you. I would like to, sorry, I agree with the, I agreed with this change of wording in my article. You'll see the original wording on page 71 in the orange book if you are interested. But I agreed to this change of wording suggested by our building commissioner. It's a compromise that is apparently less problematic and has precedent in other communities. It does not change the official zoning map and would allow zoning to automatically revert back to RO dimensional requirements if and when town water and sewer is provided in the affected area. I'll show maps later. I am here hoping to help our town plan better for an impending problem. Without any action, we risk losing little by little the character of the rural northeast corner of Amherst. And in conjunction with this, we risk needing to provide water and sewer to this area sooner rather than later. The problems we face in these regards are different than in other areas of town. This is because of two very important facts. One, town sewer should not be provided without town water. This is because a sewer with existing private wells would draw water away from the area affecting the natural water cycles and potentially affecting aquifers. This is one reason that subdivisions now are required to provide both water and sewer, not just one. And number two, we cannot be provided by gravity. Water cannot be provided by gravity in the areas above 425 feet because our current water tower is basically only that high. These two facts combined complicate our ability to serve this part of Amherst and make the prospect very expensive. Our planning board chair has stated that town sewer and water are outdated technologies. And I actually applaud him for thinking about those because I was a town meeting member way back presenting alternatives to sewer and with the composting toilets, et cetera. So I applaud that, but I don't agree with this. He suggested that using cisterns, et cetera, for drinking water in our area would be a more current technology. Maybe he can explain the et cetera because I don't believe cisterns are a viable alternative for the hundreds of people who live in this area. Other relevant concerns, one, well data is woefully inadequate due in part to the fact that prior to October 30th, 2008, no well drilling permits or water testing was required by the town for private wells. My research has shown evidence of well problems in this area. If people have questions, I'll detail. Two, our town sewer extension master plan evaluation matrix puts this area as a high priority relative to other non-sewered areas in town. And three, a smaller lot size increases the chances of septic failure. This is stated on the aforementioned town sewer matrix and it is a reason why other communities such as Belcher Town, Brattleboro, Vermont and Winchester, New Hampshire require larger lot sizes if town water and sewer is not available. Four, the law of averages means that even if all else were equal, denser development creates more chance of well and septic failure. Five, cost estimates for soaring this area are in the multimillion dollar range with the factor of bedrock difficulties likely. Costs of building a new water tower or system of pumping stations are unknown but other communities' experiences show multimillion dollar costs likely for this as well. Finally, I'd like to talk about the character of the area which is of imminent concern. This area has a history of larger lots with numerous small farms and nine pre-1855 homesteads. The density allowed in RO zoning seems inappropriate. I will show a relevant map about this if there's time. The planning board adopted the master plan with great fanfare in 2010. Yet eight years later, our viewscapes, farmland, neighborhood character are still at significant risk in this corner of Amherst. The plan clearly states the goal of directing denser development to village centers in downtown. RLD zoning exists in many other outlying areas of town and it seems sensible as a transition from Schuetsbury's three acre town-wide minimum lot size to RLD in the northeast corner of Amherst to RO below 425 feet, then to the denser R&Zoning and Krishman Center. Please support this zoning bylaw change and help at least create this placeholder while we figure out the well issues that are coming to light and better plan how to preserve the character of this part of town while potentially saving the town significant money. I'll show as many maps as there is time. This is just the north part of town. This is only showing the areas above 425 feet in brown. The south area of town, you'll see is the Holyoke range. The Holyoke range area is not relevant because none of it is RO zone. This is, the brown is to here above 425 feet with yellow where RO zoning exists. And I'd like to just point out where I wrote the density allowed in RO at Orchard Valley. It's difficult to see because this is out of focus. It's hard to tell from the map, but that's the kind of density allowed which seems inappropriate for this area. In the northeast corner, I'll show the northeast corner close up now. Try to make north always up. So this area includes parts of East Levert Road, Flat Hills Road, Market Hill Road, Overlook Drive, High Point Drive area. It's a little odd because those colors don't reproduce very well. The yellowish green are all RLD zoning. And you'll see it's absent in the northeast corner where we have RO. These are some quotes from the master plan which I'll read. I may not have time to read them all. So I'll just read the bottom one, which is circled. The town should comprehensively review and revise its zoning and subdivision ordinances to ensure that growth management regulations are aligned with growth needs and land preservation priorities. Regulations should seek to preserve the environmental and scenic value of Amherst's significant rural landscapes. One more map. It's not a map, but the difference between RO and RLD. I hear a point of order. Hold on to the scanner. Yep. I don't know who called it or where you are. Okay, stand up please. That makes it much easier for me and the microphone holders. Jeff, me, is there a precinct three? The timer had just stopped at three minutes. It looks like it's just readjusted, so I'm gonna ignore now. We're working on that. Let's let them do this last slide and then be done. Yeah, this is it. So I'm happy to answer questions later. I have other things to show you if there's time with questions. So the RO and RLD zoning, I chose RLD just simply, partly because we don't have a zoning between these two. However, it seems appropriate for the area. Basically the lot size required, maximum lot size required in RO is about three quarters of an acre. And the maximum, sorry, the minimum required lot size in RLD is almost two acres. So it's more than double the requirement. And the frontage goes from 150 feet requirement for minimum for RO and 200 feet for RLD. There are some other little differences there and you can read about those. Thank you. I have a quick statement before we go on, which is that I live in the Northeast corner of Amherst. I am not recusing myself. I take no position on this article and I pledge to moderate fairly. And now I call on Mr. Schreiber for the planning board. I move to refer this article to the planning board. Motion has been made and seconded to refer the article back to the planning board. To the planning board, you may speak to your motion. You have five minutes. So I'm gonna give you, I'm Steve Schreiber. I'm the chair of the planning board and I'm gonna give you a few reasons why we think that this should be referred to the planning board for further discussion. So a lot of these are summarized on page three of your handout for that is for article 34. So some of the reasons are the maps themselves. This is a substantial part of Amherst that we're talking about. I don't know if you could see really what the scale is about looking at it. I'm not actually sure what the area is but maybe it's 10% of Amherst but it's a significant part of Amherst that's being proposed to be rezoned. We don't feel that this proposal has been thoroughly noticed, thoroughly advertised at the public hearings that the planning board is required to have for all zoning articles including petition articles. I believe there's one person that showed up from the public, maybe two people that showed up from the public despite the fact substantial numbers of properties are planning to be rezoned. So normally they'd be a lot more interest in something like this. We're very aware, the planning board is very aware of the, of course, the master plan and the need to really look at this particular area and on the very issues that the petitioner has mentioned. We don't believe that the blunt force instrument like this, really changing the lot size of so many lots is a way to do it. There are many different other kinds of ways, more strategic ways of really protecting that rural landscape. Some of us believe that changing from essentially three quarter acre zoning to two acre zoning is promoting sprawl on steroids. You're basically creating a different kind of a sprawl. Two acre lots can support bigger houses with more bedrooms in them than three quarter acre lots. So in effect what the current zoning is doing is it's really restricting what can be built on those particular lots. Another issue that we really felt had not been thoroughly vetted is the fact that septics and wells are normally handled by the Board of Health, that they're not typically a zoning article. The petitioner mentioned something that did come up that Amherst itself is at the front edge of looking at new ways of treating wastewater and also treating drinking water. We have two living building challenge buildings right here in Amherst and the point of those is nets are energy, nets are water. So why those technologies themselves probably aren't transferable to new development in this particular part of Amherst. Nonetheless, Amherst itself is looking at ways that we can get drinking water and treat wastewater without having conventional septic tanks and or wells. So one analogy that I would use would be like designing a parking lot for the biggest car that you can think of when in fact we're on our way to some very different ways, means of transportation. I think I'll leave it at that. But please consider referring this back to the planning board for more discussion. We think that the petitioner has, what the petitioner has said has a lot of merit to it but we think that there are more strategic ways of addressing his concerns. Thank you. So the motion on the floor before us is the motion to refer, which will require a majority for passage. If that fails, we're back to the main motion that'll require two thirds. Mr. Cainer, before I call on you, I'm gonna call on other boards and committees and then I'll call on you. So Mr. Slaughter for the select board. Thank you. Select board voted four to zero with one member absent to recommend referral to the planning board of this article. While you may have looked in the memo from KP law relative to Article 34 and it being considered not being consistent with the transition provisions of the new charter, I think additionally on top of that, this is a pretty significant change to zoning and so I think that it merits a significant and deeper dive into exploring all the possible implications and outcomes that could result from this type of change. It seems as though it's a fairly straightforward sort of thing and it is in some ways, but I think the implications of those and the number of properties affected is rather profound and for that reason, the select board is unanimous in recommending referral to the planning board. Thank you. Does the finance committee have a statement on this? Yes. Finance committee has no recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. As I said, the motion to refer will require a majority for passage. If that fails and we're back to the main motion that will require two thirds for passage because there's a change to the zoning bylaw. Mr. Cain, do you still want to be recognized? Go ahead. My mind could be changed by your input tonight, but I'd like to recommend against voting to refer this article to the planning board for the following reasons. One, town meeting should have the chance to discuss the main motion to shed light on the issues. There are people in this room who have significant knowledge about these issues. For instance, just two days ago, I was contacted by a town meeting member who has talked groundwater and hydraulics topics for 20 years at UMass. He raised questions that I had not thought fully about. I feel the planning board and all of us should hear his perspective and I hope he gets recognized to speak along with others, including non-town meeting member, town residents, environmental experts, planners and developers. I believe all these voices should be briefly heard in the time allowed. It could help the planning board's future work on this. I also have specifics that I hope to be able to share with when questions arise. Two, my article may not be the best answer to the concerns raised, but it could act as a placeholder while a better way is found. I was very hesitant to accept the new wording you see that came from our building commissioner. It weakens the article significantly and doesn't directly address the master plan concerns raised, but I got convinced that it was less problematic than my original article and that had a better chance of passing and the concerns are certainly time sensitive given the development pressures in the area. Three, if the article is voted on and defeated, I feel that this is still a better result than referral which would limit discussion of the main motion. Three members of the planning board have already expressed the need to address some of the concerns raised. Even if defeated, nothing should stop the planning board from acting on it if the issues raised are deemed important enough for the Amherst community. Now, eight years after adopting our master plan, acting seems overdue, especially given the added factor of well and septic issues and the costs associated with extending water and sewer to the northeast corner of Amherst. If defeated, the planning board could bring a proposal back at any time and will have the benefit of having heard the added information during the main article discussion. I'm also aware that this select board may have the power to nullify the result of the vote. I won't comment on that. I think it's an opinion. I was disturbed myself about the KP law opinion which did not state my article accurately. It was way broader than I ever had written. And then it's been narrowed two times since then. Thank you. Okay, motion before us is the motion to refer. I will allow some crossover into the pros and cons of the main motion. It's hard to separate them too much, but the motion before us is the motion to refer. And third row in the center right there, the green card. Gordon, free precinct six. I'm speaking in favor of the motion to refer to the planning board because I just heard that there are a number of experts or people with impassioned opinions. And I think that their presence in front of the planning board would do the right thing in talking to the planning board and presenting their case to the planning board. And therefore I think we should have them talk to the planning board and have reasonable discussions with them. Thank you. All the way in the back corner there on the aisle. Janet Keller, precinct one. I'm voting against referral and I'm doing so because of the extreme sensitivity of the area that we were looking at in many, many, many terms that are outlined in the state open space and recreation plan that's required by the state. This is an area of both multiple habitat, environmental resources, and as well as constraints toward development. And I'm going to vote against referral in order to keep this placeholder in place to protect this area, thank you. Yeah, white card in the front row. Denise Barver at precinct nine. I believe something very similar to this came up in Pelham a few years ago. I believe the board of health recommended increasing the size of lots because of problems with sewer failure, I'm sorry, septic failure. The planning board, I don't think was happy about it and then I kind of lost the trail of what happened. So does anyone remember if there was any resolution to this particular discussion in Pelham and if so, what that resolution was? I don't see any hands there. We'll continue discussion. Yeah, green card back row there. Nolan and I, precinct two. I'm gonna suggest that we return this to the or send this over to the planning board. I'm a little bit concerned about this particular article and the main reason is because during the warrant review when asked the petitioner was very clear that the reason why he was bringing this particular article at the time at now is because there's a proposed development in this area and so I'm gonna stop you there. Even if he said it and I don't doubt your veracity, you're still talking about motive and we don't wanna get into motive. We just wanted to talk about the pros and cons of the article, I'm sorry. But this article was brought specifically for this reason and in my mind when you start altering the zoning on particular areas and you affect a lot of people's land and that part of the community without a direct conversation with the planning board and have the ability for other people to express their concerns, I think we have a problem. And so I personally think that should be deferred back to the planning board. Yes, along the aisle right there, red card. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Jacqueline Maidana, precinct five. I'm going to vote against referring it back to the planning board. They have seen it. I'm not sure about how many people went on the bus that town meeting coordinating committee organizes. So I did get a chance to see this firsthand and there are a lot of very, very important issues that cannot be discussed if you refer this back to the planning board. There's a lot of issues about failed wells and septic and I think town meeting needs to hear about that. So I'm voting no on referral. Yes, one, two, three, four, fifth throwback with a white card. Just a quick, McGage, precinct one, a query. With this interpretation of the KP law memo, will the planning board exist going forward or was the timing, are they, I'm just curious what's going to happen between now and when a new planning board is appointed in terms of things that are referred? Does that mean it'll be like eight or 10 months till it's considered? So can you in the front speak to the status of the planning board? Yes, Ms. Brestrup. It's my understanding, Chris Brestrup, planning director. It's my understanding that the select board recently took a vote and voted to maintain the planning board as it currently exists, not withstanding potential resignations until the town council takes its place and decides to replace people or appoint new people. So the planning board in my understanding is going to be here until the town council takes action. There will be a planning board, no matter what, that's required by state law. So one way or another, we will have a planning board and I can't tell you who's gonna be on it next March, but until probably around then, we will have this planning board. Thank you. Yeah, the green card on the aisle there. Jeff Blausdine, precinct six. I'm gonna vote to refer this. Mr. Kander gave all kinds of reasons why this should be referred. All sorts of people that should be heard from and the planning board hasn't met with those people. The people who live there, I don't think are all here tonight and they don't have an opportunity to discuss it. So I would really like to see the planning board discuss this and bring it back to either the fall town meeting or this, what do you call it, the town council next year. Mr. Kander. I'd just like to respond briefly to a couple of things. One is, I don't mind the development being brought up. That was an instigating factor and yet I was involved in the master planning process 10 years ago. We went to many, many meetings. Over a thousand people took part, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which this document was created. I know some of the select board took part in that and I think it's shameful that we haven't fulfilled more of what's written there in a very clear way. Some things are very controversial and there's different sides in that master plan. That the bits about preserving outlying areas and viewscapes is fairly consistent as a goal. So when I saw this development, I grew up on Market Hill Road since I was one. So I've seen a lot of development on Market Hill Road. This was an intense development. This was seven lots on 7.7 acres of land. And that to me is not compatible with the area. If you look at the lots and look at the farms in this area there are at least eight or 10 small farms. And I disagree that two acres is sprawl, two acres is perfect for a small farm. I and my wife grow a thousand bulbs of garlic every year on a tiny portion of an acre of land. We grow a lot of our own food. This is I think something that should be developed is sorry it should be this development was a reason I noticed. And then 22 of my neighbors signed a letter to the developer and it started this whole process. One of the people who was developing said, Van, if the zoning required three acres, I wouldn't be doing this. I hate zoning in Amherst. That's the direct quote from one of the developers or one of the partners. And I took his word that he meant that and I came before you with this article which I agreed with him because we feel we wanna, he wanted to protect next to him by having control of how the houses are built. Can I continue a little bit more? It's still green light. Okay, so I can show this later. But I was very frustrated that the town didn't notify, wasn't willing to notify the number of people who would be affected. It's quite a few people. There are 195 properties listed. However, some of that is town of Amherst land and much of it is same owner. So it's really like 150 owners. And so I took it upon myself. I have a map and a message. You're running really low in time just, you know. The timer just went off. I don't know. Oh, it's paused. Okay, so you still have a tiny bit of time but I think it's like very low. I can't get this up on the screen right now. So I left this at the doorsteps of all of the large landowners in this area. Here's a map of where the people that know about this article. It's terrible reproduction but the greenish bluish shading is all the, I use my little ruler to see who had more than 300 feet of frontage and tried to notify every one of those people. Coal slumber, of course, knows all about it. I've had half a dozen communications with Cinda Jones. So that's not a surprise to her this is happening. And she's the largest landowner. Thank you. Further discussion is Ms. Brestrom. There are many different points that I could make in favor of referring this article. But one of them certainly is that all the property owners that would be affected by this article have not been notified. Mr. Caner has said that he's notified the large landowners but all of the people in the High Point Drive, Overlook Drive neighborhood have not been notified and they would be affected because their properties would become non-conforming. So every time they wanted to expand their homes they would have to come to the zoning board of appeals to get a special permit which means hiring engineers and surveyors and potentially lawyers to get a special permit. I have a map if you're interested that shows all the properties that would become non-conforming and with Mr. Pistreng's, with the moderator's approval I might come up and show it to you. I'm sure you got another minute and a half probably. It is 95 properties out of 195 properties that would become non-conforming. So all the properties shown in green here would be properties that would become non-conforming that would need to get special permits to make changes to their properties. The properties shown in the red stripes are all the properties that are affected by this proposal. If I have another 30 seconds I might mention that what is the right number for figuring out whether wells and septic systems can go on the same property? Is it 30,000 square feet? Is it 40, 50, 60? Is it 80? 80 is really big, it's two acres. We don't really know. We need to study the land up there and hear from experts about this and be able to figure it out. And the planning board is willing to take this on. I've heard that they are definitely interested in this. They recognize many of the issues that Mr. Caner has brought up. As I mentioned, the property owners have not been notified to the greatest extent. There are 195 properties here and we didn't hear from more than two of them. So I'll stop there. Yeah, third row from the back with a white card. Bonnie McCracken, precinct six. Sorry, I have a question. Why wouldn't the lots in green be grandfathered in? Ms. Brestrup? The properties in green are grandfathered if they don't wanna do anything with their property but if they wanna change their property they are considered to be non-conforming. So if they make a change that affects the non-conformity they need to get a special permit. Yes, right in the front row here. Microphone. Still not working. Yeah, use that one. All right. Tim Neil from precinct four and finance committee. The finance committee chairs said we took no position on this. This was when this article was presented to the finance committee and the reason we took no position was there was not enough germane information, particular financial information for us to make a judgment. In my opinion, there's still not enough financial information at all on this proposal. Many, many, many questions and I support strongly the referral back to the planning committee so we can talk about that. We're talking about potential different lot sizes, potential development, potential on property taxes, potential on sewage costs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And it has not at all had any thorough vetting and I think it's very, very appropriate to refer it back to the planning commission, planning board. Thank you. Yeah, right on the aisle there. Hail the green bomb precinct one. I call the question. Most of the previous question has been made in seconded. If to thirds of you vote yes we will come to an immediate vote on the motion to refer article 34. All those in favor of the motion for the previous question please say aye. Opposed please say no. Moderator here's two thirds. We now come to a vote on article 34's motion to refer. This requires a majority, the motion is to refer to the planning board. All those in favor of the motion to refer please say aye. Opposed please say no. Moderator here's a majority in favor. We'll have an electronic vote. I see 103 yes, 57 no, the motion to refer has passed. We now move on to article 35 and I call on Mr. Berkwistle to make the motion. I move in terms of the article except to insert a colon after the words special permit modified dimensions triggering this bylaw. And to insert the words quote or more unquote after the words quote 21 units unquote under the column titled quote net increase in unit count. Unquote. Motion's been made and seconded and before anybody asks, I was consulting this ahead of time and I did rule that the motion is in scope of the article. You may now speak to your motion. Mr. Stetsman is going to speak to it. Yes, Mr. Stetsman. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Articles 35 and 36 both relate to inclusionary zoning, a land use regulation that requires a portion of new residential development to be affordable for low income households. In Amherst this is defined as those earning 80% or less of the area median income. It is used in various forms and to varying degrees of success in many communities across the country. These articles are the latest in a long series of attempts to clarify the applicability of Amherst's inclusionary zoning bylaw. Much of this conversation has focused on the trigger for imposing an inclusionary requirement on a development project. The planning board has interpreted the section to apply to projects that require a special permit for the use itself, while others have held that it should apply to any project that receives a special permit for any reason. The reason, the planning board version of these articles is the result of a serious effort between supporters of prior petition articles and the planning board to find common ground. We did this by more precisely considering the situations in which a special permit would justify an inclusionary mandate and building in flexibility designed to increase the chances that inclusionary zoning can succeed in Amherst. The reason that there are two articles, 35 and 36, is that the language for article 36, the petition version was frozen in place by a petition filing deadline which falls before the deadline for articles sponsored by boards and committees. After that first deadline, the conversation continued on amongst the petitioner, planning board and staff. The planning board then completed work on article 35 and has brought what it believes is a better and more comprehensive article. Both articles provide that a special permit to modify dimension should trigger the inclusionary zoning bylaw but explicitly restrict the dimensional special permit trigger to a few specific dimensional regulations, those affecting the overall size of the building and excludes others that do not necessarily enable a larger building. The planning board version also provides alternative means of complying with the affordable mandate by allowing payment of a fee in lieu of providing actual units or by allowing affordable units to be provided offsite from the development. The fee per unit under the payment in lieu provision is proposed at three times median family income for Amherst. Currently this would equal approximately $198,000. This is an increase over fees proposed under the planning board's 2015 inclusionary zoning proposal intended to be high enough to encourage the provision of actual units while also providing some flexibility. Payments would be made to the Amherst Municipal Affordable Housing Trust whose mission is the creation and preservation of affordable housing in the town. Any offsite units would be required to be located near the principal project and be comparable to the market rate units. Both alternative options are limited in that 50% of units required must be provided on site with the exception of developments requiring less than four affordable units. Article 35 also addresses existing language that is either outdated, unclear or doesn't capture the town's current understanding about best practices for inclusionary zoning. The planning board believes the proposed changes represent a balanced approach to this issue and recommends the town meeting approve article 35, the planning board version. If article 35 does not pass then the board recommends approval of article 36, the petition version. Of the two versions, the planning board's strong preference is for article 35. The vote was six to zero with three members absent. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Krueger for the select board. Mr. Moderator, could I have one additional minute? Without objection, yes you may. The select board on April 23rd, 2018 voted four in favor with one absent to recommend this article. We do not recommend the following article 36 if article 35 does not pass. I guess we felt more strongly than the planning board. Inclusionary zoning is something Amherst has had in its zoning bylaw for many years. We've modified it a few times, but it's not something new to us. It requires projects over a certain size to set a percentage of units aside for income qualified residents. This has been used across Massachusetts and across the country for many years and has withstood myriad court challenges. It disperses middle and lower income residents throughout a town by including them in new developments over a certain size. It does require a developer to forgo their full profit potential and this is often offset by zoning waivers or financial incentives. Inclusionary zoning works best in strong market areas and not so well in weak market areas since the market rate units need to be profitable enough to offset the lost revenue of the affordable units. It's frequently claimed that inclusionary zoning will prevent development from occurring. Research does not bear this out. The Massachusetts Office of Communities and Development's smart growth toolkit says this. A common concern about inclusionary zoning is that it may slow the pace of development exacerbating the affordable housing supply problem and acting as a disincentive for private developers who may be considering investing in a community. Studies have shown that inclusionary zoning does not in fact slow the pace of private development in a community. Residential development rates are driven much more by the strength of the local housing market and broader economic and market trends. The American Planning Association of which I'm a member says, quote, tools like inclusionary zoning can go a long way towards helping a community realize its full economic and inclusive potential. One of their studies looked at 500 inclusionary zoning programs in 482 jurisdictions. More than 80% of these were mandatory but many included cost offsets including payment in lieu and offsite construction which this article does include the following one would not. Unit counts tend to be modest, 40% require less than 10% of the units to be affordable and 80% of them required less than 20% to be affordable. And as I'm winding down, inclusionary housing policy is often an important part of a local comprehensive affordable housing plan. Tying the production of affordable housing to the development of market rate housing can be an effective way of promoting economic diversity and expanding access to opportunities to low income families. The select board is following the legal guidance provided by KP law regarding the application of the transition provisions of the charter by acting on this bylaw now. The KP law guidance says that, quote, new items require a case by case analysis. We have done this in field that this article is time sensitive. If a new downtown development proposal receives a permit between now and when a new town council can act on the zoning request, it will be protected under the old zoning, under the old zoning according to mask general law 40A, the state zoning act. For that reason, we feel it's necessary and essential to act now. Last sentence, a well crafted inclusionary bylaw can work and has worked all over the country. I urge you to support this bylaw that has been worked on collaboratively by the planning board and the petitioner. Thank you. Thank you. And it's my understanding that the finance committee has no position. And I call on Mr. Hornick to speak for the housing trust. John Hornick, precinct seven and chair of the Amherst Municipal Housing Trust. On Thursday, March 8th, quite a while ago, the housing trust voted eight to zero to recommend passage of article 35. And if that does not pass to recommend article 36, we had a thorough discussion led by Mr. Stutzman, who also serves on the planning board and Mr. Weiss, the petitioner for article 36. Have you have heard from me before? There continues to be a need for affordable housing in Amherst. The 2013 Amherst Housing Production Plan promised 250 new units with very little progress in the past five years. There are a number of reasons for this. One is the narrow interpretation of the existing inclusionary zoning bylaw that article 35 will correct. In addition to making this change, the planning board has taken a step of offering developers a means other than affordable units to a project. The bylaw will allow a payment in lieu to the housing trust, which we appreciate for some units, a particular benefit to small developers who may have difficulty meeting their requirements of assuring current eligibility of tenants in affordable units. There is also a tested pass for developers who do not have the capacity to manage these eligibility requirements. They may contract with another experienced organization to do this on their behalf. Some people may question the need for affordable housing because the state's subsidized housing inventory shows that Amherst has reached the minimum level of 10%. But the need remains. Let me offer two perspectives on this. First, there are many units that are not affordable that are counted toward the 10%. For example, 225 units at Rolling Green are included, but there are only 41 actual affordable units. This method of counting makes it easier for cities and towns to reach the 10% threshold, but it does not make it easier for persons seeking affordable units to find them. Second, the 10% level itself is a minimum goal. It is not based upon research on assessed need. All evidence points to a higher level of need generally, including the Amherst Housing Production Plan. I would guess that some of you may be thinking that despite your support of affordable housing, this is not the best way to do it. There must be other ways to meet the town's goal. I agree that there are other ways, but that does not lead me to want to, sorry, abandon occlusionary zoning. We need as many ways to address this problem as we can conceive, and we have to work on them as vigorously as we can. On behalf of the Housing Trust, I urge you to vote in favor of this article. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. This is a change to the zoning bylaw and will require a two-thirds vote for passage. Mr. Weiss had previously said he's gonna wanna speak now, but I'm not sure if he still does or not, because he's the petitioner for 36, and I told him I would recognize him at this point. Maybe he totally forgot, I don't know. He can just pass it along as they did not forget, and don't forget to identify yourself. Hey, I'm Jerry Weiss, precinct eight. Mr. Moderator, I would request an additional five minutes because I'm speaking to two articles, and if this should pass, I will be dismissing Article 36, so I won't need to speak to that. We're still gonna have a super quick voice vote. All those in favor of granting Mr. Weiss an additional five minutes for a total of eight, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. The ayes have it, and you may continue with eight minutes. Thank you. I hope you listen very carefully to all those presentations, they were all fabulous. I may be speaking past the sale here, as somebody has mentioned to me, but I don't wanna take any chances. A funny thing happened on the way to this forum. When I started down this road last December to create an amendment to the inclusionary zoning bylaw, Article 15 of the Amherst zoning bylaws, I thought it was gonna be an uphill struggle, but it turned out to be a very collaborative process that resulted in both articles 35 and 36. The short story of the difference is that as you've heard, 35 has payment in lieu and offsite provisions, which I totally support. There wasn't enough time for me to add those as was explained by the planning board. And as you have read in the planning board report, the interpretation currently being used of the words which are in the original law, quote, requiring a special permit, unquote, has come to mean requiring a special permit for use. That has had the unintended effect of eliminating downtown as a site where inclusionary zoning can occur. If you look at the chart, which should be up there, yep. One can see what has occurred in Amherst since inclusionary zoning was passed by town meeting in 2005. There are 12 housing projects that have been built or permitted that will result in the creation of 737 residential units. Three of the projects, Olympia Oaks, Olympia Place and Beacon are not applicable to inclusionary zoning. Thus, 245 of the 737 units don't apply to this discussion. Those projects actually produced in affordable units via other state laws. Of the remaining 492 units, the current interpretation of inclusionary zoning will result in the creation of 32 affordable units, none of which will be located downtown, arguably a good location for affordable housing and arguably the site of much more housing to come. Of the remaining 492 units, I've already said that, had the plain language of the original Article 15 been used of requiring a special permit, those 492 new residential units would have generated 60 affordable units instead of 32. Had this Article 35 been an effect and the projects built and or permitted as they currently are, Amherst would have added a minimum of 29 affordable units and up to 60 units. If only 29 there would have been payment in lieu of over $5 million that would have gone to the housing trust to build affordable housing. Anything, and there can be variations all the way in between those numbers. The housing trust wasn't up and running two years ago when this was first talked about in town meeting, it is now up and running and is an excellent vehicle to use such funds. I'm gonna just go through a few of the arguments that I heard in my months of meeting with the planning board from members of the community. One, inclusionary zoning doesn't produce many affordable units, that's just not true. It produces thousands across the country. There are over 500 communities nationwide that are using inclusionary zoning and they have to revisit them periodically to make them work better. That's what we're doing tonight. There are communities where it's not working and there are many reasons for that. Sometimes it's a poorly constructed bylaw, sometimes the bylaw hasn't even had a chance to take effect since passage. And there are also towns that are using inclusionary zoning rather badly to satisfy chapter 40B laws rather than to actually produce affordable units. As I already mentioned, there is scant evidence that inclusionary zoning laws have had a chilling effect on development. Two, tax credits don't work. Amherstown meeting passed a tax incentive law in 2015. This provision gives developers tax credits for every affordable unit provided according to a complicated formula. Beacon communities is employing this incentive in their North Amherst project. The argument I heard at a planning board hearing was that developers won't want to use it because they have to divulge financial information that they don't want to divulge. So I say, fine, it's not a requirement if you don't want a tax break. Three, it's too difficult for developers to administer the affordability requirements. Mr. Hornick spoke to that. Developers are doing this all over the country. I'm confident our developers are up to the task. Four, these amendments will not produce any new units because developers will simply not ask for the special permits that trigger it. That could be true. And it brings up kind of a flaw in a way Amherst is approaching this. In most communities, well, 80% I believe as the number, it's mandatory. And when it's mandatory, it works. Amherst so far is allowing developers a way out by not asking for these special permits. It is mandatory in Newton, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, many others, and that they're all having very successful programs. If developers choose not to use special permits downtown, we'll end up with zero affordable units, which is where we're at right now. Five, it's on legally shaky ground. This claim is a head scratcher. If it hasn't been successfully challenged in cities where it's mandatory, it can't possibly be in jeopardy in Amherst, which allows developers a way out. Actually, if we wanna be worried about a legal challenge, I suggest we worry about the fact that the current interpretation frustrates the purpose of the original law, which states in section 15.00, ensuring, quote, ensuring that new residential development generates affordable housing. And section 15.02, quote, maintaining a full mix of housing types and unrestricted geographic distribution of affordable housing opportunities throughout Amherst. The current interpretation frustrates both sections of this bylaw. Our town attorney has spoken somewhat to this problem when he says that failure to pass these amendments, quote, will mean that the town will continue to face challenges in implementing the current bylaws and in light of the number of months before such matter can be addressed by the town council may well result in the loss of potential units frustrating a long recognized goal of the town. And six is the claim that it will stifle development that's been spoken to by everybody I think who's spoken. There's no evidence of this nationwide or almost none. So I strongly support article 35. I hope you pass it. And I will then move to dismiss article 36. Thank you. Thank you. As I said, this requires two thirds vote for passage. Is there discussion before we come to a vote? Yeah, right in the center of the back row there. Paige Wilder, precinct 10. I'm gonna urge people to vote no on 35 and yes on 36. Let's not do the compromise and go the whole way. And over against the wall there. Jim Oldham, precinct five. I enthusiastically support article 35. I feel like this is a real testament to how difficult politics should take place and how contentious issues can be resolved. And to remember sitting here in past town meetings a year ago, well not a year ago, but two years ago, three years ago, we were very unhappy with each other. And people who are speaking on the same side of this issue were frustrated trying to get their versions of this bylaw passed. And it happened both ways. We voted down proposals by the planning board. We couldn't pass citizen petitions. This isn't perfect. And I think Mr. Weiss has pointed to the direction we should be going where this, we should have mandatory inclusionary zoning for all development. But that's not on the table for tonight. I don't think this is the word. I think I don't think 35 is the compromise and 36 is the real thing. I have mixed feelings about the in lieu of payments. But I think that the value that they've set is high enough to make it work. And I hope that we'll watch carefully how the alternative site process works. But I think that this requires two thirds. I hope we strongly supporting it. I think it's an excellent result that we can deliver tonight on what's the last night of this annual town meeting. And we may not be gathered here in this way again and it's not a bad thing to give to the town. Yes, second in from the corner there. Maureen Adams, precinct 10. I urge that we vote in favor of 35. A number of us who have been before this body in the past trying to change the interpretation that had prevailed in the past of the narrow interpretation of special permit are now thrilled that we've had the kind of collaboration that we have this time with the planning board and the petitioners to create something that is the best we've been able to figure out so far. Let me remind you that in 2005, the article for inclusionary zoning had a kind of unlimited definition of special permit. And now after years of a very limited interpretation as Mr. Hornick and others have pointed out, we really have not had the results that we want to have especially in the downtown because of the exigencies of zoning and what one can or cannot do by right whereas downtown is exactly where we should be having inclusionary zoning. Let me also remind you that we need many different approaches to affordable housing. There is no one way. And so we need inclusionary zoning as well as some of the other things that this body funded in a prior vote through a CPA funding. Let me also remind you that we now have a very strong and impressive municipal housing trust who would indeed make good use of the money that would come to them in an in lieu option. I voted against a version of this in the past because we didn't have the kind of group that could accumulate the fees in lieu and then put them to the uses of affordable housing that we now have. And so the in lieu fees would be another way of paying for affordable housing through another mechanism. And so it seems to me that this becomes a win-win situation. I think that if there are difficulties with this approach, the planning board will probably look at it again and recommend something to the council. But I really urge this body, which has been discussing this issue since 2005, when we finally I think have a solution that we agreed to, I urge that we give it the strongest possible vote if not a completely unanimous vote. Thank you very much. Thank you. Way over against the wall there's third row. I commend the petitioners. Identify yourself please. Laura Quilter, precinct nine. Thanks to everybody for coming up with this response to kind of the thorny interpretation issues that had been previously advanced. I do have a couple of questions about the differences between 35 and 36 and I'm curious to know about the distinction between in the 35 and 36 where it says in 15.10, sorry I'm losing it right here. Oh yes, 15.12. The comparable to market rate units in terms of size, bedroom count and in 36 it says the quality of their design materials and general appearance of their architecture and landscape that was dropped in article 35. I would appreciate hearing anybody speak to this to why that was dropped. And then secondly in 15.10 the difference which seems to me significant between total development unit count versus article 35 versus the, sorry I'm flipping back and forth here, the net increase in unit count and those are two significant differences and so I would appreciate people speaking to that if possible. Thank you. Mr. Ways, oh actually planning board, let's give it a try. So it's always been the intention of the town and the planning board that inclusionary zoning applies to the net increase. So we are just correcting, clearing up the language, making the language clear. The actual language says total development count. So if you have a, for instance, presidential apartments had, I don't know how many units were there beforehand, but they added 54. The ZBA only required inclusionary zoning on the additional 54, not on the total amount. It wouldn't really be fair. So I think the petitioner's article again submitted before we had a chance to finish everything off would have included that change if there had been time. The other one, 15.14, I think all the language is there, it's just in a different place. Architecture and landscape is in our version, is in 35. We just, instead of having size and bedroom count inserted in the existing text, we added it to the end because we wanted to clarify how we were interpreting that. Ready to come to a vote. Yeah, over in the corner there. Lawrence Quigley, precinct one. I'd like, I respect the people who are speaking for this so completely, I'm confused. I'd like some help from the room. This, having the affordables over there, is this, am I reading this right? Is this not segregation and is that okay? I'm having trouble just the ends, I get the ends and the means, I'm afraid of the means and afraid of the reasons for what I think is segregating out the affordables and I'd like some help from the room. Ms. Brestra. The only time offsite units would be available to a developer is if the developer were already providing 50% of the units on site. So it's only in the case where the developer provides 50% of the units on site that he has the option with the approval of the zoning board of appeals to build 50% of the affordable units offsite. So it's not segregation in my mind. Yan, the back corner. Vince O'Connor, precinct one. And so I have two primary objections to maybe three to 35 and I feel more comfortable with 36. 35 and 36 do not deal with any changes in setback by special permit, which I think is problematic. And some of the housing projects that have been created downtown having zero setback right up against the sidewalk I think is problematic as well. So I'm not happy with that. But I think the problem has to do with the provision of offsite units. I don't know that we've had in the past a town meeting member who was quite knowledgeable about housing law and said that this kind of provision of offsite units was not allowed. I think it will lead to the kind of segregation and the kind of isolation that I think is not good. But I would really refer the town meeting members to the final paragraph of article 35. That the payment in lieu of affordable units would be made prior to the granting of a certificate of occupancy for any dwelling. The certificate of occupancy means that the building has been completed and is ready to be occupied. That would mean that the affordable units would be great to get the money, but those affordable units would not come online until that money could be taken and used in some way that would produce affordable units. Which could be five to ten years given the situation with Olympia Oaks after the money was received. It might have been better to put in the granting of a building permit, but I still think that would have been problematic because construction speed now is quite good and I don't believe that the housing trust would be capable of producing the affordable units at the same speed as a developer who has got a plan, got a building permit, and so forth. I think these are just, these areas are too problematic to allow me to vote for 35. I will vote for 36. Yes, from the planning board. Steve Schreiber from the planning board. I just wanted to address the issue of the setbacks and I think that one of the quirks of our zoning bylaw is that sometimes you need a special permit, you need special permits for all kinds of crazy things. Live music after 11, signs of a certain size. So that was, this is a dilemma that the planning board has had all of these years that either we could have this one interpretation of special permit to mean for use or we could open up to all kinds of special permits. The setback one has been one of the most perplexing ones because sometimes you need a special permit to make a smaller building. We have places in our zoning bylaw that says that the, and I'm not going to be able to quote it directly. Actually one of my favorites is the, the backyard setback in some areas must be zero or the next step I think is 20 or 10. So it must be zero or it must be 10 or more. So if you want an eight foot setback for some really good reason, you're trying to save a tree or whatever, you need a special permit. So I think both the petitioner and the planning board itself thought that the best way forward is to take setbacks off the table because of this quirk. That's sometimes to make a smaller building, you need a special permit. Thanks. We might be ready to come to a vote. No, I still see a bunch of hands. Yes, right there on the aisle. John Snyder precinct four, I move to call the question. Motion of the previous question has been made and seconded. If two thirds of you vote yes, we will then come to an immediate vote on article 35. All those in favor of the motion of the previous question, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator, here's two thirds. We now come to a vote on article 30, hang on, 35 which in itself requires two thirds for passage. All those in favor of the motion before you for article 35, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Moderator, here's two thirds. And we'll have an electronic vote. The vote is 156 in favor, 19 against. Article 35 has passed with two thirds. I now call on Mr. Weiss to make a motion for article 36. Jerry Weiss precinct eight, I move to dismiss article 36. Motion is made and seconded. You may speak to your motion. 35 is much better than 36. Thank you all for passing it. We don't need 36. Thank you. Planning board want to make a statement on the motion to dismiss. No statement. Select board want to make a statement on the motion to dismiss. Go to what Mr. Weiss said. Thank you. And does the finance committee have a statement on the motion to dismiss? Does Mr. Harnick have a statement on the motion to dismiss? No, sir. He does not. This requires a two thirds vote. I'm sorry, this requires a majority vote. We're moving to dismiss. Is there a discussion before we come to a vote? I see no hands. All those in favor of the motion to dismiss article 36, please say aye. Opposed, please say no. Ayes have it. So we now actually need to, the planning board is released from their servitude in the front and the finance committee is coming back. We will have a five minute break, but everyone has to promise to return to their seats in five minutes. And I am calling on Mr. Weiss to make a motion under article 37. No. No, we have a new motion. Did you get that in writing? Hang on, wait until the motion is on the screen. Yeah, I will wait. So just that top line is still needs to go away. The dismiss part. There's still a little eye. There's still a little eye there. There we go. Yes, Mr. Weiss. Jerry Weiss, precinct eight. I moved the town meeting call on the select board to investigate and assess the problems created by noises emanating from firearm ranges and the impacts those noises are having on homeowners and visitors and recommend solutions to the relevant governing body. Motions made in second. Are you speaking to the motion or will the petitioner speak to the motion? The petitioner will speak. If the petitioner is here, you may come up and identify yourselves and be recognized. And you have five minutes. You should identify yourself first and then you have five minutes. My name is Sandra Jezwelli Hart. Currently, the unlawful noise that is prohibited is mostly geared towards student generated noises from parties since the time frame is from 11 to 7 a.m. This proposed addition to the bylaw attempts to address a whole different noise and time that it's disturbing. The current hours of the Norwatak Fish and Game Association are from 9 a.m. until dusk. This proposal to amend the noise bylaw which would provide some gunfire free hours to enjoy the outdoors in the warmer months. When reviewing the elements of what is now considered a violation of the existing noise bylaw, gunfire fits some of the following description. Excessive unnecessary or unusually loud noise which disturbs, injures, or endangers the reasonable quiet comfort or health or safety of others. The Norwatak Fish and Game Association is located partway up the notch on the southern border of town. I mentioned the location because the location is part of the problem. The gunfire echoes down the hill and is heard by hundreds of people living in the valley below. The argument that the Fish and Game Club has been there for many years and that people purchasing homes, condos, or settling into Applewood should have known they would have to coexist with the sound of gunfire. I don't think the town would appreciate not having the tax revenue that these housing options provide because people should have known and chosen to live somewhere else. The town of Lexington, the town of Belmont have noise bylaws that are much more comprehensive. They do not include gunfire because it's not an issue in their towns but they do have specific noise measuring tools to measure offending noises and they have limits on those noises. Our noise bylaw does not include ways to measure offending noises. I mention this because the noise coming from the range can be very loud depending on the activity or type of weapons being fired there. The goal of this motion is to structure a more neighborly way to coexist with people that enjoy their right to recreational target practice and people that would like some quiet to enjoy recreational activities of their choosing. Thank you. Just to clarify what we have before us is a resolution that will require a majority vote to passage. The motion is not to change the bylaw. It is a resolution. And I call on the select board, Ms. Brewer. Good evening. The reason you see me with so many pieces of paper in front of me is because there has been a lot of changes to this article from the time it first appeared on the warrant. We originally heard from the petitioner on April 2nd which is in fact the night we signed the warrant. Many changes have happened since then and as the moderator just pointed out this is not a bylaw any longer. It did refer to the bylaw that we currently have about unlawful noise which is indeed old enough that it refers to things like radio, phonograph and musical instruments and television. It also refers to shouting and whistling. So you can see that it could perhaps use some updating. And on a less light note of course at this time in all of our lives the sound of gunfire is especially jarring. In terms of the process we've gotten us to this point although we originally heard from the petitioner on a different version of this on April 2nd we had not yet seen KP Law's memo which all of you saw the first night you came to town meeting on April 30th and is in the back again talking about what to do. And KP Law points out that there is a specific area of Massachusetts general law no doubt written by a shooting aficionado that said that no owner shall be liable in any action for nuisance and no court shall enjoy the use blah blah blah. As long as the range was in compliance with any noise control law ordinance or bylaws in existence at the time of the construction of the range. So KP Law said well not really going to be able to act on that. So now we're down to the point of it being April 2nd I should say May 2nd I'm sorry where we voted 4-0 with one absent which was in fact me to dismiss the article because we believe the petitioner was going to dismiss the article. And then lo and behold a couple of hours ago we found out that it was going to turn into a non-binding resolution but since we didn't have the words to said non-binding resolution till now we said that the select board took no position on a non-binding resolution. Thank you. It's my understanding the finance committee has no position on this and this is a non-binding resolution that will require a majority for passage. Is there discussion before we come to a vote? Yes. Second third row from the back. Yes. Sorry Jerry I had mine up just a second before yours. Ken Tharp precinct one. So I was hoping this would be a binding resolution. I would like to see us pass something instead of passing it on as a town meeting as opposed to passing it on to the future. I think it's very important. First of all let's give the birds and the animals a rest. I mean you know it's not just people it's also wildlife and that's a very important aspect of noise no matter where it comes from but this also is pretty invasive because it covers such a large area it's not you know I'm in a brain donkey actually you can hear for a mile away sometimes I remember that but this is not it's not trying to limit sawmills either or something that's really a little bit more in the nature of the aspect of who we are as a town. I don't think our town identifies with gunfire. I don't think it's really a part of the emphasis of Amherst. I certainly grew up with guns. I've certainly shot a lot of guns but this isn't part of our Amherst nature in my mind. So I think we should just support this. I really appreciate it being brought to us. I just wish it was a binding amendment to our bylaw. Thank you. Yes third row right here in the aisle. Alice Swift precinct eight. I live in Applewood and we hear this all the time. This evening at dinner somebody said shortly after she moved in she heard gunfire and she almost called 9-1-1 until she was assured oh that's normal. On Easter morning now granted this doesn't say anything about Sundays. I have lived in South Amherst since 1967 and I thought that there was no shooting on Sundays but apparently not. Maybe that's just out in the wild. Anyway Easter morning 9 30 or so there was that gunfire and I had another point which unfortunately slips my mind. Darn it I think it was more effective than the others but I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Oh I know what it was. Excuse me. A friend of mine was considering wanting to move into the upper orchard. She went and visited a condo and the owner said oh well we can't sit out on the porch. It's too noisy. So she said she'll never buy a condo upper orchard because of that noise. So I think that ought to clinch it. Thank you. Yes third row there green card. Maria Kapicki precinct eight. First of all I want to thank Miss and I want to thank some residents who are also here who would like the opportunity to speak. I hope they get a chance to. This is an important consideration. I hope that we tackle this soon. I did not know that this was going to be on the on the warrant but I have been contacted by several people in precinct eight and I don't see the person here tonight who could talk to their direct experience but this is apparently having an effect on home sales where people are finding out about this noise and then this is becoming a problem. So what I wanted to do is just to orient you to other areas that are also affected. So outlined in yellow is the property where the firing range is and you will see immediately adjacent. That's the property that we've been talking a lot about during this town meeting. That's that's the where the trailheads going to be that we purchased that land surrounding that. That's the new subdivision that's going to be there and you'll also recognize Applewood is out there and Atkins is nearby and there's a lot of houses and actually in speaking to other folks throughout my precinct it apparently doesn't affect folks just nearby. This is also something that people hear on southeast street in Potwine and I think one of the very important things to know is that it's the qualitative and quantitative nature of this noise that's changed. So I moved into this neighborhood 19 years ago and it was a very different thing then. So this is not like oh well you should have known that there's this kind of noise. To my knowledge it used to be more shotgun fire. It's a very different sound than what we're hearing now a rapid succession of sharp shots and it's happening a lot of times of day. So I ask you to please vote to support this and I think that this is just the beginning of a process that we really need to look at from a lot of different perspectives and not only the limitation of perhaps times of year and hours but also the nature of the shot. So I hope the folks that have come out here and sat through all of this town meeting get a chance to speak to their experiences as well. Thank you. Yeah the white card second row from the back there. Dorothy Pam precinct 10. So this is a question. Are you saying that it's automatic weapon fire from the sporting club? That sounds like a contradiction to me. I mean I grew up with guns. My dad shot at shooting ranges. He shot a rifle. I can't imagine living and hearing automatic rifle fire just as you're walking in the woods or sitting in your backyard. That seems like a real contradiction in the term sporting club. Further discussion before I vote. I'm always looking for brand new hands. Yeah back center there. Ralph Carlstrom precinct 10. I absolutely support this resolution and hope that we can make it stronger in the moving forward to the relevant governing body. This is a real problem and it's constant and it's loud and I think it's there are some alternate solutions that really should be considered. I'm wondering if our neighbors who are fighting shooting these guns actually start lobbying for enclosing the shooting range. There are shooting ranges in cities that are therefore not impacting their neighbors. I am a frequent visitor to Applewood. This is constant. I'm a hiker on the trails. It's a constant. It certainly is completely incompatible with a huge number of people. I don't know what the number of their use of the area. I don't know what the number of people in the shooting range is, but I'm guessing that a very small number of people on a population that is completely disproportionate and unacceptable and we should ask them to look at what they're doing and try to be better neighbors and maybe enclose their shooting range so that they can do it without disturbing those around them. Yes, I see a gentleman at the back of the aisle waiting to be recognized. Are you a registered voter in Amherst? Yes, sir I am. Then you may identify yourself and you have three minutes. I'm a resident of the very first street in Amherst coming down the notch. I've been an Amherst resident for 30 years, 25 of those years on country corners and the nature of the noise has changed dramatically in the last several years. I grew up in South Hadley, directly behind the South Hadley shooting club and I know what trap and skeet shooting sound like. I'm very familiar with the noise and it's annoying but you kind of get used to it. The last several years I would say four or five. It's semi-automatic pistol fires which you hear regularly and there's an embankment in the shape of a horseshoe that they use as a berm to use as the shooting pit and the horseshoe face is out down the hill right towards country corners and to Amherst and it's really an acoustic problem not into whether it's right or wrong it's just the noise has got I think ever since 116 was redone the last couple of years when the state came in and carved it they took a lot of the trees out as well and that seems to have amplified the issue and it's really the gentleman mentioned perhaps covering in the shooting range it's not so much the trap in the shotgun it's the pistol range right inside the driveway that's making the majority of the issues. Sunday afternoons I mean Sunday afternoon naps are gone we were out the other day in our deck for a cocktail in the evening we had to go inside in the summertime kids try to go to bed at eight or nine o'clock you have to shut the windows you can't it's just really has gotten unbearable and it really is a quality of life issue our neighbors just accepted an offer on their house only to find out that the buyer pulled out when he found out the range was there that just happened last week 10 p.m. or dusk it just seems too late for most of us I think that's really it it's just it's really gotten to the point where again I grew up with this stuff it wasn't an issue the last couple of years it's really getting it bad it's loud it's the volume and the noise has gone up tremendously so again I like the way that the position was worded that we asked the town government to really look at this to find a solution that we can make everyone come together on so thank you um yes right in the aisle there Jeff Blast on precinct six I call the previous question motion previous questions been made in seconded if two-thirds of you vote yes we will then come to an immediate vote on the motion under article 37 all those in favor of the motion for the previous question please say aye oppose please say no moderator here's two-thirds we now come to immediate vote on the motion that is on the screen for article 37 this requires majority all those in favor of the motion for article 37 please say aye oppose please say no moderate here's a unanimous vote we now move on to article 38 I call on Claudia Brown town meeting member to make a motion Claudia Brown precinct nine I move in terms of the article motion has been made in seconded it's my understanding that the petitioner is going to be speaking to this motion and you should come forward introduce yourself and then you'll have five minutes Linda Fay Amherst resident probably pretty glad that this is the last article I am going to speak to back from the brink a call to prevent nuclear war we call on the United States to lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war by five points renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first ending the president's sole unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack taking U.S. nuclear weapons off-hair trigger alert canceling the plan to replace our entire arsenal with enhanced weapons and actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear armed states to eliminate nuclear weapons I'll speak to this petition of resolution by giving you an abbreviated version of a talk that Dr. Dr. Ira Helfen presented at the UN last month we must understand that as long as nuclear weapons exist it's not a question of if but a question of when for 70 years the world has dodged a series of bullets we've been extra ordinarily lucky we cannot depend on our luck lasting forever if we do not eliminate these weapons one day soon either by design or by accident they will be used there are some 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today most of them are 10 to 50 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb recent studies have shown that even a limited regional nuclear war using just 100 Hiroshima sized weapons will be a global nightmare 20 to 30 million people will die in the first week as a direct result of the explosions the fire and the radiation but this is only part of the story the fires will loft 5 million tons of soot into the upper atmosphere blocking out the sun for more than a decade the resulting climate disruption and catastrophic decline in food production will cause a global famine and that would be the result of a limited nuclear war so let us consider the consequence of a large scale nuclear war let me start by describing what an attack today on a city like New York would look like to understand the devastation let me use the model of a single 20 megaton explosion and this model underestimates the destruction that will take place in adequate approximation within one thousandth of a second a fireball will form reaching out for three kilometers in every direction and within that area the temperature will rise to 20 million degrees and everything will be vaporized the buildings, the people the trees, the upper level of the earth itself will appear to a distance of six kilometers in every direction the explosion will generate winds in excess of a thousand kilometers per hour and blast pressures greater than 25 pounds per square inch mechanical forces of this magnitude will destroy anything that human beings can build nine kilometers in every direction the heat will be so intense that automobiles will burn they'll melt actually not burn to a distance of 25 kilometers in every direction the heat will still be so intense that everything flammable will burn cloth, people heating oil, gasoline, plastics it will all ignite hundreds of thousands of fires will coalesce over the next 30 minutes into a giant firestorm 50 kilometers across within this entire area the temperature will rise to 800 degrees Celsius all oxygen will be consumed and every living thing will die this is the danger we face it's not the future that must be but it is the future that will be if we don't eliminate nuclear weapons to this end more than 122 nations have signed the UN treaty for prohibition of nuclear weapons excuse me but you need to finish up soon your five minutes are up we therefore call on all communities in the commonwealth to join with coming to Plainfield, South Windsor, North Hampton to name a few in supporting the call to pull back from the brink and prevent nuclear war when approved the resolution will be sent to congressman McGovern senator Warren senator Markey and president trump thank you does the select board have a position on this? they do not finance committee have a position? they do not this is a resolution which requires a majority vote is there discussion before we come to a vote? I see no hands we will now come to a vote all those in favor of the motion before you meet please say aye oppose please say no the ayes have it the moderator here is a majority with I'm sorry I misstated the moderator heard a unanimous vote not a majority and so with the unanimous vote electronic vote is unnecessary so I'm saying we don't need one thanks before I call on Mr. Slaughter to make a motion to dissolve I would like to thank all town meeting members finance committee members select board members and other board committee members and moderators who have served town meeting and the town of Amherst for the past 260 years thank you for your service I'm now going to make an exception and allow applause in recognition and of course also before I call on Mr. Slaughter remind everybody to clean up your trash turn in your electronic voting devices I hear a point of order but it has to be a good one what's your point of order Mr. moderator you may be surprised that I'm making this point of order but we've circulated a card to thank you for your service and we have a little thumb drive gavel that we'd like to give you may we hand it to you let's wait until after we dissolve and then you can thank you so turn in your electronic devices turn them off first clean up after yourselves Mr. Slaughter I move to dissolve the April 30th 2018 annual town meeting motion made and seconded all those in favor of the motion dissolved please say aye opposed please say no we are dissolved