 Okay. So, Nate Malloy was over in the attendees so I moved him to a panelist Amherst media is here that you are the co host and we are recording so you're good to go. Okay. Great. Welcome to the plan Amherst planning board meeting of April 14 2021 based on Governor Baker's executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. I'm calling this meeting to order at 632 p.m. This evening is being recorded and it's available via Amherst media live stream minutes are being taken. All when I call your name and meet yourself answer friendly and then place yourselves back on mute Maria chow. Here. Tom Long. Andrew McDougal. Doug Marshall. Janet Macdonald. Here. And myself board members. If you do have technical issues, please let Pam know if there are technical difficulties we may need to pause temporarily to correct the problem and then continue the meeting. Discussion may be suspended while the technical issues are addressed in the minutes will note if this occurred. Please raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see you raised hand and calling you to speak after speaking remember to remute yourself opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general public comment item and other appropriate times during the meeting. Please be aware, the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. If you want to make a comment during the public comment period, you must join the meeting via the zoom teleconferencing link. This link is shown on the slide as shown. The link is also listed on the meeting agenda posted on the town website via the calendar listing for this meeting or you can go to the planning board webpage and click on the most recent agenda, which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. If you wish to make a comment by clicking the raised hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your telephone when called on. Please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. The participants can express their views for up to three minutes. And at the discussion of the planning board chair of a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their lead time their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. So, first thing we have minutes of the March 17 2021 meeting and are there any comments on those on those minutes. Okay, I see none. So is there motion to approve. I moved to accept the minutes. Okay, Janet, in a second. Second. Okay. You got Tom. Any discussion. I see none. Alright, let's do a roll call. Maria. Okay. And Andrew. Doug. Hi. Tom. And Janet. Hi. And Johanna. Hi. And myself approve. So that's unanimous approval of those minutes. So now we can delve into the public comment. Period. And. I see no hands raised, which is fine. One has popped up, Jack. Okay. Elizabeth. So Elizabeth set your name and address. Hi, Elizabeth. Hi. Yes. This is Elizabeth Veerling at 36 cottage street. Thank you for recognizing me. I just wanted to express concern about. The status of the municipal parking district. And I raised this question because of the pending discussion of. Further development of large buildings with. Large residential or a large number of residential units in the downtown. And I think that the municipal parking district. Regulations need to be. Not because when the current regulations were passed, there was not a consideration of. Production or building of such large residential units. And I think it should be clear to everyone at this point. That we have a significant parking. Problem in downtown Amherst. And that was my only comment for tonight. Thank you very much. Very good. Pam Rooney. Thank you. State your name and address, please. Hi, Pam. Hello, Pam Rooney, 42 cottage street. I wanted to just speak for. I'm just going to give a quick link for all the projects, especially the zoning items. On the. Planning board or planning department website. So someone in the community could go and look for. All the information that has been submitted. Whether it's. Staff work, whether it's planning board members who have. Submitted input on something. I'm just, I'm just hoping that, that we could get an update on that. And find out when, in fact, this could be. Available to the public. Thank you very much. Very good. Any response to that comment, Chris or. Well, there are a few staff members who have been working on this, but everybody's been so busy with. Projects and meetings, et cetera, that. It hasn't yet come to pass, but we do have three staff members who are working on it. And there is information available about some of the planning projects or planning, planning board and planning department projects on engage Amherst. There's a lot of information about the Palmer lane intersection. There's a fair amount of information about the North Amherst library. And there's a fair amount of information about that. So we're going to go ahead and download. The planning board packets, which have, you know, lots of information, but. So far, we haven't managed to get the website up with the zoning amendments, but we'll work on that. Thank you, Chris. And now we can get into our. First and major item of the evening, which is the zoning priorities. We have a lot of information about the proposed changes to the mixed use buildings. Just section 3.325 of the zoning bylaw. Definition standards and criteria. So, Chris, I know you have. You know, we've been working with the CRC. And I don't know if you have a presentation. But. What do you have for us with regard to an update? We do have a presentation. Nate Malloy will give a presentation about the mixed use buildings. And also about the inclusionary zoning by law. And Ben Breger will give a presentation about the, what we had been calling supplemental. Dwelling units. And we're now calling. Accessory dwelling units. And then after that, we may have time to talk about a few other things. Welcome Nate. Sure. Yeah, I was hiding because I know we're supposed to be doing the zoning webpage. So I, I don't want anyone to see me until that was cleared up. But. To pay a money to your question, we, we have a template and we have draft and. I think in the next few days we can get, get information up there. You know, for the zoning amendments, specifically not for, you know, different projects, but for zoning amendments. So thanks for having me back. Yeah, I'll present. I think the, in the packet, there was just the, the bylaw or the narrative for mixed use buildings. And I was just going to walk through that. So I don't necessarily have, you know, a presentation per se, but just going through the language. In this version of the mixed use building standards was presented. Just yesterday to the CRC, the community resource committee. And they had a number of questions and comments and they, they asked that staff return again. At their next meeting with, you know, with more changes to it. So they weren't ready to, you know, recommend it. Or, you know, as a, as a completed zoning amendment, they did, they did like pieces of it, but they had, you know, questions and as we go through it, we can discuss it. So I'm going to share my screen. Now this walk through it. So just for everyone listening, I'm Nate Maloya planner with the town. And, you know, these revisions are dated as of April 9th. So they're, this is the current version. And what we're showing here is that is my screen visible. There's, you know, a lot of red on the, on the, on it, but. Yes. Currently in the use chart in section 3.325 and mixed use. You know, there's a mixed use building section. And there's three standards and conditions. And the first one really is a definition of what a mix use building is. And so we're proposing to remove that and actually have a new definition in section 12. So actually have, you know, have mixed use building and be a defined term in the zoning bylaw. The second condition, you know, requires that a management plan. Be submitted. And we're saying that this would remain so that, you know, management plan for any mixed use building is required as part of the application and review. There's kind of a second piece of this condition that says in, you know, the first floor is required. And so, you know, the commercial districts, not abutting BG. And in the commercial, a special permit is required if there's. 10 units above the first floor. And we're proposing to strike that. So. You know, it seems. Somewhat unnecessary to have this kind of special permit requirement. The way mixed use buildings are permitted in general, there's review. So. You know, I'm not sure what, why, you know, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure about this point with, with some of the other recommended changes to the, makes you standards. And then again, here's an, this third condition. We're saying in the commercial district is talking about, you know, how much. Of the use could occupy the first floor. An incidental space to that. And we're proposing to remove this again. And then just have new standards and conditions, which I will walk through. We've already had a non residential plan, but then we will have the new standard and plan, and the rest would be all new language. So in section 12, there'd be a definition for mixed use building. And let me just. Get that out on one page. Sorry about the scrolling. So we define a mixed use building as a building containing two or more dwelling units. In combination with permitted non residential uses. of residential or parking. And it goes on to say that the residential use or the parking would be at the rear of the building and not visible inside of the building from the public way or walkways or areas customarily used by the pedestrians in public. And so the two or more dwelling units is in there so that like a live work building would be allowed and wouldn't be considered a mixed use building. Some communities have different thresholds at when they define a mixed use building. And so we're saying, really it's a combination of, if you have two or more dwelling units and then non-residential use. And the non-residential use can be on the first floor, right? But it's not, it can't be more than 50% of that first floor. And the non-residential use could be allowed on upper floors. We're not really prescribing what's happening on the second or third floor. That would be reviewed during the permitting process. And then the definition has three subsections really defining the non-residential uses as any of the other uses allowed in the zoning district. So a retail use, business, institutional government, public service, and we're saying that hotels, motels would be considered non-residential for the purposes of the bylaw. So anything else allowed within that specific zoning district let's say for instance, the commercial district would be considered non-residential. We're defining parking should be the space used for parking or internal drive aisles and walkways that's within the building. Parking, including parking design for bicycles may be a principal use or an accessory use in the mixed use building. And so we're allowing parking to occur on the first floor ground floor of a mixed use building. And so there had been some discussion about that. But we still think that with residents in the upper floors that providing parking within the building and on the site is acceptable. And it may be that we wanna have it within the building depending on the lock configuration. And then residential and non-residential uses shall also include the incidental spaces associated with those uses such as hallways, elevators, stairs, utilities, trash and recycling. And so this is just trying to help clarify what we consider when we say a residential space when we say 50% of the ground floor. And so this is kind of a reiteration of the last condition that's existing in the use chart. And then the major change now is there's so there's the definition and then there's new standards and conditions and the proposed amendment now has a few standards and conditions and it doesn't have any design guidelines. And so from the previous version until now, staff has decided to remove the design guidelines in terms of how long a facade can be before it is stepped back, window treatment, glazing requirements on the first floor. And so without complicating it, the standards and conditions are really trying to address just the integral parts of a mixed use building review and the design standards can weigh into the town as a consultant, but we've really pointed people to the existing design review principles and standards in the bylaw. And for instance, saving the site plan review criteria in section 11.24, staff thinks that there's enough information there and direction that it could help the permacraining authority. So in terms of the standards and conditions, there's still a required product open space and it would be required in the front of the building or along the side of a mixed use building in areas customarily used by the public. So it wouldn't necessarily need to be, for instance, if you have an alley or a public area that goes the third of the length of the building on the side, only that third of the length could be an area where there's product open space. It wouldn't have to be along the whole side of a building. What we're saying is calculated as 10% of the building footprint, including areas under overhanging upper floors. And then the rest of this is kind of recommendations. The product open space may include areas for residents of the building and areas used by the public. It may include landscaping sidewalks, pauses, or sitting areas. However, product open space shall not be areas for driveways, HVAC, or utility areas. And so from the previous version, this definition is more relaxed and it really then becomes a discussion with the permit granting authority and the applicant and developer, how that open space would be programmed and designed in the front or on the side of the building. And I will say that the Community Resource Committee has some questions about this in terms of, if the 10% is in the front of a building and it's a narrow lot, does that arbitrarily force the building to be stepped back from what could be a consistent front line of building facades? And so I think that's a good consideration. I think there has to be some care about how this is applied. However, mixed use buildings are allowed in more than just the BG district. They're allowed in other districts and village centers. So this 10% is seen as a way to encourage open space that could be used by the residents of the building or by users of the non-residential uses. We're also including a provision for outdoor amenities. So we're saying that a developer shall be required to provide outdoor amenities that would benefit the residents and users of the building. And the amenities may include things such as benches, sitting walls, planters. The bylaw already does require bike storage and other things, but we're saying that, especially with mixed use buildings, there is probably a need for additional types of amenities. There's still a bedroom count provision and this has become simpler and it is now consistent with the language and the apartment definition. So it says that no more than 50% of the total number of dwelling units shall be of any one size. For example, a studio or number of bedrooms. And again, the CRC, they discuss this and they like that it was consistent with the apartment definition. They were still unsure whether or not they would want to have any regulation in terms of bedroom count. They were questioning whether or not the market demand would determine the number and size of units and not have some regulation to that effect. I mean, the point of this really is to try to encourage a mix of unit sizes. And so previously, there was something about one, two, and three bedrooms and it was pretty prescriptive and that could actually backfire. And so I think Maria had said something similar to this wording. So really it's just trying to encourage a mix of unit sizes. And then there's a standard in condition for parking within buildings. So essentially, if parking is within the building, only the access driveway entrances and exits would face onto or be visible from the public way or areas used by the public like plazas or sidewalks. And so this condition is really saying that if the parking is in the building, the parking can't be facing onto the sidewalk when it's inside the building. And then design review and other permit requirements. And so this is a change. It's really saying the permit granting authority shall apply. So it's really a requirement now that they would apply the design review provisions of section 3.2040 and 3.2041 in the bylaw to any construction renovation or expansion of a mixed use building and then may refer the application to the design review board. And it reiterates that the permit granting authority would apply 10.38 in case of the zoning board of appeals or 11.24 for site plan review applications. And this says specifically apply those criteria with respect to the site and potential conflicts between the residential and non-residential uses. And so right now the planning board or zoning board isn't required to necessarily walk through the design review principles and standards in the bylaw. And so this is saying for mixed use buildings in place of having more prescriptive design guidelines, those standards would be applied when reviewing a project. And so the, and it's something that the design review board customarily uses and it would just be something that may be a little bit of a change from the way it's reviewed now. And I was just gonna say quickly the design review principles, there's four principles in the bylaw and they mentioned that buildings, there can be contemporary buildings. It does say that. It says that they do have to be sensitive to the character and architecture of the town. In the standards, there's nine standards and they deal with things like such as height, massing, proportion, relationship of site to the space and buildings around it, signs. And so, short of having really strict design guidelines, we'd say that the permacreating authority would apply these elements. And so it's gonna do a new share quickly. If this is visible, the design review standards, there's height proportions. So even the proportion and width of windows to the space where there isn't any glazing, relationship of structure and spaces, the shape of the building and roofs, landscaping, the scale of the structure or landscape alterations, directional expression of building. So facades and other architectural elements, architecture and site details, and then signs. And then it even says the choice of materials, color, size and method of illumination. Again, time of signs should be compatible. So, staff feels that there's these standards in addition to section 11.24, which says that product should be compatible in terms of setback and height with the surroundings. And there's some other criteria there that it gives enough guidance for the permacreating authority to review a project, including its architecture and its location on a site. I think that's the presentation. So it is a kind of a pare-down version that's trying to get at some of just the integral components of a mixed use standard bylaw. Thank you, Nate. So I'm actually, I have this document being scanned so I can look at it, but let me open it up to the planning. Or Chris, you have a comment. Yeah, I just wanted to say that because we've taken design guidelines out of this section of the bylaw, doesn't mean that we've abandoned the idea of design guidelines. It just got too complicated to try to combine the two in this one section. And we felt it was very important to get the mixed use building standards out there because right now there aren't any standards for mixed use buildings at all. You can have a building that where 95% of it is residential and only 5% is some other use and it just doesn't make any sense right now. So the first step is to get a handle on exactly what a mixed use building is. The second step is gonna be design guidelines. We're hoping that we're gonna get some capital funding to hire a consultant to help us with design guidelines. That's our goal. But even if we don't get the consultant, we do plan to work on design guidelines. It's just not, how should I say? It's just not efficient or it's not a good use of our time to try to wrestle with a big monster. We wanted to make it a smaller monster to wrestle with and we'll deal with the design guidelines later on. So that's all I wanted to say. Yeah, so I thought the mix of unit sizes was significant because we've had a couple of projects come and that were kind of monochromatic with regard to what they had with, say, studio or one bedroom situation. So that's significant. But I'm wondering about certain lots that are right across from a park that would have this requirement to have open space. And that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So this might go to more of a site-specific thing in my mind, but. Yeah, so thanks, Jack. Yeah, I spoke with staff about that, the open space and it could be that, that some of those standards and conditions, there could be a provision that says that they could be waived by special permit. So the idea might be that, agree that it's hard to write something, blanket conditions that apply in every situation. So maybe there could be a statement for that any condition could be waived or specific to a certain conditions that they could be waived through a special permit request. And so yeah, I forgot to mention that, that could be something that would work with some of these conditions. So. Okay. Yeah. That sounds good. So Tom, long. Yeah, sure. I just had one comment, which was in regard to the question that was just answered by Nate in terms of whether or not there can be exceptions to these and whether or not people can apply for an exemption or an exception. But the other question was to Chris in regard to the design standards, you mentioned in the context of the mixed use building, but is that a general, is the consultant going to review or develop design standards for various zones, various conditions, or is it just for the mixed use building or just for downtown? I'm just curious what the scope of the thought is behind the design guidelines. May I answer that, Jack? Yes. So I think we need design guidelines in the downtown and in our village centers. I mean, we may need them elsewhere as well, but those are the places that we're focusing on and they would relate to mixed use buildings. They would relate to commercial buildings. They'd relate to apartment buildings. So any kind of larger development would be subject to this design guidelines that I'm considering. And I think that's important, not just for mixed use buildings. Great, thank you. Very good. Janet? So I have a couple of different comments. One of them is, from what you said, we're going from a special permit for mixed use buildings to site plan review. And I think I asked for this a few weeks ago. I'd like to present to the planning board and probably the CRC is what's the difference of a site plan review permit and special permit? Because they're fairly compatible in terms of requirements or standards, but then they're not because site plan, special permit has more requirements on it. And so I think it'd be important for people to know before we agree to go from special permit to site plan review, what those two paths mean in terms of the applicant or notice to a butters, appeal rights and also the legal standards that we're considering. So I don't feel like I have a clear picture about what that is. And then later on when we're talking about the accessory dwelling units, we're going to go from special permit to the building commissioner giving out, I think permits. And I still don't understand those two legal rats. And it'd be good to have those side by side. So we really understand what we're giving up or what we're gaining or what happens. So that's kind of a major comment. I also think that it's going to put a lot more mixed use buildings in front of the planning board and a lot fewer in front of the ZBA. And I think that should be sort of discussed in terms of workload or why would we want that or wouldn't want that. I'm kind of concerned about, we seem to have given up a lot of the design standards that you've been trying to get in terms of buildings massing, breaking up a little bit visually. A lot of the things about the size of windows are things that are in the design review guidelines, but they've also been ignored with Kendrick Place in 1 East Pleasant Street. When I went through the design reviews manual, these buildings look like the don't, with their large windows and just the way the size of the window panes, literally in the size of the buildings. And so I'm concerned that we're losing the opportunity to try to control the visual massing of the buildings. And I was actually going to suggest that we add some more design guidelines, which is having like a 15 foot step back of the fourth and fifth floors so the buildings don't kind of impose on the street or to make the requirement to make the top floor into a roof. And I've seen that a lot in Boston and Cambridge where four story buildings look like three story buildings because it looks like a roof or there's a step back in a garden or a change in architecture. And the same building can also be kind of broken up into different architectural styles or the depth of the building. And so I feel like we're losing that whole ability to not make a big box with lots of windows that just, you know, it's kind of too, I mean, also when I looked at, again, people's reactions to like what buildings they liked and didn't like, you know, it looked like the last iteration of this amendment was trying to address those concerns. Like people felt like these buildings were just too big and too imposing. And I think there's ways through design guidelines to make them look different. So I feel like we've lost that whole piece and I was going to encourage to talk more about the fourth and fifth floor to kind of pull it back a little bit. So that's a big one. I was hoping to put in a provision or preference for small retail spaces, kind of a main street kind of feeling to the businesses. And then also, what was another comment? There's no talk, you know, like, there's no talk about historic buildings and look. There's no kind of compatibility with not just the building next to you, but the buildings that you're around, the place that you are. So those are like big concerns. And I feel like we're losing something by just saying, oh, like, you know, like have some space in the front of the building for some chairs and some gardens, which is actually something I think we need, but it's just not enough. The other thing is I think we should require three bedroom counts because if you go to studios in one bedrooms, we're looking for a mix of different housing types of different people. There's no room for a family in a one bedroom. And so maybe we can just put in a requirement of three housing types. So where there's some hope for the future, you know, we're looking for mixed income, mixed ages and things like that. And so, you know, people get, developers get a lot by creating a mixed use building. And I think we can ask for something back. That's a lot. Yeah. I'm wondering if we could chop that up a little bit. Jack, Chris has our hand raised. I was just gonna jump in quickly, like you Chris. Janet, we're now proposing to change the how the mixed use buildings are permitted now. So their site plan review in a number of districts by special permit and just the RBC. So, you know, there's site plan review in the BG, BL, BVC, BN and commercial. And we're not proposing to change that. I think when I mentioned that those conditions could be waived, the thought would be that it'd be a special permit through the permit granting authority, kind of like an SPP, you know, through the planning board, if it's by site plan review. So we're not, you know, the staff hasn't considered changing the overall permitting. I think I heard you, I thought I misheard, that I must have misheard what you were saying in the beginning. Yeah, okay, yeah, yeah. God, I can clarify that. And then in terms of the design standards, I do think that section 11.24 and the design standards have enough information for the planning board to say that an upper floor could be stepped back. So, you know, 11.24 says the impact to the street in the, you know, the scale of the building. And so I think it's something that the planning board and, you know, even staff haven't necessarily used to its full advantage, but I think that those references in the new, you know, design requirements in the mixed use building standard would allow the planning board to get a little bit more in depth in terms of review of the building. So, you know, it talks about proportion of windows and the spacing of windows. And, you know, it's not as, maybe not as prescriptive as form-based code or what the previous version of the viola was saying, but staff felt that short of trying to really, like Chris said, come up with design standards that for only mixed use buildings and spent a lot of time on that, we could reference pieces that are already in existence that, you know, can, could work. And then in terms of- And it is kind of case by case. It's planning board by planning board instead of telling developers, you know, I mean, the mixed use big buildings we have here in town are the biggest and most imposing ones. I mean, if you look at the development in the last eight years, you know, if someone wants to do a gas station, I don't think it's that much of an issue. But, you know, I'm just saying is we have this opportunity and it's two case by case and we're kind of, no one's imposing that. So why not just make it a requirement? Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, I think that becomes part of the design reviews, you know, design, the design review guidelines and how, right, how much do we include some of those for just the mixed use building? You know, I think, you know, I think that's something that's a discussion that the CRC is also having. I think they felt like the design guidelines was kind of paint by number, you know, it was getting to be somewhat arbitrary or without graphics, it was, you know, maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't. And so I think, yeah, you know, but I think, yeah, but I think for instance, like 11.24, you know, that does say, for instance, the development shall be reasonably consistent with respect to setbacks, placement of parking, landscaping and entrances and exits surrounding buildings and development. You know, there should be screening, there should be vocation design of the building should be appropriate and, you know, compatible. So I feel like there's ways that the existing biola could be used to help guide some of those conversations in ways that it hasn't been in the past. You know, I think your idea about small retail spaces and the bedroom count is something that could be up for discussion. I mean, there has been some communities that, you know, if they require, you say kind of encourage a preference for small retail space, it's different than requiring it. You know, sometimes if you require it, then you may not be able to fill that space. So I understand, I guess the question would be, you know, is it a preference? Like, so is it just a kind of a nod to the small business space in the biola? So it's not, you know, it could just be a statement that says, you know, you know, retail or smaller retail spaces are encouraged. I mean, is that something, is that what you're asking? Is something kind of just an acknowledgement of that? I was thinking of either requiring it or a preference or just like saying it's required unless blank, blank, blank. So, you know, just, you know, having just spent, you know, much of the last year visiting tiny businesses in Amherst that are still, you know, hanging on. And, you know, every village center is filled with small businesses and people have been talking a lot about how the downtown, there's like 15 or 20 businesses that aren't there anymore. And that's like 15 less reasons to come downtown. You know, and for some reason, I've been living at Paul's shoes, you know, but that gets me downtown to do three other things. And so I think that will create more of the kind of a vital kind of, you know, that's what we wanna see. We wanna see people starting businesses able to continue a business in a small space that can afford a more expensive large space, you know. So it could be a requirement with an out because you don't wanna force the person if they have a good retailer that happens to be bigger or gets bigger by its own success. But thank you for listening. The bedroom counts thing I wonder is just, you know, you just, I didn't know, I agree that you wanna reflect the market, but you also wanna get different kinds of people living, you know, in the downtown. And so if you had two kids, you're not gonna go into a studio or one bedroom, you know, we're building a park, hopefully for some people, you know, to have children in it. All right, thank you, Doug, please. All right, thanks, Jack. And thanks, Nate, for this update. I think I really only had one sort of editing comment and that is on the text that you were using for the mix of units. I think I might say that we want a mix of unit types rather than a mix of unit sizes because if I wanna be a very picky architect developer and I've got some units that are all one bedroom, but some of them are 750 square feet and some of them are 745 square feet, I'm gonna say I'm meeting your requirement. So you either need, I think we need to either define what we mean by sizes and or use a different word, maybe types, and I realize if you use types, you know, maybe there's some wiggle room there. So I think it might make sense to try to introduce a couple more definitions somewhere, whether it's in this section or in the general bylaw. Thank you. Thank you, Doug. Maria, please. Thanks, Nate. I think this is a great step to fixing the issue we've had for years from mix use. You basically hit the two key points that we've been talking about for years about that. The no more than 50% can be residential and then the on the first floor and then the other piece was the, I think the mix of unit sizes or unit types as Doug just pointed out. And I agree with the sort of taking all the design sort of guideline and all the specificity and also the sort of regulating of like types and sizes and leaving that kind of detail out because this is zoning, which is sort of for the ages. And so you never know what the future is going to bring as far as the market and as far as the developer or as far as what a lot can do. So I think leaving those kinds of things more flexible makes sense, but fixing the two things that were too flexible and causing loopholes, it seems like you've hit that, the open space thing. I did actually attend the CRC meeting just listening in yesterday and I agree with the things they brought out about it being a little strange to require a private developer to provide a public amenity that should really be the town sort of, using their sort of their space. And then if we ever get those design guidelines which I'm really excited about hearing you're gonna have a consultant help with that. We can sort of just design the streetscape as a sort of overall design goal for all projects not just mixed use in downtown, but for more zones. So I wonder if this is kind of mudding that because if you're gonna have that later on, which kind of maybe is a little more broad that sprinkling little design requirements here and there and in particular uses might be a little muddy. But otherwise, I think this is great. We've needed this for a long time. And other than, yeah, some of the sort of technical things that were brought up, I kind of liked the pairing down and the clarity of it, the way you've moved it. So yeah, thanks for all this work. Thank you, Maria. Andrew. Thanks, Jack. And thanks, Nate. I agree with just about everything that's been said. I think it makes sense relative to pulling the design out. I just wanted to make sure I was following the math and apologies for like focusing on something that seems kind of minor, but just to make sure I'm totally clear, what's the minimum number of residential units that would define a mixed use building? So we're saying two or more. Okay, so with that 50% threshold, any odd number of units is going to exceed that 50% threshold. So like any odd number would mean you'd need three different types. And so I know we've said like there's opportunity to have exceptions, but just if you had three units, two of them are one size ones, the other, you are now more than 50% of one type. So just, and thinking for a mixed use that may be a smaller number of units that could make it very difficult for a developer if they only have the ability to do, three or four based on their building footprint. So, but I think that's like kind of a minor thing. I do agree again with what folks have said that I think the spare of this is really spot on. So thank you. I don't agree. Yeah, that's interesting you pointed that out the department started at a higher number of units. So then that 50% isn't, you wouldn't have a violation if you had the three unit building. So that's glad you pointed that out. So Nate, I'm wondering when we see these proposals come across and they're taking advantage of this mixed use criteria and for good reason, but so often it's nebulous in terms of what the business is. And I'm wondering, what kind of control do we have as a board that kind of nailing down what might be there because we've seen coffee shops I think is like a standard sort of retort with regard to what's going in there and I'm just wondering what can we do to address that issue of the specificity of the businesses. I didn't go and it's always, it's. Yeah, I think that's a really, I think it's really difficult at this stage. I think staff discussed that previously if we had some design requirements that try to relate to the non-residential use, the developer would just say, I don't know what's gonna go in there. So I, and maybe they've come back with a separate permit, which can happen now, but I agree, I think zoning may not be the refined tool needed to say what are the exact uses that would happen in a building. Yeah, some communities, if they did a study and they kept it right current, they might say we really need smaller retail spaces and they actually were, maybe they require it. I haven't seen many bylaws that do that. I think because it becomes really difficult, you're really then kind of pigeonholing the project. And so most of them now, they might have some requirement that some be certain level of consumer or pedestrian activity or something, but most of them are just pretty generic, like just a business or retail use. So I do think that's a difficult thing to try to capture with zoning, like try to have that ability to be flexible in zoning and the conditions and have, allow change. Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, it's like, you don't wanna pin yourself in with regard to being developed, you don't have sign contracts and you gotta be flexible, that sort of thing, but it would be really nice if some of the developers would come in with something more imaginative than a coffee shop, et cetera, in their proposals. But again, I don't know that we can really judge the proposal on the business, part of that mixed use proposal. So, Doug? Yeah, I guess I felt the need to say, Jack, I disagree with that impulse. I would be more inclined to let it be, as Nate has described it, pretty much any non-residential use, particularly over the lives of these buildings, it's gonna vary, it's gonna wax and wane. And I think we want enough space available downtown for people to have a full set of resources available for people who wanna shop downtown. And I just don't think we have the omniscience to be able to tell anybody what should be there. That's the beauty of the market. I agree, Doug. It's kind of rhetorical on my part, but any other comments? I will say one other thing. Part of what's going on with the new buildings and pushing the smaller mom and pop storefronts out kind of reminds me of what happened with Harvard Square after the red line went in. And it had been kind of a real estate backwater. And once the red line got extended out to Somerville and all the new kind of new buildings came in and the mix of stores changed to be more sort of the national retailers. And but maybe some of those mom and pops had to move down to Central Square. And maybe the shoe repair person that sounds like Janet was at today and I was at yesterday, maybe we'll have to go to Pomeroy Village in order to get that rather than downtown. So I'm not saying that I'm happy about how Harvard Square turned over or how Amherst's downtown might turn over, but that seems to be the way things go when you build new buildings. Thanks. Very good. Thank you, Doug. Any other comments from the board? Jack, Chris had had her hand up a bit ago. It is down now, but you might want to check in with her. Hi, Chris. I think Doug said what I was going to say. He said it better than I was going to say it, so that's why I put my hand down. But I also wanted to mention that the CRC thinks that this particular bylaw is not ready to move on to the town council. So I thought I'd just share that with you. They're going to be looking at it at least one more time, maybe multiple times in the future. And so they'll be working on it. And when something new comes up, we can bring it back to you and talk about it. But it's not ready for taking it to the town council right now. Very good. Thank you, Chris. And let's take this to public comment. Pam Rooney, state your name and address, please. Hi, Pam. Hi, Pam. Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. Thanks for hearing me out. I would like to put in a formal complaint again that these zoning discussions are happening at both the CRC and the planning board. I think the common citizen wouldn't have a clue to go, which meeting am I supposed to attend to hear these in-depth discussions about zoning? So once again, I would just love some clarification on where the heck one goes to participate in zoning conversations. And I think that it's really a shame because it's really confusing. And I obviously didn't, I did not go to the one last night and I would have liked to have. So that aside, I was going to focus on one of these sections and that is the parking. So... I'm wondering if Chris can respond to your first. Well, let me just finish if you could and then she can respond later. I just want to get through the section 12.34 is the parking. And so 12.34 parking is lumped in with the residential portion to not exceed 50% of the floor plate, if you will. But in 12.341, it talks about parking, including bicycles as a principal use or an accessory use in the building. And then 13.342 sort of says, well, and all of these other elements like hallways, elevators, stairs, storage, bicycle storage, utilities, trash and recycling are included in either residential or non-residential uses. So it seems very unclear who gets to own the bicycle parking, for instance, and who gets to own the elevators and stairs. And I could see some pretty quick switcheroo's in saying, well, that's all residential or that's all non-residential. So it carves away more and more of the commercial space that I think we really want to focus on in these buildings, knowing that the ones that are being built are really in the downtown district. I think that going on to referring people to the section 10. something and the 11.24 site planning guidance is helpful. But I do appreciate having the open space requirement as part of the project open space. And the reason I say that is that the town, open space is needed, the town could provide it within its right of way and maybe given one East Pleasant Street because it is so close to the street, there is no space for the setback, the sidewalk and any kind of public amenity space that I think Doug Marshall referred to. We want that robust public engagement space. So if in fact, hard to say this, you might want to require the developer to pitch in and create the, at least the minimum public space, the public way, which is setback from the curb, the walkway and then any additional amenity that they want to offer. Not sure if that was real clear, but I think we really need to require that they provide or at least maintain the public presence and the public way that at least surrounds it on both sides. Thanks. Thank you. Next, we have Dorothy PM. All right, Dorothy. Hi, Dorothy. Hello, how are you? Good, thank you. I have some questions about enforcement. I was kind of excited when design guidelines were being put into the mixed use description plan and now they've been taken, not completely, but mostly taken out and referring to the design review board, which I would be excited about, except I have been at some of those meetings where every single suggestion was not followed. And we got Spring Street, which is, I think, a building that I, it's really hard to say what it adds to the time. So design review board is purely advisory. It has no power enforcement. So unless that's changed, I don't see that we have pain to me. I also want to talk about the streetscape. I guess I think my feeling about who's, what they were really asking was who's the charge? And to my mind, we all have different roles and the planning department is made up of professional city planners and the planning board is made up of a mix of people who have special training background and education in areas that relate to planning and the town council, I see us as representing the citizens of the town and that we are trying to relay to the more expert boards, what people have been telling us. And I feel that the earlier plans were responsive to what people have been telling us, but I'm not sure if those, if I went and told my constituents what's changed, I think many of them would be very upset. So the idea of saying that the town has made a park and therefore buildings don't have to have any space for their inhabitants, I think is going to make some people feel like they were fooled and paying for the park because we didn't pay for the park. It's a playground as well as a place where people in Amherst and Mix and Mingo and all the residents were going to talk about you'd have to cross a street. So if I lived in one of the buildings on East Blizzens Street, I would want some little space outside my apartment where I could sit or sleep, but still be close to my apartment or meet somebody or greet somebody or we'd have what would used to be talked, we should mention outdoor dining space. The last seems to be disappearing. I know it was very clear from last night's discussion that the whole question of the width of sidewalks is very complicated and I do understand it is complicated. Somehow the public expects you to figure that one out, so I know that'll make you happy, but they want the broad sidewalks and whether the town has to give something to, or whether you're spent, you're meant for the open space plan, but somehow it's gotta be dealt with in future buildings. Else, we will just have a very unhappy large number of people in town who feel that they're not being listened to. But I do thank you for all the hard work you do. This is not an easy task and it's really clear it's not. Thank you. Thanks, Pam. Kitty, state your name and address, please. Hi, Kitty. Hi, yeah, Kitty Axelson Berry and my address is 89 Stoney Hill Road in Echo Hill South. So I have a lot of questions and I wasn't here at the beginning of the meeting and I wasn't at last night's meeting, so I might be repeating things and please forgive me. The first one is about this compatible with surroundings. One of the surrounding buildings were allowed to be built, but like one East Pleasant Street, everyone had significant number of residents dislike them intensely and they are widely considered to be problematic. So what if those are considered as the surrounding buildings is, I would like some definition of like, what a surrounding environment is. Second one is about enforcement and I think Pam, Dorothy Pam was just covering that. Like, okay, well, wait. Design guidelines seem to be different than design regulations. What is a guideline enforceable? That's my question. My third question is do we have any, has there been any talk about mixed income buildings which I've been hearing about on NPR as growing in popularity? And the fourth one is probably a silly question, but do towns ever help developers bring in retailers? Is there any coordination between the town developer and the small business? So those are, oh, and the fifth one is, the CRC seems to have an awful lot of power, but to be, I think they're pretty inexperienced in urban planning and development. Is that, is my impression correct? Yeah. Who was laughing? Yeah, I don't know. Sorry about that. And, okay, so the last is Ira. Wait, are my questions gonna be answered? Chris? You're muted, Chris. You're muted. There you go, Chris. All right, now I'm not muted. So I wrote down a bunch of things. Maybe I'll start with Kitty's questions first. So, yes, we have an issue about compatibility with surroundings and we can make some statements about what the surroundings are. And the surroundings of the currently proposed building in the north end of downtown has kind of a mixed surrounding. It has asphalt parking lots and one-story buildings. And then it also has five-story buildings that are rather large. So you can look at it in that context. You can also look at it in the context of the entire downtown. And we have very good examples of buildings that everybody likes in the southern part of the downtown around the town common. So there needs to be probably some discussion about what are we talking about when we're talking about the surroundings and compatibility with surroundings. That's something that the planning board can talk about, but it may also be something that we need to clarify in words in this mixed use building standards. Or yeah. So the question of can the town bring in retailers? Yes, the town can do that. We used to have an economic development director who did a lot of work to bring in businesses into town. We no longer have an economic development director. He left last year, I think, and he hasn't been replaced. So I think the intention is eventually to hire an economic development director, but I'm not exactly sure what his mission is going to be, but one of his missions could be to bring in retail into the downtown. Another thing is the CRC has a lot of power. Well, they are part of the town council. They're going to be voting on whether certain zoning amendments are passed or not. And they are a subset of the town council and they advise the town council, they make recommendations to the town council. So they're really a crucial part of this whole conversation. Right now we're in transition from formally town meeting and planning board and the planning department had a lot of influence in what things went to town meeting. It's transitioning to be a different scenario where the CRC has a lot of influence on that. The planning board still has a role but they're not as front and center as they used to be. So that's just something that is changing and we're gonna have to get used to it and we'll have to pay attention to what's going on at the CRC this week, what's going on at the planning board and it may take a little extra effort to keep track of that but that's kind of what's happening. People also talked about what is the DRB's role and the fact that the DRB is a board that makes recommendations but doesn't have any permitting power. Well, I think that the wording of this new mixed use bylaw is giving the planning board the ability to use the DRB's principles and standards itself. It's not just the DRB that's gonna be making recommendations about these standards and principles. It's going to be the planning board that is going to be required to use those principles and standards. So I think that's really gonna change things. They'll get recommendations from the DRB but the planning board is very capable of looking at a building and deciding whether it fits these qualifications or not. We have how many architects? I think we have three architects on the board and we have a landscape architect who's also a planner and maybe I'm forgetting about some expertise here but we do have a tremendous amount of expertise on the planning board. So I think the planning board is fully capable of using those standards and criteria to evaluate a building. So I think that's all I had to say. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Kitty, is that good for you? I would just like Chris, if possible, if you could answer, talk a little bit about the concept of mixed income buildings here in Amherst. That will be coming up when we discussing inclusionary zoning. Right now we're not really looking at the mixed use building as an avenue to get a mix of incomes in the downtown but we are tangentially or side by side with this mixed use building effort. We're looking at inclusionary zoning and making it a requirement for any residential development over 10 units. And I think that's going to increase the amount of diversity that we have in some of these buildings in terms of income bracket. Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Chris. Thank you, Kitty. Ira, please. Hi, can you hear me? Yeah, state your name and address please. Ira Brick, 255 Strong Street, Amherst. I want to focus in a little bit on the first floor of a mixed use building. It just seems that in many things in life, there's a bias towards one thing or the other. My father was in an assisted living where there was a clear bias towards residential over medical, there were other facilities that were more medical with residences. It seems like downtown Amherst, the way you're envisioning it is a bias towards residential with the nuisance of needing to fill the first floor with something that is the minimal viable product. And I don't feel encouraged by that as somebody that uses downtown Amherst as my town. It feels like there's a difference between saying, oh, and I lived in an apartment above a store versus I had a store under a bunch of apartments. I think the focus of downtown needs to be much more on the retail uses. And I understand as an ex retailer and ex commercial landlord that I would not want the town to legislate what I can and can't accept as a tenant. But at least, as Janet was saying before, if you can't legislate, have a strong preference in your wording. We have a strong preference towards public facing businesses. So they're not closed shops. I can enjoy any number of public facing businesses downtown. A closed shop can be anywhere. And having consulted the businesses for more than 25 years, there's a big difference between a store or a company that can be in the middle of the woods or it needs to be on a main street. And I don't think that there's anybody but the planning board that is going to press for that. And I think that you're being very lenient. The minimal viable product that a developer will build, and this is no insult to developers who I know and respect, they are not gonna build more than they have to. They'd be dumb. That's a waste of their money. If you legislate what you want this to be, then they're going to have to do it. And I would just encourage you to be a little bolder in what you are requiring people to do if they want to be a tenant downtown or a landlord downtown. Thank you very much with all due respect. Thank you, Ira. And Janet has her hand up, please. Thanks. I was gonna, I didn't say this before at night just in response to what people on the board and the public were discussing. I understand what project open space is trying to do. And I think what you're trying to do is create some street life, some vibrant street life downtown, some space for people to stop and chat or sit and eat a bagel. And on one of the first warm days this spring, I was downtown taking pictures of buildings on North Pleasant Street. And on the side of the street was shared, there were about 25 people walking by, having coffee, talking to each other in the street and across the street on North Pleasant Street. In that 10 minutes I was there taking pictures, there were two people went by. One person came out of one East Pleasant Street and walked into their car, which was not an illegal parking lot. And the other person just walked down the street. And there's just not, I mean, obviously right there there's not a lot to do, but there's no, the sidewalk is so narrow. If I stopped to talk to someone for 10 minutes, I'd be in somebody else's way. And so that kind, I think what you're trying to do with Project Open Space is create street life. And that creates, that brings more people in. And so I don't know if you should do a requirement of 20 to 25 feet from the curb has to be open, can't have the building despite the zero setback. So there's space for people to talk, there's space for a garden, there's space for a tree, there's space for people and strollers to pass. There's space to put out some tables and have a restaurant. If that facility is a restaurant that year. And I think in a weird way it's kind of a, we're having sort of a, there's sort of probably philosophical differences on the board. I don't distrust the free market, but I know that we have the power to regulate it as a government. And so zoning is the government's power to say, you get four stories or three or 25 stories. And in exchange for, we can control how close to the property line you build and how far back you do. And so I think in this situation, in the village centers and downtown, we want people on the sidewalks, we want life on the sidewalks. And so I think project open space is kind of flexible way to create that. We might just have to say, 25 feet back from the curb, 20 feet back from the curb. If we start going into the prop, into the whole issue of where the, but I just think there is some way to make sure something happens in front of a building and that can create sort of a dynamic sort of situation. And I think that's the time we want to live in. And we, as a government, we can say that because we give a lot of benefits on the other side. And we're kind of on the same team in a funny way as a group. That's it. Alrighty. Any other board member comments? So I think, I guess Chris, you will take, or Nate, you will take all these comments and move them forward to the CRC. And we may talk about this again and we may not. Yeah, sure. Yeah, to Janice's last comment, the Cambridge has a number of overlay districts that does exactly that. You know, they'll have segments of streets that they have then have, you know, this public open space requirement. And so, you know, originally we had the BL overlay district that was trying to do that. And I think, yeah, I mean, I think it's a difficult thing when the street, the curb to, you know, the right of way width is not parallels with property lines or to curb lines. And so, you know, we're not, Amherst wasn't, you know, done on a grid. And so, yeah, I think there's probably a few different ways to get at this kind of, I like the idea of like, you know, an activated streetscape. And so, you know, maybe, you know, Maria said, well, what if we do have design guidelines and this open space is inconsistent or redundant? Well, my thought is, you know, then this part would be removed from this part of the bylaw, right? I mean, if we have better design standards in a year, then we would use those. So I guess we can move on. I was gonna present the updated inclusionary zoning bylaw. Okay, we can just move into that. That's section 15 of the zoning bylaw and Nate. Sure, let me share my screen. So this was reviewed by the housing trust looked at this and this also was discussed at the Community Resource Committee yesterday. And the Community Resource Committee felt that it was in, that it was in a format that they could recommend to the town council. So they thought that, you know, changes that were made were sufficient at least to get it rolling. So let me share the screen and we can, is this visible to everyone? Yes. The, yeah, so there's a few changes from the previous version. I'll walk through the bylaw. And so the changes that are from the existing bylaw are in, you know, like the green, blue and red font or I don't know how ever you see it if it's, you know, purple or anyways, the first part was there was a provision that about local preference. And I think, you know, the new language is saying that to the extent allowed by law, ensuring that the permit granting authority or special permit granting authority consider offering local preference for new affordable housing as a condition of the permit or special permit. And so previously it said something about people who live or work in Amherst but those aren't all the categories of local preference and it really is up to the permit granting authority if on a project by project basis if they, if they apply local preference. So this is just kind of, you know, making sure it's consistent with the state regulations on local preference. Further down here in 15.1, you know, the new change is saying that, you know, this inclusionary zoning applies to all residential development including but not limited to townhouses, apartments, mixed use building, perds and open space conservation developments that provide new dwelling units. And so, you know, that was in here before we're just refining the language a bit. We're saying new dwelling units means a combination of units that have received or will receive a certificate of occupancy in any five year period and are located in new buildings or additions to existing buildings and any net increase in units resulting from reconstruction of existing buildings. And so, you know, we define new dwelling unit a little bit more carefully here. So we're saying, you know, that has received or will receive a certificate of occupancy in any five year period. And that's really trying to get at, you know, people who may try to phase a project to, you know, not trigger an inclusionary zoning. So, you know, it only starts at 10 units. So if someone tries to do nine units then nine units then nine units. This is, you know, trying to capture that in some respect. There are exceptions to what this applies to. So, you know, we're saying, you know, a chapter 40B affordable housing development conventional subdivisions. We've added cluster subdivisions or cluster developments as an exemption. You know, uses in fraternity residence district institutional uses that have residential units. So that's, you know, that's defined in the by-law and then housing under a public agency. And so, you know, those are the exemptions. So, you know, the subdivision piece and the cluster development are exempt because, you know, the subdivision is worried about the creation of a roadway and lots and not necessarily about the creation of units. So, you know, someone could do a subdivision plan but not actually have any developer in mind to actually create the units. So, a number of inclusionary zoning by-laws don't apply to conventional subdivisions or, you know, or similar things like cluster. If we go further down in the by-law, again, we just have some clarification. All residential development resulting in new dwelling units above the number already existing in the development. And so it's just trying to clarify what, you know, what is that kind of that trigger, that threshold? And, you know, one in nine units is currently exempt and that's still the case and the affordable calculations are still the same. So, you know, 10 to 14 units, it's one affordable unit, 15 to 20 is two affordable units and above 21 units, above 20, it's 12%. There is a difference here. There's kind of a footnote here that says when six or more affordable rental units are required, 20% of the affordable units should be set aside to households earning, we will say up to 60% of the area needed income as calculated by HUD or, you know, or any successor agency. So, this is a new provision that was inserted from the previous version, you know, really trying to help get that, you know, mix of income. So, right now, 80% of area median income is the definition of affordable unit in the bylaw and that's a standard definition across the state. So, 80% area median income at that income level, you know, any household with a voucher or mobile voucher and other households that are low moderate income actually, you know, have difficulty affording 80% AMI. So, this provision is really trying to help have some units that are at a lower area median income. We have a new term in here. We define residential development. That term had been used throughout the bylaw and it had never been defined. And when we were revising this bylaw, we realized that it, you know, it's really a, you know, it should be because it's the way it's used. So, we're saying now residential development means new dwelling units on one or more adjacent properties developed at the same time or in phases and that share aspects of the properties such as but not limited to shared parking, shared utilities, a common driveway or the use of combined properties for a lot or building coverage calculations. And so, you know, what this is capturing is that, you know, a developer may own properties that aren't next to each other and those are really two separate properties but someone may own two adjacent properties and they may actually think about developing them together with a common driveway. But they're saying, well, geez, I might trigger the inclusionary zoning bylaw but I'm going to develop one side first and then the next side. And so, now we're saying, well, if it's really sharing some aspects of the development like the common driveway or utilities, it really is one project, one residential development for purposes of inclusionary zoning. And the last piece that's changed from the previous version is this provision of offsite units or payment in lieu of. Originally we were saying if there were four or more affordable units required and we're recommending six or more affordable units. And so that means the project would have to have 46 new units. So, you know, you have to have already come in with a pretty big project to even be able to request this provision of offsite units. And it's a by a special permit and 50% of the units have to be provided on site. And so, staff had thought about eliminating this offsite provision based on comments from the CRC and planning board. However, the housing trust really felt that this provision is important because, you know, even just if we had a payment in lieu of, a developer may be able to, you know, they were saying could pay their way out of actually providing in half the units. And it's more important they felt to actually get units developed. And this provision for offsite affordable units only applies for projects in the BG, BVC, BN or the BL districts of budding BG. And it has a, you know, a proximity requirement that they'd be in the same zoning district or if in 500 feet. And so the housing trust felt that this, you know, didn't violate fair housing because the units couldn't be developed, you know, a project couldn't be in downtown. And then the units would be, you know, somewhere in East Amherst or out in, you know, some, you know, outlying residential district would have to be proximal to the development. And so a member of the housing trust works for mass housing. And they said that other communities have this offsite provision. And if they have this kind of proximal, geographic proximity, it works really well. The trust, you know, felt that the payment in Lua would be, you know, less desirable than offsite units. But they liked it having it in there. We increased the payment in Lua from three times the median income to four times. And in part, that gets to about the number if the median incomes about 76,000, you know, four times that amount is getting closer to the cost of actually producing a unit. So, you know, they were saying, if we're actually are letting a developer pay out for a unit, let's actually get the cost of what it is to create and develop that unit. And so, you know, we've increased that payment in Lua standard. So those are the changes from the previous version, you know, so there's some clarity in terms of the definition of dwelling units, you know, what applies. We have a new definition for residential development. And then we have these, you know, a set aside for area median income at 60% and then these increased thresholds for, you know, offsite or a payment in Lua. Thank you, Nate. Hey, I'm thinking about taking a break right now, even though, you know, we have this presentation by Nate, but just a little five minute break. We're about at, you know, eight o'clock. If that's good with everyone. Okay, so let's return to the inclusionary zoning at, you know, around eight o' one or so. Hey, Pam. Hi, Ben. I just have a quick question. I stepped away, I think, during Nate's presentation. So did I miss my accessory dwelling unit piece? You did not. Okay. From Nate's first one, the mixed use right into inclusionary zoning. Okay. Nate gave his presentation and then Jack called for a five minute break. Okay, I got you. Yeah, I wasn't away for too long, but I came back and I said, oh no. That's okay. And look, here's Nate. It's like rare fan, Winkle. He's all asleep and woke up. No. I try that. Hey, I'm going to be in the office tomorrow, you two. No, good. I'll be there. I know. I finished going through my email to satisfy that request for paperwork. Oh, perfect. Yeah. So I've got a whole big pile of email. Did you count the number of pages? I'm so afraid I've counted wrong. Yeah. I hope that that's like, I mean, I did it like two, sometimes I did it three times if I got interrupted. Man, what number was I on? You know, is anybody else having trouble like hearing? Like I have a lot of distortion. I can't tell if it's my internet or is anyone else having that problem? They seem to be clear. I had a little trouble hearing Dorothy Pam and I think it was her connection, but other than that, no. Okay, I've had that for a few people and I was wondering if it's my connection. Maybe that's the problem. Okay. There's like funny lags. Let's see. So, Jack, we're not quite all back. I feel inclined to say that I've got, this is like iced decaf coffee. So like just because it may look like I'm, you know, having a stout or something, but it's actually coffee. So just, and it's decaf coffee because I'm not, I can't do that. But anyway, I'm sensitive to this sort of thing. So anyway. I can say that this is ginger ale, okay? We're both good liars. I'm a seltzer. I prefer the non-clear mug. Good idea. Okay, so I think we can go ahead, Pam. Are we all here now? Even if we're not? I think we are. I see everybody. Okay. Just let me know. And then we have like, it looks like Doug and... We have seven, I see seven planning board members. Okay. Pretty bunch. Okay, are we back online? We are. All right, so thank you, Nate, for that presentation on inclusionary zoning. I'm wondering if either you or Chris can give us some feedback with regard to where CRC is. Yeah, I think the CRC thought that this was, you know, with these revisions, that it was, you know, that they would recommend it to see, or, you know, they would recommend it to town council. They were ready to forward it on. I think they thought it was in, you know, and good enough shape to move it forward. Okay. Probably remind people of what happens then. So when the CRC brings this to town council, then town council refers it back to the planning board and the CRC for public hearing. And the planning board and the CRC have recently been holding their public hearings together. And I believe that's what will occur in this instance. So depending on what the CRC does, you know, you may be seeing this back again fairly soon for a public hearing. Thank you. Okay, so we have Doug, Andrew and Tom. Doug, please. Thanks, Jack. I guess my question was, you know, I know that this inclusionary zoning has been a priority of a lot of people in town for a long time. And it looks like we're very close to moving forward with it. I wondered whether Nate or anyone else understands what the impact is of including affordable units in a building with non-affordable units. In other words, does the rent, I assume the rent on the non-affordable units goes up because the non-affordable units are in part subsidizing the affordable units. So if 12% of the units are subsidized, you know, are we gonna be skewing the distribution of people who can live in a building like that away from our sort of ideal working or middle class you know, families and toward higher earners. And I, you know, I just am curious whether there's any information on whether the market rent in a unit with or when a building with an inclusionary zoning is higher than the market rent in a building without it. So, you know, that's my question. If there's no information, so be it, but you know, that's a question. Thank you. Doug, I think I raised that as well in a previous, you know, meeting and it seems to be for me, I know we were kind of like floating the situation where there were, you know, providing some tax incentives for, you know, first-time homeowners or owner-occupied units in town and then I believe town council had a discussion on that and the decision was that that would put a burden on others. And so I see it like some irony in the inclusionary zoning and in that sort of argument that town council discussed, but in the end, you know, we need affordable housing, but there's some tough issues here, I think. Andrew, please. I'm sorry, Jack, I was hoping to hear back from Nate on whether he had any information about that. Absolutely, the CRC discussed this as well. And there are some articles that were included in their packet and I think there's kind of a mixed review on that. I think there is, you know, probably a tipping point or a balance of the affordable and market rate units. I will say that the consultants who did the comprehensive housing market study for the town recommended a 15% affordable calculation for all developments. And so, you know, we didn't, we haven't increased our, you know, we're saying only, you know, they're saying, you know, from six or more units or 10 or more units, have it be 15%. We actually have, you know, a tiered formula for the inclusionary unit. So only once you have 21 units or more, then it's 12%, the rest of that it's lower. So we're really trying to have, you know, proportional increase in affordable units to not have this, you know, this impact that you mentioned. I also think that, you know, if you have 12% affordable units, then the product is eligible for the local tax incentive. So, you know, for up to 10 years, the, you know, the differential in tax and the affordable units can be, you know, written off over 10 years. And so, you know, there is this, you know, there is another provision that could help a developer. I think, you know, I don't have a, you know, a clear answer. I don't, you know, my thought is based on looking at other bylaws, the way we calculate affordable units and what we have for the AMIs is not a burden. So, you know, some communities require 50% AMI in affordable units. You know, we don't require that, you know, we're saying 80% with the 20% set aside if you have essentially a 50 unit development. Some say right out the bat, you have to have 50% AMI, units at 50% AMI. So that's much lower. And some have higher calculations, you know, higher percentage, some start triggering inclusionary zoning at six units. So I feel like the AMR's calculations are not at that point where, you know, there'd be this imbalance and we'd see market rate units actually, you know, skew higher in their rents. But, you know, I'm, someone may have a different answer, but I think, you know, I feel like the rents that are being charged at market rate are so are, there's so much demand that the rents are extremely high right now. I don't, you know, it's difficult to say, you know, is 12 having 12, you know, 12% of the units be slightly less, is that going to really charge, you know, is there going to be this ripple effect? Like, you know, I don't, my sense is there isn't, but. Thank you. Thank you, Nate. That's very helpful. And thank you, Doug. Andy? Thank you, Jack. I'm happy to say that I had a similar thought to Doug's. I actually, I'd reached out to, now mind you, these are retail commercial brokers, I reached out to some retail commercial brokers in, in Boston, New York, DC and Dallas, who I work with. And the, you know, feedback was probably not, not too surprising, right? That the absent a local tax incentive, that there is going to be, you know, a likelihood that you are going to see those, those market housing rates subsidizing the lower ones. And so they had mentioned just like, to the extent that you control that threshold, that will impact the gap between the rates or the gap above market. So I think, Nate, what you said makes a lot of sense in terms of, you know, if that threshold is closer to 15, instead of 50, then there'll be less of a need for a developer to look to, to jack those, those rents up. I was, I was just going to, my original comment, and it was just a comment was that I was happy to hear the increase in the, in the payment in lieu of taxes. That's actually what I was trying to get to in a comment I made last session or two sessions ago. This, this makes a lot of sense, right? If it's forex, and that's what we feel is the amount of money to develop a unit, then I think that's, that's like the point of this, right? It's like, if you're not going to do it, then someone else is going to do it. And so give us the money to, to make it happen. So I think that's a great, a great catch in, in improvement. So thanks. Very good. Tom. Thanks, Jack. So I was going to say, maybe the opposite, you know, I love, I'd love to see these minimum numbers go up, but I know that we're, we're trying to balance and, but I think the work you did Nate was great in terms of really finding this fine line between the feedback you got last, last couple of meetings from CRC and from us being able to incorporate those and come back with something that, I think addressed those concerns, but also, you know, with something that can, can be, can be passable. And so, so I appreciate the work and I think it's a really nice balance. And I support this, I think, like the CRC does. Very good. Thanks, Janet. I agree with the comments. I think the revisions, it's, it's getting more nuanced and, and taking care of like small problems and then also just becoming more clear. In terms of the rents, like this pushing rents up, you know, the three, three or four buildings that we have that don't have inclusionary zoning or affordable housing are the most expensive rents in town. And so they, you know, one is Pleasant Street, you know, a two bedroom is $3,000 a month. A studio is almost, is almost 1,800 a month. And that actually, the, the expensiveness of these units has actually raised rents throughout Amherst because everything else looks cheaper and you can be a landlord and increase your rent by a hundred dollars and still look cheaper. And so here we have the, you know, three or four buildings with the most expensive rents and no inclusionary zoning units. And so I think that they're just making a lot of money and it's, you know, you know, with the tax deduction or help, they'll still be making money, just not quite as much as if they could, you know, rent out those six units at high levels. So I think that in a funny way, the apartment buildings that we have in town that don't have affordable housing are turning out to be the most expensive. And so, you know, maybe, I don't know, you know, it's hard to see how the market could go higher but, you know, let's, let's just make sure there's some you know, everyone's doing some piece of the help, you know, every developer is gonna help with affordability, not just, you know, certain people under certain permit requirements. And I love the idea of just making it uniform, clear. This is getting more and more clear and you are responding to different people's stuff. So I just, I think this is stronger than the first one that we saw and I really, I strongly support it. You know, I'm wondering about this in terms of providing more housing and is actually, you know, in terms of, you know, demand supply that more housing is making it more expensive. I have a hard time like conceptualizing that, but anyway. My point is, is that the most expensive housing we have in Amherst has no affordable units. And so we're just. I agree with, yeah. So it's just sort of a weird thing. Yes, Maria, please. Okay, so I was very torn about this just like last week or whenever we met. And so I actually looked at the CRC agenda and saw they're discussing it and so I was curious what they were thinking. And then I saw they had some documents in their packets and it was, I started opening them. It ended up being like four documents that was like 300 pages total. So I didn't read them, but I went to certain chapters where it said like findings and I just was curious what, what are they finding across the country as far as inclusionary zoning? And it sounds like what you had to have was a, a market where housing was growing. And I feel like that's Amherst. And then B, every single study without exception said, you know, the thing you have to do is pay very careful attention to design and structuring of incentives. Because those are critical to avoiding the adverse effects of basically what you guys just discussed which is the increasing housing prices or rents in general. And then the other is depressing or delaying market rate development. And we don't have that data. We did have to study, I think it was RKG or Judy Barrett or maybe they were the same entity but what they're offering, their incentives were a lot higher than the incentives we currently seem to be offering. Like there's nothing about density bonus, there's nothing about reduced parking requirements. I'm wondering if that is just, you're gonna rely on special permits being triggered and the developers just pushing for those on their own rather than having that built in. But see, you've built in the subsidies and you've built in, you know, I'm sorry, not this payment in lieu and the offsite, but I just wonder if the incentives are going to be doing what we want to have happen which is more affordable units. I'm not worried about having too much housing. I don't think that's an issue. I think it's, I'm worried that we don't have the right information to make the right design for the zoning bylaw that won't have a missed opportunity. I think I said last time too, just, you know, these projects come and go. I know there are certain people that own properties in Amherst and they're not going to go but projects do, you know, developers do come in and that's a really big risk in my mind. I feel like just studying the data and figuring out the best solution is worth the benefit that we can get, but it's not worth the risk of losing a potential large project that comes through our town. So I think it's the same thing I said last time but just in different words. And also, yeah, I kind of looked through those reports just to see, you know, if any of them said, oh, don't worry, no problem, it'll work. They all said, be very careful about incentives and really make sure they are designed for your market, your town, your city. And so I just hope we've done that and we can move forward with that somehow. Thank you, thank you, Maria. And then, you know, there's always the capital A versus small A aspect of this, how, you know, I think when we're talking about housing, they, you know, we're looking to get, there's a continuum and affordable housing is one part of it, but there's this huge gap between the rich and low income that Amherst seems to be missing and the inclusionary zoning, again, you know, helps, but there seems to be bigger issues out there. And I'm wondering about the 40R things that we, you know, discussed, you know, did we pass over some things, you know, et cetera, but anybody else wanna dug and then, oh, Chris, sorry, Chris. So I just wanted to point out that a few years ago, we raised the height that's allowed in the BG Zoning District from four stories to five stories. So I think that's, you know, a bonus in and of itself for developers. And we could look at changing that height, reducing it to four stories and then, you know, giving developers the bonus of the fifth story if we wanted to, if we felt that was really important. But I already feel like the developers in Amherst get a lot from the town. There's a really strong market here for renters and developers seem to be more than willing to keep developing here, whether it's in the downtown or, you know, on the outskirts. And so I feel like this is something we should try. And, you know, if it, for some reason, doesn't go the way we think it's gonna go, we can change it. But I think it's about time to try it. We've had a lot of buildings built with no affordable units in them. And I don't know, Nate, I think we've had like five, have we had 500 units built in the last five years? I think we have. Yeah, we've had 500 units permitted to different projects. Yeah, so that's a huge number. So there's no doubt that people want to develop in Amherst. So that's all I had to say about that. Good points, Chris. Thank you. Doug, please. Yeah, I was gonna, the comment I was gonna say, I'll wait for a second, but Chris, in response to what you just said, you know, I feel like when we changed the height allowance from four stories to five stories, that was some sort of tipping point in the financing of these bigger buildings because prior to that, there weren't any, and we weren't having construction. So, you know, I'm not sure the town council or rather the town meeting realized that that was a tipping point that was crossed when they made that change. But, you know, to me, it's sort of an interesting example of something that, you know, we didn't really necessarily know that that was what would unlock the housing downtown. So then the other thing that I was gonna say was, and I forgive me, I think I said this last time, but I really feel like the affordable unit requirement should be tied to the life of the building rather than a deed restriction on the property, just because, you know, once the build, if the building were to go away and be replaced, I think it would be a clean slate and you'd start over. And then, you know, if there was inclusionary zoning at that point, you'd talk about it then. But I think Nate, last time we talked about this, you said that this requirement would result in a perpetual deed requirement for those affordable units. And I'm not gonna live long enough to see that it's a mistake, but I think it's a mistake. Thanks. Yeah, so, you know, there is a deed restriction on the property, it is tied to the development. So, you know, for instance, Aspen Heights is specifically mentioned, Aspen Heights, the number of units, the developer and everything. So there are provisions that if there's, you know, if the buildings, if there's a loss of the property or building, then the restriction can be reviewed. So, I mean, Doug, it is interesting. I feel like, right, that's a problem for, hopefully I'm not around either. It's not a problem. It's a problem that, you know, that's every community in Massachusetts, you know, it's across the country that, you know, these perpetual restrictions are in place. So, you know, it's a case for even Community Preservation Act projects or other projects that get, you know, federal grants, you have to have restriction on the property for recreation, they say in perpetuity. I mean, that's, you know, not 99 years, but that's, you know, a thousand years or whatever, I think a lot of people question that, but I was just hoping a way that there was a way we could avoid the problems that the rest of the country will have. Yeah, you know, I meant to look into that. What, I would say that the restriction does have some provisions that are out, you know, in certain instances. And so I'd have to look into what it means in terms of the life of the building, but. All right, thanks. Yeah. Good, thank you, Doug and Nate. Any other board members have comments? All right, I see none. Open up to the public. I see no hands raised. So we can move on. Oh, two popped up. Here they come. So we have Kitty and Pam. Kitty, state your name and your address again, please. Okay. Kitty Axelson Berry 89 Stoney Hill Road. And here's another sort of naive question. I used to work with wealthy people and the wealthiest people that I ever worked with were all developers. They made huge amounts of money building apartment complexes, right? And managing them. I mean, it was like really, really a lot. So how much do our local developer, I mean, aren't there any local developers who are a little bit more idealistic and a little bit less feeling like they never have enough? I mean, are we, you know, and how much are we driven by a fear that no one will build here if we don't give them enough? It just seems kind of crazy to me. Okay. I know, it's a silly question, but isn't it possible to have developers who aren't, who are willing to make a little bit less money? Yeah, I know when I joined the planning board there wasn't, the Kendrick Place was in process but there hadn't been a single development in 20 years in Amherst proposed in the downtown area. So things have changed, obviously, but Chris, I don't know if you have anything to add to that. Chris, you're muted. I think we do have some local developers who are perhaps less avaricious than others. They still need to make money. They still need to recoup their investment and recoup the investment of their investors. And so they're not going to do things out of the goodness of their hearts. They wouldn't be in this business if they were. So even the locals need to make money and make a successful financial choice when they're working on these projects. So we can't really expect them to do something for nothing. It's a lot of work, getting through the permit process, putting their financing together, the construction, it's a lot of work. And they're incentive is to make some money. Some make more than others, but I can't ask them not to do that, not to make money. It's a capitalist society. Yeah, I think a lot of developers probably have gone bankrupt as well, right? I mean, it's a risk, it's a risk situation. Amherst has been a good place, fortunately. So Pam, and then we have Dorothy and Susanna and then Jennifer. Pam, Rooney, state your name and address, please. Hi, Pam, can you unmute yourself? Okay, does that work? Does that work? Yes. I didn't see your little symbol in the screen. Thanks, Camerini, 42 Cottage Street. A lot of really good work on this zoning article. Thanks, Nate and planning department staff. I appreciate actually that there aren't density bonuses being discussed because I think holding true to what is allowed by all these other standards, by mixed use definitions, by apartment definitions, I think we don't need to, I don't think we need to sweeten the pot too much, given all these other conversations that have occurred tonight. For one thing, density bonuses often lead to an additional floor and that becomes something that or an additional height and that becomes something that results oftentimes in surprise results, especially as it abuts other neighborhoods. I would just state for the record that of course, as all of these requirements and as new projects, as new projects come down the road, it will be the responsibility of the special, the permitting authority, whatever that may be to enforce the design guidelines to enforce these standards so that in fact, everybody benefits both the developer and the town. So I will be looking forward to all of you enforcing the standards as we go forward. But this article looks like it's in the decent shape. Thanks to all the hard work. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. Dorothy, ma'am. I've never been with so many PAMs before, except when I was with my husband's family. Yeah, I am agreeing with Chris. I think this is a safe plan and I really want to thank the planning department, not just for hard work, but also for their skill in kind of threading the needle on this one. It's been asked for for a long time. It's meeting a need and Chris said, and if it doesn't work, you'll look at it again. It's pretty good. And just a little comment. You know, remember I'm a whole, better buildings have been built out of capitalist plan when you compare them to Soviet apartment buildings, which are, you know, an example of really, really bad buildings that would, you know, we would all hate them. So although I wish that, you know, all developers were somehow doing this just as an act of total love and money wasn't important, I do understand that our system does generally result in better buildings. So kudos. Thank you, Dorothy. Next, we have Suzanna and then Jennifer. So Suzanna, state your name and address, please. Hi, Suzanna. Suzanna, Faye Bing, Moss Bratt, 38 North Prospect Street. I too would like to say congratulations to Nate and everyone else. I think this is getting to be very good. There are a couple of factors that I think may have been important in unsticking the real estate development downtown. First of all, borrowing money is very cheap now. It's as cheap as it's ever going to be. So that's a big incentive for the developers right then and there. Also, the fact that UMass brought in thousands more students who needed housing created an immediate demand that's also an incentive for the developers. I did make my way partway through all those articles in the CRC packet yesterday and I would encourage you all to read them because it's quite interesting stuff. And my question is, do you think there are going to be any federal or state incentives coming down for developing affordable housing because everybody's talking about this shortage on the national level and on the state level and we know the governor's been making a ruckus about it. I'm wondering whether there'll be any incentive grants coming that would also help with the costs of putting affordable housing into these buildings. Does anybody have any inside track information on that? Good questions and I would ask Chris. If anyone knows about money, Nate knows about money. Nate is the magic guy, he can get money from the state and federal government. What would that be? Who can then? That would be nice. There may be more money. I think it's difficult for a private developer to access some of those programs because it almost takes specialized knowledge. So for instance, like Beacon Communities that did North Square, they develop both market rate and affordable housing, but they know how to navigate all the different programs. And so my thought would be if there is more money, for instance, Valley CDC, their Northampton Road Project would get funded on the first round. Typically when you apply to the Loan Compousing Tax Credit Program, it may take two or three years to get money to get funded because it's so competitive. There's so many applications and not enough funding. So my thought is if I have heard that there could be more money actually, my thought is they may embed it in existing programs so that projects that are already in the queue would get funding. And so my thought is that it may not benefit private developments per se that would provide inclusionary zoning but it would provide benefits to other types of developers. I'm not, I don't know that for certain. Also the 12% affordable isn't usually enough to then get certain funding. So you'd have to have a deeper affordability and more units be affordable to usually meet some of the program requirements to get federal or state funding. So inclusionary zoning is meant to be kind of, the trust mentioned this too. And it's one tool, right? It's one strategy to have an incremental increase in affordable housing. It's not a panacea of, we're not gonna overnight see a ton of new units but it will help get units integrated and incorporated into projects about town in a way that is really beneficial, right? So you have mixed income developments, they're dispersed around town. And it's just one way to get some affordable units. And then there's also other strategies that the town can use. Thank you, Nate. Jennifer, please state your name and address, please. Hi, Jennifer. Yeah, hello. I'm Jennifer Tau, but 259 Lincoln Avenue. And I just wanted to, I guess kind of echoing Dorothy is that, I sometimes feel that there's an assumption that we kind of had to get the One East Pleasant and Kendrick Place, which a lot of people feel are not the most attractive buildings because that's what we were able to get, that's what the developers were offering. And I just, it's kind of like a request since we really depend on the planning board, all of us who live in Amherst to encourage the developers, we don't have to take, I guess, whatever the first thing is that they're offering. And I think there is kind of an assumption that we all share that the southern part of downtown is the more attractive part and that we're maybe have kind of given up on the northern part of downtown. But if we could kind of carry the look and character and feel of the southern part of downtown by town hall, up to Triangle Street, even as new buildings are built, that I think developers could still make really, would be just as good a business model for them and they could make just as much money and if we had attractive buildings as less attractive ones. So I just want to caution against there seems some assumption that it's either or and it probably doesn't have to be that way. Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer. Just a point of clarification, I think myself and Maria are the elder on the board. And I think the projects, or excuse me, can replace and one is pleasant. We're already kind of way down the line. So, planning boards change and people refer to the planning board but no one on the planning board is really responsible for projects that were approved many years ago. So I think every, I just would like to state that we're, we all have eyes on this in a fresh look and we're always evolving and learning and trying to understand what the community wants and what the town needs and that sort of thing. So, sorry, I kind of went off in a little tangent there but I just wanted to make that point. So I see no other comments and from the public or the board on this. So I guess you'll wrap this up and put a bow on it, Chris and send it along to CRC. Thank you for that. And now we have continued the discussion on the proposed changes to supplemental dwelling units. Section 5.0111 of the zoning bylaw. And who's... Yeah, I'm gonna speak to that point. Thanks, Jack. For everyone, my name is Ben Bregger. I'm a planner. There you are. You've been hanging around like all night. Lying and wait, yeah. All right. Just absorbing it all. Right. But yeah, thanks everyone. So I'm gonna talk briefly just about the our proposed amendment to the Accessory Dwelling Unit bylaw. You know, I think I spoke, I presented this to the planning board. She's at this point, it might have been a month and a half ago, something like that. It's hard to keep track, but we've only made two slight adjustments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit proposal. And I can go over those now. I think just for the benefit of everyone and for the public in attendance who maybe weren't involved in the first presentation, I just briefly wanna talk about what our Accessory Dwelling Units, you know, just, you know, we're not talking about downtown and inclusionary zoning anymore. So shift your focus a little bit. We're talking about accessory dwelling units or small dwelling units or apartments that exist on the same property law as a single family residence. So we're talking about small dwelling units kind of in every residential district in town. So these are independent living spaces with kitchen, bath and sleeping areas. There's different types and they can be detached, attached, you know, below, above the house, above the garage, you know, converted garage, that type of thing. In Amherst, the proposed bylaw and the existing bylaw, we're saying we're allowing for the provision of one accessory dwelling unit for a single family home. So if you have a duplex, you can't build an accessory dwelling unit. This is for owner-occupied single family homes, for that owner to build a second, to build an accessory dwelling unit, possibly, you know, in their side yard, in their backyard, in their basement, something like that. So that is what we're discussing now. The, this is the text of the bylaw proposal. Talks about the purpose of what we're doing. Essentially, you know, this is what I presented the first time around. We're proposing with this change to increase the maximum square footage from 800 square feet to 1,000 square feet. We think that's an important way to try to get, you know, to possibly three bedroom units to house, you know, a diversity of, you know, family and, you know, living situations. We're proposing to streamline the permitting pathway to reduce barriers to ADU development. Right now, special permits are needed for detached and some attached units. We're proposing to make all types of ADUs by right, except for some that are greater than 50% of the habitable space of the primary structure. So the, just going down here. So here's where that language is. So, you know, ADUs with habitable space greater than 50% of the primary structures, habitable space require a special permit. If they're detached and smaller than 50%, then they would be allowed by right. If they're attached to the primary structure, they would be allowed by right. And if they're completely contained, they would be allowed by right. The two small changes that we've made since last time where it was this new specification in the general requirements that says, to the extent feasible, newly constructed, detached accessory dwelling units shall be built behind the front building line of the primary structure. So the idea with this is that to, you know, it's important, we think it's important to have like a consistent streetscape in our residential neighborhoods. And, you know, right now with setbacks, the front doors and, you know, of homes are aligned along the street and it creates a nice streetscape with like, you know, sidewalks, trees, front doors. And we think that, you know, building a detached accessory dwelling unit in the front yard would could detract from that, you know, character of the streetscape. So we're encouraging their development in the backyard or side yard, you know, where there's always extenuating circumstances, whether it has to do with, you know, the placement of water sewer lines or people might want it in the front yard. So it's attached to the driveway and for accessibility reasons, you know, could there could be wetlands in the backyard so they really can't do that. So that's why we do have this clarifier. It's to the extent feasible. And also it should note it's only for newly constructed detached accessory dwelling unit. So if you have a garage that's in front of the front building line, as many people do, you could convert that into a detached accessory dwelling unit despite it being in the front of your house. So we're just saying, if you're gonna build something new, we encourage you to build it to the extent feasible behind the front property line. And the other change we made was a small change in language that we felt was important and possibly, you know, could have been misused as a loophole for some of these. So we said, we've removed the special permit pathway for accessory dwelling units that do not meet general requirements and I'll talk, clarify what that means. So this is a little bit messy, I apologize. It's the kind of red-lined track changes version of the by-law, you know, these are each of the types of ADUs so contained, attached and detached. The original by-law that I presented last time had this sentence included that's crossed out here that says any, you know, they're allowed by right if they meet the general requirements found below but then any contained dwelling unit which in the judgment of the building commissioner does not meet these requirements shall require special permit from the ZBA. And so that was a holdover from the last, from the current by-law, that's the language that's in the current by-law. And, you know, I didn't catch this and the first time around, but staff raised this point last week sending, you know, we, the general requirements which are found below apply to each, every type of accessory dwelling unit. And we think, you know, these are important and we want them to be followed and we didn't want there to be a loophole for folks to get out of these general requirements with a special permit. So, you know, and we went through when we said, you know, check, we want that to be mandatory, that to be mandatory. So, you know, only one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted as accessory to a single family detached dwelling. You know, if someone was proposing to, in theory the way the by-law was written, they could apply for a special permit from the ZBA to get to or if they wanted something that's bigger than a thousand square feet, there was a out for them to, you know, propose a 1200 square foot ADU and get a special permit from the ZBA. So, we luckily caught that and going through them, you know, we wanted all of them pretty much to be, if we're going to allow them by right which we're proposing to do then to make sure that these conditions are firmly met and not provide a outlet for a special permit. So, I believe that is the extent of the changes that we proposed, you know, from the by-law as it was presented last time, just the provision encouraging newly constructed ADUs to be behind the building and removing the special permit pathway. We presented this again, like Nate's proposals, we presented to the CRC yesterday afternoon and they gave it their strong endorsement as written and felt it was ready to be presented to town council but certainly wanted to give the planning board an opportunity to comment, make suggestions and refine as needed before taking that step. So, I guess that about covers it. If people have questions about ADUs overall or, you know, our proposal in general, happy to answer those in addition to questions about the small changes we proposed for today. So, thank you. Thank you, Ben. Hey, so like with regard to the tiny houses that essentially could be homes on wheels sort of thing, parked in driveways, how does that factor in? Yep, the code that you have right now. So, I think maybe Rob could speak to that a little bit better than me but certainly there's like building code and health code issues that come into play, you know, outside of the zoning by-law. So, you know, there's minimum square footage requirements for, you know, habit for living quarters and kitchens and bathrooms that would dictate the, you know, minimum size. And I don't know exactly how, you know, in terms of like a foundation and wheels, I'm not sure exactly how that works but these are, you know, definitely in the ground. So, you know, the driveway being in front of the house typically I'm just, you know, making note how you mentioned, you know, things being behind or not, but let me see, Chris. So, as Ben said, tiny houses would not really fit the bill here unless they were suited, you know, suitably located. They would have to comply with all of the general requirements of this by-law here. So, you wouldn't find a tiny house on wheels in somebody's driveway as fitting the requirements of this by-law. So, I don't think that's something that we necessarily need to be concerned about. And as Ben said, there are size requirements with regard to how much space people need for a bedroom or whatever. But what I wanted to mention is that Janet had asked us to come up with a chart that showed how to compare the approval by the building commissioner as opposed to approval by the planning board for site plan review, as opposed to approval by the zoning board with a special permit. And we started to do that, but we didn't actually have an opportunity to finish that. So, we are working on that and we will bring it to you. But I think that's a good thing to have to explain to people and to the planning board how these things are different. I'd say the main difference is that when we say that the building commissioner would have the ability to approve these, there would not- I'm almost done. Oh, excuse me. Hi. There would not be a public hearing involved. So, that's the main difference. The only public hearing in the scenario that we're painting here is the detached dwelling unit that is larger than 50% of the size of the primary dwelling unit. And that would require a special permit and would have a public hearing, but otherwise there wouldn't be a public hearing. So, I just wanted to acknowledge that we are working on the thing that Janet asked us for, but we haven't gotten there yet. Thank you. Great, thank you. So, we have Doug, Tom, Janet and Andy. So, Doug, please. Yeah, I don't know if, Ben, if you want to know this, but I saw a couple of typos on that document as you were showing it to us. So, maybe since it's not on the screen, I'll just tell you your number header for 5.111. If it needs to be consistent with the other ones, it needs to have a zero before the 111. Yep. And then if you go down to the next page, paragraph B, 5.0113B, you need a there shall not be more than 1,000 square feet. Yeah, that makes sense, all right. So, I'm sure if I just found those while you were showing us, it might be worth somebody proofreading it when you've turned off the track changes. Yeah, yeah, certainly. Thank you. Thank you for pointing that out, Doug. Yeah, thanks, Doug. Thanks, Ben. Tom, please. Sure. Thanks for the presentation, Ben. I have two quick questions. One, in regard to the removal of the special permit option for the general requirements, and one of the thoughts came to my mind thinking about someone that already has a building on their property that they want to convert to a dwelling unit that is larger than 1,000 square feet cannot convert that unit or would have to do something other with a portion of that space or break it down in some other way. So is there no option for special permit or to bypass these general requirements if there are conditions that are unchangeable within the site? Thanks, Tom. Ben? At this point, yeah, by removing that clause about the special permit pathway, then there would not be any way, I don't believe to get out of these general requirements. Well, may I? Yeah, go ahead, Annalise. We have a converted section of our bylaw which would take this into account, which would accommodate this if you have an existing garage or an outbuilding of some sort and wanted to convert it to a dwelling unit, you would get a special permit from the zoning board of appeals in order to do that. And you could do that if the building were larger than 1,000 square feet. So you would just move into a different category of use. You would be in an accessory use, you would be a different use that's actually listed in the use category table. Got it, perfect, thank you. And then my second question was in regard to this notion about the design guidelines requiring that the architecture is compatible with the primary structure and trying to get a handle on why that's a requirement given that these are private residences and the units might be behind the house and out of sight of the street. I'm just curious why we're trying to dictate what something's gonna look like. Thank you, Tom. Chris or Ben? I think it's sort of a fear factor that we wanna make sure that people are comfortable with the idea that people could be building small buildings in their yard that wouldn't detract from the neighborhood. And yes, you can build additions to your house that don't relate to the neighborhood unless you're in the local historic district. But we just felt like it would be something that would cause people a lot of angst if they could imagine that things would pop up in their neighborhood that weren't architecturally compatible with existing buildings. And maybe that's not something you want to include but I think that was our thought process as to why we included it. Yeah, I mean, again, my fear there is that if it's part of the general requirements then there's no way to bypass that. So I get concerned when we prescribe and then we say there's no loopholes for certain things. And I like, I don't like loopholes but I like the idea that people have an option to do something with their property. Thanks. Thank you, Tom. So we have Janet, Andy and then Maria. Janet, please. Just, I wasn't planning on saying this but Tom, I was, I used to live in Somerville and I was looking at my kitchen window one day and I thought, you know, Somerville clearly had like no zoning for a long time. And I just thought, wow, how does this person was able to put a Quanson hut in their backyard when they have a, you know, beautiful Victorian on Somerville Avenue. And so I think that that language for the compatible is probably vague enough to get to be or flexible enough to allow different looks but we'll keep the Quanson hut out. And I think sometimes that's a good thing, you know? So anyway, I do miss Somerville. I don't miss the Quanson hut. So I have, I think that'd be really important to get that chart in front of us and town council and CRC. So we kind of know when we're switching from one to the other, what we're losing and or gaining, you know, some flexibility, some ease but we might be losing some standards. I have a bunch of very specific questions. One of them is a comment, which is not particularly about this, but, you know, when they were talking about a management plan, I wondered if the planning department could sort of develop a model management plan for, you know, backyard ADUs. So, you know, somebody who wants to build one of these doesn't have to sort of start from scratch and anticipate problems. Cause there's probably just things that everybody needs to do in the management plan and may be good to have something to hand to people saying, here's, you know, a good start on that. And so I thought that just make it easier to build these or have these. But specifically in terms of the amendment, I wondered people have been worrying that the owner occupancy requirement might be waived by like a later ZBA or something. And so I wondered if that we could add language saying that the owner occupancy requirement cannot be waived so that, you know, it's always, you know, this, you know, either the main house or the ADU has to be occupied by the owner. I wondered what adequate, I think he went from probably requiring two parking spaces for the new ADU to just saying the parking is adequate. And I just wondered, it seems to me that at least, you know, two parking spaces for a new dwelling is pretty much assuming the owner might have one and they might have one guest. So I don't know why that language changed, but I think I'd rather just stick with the parking requirements in the bylaw. And I didn't, there was seem to be a switch either this version or previous one where the requirement was that you went from adult, three adults to three unrelated people. And I started to sort of think about the differences that, like, so, you know, is there a maximum number of people that could live in the ADU? And under the previous requirement, it had to be no more than three adults. And then when it, you know, three unrelated people, this got me to dwell on the fact that I have 35 first and second cousins on Long Island. They're all related to me by blood. And my ADU could have, you know, 10 of them living there or something like that. And so I wondered what the effect of switching the language from three adults to three unrelated people, like where that could lead you. I want to think about like the positives and negatives for each, for a language. So, you know, if you can walk me through my fear of having, you know, 25 people who are all related living in an ADU or, you know, and things like that. So it seemed like the three adults was pretty clear. And that's it. Thank you, Janet. Great, thanks. I would like you to know the thinking behind the three adults to three unrelated people. Yeah. I'm happy to speak to that in the parking. I think the first, the parking idea was, again, our goal of this proposal is to reduce barriers to developing ADUs. We in the planning department, you know, see them as really important ways to meet, you know, lowercase affordable housing, small provisions of housing in town. And so by, you know, reducing the parking requirement, you know, we're saying adequate parking shall be provided, but not saying it has to be in accordance with article seven, which is two per unit. You know, if in the eyes of the, you know, building commissioner, this ADU really only, if it's a small ADU with one bedroom and it's clear that only one parking space is needed, we wanted to allow that to go forward. You know, it could be a tight lot with not enough room for two parking spaces or, you know, for that matter, if it's, you know, very close to UMass and it's a faculty member living there and they don't need any parking, they wanna walk to work, then we felt like, you know, allowing that provision was okay. So we just wanted a little bit more flexibility, which is why it was switched to adequate parking and to generally just reduce barriers to ADU development. As for the- Oh, it could be no parking. I think that would be tough. It could be like no parking required. It's adequate parking for the composition of who's living there and for the needs of who's living there. As for unrelated versus adults, I think that came up in CRC yesterday. I was wondering if Chris or Rob could speak to that a little bit. I know it generally just allows for more flexibility in, you know, composition of what we think to be families. You know, it's by switching to unrelated, it allows different kind of family units to come together, I believe, but I think we spoke to that and I'm blanking on kind of where the conversation went yesterday. I can say a few things about that. So when supplementary dwelling units were first thought about in Amherst, people thought of them as a place to, you know, have your elderly relatives live with you or something like that. And they thought, well, you would only have two people living in an accessory dwelling unit or a supplemental dwelling unit as it was called back then. And then they increased the number of people who could live there to three because they thought, well, you might wanna have a caretaker or, you know, an adult child who's gonna take care of you or something living with you. And so it was increased to three. And then yesterday at the CRC meeting, there were comments about, well, why have any requirement? You know, if you had a three bedroom ADU, couldn't you have, you know, more than three adults or three unrelated people living there? So I think there's a wide range of thoughts about this. And so we thought that, well, keeping it to three is probably reasonable because that means that this really is an accessory dwelling unit as opposed to a primary dwelling unit, which in a single family primary dwelling unit, if it's an owner occupied dwelling unit, you don't really have, you know, there's no family number that you couldn't have in the dwelling unit. And adults versus unrelated, I guess I am not entirely clear on that transition but maybe Rob Mora or Nate, if he's still here, you might be able to speak about that. Rob, Nate? Well, I'm not sure there's much more to add other than we were aligning it with our family definition that uses the term unrelated occupants for other situations. And that in those cases, it's number four, you know, to Jan, it's example of the cousins by related by blood, there really isn't any limit for zoning purposes. The limit would be established by the sanitary code for square footage that's safe for the number of people that would be living in the unit. Good. You're good, Janet? I'm just wondering like, how many that could be kind of thing. And so I just was thinking like, if you're trying to limit the number of adults versus, you know, I just kind of wondered like how big could that get? And so, I mean, I think I'm just wondering what's the number, you know, if you had a thousand square feet and is it 150 square feet per person, Rob? So generally, I can't remember the exact figures, but there's a size of a dwelling unit that makes it meet all the standards. It's somewhere around 180 to 200 square feet to incorporate a kitchen, a bathroom, and the minimum living area you need in sleeping area. And then beyond that, I believe it's around 100 square feet per additional occupant and that's established in the sanitary code, but we can get those numbers to you to be sure. There's a little inconsistency between building code and sanitary code. I'm not remembering exactly which way it goes, but it's somewhere around another 100 square feet per individual. Okay, so I just, I kind of think if we want to cap the number, we should do that. Or know how big that could get, like how many people that could be and think about the consequences of that. So be good to get that number. And Rob, I mean, these are all like sewer, and we're talking about predominantly properties that are connected to the municipal water sewer. Most of them are in town. So yes, these units would either have their sewer connected to the house, which runs into the town sewer system or have its own independent connection. We've seen them done both ways. So would there be a difference for the for the outlying type properties that are on the few properties and hammers that are on private wells and septic? Yeah, they would have to have an upgraded septic system to accommodate the additional, by bedroom counts would be the additional bedroom, whether or not the current septic system could accommodate that or there need to be an upgrade. And that's accounted for within the proposed. Right. ADU regs, okay. Good, good. Okay, so we have Andy and then Maria, Andy, please. Thanks, Jack. Great presentation, Ben. I've got, I guess like some thoughts and questions and just like some musings. So relative to the owner occupied, the hypothetical situation, I'll just ask all the stuff and you can respond to whatever you want. But with the owner occupied restriction, let's say you're a professor, you build an ADU and you rent it to someone and you get them to sign a five year lease, right? And then you end up moving and you can't, you need to find a buyer, like what would happen in the situation where they might not be able to find a buyer who is willing to actually live in the building, right? Maybe they can only find an investor buyer. So I'd be curious what would happen in that situation where essentially someone would be grandfathered in. I also, I was wondering, is there, do we have any sort of like aspirational target idea or goal as to how many ADUs, how many more housing units this might actually bring to Amherst? I'm curious, it's not really clear to me whether this is a vehicle that people would use that much. And one of the reasons also why I'm curious about that is, this is like, I think this is, I suspect that this is a difficult thing for an individual homeowner to do, right? It's, they may have purchased a property, the notion of developing something, creating something is a very challenging thing. So I was just wondering in your research or if anybody else knows like, whether there's any sort of like marketplace for partnering with the developer to like build this for you. Maybe you've got the land, maybe you've got the interest, but you have no means to do it. So anyway, kind of a whole bunch of stuff to throw out to there, but I'd love to hear some thoughts. Andy, it sounds like you're getting the seed for a new industry here. You know, good points though. I will just say like, I've got a garage, I would love to develop it. I would love to make an ADU out of it. Like, and I work with developers all the time. And you know, the notion of starting this up on my own is, it's a difficult one. No, good, very good points. So Chris or Ben or? Well, I just have a few thoughts in regard to, Andrew's comments. One is that we have had the ability to build detached ADUs, calling them supplemental detached dwelling units, requiring a special permit, but we've had very few of them actually built. So I would assume if there's a huge groundswell, I would be surprised if there's a huge groundswell of people who want to do this. People who want to do it probably, you know, would have found a way to do it already, but we're making it a little easier because we acknowledge the fact that we need more housing units. In terms of, is there a marketplace to get someone to build it for you? There is a company that, I forget what they call themselves, Backyard ADUs. I'd say they've had a mixed experience in Amherst. The person who runs the business kind of bristled at some of the requirements that we had, but they do build very nice dwelling units. So there are people who kind of have these packaged dwelling units that they can come and actually, you know, build on your property so you don't have to, you know, hire an architect and go through a lot of design, you know, thoughts about how big is this, how big is that, et cetera. And finding a buyer who's willing to live in the building, I think that that would just be a requirement. You know, if you have something that is a detached ADU and there is a requirement that one or the other of the buildings be owner occupied, I just think that, you know, the person who buys it will have to figure out a way of occupying it. Otherwise he'd be in violation of his permit. Maybe Rob has more thoughts on that one. No, that's correct. It actually does occur when there's a transfer. Occasionally we get asked, you know, by an investor whether or not that could, you know, be a rental unit, both units. And the only option would be to change use to something like a converted dwelling if that wasn't available, permitting path for them depending on the, all the other specifics of the site and age of the building and so on. You might that disincent folks from using this if they, you know, an individual maybe has an interest but doesn't want to have to deal with the restrictions on the backside if they sell it. Maybe. Thanks. All right, thank you. Maria please. Thanks for that presentation. I hope this goes through without too many more changes. I think it's something we really need and I'd like to see more varieties of this as far as by right housing. Let's see. My first thing was, is there provision in here so that the building commissioner or planning department can help someone if there a lot doesn't work with the general requirements? Like I have had almost every possible configuration of an ABU in Amherst and Northampton. And I think all of them would have been by right which would have been fantastic instead of going through a special permit. But one of them was a corner lot. So, you know, technically there's two fronts to that lot. So there's just, you know, every parcel's different. So if there's somewhere in here that, you know to the extent feasible, wherever you can put that phrase is great because I'm sure if they work with the, you know with you Rob and with the planning department they can do what you think would be right for their parcel and so fall under the spirit of the general apartments. But I wouldn't want them to be like suddenly, you know, unable to do it because of the technicality. So that's just sort of some wiggle room but not too much wiggle room I guess that's possible. There is definitely an ADU market. I've done probably a six or seven in the last two years alone. So without the special permit, it will save homeowners. I'd say in the realm of like a couple of thousand dollars or more of just fees and, you know, paying an attorney to go to the special permit or an architect or someone, you know it will save a lot of money for sure. I hope they still hire architecture to do their project. And then, yeah, I agree with Tom about the meeting the spirit of the original house. I mean, I think if it's your private property and it's by rights and you're following the setbacks, you know, I think any good designer would build something appropriate in Amherst. I think, you know, if this was true for my own property I don't know that I couldn't meet that actually because well, no, it would match my house but it definitely wouldn't match my neighborhood. My house, people have commented like why did you put half a house on your lot? You know, there's no sort of right and wrong as far as aesthetics. So I think the more wiggle room you can give that the better without it, you know, inciting fear like you were saying because it's a by right project but just a little more gray area on that would be appreciated from my professional side of things. But there is definitely a market for 80 years. Definitely. And without a special permit, I hope it will unlock even more. So this is great. Thanks. Thank you, Maria. And any other comments from the board or your staff, Chris? Chris, yeah. Yeah. So Ben mentioned this in the beginning of his presentation, but the CRC was ready to send this to town council. I don't think they had any major changes. I'm not sure if they had any minor changes and we did bring up the issue that Janet brought up with regard to the chart and the comparison of different permitting types. So that was something that they didn't seem to be concerned about. So I'm just saying that they may send it to town council. The way it is. Yeah. Hey, I have just a small question. I know that it was at what 800 or 900 and it was increased to 1,000. I'm wondering, I think from my scanning of other towns, it's not at 1,000, but it's at, you know, the eight or 109, 900 square feet limit. So I'm just wondering what the impetus for that was. I mean, I'm all good with it, but just curious because I think that was one of the main, you know, objectives when this first came out to increase that footage a little bit, but. The impetus to go to 1,000 was really to be able to have three bedrooms. I think Elsie Federman at 148 Logtown Road actually does have three bedrooms in her ADU, which is 900 square feet because it's fully handicapped accessible. But just to give people a little more room, people have talked to us about, you know, the fact that the limitation on 800 to 900 square feet is just too small for them. It's particularly if it's a, if it's an elderly couple coming to live with their son and daughter in law and children, the family occupies the main house and the elderly couple occupies the ADU and then they don't have any storage space or they don't have a place for a guest or, you know, it's not big enough to be a comfortable home for them. And that's, you know, a comment that we've heard a few times. So that was the impetus to expand. Thank you so much and Janet. Just a quick question. You would, there'd be notice to the abutters within 300 feet, right? That the permit was being applied for? There would not be. Oh. In that scenario, there would not be notice. Unless you added that, unless it were a special permit or unless. I would add that. Yeah, I think that just seems like a basic. Yeah. Very good. And without any other comments from the board, we can go to the public and I see Pam Rooney. Hi, Pam. Can you unmute yourself? Kevin, thank you, Pam Rooney, 42 College Street. Thank you. A question of the process that we're going through tonight. Does the planning board or would the planning board plan to make any recommendations on this to the CRC? I know the inclusionary zoning just sort of everybody nodded their heads and often it went to the CRC. Is there no formal transition or transmittal letter, if you will, to the CRC for any of these? So that's the general question. I'm thinking about parking. I guess I would ask maybe Rob Mora is parking traditionally assessed sort of at the, per the number of bedrooms. So if it's a three bedroom, you might require at least two parking spaces. If not three, and if it's a one bedroom, you require at least one, but maybe two. So I don't know how much flexibility it feels like you, not you, but it feels like the regulations might want to be a little clearer that there's at least a minimum parking requirement. The adults versus unrelated. To me, having three adults identified as the cap makes more sense than unrelated because the three adults could be a family. It could be to unmarried people with a child, it could be whatever, but at least a cap that at three, which I think is probably the intent given that this is an accessory dwelling unit rather than the primary residence. So again, it feels like it makes sense to call it three adults, not three unrelated, that there be a little more definition of minimum parking required. And then owner occupancy, which also seems to be sort of a reasonable means to maintaining some ownership opportunities in town that happened to hear, you know, my financial guru, Kai Riesdahl in marketplace, and there is in fact a really large growing market for investment, snapping up single family homes and converting them to rentals. And it's everything from pension funds to other investors who are taking advantage of this sort of untapped market. So I think it makes sense or it feels like it makes sense to keep the owner occupancy status and for Amherst that may be a really good thing or helpful at least. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. Chris, do you have anything to add? I would just say that, you know, we'll put our heads together and put all these questions, comments that we've heard tonight and send them on to the chair of the CRC and see if she wants to bring this back to her group once more. But the indication that she gave us yesterday was that they didn't need to see this again. So, but we'll certainly pass on the comments that we've heard tonight. Very good. All right, so. May I say one more thing? Yes. Is that if this, even if this did go straight to the town council, the planning board would hold a public hearing on this. So there would be an opportunity to make changes at that point. And I think, you know, when we had the article 14 discussion and Janet brought up the issue of notification, I believe that the change to article 14 that required a posting of a notice for 10 days was, did come out of that public hearing process. So what I'm saying is there is still an opportunity to make changes to this during the public hearing. And then there's the opportunity to make changes to it once it gets to town council. So it's not cast in stone just by sending it to town council. I just thought I'd mention that. Good. So you were at the three hours into this meeting and I don't see any other, you know, hands raised. So let's move on to update on other zoning priorities and in work plan, if any. I don't have an update other than to, well, no, I don't have an update. You will have a public hearing on the moratorium on May 19th that's been decided. Okay. All business topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting. I don't know. Okay. New business. So we have this zoning bylaw section 10.02 discussion regarding associate members of planning board. So this was brought to our attention because the CRC and the town council are in the season where they appoint members to the planning board and the zoning board of appeals. And they were looking at the zoning bylaw and remembered. I'm sure they've thought about this the last two years but they were reminded that the planning board has the opportunity for associate members. So they are pondering that, whether it's worthwhile to consider that. And I think we sent you a letter and a memo from Lynn Griezmer on that topic. And so she's made recommendations to the town council that they could consider three different options for having associate members. But they did want to hear from the planning board as to whether the planning board thought it would be useful to have associate members or not. So that's why we're bringing this to you. Very good. I don't really have any comments on this. And I'm sorry, I'm looking for comments from the planning board. Andy? Yeah, I would just, I would be curious, is there a problem that we're trying to solve by doing this? Cause I think we have a pretty vocal group of attendees that we get feedback from. And I think that we process that. So I'm, I'm, I guess I'd be curious if there is a motivation behind the ask. I'd say the motivation is that it's possible via the state law to have associate members on the planning board. And so it was put into the bylaw years ago that this was possible. Associate members can only vote on special permits and the planning board doesn't really see that many special permits. They do see them for dimensional modifications and occasionally for use, but generally speaking, the planning board doesn't have special permits. So it would be in the case of, you know, the inability to act on the part of one of the planning board members and an associate member would step in and could only vote on a special permit. So my personal opinion is that I haven't observed a need for associate members in the whole time I've been, you know, working in the planning department, which is going on 18 years now, but you may have a different point of view. So we're offering this to you as a topic. So I'd be inclined to agree with Chris. Yeah, sorry. Thanks. Thank you, Andy. So, and Chris, that, that your opinion is consistent with the planning board change from nine members to seven members. Same thing really. I don't think there's really a need for associate members. Would you agree? I would, and I'd say this planning board and planning boards going back a number of years have been very diligent in, you know, coming to meetings and doing their reading and not being absent. We did have a problem maybe 10 or 12 years ago with people who didn't take that as seriously as they might have, but we don't have that problem now. So, so I don't really feel like there's a need for associate members. Thank you. Any other, Johanna? My, I think in general, that all sounds right to me. And then I just wonder whether having associates, members, you know, creates an on-ramp for people to get up to speed so they can potentially join the planning board down the road. But, but I think you can also, A, get that by, like if you're interested in the planning board, you just start attending meetings and you can follow along that way. And so I'm thinking out loud here, but, you know, in the spirit of creating a pipeline of good planning board members who are ready to hit the ground running when they start their term, that's the one thing that I think, you know, having the associate members might be helpful for, but I don't think it's required. Good, good, Janet? So I didn't have a lot of strong feelings about this or thoughts because I don't have that much experience with associate members. It doesn't seem like it's something we'd want to amend the zoning by-law to remove. I mean, it's in the state statute and other towns found it useful. When I read what other towns were doing, it did seem like the on-ramp was helpful and that I thought I heard somebody say that there is somebody who's applied, who's interested in the planning board but wanted maybe to be an associate member. So I wouldn't want to preclude that. So, you know, I feel like leave it in there if CRC finds a candidate that looks like that might be a good associate member. It's only one, I guess, one or two people and, you know, I don't know, it just seemed fine to leave in there. And then if there was somebody that looked like they'd be a good candidate for that, let's CRC and the town council sort that out. So that was kind of my feeling of, you know, it could be useful kind of thing. Is the town council, is Lynn, is the chair asking us to take a vote or do this she just want our feelings about it or thoughts? I mean, what's our response? Because I don't think she specifically asked you. It just seems like you might want to do that just to make it really clear how you feel about it. So we'll have a vote. Or do we just want to give the feedback that what people were saying? Yeah, so Chris, do we need to have like a, is this a hearing or just you'll take our thoughts? I can take your thoughts and share them with Lynn Griezmer. Okay. Is that enough for you? Is that adequate? Fine by me. I can write a memo and send it. Does anyone feel like we should amend the, does anyone feel like we should amend the zoning bylaw to remove the possibility of associate members? Is they don't have a strong feeling on that? Cause that was one of the town council options. I don't, it doesn't seem, it doesn't seem needed. So will we have to like talk about this every year? Sort of thing. Is that, is that what's the, because yeah, I mean. Well, the only time I remember in the last few years where this might have been an issue and it wasn't a special permit, it was a site plan review. So it's not really an issue, but there was a time when two members of the board had to recuse themselves or thought that they had to recuse themselves because they were on the butters list and they ended up having to go to the, I guess it was the select board or maybe it was town council. I don't remember how long ago it was, but a few years ago they had to go to whatever the legislative, no, whatever the executive body was. Well, anyway, they had to go upstairs and get approval to be, to be allowed to vote in this particular case because they were both on the butters list. So, but that again, that was a site plan review and not a special permit. So why did I tell you that? I don't know, just a couple of things, I guess. All right, well, oh, Tom and Doug, Tom, please. Yeah, sure. I just wanted to put my two cents in there. And it was, I was thinking about it quite a bit. You know, just off the top of my head and I don't, I kind of agree with Janet. I don't see a need to strike it for any particular reason. I do see value in the sense that having, you know, potentially we might be a small group one day and having, you know, an extra person available might be really beneficial if there's, you know, four people instead of, you know, five or six filled at a particular moment, there might be a need for an extra body. And so I think that, you know, there are conditions where it might be necessary. So I don't think we want to strike it. I'd rather have this conversation once a year and decide we don't need one and be okay with that. Rather than run into a problem in the future. So my sense is that I think if we just wave that for now and say, no thanks for this year, I think that's where we have a strong, you know, relatively new, but also group of seasoned people here. So I feel like, you know, we're capable and present. So I don't think we need another body to muddy the water, but I want to keep the amendment there. So in case we need it. You know, Tom, I got reprimanded for saying the same, you know, nine months ago. So just, just want to say that, but I agree. So Doug, please. I agree with Tom. That's it. All right, we're speeding quickly to adjournment here, I feel. Jeff, Maria has her hand raised. Oh, now it's down. I was just going to say, I agree with Tom and Doug. I do too. So, and Janet. All right, so any other discussion on that? And I guess we can open up to any sort of public comment. I see none. Okay, so topics not reasonably anticipated 40 hours prior to the meeting with regard to new business. No, none. Okay. And form A in our sub-vision applications. None. Okay, and upcoming ZBA applications. No. Okay, upcoming SPP, SBIR, SBB applications. None, none have been submitted. Okay. Plenty Board Committee and Liaison Report. So the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, we met last week, and what was, what was of note worthy here? Well, I sent you that one document. They were talking about the housing choice that was been approved by Governor Baker and how that kind of filters down. So maybe you can, you know, for that, to the planning board. I think we're on point with regard to all that, especially where we approved, you know, simple majority for a site plan, or no, a special permit. For site plan. For site plan, yeah. Okay. And yeah, that's all I have on the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. So Andy, the CPA? Yeah. No real updates. We have a final meeting of the year coming up, I think by the end of this month, I don't remember the exact date, but no new updates. Good, good. Add commission, Doug. Yeah, we attempted to have a meeting last night, but there were not enough members present to make a quorum. That's, that was probably the second or third month in a row that that's happened. And we are down, we're gonna lose another member in the summer. I'm not really considered a member. I'm just a liaison. I'm not a voting member. I don't contribute to the quorum. So, you know, on the one hand, we need some more members so that we can meet. I'm not, I haven't been associated with the board for very long, but I'm still trying to figure out what the, what the purpose of the board is. So to me, it's sort of a group that is looking for a reason to get together. So I have yet to really understand what their value is. And if, you know, I guess the other option in terms of not appointing more members would be just to dissolve it. But I haven't yet, you know, argued for that. Thank you. So, all right, so you're not, you wouldn't recommend, Chris kind of bring that forward to, to- Well, I, you know, I don't know anything about the politics of the whole of the boards. You know, it's obviously not a sort of, I don't know what the, quite the word is, but, you know, they, they aren't like the planning board that makes legal decisions. So they seem to operate on a much more casual basis. But, you know, you know, I mean, it's fine with me if Chris wants to tell Paul that, you know, your liaison from the planning board doesn't really understand what they're about. You know, I'm happy to have that conversation with anybody about, about that. Maybe somebody can educate me, but it, but right now I just haven't seen, you know, I haven't seen very much actual business conducted, partly because they haven't been able to get everybody together. And most of the business that I've heard was, gee, what should we do this year? So, you know, they don't seem to have a lot of statutory responsibilities. And maybe that's part of the issue is that, you know, so. I have to, I have to say in the few years I've been here, I don't know what, I'm in the same boat with you, Doug. So, well, I actually, I mean, I haven't yet figured out or found the statistic of how many farms we have in town, but right now it seems like the representation is maybe a little bit more heavily with advocates for sort of sustainable farming. So it's not kind of the business end of agriculture. It's more the healthy eating and social justice issues around food, which are all, you know, valuable things to be talking about. So I almost wonder if it should be something like the food commission rather than the ag commission. Board of Health thing, even. Well, yeah, I don't know. Sorry for going on so long. Oh, I mean, that's, it's interesting. So thank you. I think it used to be a committee of the conservation commission, and then they broke off. I can share your thoughts with Dave Zomek because he's of any of the town staff people, he and Stephanie Chickarello are probably the ones who are most involved. Yeah, Stephanie is our liaison or our staff member. I will say last night the chair, see, we didn't really have a meeting last night because we didn't have a quorum, but we talked for half an hour. And the chair did bring up that he would like to have some of the conservation land that the town owns that would be conducive for farming. He'd like the responsibility for that transferred from the conservation commission to the ag commission so that we could manage the licensing and oversight of some farmland. So, I don't know, Stephanie was gonna look into that. So, I don't wanna create a parallel track with you, Chris, but that's just my thoughts at the moment. Just a moment. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Doug. Thank you, Chris. The design review board, Tom. Sure, so last meeting we had was last Monday, which I was not there for and just catching up. There was a review of updated restaurant facade for 51 East Pleasant Street. I guess it was the name of the restaurant there that's going in. It was the former Burt Eaches. Yeah, and so that was approved by the board with a couple of recommendations, but generally speaking, it was approved as is. There was discussion also about the Pomeroy Village intersection, just like we had in our committee. And there's a memo that'll probably circulate with some notes about what everybody said. So I wanted to go through all that. And we have upcoming meetings that are being scheduled in regard to the archipelago investments for 11 and 15 East Pleasant Street, with some, I guess we're looking at facades. I haven't looked at the artwork yet. We don't have a date for that meeting yet, but that's coming up. And there's a couple, or at least one art exhibition that's supposed to take place in the common that the DRB needs to approve as well. So those are coming up two different meetings, coming up so we can look out for those. Very good, thank you so much. And then the CRC, Rhonda and Chris. Well, we did meet with them yesterday. Rob Morrow was there and Ben and Nate and Maureen from my office and myself. And we went over essentially the things that we went over today with you. And they had, we told you what their reaction was inclusionary zoning is ready to go to town council. They thought afford accessory dwelling units was ready to go, but you have reservations. Some of you have reservations about it. And what was the other one, the mixed use buildings they didn't think was ready and needed more discussion. So they're gonna be, they meet twice a month. So we're gonna keep you up to date on what they're doing. And if things change a lot on the things that we're working on, we'll certainly bring them back to you. That's all I have to say for now. Okay, I have nothing to report for the chair and report of staff. Well, I just wanted to let you know that there is going to be a small, well, we hope it's gonna be more than small meeting at Pomerai Village Center on Saturday between 10 and 12. We're gonna have what Paul Buckleman is calling a pop-up tent. So we're putting up a tent. We're gonna have donuts and we're gonna have boards that show essentially what we've been talking about with people over the last couple of months and just get people's impression about what they think about the intersection and what direction they'd like to go. And so you're all welcome to join us if you'd like to. I think we're gonna meet there and then probably take a little walk around the area. But I'll be there and Paul. When is that, Chris? 10, 10 in the morning, yeah. Will they be Afkins donuts? I believe so, yeah. Claire Bertrand is offering to bring donuts. She's the manager of that property for Ronald Verdeer. Are dogs welcome? Welcome. Sure, yeah, it's all outdoors. Good, good, all right. Um, and what else? A journey. A journey. I think. All right, we, yeah. All right, we've been at, you know, somebody long evening. So thank you all. And we are meeting next. Next Wednesday about North Amherst Library. And I'm not sure if there's anything else on that agenda. Is there, Pam? According to my calendar, there is not, but I feel like there is. We'll get back to you on that. Definitely North Amherst Library, yep. I don't know. It's hard to keep it all straight meeting every week. Oh. Hey, everybody have a great rest of their evening. I have a quick question. Chris, I'm sorry. I, um, the moratorium meet, when we're discussing it on the 19th, will that be the public hearing? Yes. Okay, great. It's a joint public hearing with the CRC, but it's at the planning board time. And what is the, so we held the hearing and what particular product are we to issue after that hearing back to either CRC or town council? Is it a report or a recommendation? And if it's a report, who writes it and how do we as a group figure out what it says? And what's the timing on it? Well, you vote on what it says. You're making a recommendation to town council as to whether they should adopt this new zoning bylaw. It is a zoning bylaw. It's been characterized as article 16 of the zoning bylaw temporary moratorium. So the planning board will make a recommendation about whether they think this is some, something that needs to be pursued and adopted. And the CRC will make a separate recommendation. What normally, well, what's been happening in the last year is that staff has written the report prior to last year, members of the zoning subcommittee often took that responsibility and prior to that staff wrote it. So I guess I'm volunteering to write it, but then I'll send it around to all of you and you can review it. That'd be perfect. Is this something that we should be discussing as a planning board prior to that hearing? Is that something that we wanna drop on an agenda between now and then? I mean, I'm just curious about how we all sort of air all of our opinions in a slightly different form than the public hearing if that's necessary or possible. Or could it be an agenda for next week, if you want to? It's just a thought. Yeah, that's a good idea. I'm thinking about that. I'm also kind of, I'm feeling, you know, what Doug and Tom are saying, it seems like it's a really kind of unique sort of situation given what we have on our plate. And so, you know, I've inquired, you know, with the town staff and looking for further clarification as well, so, but I agree. I agree. I'm, that looms in front of us and I'm wondering how we handle that. So. I think that would be good to add to the agenda for next week because it's hard to talk openly in depth in a meeting with so many people like with the CRC and us, you know, it'd be good to discuss it beforehand because we might have questions and different ideas. But Maria looks like she's going to bed. Oh, no, it's the cat. What, that was your pillow. That's a huge cat. Seriously. It's not that big. Oh. Oh. Yeah. Oh, good. As you are, does you have anything else to say? Because your hand is up. Your hand is up. Sorry. Who? Sorry. Oh, okay. So we're good. Adjourn. Very good. All right. Good night, everyone. Good night. Thank you. Night.