 Really nice. Why do you guys say things like that? Because that always kiboshes things all up to all of us if we want out early It's up to us now Let's go get those drinks The hearing I was gonna go to my garden my garden. I just picked asparagus from my okay It looks like we've settled down with who's coming in so I'm gonna start this meeting seeing a presence of a quorum. I am calling this regular meeting regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council to order at 432 p.m. On April 6 2023 Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 Extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and extended by tap chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 This meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by zoom or Telephone no in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted But every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time This meeting is also being recorded at this time I am now going to call the roll to make sure that each member can hear and be heard Shalini present Pat present Mandy is present Pam and Jennifer Todd is going to be late. We will mention when she comes in We'll make sure we can hear her and she can be heard and we'll note the time when she does come in So with that our first item of business is public hearings and So that oh wait, I got two minutes so we can actually do it because I said 435 That's all right, I was just fooling around I was saying the Chris best rope is a renowned singer. Maybe she'd entertain us Instead of doing that I will note that while we're waiting for those two minutes I did the front part too quickly apparently Minutes that it we've passed for Pam's benefit. We passed the March 16 and March 30 minutes last week I just haven't sent them to Athena and all and they were passed without changes So I just haven't formalized that in terms of posting yet And the April 20th meeting minutes from last week are not ready yet So we will be postponing those to the next meeting. So that takes care of minutes Basically, there's no action Hold on just like that. They were approved on the 20th on the 20th. Yeah Okay, and have you already I have not it's on my list since you weren't there And I just haven't gotten around to it. There were no changes and I only have PDFs Thank you Announcements basically we might have more at the end but the AMA the joint meeting with the AMHT will happen on March Not March may see I do it to Pat May 18th At 7 p.m And Jennifer and I are meeting Next week with Dave Zomek and Nate Malloy and the two co-chairs of the trust to go over sort of the schedule and plan for the meeting So that is I thought I'd let that be known Those are basically the announcements unless anyone else has any other announcements and if not we will I will pass the meeting on to Pam for public hearings Thank you He's just walking away, but Pam is going to run this part of the hearing this part of the meeting and it's public hearings So the time is 435 and in accordance with the provisions of mass general law chapter 40a This public hearing of the community resources committee of the Amherstown council has been duly advertised And noticed thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents To be heard regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw I will read the paragraph of proposed changes Zoning bylaw article 3 use regulations article 4 development methods article 9 non-conforming lots uses and structures and article 12 definitions To see if the town will vote to amend article 3 use regulations to change the permitting requirements for owner occupied duplexes Affordable duplexes non-owner ride non-owner occupied duplex Converted dwellings and townhouses to create more streamlined permitting pathways for these uses to remove the use category quote subdividable dwellings to add a use category three family detached dwelling or Track pluck to add a permitting pathway in standards and conditions for track like to modify standards and conditions for other housing use categories to amend permitting requirements for housing use categories in the apple for recharge protection overlay district To amend article 4 development methods and three family dwelling Were appropriate to amend article 9 non-conforming lots uses and structures To add a reference to three family dwelling to amend article 12 definitions and To add three family detached dwelling unit triplex and finally to delete subdividable dwellings um, I think the order here is to go back to the proponents of this and ask what changes have been made and why and give us an update Go ahead man i'm gonna share my screen Because I think I did it without sharing last time and it got kind of confusing. So We tried to color code because everything has to stay in track changes um Because that's how you present the bylaw modification. So we tried to color code Bright yellow is changes from the original proposal and so you will see in the general two and three family detached dwelling General conditions sort of we have added um A oh and before I get into this I want to say that I want to thank um, Chris and Rob and Nate for meeting with pat and I multiple times to work through the entire um You know the entire proposal it is now I would say it is now a little, um And um more compact I would say oh and jennifer is now here. So jennifer can you hear us? Yes, hi, I can hear you. Thank you. Um I would say it's it's more compact now. There is less changes going on and you will see that in here. Um um The Planning department asked that recommended that we put in this this bright yellow design standards for two and three family dwellings adopted through rules and regulations from the permit granting authority um And so that's one of the changes is it it expands on in some sense the design You know the design standards that are already You know this this part had design standards already required to be followed. Um And then this um Through other things um design review principles in section 3.2 4 It's already up here, but this would allow each of the permit granting authorities um Rob the planning board and the zoning board of appeals to adopt design standards specific to two and three family dwellings That go into these areas and the planning department thought that would be a good idea And we said fine with that and so it's now part of this proposal um, the written decision is just a Consolidation from the other sections into the general standards to apply for all it happened to be in all of them And so we just moved it up into that so it wasn't repeated three or four times um I will come back to this teal section because that is the one area that um the planning staff and Pat and I have different proposals basically on the table So I will talk about that section later We have if you look at the highlights here in yellow the non-owner occupied duplexes We have basically gone back to proposing almost no changes um We had originally proposed site plan review for non-owner occupied duplexes We are back to special permit in all of those areas They're in yellow now to show that they changed but they would not As you see they're not tracked, which means that's what the current code is The only change now that remains is allowing non-owner occupied duplexes in the opera for recharge protection districts Um, which right now they're not allowed at all and this would put them also by special permit Which means it would still be discretionary, but someone could apply to put one there Um, this yellow change here is the section that needs to change Um, it referred to the planning board section and now it goes back to referring to the zba section. So that's just a A correction there Affordable duplexes the only change there is in the teal and I will come back to that Uh triplexes we were in agreement to keep this section But in keeping it we have proposed Instead of a lot of the site plan reviews we had proposed and I think we had a special permit in the ro rld We are proposing All special permits except in the ro rld where it would be a no and these These these permitting pathways now nearly match what are currently If you consider triplexes are currently permitted under townhomes or apartments these Categories now these permitting pathways basically match what they would be under townhomes or apartments. Um, I think there's one or two differences um, but in general If it was allowed as a special permit in a townhome or an apartment it is now being proposed to be allowed Still just under a separate use category um but So the big part of this one is sort of creating that separate use category Not necessarily making it easier to permit them through a change from a special permit to a site plan review It's getting the use category into the bylaw townhomes you will see have Most of the changes here are to take it back to the current bylaw Of special permits or no The only changes we are continuing to request are in the bg to move townhouses to special permit from site plan review So this would actually make it harder not easier to permit And in the rn Changing from a no to a special permit if you remember from our original presentations in the rn that is where we have most of our apartment complexes Um, and so we believe that we should at least allow townhomes through discretionary permits there and that special permit in those areas that already have a lot of denser type building uses Other than that townhomes are not have not seen any changes since the original proposal Converted dwellings Have seen a lot of changes It can be confusing to see how much is being removed And then things that are being added all the yellow is a change um In talking with the planning staff We are trying with these proposals and these proposed new changes to bring converted dwellings back to A good differentiation between a converted dwelling and a new construction To really make converted dwellings the conversion of An existing building whether that be an outbuilding or A residence that's getting converted from a one unit to two or three units The building needs to exist and pretty much the entire construction has to be within the current building Envelope um And if you're not going to do that if you're looking for a lot of additions to that building envelope You need to be under the duplex triplex or apartment townhome category not this converted dwelling category and so um What is the new changes is deleting this section five? Um, which had a lot of things about if you're going more than this then you get extra this if you do this or you don't get that It was very confusing And so we're trying to sort of streamline it and bring it back to what the planning staff Particularly, I think rob said was its original purpose was to deal with buildings that are already there that want to be changed to From a one family to a two or three or four family Or from an outbuilding to a dwelling unit per se. So that's the basis for most of these changes Um, there is still an in an increase allowed But it's a standard one and it doesn't depend on x y or z that the one that was is there now does Couple of other additional criteria um that match more of the triplex duplex criteria that are being added or proposed to be added to the bylaw Those are the changes other than the ones I told you I'd go back to which is in teal it's the same language for affordable duplexes and owner occupied duplexes and this this language is new and What what it's a result of or why it is here No matter whether it's chris's version and request or our request is Our bylaw allows multiple principle uses on any one parcel We've seen this a couple times So I can have a single family home on my parcel And then I can also build a second single family home on my parcel as long as all the dimensional tables are met And they both can be principle uses You can do that with duplexes. You can do that with apartment buildings We actually see it a lot with apartment buildings. Um, if you look at some of the puffed ins and larger apartment complexes There's multiple buildings. They're all a principle use of apartments um, and the concern here was if we made and did Change the zoning to a yes for owner occupied duplexes and affordable duplexes that would mean that Not just one duplex on a property would be permitted by a yes but two three Five or six depending on how large the parcel is could be permitted by a yes and all of us in those meetings Recognize that that might not be good even though you can do it. Well, that might not be good um And what pat and I in our original proposal with the yes are trying to get that first building is the yes, right? We were thinking of when we were doing this proposal A duplex on a piece of property not five duplexes on a piece of property, but one duplex on a piece of property so The teal basically recognizes that intent of pat and eyes by saying if you're going to build one duplex on a parcel And it's going to be owner occupied. It's a yes Or if it's going to be affordable, it's a yes just to the building commissioner But once you get above that one duplex that two units on that parcel um in the ro and rld Districts you need a special permit Uh That is actually what we require right now in the ro and rld for owner occupied duplexes If you look for affordable duplexes, it's a site plan review. Um, and so For ro rld. We're basically saying back to what the current If you're going more than one building or two units We're not trying to change the zoning that we currently have in the rg rvc and rn We're saying the same thing, but it goes to site plan review Which matches in the rg and rvc the current permitting pathway in both owner occupied and affordable duplexes And in the rn it matches the affordable duplex pathway and and eases in a sense the Owner occupied duplex pathway Uh chris will explain her reasoning the only difference between what chris is proposing and what pat and I are proposing Is when you get above Four units on a property more than four units on a property in the rg rvc and rn districts chris would like would propose that that become a special permit not a site plan review And we are proposing and excuse What are you finishing and i'm going to ask chris to explain her changes rather than you trying to explain her changes Yeah, i'm just i'm just putting out what the difference would be and that is We would keep it site plan review and chris would move to a special permit at that above four units It's why I kept this to the end because then we can go to chris to explain her reasoning and we Because that's all I wanted to say about anything. So Do you want me to keep this up chris? You're muted I think I would prefer it if someone would put up the memo that I wrote to the planning board and then go to the last page Bottom of the page Let me get that open And then I will put it up and chris. Thank you for writing that You're welcome It was it was very helpful to Use your write up as Sort of a reflection of the changes that were made even though. Yes. They were yellow or yes. They were teal. So it was very helpful Okay, so shall I start? Yes, why don't you start? Okay, um, so the concern that we have in the planning department is regarding proliferation of Different types of buildings different types of uses on a property and A long time ago. I'm going to say 10 years ago, which seems like a long time ago. I think it was about 10 years ago town meeting Voted to treat owner occupied duplexes and affordable duplexes differently from Non-owner occupied duplexes They voted to allow owner occupied and affordable duplexes in the rg and rvc zoning districts by site plan review And at that time that seemed like a very good idea And it still seems like a good idea, but at that time we were not looking at Multiple principal uses on a property And since then our interpretation of section 3.01 of the zoning by-law has evolved to permit multiple principal uses on a property with the Finding by the permit granting board That the uses are complementary And I'm going to give you some examples of those uses At 32 north Hampton road I think if you go up just a bit on this On this memo up to the bottom of page 3 Let's say yeah, there you go. So at 32 north prospect street rather. I'm sorry 32 north prospect street is the old Hastings mansion And um someone bought that property and converted the main house into two dwelling units And then added four townhouses at the rear of the property And we consider that to be a very successful Development But it was carefully scrutinized by the zoning board of appeals So that was allowing a duplex and Four townhouses to exist on that property and the zoning board, you know went through several iterations with the applicant And arrived at what you know is generally considered to be a good a good development The second one I wanted to tell you about is 1147 north pleasant street, which is property owned by a fellow named Michael Holden Who's a a local builder and he had a duplex on the property And he had a growing family and he wanted to Add a single family house to that property So the zoning board of appeals considered that application The planning board also reviewed it and made recommendations to the zoning board of appeals And the zoning board of appeals eventually Granted the special permit to allow the single family house to be built There was enough lot area and he provided enough parking and the layout of the property seemed to be Adequate and so again the zoning board of appeals Carefully considered all the aspects of it and and approved that project for two types of principle uses on the same property 164 174 sunset avenue is another example and some of you have Are very familiar with this since it's in your neighborhood The zoning board of appeals considered Three non or non owner occupied duplexes and three apartment buildings For this property this was proposed and it did go through the zoning board of appeals And again it went through several iterations and the final Results seemed to be Well regarded by those who participated in the in the process both the zoning board felt good about it And I believe that people in the neighborhood are feeling Generally good about that process. So those are examples of multiple types of principle uses on a property that were carefully considered by the zoning board The planning board has also done this and One bolt would place which is that building that some people call the ice box behind judy's was an example of this the planning board making a finding that these two principle uses judy's restaurant and a mixed use building were complimentary to each other and that was in the downtown area In the bg zoning district where density is expected. So In in kind of winding this up I would say that the planning department is concerned about The proliferation of different uses on a single parcel without benefit of a special permit. We're already going to Taking a big step by saying that Not that owner occupied duplexes can be a yes in every residential zoning district because in the past In many districts those were by special permits. So now we're saying yes You can build an owner occupied duplex in all the residential districts. But then do we want to see? Here's an example of what could happen if we aren't really careful a developer could come in and say well I want to build a development of condominiums and I want Duplexes for this condominium development and I want one of each one unit in each building to be owner occupied, but the other doesn't need to be and this could be by Site plan review with the proposal by the proponents In most zoning districts except for ro and rld. So site plan review is a great process It's the planning board's process But the planning board generally speaking doesn't say no they don't deny a permit. So when they're looking at Whether something is appropriate the the Default position is that yes this use is appropriate in this location and the planning board is just going to tell you Or help you to shape it Help you to decide how many parking spaces you need where landscaping should go what your lighting plan is like What the buildings look like that they're not going to say no to the proposed use They also there's no appeal period from a planning board site plan review So if neighbors object to what's being proposed If the if the planning board has gone through the process correctly and they've you know Met the zoning dimensional requirements, etc There's very little chance that a that a site plan review would be appealed The the special permit process on the other hand does provide for an appeal period And it also allows the zoning board of appeals to say no they can say no We don't think this use is appropriate in this location We think that you need to make it smaller or you need to Not do it at all and the zoning board rarely says no I think they approve like 95 of the of the Special permit applications that come before them, but it's important to be able to say no if the if the Reviewing body doesn't think that it's inappropriate use in a location. So now if you can scroll down then I'll talk about What we have proposed as language To replace the language in the teal What we've proposed is to say that for owner occupied duplexes In the rg general residence rvc, which is village center residents and rn residential neighborhood districts any development with More than two but no more than four dwelling units on a parcel would require site plan review in other words And again, this is a huge step from the way it is now Especially in the rn district We're saying that you can have one duplex on a property And that's fine, but if you have two duplexes on a property, that's four dwelling units Then you need site plan review in those districts in the Case where you might have more than four dwelling units in other words more than two duplexes on a property and that's the next sentence In rg rvc and rn any development with more than four dwelling units on a single parcel would require a special permit So I think that's where we differ most from the proponents presentation The last sentence in this section is essentially the same as what mandy and pat are proposing in the ro and rld districts We're also proposing the same language for affordable duplexes because again Do we want um a proliferation of as much as we love affordable Housing, you know, we want to promote affordable housing and the planning department works very hard To work with developers of affordable housing to provide more affordable housing in town But I think what we don't want is a proliferation of affordable units, you know, not that it would happen I'm not even sure it would happen, but um kind of Bad lib willy nilly whatever phrase you want to use so we're proposing the same language for affordable duplexes as we propose for owner occupied duplexes and There is an argument to say that Well in the rg and rvc zoning districts You're already allowing owner occupied duplexes by site plan review and therefore technically if you Were to go before the Planning board you could have a proliferation of these things by site plan review. You could have 10 of them on a property um by site plan review because that's what the Zoning by-law says right now and and I think that that is a an unintended consequence of the change that we made 10 years ago And that combined with the fact that now we're loosening up to allow more than one type of Principal use on a property. So it's an unintended melding of those two things that would then allow a proliferation of duplexes and We think that our language really makes sense. It controls things pretty well. It's still much more expansive than the current situation in my opinion and that it It's sort of uh, it all I'll say is it controls things better By putting things in the hands of the zoning board of appeals. So that's I guess that's my That's my pitch Thank you very much That was pretty clear um, I'm looking at Let's see if we have um any questions from this group. I would like at some point to take advantage of the um of the folks in the audience and We've heard we've heard this presentation several times and I'm happy to have Public comment and we can do it now or before the we can do it before the counselors talk about it or After but I'm I'm going to go with doing the Questions from the Audience, why don't we do that right now? Are there any folks in the participant list? There are one two three four five people in the participant list And this is a great opportunity to ask questions or express ideas So i'm going to call janet keller right now and I don't have control. So I think mandy has control over the Can you hear? Athena does so oh Thank you. Thank you. Athena. Can you let janet keller in please? um Can you hear me? Yes, great Thanks. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to this um Very important piece of uh rezoning I Can't could cannot begin to parse let alone speak about What has just been said? um But um, I do want to recap some of the things I said um in the memo I sent to you today and I The essentially I'm saying That this is a huge amount of work that people have done and I believe it is all done in good faith and good intentions and I am left however With the impression that it won't Produce Affordable units it hasn't and it won't and that there are things like inclusionary zoning like Working intensively with nonprofit cdcs um that do work and um I further um am very very concerned about the um removal of a butters notices and any opportunity for folks who have like me um Taken their life savings and put it into a house and then find um Something unsuitable proposed um after the fact for next door and they never get a chance to speak to that to suggest changes um and improvements to the plan um and um are essentially um Of foreclosed for any recourse um would have It wouldn't even know about it's let alone be able to speak to it or or challenge it um and and that it just sprouts in their backyard and it's it's there for generations um so I I uh I would really like to to to Encourage you to explore um the methods that have worked and and um to extend inclusionary zoning to SPR um There's you know, um Yes, so it I basically am saying that I thought a lot um and I worked really hard over several days on on these comments and um last night I attended um the meeting of uh Valley CDC with their 30 units um on uh ball lane, which is um I I I can go down to the to the corner of my house my Where I live and I can um Throw a baseball over there. So it's very close to me. Um, I came there to support it to support those 30 ownership units where We are very excited up here about that and um looking forward to welcoming our new neighbors um and sharing what we've learned on living on um At co-housing where we've got um a pretty dense um as dense as my city house Um on the six acres where we've built um, but it's surrounded by Uh open space that thank god it's there because we're beginning to farm it and to live off Literally live off the land um, so These are my thoughts. I I really believe that um Zoning cannot conquer the upside down housing market here in enamorist um that requires other solutions getting UMass to to um Build units for its students and um Um You know, I I hear that you guys have worked really hard and I have respect for your work Um, unfortunately, I think there are Um much better ways to go Thanks for this opportunity Thank you, jennet I see running parker's hand up and would like to bring her in as well Hi, um, this is running parker I am clearly not a housing expert and I've struggled with all of this stuff Um I hear at least I'm on the same page with the previous speaker in that I very much support affordable housing and believe we need a lot of it Um, I still don't see how this is going to achieve that goal Um, what I see still is that it is a way of bypassing existing regulations that protect people the butters and others Um, and that the current regulations permit community-based problem solving through the zoning board of appeals Um, and these are being sort of displaced By placing decisions in the hand of one person I still see that being really what's being achieved and that doesn't give me confidence I have seen the zoning board of appeals at work. I really really like How they help people solve resolve differences And so I guess I I'm very much on the side of the What the planning department has said in their presentation, which I did understand and thank you so much Uh to the planning department for that. It felt like it was all in English um I don't know what methods do work, but Because I don't have any expertise in this area but I just heard what Janet Keller said and I know she is an expert and um, so clearly there are alternatives and my suggestion would be that is that we look at ways that will more, um carefully That will assure us that we can get to the goal which is affordable housing and not just more housing So I think it seems like we've chosen more housing saying if we have more some of it has to be affordable I don't support that view. I support the view that we should target Do our research upfront And ensure that we get affordable housing. Thank you Thank you, Ronnie Any anyone else in the audience Who would like to speak raise your hand? And once once everyone has been Has been able to speak we'll come back to the Committee And if there are questions That any of us have anyone else in the audience raise your hand if you'd like to weigh in Very welcome to do so I'm not seeing any hands um, so we will go back to the committee itself Are there any questions or comments for What's been proposed so far If nobody else has any I have funny Jennifer good. We'll let you go first. Thank you. Um, okay. I had to more a few comments Um, I know you've heard me say this before but I would you know just kind of Express agreement for what chris breast drop in the planning department have said I Would like to see the permitting process That's currently in place maintained and especially well, I wouldn't say especially. I mean I I share the concern That some of the you know Speakers just said that when it's to have many more Different housing types or even some more just be a yes It just Then there is there's no I mean it's very important for A butters to be informed and it to be visible and we don't always know who will Be in a position, you know In town government that will be making that decision So I would you know very much, you know like to express You know my support and desire to keep You know the permitting process as we have it in place and especially with the site plan review that it It because I mean it provides a very careful review and it really Gives the entire community a chance to be involved and I guess because we just recently I always refer to the Chris think Chris mentioned it the 164 to 174 Sunset Avenue And everybody's very I really encourage everybody to come and look at that development. Some of the structures are now framed and it's It went through a few iterations, but it really It's looking like it fits in really well with the neighborhood and on the block And the developer was very willing to actually have one-on-one conversations with residents I mean it really um, I think I guess I'm saying if it's it's a process that really isn't broken And I know that you know sometimes it said Well, it will be less expensive for a developer if they don't have to go through the permitting process But I really think when a developer spending multiple millions of dollars on a development The few thousand if it's that that's spent on the permits is well worth what it gives to the final project The new the new housing complex the public-private partnership with few mass the field stone complex It's going to open in september at Lincoln and mass avenue because that was on university property They did not have to go through any of the town of Amherst permitting process And the rents they're charging are probably the highest in town So the they're not reflecting any a few thousand dollars or any amount of money that the developer incurred obtaining permits because there were no permits from the town Involved but that we're not seeing any lower rents. I mean a developer They're putting you know, they're when they build these whether it's a small development or a large one They're going to charge what the market can bear unless it's You know working with a partner and it's going to be affordable housing So the few thousand dollars that they may have to spend on the permitting process That's not what's driving the rents up and I thought, you know, the field stone is a perfect example of that um, so And then I had another but I had I'll let other people go. I had another specific question about But can I come back at the end so I can let somebody else have a chance? Yep, shall only Yeah, I'm still processing all this and I think I need more time to process but And maybe the answer is already there somewhere. I can see it How does what like if the difference between owner occupied duplex and non-owner I understand the logic and makes sense but how do we like once it's How do we ensure that it stays owner occupied and what happens if it is not Owner occupied like if you build it according to it was owner occupied and then it is not anymore. What happens then? Andy or Christine would whoever wants to reply to that I can reply. Um, so The building commissioner has the ability to enforce the bylaw and if something is approved as an owner occupied Um duplex then and it becomes a non-owner occupied duplex He has the ability to enforce the You know what it what it needs to be it may take time and it may require, you know Going to court but he can Deal with it. He has the power to deal with it. He may need some more inspectors on his staff to deal with a proliferation of owner occupied duplexes if that were to come to pass but I think that The crc is working on a rental registration bylaw, which we hope will include the ability to have more inspectors on the Building commissioners staff. So I believe that it can be enforced What if already built more more according to the You know, then does that allow for more or some something that you can't undo? Is that possible? Do you want me to answer that? Yes, please So, um, the building will be built But the management of it is what will be scrutinized In other words, if it turns into a non-owner occupied duplex, then it would need a special permit And it will have to go before the zoning board of appeals and the zoning board of appeals will Review, you know, what's going on on the property? Does it need more parking? Does it need more? Um Lighting or you know, whatever it needs and then we'll scrutinize its parking plan its management plan, etc So they'll have to go through the process with the zoning board of appeals if they choose to make it a non-owner occupied duplex Okay, thank you. And I have another question Yeah, no, can I can I clarify what Christine just said? So that is in the process of changing from We might not know that it's changed from owner occupied to non-owner occupied When it is determined or identified that that ownership has changed Does that actually kick in the? The review by the building commissioner May I answer that? Yeah. Yeah, so the building commissioner doesn't you know drive around seeing who's violating the zoning bylaw Um To some degree he relies on complaints So if neighbors see that a formerly owner occupied duplex is now Rented if both units are rented then someone can complain to the building commissioner and he will take action Does that answer your question? Thank you. Shalini, why don't you finish? I I interrupted that. No, no, no, it was the same topics. I'm glad you did Okay, um, so my other question Chris I'm trying to understand this is when you give the example of the building behind duties and how the SPR The site planner view did not, you know, it was insufficient. It sounded like in In the no, is that is that not the point you were making? That is the site No, that's not what I I don't think I I didn't mean to say that I was giving that as an example of a time when the planning board had to make a finding that The two uses were complimentary But then I said that this was in the downtown business district and the expectation is that there are All kinds of uses in the downtown that are very close to one another and it's very dense so it made sense for the planning board to make that finding in that particular location but to Make similar findings for the planning board to make similar findings in outlying districts I don't think is is as appropriate in some cases You know, I did say that if you have up to two What did I say two or more? If you have more than two dwelling units on a property, I think the planning board can review Up to four dwelling units on a property and that's reasonable, but beyond that I think it should go to special permit Okay, and so I guess my question was what I'm hearing you say is that the existing design and dimensional requirements That already exist those would be insufficient to Ensure that it is built in an appropriate or design guidelines or so is it yeah, so the first question is can we have like in the Design guidelines make sure that that it's fitting into the neighborhood and then the existing dimensional requirements Could those protect and make sure that the development that happens is as expected For that area You want me to answer that? Yeah, so all of these things help to protect the area the dimensional Guidelines and the permitting process so everything works together There are cases where dimensional guidelines may allow More dwelling units to be built on a property but for various reasons for that particular location You wouldn't want to maximize the number of dwelling units or the Maximum lot coverage and maximum building coverage. You might want to pull back from that Design guidelines will help but design guidelines don't relate to management of the property so you can Excuse me My phone is ringing So you can You know What am I trying to say now? I'm distracted by my phone But what I'm trying to get at is there are multiple layers of things that make a property and a project Suitable for the neighborhood management plan, you know Dimensional requirements if we had design guidelines for these types of uses that would help But design guidelines aren't going to make The management of the property work better. So you need the management plan as well So it's it's all these different things working together and I I think it's really helpful to have These projects come before either the planning board if they're small enough and have Minor enough impact or the zoning board of appeals if they're bigger and they have a more major impact I think that's um, that's a good thing and it's not something to be Shied away from okay, and the last clarifying question around this is So you said like the planning board does ask for Parking and what it's going to look like and all of those things so But it doesn't ask for the management plan. Is that like is that the difference? No, the planning board asks for the management plan, but the planning board can't say no unless they have a Very clear reason that if the project doesn't adhere to the zoning bylaw They can say no if the applicant hasn't produced the correct submittal requirements. They can say no, but if they If the project fits within the zoning dimensional requirements and fits within the use requirements, they're 99% likely to say yes, and then there's no appeal process. So it's it's a lesser It's it's really saying This type of use is something that the town wants in this location Whereas the zoning board of appeals special permit says This type of use may be something that we want in this location But we want to be able to really control it scrutinize it and look at it carefully. That's all All right. So to me, I think for the committee what we are looking at is like we It's more like how much control do we want in the sense that it it sounds like we have dimension Like the planning board can ask for dimension, you know, it has to adhere to the dimensional It has to adhere to the management plan and the parking and all of these things So the planning board it sounds like can ask for can say no as long as you don't adhere to these things We're not going to approve it however What I'm hearing is that all of that is not enough that we still need um an appeal period after all of those layers of things that are in place It's not nothing. It's not nothing right. It's not like oh if we don't have the ability to say no Anything can come up. I mean, it's not that right. We have dimensional guidelines We have they have to have the design. They have to meet the parking. They have to like get all these things in place And so the planning board can say no at any of these points till the client or developer does that right? If the project meets the zoning requirements then The planning board really isn't going to say no But it has to be some particular thing that they're not adhering to Yeah, like a parking Uh-huh. So they can say no if the it's not adhering to the parking requirements, let's say It can't so Okay, so it's only how much level of safety do we want in our town to allow for Okay. Thank you Thank you. Um, Mandy oops So a couple of questions for chris um We've heard some comments from the public about we should tackle Particularly affordable state state housing subsidized housing inventory affordable housings through the iz inclusionary zoning bylaw Including one comment today that was we need to make it apply to more than just special permits Christine can you clarify that the last amendment that the Council did about two years ago Did that such that all developments that add 10 or more units? Whether they go through the special permit or the site plan review process are required to comply with our inclusionary zoning bylaw now Isn't that correct? May I? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So yes, you're right. Um, our latest inclusionary zoning bylaw which was adopted in the spring of 2018, I believe applies to all residential developments over 10 units except for standard subdivisions and cluster subdivisions, but otherwise it it applies to all Residential developments. Yes Thank you. Uh, my next question is am I correct in saying that Your proposal or the planning staff's proposal regarding the rg rvc and rn districts for owner occupied duplexes and affordable duplexes When there are more than four dwelling units on a parcel is actually a change To the current permitting process Because the current permitting process is site plan review For affordable duplexes in all three of those areas and you're saying it should be special permit And for owner occupied duplexes in two of those three areas It is site plan review right now And you're asking for it to go to special permit so You're actually asking for a change in those sections from what we have now to make it harder to build And discretionary to build in an area where our town has already said multiple units on those parcels Is a type of use we want in those areas of town I would say that may Yes, absolutely. Yeah, so um, I would say that It is not generally known that um, the That more than one type or more than one principal use is allowed on a property It's kind of an unintended consequence of having adopted um owner occupied duplexes by site plan review 10 years ago and then more recently Allowing multiple principal uses on a property With a finding that the two uses are complimentary. So those are two things that have been That have evolved I'm not sure that they've evolved together But um, I don't think it was ever the intent when Town meeting decided to allow owner occupied duplexes By site plan review that there would be multiple ones by site plan review. I think that Nobody envisioned that at the time Can I ask a clarifying question when you say multiple principal uses all of your examples in your memo were different uses Townhouse and duplex single-family home and duplex if you build two single-family homes on a property Do you consider that multiple principal uses or is that because they're the same thing the same principal use? No, it's um multiple principal uses would be Two single-family homes on a property two duplexes on a property two apartment buildings on a property And the example that you gave about puffed in village that was approved You know Many years ago many decades ago when that type of development was allowed in that particular zoning district It's no longer allowed. But if you wanted to have Two apartment buildings on a property now you would need to have a special permit Not in all districts though. We allow apartments by site plan review in the rvc Rvc. Yes, you're right. And so two apartment buildings in the rvc or a puffed in in the rvc When you're looking at more than one apartment building has actually been contemplated for a long time in our zoning by-law on a single parcel and some and at least four or five the two years ago when we did that change in apartments in the rvc and when we did mixed-use buildings there We've contemplated multiple principal uses on parcels for a very long time and I don't think we were imagining multiple apartment buildings on properties in the rvc when we made that change that wasn't something that ever came up. So um You know, that's an un Unresolved issue unknown issue the building commissioner is here. You could ask him but um, I don't think that that was contemplated at the time It may be Approvable now and as you say multiple owner-occupied duplexes may be Approvable in our g and rvc now, but I don't think that was contemplated as A possibility when owner-occupied duplexes were allowed by site plan review, you know, 10 or 15 years ago Thank you Uh Thanks, um I'm sitting here wrestling with a lot of the language that has been used and so my questions are um kind of swirling We've talked about as a community making ourselves more available to socio-economic differences We've talked about wanting to draw Young families into the house into the house into our house into our community um, and I I'm really kind of struggling with terms that have been used and I don't think that there's any um Ill intention in using the language, but it's language that I would like us to really think about Some of it is the idea of protection affordability proliferation I'm I'm really struggling with what we're wanting because zoning as we know has been used to keep people out or controlled and I'm trying to figure out why Why it's okay to have uh design guidelines that then When developers build bunkers in downtown and call them apartments. They're really dorms Why that got through? How did it how did it affect the positively affect housing? and The other question that's swirling that nobody's answered yet. We've talked about uh You mass has been if they would just build more housing We wouldn't have a problem all of a sudden the people who are making tons of money whether they rent to families or students or graduate students or professionals They're charging the same rent and we're losing families like Tashina Bowman So, uh, you know who's ready to buy a home. I can't find a home here. So I don't understand I guess I would like you to tell me any of you all of you Mandy anybody How the what you've been controlling Has led us how it's going to change the economics of our society How is it going to change rents and embers? I mean, I really want an answer to that because it's used all the time And and nobody really addresses it So that's kind of where I am. I have more logical and um poignant, but not poignant. I think I'm I'm really scared because I I've seen so much resistance to socioeconomic difference in our community Since the since before I was on the council, but being on the council brought it home in a really depthful way And none of you are really addressing that what you're addressing is what you want to protect And that's I just somehow or other how are you going to change the economics of The American culture I really want an answer. How does this Make it better for the average family I'm going to let Christine answer that You all should answer it because I need multiple answers. It's complex Well, I want to say that Amherst was very resistant for years to building more housing And it's only in the last, you know, 10 years five or 10 years that we've really Saw it more housing. We've had the housing production plan done. We had the housing market study done We have changed our inclusionary zoning bylaw, which wasn't working and now it's working very well Um, we are constantly working with Valley CDC Wayfinders and other entities that are People who build affordable housing and trying to attract them to town. We had The development in North Amherst at the mill district where we have 130 units But 26 of them are affordable at very low rates We have the building going up on North Hampton Road. That's 28 units of affordable housing all below 80 percent some below 30 and some below 50. So we have a lot of development going on. We have We have 800 units that have been produced in the last six years And some of them have been single family houses. Some have been an apartment. Some have been duplexes But that's a huge number We have 9000 something all together but to have 800 built in six years is huge Um In addition to that, I want to say that we have a master plan and our master plan says to focus development in the downtown and the village centers And I think that's what we're trying to do. We don't I personally and I think many people in town Like Amherst the way it is laid out. We like driving along northeast street and seeing the beautiful farmland in the Pelham Hills We like driving along Bay Road and experiencing the open space So the development that we're Promoting is development in downtown village centers and also through your Change in the zoning bylaw. You're going to be allowing duplexes in outlying zoning districts like Echo Hill Duplexes in Echo Hill have never been a thing, you know We uh, and so they may they may be they may become something And that's going to change The face of Amherst that's going to densify already developed areas, which is what we say we want The master plan says we want to focus development in already developed areas. So I think that that's a good thing but to talk about having a lot of housing in these places that we love these You know open spaces and forest land and farms and you know Outlying areas we really don't want that. We don't want to turn into northern new jersey or northern virginia or long island. We want to Have our development shaped and so by focusing it in already developed areas downtown village centers and places like Echo Hill or other, you know Orchard Valley other developments like that that makes sense So I think that I agree with many of the aspects of your Proposal, I agree with Allowing duplexes by right. I agree with Creating a triplex that can be built in many locations. I agree with Almost all of the things that you're proposing the things that I don't agree with I've Tried to make very clear, but I do think that we have We have a responsibility to I don't know protect our and you don't like the word protect, but I think that's a good word protect our Lying areas that we like to go and hike in. What if we had Houses all over the place and we didn't have any trails and open space that we could hike in and You know beautiful vistas that we could look at So I think that the way amherst develops is really good and the fact that we've added 800 Dwelling units out of 9,000 dwelling units in the last six years is really good And we are continuing to promote that I can list on You know probably two hands and maybe three hands All of the developments that are either under construction now or coming through the pipeline now and they're all going to provide More housing for amherst including affordable housing How has that affected rents? What will it or property costs? So, you know, you're saying we're not going to affect it, but you're not we Still as you the you it is multiple people. It's not you chris. It's not We we cannot do that The rents are going to stay high unless there's some major crash and you know that so So address that somehow All of you need to think about how are you going to really address that and you can't Given our society and you know, you know, michelle woe is failing But hey, maybe maybe that will be different Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry go ahead I'm I'm going to take a very quick stab at that and then go to my question Um Everyone is aware that there is a national trend to invest in real estate as a as an investment tool as a as an alternate investment for their money and The those towns that happen to have colleges and universities have a big target on their back As they guaranteed money, you know money back guaranteed income flow Rate of return is really high it is it is What drives that market and we are the sweet spot of that So when you have a university that can't house all of its students, you have a small community the pressure to The pressure to raise rent is is is something that many people can't resist. Let's put it that way Many of the people who own the properties do not live in Amherst. They do not have the same concerns that were just expressed So they have absolutely no qualms about raising the rent because there will always be somebody needing A place to live as close to campus as they can And that is something that you and I cannot control unless it is to somehow Make sure that no more housing is made available to I'll just say tonight it made available to students that are that are complicating The factors That's not a not a complete answer obviously, but it is so much economically driven That you and I have a really hard time You know combating I wanted to talk a little bit about the the comments By the planning staff And and I I am really glad I have made all kinds of notes about The number of units on a property And I think I'm comfortable with The number that the that the plan staff put out there as a as a possible alternative to what was proposed by the the counselors And having it a limit of four Units on a particular parcel before it goes to site plan Excuse me just before it flips over to become a special permit And I think the reason I Would like to support that is because One or two buildings on a property Can typically be done fairly fairly handily The number of people on the property Um can be managed parking wise open space wise Once you get above four units We're actually we're actually in the same league now as townhouses and apartments and so For that reason, I think we also need to consider in this in this conversation our footnote m and footnote m references specifically townhouses and apartments What I think is the intention of footnote m Is that it is the number of units on a on a property not necessarily the type of housing You know the houses in a row or the houses in a block It's really the number of units that we're talking about And I would like to see reference in the same in the same section that Given our propensity And the ability to allow Multiple principal uses on a property. I think the the fearing street The recent one 78 or 98 fearing street It's 164 to 174 That's the one that the one that's recent That was looking at there's a three family in the front and they were proposing two or three buildings in the back Oh, I'm sorry 98 fearing. Yeah 98. Okay. So 98 fearing is another example of exactly what was being discussed here that I would I would like to see that I don't I don't know if it fits on that property with sufficient elbow room and screening for the neighbors and I would like very much to consider the the The application of footnote m essentially to More than five more five or more units on a property triggering footnote m So that's just something I wanted to put out there but in in general support the idea of switching over from site plan review to special permit After the addition of four units up to after the addition of four units So jennifer and then and then man me Oh, and I'll talk before sorry I was uh, I think we're we're not going to have time today to go through line by line or section by section of this And I think I would encourage people to write out very specifically What their concerns or issues might be with each and every one of the sections In the text that's there that's what I'm going to plan to do because I don't want to just talk it through You know and take everybody's time here Oh jennifer Yeah, I really wanted to respond to pat because I I Am with you on that like what can we do? to make the housing more affordable and I mean, I I don't know, you know, I know so with that again The sun the townhouses going up on the corner of fearing and sunset Which were the neighborhood had a really good experience with it going through the zba But the point of the zba, it the there was no resistance to that the neighbors were Very welcoming of that, you know multifamily development and actually thought it would be an improvement To what was in that spot before because frankly there were two Really derelict houses that the kind of houses that were being rented to students that students shouldn't have to live in they were not in good shape and You know what we kept saying to the developer and the developer was very receptive that we would love for that to be homes for Families retirees Workers at UMass. I mean, what can we do to make that happen? And part of what we did, you know and the developer again was very receptive There's literally going to be barbecues and there's going to be they reconfigured how The units are on the lot so that they could have a playground. I mean really making this a place Where it could be a place that lots, you know students would live there and You know, it could be a community for many different people and I mean, I'm telling the community welcome this But where I get scared is they a question was asked by one of the members of the zba During, you know, the you know, when they were reviewing the application of what would the rents be and The applicants representative said there'll be market rate rents and those rents are really high So I don't know what, you know, and it had nothing, you know I think and this was over maybe a year ago. They said that the four bedroom units would could go from 43 to 4500 You know, that's really beyond what a family could afford. So I don't know what the answer is. I know that you know, we And again, because this development is happening in a district that's already zoned for multifamily housing So that's not even that's not a change for anybody in that area But I don't know how How you saw that because market rates are just so high and I find it is frustrating As you do So I I don't know That's it Okay, thank you. Mandy job Oh chris, excuse me. Do you want to add something to that conversation or do you want to I just wanted to note that the development at 164 174 Since that avenue does include affordable units and I don't remember if it's two units or three units But they are going to two units. So it'll be Two units at 80 percent or Lower of area median income. That's all I wanted to say. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you Mandy Oh, can I just I'm just want to add I'm sorry. I'm not defaulting the develop I mean, they're at market rate. It's just that market rate for the reasons pam went over is so high and amorous It's it's unusually high. I think for the area because of the factors you've discussed Andy Thank you. Um Another question for chris You stated today that um the master plan Wants to focus development in the downtown and village centers. In fact There is also an objective that says increase the opportunities for its objective eight h three increase the opportunity for infill development and the location of housing developments near services um And a strategy is to revise the zoning regulations to promote infill development in strategic locations And another strategy is to increase residential densities in the downtown and village centers as a part of a different objective. Um The master plan says to reduce or eliminate lot size requirements differences for one and two family homes Um, another strategy h one f specifically says allow two family houses by right in all residential zoning districts Um, and that was under objective h one encourage a greater mix of housing types sizes and prices serving a wider range of Income levels than is currently available throughout amherst And encourage the development of economically diverse neighborhoods. That's all from the master plan quoted um, and you said that you and you said today that you want to focus development in downtown and village centers and so i'm i'm going back to your Over four units for special permit um, which is not what's required now and particularly in the rg and rvcs, which is Village center and the residents general which is only located within walking distance of our downtown Rvcs are by definition the village center residential neighborhoods. And so Given those objectives and strategies from the master plan, how does Restricting the zoning of Even further from site plan review to special permit of duplexes um, when you get above four dwelling units on a parcel support those strategies because i'm really having a trouble understanding how that proposal supports Our master plan including all of the objectives and strategies. I just read because it makes it more difficult to come to to infill development near our downtown and village centers. So I hope you can answer that I don't think it really does make it more difficult. I think it just helps to control how it happens and how big it is and um, how it's managed and it's just um What you're proposing in your entire proposal is huge You're proposing to allow owner occupied duplexes in all residential zoning districts everywhere in town. And I think that's okay But when you start to get over a certain number on a parcel, I think that's when it needs to be really more closely scrutinized and Although I said I mentioned downtown and village centers. I also mentioned neighborhoods like Echo Hill and Orchard Valley and other subdivisions throughout town. Your proposal would allow Duplexes on properties in those neighborhoods without any kind of public process and I can go along with that and what I would propose is that when you have more than two Dwelling units in a in a location Then in in more than two duplexes in a location that you switch to a special permit And I understand your point that you say, well, it's already allowed to have multiple duplexes on a property in rbc and rg By site plan review, but I don't think that that ever has been put to the test Nobody's ever tried to do it and it's something that is Possibly if it started to happen and started to happen Multiple times people would be aghast I think and so My proposal just Kind of rains in what you're proposing and you're proposing some pretty big changes But just rains it in a little bit to make it more Adaptable So I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave now because I have the zoning board of appeals meeting starting at six Um, but thank you very much for hearing me today and I appreciate it and I look forward to a continued conversation. Thank you Thank you chris. I hope you get some generous And Determined he hasn't left. Um, I did he did leave I was going to suggest that we in fact continue this hearing Because it's not going to wrap up today so Thanks to chris for for those contributions I was going to actually reply to mandy's question and I think As you were reading the master plan section They talk about duplexes or whatever and I and I I'm pretty sure thinking back to that process and thinking about participating in all of the master plan production that When someone says a duplex on a property That's exactly what they envision. They envision one building with two units in it and I think given our given our Our ability now to do multiple Um principal uses on a site That it's a very different can of worms and I and I and I really do agree with Her suggestion that that at four units or more than more than two duplexes or a triflex in a single family at at that point There are a lot of other management things. There's there's runoff There's you know, there's just a whole lot of other things that start to get in the In the mix that I I am actually really Pleased to hear her say something about then go to then go to site Special permit. So anyway, um, do you want to do you want to make any other comments? I had some follow-up questions for chris, but they can wait And then once pat duns I I can give you an idea of what happened to planning board and then maybe we can make a motion Okay, right pat I just want to say that we keep talking about multiple principal uses It's all about having housing for people. It's not multiple uses. Yes I know some people would earn money from rents, etc, etc But we're talking about housing for people and of a range of people so Mandy The planning board continued their hearing to May 3rd And their plan is to it sounded like their plan is to only talk about the duplex sections On May 3rd, not any other part of the proposal And then I guess at a different date they would talk about some other section or sections I don't know how they intend to split it up Listening to our conversation we might be able to work our way through them Less than that in less time than their split sections. I don't know as long as we go through sections. I'm not sure we have to specify specific sections um I have asked as an update that kind of relates to what date we would wish to continue this to um, I have asked and sent off the um Permitting residential rental permitting bylaw and regulations as they stood after last week's meeting With the amendments we talked about sort of a cleaned up copy of that To paul to send off to the town attorney and I asked for that back Comments back in time for the may 11th meeting. He thought that would be possible um I have no idea but that may You know and so if we get them back in time for the may 11th meeting It would be wonderful to be able to do that on may 11th um, but You never know whether we will which makes it hard to set a hearing date But I thought I'd put that out there our next meeting is may 11th and then we have one may 25th The week in between is the special meeting with the am aht So I don't know what this committee thinks would be best to do to put this hearing on I I would be I would be okay with continuing it to may 25 because it sounds like um Would we run into problems if if kp law doesn't get the um Their findings back to us in time if they don't I think I would fill the meeting with the nuisance bylaw Which probably could fill a meeting Frankly But that's probably what I would do, but then we would we would this is why I'm not sure What the best is because then I'd probably want to put the permitting on the 25th I I guess one option would be to put it on the 11th, but um, maybe a little later Just in case, you know instead of a 435 so it's not first put it at like 530 or something so we might be able to do the permitting first if we have it um, or we could put it at 430 hold it, but if we've got the permitting we could aim to Continue the hearing a little earlier than the whole meeting like You know So let me make sure I understood that so rather than targeting may 11 just in case kp law takes takes time We could target we could make a motion to extend to continue this to may 25 And we could either pick the beginning of the meeting or the middle of the meeting um I think I was actually saying pick may 11th. Um Um But if we have kp law stuff back by then We hold a shorter hearing on the 11th with an aim to continue the hearing To the 25th so that we could deal with the kp law stuff on the 11th also and give it enough time Maybe Okay, so I'm gonna make a motion Yeah, I think our goal is a committee is to try and get the permitting done Without extending it unnecessarily. I think we're kind of ready I'd like to make a motion then to uh continue this hearing to may 11 And um I don't have a specific time in mind you you were thinking just 435 435 We have a second. Um Take a vote pat Mandy I Jennifer I Where did shall any go? I'm here. Yes. Oh, okay. I couldn't see you anymore. I'm sorry. I just yeah And Pam is I so that's unanimous Okay, so I'm the the public hearing has been closed And um, I turn the reins back over to Mandy job Thank you. Um Next up is The planning board and zba appointment recommendations With an I had sufficiency of applicant pull on here. Um, I did not pull it because you know, I'm always hopeful but um I'll just give an update and we can decide what we're going to do um At this point for planning board All current planning board members have been contacted to say that and told that they would have to submit A new caf. I have not followed up with that contact, but they've gotten one email. Um, we've done as I noted at the Council meeting and in the news sort of news announcement about both of these openings So that went out and all individuals who had submitted CAFs within the last two years per the Policy of the council have also been contacted telling them they have to submit a new one At this time we have four applications for three vacancies On the planning board on the planning board. That's the planning board. Um On the zba Pam, do you want to do that? Do you have it up or do you want me to just do that too? Uh, well, I'll just say that I have not contacted anyone To confirm interest that is currently on the on the zba. I have not taken that step Okay We have Right now so zba has two full member and four associate member Impending vacancies currently we have three applications For all six for those six. Yes So again again, I have not I have not contacted all the current members to ask if they want to reapply And I can do that Yeah, I can get that done tonight Yeah, I think if you haven't done the the The CAF people too you need to do those too So The people who submitted CAFs in the last two years Under the policy everyone plus the current members Need contacted um So given those numbers I Believe we should wait at least to the next meeting before we make our Before we actually consider and discuss sufficiency for both of them And we just really made the point to the council this week for counselors to get the word out so Again, I I I had emailed them I've been putting it on every time I correspond with my district. I say But it clearly it is not working The other thing I wanted to mention about zba is chris breast strip contacted me And said she wanted to meet with me and some of the planning staff regarding the zba appointments in particular as it relates to hearings and continuing memberships and What do we do about that because there will be some zba hearings that are long hearings that Bridge the current term and the new term I've brought Pam into that conversation. We are in the middle of scheduling that meeting to talk about it Normally, we have worked with moraine Pollock in the past who has been the zba reference in And for example, our past practice has been to ensure that Any zba member who is currently sitting on a hearing on june 30th for hearings that have started Even if they're not interested in continuing on or do not get reappointed for a full term or whatever Get their terms extended specifically for those hearings. Um, so that has been our past practice chris may or may not be aware of that, but she asked for a meeting because she has not been the zba Liaison In the past, but we will certainly let that know and we'll keep you guys all updated on If things might change or or what the issues are but I thought I'd let you know That I've brought Pam into that since Pam tends to do all of the communications for this one So Any other questions on zba? or and planning board See none the next is the engagement report. Um, we made great progress on this last week um But we were missing one member and it was a mess what we were looking at So we had decided to clean it up And ask for any final changes to it before we vote Before we take a motion to potentially adopt the engagement report or whatever the title of it is I'm sure I've got a title here some way somewhere the amherst rental survey community engagement report So that went into your packets last friday, I believe so I think at this time if there are any additional changes people would like Please speak up now. Otherwise I'll make a motion You're muted jennifer I was on my report page um Oh, can I talk I realized I just blurted it out Which is Oh boy, um, no, so pam what we were just I guess what we were still we hadn't quite It was a section of the Executive summary I think we were Oh again, it was occupancy because I think when pam left off she had put up a proposal where we had Um, I think taken out two paragraphs and now they're they were put back in and I Still had a concern So I'm now looking at I guess it's page seven Section five under, you know, again the key issues concerning occupancy That I would just request That under negative consequences for students if the word in the second line discriminatory could be changed to unfair Or let's see felt it described it as Some described the four tenant limit as unfair Because it doesn't allow them to live with more of their friends and partners or something like that I'm just going to type it in so people can see something like that Jennifer But you're muted again I'm sorry. I just had to sign back on my computer's been doing something wonky where when you put us Text up like this the screen freezes. So I'm sorry. So I just missed the last like minute So I I'm putting it up here. So people can see is that is that something like the change you're requesting? Right. Let's see some tenants described it as Unfair So that's that's An okay change in terms of what you're requesting. This would be okay language I'm having trouble seeing it. Um Because if the light print described it as being Unfair for students who wanted to live with more of their friends and partners than the limit permits Yes, okay. So thoughts on that request Pam Yeah, I think I think that's actually a good solution. Um If you if you want to think about a tenant Cap it's unfair. It's It it it would be a discriminatory against Um, you know People who work together living in the house as it would be for students So we it's not discriminating against students the word discrimination is a very, you know legal Description so I unfair is is really what it's talking about. I like that Pat And you're muted pat Sorry, uh, I said this before and I will say it again. This is language that came from The survey it was language used by students. You're saying that it's okay to change their language Uh, maybe I then want to go through and change some of the Um neighbors or language and I don't because they said what they said The other thing is we are discriminating against students Because we are not discriminating against the family of six or seven that's renting Two bedroom home We're not discriminating against people in an apartment complex Where there it's a two bedroom and there are four or five people living there We are targeting students and good or bad no judgment on targeting students right now But that word belongs in here because it was stated and said and we are not censoring other areas And I totally object to this Jennifer and then shalini and then Pam I'm going in order of hands Yeah, I'll take one down and put it back up again So I actually asked shalini, you know, because I was interested to know how many Surveys used the word discriminated discrimination and I one used it so and a lot others said unfair so We have to choose something. I think that I don't think it's discrimination Um, I think that we that you know And you may disagree like I don't If we had if we put the limit at six or eight or 14 or they're not talking about changing the limit That's fear Okay, but I'm just saying one survey used it and morse used the word unfair. So I think and I do think it's a very Inflammatory word. I don't think I think discrimination. It makes you uncomfortable. So I can't let Jennifer finish. I'm sorry Jennifer. I apologize way more egregious than a limit on a number of roommates But we we we were picking language out of the survey. There there's you know, 300 and something different surveys So I'm saying of all I think that it is There's a certain You know, why would we pick that word when other people said they thought it was unfair or they you know One person said they thought it was outdated. I just don't think we have to you we have to we're we're we're making a choice Because only one survey used that word out of 357. So I'm saying I Don't feel comfortable using that word You know, I you know and there was There were some surveys that actually picked out particular landlords by name And said very disparaging things about them. But we you know didn't put that in the report for you know So we made decisions throughout the report of how you know What and what quotes we're going to use from the different reports but I think since one survey used the word discrimination and it's I don't actually think it applies and the I think there were nine tenant surveys where they expressed a concern about this Limit and that the word unfair was used more than the one time discrimination was used. So that's that's just my That's my suggestion Thank you, jennifer shalini Yes, so, um, that is true that only one of the 11 10 people or 11 people Us tenants use the word Discriminatory and it was used And so I think it's for the group to decide but generally in qualitative research What is done is you draw out the sentiments and But not necessarily respect to there was a lot of stuff said about affordable housing. It's just not fair it's not accessible and not Not just about the four tenant but just Overall the theme around tenants was the objection to the rules that are in place that are making Housing unaffordable for them. So anyway, all this to say that this is it, you know, it's a it is no There's no absolute sign. There is a science to it, but there's Uh, it's what we decide to put in. There's no real. It's not it's a gray area here. So Uh, one student used discriminatory They did say there was it's against students. So I'm assuming it's students But I think it's for us. It's important to Communicate but we're not agreeing here with what they're saying. We just want to be true to the Essence of what these community members are trying to get through so whether we agree with them or not I think the important thing in the report is that are we able to accurately Reflect the sentiment and experience lived experiences of these different stakeholders In our community and the better we are able to hear the different points of view whether we agree or not is not You know, we all agree, but that's not what we're talking about the more The better we can listen to people the better solutions we can then come up with So I think in that sense I think pat has a good point that by putting that point it is kind of On the face kind of that it makes us look at it more seriously whether we agree or not And then on the other hand, I agree with Jennifer that more people use the word unfair. So Really it's up to us as a community, you know as a committee and I Think it is a serious issue that exists in our community about Not just this but just about later on tenants saying that they feel like second-class citizens They don't feel like they don't have a sense of belonging and So so all of this too. Yeah, I don't know. So I'm okay I'm okay with either way as long as we are reflecting the fact that Tenants are not Don't feel good about the existing rules. So Thank you. Shalini Pam I think the If if this statement said one one tenant described it as being discriminatory against students That's an accurate capture of of that sentiment I think Jennifer's Statement of unfair seems to capture the The sentiment Much much more broadly than the one comment about Discriminatory and the point that I was trying to make before is that a four person the four person cap Is if they want to call it that is as discriminatory against Working people who want to live together as it is for students who want to live together. So I feel very uncomfortable using the word Discriminatory against students because in fact it is not against students It is against anyone living in the town of Amherst And that's that's that's not really Unrelated. Thank you. And so I would I I like the word unfair. That's that's a it captures that concern But it doesn't use the word improperly And it doesn't and it doesn't show that it's just one comment So I'd I'd be happy to support this as as typed in Shalini. Yeah, I think I would agree with the fact that Seeing some of the tenants described it as being then that's actually not accurate So it would be more accurate to say some of them. Like if you're talking about as a Overall sentiment, it's around unfairness and out of that one of them did use the specific word So I'm okay with unfair and again The the reason why we should change it is because that's more accurate to the data but not because we think that This is an inaccurate statement for the people to make, you know Whether it's discriminatory or not to the working people or this people like that. That's not what we are doing here So that is a personal opinion Um, I'll I'll make a statement that having heard from Shalini that more people described Used the word unfair than used the word discriminatory and given how this sentence is written that I would If there was a motion on the floor, I would vote to accept the motion for the change and I have heard three other members do so I am happy to if the committee wants to do a vote or once that recorded or if any one person on the committee wants such a vote recorded to do that motion otherwise um, if we know the outcome and There's no desire from any one member to have it recorded then we will just Leave it like this and do a final vote. But if any I would like to have a vote okay, then um I will Jennifer do you want to make the motion in this section since it was your requested change? um, yes, I would like to make a motion that um in section five of the executive summary The second paragraph under negative consequences for tenants that the word discriminatory against be um replaced by the words unfair It's four, right That's my motion. That's Shalini. Shalini seconded that. Is there any other discussion on that motion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. We will start with Shalini. Yes Pat No Mandy is an I Pam I and Jennifer I That is a or in favor one opposed the motion passes to make that change. Are there any other requested changes? To this document before we put a motion on the floor um Yes, Jennifer Yeah, so the date says it will be today's date and where we can have anything saying, you know, this is the final or We discuss that um, let me type up this motion first Make my notes and then I'll page up to that. Um, so that's why I left that part. Um in tracked changes Because I wasn't sure how we were doing that. So I I tracked the deletion of the draft word draft everywhere So that people could see we're still sort of in draft until we get there. Um Um, and and that was sort of how I thought it might work Oh, I thought a lot No, I just haven't Okay, so, um Can I Okay, so you can't read anything here, but you can at least see what it looks like Um, oh, I missed one draft in a in a footer or not Somewhere It would say here community engagement report adopted by crc and then I put the date in um Is that enough with the removal of draft everywhere or um Would we want to replace in the footers draft with final or adopted or is there other ways people would like to do it Sam I think just taking the word draft out should be fine And then adding in the adopted Yeah on the on the cover and again And again, thanks. Thanks to shalini and Elena Or elena. I don't remember how her name is pronounced, but this is a lot of work Yeah, yeah any other changes See none. I'll make the motion to adopt the amherst rental survey community engagement report as amended at the April 27th 2023 Meeting Is there a second second Pam seconds it Any further discussion I would like to say one thing beyond the thank you that pam already offered to both shalini and elena um I know for some members of this committee. It was a very frustrating process if not for all of us It might be some it might be all um, but I I think it was a valuable process and I don't know what this vote will be Um, if it is unanimous I you know, I don't know what it'll be, but I think Whatever it is Might be better than if we had not went through this this way and just the way we were able to work through a number of the concerns um I think was very valuable and Worthy of this committee. Um, so I just want to thank all the members Not even knowing how people are gonna vote I just wanted to say that that it took us a while to do something together But I think we we took something that I believe the first draft was Not well liked by a few of our members and you know, if not more than a majority who knows and We've gotten to a point where I think We may be close to or yet unanimous and it took a while, but I think It's been a good process for that no matter how frustrating it's been for a number of us so Yay committee is what I'm trying to say I am Are you going to type in today's date in the on the cover here? I can do that now if you want Oh, wait. No, it's not the 26th. So I don't even know what date it is Any other comments discussion? You need a gap between the comma and the 2020 It's been added even though I stopped the share before I did that. Thank you anything else We are off to a vote We start Thanks, Shalene and Elena and thank the committee, but I cannot vote for this. No Um Mandy is an I Pam I Jennifer I And Shalene. Yes Pat, um I always offer the opportunity as I will write a report on this um If you would like to If you Want to say anything now or later as I write on I said what I had to say many times Got it. Okay. I always offer the opportunity. I know With that let me let me find my My agenda, um, we don't have time for zoning priorities and housing today But we kind of covered some of it sort of during the hearing They kind of sometimes mix, but we don't have time for that today. So we're not doing that I need to do general public comment. Um, and I see Shalene's hand is up Shalene I did have a I have to leave So this would happen and pat if you wanted to write back to me about because I am thinking about how to No, no, not about this issue But moving forward How do we do community engagement process because I thought it was a very valuable process to listen to so many different voices So how can we improve on the process to have to work together as a committee and any other and everyone actually What improvements, uh, can we do because it's just the first time So what improvements and how to make it easier more efficient for and more inclusive The whole process. I would love any feedback Thank you. Thank you So we are now opening to general public comment. These are public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of the CRC You are welcome to respect the respect welcome to express your views for up to three minutes Um, please if you'd like to make a public comment right now, please raise your hand and we will recognize you in turn I see one hand Janet Keller. Please unmute yourself and state your name where you live and make your comment I just want to say Thank you to all of you. Um for the rigor of your discussion and um the Care that you took with it and the opportunity to comment Thank you Thank you, Janet I see no other hands. So general public comment is now closed um next agenda Uh, we've got a hearing and hopefully we're going to have legal review back and board of license commissioner thoughts back on the regulations Um for residential permitting and all. Um, so those would be the main items on the agenda at this point. Um, it may change depending on What I hear will also keep the you'll see planning board and zva appointments on there regularly For whatever steps we need to go through. We might have more than just sufficiency of applicant pull on the next agenda including interview questions, um and The um selection criteria Um, because we're getting to the point where we're going to have to do those and have them ready For whenever we might determine the pool sufficient. Um, so those might end on there Even if we haven't determined the pool sufficient At that point. So that's it for me on previews. Pam One last question on that in these communications with folks that are already sitting members um Is there can I give a time frame? That were that were expecting that we would do interviews in May or something early may So I would say late may We can't do interviews until we've sufficiently the pool and we can't do that at least till may 11th. Um You know, I'm looking up a calendar now. The goal is there's my calendar. Um We have to act on something by june 30 because terms expired july june 30 And so there's a council meeting June 26, so I think that's the meeting. Frankly, we're aiming for Um in terms of getting it to the council. So interviews probably late may early june No later than mid june because we need to do them by mid june. Um No matter what we think of the sufficiency of the pool in some sense We have to make that decision but um late may early june Thank you Any other questions agendas Items not anticipated by myself. I have none. Does anyone else have anything? Seeing none, I'm adjourning the meeting at 6 34 p.m. Thank you all. Thank you Dave for sticking it out Thank you Dave Thank you And thank you, Athena