 We good Pam Okay, I now see Amherst media and other people are starting to trickle in we are recording I've also made you and Mandy co-hosts. Okay Nate Malloy is also a co-host And if I haven't done that yet, I will be doing that. But yes, you are good to go We are we're alive and we're recording. All right. Thank you Uh, welcome to the planning Amherst planning board meeting of July 21st 2021. My name is Jack. I'm sick and as a chair of the Amherst planning board. I'm calling us meeting to order at 6.33 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available Amherst media live stream minutes being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 this planning board meeting, which is also going to be jointly held with the community resource committee. From the town council will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so following the link shown on the slide. This link is also available on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. No in person attendance of the public will be permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can be adequately can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means in the event we are unable to do so for the reasons of economic hardship. And despite best efforts we will post on the town of Amherst website and audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record proceedings as soon as possible. After the meeting board members I will take a roll call when I call your name and meet yourself. Answer from relief and then place yourselves back on mute. So we know Mary chow is not here so she's an excused absence. I'm here. Tom long, please. Here. Andrew McDougal. Doug Marshall. Janet McGowan. Isn't. Johanna Newman. Present. Right. So board members of technical issues arise let Pam know, necessarily may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem and then continue the meeting discussion may be suspended while the technical issues are just in the minutes will note if this happened. I will raise hand function to ask the question or make a comment. I will see you raised hand and call on you to speak after speaking. Remember to remove yourself and this applies to when Mandy will be chairing the joint hearings here so it applies. Public comment will be provided the general public comment period, and is reserved for comments regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda. Public comment may also be heard at other appropriate times during the meeting. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Please indicate, if you, if you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited if you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your telephone when called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself into mute when finished speaking. I can express reviews and for up to three minutes, and at the discretion of the plenty where chair or the CRC chair, Mandy, if the speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their a lot of time their participants, I'm sorry, will be disconnected from meeting. So at this time, we would like the plenty board before we initiate the joint hearing. We'd like to review the minutes of the June 2 meeting. And are there any comments on the board. In that regard to see any or anybody make a motion with regard to accepting these minutes. Doug, we accept the minutes. Okay, and a second Andrew. The second. Okay. Any discussion. I see none. Do a quick roll call here. Tom. Andrew. Hi. And Doug accept. Janet. I'm going to abstain because I wasn't at the meeting. Okay. Okay. So Hannah. Proof. And I'll approve as well. So those accepted what 501 abstination there. And this next item. Public comment. Part of this planning board joint. Meeting with the CRC. I see one hand raised Pam Rooney. Hi, Pam. Yeah, name and address, please. Thank you. 42 cottage street. A general conversation or point of point of. I guess order when these amendments are being discussed, it would be very, very helpful to have the proposed wording in front of folks so that it's clear what's being tracked and what's being discussed. I think that everybody has access to probably the, the latest and greatest versions of these. I think there's been some confusion about which is the latest version of different amendments. So that'd be very helpful to have that up in, in writing. And just secondly, I think there's been some confusion all the time that there won't be any response to public comments made on different topics during the discussions. But in fact, that feels like if someone has the information to respond to a public comment, it would be very appropriate to have that person respond to a public comment. So I think arbitrarily, you know, cutting off that kind of dialogue is not helpful. Thank you. Okay, I'm just to direct, I think this is that only applies to this public comment period here I think during, you know, individual projects and during hearings with. We will definitely respond I think that's a sorry for the misunderstanding there but we're not. That was reserved for this general period that doesn't apply to anything that we're speaking that's on the agenda for this evening. So at that point, I think I can turn it over to Mandy. So thank you at 640pm seeing a presence of a corn with the Community Resources Committee I will call the meeting to order for this June 21 meeting. Jack has gone through the whole legal statements about remote meetings so I will not restate all of that. And with that I'm going to take a roll call of our members Mandy is here, Dorothy. Present. Here. And Evan. Here, if Shriver will not be present tonight. And so we have one member missing there too. And with that we're going to get right into Jack has passed the chairing of all of the public hearings for tonight to me. And so I'm going to get into some of that I want to acknowledge that we've received a lot the planning department planning board and CRC has received a number of public comments and emails throughout the day today. And we thank you for sending your thoughts to us and throughout the day and all and we just want to say in the future. It would be very helpful if we get them as early as possible, preferably 24 hours in advance, and so that we can ensure that all members have received them in a timely manner. And that we all have sufficient time to read and consider them. We recognize that that's not always possible but it is much preferable the sooner we can get them the better it is for us to really consider them and think about them as we're, we're doing all of this. And so with that, I will at 642pm in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40 a this joint public hearing of the Amherst planning board and the community resources committee of the Amherstown Council has been duly advertised and notice there has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendment to the zoning bylaw zoning bylaw article three use regulations section 3.323 apartments and article 12 definitions. See if the town will vote to amend section 12 definitions of the zoning bylaw to revise the definition of apartments by removing the limit on the maximum number of dwelling units per building to amend section 3.323 to change the permitting requirement for apartments from special permit to site plan review in the residential village center, our VC district and from site plan review to special permit in the general business BG district to modify the requirement regarding size and bedroom count of units to require a closed parking on the first or ground floor be located at the rear of the building and designed to reduce visibility from the public way and to require that the principles and standards of the design review board be applied to all new apartment buildings. We will be going through the same general procedure for public for the public hearing for each of these so I will go through it now that the public hearing has been opened. We will start and I'll go through the whole procedure this time and I'll briefly describe it this time and then I'll just remind people is the next three hearings come up. We'll start with board and committee member disclosures then we'll have a presentation from the planning staff, then we will receive questions from the boards and committee members. That portion I will try to limit a little bit of time so that we can move to questions from the public and comments from the public. Not sooner rather than later. But we will be able to get some questions in before we move to it after questions from the board we will move to questions from the public and those two question periods are only for questions not for deliberation not for statements about support or non support. After that public speaking in favor of the revision will be recognized and then public speaking in opposition of the revision will be recognized. And then we'll hear from the planning staff again if they have any other comments and then we'll receive questions from the board or committee. And we have four to get through tonight so it's going to be potential that these hearings may or may not be closed they may be continued after we've received the second and heard second set of questions from the board or committee. And the planning board, I'll be looking for a motion from the planning board members on whether they want to either close or continue a hearing. If the motion is going to be continue I would ask that we as a joint committees discuss dates so that we can continue to be same date and make sure we'll have forms available for those dates. And then once that's happened any motion after the planning board emotion will be by CRC for the same thing and then we will move on to the next hearing. Are there to begin with are there any questions regarding the procedure before we move to disclosures. I see Janet. Thank you. I was wondering, is it, is it possible that the planning board might decide to continue the public hearing and the CRC feels like they're ready to close it. Are we in lock, you know, as you know, there's been different levels of scrutiny and timing on these different amendments. That is always possible. It would come up depending on whether that happens. So I won't say it's not possible but we did notice this as a joint hearing so in theory, we should continue the hearing jointly or close it jointly but it is probably technically possible that the two boards could decide different things. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, we're going to move to board and committee member disclosures. Are there any seeing none, we will recognize Chris Breastrup and the rest of the planning department I'm not sure who is doing which presentations tonight so Chris, just identify which one who's going to do it from your department. I'd like to introduce Maureen Pollock planner in our department and she will talk to you about apartments. Thank you. Thank you Chris. Maureen. Hi, everyone. Let me share my screen just one moment. So, I am going to see your full screen. Here we go. So, good evening everyone. Thank you for tonight's opportunity. I will be talking to you about the zoning amendment proposal for apartments. Here is section 3.323. And first I'll just go through what's existing in the zoning bylaw. There is an existing definition which states that residential use consisting of one or more buildings in each building containing no fewer than three and no more than 24 units. The existing standards and conditions outline where the apartment development can be located. It's on a site with one or more buildings and that it needs to be located close to a heavily traveled street or streets close to a business, commercial or educational district or in an area already developed for multifamily use. So, continuing, it needs to be connected to sewer and needs to meet the dimensional regulations. There are special provisions for the neighborhood business zoning district. The bedroom count. There's no more than 50% of the total number of dwelling units can be of one size and the apartment development needs to apply with the design review principles and standards. This outlines where apartments are allowed by zoning districts and I added as a comparison where mixed use buildings are allowed. And, and I, so in the village center, it is by special permit and we're posing it to be changed to site plan review, since it's the village center residents zoning district. And the words itself is, is indicating that that's where we would like to encourage more residential uses. It's a lot in the general residents it's allowed by special permit in the limited business district it's allowed by special permit in the village center business it's allowed by special permit in the neighborhood business district it's allowed by special permit. Currently, it's by site plan review in the in the general business district and we're proposing that it would be allowed by special permit. Our proposed zoning amendment changes is to remove the maximum number of units allowed per building opposed to having a max of 24 units per building. There are eight standards and conditions regarding diversifying the bedroom count for 10 or more units. And so basically if there are 10, 10 or more units. They would have to have more than 50% of those units would have to have a different bedroom count. There's a provision about enclosed parking that would have to be in the rear of the of the building, and it couldn't be visible from the public right away. And as I already showed in the previous slide, we're proposing a different permitting path for apartments for two districts, one being in the general business would be allowed by special permit. And then in the village center residents, it would be allowed by site plan review. I want to talk about taking the cap off for apartments in each of the districts. I took a closer look at table three the dimensional regulations. And after analyzing table three. I, we have concluded that taking the cap off apartments and allowing more than 24 units per building is really only useful in the general business district in the village center. And for the other zoning districts, it is difficult if not impossible to get 24 units in a building, giving the existing dimensional regulations, therefore list lifting that cap isn't useful in the BL, the RG, and the BN. And so table three again. And so I guess I should have said this first so the different colors. So you see a color that color that means it's allowed in that district so. So, here in the RBC, you know the lot lot basic minimum lot area and the additional lot area per family, really is a safeguard from adding perhaps more density than folks may or may not want and you can see that for the other sort of blue highlighted districts. RG BL and BN and then in the columns that are highlighted and read that's the BG and then the BBC. And so in those districts footnote be applies for them. And so apartments are permitted in those districts. And under footnote be the basic minimum lot area additional lot area per family, and the minimum lot frontage is not required for apartments. And so with our, I, there was a request from a member, I believe from last week's meeting asking for to see examples of a couple buildouts. So we're providing two examples in the general business district, both are along North Pleasant Street. And so we'll just dive right into it. So example one. Let's see here. Example one is, I'll try to orient everyone. So this is the post office. This would be, I guess the location, perhaps as doesn't matter and are sort of pretend scenario but maybe it does. So anyways, this is a rents gas station and this is a vacant lot. You leader building used to be located and I believe it's been demolished. If those lots were combined, it would be about 0.880 acres or 35,000 square feet. And the maximum build out for that is about 90 units total solely just based on table three regulations. The next is showing the that build out. It's showing the footprint, the building footprint. This would be a five story building. The step back and the bedroom count would vary throughout the building because there would be 10 or more units total. The building coverage so the maximum building coverage in in in the BG 70, but we wanted to provide some courtyard and more landscaping so we reduced it to 60%. And in the next slide I'll show you walk you through just the setbacks a would be so the, let's see here. We wanted to be consistent with the front step back with the post office so we were responding to that to be consistent be represents the 10 foot setback, which is consistent along the north side of this mock development. The setback is actually increased to 20% if it about a residential district which is the RG. So that's represented here. And although this part would go back to 10 feet. I spoke to me and said they want 20 feet so that's why I put that and then D. This is the courtyard space. This would be roughly about 1000 square feet, and I didn't put walkways or anything on that or anything so this is just a very rough concept. You know, they would, I would assume there would be trees along here and fencing and, and who knows what else but that would give you a rough idea of a maximum build out. Part two is also in the BG zoning district here is this parcel here where the black star is is where the typewriter shop is, and where the white star is is where the Knights of Columbus building is located. And this parcel as a parcel is about 7400 square feet. The maximum build out for this would allow up to roughly 25 units could be provided based solely on table three regulations. So this would be the maximum building coverage would be 5189 square feet. So the footprint the maximum footprint would be that size. And that would be, you know, in this mock development, it would be five stories. And I can walk you through the language, which is sort of just a repeat of what I showed you but it nothing has changed since the June 28 town council meeting from, yeah, from a couple weeks ago. So green text and green represents proposed text with red with a strike through represents it being removed. And so we're proposing to remove the cap for for apartment buildings per building. And each the permit path would change in the RBC to special permit review and by special permit in the BG. Repeat the bedroom count is talking about that if, if there is more than 10, 10, 10 units or more, there would need to be no more than 50% of the total number of dwelling units. So I don't want to interrupt, but if you're trying to share the screen we don't see it. Oh no I'm sorry, you know, I, thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry everyone. We just don't see the language. There it is. Sorry, sorry, I, it was the way I shared the screen. Thank you Nate for speaking up. You heard me so I don't feel like I need to back up. And then the, I think the last provision that change would be for the enclosed parking would be parking on the first or ground floor shall be at the rear of the building and designed to reduce visibility from the public way or walkways in areas used by pedestrians in the public. And just to back up for the management plan. The management plan, while we're recommending it just to be removed from the section largely just to reduce the size of the zoning bylaw, it is a requirement of the all DBA and planning board applications and it is it is stated in the ZBA rules and regulations and I believe the planning board rules and regulations. So this is kind of just a redundancy so we're just sort of just cleaning it up. And that's that's all I got. Thank you Maureen. Chris, you raised your hand. Did you have a comment before we move on to questions from the boards and committees? I think it would be helpful if Maureen went through the language with the image on the screen. Sorry. Yeah, sure. That would make sense. Follow with the disconnect. So if you would indulge her for a little while longer. That would work. Sorry. And thank you and sorry about that again. So to get back to the proposal. Nothing's changed from the June 28 revision to the town council. The definition proposed definition change would, would be regarding removing the cap of amount of dwelling units per building. The permit path would change for the RVC from special permit to site plan review. And then in the BG, it would be changed from site plan review to special permit. And this is just a repeat of removing the cap of 24 units. And the bed and then I think that's when Nate chimed in. So we can, this is saying if there's more than 10 units in a building, that they would have to diversify the amount of build a bedroom counts so it couldn't just be, you know, one, just one bedroom building would have to have a mix of different, different variety. And then again, the enclosed parking parking on the first and ground floor shall be at the rear of the building and designed to reduce the visibility from the public way or walkways and areas customarily used by pedestrians in the public. And then, as I said, moments ago, the management plan is stated in various other documents. So we wanted just to clean this up and reduce the redundancy. Thank you Maureen. We are now going to move on to questions from board and committee members again this is a question time not a deliberation time. So we're going to start with Janet. So, I, I kind of lost the thread when you were showing the first example of Ren's gas station. And so, so is 90 units the result after the apartment definitions change, or is it what would be the result under the current zoning versus the change in the apartment definition without the cap is the is the cap one building with 24 units or three buildings with 24 units I mean how many units could be built on that site. Yeah, that's a good question. So, so currently, you know, if, if someone were to develop it today, they would have a cap of 24 units for building. So, I mean, it doesn't mean to maybe if, if, if they're able to fit in a few buildings on that property. I don't know what number that would be, it might be, I would assume less than 90 units. But maybe not. So that that that would be the real difference is that if, if someone were to build it they would have to, they would have to be multiple buildings opposed to having one building that would allow 90 units. And then was there, is there an example for the RBC. I was going to do that. But since the lot, the parcels in the RBC are very small. That they never go over 24 units. That I figured it would probably with my limited time, I wanted to solely just focus in the, in the BG for 10, at least for tonight but I could in the future. Yeah, I'm not, I know you have very little limited time I feel quite the same way and I'm sure you feel 10 times more that way. So, so I just, I don't want to put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to understand. So you, this change in definition will only have an impact in the BG with under the under our current zoning with only changing the definition. Correct. So the BG and the BVC and I had RBC I mean, okay. Yeah, and that too. So, so just to say to back up to the RBC table three dimensional regulations that those have safeguards to what we said RBC so the basic basic minimum lot area required in the RBC is 15,000 square feet in the additional lot area would be 4,000 square feet. So with that and the very limited amount of parcels in the RBC, which would be, there would be very little impacts, if at all, to be honest. But as I said before the two zones that there could be impact with the be the BG and the BVC. Okay, yep. And then do we have examples of what the impact would be in the BVC. So again, similar to the RBC, not to kind of be confusing the part there is a very limited amount of parcels in the BVC and they're very small. And there's a small amount of parcels, and they're small on the smaller end. So there would be not as much opportunity for development, more than 24 units per building or per property. Okay. Janet, can we go on to others and. Oh, sure. Sure. Others can ask their questions we can always come back to you. Yeah. Yeah, my, my only question was the dimensional table and I did not see that in our package. I was wondering if we could cast our eyes on that for just, you know, 30 seconds a minute longer. Yeah, sorry about that and we'll, if, if today's presentation hasn't been emailed to you all, which was finished today. I will certainly provide that tomorrow. The build out where something done in the last 24 hours. So, okay, so we'll, and then I decided I'm a visual person. Some of you all are visual people so I like to have stuff in front of me. So that's why I put this in here. Yeah, that's good. I mean I just, I was two thirds of the way through. Thank you. And just as a comment about, you know, the BBC. And the BG. So, you know, the BG is our downtown. The BBC is one of our bill of centers. And those are areas that we do want to add more infill. And so those are where they, if the cap of amount of units per building was removed, there could, you know, be some impact of seeing more apartments. And then, and then just in general, the apartments are, you know, solely only allowed in village centers and in the downtown. So they're not in outlying districts or anything like that. It's in our walkable downtown and along bus routes or close to bus routes. And so those are areas that I believe the town would like to add more residential infill. Thank you, Maureen, but it was only up there for a flash. Oh, you still wanted it. Oh, sorry. I just, you know, I was up there for a couple of seconds. So we can leave it up there for a while. Leave up the screen share and we'll go on to other questions while people can look at that. Dorothy. So Maureen is clarifying some things for me. What I mean is this is not really an apartment zoning amendment. It is an apartments in the area zoning amendment. It doesn't seem to pertain to any area that has an R in it. Is that correct, Maureen? Yeah, that, that would be correct. Okay. It's a B and a B. Yep. So I guess part of me finds it a little bit strange that in the business area, you're going to have the most intense residential, but I looked at the written document that we received from Paul on apartments and found that in the 1980s zoning amendment. And I talked to had some words that I really loved listening to reading minimum landscape or natural open space, which include those portions of the lot devoted to plantings including lawns and grass areas, wooded land, pedestrian oriented paved or unpaved areas, devoted to social or recreational areas that are common by the residents of the building or complex provided by such areas are kept essentially open to the out of doors and our ground level. And I hadn't seen that group of words before. And that's kind of what I've been asking for for a long time. So, I'm sure that that's not going to apply to these, this particular apartment for the business zone that you're doing. There is no record area devoted to social or recreational use in common by the residents of the building or complex. Is that correct? As you know, both the planning board and the zoning board of appeals need to make findings under either 10.38 and 11.24 that get into whether that development needs to provide adequate recreational or open space for that development in that zoning district so let's see here so in this example here. You know, this would be a courtyard that would have, you know, benches and landscaping that is maybe, you know, a couple times larger than another proposed development in town. And this is, what is this? This front step back is 25 feet in depth and about 100 feet in width. So this would activate the streetscape and make it a friendly experience for transitioning from the development to the public right away. And so again, it would be up to the board at hand to make those findings and to say, hey, this courtyard D here that's labeled as D, if that's not, if they seem that that is not adequate or sufficient to that development, then it would be to the discretionary power of that board to negotiate with the developer during that public hearing process. Right. Well, so that those front areas seem to be what people have been asking for in terms of pedestrian and the people of the town areas, but not necessarily people who live in the building. And he said to me that if you kept the apartment number units limited, you're, you would be allowed to put two buildings, each of which would have 24. And then maybe, for example, there'd be in the middle, I just put my finger there thinking you could see. In the middle between that area there that could be green and courtyard, and that would be more, you know, oriented towards the residents of the building. It's just that I am having a deep concern about people with children. It seemed to be, you want a lot of new apartments in the downtown, but none of them seem to be appropriate for families or people with children, and that does bother me so in some ways, I guess I'd like it, not to, to raise the cap. Because if you had two buildings there could be really nice. You'd have fewer units, but it would be, you know, to my mind a better development. Thank you Dorothy Doug. One minor question for Maureen, which is on the section that's entitled and closed parking. If you would be willing to change the word reduce to the word minimize. I think reduce is a difficult word to use in this location, because you're going from a, you know, it's a new condition being designed. So we're reducing in comparison to what. So, I think the word minimize might be more applicable in that situation. That's my only comment. Okay, thank you. I have one question and then we're going to since I see no other hands we're going to move on to questions from the public. And that is in the build out you showed. You seem to have 10 foot setbacks on the side and 20 foot setback on the rear which is I think what's required on the dimensional tables but the apartment. The bylaw has this additional side rear yard per floor of two feet so wouldn't that require on a five story building 20 foot side setbacks not 10. When then 30 foot in the rear, or am I reading that wrong. So would that reduce the building coverage for the number of apartments and would that. And so one question is, did I read that wrong so that this build out is or is not potentially accurate, because I'm still trying to identify that. That additional side rear yard setback is not required for mixed use so would that potentially still imply that a developer might use the mixed use by law over the apartment bylaw in the BG. Excellent questions. You just made me think of like, oh, did I mess that up and I just turned to my handy draft language in front of me, and we do have this provision about additional side side and rear yard setbacks per family, and those are applicable in in the following zoning districts, which is our RGBL, BBC and BN. So that would not be applicable in this build out because it's located in the in the BG. That great as a reminder to point that out to folks. And then the other question I think you had Mandy was about about additional side and rear setbacks if it about a residential zoning district, is that correct. No, I'm just trying to figure out the question was related to those side rears. What, what in this, are we setting ourselves up for in this making it a special permit I know mixed use buildings and BG our site plan review but are we setting ourselves up for ending up without retail and a lot of our business general district because it's easier now to get the only apartment buildings even though there's special permits and what kind of concern do we have about that. Yeah, that's, that's a good valid question and you know so we are proposing to switch the permit path from site plan review to special permit, which so it's a discretion of whether that particular use is appropriate in that neighborhood or you know block. And so, you know if the zoning board of appeals feels that there's too many apartments going in. You know, either in regards of time span or perhaps in relation to there's a apartment building on this block. We don't need another one. They could have the discretion to deny a permit as it fits into their findings under 10.38. Thank you, Maureen Janet last question before we move to the public. So, I have really so many questions. So, one thing I'd like to do is see drawings of full build out in all the relevant districts, and then to see that in 3D because I mean we know that the developers are trying to maximize income, you know, of course, and the number of units and so it would be useful to see what could be built under the current zoning in the BBC and the BG, and then what does maximum build up look like because we know like I love the 25 foot setback from the street I know it's a zero setback. So, that's what that look like at five stories, and then I love the idea of a thousand square foot courtyard. I know we're looking at a building that has like a 250 square foot courtyard and so I would like to see not just like an optimistic, what we think would be great but really what could be there, like under the current zoning versus now. And you know of course, the worst case because there's always a better case but that's, you know what I kind of want to know what I'm voting on I think most people would. I would like to make a request, and then I still am like back in, you know where I have asked this question into previous meetings is, what was the reason for the 25 units per building, and so we've speculated it and we've talked about it it seemed like, you know, for, you know, a town that semi rural that's, you know, we want to keep our small town vibe. There's all scale apartments that are kind of more livable for tenants and nothing's too big, you know you can see that at green leaves or different apartment complexes, there's green space, there's parking. There's not too many people in your building you're not living, you know whatever, but I we're all making this up and so I'm still waiting to hear from why did town meeting make this change. And what was the vision of it. The other question I just have so many questions. So, I also wondered what many Joe with Hanna key was many Joe was talking about which is, you know what are the impacts of this like is it going to skew towards apartment buildings and away from mixed use. If we require 40% or 60% you know business uses on the first floor of mixed use and the apartments you can just fill up with apartments without limit. You could consolidate lots and build a really big building right and we know that downtown there's many small lots and many of them are owned by the same person. And so, you know, is that going to skew towards apartments downtown which is fundamentally a business district. We'd like to balance that. And so we're like the impacts analysis the planning department went through what are the possible consequences. And I just want to, you know, I can think of them and I could go through them all I mean. So, those, those are my questions can, can we see what compare what can be built now versus what could be built in the future find out what the purpose behind the 24 units. I'm also wondering the planning board looked at a larger unit count but that also capped, you know, at less than 90 or 100 or 200 depending on how you, you know, combine your lots. And then also, you know, what was the impacts analysis as anyone said, could this could happen this could happen this has anyone done that analysis and what was the result of it. I can answer some of your questions about doing a build out per zone. I did carefully look and analyze every zoning district that allows apartments parcel by parcel. And the majority of parcels. In all the zoning districts besides the BG in the in the start BG and the BVC would have a little to no impact with if the cap is removed. Firstly, because of the safeguards provided by table three, but also by the limiting size of each lot. They would on average need to have about two and a half acres to to get over that bump of 24 units for building. So we're seeing lots of lots that are, you know, half acre three fourths of an acre and those don't allow the utilization of the cap removal. Thank you. We're going to move to questions from the public now and again this is time for questions, we will after those are done, get to public speaking in favor and then public speaking and get in opposition. So, I'm Pam Rooney. I think Pam you're going to control the not Pam Rooney. Pam, you'll control the allowing to talk. I certainly, well, you mean the timer. No, no, just just unmuted. I can do that. Yep, I can. And if you think you can do the timer to probably it's Nate are you with us. I am all time. Okay. I can do the timer and Nate how about if you control when people talk. Talk. Sure. Okay, so Mandy, Mandy Joe, can I just ask you are we doing three minutes, two minutes. We're going to do three minutes at this point. Okay. We evaluate for each hearing. So Pam Rooney, please state your name and where you live, and then ask your question. Hi, Pam Rooney 42 cottage street. Thanks for that three minutes. You know, it's really the only opportunity to weigh in on this kind of thing. I appreciate the conversations. Comparing the mixed use buildings and the apartment buildings on it. I think that in other references to apartments, there was a statement that said, given the fact that these are completely residential. The, the effort of changing the zoning track from site plan review to special permit makes it slightly more difficult or a little bit longer to get an apartment approved. And I think the fact that we're trying to save for, you know, this very special BG district is being saved for its commercial value. I think it's very important and it weighs in actually more. When we discussed the mixed use building so that having a greater percentage of commercial space is really the only differentiating factor between an apartment and a mixed use building in the BG. So we'll come back to the topic of, of the split of percentage of commercial versus percentage of residential at another time. Maureen answered the question of why there was no management plan. It's redundant. I also noted that the design review standards would be applied, but it does not necessarily say that the design review board would review projects of this nature or an apartment. And I'd like to have that clarified. And then finally, it was interesting. I think counselor Pam pointed out that the one case that a minimum landscape or open space is required happens to be in the BN. And, you know, ironically, that's those are the parcels of greatest size and greatest open space. And so I just want to again clarify that in fact we are not requiring any set aside of open space or landscaped area. In most of these districts, it is really just the end of that applied. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. Maureen, can you answer her two questions on whether the DRB needs to review it and the requirement for set aside for open space and any of the other districts. Sure. So about the DRB review with the design review board, so the districts that are in the downtown, including the BL and the BG. They would specifically require review of the design review board. And that goes for all exterior changes, regardless of its own apartment, if it's a new sign, if there's a new restaurant coming in, they're putting in a sign. The DRB needs to review it. If it's a new apartment, they would need to look at the exterior changes if it is in those downtown districts. And then also if it's within a, I think a hundred feet of the town, town common. And then in the other zoning districts, the, the planning board or the zoning board of appeals do need to apply the design principles and standards. They may choose to seek the, the review and recommendations provided by the design review board. And then about open space, additional open space. Well, I do, I, I, I agree that the BN does have additional open space requirements. I believe 40% is required. You know, let's, well, let's look together. Hold on a second. And so the maximum lot area coverage you can see in, in each of these zoning districts. This, so in the RBC, the maximum. This means the maximum amount of impervious surface. So that means buildings, walkways, sheds. So if anything that has impervious surface, they can have no more than 40%. So that means 60% would be pervious surface, which would be, you know, landscaping and the like. Same is true with the RG. So 60% of it would be landscaping. And then in the RF, not the goals are sorry. And then in the BG, it is, it is small. You know, it's at 95% of impervious. There is a footnote A, but it is small. And the reason why is, is because that's the downtown where we are, you know, where there is dense development of commercial and residential uses. And so that's why you see that more tight denser developments. And then in the BL, so I'm also doing math there. So 15% would be, would be, would be landscaping. And then in the BBC, that would be 30% would have to be landscaping. And then in the BN, this is actually wrong. This should be 60. So it's actually 40%. So for any other use, it would be 40%. It would have to be 45% would be landscaping. But for apartments, they would have to have 40% of landscaping. Thank you, Maureen. We're going to move on to Hilda Greenbaum. Please state your name and where you live and then ask your question. My name is Silda Greenbaum at 298. I'm finding some inconsistencies here between this and other parts of the bylaw. And the first one that I would like to bring up. Is the RVC and I'm not exactly sure. Which village centers are RVC and which are different. But in particular. I'm really concerned about making it easier to put. Apartments, which is three or more units on a lot. And I think that's a problem. I have rather rigorous standards that they have to go through. If they want to have a non-owner occupied duplex on the same lot, then they have to go to zoning board of appeals. And have a long list of conditions put on it. And yet you allow three people by right. And to me, that's a problem. I really think that our, our village centers are historic resources, but I don't remember exactly what the zone is along North pleasant street here. But it's a big incentive to tear down some of these wonderful 19th century houses. To put in apartment buildings. If you make it that easy for them. And I don't think, I think we really want to preserve our historic village center, which is a national historic site of it. So I really would like you to think a little bit more about, do you really want to make a three plus building. By right, but if you're coming in with a non-owner occupied duplexes, all those buildings, many of those buildings are not. They have much more rigorous standards. The other thing, the next thing is, I think, but I'm not sure that I remember that the bylaws sells when a building. But it's the RG district, particularly our historic cemetery, that it's both the side and the rear area. It was supposed to be 20 foot set back. Not and or, but, but both the side and the rear. But that just maybe it was your ambiguity of the language. And then. I see all over this table, we have footnote a and I have been trying for 40 years, I think to get rid of footnote a, because it's a huge loophole. And either we have a bylaw that everybody has to, to, you know, abide by, or we don't have a bylaw that everybody has to, and I would really like to get rid of the footnote a, because it's a bylaw with a maximum building coverage and RVC, BG, BVC, where you want to put apartments. So it really, you may say 40, you know, maximum building coverage of building for 25%, but it has an a there. So if the two family house next door is, is bigger than you can make it bigger than the two family house next door and say it fits in. So I have a real question. Please get rid of the a. And the question being, can you make your, can you decide that maybe that's a good idea. That's my question. And again, the aesthetics are very important. And I, I, I would really, oh, this has to do with the DRB, that it's my understanding when we passed the bylaw back in 1983, due to the Bank of America, replacing some very nice, a lot of brick stores that, that the DRB applied to the whole downtown, whether you put it required or may, or you, or how shall they, whatever that applied to the whole downtown is what I thought. Whether you have it in the bylaw or not. Mary. Maureen, I mean, Maureen, did you have an answer to one of those questions? Oh, sure. I mean, I'm sure you have it in the bylaw. So I hope you have an answer. So Hilda, to get back to your comment about. The RBC. And with our proposal of, of changing the permit past. Path to site plan review. You know, if, if there were to be a building that is 50 years or older, it would have to go through the historical commission. For. Their review and approval of the demolition. They would have to go through the, they would have to go through the, they would have to go through the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the 20 foot setback for rare inside yards. To parcels that are adjacent to a historic, a national historic. Properties such as the West cemetery, or to a. Residential district. In the BG specifically. That is true. It is both for the side and for the rare. So in the, our mock development shows that. And that's all. Thank you, Maureen. Mary Sayer. Please state your name. Your question. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm Mary Sayer. One 59 pine street district one. And I had some questions. I think it was door. The ask the question. Does this raising the cap. Or eliminating cap just. Applied to be G and B. I can't read the other one. And I think your response was. That you could do apartments, but I think you would be raising the cap, I believe. On any apartment anywhere. So that's my first question. Another question is. In North Amherst. I'm not sure how far the village center goes and how far the. The general area goes, but. If there were three or four lots combined. It seems to me there would be, there could be space for an apartment or if further down, I don't know how far down it goes along Sunderland mode. But there are. Businesses and things there that have lots that I assume would be bigger than. Most of the lots of North Amherst. And so. I'm wondering if then the cap would be listed on combined lots. And the third thing was that if you don't believe any. Apartments can be built in this area. Why would you change the. The permitting process. It seems to me that if there's no reason to do it, if there isn't a thought that there could be apartments built. So those are my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mary Maureen. Do you have any. Responses. To those questions. No, other than just repeating that the BG and the BVC, because there is no requirement for lot area and additional lot area. That allows. It allows more opportunity for infill and the other zoning districts. Do have those. Requirements. And so that's an added safeguard. So I'm wondering if, if folks recall the footnote and discussion, although this is 2,500 square feet for additional lot area. For apartments and townhouses. This actually turns into 4,000 square feet. So there are safeguards. In the zoning districts that are highlighted in blue. Thank you, Maureen. Chris Brestrup, you have your hand up. Thank you. I wanted to answer. A couple of Mary stairs questions with the fact that the reason that we think we should lessen the. Permitting requirement in the RBC zoning district isn't so we can get. Large apartments there. It's so we can get small apartment buildings. We can get small apartments without having to go through the special permit process. So we're not trying to promote units that were buildings that have over 24 units. We're trying to make it easier to build small apartments in the RBC. Now that's something that the planning board or the CRC may choose not to do. And if they were to choose to take that particular change. That's not a good idea. That's not a good idea. That's not a good idea. That's not a good idea. That's not a good idea. That's not a good argument and within the scope of the amendment because you're lessening the change. So that's something that could be considered. We wanted to offer that as an idea. And if the planning board and the CRC think that's not a good idea, they can make that recommendation. So that's all. Thank you, Chris. Elizabeth Veerling. Please state your name and your address and then ask your question. Yes. Thank you very much. And I just had a question. I had a couple of questions and a comment. And that was with regard to your saying that. This would not impact the BL. However, there's now a zoning overlay proposal out there. And so I was wondering what happens with the zoning overlay. Does that then allow. These larger than 24 unit apartments. Once you put that overlay on there. So again, all of these changes are linked. So I'm just going to go back to that. So I'm just going to go back to that. So I'm just going to go back to that. So trying to understand the linkage between this proposed zoning overlay and this particular. Change in apartments. My other comment was just, I wanted to reiterate. What has been said here about the. The issue of turning the BG into all apartments with no retail, which would be a very sad outcome. And then finally, I just wondered. I'm not going to mention all the zoning bylaws, but I just wondered if. In this particular bylaw, there should be some statement that the apartments have to conform or the. Building has to conform to the parking. Zoning bylaw or the parking bylaw. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Maureen, do you have any response? Sure. Great questions, Elizabeth. So the, the proposed BL overlay district. Which is. The parcels west of Kendrick place, so it may am guesstimating maybe nine or 10 parcels. From Kohl's lane to up to McCullen street. And the depth of that overlay district where the building footprint. Would be located as it would be 100 feet back with a frontage zone in the front. And then the adjacent BL. Underlying district in the back. But so to answer your question. With that proposal, we are proposing that the basic minimum lot area, additional lot area per family. And the lot frontage would not be required for any development. So this, that the overlay district there. Would also encourage more apartment buildings, but it would be in those. That specific confines of the overlay districts. And, and something also to note that, you know, the town is in the process of hiring. A designed consultant to look at our design standards. And, you know, part of, you know, if it is form based codes, form based codes also get into dimensional regulations. Such as the, the very table that we're looking at. And so the BL overlaid district, which gets into dimensional regulations could be applied in other districts. If that's something that the town is interested in. And then let's see here, what else. Parking. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. About parking requirements. Well. If you wait until 10 a 10 p.m. We are going to talk about our parking proposal. For apartments. What else? Apartments mixed use buildings and supplemental dwelling units. That they would have an adequate amount of parking would need to provide it based on specific factors that are. Reviewed and approved by. Thank you, marine. Kathy Shane. Please state your name where you live and ask your question. Hi, I'm Kathy Shane and I'm speaking as a resident. I live on 519 Montague road. In the far north of Amherst. I, my questions are a little. In a way. Repeat, but I want to phrase it in a slightly different way. I have a question. I have a question about the size of lot sizes, that there's no impact in several of the districts. Why lift the cap at all? Why not leave it at 24? And my question is why not have a variable cap. Depending on the districts. I've looked at. In terms of where the apartments might go. And I've looked at a few cities and towns and they do that. So it's, it's not one size foot all. So that's. It's not one size foot all. It's not one size foot all. It's not one size foot all. It's not one size foot all rather than going from 24 to no cap. In the places where it might make sense to increase this. Why not put a new cap on. Double 50. You know, why take the giant leave a few other. Times people have talked about incremental change to see how it works. I think this is a place where caution might be. Worth it. I think I'm not going to say that. I think that's a good point. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that even in the current table, but we would continue. Why exempt be G. From the two feet. Per additional two feet on either side. Per floor. Mandy pointed out that that's somewhat protective as the building gets higher. There's more open space. So why not apply that to be G. You know, make that an additional piece of this to protect that. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that the zoning board or the zoning board might do something about open space. You could say if you want to build an apartment, the building coverage is no longer 70%. We're going to reduce it to 60%. The lot coverage is no longer 95%. We're going to reduce it to 85%. Because we want apartment buildings to have some open space, some play areas, some benefits that people might want to live long term. So that's a good point. But there's a lot of other areas where. In the middle of commercial district, you get pretty attractive. They're not quite Gordon apartments, but they're cool. So that would be a way of making it still to advantage to do a mix building, creating a disincentive to do apartment buildings. Then I don't understand why you're reducing. Going away from special permit for, from. For RBC. Why not keep it? I think you have the same arguments. I don't understand why you're reducing those areas. And mixed use has a special permit. So why not the same? And finally, it's a pure question because I don't understand it. Not related to your proposed change, but we have one district B dash. And I think with a floor area ratio of 0.3. And nobody, nobody, I can't find floor area ratios anywhere else. I don't know what the purpose of that is why that's there. I don't know what the purpose of that is. And does, is that an additional protection? So that's a pure question. I understand what a floor area ratio is. What I don't understand is how seldom it's used except for this one area. Those are my comments. Questions. Thank you, Kathy. Let's, let's get an answer to the floor area ratio. I think the most of the rest of the questions were mainly for considerations during deliberations. Thank you. So floor ratio, it is an, it is a conventional zoning measure. That is just a generic ratio, unlike a smart codes and form-based codes. But they do have merit and they dictate the bulk and mass of a building. And, and it, and by doing that, it dictates the gross floor area that would be allowed for, for that building. And so the size of each floor would be dictated by that 0.3, or whatever the ratio is, but in that, in the BN, there's a 0.3 ratio. And so when you compare, I did a build, I did a, I did the math and looked at a mock example of a apartment building in the BN. I just, just made up a generic one acre lot. It was apartment building versus any other use allowed in the BN. And it reduces the footprint of the building by 15%. And so the, and it reduces the height. So again, it dictates the, the saw, the bulk and the mass of the building. And, and so with that safeguard in the BN, specifically geared towards apartments, that is deterring developers to, I would, I would say that developers probably would not pursue placing an apartment building in the BN because it reduces the footprint to such a measure. Thank you, Maureen. And we are going to move on to public speaking in favor of revision. We have Elizabeth, I do see your hand. Since you've already asked questions, I'll, I'll take your hand again during the public speaking in favor or in opposition for anything, but we're going to move on to public speaking in favor. If you would like to speak in favor of these revisions, please raise your hand right now and we will, I will recognize you. Okay. Seeing none, we're going to move to public speaking in opposition of revision. Please raise your hand if you would like to speak in opposition of these revisions. And at that time, I will recognize you as the hands get raised. I held a green bomb. Please unmute yourself. And you have three minutes. I am absolutely opposed to making it easier to put apartments in neighborhoods. I think it's important to put in larger apartment buildings, senators to put in a duplex. I think that all the reasons that we have made it difficult. For owner occupied duplex or put so many regulations on owner occupied duplexes is because we know of the problems. And I'm looking at meadow street right now, which is a disgrace to drive down. And I'm not exactly sure what the zoning is on the north side of the street. But I think that those houses are in such bad repair that I can see them being combined. By site plan review. A budding APR land and apartment buildings. And there have been many arguments over the years against. More density on the north side of that street. And I think you're opening the door there. And I think it's important to make sure that you're not going to get in the way of the street where there is now very little control over those single family houses by the owners. And I think allowing things by right there that a large of them a single unit is not the right. And then my other reason that I, I against this is you haven't gotten rid of footnote a. And footnote a opens the door again to lots of things that we don't have a way to solve. And I think we're going to go in the wrong way by allowing apartments downtown because we want to increase the commercial base. So that there'll be a reason for people to want to go downtown. If you have a. Downtown that's all apartments and all residential. What's the point of anybody wanting to go there? And what would attract? Tourists to this town and what are they going to do here? Look at apartment buildings. So I think that's the wrong way to go. Thank you. Mary Sayer. I knew. Thank you. Well, I just wanted to say that I'm, I mean, again, changing the permitting in the. The village centers. And I agree with. The. Questions that Kathy raised and also the held to raise. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. At this point, we will be moving on to. Pam Rooney. You got your hand up just in time. Thank you. Pam Rooney, 42 cottage street. Miss Greenbaum stated most of my concerns. More articulately than I can. I think having. The SPR and the SP. Reversed for BG and residential. Village center. Don't seem to make. Much sense. And I, and I think given Miss Pollack's. Analysis. It all. Doesn't really make much sense to tinker with the building of it. The dwelling unit cap. I think the, the cap of 24. Units. Is probably a result of wanting a sort of a comprehensible. So. Sociologically. Contented. Neighborhood where you kind of know up to the, up to 24 people within your building. And it becomes a comprehensible. Number to deal with. It doesn't mean that you can't do multiple buildings. They can't be done. Artistically. And with architectural character. And create some outdoor open space. It just doesn't seem. It's, you know, a lot of effort has gone into this, but it just doesn't seem to have moved the ball forward very much. On apartments. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. At this time does the planning staff have anything else they want to add before we move back to questions from the board and committee? I'm going to move on to questions from the board. I'm going to move on to questions from the board and committee. Seeing not, we're going to go to questions from the board or committee. I want to remind our boards that we have three more hearings to do tonight. I'm trying to move us along. It can be tough, but. I want to think about whether we're ready to close a hearing after these questions or not. Or whether the hearing will need to be continued. So any other questions from the board or committee members. Janet. I felt somewhat comforted by the assurances that these hearings can be continued and Lynn. Town council chair Lynn Griezmer that we're not in a hurry. And that we can go slowly. I have a lot more questions and I have to note that most of the questions people have asked haven't actually been answered. And so I wonder if it would be productive for me to ask more questions. And I don't know what other people other questions people have. Or should we just make a motion to continue and move on to the next? Because. I'm sort of at a little bit of a loss, you know. In this process, like the planning board saw this briefly on May, in May. We talked about it last week in the context of four zoning amendments. And I don't know how much time we spent on it. Maybe a half hour, 45 minutes. And now we're in this hearing with, you know, 12 people. So we, do you want me just to keep asking questions or. Despite, I don't want to. That, that, that's, that's a good, a good thinking, Janet. Let's, let's, let's hear a little bit from our committee members as to whether they're thinking about continuing the hearing or. We'd like to close it so that Janet has some ideas to whether she should ask her questions or not. Dorothy and then Andrew. And I would find it useful to once again here. Why this. And why now? Because I'm not sure. That it gets us something that we really want or need. So the words density and units. Okay. There would be more density. There would be more units. But would this be creating. A lot of discussion about what we can do about the downtown business section. What is within our control? What is not within our control? And. I guess I think somebody else said this. I'm thinking maybe it would really be better rather than trying to, to do the density. By encouraging apartment buildings. Which are really going to be very big downtown. To. Work on the mixed use. And get that in better shape. So that we would have a combination of, of, of dwelling units, places that people could call home. Combined with some kind of commercial or business or. Social artistic, some kind of interactive. Activities on the first floors. That would make for a lively town. So that, that is a question and a comment. Why not just fix the bead. The, the mixed use. And not try to deal with it by putting a lot of apartment buildings downtown. Thank you, Dorothy. I want to remind everyone we're talking about whether to continue or close this hearing at this point. Andrew. Yeah, I'd be, I'd be inclined to continue. I think both Dorothy and Janet made some points, which, which I agree with, which I think that if we had some more time to, to review the information may at least lead me to a different decision. I would, I would be in favor of continuing. I think also it's just, there is a lot on the docket to go through. I think it's, I think it's, I would be in favor of continuing. I think also it's just, there is a lot on the docket to go through and this is a complex one. And I do want to add, or just kind of pile on with what Dorothy said, I think that apartments isn't the issue right now. I think makes these buildings is really more important. Thank you, Andrew. Thoughts from committee members. I am not seeing any other hands. The only people that have spoke are in favor of continuing. If we continue, we need to pick a date certain. And, and so. The next dates that Chris Brestrup have given us are August 18th, September 1 and September 29. I'm going to assume the planning board members are available on the dates, the planning board meets, which are those three dates. So I would like to hear from my committee members. CRC members. Whether I can get a quorum for a joint hearing on August. September 1 or September 29. Dorothy. August 18th. Yes. September. Did you say 29th. 29th and September 1st. But September 1st. No, we will be away. You know, it's the. Labor Day weekend. And we will not be in town. Okay. Evan or Shawlani. Do you have, are you guys available on August 18th or September 29th? Shawlani. Yes. To August 18th and September 29th. And no to September 1st. We have a district meeting. Evan. Sorry. I was just pulling up my calendar. It looks like I'm available. Any of those dates. So this time I will entertain a motion from a planning board member. Is there a motion from a planning board member? Sorry. What. What. Could people do the 15th of September? I kind of missed that. Is that also available. To this year. A lot of data I was told was a planning board hearing. Okay. 29. September. Oh, I'm sorry. I was looking. Okay. 29th. Okay. Is that, is a 29th available to the CRC? The 29th of all of September is nearly is more than two months from now. Jack. You're muted. I should know better, huh? But yeah, I would move that we continue the hearing to August 18th. Yeah. Chris Brestrup. Can I get it? Is there a second from a planning board member? Doug. You can't get the second from me. Okay. Andrew. I'll second. Chris Brestrup, you had your hand up and then Doug. I wanted to comment on Janet's question about September 15th. Yom Kippur begins at sundown on September 15th. So that wasn't one of the dates that was. Okay. To be available. So Doug. Yeah, I guess I, I was belated and didn't quite see how the conversation was going to go. But. I probably would be one vote to close the hearing. And I thought I should say that before we got any farther. Any other discussion from the planning board members on the motion to continue the hearing to August 18th. I just also want to say that I think I would fall into the campus, Doug, to go ahead and close the hearing on this. Janet. So I'm trying to figure out how to get the questions that the public have asked. I have asked it. I have more questions to ask. To the planning department and the CRC and the. Planning board. So we can kind of mull that before we meet again about it without, you know, maybe exposing those questions to the public's. We don't. Violate open meeting law. Or I would just request that when we meet in. August, just to take some more time. So I'm trying to figure out how to get the questions that the public have asked. So I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and get the questions that the public have asked. August, just to take some more time than a half hour or 45 minutes. I just think this is very detailed and there's a lot to it. We haven't covered. Chris. If people wanted to send. Me and Maureen, your questions. We can put them in a list. And I think Maureen and Pam and I, Pam field Sadler have all been taking notes on this. So we could come up with a list of questions for August 18th. And we can also publish them on the town. On the planning board website. So I don't think it's a question of open meeting law. So that's one way of dealing with this. Thank you. That's great. Thank you. Jack. You're muted, Jack. Thanks. I'm not used to this. Sorry. I'm sorry. But I just, I, I see. You know, a couple of members. Looking at a continuance and a couple of that want to. Close the hearing and I, I guess I would like to hear from Tom long. On this. I mean, I'm on the fence because I think we have a lot of items to go through. I think there are a lot of questions. I would love to close the hearing today and, and go through the agenda that we have. But I don't feel like it's going to move fast. So if I think there's too many questions, then I think it's just going to hold up the rest of the things that we need to get through today. So I'm on the fence and I'm sort of going to abstain from making a decision. I think that's where I am as well. So. So it is the planning for the planning board to decide on this motion. If this motion fails, another motion can be accepted at any time, as well as questions continuing to be asked until a motion. That. That is made passes. Andrew. I call a question. We have the motions on the floor, right? The motion is on the floor. Formally calling the question requires a two thirds vote and there's not dispute is not debatable. So I'm going to go to an immediate vote on ending debate. And I'm just going to go down my list of members. It's not in any particular order. So pardon me for being. In alphabetical order, Janet, the calling of the question is not debatable. So. I have a point of order. We never do. The planning board doesn't call the question usually just vote on the motion. So that's not our usual. I'm not quite sure what's happening. So Robert's rules allows for calling the question because someone is not allowed to vote on the motion. So I'm just going to go ahead and debate and go immediately to a vote. And so we will. Follow Robert's rules and vote on the motion to. Call the previous question. Yes. Ends debate. A vote of no allows continuing discussion on the motion to continue the hearing. Jack. Yes. Doug. I'm sorry. Would you say that? Yes. And no again. Yes. Ends debate. A no continues debate on the motion to continue the hearing. Yes. Janet. Yes. Johanna. Yes. Andrew. Yes. Tom. Yes. That is unanimous. We will now go to an immediate vote on the motion to continue the hearing to August 18th at six 35 PM. Jack. That's a yes. Doug. No. Janet. Yes. Johanna. No. Andrew. Yes. Tom. No. That was three yeses three noes as a tie vote, the motion to continue the hearing fails. We are now continuing the hearing and can continue with questions or another motion at any time. Wow. Okay. Well, I guess then I should move to, to close the hearing. Is there a second? No. No. No. No. Andrew. Was that Andrew or it was that Tom. Tom. Thanks. Sorry. And is there debate on the motion to close the hearing? Dorothy will, we'll hear you later. This is a planning board motion. So, Johanna. Sorry. My hand was a residual hand raised. Okay. Janet. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just a little stunned that we would close a hearing debating changes to the apartment's definition that we haven't. We haven't had much information on. Some of the information that was provided in terms of. Impacts on one or two lots. You know, there were some adjustments that you may, we haven't seen anything, you know, for different areas. There's still more questions. There's been no impacts analysis or discussion. There's, there's many alternative that had been suggested actually by the planning board previously planning department. And so I, I, I'm astonished that anyone would look at this. You know, I don't know if we spent more than an hour and 15 minutes on this and just, just to reel back in time, almost a year ago. At the end of a very long meeting, there was a move to close the, to, to abolish or shut down the zoning subcommittee. And what you're seeing here is the loss of very thorough, very deep look at zoning changes that are discussed with the public, with the planning department and the planning board, you know, going through the ideas, you know, looking at alternatives, gathering information. And, you know, I was objecting that the planning board didn't even know that this was going to come to the town council for referral. And I was, you know, I was the one that was on the commission's committee, but I was the one that was on the commission's committee, the vice chair vice chair vice chair vice chair. And, you know, you know, when the guys, Christmere said, don't, you know, no, you know, take as much time as you can. Planting director asked us that we can continue the hearings and go through it as we want to. And here we are really at what I thought is kind of my nightmare, which is just a very cursory. Look at a very profound change without a lot of information. And I know my questions are tiring. detailed work that needs to be done. And so I don't know how people are gonna vote on this if I would vote not to recommend because there's been very little analysis. There are no strict design controls. There's no impact statement. We don't know how it's gonna affect historic buildings. We don't know how it's gonna affect neighborhoods. All these things that are in the master plan. And so I just would ask my fellow members to just continue it and I'll send my questions, my nitty gritty questions and ideas to the planning department and we'll just take another go at it next month. So that's my request to my fellow members. Thank you, Janet. Doug, your hand is still up. Did you wanna say something? Oh, you just lowered your hand. I lowered it because I thought you called on me. Yeah, okay, your turn. Okay, so at the last meeting that the planning board discussed this last week, we were invited to submit questions to Chris Brestrup that she could answer for this meeting tonight. And it appears that that didn't happen. I do not view this as a drastic change to the bylaw. And I think that as Marine has shown, the predominant impact of this will be in very limited geographic area in the BG and the BVC. And the BVC has substantial requirements for open space and maximum lot coverage that's well below that the whole parcel. So I don't think that this is a, it should be a particularly controversial change. The table three limits the size of buildings in all of the districts with the exception of BG really. And in fact, we are making it more difficult to build an apartment building in the BG if this passes. So the fear that people have that the BG is gonna be overrun with apartments if we pass this, makes me wonder how everybody's been sleeping at night because it's already easier to do an apartment in BG than we would make it if we passed this tonight. So I feel like we've had adequate conversation. If we can get him, I mean, if we wanna really delay this, that's fine, but I don't know what else, what kind of analysis the planning department could do to satisfy the infinite number of options that could happen on all the parcels that are affected and all the different ways a design might happen. So I think the request for additional analysis is sort of futile. So I'm ready to vote on it. Thank you, Doug. Jack and then Tom. Yeah, I was just gonna say, I agree with Doug. I voted for the continuance more just trying to get a straw poll from things. So if we're split, given Doug's argument, I'm certainly willing to close the hearing. We'll deliberate further. We're not gonna, but we can certainly close the hearing. I don't have a problem with that. I don't feel like the article, it's basically cleaning things up, but I don't think it's gonna lead to significant changes, but I like the improvement that it potentially could provide to the bylaws. But so I will vote for any of the hearing and then deliberating further after this session. Thank you, Jack. We're gonna try and keep comments to the motion on the floor, which is to close the hearing. Tom and then Andrew. I just wanted to concur with what Doug said and agree that moving forward. It seems like the correct thing to do, given the time and the response that the planning board has given us in terms of the questions we would have had. Thank you, Andrew. Thanks, yeah, I think the piece of information that I was looking for, I know Janet requested last week and I agreed was like a broader massing study. So we've got an example of a couple of parcels, but I would love to sort of see more like more of what a buildup would look like. I think maybe more importantly is because there are some additional questions we've got public comment. We've not accounted for any of that. If there isn't really a sense of urgency, I don't feel strongly compelled to push it through if there's opportunity to digest and process feedback that we've received. And I agree, Doug, like I think there are a gazillion ways we could look at this, but we've looked at two examples. I think that we could do a little bit more. I don't want to drag this on forever, but it also feels like a rush. Thanks. Janet, then Johanna. I have a question. So if we close this public hearing, what's the consequences of that? Do we have 14 days to give a recommendation and a report to town council? I thought we had to keep the public hearing open so we can keep our deliberation and discussion. Can we close the public hearing and continue to meet and discuss this as a planning board without a joint hearing and then eventually come to a recommendation and then do we have an infinite amount of time? I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but I do want to spend enough time. So I thought if we close the public hearing, we're on a 14-day track to issue our report. Not quite. So closing the public hearing triggers a 90-day time start for the council to get to a vote without having to hold another public hearing. So it would trigger, it would start a three-month clock. The council cannot vote until 21 days after the planning board has closed its hearing or the planning board has submitted its report and recommendation to the council, whichever is earlier. So you have a minimum of 21 days to submit the report. You can take longer, but the council cannot vote until after 21 days has passed if you do not submit a report. So it's not a 14-day timeline. It's a minimum of 21 days. And given the council and how it gets to stuff, you'd probably have more than 21 days because CRC has to do its thing and then GOL has to do its and then it's two readings at the council before a vote can even happen. No, I understand that. I'm just wondering what the requirements of the state law are. State law is the council cannot vote for 21 days after the hearing is closed at the planning board. And so it's considered a 21-day deadline to submit a report because if you don't, if the planning board doesn't submit one within 21 days, the council can go ahead and vote without that report and recommendation. I don't know of any 14-day deadline, but Chris Brestrup, do you have any other? No, I was gonna say exactly what you were going to say and I was gonna suggest that the planning board schedule it's time for discussion about this and it's time for a vote and that they not try to do it tonight because you have three more hearings to get through. And Johanna just unraised her hand. Johanna, do you have anything to say? In the spirit of moving on to other things, I don't. Okay. Seeing no other hands at this time for the planning board motion to close the hearing, we're gonna move to a vote. Jack. Yes. Doug. Yes. Janet. No. Johanna. Yes. Andrew. No. Tom. Yes. The motion is for in favor to against. So the motion passes. The hearing is closed on the planning board side. I'm gonna move to CRC. Is there a motion that a member of CRC would like to make, Dorothy? I move that we continue the hearing. Is there a second? But Dorothy, your motion has to include a date and time. To the September 29th date. I move that we continue it to the September 29th. There were so many questions here and that needed to be answered that we needed time. So that date is a planning board scheduled hearing, not a scheduled meeting, not a CRC scheduled meeting. So, I don't know what date I should put down. So this is to continue the hearing, right? And continuing the hearing has to be a planning board date. The planning board just closed their hearing. I don't know what I'm supposed to do here. So I'm just gonna object. How's that? I'm just gonna say, and I have a lot to say, all right? So it's not the form of a motion. I mean, what is the point of a public hearing? Is it just, oh, we have to do it, we're required to do it. Oh, we did it, great, done. Now we can go on and do something else and mess up something else. As a CRC member, I don't know the impacts of these changes. The drawing that was given to us tonight raised more doubts than it answered anything. So I have profound fears. I mean, that drawing looked like an old style tenement building. So what are we trying to do? People have mentioned there are many small parcels that can be combining of parcels. But there's a possibility of mega apartment buildings downtown, whether people would want to do it or not want to do it, I don't know. But why should we pave the path, lay out the red carpet and say, come on in and do it? If we haven't even gone through it and clarified the points, I mean, we asked the public to come to these hearings. They come, they try, they speak. They try to keep up with the information. And then it's like, okay, Don, and we have so many questions that weren't answered. So, you know, if we're doing this for real, then let's do it for real. If it's just pro forma, then let me know and I won't get so excited. So I personally have the information that I need. I think Doug, when he was speaking in favor of his motion on the planning board, summed up my thoughts quite a bit. I don't think that this is a terribly complicated proposal. It is essentially making it more difficult to build apartments in the downtown business district, easier to build apartments in one of the more high density residential districts and removing an arbitrary cap on the number of apartments per building and letting the dimensional regulations that currently exist determine the size and scale of the building. So that's really doing those three things. And I think that there will always be more questions. The public committee members will always have more questions. We will always want more detail, but at the end of the day, I think that there will always be more questions. We will always want more detail, but at this point I personally have enough information to move forward into deliberation. I think a lot of the public questions were questions that were more comments. It's have you considered this? And I think that that's appropriate for our deliberation, but does not necessitate necessitated is keeping open the public hearing. So that said, I will move to close the public hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Shalini. I second that. Is there any further discussion on the CRC motion to close the public hearing? Shalini. Yeah, I. What I'm hearing is. A lot of concern because it sounds like this change that I heard in. Maureen's responses and Chris's responses was that they are making it harder to build apartments in BG. What I heard is we want to make it easier. To build apartments in smaller developments actually and open that up for more housing. We all know we have a problem with a for, you know, housing in general and affordable housing. So there are, they were concerns raised about historic districts. And that was answered also that we have a committee that looks into those impacts. So many of the impacts that are being asked for, they are already either in design guidelines or they're there in the other committees that are looking for. So the very small change that we're looking at right now, I don't want to say it's small, it is big. But the impact of that seems to be in alignment with what we want as. What we've set up as our goals. And. And I think it's a good, it's very important and that's already been acknowledged by Chris that creating an FAQ speech because it feels like the questions are very similar. And there, okay. Yeah, just the last thing is that just to create the FAQs page basically, because, and put that up there. We're discussing whether to close the hearing, not deliberating on whether we support. Yeah. So basically that would, those are the reasons for closing. And, and if you can put up the FAQs page, then we can, you know, direct people to, to that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm in favor of closing Dorothy. Well, I'm in favor of continuing and perhaps to September 28th when there is a CRC meeting. Evan. And I really do applaud your calm tone. Which was trying to make me feel less concerned. But when you said it was to make it easier to build apartments in high density residential areas. I think it is clear to me what is the purpose. Is that the purpose? It's not clear what the purpose of these changes are. These motions have changed so many times. And that each time we look at them, we're not sure what's happening. I think it is not clear to me what is the purpose of these changes. I don't think it has really been carried out far enough. So I would like to continue the hearing to September 28th. I think it is clear to me what is the purpose of these changes. I think it is clear to me what is the purpose of these changes. All I'll say is I can answer that question for you, Dorothy, from my perspective, right? And I think we all have our reasons, but we can't. Deliberate at this stage. And it sounds to me like a lot of the questions that you're, you're asking, why are we doing this? What are the perspectives? I'm like on the edge of my seat wanting to respond to you, but I can't because that's the liberation. So I think we all have our reasons for that. And I think we all have our reasons for that. And I think we all have our reasons for that. And I think we all have our conversations. At that point. Thank you, Evan. See no other hands. We're going to move to a vote. We're going to start with Shalini. And this is to close the hearing. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mandy is a yes, Dorothy. Sorry. No. And Evan. Yes. A motion to close the hearing passes three to one. With that, I was going to move on to the second one. And I think we all have a little bit of a break. I don't know if I'm answering on this. Plan before we took a break, but this one went a little bit longer. And so I think the. Committees would probably like a five minute break right now before we move on to the rest of our meetings. So we will. We. We will recess until eight 30. And at eight 30, we are back. Turn your videos on. When you come back, I intend to start at eight 30. Okay. Okay. I'm going to close the meeting. So that I know everyone is here. I would like to begin the meeting. Soon. So that we've got a lot more to continue on to. Yes. Is that Doug? Yeah, that's Doug. I'm going to be probably turning off my video for most of the rest of this meeting. That's fine. Thank you for letting me know. It looks like we have. Everyone but Shalini back. So we're going to start taking the roll call. And then we're going to move on to the next meeting. And then we're going to be up to each separate group. To two. In other words, the planning board or the CRC to determine when they would have their deliberations. Is that correct? And they're intending to go on to the next public hearing right now, right? Correct. Thank you. So say you're present. If you're here, I'm going to go through the planning board members and then the CRC members. And then we're going to move right on Jack. Here. Doug. Here. Here. Andrew. Present. Tom. Here. Dorothy. Here. Shalini. Here. And Evan. Present. Okay. With that at eight 32 PM. In accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40, a, this joint public hearing of the Amherst planning board and the community resources committee of the Amherstown council has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held. And we're going to move to the next public hearing. And then we're going to move to the next public hearing of the Amherstown council. For the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning by law zoning by law. Article three. Use regulations section 3.325 mixed use buildings and article 12 definitions. To see if the town will vote to amend article 12 definitions and to add a definition of mixed use buildings. To amend article three section 3.325 mixed use buildings to remove the definition of mixed use buildings from section four. To amend the criteria and standards required for mixed use buildings. To set criteria to limit the amount of residential use and incurred and enclosed parking. That would be allowed on the first or ground floor. To set a minimum for the amount of non-residential use other than enclosed parking. That would be allowed on the first or ground floor. To require any dwelling units or enclosed parking on the first or ground floor to be located towards the rear of the building and designed to reduce visibility from the public hearing. To determine which floor is to be considered the first or ground floor for sloping lots and lots with multiple frontages. The public hearing plan will be the same as it was last time. Are there any board or committee member disclosures? Seeing none. The planning department will make its presentation. I believe this is Maureen again. No, sorry. It's Nate. Presentation. We're getting Maureen a little time off so she can have dinner. So this is the mixed use. Building standards. And I'm assuming the mixed use is up there. Yes, it is. Great. Thanks. So there, you know, currently as. As mentioned before, there's a section just in the use chart for misuse buildings. It provides minimal standards. And no definition. And so. We've gone over this. The proposal strategy, you know, provides a definition in article 12. So it's, you know, actually have a separate definition provides a few standards. For uses. You know, specifically the first floor use and orientation. And the diversity of bedroom counts. Similar to what we're talking about. And so, you know, this strategy has been refined before it had included, you know, design standards and others. Other things. It's really been refined to address the definition. In the first floor use the proportion of uses. And so it's really been refined to, to, to, you know, address what has been seen as an issue with mixed use buildings. The new definition is one or more building containing. A building containing one or more dwelling units. So, you know, it's one or more in combination with permitted non residential uses. And the key here is non residential uses. We're not specifying. You know, specifically retail or a specific use. It's any non residential use. Permitted in the zoning by-law. And that allows flexibility for occupying that space. There's standards and conditions. So on the first or ground floor, a maximum of 60%. She'll be used for residential use or enclosed parking. A minimum of 40% of the first floor. So this is a minimum. She'll be for non residential use. You know, and incidental spaces. Parking is excluded from this ratio. So in a mixed use building, we're proposing three categories of uses for just the mixed use building. Parking, residential and non residential. And so what we're saying here is 40% of the ground or first floor has to be non residential use, commercial use. Retail. You know, office use, anything that has to be used for non residential use. So it has to be non residential use, commercial use, retail, you know, office use, anything that's non residential. A maximum of 60% is for the residential use or enclosed parking. So it could be residential parking. You know, would have to be, you know, it's limited to 60%. And these ratios have been, you know, tailored to what we think works in Amherst. There was a chart that was emailed out to the planning board and it showed a number of communities across the state and a few other states. And it showed a number of communities across the state. And really there's no one formula to address, you know, what are the right proportions for a mixed use building on the first floor, upper floors. And so it's really about how each community can envision what it, what it needs and what the demands are in that community. And so incidental space is important. It's storage. It's entry ways. I just moving down on the slide, elevators. And so, you know, it's a lot of work to do. And so that could be anywhere from 10 to 20% of a use could be incidental space. And that's factored into these maximums. Examples of non-residential uses include retail, businesses, institutional uses. A public service, consumer services, office. Office space or similar principal uses or accessory uses. And, you know, we think this offers flexibility. So, you know, narrowly defining it to, you know, a non-residential use that could actually, you know, be a way to prohibit or preclude mixed use buildings from being developed because of the difficulty of renting those spaces. But by having non-residential use as a category, it provides more opportunity for what, what could actually occupy that 40, that minimum 40%. As part of the standards and conditions in the use chart. So right now we'd be eliminating the standards and conditions in the use chart. And so, you know, we're seeing that in close parking on the ground floor is located at the rear of the building and designed to reduce visibility from the public way or walkways. That there's, you know, The sloping lot that the permit granting authority could decide what is the ground or first floor on a sloping lot or a lot with multiple frontage. So something that's on a corner a lot. And, you know, we're having the same language that was proposed in apartments that for a building with 10 or more units that there's some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of example. Building C is really where the, the two cheese building is located. And this example is showing, you know, if there is a development along East pleasant street, East pleasant street is shown here. What does 40% look like. And. You know, this is just a concept. So there could be, you know, you could say that. Spaces could be manipulated a little differently, but this is to show a is the retail space, you know, the retail space is in the red is residential. C is parking and D is the incidental space. And so, you know, in this example is showing that 40% along the streetscape and this type of building is possible. You know, with a lot that has narrow frontage and a deeper length, it could be, you know, 40% may be more challenging. It may be require different site planning to get access to certain businesses or non-residential uses. But, you know, the 40% is really meant as a way to create, you know, an active streetscape. So it's required that, you know, the non-residential be along the street and the residential and the parking be located off of the street. And just for reference, you know, a few years ago there was an economic development report by Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. And it was, you know, trying to look at what, you know, what are the market indicators and Amherst. And it wasn't just the town center, but it was the town in general. And I did say that, you know, that there is demand for certain uses in town. So whether it's smaller boutique stores, some general merchandise stores, you know, what it indicated was that there is some market demand for, for non-residential uses. And so, you know, what I would hope with this mixed use building standard is to provide a definition that isn't there. And so, you know, whether or not there is availability now, it's really about if there is more density downtown and we don't provide space, it could be really difficult to retrofit a building to have the space that someone would want. So the 40% really is a minimum and it's meant to encourage non-residential uses. And so it's really, just to show the language, I'm going to work from the memo that was presented a few weeks ago. And the definition here is in bold italics. It's what was on the slide, you know, building containing one or more dwelling units in combination with permanent non-residential uses. And so, you know, that would be an article 12 definition. As I scroll up here, it shows the, the current standards and conditions in article three that would be removed in its entirety and replaced with these new standards and conditions. You know, the 60% of the first or ground floor should be a combination of residential use or parking, the 40% minimum for non-residential uses. The orientation that the dwelling units in close parking be located at the rear of the building or designed to reduce visibility from public ways. The sloping lot provision and then the bedroom count that no more than 50% of a dwelling of dwelling units, all the same bedroom count of the building with 10 or more units. And so that, you know, is to encourage some diversity of bedroom size. And those would be the new standards and conditions. And so that's, that's the kind of the. Amendment in its entirety. Thank you, Nate. We're going to move on to questions from the board or committee. And let me know if I'm going to stop sharing my screen or what you'd like to have. Let's leave those up for now. Just so the public can, can really see them. Questions from the board or committee, Evan. Yeah, so I'm, I'm looking at that 40% number, which, you know, this isn't the first time that I've seen this. But as I've thought more carefully about it, I've grown more concerned about it. Especially looking at sort of the, the list. Rough calculations of percentages that was provided in the memo showing that, you know, one East pleasant would have missed it by 5%. You drive South would have missed it by 1%. And I think, you know, Nate said in his introduction there, that the goal of that 40%, I think was quote to, to make sure you have an active streetscape. But then also acknowledge that you could have sort of a lot that has a very small frontage and it's very skinny. Actually thinking about the building that Maureen showed us an example of you took the red slot and the lot behind it. You'd have very little frontage. So you could have a building there that would be where the streetscape could be very active where you have commercial on the streetscape, but residential in the back and it'd be very hard to get to the frontage. And so that would be very active where you have commercial on the streetscape, but residential in the back and it'd be very hard to get that 40% without significant modification. We've also heard. Talk about what if, what if you wanted like a rooftop bar, right? And so what if that building had a rooftop bar that wouldn't count. And so this is leading to a question, which is, is there any flexibility. In that 40% number, if they were at 37%, but there was a rooftop bar. So there was commercial on the rooftop. Is there any flexibility built into this for the permit granting authority? And if not, is that something that was discussed by the planning department to allow flexibility? Or is that 40% number a heart? If you're 39%, sorry, you got to change your design. Nate. Yeah, I think that I could have. Yes. I think there is. Not much flexibility. You know, we have discussed it in terms of saying, you know, could this be a waiver request or what is the ability to room, you know, to waive the 40% or have different parameters, you know, having a minimum. Non-residential size. If a lot has a certain proportionality from frontage to depth or something, but I think, you know, we found that, you know, trying to come up with language to capture every scenario became more difficult to then. Understand what could happen there in terms of, you know, someone may be splitting a lot or something or, you know, but the way this stands now, you know, there, the, there is no waiver provision. If there is a product that really can't meet the 40%, there's always a variance request to the zoning board of appeals, which is supposed to be a pretty high bar, you know, given hardships that can't be, you know, that make this impossible to meet, right? So it could be that. Right. There could be a lot that has such limited frontage. And it's such an odd shape that maybe has very, you know, it has the minimum frontage necessary for a lot. That it makes no sense to have 40% because most of the building, buildable areas so far back from a street. And so, you know, staff has discussed. You know, how to address that. And it is a variance request the right way, given that there may only be a few laws that actually would have trouble meeting the 40%. And, and so, you know, in some communities, for instance, they might have, you know, 85% of the frontage needs to be developed at a certain depth to meet the, to make it, you know, a retail space or a non-residential space. And, you know, the difficulty there is some might use 25 feet depth, some might say a 50 foot depth, but then all of a sudden you're still creating a percentage because you're saying if a hundred and 85% of your frontage at 50 feet deep, that is always a proportionality to the building. And so, you know, we were thinking 40% is the gross area of a building. So someone can manipulate their building, you know, even if it's a hundred foot frontage and they have side setbacks and they're building a smaller, the 40% is really of their building, not of the lot. So it, you know, it can be manipulated in shape to match the building design. But given it now, it's a difficult waiver because it is the definition of mixed use building. You know, it's that this is kind of the crux of the, you know, this is the crux. Thank you, Nate. Jack. Yeah, I, you know, with, with Nate's response. To Evan's inquiry. I mean, I've always thought like the 40% is seems on the high side. And then yeah, if you don't have kind of a equidimensional sort of lot, then it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense sometimes. You know, we have a recent project in front of us that has a very narrow frontage compared to the rear of the property that is more wide. And so that 40% yeah, I've struggled with it. But I, I'm encouraged that again, we can try this and then if it doesn't, you know, it was, you know, it may not be perfect, but we can always change it in the future. But again, if a waiver is sought, it goes to ZBA. We have a very good ZBA. They have a great, you know, track record for turning out, you know, approvals of a project so that there's some comfort in that as well. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you, Jack. Andrew. Thanks. Yeah, I agree that I think 40 cents a good starting point. I think it could present challenges, but I think it moves us in the right direction. And then I don't know, Nate, whether you all have done this, but you know, it might be interesting just to use the existing building footprints and do a quick slice of what the 40% would look like. Because I'm just scanning and I see some like bowling alley lots and some lots that are actually pretty broad. And it could have very different impacts as we've all stated. So that might be a useful visual for us to put together is to get a sense of what that would look like. And is it really workable? So I'd ask that we take a look at that. But I do feel like 40% is good starting point. And also, I'm sorry, I just want to add to that. That Maureen's example of the protruding lot was very useful for me to see last week. So thanks for sharing that. And then the other thing I was going to say that came up in the conversation last week that Maureen had raised is the importance of having, making sure that we've got residential opportunities on the ground floor, especially for folks who have, who are not able-bodied or need access through a wheelchair. So thanks. Thank you. Janet. So I'm kind of wondering how we got down to 40%. So, you know, in 2016, the planning department, the planning board recommended to tell meeting that we would have 60% non-residential on the first floor. And I think we're just to remind people, we're not just talking about like storefronts, but we're talking about different business uses and institutional uses. And so people can walk into a building and down the hall and go to the back of the building and go to professional offices or, you know, it could be a, it could be a state office or, you know, things. So the purpose of the mixed use buildings was to help encourage residential downtown, which is part, you know, or in business districts, which are primarily business. And so how did we go from 60% to 40%? Like what was the thinking that led to that? And I'm not sure if the CRC has seen this chart that was sent out. I think it was yesterday about different cities and their mixed use requirements. And so 40% is at the bottom. It's not, you know, so Greenfield has 100% businesses on the first floor. Northampton has 100%. And Brookline has 60% businesses on the first floor. And, you know, again, not just, you know, retail. I couldn't understand Cambridge, but they have a whole thing about depth and, you know, glazing and, you know, like whatever. South Hadley has 100% first floor with some small exception for residential. Watertown is, you know, the residential is primarily on the above floors, not more than 50% on the first floor. We were told by the planner that it's actually, you know, the first floor. The first floor. The first floor. They kind of works out to 85%. And then they very interestingly named them in claw Washington state doesn't allow ground floor residential. It's 100% business. So, you know, we. How did we get to 40% and why would it be difficult to have offices on our first floor in the side or behind the building. So I just don't understand how we got to such a small amount. I mean, I can't tell you, you know, there's 37. Businesses in East Amherst that don't have any residential, there's small bills, businesses, they're all thriving. They have come through, I hope, through the pandemic, the most difficult time, and there's just a lot of demand. We have more residents. So I just don't understand how we got down to 40%. We're thinking that, you know, that's going to be hard to meet. We need to make the space for businesses. We have to, you know, the less business space we have, the harder it is for them to function. So I just, can the, can Nate, can you tell us why? Why has what's happening with the disappearing. Business on the first floor in business districts. Thank you, Janet. Before Nate answers the CRC has received that same document that you referenced, Janet, that the. Yesterday, Nate. Yeah, I think, you know, the 40% is a minimum. You know, anyone can still propose, you know, a four story office building downtown. It's not. You know, this is just in a mixed use. Building. And so, you know, there still can be a building that isn't a mixed use building that has multiple floors of non-residential use. Similarly in a mixed use building, you still can have. Upper floors be non-residential. The 40% is really just. On the first or ground floor. So, you know, if someone's still proposing. Multi-story building, you know, the first two floors could be all non-residential. And so, you know, it's just, you know, I'm getting there. So the 40%, I think is what. You know, what will work for Amherst. And so some of these other communities, you know, if, you know, if they think that they, you know, it's also in context of what other uses they permit in their business districts or their downtown. So, you know, I know that the chart is helpful. It's also, you know, and these other, other communities may also allow. You know, apartments differently. They permit them differently. And so in Amherst, they may have other office parks or other places where businesses can be located. So I think if we had more than 40%, it would actually be a difficult to achieve in a mixed use building. It would actually probably have the effect of deterring mixed use buildings on the, on the first floor. Even though we have a non-residential use category, it's not just retail. I think, you know, there's, there's difficulty in renting space downtown now. And I think, you know, requiring that there's more space be allocated in the building without actually knowing what could be there would actually make it less likely to have development happen. Again, 40% is a minimum. So if a developer is proposing a building, they can figure out what they need to, you know, have to fit the space. So, you know, university drive South has about 40%. Right. So the new mixed use building that was permitted on the corner of route nine and university drive. So they, you know, that developer went in knowing what the uses were and they would need this 40% about. So I think it, you know, the 40% in my mind is actually going to change. Kind of the, how someone would, would go about a developing a mixed use building that have to have a little bit more forethought in terms of how they can actually occupy 40%. So I think that's actually, it's still a pretty, a pretty big amount of floor space that has to be dedicated to non-resentional use. Thank you. Shalini. Yeah. I think following up on Evan's question, I would like to, I wonder if you all, if the planning department has received feedback from developers, builders downtown and other places about the flexibility they would need to, I think absolutely agree that this should be a minimum of 40%, but you know, just allowing for more creative solutions and what would work. And have you all heard from builders what flexibility they might require to get more creative with how to create engaging retail community spaces in the mixed use buildings. And secondly, I was wondering, you know, it is expensive. Retail spaces are expensive in Amherst. So what would make it easier? Has there been any discussion with builders to create public market like spaces like Thorns Market and stuff instead of having like one big retail space? Has there been any discussion with developers how we could encourage more smaller retail spaces? And the third thing is what can we do to encourage more outdoor dining spaces? Nate? Sure. I'm just writing the questions down. So I think the, the first one, the creative solution, it's interesting. You know, we've had some discussions with developers. I've spoken with the bid. And, you know, I'm not sure there's a, you know, you know, one answer won't, you know, one solution won't kind of answer everything, right? All the scenarios. I think, you know, some, like the center for new urbanism, someone emailed, developer emailed, and there's other articles that say, well, if, you know, a market is strong enough that you don't have to have any of these mixed use building standards, the developers will come in and be creative. I think the difficulty in Amherst is that the housing demand is so strong and the prices, you know, per rent are so high that it subsidizes a non-residential space. And so if we didn't have any, what we're seeing now, the definition of allocation of space and we're getting mixed use buildings with very small non-residential spaces because the housing market is so much stronger than the non-residential market. And so, sure, if both were equally strong, maybe we wouldn't need these standards, but that's not the case right now. So I think, you know, there's always opportunity for a developer to have a creative solution to, to, to spaces. And, you know, we're not, you know, we would encourage that and welcome that, you know, we would encourage that, you know, we would encourage that, you know, we would encourage that. Could we be more engaging in that possibly, but we're not, we're not prohibiting it now where it's just not, you know, what's being presented to us as was being presented to us. You know, I think the public market is interesting. I think. You know, I'd have to talk to, you know, my colleagues and see, okay, how, you know, what does that look like, right? Again, is it, is it something that it's difficult to develop? So that's why someone isn't doing it. I think, you know, through the pandemic, we've seen the success of outdoor spaces. So, you know, some of the other zoning amendments that are being looked at now would allow for that. And even, you know, the temporary zoning measures do too. And so maybe that's something that would become another, a future, a future change. You know, how do we create more space in the public, right of way or on the front of properties to allow for that. So I think, you know, I think we've seen the, the benefits of having activated outdoor space, you know, even the North common or the section of the town, common downtown, we put a few benches and picnic tables there, and they're used a lot, you know, and that's something just, you know, they're not, it's not fancy, but it shows us that people are, you know, they want to be outside. So I think that's a consideration. We have, you know, and I think what we're doing with the mixed use buildings is really trying to address the building and not the site, right? So we're also looking at hiring a consultant for design guidelines that may get into some of the site design that you, you mentioned in terms of outdoor space. So, you know, originally this had design guidelines and it seemed that those design guidelines are better addressed at a district level or a zoning district level and not a building level. So they're, you know, they're still under consideration. Thank you, Nate. Dorothy. Okay. So I'm following up some of the things Shalini's been asking, which is non residential activities on floors other than the first floor. And I was just thinking about how we, we lack those old factory buildings. I'm thinking about the place in East Hampton where I would take my grandkids to circus classes, which we would take an elevator up to, I think the third floor. And just wondering if, in fact, we could have, because you didn't even mention physical activity and art in your list of non residential uses. But when we talk about an active downtown that people want to go, we do sometimes think of experiences that people could have. And I'm just wondering if perhaps it could work out that. Cheaper rents could be offered to some of those places to help people reach their 40% of non residential on the first floor. But the other thing is it's a question. I haven't totally wrapped my head around it. The last time I knew. People were counting parking. As a business use. And that was allowing them to meet their mixed use term. Now parking has become. It's own thing. The idea. I'm just wondering. I mean, I guess I thought that people did parking. Inside their building because they thought they needed some parking and they could make some money. And that would count towards their. Their business use as opposed to their non residential use. And I'm wondering if you have any questions. Do you think people are going to want to do parking inside their buildings? If they don't have to do it. To get that percentage. You know, I'm just kind of puzzled by that change. And I, I don't really have, I feel that somehow things have changed a lot, but I don't know the implications. And I'm wondering if you've kind of done some work on what the implications could be in counting. And I'm just wondering if you have anything to add to that. I'm just wondering if you have anything to add to that activity. Yeah. I think, you know, the idea of what experiences people have downtown is a really good one. That's something the bid has mentioned that. You know what. You know, we, you know, whether or not we think retail can come back, you know, experiences, whether it's dining, right? Art music. You know, billiards. Stages, you know, theater. You know, music, all that would be. Considered non residential. And it can happen. I think the difficulty is that the. I think, right. I think that the rent that would be expected to, you know, on a square foot basis for commercial space, there may not be uses right now that could meet the expected rent that a developer would charge. And so as it is now, the residential uses are subsidizing the commercial or non-residential spaces. And so. You know, right. I think, I think that gets, you know, so zoning can address that, right? What is the market? What is the rent? I agree. Maybe. If expectations don't change, you know, are there other ways in terms of, you know, other strategies, whether it's taxes or financing or things that could help with that, I think that's, you know, outside kind of a zoning, a zoning piece. And to the parking, I think, yeah, we made parking a separate use because. There was concern that some that a developer could use parking to try to satisfy the non-residential space. And what you end up getting is not really. A good balance of not, you know, not, of non-residential uses other than parking. And so in some communities, they address the parking piece. And a lot of the communities I looked at, there's somewhat silent on it. And I think. You know, parking is interesting. We're talking about parking in clothes within a building. So there's still the ability to do site parking on a lot. And then, you know, there's also, you know, there's on street parking or, or other ways to, you know, shared parking is allowed in the zoning by-law. So I do think we have discussed the parking piece, you know, something to look at, you know, we were looking at what other communities were doing. You know, for this by-law, the idea that it is its own piece is to try to really minimize how much parking there could be. You know, to try to create residential and not, you know, non-residential space on the first floor. So it's, it's, you know, or within a building, I think it's a really good question. You know, we had thought that if this wasn't in place, you know, the 2016 amendment also looked at it is that we could have essentially a first floor that may have some, you know, commercial retail, whatever, but then all parking. And maybe that's not the worst thing they still can do the 4060. It's just, you know, is it also important to have a balance of residential too on the first floor. So. Thank you, Nate Janet. I, I forgot to say earlier that I'm actually happy to be working on this mixed use. It's, I think it's very close to being done. The zoning subcommittee was working on revisions to mix use two years ago, we were asked to stop working on it. And so two years later, here we are. I do like, I think the draft has been well reworked and I do have, I think we should push it up to 60% at least. We've lost 12 to 15 businesses, small businesses downtown, not to a failure of the economy or retail, but because they were just the buildings were torn down. We've just lost three other buildings, including the pub, which, you know, not only was it a great place to go, it was a really good community supporter of a lot of events. And so these places closed not because they wanted to, but because they had to. And so I really, I really don't want to dwell on the death of retail when Hadley is booming, when my East Amherst is booming, you know, everything over in pot wine is occupied with, you know, a fair amount of residential, but not much. And so I do want to boost, boost for 60% at least. But I also really want to know is, has anybody talked to the small businesses about what they would like to see? Do they need more space downtown? Do they want smaller spaces? You know, because the bid is one thing and the developers and the property owners are another, we are downtown is full of businesses that are operating right now. And so, you know, what do they want? What are the small businesses need? Do they need small space? Do they need more space? Would they like to see mixed use requiring 60% or 70%? Did the CRC talk to them or do an impact thing or anything like that? So just looking for some more information by people directly affected. Thank you. Do you have any response? No, no, I, you know, we didn't talk directly to the businesses. Thank you. We're going to now move on to questions from the public. And should I, should I stop sharing my screen or just, you know, what do we think about that? Yes, let's stop sharing the screen for now. Shalini, we will come back to you after public. And so we're going to move on to questions after questions from the public will be the opportunity for the public to speak in favor or opposition to the revision, but this time is specifically for questions. So we're going to recognize Pam Rooney at this point. Is unmute yourself and state your name. Hi, Pam Rooney, 42 cottage street. Now that you have pushed forward the apartment by law, that actually discourages its, its utilization in the business general district. But it feels like it's even more important than before that we get that we affect the utilization of the commercial space that we are trying to create. And it feels very important. I understand with the wording that no more than 60% of the gross floor area shall be residential. That clearly there's flexibility in that, but I believe that we should switch those around where it is really no more than 40% of the gross floor area shall be residential and a minimum of 60% of the gross floor area shall be the commercial and retail. In fact, if you I really overused phrase, but if you don't know that they actually can't even come. The diagram that Maureen Pollock provided actually could easily become a 60% commercial or retail and 40% residential residential on that ground floor. And clearly there would be residential of it. So even at 60% commercial 40% residential, it still works very well. Thank you, Pam. Hilda, please unmute yourself and ask your question. I'm sorry. I think you can speak now or. Okay, now I've got it. Okay. My question is I thought this was a public hearing. And I'm hearing a great resistance. From hearing what the public wants to say. And since there were so many places where people offered. Suggestions for compromise. It seems that the need to me that these bylaws may still be in the process of editing and revision. And I really think that the public needs to have an opportunity number one, if we're going to call ourselves an open government, we need to have an opportunity number one, we need to have an opportunity number two, which you guys who wanted the council so badly thought that we needed. To have open government so the people can be heard. That you'll, I think you ought to give us an opportunity to be heard and not close public hearings while things are still in transition. So my question is. Maybe. Can you possibly consider reopening the public hearing once these articles are. I mean, I think it's just public window dressing. So that's the question. Will we have a chance to comment and have our comments listened to, or you just don't care. It's something like you don't care. And I'm, I'm responding. I'm getting lots of, of. Of texts from various people who are thinking the same way. Well, I bought a sitting through these long meetings and you guys do what you want to do. I don't know what you're talking about. My language, but, but I mean, I'm, I'm with Dorothy. Why bother wasting so many people's time. You guys spend more time in a week. At meeting. And how meetings spend in a whole year and there was more discussion and more knowledge and more people informed with how meeting then this happening over the last three years. And I'm really getting upset about this. It's all controlled by one pack and nobody else. It gets listened to. So will we have a chance to be listened to? You don't care. That's the question. Thank you for your question. We have public hearings for every single one of these by law. Revision closed. Close the public hearing. You need to stop talking right now and let me respond. And you need to respect the rules of the council, which I'm going to go over right now. We have public hearings for each of these refusal revisions. And we always at both planning board and at CRC meetings, and at town council meetings, take public comment. The hearings are meant to be hearing of what the public thinks. We are doing that right now. And then the both committees will go back and deliberate. And it is entirely possible that the. Proposals will be modified prior to getting to town council. And it is entirely possible that the proposals will get modified at town council. I need to ask all participants to respect the rules and obey the rules of the council. That require. That discourse at meetings shall be marked by courtesy, openness and respect in the face of disagreement. The discussion is centered on the agenda and shall not use unbecoming or abusive language. And that participants shall avoid discussing personalities and not impugn the motive character or integrity of any individual. If anyone violates that provision again, they will be stopped and refused to be recognized again, because these are the rules that need to be abided by. We are going to hear from Kathy Shane next. I think you're asking. I'm Kathy Shane, 519 Montague road. Speaking as a resident. I am seconding the views that are asking why not 50% or 60%. And I did understand the answers. In terms of discussion with those who have been building apartments above the floor and what they can do downstairs, but I think necessity is the mother in mentioned here. If you want to build the large buildings, you can be very creative with the space. And their pop up stores, the kinds of things Shalini is talking about are happening all over New York and other cities, very small spaces with flexible space. And the, those who want to build mixed use buildings where they're looking for a long-term residents. Have an incentive to do that because it's what keeps a long-term resident living in the building. They love it. They want to go downstairs. So it's just a, I think we should be considering at least 50 or 60%. The other. Comment question is you've, there's been a lot of discussion on what about the building has a very small frontage on the main street. Again, I'm thinking about what cities and small towns can be alleyways that are wide enough for people to walk in. Provide storefronts all along the alleyway. If you think of where. The shoe repair person is or where Ben and Jerry's used to be or Panda East. It's, it's a public way that isn't a street. But it's long and narrow in terms of the frontage on our main street, but it creates a lot of life. So some of these buildings, if they had a wider. Side. Could easily have retail, interesting commercial. Some of my favorite in small cities. Cafes and music venues are on these small side streets or side alleyways along a building, not just on the main street. So I don't think it's inhibiting if a building has small frontage. But along depth, it just needs to plan accordingly on bringing people back along there. We've seen it in Amherst. You see it in North Hampton. You go up to Greenfield. Burlington has wonderful little side streets like this. So I don't think we should worry that some building scopes can't handle it. So otherwise I like a lot what this is doing. I think we've needed standards for mixed use. It's very important that we have them. And that's why I've worried about the apartment building one. You want to have an incentive to bring this kind of building to the downtown and village centers. And not have just large buildings with nothing. No shops in them whatsoever. So I think we need to think about how these two interact. I think this is a strong move forward. And that's it. For my comments. Thank you, Kathy. At this time, we're going to move on to public speaking in favor of the revision. Please raise your hand if you would like to speak in favor of this revision. Seeing none, we're going to move on to public speaking in opposition of this proposal and revision. Please raise your hand if you would like to speak in opposition. Pam Rooney. Hi Pam Rooney, 42 cottage street. Councillor Shane spoke much more articulate. Articulately than I did. But I think, I think we do really need to push for having no more than 40% of the gross floor area be, be residential. I think there are a lot more opportunities. To encourage. The kind of side street and. No matter what. No matter what the site. Configuration is. I think most sites have lots of variation and variability in providing access. I would like to, to push hard for that original town meeting. Target, which is the minimum of 60% of the gross floor area. Being non non residential. Other than that, I do appreciate that a standard is being developed. And appreciate that. We do want to move away from those buildings with, you know, the two and 3% commercial space. And the rest residential is that they are in my mind, essentially apartment buildings. And we've just spoken about them. So thanks for all the hard work, but let's, let's keep the percentage of commercial up there where we actually can. It gives us some flexibility. In the future. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. Janet Keller. Please unmute yourself. Identify your name. State your name and where you live. My name is Janet Keller. I live at 120 pulpit Hill road. I would like to talk to you. My name is Janet Keller. I live at 120 pulpit Hill road. I would like to add my voice to those. Appreciating the standards and. As well to strongly recommend for 60% commercial. If you haven't been out there before, I would like to highlight what's going on at North square. In North Amherst. And if you haven't been out there. To visit it. It's. They've done a fabulous job with the space they have and. Are continuing to add to it. And it is indeed very lively. And I think it's very important to bringing. Life. Yes. So I just want to add my voice to those. Recommending that. Thank you. Thank you, Janet. Jennifer top, please unmute yourself. State your name and where you live. Jennifer. Jennifer. To 59 Lincoln Avenue. And I actually wanted to echo what Janet Keller just said. Just. Because I know I'm, I'm often made sometimes seem like I'm the voice of no, but. I. I've been free. You know, quite a lot. And. I would also echo those who have encouraged more retail space. I would prefer to see it 60% in mixed use buildings. And if downtown could have. You know, the commercial activity that seems like is happening in North Amherst, I think that would be terrific. So I think that. You know, if you have retail establishments that. That served the public. People will come. So that's all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, would any planning. Department members. Nate, do you have anything to add before we move back to questions from the boards and committees? Thanks. Nothing to add at this time. Thank you. I'm going to recognize Shalini because she had her hand up before we moved to questions from the public. Shalini, did you have a question? Oh, it was actually a comment in response to. Janet about. I mean, I think it's a lot of empty spaces and I would just say that I've spoken to a few and. It is challenging to. To rent in Amherst and. I mean, we've had the blue marble space and some of those spaces. That have been vacant. So it's not just a question like if you build, they will come because it has been hard to. We've had a lot of issues. Besides the ones that we've lost. And so it is a complex issue. North Amherst indeed they've done an amazing job. And at the same time. It is challenging and they have to work so hard to get people to come to the general store and whatnot. So please do go there. The other thing is like, I do feel it would be. I think the developers, what I understood from talking to some people was they do do a. You know, the market analysis, right? Of what kind of retail will be coming and, and so. It's not. Just arbitrarily that we are deciding numbers like that. But the fact is that in Amherst and the way things are. It. The market analysis is being done by people who put in that money and the investment. So they are doing a lot of that. And so I think that's what we're thinking creatively, rather than blaming each other. Any of that. Really put our minds into what can we do to support local businesses? What can we do to work with the developers to make it. Feasible for them to support small businesses. But how do we all work together? I think that's an interesting example. And it was one I was hoping. On the list of the breakdown that provided that that would be on there. But unfortunately it wasn't one of them. Because that's definitely a place where. All of the frontage on Cole's road and all of the buildings surrounding the green. Is commercial. But then because of the shape of. One of the buildings. It actually has quite a bit of. First floor. Residential. I'd be curious actually in that one building that has that weird shape. If it meets the 40%. Because there's. The general store of the art gallery. And then everything behind it is first floor residential and incidental use. I'd be curious to know if that would, if the one of the two commenters cited. Actually would meet the 40%. Which leads to my actual question, which is there's two. Buildings there. One of them has a whole lot more first floor. Commercial. One of them has a whole lot more. First floor residential. When you're looking at a project. Is it, is that's I, my assumption has been it's 40%. Per building. Of growth floor area. But I want to confirm that. Because if you had a development like North square where there are two buildings that have different percentages of commercial. Is it overall gross floor develop. First floor gross floor area. Sorry. In the first floor. Or is it by building. Nate. Thanks. It's by building. Not by project. I think. You know, the difference may be that. It was by project. You still have 40%. It's just maybe then you could put it all in one building as opposed to having it be broken up by two buildings. So. You know, there's a few communities that do have it by. You can do a vertical mix use horizontal and some have it by district or by project. So. You know, almost like the 40 are right. The affordability could be in a building or overall by district, but. The way we're defining the mixed uses by building. So it would be 40% in each building. I will say that North square. We can get those percentages. I think. The thing there is that's a comprehensive permit. So, you know, it was. Considered and conceived as one project with waivers from the zoning. And so. You know, I think they, they write that was a pretty comprehensive look at what. What, how much commercial, you know, 22,000 square feet of commercial. With, you know, 130 units. And so. You know, I don't know what the breakdown is, but you know, they thought that that amount of, you know, residential to non residential space would work. I know that there has been some difficulty renting the spaces there. I'm not sure for whatever reason, but. You know, it's been. It's been a few years and they're still not fully occupied. So I think. But I do think it's a really nice example of. Kind of a development that had. You know, a lot of pieces to it. Thank you, Nate. Dorothy, do you have a question? Because we're still on questions. Yes, that's a question. So this is for Nate. I know that the North square had some kind of a tax break. I guess maybe 10 years. With a reduced tax. Does any of that. Help the commercial spaces. What I'm getting at is. We all say that we want some commercial spaces and we want experiences. We want interesting things. And I know they're working very hard to create that in the middle district. But if we think of downtown. Are there any incentives that the town can offer. To try to create those. And I'm putting this particularly in terms of art and experiences. I'm putting this. Places that need space that people would come and stay for a couple of hours. Do something interesting. And then they would go. They wouldn't spend too much money. And the people who run it don't make very much money. But we would love it. So that's the question. Anything that we as a town can do to encourage that. Yeah, I think, you know, North square, the tax incentive was for the affordable units. And you know, you know, in the way that was developed in terms of ownership, it doesn't necessarily benefit the, you know, the commercial space. You know, if. If ownership and financing were different in terms of, you know, what, what entities did what, you know, it was like the same entity that maybe it would write because they're getting a break on their residential, even though their commercial rent hasn't been, you know, abated or something. But for now, it's a little different. You know, in terms of what the town can do, you know, I don't have an answer. I think those are good questions in terms of. You know, other non-zoning measures. So what are some incentives? You know, I think we have some things in place. You know, I think even like ease of permitting is one. So, you know, allowing things by site plan or view is an incentive. You know, having flexibility in the zoning in terms of, you know, dimensional standards is another one. So when we were looking at your inclusionary zoning amendment, we said, well, we actually have some flexibility in our zoning in terms of what coverage. And I know, you know, the footnote a can be problematic as still to point it out, but it can also be flexible in the downtown where we want different size buildings and density and site layout. It can allow for creativity. But in terms of actual financing pieces, that's something that's going to be very important. Then, you know, zoning or land use, but I think it's a good question to ask, you know, is it a compendium to the zoning? You know, what else can we do as a community? From, you know, to encourage, you know, downtown businesses and non-residential space. Thank you, Nate. I am not seeing any other hands right now. So I will entertain a motion from the planning board to, I'm going to assume it might be a close hearing, but regarding the planning board, I think it's a good question. I'm not seeing any other hands. I'm not seeing any other hands. I'm not seeing any other hands. I'm not seeing any other planning board to, I'm going to assume it might be a close hearing, but regarding the hearing. Is there anyone who would like to make a motion? Andrew. Make a motion to close the hearing. Second. And that was Johanna seconding it. Is there any discussion? Seeing none. I'm going to go to a roll call. I'm going to go backwards on my list. Tom. Yes. Andrew. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Yeah. Yes. That is unanimous. The hearing for the planning board is closed. At this time I will. Entertain a motion from the CRC. I'll move to close the hearing. The motion to close the hearing from Evan. Is there a second? I can show. Melanie makes the second. Any discussion. Okay. Seeing none. We'll roll call. We start with Mandy. Mandy is an eye. Dorothy. Evan. Hi. Melanie. Yes. That is a unanimous with one absent. Planning board was also unanimous with one absent. So the hearing is closed. Planning board and CRC will set their dates for when they discuss the. And deliberate on their recommendations. At some point. We're going to move on to the next hearing. It is nine 29 PM. And in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40, a this joint public hearing of the Amherst planning board and the community resources committee of the Amherstown council has been duly advertised and notice 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 planning board. Blue performing as registered residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning by law. Zone in by law article five, accessory uses section 5.011 supplemental dwelling units. To see if the town will vote to amend Article five accessory uses section 5.011 supplemental dwelling units to repeal the existing section. 5.011 supplemental dwelling units and replace it with a new section. the name of this use category to accessory dwelling units to increase the maximum square footage allowed per unit to 1000 square feet to create a more streamlined permitting pathway to add design guidelines and to require that the principles and standards of the design review board be applied to all new accessory dwelling units. We will follow the same process we have followed before. Are there any Boarding Committee member disclosures? Seeing none, Nate, is it you doing this presentation? I'm going to be doing it. Ben's got his mic off. Ben. Hi there. Well, thank you all. I'm Ben Breger, a planner in the planning department. So I guess I just wanted to do a start by saying, you know, for accessory dwelling units, I just want to, you know, shift everyone's focus a little bit. We've been talking a lot about large buildings, apartments and mixed use buildings, mostly in downtown areas. Accessory dwelling units are much different. So we're just kind of, you know, shifting topics here, mostly accessory dwelling units are associated with owner occupied single family homes in all of Amherst's residential districts, except for the RF. So we're kind of focused on Amherst's single family neighborhoods here. Just for a shift in reference. And just want to make sure you can see my screen. Okay. So just going through the bylaw proposal, and this is the same similar presentation I've given to CRC planning board and lastly to town council, I think at the end of May. So it will be familiar. But just briefly a reminder, so we're all on the same page. What are accessory dwelling units? ADU's are small dwelling units or apartments that exist on the same property lot as a single owner occupied single family residents. These are independent living spaces with a clip of the kitchen, bath and sleeping area. As the diagram shows, they can be associated with the single family home and any different kind of many different ways that can be fully detached, they can be attached. And when they're attached, they can be above below above the garage. So there's different or they can be sit on like fully contained within the single family home, such as in the basement. They go by many different names, carriage houses, backyard bungalow, granny flats in La Suite. So all these terms do mean the same thing. Just a few examples of accessory or sorry, just a little bit about the bylaw and Amherst and how it's been working in the past. I will, I will note in 2018, there was a bylaw proposal put forth to increase the supplemental detached dwelling unit to a maximum of 1000 square feet and 1100 for ADA accessible units. This proposal did receive unanimous support from the planning board, noting that it creates a wider variety of living arrangements such as two or three bedroom units. You know, this would benefit young families looking for rental units in neighborhood settings. And also allows the owners of larger, you know, single family homes to downsize and, you know, stay in the same neighborhood that they love, but downsize into a smaller unit and rent out the larger home and that frees up a single family home for a younger family, possibly to move in. This amendment received a majority of town meeting support, but not the two thirds required to pass my or not my recollection, but I've heard I wasn't there, but in writing and notes, I've heard that it was, you know, wanting to give that power essentially to the incoming town council to bring about that change. So that was one of the main reasons it didn't pass the town meeting at the time. Just briefly, the Amherst master plan, the housing production plan and the housing market study all done in the past 10 years also speak to the proposal that we're putting forth today. The master plan talks about making it easier to create attached and detached accessory apartments. The housing production plan talks about, you know, making supplemental dwelling units by right adding design guidelines reducing parking requirements and the housing market study also supports the idea of allowing them by right in all residential zoning districts. And then just briefly, I'm just want to give you a sense of what we're talking about and how ADUs have been built in Amherst. Here's an example on Best in Street for a 420 square foot studio. You can kind of see it at the end of the garage here. This is an accessory dwelling unit. The on log town road and 900 square foot, three bedroom accessory dwelling unit. And this one is just to show that, you know, they're actually, this is technically a, I guess there's an accessory dwelling unit in the basement here. So just showing that they, to build an ADU, it doesn't have to be a fully new structure. It's not a completely new structure. It's not a completely new neighborhood. The basement here contains a fully. A fully equipped kitchen, bath, bedroom, and living space. So it's not. Something that always will add a new structure to the, to a neighborhood. And lastly, the, the grist mill on mill lane here has a 540 square foot, one bedroom ADU in the front. So they can be retrofitted into historic buildings as well. And they can be retrofitted into historic buildings as well. And they can be retrofitted into historic buildings as well. And they can be retrofitted into historic buildings as well. And they can be retrofitted into historic buildings as well. All that much. And so finally, that brings us to what we're proposing today. The, you know, the purpose, the goals of this bylaw proposal. Recognizing that ADUs are an important tool to meet the dynamic housing needs of Amherst residents. ADUs allow a lot of flexibility. In terms of, you know, different living arrangements, having. In-house aid or nurse, you know, live in the accessory dwelling unit to help out or to have family live in the ADU or vice versa. It allows flexibility and also allows people to generate rental income. So what we're proposing is to increase the maximum square footage of all three types of accessory dwelling units, create a more streamlined permitting pathway, and then adding additional design guidelines. So we're proposing to increase the maximum square footage for all three types attached, detached and contained to 1000 square foot square feet. Streamlining the permitting pathway such that there's options to build all three by right. Adding design guidelines and then also just simplifying the permitting pathway. So that's one of the things that we're proposing to do. We're also proposing to use the bylaw structure to make it easier to interpret. So one, you know, minor thing is you've noticed I've been using supplemental and accessory interchangeably. I'm proposing to just be consistent and use the word accessory dwelling units. That's more in line with how other towns, other nations. For example, with the recent housing choice, legislation has doubled down on. Promoting accessory dwelling units. Increasing the maximum square footage for all three types to 1000 square feet. Allowing attached and contained accessory dwelling units by right. And then. For detached accessory dwelling units. square footage of the primary structure. And if they're larger than 50%, then this would require a special permit from the ZBA, which is the current pathway. And really the point of that is that accessory dwelling units are meant to be accessory to the primary structure. They're smaller. They are meant to appear smaller and be, you know, as is what they're called accessory. And so I think the point of that provision is to retain a little bit more control over how they look and how they're placed and allow more neighborhood input for accessory, detached accessory dwelling units that begin to approach the size of the primary home. So you're not getting to essentially two nearly single family homes on a property. And so if they're larger than 50% of the primary structure, that could be a ZBA special permit. And again, they could make that an attached accessory dwelling unit, just attach it to the house. And that would be allowed by right. But if it's a fully detached unit, a ZBA special permit would be required. And then just adding language for the permit granting authority and the building commissioner to use in the in approval, adding design guidelines to encourage that the architecture and scale of detached ad use are compatible and secondary to the primary structure. So here's a chart just showing the proposed change summary. The bold language is the new language and the gray language is the older language. So just you can see the updates to the terminology, you know, we're moving away from supplemental apartment one, two, and saying contained, attached and detached, we're moving, we're getting rid of the minimum square footage and increasing the max to 1000 square feet for each type of ADU and then allowing contained and attached by right and detached by right if it's less than 50% and special permit if more than 50%. Here's just some resources for those who are interested in learning more. And thank you. I will just briefly show the bylaw proposal. This is the memo describing the change. So here's the existing bylaw. And we've discussed this at previous meetings, but it was such an overhaul of the bylaw that it was it got really messy doing the track changes. So we're proposing kind of a repeal and replace of the new section. And so it's I didn't do what my colleagues did showing the the crossed out text, but this is the old bylaw and and the proposal. I'll just go through that briefly. It's it's section five accessory uses, then 5.011 accessory dwelling units. You know, it does say clearly, only one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted to accessory as a one family detached dwelling. So there's only one allowed per single family home. You know, the contained accessory dwelling unit is fully contained within the within the house. It's permitted in all residential districts except the RF following review of the proposed accessory used by the building commissioner and verification that it meets the bylaw and general requirements. That's the same language that you see for attached accessory dwelling unit, which is attached to and involves significant changes to the existing one family detached dwelling, including fire news, firescapes, additions and other similar changes. And then finally, detached accessory dwelling units are small, freestanding accessory, one family detached dwelling that co-occur in a residential property as a result of new construction or rehabilitation. And so a detached accessory dwelling unit resulting from new construction greater than 50% is allowed by a special permit. I went over that and then less than 50% through the building commissioner. And so all of all three of these need to meet the general requirements listed below, many of which are taken from the old bylaw. So again, only one ADU. There should not be more than 1000 square feet of habitable space. So that's the maximum square footage. One of the dwelling units on the property shall be owner occupied. So either the ADU or the owner of the single family residence. Yeah, not used for accessory lodging. That's a holdover from the previous bylaw. Three unrelated residents is where we landed on that. I think it was three adults in the previous bylaw, meeting the definition of a dwelling unit, providing a management plan, yeah, rental registration bylaw, something kind of a design thing to the extent feasible newly constructed detached ADU shall be located behind the front building line of the primary structure. To the extent possible, we'd like to see them behind the primary structure rather than in the front yard. Adequate parking shall be provided. Exterior lighting, dark sky compliant, you know, storage of management of waste, street address sign. This is, it's a lot of different requirements, many of which are held over from the previous bylaw. And finally, the ADU shall be designed so that the appearance and scale of the building is compatible with the primary single family dwelling. Detached ADU shall be clearly accessory. The building commissioner or the permit granting authority determines kind of whether section 10.38, which I believe are the special permit findings are applicable. New entrances shall be located on the side or rear of the building. And finally, the design review principles shall be applied to all accessory uses under this section. So the design review principles are fairly robust and do provide for a lot of consideration of aesthetics in the neighborhood, the site and the architecture itself. So that is the new proposed bylaw and kind of stop there and open it up for any questions. I'll I guess keep it open on here to easily reference the new language. Thank you, Ben. Questions from the board and committee or what we're on now? Dorothy? Well, I'm going to say what I'm sure many of you are thinking, which is that this is pretty nearly finished and ready to go. But I have two questions. When you say you can, it can't be more than 50% bigger than the original house unless you get a special permit. I'm wondering if you added the sentence, but not to exceed 75%. In other words, not just saying, okay, you've got a special permit. You can really make it bigger. Because I think that leaves the door. This is very tightly written. I think that might leave the door open a little too wide. And the other thing I thought about was the question of parking, which was not addressed when I first went to a meeting on this in 2018, I think it was. And the reason parking comes up is that somebody who wants to try to build a really big accessory dwelling in the backyard could take space that perhaps would have been just needed for one parking spot or something. And I don't know how to, I'm not suggesting words because this is, I don't have them at this moment, but somehow the decision to go bigger than 50% should be adequate parking onsite should be considered in there before somebody gets permission to go beyond the 50%. And beyond that, I don't have any other, I have no other problems with this. I think you've really done a very closely written piece. Thank you. Thank you. Ben? Yeah, I think that's an interesting suggestion about putting a cap 50 to 75%. That's something that's considered. And as for parking, what we have in there now is adequate parking shall be provided to ensure proper maneuverability and parking on paved surfaces. So that leaves it up to the building commissioner or the permanent granting authority to kind of determine what is adequate parking mean and look like. So, and it takes into account the square footage of the accessory dwelling unit, the site, and also proximity to the downtown, the university, public transportation. And I think that's kind of where we ended up with that. Thank you, Ben. I think I'll also note that our next public hearing has an EDU section to the parking proposal. So we'll hear about that in a half an hour or so or maybe less. Janet? So we've seen this before, like we saw mixed use. And so I'm feeling much more comfortable with it. I do want to comment that the same comment I made in writing for the demolition delay by law is that when you change who's deciding, making the decision and the process for decision making, that's a huge difference. And I think we need to highlight that whenever that happens. So it's a big thing to go from a special permit, you know, from the ZBA or a site plan review from the planning board to a decision by the building commissioner. And so I think in presentations to the public or anything, you have to highlight that because lots of things change. So my concerns I've had with this the whole time is the size of the ADUs, like 1000 square feet to 1100 is on the big side. Like Amherst has been a leader in the 800 and 900 square foot one. We're a leader in multiple unit housings and stuff like that. And I do wonder in I live in a neighborhood of mostly 1000 square foot homes. And so I think about the impact of that on the lot next to me and things. So I also am concerned about that people who do have smaller homes, I'm presumably less resources, have a more expensive difficult path and going for a building permit or a site plan review permit from the building commissioner. And so I just I just it's just going to be harder, you know, and it's going to probably cost them a lot more. And so I'm worried about that. And then I'm also really worried about, you know, like what happens when you're in you have a home in a residential neighborhood. And the first you hear of the ADU next door is when someone comes in with a bulldozer or an excavator. And so, you know, with this with a special permit or a site plan review permit, a butters get notified. And they have an ability to participate in the process and then challenge the decision. And so for all the ADU decisions that go to the building commissioner, there is no notice requirement. I don't think there's any, you know, there's no information going to a butters. It's not clear to me how long the process takes. You can appeal a building permit, but you'd have to know that the permit was issued. And so that's a big concern for me of just, you know, notifying the neighborhood and people that, you know, what's happening next door, and having some ability to do some input in it. And so I just wondered, you know, I'm sort of a comment more than anything, and I do want to present later an amendment, I would like to show the CRC and the planning board that we don't have to hash out tonight, but it's an amendment language, like a notification requirement to a butters, so that at least they know what the process is and what's going on. Thank you for that, Janet. I believe that amendment has been distributed, but for the benefit of the public, we're not going to deliberate on it tonight. But can Pam put it on the screen? I think she might be ready to put it on the screen just so the public can see what Yeah, and I would be very when it gets to deliberation. I'd be interested in comments on it because it, you know, it's always helpful when you're cooking something up to have a lot of eyes on it. So we will take questions regarding the potential amendment. I think it's the second, no, it's neither of those. This is parking, yeah. That's the parking one. So it's the other one. And we'll just leave it up up. So people can just read it there. The planning board and board can ask questions about it. And so can the public during the questions period, can we enlarge that? It's in the bottom right, the bottom right little plus down there. Hopefully that's large enough. Tom, in terms of comments and just a quick comment is the drop that I have just has a typo in the first sentence in regard to the permit for supplemental dwelling units. It has a supplemental dwelling units and probably doesn't need a or it needs to remove the best from units. So we're good. Thank you for that, Tom. Seeing no other questions from the board or committee, we're going to leave the potential amendment that might come up during deliberations up, but we'll take questions from the public at this time. Pam Rooney. Hello, Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. Thanks very much. This zoning article feels pretty, pretty well formulated and appreciate the work done on it. A couple questions that perhaps somebody can address. And this is more for the people listening. If someone could kindly confirm which of these either contained, attached or detached require owner occupancy is one question. Again, just for those listening to confirm if a multi-family structure exists is an ADU allowed. I heard both a thousand square feet and 1,100 square feet mentioned. And I think the wording now says a thousand square feet of habitable space. And I think that's appropriate. It didn't feel right to or felt more complicated to have a range even though it was for an accessible dwelling unit. I think there's plenty of room in a thousand square foot space even if it is accessible. So again, I think and I appreciated the cap on the percentage of the original size. So 50 to 75% makes some sense to me. And finally, that suggestion by Ms. McGowan to add a requirement for the courtesy notification, I would say for detached and attached dwelling units to the neighbors within 200 or 300 square feet or 200 or 300 feet from the site is very, very appropriate. Most neighbors are very supportive of what their friends are doing. But it is just clearly a courtesy that they understand that someone is in the process of undergoing a fairly significant addition or construction project in their neighborhood. So again, it is a courtesy requirement. And I would like very much to be part of the discussion on that when you do get around to it. So I don't know if if you all decide to close this hearing, does the public actually get to listen into that conversation about notification of the butters? So thanks. That was several items. Thank you, Pam. Just before Ben addresses some of those questions, I want to say one of the reasons I'm allowing questions on this amendment is so that those questions can be heard and the public can be contributing to that before those amendments are proposed, since the deliberation on that won't happen until after public hearing closes. So that's why we're leaving it up and encouraging if there are any questions on it, even though it's not part of the proposal right now, but those questions be asked. Ben. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Mandy, Joe. So to the questions that were proposed. So all three types do require owner occupancy, attached, detached and fully contained. The owner of the property needs to live in the ADU or the single family home. Also to that point, this is an accessory dwelling unit can only be built on the property of an existing single family home. So if you have a duplex, a triplex, there's no way to build an accessory dwelling unit. It's really for a single family home to build an additional unit on their home. And I guess, yeah, just to clarify, we're proposing 1000 square feet to be the cap for all three types. The 2018 bylaw was 1000 square feet or 1,100 for ADA. And we kind of agreed with you that 1000 square feet does allow for a lot of flexibility. And we felt that was a big enough number. And yeah, I think those were the questions and I certainly noted the comment about the courtesy notice. Thank you. Mary Sayer, please unmute yourself, state your name and where you live and then ask your question. Hi, Mary Sayer, 159 Pine Street in Amherst. I wanted to say I think you're doing a great job figuring this all out. And I think it's a good idea. I wanted to say that pretty much PAM covered everything I had about the butters. The other question, when I originally looked at this, it said duplexes would only have to have a management person. They didn't have to have owner occupancy. So I'm very glad to note that there has to be an owner on the land because I think that keeps the investment in the neighborhood. And the other question I had was how much land can be covered. In other words, I know there's setbacks. But for instance, the neighborhood of Van Meter Drive, there's probably a couple hundred houses that are maybe only 1000 square feet. And I'm wondering what it would be like if most of their backyards are covered with another 1000 square foot property. So I'm just curious about how much open space or how much yard has to be left for each unit, or if there's any question about that. Thank you, Mary. Ben. Yeah, thanks for the question. Yeah, I guess to clarify, you know, all the other table three dimensional regulations do still come into play. So there's certainly setbacks. There's maximum lot coverage and maximum building coverage that all factor in. That could very well limit the size of the ADU to less than 1000 square feet. So that's part of the building commissioner and the permit granting authorities review is making sure the other zoning pieces, dimensional regulations come into play. The only thing that accessory dwelling units are exempt from is the additional lot area per family that that does not is not required to add the ADU. You don't need to have that additional lot area. But you are certainly do need to meet the maximum building coverage, lot coverage, and setback. So I don't know exactly what van meter drive is. I'm guessing it might be RN. So that would, you know, 25% maximum building coverage and 40% lot coverage would be the maximums there. Thank you, Ben. Janet Keller, please unmute yourself and state your name and your question. Janet Keller, Pulpit Hill Road. And I have two questions. Can you explain to me again, please, what the notification to the neighborhood is? And then my other question concerns the parking. Do I understand correctly that you are proposing to have the building inspector decide whether it is adequate? And is that the language? And if so, can you make it less squishy? Thanks. Thank you, Janet. Ben? Yeah, thanks. So currently, currently ADUs require special permits. So there is a notification that goes out to a butters in advance of the hearing and there's an opportunity to appeal because we're proposing that these most ADUs are allowed by right. There's no kind of mechanism for in a butters notice. You know, it's akin to someone building a single family home by right or, you know, building an addition to their house. You need a building permit for that, but it's not something that is broadcast to the neighborhood. So, you know, obviously, you know, when you're building an ADU, there's more people coming into more people, more an additional dwelling, you know, there's more people living there. So, you know, I guess there's something to be said about notifying a butters. But as of now, it's treated or as of now in our proposal, what the language just essentially treats it as a building permit with design guidelines, but there's not a mechanism for notifying a butters. And then to the other point, it would be up to the building commissioner or permit grant authority to decide what adequate parking means. But we, I think in our subsequent next public hearing, we will discuss in finer detail kind of what, how adequate parking is defined and what are the considerations. Thank you. Pam Rooney. Hi, Pam Rooney. Again, Mary Sayers question reminded me of something I wanted to ask. So, and I think hers had to do with the maximum lot of coverages in the setbacks that still apply per table three. We're using a lot of the section 9.22 to allow continuation of nonconformity. And I would guess that many of these actually would fall into that bucket because especially in my neighborhood, which is quarter acre lots, it's pretty likely that that new construction might tip the scale on, you know, what's possible. My understanding is, though, that even if it's a small lot, you could still build a thousand square foot ADU if it didn't exceed that 50% of the original house. So, if somebody could just clarify that, are we, we really have some flexibility because of 9.22 when the existing structure itself is nonconforming. If someone could clarify that, thank you. Thank you, Pam. Ben. I might defer to Chris. I see she has her hands up. Chris. So, any use of 9.22 requires a special permit. And in this case, it would probably require a special permit from the zoning board of appeals because the planning board isn't, doesn't have a role in accessory dwelling units as we are proposing this zoning amendment. Thank you. At this time, we're going to ask for people who would like. I was just going to say Rob has his hand up as well. Oh, sorry, Rob. Thank you. I just wanted to mention that for one and two family dwellings, the 9.22 section wouldn't be used for the example that was just mentioned. So as long as the dwelling unit, the accessory dwelling unit meets the dimensional requirements and there's no new nonconformity, the existing nonconforming lot or nonconforming structure can remain and we specifically address that in Article 9 for one and two family dwellings only. Thank you for that. Thank you. Just making sure no one else from the planning department raises their hand. With that, we're going to go to public speaking in favor of the revision. If you would like to speak in favor of the revision at this time, please raise your hand and you will be recognized. Pam, Marie. Pam, you can speak. You should just be able to speak. Oh, okay. I didn't see my unmute notification. You were already. I'm in favor of this. If we can, if we can add that notification clause in there and make that happen. I'm very happy to see these changes in the works. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. Janet Keller. Jack Keller, Pope at Hill Road. I'm okay with this and also would like to ask for the notice to a butters. Thanks. Thank you for that, Janet. Seeing no more hands, we will move to any public speaking in opposition of the revision. Please raise your hand if you would like to speak in opposition. Seeing none, would anyone from the planning department like to say anything before we move to final questions from the Board and Committee at this point? Rob had his hand up. Yeah, I think that was a residual hand. I had just lowered it. Rob. Yeah. Okay. That was residual. Okay. Any other further questions from the Board or Committee? Janet. Starting to flag here. So I kind of didn't really pay that much attention to the parking requirement. And so if I built a thousand square foot house with three bedrooms, I'd be required to put in two parking spaces. But if I build it a thousand square foot ADU or an attached or unattached, I just have to do something adequate. And so I just find it really confusing, you know, with this idea, you know, so if you put this in here, it conflicts with language in the parking article, article seven, I believe at this time of night. And so if you have this language here, you have conflicting language in our current parking article. And then I sort of think, why don't you just take it out? Because if you're gonna, if there is going to be changes to the parking article, let's do it all there. But it's just, it's very strange to me, like, like situations should be treated like. And so if I had a converted dwelling, I would have to have two parking spaces. If I had, you know, you know, it's like all these different situations. And it's hard for me to understand why this would be treated differently. And I also know that the parking article has a big waiver that can kind of help. And so I didn't really think about it that much. And so I just, I just find it sort of confusing, like, why like things aren't being treated like and why if you had three people, three college students near UMass and ADU, they're likely to have three cars, you know, more than, you know, three people in a family living together in an ADU. And so I just, I don't know, I just, it suddenly seems like a problem to me now that people are talking about it. So I just wonder why aren't like things being treated like. I think, yeah, I'd invite Chris or Rob to speak, but I do know, you know, part of, part of the goal was to streamline the permitting pathway and just reduce barriers to building this type of flexible multi-generational housing. And certainly there could be a waiver for Article 7, but I think that's just one more hurdle to pass over to go through for someone trying to build an ADU. And I think that that was one of the goals, certainly. But perhaps Rob has more to... Rob? Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that currently under the bylaw, the Building Commissioner can approve supplemental apartments that are what are, you know, referred to as contained in this new version, so entirely within the building, or access for dwelling units that have small additions up to a certain limit. And that happens quite often. And in fact, it's usually, you know, a studio size apartment or something much smaller than a thousand square feet that's being permitted through that process. And Article 7 or the bylaw, the current bylaw Article 5 that has the two parking space requirement cannot be waived. So by me, by the Building Commissioner. So what happens is that we have to force a property owner to build two parking spaces. Otherwise, they'd have to go through this Zonobor special permit process just to get that reduction to one space. And oftentimes one space is probably more than acceptable. And what we do is condition the permit to have either connected to a lease or lease language that limits the number of cars that can be associated with that dwelling unit, very similar to what the zoning board of appeals would do in a case where they were waiving the parking requirement. Thank you for that, Rob. Seeing no other hands and questions at this point, I will entertain a motion from a planning board member. Oh, and Pam, can we just take down the proposed amendment at this point? Andrew. Make a motion to close hearing. Is there a second? Jack. Yeah, I'll second. Is there any further discussion on that motion? Assuming Jack's hand is a not a discussion as a holdover, I will move to a vote. And we'll go from the bottom up on my list again. Tom. Hi. Andrew. Hi. Johanna. Hi. Okay. Janet. Hi. Doug. Hi. Jack. Yes. That is six zero with one absent. At this time, I will entertain a motion from a CRC member. I can go and close out proposed motion, make a motion to close the whatever. Shalini makes the motion to close the hearing. Is there a second? I second it. Dorothy seconds it. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote starting with Dorothy. Yes. Evan. Hi. Shalini. Yes. And Mandy is a yes. That is also four zero unanimous with one absent. We are moving on to parking at 1014 p.m. In accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40A, this joint public hearing of the Amherst Planning Board and the Community Resources Committee of the Amherst Town Council has been duly advertised and noticed thereof and 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, zoning bylaw article seven, parking and access regulation to see if the town will vote to amend article seven parking and access regulations by amending section 7.000 to separate the residential uses into two categories, one of which would require two parking spaces per dwelling unit, one family detached dwellings, two family detached dwellings, townhouses and subdividable converted dwellings, and one of which would require adequate parking, apartments mixed use buildings and accessory dwelling units and to provide criteria for the permit granting authority to determine what would be considered adequate parking. Again, we will follow the same procedure. Are there any border committee member disclosures? Seeing none. Chris, are you the one presenting this one? No, we have Maureen back again. Maureen is back. Excellent. Maureen. Hi everyone. I'm still Maureen Pollock planner and let's just dive into it. So we're going to talk about parking under article seven of the zoning bylaw, the existing language that we are going to make a proposal for is for dwellings including apartments to parking spaces for each dwelling shall be provided. And the proposal is we're breaking it down for parking space requirements for residential uses. So for residential uses with one or more dwellings, two spaces per dwelling would need to be provided, including one family house, two family a duplex and a subdividable converted dwelling. And so the proposal is to provide adequate parking for each dwelling unit for apartments mixed use buildings and supplemental dwelling units and the amount of parking space is provided for each of the dwelling units would need to be based on specific factors. And so these factors are for the board to know what to ask for specifically and also for the applicant to know what to provide the the permit granting authority. So such factors include bedroom count, analysis of traffic impact reports, proximity and connectivity to downtown, public transit and or public parking including on street and off street parking, availability of alternative modes of transportation, tenant lease restrictions, relative to parking and shared or lease parking, which sometimes is calm and commonly known as mid block parking where you have different uses that have different parking demands that share parking. So if you have a coffee shop that people go in the morning and up to the afternoon, then you have a restaurant that has more business at night. That would be a perfect example of sharing parking for two uses that have two different parking peak needs. And so again, it's to provide specific criteria for review for determining what is adequate or in other words, sufficient parking. And the reason why we're looking at these three uses in particular apartment mixed use building and supplemental dwelling units is because those are the three uses that the planning department is looking at and studying. We're not at this time looking at any other uses. So that's why we're specifically choosing these ones. And lastly, as we've shown you in slides, apartment buildings and mixed use buildings are located in our downtown and village centers, which are in both proximity to bus stops or walkable to downtown. And supplemental dwelling units are really geared for up to three unrelated tenants. And so we felt that these would be good uses to provide this softening of parking instead of a sort of generic number of two parking spaces per unit. And lastly, although I think I already said that, was that this doesn't mean that adequate means zero parking spots. This doesn't mean one parking spot or two. It's up to the board to decide what is adequate. So if the board says no, actually we want a car per for every bedroom in that development, then perhaps there's three parking spaces per dwelling unit. So it's really at the discretion of the board. And in this proposal gives the specific factors to help help that dialogue between the applicant and the board. And that's it. Thank you, Maureen. We will move on to questions from the board members and committee members. Janet. So I have lots of questions and I think I'm just going to go through them because I'm afraid that we might close the hearing before I get them. My first question is, do other towns use adequate parking as a legal standard? And do they have the planning board or ZBA or whatever decide parking requirements on a case-based case basis for mixed-use buildings and apartments and ADUs, but no other type of multi-housing? Good question. So I looked into a few communities such as Northampton, Greenfield, and I can't think of the other one, but those two, Northampton and Greenfield specifically, actually don't require parking in their downtown for apartments and mixed-use buildings. So Northampton does require parking for assembly uses such as museums or a music hall or a nightclub. But as I've said before, apartments and mixed-use buildings are in the downtown or are allowed by special permanent site planning review in downtown or village centers. Adequate? Yeah. We use the word adequate in our current zoning bylaw for a variety of different things. So I would say that if we're allowed to use the word adequate in other sections in the zoning bylaw, I don't see any legal concerns. So there aren't any other towns that you know that just do case-by-case using that term? So I've looked at a lot of different parking requirements and usually towns do it based on unit size, square footage, zoning district, distance to a subway stop that is usually tying into a major metropolitan area, the number of bedrooms. Some have less requirements for low income. So I just find this whole thing sort of just, I don't know where this parking change came from, but I don't know. I heard at the town council saying, well, the planning board has been debating this at many hearings. We've done it twice. And then the idea that we have to debate it at every hearing or half the hearings just makes literally no sense to me. And so I guess another question I have is, why can't the parking waiver suffice? Because it did in those cases for the planning board. And we pull up the language of the waiver because it talks about shared spaces. It talks about the needs of tenants. I mean, the waiver covers it. And I think if the waiver is not clear enough, we should just work on the waiver. But can we just bring up the waiver language, which you haven't provided anywhere? You have that as part of just the first page, I think, of what Janet provided. So why is case-by-case decision making on a big term going to help us, you know, our process? Well, I'll try to answer your question, which is, you know, it comes down, a lot of this, which you'll notice is it comes down to site specifics. Where is it located? And as you can see, the list of criteria that the applicant would need to provide, they would be responding to that site-specific neighborhood scale analysis of what types of parking is needed or perhaps not needed. And so this adds specific criteria for them, and it allows the flexibility for the permit granting authority a hand to deliberate on it. You know, there's different theories out there about there's a, you know, form-based code. For instance, they suggest get rid of minimum parking space requirements. They also suggest even getting rid of the ratio of parking space requirements. I think that this proposal speaks to sort of this minimum-maximum parking ratios that you often read in articles, but it adds a slightly more, adds more flexibility for the board at hand. So if I was building a townhouse, I would still be required two parking spaces for a unit. If I was doing a converted dwelling for a couple of units, I would still have the requirement. Currently. Yeah. Well, I would add that, you know, we are going to be looking at converted dwellings soon. So, you know, I think that as the planning department is going to continue with zoning amendments, either this year in the future years, I think that it's important to, you know, explore, explore and revisit this zoning amendment if, you know, if this passes or whatever, whatever is existing, we just at this time are not going to explore other uses that we're not, you know, we're not focusing on. Thank you, Janet. Janet, we're going to go to Jack and then I'll come back to you. Yeah, I just want to say that this is a, you know, a good approach developed by, you know, Chris and the planning department to address, you know, parking issues, which is a, you know, it's always a subject, you know, it's always coming in front of us and by each developer, and it ranges from we don't need parking to we really need parking per, you know, each tenant. And so, which so it's like it really does need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I mean, we have examples within town that provide the apartments like the Perry apartments I'm looking at here that have no parking, that have full occupancy. So people coming in to a situation will deal with the parking knowing that is a condition of living there. And other developers may want to enhance, you know, their occupancy by providing, you know, a bunch of parking. And, you know, and that's fine too. But I just think as we go through all these things in the planning board, this makes sense in terms of dealing with the parking situation. I would like the town to deal with the parking permits that there are allotting now and make it more in part with what UMass long-term parking is because my understanding is it's the way off kilter. And I think that's the town's giving away a lot with regard to their parking permits. So anyway, I like this. And that's it. Thank you, Jack. I'm going to remind board and committee members that we're asking questions at this time and deliberation will come after the hearing closes. Back to Janet and then Andrew. The planning department do any studies of parking at ADUs, apartments, and mixed use buildings. We have 25 apartment complexes. We probably have, I don't know, how many actual apartments because we have a lot of six plexes and four plexes. We have eight mixed use buildings that have been permitted. I think half have been built. And then we have ADUs. Has there been any studies because the transportation plan does call for revising parking requirements, but based after studies? And we have talked about the need for studies. Is there any database that is behind this idea that we can just go? And then the other question is, what are the factors, these the only factors that affect parking need of tenants? And what are other, is there research that it's based on? Because I could think about five or six other factors. You know, we have in, I only can speak to the the Zoning Board of Appeals, but you know, the Zoning Board of Appeals has through extensive requests to applicants of these sorts of criteria what's being proposed for parking reductions. And so, and so that, so the criteria that is listed in tonight's presentation kind of has been inspired through the Zoning Board of Appeals. I'll give you two examples. Universe U Drive South, which is being constructed as we speak at the corner of Route 9 and U Drive South. There you go. It's a mixed use building with 45 units. And I believe it's going to have an eye doctor office and perhaps, and I think it's maybe a thousand square feet of the eye doctor. And I feel like you might even have a second sub retail space. Anyways, those two spaces, the retail and the residential, they have different peak times. And that was a great example of figuring out, oh, you know, you made a good argument that you are requesting for a parking reduction. And because there are different peaks of, you know, the types of residents are, you know, taking the bus because it's right on the bus line. And the condition of the permit is that there would have to be specific lease restrictions that some of the tenants would not be allowed to even have a car as a, again, as a lease restriction. And so thinking creatively of weather parking is needed. Another example is the recently approved 40B at 132 North Hampton Street. I believe, I can't recall, 28 units, I believe. Again, that's in walking distance to downtown and walking distance to bus stops, to universities, shops, or restaurants. And so they asked the applicant Valley CDC for a parking reduction. These sorts of criteria that is part of this proposal were requests of the Zoning Board of Appeals. And again, these types of specific criteria are really helpful for the Planning Board to utilize and for the Zoning Board of Appeals. And those are just two projects that come to mind. And I'm sure we could have a whole laundry list of others. So North Hampton Road has very few spaces because people can't afford cars. And they said that over and over. So the shared parking is part of the parking waiver. And so there is no studies that you've done of mixed use buildings or apartments, like actual use and needs by tenants in the dozens of apartments. And so in terms of mixed use, North Square has two spaces per thing, although they're not fully occupied. University Drive South, we don't know if that's going to work because it's not built. Southeast Street Common, we have less than one space. We don't know if that's going to work. 462 Main Street got less than two spaces, but now they want more spaces and they're not built. One East Pleasant Street is in a no parking district. And we know that doesn't work. So I just don't, I just don't understand the fact basis that you're doing this on. And I could think of other factors. And so, and then I don't understand why you're distinguishing, like, I don't know what difference does it make if a tenant is in a converted dwelling, an ADU, an apartment, you know, a duplex. What difference does it make what their parking needs is just by the house they live in? So, you know, I really, I know I'm kind of badgering you, but I really think that this is not ready for prime time and that we need to do parking studies. We need to follow a transportation plan. We know that UMass students have a ton of cars. We know that poor people can't afford them. We know that we don't have a mass transit system that runs 24, you know, you know, all year round all over the valley. But I just think this is just, I just don't know where this came from with the database it's in the studies it's based on. Andrew, you had your hand up at one point and then you'd unraced it. Do you have a question? No, I don't have a question. I have a comment. I'll see you later. Okay, thank you, Andrew. Dorothy Pam. Okay, so I think my question really has to do with the choice of the word adequate. I think there's been a book written on the question of an adequate education and the assumption was that the education was not adequate. It means it's a very subjective term. It usually means so, so not good enough. And so in this case, you could say it's like a giveaway to the developers. I would be happier with, and this is a really coming down from the two spaces, one parking space per unit plus satisfactory parking. Because I understand your discussion and you've given some good points Maureen about reasons why every place is not the same and all the needs are different in different places and it's very, you know, site specific. But it used to be two parking spaces per unit. If you say one parking space per unit plus satisfactory, then that still gives you lots and lots of room. But it does say there'll be at least one parking space per unit. And I just see that as a good compromise. Thank you Dorothy. I'm going to take my opportunity to ask a question. I actually have two. The first one is how does the interplay of the two parking spaces per one family dwelling and adequate parking for an SDU work? Since the SDUs are on a one family dwelling. And then another question is we're just I just want to confirm that that the changes here do not affect anything apartments and mixed use buildings in particular built in the BG or BL districts that are within the municipal parking district overlay. Is that correct? Yes. So to start with your second question. Pam, we could share my screen if you don't mind. Oh, maybe I can stop share. We can show you the draft language if you bear with me for a minute. So here is the draft language, which is in all districts. It goes on and on and on. But in essence, the municipal parking would still not be required in the municipal parking district. So the proposal, you know, if these uses are in the municipal parking district, they wouldn't need the provide parking. And let's be here. And then how does the proposal interact with the supplemental dwelling ADU proposal? If if a homeowner has two cars, for instance, in their driveway, and how would we determine what is adequate for the ADU? Is that your question? Basically, yeah. Like, is the ADU an additional on top of the two? Or could it not? Or I'm trying to figure out how they work together. Yeah, yeah, no, they're good questions. You know, I'm gonna switch over to this. I like bullets. So it would be up to the applicant or, you know, the homeowner. So in this case, for an ADU, it's going to be the homeowner is going to provide these types of information to the building commissioner or the zoning board of appeals about, you know, maybe the ADU is is a one bedroom ADU. That's for grandma. And grandma doesn't drive. And, you know, and perhaps there's a condition of that approval that says, you know, upon, you know, a change of, you know, ownership review of the parking could be required. You know, if in another example, if if if if let's see here, if the homeowner is in close distance to a bus stop, and they're trying to make an argument or not make an argument, but to provide evidence of of saying, well, this is what we want to propose. This is work for you. If if there's room in the driveway for one space, and they're, you know, in walking distance to a bus stop. And but it's going to be, you know, a two bedroom, two bedroom, two bedroom ADU, but they just want to provide one parking spot. You know, they would need to make an argument that they're in close proximity to downtown or a bus stop, or it would have to be a tenant lease restriction that's part of the lease itself. And so those are the sort of conversations that would need to be handled in trying to figure out what is adequate or satisfactory. Thank you for that. Seeing no other hands at this time, there will be a second opportunity for questions. We're going to move to questions from the public. So if you have any questions and you're in the public, please raise your hand at this time. Pam Rooney. Hi, Pam Rooney. Excuse me, my voice is given out tonight. Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. I would second what I've heard a couple of people say that it just it feels like this is incomplete. A lot of work has been done on obviously, but it just feels incomplete in that it doesn't it doesn't give any rationale for, for instance, which types of buildings get to parking spaces and which simply get adequate or hopefully additional language that was offered up as insufficient. I see very little difference between subdividable and convertible dwellings and supplemental dwelling units, for instance, or, or similarly, a townhouse versus an apartment. And I think even though we're trying to rush through this and just take care of some of the building types that have been discussed recently and that you're about to vote on, I'm sorry, but it really feels like we should be looking at this comprehensively rather than parsing out just the ones that we're really focusing on, you know, currently. So, you know, if someone could explain other than, gee, but we just aren't looking at the 7.000 building types yet. We're only looking at the 7.0001 building types. So, let's just focus on those tonight. Is there any other reason why we aren't giving more consideration to actual needs? I thought the question of, you know, has anybody gone around to the apartment complexes to actually see what we, what is being used these days, I think would be very, very helpful and it would just be a much stronger position for the town to take in establishing standards. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. Janet Keller. Hi, Janet Keller, 120 Pulp of Hill Road. You've spoken of this as site-specific and it occurs to me that it is more situation-specific. So, my question, one of my questions is what happens when grandma dies and the mother, the child of grandma, her own child, her son or daughter, moves in with a partner and then the parking that was provided is no longer adequate. What happens when the eye doctor's practice becomes wildly successful or he's recruited to go to NIH and then a restaurant moves in and instead of the small amount of parking that the eye doctor needed, you have a much greater call on that. So, and why not do wait and do something that can be based on evidence and analysis and do a comprehensive revision instead of piece by piece. Thank you. So, just to answer that real quickly, so all rentals and airmers have to go through annual rental permit registration, which is being done electronically starting this year. And with that, the property owner needs to submit a parking plan. And so, for these buy-right uses, residential uses, such as an ADU that would be buy-right, they would need to update their parking plan on an annual basis. And if that changes, that would be sort of a trigger for reanalysis of what the need is about special permits or site plan review. The boards make specific conditions of their decisions stating they'll shall be 40 parking spaces on site for use A, B, and C. Any changes to the parking plan or parking management plan shall be reviewed at a public hearing. We commonly see these sorts of conditions. Also, a tenant, another condition commonly used by the Zoning Board of Appeals is approval, is conditioning leases. And so, as we mentioned, tenant lease restrictions, that would specifically be part of the lease. And so, again, any changes to the lease would require review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. And so, again, same with shared and lease parking. Those sorts of things would be part of a permit by the ZBA or the special or the planning board. And that specific, these specific items, even the traffic impact report, that would be a condition of the approval. Usually, if you look at a ZBA special permit decision, usually the first condition is always the same, which is approval of this decision is approval that this development needs to be constructed in accordance to the approved documents. And I actually list them. And then it says any changes to these documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. So, this type of criteria, again, would be part of the decision, part of the recorded decision that's recorded with the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds. And so, it would carry with the land. And so, a future owner would need to comply with it as well. Thank you, Maureen. Seeing no other questions, we will move to public speaking in favor of the revision. If you would like to speak in favor of the revision, please raise your hand at this time. Seeing none, if you would like to speak in opposition to the revision, please raise your hand at this time. Pam Rooney. You're going to have to, there you go. Pam Rooney, 42 Codistry. I am not, I am not in favor of this proposed amendment. I think it needs more work, a lot's been done on it, but I think it needs a lot more work. And I'd like to see a much more thorough comparison of the different building structures or dwelling types with each other and have a more adequate distribution of parking requirement, not just because we are happening to be working on apartments mixed use and supplemental dwelling units tonight. So, I would highly recommend that this thing get tabled and that people come back with some more information on it. Thank you. Janet Keller. I also am not in favor until and if we have more analyses that, with examples from other jurisdictions. And I am very worried about the impact in the larger buildings, but also the smaller buildings. And yes, I think it needs a lot more work. Thank you. Thank you, Janet. We are going to move on to, is there any further comment from the planning department before we ask for more questions, see if there's more questions from the boards and committees. Seeing no hands from the planning department. Chris. Thank you. I just wanted to say that the last two big planning reviews of 462 Main Street and the Southeast Street Commons had extensive discussion about parking. And there was a requirement, there's a requirement in the bylaw for two parking spaces per dwelling unit. And the parking discussion revolved around the issues that are being proposed to be added to the bylaw. All of those things were discussed and there may have been other things that were discussed as well. Both Janet McGowan and the applicant did studies of various developments around town and carefully noted how many people lived in different buildings and how many parking spaces were used at different times. But what it all came down to was the criteria that are listed in the proposed parking bylaw amendment that is being put before you tonight. So however you slice it, these are the things that the planning board and the zoning board of appeals look at when they're trying to decide whether they're going to grant a waiver under section 7.9 or not. So I just wanted to say that. I also wanted to say that we haven't yet looked at Janet's language. And she is proposing instead of adopting the zoning amendment that is being put forward tonight by the planning department, she's proposing to alter the language of section 7.9. And when we showed that language before, we didn't show the language that Janet was proposing. So I think in the spirit that Mandy Joe had with regard to Janet's other amendment, it might be a good idea to look at Janet's proposed language tonight just so that the public has seen it, public has a chance to comment on it, maybe Janet wants to present it. And then in my mind, it may actually require a separate zoning amendment because it's a different section of the section on parking. But in any event, it may be worthwhile just to look at that language and for people to comment on it if they wish to. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. We're going to move to questions from border committee. I will go to Janet first because she did not bring up a potential for an amendment during the first set. So I don't know where she's thinking. We can put that potential amendment on the screen being mindful that it might not even be able to be done without holding a second public hearing because it might not fall under adequate notice for what we notice today. Janet, would you like that put on the screen? Thank you. So I know everybody looks. Can you hold on a second so we can get Pam putting the actual, I think it's the end of page two where the red is. Yes. I'll take out the word conclusively. I was feeling a little impassioned. I know everybody's really tired. But so instead of having this zoning amendment with the word adequate that nobody else is using, and we go case by case, and we are kind of a random grab bag of criteria. I was thinking, my question was, why can't we just alter the current waiver requirements to get where we need to go? And the waiver requirements, except for the first one, they focus on the needs of tenants. So if the tenants don't need parking, if the day users and the night users can use the same space, then the need for the tenants is met. So that would be 7.910. Peak parking needs are generated by onsite uses. The next one is a significant number of employees. Tenants are sharing spaces through some shared parking agreement. That's fantastic. And so the third exemption focuses, in my view, on the needs of tenants. I don't think it meets the needs of tenants to say by least you can't park here or you can't have a parking spot. That focuses on the needs of the owners of the properties to maximize their profit and provide as few services as possible. And so I would not include that in there. But I pulled some of this language from other parking things. In Somerville, they have a guaranteed ride home because they have some parking districts that are by T-stops. But the T-stops at one. And so they can cut the spaces down as long as there is a plan for getting people home. Shared parking year-round public transit use. We don't have a transit system like that. It sort of shuts down in the summer and then Christmas. And I would be happy to add other things. But I think we should work in this framework and it's much more clear. You start out with two spaces. Maybe we could add bedroom count. So if you have a high bedroom count or it's a studio versus a five-four bedroom, you know, whatever, you know, you could even say something about students. We all know students have more cars probably than the average person per capita. We heard that testimony a few weeks ago in the planning board hearing or our thing. The other thing is that please don't think that me walking around on two Sunday mornings near 462 Main Street is a parking study. But I did find most of the places I looked at, the parking lots were full. And most of those places had two parking spaces per unit. Mr. O'Blaskey went to some other places on a Tuesday morning and he found some things full, like Salem Place filled with undergraduates, some things less filled and an average is 70%. Those are not studies. That's data. That's not a study. And it's not that hard to do a study. Not that complicated. But please don't rely on Janet McGowan on two Sunday mornings or Mr. O'Blaskey on two Tuesday mornings. I do think we need to do this a little more comprehensively and follow the transportation plan, do a study. It's not that hard, you know, there's ways to do it. But I think we should work inside the bylaw and not add confusion with competing this and that and the other. So that's my pitch. I just don't think this is ready to go to town council. And I think we should work on it more. Thank you, Janet. We're going to move on to questions from the Board and Committee. And again, I want to stick to questions on the original proposal or the potential modifications since we don't know whether it would require a new hearing or not, but please stick to questions and not deliberations. We will go to Jack. Yeah, I just want to say that, you know, Steve Shriver chaired the board, you know, not too long ago. And he's very on top of things. But, you know, we know that the way people get around, you know, this day and age is a lot different than when these bylaw, the original bylaws were written, what, 40 years ago. You know, we have Uber, you know, people really, you know, like biking and things like that. But the thing is, you know, if you are going into an apartment or a dwelling, whenever a condo, you'll know what the situation is and you will adapt. And I see that happening, you know, throughout Amherst. So this this parking thing, I believe is like adapting to what the individual developments provide. And the tenants will know that beforehand and they will make arrangements. And so, you know, the draconian sort of situation when you had two parking places, you know, for each unit, it was a nightmare. It was a train wreck. And I'm glad that the town is addressing it in this manner to make it just practical, because that's what we need to be as a town. But we need to be forward-looking, is all I'm saying. And I see that we have 100% occupancy in dwellings that provide no parking. And then we also have developers that want to provide a lot of parking more than, you know, the, you know, two spots per unit. I mean, they want to give it, you know, one per tenant. And so I think it's incumbent on the developer to understand, you know, to have that agreement with the tenant and what they need. And I believe this provides that flexibility. That's why I like it. Thank you, Jack. Shalini, you had your hand up, but then you unraised it? Shalini? Yeah, I can. So maybe it's just late in the night. But I mean, I think I get a sense of why this is being proposed given that we have limited spaces and certain parts like downtown. And we want to maximize the use of that for providing housing and or retail or whatever. And then given the long-term future, we have a parking garage so we could. But I still want to hear from the park, from the parking department, planning department, what is the reasoning that they are providing for making this change right now at this point of time? Just want to hear it again. Why are we doing this? Thank you, Maureen. I think it was just to provide more clarification for the boards and the applicant to determine what factors, specific factors that would need to be submitted, reviewed, and evaluated by the permit granting authority. As Chris Brestrup had mentioned, you know, it seems like having these specific factors could have been helpful in previous public hearing processes. And so we want to provide better guidance for the permit granting authority. And you do make a good note about, you know, the town. I believe there is two town counselors that are proposing a zoning amendment change to accommodate a garage behind the CVS. You know, and so that will add quite a few parking spaces in downtown. And there are other specific recommendations from the downtown parking study that came out in 2019, which gets into thinking about, you know, providing more, you know, public parking spaces so people can park and they park and go for the day of, you know, you go to the library, you go to the coffee shop, you hopefully are checking out some downtime shops. But it also some, a lot of the other recommendations in the parking study gets into reevaluating the park, the downtown, the town center permit program. And I believe that our finance director, Sean Mangano, is looking into that. And, you know, what's the pricing is? I think it's $25 a year. Is that appropriate in 2021? $25? You know, it should parking permits in the downtown be for Amherst residents. So it should be a free-for-all, which seems like it might could be buttoned up a little bit more to provide, you know, when you increase the price of parking permits, just when you find that sweet spot, I read this in a textbook on form-based codes, is that it provides parking spaces will be filled, but on street parking spaces will be filled, but it will allow just enough available spots per block. And so I think it's important to look at that. What is that sweet spot for the pricing of parking permits? Other recommendations that I think the town should explore is, you know, better is wayfinding science, which we are, but specifically geared towards parking. You know, if you've been through downtown Northampton, you'll see that there are these sort of smart technology signs for the public parking spaces that will tell you just how many available parking spaces are available. And matters like that are other ways to improve the parking in downtown specifically in the greater downtown area. Nate has his hand up. Mandy, you're muted. I don't know if you know that. Oh, sorry. I was the one that was muted. Nate. Sorry. I just wanted to prove to everyone that I'm not asleep. But no, I think to Shalini to your point, I think, you know, the planning staff looked at you kind of the approach that the two parking spaces per unit is not maybe not relevant or the right benchmark to start from. So, you know, I think, you know, in Janet's proposal, she's still starting with two parking spaces, but trying to add to the waiver requirement, we were approaching in a different way, not having the two space requirement, but then listing the information needed to make a judgment on what is the right amount of parking. And so we're not waving the parking requirement by saying adequate parking, we're still expecting an applicant to provide information on what they think the parking is needed to make the development successful. And some of it is the two parking spaces takes up a lot of land and may not be necessary. So do we want to see a vast fault? Is it prohibiting development? Is it unnecessary because there's other ways to accommodate parking, you know, shared parking? We want to encourage different uses. Maybe, maybe we don't want to parking spaces per unit, even if it's needed, because we want to encourage different types of behavior. And so I think, you know, that's where I was, you know, where I think it's coming from. It's also the apartments and mixed use buildings are the ones that provide many units. And so that also has an impact in terms of how many parking spaces, you know, a single family use a converted dwelling. Oftentimes there's a driveway to those houses that the driveway in itself provides the parking and then an accessory dwelling unit. The parking maybe can be stacked within the existing driveway or paved area. And so it's not a, it's an incremental change, you know, it's an accessory dwelling unit, it's not, you know, creating a parking lot in a, you know, like a multi-space parking lot. And so for that use, that's why adequate parking could be the standard because it's something that the building commissioner would use and say, okay, what is the existing pavement provided at the, you know, the primary structure and is the accessory dwelling unit actually adding that much parking? So, you know, maybe the, you know, the adequacy or the definition or right, what does that mean? I think is really the question. You know, is there a better term? You know, is there a better parking ratio? So I think, you know, the staffs discussed that we haven't done some of the data dive that Janice mentioned. My thought is that a lot of times this is the crux of a discussions with permitting. And some of it is people trying to wave the two spaces. And in the previous developments of two spaces were the standard. Well, on the older apartments, it's always going to be two spaces per unit because that's what was required. And so I feel like the data can be skewed a little bit. And I think it's hard to determine, you know, what is the, you know, what is the right ratio? That's why we didn't propose it. We said adequate parking. We really want the developer and applicant to show what is needed. And so maybe that, you know, that phrase is a little ambiguous. But, you know, that was the idea is that they're still going to need to show something, you know, a traffic report studies, you know, and then the language there is also empower the permitting authority to ask for information, you know, look at the parking counts of the neighboring buildings, provide the downtown permits, if it's in downtown. And so, you know, it's just, it's providing those parameters to actually ask for information from an applicant. Thank you, Nate. Andrew. Thanks. I think, you know, when we talk about that adequate language, I think what Janet has here actually satisfies some of my concerns around it, I think, you know, the end to your point, Nate, like, I think what you just described, this new language, the permit applicant conclusively demonstrates that the parking needs of current and future tenants will be provided by the property owner. It seems like a pretty good way of addressing that concern around the term adequacy as well as making sure that we're we're still addressing the needs. The point I wanted to make is just that I think the sort of list of criteria we could think of or consider, it may seem like it's useful in us reaching a decision, but I'm worried that it's maybe not like I'd rather see it a little bit more of a framework in place, something that would say, you know, not only these are the things you could you could consider, but how we might want to consider it and and I understand it's important. I mean, I'm not a lawyer. I understand that like you don't want to be too prescriptive, but you could look at this and say, you know, I'm close to downtown. I don't need any parking, right? But maybe that's on route nine and there's no on-street parking available. Like, you could take multiple, you could take individual criteria here and make a case in either direction. So it'd be useful if we could establish some sort of framework that would allow us to make a consistent evaluation of a proposal. So I like the points that are on here, but I think that without more of that framework, it's going to be hard for us to really leverage in a consistent way, which is which is my biggest concern is like everything comes in exception. Thanks. Dorothy. I really just would like to warn against using the proposed parking garage as an excuse for ever more developers to provide no or little parking. By the time that or another parking structure gets built, if one does, if people keep doing that, it will not be able to do what its purpose is, which is to cure a perception and a reality of limited parking and a perception, particularly by people coming into town to go to the movies or to shop or whatever, that they won't find parking. So I think we can't just put it all on this garage, which may or may not be built because by the time it's built, it can't do that job. So I think we also have to remember that if you really are serious in saying that we're not just building dorms for UMass students downtown, then you have to accommodate people who are not UMass students, which could include senior citizens, families, people with children who need cars. This is New England. There's wintertime and they don't have the option of going to UMass and paying for one of the spots in their beautifully solar canopy lots. So we can't have it always at once and so I'm asking for a little bit more consistency and which is to say you want your flexibility, great, but then say one parking place per unit and then list all these flexible options that you have been mentioning. That is my recommendation for trying to be able to move forward in a flexible way and dealing with a variety of people's needs. Thank you, Dorothy. Janet? Well, I just want to make a plea on behalf of tenants. It's been a long time since I was a tenant, but my kid's friends were renting houses in Amherst and my son is renting a heap of wood up in Vermont as a law student now for a very high price and so there's very low vacancy rate in Amherst. Students are paying very high rents often for conditions that I wouldn't live in. New development is coming in at sort of astonishing prices. I don't think it's a burden to put on property owners and landlords to say provide sufficient parking. And what happens to the person who signs the lease because they're 19 or 20 or 23 and they sign, I don't need a parking, I don't need a parking space because I have a car. Well, what happens when they get a job, they need a car and they can't take the PVTA to it and so do they have to break their lease. You break a lease, you're on the hook for the rent and then you have to go find it in an apartment. What is wrong with just making sure that the landlords building properties provide cars? We've done that in 25 apartment complexes in Amherst. It might be a sea of parking things. There's a sea of cars on them. If we want to change the world, I don't think we change it by taking away something that someone needs. So I really just think it's like, I think it's a help to the tenants to think about their point of view. Not just, I mean, I understand the urge to say, oh, we all don't need a car. I think everybody in this conversation has at least one car. And I just don't see a lot of people biking by in the winter commuting and thank God for that in terms of safety. But I just think that what we're asking property owners is to provide for the needs of the tenants. And I do understand like if people are driving fewer cars, but we actually have more cars registered in Amherst, 2000 more than we did 10 years ago, bus ridership has been dropping by four or 5% a year. The PBTA has been cutting routes. And so that world doesn't exist. So let's just help tenants out of it and not put all the burdens on them. Thank you, Janet. Evan. Yeah, so I do have one quick question, although I do just want to make sure I say as the only renter who is in this room right now and the only renter on the council, sorry Maureen, the only renter on the council, I was thinking of decision makers. I don't think it's fair to use tenants as an excuse for this because as someone who continues to run an Amherst market, when you have a car, you look for places that have parking and when you don't have a car, you accept places that don't have parking. And if you get a place that doesn't have parking and then you decide to buy a car, well, you're an adult and you made a bad decision. But I don't think that we can make that excuse. But as someone who lived here for the first three years without a car, it was actually great when places didn't have parking because that in a very competitive market gave me a leg up on other potential applicants who did have cars who maybe wouldn't be able to consider that. But I don't really accept the plea for tenants in this. But my question to get back to my question is actually, I just want to make sure I get a clarification on this because to some extent we have two proposals that we're looking at right now. One that was actually noticed and one that we got about three hours before the meeting. To me, the main difference is both of them could allow us could allow a developer to have fewer than two parking spaces per unit in an apartment. But one requires them to have to get a special permit in order to do so. And the other allows it to be more of a conversation between the planning board and the developer, but they don't have to get a special permit in order to reduce that parking. Is that a correct interpretation? I want to make sure I'm understanding this. Correct. So if the use is by right or by site plan review for the planning department's proposal, the by right use would need to demonstrate what is adequate and they would have that conversation with the building commissioner. Same is true for a site plan review through the planning board. But if the by right use or the use allowed by site plan review needed to ask for a reduction of parking under Janet's proposal, they would need to ask for a special permit under section 7.9. Thank you. So the the planning department's proposal adds flexibility and is less arduous in that it's just another permit that would be needed, which adds is added cost and in the like it in it, there's, you know, it can be up to three months. You know, is a typical sort of time range for for going through the ZBA, for instance, for a special permit. Thank you. Chris Presto. So I'm not reading the existing language that way. And if Rob is here, he could correct me, but I think it is up to the permit granting board or special permit granting authority. In other words, up to the planning board or the zoning board of appeals to decide whether they're going to grant this waiver under section 7.9 or not. And I believe it would still be up to those two groups, planning board or ZBA, depending on which everyone is acting in the in the particular instance, to be able to grant the waiver. Now, in the case of accessory dwelling units, the way we have it set up, neither the planning board nor the ZBA is necessarily involved in the determination about whether something's going to be approved or not. So they would probably then need to go to the planning board or the zoning board of appeals to get a waiver on the parking requirement in order to, well, yeah, I'll stop there. But if I could just follow up. Yes. But under the my understanding of the planning department's proposal is that a waiver would not be necessary for apartments mixed use and supplemental dwelling units, correct? That is correct. Yeah, waiver would not be required because you would provide information that would satisfy those criteria and then the board would decide, did you satisfy those criteria or the building engineer would decide, did you satisfy those criteria? So waiver would not be required. Thank you. Janet, do you have a question? So I've been in the planning board for two years. I've never seen a permit come through that wasn't in the site plan review plus special permit. So I don't know if that, I mean, I don't think that the special permit requirements like add time or more burdensome. So, Chris, have there been any things in front of the planning board that have just been site plan review without, I mean, isn't that sort of uncommon? And then the other thing is we could add the building commissioner into the revision of the waiver. So I mean, everything has a special permit. It is true that most site plan reviews, especially for large developments do require some sort of special permit, but it's not necessarily always true. And at this late hour, I can't think of any exceptions. Thank you. At this point, are there any other questions or are we ready to entertain a motion from the planning board? Janet, you still have your hand up. Do you have more questions? Jack, Jack, you're muted. You are muted, Jack. Sorry. Yeah, so I would move to accept this article. We're dealing with closing or continuing hearing. I would close the hearing then. Sorry, it's late in the night. I'm low. The motion from Jack is to close the public hearing. Is there a second from a planning board member? Tom? That was Tom, I think. Doug, sorry. I only get half the pictures and I don't know your voices yet. Any discussion on the motion to close the hearing? Jack, your hand is still up. It is now down. Seeing no discussion, we're going to start in the middle of my list right now. Oh, Janet. I'm ready for this hearing to close because I'm exhausted, but I just feel like this amendment is not supported by data. It's not well drafted. I think there's a good option. I think there's probably more back and forth. It has showed up very late in the last few weeks. I feel sort of this dilemma. Part of me is like, oh, let's close the public hearing. On the other hand, I don't think we have a good zoning amendment here. I'm sort of on that dilemma. I would love to keep this hearing open and move it two months from now or a month from now when we have a better draft to show the public and get their points of view. Thank you. Any other discussion from the planning board? Johanna? I feel like we've had a really good discussion tonight. I personally feel pretty satisfied with the answers that the staff have given for the rationale of how this is constructed. So I'm comfortable closing the hearing now. Doug? Yeah, I guess I feel like whether this passes or not, it's not going to really change the way we are, the way we deliberate on projects because we're already taking all these considerations into account. And I guess I said last week, and I'll say again, it feels like this change is more about bringing the zoning bylaw into agreement with how we are actually reviewing projects now. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no more hands on the comments, we will move to a vote on the motion to close the hearing from the planning board. I'll start in the middle of the list. Johanna? Hi. Andrew? Hi. Tom? Hi. Jack? Hi. Doug? Hi. And Janet? No. That is a five to one with one absent vote. So it passes. Is there a motion from the CRC at this point? I will move to close the public hearing. Is there a second? Well, I will second it to move things along. Is there any discussion from CRC members on the motion to close the hearing? Seeing none, we will vote. We start, I believe, with Evan. Hi. Shalini? Yes. Mandy? Is it a yes? And Dorothy? No. That is three to one with one absent. And so that motion passes too. And at this point, we have made it through all the hearings. And CRC has nothing left on its agenda for the night. And I will make the announcement for those attendees that are still here that CRC will not take up deliberation on the recommendations until the planning board has voted on its recommendations. So I can't give a date as to when that deliberation will take place. Jack, do you have any idea when the deliberations might show up on the planning board agendas? Chris Brestrup provided us several dates, August 18th and September 29th. So I would defer to her whether, and then we have some in between dates, I believe August 25th and 8th and September 22nd that are regularly scheduled meetings that could also be utilized. So that will be determined sooner. Janet raised her hand. I would just beg that we never consider four zoning amendments in a night. Again, this is grueling and I just, I'm exhausted. I don't, I would, I would hope that we would stretch it out a little bit more. I think that request is probably well taken from everyone at this point. So thank you for making that. I would prefer not to make a decision about when to do this right now because I have a schedule for the planning board in front of me, but planning board has things on its agenda going forward. So I think what I'd like to do is send out an email tomorrow to planning board members and give them some choices and maybe even break these things up a bit like have two on one night and two on another night. But right now I'm not thinking clearly enough to make a good suggestion. No, that makes a lot of sense. I didn't know whether there was any tentative plan. So that, that will be announced as, as the decisions are made there. With that, I'm going to pass this over to Jack after, I guess, adjourning the CRC meeting at 11 27pm and Jack will do what he needs to do for the rest of the planning board meeting. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mandy. Great job. Thank you guys all for hanging with us the whole time. May I make a suggestion, Jack? Yes. That we cut to the chase and just go to the report of staff and report of chair. Okay. Yeah, I don't know that anything is significant though. So I have nothing and report of staff. Yeah, I do have something on the 11 and 13 East Pleasant Street. The applicant has submitted a preliminary subdivision plan. And what that means is that he's essentially proposing to freeze the zoning on that property as of July 12. And if he follows through with the definitive subdivision plan and then definitive subdivision plan would have to be accepted by the planning board, then potentially the zoning is frozen on the property. So we have received the plan, we've received the application, we received it the day of the vote on inclusionary zoning and the moratorium. And right now we're looking at some public potential public hearing dates. So I will be reporting on this in the future. It's sort of an evolving topic, but I just wanted to let you know that that subdivision preliminary subdivision plan had been filed. And I understand that the applicant is willing to go along with the inclusionary zoning that's been passed, but it may have implications for whether or not he needs to comply with the mixed use building standards. So just keep that in mind. And we'll probably talk about that a little more next week when we meet about the 11 East Pleasant project. Definitely, definitely a little bit more gross. So I'm ready to adjourn with that. Wow, this is this might be a record for us. Yeah, five hours. So I'm motion to go to sleep. Yeah. I love it. Anyway, here we are. All right. So we adjourn. And it looks like we have, you know, some deliberation on all these, you know, four zoning articles that we have gone through. At some point, we'll fit it in. Just let us know, Chris, tomorrow. Email you some potential dates next tomorrow or week anyway. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Good night, everyone. Bye. Bye.