 Okay, Mr Marshall. It is 633 by my computer we have Amherst media here with us the attendees are coming in you have a quorum. You look good to go to me. Okay, thank you Pam. Welcome to the Amherst planning board meeting of May 3 2023. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst planning board I am calling this meeting to order at 634pm. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 20, chapter two of the acts of 2023. This meeting will be conducted via remote means this planning board meeting, including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link accessible 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 is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. We are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts. We will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members I will take a roll call when I call your name unmute yourself answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce cold. Yeah. Tom Long. Present. We believe that Andrew McDougal will be absent this evening. I Doug Marshall and present Janet McGowan will also be absent. Johanna Newman. Present. And car in winter. Present. Thank you all. Board members if technical issues arise we may need to pause to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your request and call on you to speak. After speaking remember to remute yourself to the general public. The general public comment item is reserved for public comment on items not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times on specific topics that are on our agenda during the meeting when determined appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. The general public typically expressed their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. So our first item on the agenda this evening is the minutes. And we have two sets of minutes to review at least the first from March 15. And so I wondered if anybody had any comments on those minutes. I do not see any raised hands from board members. Okay, so if there were no comments why don't we go straight into a vote on those minutes. I have a motion to approve the minutes for March 15 2023, as drafted by our staff members, Chris and Pam. Johanna you get your hand up first. I moved to approve the minutes. Thank you, Johanna and Tom. No second. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion. All right, we'll go straight into our vote. Okay. Thank you. Motion. I'm going to abstain, Doug, because I was blown out of that meeting before the discussion really got underway. Okay. Thank you, Tom. Approve. All right. I'm going to prove. Johanna. Bye. And Karen. Approve. One. I'm going to put up my abstention for those keeping score. So the next set of minutes is. For the meeting where we actually didn't really meet. And I guess I was a little surprised to see that there are minutes, but that's fine. So, Chris, is it true that in order to approve these minutes, we need more than my vote because I, you know, I was the only one there. Yes, if that is true, I believe, but others can vote even if they weren't there. Okay. Well, I have reviewed these minutes and they do seem accurate to me. So you have my endorsement, even if you don't, you know, even if you haven't listened to the recording of this, that minute of that meeting on the website. So, Tom, you have your hand up. I will move to approve those minutes. Okay, these are the minutes for Wednesday, April 5, just for anybody not seeing them in front of them. Johanna. Second the motion. Okay, thank you. All right, so we will go again into our board vote. Bruce, I'll ask you if you want to take a chance and vote to approve these minutes. Oh, I can hardly wait, Doug, it's a super solid yes vote for me. Okay, thank you. And Tom. I approve. All right, I'm an I as well. Johanna. I. Okay. And Karen. Thank you. Okay, that's five votes in favor. And no abstentions. Great. Thank you all. So we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. That is our public comment period. And right now it is about 640. And at this time, I usually read the participants from the public that I can see. I will read the names as they appear on my participants list on this zoom software. The first one is someone named John and he has his hand up so we will need to bring him over for a comment. Then we have Dorothy Pam. Ira Brick, Jennifer Taub. Mandy Joe Henneke. Mara Keane and Pat DeAngeles. Okay, so Pam, would you please bring John over. And John, please unmute yourself. Give us your first and last name and your street address, assuming you're in Hammers. Can we wait just one moment, John. I think I gave you three hours to speak and that was, I'm not going to take. So let me just fix this three. I'm going to talk for three hours. All right, let's give it a go now. Thank you so much. My name is John Boothroyd. I live in South Amherst. And I'm very concerned. And I hope I'm coming through fine on zoom. I've never used zoom before. It's relatively easy to stay near your microphone because your, your voice did drop out once already. Okay. You know, my basic question for you is there's a lot of properties being talked about, which is the two school properties. There was free property from Amherst college. And I want to know what's on the list for those properties from the housing board, specifically what is the, what are we planning on doing with those properties? I know we have, you know, we want to relocate the DPW. We want to put in new fire stations. I mean, I know there's a group of people want affordable housing. And these properties are kind of available on, you know, I'm a little bit upset about the school, which is mainly on trying to get involved with zoom. And I think it's important that they haven't had a conservation commission meeting yet. And you should all be aware that that was the old. Basically industrial port for when we shipped out fishing poles, 60% of the world's fishing poles. There's a canal runs under the school. And there's three Brooks used to run under the school, one of which is buried in the culvert still flowing down that. So, you know, I mean, in reality. It's a problematic. It's a lot of problems with that school and it hasn't been before the con con yet. And my understanding is, I'm hoping it comes before them realistically, which means if you want to knock it down, I believe. You can't rebuild anything. And I guess, you know, I'm really starting with a planning board, just, you know, what are we planning on doing with all these properties that we're juggling around. You know, we have, I guess a nice piece of property on high ground. And I guess I was very upset that everybody seemed to think that it's cheaper to build on Fort River school. I mean, they really need to raise it a lot more than they're planning on raising it. And they should not be digging in the clay, which, which the Fort River sits on. And that that is basic. And that is the floodplain for the Fort River and it sits in the Connecticut River floodplain also. And like I said, I used to be a canal. And you should all be aware of the, you know, the fact that we used to make all the gas to run all the gas lights right there out of coal. And that they've been pumping coal tar out for years. Like, I mean, like the last three decades, I think. And the sand there well is clean. However, most of it is probably still there encapsulated in globs all over the place, which is, you know, typical Springfield has a huge problem. And so I don't know how much of this comes up with the planning board when that, you know, because I believe most of these plans come before you first, right? Typically, we don't respond to comments or questions during this period. But, you know, we don't actually see the plan for the school and we haven't seen it yet from this board. Okay. So, okay. So, all right. So when does the board see the plan? Oh no. I mean, I should be. I'm sorry. I guess my three minutes are up. My main question is I'm hoping that this board, you know, does have a list of these properties and a list of things that people want to do. And then, you know, we get them all on the table and not just, you know, as they come up. Okay. Well, those are good comments, John. And I thank you for learning how to use zoom and coming and giving us those comments. We'll have to think about those considering how easy it was. I signed up before. But I do. All right. Thank you. Okay. So I also see Janet Keller's hand. If we can bring Janet over and just a reminder, Janet, this is for, this is the time for comments. About items not. Later on our agenda. So this would not include this, the duplex zoning proposal. Welcome. Thank you. I did want to comment. I'm sorry. I'm late joining your meeting. I'll wait until later in the meeting. Thank you. Okay. All right. So Pam, we can probably put her back in the attendee. Category. And at this point, I don't see any other. Hands from the public raised. So I believe we can go on to the next item on our agenda. And. So this item number three, which we're starting now at 647. Is in fact, the continuation of the agenda. The proposed zoning amendment, which under for our, for shorthand. I'll just call it the duplex and triplex amendment. As proposed by two of our town councilors, Mandy, Joe, Hanneke and Pat D'Angelo's. So. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023. This meeting is being conducted via remote means. And is being held. For the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding. Zoning bylaw article three use regulations, article four development methods. Article nine nonconforming lots, uses and structures. And article 12 definitions to see if the town will vote to amend article three. Use regulations to change the permitting requirements for owner occupied duplexes. Affordable duplexes, non-owner occupied duplexes. Converted dwellings and townhouses to create more streamlined permitting pathways for these uses. To remove the use category, subdividable dwellings. To add a use category, three family detached dwelling or triplex. To add a permitting pathway and standards and conditions for triplexes. To modify standards and conditions for other housing use categories. To amend permitting requirements for housing use categories in the aquifer recharge protection, overlay district. To amend article four development methods to add three family dwelling where appropriate. To amend article nine nonconforming lots, uses and structures. To add a reference to three family dwelling. To amend article 12 definitions to add three family detached dwelling unit or triplex. And to delete subdividable dwelling. So tonight's meeting is, or continuation of the hearing is continued from March 1. April 5th and April 19th all of this year. And as published in our agenda. Our conversation tonight is going to principally focus on the proposed changes. For duplex. Apartment units or residential units. Are there any board. Disclosures for this. For this conversation tonight. I do not see any. All right. I see we have meant we had Mandy Joe, but we have. Oh yeah, there's Mandy Joe and there's Pat. Do you all want to say anything this evening? Or have you. Given us all the introductory comments. And previous meetings that you'd like to make. Pat, I see your hand. Yeah, thank you. We feel like we, you don't need to be reintroduced to this topic. We've all done a lot of talking about it. And it's an important topic. We feel like Chris has put out a new memo. You have questions. Our goal today is to answer any of those questions and to address. Chris's memo. Mandy, do you want to say anything? Nothing on that. I just want to say thank you for having us. I do need to leave it 705 or so. So when I cut out that, that will be for that reason. I have a prior engagement that I have every Wednesday that I can't miss. Okay. Well, thanks for joining us for a few minutes. And obviously board members. If you have any. Specific questions for Mandy, Joe, we might want to direct those to her. In the next. Looks like 14 minutes. Okay. So without an introduction, I guess we can go right into a conversation. Chris, is there anything you'd like to say? No, I don't have a prior engagement that I have every Wednesday that I can't miss. Okay. Well, thanks for joining us for a few minutes. And obviously board members, if you have any specific questions for Mandy, Joe, we might want to direct those to her. Chris, is there anything you want to say about the memo that you issued? Or issued probably yesterday and revised today. Or should we just go right into our conversation? I'll just bring people's attention to the memo that I am. I have expressed concerns about a certain aspect of multiple owner occupied dwelling units on properties and how they should be provided. And my recommendation is for a special permit from the zoning board of appeals that it's over a certain number. So just note that I have sent a revised memo to the planning board and to the proponents and a revised sketch. That accompanied it. And we don't need to talk about that now. We have some questions that Bruce Coultham has put together, which seem more relevant. I think my memo kind of focuses on a very narrow piece of the proposed zoning amendment. And I think it would be more worthwhile to address Bruce's questions, which are more broad. And I did not forward Bruce's questions to the board as a whole, but Pam has them. We received them this afternoon. And if Bruce is inclined, perhaps that would be the better response. I think that would be the best response. I think that would be the best response of the board's time to go, to start to go through Bruce's questions. Okay. Let's see. Ham, do you have his questions that you can put on the screen? I believe so. And Bruce, is there anything you'd like to say? And as we bring those up. I think I mentioned in my commentary last time when I just found that the breadth of the proposal. Though quite detailed and quite specific. Was overwhelming in that you began to. Talk about one area and then you quickly could move or to another and that and retaining focus was what I was finding very difficult. And I finished by saying that it was in, it was in danger of just endless continuation. So I thought about this a bit and I thought, well, what would it, how could I break this? Or how could I divide this up in the way that I proposed? I mean, conceptually, how could I, how could it be actually divided up usefully so that it could be constructively considered by, by a group here and essentially by the town. And, and so I. Basically took a pen to the, to the, the diagram and broke that diagram up into five category, topic categories. And then for each topic category. I basically. Express what I think Mandy Joe and Pat are asking us. To contemplate, but I reduced it to. A few questions in each category. And so that's what. I think the next one is probably about to show us. Can you see it? Because I feel like I'm sharing it. No. Okay. I mean, I have it up if you want me to share it. Well, what I don't understand is why you can't see it because. I wrote it in code. Does that make a difference? No, I'm, I'm. What is going on? Hold on. I'm going to try one more thing. I think we saw it for a moment. I think we did. I'm, I could be wrong. I didn't. Okay. Okay, hold on. I'm going back to square one. Well, Pat, while they're waiting, you shouldn't be concerned about this because really what I'm trying to do is to. It would have. It would have been helpful to get your questions. In advance. And it was looking at duplexes. Actually, Pat, these are not. They're just sort of questions for you. They're just more. How, how in terms of. The proposal you made. I understand what they are. Okay. So, so far as duplex is concerned, I think the proposal can be reduced to three questions that we're asked to consider. As far as triplexes are concerned. I personally thought that we first needed to. Decide that the triplex category was a, was a useful thing to, to introduce. And I have a footnote at the bottom, which observes that the triplex moves. Construction. Into the broad category, the broad field of the general building code. And out of the one and two family category. And to the extent that these smaller buildings, including triplexes would be primarily. The triplexes would be by small builders. It seemed to me that there might be. Builders who would, who would. Be nervous to venture into the broad code and they might, for that reason, choose not to build triplexes. I don't know that that's true, but I think we should establish that that is, or is not the case before we spend time. Trying to understand how to. Regulate it. There are four questions related to converted dwellings, which I think of the summary of what we're being asked to consider. And I think there's really only one question in townhouses. And of course, there's only one question in survive, subdividable dwellings. And I found that looking at these 10 questions, which I think is the total here. That made it so much easier for me. To understand the task before us. And in so far as it was helpful to me, I thought it might be helpful to others as well. So I took the trouble this morning to write it down and, and to send it in and manager pad. I didn't feel empowered to send it to you. I only send it to Doug as chair. The one other board, my, one other board member and to Chris. The planning director, but I, I didn't feel empowered to send it beyond that. Well, thank you for doing that, Bruce. So since we're focusing tonight on the duplexes, Pam, why don't you just scroll up to the duplex questions? Okay. So that answers my question. You can see this. Yes, we can now. Okay. So here we go. Great. Great. Thank you. Okay. So the first, first question on regarding owner occupied and affordable duplexes. Should they be allowed by right. In all five of the residential zones and currently requires a special permit. Board members, are there. Reactions to that question that you would be willing to share. All right. Well, I guess I will offer. You know, I spent a lot of time actually this week thinking about this proposal. Focusing on the duplexes. And the more I think about it, the more I really felt that this, although I agree there's a housing problem in Amherst, this is not at all the way I would have approached it. And it's not at all the way I've been thinking about it. Perhaps taking my cue from the master plan and the desire to build up our village centers and our downtown. As expressed in that document. I have felt that it would make more sense for us to focus on how to. Increase density in those. Village centers. And not sort of uniformly allow greater development everywhere. Or, you know, most parts of town. So. I'm not particularly excited by this proposal. I wouldn't call myself a supporter. I guess the question for me is just how much. I should, how much energy I should spend. Or opposing it, you know, does it really make a difference? Because I'm also not convinced that we're actually going to have a lot of people that want to take advantage of the owner occupied duplexes. So that's my initial thoughts. I did have some other. Some concern about allowing more development in the aquifer recharge district. Especially things like. Fuel oil tanks that come with. Oil heat. I know most people are trying not to do that anymore. If they're thinking sustainably, but having. Storage of essentially pollutants. More of those over our aquifer recharge district seemed like a. Poor idea to me. All right, so I'll stop there for the moment, Bruce, and then we'll go back to your hand. Yes, Doug. I found. I started off. Being broadly supportive of. Of the proposition expressed in question. A in the first question. Because I thought of owner occupation. As being well regulated by the ownership side of the duplex. And, and also. Living in a duplex, or at least I did for a while. And our co-housing community here is constructed entirely of duplexes grouped and custom duplexes. And it always felt to me that what we've done here should have been, should not be permanently. Constrained by a special permit. And I think it's worth remembering that. I think I'm correct. And this has certainly been the certainly been the reality of our life here at Pine Street co-housing for 30 years. But if you want to do anything. Even a small thing that requires a building permit. And pretty much everything requires a building permit these days. If you're subject to a special permit. In order to get the building permit, you have to first go back to the zoning board. And, and get their blessing. So it's a, it's not just a complicated. First step. Complicated in a good way, I think for the first step. Certainly a reasonable way. But for the subsequent. Improvements that one wants to do put in a ramp. A few other things, courts maybe it does seem an imposition to have to go first to a special permit authority then go to the building inspector and then get your permit if you are. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. Regulated the way it currently is so generally speaking, I was in support of. This first proposition to allow affordable and owner occupied duplexes by rights. The comments that Christine and the planning staff have been making recently and more especially the dupe. The memo that Chris put out today. Has brought me up a little here because I've realized that. Multiple duplexes could be. Imagine to be, or could be. It could be allowed. On these properties, multiple duplexes. And I thought, well, multiple owner occupied duplexes. That seems rather odd, but I suppose it could be. The parents in one and the kids and the other, or it could be. Some kind of a shared arrangement where. Basically it's a, it's a tenants in common arrangement or something. But after I read Chris's memo, I realized. That. And I don't think this is my imagination running wild. And I don't want to start being too paranoid about this thing. But I think it is quite reasonable to imagine, particularly where you had properties that could have, you know, three or four duplexes. And we've seen one come before us at the local historic district commission recently. It seems to me that an enterprising developer. Could create an LLC as the owner. And instead of offering rental agreements to students, they could offer LLC memberships. And that you could essentially create an owner occupied duplex. Virtually identical in function and occupancy to a non owner occupied duplex. And that could be by constructing and managing an LLC as the owner. And I would want to make sure that we. I end out that potential. Unintended consequence before I would be supportive of this. So that's a real concern of mine, even though it sounds a bit esoteric and it may not be everybody's idea of what would be possible, but it could be one I one person's idea. And then if it was successful, it could become more than one person's idea. And it could be a wholly destructive unintended consequence. So I got that from reading Chris's email and thinking a little bit about it. And so that would be a reservation that I would have. So Doug, I think broadly I'm in your camp at the moment. Wondering how hard I should resist this having started from the position of general support. Thank you. I actually did a similar thought experiment with my own property here. I have a basically a half acre lot. I have 100 by 200 lot. So it's 20,000 square feet. I'm in the RG district. So for the first family on the lot, I need 12,000 square feet. That leaves me 8,000 square feet. To put additional families on my lot. And for each additional family under the current zoning, I would need 2,500 square feet. So I could do another three families on my lot. So I could take my house, either split it or add to it to make it a duplex. And then put a second duplex out back. And that would be four families on my half acre lot, right in the RG district, just down the street from the middle school in a neighborhood that would probably freak out when I did that. So, you know, I don't know, maybe I want to do that and build my nest egg. But, you know, I think that is somewhat drastic. All right. Anybody else want to make any comments? Doesn't sound like it. Doesn't look like it. Oh, Tom, thank you. Yeah, thanks, Doug. I was going to say that, you know, since the beginning of these conversations, I've felt a lot of, and I think that that's still a driving factor for me in the way I look at this and hoping to bring. Density to places with public transportation, hoping to bring density to village centers. Or places that are designed for density, rather than distributing that density around, you know, more rural and not so. Space is not ready for it necessarily with infrastructure. So, so I would tend to lean towards an agreement that this seems to combat some of the goals of the master plan in terms of focusing density. All right. Thanks, Tom. You know, Hannah, great. Substantively, I don't feel like I have much new to add, but, you know, share Doug and Tom's sentiments that we want to be directing density and we want to be directing development proactively to the places where as a town we've decided we want it. And, you know, again, I'm a little bit like I hear Bruce's point. I think probably the owner occupied is. I'd be curious if we have a number like total number of units that are currently in this category, just how much it, you know, like I don't think it would open the floodgates to development. And so to some extent, maybe this is a way to address in the term some of our housing challenges without giving up too much of our like larger development goals as a town. If that makes any sense. All right. Thanks, John. Karen, anything you want to contribute? I read Chris's memo and I totally agree. I think I would feel very uneasy without limiting the number of units on a lot. I think it could really destroy a neighborhood in that if it happens next to you, you'll get out. So I think I would, I'm really not in favor of leaving it as it is. It's too open and too vulnerable. We don't know what will happen. And I, and I agree, we should have density in certain places and try to keep open sort of your, you know, the beautiful rural atmosphere in other places. And we have to be cognizant that we were also protecting neighborhoods from what's happening next to them by giving them the chance to weigh in when something happens. And I think that's, that's really important. It's important to have builders have freedom, but it's also important that neighbors have the right and, and the ability to weigh in on what happens next to them. All right. Thanks, Karen. One thing you reminded me that I was thinking about was, you know, I think. I mentioned that there were a number of other communities around the country that had. Essentially gone this direction and allowed. Duplexes and didn't have any eliminated all the zones where only single family homes were available. And I guess I was cute. I haven't looked at researched it up, but I wondered whether many of those places might be more, more more uniformly developed already something like, you know, maybe long fellow or rather long meadow or or some of the dense suburbs around Boston, where they don't really have a lot of open space to have to be threatened or to be, you know, that could still be developed. And one of the things I do like about Amherst is that there are highly developed areas and there are quite rural development areas. So Pat, do you do you have any sense of the sort of characteristics of the towns that have done this and you know are they really applicable or relevant to our situation. The one time I'm nervous that's why I don't like to talk but St. Paul is a community in Minnesota they there in St. Paul and other areas in Portland they've expanded the missing middle by doing infill in a certain kind of way. What I see happening is if I go to Chris's plan that the the Lincoln Avenue property that she used in her memo. If we're looking at that, that happens to be an area that is set next to Amherst College. It is quite dense area and it is exactly where we're saying we want to increase density. You know, I know that her original drawing was incorrect. There are fewer units that would be allowed on this property. And what I hear is a resistance to really looking at proposals that might change the amount of housing that we have. And I hear words from all of you like if we can imagine that these would all be inadvertent consequences LLCs would be doing these awful things, and we'd be renting to students and neighbors would freak out and from what I understand, whether it's a special permit or a site plan review, a butters do need to be notified, and the butters do have the ability to address issues. Yeah, so I'm sorry I'm not able to list more towns for you and I will find some of that out. Well, obviously, your fear, the fear in that you guys are expressing really is distressing. Thanks. If we look at ball lane, the proposed ball lane. We're talking about 15 duplexes of different heights and sizes. We're talking about retaining open space there. And it's going to be a quite an incredible development for first time homeowners. I'm trying to understand why that jeopardizes the character of our town. I'm having trouble understanding what the character of our town is because what I see it is, is to, to talk about socio economic diversity to talk about welcoming people in all neighborhoods and yet what I hear you guys doing is being afraid of that. So, Bruce, you have your hand up. Thank you. Thank you, Pat. So, we've heard that St. Paul and Portland are the two. Yeah, and I'll get some more I can send it out to the predecessors who have considered and done this. Okay. All right, Bruce. I just wanted to assuage Pat's concern that Pat, it's, it's our job to think about this from all points of view. And we would be derelict if we didn't. And just because I can come up with something that might be an unintended consequence doesn't mean that I'm trying to shoot the project down what it means is that I'm trying to identify something that need would need to be fixed for reasonable to be given to this. But please don't confuse due diligence with with negativity. It's not fair and it's not right and it's not appropriate. We have to do our job here. And I'm damn sure trying to do mine and I put a lot of time and effort into this and I'm putting a lot more time and effort into it. And if we can fix this unintended consequence by by putting something in the in what we might eventually draft, then that's what my observation is intended to achieve. Okay, thank you, Bruce. Tom, I see you next. And I just want to be clear that I don't want to confuse duplex with building diversity in the neighborhood like ours where those are likely to be swept up by students as well. So I'm not sure that we're building diversity by building duplexes understand where you're coming from and understand what the objectives are. We've also had lots of other discussions about whether or not this actually will serve the end users that we believe it is so I don't want it to be confused as one leads directly to the other, because I don't think that that's actually the case. All right. Thank you, Tom, Pat, I do see your hand. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to correct something on Bruce's third question. He is a non owner occupied duplexes are currently allowed by site plan review and a site plan special permit sorry, and I think you're referring to the aquifer recharge protection district in that question but I'm not sure. And, and do diligence Bruce you're actually right do Jill diligence is incredibly important. And if there's a one we talked about adding deed restrictions and things like that to the owner occupied duplex bylaw section of this bylaw so if you can expand on that, or help us do that that would be quite incredible. All right, thanks Pat. Whoops. Mr Marshall. Did you notice admit miss Hanakie is still with us. She left right at 705. Okay, promised she would. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Chris, I wanted to ask you one question. Because some of the concerns that were raised in your memos were stemming from the relatively new interpretation of section 3.01 I believe it is of the of our bylaw and and the fact that it seems we've we're creating a precedent to allow more than one principal use on a and on any specific lot. And I wondered if you could tell us. You know where is that new interpretation coming from is it is it some of the individuals in the in town hall or is it a wider perspective, and and maybe you know is is is that particular section something that we should be thinking about amending or changing in some other way, as we consider this bylaw proposal. I think that you might well consider amending section 3.01. I'm not exactly sure what the wording would be or exactly what the intent would be but I think it has the potential for for being overused or exploited. This is a new interpretation, I think, as I've listed in my memo, at least one of the memos that has been taken advantage of several times by the zoning board of appeals, or by applicants before the zoning board of appeals, and to date, the results have been good, but they've been very small, small developments where multiple buildings are being allowed. We have a new one coming before us where there's a triplex on a property in on Fearing Street, and applicants are proposing to put two. Well, they had proposed to put three duplexes there. We understand that they may be can reconsidering that and only proposing to put two duplexes but, and that's the kind of development that if they're not owner occupied, they're going to be a non owner occupied but in any event I think that those things might be worthwhile to allow to occur but they should be carefully controlled. And I believe that special permit through the zoning board of appeals is a good mechanism for that. So I don't know if that answers your question but it is something that's becoming more, more known in town more people who are developing properties are becoming aware of this opportunity to, to have their multiple principal uses on a site to be declared complimentary and therefore they're coming forth with applications. And therefore all the applications are by special permit. Okay. All right. I think, I think it was in one of your memos that you also talked about the potential use of condominium development to essentially take a single parcel. And then put all the duplexes on it, turn it into a condo so that each, you know, each building or each unit was a condo and therefore at least one of those units in each building would be owner occupied. How, you know, we don't have very many condos at least around the center of town. So difficult is that and is turning, you know, Bruce cited the LLC scenario. How plausible is a condominium development sort of scenario is that I think it's quite plausible. Marsh House, which is a development at, what is it 151 Amity Street is a condominium it's the old Amherst funeral home which was divided into two units and three units were added there and those are all owner occupied in their beautiful units. So I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with condominiums. Just saying that it's possible for a developer to come in and take a piece of property and to create owner occupied units. It's not necessarily something that, you know, a brother and sister decide to bring their families together and have an owner occupied because it's quite possible that a developer might do that. Another example I think is, I think there are some duplexes down in or upper orchard down near what's it called, Applewood, yeah. Some of those units those units are owner occupied. So it is something that people might be very interested in having an owner occupied duplex and what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that developers are evil in any way but some of them get carried away. And I think it's really good to have some careful scrutiny and then zoning board of appeals is a group that is used to giving careful scrutiny to projects and I'm not saying that the planning board isn't but the zoning board can say no, the zoning board, you have too many units on this property you need to take some away, even if the units would be allowed by lot area and additional lot area per family, even if it would be allowed by dimensional regulations, the zoning board can say we think it's appropriate in this location. And the other thing then is that if owners or if the butters disagree with a decision of the zoning board of appeals they have an opportunity to appeal that decision. It rarely happens but it does happen from time to time. And I think that in the case of something that is rather intrusive and big. It is appropriate for a butters to be able to appeal if they find something is really difficult to accept. So the two things taken together the ability to deny and the ability to appeal I think are what makes a special permit different from site plan review with the planning board, and I think that for larger projects it is a unnecessary form of review. So I think did I answer your question. Yeah, thank you. So Pat, you I see your hand. I wanted to mention a few special permit conditions that have happened around town. 266 East Hadley Road which is South Point Apartments. Part of the language includes that you can't have a guest stay with you for more than five days and you have a maximum of 10 guests per unit guests per unit which means you might want to have a Thanksgiving dinner with your family or you might want to have a birthday party for kids, and you would be in danger of because of these limits you would not be able to have your sister stay over five days in your apartment. And at 290 West Street, which is a non owner I occupied duplex. It says the interior of the special permits at the interior of the two family residence shall be used only as labeled on the floor plans, prepared by the home store and stamp and approved and amended by the zoning Board of Appeals. In 2009. Does that mean a room labeled dining room can't be used for an office, or it. It just gets to me because it feels like this is the places where you're discriminating against students but if I go to families. The 739 Fairview way was to family it was originally a single family home. It became a two family home. And then with the family daughter of the parents, the people who started the family, living in the second floor part. When they change they converted their garage to an ADU and their son lives there. So the idea that family members or sisters and brothers might not want to live together. I think is inaccurate. And what I feel like is some of the special permit live on the Fairview property was all grass areas she'll have a maximum height of four inches is the private home. I'm deciding to make it a meadow which is what I'm trying to do with some of my yard, the maximum number of people on the premises at any time shall be 25 people sounds like a lot of people. But if there are three units there. So we're talking about again maybe a party a gathering, the maximum number of overnight visitors per unit shall be four people with a maximum stay of seven consecutive nights. How come these are in spec conditions of special permits on a private home, basically. But when you're looking at this you're really, I, I guess I need to you guys to open up your minds a little bit about what family is what community is what renters are, and where they need to be and where first time homeowners need to be, because I don't know. Fairview home was the home is the home of a person who used to be on the planning board and they still got these kinds of bizarre conditions. So. Well, I mean, it sounds like those conditions came from the zoning board and you know we don't, we don't do that. We can't really do that. It sounds like you have a little bit of a libertarian streak in you. As I do, but we all have to live together. Bruce. I've been subject to those kind of conditions to in the various, particularly here at Pine Street co housing and as I said we've got quite a number of special permits here. And I think the answer to what Pat's questioning is that, first of all, but typically those kind of weird conditions that get a largely a function of a, of a passionate butter who's got a concern. I know that we have on our house here, the condition that we're not allowed to have unregistered cars on the property. And that was because my brother in law had garaged his car, an unregistered car because he lived in Alaska in the trees out behind our house for one year. It just happened to be the year when the planning board visited. So my general sense about these kind of weird conditions is that you more or less ignore them and behave properly. It does mean, however, that if there is an abuse there, that there is a basis for an about or for somebody to leverage a result. But I don't think that just because you've got a limit of whatever it is 25 people or some so it doesn't mean that there's a somebody who's going to be coming in and inspecting you every now and again to make sure you're complying. You just live your life and ignore it and providing you are respectful of the world around you. No one really is going to come in and hold you to the letter of some of these ridiculous conditions. I think this is just a function of strenuous about a representations at plant and zoning board meetings. All right, thanks Bruce. Chris, your hand. Yeah, I wanted to agree with what Bruce is saying. The zoning board of appeals puts conditions on actually the conditions that were put on to 90 West Street were conditions that came out of the management plan that the proponent of that project put forward. So, often the zoning board takes things from the management plan and things from things that and the lease that the applicant has has stated and many leases say you can't have more than 10 people on your property or you can't have more than one person who is limited to staying three nights. And that's to control students and students who may choose to have more than four people living in their dwelling unit and, you know, take advantage of Oh, this person is just a guest and allow that person to stay for weeks or months on end, or to have a party a because it's disruption for neighbors and you know that there have been such parties in Amherst. And I don't think I need to describe them. So it gives the building commissioner and his staff, the ability to regulate these things and if they get a complaint from a neighbor that there was a really rowdy party in this. On this property and there were over 25 people there. That is an indication that the inspectors can enforce the conditions. Normally they don't enforce those types of conditions unless there are complaints they have no reason to drive around neighborhoods and count the number of guests who are at any particular location, unless there's a problem, but it gives them the ability to enforce things if there's a problem. And I think that generally speaking the conditions that are put on by the zoning board of appeals are very reasonable, and they're certainly more reasonable with the applicant. There's certainly more reasonable these days than they were in the past, but I don't have. I don't have any reservations about the zoning board putting unreasonable conditions on special permits. Thank you. Okay, thanks Chris. Alright, so board members, you know I kind of started the conversation saying I was basically unenthusiastic about this proposal and but I wasn't sure how much I should really resist it. We got a number of several others of you who kind of were in the same boat. I guess, you know, I mean I know we're missing two members tonight and we probably would want to include them in what if in any decisions we made, but you know I think if that's kind of the general sense. You know I wonder whether we want to, you know what we're going to want to do with this, how many more meetings we're going to want to talk about it. And, you know, whether we're going to want to just sort of give it as tepid a recommendation as we can or whether we're going to actually want to reject it so I just put that out there so people can start thinking about where are we going to end up. Bruce I see your hand. Yeah, I was going to go to the item C I was going to skip B for the moment because I think you made it. Or actually I won't skip B I think that I might put a condition on this one that I could support it if, if there were, if they were non fossil fuel. Because it's power buildings. But otherwise the, the concerns that I have on B would be the same as a they can probably be reconciled I could probably be persuaded with with with the appropriate conditioning to support a and B. The C is is the non owner opiate duplex duplex is a more a problem for me. As I've said previously I think that it's not going to solve the housing problem I think the, the, the, the market for students rentals in this town is so high. And I think I would be supportive of this proposition with If we were to move to, and I'm halfway through this work that I'm doing on talking to other cities and towns around the country, and how they are regulating student rentals in their neighborhoods. It seems to me that, as far as I've gotten on this that we would probably want to have an identification of a student home, formal identification of it, and to have some controls on student homes either their distribution, density in a distribution and, and perhaps an elevated rental fee, to the extent that. I mean, I don't want to come across. I guess I should repeat this every now and again just to be sure. And occupants in this town are very important they're a large part of our town they're slightly over half of the town in fact I think, and many of them don't live on campus many of them live around some of them live in Sunderland and other places but many of them live in an amnesty many of them live in, in rental duplexes or single family houses. And they can be good neighbors, I was one once you were everybody here probably was. I remember enjoying the places I lived I also remember occasionally to my shame, not behaving as well as I might have and I was 10 or 15 years older. That's the nature of being a 20 year old. So it occurs to me that non student occupied duplexes particularly ones that were essentially student homes, probably should expect to have a higher level of regulation. And in order to make that affordable by the town they probably should pay a higher rental fee so that we could afford to pay for another john Thompson or two, and then have some interactions, whatever it takes to ensure really that the transitory occupants such as year to year rentals the students would become welcomed in the neighborhood. So that's going to require some kind of identification of a student time as an entity, and then having identified it, put certain strictures upon them that will guide them towards being good neighbors. That is essentially the project that I've been working on and continuing to work on. In my private times is not something that the boards has asked me to do or charged me to do other than doing formally on the post for half it's something I'm doing because I think it's necessary. I'm taking it on myself. And I will probably in the course of the summer, maybe the next month or two. I've got two, three meetings, zoom meetings with planning directors from other towns around the country in the next week. And, and, and I've got another nine that I'm trying to line up. So I would imagine in the next month or so I should probably know a lot more about it but my general sense is that to support for me to support non owner occupied duplexes as a private, I would certainly want to have some parallel regulatory structure around identifying formally identifying the student home, and putting regular tricks on student homes that would cause them to be good neighbors. Thanks Bruce I want to clarify one thing and I think your question is that you've written here is actually not quite true. Because currently, non owner occupied duplexes are allowed in the RO. Yes pat pat noted that and basically I pasted the the currently not allowed in the wrong place. That should be up and item B one B and, and the currently requires SP should be down on one C so you're both correct. That was that was the only change the only change to non owner occupied duplexes this proposed is in the aquifer recharge district. They would go from being prohibited to being special permit. Yes, did I say that. Yes I did yes that's correct so so the document was done as best I could in the time. I knew there'd be mistakes like this even though I couldn't find them. But you all certainly once this things goes out that's you quickly find the errors which is good. Chris has a has a editable copy of this so she has some edits she would like to make as well so to the extent that this has a life beyond this meeting. Christine has the. Okay, isn't now in charge of it I think. Okay, thank you Bruce. Thank you so much for that I see your hand. Yeah, I just wanted to let Bruce know that CRC community resources has been for many months now working on rental registration bylaw and changes in fees changes in in definitions, etc. So we're getting it ready. Mandy Joe and I and Pam Rooney and Jennifer top and shall in a ball mill and have all been working on it and it addresses a lot of the issues you brought up. And so it might be very interesting for you to share some of your research with us and find a way to collaborate on that. All right, thanks. Absolutely delighted to do that I'll, I'll do, I'll send you the questions that I'm asking right now. Okay. I don't see any more board member hands at the moment and there is one hand from our public attendees. So why don't we just go to that person. That is john and I believe john commented earlier. I don't get your last name john so when we bring you over and you introduce yourself again. Why don't you give me your last name a little bit more clearly than. So, then I got it last time. Mr Marshall, can I just ask when you look at the timer. Do you see it correctly or do you see a mirror in now see it correctly it was reversed. Thank you very much fix that problem. Well I had fixed it earlier to. Okay, hold on here comes Mr Booth Roy I believe. Hi john can you hear us. Yep, can you hear me. We can welcome back. Yeah, I believe this. I read the whole zoning change you're talking about on one of the websites. And I in general, I was in agreement. And sorry, the dogs. Um, but my one comment at the end of this, they want everybody to hook up to the sewer, which I believe is what we need to be doing. Okay. And they said that they were requirement was to hook up to the sewer I believe the UN has said we should be basically recycling all of our, you know, waste and composting it, and you know we will save gigantic amounts of fertilizer. And obviously it's difficult for people to do so. It seems to be worked out but there are a lot of fancy things but the requirement that you have to hook up to the sewer should be, you know, I think that is a little bit extreme at this point in time because that is probably one of the best things we can do for the environment. If we can figure out how to do it easily and automatically. And that, you know, I have 37 units on a single family building a lot on one side of me, and five units on a single family building a lot on the other side of me. So my opinion is you should be allowed me to build 12 or 15 units on my lot, whether I like it or not what you like or not. I mean I'm looking at four stories behind me, and they don't meet the setback and anything they don't meet any zoning requirements but anyway. So I mean, that's a unique situation I guess but obviously so I'm rather jaded but yeah I believe that people should be allowed to believe duplexes and their own or occupied duplexes. They should be a private matter not part of the rental boy. Obviously, if you're not around and you're renting it that's a different story. Anyway, thank you very much for your time and you know I was I enjoy listening to you all, and hopefully you take note of the sewer requirements in the right in the zoning rules you've been discussing, if you could. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so we've had a couple more public hands come up. One person is Janet Keller Janet why don't we bring you over and you can remind us of your street address and will you have three minutes. Thank you. Hello Janet, we do hear you. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and thank you for the careful thought you are giving to these important matters. In addition to very much wanting to see the butters notices retained since they're small part of the developers costs and to get a project underway. They're critical to preserving the rights and the ability of a butters to speak to projects. I did want to speak also to Pat D'Angelo's concerns about that people will object to the ball lane project I attended the meeting, the public meeting on the 26 and sent a letter of supporting that project I live diagonally across from it. And my sense at them. That meeting that public meeting was that there was great appreciation for the care which Valley CDC and Peter Flinker in the architect put into consulting with neighbors, carefully citing that project soliciting input from the neighbors. So, and it is indeed a project that is well cited it's across from Culpeth Hill Road 120 Culpeth Hill Road, which has a similar development on a larger parcel of conserved land. And I, I just wanted to clarify that there is quite a bit of enthusiasm for that project and I particularly support it wholeheartedly. Thanks. Okay, thank you Janet. The last hand from the public I see is from Pam Rooney, our counselor, our liaison to the town council. Pam, why welcome to the meeting why did you do the usual introduction. Hi, I'm Rooney. Thank you for letting me speak I live at 42 cottage street I am not speaking as liaison. In fact, I forgot the meeting was tonight so I just tuned in. I was was thankful for the report from the planning department and was have given some thought to sort of the conundrum or not the conundrum but the also opportunities that are that are allowed us with section 3.0 zero which allows for multiple multiple principle uses and therefore multiple units and combinations of units that are possible. And I would love to hear the planning boards consideration for the idea that if there are going to be more than four units on a basic lot that in fact that does that does revert a project to special permit or ZBA review. That could that could anything over four units could be a single family home plus a converted dwelling. It could be a number of duplex triplexes, or it could be multiple duplexes and reading through the memo from Christine and the sketch shows that that certainly just because it's a type of housing called the duplex. I think really what we are dealing with is, what is the, what is the opportunity of a site and what are the impacts of a site in in placing. I would say more than a couple of dwelling units on a property, and because you, when you, when you get to more than a couple of dwelling units on a property. You have a lot of other issues you have runoff you have parking, you have, you know, the amount of impervious surface. And you have, you have buffers from neighbors. And so just given the fact that we have, we have really delved into the realm of multiple principle uses. I think not that I don't love the planning board, but I think the, the opportunity for a site, a special permit review by, by the ZBA, I think just lends the scrutiny that is probably appropriate when we have multiple dwelling units on a property. So I really appreciate the planning board thinking about this, obviously this comes back to CRC for further discussion. But I really look to you for forgiving this kind of a thorough vetting of the issues that are that are raised by this. Thank you. Okay, thank you Pam. My hand has popped up. We have Dorothy Pam, another counselor. We can bring Dorothy over Dorothy you should be able to hear us and. Okay, can you hear me. Yes, we can. Welcome. I'm just going to speak as a resident of my neighborhood, and to point out that one of the biggest problems and affordable housing is the cost of construction. The condos that you referred to the March, March condos are indeed very lovely and they are really, really expensive. But the best thing that we've done for affordable housing in residential areas or in the town is the inclusionary zoning, because that does result in some affordable units in nice buildings. In ADU, the cost, the very few individual homeowners, at least certainly not, not we can afford to actually make use of the land that we have in an ADU, which I think I like the idea, but the cost of them is very, very high. So I think our future of affordable housing is things like ball lane where there is, we have to have public money. The federal government used to be the major financial of public housing in New York City, and of middle, middle income housing as well the Mitchell and the what's been happening in Amherst that is affordable is either town donated land or other money coming in and that is what the way we're going to have to go I guess it's a lot of work, but we're really making a good start. And we need to do a lot more, but the builders, their costs have really gone up, and they, their, their aim is profit. So they're not going to result, they build anything in wrenches for rents, certainly not for people low income and really, I think is Pat said we got a real problem with the missing middle. And that's a group of people that I think we need to really concern our stuff with. So we have to go after public money or use town land to try to build some of the more affordable houses, which I hope I hope we do that that's my comment. Okay, thank you, Dorothy. Pam Rooney I still see your hand is that a legacy or were you hoping to come back. Okay, it looks like it's gone. Okay, so board members, we're coming up on eight o'clock when we usually take a break. You know I guess I'll mention a couple of things that have kind of been drifting through my mind. One is, you know if we're not really enthused about this particular solution to provide more housing, not just affordable housing in Amherst. We really need to be prepared to work on coming up with us with our own proposal. And putting that forth for consideration. We can't just say no. The other thing is, you know this proposal has been fairly broad and in terms of the number of residential zones that it applies to. And so it does respond to at least one of the comments we got I think from Jennifer Taub at one point. Why should the RG district be the ones to take the brunt of all new development. Why shouldn't we distribute it more broadly among all the people in town. And at least my answer is that the most carbon friendly way to develop is to take the densest areas and make them more dense. It doesn't really, that's probably not a completely satisfactory answer to somebody like Jennifer or me who lives in the RG district. So, unless anybody else has any comments why don't we stop and we'll take a five minute break. The time now, according to my clock is 757. So why don't we all try to come back at 803 802 803. After a five minute break so please mute yourself and turn off your camera and then when you come back please turn on your camera. Thank you. All right, I have 803 on the clock here. And I'm seeing a couple people come back. I guess one other question I could pose would be. We talked enough about duplexes tonight and, you know, since we agreed we weren't going to go further into this proposal. How much longer do we want to talk about it this evening. Right. There's Bruce. Let's see if you'll be back soon. I'm back sorry. Not a problem your honor. Okay, the time is 804. And I'll repeat what I said earlier before everyone was back and that was just, is there more conversation about the duplexes that we want to have tonight. Since we kind of agreed to focus on those. So I think we're going to kind of stop here tonight and move on to duplexes and some of the other things at our next meeting. Bruce. I just wanted to reflection on over the break I think I, I think I want to say that I'm broadly supportive of the duplex. Questions with with the with the qualifications that I mentioned with the. Like the, the, the amendment that Chris has proposed in her member and the structure. Number one, number two, I like the that we should do something to prevent any some unintended consequence of rotating ownership through the use of LLC. Number three, I think that in the aquifer zone, there should be non fossil fuel. And buildings and in the non owner occupied. Again, I like the, the, the structure the way Chris has put it. And I would like to see some kind of identification of a student home and appropriate controls, based within the rate the rental by law subsequently I don't imagine that would happen in the first round but at some point. I think for those four caveats of conditions, whatever, providers. I could be supportive of the, of this section of the, what Mandy Joan path of proposing. I thought that might help folks, because I really didn't declare myself too much earlier but I thought it might be useful to do so. And I got Andrew and Janet so I expect that we necessarily continue deliberation on this because they both got a lot to say I'm sure. Okay, thank you Bruce. Is there anything anyone else would like to say from the board. You know, Hannah, and I do see I do also see one more public comment so john don't worry what we'll get to you. Go ahead. Thank you. And I'm sorry if I missed this at some point in the presentation, but do we have a sense of. I don't know just just how many units were talking about with the duplexes and how, you know. Yeah, how with this change do we have a sense of how much of an impact it would have across town. Okay, so, you know, did, I don't know whether you've seen some of the information that Chris forwarded from Janet. There was a an email I think that came to all of us this afternoon that had some numbers for AD use, which were approved back in November of 2021. And that there had been 11 AD use approved since then. But that was a 20% increase I don't know exactly how they calculated that. And the third bullet in that email said that they're that the cost of it, of one or two family house construction was in the 225 to $275 a square foot range. Okay, personally that strikes me as low because I've been hearing much higher numbers than that. But that may be coming from Rob more and the building inspectional folks who you know see the building applications, the building permits for, you know, one and two family home construction. So thought, Chris, do you have the numbers up available, there were some numbers we got from that had the number of duplexes in town. I'm wondering whether I should. Nate, Nate or Pam should have those. So we asked Rob more, let's let me get these time in sequence of time, Rob more said, the last report we did here, we showed 249 rental to family buildings. And he said he thought they were around 400 total with owner occupied with the owner occupied properties. But he wanted to get that confirmed. Okay, there it is. Yeah. And then there was another email from Kim Mew, who is our assessor. And I don't know if you have that one Pam. I do I just takes me a minute to get it. Thank you. Since I can't share my screen at all and hopeless. I admire you and your skills. There you go. Kim you said we have 342 family homes and 278 of those are classified as duplexes. They categorize things differently from the way the zoning bylaw does. And then she attached a whole long list of duplexes. And so I don't think that that would be terribly useful to you but the numbers here are interesting. The list has over 9000 dwelling units and Nate Maloy is here and if you want to ask any more particular questions about numbers of dwelling units he might have that information. He's our housing expert. Okay, thanks Chris. So, Johanna that doesn't tell you how many are likely to come. It just tells you what we have now. It's helpful to get a sense of the universe of duplexes in the context of our larger housing stock. And, okay. I think those are all the questions. Okay, you know, this is making me think that it's a nudge that could make an impact with relatively small environmental footprint, but that could just help expand housing in ways that, you know, kind of using existing structures in a way that could be beneficial. And it's not revolutionary I think we need other measures too. But I'm, I'm warming to the idea and I like some of the guardrails that Bruce is suggesting. Okay. So one other thought that I'd had was, you know, an inverse way to think about how would we double the number of houses, you know, in a neighborhood. Instead of doing duplexes we could take the minimum lot size and cut it in half. And say, you know, instead of 20,000 or 12,000 square feet now in the RG, you can do a 6,000 square foot lot. And that would keep parcels individually owned. They would still be single family homes. And but, you know, the cost of the land ownership would be cut in half so maybe they'd be more affordable. And they would that would allow more ownership, rather than rental. So, you know, Pat I don't know what you think about that I see your hand why don't you go ahead and comment. It's a interesting idea, but just think about it in a slightly different way reduce the lot size and build a duplex duplexes are less expensive. They're environmentally more sound because you're heating you have that common wall, and you have is generally smaller structure. So I like your idea but you need I would like you to push it into the realm of duplexes. Okay. All right, so why don't we go to our one public comment hand, john come on back and give us your next three minutes of commentary. Hello. Hello again john. Yeah well thank you for listening. I believe what's coming up and they're trying to work out zoning is for tiny houses to be put on people's lots. I believe it's part of this discussion is tiny houses slash trailer parks but I don't think we want trailer parks I think tiny houses a little bit were an upgrade from the traditional trailer. But I just hope that you do some of that I mean my my daughter has a tiny house we packed at the backyard and we move around and she wants to compost everything that you know, and obviously hooking up water in the winter and stuff is very difficult. But it can be done. So, I'm hoping that you know that I don't know whether tiny houses part of this is it. Is it part two or is it part of this or tiny houses are not explicitly mentioned in this proposal at the moment so I know that discussing it right. So, I don't know. I don't know of any discussion within the town boards or committees that are, you know, likely to result in any zoning changes. So, hold on Pat, let's let Tom, let's let john finish and then if you have a response you can respond them. Go ahead john what I heard that there was something going on and with respect to that. I believe at the town council level. Okay, well maybe maybe I'll be corrected. But anyway, but thank you for your time I guess that's you know, I mean the rest of it I mean you guys pretty not covered everything I guess. Thank you. Okay, thank you john. Pat, did you want to come in have there been. I would just say that the housing trust has had a presentation on tiny houses. And there are some members who would like to see that brought into Amherst, but there is no council action or anything like that going on. Okay, yeah. Great. Okay, we also have a couple more hands from the public Pam Rooney why don't you come on back. Thank you Pam Rooney 42 cottage street. I would love some clarification, particularly on the assessors numbers of dwelling units. And I think it's very confusing to all of us that we talk about roughly 342 family houses but only 278 of them are considered duplexes. And I just think that we need to really let's clarify our terminology. I would say if there are 342 family buildings and Amherst, I would consider them duplexes. Let's, let's just clean up our words. Same with with triflexes. You know, are they considered three family or they triflexes. It doesn't really matter you're talking about the number of units in a building the same with a converted dwelling if there are four units in a converted dwelling. Great. It's a lot of a four unit building and not get stuck on the word duplex or triflex or. Thank you. Okay, thank you Pam. I do remember that I think that Chris mentioned that the assessor has a different definition from the building inspector and the building code so they are probably not at liberty to change those definitions, because they operate within a larger regulatory environment. To my point of view the discrepancy is not particularly significant, because it gives me a sense both numbers give me a sense of the sort of order of magnitude of that type of dwelling in town. All right Jennifer tau you are next. Let's bring you over you've got three minutes. Jennifer. Can you hear me. Okay, I'm sorry. Jennifer tau 259 Lincoln Avenue. I'm speaking as a resident. And I did want to ask us sort of acknowledge that I had talked about concern about making the densest, the residential district that zone for the greatest density to concentrate further on the location there. So I'm assuming when you suggested cutting the lot requirement, it was for all districts, not just the RG, but I would argue that in the general residents district, you only need 12,000 square feet for the first dwelling. And, you know, 2,500 to 4,000, depending for the second dwelling so we are zoned for a great deal of density, I think to make it 6000. As actually the planning department mentioned at the last community resources committee meeting that people didn't move to Amherst because we wanted to live in northern Virginia or we you know wanted to live in Long Island we did live in Amherst to have some green areas and live in the, you know, in a, I on a small lot in the most densely populated residential zoning district in town, but to have it be cut in half, you know, at that point I should move to Somerville, frankly and have the amenities of a city. So I mean, I kind of just threw it out there but it's something to consider in the RG is you only need 12,000 square feet for a house. You need 20,000 in the residential neighborhood the RN districts which are a lot. neighborhoods in town. Why not make the RN districts 12,000 square feet like the RGs that I just throw it out there because that could give you many more houses. So that's it. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Jennifer. And Pam Rooney your hand is either still up or back up again. Okay, it's down now. All right. Okay, board members. Have you had enough conversation for this evening and you want to continue this to another meeting. Anybody have any thoughts. We've agreed we'll talk about triplexes and converted dwellings and the other parts of this proposal at a later time, Bruce. Doug, I'm not sure you're looking for a motion to continue or to move on to the conflicts conversation. Well, I didn't think we were likely to talk about triplexes tonight. That's good in that case. We were pretty clear it was duplexes. I think you're right. I did see some reference but it probably wasn't an official so that being the case I would move. The. We continue the hearing continue the hearing to. May 17 at six or what, 635 Chris. That is fine. Yep. I think that's fine. Let me ask Pam. Hold on one second. I just want to look. I do potentially have three other items, none of them which are have a specific time though Chris. So if you want to do 635. I think that's right. Are the other items likely to be relatively contained in the conversation and something we could cycle through and then get to this or. Two of them are pretty. Lightweight. One has to do with the tent at the Jones library. And one has to do with the shed at the survival center. So I think those are pretty lightweight. We also talked about talking about the lighting policy that Mandy Joe and Anna Devlin go here are developing. But we could reschedule that. And Janet wanted to bring the gza site assessment survey. To the planning board. And that was a possible night. For the site assessment survey. So I think it would be better to have this. First, and then maybe cut off. Discussion at, you know, seven 30 or eight o'clock and move on to other things after that. Okay. All right, so Bruce. We're working out your, your motion here. So may 17 at 635. And I'll go ahead and second that. I'm, I'm, I'm happy to continue the meeting. Board members, do you have any discussion you want to take before we. I guess. Vote to continue this hearing. I don't see any. Okay. So we have a motion on the table a second and we'll go through a vote. Bruce, do you vote to continue the hearing? I do. Okay. Tom. Yes. I'm a yes. Yohana. And Karen. Yes. Okay. Great. So Pat, thank you for joining us. This evening and sounds like if you would like to come back in two weeks, we'll be. Continuing the conversation. Thank you. All right. All right. The next item in our agenda. The time is 824 and we'll move to item four. And our agenda is old business items. Not, not anticipated 48 hours in advance. Do we have any Chris or Pam. No old business that I'm aware of. No. Okay. New business. Oh, I'm sorry. Karen, I see your hand. You need to unmute. Yeah. I didn't, I don't have old business. I wanted to speak to new business. Okay. So. We're at new business. Go ahead. New business. So I propose that the planning board invite to their meeting, not in the too far distance. The town manager. So that we can have a specific conversation with him. About the crisis. And I think we need to be more. More of a. Back and forth with the university about the housing crisis, because I feel the students are demonstrating for them. It's a crisis. I don't think this is something that we can just. Wait and, and fun funnels some of our information to Christine, who funnels it to the town manager who talks to the university. I think that's a very good thing. Our constituents have again and again pointed out that the housing crisis, which is caused by a too great a demand. For student housing in this small town, this small town, which is, you know, pretty vulnerable that that is of a major concern. And we should address it. So. Yeah. Let's invite the town manager. I think we need to have our questions and just have a back and forth. This is not any kind of an attack. This is just a brainstorming, seeing how we can. Open channels of conversation with the town. In a broader way than it's being done right now, because this is a. This is a crisis, which has to be addressed now, not also in the future, but also now. Okay. Chris, is that something you could talk with Paul about and see when his calendar, you know, when his schedule would allow him to come. Meet with us. Certainly I can do that. Yes. All right. So, Karen, you post that as a motion. Do you strongly feel we need a motion or are you okay with. Like we need to second it and vote on it or, or. No, no, no. Okay. So you're fine. You're fine with Chris. And we'll just get it on the, get it on the calendar. Okay. Good. Did you have anything else? Okay. All right. So I'll put down your hand. And okay. Did Chris or Pam, did you have any other new business not reasonably anticipated? Nope. Okay. Great. All right. So the time is eight 28. And do we have any form a and our subdivision applications? No, not tonight. All right. How about ZBA applications that we might be interested in. We do. There's actually. Two here, but I'm wondering if we have already talked about four 85 pine street. We told you about that. That's a. It's a dwelling that it's basically an illegal duplex that is. Coming to the ZBA. I'm not sure that there's a date. Scheduled for that Nate, you might be able to help me out if there is a date. But it's coming before the ZBA for a special permit to make it legal. Am I correct? Nate. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, it's not. You know, I'm not sure when it'll go before the ZBA, but. You know, it's a, it's right next to Cushman market. It's a larger structure. It had been used informally or haven't used as a two family was never permitted. So really it's a, it's a single family. It's a two family. It's a two family. It's a two family. It's a two family. It's a two family. It's a two family. It's a two family. All right, Pam, we're seeing the timer over some email. Yeah. That's not what I wanted to happen. I wanted to. I had tried to have. The GIS up so I could show you that it was next to Cushman, but I'm not being successful. House that's to the right as you look at Cushman. Okay. Yeah. So what aspects of that might be of interest to the planning board? Is it sort of about what makes a duplex and. You know, in light of the zoning application or the zoning bylaw. We're considering. I'm not sure that it would be of special interest to the, to the planning board. However, it is coming before the ZBA. So we tell you about all of them. But I'm not sure that it would be of special interest to the planning board. In case you, in case you want to. All right, Bruce, I see your hand. Yes, I live up in this part of town. I know this building well. It's always a peculiar thing. And my experience and imagination is that the zoning board are very well-practiced in handling duplex conversations. And I don't think there's anything that. From the neighborhoods point of view anyway, that anybody here is. Okay. Okay. Okay. Sam, what other projects were there? You said there were three. Sure. No, two. Two. And the other one that I am aware of is that 408 North Hampton road. Which has an existing special permit. So that's Aspen Heights. If you're familiar with Aspen Heights. So it's an apartment building with 88 units. 11 of those are affordable. And I said, it already has a special permit. And they're coming back to the ZBA. They're looking to update some of their conditions. Specifically, they want to take some Siberian spruce trees down that are part of the landscape plan. Without the requirement of having to replace them. They also in their 2019 special permit, they have a condition that they need to run a shuttle service. Year round to UMass. And so they are proposing to change that to only run the shuttle service to UMass. During the regular academic year. So there would be no shuttle service to UMass during summer, spring. Or winter breaks. Um, and then the last one that I am aware of, there's a condition saying that they need to have 24 hours security guard. Um, and they are proposing that they would not have. A live in security guard, but that instead there would be a hotline number that all the residents would be given the phone number. Um, so after the business hours. So when the regular business office is closed, all the residents would need to call. Um, this special hotline number for support. Okay. So again, if you have anything to add, please, please do. Right. Any of those sound intriguing board members. Okay. I'm not seeing any. Expressions of interest. Okay. So we'll pass on that. Okay. Time is eight 33. Item eight on our agenda. Do we have any SPP, SPR, SUB applications coming? I'm aware of two and Nate might be aware of more than that. Auto zone is coming. And they're putting solar panels on their roof. And they also want to put solar panels on their side yard. So that's going to be coming. And then, um, Vista Terrace, which is a cluster subdivision in South Amherst, a homeowner there wants to, um, build a pergola and also has put in a shed. So she's coming to have site plan review because that development is a cluster subdivision and had to get a site plan review approval. And those are the two that I can remember. So anything else, Nate? Uh, ever source. Oh, ever source. Yeah. Coming for changes to the substation down on college street. So they're, they're going to be putting in switch gear, a new switch gear, which is really, it looks like a, almost like, you know, like those pod storage units. Uh, it's a pretty large. Uh, enclosed structure. Um, to the, if you're looking at the building to the right of it in front of where they already have, you know, the transformers and, um, um, capacitors and so that they have an application in. So I think those three are the three that the two Chris mentioned and never source are something that would be coming up in the next. You know, month or so. Okay. Great. All right. Planning, uh, board committee and liaison reports. Bruce PVPC. Nothing to report. All right. Uh, Andrew is not here to tell us about CPAC. Tom, anything on DRB? Yeah, we had some, um, some signage for, uh, a glass shop that is kind of around back. Uh, I'm trying to think it's on North Pleasant 96 North Pleasant and some updating signs, which is pretty simple. And there's a new, uh, blue mango dessert cafe that's coming in, um, next to where Bart's was where the. Where coronation cafe coronation. Yeah. And so we looked at some signs and gave some recommendations and they're coming back with some updates, um, they're coming meeting, but otherwise just some small things like that. Okay. Thank you. Janet is absent, uh, which for solar bylaw. Uh, Chris, anything, uh, anything you would add from your participation? I know you mentioned the Z, the GZA. Uh, solar siting survey. We're making our way through the solar bylaw slowly and we have, um, things that we're discussing like setbacks and, um, what do we do if forest is clear? Do we require that. Um, we do require that mitigation be provided elsewhere and different things like that. Um, so. One of these days we'll have to bring our draft to the planning board and get your thoughts about it. Um, the siting survey is going to be presented to, I think it's coming out, um, in the next couple of weeks and the report will be out with the, um, the GZ is working with, um, GZA to prepare a map that has, um, interactive features. So we're hoping that we'll be able to show on this map, the map, the GZA map shows where is it feasible to put solar in town and we're hoping to add to it features like, um, how does that relate to where we have prime farmland and things like that. So we're hoping that we'll be able to show on this map, um, how does that relate to where we have prime farmland and danger of being overcome with solar rays, things. Yeah, that type of thing. So yeah, stay tuned. Great. Great. And then CRC, Chris. And CRC is considering the zoning bylaw that you, the zoning amendment that you reviewed tonight. Um, I can't remember when they're considering it again, but I don't think they're going to make a decision until after the planning board has made a recommendation that's been their pattern. I think what, if they close their public hearing and, and make a recommendation, uh, too soon, then they get into a problem of having to have, um, a second public hearing. So I think they'll wait until you make a recommendation. Okay. Okay. Uh, so that's the planning. That's the committee and liaison reports, but I don't have a report of chair. I really don't have a report this evening. Um, Chris, do you have any report of staff? Um, my only report is that I'll be away for a while starting in late May. And, um, the planning board has a tentative meeting set for May 31st. And I, I guess that's a third meeting of the month. So I would recommend that you cancel that one unless something comes up that we're absolutely in dire need for it. And then for the, um, seventh of June, that would be handled by Nate and Pam if that meeting is needed. And you'd be in good hands with Nate and Pam. They did this last year when I was away. So. All right. Yeah. That's it. That's all I have to report. Thank you. All right. Time is eight 39. Does anybody have anything else they'd like to say this evening? Otherwise we can adjourn. All right. Thank you all. So. So the homework is to review the rest of the. The, uh, Bylaw proposal so we can talk about the rest of it and all of it. Thank you. All right. Good night. Thank you, Doug. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Pam. Bye. Goodbye. Thank you. And. Good night.