Planning Board Aug 5, 2026

You're muted, of course. >> Looks like a nice office, Roy. >> Roy, you are muted. >> Okay, Mr. >> Roy had some trouble getting unmuted once before, didn't he? Did Dory, do I recall correctly? >> Does he know the space bar technique? Yeah. Now we've got two windows for Roy. >> Oh boy. >> I suspect that's Roy. >> Now I've got three. No, I've got two windows. >> Two windows. >> Roy, can you turn your camera off for a second and I might be able to figure out which one of those you're using? And which one? >> Yeah, we have two windows for you, Roy, at the moment. >> Okay, now there's one. Okay. All right. Fingers crossed. I'm going to try and ask this one to leave us alone. >> Can you hear me now? >> Oh, we could hear you with all that reverb. You're getting a lot of >> Well, the reverb is because you've got feedback from having two uh um >> yeah, >> two two systems operating in the same room. >> I'm going to remove this one. Oh gosh, I hardly dare. But here we go. Remove. >> That's fine. >> Don't report. Okay, Roy, can you hear us? Can you hear me? Can you see us? Can you unmute? >> I'm asking him to if he can hear us to nod his head. >> He He can. >> Okay. >> How's that? >> That's good, Ryan. >> That's good. >> Sorry about that. I'm still figuring out this technology. I tried to open up another screen and didn't work. So, >> no, it'll never work. >> I get it now. >> Yeah, it's it seems to work best with just one. >> Okay. Uh Pam, are we good to go? >> We are good to go. Let's see. We have attendees coming. We have Amoris Media with us. And you have a quorum of the board. Yes, we're good to go. >> All right. Okay. Hey, welcome to the Emers Planning Board meeting of of August 5th, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Emers Planning Board, I'm calling this meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live streamed via EMIST Media and minutes are being taken. During the planning board's public hearing for zoning bylaw, article 18, clean energy infrastructure, some members of the community resource committee of the town council, may be available to join the discussion. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023, and further extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2025. This meeting will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic hardship or despite our 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's website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When when you hear your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and return to mute. Bruce Thank you, Bruce. Brett Hartwell >> present. >> Thank you. Jesse Major is will be absent this evening. I Doug Marshall and present. Angus Mloud is also absent this evening. Roy Johnson >> present. >> Thank you Roy. And Jar Smith will be with us uh as soon as he is able. Uh it should be just in a few minutes. Um we have four members of our seven member board a uh present which is a quorum. So we will proceed during the meeting. If technical issues arise and 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 and I will call on you to speak. After speaking remember to remmute yourself. To the general public, please indicate you wish to make a public comment by clicking the raise hand button when solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star9 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. Residents can express 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. All right, first item on our agenda is the public comment period. Uh the time is 6:40 and um I will say that the public comments are now solicited uh for items that do not appear later on tonight's agenda. So, if you're have a comment about the East Air historic district or a comment about the clean energy bylaw or uh anything else that appears later on the dis on our agenda, this is not the time to make that comment. So, members of the public, if you want to make a comment at this time, please raise your hand. This is also the time when I usually read the names of the public attendees that I can see. uh just so everybody knows who else is in the virtual room. So uh while I'm reading, please raise your hand if you want to make a public comment. I see Andy Churchill, Elizabeth Sharp, uh just Greenbomb, uh Hetty Startup, Jennifer Ta, Ken Rosenthal, Mora Keane, Samuel Bedri, Steve Bloom, and Tom Reedi. And I'm well aware that several of those people are uh here to be brought in as participants or panel members when we uh talk about later items on the agenda. All right. So I don't see anyone raising their hand at this point. So I will I'm now concluding that no one want no one wants to make a public comment about anything that's not on tonight's agenda later. All right. So time now is 6:42 and we'll go to the next item on the agenda. This is uh the East Ammerst local historic district proposal review proposed revisions for the East Ammerst Historic District. So, Pam, could we bring over the uh I think at least uh the chair of the the commission and um anybody else that you're aware of needs to be part of this conversation. >> Definitely definitely Steve Bloom and I think Steve >> I think Elizabeth Sharp and maybe Hed or maybe not Hetty. So, I see Elizabeth Sharpened and Steve had raised their hands. So, may maybe bring over Elizabeth, too. >> She's been invited. Let's see. Here she comes. Mhm. >> Uh Steve, I see your hand. I will I'd ask you to turn on your video if you have any. >> Um I don't know how to Oh, here it is. Sorry. >> And welcome, Elizabeth. There I am. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So, welcome uh to our meeting and I I guess I'd like to know would you like to make a presentation of any sort of uh you know of the proposal or and introduce the topic? >> Yes, I would if I could please. >> Okay. So, Walker, if it's possible, is any way to put up the list of the core properties in the map? >> Yeah, give me just a sec. I can share my screen. >> Thanks. >> Yeah, thanks for um putting us first. I have a lot uh respect for you guys after listening to the last two meetings. Um uh you um my hats off to you. Um anyway, I'm going to assume I wrote a statement uh that's pretty long and I'm going to assume that you guys have read it so I don't have to like go through it. Um you know the b the most of it was you know kind of addressing Mr. Smith's memo um >> kind of questioning you know um LHD's in uh as a concept but I don't want to go there. I just want to deal with you know what we've done. So, I'm just going to limit myself to the last part of um my statement, which I would like to to read. So, anyway, um in retrospect, as the planning board correctly pointed out, the original boundaries of the proposed East Amher LHD were probably an overreach. Many of the properties, though among the oldest in town, have been altered beyond recognition and at this juncture are irredeemable. In our defense, as with the other two LHDs in Amherst, the commission was guided by the boundaries of the already existing national registry registered district, which is a significant but mostly honorific designation. And in fact, it was Tom staff who advocated for the LHD to include a few more properties along the perimeter of the National Register District. The proposed LH East Amherst LHD is a different kettle of fish than the other two LHDs in Amherst. Both the Dickinson and North Prospect Lincoln Sunset LHDs were initiated by the residents of the district. It was bottom up, so to speak. While this one is top down, this is not a case of nimism. None of the commission members live within the live within or have any interest in the proposed LHD. The study was initiated at the suggestion of the town manager who expressed concerns about the increasing vulnerability of Amherst's oldest and most historic existing structures. This was not an endeavor which the LHD commission sought, but one which it undertook somewhat trepidaciously. It is the culmination of three years of research and deliberation. Listening to the planning board's concerns, we've narrowed the um the proposed LHD down from 55 properties to a core group of 22, not including the East Amherst Commons, which is owned by the town. Walker, can we actually see the map? That'd probably be more. >> Yeah. >> I just see the list of the properties. Okay. Thanks. >> Um except for one property, the East Street School, which was erected in 1894. The properties selected date them before the Civil War for date all the way back to the 1700s before the country even existed. They exhibit contemporaneously uh architectural styles to one another and possess great historic significance. The selected properties are close together, most of them situated along a single intersection um and comprise a compressed area. If you look at the map uh you know it speaks for itself. The um the blue on the on the outside is what we originally proposed. The blue colored lots are what we're proposing now. Uh we've excluded non-conforming properties and open spaces as much as possible, particularly the empty lot on the northeastern corner of Northeast and Main Streets for future modern development. I don't know if you can identify that big lot. Um Walker, there you go. That's it. Okay. We feel this is a good and fair compromise which serves the best interest of the town we all share and love. While we don't need the planning board's stamp of approval to proceed, we believe securing it will set an excellent example of how governance should function. Before closing, I'd like to add that there's a lot of talk these days about destination Amherst. We contend that a town's history and historic character matter, especially the character of a town's core. Because of its association with Emily Dickinson and Amherst College, Amherst is lucky enough to have a nationally and internationally known brand. History is a major part of our brand and appeal. Character, charm, and uniqueness. The cool factor attracts prospective residents and visitors alike. An LHD dedicated to preserving and protesting our historic legacy at such an important location, the gateway to our brand new elementary school is very much in the economic interest of Amherst. This is not a wide swath of properties, but a small pocket, surely not an impediment to townwide growth. Again, it's the oldest part of Amherst. Life will go on if the proposed LHD, modest and old as it is, is not ultimately approved. But the character and fabric of our town will be irreversibly diminished. Our living and ever evolving history is what makes this place this place and not like every other place. So anyway, we did, you know, some of these property, you know, um we limited it to like properties that are in good shape that haven't and haven't been significantly altered. every single property that we've selected um is is historically significant and or architecturally um very significant. So we you know we've listened to you guys and um and we think this is a very fair and reasonable um proposal which is in the best interest of the town. Thanks. >> All right. Thanks Steve. Um Elizabeth, was there anything you wanted to say? By the way, I'll mention that Jerus has now joined the meeting. He he meant he joined at 6:47. >> Yes. Um I would like uh to speak. What I'd like to do is make four uh small points uh about why this region is why this section of town is significant and why it should be uh preserved in this way. So, um, the fact that the East Amoris historic this area is still intact and looks the way it does is pretty remarkable and it's unusual uh, for most towns. It so it should be celebrated and embraced. Now, two of the buildings uh, were built before Ammerst was even Ammerst. So, that's 1754 and 58 and they should be definitely considered part of this district. Um this as as as um Steve said it's the first village settlement, the first post office and it's a a town common which still exists in its original shape. Um so a second point is that the what is now the Jewish Community Center uh was the second congregational church. When the church was first built, it was um oh uh Steve is telling me I should identify myself as a historian both in training and in practice. Um that when it was first when when the second congregational church was established, it was the patriot church. It was a breakoff from the church in the west the on the west common that these which held most of the loyalists in town. So 1784 that was the patriot church and among them was Ebenezer Matun Jr. and uh who had fought in the revolution. So this is the third point. This is uh where really in in effect where she's rebellion was hatched. I think of it as uh as close to the room where it happened as as we could possibly get. And so what happened is that when Shaes and some of his compatriots came down the hill from Pelum and met at a tavern which no longer exists, which was about where Fort River School is, that's where they were hatching it. And Ebenezer Matune was among them. And his house is still intact. It looks very much like it did. And that is also on the East Common. So in Amoris 113 men um took had to take the oath of allegiance to the United States because they were involved in this. So Amoris was really one of the biggest players in this and just by comparison Northampton had no one. So and uh fourth uh thing I will add is that the layer of um industry in Ammerst um coming in the early 19th century is really sort of laid right on top of it and in between the the various sites of it. And so I think that's kind of remarkable that um in this time period that some of these um still exist. So um so to repeat sort of what Steve said, some of the house forms um are original. They're still there. They're on their same sites. And this is very unusual and we should celebrate it as all these different things happened right here. And I think it's pretty easy to create a a small historic district around them because the properties are still in such good shape. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Uh board members, um let's see, Steve, your hand is up again. >> Yeah, Elizabeth is I just wanted to mention who Elizabeth is. Elizabeth is the co-head of historic Northampton, a trained historian, the author of an acclaimed book on the um Mil River uh flood and also literally the author of the book Amherst A to Z. So I I just wanted to put that to mention that. Thank you. >> Sure. All right. Um well, let's see. Uh Bucker, was it was it back in the spring that we uh deliberated about the first proposal? >> Yes, it has been a bit. I think it April maybe. >> Okay. And so we've we've had uh one member leave the board and we've had one new member uh join it since that discussion. Uh, Bruce, >> I guess I should identify myself as also being a member of the historic district, local historic district commission and uh and I was not present uh at that April uh meeting though I have um I have I have looked at the recording uh of the meeting so I I know what happened uh and how what the discussion was and so forth. Um uh mostly I just wanted to do that. I so I've been a part of the uh thought process that Steve mentioned for the past for the the three or so years um that this has been uh incubating. Um I was disappointed that I wasn't part of able to be part of the conversation because I was in Europe. Um but actually um I think uh that it was possibly just as well that I wasn't part of it because I think the trajectory of uh has has gone uh has gone well both with what the uh the the the outwash of the earlier board deliberation and the response and the reaction from the local historic district commission. I think this is a a good sound solution. My sense is that um well no I'll I'll say it differently. I would be hopeful that um that Angus particularly um would be supportive of this but he's of course not able to be attending being a new father and so forth. Um, we might consider, this is not a move to do so, but we might consider um continuing this so that we could get um um >> a unanimous vote of the board on this. I think that would be um for the benefit of this pro this uh project. Um that's something that we could bear in mind. But maybe I should hear from Jara on that because you were there, Jar, and you've had thoughts on this as well. But I this seems to be a um one of those times when um uh deliberation, collaboration, referral, and so forth has uh has yielded a better project, a better product. That's it for me. >> Yes, Bruce. Um, I did want to say um that we we the plan for this evening was to have this topic in discussion until uh 7:15 at which point we would uh if we needed to um continue the discussion at a at a later meeting. Um, and particularly with Angus' absence, I think that would probably be a good uh polic or a good uh practice anyway. Um, and um I guess Walker, I would you be able to say shrink the view a little bit down to maybe 50%. >> Yeah. Okay. So, it doesn't really >> Let's see. It doesn't show the proximity to uh Belchuretown Road and College A, which are just off >> which Yeah. >> Yeah. Just off the bottom of the of this map. >> Yeah. I don't think there's really going to be any overlap though between this and the East Ammerst zoning study. >> Uhhuh. Okay. Um Jared, you've got your hand up. >> Great. Thanks, Doug. Uh, and I really want to thank the local historic district for um coming back with this this uh alternative proposal. It's very clear you listen to our feedback and um I just I genuinely really appreciate it. So, thank you. Um, I think that uh uh what I've been doing some reflecting on on this partic in particular and I' I've been thinking about why this really piqued my interest. Um, and so I kind of want to just like enlighten everyone who's listening on on why this particular issue was a sticking point for me. Uh, and it's because it's really, really hard to raise a family right now, um, financially, particularly in Ammerst. And, uh, I'm only able to do that because of an extraordinary amount of privilege. And so, it is my prerogative as a member of this planning board to make it easier for people who are not as privileged as myself to be able to sink their roots here and grow a family here. Um, these regulations relating to local historic districts invariably add a layer of time and review. I'm not saying that it's a good or a bad thing off the bat right there, but they add those things that make it more challenging to redevelop properties. It makes it more expensive to redevelop them, so they're less likely to be affordable, especially because nonprofits like the ones that I work with are less likely to go after riskier projects like that. And so when I saw this, I became frustrated because I felt like uh the people that I my peers are not being represented in this particular policy. And I know that that's not the purpose of this policy, but that's why I'm just trying to help help illuminate my perspective for you all. And it's just that there are there is so much evidence of how challenging it is to rent a home, to buy a home, how we need more homes for all incomes everywhere right now. And for us to prioritize adopting a regulation that makes it more challenging for people to access a life here in Ammerst feels counterintuitive to what we should be doing right now. That said, I obviously see the merit of a local uh historic district. I actually maybe it's not obvious. I want to make that statement very clear and obvious. Um I do wonder though and I would love uh to help for you to help me understand like why this particular policy and why now. Um because one of the thoughts that I have is what if I'm I'm glad that we're already having this conversation about postponing because of of Angus. Um, but I'm wondering if we could wait to revisit this until after the East Ammerst study because I think that that will help inform the the merit and the validity of this own this proposal as well. And that way we're kind of thinking both about the supply challenges and what opportunities are available for East Ammerst in the village center area, but we also have this additional policy to protect the East Ammerst historic core in our back pocket that we can pass simultaneously because really it's it's a it's I I I really I'm I'm really it it uh I I don't mean this with with judgment, but it's a little tonedeaf when we prioritize something that makes it harder to build your life here over an abundance of other options for things that we can do to make life easier for people here. So, I think I really appreciate the restraint that the committee uh showed with this renewed um proposal. I I I really appreciate it. I really think it's a a great um uh proposal, but I do wonder if the committee would be open to waiting until e after the east dammer study. And I would I would ask that you help me also understand the urgency of this and why to prioritize this. And I ask that with genuine curiosity, not in any way with judgment. So, thank you. >> All right. Thanks, Tara. Um, Steve, >> yeah, with all due respect, 22 properties is not going to stop anyone from moving here. In fact, preserving the character is going to get people to want to move here because this place has some character. And, you know, I >> You're telling me you didn't listen to me at all. You're just like completely negating everything that I just said. No, no, no. >> So, you're just telling me that you didn't listen to me once. >> No. First of all, you need You're right. This I'm sorry, Mr. Smith. >> Please let me wait until you were finished. No, I I feel like I listened to you very closely. Actually, uh your main point was that LHDs prevent, you know, affordable housing. That's and that we're tonedeaf. And uh I don't think we're tonedeaf and I don't think we're preventing affordable housing. All you know most of these most of these structures are actually not residential and uh or a lot of them aren't and we're not pre all we're trying to do is we're not trying to prevent infill adu is by right anything that can't be seen from the public way can be erected like that big lot which I didn't realize um uh was such a big one uh I I wish I could point to it um you know none of uh I don't and in terms of making it more difficult and you know I read your memo about how it you know it's it's a burden on the town and I just honestly when I read it I was rolling my eyes because I didn't understand what you were talking about. We have one staff person we meet once a month and you know the only material that we ever weighed in on was vinyl siding. So all the stuff that you were saying when I was reading it I I honestly didn't know what I I didn't know what you were referring to. And um like I said, this is not going to inhibit in infill. It's just going to preserve some historic buildings. That's all our concern is. Like I said, this is not a you know, I've read things in the Amherst Current that this is like another homeowners association. No, it isn't. None of us live there. Uh this was something that we were asked to do and you know, we're doing it to the best of our ability. We've listened to you. We've reduced it as much as possible. Um, so you know, I don't I when I hear this that it's like pre, you know, creating impediments for people moving here, you know, I I am honestly at a loss. Okay, now you can respond. >> Okay, thank you, Steve. Uh, the next hand I see is from Bruce. >> Um, I think Jarro, there's simply no evidence to suggest uh to support your argument. Um, so I would say that you're you're case is based on an assertion. Um, I've been on the district commission now for almost 8 years. I mean, um, almost an obscenely long time, and I'd be happy to get off, but it requires an architectural presence or someone with an architectural background. And those people with that uh, background are thin on the ground. And so that's why I've stayed. But in that 8-year period, I've I've seen a I've been a lot of uh hearings. And uh Steve's right. this precious little uh um expensive advocacy that we've uh um that that we've perpetrated. The press the the the maintenance of existing wood clabards over vinyl siding is probably the single um uh regulatory act that we've uh or single act with within our our purview that we've pushed. So uh but it's not just on our uh the experience of our own uh um operations over the past years. this this um there are studies and so forth that have been made uh of these districts by others across the state um don't show that there is a significant concern in terms of their inhibitions to what you're talking about helping people make their home there just doesn't seem to be a a connection a serious solid um consequential connection between those two uh concerns. So, I mean, I'd be happy to be uh um persuaded on the basis of uh data otherwise, but at the moment, this there's no evidence to support your what you're saying, >> Bruce. Bruce, um I guess I have a question for you. Um, I have a vague memory that there was a project maybe off of Fairing Street that was proposed and the local historic district commission rejected it. Um, I've heard that it may have been architecturally too big for the neighborhood and had some undesirable characteristics anyway, but is it true that that that project was essentially denied by the commission? >> Uh, no, it's not true that it was denied, Doug, but it is true that the commission uh expressed strong uh concerns about it and and I believe it was withdrawn. The concerns were that this site was being developed with uh multiple housing and what was what was um consequent was that we had a parking area that I think held about 20 vehicles and that uh that caused us to be concerned about parking structures and and that in turn caused us to be concerned about whether the commission had the power to uh consider the parking areas or structure, not structures cuz that would be a thing. It it it expanded our our um analysis of what we were empowered to um use as a basis for denial of a certificate of appropriateness. So that certainly came up in discussion. Um but this project was I believe withdrawn and I think it might have had trouble with other regulatory bodies but of course it never came to that. >> Okay. All right. >> Steve may have uh I'm not sure whether Steve was there when that was on but if he he may have something to say on that too. >> Right. >> But that's that's that's my recollection of the situation. And it was somewhat complicated and it's the only it's the only project in the 8 years of my uh uh experience that went that way. We had a similar uh strong uh reaction negative reaction to the original proposal for the um AmIst Media and that resulted in them coming back with a far more appropriate structure. So I think we had a net benefit there and uh we've certainly had a a strenuous engagement with the housing on sunset and fairing but that always was uh headed in a good direction and we engaged and I think uh um made it u a little better. Um, and also the other thing that the district commission does is in some respects is give people a first opportunity to voice uh opinions that are typically well beyond our peer view and so forth. But we don't we don't uh we don't discourage or we don't stop folks from saying expressing concerns about all sorts of other issues that are well outside our domain. It's a it's a it's an it's an opening of of the uh sequence of conversations around land use. >> Right. Okay. So, I mean I I brought that Fearing Street project up just because um it was it it my I hadn't realized it was withdrawn before the commission actually issued or denied a certificate of appropriation. >> I think it was. I'm working on my memory. Be clear about that. >> That's fine. It doesn't really matter. But it but it was a it was an instance where sort of the the absolute power let's say of the district commission has in areas that are designated as such. Uh was was evident. Um, and so, you know, I think that's the the thing that gives me pause is that, um, you know, we never hear about the projects that don't actually get proposed because no, the the the people that might propose them don't want to uh have to run the gauntlet of with a entity that's got absolute power over whether it goes forward or not. So, I' I've always just found it um you know, I I think I said back in April when we had the first conversation that I'd like to have a sense of where in Ammerst should we have historic districts because, you know, the next one I would probably do is the one on the on the common for all those brick buildings that everyone loves and you see in the real estate listings um for downtown Ammerst. Um, you know, those buildings, what what if somebody proposed replacing one of those buildings? Um, so I I just feel like we need to kind of be cautious about adding property to historic districts in town. And so I was at best sort of lukewarm about this. Um, and maybe not as vocal in as Jara and Angus were. Um, and then Johanna, you know, I think she was kind of skeptical, too, but she's no longer on the board. So anyway, that those are that you know it it's that absolute power that is is of concern to me and without a whole lot of kind of bylaw design guideline, you know, guidance for somebody to know whether they have a good shot at getting through it or not. Go ahead, Steve. >> Yeah, I uh I don't even know where to start. Um, in fact, I'm sort of in and in terms of that project on fearing, all we did was we did our job just like you're doing your job. You everything that comes to you right away, you don't approve. The people that submitted that plan, we gave them our comments and they had every opportunity to come back with another plan. That's what we're here for. That's what we do. Your comments seem to question, once again, like Mr. Smith's memo, the very, you know, validity of a local historic district. And my experience with you, you seem like a very decent person, but my your philosophy personally to me seems to be if you've seen one old building, you seen them all, and there's absolutely no utility. So, it it really bothers me. I've tried to get a local historic district downtown. Okay? I worked with the town. There's no way that would ever happen. So, your comments, I find, to be very disingenuous. And this is the oldest part of town. So I don't understand what is more worthy of preservation than this. These buildings are from the 1700s. You know, to me, this whole thing is just so distressing. I grew up in the suburbs and we had no history there. Okay? So that's why when I moved here, this really means a lot to me. Uh because it's so unique and I think we all take it for granted. But don't criticize us for doing our job. those people on fairing could have come back. There was another project on fairing which I was before my time that is like I don't know like 20 or 30 build you know um you know uh structures now that you know the the LHD worked in good conscience with Mr. Roberts the developer and they came up with something that everyone likes. No one there's no complaints. No complaints by the residents, no complaints by the developer. Joel Greenbomb came in on with a property on Mlen. The property was 200 years old. We judged that it was not historically significant or historically significant. It was in bad shape and we gave him right away a certificate to demolish it. Okay. So we we do use our it's not blanket. And then he put up a house that everyone likes. No one complains about it. And now he's putting up an ADU. We're not we're not we're not inhibiting development, which is what you guys seem to think. We're trying to preserve the character of this town, and they're two very different things. >> All right. Thank you, Steve. >> All right. Um, I see three hands in the public. I'd like to let them speak uh with uh apologies to the members of CRC that are waiting in the in the room outside. Um, so we will we'll get the public comment on this topic now and then we will end this conversation and go on to our clean energy bylaw. We will continue discussing this at a future meeting. All right. Um we'll start with uh Ken Rosenthal um and we'll give him three minutes. Thank you, Pam. >> Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. >> Hello, Ken. >> I'm Ken Rosenthal. I live on Sunset Avenue. I live in a local historic district and years ago I lived on Northeast Street close to the wonderful old houses that are part of the proposed district which I fully support. I've submitted my statement in writing and I trust you've all read it. So I just want to add a little bit to it here. Too few people realize that East Ammerst is really early Ammerst, where the Ammeris community flourished, lived, and worked and prayed before it was severed from Hadley in 1759. It must be identified as such, recognized, not frozen and preserved in ice because an LHD does not freeze change as my Sunset Avenue neighbors and I can testify, but recognized and well-managed as Ammeris LHDs are. Though I hope if you haven't read my statement, you will read it and I hope you will vote to approve this recommendation. Thank you again, Mr. Marshall, for the opportunity to speak. >> Thank you, Ken. All right. Pam, can we bring over Samuel Bedri? And you'll need to restart the uh timer. >> Hi. Uh >> Samuel, please give us uh your street address and you have three minutes. >> Um so um I'm from uh Hampshire College. I'm here to do the um finish the teach out, but I was here 12 years ago. I did my div two, but I wasn't at a stage in my life where I could finish my div three and uh here I am to um come here. So, you know, I just had to jump in. Um I I'm really talking about the other um uh item that you're going to get to, but I I just feel like I had to try to um diffuse the tension in the room because I feel like I I sort of understand both sides, but I I very much am in Steve um Steve's camp. Um you know, in Cincinnati, we have not a French quarter, but we have a German quarter. and from all the German immigrants that left before uh when Ger Germany was unifying and um it's all we have. And uh when I graduated high school, we knocked down most of them um in in saving them. Um and I guess what I would just say is, you know, if you're going to build new housing, I I just don't understand for the life of me why the housing that exists isn't um the deferred maintenance isn't done. I mean, if if all the deferred maintenance is done on the existing housing, then it makes sense to build new. Um, but but furthermore, just not not not to uh make Mr. Smith feel like he's I I understand why he's making the point. Um, but down on Southeast Street, which uh the way you guys feel about buildings, sorry about the noise, um I feel about land um and that where where the school is. I mean, that's so interesting that that's where um Sha's Rebellion was. And but if you go a little bit down further on um Southeast Street, that's truly where most of the housing is. And you know, if you're going to put a new thing, put it down there or fix those first so that you know, and and put a sidewalk or, you know, or an extra bus stop. You know, that I know there'll be another study, but you know, I just wanted to say there's no reason why everyone can't win here. I mean, the the town definitely has to be given the historic district. I mean, there's there's it would be foolish to do anything else. Um, but fix the buildings. Um, and then when you do need to build the new buildings, well, I I don't want to talk about the elephant in the room with Hampshire, but I mean, that's the real opportunity. And and and and if you go with the town's design team, they're going to, you know, I've seen how it goes in Cincinnati. They're going to leave you an asset that uh they're going to make off with the money. They're going to leave you an asset within, you know, 15 years will be um a burden uh to maintain. Uh, you know, I' I've heard just anecdotally, you know, seniors want not, you know, not tiny tiny homes, but they want smaller homes to uh move into that are, you know, climate controlled, warm the winter, cool in the summer, and then people want triple deckers, like the old school triple deckers where, you know, you can have, I don't know, siblings all living together. Anyway, so I'm gonna I'm going to relinquish the rest of my time, but I I don't think everyone has to be uh, you know, we don't have to be in conflict. I I think there's a way to work this out for everyone. Um, sorry. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Samuel. All right, Pam, can you move Ken and Samuel back to the attendees? And then uh the next person would be Petty Startup. >> Hello, Doug. Can you hear me? >> Hello, we can hear you. >> Okay, great. Sam, >> your street address is >> um my street address is North Pleasant Street in North Amist. Um I just stepped down from a second term on the Amist historical commission. I am an architectural historian by training. Um and I'm I'm very much in favor of Amos being a place where families can live. I God, I hear you. Um it really concerns me. And it's not just Amos that's having this problem. It's all over the valley. Um, so but I but I also like Samuel who just spoke think that we can have both. We can be an and a a both and community in Ammerst. We can have affordable housing. I know the town has been working to develop some with the East Street School. and we can have we can have our history preserved. It's not everybody's history um now that some of the buildings have been removed from the initial proposal, but it's it's a really important part of our history, especially this year in the year of the 250th anniversary of the country. Um, you know, Betty mentioned Sha's rebellion and that's that's Western Mass. That's that's the little guys, you know, stepping up and saying we want our rights. We we want representation. We're struggling to pay for things with no paper money, you know, and no one's listening to us. So there are lots of voices in this town that need representing and Steve Bloom is right. We are all the committees and commissions are doing their job to take care of Ammerst and make it as inclusive and representative for as many of us as it possibly can. Um it it was very interesting to me with the demo delay process on the Amis Historical Commission that we were often being asked to let small single family homes get demolished. Um, so the fact that there are still a few of them that came before us that wanted to be demolished that have survived is is testament to us doing our work and for people maybe reconsidering and realizing that they can work with a historic structure um and go forward from there. So I'll finish there, Doug. I know this is going to be continued, so I'll just um finish um right now and and let the other people have the floor. Thanks. >> Thank you, HDI. All right, Pam, our last hand is for Andrew Churchill. And if we could bring Andy in. And uh Andy uh you'll have three minutes. Uh and let us know if you're speaking as a counselor or as a private citizen. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, I I guess I'm speaking as a counselor, but it's hard to separate the two, but um I I guess I have I appreciate the the focusing of the historic district that I did go and actually drive around and look at um at the properties and um you know, a lot of them make sense to me. Um there are some beautiful uh places uh in that in that area that the the old uh whatever that building is on the corner that looks very old and and looks worthy of preservation. Um and I I understand I appreciate that we're not just sticking with the old outline and we've actually looked at specific houses. Um, I have questions about two of the um of the uh included properties and I watched your previous the previous local historic commission meeting or one of them and I saw that the common was added sort of at the end of the the deliberations and so I have a question about that and about the East Street School. Um, the East Street School is, as I think you know, is is planned to be redeveloped for affordable housing. And um, so I guess I would have questions about whether um, this designation of that property would have any negative impact on the ability of the nonprofit that's trying to redevelop the uh, the property to to to have more housing. if that would negatively affect that the ability of that to happen. And then the common, you know, the common downtown is very clearly a gathering place and a and and a important uh center of town. The the older common that's the strip of land between the four river school and the and the the rental houses and the East Street School behind it. um is um it may have been an important or you know a starting point for Amorest, but um some of that land we're going to have to figure out traffic for the elementary school and that might require uh or you know one of the p one of the better solutions might require taking some of that land so that we could have a a traffic flow that doesn't you know tie the town up in knots with all the folks coming into the school and commuters going to UMass. So, I guess those are my two concerns. Um otherwise, I'm I'm fairly supportive. Um so, I'm curious whether those are really important uh to the proposal or whether they could be removed and whether I'm worrying too much about this East Street School um and whether that would be preventative of affordable housing. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Andy. Um >> um can I just address that real fast? >> Um we've actually already discussed the south the school project and it's clear in the state law that projects that are already permitted would not undergo additional review if the district is formed after the permits are approved. So that project will not be impacted either way um by the district. And as far as the common um as the rules and regs are currently written, the commission doesn't actually have purview over ground level um like parking or roadways or landscaping, anything like that. They only have purview over structures. So unless there was a plan to put a structure on the common, um it wouldn't come before the commission in any case if there were changes to be made. All right. Thank you, Walker. All right. There's one more hand from Jennifer Ta. Um, can we bring over Jennifer? Jennifer, you'll have three minutes. Uh, if you can distinguish between your remarks as a counselor and as a private citizen, that would be helpful. >> Yes, my name is Jennifer Ta. Um, like Andy, I am speaking as um a resident. Uh, and I guess I'm in part responding. I was just speaking about the East Street School. Um, I was the council. So, I guess I am in part speaking as a counselor. I was the liazison to the affordable housing trust when Wayfares was spending a lot of time developing or doing the architectural renderings for the East Street School. And again, as as Walker just said, that wouldn't be included. But at that time, this was maybe three years ago, the renderings that Wayfairer did and this and the East Streets, there's no historic local historic district there now, but they had actually kept the current brick structure intact and added on to it. Um there was in a way that was really very architecturally interesting, blending the old and the new. So, um, again, on on their own, the developer that, at least at the time, was working on the East Street School had decided to leave the building intact and add considerable um square footage onto that. And then as long as I'm speaking, I guess I would just add that I'm also a resident of a local historic district and probably um a neighborhood that has had more new development, more ADUs and a lot of um houses purchased by the Amherst or several houses purchased by the Emers Community Land Trust. Um, so we are having a lot of new development in this local historic district and I would say we're one of the more maybe the most active residential neighborhood because we are an RG neighborhood. So we are zoned for all kind you know um you know single family houses, duplexes, triplexes, apartments and we have had a lot of development of new buildings, new housing and um ADUs being built in the local historic district. So, it by no means impedes development. Um because again, it just so happens that one of the two local historic districts in town has probably had more development than um almost any other residential neighborhood in town. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. All right. So, I think with that, uh we will end this discussion for tonight. Um, Walker and Pam, can we can we put this on if you know either the next meeting or the meeting after that to try to make sure that Angus can join us and we'll resume the discussion then? >> Do you need a motion for that, Doug? >> What's that? >> Do you need a motion for that? >> This is not a hearing, Bruce. >> Oh, >> thank you. So, we don't need to we don't need to vote. Um, Steve and uh, Elizabeth, thank you for joining us tonight. >> I appreciate you taking the time to do this and and I also appreciate you're coming back with this revised proposal. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So, it's time um is 7:32. We'll now turn to the clean energy bylaw hearing that's next on the uh agenda. So I'll do the introduc open the hearing. All right. Um All right. This is a continuation of a public hearings uh for zoning bylaw article 18 clean energy bylaw or clean energy infrastructure continued from May 20th, June 3rd, June 17th, July 1st, July and July 15th all of this year to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting article 18 clean energy infrastructure and associated amendments to zoning table 3 dimen Dimensional regulations 5.11 renewable energy accessory solar photovoltaic installations slash battery energy storage systems uses 6.2 fences and article 12 definitions. All right. So this hearing is now open. Um, uh, let's bring in Yeah, we've got Andrew, um, and Pam. Is there anyone else from CRC that's joining us? Is Jennifer on CRC or Oh, here's Mandy Joe. Good >> on. And hello, Andrew. >> Jennifer is on CRC. And this was noticed as a CRC meeting, so all CRC members should be in. >> Okay. So, why don't we bring Jennifer over? Is Pam Rooney joining tonight? >> She was unsure, but as it was noticed as a CRC meeting, once Jennifer joins, our vice chair Andy Churchill should call the meeting to order. >> Okay. Uh Pamfield Sadler, can you remove Steve from the uh panel? Thank you. >> Yes. I thought I had >> Okay, he's he's now gone. Okay. >> All right. Mandy Jao, do you want to open your meeting? >> Um, we still need Jennifer Tao in and it's Andy Churchill who's our vice chair that should be chairing the CRC meeting. >> Yeah, I can I can open it once. >> Okay. Quum. >> All right. >> You will. I think she's been invited. You want me to try to do it, Pam? >> You can. >> Uh, I don't Doesn't look like Oh, promote to panelist. >> Yeah. Could she have stepped away? >> Maybe she wasn't planning on being here. I don't know. >> Well, she's still an attendee. She declined. So if it's just the two of us, then we don't have a quorum. So we would just be participating as contributing um you know what what we've talked about in our meetings but not be part of the hearing. >> All right. >> Uh so should we proceed, Andy? >> I would say let's go forward. Okay. All right. >> I think Mandy and I were here mostly to be able to answer questions about how the um bylaw has been reorganized and and Mandy did most of that work and we had we we had a meeting to discuss it. So, it's considerably I think more user friendly than it was. >> Good. So, yeah. um Mandy Joe then um I I mean certainly I'd like to have somebody kind of go through what how it was reorganized. Um the copy that we received um has a few yellow highlights and has a few comments mostly starting on section 1805 but uh kind of the overall strategy is not really clear. So if if I may um I will share my screen and share an earlier version and go through the big changes and then we will go back to the cleaner version which is the version I believe 15 that you you received although I you should have received the markedup copy but it's easier to show the changes and the reorganization in the markedup copy. So if if that's okay with you Doug I will do that. >> That would be great. That would be great. >> Okay. Um, let me find that. So, everyone should be able to see this. And now that I'm sharing, I'm not sure I can lower my hand. So, just ignore the hand. >> Oh, I can lower your hand >> since I don't get a hand thing when I share. >> There you go. >> Thanks. Um, so this is the markedup copy that then became essentially version 15. Um, and then well version I I don't know what I called it at some point 14A or something and then CRC took that and went over the markedup copy and made some changes beyond that. But I'll go through this one fairly quickly to just talk about all the reorganization and what what went where things went and all of that. Um, it's really hard to read though, which is why I'm going to go through it quickly and why you might not have gotten this one because it's it's really hard to read. So, um, we changed the title of the bylaw at the recommendation of the attorney to positively say, um, it also deals with consolidated permitting for clean small clean energy infrastructure facilities. Um, in in this version, let me just say red is everything I did. Blue is what the attorney wrote. So, if you see blue, that was suggested by the attorney. >> Okay. >> Um, the next thing I did is deal with the applicability section. Um this is one that we have all talked about for a while that said oh we don't have this written well it was very hard to understand. Um and so now there is a new way um of dealing with taken at the suggestion of the attorney in terms of language on what parts apply to what. The highlights are simply for me tracking references to sections. This becomes very helpful, for example, when I reorganize everything um to know what I also have to change section-wise with a quick easy scroll through to fix the sections. So, these are the new sections that um do not apply. Um I moved a couple of things into this section, so it's actually a new section. Um and all beyond that, there's not a lot of substantive changes to this. I created the section, I moved things into that section, but basically everything that was already included in the section is there. Um, administrative approval was fixed as the technical term. Um, and then >> Andy, could I just interrupt? >> Sure. >> If you want to just go back to that red section with Yeah. This the the point of this section is that it basically says for different uses which parts of the um whether the article applies at all for example with building integrated bass or consumer grade plug-in modular SPIs or for agotaic or non-aggraic canopy or ground mount. It just basically we had talked about how do people know is there a way that people can home in on what parts they have to focus on and this basically says you know if you're aggravaic you don't need to look at sections 18.07 07 through 17 and vice, you know, and similarly with the other one. So that was a major cleanup, I think. >> Yeah, it it used to be this this crossed out stuff that everyone agreed was not working. So that that's what it did. In definitions, um you'll see resolved comments mean I dealt with the attorney's comment within something. So So it's been addressed. Um, the attorney recommended not referencing the specific definitions in here and saying all capitalized terms used in are defined in 12 except those noted below. So, I took her language. I got rid of that. It shortens this bylaw a little bit because it gets rid of a couple of lines. Um, which is always good. Um, all of this changes to her blue are just referencing the shortened reference to the climate act. It's not changing anything. It's it's simply um keeping things consistent. Um, so the only thing I added to the definitions in this section were the definition of a local government representative. The attorney recommended we we define that term here and then designate who it is later on, but define it here. So that is a new definition within this. Um, and nothing else substantively changed in that. Compliance didn't change really at all substantively. You'll see some minor changes, but we didn't change it substantively. Then I added a new section. It doesn't look new because it stayed 05. I split the um well I I it's it's not really a new section. I guess it's a it's a con a group section. This is the consolidated local permitting section that the attorney at the last hearing talked about. Um in terms of clearing up what complies this, so this is if someone's doing a consolidated local permit, here are things they need to know. um so separate from all of the sort of land use for SPI and BES and so you'll see a lot of this is new um or modified um local government representative and then I defined who the local government representative is um so this is this part here is added to this section but it's basically moved from other parts of the bylaw and I couldn't tell you right now exactly where, but um some of them are moved from the submittal requirements into this because they would only apply to people using consolidated permitting. So, I added that there. It was recommended by the attorney to do that. And this one um is sort of that explanation saying if you're going to choose the process, consolidated permitting process, um you got to comply with 229 CMR. Um So, um, that's what this is. It It's not That's what it did. That was what recommended. Per the attorney's recommendation, I deleted the site suitability assessment one. She had recommended we just make them submit the score report. Um, so that's where that went from. So, the rest of it got deleted. Um, and then this part is also part of it here, the sep the fee section. It was a separate section, but it really only applied to consolidated permit fees. And so I put it into this consolidated permitting 8.1 18.05 section. It's a new section that relates that includes all of the stuff that was only consolidated permit applicable. Um, which is what the fee rewrite was. So then I created two submitts sections in order for our goal to make the exclusions to the small SPIs and BES and canopies and agravalttaics to make that easier to read of what sections don't apply. Um certain submitt requirements did apply to those those items up there in in in the first one we talked about, but the big section didn't. The problem was some of these were at the beginning before the big list of submittal requirements and others were at the end of the big list. So instead I just created a new section that applies to everyone and then a section of just the big list that applies to the big stuff. So in some sense it's not a substantive change, it's an organizational change. >> Um and so then I had to come up with a title and all. Um and then substantively the submittal requirements didn't change. Dimensional standards didn't change. Um we accepted a lot of that. Um you'll see this one was left here. CRC dealt with that one. Um so when we get to the next one, you'll see changes related to that. Basically, if the attorney didn't talk about it, I didn't address it and change anything here. Um we took the language for hazardous. The next big change is within herbicides and pesticides and emergency response for herbicides and pesticides. You'll see this is deleted. It was essentially a intro statement that did nothing that described 333 CMR11. So in in the goal of making this a little more direct and short, I deleted the intro section. The substance of it is it's they still have to apply comply with 333 CMR11. >> We just don't have the intro section anymore. Um you'll see this deleted here. I created a new agic section. So herbicides and pesticides now appears twice in order to again make that upper very first section of what applies to agrovtaics really easy without citing subp parts of sections. I ended up splitting this into two sections. This herbicide and pesticide section and another one. I'll point it out when we get down there. The attorney recommended for emergency response that it just be referenced down below in emergency response plan. So that's why it's deleted here. And that's why that is added below. So it didn't get deleted, it just got moved. Um, building permit and building inspection. Uh, Walker asked if it was necessary. It seemed duplicative, so I deleted it. Um, and then moving on to through all of this. This is where we'll start seeing 18 was 11. um had two sort of sections. It had a best section and an agravalttaic section. I split them I split them into a best section for big bass and down here I added a section for agravalttaic and anything on prime farmland and soils. Again, the goal was to make that top part very streamlined in what applies and what doesn't without having to reference subsections of things, but substantively neither of those sections changed. And then I added an agravalttaic section because that was up here. The prime farmland and soils applied not just to agic but anything put on prime farmland whereas we had some things throughout the bylaw that applied only to agic canopy. So I added a new section for agravalttaics and put all the stuff there. You'll see the herbicide and pesticide section here. Um the MDAR moved up to the very first thing said. Um so it's up there. Uh but it didn't substantively nothing changed. It just looks different. And then that finishes it. Um other things that changed, we made sure there was a I think it's down here an less than or equal to because there was nothing that equaled 25 kilowatts in any of this. So, we corrected just a a reference there. We added the introduction here. Um, I think that CRC I think added that at some point or gave gave me the language. I think Pam gave me the language. And then down here, I added a definition for small clean energy infrastructure facility. Basically, all I said was that's defined as it's defined in the regulations. Um, it's a long definition. I didn't want to repeat it. If they change the definition, we don't have to change the bylaw this way. Um but the attorney had recommended that. So that is the brief overview of the reorganization. >> Good. Good. >> I can answer questions on that here or I can move to the clean one if people would like to see the clean one and the further things CRC talked about to resolve comments. >> Uh board members, any any do you want to keep looking at this or shall we just go on to 15? Anybody anybody object to going on to version 15? >> I vote for the clean one. >> Uh, and Walker, can I ask you before we get too much further um with Roy as a new member, is he eligible to vote on our recommend recommending this or or not? Um, I think so. That's a good question, but I'm It's not a regulatory permit like a site plan review, so >> Okay. >> Um, I believe it's fine. >> Okay. Great. All right, Mandy. >> Okay. So, this is the one that everything you just saw was accepted and produced a 14A. It's now called 15. um because then CRC looked at that and resolved some of the comments that were left and had some other questions and did some stuff. So, there's some tracking in here to show those changes. Um I think I think it's some tracked. Um and you'll see that I constantly see some stuff that isn't fixed. So, I will fix them as I go through. Um so, this is the clean version. It it basically looks the same. We had some questions. We when we had moved into um consolidated local permitting for site suitability um we had a the attorney had recommended we just if they're doing consolidated permitting put the site suitability requirement to put that report and scores into the application. Um CRC asked well if if they're required to submit that anyway we don't have to report it here. So I did look up the final regulations. Um, I did that while I was waiting here during your last discussion earlier tonight. And this section of the CMR does require that a a an entity applicant submitting a consolidated permit submit their site suitability report scores with their consolidated permit application. Um, so while we haven't changed it because we haven't had a meeting yet, I am happy if everyone is agreeable with that to delete that part of this. >> Yeah, it looks like it could go away. um because it's duplicative of applicable, comply with all of it and submit all um submit everything cuz they have to submit everything anyway. Um so if everyone's okay, I will do that and >> simplify it a little further. So that was one of these questions. Um and then we had a question for um the planning board who's more expert at this than we are um and the planning staff. Uh when we were looking at waiverss and modifications of the submittal requirements um we've we also rewarded the language. This was one where I had left a question for from the attorney. The attorney had asked what compelling is. um and potential rewarding. So, CRC worked out a new new wording of it. Um but then the question was given the fact that 1822, which I'll page down to here, allows waiverss and we added the language and submitt requirements to it to be sure. But but with these requirements, do we need the waiver section up above of submittal requirements or not? It was a question we thought was better answered by the planning board and the planning staff than CRC. So, it is one that I'm hoping you guys can determine um on whether this whole section is needed or not. >> Well, am I right? I'm I'm I I I may not have fully digested this, but uh section 22 had sort of specific reasons we would be allowed to grant a waiver, right? >> Yes. >> And it did the earlier reference that you had the question about is that broader or not? >> Um let me find it. um has provided a compelling reason for a waiver from submittal requirements and the PGA agrees. >> It's probably it's a little bit broader. >> It's a little bit broader probably. >> Well, um as as the authors of this, how does CRC how much latitude does CRC want to give the planning board? So, I mean, Andy can I I'll try and summarize my thought. Our thought was if we're trying to reduce this, if if section 1822 sufficiently covers 1806, we don't need 1806. We CRC was happy to leave 1806 in with the modified language. um if the planning board thought it was helpful to have it in both places, which is why we left it up for sort of your discussion instead of ours. >> Andy, did I summarize that correctly? >> Yeah, I think so. Um what Doug said is, I think, true. I mean that the language at in down below is um a little bit more specific but this is waiverss and modifications of submittal requirements. I guess it's for any reason, right? And the and the >> Yeah. >> And the the one at the end is I don't know why the why the waiver section couldn't we just have this be the waivers section or I I don't know. >> Yeah. I mean I mean it does seem a little bit weird to have it in show up in two places so far apart from each other. Um I mean I I mean my my self-interest as a planning board member is that it's useful to have a little more leeway to allow a waiver from the submittal requirements. And so I like this language. Um, but whether this could just be the first of three bullets with the the second and third one being because the one down below on 22 that is more than submittal requirements, right? >> Right. >> Yes, it is to everything. >> Yeah. Okay. So, that's the reason why they're separate. Um, I mean, I guess at the moment I would vote to keep it, but I'm I'm just one perspective. Anybody else? Uh, board member, >> I'm looking for the right. Oh, here it is. >> Go ahead, Bruce. >> Um, what was I going to say? Um, I spent so much time trying to find the Um, I forgotten what I was going to say. That can't have been very important. Okay, I will just mention uh there's one member of the public that has his hand raised and uh when when we get to the right moment, I will call on him. All right. Um Mandy, did you have other questions? Oh, Bruce, did you think of it? >> Yes, it had to do with compelling. Uh I suppose ultimately the the whether it's compelling or not is is resolved by us thinking it's compelling and the applicant either agreeing or or or challenging it. And if there's a successful challenge, the uh understanding of compelling is um gradually uh established or but is that too cumbersome a way or is I mean I don't see any other way of really establishing it? Um I mean we >> Yeah. Um we didn't know what to do with it as CRC. So we came up with this language that's sort of is essentially an establishment by how the PGA's whether they agree or not. And then his historically you'll you'll get a couple of parameters around that in a sense. Um um you know >> I mean >> we did use the language that the attorney sort of recommended and the local government representative agrees someone may grant it. We changed it to and the PGA agrees. So, we did go with for the compelling the language the attorney provided. >> Yeah. I feel like it just puts us and it puts everybody on notice that it this is not a s an easy request. We need to have a substantive reason for it to happen. And I assume it applies not only to us, it applies to Concom and anybody else that's part of a consolidated permit because we're not the PGA for all of for all of the consolidated permit >> for for the permits. Sometimes the PGA is the ZBA, sometimes it's you. um this this would I I think sometimes there's some yeses where it might apply to the building commissioner too. So yeah it it each board will come up with its own sort of parameters of compelling >> right Bruce. So, so I agree and uh just put my hand up to register support for retaining it because I think it it gives there is some there is some logic to having it in there and u so for the moment I'd say keep it the the next big change um we had some questions which are farther down on this list. They were under hazardous materials I think regarding POS um where at one point we had said no POS and all and the attorney had some questions as to how that would be determined. So um we added it into the submittal requirements of tech in the technical specification section. Um if the if that part of it to try and address the attorney's um question the question's down farther so I can't pop the question out for you. The attorney asked on this one um an identifi what why do we know who's paying for the improvements? Um so CRC believed deleting that question that that statement was the best route that you didn't need to know who was paying for it. >> Um so that is one of the things that was changed. And then um let's see um we referenced table three dimensional regulations. I think we'd made that change to sort of the there was a question about fence line. Um and we tried to we got rid of the word compelling here. Um and we cleared up fence line question from the attorney and table three dimensional regulations. That's just a consistency change there that we had noticed when we were going through it. Um, I'll keep going unless there's questions. >> We resolved the comments here from the attorney without making any changes. Um, so her this is this is the this is the comment where she talked about POS. She asked how would we require documentation to demonstrate compliance to PFAS? Um, and that's why we added up above in the submittal requirements the POS containing materials or releasing materials within this technical specifications to address this comment down here. Um, and then I think >> yep, >> we had a smoke detection, fire control, suppression, and explosion control in the emergency response plan. I think that might have been for something earlier on. Um, but we added that into that. Um, and then a a compliance section there. Um, fixed owner operator to applicant for consistency there. Um and oh this is where we got smoke detection, fire control suppression. Um she asked should the emergency plan be modified? So that's why we added that language up above in the emergency plan. Again just sort of consolidating duplicative sections into the same section instead of having things in separate sections. Also, uh she noted or I think we all noted that there may not be a lot of staff on site. So, the the the notion of having training for facility staff was not really relevant. It was more that we want to have a an emergency plan for the types of outcomes that were listed there. >> Yeah. So, that's why we moved it up there. Thank you, Andy. Um and then um we changed the word material to significant. Um and then we did a include but not limited to. So it is not a the comment here was material might be open to interpretation. Um we didn't necessarily want it all modifications. Um, but we were trying to describe what the big modifications are. Um, so we changed material to significant, thinking that might be a little bit better of a descriptor of big. Um, and then we included a list, but said this is not a a complete list, but here's a description of what we believe significant are. there could be others that we didn't think of because complete lists are hard to make. Um, so that was the change there to address that. Um, we talked about the submitt requirement change there. I think >> Mandy, >> oh, yep. >> Just a question on that last one. It says significant modifications include and then we say significant alterations. I don't know if you want to say substantial alterations or something. Seems seems kind of redundant or circular. planning board. >> I I I the editor in me would agree with Andrew. >> Done. Um down here, Walker had had questions about why these why um why the smaller unit is a no. Um oh, the was something about the smaller is a no, but the bigger is a special permit. >> Um so we made the smaller site plan reviews. So, um, that was a change there to sort of equalize you. It didn't make sense to say in an office park, um, or an RVC that you can have a tier 2 massive standalone best, but not a tiny standalone best. So, um, as a no. >> Okay. >> Um, and this was just fixing and that was it from what CRC did from the big reorg version. >> Okay. All right. So, um I think I'll call on our public commenter and then we can talk in terms of what you need from us tonight to maintain your schedule of to get it this enacted by the by October. So, Pam, um I think Mandy, you can stop the share. Um M Pam, can you bring over Samuel Bedri so he can make his his comment? Hello, Samuel. If you could give us your name, your street address, and you have three minutes. >> Um, Sam, uh, Bedri again, uh, Hampshire College. Um, yeah. No, I I have the whole thing prepared. Uh, but I really do not feel comfortable with these changes. There's no I mean, I'm trying really hard to um, imagine this is not at the request of the people trying to do this very thing at Hampshire uh, right now. and and and and for the matter of editing, I mean, is this legal ease or is this not? Because redundancy doesn't matter in legal ease. I mean, these either terms of art or they're not. I mean, changing a word from substantial to whatever you said. I mean, that doesn't if substantial means something, then repeat substantial. And and same thing with the material. I mean, you define what material meant. And I, you know, I don't al there's some line very quickly about the manager can appoint a design in place of them. I I I I don't like that, but anyways, that's just me. So, good evening. Um I'm here representing a growing coalition of registered amateur voters, local residents, community stakeholders. Our grassroots uh group has officially initiated the petition framework under the Ammerst home room charter to establish an emergency 24month zoning moratorium on all educated uh designated parcels belonging to Hampshire. Uh we're putting this uh joint committee uh together. Uh, and while you consider amending dimensional regulations for utility scale solar voltaic installations and battery energy storage systems, you must recognize that Hampshire's private trustees are actively attempting to manipulate these specific clean energy zoning expansions to execute unvetted commercial land lease and liquidate local agricultural parcels to satisfy external windown creditors. Um, instead of allowing industrial solar monetization to permanently mar our community's open landscape, we propose a direct agricultural remediation plan. Any solar array footprint on these properties must ultimately revert to active pasture and agricultural use to support our local dairy and food ecosystems. Preserving the open fields for operations like Cook Farm. We all like flavors and we all, you know, value that. Um, the town must implement a unified municipal consolidation plan using existing campus infrastructure. The town should immediately pivot from the costly Jones library expansion project, relocating all those capital funds directly to the Department of Public Works to address their urgent $50 million deficit. The existing underutilized Hampshire College library space can be seamlessly repurposed to house Ammeris media and the public archives. Uh furthermore, the town's heavy vehicular fleet can be um efficiently housed by constructing temporary lowcost quanet huts on the campus spaces bordering Bay Road and West Street. This layout preserves capital, eliminates loss uh sunken costs, and allows structural shells to be easily rotated or repurposed once permanent operations stabilize. Um our coalition has also um stepped forward to handle immediate social and infrastructural needs in town. We are volunteering to our collective labor to clean uh Crocker Elementary School. I know you didn't have money for that study. >> Nam under under 30 seconds. >> Okay. And to coordinate traffic guard flows at the intersection for the new school opening. Um currently we're willing to do that currently because we can't help Hampshire because it's all lawyered up. Currently our group is organizing an active grassroot initiative directly uh to help the banks community center which that where I was for the um health uh board meeting. um they need rides and we can do that and we're also trying to do that with the homeless people to help them get their identification, birth certificates and get them on SSI, education, temporary employment. Anyways, um this must be governed by a public democratic community review, not by back channel shadow quorums with private corporate corporate trustees. We are moving these proceedings under the Massachusetts open meeting law to ensure absolute transparency. and we invite all local families to join our upcoming Hemptock Coalition on the South Ammerst uh lawn uh to protect these spaces. Uh sorry that that was so terrible. >> Uh but I'm done. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Are you all set? >> Yes, I'm sorry. I I'll come back. >> And am I am I correct to understand that the the main thrust of your comment had to do with Hampshire College as opposed to solar bylaw? >> No. This consolidation uh permitting, I mean, that's what they're doing. This is This is They must have read this and said, "Oh, this is too hard to read. We can't do our thing. Please make I mean, I don't know who this attorney is, but if you guys don't have an attorney to review this, I would highly recommend reaching out to someone who's an attorney and assessing their I I just don't feel comfortable about it, but that's just me, you know. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I it sounds like uh we'll be hearing from your grassroots coalition soon. Okay. I guess we uh Pam, I guess you moved him out back out of the out of the panel. All right. Um I guess I'm I'm a little bit unsure what to do with that comment. It went kind of all over the place for me. Um, thank you Mandy Joe and and Andy for coming. Um, Mandy Joe or or I guess Andy. Um, do you need us to do a recommendation tonight? >> Uh, I think Mandy is the keeper of the time frame. So, I'll defer to her. >> I'm not sure which of you I should be addressing these questions to. Um, so >> I can speak as president of the council but also as a CRC member and I think CRC in as a whole um is hopeful that the planning board will close their hearing tonight and vote a recommendation tonight. Um, CRC has moved its meeting that would normally be the 13th to tomorrow in hopes of that such that we hope to be able to put this on the August 17th council agenda for a first read that would then get a second read on September 14th um for a second read and a vote which would put it um effective as of September 28th when consolidated permitting goes into mandatory effect on October one. So that is the hope that you guys will feel ready with this redo and the reorg um and all of the questions resolved to be able to close the hearing and vote a recommendation tonight. The CRC, it's my understanding CRC is ready to if planning board closes and votes tonight to close their hearing and vote tomorrow. >> All right. So, uh Bruce, hold on a second. Let's talk about the the the motion. Um, so you would be looking for a motion from the planning board to recommend this draft bylaw to council. Uh, this draft bylaw being version 15 with the edits that we made this evening. And that's how we should characterize it, not as version 16, I assume. Um, and then we would close the hearing. Um, did I miss anything? That would that would be the whole motion, right? Anybody think I missed anything? I'm I'm kind of looking at Pam and Walker to make sure I didn't that that's that seems complete enough to me. >> My My only question is is so you're saying to recommend the draft bylaw to town council version 15 with amendments made tonight for approval, for review. What are you recommending they do with it? um for adoption, I believe, is the word the word that I would use. >> Okay. >> To to incorporate it into our bylaw. >> Got it. >> Um Okay. So, I'm going to ask now and then I'll ask after Bruce says his piece. Does anybody have a comment about what we've heard from Mandy Joe this evening that you need to know more before we would ask you to vote up or down on this? We've certainly been talking about it for a while this year. Um, and some of us have been dealing with it earlier, too. So, I'm not seeing any hands from board members. Bruce, uh, you dropped your hand. Do you want to bring it back and say your piece? >> Yes. I'd basically move the motion u as uh as stated but I would uh I wanted to just uh preface that particularly in the light of the previous comment public comment that uh this uh process has been going on since before I joined the planning board which was uh four years ago or more. So this is a culmination of 4 years of on and off deliberations by this board. So hardly something that's being uh uh pushed through by god knows who at a short notice. No, this has been um thorough deliberation. So, understanding that, I'd move that the board adopts the board recommends to the council for adoption uh version 15 with the uh agreed amendments discussed this evening and that we close the public hearing. >> All right. Thank you, Bruce. >> Uh Jara, >> I second the motion. >> All right. Thank you, Jara. Any further discussion? Um, all right. Hold on. I see Samuel. Let's bring Samuel back. Samuel, I'd like to give you one minute. Okay. Um, and I'd like to preface you any remarks you want to make by saying, you know, in addition to the long history of this discussion, we are responding to state legislation that is essentially forcing us to adopt a local bylaw in advance of this October deadline. at which point if we don't the state will just take over uh approval I believe of all the clean energy infrastructure projects that come be come proposed in town. Okay, Samuel, you've got one minute. >> No, I mean I I'm not going to uh I understand you have that problem with this. I'm just worried that arbitrary deadline is being gamed in some ways and and I appreciate four years is a long time but I mean I I was there 12 years ago when they made these decisions and we were all very clear don't do it don't put the the voltaics there don't build the current center reinvest in all your deferred maintenance and they did not and now that's why the school is failing and and and with this land you know if it's a farmer who wants to do it fine but this land is abs you're going on about these historic places or whatever. This land is the most valuable farmland in all of New England. And when I was here, there was this terrible reality where the sustainability report came out and it said, "Oh, New England can't feed itself. You have to import food." It was it was hugely demoralized in the sustainability movement. And what they do, they just take the, you know, this prime land and put voltaics on it. And whatever they're going to do when they do this this this development they want to do, they're they're going to expand it and and you can't even walk through there anymore. Terrible. >> Okay. I now I get it. Now I get it. Uh thank you very much Samuel. Uh Pam, can we uh move Samuel back to the attendees? >> All right. All right. Last chance for comments from board members. All right. We'll go through our vote on this motion of Bruce's to adopt recommend adoption of this bylaw to council and close the hearing. Starting with you, Bruce. >> I have an I. >> Thank you, Fred. >> Wait. >> So, can you hear me? >> Yes, we can, Fred. >> Good. Uh, I vote I. Thank you. Uh Roy >> I >> thank you Jara >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. That's five members in favor, two members absent. The motion carries. We recommend adoption by councel and the hearing is now closed. Thank you Mandy Joe and Andy. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. have a good meeting tomorrow night. >> Thank you for joining us and I'm sorry we were late getting to you. >> Oh, it was interesting. It was It was gripping. >> More to come. >> Thank you. All right, it's 20 after 7 or after 8 rather. We usually take a break at 8. Uh why don't we take a five minute break and come back? I have 21 minutes after the hour. try to come back by 26 minutes after. 8. That's what we need. I think we need to have something that goes with right here. Well, I don't know. ask questions. Pam and Walker, I'm thinking we should go ahead and move to the uh ANR application next so that Tom we we minimize the length of time Tom needs to sit waiting for for it. >> Yeah, that seems like a good idea. >> Okay. So, when Pam's back, I'll ask her to move Tom over. Great. Thank you. >> I already did. I'm here. >> Okay. Thanks. >> He Do we see him yet? >> Uh, he's I see him >> down here. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> He is coming into focus, I think. I don't know if he's sitting in his car or what. >> I am actually, Doug. Yeah, I'm sitting in the car. >> Okay. Sorry. Sorry that we couldn't uh bring you any sooner. >> Not a problem at all. I understand. >> All right. Uh we got everybody but Jar back. >> Okay. >> Actually, Fred isn't back. Here he comes. Here's >> Fred. All right. Walker, do you want to pull up the ANR plan? If Tom's in his car, it might not be easy for him to do. Yep. Okay. What number is that on agenda? All right, we've got Jara back. So, we're back to full strength for tonight. Time is 8:29 and we're going to move to item seven on the agenda which is the form A&R subdivision applications. We have one ANR and here to uh talk about it I believe is Tom Reed, one of our local attorneys. >> Thanks Doug. Hi everybody. Um, for the record, Tom Reedi, attorney with Bacon Wilson out of Ammerst, here uh to seek endorsement of a pretty simple subdivision uh at 100 University Drive. And really what's happening is taking the full parcel and dividing it into two lots. Uh a lot one that meets the dimensional requirements. It will contain 100 University Drive, the building, and then uh a second lot, lot two, that contains the rest of the land. And so um just somewhat really simply, it is being done to allow the conveyance of 100 University Drive and the retention of the surrounding land so that that surrounding land could potentially be redeveloped in the future. As you know, this is its office park. Um probably should be BL, but that's another conversation for another day. and also University Drive Overlay District. And so this is uh Barry is buying it and then he's selling lot one, but he wants to retain lot two to give himself the potential to do some additional potential development um along University Drive. So the request is simple, just an endorsement of this ANR. >> Okay. Um Walker, I have a question. Um, what are the parking regulations around office buildings? Because it looks like lot one is not going to have very much parking for that building. >> And if I could maybe walker before you do. So, so Doug, part of the deal is to ensure that >> 100 University Drive Lot One has a total of 90 parking spaces. So there will be some onsite and then they will also have an easement, a perpetual easement over parking spaces on lot two. Uh that easement will be subject to Barry's ability to relocate them. should he ever um redevelop that rear portion of lot 2 and want to put up a a structure with uh some units above it, he could relocate that those uh parking spaces. So, we've tried to think forward a bit, but we've talked with the building commissioner about that and he's fine with that approach. >> So, 90 parking spaces is what's uh being provided, which I think is beyond what's required under zoning. >> Okay. It's 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square ft gross first floor area. Um, which I'm I'm not sure we're going to be want to try to calculate off top of our heads right now, but if the building commissioner is >> Uhhuh. >> happy with the plan, then >> Uhhuh. >> it probably meets that requirement. >> All right. Um so board members the question is whether you agree that this does not approve require approval as under the subdivision bylaw. Um I'm seeing lot one it has adequate frontage right. It's got 100 feet which must be the minimum that's required. Okay. So, we've met the frontage requirement. Uh, Walker, do you I mean, you I guess it sounds like the building inspector hasn't or building commissioner hasn't seen any issues with this. Are you aware of any, Walker? >> I I'm not aware of any issues. It It seems fine. >> Okay, Bruce. Um, having the building commissioners having reviewed this and and be supportive of it is helpful. It'd be nice if it was communicated in writing. Um, the only I mean this the only difference between as far as I can recall all of the ANRS that I've had seen come before the board over the years that I've been on it currently and previously. Um, this seems to be the only one where we have the possibility of creating a nonconformity, which I guess Doug was your concern when you asked about parking, right? >> Yeah. I was worried that we were creating a that lot one was going to be out of compliance with the parking regulations. >> Yeah. And so I I guess u due diligence would suggest that we should be cognizant of all the other regulatory requirements that are attached to a building on a lot and we're changing the lot size. Um and uh and in doing so not creating a a non-conforming structure. I guess uh maybe this is a question. Is it is are we empowered to create non-conforming nonconformities with ANRS? I've never had that. I never thought of asking that question before. >> I don't know that it would be considered non-conforming because for office park it just says that parking spaces are required to be located within the district. >> They don't I wasn't thinking just about parking. In fact, I was thinking about uh building coverages and and uh and imperous coverages and and all of the other setback requirements of the building has to be it. My guess is that that's probably been thought through. But but as I say, we're we are we are in unless we're empowered to create non-conforming U structures through ANR, it would be nice for us to know that the appropriate uh analysis that would would develop would determine that we aren't creating nonconformities would be uh would have been done. And it's looks like it's been done by the building commissioner, but this but but it would be nice as we often have, you know, when we're looking at site plan reviews and so forth to have a report from the fire brigade, to have a report from the town engineer. uh why wouldn't we want to have a report from the building commissioner on the matter of uh conformity to the um and maybe we could ask Tom whether I'm being this is I'm just thinking aloud here because we haven't I haven't had I haven't I haven't been asked >> we haven't had an ANR on commercial office space that I remember >> or one with a building on it >> or maybe we had one with a building on it but it's in a farmhouse in South Amos usually, >> right? >> This this this just looks like a different animal. >> So, Bruce, uh, two things. One, the I'll answer the specifics for this and it's that everything complies, right? So, we went through the trouble of ensuring that frontage, setback, lot coverage, um, you know, front, rear, side setback, etc., building coverage. That's why the the lot is the size that it is is because it's in the office park which and I don't have the bylaw in front of me but requires uh a certain it has a maximum um building coverage that the limited business does not and so if this lot was in limited business it actually would be smaller but it has to be larger in order to satisfy all the dimensional requirements. So to say to you directly this does satisfy the dimensional requirements and then I'll back up and say um the board you know there's there's underneath your signature if you look in the left side of uh where your endorsement is it's the planning board's endorsement uh should not be construed as either an endorsement or approval of the zoning requirements. And so on a technical level uh and I dealt with this I mean years ago particularly uh in Sunderland but um the your endorsement is really only to subdivision and not to zoning. Uh that said, a lot of boards ensure that there is that frontage and area uh that it meets th those dimensional requirements, but your endorsement does isn't you affirmatively saying that this complies with zoning. So just to take a little off uh for you, but I will tell you my representation is this does comply. That's why we brought it forward the way we've brought it forward. >> Okay. Tom, are you uh under high high schedule constraints. >> Very high schedule constraints. >> So you >> we've got So there's a closing happening next week on this >> parcel next Wednesday. Um would you be willing to send or send us or come back with uh the calculations for for the for the lot coverage for the building coverage for the setbacks, you know, to demonstrate to us that we have not acted uh recklessly >> after endorsement. Certainly. And I I probably have >> some I mean you can look in if you if you zoom in or if Walker zooms in you can see the >> uh front the so you see frontage is obviously 100 feet. You see the setbacks hauled out um particularly where it's close would be in teal >> which meets the dimension >> you got it in the front. And so that's the front yard set back in the office park. And then you've got the 30 ft um on that rear. And I think we just did it to the back of the parking lot. The north and south side, the right and left side are fine. And then I'm sure I have an email from George Cook, the surveyor showing lot coverage um being fine as well. >> Uhhuh. >> Well, >> but yes, I can get that too. I think we would be reassured um to have that information. All right. Um I'm going to go to Fred and then Roy and then back to Bruce. >> Right. Yeah, I have uh shared Bruce's uh concern, but I think uh I think in view of uh the larger picture, namely this coming Wednesday, uh I'll support this and I will be very anxious to uh read the uh the review that will be forthcoming. >> All right. Thanks, Fred. Roy. >> Yeah. I have two questions. This is the former Lincoln building if I'm correct with saying. And then has this is the first I've seen this. Has anybody seen this before? >> No, we have not seen this before. This is this is uh I mean what we're what we're experiencing is how these uh approval not required requests show up. Yeah, >> we usually have a survey that shows the division of land or the combination of land and um some level of dimensional information that usually shows that the parcel is able to be subdivided. Um when it has frontage, we don't really, you know, it isn't really subject to the subdivision bylaw. So the ANR is pretty straightforward. >> So it took me a little while to even figure out where it was. And so, you know, I don't feel comfortable having it put like this and without studying it. And I just want to let everybody know that. >> Okay. Uh Bruce, >> um Doug, if I I think the salad action here is your signature. So uh uh uh and I'd be and I think if I understood Fred that uh he would he shares the opinion that I would I would vote to approve uh this for your signature uh let's say uh what we could say additional upon uh you receiving or conversing with the building commissioner to confirm what we've been told that the building commissioner has reviewed this and finds it fine and and that could simply be a phone call from you to him or him to you tomorrow morning and then you could sign it later in the morning. So it it doesn't have to hold up the proceedings if what we have been told is correct that it's just that we're taking it on trust. Um, no, we're not taking it on trust. It's a v it's a it's a secondhand uh reporting and I think it it would behoove us to have a direct uh statement from the building commissioner that that he's he's comfortable with this and that takes the onus off Tom so forth because he's apparently already done this with the building commissioner. It's the the only link here is the is is would be the building commissioner communicating with you. And if you're comfortable signing it, having received that from the building commissioner, I would certainly be comfortable voting to authorize you to sign it conditional upon getting a satisfactory confirmation of what we've been told that the building commissioner has concluded. That would be a motion. >> Yep. Okay. Um well, we generally I mean we generally don't do motions, but we certainly could. Um, >> yeah. >> And, um, yeah, I think I mean I I just want to close the loop with Rob Mora and um, Tom, if you have uh, information on the I think it's the lot coverage that uh, and the building coverage percentages that were missing from this drawing. I do see the setback front and rear. Um, if you can provide those, that would probably between that and hearing from Rob, I think I would be fine. Um, >> and I've got a plan. I mean, I know it's 20% building coverage. >> I could show the plan, but it doesn't have lot coverage on it. So, I can talk to George Cook and have him update this plan uh to show what those coverages are. lot coverage, building coverage, and then obviously uh you see the setbacks. So, >> yeah, >> I can get that to you. George is I think he's in the office. He didn't respond to me today. Uh but he's usually really responsive. >> Mhm. Okay. So, Tom, you could send that to Walker and Walker can pass it along to me. >> Sure. I will send George an email tonight. >> Okay. Um, and so, you know, it usually takes me a day or two to get into the office to do the signature. So, if if you're able to do that tomorrow, that'd be great. >> I will. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Um, Pre, >> could that be uh circulated electronically to the planning board members? >> I don't know why it couldn't. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, that's fine by me. I'll get it to Walker hopefully tomorrow. Uh, and then she can circulate it and then I'll just wait to hear from Walker or Pam as to when the myar is signed. Uh, and then we'll record it and we'll say thank you very much. >> Okay. Um, Walker, um, just for for Royy's benefit, um, you know, my understanding is that most of these, uh, have been reviewed with staff before they get to us. Um and the uh the most critical aspect of these is usually that there is frontage on a public road and that if there isn't adequate frontage or in the case of a residential property, if the dimensions of the lot are inadequate for the the circle that's required to fit on the lot. Those are sort of the two main uh issues that uh we usually think about when we're looking at these. Um does that does do you agree with that or or are there other other aspects of this that you would uh encourage us to think about when we look at these? >> Yeah. So, the way I learned it was that the planning board is essentially looking whether there's frontage or not because you're what you're really considering is whether this is an ANR or needs to be a subdivision. You don't have to look at whether it conforms to zoning or not because that's not your job in this specific um situation. In orange, the planning board made a habit of um making sure that they had talked to the building commissioner and that they were they could inform the applicants if the lot was not going to conform to zoning. But I don't think it's required. Um but yes, it does get reviewed by the building commissioner and the town engineer um and staff, planning staff before it comes to the planning board. So if there are issues other than the subdivision um issue, then they usually get raised and dealt with even before the planning board sees the plan. >> And it's generally the frontage that >> it's usually the frontage or like you said the circle. Um make sure you have enough space within the lot >> for a building. Sometimes um yeah, there might be a few other things, but that that's generally what it is. >> Okay. Right. So yeah, just because I haven't had a chance to really look at it, I guess my question is the procedural when the uh planning was put and given to the building inspector, wouldn't it have been appropriate to give it to the planning board at that time >> so we could see a copy in it in in >> you know rather than the last minute? >> I guess that's not how ANR's I've never done them that way. >> Okay. Um because the plan is really just looking at such a specific um and limited >> set of things that you don't really need a ton of time to look at it I guess is the idea. You're just looking at the frontage essentially and the and whether it's a the size of the bu the lot is appropriate. So >> yeah Roy on a on a technical level these are um almost mandatory approvals that have to happen within 21 days of submission. uh non-ministerial non-ministerial is what they call them that the the way the statute's written is that the planning board shall endorse as long as it shows that uh that frontage. So, you know, I can appreciate where Walker's coming from, but I can also appreciate this, you know, giving it to you guys a little earlier so you can actually contemplate it a little bit. But that's what that's what the law provides, >> right? Well, I mean, we did get it on on Friday uh in the packet, so Um, but you know, this is the way they've always been done, I guess, is all I can say at the moment. And um, and they're usually not very not really controversial. I think this is one of the more complicated ones just because it's an office commercial property and um, you know, it's got a pretty odd shaped lot you're you're cutting out. Um, uh, Tom, I will ask, uh, you know, our packet also had an email from you between you and David Jandro. Um, and I was just curious why that email was needed to be included. >> So, David Jandro is the current owner. Uh, and so, >> oh, I'm I'm not sure if it was >> AR on property you don't own and you want current owner's approval. >> Precisely. >> Okay. And so Barry is buying the entire lot and then subdividing it. >> You've got it precisely. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Well, that Roy, your your hand is is either up again or it's back up. Okay, good. I don't want to I don't want to cut you off if you had wanted to talk more. Um, all right. So, um, I'm going to take I'm going to I'm going to conclude from this conversation that I have at least Fred and Bruce and Jara's approval to go ahead and sign. Um, Roy has some concerns. Um, but I'm I'm not going to let that outweigh the the the the going ahead in signings. Um, and I will I I would like to get the material, Tom, from you tomorrow. And um, Walker, should I email Rob Mora or do you want to do that and ask him to, you know, communicate with you or copy me or >> I can do it. do me directly, however you want to do it. >> Yeah, I'll have him reach out to both of us. >> Okay. And Tom, your closing is next Wednesday. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> And you would like my signature by then? >> Yes. Otherwise, there's no closing. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh so noted. >> Thank you. Please. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Tom. And thank you board members. >> All right, that was an interesting one. Um, time is 8:53. We'll go back to our regular scheduled agenda here. Uh, the next item we had uh earlier was the general housing discussion. Um, Bruce or Fred, um, is there anything from the housing subcommittee that you want to talk about tonight? I know we don't have, um, we don't have our other member, Jesse. >> Nothing. Well, we don't have two. We don't have >> I don't have my brain. I without Angus who's who's got the current topic and without Jesse who's the chair and without having met I would say the answer is that we don't really have anything useful to bring to the board. >> Okay. Well, I know that on next next meeting agenda, we're going to talk we're gonna have Roy coming back having talked to some landlords and um and uh Walker having talked to Rob Moira about the proposed uh bylaw that Angus drafted. So, that's on next our next meeting agenda. All right, then we'll move on. Um, old business not reasonably anticipated. Do we have any >> Bruce? Um, Doug, I wonder whether um I'm thinking about the ADU situation and the uh and the recent appeal to the zoning board and I don't know what their decision or even whether they have yet made one. But what I have, as we all have, found there's a degree of frustration uh with this um ability to uh have attics finished attics become habitable spaces and not count to gross square footage. It's an it's a it's a a quirk that we hadn't hadn't hadn't hadn't encountered or hadn't thought of in the whole of the year or so that we were deliberating on this. And I said to you in an email, Doug, that I I just couldn't diagnose, fathom Rob's uh rather arcane explanation of to why this is the case. But it seems to me, having thought about it more in the interim, that the the essence is that the common sense response that we've all had to this is that the gross square footage definition includes uh that well says that it doesn't include crawl spaces, attics, porches, garages, and similar spaces. And and I've always thought that that kind of defined what an attic was. But I think that what where Rob's coming from is that he's saying that we can't use that um definition of gross square footage to define attic. And so he comes with a different set of definitions of attic. Yeah. >> And and uh it seems to me that we will have to unless we want to accept ADUs which are 1,200 square ft instead of 900 square ft which frankly we didn't think we were approving when we approved this by law. And I think when I say we I don't just mean the planning board. I think I mean the whole town but I may be wrong. Um but I think we should deliberate as to whether one we want to um create a definition or an understanding or clarity in the bylaw that has 900 ft mean 900 ft and two whether we can do that and how without running a foul of the state because that seems to be part of the rig rigmroll that we've ruptured ourselves on here um and how we go about doing that if we want to do it. So I would like to register that that seems to be a piece of unfinished business. Unfinished old business >> right for this town. >> Um walk Bruce I think Walker isn't somebody on council thinking about this? Isn't CRC thinking about this and coming up with an amendment to the bylaw? There are a couple of council members that have proposed an amendment to the bylaw that is going to be referred to CRC and the planning board in the near future. So, you will be seeing one proposal at least for a way to amend this. >> Okay, that's good enough for me. >> And so, Bruce, I think that'll that'll get the ball rolling and it'll come to us fairly quickly. >> Indeed. Thank you. >> Okay. uh friend. >> Yeah, I just wanted to echo that and I'm I'm delighted to hear that that that is being picked up. Uh this is a major issue in town and uh it has uh I can tell you in my own neighborhood it has resulted in several people electing to uh sell their properties and move out of Ammeris. Uh this is a major major issue. >> All right. Thank you, Fred. >> All right. Uh I guess that's the only old business that we that that people wanted to bring up. Um any new business not anticipated, Pam or Walker or Bruce? All right. Uh, we've done the form A and our subdivision topic for tonight. Um, and, uh, upcoming ZBA applications. Any any new applications that we might want to hear about before they get to ZBA? >> I don't have a report. Walker. >> I I think there are a couple, but the the way the ZBA is being handled right now is a little half-hazard and I'm not I'm not up on the latest um of what the projects are that the CBA is looking at. Um but I can try to check in with Jeff at least your next meeting. >> Well, that is something that we like to >> Yeah. >> hear about so so that we don't get too far behind the curve if they're >> doing something interesting. Yeah, it's been a bit of a hassle to try to staff the ZBA at the moment. So, but yeah, I'll I'll talk to him. >> Okay. Well, do do your best. >> Um, upcoming SBP, SPR, SUB applications. Anything on the horizon that we want? >> Nope. >> All right. >> Okay. So, we're nine. It's 9:00. We're up to planning board committee and liaison reports. Bruce, anything for PVPC? >> No. No meeting. >> Okay. Roy, uh, have you had any, uh, action on CPAC? >> No meetings. >> Okay. And I'm still listed for design review board, but as far as I know, I'm still not on the design review board. Um, and uh, given that that I only have a year left on the board, I'm not sure it's worth waiting for me to get on the design review board for just a few months. So, we might want to think about whether anybody else wants to take this role and then they can stay with it a little longer. Uh, Walker, do you have any sense of why it's taking so long to get me appointed? >> I think it's the same. DRB was also being staffed by Justinta. So Jeff's trying to also figure out um what to do about DRB and it's just he's been very overwhelmed. >> Okay. >> Um I know he he's aware that you are should be on the list. It just hasn't quite moved to the next stage yet. >> Okay. All right. Well, I I'll leave it up to you and Pam as to whether to leave my name on these agendas because >> I can check with him about that, too. >> It's a little misleading at the moment. And I don't know that we really need to talk about why I'm not on it every month or every meeting. >> Okay. Um I don't have a report of chair. Um uh anything in terms of report of staff that you want to talk about? What I guess I could ask when do you think is it still September that you think the East Ammerst East Ammerst study uh consultant will be ready to come to us? I think so. But we do have a we are planning an August site visit where they're going to come out and walk around the site and I was going to um invite you Doug and you Jerro because you had expressed interest in being a little more involved in the project and I'll be there and I think Jeff might be coming and they'll so they'll have an opportunity to ask questions and kind of just see the area before they >> start their process. >> All right. Uh, anything else on report of staff? >> I don't have anything. >> Okay. Anything else from anyone? >> Nope. All right. Time is 9:02 and it sounds like we are adjourned. Thank you all. Our next meeting is the 17th >> uh at 6:30 as far as I know. I believe it's the 19th, but yeah, >> the 19th. Oh, yeah. You're right. >> Oh, yeah. >> I when I It's too late for me to add 14 to five, I guess. >> I only knew that because my kids birthday's on the 17th, so I knew it was Monday. >> Okay. >> Happy early birthday. >> Thanks. >> All right. Good night, everyone. >> Good night. >> Oops. Recording. She need to stop the