Planning Board Sep 2, 2026

Okay, Mr. Marshall, let's see. We are recording. Ammeris Media is with us. We currently have no attendees uh in the attendee audience. And you do have a quorum of the board. So, I think you're good to go. >> All right. Thank you, Pam. >> You're welcome. >> Welcome to the Ammeris Planning Board meeting of September 2, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall, and as chair of the Ammeris Planning Board, I'm calling this meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available livereamed via Ammerst Media. Minutes are being taken 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 any reason, 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. Please uh unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and put yourself back into mute at when uh you're finished speaking. Uh Bruce Calden, >> I am here. >> Thank you, Bruce. Fred Hartwell, >> I am here. >> Thank you, Fred. Jesse Major, >> present. >> Thank you as well. And I, Doug Marshall, I'm present as well. That's four members present for our quorum. Angus Mloud has not arrived. Jerus has told us he will be late if in fact he arrives at all and Roy Johnson has indicated he's not going to be able to make this meeting this evening at all. All right. So, uh board members 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 unmute yourself. To the general public, the public comment item on tonight's agenda is for comments on topics not appearing later on the agenda. Please hold comments on these later specific topics until we get to those topics. When public comment is solicited, please indicate you wish to make a public comment by clicking the raise hand button. 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 typically 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, they may be disconnected from the meeting. All right, time is 6:38 and we'll start with minutes. Approval of the minutes we have for tonight. Uh, we have approval. We have the draft May 20th minutes available for approval. Oh, I'm seeing that Angus has just arrived. >> Yep. >> Hello, Angus. >> Hello. >> Thank you. I'll add you to the attendees >> and we are just talking about the minutes. So the May 20 minutes are available for approval and uh any comments prior to that? I see Bruce's hand. >> Um only that on is it page two the second paragraph third line. I don't have them open Pam but I imagine you do. It's the word uh encourage which I think probably we were basically concerned about it. Discourage. Um we were the the the concern was that the the the context is that the what we were looking at back then in May was first impression was this was a complicated elaborate perhaps overly elaborate uh set of restrictions and would it discourage um uh developers um because we want to encourage them. And so I thought that the the the sense of the meeting was better conveyed by using the word discourage. Um and so if that's what people if if folks agree then I would suggest we change the word. >> Bruce, I will say that I thought that word was appropriate. Um, I thought we wanted to promote solar development in town and that we hoped that this bylaw would I mean it's two sides of the same coin, but I thought it was fine. Angus. >> Well, if you thought if you thought it was fine and I'm good because it was your concern that I was thinking wasn't properly represented. So, I guess your concern is better as judged by you. So, withdraw my proposal. Well, I mean, we asked if the document would encourage, but >> yeah. >> Um, >> my concern was that it would discouraged because of its weight and so forth. >> Maybe we didn't maybe that the minutes just didn't indicate, we were concerned that it might discourage it. So, that's where you're coming from, huh? >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Okay. Angus, your hand is up. Did you have something on that particular wording? >> Yeah. I mean, you could just we we could just rephrase it to um and worried that the document would discourage solar development. >> Yeah, that makes sense >> because I mean it's the Yeah. What what Bruce is describing, it's just a matter of how you're interpreting what we were asking in the current phrasing. >> Yeah. >> So, making it clear what we were getting at wouldn't hurt. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you both. >> So, can I ask a question? >> Yeah. Are you saying that that should be additional the and worried that the document would discourage solar development or >> I think I think Angus was proposing that we replace the wording that starts with asked >> asked and so and are worried. Okay. >> Yeah. So in instead of the wording that's here on that sentence. >> Beautiful. I got it. Thank you. All right, >> Pam, do you want me to repeat what I said earlier? Would that help? >> I think I think I got it. And worried the document would discourage solar development. Am I correct? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you so much. >> All right. Any other comments? >> All right, Jesse. >> I would move to accept the minutes with that adjustment. >> All right. >> Second. Thank you, Angus and Jesse. All right, we'll go ahead and vote on that. I don't see any comments or hands raised. Uh, starting with you, Bruce. >> Hi. >> And Fred, >> I >> Jesse, >> hi. >> Angus, >> yay. >> And I'm an I as well. Thank you all. That's five in favor. two members absent for this vote. All right. Um time now is 6:43. We would we can go to our second item which is public comment. However, we have no public attendees at the moment. So that we're not going to get any comment from the public in this meeting. >> Are you going to read their names? >> There are no names for me to read. Bruce, >> that's the first time in three years >> it says attendees zero. >> Doesn't Zoom doesn't >> say anything else. >> All right. So, we can go on to our third topic, which is the general housing discussion. And the one item under that that we've got listed is to continue the discussion about the PRP zoning district and adding house uh housing to it. Uh so when last time uh we kind of needed some board member work uh assistance to get the recommendation letter put together for uh CRC and council. Um, I do believe that Roy had volunteered to take the first pass at that. Uh, uh, but I guess with his absence, it doesn't look like we're going to really have gotten very far, but I would like to find out. Angus, did he talk with you? Did he get did you guys get together and that step is taken or not? >> Uh, yeah, I I did meet with him. Um, he is I I haven't seen anything um involving whatever the language, excuse me, that needs to go to council would would be. Um, so I don't I don't know if Walker and Pam have shared what what that's looked like in the past with Roy, but I think that was that was the next step and then he could start making adjustments and I could help um with beefing up the memo that I currently wrote. Um, I met with Roy and we talked um mostly about I I was explaining to him Nate's Nate Mallaloyy's um idea for an overlay in PRP and explaining to him that the subcommittee went in a different direction, but that I tried to incorporate some of the things that Nate was doing in that overlay in the language changes in PRP. um and he had a few specific questions about that overlay. And so I explained that um the changes I generally made to PRP were to um that that were different from what Nate had suggested in the overlay were to make things a little bit looser um to enable more housing construction. So smaller setbacks um from residential areas, that kind of thing. Um, so, uh, so that was that was most of our conversation. He said that he was going to try and talk talk to, um, Mr. Bag again and and think through, you know, uh, the prioritization of this. I think it's a priority for us. I think the town has has a lot on its plate and is balancing other priorities and Walker and Pam can speak to that more. Um, so I think, you know, it's going to be imperative on us to move this forward on our own. Um, >> so yeah, that's that's pretty much what I've got. >> It was nice to be with him, though. He's he's a nice he's a nice guy. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so Walker and Pam, um, did one of you share with Roy the essentially the template for the previous letters that have gone like that? Yeah, I shared him with him a few examples of previous um town council memos for zoning amendments. So, he does have that. >> Okay. >> All right. So, those two steps have been taken and the balls in his court. >> Um, you know, I guess I'm not sure what he needs to get from Jeff. Um, Angus, you mentioned something about the priorities, but you know, I feel like we've we've kind of touched all the bases that that Jeff has asked us to touch base with. We've kind of slowwalked this so far. >> Yeah, I I told Roy that he should that he should run with it and not that I don't think another meeting with Jeff is necessary. Um I don't know if he will heed that >> in the email in the email the see where he told us that he couldn't be here tonight he said he was hoping to meet with Jeff again and um I'm I'm unclear what that I mean I I can talk to him about it. I mean >> yeah I think as the as the chair it might be useful to shoot him an email Doug just saying you know if you if you want to talk about other things but I don't think I don't think there's anything that Jeff needs to contribute for the PRP discussion. Um, unless unless Walker or Pam meet, you all think that that Jeff would enjoy another meeting? >> No. Uh, Jeff and I were talking about this and we were also of the opinion that he probably has the information he needs at this point to move forward with the memo. So, I mean, we can talk to him again after he's got a draft if he wants, >> right? >> Yeah. I mean, I I'll shoot Roy an email just saying if he if he has questions or or needs help with it, I'm happy to like step in. I just don't want to take point on it um at this moment. >> No, that's fine. I'm I'm just pleased that you're able to join us for our meetings, Angus, at the moment. >> I I will have to go put down my daughter because she's too heavy lift for my wife to lift over the crib now. >> Okay, good. Okay. Um, so let's just figure that's where we're at with the PRP. And I'm I'm unless somebody objects, I think that's probably all we can talk about this evening on that topic. Um, I would actually like to talk about what the next thing would be. Um, and um, you know, maybe some of you that are on this housing subcommittee want to offer ideas, too. Um, so I'll open up the floor for that. Jesse, you've already got your hand up. Uh, go ahead. >> Thanks. I was hoping to have two quick conversations about ADU stuff while we're here. Uh, the first was really just to ask Walker where any potential bylaw change stands because I know there's some legal action happening, but in my mind, if the council agrees to change the bylaw, regardless of the outcome of that, it could still prevent some of this funny business or whatever you want to call it from happening again. >> So, that's my first question. >> Yeah, it's in the works. I'm not the point person on it. Um, so I'm not sure. It's definitely going to be coming to you at some point in the next month or two, but we're not exactly sure the timeline on it. More information. >> Can can I ask um before you go to your second item, Jesse? Um Walker is whoever's working on that got it as a priority because if they don't, I think the planning board may want to usurp that. >> That's really what I was getting at. Sorry, sorry to interrupt. I was I was you know >> no I believe I believe it is definitely a priority at this point. Everybody would like to get this settled and get it to a position where the town isn't facing this issue again. >> Okay. Okay. So you're sure we don't need to jump in? >> I am fairly sure. Let me if I hear anything else in the next week or two I will let you know. >> Okay. A lot of applications can happen in two months. So you know >> Okay. Go ahead Jesse. >> Okay. Sorry. Um, second point I wanted to raise and I was kind of hoping Jara and Ro would be here for this also. I'll remind those of us who were here uh when the state bylaw changed uh state law changed about the ADU by right what are we 16 months ago now 18 months however long ago it was uh I raised a conversation at planning board about ammer seeking basically exemption from the state on a few different grounds one of which there was precedent right The Cape and other islands have exemptions from the short rental bylaw laws that are, you know, they're treated differently. The point I was making was that Amoris is pretty unique. Bruce has done a lot of that work. I've at the time pointed out this fact that in Massachusetts, we're the only zip code where water usage goes down in the summer as a clear indication that we are a different situation than most towns. And while I think you all know I am not anti more housing in any way, these recent events are making it crystal clear to me exactly what we were worried about is happening that the ADU by right is not being used for the purpose of the state law in our town. And so I wanted to raise this idea again and just gauge if planning board members and staff what you thought about it because when I raised it before there wasn't even a majority of planning board who were would agree with me that that was a good idea and at the time staff was also pretty much a hard no. We're not going to do that. So I just wanted to raise the conversation again uh because staff has changed on multiple levels. Planning board composition has stay changed. So again, I'm just curious what your thoughts collectively are about this idea. Not necessarily to end the ADU, but to basically still allow owner occupancy requirement. And then again, we're already thinking about certain parts of town where we want to encourage more more density, more development, maybe in different ways than ADUs, maybe with ADUs. You know, that's to be determined. Um, but what I'm seeing is again the ADU situation is exactly what we were worried about. So Jesse, you're >> I mean I guess you're you're you're asking if Planning Wood would recommend that the this the city or that the town advocate through its representatives to get this get the legislation amended to include Ammerst as a as an exempted municipality from the from the law. >> Correct. And I'm wondering if you all would share that sentiment that that's a good idea for us to try even. >> All right. Uh so we I'm gonna go to Fred, then Bruce, then Angus. Well, I completely agree uh with this approach and uh it it and the approach can be made in a way that uh does not discourage ADUs but simply encourages in the unique population profile that that Amoris consists of. And this is documentable. Uh Bruce Colum has done a lot of work on this. Uh we have a population profile that is unmatched anywhere in the 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth. And uh it seems to me that there ought to be a way, I'm sure there is a way to uh get a little more control over this bylaw in terms of the unique population profile that we have, I'll put it that way, in Ammerst. uh and uh I think it merits the kind of uh uh concern and uh adjustment that the legislature was plainly willing to make for the islands uh that could make something work for a town with the flagship campus entirely within its boundaries. All right. Thank you, Fred. Uh, Bruce, I think you were second. >> I agree with both Jesse and with Fred as the uh the argument is stepped by each of them proposed by Jesse's stepped by Fred. Uh my add to this would be uh that the mechanism I think that we could pursue would be to allow for an occupancy stipulation. U the Capan Islands have haven't uh you know ask for the abrogation of the law. They've just asked for a a component uh a lever to be introduced or or or what have you. And and we should do the same. And I think the lever that would make the difference for us be uh to allow us allow allow owner occupancy to be a stipulation. >> All right. Um Bruce, it sounds like you are certain that the other municipalities are not fully exempted. they are there's some it's just a requirement for owner occupancy in those towns. I I don't know and so I uh >> you know I'd want to be clear on what they were what their conditions were. I would too. Uh I understand that the argument the concern in the Cape and Islands was u the u the Airbnb the the the kind of use the B&B use for um places that would have you know very transitory uh rentals. So probably they've got some requirement that limits the uh the transitory nature of of uh rentals which is which is their concern. I don't know what the mechanism is. I don't even know for sure that it's been approved, but I because I'd heard some time ago that it had >> I guess I' I'd want to be really clear about what what the other conditions were. >> Well, if it's a if it's a president, yes, we would. If it's not a president, I wouldn't say that wouldn't be a reason for for me not to support uh proceeding and and establishing being the first to establish a uh a qualified a qualification in the law. Um it would be easier obviously apparently would for us to achieve some kind of qualification uh to the law if someone else had done it in some fashion before. But if they haven't, that doesn't discourage me from supporting Jesse's proposal. >> Okay. Um, Angus, you're next. And I suspect Jesse's doing a Google search of what's going on in the other towns. I mean, but yeah, my my preliminary research found didn't seem to find any any exemptions except some exemptions around um year round housing for tenencies um for seasonal employees. Um but then on the FAQ page that that describes that, the next line says, "Can a city town restrict who lives in a protected use ADU such as prohibiting college students?" and it says no, the ADU regulations do not allow a mun municipality to regulate who can live in a protected use ADU. Um, so I I'm if the planning board, you know, want wants to explore this, I'm open to what the language could look like. Um, my my preference was to do um larger by ADUs um with uh without owner occupancy. So I I think I'm I'm probably not aligned in the to the same degree with what we're hearing here, but I also recognize that there is a great deal of frustration in town around these ADUs. Um, and I also appreciate Jesse you, you know, noting that, you know, we've been working on trying to find how to how to push students into better housing options because it is incredibly inefficient to build a bunch of small ADUs all across town to house a handful of students here, a handful of students there when we can build much larger buildings. But it's also frustrating to me that many of the people in town who are opposed to ADUs are also opposed to other options and essentially just want UMass to solve the problem, which would be good in some ways if they did, but also bad because they don't pay property taxes. So anyway, we we we've talked all all about all of that. So I'm open to what the language could look like. Um I'm skeptical of it um that the state would allow it, but if that's something that the community really wanted, I think I'm open to, you know, sending it and seeing seeing what happens. All right. Um I I'm going to just say I I was I'm I was probably pretty skeptical of this idea before. I think I was probably one of the naysayers. Um you know, it's it's unclear to me whether the reaction that I'm hearing in town is because they're larger than people ant expected or whether it's just the sheer number of them that are happening. And um I'm not sure I guess one way, one thing that I thought you might be headed toward, Jesse, was was how can we get the state to recognize that these things should only be 900 square feet, not 1,200 or whatever. And if we got, you know, we could ask for permission to make sure that they're only 900 square feet um as as opposed to owner occupancy. So that's just a different approach. Um, and it probably is less it would result in just as many ADUs but smaller ones um rather than owner occupancy which I think would actually reduce the number that were built uh actually pretty significantly. Um and then the last thing well okay I'll hold that until Jesse. Go ahead. >> Thanks. Um, yeah, let me clarify. My understanding of what happened in the Cape Islands, they were not exempt from the ADU by right, but they did have some additional requirements. And I've just found a chart by town that has some different requirements. So, there is by right in some way, but there are minimum rental duration requirements in some towns. There's a whole variety of things somehow town by town. and what I was raising. Not that we want to match what they did, but it's an example of the state recognizing a unique situation in a town or towns and saying, "Okay, we need to consider you differently, so make your case and then we'll decide." Because when I raised this before, the majority sentiment from staff and the planning board was, "Oh, we don't want to seem too special. We don't want to do that." Like, we don't even want to have the conversation. And that's what I kind of object to. Um, now to the actual issue. Do I think we my first choice would be as a town we don't have ADU by right because that doesn't allow us to try and intentionally direct where student housing is going. The point of this law is not for student housing. The point of the state law is for more housing opportunity for workforce, middle, low income, etc., etc. It's not thought about our situation which is every single thing that will be built right now is just going to be student occupied. We know that. I hope none of you would argue with that. It's very obvious over and over and over again. And so I see this as a possible mechanism for us to be more intentional and plan how this plays out in our town because that's what we're tasked to do with a planning board. I don't think we need to, to your point, Doug, I don't think we need to ask the state to help us enforce 900 square feet because that's just in the law. I mean, this, if this doesn't go our way legally, I don't know what I'll do. I'll just give up a lot of things because it's so ludicrous in some ways. >> Um, with a bylaw change, >> obviously, we should be able to cap the 900 square feet thing. I mean, it's just crazy. Uh, so yeah, I I'll stop there. Thanks. >> Okay. Well, I'm I'm not convinced we're gonna win that argument yet. >> Well, I I I'll I'll know. I'll eat my hat. I don't know what's >> Okay. Well, all right, Angus. Yeah, I was just going to say I think I think it's absolutely worth having uh more conversations about this. Um and I and I agree, Jesse, that it'd be good to hear Jar and Roy um and their thoughts on it as well. I I'll just say my interpretation of the state law is that it's trying to alleviate housing pressures across the state. Period. And that includes here that actually the primary housing pressure is the students. And so I agree with you that most of the ADUs that are going to be built are going to be are being built for students will be housed housing students. I also think that that's better than nothing. Um and that that does alleviate housing pressure elsewhere in the system. So, I don't know if that necessarily alleviates a ton of housing pressure in Ammerst. Um, so, so I'll just say that I I I am uh sympathetic to what you're saying. I think it it would be great for us to to discuss it, but um but I'm I still see this ADU option as the um I guess worst of the available options, but it's still an option for alleviating housing pressure. All right, Bruce, >> just a minor point. Jesse said, you said, Jesse, that everything being built is for students. And uh just for the record, so that people know that we know, for example, that this uh 30 unit housing development that I went to, ribbon cutting today, is definitely not for students, and neither is that uh thing on Amity Street that uh I recused myself from, but we all approved. So there's there's a small amount of housing that's being built very specifically not for students, but uh that's only just to make sure that we don't get random people saying you guys don't know what you're talking about. We do. And Jesse knows what he's talking about. And I've got a very tasty hat, Jesse, but I I hope you don't have to need of it. >> All right, Walker. I uh I'm also doubtful that the state would listen to this request primarily because it's a do amendment um use and traditionally in case law do amendment uses are pretty much widely allowed. The state has really not listened to any appeals in that case. Um ads are a little different than religious or educational uses. So, it is something new. I don't think it hurts anything to try. I'm just not super optimistic. And also, it's my understanding that um regulating short-term rentals is allowed statewide. So, I don't know enough to say whether there's a difference in how the Cape deals with that or not, but I I'm pretty sure that's something any municipality is allowed to do. Well, Walker, um I think what part of the issue is would it would you and your supervisor, I guess Jeff, um you know, and even Paul, be willing to expend staff time to help put together the case to advocate for this. You know, >> I mean, I can't speak for what need to talk to Jeff would be willing to do. I think that to me it makes sense to wait for the ZBA appeal and that issue to be resolved so that we're dealing with one thing at a time um rather than overlapping the issues. But they may feel differently. >> Okay. Well, I you know I think one note I would take if I were you is to just bring it up with Jeff and and take his temperature on it. So >> yeah, >> maybe at the next meeting you could let us know whether you're getting sort of, you know, support or whether we're totally swimming upstream. >> Yeah, I can talk to him. >> Okay, Jesse, >> thank you. Two more two more things and I'll rest for tonight on this issue. One is uh if the board is not interested, I'm fully prepared to raise this issue just as a nonboard member, as a citizen. I thought I'd write a letter to Jeff and Paul just to put that out there. I'll probably do that anyway. >> Or bring it to town council. >> Sure. Um but just one comment in response to uh Angus. I agree. ADU is kind of it's a good option. Maybe the worst of the options in my mind. It's it's also a one-way option. Meaning it's one of these things that So it's happening in my neighborhood in three places. There's already a rental in an old older single family house. That's a rental. In my mind, that never comes back as a single family house. An ADU gets built on the same lot. It's another barrier to that becoming flipping back to a single owner occupied residence or even an or owner occupied residence with an ADU because the chances that someone can afford to buy that property that now has two lucrative rentals on it just gets lower and lower and lower. And so again, it it just seems like the one-way path that was never going to come back. Even if the demographic cliff happens, even if our t pressure gets reduced, there's always going to be student need here, UMass is never going to go away. And so that's that's the urgency I feel about some of these things is the is the one-way decision-m. And yeah, there are a few examples here and there of things getting bought by the land trust and maybe returning, but for the most part, that's not what happens. >> Thanks. >> All right, Bruce. And then Angus. Um, I it seems to me that uh I'm not so supportive of uh of convincing uh Jeff and Paul Bolman that we should uh ask uh KP Law to go and talk to god knows who. That seems like a waste of money because I don't think the passion is going to grow down the line. What needs to happen is Jesse and I need to drive into Boston uh with Mindy Dome and go with Mindy to the right people. Uh I think if we went that way, I'd be happy to but otherwise I think it's not going to happen. >> All right, let's do it, Bruce. Yeah, Bruce, I was I was assuming that, you know, whatever case we put together would be uh we'd probably take it would be taken to Mindy first. Um and um so I I wasn't assuming that she would be out of the loop unless you and Bruce got in a car with her. All right. So, Angus, go ahead. >> Yeah. Just um I mean, I guess one one question I have in response to what Jesse is raising, and this is why I'm I'm eager for us to talk more about this because it's raising interesting um concerns that I think are important to to think through. Could those properties that have that have an ADU built on them, could in the future there be a subdivision of the property into two? >> Yeah. if we reduced our lot size requirements. >> Okay. So, that that you I think this is like the like is what are the odds of that happening? I don't know. I think I think it's a it's a really valid concern to bring up, Jesse. And you're right, like I mean converting these kinds of properties to permanent investment properties is not great for long-term single family housing. Um so uh on the other hand they increase density and if they lead to subdivision then that could that could lead to benefits in other ways but that's that's a different process that we certainly haven't seen any evidence of yet. Um but you know but but this is why I think talking about this more would be really useful. The the only other thing I'd say is um based on what Walker is saying and what we think town staff have said in the past, it's I would doubt I'd be surprised if Jeff and Paul want to spend a whole lot of time on this. But if the planning board votes and thinks this is like a worthwhile thing to pursue, then we should pursue it. Um and you know, I don't think we need tons of town staff support to do things like bring this to town council or just vote, you know, recommend the town council consider it. Um especially if there's people on town council who would be interested in it talking to our state rep, you know. Yeah, our state senator. Great great ideas if if we think this is a a good thing to move forward with. >> All right, Jesse. >> Uh just just some some data I have which I can dig up. A year ago, I got in touch with I think it was the county clerk of deeds or whatever the title is, and I got I don't know 20 years of sales records for Ammerst. And I was trying to ask the question, how many times did a rental get sold back to an own someone who lived in town? It's a difficult question from the data I had because I really could only look at LLC's and that kind of stuff as clear rentals and I didn't find any out of 30 40,000 transactions. And so just to make the point that that direction that's what convinced me it's really a one-way direction. No, I totally agree. If we change a subdivision, I mean, if we allow that kind of subdivision, that changes the situation. And I think that's something we were starting to talk about at sub commmittee also is like where in town can we start to consider smaller lots. And I think that's a great idea. So yes, but for the future. >> Okay. Um, so for to talk about this next time, um, Walker, we're hoping you can talk to Jeff and report back >> and then would it be you, Jesse, or who would who would actually try to get what we what what actually is the >> Sure. I >> permission that the Cape Islands got >> Sure. Sorry to interrupt. I'm happy to figure out what that actually is. I can try and write something for us to look at also about what I think the argument would be. >> Okay, great. All right. Um, does anybody have anything else on general housing discussion? I'm I'm actually going to throw something out because um because it's been on my mind. Uh I had a couple conversations with counselor couple of counselors earlier this summer and they both emphasized the need for more revenue in town and the uh you know that that we needed to improve our tax base and um one way to do that would be to allow more areas where there's where larger housing is available. And since we know that student housing is uh the primary demand at the moment, um I we have talked in the past about maybe reszoning land near UMass. Um, and so I wanted to actually throw out a couple of areas and just because it would be a pretty easy thing to just list the parcels and say these are now zoned from, you know, RG to, you know, fraternity use or or even or or some use that would allow larger development. Um, so the two areas that I was going to throw out and were the area north of Fearing Street, uh, which includes Phillips and some of those other small town small streets. Uh, so the north side of Fearing between that and the university. Um and then the east side of campus there's a strip of single houses kind of along where the water tower is from Strong Street North let's say to uh is it Olympia Place maybe is the next T street that goes off to the east. Um there's a whole string of maybe six or seven houses along there that could be if if they were reszoned for more intense development, they would get flipped and turned over and um provide very convenient housing to students but still be part of the tax base. So I just wanted to throw that out, see if anybody's supportive of that. Um, and um, you know, I don't want to usurp some of the priorities that the housing subcommittee was talking about, but I thought that was a fairly expedient proposal that we could send to town council and just see how badly they actually want revenue. So, Jesse, yeah, you're still muted. Thanks. Uh, definitely supportive of that idea. Uh I was actually in my mind and it's a couple emails to some people started calling it a campus adjacent zone as a as a new possibility for a zone >> uh that would have different requirements or different allowances rather. Um I totally agree the north of Fearing is an obvious choice to me uh for a lot more density. It's where the students want to be. It's good for the town. students would go into town and I also agree east side of North Pleasant's pretty good. It could also be north of campus as well all along North Pleasant, you know, all those properties along North Pleasant. I don't see them as any different. Um, so yeah, I'm definitely supportive of of thinking about that. What's nice about that idea also is it's not, >> you know, a lot of the a lot of the response we got to the North Ammeris overlay was >> from those residents and actually another non-residents of that area saying, "Oh, you're pushing everything into North Ammerst. You know, you're making us the brunt of the problem." >> But if it's a campus adjacent as the logic, it's going everywhere. You know, it's it's really it's a logic to it, not just a neighborhood. So, yes, >> I had sort of shied away from the north end of campus just because the neighborhood up there is a little more cohesive. Um, not not the not right along North Pleasant Street, but you know, west of further in kind of uh on the west side. >> Yeah. I mean, I was thinking North Pleasant until Pine Street is sort of >> Oh, really? All the way all the way back. >> I mean, bus lines. >> Okay. It's already rentals, you know, and we don't have to do it all at once. We could start with interfering. It could be different pieces converted at once. >> Okay. All right. Bruce and then Angus. >> Yeah. Supportive. Uh, as you may recall, Doug, I was interested in trying to imagine how the kestrel properties which are along that line could be somehow the the upland portion of them could be uh extracted uh from the uh from the the conservation easement. Of course, all these things things like that are really difficult to do. And of course, it's uh probably impossible, but you then pointed out that there are other properties. And so, yes, I I think I'm as with Jesse, I'm supportive of both of these. And I think uh they're they seem to be lowhanging fruit in a way. In other words, they're fairly straightforward, easy to understand. I think we could try those without necessarily yet thinking about expanding them. let's just see what what the reception is to these two uh examples and then if it flies then we've got a a mechanism for moving forward saying let's do why don't we do the same here and here. So I like that idea. I think it's something that we should spend some time on in the near future. >> Okay. Uh Angus >> agreed with everything Jess and Bruce have said. I'll just add I I would love the idea of including those north like Puffton Village in the North Ammerst area that we were looking at for the overlay, but I also um I think Bruce might be right that limiting it to the south and eastern portions could be good, especially considering how much closer they are to downtown. And we're also cons reconsidering, you know, redesigning downtown um including that northern portion, right? Right. And the planning board expressed to the consultants a lot of desire to see increased density along that you know park on North Pleasant and Triangle where where they intersect. So that would kind of create a kind of merging of the UMass area with the downtown area with greater density, which would help all of our problems, tax based problems, housing, UMass students problems, and getting, you know, more people in downtown. >> Okay, Jesse, um, with your permission, can I share my screen briefly? >> Yeah. Yeah, fine with me. You guys can see my PowerPoint. >> Oh, yeah. >> So, if you recall, I sent this around or I shared maybe a planning board. >> Mhm. >> Eight months ago or so. And I intentionally drew these blocks as independent blocks. So, like Doug, I think this is what you're talking about. You see my mouse, right? North. >> That's the one on the south side. And then the east one I had just from Strong Street north. >> It's up here. >> So, Strong Street. Yeah, that's what it was. And you know, and to me, these are all adjacent in the same beneficial way. >> And then I had also included this is the neighborhood west you're talking about of North Pleasant, which I agree is still kind of a neighborhood. So >> I have mixed feelings about that. >> Um, but then all these are really rentals for the most part anyway. >> Yeah. >> So >> yeah, I guess the question is would we want to like take a big bite, >> right? or just try a couple of areas that are sort of the the the no-brainers without >> without causing too much >> with probably the least objections. >> I totally agree. And so maybe something like that or maybe just this one. Um I think I counted in this little area. I mean, I don't know for certain. I think there were only like four owner occupied and everything else is rentals. It was some very skewed >> percentage. I I wasn't assuming I mean I I was assuming it probably would need to be an overlay so that the existing single family use can remain or come back if it needs to, but I >> don't see that happening. >> Yeah, I agree. So anyway, >> okay. Well, um, you know, I'm I'm I'm since I brought it up, I'm quite happy to take a draft u of of this. Um, one question I would have for all of you would be, you know, the existing fraternity sorority zone allowed up to maybe five stories. Um, would you be comfortable with that or would you be uncomfortable with that? And we ought to be trying to keep it a little bit lower. So, Jesse, you're nodding your head more or less. Yes. >> Um, I No, I would I would vote keep it lower and figure out other higher density ways. So, lot coverage. I I I don't know what the other mechanisms are, but I would think, you know, three stories, maybe a step back, fourth story. I think it would still be nicer to stay somewhat low. Um >> trying to remember, does anybody know off hand what height Fieldstone is? Because I don't think it's five. >> Fieldstone is actually uh six, >> but that's down at the corner, right? The bottom of the hill. And then it's only four. >> It's uh I think it steps back to either four or five. I'm not I don't think it goes to three. >> Yeah, maybe it's four. >> Easy enough to easy enough. >> And it's it's nicely designed because it, you know, it goes up the hill and gets shorter. >> Yeah. And >> so somehow respecting that a little bit is nice. I think if in my view if a lot of fivetory things happened in that it would it would be too too much. >> Okay. All right, Bruce. >> Um I agree with Jesse. I think so far as the fearing is concerned, but not so far as the East Pleasant Street one because that is on a downs slope and I think that's a really good place to put six stories because when you were driving along East Pleasant, it would look less than that. So I I think the two sites are different, Doug. I would uh treat them in in in that respect uh differently. Uh so same basic strategy of overlay and so forth but uh um if possible uh recognize that there are different opportunities in each of the two sites. >> Okay. All right. Um we have no public attendees. We have no more hands raised at the moment from the board. Uh are there any more? So, I'll I'll go ahead and take a take a pass at some sort of draft of something for those for those two areas and we can talk about it. Um, well, Jesse, you've got your hand up. >> Thanks. I was just going to back up and ask when do we think we'll have this discussion again so I can give myself a deadline to prepare something for the other the ADU? >> Um, I I was hoping at at our next meeting. >> Okay. So that is >> uh the 16th. >> 16th. Okay. Okay. Angus. >> Doug, are you thinking of just drawing on the university drive overlay for language and then like adapting it? >> I don't know. You know, when I when I threw this out, I was hoping it was simply we're just going to move those two areas into the fraternity sorority zoning. >> Yeah. and I wouldn't have to do any zoning changes, but where we've ended up is a little more complicated. So, I haven't I I haven't thought about it yet. But >> does the fraternity sority allow five stories? >> Yeah, because I think so because because the developments down on Olympia that burned, at least one of those was five stories. I mean, the one that was completed and occupied, I think that's five stories. Yeah, they were fine. >> Yeah. All right. So, I'll think about it, but I'll I'll try to have something in a couple of weeks. >> Well, I mean, so how does that do they not have I I'm just I'm I'm reading it more closely. I mean, it's a use. >> Yeah. But >> so it's been interpreted as allowing studentonly housing development regardless of whether kind of irrespective of whether it's a part of a Greek system. >> But but I I guess yeah I I I understand that but the the um you know it's allowed by site plan review and RF but RF has height limits. So shouldn't everything in RF apply to fraternity or sority housing? >> No. There's a zone. >> I'm showing it as a as a use on the use tables like mixeduse building or apartment. And then but you're I think you're right that there is there is so it's not on the the on the use table. It's not listed as a zone itself, >> but on the map you're right. There is a zone, isn't there? >> Yeah. Well, there's an RF zone, >> right? fraternity residents. >> What does that mean? If it's not on the use table, then how do we? >> Well, in what is it? Chapter three in the front. >> Chapter two, article two. >> And is it in is it on the dimensional? I mean, it's not on the dimensional table. So what what what applies to it? >> Um I'm sorry to take us down this. >> No, that's fine. Um I think Pam Pam is Yeah. Right. Section 2.02. >> It it is on the dimensional tables. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> It is. >> Yeah. Right next to RG. >> Goes RG RF. So RF is the fraternity. Oh, yeah. And it's five stories. Okay. I'm sorry I missed that. >> That's right. >> I I would not be opposed to trying to reszone some of that as RF as a much simpler solution to writing an overlay just >> right. I was I was trying not to make sing any existing family single family houses that are owner occupied non-conforming. right? >> That's that's what an overlay will >> allow. You know, because it it's anyway. Okay. Anything else? Angus, >> you're going to think about it. >> Yeah. >> Well, I think I think the other, you know, the other challenge is like that um you know, any any of these zoning decisions get frozen in amber for a long time. And so I appreciate, you know, Doug, what what you're trying to do is weigh the expediency of this of this moment and the ease of making a change um with keeping as many options open for the future. But part of me is also like no one I don't know how many times this these that those kinds of decisions were being made in the past. If in the future that area wanted to revert back to single family dwellings, that that could be a zoning change that a future planning board makes. Um but but I but I take your point um about the overlay and more more power. >> Okay. >> But you know, Angus, in general, I totally support your desire to simplify our zoning code. >> It's tricky. >> Can I just add that since I joined the the planning board, the um zoning bylaw has grown by like 20 or 30 pages. So >> yeah. Well, and we can blame you for that, right? >> And it's about to grow by another 20 or 30. >> Yeah. >> From the solar bylaw. Okay. So, I I'm going to assume that that's enough for general housing discussion for this evening. >> And we have a some of us have some homework to do for the next meeting. And and Pam, please include this on the next agenda for the meeting on the 16th. I will. >> Okay. Old business, anything not anticipated 48 hours in advance? We've already talked about ADUs. We t uh which we sometimes have talked about under this topic. Okay. Uh any new business not not anticipated? >> Okay. Form A and our subdivision applications. Anything? >> No. >> All right. ZBA applications. Anything other than the ADU? >> I did talk to Jeff about that. We are going to start um making sure that I'm part of the ZBA transmitt so that I'm seeing what ZBA is reviewing ahead of time. Um he said at the moment there's a couple like very small um projects that just impact a single family home, but there's nothing no big projects right now before the ZBA. No upcoming projects that he's aware of um except for I think I told you this last time maybe that the lot next to the like in front of the women's club kind of next to the Dickinson Museum that's empty on Grey Street and Main Street. Someone bought that and is talking to the town about putting town houses on that lot and that will be a special permit. >> Oh, the one that used to be that was was owned by Ammeris Media. >> Yes, the old Ammeris Media lot. >> Okay. So, that that might become townous. Hm. Okay. >> Yeah, that's the proposal. He's he hasn't put anything formal to the town yet. >> That will be a historic local historic district commissioning as well. Yeah. And he's aware of that, too. So, >> okay, that'll be interesting. >> Okay. Um, actually, I haven't listed the time lately. The time is 7:33. Um, upcoming SBP, SPR, SUV applications. Anything on the horizon? >> No. >> All right. Things must be pretty quiet there in town hall. What do you think? >> It doesn't feel that way. >> All right. Um, okay. We'll move on to planning board and committee and liaison reports. Bruce, anything for PBPC? >> No, nothing to report. >> All right. Roy is absent, so we don't have a CPAC report. I can report that uh the only news on uh design review board is that the September meeting is canceled because we have no nothing to talk about. Um otherwise I guess we'll go to the last item or last few items. Uh report of the chair. Um I don't have anything. I'm trying to think. There was something I thought I might want to just ask about. Um, but I can't think of it at the moment. So, I'll move let this go on to report to staff. Um, Walker, could you at least mention where we're at with the East Ammerst zoning study that the consultants are coming to us? >> Yeah, the end of this month. >> Yeah. be coming to the planning board on the 30th with their um existing conditions survey and their like kind of first steps and like next steps for the planning board to be involved in the project. Um we're also working on trying to plan a community engagement session um in the next month or two. >> Are they gonna be bringing also sort of their first impressions? >> That's my understanding. Yeah. >> Okay. because I'd like them, you know, I'd like to get their take on what that area could be. >> Yeah. I don't think they want to limit it just to existing conditions because that's not they want they want to have more of a conversation with that than that and have >> spend your time more usefully. >> Okay. Um anything else on report of staff? Um, we are interviewing for the last planner position right now. Um, so we will be hopefully, fingers crossed, fully staffed, relatively soonish. Um, in the meantime, we're still prioritizing the the bigger ongoing projects um being the East Ammeris zoning study, the Hampshire College zoning study. Um, and I believe that Pam sent out to you the the th Tuesday and Thursday night engagement, public engagement sessions. Um, Jeff was hoping that at least some members of the board would be able to participate in those u one or both of those later in the month. And then of course the design standards were going to be uh what we took all the comments and everything that came back and they've been revised and they're going to be going back out for another round of discussion on how they're going to be implemented um and like next steps for that as well. So um that's kind those kind of are the priorities for our department right now. Um, I'm gonna ask just uh Jeff had also talked about doing a study for the Wildwood site. >> Uh, >> I haven't heard anything updated about that. I know that's been something that's been discussed, but I don't think there's anything concrete that I'm aware of. >> Okay. Because I I'd been under the impression that might be something that was done sort of inhouse by your staff. If so, it's going to be a bit >> Okay. >> I mean, we're also working on the VFW site um as the request for proposals went out for that um to be a shelter/supportive housing location in town. Um and then there's, you know, the usual day-to-day stuff, but >> Okay. All right. Um anything else, Walker? I I see Bruce has his hand up. I I know I I need to let him speak soon. >> Yeah, that's that's all I could think of off the top of my head. >> Okay, Bruce, go ahead. >> Question for Walker. Really? Uh I'm thinking about the staff uh positions and so forth and uh um I'm kind of aware that Jeff replaced um Christine, but Jeff's also got economic development as well as uh planning director in his title. And then there's uh there's so I'm I'm wondering whether there's a replacement for Nate because I'm I suppose you're interviewing a replacement for Susinta. >> I think you replaced somebody. So I'm just I'm just I I when you said we're we once once we get this uh final person in we're we're fully we're back to fully staffed. And so that uh that seemed to leave a a Nate position open, but maybe I don't understand how it works. So if you could tell me how it how it operates since in that respect. >> Yes. So Nate's position um the assistant director of planning, the position they created and it promoted him to shortly before he left, that position has been filled. Um >> Alexa started last month. It's been she's been just kind of shadowing Jeff um and trying to figure out she hasn't been a planner in the state of Massachusetts before, so she's catching up on our zoning regulations and whatnot. She's going to start um taking on more responsibilities as she gets more comfortable, but the position is a little different than what um Nate was doing. It's supposed to be more of a day-to-day director of the planning department where Jeff is, you know, big picture working directly with town manager, economic development. Um he's not doing as much of the day-to-day or he's not going to be planning um like management. That's what Alexis is going to be doing along with she might support me in staffing the planning board. She might support the new planner and staffing the ZBA, but she's not going to be directly staffing any boards either, as far as I'm aware. And then the position we're interviewing for is just position, which will be the ZBA staff planner um primarily. >> And at that point, we will be fully staffed. And I think I I was >> my recollection is that Walker, you had said that at some point Alexa may just would would come to our board and just be introduced at least. >> Yeah. And I I think Jeff's just been too busy to think about that. Maybe I should ask her if she just wants to come with me. Like I don't think Jeff has to be the one to introduce her. It would be good for you to meet her and for her to meet all of you, I think. >> Yeah, that'd be great. Anything else for Bruce? Okay. And anything else from staff walker? >> I don't have anything else. >> All right. And Pam, you're good, too. >> I am good. >> Okay. All right. >> All right. So, we still don't have any attendees. We had one for a little while, but >> they they came and went. Um, anybody have anything else for this evening? No hands raised, a bunch of heads shaking. No. All right. The time is 7:41 and I will say that we are adjourned. We'll see you in two weeks on the 16th of September. >> Alrighty. We'll see you again. Bye >> everyone. >> Good night. >> Record. Good night, Fred.