The most notable item on the agenda was the preparation for a public meeting to discuss planning in North Amherst. The focus was on creating a framework for the meeting that emphasized listening to community input. A member suggested that the meeting should begin with an overview of the broader planning context, transitioning into a discussion specifically about North Amherst. The idea was to facilitate a smooth progression from general feedback on planning to specific comments about North Amherst, with an emphasis on capturing a wide range of community input. The inclusion of visual aids, such as town maps and statistics illustrating housing challenges, was deemed essential for aiding discussion.

There was a consensus on the importance of a structured meeting format, with one member proposing a 40-minute duration for collecting community input. Ensuring community participation was prioritized, with suggestions for promoting the meeting through various town media channels. The board also addressed logistical concerns, such as the availability of meeting materials online and how the meeting would be advertised, emphasizing the town’s communications manager’s role in disseminating information across multiple platforms.

Discussion then shifted to zoning priorities, particularly concerning the zoning priority list. It was noted that recent attention to the list had been minimal, with one member mentioning a list of 14 items that might be expanded. The need for a comprehensive map to visualize identified areas was highlighted, and there was a call to review older zoning lists without dwelling too long on past, undiscussions.

Specific zoning issues were addressed, including outdated regulations on cannabis, which staff members were already examining. The potential for a tiered approach to zoning changes was discussed. This led to a conversation about separating tasks based on complexity and expertise, proposing a workflow that would allow staff to handle specific projects while the board focused on more intricate issues. The challenges faced in previous meetings, where staff undertook most of the work, were acknowledged, with a call for shared responsibilities among board members.

The meeting also touched on historical land use priorities, noting a shift from open space preservation to housing concerns over the years. One member highlighted the complexities involved in altering conservation land use designations, which require extensive approvals, reflecting on the difficulties of changing established land use decisions.

Further, the board explored potential amendments to zoning bylaws, notably accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and housing-related proposals. The need for categorizing the list of 17 items into manageable groups was discussed, with suggestions for color-coded differentiation to identify actionable items versus long-term proposals. The conversation included the potential inclusion of cottage style developments in zoning amendments, which would allow multiple living units on a single property while promoting communal space usage. The importance of aligning proposed amendments with the housing production plan’s goals was emphasized, particularly regarding the benefits of communal spaces over individual property requirements.

The board also considered the organization of tasks related to future development plans. A proposal was made to categorize these tasks into distinct groups, highlighting priorities moving forward. The discussion included identifying areas for new development and considering senior housing as a potential priority. The idea of streamlining the review process for applications through standardized site plan review conditions was raised, with acknowledgment of the need for efficiency while avoiding redundancy. The role of various departments, such as the fire department, in providing technical conditions for projects was also discussed, considering earlier involvement in the project review process.