The discussion on the local preference policy was at the forefront of the meeting due to its potential impact on the community and the project’s alignment with the town’s resources and needs. The approved policy stipulates a 70% local preference, meaning a substantial portion of the units will be reserved for applicants from Amherst. During the deliberation, concerns were raised about possible unintended exclusion of people of color and economically disadvantaged individuals. However, the importance of the local preference for political reasons and public support for the town’s efforts was also highlighted.

A point of debate regarding the local preference was its application, specifically how many units would be eligible and the criteria for non-related households’ eligibility. Clarity on the tiered process for local preference was sought, with the board confirming the scenarios in which local preference may be utilized. Another discussion revolved around the affirmative obligations for outreach and financial counseling. The board scrutinized the changes in the springing agreement and the additional language in the conditions to ensure that the requirements for these obligations were clear and actionable.

Additionally, the board reviewed and found acceptable a regulatory agreement between Mass Housing and the applicant, clarifying that the local springing regulatory agreement would only come into effect if the state regulatory agreement encountered issues. The board sought to ensure that the town’s involvement in the agreement was appropriately structured.

The affirmative fair housing marketing plan was another focal point of the meeting. The board debated the plan’s requirements, eventually approving it with an amendment to include information about financial assistance programs. The importance of understanding the impact of local tax money on affordable housing and the effectiveness of initiatives prompted the board to push for data collection on this front.

Utility conditions for the development were addressed, with the board emphasizing compliance with the town’s stormwater management regulations. A member raised the necessity for a provision allowing for modifications during or prior to construction without requiring further board approval, highlighting the need for flexibility in the project’s execution.

The board also engaged in a discussion on mosquito control measures within the housing development, considering the environmental impact on pollinators and native species and the health risks associated with mosquitoes. The language of condition 18 was amended to reflect the homeowners association’s responsibility for mosquito control measures, balancing environmental concerns with public health needs.

Discussions on various conditions related to the project’s construction and post-construction requirements included standard construction practices, a surety bond for potential damages, and landscaping requirements. The board also deliberated on the creation of a homeowners association, the drafting of master deed and bylaws, and the sale of units.

The board’s conversation then turned to the homeowner’s association’s funding and management, particularly the language for condition 77 involving the deposit of remaining funds. The debate centered around the specificity of “other available funds” and the potential requirements for surplus funds. An amendment was proposed and accepted to refine the condition’s language, and the board decided to send the updated language to the attorney following the meeting.

Further, the board discussed the applicant’s responsibility to record and provide detailed reports to the board, with a focus on the level of detail and privacy concerns. The recipient of this information was also a topic of discussion, leading to the consensus that the Planning Department should manage the information instead of the Zoning Board of Appeals.