I think so we are starting and I haven't done this in a while why am I not seeing our little recording I think it's under more oh it says recording I actually see an attendee but it's not Chris she just came it's j yeah and Martha hner it is recording Mandy that's what it shows Chris is there now there's Chris okay fny on my my screen it's not yeah and do we have Nate or it's just in a different spot Dave from where it used to be but if you go to the participants you can see the recording thing to the cloud button showing gotcha so I do not I do not see Nate or okay well let's open up we'll open up the meeting and we'll we'll see if he shows there's Chris okay so it is it is July 23 uh this is um this is regular meeting of the Community Resources committee the Town Council I'd like to call the meeting to order and see if everyone can hear us so I'm going to go around to Pat can you hear us yeah yes councelor hanaki present Jennifer town I'm here Cameron is here and so we can start the meeting um pursuant to the chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted via remote mean members of the public who wish to access meeting May do so via Zoom or by telephone there is no in-person attendance of members of the public because it's not possible we are completely Zoom but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means if there are technical problems we will probably pause the meeting and address them um there are no public hearings tonight I'm want to talk about public comment just because we have two very different topics and I would love to have public I'll do a short public comment at the very beginning see if anyone is interested but I suspect that people will be interested to have comments after the planning department presentation about design guidelines and University Drive and then again after a conversation about solar so um I'm going to open up the this to public comment be and I'm GNA I'm gonna recognize Chris breor with her raised hand hi um thank you very much Nate Malloy has joined as a an attendee and you just brought him in as a panelist so thank you did y thank you Mandy so let's look at the uh Martha Hanner has her hand up so we'll have a short um public comment period at this time Martha would you like to is someone going to bring her in hello this is Martha Hanner from District Five in ammer and I just wanted to provide some information about the State legislator's climate Bill relevant to our solar bylaw that we're going to be discussing later tonight as you may know the legislature now is in the final week and so the massive climate bill which includes information about solar sighting is in the final conference stage with between the Senate and the uh house versions and so I contacted Senator Joe comerford's Chief of Staff Jared Freedman today to ask a little bit about the status of the legislative Bill and what's in it and I wanted to share some important information specifically what's in there about the um permitting for solar arrays and other renewable energy type um permitting is that the state is assuming the permitting Authority for facili that are 25 megawatts or larger however the state is not assuming permitting Authority facilities for facilities under 25 megawatt instead the state establishes guidelines for a Consolidated local permitting process so the municipality would issue one permit for the facility as opposed to having several different ones and then there would be 12 months for a municipality to issue the Consolidated local permit although Senator cumberford uh is actually proposing an amendment to to allow for extensions to the 12month period And So It means that the department the state department will establish standards requirements and procedures governing the citing and permitting of these smaller clean energy infrastructure facilities that include uniform sets of Public Health safety environmental and other standards that local governments shall require for the issuance of permits and it goes on in detail to discuss these a little bit so what's going to happen then is after this is passed presumably and signed by the governor there will be a fairly long process of say at least one year maybe longer to set up the agency that's going to do the permitting and set the stand standards and so on and I Envision a robust process of establishing the standards and requirements where those towns that have clear science-based well-thought out solar bylaws will really be in an advantage and will be able to be proactive in determining what these criteria and requirements are going to be and so it's my conclusion that we will definitely be at an advantage if we Forge ahead now in a concerted way to establish for amorist a a good clear solar bylaw that that will stand Us in good stead and Senator cumerford has promised that after this session is over they have a little more breathing space that she will set up a public forum to describe and discuss the climate bill in more detail so that we can all understand better what's included so I I just wanted to announce that now because it's fresh information that I just obtained today thank you thank you Martha that's terrific good to know uh Janet McGowan has her hand up go ahead Janet hi um hi I'm Janet McOwen I'm still in the planning board um and I live at 7 6 Southeast Street um I am making a comment to talk about some issues that I raised and other people raised during the discussions about the University Drive overlay which I think started like somewhere in March or actually February or so of this year um I W I was very concerned that the planning board um did not contact UM University Drive businesses property property owners and residents that live on University Drive or near it um I think their information their their thoughts their concerns their good ideas um would have been helpful to the profit process and um I contacted two people one who runs a business on University Drive and a resident nearby and they both immediately contacted me and were interested in being involved with the process one of them wrote to the planning board saying that um the other concern that was raised by um people who attended our our our meetings were this University Drive is really dominated by Wetlands it probably isn't the greatest place um to build things and you know it you know several people one particularly um resident who's an expert in in um um development basically thought that there should be an overall analysis of the wetlands conditions uh and the capacity to build there and the possible impacts on the wetlands as a whole in University Drive nobody thought it was that expensive to do if it's a poor site for building a lot of high big buildings we should probably know that before we do a resoning process and go through all the permitting process while the comcom will go parcel by parcel they'll never it'll be a peacemeal approach and you'll never be able to sit back and look at the whole Wetland and the whole ecosystem um you won't have an overall analysis so I think that's something um that was missing um another Gap I think we had was that we didn't really look at other college and university towns for what they did in a similar situation of you know rezoning near a large University um you know with the eye towards mostly student housing but also trying to build a really vital kind of fun interesting place to shop and and do all sorts of things um we never looked at other examples um you know I talked to them to see what would they do what would do what worked out what didn't work out what would they do again or not do again and you know kind of pick their brains for ideas I think that' be super useful because we're not this isn't the we aren't the first town to confront this sort of thing or try to create this kind of District another concern um just this is not a you know the housing subcommittee we we kind of went at the last minut from we started at four floors and went to five and we voted six floors and at the housing subcommittee I raised the idea that if we're going to a sixth floor that we get something in exchange for it and maybe a high percentage of affordable housing you know maybe 20% for that extra floor and also looking at um not just um lwi income housing but sort of um I would think of sort of like middle income housing because we seem to be having a missing middle problem um the people on the I'm not on the housing subcommittee I was just making that comment and um most of the members were supportive but it didn't really make it into the final draft and we didn't really have time to discuss it at our last meeting so I just wanted to like bookmark that so that idea is you know we're giving a lot of extra density and value in the zoning and we should be asking for what we want to help you know move the town and make our community a little stronger um so I think you know sort of these research gaps um and you know the lack of community community outreach is something that your committee can do I know you guys are busy but I I don't think it'd be that hard to contact people you know on University Drive who work there who own businesses who own property and the people who live there there um I also had a concern that I raised over and over is if you're if we're rezoning for a lot of density we're adding a lot of value and we know that people in our town are making a lot of money by building expensive apartments and what's the impact that we also really liked on the planning board the kind of medical community and Facilities there like the the center for Extended Care the Urgent Care the pediatrician office and a lot of Nursing homes in am in Massachusetts are closing because they're not very profitable and so would would an inadvertent impact be that these facilities aren't as valuable and so they decide the owner of the building or the owner of the property decides it'd be better to build you know some student dorms and things like that so um I think that kind of like unintended impacts and I had suggested removing those it's I think it's the office Park part of University Drive removing that from the over to sort of protect those medical facilities that we like to see and um are super useful to have in our town and not always to drive to Hadley or Northampton um and so you know just I think by Consulting with other other organiz you know other towns and cities that have had these kind of districts I think we could fill those gaps so I'm sorry to have this Hefty list I actually cut it down a little but I just wanted to present that to you and I also voted in support of this with um kind of my worries and concerns but thank you for listening to me thank you Janet and there will be a short uh public comment section after after we discussed the University Drive um update so if you left out some things you can we weigh in them um I needed to note for the record that councelor ET joined us about 6:35 thank you can you hear us yes I can wonderful so we're all here and accounted for I would like to turn the floor over to the planning department we have Nate and Christine to talk about a couple of topics one is the University Drive overlay and the other is um sort of update on the design guidelines that are being uh developed so uh and we it's about quarter of seven so I was thinking roughly an hour for this U process would be terrific if we can do it less than that that's great um but we probably won't start a conversation about solar bylaw until at least 7:30 Nate is if you don't mind Nate is going to do the bulk of the presentation about both of these topics so if you would recognize him I recognize him sure thanks everyone uh Nate Malloy a planner with the town and do you have a preference so you know they're the same agenda item but do you want to talk about downtown design standards first or the overlay let's just talk about the overlay that was just mentioned so let's sure yeah so the planning board's actually been talking about this for almost a year uh and staff has looking at University Drive as a potential area uh for an overlay Zone and so I'll have a map and I have text I can show in a minute um I will say that you know an O as an overlay Zone it doesn't replace any existing zoning so you know it's think of layers and so there's still the base zoning there's are a few there's an overlay district there on University Drive and so this would be another one that would be voluntary for property owners or developers or applicants to use so we're not you know the benefit of that is it only applies to mix use buildings it doesn't negate or change anything else about what's already there so if someone wants to come in and do an office building or research facility and everything that's there is left in place uh and so the impetus for this was looking at areas where we could have denser housing um and you know when originally proposed you know I'll say it I I wanted to I wanted to see student housing there right like the u3 advisor report from 2014 and other reports I've looked at University Drive over the years and said you know this could be an area for dense housing and so you know in a lot of our conversations in terms of project review there's always questions about you know is this going to be filled with students is you know a 10un apartment building going to be students and you know and the implications there are that you know there's nothing wrong with students living throughout town it's just that the pressures they put on the housing market especially in terms of pricing out many non- students and so I think you know staff had said we could have a discussion about where could we have student housing where where can we actually allow it we don't you know we allow it everywhere in terms of apartments or mix use buildings but could we say there's you know specific areas where it makes sense and over time you know the the proposal has changed and so you know it's not specifically a student housing overlay District it's a mixed use overlay district and so there's requirements that the first floor of every building has you know 75% of the facade facing the street needs to be a non-residential use uh to a certain depth right so there's always a component that there will be a non-residential piece um we do allow as jenet mentioned going up to six floors and so you know there's some uh discussion about how high that is uh you know the planning board voted this along they voted to recommend uh the overlay as a zoning Amendment and and there was some discussion about what could happen with it but really they said they've been talking about it long enough and the chair of the housing subcommittee and others felt well let's move it along because then it can get to a point where it's real and you know so their thought was it could change right there's still some things to consider and there's still other pieces to look at but let's you know ask Council to refer it and you know come back to the planning board into the CRC likely right and others and then there's a whole another discussion that'll happen that could take a few more months or however long and so I think the just the kind of the idea was there was a number of consensus points there was issues that were still had to be resolved but it was at a point where it could move forward um and so I was going to share my screen if that's visible for everyone yes if you can expand it in any way that would be lovely yeah I don't I mean you're showing the entirety of it so that's that's fine and also Nate I wanted to ask if you are interested in questions as they come up or would you like the the board the committee at least to just hold your questions our questions until the end yeah I I think um you can raise hands throughout I guess if you want I I'll just describe the geographic area and so the black line from Amity Street down to uh Route 9 and then the properties on either side of University Drive so the black area would be the proposed overlay originally the dotted lines were other areas that it could have encompassed and so those have been removed for now um so it's really just kind of the properties along you know a, 1500 foot section of University Drive and like I said it doesn't replace any zoning that's here so there's Office Park there's limited business there's um you know um R&D overlay and then the overlay only applies to mix use buildings it allows them to be uh you know there's no cap on the number of units as there is now six floors the right away for University Drive is almost 100 feet and we're requiring pretty you know 25 foot setbacks so the you know the the streetcape is still going to be very wide open and the idea is that there's a c drive on the west side of University Drive right now there's two parallel roads essentially and the goal is to have that access Drive become a pedestrian way and there's a two or three foot sidewalk right on University Drive on the west side it's crumbling it's very narrow the idea would be to remove that keep it part of the tree belt to save all the red Maples there and then have you know an8 to 10 foot wide pedestrian path that is part of the access drive now and um and then have the buildings behind that and so yeah I mean I think you know Janet was right that there are a lot of wetlands I think staff feels that the Conservation Commission can review that and so you know the pre- and post development uh standards have to be met so someone you know could come in and propose something and the Conservation Commission would have to you know approve it and that's not you know I don't I think that's so part of any development and so you know if this could allow for you know and so I think some of the things that plore talked about was okay so say there are wetlands and this get moves forward and it was adopted and what if this doesn't work right what if no one's using this well maybe we need to change it or what if there you know so the thought is well we say that we could be more Nimble in terms of zoning is there a chance for this to to work and so Bruce had talked to a number of college communities and the housing subcommittee starting to look into it and what it sounds like is there's a number of strategies that work for different communities they have to be tailored and it also sounds like they need to evolve and so some communities might have a strategy that's 10 years old but it needs to change right so if they have an overlay maybe after some many years it served its purpose and then some of the things have to change within the overlay and so for now this is the starting point and you know the Hope was to let's have require mixed use buildings let's have higher density and let's try to get a streetscape of I uh streetscape here so you know their apartments aren't part of the overlay uh that was one consideration and the worry was that if it was only apartments with the housing market being so strong developers would only build apartments and we lose any any sense of streetscape or any kind of non-residential use space and so you know we're moving this forward as you know really trying to encourage both housing and economic development and so you know I think there's been you know the planning board has agreed to some of these things that wellow yeah let's try to say what we want here not maybe what's good in the short term in terms of housing but what if we actually have density here and even if some of those nonresidential spaces are vacant for a Time eventually there could be a need for them to be filled with something and so you know they're saying well let's you know this could be a 10-year planning Horizon let's make sure we you know we we get what we want and see if there's any you know if there's any any use of it and so um you know anyways this is just the start so there's any questions uh Mandy Joe or councelor hanii has her hand up um yeah a a couple of questions and more clarification too um and then some concerns also first whatever slides you showed can we get them so that we can look at them um for this one and whatever the next one is because they're not in the packet yet so after the meeting excuse me they are in our folder I oh they are now just saw them 10 minutes before the meeting in our folder but not in the packet excellent thank you um so is if the right way is 100 feet wide on you drive little bit about a 25 foot additional set which I presume is on both sides of the street um but you you didn't say um does would that actually make the street less walkable because it's a lot wider um and so a question that goes along with that is is the access drive on the right of way um because I understand what the point of using that access drive as a walkable sort of large sidewalk is um but if it's in the right of way that's up to the town you don't need the setb back then right um so I I guess it's hard to see whether it's in the right of way or not and then is that 25 foot setback required on both sides and if so why would it be required on both sides instead of just the side that's aiming to use the the sort of access drive as a walkable area so that's one question um I'm curious about why we aren't considering the dotted line sections to incl include in the zone um and maybe even a little bit farther um it was hard to see on the map you put up exactly where the different zones um current zoning changes there's this big purple area I think if I guessing right is that a historic district but not a local historic district is that so I you know I'm I'm trying to figure out why we're not including all four corners instead of just two of the Four Corners at each intersection other than the Ed that's up at Amity Drive um because it seems to me you'd want all of them not just half of them Especially since one of the corners not included maybe it wasn't included is already redeveloped with a mixed use building um and then you said it only applies to mixed use um I'm concerned we've seen a lot of mixed use buildings go up with a lot of empty commercial space for years and years that we might be given our lat the last I know it's old the last commercial sort of space study um that we might already be well supplied with commercial space such that these buildings if built would just have empty first floors for years upon years which does not create a walkable environment um and so what about and I think you mentioned this at one point Nate during the planning board discussions but was their thought given to instead of requiring mixed use buildings and not Apartments requiring either of allowing either of those buildings and requiring no matter which type is built making the first floor I don't know whether it's called R1 or whatever the commercial standard is of 15t or 16t ceilings with the um firewalls and all of that between the first and second floor such that even if residential goes in initially it is already built to commercial standards so that if in the future commercial is more desirable or becomes better becomes needed it could be converted at the end of a lease to a commercial space um instead of requiring them all to be mixed use now when we might already be saturated in our commercial retail space in town yeah I so you know I think that um going from your last comment backwards yeah that that had been discussed I think a number of the planning board members really wanted to have you know mixed use and not lose it so we had different iterations of this bylaw and discussion so you know at one point it was you know mixed use within 500t of the intersection and everything else in between so you know a thousand feet along the roadway could be apartments or social dormitories or you know you could have mixed use buildings and only Apartments every 300 feet or something and you know there's different discussions in terms of how that would work uh you know and so what we settled on was you know 75% of the facade back to a depth of 24 feet so that you know if you're a double loaded Corridor the back half of the building on the first floor can still be residential it could be storage it could be parking it could be whatever but you know at least this part facing the street is non-residential um you know we talked about right the building code could you say that it's built so that it could be converted and that you know that is something we discussed uh you know with the Building Commissioner and staff looked at so I think there's probably you know like I said if if you know there's probably a few different ways you could um require that I think you know much of the planning board and you know public comment was there's already businesses there and if there's a lot more people living there wouldn't it be nice if there's space and so you know the concern would be if you say okay well you don't need to have it uh you know how easy is it to retrofit it in terms of bringing in say additional water or sewer or you know so typically we'd expect a developer to at least think about what kind of space they would want in terms of say utility stub outs or certain locations of things you know leaving room in a building to have a Chase way up to the fifth floor for ventilation right if they don't then it becomes difficult after if they're going to put in a kitchen hood or something and so um yeah I mean I think they're all great I think that's a really good discussion and I think where we landed was well when the planning board voted there was two versions of this one that was kind of housing Centric and one that was mix mixed use and kind of you know try to balance housing and economic development and so I you know I I think either one could be appropriate I don't you know I I don't necessarily have the right answer in terms of you know what's the best there I I I do think that given the housing market is so strong that if we said you know just go ahead and build Apartments oh but you could do mixed use buildings we would just see apartments and I don't know if anyone would actually consider the site layout so you know that was discussed in terms of like well in the future they could convert it well they might not have the room for parking because they built a bigger building and so you know if you want to have a restaurant or retail space what's the parking requirement or what a developer thinks they need to support that non-residential space and it's like if you build an apartment building so big that then all of a sudden you can't have your 30 parking spaces you think you need to support you know two small commercial spaces it's really hard to retrofit that into a site and so the idea would be let's plan for having something um and you know like I said if this doesn't get used and we find that we hear from a lot of people that that mixed use requirement is too onerous well maybe we change it but at least least you know go for it right now because eventually that space you know could serve a purpose um in terms of the right of way I was going to show Google a Google um street view uh the east side so here's uh um North is up here's Amity Street the RightWay starts here at the edge of this parking lot and then extends to what is the edge of the curb here so the the tree belt and the access Drive is on private property and so having the 24 25 foot setbacks you know doesn't change how the road feels so you know most of this is wetland on the east side we have Swift way bike way and so we want to maintain that we want to maintain that and not you know say let's have a 10- foot setback and all of a sudden something could encroach here and honestly with some of the wetlands here uh that wouldn't work so you know the thought would be well we have we're saying you could have taller buildings but but the idea would be you know the buildings are spread out far enough that you don't have a canyon-like effect um and so if you go into street view here you know the idea is get rid of this sidewalk on this side this is the West Side here's the access drive and then you know be able to maintain these trees right so there's this really nice row of trees here let's put the sidewalk back here on the existing pavement make this grass or we could widen the shoulder for a bike lane or something but you know right now University Drive is really narrow and you know this sidewalk isn't used and so the idea is you know we're not going to we don't want to impact any of these trees here or here let's have the buildings be back here so you know the with the setback right now say where the edge of these parking spaces are that would be the end of the setback so this building could be you know 20 feet 25 feet closer than it is but still set back from the from the curb and so those setbacks were disced in terms what in terms of what's appropriate and how it does it feel um and I think you had one other question oh the the corners yeah that was a big discussion the geographic area I think there I think a number of planning board members and others wanteded to include that South Corner uh where um am Street and route nine meet uh and there were some discussions about you know how far do you extend it you know in all directions and so uh you know some of it is that there's many zoning districts there so it's not like oh let's just apply to Office Park well Office Park might only cover four properties so as an overlay it can Bridge different it doesn't matter really what the base owning is the idea is we're saying we think this area is appropriate for this mixed use purpose uh and I think it could go to cover the four corners of the intersection there are some historic homes there so some there was discussion about what's the transition if we're allowing you know such tall buildings do we really want that on all four corners of the intersection or would maybe the south side of the intersection be more appropriate for four stories uh and is that the same overlay or is it something different and so we haven't you know again I think that's a discussion point you know how you know is it could it be moved a little bit I mean I think to the north and east and west I feel like those boundaries are you know there's reasons why they end there you know Town Line or there's a pretty distinct Geographic um you know or natural feature to the East and then to the South maybe there's discussions about how South it goes but um Nate could could you just for this the purpose of the conversation could you just bring up that diagram again and enlarge the sections as you talk about them yeah so this is the um again here's the Town Line so here is West and here's south of University Drive and so here's five College realtor is right here in Ginger Garden uh this is one University Drive South now the new newer building the vet's office and so the you know the boundary is just along Route nine there had been some original discussion about you know would it include um you know this area and then possibly uh this area and so at one point it was like maybe just here or both and so the planning board decided not to go south of Route n uh you know so these are some historic homes this is you know at what point would you you know do you bring it to you know you there could be another stopping point for instance but this was what was decided to the north ironically there's this one property Zone BL uh that had been considered and then was not you know it's just a um you know the rest is you know RN this had you know is a the one house on the corner there jener sorry you had your hand up first if you wan to okay um so I just want to put in I my I would I think having mixed juice is that would be preferable I think with all those six stories of residential housing for a that's those are several blocks I mean that is a a lot of residents that could potentially be living there and I think if they can't if mixed use can't be supported with you know you're talking about thousands of residents um I I'd be surprised if that that that would be um we could not support mixed use on the first floor and I I think it's very easy for residents that live there to go to Hadley and why not do what we can to attract businesses and encourage businesses to be there so that you know amest residents can spend more dollars in amest than you know they'll the Temptation will be to go to Hadley probably not to go to downtown amest but to go guess they're closer to the shopping in Hadley than to downtown so I did want to a couple of I wanted to ask following up on uh Janet McGowan's uh comment so you said that the overlay District wouldn't change any Zoning for what's there but there are on the east side of University at least two um senior uh retirement residences and I think a senior housing or maybe even a nursing home and if that could if the overlay District was there included that would that be a disincentive I mean would the owners of that property be tempted to sell or to develop a six-story apartment rather than you know having other providing other services um you know so staff had talked about this it was brought up and you know sometimes you know what we would say you know if that were me and all a sudden it's like wow my property is worth a lot more I would ask way too much and then I would fund my operation and some of those properties are big enough you could build on the front and have a you know a separate building and still have you know the operation as you know the extended care or any of those services so you know I don't to me it's like if the you know I think Coy Dickinson now owns most of it if it's operating well and it's doing business I don't see that it you know is going to become so valuable that someone is going to say you know it's worth me buying it tearing it all down just to build a mix use building but if it they think it is and I'm the owner of that property to me the Leverage is with the owners not with the developer right so you could negotiate something You' make it work I mean I don't I don't know if I actually see that happening I mean we were envisioning that if this were on the big property that Big Y would stay and they would build something on the front and that you know you would reuse the the asphalt and you know and so um you know even with some of the other buildings um like 100 University Drive it's an office building now we would say okay we' think that there would be a SE a second building on the property not that they would take down that office building it's just there's so much effort to do that uh especially with the the bigger buildings and so we had we didn't see that as a a big concern we actually you know would see it as well if you know there's other there's probably more opportune properties before you get to those properties to redevelop right there's probably many more property you know most of the properties on University Drive before you start looking at the extended care there's probably other others that are a priority one other question with the six stories could and where would that come out of CRC or the planning department or where would that conversation happen about increasing that maybe the percentage of affordable units required yeah the um you know that was discussed and I think some planboard members felt the you know what we were providing in terms of say extra housing and tax dollars and other things there were benefits to the town it's not like we were losing on it and inclusionary Zoning still would apply right so you'd still get the 12% and you know at different 60% Ami or 80% Ami so if you had a you know 100 unit development you're still going to get your some affordable units um and there's some discussion right about what does it mean if you have Miss middle uh inclusionary zoning and it's something that the Housing Trust has talked about and so anything above 80% Ami is not regulated by the state it would become essentially a local restriction that the town would have to monitor and enforce it's not a bad thing it's just an extra thing it hasn't been you know i' I've suggested it like could we you know if you have a bigger development get you know 5% more of the units like up to 17% of all units and have some be missing middle I think you know um there's probably more to it than just say add to some percentage right because all of a sudden uh those units have to be marketed they have to be monitored they have you know there's a deed restriction and so um that you I think that's a it's a little bit bigger conversation in terms of how does that work uh and so but I think if it comes back you know if if this you know this moves forward and it is referred back then I think that's when it can happen right so there'll be public hearings and essentially there's a whole another set of process to review this and so you know is you know you we could say well if there's a lot of density here is the current inclusionary zoning um you know does it get what we want in terms of affordable housing or does it need to be modified as part as part of just the overlay right it wouldn't apply to everything but just the overlay okay thank you I was wondering where the when the conversation happened and you're saying it's a little later down in the process right along thank you Chris do you want to add something to that you have your hand up yeah it's just like a supplement um I think that once this goes to Town Council and Town Council refers it back it would be referred to the planning board and the CRC and each um body could make suggestions about how to amend it and it may be that it ends up sort of like things happen in the legislature in Boston where you know the house does one thing and the uh higher um chamber does something else and then they come back together and create something that they can both move forward with so there will be time to make these changes later on thank you Pat do you want to go ahead go ahead Pam I'll go after you um I had a couple questions that um one was is has there been any public forum at all to solicit besides just you know public comment on a particular evening anything in particular to solicit public comment no the you know the chair of the planning board felt that you know this had been discussed over almost a year that there had been some you know time for public comment so members of the public did hear about it and they came it wasn't any direct Outreach in terms of property owners or anyone else and so typically when there's a zoning Amendment you know it's not even a zoning Amendment right it's just to me it would be a an idea of having a zoning Amendment you know this for instance the planning board could have said no to this and then it just wouldn't have gone anywhere and so typically we would not email or you know notify by mailing property owners in a zoning change I mean I agree this is a discret area but typically say we're thinking about oh we're maybe changing something with with a residential use we're not going to send out a mailing to a thousand properties to say that we're considering changing a zoning Amendment that's not a legal requirement but anyways The Hope was that if this moves forward we would have you know specific there' be public hearings and be notifications and you know once it became became something real was kind of the idea like now we can um you know present it thank you it was yeah was that sort of a yes or no question um another yes or no question is kind of has UMass been in conversation with the planning department um as they have discussed this overlay Zone uh UMass attended a meeting of the planning board uh maybe twice in the last year they've been at meetings where this has been discussed I don't know if it's you know how directly in terms of their comments on this uh but they they haded meetings where housing was discussed and you know thank you and then my third question has to do with the bike path and the fact that that we have a super duper Swift way on the east side of University Drive it to me it would not make sense to have another 10- foot wide multi-use path on the West Side um since that would be primarily the housing aspect I understand you'd have to cross over the street to get over to the the super duper Highway for the bikes but um I think that would be some consideration that it may not need to be replicated or duplicated Pat you you have your hand up thank you I I was not going to speak because Mandy brought up the issue that I was curious about about current mixed use buildings uh say off College Street where nothing's happening in the first floor no commercial uh space is going in and I know that there have been talks with the uh ammer food co-op but I don't think they've gone anywhere because of the cost um but I want to talk a little bit there's an impact on Commercial businesses of online shopping of Amazon and all this delivery we've seen a mall um fall apart in a certain kind of sense and there could be some exciting things that could be put in there um but I want to talk a little bit about the character of our community my I'm talking about a college town in a different way uh one of the things I I keep thinking about great barington where my son went out was at college and how the restaurants were Quirk quirky the bookstore the there were quirky businesses and we've lost that we've lost yarn shops and and incense driven wonderful places I can't think of the name of anymore um we've lost that quirkiness to some very big residential buildings I don't care whether you like the buildings or you don't but we lost some character of really being a College Community and my concern is one things like the bike exchange what will happen if a developer can come in and put in a modern um mixed use building and I'm interested in this project so this is but uh in a good way but they come in they get rid of the you know we're talking about well we can keep the senior places open but are you going to keep the bike Exchange open or the little pizza place that couldn't necessarily afford is there any thought to integrating some of the businesses that already exist or are we just going to make this facade of business businesses that are not open you know there are campsites behind some of those buildings that are used by homeless community members and I wish they didn't have to be there but they're there what will happen to them um so I'm looking at the character in a slightly different way and I do support increased housing I I love the walkways and things like that but I'm really we're kind of erasing some important small businesses because this is still it's going to all be about the money we know that it's going to be about the money so probably didn't need to hear me speak but I needed to thank you um councelor haniki thank you um two things that have come up from the conversation the first is and when talking about mixed use um you know Pat makes a good point but I I guess I'm curious as we regulate mixed use are there prohibited types of uses in a mixed use building um Can a grocery store be in a mixed use building can an insurance agency be in a mixed use building can a bike exchange can a research and development Park be in a mixed use building what what what is the parameters around what can actually go in a mixed use building because I don't and I don't know whether that changes because it's an overlay with specific mixed use things or whether it follows whatever the zoning definition of mixed use is um so that's sort of a general question and specific to this my next one is it sounds like as as um the two of you talk about this the planning board voted you talk about it coming to the council for referral to CRC and and the planning board for what might be hearings and all but you're also talking about it in very much a um this isn't a a this is an evolving set of regulations um very much evolving whereas you're not even sure whether the planning board when it comes back to them will stick with what they've already voted to support or not so I guess I'm and then and then Chris talked about um well the planning board might go one way and CRC might go another and then they'll get together somehow although we don't really have a mechanism for that because it's planning board and then CRC and then Council as how it's been done in the past so I'd really like you to talk more about actually you know how you actually for see a planning board reacting to or at all seeing any potential changes that that CRC might discuss might recommend might vote on um when that happens it sounds like you see this as sort of very well-formed enough for a hearing but yet also very much within um a a system that a place where there could be massive changes to it um that could change sort of all sorts of things so I'd like you to talk a little bit more about your idea of what those next steps are besides just planning board voted to support it it goes to the council the council will refer it if they choose to you know what's your vision thanks yeah Chris has our hand up I'll I'll say a few things so you know the the planning board discuss like what's the purpose and goal of this and so is it strictly housing is it housing and economic development and so how do we build off that and so you know my thought is if we wanted to say this is just a housing overlay yeah I would say no mixed use buildings let's just say we're gonna allow student housing only in the overlay social dories you know Max buildout that's what we're going to do but that's not what we're going to do right so that's not what the purpose and goal of the overlay is and so to me part of the discussion is I think there's people in town that may want a number of different things and purposes out of this overlay and what is the right one and that like I said that may evolve right there may be what we think is the right one now and it might need to change and so um you know and some people might think that the housing overlay right without any mixed uses what we really need and so some of the planning board members said they see this as you know one step in a process in a strategy is to say well how can we protect other neighborhoods you know let's work on this let's actually allow places where students can you know or denser housing can be and then let's look at other measures uh in other neighborhoods right let's start looking working get you know having multiple strategies come forward at the same time or maybe this is the first step and then there's gonna be others and so you know that's to me that's where things could change in terms of planning board and CRC process there could always be a joint hearing or maybe the CRC really feels strongly about one piece and maybe the planning board really feels strongly about one piece and then that has to be you know that has to be resolved and that could be um whether it's a a joint meeting or then that goes back to council and there's actually two recommendations and then the council has to you know hear from both you know the CRC and staff I I I think some of it would be let's make sure we have a clear purpose and goal and can we agree on how the overlay is achieving that and uh so like I said I think people will have different ideas for what a goal and purpose should be of this overlay I'm G to go to Christine before I go to Jennifer okay I just wanted to say two things I think with regard to the uses that Mandy um that councelor hanii brought up um I think it was councelor hanii anyway it would be it would revert to what uses are allowed in the underlying zoning District so the underlying zoning District of most of this is BL so the uses that are allowed in the BL District would be those that are allowed in the commercial portion of the um building that's the way it works in the uh BG zoning district downtown for mixed juice buildings the types of uses that are allowed in the mixed use portion um the non-residential portion are those that are ordinarily allowed in BG and there may be some uses that would require a special permit so I think that's the answer to that although we could work on that if that is disagreeable and and people have a reason for not um thinking that that's a good idea the second thing is that I wanted to remind people about when we had those 11 uh zoning amendments going through um the planning board and the CRC there was an iterative process when um the planning board would hold a public hearing session they would come up with some questions or changes um the CRC would often uh wait to come up with their recommendation about that until they heard what the planning board's recommendation was so I think there is um precedent for that kind of back and forth um parallel hearings and eventually um we did reach resolution on on most of the things that we were studying back at that time I can't remember what year it was but um so we have experience with that going back and forth from the planning board to the CRC about what is the final version of this going to include and Chris before before you sign off um if you could suggest for instance who might who might be writing the drafts is this a planning board effort or is this a CRC effort well the draft is already written so we have a draft and the draft would be um presented to Town Council and then Town Council would decide is this ready to be uh sent to um the planning board and the CRC for public hearings Town Council could decide no this isn't ready and they want the planning board to do more work on it um so that would be a you know an a potential outcome in our opinion it is ready to be um sent to Town Council for a referral but um you know that's probably something that you might consider contributing to that conversation thank you would you call me oh sorry thank you okay I just wanted to Pat I totally agreed with everything you said I really missed the quirky yes the quirky shops you know the Cottage Shop that had the yarn shop the music store the um hay antiques my bike is at Hampshire Bike exchange for the week now um so and I think that's maybe why in terms of reaching out to some of the small businesses that are there I mean I I I hope we can do everything that we can to keep the shops that are on University Drive and attract new ones and I think in terms of it being we're talking it being an overlay not just for students but for other residents as well and I think as the more that it can have some of those unique shops and and the commercial that draws people there I guess because I live close to University Drive I solicit businesses there all the time the little sandwich shop next to Hampshire Bike exchange so I I just I think it would be we would we could gain a lot with this overlay but I think we would be losing it if there was any kind of a incentive for the commercial which could be it could be an insurance company Hampshire Bike exchange a restaurant whatever it would be but um so I again maybe there you know that that's a reason to reach out to some of the commercial establishments there um because I would hate for Hampshire Bike exchange to think they're going to be driven away by this you know they're a really valued long-standing business in town um and then I also want to ask does the CRC ever get together with the planning board is that something like we've had a joint meeting with the affordable housing trust we could probably do that with the planning board I'm seeing heads nodding yeah the CRC did have joint meetings with the planning board during those um conversations about zoning so we have precedent for that did we you mean the last Council session that would have been like in 2021 when we had I wasn't here I thought it was yeah that was a muddle um um councelor hanii this I just want to note that it's it's just about 7:30 and we had talked about perhaps being able to start um solar byw conversation at 7:30ish um but I we have Nate and we have Christine here I would really like to cons continue in the the vein of of this topic and the um design development so Mandy counselor hanii if you want to follow up with your last question and then I think we should transition to a new topic yes thank you um going back to the process um the process that Christine was referencing was when we didn't have hearings on the table um when we were developing and talking about I think Pam you weren't on the council but you were very much involved in a rewrite of a BL and there were no hearings it was just development sort of sort of what the planning board already went through um and that's sort of what I'm hearing you talk about now so I've got concerns about sending it to hearing when we haven't had those discussions it's why I've been asking for this and updates and all um because I worry that maybe we are on two different pages or that the community isn't you know Nate was Nate Nate said it perfectly what's the goal and there might be different goals and if you don't have the goal set before you start hearings as patent I saw um and even CRC saw with last terms patent eyes proposals last terms things get very complicated very quickly and very frustrating very quickly when you're in the middle of public hearings um because it becomes a lot harder to deal with different versions in different bodies because there's a then then what happens when you get to the council and one body's recommended one version and one body's recommended another and it's not one small change here or there right it's not necessarily to to reference this one it's not the size of the overlay it's the fundamental purpose of the overlay and so they're completely different proposals and so I guess given this conversation and and where it still sound sounds like maybe some goals of the overlay are still up for discussion despite the planning board having voted maybe it's not time to go to the council yet maybe it's time to have those joint conversations between CRC and the planning board before it goes back to the council thanks sounds like it's a good topic for another meeting uh Christine yeah I just wanted to point out that um you did have the solar byw on your agenda but Stephanie chillo is not able to join us this evening and she and I have not done uh any work since the last meeting on the solar bylaw um and so you may just want to continue this conversation and the conversation about downtown design standards and not think that you're going to have a robust discussion on the solar bylaw I mean it's completely up to you but I'm just suggesting that yeah and I think I I think I just said that I think it wouldd be smart to continue with YouTube because you're here and I didn't know Stephanie wasn't available so that's I think really good um I would like to reserve some time for some public feedback um at some point and I think um again maybe we'll do a short public let's see how many people in the audience two attendees in the audience um let's take a let's take a a short um ask if anyone has University Drive questions and comments and then we'll move into the design standards so I see in the audience uh Pat you're M you're muted Pat you're muted I'm sorry I would like to set the time um the time period in which a person can share their public comment so it's up to I think that's important and that it needs to be consistent thank you would you like to put your timer on you have do you have one yeah okay what time do what amount of time are you giving people limiting to three minutes and we only have two people in the audience so we have a Max of six minutes here uh I see Janet McGowan's hand up if you could someone could bring her into the to talk about University Drive am I here now we're here now thank you um I really appreciate the quality and the depth of the discussion and I I agree um with what Mandy Joe is saying is that once this goes to public hearing and you know gets referred back to the planning board they have to give a response in a certain amount of time and it's not really a time to redraft and Mull and make decisions and you know we were sort of told this is sort of you know Concepts and ideas and I had the impression that the CRC would sort of take this up and dig in deeply and I have the hopes that you would dig deeply and you know contact people who live there and get their thoughts um and I actually think it's a really exciting place like ever since I moved here I thought why isn't there this a housing District you know why isn't there more happening on University Drive and I think it take I I would hope the CRC would take the time to get it right and look at other examples the other like little pieces and so is I think there was like a study of amoris and like over 200 million dollars is being spent outside of our community over 20 million on food and so I think you know all those people from UMass it's the largest employer driving down University Drive we want them to pull over and go to a restaurant a coffee shop get a tattoo you know a pet store a clothing boutique you know I just I just wrote down 30 shops that I've seen in Hadley open up or small shops we used to have and so I think that's the reason to have the requirement of small you know retail commercial you know professional offices you know so I think I hope you do the deeper dive and we have a really strong bylaw that goes out to The Town Council and comes back to the planning board which I believe I won't be on but I can't say with any assurance and so um I just think that you know the process needs to get deeper here and I would you know go back to the planning because nothing was you know no one was super set on anything and there were reasons for things that were done having like an open conversation would be helpful I hope that's I hope that's the last the end for me thanks thank you Martha and then I'm gonna go to Dave Zac who has his hand up Martha Martha go ahead Martha Hanner South ammer I just wanted to quickly follow up and pose a question regarding one of the comments that was brought up bemoaning the small businesses that now do exist and would they be able to continue is there any precedent for having small businesses that exist being grandfathered in somehow so that they would be able to persist in some new building without having a huge rent increase I'm thinking of Jerry Jolly and how sad it was that he was driven out out of town despite being such a you know active participant in ammer because his restaurant was forced out and so I just posed the question whether uh there's any precedent for being able to uh have some grandfathered clause for existing businesses thank you thank you Dave Zac sure thank you um I guess this is a part of part question question and part comment and I I think it's to be posed to Christine and to Nate um coming into this conversation and and I and I thought what I heard earlier from you particularly Christine was that um that it was my impression that the planning board was ready for this to be moved on through the town manager to the council so I'm a little confused as to some comments that have been made here tonight about whether it's not ready or whether there's more discussion to be had at the planning board level my understanding was the I thought the planning board voted on it and they they basically wanted staff to move it on to the town manager who would then move it on to the Town Council for a vote up or down on referral to the CRC and presumably the um the planning board at the same time so I'm could somebody clarify that a little bit I I'm I came into this evening thinking that's where we were and maybe I had the wrong impression Chris ornate so I think that the planning board did um want this to go to Town Council for referral back to them and the CRC it is true though that when things are referred back to uh to public hearing that there are changes that are made the changes are made because we hear from the public and the changes are um related to discussions that occur during those public hearings so it's not uh it's not true that something gets referred to Town Council comes back for public hearing and then it the same exact document always goes back to Town Council again things change so and things can change in CRC public hearings and things can change in planning board public hearings now a lot of questions have been brought up tonight that weren't that weren't brought up during the planning board's discussion about this but I do believe that the planning board intended that this document would go to Town Council so I think what we're experiencing here is perhaps um an evolution in that thought that maybe planning board members who were to listen to this conversation would say oh maybe we need to think about this further I don't know Nate is really the person who's most close to this but I I just wanted to confirm the fact that the planning board did believe that this was ready to go for a referral Nate yeah no I mean they've been discussing this for a year and so I think that they're solid in their what they want this to do and that's why you like I said we proposed a housing kind of focused overlay at one point point and a mixed use one and they chose the mixed use one and so they're they're sure of what they want it's you know possibly little details that could be changed they're not saying well let's just rewrite this and allow housing only they want it to be a mixed use overlay District you know maybe the changes are what percent do we change inclusionary zoning do we change the percent of mixed use requirements or do we specify exactly what mixed uses we want but not let's open it back up again and say we're going to allow only apartment and social dories no they want mixed use buildings when I said that there may there may be difference of opinion I think in the community others might say well no let's just do this or let's do this but in terms of the planning board they're they're ready I mean I think some members of the planning board were ready six months ago and so there's been discussions about you know how could we save existing businesses and there's been discussions about can we require you know the developer to meet with staff beforehand which we do anyways but like and say can you say this you know tax breaks or some types of assessment tools that could be used outside of zoning and so I feel like through all these discussions you know some of this has all been discussed in bits and pieces but for the planning board's purpose they're assure of this thinking that well yeah like Chris mentioned during the hearing process there may be other considerations but not that we're going to say oh we're going to drop mix use buildings and now just go to Apartments I think they're sure that they want mix use buildings how do we maybe make changes in terms of dimensional standards or you you know percentage of use or what the uses are allowed in a mixed use building but not changing the overlay in its entirety in terms of goal or purpose if I could Pam I mean that's that's kind of the impression I came into this meeting with and fully recognizing that change may happen after the referrals after if the Town Council decides to refer this uh out to to committees but I think I didn't want to leave it and go to the next topic with kind of what I heard was was this impression that well maybe the planning board isn't ready and maybe the planning board wants to come back and talk to CRC I came into this meeting after being briefed by staff thinking planning board's ready they want to move this along and and they're willing to have the the council consider it consider referral and if they don't if the council doesn't think it's ready for referral then they won't refer it and then the planning board can go back to their to the drawing board but if they do refer it then there's time for more discussion and and and and change if needed massaging of of wording and content Etc so anyway I'll stop there but that was the point of my question thank you so it in any case we'll end up becoming a topic for CRC to be discussing in the not too far future probably Let's uh let's transition to the design guidelines very exciting topic yeah uh I I'll speak to that for a bit the town uh has been working with Dodson and flinker uh they were selected through a request for a proposal process so he went out you know did public bidding and they responded there was a a review team and they they've been selected it was a competitive process uh we're really excited to have them they you know they've they've been in town they've had held meetings um and you know this is a it was it was built as an 18mon two-year process I think that you know they they plan on this being a full two-year process uh and so we're um you know they've been doing some things they're still a year and a half at least left in the process uh and you know uh Dodson one reason we like them is you know they they they're familiar with ammer and New England and they can contextualize you know their design standards and ideas right so they're familiar with they do projects all over New England Massachusetts and outside but they're really familiar with kind of the New England landscape and and built environment and everything and they also like to um try to get consensus by using a working group so you know right now it's almost a 40 person working group they like to have meetings with them to help influence and guide their decisions but then they also then open up to General Public meetings and forums but they're you know really try to have a consensus building process and so so for them they like to do a lot of research and data and public Outreach in an iterative process of more public Outreach and really trying to get to a point where you know everyone can agree to something and so you know when we were interviewing them they said you know in Northampton it was a unanimous vote to agree to form based code everyone it took a while to get there but everyone agreed and there was no dissenting vote so it was a you know all in favor uh and so they really work to try to get that and so we like that idea in terms of a process for ammer uh it is only focused on the downtown um there's been some ideas that uh you know within the downtown we could have a core set of standards and then maybe for secondary streets or transitional streets and then residential streets and you know I've always thought that if these standards are we like them we can take them as staff in the town and then apply them elsewhere right we could say well we like what they wrote here we're going to adapt them to East ammer or north ammer but the focus is um on the downtown and so the idea is to have them I I'm going to share a map kind of look at what you know what is the downtown uh in terms of kind of built environment and and atmosphere not just the zoning districts and so uh this heavy black line is kind of a preliminary idea of what they could look at so you know encompasses all of BG BL some neighboring residential uh you know it doesn't go too far a field it's not as big as the business bu improvement district but you know the idea was let's not just limit it to the BG zoning District you know are there reasons why it could be some adjacent properties outside the BG uh and and not that they're going to say well yeah this this whole area is gonna be five stories I think the hope is that they would say what's appropriate along some of the main streets is not the same as what's you know down on H Street but that they would address that so if there's Redevelopment you know what is appropriate on in these kind of transition areas uh in terms of scheduling this is something they presented recently uh you know they're they've broken it down so they have you know through December of 25 and so what they're really preparing right now June through August is you know we were talking about we've always said we'd have a website so we're trying to get that going they want to do public workshops uh kind of you know get at the farmers market get a um not just you know having a meeting in town hall but getting out into different community events you know a visual preference survey and then uh you know still working through what what people see as you know ideas for for downtown um and they've already come up with a draft RightWay standards some of this project was Grant funded and so we needed to have something by June 30th of this year in terms of what's happening in the right of way um you know materials width of sidewalks Street tree planting areas and so they have a draft there um I think some of it has really helped to sat to satisfy the Grant I think you know that is still very much a draft and under consideration but they were you know worked with us in terms of getting that done for the grant program and uh so you know what we're hoping is that the process will lead to standards for the right of way you know which is what the town controls and also what's on private property and so you know if if we decide that we think a 12T sidewalk or whatever is necessary from Curb to building then that can inform what the setback would be right now in the BG it it's you know we can allow you know we can have no setback and all of a sudden we might have pinch points or we have a narrow sidewalk and and so the idea is really what what is what what do we want in terms of a streetcape and so sometimes it's also you know that means what happens on private property and so um you know they're they're going to have recommendations in terms of acept back that then might you know have zoning implications uh they're looking at the facade treatments you know architectural standards for the buildings along you know those different zones and so you know the visual preference survey you know help guide that different presentations they're doing uh case studies um and you know they're going to have a a number of tasks that'll lead up to these standards and so you know consensus I'm not sure you know they're really still big on trying to get consensus I think uh you know they've asked well you know would we allow a modern building what does that look like you know is it you know window patterns is the materials you know all these things are going to discussed and so you know I think some people you know planning staff have heard from some saying well this you know is this actually become more restrictive what's happening and I like to think that actually it would become a nice formula that you know if someone is proposing something in the downtown and they meet the standards then it's an actually it's it's easier for the permitting board to review it right now I feel like the planning board when it's a a a byright use or a site plan review use I don't feel like they feel empowered to say well no push your building back five feet and we don't like that overhang and you know let's change this because the the project is essentially allowed and so to me these standards are going to help everyone a developer uh Property Owners the permitting review in the public to know what's happening if you know through these standards if we say we want to have um you know wider sidewalks and outdoor dining and certain Street trees and this type of amenity space and this type of architectural features in terms of banding between the first and second floor uh you know where certain types of materials then that's what it is and so you know every time there's a project we're not you know scrambling to review a project by project and say wow is this contextual does it fit we already know it will and so the idea is let's start having better conversations in terms of you know what do we want to see downtown um so anyways the what in the packet it's hard to read but they have in the request for proposals we had a detailed task list and they broke it out by task and subtask uh and so you know right now we're um you know we're still really in task two and then we have task uh task three four and five and six and they say you know and they've kind of folded in in the middle here bringing some of these later tasks up earlier to try to you know get people's opinions sooner say they might put out design guidelines just to see what people think even though it's way down on task five but they just want to start that process and discussion in terms of okay how can we build consensus what are really you know are there points of consensus are there points of disagreement you know what what are really the the you know things we need to focus on and so you know I'd say that beginning in late August starting in September they're really going to be doing a lot of public meetings and Outreach um you know the visual preference survey we'll have an online you know website with an online comment form and all the information will be posted up there and so I think much of the process is still yet to come Christine hi I just wanted to mention that um the process really started off with a consultant asking us staff to make recommendations about um stakeholder groups and we had um different stakeholder groups that we thought of um business people residents um shop owners developers I can't remember all the different stakeholder groups so we um suggested names to the um to the uh Consultants that people who would fit into those groups and they took those groups and met with them separately we weren't part of the meetings and they presented information to them and asked them questions to get their ideas and their input about you know what did these different stakeholder groups feel about the downtown area and how it could be made better and then um after the stakeholder group meetings they um came back to us and said well we would like to know about um how to develop a working group so um we made recommendations about some of the members who had been part of the stakeholder groups who represented different um you know entities in town just like like I said business owners developers residents um shopkeepers Etc and we have now formed a working group that is I don't know 30 or 40 people Nate probably knows better um and we've tried to make it representative it it isn't completely representative of all um the different groups in town but we're trying to add people to make it more representative um and the develop and the consultant has been working with that group and again Nate and I haven't been part of those meetings but they've had two or three meetings in town hall with this with the working group presenting information to them and soliciting input and I think they've had very good meetings um from what I've heard from the consultants and sometimes I'm here at night and I hear what goes on in town hall because or town room because my office is right next to it so I can kind of hear a lively discussion going on so that's kind of where we are now the next thing is that they're going to have um a multi-day uh public forum and they're hoping to do that in September um they've chosen the weekend of September 13th through the 15th the 13th is a Friday 14th is a Saturday and 15th is a Sunday so what they're hoping to do is have um One location like um perhaps the crocker Farm uh cafeteria or the large activity room at the bang Center or the cafeteria at the high school we haven't exactly settled on a venue yet um and that at that meeting um there would be a multi-day event where the Consultants would invite you know anybody who wanted to show up and they would give them a presentation and then take them through a series of exercises um to seek public in input about certain things so we're hoping that that will come along and that's going to be pretty soon that's only midt so here it is the end of July so it's another you know maybe six or seven weeks from now that they'll be doing that and I think a lot more information about what they've gathered from the stakeholder groups and what they've gathered from the working group will come out at that time and we'll be privy to it then too we haven't really seen much of what their work product has been but um that's that's kind of the process to date so I just wanted to inform you about that thank you uh councel hanaki thank you um some questions for clarification and then and then some others um can we get a draft of the right of way standards that are draft standards so that we can see them um the you you talked a lot about standards um and then you mentioned form-based zoning at some point um I had heard a rumor that doson and flinker were thinking that these would not be mandatory that they'd just be guidelines that might need to be followed might could be followed but that they wouldn't is this envisioned as a essentially a form-based zoning rezoning of this particular area area um or is it envisioned as more of the design guidelines that are a little more specific but that are currently in the bylaw as just guidelines um because I know I envisioned it as form-based zoning um and then standards you talked about maybe being able to move them on but I looked at you know and I've got questions about you know the I'm glad to see that the area is being expanded Beyond just the BL and BG um but I'm concerned if we're trying to fit one sort of form to all of those areas when some of them are small residential buildings that have a different form than a large commercial block like our downtown Center Pleasant Street block um so can you talk about how they might deal with that um thank you for describing some of the stakeholder groups um were the stakeholders actually including downtown businesses and downtown land owners and what about residents that aren't near the downtown like just residents of ammer or students of ammer not those directly adjacent to downtown and then I'd like a list of who's on the working group I actually have some concerns about a working group that did not go out for public application and it sounds like this did not um that it was just based on um who you thought of which is not necessarily bad but it's limited to your your OWN Network then instead of other people who might be interested that might not be in your network so can we get a list of um people who are on it uh what was the process for getting on it if other people want to get on it whether it be counselors or other members of the public how do they get themselves known to be interested in being on such a working group um and are the working group meetings public I haven't seen anything come across the Public Notices that these meetings are public public and so um are minutes being taken can I go attend one how would I know when one is taking place if I want to or is this really just a private meeting amongst whoever was put on the working group um and I'm here asking that when they do those boards and committee meetings that they come not just to CRC but they come to the council for some of them too you can we respond now yeah go ahead yeah and the request for proposal which you know the CRC you looked at in the planning board it took a while to develop we you know identified a number of stakeholders a lot of public meetings and you know one reason we like Dodson and they said that they're always available to you know meet more than you know say we prescribed and so um I think that you know I think we had at one point we had count it up I mean it was like two dozen meetings plus events plus public workshops I mean we really TR to build in a lot of time with uh with staff boards and committees and the public um and also in the RFP we did specify that we'd like to see three you know at least three kind of design standards to meet the context of those neighborhoods right so it's not like they're going to say in that within that boundary it's all one standard that they would actually respond to what's there now and what they see as appropriate you know massing and height and everything and so you know my idea in what we wrote Into the RFP and you know was that right so there might be a core you know there may be a core area that has a set of density or regulations and then it is different say on Kellog than it is on North Pleasant Street and so you know it wasn't that they're going to write one standard to apply everywhere uh in terms of what is it it was never form-based code it's a so in in Northampton when they wrote form based code they essentially um you know looked at use table and a lot the dimensional standards and they rewrote a lot you know a lot of the zoning bylaw they you know took what was there replaced it with say 70 pages of form-based code and so that's not what we're asking them to do in terms of writing zoning they will have you know can be a lengthy design standard report it can be graphics and so in the request for proposal you know we said that it uh there's a possibility of it being incorporated into the zoning byog or the general bylaw if it applies to the public right of way and so uh you know they've asked that question you know how much is this going to become requirements or you know is this just a an advisory um piece and I'd like to think that it becomes a requirement uh you know in part because we're going through this effort to me it's a it's a requirement that they be followed but it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be zoning it can be referenced and cited in the zoning that these standards apply and are used used by the permit granting authorities in their review of projects and so you know we're not going to have a 100 page design standard in the zoning bylaw but it'll be um you know cited in reference and so then it becomes um used and so for the working groups you know the working group is a is not it's not for the benefit of the Town manager of the town it's a working group for the benefit of our consultant and so they've used this model in various towns you know they are taking minutes it's all dots in and um their employees and so you know we didn't this isn't like a working group that is O subject to open meeting law it's something that's helping the consultant uh with their process and so you know everything that they learn there the idea is they're going to take it out and then present it at all their other public meetings and workshops and things and it gets incorporated into their standards and their documents and so you know it's not as if we're saying you know make a recommendation to the town manager and that type of as as that working group it's really they're just here to help the consultants and so staff you know we don't attend the working group meetings the idea is that it's really for the benefit of Dodson and so uh yeah right now I think it's probably about 39 people and so it has grown and so we had a list of people we emailed and called um you know different Property Owners business owners stakeholders and the idea was you know first are they interested and then could they commit to you know six to nine group meetings over a series of you know two years and then uh they've had held two meeting meetings and since then even just you know I think yesterday another name came in you know saying oh well this person you know doesn't live in the downtown but you know might be you know as good you know a lot of people said could someone from the public shade tree committee be associated with this because there's been a lot of talk about you know shade trees and green infrastructure and could we have someone knowledgeable and interested in town with this could we have someone from you know historic someone interested in you know bike you know bike and pedestrian networks and so Dodson had said in their communities they work with they try to have you know a range of stakeholders and perspectives you know essentially they'd say it'd be great if every person represented something different and then you know uh it can be you know multiple viewpoints in this working group and so you know we've been um amenable to adding people I think at some point you know you know if it to me it's like once you get to 40 people do you really you know maybe you get to 45 but after that you're just not going to have anymore and some of it is that all this information will be public there's probably many opportunities for people to provide comments on it so like I said this working group is a chance for Dodson to bounce ideas off and you know refine some things and then make it all public again but their their ideas you know if we have enough stakeholders in this are we getting somewhere that there's some consensus about um about some of their ideas and so you know I don't you know I think that if people are interested sure um they've been really gracious to say let's add people but I they haven't said said there's a limit I just think at some point there probably is just in terms of how you can accommodate you know 40 people in a room uh they set it they do set it up as a zoom meeting to accommodate people remotely it's not a hybrid meeting we don't manage it but you know they they've been able to accommodate you know the 39 people so far thank you Jennifer yes so I did want to ask if so this multi-day forum the weekend of September 13th to 15th that's something you would let the council know enough ahead of time so we can let our you know get the information out to our district mailing lists and the other thing I don't know would could they could could we have this as a topic at our district meetings at some point even a representative from doson and flicker blinker um because I'm just I'm just thinking of just I wouldn't know about this if I wasn't on the council so I'm just wondering how many people out there you know in terms of our uh District residents know this is happening so but I'm sure they would be interested if if they knew so I I don't know how much of an imposition that is on the consultant's time but if there was a possibility um of them coming to dist you know at some point over the next year coming to a district meeting or dist each District's meeting thank you um we could ask I mean I you know we didn't have that as part of the process staff could do it or you know they might be willing um you know we have been in discussions with trying to get the web page going uh and so then really at least making everything available publicly so you know it's some of it's here and there but really consolidating it and then um and so you know then we can at least point you know have that be a you know one one place for someone to look I mean maybe it's something if we had a district meeting we could ask the to come okay thanks I think for Dodson they would you know they might I just don't want to say yes to them and then have them go to Every you know area and then it's all of a sudden like they're you know it's a fullblown workshop for them and so you know is it at what point in the process would it be good for them to go but yeah um I actually had my hand up but it disappeared but I'll go back to the Andy coun Han oh um so the website I think would be extremely valuable now I think if they're already doing working group meetings and taking minutes and all there's just no information available for someone who's not sort of connected to the planning department or Dodson and flinker frankly you know um because there's no information available anywhere there's no public knowledge that any of this is happening um and in some sense that concerns me um that that the process is six months in and we don't have access to those documents um even though there have already been two working group meetings I'd like to know the constituencies that are on the working group um I am still concerned about the makeup of the working group that it sounds like potentially that anyone who asks might be able to be on it but to be able to ask you have to know um and that's something that I guess if I go back to my Charter commission days was near and dear to the Charter Commission of prohibiting or breaking down and breaking up the needing to already be in the know to be able to get involved um and and that's my concern here with a working group that comes solely from um recommendations from the planning department or someone who's already on the working group it sounds like um and not a general call for working group members um because a general call for working group members might get a more diverse group of people that is being then consulted that is being that these ideas are being run off of and I know know there's this public process coming up um but it sounds like the working group might be the heart of it and or part of the heart of it and a working group that's part of the heart of it that is formed only from needing to know someone and needing to already be involved concerns me I had a couple questions and um it would be it would be great to see what was presented as part of the grant uh application even if it's rough uh streetscape standards whatever that uh it would be really fun to be able to see that um I had a similar question of are we are we creating um standards or are we creating guidelines and I know that for instance the um the design review board has guidelines and I can tell you if you know my interpretation of of what they're um my interpretation is different than members of the design review board from time to time so I I understand that it's can't dictate what a town is going to look like specifically over time um but I'm again curious standards versus versus guidelines um I like the fact that there are a couple of SC sces of of uh development that are being considered um if I think about the downtown area there are actually very few chunks of real estate that are up for conversion or up for conversation even um unless we're looking 150 years out there may be some changes in some of the some of the structures uh in the downtown area um but I'm I'm excited to hear what the working group also has has been discussing and I understand that they're trying to develop some some parameters for decision making and I think that's uh I'm I'm happy to leave them to that process um what else did I jot down um actually I think that's it but thank you anyone else comments or or questions Dave you you're kind of doing your hand oh okay um councilor hanak I I just had one I forgot to say and and I wanted to clarify something Nate said because I I don't think it was accurate Nate implied early on in his presentation that CRC had reviewed the RFP um as far as I know CRC never saw the RFP before it went out um so I don't even I maybe it's in tonight's SharePoint folder and packet but I'm not sure CRC ever saw it before it went out um so I just wanted to make that clarification or ask for that clarification because I don't think it was ever on a meeting of CRC Chris I think the planning board saw it I think the planning board saw the RFP for this project and I remember you know comments coming in from Doug Marshall can't remember others but um maybe that's what the confusion is that we thought it was CRC but I believe it was actually the planning board it was I would agree with Mandy it was not the the CRC I remember seeing a very early copy of it I didn't see any of the later copies but that was because I asked for p okay yeah maybe it wasn't seriously I know Pam you had provided comments and the PNY board looked at it twice and so you know they you know through that process you there were changes to some of the tasks and description of the town and other things so you know we had the this would have been I mean this is um gosh this could have been like almost a year ago that we started looking at this and then it was um discussed in the fall of 23 and so Dodson was chosen in maybe December of 23 and they started work in late January so early February um yeah so maybe I misspoke I know Pam and I thought others had I know there was public comment that was received about it and was discussed publicly thank you I'm looking at counselor ET or Pat D Angels any any other questions for design guidelines NADA okay I'm delighted that you were available to come tonight tonight and although we didn't discuss solar at all um this has been really productive and very helpful I'm I'm glad uh councelor hanii had asked several times if this could occur so I'm I hope she's happy and uh had a chance to ask her questions I think um I think that kind of wraps it up oh Pat you have your hand up now it wraps this part up I'm not commenting on anything that we've just been talking about the design standards I want to move on good and so I have something to say about moving on if you're ready okay I thank Chris and Nate for the work you've been doing I appreciate it yes thank you very much so I think we could release uh Nate and Chris from Duty and appreciate your time and uh if obviously if people have questions they should be forwarded to Nate and Chris uh as part of that conversation I ask if people can hear me we can hear you when you unmute I am unmuted uh but you guys froze so I'm trying to figure out what's going on yeah yes you're clear now uh the next on our agenda item was solar bylaw and I will I will say very specifically that at our next meeting which is in August and it is August 13 um I would very much like to talk about process next steps focus and um I think we could do some of that now Pam that would be great that'd be super and I mean one of the things that I think and and Mandy you got me thinking about this um about moving to battery storage we have taken a first pass there are things still to be worked on in the Solar bylaw as it's been uh presented so far um you know I'm even getting ready to remove the Nexus statements and things like that because you know there's a lot of ex but I feel like right now as Mandy brought up the state is coming in on large scale ground mounted but we heard earlier from Martha pner about the fact that municipalities will be able to do smaller uh things as long as the process takes just a year so it seems to me we need to continue with the solar bylaw but my feeling is that the next steps are to send what we have so far to all of the other committees that we want input from and let them start to work on that while we look at battery storage so that's what I was hoping oping that we would be able to do um so that's I'll stop there okay and I definitely want to come back to that yeah um councelor hanaki so I appreciate Martha and public comment bringing up the state of the um bills that are out of the House and Senate they're largely similar they're slightly different they're in um conference committee right now um because I am concerned that we might spend a lot of time I I actually disagree with Miss Hanner um on her conclusion about this which is why I wanted to bring it up you know the that bills if signed and if conferenced out um would have would have the state providing regulations and guidance developing the regulations and guidance in a new division of clean energy sighting and permitting housed within the department of energy resources even for projects that are the Consolidated permit under the 25 megaw um for generation and infrastructure storage under 100 megawatt um and so I feel like I'm not sure it's efficient for us to spend a lot of time coming up with our own sort of regulations and guidance on where to site and what site backs and this and that are when they might be in five six seven months overridden by the state um I think there's a lot we as a committee need to be doing um not just with solar but with housing with other environmental things um these are projects under 25 megawatts you know I've I've talked about what are we doing to encourage solar projects in places we want it particularly um on rooftops and on parking lots and other built infrastructure and wouldn't would our time be better spent looking at how to encourage and what we should be doing bylaw wise to encourage or regulation wise is there something we can do that would allow us to could we change our zoning to say well all all new buildings must have solar on their roofs is that something we can actually do that is Pro building of solar where we want it while we wait for the state regulations and guidelines to settle out um because I don't want us to spend eight months writing guidelines that then eight months from now are completely overridden by state law um because we could have been doing something more in those eight months um so I I think we need to take a step back and see where is our time best spent given the uncertainty of the state law and then if this passes and gets signed which we might know by our next meeting given the knowledge that that state law might actually say the division of clean energy sighting and permitting is coming up with regulations and guidelines for local permitting and that we're going to have to follow them whatever they are um and so maybe not writing a bylaw but coming up with ways to Advocate to that might better use of our time instead of spending it on bylaw writing or doing something else so I'd like to take a step back um thank you thank you both uh that was in in essence the conversation that I was hoping to have and I think we do not have enough time to do that tonight um I I um would actually lean in the direction of having having amorist have its house in order and it's um its documents in really good shape because I think uh I think it will be valuable as a tool to help direct what the state these people these people are going to be reaching out they're going to be looking they're going to look at Pioneer Valley planning committee commission they're going to look at other standards and templates they're going to look at Cape Cod and they can look at ammer and ammer will be a good example I think of um how to how to have a clear process I'd like to I'd like to have us thinking about what is a clear and concise process if we are required to go to a 12mon um um standard uh I've heard I've heard the director of um planning department say 12 months is a really tough sell there there are a lot of hurdles to go through what can we do in the preparation of our of our own um zoning to uh pave the way for that and and get our ducks in in order um Pat you talked about sending this to the the actual departments and committees and Boards in town they have never actually been asked to weigh in on it and and one of the things I want to leave you with is that I would be very willing to take a first pass at all the comments that we've received the comments that were made during CRC meetings and clean out some of the stuff that was felt to be kind of extraneous and have that as a document that could go to the different boards and and and committees to get their General feedback not as an not as a line by line edit but what are your thoughts on this topic what are your thoughts on this topic what should we consider and what has to be part of this bylaw so that's that's the approach that I would like very much to follow I mean councel Han so if that is an approach we follow I would like the committee to be able to submit questions that we would like answered I'm not sure you know the bylaw itself in my mind is a mess that it's not something to go off of um in terms of asking for feedback on the specific language in it I would rather us figure out using the bylaw as sort of a guide say what questions do we have you know Pam you you got to some of it um things like what would your setbacks be from Wells from that would you have different setbacks from X Y or Z not present them with a bylaw that was already drafted with setbacks but I'd want their unvarnished opinion on do we need setbacks or do we need to protect X or Y and if so how would you do it um I'd like a chance for the committee to come up with the questions to ask the different boards and committees rather than send a document off that I have a lot of questions about that when we went through the last couple of meetings I was told it wasn't time to ask those questions we were just trying to figure out did that section make sense um because I got a lot of changes I want from the thing I want I have a lot of discussion I'd like to have but I'm willing to start with a very general set of questions to go to boards and committees but I'd like a chance for CR if that's the way we go for CRC to be able to draft those questions then I would ask for any member of this committee to send me the questions and they will be in the next packet I will have a list of like an ongoing list of questions that we would want boards and committees um to be asked so that they can provide that kind of feedback so that that would be questions speciic specifically say for um Conservation Commission or okay or eak or whatever yeah okay there is a there is a memo in in our packet and it was included was included in the packet and in our folder and it was it was the original request that I made to the planning department on um staff and or committee input on the different sections and I would suggest read that as a start I had a I had a series of questions that I asked and then what input that I thought was appropriate for each of the sections in the in the bylaw take a look at that maybe that's a starting point where is that pen it's in our file in our folder and it's called memo for input or something like that in info request input request to planning director I think um Jennifer and I have a very quick do question so I don't know if this is out of order but I did see there's a hand up in the uh audience okay I'd like to I'd like to get our business done here first um thank you thank you though I wasn't looking um I have a question for Pat Andor counselor ET any idea when the nuisance bylaw is going to be discussed in go um so that we can talk about it here if we have to I suppose the plan would be for our next meeting and that is what date give me a moment to check that thank you well he's looking I have uh we have minutes of February 27 and I'm looking for a mo motion if anyone would like to uh move to accept those minutes as provided councilor August 8th August 8th okay I may not be readily available to answer question fact I I'm not going to be available I move that we accept the minutes and I don't know what the date of them is uh February 27 and March 12 if you want to do one at a time that's fine no let's do them together okay so uh second second second thank you I didn't unmute sorry thank you um we'll take a vote on acceptance of those minutes Pat hi I'm just going in order on my screen Pam Rooney is an i councelor hanaki i councelor ET I Dave zck oops just kidding Jennifer tab yes thank you um those will be those will be put uh as as accepted um let's see uh I have no specific announcements the next agenda preview definitely solar bylaw conversation hopefully nuisance bylaw conversation and I don't think we are going to be discussing the planning board appointments um but we may have to so I'm going to leave it on the uh I'm going to leave it on the next we also have battery storage to think about okay I was wrapping that under solar but I can add battery thank you anything else not anticipa within councelor hanii um I know I missed the last meeting so could you update me on it was my understanding that you all voted nuisance out of this committee and so why would it be coming back to us it because it went to the the last Clause was the severability which you had highlighted and and we acknowledged that we acknowledged to go that um it should be covered because it's under General bylaw and that's there's already a clause in our general bylaws to cover that as you pointed out but that um KP law um was going to be asked by the town manager in any case to review the document one more time and that clause in particular so hopefully they recommend that we take it out yeah I guess I don't understand why in any of that things it would need to come back to CRC because that's all stuff go would deal with so I guess I'm just confused I'm I'm I'm half anticipating that something comes back and they say we can't deal with this CRC you need to give us a better answer I hope not I think we did a really good clear job but who the heck knows okay so i' I'd like to leave it on the agenda just in case I I hope I hope I'm looking at our two counselors on that committee I hope it's smooth and wonderful and gets sent to councel um anything else for us tonight Martha Hanner has a raised hand um are we willing it's we have one minute Martha Hannah Hanner you have one minute can someone bring her in thank thank you I just wanted to respond here um POS the first question about in the argument about the solar bylaw do we really want to sit back be passive and do nothing and let the state dictate the terms under which we have to work for solar bylaws wouldn't it be better for us to just go ahead and set the the the standards and requirements that we want the information we want developers to submit to us the information we feel is important the um flood control or erosion control storm water management protection of private water wells aren't those things important to anybody aren't they things that we would like to specify so that's the first question the second question about you know wasting time we wasted we spent 18 months working this on this seven people trying to get as educated as possible about the state requirements the background the battery storage the storm water the um etc etc and now this group has dithered around for eight months since then and now we hear that it would take another eight months to quote fix the language here seems to me that it's time to send this to the various committees after all what committee is going to use it zba don't you want to hear what they think is important to include don't you want to hear what's the Conservation Commission thinks is important to include I would say that we need to just after dithering for well over two years we need to focus get the various committees to respond to us and then decide if you can put together a bylaw in something less than eight months thank you thank you Maron and we're going to call for adjournment of the meeting um I make that motion any second any second now I mean second okay we'll go around the room Pat hi Cam I councelor hanii hi councelor ET hi and Janet to yes we'll see you next time thank you everybody thank you thank you Dave very do the