##VIDEO ID:kT3r5m_n-JY## for Mr chairman I just heard a voice over saying recording was in progress if that helps thank you Fred I think that uh Pam has started the recording but we're holding off until she's all set with ammer media okay Mr Marshall we have 648 the attendees are coming in ammer media has joined us and they are ready to go as well you are the co-host of this meeting um I see a quorum I think you're good to go all right thank you Pam you're welcome welcome welcome to the emers planning board meeting of October 30th 2024 my name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the emmer planning board I'm calling this meeting to order at 6:48 PM this meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amis media minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 this planning board me Mee including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform the zoom meeting link is accessible on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the zoom link is listed at the top of the page no in-person attendance of the public is permitted however every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time time via technological means in the event we are unable to provide uh meeting access due to economic hardship or despite best efforts we will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of the meeting on the town website as soon as feasibly possible board members I will take a roll call when I call your name unmute yourself answer affirmatively and return to mute Fred Hartwell um Bruce we believe is absent this evening and Lawrence Kutz notified us that he would be late arriving if at all uh Jesse major present uh Johanna Newman present and Karen winter present and I Doug Marshall am present as well thank you all board members if technical issues arise we may need to pause to fix the problem and then continue the meeting if the discussion needs to pause it will be noted in the minutes please use the rais hand function to ask a question or make a comment and I will call on you to speak after speaking remember to remute yourself for the general public the general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items not on tonight's agenda Please be aware the board will will not respond to comments during general public comment period public comment may also be taken on at other times when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the rais hand button when public comment is solicited if you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your phone when called on please identify Yourself by stating your full name an address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking residents can typically Express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair if a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time their participation may be disconnected from the meeting okay time is 6:51 um we'll start off with the first item on our agenda which is meeting minutes we have two sets of minutes to review this evening uh one the first one from July 31st of 2024 did anyone have any comments on the minutes all right I noticed one I think it was a think it was on the first one it's just a typo maybe it was on the second one so let's see yeah so on Pam uh at the bottom of page seven of the the July 31st minutes okay uh under Section 10 report of the chair okay uh second line uh it says he will it should be asked Miss Newman as the K is missing got it all right any other comments on on this set of minutes Johanna sorry I was going to move to approve the minutes all right uh thank you and Jesse you're seconding yep I'll second all right great uh I will I will mention that it's 653 and it looks like Nate Malloy is joining us okay we'll proceed with a vote on the July 31st minutes uh Fred you're going to be first tonight because Bruce isn't here br you are muted I thought I now it's unmuted correct I was absent July 31st so if needed my vote will be yes but I shouldn't be making the motion all right well we have made the motion and seconded so uh you can abstain at the moment would you like you would like to abstain right all right yes all right Jesse uh I approve thank you uh Johanna I approve Karen I approve and I approve as well all right that's two members absent one exstension and four in favor so I believe that passes so July 31st minutes are adopted now we go to the September 18th minutes and it looks like all of us were present I did not notice any issues with that set of minutes Johanna move to approve the minutes all right um anybody want to second that Jesse I see your fingers I will second that okay um all right we will go to the vote Fred Fred votes I thank you Jesse hi Johanna hi and Karen hi I and I'm an i as well all right so that's five in favor with two [Music] absences great welcome Nate all right the time now is 6:56 and next item on our agenda is public comment I see we have six attendees this is when I usually read the names of the people I can see uh among the public so we have a stranger named Christine brep we have Jennifer to we have Ken Rosenthal Mora Kean Pam Rooney and Rob MOA all right members of the public this is the time to make a comment if you would like to do so on a topic which is not going to appear later on tonight's [Music] agenda all right I see one hand uh Pam if we could bring over Ken Rosenthal thank you Mr hello ktim thank you Mr chairman uh I I take the time of the planning board only for one purpose tonight which is just to thank you Mr chairman for telling the members of the public as well as the plan planning board members in advance who are present at the meeting so that we may know what other members of the public might have an interest in anything that's coming before you that will also help us to moderate our comments because if we know that somebody else who might be speaking on the same topic and with the same position as we we might not choose to raise our hand that will make things more efficient Mr chairman I thank you you are the only government body in this town that does this I wish others would do it and I praise you for it thank you for listening all right well thank you Ken um you know if you want to take the time you might attend the meetings of those other bodies and ask if they can do what we [Music] do I I I want to ask the town manager again to do that sir okay all right very good uh are there any other members of the public that would like to comment all right I do not see any other hands all right in that case since the next item on our agenda is scheduled for 7:05 um we will jump down in our agenda to some of our routine items going at this point to number six which is old business uh Pam do we have any topics of old business not reasonably anticipated 48 hours in advance that did not show up in the agenda I don't think so Mr Marshall Nate do you agree or are you aware of something no I agree I don't I'm not aware of anything okay uh likewise uh same question about any new business and I have the same answer I'm not aware of anything but nay do you agree agreed Perfect all right um going next to the form a anr subdivision applications do we have any of those this evening we have no anrs tonight and none waiting in the queue either okay what about zba application um so I have learned about a couple of things and Nate you may need to help me out I learned about these late today and of course the CBA is still focused on the wayfinders project correct Nate right and um I do understand that um in November the shsb road solar is expected to come back but to be asked to be continued to a date in January is my understanding um I just learned that today so Nate you can correct me if I'm if I'm wrong or misspeaking no that's that's right they're you know they're so they have to um file with a Conservation Commission and go through that and they're you know looking at some um some of their other uh plans uh in engineering work so they will ask be have that continued Y and then Mission Cantina is expected to come before the CBA and early November um they've had a change of ownership there so they need to accept a new uh submit a new management plan and then briefly I can tell you that 19 Research Drive is also expected to go in front of the zba at that early um November meeting um and my understanding is that they have a second floor space in the building that they are going to convert to uh living space for some of their personnel okay uh it doesn't sound like we would want to see any of those uh and and and give any sort of recommendation to zba at least that's how I react to What You've described uh board members if there's any anybody else uh thinks we should have one of those come to a meeting this is the time to suggest that okay um how about SP spr Su applications anything coming our way we do we do have two of those coming up um the high school track site plan review application has been submitted uh it's in the very early stages of the review process I do believe we had expected that maybe the uh first meeting in December that would come before you I might have that date wrong uh and then the second item we may have told you about this we had been expecting a preliminary subdivision plan to be submitted for 422 amid Street and indeed that was just submitted so neither one of those have been filed with the town clerk at this point but expect to probably tomorrow or Friday all right so those will both be coming sometime before the end of the year that is correct okay uh we still have three minutes to uh occu to to to spend together uh um we we've gone up to the planning board committee and liaison reports uh Bruce is not here to talk about pvpc um I'm actually not the person for CPAC anymore so we can change on the agenda that's Lawrence and he's not here at least at this point um Ken anything on design review board um we we had uh the high school track to review and uh that was interesting but we felt that we were totally out of our leak to make bunch of comments on that but we're excited and then there's a little uh shop gra graphite traffic shop on triangle Street which is changing their logo and their sign to make it clear and uh we approved that and then last we have a nice little Bakery Buttercup going in where henyan was and we asked them to come back because we're excited but there was awful lot of yellow on their sign so they and and they seem very appreciative of the time to to rethink that a little bit but that's coming and that's going to be reviewed the next time all right thank you all right Pam is there anything else we can do with 60 seconds before we hit 705 um I don't know how long is your uh chair report oh Karen has your hand raised yeah it's not very long Karen yeah I I don't know Doug when I should bring this but I I do think that we have to put um the uh Barry Roberts development of the emmer dormatory on the agenda just to discuss it briefly at least at the next agenda to have a public meeting because it does seem I mean it came awfully fast and I I do wonder if there is some illegality at all in having a a dormatory in an area that is not zoned RF at very least I think the public uh deserves to have this be clarified a little bit so all right well I know you had sent an email earlier and um I believe Nate had looked into that and uh my understanding was that it is a mixed use building it has commercial in it um and that you know we don't allow commercial in dormitories anywhere so that uh category doesn't really apply um Nate was there anything else I think you had said we it's been filed and I said that the decision hasn't been filed so you know staff's opinion is that if the board wants to discuss this the discussion really then is do we want to reopen the hearing you know to discuss the change in possible use but for now you know I thought it was pretty clear during the planning board hearings what the use was it was understood and then you know the decision was made so really a discussion tonight or any time wouldn't be about you know what is it or isn't it in terms of uses or conditions it's really about does the board feel like would want to reopen the hearing because the decision hasn't been written and filed right so it's it's in that it's in that time period where the board could have that opportunity um but you know I thought it was UND you know everyone understood what what it was uh you know when it came to the board okay all right um so I guess the question would be do uh enough board members want to reopen the hearing in order that we would vote to do that so um maybe I should just I'm gonna I guess mate why don't I just do a motion and then we can vote on it and see where it goes um so I'll move that we reopen the hearing uh for the the for Barry Bert's project uh on uh Southeast Street the number escapes me I don't remember the particular application number we say 4 45 to 55 South Pleasant Pleasant thank you 45 to 55 South Pleasant Jesse I see your hand yeah thank you sorry I had a question before I can vote which is basic what you said Nate the project as we have it you're saying does not meet the definition of dormatory well well we we before we have that conversation I think we need to decide whether we want to sort of talk about this more isn't that right Nate yeah I mean there was there was no question about what it was when it was coming back before the board if that was something that needed to be brought up it would have been brought up right that I just want to make sure I understand correctly what we're talking about because okay enough okay so I made a motion um if somebody if there's anybody supports that motion this is the time to Second it if no one seconds it we will move on I second it and um I I agree just if Nate if a dormatory cannot be a dormatory if there is commercial space in it then it's not a then of course the the question is clear I just wasn't it all came so fast and I just want to make sure that we we don't set president of um agreeing that's that this sort of thing can go when it's not in our bylaws so it's just unclear to me that's why I second that we reopen this okay all right um Fred I see your hand Fred you are muted my bad I I think I'm inclined not to reopen it um I was concerned about the way that it was covered in the daily Hampshire Gazette um I thought it we and I know Nate I sent you an email on this um my impression was that uh this is this is in regard to whether or not that project uh is reviewable and the extent to which it's reviewable under the town uh rental registration bylaw and my impression was that we changed those conditions to make it clear that um that uh that it is subject to the bylaw and uh if Amis College wants to uh pursue Options under that bylaw to seek an exemption they're clear to do that as any L any landlord could do but uh we are not just simply giving them a Buy on it now that's the way I understood our action and if I'm in correct then I would change my position and vote to reopen it Nate do you have a clear sense of where we left that question no I I I when Fred emailed me I thought that's the way it was discussed as well and so sometimes you know the article May summarize or miss a key point or a phrase of that and so um I think someone else actually emailed me about the article and I I feel like um depending on how you know what you read it or how you read into it then you might have a different impression of what was discussed at the meeting the hearing but um you know I thought the board covered all the the conditions and the discussion you know pretty thoroughly there was you know um I I I thought by the time we were done with it we understood everything that was happening right um and I have not seen minutes for that meeting yet um I assume they're in the queue right Pam uh they're almost done I was this close to getting them done but you wouldn't have had them in this packet it was just today that was trying to wrap them up okay but that portion is done I can I can tell you that that portion of 4555 South Pleasant Street that public hearing portion is done it is complete okay thank you uh Fred I see your hand again uh yeah and I just wanted I I was pretty sure that of of my memory I just I'm Nate thank you for uh confirming that that's that I was was correct in what I uh surmised uh and uh that being the case I will uh vote against the motion to reopen okay um Karen so ammer College clearly in one of the Publications says uh kind of advertises this as a dormatory and I think there's a difference between whether it should be Reg registered or I mean does doesn't the town at some point had put into the by loss that we canot have dormitories in any uh District that is not uh zoned as um RF that is the question if uh it can it is not a dormatory if there's commercial space in it then it's clear then I also don't want to reopen it but if it is a dormatory and we aren't allowed to have dormitories in RF without a special permit then you know we're going against the law if we just let this slide and we're setting a precedent saying we're disregarding this and anybody can build a big building and put all the lease to you mass or something like that uh and we have no control over it so we do have to clarify that and I I'm not sure I think that we uh that's the question Nate and I think you know this all right so Karen you would you you still support reopening the [Music] hearing yes I think I do okay all right so is there any more discussion about whether to reopen the hearing or not uh we have a motion and we have a second uh Pam and Nate am I correct that uh a simple majority of the board present are at adequate to reopen to to reopen the hearing at a later date yeah I think so okay so we have um five members present three of us would need to vote Yes in order to reopen the hearing all right so I'll start uh I guess Fred I'll just start with you again I'll vote no all right thank you Jesse I will vote Yes I okay uh Johanna no Ken yes all right and I was a no that is three opposed and two in favor um my motion fails all right so that was not on the agenda tonight I guess that's old business not anticipated 48 hours in advance yes all right um time now is 7:15 we'll go back to the next item on the agenda and that is item three public hearing zoning Amendment so we will I will read the pr the Preamble uh okay time 716 in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law chapter 40a this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding the following proposal University Drive overlay District to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting the University Drive overlay District as article 17 and amending the official zoning map by adding the University Drive overlay District the overlay District would include properties on the east and West sides of University Drive between Northampton Road and Amity Street and establishes its own requirements for mixed use buildings including dimensional standards St uh standards and conditions and design guidelines do we have any board member disclosure okay uh for the applicant presentation I think Nate were you going to give us the sort of rundown on where this has gone since uh we last talked about it sure yeah I'll do that Nate Malloy a planner with the town and so you know just a little backstory you know the planning board worked on this last year it went to Town Council as a zoning Amendment and on um and then on uh Monday September 23rd Town Council referred it to the planning board and Community Resources committee as you know zoning Amendment so the hearing needs to be opened uh by the end of November the 27th and then within 21 days by the close of the planning board hearing a report needs to be made to Town Council so you know this hearing is being held within that time frame and the board can continue the hearing uh to discuss the overlay so what was being proposed is an overlay District I'll share my screen if that uh let's see if that's visible for everyone I can see it the uh as as Doug mentioned the overlay is outlined in Black here so here's Amity Street on the North University Drive and Northampton road so the overlay does not change the existing zoning in place there's um you know base owning there's also a research and development overlay so everything that's there would stay in place and the overlay would Encompass the area within the the outline uh it only applies to mixed use buildings and so I'll go to the actual text of the overlay I was going to walk through this um so you know it establishes it own requirements for mix use buildings so it has dimensional standards conditions and designed guidelines that apply only for mix use buildings so any other use that would um be permitted here would follow the existing zoning that's in place the purpose is to encourage housing and economic development and so you know the board discussed this in terms of what what's the right mix of non-residential and residential space uh and so that's you know the purpose is really you kind of summarize that conversation we established the district we came up with dimensional standards unique to just the overlay and mix use buildings um there's no waivers so there's no footnote You Know M or a there's no additional lot area required for um units so it is a little bit flexible uh minimum lot size is pretty small 40 ft of Frontage 12,000 square feet we have a maximum building coverage of 60% and a maximum lock coverage of 85% uh and setbacks are by the street so on Amity street is 20 feet University Drive is 24 feet Northampton road is 25 uh and um side and rear is 10 the right of way is 90 to 100 feet wide and so you know uh on the Northern end of this part of the overlay you know there'll be about 150 feet between you know if buildings were built right on the setb line and so it is a pretty wide right of way and setback the setbacks are meant to encourage reuse of the access drive on the west side of University Drive and then also create a nice green belt where there's existing trees to preserve the tree on the east side there is the Swift way the the multiuse bike path and the setback allows for all that to remain uh we have a building height of six floors or 65 feet um similar what we have in the bot building height does not include rooftop Mechanicals um you know certain equipment and we say the sixth floor shall be stepped back a distance from the street in order to minimize scale there's no prescribed distance that would be something reviewed during permitting the mixed use buildings are through site plan review um you know what we have here is 75% of the street facing facad of the first or ground floor facing University Drive or Northampton Road shall be any permit or non-residential use to a depth of 24 feet so the idea here was to encourage you know shops facing the street along a majority of uh the first or ground floor um we do allow parking in the in the additional space so if they need to you know have parking inside the building outside of this required 75% they can um we do allow multiple buildings on a property we do want to have some open space um as part of the project again we're not having um you know a certain percentage but there's you know when it's going through site plan review these standards and conditions will help the the permit granting Authority make those decisions um the multi-use path on the west side of University Drive is something that uh you know the setback is meant to encourage and it's something that you know staff and the planning board would talk with applicants about we also want outdoor amenity spaces in terms of parking we're allowing flexible parking so there's no on street parking allowed on University Drive and there's not many neighborhoods close by for that allow on street parking and so the idea really is that a developer or an applicant um you has to come and be ready to provide you know what we have here is a study and a management plan um and any shared or leased agreements to show that there's adequate parking on the site for the development and so um we're waving the current sections of the bylaw um and we're not saying that they have more than you know right now in our shared or lease parking section you have to have you know 120% of what you think is necessary and all these conditions for shared parking we're basically saying it's it's flexible here and that could be you know they show that in their lease agreements they don't allow any cars and so every tenant knows up front that they don't have cars or that they you know have a one to one parking ratio or they have shared parking with another property um nearby uh the design guidelines here you know we're saying the design review principles that are currently in the bylaw um shall be applied we're saying majority of the front facade should be along the front setback um you know we we again these aren't you know um overly prescriptive we're going through a downtown design standards process right now but here are you know a few that will help with uh the treatment of the building so you know overhanging awnings and canopies between the first and second floor like a horizontal sign band variations in architecture and change in plane to break down um you know a massive wall and so or a large flat facade so there's you know again that's something that the board would look at during permitting um surface or open parking lots you know are meant to be to the side or behind buildings um you know to the extent possible parking lots would be Consolidated to reduce curb Cuts rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened from View and so that's something that you know is is becoming more and more important as there's different types of mechanical equipment and then again just you know mechanical systems other things should be placed in a way that they're minimally visible and so that that's the extent of the overlay language um and then you know it applies again in this area for for mix use building so it's an opportunity for someone who would propose a mix use building to use the overlay okay thank you Nate um so the board talked a lot about this last year uh we've only had a change of one person on the board since we talked about this a lot so I don't uh I'm not really expecting a lot of conversation about sort of the basic proposal um and since this has been referred back to us from Town Council and as I read in all the preambles for these hearings uh so that interested members of the the public can comment uh that's to my mind that's the the first objective of this hearing is to allow the public to comment on this proposal um but as uh any of you that listened to Town Council when they referred this back to us uh heard there were a number of comments made by counselors about the proposal before they voted and um uh I don't know if you've all listened to that uh I heard it the first time in live and the second time I I did go back and listen to it again so we may want to talk about some of their comments and what we think about that whether the concerns are uh valid and we should be changing something about the proposal or whether we uh actually think they're not uh significant or valid enough to change something Jesse is now the time to do that or do you want to wait till after well I I thought maybe I would call for public comment first and just hear what the public who have who are here want to say okay so why don't I go ahead and do that um Now's the Time for the now nine members of the public that are in the uh uh on my list here if you have a comment you want to make about this proposal now is the time to do it uh I will I will say in advance I expect that we will continue this hearing it this is not the only uh part of this hearing that will occur so you if you don't make a comment tonight and you want to do it when we continue the hearing later this fall uh you will have another chance okay Pam can you bring over Jonathan Slater hi Jonathan welcome Jonathan uh you'll need to unmute yourself and give us your name and your street address in ammer hi can you hear me okay yes we can hi I'm Jonathan Slater I'm the director of facilities for coly Dickinson hospital and we have a um interest in 170 University Drive as well as an empty lot that um ABS Northampton Ro and uh although this is the first time um thank you for the notice uh because this is the first time that I've heard of this communication I've been with kie for almost five years now and the only thing that I I have in concern to this location is what we're currently struggling with for wetlands and storm water runoff that comes off of the route n um uh passageway and we're experiencing groundwater into our structures and stuff so I just want to be on record uh for any developments in this area that we take into consideration these struggles we're having on our property currently all right and am I correct your property is on the east side of University Drive correct okay yeah we we're on the corner of um well we're on we're on University Drive directly across from the Big Y with the vacant lot on the opposite corner facing Route 9 and then there is a separate business on that corner uh facing the intersection which hopefully someday we can acquire okay great have you been in contact with the Conservation Commission at all about your groundwater issues this is all this is all developing um and this I I reached out to Ty and bond who is our environmental team and said this notice could have come in a more perfect time and I I'm fortunate to have this opportunity to speak to the group tonight and we do look forward to Future conversations okay all right uh anything else you wanted to say that's it thank you okay thank you all right um are there any other members of the public that would like to comment okay uh oh yes now we have one hand from Pam [Music] ro hi Pam good evening everyone Pam Ro 42 Cottage Street I had not intended to speak um but since you're talking about this subject I was looking at item number 17.52 the front setback excuse me on the west side of University Drive is meant to encourage the ReUse of the access drive into a minimum 10ft wide multi-use pedestrian and bicycle path and I understand that there is not necessarily response to public comment but it would be interesting to me if if someone were to discuss the rationale behind this uh particular item in that there is on the east side of uh University Drive a wonderful bike pedestrian walkway called Swift way on the west side of uh University Drive there is a reasonable not and great condition sidewalk that extends the entire length of University Drive that is also actively used there is a 10 or 12T wide planting strip that contains the existing fairly mature Street trees why would there be a need for an additional 10-ft wide multi-use pedestrian and bicycle path in addition to all of that uh and that's my question so I would at some point if someone happens to talk about this it would be great to hear the conversation thank you okay um and I will mention that uh my statement earlier that we don't respond to public comment uh pertained basically only to the general public comment agenda item not that we wouldn't uh respond to public comment during specific subjects that are on the agenda so uh I think we could respond to that um um my understanding was we wanted to have a vibrant Street Life along this section of uh roadway and that having a pretty substantial setback and make take making use of that that roadway to uh evolve away from vehicular use and to pedestrian use was uh something we thought would be a valuable amenity in this area um does anybody else want to comment about their what they remember about this uh Karen yes I agree and I think it's uh having walkways and pedestrian ways at both sides of of a street that's going to be kind of a gateway to the university is is actually welcome to have it just on one side is you know we're we're hoping that this going to be much more densely populated and the people that are populating it will really appreciate having a place to to to be to have wide sidewalks and to be able to walk and and get away from Cars okay um I I I will mention one other thing which is right now that roadway provides vehicular access to properties all the way along that Frontage and uh since we don't know the order in which it things might be developed uh by allowing a a building to come forward of that road uh if it's out of sequence uh could could cut off vehicular access to a neighbor um so that's another reason uh to to structure it that way Johanna you had a comment yeah I think this came up among the Town Council conversation as well about how yep Andy brought it up Andy brought it up exactly and you know I think the vision is that this is a really pedestrian and bike friendly Boulevard of sorts with mature Street trees and a vibrant street life like that's the end goal and the question is like I don't know the answer to this Doug I'd be curious to hear your thoughts but let's say we do adopt the overlay and an institution that's like in the center of the decides that they want to you know rebuild and essentially cut off that side street how how are there models for mitigating that is the first question and then the second question you know had to do with the number of driveway cuts on University Drive and addressing the fact that Vehicles may need to turn and how it influences I think the traffic pattern on University Drive um so I think that is a point that would be worth discussing a little bit more um I feel like with the Barry robbert's proposal on the corner you know there's the access point around the back on AMD as well as I think two proposed cuts on University Drive you know I think we decided we were okay with that but um yeah it's Food For Thought okay yeah I thought Andy Andy was predominantly talking about what's the process for allowing more curb Cuts along there what's sort of what's the logistics of the road as it sort of evolves um it's my understanding that Town Council is the body that would approve curb cuts on University Drive and we obviously have a couple of counselors listening in tonight you guys can correct me if I'm wrong or maybe you're not expert on that Jesse yeah on this point and maybe Nate can add more my memory of our conversation was that yeah the the curb cut um not allowing more curb Cuts was for historic reasons because it was going to be a main thow fire 416 was built and that part of this would be to probably reduce or eliminate that uh restriction on curb cuts which would allow for all these scenarios to be fine um I had some other thoughts about traffic mitigation maybe it'll come up later but I sent you an email we can talk about that some Nate yeah sure I mean I think some there's a number of points raised about that setback one is this existing sidewalk is in really poor condition and the idea is to abandon it if this were to move forward so you know it's almost right on the road it's actually really not pleasant to walk on uh if University Drive is heavily traveled and so to have something set back behind the trees along the buildings a multiuse path would be great so the idea too is to limit you know to reduce the number of Street Crossings mid block if people can walk on both sides to certain points and then cross um uh yeah I mean the curve gut thing is something that you know if Public Works is okay with it I don't see why there would you know there'd be any restrictions to it the Additionally the setback the road right of way although it's wide it's not centered on the road and so if we actually had um a small setc on that side some of those Street trees in that Island would be impacted and so if we actually want to save and have a nice wide generous green belt with the trees we need actually a pretty generous setback uh to allow that to happen if we didn't have a setback and a building came up they would actually come in probably right onto the curb the closest curb to that tree belt um and then there's no you know no room for actually having a sidewalk unless we were to cut down all those trees and then plant new ones and so some of the discuss was you know how can we save those trees have a nice streetcape allow for you know if if it is multi-unit housing right a three- foot sidewalk is not adequate but a 10- foot one would be great to have on both sides of the road you know and reduce Street Crossings okay so Pam that's some thoughts about that particular uh aspect of the proposal um are there other oh okay Fred go ahead um well another thing that uh came up at the council meeting uh and uh Bruce at the the last time we discussed this um uh raised it as well and that concerns uh the Big Y parcel at the South End uh on the west side and uh whether this uh by creating what is potentially a a higher use uh could inadvertently I'm I'm think we would all agree it would be inadvertent but it could it could compromise the market continuance of Big Y in that particular location and so there was uh there's been some conversation around uh around uh moving the uh boundary uh somewhat to the north to prevent that from happening so uh I'm not sure exactly where I come out on this but I I I I think there's a valid concern here that we need to discuss okay uh so uh does anybody want to talk about that that set of comments there were a number of counselors who brought that up uh Jesse Yeah I was gonna mention this as well um I did listen to that the council meeting and read the article about it uh well I don't totally agree with the concern I don't see any reason why we wouldn't respect that concern and move the boundary and then that site can come by special permit if they really want to do a different project so Nate you had an idea about pushing it back some number of feet right that would get past the Big Y essentially if that's what helps us move this project forward I have no objection to to changing the overlay in that way okay uh Nate yeah I wasn't suggesting moving the overlay boundary I was suggesting changing a standard or condition that say within 300 feet of that of Northampton Road or that intersection the ground floor has to be 100% you know non non-residential space so right now we have a 75% to a certain depth but you know what I was thinking if I um I'll just share my screen you know if the concern and also the buildings half you know in hadly too so it has to you know depending on how what happens with this permitting but the idea would be if there's concern you know that within this distance anything that's redeveloped in within this distance has to be 100% ground floor nonresidential um you know I you know the idea too would be that there's plenty of space to build in front of the Big Y or they could you know there's a few options for the property uh there is a Stop and Shop not too far down the street so to say it would become a food desert I don't know if that's accurate but um yeah I mean so anyways that that was my idea there could be others but you know I was trying to think of ways to continue the overlay and not have it you know Miss the corner but still have some conditions that could allow for a bigger retail space all right um Jesse your hand is still up I just follow up one comment I I do agree with the point that the bigma and CV are you know extremely heavily used I'm there at least two or three times a week also and like it's always full while I don't think the result would be that would disappear if that's a concern I think we it's reasonable for us to try and mitigate that whatever that might mean including the parking lot which serves a really important function there as well okay uh Fred yeah I would I would agree with any approach on this I think Nate's suggestion has a lot of Merit uh just uh you know as long as we address it I think uh it'll go a lot further okay uh I was going to mention that uh you know I I agree that the comment about it causing a food desert is not really uh really substantive I guess given the location of the stoping shop so nearby um but I also it also occurred to me that the the location where the hanger is located right now I believe was originally a supermarket and so you know if there are there is the opportunity for another Supermarket to happen in that area with an existing building now obviously our uh our overlay boundary includes that property for all we know you know the property with the hanger in it and uh the Green Field savings could get redeveloped as well um I guess I was more concerned about uh the downside of limiting this uh just because uh housing that doesn't happen here uh may have an impact on the number of students in the neighborhoods where people don't really want them and if we minimize the amount of potential for this area uh it's more urgent that we consider other areas where we would be willing to uh let's say loosen the zoning um and we you know it's been it seems pretty clear the students are uh rational actors and that they'd like to be as close to the university as possible so uh this seemed like an ideal area because of the topography the proximity to UMass the good bus service um and in fact you know having the having the Big Y and CVS right there so I'm I'm not opposed to trying to figure out what we can do uh encourage food to be provided in this area whether it has to be Big Y I don't I'm not sure I really care but uh you know I I am sensitive to well if if not here where and uh that is a is a question that you know this area is doesn't have much in the way of neighborhoods uh and constituents who are going to oppose ose housing that can uh hold a bunch of people probably mostly students uh but that's going to be that many fewer students who are out competing for properties in neighborhoods that none of us really want so um that's my two cents for the moment uh the next person who had their hand up I thought okay I guess it's Johan it's you at the moment thanks I will say I was struck by how little conversation there was in the town council's deliberation about the added housing that could come from this overlay District like that to me feels like a really important issue in our town this is designed primarily to address that issue and again I was just truck that that wasn't acknowledged in that conversation by our Town's governing body um I agree that I'm not worried about the food desert piece it doesn't feel substantive I know there was some concern that maybe the Stop and Shop would close it's all hypothetical at this point and um I feel like I can't can't help but feel like we are being precious about a strip mall and I think we can do better in terms of the buildings that we are encouraging for the future of ammer so um I want the overlay District to succeed if we have to take the Big Y lot out of the overlay in order to get the votes for this to succeed you know I'm not going to fall on my sword for it um but I hope that it doesn't come to that and that we can perhaps find some kind of intermediate ground where we can continue to keep that very large parcel in the overlay District as you know the potential of being redeveloped um but I also really want to make sure we have the votes to win okay uh Jesse thanks I guess I had one more thought that's leaning pushing me more towards trying to remove that parcel which is thinking about the other sites that have gone up in town and this came up in the council meeting also about how the commercial spaces largely they're they're fine to leave it unoccupied for some number of months or years and presumably that will happen in this District as well until there's the need or the right tenant or whatever um and that made me feel like Big Y CVS the other four small stores that are there why not take that action take that first step to preserve those and then again if in the future if the rest of it all gets developed we can reconsider the owner can reconsider and try and get something built anyway through through through other mechanisms um and and again I'm thinking also about having this move forward from the Town Council discussion it felt like there was going to be a lot of resistance to a plan that didn't try and mitigate this scenario okay Fred yeah um I Doug I I really appreciate your comments uh and I nobody has been more enthusiastic than me in terms of uh pursuing this overlay and pursuing the uh uh development in this part of the town to take uh Market pressure off neighborhoods I completely agree with your analysis uh I think Nate's uh suggestion really connects all the dots um it uh uh would uh avoid the probably the unintended effects at in this particular location meanwhile uh uh preserving the attractiveness of the overlay District in general and uh simply by a very sensible way of of conditioning uh what happens uh uh in this Dimension we have part of the overlay also addresses has a dimensional uh limitation regarding the North End so there's there's precedent in the uh uh work here to to address this and I I think Nate's proposal is the is the way to go okay um Karen you're next yeah I was gonna agree and uh Fred you beat me to it I do think we have to push this forward this is a really important way to to uh mitigate the housing meat that's that's oppressing the whole town but um your proposal Nate that maybe the Big Y CVS that we at that particular place require 100% on the ground floor I think that's also that that would also keep it a little bit flexible because maybe those buildings want to put residential above them but those does would be preserved I like that idea I also think we should try to see if if this is a compromise that would be acceptable in that it would save those particular uh very desirable commercial spaces but wouldn't take this whole big chunk of land out of the overlay okay Caren uh Jesse thanks uh well I completely agree with your sentiment Karen I have to point out the data we have in front of us which is I believe not one of the stores that was in place and any of the lots that got developed in town has come back or been preserved there are different things but not one of those businesses is still in town liquor store moved down the hill I think but that's it and and yeah that's a real concern I would have also right we can think we're trying to preserve these same shops but I think that's not realistic maybe a different Supermarket would open sure but it's really unknown okay uh Johanna yeah I was gonna I guess say the same thing um you know I think Nate scenario would ensure that there's commercial space there but it doesn't ensure that Big Y is there and I don't think there like I have no idea I'm not an architect but I don't think we could just like add five stories on top of the existing structure that's not how it works um so there would be a transition time and it would probably be a different tenant and if the intention is you know to save Big Y and save the strip mall with its parking lot Nate's proposed middle path does not accommodate that is my understanding it doesn't it doesn't ensure it it doesn't ensure it thank you right right well you know I mean I think part of what we're talking about is uh how much change are we willing to you know allow and the reason we were talking about change is that the current conditions are not satisfactory so something you know if you think about how to change something things will change uh Nate go ahead yeah I mean there's you could have other conditions in terms of limiting the use in that area too but again it doesn't necessarily ensure that it's big why right you could limit the Redevelopment to non-residential to certain use categories in our bylaw that becomes pretty um you know pretty strict um just changing subjects in terms of the overlay I will say that since this was proposed and you know staff has discussed it with a few developers the height I think it had been asked if 65 ft was really enough to accommodate six floors and we've learned that it it it isn't the way they they build now so 70 feet is really what's necessary so if this were to move forward and we want six floors I would recommend that we would have a 70 foot maybe even 71 I mean they're right now they're at 69 feet so they do 10 10 feet of residential floor and it's like 16 to 18 for a commercial and so for residential floor they frame it out say a 10t and they drop everything underneath that to run utilities and so then you get an 8ft ceiling so they have two feet of you know framing of you know duct work of whatever so they really need 10 feet uh per residential floor and you know anywhere from 15 you know 15 is probably at the low end now to 18 per commercial the way they frame it with you know how they build you know first floor and then up above so um yeah I think that 65 we thought might be possible but I think even Bruce asked that and it's it's a little it's a little low y uh Jesse thanks uh I have to back up for one second maybe this is a question we can bring up next time if we're gonna discuss again yeah I figured we'd talk about this maybe another 25 minutes maybe another half hour question for you Nate it's hard for me to tell just from looking at the plan if we were to somehow not include the Big Y lot what percent difference are we talking about and like you know if we projected all absolutely everything got built to six stories how many units is that and then without the Big Y lot what are we talking about it looks to me maybe eight to 10% difference but again if you can try and guesstimate that for us might be useful to to think about yeah okay I I think the the question would be if my screen's visible the um let me actually do mark up or through oh where's my annotation control um the Big Y the area is here here's the red line right here if you see that so the the property here the question would be would you want to then exclude this corner here or is it really just these properties so you know then there additional properties to the south of it along Northampton Road and so you know I think what we've said all along going back to you know Mr Slater's comments there is a fair number of wetlands and resource areas here and so you know it's pretty strategic in terms of how you have to develop so 422 Amity Street which has been under review by the planning board and the Conservation Commission you know has to spend you know they the Conservation Commission is still discussing it because they have they really like to see some you know um robust storm water management programs and systems on site and so you know at one point I said well you know if we could get six projects here a thousand beds I mean you know excluding this you're you know there is it's a fair it's a fairly large paved area that could be redeveloped I mean I don't I can't say what you know what's the upshot of that or the impact I mean I think you know would this be the next site to be developed I'm not sure I I you know my guess is if I were Big Y I would be just pretty excited to have you know a lot of neighbors within walking distance that would be using my store um but that might not you know be the kind of the rationale of the owners um you know Big Y doesn't own the property so there's different a different owner Big Y is a a tenant I mean honestly they might be in a 25 or 50-year commercial lease that runs until 2040 and so they're guaranteed space there for you know for another 20 15 years most commercial leases are for a minimum of 25 years 2025 so I don't know that scenario but yeah I mean so I to me the question would be if you're eliminating here you know is it is it just these properties or would it be something else I mean I you know you know how does that overlay look if we're missing those two properties so I don't yeah anybody have any thoughts about that I mean I I I don't considered the what is it an auto store and uh the Ginger Garden I guess those are the two businesses along Route n there and um is there I don't remember if there's a third along there but yes so here's here's what the properties are the um yeah there's actually another auto part store right here it's um yeah I've always wondered why there were two so close together but but anyway those none of those feel uh like essential Services uh that are not available you know somewhere else in town or or within a mile in in uh Hadley so you know personally I would probably keep them in the in the overlay um but but they're going to feel like kind of sort you know outliers uh by being separated by the Big Y property and maybe maybe that's not what we want [Music] um I guess uh does anybody else have any comments about this at this point I know uh when I went when I was listening again there was a comment from one member of the council saying hey G why didn't why aren't you allowing apartment buildings um and um you know we talk talk a lot about that uh it seemed like in the end we we wanted to try to have a relatively vibrant street life and um didn't think we could get that with a sort of a non-public first floor space that an apartment building would give you um I think it was that same member who said well do you really have to require uh commercial space on the first floor couldn't you just require the first floor to be built with the high floor to floor so that it could be commercial but you can also allow residential there and if the commercial Market gets so uh such demand for commercial space well they could rip out the the residential and put in commercial or or use it for residential um you know that's kind of an interesting idea um you know you know I could argue that uh both ways I think um because it's it's important to get every single unit we can uh but I I think it it I shared the preference for having some street life down there uh I don't see that I've jogged anybody to say anything up there's there's there's Johanna okay go ahead yeah I mean I think um the counselor in question said no matter what she was planning on putting forward an amendment to talk about apartments at CRC so I imagine they'll have a conversation and we'll see where that shakes out but you know I feel like we discussed it at length and um you know they're pros and cons to both approaches but I think there's a reason we proposed mixed use right um there was one other piece that came up um that I kind of flagged as a thing to make sure we touch on um that was mentioned at Town Council and it was this idea that there was concern that these buildings would be dorms and that they would only house students I come back to the idea that housing is housing and that if we create off-campus housing that is mostly for students it alleviates the pressure on neighborhoods um but I thought maybe it would be worth talking about that just a little bit as well yeah uh I I heard that as well um I was I was dismayed by that because it seemed to me that if you're gonna put students anywhere this would be a great place to put them and and you know and I and it it it is better to have them here rather than somewhere else where they're their the neighbors don't want them um you know I will say in terms of the sort of relieving the pressure uh conversation you know I think we we shouldn't be really saying that this this area in and of itself would relieve the pressure uh you know there is probably th there are thousands of students who would like to live in amorist and can't or haven't yet found a house to F to live in and so this is a good start uh it but I don't think it'll solve the problem it won't immediately suck all the students out of the neighborhoods it won't cause all the rents to drop um and your property value to drop which is comes with the rental market softening um but uh it's an awfully it seems to me it's a shame if we don't take advantage of this area and the sort of political opportunity that it seems to offer Jesse thanks yeah I largely agree and I think it's really the same conversation that came up with the project in town last time um I think right now any new units that get built students are gon to move in whatever shape or size whatever it takes because there's so much pressure and this is just the first step in getting us to have enough housing so that there's not pressure for single family turnover I think that's what many of us concerned about um that's also why to me if we make the overlay a little bit smaller without the corner lot it's not a huge crisis yes more units and more units but again this is probably just I hope the first in many of these type projects that we're going to move towards okay Nate yeah I mean to address the apartment concern and we had discussed it I think at one point um last year but you know you could allow that secondary building um not facing the street could be an apartment building right so that the the front building that has the you know the front edge is a is required to be a mixed use building but there's flexibility with a second building or if it has fewer you know a shorter Frontage piece um and so you know there's probably ways to also you know have you know different standards or considerations there I just you know I was thinking that it doesn't you know if that's something that is discussed and the planning board wants to maybe there's a way to allow you know two different uses um you know depending on how you want to arrange them or think a site would be redeveloped I mean there might be limited opportunity where there's actually you know two different buildings but it could be that you know maybe in three instances you get an apartment building instead of you know having a second mix use building but yeah well the lots are so deep um it does seem possible at least just looking at the plan right um but there's so much Wetlands back there that I think that we're still going to be limited on how much of the site can be developed so you know do you really think we can there's some opportunity for that maybe yeah I mean I mean if I'm looking right it's only it' only be a few few um a few sites right where that would actually be a possibility it just it wouldn't necessarily make sense to you know especially if we have a mixed use requirement up front typically a developer would want a certain amount of parking then both for residents and the non-residential space and so you know all those all those factors contribute right so you could say oh let's allow a second building that's this well that might not even if we allow it it might never happen because we're requiring a certain percentage of mix use and they want certain amount of parking or you know we want some open space too so yeah okay Jesse I guess I would be inclined not to consider consider that seems like it's over complicating what our vision was to happen here and I also feel like designers and Architects are clever they're going to come up with oh we have a 10- foot deep building in front that meets the requirements and we have a big building in back that's an apartment or whatever scenario we have on imagin that someone else will that will really go against the point of what we're trying to do um to to gain six more apartments or whatever the small gain would be so to me it feels like not necessary step but yeah as Johanna point out we can see what the CRC comes up with so Nate um you know we haven't I'm not sure I've experienced this this process before so we're gon to have our hearing and I guess at the end of the hearing we will write a recommendation of some sort letter to the council and CRC is going to have its hearing um you know if there are changes needed what body does that uh before Town Council votes on it or does you know what kind of how does it work or it's not like we're the house and and CRC is the Senate and we need to conference and agree on something that we then send to Town Council yeah so you know uh I think previously at one point been a few years ago there was a concurrent hearing of the planning board in CRC and right now you know there's parallel tracks and you know the idea would be the planning board could write its own recommendations and have his own draft bylaw that's separate than what the CRC recommends um you know I think continuing the hearing I you know I I talked to uh the CRC and said you know at some point the planning board and CRC could actually continue it to the same date and so that you know if not your next one but the third meeting could be where both boards meet at the same time uh so you can have a conversation together um and then still develop separate recommendations and a bylaw right so in the end the planning board will have a set of recommendations to council the CRC will have a set of recommendations and it could be on the same bylaw or it could be on the bylaw that the planning board thinks you know is most appropriate and the CRC might have something different and so um yeah so for me right now you know if moving forward we could you know continue it to a date certain and then if there's changes we want to see like the building height or if there's setbacks or other things we had a few points I noted but you know those changes could be made uh and then you know if there's other comments or questions that come in those could be discussed so um you know that's where that's how I you know I'd continue on with your discussion if there's you know things that need to be change You' like to see change that's changed and then at some point we can um coordinate with the the CRC so you know there need to pick this up in November my idea was to continue it past their first hearing date so that then you know there's an opportunity to hear what they discussed and then the planning board could discuss it again okay so let's see November I there's a November 20th meeting yeah is there is there a November 6th meeting too there is but I don't the CRC won't have heard this before the 6th okay and then so to lay out the schedule there's a December 4th meeting of the planning board and that looks like it would be a hearing for the high school track and for the preliminary subdivision plan for 422 AMD and then it's December 18th which I still have as could be University Drive so it could be November 20th and you know if there isn't much to talk about it's a short um discussion and then it could be continued again to December 18th um there's a few other things that may happen on November 20th as well uh but you know those two dates November 20th and December 18th are available and then you know and then with the holidays you know that right want to say like let's wait until January I think we should have at least another discussion yeah well we seems like we will definitely still be talking about this next year okay all right um are there any more comments from the board for for this topic this evening all right are there any more comments from the public on this topic I saw a momentary hand that then disappeared uh okay let's bring Jonathan Slater back I guess the only thing that I would like to make sure and I appreciate all this conversation is that um I did get this notice for this particular overlay but I heard other comments about University Drive how do I uh make sure that we get updates on When Future meetings are impact in this area um is there some way that I can be a part of that um communication moving forward um so we send out notices when we start for when the hearings start but I Nate or Pam do we send out notices for each continuation or we rely on the a butter to pay attention to what we talk about and when we continue the hearing in in the meeting is that right right so the hearing has to be continued to a time and date certain which would need to happen before we would continue on with the meeting here we don't we don't also we don't notify a Butters or Property Owners of zoning changes this case was different because it was a discrete number of property owner is affected by the proposed overlay and so um you know we have your name and you know we typically recommend someone to subscribe to uh amoris on the website you can subscribe to be notified when agendas are posted and I think you could single out if it's just the planning board so if any you know planning board is talking about zoning you'd get a notification that an agenda was posted it's not specific to University Drive but you'd then have to look at the agenda typically staff wouldn't promise keeping track of Who Wants to be notified at every meeting um no i s respect that and also that extra comment I'll go ahead and I'll get signed up that's all I need to understand so thank you Jonathan the other thing is before we're done tonight we're going to name the date and the time where we're going to continue talking about this so if you're a ble to stay with us until we close this topic for this evening which isn't the end of the meeting you'll hear when we're gonna come back and talk about it again I appreciate the extra time to share that information with me thank you sure I was also gonna say Jonathan uh my email is Malloy n m y n amist ma.gov and you can send me an email okay I appreciate that as well thank you okay all right I don't see any other hands from the public and uh at this point uh sounds like we should continue the hearing to November 20th um are we going to go at 7:05 again or maybe seven o'clock since we had to kill five minutes earlier can can will that work for you Nate yeah yeah I um my uh yeah that's fine 7 o'clock will work okay now we start later we just can't start earlier than a posted time right right well I'm just thinking we should uh continue to seven o'clock on on the 20th okay so I I'd like to make a motion that we continue this hearing to November 20th at 7 pm Jesse I'll second that all right thank you uh anybody else want to talk about that motion or anything else about this topic Johanna sorry if I Haven missed this but has CRC scheduled their meeting on it yet uh Nate I thought it was going to take place on the 12th uh or the 19th so um they would have that discussion before great thank you okay I do see Hands raised yeah now I now I see a couple of hands from CRC members uh Pam you got your name your hand up first we'll go ahead with you hello Pam hi Pam Rooney uh the CRC hearing on University Drive is going to be held on November 12 thank you okay thank you and if Mr Slater wants to be notified of that that would be great okay so November 12th what time is your meeting I think it's 6:30 pm okay all right uh I don't see any other Hands by anyone we have a motion to continue and a second in that case we'll go we'll go on and vote on continuing uh starting with you Fred uh I thank you Jesse hi and Johanna hi all right Karen and I'm an i as well five in favor two absent all right time is 819 um seems like it's time to do take a break maybe people want to do that take a five minute break and then we can come back and Nate we can talk about accessory dwelling units yes okay 819 come back at 824 and turn your your video back on e e e e e e for e e okay time is 8:25 if you are back from your break if you could turn on your video and let me know you're back and Pam I think uh we need to move Pam Rooney back to uh the attendees and Jonathan Slater too okay it looks like all the board and staff are back so time now is 8:26 we'll go on with the next item on the agenda and this is an discussion of accessory dwelling units and introduction to the state Chang regarding accessory dwelling units and possible changes to the local zoning bylaw um with Nate Malloy sure hi everyone um yeah the state you know passed some new a new definition and kind of Permitting requirements for accessory dwelling units that become effective February 2nd and uh you know a number of communities are looking at changing their bylaw at town meeting or you know through Council now uh some are actually waiting the state might uh they thought it would be the fall it might come a little bit later um to issue guidance on how how this works and so you know I think on the the idea of it's really simple right allow accessory dwelling units up to 900 square feet by right uh so just it's just a building permit there's no you know land use permit required uh and then the legislation has some language about reasonable regulations and possibly allowing more than one on a property uh and you know there's different interpretations about what that means uh and for ammer you know we've permitted accessory dwelling units up to a th square feet and so uh you know what you know the idea is that that no longer complies with State regulation because it's bigger um and so there's just different ideas about you know how all this interacts uh I've attended one webinar and there's another one coming up um I think I I you know I forget when I just registered today but uh I think in the next two weeks that will supposed to offer more guidance um and so some of it really becomes you know really technical about how do you permit and allow accessory dwelling units and so you know for ammer our by law you know a fair amount is compliant with the state law but some isn't right we require owner occupancy which cannot be required um we require a special permit in some instances which um you know wouldn't be allowed uh and so you know I think for ammer you know come next February people will probably be applying for accessory dwelling units and so you know right now the zoning board has denied a few requests for a duplex on the property because an owner wouldn't live there and so it's very likely that those owners would come back and say well I'm just going to do a four-bedroom Adu you know it'll be a small you know it'll be 900 square F feet but they that's allowed by wri as opposed to you know say a whole duplex in terms of how big the unit they were proposing but essentially they could get the same number of occupants through this mechanism as opposed to a special permit and so you know yes I'm sorry you can't do four bedrooms in 900 square feet why not or four four four tenants four occupants you think I mean wouldn't you need more room than that for to have it tolerable in ter terms of bathrooms and kitchens and living space I mean what if you had two bedrooms and you doubled up in the bedrooms yeah you know so you know any anyways I think you know whether or not that you know it's four whether it's three but you know I think there's an idea that in Amorous people would take advantage of it um and you know and honestly I you know what I found online is you know um Weston has a has a byla they're proposing which is pretty good naq has gone through it or is going through it and they have a bylaw it's pretty complicated and then some towns just have a bylaw that basically says we'll allow adus according to the state definition and they don't say anything else and so you know I what I had sent in preparation for this meeting was just general considerations for you know we do have to change the definition of accessory dwelling unit we could have a local definition as well you know how would we want to permit it uh and do we want to have some reasonable regulations which is really you you know we still have our dimensional standards and our building envelope our lock coverage all those things can remain we can have additional um kind of massing or uh kind of some simple design guidelines and it's yet to be tested in terms of what when does it become unreasonable you know um some limit it to one floor some say two some have a height requirement that's different than what they have in the bylaw you know all those things could be impacted for instance if you have it to only be one floor and someone has an existing two you know garage and they want to put a unit above that is that now a two-story one that's not allowed and so you know it's all these little pieces that have to get worked out um what I what I thought is that um for November 20th if I don't think I can get it for the sixth but I'd want to have you know a start of a draft some draft language or start putting the pieces together um you know one idea for ammer is to allow uh adus that are a th000 square feet so we already allow them to allow them in a in a new bylaw through a permanent process so they don't become you know non-conforming right so then that way they're still there so we you know they stay there so you know non-conforming use becomes kind of this special thing in state law and zoning and so if we if there's a way to keep the ones we permitted which maybe a few dozen to not become non-conforming then you we would want to write that into the bylaw um and so you know the state's hoping that this Adu bylaw will you know encourage the production of you know thousands of units um that are because of their size are you know modestly priced or rented right they're not going to be capital A affordable but the hope is that they provide some housing uh and housing you know opportunity and choice and you know I think that's true I think you know in some communities um you know they might have you know might be used in way they hadn't expected we can uh limit it and not allow short-term rentals we don't you know I'm not sure that's a a concern um you might be for some but that's something also to consider you know do we really want to you know have that kind of regulation in place uh like I said the permitting path and that what's reasonable regulations you know there's septic um issues in some communities there's you know some areas in amus that don't have Town um you know water or sewer so there has to they have to meet you know state requirements for that um do we want some bulk and height regulations um we cannot you know require owner occupancy at least for the first Adu and we can't have certain parking requirements uh if the property is within a half mile they call it a transit station that again that's people are asking like does that mean a bus stop so does that mean say like any pbta bus route in town you know does that buffer apply to every pbta bus route and that hasn't been clarified um but I think you know I think it's for the planning board to discuss you know do we want to you know make a few modest changes to the existing bylaw do we want to rewrite a bylaw or do we don't want to do nothing and just you know essentially The Building Commissioner would issue building permits uh for a Ed that comply with the state definition on February 2nd and that also comply with what we have in the bylaw that isn't inconsistent with the state uh so it's not like we don't have anything in place we have some things in place but for instance someone wants to build a detached unit and it's a certain size and in our B right now would say it's a special permit it would just be a building permit uh and then you know whatever General requirements we have that aren't in conflict with the state could still be applied which you know is in you know there's a few but not all of them uh Nate uh what does Rob think we should do he thinks we should uh get something moving so KP law uh you know as a town attorney they represent you know um a number of communities across Massachusetts you know could be like 50 uh Weston is one of their communities they provided two draft bylaws one was very simple one was uh kind of similar to what we have uh and so you know like I said there's so many different variations in what communities are doing some are probably cautious about what's unreasonable so you know can we you know say we we don't allow more than Adu on a property or if we do it has to be by special permit um you I will say I think it was Weston or NAX said you could you could they would allow two by right if both are if the combined square footage of both is 900 square feet or if one was completely contained within a dwelling an existing dwelling and one could be attached or detached and so you know they're almost encouraging this kind of two adus at a time because an Adu can't be uh can only be with a single family house it can't be with a duplex or any other use it's only applicable to a single family uh you know property and so you know it's almost like if you allowed the the two that way so would come in and do that and to me it's almost like you're doing a converted dwelling with an Adu but the way it's permitted is through an Adu you know you limit size and one has to be completely contained within the existing dwelling I mean to so for me this community is thinking like wow this is a great way to actually add units and not really change the physical massing character of properties right I don't know how often that would be used you know I don't you know how easy is it to create an Adu within an existing structure if to meet certain code requirements I will say I've probably had half a dozen calls of property owners or prospective uh owners asking about this uh I know Rob's had a number too you know just questions two people came in today asking what's going to happen you know they're curious about creating one um I don't know if it's new or within an existing structure but you know I I tell people that Unfortunately they have to hire an architect right so if they have an existing garage they think it could be an Adu you know there's utility connections uh there's you know building code requirements fire separation possible setbacks and so a lot of things are possibilities it's like you know how much can actually happen um you know I think you could require for instance limiting curb Cuts one Town's taking that approach that you would use the existing driveway and curb cut to serve the Adu so you don't get all these secondary curb cuts and driveways that go to the Adu um you know they can run utilities from the existing single family home right so they could run their sewer and connect through the home it doesn't have to be a separate sewer connection and so you know I don't know how much detail we want to go into but you know if we you know we allow adus now right we have three categories completely contained attached and detached and essentially they're almost allowed uh by site plan review or administrative approval and so to me I would make it as clean as possible and say it's by building permit and then if we want to have some additional uh stipulations it would be by site plan review I don't know if we really need a special permit um process uh but you know I think we could have standards and conditions in the bylaw that help regulate certain things um and if we really are concerned about getting multiple adus then maybe we prohibit that or we do make that by special permit but that would be the one instance where uh you know you might need a special permit you know is someone going to come in and propose like an Adu Village you know I don't I mean it's a lot to build an Adu right I to be honest it's it's a you know it's a small house it's a small dwelling unit um you know I don't Envision someone coming in and trying to build so many because you have building envelopes and utility connections but you never know okay so um Nate it sounds like you're planning to come back to us in November with a draft Yeah you know the planning board has any any general thoughts or if you've heard things or read things you know things for staff to consider as well yep Jesse thanks I was just wondering if you can remind us the process for this goes to council and then maybe comes back or not just because February is going to be here pretty quick right yeah I know it be the kind of the similar process as University Drive you know could we turn around a draft or a you know a zoning Amendment and bring it to council quickly enough that it's ready by February I mean that's a really quick turnaround um yeah we may not want to continue that hearing yeah I mean you know I was surprised when um one of the attorneys at kpw said oh just wait till the spring and see what other communities do and when the state should have more guidance but I think that leaves us you know a window where we don't really have certain regulations in place that may account for permits that come in you know you know like I don't know Jesse was it you said right developers are creative I'm assuming we're gonna have some creative requests that come in yeah and sorry that's what I was thinking about it's like do don't we want to have something in place or almost in place by the time they start coming in with project yeah I mean like I said ammer we could you know at first I was thinking i' just strike the owner occupancy from the bylaw change the Adu size to 900 square feet and uh you know only require a special permit if it's over you know if it's over 900 but less than a thousand and then we've um there's maybe one more little change we we've almost complied with the state definition and maybe you know that could be one route I just feel like we're you know it gets a little confusing if other pieces are still not um you know compliant with the state law but you know it could be that I just you know we do that route and then also I was thinking we'd rewrite just that section of the bylaw just to make it clean and just you know remove what's there and replace with a new one but fr yeah I I would agree Nate um I think where the where the rubber meets the road in amest is in a uh in a realm which unfortunately it looks like the state has prohibited us from acting and that is in terms of owner occupancy and that is incredibly alarming uh in the town of Amis because when you remove owner occupancy you remove the single most effective method of policing any social behavior uh the the consequences of uh of this in the potential consequences in in amest are huge uh but there's probably nothing that we can do about it um and uh short of a home rule petition to see if we can get it amended um but yeah I agree that we should probably try to be in place with something in the beginning of February yeah I mean one Community didn't require owner occupancy but they did require um at least a 12-month lease or you know if it was rented a 12- month lease for the unit or units um which is different than saying it can't be a short-term rental and so you know I don't know you know if that is voted on by their town meeting how that would you know how the state will review that eventually right it's to say it's not a short-term rental means you know doesn't mean you have to have have a 12-month lease or a will the state review you're talking about will that be through litigation in the courts or is there some state agency that'll review this yeah so you know I think that there a number of meetings that are in their special fall town meeting are voting on a bylaw and then they'll go to the Attorney General's office for review and so it's at that point that you know the state when they're reviewing the the article you know the you know the proposed bylaw they might make an opinion that it's not uh consistent with the legislation so I don't know what kind of approach they'll take right so it could be that there there's you know 30 fall Town meetings happening across Massachusetts at this time where BW laws are being adopted for adus and you know for for you know for town meeting then they review those so they'll actually review the language um and I don't know if they'll take the approach of you know saying some are not compliant with state law because they over you know they provide unreasonable regulations okay I think you know other communities are waiting to see right I think the hope is then by unfortunately if you wait you don't have anything in place by February 2nd right so it's like we could wait a few months see if there's all these determinations made and then come up with a bylaw but then we'll you know we'll you know that by that point it probably wouldn't be ready until spring right it just you lose that window Fred uh yeah I think we do both um we try to be in place for February and we keep actively thinking about it and uh you know if something moves on the state level then you know we can move you know in in our Council yep that sounds like the right approach okay Nate anything else you wanted from us this evening no that's good yeah so I think it's November 4th there's another webinar I'll go to that that should have some guidance so that gives us enough time to have something you know hopefully for the 20th okay great all right next we have a what we called a general housing discussion um Fred your hand is still up I don't I don't know if you wanted to say anything before we moved on I just put it back up uh and it was in response to Nate U uh Nate could you uh I I'm assuming that members of the planning board could attend that webinar could you make that available to planning board members the timing and so forth on that yeah I'll forward you a link you'll have to register it's pretty easy um and then it's a zoom webinar it's hosted by uh actually the state uh and I think um MMA so yeah all right if if if I'm if I'm around I think I would like to uh participate or at least yeah I think it's 10: am on November 4th okay so next [Music] uh November 4th that would be Monday right yeah I was thinking it was further away but I guess it's only Monday next Monday yeah I was thinking it was F yeah okay yeah send it out soon yeah yeah it just came through this afternoon at like 3: or 4 so um okay Fred your hand is up is that a legacy okay great okay moving on to the general housing discussion item five on the agenda the time is 8:47 uh this was my attempt to make a time during our meeting for us to talk about some of the same things that the housing subcommittee has been talking about uh hopefully uh with wider participation of the committee or of the board uh obviously we don't have everybody tonight um and uh so you know uh Jesse I gave you a few hours uh notice that this was on the agenda um it sounded like last time you said you were talking a lot about trying to define a student rental um maybe you could fill us in on kind of how you were approaching that sure sure um yeah so not much has progressed uh we were not unable to meet last week just for quarum reasons uh we're meeting on the 13th I think was next and yeah so we had spent a fair bit of time the first few meetings talking about about do we want to try and have a student home definition on our books somehow and what the utility would be and if so what would that definition look like and pretty much where the subcommittee landed was yes we'd like to try and do that as a information gathering tool so the last couple times the full board discussed these types of issues um a big piece of what felt like was missing was data right understanding where the student homes are in the town so that we can start to think about neighborhoods that might have too much density or different even to to begin to discuss strategies to mitigate what we think is too much you have to know what there is so that was really the motivation in coming up with a definition that could potentially be adopted by the town somewhere in the the bylaws um what we ended on and I could send it to Nate who can send it to everybody was basically stealing the language from somewhere else that has had it on their fof for quite some time and presumably if it was challenged it stood up or maybe it wasn't challenged we don't know but that felt like an easy route and so we made some minor modifications um but it's basically just describing what we consider a student home and it's a certain so I think it was two or more occupants that are uh attending University or college I can't remember the exact words again I could pull it up or or I can just send it around for you all to look at we haven't really progressed much further what to do with this yet because um we were debating what happens if we try and push this forward without a purpose we're concerned that the there would be big objection to it because it will be viewed as just a tool in a to be used in a negative way meaning an anti- student piece of definition that's not at all Our intention but we're concerned that that's will be how it's viewed so I think where we ended last was trying to come up with a proposed use as information gathering rather than just yes let's add this definition were you were you thinking that this would be added to like the questionnaire that you fill out for the rental registration by law it so so it wouldn't be a definition that's part of our zoning code it would be something that would be more broadly in the town byw correct more broadly in the town bylaw and we did discuss whether it we could just simply add it to the the registration form and Nate help me remember where we landed on that it was basically the thought was it it wouldn't give us much more information that we're already getting because that's relying on the registrant's accurate honest answer right and so I think we already ask on there number of occupants right so might not yeah the Building Commissioner said it could be added to the you know it's our our online software for rental permitting but you know it's a kind of an on you know an H honorary system so they you know an applicant doesn't have to indicate um but we thought we could add it um you know yeah I I think the new rental registration um you know the online software is easier to complete and so you know we thought that that's a good place to have this live at first because it you know um it autor renews and it's capturing who's already renting um and so it is a it can be a it could be a data collection Point um you know in addition to what the the the system's already collecting but I I you know I do think it's important so you know I was talking to Rob Moore about it now in terms of how many you know single family homes or duplexes are part of the rental registration and then we can determine I think we do ask how many occupants but we don't actually know you know how many are say students or undergraduate students and so we could you know probably take a guess but you know you know or if the home is rented you know who knows right if it's all the occupants are students or some or half you know but we know the occupants uh so this could just be another point to help understand the data um but yeah I can add another Point what gets really tricky that we've discussed at length also is you know one of the goals we the subcommittee stated for itself was to try and increase permanent residential rentals not just to limit student rentals like that's not really the goal it's to encourage and increase permanent resident rentals as well and so that's also part of trying to Define what's a student home and and that so it just it it feels pretty tricky to navigate how to gather the information where this definition should live and how it would be used right so that's where we're at with that discussion all right are there other topics you guys have talked about um we disc the Adu law a bit couple times we've sort of been waiting for more information from the state obviously we just discussed that here uh we were on our agenda and may can probably speak more to this is revisiting I don't know if it was a plan or just a discussion that was had some number of years ago about increasing density at already existing multiuse multif family uh sites around town um and and resoning those for much higher density seemed like I mean that that to me seemed like a no-brainer like why wouldn't we do that as a way that could be the next thing we take on so we were going to try and look at that as a subcommittee to bring a proposal to the full board um or at least flush out the discussion a little bit um and then you know on the back end of our agenda which we haven't really gotten to yet for the subcommittee was again starting to think about the next potential overly place okay yeah so that that really sums up what we've been up to okay so is it would it it sounds like you have another meeting scheduled on 13th um is if we can make a regular time available dur in this meeting is it would that help you not you know would that make you guys feel like we you don't have to meet separately or I mean I think so I would certainly welcome fewer meetings you we have a we have you know we have some difficulty scheduling just like everything else yeah I think that would be a big plus okay uh so Nate you know based on what you can see coming up in the next couple of months um do you think it's uh it's feasible for us to try to carve and you know 45 minutes or an hour out of each meeting for a housing conversation you know yeah yeah so I was going to say that um well just to respond to Jesse I think back to what the housing subcommittee was talking about too is you know if and it was mentioned in the comprehensive housing study from 2015 you know if there's areas where you have flexible zoning or allow multi-unit development can you have you know stricter regulations in some part of town and so some communities that you know Bruce had looked at and the committee has talked about briefly you know in some areas they you know regulate pretty strictly you know the number of unrelated occupants in a unit and other things but then in other parts of the community they actually encourage you know say student housing because these are all college towns he's looking at right so they're taking you know kind of a multifaceted approach so it's not just like well let's just do one thing they're trying to do a few different things to accommodate you know different users and and you know residents in the community so I think that's you know it is always something to consider um you know I think Doug you mentioned right that the University Drive could help a bit to me right that's a starting point and there's other things that could be happening so to your question about the next meeting meetings November 6 right now 422 AMD Street has been continued the site plan review I will say that the Conservation Commission continued their hearing to November 13th on that and it might um result in uh some site changes and so the idea was to just not even take any testimony or anything on the six and just continue it to a date certain possibly November 20th or dece into December so that basically leaves November 6th um completely open for you know which is just you know a week away but open for housing discussion uh November 20th I had you know 422 Amity the site plan review um we have the um the public hearing and then the Adu bylaw so you know November 20th is kind of busy December 4th there's two site plan review or two projects and then December 18th is um pretty much uh at this point as well so you know November 6th and December 18th uh you know and even at the other meetings it seems like there could be time to have some top some discussion like this okay all right well I guess the other thing that's coming to mind is early on when we started talking about what eventually turned into the overlay we met in person and we kind of sat around a table and people seemed to find that for Ive um you know is that necessary I guess is the question um or can we have a fruitful conversation about you know where to go next uh over Zoom Jesse I I mean I think I enjoy being in person but at the same time I think we could probably do it over zo be my thought especially if we're gonna pick off discreet chunks for each meeting and not just have a very open let's look at a map yeah okay well um would it be reasonable for us to say well maybe the next thing we might talk about in that slot would be areas with multif family housing we could up [Music] Zone I think that's great yeah uh Yan I think I mean I yes I'd be interested in having a slightly broader conversation about like what are the options for the next thing that we could pick off because East ammer and like that route n Corridor was also kind of the next thing in a way so I do think it makes sense to pick one but I'd be interested in having a conversation about the pros and cons okay Jesse yeah I don't disagree this one this other idea that brought us seemed really potentially really straightforward if everyone was on board that's why it feels like next to me because it might be a relatively short process which which I would love well in that you're an optimist okay so maybe we'll put that on the that on the agenda for for the sixth uh just next week and um I guess we'll be finalizing the agenda for that probably tomorrow uh Johanna given that that has been kind of discussed and is a little bit of an idea is there anything in writing that we could read ahead of time Jesse that you know of uh no Nate you could forward what you sent to us it was just the plan some uh a little bit of a plan from when whenever it was 2015 yeah well whatever I sent a few things to the housing subcommittee that can become part of packet and so yeah the town uh the planing department at that time had said you know look at um properties that had you know multi-unit development and could they could there be an overlay to allow them to redevelop at a much greater density and some of that the reasoning there is that a lot of those apartment complexes were permitted and then the town changed the zoning so now they're pre-existing or now they're non-conforming so they can densify anyways under the bylaw through a special permit but could you you know encourage it as a site plan review you know again with some standards and conditions in place and so you know there's there's been a few property owners over the last few years I guess who come to town and say they could they'd be willing to do something like that some wouldn't because you know we've actually I've spoken to one about it um and they they said maybe but you know in terms of taking units offline for construction and then phasing you know some Property Owners just don't want to take on that kind of comp complex project right they you know it makes sense in the long run but I think there's a few that I you know Rob said there's a few that periodically check in and say you know can I do something with my property I'd love to you know densify and right now there's not really a good way to do that so okay that was kind of the idea of it it never made it you know past you know some there at the time there's a zoning subcommittee there was discussions Like Jesse said there was some maps and maybe some notes but nothing formal ever you know came out of it okay um one thing that I was wondering uh with the is there now that you have the rental registration bylaw uh is there a way with the magic of GIS to translate the information about where rental units are onto a map so that we could see just how is rental distributed across town is it really all around you mass or is it everywhere yeah good question it will be mapped um you know what I've been told is that there's often a lag between when um you know permit you know we the way we have accepted applications they say they're due in July but we allowed you know some grace period and then there's a few months where uh the town double checks and so usually we'd Say by you know end of year it's accurate um but yeah the idea is that then it could be mapped I will say about right now um I think there's like seven almost 800 I think it's like 790 single single family homes are registered with the rental registration program meaning that it's more than just one bedroom that's rented out and there's 200 duplexes uh so um and I think a 100 of those duplexes are um you know half are owner occupied and half aren't and so you know that's you know essentially 900 you know you could call them single family one or two family units that are you know probably the entire unit is rented right all all bedrooms yeah and that should be able to be mapped um so you know what the idea is that our um the software is tied to you know we tie it to an address and a property ID So eventually that should all be mapped and it could you know there could be some symbology to you know show the different variations if we start getting more granular data you know you could hopefully represent that too as well well that would be great uh Jesse I would just add whatever was a year ago when I first joined the board and I put together those percentile numbers from neighborhoods there was a big disconnect from the registration numbers and the numbers on the property cards where I got that data so just putting that caveat out there for everyone to keep in the back of their minds like 790 registered now if i m correctly there were 1,00 or so on the book from somewhere so that's a pretty big Delta percentage wise just that we'll have to we always content with that that is what it is yeah I would say that the rental registration moving forward um will become more accurate you know I think what the town does is it takes anything that was a rental registration property a year or two before and then they will follow up if they don't register the next year right so then they try to make sure they're always accurate with the assess information you know it's a whether there's a change you know the property changes hands or it's every so many years three to five years where they will kind of reassess the property and so some of that that information is outdated and unfortunately I don't know if it'll ever be synchronized in a way like Jesse you know we were asking you know I was trying to work with him to map it and it was just you know was too inconsistent um you know and the margin of error was pretty big and so it was hard to say well let's look at this information I think it's it might be helpful but you know knowing that it could be a 20 to 30% you know margin of error what does that mean in a given area um okay Jesse just wanted to say to be clear that was in no way a criticism of the town and what they're doing I mean it was just an acknowledgement of probably people choosing not to use the registation that's all okay oh no I mean no it's fair right there's an older for instance there's an older property for s s that the accessor list is a three family and it was a three family probably a number of years ago but in the last so many years it's really only been a duplex and it's just you know the assessor records never caught up with that change right so this area that was a third unit just kind of became part of one of the units uh but yeah so I mean it's it's just you know we don't the assessor doesn't go out and inspect units you know so consistently to know that okay all right great uh it's 9006 maybe we can go on to the next item Nate you were going to talk about the housing production plan yeah so the um you know the town's hired Barrett Consulting Group Judy Barrett in her firm is working through a housing production plan they've had you know some meetings um they've met maybe with some of you they're conducting the needs assessment right now and that do that portion of the plan should be completed in the next two weeks and would would be available for review uh there also will be a um an online survey for for residents and community members to take that should be ready by the end of the week so that'll be available online as a number of questions in terms of you know an uh you know um a respondent's housing situation you know demographics and what they think are needs for housing in the community what they'd like to see so I'd encourage everyone to take it and forward it along to every one um and I think the needs assessment you know was a 50 to 60 page piece of the plan that you know really is trying to understand the housing market in ammer and then the need for affordable housing so housing production plan is really focused on you know capital A affordable need but there they also look at other um housing needs in the town I think eventually the planning board has to send a letter with the plan to the state if we want to get it approved and so the idea is that the plan would be done by next July and so you know I just want to give a periodic update to the planning board and eventually you know you'd probably be asked to review the plan and then vote to I don't know if it approve it or um I forgot the exact language but then that you know your letter and vote would go along with the plan to the state so there is I think it's December 10th or 3 I'm not sure yet but on either of those dates there'll be um a number of in-person meetings to discuss the um the plan mostly the needs assessment and the results of the community survey and so you know the public is more than welcome to attend I'm not we we haven't finalized the DAT we're hoping to do that in the next week but so it's either the the 3 or the 10th and there'll be a series of workshops you know from two to six um you know in in town whether it's in town hall or in another meeting space okay all right uh thank you Nate next Let's see we went through old business we went through new business form anr zba Spa SP Su uh we went through the committee in liaison reports all right we're up to report of chair and I really don't don't have a report tonight I'm looking forward to having the full board at a meeting some time soon doesn't feel like we've done that much lately for somehow uh Nate and Pam anything on Port of Staff no I don't have anything I will say in the next you know few meetings of the planning board there'll be a number of discussions about University Drive there's the overlay there's 422 AMD Street and then 422 M Street has submitted a preliminary subdivision plan to freeze the zoning so um you know it could be that the board has questions the public may have questions um and there's probably another project with University Drive and so there's a lot of University Drive uh in the agenda and what's being talked about um so just you know email staff if there's questions or if you you know are confusing projects or you know the public asks you questions you can direct them to staff okay all right uh anything else um anybody wants to talk about it's 10 after n now all right uh thank you all especially Karen for giving us some time from her Timeout on the west coast so 91 it's 911 and we are adjourned thank you all thank you Doug night everyone good night night Pam I always struggle to find the end the recording I don't know where it is disappears I'm just gonna I'm gonna hang us up we see you soon bye