[0:00] All right. Good evening everybody. It's

[0:02] Monday, January 12th at 6:03

[0:05] p.m. So, I'm going to call tonight's

[0:07] meeting of the housing committee to

[0:10] order. [snorts] First order of business

[0:12] is approval of the minutes of our last

[0:17] meeting.

[0:18] Uh, I forget the date though I have read

[0:21] the minutes and they look good to me.

[0:24] >> The date was um

[0:27] >> Oh, never mind. What? December 8th.

[0:31] >> Very, very comprehensive.

[0:33] >> Yeah. Yeah. Any corrections, additions,

[0:37] modifications,

[0:39] and if not, somebody might be so kind as

[0:42] to move to approve the minutes.

[0:46] >> I move that we approve the minutes.

[0:48] >> Second.

[0:49] >> All right. Uh, we will do our usual roll

[0:53] call vote because we're remote. Um, in

[0:56] my list of names, Fred Orloski,

[0:59] >> yes.

[1:00] >> Jerry,

[1:01] >> yes.

[1:02] >> Monserat,

[1:03] >> yes.

[1:04] >> Paula,

[1:06] >> yes.

[1:08] >> Fred Baron,

[1:09] >> don't get to vote.

[1:11] I you know,

[1:14] I know you're you're really missing out.

[1:16] And I vote yes. So, it is the minutes

[1:18] are unanimously approved of December

[1:21] 8th. Okay. Uh the next item I threw on

[1:25] because

[1:27] uh the discuss the housing committee

[1:29] budget for FY2027.

[1:31] Um so I noted I got a message from the

[1:35] town administrator about that we never

[1:39] submitted any budget request. Seems like

[1:44] by default, I don't know who did it,

[1:46] certainly wasn't me, that the 2026

[1:48] budget that ends June 30th set aside

[1:52] $500 for the housing committee. I don't

[1:56] know.

[1:57] >> I I think that was because that's what

[1:59] it had been for years before that.

[2:03] >> Yeah.

[2:03] >> And they just carried it over. And

[2:07] I don't know, does anyone have any I

[2:10] don't know that we really have any

[2:12] costs. I can certainly throw in a

[2:15] >> Well, I I was thinking about this and we

[2:17] might if we want to do any work on the

[2:22] Deo property, like hire someone to do,

[2:27] >> you know, survey or something like that.

[2:30] We might want some money to cover that.

[2:32] I saw Jerry nodding to that. Yep.

[2:36] >> Um agree.

[2:37] >> And I think it might be worthwhile to

[2:39] put in

[2:41] for $1,000 or even 1,500 knowing that

[2:44] it'll have to be defended and

[2:48] but to have a budget

[2:51] that we can use to do that kind of, you

[2:54] know, very preliminary

[2:56] consultancy or surveying or whatever.

[2:59] >> Right. We can talk about that in a

[3:01] minute, but that's probably on the low

[3:03] side.

[3:04] >> Yes. Okay, I'm I was just picking a

[3:06] figure at random.

[3:08] >> Uh but you can go ahead. But I think we we

[3:14] should prepare for that by having a

[3:17] budget request rather than just going

[3:20] along and the past number.

[3:22] >> Okay. Okay. I think in the in the past

[3:26] we've used some money I could remember

[3:28] for for postage when we did a mailing

[3:31] postcard mailing for some uh housing

[3:35] funding activity. I think around COVID

[3:37] time or something we had a mailing and

[3:39] it was I'm guessing three or $400 for

[3:43] postage to mail a postcard to every uh citizen or property owner in

[3:50] town. So that's what we used some of it

[3:53] for in the past. And I don't know if we

[3:54] want to do some any kind of mailing this

[3:57] year or next year,

[3:59] >> right?

[4:02] » Did we anything this year?

[4:05] >> I'm sorry. Go ahead, Jerry.

[4:06] >> Did we expend anything this year?

[4:09] >> As far as I know, nothing. I have seen I

[4:12] looked at the most recent town summary

[4:14] report and saw just that that was set

[4:17] aside but there were no expenses against

[4:20] it.

[4:21] >> Can I ask a clarifying question?

[4:23] >> Please.

[4:24] >> So um

[4:27] who was it who said this to you? Was it

[4:28] Peter?

[4:30] Well, I have I

[4:33] we've those of us who are board chairs

[4:36] have received various, you know, emails

[4:39] regarding future appearances before the

[4:42] finance committee, which Jerry can

[4:44] attest to, uh, to defend various

[4:47] budgets. And I noted in an email that

[4:51] among other committees, housing was

[4:53] listed with a note from that basically

[4:56] said no budget sheet has been submitted

[5:00] which makes sense because none of us

[5:02] would have done that.

[5:04] >> And so and are they asking us to submit

[5:06] one now and is it the right time or are

[5:08] we submitting something late?

[5:10] >> It's Well, Jerry, what do you think?

[5:13] >> Jerry, you're a chair, right? or or like you're you're a kahuna on the

[5:19] finance committee.

[5:21] >> I am in interim chair until next week's

[5:24] reorganization. See where that goes.

[5:26] >> Okay.

[5:27] >> Yeah, we're having our first meeting

[5:29] next week and then the budgets the

[5:31] reviews will begin in earnest a couple

[5:33] weeks later. So, I would imagine the

[5:35] Dunning notices

[5:38] are a way to try to get ahead of all the

[5:40] paperwork that needs to be compiled

[5:42] because the budgets come to us in a very

[5:44] thick binder with every department's

[5:47] budget and every department's backup.

[5:50] And so the idea of having a Dunning

[5:52] notice, I think the concept of, hey, if

[5:55] you didn't submit and you don't see a

[5:59] great need, then we'll just use last

[6:01] year's is probably, you know, fine. But

[6:04] to Mr. Baron's point, um, we should talk

[6:08] a little bit about five or 268 State

[6:11] Road. I'm not sure that needs to be in

[6:13] this budget or there may be some other

[6:16] options.

[6:17] >> Yeah.

[6:17] >> But that definitely comes to mind uh to

[6:19] me. might need a little something for

[6:21] something in there.

[6:22] >> Yeah. Yeah. Well,

[6:24] >> placeholder.

[6:25] >> Given that these budget meetings are

[6:28] coming up in [snorts] soon and probably

[6:31] before our next regular meeting of the

[6:34] housing committee, we should make a

[6:36] decision tonight on a number.

[6:39] >> Um,

[6:41] and you know, uh,

[6:44] >> yeah, the first meeting start on

[6:45] February 4th.

[6:47] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah,

[6:48] >> but I don't have the list yet. But the other the other thing that would

[6:54] come up that we could use this this

[6:56] money for and I have on other committees

[6:58] is if we any of us wanted of the

[7:02] committee housing committee wanted to

[7:04] attend a seminar or a meeting or

[7:07] workshop say in Worcester or Boston or

[7:11] statewide anywhere uh our expenses for attending that would be covered

[7:18] under under this item.

[7:19] which would include if there's a

[7:21] registration fee, also mileage. If you

[7:24] have to travel to Boston, 100 something

[7:26] miles either way, that would be eligible

[7:29] expense to use against this dollar

[7:31] amount we have in our budget.

[7:33] >> Yeah, I I think that's what the

[7:36] >> why there's $500 there

[7:39] >> in there,

[7:40] >> you know, on a regular basis. I think

[7:42] what we're probably going to be talking

[7:43] about is whether we need to up that

[7:45] number.

[7:46] >> Yeah. for contingencies on 268 State

[7:50] Road.

[7:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, tell you what,

[7:54] why don't we um table this for the

[7:58] moment. We'll come back to it. So, let's

[8:00] talk about the Deo property where we are

[8:03] um and and what we might do in FY2027.

[8:10] And again, we're talking about the

[8:12] budget year starting July 1. Um, and

[8:16] what we have for through June 30th is

[8:22] $500. That was put in our budget. So, if

[8:26] there are expenses that we have for

[8:29] mailings or seminars or trainings or

[8:32] what have you, we do have some money

[8:34] allocated to us by, you know, forces

[8:37] unknown.

[8:39] All right. So, um, I I'll turn it over

[8:42] to Jerry. I I have basically from

[8:45] shortly after our last meeting been

[8:48] diverted into sort of a family emergency

[8:51] that has given me no time to follow up

[8:54] on anything for any border committee and

[8:58] I just returned home earlier today. So

[9:02] um over to you Jerry.

[9:05] >> Great. So I have uh three meetings to

[9:09] try to bring up. I'll try to be as brief

[9:12] as I can. One with board of health, one

[9:16] with the uh chief field engineer for

[9:19] Birkshire Design Group focusing on uh

[9:24] septic issue, and one with uh Gina over

[9:28] at the uh Franco County Regional Housing

[9:31] Authority also representing uh RDI.

[9:35] So, I've had conversations with all

[9:37] three and I'll I'll try to be brief but

[9:39] be happy to answer questions as best I

[9:41] can.

[9:42] >> Can you repeat what was the last meeting

[9:43] again?

[9:44] >> Sure. The last meeting was with the

[9:46] board of health director and I'm looking

[9:49] for her last name. Gina

[9:53] Whitney Monsur.

[9:54] >> I thought Gina was with uh the Franklin

[9:57] Regional Housing Authority and RDI.

[10:00] >> She is, but I just uh Giovani, I believe

[10:04] it is. Uh, hang on.

[10:06] >> That sounds right.

[10:07] >> G O V O N I.

[10:18] » Okay.

[10:20] >> Um, from where?

[10:21] >> Uh, she's with the Franklin County

[10:23] Regional Housing Authority out of

[10:26] Greenfield,

[10:27] >> but also they are connected to

[10:30] interlaced with the development company

[10:32] RDI.

[10:34] which stands stands for Rural

[10:37] Development, Inc.,

[10:40] >> right? Which builds affordable housing.

[10:43] They've done about 100 apartments, 100

[10:46] units to date since uh 1990.

[10:51] So anyway, let me go back to the board

[10:53] of health because I think I need to sort

[10:55] of build it from there.

[10:58] I had sent around some an email from

[11:04] uh Fran

[11:06] over at the board of health saying,

[11:07] "Hey, you know, your system that you

[11:09] picked isn't on this official mass uh

[11:12] call it D listing of alternative

[11:16] treatment plants.

[11:18] I then came into a conversation with

[11:20] Sydney and a gentleman named Glenn Ays

[11:23] who's pretty pretty drilled down on

[11:26] where we need to go and basically had

[11:30] the following to say cutting to the

[11:32] chase. It will be very unlikely

[11:36] even if that system were to be approved

[11:38] and it was from the short list that you

[11:40] would ever be able to discharge clear

[11:42] water into a brook that's inside of a

[11:46] conservation area. He said, "If it's

[11:48] 100% rainwater coming down, nobody

[11:50] cares. But the environmentalist will be

[11:52] over your case. It will take years of

[11:56] public input and approval if there's no

[11:59] current discharge into the stream. Not a

[12:03] good way to go. You need to look at

[12:04] alternatives. Alternatives meaning below

[12:08] the ground." And we talked a lot about

[12:10] that. Um there are a number of systems

[12:13] which disperse just like the septic

[12:15] system at your house houses below the

[12:19] ground that perk um and are buried and

[12:23] work through a hydraulic process.

[12:27] He said the most important thing to do

[12:29] and to consider starting with is how

[12:32] much capacity and this made all the

[12:34] sense in the world to me. How much

[12:35] capacity does this site have to support

[12:41] the treatment of water waste? While

[12:44] restaurant generates quite a bit, it

[12:47] doesn't translate necessarily to

[12:49] apartments. The town health department

[12:53] has a limit of 110 gallons per bedroom

[12:58] per day. If you build two bedrooms, but

[13:01] it has one bathroom, your limit, you

[13:04] can't exceed 210

[13:07] gallons per day. If you don't know how

[13:12] fast your soil can perk and how much it

[13:15] can hold,

[13:16] >> then you need to figure that out to back

[13:19] into can this site sustain 10 units, 12,

[13:24] 24, 30, 50 units. We talked about a

[13:29] number of

[13:31] um issues relative to the two-bedroom

[13:33] versus onebedrooms. I don't believe any

[13:36] developer is going to come in and want

[13:37] to build all two bedrooms. He said

[13:40] that's not a problem with the board of

[13:41] health. If you want to build one

[13:42] bedrooms, we're happy to give a variance

[13:45] on that. He said there is the alternate

[13:49] technology list which has a series of

[13:52] vendors that provide these wastewater

[13:55] treatment plants at different loads. But

[13:59] before you come in front of

[14:01] [clears throat] us, we're going to want

[14:03] to see a sign off from a physical

[14:05] engineer, a PE, which is basically a

[14:08] civil sanitary engineer to tell us this

[14:11] is what's happening with the property.

[14:13] And that makes sense. We went down. They

[14:16] don't want to provide a specific list,

[14:18] but they went down a list of four or

[14:20] five people. I recognized one of the uh

[14:25] players, a company called Birkshshire

[14:28] Design Group.

[14:30] >> Um they're doing work over at my

[14:31] mother-in-law's condo over at Sugarluff.

[14:35] Um but they've actually done actually a

[14:37] lot of work uh even here in town. They

[14:39] did apparently a lot of the study on

[14:41] townland around the I91 exit

[14:45] uh and some other areas.

[14:48] So anyway, I had two calls with I then

[14:51] went on to have two calls with Berkshire

[14:52] Design Group after I spent an hour with

[14:54] the board of health.

[14:56] talked with an initial guy that I had

[14:58] contact with from uh the sun the South

[15:01] Deerfield project, the condo project,

[15:03] and then connected with their principal

[15:07] uh PE, physical engineer, a fellow named

[15:10] Chris Chamberlain.

[15:12] >> Oh yeah, I know Chris

[15:14] design has come before the planning

[15:17] board many times on many different

[15:19] projects across town there, which he had

[15:21] mentioned.

[15:21] >> I've always been really professional and

[15:23] on top of things.

[15:25] >> Yeah. So he he seems pretty squared

[15:27] away. He went through the VHB

[15:31] feasibility analysis and also the

[15:33] material I send him on aquat. He agrees

[15:36] you're never going to put water in that

[15:38] stream. Take that off the table. He said

[15:42] the VHB physibility study was more

[15:45] centered focused on quote what's

[15:48] possible versus what really makes sense.

[15:53] And he said, "What you really have to

[15:55] do, which the board of health had also

[15:57] said, is figure out what you can

[16:02] actually do with the property." And that

[16:04] would fall on probably three different

[16:07] areas. One, an area of soil exploration

[16:11] to determine what kind of soil do you

[16:13] have here because a lot of this was not

[16:15] inside of the VHB feasibility study. Is

[16:20] it sandy? Is it silty? Is it sandy

[16:23] everywhere? Silty everywhere, etc. Two,

[16:26] a perk test, multiple perk tests within

[16:30] the footprint of what would be

[16:31] considered to be the buildable area.

[16:35] And the third is examination of the

[16:37] flood plane

[16:40] elevations.

[16:42] He said the VHB study did not really

[16:45] look at flood plane.

[16:48] U the most recent flood planes were just

[16:50] released. He did look at it and said it

[16:53] does not appear. Um he said you're close

[16:56] to what FEMA might call a flood plane

[16:58] but not necessarily there but you should

[17:00] confirm that before you go too far down

[17:03] the road. He said that's very easy to do

[17:06] with some GPS and some lasers. They can

[17:08] know exactly how things lay out.

[17:12] >> So it's more about first step would be

[17:14] doing perk test to inform what the

[17:17] design possibly could be. That will tell

[17:19] us how many gallons per day the site can

[17:22] absorb by looking at basically the

[17:25] number of gallons per square foot per

[17:28] day that the site itself can do. He said

[17:32] relative to groundwater you have to

[17:35] build a mound 4t above where groundwater

[17:38] is.

[17:40] alternate systems, he said, can reduce

[17:42] obviously the footprint of your leech

[17:44] field. And they're great because if you

[17:46] get the drip irrigation that I was

[17:48] describing earlier in my conversation

[17:51] with the board of health, you can move

[17:52] that around trees, you can move it

[17:54] around buildings. It doesn't have to be

[17:56] a straight field. If it's a straight

[17:58] field, you can't build on top of it,

[18:00] meaning you can't landscape, can't put

[18:02] up trees, you can't stick a pigota,

[18:05] whatever the case may be.

[18:08] You also need to account, and this was

[18:10] brought up by the board of health, for

[18:12] storm water discharge coming off your

[18:14] new building. You're putting on a roof

[18:16] of a building, maybe outside parking,

[18:18] maybe not, but whatever the case, you're

[18:20] going to move storm water around and

[18:22] that needs to be considered as well and

[18:26] would need to pass the conservation

[18:28] commission as Monzerat I think you had

[18:30] mentioned before whether or not you have

[18:33] to go into a different discharge

[18:37] what they call compensatory storage is a

[18:40] question. It all depends on the

[18:41] measurements and the feedback of the

[18:45] study. So

[18:48] netn net

[18:50] they he sees it structured as follows

[18:53] that there be a a proposal that he could

[18:56] put together with a variety of phases

[18:59] levels. first to define

[19:02] um he said importantly

[19:04] you you you need to test for traditional

[19:08] septic to see what works as traditional

[19:12] septic so that if you go the route of

[19:14] alternate and alternate for some reason

[19:17] fails down the road the health

[19:19] department will have because they'll be

[19:21] part of that perk test and part of the

[19:23] record the health department can at

[19:25] least say hey it's the fallback it's

[19:28] bulletproof because we approve it for

[19:29] septic routine and now we approve it for

[19:32] the other potentially with conditions of

[19:36] annual maintenance yada yada yada.

[19:39] >> So that's sort of phase one flood plan

[19:41] review, septic test. Phase two would be

[19:46] basically getting into let's call it the

[19:49] drawing elements and supporting charts

[19:51] to say what size systems can you put in.

[19:55] If you want to have a 30-unit building,

[19:57] do you need two or three alternate

[20:00] systems? What would that look like

[20:02] placed around the site, etc.? Because

[20:05] this company has landscaping, civil, and

[20:09] surveying all within the same

[20:11] wheelhouse, it's very easy for them to

[20:14] ramp up. And as I pointed out to him,

[20:17] there would come a point in which the

[20:19] town is not interested in designing the

[20:21] skin of the building. The town I believe

[20:24] is interested in understanding what can

[20:26] it physically do clear the pathway for a

[20:31] developer to come in and begin saying

[20:35] I'm interested in this and understanding

[20:37] everything from floor plan restrictions

[20:40] to conservation to how the housing

[20:44] authorities might look at it and all

[20:45] that's been sort of runway cleared for

[20:47] them you said would be extremely

[20:49] beneficial as would having the basic

[20:52] study so they don't have to go out and

[20:54] do it. Cost of that uh he said it's not

[20:59] $1,000

[21:00] he said but it's not multiple thousands

[21:03] above 10 so it's between one and 10 if

[21:06] he had to shoot off the top of his head.

[21:09] Yeah, I told him, are you talking about

[21:11] the um the second phase of planning?

[21:14] >> The first phase to go in,

[21:16] >> do the perk test, coordinate with the

[21:19] board of health to sign off on it, do

[21:22] the elevation test relative to your

[21:24] flood plane, etc. Understand how the

[21:27] site completely works.

[21:31] also including appropriately updated

[21:34] conservation designations because he

[21:36] said, "Hey, you're just like the

[21:38] conservation commission told me or told

[21:40] I think Monserat, those maps are not

[21:42] accurate,

[21:43] >> right?

[21:43] >> You see, your maps are not accurate."

[21:46] >> So that has to be refined. So one, it's

[21:51] not going to be a one. It's probably I I

[21:52] would imagine a five to $7500 expense.

[21:58] So the question there would be

[22:00] >> there's a limit on using consultants

[22:03] uh to do studies if it's it used it's

[22:06] either 10,000 or 30,000 you can contract with a consultant uh by

[22:14] invite invitation. You don't need to

[22:16] advertise for everybody in the in the

[22:18] host state to submit bids. So we if we

[22:21] have two or three that uh would be

[22:23] interested if they're under 10,000 I

[22:25] think this this committee could pick one

[22:27] of them.

[22:28] >> That's great Fred. That's great to know.

[22:30] The question would be source of the

[22:33] funding

[22:34] >> right

[22:35] >> if it's five or 7500 or he did not think

[22:38] it would be 10 grand to do this initial

[22:41] work. But it would seem to me money

[22:44] prudently spent that could say yes, it

[22:46] can support 30 units of housing or nope,

[22:49] it can support 12 and maybe you guys

[22:52] ought to think about doing something

[22:53] else relative to the real estate.

[22:57] [clears throat]

[22:58] >> Uh we

[23:00] given that it might be as much as 10, we

[23:02] might want to consider and it's it's

[23:04] late but probably still doable. uh

[23:07] putting a capital request for that

[23:09] rather than out of the operating budget.

[23:13] Uh let the

[23:16] >> capital committee

[23:18] work on that rather than the finance

[23:21] committee directly.

[23:22] >> Yep.

[23:25] >> And I I would say it could be for, you

[23:26] know, a request for 10,000 on the

[23:29] understanding that it likely won't be

[23:31] 10,000.

[23:33] That that's done all the time.

[23:35] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[23:37] >> Well, Jerry, as as the uh board of

[23:40] health said that they have records on

[23:43] the uh septic system that's on that

[23:46] property.

[23:48] >> Uh he did not say that they they must

[23:52] have had something at some point in

[23:54] time,

[23:55] >> right,

[23:55] >> for the restaurant to approve the

[23:58] septic,

[23:59] >> right?

[23:59] >> But I I don't have any direct knowledge

[24:01] of that, Fred. Well, they supposedly

[24:05] have records of every septic system in

[24:08] town on property unless it was built in

[24:10] 1800s, but I don't know what what time

[24:13] period they started the board of health

[24:15] to to uh to manage that, monitor that.

[24:19] But I mean, I have it on my property,

[24:21] the original and then the one that was

[24:23] redone in 87. Uh there is records of of

[24:27] maps of what was there, what was

[24:30] constructed by a certified

[24:33] contractor, I guess, and approved by

[24:35] board of health. So I would I would

[24:38] imagine the board of health has some

[24:40] record of that or maybe some town agency

[24:43] or even the building department.

[24:45] >> Yep. uh would a building inspector would

[24:47] have some record of what was built there

[24:49] before or there which is still there

[24:52] today I would guess because I don't

[24:54] think any of that has been removed.

[24:56] >> I don't think it's been removed but it

[24:58] there's a good chance that whatever is

[24:59] underground has collapsed.

[25:02] >> Well

[25:03] the meet any of course

[25:06] >> has been unoccupied for 20 years.

[25:09] >> Yeah. since the fire.

[25:11] >> We don't know how long before that

[25:13] >> the septic would have been built. We can

[25:15] find out.

[25:17] >> Uh septic tanks last more than 20 years.

[25:20] So I wouldn't say that that's to ignore

[25:23] that. But

[25:24] >> yes, but that's assuming that the septic

[25:26] tank was put in right before the fire,

[25:28] not that it was put in 20 years before

[25:31] that.

[25:32] >> We're making a lot of assumptions that I

[25:34] think somewhere in town there's some

[25:35] should be some record of that building.

[25:39] I will check back with Glenn on that to

[25:41] see at least what were the conditions

[25:44] identified when the septic was put in

[25:47] which may give Berkshire Design Group a

[25:51] leg up on this and might help to

[25:53] minimize some of the cost but I don't

[25:56] know that a if a well he said that perk

[26:00] tests are basically permanent unless

[26:03] there's been a serious modification to

[26:07] the um to the area, the lot in question.

[26:12] And so that's why it was really good to

[26:14] figure out the baseline of a septic

[26:17] system versus an alternative system

[26:19] because once they approve the baseline

[26:22] and then approve the alternative, then

[26:24] you always have the baseline to go back.

[26:26] So it's an interesting point. I will

[26:28] call and follow up.

[26:30] >> Yeah. on on that point,

[26:33] >> I would conjecture that having if plans

[26:37] for a pre-existing septic system could

[26:41] be uncovered, that would be useful, not

[26:45] necessarily because it would provide

[26:47] data on perk that's relevant today, but

[26:51] it I would imagine, you know, since

[26:54] we're not dealing with undeveloped land,

[26:56] if I were a developer, I'd like to know,

[26:58] you know, like what's already what

[27:00] infrastructure structure that is buried

[27:03] that I may have to, you know, dig up and

[27:06] replace or or avoid.

[27:09] >> Yeah. Yeah. Know the septic system

[27:10] clearly has to get yanked out. Um the

[27:12] question would be I think if you think

[27:16] of it as a rectangle,

[27:18] the septic system is at the back of that

[27:21] rectangle. That's where it's all

[27:23] located.

[27:25] But we might have a need to understand

[27:29] parking in front of where that septic

[27:31] system is and on both sides because

[27:34] that's where you may put your

[27:35] alternative waste treatment. But that's

[27:38] also where VHB recommended on both sides

[27:41] of the center that the septic system go

[27:44] in. But it may start us off with

[27:46] something um that Fred O pointed out and

[27:49] I'll see what I can find out.

[27:53] Um so any so how do how Fred Baron how

[27:58] do you origin how who how who does how

[28:01] does one originate a capital committee

[28:03] request for

[28:04] >> 10 grand for such a such a thing

[28:09] » uh

[28:12] talk let's see I would say talk to P

[28:14] King I request for capital

[28:18] projects has already gone out but

[28:21] >> the committee hasn't met yet and I

[28:23] assume that

[28:25] I'm on the committee, Brent's on that

[28:27] committee, uh would consider a late

[28:30] proposal and I'm sure there's a town

[28:33] form for submission and you know for how

[28:37] much you want for what purpose with

[28:40] uh some some sort of estimate

[28:44] >> and you know it can be a ballpark from

[28:47] Bergkshire Design saying you know not

[28:49] more than 10,000 something like that.

[28:52] >> Okay, I'll check with uh Peter uh

[28:56] tomorrow or the next day.

[28:58] >> So, what I'll do actually is I've

[29:00] already started composing an email to

[29:04] Pete with a C with Jerry's CC. So, I'll

[29:08] get that email out tonight. But

[29:10] basically there is a form uh a capital

[29:14] uh capital request form that various

[29:18] department and so submit prepare and

[29:21] submit [snorts] and as Fred pointed out

[29:24] there is a capital improvement planning

[29:26] committee. I'm on that committee along

[29:27] with Fred and those people and we

[29:30] basically prioritize.

[29:33] We don't approve or deny. We simply

[29:36] prioritize. And so I can provide some

[29:40] maybe Jerry you and I could collaborate

[29:42] on a submission.

[29:45] Uh you know once we have the form and I

[29:48] could sort of help advise on like how

[29:51] does the capital improvement planning

[29:53] committee historically look at these

[29:55] things and and prioritize them.

[29:58] >> Right. And I I ran across that with a

[30:00] finance committee last year as we did

[30:01] the budgets

[30:03] >> and basically we took everything that

[30:04] was in immediate need and said, "Okay,

[30:06] that makes sense."

[30:07] >> Yeah.

[30:07] >> And everything that wasn't an immediate

[30:09] need like we'll hold off on that,

[30:12] >> right? That's right.

[30:13] >> Um but this I think this has some legs

[30:16] on it at least to answer our question.

[30:19] Otherwise, you're going to be in stasis

[30:20] for a long time with not going anywhere

[30:23] >> pending like trying to find grant money

[30:26] that could support this.

[30:28] >> So, let me get to my third discussion

[30:31] point, which is my conversation with the

[30:34] head of the Franklin County Regional

[30:35] Housing Authority, Gina Gioani.

[30:38] >> Um, wait a second. Um, I think either I

[30:43] missed it or something dropped off here.

[30:45] Um you said that there were three phases

[30:47] of planning

[30:49] um that you got from the Berkshire

[30:52] design group and the first was perk test

[30:54] and flood plane mapping and conservation

[30:56] designations and what are the second and

[30:58] third?

[30:59] >> Well you are really tight Monzerat I got

[31:01] to tell you

[31:02] >> I can't have a one without a two and a

[31:04] three.

[31:04] >> So the second point was only the second

[31:08] phase is the check-in point. Once we

[31:11] give you all the information and you

[31:13] have a chance to review it, then we

[31:15] check in with you, see where you want to

[31:17] go from there. I skipped that in my

[31:20] overview because I didn't think it was

[31:22] as relevant, but you were absolutely

[31:23] right.

[31:24] >> So, check in with Bergkshire Design

[31:26] Group and or check in between us and

[31:29] them. Okay.

[31:30] >> Check in with Bergkshire Design Group

[31:32] between u the delivery of the phase one

[31:36] information.

[31:38] Phase one is compile information. In

[31:40] Phase two, check into review

[31:42] information. Phase three is basically

[31:46] moving to the

[31:49] sizing of systems, coming up with some

[31:52] simple charts relative to

[31:56] what you can build, how you could build

[31:59] it, etc., etc. They they what they

[32:02] basically want to do is hybrid the VHP

[32:04] concept because it has some pieces of a

[32:07] puzzle

[32:09] and integrate it with their direct site

[32:11] knowledge and create a bigger piece. But

[32:16] that's where suddenly your $10,000 bill

[32:18] becomes 50

[32:20] >> and then you come back with a beautiful

[32:22] VHB type thing you can hand out to

[32:24] people. And that's where I think the

[32:25] developer needs to step in and start

[32:27] spending money. I think we just need to

[32:30] understand what can we do and then

[32:35] you hand all that off to a developer. I

[32:37] don't think the town needs to subsidize

[32:40] um the design and total layouts.

[32:43] >> So,

[32:44] >> no. And I also think it's important to

[32:47] give the developer something so they're

[32:49] not, you know, they feel that at least

[32:51] we've got an investment in this

[32:54] >> correct the physical real estate. He

[32:58] thought that would be extreme Chris felt

[33:00] that would be extremely helpful to your

[33:02] point Fred that if you come forward say

[33:04] hey here's what we have and we can show

[33:07] here's what can perk here's how many

[33:09] units here's what the town would like to

[33:11] see in terms of the buildings

[33:14] then that is a much they can really put

[33:17] their hand a developer can put their

[33:18] hands around that

[33:20] >> versus just a we got a 4 acre lot half

[33:23] of which you can't build on and it

[33:26] doesn't have septic and What do you guys

[33:28] think? So, I think I think we're doing

[33:31] the right we're moving it in the right

[33:32] direction.

[33:34] >> I have a a concern here or or I mean a

[33:38] question and it's I hate to be the the

[33:40] ogre of all this. Uh uh I I I think it's

[33:46] a good effort for this committee to

[33:48] pursue some kind of housing development

[33:50] housing project there. But to back up a

[33:53] little, has has the the town ever

[33:56] approved what kind of use do we want on

[34:00] that on that piece of property? Because

[34:03] it's going to come down to uh issuing a request for proposal to get developers

[34:10] to respond to to make proposals to use

[34:14] the property. Are we going to say it's

[34:16] only going to be for housing, which this

[34:19] committee is is promoting and will work

[34:22] with, or is the RFP going to say it will

[34:24] be for any kind of development that a

[34:26] developer wants to put in there, whether

[34:29] it's housing, it it's retail,

[34:31] commercial, uh, and and

[34:37] who is going to decide? Well, who is

[34:40] going to decide on that? I don't know if

[34:42] it's this committee is going to decide

[34:44] on that or

[34:46] well I guess the select board will have

[34:47] the final decision but we also have this

[34:50] what economic development person that

[34:54] maybe should be involved in all kind in

[34:56] these meetings and discussions so when

[34:59] it comes down to getting proposals in

[35:02] that person is familiar with it and can

[35:05] make presentations

[35:07] to the select board I think someplace in

[35:10] here. We're moving on a housing project

[35:14] and I'm not which would be great, but is

[35:17] that the only thing this town is looking

[35:20] for? I I I I don't know.

[35:24] >> Well, it's the only thing we're looking

[35:26] for. So,

[35:27] >> yeah.

[35:27] >> Right. But it has to go through the town

[35:29] or through the select board to to get

[35:31] final approval.

[35:34] Well, ultimately the land the land is

[35:37] owned by the town, right?

[35:39] >> Meaning

[35:40] >> citizens of the town would ultimately

[35:42] have to vote to approve a sale or

[35:46] transfer for for that purpose. All we

[35:50] think this committee is trying to do is

[35:53] make progress towards

[35:56] um you know having a reasonable proposal

[36:01] either determining that the you can't do

[36:04] anything reasonable in terms of housing

[36:06] on this property and we just say you

[36:08] know the town should just sell it

[36:11] >> or do something else with it. But you

[36:13] know right now we have this committee is

[36:16] trying to develop a get as close to a

[36:20] proposal for building housing not

[36:22] anything else

[36:23] >> not a you know not a a professional

[36:27] building not you know that that is what

[36:31] we are trying to do and until we

[36:34] determine that there's nothing useful

[36:36] that can be done like if if these

[36:39] evaluations say doesn't perk or

[36:42] something's something's wrong with it

[36:45] and we can't do any reasonable housing,

[36:47] then we might abandon this particular

[36:51] parcel of land and turn our attention

[36:53] elsewhere.

[36:55] That that's at least my opinion of what

[36:57] we're trying to do. Jerry, does that

[36:58] sound?

[37:00] My thought would be you need to

[37:03] understand what the land can handle in

[37:06] terms of septic absorption whether it's

[37:09] commercial, if it's a restaurant, or

[37:12] it's housing. If you don't have the

[37:14] answer to that part of the test,

[37:17] then you you don't have anything but

[37:20] land sitting there. And so it may be

[37:24] that it's only perking enough for light

[37:28] retail commercial.

[37:30] >> It may be it can perk enough to create

[37:33] housing, which would be very interesting

[37:35] to this committee and potentially to the

[37:39] town. And it may be it perks for

[37:43] industrial. But until we know the soil

[37:47] condition as the first step, regardless

[37:51] of what's going to be done with the real

[37:53] estate above the ground, it's hard to

[37:56] have that conversation. I I I hear your

[38:00] point, but I I really I think it's in

[38:03] the best interest of the town to move

[38:05] forward and understand

[38:08] the perk capacity of the real estate in

[38:12] order to determine what potential uses

[38:15] there might be.

[38:16] But when the the the other study that

[38:19] was done on housing that what's a VHB

[38:21] study didn't they didn't look at any of

[38:23] this at all and yet they came up with

[38:25] proposals that I I I guess the the town

[38:29] accepted. I I guess uh

[38:31] >> the town did not accept them. I think

[38:33] that's too that I think that what

[38:36] happened with the VHB study is it was

[38:39] solicited. It was provided and then it

[38:42] was basically given over to this

[38:45] committee to do something with. But by

[38:47] that time this committee had fallen

[38:49] apart and there was nobody to champion

[38:53] doing anything with that property and

[38:55] now we're reconstituted and we are

[38:58] trying to do something.

[38:59] >> Okay. Well,

[39:00] >> and also the at least it was my view

[39:03] that that was

[39:05] as Jerry pointed out was you know when

[39:08] showing it to Bergkshire sort of

[39:11] aspirational of what might be done with

[39:14] the property. It wasn't a plan

[39:16] >> of what what will be done you know here

[39:20] are your alternatives for what you can

[39:22] do. It's simply maybe you could do these

[39:24] things and

[39:26] >> which doesn't sound like the best use of

[39:28] funds relative to not knowing the

[39:30] answer. The here's what you can do and

[39:32] then moving from there.

[39:35] >> I believe that that didn't cost the town

[39:38] nothing. It was either a grant or

[39:42] a an academic

[39:45] >> study.

[39:46] >> Well, that's good. It it was there was

[39:48] no I don't remember ever allocating any

[39:51] funds for that.

[39:52] >> Wonderful.

[39:53] >> Yeah. I think it was a student thing.

[39:55] >> Yeah.

[39:57] >> And the other thing, Jerry, I mean,

[40:00] Brent, you mentioned a word that caught

[40:02] my caught my attention whether the town

[40:04] is going to sell this property. I think

[40:08] that's uh any kind of development that's

[40:11] going to occur there to me has to be

[40:15] development that owns the property

[40:19] because I've been told with town

[40:21] administrator other people the town is

[40:23] not going to be a landlord to that

[40:24] property regardless of what goes on that

[40:27] property right so the RFP would would be

[40:30] for the sale

[40:31] >> of the uh or own whatever you call it

[40:34] sale of the property for a certain kind

[40:36] of development or proposal.

[40:38] >> It could be it could be managed just

[40:39] like our other property next to the post

[40:41] office.

[40:42] >> Well, I don't think the town is in a

[40:44] position to do that. I've been told

[40:46] we're not going to be landlords to it.

[40:48] We're not. No, the post the one by the

[40:50] post office. The town has is has uh an

[40:54] agreement with Franklin County Housing

[40:56] Authority to manage that property. The

[40:58] town does not. We have an we have a a

[41:01] >> an agreement to do it, but but they're

[41:03] responsible for managing it completely.

[41:05] the town doesn't get any money from

[41:07] that.

[41:07] >> Well, the h how it's managed, it becomes

[41:10] a legal issue. The the property can be

[41:13] sold. There can be a uh a land lease

[41:16] with the payment in lie of taxes or

[41:19] something like that. There are other

[41:21] there there are ways to work that issue

[41:23] out that likely it would be a sale,

[41:27] >> right?

[41:27] >> But there could be other other options,

[41:33] >> right? In the interest of my time, may I

[41:36] go on to the conversation with the

[41:38] housing authority?

[41:39] >> Yes, please.

[41:40] >> Great.

[41:42] So, as I mentioned, uh, the housing

[41:44] authority is interlaced with RDI. They

[41:47] built a 100 units to date since 1990.

[41:51] They're primarily focused on blighted

[41:53] homes over the last five or so years.

[41:56] But she was very excited about the

[42:00] concept of multifamily. here. It turns

[42:03] out they are the developers behind

[42:07] Sanderson Place.

[42:09] She said that was a um very much a joint

[42:12] effort with multiple architects who live

[42:14] in the zone to design the building. They

[42:17] went through a lot of comprehensive

[42:18] permit issues with the town. That town

[42:21] that's on 3.5 acres of buildable land, a

[42:25] total of 33 units. She said for them 30

[42:29] units is really the sweet spot to have a

[42:32] developer engaged. Um she said they are

[42:36] able to sort of fly under the radar of

[42:39] the bigger Boston companies including

[42:41] the one that I work for because

[42:44] companies like my company they are in

[42:46] the 100 units and up category. But she

[42:50] has access to capital. she has access to

[42:55] resources that are beyond what we can

[42:57] do. Um, she did mention,

[43:01] we talked about the lottery

[43:04] itself. I I think there'd be an interest

[43:07] there in administering the lottery. You

[43:09] said typically it would probably be in

[43:11] the tens of people, not hundreds of

[43:13] people per unit for a lottery for local

[43:16] interest.

[43:18] Interestingly to me, she said only 30%

[43:23] of the units, excluding anything that's

[43:25] section 8, can have a local preference.

[43:30] 70% of the product is anybody shows up

[43:34] and there you go. So, we can't say out

[43:37] of the affordable units, if there's 10

[43:39] of them, all 10 of them have to have a

[43:42] local preference unless they have

[43:45] section 8 inside of it. Section 8 is a

[43:48] whole different level, but it's

[43:51] something that can be considered. She

[43:54] likes the idea of workforce housing. She

[43:57] said, "What you really need is a good

[43:59] market study, and it's very possible

[44:01] because of its proximity to Northampton,

[44:06] even somewhat to Amherst, um, from a

[44:09] commuting perspective, that you might be

[44:11] able to get some decent rents there."

[44:14] She said that they actually

[44:17] had worked quite heavily with the Beacon

[44:18] Company over at the Mill District uh

[44:21] apartments over by Cow's Lumber and 85%

[44:25] of those units are filled with what are

[44:27] called mobile vouchers, not projectbased

[44:30] section 8 where there are one mode.

[44:33] >> Sorry, I don't know why that that

[44:36] clicked something.

[44:37] >> Anyway,

[44:37] >> what would the market study determine?

[44:39] The market study would determine if you

[44:42] have apartments here, what could you get

[44:44] for rents relative to the market end of

[44:49] the rents? Is it a twobedroom for $2,000

[44:55] or like over at the mill building u the

[44:57] mill district, they're getting $3,500

[45:02] um for the units. the affordable rents

[45:05] are going to be fixed based on area

[45:08] median income, but they're still pretty

[45:11] strong. And so a developer like RDI

[45:16] once they understand how much they can

[45:19] build, if they can build 30 units, would

[45:22] then work to pencil in the right

[45:26] mix of units that make sense to them for

[45:30] the type of construction, the

[45:32] construction cost, and their long-term

[45:33] hold plan.

[45:35] So if we can get it to 30, she's totally

[45:38] in. If this thing can only perk at 15,

[45:41] then she's like, I I can't help you.

[45:44] However, back to the point of money and

[45:48] not to say let's not put in that capital

[45:50] committee request because I've not been

[45:53] able to chase this particular hunt yet,

[45:57] but she said under the Affordable Homes

[46:00] Act was passed a couple of years ago.

[46:04] There's a state agency called and I

[46:07] don't know the total names behind the

[46:10] acronym but D as in dog C A M as in Mary but basically the division

[46:18] of capital asset management something.

[46:22] She didn't know what the other M was,

[46:24] but I have a name. And she said they

[46:27] help with what she called TA, technical

[46:32] assistance to towns interested in

[46:35] developing residential housing. And she

[46:38] thinks that they could help cover the

[46:40] cost of that whole perk test situation

[46:44] we're talking about. So, I'll go down

[46:47] that route, but I think we should stay

[46:49] on the other as well because this is

[46:52] information based on a seminar that she

[46:54] went to a year or two ago. Who knows if

[46:58] there's still funds available, etc. But

[47:01] I have a name, I have part of a state

[47:05] agency division that and it would be

[47:07] great if there is a grant available to

[47:09] us and it could be provided on a timely

[47:11] basis. Maybe the grant could be one that

[47:14] would reimburse

[47:16] the capital fund once it came through. I

[47:19] don't know. So, something to think

[47:21] about.

[47:22] >> Jerry, tracking things like that down is

[47:24] exactly where we've got a community

[47:26] development administrator.

[47:28] >> Yep.

[47:30] >> That would be right up her alley.

[47:32] >> Good. Is that somebody I can connect

[47:34] with?

[47:34] >> Absolutely. Uh

[47:37] Katherine,

[47:40] I believe, is she just started a few

[47:41] weeks ago.

[47:43] Caroline Caroline G

[47:46] >> Caroline Gurk

[47:50] » and the the two M's are um

[47:54] the last one is maintenance

[47:57] >> management and maintenance.

[47:58] >> Good job. Thank you.

[48:00] >> I just Googled it.

[48:02] >> All right. So, it's legit.

[48:06] » Yeah. I've actually dealt with them um

[48:09] because I work at Greenfield Community

[48:10] College and and they are involved with

[48:13] any renovations we do on a a building

[48:15] used by the state.

[48:17] >> Oh, great. Are you familiar with this

[48:18] Abby Vlad deck?

[48:21] >> No.

[48:22] >> Okay.

[48:23] >> We haven't done any renovations in a

[48:25] while.

[48:26] >> All right. Well, I'll reach out to

[48:28] Caroline Gurich at the town

[48:33] and also see what I can find relative to

[48:35] connecting to Abby.

[48:38] >> What fun.

[48:40] >> And when we when we interviewed

[48:43] Caroline, she seemed very enthusiastic

[48:46] about doing housing related work.

[48:49] >> Great. Thank you so much. I look forward

[48:51] to introducing myself.

[48:54] Um, and so that's so Gina's totally on

[48:57] board. So I think we've got a number of

[48:59] people between her and

[49:02] uh the board of health seems like

[49:03] they're in a pretty good spot once they

[49:05] get answers to the test. We know how can

[49:08] help us take the test.

[49:11] Um, so we I think we're in a moving in

[49:14] the right direction.

[49:16] I I also think that it in putting in a

[49:18] capital request or also the additional

[49:22] annual funding, it will help publicize

[49:25] the committee and what we're trying to

[49:27] do.

[49:28] >> Yeah.

[49:29] >> With this that, you know, something's

[49:32] happening and I think that, you know,

[49:36] it'll be good to show to the the town in

[49:38] general that there can be movement here.

[49:42] >> Good.

[49:44] Okay. So then back to that budget. Um it

[49:48] doesn't seem like it would go over too

[49:51] well or be likely to get approved for

[49:55] our committee to go from an annual

[49:58] request on the order of $500 to an

[50:01] annual request on the order of $5,000 or

[50:04] $10,000. I mean just look at the

[50:06] percentage budget increase

[50:08] year-over-year. And boy, that would

[50:10] without a real clear plan for what we're

[50:13] going to spend those monies on. I think

[50:15] the capital improvement request could be

[50:18] shaped um

[50:20] >> and this and this is a oneshot thing. So

[50:23] should be a capital project anyway. This

[50:26] is not should not be in the operating

[50:27] budget.

[50:28] >> Yeah. So, I mean, unless we could

[50:32] brainstorm some, you know, again, I

[50:35] mean, we've talked about postage, we've

[50:36] talked about training, you know, I'm

[50:39] happy to throw in $1,000 or $1,500 as a

[50:44] budget for 2027

[50:47] more or less to say we're, you know,

[50:50] we're much more active now. We're

[50:53] focused on this particular parcel of

[50:55] land. We feel like we're we might need

[50:57] to, you know, get some tests done that

[51:01] may not necessarily be capital improve.

[51:04] I don't, you know, I'd have to figure

[51:05] out how to

[51:06] >> when I threw out the number, it was I

[51:08] was not aware of the cost of the test. I

[51:12] thought it would might be lower.

[51:14] >> Yeah.

[51:14] >> Should be a capital request. Therefore,

[51:17] there's really no need to have a bigger

[51:20] ask for the uh operating budget. So

[51:24] stick with 500.

[51:26] >> Yeah. I I don't

[51:27] >> I would I would think so.

[51:29] >> Yeah.

[51:30] And the the operating budget's

[51:32] going to get whacked by healthcare and

[51:36] potentially senior center. So and then

[51:39] obviously whatever happens with the

[51:40] schools.

[51:41] >> Oh, the budget's going to get whack. I

[51:44] already know we're gonna have a big hit

[51:47] with the schools,

[51:48] >> right? Exactly. I've already got gotten

[51:50] that information

[51:53] >> as you know preliminarily.

[51:56] » Yeah. So,

[51:58] >> but there's never a good year to ask for

[52:00] an increase in any case.

[52:02] >> Wow.

[52:03] >> It's always something.

[52:05] >> Yep. Agreed.

[52:08] >> All right. So, I'll take that as

[52:10] consensus. I don't know that we need a

[52:13] vote. um that I'll submit five uh just

[52:17] another $500 for FY27

[52:20] and we'll expect to do other things

[52:23] using you know grants and capital uh

[52:27] capital requests.

[52:31] [snorts]

[52:32] All right,

[52:34] so it is 6:55 p.m. Are there any other

[52:37] topics that nobody anticipated within

[52:41] the last 48 hours? Can I give a quick

[52:44] update on the CPC plan

[52:48] um edit?

[52:50] >> You very well may.

[52:51] >> Okay. So, you might remember this has

[52:53] been kind of a long process. Um but

[52:56] Jerry is uh watching the results of the

[53:01] American Community Survey. And it turns

[53:03] out that they um do one survey every

[53:06] year and another one every five years.

[53:08] And we feel like the five-year survey

[53:10] would have information that would be

[53:11] more valuable to us, more useful in this

[53:14] context. And that comes out this month.

[53:16] And so we are going to do our editing

[53:19] after that comes out this month. And

[53:21] then we will bring it to you at the

[53:22] February meeting um for you to approve

[53:24] before we submit it to the CPA. Is this

[53:27] Yeah, the CPC.

[53:29] >> And um I proposed that plan to the CPC

[53:33] and they were fine with it.

[53:35] >> Excellent. Okay. Thanks for that update.

[53:39] >> Well, for for that survey for then the

[53:41] results of that, is there a cost to the

[53:44] town for that?

[53:45] >> No, if you just look it up online.

[53:48] >> Okay.

[53:48] >> It's basically a very large datab bank,

[53:51] Fred, um, with a variety of filters that

[53:54] one could use. You could drive yourself

[53:56] crazy with statistics,

[53:58] >> but there are a number of preset

[54:00] parameters, which is where I assume the

[54:03] stats from the last update were drawn.

[54:07] So, we'll hopefully be able to go find

[54:09] those, maybe put them in a different

[54:10] order to clarify a bit more. So, I I

[54:14] think we'll be okay.

[54:17] Unless somebody wants to massage the US

[54:20] government's 5-year history of data

[54:23] statistics on Franklin County

[54:27] by the end of February.

[54:31] » Okay. All right. Well, another good

[54:35] meeting all. Um, unless there's anything

[54:38] else, perhaps somebody would consider

[54:41] moving to ajourn

[54:43] >> next to clarify next meeting.

[54:46] >> Well, we should always do that, should

[54:48] All right, looking at the calendar.

[54:51] So,

[54:53] um,

[54:55] so,

[55:00] uh, we agreed that we would not meet on

[55:05] our regular schedule because I'll be out

[55:07] of the country on So, we agreed we would

[55:11] not meet on our regular schedule, which

[55:14] would have been Monday, February 9th.

[55:18] Instead,

[55:19] my calendar reflects that we agreed to a

[55:24] ad hoc meeting

[55:27] on Tuesday, February 17th at 3:00 in the

[55:32] afternoon.

[55:34] >> Did we?

[55:35] >> I don't see that. But

[55:37] >> I don't think I would have agreed to

[55:38] 3:00 in the afternoon.

[55:40] >> I And I wasn't here for the last

[55:41] meeting, so I

[55:42] >> Okay. Um, so, um, I could do a meeting

[55:47] on Tuesday the 17th. I don't know. Let

[55:51] me look at the town calendar to see what

[55:53] else is going on in February.

[55:55] >> Actually, I've I'm showing a Tuesday the

[55:58] 17th meeting

[56:01] as

[56:02] >> Yeah, I have it down for Tuesday the

[56:04] 17th at 6 also.

[56:05] >> Yeah.

[56:07] >> Oh, interesting. Maybe I dropped it on

[56:10] my calendar three hours too early.

[56:14] Does 6 PM work for you on the 17th?

[56:17] >> It does. It does. It's not in the town

[56:20] calendar yet,

[56:22] >> but I see nothing else on the town

[56:25] calendar for February 17th.

[56:28] >> Yeah, I think we also did March in the

[56:31] last meeting.

[56:32] >> Yeah, March 9th,

[56:34] >> right?

[56:35] >> Yeah. And that one will also be the

[56:37] housing trust.

[56:39] >> Okay.

[56:40] >> All right. But I I think this confusion

[56:42] is why we should clarify this at every

[56:44] meeting when the next meeting.

[56:46] >> Yeah. Thanks for bringing it up, Fred.

[56:48] >> Yeah, I do have the housing committee

[56:50] and housing trust at 6:00 pm on Monday,

[56:55] March 9th.

[56:57] >> Yeah, me too.

[56:58] >> Okay. All right. So,

[57:01] >> okay. Now, I move that we adjourn.

[57:02] >> Just one quick note for Jerry. If you're

[57:07] talking to anyone like Berkshire or

[57:09] someone else or uh the de RDI the

[57:13] developer, we do have funds through CPC

[57:19] and through the housing trust that might

[57:22] be able to subsidize work in the you

[57:26] know in the world of housing.

[57:28] >> Got it.

[57:30] So, if

[57:32] uh RDI says, you know, we can't do under

[57:35] 30, well, if we can kick in 100,000,

[57:41] 150,000, can they take it down to the 24

[57:44] max or whatever, you know, would would

[57:47] that help?

[57:50] >> Excellent.

[57:50] >> Because something like that is why that

[57:53] money is there.

[57:54] >> Yeah.

[57:54] >> As long as it's for affordable housing.

[57:56] >> So, we'd close the capital stack for

[57:58] them.

[58:00] So, let's just I I just advise going

[58:03] back to the agreement

[58:06] >> with the CPC on the use of those funds

[58:09] because there are restrictions. Yeah.

[58:11] >> Maybe what Fred is describing fits

[58:13] within what how we're allowed to use

[58:15] those funds, but I wouldn't

[58:18] I was a little unsure that

[58:20] >> I I I think it's more in terms of

[58:22] construction than

[58:23] >> Yeah. uh planning and

[58:27] >> I I don't know that it would work that

[58:30] those funds would be available for perk

[58:32] tests for instance

[58:33] >> right

[58:34] >> but might but if in con you know we work

[58:37] a like I'm sure they did with Sanderson

[58:41] place you know work something between

[58:43] the town and the developer

[58:47] to be able to bring those funds some

[58:49] funds to bear

[58:51] >> so that could be very attractive

[58:54] That's why I brought it up.

[58:55] >> Yep. That plus the fact that you own

[58:57] this land,

[58:59] >> right?

[58:59] >> So, I think you had the combination of

[59:02] those two relative to the overall

[59:04] capital stack that the developer is

[59:05] going to look at and say, "How am I

[59:07] going to pay for this once I know the

[59:09] costs?"

[59:10] >> Right. And and as Brent said, we'll have

[59:12] to check to make sure that

[59:15] the money is spent within the parameters

[59:17] of CPC and housing trust.

[59:20] >> Yeah. uh guidelines, but

[59:24] we can probably, you know, we may need

[59:27] to have a lawyer to do that, but we'll

[59:29] figure that out.

[59:30] >> Where there's a will, there's a way,

[59:32] >> right?

[59:32] >> It sounds like there would be a lot of

[59:34] cooperation through many departments and

[59:36] even outside agencies.

[59:37] >> That that's how these things get done is

[59:40] you get cooperation across the board.

[59:42] And I'll just still note that a 30 unit

[59:47] um

[59:49] structure is not would not be approved

[59:52] within current weightly zoning. So that

[59:55] would need to be addressed probably

[59:57] through a friendly 40B.

[1:00:00] >> Yeah. Well, we've got 40B is there. It's

[1:00:03] a question of whether a you a 30 unit

[1:00:09] uh complex would pass muster with the

[1:00:12] community, you know, how it would look

[1:00:15] and all that, but that that's down the

[1:00:18] road.

[1:00:18] >> Yep. Yep.

[1:00:20] >> Let's figure out what we can actually

[1:00:22] what the project the land can support

[1:00:25] for construction. I think that's the

[1:00:27] first step.

[1:00:27] >> That that is the absolute first thing is

[1:00:29] what's the max that it can support,

[1:00:31] >> right? Okay.

[1:00:33] Good. Very helpful conversation.

[1:00:35] >> Okay. Now I I move that we adjourn.

[1:00:39] >> Okay. Second.

[1:00:40] >> All right. Motion made and seconded.

[1:00:42] >> Who in favor?

[1:00:44] >> That uh that was Jerry's

[1:00:47] >> exhausted and needs to move on. Thank

[1:00:49] you for all your hard work on this Jerry

[1:00:51] in the in the last

[1:00:53] >> Thank you, Jerry.

[1:00:54] >> Yep. No, it's all a team effort. You

[1:00:56] guys are good sounding boards. Thank

[1:00:57] you.

[1:00:58] >> You know, so um Okay. All in favor? You

[1:01:01] can just like raise your hand. I can

[1:01:03] just sort of see the I think and Fred

[1:01:06] doesn't vote. So we are adjourned at

[1:01:09] 7:04 p.m. until our next meeting in

[1:01:14] February. All right. Good night all.

[1:01:16] Thank you everybody.

[1:01:17] >> Thank you. Bye bye.

Whately Housing Committee - January 12, 2026

Transcript