[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.