Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amherst design board debates making preliminary reviews mandatory
Summary
At a regular meeting, the Amherst Design Advisory Board discussed whether preliminary design review should be mandatory for certain projects, weighed size- and site-based triggers, and agreed to collect member feedback on updated guidelines and checklists before deciding.
The Amherst Design Advisory Board spent its meeting debating whether to require preliminary design review for certain development projects and how to set triggers for that requirement. Chair John O'Rourke, chairman of the Design Advisory Board, opened the discussion by presenting a staff memo that described the board's existing preliminary review practice and asked whether it should become mandatory for some projects.
Board members said preliminary review has produced useful changes in past projects but warned that making it mandatory could slow small developments and add bureaucracy. "That preliminary review is extremely helpful," said a board member, citing past reviews that improved sidewalk placement and site connectivity. Other members argued mandatory review should be tailored: "It should be an option or mandatory for a larger threshold," a board member said, recommending that small storefronts and routine franchise remodels be exempt.
The group discussed several possible triggers for a mandatory review, including percentage increases in floor area, absolute building-size thresholds (examples mentioned: 4,000 sq ft and 10,000 sq ft), site-disturbance percentages (for example, 25% of the parcel), and projects that back immediately onto residential parcels. Staff and members emphasized discretion for the planning department to waive preliminary review in obvious minor cases while preserving mandatory review for larger or context-sensitive proposals.
Members also examined how the board should treat sustainability items and the checklist. Several said sustainability guidance should remain in the guidelines to prompt applicants to address energy and site practices, but that the advisory board lacks capacity to verify technical code compliance. A suggestion to make checklist items ask applicants how they "exceed code minimums" was accepted as a way to keep sustainability visible without deputizing the board to enforce technical standards.
Beyond project review, one board member asked whether the board could flag townwide design problems — such as missing crosswalks — and forward recommendations to the Traffic Safety Board or planning staff. Staff cautioned about timing and jurisdiction but agreed the board can prepare recommendations and consult the town attorney where appropriate.
No final vote was taken to make preliminary review mandatory. Instead, the board agreed to collect edits and suggestions on the draft guidelines and checklist, circulate materials to members, and reconvene for further consideration (members mentioned targeting a February meeting for follow-up). Staff also committed to email the checklist and related materials and to compile member comments for a consolidated review.
A separate procedural motion to accept the minutes of the Dec. 11 meeting was made and approved by roll call/consensus during the meeting; the transcript does not specify a detailed vote tally. The board closed by confirming administrative items including membership term questions, a regular meeting time change to 6 p.m., and a file-upload recommendation (5 megabyte limit noted for direct submission; staff recommended links for larger files).
