 Mr. Marshall, the only problem I'm seeing is that Amherst media is not listed as an attendee. I'm going to quick try to reach out. Sure. Fred was trying to get in and he thinks he's just able to get in now. So, Pam. Here he is. There he is. Okay. Check that you can hear him. Fred. He's connecting to audio. Yep. He's connecting. Fred, why don't you say some things in case we can hear you whenever you whenever you're done connecting. Oh, there you are. There you are. I think I'm in now. Yes, we are good. We're just waiting to see if Amherst media is going to show up. Amherst media is the entity that facilitates the recording as opposed to zoom itself. Yes, I believe so. They broadcast it. They broadcast it. Oh, television. But without them, would we have a video recording? Yes, soon. What will happen is, is that anybody who's depending on Amherst media for the live stream would not see it. Okay. Being live stream. Okay. Yeah. So I've reached out to it. I've reached out to Amherst media. Yeah. I'm not sure whether we should just. Continue on our preamble, you know, is going to refer to Amherst media, but it also says that if we run into a problem, we'll, we'll do our best. And that's, that's what we're doing essentially. Right now. Right. Did you receive any, any response of any sort from them? No, not from either one of them, which is unusual. Okay. Do you want to start with the zoom recording in case that's useful? We are recording. The zoom recording is, is going. Yep. Thank you, Jesse. Okay. Well, I guess we'll have this recorded for posterity. So. People just won't have the. Yeah. The live stream. And we do have some attendees. So certainly. Some people to get on. Yeah. The, the other thing is. I don't see any names that I don't really recognize. If they have somebody new over at. Amherst media. Usually it says Amherst media right on it, but yeah. So, okay. I think we're going to have to do our best. Okay. Go ahead. I say, go ahead, Mr. Marshall. Yes. All right. Welcome to Amherst planning board meeting of February 7th, 2024. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst planning board, I am calling this meeting to order at 640 PM. This meeting is being, this meeting is being recorded. We're not, we don't believe that it's being available live stream as Amherst media has not shown up for this. Meeting at this time. However, meeting minutes are being taken. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. And extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023. This planning board meeting, including public hearings. Will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link is accessible on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar listing for this meeting. Or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the zoom link is listed at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting. Yeah, probably not in, in real time tonight. Yes. So that'll be working via technological means in the event. We are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship, or despite best efforts. We will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible. After the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members, I will take a roll call when I call your name. Unmute yourself answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce Colton. I'm here. Brett Hartwell. Here. Jesse major. Present. I dug Marshall and present. We have been told that Janet McGowan will be absent this evening. Johanna Newman. Here. And Karen winter. Here. Thank you all. Board members, if technical issues arise, we may need to pause to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your, your request and call on you to speak after speaking. Remember to remute yourself. To the general public, the general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware. The board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting. When deemed appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button. When public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes. Or at the discretion of the chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. Okay. The first item on our agenda this evening is. Meeting minutes. And there were no minutes included in the packet that we were sent. However, I believe it was yesterday or perhaps Tuesday. Monday that. Chris circulated her draft minutes for. Our previous meeting on this topic. I think that was January 17th, I believe. So we have the option if people are comfortable with the minutes that were circulated. To approve those minutes tonight. So. Are there any board members who would. Propose one way or the other. Johanna. I mean. I reviewed them in the electronic packet. I thought they looked fine. I had plenty of time to review them. I think there are a handful of people who. Ask for paper copies. So if there are folks who haven't had a chance to review the minutes. And it prohibits them. I think they should speak up. Otherwise I would move that we go ahead and consider these tonight. Okay. I can say, I think the people that get the paper. Copies are myself and Janet. And Janet obviously is absent. And I did review what Chris sent. So I'm comfortable voting on that tonight. Bruce. You are muted. Okay. I will second what I will assume to be. You know how this motion to approve. Because I do read them and I. Read them fairly thoroughly because I really wanted to bone up and. I couldn't see anything. Except there was a sort of which I thought probably should have been eliminated, but I'm not going to. I'm not going to put myself on that sword. So I'm good. Seconding the motion. Okay. All right. So, you know, I'm just wondering what you can say about that. I'm happy to amend my comment to move to approve the minutes. Okay. So we'll have. I haven't seen anybody objecting to considering the minutes tonight. I saw a couple of other heads. Shake. In favor of doing that. So I just want to give. doing that. So I just want to give Karen and Fred and Jesse a chance to object before we go ahead and Freddy's Fred's I'm seeing thumbs up from two out of three. So okay, so we'll go ahead with a vote to approve the January 17 minutes as drafted by Chris and seconded the motion was seconded by Bruce. Are there any other folks who want to make any comments before we go ahead? All right, Chris, I just wanted to say that they were really drafted by Pam and I edited that. So thank you. We're a team. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification and make sure you put that in the minutes. No. Okay. Let's go ahead to to approve the January 17 minutes. Bruce, I approve Fred. I will abstain because I was in South Carolina. And unless my vote is absolutely necessary. Okay. Thank you. Jesse, I approve. Your honor. Hi, Karen. Hi. And I'm an I as well. So that's five in favor. One abstention and one absence. Great. Thank you all. Time now is nine or 647. We'll go ahead with public comment period. And at this time, I often read the names of the people I can see in the public attendees list here on zoom. So I'll do that now. And while I'm doing that, if there are members of the public who want to speak during this public comment period, please raise your hand. So the names I see are Kathy Shane, Christine Limstrom, Connor Palazzo, Elizabeth Armstrong, Elizabeth Veerling, Janet Bernardo, Sonia Slavsky, Margaret Wood, Mara Keane, Rick Rice, Steve Stanis, Tim Cooper, and William Brown. And I can see that a number of those folks were our members of the design team for the school. So I expect we'll see them as panelists later. Alright, so as of this moment, no one has raised their hand to make any public comment at this time. So I'll draw this out just a few more seconds, give people one last chance. Chris, I see your hand and I guess we will go ahead and conclude there is no public comment. No one from the public wants to comment tonight. Chris? So I just wanted to make reference to the fact that I think Karen and Fred were absent on January 17. I believe that Karen has watched the video of the night of the 17th and has sent me an email to that effect so that she is eligible to vote. And I wonder if Fred can make that statement too, if he can say that he's watched the video and feels that he's eligible to vote in case you take a vote tonight. Okay, Fred? I have not watched the video and I am not qualified to vote. Okay. So, okay. All right. Well, I assume Chris that Fred can still participate in the conversation as we go through findings and conditions. I wanted to make it clear that you need five members to vote in the affirmative for special permits. So one, two, three, four, five. You have five aside from Fred. Right. And then you need four members to vote in the affirmative for the site plan review. So it looks like you have enough members as long as everybody is voting in the affirmative. Right. And I'm not assuming that you're going to take a vote tonight. I just wanted to clarify that before we started. Thank you. Okay, thank you for doing that. Okay. Time is 6.50. And we'll move on to the third item on the agenda, which is our public hearing for this evening. So in accordance with provisions of mass general law chapter 40 a this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice there of has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding our site plan review 2024-04 and special permit 2024-03 with the applicant being the town of Amherst for a property of 70 Southeast Street, map 15A parcel 47 in the RVC and FPC zoning districts. These concurrent applications and this hearing have been continued from January 17, 2024. A joint public hearing to request site plan review approval under section 3.330 of the zoning bylaw to construct a three-story 105,750 gross square foot elementary school building with associated site improvements, including parking and athletic fields. And to request a special permit in accordance with section six, table three footnote a of the zoning bylaw to modify maximum building height requirements and sections 5.10 of the zoning bylaw to allow for the filling of land to raise the first floor elevation due to the high water table. All right. Are there any board member disclosures that might have arisen since our first meeting on this topic? All right. I don't see anyone raising their hand for that. So with that, I guess I will turn it over to the applicant. Oh, there's Tim. He didn't make it over. Okay. So Mr. Marshall, I'm just trying to bring Tim Cooper over. There he comes. Okay. I thought I thought he was here, but All right. Tim, are you the spokesperson or to start off this evening? I will start off. And we have Rick Rice from Denisco Design, Janet Bernardo from Horsley Woodman, civil engineer, Bill Brown, landscape architect, who seems everyone has been led in to answer questions. Three of the names, Cassandia, Margaret and Connor are with the OPM. They are also with the project team. They were read off during the participant. So but And can you remind us what firm you are with? I am with Denisco Design. Okay. Thank you. Tim, should I bring those other people over? Is that what you're asking? Sure. They're with the overall project team. So if something comes up, it might as well be in here. Okay. Can you just remind me their names? Margaret, Minerwood, Cassandia Slavsky and Connor Watson. Okay, Tim, I've asked them all to come over. So they should be coming. Sure. Yep. Looks like they're all here. Okay. Okay. I was just going to Go ahead. Welcome back. Thank you. It's good to be back. What we were going to do tonight is present some responses to the comments that were made last time and some design revisions and some potential revisions that will address some of the comments that were made last time. So I will share my screen and get into it. That's okay. Everyone see that? Yes, we can. All right. Just to take a few minutes at the top, there were some questions about the overall design process and what we knew about and when we knew about when we would be coming before you in terms of special permits and the potential sites, there were two sites in town that were both viable. And this is a brief overview of the project history design started in late 2021 by the middle of 2022. We had made the selection of the Fort River site and we'll get into it in a minute about what that meant in terms of the design and the option meaning a the great configuration and the enrollment of this by the middle of early March 2023 schematic design was complete, which meant the general configuration of the building, adjacencies of spaces, number of stories and basic location on the Fort River site were solidified and then by May of 2023, there was a town council approval and townwide vote approving the project in the configuration that is basically before you now. This next step in March 2024, early site package work, which means clearing the site south of the existing school bids are actually due for that work tomorrow. And then in summer of 2024 July, the main project will go out to bid with construction starting in September. The school will open for fall of 2026. And then that fall, the existing building and the athletic fields north of the school will be constructed. As I said, there are two Bible sites, the Wildwood site and the Fort River site, both with their own issues. The Fort River site was considerably larger, but had a lot of regulatory issues to deal with. And then on Wildwood, the smaller site topography made getting it to and from Strong Street difficult. So both were completely doable, but there are a lot of issues considered on both site. And during the design process that's taken over the past two years, we went through and tested whether renovation and addition would fit on both site, whether a new building would fit on both sides and what that would mean in terms of traffic, disruption to education students, neighbors, and then the regulatory environments. There are considerably more setbacks on the Fort River site, Riverfront, wetlands, some things that we have to deal with that we don't have to deal with on the Wildwood site and the Fort River site also has the existing fields as part of the project, which wouldn't be a component if the Wildwood site was selected. I'm not going to go through and detail the entire history, but since the very beginning, when the site was selected, we knew that there was the flood prone conservancy. We knew that there was a floodplain on the site and our understanding of that and the female guidelines or I should say the definition of that floodplain has changed during the design lifetime of this process and our understanding of where the resource and what areas on site have evolved. And this is just a quick look at some of the studies that we did in terms of where construction would happen and how it would be phased on both of the sites, whether it was a completely new replacement of the school or a phased addition that would add to the existing school and looking at that for both sites. And after all of that analysis, the school building committee and everyone involved with the project came to the decision that the Fort River is just a better site in terms of all of the aspects that we looked at. One, it's considerably larger, which would allow construction separation from the existing operating school for the two years, almost three years that something would happen if you start from the beginning of the early site package till the last bit of athletic fields are reconstructed. So that separation was critical. They're the larger size and the athletic fields at the Fort River site are going to be community asset that is used for beyond the school population and that and some of the other items that we would be before you on either site. So this brings us to what we are here to talk about tonight, overall project review on the special permits we are applying for. So we are looking to exceed the table height value. That would be the case on either side with a three story building. And then the filling of land. We knew that we were going to be manipulating the land, but we didn't know to what extent. So we weren't sure if we would be coming before you for this special permit when the site was selected. And then just the other special permit that we have applied for with the zoning board of appeals was approved January 25th, the special permit to build in the FPC. So after that history, getting to some of the revisions that we have made, you'll notice on that list, we did not include a special permit for the PVs within the setback, which is doubled for the educational use. And if you can see my cursor, we did have some PV the last time we were for you on canopies within the 30 foot setback with the property line at the southwest corner of the parking lot. We've taken that array and split it into two parts and moved it to one, the van drop off lane south of the building. So is there justice productive in terms of energy generation, but has the added benefit of providing for cover of people getting out of vans in that location? We've taken a similar approach and taken the other half of that PV and moved it to the drop off link where parents will drop off just north of the main entrance on this drop off loop. Here is a view from the southwest looking at the main entrance at the center of the frame and this van drop off will have canopy supported PV over it. So it will not cover the entire drop off lane front to back, but there will be considerable zone middle that will have coverage from rain. Here's a view of the front entrance sort of looking from the southwest. You'd be just north of the PV who were just looking at and then this array is on the east side of the parent drop off loop. And that has been relocated from the setback. It will separate the drop off lane from the playground here. And here's just another view of the entire parking lot array as viewed from a few steps north of the main entrance of the building. There were some other comments on the parking lot that we are considering making if they are conditioned for approval and we think that they are all minor and we have already submitted and received in order of conditions from the conservation commission, but these changes that we are proposing would be to minimize. We would file them with the conservation commission, but they would not affect the overall design in terms of impermeable area, the performance of the stormwater system so that here it would not have to be reopened. But first, we were going to add a traffic island in the northern portion of the lot. Just to give a little break of the distance of cars without any interruption. There would be a small shift in the islands to the north so that we could retain the number of parking spots, but that would add an additional island. Another change here. There was comments about covered by cracks. We have not added by crack specific coverage, but we have relocated them under the relocated PV accomplishing cover for that section of the bike rides. Another issue raised was the crosswalk at the bus drop off to the south of the site. We can do a race table crossing there to calm traffic. It would require the addition of a couple of patients, but just like the traffic islands, it's a small change that we would file with the conservation commission, but would not change the substance of the design. Then there's one more sketch. Sorry. This is a little bit hard to read, but we are going to plant a screen of evergreens at the west edge of the parking lot here. Two block headlights in accordance with the parking lot regulations. Those three changes to the parking lots are changes that we would make if conditions for approval. Is there additional information you want to start off with? If you want to talk about these items, we can do that. There are a couple more slides with changes and additional information if you want to look at that first. Why don't you go through those and then we'll go back to each of these and see if board members have questions. Sure. There was a question of what the extent of school use of the site would be after school opens in fall of 2026 because they will not have access to the north site entrance drive until the building, the existing Fort River School comes down and the fields are rebuilt. So what this shows is the parking lot that will be built as part of phase one and the same the three quarters of the parking lot north of the phasing line will give the contractor room to demolish the existing schools and build the things and build the athletic fields and provide parking for the teachers that will be at the new school. There are some complications with this plan in the final design, this area connecting the southern drop off loop and the parent drop off is going to be reinforced turf grass. We will have to do a temporary binder connection and then the circulation patterns for bus drop off, bus pick up car traffic will have to be discussed and fine tuned with school staff, you know, whether buses are crossing this because there are many fewer trips and cars are using this loop temporarily, but it's something we will work out with Rupert and the other school staff to make best use of the site. It granted for a few months in the fall of 26, it will not be operating as efficiently and cleanly as it will be in its final condition, but it will allow us to get the number of cars on site to allow people use. I mean, it is possible that at this northern section, they may have to be double parked parked in, but all of the teachers are arriving and leaving at similar times and maybe some of them work together. This is one of the many aspects that we will have to talk to the school staff about how this is going to work, but this is the space that can provide. And then another couple items there was a request from the fire department to show the turning movements of the larger apparatus that they have. And so there are some movements that have been analyzed and that we will provide in a set drawing sets as requested, but this is a clockwise movement of their largest apparatus going the other way and then simply using the drop off to the south. And then one last bit of information that we do not have a drawing for, but it was asked about the noise levels of the emergency generator, which is shown here east of the storage barn. So for lack of an actual decibel number level in the planning board, that there is a noise ordinance, but DEP gives an actual decibel level. So using that, which is 50 and paraphrasing conversations with our acoustic consultant. But the generator will be exercised regularly during the day and the allowable noise levels are different during the day and during night. That 50 decibel threshold, we will just barely cross during the day, but that is acceptable within the bylaw and DEP standards. So during exercise, it will be acceptable in terms of noise level. That same noise level at night when the ambient noise level is lower is just above what would be acceptable. But the generator will only be operated at night if there is a power outage in emergency situation. And so we would argue that that is not in violation of the unnecessary noise wording of the bylaw. So if there is a prolonged outage at night, that is the only time we would cross the threshold of a noise disturbance. OK, then that is the additional information that we have prepared based on the comments. Chris, I just wanted to ask Tim Cooper if he's proposed if he's providing these turning movements to the fire department directly, or is that something he expects the planning department to do? We have not provided them to the fire department directly, but we will have continued meetings with them and we can or in whatever the best channel is in your view. I think it would be good if you presented them to the fire department. OK, thank you. I was going to mention that in the packet I received there was also a counter clockwise movement diagram. Yes, I may have clicked through that too quickly, but there is there is both directions and using the loop alone. OK. All right, Chris, do you want to say anything else or legacy? That's it. Sorry. OK, so why don't we back up and go through each of the changes you've made and have a conversation about those and then we'll get into the meat of the findings and conditions. All right, so the first item, I guess, is the relocation of some of the solar panels. Bruce, I see your hand. Doug, I was going to make a general response that I guess by now after, as I think folks know, having sat in on the. Design building committee meetings for the last two and a half years, I shouldn't be surprised of the comprehensive level of response that this design team is provided. But this is wonderful and it is kind of typical of what they've been doing over the year or two or so. So I think Tim, Rick and Dennis go to be to congratulate and the and the consultants and so forth, because I think they've touched on a whole lot of things that I had was going to ask questions about tonight, which I no longer need to. I had two that one of them has to do with the the related relocated canopies, particularly the one to the north. Tim, do I understand that the that this canopy is pitching to the east and that the water will drip off on the on the non unloading side? Is that the way it's done? It was I couldn't exactly see from the images. One that looked like they were dripping onto the road. And one was that one looks like it's dripping onto the grass, which is the way I think it probably should be or makes sense to me. I just wanted to make sure I understood that you could probably reasonably unload here and not expect to have a drip line hitting the car or something like that. Yes, that is correct. It is soaked away from the driveling and it will. The water will find its way to the planted area. Can I continue to make comments beyond the PV canopies or do you prefer why don't you come when you hold off and we'll come back. Let's go through each of these one at a time. Jesse. Yeah, I was going to ask the same thing about the dripping, but most I just wanted to say this thing's great. I've accomplished multiple things at once, including the bike coverage and the drop off coverage. So I think it's excellent solution. OK, thanks. Tim, I was going to ask what's the vertical clearance for the. The two sections of canopy now and will that you know, is it is it 14 feet like you have on interstate? It is 14 feet. Yes. OK. So so no sort of road legal vehicle should hit that canopy. Correct. Anything that doesn't have caution flags on the back should be able to make it under. OK. All right. Good. All right. I don't see any other hands from board members for this topic. Why don't we go to the next one? Oops, I think. We. Oh. There are a series of sketches on three elements within the parking lot. So one is islands and coverage of by-cracks on the same sketch. OK. So is the island that you've added because of our parking by-law? That is correct. It was brought up last time. We feel that if you include the sand filters, these grain, these areas to the east of the parking lot, we comply with the percentages. But we are also sensitive to comments of the board and want to make sure that this is a design that everybody in town buys into. So we feel that we can make this change. OK. I guess I'll comment that I know that these kinds of islands can be a problem when you are plowing snow on a parking lot and they tend to get chewed up by plows that are trying to miss them. So I I would rather not have this island. I would rather I would support keeping the original layout. Bruce, I see your hand. I have a similar comment, Doug. I wasn't an advocate for the islands for that reason, but also I mean, I don't object as one island and I think it would probably look nice and would break up the parking lot and it achieves the goals and so forth that the bylaw obviously intends. But in addition, we discussed last time that although it's not part of the first phase or it's not part of this actual project, we recognized, I think that the northern end of the parking area is really an ideal location for future PVs. And as the world turns on this, it seems rather likely that one way or another that they might end up there. And of course, that's another reason why an island is possibly not as ideal as it might previously have been imagined. So I'm not a strong supporter of this island, although I'm not about to argue whether it shouldn't be there if there's a if there's a consensus for it. And I guess, well, I guess we might not get much public hearing, but I'll probably be guided by what what the public and maybe the school building committee as well and what they feel about this. But from my point of view, for the reasons you mentioned and for the future of PVs, I don't think it's necessarily a necessary or ideal thing to be putting in. All right. Thanks, Bruce. Karen. Well, I remember that Janet was primarily concerned about raking it up for safety that she thought that a big sketch of parking for and I concur for a mother who was lifting, you know, one little toddler out of the backseat and the other one standing next to there. They tend to dart out. So she was concerned about having a big open parking lot which didn't have anything to to rake it up. I think this is it. The whole parking, I'm just now reading the book about, you know, this paving paradise and parking. And I wasn't here at the beginning of this, but I there there's an awful lot of parking that's always at schools that's used, you know, once in a blue moon. And I don't want to bring this whole thing up again because I wasn't a part of it, but I would leave it up to you, I think, to make this as safe, break it up and make the parking as small as possible. For those few times when when you can't get a parking place, you know, you you you deal with it. And as little as faults for parking as possible is, in my opinion, what you should strive for and and to break it up and make it not an ugly asphalt big thing. I like that idea. OK, thanks, Karen. Bruce, your hand is still up. Is that a legacy? OK. Tim, maybe you can tell us whether the number of parking how sort of precisely you've calculated the number of parking spaces and whether your in civil and traffic engineering staff feel have an opinion about the island. So we have provided 175 parking spaces and that was based on counting every staff member basically providing a spot for every full time equivalent and a small amount of visitor spots. We expect on a normal day that there may be a couple spots empty, but we also didn't want to put the school staff in the position of not having a spot on if there were visitors in the building. I mean, often there can be people coming in in groups. So in essence, the number was given to us by the school district. OK, and that number is the staffing that's projected for this new facility with the combined enrollments not the existing. Yeah, OK. Rick, I see your hand. Yes, I was just going to add that during the cost estimating and value engineering phases, we kept going back to. Are you sure you need this much parking? Is there any way that we can reduce the parking and we still have the 175 cars? OK, all right. Well, that seems like a difficult thing for us to argue with, Karen. I said we certainly don't want to have staff who have to drive and don't. I can't find a spot to park in. Tim, any thoughts about the island? Obviously, you didn't show it the first time. Is there? Do you agree with the safety consideration or? I mean, well, you're what you raised would certainly find a welcome audience with Rupert and Guilford about plowing. And we have had discussions about that we have various types of curbs and different heights of curbs on and, you know, the spacing between ballards that all of that is sort of considered in terms of clearing snow and so additional islands is just one more complication. We do think that. The drop off pickup situation with parents is going to be managed by staff as they have said all along, and we don't feel that since parking is the circulation is through parking, essentially there is no incentive to. Allow a kid out of a car while they're queued in the parking lot and let them run unattended, which would be an unsafe situation because the car cannot leave until they've made it through the line that passes in front of the door. We would not put a parking lot in front of a school or bring it to you if we did not feel that it was safe. OK. All right. Well, why don't we get a straw poll from the board here? I just like to get a show of hands, maybe raise your hands if you are in support of changing and adding this island. All right, I see Jesse's hand. And I think that's. Let's see. Do I have everybody? Fred, I don't see your hand. So it looks like I only see Jesse in favor. So I should I assume that the majority of the board thinks that the original design without the island would be would be adequate and preferable. Mr. Chairman, just in discussion, I would support that. I didn't raise my hand because I'm not qualified to vote, but I would support that. You would support the island or not not the island, not the island. OK, thank you. And I see Karen's hand and Jesse, you raised your finger there for a second. I was trying to show you that Karen had her hand up. OK, thank you. Yes, Karen. This this is really a difficult thing because I am in favor of the island. But if it really is you know, it's a hard decision because I do understand the plowing issue. But visually, you know, I don't know, does this have to go one way or another now or can this be left that this is something to think about how to make it attractive, not just safety, but to break it up a little bit. And leave it up to them, not not mandate that they have to do it. If they really feel strongly that this is going to cause problems of maintenance. Well, typically, we like to resolve the site plan at this at these hearings. So, you know, I suppose we could basically not, you know, not mandate the island or and approve the original design and I mean, consider maybe the island if it shows up, eventually would be de minimis and not requiring another hearing. That's some thoughts that come to mind. I see Bruce's hand. But Chris, why don't you comment? I was just going to say you could word a condition that would allow the island to be built if someone thought it needed to be built, but that you would approve the plan with the island or without the island. So that could be in a condition. Okay. Bruce? I was going to suggest, I guess, something similar. I would suggest that we render no opinion on this and leave it for the school building committee to decide there's more of them. They're closer to the question and our service could be raising the matter and causing the option to be created. So I don't think it's necessary that we decide. I'm not even sure that it's necessary for us to render a condition, but it certainly is there and the school building committee are more than well equipped to tackle this if they should decide. So I think we don't need to act on this. Okay. All right, Tim, why don't we go on to the next option or adjustment you've made? Ah, yes, the table. And this is at the crosswalk, where the sidewalk goes from the south side of the entry drive to the north side, right? Correct. Okay. So I'm trying to remember what advantages were expressed previously for this feature. So I've seen Bruce and then Jesse. My recollection, Doug, is that the logic would have suggested that the sidewalk continued on the north side for the whole of the distance, but that would have damaged trees on the north side on the adjacent property. So perhaps reluctantly, the crosswalk had to come down the south side ways and then cross over. I think, and that was our concern, but I think this is a fine solution. And it'll cost a little bit more money, not a lot, I guess. But I think for the concerns expressed, I think this is a fine resolution. Okay. Thanks, Bruce. Jesse. Yeah, well, Bruce said exactly. Okay. All right, succinct. Okay, any other board members wanna comment on this? Sounds like we have at least a couple of people who are relatively enthused about it. So maybe we should see if we are in support of this change. Johanna. Thank you. I'll chime in too. I think in our last meeting, we had a long conversation around pedestrian and bicycle access to the site and the concern that young cyclists in particular, we're gonna have to cross the bus lane. So I think this creates the visual cue for bus drivers. It makes, you know, it creates clarity for the young cyclists that they can go there and aren't dealing with a curb cut, you know, going down the curb on their bikes. And then, obviously, you know, so I feel like we raised a bunch of problems and Denisco has proposed kind of an approach to it. Obviously there's the con of adding a table, which is that every day, every school bus is gonna have to go up and down this and that, you know, wears on the buses a little bit. And I think it makes plowing more challenging. So there are trade-offs. I think there are trade-offs worth making to help just create a school environment that's really conducive to cycling and walking. But I just wanted to kind of acknowledge those trade-offs. But I personally think this is a good change and it seems like rather than kind of pursuing a relocation of the sidewalk and the main kind of sidewalk to the north side, this is what they're proposing. Okay. Actually, you know, Hannah, you've touched on something that I wondered about in the last meeting and I probably never asked. And I guess what I didn't understand was if you had the sidewalk on the north side for that entire length, I understand that if the entry drive stayed where it is and you added a sidewalk, then you'd impact some trees. But why wouldn't you be able to slide the entry drive to the south if the sidewalk went to the north? Did we lose Tim? Wait, no, I was trying to go to a plan that would show part of the reason and Bill, if you're here, chime in. But I do believe if we move the entry drive that far to the south, there are trees to the south that we would be sacrificing. So there are definitely more in a denser collection of trees to the north, but there are some trees that will be saved to the south of the walk too. Rick. Yeah, Rick. Yeah, I would also like to point out that southern location of the walkway edge actually continues on and makes it possible to get into the path system through the buffer zone and on up through and all the way to the north without crossing in front of the school and getting closer to the school. So that kind of maintains arms length from a public walk. Okay, all right. Okay, thank you both. And it sounds like we've had some expressions of support for the table. So I think we probably ought to require that or accept the table as part of the site plan that we approve. Why don't we go on to the next one? I am actually going to stop sharing for one second because we have a better sketch of this one and one second I'm going to. So this is, well, in simple terms, additional planting at the base of the swale to the west of the southern portion of the parking lot that would provide screening in accordance with the planning bylaw. Bill is here and he can explain it a little bit better than me. Okay, Bill, I see your hand. Yes, Bill Brown landscape architect. We actually spent a lot of time looking at that edge of the property and what we've been able to do is we've been able to install the new parking lot roughly in the same location as the existing parking lot and we've been able to save all the trees and the understory as well. What we notice though is that in the area that we're proposing to plant new screening trees is that there is no underbrush in that location. But there are some very large trees right along the property line which actually are three to four feet higher than the grade of the property line. So we're going to get screening for the lights because the parking lot is lower but we're proposing to add, I believe, 13 red cedar trees along that edge and we selected those because eventually they'll get to be maybe 20 feet tall and eventually they will grow together and they're appropriate in that location in terms of sunlight and I think they'll survive very well in that location and their natives as well. Okay, thank you. Board members, any questions about this? I think this is a great solution myself so I'm in favor of incorporating it into the site plan. Chris? I just wanted to make sure that I understood that the ground to the west on the west side of the property or the property line is higher than the parking lot. Is that what Mr. Brown said? Mr. Brown? Yes, that's correct. On the lower side, which is the southwest side where you see that little square and that location were actually three feet below the existing grade along the property line which is to the west of that. What happens then is that as you move north the grade distance, elevation distance gets to be slightly greater as you move north. Okay, so are the cedar trees that you're proposing at the top of a slope or at the bottom? The cedar trees are at the bottom of the slope and the reason for doing that is we have the parking lot and we have a swale that we're installing which is basically a replacement of the swale that's currently located there now. And the cedar trees are at the bottom of the grade and the grade at the cedar trees begins to slope up to where the existing trees are. And we've chosen this location so that we don't disturb the roots of the trees if the trees were planted any closer to the property line we could potentially damage the roots of the tree the existing trees. So that's why we've chosen this location. Okay. All right, board members, any other comment about this? All right, let's see. Tim, was that the last one or was there an additional? That was the last change that the other slides after this were supplemental information. All right. All right, I guess at this point I'm gonna just ask members of the public if there's any comments that they would like to make about what we've seen this evening. Bruce, I do see your hand and I'll call on you in a minute. Any members of the public wanna comment about these adjustments? All right, I see Tom Reedy's hand and then Kathy Shane. So why don't we bring Tom? Mr. Marshall, just one minute, please. Tim, I need you to stop sharing your screen. There we go. Thank you so much. So we'll start with Tom. And although you are a regular visitor to this board why don't you give us your name and your street address assuming you live in Amherst? I'm not seeing, oh, there's Tom but I don't see that he has his hand raised. Oh, there he is. Okay, yeah, I see it now. Okay, Mr. Reedy. Can you hear me? Yes, yes. Thank you very much for the record, Tom Reedy turning with Bacon Wilson out of Amherst. So I'm here on behalf of the property owners for Six Southeast Street, that's Bacon Wilson's office but Peter McConnell, Steve Munson, Dave Decker it's the property immediately to the north right at the corner of where Southeast and Northeast meet and where Main Street crosses and I guess a couple of things. I tuned in late to the meeting I had a hearing in Hatfield, so I joined at seven but from everything I've seen and heard very impressed with, I was there at the I think January 17th meeting very impressed with the response of the design team and we're very supportive of the project its siting redevelopment, et cetera. I've traded some emails with Ms. Breastrop in Guilford relative to the northerly access and specifically the Sixth Southeast Street access. So if you're familiar with that property there is one way in and out of the Dickinson bags Tavern, which is at the corner and we're just hopeful that the offsite traffic improvements would contemplate how to ensure operational and safety for both the school which is moving their northerly driveway a little southerly of where it is currently but also the Sixth Southeast Street driveway and I expect to have a conversation with Guilford tomorrow or Friday. We've tried to take care of a lot of these things just through cordial conversations because that's really what they are. We haven't seen that offsite traffic study yet that was being prepared. So I had suggested to Ms. Breastrop today potentially some condition of your approval that would require some collaboration between the town and the northerly property owner to ensure that operational and safety issues are addressed and then even potentially a one year after certificate of occupancy review where the town would come back and say we've done these changes and whether it's a do not block the box whether it's a roundabout whatever they are and they're working. So it's just frankly, I mean, I've worked at that office for 10 plus years, long hours. We've got plenty of clients. So we're very, we're intimately familiar with that intersection in that area. I understand it's not necessarily anything Dennis Go was gonna pay attention to because it's not on site. So I'm really just bringing it up not to slow the process down. We understand everything that's going along with it but just to voice the comment. Okay, thank you, Tom. And it sounds like the concerns you have are on the traffic along the public way. Correct. And so our outside of the property line that we are addressing in this hearing with our site plan review and our special permit. So Chris, I guess I wanna ask you is there a formal process for the discussion about the traffic on Southeast Street or not? There can be a formal process in the future. Right now we don't have access to the report that's being prepared by CDM Smith. So we've made some suggestions about findings and Mr. Reedy has made a suggestion about a possible condition that would allow the planning board to review the findings of the CDM Smith report and then make recommendations to the town about what kinds of improvements might be beneficial. I'm just a little bit, maybe I'm puzzled. If this were a normal applicant it would be a private party that was developing a private piece of land and for us to put a condition on that party about something outside the property line in the public way wouldn't make any sense because that party would not have any control of it. Mr. Cooper and the design team here doesn't have any control of it. Is this a different situation because it's all part of the town? So in the case of a private developer who was developing this property and was affecting the level of service of the intersections they may be called upon to make improvements to those intersections or even to the roadway as a whole. In this case it's the same entity that is proposing the development as is responsible for the roadways. So we're saying we acknowledge that there may be issues created as a result of this building which is gonna be more intensively used than the previous building or the existing building. And those are issues that will be dealt with by the town in the future and they will be based on the report that is coming out from CDM Smith. So we did phrase the findings in a way that we invite the planning board to review that report and make recommendations to the town about the report. And Mr. Rede has made a condition or has suggested a condition that would encourage that to happen. But right now we don't have enough information really for you to evaluate what the situation is in the road. Okay. And I guess when we go through the findings we can refine that. Thank you. Thank you. Bruce called him. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Do you want to do Kathy first? Yeah, let's go back to Kathy Shane and bring her in for her public comment. Hi, Kathy. You should be able to unmute. Thank you. I think I am unmuted. Is that correct? You are, thank you. I'm Kathy Shane and I as most of you know I am a town counselor. I'm a resident of North Amherst. I'm also chair of the elementary school building committee and I'm just speaking up on a couple pieces that you were reviewing tonight. One is the design of moving the canopies to the two locations, Dinesco and I have to say they always do this. They double checked before they came to you to make sure this worked well for the school as well as address the concerns and the overwhelming response was fantastic change. So we're meeting again as the building committee next week but we all think this is a great change both for the sheltering of the vans, the sheltering of the bicycle racks and the other thing it does is there's at least a visual barrier from the playground area to the parking lot. That's a useful thing to think about for little kids that it's don't go here. Secondly, you question the number of parking spaces or they were raised and I was glad to hear Doug Marshall say that well if the school said this is what they need we have been questioning them for two and a half years and the head count of the combined schools comes to that number in terms of people who will be working in the school and part of what is going on is that this school will be the home of our special needs kids and quite a few paraprofessional some of whom work part-time and so they're coming and going but they need a place to park. So that they don't always like this parking space doesn't open up. So we've gone back to the school several times with could we have fewer and we've always gotten the answer this is the right count and they're counting custodial staff as well as others. So what Rick said is right, we've asked multiple times. So I just wanted to confirm that all of us looked at that parking lot and said doesn't need to be this big and then the only final comment is Fort River at one point had over 600 kids. So we're not talking about the thing that we're not talking about more children. One of the things that have changed is more parents are driving their kids to school and not taking the bus and that's partly a COVID phenomenon than earlier. But so the disarrangement of the way for the buses to come in and out and the cars to come in and out was incredibly creative and one of the reasons we chose the Fort River site is that site allowed to an entrance and an exit and this kind of reconstitution. So those are just my comments since Tim went back to the very beginning of why Fort River and it was partly because of the volume of entrance and exit and the ability to build the school while the current school is occupied. Thank you. All right, thanks Kathy. All right, I don't see any more members of the public who have their hand raised. And with that, we'll go back to the board. Thank you for all for waiting, Bruce. Just quickly, Tim did come back with the answer to my question about the disability rating on the generator. And but what he didn't say, which I think it's worth saying so that people know what it means is that 50 decibels is quieter than almost any of the heat pump water heaters that people are putting in their houses these days. So no concern from me. Okay, thank you. Johanna. Legacy hand, sorry. Oh, okay. Oh, actually, sorry. It was not a legacy hand. Yeah, he wasn't talking about that recently. You're right, I put it up because before we move on, I wanted to just look at the comprehensive bike parking plan because some of the images just, like I think are we retaining the parking, the bike racks out front and then adding ones underneath the relocated solar panel. If we could just look at that again, I'd appreciate it. Yeah, sure. Give me one second, I'll pull that up again. I will note we're coming up on eight o'clock so we may have a break here before long. Go ahead, Tim. Sure, so as before, there are two bike parking areas, two bike racks. The one to the south is remaining where it is basically in front of the building. It will not be covered, it will be just out of the coverage of the PV over the van. And then the racks, excuse me, the racks to the north will be moved entirely under the coverage. So 50%, actually I think it's slightly more than 50%, will be under cover of the PV north of the building. That is the proposed change. Okay, Johanna, any reaction to that? Thank you for your responsiveness. I think it really makes a big difference and I appreciate your adjustments. Okay, all right. Chris, would it be appropriate that we move on to the findings and conditions next? Yes. All right, so I know it's a little bit early, why don't we take our five minute break now and we'll come back and dive into those. Okay. So I'm seeing the time now is 7.51, five minutes from now is 7.56. Please mute and turn off your camera and then when you return, at least turn on your camera so we know you're back. Thank you. Okay, I'm seeing 7.56, so if you are back, please turn on your video. Looks like we've got pretty much everybody except for Bruce back and a couple of members of the design team. Chris, should we start with the findings for the site plan review? Doesn't that make more sense than the special permit? You are muted. I'm sorry, Chris, you are muted. So you're suggesting going to the findings for the site plan review, then the conditions for the site plan review, then the findings and conditions for the special permits, right? Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. Okay. Does that seem as logical as anything else? Yeah, that's fine. That's I think our normal way. So I will start reading and if my voice fails for some reason, someone else can pick up. Well, I don't see Bruce yet. I would hate for him to miss your scintillating reading of the findings. Chris, and I can pull them up. Oh, good. And I'm assuming you're going to be reading from the text of the documents, the four documents you sent us this afternoon. Yes, and I had sent... You had sent drafts earlier. I had sent them previously, but some of them changed. So if I pull them up, Doug, are you going to be able to see if Bruce joins us? Yes. Okay. I think so. All right, well, if not, I'll just unshare. Okay, hold on. Yeah, I should be able to see. Which one is this? Okay, should I start? No, hold on just one second, Chris, because where is my bar? I do this here. What do you mean? There. You're going to limit me to three minutes? No. Not at all. I was looking for this, so I could scroll. Sorry. Okay, so can you see the findings for the site plan review? Yes. Okay. All right. And so we're back on at 801. Is that, am I correct in that? Yeah, why don't we go ahead? Do we see Bruce? It's going to take a while to go through this. Bruce doesn't seem to be back yet. Okay, so these are site plan review findings for SPR 2024-04. And we make these findings under section 11.24 of the zoning bylaw as follows. So 11.2400, the project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning bylaw and the goals of the master plan. The applicant has applied for a special permit for a modification of the height requirement to allow the building to be 43 feet in height. The applicant has applied for a special permit for filling of land under section 5.10 of the zoning bylaw. And the applicant has requested waivers from sections 7.110, 7.111, and 7.112 of the parking requirements. I suppose at some point we should have those in front of us, but maybe I could just pull that out right now. I should have thought of that ahead of time. 11, so 7.110 has to do with when there are 10 or more parking spaces in a lot that you have 10% of the total parking area as landscaped open space. Mr. Cooper made the point today that he believes that this soil that is the drainage soil does comprise 10% of that parking area. So the planning board can decide whether a waiver is needed or not. With regard to 11.111, when there are 25 or more parking spaces, the parking area shall provide landscaped islands of a minimum width of four feet with raised curbs throughout the parking area for purposes of defining parking lot entrances, defining the ends of the portion of the parking aisles and defining the location and pattern of primary internal access drives, separating parking spaces within long rows of spaces and separating some of the rows of parking spaces from other rows. So it looks like you probably will need the waiver regarding section 7.111, but possibly not a waiver from 7.10. And then 7.112 is screening. So for parking areas with five or more spaces, they shall provide effective screening of the parking area from adjacent streets and properties. Such screening shall be accomplished by and then they give you some choices. It looks like there is effective screening of this parking lot because of the existing plantings that are along the Eastern, no, Western property line, as well as the additional plantings that are being proposed, those 13 cedars. So you possibly don't need the waiver from 7.112. So I don't know if the planning board wants to decide that now, or do you want to agree to dropping the waiver from 7.110 and 7.112 and just keeping the one from 7.111 or should we just have all of them in there? Well, I mean, when I look at 7.111, I know I was one of the people who wasn't sure we needed that one out in the middle, but we do have islands at either end of this parking to define the drive aisles. And I guess I'm just wondering, do we really even need 7.111? But if everybody thinks, if you think we do, then that's fine. But it sounded like we weren't even really sure that we would it be something like if needed, 7.111, since we've sounded like we were headed toward giving the school building committee the latitude to either include that island or not. Yep, all right, if needed. And then drop the other two. Well, Tim, are you pretty confident that you are in excess of 10%? We are confident that the sand filters to the east of the parking lot and the other islands are 10% of what we would consider to be the parking lot area. Okay, and it sounds like we do have screening along the entire West edge of that lot. Bruce, you've got your hand up. What do you think? I agree. And Doug, I think that we should not grant waivers because we don't need them. We shouldn't grant them just because maybe if they are necessary, because of your comment previously, we should be mindful, I think, that we shouldn't be seen to be granting waivers if we don't have to, because it just creates precedence and it creates potential problems or what have you. Particularly on town buildings. So I was moved by what you said about, we're getting into the habit of, are we getting into the habit of granting waivers for town buildings? And I thought, maybe we are, maybe we aren't, but let's not feed that far. So I would say don't grant any of these that we don't need to if we can make a finding that is that they're unnecessary. Right. Well, I guess, Chris, are you? I think you can make findings that 7.110 and 7.112 are unnecessary, but I think 7.111 is a little troublesome. So I would keep that one. And if you needed to, if you would want to, put the phrase if needed. Okay. Okay. Let's leave, let's edit it that way for the moment. And if anybody has any further thoughts, we can come back to it. Okay. 11.2401, town amenities and abutting properties will be protected through minimizing detrimental or offensive actions. As an elementary school, the proposed use is unlikely to create detrimental or offensive actions. Exterior lighting will be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. There's an extra comment in there. 11.2402, abutting properties will be protected from detrimental side characteristics resulting from the proposed use, including but not limited to air and water pollution, flood, noise, odor, dust, dust, comma, vibration, lights or visually offensive structures or site features. The proposed use in elementary school will not produce detrimental side characteristics. Exterior lighting will be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. Lighting after hours will be limited to what is necessary for security and public safety. 11.2403, provision of adequate recreational facilities, open space and amenities will be provided because there will be ample play areas and athletic fields for the students and staff and community members. 11.2401, I'm not watching people. So if anyone has a question. I'm trying to watch the gallery here. Okay. 11.2401, unique or important natural, historic or scenic features will be protected. The project has gone through a thorough review by the conservation commission with regard to protection of wetlands and floodplain. Many existing trees around the perimeter of the property will be retained. The project, excuse me, 11.2411, the project provides adequate methods of refuse disposal as described in the management plan. 11.2412, the project will be connected to town sewer and water. The town engineer has been meeting with the design team on an ongoing basis as the project has been developed. A condition of the site plan review approval will require that the project be reviewed by the town engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit and that the project comply with his requirements. Now we got an email from Guilford Mooring today stating that the DPW and the town engineer have been very involved in the development of this project. So he seemed to be confident that they didn't have issues about it. But nonetheless, I think it's worthwhile keeping this this finding here. 11.2413, the proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle the stormwater. The town engineer has been meeting with the design team on an ongoing basis as the project has been developed and a condition of the site plan review approval will require that the project be reviewed by the town engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit and that the project comply with his requirements. 11.2414, provision of adequate landscaping has been addressed. The project includes new plantings on the site, including a hundred new trees. In addition, a condition of the planning board's approval of the removal of the two public shade trees is that the applicant shall plant one or two trees, one or two new trees within the public way. 11.2415, the soil erosion control methods are considered adequate to control soil erosion both during and after construction. The town engineer has been meeting with the design team on an ongoing basis as the project has been developed. The condition of the site plan review approval will require that the project be reviewed by the town engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit and that the project comply with his requirements. The project has also received an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission which has reviewed the erosion plan and approved it. All right, Bruce, hold on. Bruce? I just had a question and comment on the one before, the one before last. It would be a 24.14, I think. I was wondering, it says a hundred new trees. It's quite precise. I wondered whether that included the new trees that we've discussed this evening along the Western boundary? No, it doesn't. So it should probably say more than a hundred new trees. Yes. Should it say at least or something? More than. More than? More than, yep. It's a finding. Yep, mm-hmm. Okay, that sounds good. Anything else, Bruce? No, thank you. Okay, thank you. I think we're on to 11.2416. Adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of air and water pollution, flood, noise, odor, dust and vibration through appropriate site and structure design and the use of appropriate design and materials for containment, ventilation, filtering screen, soundproofing, sound dampening and other similar solutions. The new generator will be separated from the adjacent residences by a cinder block barn as well as being surrounded by a sound barrier. Exterior lighting will be downcast and will not shine on to adjacent properties or streets. 11.2417. Chris, Bruce is, yep. Yes, I think we also have a finding that the decibel level of the generator is very low, 50. I think since that's been said, we should put it in the findings because that's more important than any of the other stuff. Very low at 50 decibels, at approximately 50 decibels. Yes, yes. Okay, okay. So now we're on to 17. Adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion of lighting, including parking lot and building exterior lighting through the use of cutoff luminaires, light shields, lowered height of light poles, screening or similar solutions. Except for architectural and interior lit signs, all exterior sight lighting shall be downcast and shall be directed or shielded to eliminate light trespass onto any street or abutting property and to eliminate direct or reflected glare perceptible to persons on any street or abutting property and sufficient to reduce the viewer's ability to see. All sight lighting, including architectural sign and parking lot lighting shall be kept extinguished outside of those business hours established under an approved site management plan, except for lighting determined to be necessary for site security and safety of employees and visitors. The exterior lighting for this project meets these requirements. Okay. Yes. 11.2418, protection from flood hazards as stated in section 3.22 of the zoning by-law has been considered. Such factors as elevation of buildings, adequacy of sewage disposal, erosion and sedimentation control, equipment location, refuse disposal, layout of buoyant materials, extent of paving, effective fill roadways or other encroachment on flood runoff and flow, storage of chemicals and other hazardous substances has been considered. Part of the site and a portion of the proposed building is located in the flood prone conservancy district. But we all, I'm just adding this, we know that that's not the same as the flood zone, the actual flood zone, but it is the zoning district that's controlled by section 3.22. So that's why we're talking about this. The zoning board of appeals has reviewed and approved the location of the building and learning structure in the FPC district. The conservation commission has reviewed and approved the project and mitigation has been provided for a small area of 100-year flood plain that is impacted. That's different from the FPC zone. The elevation of the new school structure will be two feet higher than the elevation of the existing school building. Sewage disposal will be handled by the town sanitary sewer system and no portion of the building is located in the 100-year flood plain. 11.2419, protection of wetlands. Hold on, hold on, Fred. Yeah, just if you go back up to 2417, I think it is, there's a, I just, I caught a typo, I just thought we should, there's, let me find it here. There was an of and then there was an or and I think they, where was it? Enchanted street or abutting property, I see it. Yes, that's your name. All right, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're on to 2419, protection of wetlands by building in accordance with the provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act, Chapter 131, section 40 and the Amherst Wetlands By-law has been considered. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Conservation Commission, which has issued an order of conditions for the project. Section 11.2420, the planning board did not choose to refer to the design principles and standards set forth in sections 3.3040 or 3.2041. I think there's something wrong with that number. Should be 3.2040. 3.2040 and 3.2041, yeah. Because the project is within a jurisdiction of the design review board as a town project and the DRB has reviewed the project and has issued comments and recommendations which have been provided to the planning board. Section 11.2421, the development is reasonably consistent with respect to setbacks, placement of parking, landscaping and entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and development. Section 11.2422, this building site will avoid to the extent feasible impact on steep slopes, floodplains, scenic views, grade changes and wetlands. There are no steep slopes on the site. There is a FEMA floodplain overlay zoning district on the far eastern portion of the site, a small part of the 100 year floodplain is impacted by the project. Mitigation has been proposed and approved by the Conservation Commission through the impacts to the 100 year floodplain. There are no scenic views other than the view to the wetlands and forested area to the far eastern side of the site. This area will not be impacted by the development. There are wetlands on the site, Conservation Commission has reviewed and approved this project and issued in order of conditions. 11.2423 is not applicable. There's only one principal building proposed for the site. 11.2424, screening has been provided as appropriate. The trash area and transformer area will be screened by a tall fence. The mechanical equipment will be located on the roof and will be screened. 11.2430, the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement both within the site and in relation to adjoining ways and properties. The Southern driveway will provide access for school buses and vans. It will also provide bicycle and pedestrian access via sidewalks. The Northern driveway will provide access for vehicles of staff and parents and visitors. It will also provide bicycle and pedestrian access via sidewalks. Bicycle racks will be provided. 11.2431, the location and number of curb cuts will be such as to minimize turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances. There will be only two curb cuts to the site. 11.2432, the location and design of parking spaces, bicycle racks, drive aisles, loading areas and sidewalks will be provided in a safe and convenient manner. 11.2433 is not applicable. There's no need for provision for access to adjoining properties. 11.2434 is not applicable. The project is not located in a commercial or business district. 11.2435 is not applicable. Joint access driveways will be, between adjoining properties are not an issue on this project. The next two findings are findings with regard to the traffic impact. And I had some help from the town manager in trying to word exactly what would be happening here. So let's read through this and see if everybody agrees. 11.2436, the requirement for a traffic impact report will be satisfied as follows. One, a traffic impact analysis prepared by PARE Corporation dated May 2022 was submitted along with the site plan review application. This report was prepared as a comparison between the Wildwood site and the Fort River site. When the two sites were being considered as the location for the new elementary school. Number two, the town has subsequently hired CDM Smith to prepare a traffic impact analysis and report and make recommendations about potential traffic improvements for the roadways in the vicinity of the Fort River school site. This report is expected to be delivered to the town in February of 2024. Number three, once the report has been delivered to the town, the planning board will review the recommendations of the CDM Smith report and make recommendations to the town about roadway improvements in the vicinity of the Fort River school site. All right, hold on, Karin. Do you think it would be possible to add to that, to potential improvements to the roadways and possible bicycle paths, dedicated bicycle paths? Because I think if they're going to do this study, this would be really a chance to get a better flow for bicycles also into consideration. I think that's reasonable because now we're required to have complete streets, as much as feasible. So usually bicycle paths or bicycle lanes are considered. So that's fine. Is that in fact part of the CDM Smith scope of work? I don't know, but- It sounds like they're about to deliver their report. Yeah, Karin said, and possible dedicated bicycle paths. So I think you can make recommendations about possible bicycle paths. 11.2437, when a traffic impact report is required, now this is reading from the zoning bylaw. The proposed development shall comply with the following standards. Number one, the level of service LOS at nearby intersections shall not be degraded more than one level as a result of traffic generated by the proposed development. Nor shall any nearby intersection degrade below the level of E. Now this is something that the town manager said. If the level of service is degraded more than one level as a result of traffic generated specifically by the proposed elementary school, or degraded below the level of E as a result of the building of the school, the planning board will request the opinion of the town engineer as to options for mitigating or offsetting this impact. Number two, adjacent streets shall not exceed design capacity at the peak hour as a result of traffic generated by the proposed development. Adjacent streets would include Southeast Street and Pelham Road. Number three, safety hazards shall not be created or added to as a result of traffic generated by the proposed elementary school building. Number four, the town may if requested by the planning board provide alternative proposals to address the standards. And which standards are you referring to? That is a good question. Mr. Chairman. Yeah, hold on a second Fred. I see the bylaw does refer to standards that are in section 11.2437, one through three. Those are the standards that we're reading now. And this looks like we're in the vicinity of the place where we might incorporate Mr. Reedy's request. Oh, he had a condition rather than a finding. That's right. Nevermind. Fred, go ahead. Yeah, it shouldn't be Pelham Road. It should be Main Street. Road doesn't begin until you get to the Fort River. Okay. Right, yeah. Main Street, thank you. So does that, is that okay? What I just read there, except for changing Pelham Road to Main Street. So it looks like between two, four, three, six and seven. Once this report arrives, we all look at it. And if the level of service is degraded more than one level or if it goes below E, then we talk to the town engineer as for options. And then based on the feedback from the town engineer, we would then make recommendations to the town. Yes. This consultant here doesn't have it any jurisdiction over the public way. So we're not making recommendations to this consultant. We can only make them to the town. Okay. Okay. Fred, should we move on to conditions for the site plan review? Yeah, yeah, I think so. Okay. Chris, do you want a relief on reading? Oh, sure, that would be great. Thank you. You volunteering, Bruce? Yes, I'll volunteer. If I burst out into a coughing fit, you can retire me. But Chris is doing all the work. So I thought, I also noted that in previous times when we're doing this, we've been, what's been on the screen has not been a PDF, but has been a Word document and changes have been made as we went. Not that we had many changes on this, but okay, draft proposal conditions. Shall I proceed? Sure, Bruce. Okay. SPR 2024 of Fort River Elementary School, February 5th, 2024, revised February 6th, 2024. The project general, conditions general. The project shall be built substantially in accordance with the plan submitted to the planning board and approved on the date of the vote. Number two, the project shall be managed substantially in accordance with management plan, the management plan, submitted to the planning board and approved on date of approval. Number three, substantial changes to the project and or substantial changes to any approved site plans Or to the exterior of the building shall be submitted to the planning board for review and approval prior to the work taking place. The purpose of the submittal shall be for the planning board to approve the change and or to determine whether the changes are de minimis or significant enough to require modification of the special permit. Or site plan review approval. Should that refer to the special permit. No, let's shouldn't, shouldn't we have shouldn't that be part of the conditions for the special permit? Yeah. And they're probably, I don't think there are many conditions for the special permit. Right. The modification of the site plan review approval. Okay. Okay, Bruce. Number four landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan. Prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy and once installed shall be continually maintained as needed. All disturbed area shall be learned and seated unless otherwise specified. Number five. The site plan review approval shall expire within two years of the date that is filed with the town clerk unless it has been both recorded at the registry needs and substantial construction. Or use has commenced within the two year time period. Number six. All work associated with the project shall be committed within 30 months of the date of issuance of the building permit. If more time is needed, the applicant shall come to the planning board. The public meeting for review and approval of a construction and completion schedule for the extension of time. We might want to check because we're right up against that 30 months. Should that be 36 months? This was a time that was suggested by Bob parent who has been the. What is he the capital projects coordinator for the town? Yeah. So he's I just remember Tim's schedule. He put it on the first slide and phase one and phase two. Well, then all that 30 months. Tim, are you going to be getting a building permit when you start phase 1 or will it not be till you get phase 2? Building permit will be phase 1. Well, there'll be a. The building permit will be this year. Okay. Are you comfortable with 30 months? Rick, do you want to add. If we haven't had this discussion yet. Sometimes the earthwork doesn't require the build a building permit. If we've got no problem, okay. Applying for the building permit, but I do think 36 months. Would be safer because the last. Phase of the work involves the last plantings. And that might not be done until the spring planting season. All right. All right. Chris, why don't we go ahead and make this 36 months? Okay. Okay. Moving right along. Building experience site improvements number seven prior to the. Prior to the issuance of a building permit and site plan drawings, including all utility work. Within the town right of way shall be reviewed and approved by the town engineer. The project shall comply with the comments and recommendations of the town engineer. I assume that's involved because it's. It's new from the. It's, it's a, it's a February 6th change. Is that correct? That's correct. So it won't stay bold. No. Okay. Number nine. Whoops. Number nine. What happened to number eight? Looks like we've got some renumbering. Okay. Why don't Bruce, why don't you just read them as they appear at this point? Yes, I will. But, but clearly number eight is rather slim. Number nine can change them. Number nine, the final stormwater management system design and stormwater drainage reports shall be submitted to the town engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. And shall include pre-construction and post-construction stormwater runoff and stormwater volume calculations based upon soil testing results prepared and stamped by a licensed professional engineer. 10. May I say something about this? Chris. I just wanted to note that we have received the stormwater drainage report. But we haven't received comments, specific comments from the town engineer. So that's why we have this condition in here. Just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. Okay. Number 10. Sure. The review of the final stormwater management system and required material shall conform. Shall confirm that there shall be no increase in the rate of stormwater flow caused by the project. Post construction when compared with pre-construction conditions and that the stormwater management system is designed in conformance with the DEP stormwater management standards and technical specifications. Number 11. The town engineer and building commissioner shall inspect the construction of the entry driveway and all onsite paved areas for conformance to town standards. Number 12 all onsite utility shall be on underground. Number 13. This otherwise approved all lighting shall be dark sky compliant and shall be downcast shielded and shall not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. Number 14. All conditioning all air conditioning units communication devices and all other outside mechanical equipment shall be placed on the roof of the building and shall not. And not on exterior walls or within windows. Any equipment that are located on the ground or on the roof shall be screened from view. And noise muffled with fencing plantings or other suitable materials following the approved plans dated. Whatever the date of which of these the approved. Okay. The plans that have been submitted by Cisco for this project with this application whatever that date is and prepared by the nisco design. Doug, can we just check with Tim that I mean, I think essentially there's nothing on the outside and in view, but it just makes sure there's nothing peculiar that some little item. Some box or anything as we did this goes fine with this. I. Roof top equipment. Let me just. It's talking about building everything on the rooftop and not on the walls or the ground or. I just there is no equipment on the walls of the building other than devices for speakers wireless access points. No mechanical equipment. There will be a. Electrical panel shut off disconnect at the service area, but that is the extent of anything. Certainly no heat pumps, no air handling. Nothing like that will be on the walls of the building. You did describe what sounded like some communication devices in my point exactly. So, I mean, my experience with wireless devices and things like that is that they're not particularly obtrusive. Yeah, obtrusive communication devices. I don't know. I just want to make I mean I might just strike communication devices. Yeah. Jesse, I heard you I thought. Okay, Rick. Just want to be clear we have we do screen. rooftop mechanical equipment that is on the lower roofs from view on the public approaches. There is equipment on the upper roof sets in the the middle of the three storey roof that does not have a visual screen around it. But the acoustics of that equipment have been reviewed by our acoustical engineer and it does not need it. Acoustic screening for the butters. Yeah. Okay, but, but I think this may also be considering visual screening. This is screening. Yep. She'll be screened. How about that? Add the word visually in front of screen. So we screened from view and noise. Sorry, noise. Yeah, I guess. Yeah, I'm just wondering whether we really need communication devices included that was that was the concern I had as I read it, whether whether that, whether that was useful. I'm not familiar with any communication devices that might be on the outside of the building that would be so obtrusive that would that they would be objectionable. So we should strike that were those words communication devices. I mean, all air conditioning units and all other outside mechanical equipment makes sense to me as a. Yeah, it's probably there because of dishes, you know, those kind of dishes that people have on their houses or buildings. That's probably the kind of that's probably the element that that that is supposed to capture. Yeah. So Rick, I see your hand. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't take it. Take it down. All right. So, but the way this reads, you probably do need to screen the mechanical equipment on the third on the top, upper floor, upper roof. So do we say except for mechanical? Well, I mean, I guess I'd like to hear from Tim or Rick about. So, you feel about that. I would say that it was discussed early on and the budget doesn't include it. All the screening that we've shown in the renderings is in the budget and is part of the cost of the project. Do we need to go back and take a quick look at the renderings. Well, you know, it says it shall be screened from view. So, if you can't see it, it doesn't need to be screened, right? Well, I mean, where am I standing? You know, I mean, am I so. I can't, I don't have any renderings handy while I can pull up what we have, but a person standing at the northern end of the athletic fields. North of the building is going to be able to see it. There's there's no question. But let me see if I can pull up something that will better illustrate that. But as Rick said, this is something that we have discussed with the building committee and their. Appetite for. You know, the visual expression of the building. One second. Sorry. Let's see Pam. Yeah, if you can stop. And Fred while. Tim's breaking up his renderings. Do you want to make a comment? Just, you know, I won't be voting on this, but I would point out that. There's a. I don't know that there could be a political issue here. The planning board has been very consistent. In terms of. Looking at this kind of visual screening. And I don't think we want to be in a position of, well. Okay, it was a town building, so they didn't have to do it. I think the optics that are pretty bad. Right. I guess that's part of why I'm interested in these renderings is, you know, yes. How visible is it really? Is it going to be. And how far back do we have to get before we can actually see it. So in the view that is on the screen now. If you can see my cursor, that is the screen that is protecting or I should say screening. The equipment that is on the lower roof of the gym. That. Basically the size of the cursor and that element. Is one of the pieces of equipment that is on the higher roof. That is an air handler that serves the cafeteria. And so that is the extent of visibility from here and I'll give me one second. What is the sort of shadow I'm seeing that is to the left of that. That is the screen that literally blocks where the ductwork that comes out of that equipment goes into the building. So you already have screening up there. We have screening from one direction if we go around the building, which I'm attempting to pull up some of the other views that we'll show you that the. Views from standing on site to the Northwest, you will be able to see it. We are now standing at about the back of the playground. On the north side of the building. And the. This box is representative of what you would see that's actually. A chase that's on the roof where the duck work turns down, but adjacent to that in a few feet back, which you would see if you would step back and I don't have the. Ability to navigate in 3D live with these views, but that is about the extent of what you would see. If you step back. On the athletic fields, so that that is about the magnitude of the visual impact. So, go go under the south side to. Is the equipment. You know, sort of galvanized sheet metal. Or is it more of a shipping container. It's not a shipping came here it'll be a won't be galvanized it'll probably be a flat white painted metal housing. So from that distance and at that angle. Is it is it going to look like an architectural element or is it going to really read as a mechanical element. So, looking from the south here, this is at about eye level for a normal adult. So you would have to be further back than the drop off to see the equipment the equipment that we're talking about is about. 5 to 6 feet tall and it's on a curb on the roof so it's about, you know, a little bit taller than a person standing in the middle of the roof so you'd have to be somewhat far back to see, but the site is. Rather large and actually what what's in front of the equipment is the duct work that's coming off of it. It's the air handlers and basically a duct work. It's surrounded by duct work and that duct work if you happen to see some of the high duct work will be white. It's white roofing membrane on it. Okay, so, so this is this isn't just like a rooftop rectangular box. It's got duct work coming out of it it'll be clearly legible as has mechanical duct work. Okay, Bruce. I'll put my hand on because I'll probably keep reading but I think that the way in which the intent of this word mechanical equipment or a conditioning type work is this this would be. This would be definitely de minimis and that's exacerbated by the fact that the building is in such a large site that you can get a long way back so I think. Well, I think we should be able to safely ignore this. It seems to me we could try and put within the immediate vicinity of the building is some view location qualifier. But given that it's not obviously mechanical equipment that would be looking at and that's such a small spot of it. Given what we've seen, I think we should. Proceed with ignoring the any attempt that we to edit the, the condition that we would put that Chris has written up in draft for. I think it's just that we've we've drafted would require them to fence it. If we regarded as a mechanical equipment, but the way it's been described it would just it's not going to read as mechanical equipment it just happens to be something that is associated with the mechanical system it seems to me. It's hard for me from what I've heard to determine whether we would view that from the ball field as an enclosure or piece of equipment itself. Well, I guess it's the duct work that's got me worried. I mean, is this duct work equipment. Well, maybe not, but if I could interject also, Rick Rice. If, if we were to. You know, apart from cost, which is not the board's. Concern, if we would circle that. Equipment that's in the middle of the roof with a screen that would be 12, 14 feet high. That would cover the duct work and also the equipment beyond it. Unfortunate byproduct of that would be a vertical surface that would be casting a shadow on an area that otherwise would be useful for solar panels that we are using to the north of the equipment. So there's a functional downside if you will for that. Okay. I guess I need to ask you. Tim described the equipment is five or six feet tall and you're describing a screen that's 14 feet tall. Good. Do you have, do you have cut cuts of the equipment. I believe the cuts, if it's typical is was taller than that. I will look to see what I can put my hands on immediately. I will too. I mean, Bruce. I kind of agree with you. You got to be so far back from this building to see it that it's barely legible at that point. Can we proceed with the idea that we can, in the interim, Tim and Rick and perhaps Chris can think about either would qualify it to the location or something because I don't want to screen this if it's going to shade. That seems to be what would I counterproductive bureaucratic aggression and I don't want us to be guilty of that sort of thing if we can avoid it. So, the authority to work out wording of this with the applicant. Is that what you're saying? Well, I know it's one option. We were waiting for Tim to see if he could find a cut or something show showing the equipment before we settle this for the moment. But I think Chris's suggestion is a good one. I mean, I think we like what we see. We just, we just want to avoid this Fred said, creating a situation where somebody can come along and beat us with a club. Pam, why don't you bring the language back up? So we agreed to take off communication devices. And, and I could continue reading 15 onwards. Yeah, go ahead. Leave Chris to to think creatively here. One of the reasons I'm reading all the utility work and work within the public right away shall be conducted, following the regulations and permits of the town of Amnesty. Number 16 or work within the town right away shall be reviewed and approved by the town council. Prior to the essence of a permit. The building building building building permit and start of work. Number 17, prior to the installation of exterior signs, the applicant shall submit a sign plan, including details to the planning board at a public meeting for review and approval. Number 18, the applicant shall provide to the planning board at a public meeting specifications, including material and color or any amenities such as bike racks, site furniture, playground equipment and benches for review and approval prior to installation. Work within the right of way. Number 19, repairs and improvements to the right of way caused by disturbance during construction shall be completed by the applicant, including all costs permits and approvals prior to the issuance of a final certificate bucket was he for the new building. Number 20, all crossworks, crosswalks, sidewalks, all crosswalks sidewalks pavement and amenities within the time right away that are disturbed as a part of this project shall be reconstructed to match existing unless changes are reviewed and approved by the town council. Management. Is this the spot to talk about the. The traffic impacts, or is that farther down. That's. That could be here. So, did you see the suggestion that Tom really had sent. I think I sent it to everybody. I, I did and I thought it seemed reasonable, but I didn't know whether there were. Mechanics protocol and so forth that would cause it to be changed one way or another. Would you like me to read it? Yeah, I think you should. Okay. So, the suggestion is the town of Amherst is currently, this is a condition. The town of Amherst is currently studying the existing offsite traffic conditions. In the impact that the project will have to the surrounding roadway network as a condition of approval. The town shall work with the owners of six south east street. The northerly a butter to achieve an outcome which improves operational and safety aspects of. And access and egress to and from both the project and the northerly a butters site. I would add to the greatest extent possible. We shouldn't commit to improving them. Yeah, and I would might might say feasible rather than possible. Okay. Alrighty. The town will appear before the planning board and a public, and he says public hearing, but I think it should be a public meeting because we don't want to have to. Advertising butters notices one year after receipt of the project's certificate of occupancy to review the offsite traffic conditions. If such conditions have not improved the town will take specific mitigative actions as necessary to address address operational access or safety issues to the satisfaction of the board. I don't think we should say if conditions have not improved. I think we should say that in another way because. Again, we're committing to improving. Yeah. So if conditions have deteriorated markedly. Right. Yeah, or even deteriorated. Yeah, and I guess I'm. I'm not sure I would specifically call out six southeast street. Do we want to limit it to that property owner or. I mean, don't we want to simply don't we really want to be saying that if conditions are bad for this area of. Traffic that we would come back and revisit it specifically worried about success. Well, obviously, but I know that there's probably other property owners along that stretch of roadway who. Didn't hire Tom to come and advocate tonight, but our could be equally impacted. How about as a condition of approval, the town shall work with. Property owners. Southeast street property owners between main street and. College street. You could say interested property owners. Yeah. Interested property owners along southeast street between main and college. Let's see. To achieve outcomes that improve. Operational and safety aspects of it access and egress. Two properties along the street or something like that. Or, or, or mitigate any detrimental impacts. So we want to have the town come back to the planning board. At a public meeting a year after the project site. I think that's a reasonable thing to do. Okay. I don't know how anybody else feels. And if conditions have deteriorated, the town. Will take. Actions as necessary to address operational access and safety issues to the satisfaction of the planning board. Yeah. Okay. I think that's, that's the new 21. So now we're back on track here. And don't shall I continue. If you're, if your vocal cords allow sure. Oh yeah. Otherwise somebody else could take over. Well, I'll go to the end of this at least management plan 21 significant accumulation of snow. Plowed within the project area shall promptly. Be promptly removed from the sites as part of the clearing process to the extent possible. Do we need that one? I thought about this because that one was specifically. Developed for the library site. And do we need to have the snow removed from this Fort River site since the site is so big. They really have room to put snow. Yeah, I think it could go away. Yeah. Yeah. Don't stick that out. Yeah. All right. Okay. So new 21. There's a lot of candidates for 21 here tonight. 22 all trash pickup deliveries. The operation of construction maintenance machinery and landscaping equipment shall be conducted during the hours 7am to 7pm Monday through Saturday. Exemption shall include emergency vehicles, snow removal and other emergency situations as approved by the building commissioner. 23 the project shall comply with and be managed in accordance with all terms. Of the management plan any alterations to this plan shall be approved by the planning board at a public meeting. 24 no work, including demolition on the property shall take place prior to all approvals. And permits being issued. Make an exception for the early site package. I was wondering about that because Rick said that often sometimes this kind of work can proceed without permits. So, yes, I would say put that in to the extent necessary. Accepting the early sites. Preparate early site with preparation operations. Permits required to execute that work. 25 draining system shall be maintained in accordance with the operations and maintenance plan as described in the letter data January 2nd 2024 from them at school superintendent. Dr. Like the slaughter and town manager Paul Barkleman to Aaron Jack wetlands administrator and members of the combination conservation commission that states as follows. All in code. The town of Amherst will be responsible for financing and continuous operation maintenance and require prepared required emergency repair for the storm water management system and associated drainage network. The school department will conduct general housekeeping, visual inspections, removal of trash and minor repairs. The school department will notify the Amherst public works. DPW for maintenance that requires heavy equipment such as clamshells or vacuum trucks. The DPW will know and maintain the plane fields. All right, so hold on Bruce. Yep. I think we're at the point with this section of construction. We're back into sort of boilerplate that we often don't read. I agree. I didn't see. Yep. Are there any parts of this that are unique to this project? I don't think so, but I wanted to mention that. The town. The building commissioner had a concern that we didn't have a. Full fully blown construction logistics plan. This project is complicated. So he was going to suggest that. When a construction logistics plan has been prepared that it be submitted to the planning board for review and recommendations. Okay. I thought Tim not his head that be okay with you guys. Yes. Okay. All right. So where is that inserted. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe inserted somewhere in. Under the construction section. Yeah, I see section 28 starts a construction logistics plan. Yeah. So that's what we're saying that they should provide it. So maybe at the end of that. It should say that. It's not reasonable to expect a final construction logistics plan to be. Prepared in absence of the general contractor, because they have so much. Insights and every and, and, and they've, they've, they've got the biggest dog in the fight. So we, we would certainly expect it to be finalized after the. Contract has been left, which is not going to be until the end of summer. So I think it could be added after section 28 and before section 29. Yeah. So that, that we would want that submitted to the planning board. And I think the. Building commissioner was concerned because he knows that. The early site package is going to go ahead and that's going to go ahead while the school is operational. And I think there's some talk about the DPW putting in traffic lights at, I think it's the northern. Driveway, if I'm not mistaken. And those may not be in place by the time the early site package is going ahead. So it's kind of confusing. So that's why the building commissioner is saying, you know, let's get it in writing as best as we can. And, and have the planning board have a chance to review it and make recommendations. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. So. Now. Pretty much. Well, there are other conditions on there. I mean, I have a list of six, which I think we were that basically there. They're the, all of the changes that are not all, but most of the changes that were discussed this evening, the canopy relocations, sheltering the bikes. The table cross work, the evergreen screens. And the those three, those four things would be unless of course the drawings that the NISCO design that date here we are on number 14. Yeah, maybe we should go back to the very earliest conditions that talk about the execution of the project in conformance with the plans that were approved on whatever date. And just call out those elements as you know, including the raised table at the south entry drive. Yeah. And the red, the red, including the relocated solar arrays at the two drop off points and the red scene of screening trees. Yeah, just, just call those out. Yeah. So, okay, so that's that covers all of that. Chris, you've got that note. Yes. So that's three things. Yeah. And then the one, and then the one we didn't call out was the island. In the parking lot and so is this the place to say. Well, since we don't care. We thought it would be up to the leave it to this building committee. Then we, we, we are. They will either be in those drawings or not. Well, the thing is, aren't, isn't there a record set of drawings? Chris, that was. Yeah, we need a record set of drawings that either shows or doesn't include that island. So I think you need to decide whether they want it or not. And those record that record set the dates of that record set will be the date that's in item number one here. Correct. Yeah. So if we. The original record set from January 17th or whatever. That set did not have a, an island. No. But if we. If we. If all we're doing now is saying that we want to make sure that the record set that's approved. It's, it's the record set that was approved because we didn't get a new record set. Tonight. Yeah. That was submitted on January 17th and amended for tonight by those three for those three items. Yeah. And, and then. I mean, I think we need at least a sentence that says the. The, the additional island in the parking lot. Shown at on, on February 7th. May or may not be included in the project as determined by the school building committee. That sounds fine. Okay. Add those sentences to number one. Right. Okay. All right. Let's see. I see that Tom Rede is still with us. Before we move on, Tom, you listened to our. Conversation about your proposed condition. Do you have any objections to where we left it? He's got his hand up. Yeah. I've clicked a lot of talk. Tom, why don't you try? No, you've done a wonderful job. Thank you very much. Okay. So you're fine with that. Yeah, it sounds great. Great job as always. Thank you. All right. Are there other conditions that anyone can think of that we've missed or. Not settled. I think there was one earlier about the screening. And. Bruce, I see your physical hand. Yeah, because I've been reading and I never muted. I just wanted to say that for the record that I had. Spoken energetically and indicated an interest in phrasing a condition last week that would. Require the, the salvage of the tall wooden poles. And for the record, I just want to state that having thought through that. I've decided not to not to suggest that or propose such a condition. It, I now understand that it would make it difficult for the town, because if we put it as a condition, it means that the town can be conceived of selling it, or at least disposing of it. And then they, they would be obligated potentially to have to establish a value for it. And the paperwork and logistics associated the difficult. I can say that I have spoken to a salvage person. I'm a nurse of architectural mill work and timber and Hadley, who's been salvaging these kinds of things for years and years and Tom is interested. Rick. So I think if we can, if I can put those poles and Tom together at a suitable time. So that you can avoid having to cut them out with everything else that will probably be fine, but I'm not inclined to propose it as a condition. Okay. Thanks, Bruce. May I ask something? What did we decide to do about condition number 14? Did we decide to. That was the screening, right? Screening it have me and the. Applicant, the consultants get together and come up with wording about that. Is that what we think that seems to be the most expedient thing for this evening. Yeah. Okay. All right. I will do that. Okay. Thank you. And we will, we will all hope that that. Equipment is not. Highly visible or objectionable. Anything you can do to minimize its. It's impact. All right. So why don't we move on to the special. Permit. Special permit findings. Chris, do you want to read it or do you want one of the rest of us to. I think I can read it. I'll take a little sip of water. And Pam, if you can bring up the. Findings for the special permit. That's okay. Is that what you're looking at? Yes. Thank you. So this is about the special permit. The section of the special permit regarding height. And I noted here that. The modification of the height requirement in the FPC zoning district. Was granted by the zoning board of appeals on January 25th, 2024. Under ZBA FY 20 2409. And now the applicant is seeking modification of the height requirement for the portion of the building in the RVC zoning district. So that's what these findings are about. So we're saying the board found under article six, table three, footnote a as follows height. That the new building is proposed to be 43 feet in height. That article six, table three, dimensional regulations limits the height of buildings in the village center residents zoning district to 35 feet. Number three, that footnote a authorizes the special permit granting authority to grant a special permit to modify the height requirement. In applying the criteria established in section 10.395, the special permit granting authority shall consider the proposed modified dimensional requirement in the context of the pattern of the same dimensions established by existing buildings and landscape features in the surrounding neighborhood. Number four, that the nearby building at 133 Southeast street known as Southeast Commons is 37 feet tall, which meets the height requirement in the nearby BVC zoning district. But it's taller than 35 feet. Number five, that the nearby building at 44 Belcher Town Road is 38 feet tall at the front, 47 feet tall at the rear, 39 feet tall on the left side and 43 feet tall on the right side. The building received a special permit in 2000 dash 2030 to exceed the 35 foot height requirement in the commercial zoning district. That in accordance with number six, that in accordance with section 10.395 of the zoning bylaw, the proposed height of 43 feet does not create disharmony with respect to the terrain and to the use scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity, which have a functional or visible visual relationship there too. And then I thought of another one that you could say that the site here is so large that the height of the building is not going to be, not going to have an impact on the surrounding land, land uses. And is that because of the, the horizontal distance from the building to other buildings or two? That's what I thought, but I didn't add that. Yeah, I guess I'm, I mean, that sort of leads you to, okay, if you buy a bigger piece of property, you can go taller. Okay. And I think we, we want to go, we had an absolute number rather than, I don't know, I'm not sure I would support that. Fred. I'm just curious how tall is the existing Fort River school? It's, you know, a single story. It is a single story. I do not have a number that I can provide. Okay. And it's not near, not nearly tall enough to add to this. It is not. So there's nothing in the vicinity that's 43 feet tall, but there are two other buildings nearby that are higher than 35 feet tall. That's the information that I was trying to relay here. And 44 Belcher Town Road is taller on one side and in the rear. Then, then 40. And that's because, that's because the grade drops away. Yes, that's right. Yeah. All right. I'm willing to accept that. Anybody object? Speak now. No objections. Okay. Not for me. And the, the, the program. Advocates for building of this height. I mean, it's, it would be a tragedy if the. The program function really wants it to be this tall. Okay. I'll move on to the findings for the other special permit. Yeah. So this is the findings for the, the, the second part of this special permit, which were. The second part is related to the filling of land in section 10, the 5.10 of the zoning bylaw. So the first finding is that the project proposes to fill the site in several areas, including under the slab of the new building in the parking lot and under the athletic fields. Number two, that the filling of land is necessary for the purpose of raising the first floor elevation of the building and other areas of the site due to the high water table. And the second part of this project, which is the number three and this numbered these things. That the amount of fill proposed to be placed as part of this project exceeds the threshold, which is established in section. 5.10 of the zoning bylaw. And therefore a special permit is required. And the threshold is either 5,000 square feet in area. And two feet high or 2000 square feet in area and five feet high. So that this exceeds that threshold. Number four, the proposed slopes in the filled area will not exceed the natural angle that should be of repose. Repose, yes. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I was going to comment on. Okay. Thanks. And the last is that the proposed filling of land would not exceed the natural angle that should be of repose. And the second part of this project, which is in danger, the public health or safety, constitute a nuisance result in a detrimental. Detriment to the normal use of the adjacent property, cause significant erosion or sedimentation due to improper drainage designer management or result in traffic hazards in residential areas or excessive congestion or physical damage. On public ways. Okay. And then we had some conditions. With regard to the special permit. Right. So. Do you have those Pam? I should. So the first one with regard to the height modification, I didn't think that there would be any conditions. Does everyone agree with that? We, we don't always have conditions with regard to special permits. With regard to the filling of land, I think there should be some conditions and these are taken from the zoning by law. So number one, no slope created by the filling operation shall be finished at a grade in excess of the natural anger, angle of repose of the film materials. Number two, all filled areas, which are not to be built upon within one year shall upon completion of the filling operation be covered with not less than four inches of water. Number one, no slope created by the filling operation shall be finished at a grade with not less than four inches of loam brought to the finished grade seated and mulched in the satisfactory manner. Number three, that the building commissioner is authorized to require a suitable performance bond or other security adequate to ensure satisfactory compliance with the provision of this special permit. And of section 5.10 of the zoning bylaw. I am not sure that it would have been possible to do that. But we did have a clause that the project. Owners project manager. Commented that there would be a bond. For 100% of the construction anyway. That's right. So we could take that. This is, I mean, we can say it, but it sounds like it's going to happen regardless of whether we say it. You're going to do it anyway. Yeah. And that was the capital projects coordinator. find to leave it, I guess, if you want it. All right. So we've gotten to the end of all the findings and conditions. Yep. All right. Why don't we pay him once you bring back our faces? All right. It looks like everybody's still awake. And Bruce, another comment from Bruce. No, it's a question, really. It seems to me that we're in a position, except for this one item, that condition number 14, in a position to move approval of all of the permits, applications, approve the waivers, as we've described them, and close the public hearing, and all of that sort of stuff. But to what extent does the irresolution of item 14 stand in a way? It seems ashamed to have to continue this meeting for the sake of one sentence. Well, we did talk about delegating to Chris to work on the language such that it was tolerable to the project and, hopefully, adequate to avoid a great deal of criticism of the board. So what was I saying? I think we can come up with something that's reasonable. And then I will draft this up and circulate it. And if anyone has an objection when I circulate it, anyone who's voting on it, they can let me know. But I think we can probably achieve some language that's reasonable. So I think you can, this is not untypical. The zoning board of appeals sometimes approves the project, and the exact wording of the conditions is not final. But let's see, for the, that was the condition for the site plan review, right? It's site plan review, yes. Yes. And for that, we need five votes. You need four for the site plan review. OK. Doug, I guess I might need some help here to, we're approving the site plan review and the request for special permits for her. We're approving the site plan and the associated findings and conditions as we've talked about tonight with the edits that Chris is going to need to make, some of them typological, some of them substantive, including number 14. And we are approving, let's see, I don't have a list of the waivers. Well, there's only one of them at this point, I believe. Yes. The waiver of 7.112. Oh, no, that's no waiver needed 7.1. Yeah, it was just the one about the islands in the parking lot. And then we're approving the special permits, the one for the height and the one for filling of land with the associated findings and conditions for those. Yeah. And we're closing the public hearing. We're closing the public hearing, right? I would take these as two separate votes. OK. So this, let's see. Doug, can you make the motion? You seem to have the table in front of you. All right, well, you can listen to me fumble through it. I'll make a motion that we approve. Let's see. The site plan associated with SPR 2024-04 with the findings and conditions that have been drafted and discussed tonight on February 7th and with the edits that the board has discussed and delegated to Chris, including the waiver of section 7.112 concerning the islands in the parking lot. 1-1-1. 1-1-1. 1-1-1. OK, period. How's that for the first motion? And to close it. Well, OK, OK. We have a joint hearing, so I was going to. But you can close the public hearing on the site plan review and to close the public hearing on the site plan review. So moved, Johanna. Epic, I will second. Thank you. All right, any further discussion? It's only 9.27. We've got lots of time left. Karen. Owen, yeah. I will approve it, but I am going to put more of a plea for really considering the island just out of aesthetic reasons. You know, it doesn't snow that much anymore. The climate change there isn't. We haven't had to shovel our driveway too much. And it is visually any kind of planting and greenery and beauty you can bring into a parking lot is worth a lot. So I'm not going to interfere with this. But I, you know, this is my opinion. OK, thank you. All right, I guess Johanna seconded. I'm not seeing any further hands. So why don't we go ahead and do a roll call? Bruce. I'm an eye. Fred. Oh, Fred, you are not voting, so. Yeah, I am abstaining. Yes. Jesse. Aye. Johanna. Aye. Karen. Aye. And I'm an eye as well. So that's five in favor, one abstention and one absence. All right, then we'll move on to the special permit 2024-03. Let's see, I guess I will move that we approve the two special permits applied for one regarding the height and the other regarding filling of land with the associated findings and conditions that we discussed this evening and that we close the site plan or the special permit hearing. Jesse. I second. That's a second from Jesse. Does anybody think I missed anything? All right, I guess we're all in this together. So we have a motion and a second. Last chance for comments. OK, so we'll go through the roll call again. Starting with you, Karen. I approve. And then Johanna. You button, I approve. All right, Jesse. Aye. And Fred, Fred, sorry. Abstain. Abstain, OK. And Bruce. Aye. I'm an eye as well. Again, five in favor. One abstention and one absence. So, Denisco design, thank you for your time and your efforts on our town's behalf. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Thank you. We appreciate your work for us. And we look forward to a wonderful building. Thank you. OK. Time now is 931. Moving on, Chris, to old business. Chris and Pam, do we have any old business not anticipated 48 hours in advance? No, believe so. OK, what about similar new business? New business. The only thing I can think of is that we are starting on our design guidelines, design standards project. And we will be interested to see if any of the planning board members might be wanting to be part of our working group. And so you might think about that. And we'll reach out to you via email again. But just think about whether you want to do that. And it probably means somewhere between four and eight meetings in the next 18 months. So it's not a heavy lift, but it's important work. OK. Great. All right. Form A, A&R, subdivision applications, anything? No. OK. ZBA applications. I don't have any new ones to report. OK. Upcoming. Oh, I'm sorry, Bruce. I think I read in the paper or was read to me about development in South Amherst that Archipelago were doing, that the zoning board was hearing that I haven't heard of before. Has that not something we should have had a look at? Chris? It's a variance application. And ordinarily, the planning board doesn't comment on various variance applications. But I'll explain it to you. It is an application to reduce the amount of commercial or retail space in a mixed-duce building that Archipelago is proposing for the properties that are currently owned by Hampshire College that surround Atkins Market. And because of the shape of the property, topography, and other aspects, and soils, which those three things are things that you have to have a problem with if you're going to get a variance, they are applying for a variance for this project. They're going to build, I think, 182 or 190, something like that, units. They want to build them in a single building. The alternative is to build them in eight separate smaller buildings, each of which would have 24 apartments. And so they are asking for a variance from the requirement for 30% of the first floor of a mixed-duce building to be commercial or retail, because it's a hardship for them to manage this site. And this site has been thought about as a development site for years. But I think that when it was thought about, it wasn't realized that the soil was contaminated with arsenic as a result of being part of an orchard. So they're going to have to strip the top two feet, I believe, of the soil. Maybe it's one foot. But anyway, they have to strip a certain amount of soil. Also, the site has big wetland on it. So it's a very difficult site to develop. So they are applying for a variance. It will go before the zoning board of appeals tomorrow night. You could tune in as an attendee if you're interested in finding out about it. But the project as a whole will be, if it goes ahead as a mixed-duce building, will be reviewed by the planning board. So the planning board will have review powers over what the building looks like, where the parking goes, and all the other things that you normally have review over. But you're not normally asked to make recommendations on variances. All right. And so how, assuming the variance is granted, how soon would the planning board see it? I think it would be a while, because I don't think they've done very much refined design. They didn't want to go that far if they didn't know they could get a variance. So if they do get the variance, then they'll really put their pencils to the paper and do the design work. And what about the Barry Roberts building behind Hastings? When are we going to see that? You will see that soon, because that has arrived. So that is an upcoming project. Yes. It's an upcoming planning board project. So it's a site plan review. I think there is also an associated special permit having to do with lot coverage. I know what it is. It's a 9.22 special permit. It's already over the lot coverage requirement. They're making the lot coverage smaller. In other words, they're reducing the lot coverage, but they still have to come before you, because it's the change to a non-conformity. So you'll be seeing that relatively soon. March 6th, as a matter of fact. Is that right, Pam? Yeah, March 6th. That's the goal. Yeah. OK. Yo-ha and I, see your hand. Thank you. I was just wondering if we had a date certain for continuing our conversation about University Drive? Not that I know of. No, there hasn't been enough time between the last time we met and having an opportunity to do any work on it. So we have to have that time. But I think probably by the 21st of February, we could bring you something back. So our next meeting. Your next meeting? Yep. OK, good. Karen. I wonder if we could ask Paul Backelman to give us, at least in writing, an update of the ongoing conversations with the university, since he did not like the idea of having a subcommittee to communicate directly with the university. And he was going to be the sole liaison. I think it's important that he really keeps us informed, especially since this University Drive project, we are hoping that we can communicate with them about the other end of it. So maybe we could invite him to brief us. All right. OK, time is 9.38. I guess that takes care of our upcoming SPP, SPR, and SUB applications. Planning Board Committee and Liaison Reports. Bruce, you have anything about PVPC? There's a meeting tomorrow afternoon. So I will have something for the next meeting. OK. I expect. We'll see. All right. I don't have anything new about the CPAC committee. Karen, Design Review Board. No, nothing new. All right. And then Chris, CRC. Nothing new. No. All right. Supportive Chair, I don't think I have anything. I will say that I've given Chris and Pam a new email address for me. So whenever you do the next directory, I'd ask everybody to update their calendar or their contact email address for me. We just did that. I just forwarded it around to everybody with your new email on it. OK, good. OK. I kind of thought that, but I'm still getting emails from some people on my old address. OK. And then Report of Staff, Chris. I don't have a report tonight. Is there any update on your search for another planner? Well, we have received one application. So I hope we'll receive more than that. All right. OK, time is 9.40. Anybody on the board need to give us a last remark, otherwise we can adjourn. All right, we'll see you in two weeks. Take next week off. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Good night, everyone. Exciting to be done with the Fort River School. What a milestone. Great work.