 Okay, Jack, you're good. Okay. So, Amherst media is on. And want to welcome everyone to the Amherst planning board meeting of November 4th. 2020 based on Governor Baker's executive order. Suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. GL 30 a. I'm Jack Jumsick. I'm Jack Jumsick. Chapter 20 and signed Thursday chapter. Excuse me. Thursday, March 12th, 2020. This planning board meeting is being held virtually using the zoom platform. So my name is Jack Jumsick and as a chair of the plan, Amherst planning board. I'm calling this meeting to order. At what six thirty four. I'm calling this meeting to order. I'm calling this meeting to order. I'm calling this meeting to order. Minutes are being taken as normal. I will not take a roll call. Board members, when you hear your name. Called unmute yourself. Answer affirmatively and then. You know, place yourselves back on mute. So Maria child. Yeah. And myself, I'm here. Tom long. Here. Andrew McDougal. McDougal. Here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. Thank you. Board members. If tech. Technical difficulties arise. We may need to pause temporarily to correct the problem. And then continue the meeting. If you do have technical issues, please let Pam know. Discussion may be suspended while the technical issues are addressed. And the minutes will note if this occurred. Please use the raise hand function. To ask a question or make a comment. I will see you raised hand and call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remute yourself. Opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general public comment period. And other appropriate times during the meeting. Please be aware of the board will. Not respond to comments during. Excuse me. Please be aware of the board. Will not respond to comments during the general. Public comment period. That's a little, I'm sorry about that. But if you wish to make a comment during a public comment period, you must join the meeting via zoom. Teleconferencing link. This link is shown on the slide and it can be entered into. You know, a search by. The following link. You know, you have that shown. Great. The link is also listed on the meeting agenda posted on the town website via the calendar listing for the, for this meeting, or you can go to the planning board page and click on the most recent, recent agenda. We should list the zoom link at the top of the page. Please indicate if you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise, raise hand button when public comment is solicited. And. If you have joined the joint, the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your telephone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address yourself and put yourself back into mute when finished. Speaking. Okay. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes and at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds there are a lot of time. Their participation will be disconnected for the meeting. So with that said, I'm going to go back to our agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. What do we have for minutes? What do we have for minutes here? October 21. Okay. I'm pulling those up. Okay. That's in the packet. Janet McGowan made a request for an additional sentence. And maybe Pam can pick that up. Or put that up. Okay. I have, I have them up. Okay. Okay. Janet. I don't know if you have your hand raised or not, but. Oh yeah, I can. So I thought that. The minutes were great on then on page five, they left out. Andrew McDougal question about the site plan review requirement that the lights be turned off at the end of business hours. And so I thought that was kind of important because that's a big issue as we'll see later. And so I just, it, I sent a sentence to Christine. I would, I would read it. I think I can read right now. Do you, is that easier? It's on this three. Okay. I can't. I have some. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I can barely read that. But. Can you zoom in on your end, Pam? I know we can do it on our end, but it's my B is here for you. I think I need like some kind of. I can read it. Yeah, I can read it now. of you permit language at section 11.2417 that all site lighting be extinguished after business hours except for safety and security lights was a rule or a guideline. So that was, I just wanted to put that in because that's gonna be, that seemed important. That may have been my comment, Janet. I'm not sure. Yeah, I'm giving that to you. Oh, you are? I didn't even know. I'm sorry. I'm not speaking clearly. Okay. No, I didn't, because I said Mr. McDougal. Wait, I'm sorry. Is it Tom? Are you thinking? Yeah. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Maybe Andrew raised it also. I think it's yours, Tom. I'm sorry. That was yours, Tom. Okay, sorry. Okay. Does it make sense to be adding that comment and not providing what the answer was? I guess that makes sense because I think I remember Christine Brestrup saying she felt like it was a guideline. And then I said, I thought it sounded mandatory but I wanted to look at it some more. I think that was the just, is that right? Is that what you remember, Doug? I didn't go back and listen. I just had that in my notes. I don't have a clear enough recollection of it and I just think it doesn't make sense in terms of putting it in the minutes, half of it. Let's see. Yeah, there's not really a response. I thought Christine, I thought you said something back and then later on it says that I wanted to ponder the section. I think I said, and this is Chris Brestrup speaking, I think I said that it was something that the planning board needed to look at when they were reviewing the Site Plan review application and I thought it was a guideline but that's something that can be discussed with the building commissioner who actually is here, he's present. So if you wanna discuss that now or if you wanna discuss that when the Emily Dickinson Museum case is being considered, I guess you could do it either time. But I believe I said, I thought it was a criterion that the planning board needed to look at during their review. I felt it was a guideline but it may be more regulatory than that. And then I guess if we add that in and then it explains why I'm pondering later in the minutes. The end, like there's something where it says, Ms. McGowan added she would like to look at other lights downtown and take some time to ponder section 11.2417. So I think if you put Christine's response in that it kind of makes sense. It's like, you don't wanna do a transcript but it's an important issue and definitely we're gonna be looking at that tonight. Okay, so we're just trying to get these minutes approved and I'm a little bit confused with what section we're looking at here. But... Yeah, we're on page five where we're talking about the Emily Dickinson lighting and kind of like what the board was talking about like the conversation that we had. Jack, Mr. Marshall has his hand raised. Okay, Doug. I'd like to make a motion that we table this conversation and have Janet work with Chris and Pam on bringing back a complete proposal to the next meeting. Second. Okay. Any comments? I'll help you out with that as well. Okay, thanks, Tom. So any other comment? Who wants the board? Okay, so based on Doug's motion here, let's begin to do a roll call. So Johanna. Hi. And Andrew. Hi. Tom. Hi. And Maria. Yes, are we approving to postpone the approval of the minutes? Is that what we're doing? Well... What are we doing? We're approving postponing. Yes. Oh, okay, yes. Okay. And then Janet. Yes, yes. Okay. And okay, I apologize. Did I get everybody? Doug. Mr. Marshall. Yes. And then myself, yes. Okay. I think we got us all. Thank you. Great. Okay. You have two people in the attendees who are related to the next topic. So I don't know if Pam wants to... Oh, okay. Is there like a public comment thing? I was gonna say, are you gonna do a public comment first? Excuse me. Public comment first, yeah. Okay. I don't see any raised hands, but I don't see any. Do you? No. Okay. All right. So the public comment period. Okay. So we're good with that. So I'm gonna move Selena Weber, the panelists. And Martha Lyon and Jane Wald. Okay. So we can ask Jane for the public comment period. You have like three minutes. So, Jack, do you wanna read the, what is it? Preamble that read to continue this public hearing. I think Pam had sent it a couple of days ago. Oh, okay. Pam, do you have it up there? No. No, I don't. The preamble for. Preamble for the Emily Dickinson Museum. Oh, I thought we were taking public comment. No, the people who just came in are people who are going to. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. I can do that now. Okay. I was a little confused. Sorry. I have it somewhere. So many files. Okay. I have it here. So, okay. So, 647 in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40A, this public hearing continued from October 21st, 2020, has been duly advertised and noticed. Thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding SBR 2021 2021-05 Emily Dickinson Museum-280 Main Street. Request site plan review approval to install a permeable pedestrian pathway between the two historic homes, including lighting the pathway and to install the lighting to illuminate the facades of both homes and some tree removal. And this is on lot map porting B, parcel 16 and 27 RG zoning district. So are there any board member disclosures? I see none. And the applicant may present at this time. Just came for these things you just mentioned and we had a discussion about it a couple of weeks ago. And there were some things that were still, I guess you wanted to consider some more. And can you hear me okay? Yes. So we're here to answer any more questions that you might have about the pathway, the lighting and the tree removal. So, I mean, I personally did not go by there. I mean, I thought that the historical commission, there's a ticker of approval there. But anyway, Johanna. Thanks, Jack. So what I remember coming out of the last meeting was that a bunch of us were just curious to see what it looked like at night. And today, right before dinner, my kids and I drove by and my reaction was just that it was so tasteful and so beautiful. And because the buildings are on a hill and there's the fence there, it doesn't feel obtrusive at all. It's lovely. And even my 11 year old son said, it's perfect. So my, I don't know if this is jumping the gun but I would like to go ahead kind of just in the spirit of time. And I feel like we spent a lot of time on this last week to go ahead and move to approve this proposal. Okay. I do see by Doug and Andrew, Doug in response to Johanna's. I don't know if you have additional comments or you want to. Yeah, I had a question for the applicant. Should I proceed or not? Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. I did go by and look at the lighting. The lighting on the Dickinson house looked great. One question about the security light that's on a pole behind the second house, whose name I'm blanking on, the Evergreens, I think it is. Would that security light stay on all the time as it does now because it's kind of, kind of harsh and kind of all out by itself. I wondered whether it might go on after, it would go on when the architectural lighting goes off. That's my question. All right. So the plan is to put in new security lighting at the backside of the Evergreens. So the current security lighting wouldn't be operational anymore. And the new security lighting would be? It's at the back. Somehow less jarring. Right. And it's at the back corners of the Evergreens, the two corners pointing down towards the ground. Okay. If I can share my screen, do you want to see where they are? No, that's fine. It sounds like I'm fine with the fact that you're looking at that. Absolutely. Good question, Doug. Is anyone who want a second, Johannes? Well, I'll go ahead and second it. Okay. Further discussion? Chris? Yep. One of the things you were waiting for was to hear from the local historic district commission. And they did meet and issued a certificate of appropriateness, which you have in your packets. And they were recommending, they issued the certificate to approve what was being proposed. So I just wanted to point that out. Okay. So, I think we've gone through like a site visit report because people have gone by. I don't know if there's any other comments from the board. There were questions about whether the board could approve this to be on after business hours. And also a question about whether the board could approve this to not be completely downcast. And so I sent you some information today about the level of restrictions that planning boards can place on non-profit educational institutions. And I quoted from Chapter 40A, section three, which states what kinds of things can be restricted. And it's things like height and mass and setbacks and that type of thing. But it doesn't mention anything about lighting. So I wanted to ask Rob Mora, who was here, the building commissioner, if he would make some comments about the level of regulation that the planning board can put on lighting and in specific with regard to section 11.2417 of the zoning bylaw. I thought he might be able to enlighten us about that if you would recognize him. Rob. Hi. Thank you. Rob Mora, building commissioner. So to respond to Ms. Pressroom's questions, I think there's definitely a limit to the amount of regulation that can apply to these types of uses. But what that 48 section three language doesn't talk about is what cases have over the years told us is that these uses are subject and can be subject to site plan review with reasonable regulation. So I think that it does give you the opportunity to look at lighting and even change it or improve it for a project. But when you look at lighting that might be unreasonably regulated, I would think of something like an athletic field. Where reducing, limiting the height or eliminating lights would really render the use non-existent. And that's what the Dover amendment is intended to prevent. So I think if we're dealing with a use where lighting is more architectural or parking related, serving its purpose, but done in a way that is appropriately found by the board, I think it can be regulated. 11.2417 is pretty interesting because some of those guidelines, they're pretty specific and they almost read more like rules. So they can be a challenge for projects. I know in the zoning board of appeals world, we struggle with this oftentimes because the architectural lighting that is desirable and done tastefully and appropriately sometimes doesn't really work consistently with the language we have. So there's a lot of language in that section. Some of it might be a guideline or some criteria to judge the proposal on and something like it might be more firm of a requirement. Thank you, Rob. Chris Brestrup has her hand raised. Okay. I just want to make one point which is that in the second sentence of 11.2417, there's an exception and it says, except for architectural and then it says, and interior lit signs. And I think there's a word missing there. I think it should say except for architectural lighting and interior lit signs. All exterior site lighting shall be downcast because the last sentence says all site lighting including architectural sign and parking lot lighting. So that indicates to me that there was a word missing from the second sentence. And after the word architectural, there should be the word lighting. So I just wanted to offer that for your consideration because that to me would give a little more flexibility with regard to architectural lighting in this particular situation. Is he Janet sand? So I did a drive around Amherst around seven o'clock on Sunday and I was just looking, as one of the things I noticed when I moved to Amherst, it's extremely dark. And so I started in my part of the town, I went to the Munson Library and there was a door light on a lamp like at the entrance that you could see the entrance. The South congregational church was dark except for two lights by the door. Everything I went by was just lighting the doorways, you know. The Johnson Chapel was an exception. They had a spire, their spire was lit up and there was like a light, I guess these lights were going up and on their clock and flag. The bowl went in had lights at their doorways and the building and sign but between that and the street lights, you can kind of see everything and also it being white. So pretty much everything was not lit up after hours except for lights for entrance ways or you think about safety or security. Amherst works did have a light onto its building. You know, it was kind of like off from the ground pointing up, it's like a flood lamp but it's also has its hours or it's open 24 hours a day, it turns out, although I think right now it's not. And first congregational church had a spotlight from the ground up onto this front. And so everybody was dark. Fine arts building had a hideous blue lights on some facade and maybe it would be an art project but I didn't do the whole look at UMass which obviously is open 24 seven. And so that was sort of my field trip. And so buildings don't have architectural lighting as a rule, except for Johnson Chapel and those exceptions. And so that's one thing. I've been looking at the language for at this section of 11.2417. And when I first read it, when Tom called their attention to it, I was thinking it sounds like to me, you have to turn your lights off when your business hours are over. And for the Emily Dickinson Museum, I don't think that necessarily is when the last guest leaves or visitor leaves, it could be when the staff leaves. And then today I was kind of reading it and I started to see it in a different way that maybe if there's an approved site management plan with business hours, we could follow that which is what we have now that the lights go off at 10. And so I went into this, windshield wiper of legal analysis which made me feel like I wanted to know what did the planning department, the planning board, select board and town meeting mean when they wrote this? Like is there any, sometimes the planning board has commentary was that issue discussed? Were they trying to make sure, when you walk out the door at the end of the day you turn your architectural lights off and everything but safety and security lights. So to me that's like an open question. And then Christine, I didn't really get a chance to look at that last thing about chapter 40A. But I think this Demora's interpretation makes sense to me because it seems like it might be too strict to say you couldn't do lighting. So I sort of leave that to the board. I feel like, and then the other thing is I looked at the Emily Dickinson Museum when it was lit up, it looks beautiful. I love the Emily Dickinson Museum. I think they've been there like seven or eight times. But I don't know if we have the power to say, yeah, you can leave the lights on until 10. And so I'm kind of left in that dilemma. And then I was trying to think of a way to approve this project with some coming back later to see how late the lights can go on. We can do that, look into the legislative history and figure out what did town meeting and the planning board and the select board mean when they said this or the planning department? I don't know when this rule gets written. So that's my physical journey. I think the lighting looks fantastic, but I don't know if we can let you keep the lights on after the last person leaves other than safety lighting. Thank you, Jenna. And Doug. Yeah, I wanted to say that the first congregational church more or less across the street from the Evergreens has facade lighting that is on at least late, if not all night. I believe that the police station also has exterior lighting or else it's well illuminated by street lights. I can't remember. So there are a couple of instances right in this neighborhood where there are already architectural lighting going on. I guess I also was wondering whether my colleague on the board who just spoke is an original list and whether we need to find out what the intent is of every single article in our bylaws. Good question. I mean, who on the board has actually viewed the lighting in the evening? Okay, so, because I have not. Okay, so Maria, Yonah, Doug and Tom, and obviously Janet, okay. Jack, Mr. McDougal has his hand raised as well. Okay, let me put that back on there. All right, Andrew, please. So I did see the lighting. I thought it looked beautiful as well. I do, I mean, I do think Janet's questions are valid. Like do we, if sort of Chris and Rob feel comfortable that this is compliant, I think that's one thing I just would love to have that maybe be stated a little bit more definitively for the minutes. But yeah, I mean, I had some similar concerns around, maybe similar, but as I was contemplating this, are we setting any of the precedents that might impact other buildings that we just have not considered at this point? I'm not sure if that's the case or not. But yeah, I would love to have an answer to Janet's question as well, to really feel comfortable because I would love to be able to approve this. Chris, Rob, not sure if you might feel comfortable. Yeah. Jack. Thank you, Andrew. I guess we could pull in with that, Chris. Well, I did want to go back to my point about potentially a missing word in 11.2417. It says protection of adjacent properties 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. And then it says, except for architectural, what does that mean? And interior lit signs. Are they talking about architectural signs? That doesn't make sense to me. It makes more sense if you say, except for architectural lighting and interior lit signs, all exterior lighting shall be downcast and shall be directed or shielded to eliminate light trespass on it. And then it goes on. So I just think there is a word missing there and that architectural lighting may be an exception from this. In other words, if you have a pole light, it's got to shine down. But if you have a light on the building that's an architectural light, does that have to shine down too? So anyway, I'm just offering that for your consideration. And I wonder what the building commissioner thinks about that interpretation, whether he thinks there might be a word missing or not. And if that makes any difference, because I know that many people believe you have to read the black letter of the law. And even if there is a word missing, you have to go along with whatever the words say. So I'd like to pull Robin to see if he has comment on that. Sure. Yeah, so I do agree with Christine on that. They're definitely, in my opinion, is a word missing there. And we have to oftentimes try to interpret what's there and apply it in a way that makes the most sense. So I would agree with that, but it does sound like to me the question here is about the time when the lights are extinguished, not so much whether or not the lights can be there and be used. And I think that's really up to the board to make that call. I think it's not wrong to have the lights on for extended periods of time. On the other side, it's certainly to regulate their timing. So it really does depend on the board's view of the business hours that are established, extinguishing outside of those business hours established under the plan and how much flexibility the board wants to have with the timing of those lights. Thanks, Rob. Janet? As to Christine's point, it might just be a typo. So if we went back to when this was on the town meeting warrant, it might be that word architectural lighting that phrase might be there. So this could just be a typo of transcription. I guess my question is, do we have the discretion to extend business hours beyond when people are really using the building? And so when I was doing my drive around Amherst, I never had thought about this issue before. And since almost every old, beautiful, iconic building I saw was dark, except for lighting of doorways, which you would do for safety, I wondered, is this a rule? Like when people aren't there, you turn it off. Some buildings had interior lights on, although nobody seemed to be in there. And so I don't know if we had the, what this last sentence means. And so as, I don't know if I'm an originalist, but with a question like this, I would go back and say, what's the legislative history? What was meant at the time? What was the legislative body or the planning department that it's like, where was this issue discussed? And if people are like, oh, ask the question, then the answer was given, or it's in something. And you would just say, okay, this rule is very narrow. You can't have lights on after business hours. Or it could be like, no, if the site management plan has a limit, that could be the limit. So it does seem technical, but I think that on one hand, you look like if it is a rule, it looks like most of the town is complying in maybe not first congregational church, although they may see that as a safety light, but I just, I don't have the answer to that. Like I just kind of went back and forth between interpretations. And I thought, you know, Lord knows that when we decide things in this town about zoning, there's a lot of, you know, information and writings on it and be good to look at. And then maybe we can go back and look at what was on the warrant because, you know, that missing word architectural lighting and interior lit signs might be in there. And it's just a typo in how this was described. I, you know, I kind of, I want to approve this project too. I just want to know to do it the right way following the bylaw. And then the other thing about what Andrew said is we may be changing the rule and we might be just starting to light up all our buildings and hammers, which may be lovely or not. You know, I just, I just want to know what people meant at the time when they approved this. It's very detailed. Thanks, Janet. So somebody must have. Sorry. It's a very detailed, very specific rule. So it seems like there's a lot of thought put into it. It's just this last little sentence that is confusing to me. And I just don't come out on one side or the other. And so then it goes, they go to the intent. It's not originalist. It's kind of the normal way you would interpret any kind of ruler law is to look at the legislative intent if you need it. Thank you. Maria. Let's see. I think that this project is not going to set a precedent for other projects, whether or not we would follow the letter of the law. I think the intent is that this is like a, like that bylaw that Chris Brestrup set a few weeks ago, like Somerville, they make exceptions or a different sort of situation for like monuments, landmarks. And I think that's what this is. It's basically, it's not like a business hours issue. It's literally they're lighting up a landmark for the town. So I'm not as concerned about, you know, meeting the letter of law regarding business hours. I think this is a special case. And I think we're treating it that way because we're allowing, you know, like the actual fixtures are not down, oh, like dark sky compliant, but that the design is. And so I'm not worried about this project being pointed to by other projects saying, well, you did this for the museum. So I feel like, you know, if Mr. Mora and Ms. Brestrup are, you know, I've been saying it's open interpretation. Well, my interpretation is I'm fine with them leaving it on for the appropriate amount of time, like beyond what other buildings in the area do. And I think that when I drove by, it was a lot less clearing than the photos because when you take a photo, it kind of catches the hotspot. So it was very nicely designed. And I know there's a motion on the table and that it's been seconded. So I'm eager to move on that if we can, but that's my perspective. Thank you, Maria. And Doug. Yeah, two things. First of all, I've just received a call from somebody who's trying to get into this meeting as an attendee and they are saying that the Zoom link is not letting them in. So I thought I'd let Pam know that that's at least what apparently five or six people are not being able to get into the meeting. Although I see that there's a bunch of attendees. So it's working for some people. Then at least the way I see the bylaw, it looks to me like we could establish the business hours during which the lighting can be illuminated through approving the site management plan. So I can't remember whether we've received a site management plan to review. But it seems to me, whatever hours are approved in that plan is consistent with the letter of the law. We did get a management plan, I believe, Chris, and I believe I have it. It would be in the packet from the 21st of October. Tom? Yeah, I just wanted to follow up and say that I agree with I agree with Maria as well as Doug and I was the one who raised this and it was more of a question. And I think that it's good for us to dig into these kinds of questions to try to better understand what it is that we are and are not legislating and what it is that the intent was behind this. I think that regardless of what the official intent was, I do agree with Maria that this is not a case that a home depot could use as a precedent or even a bakery for that matter. I think that this is a landmark and this has a unique position in our community and therefore our interpretation is open in that way. And I do agree with Doug that the management plan also allows us to better understand that, to approve that and allow us to move forward with approving this project in haste. Great, so there's not any other questions from the board. We can open this. Oh, Janet? So just an idea is would people eject to finding out more information about why this language is this way? It would just take us two more weeks. And so that's thought. So I don't wanna like, we make decisions that are not what the language says we're sort of becoming legislators. I appreciate that the Emily Dickinson is iconic but there's no exception for iconic buildings in this town and there's lots of historic buildings. In fact, I was thrilled at how many beautiful buildings we had. And so I think we could be opening the door to a lot of requests to light up Amherst which could be a fantastic but if the town meeting didn't want that to happen and we have all this language about dark sky and keeping things low, let's follow the intent in the language but I do see the interpretation in the other direction. That's why I would like to go back and find out was this is Scott. So if people, could we take two weeks to look at that and find out what they're saying and then see if this is a typo leaving out the word lighting in front of architect. I mean, just, I don't know. So I've asked people to consider that. Rob? I just wanna offer a little something here because it does sound to me like it's the hesitation is only about the language and the bylaw, not about the project or the design itself. And, you know, what Christine brushed up brought up earlier with the 48 section three language, it is really appropriate for the board to determine that this section pieces of it are reasonable to regulate and others may not be. So you've received cut sheets on shielded proper lumens angle of positioning and determined that, you know, regulating it to that degree is reasonable but extinguishing at a certain time when the staff leaves or even applying a standard that raises question on, you know, where it comes from is unreasonable to apply in this case. And you can simply move on from that point and just establish that under a nonprofit educational institution application. Jane? Yes, thank you. There's only one comment I'd like to make and that's about the issue of precedence. The Emily Dickinson homestead is literally a national historic landmark and there are, maybe, it's almost unique in Amherst for having that status in case that helps with the question of precedence. Thank you. May I make a comment? Yes, you may, Chris. I wanted to comment on the ability of staff to research what the intent was. And the reason I'm saying that is because section 11.24 is largely based on the special permit criteria, which are section 10.38. And the wording of one of the criteria in 10.38, which is actually 10.393 is essentially the same as 11.2417. So my understanding of this is when site plan review was adopted and I think it was adopted in 1988 or 87, something like that, the town looked back to the criteria that the ZBA used to accept or deny special permits and they pretty much adopted the same language. So we would have to go back to the time when the special permit was adopted by the town. And I don't even know how far that would be that we'd have to go back. So I don't know if there would be planning board reports from that time. Rob may know more about when special permits were first adopted by the state and it could go back into, I'm sure it goes back to at least the 40s because we have special permits here from the 40s and into those records is going to be challenging. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you, Doug. Yeah, since Chris cited 10.393, it does read exactly the same. If there were a missing word, it's in both sections which starts to make me think there's not a missing word and that architectural is modifying the word signs, not lighting. Gotcha. So thank you. I mean, amongst the architects on the board, I appreciate that. I'm a little confused with the extent that we're deliberating this, but I'm trying to get this to a vote. And Janet. So now that we're in another area, is there, for the architects, is there a difference between an architectural sign and an interior lit sign? Is that the interior lit sign like a neon sign versus just like a, what's an architectural sign? Is that something that like a wood sign or? I believe this reference is an architectural lit or interior lit sign. And so architectural should have a hyphen after it, meaning that the lighting is shining up on like an architectural lighting onto the sign or that it is internally illuminated with light bulbs inside of a translucent material from the inside out. So architecture, I don't know why we're dealing with this now, but if it had a hyphen, that would make more sense. So we can rewrite that sometime in the future. That's fine. So I'm confused, not being an architect and this whole lighting thing. So I would hope one of the board members would make a motion to amend or approve the project as proposed and Maria. I thought Johanna and Doug already made the motions and seconded. Are we ready to vote? Okay. Discussions over and we can vote. Okay. I kind of lost track. If that is the case. Is that right Chris? Sam or Chris? Yes, that is right. Okay. So all right. So we are ready to vote, but Jen had had one more comment. Do we have public comment on this or do we have a moment for that? I'm just wondering. Is that, do we normally do that or do we have to do that or we can skip it? No, we do have public comments in the question period. So. So Jack, before you do that, can I just say sort of in response to Doug, receiving a telephone call that people could not get on? I've been in contact with the IT folks. They've checked the links. They're all the same and they are having no problem getting on. So the IT people are suggesting that people try again if they could not get on. So just to say that, if you're gonna do public comment. Okay. I don't see any hands raised at this time, Jack. Okay. Okay, so. Now one has popped up as soon as I said that. Alrighty, who's that? Elizabeth Veerling and allow her to speak. Okay. Hi, Elizabeth. Yes, can you hear me? Yes. Yes, I just wanted to comment that the problem with getting onto the into the meeting was not that the link was not working. The problem was that the link was not available. I could not find it on the town website. And we had received an email from Chris who's been wonderful in keeping us apprised in the neighborhood, but that link was not functional. So that was the problem is that if you go on the town website, you could not find a link for this meeting. Thank you. Interesting. Doug has his hand raised. Well, I don't do you want to respond to that? That Chris, I mean, or Pam, I mean. It's in the meeting posting that I know and also the link, the zoom link to the meeting is also on the agenda. So that's also posted in a few different ways. So yeah. What I T suggested was, was that maybe that they were trying before we went live, but I don't think that that's the case because the link would still be there because when I go back after a posting has been submitted and I see that it's posted and I go to check to make sure everything is there and correct. It's there and visible. Great. So I'm not exactly sure, but I'm really happy that Ms. Birling pointed it out. And so we can, we're still looking into it here. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Doug. And we have another hand in the public comment. Yeah, the, am I correct that the thing we've been talking about for the last half hour is whether we are legislatively allowed to approve a design where some of the lights are not downcast? Is that what we're talking about? That all exterior lighting shall be downcast and shall be directed or shielded to eliminate light trespass onto any street or a budding property. Well, I think all the lighting that we're talking about is directed away from a budding properties and away from streets. It is not all downcast. So I guess, you know, it seems like most of us think this is a decent proposal and I don't know whether we're better off just approving it and having somebody object later, but maybe Janet, maybe you could confirm that's what the problem is. Thank you. Thanks, Doug. Also, Jack, I want to let you know there is another hand in the public comment, yes. Mora? Okay. Mora, do you want to say? Yep. Here you are. Were you live sort of thing? Sure. I'm Mora Keane and I live on Dennis Drive and Amherst, but I have once responding to Elizabeth's comment that the way to get on is to go to the planning board page of the town website and then the agenda is posted there and the link is on the agenda. If you go to the main town website page, it's hard to get on. Thank you. Okay, so at this point, I see no more hands from the public and applicant, I don't know if you have any other responses. No, okay. So final comments and questions from the board for conditions findings, can we discuss? You did receive conditions in your packet. I don't know if you want to look at those or look at the findings. Yeah, I'm bringing those up myself. We also have them on the screen. I can share my screen. So those are in our packet, right? They're here too, Jack, on the screen. Can you see them? Do you want me to read them, Jack, or do you want to read them? If you would, that'd be great. Yeah. All right, so these are draft findings for the Emily Dickinson Museum Site Plan Review 2021-05. So the board found, these are findings that the board needs to make. 11.2400, the project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning by-law and goals of the master plan. So just to let the new members know, what usually happens is we go through these and read them and then if someone has an objection or comment about one of the findings, they raise their hand and ask to be recognized. And I'm gonna be reading this so I won't know if anybody's raising their hand. 11.2401, town amenities and abutting properties will be protected through minimizing detrimental or offensive actions. All of the changes will occur on site with the exception of a tie into the town drainage system via catch basin on Main Street, which the town engineer has reviewed and about which he has not expressed concerns. 11.2402. Chris, I wanna let you know that Janet McGowan has her hand raised. I'm not sure when it popped up. Okay, does Jack wanna recognize Janet? Yes, Janet. So, you know, the first criteria, the project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning by-law and I feel like I can't say yes because of the issue that Tom had raised about whether lighting can go on past business hours and now the issue that Doug has raised whether downcast lighting, I mean, all lighting should be downcast except for those limited exceptions. And so I feel like I know what this section of the by-law actually said. I can't really say, yeah, we're meeting the sections of the by-law when we have two discussions going not clear on what this by-law requires. So I can't say yes to no and then we're gonna start talking about the lighting saying lights will be downcast and shielded or directed, you know? And so I think I kind of just need to know more about what this provision means. And so, you know, you're putting me in a hard spot because I do like the lighting plan. I do like the way it looks. I like the Emily Dickinson Museum. I particularly love the Evergreens but I don't think we can say yes that we're meeting all the provisions of the by-law because the issue is raised. Thanks, Janet. Do you want me to keep reading? Yes. Okay, 11.2402. Oh, I think I just read, oh wait. No, abutting properties will be protected from detrimental side characteristics resulting from the proposed use. Lights will be downcast and or shielded and or directed so it's not to spill onto adjacent properties or streets. So that's really the issue having to do with the lighting's effect on adjacent properties and streets not on the exact reading of 11.2417. Okay, section 11.2403 adequate recreational facilities and open space are available because the property is large and open and will include substantial lawn areas. 2410 unique or important natural historic or scenic features will be protected. The local historic district commission will be has reviewed I have to say has reviewed the proposal and has issued a certificate of appropriateness. I wrote these suggested findings back before the local historic district had made its determination. 11.2411 the project provides adequate methods of refutes disposal as described in the management plan. 11.2412 the project is connected to town sewer and water. No changes are proposed to the sewer and water connections. 11.2413 the proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle the stormwater. Mr. Tempsick and this breast drop Mr. Marshall has his hand raised. Okay. Yeah, I thought there was a new connection to the town sewer. Well, there is a connection to the town drain it drain system but not to the sanitary system. And this 11.2412 relates to the sanitary system. There is another item here that relates to the drainage system. Okay, thank you. So 11.2413 the proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle the stormwater. Underdrains are being added under the proposed pathway and in the lawn area to the south of the proposed pathway. The town engineer has reviewed the proposal and has not expressed any concerns. We did get a subsequent email from him which I think I forwarded to plan with members saying that he was fine with the proposal to connect to the drain system in the street. 11.2414 provision of adequate landscaping has been addressed. The project includes significant existing vegetation that will be maintained and some existing vegetation that will be removed to return the site to the conditions closely resembling those at the time that Emily to constantly lived in the homestead. 11.2415 the soil erosion method control methods are considered adequate to control soil erosion both during and after construction. 11.2416 adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion of various nuisances. And here's the bugaboo 11.2417 adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of lighting because a condition of the permit will require that exterior lighting be downcast and or shielded and or directed so as not to shine onto adjacent properties or streets. New lighting will be directed towards pathways and structures on the site except for the lights that will shine upward to illuminate the facade. All exterior lighting will be downcast and directed or shielded to eliminate light trespass onto any street or abutting property and will eliminate direct or reflected glare perceptible to persons on any street or abutting property. Other than security lighting, site lighting will be operated by timers and will only be on from dusk until 10 p.m. Mr. Demsic and I see Doug saying yes. Yeah, once again. I'm not sure that's quite exactly true because there's those lights at the two pedestrian entrances through the fence. Those shine mostly up but on the fence post. So except for lights that will shine upward to illuminate the facade or fence posts, I would add those words. Good comment. I'm ready. Tom has a comment as well. Just a way to frame that. It could just be architectural elements that include the building and the fence post and other things. So maybe not so specific as fence posts. Chris, can you? I shall agree with that interpretation. No objection. Okay. All right. 11.2418 is not applicable because the property is not located in the flood prone conservancy district. 11.2419 is not applicable because there are no wetlands on or within 100 feet of the property. 11.20, the planning board did not choose to refer to the design principles and standards set forth in sections 3.3040 and 3.2041 of the zoning bylaw because the local historic district commission will undertake a review of the proposal or did undertake a review of the proposal and considered issues of design and issued a certificate of appropriateness. Okay. 11.2421 is not applicable because there are no changes proposed to the setbacks, placement of parking landscaping and entrances and exits. Chris, if it's non-accapable, I think we're good with that. You don't need to read the rest of it. Okay. 11.2422, not applicable. 11.2433, not applicable. 11.2424, screening has been provided as appropriate for storage areas, loading docks, dumpsters, rooftop equipment, utility buildings and similar features. No changes are being proposed regarding screening. 11.2430, the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of the vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site in relation to adjoining ways and properties. No changes are being proposed. 11.2431 is not applicable. 11.2432, the location and design of parking spaces, bicycle racks, drive aisles, loading areas and sidewalks have been provided in the safe and convenient manner. Parking on the site is limited and no changes are being proposed to the parking area. 11.2433 is not applicable. 11.2434 is not applicable. 11.2435 is not applicable. 11.2436, the requirement for submittal of the traffic impact statement. I'm assuming this is true, but when you get to the waivers, you'll be able to tell me will be waived. There's very little traffic expected to enter and leave the site given the limited amount of parking on the site. And 11.2437 is not applicable if you waived the traffic impact statement. The waivers are listed in the development application report. So you might wanna look at that if PAM can bring it up. That was in, I don't know if you have it in this packet, Pam. I do just tell me again where it was development application report right here. But it should be like on the second page or something like that. So go back to the pages. So the waivers are listed here on the second page. They've asked for a waiver of the sign plan and the traffic impact statement. So do you want me to read the proposed conditions, Jack? Jack? I'm just trying to find them myself on the packet here. Wait, wait one minute. Pam has them up on the screen. Okay. Oh, okay. I blew right by them. So please, thank you, Gresh. All right. So these are draft conditions. Development shall be built substantially in accordance with the plan submitted to the planning board and approved on whatever date you approve this. Development shall be managed substantially in accordance with the management plan submitted to the planning board and approved on whatever date you approve it. All exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant to the extent feasible. Exterior lighting shall be downcast, shielded and directed and shall not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. Shielded directional flood lighting that is aimed so that direct glare is not visible from adjacent properties will be permitted for the purpose of lighting building facades with the services of other vertical structures such as fence post elevations and entryways. I think I took some of that wording from the summer regulations. Changes to the project and or substantial changes to any approved site plans or to the exterior of the building should be submitted to the planning board for its 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 demand or significant enough to require modification of the site plan approval. And then one hard copy and then digital copy of final revised plans shall be submitted to the planning board. Thank you so much, Chris. So with that, I'm sorry, I'm looking for a... So is there a motion to close this public hearing and approve with any amendments? You have a motion on the floor, Jack, from Johanna and it was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Okay. Johanna's motion didn't include closing the public hearing or approval of the conditions, the waivers and the findings. So you last time around, you decided as a board that you would take these things separately, that you would close the public hearing with one vote and then you would move on to approval with approval of conditions, waivers and findings as a second vote. Johanna has her hand raised as well. Okay, Johanna. Thank you. I'm sorry if I jumped the gun in terms of process. I don't quite know whether the right thing right now would be for me to withdraw my motion and whether that needs approval, but it seems like that makes the most sense and then take them sequentially. So I withdraw my motion. Yeah, I don't think that needs a vote. Okay. Okay. So again, there's been a lot of discussion on this and I'm just looking, I'm trying to reset here. We've been to this for like 45 minutes or more. So would there be a motion for the applicant that meets the relevant criteria of section 11.24 of the zoning bylaw? And... Excuse me, Jack. I think what you want right now is a motion to close the public hearing. Okay. Need that motion. All right, Janet. I move to close the public hearing. Okay, thank you. And Andrew. I second that motion. Thank you. Okay. Do we need more discussion at this point? Mr. Mark. I think what you need is a motion to approve the project and then to include the conditions and findings and waivers in the approval. Okay. So as presented. Well, Chris, we didn't do a roll call vote. The motion that's on the floor to close the public hearing. So we should do that first, right? Okay. So, Jack, you want to do a roll call vote. Absolutely. Okay. Janet. Yes. All right. And Johanna. Hi. And Andrew. I'm going to think about, no. Yes, I... Wise guy. Doug. And Tom. Hi. And we got Maria. Yes. Did we get everybody? Johanna. Jack. Yes, it's only you, Jack. I'm good. I'm good. Yes? Yes. Yes. I'm flipping between the participant's little frame and then our frame of our, you know, Brady Bunch. Okay. So all right. So we're good with that. Now you need a motion to approve and to approve the conditions and findings and waivers. Okay. So... Yes, you may do the... Your motion, Andrew. I would like to make that motion, please. That's great. A second, Doug? Second. All right. Great. Thank you. And no further discussion, right? Don't see any hands. Okay. So the motion is that the applicant meets the relevant criteria of section 11.24, the zoning bylaw with the conditions and waivers as discussed. Okay. So roll call. All right. I'm going by the pictures this time. So I'm clear. Andrew? Proof. Doug? All right. Tom? Hi. Janet? I'm going to abstain. And Maria? Approve. Johanna? Approve. And I approve. So that's 6-0-1. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Martha and Jane. Selina? And, oh, where I like, there you go. Selina, sorry. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Yeah. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Good night. Thank you. So we have at 8 o'clock, you know, joint hearing with the CRC. And can we, maybe we can take care of the Applebrook? Yes. Quickly. Okay. So we go to old business and, Chris, if you want to present this, I mean, it seems like we've got the appropriate recommendations from the town engineer and from the site development representative there that this could be a go. So... This project has been on the planning boards plate for a long time since 2007. It's been under construction now for a while. The roadway has recently been completed to the extent that the town engineer feels that it has been completed with the exception of some minor work related to looming and seeding for the amount of about $4,000. So the town engineer doesn't have any reason to recommend that you don't release lot seven. So the request is to release lot seven and not to take any other lots under the covenant. And therefore all of the lots in the subdivision will be released and lot seven can be sold to be developed. So that's the request. And we do have a certificate of performance that Pam has available for you to look at. You're going to be asked to sign this if you agree to release lot seven. Pam, can you put that certificate of proof? I'm working on it. I think I sent it to you late this afternoon. Here it is. Can you see it? Yeah. Thank you. And Mr. McDougal has his hand raised. Oh. Whoops, sorry. So Andrew, yes. Yeah, so it was just real quickly. On the map, lot one was highlighted. Is that, was that just like a, the way the map had to get pulled up or did lots seen anything here? The locus map, when we get that from the GIS, it's hard to select numerous items without one of them kind of standing out. So when it stands out, I think on that map is the one that was the original house that was on the property. Yeah. Okay. That's what I figured. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you, Jack. Thank you, Chris. Thank you. So the actual lot that is asked to be released is shown on the A&R plan, which Pam can bring up this plan here. And lot seven is this pork chop shaped lot. So that's the one that they want to be released. And we got an email from Jason Skill saying that was, the road was substantially completed, correct? Yes. Okay. This, oh, Mr. Marshall, put his hand down. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure there was documented evidence that it was finished. Except for that $4,000 worth of loman seeded is finished. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we didn't need to make a site visit to see it ourselves before we certify. I don't think so. I think we can take the word of the town engineer. Yeah. Great. So I see Andrew. Thank you, Jack. Yeah, I've just went to, do we just need a motion then? I mean, to close this all business out, a motion to release a lot. Yes. I believe so. Yeah. To close any public hearing because we don't have a public hearing open. It's just part of the public meeting. So you just need a motion to release lots seven. Okay. I'll make that motion. I'll second it. Great. Thank you. Any discussion? Is that Janet or Johanna? That was Janet. Yeah, no. Okay. Yeah. Any discussion? We can go slow and we can go fast. So it was both and yeah. Okay. So, Andrew, I'm going to start with you. Ropal. Approve. All right. Thank you, Doug. Approve. Great. Tom? Approve. And Maria? Approve. Johanna? Approve. Did I get Janet? No. I'm sorry. Oh, there you are. Very atop. Oh my gosh. All right. Okay. Thank you. All right. And Jack? And Jack? Oh, and me. Yes, approve. So. All right. So I'll be asking you to come in and sign this. I'll try to combine it with something else that you can sign. So you don't have to make, is it just for that? In fact, I might offer to drive to your homes and hopefully it won't be on a rainy day. Thank you. Chris, you go beyond, duty with regard to coming to our houses and that. So I really appreciate that. I know other board members think the same. So we're right at eight o'clock. I know we're gonna talk about the the, the 40 R for, for downtown. That's very conceptual. I can give a report for two minutes until we get to eight o'clock. If you'd like me to do that under new business master implementation. Okay. Yeah. So Doug Marshall and I have been working on filling in the master plan implementation matrix. So far we've spent, let's see, one and a half to three, about five hours on working on it over the course of three days. And we've gotten pretty far but we haven't quite gotten far enough to present the matrix to the planning board yet. So I just wanted to make that report and hopefully we will be able to present the matrix to you soon. Great. Thank you. And thank you, Doug, for taking that on. And so at this point you want to have. That was 16.9 by my computer but we could start asking the CRC people to come in. Yes. Because they should be here in attendee. So I saw a few. Ms. Hanneke, I see Swartz, I see Mr. Ross. Okay. Shalene, I do not see where Mr. Schreiber unless they're here by a different name. You might want to ask Ms. Hanneke to list the names of the people that she expects to attend. Well, we have Evan here, Mandy and Sarah has been promoted over to a panelist. So I don't see Shalene or Steve Schreiber. Yup. I believe they are attending. Let me make sure I don't have any emails from them. So I'm not getting any messages that they're having problems coming in. We have a quorum to be able to start CRC. Shalene has just arrived. Oh, yep, there's Shalene. Okay, let's get her in first and then I will see it. Hi, Shalene, I will call us to order since she's in, we'll keep watch on the attendees to make sure Steve, so that we can get him in when he does join. But since we have a quorum, I will go through my call to order stuff. So seeing a quorum of the Community Resources Committee, I am calling this special meeting of the Community Resources Committee to order that is joint with the planning board at 8.02 PM on November 4th, 2020. Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, MGL Chapter 30A, Section 20, allows us to hold this virtual meeting, special meeting of the Community Resources Committee. I believe the meeting is being recorded for future broadcast and any votes we take will be by roll call at this time. So I'm going to make sure all the committee members can hear us and we can hear you. So I will take roll essentially at this time. Shalene. Here. Evan. Here. Sarah. Here. And Mandy is here. Steve is still not here, I believe. Right? No. So Steve is missing, we will keep track to see. And then at this time, I am going to pass the virtual gavel of the CRC meeting to the chair of the Planning Board, Jack Jemsak, who will open the hearing on behalf of the CRC when he opens it on behalf of the Planning Board too. I think that's all I have to do at this time. Okay, so what do we have? The Zoning By-law Article 14 amended. You have a preamble that Pam sent. Okay, I thought she already stated that, but... So you should probably... What happens with MGL Chapter 40A? Is this the correct? Because I do have a couple of different copies here. It's the one having to do with Article 14. It's a special one that Pam prepared. Okay, let me get to that one. She says... Sorry, I apologize. It would have been all the same email, Jack. Got it. Yes, I have multiple emails here from... We've bombarded you with emails. Pam, can you bring it up on the screen? I actually don't, Chris. Lesson learned. I think I have it if you want me to bring it up. Well, I keep getting the one that Mandy had sent me, and that's not the same... Is it not the same? It's not exactly the same. Okay, here I got it. All right, all right. So in accordance with the provisions of Sections 5 and 11 of Chapter 40A, this joint public hearing of the Amherst Planning Board and the Committee Resources Committee of the Amherst Council been duly advertised and noticed thereof has been posted and mailed to Department of Housing and Communication Development and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and Abutting Towns. This hearing is being held for the purpose of providing an opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding the proposed amendment to the Amherst Zoning By-law. This amendment will be on the agenda for the Town Council at an upcoming meeting. Zoning By-law Article 14 amended. Temporary zoning regarding permitting for certain uses during the COVID-19 emergency and its aftermath. So this article is to see if the town will vote to amend Article 14 of the Zoning By-law. Temporary zoning regarding permitting for certain uses during the COVID-19 emergency and its aftermath by extending the expiration date until December 31st, 2021 and expanding its scope to apply to medical uses and the OP and PRP zoning districts and to apply to the placement of temporary structures in any zoning district for the following uses. Class one and class two, foreign stand, nonprofit educational institution, not-for-profit library or museum, medical or residential institutions, governmental administration building, fire or police station and other government use not specifically listed herein to help businesses to more quickly emerge from the economic disaster created by the COVID-19 pandemic. So any board member disclosures and do we see, I see none. Chris and Rob are to provide a presentation. I think Mr. Moore is gonna provide the presentation and I'm here to answer your questions. Okay. Thank you, Rob Moore, Building Commissioner. The review is a proposed amendment to Article 14. Article 14 was adopted this past summer to allow administrative approval for certain types of use. That was easy to aspire mid-December. So what we have here is a proposal to not only extend it through December 31st, 2021, but to expand it a little bit to include some additional uses that we think, we'd like to be prepared for the possibility of needing either additions or alterations to these types of uses. In the effective uses section of the proposed article, we are adding office park and PRP zoning districts specifically for the option to allow medical office uses to be able to expand if needed, alter the site or anything that might be needed to help accommodate whatever those uses might be dealing with during the pandemic. Beyond that, we are proposing temporary uses and a definition to go along with that. What we saw during this so far is a need for things, permanent temporary structures like tents and storage buildings. And we have talked a lot about things like portable bathrooms and other facilities that possibly could be needed. So we thought we'd include a temporary use provision that allows for things to happen here with the intent that when this is all over that the use service site returns to its original condition, which is how we define that. We included a variety of uses here, class one, class two, farm stands are thought theirs that maybe in the spring, there'll be increased interest in opening or expanding farm stands. Again, this is all to allow things to happen quicker but not really bypassing any of the bylaw requirements. The nonprofit educational institutions, churches, libraries and governmental associated uses are included in the list for possible temporary needs. The rest of the bylaw will remain the same as proposed and so far, just a little bit of background. I've used a few times one permit addition or alteration and a couple that were temporary for outside use for a personal care establishment. There's quite a bit of talking and planning going on for possible use of this bylaw and certainly an extension to the end of next year would give confidence to a business owner to move ahead with a proposal. Thank you, Rob. So any questions from Planning Board or the CRC on this? I see Andrew. Thanks, Jack. And thanks for the presentation, Rob. I have a question related to the memo from Paul. I'm sorry, from you and Chris to Paul. That talks, I just wanted to make sure I understood this correctly. That talks about a structure going into the public way. I can just read this paragraph, if that makes sense. It says, if the use is in the public way, sidewalk, roadway, parking lot, it will be likely to expire at the end of the authorization period for Article 14. If it is a newly constructed patio, it would be unfair to expect a business to pay for the construction of a permanent structure and not know if they could continue to use it next year. They would want to know that the approval is permanent. Therefore, such constructions will generally deemed to be permanent. The last sentence saying generally deemed to be permanent does that indicate like that structure would go beyond the December 31st, 2021 timeline? Rob, do you want to answer that? Yeah, yes. So one thing I just want to just bring to your attention is that the deadline that we're proposing is December 31st, 2021, is the deadline to actually grant the approval. So it doesn't necessarily mean everything stops at that date. It could, but it doesn't have to be that way. So up until that point, we can consider granting an administrative approval or something that could go on for some period of time or permanently. So we are open to, for these types of uses listed and effective uses in the first section, we are open to both temporary solutions to deal with whatever limitations around occupancy or HVAC systems or whatever else might be going on. And we're seeing mostly, we had seen mostly outdoor dining for that purpose, but we are also not discouraging businesses from thinking about maybe long-term permanent use for outdoor dining or possibly other types of extensions or alterations and be open to hearing that under administrative approval where it would be permanent rather than given a deadline to be removed or turned back to its original condition. Jack, may I add to that? Yes, Chris. I think there is also a question that Mr. McDougal raised about the difference between the right of way and private property. The intention is that permanent structures or installations would only occur on private property and any installation that would occur in the public way is considered to be temporary because that is land owned by the public and things need to go back to the way they were. That is exactly what I meant. Thank you for clarifying and thanks, Jack. Thank you. Any other, I don't see any other hands from the CRC or planning board. Whoop, Janet. Thank you, Allen. I have a question for Mr. Mora. So you have a, so an applicant puts in an application and then you have 10 business days to approve it. How has that worked out for you? Because it looks like you must have had quite a busy summer. And I asked that, so, and that's one question. The second question is, now that we're in a slower period of the winter, would it be useful to you to have more time to consider things, especially since their permanent structures are going in? I'm having a little trouble hearing you. I don't know the quality. Is anyone else having trouble hearing Rob? Like, it's not great, it's not quality. I hear him, but his video is not matching with his voice, but... Okay, maybe that's... Yeah, okay. Is everybody else hearing Rob? Yes. Okay. Okay, so yeah, it is a great aggressive timeline to review an application, but it's from a complete application. So just within our land use permit applications, we split the time with an applicant, getting their application is deemed complete. We generally, or in this case, I wrote this point, know a lot about the proposal and probably be really comfortable with it. And the 10 days might be used to finalize any review and questions from Ms. Breastrop or any other official that we need to reach out to or a final comment before grad approval. So 10 days have been doable. It is aggressive and it's most of the time beforehand that it takes more time beforehand to prepare for an application to be deemed complete. So you're saying, I had trouble hearing you, so you're saying that it's 10 days from a complete application, but people are coming in and talking to you about how to fill it out and get everything together and that gives you more time. Is that what you're saying? Yes, but we're also talking about the project itself. So we're really working and finalizing the documents from the design during that period to complete the application. So there's often, I'm working with people right now that I expect to have an application for under Article 14 sometime in the future. So there's quite a bit of time, sometimes the events that go by working with designers and preparing an application and insurance in a condition that could be considered for approval. Okay. Thanks, Janet. I also wanted to make a motion about involving the public or a butters in some kind of notification. And so I've sent in the language and I don't know if Pam, can you pull that up or should I just read it? I'm having actually, as usual, a little trouble of reading my own handwriting. So I'd like to make a motion to add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph of starting application process. And then I'm having trouble seeing this. You just shrink it a little. Applicant shall prominently place notice of its application with contact information for the building inspector and planning director at the main entrance of the building on our front window. I can't see actually, let me get rid of you people. Front window, door or siding. So I think if I get a second then I can speak to the motion. Yeah, I'm just, what's the other public notification that we have going for this? Because I'm wondering about signage and how effective that is. There's no public notification because we talked about this the last time and there was none. Okay, so. It's an expedited process and there's no public notification. No public, okay. So a sign in a window, is that going to be, is that gonna make a difference I guess is a question. I see Mandy. I just have a process question. We're in the public hearing stage and normally at least in council public hearings the motions for things like that would happen after the hearing closes and we've heard from the public and all. I don't know when motions like that happen in typical planning board hearings, whether it's done during the hearing or whether it's done after the hearing. Good point. I can wait. Yeah, thank you Mandy. What was that? I withdraw my motion until later. Okay. Okay, getting back to my, so any other further questions from the board or CRC on this and I see none and then we can accept public comments at this point. All speakers should ask to be recognized by the chair, myself and should be identified themselves by the name and street address. All questions, comments should be directed to the chair. So what do we have here? We ask them to give their address. Name and address. Yes. Name and address, yes. Okay. Yes, yes. Okay. And we have Pam. Yep. Pam Rooney. Yes. Hello, thank you. I had a question to either Rob Mora or to Chris Brestrup. At what point would a request for permanency come before the planning board? At what point does it move from Rob's approval to a more official review of something that is being requested for a permanent structure? Thank you. Rob, do you want to answer that? Yes. Sure, for these uses that are identified in article 14, that would occur after the expiration date, December 31st, 2021. I think may I make a comment? Yes, Chris. I think what Ms. Rooney is asking is for things that are approved during this time period, is there a time after the time period is over that these things that are approved between now and December 31st of 2021, is there a time when those things would have to come back to the planning board or the zoning board of appeals? And my understanding is that no, the things that are approved during this time period, if they're considered to be permanent would be then considered to be permanent. And their approval would be would be recorded in our records here in town hall. And there wouldn't be a requirement for them to go back to the zoning board or the planning board. I think that's what Ms. Rooney was asking. Absolutely. So, Rob, do you have anything for the dad? Okay, Pam, do you have anything? No, thank you, that answered my question. Okay. It appears that there are a number of permissions that can be granted during this time period that may or may not be wonderful additions to the town, but because of the need to move them quickly through the system, we hope that Mr. Mora would direct them to the attention of the planning board if they come across his desk and he feels that they do need a little more in-depth review, thanks. Great, thank you. And I, oh, we have, all right. It's Pam. Pam's hand is. Is it still up? Could be down, right? Okay. And then the proponent, okay. So I think we've heard from Rob and Chris in terms of the proponents response and final comments, questions. Okay. So any motion to close the hearing and approve the amendment? It would just be a motion to close the hearing. Okay. All right. Any motion to close the hearing? Andrew. Make that motion. All right, second. Johanna. Yep, I'll second. Great. And any discussion? Is I'm going to, I'm just going to note as chair of CRC that this is going to be a joint motion that we'll do all 12 or there's 11 of us as a roll call. Okay. Since it's a joint hearing, it makes sense to be one motion to close. Okay. And so we're looping you and just want to make sure that's the CRC members have a, you know, opportunity to comment and I see none. Okay. So we can do a roll call. Andrew. Prove. Doug. Hi. Tom. Hi. Janet. Hi. Maria. Prove. Johanna. Hi. And myself approve. Mandy. Yes. And Evan. Yes. Sarah. Yes. And Shalini. Yes. Thank you. So that looks to be seven. Oh, on the planning board and four, zero for the CRC. And Mandy, what do we, anything else that you, I think now we move to general discussion and that would be, my guess is the time for Janet's motion and any other discussion. Okay. So Janet. So I'd like to move. If we can put the motion back up at the end of. The first paragraph of application process, the following language, and I'm trying to get it bigger. Applicant shall promise, she'll prominently place, I'm sorry to be, I'm getting my screen is jumping around. Applicant shall prominently place notice of its application with contact information for the building inspector and planning director at the main entrance of the building on a front window door, front door or sighting. And if I have a second, I'll speak to that. Anybody want to second them? So motion Andrew. I'll second the motion. Okay. Thank you. So when this article first came around, I was very concerned about the fact that a butters, not just property owners within 300 feet, but small businesses within 300 feet and residents because a lot of the buildings might have people living upstairs would have no notice that anything was happening. They wouldn't know that there was outdoor seating coming in or sidewalks are being moved or tents put up. And they just would have no idea what's coming at them and they would have no way of participating in the decision making process, which is not our normal. And that concern did not prevail. And article 14 was passed. And I think that we're in different times. Like I think in the summer, the urgency was there to get tents up and seating in and tables put out and the duty barriers and everything to, because the summer is a short time. I think now that we're into the winter and there's gonna be obviously less need or people applying for outdoor seating or tents that we, it's still urgent, but it's not as urgent. And I think we have time to reflect. And at this point, the residents, small businesses nearby and abutting landowners have no input into the process. And it could lead to permanent outdoor structures and dining forever. And so I think that people, you know, the abutters, people nearby may have ideas, concerns, issues, make a correct request for a change. There might be accessibility issues. People and walkers might have need more space than we think. I trust the building commissioner and Christine Brestup to consider everything they can think of, but I also know that being, you know, hearing other people's views and it is important. So I think we have the time now to add a change. People who could be affected by this, you know, building permit and the change don't know what is happening, when it will happen and who to contact. And our town hall is closed and it's not obvious to anybody how to kind of, you know, that they should go talk to Christine Brestup or Rob Mora. So I think, and so I tried to draft the simplest way to notify people that would involve no effort by the town staff other than maybe preparing, you know, a one page thing of saying notice. And this idea of a notice was suggested by Stephen Triber at a CRC meeting. And it reminded me that twice in my travels in the last years, I've seen in Florida and also in Colorado, you drive by a house or a lot. And there's this big sign that says notice, you know, this building, you know, has applied for X permit and will be here on this day and they give you a little number at the bottom. And I thought, okay, putting a notice that this is coming to this area, this change has been requested by this company or owner, people walking by, walking into the building will see it and they will know who to contact if they have concerns. So I tried to do the simplest thing, the shortest thing I try to work inside the 10 day timeline. And so that's the purpose of the motion is to keep the public involved, that people affected by changes have some way to participate and comment on them and maybe shape the final decision. And that's my pitch. And I hope you guys can agree with me. Thanks, Janet. Johanna. Janet, I just really appreciate your digging into the details here. And I think to me, this seems like not very prohibitive or arduous for the applicant. And, you know, if you're a neighbor and you see the sign, you might notice or somebody might flag it for you. And so I think this is in this, I think it's in the spirit of community engagement and expedited review that's critical right now. Those are my thoughts. Thank you, Mandy. I know this is going to be a planning board vote and then, so CRC won't have a chance to really vote on this until we get the planning board recommendation, but I thought I'd put my concerns out there right now because maybe that can be fixed before it gets voted on. My main concern is there's no timeline for both when the notice needs placed and how long it needs to stay up there. And so I think that would be, in some sense, a quote easy fix to the language, but it just says prominently placed notice of its application at the main entrance of the building, but it doesn't say when that notice has to go up and it doesn't say how long that notice has to be there. And so I would ask the planning board consider those concerns as it looks at this language. Thanks. Thank you, Mandy. I forgot to start that sentence with the time of its application. And I don't know if it's going to be a complete application. I assumed your application was your application. So you're applying to the building commissioner and the planning department and you just put notice on your window. And I don't think it would stay forever. It seems logical you would just take it down after the permit was issued. I tried not to put too many, like when I was thinking about this, I was doing all these kind of lawyerly like this, that, and I thought, just put it up, put it up and you're right. When do you have to put it up? And it's when you at the time of your application on the day of your application, and that would actually be more clear. So I appreciate that idea. Okay, I would like to call on Rob, but Shalini has brand up. So Shalini please. I just wanted to highlight the fact that this was a concern that was brought up earlier and for those of you who didn't attend the CRC meeting, I had asked Rob Marra the question of how many complaints did he hear in this process? Because this was a trial run of some sort and we had an opportunity to see what would kind of concerns would come up from a butters and so forth. And he talked about only one situation where it came up and it was then they responded to it in a way that it worked out for everyone. So I just wanted to highlight that. And the second thing is I think this seems like a reasonable thing to let people know and it's not slowing down the process because my main concern earlier was that time is of essence even though to us it may seem that it's winter and there's no such urgency, but I know that being a small business and when there is money invested and so forth, there are all kinds of emergencies that we may not understand. So helping them in any way psychologically, structurally, whatever way we can support, I think it's important, but this seems like it's not going to be getting in the way of anyway. And I just wanted to hear maybe from Rob and Chris if what they have more experience in working with the local businesses and if any concerns they have about putting an orders like this. Thank you, Shalini. Maria, before we hear from Chris and Rob, but you're muted, Maria. Oh, sorry. I was going to ask exactly what Shalini asked, which is what do Chris and Rob think of the work involved in this? Okay, but I just, before Chris and Rob speak, I do, I feel like the word emergency in there kind of elevates this into something that is, again, temporary and as of a higher order where the notifications, I think I saw some communications from Rob that it's not necessitated because it's a, you know, at a different level, it's great that someone has a sign in there, but I'm wondering like emergency, how does notification work when you have an emergency with COVID related things? So Chris. I would say that it's going to be some work for us to help applicants to figure out what to put in their notice because, you know, people who are applying for these things, some of them don't even speak English. So we'll probably have to work with them to come up with appropriate wording for their notice. And one thing Rob brought up to me, which may have been addressed by the fact that he works with applicants ahead of time before they actually submit their application. The fact is that when people come to us, they have an idea of what they wanna do, but it's not necessarily what they get approved for in the end and it could change substantially. Even the location of it could change. So whatever the notice says may not actually reflect clearly what is eventually permitted. And Rob may have more ability to talk about this because he's worked with the applicants and I've really been kind of at arm's length from this process. Rob. Yeah, I think, you know, a lot does happen from when we, you know, the initial contact with the applicant, but oftentimes that's not the moment when we're receiving an application. I think, you know, there's a couple of good things about this discussion, I think that will help establishing that, you know, it'd be at the time of the application is helpful to the language that I saw earlier. I think the expectation would be more that this is a notice, is a courtesy to the abutters, but maybe not so much. It may not be an opportunity for an abutter to have a part in the decision-making process. It may, but I don't think that's a guarantee depending on the timing and our availability. If you did decide to move forward with this, I think I would propose that we would, and this isn't part of the bylaw material, but I think we would put a template notice in the application package, where it's a very simple fill in this information and a brief description of the project. I think it can be very simple. And I would probably have like a checkbox on the application that this has been posted and maybe even ask for a date that it's been posted just so we can confirm it, but probably not go much further than that. So I think it's nicely done as a simple solution. If the notice piece of it is desirable, and I'm not really worried about the time that it might, you know, how much time it would affect us and done in this way. Okay. Thank you, Rob. Any other comment from the planning board or the CRC on this, Johanna? Sorry, I can't remember. Was it Shalini who said that to date with all the different kind of temporary structures and emergency requests, there's been one instance where there's been a concern? Or yeah, and then that was worked out because I'm just trying to figure out, I don't know, are we inventing a problem that doesn't exist? I think to some extent we'd be heading off problems by just making sure that this is in place, but I'm, you know, kind of, I understand the emergency nature and I'm just trying to, yeah. I still think it doesn't strike me as super arduous, but I'd love to know, you know, whether we're coming up with a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Should Shalini speak to that? No, so Mr. Moore raised his hand as well. Yeah, I think Rob is the person to answer that. Okay, Rob, all right, Rob. I think she was referencing a comment I may have made in a prior meeting when asked about what type of complaints, we should receive during all this time with, you know, everything we've done with moving dining out onto the public way, private property expansions of outdoor activities and a couple of the more permanent installations. And I've only received one complaint. Most of our feedback is very positive. I mean, we are pretty actively out there trying to help all the businesses anyway we can and you can see that with what's been done with the dining and the heaters and all of that. So we're pretty visible out there helping. So we haven't, I haven't heard a lot of complaints. The one complaint I did receive that I mentioned during that meeting was when we set the Jersey Barriers and took away part of the bike lane on South Pleasant Street. And that was a complaint I received. And now, as you probably have seen that that's been corrected with somebody striping and reestablishing the bike lane. But we are a complaint response type of department. That's how we were designed for more for residential rental property type situations. So anyone who calls does get a response whether it's through COVID hotline or directly to our office, all the complaints and concerns get a very immediate response usually within a short period of time within the same day. Thank you. And Chris. I just wanted to say that now that Rob Mora has made the suggestion of having a template in the application packet and having the applicant fill it out and posting and taking responsibility for posting it. That means that the planning department doesn't have responsibility for that. And that makes me feel better about this recommendation or the suggestion of Janet's. Thank you, Chris. Yonah, is your hand still up or is that an artifact? Artifact. Okay. Janet. So I know that the inspectional services is super responsive to complaints. My concern is that nobody would know how to get to you or that there's a problem. And so I actually like most of the changes are made too but I also think that if, say me, somebody in the second or third floor above a restaurant may have trouble hearing their client if they're talking to their clients and that might become annoying noise. And you might just kind of sit with it but it might be annoying and you don't say anything. And so I'm not trying to drive complaints to the town but I think that people, I can, it's hard to figure out how to connect with anybody. And here we're just giving people notice this is coming, here's the people you can talk to, if you have concerns, you know, that kind of thing. And so I mean, we're in a really hard time to connect. Like I've been wanting to return a book to Christine and I'm trying to think of like, oh, when I'm gonna wait till I have to sign a decision to take, I don't wanna take up her time. Most people don't even know who to talk to in the town and it's really hard to do that. And so I think it'd be amazing if there's only one person that's been hurtful with change and you know, but I think that there are probably more people out there or people who'd preferred to have been a little more input in the process and this change could have helped me but I'm not complaining now kind of thing. So I'm not trying to drive complaints to you but I think that people just don't really know how to get to the government right now. I guess just given again, this is like amendment driven by an emergency situation. I would think some people would, you know, in that situation Janet, that they would have some empathy that you know, this is what this is all about. And I would think there'd be some tolerance for such clients that you mentioned, but that's just me. Andrew. Thanks, Jack. I think it's a great suggestion. I agree with what Rob laid out in terms of this being an opportunity for really kind of having some more visibility. When you think about the folks who are putting these signs up, I mean, they're asking for the seating. Many of these folks may be like just barely hanging onto their business, right? So like if I'm going through town and if I see that sign, I might, you know, maybe I'm more compelled to go there, right? If I'm trying to make a choice of where to eat and I see that somebody is really suffering then even if it's a 10 day head start, it's probably still a great idea. So I really, I think this is a wonderful proposal just for that visibility, if nothing else. Thank you. Mandy. Yeah, I was just gonna say, I think it's good. I would like to see some language added like at the time of application and for no less than 10 days or something because I know Rob has 10 days to approve it to the beginning of that phrase. But I think we need to also remember that part of the concern for a lack of notice that this bylaw has right now is that these aren't only just temporary grants sometimes. And we heard it from the public commenter during the hearing, we've heard it as a lot of questions both in town council and in these hearings and these discussions that some of these grants can be permanent grants that will not show up back to the planning board or the ZBA for any public review. And so I think the solution Janet has found to that concern is a good one. So Mandy, so right now it reads applicant shall permanently place notice of its application and you mentioned. You know, I'm not sure I can make a motion to amend because this is really going to be a planning board vote. But if I could, it would be something like adding the phrase to the beginning of that sentence adding the phrase at the time of application and for no less than 10 days. Okay, thank you. Did you get that Chris, Pam? All right, so. Janet want to amend her motion to include that. Janet? Yes, I do. Okay. I'd like to move to amend by adding the phrase at the time of its application and for no less than 10 days comma and then just go. Thank you. I second the motion. This is Johanna. Great. Thank you, Johanna. Any other discussion? And do we need to public comment on this point? It's like there isn't any. Once the hearing closes, public comment isn't necessary. Okay, sorry. Okay, so we can do roll call at this point. And this is just the planning board, correct? Yes. So Andrew? Approve. Doug? Hi. Tom? Hi. Janet? Hi. Maria? Yes. And myself, yes. So that is 7-0 in approval for the amendment with Janet's motion. Johanna? What? Where's Johanna? Oh, way down there. You're below everybody else. I'm sorry. No problem. It's next thing, the Brady Bunch, you know. All right, so sorry. My apologies, Johanna. I approve. Okay. All right. Okay, so good. And Mandy? So I guess the question is, was that an approval of the motion to amend the amendment? Or was that an approval of the whole phrase? Number one. I think approval the whole phrase and the amendment. Okay. And so I think your next order of business is to move to recommend the council amend that motion. I see. Okay. So do we have a motion? I mean, I'll move. Do you want me to try and read a potential motion? Oh, please. Okay. Even though I'm not on the planning board, someone else is gonna have to make it. It's moved to recommend the town council amend zoning bylaw article. Hold on, let me find the right one. Article 14 temporary zoning. As shown in the document named, I'm not sure what the name of the document is. I have those, Mandy, if you wanna hold on one sec. Just add it into the motion. And revised on November 4th, 2020 to make it effective until December 31, 2021 add office park and professional research park zoning districts as permitted zoning districts, medical uses as affected uses, add a definition of temporary use, add a notice provision and add several uses to the affected uses for temporary use. And further the planning board states in accordance with charter section 9.8G that these amendments are not inconsistent with the master plan. Can you send that language to Pam and me? Pam's got it up on the screen. It's option one. The only thing I added was the phrase and revised on 11, 4, 2020. Okay. After the name of the document because it was just revised tonight. So it's the option one motion with that extra phrase. Thank you. Oh, and I added the and add a notice provision too. So Pam, I will send you the final. That would be great. We need to write a memo to the town council that I believe is due no later than Friday. So we need to button this up pretty quickly. So whatever help you can give us to make our work go smoothly and more easily would be helpful. And I see Mr. Marshall has his hand raised. Yes, Doug. Yeah, I think you need somebody from the planning board to make the motion that Mandy just read. So I'm offering to make that motion. Great. Any, anyone want to second that, Tom? I'll second. Okay. So I can do a roll call or discussion. I see none. Okay. So Andrew. Ruth. Doug. Right. Um, Janet. And oh my God, the names are bouncing around here. So I apologize. Well, I'm going to hit you, Hannah, because I skipped here. So you're on a proof, Maria. Janet, did I get you? Yes. Okay. You're good. Tom long. Tom. All right. I approve. And myself approve. That's seven zero. And I think now it's the CRC's turn. There you go. All right. So I am going to look for a motion from a CRC member to recommend the town council amend zoning by law article 14 temporary zoning as shown in the document named article 14 temporary zoning amended temporary zoning regarding permitting for certain uses during the COVID-19 emergency in its aftermath and revised on 11 for 2020 to make it effective until December 31, 2021 at office park and professional research park zoning districts has permitted zoning districts medical uses as affected uses at a definition of temporary use at a notice provision and add several uses to the affected uses for temporary uses. Is there a motion from a CRC member? Don't move. Evan. Evan moves. Is there a second? Sarah second. Sarah seconds. Is there any further discussion? Shalini. Mandy Joe, can you clarify whether this, I mean, I'm sorry I missed the first part. Did it include the notice thing change? Yes, it does. It does. It does because the planning board amended that document before it made its recommendation. Okay. And then my follow up question is can we still, we'll still count the first reading when we meet or is this gonna delay it in any way? So it, the amendment will not delay the first reading or the second reading because we're allowed to amend things even after they've been posted on the bulletin board. The first reading will still happen on this coming Monday, the, is that the ninth? I think that's the ninth. And then the second reading on the 16th. Thank you. And I will, if it gets amended, I will let Athena know tonight to update the bulletin board. Thank you. Also, can I just make a statement? It's not related to this, but it was in the planning board, someone said that the zoom link was not available. It was uneasily available to attend the planning board meeting. And I just wanted to clarify that that's there on the calendar, on the home page of Amherstown, the calendar. And if you click on the planning board meeting on the calendar itself, there's a link to the zoom meeting. So I'm just clarifying because people could not find the access to the zoom link. Just talking about accessibility. Thank you, Shalene. You're welcome. Any other discussion? Dean Nunn, we will come to a vote. It will be by roll call. We're going to start, I think I'm the next in order. So Mandy is a yes. Evan. Yes. Sarah. Yes. And Shalene. Yes. That is unanimous with one absent. So I think now I get to go to the rest of my meeting, which is items not anticipated by the chair. I don't have any if I don't see any hands for CRC members to have any. And so I, before I close, I want to thank Rob and Chris and the planning board for hosting CRC tonight for the joint hearing and getting us through it and the motions. Again, the first reading at town council will be this coming Monday, the ninth. The meeting starts at 6 30. I don't know when we will get to the actual discussion of this bylaw. That probably won't happen until at least 7 30 or later. And then the second reading, if all goes well, we'll be the 16th. And that would also be when a vote occurs. And with that, Chris, did you want to say something before I join the meeting? I just want to affirm that Mandy Joe will send the new wording of the amendment article 14 to Athena and that I won't be doing that. Mandy Joe is going to do that. I will do that tonight once the meeting is finished. I'll copy you, Chris and Pam and Rob on that so that you guys all have it. But I will send and I will send the motion language to Pam and you, Chris. Thanks. And with that, thank you, planning board. We're gonna, I'm gonna adjourn the CRC portion of the meeting. Thank you, Mandy. At nine o'clock. And the rest of CRC. Hi. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Good night. So, Pam, I don't know if you want to wipe that out. Article 14. Good, good. There you go. All right. So now what did we skip? All right, so we got Emily, we got article 14 done and now we're looking at Applebrook plus your subdivision. We did that, Jack. We did? Yes. We did. Okay. Well, we fit that in. That's right. So now 40R and we have, it's nine o'clock. We've been at two and a half hours in and this is, this is a broad subject that I'm not sure how much we want to get into this. And then also we have the master plan implementation as new business. I'm open to suggestions in terms of, you know, directing the last, what I would hope the last half hour of this meeting. If yes, Doug. We did the master plan implementation update because Chris gave her update on the work that she and I are doing on the spreadsheet. Right. Oh, that was brief. All right. That was very brief. Oh, nothing more. Okay. We'll put that on the agenda for the next meeting so you can have more of a discussion about that if you want to. Okay. All right. So I guess that brings us to 40R and that is, that is, you know, just a topic that we're trying to follow up with regard to the last forum. There was some interest. And then who do we have in the attendees? Because I know we talked about Rob Crowner and. Yeah. They unfortunately have left. Yeah. I think I guess I would suggest we push that. I mean, this is the meeting again, two and a half hours in and 40R is, you know, kind of conceptual on nature. I don't really want to take that on right now, but I hopefully, you know, if anyone has any questions about it. Mr. Marshall has his hand raised. Okay. He has her hand raised. All right. Yes. So go ahead, Doug. Yeah. I wanted to ask when Chris thinks the consultants might have their final report with the revised bylaw that they were, that they had drafted back in May so that we have a more coherent product to talk about rather than, you know, we have the bylaw that was done back in May and then we have the presentation that was done in October. But, you know, that presentation doesn't seem to reflect everything that some of Rob Crowner's responses said would be fixed. So I think it'd be great to just have a single consolidated coherent product for us to talk about. I don't know when the consultants are planning to have the work done, but I think it's going to be very soon because I believe they worked on it over the weekend and they've been working on it this week. And they, you know, took into account Janet McGowan's comments and they took into account Rob Crowner's comments following that. So I would just, I don't really know when they're going to have it, but I would assume that it's within a few weeks. We could put it on an agenda for November 18th, which is the next planning board agenda. The only thing I have for that agenda so far is a new building that's proposed on the UMass campus for the Newman Center. And they're required to come and show us drawings for what they're proposing. There's no permit process because it's within the ED zoning district. So you could have a discussion about 40R that night, which by that time you may in fact have a product. So do you want me to put it on the agenda for that night? Yeah, please. And I want to thank Janet for her comments, very detailed, per usual. Thank you, Janet. And, you know, again, we asked Rob to chime in and this is all good. It's all for betterment of the town and our vision for downtown. And I just, you know, I just, I'm just thinking that we're confronted with so many things with COVID and businesses closing and then, you know, housing issues and we get information from, you know, the school committee or school administrator, Mike Morris, that, you know, our student population is going below a certain threshold that further harms the town's ability to finance our existing school system, which so many people move to the area to, you know, participate in and, you know, so I'm very concerned about what's going to happen, you know, within the next, you know, months and year from what we've seen. So this 40-R thing will be a very good discussion for us to have amongst the board. And with that said... I would, Jack, just like for Ryan, if you guys read Rob's comments, sorry for speaking out of order, but hopefully we don't have any five-story gas stations or nuclear power plants or whatever he had all out in there. Let's, let's... Only in your backyard, Andrew. That's it. So we were going to talk about Bruce Carson's letter if we're finished talking about 40-R for now. Okay. I'm bringing up, let me bring up the agenda. I'm sorry. I'm kind of trying to go digital. I know I have paper in front of me, but give me one second. Okay. To bring it to the attention of the board. Yes. Send the letter to the board and when the board is considering owning amendments, the board may wish to consider the things that Bruce Carson mentioned in his letter. Oops. There are things that came out of a project that's being proposed at the corner of Strong Street and East Pleasant. And it's a proposal to create a converted dwelling out of an existing garage building. And many residents have expressed concern about it. It's going before the zoning board of appeals, but this letter is specifically about the issue of resident manager. And that topic isn't really addressed in the zoning by-law. So it isn't well, it isn't well addressed in the zoning by-law. So Mr. Carson is bringing this to the planning board's attention in hopes that the planning board will consider more clear language with regard to what exactly is meant by a resident manager with regard to some of these rental units that are non-owner occupied. And you can certainly discuss this tonight if you want to, but we just wanted to bring it to your attention tonight. And then if you would like, we can put it on the agenda for a future meeting. Yeah, I mean, this really brings up a lot in terms of like, you know, planning board making recommendations to the town council to, with regard to prequel issues, you know, within the town, this is a great example that I'd like for us to wrestle with a little bit. And I'd like to end this meeting, you know, in 20 minutes. So we have 10 minutes of discussion maybe before we go through the, our committee, you know, reports. But this is the sort of thing that we're talking about in terms of planning board being able to discuss and be, you know, in lieu of not having the zoning subcommittee, this is, I think will be real, you know, productive for us to advance. And, you know, personally, I, you know, my daughter is moving 45 minutes away because you can't find housing with her, you know, husband and twins, you know, in the Amherst area, which, you know, just brings the right home to me that, you know, we have issues. And those issues are because, you know, housing and rental housing going to student, you know, population that, then that whole ball of wax. So, Andrew. Yeah, I was, thank you, Jack. I was only gonna say that I have not had a chance. This is the letter that came out earlier this afternoon. Is that right, Chris? Yeah. I was just gonna, I haven't had a chance to review it. So if you did want to talk about it, I wouldn't be able to really fully participate. I think the intent tonight was really just to bring it to your attention and to let Mr. Carson know that the planning board has seen the letter and that you will consider this at a future date. That sounds good to me. Just wanted to make sure. And sort of in this whole concept, I mean, I, you know, and 40R, I'm just, you know, in terms of like affordable housing, getting young families into town, someone brought to my attention this residential exemption. It's not in the purview of planning board, but when it comes to, you know, our taxes, how do we make it easier for owner occupied, you know, homes to, you know, meet the, you know, minutes full sort of, you know, property taxes, et cetera, versus people that are developers that are, you know, renters and that sort of thing. And this residential exemption thing was brought to my attention. And I get, I think that there's like 12 towns in Massachusetts that participate in this thing that, and then there's, I guess it's MGL chapter 59, section 5C that allows it, maybe, you know, Janet, I know you're pretty good at this sort of thing, but, you know, it's not our purview, but I'm wondering with the news that we got from, from Mike Morris that, you know, our student population is going below a threshold that we're losing money, the ability to gain money because our schools don't have adequate, you know, population there. It's like, you know, it's just like a catch 22 situation. Janet? So, one thing that comes to mind, and this is in one of the, I think the housing production plan or the other, the Amherst housing market study, is you can require that students can't be in housing. So, you know, this is just literally off the top of my head. If you say the living resident, you know, the manager cannot be an undergraduate student, can't be a student, you know, because I think, you know, what Bruce Carson is identifying is like a huge loophole. And so, you know, any, you know, I can picture a very responsible college student being a very good resident manager to his roommates and the people and the students next door. I just don't think it's probably a great idea in the long run over time with lots of people. And so, you know, there, we can say no undergraduates. We could say no students. And so, you know, and make some space for non-student housing in town. Because I think, especially with UMass adding so many students the last decade, I think it's a huge amount of pressure on the lower income houses, the cheaper houses, the neighborhoods that are, you know, with more ranches are converting more and more to student housing. And in the study, it says that kind of goes back and forth. You know, sometimes it's, you know, a lot of families are buying sometimes lots of, you know, developers or landlords are buying. But I think in the last 10 years with 4,000 more students in the area and the pressure is gonna be on those lower priced units or to convert a garage. You know, we thought, oh, you're gonna convert a garage but it's owner-occupied. And then there's no owner. And then it's college students or the rental managers. So it seems like a slippery slope and we can just put something in there. It just says, you know, the rental manager cannot be a student, you know. Yeah, I mean, I remember. Making some space, you know. Yeah, I remember discussing with folks in the planning department and I felt like that wasn't possible to kind of restricted at that level. But maybe by the tax, property tax option is more viable than, you know, trying to put it in, you know, restrict is there. So the property owner, if they lived there, then they would be able to file an amendment or an application, an abatement. And they, you know, so they would get, you know, like say 20% off of their taxes. And, you know, so it's complicated but there are like 12, you know, a dozen towns in Massachusetts that do this. Nantucket, a bunch of towns, Boston number one, but another town. So it's just something, and it's not in our purview but we could recommend that. But it's this, you know, Bruce's request here kind of just broad mind and, you know. Also, if you want to encourage people to convert and build more housing out of garages or, you know, sheds or buildings and, you know, to build support in the town, you don't want to have eight undergraduates in a house and then the garage living, you know, that could really turn your neighborhood. And so I think we should think, I think we have to talk about the undergraduates and the impact on neighborhoods. Some in North America, some of the neighborhoods it's really had a very negative impact. But I think the tax abatement you're talking about is also a really powerful tool to make owner occupied, you know, multi units much more attractive to people. Yes. It's not a big market here, but, you know, those units are really sought after in the cities because they're great deals for people, you know, to have a few rental units and live there. Doug? Yeah, I wondered if between now and the next meeting anybody was thinking of coming back to us with a proposed alteration to the text of the bylaw so that we could use that as a starting point for a conversation. I don't know if that's something that Chris's Chris or her staff would have time for if or if somebody may be on the board who no longer has to go to zoning subcommittee meetings might wanna take on and come back to us with or somebody that's new to the board and is really looking to cut their chop. Yep. No, I just I feel like with the COVID, you know, we have this article 14, you know, businesses, you know, lack of students, lack of town revenue. I'm really concerned and I just want our the planning board to help the town to the extent that we can with regard to recommendations. So I'm just, I'm really, I'm really worried about our town right now. So Tom. Yeah, I'm just, you know, I'm just wondering if, you know, with a set of questions in mind, if, you know, that's something that we do spend time, maybe not so much writing said bylaw Doug, but thinking about, you know, how we might propose language or what areas we think changing language might help going forward. And that way we can have a more robust discussion about whether, you know, there's room in 40R for that or there are other things that we need to start to address and, you know, how we can make recommendations and proposals and put things into action that we're not doing yet. So, you know, maybe finding space in our agenda in the next meeting and homework being, you know, doing some thinking and writing and research on that on ourselves. So I would ask like Chris, you know, can you work with me, you know, for the next agenda that we can kind of like, it sounds like the next meeting will be a little bit, you know, light side, yeah. Okay, so maybe we can, you know, take this up and talk about the 40R in a little more detail and, you know, have Rob and John Hortick present. And yeah, because these things this way heavy on my mind. Doug. And we're going to talk about this resident manager definition. That's what my comment a minute ago was about. That would be, yeah, getting into the specifics, yes. So. So I will consult with Rob Mora. He's more used to dealing with the resident manager issue because the zoning board of appeals is the word that normally takes up this kind of application. So I'll speak with him about if he has any suggestions for language. So this was kind of a little tangent off the 40R, I guess, but for all business topics, not reasonably anticipated 40 hours, 40 hours prior to the meeting. That was Bruce's letter. I'm sorry I brought it up. And nothing else. No. Okay, good. So new business. We talked about the master plan implementation. We'll carry that on. And then anything else new business. Nope. Okay. Form. Form A and our. No form A's tonight. All right, great, great. Upcoming ZBA applications. Pam would know about that. There is. But I should be scolded because I don't remember it. So I will have to report it to you at the next one. Chris, do you remember it? I was going to make it a slide and I got so busy doing other ones that I forgot. Sorry, I don't remember it. I don't remember it. I don't remember it. But what I remember is that there is this case before the ZBA now about the. Converted garage, but I don't remember any other cases. That is the one that converted garage. The garage at the corner of East pleasant street and strong street. So that is going before the ZBA, but I think there's been a request to continue that public hearing till January. But I will, I would like to announce to the planning board the good news that we have a very good project. We have a very good project. We have a very good project. The comprehensive permit 40 B. That's awesome. 132 North Hampton road. And we're very happy about that. I think we in the department feel that that's a really good project. And we worked hard with the zoning board to help them to get all the information they needed. And I think that they came up with a really good decision and we had a good lawyer working with us from AP law. John Whitten. And so it turned out really well, but I think there were probably eight to 10 public hearing sessions. So it was, it was a long process, but I think the result was. Very worthwhile. I should have saved that for the report of the staff. I can put it in there. ZBA thing. Yeah, I mean, I tried to attend some of those hearings and then, you know, but my gosh, that is laborious sort of. Yep. Approval process. So, so kudos. Do. You know, the valley CDC getting that through. And then we can go. Yeah. I'm just thinking of. Upcoming SPP, SPRS, SBB applications. None that I know of. No, there are things out there, but none that I know of. Good. Yeah, I'm just thinking of, you know, Pioneer Valley planning commission report that I kind of. Pundit on the last meeting. Yeah, I'm wondering if I just should send. You know, a report to you that you can distribute Chris. Because. An email would be good. Yeah. I'm into the weeds there. And I don't, I can't really give a brief synopsis. So, but, so I'll do that. And then you can. Distribute. How's that? Good. Okay. Nothing. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Or shaking. As far as I know. But I would like everyone to be aware of what's going on. So. And then. Community preservation act. Yeah. We meet tomorrow. Be our third session. We've got four more proposals. We're going to hear from. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any. News on that. I think Doug's appointment has not yet been finalized. Unless he's heard something different. But I wouldn't be surprised if they take care of that at the next town council meeting. They seem to be doing them. Little by little. Maybe I'm too controversial. Should I withdraw? I don't know. I don't know. We should send a snapshot of that to the town council. Yeah. As long as Doug, as long as you get, like, keep that background, you're kind of like in contention. I think. Design review board. Tom. Yeah, we had, I actually had a meeting today at five. So I've been on here. Oh my. So, uh, and I had to leave early. So that was fun. Um, so there are two things that we're viewing. Uh, one was, um, they received a grant. Um, and I'm sure Chris knows some of the details of this. About, um, they're going to use for funding for bus stops downtown, sort of bus stops in area or bus shelters in areas that. Currently don't have them. Um, one in front of St. Brigid's on North pleasant near Cole street. And, um, one on South pleasant by spring street right across from the common or basically right across from the other bus stop, the Peter Pan stop. Um, and then as well, possibly replace the bus stop on the corner of. Um, they're, uh, trying to get them to match in line with the existing ones that are across the street. So using the same aesthetics, uh, for those. So that's pretty simple stuff. Um, and then, uh, I was, I had to leave before any conversation or detailed. Debate, which I was hoping to get an update on. I didn't. Um, there was a proposal for a new kind of digital way finding system for town, sort of updating people on news and events and programming. Um, some electronic charging stations for people's phones and devices as well as part of this package. Um, it wasn't going too great. The moment I left. Um, so I'll probably have it there. There are very, um, contemporary signage systems. Um, And they didn't match very well with some of the existing systems in place or match with our proposed, um, uh, signage and way finding system. So there was a little conflict there. So, um, I'll have an update on that next time. So to let people know, this is part of the cares act funding. It's not money that's, um, being, um, It's not the same thing. Um, I'm not sure if it's, um, I'm not sure if it's going to be from the government to help us to, um, Um, emerge from COVID-19 and, um, communications manager in the town manager have come up with this idea. It's called Sufa signs. I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right, but it's S. Oh, Oh, F a signs. And Janet may be familiar with them because I think they have them in Somerville. Um, so I just wanted to mention that. So in terms of the bus stops, is there any way to make them fun and arty? Instead of just generic kind of city like. Um, I think about this. So yes and no. So part of the discussion was that there's a lot of different things that are happening already. Um, and that they're totally uncoordinated. And so hence the signage that came up the Sufa signs was also a thing that felt uncoordinated. And the suggestion was to. Merely just match the ones that are across the street. Yeah. Rather than do something different that kind of draws more attention to a new thing. But I do think that there is room to start thinking about some other things that might stand out, but those are things that wanted to disappear, but I do agree that there are other opportunities. I think that art is, it doesn't have it. You don't really want it to coordinate, but I could, I could see you want maybe that being invisible. But sometimes I thought it might be just take it in a different direction. Yeah. The bus stops are another thing that's being paid for by a grant. It's the mass. Department of transportation grant that we received for shared streets and sidewalks. Anyway, we're going to be taking it to the bus stop. And then we'll be taking it to the bus stop. So, um, but I do agree that there are other opportunities. The nice thing about art is it doesn't have it. You don't really want it to coordinate, but I could, I could see one, maybe that being invisible. But sometimes I thought it might be just take it in a different direction. So, um, I don't know. I don't know. We're, we're talking about the number of street. Shared streets and sidewalks. Anyway, um, we have to spend the money by December 31st, or they take it back. So we're in a big hurry to get this. Um, approved to get these. Bus shelters agreed to. Where they're going, what they're going to look like. And go ahead and buy them. And then, you know, maybe we'll end up with more than we actually need. We can. Think about where to put some more in the future, but it's just, you know, we're going to be kind of, we're going to need to go ahead and sell it down and we have a very short timeframe to do that. So. I wanted to share that with you. Andrew. Can I just real quick? Or is a town responsible for those or. Or PVTA? Most of the time that PVTA is responsible for them. I think that the town puts them in. But PVTA buys them. And some of the ones we have are pretty old. We thought that would be a good thing to do. And so it was part of the shared streets and sidewalks grant opportunity that we had. And some of those may have digital information that updates on bus time schedules and whether they're on time and bus routes and things like that. So it's also part of figuring out where those go and whether we can afford to do all of them as a question and PBTA would manage those going forward. Thanks, Tom. And the zoning subcommittee has some, that is, you know, no issues, but in the report of the chair, I just want to, you know, circle back to Amherst Hills and the paving. It seems like that's going to happen within the next week or two based on a recent communication. Is that correct, Chris? So it seems. Okay. We'll see it, but so it seems. All right. So let's keep, you know, keeping our eye on that. And then I think I had a conversation with one of the, someone with regard to what's going on with spring street, you know, in terms of the construction there, it seems like it might have been halted. And I guess, you know, there's be some, you know, concern that be, that doesn't progress. So, but I know in the age of COVID, it would be nice to get a report, I think, on the progress. I will ask Rob what he knows about that. Okay. And that's all I have. Andrew, Andrew has his hand up. Yeah, thanks. I was just wondering, does anybody know, you know, the tent we approved at the Jones Library, I see the structure there. One of my kids indicated that it may have blown, like the covering may have blown off of that. Does anybody know what happened there? If that happened or not? I haven't heard that, but the day after that big windstorm, it wasn't there. Okay, yeah. I think that was maybe the rumor on the school zooms perhaps, but all right. I would have taken it down to avoid the windstorm. Yeah, that's not back up though, so. You know, I mean, on that topic, all the structures that we talked about with, you know, at the high school and the tents, that there's one at Crocker Farm that I walk under pretty much every day. I don't know what people are thinking, you know, with these tents and are they, I don't know that they're ever, they will be used. It's unfortunate, but. Well, if Article 14 passes, then you won't ever have to have this come before you again. In the realm of the town of the building commissioner. Yeah, I mean, that's more of a school issue that, and again, they've delayed, you know, student attendance at the, you know, but they were thinking warm weather, obviously, but. So report of staff. Verity gave my report about the ZBA approving the 40B application for the Valley CDC at 132 Northampton Road, so. Oh, okay. And so we can adjourn 936. And we're meeting, what, the 18th? The 18th. Okay. Right. All right. Good. So thank you all. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, Pam, for holding us together. Pam, you were stellar. Thank you so much that I, I had to report my own faux pa. All right. All right. Well, good night. Good night. Bye.