 Okay, Mr. Marshall. You have a full house. It is 631 according to my computer. Amherst media is here in the house. You're going to get started. Okay, thank you Pam. Welcome to the Amherst planning board meeting of October 19, 2022. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst planning board I am calling this meeting to order at 633pm. This meeting is being recorded and is available live streamed via Amherst media. Minutes are being taken. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022 and extended again by the state legislature on July 16, 2022. This planning board meeting, including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar listing for this meeting, or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda, which hit lists the zoom link at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce Coldham. Here. Tom Long. Present. Andrew McDougal. Present. I dug Marshall and present. Janet McGowan. Here. Johanna Newman. Here. And Karen Winter. Here. Thank you all. Board members, if technical issues arise, we may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your request and call on you to speak. If you would like to make a comment during the meeting, please remember to remute yourself to the general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware, the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate. If you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. All right, so the time now on my clock is 636. The item on the agenda are minutes from past meetings and I believe we have the minutes for our last meeting on September 21. Those were concluded in the packet. Johanna, I see your hand. I reviewed the minutes and I move to approve them. Okay, thank you. Would anyone like to second that motion. We will still have conversation if anybody has comments. Tom I see your hand. I second. And Karen I saw your physical hand, just a moment too late. Okay, is anybody want to make any comments or suggested it changes to the minutes that were distributed, Janet. I think it's a typo that changes the meaning of a sentence. So by Nate Malloy it's on the last paragraph of page three. And it's the second sentence and it says, Mr Malloy explained that that it is the occupancy occupancy based on code. And if it's too small, everything would trigger a special permit. And I think he meant large but I may be wrong. I assume the special permit would be triggered by a larger restaurant or facility or bar. So, that's my thank you, Janet. Nate, do you agree with that revision. I too have the cold and a sore throat so. Yeah, I think right. The idea was that a larger occupant capacity would require a special permit. Okay, so sounds like we have endorsement on that edit. So the motion that's on the floor. We would need a friend, I would guess I would consider that a friendly amendment to have it moved with the revision as Janet just articulated. I thought I'm seeing your shake your head in affirmatively that you are accepting that amendment to the motion. And I already forgot who was second, who seconded Tom, you're good with that too. All right, I see you shaking your head. All right, good. Are there any other comments on the minutes. All right, I don't see any. So in that case, why don't we go ahead and vote on the motion to accept the minutes with the one revision as Janet described. We'll do a regular roll call vote, starting with Bruce. Hi, and Tom. Hi, Andrew. Hi, Janet. Hi, Karen. Hi. And I'm an I as well it passes unanimously seven in favor. Thank you all. Okay, so we'll move on to the second item on our agenda this evening that is public comment period the time now is 639. I think we advertised this for 630. Well before 635 so we're not ahead of schedule. I guess at this time it sounds in the last few meetings will have appreciated having the public attendees read for the so that they knew who else was present. Read the public attendees at this time and then if the public members who want to make a comment would raise their hand I can call on them in order. In addition to Amherst media, I see Bruce Allen, Chris Chamberlain from Berkshire Design, Deborah Newbauer, someone with the, let's say, abbreviation or shortening that's erdc or deck. Grace Kilpatrick, Mara Keane, and someone who has given it only their first name, Rob. So that's it we have eight public attendees including Amherst media. Do any of you want to make a public comment on something that is not on tonight's agenda. All right, I don't see any hands I haven't seen any hands through that reading of the names. If you consider that topic closed public you may make make comments later on topics that we are on the agenda. Nate I see your hand, what would you like to say. Sorry, I was going to bring us back to the minutes the. So I was just rereading that paragraph that Janet had mentioned and the way it reads is you know Bruce had asked. What is the 250 occupancy limit or threshold determined. And so that paragraph I was saying, you know it says Mr more explain that it is the occupancy based on code, and if it is too small I think that's correct everything would trigger a special permit I think one of the real changes is if our occupant, if that number 250 is too small, you know that any restaurant, you know, almost any restaurant you know so we say 150, then a lot of places would trigger a special permit and so it wasn't that you know I think it's just you wanted to make that the minimum threshold for that special category, large enough, right to avoid having to have the special permit apply to most institutions. That's correct, right so I think it was just, you know, a slight rewording. Like if, you know, the 200 pick, if we say if the occupancy threshold is too small, everything would trigger a special permit I think if we inserted that into it then it would read, you know, it would make sense. Okay. All right so. So if the it were replaced by occupancy threshold. Right. That would be clearer. Yes, and we would understand that in fact the small is in fact the intention. Okay, so. So Chris do you agree that I should probably go through and do another roll call since this is we're going to re vote on this. Do you need another motion to go back and reconsider. I will move that we go back and reconsider the vote we just took on the minutes and the editing that was initially proposed and approved. Does anybody second that motion Tom I see your hand. Second. Thank you Tom. So since we have the motion to reconsider I guess we'll have to vote on that and then we'll need to go back and vote on the minutes. Okay. Yes. Go through another call I'll start at the end of this time. Alphabetically Karen, are you in favor of reconsidering. Yes. Thank you. And Johanna. Hi. And Janet. Hi. And Andrew. Hi. Tom. Bruce. Hi. All right. Thank you. I'm in favor. And then now. I'll let somebody else make the initial motion. I don't need to make too many than this meeting. That we accept the minutes. With the revised with the edit that Nate Maloy just proposed that we. We'll move on to the next one. And we'll put a little bit of pressure on the pro and a little bit of pressure on the threshold in that sentence at the bottom of page three. Tom you got there first. The mood. And Bruce. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion? All right. So we'll go. Again, from the end, Karen. I. Thank you, Johanna. Andrew. Hi. Tom. Hi. And Bruce. Hi. Thank you all. All right. Mr. Marshall, are you an eye as well? I am an eye as well. Thank you. All right. So we've finished the first two items on the agenda. The time is six 45 and we'll move on to item three. Which is a special permit public hearing. And this permit, this can, this hearing is continued from September 7th of 2022. In accordance with the provisions of mass general law, chapter 40 a this joint public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted. And is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard. Regarding SPP 2023 dash zero two. From Bruce Allen for 51 Spaulding street. Public hearing to request a special permit to modify ZBA FY 2007. Dash 0030. And allow three rumors within an owner occupied dwelling unit construct five parking spaces previously approved and construct two additional parking spaces within the front setback in the northwest corner of the parcel. And relocate an existing shade tree within the front setback under sections three point three two one zero. Five point zero one zero zero and seven point zero zero zero of the zoning bylaw. Map 14 B parcel one one zero in the RG zoning district. I do not see any. Are there any board member disclosures for the continuation of this hearing. I do not see any. I welcome Chris Jamerlin back from Berkshire Design. I see Bruce Allen. I believe Jason. I actually never mind. Jason skills is here, but I'm not sure you're here for this particular topic. Chris or Bruce, would you like to start off? Sure. So when last we met, we presented this site plan. And special permit application for a modification of a special permit that was granted. Quite a while ago. That allowed a two family house on this lot. And that allowed a two family house on this lot. And since that time. The construction. That applied to that house. Proceeded differently than the plan that was on record. And additionally, the owners have been taking rumors, which is allowed by right, but wasn't necessarily included in the original. Special permit. And, but the big, biggest portion of the site was a parking lot that was not included in the original plan. And it had led to some parking issues on the street. And so the site plan that we presented. Provided seven parking spaces, which meets all of the zoning criteria. After a lengthy discussion about that site plan. There was interest from the board in seeing a revised plan that provided just six parking spaces, which it seems like the board members. I think that was the reason for that. I think that was the reason for that. That was because of the residency situation in this house. And so we have submitted a revised plan that shrinks that parking lot by one space and also by quite a lot of impervious area. Primarily because when, well, actually let me share my screen. So I don't have to. Sure. I'll picture with my words as to what I'm talking about. I'm going to talk about parking areas. I'm going to recall previously, there was a series of five parking spaces in this location and a large mass of compact gravel. What we've done is taken advantage of sort of the, the section of the zoning code that applies to parking areas. That says that for parking areas of five or more, we need to create an in and out driveway with adequate space to turn around. And so we've been able to do a parking area of four spaces. And so instead we've been able to significantly shrink down the area of the parking. We are proposing now to do this with asphalt, which is a little bit more reasonable given the size of this parking lot. And so we've now provided the four parking spaces here. Two at this end location. And two in parallel parking spaces in this portion of the driveway, which happens to be how this driveway has been working at different times, although not with formalized spaces along this property line. And we're continuing to propose two parking spaces here for a total of six, which we believe is in accordance with sort of where the board was leaning when we met last time. Because we've pulled back a significant area. Of this imperviousness. We're now fully outside of the 25 foot buffer. And it was an intrusion into that 25 foot buffer that required some native shrubs to be planted in this location. And then we also had some shrubbery along this line to sort of screen against headlights shining onto a property up here. So we've proposed to eliminate that planting. So that much to Carol and Bruce's delight, they're going to continue to have this green space and backyard here. We did look at a couple other configurations for this parking area. And I know staff comments suggested that it might work better if these spaces were rotated to create head in spaces in this location here. But what's not reflected on this survey is that there is an existing tree, about a 30 foot tree in this location. I think that came up during our discussion last time that we'd really like to not remove. And so in order to do that, we'd really have to push this pavement way back into this green space, which is exactly what we were trying to pull back from. So with that, again, I think that that was the primary sort of piece of homework that we had. So that's what we brought back. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Bruce or Carol, is there anything you would like to say? No, I think Chris has summed that up correctly. All right. Thank you. So Chris Brestrup. We had, I believe two items to approve or, you know, the request was for two items. One was for this site plan. And what the other was to approve the existing. Use of the house as a two family with. With the three borders as I, and do you agree with that? I do agree with that. I just would look to Nate Malloy to make sure that that encompasses the whole project because he's really been the one who's been focusing on this. And I think we'll look to you, Nate. Yeah, sure. I think, you know, in terms of the uses, Doug, that that was it. You know, a two family with rumors. There were draft conditions and findings submitted. And I think with those that can also address. You know, any parking or site related issues. You know, Bruce did comment that the removal or relocation of the tree out front. He met with the owner met with Alan Snow, the town's tree ward, and determined it was, it's not within the right of way. So it's not a street tree anymore. You know, we, you know, that wasn't confirmed before the hearing. And then, you know, there's also the possibility of some waiver requests. Because the zoning by law only requires two cars within the front setback. And so these spaces for five and six. So that would be three spaces or even on a, you know, in a driveway, we would, the bylaw doesn't allow for an exception. So that's, you know, would be something to consider. And staff has talked about, you know, having screening or something along the Southern property boundary. And so, you know, if, if there's a condition that there be a fence along this and it, you know, is within the front setback area, then it may, you know, there may need to be a waiver if it's over. You know, if it's six feet or over four feet, right? So depending on the height of the fence. So. You know, those are things that to consider, but in terms of the uses, you know, it's an existing two family. And they had in, you know, they're requesting to add up to three rumors. So they take some rumors now and it's to confirm that they can have up to three. But then the number of parking spaces. Right. Okay. So you had said that there were draft conditions. And I thought I saw those at one point, but are those in the packet? They are there online. May I also say something in addition? Yes, Chris, which is that I think the board needs to acknowledge and approve the layout of the interior of the house, which is different from what was originally approved in the special permit in the original special permit. Right. So do Chris, do we need to do each of those things in order or each separately? I assume. That's probably a good idea. Yep. All right. Yeah. Here's the draft findings. All right. Oh, may I say one more thing? Yeah. Which is that I think there's a fence shown on the plan, but I think. I think that's a good idea. Didn't we receive a document from Bruce Allen that said they don't want to put a fence in. They want to put shrubbery along that Southern property line. So maybe that's something that needs to be clarified. Mr. Allen. Do you have anything to say to that? Yeah, I can jump in. I just want to say. While these symbols may appear to be a fence, these are actually stake marks from when the surveyors went to. The property line, so that's not intended to represent a fence. And none of these notes refer to events. So I guess the question would be, then, is there any proposal to put shrubbery or any type of planting along that front or along that Southern property line. And so I'll defer to Bruce on conversations that he's had with one of the butters to the south, because that happened after we put this plan together. And so we did not get a chance to show that. Okay. Mr. Allen. Am I speaking? How do I raise my hand? You're on. You're on. Okay. Yes. Of course, the lot to the, to, on the bottom of the screen is vacant. It's a quarter acre lot. So it'll never be built on. The next person over is, is that 45 scalding. And she has her, she has a home-based business and she has a workshop pretty much. Right about where the parking area is. And she has two windows there, which look out over the greenery. And her, her thing was, she really enjoys our yard. She loves the greenery and all that. And we had told her, and she likes the plantings that we already have along the Southern, the Southern line there. And we told her, we would probably add in some Arbor, here and there to compliments what, what is there now. And she said that that would, she would really like that. And what she also expressed a very negative opinion about having any kind of stockade fence there or anything like that. Cause she said it would ruin her view. And she literally kind of looks this way all day long, five days a week and her, her and her workers. So she was really adamant about not having, I'm not having a fence there. All right. So. The Arbor Vite that you mentioned as a potential planting, would that happen on your parcel at 51? Or would it be on the adjacent parcel? No, it's, it will be in this, in the strip there where you see the, the waddles, the erosion control barriers. And then it will follow the driveway around. We already have a significant plantings there now, but they're not necessarily plantings, which are, they're not green in the wintertime. And our intention is to, because we have to raise up the Southern boundary just a little bit to get the driveway level. I mean, we're not level, but get the driveway. So it's level on a, you know, on a left to right basis. We won't know exactly where we want to put the Arbor Vites, because we also have these trees here until we get the driveway in and we can figure out the best spots to put these. All right. Nate. Since this property is coming under a special permit, do all plantings that are added to this plan have to be permitted? Well, I think if it's mentioned that there's going to be plantings here, you know, that we could either have a revised plan or have something here, you know, a number of plantings and possibly size as a condition. That, you know, they could come back at a public meeting to finalize the plantings on the Southern boundary, but I think it should be something that is incorporated as a condition. All right. Bruce and Carol, you have any objection to coming back and clarifying the plantings? I don't have a problem with that. But that would have to be after we put the driveway in now. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Chamberlain. Yeah. I was just curious if it's possible to handle it with, with a condition. If there's a certain number that. We're going to be able to certainly if they don't mind coming back, I'm not going to object on their behalf, but. Anything to simplify the process. Yeah, I guess. That's what I was hoping to do. Janet. So on the draft conditions, condition six refers to planting. So I think we could just be more specific and say, you know, I don't know if we're going to be able to do that. I don't know if we're going to be able to do that. I don't know if we're going to be able to do that. So X number of our variety along the Southern. Edge. Yeah. Property line. Cause really the plan doesn't have any plantings right now. There is no. New planting. So that language in six doesn't quite make sense. Right. Right. And sometimes in the past. The condition has read that the applicant shall return out of public meeting. To present the final landscape plan. And that is the next level of the project. So I think we could just give you some, some, some follow up there. Okay. All right. So why don't we continue with the site plan and try to get through that first. So board members. I guess I'm interested in your thoughts about this revised site plan. comfort or acceptance with it, then we kind of have a sense of where we're going on with this. Bruce, I see your hand first. I have a higher level of comfort, a much higher level of comfort than I did last time. I remember my concern last time, which was driving me towards wanting to condition or push for five only parking spaces, was the size of the parking area originally as it consumed the existing lawn at the rear. And mostly I was concerned, not so much for the current occupants, but you may recall my concern was that this would create a very unusual landscapes feature for a house, which would probably drive it firmly into the student market, a student rental market full on, I was thinking, that just seemed to me that we were inviting that kind of use and I thought that that was not a good situation to be encouraging in a residential area. Well, this revised plan solves that completely, I think. I mean, one could still push for five instead of six spaces, but it wouldn't affect the plan. I mean, the plan, the paving extent and arrangement of the paving as shown, if we were to advocate for five spaces, I don't think it would change the square meter of the paving layout. So I think this has satisfied my concerns for the future of this property in this neighborhood. And that's probably for me the most important thing. I mean, there are a few other comments I could make. But for me, I think for the moment, it's a vast improvement and it really brings it back into conformity with what I would think was the reasonable site arrangement for a two family residence in this area. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Bruce. Karen, you are next. Yeah, I agree. Totally with Bruce. I think this is really, I'm very happy to see this. I'm not sure why exactly it's not helpful, but it makes more sense to have something compact that's going to be used for the for all this parking on that road. That it was so sad last time to see that whole backyard, the parking and this is a much and keeping the tree, if possible, keeping that view for the neighbor. And in the same time satisfying the need to get the cars off the street is very good. So yes, I agree. This is much better. And I applaud you for doing it. Okay, thank you, Karen. I'm Andrew. Yeah, not much more else to add I think that was a nice summary, but my peers. The only thing I was trying to remember from touring this myself. Is there sidewalk on the east side or on the east side of Spalding. I don't remember any I think it's on the west side. There's none on the east side. Okay, very good. Yeah, I won't use any more time. Happy with the improvements. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Andrew. Janet. Janet your hand was up. I'm here, I'm here. Sorry. So my two questions are what are what will the erosion control barriers consist of are they going to be like wood or, and then how will the cars in spaces one and two exit are you expecting them to just back up or can they do a three point turn. Okay, let's ask that question of Chris Chamberlain. So the first one's real simple we do have a detail here that this is straw waddle the tubes of straw staked in place with this, which is this entire heavy dashed line sort of surrounding limited disturbance in both locations. And that's included on the plan that we submitted. And yes the, the, the intention with this plan is that spaces one and two would need to back out. As I was talking about earlier, the only way to feasibly get a turnaround here would be to extend this drive to let me say the only feasible way to get a turnaround in and preserve this tree that's not shown on the plan would be to extend this would be quite a ways into the backyard and create a much larger massive pavement. And, as I mentioned there have been times where there've been up to four cars in the driveway in the existing condition, where we don't have the formalized spaces, or the same width of pavement, and it's been adequate. Okay, thank you. Janet I hope that satisfies your questions. All right, so I guess the one comment I would like to make is that I know the conversation started off focused on the site plan. I wanted to give everybody a chance to make sure that the the interior layout of the house and the number of occupants that are contained in it. Under the configuration that is being proposed that we approve that does influence the number of parking spaces that are proposed. If you want to have a conversation about the interior of the house. I'm actually thinking maybe we should settle that before we approve the parking. So, Bruce, do you have any thoughts about that. I have a question. I really it's just to confirm an understanding. Do I correctly understand that the, the, the draft condition that says three rumors that that the three rumors are in addition to the any occupants in the apartment. I guess, yes, so that's a two family. It's, it's, it's a two family or two, two unit building. One is an efficiency apartment. And the other one is the main body of the house plus bedroom six. As I recall the main body of the house had four bedrooms in it. And, and number six made it a fifth bedroom. And the owner said they intended to let out that bedroom number six and two of the four bedrooms on the second floor of the main house, retaining two bedrooms for their own use. I just wanted to make sure that that original statement was that the draft condition was kind of in line with that and the answer is that it is. So, I know that the apartment is a very small piece of real estate. And I think that the draft conditions stipulate that it shall have only one that the occupants of that apartment shall shall bring only one car onto the site. And providing that condition is, is maintained or established I think that the arrangement and so forth works and it fits with the six spaces that are shown on the plan. Okay. All right. Thank you. And Janet. I think they have six bedrooms in the main house. That's why it's called bedroom six. And I think there were, there was four bedrooms on the second floor and they're converting one, some study space into the owners have a bedroom on the first floor. Yeah, I think so. So, so I'm concerned about bedroom six because it, you know, it seems to me that several neighbors have said that it's basically operating as a separate unit, which it's, you know, if it's supposed to be a two family and if it's, if it's actually operating as a separate unit where the person isn't really using the rest of the house that, you know, would violate the, the bylaw as well as being kind of unsafe that it's probably fireproofed and such. And so, there has been testimony that by the owners that, you know, the person and the tenant in that unit happens to always eat all their meals at UMass, and yet there's also testimony, or statements by the people who did the site visit that they have a refrigerator and a microwave, and some neighbors have seen bags that person bringing bringing in bags and bags of food so it seems to me like, it's like, I don't know what's going on with bedroom six or the renter there but it seems like it is operating as an apartment, a separate apartment not, you know, the border using the main kitchen for eating out and so I would like to see a condition that, you know, no, you know, like no microwave or refrigerators be allowed in that unit I think it's two rooms. And so it won't be operating as a sort of separate unit and then it would be a boarding house where there's just one kitchen. You know, the occupants can the borders cannot be, you know, basically using hot plates or microwaves or convection ovens or refrigerators, or, you know, storing, you know, bags and bags of food so. All right, Janet. I will say that we, Rob more was pretty clear at the last time we met that this is not an apartment. It does not meet the state state definition of an apartment. So, I don't think we can really make our determination on, you know, make calling it an apartment. You know, there are rooms and dormitories at UMass that have, I think microwaves in that I think that if this unit has a microwave and refrigerator. That's, I think it would be a shame to have to take that out. I don't think that's heavy cooking and students that meals. They still it's nice if they can warm up a some soup in a microwave I don't. I think that that's fine and it's not a kitchen or a separate apartment so I kind of disagree with Janet I think one should just allow it. Okay, thank you. I will say that this conversation reminds me of my junior year in college when I lived in a single dormitory room but had a hot plate and a refrigerator in my room. So I didn't take 21 meals at the, the dining hall, and nobody really felt like I was living in an apartment all of a sudden and I certainly didn't. Janet. So, you know, I should have prefaced my remarks by, I really think it's great that people have students staying in their house it's a great way for embers the town to absorb, you know, all these students. It's a great way for income. It's a great way to create a different kind of community with, you know, the students and the locals. I think that when we're talking about a boarding house or having, you know, borders. And then you read the definitions and you read the bylaw you're talking about everybody's using a common kitchen. And so if somebody has some leftover food I'm sure the other borders for upstairs just come down and use the kitchen and heat it up it's kind of like a shared household and so I think that, you know, maybe we're not hitting the technical definition but you know if this person is washing dishes has all sorts of ways to heat and cook food has a refrigerator. Then it's actually basically operating as an apartment and should meet code or at least it should be safer or it's not a border but it's really kind of a separate tenant and so I think we don't want to encourage. These sort of, you know, half legal units with all sorts of heating and refrigeration without actually, you know, saying these are separate units so I just, I do, you know, I do want to encourage, you know, I think it's fantastic that people have students staying with them. I just think that this is kind of crossing into a gray area. And if we just condition that the person can't be cooking in the room they can just go upstairs and use the microwave or the refrigerator. I don't want to hurt you. All right. Thank you, Janet. Chris. I just wanted to reiterate me. Are you talking about me or Chris Chamberlain. I am talking about you Chris Preston. Okay, so I just wanted to reiterate what Nate said, Rob Mara has toured every room in this house he's seen it in its existing condition, and he does not believe that room bedroom number six is a separate dwelling unit. It only has one room although it does have an alcove that contains a refrigerator, microwave and a sink, but Rob Mara is the zoning enforcement officer and he knows the building code backward and forward as well as the zoning bylaw and he does not think that bedroom number six is a separate dwelling unit so I just wanted to reiterate that. Okay, thank you Chris. I don't see any more hands. Maybe I'll take this opportunity to just ask if there are any members of the public that would like to make a comment at this time. Let's see, Pam, could you bring Rebecca Cornell in and let her make a comment. Miss Cornell if you could give us your name and your address please. Good evening my name is Rebecca DeCorsi Cornell my family lives at 60 Spalding Street. We also own the vacant lot. Next to this property. First thing I want to caution you have is just remember there's a series. This is there's there's pretty serious history of non compliance from this person. Please do not accept them saying that they'll they may plant arbor varieties. They may do this they may do that. They won't. They did it back in 2009 when they were supposed to do this. Mr. Chamberlain do you have any details of the driveway adjacent the vacant lot. Mr. Chamberlain. The by details meaning like a cross section or. Right so there's a three foot drop there as proposed. It won't work. I just wanted to make sure that the board to request that to understand what's going to happen there as is that that land is already eroding onto our property. There are certain standards that need to be met and adhered to as I stated in my last letter, we have a serious problem with these people trespassing and harassing us. We have a serious problem with these people trespassing the planning board to put a fence down just a split rail fence that's affordable and not ugly down the property line so we can demarcate this problem and have it end. Arbor varieties is also not the correct species to plant right next to a parking space they grow on average at least 12 to 24 inches a year if they plant Arbor varieties there they will grow over those parking spaces and we'll end up with the same problem. This is a long time coming I mean this isn't a. This was an easy problem that should have been solved a long time ago. And I, my main concern with use is there's no enforcement for 13 years I have been trying to get the town to address this and put in sparking and over and over and over I was told they were doing nothing wrong I think it's pretty obvious that they were. And I'm asking for you guys to correct a problem that the town made limit the number of bedrooms there's there's no way that you can enforce that they're not going to rent out all the bedrooms, and even right now they're renting at a bedroom that in this last meeting they said they weren't just. I want, could you articulate what you're, what you're saying there, you, which bedroom do you think they're renting out that they're not and how would you even know that. Because you can see it from the street they're renting one of the front bedrooms. All right. Any further comments, your three minutes are just about up. Not at this time. All right, thank you. All right, I do not see any other comments or rate hands raised from the public. Are there any other public members who would like to make a comment. All right. Chris Brestra, I had a question for you, or maybe for Nate, since I keep forgetting that Nate's the point person on this. The owner owner occupancy condition. I assume that would survive the sale of the property. Yes, you could condition it. But you know the, as a two family we could have it be required that it remain owner occupied. You know, when this was originally permitted the zoning was different rights or required a special permit from the ZBA. And now it wouldn't. This would be a site plan review use, not a special permit use. And so, I mean, I guess it is a discussion for the board about how you want to. Part of what I'm part of what I'm wondering is whether, you know, whether we would whether we have the right or the ability to allow the current proposed use with the three borders, and the efficiency but have it terminate at the sale of the property so that, you know, we sort of reset when we have a new set of owners who may not want to do, you know, may not want to operate it in quite the same way. And that would give us all a chance to kind of reconsider how it's been working, whether the neighbors are still up in arms or whether things have settled down. And just, you know, whether that's something we could do. Right, so it would have to be owner occupied to be continued to use the way they're proposing. The final condition number 22 set upon change of ownership the new owner shall appear at a public meeting to review an updated management plan parking plan and complaint response plan. You know, a future owner doesn't necessarily have to use this as a rumor, rooming house, right, so they don't have to continue it, even if there's a permit on the property so Right, I'm actually wondering whether we can sunset the allowance of the borders and and with the with the sale of the property and that you come back and we start from zero again. So that that has been a condition in the past, but with the zoning board it's not something that is typical now just because, you know, if there's complaints or problems that it's an enforcement action and then you know the permit may need to be updated so, you know, they used to have that condition, thinking that you know the change of ownership was a chance to rectify things but typically they get, you know, they can be fixed, you know, without a you know, if there's a problem that's been modified and, you know, it may require a change to the special permit anyways whether it's just a moment or so if there are problems that continue and could we revoke some of the, you know, some of the permission for the number of borders or that kind of thing. I guess if there's a so with the conditions were saying that there'd be, you know, demarcated parking spaces that the that the occupants of the property park off the street and so that if that becomes something where there is consistent complaints, then you know it may be that it has to come back to the board to determine that you know does something need to be changed there. Right. Well, I just kind of wanted to put that on the table. Since this is a pretty unusual situation and I'd be surprised if later owners, or at least later owner occupants really want to do the same thing. Bruce. I wanted to actually follow up on the butters observation slash question. I don't know whether the plan can be brought up for two reasons one is I wasn't sure where we were talking about screening and so forth, and butters, because the, the, the attendee said that they were in a bother but I didn't know on what side. So first of all, I think the comment about the driveway not working without some kind of retaining wall or something was something I was going to ask as we moved on here. The southern boundary there that which I guess is the one with the erosion control barrier that runs right along those stakes that are not offense. And I guess it's right against trees that are there. Those there existing trees as I recall Chris is that correct. Chris Chamberlain. That's correct. Yeah. So, how does the grade work in a cross section from the house, kind of a north south section where the number parking number four and parking number three are right there. And then the drop off I mean I can see that the, the, the, the topography there which I guess is the existing top of indicates that can you bank that I mean you're right on the property line so you can kind of grade it off into the neighbor. You do have trees there. How is this affecting those trees. Can you speak to the, the challenges of doing work right up against the property line where you have trees. Sure. So, first, I'll highlight that our edge of pavement is a little over three feet off of the property line so it's not directly against it there. So, and we are showing proposed contours. If we compare the existing to proposed. We're looking at the edge of pavement. So, should say in the existing condition. You can see, say an existing contour here with a little hinge point which reflects sort of where the landscape starts to roll away. So, as Bruce mentioned, there is a little bit of fill you can estimate say at this point that there's about four inches of fill to bring that up to flatter grades, again about three feet off of the property line. Okay, so, I mean I know you from, and I know Berksh design as a firm for 30 or more years and I know that the world around you have come to trust your professional capabilities so I would expect that when you show me something like this that you are satisfied that as a professional engineer that this is, this is this design is going to stand up it's going to stand the test of time. And I would like you to reassure me that that that understanding that I'm safe in persisting with that understanding of your firms design capabilities here this is a this grading and this edge is sound and the trees are in the health of the trees is not threatened. Would you attest to that. The, yes, like you say the the amount of fill that we're looking at at this edge of pavement is is pretty modest. There's room to work between there in the property line. I would say that you know, there's going to need to be some care in working around here, but in the existing condition, we have a driveway that's intruding on the drip line of these trees as it is. Certainly, I think that if you know if we wanted to add you know additional conditions in terms of the tree protection which is stated but you know maybe not clearly delineated that you know we can include our requirement to bring an arborist out while that gravel base is being laid to ensure that the roots are taking care of in an appropriate way that would help reassure that we're going to be careful in this zone here. I imagine the owners would want that as well so I'm probably going to trust that the property owners interests are going to be enough to drive the safety of the trees. Final question. The commenting about I mentioned the stockade fence along the boundary. Did you understand which boundary she was proposing the fence be constructed. So I under that understand that to mean this property line here. Okay. And that's the property line that the the applicants said that the abatto was happy to look at something other than the fence so I'm confused about two people claiming that there are butters. And I think I can clarify that is the, the, a butter that was just speaking is the owner of the vacant lot here, and the butter that Bruce was speaking about as the person on the next property down which is then the first house south of this land. Thank you. All right, thank you, Bruce. Karen you are next. Thank you. I think that this driveway addresses the main concern of the people on the street that the street be not blocked by the cars that belong to this house. So this is a way to rectify that. Here we're also many comments from neighbors that said that this house is beautifully maintained and that these are neighbors who care for their property. So what what you were talking about Doug of sort of maybe making sure that if this house is sold that the next people don't, they might not they might be owners who are renting out but not of the quality of these people so I am a little bit concerned that I grant this permit that it will work fine but what happens when the house is sold. So I think we should consider a condition that this is just for the present owners and that maybe if it's possible that you start from scratch. Another time because this is such an unusual thing. Karen, Janet. Um, I had a separate issue, which was our question. So in the draft condition 22. It, it says upon a change of ownership a new owner shall appear at a public meeting in the planning board to review an updated management plan parking plans and complaint response plan. And I do we have a complaint response plan that's been submitted, or is that just sort of boilerplate, because I think one of the concerns of Miss Cornell is that she has been complaining and no one's responding and so is there a complaint response plan that's been submitted and I just missed it or why don't we ask either Chris Brestra or Nate Maloy do we have that I don't remember seeing it in the packet. Hi Doug so a previous condition reference that the owners would keep number condition 19 the owner shall maintain a log of complaints filed with the manager manager or town and document actions taken in response to it. So it's something that isn't you know available now is something that we would we're recommending as a condition just so that they're you know so you know there's a new owner they would have that log and they would present it. Okay. All right. Janet I assume that answers your question. All right. I'm satisfied Ms Cornell though, I, you know their their concerns about not having complaints dealt with, but I guess that's more with the town. Well, you know, obviously some of the complaint they've had with the way things have gone have been with the town. But I think they've also been unhappy with some of the actions of the owner. Chris, did you want to speak. To clarify something and that is that Rebecca Cornell was requesting a split rail fence which is only about four feet high it has posts every six to eight feet and it's see through so it's not the stuck aid fence that Bruce mentioned, I just wanted to clarify that I'm not advocating for a split rail fence but I wanted to give you a sense that it was really something that's transparent if you will and not doesn't block of you. Okay, thank you. All right, so board members. Are we ready to vote on this site plan. And if so if somebody's ready to vote maybe they could make a motion that we end discussion and move to a vote on this site plan. Bruce I see your hand. The vote would be based on the conditions and so forth. If that's case and I'm thinking wouldn't shouldn't we review the findings and the conditions systematically so that we can edit those if we choose because that will allow us for an example to combine a condition six and seven or delete seven if we choose because that's got the fence requirement suggested and we could add some data about the tree, which Chris site chamberlain has suggested so I'm thinking that I would prefer to review the draft condition list and see if we can't sharpen them up to a point where they don't have to come back. That would be a good suggestion. So, I'm given my voice I'm going to ask someone else to be reading our draft findings and conditions this evening. Does anybody want to volunteer to do that, or maybe just agree to do the first page, and then we'll move on to someone else Chris is that you volunteering. Just because Nate is suffering from the same thing you're suffering from. So I can start off and then maybe somebody else can pick it up. I was going to jump in quickly. Would it make sense to still got the conditions first, sometimes it's a little out of order but they may, they may, you know, then impact the findings just because we're, you know, we have some conditions about how the rooms would be used or these conditions. All right. So we start on bottom of page two with the draft conditions. And I'm happy to follow Chris at any point. All right. Okay, draft conditions. I'll put my hand down. Condition number one the property shall contain no more than the existing two units and provide for provide rooms for up to three rumors. Okay. Number two, the property shall provide a template lease for the second dwelling unit and for each room and unit to the building commissioner. I don't know if the word template is necessary there but I think that what you do want is a lease for those those units and rooms. I assume the word template is there to denote a, a document which would be called a lease that has not been executed by anyone. So you prefer to leave that already there. Yeah, I mean, I think if you took it out the, the owner could simply deliver the executed lease that they had with each rooming unit to the building commissioner and it would be however they agreed to make it. Okay. I wonder if you would want assigned lease. I don't know what a template, I don't know what a template leases other than It could be a draft lease. Yeah. Chris, what's the purpose of this if it's not, you know, it's not nobody's reviewing it it's simply, here's what we do. Is this something that anyone would comment on and changes or not. I think commission or something to enforce. So if something's in the lease, and he has a copy of it, then he can enforce what's in the lease. All right, so it should be an executed leads and would it be the same. You know same document and conditions and obligations for all of the, you know, all of them are they maybe vary from one to the next like the efficiency unit needs to have only one car and maybe rumor number three only can't have any cars for all we know so I mean, if it's an executed lease, it probably doesn't need to happen every year. It would need to happen every year if it were an executed lease and I don't know if the building commissioner wants to be receiving. Right. What essentially would be for leases every year. So I think probably the idea is that the building commissioner has the wording of a lease. There are two leases one for the second unit and one for each rooming unit, but he has them on file so he knows what can be enforced. All right. Well that that certainly makes sense to me rather than doing it every year. But we are talking about four different documents one for the second dwelling unit and one for each rumor. Yep. Although you could have one for the second dwelling unit and then one that would apply for each rumor, assuming the conditions are all the same. Yeah, I would assume that they would be for each rumor. Well, yeah, we don't really know. You know, get particularly given how different bedroom six is. Well, I guess it I mean it doesn't matter to me if it's an executed one or not, but you know they're going to have the template available before they execute him. So if there's if it needs to be a timely delivery. Then I would leave the template in. Okay, right. This condition has been used before by the zoning board and so sometimes, you know the template lease also provides time for the building commissioner to review it to make sure it complies with, you know, say conditions of a site plan reviewer special permit as well so before issuing, you know, a permit. Right. But there's no permit being issued in this case. No building permit. Well, there's no building happening. There's no permit. Okay. All right. Proceed. I guess. Condition three bedroom six as shown on the plans dated June 28 2022 prepared by Fitch architecture and community to design and reviewed by the planning board on September 7 2022 and October 19 2022 shall be maintained as an accessory. Under section 5.0 100 of the zoning bylaw, and she'll not contain a cooking appliance that establishes a full kitchen as defined by the applicable state law. Bedroom six is on the ground floor adjacent to the efficiency unit that has its own entry egress. Is that okay. Well, I think we all agree we don't want it to qualify as a full apartment. Okay, number four, the property shall register with the residential rental program and shall be subject to periodical periodic inspection as required by the code enforcement officer. Number five all exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded. Number six, planting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan. And the parent that a goal here, this condition could specify sizes at time of planting. Is that something that the board wants the applicant to come back with or do you want to establish that now. Board members how do you feel about that. We certainly, we certainly discussed the plantings we had a comment from a neighbor regarding the appropriateness of our variety. If we could establish simply a number of acceptable trees that were to be planted along the southern boundary. I agree that our variety is not a good choice if it can go too high but there are species that dwarf and they are quite, quite controllable and they weren't infringed on the parking. But do we know we want screening. I don't know that we do we know that the next house to the south seems, or we've heard that they would like to have some screening. Andrew, do you have any thoughts about this. Yeah, I would just say since you know we've heard about screening we've heard about, you know, delineating the property that it would make sense to have them bring the plan back. I think that number alone is probably not satisfied. Yeah, I guess I'm a little bit leery of getting into picking tree species and numbers by committee, and I'm not a particular expert in that area. So, so, so Chris the condition six would be would require the applicant to return with a final proposal for plantings and screening or fencing. But prior to, you know, prior prior to a full approval. Well, I think. If I'm imagining this correctly you would give your approval tonight with conditions. So we should draft this condition so that it requires them to return with the final plan. Right. I think that's I think the building commissioner has to give a permit for the paving of the driveway doesn't he. Nate or Chris Chamberlain. What do you think about that. I'm not actually sure. I'm not sure either since it's not a new per, well I guess there would be a driveway permit for the new spaces so there would be some kind of permit action there. I think there is a permit. Yeah. Okay, so and are we giving the applicant the ability to choose whether to put a fence in or Arbor Vidie because I agree with Rebecca Cornell that there's not enough and not really much room for plantings, but there is room for a fence. And if the, if the reason for putting it there is not screening but rather delineating the edge of the property than maybe a fence makes more sense than planting. Well, I guess, I don't quite understand the timing that would be required with them to come back. And it sounds like there's been some concern about how prompt they were on on dealing with things. Should we just continue this and have them come back with a final plan at the next meeting. Could do that. And let's get a complete plan and go forward. I mean, if people feel we need to have some screening, I mean, we could just approve the plan the way it's drawn with no snow planting and no, no fencing and be okay with that. And if they and their neighbor, you know, the neighbors convinced them to do something different. They could come back with it with a new application. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Allen. I see your hand up. My concern is that we already have a number of plantings along that line, various trees. What do you call the U can use. Very well established and big and supportive. And what will happen is it's not until we get the driveway. We have a lot of new approaches. So what we're left with after the new driveway is put in is going to have a lot to do with what we plant and where we plant it. Our thought had been would be is once the driveways and take a good look at it, walk, walk it around. You know, get some plantings and plant them, and then take some photographs or something like that. Because right now, I would hate to put in a landscape plan that's on paper and find out that with that. So I asked for, for seven arbor varieties 13 inches apart and whether we found out we couldn't put them 13 inches apart, you know, that kind of thing because of whatever is left over after the driveways in. So that's my concern is it's really hard to nail down exactly where you're going to put these plants actually have the driveway in. Okay, thank you. Andrew. I remember hearing you say that before and I'm just I'm trying to figure out what would make it hard. And that you'd have to wait I do appreciate, you know, wanting to make sure it's done correctly. But I'm not totally clear on why you wouldn't be able to determine at this, you know, before the driveways added what the plantings would need to look like. You'll, you'll have to know what the overall plan looks like even before it's installed in terms of the, the driveway correct. You're addressing that to Mr Allen right. Yeah, I'm. Yes, thank you. And Chris Chamberlain, do you want to comment since you're their designer. You know, I think that certain as far as I'm concerned that we can certainly work with Bruce and Carol to put a plan together. You know, I would be a little concerned about doing a whole continuation just for the planting plan, not least of all because since this is a special permit there's an appeal period that has to go by and I know that that Bruce is trying to get contractors lined up, you know, we're going to get to a comment down below that talks about the timeline, which is already, you know, problematic for this year. And the way that the industry is just, you know, the longer and longer we push out the certainty that there is an approved plan for the hardscape, the, you know, the more difficult it's going to be to hit any particular timeline. So I think from my perspective, we can certainly have a plan for planting back to the board before construction perhaps that could be again, you know, driveway permit shall not be issued until kind of condition, but I would sort of push against the idea that we continue the entire public hearing for that plan. All right, thank you. Sure, I was going to follow up with the common similar regard to Andrew and that I don't understand what we would need to wait for and what we would see that a designer with this kind of experience can imagine what three and a half feet of land can accommodate. And I think that I also read a note that this won't be installed until spring so we're talking about eight months. So it doesn't seem like much of a rush to do it so I mean I understand that we could complete this now and come back or have to come back in a week or two with a new set of drawings but I think either way, they're coming back with drawings prior to construction of the driveway so I think, you know, something that we consider either way. All right, so board members. We've, we've had a variety of points of view here and we're going to need to decide how we want this to read unless we want to just continue and punt to then do a later meeting. Tara and I see your hand. We can't just drop the fence without talking about that a little bit because as Chris mentioned, if you have a split rail fence. It does not really sort of office of hinder the view as much and it sounds as if the neighbor who's complaining across the street is very adamant that her property that there should be no trespassing. There's no snow, nothing on that so she cares a lot about really delineating her property. So, what how do we feel are we get how I think we should decide whether that should be a condition, or at least talk about it. How do you feel Karen I think you need to express your opinion, we need some decisions here. I wonder how Carolyn Bruce feel about that. Is that something that they're really. Yeah, how did they feel about that about installing a split rail fence to, in a way, make peace with the neighbor across the street. And perhaps that wouldn't be so unattractive and I don't think it would have to go along the whole side of it. Or do they think that that's going to be ugly and they prefer not to, I'd like to hear from her. All right. Mr Allen Miss Albano. You are muted. I was concerned as concerned about where the property line is at all times. We just spent a lot of money, putting survey stakes out there pretty much every 10 feet. Those survey states are right on the property line they go from the front, all the way to the back. Those stakes are as are as good of a marker for that property line as any fence would be and they would probably last longer than any fence that goes in there. Certainly, if you look at the topography there, we do not have any, the ground that's on our side of the property line goes up and down so there's no real way to put a split rail fence there and split rail fence has no real value. Now, I would offer though if you go to the property, the her side of the property line. It is a straight run from the front to the back. And if she if she'd like she can put in a split rail fence herself. That's why we need to do that. We already have it marked we paid a lot of money to get it marked. It's currently marked. There's no reason to take out the surveys markers and put in a split rail fence for what reason. Plus we have a lot of nice plantings already that are mature and beautiful, and the other neighbor can look in on it can see that. And, and at the very least, why would we put it all the way to the back I mean we're only talking about marking to the, the driveway. And I'm going to, I'm going to say that there is, I counted it up for 27 years we have had four cars parking in that driveway for 27 years and it's not been a problem we did park kind of on the grass inside our own driveway. But, so we're going to resolve all that now we're going to be, you know, we make it, we're only going one car length longer than it is. And the bottom line is, we're going to have the same four cars. And it's looked at for years and years, years, and the same thing with the inside the house. My other comment is that I do not know of any zoning bylaw which requires a person to put up a physical indication of where a property line is. I haven't found that in the zoning ranks. Right, I think that's where that our idea even comes from. I understood. We want to make our house beautiful. We want to make it very attractive, believe me, it's in our best. I also want to comment your, the main complainant here is a person that only comes to this neighborhood one hour every two weeks to mow that property, and then she goes back to her other house, she never even doesn't even live here. Okay. And I think I think we've got your answer that you would not like to put in a fence. I think the board will take that under advisement. Thank you. Bruce, I see your hand but I see Chris's hand so I want to give Chris Brestrup a chance to a way in here. I wanted to note that this is a special permit and the planning board can put on conditions that it feels are reasonable, even though the zoning by law itself doesn't require that someone's property line be marked with a fence that is a reasonable condition for the planning board to impose if the planning board sees fit to do so. Thank you. All right, thank you Chris. I think that we should either delete condition draft condition six in other words require no screening, or we should take it as it currently stands because I didn't think we would be creating a landscape plan. I thought we might be able to do it but I'm convinced now that it might take a bit too long. So I think that we should maintain the condition as it's currently stated, we can, we can approve this application with the condition that the final acceptance of a landscape plan follows at a subsequent meeting. And if we wanted to we could say a subsequent meeting before the end of the calendar year or something like that. All right, thank you. Thank you Bruce. All right, so we have now the edits that Nate, I think has typed in and unless anybody has any objections. I would encourage us to move on from this. Unless anybody has any objections. Do I see any hands Bruce your hand is still up but I'll assume that's a legacy hand. All right, so Chris why don't why don't we Chris and Nate why don't we assume that what you've got here for number six is acceptable to the board and move on to number seven. Okay, number seven may be not necessary if number six is going to be worded as it is in red here. Number seven reads there shall be screening along the southern property boundary to help shield views of the driveway and parking area. Screening can be in the form of a fence along the driveway. So perhaps you would want to delete number seven. Yes, that sounds like a good thing to do. Need if you could do that. Thank you. Okay, so now the next one is a parking management plan shall be provided to each rumor and tenant. And will it also be provided to the building commissioner. It should be provided to the building commissioner it will be provided as part of the rental registration requirement. All right. We don't need to say that here. No, the next one parking spaces shall be assigned to specific rumors and tenants. Now that may or may not be something that the applicants want to do. Applicants do you have any objection to that. That sounds like a wise thing from my perspective. Yes. Oh, me. I guess the key thing is, is that, yeah, you know, we're going to tell people where to park. And we'll just make sure they park in the same spot all the time. But I can't, I can't really tell you every year and to give you a, you know, where who's parking where, like a map or anything like that. No, I think, I think this is fine. You will have a plan that you enforce with your rumors for each, for each year's crop of people. And, and then, you know, I think you have to get a permit for rental every year. And so whatever that year's plan is would be part of that applicant application for the rental permit. All right, sounds good. Let's go on to number eight. So that number eight is has shifted the numbering has shifted. But the next one is there shall be a total maximum of six cars allowed for all occupants. I think you've decided that that is a reasonable condition. Next one occupants of the efficiency unit shall be permitted to have only one car. This restriction shall be a condition of the lease. The next one is all parking shall occur on improved asphalt or gravel surfaces only. Should we remove the or gravel. Okay. Parking for occupants tenants shall occur off street and defined spaces only and is prohibited along the apron of the driveway. Okay. Yep. Okay. The next one occupants shall be delineated with the installation of curb stops and or line painting. That is another one to be discussed. I think do you want to have line painting. Curb stops kind of get knocked out of alignment by. Well, it curves, curve stops seem a little bit excessive for this number of cars and this kind of configuration. Right. Yeah. So. My painting actually I mean we do don't want cars hanging out on the street and causing complaints again. Andrew, what do you think. Yeah, I don't know necessarily about the line painting because I think you might have some folks have a big car some folks have a little car and I imagine that they'll make it work out. As long as the cars are hanging into the, into the street. Occupants should be permitted to have only one car. Maybe should she'll be permitted to have a maximum of one car because it's possible that they don't want any. In which case, you know, if they don't want any, I wouldn't think that maybe that then becomes available for a, for another tenant. I think the point is that they're there. The occupants are able to park their cars and if someone doesn't want to use it, I think it should be available for somebody else. Sounds good, Andrew. And it sounds like you, you kind of think we could get rid of number. It's not a commercial parking lot. I mean, I think it's number 13 could go away. Yeah, parking required to be off street. So, yes. Okay, so Nate. Okay. That's the next one is the new 13 snow removal shall occur with blowers unless snow plowing can be done to ensure snow storage does not encroach on the 25 foot wet wetland buffer areas. I'm going to leave that. Janet. I'm fine with that actually I, but I had a change I wanted to make or in addition to condition three. So I just was sort of waiting for a natural pause, which I think quite be this. So I was hoping that on condition three. We basically put in the start with the sentence, there shall be no separate cooking facilities period. And then talk about bedroom six and that's just language out of the bylaw. And so it's not saying, so it's like, our condition says you can't have a kitchen. And the bylaw says that when you have like a boarding house like with three people or less, that there shall be no separate cooking facilities and so that's basically saying you shouldn't be cooking in the rooms. So I think we should just enforce the bylaw and reinforce the bylaw in the permit conditions. So that's, I'm a little out of sequence but I was looking at section 5.0100. I think that would help make things more clear. Um, does anyone want to comment on Janice proposal that was 5.0100 that you cited 5.5.0101. It's on it's on page 61 but that may be just my version. So it's just a sentence out of the bylaw just saying you can't cook, you know you have a kitchen but you can't have cooking separate cooking facilities and I think that might get rid of the gray area that that I'm seeing as a as a negative. All right, it does say a rooming unit under 5.0100. Yeah, so that section's already cited. Yeah, I just think it's going to make it clear to everybody that. So I don't see that it hurts and I think it needs some clarity in terms of what people are worried about or what might be happening in room six or five or whatever. So. All right. So I see four hands raised at the moment. I guess I'll start with the applicant. Mr Allen, do you want to comment or miss albano. Well, I think you should run that by Rob more because he was very adamant about that wording so I would think you need to talk to him about if you want to change that because he does do everything per the applicable state law. But he's well aware of section 5.0100 so I would think he would need to weigh in on that. All right, thank you. And it's in the minutes that he, he felt that it was not a dwelling unit. Yeah, agreed. Making that changes in direct contradiction of what he stated in the in the in the minutes of the last meeting. All right, thank you. Andrew. I know you had your hand up you were you were down in 13 or 14 wherever. Yeah, yeah, and mine is actually the 13 and I'm just wondering. I think the point of 13 I would strike like the first half of the point is that the snow storage is not close to 25 foot. Yeah, doesn't matter if they plow it or blow it or shovel it. Right. Too prescriptive. So I would, I would recommend simplify that. All right, do you have a comment. Any thought about Janet's proposal, as long as we've got you on the line here. I do not. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So Nate, how do you feel about, or it looks like you went ahead and edited number 13. Okay, good. Quickly, number 13 was more applicable when the gravel driveway extended further into the property. And it was actually a condition of the order of conditions from the conservation commission. So it was just reiterating something that is part of a previous permit. So I think the change recommended by Andrew makes sense. Okay, thank you, Nate. Tom. Yeah, I just wanted to comment on Janet's proposal for number three. And I think, you know, why I see her concern is being related to bedroom six. I also think that it's a stipulation that like, are we not allowing other people in other rooms of other houses to put a microwave in a, in a bedroom. And it just seems odd that we're going to not allow someone to put a small refrigerator in a bedroom. I feel like I'm concerned that it's setting up a precedent for telling people how they can use their rooms in their house without relying strictly on the law that's in front of us. And it's noted as specifically for bedroom six here so I think, you know, it's I think I feel like it's fine as is in terms of setting limitations for bedroom six. And it's standing as a as a room rather than an apartment, but I don't think we need to add any further stipulations for how people can utilize those spaces, based on their understanding of the law. All right, thank you Tom. Janet. I think we're talking about two different things. And so Rob Mora was saying, you know, if you have a stove. That makes a kitchen, right. And our bylaw is talking about lodgers boardings, boarders room, rumors and bed and breakfast, and they're just, and literally, the requirement isn't saying, you know, no extra stoves it's saying, there shall be no separate cooking facility so I think that's like an electric walk, you know, also to different things and so I'm not adding this isn't adding an extra. This is what the bylaw says this is the law in Amherst and just making it clear that there can't be separate cooking facilities. I think the question is going to come down to what is a cooking facility, as opposed to a cooking appliance. And, and I think, you know, yeah we don't want built in stoves and ranges, but the kind of portable appliances that people bring in and out of rooms. That's a difficult thing to police, and it's also, you know, not illegal. I don't agree with you. I just, I just think that I'm basically saying let's put this sentence in from the bylaw, which is our legal requirement. And I think that the reaction to it by the owner suggests to me that maybe people are cooking in that room, you know, they gone from taking all the meals from one place. So, this is a legal requirement of our town, separate from what is considered a separate dwelling unit understay law and so I'm really, all I'm asking is, can we put in the sentence, it doesn't have to apply to bedroom six but just to make it clear that when you're running a boarding house or a rooming house, people can't be cooking all their meals all over it. And that's the rule in Amherst. Okay, okay. I think, I think there's going to be some nuance there where, if you don't have a kitchen you're not cooking. Right, you're just heating something up and so I think there's always going to be some tension there about what's a cooking facility so under building code, a microwave does not mean you're cooking, right, it's not considered a cooking facility, a microwave, you know, doesn't, isn't a kitchen, it's not enabling you to cook. And so, I mean, I think to Janice might we could say something in that condition and reiterate what's what's actually written in 5.0100 but it doesn't. I mean, it's, it won't preclude people from having a microwave or refrigerator. Right. In the in the room. Well, I think we heard. I think it was from Tom that he was not in favor of changing the wording. And I can say I'm not in favor. If anybody else wants to express an opinion. I think we, you know, I'd like to consider Janet's suggestion and make a decision and go on. Andrew. Yeah, I mean, if it, you know, we're thinking it doesn't have an impact anyway I would. I've been inclined to go with Jan and say let's use the language that's in play from the violets. It seems like a reasonable thing to ask. Okay. Johanna. I'm inclined not to add it. Okay. All right, seems pretty even so far. Karen. I'm inclined not to add it. I actually think it's great that there is a room that provides microwave and has a sink. I think it's, they could maybe charge a little bit, but it's not a full cooking thing. I think it's the people that have that ring in lots of groceries to heat up in the microwave. I think that's a good thing. Okay. Let's see. Have we not heard from. Haven't heard from me. All right, Bruce. I'm marginally inclined to do as Andrew and Janet suggests, but I think the nuance is so slight that I really don't care that much. So you're not going to break the tie. All right, all right, so. All right, so let's just go through the roll call here I want to find out where we stand. I'm going to call each person. Let me know if you're in favor of adding the language that, that Janet is proposing and Nate seems to be typing into the I just did that just to show you, I just did that just to show how it could work right so it's a separate cooking facility. All right, that's the language in the bylaw. Right. And it looks like it is applicable only to bedroom six. All right, Shannon, would this be acceptable to you. I mean, actually, I can't see. I think I have my screen too big. Hang on a sec. Oops. Sure, that's fine. I mean, I think I think it's strange to me that I'm just adding a sentence that reiterates the bylaw. I would do it as a standalone sentence but I think I don't know, I just, I don't know. All right, so does anyone strongly object to the edit that Nate just entered. I do not see any hands I see one hand actually from Mr Allen and Miss Alano. I did some research on this and I have a right here the state sanitary code calls out a permanent, a permanent stove. And if you read about what they mean by a permanent stove, they mean that a person can move into that unit right now with enough groceries to cook a whole Thanksgiving Day dinner. Okay, and that's what they mean by a permanent stove. You can't do that with microwave you can't do it with a hot plate. You can't do that with a little tiny oven. So if you really research what they mean by a permanent range or permanent stove. That's what they mean. So you got to do some research behind what the sanitary code really means. All right, and do you have any objection to the language we just edited on condition number three. Yes, because I agree with Rob moral you need to be as defined by applicable state law. But if you're going to go change it in the zoning then you need to understand what the state law really says you do you have objection to the language that's here, regardless of Rob more or anything else. Well, I just think it's so odd that it's got to be. I guess I guess it's not I don't know. Yeah, as defined by okay I actually right as defined by applicable. Okay, I'm I'm sorry I'm fine with that. Okay, thank you very much. Alright so board members speak now let me know let us know if you have a strong objection to this I don't think anybody had expressed it for when I asked. Let's consider this condition settled and move back down farther to I think we were on. We had gotten all the way up to number 14 I think we had, I think finished discussion of 13 and had edited that. So Chris you want to read number 14. Okay, and as built drawing certified by a registered land surveyor. He provided to the building commissioner upon installation of the parking areas and plantings to demonstrate compliance with the approved plans. All right, that seems pretty straightforward. Okay, any alterations to the approved site plans or building plans shall be submitted to the building commissioner, who will determine if the changes are substantial enough to require submission to the planning board for review and approval. That's good. Next one, the approved management plans parking plan and complaint response plan shall remain in effect at all times. All right. The owner shall maintain a log of complaints filed with the owner manager or town of Amherst and document actions taken by the owner in response to the complaint. This information shall be made available to the code enforcement office upon request. Is this a standard condition for rental properties. It is not. I don't believe. All right. Mr Allen and miss albano. Well, I'm confused by the statement because this already exists on the town website in the complaint log on the Amherst GIS mapping. I can go in and see every every complaint that's lodged against anyone in this town that's a lodge to the code enforcement officer. I think the order. The this also requires you to keep a record of your responses and how you responded to the complaint. That's also recorded on the town website. It's not available anymore. I'm sorry for budding in, but the IT department has taken down a lot of the information that's been available on the town website. So I'm not sure that it's talking about the complaint on the GIS maps. There's a there's a section there on on complaint history. What the complaint is what the complaint number was the date, and then how it was resolved. Now, Nate, I wondered if you could give us some background on this on this requirement and why this come in. Yeah, sure. Sure. So the GIS used to link to complaints and that stopped a few years ago. So what we're missing is the last two to three years of complaint history, and that will not be updated online. So, you know, if you were to go look at any property you might see complaints from the 2000s or 2000s teens. But it stops around 2018 19. You know, there's been discussions with the, you know, Community Resource Committee town council and others building inspections about changes to the rental registration. Not that this isn't necessarily one of those but there has been discussions about having, you know, a better, you know, log of complaints and responses to it and so, you know, Rob Mora. And inspection services requested this type of condition for this property knowing the history. Yeah, there's some confusion about what you know what was done. When were the complaints filed and so you know the inspection services is only one part of town government that receives complaints also police it could be Board of Health it could be others and so you know the log really is something that is, you know, on the owner but you know we see it as a benefit to them that they could then respond to anything so if there's a future complaint down the road you could say well here's what here's the actions that were taken, as opposed to the town. You know, going through different departments the owner could have it just to also have a record. Right. And Nate one one question. Any entity in town that gets a complaint would they notify the owner so the owner will in fact hear about all the complaints. Yeah, I'm assuming that if you know there's a complaint filed with inspection services or the police they they respond to the owner. Right, because, you know, obviously that the owner can't include a complaint on their log if they never hear about it from the town. Right. All right, Andrew. Yeah, that was one of my questions I just this one just seems confusing to me. I don't know why I guess whatever it's not available anymore. I would think that if it would it would sort of behoove the owners to go ahead and file that response so rather than just have it available why not just ask them to go ahead and record their response with the town. I guess this I'm just not really clear on why this is in here as written. So I mean they might write in a sheet of paper and then whatever like it does their basements flooded and they lose it and we have no record of it like why not just ask them to reply. So we have a record of what happened it seems like it's that's in the interest of all parties. It seems like this is a way a stop gap at least of filling the gap when the town decided they couldn't keep up with all these complaints and keep their own log. I think it was yeah it was more than just a you know a singular log it was complaints from any, you know for any purpose, whether it was fire police health board is you know anything inspection services and so. And I think this. This condition could, you know, over time it could be that you know, the owner keeps a record of the response it doesn't mean that they keep it themselves it could be that they then submit it through a town system so you know we are working on getting new software and so they respond by, you know, logging into the town system and all this is filed with the town. It's not, you know, it doesn't have to be a paper copy, you know, kept in their basement it could be, you know, through some other other resource that we know it's not defined really to maintain. It's pretty clear the owner has to maintain it and so if the town is going to take that responsibility back do we have to go back and change all these permits. No, no it's not no the owner will still do it they would they would input it into the town system so we'd you know we have a we'd have a database that the owner could access. It doesn't seem quite future proofed like that. Yeah, I think that you'd want something that would say that you know they must maintain documentation in compliance with current current law but the town the town current system for right. Yeah. Nate, do you like this could be edited at all or do we need to just accept it and move on. And Nate we can't hear you if you're speaking. Yeah, I know I'm thinking I think the condition is generic enough that if if we have a system that the town can use that then this can apply to it. You know if we were to specify something really, you know, some type of log in it that didn't work but I think, you know the if we were to maintain a log of complaints and actions taken in response it could be that you know we set up the town says up a system for all rental registration properties, and you know this in this, you know, it was still satisfied this condition that they enter into that type of reporting system. If I were, if I were writing a condition based on what you just said, I think it would be written a little differently, it would be something like the owner shall participate in the town's complaint and complaint response log system as currently in fact, or if none is available from the town, it shall maintain it's an independent log of complaints and responses in response, you know made. So, you know this this is not. This has the owner, maintaining their log, regardless of what the town does. Yeah, I like you said dog I don't think there's a there may not be a system in place now and so through the technology of zoom will take your transcript and make that a condition. Okay, so you're just going to make a note now that we're going to edit that for Doug's comments. If the board thinks that's that's a, you know, probably more reasonable. Okay, let's see what the, the. Okay, I see two hands from board members and Chris Chamberlain what would you like to say. Yeah, I guess I'm, I'm just. I'm not clear on what the purpose of requiring the owner to keep this log so the code enforcement office can receive it. You know if it's a question of enforcement, and making sure that these complaints get followed up on. If the code enforcement office isn't doing that, then I don't think they're going to be enforcing this condition that the log of the things that they haven't followed up on is being kept. Well I think for instance there's a lot of police complaints about parking on this property. We're not going to inspection services doesn't. You know, reach out to police on a weekly basis to ask what kind of parking complaints have their been on properties in town. Right, but for instance if a neighbor complains a year from now that cars are parking all over the street. And they said they complained, you know, 15 times, then we can go to the owner and to the police and we can corroborate whether those complaints were actually filed. And so we have an owner log and a police log, but we're not inspection services doesn't, you know, scan all the police logs. You know, because that's just a lot more work so that that's what this condition is trying to get at so that there is a, you know a two part piece to a complaint history. There's an owner log and then there's whatever logs are kept by the town, and we can use those to try to rectify the situation. I guess I would just point out that that still requires you to go and pull it from the police if there's going to be verification stage but right. Well, I do think if I'm an owner of a property and I'm getting complaints I want to keep track of how I responded so that I can defend myself if someone is alleging that I'm not being responsive. So, you know, I think it's good practice just to keep your own records. Janet. So I sort of read this differently from Nate's explanation I thought that the idea behind it was, you know, that the owner is maintaining a log of complaints because there's been a history of complaints and then we're getting into the he shit. He said she said kind of situation. And then also, you know, maybe a little self reflection if you have a log and you notice there's constant complaints about this or you know whatever. I mean I'm a landlord and I get a lot of complaints too, but you know it's it's like a faucet here and something there and I just kind of, I'm one, you know I is the intent just to have the owner make sure they're documenting what's been complained about and what actions they take because later on the town would want to look at that or is it a self reflection tool or is it the corroboration I don't know I just kind of it's, it's. I'm not sure I understand know what it is meant to do but the language seems to indicate that the loaner owner has to just log every complaint and said yeah I fixed the faucet or I asked the tenant to move the car. So it's very broad. Yeah. I'm seeing Nate just shake his, not his head. So, I guess that what you said Janet is generally what the point was. Yeah, I mean I think it's a little both I mean the self reflection is a, it could be a great tool that I don't know if that was necessarily part of it but it was more about having a consolidated record that you know code enforcement could could use. You know so whether that's. So one of the burdens of being a landlord in this town is consolidating the complaints that go into various town departments. All right, Andrew. Yeah, I personally don't think that's a reasonable burden for the land, the owner I think like. It should be it should be made available through through the town right I mean we talked about this being an opportunity to dwell upon what went right or what went wrong like why not let the whole community benefit from that. My two cents. It seems like asking the landlord to maintain these records is unreasonable in my mind, I mean, I would do it and I'm sure that that these owners would but still the town should know. Yeah. All right. No more hands. I know I've heard we've we've had some skepticism about this but I'm not hearing great objection to it and it does seem like Rob Mora was interested in something like this. Mr Allen. Okay, I'm just going to interject here. Is this a requirement that you've given to all of the high rise student dormitories that are being built in center this town. We've had tenants who have moved out of some of those. They've had plenty of complaints that have never gotten resolved. And I can't imagine any of those owners of any of those high rise dormitories, having written them down. A tenant that moved in here didn't have Wi-Fi for most of the school year, and she had to use her own data plan all the time so she could do work during the pandemic. And this is in one of the new high rises, not an old one one that was only about four years old. So my question is, this is fine I think as long as it's being applied uniformly to all landlords and all owners of apartments that's fine. Well, Mr Allen, I'm sorry I can't answer your question I think it's come up on your application and Nate, do you want to comment or should we just move on. Yeah, I mean I think some of it is also the history that there has been some complaints about parking and other things so you know if, if a property has consistent complaint history and it's time for permitting then this type of condition would be applied to it. Okay. Thank you. Well, I'm going to check my concern was this poor woman who couldn't have didn't have internet and her high rise dormitory apartment in the center of town. There was no one she could complain to except for the landlord and landlord didn't do anything. And now by you saying the town is not going to take complaints anymore. What is it what is a kid supposed to do. I think you're misunderstanding Mr Allen, the town accepts complaints, and they do get acted on by whatever department receives them. The town does not consolidate the list of complaints between different departments. And I think Nate was clear that because your property has a history of complaints this condition was suggested by the building commissioner. All right, so let's move on to number 18 Chris. This special permit shall be filed with the registry of deeds prior to any work proceeding. It's a standard condition. I mean this is standard practice, not condition. 19 all work associated with the approved plans and conditions of this permit shall be completed within 90 days of the issuance of this permit unless extended by the building commissioner for good cause. I think at this point that's going to be a tough one to meet because of the we're moving into winter and as of Thanksgiving the asphalt plants are closing and so I think if you wanted to put a date on it you're probably looking at. And people are having a hard time getting contractors to work for them so I don't know if this type of data is reasonable I would say maybe something like next August or something like that. If you really wanted to put a date on it. Right. I think we do need to put a date on it. We want to resolve these this these conditions that have prompted all these complaints. So why don't we put, say, August 30 of 2023. Anybody object to that right I'm not seeing any hands. Hold on, I do have one thing to say. All right. So we are we have to go back before the wetlands commission, because we have to get our wetlands permit modified. That could be anywhere from a 30 day to maybe a two or three month process. So that may affect this however, it also says unless extended by the building commissioner for good cause so I assume that if for some reason we can't make that date because we got stuck getting our wetlands permit over four months we're fine and I think that I believe that would be considered good cause. Correct. Okay, yeah I've spoken with the wellness administrator Aaron and she said that, you know, if this plan were approved and it's reducing the impact to the buffer, then it may be able to be done without a new hearing a revised well and permit so it would be something that could happen a little more seamlessly than you know, a new application. Okay, that sounds good. Okay, fun change of ownership the new owner shall appear at a public meeting of the planning board to review an updated management plan parking plans and complaint response plan. Yep. Okay, and then there shall be an arborist on site to monitor construction for safety protection and health of existing trees. What do we mean by on site. We don't want that person to move in and become a fourth border. The arborist arborist should be consulted during construction so right shall shall be present during construction or, you know, visit during monitoring. Shall monitor the construction or, or how about a certified arborist shall monitor construction. Yes, for the safety protection and health of existing trees. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay. Now that you're at the end I wanted actually go ahead Mr Allen. Well again I asked is this a standard language that you have on all special permits in this town. This kind of extensive conditioning is certified arborist is that required on all building in this town. A special permit and a special permit can have special conditions. All right and it's being applied here for what reason. There's one to make sure that the existing trees survive. There's existing trees on the southern property line and there's also an existing tree that you're moving. So those trees need to be maintained. So that doesn't happen on all projects. We don't have construction, we don't have construction so close to existing trees and we don't move existing trees, typically. But if there was a project that you know was within the drip line of a mature tree. And the applicant says that they're going to, you know, save the tree. A conditional say that that mature tree is going to be preserved and possibly you know the use of an arborist to ensure that so it really is dependent on the application what you know what's being proposed so. In this instance you're so close to you know existing trees that are providing screening so if, if for instance, you know you put the driveway and you're like you know what those trees need to be cut down, you just cut them down. Well, you know, the plan is being approved with the assumption that those trees are going to remain and so this condition helps ensure that. So Chris I'd like to ask one question about something I don't see in the conditions and that is the owner occupancy. Do we not need to say that the, this property shall be owner occupied in these conditions. This is a two family house in a. What is our end district, what district is this name. Is this required to be owner occupied. It's RG and I think our application does say that it's on our occupied duplex. I think there's a question in this as it needs to be on our occupied. Yeah, to have rumors, it has to be on our occupied. So, it's, I mean we could have it as maybe like a second or third condition. But you know that's, you know, it says 5.0 1 0 0 0 says there shall be an owner who resides on the premises responsible for the operation of a, you know, rumor lodging her boarding house. That's part of the zoning bylaw. All right. Well having it in there that's fine. I guess I, I just want to make sure that this will always be owner occupied when it's having all these rumors. I mean I don't think it hurts, you know, similar to what Janet had been saying do we make it. You know, we could just have a new condition number two saying that the property shall be owner. I don't care if they're in the efficiency apartment or if they're in the main house, but I think it's a good idea to put that in. Yep. Okay. I mean should we say, while it is being used for rumors. You know, is that if, if, if rumors are present or if, if rumors are leasing rooms within the property. The role is, is that if they're having borders, they have to be in that unit. It can't be, they can't move to the extra unit and that point it just becomes a rental. Yeah. So, I would just leave it the property shall be owner occupied period. And if someone wants to change that in the future, they'll come back and change it. All right. I think that'll be better for all concerned. Andrew. I was thinking maybe the opposite that would be good to say to the owner occupied if rumors are present. Because if they don't have rumors that they need to occupy. Nate, you all right with that. You know, I was just just cutting it out or just let the bylaw be the bylaw. Okay. I tried to insert that sentence before because I think nobody realized it and especially the owners. So we can have the bylaw can be more strict than the state law, but you, if you have a dwelling unit, you can have borders in it. But if you have, you can't, you know, if they move into the, the other unit, it's not, you know, it's not a boarding house anymore. So if they're in their main house and they have borders, they're fine. They have to stay there if they move out or. All right. Well, with Janet's endorsement, why don't we take it out, Nate and we'll just shorten this up by, you know, 25 characters and save a little bit of ink. Right. Yeah, just quickly, the reason why this can be allowed is that the rumors are accessory to the single family use, you know, an owner occupied use and so that's, you know, if that ceases to exist in this permit, you know, then they're in violation of that permit. Okay. So it's now quarter and nine. We've gotten through the conditions. We still have the findings and I believe there were some waivers to go through. We are normal. We're over time for our, for our break. So why don't we take a five minute break. It's now 842. Would you all come back at 847. And you can mute your microphone and turn off your camera while you're away. All right, Pam, why don't you end our break on the screen. What time do you have Mr. Marshall. Well, my computer's showing 847. 846. Yeah, you and I are one minute off. We are must be the vast geographic distance between us you're in a different time zone. That's right. I'm up here on the mountain. Right. We're catching up at the speed of light. I thought this was going to be a short meeting. Yeah, I was. It's still going to be a short break, Chris, you jinxed us. We just have to move along. Well, I think we're not too far from the end of this one. All right, let's see. We have all of the board members except for Janet, who is. Who are back with us. And then sounds like. Nate is not back with us. He's probably getting some aspirin or something. He sounds worse than I am, although I may sound bad to you all. See if the two of them can come back soon. There's Janet. All right. So Chris, we had gone through the conditions. Do you think we should now go through the findings? If you responded, Chris, you were muted. Did Mr. Colton volunteer to read the findings or shall I read them? I think he volunteered to help out. So I don't know if he was specific, but maybe we can ask. Bruce, can you. I volunteered to take over when Chris was done. I think that sounds like she's ready to pass the baton. So. And we wonder, we typically read the findings or do we reckon that we've read them before? I believe we usually read them. I can read them. I'm not. I'm not tired yet. So. Why don't we let Chris, why don't we let Bruce read a few. And we'll save you for expert testimony later. Okay. Let's see if that works for everybody. Oh, I don't have them up, of course. Do you want, no, no. Nate's bringing them up because if they have to be edited and anything, he does that. So that. Oh, there's Nate. He is back. Okay. Okay. Board found under section 11. I'm not sure if the zoning viola as follows 112400. The project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the bylaw zoning bylaws. The applicant has applied for a special permit review to comply with conditions from a 2007 special permit. Finding two. I'm just going to say two four zero one. Town amenities and abutting properties will protected through minimizing detrimental or offensive actions as the current and proposed use of the property is unlikely to create such conditions. Finding 24. Bruce hold on. I hate to believe this on maybe Janet can answer, but those eight. Is that kind of standard language? Yeah. I mean, I mean, I mean, I think it's not a good idea to legally just minimizing detrimental or offensive action sounds kind of arbitrary. That isn't that from the bylaw. Yeah. That's the, that's the language in the bylaw. Yeah. Okay. I mean, that's great. It still sounds kind of arbitrary to me, but if it's in the bylaw. That's, that's what we're supposed to decide what's detrimental and offensive and things. So. We have found that this is. This is what, what I just read. We believe we have found it. Moving on. 24 to abutting properties will be protected. Oh, I, I read that one, didn't I'm sorry. Yes. No, I didn't. Abutting properties will be protected from detrimental site characteristics resulting from the proposed use as parking. Will be provided on the site for owners and tenants. Exterior lighting will be downcast and or shielded and will not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. And they will be screening. Landscaping or fencing. To buffer adjacent. Properties. So this finding the last clause. I don't know that we're clear about the extent of screening that will end up in the final plan. Chris, do we need to include this? You don't need to include that last phrase. Yeah. Nate, do you have any objection to removing it? Everybody all right with that? Okay. I don't see any hands. Moving on. 20 finding 24, 0, 3 provision of adequate recreational facilities. Open space and amenities has been addressed. The existing back deck will remain open. The driveway layout has been designed to reduce impacts to the backyard. Okay. That's pretty clear. 24. 24, 1, 0. Unique or important, natural, historic or scenic features will be protected since the owner has received approval from the conservation commission for work. Near a wetland resource area. And perhaps if you could roll it up a bit. Yes. Because my laptop is screening my monitor here. Thank you. 24, 1, 1. The project provides adequate methods of refuse disposal as described in the management plan. Have we received a management plan yet? Or will that come with the rest of the rental permit? You have received a management plan because it's required as part of the application. All right. And it's really a two page thing. Unless they've added something to it. Nate would know more about that. You know, the applicant completed it. It was pretty thorough. You know, they have under store storage under the deck. They have. You know, a contractor who takes care of the. You know, Waste and recycling. Okay. Thanks. I just didn't remember seeing it. But I don't dispute that it was there. Go ahead, Bruce. On 11, 24, 12, the property is connected to town, sewer and water. I think that's clear. Finding 11, 24, 13, the property is connected to town, sewer and water. I think that's clear. Finding 11, 24, 13, the proposed drainage system within the adjacent, within an adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle storm water. The increased size of the driveways will have minimal impacts to stormwater. 11, 24, 14, provision of adequate landscaping has been addressed. The project protects existing trees and will transplant a tree. And much of the existing back lawn area will remain intact. So I, I guess we could leave that if, if the board at the moment is fine with the. Extent of landscaping that we've been promised. And we've, we've, we've got the promise of a, of a plan. But we don't know really what it'll even show and whether it shows anything at all new. But it doesn't, it might be adequate. Right. Mr. Allen. Yes, I had, like I had mentioned, and I had sent an email to Nathaniel and Christine. I did have the tree warden out here. And since when we first started this process, we have a tree, which we thought was a public shade tree in the front yard. But then we didn't know where the property line was. And then once we got the front property line staked out, he came out here to look at it. And he said it's not a public shade tree because it's on our property. It's about a foot in from the town. So I'm not sure if that affects the wording here. And it's not really clear whether it needs to be called a street tree or, and I would suggest to you say, and may transplant a tree, a tree. So are you not expecting to move that tree, even though now that you know, it's not a street tree. We're not really sure because it's not clear where he planted it. I have to call, was it 811 the dig safe? Because my fear is he planted it right over our water line. And if we try to move it, the root ball could be down around where the water line is. So I, I'm not really sure what's going to happen with, try to move it. So I have to call dig safe to figure out what out is out there underneath this tree. Well, I guess I'm a little bit dismayed to hear that, that something you have that consistently said you were going to do in this. During this process, you're now saying you're not sure you're going to do. Well, the problem was is that until we got the, the front boundary lined up, we didn't know if it was a street tree or not. We just made an assumption that it was a public shade tree. So are the plans that Mr. Chamberlain has provided, which say you will move that tree and replanted? Are they inaccurate? I'm not sure yet. Cause I have to call dig safe to figure out what's in the root ball at this point. The water line will be five foot down. I don't think your root ball is going to go anywhere near that. All right. Well, that's, I have to, before we do the transplant, we have to look and see what's under there. That's all. Cause we have a gas line out there too. All right. So Chris, I don't like having findings that are inconsistent with the drawings that were provided. So. I think you should keep this requirement. Yeah. The project protects existing trees and will. Either transplant a tree or plant a new tree in the front yard. They've promised to have to keep that tree. And I think that they need to keep that tree. So if you want to say transplant or plant a new tree in the front yard, you could say that Andrew. Yeah. Yeah. In terms of planting a new tree, would it, would it be. Would it match the caliper? I guess, like, do we need some parameters around that? You can say plant a new tree to match the caliper of the existing tree. And species, you know, I would just say to match. It's on the matching new tree. Well, it's at the circumference about two inch diameter. So I don't think that's my tree. That's the tree you could buy. Yeah. All right. So anybody. Everybody all right with that. Mr. Allen, your hand is up. I'll assume that's a legacy hand. All right. Yes. 1124 15 the soil erosion control methods included in the approval from the conservation commission are considered adequate to control soil erosion, both during and after construction. As there is limited erosion from this project. Yeah. Bruce, I'm going to. Since we've mentioned the conservation commission again. I want to ask about 2413. Chris or Nate. You know, I'd almost rather say the proposed drainage system. Will be adequate. Since the owner has received approval from the conservation commission. Because I think that's more definitive and puts the responsibility in the right place. But the conservation commission hasn't seen the current driveway. It's less of an impact than the proposed. All right, then I'll withdraw my. And I'll withdraw the comment. Let's, let's just back it up and leave it alone. All right, Bruce. Where are we? Thank you. 1124 16 adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion of various nuisances. As the proposed uses do not generate nuisances. 1124 17 adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of lighting because the condition of the permit requires. That exterior lighting be downcast and or shielded and not shine. Onto adjacent properties. 1124 18. Not clickable. Hold on Bruce. Sorry. I was tempted to let this go. But what is it new since. In 2416. It's things like a noises, smells, smoke. Things like that. They list out a bunch of different nuisances. Okay. If it's, if it's a clear and somewhere else. Yeah, it's, it's listed in the bylaw air pollution, water pollution, flood, noise, odor, dust and vibration. Okay. Thank you. No talking dogs. I agree. It doesn't make much sense standing alone. Yeah. 1124 18 not applicable. The property is not located in a fraud clone conservancy district. 1124 19. The project has been approved by the Amazon conservation commission, including conditions that will protect wetlands and according with the wetlands protection act. Chapter 131 section 40 and the Amazon wetlands bylaw. Is that the case, Chris, or it really, it hasn't yet finished. I don't know. They did, they did receive an order of conditions for the original plan. And so what they're proposing now is, you know, reduced impervious area, you know, they shrunk the driveway. They're actually, you know, staying further away from the wetland resource area. So it would, you know, So it's, so it's accurate since they got the order of conditions. Okay. Okay. All right. 1124 20 the planning board did not choose to refer to the design principles and standards set forth in sections 3.3040 and in 3.2041 of the zoning bylaw, because the project does not involve changes to the building structure. 1124 21. The development is reasonably consistent with respect to setbacks, placement of parking, landscape and entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and neighborhood, including parking driveways along sporting street. 1124 point 22 not applicable. Building sites shall avoid to the extent feasible the impact on steep slopes, floodplain scenic views, grade changes, wetlands. There are minimal changes to the site. 1124 23 not applicable. There is not more than one building on the site. 1124 24 not applicable. There is no HVAC equipment storage areas, loading dogs, rooftop equipment or dumpsters that require screening or vegetation. 1124 30 the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement, both within the site and in relation to adjoining ways and properties. There are sufficient number of designated parking spaces on the property for the occupants. I think we've reached that one out. 1124 31 the proposed curb cut for two parking spaces does not create hazardous exits or turning movements. 1124 32 the location and design of parking, bicycle storage, drive aisles provide safe and convenient use of the site. 1124 33 not applicable as there is no access to adjoining properties. 1124 34 not applicable. The property is not a business or commercial district. 1124 35 not applicable. There is not joint access driveways between adjoining properties. 1124 36 not applicable as there is no change in use to impact the traffic generated at the site. 1124 37 not applicable. No traffic impact. Report will be required. Thank you, Bruce. Nate, could you scroll up a bit? Do I do the draft waivers? Sure. The draft waivers. 9. Sorry, 7. 9 0 to wave section 7. 6. 0. 0 0 0 2 to allow up to three designated parking spaces within the front setback. I read them all? Why don't you read them all? Okay. The second one, 6. 29 is applicable to wave section 6. 24 to allow a 6 foot tall fence along the side property line between the front lot line and the minimum setback line provided that all other standards in section 6.2 of the zoning bylaw are met. Okay. So those are the two waivers. The last one may not be applicable. It doesn't sound like we were, you know, had a condition to have a fence. So I think we can remove that. Yeah. Yeah. It comes back if the submitted plan has a fence, right? That's six foot tall. All right. So Chris, help me out here. We're going to need a motion. Motion to approve the plan to close the public hearing and to approve the plan, the site plan, to approve the interior plan and to approve the use of the property and to with the findings and conditions as enumerated and the waivers as enumerated. All right. All right. Can I say so moved? Then I'll mute. All right. I'll second. All right. Thank you, Janet. Does anybody want to have further discussion about this? I know you're all excited to keep talking about it. I would like to give the public an additional chance for comment. I see we have a few more people that showed up in the public comment in the public. Does anybody from the public want to make a final comment before we have a vote about this? I see Rebecca Cornell's comment or excuse me, I see Rebecca Cornell's hand if you would bring her over and give her a chance to speak. I thank you. I just wanted to thank you all for your attention and to the detail on this problem and on this project. As you know, it's been a long time coming and it's not easy work to get through these challenges and I just wanted to say thank you to the board members and the staff. Thank you very much. I do not see any other hands with public comment. Chris, since you gave us the text for our motion, do you have that sufficiently recorded so that we can go ahead and simply vote to adopt or not the motion that you articulated? I think so. It's essentially close the public hearing, approve the site plan, approve the building plan and with the conditions and findings and waivers as enumerated. Okay, thank you very much. All right, so why don't we go through that? We'll start from the beginning of the alphabet. Bruce? Aye. And Tom? Aye. Andrew? Aye. Janet? Aye. Johanna? Aye. Karen? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. Thank you board members. Thank you, Mr. Allen and Ms. Albano. Thank you, Chris Chamberlain and we will look forward to seeing you at a later meeting with your landscape plan. Great, thank you. All right. All right, so the time now is 9.10 and we can move on to item four on our agenda, which was a continued public hearing for archipelago investments at 47 Olympia Drive. I'm sorry. That's SPR 2023-01 and SPP 2023-01. Chris, am I correct that the applicant has requested to continue the hearing? That's correct. Yes, they've requested to continue it to November 2nd. All right, so I assume you need a board vote to allow that continuation? Yes, and it should be, you know, November 2nd at 7.30 because we have a public hearing for flood mapping at 6.35. We have a public hearing for food and drink establishments at 7 o'clock and so this one can be at 7.30. All right. I assume I don't have to read the paragraph of the introduction that it was, is that true or do I? I don't think you need to. No, it's just a request to continue the public hearing. So yeah, if you're taking any testimony, you're not going to discuss it, you're just going to continue it to a date certain in the future. All right. All right. So would any board members like to make a motion that we continue this hearing to November 2nd at 7.30 p.m.? Tom? Don't move. Thank you. Andrew? I'll second. Okay. Thank you both. Board members, is there any discussion about this continuation? Anybody? Andrew, you would like to speak? Yeah. No, apologies. Just a refresher if you don't mind, Chris. Yeah, Chris. They don't need to provide any grounds for the request and what is the, how far can they push this request? I'm sorry I didn't explain that. They have gone before the Conservation Commission because they have impacts on the wetlands. They weren't aware that they had as much impact on the well and as they do. So they've met with the Conservation Commission on the 28th of September. I think they met with them last week where maybe they didn't because I think the Conservation Commission didn't meet because of a quorum problem. But in any event, they're in a process with the Conservation Commission and they're hoping to wrap it up, I believe this coming week, which will be the 26th. I'm not sure that that will happen, but it may. And if it does, then they would like to come back and present plans to you that are being considered by the Conservation Commission. Okay. I guess just to be tidy then, thanks for that extra guidance, because I don't think they share that in their request. Would it make sense for the motion to actually reflect that, that this is not their attempt to stall this? They're just, they are waiting to hear back from the town before they can move forward. And maybe it doesn't matter and I'm fine with that, but that was actually interesting. That was useful to hear that because I wasn't sure if this was... Andrew, we can certainly include that in the minutes. If folks are comfortable with that, I think it might make sense just to have a cleaner record that they're waiting for the town. They're not trying to gain the process. But there it's just the opposite. They're really eager to get going with this thing. So perhaps we would modify that. I mean, I'd be comfortable doing that if other folks are. All right. It's good. Chris, are you okay modifying the text of the motion? Yep. To continue? All right. Janet? I'm not sure if I, we talked about this or I mentioned this last time on the last continuance, but we haven't gotten a traffic impact report. And so that might be a reminder for them. Thank you, Janet. All right. So we'll go through and vote to continue. Bruce, you're right with continuing to November 2nd. Yes. And Tom. Hi. Andrew. Hi. Janet. Hi. Yohana. Hi. And Karen. Hi. And I'm an I as well. All right. So this hearing is continued to November 2nd. All right. So on to number five on the agenda, the time is 9.16. And we are up to needing to talk about a recommendation to town council regarding the Meadows subdivision. And there, this has been referred to us by town council for a report on roadway acceptance. Chris, do you want to introduce this or is Jason Skeels finally have his moment? Jason Skeels has been waiting patiently. Why don't I say a few words and then maybe he can say something. So this is a project that's been around since the early 2000s. The roadway was substantially completed around 2004. And the developer Tofino Associates made attempts to complete a punch list around that same time between 2004 and 2007. The punch list items were not completely finished. And then the roadway has been used by the residents and people who live in town. But Tofino never made the request to have the roadway accepted by the town. So fast forward a number of years and there was a meeting. Well, I should say first that Jason Skeels has prepared a punch list of items that's dated January 21st. And it's fairly lengthy and you've received copies of it. We now have numbers that are associated with that punch list given to us by Doug Dennell, who's one of the residents of the Meadows subdivision. The estimate that he gave us amounts to roughly $200,000 for the work on both roads, but it doesn't include any of the crack ceiling. It also is in 2021 numbers and not in 2022 numbers. And I'm not sure if it reflects the wage rates that the town would need to pay if it were to accomplish the work. But that's perhaps something that Jason can answer. But in any event, there was a meeting of the DPW and of some members of the staff of the DPW. I'm unclear about exactly who was there. And a representative of Tofino Associates and Residents of the Homeowners Association. And they talked about a shorter punch list, which includes three items, which is on a memo that I sent you. And so now we're talking about can the planning board recommend to town meeting that the roadway be accepted? And as I said, the members, the residents of the subdivision have made this request. And I've outlined in a memo that I sent to you, I think I sent it last night, four potential recommendations that you can make. And why don't I read them, and then Jason can give a presentation about his point of view. And then you probably will want to hear from Connie Krueger, who's a resident of the subdivision. So my suggested recommendations were four, four of them, and they were all different. So the first one is to that the planning board recommend. I'm sorry, Andrew seems to be interested. Yeah, could you just pull up the email? I think it came in this morning. Let's do it quickly. I think I got it, but it would be useful for me just to be able to see. This was the report or the memo that Chris sent us. Yeah, it was comprehensive. It would help me to have it. That's the punch list. Thank you. Oh, I don't know if I have that. The bottom email had your four recommendations. I could share it. I have it. Yeah, I'm hopeless in sharing. All right. It wasn't the attachments of the email. So there was an attachment. October 19th, it was sent out. There it is. Yeah. How's that? Okay. So among the recommendations that I'm making to the planning board of steps that you could take to make a recommendation to town council. The first one is to recommend the town council accept the roadways in their current condition after to Fino completes the short list of tasks, which was referred to in another memo that I sent you and also in this memo, I think, and that amounts to about $20,000 worth of work. And I'm saying that the town holds $23,000 in escrow to complete the roadways. This recommendation would result in the town becoming responsible for the repairs needed to bring the roadway up to town standards. But if the recommendation is followed by town council, this recommendation is the most likely to resolve the issues in the shortest amount of time. And we'll provide the homeowners with reassurance that the town would be responsible for maintaining and plowing of the roadways in the future. So that's one possible recommendation you could make. The second recommendation would be recommend that the town council not accept the roadways until the work on the longer punch list has been completed. To Fino has not agreed to complete the tasks on the longer punch list. And this recommendation, in my opinion, is likely to prolong the discussion and possibly result in no work being done to complete or repair the road in a timely manner. And I'm, what should I say, guessing, guessing that there could be legal action on the part of one or more of the parties if this recommendation were taken. The third possible recommendation is to recommend to the town council that there be a negotiation between to Fino and the town to share the costs of completing punch list items prior to the acceptance of the roadway. The town has also offered to include to Fino and its bid for roadway work for the upcoming season. But to Fino has not shown an interest in negotiating this type of agreement with the town. And the fourth possibility is that the planning board offered no recommendation to town council on the acceptance of roadways, either because you don't feel like you have enough information or you are confused or whatever. There's no requirement that the planning board offer a recommendation to town council and the recommendation itself is non-binding. So you need to choose as to whether you want to make a recommendation or not. So now I think that you might want to hear from Jason Skeels and Connie Krueger who represents the homeowners association. All right. Thank you, Chris. Jason, why don't you go next? Yeah, hi. Can everybody hear me okay? Yep. Oh, good. Okay. My last meeting, my microphone, for some reason got turned down to almost nothing. So it's been about a half an hour trying to find it and getting it all right. I honestly don't have a whole lot to say about this subdivision. I'll talk about my own paving budget, which is in a 17 to 20 million dollar deficit to keep up with the roads the town already does own. And I would hate to see something else get put in front of any of those needs as a road that just got accepted. So I would prefer to see the road brought up to speed, honestly. I'm sorry. Say that sentence again. I said I would prefer that the road be brought up to speed. I would rather accept a new road than a 20 year old road because it just takes a drain on my budget and the townwide paving budget. And honestly, it might set a not so good precedent of when we could be accepting a dirt road next, where the resident has complained about it long enough and doesn't want to deal with it. And they pay taxes too, but it's a private road. It's not paved. So I just see that it sort of, you know, it's could set a nasty precedent for accepting roads that haven't been well maintained. All right. Thank you. All right. Pam, why don't we bring Connie Krueger over and give her the floor. Hello, Connie. I wondered if you could give us your name and your address and then make it remarks. Connie Krueger, 15 Hopwick Road. There are some other people I believe would like to be brought in from our group on either Doug Dennell, or it may be under his spouse's name, Deb Newbauer. Do you see that person? I do. Do you see it? Yes. Also, Jesse Ferris, who is another homeowner, maybe on your list, you may show up for you, Pam. Yep. So each of you will have three minutes to make a comment. That's fine. I just wanted you to know who was part of this group. And also, our attorney was hoping to attend, although there were some who wasn't sure. That's Felicity Hardee. Do you see her? Hardee is here as an attorney. And also, Ted Parker is here and he represents the developer. I just wanted to make sure that you knew who the other people were. I just make a quick couple of statements. I think as a homeowner, it's just been really difficult because we feel like the town dropped the ball with not collecting the surety bond back in 2004. So there isn't enough money to complete all the work. It's great for the town engineer to want everything fixed so that it doesn't come out of his budget. But we're looking for the town to help us resolve something that we can't resolve without the town and Tefino working together. So I feel personally, the town's culpable for dropping the ball. And also, Tefino is culpable because they didn't get the work done to get the road accepted in a timely manner. So someplace in there, there needs to be a negotiation and a meeting. With that, I'll just be quiet. You've heard from me before. And I'm hoping we could move along with this. All right. Thank you, Connie. I see that Felicity has her hand raised. We'll let her go next. And if you're not speaking, please mute yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. So first of all, I wanted to acknowledge Chris's excellent work on the memo that she provided the planning board. I really thought it was incredibly thoughtful and lays out the dilemma that the Meadows homeowners are in. We're kind of in a stuck place between the town's legitimate desire to have roads, except roads that are in the condition that the town needs them to be in, on the one hand. And Tefino's issues with respect to the passage of time and the deterioration of the roads that have happened over time, on the other hand. And I don't think that there's an easy solution to this. But I thought Chris did an excellent job of summarizing the options that are available for the board. And then finally, I would just say it is true that the board is not obligated to make a recommendation. But I think given how much time the board has spent on listening to us and wrestling with the issues, I'd encourage you to think about it and figure out what the board thinks is the right path forward. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Let's see. Deb Neubauer has her hand, or is it Doug Donnell with his hand raised? Thank you, Chairman. Can you hear me? It's Doug Donnell speaking. I tried to change the name and wasn't able to get in there quick enough. So my apologies for not having the correct name up. I just wanted to add one point of clarification. I second both Connie and Felicity's remarks just for the record. Doug Donnell, 46 Hopbrook, and I am the current president of the Homeowners Association, the Meadows Homeowners Association. Just one point of clarification on the estimate that I got from Warner Brothers for Jason's original extensive punch list. It actually, I'm not sure how Chris got the $200,000, but I believe the total is $133,000. I think Chris, perhaps you brought the subtotal forward and added them both. Mr. Donnell, at least based on the information I've received, there were two punch lists, one for each road. No. For Hopbrook, there was $133,000, and for Kestrel Lane, there was another $70,000. So they do add up to about $200,000. Yeah, but didn't they bring the subtotal forward on the first page to the second page and then brought that down and bring it to $133,000? I don't see that that happened on this. If you look at the top of the second page, there's a subtotal of $16,000. They did. It is brought forward. Okay, total from Kestrel. Yep, okay. So document. I don't, you know, again, this is, I'm not trying to, I just want to clarify that one piece of it. Yeah, I see what you're talking about. There it is at the top. I just like to reiterate the fact that we are in a very, we're going to catch 22 here. We can't do work on the roads because we don't own them. We can't get Tafino to do work on the roads because they won't do that. And the town won't do work on the roads because it's one, not their responsibility, and two, they don't own them either. We do continue to pay taxes. We are in a situation where, you know, 28 households bought houses, assuming they were public roads, honestly, most people here think this is a public road. And so that's just, I just wanted to communicate that piece of that, this process to all of you. So thank you for your time. All right. Thank you, Mr. Dennell. Mr. Parker, you are able to speak if you wish to. And I want to give you that opportunity before we go into discussion. Okay. I guess you'll stay quiet for now. All right. So, Chris or Nate, do you have any further commentary you want to give us before we open it up for discussion? Or Jason? I mean, Jason had a chance to speak already. I could just offer that I would recommend that you take the first recommendation that is in the memo. It is going to cost the town some money. But this is a problem that's been going on since 2004. And I've actually been talking to the homeowners since around 2012. And I feel like if it is, if this first recommendation isn't taken, we're going to be talking about this for the next few years. And unlike the Amherst Hills situation, there's no set of lots that haven't been released yet. So there's really no, in my opinion, no forcing the developer to do what we would like him to do. So in fairness to the residents and in recognition of the fact that they have been paying taxes for the last 20 years, or 18 years, I guess since 2004, everybody else, I shouldn't say everybody else. Okay. So my road is Heatherstone Road. And it's in terrible shape. And Tom Long lives on Heatherstone Road too. And he knows what bad shape that is. And we've been paying taxes too. But my point is that these residents have been paying taxes. And so having the town take over the road and do the maintenance on the road, the plowing of the road, all of that, it makes sense to me at this point because it's been such a long time. It really should have been resolved back in the early 2000s, but it wasn't. And here we are. Okay. Thank you, Chris. All right. Andrew, I see your hand and then Bruce and then Janet. Thanks Doug. And I'm on one screen here today, so I don't remember what option one is, but the town has been plowing and the town will continue to plow. Is that correct, regardless of the situation? I do believe they have been plowing, yes. Yeah, I know they have. And I guess Jason, will we continue to plow the roads? Provided it doesn't deteriorate to a condition where we're damaging plows, which is close. There's paved in manholes that could catch anybody right now. There's a barrel or a cone over them, but we're going to drive over them vehicle damage. Okay. So it's getting close to the point where we need to say, no, we can't plow this anymore. I believe we will continue plowing at this moment. Okay. Thank you. Kind of reassess it as it deteriorates. Okay. I mean, one of the comments you made earlier really resonated with me of, I guess if we just accept the roads, is it a dangerous precedent to set? And I'm wondering when will the work actually ever be completed if the town does accept the roads? And I would really love to hear from Mr. Perk around this, but it seems like, in my opinion, I mean, I would not recommend that. To me, it seems like accepting them does set that precedent. The work will not get done. And I think actually also you make a really great point as well, Chris, in terms of, well, the road condition here might be suffering. It's also suffering in other parts of town. And for Jason to take accountability for this road is maybe preventing Heather Stone from getting work. And I dropped my son off at Tom's house pretty regularly and I have a 4x4 and I don't like driving down Heather Stone Road. So I mean, that said, I would love to just see this work done, right? It seems that if we weren't accepting, we're kind of setting the dangerous precedent, giving them a get out of jail-free card. And it's been 20 years, I guess I don't understand why it hasn't been done. And I think we should continue to keep that pressure on them. And I mean, I hate to say it for the residents there, but crossing my fingers that the plows don't break and we can continue to provide that service. There certainly are other roads in Amherst, which are in very bad shape. And let's let the developer complete the job. So Andrew, when you say let's get the work done, are you referring to the short list, short? No, I think the full 130,000. I think the developers should do the full list. And I think that the short list is, I think that's inadequate because I think the work will never get done or it'll be in coming up on the town to complete it. And I don't think that's a fair proposition for the town residents who don't live on Holbrook or Kestrel. Okay, thank you. Bruce. I just wanted to say that both Tom and I, along with Chris and Jason and Ted and Connie and Don made a site visit earlier in the week. Thank you for reminding me. I'm sorry for not introducing you earlier. Well, I just wanted to, and the record to show that we're discussing this with at least having had a pretty comprehensive site visit. We walked the entire length of both of the roads. We were there for at least an hour and a half. Tom, I don't know whether you want to say anything as far as what, I mean, what I, I guess, there's not a lot that hasn't already been said, but seeing the place was, was useful. And, and it, it, it, I guess, we should probably remind ourselves that this is a low area that the, a lot of the damage is, let's say a lot of the repair work required is caused by apparently seemingly by heaving cash basins. And it's somewhat a condition of that, the type of site. So the work was done originally, you know, in accordance with approved doorings. So it presumably wasn't done improperly. But the, the area has particularly in the last 10 years, according to Jason, where the deterioration is accelerated. But it's also partly the, the, the nature of the, the high water table down there that's adding to this. Another thing that I remember hearing was that the homeowners have committed to, the Home Owners Association has committed to doing some of the, have committed to doing the brush, declaring along the way some of the overhanging trees and so forth are affecting snow plows and the Home Owners Association is committing to doing work to clear all of that out so that I don't know whether I can't, I try to see whether that was on the list, either the, the, the, the long short list, I couldn't tell. I also couldn't tell whether, I don't think the three short list items are included in the long list. Chris, is that correct? They're, they're a separate list. It's a short and separate short list. Is that correct? You have to ask Jason, I, I couldn't really figure that out. I tried to, but I couldn't figure it out. Well, perhaps I should. There's overlap. They're, the, the short list items are included in the long list, although one of those items is turned less, do a puddle and more of a wash out. So the, the other thing we learned was that this is not a static situation. It, it is the, the cost of this is, work is increasing because of inflation, but it's also increasing because deterioration doesn't stop. It continues. And Jason pointed out that this is, it's continuing in an accelerating rate. The, the absence of cracking, of, of patching the, the road cracks is turning those road cracks into problems that can't be inexpensively corrected. It's becoming more expensive. So something needs to be done clearly sooner rather than later. Otherwise the expense will get the, the 130,000 will become a lot more, a lot faster. And the question I have, I guess, is the, the, the, the, the $23,000 that the town holds the work that Tofino has agreed to do those three short list items and agreed to do and pay for, is it paying for it out of that 23,000 that the town holds? Because I guess that's Tofino's money that they're holding, or is that work being done? When that work's done, will that $23,000 still be sitting in the town carters? Chris? I would assume that Tofino will ask for that $23,000 back if they do the work and if the town accepts the road. Okay. All right. Thank you, Bruce. So we don't have $23,000 to, to, to put into that 130 is what I'm, as I was assuming, and it seems to be correct. But it, but it does sound like if the short punch list gets completed, some of the items on the 130 inventory will be taken off. Apparently, yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, Bruce. Chris, your hand is up again. Yeah, I'm just, I'm wrestling with the idea of what incentive does Tofino have to do the work, to do the full punch list. I'm not seeing that they have an incentive to do that work. And so I'm seeing an extended conversation of the planning board and the residents and a very trying time resolving this issue. Right. And usually when there's not a lot of incentive, it turns into a lawsuit that becomes an incentive to end the lawsuit and the expenses associated with it. All right, Janet. So the last time we talked about this, and I'm not sure if the new board members were with us. Felicity, Felicity Hardy had mentioned that we have the planning board could increase the surety. And I think I understand, I recall that from reading the subdivision law. And so I think that might be a power the planning board could have is to increase the surety to cover the costs of completing the work that Tofino agreed to. I think I asked for like an opinion from KP law if we could do that. And I think just because we haven't met again on that, I'm not sure that was done. So that's potentially, you know, we can do that. If we can do that, that would make sense. It seems to me like this, this is almost like a repeat of Amherst Hills in like a slow motion kind of disaster where it sounds like the planning board should not have released lots and Tofino should have done the work. And, you know, we have legal documents where they've agreed to do it, we shouldn't have done the releasing, the roads were done. And we're in this situation again, and the people sort of taking it on the chin are the homeowners. And then as the longer we don't do anything or nobody fixes anything, you know, whatever should have been done makes everything worse and time is just making it worse. So I think it'd be great to get out of this log jam. But I think the planning board could have a role in that. And I would love to have that confirmed by KP law. That all said, I got super confused about punch lists. And, you know, on the really the January 2021 punch list, was that just a list of items that needed to be done to make the roads look pretty good without doing a full scale repair? Or was that a list of things that Tofino should have done? And, you know, so I just wondered, like, and then, you know, they were also, you know, these huge 80 foot long patches, which suggested that the work was like more than I don't know if that was fixing a problem that happened because Tofino didn't work, or it's just that patching thing that I see going on all around town. So I really want to understand what work Tofino should have done. And if it created consequences, how much that work was versus just like normal deterioration, you know, maybe maybe the town could pick up part of that tab, maybe the homeowners could kick in some money. Tofino should definitely pay for their share and the consequences of not doing that. So I didn't I just the charts just didn't, you know, I just didn't I had just questions about like, who, what, and where kind of things. All right, thanks, Janet. Jason, can you clarify any of Janet's questions about the punch list? I think I can make an attempt at it. I mean, if the three punch list items from, if we get the date on those from 2014 or 2012, had been done in 2014 or 2012, they would have been done. They could have pushed for acceptance. I would have needed an as built plan, which they were pretty close on, and they could have gone, they could have just been pushed forward. Nothing happened. 10 years pass, and the road is falling apart. So the longer punch list is to get the road. It's not getting the road up to 100%, but it's at least it's sort of a compromise in the middle. Honestly, I, you know, probably the way to get the road back to nearly new would be like a full million overlays for the entire road, rebuild all the structures that are falling apart, do a full mill and overlay, you know, mill out an inch of pavement, all that deteriorated pavement, mill that out and pave back another inch of pavement. And that would be pretty close to a new road. But what we, the punch list I came up with is more of a compromise where there's large sections of failing pavement were milling that out and patching it. And then then we would come through and crack seal everything and it would be as close to new as possible on the cheap, which isn't cheap. It's $200, $250,000. But that's how the deterioration has affected the road. So the 133,000 is most of the work on the 2021 list minus the giant patches, right? That includes the giant patches. It does not include the crack seal and it might not have included some of the sort of underground work that needs to happen. There's a few leaky manholes, sewer manholes that have groundwater infiltration that need to be sealed off. I don't think that was included, but maybe wrong. Okay, so if that work was done and then the crack sealing was done, how long would these roads last before they had to go for the full kahuna, whatever that means? So if the crack seal was done appropriately and everything else, you'd buy it another 10 years and you might have to go in and crack seal every three years, but that's pennies on the dollars compared to mill and overlay or, you know, fold up reconstruction or anything like that. So you think you're saying that the 133 covers the work that wasn't done and the consequences of that not being done, but not fully because that would be just doing the whole thing. Okay, I get it. All right, thank you, Janet. Tom, actually, Tom, I'm going to let Connie Krueger jump in here. She's had her hand up for a little while. This is just a small point, and I wish that Mr. Parker would speak for himself, but it was my understanding from a conversation with him in the last few days that they would do the three item short list and not request the 23,000. If that were true, and only he can confirm that, then it would be the three items plus an additional 23,000 to offset some of this other work, but I can't speak for Mr. Parker, but you were talking about that earlier, and I think that needs to be clarified by somebody. Thank you, Connie. Mr. Parker, I see your hand. That's correct. Connie is correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Let's see. Okay, Mr. Dinell, why don't we go ahead and get your comment, and then we'll go back to the board. Thank you, Chairman. I just, as you guys are discussing this, just to remember that there was about a 10-year period from 2007 to 2015, we have been petitioning Mr. Parker for, since the mid-2010s, to move on the road, and if it had been moved on earlier, I mean, we wouldn't be in this predicament, and so I just, the frustration is, is that there's been a lot of procrastination, so that's all I got to say. Thank you. All right, thank you. Tom Long. Thanks, Doug. Thank you everyone for your comments, and I think Doug Dinell, I think your comment earlier really spoke to the catch-22 that I hear and I heard when I was on site, hearing all the different perspectives is that things should have been done 25 years ago, they weren't, then they tried to be done 15 years ago, then they weren't completed, then they're supposed to be done in the last 10 years when they weren't completed, and it's just caused what was a $20,000 fix 25 years ago to become a quarter of a million dollars today that we're discussing, and that when the homeowners don't own the road, the developer is not going to fix it, and the town doesn't want it, nobody's going to fix it, and we're all just going to sit here, as Chris said, and come back in two years or a year and have another conversation about this, because of the catch-22, because I don't think Janet has suggested, I don't think we really do have that much leverage over this developer, and we don't have that much leverage over them in the region either to make them move on this in a way that I think would really meet the needs, and I think if we can take an extra $25,000 or $23,000 and use that towards the, you know, provide that for the town to complete some of this work, as well as to have, you know, Ted's group finish what was specced, and that's all we can do to at least get this, you know, get the roads into the hands of the town so they can actually be managed properly going forward, and not the responsibility of homeowners who don't own them. Having been on site and walking for 90 minutes up and down the road, you can tell that consistently these aren't necessarily construction fails, this is a wetland, and you can see the heaves up and down the road. It's low lying, it's wet everywhere, it's a problematic place to build anything that needs a foundation and a footing in wet ground that's going to freeze and then thaw, so it's a complicated place and, you know, it's hard to pinpoint whose fault it was, when that fault happened, and when that fault caused another fault and caused another, like I said, it's a really complicated issue, and, you know, I think I'm going to have to agree with Chris that the first recommendation seems like the best way to get this to move forward. I know that's not what Jason wants to hear, but I think it's some, it's a way in which this can be dealt with properly going forward. That's all right. Thank you, Tom. Andrew. Thanks, Dave. I'm going to try not to regurgitate anything. I mentioned this, I think the last time we talked about it as well, but just, you know, for the board and, you know, for the new board members, you were talking about the developer and the town and, you know, who's paying for what, and I just wanted to remind folks a point I made earlier is that, you know, I had a very lived-on-hopper who moved and had to make a discount to their selling price to account for this. Like they had to reduce their price by multiple thousands of dollars to account for the fact that the drain inlet at the end of their driveway was six inches below grade, right? So it's a cost that's borne by homeowners as well. So I think it is important to humanize some of that stuff, and then also, you know, it's, I know we're trying to get to an expeditious solution here, but it seems as though we're just trying to find a way, I'm worried that we're just, we're trying to make this happen fast instead of making it happen right. And, you know, I would suspect that a developer expects to, I mean, part of being a developer is that you do the job and you hand it over. And I'm not really giving the sense that, again, you know, I'd love to hear more from Ted on this, but does Ted feel like they did the job correctly, and it's on the town's fault, or is he acknowledging that they still more, you know, they have a full punch list of work to do, and they're not willing to do it. It's been 20 years. I'm a little confused. So anyhow, humanize it, and thanks for the time. All right. Thank you, Andrew. Chris Brestrup, your hand is up next. Do you want to say anything? Yeah, I wanted to say something in response to Janet's suggestion that the town tried to recoup the $130,000 that they didn't get back in the early 2000s. And right now the town doesn't have any leverage over to Fino to get them to give us that money. That's something that should happen before the release of lots. And unfortunately, in this case, lots were released that, you know, that probably shouldn't have happened. There should have been receipt of those funds. But at this point, there's no cudgel that we have to hold over the developer to get them to hand us a check for $130,000. So I just wanted to make that point. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Bruce? Jason, you can correct me here if I'm not accurately stating the situation. But essentially, I agree with Tom. And I think we should disabuse ourselves of the notion that this is a punch list of 40 or more items that somehow should have been done however many years ago by the developer. Take the catch basins, for example, which there's about 14 of them. A couple of them are listed on that estimate sheet from Warners is taking about $35,000 or $30,000 to do. And most of the rest of them are in the high hundreds. But the aggregate there is quite a lot. But this is the consequence of heaving and so forth, which I have to imagine, and this is the point, Jason, that you might confirm or not, that if the town had accepted these roads 15 years ago, that the town would now be dealing with the heaving of these manholes and we wouldn't be expecting the developer to pay for it. So there's a few things like that that have happened. In this case, it seems clear that it's because of the high water table down there and the nature of the site. Certain aspects of the infrastructure down there are more expensive than they are to maintain, say, up where I am in the sandy North Amherst end of town. So I don't think we should beat the developer up. We could beat them up, perhaps on a number of things. We can beat the town up, too, on the mantle that Chris mentioned. So there's a number of opportunities to lay blame and so forth here, I think. But the circumstance here is that this is a moving series of degradation. And if the town had, if Torfino had have gotten their act together earlier and if the town had been asked and agreed to take these public ways, I believe that a good portion of what's on that list would by now be falling to the town. So I don't think it's fair that we should be looking at the developer to pay for the bulk of that list for that reason. Jason, am I speaking out of order here? No. You're welcome to have your opinion on it. I just don't see why it should come out of the DPW's budget. Okay. Thank you. I guess the thing I'm wondering is how, why the development was approved in the first place if it's in an appropriate place to be building roads. But that's well under the, that's water under the bridge. So I didn't say it was inappropriate. No need for anyone to comment on that. I guess maybe down the line, somebody might decide that these roads should be graveled because they hold up better in the soils that are under them. So, we've heard from several members about their opinion about which recommendation we might want to adopt. It's now 10 o'clock. Board members, do you feel that you want to continue this conversation this evening? Should we hold a meeting next week to continue this discussion? Where do you stand on that? And just give me a very quick, like one sentence where you stand so that we can get through this quickly. Janet. I don't have a clear sense of a recommendation that we can give. I could vote I could make and I would like to find out if we could increase the performance bond or the security because I remember that from the subdivision control law. And I know Attorney Hardy mentioned that. I'd like just to tie that down. So I would be fine with meeting next week. I try to make that fast. Thank you. Andrew. Similar although I'm unavailable next week, I do feel like it's not, we're not at a point where we can make a call right now. All right. Bruce. Oh, I'm for proposition number one, for proposition number one, perhaps modify the little by proposition number three. Okay. Thank you. Karen. I certainly don't feel that I'm in a position to vote on this yet. I'm waiting to see which experts waste me the most. Okay. Yeah. We're in a pickle. And I don't have a sense of like what more information we're going to uncover in future hearings. So part of me feels like we need to just arrive at a conclusion and wrap up this topic. All right. Thank you. And Janet. Janet started with this. Okay. So we haven't heard from Tom. Yeah. Thanks. I mean, I think I was clear that I do support option one based on what I read, but I also want to express that I did in conversations on site with Bruce and Chris mentioned that I do feel like this is well outside of my scope of capabilities, because this feels like a legal recommendation. I feel like I'm a moderator in a legal discussion about which I don't necessarily have all the information necessary. And nor do I have the knowledge and understanding of precedent to make something like this to make to make any kind of formal recommendation. So this is really a gut reaction, which is I feel like this needs to be resolved. And then if we don't do it today or I guess next week would be fine if there was more information we think we could get. But I do think it needs to be done right away, just because I think it's going to keep coming back to us in the future with numbers that start to swell to $300,000 and $400,000 as these things sink into the ground. Okay. Chris, would you be able to have a meeting next week? I would be able to have a meeting next week. And I wonder if Pam would be able to join me next Wednesday just for this one topic. Chris, what is the date? The 26th of October. Pam and I can make a team to support the planning board on the 26th. I think we should just go ahead with that. Yeah, I feel like it's late enough that we ought to just continue this to next week. Do we want to ask Jason if he's available next week to come back knowing that this is the only topic on the agenda? Yeah. Jason? I suppose I can come back. Yeah. We would hope to get to you earlier. As long as there's no 51 Spalding streets on next week. Yeah. And Chris, Janet has asked, you know, how to find out if we have a way to increase the surity. I don't think so. I mean, there's no leverage and there's no, you know, there's nothing to. No, we talked about it last time and our attorney told us we couldn't increase the surity. We could reduce it. We could chip away at it and give pieces of it back to the developer, but we couldn't increase it. So I'm willing to talk to the town attorney. I'm willing to call KP law and lay out the situation to them and ask them if they have any advice for us. The undeveloped cul-de-sac up on Amherst Hills, too. I'm sorry, Jason? There's a seven-lot cul-de-sac in Amherst Hills that remains undeveloped by the same developer. So I mean, you know, just because all the leverage is gone in the meadows doesn't mean that all the leverage is gone. Okay. So it sounds like there's some, you know, does anybody object to trying to meet next week? I know Andrew is unavailable. Everybody else think you're available? Can I make a quick comment, Doug, do you mind? Sure, Andrew. I would just say that if we don't have new information, then we shouldn't bother meeting. So unless Chris can't hear back from KP, I would suggest we don't. And if we don't think we'll get new information, we just call it as we see it right now. And this is, I mean, this is a recommendation anyway. This is not anything binding. Well, I can't see that we actually have a majority in any direction. I don't know that we do, and I don't know that will change necessarily next week. So is it worth it to go through all this effort to have a two-hour sort of, I don't want to say more asked, but like a two-hour meeting next week where we're still going to go. Right. You can decide that you don't have enough information or that you don't, that it's too complicated or whatever you want to, however you want to characterize it, and you don't want to make a recommendation. That is a legitimate thing for you to do. Doug, if I could jump in here. You know, so I used to do a lot of media and I love the numbers. And so, you know, this, you know, we have 133,000. I think we take off 20 for what Tofino will put in or maybe more. And then we have 23 in the charity. And so we're missing about 87,000 dollars. That doesn't seem like a lot of money to me. And I wonder in the intervening week, when we research our legal options, if the parties could sit down and just say, okay, the homeowners might put in 20. Will Tofino put in 60? You know, something just to make, it's not such a big gap, but somebody has, people have to make an agreement to solve this problem and to push it onto the town to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability. It's a lot. It's a big ask, but I wonder if people can sit down and come to some, some get closer. So maybe we're not at 87, but we're at, you know, 50 and maybe Jason skills will find that in his budget or something. But I like your optimism, but, you know, this has been going on for years and nobody's wanted to come, you know, kind of come to a mediated conclusion. So Jason, what did you have a thought? Yeah, I'm muted. Yeah. I just wanted to caution the use of that estimate. That estimate is two years old now and asphalt prices nearly doubled in the last year. So I would just caution using that exact estimate without putting a pretty high escalation clause on it. Because this past year I've spent over 50,000 extra above what I was planning to pay for a paving job in escalation fees because the cost of asphalt has skyrocketed 10 times faster than the cost of gasoline and oil. Right. Tom, that was a legacy hand. What's that? I think that was a legacy hand. Sorry. I'm sorry. I can't hear you. You are, your voice is very indistinct. He says it's a legacy hand. Oh, okay. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Karen. I'm going to sleep. Is there, is there information that we could get? Is it possible that one has to rethink this whole road as a money drain in the future? Are there, are there town roads that are gravel or, you know, can 28 houses be put on a different kind of a road and have that be a town road? Is, are there even options like that? I see Jason shaking his head. No. We have, we have two dirt roads in town that are just legacies from long ago. There's a few private dirt roads and that's where we want to keep it. We wouldn't want any, we wouldn't want to accept a subdivision as a gravel road for sure. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Jason. Bruce. Because I'm not sure whether we're going to meet next week. I'll make one last shot at resolving it tonight. You want to make a motion, Bruce? I move that in an effort to resolve this matter and given that there is culpability all around, I don't know whether we want to say it that way that we recommend that the town council pursue Chris's option three. Which one was three? I'm sorry. It's the one that says it's a negotiated agreement. My sense is that we've already, it's going to be that way to some degree. So making that recommendation, there's a wide bandwidth for, for what it means. And so I think that in some respects, that's really the soft option. It's almost the same as making no recommendation at all, sadly, but it is a recommendation that the town should move towards adoption and it recognizes that others, that all parties can contribute. And I think that the motion should include that the homeowners be a party to this as well because they were already offered to. All right, Bruce, you have your motion on the table. Does anybody want to second that? I see Karen's hand. I second it. All right. All right. Does anybody want to, well actually I see Felicity's hand. Felicity? I was just going to say, it's actually a point from a few minutes ago that for the town to accept a gravel road would be a major deviation from the accepted plan. I mean, you have a plan for that subdivision that's 20 years old. I just don't see going backwards. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. So Bruce is recommending that we accept, that we adopt recommendation number three to recommend that the town negotiate an agreement with Tofino. And I think Bruce, you wanted to include the homeowners. Homeowners Association, yes. Association to share the costs of completing the punch list items prior to acceptance of the roadway. I think that's, I think that's where we all are in one way or another, except for any way. All right. Any further discussion from board members? And we're going to go to a vote on this motion. Bruce, I'm assuming your hand is a legacy, Tom. Is there a timeframe for this? Because I mean, if we're saying, hey, let's, let's have everyone have a conversation and try to meet in the middle. Just going to drag this on for, well, again, another two years. That's our recommendation to town council. So I guess they can dictate the timeline when they adopt our recommendation or not. Tom, the recommendation doesn't have any reference to meeting in the middle. It might be to one end. There's no, there's no suggestion that in that recommendation that each party should contribute equally to the settlement. All right. Thank you, Johanna. I would just be interested in hearing Chris's thoughts on the pros and cons of this recommendation over others. All right. Thank you, Chris. Do you want to say anything? I don't think I want to say anything at this point. No, thanks. I think I've said everything I want to say. Okay. Thank you. All right, board members, how do you feel about this motion that we're going to go through? I guess one at a time. Andrew, you want to say something before I go through it? I was only going to say that if this were to not pass, I would put a motion for option two. So if anybody thinks that's a better one, I would offer that if we don't gain consensus on this. All right. Thank you, Andrew. All right. Bruce. Tom. Hi. Andrew. Hey. Janet. You're muted, Janet. Oh, can you skit me and come to me at the end? I'm not, I'm just very unsure. Johanna. I'm going to abstain. Oh gosh, we're okay. Okay. Karen. I. And I guess I'm an I as well. So I guess that's four in favor. Janet, you need to vote. I'll be an I. That's a five in favor. One abstention and one opposition. Chris. Okay. We had a majority to make that recommendation. Yes, thank you. I think I'll give the town council a copy of my memo along with the report on the spoke. Okay. Is that all right with you? Yep. All right. Chris, could I, I think it'd be good to kind of parse out the numbers to the best your ability about kind of what Jason was saying in terms of, you know, all the lists were very confusing if sort of just saying kind of laying out what he did that one hundred thirty three would cover getting the roads for 10 years if we started doing the whatever the rubberizing or whatever that is ceiling crack ceiling because I found those charts really confusing. All right. Doug, if I may, I think that the town council are going to get all of this information independently and probably with a little bit more time to so I didn't think we need to qualify what we heard because they're going to get it in a revised and refreshed form. Anyway, I would think. Yep. Fair point. Fair point. Town council is going to want their best information they can get. All right. So the time is 10 17. We are finished with item five on our agenda. Item six. Chris, any old business? No old business, but I think we do have some new business, but I think it's just going to be introduced. All right. Let's go on to new business. Item seven. Karin wanted to put something on the table about working with developers to provide bike storage and bike lanes and bike paths. And I'm not sure if she wants to say more about it, but what I said to her was that if she introduced the topic tonight, we could put it on an agenda for a future meeting. All right. Karin, do you want to say anything? No, it's late. And I think that's it. I think it would be good to discuss it at future time. Okay. Very good. Chris, I assume no other new business. No other new business. No. All right. Any form A, A and R subdivision? No. That's tonight. All right. Upcoming ZBA applications. I have nothing new to report. All right. Upcoming SPP, SPR, SUB applications. Yes. We received one today and it's for the building that used to house. Oh, it was an Asian restaurant and aerobic studio on Belcher Town Road. It's near it's near what used to be the snowcoe station. That's all in transition. I think it's service net that's coming forward to use part of that building. So you'll be seeing a site plan review for that in the upcoming weeks. All right. Thank you. Planning board liaison committee and committee lays on reports. PVPC, Bruce, anything you want to say? I don't believe I actually been formally appointed. Chris has established that this is an appointment by the town manager that Albert was simply a recommendation to him. There was a meeting of the commission last week. I thought of attending, but I didn't because I did and Jack was there and he forwarded some information to us, which has been relayed. So that's. Thank you. Andrew, anything on CPC? Yeah, I hate to keep us going here, but we have 15 recommendations from or applications rather for CPAC. Earlier this afternoon, I forwarded the presentation schedule to Chris, Doug and Pam and would ask if you could just send it on to the rest of the planning board presentation will happen over three weeks. And I'm kind of a little embarrassed to say this because other committees have can solicited feedback from from or other boards have solicited feedback from their members relative to the proposals. And I realize I haven't done that. And so I would I would love to get any feedback from members of the planning board relative to the proposals, whether they feel that they would support one or the other. I guess it's also a matter like a point of discussion for the board at large is would we want to discuss the applications as a board and see if there's a, you know, this is something that we'd like to discuss as a formal community. Those 15 applications span community housing, historic preservation and open space recreation. So Jen, Chris, if you don't mind forwarding that, I would appreciate it. And then, you know, Doug, if if you want to cover up some time at a future meeting, like probably the next meeting or, you know, within the next two meetings, maybe to get feedback from this board, I would I'd love that. Again, apologize. I'm a little bit of a rogue element here representing myself more than the board. And I'm a designee for the board. So I want to make sure that I'm capturing all of your feedback. So okay, that's my update. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Andrew. Tom, I guess DRB. I was down and out with COVID last meeting. So I missed our last meeting. I owe you an update on that. So I will put that together. We do have an upcoming meeting which is yet to be scheduled, but should be scheduled before we meet next time. So I should have an update for a couple meetings next time. Okay. Janet, the solar bylaw working group, you are muted. I was just glancing at our minutes from last week because it was two weeks ago and I can't remember. But basically, the town has hired a person to do the solar assessment and work on community outreach to figure out community preferences and values. And we'll be meeting with that person this Friday and get a presentation on what they're doing with the assessment. And then last two weeks ago, Jack Jemsak presented a paper, a draft white paper on by the I have to get this wrong, the water supply protection committee on solar and water supply lands. And actually just thinking about, I think I should circulate it to the board some of the information instead of finding recommendations, but also some fact finding and things like that about putting solar and how to protect water supply. So I could just send that around. All right. Sounds good. Send it to Chris, please. Yes. And then Chris, anything on CRC? The CRC is meeting on next Thursday, the 27th to talk about flood mapping. And I should have mentioned under new business or old business that we got our flood maps. So we have our maps and we're going to have a continued meeting about that on the 2nd of November. But in any event, the CRC will be discussing the flood maps on the 27th. And I can't tell you how pleased I am to tell you that we finally have the maps. And what did they discuss in the past? I think we've had a continuing discussion with them on food and drink establishments, and we will be bringing a public hearing to you about food and drink establishments on November 2nd. So you've seen a draft of this and you'll be seeing it more fully formed. And hopefully you'll have a good discussion about that. All right. Report of the chair, given the hour, I'm just going to pass tonight. Chris, report of staff. I will never again say I think this is going to be a short meeting. I will thank you for that promise. All right. The time is 10.25. And unless anybody objects, we will adjourn. And thank you all for sticking this out. Thank you. Good night.