 Here we go. I see the red dot. You're all set. Thank you. Welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting of July 15, 2020. Based on Governor Baker's executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law GL chapter 30 a section 20 and signed Thursday, March 12, 2020. This planning board meeting is being held virtually using the zoom platform. My name is Christine Graham Allen and as chair of the Amherst Planning Board, I am calling this meeting to order at 634. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media. Minutes are being taken as normal. I will now take a roll call board members as you hear your name called unmute yourself and answer affirmatively and then please place yourself back on mute. Michael Burt whistle. Michael. Who? President. Great. And Maria Chow. And Jack Jemsik. Present. And David Levenstein. Here. And Doug Marshall. Present. And Janet McGowan. Here. Board members, if technical difficulties arise, we may need to pause temporarily to rectify the problem and then continue the meeting. If you do have technical issues, please let Pam or Sean know discussion may be suspended while the technical issues are addressed and the minutes will note the disconnection has occurred. Please. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see you raised hand and I will call on you to speak after speaking. Remember to please remute yourself. Opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general public comment period and other appropriate times throughout the meeting. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during the general public comment period. If you wish to make a comment during the any of the public comment periods, you must join the meeting via the zoom teleconferencing link. This link is shown on the slide and can be entered into a search engine. The link can also be found on the meeting agenda, which is located located on the town website in two places. One way is through the calendar listing for which this meeting is listed on the home page and then you click on the link for event details. A second way is to go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda. And on that agenda, you'll see the link at the top of the page virtual meeting. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raised hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment or pressing star nine on your telephone. When called upon please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes and at the discretion of the planning board chair. If these guidelines are not complied with or the speaker exceeds their a lot of time their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. We'll put it on tonight's agenda item three public hearing site plan review the board will continue the public hearing for Amherst media's SPR application to construct a new home office building, which began on at the July 1 2020 meeting. Moving on the slide will now show the meeting agenda. And again note the virtual meeting zoom meeting link at the top item one minutes we do have a set of minutes it came in our packet for June 10 2020. If we all have them and reviewed them. And I need to pop up my screen here. Okay, so are there any comments or anyone, any of the planning board members. Do you either want a correction or make comments or something or do I hear emotion. Move to approve the minutes of June 10. Is there a second record. Okay. Okay, again, are there any comments discussion corrections that need to be made on these minutes. Doug your hand is up was at your second. Okay. So at that, but this point we can take a vote on the minutes and I will roll call if all are ready. And this is for again the June 10 planning board minutes. Michael Bart whistle. Yes. We're yeah chow. Yes. Jack Jemsek. Yes. David Levinstein approve. Yes. And I, Christine Grammallan also approve these minutes. So that's seven, zero, zero. Great. At this time, we're going to move ahead. Two item. Um, Say here. Comment. Ham. Yes. Would you like to see the agenda? Can you, I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. I don't think I have COVID. Can you, I don't think I have co-host capabilities right now. Oh, thank you. No worries. No, I just was going to adjust things. I'm like, I have no adjusting. Um, thanks. So, uh, at this point we have public comment period item two. This is where we open it up. I'll check, um, attendees. Raise your hand if you have a public comment, but I must stress that it's not for anything. It's not for anything. It's not for anything. It's not for anything. It's not for something totally different that you would like to speak on. I will now, um, check to see if there's any hands. Ham, did you see any, and is there anything on the phone? I don't see any hands raised. I don't see any phone calls in. Um, you were asking earlier if Mr. Weedy was here. I do see Mr. Weedy in the attendees. Okay. Great. So that will be it. Okay. So, uh, since it is six 40, we can start, uh, continue our, uh, SPR for Amherst media and I will. I'm going to make some people in Christine. Okay, great. Let's start there and see. There's some other people. You may want moved in. If any of the Amherst media people, if any of the applicants are going to speak, you can raise your hand and then Pam can move you over. And then I will get you all in and call you. So, okay. So in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40, a, this public meeting has been duly advertised and notice there. I've been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding. The district no. The district no. Amherst community television DBA, Amherst media corner of gray street and main street continued from July 1st, 2020, request site plan review approval to construct a new building and associated site improvements for Amherst media. A 501 C3 educational institution under section 3.3, 0.0 of the zoning bylaw. BL zoning district map 14 B parcels, Okay. So at this point, raise your hand if there's any board disclosures. And I'm not seeing any. So usually we move to the applicant's presentation. I first just want to check in with Chris Bestrup if she has anything to say at this time or should we move to the applicant or their representative. I think it's fine if you move to the applicant. I just wanted to note that the applicant has submitted a special permit application for modification of the front yard setback and probably the applicant will speak about that. Okay. And you can answer questions about that after. Yes. Great. Thank you. So at this time, I will welcome Bucky Sparkle. You are here. Can you speak? And I hear you got a new mic. Oh, you noticed. Wow. It was worth the investment right there. Thank you. There was a rumor you had got a new one. So good. Great. You also have a different tarp in the back. It's a little different place. I felt a little crowded before I'm still in that unfinished basement office that you're going to see for the next year or so if I have to keep doing these by zoom. You can always put a fake background like Jack has beautiful flowers tonight. They're awesome. I also find them distracting and if I get animated, then it gets weird. Thank you to the dancing flowers and. Yeah. Okay. Well, welcome. Thank you. So what we got this week is we and before I think it even in an email. We have a letter from you dated. I'm going to the June 29th letter. And it was to Jason skills, the town engineer responding to some of his comments. So you're of course can bring any other information you have for us, but that's one of the things we're expecting you to talk about that is certainly on the list I will get to that. And I think it's probably best if I just jump to the screen sharing portion. Is that all right. Yes. Yes, you should have all the capabilities. How's that. Beautiful. Okay, great. So I had two points of good news one is I do have a new microphone and two, I have a much shorter presentation this evening. So let me just roll into that. As stated previously, my name is bucky sparkle. I'm the civil engineer for the project. And I am here representing Amherst media. There are a few of their board members who are probably in the waiting gallery this evening who may choose to speak. Hopefully they raise their hand you'll be able to let me know because I don't think I see that. Also, of course, I believe we have representatives of gilling collaborative architects around who of course designed the building. As stated, this is a continuation of the meeting from two weeks ago. And what happened at the last several things happened at the last meeting but some comments from the planning board that I recall came to mind where that, you know, understandably as a property owner that there is a right to lawfully build upon their property that the couple of waivers that we're looking for were fairly reasonable and understandable for the reasons that we have to ask and that the project in the building is a much better fit for the site particularly compared with what we did in 2019. There are some requests from the board as well. One is he wanted to see the location of the trash and recycle bands will get to that and more detail on the wall, the retaining wall the north end, and the stormwater system so also this is something that I'm going to get into a little bit more. And as brought up by our chair this evening and Chris press I've mentioned that we have submitted a special permit for his relief from bylaw section 6.6 zero, which would normally double the front setback will all setbacks for religious and educational uses. There will be a public hearing for this so I'm happy to get into it more this evening. But I'm also happy to let that be an aside is something that we just keep in mind we are seeking. And eventually it's going to dovetail very much with this and I'm going to. I'm going to take the responsibility for not catching this in our initial application because I really would have made an application for that special permit with the site plan plan review application which would have made this a little less confusing. So, but we can talk about that more as the board sees fit. I've made a few modifications, since we're here last to the plans to the landscaping to the parking stormwater and the wall. And what I'm going to do then is just walk the board through these items, not in text form so looking at some pictures. So I'm going to take the site plan and I'm going to zoom in again a little bit. Some things that have changed here so we have located the trash and recycle bins they are now in the northwest corner of the building there is a fence that runs on the north and west side here we also have the HVAC compressors over here. So it's so conveniently located. There's a gate now for a fence right here. So those will be obfuscated along with the mechanical fence. So we won't have to look at that when we're walking in. I also made note that, although I guess it's on the drainage and utility plan that a Knox box and strobe light for the fire department that's indicated on the plan on a slightly more concrete than the one I'm showing you now but that's at the front door. And I have also corrected setbacks. So, I read the setbacks off of the main table. I did not catch some subsections later where the setback against the residentials we have residential to the north and to the west. This is the BN zoning neighborhood business. So it's a 20 foot setback on the north and a 20 foot setback on the west, not a 10 foot, as would be standard for the BN and all directions. I have left the 10 foot setback at the front. This is the point of discussion regarding the special permit from section 6.60. Rob Morris opinion was that the setback as shown is appropriate for this case as he wrote in his email that came at the right before the last meeting. So I don't think anybody had a chance to read it then I that board members have had a chance to read in the last two weeks. So I'm going with Rob's opinion and showing that setback now. I did make because there was a comment about parking and even though for these parallel parking spaces near the wall that a resident had made. I had extra wide spaces to try and create more more room between the wall and where the cars would be and I realized after that public comment that it's probably better to have a regular size space and have more green space between the pavement and the wall. So we've increased the space here so there is now a couple of feet from the edge of the pavement to the wall so we have something like three feet three and a half feet from the side of a car to the wall which is plenty of room to get in and out of a car. It's the same amount of room they had before just will look and feel like there's more room there. So there are a few changes to the plan and the parking. I'm going to bring up the landscape plan here and I can drag this up a little bit. So there are a few things that have changed on the landscape plan. Oh, there's a little note. So it says add plantings with a question mark. Yes the answer is yes to that and we have actually added a screening section on the southern and eastern sides of these two parking areas and borrowing a page from the UMass and Amherst pollinator requirements or suggestions that this segment here of green will is selected exclusively from the UMass recommended pollinator list. So if I move down the screen a little bit, the species list has been expanded. And anything individually we can look at it but we've added several plants down here that would be going in and they're all pollinator friendly. We have also added as was a suggestion by Berkshire design group and a fair one of course is the sizing of the plants for when they're initially installed as well as the spacing of the plants for when they're initially installed installed in these beds. So the landscape designer provided that information to me since the last meeting and also this tree this elm tree that's labeled is planting V like Victor. I heard a comment actually from Chris breastrupt that it was a bit close to the 25 foot triangles site triangle so I created that triangle on this plan so you could see how it lays out. And the tree was actually outside of that but what the Lisa trunk so what I moved it further away anyway so it's it's even further away from the site triangle and it still doesn't interfere with their stormwater system in this location. So that seemed seemed appropriate. Other things that the board was interested would be the stormwater so I have made a few changes to the stormwater plan. I say a few I've made very few changes to the stormwater plan. Mostly this was Jason skills recommendation in his letter and so here's where you brought up my reply to Jason. A few comments he said show the drain that comes from the wall so that drain is now illustrated and make a note about this sign to remove and replace this the stop sign it's also the sign which bears the Gray Street name. I actually think I had that no on a on a different plan that maybe Jason didn't see but I just put it on the utility plan as well. And really the biggest thing that the real change that he wanted was a belt and suspenders approach to doing the best possible effort and making sure that water that's coming from the the mansions up the hill and new court because the water that drains from new court across Amherst media's property. That's 2.2 acres of land that is unmitigated. And while we are capturing a portion of that and bringing into our stormwater system. We're going to add a curtain drain that runs along the back of the granite curve here and tie that into our catch basin. And the main reason for that is Jason skills indicated that at one point he saw water bubbling up. At the corner I'm going to, I don't know if you can see my hands but the corner of the the granite curve and the sidewalk that water was coming up between that joint between the curve and the sidewalk. So that simply eliminating redirecting surface water may not be enough to eliminate the icing problem. So he asked that we install a drain that is right up against the back of that curb so that's what we've done. We've installed a cut off drain here that's tied to the catch basin. So that is the, the change to the stormwater system and what Jason felt was appropriate for this site. Otherwise, he's totally into the stormwater design. It seems to work for him. And I do want to talk about the last thing is the retaining wall. So this wall that runs along the back of the property. There were a few questions that were brought up, not only by Berkshire design group, but board members as well wanted to see more information. So what I've done is I've created a plan that'll bring up in a second. And it's as if you were standing in the parking lot, and you were looking north at the face of the wall. So this is that plan. I'm just sliding this into position a little bit. And it's scaled five to one. So it is scaled five times higher than it is wide. So the reality is this wall is proportionally not this tall. Another thing that just because of the scales five to one. Another thing to point out is that we adjusted the grade. What we had done before was we built the wall to the existing grade and just we're going to leave the existing grade behind the wall. But there were some comments about the wall height. And we thought it might be possible to get this wall under four feet tall. So what we have done and maybe looking at the profile here a little bit, let me zoom in with this guy. If you were, well, if you were to, I know this is going to zoom in, let me go back. Sorry, I'm misusing my machine here. So zooming back to this, right. So the highest point to the wall is at the west end of the parking lot. And it's 3.9 feet of exposed wall phase at this point in time, we've been able to lower it down and one of the ways we've done that now I'm going to zoom into the profile. That's the highest point of the wall. So over on this side, this is looking west. So this would be the grass in front of the wall, the face of the wall that rises 3.9 feet, the width of the wall, and then we're, we're the existing grade used to come relatively level and we were building the wall up to that height, but we have a couple of feet. So what we're going to do is we're going to create a slope that is still maintainable, but lowers the face of the wall. So now we're going to have a cut slope up to the property line. And there were questions also about, well, how do we manage, you know, the, the excavation and working that close to the property line and the information on on the dead men etc. So I went back and, you know, now that the wall height changed, I ran through the numbers again. And this wall is a gravity wall. It does not require any dead men any geogrid reinforcing any tie backs it will stand up just fine on its own and hold up this four foot at the highest it's 3.9 feet. We are still including dead men as just one additional factor of safety there they're very easy to install once you've got all this open, and we don't see any harm in adding an additional factor of safety here. In talking with the contractor and looking at excavation safety. When we do get to this higher wall section, they're prepared to bring in steel plating to shore up the embankment. And that will be stabilized on site such that the workers will be able to build the wall. It will likely reveal this cut slope in section so they're not going to just open up the entire hillside and leave it open while they slowly build this wall they're going to do it in sections as they can. And that is going to also increase the the safety and stability. You can open up a cut a trench. And it's fine for hours sometimes days sometimes months, but eventually things start to crumble out down on you so we're going to keep it open for the minimum amount of time necessary to build the wall and then and then move on. And I, I think that's the main points I have about the wall, as well as the main new information from the last meeting. I do have and want to just very briefly go through the remaining brief slides here just to refresh people's memory. We do have the architectural elevation of the facade that faces main street still available to review this one's been colored up a little bit. We still have the elevations. This is unchanged from the original submittal of all sides of the building. I still have a floor plan that we can look at if you're interested I have the information on the lighting we can look at if you're interested I have the information on the signs we can look at if you're interested. And getting down to the bottom here. Just reiterating we are seeking this is the formal part I guess we are seeking waivers from bylaws 7.004. We are. We only need at most by parking spaces were proposing eight. The bylaws says, you know, mathematically 15 is the correct amount so we're seeking a waiver there. We discussed that at length at the last meeting I can talk more about it. As well as bylaw 7.103 and putting a vehicle parking space within eight feet of the building or driveway within five feet of the building. We're using fire retardant materials and the fire chiefs are the fire safety officer, Mike Roy said that would meet his requirements as well as since this is such a low traffic generating facility, roughly generating the amount of traffic residences that the traffic study or a big report is also being requested as waiver it's awful lot of work for very little traffic and traffic that doesn't even go past a single driveway on Gray Street, turning in from Main Street Amherst media is the first driveway. And only because it came up across my desk at about 5pm today and it brought up several points that I expect will be heard in the public comment. I do want to talk about a couple points brought up by attorney Matt massingills letter. And on a, I don't know if anybody's had a chance to read it because it just showed up. Yes, I'm sure did. All right. So first of all, on a personal note what I'm going to say is I'm sorry that the playing board is is, you know, subjected to vitriol might be too strong of a word. I do don't believe that the playing board has been criticizing the neighbors and butters and I really do believe you're doing your job the way you need to be doing it. So I don't think it's fair some of the things that were stated in that letter. But could we turn to the more professional point I'm not going to talk about the majority of the things that attorney massingill brought up. My opinion is that there were a lot of things that were erroneous propaganda ish. But I do want to talk about a few things that he did bring up that that does pertain to this application. He did indicate that the local historic district commission just gave up and approve this project after being browbeat apparently those are my words by Amherst media as attorney and high power architects. The historic district commission unanimously voted to approve this, and then further went on to issue a two page letter of support for this project so to me that does not seem like the district commission just gave up on this issue. It was also talking that letter about takings versus easements and raised questions about that there is no question about that the easement was agreed upon it is an easement to be provided upon approval of the site plan review and it does not affect the setback because I know setback is an issue that is being pushed around a little bit. That's why we're coming up for a special permit. But we, we know that it's not a taking we know that we're going to give the town a 10 foot wide easement to maintain the sidewalk. And there was an entire paragraph about how I have been misrepresenting aspects to the planning board and that I received a letter from Rob Mora. It is true I did not receive a letter from Rob Mora. I received a copy of an email from Rob Mora and I guess maybe in the legal world there's a big difference between letter and email. I tend to use these words interchangeably so I do apologize for that confusion and know that letter was not written to me it was written to Chris press rep. I just received a copy of it because it's the project that I'm presenting. Attorney Massengild spends quite a bit of time about talking about what Amherst media wants and thinks, even though he's not been present at any of the board meetings to my knowledge of all of the things that he said I don't need to address most of it, but I do want to say that the project and site design that we have submitted is very much desired by Amherst media. We don't want to change anything this is exactly what we want to do. And that apparently is not how Matt is is twisting the situation so those are things that I just wanted to put on the table for clarification purposes. I think I've already given too much time to, to that three page letter so at this point I'm going to return to the site plan view maybe with here, and I'll relinquish screen sharing if that's preferred, and I'm open to board comments, questions, and the rest of our process Thank you. Thank you. At this point if you don't mind leaving your shared screen up because these, these slides might be helpful. So at this time, I'll open it up. Well, I'm going to just Chris do you Christmas, Chris Bester, do you have anything you want to add to this or comment or do you have a question. Not at this time. Okay, so I'm going to open it up to the board members for questions to Mr sparkle at this point. If they have any questions about the stuff that was addressed. Not seeing any hands. I have one question. So, at this point, you don't have a parking management plan. The narrative that we submitted did include a parking management plan. We haven't actually seen one, but I guess I just wanted to put a point that I think should be in the parking management plan. You know, I'm hearing and some of the comments and concerns is, you know, it's a fairly small parking lot and you've done a lot of work showing radius turns for different size automobiles. And I just want to say you've also been very clear that, you know, 80% of the time or most business days that there's only one or two employees, maybe three. So my thinking was it would be comforting to see in that plan that there the staff is expected or encouraged or to park on the inner spots that are a little more difficult to get in and out of. It's not impossible, obviously, but for a newcomer who comes. It is a little bit more challenging and we all know that, you know, even our own driveways after you've been getting in and out of them over a few weeks or get through that snowstorm or whatever, you kind of learn the tricks of how to get your car in and out of there. And then that would leave maybe spot I think it's seven and eight it doesn't say it on this drawing but they're the two down by the sidewalk. Maybe could those be labeled as guest parking spaces so they're more available for people who are that coming in to do a recording or TV show or something like that. And had any thoughts or discussion, you know, this may be more, you know, partly you but partly Amherst media and their function but that might be helpful to have that spelled out. I think that's a very reasonable consideration. I'm sure my client would have no difficulty installing a couple of attractive signs indicating guest parking. It's the first parking right off the bat. Thank you. So now I see three hands. I'll call on David and then we have Oh, so I'm going to backtrack on that Chris I do see your handout. So if Chris if you want to make a comment then I'll go to David and then Janet David just disappeared but Chris. Okay, I just wanted to clarify that there was a parking management plan. I'll go back and reread Mr sparkles project narrative and the parking management plan is embedded in the parking man in the project narrative so he could embellish on that and present it as a separate document that planning would like that to be so. No problem. Yeah, great. Yes, I do see some of that in there but if it could just be actual parking management plan. Okay, so I'll go back and reread that and we'll we'll talk about the modification since the original narrative submittal. Thank you. Um, so David's hand I'm going to go back to calling on David and then Janet. Hi, thanks. Can you walk us through the floor plan. I don't recall you doing that and I'm curious about about it. And then the other thing is, I hadn't noticed the sign in the northeast corner. And then so if you could take a minute or two, just to draw a clear picture for me of that. Absolutely. Sure. So, I guess anytime I talk about architectural floor plans I should say I'm not the architect, but I am familiar and we do have the drawing up here. And I would invite, if we have John Krifka in the side if he would like to speak at any point to allow him to to butt in. I'm not sure the best way to do that through zoom. Can move over. Hold on one sec. I also see him to do that Eric Wilkinson. Is he someone tied to the architect or anything? Or do we know who that is not on my list. I don't know. I'm just going to say to attendees, if you are part of public comment, if you could lower your hand at this point, and we will have a public comment period and you'll have a time to speak then. But so I am going to move down that lower that hand for right now. And if there's anyone on Amherst media or the architect who would like to add comment. Are we sure Eric Wilkinson he just put his hand up. Okay, let's ask him. No, he put his hand on. Okay. If I'm watching for hands and Pam is to for anyone who is tied to Mr. Sparkle's presentation or the applicant Amherst media to raise your hand. Okay. So back to you, Mr. Sparkle. Thank you. Okay, no problem. The floor plan I guess I'll just literally walk through so if you were to park in the parking lot. There is an entry away from the parking lot which is going to be the way most people who drive arrive most people who come by bus and bike. I guess the bike rack is back here so cars and bikes will come in this entrance pedestrians and bus riders will come in this entrance. This is the main area through here includes a reception desk and a lobby area sort of a meet and greet space, as I understand it. The heart of this place is really a, you know, a TV studio here so if you were to go down the hallway, their primary studio their larger studio is under this is where the roof is highest to facilitate the studio so they have the studio here. There's a control room that obviously is technically connected to the main studio as well as a smaller studio so they do I think small interviews and things that don't require very much space within the small studio. They do have a few offices office here or programmers office. Another one down here on Main Street the director's office. There's definitely office space available in three stations, a little bit of storage. There's a green room as well so you know if you're about to go on TV or a public zoom meeting sometimes it's nice to chill out right before that. They have a computer workstation and I, there's a lot of media is done digitally so the computer station is part of that and I'm also certain that this is very much part of their educational component as their, their teaching students how to use some of these how to use this equipment. So this is sort of the educational component of what they do bathrooms of course a little small conference room. They don't need a lot of space for that a break room equipment storage and then this is the mechanicals for the, you know, meters and it says cable casting and some I don't even know what cable casting is I have to admit. It sounds like TV stuff to me. Now, I don't have a copy of the second floor floor plan because it is just storage. And let's see if I can trick my computer into doing something useful here, as I understand it so because of the gabled roof. A good deal of the space is too low to be useful. And because of fire laws. They even get to use the entire attic without there has to be within a certain distance of an egress on the ground floor. So something like this is storage above the building so there are stairs up, and that this blue area that I've created is roughly a place where a human being can stand up. So that's where they're going to have quite a bit of equipment and sets and other things that they're, they're moving around and storage spaces are fairly important component of their operations so they have as much of it as they they can use. And, but that floor plan is very simple it stares up to a storage space and that's it. That's that gray area. So, David you asked a question that was thumbs up. Alright, now going over to the sign. Let's look at this a couple of ways. First, let me go look at the whole page here. Great view so the first thing I'll point out is that the driveways in front of the sign and the sign Gray Street is over on this side. And the sign will look something like that. As far as location on the plan. Let me go up to the more simple site plan itself. The sign is located right here on the north side of the driveway entrance. And then for further detail for the, the pretty stuff the architect has provided information on what the sign would what the sign would look like. And here is a hand sketch of detailing that the sign is going to be, you know, that's, you know, it's a sort of a concrete masonry core but upon which they will apply. So that veneer will match the retaining walls and the vicinity so they're trying to get all the walls and the sign to to relate to one another aesthetically. It is cut back a little bit so the middle part of the sign if you look at this profile is further back than the face of the sign. The location stone is in front. It's just a slate background, and there are pin letters that go in front of it. It does have illumination and that so there's this capstone this two foot wide capstone. That is another slate slab, and there'll be a shielded led light bar. So it shielded on three sides and it directs light just straight down so that the face of the sign is illuminated and legible. The sign itself will look like a rectangle of stone the back of it will look like a wider rectangle of stone for you to look at it from the top here's like another cut section so that there's this Goshenstone edifice that wraps around it. The structural core, the aesthetic, you know letters and logo, and then the light bar that faces downward is is that information that you were seeking David. Thanks that was great. I mean I guess, I mean part of my, I think it's great it's a beautiful looking sign although I think it's going to get tagged, perhaps by. Oh, undo undo undo. But but but but but I wonder, and I can and I don't think so but it's hard for me to tell whether it's, it's a potential visual obstruction for either of the driveways on Amherst medias or the one north of it. I don't go back. I don't think I'll be in trouble there because if you were to take, you can see this is the length of a parking space. And if a car comes out the driver is a sidewalk. So the signs pushed fairly far back at the car's fender. Thank you. Absolutely. Before I call on Janet, I just want a little question is that the only side is there no sign on the front. There are. I did bring this up at the first meeting but let me zoom in here well point first there. These are just four inch high pin letter signs so there's one on this side of the building, and there's one over the main door I'll zoom in a little bit to the door. So you get a sense that, you know, in the trim that goes around the building underneath the softening is the logo, and then this is a pin pin mounted sign there's a light at an in the soffit of this roof covering. And in the, we go back to the sign page. Let me look at the whole thing. Here, or it's the backside I don't know why they don't show you the front but here's the backside of the letters. I imagine this is a G I don't know it's backward you'll have to use your own imagination. But it gives you a sense of what these are little metal they're only four inches high so they're not substantial, you can mount them flush you can what they call pin mount them so they're raised from the building slightly. I believe that's what the architect has chosen to do is have them raised off the face of the building. Thank you. Thanks. And that's all the signs. So I recognize Janet and then next will be Jack. I have just a couple of questions. Um, could you, I was wondering where you're going to where the snow story just going to be and on your site I don't you may have mentioned it earlier just to remember. Yep, let me zoom in a little bit. So we have been talking to the snow maintenance people just to make sure that we're providing what they need. When they come in they'll be coming in from Gray Street with their plows and their preference and works out well for us is to push the snow straight. So, actually, what I'm going to point out, we have snow storage designated here and here really it's going to be right around this light pole on the west side of the base. And I'm going to jump to the landscape plan because this is only utilities but if we look at the landscape. Oh good I show it there too. Okay. So basically between the hedge row and the building itself and these are evergreen so the snow pile itself particularly in the spring when it's melting out. That will also be hidden by by the vegetation. Okay, and I had a question about how tall the Inc. berries were going to be at their max because I think it's a great way to shield the view of the parking stuff but I thought it'd be nice if they were kind of on the lower side like three or four feet. So, the Inc. berries well we can have a very tall for the, it's a steed Japanese Holly is, is what's being played is this so when you said Inc. berries you meant for this vegetation. Yes. Okay, yeah it's a, it's a, it's a type of Holly, it doesn't look like the classic winterberry Holly when I took a look at it because I, I didn't pick these plants the landscape architected but landscape designer. So that right here, the steed Japanese Holly is gets four to eight feet tall, depending on variety and growing conditions, it also can be trimmed. So if there's a maximum height that the board would like to see and it's still adequate to provide shielding for the cars, and we're already up on the slope a little bit so they don't have to be very high to hide the parking lot. We're certainly happy to limit that to five feet or something like that. Yeah, I thought it was just good. I mean, I thought the slope really helps and it'd be great to have them cover the cars but not obstruct their view so I don't have a hard number but I just thought, you know, what the more of you at the Henry Hills House the better. The other question I had, which is very two more questions quick ones. What is the width of the parallel parking spaces just are all right so going back to let me back out. And these are standards right. Yeah, well, interestingly, Amherst is mute on parallel parking sizes so I went with other engineering standards. So the width is nine feet, and that's that's adequate to cars are about six and a half feet wide. So that gives vehicles enough space one way or the other. There's also no curb on this side so there's, there's still wiggle room, although I think, you know, if you do have a passenger you're not going to park right up against the wall. Most cars don't have passengers but it should work either way so they're nine feet wide. This is a short answer. And then my final question, which is again about storage. Um, when I was looking at the the draft site plan review. I was wondering about the where you're going to store vehicles and materials during your construction. Is it going to be on site or is it across the street or is there a plan for that. We did talk to the contractor. We're going to be able to do all of that on site. I'm going to look at the staging of materials. I'm going to look at the whole thing here. We, there, it's important that we don't drive to this area up very much. We can we can drive over a little bit because the storm water system. I don't want deep ruts in this area. So we're going to be able to do some material storage around here. And then the reality is the contractors are going to have to do a little bit of a dance from week to week they're going to be in different places. There'll be different aspects of the site that aren't going to be as accessible. So I think for a large part of it, they're going to have vehicles on the west side of the building. I mean, they're they're kind of going to be all over is the reality of it. And it just depends on what operation is happening now. A single designated staging area that's out of the way of everything is not possible on this site. So are they but they believe they can keep everything on site and we can always look in the region. You know, that one. Something you said just raised another question my mind, which is on the green space where where you have the, the open green space can that be recreational space and can people walk across that it's not, you know, if you had an event or something it could be there. Yes. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, I wouldn't be driving vehicles over it when it's all said and done, but the technology that we're using is is commonly using people's backyards you go out there, you know, put up your lawn table and your chairs and have a picnic. Okay, thanks so much. That's all. I see Jack has his hand up. Yes. My comment was this on the storm water because you know there's been another, you know, addition with regard to the retaining wall here, or excuse me, the, the, the near the sidewalk anyway, so you have a lot of features, you know, going on. And I guess I think I brought this up when you initially brought this up a year ago but I'm wondering is, is there a potential just to dewater the entire site. And so you have storage capability, because your catch raisins look to be like around 250 or excuse me the, the outlet on the street appears to be 250 elevation 256 say, but that, you know, if, if you were, you know, you have a lot of, a lot of drainage control features there. I'm wondering just in terms of dewatering the site and allowing storage for the storm water as a result. Say, again, I wish I would have brought this up last week, but, and I'm fine with what you have, but I was just my putting my two cents in. You know, have you thought about putting a deeper trench along that north property boundary, dewatering the entire site, providing additional storage beneath the parking lot that you have designed. So you don't have to pump and have all these other features, you know, going on the west side of the site, you know, for the stormwater control. Again, I'm not a stormwater engineer as yourself, civil engineer, whatever, but I just, this is rattling around in my brain. Sure. No, that's totally understandable. Yeah, it has been considered. So what, what I will say is that generally, when you're doing stormwater infiltration stormwater management, but more the infiltration because we're trying to get water to go back into the ground kind of like a septic field you're trying to get it to go back into the ground. The best operating practices for engineering best practices would be to operate above the naturally occurring groundwater elevation. And the, it varies over the site it is as shallow as 21 inches that happens to be right up here in this this corner of the infiltration field. So we're trying to build above the naturally occurring groundwater elevation. If you do dewater a site, if that pipe plugs up for some reason. Now all of a sudden your infiltration system is, you know, two feet underwater perpetually and is never it's not going to work again. So it's, it's not something that is done. You know logically if you could just sink dewatering trenches in, you know, oh, the groundwater goes away but we don't count on that in the engineering world I wish it were that easy. In a lot of cases, I would have loved to avoid a pump system, but I really do need to work with the naturally occurring groundwater table. And just one point and I think you're all clear on this but the bedrock tends to rise on the west side. And, you know, I'm pretty sure what you have designed has enough free board above the bedrock. We've done, we've done test pits and we've gotten down into some distressed rock. We're aware of that elevation, and we believe that it's not going to prohibit the, the deepest part of the system or is the pump and the recharge tanks. We're pretty sure that we can get them in and if for some reason the bedrock were problematic and we weren't able to chip it out easily. It would be a very small and easily contained blasting situation or we would be able to easily because it's a pump we can take these settling tanks and as a emergency fallback. There's enough room if you can imagine for these structures to sit down here down here still be within the property line to very different soil and elevation situation down there. We don't want to do that because it's more trenching longer pipe probably bigger pumps. So we do want to do this over here, but my instructions to the site contractor is job on is make sure you can dig these holes. And I think they can we talked to them and they think they can but if you know it's underground so you find unusual conditions from time to time in the world of construction, but we have multiple fallback positions. If we do find unusual bedrock conditions. Thank you and one ask additional question. The line that goes to the north and then to the east around the building. Can you detail that a little bit. Yes, that's a roof drain. So, most of the recharge is capturing most of the roof water and piping it so there's one here as well as we've got a downspout here and a downspout here that are connecting water down into the settling tank. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I don't see any other board members raising their hands for questions right now. I'm going to go back to Chris best run and check in with her and then we could go to public comment. I don't have any questions or comments right now. Thank you. And also I'm just checking attendees. I'm not seeing any of the Amherst media raising their hands at this time. So they're just abandoning me. Oh no. Covered a lot of ground there. That was good. You're doing a good job. So I'm going to move to public comment at this point. So you could raise your hands and I'll note how many and and announce your names. I just want to remind everyone. Please limit your comments to three minutes or it just goes on too long. And I'm watching here. I see two, three. Okay. So at this point I see three hands. And Mr. Sparkle if you don't mind leaving up your shared screen because I think at this point you have a lot of good drawings that could be helpful depending. Direct me as needed. Thank you. And you can choose to respond or not to respond. So just raise your hand if you do want to say something after a comment. And I'll watch for that. I recognize Felicity Hardy. So please if it is Felicity unmute and announce yourself for the minute taker. Thank you madam chairwoman my name is Felicity Barry. I have 74 station road. Can you hear me. We can hear you welcome. Thank you very much. I submitted some written comments to the board, which I hope you've received it has some attachments. And I just want to supplement my written remarks as follows. I'm not entirely sure because my screen is very small, but it appears that Mr. Sparkle is still showing a 10 foot setback on the side next to Gray Street. I think that that's a in my letter I indicated that I think that's a 20 foot setback because this parcel of butts the residential zone. I can't really tell. But I believe that the rear setback and the side setback are both 20 feet. And I raised that that point because I think if the setbacks were properly showed, it would demonstrate to the board how small this site is. And as I indicated in my letter, I think Mr. Sparkle has done the best he can with engineering this project for this site, but the bottom line really is that the site is too small for what Amherst media proposes. So in my letter I indicated I explained that, in fact, there are fewer than eight spaces because the handicapped space of course has to be reserved for mobility impaired individuals so the staff can't use that. And I can't really speak to Mr. Sparkle's change to the width of the parking spaces and the, and the wall, you know, he says now that passengers can can, you know, egress the cars that would be parallel parked next to the wall I really I don't know. But my fundamental point is that this site is just too small for the use that is being proposed and I it's just it's unfortunate. And I would just encourage the board to really think about this this building is going to be there for 50 years 60 years 70 years, however long it's going to be. And if Amherst had had a planning board back in the 50s when the Bank of America building, which is just hideous on the corner of of main and pleasant was built. You would have had an opportunity to weigh in and now you really do you have an opportunity to shape this project in a way that will make it work into, you know, way into the future and I would just encourage you to really think about your responsibilities and to to encourage the applicant perhaps to downsize the building. One other point I would make and that's about the parking management plan it's true that Mr. Sparkle did include that in his initial materials is parking management basically is if there's not enough parking on the site then people will park on Gray Street. And yes, there's, there's capacity on Gray Street but does the board think it's fair for all of the rest of the neighbors in Gray Street to have on street parking for Amherst media because the site is too small. So that's a suggestion for you guys to decide. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your upper your review of my materials. I'll meet myself now. Thank you. Do you want me to respond immediately or um, speaking with Chris Bester first Chris I see your hand up. Do you want to make a comment about any. Yeah, I just wanted to make two comments in response to what Miss Barry said. One is that Gray Street is really a front setback because it fronts on to Gray Street. So it's treated the same way as the front setback on mainstream. It's not really a side setback. The other thing that is that that portion of the lot does not a but a property that is in the RG district it abuts the right of way. So I think those are two things to consider with regard to the eastern side of the site. And that's all I wanted to say. Mr sparkle. You can answer back if you want and add I just wanted you if you could point out with your mouse where the 10 foot setback is and then where the building is within the 20 feet. Okay, I'll just move this a little bit. Starting with the setback issues, the 10 foot setback on the front line on Gray Street and the front line on Main Street. I'm tracing. And then the 20 foot setback to residential on the west side which is the side setback. And I guess technically they're both side yard setbacks because it's a corner lot and there's no rear rear setback. Those are those are established on this plan accurately. So that addresses the setbacks. And not only is Gray Street a public right away but I believe the property over here is not zoned residential isn't that also in the BN zoning. So there, we don't have to worry about the setback issues on Gray Street. And even if they were a 20 foot setback, you can see if we doubled this the building is still not encroaching on that. So in terms of the site being too small, you know, we are only at roughly two thirds the coverage permissible for this zoning. So we're not utilizing as much of this property as possible. It would be possible though undesirable to turn this into a parking lot that. And nobody wants that, but it's possible so in the realm of possibility the site isn't too small we're just trying to cater this project to the situation and the needs of the applicant, as well as the local historic district. And yes the parking works the spaces for example these spaces, you know all of them they do meet the bylaw. The questions have been come up around that and the parking does work. And I think that's all I would say about that public comment. Thank you. Jack, I do see your hand up. Do you have something you want to comment on. I do. I mean, I think Felicity I respect her opinion she's, she's very good at what she does, but I'm just, I think from our experience at the site visit, you know, the lot seemed to be very adequate for what was proposed. And again the the the parking maneuver. Plans that that Bucky had presented seem to be reasonable. But I understand her concerns but after you know being there at the site. During a site visit. I really have a concern with regard to the site being too small. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm going to go back to public attendees and I will recognize if it is Daniel Jay Finnegan, and then next will be Eric Wilkerson and those are the only hands I'm seeing up right now. So, welcome, Mr Finnegan. Hello, can you hear me. We can hear you. Okay, thank you very much. My name is Dan Finnegan I'm an attorney with the law firm bulk of Richardson and I represent harm's way LLC, which is in a butter to the project. Any comments that miss our D made and just just add for what is worth just a couple more. I did have some comments I was going to make regarding the front yard setback, but now that I understand that there's been a special permanent application filed and there's going to be a separate hearing on that issue. I'll reserve those until that hearing where they'll probably be more relevant. Good area I would comment on tonight is just the retaining wall. And I heard that there was some discussion last time on July 1, I believe, and questions from the board regarding tiebacks and whatnot for that retaining wall. And I heard Mr sparkless presentation tonight and apparently he is now saying it's a gravity supported wall. You know, tiebacks are necessary. And I would just encourage the board to maybe ask them if that's been reviewed by a structural engineer. And if it hasn't been reviewed by a structural engineer that might be something that the board may want to look into requiring. And then that I would just echo miss Hardee's comments that the problems with the parking the problems with the setbacks, the problems to the retaining wall, all the one inescapable conclusion for this project. The site's just too small for it. So, with that, I will leave the rest of my comments regarding the setback issue for the special permit hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Mr sparkle I believe you're a PE. Okay, professional engineer license professional engineer civil engineer. Yes. And actually my educational background was in structural engineering. Okay. Good to know. Okay, thank you. And thank you, Mr finnigan. So I'm going to move to the last hand that I see raised right now. I believe it's Eric. If you want to announce who you are, and where you're who you represent or where you're from. Hi, yes, my name is Eric Wilkinson and I live at 20 Gray Street in Amherst. Thank you. I had a quick question and then a comment or two. So my quick question is, will there be any renewable energy. Parts of this building any solar or any other renewable energy. Okay, why don't you then give your comments to and because we run out your time that way and then someone. Okay, if, if there are no, if there are no solar panels are anything like that on the on the property. So my comment is, it's obvious that Amherst media has had a long standing special close relationship with the town of Amherst until very recently, the town of Amherst had a link to Amherst media on their webpage that looked just like the planning board link or the police department link. And that is present at all of the town meeting. So there, there is a definitely special and close relationship between Amherst media and the town of Amherst. With, with tremendous foresight, the town of Amherst adopted not too long ago is zero energy requirement for town buildings in in response to the climate crisis that we are living in now. But if there aren't already, I believe the planning board should require that Amherst media build this building to meet this inner zero energy standard for town of Amherst buildings. I think this is important for a few reasons first, because Mr sparkles water moving system like Sisyphus is going to be pushing water uphill all day long, especially in the spring and winter. We're going to use a lot of a lot of power. And we need that power to come from green sources. And secondly, because Amherst media is a 501 C three, they won't be playing any property taxes that means the other property tax payers in the town of Amherst are going to subsidize Amherst media's town services. And for that reason, I think that Amherst media is obliged to build to the zero energy standard. Thank you. I don't see any other attendees general public comments. I'm going to go back to panelists. So, and we did hear you, Mr Wilkinson so maybe someone else will ask a question about that but I'll recognize Jack at this point. Yeah, we just you already covered this point but I was going to say, you know, bucky is a is a PE and civil engineer, I think he can add a plate design. This wall which is pretty diminutive. In all respects and these he said that he had, you know, as a structural background as well so I have no problem with with his design and needing, you know, additional, you know, third party, you know review of this particular wall. And again, I don't think the site's too small. And what was the other thing. I forget. You can raise your hand. I'm going to recognize Michael right now. Thank you. I'm curious about the comment that is was recently made about the net zero energy issue. I don't know quite how to get into this but the real question is what would be the design and financial implications of the town requiring or insisting that this building meet those criteria. And if some of the engineering or architectural folks in present could speak to that I would appreciate it. I'll just say one thing about the net zero. That's just for public our town buildings. It would be a big step and some towns do talk about this but it would be a big step to require that on private property, which is this is an example of private property. And that would set a precedence then you'd be setting that every building that has to be built and immersed and and there's even talk about residential buildings where do you draw the line that all building so I could be coming but it's not here now and that's a very big step because it does put a burden on on anyone who's trying to build on their private land. I'll call some other hands Michael see if anyone else has some hands on that which just to define there's a difference between just trying to put green elements are sustainable elements in your building like solar panels. It's a completely different animal when you're requiring net zero which is a highly debated thing anyways because sometimes it costs too much to get to that last 1% or 2%. People debate whether zero needs to be zero because sometimes it can be a very highly efficient green building and it's still only at two or 3%. A lot of times it depends on the function of the building the higher the power they use if it's a factory or different buildings use more power like we debated that with the problem with the fire station they have autoclaves where they have to use very high power at times to properly clean all their equipment and that makes it difficult to get to a net zero or the DPW also uses a lot of power for a lot of their machines so it's a very complicated thing. I'll call on Maria and then Michael you saw your hand up. Can I put your hand down or No, would you leave it up please. So, Maria. Um, yeah that I think we've had this discussion about when that zoning amendment was made and I think it was across the board like generally adding 10% to construction costs to get it to be like net zero or net zero capable. And I agree that I'm asking that's a big ask. But what I like about this process, as I have been presented and seen so far is that you know the people representing Amherst media have listened to the comments and address them as best they could when they felt it was appropriate and taken those considerations and all of those things have made this project a better project. Um, when there are considerations that are brought forward that you know like Mr sparkle has you know either answered or said you know my client can probably consider it. You know it sounds like there's a dialogue happening and then there's certain things where you know I'm sure you're thinking in the back of my there's no way it's going to happen but you're being very diplomatic and you know answering questions and getting back that is I even in this last past from our last meeting you know there are subtle changes so I think that um yeah best efforts are being made to like listen and do what's possible. And in the future I mean that's a huge south facing roof you could always later on that PVs or something to offset our usage but that to require as part of the initial build I think is a big ask in particular with it not being a public building. But again yeah I appreciate the sort of you know it's been gradually improving and improving I think we can see that that you are listening and that you're doing what's possible. And owning you know mistakes that have been made and I'm sure that we'll hear more about the project after the special permit process and whatnot but um but so far yeah it's just sort of incrementally getting better and better in my perspective so that's it. Thank you. I'll call on Jack and then I recognize David. Sorry. Yeah. I was going to say with you know with the zero energy thing and being in a historic district is seems like it's a little bit onerous to do both. I don't think that's, you know, a reasonable proposition when they're already meeting this, you know, very rigorous historic commission review of the property. And then also I like you can back this up I, I have a feeling that the pump back system up to that field. Probably is, you know, fairly minimal, because it's going to have a gravity drain as well. So it's only during certain storms that it'll have to pump back but what he can clarify on that. Thanks, Jack. So I recognize David. Hi, thank you. Echo I think Maria and Jack's comments. And that I think both some of the public comments about the site being too small is, and we were we have, and I agree with Jack it's not too small it's it's tight for sure. There's a lot of it seems like there's a lot of design a lot of engineering for the site. And, and, and Maria it's been responsive along the way and I think that that's going to be challenging. But it's a much more attractive proposal than had been submitted a year or so ago whenever that was. I do agree with math massingills letter and part very little part maybe, but you know I think the three issues are the setbacks which that's going to that's to be the parking which is it is tight, but, but there's a lot of attention to it and part of the Amherst media's intent. And I think it's, it's, it's, I don't think that is far fetched is that that there will be alternative modes of people coming there. And that it is from, you know, well situated for that. And then the storm water system which seems to be the concerns seem to be competently addressed and so I think the setback is what's remaining and will be heard by another body. But it's just a lot it's a lot of engineering it's impressive work that's been done for the presentation and I appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks. Doug. Yeah, I guess. I just wanted to say that all the comments about the parking seem to me. A result of the applicants, responsiveness to the design review process that they not use the western end of the site. So, you know, we can't have it both ways. Bucky and his team can't have it both ways. And if the town would prefer not to have parking in front of the Hills House. The applicant is willing to live with fewer parking spaces, a somewhat tight circulation for vehicles along the side of the building, but they're willing to do it. And I think it's only fair for us to respect the collective will that's been expressed through the design review process. And I share the preference for a minimal disturbance on the western end of the site. And if they're willing to put up with it, I think it's, I'm perfectly willing to let them do that. Thank you. One other comment was Bucky, whether, you know, I think, I mean, all the conversation about zero energy solar is kind of irrelevant to this process. We have an existing set of requirements. And if we, you know, if the town wants to impose new requirements on future projects, that's a whole different conversation. But my one question for you might be, have you considered making sure the roof structure is adequate for solar panels, what they call solar ready. If sit down the line that became something you wanted to do. So you don't even need to answer that, but I think it's just worth thinking about with your architect. Thank you. So I want to call on Chris bestra. Not seeing that video right now. It's been brought up a little bit, but I just was hoping she would talk about the special permit and how we won't be taking a vote tonight on the SPR because we're going to continue this hearing to August fifth. And that's it. When we would because there has to be a certain amount of announcements and all that. So we wouldn't be able to do it until August fifth. And this kind of special permit is something that normally does come to us. Chris, are you there. Yes, thanks for the opportunity to speak. So there was, and probably still is a feeling that this building doesn't fall into the category that is covered by section 6.6 zero of the zoning by law. In other words, it shouldn't be subject to doubling of the setbacks, but rather than sort of fight that fight and argue that argument, the building commissioner and I have made a recommendation to the applicant that they just go ahead and apply for a special permit to modify the front setback requirement on the main street side under footnote a of table three of the of the dimensional requirements and you can look at that one of two ways you can look at it as if you're actually modifying the 10 feet. Or you only need to, if you modify the 10 feet down to five feet, then you'd only need to deal with it that way, or you could look at it as if the footnote a is actually modifying the section 6.6 of the zoning bylaw. One way or another, I think that this project falls into the category that is reasonably brought under that special permit. And the planning board in traditionally has been the body that considers special permits when when the planning board has jurisdiction over the principal use and the permitting for the principal use, then the planning board will undertake to grant modifications under special permits for dimensional modifications so we received the application this week. We're going to publish the legal ad next week and the week after and then we recommend holding a public hearing on August 5 and keeping the public hearing open on this site plan review so that you can discuss the two of them together so you can hold a joint public hearing on August 5 and if there are any issues still remaining on this project and things that relate to the front setback that you want to talk about. You can wrap it all up on August 5 so that would be our recommendation. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Sparkle, is there anything you want to add to that or, you know, the applicant's thoughts on adding to this process a little? I'm not sure I have a lot to add in this particular regard. I love the idea of net zero overall I'm delighted that municipal buildings are trying to achieve that or closely achieve that. I don't have an answer regarding the solar ready roof possibility. We'll have to hear from the architect about whether that's already incorporated or if that would be a minor addition. I do have the thought that in the local historic district commission, it's not exactly period to have solar panels. So, even if we wish to install them, I think there's a good chance we would not be able to. Now that's just my estimate of what the commission would say but they're very, very interested in the fine details of every aspect of this building. And I don't think they would just overlook solar panels. Maybe they would, but I can't speak to that or Amherst media's intentions or power requirements. I'm an outside of the foundation kind of guy in this project. But I'll be sure we have a conversation about that. And if something comes up, I'll let you know. Thank you. Regarding the special permit that will happen on August 5, I'm going to open it up comments again to the board but I just wanted to say, I thought it might be helpful like you have this slide here that shows how, you know, it's 13.3 feet, you know, in. If we could have a site plan that just shows the buildings across the street and their setbacks, just to sort of put it in context, you know, because we've got green space to the west here. You could look at some buildings to the east, but especially across, I think that's what we're trying to establish a little bit what is the local area look like. Thank you. So I'm going to open up to the board for any additional questions. If we do have time. Chris and I were hoping to get to a read through of some of the conditions and findings also only because we do it now we don't have to do it on the fifth. We pay one way or the other so I only see Michael's hand so I'll call Michael. I'm trying to get my wrap my head around this is there was mentioned earlier in the meeting tonight of this project having to go to the ZBA is are we now saying is what was the implication of what Chris just said that the planning board is going to decide all the special permits related to this project. And it will not go to the zoning board of appeals. This project will not go to the zoning board of appeals this is the building commissioner has made that determination, and he's the zoning enforcement officer. Thank you. And I believe this only this one issue, right. Those back right because Michael saying all the issues. I think this is the only issue, which usually does fall into our purview, more than CBA. I don't think it ever was going to the CBA and it doesn't. It's just gonna, we'll have SPR and SP, like we very often do. So that would be on the fifth. I recognize Janet and then, then David, Janet. I have a question about the SPR conditions and decision and special permit decision. We have the special permit conditions are always more onerous or kind of more demanding than the site plan review conditions. And so I wonder if, instead of going through the site plan review. Or whatever we wait that until August 5 because, you know, the finding the special permit would easily slide over to site plan review findings that does that make sense. We could add to them. Chris, what do you think you're some sort of, maybe I feel like if you hit the special permit, you're definitely hitting site plan review. Might be different. Am I reading that correctly or just May I answer. Yeah, please do. So I think it's fine to wait till August 5 to go over the conditions and the findings and it probably does make sense to think about them all together. And I had forwarded you conditions and findings before I knew for sure that That the applicant would be submitting a special permit application. So, you know, it's, it's fine to wait and it gives you more time to think about it and you have things you're going to add. That's fine too. So I would actually at this point recommend waiting. I would say time. Yeah, I do just want to wrap Chris on the findings the first one actually does address the special permit. So that's why I thought this had already been thought out a little bit with the special. Oh yeah, that's right. So it had been thought out. You can do it either way. You want to get it sort of over with tonight to tonight. You don't really have anything else on the agenda for August 5. So, at this point, you know, I think that August 5 is going to be all about this project. So we have plenty of time to talk about the special permit and talk about the site plan review altogether. So we are due and I'm going to call on some other people here just to get what the general feeling is that people want to do. So I recognize David and then I see Doug. Thank you. I agree. I think that we, I think it seems to me premature to go over the draft condition is because we consider more things might may come up and so I would agree. I would agree with reading it at the next meeting. Thank you. Great. And Doug and then I see Michael. I thought I had seen something that the 40 our conversation was happening August 5. Is that incorrect? We said sometime in August. Yeah, Chris and I hadn't had that discussion and part of it was because we had sent that. Well, we voted on our recommendation to go to CRC and town council regarding them to sort of prioritize and think about, you know, the initiatives they have sent to us about the master plan update and hoping that they would reconsider prioritizing the town planning department resources for more focus on bylaw and design guidelines. The 40 hour consultant report is they have given a draft of some suggested design guidelines. So, part of our weighing was waiting to, well, first we have to get that actual recommendation to CRC and town council and then hear what they thought about that because then that would impact how we decide what to do with the 40 hour. Does that make sense. It will be in August or just not sure if it's the fifth or if it's the next meeting after that. Thanks. Michael. Yes. We received about five o'clock I received about five o'clock by email letter from this master guild. And I've had a chance to read it. I'll give it a cursory reading, certainly no more than that. It seems to me, both inflammatory and important. And I'm not sure what we as a board need to do about it, but it seems to me, at least, we need to discuss what to do about it. And I don't know whether that means assuming we want to come to a decision on this project on the first meeting in August. It seems to me that any kind of review of this letter if there is going to be a review of this letter ought to happen somehow between now and then, either to the town's attorney or I'm not sure what the what the right process is, but it seems to me that the letter needs some attention. What do you want to what do you want to say about it, Michael. So I was going to ask him that I was going to say so this letter did get addressed in the applicants. I had an initial talk tonight and went point by point through it. And then after that I opened it up to, you know, questions to the board on the applicants presentation. Of course now at this point if you want to bring out a comment or a specific comment or recommendation or suggestion. Feel free to do that now I are you suggesting we should refer this to town legal counsel for advice. I am. Again, I'm not the attorney on this group that we had two others who are. And it's, it seems to me that Mr sparkle answered the letter in, in, you know, kind of not as, as, as he was being as if he were being attacked, which in part, this letter is, but this letter is more than that it seems to me. And it's not just about Mr Sparkle's response. It's about a whole bunch of other things, which are in fact news to me and perhaps are none of our business as a planning board. That's possible, but I don't know that. And I would like some good information and good opinion, other than Mr Sparkle's rebuttal about the points brought up in the letter. So I guess at this point, Michael, you could ask specific, you know, sit like we said some of these issues have been talked about or whatever and maybe we feel okay with and others you feel uncomfortable if you could bring them up right now and ask Chris best or specifically for areas of the letter that we want guidance or interpretation on or are you saying you just want to send the whole letter to legal counsel for the end late. I got this letter a half an hour before the meeting and I haven't really had a chance to read it, except to be to read it quickly and be inflamed by it. And I can't at this point, tell you what I specifically am concerned about. Okay, no, I hear you. Okay. I'm concerned about it and I think it needs to be answered now and that's what I meant brought why I'm bringing it up now. It had nothing to do with bucky's response to it. It has to do with the letter itself. And what should we do as a board should ignore it. Is it none of our business or should we investigate it in some way. Okay. And maybe some other board members have some opinion on that we I totally hear you I think we all hear you Michael so I'm just trying to find what it is your expectation and what will make you feel better. And so I'm looking to Chris best drop is our connection to the town and what she's comfortable with I really look at the director planning at the first level. And then I'll give my personal feeling later but I'm going to move to the other members see if they have any feelings or concerns on this. Jack, first I'm going to go with Chris, you're in the dark, by the way, Chris. Sorry. See you. I'm going to call on Chris because I see her hand first then I see Jack and Doug and then David. So I wanted to suggest I could write a memo in response to this letter. And, first of all, I want to say that I think the lawsuits that are swirling around this project have nothing to do with the planning board and the planning board should the lawsuits proceed as they will. You don't usually focus on lawsuits you focus on the job at hand which is to decide whether this project should be approved based on the standards and criteria that are in the zoning bylaws so I think as far as the lawsuits go. It's really not something to be concerned about but I can send this letter to town council and ask if any of those things are things that you need to be concerned about the other topics I think I can answer in a memo and if I don't answer them satisfactorily, you can let me know and I can find out more is that reasonable. I'll ask Mike, he can raise his hand again if he wants to ask I'm going to move to thank you for that Chris to Jack and then Doug and then David. Jack. Yeah, I feel like it is, I don't know if attorney massing ill is present but I feel like we discussed most of the points that he brought up, but I am very concerned about comments from third parties coming in the day before, or the day of when we've had a meeting and I just, I feel like that's, I don't know that that's fair to the developer and you know, I'm just concerned about, we've seen this before, and I'm just concerned about when things come in the 11th hour and okay you know we feel compelled to prolong the hearing because it came so late and I don't understand that I really don't understand that so that's all I had to say. I agree both you and Michael have made that point, you know, we it's hard when you get it just a couple hours before the meeting, especially when it's something you have to put some thought to Doug and then David. Yeah, in response to Michael's concerns. I'm certainly not not an attorney but I find very little in this letter that has any substance at all that we should deal with. I don't think the lawsuits are an immediate concern of ours. We should be looking at the plans as submitted the documents. The most substantive thing in here is the fact that the town engineer sent an email rather than a letter in my opinion. So I don't regard, I don't think we should waste any more time on this and I don't even think we should send it to legal counsel, because I don't think there's anything in here. Thank you. Thanks Doug. David, and then Michael and Janet. So David. Yeah, thank you. I agree with what does comment. I see Michael I see this is a piece of advocacy. And that that's what a lot of the players in the field are and it's piece of advocacy. I think I agree with you and that inflammatory seems like a good characterization for much of it. I did learn other things from the letter but maybe, but you know how much does the letter bear on the matter at hand. I don't think that much. I agree with Doug there. You know we're going to be dealing with setbacks, the stormwater management and the parking we discussed these things. In terms of the best use of town resources, Chris, rest rough, I don't think that Lawrence writing a memo I agree I don't think it, you know, is best use of resources to set to refer to the town council at this moment, but it's just piece of advocacy. Thank you very much. Thank you. Michael I'm actually going to call on Janet first just so she can say her piece and then since, you know, you can then follow up on for the second round. Janet. So, um, I, I have spent about two or three hours on the section 6.6 issue looking at the bylaw and some case law and the state statute. And then I did ask to see Mr. Moore's letter during the hearing and maybe no one heard that and so I do think the special permit is is a wiser way to go to deal with the issue of setbacks. And so I had a question just reading the letter, you know, I think I must be just immune to inflammatory rhetoric at this point just being an attorney or a mediator or just a parent of two former teenagers. But I, I did, I did one of the things I wrote down when I was reading through the letter was, I was kind of lost about who is suing who over what, and so that may just be interesting and not affect us so I just kind of got wondered like who's suing who over what, but I did wonder about what what is the effect on what we do and so, um, is there a way these lawsuits can affect our decision and I think, you know, if the, the board chooses to issue the special permit and the permit for site plan review. And, you know, maybe the lawsuits result in a different way that kind of undoes our work I mean that that may would not be tragic it would be, you know, maybe wasted time but I just, I had a question my mind is, will these lawsuits affect what we're doing. My feeling right now is not really will probably go ahead and make a decision in August, and then the fates will take it from there kind of thing so that's it. Thank you, Michael. Thank you for asking me I'm perfectly satisfied by the board's attitudes relative to this question. And I think I agree that it would be a total waste of the stressors time to write a memo outlining her response to the letter. My primary concern was the fact that it came in at five o'clock this afternoon, echoing what Jack was saying that we really shouldn't somehow we shouldn't simply either not pay attention to these things that come in at the last minute, particularly since this project has been ongoing for a number of months, and that we should just ignore it. And under the circumstances, I think that's probably what we should do. I'm seeing no more hands at this point. Oh, I see a actual hand. Me. Yep. I don't think we've ignored it. We've discussed it. We've considered it. We've waited. We haven't ignored it, but I don't think it requires much more. And it seems like there's consensus on that too. That's my only point. Thank you. Michael, I just saw your hand come up again. I think that we should ignore it. Ignored it, but as David points out, we certainly didn't ignore it. But perhaps that we should in the future. That's all. Thank you. So at this time, I'm just going to check in with Mr. Sparkle and Amherst media. And is there anything else they want to say, because I think at this point we're close to member could make a motion to continue this to the fifth. I see. Move to continue to August 5. Is there a second back in seconds? Right. Okay. Any discussion on that Chris, is there anything you want to add or we'll just. Why don't we say 635. Okay. Sounds good to me 635 on the, and is that work for you, Mr. Sparkle. Almost certainly the whole summer has been canceled. Yeah, I know the feeling. Okay, so August 5 at 635, we will reconvene and we'll also be opening a public hearing for a special permit. So thank you everyone and attendees and applicants for coming. You know you're going to take a roll call vote. Right. I just wanted to, if I see no more hands. So at this point, I'm going to end discussion and we'll take a roll call. So we have a motion. Michael Burt whistle. Yes. Brian Chow. Yes. Jack Jemsack. Yes. David Levenstein. Yes. Mark Marshall. All right. Janet McGowan. Yes. I'm going to call on item four. And Christine Ramon. Yes. So seven zero, zero. And so we'll see everybody on Wednesday, August 5th, which I can't even believe it's going to be August. So at this point. Mr. Sparkle, we can probably unshare his. Great. Okay. I'm going to call on item four old business. Do we have anything? There's nothing on the agenda, but. No old business as far as I know. No. Great. New business item five. Okay. Okay. So there we go. 2007-0, 00006 currently known as heartfelt farm. Cluster subdivision request to substitute lot two. Currently released for lot four currently under a covenant contract. Well, I have some slides for that when we're ready. He may want to just. Okay. Can I just say one thing? I was just going to say, Chris, do you want to open? So I just wanted to note that this did come before the planning board meeting as a topic not anticipated. It was sort of a last minute topic that was added to the July 1st meeting. There were a lot of questions about it, which have been forwarded to Mr. Edie and he asked to come back for tonight's meeting. So we did put it on the agenda as new business. Because it wasn't on the agenda on the, on July 1st. Thank you. Okay. So I will call on. I think Mr. Are you there? Oh, there you are. Oh, you're a little, um, quiet, like in a can. Oh, no. Good. Yeah. Yeah. Welcome. Thanks for having me. Good evening. Good to see everyone for the record. Tom Reedy, attorney with bacon Wilson and Amherst here on behalf of Apple Brook West. Uh, VISTA terrorists. Um, seeking to effectively change out. Um, the covenant did lot from lot four to lot two. Uh, this is a property 1194 West street was the cluster subdivision at the planning board approved. I am not going to go through all of the history. That dates back to, I think, 2007. Um, I will just give you an update. Um, So within the subdivision, lots three and lots eight are completed and sold. Uh, a lot four is very near complete. And we expect to close by the end of July. Hence this request. Uh, to change the covenant and lot from lot four to lot two. Uh, five and six are in construction with signed purchasing sales. And both to be finished and sold by the end of the year. Uh, and lots seven hasn't accepted offer. And they're in the process of providing minor design modification. So the only one. That hasn't had a purchase and sale on it is locked to. Um, And so a couple of the questions and maybe I'll just go through them. There were nine questions that Ms. Brestra sent over to me. And I think that's a good one. Why was a lot four chosen to be held by other lots were requested to be released. And there was really no reason. It was just kind of picked out of a hat and the developer thought. This lots as good as any. Um, why was not locked to not held instead. And again, the same thing. He didn't know what the market was going to do. And just. I think that's a lot that he chose. Uh, how does the value of lot four compare with the value of lot two? He would think it's probably five to $10,000 difference in the final base price of the house and the lot. And I would think that would be my opinion. Lot two would probably be that much less than lot four. Um, the value of. These lots are probably $150,000. I think. If you look at the registry. A lot. Let me look at it. Lot three, um, which is adjacent to lot four without with a completed house on its soul for $569,000. So that's the. That's the value of what we're talking about. And the lot itself, I think they attribute about $150,000 to it. Um, the value of lot four. Both lots appear to have drain adjustments on them. How do these drainage easements affect the buildability of the lots? The drainage easements in lot two appear to be more problematic than the drain adjustment in lot four. And the response is. If you look at the extent of the drainage easements, I think there's actually, um, There's two drainage easements on lot four. There's one on the. Yeah. You know what, Mr. Can we share screen? Can someone pop up the site map for this? We can. Interrupt. I just, it will help. Like, as you describe a visual makes it so much easier. Sure. And we don't have it in our packet. So. It came to you on July. Yeah. It was in your packet, Christine. A map. Yeah. Perfect. Oh, this one. Oh yeah. Also, I like it for the public because they don't know. Sure. Yeah. So just back to the easement. So we're looking at four and you're saying there's two there and. Yeah. Pam, I don't know if you can blow that up at all. I'm going to put it on, um, slide show. Okay. Which helps. So a lot of four is at the top of your screen, the top left right there. And so you see the building circle at the top of the building circle is one of the drainage easements. And then if you go to the bottom right of the building circle. There's a little. Right there is another drain. And then there's also. A common driveway for lots three and four share a common driveway. Um, And partially by that common driveway as is lot three burdened. And I only raised that because then. If you see a lot too. Mm hmm. There you are. Perfect. So on the. So you have the building circle. Yeah. You go. So that's the drainage easement. Is right there. And then there is no common driveway easement burdening lot two. It is benefited by a common driveway. Or a driveway easement rather on lot one. So. You know, I think. Looking at it personally, I think a lot four is probably more desirable than, than lot two. But I don't think that the drainage easement is going to have a material impact. Um, Especially, you know, we have a lot. Lot four is going to sell and it's going to sell for more than lot three. Uh, so I think it's like $600,000. Uh, and not three was 569. So I would expect a lot too. Certainly to sell at some point, which probably goes to the next step is what is the cost to complete the roadway and based on our, um, the cost of the roadway. And so with lot two. Assuming $150,000, there's sufficient collateral there. I don't know if Chris had shared. Uh, with the board, what was left to be done. Um, but I think Jason took a look at it and it didn't seem like he was, um, nervous with what had to be done. Um, I think I talked about the number of houses sold and then. Um, you know, if you get the planning board shoes, which slot should be held. You can, but the only problem is that you're. Putting the developer in a tough place because he has contracts on all of the other ones. And so given the minimal nature of what needs to be done to complete the subdivision. And we'll having a lot too. And then. I think, um, Mr. Levenstein had suggested thinking about bonding. You know, some sort of cash surety or something else besides covenant thing, which is. On the table. But the original request was. Aren't we far along enough just to eliminate any of the covenants related to the subdivision. And then. We didn't get a response from Jason skills or how much it was going to cost. So we thought, well, instead of just giving no. Collateral. Why don't we switch it from lot four to lot two. So we thought at least for this time being lot two would serve as sufficient collateral. And then we'll explore if we can, you know, provide you with evidence of how much we think it's going to cost have Jason corroborate that. And then think about, um, maybe just getting a bond for that amount. Because what too, at some point is going to be sold. And I don't think that the top code and all those other things are going to go on until. The, the top code. The top code. I mean, you've heard this before. So you bring heavy equipment across. Um, the roadway that's just had a top coat put on. Which isn't the best thing for the top coat. So we thought that this was a good solution protects the town. And then we'll, we'll start to look into some sort of, um, bond. Because I think that's probably the best thing to do. Um, I'll open it up to. Board questions. I see Janet, then Jack, then David, Janet. So I went out and looked at the lots today. Um, cause I was somewhat confused. I kind of thought lot four was going to be an empty lot, but it has a building on it. And so. Um, it seemed, and when I looked at lot two, it was very steep. I was going to pick between lot two, which has is empty. And lot seven, which is also empty. I would have picked lots of just because it's Latin big. Um, and so I began to worry. Maybe lot two is the most undesirable one. And in fact, it's the last one that has no offer on it. And so that got me a little bit worried. Um, I was, what my question, that was my statement. My question is, um, when, when in fact would the developer finish the road? Are they going to, will he be waiting until a lot two is sold? Or if all the other houses are in, but lot two is still unsolved, would they just complete the road? Cause I'm trying to, I'm thinking about the Amherst Hills problem. Sure. And I'm just wondering. Are you, is it going to be waiting until that last one is sold and what happens if it doesn't get sold for a while? I mean, that's frankly part of the reason why the town has. The, the collateral of lot two is that it's to ensure performance. I mean, that's what we're doing is we're giving the town essentially, we're giving the town a mortgage to say, we will complete it. And if we don't complete it, you have this collateral to make sure that it's, it's completed. You know, it's not, we don't just give it to you because we, we like it. It's, it's to ensure performance. I would suspect that in an ideal world, it would be completed after a lot two is completed. So, you know, you don't have to do that because then you don't have to bring the foundation trucks, the excavators, all of the, the. Earth moving equipment. And any of the other dump trucks, et cetera. And to that space, maybe he looks, and I was going to say, maybe he looks to complete past a lot too, but I think there's a lot of economies and just doing one top of that. I mean, I think to answer your question, he would look to do it after a lot too. And if, if. There's going to be an issue, I think we just have to have a conversation with the town. And maybe put some outside date on it. Are you done, Janet? Yeah. Okay. Jack and then David. Yeah, I was just curious about. In terms of. What's going on with the town. And, you know, interest in these lots. And it looks like it's the building happened. Pretty rapidly, which is. This is a good thing. And, but I'm wondering about the demand and. What the timeline might be. In terms of the completion. Of the subdivision. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. From, you know, the demand that you've seen from, from the, the side owner. Sure. Thank you. I would, I would think that. By the end of next calendar year, it will be completed. I think he'll have. See three and eight are gone. Four should be conveyed this month. Five and six should be done by the end of this year. And I think Paul's plan and Russ's plan was to have them two per year. And then to end it at 2021. At the end of next year to have them all. Sold off. I just clarified. So is seven sold or not sold? Seven is there's an accepted offer. And they're just working through because it's built to suit. So they're working through like just final design modifications. Because if you, if you go down there and Janice can probably. You know, You know, You know, You know, You know, You know, You know, A test is they look somewhat similar to each other. And so typically what will happen is that they'll say, we want this with some modifications to it. So that's why. So a lot seven, everything else is under agreement save for a lot too. That's what I thought. I don't know that they've marketed a lot. Two that much Jackie Zuzco, who some of you may know, has been doing the marketing for it. I think it's. You know, You know, You know, There's a solar component to all of these. Houses in the subdivision. There will be solar. They're working. I forget the company that they're working with, but there will be solar on the roof of all these houses. I don't think they're net zero. I think they're just. Got some green elements, but anyways. So I'm going to put Janet. Jack, are you done? Yeah. Yes. David and then Doug. Excuse me. Thank you. I think, you know, we're looking out for the interests of the town for the completion of safe roads. In the cluster subdivision, I think is. What I believe is the matter at hand. And that. There's. A sale that's going to go. To occur. On a, on a restricted property. We're going to, we want, we want security, the collateral for the completion of the road. And it seemed like Mr. It seemed like you also were suggesting that. Further down the road, you might, you would consider switching it to a bomb. It's like, why not do that now when the sale is consummate. That just seems to me to be removing that. An unnecessary. It seems to me to be taking the can down the road of switching it to lot two, waiting for lot two to sell. Or in the interim. Switching the. The restriction to a bond. It seems why not just let's establish the bond now. And then, and then, then there's no. There's no uncertainty from the town's point of view. It seems to me about securing. Performance to complete. So. So I guess my response would be. Why not allow some of those funds to be used. For the actual completion of the work. Instead of just putting it into a bond. For the work to be done. And then he's essentially paying twice. And so by switching from lot four to lot two, it allows the sale to happen. And then the cash is freed up for him to, to continue to build. Because I'm sure he's taking some of the money from a lot for to pay the contractors from a lot for, and then also to finish the buildings up, right? It's just, it's moving that money around. And then that would also free up money. To be able to do the work on the roadway. So that, or, you know, the sidewalk. Instead of, like I'm saying, paying twice. And just saying, we're going to take this money put into escrow. And then we have to come up with an additional amount of money to actually do the work to prove to you that we're doing it. So the solution to us was. There's enough value in a lot too. Let's use that. And then let me have the conversation with Paul to say, you know, and Jason skills. And then maybe we come back to you and say, here's our timeline, you know, to give you just a definitive timeline of this is what's going to happen. You know, we. Anticipate, you know, finishing at this date. And if it doesn't, here's the backup plan just so because I know with the Amherst Hills, one of the things that you were looking for in the representation, I think was made not to. Cross too much here, but that there was going to be some work done, I think this summer. And I think just for you going forward to get some timeline and some, okay, if there's a deadline and you don't meet this deadline, something else has to happen. And I think what I'd be representing to you is. If you allow the covenant to be switched to a lot too. Let me talk to Paul, come up with a plan, talk to Jason skills, come up with a plan, and I'll be back to you and pick a number 30 days or 45 days, something like that to say, here is our plan. Here is what we're going to do. And all the meanwhile, you have a lot too. I mean, lot two was a building lot of neighbors. I think we've all seen. The building lots of neighbors, cheapest I've seen, and it was priced to sell on West street. So 116, right across, I think from Mill Lane, there was a lot there sold for $85,000. And so there's a house on it now. I think I could remember who did it, but I'm not going to. So that's what you're talking about for a housing lot in Amherst. And so this, especially if it is $35,000, which there was nothing in Jason's email that was overly concerning to me. I think for you to take this as the collateral, let me do a little bit more work on my end and come back to you and say, here is the timeline. You know, I think you're protected and for whatever it's worth, you know, I'm working with the developer here. So hopefully that means something to you that, that I will make sure that we are back and we are doing what we said we were going to do. So I'm going to move on to the next slide. We're hearing your proposal, Mr. So I'm just going to let all the members have their comments. And then we can get back to what you're putting on the table. Do you have anything else, David? Thank you. So I'm going to move and call on Doug. And then there's Michael. Doug. Yeah. Yeah, I wanted. First to just say. Isn't this a problem that happens over and over. Like in every subdivision or is the. The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the creation of collateral. Is that just a new thing? And we don't know how to deal with this. I would think it would happen every time. We don't have many subdivisions in Amherst lately. Okay. Good point. So the second thing I wanted to do was to ask Tom. You made some reference to the. Marketing of various lots. And that maybe lot two would be marketed next year. I don't know that it's been actively marketed this year. So in a sense you've created this problem. I don't know that it was specifically withheld from the market. I don't know that lot two was said, let's not market it. Or lot four, let's push it. I think. The genesis of this was you. Jackie would bring folks to the site and they would say, I want this lot. I don't think that my point was. I don't know that there has been any sort of. Marketing blitz, full court press, whatever term that you'd want for a lot to specifically. I don't know that it's happened on the other lots. They might have just naturally. So because people go back and they say, wow, a lot for, if it's me, lot four, a lot five, or probably my most desirable lots, you're going to get the least amount of traffic. You're going to have some connectivity to there's a path. There's like a trailhead right at the end of that dead end. So I think it just might have been the organic way that these things sold. So I don't want to make it seem like. They've exalted one lot over the other. I think it's just natural selection to a certain extent. Okay, thank you. So the third thing I was going to say is I, I do think it would be wise for us to. Incorporate a timeline on this. In case the, you know, if we go forward with lot two, I don't want to have. You know, the sub, the sub course deteriorating. And suddenly a $35,000 top coat becomes rebuilding the entire road. So I'd like to see some sort of deadline incorporated. If we go forward with this. Thank you. I just want to ask a follow-up on his, on Doug's part too. So if lot four was what was being held as security. How does it get to the point that's actually a house built on it right now? It's a, it's a great question. Is it really? Yeah. And I got an email. I mean, when did I email Chris? I mean, three weeks ago saying, Hey, We have this sale coming up at the end of July. There is a covenant on it. What can we do? Oops. Yeah. Yeah. Oh yeah. So I said, Oh, okay. Well, here's what we'll do. So yeah, I mean, ideally, no, this isn't, this isn't how it happens. You, you have these things lined up well before you get to this point. I mean, fortunately, we, we do have a lot too available instead of them all being spoken for. And then I think, you know, they were just shifting things around or coming up with an alternative solution. But yeah, it's not ideal that we're here. Thank you. Michael. Yeah. I, two points. I think I drove, I drove through through there this afternoon as well. And it seems pretty. Undeniable that lot two is significantly less attractive than a lot four with or without a structure on it. And that any structure on lot two is going to be, although in the same style as the other homes, presumably will be placed in such a way to be disadvantaged visually and won't be as attractive a lot. But the real question I have, and then that goes back to the notion of how did we get here in the first place and the oops question. My other other concern is that we should not forget that in the process of setting aside funds to finish the road, whether it's by bonding them or by covenanting them, we need to remember that the developer promised to build a parking lot and an access road to the parking lot to connect with the trail head. And is that presumed, I would presume that would come under the same kind of covenant. Is that true? Or if not, why not? That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. He did promise to do it. He is going to do it. We've had discussions with Dave Zomek. Part of the thinking is, do you want the public accessing? Because I think you'll hopefully all remember where that entrance was. It's between the pole of lot seven and where it says space on the open space, on the right side of the plan. And so part of the thinking was not to make an attractive nuisance, not to invite the public to a construction zone, plus ultimately that land, that open space is going to be conveyed to the town of Amherst. It's used for stockpiling of material right now. We've talked to town council with the COUNSEL. And we've talked about licensing and just timing of all of that. Besides a covenant, I know what you did in Amherst Hills was certificate of occupancy. I think it's probably best for it to be covenanted for here. I don't know if Ms. Brestrup has any other thoughts on it, but I think that'd be fine. So when Jason looks at it, not only is it top coat and sidewalk, but probably also parking lot in whatever, I think that some sort of shack he was going to do. And the access road to the park. Thank you in that area. Thank you. So before I go a second round for, I just wanted to say something that I'll call on Chris Bester. So normally, and we've learned this with Amherst Hills, that it isn't that it gets finished. It gets close to finish like 90%. It's one last house getting built is not going to destroy your road. It's not, but if you had, and this is a very small subdivision, let's put it in perspective. I mean, compared to like Amherst Hills, when you have dozens more homes, that would be a lot more construction. So we're actually getting to the point. If there's only one lot, you're at 90%, we are ready. And maybe we do have to wait for Jason skills. We're actually ready for that list of what has to get done and what would it take for the town then to accept the road is really what we're talking about. We're actually that close to, to that. And just now I know why I didn't like this drawing. Not that I don't like this drawing, but this shows one perspective, but it doesn't show the houses that are built or the foundations on it, which give you a deeper perspective. So if I could see what, where the house is and how big it is in that building circle of lot four, which it is by far a more desirable building circle than lot two that has it drive up past the median of the circle. So you're a lot more limited in where you're going to be able to build your house on that. So that's why I wanted another drawing, which if you come back, that might be helpful to see the building circles and what's actually built there to give some perspective. So, you know, I know Chris and I have had a couple of back and forth like had we heard anything from Jason skills. I think we're at that point where we need that checklist and that estimate. And it does have to be looked at because maybe it's just, yeah, like you sort of were proposing Tom, we need dates or whatever, like, let's make the plan now. Let's start figuring out when this is all going to get finished out. So I'm going to call on Chris faster. And then if there's more questions, I'll start with Janet for additional Chris. So I just wanted to say that I did speak with Dave Zomek and he did say that the developer would be building that driveway and parking lot into the open space lot, which unfortunately the driveway and parking lot doesn't show on this plan. But I can get the plan for the next time. And the other thing is that I reached out to Jason and he's working on the cost estimate, but he didn't have it ready for today. So we'll have it soon. Excellent. So a little bit more dialogue. And we'll have more information. So thank you, Chris. I'll call on Janet McGowan if there's any other last questions or information you want to ask for when this comes back. So I am. I also had the question of how the house wind up on the lot. And, you know, I think it's probably best to avoid the oops, and kind of a last minute scurrying around. I do want to speak in praise of having. A bond because I had a $300,000 bond that I used to pay $1,000 a year on in New York state for, for another matter. And so it's, if, if you needed a $50,000 or $100,000 bond to cover the road and maybe the parking lot, I don't think it would cost the developer very much. And I hope he's not in a financial situation where an extra $1,000 a year or so would put them on the edge. And so presumably, you know, so I think that the bond, like when David was suggesting that they made sense to me, it's so much faster. It's clean. It's not that expensive. And it's ready cash. And so, you know, the town could call it when I needed it and not go through kind of a complicated thing. And so that might, to me, that looks like the easiest way. I think it's very inexpensive. I may be wrong that a $50,000 bond is very expensive in Massachusetts compared to New York. But I just, I just think that's maybe a cleaner and faster option. But I think that's probably the best option. Maybe going forward in this process or the next subdivision. Why do you only want to 50,000? So the top coat was only going to be 35,000. Is that right? Yeah. So what the developer expected for the, for everything else to finish the roadway or the infrastructure, they thought $35,000 was. Yeah. 50 or 100. I'm just picking that number out to be bigger. That seems so low. It can be 15,000 and do a driveway. But I mean, that's the whole driveway button. But yeah, I mean, I. Wow. Yeah. I'm taking their word for it. So anyways, the Jason skills will also be getting what he thinks, because there could be other things they want done to accept the road as a public road. So we'll hear from him. Chris. So one thing is they're never going to accept this road as a public road because it doesn't meet public road requirements. It doesn't have some other aspects of it that we would want in a public road. So that's not what Jason's looking at. What he's looking at is whether it's sufficient to provide. To the homes that are going to be along it. So that's one thing. It was another thing I wanted to say. And just completely slipped my mind. So anyway, maybe I'll get back to it. That's a great concept for us to know though, that this will never be expected to become a public road, even with that trailhead and everything on there. So this is separate than Amherst Hills. That's all about they want their road to be accepted by the town. Yep. I remember the other thing I wanted to say, last night I attended a class given by CPTC. And it was all about A&Rs and subdivision control law. And the fellow who gave the class said that if you are accepting a bond or escrow, you should accept at least twice as much as you think the, the work is going to be because you never know when the work will get done. And that's something that we found out about Amherst Hills that a subdivision that was started in the 1990s still isn't done, you know, 30 years later. So work has, and, and we got a cost estimate to do this work in 2013 or something in Amherst Hills. And now presumably the cost has gone up. But anyway, that's a side. We did get, I did get this clear recommendation from the fellow who gave the class last night that if you're going to accept a bond or escrow amount, it's worth thinking about going for twice as much as you think the work is going to be worth. So we're still just holding that lot for, or what would be switched to lot two. How does that work? Like let's say the road isn't getting finished. It's four or five years from now. Like how does this actually legally work? Well, the way it works is that the developer is supposed to have the incentive to market the lot and sell the lot. And if he doesn't, then somebody else would come in and purchase the lot and then not be able to build on it until the roadways finished. So some way, when we are another either the developer who currently has the property or a new developer who would come in just to develop that lot would have an incentive to finish the road. And I wanted to go back to lot four and why it has a house on it. And I think it's a lack of communication. And somehow it never got, the information never got to the building commissioner that, that lot was being held in, as part of the covenant. And whoever is going to purchase the lot will see that there's a certificate of performance on file at the registry that holds that lot. So that lot really shouldn't be built on. And how it happened. I don't know, but apparently there's a lack of communication. So what can I say? It's one of those things. It's one of those things. And we have to deal with it now. Thanks. I recognize David and then I see Jack. Thank you. It's an unfortunate situation. And, you know, it's not. I would not. I would not want to frustrate the sale. Of the property. I would not want to frustrate the sale. However. There are a number of concerns. And that even though. Mr. We can come back with a timeframe. Once. In 30 or 45 days for the completion of the road and, you know, whatever. Milestones. I'm not quite sure. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if the restriction is removed from law four and it's sold and put on to a lot too. There's just, there's, I think there are a lot of concerns. That have been. That are legitimate. That were created by. The sale. And then the 11th hour to the. Request to switch the restricted laws. And I would say that the sale is not frustrated. It's a creative solution to. Or some solution at least not so creative likely. To, to, to make it work both ways. And I would. I would really like to see what would another. A potential solution. So that the sale is not frustrated or unduly postponed, but I can't think of one. I can't think of one. I can't think of one. I can't think of one. Thank you. Thanks. I see Jack. Yes. I'm just following up with the first breast strips comments. Trying to. Edify myself with regard to. Public road status and, and why this one versus say, Amherst Hills. I'm. You know. Isn't a public road. Yeah. Well, this developer, if you don't mind my just. But budding in. This developer made it clear from the beginning that he didn't want to build a road to the town standards that he. Told the planning board back in 2007 that his intention wasn't to have this road be taken over by the town. And therefore the town allowed him to build. A road that I believe is only 16 feet wide, but it's not. It's not. It's not being built here, but it's really not. Built to the town standards. So the town planning board told him at the time, well, you know, you're not building the road to the town standards. And therefore the town will not be accepting this road. And he said, I agree with that. So. It's, it's narrower in terms of its. Right of way cross section and it's different in other ways as well. It's not. It's not. It's not. It doesn't meet the subdivision. Requirements. So at that time, the developer and the town reached an agreement that this road would not be accepted by the town as a town way. Whereas Amherst Hills was a different condition. Amherst Hills roadways. Proported to be built to town standards. They're of the proper with they have the proper materials and. They're of the proper way. They're of the proper way. They're of the proper way. They're of the proper way. They're not finished, but that road, once it is finished, will be built to town standards. Does that explain it? Thank you, Chris. It does. Just want to add on, does this. Road. Will it be snow cloud by the town? No. They'll do their own private. Yep. Okay. Interesting. Michael. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Jack's. And David's notion that. A bond is probably and Christie and. Sorry. Janet's suggestion that a bond may be the best way to go on this. We had a, we had a miscommunication relative to the. Well, that's probably the best way to characterize it. We talked about it a couple of times before. There's no reason. In my opinion, there's no reason to releasing a lot. There's no real reason. Two. It seems to me to expect. Or not expect a similar miscommunication concerning the building of lot four. A lot to. So burned once. Okay. Burn twice. I don't think so. from four to two is a good idea. I think a good idea is establishing a bonding, the appropriate bonding number right now and releasing lot for an exchange for the right kind of bond. And I don't know enough about what that right kind of bond would be to go much past that, but I think that's the direction we should be moving in. Thank you. All right, so Mr. Reedy, you've heard from the board. There's been a lot of suggestions and requested information. When do you think you would want to or be able to come back to us for this? So I guess what I will ask is, I've got a closing scheduled for July 31st. I don't know that lot two has zero value, which is kind of how everybody's talking about it. As I understand it, I think we're going to be finishing. So what needs to be done is the asphalt berm, the topcoat and the sidewalks, water sewer drainage are all done, binder code of asphalt has also been installed per Jason's skills. The street lights, I know there was one or two or something. I don't know the answer to that. It wasn't on his list and I don't know the answer to that. I believe the paving is going to be done this fall because lot five will be done at that point. And so that was the biggest concern is traipsing all the way down to the end. And so what I'd like to request or suggest is to release lot four, put the covenant on lot two, put a building permit moratorium on lot two like you did for Amherst Hill so that this doesn't happen again where a lot like it happened with lot four and there was a building on it. So then you've protected yourself or you've protected the neighborhood of this happening again. You keep lot two and then I come back in, I mean, you pick the date with information both on what bonding would look like or a definitive timeline or both to say, even a springing condition where I come back and say, let's keep it on lot two, let us use our money because with all due respect to Janet I don't know that I think it depends what you're looking to bond for. And so I don't think it's just a strict cash dollar amount and say 50,000 costs 1,000. It's probably well, $50,000 for what? So if lot two is coming into it, I come back and I say, we will have this done. Here is the list of what needs to be done. We will have this done by this date. And if it's not, then here are the consequences and whether it's probably switching it over to a bond because what I'm trying to do is allow a sale of lot four to go through, get a realistic timeline that we're going to be doing this and then to use the money to actually do it instead of bonding to do it because then like I said to David, it's instead of 35,000 at $70,000 assuming that the bond company may want a dollar for dollar amount instead of just like what you'd expect the bond to be. So that would be my request and I can come back at the, I know August 5th, I think is the date you were talking about, you only have one other thing on the agenda depending upon what happens with the 40R, but I could be back then with this information. And you'd put off your closing for a couple of weeks or something. Well, under my request, I'm asking you to switch to lot two so my closing goes as scheduled. You're going there. I'm going there. I'm going there. All right, I'm going to call on Maria. Gosh, that's so convoluted. I guess I didn't follow the point about why, I know you want to sell lot four, but then upon the sale of lot four, you would have, the developer would have money to do the work. So instead of saying, well, why not save the money and not put it into a bond so we can do the work, you'll have had extra cash, I guess, to do the work. So it seems like it's in our best interest to still request the bond as well as put a timeframe. I think I forget who mentioned it, but so that we, it doesn't go on and on and then the bond, the estimate attached to the bond goes out of date. So I guess I don't understand a logic about why we can't have the bond when you say, we'd rather put the money to the doing the actual work. Because I don't know, frankly, I don't know how much a bond for this work is going to actually cost. But James and Steele's was working on that, correct? I think someone mentioned, so. Yeah, but he's working on the estimate. I don't know that he's working on the bond amount. So if it's a 35, let's say it's $40,000 to do this. Yeah, okay. And let's say we go to a bonding company and they say, okay, give us $40,000, right? It's the same as like a cash charity. I just don't know what that's going to cost. If it costs $5,000, totally different story. But if it's going to cost the same amount that it would to actually do the work, then why am I even putting it into a bond and why am I not just doing the work? So if you require us to bond, then I'm double paying versus just paying directly from the proceeds. And so kind of my placeholder is, I'm going to hold on to and I'll be back. That, I mean, that's essentially what I'm saying. This is the placeholder. It has value. You'll be made whole, take this, allow me to sell a lot for, and then I'll be back. I feel like a developer right now, but that's it. That's what I'm asking. Aren't you a little bit? Aren't you representing? Yeah, I guess so. I mean, with the lawyer's hand, look at that. Oh, and Roy's, the money that we're talking about, the bond is so much lower. You earlier said that the lot sell for 150 and that lot free with the house on it sold like 560. There's a house on board. There's a lot of money transpiring in this. It just seems like less money to deal with a bond than to even hold a lot that's 150,000. And it may be. What I'm saying is it may, so after this, assuming that you release a lot for, we go to a lot too, I'm going to say, okay, Paul, you got to take this money and just finish the roadway because I'm not going to go through this again. And then we're not worried about a bond. I tell you the timeline, but you have a lot to just to make sure that you have something. I mean, if you want to release all of them, I'll take that. I mean, I've got no problem there. But to me, this seems fair because then at least you have something. And yeah, everybody's looking saying it's not as desirable. But like I said, even if it's half of what we're, if you sell over $75,000, you're still covering everything that's there. If I was asking for, if there was $150,000 worth of work and I'm saying leave one, that's something different. I mean, frankly, you released, you being the board, released all the other lots, except one of them for all the work to be done. And now I'm saying, keep one for this little bit of work and you're saying, no, we're not going to do that. I mean, to me, that's just kind of tough. I know it's coming from- We're trying to get to Tom. We're just trying to find out the variables, the X, the Y and the Z, so that we can figure out the equation. It's like pulling teeth there. We're trying to like, okay, if the lot is worth 150 and we're saying lot four right now is worth 560, I'm assuming somewhere around there. I can't sell lot four though, until you release the covenant. That's my, so there's no cash. You know, we're hearing different numbers on what it's going to cost to finish the work. I mean, I'm hearing 50,000 to just, or 40,000 to finish the work and yet we're tripping over 560, like I don't, if the developer just wants to get this done, there just seems like this could have been expedited before like this last minute Sam thing. I totally agree. I mean, and frankly why I didn't come to the last hearing was because I thought it was pretty simple, switching out one for the other. I mean, it was a lot for a lot. They both have value. There's minimal work to be done. And so, plus it was like 11 something at night when you guys were going to hear it. So I didn't think. Oh, we were still going. I got you. Recall job, recall job. Where we were, what we've experienced this past year. I'm sorry, your other hat that you were wearing is called Amherst Hills. So, we don't do a lot of subdivisions here. So this has been a huge learning experience from Amherst Hills and this. And maybe that's some of the fumbling. There's been some oupses, some balls dropped. And now we're sort of trying to come up to speed here on what is the due diligence? How are we supposed to do this right? And a little of this, like if you give, it sounds like development taught. If you give me this, I'll give you that. And we're just not that kind of bored right now. We're like, we just want to do the right thing. So I understand you have a closing on the 31st. You know, can you push that closing back? Or is that like impossible? Because you don't care about closings being delayed. I'm always an optimist, but I don't know what, if any, penalties will be associated with pushing it back. I don't know if the buyers of this house are selling their house and looking to, and then all of a sudden there's a chain reaction. To simplify it, what I'll say is you were holding one lot to have all of the work for the subdivision done. And now that a great majority, so you only had lot four. It's not like we came back and kept asking for release of lots. Your certificate of performance released all of the lots, except for lot four. So that was for everything that needed to be done. You thought that one lot was sufficient. And now that we've done all of this work, you're saying, you're telling me, for the rest of this work, one lot is not sufficient. I mean, that's what I'm hearing. And all I'm trying to say is just switch lot four for lots of it. OK, so I'm going to start calling this a lot of hands up. So I'm going to call them. And please, consider when you're answering. Also, give some feedback of what you would like the board to do tonight, members. Like, I want to hear from you. What is it you're comfortable with? So I'll call on Doug, and then we have David and Janet. OK, so it's taken a little while for it to sink in to my head that this is never going to be a town road. So that kind of makes me wonder, do we care? Now, I realize the people that have bought lots in this subdivision had the assurance that there was a lot held to finish the road work. But if we just say, OK, we're fine with switching to lot two, and for some reason, that ends up being inadequate, we did our best. It's not between us. And we don't care what happens to this road. I mean, it could just never happen. So maybe it's already getting late enough that I'm starting to give in to things. But I mean, so that's kind of where I'm at at the moment. But I guess I have another scenario that I'm thinking about, which is, if we obstruct the sale on a lot that the developer has built a house, he sunk a lot of money into that house that he's not going to get until something happens. And he may not have the money to go and build the road. We may have put him in a bind. No, I think he put himself in a bind. Fine. You're right. Just wanted to clarify, it's not us. OK, but I just wanted to mention, that could be the situation. And I don't know if it is. But I sure that part, right. The developer could be in a cash flow crunch right now. He's counting on the money to come in from lot four. And by obstructing that, we are exacerbating his problem. So I guess I didn't start out here. But at the moment, I'm feeling like, fine, let's switch to lot two and see how the cards play. Mr. Rhee, you're here before this board a lot. And your credibility will take a hit if you don't come through on this. Absolutely. So I would expect it to. So that's my comments for the moment. Thank you, Doug. David, then Janet. Yeah, actually, I think I'm going to check out Doug's thoughts. I'd be comfortable with, at this point, switching the restriction from lot four to lot two. I'd like Mr. We'd like to set a date for Mr. Rhee to come back with some more answers about an estimate and timeframe for completion. And I think that would be adequate for me to come through that. Thank you. Thank you, David. Janet and then Jack. So very quickly to Doug, yes, we do care, because the subdivision control law has us caring about making sure subdivisions have safe roads. I do not want to put anybody in a financial bond and bind and mess up the closing. My idea maybe to continue a little bit of motivation on the developer's part is why don't we switch it from lot four to seven? We know seven has got an offer on it. He'll want to build a house on it. And if we use lot seven, that will make sure that he'll come in with his information and his bond, information about bonds and making sort of figure out the schedule and where to go from there. That's just an idea. I mean, the fallback would be lot two. That would be okay with me. But we are in these awkward situations, but it's not the boards making that we're in the situation. And so I feel the pressure of the deal and the need to go forward, but I also feel the pressure of making sure we're covered and we're making the right decision. So maybe we'll switch lot four for lot seven. We'll figure something out in the next month or so. And that gives the developer motivation since he has a sale going on on lot seven to figure something else out. There's an offer on lot seven. It's too late to do that. Is it? I think so. Yeah, I would say so. Okay. Our Tom is... I mean, I think it might... I don't know where it's at technically. So I don't know if all of a sudden it's gonna be a new encumbrance on the title that's gonna throw things out of whack. But it hasn't closed. It's just... No, it is not closed. It is not closed. But there's a certain... Got built on David and, you know, just encounter what Jim is saying. I just find it intriguing to go with that route because my whole fear has always been that route that lot two is not gonna be desirable or it won't sell and then why it just hangs. But again, I'm hearing... I agree with Doug and them. If it's not gonna go to be a public road, the burden will end up falling on the people who have bought... I've spent a lot of money in having these homes built to live there. I'm gonna go to Jack and then Michael. Yes. Do we care? Doug's quote, I love that. And Christine also echoed that. I mean, they had a subdivision. All subdivisions are speculative, but it so happens that the potential buyers there saw a lot four is more appealing. I'm sure that a lot two will be sold, but this seems like a minor decision with regard to development of the lot and the holding of the one lot for the reasons... Where are we holding the slot? But anyway, I just feel it's the arbitrary, but I'm fine with it. I mean, I'm sure a lot two is gonna be developed soon enough. And I just feel like it's a non-issue for me anyway. Okay. And Michael? Yeah, I would like to, I care, actually. And I would like to support Janet's notion that we switch out lot two for lot seven. It seems to me that lot seven carries with it a greater potential for in hurrying up the process than does lot two. Lot two strikes me as being easily the last one. Lot two to be built on there. And as a kind of sidebar, the developer is building the houses prior to selling the lots. Am I correct, Tom? Yeah, so he'll have, he has them under contract and so each of them are billed to suit. So he is building each of these houses specifically for the folks that are buying them. These aren't spec houses to put it another way. So lot four was contracted for prior to the building beginning. Correct. Okay, it changed hands. Well, then I think, then I'm clear that we really need to go to lot seven and we're covering it on that. What I'll say is, I mean, if that gets it done, I mean, I'll be back regardless in whenever you tell me to come back and hopefully we'll get that one released. But I mean, I think that's fine. It hasn't been conveyed yet. I can just, I don't know that I've seen a purchase in sale on that. I don't know that our office has done one of those yet. So I don't know that we've got to the point of having to let the other side know. I think it's gonna have to be an encumbrance that is taken care of. I think it does give the planning board a bit more leverage to say, hurry up and get this done. I think we were gonna do it anyway. So that's why I don't have a problem doing it. I mean, if that gets us to yes tonight and it frees up lot four, I'm fine with that. But I do wanna know that the board is a little bit more of a developer than they might think given this little horse trading that's gone on. Well, yeah, I don't dispute that at all. My concern is simply that the road gets built to the standards that the residents who were going to be living there deserve and that the side road to the parking lot gets built in a way that is satisfactory to the town. And I think both of those need to be, must be, the bond or the surety has to cover both of those. And that's all I have to say. And I think we should try to, I would suggest, maybe I should move that we allow an exchange of the covenant on lot four for a similar covenant on lot seven. And is there more that needs to be said relative to that motion? I think that's all they were asking for. It just says. I'll have to update the certificate of performance to release lot four, but then I have provided, however, that lot two shall be subject. So we just have to, and Ms. Brestrup can do it, can cross it out and put that, or I can give her a new one tomorrow. That lot seven shall be subject to the above identified approval with covenant contract. So I don't know if you have it in front of you, but that's the only change that needs to be made. Okay, I move that. Michael has moved and put a motion out there. Is anyone want to second it? Second. Second. Okay, so now we open up to discussion. I see Jack's hand. Oh, I'm just going to say like why lots seven? I mean, it's not our property. It's the developer's, you know, best intuition in terms of what's going to be best for that development. I would be remiss to, you know, recommend a different lot than they've come forward to us. Doesn't make sense. So I'm not, I'm not on, you know, on board with switching it. Are there any other board members that feels either way on this motion that is currently on the table? I'm going to skip over you for a moment, Michael, because you've made the motion. So I'm going to David and then Chris's got her hand up. Hi, thank you. Mr. Reddy said that he'd be willing to accept that switch and that that, so there is, and then come back again to speak to us more specifically. I think that that's on the table and I'd be comfortable. I'll be comfortable with that to support the motion and to move things forward for everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, and Chris, do you have something to guide us on? Oh, I didn't, don't have anything to guide you on. I just wanted to say that it sounded to me like Mr. Reddy was offering this as a solution for tonight's issue that lot seven would be substituted for lot four. It didn't sound like he was being, well, it sounded like that's what he was offering right now to me. So Chris, how would this play out? It switches to seven and then eventually they could have the same problem happening like what's happening in four, they're going to get close to a closing. So this is forcing them and then it would come back to the board again to change from seven to two unless something else comes up like a bond or another solution, but we also will be getting information from the town engineer. We'll be getting more information from Jason about the work that needs to be done. Yes. And I guess I would ask to be on an agenda and a date certain so that we can keep the town engineer on it and I can tell my client, this is the date. This is what I've said I'm going to do so that I'm back before you and I keep my credibility and we just get to the point that I think you're trying to get to tonight. I don't have enough information to get you totally there. You know, and that this is lot seven hopefully just becomes a placeholder. Okay, right. A temper, this is, and it's a more conservative path. That's what I'm seeing. I'm going to recognize Doug and then Michael. Yeah, I was just going to say if that's the solution that gets us through this tonight, I'd be fine with that. Okay, thank you. Michael? Yeah, just one last comment. Just a drive-through will reveal that lot seven is a more attractive lot than lot two. And therefore is better security. Thank you. I'm not seeing any other hands up. So we have a motion on the table right now. I assume we're ready to take a vote. I'm still seeing no hands. So I'll do a roll call. Do we need to say the motion again? It's basically what we're looking at except would be substituting lot seven for lot four in this, when it's actually the Apple Burt cluster subdivision also known as the Hartwell Farm cluster subdivision. So Michael Burtwistle. Excuse me, Christine, but the motion's also, and that Mr. Reedy will return to the plan board and now we need a date to address the, I think that that's what we're talking about. So is that later in August or is that the fifth? Mr. Reedy, sorry. I mean, I would, I don't know what the town engineer's schedule is. I mean, that's what I would like to have. So if you want to do the second meeting in August, I think my client was looking to pave in the fall because he thought lot five would be done by then. So I think the second August meeting might be the best unless you see something coming on that would be conflicting. But I think that would be the best. That would be August 19th. Good by me if it's okay by everybody here. Chris, does that sound good to you? It's fine. Okay, August 19th. All right, so that is also added on that Mr. Reedy will be coming back. And we are on it. With a plan, what is he coming back for? With a plan for? Either the switching out for seven back to two or something else if that's what is determined to be the best solution. A cost estimate. So an identification of what remains to be done. A cost estimate of what remains to be done is verified by Jason Schiele's a timeframe of that to be done. And then we'll in the interim investigate a bond and see if, you know, depending upon the answers to one and two, that may be the solution to get seven out in the bond there. Good, good. And then that will be kind of firm and all this hopefully will be the last we see of this lovely subdivision. You've got it. Okay, are we clear on the motion? Are we clear on the motion? No, the motion is to substitute in the original request lot seven for lot two, not lot seven for lot four. No, that seven, it's instead of switching out lot four, instead of switching it to two will now be seven. Yes. I think you're both saying the same thing. That's not the way you stated it earlier. I think we all, you know, what time is it? Yeah, okay. It's really for you. Just we need to make clear what we're doing. That's all. Well, you know, as long as Chris and Pam have it down. I have it, yep. Yep, she's got it. I see it, thumb in the car there. Okay, sorry. Okay, so as long as you all know what you're voting on, that's really important. So I'll do a roll call. Does anyone need to have the motion read to them again? Yeah. No, everyone's good. All right, Michael Burtwistle. Yes. Maria Chow. Yes. Jack Jemsick. Yes, but I'm like cautious about like the developer. Yes, no, Jack. What's that? That's in a field full of sunflowers. This is not the cover of speech, it's a vote. Okay, yes. All right. David Levenstein. Yes. Doug Marshall. Yeah. Janet McGowan. Hi. And Christine Gramal and myself, affirmative. So that's seven, zero, zero. Thank you for your work on this in patience. I appreciate it. Good luck on your closing. Thank you. Just to let everybody know, Mr. Reedy is going to come back to me with a revised certificate of performance. And then I will ask you all to come in and sign it. And so I'll be making arrangements to meet you in the parking line either in front or in back of town hall in the next few days. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Okay, great. Okay, thank you. Bye. Thank you, Mr. Reedy. You're welcome. Have fun. Good night. All right. Five new business item B topics, non-anticipated 48 hours. Anything, Chris? I don't think so. You had me nervous for a second. Okay. Six form A, A and R subdivision applications. None. Seven upcoming ZBA applications. Ms. Field Sadler, are there any upcoming ZBA applications? I don't think that there's any that we haven't told you about. They've been working really hard on the comprehensive permit for 132 Northampton Road. That's been their focus. Okay. Great. Thank you. Eight upcoming SPPSPR SUVs applications. Nine planning board committee and liaison reports. I do have a couple of things to say about Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. And then I'll ask Jack if he has a report. One is that we need to vote tonight to, well, if he's willing. As we've said, Jack is now on the executive committee too. So he probably wants to be on both. We have to revote him. And today, Chris, I did notice I got an email. You probably did too, Jack. Their annual report came out and email. So I assume that should go to all planning board members and town council because they said they want to know what PVPC is doing. Can you forward that to me? I didn't see that on my email today. I will forward that to you. Okay. So Jack, to you, our PVPC person. And then we'll take a vote. Do you still want to be on it? No, I had, I was approached, you know, like when, you know, a year ago, before I'm thinking, I'm forgetting his name. Sorry. But anyway, I know our brains are starting to go. Yeah. So my brains, you know, starting out. Yeah. So anyway, they, they approached me that maybe they would, you know, want to have me on the executive committee. And, and then, you know, it happened. And so I'm on, you know, I'm, I'm with folks that have been with the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission for a number of years. And then, you know, so there's a little segue here with regard to our tenure as planning board members and what, what is, what is, you know, what is the best choice for folks to be on planning board in this arbitrary six year limit, you know, led to the, you know, dismissal of Greg Stussman. So it's, you know, a little bit. So there's a larger picture here. But anyway, they put me on this executive committee and I'm not going to be, you know, Amherst is not going to be representative if I'm not going to be on the planning board. So it brings a lot of things up for me. I really like the plan, you know, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and their mission, you know, their mission in general for our, our region and our town. So I guess I'm saying that I'm excited about being on the executive committee, you know, for the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. And but again, it kind of dovetails with our term limits that have come up to play with where we've seen the dismissal of some of our long, longer standing members. But I think I still believe that experience counts for a lot, you know, on the planning board. That's very important. I mean, I see, you know, like Doug Marshall came on. But, you know, he, you know, he had like the perfect experience. He was able, you know, from day one to contribute. But a lot of, you know, a lot of us that it takes a while to kind of, you know, get our feet wet and understand what how planning board works. But anyway, all I'm saying at this point with that said, is that, yes, I would like to be reappointed as commissioner and represent the town of Amherst in a little bit higher level than we have been in the past as being an executive, you know, committee member. Well, I nominate Jack. Someone want a second? Second. Any discussion or comments? Is that Michael who seconded? Yes. Thank you. If there's no discussion, no hands. I'll take a roll call vote. Michael Burtwistle. Yes. Maria Chow. Yes. Jack Jemsik. Yes. I know it's the weirdest thing. Yes. Doug Marshall. All right. Janet McGowan. Yes. I think you're mulling. Yes. So that's unanimous seven. Congratulations, Jack. Thank you. Are there any other committee or liaison reports? And you can just speak out as only, you know, Michael or I don't know, David, did I have the ag commission met or anything now? Okay. And for me. Okay. All right. So I'm a reporter chair. I just want to say I'm really glad we don't have a July 29th meeting. So that made tonight a little more palatable. And I'll see you on the fifth. And thank you all for working so hard. Now, item 11 report of staff. Well, I am sad to say that David Levenstein. Oh, no, you don't have to go off the board as of the 30th of July. And I'm really going to miss David. He's been a great addition to the planning board and I've enjoyed working with him. So I'm sorry that he's leaving, but I wish him good luck in whatever he does after this. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, everybody. I've learned a lot. Thank you very much. Thank you, David. Appreciate you. It was a pleasure working with Chris and Pam. Yeah. And all others, but you guys. Do the heavy lifting. Thank you, David. Thank you. Thank you. We'll see you around town. We will. Not likely during the plague, man. I think. I've seen you. If, um, if Chris has nothing else, I can take a motion for adjournment. And it's nine 38. Wow. Early night. Yes. I believe the week of our second meeting in August is the week I'm on vacation. So you're on vacation on the 19th. I believe it's that week. Yeah. Whether I have Wi-Fi and I want to give up four hours on a Wednesday night, we'll see. Yeah. The committee's on the agenda. You might want to come back. So Chris wanted a movement. I'll give you a motion to adjourn. Sure. I'll give you that. But wait, Doug, are you going to be going to the island? So you're not going to need the virtual background. That's a pretty slick, slick trick there though. Right in the back. We'll see what I have as an alternative to my current. Real background. All right. A second. Someone good. Great. All right. All in favor to say hi. Hi. Thank you so much. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Hey, I need to stop recording. Yes. Stop recording. Amherst media. Let me see if they're gone.