 All right, all set. The chair notes the time is 6.01. I call this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals to order. My name is Steve Judge, and as EVA chair, I want to welcome everyone to this meeting. We'll begin with a roll call of the ZVA members. Steve Judge is present. Mr. Craig Meadows? Present. Mr. Everold Henry? Here. Mr. Phillip White? Here. And Ms. Hilda Greenbaum? Here. The quorum is present. Also attending the public hearing tonight is Christine Brestrup, Planning Director for the town, and Mr. Rob Wachilla, Planner for the town. We have Carolyn Murray, Council for us also in attendance. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 21, extended by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote meetings. Members of the public who wish to observe the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a quasi-judicial body that operates under the authority of Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, in Article 10, special permit granting authority of the Amherst Zoning By-law, this public meeting has been duly advertised and notice that Rob has been posted and mailed to parties in interest. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are recorded by town staff. It may be viewed via the town of Amherst's YouTube channel and ZBA webpage. The procedure is as follows. The petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing, after which the board will ask for questions, questions for clarification or for additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board will seek public input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they should so indicate by using the raise hand function on their screen or by pressing pound nine on their phone. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized, provides your name and address to the board for the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings where the information about the project and input from the public is gathered, followed by public meetings for each. The public meeting portion is when the board deliberates and is generally not an opportunity for public comment. If the board feels it has enough information and time, it will decide upon the application tonight. Each petition heard by the board is distinct and evaluated on its own merits and the board is not ruled by precedent. Tonight's agenda, consideration of minutes from December 21st, 2023 and January 4th, 2024, a public hearing on ZBA FY 2024-03, Valley Community Development Corporation, request for a comprehensive permit under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40B to construct 30 owner occupied affordable residential units located on 15 in 15 duplex structures, parking areas with 58 spaces, common areas and other site improvements on a 9.047 acre site was requested rick waivers from the zoning bylaw, general bylaws, subdivision regulations, sewer water connections approvals at 2040 Ball Lane, map 5A, parcel 56, RN, neighborhood residents and RLD low density residential zoning districts and FC farmland conservation overlay districts. This is being continued from February 15th, 2024. After consideration of the 40B application, there's a general public comment period on matters not before the board tonight and after that is any business not anticipated within the last 48 hours. So the first order of business is consideration of minutes from December 21st, 2023. Have members of the board had a chance to review the minutes and do they have any changes or alterations to the minutes from December 23rd, or 21st? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from December 21st, 2023. Do I have a motion? So I move with Mr. Chair. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion to approve the minutes from December 21st? If not, the vote occurs on the motion to approve the minutes of December 23rd, 2023. The chair votes aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Ms. Greenbaugh. Aye. The vote is five to nothing. The minutes from December 21st are approved. The next order of business is the minutes from Thursday, January 4th, 2024. Um, does anybody have any changes? I found a type R on page four, which I called Robert Boat. All right. Rob, are you aware of that type O? I am, but Ms. Greenbaugh, if you could remind me again what the type O was, please, just so I could put that down on the record. The COULD should have been COUNC on line four, line five was page four. So is it the second bullet point where it says Hilda Greenbaugh asks if someone qualifies? Yeah, I do. Okay, okay. That could as a person instead of COUNC as a person. Okay, we'll deal. All right. Any other alterations or changes to the motion, to the minutes? If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes from as amended from Thursday, January 4th, 2024. So moved. Is there a second? Aye. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the motion to approve the minutes. The chair votes aye. Mr. Henry? Aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Ms. Greenbaugh? The vote is five-nothing. The minutes from January 4th are approved. Thank you all. The next order of business is further consideration of ZBA FY2024-03 Valley Community Development Corporation, requesting a comprehensive permit under Massachusetts General Laws 40B to construct 30 owner-occupied affordable residential units located in 15 duplex structures and 58 parking spaces, common areas, and other site improvements on a 9.047 acre site on 2040 Ball Lane. The first thing we need to do is go through the additional submissions that we have, and we can do that by going to the Project Application Report, which I think you received earlier. There are many updated plans, which we've received from the applicant. I'll just read them quickly. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan was updated February 21st. The Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan was updated February 21st. Site plans, including C2, which is the existing conditions, C3 demolitions, C4 site plan design, C5 grading plan, C6 stormwater management plan, C7 utility plan, C8 lighting plan, C9 soil erosion and sediment control plan, C10 through 15, our construction details, C... L100 site materials. So up to that point, they were all updated on March 5th, 2024. L100 site materials, L101 site layout, L400 is planting plan, L500 is site details, L500 is site details again. Those are all updated February 21st, 2024. And there are no other updated submissions. Have we received any submissions or public comments, Rob? Since our last meeting. No public comments. Yeah, I believe... Any comments? Nope, no further comments from public or the town. So no further submissions that we know of. Nope. All right, great. If I guess I should ask, as I do, does anybody have any declarations or disclosures to make since our last meeting? If not, here's how I think we should go about today's meeting to be as efficient as possible and to try to get this accomplished. And hopefully we can make our decision on this project. What I'd like to do is go through updates that we requested at the last meeting. And there are several of those. Have update those. And then we'll have public comment because we'll be in a public meeting. After that, I'd like to look at the conditions First I'd look at waivers. There's two changes to the waivers. Adopt or reject the waivers through our consideration. Next, go to conditions. Work through conditions and I'll try to break those down into manageable parts where we won't consider all 75 conditions all at once. Try to break them down by substance or at least by a number of, some manageable number. And then we'll do findings. Because I think the conditions are the things that allow us to make the findings. And so that's the way that we'll go through that. And then at the end of that, if you complete that tonight then we have a vote on the project. So that's how I intend to proceed. And I think that's the most efficient way for us to do it tonight. So at our last meeting, the updates requested included an update on the conservation committee commission's consideration, an update on the waiver request list, discussion of the ANR plan for the abutting house, EV spaces, number of units on which the local preference could apply, how eligibility is determined for non-related households and affirmative obligations for outreach and financial counseling in the outreach plan for the outreach to potential applicants. So those are the things that I recorded from last meeting that we need updates from. And many of those were coming from Valley CDC. So if I think the most important thing would be to have Ms. Allen go through the first start-up with your experience at the conservation commission. And if you're completing with that or if there's more work to do. And please for the record, give us your name and address as you've done seven times before on this application. Jessica Allen, real estate project manager, 256 Pleasant Street in North Hampton, Mass. And is Ms. Theoboe also with you? Yes, she is. And Ms. Theoboe can, just so we can make this as quick as possible, could you give us your name and address as well for the record in case you want to add something? Sure, hi, Rebecca Theoboe from Dordi Wallace Hillsbury and Murphy State Street in North Hampton, Mass. Thank you. All right, Ms. Allen, tell us how the, what happened with the conservation commission? So we received our approvals from the conservation commission at our last meeting and we have assigned order of conditions, which I believe was in your meeting packet. So we had to amend the site plans and I'm happy to share my screen and just give you a quick overview of what it was. It's mostly stormwater. So would you like me to do that right now? Would that be helpful? That'd be helpful now just so we understand it. Those are mostly the things that came on the 5th of March, right? The updates on the 5th of March, okay. Yep. Let's get the right one here. Okay. Can you see the site plan? Yeah. Okay, perfect. So we needed to, because we had some high ground water in what had been the previous infiltration basin, we had to do a redesign of the stormwater. So essentially the site plan doesn't look all that much different except for the stormwater system. So none of the buildings changed, none of the pathways changed, the parking didn't change. All of that remains the same. What the major change that happened was the redesign of the basin. So the basin has been moved closer to the intersection. And the reason we did this is otherwise we were gonna lose these trees. So we spent a lot of time working out a design that would enable us to preserve these large trees and keep those as part of the site plan by still accommodating the stormwater needs of the site. So how we were able to sort of reduce this is that these common areas will have about a six inch drop into them so they'll remain flat on the inside. So you'll see that there's a grade line here, this grade line right here. So there's a slight change in the grade and that will allow water to infiltrate in these areas during heavy storm events. The stormwater will not be there more than 24 hours. And this would, having each of these little areas be kind of a pocket infiltration area allowed us to modify this design, shrink it in size and then also move it so that we were able to get it into the area of where there's a lower grade and preserve these trees. So that was the major change from the site plan. It looks fairly simple in terms of the site plan but I will tell you the civil team spent a crazy amount coming up with this design. This design, the site was a little bit more challenging because of the high groundwater than they anticipated. So it took several weeks for them to sort of work out something that made the numbers work. So I think one of the questions that had come up in the past is with the stormwater design, how much impervious square footage remains on the site for any future development? So further calculations, there's about 3,500 square feet of impervious surface that could be accommodated for any additional items. So if there's any questions about the site plan or any, just please let me know. The question I had was on the additional impervious area under your bounce at that. Ms. Greenbottom. Some of those areas were expected to be like gathering areas for people to sit. Can they still be used for that purpose? Or will we? Absolutely. Yep. Yeah, the water won't collect there for a very long period of time. So we anticipate that these areas will kind of have a dual purpose. They will still be pocket parks, pocket green spaces for the neighbors and for the community, but also will serve as small infiltration basins in order to reduce the impervious flow to the basin. Thank you. All right. So the long and short of it is the Com-Com Commission gave you the required approvals and as far as they're concerned and you're concerned, we are ready to move forward on the site plans in terms of a strong water mitigation. Correct. Yep. The next item is we had to update the waiver requests. There were a couple that came from that I see in the draft project application report. Both of those relate to the Com-Com work. We'll get a chance to vote on these at a later point, but they're the last two there in red but I don't think there's much explanation needed for those. Is there a sound? I don't think so. It's just that we, because of the shift in pushing the basin to save the trees, we're proposing to disturb more of the 50 foot and 100 foot buffer area to the wetlands. And the town has a local wetlands by-law that sets certain percentages of alteration of those buffer areas. And so we're slightly over those alteration numbers. So that's why the waiver is being requested. And the one that's kind of significant, it's not so significant to go to from 20 to 23.5, but the one that is significant is opposed to 50 feet of the area of the five foot, but the stormwater buffer, but the Com-Com has looked at that and said that the grading and other things are sufficient to provide protection to the wetlands, right? Correct. And then there's a erosion control plan that will prevent any impacts to the wetland while we're under construction. All right. Any questions about those waivers from any board member? If not, the other thing that we have is a discussion of the ANR plan for the abutting house. This gets really complicated, but what we requested at the last meeting is that we find a way to allow this to happen by using the 40B process. And I've talked with Rob about this. It's arcane Byzantine law that deals with the 40B. I know that they've worked hard on this. I think the bottom line is that, and you can describe it if you want, either Rob or Carolyn or Christine, you can describe it if you want, but I think the bottom line here is that we figured out a way to meet the needs of the neighbor, meet the needs of the applicant, and the town is comfortable in providing this flag lot. Is there anything else that we need to know about as the board, Carolyn or Rob or Christine, we need to know about the ANR plan for the abutting home? So, Chris, do you want to answer that or do you want me to take a stab at it? I just had a question about that. When I look through the list of requested waivers, there's one that says, based on Rob's confirmation of dimensions for an ANR lot, it does not appear this waiver is needed. That's waiver, what is it? 4.324, I guess I would just say, leave it in anyway in case it is needed. We're not absolutely sure. So I would err on this side of caution and leave that waiver in there. Okay, so- If anybody objects. Some page- I don't object to that, but I, you know what I, Ms. Bressford, I think I don't see that in the draft project application. It's 4. what? It's section 4.324. It's on page 29 of the decision. I know you haven't gotten to the decision yet, but- Decision document? Let me see if I can find it in the- Yeah, it's not in the draft application, draft project application report. I don't think. You're right, it looks like it was dropped. It was dropped. Would you like to put that back in? Is that what you're- I think so. I think because there's confusion about the ANR, I would just prefer to put it back in, in case that ANR needs that waiver. That would make me feel more comfortable, but- This is the section right here that was taken out. Ms. Bressford's referring to- Right, that's what I'm referring to. I just, you know, belt and suspenders and all of that. I feel more comfortable having it there and maybe we won't need it, but it makes me feel better to have it there. That's 4.324. All right, is any, but all right, thank you. That's when we deal with the waivers. We consider the waivers later on in the process. We'll remember to do that. Okay. Any other questions regarding the waivers? Next is the EV spaces. There was some confusion. There's also a waiver request that needs to be made to the state, can't be made at the current time, has to be made later. You guys came up with discussion with the Toms staff. You came up with a mechanism in order to see if you can get a waiver from the state. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. So we had a meeting with town planning staff and a building department to discuss what was the best approach forward. And so the consensus was to leave the EV space design as it initially proposed. So having metered dual head, dual head meters there for people to plug into rather than meeting the stretch code requirements, which doesn't, the building department agreed, the design doesn't really match this project. It's they're just kind of offset. So we will move forward with the variance. He has agreed to put forth the paperwork that he needs to do in order for us to move forward with the variance at the state building. And that's reflected in condition 54 as amended, I think, in the decision document. Yeah. All right, so we can discuss the relative merits of that or the details of that when we get to condition 54. But it's been, you guys worked on something regarding that. Next item was the number of space, number of units to which local preference could apply. We had some confusion. The understanding was you were in sound, you were going to go to the state, I think. And since they and not the commonwealth builders, the state is the one that controls how many units would local preference would apply to which type of units. Can you tell us what you've learned and what's the deal there? Sure. And I believe a copy of the email was in your meeting packet as well. So we went to mass housings 40B program, our program contact there and asked the question and her response was that the local preference only applies to the 80% AMI units. So that's... 10 units. Total, that's 10 units, right? Total, yep, 10 units. Well, if I may, Mr. Chair. Yes, yes, please, Ms. Murray. Sorry, the local preference, as you know, the maximum is 70%. So it would really be the seven units. If you remembered our last meeting, we were debating whether it was seven or 21 and the correct number would be the maximum of seven if you choose to go to local preference. Right, it's 70% of 10. Yes. Okay, yeah. All right. The next question we had was, how is eligibility determined? Is there any question about the, I don't want to leave that without... Yeah. Yep. Hilda has her hand up. Yep, go ahead, Ms. Cronvall. I'm still confused about local preference. When they say seven units, is that a guarantee more or less? Or is that an upper limit of number of people from Amherst who can live in the 30 units? And what's the difference between if we have local preference or don't... I know you gave the chat last week, but I'm confused. So if we have local preference, then seven of the 10, 80% of Amherst units can have local preference, which would be the third category after a number of family members and living in a... Well, I'm going to go D, D, I, H or whatever they call it. All right, so if you get the seven, is that an upper limit to the number of Amherst people or can some more Amherst people move in under either condition if they fit the other categories or for the other units, the 100% units, can they be, or are we limited to just the seven? I don't understand how it works, is what I'm trying to say. So if there were Amherst residents who lived in the qualified census tract and met the number of household limits for the bedroom count that they were requesting, they could potentially, names could get pulled from in the lottery process and they could be selected for a home. In addition to the seven. Yes, but so with that seven though, if you recall, this is a tiered process, not a pooled process, like a rental project. So if say there were not seven eligible households that were able to qualify for a mortgage and met all the requirements under the Commonwealth Builder Program, having assets under $100,000 and all that stuff, those, you kind of get just one chance in that tier and then whatever is not filled goes down to the next tier. So it's kind of a cap, not a guarantee as we discussed. It's entirely possible that local preference doesn't even get used, that you have 10 applicants that can be satisfied tier one and tier two, and you don't even go to tier three, being local preference, correct? Correct. Yeah, but I'm still confused. I'm still confused. So are we gonna talk about more of this later? Yes, yeah, we're gonna have, I'm sure gonna have a long discussion about it. Okay. Yep. And I'd like to have that when we get to the, what will be one of the first conditions we'll be talking about. So we'll have that in a few minutes. Any other comments on the local preference determination to which units local preference applies? All right. The next is how eligibility is determined by not for non-related households. And I think that was the case where you didn't have you had an unmarried couple or you had other unrelated people living in the same house. Where was, well, I don't remember the exact question that was posed at the time, but I know we're wanting to get some clarity as to how you figure household income for unrelated. So a household does not have to, they do not have to be related parties. They just need to be individuals or co-tenants. Got it. And in this case, co-owners. And in this case, co-owners, correct. Okay. And meet all the requirements under the Commonwealth Builder Program. So they first-time home buyers, not having being income eligible as a household and not having combined assets of over 100,000. I mean, yeah, 100,000. Okay. Okay. And last, next was affirmative obligations for outreach and financial counseling. I noticed that there were some changes to be. We got a copy of the spring agreement, which is the first time I've ever heard that term applied to something, the spring agreement. And I also have some further thought on that, but we've got the information we also have, I think in findings, there's another, or someplace, not in findings, but in the conditions of another amendment, which deals with this. So we'll have a chance to talk about this and you can provide us some additional, or some additional language. So those are the items we asked for. We got most, I don't think there was anything else that we had requested from the applicant or from the town or from Ms. Murray to clarify our consideration of this matter. And since we've done all this and the next steps are to go through waivers, conditions and findings, what I'd like to do is go to public comment now and have public comment unless there's any other questions from board members. And then after public comment, we'll go into the public meeting while keeping the public hearing open in case we need to gather any additional information. And then we'll begin our deliberation on waivers, conditions and findings. Is there any objection to that? All right, let's see if there's anybody from the public who wishes to comment on the application before us. Bob, I haven't looked yet. Do we have any attendees who wish to comment? Seeing people from the applicant's project team, not seeing anybody else raise their hand. Yeah, I would say safe to say no public comment. All right. At this point, you've seen no public comment. I would entertain a motion that we move to the public meeting while keeping the public hearing open in order to gather additional information if we need it. So I have such a move. Some are. Great, thank you. Green bomb, is there a second? Is there a second? Moved and seconded, is there any discussion? If not, I would call the vote on the motion to move to public meeting while keeping the public hearing open. The chair votes aye. Mr. White? Aye. Mr. Henry? Mr. Henry? Aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Ms. Greenball? The motion passed on 5-0 vote. Now is the time where the board deliberates the matters before us conditions, waivers conditions and findings. It is generally not a time for public comment. If there is a public comment, if there is additional information to be gathered, the board has the board at my discretion or at your discretion can gather additional information and seek additional public input. But this is a place where we deliberate the merits of the proposal before us. All right, so in this public meeting, I think the first thing to do is to go through the waivers. And most of, we've been through the waivers last week except for the two new ones and the bells and suspenders that Ms. Brestrup wanted. Could I, Ms. Brestrup, your hands up. What did I forget? I want to retract my earlier statement about the belt and suspenders. I now understand why that waiver was deleted and I'm happy to have it deleted. So I'm sorry for kind of wasting your time with that. But I also wanted to ask if anyone has missed a past session of this public hearing session and have they attested that they have watched the video and reviewed the material and therefore are eligible to vote? So any of you who have missed a past public hearing session have you done that? I have not missed one on this. Mr. Meadows did submit his Mullins rule form. And Craig, I think you're the only person that might have missed a meeting because you missed one back in January, right? Correct. So he did get that form to me a week before the last meeting in February. Mr. White, Mr. Henry, you guys didn't miss a meeting, right? No. And Hilda, I know you didn't miss a meeting, so. No, I've been here. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. All righty. Good to check. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Brestrup. All right. So I don't think there's a, unless I don't think that there is a need to have a long discussion on the waivers, the two that are out there today that are new that we haven't discussed before has been described by the applicant. They're the last two in the Draft Project Application Report. They deal with the outcome of the concom. There's there in red. So I would entertain a motion that we grant the waivers as laid out in the Draft Project Application Report dated March 8th, 2020, which includes these two new ones in red. Do I have such a motion? So. Okay. I got a motion. And it sounds like I got a second as well from the screen bomb. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Discussion on granting on the motion to grant the waiver request as outlined in the Draft Project Application Report. Okay. If there's no discussion of the waivers, the vote occurs on the waivers. The vote occurs on granting the waivers. The chair votes aye. Ms. Greenbaum. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. The vote is five, nothing. The waivers, the motion passes to grant those waivers. The next order of business is to move to consideration of conditions. And I think the best way to do that is to go to the decision document of the draft of March 7th, 2024. It looks like, yeah, if you have that up Rob, and it begins on page, I think 10 of the decision document. Yep. So I actually have that on the screen, Mr. Chair. I believe at a previous meeting, at the last meeting it was, did we, we went through conditions one to eight, I believe. We went through conditions, actually, we went through conditions one through 10. 10. We did not, we tentatively approved conditions, tentatively, it's not formal. We could approve conditions one, two, four, five, six, nine, and 10. So we did not tentatively approve conditions three, seven, and eight. So what I would like to do is take the conditions that we've tentatively approved and discussed at the last meeting and approve those conditions here and then begin discussion on conditions three, seven, and eight, which includes the local preference provisions. So do I have a motion to approve conditions one, two, four, five, six, nine, and 10, 11, and 12 at this point? So I moved. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion? The vote occurs on the motion to approve the stated conditions. The chair votes aye. Mr. Henry. Mr. Henry. Ms. Greenbaum. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Henry, can you hear me? No, I can. I'm having very bad issues tonight. I'm sorry. That's okay. It looks like we're on. Got it. It looks like at times it kind of flares up or it does. You lose connectivity, it seems. Yes. I'm trying to get on my phone, but I vote aye if you heard that. All right. Thank you. So Mr. Henry, can I make a suggestion? Try, turn off your video. That'll actually help a lot with your connectivity issues. I'm sorry. Turn off my. Video. Yes, I'm doing that periodically. So the vote was five to nothing. We've approved the listed conditions. Now I'd like to discuss the other conditions. It was in the first 12. The first is a regulatory agreement. We've gotten a copy of that regulatory agreement. It deals with the local spring regulatory agreement. We didn't discuss this because we were waiting for just to see the regulatory agreement that the town has. And I reviewed it. It seems to make sense. I don't think this is the place to talk about additional. I will propose in it at a different condition, some additional language, but this regulatory agreement seems to me to work to be fine. I don't have any questions about it. Ms. Brechtel, Ms. Murray, do you have any questions about the condition as amended before us? If I may, Ms. Chair, I know that our last meeting, there was some question about whether or not the town could be a party to the regulatory agreement between mass housing and in the applicant, and we can. But the local, as we call it, the springing regulatory agreement would also be a belt and suspenders approach where that would only kick in if something were to happen with the state regulatory agreement. Okay. And this accomplishes that, right? Yes, it does. Okay. So we'll try to avoid voting on individual conditions as much as possible, but we've got this one before us, unless there's any questions about the effect of this. I think this may also be belt and suspenders. I have to maintain a motion to approve condition three. So moved. Is there a second? Welcome. All right, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, the vote occurs on approval condition three as amended, the chair votes aye. Mr. White? Aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Ms. Greenbaum? Aye. Mr. Henry? Aye. All right, vote is five, nothing. Condition three is adopted. Can I ask a dumb question? Yeah. What's belt and suspenders? It's being overly cautious and extra prepared. So then, not only do you have a belt on, for what I think of it as, not only do you have a belt on to hold your pants up, you've got suspenders in case the belt fails. Okay. That's what that's about. I never heard it before, so I thought I would ask. Well, it's kind of like malarkey from the president. It's older. I think of it as an older saying. Yeah, well, everybody wears jeans now, so. We don't wear suspenders anymore. Right. All right. The next one is, I think, it's 43 PM, and we will want to spend some time on it, and that's local preference. We had a long discussion, the last, a long discussion at the last meeting on local preference. I know there's still some questions regarding local preference and how it works and how it applies, and most importantly, the effect of local preference on different populations. So, at that time, I expressed the support for local preference. I think that it's, as I said at the time, I think it helps, number one, to provide public support for these kinds of efforts where we use town resources, and I think it's important that we do that, do this kind of, this kind of programs and this kind of assistance to households in the community. And I think it's important that the town continues to support those efforts. And one way is to have a local preference for people who either live here, whose children go to school here, or who work in Amherst. I also think that there's been a really thoughtful analysis of this by Mr. Henry that this, at times in the past, local preferences and other zoning laws and zoning provisions have worked to exclude either intentionally or unintentionally, exclude people of color and others who have been economically disadvantaged from housing opportunities. I don't think that's the case here. I think that the case here is that if we get to the third tier in the 10 houses and if we get to the third tier, it means that someone who has met the local preference, met the right size household, number one, who lives in a qualifying census tract or who meets the traditionally disadvantaged criteria and who also lives, works or has children who go to school in Amherst has a bit more, has a better chance of getting the unit than the person who does not live in Amherst. And I would be really concerned if Amherst was this preference then this limited preference for people who live, work or have children that go to school here was in a community that had, like Hadley, had a very, very small population and that's the qualified census tract and Hadley had a small population of BIPOC people. I'm less concerned about that happening here because I don't think it's the intent. I don't think that anybody who intends to implement this program would allow it but I don't think it would be the unintended consequence of excluding people from people of color in the application of this program. In fact, I think that for people in this popular towns around us, we have more BIPOC people in our town than we do in Hadley or Belcher Town or other towns that close by. Those towns wouldn't meet the qualified census tract and Belcher Town I think would but the other towns would not meet the qualified census tract. I think we're looking at a very limited effect from the local preference but I think it's important to have it for political reasons and quite frankly to sustain support for the programs like this in the future. So I'm in favor of a 70% local preference and I think that the examples that were given by the applicant last week showed the effect of this is small but it could provide somebody who lives, works or has children that goes to school in Amherst with a preference over somebody who does not live, work or have children in school in Amherst. It would still though have to meet the household size. They still have to live in the QCT or meets the DIH requirements in order to qualify for in order to have the benefit of the local preference. That's where I've come down on. I've thought a lot about this over the last month. I think this is a hard decision but it's where I come down at this time. So I'd like to see if other people wish to speak to the decision. Ms. Greenbaum. I'm still confused as I said before. They only apply to the 80%. So does that mean that only seven people from Amherst can live in the 30 units? Or is that guaranteed that seven will be picked for the 30? I mean, I understand about the third tier but what happens like there are only 30 applicants and they all come from Amherst. Can they all have a chance at getting a house under either scenario? Well, yes or no? Let's take these one by one. So your first question is if you have 30 people applying for the 10 space for the 10, 80% spaces and they're all from Amherst can they all and they all meet the qualifications level one, level two and level three if there is local preference. Can they all, would we be able to have 10 units the 10 units have Amherst residents in them? I think the answer is yes. But I'm gonna lead that to either Ms. Allen or Ms. Murray to tell me how that would work. 30 applications all meet tier one, two and three including local preference. Would we have 10 people from Amherst in that case? If they're all applying for the 80% AMI if their household income is 80% AMI or less not all 30 will be there because you need because there is 20 homes that are for 100% AMI and less. So those folks that if you filled those seven slots. Ms. Allen can I just stop? I think your question was we're just dealing with the 80%. Okay. So we have 30 applications for the 80% to the 10 units. The 10, 80% units. The only place that local preference can apply. So if we have 30 applications for the 10 units and they all meet one, two and three if we have local preference, would there be 10 could there be 10 local people in people who meet the local preference qualifications living in those units or they artificially limited to seven? So the assumption is that in those 30 applicants there's no other households from the other community that all of them households are only from Amherst nowhere else. That's Ms. Greenbaum's question I think, yes. Was it yes or no? I don't understand. What did she say? She hasn't answered it yet. She's gonna answer it all. I haven't answered yet because I'm trying to understand what the question is. I mean, I think to some extent these are unrealistic scenarios that we're playing with. I don't think that there's gonna be a case where you're gonna have only 30 people first of all probably applying for 10 homes and all of them coming from Amherst. We are doing a robust marketing plan and yes, we will be doing targeted marketing in Amherst but we're also gonna be doing targeted marketing and other qualified census tracts around the region. So we can answer these questions but I'm not sure in the reality of the scenario of how it's actually gonna play out whether this is gonna make a difference or not. So I mean, if you only had 30 applicants and they were applying for the 10, 80% AMI and they were all from Amherst, you would go through the seven local preference, you'd go through that selection and then you would continue to select for the remaining three homes. If they're all from Amherst, then yes, they could all be from Amherst. I think the reality of that is unlikely but that is the answer. No, but I mean, that's why I'm... And if we don't have the local preference, they could still all be from Amherst. Correct. If they live in a qualified census tract, I wanna be clear that when you're talking about local preference for Amherst, you're talking again about people who live in the qualified census tract. Right. You're not opening it up to people who live outside the qualified census tract if you're approving local preference. All you're doing is bringing up Amherst above somebody else who lives in a different qualified census tract, you know, the town of where? Greenfield. All right, so what about the 100% units? Can they be from any... Well, they still have to pass number one and number two. Correct. And they could live in a qualified census tract in Amherst and they could be 100% AMI and they will be placed in the lottery with everybody else that qualifies under those two top categories. Okay, so it's a lottery after the southern affordable. No, no, there are two lotteries. There's two pools. There's the 80% pool and there's the 100% pool. And in the 100% pool, there is no local preference. Correct? Correct. No local preference. In that 100% pool of people who are applying for 100% AMI, there is no local preference. So they only have to meet one and two. There is no three. Okay, it's becoming clear. The reason I'm confused is because I watched the videos for the, on the website for Commonwealth Builders and it looked like the people who were living in the homeowners units where people who had been previously living in rental units in the same neighborhood. That's why I- Which is correct, but those are also communities that have a much higher concentration of people of color than the town of Amherst. This is Roxbury. This is the city of Boston. That's where Commonwealth Builders is typically, that's where the active projects are. So those are communities with a higher percentage of people of color than Amherst. And so local preference isn't necessarily something that Commonwealth Builders has not seen local preference fit on a project. This is unique to this, to this program. That's why it's taken a long time to get answers because they haven't had to address this yet. Yeah, well, that's why I'm confused. So they don't have a lot of local preference in Roxbury and they're all people from the neighborhood. Correct. So that could happen here too. It could. Yeah, well, I think my confusion is settled now. I think I get it. Great. Good, all right. Thank you, Mr. Mbalm. Who else wishes to speak on to this matter? Are there other comments from board members on number seven, condition seven? If there's no further discussion, we could have a motion on approving or denying or not approving the local preference in number seven. Let me just get the language of that. Hold on a second. Steve, Ms. Bestrup has got her hand up. Oh, Ms. Brestrup. Yeah, I just wanted to note that Mr. Henry is kind of here duly. He's on the phone and he's also on Zoom, but he doesn't have his image available. So I wanted to remind him that if he wanted to speak, I don't know if he can raise his hand in the condition that he's in, but if he wanted to speak, he should press star nine on the phone. That's all I wanted to say, thank you. Or Mr. Henry, if you can try to get the, I know this is something that you're very interested in and I don't want to preclude you from having a chance to discuss this. Can you unmute if you wish to discuss? Can you not hear me? There we go. Yep, now we hear you. No, but no, the phone gives me continuous audio, but I can see you on my iPad. So I'm very into the discussion. So thank you though. Okay, so if there's no further discussion on this generally, I would, that's Mr. White. I would, we can have a motion to approve this and then have discussion on the motion. So it's not the end of discussion on this if we go to a motion to approve this. It just restricts the discussion to whether we should approve it or not, but you can discuss all the positive aspects or negative aspects of it. I think we should do that and get into the discussion of the actual condition. So I would entertain a motion that we approve condition seven with a 70% local preference. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and second. The vote occurs on the motion. I mean, now it's discussion before we have a vote. Now it's discussion on the motion ahead of us. So Mr. White, you had your hand up and then I'd go to anybody else who wishes to speak. Mr. White. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I think what really cleared it up. For me at least was the correspondence that we have that where we now have firm kind of more firm grasp on the actual numbers to where we know it's going to be seven units. That cleared up a lot for me. So I'll be supporting this just. Thank you. You're right. Mr. Henry, I want to make sure to give you a chance because at the last meeting, you spoke strongly about this against this and I want to give you a chance to speak. I did and thank you. My position has not changed. I have spent more time doing the research on the negative impacts as well as the historical situations that has been created intentionally and unintentionally because of local preferences. And so my position has not changed. I will not swear the local preference even though it is a small number as clarified by Valle CDC. Okay. So any other, thank you, Mr. Henry. So any other comments? Discussion. If not the vote occurs on whether the board will accept condition seven providing for local preference at 70% of the 80% units, 80% of AMI units. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Henry. No. Ms. Greenbaum. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. The vote is four to one in favor of condition seven. So condition seven is adopted. Condition eight dealt with an affirmative fair housing marketing plan. I expect at the last meeting I expressed some concern that I wanted to make sure that there was a lot of outreach and that there was an outreach that also included information that provides information to potential applicants about a host of programs that can help people qualify for this. There, out there there are, there's some kind of down payment assistance. There's FHA, there's VA, there's some state programs. There's private, there's non-governmental private sector programs that are not as many as there should be, but some banks and others can provide help to people to meet the financial obligations beyond just kind of credit counseling and financial literacy. And I thought it would be important. My concern at the last meeting was it'd be important just to list those as things that a marketing plan could include. And I thought it would be helpful to list those. So I like condition eight as amended. You have it in your packet. It's Rob, do you want to put up condition eight as amended? Let me just switch around my documents real quick. Pulling back, there we go. So this does respond partially to exactly what we talked about at the last meeting. At the last meeting Ms. Allen said that they are in consultation or conversation with DVM housing consultants regarding marketing and our villages regarding financial literacy, both of which I think she said were women owned companies in Boston. And the only thing I wanted to add to this condition was the following sentence. And I can provide this to Rob afterwards. But the following sentence, the marketing plan shall include the provision of information to eligible potential applicants regarding financial assistance available to help them qualify, including FHA, VA, other federal, state and local programs, down payment assistance, as well as non-governmental assistance. So it wouldn't require that they put, they just require that they, to the extent that they can provide the information about other programs that are available to potential applicants for the program. So I throw that out there. I'd like to get Ms. Allen's reaction to such, it's included but not limited to kind of language. So I'd like to get Ms. Allen's reaction to that. And then we can discuss a potential amendment to condition eight. Sure, I mean, I don't think it does any harm. We would do it anyway. I mean, that's what we do. Our first time home buyer counselor, she knows every pot of money, every good mortgage programming. This is how we get people in homes is by knowing all of the programs. So I don't have an issue with adding it. I would just wanna maybe flag, if you're gonna list a number of programs that Amherst has a reparations committee that has already discussed about offering down payment assistance to potential eligible home buyers. And I think it would be of benefit to list that if you're gonna list a whole bunch of other programs to list the reparations money as well. That would be great. I mean, that was my down payment assistance reference, but I didn't specifically mention that one as opposed to some other one. I'd be happy to put that in. As a friendly amendment, I would take that. So both down payment as well as Amherst reparations committee down payment assistance. Yes, cause I don't think the committee has really decided the process yet is the last my last understanding. I think they were still trying to work out those details on who would be eligible and how it would work. So without having details of how the actual program works, I think it'd be worth just flagging in there. Okay. All right. Yes, Mr. Henry. I think you're frozen Mr. Henry, try speaking again. Can you not hear me? No, we can't. Now I can hear you. Okay. So in keeping with condition eight, I think it's a great idea having this resource in there. And my question for attorney Murray is that I do not imagine this will be the last portable home project in Amherst. And I think something that would benefit the town when this comes up again is having some kind of data to say, we did this the last time, here was our pool and here is who applied and how they qualified did not qualify. The question is, can there be a disclaimer added where valid CDC shares that data with the town with of course the applicant's consent? Or applicant's consent and their identities protected, I must suspect. Yes. Yeah, we're hidden, their identity is hidden. I think you have to, Ms. Allen, I think there's a condition that requires a provision of this kind of information to the town, is there not? I'm sorry, so the question was what? That we already have to do this? I thought there was a condition that required this kind of, if I'm not opposed to a condition that would require sort of at the end of the selection process or report to the town of how the selection process was completed and how it was done. Sure, I don't remember that language being in there. I'm sorry, attorney Murray. No, sorry, I'm trying to help out. If I could just jump in, the applicant is required with respect to the units that are going to go on the subsidized housing inventory. There is a condition in here, you're right, Mr. Chair. The applicant is to provide any paperwork necessary for the town to then submit those units from inclusion on the SHI. I think Mr. Henry's question goes a little bit more broadly where it sounds like he wants to know how did this outreach actually work and what kind of results did it actually yield? So that's a little bit more data than we would typically get. But to your point, Mr. Chair, that if the applicant is certainly willing to share their experience with us, I would suggest that absolutely, we don't need to know people's identities. We just need to know you marketed in however many communities, however many newspapers, however many outreach programs were conducted and where they might have been conducted. And then out of that, how many people came? How many people actually wound up submitting an application? How many of those people perhaps ultimately were able to purchase a unit in this project? I would think, I certainly don't wanna speak for Ms. Allen, but I would think that that type of data with sensitive information like that redacted, I think could be helpful for the town for future projects. We could get some broad brush data and information, but again, in terms of just personal information and personal income, I think we would want to respect the homeowner's privacy. We don't ask this for state buyers, so to put that, but we're happy to provide some broad brush. I think number of applicants that maybe were qualified, maybe those that weren't qualified, maybe those that started to go through the process and then bailed because of whatever reasons, we're able to provide some of that broad brush information. Before we have any more comments, I thought, Mr. Henry, would you be willing to write that, just write up what you would like to see as a sentence or two, we can consider it whenever you have finished it, and you can share it with us. You write up what you would like to have done and then read it to us. And if it's something that the board agrees to, I think we could incorporate it into the conditions, but I'd like to make sure that it's what you would like to see and then the board and the applicant and our attorney has kind of looked at it. So I'm inclined to support it, but I just want to have the language that's helpful and it's precise. So can you work on that during the course of this meeting and then bring it up to our attention? I can, yes. Great, why don't we do that? And then I know there were a couple other comments that were coming, but I think Ms. Thibault was going to speak and Ms. Greenbaum. So Ms. Thibault, did you still wish to speak? Sure, thank you. I just am sensitive to too much being asked of Valley CDC, particularly with respect to, if they provide all of this information, will it then actually be used? You know, if there's not a process already in place for evaluating it, you know, it sounds like perhaps they're willing to do it, but I just hope it's not too extensive and too burdensome for them. Well, I think if we get some specific language, we can evaluate whether it'd be burdensome or not. And that's maybe Mr. Henry can provide that clarification through his amendment. So the intent is not to make it burdensome and I imagine that some of this information will be easily and readily available on a person's application in terms of demographics and things that I think would be relevant for future projects. But I think what I'm getting at is to say, we just approved local preference and it'll be nice to see how or if that actually worked for next project development and how many people, if possible, didn't qualify as a result or did qualify as a result. Okay. And of course, yeah. And of course, again, with just trying to gain some perspective in terms of how we outreach people and who were targeted and from that outreach, how successful it was. And again, this is meant to be for improving what we do, not meant to burden. Okay. But I will like to respond a little bit in that the affirmative fair housing marketing plan actually does set very specific information about what newspapers we're marketing in, our target audiences, radio stations. I mean, it's pretty detailed in terms of the marketing plan. So that has to get approved by Mass Housing and we're happy to share that with the town once it's been approved by the state agency so that you can see what we're doing. So I just wanna note that that's already gonna be accomplished in terms of our marketing strategy in that plan. Okay. So thank you. So that's already in place. Thank you. Ms. Greenbaum. Yes. I wholeheartedly support this proposal by Mr. Henry because I have wanted to know all these years for the amount of tax money Amherst people are spending on affordable housing, whether we're actually providing housing for people who live and work here because on the globe every single day there's, you know, feedback from the towns on the MBTA that don't wanna do their fair share and we're doing more than our fair share. And so I have wanted to make sure that we are benefiting by spending what little land that we have left that's buildable and submitting tax money in various categories on affordable housing that our needs are being met because I get the impression that our needs are not getting met no matter how much we keep building. And I think this was good information to have if only for political propaganda. So I would push to support this. So that makes sense. So let's do this. Mr. Henry is gonna come up with a condition or an amendment to a condition. We'll vote on it when he can relate it to us. But what I'd like to do is just take condition eight, approve condition eight as with, and I'd like to put the amendment as amended by the inclusion of Amherst reparations down payment assistance before the committee, the board and approve condition eight as amended by my sentence. And if you want me to read it again, I will but I think you all know what I was doing. So I would entertain a motion to approve condition eight as amended who also include the amendment suggested by Ms. Allen about Amherst reparate to include the Amherst reparations down payment assistance program. Do I have such a motion? So moved. I have a motion in a second. Is there any further discussion? If not a vote occurs on approving condition eight as amended. Chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. And the screen ball. Aye. All right. The vote was five of nothing that's been approved. So condition eight as amended has been approved. And again, when Mr. Henry comes up with something we'll take it up right away. Nine, 11 and 12 have already been approved. Now we move to part B in the conditions. Part B is basically utility conditions. I would just, I'd like to deal with from condition 13 to condition 19. And they're basically, what all of them say in essence is you got to do what the town says you have to do. You got to abide by the rules of the town. And you're, the applicant is quite, is responsible for providing the information, providing all the approvals for the, contained in this decision. It simplified some of the requirements that were in the, doesn't list a specific fees. It's talks about the stormwater features that the products should not hold water from more than 72 hours. They say that there's for 24 hours and the applicant when applicable, the homeowners association shall comply with the operations and management plan for the onsite stormwater system. That is the one new, I mean, some substantively new provision, new condition that included in conditions 13 through 19. Is there any discussions about conditions 13 through 19? Yes. Let it on the screen for a little bit so people can digest it. Mr. Meadows. I am not certain where to add it or how, but I would like to add something that indicates as all building projects go, there's always something that goes askew. And if there are changes necessary to the, as a result of conditions that are found during construction or just prior to it, that there'd be some way to modify this so that we don't have to come back here to do a modification. So I think that's a really good point. And I think there is a provision, there is a provision here, which I'm looking to find a condition that allows the building commissioner to make those, and it's specifically lists the kinds of, okay, if you want to add on the 26, it's 26. Mr. Meadows, take a look at condition 26. We're going to get to that in a second. I think that might resolve your problem, but I'm not sure. So if it doesn't, we can deal with your issue when we get to condition 26, okay? Very good. All right, that's a good point. So again, anything from 13 to 19, any questions, concerns, amendments? All right, I think these are all pretty straightforward. So I would entertain a motion to approve conditions 13 to 19 as contained in the draft project application report. Do I have such a motion? So moved. Okay. And I have a second. It sounds like Ms. Greenbaum. Yes. Any further discussion? It's not, go ahead. Yep, Mr. Meadows. I'm a little confused by 18. Okay. It says that it shall not hold water for more than 72 hours. And yet indicates that in the event that water collects for more than 72 hours. So it seems to be a contradiction right there. Oh, so what it says is that if it does hold it long with that, they have to have mosquito control efforts. So, but it says that the stormwater features show up not or just designed, but shall not hold water. It's not that they're designed not to hold water but they shall not hold water for more than 72 hours. I guess, just to clarify, it looks like in the event for whatever reason that there's some catastrophe or downpour that the stormwater system in like a freak 100 year rainstorm can't go within 72 hours. They have to do that anyways, is that? But it should read shall be designed so as not to hold water for more than 72 hours. Okay, and you want that in the first sentence, right? You want the first sentence to be amended? Okay. Yes. Yeah. I'm sure attorney Murray's writing this down as we're speaking. And since the design is to hold it for 24, I think it's the design as we've seen it should meet that requirements of the amendment that Mr. Meadows has proposed. Mr. Chair, I don't mean to interrupt, but just to correct something you mentioned in this motion. For 24 hours? For, no, 72. No. Just to correct something. So these are not being taken from the draft project application report. They're being taken from the draft decision document. You're exactly right. You're exactly right, Rob. Sorry, thank you for correcting me on that. These are taken from the decision document that Ms. Murray put together for us. Ms. Greenbaum. I have an issue with the applicant shall implement necessary mosquito control measures. Number one, because it's controversial and number two, because we are planting all kinds of native species to encourage butterflies and other kinds of insects. And that sentence bothers me as being, well, being against what we're trying to do with that way by putting a native species and encouraging bugs. But I think the issue is shall, if you want to keep it there, if you want to keep the mosquito control in there, maybe say, if necessary, may implement. But then we got a decision, I mean, then we're leaving it up to the decision. I'm not sure that mosquito control measures adversely affect pollinators and other insects. They mostly affect those that are hatching their offspring in the water, in stagnant water. And I'm not an aqua biologist or marine biologist, but I don't think they have effects on bees and pollinators and others. And so I do think that it is a real problem if you have standing water for 72 hours and mosquito start to come in, it becomes a problem for the residents. And this will have to be, this would be a decision that would be made by the management team of the residents, of the owners of the association as to when they have to put this down there, they have to comply with the conditions. But I think that if it becomes a situation where they find that it's not necessary, they can always come and see if they can get this changed or see if they had a public meeting, see if this condition poses a burden to them or is unhealthy. So I'm not so sure I'm gonna mess with this because I do think mosquito control is important. Well, but I don't want spraying. Yeah, well, I agree with Hilda. You agree with Hilda? You're a pollinator guy, Mr. Meadows. You know about, you brought us maybe I'm wrong as to what the effect of mosquito, those donuts we throw in water and staying at waters that's supposed to keep the water from producing mosquitoes if that affects pollinators and bees and others. It can. Okay. Mr. White. So this is actually something that I can speak to in pretty good detail as I'm from Hurricane Alley. So, and also just mosquito land. So in situations like this, the kind of action that's been taken by other states has been to look at kind of what is more of a dire concern. The way that I've always seen it come down is that the immediate health that is much more likely to go south but just posed by mosquitoes is far more detrimental than any possible damage that might occur due to pollinators or indigenous plant life. So that's the way that kind of at least in my past that I've seen it dealt with and it's been dealt with on pretty much an annual basis in Wilmington, North Carolina. So I would want to keep something in there because of course this depends on what chemical compounds you would be using. You know, there are a lot of things that aren't in the language but the immediate health risk that could be posed by disease-borne pathogens from exposure to mosquitoes would pose in my opinion, far more of a detriment than any potential damage to pollinators and or bees. Other comments? Mr, well, Mr. Greenbaum and then Mr. Wachilla. Oh, Mr. Wachilla. I want to second what Phillip said because I also grew up in a warmer climate on the Delmarva Peninsula, bigger mosquitoes than New England. But I think one thing to keep in mind is that, you know, if you have these mosquito breeding nests, so it could usually, you know, it could be the standing water and a pond or it could be somebody's pool they haven't cleaned in two or three days or even longer than that, maybe like a week. I mean, the mosquito breeding nests do pose health risks for residents who live near them. As mosquitoes tend to carry a lot of pathogens that aren't really, you don't really want to see that in large concentrations from these mosquito nests that would be created near residential units, specifically since this detention basin is going to be so close to a bunch of houses. So I mean, that's something else to keep in mind as well as a possible health and safety concern if you were to take out this condition specifically. Okay, I think we've heard from four of the five members. So the question is really whether this is a mandatory or a discretionary application of necessary mosquito control measures. And so to be fair to Miss Greenbaum and Mr. Meadows, I would entertain a motion that we approve condition 18 to approve all these conditions, including condition 18 as amended by striking non, excuse me, I'm gonna say this again. I would maintain an emotion that we approve condition 18 with the amendment that the applicant shell or may implement as opposed to shell implement out that necessary mosquito control measures. And that way we get a vote on whether we want the May or the shell language in there. If that amendment, if that motion fails, then we'll go back and try to approve the motion as it's currently stands. Is everybody clear on how we should go about this till we have the question of shell decided? Shell or May decided? So we have voting on a motion that says the applicant may implement. That's right, I would vote on it. We have before us a vote on a motion of the applicant may and if that fails, then we'll go back and see if the applicant shell, all right? And what is the three out of five? Three out of five. I mean, the simplest way to do this is to amend the motion by replacing May with shell or shell with May. That's the simplest way to do this. That's an even better way. So let me take back what I said. The best way to do this is that there's amendment for us to replace the word shell with the word May on the second sentence in condition 18. Do I have such a motion? We also have the first sentenced amendment. Right, I think that's, I think that is consensus. We'll, I'll put that, I like to have that as a separate issue because I think that's a consensus period. I think everybody will agree with shell be designed. Okay. Yeah. Do I have such a motion? Yeah, so moved. Second. All right. Moved and seconded, time for discussion. Mr. White. My only concern with that is that if we change shell, which is a directive terminology to May, then they may not, just as easily as they may. So at that point, what is the point of having the condition? I also, I come from Minnesota where the state bird is a mosquito. And it's, it is not only bothersome, but it's their danger. They do transmit diseases. And so I'm, I'm inclined. I am not going to support the motion to strike, shell and insert thereof, move thereof to May. So that's my position. Mr. Meadows. I'm from Massachusetts. I grew up here and out locally. And I'm in favor of May because that leaves it up to the applicant, which is the residents to make a decision at the time that this may happen, as opposed to mandating that they have to do something. And they're the ones who are living there. Got it. And Ms. Greenbaum, I think we know where you're from. I'm supporting Craig for the same reasons as I was going to say, because, you know, it's always controversial when the state decides helicopters are going to fly over Hadley and Ambray and people get very, very upset. They don't want the, the chemicals in the air. And they don't want to subject, they think the chemicals are more dangerous than whatever pathogens there may be. And I think there should be local discretion on this. All right. I just want to say to people who live there, let them have some say and whether they want to be sprayed or not sprayed. Mr. Henry. I'm just trying to make sure I understand. Is, is this the condition being asked, are we considering the condition to be imposed on Valley CDC or on the residents? This is a condition of being imposed on the property, how even after Valley CDC has exited and when it just falls through the owners of the property. Okay. And, and what is Valley's position now on child versus May? We haven't heard from Valley. Ms. Allen, do you have a position on this? I mean, I see both sides of the coin on this. I'm fine with May. I think, I think the members who make a good point that it's going to be up to the homeowners to decide. I mean, the fact is that these stormwater basins have been designed to drain in less than 72 hours. So again, it's a scenario that might be very rare. And let's leave it up to the residents to decide when the time comes on how to best manage the situation. Okay. Mr. Henry, do you have further comments? Is there any mechanism where a bit of a hybrid where now Valley takes on that responsibility and do something to safeguard this issue now but later give the residents the option or is it something once it's done, it's permanent? The board of directors of the condo association and maybe Rebecca can even speak to this and how things are drafted, but there's rules and regulations, there's bylaws. And so some of these documents can be changed at their annual meeting. If they decide to, in one year, decide to change how they're going to deal with a situation like this, they can address that as part of the condoization and the board of managers. I would add one other thing in reading through the second sentence. The applicant shall implement any necessary mosquito control measures as reasonably determined by the applicant to protect residents of the project and nearby residents in the event. So you already have within this condition the ability for the homeowners association to say it's not necessary or it's not a reasonable thing to ask us to do this. Because either they aren't that, just because water is there for 72 hours, if there are no mosquitoes, if there's no danger, I don't read this as saying they have to have even with the shell. They shall implement any necessary, that's a qualification and it's as reasonably determined by the applicant which will be the board of directors of the homeowners association. So I think even with the word shell, we have some discretion on the part of the homeowners association to act as this is currently written. So why have the word shell? There's no reason. It requires them to make a decision, I think. Craig is what it, Mr. Meadows, I think that's what it does. So I wanted to point out that it's implemented as reasonably determined by the applicant. So we're not gonna be part of this development once we sell the homes. So we'll be there for a portion of the time until we have the project completely completed, but the sentence almost doesn't make sense given the nature of these homes are gonna be sold. You're putting the burden on us to protect residents of the project and nearby residents, but we're not part of this project anymore once we've sold all the homes. I mean, we can solve that problem by the landers in the next condition, the applicant and when applicable, the homeowners association, we could just follow the applicant in each place and that would solve that problem. But you point out a good point, the applicant isn't gonna be here in three years. Hopefully you'll be out of the business and it's the homeowners association. Well listen, we're spending a lot of time on a really nasty little bug. And I think that, I think we're spending too much time on this. So what I would like to do is we've got at least two and maybe three people who are willing to insert May instead of Shell. I'm not gonna follow my sword on the mosquitoes, probiscous, so to speak, on this one. And I will vote for the May just so that we can move on because I don't wanna spend a lot of time on mosquitoes here in this. And I would also support adding the language from condition 19, the applicant, when applicable, the homeowners association. So we clarify that out. So I think that's, Mr. White, your North Carolina experience may not comport with that, but I'd like to move on and not spend more time on this. So I would entertain, we've got a motion before us. I'd like to have a friendly amendment to that motion before us to add the words applicant and when applicable, the homeowners association. So it's clarified as to who actually the supplies to and have the word Shell. And at that point, as well as Mr. Meadows earlier amendment to be designed that afterwards Shell in the first sentence be designed not to hold water. So those three amendments, this provision would be before us in the motion that we're going to consider next. And that is to approve 18 with those changes. So does everybody understand where we're at? All right, so that's the motion before us. Do I have any, is there any further discussion? If not motion, the vote occurs on the motion to adopt 18 with the changes of adding to be designed with the changes of the leading Shell and inserting in lieu there of May and with the inserting after the word applicant and when applicable, the homeowners association, comma in that provision. Mr. Everald Henry has his hand up. Yes, Mr. Henry. Oh, I'm sorry. It's been there for a while. I hear you just spoke. Yep, got it. Ms. Sebo, I mean, unless you have something to add to this. Sorry, just quickly. I think this might be relevant to this condition and later on conditions when you see applicant and want to substitute homeowners association, that is addressed by the comprehensive condition in 69, which says once this permit is trans, once the homeowners association takes over, any references to the applicant will be in the homeowners association. Oh, that's good to know. That, thank you. I missed that. That will save us some. All right, it doesn't change this motion before us. I don't want to go back over it again. So we're going to have the vote on this motion unless there's any further discussion. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. And Mr., Ms. Greenbaugh. Aye. Motion carries the vote is five to nothing. All right. So now we want to go back to conditions 13 through 19 13 through 19, not including 18, which you've already asked. And I would entertain a motion to approve conditions 13 through 17 and 19. Do I have such a motion? So moved. So moved. Aye, it's moved. And Ms. Greenbaum sitens it. Is there any further discussion? If not, the vote occurs on motions, conditions 13 through 17 and 19. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Ms. Greenbaum. Aye. Great. We're going to do conditions 20 through 24 and then we're going to take a five minute break and we're going to come back and with extra energy, I think we'll be able to continue plowing through this. So conditions 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 are generally relating to the operation and maintenance and the stormwater as well as some utilities. And then there's another condition 24 is it's not completed within 24 months of the first building permit that shall be submitted to the board and the building commissioner. The construction schedule shall be submitted which is sort of a check on to make sure that this is getting done. So number one deals with parking or in stormwater, number two deals with the issue with building permit but it only happens after stormwater management system has been reviewed by the town engineer. And I think you've submitted the O&M plan but just hasn't been reviewed yet, right? Ms. Allen. I'm sorry, I had to step away for a second. That's okay. So for number 21 requires that the O&M plan for the stormwater has to be approved by the engineer. You already have submitted one. I don't have to approve. Yeah, it was approved by the conservation commission and it was submitted to the town engineer as part of that concom permitting process. So it's just hasn't been approved by him yet. So it's still there. Okay. Relative shadow depth groundwater shall require public works inspection. Okay. And all utilities shall be underground to the maximum extent possible. And if construction is not completed within 24 months the issuance of the first building permit construction schedule shall be submitted to the board and the building commissioner. Are there any concern or any discussion about those five conditions, 20 through 24? If not, I will entertain a motion that we approve conditions 20 through 24. So I have a motion. So moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved in second that motions conditions 20 through 24 be approved. There's no further discussion. The vote occurs on that motion. The chair votes aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Ms. Greenbaum. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. All right. The motion passes. The votes five to nothing in the motion passes. So let's take a five minute break. I have the time of 741. Let's come back here at 746 and we can continue on our merry way along conditions and then find it. Thank you. Thank you. We're all set. All right. Time's 748. We reconvene. We're moving on to section C, which are site improvements, conditions. I would propose we take up conditions 25 through 29. They all deal with, you know, in essence, the site improvements and some of the things that Mr. Meadows spoke to about the ability of the building commissioner to accommodate minor insubstantial changes that may occur once you get onto the building site. It lists them. So the first thing deals with, I do have a request for what the yellow language means in 25 and either Ms. Murray or Ms. Brestrup, can you tell me what the highlighted language in number 25 means? Certainly, Mr. Chair. So ordinarily, I would have stopped this sentence at exhibit B that we make it clear that applicant has to comply with local bylaws unless any sort of waivers have been granted. I think we did have some discussion a little bit when we were actually looking at the waiver set that there was some sense that maybe there should be a little bit of flexibility just in case something should change or need to be changed. And it was reflected, you know, on the plans somehow, but just hadn't quite yet been captured in a specific waiver listed in the table of waivers. So I think this highlighted language came in as a result of that. So that essentially you grant the waivers as laid out in the exhibit B that schedule or to the extent that any of the approved plans contains some sort of variation, the plans are going to control. So if you're building commissioner at some point two years from now is trying to read through 69 conditions and the waivers and look at the plans and figure out what actually controls, what's gonna be shown on the approved plan set will actually control. So what we've seen, what's been submitted about us controls in the plan set. Got it. Okay, thank you. 26 deals with all the ability of the building commissioner to deal with insubstantial changes or non-significant changes or modifications, many of which are kind of on the ground conditions that develop. Ms. Brestrup, I see your hand is up. Thank you. Yeah, I had a question about number 26B because I noticed that the material that was submitted by Valley CDC for this meeting included the light fixture that had been proposed last fall and then Ms. Greenbaum objected to that light fixture because she thought it was too modern. So on December 7th, Valley CDC proposed another light fixture that was a little bit more traditional in style. But I don't remember what the outcome of that discussion was. I thought that the board liked that more traditional light fixture, but yet the more modern one appears in the set of plans that you're being asked to approve tonight. So I just wanted to have some clarification about that. What exactly is being proposed and does the board approve of the light fixture that's shown on the plans tonight? Rob, can you throw up what's on the plans of the light fixture that's on the plans? Yeah, that'll take me a few minutes, Mr. Chair. So just bear with me for one second. So while you do that, this is not something I care a lot about. I think it's up to the board if people really care about light fixtures, the design of the light fixtures, as long as it complies with the dark sky compliant provisions of our bylaws, I'm not going to impose my judgment on that. So I'll leave it up to others on the board if they really wish to manage which the design of the light fixtures. I think I'll leave it up to the architects and the board members if they really feel strongly about it, but I don't wanna spend a lot of my energy on that. Ms. Bresto. Ms. Greenbaum was the one who had the objection to the more modern light fixture. So I wondered if she had any comments about the one that's shown on the plan tonight? Well, I thought they looked very commercial for a residential development. So these are the two that I saw. So we have this one, and then we have this one over here. And then these are two types of luminaire ballards that they're putting down. But were you talking about the 14 foot lights? Yes. Ms. Greenbaum, those are the ones you were talking about is the lights around them. Welcome to my parking lot. Yeah. Look, look, look like big white. I wish they were having that nice. In the packet for December 7th, the other lights were shown and they were specifically, there was a document in that packet that was specifically about lighting. So I just wondered if you wanted to look at that and make a decision about, do you wanna? What do you wanna say about that? That's true. If I may, I think what we had brought up earlier was that if the board wanted to decide to change lighting fixtures, we would need to rerun a photometrics plan to make sure that the light fixtures actually still meet the photometric standards for the town, which is why we've provided this information in December. So I'm a little hesitant to start switching things around now, because I just feel like it's gonna continue to delay our permitting process here. I thought we did that. I thought that you submitted it and I came back and said it was the same. We never discussed it again. We submitted it and it was never brought up again. So the language B provides the building commissioner with the ability to approve substitution of lighting fixtures if they have equivalent or better performance provided resulting substitution shall be darkside compliant. So that's what's currently there. And I mean, if Valley CDC, or if there's a strong feeling on the part of the board that there ought to be a different lighting fixture, then subsequent to this, they would have to do a, we approve a different lighting fixture. They would have to come up with a lighting plan, present that to the building commissioner. And even under this existing provision, the building commissioner would have to decide that it was equivalent or better than the light that was in the original plan. So that's what's there before us. So I guess the vote here, the question before us is that do we want to substitute our judgment on what's a better looking light and then require Valley CDC to run another photometric study to prove to the building commissioner that the other light is as good, provides as good a darkside compliance as the one they proposed. That's the question for us. Mr. Wachilla. If it's okay, Mr. Chair, I wanted to just, so I did look at the rules and regs of the zoning board and I guess requirements for any sort of lighting plan that the board typically looks at when reviewing and approving these types of plans. And it doesn't really seem to focus much at all on aesthetics or what does focus on aesthetics if it's within a certain area where you see similar types of lighting, but it seems like the majority of the focus is solely on functionality and whether the lights are dark sky compliant and or downcast and also if it prevents light trespass. So I would caution the board to focus more on those aspects over style. Just from what I've noticed in the rules and regs of the zoning board, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. And do we have a picture? I mean, I'd like to dispose of this quickly, but I wonder if we have a representation or a slide that shows the alternative lighting fixture from December 7th. I could pull that up real quick. Again, I need another minute or so. I have it right here, Rob, if you want me to pull it up. Please be my guest. So it was 33 pages, this submittal. This was one light fixture that was being proposed. It's got more of a kind of standard traditional lantern style, but still has kind of that modern vibe to it, which I think the design team we met and discussed and we all liked this one. This is all the specs associated with it. Anybody really wanted to get into it. And then this was another one that was selected. This is a Maya post-top. Again, residential scale. I believe the landscape architect had seen this style of light in other residential developments in Amherst. I'd have to dig for that email, but she did find that and send photos. So this was the other option that we were proposing. Again, I just want to even note that these may be available today, but two years from now, when we go to construct, these specific fixtures may not be available. There has been supply chain issues on electrical and lighting fixtures specifically that has been an ongoing challenge in all of our development projects. So even if we commit to this today, I think what's important is, again, as you noted that photometrics plan, we are not going outside the boundaries of the property. And if we do need to change fixtures, we do have the ability within the decision to meet with the building commissioner to review and make sure that he's okay with the standards and that they're equivalent to the light candles that are being proposed here. So... And the ones that are circled are the ones that have the squiggly lines around them or the ones that you're proposing currently that are on the site plans, correct? Yes. So these were the alternatives that we were proposing that we provided to the board in January, or in December. In the alternatives. Yep, in December. Ms. Greenbaum, do you wanna require a different change or a different light fixture or not? I like that one with, look like the lantern, but I'm not gonna fight you all abstain. Yeah, let's let them. I mean, my feeling is we go ahead without describing exactly the light fixture that they have to put there, but I'm sure they have your concerns in mind and they know about them. So I prefer not to have a vote on this if we can, all right? But there are other questions about conditions 25 through 29. So the new language is I, which says that it gives the ability for the Homeland Association to have a future communities facility, but it's limited to 3,500 square feet because that's the amount of impervious area that the stormwater plans as can be accommodated. And 29 is new. It seems to me that that just deals with having to have a review of what is now covered, land that is now covered by cement slab. And they have been able to go in and look and see if there's any environmental problems associated with that land that currently covered. Okay, if there's no further discussions on numbers 20 through 25 through 29, I would entertain a motion that we approve conditions 25 through 29. So moved, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Henry. Is there a second? Second. It's moved and seconded. If there's any further discussion, the vote occurs on 25 through 29 conditions. Chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Mr. Greenbaum. Aye. All right, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Greenbaum. The next ones I'd like to consider are a larger number from 30 to 42 and looking through these, most of these are boilerplate. We have done a lot of it in big construction projects. We typically do things like this, which requires, it lays out the time of notice, the lays out construction timelines that have to be approved by the building commissioner. It lays out the logistics plan telling when they can be construction between the hours of seven and seven that Saturday has to have no, no jackhammering and no, no, it's explosives. It deals with having, trying to keep mud and stuff inside the construction area and try to protect the construction area from leaking onto the, into the waterway around the, to the wetlands. It deals with controlling dust and having barriers in place to provide tree protection for the trees. And it deals with having to wash the tires each day at the end of the workforce. All these are things that are pretty standard and pretty typical. And so I had no questions about this. I don't know if anybody on the board does. And I'll give you just a minute to roll through it if you've not already had a chance to run through these conditions. So if anybody has any discussion around this, otherwise- You said to condition 42, correct? Right, to condition 43 dealing with stumps. Okay, thank you. Okay. So I would entertain a motion that we approve conditions. Excuse me. Conditions 43, or excuse me, conditions 30 through 42. Do I have such a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Seconded. Moved and seconded, no further discussion. If there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on approving conditions 30 through 42. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. This green ball. Aye. The vote is five to nothing. Conditions 30 through 42 are approved. The next, I would group together conditions 43 through 49. Generally they deal with post-construction. Let's just review those quickly. So exterior lighting says it has to be downcast according to the photoelectric lighting, photometric lighting plan. The project shall provide snow storage that's in this plan set to provide amenities that shows in the plan set. Town engineer shall inspect the construction of internal driveways, paved areas, et cetera, as on the plan set. And to have to protect any town on properties and that's up to the building commissioner to make that determination. 60 days following the project's construction, the applicant shall provide an ads bill plan. Again, this is all pretty much boilerplate and standard. And the certificate of occupancy for the final unit shall not be issued until the final top coat of paving and hard services for all driveways, access areas and walkways have been completed. Landscaping is shown when the approved plan has been completed and ads bill plan has been submitted to the building commissioner. I think these are all pretty standard and non controversial. Is there any discussion regarding numbers, conditions 43 through 59? Mr. Chair, if I could add something about condition 47. So it talks about the board authorizing the building commissioner to acquire the posting of a surety bond to cover the costs such impact. Usually that's if a project could be detrimental. It's more of like insurance policy that town will require on the construction company to make sure if anything is damaged that it could be paid for. Just wanna throw that out there and that's why this condition is so important. But otherwise these are general standard construction practice and tidying up to get the certificate of occupancy type of condition to see. And that, the requirement for the 30 bond is at the discretion of the building commissioner. It's not mandated, right? The board authorizes the building commissioner to require if you so choose. Yep, so that's only if the building commissioner sees it as necessary. All right, there's no discussion. Thank you, Robert. There's no discussion. The vote occurs on the motion to approve conditions 43 through 49. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Excuse me, did someone make that motion? Yeah, we need to make the motion. I don't think anyone made the motion yet. I think you had a motion on 30 to 42 but you didn't have a motion on 43 to 49 yet. I'll make that motion then. And Mr. White's second. So we've got a motion made and seconded any discussion. So there's no discussion. The vote occurs on the motion which I'm, which thank you, Ms. Bresberg that we've now made. Chair votes aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Ms. Greenbaum. Aye. What is five to nothing? The motion carries. Next deal with landscaping, numbers 50 to 53. We've talked about this before. The first is that it's got to be in accordance with the plan. The second is that the assignment of the homeowners association upon assignment of the permit for the homeowners association shall maintain the landscaping. Anything that something that is common is any species that does not or example that does not survive are replaced by a similar species. The applicant, the homeowner shall not use so use natural herbicides and all mature trees found within the project site as shown on the proof plan set shall be maintained. And it basically says you got to do what's on the landscaping plan. So any questions about the landscaping section conditions 50 to 53. There's no discussion on items on conditions 50 to 53. I'd entertain a motion to approve conditions 50 to 30 50 through 53. So I have said. Mr. Meadows moves. Seconds. The screen bottom seconds. Is there any discussion? Is there's no discussion? The vote occurs. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. The screen bottom. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. The motion carries five to nothing. The next is parking and circulation. We ought to deal with, I would propose we deal with conditions 53 or actually I think it's 54. I've misread it. 54 through 50 6 59, 56, 54 through 56. So it's 58 parking spaces. Here's the issue that came up. Mr. Meadows on the electron and the EV boards. This allows, as I read this, this allows them to go forward with the current plan, then ask the state for a variance. And if they get the variance, then they can have a different plan than is currently required by the state. I think that's the way this reads. Is that right, Ms. Murray? My mistake in this case. No, you are correct, Mr. Chair, so that they either comply with the building code, the stretch energy code, or with any variance that might be granted by the state. And if I could also just point out, there was just a lingering comment or question for the board. At one point, there had been some discussion about a parking management plan, but I don't know that we've come to any kind of consensus to whether or not you want to require that of the applicant. Well, okay, so first of all, we have the request, the need for the variance or the ability for them to go to the variance and if the variance is approved, that is the building commissioner can incorporate that into the permit. On the parking management plan, I think that should be up to the homeowners associations to submit a parking management plan at a later point in time and submit that to the building commissioner and if he feels that that's sufficient, he can approve it. If not, you can come before the board of a public meeting. Is that taken care of here, Mr. Wachilla? So if there was a management plan submitted with the application, there should be a section there that covers this. And that's pretty far back, we'd have to dig. I don't have access to my files for the permit that far back. But I guess we could ask Ms. Allen if when the management plan was submitted, did you include a section on parking management? Let me just look at the application packet. We filled out the required form on management. I have to find it. I think he also did the addition. I think he left it up to the building for the homeowners association. I think there's also a condition in there that references it that it's part of, that that's the home, the homeowners association. If I remember. I think it's 65. Parking shall be enforced and mandated in accordance with the parking management plan to be determined by the homeowners association. Correct. Yeah, I thought I remembered seeing that in there. Okay, so those will be in the, that'll be in the bylaws I'm assuming then, parking enforcement for the site. Okay. All right. Okay, so we've got 54 through 55. Of course we'll take up the parenthetical question for the board. Do I have a motion to approve conditions 54 through 56? So moved. Second. Operating the parenthetical. Yep. We're deleting the parenthetical. So it's moved and I thought I heard a second from Mr. Meadows. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the motion. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Henry. Aye. And I'm a screen bomb. Aye. Great. Motion carries five to nothing. The next to signs, we've got three, these are, you know, straightforward. They should be reflective identifications to be shown on the approved set plan and wayfinding signs as appropriate locations to direct postal carriers and delivery people, et cetera, to the individual sheds and mailboxes. Is there any discussion regarding conditions 57, 58 and 59? If there is not, I would entertain a motion to approve conditions 57, 58 and 59. So moved. Mr. Meadows. And Ms. Greenbaum seconds. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the motion. The chair votes aye. Ms. Greenbaum. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Vote is five to nothing. The motion carries. The next is the, is other section that deals with building plans. I would deal with similarly, similar issues in 60, 61 and 62 and 63. This again deals with building plans. Has to meet, the building commissioner has to, has to enforce the building plans. Six of the two bedroom story homes and designed to meet two A accessibility standards. This has all been laid out in earlier plans from the applicant. The exception of these six units, they should be visible, visitable by persons with mobility impairments. It outlines what that is. And number 63 is, unless otherwise allowed by the building commissioner, the state building code, or unless otherwise allowed, the use of low flow plumbing fixtures and residential units and non-residential spaces shall be required. There are any questions about these three conditions? Four conditions, 60, 61, 62 and 63. Not an entertain a motion to approve those four conditions. So moved. So moved. Second. Second. So moved and seconded to approve conditions 60 through 63. If there's no further discussion, the chair votes aye. Ms. Greenbaum, you moved it. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Votes five to nothing, the vote carries. The next I would propose, we deal with 64 through 72. 64, it's kind of a hodge pod with a bunch of different things. But one deals with central trash being set up as on the approved plan set. The next deals with the parking management plan with the homeowners association has to come up with that. And I think that means that it has to be approved by the building commissioner because we don't have a plan at present, correct? That's what how I would read this. All right, we could add some language in there if we want to make it clear that it could be approved by the building commissioner. All right, let's put the language in there that we use saying that the building commissioner can approve it. I don't think we need a public hearing or a public meeting on this at a later date. I think I'd like to give that discretion of the building commissioner. The applicant's got to work with the fire departments on the restrictions. And I think they've already done so on the building plan. This requires inspection services to get out there. The applicant shall have the details for the fuel storage to the fire department. Said you can't transfer the comprehensive permit or a site except that which is already in the comprehensive plan. So they've laid out how the permit's gonna be given to the homeowners association. And then lastly is an affirmative fair marketing plan selection for income eligible for a time. Oh, I should be finalized prior to the application for a final certificate of occupancy. Lastly, the last two are no slopes created by to be finished at a grade in excess of the natural angle of proposed materials, of course. And finally, all filled areas would not be built upon within one year shell upon completion of the operation be covered was not less than four inches of long. Ms. Greenbaum, do you have a question? Yeah, 67, I think it says inspectional services. Do you want to just change it to inspection services? Yep, good catch. Were you an editor, Ms. Greenbaum? No, I write a lot. Well, I edited everything my husband wrote, yeah. Well, you have a talent for finding them, thank you. So I would entertain a motion that we approve conditions 64 through 72 with the amendment on condition 65 to add the building commissioners that it's in the building commissioners determination to the side of the park management is efficient. And two that we change inspectional to inspection services. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? If not, the vote occurs on approving 64 through 72 as amended, the chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Ms. Greenbaum. Aye. The next several, 73 through 77 are kind of a hodgepodge of things, but they deal with management. So the first is the states what is in the project description. This project consists of homeownership units, greater homeowners association, all things that they've already pledged to do, but this just confirms that they have to do what they've said they're gonna do in terms of creating a homeowners association and creating the responsibility for common good in the area. Number 274 has to do with a cause to be drafted, a master deed, a sample individual deed and an initial draft bylaws, which shall be consistently incorporated in the comprehensive permit decision by reference. Number 75, part of the sale of any unit to provide the draft for the master deed to the town and the bylaws to the board for review by town council. It doesn't mean we have to have a meeting on it. 76, the applicant shall inform all contractors and subcontractors of the wage and tip the death law bylaw. And number 77, there's a question here is the board want to acquire the applicant to deposit a certain sum of money to the HOA account and send for future project needs. So I don't think that first 73 through 76 are controversial and I think they should be approved easily. The last is a question we haven't dealt with and I don't know what the plans of CDC are for sort of funding or capitalizing the homeowners association. Ms. Allen, is there a plan to do that or does it begin with contributions from each individual homeowner when they get to the building? We haven't contemplated it at this time. I mean, I think it's a good idea. My only concern is that, you know, we're gonna have a pretty set development budget and so it's really gonna depend on, you know, how much of our contingency money do we need to use for unforeseen conditions at the site? And so, you know, I can't guarantee that there's going to be a very specific certain sum of money that might be available at the end of the day. I'm certainly willing to consider having language in there that discusses like, you know, if it's feasible or something that's a little bit softer rather than absolutely requiring it. Like I said, I do think it's a good idea and I do think that it would be something that we'd be willing to do but I can't guarantee that the financing of the project or at the end of the day, the development budget would be able to support that. So that's just my concern. Got it. Mr. Meadows. Can I suggest that perhaps that if there are monies remaining from whatever contingency funds that the CDC has got allocated for this project that some percentage of those contingency funds will be used to seed this? If not the whole thing. So something like to the expect practicable, funds remaining unused in the contingency fund will be maybe provided to the homeless association to capitalize the association's operation. Something to that extent. Something to that extent. Yes. Thank you. Does anybody else have the question about that? Ms. Murray, can you draft something like that? All right. So let's why don't we do this? Let's approve 73 through 76. Ms. Murray, you work on the appropriate language that you can reach us for 77 and we'll consider that after we do 73 through 76. How's that? Okay. Thank you. Ms. Greenbaum. I would suggest maybe not saying something like contingency fund, but say something more general like in the budget. And then the second thing I wanted to bring up because it came to me from somebody who lives in a similar project, I believe in Greenfield where there was no control over the amount of money that was required of tenants every year by the homeowners association. And that money seemed to escalate very rapidly so that it got out of control of what people could afford to pay. I don't know quite how to say this, but can we put anything like that on the management about controlling what the homeowner fees might be? So all right, so let's divide your question into two things. One, which is I think makes sense. Ms. Murray, as opposed to saying just contingency plan saying the contingency fund or other available funds at the con that other funds available at the completion of the project would be could be that they could draw from more than just contingency fund if they so chose to capitalize the home ownership, homeowner's association. And then the question would be- On the second one- Set the fee to consume a price in this or inflation or something like that. That's hard to do. I mean, it's really, really difficult, Ms. Greenbaum. You know, I'm part of a homeowner's association and we have to adjust it on a regular basis. You know, we get if the roof has to be repaired we didn't have sufficient reserves to do that. We have to assess people and sometimes that's a one year assessment of a lot of money. And sometimes we can assess people less because we haven't had a lot of need for it. So I would really, you know, that's just part of home ownership is that there are times when you have expenses that you didn't anticipate and it's going to be more expensive than it otherwise would be. And you gotta, I think we have to leave that up to the homeowners to make that decision as to what, how much they want to increase the home ownership association dues. And while I would love it if somebody would come to me and say, you know, we can only increase your dues by the cost of living, that doesn't work when you've got to replace your roof or other kind of common, commonly owned goods and facilities in our condo. So I'm not sure that we can, I'm not, we could do it. I don't know that it's very, I don't know if that makes a lot of sense. No, no, I just brought it up because it was brought to me as an issue. Yeah, I can understand it. I mean, I, we just got soft and it's, you know, it takes money away each month that could be used for other things. Mr. Wachilla. I was going to ask of this question that Ms. Allen or to Attorney Tebow, whoever wants to answer it, but in terms of those fees, I mean, do you have like a general idea of how that's going to be written to the bylaws for the HOA or do you not have that process thought out too much yet? I'll let Attorney Tebow respond to how it's written in the bylaws. Hi, yeah, I was just pulling them up now. I mean, I don't have the specific reference in front of me, but basically the board is authorized and responsible for on a yearly basis determining what is our anticipated budget for the year? What do we think the monthly homeowner fees are going to be? And as part of that, they also are charged with and we'll work with the property manager to figure out what are our big expenses that we can expect and how do we get those paid for? The other thing to consider is that a homeowner's association can take out a loan too. And so if there is an unexpected expense, they will be eligible for financing just like a normal single homeowner could be eligible for financing. Thank you, Ms. Tebow. And I guess just to add, there are parameters on what kinds of fees they can charge. It has to be reasonable. They can't just say, well, we want to take in a lot of extra cushion this year. It has to be based on something. Tebow, is there also state law that governs what condominium associations and homeowners associations can and can't do in terms of the, I know in some states there are, I don't know if there are in Massachusetts or not. Yeah, we have a mass general law chapter 183A governs condominiums. I'd have to look specifically at the statute and the sections they're in to determine within our draft master deed and draft by-laws what is required by statute versus what is just permitted to be in the deed or by-laws. But as I understand it, those state laws have been drafted in order to avoid either lack of sufficient monitoring and administration by the Homeowners Association or the Project Manager or to protect individual homeowners from abuse by the Homeowners Association, correct? So that's the reason those things that a lot of states have them. Yes, correct. And then the other protection is just the board members are technically elected officials. And so you, as the homeowners, they vote in who they want to be representing them and helping to manage the condo. Exactly, and there's always a requirement for an annual meeting and all this other kinds of things in the Homeowners Association. So there's lots of protections there, but you have to leave, my feeling is you gotta leave it up to the homeowners to deal with it. Rob. So I know we already approved conditions 73 to 76, but can we just maybe consider adding another condition here that references those state laws that the Homeowners Association has to be governed and ran in accordance with those general law chapters? I mean, would that be appropriate to include here or do you think the board doesn't really care about that too much? I think, well, Ms. Murray, you tell me but it seems to me that this is wealth and suspenders. They have to do it anyway. Right, thank you, Mr. I don't think that's necessary. I mean, the condo association has to comply with that statutory scheme. So I don't think it's necessary for us to repeat that here. Okay, thank you for the clarification. All right, so Ms. Murray, did you come up with some language before us? I do. So for condition 77, it would say to the extent practical, following construction of the project, any funds remaining an applicant's contingency fund or other available funds budgeted for this project. And the question becomes, is it may or shall, we can come back to that, be deposited into the Homeowners Association account as seed money for future projects or needs. Can you read it to us again? Sure. To the extent practicable, following construction of the project, any funds remaining an applicant's contingency fund or other available funds budgeted for this project, may or shall be deposited into the Homeowners Association account as seed money for future projects or needs. So first question I have is when we say other available funds, which I know I asked you to put in there. I just thought, I don't wanna take the development fees that Valley has and make them, I don't want them to be required to be put into the Homeowners Association. They have, there's a line item that provides for some kind of cost reimbursement to Valley at the end and I don't want that to be subject to the Homeowners Association because that's the reason that they, but it would be available at the end of construction because it's gonna go to Valley. So I wanna make sure that that's not, those funds aren't in danger of being paid into the Homeowners Association because that's what they want is not as a profit, but as the costs of their activities and I think it should remain there with them. So how do we, what we wanna say is, so Ms. Allen, you understand what I'm talking about? Yeah, and I appreciate you looking out for our best interest. I just want you to, I want you to come back and do more of these. So I want you to go out of business. Right, and I mean, and I was just sitting here thinking, I don't know, I mean, this project's gonna be type budget wise. So if, I just know in like our rental projects, I'm not sure how it would shake out with this home ownership project, but in our rental projects, if there's ever surplus remaining at the end of construction, we often have to give most, if not all, but back to the public funders. And so I'm not sure if that's the case with this homeowner and with mass housing. This is the first time I'm kind of working with them. Typically we're working with Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. So that would be my only reservation as if there's some requirement for us, say construction pricing came in super low and everything went super smooth. It never does. But like best case scenario, would we have to have some of that surplus go back to Commonwealth builders? I don't know, so. What if we had some kind of language that says to the extent that there are contingency funds unused or other funds not identified for a specific purpose such as your development costs or that the state has said that this has to come back. So we have contingency funds and other funds not already or not otherwise dedicated to another fund, to another project or purpose would be maybe available to put into the Homeowners Association. Does that work, Ms. Murray? And that was a May, maybe. Yeah, I had a May. Thank you. Okay. And not a shell. We could just discuss that. I put a May up there just because we have to, I think you need to leave some discretion then. And I think this is probably gonna be, there's not gonna be a lot of money left. All right. People's thoughts, do you wanna reread that again to us, Ms. Murray? And then we can have people discuss it and we can move to a vote on it. And then I wanna get to Mr. Henry's amendment that he has on condition. I know he's been drafting up. I don't wanna forget that. Sure. So what would read to the extent practical, practicable following construction of the project, any funds remaining in applicants contingency fund or other funds not otherwise dedicated for specific purpose for this project may be deposited into the Homeowners Association account as seed money for future projects or needs. I like that formulation. Is there any discussion regarding that formulation? If not, I would entertain a motion that we approve that formulation. So moved. Is there a second? Second. If the moved and seconded, is there any further discussion? If not, if not, the vote occurs on the motion as formulated by Attorney Murray. Chair votes aye. Mr. Henry? Aye. Ms. Greenbaum? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Votes five to nothing, the motion is approved. Lastly, that runs through all the conditions that were contained in the decision document. I know Mr. Henry, you were formulating something for our consideration and I wanna give you a chance to put that to the board for its discussion and consideration. I can move to Rob. Rob, I sent you an email. Let me take a look. All right, so condition eight language. Let me open that up. All right, just gonna get a full screen and I'll reshare my screen with everybody. All right, this is what Mr. Henry sent me. Do you want me to read it, Mr. Chair? I think everybody can, everybody's got a screen performed, don't they? They should. I have a edit. Okay, Ms. Greenbaum? Number two, and I'm running out of power. That's why I'm in this funny position. The applicant shall record and provide detailed reporters to the number of residents who qualify rather than, because the residents, he qualifies it later on because that could sort of refer to by name who they are. And we're really only interested in the statistics. Mr. Henry, what's your reaction to that amendment to put a number up before the word residents on the second paragraph? We have upper residents. It is meant to be numbers, so that's fine. Yep, okay. So we got that amendment as a friendly amendment. I don't think anybody would object to that. And I just want to clarify, Attorney Murray, I will send this to you after this meeting tonight, so you have it. Thank you. Ms. Murray, you've got your hand up, so. I do, I just wanted to ask, maybe Mr. Henry could clarify. He uses the term, the applicant shall record. I want to be clear, we're not talking about the applicant recording something at the registry of deeds. Rather, it is just that the applicant is making a record of, or providing a report to the board. The latter making a record, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. And lastly, Mr. Henry, I noticed you said the applicant shall not be required to disclose the information. And I suspect you're there to protect the applicant from, that works to protect the applicant from being required by the talent to disclose any information. How about if we just say the applicant shall not disclose any information? Henry, take away the, should not be required. The applicant shall not disclose any information. Name, address, DOB that could easily identify an individual. I think it, I think it changes the meaning if it says not disclose any information. I think we want some kind of information we just don't want to encroach in anyone's privacy. Well, yeah, but what I was going to change, what I was suggesting you change is the shall not be required to just say shall not and delete the required to disclose. The applicant shall not disclose any information. So just take out the required, is that meet with your, I think it's broader and it gives more protection. It does, so that's fine. Okay. You got that, Ms. Murray? Great. And Ms. Siebal, what do you have your hand up? Hi. Thank you. If I was in the room with Jessica right now, I'd be whispering to her, but I, since we're not together, I just want to make this heard that I want to make sure that Valley CDC, because I know it's another group that kind of conducts the lottery that Valley CDC will actually have access to all of this information so that they can in fact provide it. So if Jessica can confirm that. Thank you. I appreciate that. So Valley doesn't do credit counseling specifically ourselves. The consultant that we've been talking to is a credit counselor. So again, we don't have them under contract yet. We've received their proposals and we're evaluating them. So I don't want to speak on behalf of what the consultants can and cannot provide for information. I mean, I will say that we do do reporting all the time to funders, usually using the HUD standards of reporting for identification. So we can certainly follow that same model for reporting. I'm happy to provide information on who identifies under local preference and sort of look at those numbers. I think that's easy enough to do. I actually have a concern with the term detailed. I think it's kind of a vague term and I think it actually sort of feeds into what kind of information we'd be providing about individual homeowners. So I'm a little concerned about using that term and sort of detailed report, but we're happy to provide, you know, a report of a summary of applicant information and demographic information as we are legally allowed to qualify or allowed to ask. There are certain questions where certainly we're not allowed to ask. So I would want to make sure that we're meeting those fair housing standards and, you know, and that we're not setting valley up for something that we don't actually have the capacity to do ourselves like the credit counseling. That's a very legal term and I'm not sure, you know, it's not something we do. That's why we're hiring somebody else to do it. But would they be able to give you information? You get the information from the credit counseling, right? Potentially, but I don't know what information they are legally able to provide. I can certainly say, you know, number of people that have been counseled, number of applicants that have been counseled and are in, you know, received a home or were able to purchase a home, but, you know, beyond that, I don't think it's fair to disclose somebody's information about, you know, their credit score gained 57 points, you know, but I think we could give you the number of applicants that have been taking it, that will take advantage of these services that we are offering as part of this, but in terms of the details of, you know, outside sort of those HUD reporting standards, I don't, I'm not sure we're able to do that. So I would wanna make sure that the reporting is consistent with how we report for other funders, for other programs. Mr. Henry. Do you have, do you have a sample of the HUD reporting format or standard? I'd have to dig, it's not my department, it's something that they've been actually working and modifying to sort of, to meet our DEI requirements that we are self-imposed trying to be better at. So, you know, it's typically like race, ethnicity, number of people in the household, general income, maybe ranges, it's not gonna be a specific number, but are you within this range? You know, general demographic information. So I guess, Mr. Henry, what's your opinion of the removal of the word detailed? So again, just going back to my initial qualifier, is not make, is not meant to make anything overly burdensome kind of like caveats to the extent allowed by law. So if, I appreciate that there will be restrictions that, and that's reasonable, but to the extent that you can provide the information, I think it should be provided. Okay, so would you add to the extent allowed by, extent provided by law or allowed by law some place in that second, second sentence? Is that what you're saying? It's at the top. Oh, I see, I see the page there at the very beginning. Gotcha, I'm sorry. Yeah. So all this is, none of this can be done outside of what's allowed by law, that's what you're saying. Correct. Well, I think it seems to me that if we adopt this as written, and there was one, it's getting late, I'm trying to remember, did we already have one kind of accepted friendly amendment to this other than, not in detail, but didn't we have one that's a friendly amendment to accept an amendment? The new residence, I had it put it, I had it out at number. Right, right, number of residence, yeah. So with including that amendment, if we adopt this, and there are details that need to be tweaked because we don't have all the information of what HUD has or something else, can we leave it up to the, would it not be in the building commissioners or somebody in the town's ability to decide whether they, whether this, the action, the information that was received comports with the intent of this condition. Is there some ability for a town person, a town official to say, yes, you've done, you've met the requirements of this condition or no, that it has not been met. So I'm trying to give, I'm trying to get this approved or something like this approved, and not have to wait for somebody to check with HUD or some other place to see the kind of precise information that can be gathered. So that's fine. I will take the size something. All right, just a second, and unless it's right to that point, Ms. Greenbaugh might, I'd like to resolve that one and then we'll go to your point if we can. Ms. Brestrup, can you speak to what I'm inartfully trying to accomplish? Well, I think what you're trying to accomplish is to know where this information is going. So right now this says to the town of Amherst and maybe it should be directed to the zoning board of appeals or to the housing trust or to the town manager or to some entity rather than to the town of Amherst, that individual or entity that can then do something with the information. But if it just goes to the town of Amherst it goes into the ether and nothing happens to it. So do you want it to go to the board, to the zoning board of appeals? Is that what we want here? And then the zoning board can evaluate it and use that information in upcoming cases of this type or is there someone else who would be more suitable to have it off the top of my head? I can't think of who else that would be. So it seems like presenting this information to the zoning board of appeals is potentially useful for the ZBA. Does that make sense? Does that make sense? Yeah, that helps. What do you think, Mr. Henry? No, I would agree with Mr. Bestrup. I think given that's what we're trying to achieve is to see future projects how this played out. I think the ZBA would be the appropriate body for it to go to. Okay. So, it's a suggestion that we substitute the board, we substitute the board for the town of Amherst in the first three, in the three sentences. Yes. Okay. What board, ZBA? ZBA. Okay. And then, I think it's even more important than that the applicant shall not disclose any information. And the only thing I have is that we're a board as opposed to an individual and we can share this. I wanna make sure that the information that we get as a board is, I don't know how to pronounce this word, but Anna and I, not identifiable. It's animized, there's a word that I see in privacy reporting and legislation that says that it's anonymized. Anyway, that's what I wanna make sure, is that there's no identifiable information. And I think that that's clear by, in the last sentence, by saying the applicant shall not disclose anything that can identify an individual. So, I'm comfortable with ZBA as the recipient of this information. And you are too, Mr. Henry, so that's good. How about Ms. Greenbaugh, what do you have to say? I want more information than just too qualified on the local preference. I wanna know, as to residents who applied and to add to the end of that, among the 30 units, how many were local residents under the definition of live, work or some of the kids to school. So, I wanna more broad, I wanna know about all 30 units, not just the seven. So, as to the number of residents who applied and then qualified on the local preference and other bios of the project, for the other 23 units. How many local residents in the other 23 units? I wanna know that we're spending our tax money for people who also pay taxes to this town in one way or another by living or working here and have a chance to live in this project. All of these homeowners will be paying taxes in the town of Amherst once they're... No, no, no, but I mean that now, supporting this project. I can show the court by the top piece over. I mean, that's my reason for wanting it, that we are supplying housing for people who live and work here. And I'd like those statistics. I love it for every project. And I had another question with... Go ahead, go ahead. My other question was in terms of the housing inventory, when you build rental housing, at least some of the projects rolling green, for example, all of the units count in the inventory of, even though they're not all affordable, you have a mix of market rate and affordable, and they're all cost... So why did the 100% units here not count? That's my... If I may answer that one, Mr. Chair. Yes, Ms. Mary. The difference probably has to do with rental units versus home ownership. When you have a project that is a rental project, and as long as you've got 25% of those units that are dedicated and restricted as affordable units, the town gets credit for every single one of those rental units. When you have a home ownership project, you only get credit on the SHI for the actual home ownership units that are deed restricted at the 80% AMI. That's the law, that's why. That is, yes. Okay, well, can we fix up that second sentence so that we know more about local residents as defined, applied and qualified, and how many local people are living in the 30 units? Well, we're going to know how many people were in the pool, and we're going to know how many people qualified under local preference out of that pool. So we know who's in the pool, where they were? We'll know the number. I mean, the applicant, the pool will be created, we'll know how many people were in that pool. And I think what we're trying to get at is, what you're trying to get at is, of those people that are in the pool, and then of those people that were given that one slot, how many of them qualified under local preference? And I think you just have to do the math from that, that well, there was seven people that qualified under local preference, and that's not going to be the case, was seven people that qualified under local preference, 30 were in the pool, another three qualified without local preference. So therefore, seven qualified under local preference, three were not under local preference, and 20 people weren't, didn't get to the slot. So I don't know if you need to, I don't know, Ms. Greenbaum, if you need to... How many people... It's all there, I think. I want to know how many people in the 30 units came from Amherst or WorkTerror Center kids to school here? That's what I want to know. If I can respond to the people who are going to end up being in this development, are going to be adequately sized households and meet the qualifications of a disproportionately impacted household, which means living in a qualified census tract. So if they live outside the qualified census tract of Amherst, even if they put in for it, they're probably not going to get a home because they don't meet the first two requirements. So we're happy to provide the information, but I just want you to, again, remember that living in the qualified census tract is of a higher weight than local preference. And so they could be coming from a different qualified census tract. And they will have... I want to know. I want to know when we get done with the 30 units, where these people are coming from? And hopefully... The only... But we only control on that, we only control for the 10 units that are 80%. We don't have any... We're not allowed to acquire local preference for the other ones by state law. And they will have that information and they will have that information already. They can provide the information to the ZBA or to... You'll have that information, Ms. Allen, right? I mean, they have to qualify for this proportionally impacted household in order to be ranked, to be put in the right tier for the lottery process. So we will know if people live in qualified census tracts. We could probably tell you which qualified census tract people are living in. That would be good. That would help. That would be very helpful. But the blanket statement of who in Amherst? Again, we could tell you there are people outside the qualified census tract that are submitting applications. But again, I think the numbers are gonna show that we're gonna have way more applicants than homes available because these price points are so low compared on the market. And we're gonna have people applying outside the qualified census tract that are not gonna be weighted as high as those that do live in the qualified census tract. So, Ms. Allen, you can give us which census tract they came from in the future, right? You can give us that information. I can tell you who is gonna be coming from a qualified census tract. I'm not gonna be able to, it would be burdensome for us to pull the address for everybody and tell you what census tract they live in. But I can certainly tell you if somebody lives in a qualified census tract because that's gonna be one of our ranking criteria. So that's information I can certainly provide. All right. Mr. Meadows. Would it not be more appropriate for this information to go to the Amherst Housing Authority? It just seems illogical to me that the ZBA take this on when it's not part of our charter to do so. And this information can be used by the Housing Authority. It's not gonna be much use to us. The only reason it'd be useful to us is if we have another program like this in the future and we want to evaluate how the program. Which we could get the information, then we could ask the Housing Authority to give us the information. Right. Which then they could probably give us a lot more information right now than we can get out of this. Ms. Brest, do you have your hand up? Yeah, I don't think the Housing Authority is the right organization to deal with. It's possible that the Housing Trust would find this information useful and might be able to do something in the future. But the Housing Authority is really a group that owns property in town and rents it to people who are qualified. So it's not really involved in this kind of process. They don't get involved at all in comprehensive permits or local preference or any of the things that we're talking about. It's a group that's outside of the town jurisdiction. It's a quasi-state organization. So if you wanted to have another group that was specifically interested in housing, you might say that the information could be provided to the Housing Trust, which is a local group that deals with housing needs in Amherst. What about the Planning Department? And the Planning Department, yep. Just take us out and put it to the Planning Department. There are people that deal with, you deal with these kinds of issues all the time. We do. So you could say the Planning Department is the Board of Appeals and the Housing Department. I think that makes more sense than the ZVA. Okay. Also, I expressed some concern about having this information to a Board that turns over and we're not as responsible for, we're volunteers, we're not responsible for how you handle confidential information. And I'm somewhat concerned about that. So the Planning Department makes sense. Mr. Henry, what do you think about that? It's your amendment. I'm perfectly fine if it goes to a department that will see value in the information. But to your earlier point, if we're doing this project again, or if it comes back to the ZVA, as long as the information can be easily accessible to the ZVA, I'm comfortable with wherever it goes initially. Okay. Which I'd be sure to. I sense a consensus here on changing town of Amherst, on changing ZVA to the Planning Department. Also, Mr. Chair, I just wanna say that any information we do get that's relevant, we always share with the Boards, no matter what. So that's just a standard practice we do in the Planning Department anyways. Good. That's helpful to know. So consensus on moving to Planning Department, consensus on removing the word detailed, consensus on shall not disclose, then the last sentence, the applicant shall not disclose. Anything else? Ms. Greenbaum, I think the information that you wish to gather doesn't have to be detailed here. In fact, I'm not even sure how to write it, but we'll get it from the applicant and the Planning Department will be able to interface with them and make sure we get the information. My feeling is that it would be very useful to have when people keep screaming about affordable housing, affordable housing, that what we're building is going to people who live here. Where I expect it's gonna be used. And I'm down to 1% so if I disappear, I'll call you on the phone. Okay, all right, we're gonna try to move as quickly, we're gonna try to move through this as quickly as possible so that maybe your 1% will last to the end of the meeting. So what I'd like to do is vote on this condition. This would be Condition 78. As amended through the consensus amendments that I have stated, and I think you've got those all, do you not, Ms. Murray? Yeah, so she's got the consensus amendments. I don't think I'd have a need to go through those again, I just stated that. Mr. Chair, this is actually an addition to Condition 8, this language right here. Exactly right, thank you, Rob, thank you. No problem. It's an addition to Condition 8, thank you, thank you. So I would entertain a motion that we amend Condition 8 to include the Henry amendment with the consensus amendments to that amendment that have been described by me. So moved. Second. Second. Moved and seconded, is there any further discussion? If not, the vote occurs on the amendment as amended to Condition 8. The chair votes aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Ms. Greenbaum. Aye. Meadows, Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. All right, we have dealt with all the conditions that were before us in the decision document as well as an additional amendment. Is there any other conditions that board members wish to offer? Right, we're at nine o'clock, I would like to finish this tonight. And that would mean that we'd have to stay for another half hour or so to go through findings. Unless that is, Ms. Greenbaum, you're gonna have to get on your phone, I think. But I would like to finish this tonight so we don't have to go back and do anything more. Ms. Preskup, you have your hand up. Yeah, we spoke with Ms. Murray about the findings and she incorporated the findings into this decision. So I don't think you necessarily need to go through the findings in the project application report. You may wanna get a confirmation of that from Ms. Murray, but I think we specifically, the staff specifically asked Ms. Murray to look at those findings and to incorporate them into the decision. Well, that's some of the best news I've heard tonight. You are welcome to bring us that kind of news anytime you want, Ms. Preskup. Ms. Murray, if you prefer that, you'll have a place in all of our hearts. And for your reference and for the boards, it's under Roman numeral four, statement of relevant material facts and findings that's broken down there. All right, well, I went through all the conditions. I was not troubled, I mean, all the findings, I was not troubled by any finding and I think we made all those findings with the conditions that we have adopted and the waivers we have granted. So, I think we're coming to the point where we have a vote on approving the comprehensive permit as conditioned. Oh, Mr. White. Just real quick, and this is a complete non-issue, but since we're gonna vote on it, Mr. Wachilla, my name is Ms. Belldorff decision. Not a big deal. It's actually Attorney Murray who's gotta fix that one. Is it one L, Phillip said the two? Yeah, it's always the one L. My apologies. No worries. All right, so Ms. Brestrup, I think at last we only have one motion to make before as we vote to approve the comprehensive permit with conditions. This vote requires three, not five, not four, three votes to approve this motion. And so I would entertain a motion by the board, Mr. Wachilla. I would also include Mr. Chair to close the public hearing as well in that motion. Yep, I will do that. I would entertain a motion that we approve the comprehensive permit. Let me get that number just for the record. ZBA FY 2024-03 Valley Community Development Corporation that we approve the comprehensive permit with conditions that the staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to make sure that Mr. White's name is spelled correctly along with other technical changes and conforming changes and that we close the public hearing on this matter. So moved. And is there a second? Second. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? There's no discussion. The vote occurs on the motion. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Ms. Greenbaugh. Aye. The vote is five to nothing. The motion passes. Congratulations Valley CDC. Ms. Allen. Ms. Devo. It's been a long process. Oh my goodness. It's been a long process. I think this was the eighth. I think this was the seventh or the eighth hearing we've had on this. And I think that's a good use of the town's time because this is a really important project. And I hope that it's really, I hope that it's successful. And I'm sure that it won't be. And we do appreciate the work that you guys do and the success that you've had. And we appreciate the, and I also appreciate all the time that you've been put in by the staff and by other members on this. Good things. Thank you. I appreciate you accommodating by adding extra meetings to your schedule. I know that's not always ideal for board members because you are all volunteers. So I want to really give a heartfelt thank you to, you know, accommodating your schedule and sort of making sure that we keep this process moving. So. All right. We'll go out and get those units built. We can use them here. We will. Now that we've got the permit, now we're all, all ready to go. So. Now the work really begins. All right. Now the work really begins, yep. Ms. Brestra, what have I forgotten? I just wanted to say thank you, a hearty thank you to Carolyn Murray for sticking with us and for keeping us out of trouble. Yes. Thank you very much. My pleasure. I agree with that. I think we all do. Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I may ask, I guess Ms. Brestra, I'll ask this too. I mean, should we go over next steps after this meeting tonight with what's going to happen with the applicant or do you think that's not necessary? Because we usually do that for all of our special permits. You know, I think it's up to you guys. I don't think we need to go through that recitation of what they have to do and who they have to file. I think there's going to be a lot of discussion between you and their lawyers and our lawyer and everything that's going to be, you're going to be intensely working with each other. So it's not like these are homeowners who haven't done this before. I also remember that this was supposed to be five or six meetings and it somehow turned into eight, almost nine throughout the course of this. So I'm glad we finally wrapped it up. I think that's an indication of how important you think it is. May I make one more request that Ms. Murray add the ZBA number to this? ZBA FY 2024-03, just to make it easier for us to file this in our filing system. Yeah. So thank you very much. I agree with that one. All right. Well, congratulations. Yeah. Ms. Allen and Ms. Tebow, you're allowed to stay on. We're going to go to the other items on the agenda, but if you just can't pull yourself away from spending time with us, you're welcome to stay on. The next order of business is public comment on any matter, not before the board tonight. So if anybody in the public wishes to speak to anything, except the matter before the board tonight, now's the time to do so. Please so indicate by raising your hand or by hitting star nine on your phone. All right. I see no other, no hands up. The next order of business is any new business where we typically talk about the schedules for the upcoming meetings. And Rob, what do we have coming up? Sure, I'll be quick. So next meeting, March 28th, normally scheduled ZBA meeting. We have three permit hearings, three of which are special permits. The first is for a flag lot. The second is for in addition to an existing accessory dwelling unit. And the third is for the Hickory Ridge trail system. In which the ZBA has to approve the construction of structures in the flood prone conservancy, FPC zoning district. And then on the 25th of April, which is two, three meetings from now, we have the continued hearing for the shoots, berry, solar special permit. And we have the continued hearing for the flag lot on Shays streets. Other than that, Mr. Chair, that is all that we have on the radar for the future. No more 40B for a little while. So we'll be back to, sorry. We're meeting on the 28th of March. Yes, yep. And then the next meeting is the 25th of April. So actually the next meeting after that is April 11th. Just so happens, you don't have anything scheduled until April 25th after that March 26th meeting. So it's very possible we might get something submitted within the next couple of weeks that might take that April 11th spot. Obviously I'll let the board know during the March 28th meeting. Okay. But that's all I have. Okay. That's it for the meeting tonight. I would just want to say one more time to the staff, to Rob and to Christine. Thank you very much for your hard work on this. This has been a long process. It's important. You guys kept us on the straight and narrow when we needed it and gave us a lot of support for an important project. So thank you very much. Once again, Amherst staff and planning staff has really pulled it together and done a great job. So thank you. And to my fellow board members, thank you very much for all your extra time you put in. Thank you for the work you've done on this. I think it's important. And I also want to thank all of you for the way in which we dealt with, which at times were contentious issues. I think we dealt with it in sensitivity. I think people have tried their best. They did really a good job of expressing their opinions and what could have been a difficult discussion was a very helpful and open discussion. I want to appreciate that from all of you. So thank you and thank you for all the work. So with that, I want to make sure that we adjourn. So without any further discussion, this is a time for it. Otherwise, the motion to adjourn is pending and it will be without, it's non-discussable, non-debatable. So moved. Is there a second? Aye. All right. Mr. Henry is seconded. Mr. Meadows has moved that we adjourn. The motion is not debatable. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. And Ms. Greenbaugh. Aye. Five to nothing, the vote carries. We are adjourned. Thank you all guys and we'll see you.